There are really only a very small number of content types
1) Kill X of Y
This also has variants like Kill X until it randomly drops Y of Z items and Kill and Kill X until Y boss spawns then Kill him/her, kill everything in X location, etc.
2) Go to X
This also has variations like Explore and area, or collect items material, take X item to Y person, get X item from Y person etc
3) Escort/Protect X
Variations include escort and NPC someplace, defend and NPC, defend a location, etc.
4) Interact with other players
Variations include PvP, sell stuff, buy stuff, for groups form guilds, roleplay, chat, stand around and /dance, etc
5) Telling a story
Lore, ongoing storylines, events, etc
6) Various combinations of types 1-5
Yes you are correct. If you boil down any book or movie it comes down to one of these basic plot devices. What I am saying is there is a world of difference between a "kill task" to kill 10 of whatever and the story arcs in FFXI for example.
FFXI demonstrated 4 YEARS AGO this could be done. While there is not a gigantic amount of this type of content in FFXI you need to keep in mind it was a pioneer. Unfortunately no one grabbed the ball and ran with it. Instead everyone sat it out and made simplistic kill task.
Please remember you are playing a game, your not reading a book. what you used as an example is not even possible in MMORPG's.
But you are in a way depending on your view bro. You are an active participant in the "book". Yes its just a game, no doubt but its the quality that is in question.
Why would you settle for McDonalds when you could have Steak so to speak.
The devs can do it. There is no question. Ryzom has an incredible environment. FFXI and GW have shown that content does not need to be mindless kill task based. (as in go kill me 10 rats)
Right now MMO content is about on par with Barney's Adventures in ABC's
In the abstract MMO's provide two things: content and a framework for players to interact. Now those two things affects each other but lets consider the two separately. The is also the game mechanics/items but lets say those are part of the game engine itself as that is more about gameplay
A game like WoW or everquest (from a high up level essentially the same game) mostly stresses content. Yes you need player interaction to conquer the content but it is a content driven game. Most goals in those games are about content. Content being premade stuff by the devs meant to give players something to do (hopefully fun).
A game like EvE stresses their framework. I am not saying that there is more or less interaction between people in one game or another. But EvE provides alot more in the way on complex interactions and then lets the players decide what their goals are. There is some content but its main purpose is as a resource not the goal. Goals in EvE are made up by the players/corporations. Whether we are talking about Band of Brothers trying to conquer the galaxy or some smaller corporation that just wants to be a mining conglomerate. In the end the Devs tried to make a framework for player to do whatever they see fit with. EvE is much more of a dynamic world because of this. There is no real "end-game" in EvE. There is no ok you are level 60 now you are suppused to go here or here. Many players of these games liek them more because they tend to be more dynamic and feel wide open.
One model is not necessarily better than the other. They both have pros and cons. The WoW/EQ model is more directed and more constricting, but it much easier to get nice definite goals to be excited about. They are also much easier to tell a story with. A sandbox/EvE (I think Ryzom falls into this category more than the other) model tends to offer alot more options and alot more freedom, but at the same often has much less rich quest type content and dungeon types runs are often non-existent.
An interesting trend is that many of the standbox games tend to also be or become heavily PvP oriented too (not all though). I suppose this isn't too surprising as you need some way to resolve the inevitable conflicts. An interesting thing about EvE is that since everythign is economically based you really can punish someone via PvP (even if you lose you can at least make their victory pyrrhic). I believe Shadowbane was in a similar vein.
An interesting consequence to this is that some people become PvP gamers because of the dynamics of this split in models. Some people are killers and that is why they PvP but others have become PvP'ers because they are searching for more dynamic "content". DAoC is an interesting example of this.
In general Players interacting with Players, whether through diplomacy or violence, is dynamic. Premade content created by Devs is static. They both have their Pros and Cons.
An interesting sidenote is that some people demand that all things that occupy them be handed to them by a games Devs. For example in Auto Assault some people posted a thread about a get together they had taking advantage of some peculiarites of the physics and were lauchning each other way up in the air for fun. Well one of the thread posters said somethign to the extent of "Its a shame the Devs didn't add in enough content so you didn't feel like you needed to do this." Yes obviously the guy is a party pooper, but look at the attitude; he genuinely believes that the devs should direct him into his fun. A person like this will never be satisfied by a sandbox game.
But in regards to content in the end everythign boils down to the same thing, give a person a goal, something to conquer. This might be reaching the end of an instance or getting a piece of gear or mining enough ore to get 1 billion ISK or conquering your neighbor or killing 10 wolves. In WoW you wind up doing the same static stuff over and over and so people feel that the content model sucks. Whereas in EvE you conquer one neighbor in one way and conquer the other neighbor a different way, however your goal is still capture station and claim sovreignity. The EvE way seems more interesting but it is actually just as repetitive in the general sense however since the specifics are very dynamic its seems less "grindy".
A game like WoW or EQ2 says kill 10 wolves, ok that is fine, but then they say go kill 20 raptors and its exactly the same. Sure wolves are a 50/50 offense/defense and raptors are like 80/20 off/def but you still do exactly the same thing to kill them. If you are feeling that a static-content game is "grindy" it is either because you have been told to do exactly the same thing over and over (WoW reputation grinds) or because the gameplay is one-dimensional/predictable (or both). It isn't becasue you have gotten only kill quests its because all those kill quests are exactly the same.
Take real life hunting as an example. Hunting wild turkey is alot different than hunting deer and hunting a lion is way different. Yet they are all hunting and in the end involved shooting something. But in WoW they might as well say hunt creature X at location Y, because unless "X" is elite you will be doing exactly the same thing anyway no matter what X actually is.
The missions in EvE are no better than the missions in WoW (in fact they pretty generic so they are worse) you get your one or two strategies down and you are set for life unless they nerf your class/ship. The big difference is that the EvE Devs really only see that as one aspect of a much larger larger game. And this is not unreasonable. Essentially by having a game where people are as much part of the expereince as Dev created stuff they get a more interesting melieu.
The consequence is that for those who want a more static professionally made static content oriented game they need some things to be comparable: a) more and more content as time goes on b) more insteresting gameplay on a personal basis so that people don't feel like kill mission X and kill mission Y might as well be the same mission. If all you ever do is frost nova-> icebolt then eventually all kill missions will be boring. If your class is capable of ten different strategies and you got to mix it up suddenly missions X may seem alot different than mission Y.
Originally posted by gestalt11 In the abstract MMO's provide two things: content and a framework for players to interact. Now those two things affects each other but lets consider the two separately. The is also the game mechanics/items but lets say those are part of the game engine itself as that is more about gameplay
A game like WoW or everquest (from a high up level essentially the same game) mostly stresses content. Yes you need player interaction to conquer the content but it is a content driven game. Most goals in those games are about content. Content being premade stuff by the devs meant to give players something to do (hopefully fun).
Thats part of my point, I was trying to point out the quality of content based games is really very base and lacking.
A game like EvE stresses their framework. I am not saying that there is more or less interaction between people in one game or another. But EvE provides alot more in the way on complex interactions and then lets the players decide what their goals are. There is some content but its main purpose is as a resource not the goal. Goals in EvE are made up by the players/corporations. Whether we are talking about Band of Brothers trying to conquer the galaxy or some smaller corporation that just wants to be a mining conglomerate. In the end the Devs tried to make a framework for player to do whatever they see fit with. EvE is much more of a dynamic world because of this. There is no real "end-game" in EvE. There is no ok you are level 60 now you are suppused to go here or here. Many players of these games liek them more because they tend to be more dynamic and feel wide open.
One model is not necessarily better than the other. They both have pros and cons. The WoW/EQ model is more directed and more constricting, but it much easier to get nice definite goals to be excited about. They are also much easier to tell a story with. A sandbox/EvE (I think Ryzom falls into this category more than the other) model tends to offer alot more options and alot more freedom, but at the same often has much less rich quest type content and dungeon types runs are often non-existent.
An interesting trend is that many of the standbox games tend to also be or become heavily PvP oriented too (not all though). I suppose this isn't too surprising as you need some way to resolve the inevitable conflicts. An interesting thing about EvE is that since everythign is economically based you really can punish someone via PvP (even if you lose you can at least make their victory pyrrhic). I believe Shadowbane was in a similar vein.
Interesting, but that would make sense. Sandbox is about 'freedom". Freedom and choice of ACTION. IMHO, this is why the content model games are CURRENTLY inferior to your "framework" description. The current content model allows for no freedom. Players are nothing more then NPC deployed drones. Go kill 10 of this go kill 10 of that now go do this. The player is completely directed by the game. The surprising thing is PLAYERS ARE HAPPY AND IMPRESSED ABOUT IT.
An interesting consequence to this is that some people become PvP gamers because of the dynamics of this split in models. Some people are killers and that is why they PvP but others have become PvP'ers because they are searching for more dynamic "content". DAoC is an interesting example of this.
In general Players interacting with Players, whether through diplomacy or violence, is dynamic. Premade content created by Devs is static. They both have their Pros and Cons.
An interesting sidenote is that some people demand that all things that occupy them be handed to them by a games Devs. For example in Auto Assault some people posted a thread about a get together they had taking advantage of some peculiarites of the physics and were lauchning each other way up in the air for fun. Well one of the thread posters said somethign to the extent of "Its a shame the Devs didn't add in enough content so you didn't feel like you needed to do this." Yes obviously the guy is a party pooper, but look at the attitude; he genuinely believes that the devs should direct him into his fun. A person like this will never be satisfied by a sandbox game.
I would thing the "content" model could be just as exciting and dynamic as the "framework" game IF the devs spent the time developing the content. How much work honestly goes into designing kill task? Not much really.
Compare the "content" of FFXI to a game like WoW. There is simply no contest. The content is vastly superior and never once robs you of your freedom in FFXI. FFXI is an old game by MMO standards. AC also did not rely on the kill task model. It had story driven quest and content. UO, no kill task (unless they have added them since I played it) MMO "content" based games are actually moving backwards and are inferior to the games they replaced.
But in regards to content in the end everythign boils down to the same thing, give a person a goal, something to conquer. This might be reaching the end of an instance or getting a piece of gear or mining enough ore to get 1 billion ISK or conquering your neighbor or killing 10 wolves. In WoW you wind up doing the same static stuff over and over and so people feel that the content model sucks. Whereas in EvE you conquer one neighbor in one way and conquer the other neighbor a different way, however your goal is still capture station and claim sovreignity. The EvE way seems more interesting but it is actually just as repetitive in the general sense however since the specifics are very dynamic its seems less "grindy".
A game like WoW or EQ2 says kill 10 wolves, ok that is fine, but then they say go kill 20 raptors and its exactly the same. Sure wolves are a 50/50 offense/defense and raptors are like 80/20 off/def but you still do exactly the same thing to kill them. If you are feeling that a static-content game is "grindy" it is either because you have been told to do exactly the same thing over and over (WoW reputation grinds) or because the gameplay is one-dimensional/predictable (or both). It isn't becasue you have gotten only kill quests its because all those kill quests are exactly the same.
Take real life hunting as an example. Hunting wild turkey is alot different than hunting deer and hunting a lion is way different. Yet they are all hunting and in the end involved shooting something. But in WoW they might as well say hunt creature X at location Y, because unless "X" is elite you will be doing exactly the same thing anyway no matter what X actually is.
The missions in EvE are no better than the missions in WoW (in fact they pretty generic so they are worse) you get your one or two strategies down and you are set for life unless they nerf your class/ship. The big difference is that the EvE Devs really only see that as one aspect of a much larger larger game. And this is not unreasonable. Essentially by having a game where people are as much part of the expereince as Dev created stuff they get a more interesting melieu.
The consequence is that for those who want a more static professionally made static content oriented game they need some things to be comparable: a) more and more content as time goes on b) more insteresting gameplay on a personal basis so that people don't feel like kill mission X and kill mission Y might as well be the same mission. If all you ever do is frost nova-> icebolt then eventually all kill missions will be boring. If your class is capable of ten different strategies and you got to mix it up suddenly missions X may seem alot different than mission Y.
Essentually the same is true of literature. However that doesn't mean all Mystery novels are same for example. Its all in the twist and turns of the story. My point is this...
Devs have opted for the easy route and are just going for base presentation of the content based game. Kill task and raid end game. They have completely trivialized the content. "Bring me 10 raptor bones" is not a "quest", its a simple chore. "Go kill 10 wolves and I will give you a pair of boots" is not a "quest" its a simple chore.
Where is the depth? Where is the story? Its a content based game right? Well put some gosh damn worthwhile content in it.
Go kill 10 wolves is completely different from the Bastok mission 1 and 2........
Essentually the same is true of literature. However that doesn't mean all Mystery novels are same for example. Its all in the twist and turns of the story. My point is this... Devs have opted for the easy route and are just going for base presentation of the content based game. Kill task and raid end game. They have completely trivialized the content. "Bring me 10 raptor bones" is not a "quest", its a simple chore. "Go kill 10 wolves and I will give you a pair of boots" is not a "quest" its a simple chore. Where is the depth? Where is the story? Its a content based game right? Well put some gosh damn worthwhile content in it. Go kill 10 wolves is completely different from the Bastok mission 1 and 2........
There are some intersting quests in WoW, such as the Battle of Darrowshire quest line. Its very long, has cool effects like tortured ghosts following you around, ends in a big Event driven encounter etc.
But even so if you break it down to its parts and individual quests in the series its still 10 wolves or 10 scarlet crusaders or find item X.
Story is great and it may be a necessary part of good content. But you are just putting lipstick on a pig if the gameplay is repetitive and unthinking. This is why things like reputation grinds and farming raid instances are hated. Even if they have an awesome story behind them they will be hated.
There are two parts to the cotent the story/plot and actually doing it. Right now most games become extrememly static and therefore boring in the "actually doing it" part. After a while you don't even care what the story is anymore, since you will just be hitting the same 5 or 6 buttons anyway. Pull, tank, zap. Rinse and repeat.
I do agree though a lot of games have taken a step backwards and WoW is probably one of the worst culprits. From what I have read of the latest world event, the scrouge invasion, its pretty pathetic. I mean I have become convinced Blizzard is incompetent and even I was expecting something more substantial. Its sad.
Real depth and story only happens in sandbox games. Because even if the quests pretend to have story or epicness, the instant you realize it's been done over and over again and has no place of permanence in the game world...it becomes worthless. So my original statement is true unless something drastic happens to the nature of quests, for example, raitzu's (sp?) idea.
With the current nature of quests, IMO the only acceptible type is that which logically could be repeated/recycled infinitely. But that type is boring, because it consists of fedex, kill-this, find-this, etc. So those simple non-story-driven quests fit into a sandbox game when one realizes that one must make one's own content surrounding them.
Using Ryzom as an example (because it contains what I've described in the latter paragraph), you might take a bunch of food-gathering missions from tribes that are located in an area with a lot of aggressive kitins, which could in theory make it difficult for them to hunt. Or you could do missions for a tribe whose ideals you agree with, then find out that they are harboring a refugee, who then asks you to help him retreive something that a nearby group of bandits stole from him, except he doesn't remember where they are, so you rely on your knowledge of the region to find the bandits...etc. That was actually an RP event the Dragonblades (see sig) did. It is a story that in other games might have been played out inside a quest. The difference is, in this case it only happened once. There was a point - that refugee still exists (he's one of my alts, one I still play and develop as a character), and he hasn't forgotten the help he received that day.
The current "quest" model is antithesis to real content, because they hand us everything on a platter. They don't give us a void to fill, a reason - and a freedom - to make our own stories and meaningful quests. But the key to content is initiative. For many MMORPG players, who are used to preset content that they have no part in driving, it is difficult to learn to take that initiative. Even in Ryzom, the potential of mission-based player-driven events/content is largely untapped. Our real lives are filled with on-demand content - television is a good example. When you turn on the TV, you are instantly fed content in a most uninvolving way. And from the time children are born (in the United States at least), they play with toys that don't encourage creativity - flashing, moving, "interactive" mechanical pets, dolls, games, etc. What happened to blocks and legos, those simple objects that by their simplicity encouraged more creativity and involvement than anything else?
So is it a problem with the mechanics...or with the players?
----------- In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on August 13, 2008.
Comments
I know I remember seeing something out there that's in experimentation stage.
Here's one
http://www2.slothworks.com/wanderlust
Check out the overview and design doc, esp for the fauna/flora
http://www2.slothworks.com/wanderlust/index.php/The_Wanderlust_Project
There are dreamers out there after all
There are really only a very small number of content types
1) Kill X of Y
This also has variants like Kill X until it randomly drops Y of Z items and Kill and Kill X until Y boss spawns then Kill him/her, kill everything in X location, etc.
2) Go to X
This also has variations like Explore and area, or collect items material, take X item to Y person, get X item from Y person etc
3) Escort/Protect X
Variations include escort and NPC someplace, defend and NPC, defend a location, etc.
4) Interact with other players
Variations include PvP, sell stuff, buy stuff, for groups form guilds, roleplay, chat, stand around and /dance, etc
5) Telling a story
Lore, ongoing storylines, events, etc
6) Various combinations of types 1-5
Yes you are correct. If you boil down any book or movie it comes down to one of these basic plot devices. What I am saying is there is a world of difference between a "kill task" to kill 10 of whatever and the story arcs in FFXI for example.
FFXI demonstrated 4 YEARS AGO this could be done. While there is not a gigantic amount of this type of content in FFXI you need to keep in mind it was a pioneer. Unfortunately no one grabbed the ball and ran with it. Instead everyone sat it out and made simplistic kill task.
Please remember you are playing a game, your not reading a book. what you used as an example is not even possible in MMORPG's.
But you are in a way depending on your view bro. You are an active participant in the "book". Yes its just a game, no doubt but its the quality that is in question.
Why would you settle for McDonalds when you could have Steak so to speak.
The devs can do it. There is no question. Ryzom has an incredible environment. FFXI and GW have shown that content does not need to be mindless kill task based. (as in go kill me 10 rats)
Right now MMO content is about on par with Barney's Adventures in ABC's
A game like WoW or everquest (from a high up level essentially the same game) mostly stresses content. Yes you need player interaction to conquer the content but it is a content driven game. Most goals in those games are about content. Content being premade stuff by the devs meant to give players something to do (hopefully fun).
A game like EvE stresses their framework. I am not saying that there is more or less interaction between people in one game or another. But EvE provides alot more in the way on complex interactions and then lets the players decide what their goals are. There is some content but its main purpose is as a resource not the goal. Goals in EvE are made up by the players/corporations. Whether we are talking about Band of Brothers trying to conquer the galaxy or some smaller corporation that just wants to be a mining conglomerate. In the end the Devs tried to make a framework for player to do whatever they see fit with. EvE is much more of a dynamic world because of this. There is no real "end-game" in EvE. There is no ok you are level 60 now you are suppused to go here or here. Many players of these games liek them more because they tend to be more dynamic and feel wide open.
One model is not necessarily better than the other. They both have pros and cons. The WoW/EQ model is more directed and more constricting, but it much easier to get nice definite goals to be excited about. They are also much easier to tell a story with. A sandbox/EvE (I think Ryzom falls into this category more than the other) model tends to offer alot more options and alot more freedom, but at the same often has much less rich quest type content and dungeon types runs are often non-existent.
An interesting trend is that many of the standbox games tend to also be or become heavily PvP oriented too (not all though). I suppose this isn't too surprising as you need some way to resolve the inevitable conflicts. An interesting thing about EvE is that since everythign is economically based you really can punish someone via PvP (even if you lose you can at least make their victory pyrrhic). I believe Shadowbane was in a similar vein.
An interesting consequence to this is that some people become PvP gamers because of the dynamics of this split in models. Some people are killers and that is why they PvP but others have become PvP'ers because they are searching for more dynamic "content". DAoC is an interesting example of this.
In general Players interacting with Players, whether through diplomacy or violence, is dynamic. Premade content created by Devs is static. They both have their Pros and Cons.
An interesting sidenote is that some people demand that all things that occupy them be handed to them by a games Devs. For example in Auto Assault some people posted a thread about a get together they had taking advantage of some peculiarites of the physics and were lauchning each other way up in the air for fun. Well one of the thread posters said somethign to the extent of "Its a shame the Devs didn't add in enough content so you didn't feel like you needed to do this." Yes obviously the guy is a party pooper, but look at the attitude; he genuinely believes that the devs should direct him into his fun. A person like this will never be satisfied by a sandbox game.
But in regards to content in the end everythign boils down to the same
thing, give a person a goal, something to conquer. This might be
reaching the end of an instance or getting a piece of gear or mining
enough ore to get 1 billion ISK or conquering your neighbor or killing
10 wolves. In WoW you wind up doing the same static stuff over and
over and so people feel that the content model sucks. Whereas in EvE
you conquer one neighbor in one way and conquer the other neighbor a
different way, however your goal is still capture station and claim
sovreignity. The EvE way seems more interesting but it is actually
just as repetitive in the general sense however since the specifics are
very dynamic its seems less "grindy".
A game like WoW or EQ2 says kill 10 wolves, ok that is fine, but then they say go kill 20 raptors and its exactly the same. Sure wolves are a 50/50 offense/defense and raptors are like 80/20 off/def but you still do exactly the same thing to kill them. If you are feeling that a static-content game is "grindy" it is either because you have been told to do exactly the same thing over and over (WoW reputation grinds) or because the gameplay is one-dimensional/predictable (or both). It isn't becasue you have gotten only kill quests its because all those kill quests are exactly the same.
Take real life hunting as an example. Hunting wild turkey is alot different than hunting deer and hunting a lion is way different. Yet they are all hunting and in the end involved shooting something. But in WoW they might as well say hunt creature X at location Y, because unless "X" is elite you will be doing exactly the same thing anyway no matter what X actually is.
The missions in EvE are no better than the missions in WoW (in fact they pretty generic so they are worse) you get your one or two strategies down and you are set for life unless they nerf your class/ship. The big difference is that the EvE Devs really only see that as one aspect of a much larger larger game. And this is not unreasonable. Essentially by having a game where people are as much part of the expereince as Dev created stuff they get a more interesting melieu.
The consequence is that for those who want a more static professionally made static content oriented game they need some things to be comparable:
a) more and more content as time goes on
b) more insteresting gameplay on a personal basis so that people don't feel like kill mission X and kill mission Y might as well be the same mission. If all you ever do is frost nova-> icebolt then eventually all kill missions will be boring. If your class is capable of ten different strategies and you got to mix it up suddenly missions X may seem alot different than mission Y.
There are some intersting quests in WoW, such as the Battle of Darrowshire quest line. Its very long, has cool effects like tortured ghosts following you around, ends in a big Event driven encounter etc.
But even so if you break it down to its parts and individual quests in the series its still 10 wolves or 10 scarlet crusaders or find item X.
Story is great and it may be a necessary part of good content. But you are just putting lipstick on a pig if the gameplay is repetitive and unthinking. This is why things like reputation grinds and farming raid instances are hated. Even if they have an awesome story behind them they will be hated.
There are two parts to the cotent the story/plot and actually doing it. Right now most games become extrememly static and therefore boring in the "actually doing it" part. After a while you don't even care what the story is anymore, since you will just be hitting the same 5 or 6 buttons anyway. Pull, tank, zap. Rinse and repeat.
I do agree though a lot of games have taken a step backwards and WoW is probably one of the worst culprits. From what I have read of the latest world event, the scrouge invasion, its pretty pathetic. I mean I have become convinced Blizzard is incompetent and even I was expecting something more substantial. Its sad.
Real depth and story only happens in sandbox games. Because even if the quests pretend to have story or epicness, the instant you realize it's been done over and over again and has no place of permanence in the game world...it becomes worthless. So my original statement is true unless something drastic happens to the nature of quests, for example, raitzu's (sp?) idea.
With the current nature of quests, IMO the only acceptible type is that which logically could be repeated/recycled infinitely. But that type is boring, because it consists of fedex, kill-this, find-this, etc. So those simple non-story-driven quests fit into a sandbox game when one realizes that one must make one's own content surrounding them.
Using Ryzom as an example (because it contains what I've described in the latter paragraph), you might take a bunch of food-gathering missions from tribes that are located in an area with a lot of aggressive kitins, which could in theory make it difficult for them to hunt. Or you could do missions for a tribe whose ideals you agree with, then find out that they are harboring a refugee, who then asks you to help him retreive something that a nearby group of bandits stole from him, except he doesn't remember where they are, so you rely on your knowledge of the region to find the bandits...etc. That was actually an RP event the Dragonblades (see sig) did.
It is a story that in other games might have been played out inside a quest. The difference is, in this case it only happened once. There was a point - that refugee still exists (he's one of my alts, one I still play and develop as a character), and he hasn't forgotten the help he received that day.
The current "quest" model is antithesis to real content, because they hand us everything on a platter. They don't give us a void to fill, a reason - and a freedom - to make our own stories and meaningful quests. But the key to content is initiative. For many MMORPG players, who are used to preset content that they have no part in driving, it is difficult to learn to take that initiative. Even in Ryzom, the potential of mission-based player-driven events/content is largely untapped. Our real lives are filled with on-demand content - television is a good example. When you turn on the TV, you are instantly fed content in a most uninvolving way. And from the time children are born (in the United States at least), they play with toys that don't encourage creativity - flashing, moving, "interactive" mechanical pets, dolls, games, etc. What happened to blocks and legos, those simple objects that by their simplicity encouraged more creativity and involvement than anything else?
So is it a problem with the mechanics...or with the players?
-----------
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on August 13, 2008.