I do not see why you talk about PvP as combat, any competition is PvP. Also you do not need NPCs in a MMO, except the mobs and maybe some for the tutorial. You need to provide tasks and goals to the players, so they will role playing anyway. EVE does that great. The generic quests and the NPCs are something from the solo games. But in a MMO you have to replace them with players.
Any competition is technically PvP, but when you are competing against another player by, say, racing mounts, most people wouldn't consider that really equivalent to hitting them in a duel.
IMO, RPGs which don't have NPCs to provide culture and plot are quite sad places to be in, because that kind of world lacks "milieu", aka the world-character that makes fantasy, science fiction, and historical the best genres of fiction.
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.
As a writer and also as a gamer who likes questing, I agree that the purpose of quests is to give players a well-paced narrative experience and help them feel oriented and immersed in the daily life and world events of the game world. On the other hand, while MMO questing used to be 'forced' in the sense that doing class quests was the only way to unlock certain class abilities, or in other cases a quest chain was necessary to gain access to a dungeon or NPC town, this has been largely removed from existing MMOs. If you look at WoW and its clones today, many of them removed required quests like 5 years ago. Normal questing otoh can't really be described as forced since players can ignore it, and have little difficulty leveling up and getting gear without doing any quests.
I think you're probably largely right. I was basing my opinion on my recent playtime with Neverwinter and Everquest 2 and LOTR. Everquest 2 is old. LOTR is old. Neverwinter was released in 2016, I thinkk. The experience was what I explained. It was going from quest hub to quest hub, without any other obvious options. It was linear--no backtracking or going outside the box. I can't even recall if I got any experience from killing monsters in Neverwinter. I felt like I was on a railroad and all the other players were doing the same quests or had already done them. It felt like single player with MMO sideshow.
But honestly I haven't played them enough. I played EQ2 up until 19 and LOTRO up until 8 and Neverwinter up until 7 or something. I don't think the low levels represent all of it. In fact, I KNOW they're much more than that. But I do think it's sad how the designers feel like they have to put us on a leash early on. And I do think some players like it that way. They want direction and the designers are giving it to them. The problem is the designers are going too far sometimes, in that they assume all new players are this way, or that new players in general need strong direction. Some sure, but I don't like strong. I've always preferred being thrown in the world with just a sack and some general direction, but lots of leeway and options if I should go my own way.
Thanks. And hey I sometimes like questing too. Don't get me the wrong way. I'm not trying to start a fight over this.
Yeah I don't see any need to fight, seems like a calm discussion. I know what that's like with playing older games - I never understood the repeated complaints I heard about an MMO story treating the player like the only hero in the world until I played Rift, when it was already an old game but still had the original low-level quests. Then all of a sudden I was like OMG, this is actually a problem. And I do occasionally go back and play a game that's 15 or 20 years old, and it will have some kind of obvious design problem, and I'll be like, "Ugh, why didn't they just fix this the way game X did?" But it turns out that game X is 5 or 10 years newer, and invented this solution that the older game's devs wouldn't have heard of.
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.
The list is the exact reason so many games are so bad,a one trick pony,this or that,how a bout a COMPLETE game?The only time there should be a decision is pvp-pve or online-offline.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
1 - Whether is horizontal or vertical progression, it has to be well designed and well implemented. With that said, vertical progression is very easy to screw up and tie to a cash shop and that is bullshit. 2 - I'm ok with either levels or no levels, if it's well designed. This goes hand in hand with No.1. 3 - Game first, always game first. No simulation. 4 - Death penalty yes, but not harsh. I'm paying for fun, not suffering. 5 - Optional grouping because it's not every day i want to talk to people. 6 - Well implemented housing all day long 7 - Consented open world pvp and instanced pvp, not forced in the OW. 8 - No player looting. 9 - Challenging difficulty. "Hard" is a very vague word. Many games claim to be hard and all they do is have bullet sponge bosses that one shoot you. That artificial difficulty is just dumb.
10 - Have absolutely everything you do in the game give you exp for leveling. Have Questing mainly for story progression, and mob grinding mainly for looting crafting resources that make sense (i.e. grinding bears for bear pelts, killing pirates for gun powder, etc). Also mob grinding to actually reduce outside threat to npc villagers in real time, not just dumb static mobs waiting to be killed and respawn.
11 - Both ways to acquire best loot in the game. Tie the visual appearance of a raid gear to that raid theme, but let crafters find rare recipes in the world to craft similarly strong gear with a different appearance. If you want to look like Jimbo McSkanky, join the raid and kill him.
12 - Usage based advancement. Use a sword, get better with it. Train with the sword master (class trainer) to learn new skills for that weapon.
13 - Themepark story telling with branching options and in depth progression, all in a free form sandbox game world. Here is the thing, an empty sandbox where players "build" their own experience is boring for me, mind as well give me the game engine and tell me to make my own game. Give me a fleshed out story that takes place in a sandbox world. Take the sandpark idea to the next level.
14 - I don't care about end game, as long as the "end game" is not the focus of the game. The game should be good, challenging, and rewarding from lvl 1.
15 - If there is a sub then no cash shop. If its B2P then no pay to win cash shop. If it's F2P i don't care anymore, in F2P I only support Warframe monetarily.
16 - I prefer B2P. However, I set WoW and FFXIV as my personal standard for a subscription. Anything with less polish, less amount of content, and less in depth story and lore, usually wont get my sub. Now, it is not fair to compare a newer, much smaller game to something like WoW or XIV. For that reason, if the game is smaller, the subscription SHOULD be smaller. No excuse for less quality though.
I do not see why you talk about PvP as combat, any competition is PvP. Also you do not need NPCs in a MMO, except the mobs and maybe some for the tutorial. You need to provide tasks and goals to the players, so they will role playing anyway. EVE does that great. The generic quests and the NPCs are something from the solo games. But in a MMO you have to replace them with players.
Any competition is technically PvP, but when you are competing against another player by, say, racing mounts, most people wouldn't consider that really equivalent to hitting them in a duel.
IMO, RPGs which don't have NPCs to provide culture and plot are quite sad places to be in, because that kind of world lacks "milieu", aka the world-character that makes fantasy, science fiction, and historical the best genres of fiction.
EVE is one of the most immersive games. Where most of the players actually RP. Maybe more than any other MMO. You do not need NPCs, you need a good set of rules and goals. You need NPCs in the solo RPG, to replace the players. But in a MMO, you have make the players to play at a certain way.
As for the PvP, it is player versus player, not player hitting player. As the PvE is player versus environment. Crafting is not PvE for example. That only shows how confused are the players about the games they play.
See, you're trying to use "prescriptive linguistics" there. The general consensus is, and has been since about the late 70s, that "descriptive linguistics" is way more functional, useful, and even more ethical than prescriptive linguistics.
In simpler English that means that players can't be confused in that way. Instead the definitions of PvE and PvP shift to become more and more useful for player conversation. If you don't recognize that terms shift meaning, you just lock yourself into the past and lock yourself out of current community discussion.
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.
3. Simulation vs. game first. Game first 14. End game vs. no end game. Endgame 5. Forced grouping vs. optional grouping/solo play. Multiplayer content 9. Hard difficulty vs. easy difficulty Hard enough to make content interesting 11. PvE having best drops vs. crafting making best gear. I hate crafting 7. Open World PvP vs. restricted PvP or no PvP., 8. Full loot vs. limited or no looting. Restricted to no PvP with no looting, I never cared for owPvP.
I'm making a spreadsheet of responses but I'm excluding yours for being incomplete, so this is your notice if you want to complete it to be included.
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.
Who designed the first video games? Certainly not experts or professionals.
Err, yes of course it was experts and professionals. Namely people who could CODE.
Sure back then a single person was sufficient. Thats because fancy graphics havent been on the menu just yet.
I admit there were some professionals, but don't you think that, back then, coding was a thriving hobby? Hell, two of my friends went to college and got Master Degrees in English Literature. They "hobby coded" all throughout college and instead of teaching (which their degrees would have qualified them for), they started coding professionally. They still code to this day, all because of their coding hobby.
I don't know the answer to this, but was Richard Garriot (early video game creator) a professional coder, or a hobby coder? I know his first "big game" (Akalabeth: World of Doom) was sold mainly through gaming magazine ads and packaged in a plastic ziplock baggie with a small (1 or 2 pages?) manual and a floppy disc. I think(?) he did as a high school student?
My point being, the budding hobby was NOT run by huge corporations back then. Game designers may have been professional coders, but only sometimes in the video game industry (mainly arcade game designs). Most of them created for the joy of creating, not to become millionaires. It was a hobby, not a "business plan to riches." That aspect of gaming is almost gone, now.
That's my take on the history, and I'm sure I've made mistakes that will be corrected
- 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
To make a game you need to know how the games (all games, not only video) work in general.
Rather than needing to know everything about game design, the minimum you need to know is how to copy the design of a game you like. Many of the first computer games were based on tabletop or board games, and so their game design was already partly figured out. This is why, for example, there are so many WoW clones which have run successfully for 5 years or more; they were made by a group that was at least half amateurs, but they knew enough to analyze and copy a design that worked.
I agree that there are a lot of things one needs to know to be a professional game designer creating an original game; this is my 20th year of involvement in indie game design (isn't that ridiculous?) and there are still many things I could learn that would improve my designing. I think almost every game designer out there would tell you they wish they had the time or motivation to learn a list of things which would benefit their game design ability. But one of the first things every creator learns is how to borrow from the past to make their present tasks simpler.
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.
To make a game, you either need someone who has archieved a lot of skills in many areas, or a group of people who have specialized and are probably a lot better.
Namely, while it obviously varies a lot depending upon the kind of game, a modern game typically has something like five programmers - but douzens of artists. Sound alone is typically one guy (or gal), if not multiple people. All the many graphic models are a LOT of work to do, especially at the level people expect nowadays. Plus they need to be animated, too.
And no, even in the 1980s you already needed to know a lot of stuff. Nobody designed large games at that time though. There was simply not enough space on a PC to fit a large game world into there just yet. Thats why it was much easier to program a game by yourself back then.
By the way, if anyone's curious about what the results of these surveys as a whole are, basically everyone agrees that they want a p2p game with housing. A large majority think that crafting should be the final step for top-level gear, though rare drops of key mats or unimproved gear should come from mobs.
Over half of respondents wanted a sandpark game despite it not being an official poll option - that's astonishing to me, because just 3 years ago that wouldn't have been the case. Makes me want to do a follow up thread asking how everyone envisions the blend of themepark and sandbox features to work, because I think some bigger disagreements would pop up there.
All the other questions had more mixed results, and I'm not immediately seeing much in the way of patterns in it. I expected vertical progression to always be paired with levels, but it actually wasn't, so I'm a bit confused how levelless vertical progression would work. Gear score? Directly earned stats that don't require leveling up to get them? Wealth-based progression?
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.
And any P2P game will be failure, it is simply outdated marketing model. Most people even here do not know what is themepark and sandbox, so sandpark is the easy choice. As for the progression - you do not need levels, they are only counting numbers. You can count at different ways. Anyway the problem with the power gaps will persist in any game with vertical progression, so this is not a good feature for a MMO. Summarized the fans of the MMORPGs will make terrible MMORPG
Why do you say people don't know what themeparks and sandboxes are? I've seen several threads here where people had an intelligent discussion using these terms. They're not even hard to define:
Themepark: Metaphorically, this term implies that the player is going through a series of pre-designed entertainment experiences. In practice, themeparks are generally build around a system of questing hubs that pace the player through killing some of each different type of monster in each geographical area of the game, providing a story reason for doing so; plus they usually also have instanced dungeons which also tell a story while providing a multiplayer challenge. Points of appeal often include appearance customization, collecting and character building for strategic combat abilities.
Sandbox: Metaphorically, this term implies the player will be able to make alterations in the game world. In practice these games generally have a system for building houses and appliances, as well as growing crops. Points of appeal generally include freedom to explore, base building, and animal taming or breeding. These games typically have simple, fast combat and mostly lack story.
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.
And any P2P game will be failure, it is simply outdated marketing model. Most people even here do not know what is themepark and sandbox, so sandpark is the easy choice. As for the progression - you do not need levels, they are only counting numbers. You can count at different ways. Anyway the problem with the power gaps will persist in any game with vertical progression, so this is not a good feature for a MMO. Summarized the fans of the MMORPGs will make terrible MMORPG
Why do you say people don't know what themeparks and sandboxes are? I've seen several threads here where people had an intelligent discussion using these terms. They're not even hard to define:
Themepark: Metaphorically, this term implies that the player is going through a series of pre-designed entertainment experiences. In practice, themeparks are generally build around a system of questing hubs that pace the player through killing some of each different type of monster in each geographical area of the game, providing a story reason for doing so; plus they usually also have instanced dungeons which also tell a story while providing a multiplayer challenge. Points of appeal often include appearance customization, collecting and character building for strategic combat abilities.
Sandbox: Metaphorically, this term implies the player will be able to make alterations in the game world. In practice these games generally have a system for building houses and appliances, as well as growing crops. Points of appeal generally include freedom to explore, base building, and animal taming or breeding. These games typically have simple, fast combat and mostly lack story.
Yeah, I read. Themepark is a game where you cannot affect the environment, no matter what you do there are not consequences for the world and the players, because everything is pre-designed and instanced.
Sandbox is open world - so a world with open design (that is not lack of loading screens as many people think), where the actions of the players affect the environment and the other players.
Metaphorically the themepark is like a park with different attractions, you even may choose the way trough, but that will not change the park and the other people will not be affected. As in the sandbox you could build own castle of sand and to destroy somebody else's castle.
None of that is related to lore, combat, story, exploration, gathering and etc. So indeed, most people, including you, have no idea what we are talking about. You just describe games labeled as sandbox or themepark. But often the label is false, just a marketing trick.
Typical sandpark game - Lineage 2 - there the MMO part is sandbox with FFA OW PvP (competition) and FFA OW cooperation. While the RPG part is themepark - solo story, solo quests, vertical progression, lack of tools and features that affects the environment - everything is pre-designed and the players can change nothing.
Let take another example - BDO, at first look it should be sandbox. But if we look deeper, there is not real OW competition and cooperation. And no matter of the variety of tools implemented, you cannot really to change the environment, so it is themepark, no matter what the publisher and the developer claim.
No it sounds like you are off lol.
Sandbox to me is the area where you can change and effect the world semi permanent.
Themepark is unchangeable by the player and driven by quest hubs, storyline and task.
Open world is the areas in the world shared by all. They can be themepark, sandbox or just purely open world. Pure open world you can not make changes nor is it story driven.
Instances are generated pocket areas shared by smaller than server population numbers. Used from keeping numbers down in an area to solo adventure. They can be sandbox or themepark area or just purely an instance with no changes makeable or story line.
Sandpark is a game where you have sandbox areas for building and themepark areas that give developer content.
This day and age EQ is considered a sandbox by some and themepark by other people. So there isn't a clear view on it. Some people consider it themepark because you can't build and other a sandbox because it was open ended. I just view it as a zoned open world game.
It wasn't considered either because the terms didn't start getting used until later. Theme park was first used to describe SWG areas with faction missions as far as I can remember. SWG play areas were largely sandbox in nature.
Sandbox to me is the area where you can change and effect the world semi permanent.
Themepark is unchangeable by the player and driven by quest hubs, storyline and task.
Semi permanent is a nonsense. And indeed - sandbox - open world design, themepark - instanced design. Pretty simple.
But most players even do not know what is instance and what is open world - both have nothing with loading screens. It is about the rules and the interaction. Open world is not simply shared space.
It is hard to explain to people who played so many games, and think they know how the games work, that in fact they do not know.
But I will try. Let take a dungeon - it could be open world, but it could be instanced. What do you think makes the difference?
First of all you should lower your tone if you want to have a real debate. Especially since you are largely wrong by developers on usages of the word.
Second of all semi permanence is the fact that players can make change and that change can change.
3rd an instance is just that an instance of the world or area on a connecting world area. For example in WoW dungeons and raids are largely instanced. Meaning multiple people can run the same raid at the same time on personal runs. Instances can be sandbox like houses in many game.
It seems like you are the one who needs explaining if you think an instance is a themepark.
THe MMORPG genre is going to die, and be rekindled by some developer who is making some other type of game and does great MMORPGish things by accident.
I think many people sleep on the idea of no levels in a Themepark MMO. Yeah it's never really done, but doesn't mean it cant be done in a themepark MMO, same as Faction PvP can be done in a sandbox MMO.
I believe it's time to move away from character levels for main progression and move it to some kind of Faction progression system, may that be Faction exp, or building faction structures in the world. All character progression would be similar to endgame Guild Wars 2, in that you get different stats on gear and unlock new skins and new gear slot items and gold.
I think many people sleep on the idea of no levels in a Themepark MMO. Yeah it's never really done, but doesn't mean it cant be done in a themepark MMO, same as Faction PvP can be done in a sandbox MMO.
I believe it's time to move away from character levels for main progression and move it to some kind of Faction progression system, may that be Faction exp, or building faction structures in the world. All character progression would be similar to endgame Guild Wars 2, in that you get different stats on gear and unlock new skins and new gear slot items and gold.
Many have moved that way in spirit. Level scaling and max leveling being one difficulty is almost the same thing.
I think many people sleep on the idea of no levels in a Themepark MMO. Yeah it's never really done, but doesn't mean it cant be done in a themepark MMO, same as Faction PvP can be done in a sandbox MMO.
I believe it's time to move away from character levels for main progression and move it to some kind of Faction progression system, may that be Faction exp, or building faction structures in the world. All character progression would be similar to endgame Guild Wars 2, in that you get different stats on gear and unlock new skins and new gear slot items and gold.
Psychologically, 'main progression' generally appeals to the strong urge for self-improvement (getting stronger/more powerful). Faction rank is worth pursuing too, but I don't think it works as a direct substitute for gaining stats and skills. Unless you want to let the player earn those in some other way, like directly earning stats through actions that use that stat, and questing to gain abilities.
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.
I think many people sleep on the idea of no levels in a Themepark MMO. Yeah it's never really done, but doesn't mean it cant be done in a themepark MMO, same as Faction PvP can be done in a sandbox MMO.
I believe it's time to move away from character levels for main progression and move it to some kind of Faction progression system, may that be Faction exp, or building faction structures in the world. All character progression would be similar to endgame Guild Wars 2, in that you get different stats on gear and unlock new skins and new gear slot items and gold.
Psychologically, 'main progression' generally appeals to the strong urge for self-improvement (getting stronger/more powerful). Faction rank is worth pursuing too, but I don't think it works as a direct substitute for gaining stats and skills. Unless you want to let the player earn those in some other way, like directly earning stats through actions that use that stat, and questing to gain abilities.
GW2 is a prime example. All my characters are max level since Vanilla. Yet I have all the expansions and been playing on that same max level. Progression dont need to be character levels. If GW2 from day one was just all one level aka no levels at all, you still would unlock skills with skillpoint locations and hero challenges. You still would unlock gear and skins and gold like before. Nothing really changed except from day one you can go in any direction soon as you step in the world since the map isnt level gates anymore if no levels are in the game. NPC vendors still have exp to build up. But this isnt a level gated feature.
I think many people sleep on the idea of no levels in a Themepark MMO. Yeah it's never really done, but doesn't mean it cant be done in a themepark MMO, same as Faction PvP can be done in a sandbox MMO.
I believe it's time to move away from character levels for main progression and move it to some kind of Faction progression system, may that be Faction exp, or building faction structures in the world. All character progression would be similar to endgame Guild Wars 2, in that you get different stats on gear and unlock new skins and new gear slot items and gold.
Psychologically, 'main progression' generally appeals to the strong urge for self-improvement (getting stronger/more powerful). Faction rank is worth pursuing too, but I don't think it works as a direct substitute for gaining stats and skills. Unless you want to let the player earn those in some other way, like directly earning stats through actions that use that stat, and questing to gain abilities.
GW2 is a prime example. All my characters are max level since Vanilla. Yet I have all the expansions and been playing on that same max level. Progression dont need to be character levels. If GW2 from day one was just all one level aka no levels at all, you still would unlock skills with skillpoint locations and hero challenges. You still would unlock gear and skins and gold like before. Nothing really changed except from day one you can go in any direction soon as you step in the world since the map isnt level gates anymore if no levels are in the game. NPC vendors still have exp to build up. But this isnt a level gated feature.
Sorry, but I do not think GW2 is a good example for game design. It is maybe the worst ever made as a whole package. There are many cool things, some good ideas, but the entire product is just crap. You do not play GW2 to progress, to compete, to cooperate, I actually have no idea why you play it.
I think many people sleep on the idea of no levels in a Themepark MMO. Yeah it's never really done, but doesn't mean it cant be done in a themepark MMO, same as Faction PvP can be done in a sandbox MMO.
I believe it's time to move away from character levels for main progression and move it to some kind of Faction progression system, may that be Faction exp, or building faction structures in the world. All character progression would be similar to endgame Guild Wars 2, in that you get different stats on gear and unlock new skins and new gear slot items and gold.
Psychologically, 'main progression' generally appeals to the strong urge for self-improvement (getting stronger/more powerful). Faction rank is worth pursuing too, but I don't think it works as a direct substitute for gaining stats and skills. Unless you want to let the player earn those in some other way, like directly earning stats through actions that use that stat, and questing to gain abilities.
GW2 is a prime example. All my characters are max level since Vanilla. Yet I have all the expansions and been playing on that same max level. Progression dont need to be character levels. If GW2 from day one was just all one level aka no levels at all, you still would unlock skills with skillpoint locations and hero challenges. You still would unlock gear and skins and gold like before. Nothing really changed except from day one you can go in any direction soon as you step in the world since the map isnt level gates anymore if no levels are in the game. NPC vendors still have exp to build up. But this isnt a level gated feature.
Sorry, but I do not think GW2 is a good example for game design. It is maybe the worst ever made as a whole package. There are many cool things, some good ideas, but the entire product is just crap. You do not play GW2 to progress, to compete, to cooperate, I actually have no idea why you play it.
Entertainment?
Why with "?" I played GW2 less than a month. In general only the WvWvW battleground is really terrible. The world instance is playable, even fun at the beginning. The PvP arenas instance is not bad. But the whole product simply has not consistency. It seems like three entirely different games with one label.
Personally with GW2, I just enjoyed the leveling game. I tried to get into the PvP but it was way too much of a zerg for me at the time. I've tried a few times to get back into the game but for whatever reasons I just can't seem to get back into the groove. One thing I always have really enjoyed about the game is the artwork and world design.
The question mark "Entertainment?" Isn't that what playing any and all games is about?
Comments
IMO, RPGs which don't have NPCs to provide culture and plot are quite sad places to be in, because that kind of world lacks "milieu", aka the world-character that makes fantasy, science fiction, and historical the best genres of fiction.
2. Levels.
3. Simulation.
4. No death penalty.
5. Optional grouping/solo play.
6. Player housing.
7. Restricted PvP or no PvP.
8. Full loot.
9. Scaling difficulty (But more on the easier side of things).
10. Questing.
11. Crafting making best gear.
12. Usage base advancement.
13. Sandbox (Shame none of them have no PvP or a on/off mode).
14. End game (Need a goal).
15. Cosmetic cash shop.
16. P2P.
No trials. No tricks. No traps. No EU-RP server. NO THANKS!
...10% Benevolence, 90% Arrogance in my case!
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
2 - I'm ok with either levels or no levels, if it's well designed. This goes hand in hand with No.1.
3 - Game first, always game first. No simulation.
4 - Death penalty yes, but not harsh. I'm paying for fun, not suffering.
5 - Optional grouping because it's not every day i want to talk to people.
6 - Well implemented housing all day long
7 - Consented open world pvp and instanced pvp, not forced in the OW.
8 - No player looting.
9 - Challenging difficulty. "Hard" is a very vague word. Many games claim to be hard and all they do is have bullet sponge bosses that one shoot you. That artificial difficulty is just dumb.
10 - Have absolutely everything you do in the game give you exp for leveling. Have Questing mainly for story progression, and mob grinding mainly for looting crafting resources that make sense (i.e. grinding bears for bear pelts, killing pirates for gun powder, etc). Also mob grinding to actually reduce outside threat to npc villagers in real time, not just dumb static mobs waiting to be killed and respawn.
11 - Both ways to acquire best loot in the game. Tie the visual appearance of a raid gear to that raid theme, but let crafters find rare recipes in the world to craft similarly strong gear with a different appearance. If you want to look like Jimbo McSkanky, join the raid and kill him.
12 - Usage based advancement. Use a sword, get better with it. Train with the sword master (class trainer) to learn new skills for that weapon.
13 - Themepark story telling with branching options and in depth progression, all in a free form sandbox game world. Here is the thing, an empty sandbox where players "build" their own experience is boring for me, mind as well give me the game engine and tell me to make my own game. Give me a fleshed out story that takes place in a sandbox world. Take the sandpark idea to the next level.
14 - I don't care about end game, as long as the "end game" is not the focus of the game. The game should be good, challenging, and rewarding from lvl 1.
15 - If there is a sub then no cash shop. If its B2P then no pay to win cash shop. If it's F2P i don't care anymore, in F2P I only support Warframe monetarily.
16 - I prefer B2P. However, I set WoW and FFXIV as my personal standard for a subscription. Anything with less polish, less amount of content, and less in depth story and lore, usually wont get my sub. Now, it is not fair to compare a newer, much smaller game to something like WoW or XIV. For that reason, if the game is smaller, the subscription SHOULD be smaller. No excuse for less quality though.
My thoughts on this topic.
In simpler English that means that players can't be confused in that way. Instead the definitions of PvE and PvP shift to become more and more useful for player conversation. If you don't recognize that terms shift meaning, you just lock yourself into the past and lock yourself out of current community discussion.
I don't know the answer to this, but was Richard Garriot (early video game creator) a professional coder, or a hobby coder? I know his first "big game" (Akalabeth: World of Doom) was sold mainly through gaming magazine ads and packaged in a plastic ziplock baggie with a small (1 or 2 pages?) manual and a floppy disc. I think(?) he did as a high school student?
My point being, the budding hobby was NOT run by huge corporations back then. Game designers may have been professional coders, but only sometimes in the video game industry (mainly arcade game designs). Most of them created for the joy of creating, not to become millionaires. It was a hobby, not a "business plan to riches." That aspect of gaming is almost gone, now.
That's my take on the history, and I'm sure I've made mistakes that will be corrected
- 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
Rather than needing to know everything about game design, the minimum you need to know is how to copy the design of a game you like. Many of the first computer games were based on tabletop or board games, and so their game design was already partly figured out. This is why, for example, there are so many WoW clones which have run successfully for 5 years or more; they were made by a group that was at least half amateurs, but they knew enough to analyze and copy a design that worked.
I agree that there are a lot of things one needs to know to be a professional game designer creating an original game; this is my 20th year of involvement in indie game design (isn't that ridiculous?) and there are still many things I could learn that would improve my designing. I think almost every game designer out there would tell you they wish they had the time or motivation to learn a list of things which would benefit their game design ability. But one of the first things every creator learns is how to borrow from the past to make their present tasks simpler.
Namely, while it obviously varies a lot depending upon the kind of game, a modern game typically has something like five programmers - but douzens of artists. Sound alone is typically one guy (or gal), if not multiple people. All the many graphic models are a LOT of work to do, especially at the level people expect nowadays. Plus they need to be animated, too.
Who stands with me!
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Over half of respondents wanted a sandpark game despite it not being an official poll option - that's astonishing to me, because just 3 years ago that wouldn't have been the case. Makes me want to do a follow up thread asking how everyone envisions the blend of themepark and sandbox features to work, because I think some bigger disagreements would pop up there.
All the other questions had more mixed results, and I'm not immediately seeing much in the way of patterns in it. I expected vertical progression to always be paired with levels, but it actually wasn't, so I'm a bit confused how levelless vertical progression would work. Gear score? Directly earned stats that don't require leveling up to get them? Wealth-based progression?
Themepark: Metaphorically, this term implies that the player is going through a series of pre-designed entertainment experiences. In practice, themeparks are generally build around a system of questing hubs that pace the player through killing some of each different type of monster in each geographical area of the game, providing a story reason for doing so; plus they usually also have instanced dungeons which also tell a story while providing a multiplayer challenge. Points of appeal often include appearance customization, collecting and character building for strategic combat abilities.
Sandbox: Metaphorically, this term implies the player will be able to make alterations in the game world. In practice these games generally have a system for building houses and appliances, as well as growing crops. Points of appeal generally include freedom to explore, base building, and animal taming or breeding. These games typically have simple, fast combat and mostly lack story.
Sandbox to me is the area where you can change and effect the world semi permanent.
Themepark is unchangeable by the player and driven by quest hubs, storyline and task.
Open world is the areas in the world shared by all. They can be themepark, sandbox or just purely open world. Pure open world you can not make changes nor is it story driven.
Instances are generated pocket areas shared by smaller than server population numbers. Used from keeping numbers down in an area to solo adventure. They can be sandbox or themepark area or just purely an instance with no changes makeable or story line.
Sandpark is a game where you have sandbox areas for building and themepark areas that give developer content.
This day and age EQ is considered a sandbox by some and themepark by other people. So there isn't a clear view on it. Some people consider it themepark because you can't build and other a sandbox because it was open ended. I just view it as a zoned open world game.
It wasn't considered either because the terms didn't start getting used until later. Theme park was first used to describe SWG areas with faction missions as far as I can remember. SWG play areas were largely sandbox in nature.
Second of all semi permanence is the fact that players can make change and that change can change.
3rd an instance is just that an instance of the world or area on a connecting world area. For example in WoW dungeons and raids are largely instanced. Meaning multiple people can run the same raid at the same time on personal runs. Instances can be sandbox like houses in many game.
It seems like you are the one who needs explaining if you think an instance is a themepark.
Lol
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
I believe it's time to move away from character levels for main progression and move it to some kind of Faction progression system, may that be Faction exp, or building faction structures in the world. All character progression would be similar to endgame Guild Wars 2, in that you get different stats on gear and unlock new skins and new gear slot items and gold.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The question mark
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee