If you take away the level system,then its no longer and RPG is it? Point is, you need the linear in these games because its the base structure that supports not just the content, but the means for the player to enjoy that content.
Ok, I have to say that you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Think about what that term RPG actually means; Role-Playing Game. That means that when I go to play that game, I can create a character exactly like me, or something completely different. To say that taking away the level system causes a game to no longer be an RPG is just wrong. It can be an RPG with or without the leveling system. In my opinion, a sandbox MMOG would be more of a true RPG than others, simply because I can make my character how I really want it to be. I would be able to choose my class based on my character, not my character based on my class. I'm not trying to say that games with linear systems aren't RPGs, because they are, all games are really RPGs when you think about it. I'm just trying to clarify that you should think about things before you say them.
"It is better to have people think you're incompetent by not talking, then to prove them right by talking."
*Edit: Added: In my opinion
Now, see, I tend to agree with DarkOne here: The pattern that a lot of mmo's follow seems connected to the concept of RPG's. After all, RPG's, and the fantasy world's they are based on, are heavily focused on ever improving characters, and a somewhat linear storyline. The fantasy genre relies on putting a character on a path to greatness, learning skills along the way, with an epic battle at the "end". If you base your MMO on that genre, it's going to have a similar progression....or, it's just going to feel weird.
That's not to say EVERY mmo does that. We tend to use the term MMORPG for games that may not be RPG's. But, I still think the point is valid for a lot of games out there....especially those that we see as TOO linear.
Which is why I don't wonder about the next who, what's, and when's of a "sandbox mmorpg", but instead, wonder when we're going to see the first mmocitybuilding game....or a good mmosimulator....or even a viable mmorts.
Forget sandbox....how about getting away from rpg's for a bit?
Linear systems are not required for role-playing games. Anyone ever play the old ULTIMA series computer games before it became Ultima Online? Those were very open ended games of exploration, character development and story-progression. I would like to play an MMO RPG designed on that open-ended concept.
I also want to play an MMO where loss is a meaninful set-back but the player is given ample training to realize when he is about to engage in an activity that could be a significant set-back. Set-backs in one form of character progression could be tailored to reward the player in other ways. Many players do not seem to understand the value of learning from defeat, so I think game developers need to come up with another system where defeats are partially-balanced by a new type of reward.
How about a level-less, classless game(UO style) where developers create the world/landscape, and create the tools for players to further shape that world. Let players create cities, establish their own boundaries, laws, etc. A group of players creating havoc in your land? Well go kill them. Let players create order. A player faction found a territory with abundance of resources? Well, get greedy and try to defeat them and use it for your own gain. A player faction getting too powerful, and ruining the game? Well band together with people tired of the tyranny in a secluded location, and devise ways to take them down, whether be by deception, force, or wit. An MMORPG where players create their own diplomacy, and write their own stories. Kind of like a mix between Ultima Online and Shadowbane. Ok, enough daydreaming.
I guess Dan will be playing EvE Online or Ryzom for a while?
I definately agree with his article, which is one of the reasons I play EvE more then any other MMO; how you play the game is not carved in stone, there are no classes and the universe is not carved up into places you can't enter as a low-level (read: low-skilled) player. You can go anywhere, some places are simply a lot more dangerous, especially of you are going there alone. And as far as losing goes; loosing a ship can be quite annoying, but it does make the game a lot more interesting. It is one of the reasons I consider EvE one of the games that truely gives some of the best pvp action. In WoW for instance, it's all bash into each other and hope you get they other guy first. If you don't respawn, rinse and repeat. In EvE, you can deploy strategy and it's not who hits hardest; it's who's tank first gives and what team has the superior strategy. And if you loose, you loose your ship and perhaps your life.
If you take away the level system,then its no longer and RPG is it? Point is, you need the linear in these games because its the base structure that supports not just the content, but the means for the player to enjoy that content.
Ok, I have to say that you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Think about what that term RPG actually means; Role-Playing Game. That means that when I go to play that game, I can create a character exactly like me, or something completely different. To say that taking away the level system causes a game to no longer be an RPG is just wrong. It can be an RPG with or without the leveling system. In my opinion, a sandbox MMOG would be more of a true RPG than others, simply because I can make my character how I really want it to be. I would be able to choose my class based on my character, not my character based on my class. I'm not trying to say that games with linear systems aren't RPGs, because they are, all games are really RPGs when you think about it. I'm just trying to clarify that you should think about things before you say them.
"It is better to have people think you're incompetent by not talking, then to prove them right by talking."
*Edit: Added: In my opinion
Oh I get it...you're one of them troll types aren't you?
I'll give you this;I didn't properly explain RPG..what I was thinking of when posting was 'classic RPG systems' ranging from the pen and paper games to what we have on computers today. Every one of these games has some sort of linear structure where whatever role a person plays, progresses from beggining to end or weak to strong. Every game needs some sort of structure, rules what have you. Even a sandbox MMOG has linear structures (how about a class leveling system for starters?)if not levels than levels of power or levels of expereience.
I'll also cede that other games can be role playing games but not a classic RPG structure, like First person shooters or RTS games (the hero or strategic general). FPS games tend only to be linear in story. If it doesn't have that then it not's linear. For this particular thread, I thought we were talking about MMOG's and you're hall mark RPG games. If you want to get into a discussion about RP'ing in computer games, board games, what have you then i'd be more than happy to expound on a different thread.
Oh and Pimpo, maybe you should practice what you quote. Its one thing to disagree with me and provide points, but to go out of your way to insult and ridicule is another. If there's any type of person that people don't need to hear, its that one.
There are sandbox games out now...and...As soon as one is done really well it will be the next biggest game ever. It WILL pass 6 million.
It has to be fun!!!!!!!!!! There is no reason an MMO cannot be simple to get into and play, yet have a free form style,
Take SWG for example, on the day it was released it was a super game. sadly it was screwed up by the company that had it made on a seemingly daily basis. Yet it was very sand box like and very easy to play and was above all fun, esp for its time in the MMO time stream.
The problem is this, MMO's take a large number of people to make, so it is the ONE person at the top that decides what a game will be! SO when we think about it it is really a very few people that are shaping the MMO market. When however the right person with the right company and money comes along, a free form game with just the right amount of steering will be here.
Its like music, Many times it has been asked "why are their no groups like Led Zeppelin or pink floyd or the beatles...?"
It takes the rarest of circumstances in the world of creativity to make that one perfect "stairway to heaven" it will happen, just make sure we appreciate it when it does!
PS its not that a game should be non linear its that it should feel non linear, ala baldurs gate 2!! PSS WoW is the disco of MMOs ;P Wheres my warcraft sucks bumper sticker? oh we need that great game to come along to create the caveat! happy trails gamers im off to play NWN 2.
Lets take a first person shoot-um up, Battlefield 2 for example. No levels, only a few "unlocks" which increase options but not relative power. Within this game, you get a range of skilled and unskilled players. Groups of players that work well as a team, other that are lone wolf types - in fact , players take a numbers of roles while playing the game. hmmmm a role playing game? A FPS - like Battlefield 2 is non linear and the "level" of a player is defined by their innate skill, dexiterity, understanding of game mechanics etc. The same can be said of most RPG but the level of the player (or time served) is such a massive factor that it tends to overshadow many of the other variables.
The point i am stumbling my way to is, my own defintion of a true sandbox game is a FPS on a huge persistant world. Dont get me wrong, i am a avid fan of strategy games (even turn based) and my hand to eye co-ordination is poor but anFPS is truly a level playing field. Planetside was a good example. A "level" 5 player could still kill a lvl "25" player. A well co-ordinated outfit could hold a CC against massive odds through good strategy and skilled play. Level was just trimming, skill and teamwork was everything.
Here is the rub - lots of post here saying linear great / linear bad - swg great / swg bad but nobody suggesting how to create the next big thing. A game that breaks the mold. Even the rant of the OP, although well written, added not one new iota to our drywell. Ok, how about doing just that:
World of Warfare (hmm.. needs a better name)
A persistant realtime world where players battle using a Unreal/BF2 like engine battle for control of key towns, regions and resouces. All players are equal although "levels" allow more selcetion of postive traits but also force players to pick negative ones ala Fallout. In addition, "levels" allow you to boost/lower stats but evey action has a counter action. For example, more strength allows more carrying capacity but carrying more results in slower foot speed. Another example, Bigger guns have more damage potential but less accuracy etc etc. The point is that the level of a player is not equal to power but more a indication of potential. The level allows the player to differentiate its character to extremes. So spending all of you level points of body mass, strength, energy may well turn you into a spartan-eque addonis but the lack of intelligence points means you can even operate a simple rifle. Conversely, loads of points of intellect means your a engineering genius who regulally get sand kicked in his face by teenage bullies... define the character to play the role.
Every item, building, vehicle is player made from mined and looted game items and every used item wares out eventually. Even ammo :P Travel is in realtime and the map is huge with regions that hold different resouces. No flying mounts, no teleports. When a player is offline, they become an NPC and get set to guard an area (like a NPC mob staple of most MMORPG). The development / CSR team run a third rebel NPC/MOB faction (setting patrol waypoints, triggering raids, building structures) that allow limited solo play, grinding (shudder) to spice up things.
The game ends when one faction conqueres and holds a percentage of the map for a defined period of time. At the end, all characters are wiped, winning side gets a 3 month free play credit and the servers reset.
There you go - probably a really boring game and i am sure the trolls can flame it too bit as a poor idea. Hell i would even agree but the point is this shoddy idea is at least different. Personally, i think it would be almost impossible to code and i doubt anybody would play it as the thoughty of losing or even winning and having a character wipe is just too radical and upsetting for the masses....
Anyhoo - sorry for the piss poor typo filled post, (where is the spell checker) rant over!
I agree with the author. Every game is becoming so linear. What I'd like to see is a game similar to Tad Williams book Otherland. One of the main characters played a Barbarian and when that Barb got killed he had to petition to see if it was a fair death otherwise his Barb was permanently dead. But his Barb could go anywhere...and he had to becareful what he did.
If you take away the level system,then its no longer and RPG is it? Point is, you need the linear in these games because its the base structure that supports not just the content, but the means for the player to enjoy that content.
Ok, I have to say that you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Think about what that term RPG actually means; Role-Playing Game. That means that when I go to play that game, I can create a character exactly like me, or something completely different. To say that taking away the level system causes a game to no longer be an RPG is just wrong. It can be an RPG with or without the leveling system. In my opinion, a sandbox MMOG would be more of a true RPG than others, simply because I can make my character how I really want it to be. I would be able to choose my class based on my character, not my character based on my class. I'm not trying to say that games with linear systems aren't RPGs, because they are, all games are really RPGs when you think about it. I'm just trying to clarify that you should think about things before you say them.
"It is better to have people think you're incompetent by not talking, then to prove them right by talking."
*Edit: Added: In my opinion
Oh I get it...you're one of them troll types aren't you?
I'll give you this;I didn't properly explain RPG..what I was thinking of when posting was 'classic RPG systems' ranging from the pen and paper games to what we have on computers today. Every one of these games has some sort of linear structure where whatever role a person plays, progresses from beggining to end or weak to strong. Every game needs some sort of structure, rules what have you. Even a sandbox MMOG has linear structures (how about a class leveling system for starters?)if not levels than levels of power or levels of expereience.
I'll also cede that other games can be role playing games but not a classic RPG structure, like First person shooters or RTS games (the hero or strategic general). FPS games tend only to be linear in story. If it doesn't have that then it not's linear. For this particular thread, I thought we were talking about MMOG's and you're hall mark RPG games. If you want to get into a discussion about RP'ing in computer games, board games, what have you then i'd be more than happy to expound on a different thread.
Oh and Pimpo, maybe you should practice what you quote. Its one thing to disagree with me and provide points, but to go out of your way to insult and ridicule is another. If there's any type of person that people don't need to hear, its that one.
If the shoe fits
You're right about not needing to ridicule and insult, and I apologize for it; I was in a bad mood. And I also agree that I should have been more civil, which I also apologize for.
Now, I still don't agree with you, but it's mainly just how you said it. When you refer to "classic RPGs" those are just how RPGs were made, not the idea of an RPG. For the idea of an RPG, you don't need a leveling system, really. However, in actual practice, of course there's going to be a leveling system or some way to increase in power.
I was merely pointing out that the idea, the concept, of an RPG does not need a leveling or linear system to still be an RPG, but again, I apologize for not discussing this in a civil manor.
Pre-CU SWG did a lot of things right. Being open ended and giving the players a lot of choice was definetely a great idea. Now, one must understand that I'm a fairly old vet of the genre, so picking up the particulars and learning the game was fairly easy. I did hear from many that the initial learning curve for someone not experienced with MMO's was rather steep.
What was great about UO and then SWG was that you really got to create your own character in every way possible. Every last skill and detail you could modify and change. What ended up happening, like most MMO's, was that if you chose the 'wrong' type of character to played, you were severely hindered.
SWG had way too many problems wth "flavor of the month" templates. I remember riflemen being the first, you could 1 shot mind shoot anyone. Later there was the creature handler craze, the bounty hunter craze, combat medics... TKM, the list goes on. What really put the icing on the cake that convinced me to finally end my subscription was the Jedi craze.
"Go grind 30 professions and make a jedi!" no thanks. Even sooo long after release, my lowly pistoleer/smuggler was quite useless. Yeah, I could slice stuff and create spice, hooray! Smuggler was one of the many classes that sounded great on paper yet terribly ill conceived.
One may forget that the reason UO worked so well was that there were drastically fewer choices. With only 700 skill points, you could max yourself in only 7 skills. I think there was somewhere around.. 20 total? Much easier to balance.
By creating a linear game progression, it becomes much, much easier to balance the game. You can say, "at this level, everyone should be capable of doing 'this'."
I understand the frustration with linear games, I currently play a warrior, protection (tanking) spec in WoW, and I'm clawing at the "end game" of raids and heroic instances. Though there are a lot of "things" to do, they're all just different flavors of the same "thing."
There is no easy solution. Players like to measure themselves against their peers/opponents, and this is much easier with a linear system. However, linear systems imply that there is an "end" point to the line. Once you reach that end point, what do you do?
You can expand the line further, offer more deviation, but by doing so are you really offering anything new/different? You can remove the line, make no "end" point, but then you need meaningful content present to keep you playing for other reason rather then simply reaching that end point.
PVP has been the solution that most if not all linear MMO's come up with. You may reach max level and defeat all the dungeons and raids, but PVP will always be a different battle, different strategy and experience every time. Problem with that is you need a fair and balanced playing field, and need enough reward/stimulation to keep people coming back. Even then you create an end point, once you acheive the highest ranking and best PVP gear, what motivation do you have to continue? Hopefully the gameplay itself is interesting enough to keep you coming back, but for how long?
I think developers realize this, hence, why they constantly push new content. Always expanding where that end-of-the-line point is. But then what of the players who reach the end of the line before the next expansion? Are they made to wait till the next big push?
They need to offer more, what? I don't know. Perhaps this is the greatest hinderence to the genre. The first developer to find a solution, will be very, very popular. And rich lol
i look back on my facorite games ... most have a high degree of openess... its ftw.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
The best solution would be to just get rid of standard quests altogether. Just make an MMO full of real time events. Of course that would require GM's that actually cared enough about a game to put in the time and effort to run the real time events. Yes I know that a lot of people would be upset if they missed out on an event but I think it would be better than everyone doing the same standard quests all the time. Real time events would give life and breath to a MMO world. And becaue they're real time events and not standard quests, there's no way to know how they will turn out. They could have a positive or negative effect on the world, and most importantly a lasting effect on the world. If an NPC is killed he doesn't come back to life in 5 minutes so he can be killed again like in most MMO's. If a town is raided and burnt to the ground, it isn't rebuilt in 5 minutes so it can be raided again. That's the type of MMO that I want to see.
This is exactly the kind of MMO I would like to see as well.
Did anyone ever play Project Entropia? If not, check it out. It's a bit of an old game, and the graphics are a little outdated, but it's definitely one of those games you'll have been glad to add to your r'epertoire.
It's a free game, in a sense; you can download the client, you can play for as long as you like, but you'll need atleast a tiny bit of money to get yourself going, and when I first started way back when, another player was kind enough to give me some newbie gear, namely a rifle, some ammo, and some armored pants. With that I played for about a month until I made a few too many mistakes and wound up broke again, but rather than quitting, I paid $20, and then played for another year almost. There were almost no restrictions, like levels and stats, but there are zones, only so that PVP isn't too rampant I suppose. The only restriction was traveling off the surface of the planet, and that's only because you need a bit of credits to purchase a flight ticket. In my time playing, I'd traveled the entire planet/continent, in to danger zones where PVP is allowed to attempt to score riches from oil rigs--surrounded by insanely tough creatures, and often-times a hostile group of players--and lucked out once. In the game, I'd found myself making the majority of money from mining, and some killing of monsters on the side. All in all it was a very entertaining experience, and I'd most likely invest more time and money in to the game if I had it. The only real downside to the game was the seemingly slow progression of skills, but then again, if you've no levels to go by, and nearly every action raises a skill, I suppose taking it slow would be best.
Anyhow... It isn't the newest of games, and I know this article was directed to the latest and "greatest" of games, but I just wanted to let you all know that there are still a few games out there worth your money and time.
The town drunk is sprawled out on a threadbare rug mumbling something that might be poetry into a broken microphone in between sips on his bottle. Behind him two cheap sparkler fireworks flank an inflatable three ring pool with a child jumping up and down splashing water everywhere. In the background you can see half-made props laid out in random fashion and two set- builders deeply engrossed with your auntie and uncle in Bel Air. I whistled for a cab and when it came near, the license plate said "Fresh" and it had dice in the mirror! If anything I can say this cab is rare, but I thought "Nah, forget it. Yo homes to Bel Air." I pulled up to the house about 7 or 8 and I yelled to the cabbie "Yo homes, smell ya later." I looked at my kingdom. I was finally there to sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel Air.
If you take away the level system,then its no longer and RPG is it? Point is, you need the linear in these games because its the base structure that supports not just the content, but the means for the player to enjoy that content.
Ok, I have to say that you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Think about what that term RPG actually means; Role-Playing Game. That means that when I go to play that game, I can create a character exactly like me, or something completely different. To say that taking away the level system causes a game to no longer be an RPG is just wrong. It can be an RPG with or without the leveling system. In my opinion, a sandbox MMOG would be more of a true RPG than others, simply because I can make my character how I really want it to be. I would be able to choose my class based on my character, not my character based on my class. I'm not trying to say that games with linear systems aren't RPGs, because they are, all games are really RPGs when you think about it. I'm just trying to clarify that you should think about things before you say them.
"It is better to have people think you're incompetent by not talking, then to prove them right by talking."
*Edit: Added: In my opinion
Oh I get it...you're one of them troll types aren't you?
I'll give you this;I didn't properly explain RPG..what I was thinking of when posting was 'classic RPG systems' ranging from the pen and paper games to what we have on computers today. Every one of these games has some sort of linear structure where whatever role a person plays, progresses from beggining to end or weak to strong. Every game needs some sort of structure, rules what have you. Even a sandbox MMOG has linear structures (how about a class leveling system for starters?)if not levels than levels of power or levels of expereience.
I'll also cede that other games can be role playing games but not a classic RPG structure, like First person shooters or RTS games (the hero or strategic general). FPS games tend only to be linear in story. If it doesn't have that then it not's linear. For this particular thread, I thought we were talking about MMOG's and you're hall mark RPG games. If you want to get into a discussion about RP'ing in computer games, board games, what have you then i'd be more than happy to expound on a different thread.
Oh and Pimpo, maybe you should practice what you quote. Its one thing to disagree with me and provide points, but to go out of your way to insult and ridicule is another. If there's any type of person that people don't need to hear, its that one.
If the shoe fits
You're right about not needing to ridicule and insult, and I apologize for it; I was in a bad mood. And I also agree that I should have been more civil, which I also apologize for.
Now, I still don't agree with you, but it's mainly just how you said it. When you refer to "classic RPGs" those are just how RPGs were made, not the idea of an RPG. For the idea of an RPG, you don't need a leveling system, really. However, in actual practice, of course there's going to be a leveling system or some way to increase in power.
I was merely pointing out that the idea, the concept, of an RPG does not need a leveling or linear system to still be an RPG, but again, I apologize for not discussing this in a civil manor.
My apologies to you then sir if the manner of my words were lacking. Sometimes cramming a lot of ideas into a single post can be a bit messy on this end. I'll make a point to word things better.
And thanks for apology. it's good to know you're not a troll and there's still some decent and intelligent people to converse with even though our points may differ.
What's wrong with giving a player options? If I'm a warrior, I'm going to solve a problem differently than a ninja or a wizard or whatever the character does. Having the point A to point B to point C quests gets so predictable that it's like grinding. I want to have the opportunity to react as my character would. I want to feel like my actions make a difference.
If MMO's insist on doing linear progression, then they can at least make it more creative. I'm sure linear progression is cheaper and easier to develop. Someday, MMOs will have to evolve to bring in more money, and giving players choices will be a huge satisfaction. Players won't be satisfied with empty promises and cookie-cutter games.
(\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!
Someday, we will get a sanbox back. I'd love to see a game return with non-linear advancement, levelless PCs and NPCs like pre-CU SWG added to a world (size and complexity) similar to old EQ and SWG combined. For non-linear / sandbox, there also needs to be a robust tutorial and beginning quest sequence for people new to the genre. Beyond that, let the world grow and adjust from there.
If we would just stop playing these games, I think the gaming companies would have to change their design.
While reading comments, I noticed the speech and vocabulary used to describe games is getting trapped inside this level-based linear, gaming environment, or is at least limited by the current gaming environment. Tank this.. ninja that.. Gank, nerf, ding, etc. These are all words within the 'box' of what games mean today.
What I believe is we have to start thinking outside of this box. The way games are made and played today is not necessarily the way they should exist. It’s time for new ideas and breaking out of this mold which has been created throughout the last several years.
Comments
Ok, I have to say that you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Think about what that term RPG actually means; Role-Playing Game. That means that when I go to play that game, I can create a character exactly like me, or something completely different. To say that taking away the level system causes a game to no longer be an RPG is just wrong. It can be an RPG with or without the leveling system. In my opinion, a sandbox MMOG would be more of a true RPG than others, simply because I can make my character how I really want it to be. I would be able to choose my class based on my character, not my character based on my class. I'm not trying to say that games with linear systems aren't RPGs, because they are, all games are really RPGs when you think about it. I'm just trying to clarify that you should think about things before you say them.
"It is better to have people think you're incompetent by not talking, then to prove them right by talking."
*Edit: Added: In my opinionNow, see, I tend to agree with DarkOne here: The pattern that a lot of mmo's follow seems connected to the concept of RPG's. After all, RPG's, and the fantasy world's they are based on, are heavily focused on ever improving characters, and a somewhat linear storyline. The fantasy genre relies on putting a character on a path to greatness, learning skills along the way, with an epic battle at the "end". If you base your MMO on that genre, it's going to have a similar progression....or, it's just going to feel weird.
That's not to say EVERY mmo does that. We tend to use the term MMORPG for games that may not be RPG's. But, I still think the point is valid for a lot of games out there....especially those that we see as TOO linear.
Which is why I don't wonder about the next who, what's, and when's of a "sandbox mmorpg", but instead, wonder when we're going to see the first mmocitybuilding game....or a good mmosimulator....or even a viable mmorts.
Forget sandbox....how about getting away from rpg's for a bit?
My votes for SimCityOnline!
Linear systems are not required for role-playing games. Anyone ever play the old ULTIMA series computer games before it became Ultima Online? Those were very open ended games of exploration, character development and story-progression. I would like to play an MMO RPG designed on that open-ended concept.
I also want to play an MMO where loss is a meaninful set-back but the player is given ample training to realize when he is about to engage in an activity that could be a significant set-back. Set-backs in one form of character progression could be tailored to reward the player in other ways. Many players do not seem to understand the value of learning from defeat, so I think game developers need to come up with another system where defeats are partially-balanced by a new type of reward.
I definately agree with his article, which is one of the reasons I play EvE more then any other MMO; how you play the game is not carved in stone, there are no classes and the universe is not carved up into places you can't enter as a low-level (read: low-skilled) player. You can go anywhere, some places are simply a lot more dangerous, especially of you are going there alone. And as far as losing goes; loosing a ship can be quite annoying, but it does make the game a lot more interesting. It is one of the reasons I consider EvE one of the games that truely gives some of the best pvp action. In WoW for instance, it's all bash into each other and hope you get they other guy first. If you don't respawn, rinse and repeat. In EvE, you can deploy strategy and it's not who hits hardest; it's who's tank first gives and what team has the superior strategy. And if you loose, you loose your ship and perhaps your life.
Ok, I have to say that you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Think about what that term RPG actually means; Role-Playing Game. That means that when I go to play that game, I can create a character exactly like me, or something completely different. To say that taking away the level system causes a game to no longer be an RPG is just wrong. It can be an RPG with or without the leveling system. In my opinion, a sandbox MMOG would be more of a true RPG than others, simply because I can make my character how I really want it to be. I would be able to choose my class based on my character, not my character based on my class. I'm not trying to say that games with linear systems aren't RPGs, because they are, all games are really RPGs when you think about it. I'm just trying to clarify that you should think about things before you say them.
"It is better to have people think you're incompetent by not talking, then to prove them right by talking."
*Edit: Added: In my opinionOh I get it...you're one of them troll types aren't you?
I'll give you this;I didn't properly explain RPG..what I was thinking of when posting was 'classic RPG systems' ranging from the pen and paper games to what we have on computers today. Every one of these games has some sort of linear structure where whatever role a person plays, progresses from beggining to end or weak to strong. Every game needs some sort of structure, rules what have you. Even a sandbox MMOG has linear structures (how about a class leveling system for starters?)if not levels than levels of power or levels of expereience.
I'll also cede that other games can be role playing games but not a classic RPG structure, like First person shooters or RTS games (the hero or strategic general). FPS games tend only to be linear in story. If it doesn't have that then it not's linear. For this particular thread, I thought we were talking about MMOG's and you're hall mark RPG games. If you want to get into a discussion about RP'ing in computer games, board games, what have you then i'd be more than happy to expound on a different thread.
Oh and Pimpo, maybe you should practice what you quote. Its one thing to disagree with me and provide points, but to go out of your way to insult and ridicule is another. If there's any type of person that people don't need to hear, its that one.
If the shoe fits
D
What so many who replied missed is this...
There are sandbox games out now...and...As soon as one is done really well it will be the next biggest game ever. It WILL pass 6 million.
It has to be fun!!!!!!!!!! There is no reason an MMO cannot be simple to get into and play, yet have a free form style,
Take SWG for example, on the day it was released it was a super game. sadly it was screwed up by the company that had it made on a seemingly daily basis. Yet it was very sand box like and very easy to play and was above all fun, esp for its time in the MMO time stream.
The problem is this, MMO's take a large number of people to make, so it is the ONE person at the top that decides what a game will be! SO when we think about it it is really a very few people that are shaping the MMO market. When however the right person with the right company and money comes along, a free form game with just the right amount of steering will be here.
Its like music, Many times it has been asked "why are their no groups like Led Zeppelin or pink floyd or the beatles...?"
It takes the rarest of circumstances in the world of creativity to make that one perfect "stairway to heaven" it will happen, just make sure we appreciate it when it does!
PS its not that a game should be non linear its that it should feel non linear, ala baldurs gate 2!! PSS WoW is the disco of MMOs ;P Wheres my warcraft sucks bumper sticker? oh we need that great game to come along to create the caveat! happy trails gamers im off to play NWN 2.
Lets take a first person shoot-um up, Battlefield 2 for example. No levels, only a few "unlocks" which increase options but not relative power. Within this game, you get a range of skilled and unskilled players. Groups of players that work well as a team, other that are lone wolf types - in fact , players take a numbers of roles while playing the game. hmmmm a role playing game? A FPS - like Battlefield 2 is non linear and the "level" of a player is defined by their innate skill, dexiterity, understanding of game mechanics etc. The same can be said of most RPG but the level of the player (or time served) is such a massive factor that it tends to overshadow many of the other variables.
The point i am stumbling my way to is, my own defintion of a true sandbox game is a FPS on a huge persistant world. Dont get me wrong, i am a avid fan of strategy games (even turn based) and my hand to eye co-ordination is poor but anFPS is truly a level playing field. Planetside was a good example. A "level" 5 player could still kill a lvl "25" player. A well co-ordinated outfit could hold a CC against massive odds through good strategy and skilled play. Level was just trimming, skill and teamwork was everything.
Here is the rub - lots of post here saying linear great / linear bad - swg great / swg bad but nobody suggesting how to create the next big thing. A game that breaks the mold. Even the rant of the OP, although well written, added not one new iota to our drywell. Ok, how about doing just that:
World of Warfare (hmm.. needs a better name)
A persistant realtime world where players battle using a Unreal/BF2 like engine battle for control of key towns, regions and resouces. All players are equal although "levels" allow more selcetion of postive traits but also force players to pick negative ones ala Fallout. In addition, "levels" allow you to boost/lower stats but evey action has a counter action. For example, more strength allows more carrying capacity but carrying more results in slower foot speed. Another example, Bigger guns have more damage potential but less accuracy etc etc. The point is that the level of a player is not equal to power but more a indication of potential. The level allows the player to differentiate its character to extremes. So spending all of you level points of body mass, strength, energy may well turn you into a spartan-eque addonis but the lack of intelligence points means you can even operate a simple rifle. Conversely, loads of points of intellect means your a engineering genius who regulally get sand kicked in his face by teenage bullies... define the character to play the role.
Every item, building, vehicle is player made from mined and looted game items and every used item wares out eventually. Even ammo :P Travel is in realtime and the map is huge with regions that hold different resouces. No flying mounts, no teleports. When a player is offline, they become an NPC and get set to guard an area (like a NPC mob staple of most MMORPG). The development / CSR team run a third rebel NPC/MOB faction (setting patrol waypoints, triggering raids, building structures) that allow limited solo play, grinding (shudder) to spice up things.
The game ends when one faction conqueres and holds a percentage of the map for a defined period of time. At the end, all characters are wiped, winning side gets a 3 month free play credit and the servers reset.
There you go - probably a really boring game and i am sure the trolls can flame it too bit as a poor idea. Hell i would even agree but the point is this shoddy idea is at least different. Personally, i think it would be almost impossible to code and i doubt anybody would play it as the thoughty of losing or even winning and having a character wipe is just too radical and upsetting for the masses....
Anyhoo - sorry for the piss poor typo filled post, (where is the spell checker) rant over!
Ok, I have to say that you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Think about what that term RPG actually means; Role-Playing Game. That means that when I go to play that game, I can create a character exactly like me, or something completely different. To say that taking away the level system causes a game to no longer be an RPG is just wrong. It can be an RPG with or without the leveling system. In my opinion, a sandbox MMOG would be more of a true RPG than others, simply because I can make my character how I really want it to be. I would be able to choose my class based on my character, not my character based on my class. I'm not trying to say that games with linear systems aren't RPGs, because they are, all games are really RPGs when you think about it. I'm just trying to clarify that you should think about things before you say them.
"It is better to have people think you're incompetent by not talking, then to prove them right by talking."
*Edit: Added: In my opinionOh I get it...you're one of them troll types aren't you?
I'll give you this;I didn't properly explain RPG..what I was thinking of when posting was 'classic RPG systems' ranging from the pen and paper games to what we have on computers today. Every one of these games has some sort of linear structure where whatever role a person plays, progresses from beggining to end or weak to strong. Every game needs some sort of structure, rules what have you. Even a sandbox MMOG has linear structures (how about a class leveling system for starters?)if not levels than levels of power or levels of expereience.
I'll also cede that other games can be role playing games but not a classic RPG structure, like First person shooters or RTS games (the hero or strategic general). FPS games tend only to be linear in story. If it doesn't have that then it not's linear. For this particular thread, I thought we were talking about MMOG's and you're hall mark RPG games. If you want to get into a discussion about RP'ing in computer games, board games, what have you then i'd be more than happy to expound on a different thread.
Oh and Pimpo, maybe you should practice what you quote. Its one thing to disagree with me and provide points, but to go out of your way to insult and ridicule is another. If there's any type of person that people don't need to hear, its that one.
If the shoe fits
You're right about not needing to ridicule and insult, and I apologize for it; I was in a bad mood. And I also agree that I should have been more civil, which I also apologize for.
Now, I still don't agree with you, but it's mainly just how you said it. When you refer to "classic RPGs" those are just how RPGs were made, not the idea of an RPG. For the idea of an RPG, you don't need a leveling system, really. However, in actual practice, of course there's going to be a leveling system or some way to increase in power.
I was merely pointing out that the idea, the concept, of an RPG does not need a leveling or linear system to still be an RPG, but again, I apologize for not discussing this in a civil manor.
Pre-CU SWG did a lot of things right. Being open ended and giving the players a lot of choice was definetely a great idea. Now, one must understand that I'm a fairly old vet of the genre, so picking up the particulars and learning the game was fairly easy. I did hear from many that the initial learning curve for someone not experienced with MMO's was rather steep.
What was great about UO and then SWG was that you really got to create your own character in every way possible. Every last skill and detail you could modify and change. What ended up happening, like most MMO's, was that if you chose the 'wrong' type of character to played, you were severely hindered.
SWG had way too many problems wth "flavor of the month" templates. I remember riflemen being the first, you could 1 shot mind shoot anyone. Later there was the creature handler craze, the bounty hunter craze, combat medics... TKM, the list goes on. What really put the icing on the cake that convinced me to finally end my subscription was the Jedi craze.
"Go grind 30 professions and make a jedi!" no thanks. Even sooo long after release, my lowly pistoleer/smuggler was quite useless. Yeah, I could slice stuff and create spice, hooray! Smuggler was one of the many classes that sounded great on paper yet terribly ill conceived.
One may forget that the reason UO worked so well was that there were drastically fewer choices. With only 700 skill points, you could max yourself in only 7 skills. I think there was somewhere around.. 20 total? Much easier to balance.
By creating a linear game progression, it becomes much, much easier to balance the game. You can say, "at this level, everyone should be capable of doing 'this'."
I understand the frustration with linear games, I currently play a warrior, protection (tanking) spec in WoW, and I'm clawing at the "end game" of raids and heroic instances. Though there are a lot of "things" to do, they're all just different flavors of the same "thing."
There is no easy solution. Players like to measure themselves against their peers/opponents, and this is much easier with a linear system. However, linear systems imply that there is an "end" point to the line. Once you reach that end point, what do you do?
You can expand the line further, offer more deviation, but by doing so are you really offering anything new/different? You can remove the line, make no "end" point, but then you need meaningful content present to keep you playing for other reason rather then simply reaching that end point.
PVP has been the solution that most if not all linear MMO's come up with. You may reach max level and defeat all the dungeons and raids, but PVP will always be a different battle, different strategy and experience every time. Problem with that is you need a fair and balanced playing field, and need enough reward/stimulation to keep people coming back. Even then you create an end point, once you acheive the highest ranking and best PVP gear, what motivation do you have to continue? Hopefully the gameplay itself is interesting enough to keep you coming back, but for how long?
I think developers realize this, hence, why they constantly push new content. Always expanding where that end-of-the-line point is. But then what of the players who reach the end of the line before the next expansion? Are they made to wait till the next big push?
They need to offer more, what? I don't know. Perhaps this is the greatest hinderence to the genre. The first developer to find a solution, will be very, very popular. And rich lol
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Did anyone ever play Project Entropia? If not, check it out. It's a bit of an old game, and the graphics are a little outdated, but it's definitely one of those games you'll have been glad to add to your r'epertoire.
It's a free game, in a sense; you can download the client, you can play for as long as you like, but you'll need atleast a tiny bit of money to get yourself going, and when I first started way back when, another player was kind enough to give me some newbie gear, namely a rifle, some ammo, and some armored pants. With that I played for about a month until I made a few too many mistakes and wound up broke again, but rather than quitting, I paid $20, and then played for another year almost. There were almost no restrictions, like levels and stats, but there are zones, only so that PVP isn't too rampant I suppose. The only restriction was traveling off the surface of the planet, and that's only because you need a bit of credits to purchase a flight ticket. In my time playing, I'd traveled the entire planet/continent, in to danger zones where PVP is allowed to attempt to score riches from oil rigs--surrounded by insanely tough creatures, and often-times a hostile group of players--and lucked out once. In the game, I'd found myself making the majority of money from mining, and some killing of monsters on the side. All in all it was a very entertaining experience, and I'd most likely invest more time and money in to the game if I had it. The only real downside to the game was the seemingly slow progression of skills, but then again, if you've no levels to go by, and nearly every action raises a skill, I suppose taking it slow would be best.
Anyhow... It isn't the newest of games, and I know this article was directed to the latest and "greatest" of games, but I just wanted to let you all know that there are still a few games out there worth your money and time.
Guild Wars is still an MMO.
Ok, I have to say that you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Think about what that term RPG actually means; Role-Playing Game. That means that when I go to play that game, I can create a character exactly like me, or something completely different. To say that taking away the level system causes a game to no longer be an RPG is just wrong. It can be an RPG with or without the leveling system. In my opinion, a sandbox MMOG would be more of a true RPG than others, simply because I can make my character how I really want it to be. I would be able to choose my class based on my character, not my character based on my class. I'm not trying to say that games with linear systems aren't RPGs, because they are, all games are really RPGs when you think about it. I'm just trying to clarify that you should think about things before you say them.
"It is better to have people think you're incompetent by not talking, then to prove them right by talking."
*Edit: Added: In my opinionOh I get it...you're one of them troll types aren't you?
I'll give you this;I didn't properly explain RPG..what I was thinking of when posting was 'classic RPG systems' ranging from the pen and paper games to what we have on computers today. Every one of these games has some sort of linear structure where whatever role a person plays, progresses from beggining to end or weak to strong. Every game needs some sort of structure, rules what have you. Even a sandbox MMOG has linear structures (how about a class leveling system for starters?)if not levels than levels of power or levels of expereience.
I'll also cede that other games can be role playing games but not a classic RPG structure, like First person shooters or RTS games (the hero or strategic general). FPS games tend only to be linear in story. If it doesn't have that then it not's linear. For this particular thread, I thought we were talking about MMOG's and you're hall mark RPG games. If you want to get into a discussion about RP'ing in computer games, board games, what have you then i'd be more than happy to expound on a different thread.
Oh and Pimpo, maybe you should practice what you quote. Its one thing to disagree with me and provide points, but to go out of your way to insult and ridicule is another. If there's any type of person that people don't need to hear, its that one.
If the shoe fits
You're right about not needing to ridicule and insult, and I apologize for it; I was in a bad mood. And I also agree that I should have been more civil, which I also apologize for.
Now, I still don't agree with you, but it's mainly just how you said it. When you refer to "classic RPGs" those are just how RPGs were made, not the idea of an RPG. For the idea of an RPG, you don't need a leveling system, really. However, in actual practice, of course there's going to be a leveling system or some way to increase in power.
I was merely pointing out that the idea, the concept, of an RPG does not need a leveling or linear system to still be an RPG, but again, I apologize for not discussing this in a civil manor.
My apologies to you then sir if the manner of my words were lacking. Sometimes cramming a lot of ideas into a single post can be a bit messy on this end. I'll make a point to word things better.
And thanks for apology. it's good to know you're not a troll and there's still some decent and intelligent people to converse with even though our points may differ.
D
Yep I definitely agree. Best article yet!
What's wrong with giving a player options? If I'm a warrior, I'm going to solve a problem differently than a ninja or a wizard or whatever the character does. Having the point A to point B to point C quests gets so predictable that it's like grinding. I want to have the opportunity to react as my character would. I want to feel like my actions make a difference.
If MMO's insist on doing linear progression, then they can at least make it more creative. I'm sure linear progression is cheaper and easier to develop. Someday, MMOs will have to evolve to bring in more money, and giving players choices will be a huge satisfaction. Players won't be satisfied with empty promises and cookie-cutter games.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination!
If we would just stop playing these games, I think the gaming companies would have to change their design.
While reading comments, I noticed the speech and vocabulary used to describe games is getting trapped inside this level-based linear, gaming environment, or is at least limited by the current gaming environment. Tank this.. ninja that.. Gank, nerf, ding, etc. These are all words within the 'box' of what games mean today.
What I believe is we have to start thinking outside of this box. The way games are made and played today is not necessarily the way they should exist. It’s time for new ideas and breaking out of this mold which has been created throughout the last several years.