Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Have developers forgotten the dream?
Neanderthal
Member RarePosts: 1,861
Maybe it's just me but wasn't the dream of mmorpgs to bring our fantasy (or sci/fi) worlds to life? Isn't that what this was originally all about? We can't physically transport ourselves to alternate realities, but look!...we can recreate our dreams in virtual reality and go there by proxy.
Wasn't that the original idea? Wasn't that the idealic dream?
Ok, so the first attempts weren't much better than the latest attempts. But we were taking the first stumbling steps down the road. It was easy to forgive those early games for failing to live up to the dreams' full potential. But what is the excuse now?
Have we made ANY real progress? It sure doesn't seem like it. In fact, in almost seems like developers have given up on the dream entirely.
I know this is an old and tired rant, but damnit, at this rate I'm going to die of old age before developers get back on track (if they ever do).
The games they are pushing out the door these days aren't even trying to come closer to the dream. It's all just "follow the yellow brick road" through this pre-planned sequence of events in this static world and when you're done we'll have another game ready to go that's almost exactly the same but with different graphics and different names attached to things.
On the slim chance that any developers happen to read this let me just ask you to please try to start thinking about game development from a different angle. Try to imagine that the world you are designing is a REAL world. Ok, a world where magic works or crazy technology exists...but still, try to think of it in terms of real people living in a real world that just happens to be fantastical in some way. And then ask yourself, "If this were a real world would ___<this>___ make sense?"
I hesitate to go into specifics because then people will get hung up on the specifics and miss the overall point. But dang it, stop making consumable content and start making WORLDS.
And if that sounds like too daunting a challenge just remember, as long as it feels like a world it's a step in the right direction. All you really have to do is give us the illusion. Use work arounds if you need to. For example, you don't have to make every tree an object that we can interact with. But a simple work around would be that merely activating the <chop tree> command would spawn an interactive tree overlaying the nearest tree graphic. Is that do-able?
And people, don't get hung up on that one example. It was just an example.
If you developers can't give me a world at least try to give me an illusion that feels sort of like a world. And please, do it before I die of old age.
Comments
I always wondered where players came from in a gameworld... that little village that is the noob village, was that all part of your house? Did you exist there? Did anybody exist there? How did I start here? Why did I start here? Where are other players before they roll?
- CaesarsGhost
Lead Gameplay and Gameworld Designer for a yet unnamed MMO Title.
"When people tell me designing a game is easy, I try to get them to design a board game. Most people don't last 5 minutes, the rest rarely last more then a day. The final few realize it's neither fun nor easy."
Developers didn't forget about the dream of evolving MMOs into full virtual worlds but more realised that its just that: a dream. Well, not so much a dream as it is a fool's quest.
Oblivion is probably closest right now to a virtual world but that took 4 years to develope and has a tiny tiny world. Making a game world the size of a normal MMO with Oblivion's detail would take more than 10 years and cost an astronomical amount.
MMOs haven't become virtual worlds yet because of very real real world problems: time and money.
While I like what you say, I can see lots of fiery poo being flung your way before the day is through. To tell game developers that they cannot be creating a game seems mind boggling, but its the right way to go. I wrote a blog a while back on how instead of trying to dazzle us with so many spell particles our eyes bleed, how about implementing something that addressing some basic emotional responses. A world isn't just drawn and planned and then watched, it must be experienced.
Spell particles are not an experience. Quests are not an experience. Fancy skill trees are not experiences.
Although the major issue I have noticed is not the lack of things to experience or emotions to invoke, but to get at these things a lot of time is required. I played EQ a while back in high school, loved it, played for 3-4 years. I play WoW off and on now, never really feel the same. A few months ago I was unemployed and for medical reasons couldn't really DO anything. So I just played WoW all day. Slowly, yet surely, I started liking the game more and more. The more I allowed myself to be a part of that world, the more I experienced and felt.
It's quite a dilemma. I want to enjoy games like I used to, but can we really get what we want with just a few hours a night? I don't think so. At least nothing in todays market lends itself to give you that kind of depth and emotion unless you put in at least 5+ hours a day.
Perhaps it's just the nature of the beast.
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
No doubt , 2007 was a low point for MMORPGs ..and at a time when players needed it the most becuase they are burning out on WoW. However....
IM going to pay devils advocate a bit. We can come here and vent our opinions, insights and thoughts as to in game issues etc. Many of us here have SIGNIFICANT experience in MMORPG playing. However I wager that few of us here have any experience in MMORPG development and design. Ive dabbled in code now and again, I have some great Ideas on things I want to make...
..then you sit down and try to make it....wow, thats when reality hits you in the face. The best ideas and coolest gadgts are sometimes not practical, if not impossible. In the end, I give the devs a little bit of respect. If I dont like their product, I dont buy it, I dont subscribe to it, and I dont play it. But I have now outgrown bashing them for it.
Torrential
Torrential: DAOC (Pendragon)
Awned: World of Warcraft (Lothar)
Torren: Warhammer Online (Praag)
Developers have dream? Most just look fat to me. ^_^
Another problem is that with an industry that is as massive as it is, its easy for one person's trash to be another person's treasure. Some people love Runescape (I did in the old days) and WoW, and other hate them. Some love heavy RP games, or open world free lancer ones, but others like the korean grind.
I hope Darkfall will be my home.
MMO migrant.
Well, I don't know if they forget the dream so much as have become very cautious.
The issue with MMOs is they are very difficult to develope and the genre is still relatively new. Shooters, RPG's and RTS evolved much more quickly mainly because they are not hard to produce.
MMOs have huge price tags and are a big gamble and if you look at the history, they very rarely enjoy any real success. Most just gimp along with under 100k subs, consolidating servers and revamping to emulate other more successful styles.
I'm sure at this point investor money is getting more difficult to come. Looking at the list of whats on the way, its definately much shorter then it was 3 years ago.
This creates many challenges for the company. They seem to have gotten out of the "rush it out the door" train of thought. But they are focused on creating static and linear games with a finite amount of playability rather then really open them up as virtual worlds with unlimited playability like they use to. Devs have gone backwards in that respect over the last 8 years. I don't know if that will turn around. The most successful games pre-2004 were more virtual worlds and sandbox oriented but then Blizzard turned that on its ear with linear & static play. However no one has been able to emulate that success. (which leads me to my theory that WoW was made for existing Blizzard customers, not MMO players...but thats in my blog) Post 2004 game design has been an absolute disaster for MMORPG's.
The other issue with MMO design is the level of technology they use. Most MMOs are way over the average gamers system at release. Other genres are very careful NOT to do this to the extreme MMOs do. Yes, I've read devs say they are making games for tomorrows PC's but what good does that do if no one can play today? Conan will be a victim of this more then likely. Its not going to have any real mass success because 90% of PC gamers will not be able to run it. One thing WoW did teach was to keep the requirments within the customers reach without having to invest several hundred dollars just to play a game with a monthly fee. Instead devs learned that trying to copy WoW's mechanical formula was easy but not successful.
You ask a question and you know the answer but refuse to acknowledge it.
Developers are making worlds that cater to thousands of people not just you or me or anyone else on this board. If you can't accept this fact, you're hopelessly delusional to think developers haven't made worlds that atleast offered the illusion of being in a world. My first mmo was runescape and the illusion was epicly good.
In GSIII they always said you were fresh from the turnip farm...so aparrently we all come from a turnip farm, or some variation there of....and apparrently there is something in the water (or turnips) that make us all legendary heroes.
Being legendary heroes...we must create a sever(and or server) imbalance in the world, upsetting the black and white, yin and yang, thus creating a need for the cosmos to mass produce respawning bad guys to ensure the balance, not to mention the fact that the ever elusive "Big bad guys" are never quite within our reach, no matter how many times we here that magical "ding" over our heads.
And stuff.
D.
You ask a question and you know the answer but refuse to acknowledge it.
Developers are making worlds that cater to thousands of people not just you or me or anyone else on this board. If you can't accept this fact, you're hopelessly delusional to think developers haven't made worlds that atleast offered the illusion of being in a world. My first mmo was runescape and the illusion was epicly good.
To a point, all MMOs are virtual worlds.Some are just better at making you feel like you are a part of the world rather then someone on a ride going through the motions.
The genre is not "new", it's 10 years old, and thats "old" when it comes to computergames. Genres have been born and died twice over in that timespan
So I guess they need stupid excuses for not getting things right...
And now anything that doesnt have a million subscribers is regarded as a failure... We even have people saying UO was a failure because back when it launched, it barely had 100.000 players...
Funny that.. up until WoW 100.000 paying subscribers were not a failure.... But today they need a million, and not only that, but they also offer you less quality, less customer support, less game, less everything... But the prices went up..even in item shops.
Sounds to me that the industry has been taken over and being controlled by the money men, not the guys that love gaming. I guess it's going to be another 10 years before they learn that a game won't be good if made by, controlled by and pushed by the money men.... Is the genre going to be "new" for another 10 years?
My last hope IS Darkfall. And that is not my choice. Its the only MMO where the developers are trying to create a world.
And they have done everything the hard way. Not once taking the easy way in any feature. I wich there would be many other developers that also were TRYING to make some real good MMOs : )
To the OP:
I completely understand what you're saying. Also, kudos for this:
"I hesitate to go into specifics because then people will get hung up on the specifics and miss the overall point. But dang it, stop making consumable content and start making WORLDS."
This showed a lot of wisdom; even if a certain poster or two didn't realise it.
Good post.
Unfortunatly, there was a game company that tried and failed...(in response to the OP of this thread) to make a GAME WORLD.
The name of that company would be Sigil, the name of the game would be Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Its a beautiful world...they just bit off more than they could chew, ran out of time and ..most importantly money...their big backer M$ dropped them.
So instead..they struck up a deal with SOE...which in hindsight, was the beginning of the end for Sigil, and Vanguard, the dream and Vision of those particular Devs.
Currently I look at Fileplanet's offerings, and either its all those Asian/Korean "free-to-play" clone games....made in assembly line fashion and all exactly the same thing...or its "play god and own your own ant armies ..conquer the world type games, or...its massive "he-man Arnold type games" with machine-guns and hard hat helmets.
Nothing out there thats interesting any more. Nothing..has been like that all year.
Will be checking out Warhammer when the time comes.
Cend
There are gamers out there..including me..that were playing long before Wow was even a twinkle in some Blizz Dev's eye. We know better...success is not really all about having millions of subscribers. Methinks ..Wow caters to the lowest common denominator...if 8 year olds can play that game on a 5 year old computer..then yeah..there's the lowest common denominator.
Some of us actually STILL enjoy challenging games...not watered down to the point that they "pat you on the head, hold your hand and give you a cookie......" :P
Cend
I think that, to some extent, the fault is ours as players as well. So many have become "OMG I GOTS TO GETZ TO MAX LEVEL SO I CAN GET EPIX LEWT" attention grabbing ****es they forgot that the point of an mmoRPG is to have fun, and do just that, Role Play. But there are simply too many people that think of an MMO as just another game they have to "beat" when the reality is that an MMO doesn't have an "ending" The problem with that kind of thinking as well, is that these people usually end up influencing other players as well and create more players that feel the need to "beat" the game.
Or better yet, you got to level cap so fast you can't raid or do all that high level end stuff because the Devs haven't got it ingame yet LOL. I love that one.
Gone are the days when you weren't in a rush...well except for the "uber" guilds, to get to the endgame. Its all about phat pixilated lewts, and who is "ubah". hehe I usually trail along behind all the over achievers, mainly due to the fact...that I paid for the retail and I pay a monthly fee, gonna get my money's worth damn it.
I wonder why folks think all this content is created for them? Its there to use..so use it. Fame is very fleeting in the internet world...when it comes to who did what first.
A day or two later..nobody cares.......really they don't :P
Cend
Or better yet, you got to level cap so fast you can't raid or do all that high level end stuff because the Devs haven't got it ingame yet LOL. I love that one.
Gone are the days when you weren't in a rush...well except for the "uber" guilds, to get to the endgame. Its all about phat pixilated lewts, and who is "ubah". hehe I usually trail along behind all the over achievers, mainly due to the fact...that I paid for the retail and I pay a monthly fee, gonna get my money's worth damn it.
I wonder why folks think all this content is created for them? Its there to use..so use it. Fame is very fleeting in the internet world...when it comes to who did what first.
A day or two later..nobody cares.......really they don't :P
Cend
I only beat singleplayer games.
But then again, I'm well.. "ancient" in the eyes of developers(read money men behind the scenes)... I'm 31, and "too old" for their tastes..
Developers today are (or should I say money men again? :P ) conveyorbelt educated programmers, most of whom didn't see or try games until they got their diplomas... In their eyes, gamers are pimpefaced boys that get a hardon for big titties and big guns, and if we get that, we don't care of the quality of the game.
... Despite that the average age of male gamer is 33... And that there are more female gamers 18+ than there are prepubescent 1337 boy gamers 18- according to the game industry themselves.
The old developers, those that grew up like us, gaming, in gaming and with gaming are long gone... Trashed because they had dreams of making worlds, unique games, different games and most importantly, games that lasts longer than 20 hours to play through (about the hours you get out of a singleplayer FPS/RTS/etc these days) . They arent wanted by the industry and ridiculed by the minority of gamers that the "new developers" cater to.
And the point about consumable content as opposed to a world was the key point of my post although maybe I didn't stress it enough.
What's the difference between a game and a game-WORLD?
A game is something you play through. You use content and then leave it behind. You go through different parts of the game in a sequence untill you have used up all the content there is.
A game-world would be one vast consistent environment that you play IN (not through, I hope people can understand the difference). It would NOT be a sequence of disposable content. It would be a consistant and persistant environment in which no part of the world becomes trivial or obsolete after you have played through it the first time.
That's the key difference. Think about how you could make that work and you reach certain inevitable conclusions. And that is the point at which developers tend to shy away from the challenge. But if we are ever...and I mean EVER...going to have game-worlds rather than just consumable games, then developers are going to have to start taking up that challenge.
Can they do it and still make it fun? I really don't see why not. If the basic gameplay is fun then it would work just as well in a consistant world as it would in a consumable content path. Can you give people motivation, that drive to log in and go do things? I don't see why not. It couldn't be the ladder-climbing motivation used in the current model but there are other ways to motivate people.
The greatest obstacle, I think, is that this would require developers to go down the path less trodden. And that is the scary part from a finacial perspective. What we need are some creative trail blazers. Someone to pull the genre out of the rut it's stuck in and take it in a new direction.
As for being average age, I have that one beat too..most of you are "puppies" in my books. *wink* hehe
Cend
To me, in order for a game to be a "world" it has to be an experience that draws you in.
You have to "feel" it.
You have to question, and worry, and analyze your actions.
You have to deal with the consequences of those actions.
In short, in order to "feel" like a world, you have to be able to effect that world. You have to feel included in the game world.
In a single player RPG, this is easy. It's only you, your actions direct what is happening. Best example? Mass Effect. I've never, and I mean never, felt I was really in a whole new world (galaxy) then I have been playing Mass Effect. I feel important, powerful, and I know my decisions make a difference. This is what makes Mass Effect such a good game, in my opinion.
They also nailed the immersion. To me, immersion is that you feel the world could actually exist. Mass Effect is full of an entire index of information on the worlds, the technologies, the species, the history... these things make me feel immersed, they make me feel this world (galaxy) could actually exist.
Combine these two, immersion and inlcusion, and in my mind you've created a "world" rather then simply a series of levels/events.
This is near impossible to do in a MMORPG. Why? It's multiplayer. You can't have too much effect on the world, because that in turn effects how others experience the world. One player does something cool and changes the world to his liking, 3-4 players get left out and something changes that hurts them. You then keep one subscriber and lose 3-4. This is not the way for a successful MMO.
The only way around this is to capture the feeling of inclusion. You can't be the hero, the one savior, but you can be a part of the winning team. In order to "feel" like you are part of the team, you have to be immersed in the lore/character of that team.
So it comes back down to immersion and inclusion, but in a different way. You aren't the hero, but you are part of something greater then yourself. You aren't the defining point of the story and of the world, you are simply a player in the much larger scheme of things, but you have to "feel" that your player belongs. Hence, the immersion factor. If you play a ravaging orc, you have to "feel" like a ravaging orc.
I think Warhammer online will succeed because it will give players both inclusion and immersion on a MMO scale.
Your individual actions may not matter too much to the world, but your participation in the team, in the grand battle between Order and Destruction, will help to define the conflict. You personally may not "win" but your faction and your race can.
With 30 years of lore and fiction behind the IP, and (so far from what I've seen) the attention to detail EA Mythic is giving, I can imagine that Greenskins will "feel" like Greenskins, Dwarfs like Dwarfs, etc. The Tome of Knowledge looks to be a tool that will go a LONG way in upping the immersion factor.
So you have immersion and inclusion, the two steps that, to me, define the difference between a game being a true "world" and not just a series of levels/events.
Thank you.And the point about consumable content as opposed to a world was the key point of my post although maybe I didn't stress it enough.
What's the difference between a game and a game-WORLD?
A game is something you play through. You use content and then leave it behind. You go through different parts of the game in a sequence untill you have used up all the content there is.
A game-world would be one vast consistent environment that you play IN (not through, I hope people can understand the difference). It would NOT be a sequence of disposable content. It would be a consistant and persistant environment in which no part of the world becomes trivial or obsolete after you have played through it the first time.
That's the key difference. Think about how you could make that work and you reach certain inevitable conclusions. And that is the point at which developers tend to shy away from the challenge. But if we are ever...and I mean EVER...going to have game-worlds rather than just consumable games, then developers are going to have to start taking up that challenge.
Can they do it and still make it fun? I really don't see why not. If the basic gameplay is fun then it would work just as well in a consistant world as it would in a consumable content path. Can you give people motivation, that drive to log in and go do things? I don't see why not. It couldn't be the ladder-climbing motivation used in the current model but there are other ways to motivate people.
The greatest obstacle, I think, is that this would require developers to go down the path less trodden. And that is the scary part from a finacial perspective. What we need are some creative trail blazers. Someone to pull the genre out of the rut it's stuck in and take it in a new direction.
Indeed it would be a place you spent ALOT of time in...lived the fantasy or lifestyle that the game lore promoted...and enjoyed the community. Found things to do and created adventures for yourself and your friends, much like the sandbox games..ie: The Saga of Ryzom. You go there to spend time away from real life..you again live the fantasy and pretend to be something that you know you can't be in real life. It shouldn't be a question of "beating the game" at all...its a place to visit at your leisure, to enjoy with your friends, and basically...entertain yourselves
I dunno...can the Devs out there do it..or does it have to be all about ladders and such?
I kind of view today's gamers ..like piranhhas....chomp chomp chomp...eat your way thru and come out the other side ..done! I beats da game I did! hehe
Why waste money on an MMO if thats how you play.
Actually now I think about it (this to the OP) this is probably the brick wall that the Devs come up against. They know what kind of gamers are out there, perhaps the type that I am...are not numerous enough to support what we want. Persistent game World, that you revisit again and again for years to come.
Cend
I think Warhammer online will succeed because it will give players both inclusion and immersion on a MMO scale.
Your individual actions may not matter too much to the world, but your participation in the team, in the grand battle between Order and Destruction, will help to define the conflict. You personally may not "win" but your faction and your race can.
With 30 years of lore and fiction behind the IP, and (so far from what I've seen) the attention to detail EA Mythic is giving, I can imagine that Greenskins will "feel" like Greenskins, Dwarfs like Dwarfs, etc. The Tome of Knowledge looks to be a tool that will go a LONG way in upping the immersion factor.
-End Heerobya's quote
Couldn't agree more with this last bit of your statement, I have basically pinned my hopes on Warhammer ..and it sounds like (from what I have read over time) actually care how this game is going to be released. They worked on things that they got as feedback from their testers.. another good sign ..as long as there weren't alot of temper tantrums etc ...like I witnessed in Vanguard's closed beta and other closed betas I have been in.
Listening to the players/testers is a good thing, but definitely go your own route and pace when it comes to what is going to be part of the game vision or design. Don't be wishy washy about it...and I think the Warhammer Devs have got a handle on that one.
Here's hoping we see great things upon release.
Cheers
Cend