But MMOs - the stories always fail because they completely ignore all of the players and the NPCs often talk to every player as if they were the only ones in existence - this is such a huge oversight that I just can't take any of it seriously.
I mean it feels like a cruel joke - where you are in a world full of people but everyone you talk to only seems like they only see you and nobody else - it's just messed up.
As I've said before, this is the fault, or better said "limitation' of the player.
For a group of people who spend time and money on a past time that indulges in the imagination many seem to be completely devoid of it.
The story is only ever about you. period. Unless the npc or quest text says otherwise.
What? Other players are running up to the npc in question? They are talking about "other things".
done.
So when I am in discord chat and we all talk to the same NPC and we all laugh how he told all of us that "you are the chosen one".....
We should just ignore that and say "oh you were talking about other things to my guildies".....
Sorry, for me it doesnt work.
I cant pretend that NPCs are not severely limited in MMOs.
Its a huge flaw that ruins MMO story telling. You can call me limited, thats fine
I am just going to ignore the shit NPC design in MMOs til someone does it right
Um "yeah".
The game isn't tracking who you are in discord with. It's not designed to do that.
It's essentially "single player" game play put into a multi-player game. I'm not saying it's "great" but that's exactly what it is.
It's barely different if you and your friends, in discord, were playing the same single player role playing game doing the quests at the same time.
These quest bits are made to be for the person who is talking to them. That's it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
So, examples of how other players affect my story:
When I clear any sort of group content, the other players in my group are part of my story
When I PvP, everyone on every side is part of my story
When I buy and sell on an auction house, everyone is part of that story
When I walk through a town or quest hub, everyone I see is part of that story
When I have a conversation with another player, that becomes part of my story
Now, a lot of it is probably inconsequential and I'll forget it, just like in real life. But there will always be more meaningful things that occur that stick with you forever. I remember buying my first scythe in SWG, for example, from a crafter called Upde. The first time I killed the balrog in LotRO in 2007/8, I can still remember most of my raid member's names. I remember my first fight with a warg in the Ettenmoors (glaufrung).
[snip for length]
But, you still end up in a situation where players talk to each other, find out they've all done the same thing and that invalidates the story. Well, for players like me anyway. And that is where the conflict lies. If you create an epic story, that is obviously more exciting for the player, but falls apart when you speak to other players. If you create a story that that works in an MMO, chances are it'll be pretty boring, so players don't care.
Am I the only one who feels like I grew out of this kind of play when I was around 13 and stopped playing pretend with toys? That's not a criticism - I'd enjoy still being able to do that kind of play, but I feel like my brain turned the instinct for it off as I finished puberty. I had assumed that was fairly common, since you don't see most adults doing much pretending, but you often see them reading and watching movies...
It's not just you, but it is important to get the context right.
So, you mentioned earlier that you played Skyrim, so I'll use that as an example. When you accept a quest in Skyrim, follow the directions, kill whatever needs killing and then hand the quest in, that is a story that is dictated to you. When you open the map and go "I wonder what's over there" and then go exploring and clear out a cave, that is you creating your own story.
Creating your own story doesn't have to be about building anything, or creating a narrative, or providing motivation. Your story is simply your actions in game. In a game with loads of options and tools, you can create a story much more easily and much more uniquely. This is essentially the fundamental sandbox vs themepark argument.
The reason why you probably feel the way you do is the same as most people. When we hit puberty, the majority of us feel the need to fit in, to be part of a group, to find safety in numbers. We become followers. This stifles our creativity and our ability to think outside the box. Our sense of purpose and identity is external, determined by the group and not by ourselves.
This mindset is the reason why themeparks are so popular. Our path is determined for us, we really don't have to think. When we do well, again, that standard is set by someone else and we just have to try and achieve it. It's easy, it appeals to the follower in us and it's why we get constant positive feedback from games, locking us into the cycle.
When that path is no longer provided for us, most people really struggle. Even just coming up with our own goals is a challenge, let alone motivating ourselves to complete those goals! So, the concept of a personal story that we create just doesn't sit well with most people, we want to be guided, we want a path we can follow, we want someone else to tell us we're doing well.
Personally, I'm of the belief that we all have the capacity to be creative and find our own paths and create our own stories within an MMO. The challenge is in making it accessible, something that sandboxes have never gotten right. This is why I believe lore is more important than dictated stories. Lore can provide the context and guidance to players to allow them to create their own story. For example, you might overhear an NPC talking about a warlock that used to live in the ruins. That might inspire killer/explorer types to head to those ruins. You might read a book in game about the destruction of an inn, so that might inspire a crafter to go build an inn of their own. You might hear about the slaughter of some hobbits, which might inspire a player to focus on killing orcs near hobbit villages.
I am also firmly of the belief that this method of designing games is ultimately more rewarding to the player when done right. Setting your own goals and creating your own story is much more satisfying than ticking off a task list created by someone else.
Some great thoughts here, thank you. I found this part especially insightful: "Lore is also, in my opinion, more important because players can choose to use it in whatever manner they see fit." I like the idea of players using lore, I'll spend some time thinking about that. Imagine if there was some kind of gameplay mechanic that facilitated player use of lore, like, idek... story voxels? User-created-content mad-libs?
I do want to clear up the minor misconception about the puberty/fitting in/stifled creativity thing. I know someone who had that experience, but my own experience didn't happen to be like that. Instead I had the "repeatedly set and tried to accomplish my own goals, repeatedly failed painfully until I was traumatized" experience. Similar result: I'm now no longer in creating things unless I'm pretty sure I'm going to get praised for them. Though I also think that my perspective has been shaped by the fact that some of the examples here of what goes into "personal story within a game" I would normally file under "my personal story as a gamer who isn't currently immersed enough in the game's fictional world to think of myself as my character. Conversations with other players all tend to go there for me. Then other things like PvPing I try to avoid entirely because I don't want them in my story either as a player or as a character.
I actually really enjoy ticking off task lists created by others, as long as I'm rewarded and praised when I do. Several of my favorite singleplayer games, including Ranch Rush and the Cake Mania series, are built around the mechanic of fulfilling customer orders. And I have never had a problem with playing through the same story as other players; on the contrary, this gives me a feeling of community and belonging that I enjoy even more than watching a movie with a friend.
On the other hand I have been quite disappointed in game events like "everyone create a sculpture for a contest" and I have fun making the sculpture, except it's usually the case that aside from the few winners, the other dozens of entrants get no feedback at all; really makes me feel depressed to have put my care and hours of time into creating something no one else liked enough to say one sentence to me about.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
@sunandshadow I am not sure what point you were trying to get through with the insult. Did you loose the ability to use your own imagination and apply it in a game, and therefore only want to be a passive receiver now ? Maybe mmorpg gaming is possibly not your thing at all ? But in any case @cameltosis reply covers all my points and better than I could have written it.
What insult? I specifically said it wasn't a criticism and I'd like to still be able to play pretend, and am envious of people who can. How much more politely could I have phrased it?
And yes, thank you, MMOs and singleplayer games are both 'my thing'. I am a mainly solo player but there are definitely things MMOs offer me that single-player games don't.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
ikcin said: In the real life you need a reason to make a relation with someone. In a MMO the game should give you such reasons. That makes the game multiplayer, but not the existence of many players.
Nope. We Disagree.
The game gives you things to do, like in GW2, you can run dungeons, fractals, raids, WvW, sPvP, do world bosses, just chat in map like many do in Lions Arch, do seasonal events, etc. etc, If you failed to make those social, then that is purely on you.
You keep blame me for some failure I did not fail for anything. I knew new people in GW2 that I then met in the life.
So let me get this right, you met people in game, played with them, and even built up a social net were you met them in real life..BUT now you have the audacity to tell me that it's NOT Multi-player game.
WTF?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
ikcin said: In the real life you need a reason to make a relation with someone. In a MMO the game should give you such reasons. That makes the game multiplayer, but not the existence of many players.
Nope. We Disagree.
The game gives you things to do, like in GW2, you can run dungeons, fractals, raids, WvW, sPvP, do world bosses, just chat in map like many do in Lions Arch, do seasonal events, etc. etc, If you failed to make those social, then that is purely on you.
You keep blame me for some failure I did not fail for anything. I knew new people in GW2 that I then met in the life.
So let me get this right, you met people in game, played with them, and even built up a social net were you met them in real life..BUT now you have the audacity to tell me that it's NOT Multi-player game.
WTF?
Indeed. We are talking about games, not a chat service, a forum, or a social network. When I got totally bored in GW2 I simply talked with people, but I did not played the game anymore. My intend in a multiplayer game is to play with other players in a meaningful way. The multiplayer experience in games like GW2 or BDO is simply pointless. It leads to nothing, because they are singleplayer games by design, focused on the solo written story and daily grind. It is hard to explain the things to a person like you, who never played a real MMO game in his life. It is like trying to explain how the computer works to someone who knows nothing about the computers. You keep insist that the hand calculator is the edge of the technology
Enlighten me.. what REAL MMO have you played?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Guys we need to understand that we do not all approach our games in the same way. Story and lore do not mean the same thing to everyone. Roleplaying and immersion mean different things to players. Posters are getting rather hot under the collar because other posters do not play their way or understand MMO gameplay in the same way as they do.
If you enjoy what you are doing, that's the main thing.
I think i understand what ikcin means and even agree with him. Social multiplayer game doesn't mean you're supposed to make real life friends or acquaintances, it only means you have to interact with other players in order to advance in the game.
Some of the newer MMOs can be soloed from the bottom up w/o the help of other players but still have the same social systems than other MMOs. They are nothing more than glorified chat rooms combined with a single player game.
Humm why am I not supervised that you would link a game that is nothing more then pandering to someones narcissist tendencies.
This is more akin to someone wallowing in a pile of human filth extolling the virtues of fecal slinging.
No wonder you don't enjoy amazing games like GW2, they are beyond you.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Guys we need to understand that we do not all approach our games in the same way. Story and lore do not mean the same thing to everyone. Roleplaying and immersion mean different things to players. Posters are getting rather hot under the collar because other posters do not play their way or understand MMO gameplay in the same way as they do.
If you enjoy what you are doing, that's the main thing.
I'm not getting hot for how anyone plays, just at being told first, single player is the same as multiplayer and then every game ever made can be multiplayer because any number of people can watch the single player playing.
I agree that as long the player is enjoying themselves, party on.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Guys we need to understand that we do not all approach our games in the same way. Story and lore do not mean the same thing to everyone. Roleplaying and immersion mean different things to players. Posters are getting rather hot under the collar because other posters do not play their way or understand MMO gameplay in the same way as they do.
If you enjoy what you are doing, that's the main thing.
Wel yes. if we were discussing "What makes a game fun" then I would be on your side.
The discussion here,is the importance of Store in a Game.
In that front, for some, Story is not wroth the time it took to write the text in the box.
For others, story is the only reason to play game at all.
The real question is, what does a game without story offer?
What does a game without Lore Offer?
If we were to remove those things from a game.. and see what we were left with.. then we could understand their value.
For example, WoW, is a game with a rich lore, deep history, personal story, in fact, WoW's story goes all the way back to Warcraft the original game.
So, what would happen to WoW.. if we removed the Lore and Story from it?
When you have that answer, then you have the answer on the value of Lore and Story in an MMO.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I think i understand what ikcin means and even agree with him. Social multiplayer game doesn't mean you're supposed to make real life friends or acquaintances, it only means you have to interact with other players in order to advance in the game.
Some of the newer MMOs can be soloed from the bottom up w/o the help of other players but still have the same social systems than other MMOs. They are nothing more than glorified chat rooms combined with a single player game.
Multi-player content is only meaningful, if you have a choice, equally so, a Multi-player game is only worth something if you have the choice to play with other people.
If you are forced to do it, it is not meaningful, it's a burden, like being stuck in an abusive co-dependent relationship.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Story = The narrative your character experiences, either mandated by developers or created by you Lore = Background information about the game world that you do not personally experience but which gives flavor to your story
I do not believe that story should be important compared to lore, yet developers seem to disagree with me. From voiceovers to heavily instanced story missions etc, MMORPGs increasingly resemble single player games with their emphasis on "story-driven gameplay."
I'm going through vanilla WoW again, and there is a story there, but it's completely optional and only matters if you want to pay attention. You can toggle slow quest text for example, but you can also have it appear instantly and not care. There is, however, tons of awesome lore that is all pervading.
I think at the heart of the MMO should be multiplayer gameplay and lore (not story). When I was younger, I was rather antisocial and played MMOs as if they were solo games, but they aren't. The experience is vastly more rewarding when you are social and encouraged to be social. I think that the focus on story takes away from the potential for player-created stories with friends.
I think that one important factor of the story is how you present it. Many MMOs spoon feed you the story in quests and railroad you through it with no choices or reasons for you to think about it.
You could also present the story mixed in with lore and exploration, opening up more story as the player discover the background lore instead.
Too much story focus is a bad thing since it just have you run around doing the exact same thing as everyone else all the time and it kills the replay value of the game. But you can have plenty of story and still have a fun game as long as you cut down on railroading and questchains.
You certainly should have more lore then story but done right those 2 are connected and make more sense. Removing the story isn't good either.
A lot of the problem with the story is how it is presented today, you take a quest that gives you exact steps and map directions on how to do it, you follow them to the letter and end with turnin. You often can't even switch the order and you certainly can't improvise. No need to think or to strategize.
If you use quests you should stop telling people exactly how to solve them, just give them the result you want and let people figure out a way to get it done, preferably with multiple solutions possible. A thief will try to use stealth and wits solving the issue while a warrior probably will use brawns instead, that is fine and make things more interesting.
It is the handholding that is the largest problem today.
ikcin said: The multiplayer content is meaningful when it has consequences not only for you, but also for the other players. Every game forces you to do the things at a certain way, defined by its rules. For example in the GW2 I cannot beat and loot your weak character in the world of the game. Where is the freedom?
and that Ladies and Gents.. shows us the quality of the person we are dealing with here.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
ikcin said: The multiplayer content is meaningful when it has consequences not only for you, but also for the other players. Every game forces you to do the things at a certain way, defined by its rules. For example in the GW2 I cannot beat and loot your weak character in the world of the game. Where is the freedom?
and that Ladies and Gents.. shows us the quality of the person we are dealing with here.
Is there anything wrong with PvP and loot?
LOL, I don;t have to insult you, you are doing a fine job of showing us how depraved you are, you think going around killing newbs is what makes a multi-player game meaningful..
Yah.. I am real glad you left games like BDO, and GW2.. we don't need your kind there.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Story = The narrative your character experiences, either mandated by developers or created by you Lore = Background information about the game world that you do not personally experience but which gives flavor to your story
I do not believe that story should be important compared to lore, yet developers seem to disagree with me. From voiceovers to heavily instanced story missions etc, MMORPGs increasingly resemble single player games with their emphasis on "story-driven gameplay."
I'm going through vanilla WoW again, and there is a story there, but it's completely optional and only matters if you want to pay attention. You can toggle slow quest text for example, but you can also have it appear instantly and not care. There is, however, tons of awesome lore that is all pervading.
I think at the heart of the MMO should be multiplayer gameplay and lore (not story). When I was younger, I was rather antisocial and played MMOs as if they were solo games, but they aren't. The experience is vastly more rewarding when you are social and encouraged to be social. I think that the focus on story takes away from the potential for player-created stories with friends.
I think that one important factor of the story is how you present it. Many MMOs spoon feed you the story in quests and railroad you through it with no choices or reasons for you to think about it.
You could also present the story mixed in with lore and exploration, opening up more story as the player discover the background lore instead.
Too much story focus is a bad thing since it just have you run around doing the exact same thing as everyone else all the time and it kills the replay value of the game. But you can have plenty of story and still have a fun game as long as you cut down on railroading and questchains.
You certainly should have more lore then story but done right those 2 are connected and make more sense. Removing the story isn't good either.
A lot of the problem with the story is how it is presented today, you take a quest that gives you exact steps and map directions on how to do it, you follow them to the letter and end with turnin. You often can't even switch the order and you certainly can't improvise. No need to think or to strategize.
If you use quests you should stop telling people exactly how to solve them, just give them the result you want and let people figure out a way to get it done, preferably with multiple solutions possible. A thief will try to use stealth and wits solving the issue while a warrior probably will use brawns instead, that is fine and make things more interesting.
It is the handholding that is the largest problem today.
I fully agree.
Too often the "Story" can be suffocating in games. Like I tried to play Arche Age. and literally, I had to follow the story.
In GW2, I just had a small stating story "encounter" and then it was up to me if I wanted bother with the rest of it or not. I could do a W story instead, or just run around and do whatever I wanted never bothering with the story at all.
So.. I have to agree, it really depends on how oppressive the "Story" feels. if it's there, but fully my choice to do it, that is good, if I am forced to play it out, that kinda spoils it, as now it's forced upon me.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I think at the heart of the MMO should be multiplayer gameplay and lore (not story). When I was younger, I was rather antisocial and played MMOs as if they were solo games, but they aren't. The experience is vastly more rewarding when you are social and encouraged to be social. I think that the focus on story takes away from the potential for player-created stories with friends.
nah .. there is no "heart". Just a bunch of gameplay design that different audiences like. You can still play MMOs as solo games.
What is rewarding is subjective. You changed .. does not mean others do.
Player-created stories are amateurish, uninteresting, and boring to me. I am sure you feel differently, but hey, it depends on whom devs are catering to, right?
Humm why am I not supervised that you would link a game that is nothing more then pandering to someones narcissist tendencies.
This is more akin to someone wallowing in a pile of human filth extolling the virtues of fecal slinging.
No wonder you don't enjoy amazing games like GW2, they are beyond you.
Guild Wars 2, like ESO (IMO an Elders Scrolls R.I.P.-off of GW2) is not that amazing. I agree that it feels very single player and you actually have to go out of your way to make it anything else. The games inherent bias is pretty strong if you actually play it. Being in a guild doesn’t change that.
But why you need a dev written personal story in a multiplayer game?
One could wonder that but since it is completelly optional it isn't a big problem. Skip it and you don't loose anything.
As I see it, GW2s personal story is made for the people that enjoy single player RPGs and just put in so they might sell some boxes to them as well.
In my case they could just have skipped it and added a few more open world zones instead.
In FFXIV you will still lost hours of your time skipping it. There are some unskippable cut scene sequences which are like 10 minutes or more, and the game will waste a ton of your time clicking through dialogs and skipping cut scenes which still force load screens, etc. on you.
Dungeon access, class/job skills, etc. are all gates behind the story.
Its a complete 1 player adventure outside of the forced dungeon runs, and it lasts forever unless you’re ignoring it. It was the most enslaved feeling I’ve ever felt playing an MMO. It felt nothing like a multiplayer game, and it completely dissuades you from really socializing while leveling your character. ESO was similar, but not nearly as bad as FFXIV.
They want you to think the story is more important than the other players. It’s completely backwards.
I think at the heart of the MMO should be multiplayer gameplay and lore (not story). When I was younger, I was rather antisocial and played MMOs as if they were solo games, but they aren't. The experience is vastly more rewarding when you are social and encouraged to be social. I think that the focus on story takes away from the potential for player-created stories with friends.
nah .. there is no "heart". Just a bunch of gameplay design that different audiences like. You can still play MMOs as solo games.
What is rewarding is subjective. You changed .. does not mean others do.
Player-created stories are amateurish, uninteresting, and boring to me. I am sure you feel differently, but hey, it depends on whom devs are catering to, right?
RPGs aren’t about story. They’re about you playing a role. The story is your experience playing with other players in those games. That is why most MMORPGs don’t force story content on you.
Single led player games need this to give purpose to the content, but multiplayer games only need it to set a context for the content. If you ask people about their memories from MMO, a majority of the responses will relate to their personal experiences with others in the game, not any story or lore content specifically.
This is would be almost opposite for players who play single player games. The two types of games are inherently different.
This is is coming into MMOs because developers are desperate for more players to monetize.
Humm why am I not supervised that you would link a game that is nothing more then pandering to someones narcissist tendencies.
This is more akin to someone wallowing in a pile of human filth extolling the virtues of fecal slinging.
No wonder you don't enjoy amazing games like GW2, they are beyond you.
Guild Wars 2, like ESO (IMO an Elders Scrolls R.I.P.-off of GW2) is not that amazing. I agree that it feels very single player and you actually have to go out of your way to make it anything else. The games inherent bias is pretty strong if you actually play it. Being in a guild doesn’t change that.
The game gives you very little incentive to socialize while leveling, which is a pretty crucial time frame for new players. Everything is quest based or (here join these randoms whacking this MOB). This doesn’t really facilitate communication or cooperation amongst players. It even lets you KS and get quest process/XP.
I dunno what Version of GW2 you played, but Group Play was shoved down my throat when I was playing, everything from World Bosses to Opening Temples, all of which were massive group events were I was expected to play my part along with the others with me. If I got downed, I needed to depend on others to get me back up, if they went down, I was there for them. We all had to work together to win. Then there were Dungeons (which were linked to your Personal Story), that got shoved in your face starting at level 35, and later Fractals, until finally Raids. All of which was very group centered.
Then there Guild Events, which took all kinds of levels of communication and team work. Evert thing from races to bounties. Nothing but huge team efforts here.
In fact, outside of just some personal story instances and wandering around doing map completion, you pretty much had to take part in group activities with other players in GW2 if you wanted to get anywhere with them.
With Silver Wastes and Dry Top Metas, being full zone events, and then later with HoT massive map meta events, if you wanted to get anywhere or make progress in that expansion at all, you need to work with the people around you.
So, again.. I have no idea what GW2 you played that was all so solo friendly.. as I could barely make it out of the starting zone without running with a bunch of other people.. .. but.. if you incapacitate your own game experience, that is your fault.. not the games.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
One could wonder that but since it is completelly optional it isn't a big problem. Skip it and you don't loose anything.
As I see it, GW2s personal story is made for the people that enjoy single player RPGs and just put in so they might sell some boxes to them as well.
In my case they could just have skipped it and added a few more open world zones instead.
Just FYI, you personal story and living story were not solo content. While you could solo them, you could also group for it if you wanted to.
Which was very handy if you were trying to get achievements.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Also you are pretty confused about the world bosses in GW2. A lot of players in one place do not really mean cooperative playing. And the world bosses do need such. Once I soloed the Shatterer, it took few hours, by shooting it with one of the guns. It seems you do not get the point. GW2 is a singleplayer game not because of lack of multiplayer instances, but because they do not affect the rest of the game. That makes the group content pointless. You can remove it, and the game will be still payable. Bunch of other people do not mean a multiplayer game.
You sound like someone that is really bad at games and needs to be constantly carried all the time with your obsession with needing a group play and this talk of killing weaker characters. \
Not to mention you also seem vastly clueless on the subject matter, as The Shatter is a timed event, you do not have hours to do it.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
ikcin said: But to have a multiplayer game, you need multiplayer consequences.
No.. You are wrong.
The Only thing required for a multi-player game, is that is has Multiple players. Absolutely Nothing else.
Your off the wall bat shit crazy requirements of what makes a multi-player game are purely the product of your own imagination. Now, go away in your wrongness and be wrong.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Comments
The game isn't tracking who you are in discord with. It's not designed to do that.
It's essentially "single player" game play put into a multi-player game. I'm not saying it's "great" but that's exactly what it is.
It's barely different if you and your friends, in discord, were playing the same single player role playing game doing the quests at the same time.
These quest bits are made to be for the person who is talking to them. That's it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I do want to clear up the minor misconception about the puberty/fitting in/stifled creativity thing. I know someone who had that experience, but my own experience didn't happen to be like that. Instead I had the "repeatedly set and tried to accomplish my own goals, repeatedly failed painfully until I was traumatized" experience. Similar result: I'm now no longer in creating things unless I'm pretty sure I'm going to get praised for them. Though I also think that my perspective has been shaped by the fact that some of the examples here of what goes into "personal story within a game" I would normally file under "my personal story as a gamer who isn't currently immersed enough in the game's fictional world to think of myself as my character. Conversations with other players all tend to go there for me. Then other things like PvPing I try to avoid entirely because I don't want them in my story either as a player or as a character.
I actually really enjoy ticking off task lists created by others, as long as I'm rewarded and praised when I do. Several of my favorite singleplayer games, including Ranch Rush and the Cake Mania series, are built around the mechanic of fulfilling customer orders. And I have never had a problem with playing through the same story as other players; on the contrary, this gives me a feeling of community and belonging that I enjoy even more than watching a movie with a friend.
On the other hand I have been quite disappointed in game events like "everyone create a sculpture for a contest" and I have fun making the sculpture, except it's usually the case that aside from the few winners, the other dozens of entrants get no feedback at all; really makes me feel depressed to have put my care and hours of time into creating something no one else liked enough to say one sentence to me about.
And yes, thank you, MMOs and singleplayer games are both 'my thing'. I am a mainly solo player but there are definitely things MMOs offer me that single-player games don't.
WTF?
If you enjoy what you are doing, that's the main thing.
Some of the newer MMOs can be soloed from the bottom up w/o the help of other players but still have the same social systems than other MMOs. They are nothing more than glorified chat rooms combined with a single player game.
This is more akin to someone wallowing in a pile of human filth extolling the virtues of fecal slinging.
No wonder you don't enjoy amazing games like GW2, they are beyond you.
I agree that as long the player is enjoying themselves, party on.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
The discussion here,is the importance of Store in a Game.
In that front, for some, Story is not wroth the time it took to write the text in the box.
For others, story is the only reason to play game at all.
The real question is, what does a game without story offer?
What does a game without Lore Offer?
If we were to remove those things from a game.. and see what we were left with.. then we could understand their value.
For example, WoW, is a game with a rich lore, deep history, personal story, in fact, WoW's story goes all the way back to Warcraft the original game.
So, what would happen to WoW.. if we removed the Lore and Story from it?
When you have that answer, then you have the answer on the value of Lore and Story in an MMO.
If you are forced to do it, it is not meaningful, it's a burden, like being stuck in an abusive co-dependent relationship.
You could also present the story mixed in with lore and exploration, opening up more story as the player discover the background lore instead.
Too much story focus is a bad thing since it just have you run around doing the exact same thing as everyone else all the time and it kills the replay value of the game. But you can have plenty of story and still have a fun game as long as you cut down on railroading and questchains.
You certainly should have more lore then story but done right those 2 are connected and make more sense. Removing the story isn't good either.
A lot of the problem with the story is how it is presented today, you take a quest that gives you exact steps and map directions on how to do it, you follow them to the letter and end with turnin. You often can't even switch the order and you certainly can't improvise. No need to think or to strategize.
If you use quests you should stop telling people exactly how to solve them, just give them the result you want and let people figure out a way to get it done, preferably with multiple solutions possible. A thief will try to use stealth and wits solving the issue while a warrior probably will use brawns instead, that is fine and make things more interesting.
It is the handholding that is the largest problem today.
Yah.. I am real glad you left games like BDO, and GW2.. we don't need your kind there.
Too often the "Story" can be suffocating in games. Like I tried to play Arche Age. and literally, I had to follow the story.
In GW2, I just had a small stating story "encounter" and then it was up to me if I wanted bother with the rest of it or not. I could do a W story instead, or just run around and do whatever I wanted never bothering with the story at all.
So.. I have to agree, it really depends on how oppressive the "Story" feels. if it's there, but fully my choice to do it, that is good, if I am forced to play it out, that kinda spoils it, as now it's forced upon me.
As I see it, GW2s personal story is made for the people that enjoy single player RPGs and just put in so they might sell some boxes to them as well.
In my case they could just have skipped it and added a few more open world zones instead.
What is rewarding is subjective. You changed .. does not mean others do.
Player-created stories are amateurish, uninteresting, and boring to me. I am sure you feel differently, but hey, it depends on whom devs are catering to, right?
Dungeon access, class/job skills, etc. are all gates behind the story.
Its a complete 1 player adventure outside of the forced dungeon runs, and it lasts forever unless you’re ignoring it. It was the most enslaved feeling I’ve ever felt playing an MMO. It felt nothing like a multiplayer game, and it completely dissuades you from really socializing while leveling your character. ESO was similar, but not nearly as bad as FFXIV.
They want you to think the story is more important than the other players. It’s completely backwards.
Single led player games need this to give purpose to the content, but multiplayer games only need it to set a context for the content. If you ask people about their memories from MMO, a majority of the responses will relate to their personal experiences with others in the game, not any story or lore content specifically.
This is would be almost opposite for players who play single player games. The two types of games are inherently different.
This is is coming into MMOs because developers are desperate for more players to monetize.
Then there Guild Events, which took all kinds of levels of communication and team work. Evert thing from races to bounties. Nothing but huge team efforts here.
In fact, outside of just some personal story instances and wandering around doing map completion, you pretty much had to take part in group activities with other players in GW2 if you wanted to get anywhere with them.
With Silver Wastes and Dry Top Metas, being full zone events, and then later with HoT massive map meta events, if you wanted to get anywhere or make progress in that expansion at all, you need to work with the people around you.
So, again.. I have no idea what GW2 you played that was all so solo friendly.. as I could barely make it out of the starting zone without running with a bunch of other people.. .. but.. if you incapacitate your own game experience, that is your fault.. not the games.
Which was very handy if you were trying to get achievements.
Not to mention you also seem vastly clueless on the subject matter, as The Shatter is a timed event, you do not have hours to do it.
The Only thing required for a multi-player game, is that is has Multiple players. Absolutely Nothing else.
Your off the wall bat shit crazy requirements of what makes a multi-player game are purely the product of your own imagination. Now, go away in your wrongness and be wrong.