The answer is technology. The virtual reality dreams of the 90s didn't match up with the technological reality of the time, and as such were truly pipe dreams. If you build people up and then show them a watered down version of what you promised, then of course people will be disappointed. Up till now, we've only been given watered down examples in the MMO genre, with EVE Online being the first to hint of things to come. Game technology is advancing to the point where what developers are capable of will be extraordinary, with advances in 3D graphics, Database technologies and advanced AI being the prime examples of what will change the way MMOs and virtual worlds are played.
In regards to your class/level system, it is an old technology that soon will be replaced by something that offers much more to gamers, and not just to the sandbox people. Look at other areas of technology. Products quickly become outdated and replaced, but does that mean that a good example of the old is not good? Of course not. CRT Monitors for example work great, but are companies developing them any more? Not really, and certainly not in large numbers. Most of their research and development goes into LCDs and other technologies. Now if a company makes a really good CRT do we call it bad? Of course not!
WoW is a really good example of a Class/Level system. Blizzard, as they usually do, have polished it so that it works really well whilst being accessible, and as such have produced a high quality CRT (to use my previous analogy). At the moment however, LCDs aren't readily available but are certainly being developed, so the WoW CRT sells really well and is very very popular. After all, it is good quality. Is it the way of the future though? I would say no, and would consider it the best of the past!
You also asked why the class/level system is still so popular in table top games, and i would agree with someone else that it is because that is the medium for which it was originally designed. The critical difference between tabletop and MMOs is the DM/GM. In one he/she is a guide who can tailor an adventure to the players involved, taking advantage of their skills and giving them opportunities to shine. In the other, he/she is the game developer, creating an adventure for countless players with no guarantee of skills, abilities or talents. Hence why people feel that MMOs have no life to them in this model, as the level system further restricts a players capacity for imagination and creativity in an environment that lacks the human creative component of the GM.
You passed off the example of books, tvs and movies, but you failed to realise that the point was that even though the stories are a linear adventure told by the author, the world he creates still must have a feeling of life to it.
Example.
Why in movies and television are there extras? If all we care about is the main characters and story then why have other people in the background? why have cars on the roads? why have planes in the sky? It's not just about the story, but it's also about the world around the story.
Why have description in books? Why describe the trees or the mountains or the seas? Once again, you have to create a world around your story otherwise you end up with a hollow book that doesn't engage a reader's imagination.
The difference between them and MMOs is of course, interactivity. This is WHY we need a little more freedom from the author, because we interact with the characters, story and world in a way that you of course don't in those other mediums. At the moment, these MMO are like watching a TV show or movie without those extras, or a novel without description. Or, at least they are lacking that which those things provide.
Extras don't add the same effect in an MMO because i can walk up and say 'hey' to them, something that of course we don't do in those other mediums. Extras need a life and a reality of their own, something that unless the player is given more freedom won't be achieved in a reliable polished way, and instead will be quite clunky and false.
The future of MMOs, i believe lies in the freedom of the player, not just in 'sandbox' type environments, but in the realisation of the fact that the best and most powerful resource that a MMO developer has are the players themselves. If we can develop a virtual world that allows itself to be 'more' dynamically effected by player actions, and in turn can effect the player, then we will see something far greater than what we've had before. And, as much as i actually liked World of Warcraft, it is not what is leading us or progressing us in that direction, it will be technology that will finally open up that door.
I personally prefer skill-based systems to class-based ones because of the freedom it allows me. I can design the sort of character I really want to play and fill any niche I percieve in the game world. Classes can overly limit play styles unless they're very broadly defined.
That said, I'm always amazed by how many people seem to be labouring under the illusion that it's radically different from a level-based system. People talk about it in such glowing terms but seem to miss the point that, fundamentally, it works in exactly the same way.
Both systems are just ways of quantifying and communcating your character's power. Level-based systems do it through one number whilst skill-based ones do it through several. Instead of needing to be level 40 to hit an orc, you may need to have Sword rank 7. Your character is limited and defined by those numbers in either system. The grind still exists in both systems. It's just that a skill-based system turns one big grind for levels into lots of smaller ones for skill points.
The equivalent of a level cap exists in skill-based systems too. You have a maximum ammount of total skill points and a maximum number which can be put in any one skill. This creates a maximum possible power level that your character can achieve - which is exactly what a level cap does. Sure, you can drop some skills and retrain but if you don't want to then you've hit a dead end. Even if you change skills, you're just walking away from one dead end towards another.
Like I said, I prefer skill-based systems because of the customization they offer. I just think people should stop deluding themselves that they don't suffer from many of the same problems as level-based systems. They just take one big problem and turn it into several smaller ones.
The only solutions to these problems is to either drop the caps on skill points or completely do away with the concept of relative character power. Neither solution is really valid. Dropping the point caps means that everyone will ultimately become good at everything or run out of skills. Dropping the concept of relative character power would remove all forms of character progression from MMORPGs except for social progression. MMORPGs without character progression would just be 3D chatrooms and nobody really wants to play World of AOL Instant Messenger.
I like what Mr. Knaac says. I don't agree with everything he says but I'm glad he's putting it out there because hopefully game designers will read that and consider it when creating a new game. I also think there's good value in the original post up here. But okay, it sounds like Stormgaard's saying why change a good thing when we know it works? Why not go with the tried and true?
Well why not?
Your right that Blizzard has notable talent and there's a plenty of other good points in the OP but here's what I have to say. Change is good, evolution is natural and sometimes in order to get from A to B, you need to lose sight of the shoreline. Some ideas will crash and burn, but the ones that fly can be revolutionary. I believe that this is a good thing.
Tried and true may work time and time again but then....do we really want to freeze WoW and EVE and pump out sequels of these games from now on? Hell no, I want to see some new ideas manifesting!
I think video game designers that are trying to avoid basing their ideas off the ideas of Tolkein and previous games are making steps in the right direction, because in order to make advancement we need change. Lord of the Rings is such a sweet story to read because there is/was nothing else like it. Why would I want a regurgitated version of WoW when I can play the original? When I play a new game, I expect it to be exactly that, new.
Don't get me wrong, improving what we already have is a good thing as well, but I think we need both improvement and innovation working side by side so that we can effectivly propell ourselves forward- towards evolution in gaming. So in short, Mr. Knaac's ideas are good in one hand, Stormgaard's ideas are good in the other, but neither one is more valuable then the other because we need to combine them together to really get the ball rolling.
Originally posted by CoffeeBot The equivalent of a level cap exists in skill-based systems too. You have a maximum ammount of total skill points and a maximum number which can be put in any one skill. This creates a maximum possible power level that your character can achieve - which is exactly what a level cap does. Sure, you can drop some skills and retrain but if you don't want to then you've hit a dead end. Even if you change skills, you're just walking away from one dead end towards another.
Not all skill based systems have to be like that. EVE Online is not exactly like that, and in theory given enough time (read - lots & lots of time) one could master every skill. Don't limit yourself in these discussions by one 'idea/implementation' of a system when others could very well do it differently. This could also be said of me however, and i realise that someone could very well take the class/level system further. I think though, that the level system has had more time to mature and i think avenues of advancement are rather limited. Skill-based systems however are still maturing in the MMO sphere, and as such open up a raft of potentional options that developers could pursue to add more of what makes life so much fun, unpredictability and dynamic environments.
I'm glad that this is settling down to a more reasoned discussion.
Personally, I couldn't agree with Stromgaard more. I think he's spot on.
There are two main threads to this discussion - class vs skills systems, and player content.
Class vs Skills - As was mentioned above, this difference is a bit of a phantom. Just as there are levels caps, there are skills caps. You have to limit the characters ability in each thing somewhere, or how do you keep that character competing against other players / mobs? Sure, there is no L60 in Eve, but there is a limit to how many skill points you can have relating to flying any type of ship, or doing any industrial activity. There's a cap to doing electronic warfare in a Raven, just as there is to healing as a priest, or at some point it would lose it's challange. That is not to say that the skill system doesn't allow you to be more inventive with your character, especially with a game that exists for a long time, and if it makes a game better, the devs should use it.
(As an aside I find it odd that some peoples rather emotional arguments that 'the Devs are just out to screw us for subs' seem to favor the skills model, where time played & subs paid more closely = character, but then I find that whole arguement a bit odd)
Player content - I completely agree with the OP. I want a crafted, polished product. I want the zones to be emotive and stunning. I want to go WOW! (sry, didn't mean to take sides there when I first enter a location. I want great backdrops, good music, good animation, bug free, interesting content.
I'm not interested in playing a game forever. If I get six months of massive fun from a game, that's six months of massive fun! I think this posting hit the nail on the head.
Originally posted by Stormgaard
Real life didn't turn into "grey mush" when "the dev" didn't give us a storyline.
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.
Some people here want to give so much to a game, that it is no longer a game. They want to invest soul into it. They want to give it Life. Part of their life.
Now don't think I'm sneering. Any musician give part of their soul to their instrument, no-one sneers at them. But they do recognise that it's a passionate obsession, a level of devotion that most people don't want. Just as we are more than happy to flip on a CD & listen to someone else play far far beyond our tallents, we are happy to play a good game. Beware of the obvious pitfalls of obsession. The vast majority of musicians are truely unhappy people that never live up to the level of virtuosity that they would desire for themselves. The happy ones learn to just step back & love what they've made without comparison (my best mate is a professional violinist, and I traveled that world a bit myself).
The future of MMORPG's? Just as with many other areas of human entertainment, it will move towards a more fragmented, nieche & personalised product, with the occassional massively popular star (some justified, some not). There will be American Idols, and Fraisers. But people of a discerning nature will find more and more quality out there as we move further from 4 catch all mass entertainment channels.
However, for as long as there is a finite limit to any resource, money will talk. Always has, and always will. Products will be made that enough people are prepared to pay for. Subs will exist for as long as corporate involvement is desired in games. This is no bad thing. I am prepared to pay for first rate entertainment. Life is too short to insist on walking to your holiday destination, and make your own swimming pool when you get there.
Nick (corporate shill
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
yes, there are caps in skill based systems, but no one will know what they are for you. In WoW i see a lvl 60 'whatever' and see them use talent 'whatever' and i know what they're 'supposed' to be doing in terms of role. (note - this is an attitude in game more than my knowing everything lol)
A large proportion of you are misunderstanding the ideas and concepts. Do we want real life? NO. Already got that thank you. Do we want it boring? NO. Do we want it more interesting and challenging than pre-set builds, roles and button mashing? YES!!! Games like WoW will be around for sometime yet, and may even be around forever. I am saying that we are moving towards having their kind NOT the dominate form. Why do i think that? Because the technological requirements for achieving the type of freeform player driven dynamic gameplay are starting to be realised. We are not there yet, so it will be some time. These games will truly make you feel like your embroiled in an epic adventure, but the difference will be it will be YOUR adventure. Not the same one that everyone else is on.
At the moment. NO ONE in these games are heroes, cause EVERYONE is the same. In the future, players hopefully will be able to leave a mark on the world in more meaningful ways, meaning that the story that YOU forge for yourself amongst the goings on of the world will be the greatest adventure. That is not to say that there won't be a cool storyline that permeates throughout the virtual world, but it is to say that you don't get taken through it like a theme park ride. Instead, you discover it, adventure in it, get surprised by it, and have a piss load of fun at the same time.
Our position is a difficult one because we don't have examples, it hasn't been achieved yet. We are saying that as these things become possible that they will quickly deliver something that is far more fun and entertaining than the current bore fest that is the level grind. Are we saying that there won't be a grind? NO Are we saying that there won't be limits on player power? NO What we are saying is that in these virtual worlds the CHOICES that YOU make on the way are more important than what class you click at character selection.
So you know, Player Content is not player made content. It is content that is driven by players, it is advanced by the interactions between player to player, and doesn't need a lot of intervening on the part of the developer. Good PVP content is an example of this, but so is player economies and trading, player diplomacy and social interactions. This type of content is great because it places less of a load on the developer. PVP content in WoW is commonly known to be woeful, and i would say that is the case because the devs are trying to do one thing that you should never overly do to pvp, control it. Tis be their folly i'm afraid.
Obsession? What. The. Hell?
Do i want to put my soul into a game? HOLY MOTHER of CRAP NO! It's a freaking game. I just want something more than an arcade game to come from this genre. Why do i want that? Cause MMORPGs are one of the very few places in the interactive entertainment industry that can do it, why not see what they can do? Why anyone would want just another arcade style genre truly boggles my mind.
Perhaps i'm crazy, perhaps i'm an idealist, maybe it's all just dreams in my head. I can tell you one thing, in my head, i'm in gaming nirvana and its freaking sweet! I just wish i could share it with you all.
You make some good points there. A player based econony such as in Eve has enormous strengths. A PvP based game where control has value, also generates an enormous amount of content.
However, that comes back to PvP. As has been fundimental to the stromgaards arguement, that is more of a fringe interest, currently the bulk of players in roleplay games are more interested in PvE.
Perhaps that is because the game that displays what truely could be done with PvP has not shown us the light yet. But it's just as likely that we're uninterested in the associated griefing that accompanies PvP hand in glove.
PvE cannot have decent content that is individually designed. PvP has a core of players that just want to cause others grief. Of the two, it depends on how good the overall game is, but I don't have a problem with exploring the generic content for 6mths, and then buying a new game.
Nick
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
There are people visiting theme or adventure parks and there are others who actually make an adventure trip in real life. There is nothing wrong with both, because they cover totally different needs. The theme park vistor wants polished and guided entertainment while the real adventurer type creates his own entertainment by conquering nature.
The theme park thing is WoW, EQ2 and such. Dynamically changing worlds where players need to find their own goals, follow their own path and conquer a virtual world, are the real adventure trip type - just to use the same metapher again. Theme parks are consumer oriented entertainment while adventure trips are player-oriented challenges which are not like quests but free-style with no given goals or content.
So it might be useless to say, that one will replace the other. I guess both will have their place in future. Newly created MMOs will go more into the real adventure direction in future, while the mass market will still provide theme parks with more expansion packs and developer-provided content. People will tend more into theme parks than into real adventure, I guess, but the innovative potential is much higher in the adventure trip section which will attract more and more people when technology advances and more of this virtual reality will come true.
My own opinions resonate closely to those posted by Cardinal Sin.
I also agreed with the earlier posts on the nature of subscription fee's. i beleive it is essentially a way of earning more revenue for less work and can only be achieved if you are offering a great title. I think that Guild Wars has shown us that this extra expense is not anything like required.
Player driven content and games of a freeform nature, seems to me to be a poor excuse for not much content only. In my experience of games thus far, it is only cited as a sales pitch, in those games that haven't included any actual coded content. It ring lots of alarm bells. I'm not intrested in paying money to make my own game or game content.
I thoroughly enjoy home made content and challenges in other games. Mods and clan ladders in Unreal for example greatly enhance the replayability and hence value for money for those types of game. Mostly I don't feel those gamemods are up to the quality of the original offerings, but hey, it's new, it's free and it encourages experimentation and innovation.
Subscription based games cost more than other games and they need to back this up by making a product with more content included. Player driven economies prosper when the economic tools are hard coded into the game (eg crafting and auction house). Player driven PvP domination prospers when PvP gametypes rewards and objectives and tools are hard coded into the game.
I don't find player led content to be the holygrail of MMO's. Although I do agree that a decent PvP gameplay can keep a very large number of punters satisfied for a very long time with comparatively little content.
Okay, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about what content is. In this discussion we're talking about two kinds of content.
developer content: static quests made by the developers
Player driven content: content that relies on players interacting with eachother or the game environment. Usually consisting of hard coded elements, and is "open ended" or left to the discretion of the players.
The former being the dominant type of content in most MMOs, the later being an emerging aspect of MMOs. I really liked the amusment park anology that was posted earlier. Once you've gone through the Fun House it's no longer "fun." I personally think of this debate as the difference between a shooting gallery and a game of paintball. Both are challenging in their own way however, you will eventually get good enough at the shooting gallery to beat it everytime. In paintball, the game changes everytime you play while keeping the same ground rules. This is where the line is truely drawn.
If you want an idea of what we're getting at, check out A Tale in the Desert. The ideas in this game would only have to be slightly expanded to create the game that many of us are looking for. Mainly they would have to include finite resources, hunting and/or combat, the ability for players to destroy objects that they don't own, and the ability for players to start their own nations / tribes with laws that only apply to that specific nation / tribe. Hell, if they just threw in domesticated livestock, hunting and natural predators the game would be much closer to what many of us are looking for.
I don't really see eye to eye with your descriptions though.
It seems to me that you write off any developer scripted quest as "shooting gallery" something you can perfectly redo once you know how and that has no interaction with other players. You seem to equate a scripted plotted mission, with solo content.
I beg to differ there are many such quests that require player interaction to complete. Each time you do it, the ease of it, or it's success is dependant on your interaction with other players. Many quests in most games require you interact with your fellow players in order to complete. If you were doing it alone everytime, (solo content) I would see your point.
In the link you gave me it showed a game where you build up your world in a RTS style way harvesting resources (trading and interacting). Presumably once you have built a town with all it's knobs and whistles, it's like the shooting gallery . You know how and you can do it again. It's just like learning the best combination of player classes to take on a particular raid. You can't do it alone, you need mates, but once you learn what you are looking for and how to find them, it's easily repeatable with the same winning tactic everytime.
It is of course of note, that RPG is the most popular format of MMO.
RPG is a genre of computer game. It follows a certain expected format that people enjoy and that does include quests.
I like MMOFPS too of course. There are no quests in Planetside for example, and the number of ways in which you can capture an enemy base are seemingly limitless, but in under a month most people have found enough of them for it to be "shooting gallery" just the same old paintball game, played the same way by the same old people.
Great game Planetside, totally player driven, but ultimately not enough content.
PVP = Player vs Player. PVP =| Player vs Player COMBAT only.
When people talk about PVP they seem to be thinking solely of the combat version, please don't as you are using that as an excuse to say that all these ideas just come back to PVP, which in your mind is bad. It's missing the point.
PVE games are PVE only because they don't focus on combat between players. However, that doesn't mean that these games don't feature PVP content.
Trading and Crafting is player vs player. One sells, One buys. Both try to get the better end of the deal. Rolling on Loot in a dungeon is Player vs Player. One gets it, others don't. Even raid guilds compete with each other to see who can kill boss of uber doom first.
Now if you make crafting more in-depth, useful and fun. Add in diplomacy for players to compete against each other for faction and rep. Trade routes for players to win or lose deals over.
Then...BAM! PVP for the PVE masses. Yes PVP combat could be fit into those quite easily as a means of settling disputes, but it doesn't have to be there.
The problem with the level/class system is that the choice you make at the start of the game decides the rest of it. I don't know about you, but i'd like an adventure where choices i make along the way change and alter the world for my character. In most of these current games, choices mean nothing.
The game doesn't care: - - where you level'd up. - whether you solo'd something or creatively took it down. - what dungeon's you complete. - what baddies you kill.
Sure, your character gets some shiny loot. But when you log on the game is still there as it always was, and nobody but you really cares!
edit: oh, and Baff. You can point out flaws in games like Planetside or ATITD all you like, we are pointing them out as an example of the movement or direction that we believe MMOs will take in the future. We aren't there yet, and NO ONE is saying that those games are a perfect example. There will always be a place for games like WoW or EQ2, as there will always be some desire for simple arcade action. There is and has been a desire for a long time though, to have a more mature game in the genre. One that requires thinking over button mashing, one that requires social skills and interactions, one that most likely will suck away my life like no MMO has done BEFORE!! lol
Originally posted by baff Player driven content and games of a freeform nature, seems to me to be a poor excuse for not much content only. In my experience of games thus far, it is only cited as a sales pitch, in those games that haven't included any actual coded content. It ring lots of alarm bells. I'm not intrested in paying money to make my own game or game content.
Actually it is much harder to implement a working interactive and dynamically changing world. If you would try it you would realize it very easily. Providing content for a theme park style game is basically artwork where providing the ability to interact with a dynamically changing world is conceptual work.
While the process of advancement in a theme park like game is basically providing more artwork, it is providing more abilities to interact with the virtual world in a dynamically changing world. The last needs permanently new concepts, the first permanently new content to carry on.
You are more of the theme park visitor type than a free-form player, so you basically want content creation by the developers of the game. I am a real adventure type of player for example and therefore I enjoy tools and the ability to interact with and have an impact on a game world.
The theme park nature of MMOs like WoW and EQ2 is what doesnt make it fun for me because I do not feel free there and freedom is what I am looking for in a virtual world; I just can use theme parks elements in those, nothing more. So for me these games do not offer much else than restrictions and limitations; they simply hinder me to play ... that is how I see it, what does not mean that I would not enjoy theme park games as single player games (like Morrowind for example, but Morrowind provided the ability to choose your own path within the given theme park).
Originally posted by CoffeeBot The equivalent of a level cap exists in skill-based systems too. You have a maximum ammount of total skill points and a maximum number which can be put in any one skill. This creates a maximum possible power level that your character can achieve - which is exactly what a level cap does. Sure, you can drop some skills and retrain but if you don't want to then you've hit a dead end. Even if you change skills, you're just walking away from one dead end towards another.
Not all skill based systems have to be like that. EVE Online is not exactly like that, and in theory given enough time (read - lots & lots of time) one could master every skill. Don't limit yourself in these discussions by one 'idea/implementation' of a system when others could very well do it differently. This could also be said of me however, and i realise that someone could very well take the class/level system further. I think though, that the level system has had more time to mature and i think avenues of advancement are rather limited. Skill-based systems however are still maturing in the MMO sphere, and as such open up a raft of potentional options that developers could pursue to add more of what makes life so much fun, unpredictability and dynamic environments.
You make a fair point. Skill-based systems don't have to follow the same method of implementation that they've always.
People have been talking a lot about dynamic environments - what about a dynamic skill system? A system where it wasn't just your skill rank which was important but how that skill related to other skills, the environment and player actions. It could certainly breathe new life into the concept if implemented right.
Take Nature based magic for example. Most games just give you a list of spells with standardised effects. In a dynamic skill-based system, you could tie the effects/effectiveness of spells to the changing seasons. The changes could be subtle (seasonal animations) or dramatic, with special abilities for each season such as cold attacks for winter and magical regeneration in spring. Players would see the changing seasons reflected in their character. Mastering Nature magic would be as much about being in tune with nature as it would skill ranks.
The morality of a character's actions could influence their effectiveness with Holy/Unholy magics, creating consequences to player actions. Shamanic characters may be able to draw more effectively on the animal spirits native to their present location than those of distant lands. Emphasisng a more aggressive style of swordplay may give a damage bonus but leave you more open to counterattacks.
Making the skills play off each other and the world around them could add so much depth to MMORPGs. Players would start to think about where, when and how they use skills more and not just about which combination is best. If you allowed for decent cooperative crafting, it could add even more depth. A smith may hire a fire mage to magically control the heat of a forge to make his work easier. Druids could enhance a vintner's crop yield so he produces more wine.
Originally posted by CoffeeBot You make a fair point. Skill-based systems don't have to follow the same method of implementation that they've always. People have been talking a lot about dynamic environments - what about a dynamic skill system? A system where it wasn't just your skill rank which was important but how that skill related to other skills, the environment and player actions. It could certainly breathe new life into the concept if implemented right. Take Nature based magic for example. Most games just give you a list of spells with standardised effects. In a dynamic skill-based system, you could tie the effects/effectiveness of spells to the changing seasons. The changes could be subtle (seasonal animations) or dramatic, with special abilities for each season such as cold attacks for winter and magical regeneration in spring. Players would see the changing seasons reflected in their character. Mastering Nature magic would be as much about being in tune with nature as it would skill ranks. The morality of a character's actions could influence their effectiveness with Holy/Unholy magics, creating consequences to player actions. Shamanic characters may be able to draw more effectively on the animal spirits native to their present location than those of distant lands. Emphasisng a more aggressive style of swordplay may give a damage bonus but leave you more open to counterattacks. Making the skills play off each other and the world around them could add so much depth to MMORPGs. Players would start to think about where, when and how they use skills more and not just about which combination is best. If you allowed for decent cooperative crafting, it could add even more depth. A smith may hire a fire mage to magically control the heat of a forge to make his work easier. Druids could enhance a vintner's crop yield so he produces more wine.
Now we're talking. Fantastic idea.
The other thing i've been thinking about is the notion of training. In WoW, you rock up to someone buy your skills and go on your way. How about a system where WHO you learn skills off is just as important as WHAT skills you learn. Imagine if certain skills can only be tought by certain people in the world, but you must prove yourself worthy to them in order to be trained. Incredibly hard dynamic challenges that test the character knowledge of the player to achieve something that others may not have.
Imagine two warriors meeting on the field of battle, side by side they fight their foes. Both warriors are masters of their arts, but both exhibit a vastly different style of combat. Impressed by each others prowess, the two warriors discuss their styles after the fight. 1 warrior was trained by Master [cool sounding fantasy name] who resides in the castle keep of [cool fantasy land], where he travelled long and hard to prove himself worthy of training. The 2nd warrior explains that he fought his way to the top of the mountain of doom to the fortress of despair and proved himself worthy to [badess sounding fantasy name of badness], and was trained in the once thought lost art of [smashus daface].
This is something that i have issue with class systems about. Mostly, you are just a warrior (with different talents). Choice of style doesn't come into it, and i think what kind of character you are should come from what you do in the world, rather than what stat choices you make at the start and at lvl up.
actions and choices are what i'm about, and that's what i want to shape my character. class and talent selection take something away from the fantasy world in my opinion.
In most fantasy literature, where you train and who trains you are important. Why can't we have that in our fantasy mmo's at least?
This argument has gotten pretty inflammatory, I think it's best if everyone takes it down a notch.
Whatever the case may be, programming content is not a bad idea, as long as that content manages to somehow affect or change the world, or allow the player to affect the world. Wow and EQ do not let me do this.
Also, many more games are coming out that will "affect change" such as Seed Online and Atriarch. All it takes is one success, and then the bum rush is on.
Examples? Everquest. What What?
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.
While the process of advancement in a theme park like game is basically providing more artwork, it is providing more abilities to interact with the virtual world in a dynamically changing world. The last needs permanently new concepts, the first permanently new content to carry on.
You are more of the theme park visitor type than a free-form player, so you basically want content creation by the developers of the game. I am a real adventure type of player for example and therefore I enjoy tools and the ability to interact with and have an impact on a game world.
The theme park nature of MMOs like WoW and EQ2 is what doesnt make it fun for me because I do not feel free there and freedom is what I am looking for in a virtual world; I just can use theme parks elements in those, nothing more. So for me these games do not offer much else than restrictions and limitations; they simply hinder me to play ... that is how I see it, what does not mean that I would not enjoy theme park games as single player games (like Morrowind for example, but Morrowind provided the ability to choose your own path within the given theme park).
And here's where we differ. As I see WOW to provide more tools for freeform play and player driven content than any other product on the market.
Examples: The PVP, the pvp ranks and rank rewards, the Arena. The auction house facilitates a player driven economy, as does the crafting. The raid and instance content forces players to interact. The tools are all there.
Armies march against each other in WoW nightly without plot hook or developer prompt. On pvp servers areas are contested and maybe fought over for domination. Players all trade with each other crafters enhance others. Guilds form alliances to go down 40 man dungeons or achieve their personal PvP goals. All interacting and developing without any scripted quest to prompt them.
Now I also like that they have a lot of artwork and a large prescribed theme park world to explore. And that is a large consideration for me when buying an RPG (single or multiplayer). Likewise when I buy a shooter title, being a balanced and fun game with a plethora of innovative gametypes is not enough, I still require a large variety of maps and weapons. There is only so many times I am capable of looking at the same images without getting numb. Variety is the spice of life.
What you describe as intresting to you, is only a small part of the game for me. I don't want one or the other. Or even one in favour of the other . I expect both.
I agree with the previous poster that games are looking to include more player driven content. And I see PvP as one of the more effective ways to achieve this.
Planetside is not an example of a failed player driven game, it is an example of a successful player driven game that demonstrates my point that content is still required more than anything else to keep a game replayable. Planetside succeeded in achieving a strong and working player driven gameplay, but it failed to produce enough "themepark action" to keep the paying customers "wow"ed. As soon as you have seen it/done it all. You've seen it /done it all. The clock is ticking and boredom approaches.
Player driven or otherwise, a game with no content is going to be a short lived game.
We are simply different, baff. You like WoW and think that free-form changeable worlds are without content, and I do not see anything in WoW or EQ2 what would be worth playing for me, but I see a lot of possibilities in a changeable world. So lets accept that we are different, but have both fun in those games we like.
Yes, there are many elements that are static, but there are more elements that are freeform than in other games. I think it's ability to do both is part of it's biggest strength, inclusive, varied and flexible gameplay.
In my mind a good MMO should successfully cater to as many of us as possible. Not so much something for everyone, but rather as much as possible for everyone.
The elements in gameplay you describe are not elements that I don't seek or don't enjoy. But they are only elements. I am looking for an MMO. Massive multiplayer. I want a game that as many people as possible can enjoy. Inclusive not Exclusive.
Leaving content out makes for a lacklustre and underpopulated world.
From my perspective a server with 1,500 players where about 300 are online at peak time are more than enough. I might know about 100 of them by name over time, maybe 60 a bit nearer and just 2 dozens of them might get well known enough to be called friends in game. So for me that is massively enough; I am more into tighter social structures than in many possibilities to meet people but where nobody really cares about his neighbor - like in big cities (cocooning effect).
You make some very well articulated counter points to Nathan's editorials.
I have to agree with Nathan though. MMO Creators stick with the tried and true. Nobody is doing anything new. The Genre as a whole is stagnant. WoW is a great game but they just took the stuff that's been done for years and years, gave it a little polish. I like WoW but I really would like something new.
Eve On-line is basically the same thing. I really like that game too, but it's the same grinding as any other game. Sure you don't have to grind experience, instead you have to grind money so you can get the next cool new ship (or replace the one you got blown up).
The Whole level your character thing is a concept that is 20 years old, created in a pen and paper game called Dungeons an Dragons. There also was no PvP in Pen and Paper dungeons and dragons. Sure you could do it if you wanted, but the game was basically a group of friends getting together and killing NPC monsters.
Now 20 years later we have the same leveling deal, but now it's on a computer. And instead of some compelling adventure where the characters take the adventure in unexpected directions, we have lot's of linear quests/missions, and lots of go and kill mob X, 1000 times, or go and collect 20 of item X.
As I see it there are really some problems with MMO's and developers have been struggling to solve them in various ways, but they still remain.
1. PvP and Leveling just don't mix. I like PvP in MMO's as playing human opponents is far more interesting than any patern driven AI the computer can dish out. Problem here is when you mix it with a level based games you will always have level 50 attacking level 10's who have no chance to win. Then it's just a contest of who has the most time to waste in grinding their character.
2. What to do at the top level? Once you've reached the top level, what else is there to do? Some games raise the level cap, others have some end-game content, but when you get to the top level of the game, you've played it. You beat all the bosses, there's nothing left to do. (Let's go find some level 10's to gank).
3. If you don't have the leveling/grind what will keep players around? This is a tried and true way for MMO's to make money. They get you hooked at the first level by dangling the better weapons and skills that you can get by making it to the next level. This keeps you paying your monthly fee past the first 30 days.
I don't have the magic solutions to these problems but here is what I would like to seen in an MMORPG.
1. No levels, No Grinding, at the start you are given the most uber player you are ever going to have. You get X number of skill points and you can allocate them to any class/skill you want at the start of the game. If you want to change, you can change at any time, but the limited points will mean if you want to be good at one thing you will have to put all of your points in that skill or class.
2. Player generated content. - The game needs to have the ability for players to generate their own content and share it with others. Neverwinter nights comes to mind here. It was a great concept, but a little complex for players that were not programmers to generate the content. It needs to be easy to use and allow players to not only create new adventures but also needs to allow for some players to take on the DM (Dungeon Master) role and run the story in realtime (ala NWN).
3. Developer generated live content - This means a developer team that is dedicate to doing number 2 above. The Matrix Online had alot of problems but the live events team was a brilliant idea. There were alot of issues that needed to be addressed with the live events, but I think they were on to a good idea with the live events.
4. Greatly reduce travel time. Although I really like both WoW and Eve Online, to get anywhere in both of those games is a 20 minute ordeal. You walk, or you fly, but basically it's the same thing, you sit there and look at your screen for long periods of time waiting to get there. I think Ultima Online did a good job on this back in the day with recall runes. You still had to walk, ride, fly to different locations, but you could mark a recall rune at any location, then when you used the marked rune it would teleport right back to that spot. This greatly reduced travel time to frequented spots, but still gave the world a feeling of large scale.
5. Actions have an effect on the world - If I go raid an enemy stronhold, I want to capture it for my own or destroy it. For this to work there needs to be different PvP factions that you choose when you create your character, part of the content of the game would be conquest of the other 's territory. Taking over land and taking over and/or destroying structures would be a large part of the content of the game.
I know some games have implemented some of this to some degree but I have yet to see a good quality effort that incorporates all of these items. Maybe these things are not even possible for technical or financial reasons, but hey I'm laying out what I would like to see in an MMO.
Originally posted by baff I see WOW as a freeform and changeable world. Yes, there are many elements that are static, but there are more elements that are freeform than in other games. I think it's ability to do both is part of it's biggest strength, inclusive, varied and flexible gameplay. In my mind a good MMO should successfully cater to as many of us as possible. Not so much something for everyone, but rather as much as possible for everyone. The elements in gameplay you describe are not elements that I don't seek or don't enjoy. But they are only elements. I am looking for an MMO. Massive multiplayer. I want a game that as many people as possible can enjoy. Inclusive not Exclusive. Leaving content out makes for a lacklustre and underpopulated world.
Have to respectfully disagree baff. If you try to be everything to everyone you end up being nothing to someone. It's impossible for an MMO to be all inclusive in that regard, and i don't think that WoW has anything that i'd call freeform. You cannot choose to take a side other than what the game tells you, and are pushed into battles that are not of your doing. In freeform, i should choose my fights, not have them chosen for me.
The elements in gameplay that people have described haven't been done very well in games yet, and so you really haven't seen what they could be like. We are players on an MMO community board, while we can throw ideas around they are by no means perfect answers, and a creative dev team would still be required to find solutions to problems that would arise. One thing is certain however, there will always be problems.
Please stop thinking baff that content is being left out, because that is simply not true. In the environment we are talking about, there would actually have to be far more content than previous games due to the dynamic way that players would interact with it. This has been the problem for developing these games, as devs can't make enough content. New technologies are starting to make content creation easier for devs, such as engines and toolsets. Hopefully this will mean that the requirements for these types of MMOs to be made will be reached, and then my friend you'll see what we mean. Unfortunately, you and many others are looking at this discussion through the eyes of MMOs of the past, which in my mind is clouding your view on it. Natural as that may be, it is unfortunate.
I mostly agree with you Wankler, a couple of points though.
Originally posted by Wankler 2. Player generated content. - The game needs to have the ability for players to generate their own content and share it with others. Neverwinter nights comes to mind here. It was a great concept, but a little complex for players that were not programmers to generate the content. It needs to be easy to use and allow players to not only create new adventures but also needs to allow for some players to take on the DM (Dungeon Master) role and run the story in realtime (ala NWN).
Works wonderfully for NWN, but i don't think that is the answer for MMOs. It is however, a potential future for a new type of online game, one slightly smaller in scope than a traditional MMO but larger and grander than old NWN. I almost think that a new genre of online game could arise out of this idea/concept, as it was obviously popular with games like NWN.
MMORPGs need more Player Driven Content. This is content that evolves off player interaction in the game world, with PVP Combat being one example. Keep it in mind however, that although games like WoW have things like PVP, crafting, auction houses, it doesn't have the depth of what we are talking about here. PVP, Crafting and Auction Houses in WoW have a limited effect on other players but do not impact the Virtual World as a whole. Azeroth cares very little for how much you bought an essence of air for, and cares even less about what you make out of it, and could give two short shits about what your PVP rank is. The world is not designed to be effected by these things, and so it does not have what we are talking about.
4. Greatly reduce travel time. Although I really like both WoW and Eve Online, to get anywhere in both of those games is a 20 minute ordeal. You walk, or you fly, but basically it's the same thing, you sit there and look at your screen for long periods of time waiting to get there. I think Ultima Online did a good job on this back in the day with recall runes. You still had to walk, ride, fly to different locations, but you could mark a recall rune at any location, then when you used the marked rune it would teleport right back to that spot. This greatly reduced travel time to frequented spots, but still gave the world a feeling of large scale.
Have to disagree here. I think that things like recall runes do reduce the feeling that the world is large, and hurts the virtual world more than helps it. I think the key for making travel time easier is to make it not a necessary. Vanguard is taking this attitude so we shall see if it works, but the basic concept is that travel is supposed to take time, it's just that you don't need to do it all the time. Instead of having a home base that you go from to everywhere else (i.e. Ironforge/Orgrimmar in WoW), you actually move around the world. It's not fun staring at a screen whilst your character just walks, rides or flys somewhere, but in fantasy literature travel is a very dangerous thing to do. I just don't want to take it out of my fantasy MMO's at least, as i feel it is very much apart of the genre (fantasy that is).
I know people disagree on this point, but if a dev can do it right then i think you'll see the good side. It would also give benefits to other aspects of the game, such as the player economy due to the localising effect that long travel would have on it.
Comments
Stormgaard,
The answer is technology. The virtual reality dreams of the 90s didn't match up with the technological reality of the time, and as such were truly pipe dreams. If you build people up and then show them a watered down version of what you promised, then of course people will be disappointed. Up till now, we've only been given watered down examples in the MMO genre, with EVE Online being the first to hint of things to come. Game technology is advancing to the point where what developers are capable of will be extraordinary, with advances in 3D graphics, Database technologies and advanced AI being the prime examples of what will change the way MMOs and virtual worlds are played.
In regards to your class/level system, it is an old technology that soon will be replaced by something that offers much more to gamers, and not just to the sandbox people. Look at other areas of technology. Products quickly become outdated and replaced, but does that mean that a good example of the old is not good? Of course not. CRT Monitors for example work great, but are companies developing them any more? Not really, and certainly not in large numbers. Most of their research and development goes into LCDs and other technologies. Now if a company makes a really good CRT do we call it bad? Of course not!
WoW is a really good example of a Class/Level system. Blizzard, as they usually do, have polished it so that it works really well whilst being accessible, and as such have produced a high quality CRT (to use my previous analogy). At the moment however, LCDs aren't readily available but are certainly being developed, so the WoW CRT sells really well and is very very popular. After all, it is good quality. Is it the way of the future though? I would say no, and would consider it the best of the past!
You also asked why the class/level system is still so popular in table top games, and i would agree with someone else that it is because that is the medium for which it was originally designed. The critical difference between tabletop and MMOs is the DM/GM. In one he/she is a guide who can tailor an adventure to the players involved, taking advantage of their skills and giving them opportunities to shine. In the other, he/she is the game developer, creating an adventure for countless players with no guarantee of skills, abilities or talents. Hence why people feel that MMOs have no life to them in this model, as the level system further restricts a players capacity for imagination and creativity in an environment that lacks the human creative component of the GM.
You passed off the example of books, tvs and movies, but you failed to realise that the point was that even though the stories are a linear adventure told by the author, the world he creates still must have a feeling of life to it.
Example.
Why in movies and television are there extras? If all we care about is the main characters and story then why have other people in the background? why have cars on the roads? why have planes in the sky? It's not just about the story, but it's also about the world around the story.
Why have description in books? Why describe the trees or the mountains or the seas? Once again, you have to create a world around your story otherwise you end up with a hollow book that doesn't engage a reader's imagination.
The difference between them and MMOs is of course, interactivity. This is WHY we need a little more freedom from the author, because we interact with the characters, story and world in a way that you of course don't in those other mediums. At the moment, these MMO are like watching a TV show or movie without those extras, or a novel without description. Or, at least they are lacking that which those things provide.
Extras don't add the same effect in an MMO because i can walk up and say 'hey' to them, something that of course we don't do in those other mediums. Extras need a life and a reality of their own, something that unless the player is given more freedom won't be achieved in a reliable polished way, and instead will be quite clunky and false.
The future of MMOs, i believe lies in the freedom of the player, not just in 'sandbox' type environments, but in the realisation of the fact that the best and most powerful resource that a MMO developer has are the players themselves. If we can develop a virtual world that allows itself to be 'more' dynamically effected by player actions, and in turn can effect the player, then we will see something far greater than what we've had before. And, as much as i actually liked World of Warcraft, it is not what is leading us or progressing us in that direction, it will be technology that will finally open up that door.
I personally prefer skill-based systems to class-based ones because of the freedom it allows me. I can design the sort of character I really want to play and fill any niche I percieve in the game world. Classes can overly limit play styles unless they're very broadly defined.
That said, I'm always amazed by how many people seem to be labouring under the illusion that it's radically different from a level-based system. People talk about it in such glowing terms but seem to miss the point that, fundamentally, it works in exactly the same way.
Both systems are just ways of quantifying and communcating your character's power. Level-based systems do it through one number whilst skill-based ones do it through several. Instead of needing to be level 40 to hit an orc, you may need to have Sword rank 7. Your character is limited and defined by those numbers in either system. The grind still exists in both systems. It's just that a skill-based system turns one big grind for levels into lots of smaller ones for skill points.
The equivalent of a level cap exists in skill-based systems too. You have a maximum ammount of total skill points and a maximum number which can be put in any one skill. This creates a maximum possible power level that your character can achieve - which is exactly what a level cap does. Sure, you can drop some skills and retrain but if you don't want to then you've hit a dead end. Even if you change skills, you're just walking away from one dead end towards another.
Like I said, I prefer skill-based systems because of the customization they offer. I just think people should stop deluding themselves that they don't suffer from many of the same problems as level-based systems. They just take one big problem and turn it into several smaller ones.
The only solutions to these problems is to either drop the caps on skill points or completely do away with the concept of relative character power. Neither solution is really valid. Dropping the point caps means that everyone will ultimately become good at everything or run out of skills. Dropping the concept of relative character power would remove all forms of character progression from MMORPGs except for social progression. MMORPGs without character progression would just be 3D chatrooms and nobody really wants to play World of AOL Instant Messenger.
I like what Mr. Knaac says. I don't agree with everything he says but I'm glad he's putting it out there because hopefully game designers will read that and consider it when creating a new game. I also think there's good value in the original post up here. But okay, it sounds like Stormgaard's saying why change a good thing when we know it works? Why not go with the tried and true?
Well why not?
Your right that Blizzard has notable talent and there's a plenty of other good points in the OP but here's what I have to say. Change is good, evolution is natural and sometimes in order to get from A to B, you need to lose sight of the shoreline. Some ideas will crash and burn, but the ones that fly can be revolutionary. I believe that this is a good thing.
Tried and true may work time and time again but then....do we really want to freeze WoW and EVE and pump out sequels of these games from now on? Hell no, I want to see some new ideas manifesting!
I think video game designers that are trying to avoid basing their ideas off the ideas of Tolkein and previous games are making steps in the right direction, because in order to make advancement we need change. Lord of the Rings is such a sweet story to read because there is/was nothing else like it. Why would I want a regurgitated version of WoW when I can play the original? When I play a new game, I expect it to be exactly that, new.
Don't get me wrong, improving what we already have is a good thing as well, but I think we need both improvement and innovation working side by side so that we can effectivly propell ourselves forward- towards evolution in gaming. So in short, Mr. Knaac's ideas are good in one hand, Stormgaard's ideas are good in the other, but neither one is more valuable then the other because we need to combine them together to really get the ball rolling.
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.
Some people here want to give so much to a game, that it is no longer a game. They want to invest soul into it. They want to give it Life. Part of their life.
Now don't think I'm sneering. Any musician give part of their soul to their instrument, no-one sneers at them. But they do recognise that it's a passionate obsession, a level of devotion that most people don't want. Just as we are more than happy to flip on a CD & listen to someone else play far far beyond our tallents, we are happy to play a good game. Beware of the obvious pitfalls of obsession. The vast majority of musicians are truely unhappy people that never live up to the level of virtuosity that they would desire for themselves. The happy ones learn to just step back & love what they've made without comparison (my best mate is a professional violinist, and I traveled that world a bit myself).
The future of MMORPG's? Just as with many other areas of human entertainment, it will move towards a more fragmented, nieche & personalised product, with the occassional massively popular star (some justified, some not). There will be American Idols, and Fraisers. But people of a discerning nature will find more and more quality out there as we move further from 4 catch all mass entertainment channels.
However, for as long as there is a finite limit to any resource, money will talk. Always has, and always will. Products will be made that enough people are prepared to pay for. Subs will exist for as long as corporate involvement is desired in games. This is no bad thing. I am prepared to pay for first rate entertainment. Life is too short to insist on walking to your holiday destination, and make your own swimming pool when you get there.
Nick (corporate shill
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
'Sigh'
yes, there are caps in skill based systems, but no one will know what they are for you. In WoW i see a lvl 60 'whatever' and see them use talent 'whatever' and i know what they're 'supposed' to be doing in terms of role. (note - this is an attitude in game more than my knowing everything lol)
A large proportion of you are misunderstanding the ideas and concepts. Do we want real life? NO. Already got that thank you. Do we want it boring? NO. Do we want it more interesting and challenging than pre-set builds, roles and button mashing? YES!!! Games like WoW will be around for sometime yet, and may even be around forever. I am saying that we are moving towards having their kind NOT the dominate form. Why do i think that? Because the technological requirements for achieving the type of freeform player driven dynamic gameplay are starting to be realised. We are not there yet, so it will be some time. These games will truly make you feel like your embroiled in an epic adventure, but the difference will be it will be YOUR adventure. Not the same one that everyone else is on.
At the moment. NO ONE in these games are heroes, cause EVERYONE is the same. In the future, players hopefully will be able to leave a mark on the world in more meaningful ways, meaning that the story that YOU forge for yourself amongst the goings on of the world will be the greatest adventure. That is not to say that there won't be a cool storyline that permeates throughout the virtual world, but it is to say that you don't get taken through it like a theme park ride. Instead, you discover it, adventure in it, get surprised by it, and have a piss load of fun at the same time.
Our position is a difficult one because we don't have examples, it hasn't been achieved yet. We are saying that as these things become possible that they will quickly deliver something that is far more fun and entertaining than the current bore fest that is the level grind. Are we saying that there won't be a grind? NO Are we saying that there won't be limits on player power? NO What we are saying is that in these virtual worlds the CHOICES that YOU make on the way are more important than what class you click at character selection.
So you know, Player Content is not player made content. It is content that is driven by players, it is advanced by the interactions between player to player, and doesn't need a lot of intervening on the part of the developer. Good PVP content is an example of this, but so is player economies and trading, player diplomacy and social interactions. This type of content is great because it places less of a load on the developer. PVP content in WoW is commonly known to be woeful, and i would say that is the case because the devs are trying to do one thing that you should never overly do to pvp, control it. Tis be their folly i'm afraid.
Obsession? What. The. Hell?
Do i want to put my soul into a game? HOLY MOTHER of CRAP NO! It's a freaking game. I just want something more than an arcade game to come from this genre. Why do i want that? Cause MMORPGs are one of the very few places in the interactive entertainment industry that can do it, why not see what they can do? Why anyone would want just another arcade style genre truly boggles my mind.
Perhaps i'm crazy, perhaps i'm an idealist, maybe it's all just dreams in my head. I can tell you one thing, in my head, i'm in gaming nirvana and its freaking sweet! I just wish i could share it with you all.
You make some good points there. A player based econony such as in Eve has enormous strengths. A PvP based game where control has value, also generates an enormous amount of content.
However, that comes back to PvP. As has been fundimental to the stromgaards arguement, that is more of a fringe interest, currently the bulk of players in roleplay games are more interested in PvE.
Perhaps that is because the game that displays what truely could be done with PvP has not shown us the light yet. But it's just as likely that we're uninterested in the associated griefing that accompanies PvP hand in glove.
PvE cannot have decent content that is individually designed. PvP has a core of players that just want to cause others grief. Of the two, it depends on how good the overall game is, but I don't have a problem with exploring the generic content for 6mths, and then buying a new game.
Nick
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
There are people visiting theme or adventure parks and there are others who actually make an adventure trip in real life. There is nothing wrong with both, because they cover totally different needs. The theme park vistor wants polished and guided entertainment while the real adventurer type creates his own entertainment by conquering nature.
The theme park thing is WoW, EQ2 and such. Dynamically changing worlds where players need to find their own goals, follow their own path and conquer a virtual world, are the real adventure trip type - just to use the same metapher again. Theme parks are consumer oriented entertainment while adventure trips are player-oriented challenges which are not like quests but free-style with no given goals or content.
So it might be useless to say, that one will replace the other. I guess both will have their place in future. Newly created MMOs will go more into the real adventure direction in future, while the mass market will still provide theme parks with more expansion packs and developer-provided content. People will tend more into theme parks than into real adventure, I guess, but the innovative potential is much higher in the adventure trip section which will attract more and more people when technology advances and more of this virtual reality will come true.
Ragosch
Well said, Ragosch and I agree.
My own opinions resonate closely to those posted by Cardinal Sin.
I also agreed with the earlier posts on the nature of subscription fee's. i beleive it is essentially a way of earning more revenue for less work and can only be achieved if you are offering a great title. I think that Guild Wars has shown us that this extra expense is not anything like required.
Player driven content and games of a freeform nature, seems to me to be a poor excuse for not much content only. In my experience of games thus far, it is only cited as a sales pitch, in those games that haven't included any actual coded content. It ring lots of alarm bells. I'm not intrested in paying money to make my own game or game content.
I thoroughly enjoy home made content and challenges in other games. Mods and clan ladders in Unreal for example greatly enhance the replayability and hence value for money for those types of game. Mostly I don't feel those gamemods are up to the quality of the original offerings, but hey, it's new, it's free and it encourages experimentation and innovation.
Subscription based games cost more than other games and they need to back this up by making a product with more content included. Player driven economies prosper when the economic tools are hard coded into the game (eg crafting and auction house). Player driven PvP domination prospers when PvP gametypes rewards and objectives and tools are hard coded into the game.
I don't find player led content to be the holygrail of MMO's. Although I do agree that a decent PvP gameplay can keep a very large number of punters satisfied for a very long time with comparatively little content.
Okay, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about what content is. In this discussion we're talking about two kinds of content.
The former being the dominant type of content in most MMOs, the later being an emerging aspect of MMOs. I really liked the amusment park anology that was posted earlier. Once you've gone through the Fun House it's no longer "fun." I personally think of this debate as the difference between a shooting gallery and a game of paintball. Both are challenging in their own way however, you will eventually get good enough at the shooting gallery to beat it everytime. In paintball, the game changes everytime you play while keeping the same ground rules. This is where the line is truely drawn.
If you want an idea of what we're getting at, check out A Tale in the Desert. The ideas in this game would only have to be slightly expanded to create the game that many of us are looking for. Mainly they would have to include finite resources, hunting and/or combat, the ability for players to destroy objects that they don't own, and the ability for players to start their own nations / tribes with laws that only apply to that specific nation / tribe. Hell, if they just threw in domesticated livestock, hunting and natural predators the game would be much closer to what many of us are looking for.
I always wanted a Monty Pythons Life of Brian style mmorpg.
Thats an intresting game concept in that link.
I don't really see eye to eye with your descriptions though.
It seems to me that you write off any developer scripted quest as "shooting gallery" something you can perfectly redo once you know how and that has no interaction with other players. You seem to equate a scripted plotted mission, with solo content.
I beg to differ there are many such quests that require player interaction to complete. Each time you do it, the ease of it, or it's success is dependant on your interaction with other players. Many quests in most games require you interact with your fellow players in order to complete. If you were doing it alone everytime, (solo content) I would see your point.
In the link you gave me it showed a game where you build up your world in a RTS style way harvesting resources (trading and interacting). Presumably once you have built a town with all it's knobs and whistles, it's like the shooting gallery . You know how and you can do it again. It's just like learning the best combination of player classes to take on a particular raid. You can't do it alone, you need mates, but once you learn what you are looking for and how to find them, it's easily repeatable with the same winning tactic everytime.
It is of course of note, that RPG is the most popular format of MMO.
RPG is a genre of computer game. It follows a certain expected format that people enjoy and that does include quests.
I like MMOFPS too of course. There are no quests in Planetside for example, and the number of ways in which you can capture an enemy base are seemingly limitless, but in under a month most people have found enough of them for it to be "shooting gallery" just the same old paintball game, played the same way by the same old people.
Great game Planetside, totally player driven, but ultimately not enough content.
Jimmy & Ragosch, nicely said.
PVP = Player vs Player.
PVP =| Player vs Player COMBAT only.
When people talk about PVP they seem to be thinking solely of the combat version, please don't as you are using that as an excuse to say that all these ideas just come back to PVP, which in your mind is bad. It's missing the point.
PVE games are PVE only because they don't focus on combat between players. However, that doesn't mean that these games don't feature PVP content.
Trading and Crafting is player vs player. One sells, One buys. Both try to get the better end of the deal.
Rolling on Loot in a dungeon is Player vs Player. One gets it, others don't.
Even raid guilds compete with each other to see who can kill boss of uber doom first.
Now if you make crafting more in-depth, useful and fun. Add in diplomacy for players to compete against each other for faction and rep. Trade routes for players to win or lose deals over.
Then...BAM! PVP for the PVE masses. Yes PVP combat could be fit into those quite easily as a means of settling disputes, but it doesn't have to be there.
The problem with the level/class system is that the choice you make at the start of the game decides the rest of it. I don't know about you, but i'd like an adventure where choices i make along the way change and alter the world for my character. In most of these current games, choices mean nothing.
The game doesn't care: -
- where you level'd up.
- whether you solo'd something or creatively took it down.
- what dungeon's you complete.
- what baddies you kill.
Sure, your character gets some shiny loot. But when you log on the game is still there as it always was, and nobody but you really cares!
edit: oh, and Baff. You can point out flaws in games like Planetside or ATITD all you like, we are pointing them out as an example of the movement or direction that we believe MMOs will take in the future. We aren't there yet, and NO ONE is saying that those games are a perfect example. There will always be a place for games like WoW or EQ2, as there will always be some desire for simple arcade action. There is and has been a desire for a long time though, to have a more mature game in the genre. One that requires thinking over button mashing, one that requires social skills and interactions, one that most likely will suck away my life like no MMO has done BEFORE!! lol
Actually it is much harder to implement a working interactive and dynamically changing world. If you would try it you would realize it very easily. Providing content for a theme park style game is basically artwork where providing the ability to interact with a dynamically changing world is conceptual work.
While the process of advancement in a theme park like game is basically providing more artwork, it is providing more abilities to interact with the virtual world in a dynamically changing world. The last needs permanently new concepts, the first permanently new content to carry on.
You are more of the theme park visitor type than a free-form player, so you basically want content creation by the developers of the game. I am a real adventure type of player for example and therefore I enjoy tools and the ability to interact with and have an impact on a game world.
The theme park nature of MMOs like WoW and EQ2 is what doesnt make it fun for me because I do not feel free there and freedom is what I am looking for in a virtual world; I just can use theme parks elements in those, nothing more. So for me these games do not offer much else than restrictions and limitations; they simply hinder me to play ... that is how I see it, what does not mean that I would not enjoy theme park games as single player games (like Morrowind for example, but Morrowind provided the ability to choose your own path within the given theme park).
Ragosch
You make a fair point. Skill-based systems don't have to follow the same method of implementation that they've always.
People have been talking a lot about dynamic environments - what about a dynamic skill system? A system where it wasn't just your skill rank which was important but how that skill related to other skills, the environment and player actions. It could certainly breathe new life into the concept if implemented right.
Take Nature based magic for example. Most games just give you a list of spells with standardised effects. In a dynamic skill-based system, you could tie the effects/effectiveness of spells to the changing seasons. The changes could be subtle (seasonal animations) or dramatic, with special abilities for each season such as cold attacks for winter and magical regeneration in spring. Players would see the changing seasons reflected in their character. Mastering Nature magic would be as much about being in tune with nature as it would skill ranks.
The morality of a character's actions could influence their effectiveness with Holy/Unholy magics, creating consequences to player actions. Shamanic characters may be able to draw more effectively on the animal spirits native to their present location than those of distant lands. Emphasisng a more aggressive style of swordplay may give a damage bonus but leave you more open to counterattacks.
Making the skills play off each other and the world around them could add so much depth to MMORPGs. Players would start to think about where, when and how they use skills more and not just about which combination is best. If you allowed for decent cooperative crafting, it could add even more depth. A smith may hire a fire mage to magically control the heat of a forge to make his work easier. Druids could enhance a vintner's crop yield so he produces more wine.
Now we're talking. Fantastic idea.
The other thing i've been thinking about is the notion of training. In WoW, you rock up to someone buy your skills and go on your way. How about a system where WHO you learn skills off is just as important as WHAT skills you learn. Imagine if certain skills can only be tought by certain people in the world, but you must prove yourself worthy to them in order to be trained. Incredibly hard dynamic challenges that test the character knowledge of the player to achieve something that others may not have.
Imagine two warriors meeting on the field of battle, side by side they fight their foes. Both warriors are masters of their arts, but both exhibit a vastly different style of combat. Impressed by each others prowess, the two warriors discuss their styles after the fight. 1 warrior was trained by Master [cool sounding fantasy name] who resides in the castle keep of [cool fantasy land], where he travelled long and hard to prove himself worthy of training. The 2nd warrior explains that he fought his way to the top of the mountain of doom to the fortress of despair and proved himself worthy to [badess sounding fantasy name of badness], and was trained in the once thought lost art of [smashus daface].
This is something that i have issue with class systems about. Mostly, you are just a warrior (with different talents). Choice of style doesn't come into it, and i think what kind of character you are should come from what you do in the world, rather than what stat choices you make at the start and at lvl up.
actions and choices are what i'm about, and that's what i want to shape my character.
class and talent selection take something away from the fantasy world in my opinion.
In most fantasy literature, where you train and who trains you are important. Why can't we have that in our fantasy mmo's at least?
This argument has gotten pretty inflammatory, I think it's best if everyone takes it down a notch.
Whatever the case may be, programming content is not a bad idea, as long as that content manages to somehow affect or change the world, or allow the player to affect the world. Wow and EQ do not let me do this.
Also, many more games are coming out that will "affect change" such as Seed Online and Atriarch. All it takes is one success, and then the bum rush is on.
Examples? Everquest. What What?
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.
You are more of the theme park visitor type than a free-form player, so you basically want content creation by the developers of the game. I am a real adventure type of player for example and therefore I enjoy tools and the ability to interact with and have an impact on a game world.
The theme park nature of MMOs like WoW and EQ2 is what doesnt make it fun for me because I do not feel free there and freedom is what I am looking for in a virtual world; I just can use theme parks elements in those, nothing more. So for me these games do not offer much else than restrictions and limitations; they simply hinder me to play ... that is how I see it, what does not mean that I would not enjoy theme park games as single player games (like Morrowind for example, but Morrowind provided the ability to choose your own path within the given theme park).
And here's where we differ. As I see WOW to provide more tools for freeform play and player driven content than any other product on the market.
Examples: The PVP, the pvp ranks and rank rewards, the Arena. The auction house facilitates a player driven economy, as does the crafting. The raid and instance content forces players to interact. The tools are all there.
Armies march against each other in WoW nightly without plot hook or developer prompt. On pvp servers areas are contested and maybe fought over for domination. Players all trade with each other crafters enhance others. Guilds form alliances to go down 40 man dungeons or achieve their personal PvP goals. All interacting and developing without any scripted quest to prompt them.
Now I also like that they have a lot of artwork and a large prescribed theme park world to explore. And that is a large consideration for me when buying an RPG (single or multiplayer). Likewise when I buy a shooter title, being a balanced and fun game with a plethora of innovative gametypes is not enough, I still require a large variety of maps and weapons. There is only so many times I am capable of looking at the same images without getting numb. Variety is the spice of life.
What you describe as intresting to you, is only a small part of the game for me. I don't want one or the other. Or even one in favour of the other . I expect both.
I agree with the previous poster that games are looking to include more player driven content. And I see PvP as one of the more effective ways to achieve this.
Planetside is not an example of a failed player driven game, it is an example of a successful player driven game that demonstrates my point that content is still required more than anything else to keep a game replayable. Planetside succeeded in achieving a strong and working player driven gameplay, but it failed to produce enough "themepark action" to keep the paying customers "wow"ed. As soon as you have seen it/done it all. You've seen it /done it all. The clock is ticking and boredom approaches.
Player driven or otherwise, a game with no content is going to be a short lived game.
We are simply different, baff. You like WoW and think that free-form changeable worlds are without content, and I do not see anything in WoW or EQ2 what would be worth playing for me, but I see a lot of possibilities in a changeable world. So lets accept that we are different, but have both fun in those games we like.
Ragosch
I see WOW as a freeform and changeable world.
Yes, there are many elements that are static, but there are more elements that are freeform than in other games. I think it's ability to do both is part of it's biggest strength, inclusive, varied and flexible gameplay.
In my mind a good MMO should successfully cater to as many of us as possible. Not so much something for everyone, but rather as much as possible for everyone.
The elements in gameplay you describe are not elements that I don't seek or don't enjoy. But they are only elements. I am looking for an MMO. Massive multiplayer. I want a game that as many people as possible can enjoy. Inclusive not Exclusive.
Leaving content out makes for a lacklustre and underpopulated world.
From my perspective a server with 1,500 players where about 300 are online at peak time are more than enough. I might know about 100 of them by name over time, maybe 60 a bit nearer and just 2 dozens of them might get well known enough to be called friends in game. So for me that is massively enough; I am more into tighter social structures than in many possibilities to meet people but where nobody really cares about his neighbor - like in big cities (cocooning effect).
You see we are different there too.
Ragosch
You make some very well articulated counter points to Nathan's editorials.
I have to agree with Nathan though. MMO Creators stick with the tried and true. Nobody is doing anything new. The Genre as a whole is stagnant. WoW is a great game but they just took the stuff that's been done for years and years, gave it a little polish. I like WoW but I really would like something new.
Eve On-line is basically the same thing. I really like that game too, but it's the same grinding as any other game. Sure you don't have to grind experience, instead you have to grind money so you can get the next cool new ship (or replace the one you got blown up).
The Whole level your character thing is a concept that is 20 years old, created in a pen and paper game called Dungeons an Dragons. There also was no PvP in Pen and Paper dungeons and dragons. Sure you could do it if you wanted, but the game was basically a group of friends getting together and killing NPC monsters.
Now 20 years later we have the same leveling deal, but now it's on a computer. And instead of some compelling adventure where the characters take the adventure in unexpected directions, we have lot's of linear quests/missions, and lots of go and kill mob X, 1000 times, or go and collect 20 of item X.
As I see it there are really some problems with MMO's and developers have been struggling to solve them in various ways, but they still remain.
1. PvP and Leveling just don't mix. I like PvP in MMO's as playing human opponents is far more interesting than any patern driven AI the computer can dish out. Problem here is when you mix it with a level based games you will always have level 50 attacking level 10's who have no chance to win. Then it's just a contest of who has the most time to waste in grinding their character.
2. What to do at the top level? Once you've reached the top level, what else is there to do? Some games raise the level cap, others have some end-game content, but when you get to the top level of the game, you've played it. You beat all the bosses, there's nothing left to do. (Let's go find some level 10's to gank).
3. If you don't have the leveling/grind what will keep players around? This is a tried and true way for MMO's to make money. They get you hooked at the first level by dangling the better weapons and skills that you can get by making it to the next level. This keeps you paying your monthly fee past the first 30 days.
I don't have the magic solutions to these problems but here is what I would like to seen in an MMORPG.
1. No levels, No Grinding, at the start you are given the most uber player you are ever going to have. You get X number of skill points and you can allocate them to any class/skill you want at the start of the game. If you want to change, you can change at any time, but the limited points will mean if you want to be good at one thing you will have to put all of your points in that skill or class.
2. Player generated content. - The game needs to have the ability for players to generate their own content and share it with others. Neverwinter nights comes to mind here. It was a great concept, but a little complex for players that were not programmers to generate the content. It needs to be easy to use and allow players to not only create new adventures but also needs to allow for some players to take on the DM (Dungeon Master) role and run the story in realtime (ala NWN).
3. Developer generated live content - This means a developer team that is dedicate to doing number 2 above. The Matrix Online had alot of problems but the live events team was a brilliant idea. There were alot of issues that needed to be addressed with the live events, but I think they were on to a good idea with the live events.
4. Greatly reduce travel time. Although I really like both WoW and Eve Online, to get anywhere in both of those games is a 20 minute ordeal. You walk, or you fly, but basically it's the same thing, you sit there and look at your screen for long periods of time waiting to get there. I think Ultima Online did a good job on this back in the day with recall runes. You still had to walk, ride, fly to different locations, but you could mark a recall rune at any location, then when you used the marked rune it would teleport right back to that spot. This greatly reduced travel time to frequented spots, but still gave the world a feeling of large scale.
5. Actions have an effect on the world - If I go raid an enemy stronhold, I want to capture it for my own or destroy it. For this to work there needs to be different PvP factions that you choose when you create your character, part of the content of the game would be conquest of the other 's territory. Taking over land and taking over and/or destroying structures would be a large part of the content of the game.
I know some games have implemented some of this to some degree but I have yet to see a good quality effort that incorporates all of these items. Maybe these things are not even possible for technical or financial reasons, but hey I'm laying out what I would like to see in an MMO.
My 2 Cents
-W
Have to respectfully disagree baff. If you try to be everything to everyone you end up being nothing to someone. It's impossible for an MMO to be all inclusive in that regard, and i don't think that WoW has anything that i'd call freeform. You cannot choose to take a side other than what the game tells you, and are pushed into battles that are not of your doing. In freeform, i should choose my fights, not have them chosen for me.
The elements in gameplay that people have described haven't been done very well in games yet, and so you really haven't seen what they could be like. We are players on an MMO community board, while we can throw ideas around they are by no means perfect answers, and a creative dev team would still be required to find solutions to problems that would arise. One thing is certain however, there will always be problems.
Please stop thinking baff that content is being left out, because that is simply not true. In the environment we are talking about, there would actually have to be far more content than previous games due to the dynamic way that players would interact with it. This has been the problem for developing these games, as devs can't make enough content. New technologies are starting to make content creation easier for devs, such as engines and toolsets. Hopefully this will mean that the requirements for these types of MMOs to be made will be reached, and then my friend you'll see what we mean. Unfortunately, you and many others are looking at this discussion through the eyes of MMOs of the past, which in my mind is clouding your view on it. Natural as that may be, it is unfortunate.
I mostly agree with you Wankler, a couple of points though.
Works wonderfully for NWN, but i don't think that is the answer for MMOs. It is however, a potential future for a new type of online game, one slightly smaller in scope than a traditional MMO but larger and grander than old NWN. I almost think that a new genre of online game could arise out of this idea/concept, as it was obviously popular with games like NWN.
MMORPGs need more Player Driven Content. This is content that evolves off player interaction in the game world, with PVP Combat being one example. Keep it in mind however, that although games like WoW have things like PVP, crafting, auction houses, it doesn't have the depth of what we are talking about here. PVP, Crafting and Auction Houses in WoW have a limited effect on other players but do not impact the Virtual World as a whole. Azeroth cares very little for how much you bought an essence of air for, and cares even less about what you make out of it, and could give two short shits about what your PVP rank is. The world is not designed to be effected by these things, and so it does not have what we are talking about.
Have to disagree here. I think that things like recall runes do reduce the feeling that the world is large, and hurts the virtual world more than helps it. I think the key for making travel time easier is to make it not a necessary. Vanguard is taking this attitude so we shall see if it works, but the basic concept is that travel is supposed to take time, it's just that you don't need to do it all the time. Instead of having a home base that you go from to everywhere else (i.e. Ironforge/Orgrimmar in WoW), you actually move around the world. It's not fun staring at a screen whilst your character just walks, rides or flys somewhere, but in fantasy literature travel is a very dangerous thing to do. I just don't want to take it out of my fantasy MMO's at least, as i feel it is very much apart of the genre (fantasy that is).
I know people disagree on this point, but if a dev can do it right then i think you'll see the good side. It would also give benefits to other aspects of the game, such as the player economy due to the localising effect that long travel would have on it.