I think you idea has merit myself, I think I would love to play a MMORPG like your idea and I guess my opinion counts as much as any others. Fair game for this forum.
Not everyone will like your ideas but don't necessarily let that stop you. Give it a shot and keep us updated on your progress.
I think you idea has merit myself, I think I would love to play a MMORPG like your idea and I guess my opinion counts as much as any others. Fair game for this forum.
Not everyone will like your ideas but don't necessarily let that stop you. Give it a shot and keep us updated on your progress.
Good Luck Sir.
This isn't what he wants to make, it's what he wants developers to make for him.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Trying to mold behavior is a fool's errand, and too much work. That is why I don't play "living breathing world emphasizing realism" games.
It's not a fool's errand. If game designers shied away from all problems that were a lot of work we'd still be playing Pong and Pac Man. Not much point in discussing this with you though as any reading of your post history shows that you would probably not play the kind of simulationist sandbox game the OP wants even if PVP was well handled. It doesn't mean there aren't quite a few of us who want good political sandboxes with sensible PVP which aren't murder and sociopathy simulators though.
You don't need to be a game developer to figure out why.
Yes it does. If game x can do something, then any game can do it: it has been shown that it is possible to do this thing in the context of game development. If not, then you have introduced a superlogical addition to a logical concept, and you do in fact have to make your argument, and can't just leave out your reasoning.
What you're asking is along the lines of: "I want an car that runs on cooking oil and can go up to 250 mph (~400 km/h) in a smooth, silent ride with no tire noise or nothing." And you say it should be possible because...
there are cars that run on cooking oil
Bugatti Veyron can go up to 250mph
and electric cars have a smooth silent ride
And in case you didn't know, Bugatti Veyron does not run on cooking oil, all internal combustion engines produce a lot of heat, sound and vibration, it is very hard to get rid of tire noise when you're going 250 miles per hour and a smooth ride depends as much on the road you're driving on as much as it depends on the car you're driving in.
An example from MMOs:
Say you implement a system which is intended to make combat seem more fluid and cope with lag. Lets say a monster hits you. The server records that the monster hits you, but you on your end block the attack. Your client decides your block was in-time and therefore you should not suffer damage. It sends this information back to the server which acknowledges the block and rolls-back its initial record that you suffered damage.
Now that's all fine and great in a PvE-only game, but how does that work in a PvP game? Short answer: It doesn't. There cannot be any roll-backs between players actions.
(If I remember correctly, DDO had a system like this at one point.)
What you should take from this, is that you should know something about how games are made before you start making claims that make you look silly. It seems the technology available is not nearly as advanced as you think.
Stop intentionally distorting what I'm saying.
I'm saying that a game should be up to date graphically, with regard to the appearance of the models and the world, and it should also run smooth. It should naturally be a balance that the developers attempt to maintain. But naturally it is 10 years after 2004 and therefore I'd expect this to show in the quality of the game.
But the stuff you want in a single game is unfeasible! You can't have environmental manipulation AND smooth, fluid Mount & Blade combat AND a huge explorable world with no instances.
It is incredibly naive to think that just because it has been 10 years already it should be possible. I'm sorry we are not there yet.
I myself am waiting to see if some of these attempts to do AI calculations client-side will result in something useful for MMOs. But unlike you, I don't just point out that they've been at it for the past 10 years already and they should have something by now. Being a programmer myself and knowing something about the subject I know it is not an easy thing to accomplish. I don't even know whether it will ever work or not!
Like Quiz said: it might not work at all or it might be"something nifty".
Actually, I was thinking about making a thread and see what sort of discussion we can have on the subject. I might do it later.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Personally.. Using my definition of a Living Breathing World (LBW), I don't see that ever happening with the current formula of game designing.. How can a game world feel live, if you have no impact on the game or community? IMO Instancing is a cancer to LBW and communities.. It seems that most spend their time soloing to max level, then move into private lobby mode.. End game feels "cold", and leveling feels lonely.. Unless modern day designing changes, I doubt we'll ever get back to LBW again.. But if I had my way.. I would abandon ALL instancing, slow down level progression, and add more dynamic regional events that communities can rally together to impact the game..
Trying to mold behavior is a fool's errand, and too much work. That is why I don't play "living breathing world emphasizing realism" games.
It's not a fool's errand. If game designers shied away from all problems that were a lot of work we'd still be playing Pong and Pac Man. Not much point in discussing this with you though as any reading of your post history shows that you would probably not play the kind of simulationist sandbox game the OP wants even if PVP was well handled. It doesn't mean there aren't quite a few of us who want good political sandboxes with sensible PVP which aren't murder and sociopathy simulators though.
Controlling computers & pixels are a lot easier than controlling other human beings.
And no .. i won't play such a game. I simply don't want my fun depends on other strangers. Oh, i don't doubt some of you may want something like that. The question, of course, is who can come up with $50M to make it happen.
I think you idea has merit myself, I think I would love to play a MMORPG like your idea and I guess my opinion counts as much as any others. Fair game for this forum.
Not everyone will like your ideas but don't necessarily let that stop you. Give it a shot and keep us updated on your progress.
Good Luck Sir.
This isn't what he wants to make, it's what he wants developers to make for him.
That is also a fool's errand. Devs have no obligation to make anything for us. I highly doubt the OP can convince devs to invest in something like this.
IMO Instancing is a cancer to LBW and communities.. It seems that most spend their time soloing to max level, then move into private lobby mode.. End game feels "cold", and leveling feels lonely.. Unless modern day designing changes, I doubt we'll ever get back to LBW again..
nah .. if is not for instancing, i doubt MMOs will be as popular as today. I certainly won't be playing.
Lonely? I have a family and never feel lonely. I don't play games to be with other people. That is for real life.
Lol they are not mutually exclusive. I love single player games, I also love the interaction with other people in MMO, I also enjoy family life. What is stupid is making all MMO like single player games - all you are doing is removing an option.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by Bladestrom Lol they are not mutually exclusive. I love single player games, I also love the interaction with other people in MMO, I also enjoy family life. What is stupid is making all MMO like single player games - all you are doing is removing an option.
No they are not mutually exclusive ... but they also don't have to go together. I love single player games, and interactions with others ... not so much.
It is not stupid if that provides financial success. No dev is obligated to provide you with an option that does not make money for them.
What I have is a defined idea of the game that I want to play. I really couldn't care less about technological realities or the programming aspect of it--I'm not at all a game developer and this isn't my interest or expertise. What I have is an idea, one that I won't compromise as that will only mean I'm resorting to something lesser than what I want.
Even overtures made toward realizing the kind of game I'm discussing is progress. You're all finding yourselves lost in a point that really doesn't have much importance to me: if technology is only at x point, and if various aspects of a game can only arrive at y point when graphics and performance are taken into account, then the game that I would expect is y point. You're all attributing to me things that I am not actually saying. Really, I don't care about the developmental side of it: put forward your best effort as far as graphics are concerned, which, I believe, should show some progress from what was done 10 years ago. If it cannot, then I believe this is a problem, as in all other spheres technology advances rapidly except for some reason when it comes to MMORPGs.
The core of my idea is a world populated by and able to be altered by players. A world where the government is run by players, the economy realistic to the extent that it experiences the booms and depressions of a real economy as well as how this effects society, and the player should have meaning, such to the extent that no-one should be immediately considered a hero, or able to become one through quests, but everyone will be able to input a marginal effort into the betterment of the whole.
And these concepts you all shamelessly avoid. You focus instead on these fringe topics that really have no importance at all. You whine endlessly about gankers and player killers with such emphasis that you seem to believe the entire community to be comprised of them. And if this is the case, then let the gankers gank: if everyone leaves but the gankers, then it's my belief they will set up a society anyway in order to wage more sophisticated warfare against their increasingly factionalized opposition which is taking advantage of what the game offers: after all, there is no vertical, but only horizontal progression. Not only this, but combat isn't even the focus, as much as society is.
I fundamentally believe that you place far too much emphasis on the idea of gankers and player killers than is worth its due.
Finally, your distortions and out-of-place criticism on technology are really misplaced, as they don't concern me at all.
I am interested in a political, economic, social game that simulates a real civilization.
Trying to mold behavior is a fool's errand, and too much work. That is why I don't play "living breathing world emphasizing realism" games.
It's not a fool's errand. If game designers shied away from all problems that were a lot of work we'd still be playing Pong and Pac Man. Not much point in discussing this with you though as any reading of your post history shows that you would probably not play the kind of simulationist sandbox game the OP wants even if PVP was well handled. It doesn't mean there aren't quite a few of us who want good political sandboxes with sensible PVP which aren't murder and sociopathy simulators though.
Controlling computers & pixels are a lot easier than controlling other human beings.
And no .. i won't play such a game. I simply don't want my fun depends on other strangers. Oh, i don't doubt some of you may want something like that. The question, of course, is who can come up with $50M to make it happen.
Developers are constantly trying to influence player behavior. For starters, the primary consideration in determining which activities should give which loot is what it will encourage players to do. More broadly, what is a good game apart from one that encourages players to do something fun?
Trying to mold behavior is a fool's errand, and too much work. That is why I don't play "living breathing world emphasizing realism" games.
It's not a fool's errand. If game designers shied away from all problems that were a lot of work we'd still be playing Pong and Pac Man. Not much point in discussing this with you though as any reading of your post history shows that you would probably not play the kind of simulationist sandbox game the OP wants even if PVP was well handled. It doesn't mean there aren't quite a few of us who want good political sandboxes with sensible PVP which aren't murder and sociopathy simulators though.
Controlling computers & pixels are a lot easier than controlling other human beings.
And no .. i won't play such a game. I simply don't want my fun depends on other strangers. Oh, i don't doubt some of you may want something like that. The question, of course, is who can come up with $50M to make it happen.
Developers are constantly trying to influence player behavior. For starters, the primary consideration in determining which activities should give which loot is what it will encourage players to do. More broadly, what is a good game apart from one that encourages players to do something fun?
and influencing SOLO behavior is a lot easier than interacting behavior. That is why FFA open world pvp is seldom done. This is why in D3 you roll your own loot. The best way to don't let player A spoils the fun of player B is not let them interact.
And that is what i like.
I have no problem devs want to make my solo experience fun by using rewards to direct my attention from one game mode to another.
What I have is a defined idea of the game that I want to play. I really couldn't care less about technological realities or the programming aspect of it--I'm not at all a game developer and this isn't my interest or expertise. What I have is an idea, one that I won't compromise as that will only mean I'm resorting to something lesser than what I want.
Even overtures made toward realizing the kind of game I'm discussing is progress. You're all finding yourselves lost in a point that really doesn't have much importance to me: if technology is only at x point, and if various aspects of a game can only arrive at y point when graphics and performance are taken into account, then the game that I would expect is y point. You're all attributing to me things that I am not actually saying. Really, I don't care about the developmental side of it: put forward your best effort as far as graphics are concerned, which, I believe, should show some progress from what was done 10 years ago. If it cannot, then I believe this is a problem, as in all other spheres technology advances rapidly except for some reason when it comes to MMORPGs.
The core of my idea is a world populated by and able to be altered by players. A world where the government is run by players, the economy realistic to the extent that it experiences the booms and depressions of a real economy as well as how this effects society, and the player should have meaning, such to the extent that no-one should be immediately considered a hero, or able to become one through quests, but everyone will be able to input a marginal effort into the betterment of the whole.
And these concepts you all shamelessly avoid. You focus instead on these fringe topics that really have no importance at all. You whine endlessly about gankers and player killers with such emphasis that you seem to believe the entire community to be comprised of them. And if this is the case, then let the gankers gank: if everyone leaves but the gankers, then it's my belief they will set up a society anyway in order to wage more sophisticated warfare against their increasingly factionalized opposition which is taking advantage of what the game offers: after all, there is no vertical, but only horizontal progression. Not only this, but combat isn't even the focus, as much as society is.
I fundamentally believe that you place far too much emphasis on the idea of gankers and player killers than is worth its due.
Finally, your distortions and out-of-place criticism on technology are really misplaced, as they don't concern me at all.
I am interested in a political, economic, social game that simulates a real civilization.
I want an Imperial Stormtrooper and a moai.
I figure since we're wishing for fantastic things with no real intent on discussion I might throw that out there.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
What I have is a defined idea of the game that I want to play. I really couldn't care less about technological realities or the programming aspect of it--I'm not at all a game developer and this isn't my interest or expertise. What I have is an idea, one that I won't compromise as that will only mean I'm resorting to something lesser than what I want.
Even overtures made toward realizing the kind of game I'm discussing is progress. You're all finding yourselves lost in a point that really doesn't have much importance to me: if technology is only at x point, and if various aspects of a game can only arrive at y point when graphics and performance are taken into account, then the game that I would expect is y point. You're all attributing to me things that I am not actually saying. Really, I don't care about the developmental side of it: put forward your best effort as far as graphics are concerned, which, I believe, should show some progress from what was done 10 years ago. If it cannot, then I believe this is a problem, as in all other spheres technology advances rapidly except for some reason when it comes to MMORPGs.
The core of my idea is a world populated by and able to be altered by players. A world where the government is run by players, the economy realistic to the extent that it experiences the booms and depressions of a real economy as well as how this effects society, and the player should have meaning, such to the extent that no-one should be immediately considered a hero, or able to become one through quests, but everyone will be able to input a marginal effort into the betterment of the whole.
And these concepts you all shamelessly avoid. You focus instead on these fringe topics that really have no importance at all. You whine endlessly about gankers and player killers with such emphasis that you seem to believe the entire community to be comprised of them. And if this is the case, then let the gankers gank: if everyone leaves but the gankers, then it's my belief they will set up a society anyway in order to wage more sophisticated warfare against their increasingly factionalized opposition which is taking advantage of what the game offers: after all, there is no vertical, but only horizontal progression. Not only this, but combat isn't even the focus, as much as society is.
I fundamentally believe that you place far too much emphasis on the idea of gankers and player killers than is worth its due.
Finally, your distortions and out-of-place criticism on technology are really misplaced, as they don't concern me at all.
I am interested in a political, economic, social game that simulates a real civilization.
I want an Imperial Stormtrooper and a moai.
I figure since we're wishing for fantastic things with no real intent on discussion I might throw that out there.
wishing for fantastic things
Nothing of the kind. Everything I'm speaking of is not only eminently but easily able to be implemented in a game. Reduce NPCs, and expand the functions players are capable of doing. A true sandbox without NPCs, one where the nations and wars are began, managed, and waged by players themselves, the governments and societies they reside in, etc. This point is never countered because it cannot be: instead people focus on the peripherals that don't matter.
no real intent on discussion
?But I am all too intent on discussion, I just don't find it productive when people distort what I'm saying and put words into mouth to attribute to me an idea I don't have. I want a political, economic, societal simulator, which, I personally believe, is what not only an MMORPG but a living, breathing virtual world ought to be and requires.
Nothing of the kind. Everything I'm speaking of is not only eminently but easily able to be implemented in a game. Reduce NPCs, and expand the functions players are capable of doing. A true sandbox without NPCs, one where the nations and wars are began, managed, and waged by players themselves, the governments and societies they reside in, etc. This point is never countered because it cannot be: instead people focus on the peripherals that don't matter.
no real intent on discussion
?But I am all too intent on discussion, I just don't find it productive when people distort what I'm saying and put words into mouth to attribute to me an idea I don't have. I want a political, economic, societal simulator, which, I personally believe, is what not only an MMORPG but a living, breathing virtual world ought to be and requires.
All I want is so much content that I'll never run out, with so much variety that it never gets repetitive, and I want that content to all be highly polished, with beautiful graphics and smooth animations. I want the content to be hard enough to provide an interesting challenge without being hard enough that I get stuck. And I want it to load almost instantly with no loading screens after I'm in the game, and I want the game to be completely bugless.
Most of those things are pretty easy to do on their own and all of them are practical if you care only about that one thing. For example, it's fairly trivial to make essentially infinite randomly generated content if it doesn't matter that the content is terrible. Minesweeper loads almost instantly and has no subsequent loading screens. Hello World programs tend not to be buggy. And so forth.
But all of them at once? That's basically impossible. It's so far removed from the realm of the practical that, even if for some mysterious reason, an actual game development studio decided to try to make a game that caters entirely to what I personally want, this post would offer them essentially no guidance at all. Game design is about choices; if you can't have A and B simultaneously, you have to pick which one to sacrifice. Saying that you want both and leaving it at that offers no guidance at all on how to make a game you want.
Your original post in this thread isn't quite as outlandish as my first paragraph here. But it's not that far shy of it, and if the goal is for the game you want to actually exist, you'd best scale it back to be something practical. If you don't care if the game described by your original post will ever exist, then what's wrong with demanding flying cars and pink elephants?
OP there have been hundreds of suggestions for games almost identical to yours on this site. And I have yet to see even one game come close to what you ask for. Why is that, I wonder??
Honestly, Quizz knows exactly what he is talking about and yet you blindly refute his knowledge. Making this game is eminently possible?? Why, because you say it is? Prove it then! Do some research and prove to us that this game could be made today as you seem to claim. Just saying that you saw 10 different features in 10 different games and you think they can all be joined together in one MMO, proves nothing.
So unless you have the chutzpah to quit fantasizing, and the will to get out there and learn more about MMO's and game development, I would suggest that you just admit to yourself that this is nothing but a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
For a true living breathing world it will have to be a game where they are no npcs at all. All real players living in the world. If you go to the a merchant in town its a real person playing as the merchant. Need a blacksmith? The blacksmiths are real players that have earned the ability to be a blacksmith. For this to be possible you will have to be able to do more things because who wants to sit in a shop all day? So you can be a Mage thats went out hunted and when you feel like it go to town and open your Armor shop or Inn. Until I see this there is no true Living Breathing World. One day though. :-)
Originally posted by Jockan For a true living breathing world it will have to be a game where they are no npcs at all. All real players living in the world. If you go to the a merchant in town its a real person playing as the merchant. Need a blacksmith? The blacksmiths are real players that have earned the ability to be a blacksmith. For this to be possible you will have to be able to do more things because who wants to sit in a shop all day? So you can be a Mage thats went out hunted and when you feel like it go to town and open your Armor shop or Inn. Until I see this there is no true Living Breathing World. One day though. :-)
Bad idea. Even if you could make being a shopkeeper as fun and engaging as anything else in the game people are going to be all playing at different times. I don't want to have nothing to do because I need to buy a potion and there are no potion sellers on. You can have actual players turn into NPCs while offline like Age of Wushu does but that's not really different from actual NPCs which I think will always have a place in RPGs.
Originally posted by Jockan For a true living breathing world it will have to be a game where they are no npcs at all. All real players living in the world. If you go to the a merchant in town its a real person playing as the merchant. Need a blacksmith? The blacksmiths are real players that have earned the ability to be a blacksmith. For this to be possible you will have to be able to do more things because who wants to sit in a shop all day? So you can be a Mage thats went out hunted and when you feel like it go to town and open your Armor shop or Inn. Until I see this there is no true Living Breathing World. One day though. :-)
Bad idea. Even if you could make being a shopkeeper as fun and engaging as anything else in the game people are going to be all playing at different times. I don't want to have nothing to do because I need to buy a potion and there are no potion sellers on. You can have actual players turn into NPCs while offline like Age of Wushu does but that's not really different from actual NPCs which I think will always have a place in RPGs.
What do you mean people will be playing at all times? That's the only thing that would make it even work. Why would there be no potion sellers online when anybody can be what ever they want to be? This is my idea of my living breathing world. You want NPCs in yours then good for you but thats not for mine.
I'm saying that having no NPCs makes your game totally dependent on player population. If someone wants to play at 6AM and there are no other players online able to sell and buy their stuff they are screwed. Not to mention that if your game dips a lot in popularity it will become practically unplayable.
Originally posted by Jockan For a true living breathing world it will have to be a game where they are no npcs at all. All real players living in the world. If you go to the a merchant in town its a real person playing as the merchant. Need a blacksmith? The blacksmiths are real players that have earned the ability to be a blacksmith. For this to be possible you will have to be able to do more things because who wants to sit in a shop all day? So you can be a Mage thats went out hunted and when you feel like it go to town and open your Armor shop or Inn. Until I see this there is no true Living Breathing World. One day though. :-)
Now this is the kind of post I have been wanting to see. Someone who understands the need of an experiment of this scale: of perhaps shocking the MMO world with a game without NPCs. How would it work? Pessimists will tell you all sorts of things, but I am optimistic: I believe that there are enough people like Jockan and I that such a game would be excellent, given it has a respectable population. Players would need to be confined at first to a limited societal space, in order that they can be brought together in one common city area, and as population grows new cities and societies would be founded.
Originally posted by Jockan For a true living breathing world it will have to be a game where they are no npcs at all. All real players living in the world. If you go to the a merchant in town its a real person playing as the merchant. Need a blacksmith? The blacksmiths are real players that have earned the ability to be a blacksmith. For this to be possible you will have to be able to do more things because who wants to sit in a shop all day? So you can be a Mage thats went out hunted and when you feel like it go to town and open your Armor shop or Inn. Until I see this there is no true Living Breathing World. One day though. :-)
Bad idea. Even if you could make being a shopkeeper as fun and engaging as anything else in the game people are going to be all playing at different times. I don't want to have nothing to do because I need to buy a potion and there are no potion sellers on. You can have actual players turn into NPCs while offline like Age of Wushu does but that's not really different from actual NPCs which I think will always have a place in RPGs.
One of the neat-in-theory but annoying-in-practice features of some older MMOs was that NPCs would close shop at night and return again in the morning.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
I think you idea has merit myself, I think I would love to play a MMORPG like your idea and I guess my opinion counts as much as any others. Fair game for this forum.
Not everyone will like your ideas but don't necessarily let that stop you. Give it a shot and keep us updated on your progress.
Good Luck Sir.
This isn't what he wants to make, it's what he wants developers to make for him.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It's not a fool's errand. If game designers shied away from all problems that were a lot of work we'd still be playing Pong and Pac Man. Not much point in discussing this with you though as any reading of your post history shows that you would probably not play the kind of simulationist sandbox game the OP wants even if PVP was well handled. It doesn't mean there aren't quite a few of us who want good political sandboxes with sensible PVP which aren't murder and sociopathy simulators though.
But the stuff you want in a single game is unfeasible! You can't have environmental manipulation AND smooth, fluid Mount & Blade combat AND a huge explorable world with no instances.
It is incredibly naive to think that just because it has been 10 years already it should be possible. I'm sorry we are not there yet.
I myself am waiting to see if some of these attempts to do AI calculations client-side will result in something useful for MMOs. But unlike you, I don't just point out that they've been at it for the past 10 years already and they should have something by now. Being a programmer myself and knowing something about the subject I know it is not an easy thing to accomplish. I don't even know whether it will ever work or not!
Like Quiz said: it might not work at all or it might be"something nifty".
Actually, I was thinking about making a thread and see what sort of discussion we can have on the subject. I might do it later.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Controlling computers & pixels are a lot easier than controlling other human beings.
And no .. i won't play such a game. I simply don't want my fun depends on other strangers. Oh, i don't doubt some of you may want something like that. The question, of course, is who can come up with $50M to make it happen.
That is also a fool's errand. Devs have no obligation to make anything for us. I highly doubt the OP can convince devs to invest in something like this.
nah .. if is not for instancing, i doubt MMOs will be as popular as today. I certainly won't be playing.
Lonely? I have a family and never feel lonely. I don't play games to be with other people. That is for real life.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
No they are not mutually exclusive ... but they also don't have to go together. I love single player games, and interactions with others ... not so much.
It is not stupid if that provides financial success. No dev is obligated to provide you with an option that does not make money for them.
What I have is a defined idea of the game that I want to play. I really couldn't care less about technological realities or the programming aspect of it--I'm not at all a game developer and this isn't my interest or expertise. What I have is an idea, one that I won't compromise as that will only mean I'm resorting to something lesser than what I want.
Even overtures made toward realizing the kind of game I'm discussing is progress. You're all finding yourselves lost in a point that really doesn't have much importance to me: if technology is only at x point, and if various aspects of a game can only arrive at y point when graphics and performance are taken into account, then the game that I would expect is y point. You're all attributing to me things that I am not actually saying. Really, I don't care about the developmental side of it: put forward your best effort as far as graphics are concerned, which, I believe, should show some progress from what was done 10 years ago. If it cannot, then I believe this is a problem, as in all other spheres technology advances rapidly except for some reason when it comes to MMORPGs.
The core of my idea is a world populated by and able to be altered by players. A world where the government is run by players, the economy realistic to the extent that it experiences the booms and depressions of a real economy as well as how this effects society, and the player should have meaning, such to the extent that no-one should be immediately considered a hero, or able to become one through quests, but everyone will be able to input a marginal effort into the betterment of the whole.
And these concepts you all shamelessly avoid. You focus instead on these fringe topics that really have no importance at all. You whine endlessly about gankers and player killers with such emphasis that you seem to believe the entire community to be comprised of them. And if this is the case, then let the gankers gank: if everyone leaves but the gankers, then it's my belief they will set up a society anyway in order to wage more sophisticated warfare against their increasingly factionalized opposition which is taking advantage of what the game offers: after all, there is no vertical, but only horizontal progression. Not only this, but combat isn't even the focus, as much as society is.
I fundamentally believe that you place far too much emphasis on the idea of gankers and player killers than is worth its due.
Finally, your distortions and out-of-place criticism on technology are really misplaced, as they don't concern me at all.
I am interested in a political, economic, social game that simulates a real civilization.
Developers are constantly trying to influence player behavior. For starters, the primary consideration in determining which activities should give which loot is what it will encourage players to do. More broadly, what is a good game apart from one that encourages players to do something fun?
and influencing SOLO behavior is a lot easier than interacting behavior. That is why FFA open world pvp is seldom done. This is why in D3 you roll your own loot. The best way to don't let player A spoils the fun of player B is not let them interact.
And that is what i like.
I have no problem devs want to make my solo experience fun by using rewards to direct my attention from one game mode to another.
...And again you are derailing a thread about a game design you clearly do not like in order to talk about what you do like. It gets tiresome.
I want an Imperial Stormtrooper and a moai.
I figure since we're wishing for fantastic things with no real intent on discussion I might throw that out there.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I would love to have another group enforced MMO like FFXI was.
Oh and Murloc race in WoW. Blizzard if you did this I would race change every single one of my 18 level 90s to Murloc if they could depending on class
All I want is so much content that I'll never run out, with so much variety that it never gets repetitive, and I want that content to all be highly polished, with beautiful graphics and smooth animations. I want the content to be hard enough to provide an interesting challenge without being hard enough that I get stuck. And I want it to load almost instantly with no loading screens after I'm in the game, and I want the game to be completely bugless.
Most of those things are pretty easy to do on their own and all of them are practical if you care only about that one thing. For example, it's fairly trivial to make essentially infinite randomly generated content if it doesn't matter that the content is terrible. Minesweeper loads almost instantly and has no subsequent loading screens. Hello World programs tend not to be buggy. And so forth.
But all of them at once? That's basically impossible. It's so far removed from the realm of the practical that, even if for some mysterious reason, an actual game development studio decided to try to make a game that caters entirely to what I personally want, this post would offer them essentially no guidance at all. Game design is about choices; if you can't have A and B simultaneously, you have to pick which one to sacrifice. Saying that you want both and leaving it at that offers no guidance at all on how to make a game you want.
Your original post in this thread isn't quite as outlandish as my first paragraph here. But it's not that far shy of it, and if the goal is for the game you want to actually exist, you'd best scale it back to be something practical. If you don't care if the game described by your original post will ever exist, then what's wrong with demanding flying cars and pink elephants?
OP there have been hundreds of suggestions for games almost identical to yours on this site. And I have yet to see even one game come close to what you ask for. Why is that, I wonder??
Honestly, Quizz knows exactly what he is talking about and yet you blindly refute his knowledge. Making this game is eminently possible?? Why, because you say it is? Prove it then! Do some research and prove to us that this game could be made today as you seem to claim. Just saying that you saw 10 different features in 10 different games and you think they can all be joined together in one MMO, proves nothing.
So unless you have the chutzpah to quit fantasizing, and the will to get out there and learn more about MMO's and game development, I would suggest that you just admit to yourself that this is nothing but a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Bad idea. Even if you could make being a shopkeeper as fun and engaging as anything else in the game people are going to be all playing at different times. I don't want to have nothing to do because I need to buy a potion and there are no potion sellers on. You can have actual players turn into NPCs while offline like Age of Wushu does but that's not really different from actual NPCs which I think will always have a place in RPGs.
What do you mean people will be playing at all times? That's the only thing that would make it even work. Why would there be no potion sellers online when anybody can be what ever they want to be? This is my idea of my living breathing world. You want NPCs in yours then good for you but thats not for mine.
I'm saying that having no NPCs makes your game totally dependent on player population. If someone wants to play at 6AM and there are no other players online able to sell and buy their stuff they are screwed. Not to mention that if your game dips a lot in popularity it will become practically unplayable.
Now this is the kind of post I have been wanting to see. Someone who understands the need of an experiment of this scale: of perhaps shocking the MMO world with a game without NPCs. How would it work? Pessimists will tell you all sorts of things, but I am optimistic: I believe that there are enough people like Jockan and I that such a game would be excellent, given it has a respectable population. Players would need to be confined at first to a limited societal space, in order that they can be brought together in one common city area, and as population grows new cities and societies would be founded.
One of the neat-in-theory but annoying-in-practice features of some older MMOs was that NPCs would close shop at night and return again in the morning.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre