Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
A Detailed Response to Nathan Knaack's Most Recent Editorials
Stormgaard
Member Posts: 21
This essay is in response to the following editorials published by Nathan Knaack on this website over the past couple of weeks:
The Present of MMORPGs: UO to WoW Ascensions in technology but a plateau in creativity
The Future of MMORPGs: From tomorrow on All bets are off
~
I was sorely disappointed to read Mr. Knaack's latest editorials on the past, present, and future state of MMORPG's. While I certainly felt that his attitude and tone in the articles were cynical at best, more than anything I felt like I'd wasted my time in reading them. There really was nothing new to be observed or learned.
To be fair Mr. Knaack says as much in his second editorial - that the ideas he puts forth have been "bouncing around the player community" for years, just that they have never been implemented successfully by any existing MMORPG's. There is a reason for this. Most of the ideas Mr. Knaack points to don't work and are little more than ideological phantasms left over from the computer and internet revolutions of the 1990's.
Before I continue let me also say that I have a great deal of respect for the fine people who run MMORPG.com. Its an essential resource for any MMO gamer. I visit this site every day and am grateful that they put all their time and effort into it. Im not attempting to bash Mr. Knaack in this essay, but I am challenging him to truly think Outside the Box.
~
Baghdad Bob or The Boy Who Cried Wolf
It absolutely stuns me to hear Mr. Knaack and even the likes of the Garriot Brothers in recent interviews proclaim that World of Warcraft is the Pinnacle of First Generation MMORPGs. Indeed Mr. Knaack himself states that Plateau is perhaps no more accurate a description for the game. 90% of Mr. Knaaks first editorial (The Present of MMORPGs: UO to WoW) is spent attacking the perceived weaknesses of the class/level/grind system. How many times do we need to hear that this game model is at deaths door, only to see it used successfully time and time again. Indeed if this game model is so bad why does it continue to survive, and indeed thrive, in its paper and pencil incarnation of Dungeons and Dragons. Theyve had over 30 years to change that game if they wanted to why havent they?
They havent changed it because it works, and is no where near as weak a model as Mr. Knaack suggests. WoW is as successful as it is because it is an improvement on EQs original model, which was an improvement on UO, which was an improvement on MUDs, which were born from Dungeons and Dragons which remains essentially unchanged to this day. What we are watching is growth and evolution take place. What we are not watching is a short-sighted, primitive, linear game model stumbling around the MMORPG marketplace like a bull in a china ship to the detriment of progressively thinking game developers everywhere. WoW is a stunning success and is a tremendous boon to anyone involved in making and playing MMORPGs. This game model is no where near ready to die off and has only just opened the door to a huge potential future.
But just where exactly does Mr. Knaack get some of his ideas anyway?
~
Video Killed the Radio Star
With every advance in technology humans seem to go through a brief period of thinking that everything is now suddenly different because of it. Take birth control pills for example. When they were introduced in the middle of the 20th century it ushered in the sexual revolution. Everyone thought everything about societys traditional sexual morays could be thrown out the window. You could sleep with anyone you wanted to, with as many people as you wanted to, free love, no responsibilities or attachments. None of that lasted. Sure birth control pills changed some of the ways we approach sex but it sure as hell didnt change everything. It didnt change the essential human condition and the vast majority of values we had before the pill (monogamy, commitment, marriage) remain in place today.
Society went through something very similar to that in relation to the computer and internet revolutions of the 1990s. Everybody thought that everything was now going to be different because of it. There would be no more grocery stores, no more banks, no more newspapers or magazines etc. We all know what that led to the dot com bust. Did the internet change some aspects of our lives? Sure but it didnt change everything.
If you were paying attention around that time you would have noticed that the entertainment industry was caught up in all of that and went through the same sort of head trip. You heard all kinds of crazy things like people would vote on machines in movie theaters while they were watching them based on whether they wanted a happy or a sad ending. All of a sudden audience participation was going to turn everything on its head. Just perusing Wikipedia you get all kinds of weird ideas regarding entertainment that sound really interesting on paper but as of yet have failed to materialize in reality to any significant degree. Passive entertainment isnt going anywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_media
It was in this time frame that Virtual Reality and Interactivity became huge buzz words and everyone in every aspect of popular entertainment (Movies, TV, Games, Music) thought it would change everything. Only it hasnt and Mr. Knaack hasnt figured that out yet.
~
And I know sour, which allows me to appreciate the sweet
Nearly all of the ideas Mr. Knaack refers to in his editorial as being improvements on the existing MMORPG model are born of the faddish mindset I described above. Some of what he suggests just plain makes my head hurt. His argument for recycling and attrition in a games economy lead directly to the grind he hopes to avoid. Star Wars Galaxies was proof of that. Indeed as he argues for players crafting their own made-up items, buildings, and vehicles as well as running their own factions and quests he seems to be arguing for the disaster that was SWG all over again. Has anything at all been learned from that awful experience? People arent sitting in virtual taverns dreaming up heroic adventures because they actually want to BE on an heroic adventure. Its a game, not a job.
Whats worse is that what he does seem to be in favor of works in direct contradiction to his expressed goal of greater immersion and improved story line. Non-linear character progression, non-linear story lines, non-static geography and NPCs, moveable player housing a totally malleable world all boils down in to one big, gray, and meaningless pile of mush. You cant have a comic without a straight man. You cant have the strange without the familiar.
While I agree that some aspects of the game should be customizable he seems to be making the classic mistake of going overboard in this direction. A sandbox does not a MMORPG make. Quality story lines rely on familiar characters and places. People dont re-read Lord of the Rings because it will have a different ending each time, they do it because they love the world Tolkein created. People dont go to Disney World over and over again because it will be a new experience each time, they go because they love the rides that are already there. People dont log into WoW and run the same quests again and again because it will be different monsters and treasure each time, they do it because they love the characters and places Blizzard has created.
~
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future
To be fair some of Mr. Knaacks ideas are right on target. Streamlining combat (less floating numbers), moving towards classic FPS controls, streamlining NPC interaction, time based advancement, PvP which exists outside the realm of strict combat, introducing seasonal change all of these ideas are great. Whats more is that all of these ideas can be worked into a game like WoW, or CoH, or Guild Wars, or any of the other successful MMORPGs out there.
Also, to be fair, Mr. Knaacks is correct that eventually players will work through all the content, grow bored, and possibly leave the game. But isnt this to be expected of nearly everything in life? What exactly is he trying to get at? You can only watch your favorite movie, or read your favorite book so many times before getting bored no matter how good it is. Isnt he chasing a bit of a white whale here? Just because something cant be enjoyed in perpetuity doesnt mean it cant be an outstanding long-term success.
~
It's called talent. You either have it or you don't
Above all else, where I take the most issue with Mr. Knaacks essays, lies in the fact that he totally overlooks plain, old-fashioned, God-given talent. As MMORPGs grow in popularity and acceptance this will become a huge priority for anyone thinking about designing and marketing one.
Take a step back from gaming for a moment. Stop thinking about games, as we have a tendency to do, in cold and rational terms. Think about something else which is much more emotionally accessible and interpretive. Think about music.
Lets pick a band that almost everyone can agree is a Good Band even though theres no accounting for taste. Consider the Beatles. Most people like The Beatles music. Even for those people who dont, they will recognize a Beatles song almost immediately. Its hard to argue that Lennon and McCartney didnt have talent.
Now lets pick a band that most people would think sucks the Back Street Boys for instance. Sure they can hold a tune but talent? On the level of Lennon and McCartney? Nope. Not a chance.
From this point on Talent will be one of the biggest determining factors in the success of any given MMORPG. When you see a screenshot from WoW you know its WoW. When you see a screenshot from Eve Online you know its Eve Online. When you see a screenshot from Chronicles of Spellborn you know its Chronicles of Spellborn. You cant create the artistic talent reflected in those games with polygons, pixel count, or realism. You cant replace the musical talent in those games with a movie soundtrack. You cant substitute the depth and beauty of the lore created for these games with player created events. In order for a MMORPG to be a true success it has to have genuinely talented and inspiring artists working together to bring it to life just like in any other artistic endeavor.
And thats exactly what MMORGs are to a huge degree artistic endeavors. Where Mr. Knaacks editorials fail most miserably is in the fact that they ignore this completely. Blizzard makes good games because they have God-given, genuine, creative talent. In the same way The Beatles made great music, Blizzard makes great games.
~
Shut up, shuttin up
In conclusion Id like to reiterate that there is nothing wrong with WoWs game model, and that many of Mr. Knaacks suggestions are intellectual roads to nowhere. At best they could be implemented in small doses within a larger, more coherent framework such as the current class/level/quest system but should in no way to be interpreted as a new foundation upon which to base anything of critical or commercial success.
Id like to ask Mr. Knaacks forgiveness in advance for being so blunt, and again take the opportunity to thank him and his colleagues for all the great work they do on this website.
~
Stormgaard
~
Comments
I am still with Mr. Knaak!
WoW might be successful in the mass market, but this does not mean that it is high quality stuff - for me WoW, EQ2 and all those level/class/quest-based grinding games are just one ... totally boring and not worth playing at all - they are mindless time sinks, stealing your life. What is that impressive on bashing the same monsters again and again for 60 levels?- What is so impressive on doing linear quests which do not allow creative solutions but just one way to solve them?- What is so impressive in doing the same things over and over again?-
The way WoW and games like it are made will fix the RPG mass market to be a consumer market forever, where all contents will be provided by game developers. It is about selling boxes twice a year and telling players that this is a big advantage, the next generation MMO - but it is not! It is just new content in a box with maybe better graphics but the same old boring gameplay. I wonder when mass market players will recognize that they are milked twice a year and fed with content food and that nothing will ever change here just because this is the way to make highest profits with lowest efforts.
Ragosch
Then continue on with that line of reasoning. When will movie goers wake up and realize they are getting milked for 10 dollars a pop to be fed movie-content food.
Why hold such a resentment towards Games as a consumer based model of entertainment but withold that judgement towards more traditional forms of escapist entertainment such as TV, Movies, Pen and Paper Games, Books etc...
Double Standard.
People like bashing the same monsters over and over again for the same reason they like watching their favorite movie over and over again. I've run several of WoW's instances many times over. I love it. Just the same way I love watching Lord of the Rings more than once.
I am also at a loss for what constitutes "Lowest Efforts" at Blizzard. Those people are some of the most talented game designers in existence.
I am of the opinion that the jury is still out on MMORPGs. We see popular appeal now, but I am just wondering if at some point we might just abandon the "massive" concept, and go toward an instanced model of matchmade online games with bigger maps, and deeper elements.
That is where we are heading, after all. And for good reason. Most computer gamers do not like the "massive" concept. They want to play with people they know, when they want to play. They want to spawn the world for the time they play, and only invite the ones they want to invite into their world. They do not like the idea of being subjected to forces outside of their control. They want to control the experience, not have others control it for them.
We may say to ourselves, "but look at the growth of the industry." That growth, however, is insignificant when we examine online games generally however. There are more people who play Counterstrike, Madden NFL, and all sorts of RTS games over the internet now more than ever before, and MMORPGs are just one, small part of online gamers generally.
So then why would those who do not buy in to the "massive" concept, buy into 24/7 MMOs with shards containing up to 20,000 strangers who may affect their game? It may have to do with the fact that the maps are bigger, the gameplay elements are more complex, and there is greater variety in items and customizable features.
The fact that we have a growth in MMORPG gamers may not have much to do with living in a "massive 24/7 community." It may very well have to do with the fact that single player games and LAN/matchmaking games haven't caught up in terms of depth.
Most of the problems players have with these games are rooted around the very thing that makes these games unique: having other subscribers that we could care less about mess up our experience in a way that we do not find pleasurable. Enter instancing, protected PvE, and everything else.
But let me propose, that if one could create a single player/LAN type game, and have all the depth and richness of an EQ2, that was able to be played offline or online with friends via a matchmaking service, wouldn't it be equally as popular? I think it would be.
We could be just in the middle of some fad that will end.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
/agree
If my guild had the ability to play WoW (or whatever game we wanted to play) on our own (without Blizz's servers) then yes, I could definitely see the standard model getting thrown to the wind.
Blizzard offers the world itself, and the servers to meet up and play on. They provide the movie and the movie theater in other words. I don't see "The Movie" ever becoming the creative domain of the general public - just like there are a TON of losers on American Idol, there would be a TON of losers coming up with really lame game content. Again I'll assert here that takes genuine creative talent.
But - if you could get rid of the "Movie Theater" and make a game something that could be shared by small groups of people over their own personal computers reliably and efficiently then yes that would be awsome.
/agree
If my guild had the ability to play WoW (or whatever game we wanted to play) on our own (without Blizz's servers) then yes, I could definitely see the standard model getting thrown to the wind.
.
No, LAN/single play IS the standard model. MMORPGs are the alternative.
But I imagine you are not alone in this desire, Stormgaard. Many players like the massive maps, the online, and the roleplaying game; but they hate the "forced multiplayer" aspect of it.
So I say, make a better offline/limited online roleplaying game for players like you and your friends giving you a compelling storyline in an epic world. The fact that you need to go to MMORPGs because there is no LAN/single play alternative is not your fault, its the development house's fault for trying to shoehorn your needs into MMORPGs, when the needs are different.
But by the same token, there are still adherents to the "24/7 massive community" model too, and they deserve a game that gives them non-linear, deep content. The surest way I know we can get that is if we don't have those who just want a better single player/LAN game trying to make our deep worlds into shallow puddles.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
The best example of this I've seen is EVE Online - that is a truly "Massively Multiplayer" game. Personally I'd love to just get lost in that game - but It's so non-traditional in terms of content that I know I would really miss the tradional class-oriented teamwork in combat that I get with the standard MMORPG model (like WoW, EQ, CoH).
I think SWG tried to do this in a traditional MMORPG setting but it just failed miserably. The playerbase never created the content they were expecting them to and the skills system reduced combat to mindless mob-zerging.
Beatnik59 wrote:
So I say, make a better offline/limited online roleplaying game for players like you and your friends giving you a compelling storyline in an epic world. The fact that you need to go to MMORPGs because there is no LAN/single play alternative is not your fault, its the development house's fault for trying to shoehorn your needs into MMORPGs, when the needs are different.
I've got to answer this as a corporate bastard....
Why should I make a $50 "fire and forget" product, when I can spend the same amount of resources and milk my customers for $15 a month?
Personally, I think that both editorials were dead on and totally doable. Real life didn't turn into "grey mush" when "the dev" didn't give us a storyline. An online game won't either.
Well that's just it isn't it? Knaack (and yourself arguably) are trying to turn games into real life. That's sort of backwards thinking isn't it? If real life is the standard why bother creating the game at all? Why bother writing books, or producing TV shows, or movies. Why not just drive down to your local Wal-Mart and hang out there all day?
Beyond just creating amazing, and otherworldly environment games provide us with amazing and otherworldly things we can DO - so RL rules and constructs still don't apply.
Real life isn't grey mush, but if all you want to do is replicate the real world inside of a computer that's one thing - but don't fool yourself into thinking that its a game or that it will be very popular with people.
Well that's just it isn't it? Knaack (and yourself arguably) are trying to turn games into real life. That's sort of backwards thinking isn't it? If real life is the standard why bother creating the game at all? Why bother writing books, or producing TV shows, or movies. Why not just drive down to your local Wal-Mart and hang out there all day?
Beyond just creating amazing, and otherworldly environment games provide us with amazing and otherworldly things we can DO - so RL rules and constructs still don't apply.
Real life isn't grey mush, but if all you want to do is replicate the real world inside of a computer that's one thing - but don't fool yourself into thinking that its a game or that it will be very popular with people.
This post perfectly illustrates your disconnect with what so many people have been asking for in a true next gen MMORPG. To best explain this I offer an examination of the world in World of Warcraft. Azeroth is a set peice, A dead place that never changes and you can never change. It is not a living space, it is game space. Azeroth exists for no other reason than WOW has to happen someplace and it happens there.
THe movies and books and TV shows you use as an example are life like, even the most fantastic of these possess a certain vitality and internal consistancy without these things they would be farce . This is a representation of the dramatic world, the world with the mundane surgicaly removed. THis is what the next big thing should strive to be.
The next gen should seek to create a living world with structured gameplay intermingled with players creating content. Note that I didn't use the phrase player created content. This is because the player should idealy be give the tools within the game mechanics to create thier own place in the world independant of classes or titles. Any MMO that doesn't allow each player to find their own path and place within a vital world has failed and in this regard WoW is the pinaccle of failure.
Exactly!
Ragosch
The traditional grind formulas of WOW, EQ, and other games will die in the next 5 years. Player controlled games are what mmorpgs are about, heck, it's what single player games are about. I no longer want to fictionally progress, I want to affect change.
End Grind
Type Seed Game into your search engine. Go to the game's website and learn about it. It may be the best game you've continued to ignore.
In Auto Assaut, they have instances, and when you accomplish your instanced goal, the instance is different when you return to it. Of course, for your character alone. I've seen the devs post about how happy they are to be fulfilling that oft mentioned desire players have to change the gameworld - with thier instanced content.
Now, is it just me, or does that not even count? Aren't those who want to change the gameword usually the same players who are the most against instancing?
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I really cant believe that anyone can believe that changing an instance in the game is that what people want who claim for a changeable world. How stupid must such a person be to believe that?
A changeable world should be something like the real world is. You are living in it, you interact with it, you manipulate it and you change it this way over time. By actually CHANGING things, locations, terrain, poltical situations, technology or whatever else. That is meant by a changeable world, not a change made by devs or system like adding a new expansion pack or changing instances.
Ragosch
I appreciate your passion, but so far I haven't heard anything new here.
I'm also not sure I understand this statement. "Vitality and Internal Consitency" - isn't the very definition of Consistency that it doesn't change?
Books, TV shows, and Movies are NOT life like. They present a pre-planned author-created story and world for people to enjoy. They do not change every time you pick them up. People re-visit the Books, TV shows, and movies they enjoy because they love the content that was created in them. Good Games are the same way.
That sounds nice - very utopian in fact - but it's just another pipe dream. How do you create a storyline and world lore without specific roles for people to play. Once you take away peoples abilities to fulfill certain, specific roles in a game you've thrown away your most basic, most fundamental tools for creating drama. There are no protagonists, no antagonists, no competition, no conflict, no resolution, no resolve. Just one big grey pile of mush. More than that it ruins combat in a game. It's like laying out a chessboard and saying every piece can move in whatever way it wants to.
You don't even need to take my word for it - this is exactly what happened in Star Wars Galaxies. There was no story, there was no drama. The combat was awful too. It wasn't team oriented, there were no tactics, it was all Mob-oriented zerging.
No offense, but this statement is absurd on it's face. If the class/level/quest model is so bad then answer me why Tabletop gamers (Dungeons and Dragons etc.) have been using it for over 30 years. They've had more than enough time and freedom to change it if they wanted to - why haven't they?
Yes I've heard about this too being used in LotRO - but lets be honest, if the player wants to run it again, or if they want to run it with friends who have never done it won't they just choose to reset the instance every time? It's not a bad idea - but not a fundamental or essential feature to a game I wouldn't think.
~
Stormgaard
The Se7en Samurai
Stormgaard, your lack of imagination saddens me really. Do you really need others to create things and all the content for you to play with?- Do others really need to create a role for you to play?- Are you not able to find your own role and path in a game world which does not have a storyline provided to you which you need to follow?- Are you really so lacking in independence?-
And if you would have had a look at an english-english dictionary, you would have found that there are atleast 4 different meanings for the word "consistancy" - you just have to pick the right one to understand was was said.
Ragosch
I'll be totally honest - YES!
I can't come up with the same sort of world Tolkein came up with - I prefer to read his books! He's much better at it than I am.
I can't act as well as Johnny Depp can - I prefer to watch his movies! He's much better at it than I am.
I can't write music as well as John Williams can - I prefer to listen to his music! He's much better at it than I am.
I can't create a game-world as well as Chris Metzen can - I prefer to pay his games! He's much better at it than I am.
Or you are. Or MOST people are. All of those artists have God-given, genuine, creative talent that is rare in people.
But stick to the debate - if the class/level/quest model is so bad why haven't Tabletop gamers abandoned it after 30 years?
~
Stormgaard
The Se7en Samurai
Because it is good for table top role play. It is designed for table top role play, for cooperative groups of player of nearly the same level. Because it is easy to play out.
But it was never designed for PvP or combat between player characters of much different levels.
Ragosch
Btw: as far as Tolkien is concerned - it depends if you like it or not - there are basically 2 groups, for one it is the holy grail of fantasy, for the second group it is boring storytelling with endless descriptions of the surrounding which is not important for the story at all. It is a question of taste. I didnt like it, but I watched the movies. I fall asleep in all of them, I would not watch them a second time.
Fair enough - but now you are off on a totally different tangent. It's clear that PvP is your primary concern - because there is no tangible mechanicle difference between a Tabletop D&D experience and what most people are looking to get out of a MMOPRG - good PvE No offense but you're speaking for a minority of MMORG gamers out there.
And even so I have yet to hear how a skills based system leads to anything but zerging. Competative games are based on player Archetypes with specific abilities - go back to my Chess Board analogy. Chess would suck if all of the pieces could move any way they wanted to.
There's no accounting for taste - but there is accounting for money. I don't want to turn this into a "Popularity Contest" - but you can bet your arse the people who provide the money to back MMORPG's do. How much are you willing to bet they won't be looking at WoW and want to build on and expand upon that basic model.
Some of you may want the class/level/quest system to die off in five years - but you can be sure as sh*t the accountants won't let that happen, not when WoW is as popular and lucrative as it is.
And anyways is being popular such a bad thing? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean most people won't.
~
Stormgaard
The Se7en Samurai
To be honest, I am not interested in the mass market at all. For me it is lost and Richard Bartle has given reasons why this is that way and design in the mass market segment will become worse and worse from a designers point of view. If the masses like crap they may have it, nothing against it, but dont want me to join them.
For people like me games like WoW and EQ2 are simply prisons, not a game were I can feel free, explore it and choose my own path ... no I cannot, I am forced to do whatever the game wants me to or I will not advance. May it be so, but without me.
Then I see EVE for example - no one tells me what to do. I can feel free and do what I want to. I can make contacts with those I want to and am not forced to do any missions or walk on a given path. There I can develop my character and see what he might do for a living. For some it is grind too, because they cannot imagine any other then grind. Maybe because of those games like WoW, but maybe because they are that way in real life also.
What I expect from a good MMO is an interactive game world, where I can live a free life and choose my own path. A game world where I can lay my marks on due to my actions and where I can help to form it into OUR world - the ability to make the world OUR world instead of living in a given and static world will be the difference in future MMOs.
And this will happen in a niche market segment first. Maybe it has happened already, because EVE is also a niche market game and others will follow. There is a need for real gameplay, where you can do plenty of things and find your own path ... ok, not by the masses, they dont want to think but relax in a game. But for those player, I am speaking of, a game is a challenge and they want to use their brains.
Ragosch
See, this is why I think a lot of ideas that Knaack calls "Progressive" and that you tend to support are really nothing more than leftovers from the "Virtual Reality" fad that got started in the 90's. Some of it was applicable in a practical sense, but most of it is not - and this is pretty apparant when your argument boils down to an emotional one. "Let the masses have crap if they like it!" - that's not very rational and is really sort of stuck-up and elitest. I have yet to see any believable critique as to why class/level/quest system is so awful it's bound to "Die Off" anytime in the near future.
All facts, logic, and reason point to that game model as being an outstanding long-term success in the realm of multiplayer gaming. It has been for over 30 years, and will be for decades to come.
~
Stormgaard
The Se7en Samurai
Stormgaard wrote:
There are no protagonists, no antagonists, no competition, no conflict, no resolution, no resolve. Just one big grey pile of mush. More than that it ruins combat in a game. It's like laying out a chessboard and saying every piece can move in whatever way it wants to.
The Sims. That game breaks all the "laws" of gaming that you just laid down and it's the best selling PC game of all time. Your example leaves alot to be desired as well since the chess board and chess peices were designed with a definite pupose in mind. That's not to say the the game that we imagine doesn't have elements with purpose, but that purpose has no long term goals other than what the player sets for themselves.
As a reply that "I want games to be like reality".... Games are approximations of reality. Take a flight sim as an example. I've played enough of them to know my way around the insides of an A-10 or F-18, but I wouldn't dare try to fly one in real life. The flight sims I played tried to be as close to the real thing as possible, but the behavior of the aircraft in a RL environment would probably be off just enough that I'd make a fatal mistake. There are also parts of reality that would have to left out of a "sandbox" MMO becuase they were to tedious.
If the class/level/quest model is so bad then answer me why Tabletop gamers (Dungeons and Dragons etc.) have been using it for over 30 years. They've had more than enough time and freedom to change it if they wanted to - why haven't they?
Apparently you've never heard of GURPS or The HERO system. I could name off several popular PnP role playing systems that don't use classes or levels. Table top games moved away from class / level based systems a long time ago and recently have moved to more freeform, less number crunching, role playing systems.
I guess you just like to play games that are "on rails". To each their own <shrugs>.
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?
The truth of it is that this media is relatively new. People haven't been playing online in mass numbers until very recently, and they all want different things from the media.
Back when we roleplayed on tabletop, we had choice. The ones who played Rifts were different than the ones who played D&D. The ones who played Warhammer 40K were different than the ones who played Battletech. And playing one didn't stop you from playing another. If I wanted a deep character experience, I'd play GURPS or Rifts. If I wanted a tactical experience with a small number of very detailed units, I'd play StarFleet Battles, or Battletech. If I wanted a strategic experience with a large amount of less detailed units, I'd play Warhammer, or Space Hulk.
I'll tell you this much though. Software publishers in general know that players are different, and offer different experiences to suit them. The ones who play Counterstrike are different than the ones who play Madden NFL. The ones who play Madden NFL are different than the ones who play Diablo II. The ones who play Diablo II are different than the ones who play Rome: Total War. These different offerings appeal to different people. Yet all of them play online, and all of them know what they are and what they are not at heart.
Its too bad we can't have more of that in dedicated internet software, like MMORPGs. Instead, what we have are games that try to appeal to all players, yet succeed at pleasing none of them fully. Which is a shame, because other, non-internet dedicated entertainment software offerings do not operate this way.
I don't think the ones who made Rome: Total War designed the game with the intent of drawing from the NBA 2006 fanbase, or the Half-Life fanbase. Yet this doesn't mean that one who enjoys those other games cannot also enjoy Rome: Total War. But its a different sort of fun.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Yes I have - and sorry but the class/level/quest system of gaming is still the dominant model in Tabletop Gaming. The examples you site are the exceptions to the rule. According to your logic in regards to MMORPG's, not only should those examples be the dominant model in Tabletop gaming - but the class/level/quest system should have died off somewhere in the mid 1980's.
This is where I'm drawing the line in my argument - I'm arguing that while this media is new, it's not SO new as to continue to support some of the flakey theories Knaack put forth in his editorials. It's time to start taking those ideas with a grain of salt.
~
Stormgaard
The Se7en Samurai
Stormgaard wrote:
I'm arguing that while this media is new, it's not SO new as to continue to support some of the flakey theories Knaack put forth in his editorials. It's time to start taking those ideas with a grain of salt.
I almost think that we read different aticles. I don't remember a "brave new world" theme in Knaack's articles, so I'm a little confused that you keep referencing this attitude. I'm also not clear on what, exactly, is flakey in Knaack's articles. Again, maybe we preceived different things.
Here's what I read (more or less)....
Basically, Knaack was suggesting that we take elements from The Sims, Savage: Battle For Newerth, and Morrowind to make a "sandbox" MMORPG that focuses on long-term gamplay rather than short-term content.
Not only is this doable, but it's actually been done in MUDs. UO was fairly close to this model, but suffered from a number of poor design decisions that kept it just short of greatness. Eve also comes very, very close to this idea. I personally think that an MMO based around the ideas in Ur MUD would be the absolute pinacle of what Knaack was getting at.
Again, I'm really not sure what you think is "flakey" or "new age" about any of this. It's been around for years.