And yet EVE does exactly that. Honestly do you think out your responses before you write them? I told myself I wasn't going to respond the the horse shit you're constantly spewing, yet here I am again trying to show you how fucking stupid you are.
Eve do not make it possibly to create your own class, the game is classless.
Big difference because in Eve you can learn anything, while in a class game you can only do or learn certain things depending on your class.
In pen and paper RPGs the skills are usually in groups and a class like say thief can choose certain skill from those groups while a knights skills to choose from would be very different. Each character however differs a lot from another with the same class there but the game is not class less like in Eve.
In Eve you could teoretical get all skills in the game, in a class based system that is not possible.
But as I said, a class system can be very flexible still the problem is just that in most MMOs the classes are very similar.
It is that linear "fixed classes in a MMO" standard that must be resisted. In fact, I am not even aware of a single MMORPG in production that does not use this standard. People think they have "options" when they have more classes.
So you refuse to address EVE, which does exactly what you claim to want. I'm not an EVE fanboy, but when you refuse to acknowledge evidence that so clearly disproves your claim of "MMO's not being innovative" I can clearly see that you are just trying to get an argument from those that don't agree with, and reassurance that you're brilliant from those that do agree with you.
Originally posted by GTwander:
How are you an MMO? Or any of us for that matter?
I say we strike all users from the site for not being MMOs.
People at Blizzard, very good and very bright people, sometimes wonder why people like me ("immersion" gamers) refuse to play their game.
We, at least myself, neither take these comments seriously or really pay much attention to them, but you will not get our 15.00 to "play" with this kind of community.
It is really not worth anyone's time, and certainly not worth anyone's money.
Eve do not make it possibly to create your own class, the game is classless. Big difference because in Eve you can learn anything, while in a class game you can only do or learn certain things depending on your class. In pen and paper RPGs the skills are usually in groups and a class like say thief can choose certain skill from those groups while a knights skills to choose from would be very different. Each character however differs a lot from another with the same class there but the game is not class less like in Eve. In Eve you could teoretical get all skills in the game, in a class based system that is not possible. But as I said, a class system can be very flexible still the problem is just that in most MMOs the classes are very similar.
Thank you for seeing the issue, Loke666. It is about greater flexibility, diversity, and varied options. Less "controlled" options and more player-controlled features (item appearances and abilities and even varied uses). THINK. CREATE. INNOVATE. Stop the commercialized/linear model, or at least allow for more creativity, innovation, and freedom.
It must be reasonable and within certain limitations. But the larger point is that the fixed, linear, and controlled model --these classes; these dungeons; these opportunities to gear-up-- is devastating on the ability and room for creative content and innovative MMORPG features.
It is about more freedom, ultimately. The commercialized/linear model limits freedom, which prevents innovation, because commercialized/linear gamers revere technology over and above freedom; they "honesty" believe technology is innovation. Shiny and glittery weapons with elaborate shapes is not "innovative."
It is that linear "fixed classes in a MMO" standard that must be resisted. In fact, I am not even aware of a single MMORPG in production that does not use this standard. People think they have "options" when they have more classes.
So you refuse to address EVE, which does exactly what you claim to want. I'm not an EVE fanboy, but when you refuse to acknowledge evidence that so clearly disproves your claim of "MMO's not being innovative" I can clearly see that you are just trying to get an argument from those that don't agree with, and reassurance that you're brilliant from those that do agree with you.
Eve does not have classes, that is a totally different approach. Read my last post please.
There are 3 ways you can make it: No classes (eve), flexible classes (many pen and paper RPGs like Runequest, RIFTS and Shadowrun) and the regular stale classes we see in Wow and D&D.
I prefer the middle one, no classes makes balancing issues that might work for a spaceship MMO like Eve but would be very hard in a fantasy or modern MMO.
People at Blizzard, very good and very bright people, sometimes wonder why people like me ("immersion" gamers) refuse to play their game.
We, at least myself, neither take these comments seriously or really pay much attention to them, but you will not get our 15.00 to "play" with this kind of community.
It is really not worth anyone's time, and certainly not worth anyone's money.
You're a joke, and you're so full of yourself that you wont ever listen to any other viewpoint that varies slightly from your own. Even when I - not to mention several other people - took the time to carefully outline the different MMO's that - for the most part - met every criteria of your idea of "innovation" (my comment was on page 8 just in case you were wondering) you could care less in addressing any of these issues. Instead you opt to plug your ears while yelling "INNOVATION!" Is it any wonder why I say you're fucking stupid ten pages later. But here's what I will say; Yes you are right, you have always been right and will always be right, you are the Christ child come to earth to save us from linear MMO's. Feel better now?
Originally posted by GTwander:
How are you an MMO? Or any of us for that matter?
I say we strike all users from the site for not being MMOs.
There are 3 ways you can make it: No classes (eve), flexible classes (many pen and paper RPGs like Runequest, RIFTS and Shadowrun) and the regular stale classes we see in Wow and D&D.
You are exactly right, and I am relieved you see the point. It is about flexibility and freedom. It is not, as I have explained --and, no, I am not yet tired of explaining it at all-- Second Life or Eve.
It is about giving tools, options, and more choices to the player. More freedom. Going from controlled to varied gameplay; from forced-fed to freedom. It is not a down-with-developers concept - at all. But it does place the focus more on the individual gamer and more "individual credit" for rewards.
Innovation, however, should be persued everywhere and anywhere. Character development and customization is just one area where there is a lot of room for it.
Ahh good old PnP Warhammer, a class game (pun intended). Yes I think the PnP Warhammer method is defiantly one way to go. I don’t think you can expect people to leap into such a freeform idea as classless character creation and development without a stepping stone.
Also you have to question complexity, you can’t throw to much at players all at once. You could have a semi class system which opens up into a more classless one, once the players have a few levels under their belt. And following on from that levels could end at say 20 and from then on its skill based. I do prefer the idea that you pay more for development in areas not of your class, you can follow that through with a class system that becomes a classless one too.
I am not sure technology and bandwith is at the stage the OP needs for his ideal game. For players to be able to make major environmental changes and appear truly unique is beyond current levels of tech. However, that’s not to say we cannot move in that direction.
Ahh good old PnP Warhammer, a class game (pun intended). Yes I think the PnP Warhammer method is defiantly one way to go. I don’t think you can expect people to leap into such a freeform idea as classless character creation and development without a stepping stone. Also you have to question complexity, you can’t throw to much at players all at once. You could have a semi class system which opens up into a more classless one, once the players have a few levels under their belt. And following on from that levels could end at say 20 and from then on its skill based. I do prefer the idea that you pay more for development in areas not of your class, you can follow that through with a class system that becomes a classless one too. I am not sure technology and bandwith is at the stage the OP needs for his ideal game. For players to be able to make major environmental changes and appear truly unique is beyond current levels of tech. However, that’s not to say we cannot move in that direction.
I think that is right. Semi-class system. You could have the standard classes, but allow players to (1) create abilities, (2) select other classes, and (3) choose different abilities. Everyone should be truly unique.
My ideal actually does not necessarily really "major environmental changes" at all. The truth is that allowing players too much creative-control would be just as bad as giving it all to developers. It is about reasonable tools and opportunities to actually have player-created town. A player-created weapon. A player-created NPC (to protect the town; or as your companion).
Players need more empowerment, which would keep the world feeling fresh. Everything is so sterile, predictable, redundant, and parallel today.
Originally posted by Loke666 I prefer the middle one, no classes makes balancing issues that might work for a spaceship MMO like Eve but would be very hard in a fantasy or modern MMO.
I'm curious to know why you think that EVE Online's game structure would be so difficult to adapt to a fantasy setting.
I prefer the middle one, no classes makes balancing issues that might work for a spaceship MMO like Eve but would be very hard in a fantasy or modern MMO.
I'm curious to know why you think that EVE Online's game structure would be so difficult to adapt to a fantasy setting.
Turning 3D space, into 2D territory, and allowing players to still control territory, but not wipe each other out.
In space to stop some one from going anywhere, you must encircle thier territory with a globe, which is very hard to do. On land, you just block their progress in two or three directions, and they are stuck (especially if one side is an impassable mountain or the sea) and you wipe them out.
Originally posted by Ihmotepp Turning 3D space, into 2D territory, and allowing players to still control territory, but not wipe each other out.
In space to stop some one from going anywhere, you must encircle thier territory with a globe, which is very hard to do. On land, you just block their progress in two or three directions, and they are stuck (especially if one side is an impassable mountain or the sea) and you wipe them out.
EVE Online is not an accurate space MMO. Strategic warfare there is actually a simple topology problem. Solar systems are nodes and jump gates are arcs. If you want to hold a node or a set of nodes, you must control the arcs that lead to them. If you want to break into a node or set of nodes, you must break through an arc - or jump expensive ships directly into the node(s) and fight from there.
Tactical englobement isn't applicable either, as I remember things.
Here's a blog that I wrote on transforming EVE Online into a fantasy MMO:
I asked about potential problems because I don't see any. The movement system is a bit odd, given that a ship in EVE Online can leave an area without opposition once it has accelerated to its warp speed. The equivalent in a fantasy setting might be that a character can leave an area without opposition once it mounts its horse and gets it up to a gallop.
Is This Really an Immersion Gamer v. Commercialized Gamer Discussion?
Immersion Gamer Commercialized Gamer
"Fascinating" "Fun"
Tradition is respected Science is respected
Development is an art Development is a science
Gameplay is varied Gameplay is controlled
Individual gets credit Guild gets credit
Worlds are large and diverse Worlds are small and fixed
Innovation is revered Technology is revered
Character development and story is the goal "Ownage" and accomplishing things is the goal
Complex Simple
PROPOSAL
Immersion Gamer
Commercialized Gamer
Real-life values matter more than player-character attributes
Real-life values matter less than player-character attributes
Competitive
Hostile
Welcomes Challenge
Avoids Challenge
Enjoys lush and interactive environments
Prefers subtle and polished environments
Character names meaningful
Character names meaningless
My sense is that, generally speaking, people support the Proposal to add these elements as not only a remedy to the comment that the table is underinclusive but ensure that important features such as "challenges" and "values" are added.
When I said that that Commercialized Gamers are "hostile," it is referring to the, "I owned you noob." Let's PvP culture that has increasingly pervasive, though dieing, in today's MMORPGs.
I also have a table that explores content in its own and various elements of content. The tension between between immersion and commercialized/linear gamers has never been greater.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
You want immersion, difficulty, challenge and so forth. They want to bonk monsters on the head and see what pops out. They save their energies for the challenge and immersion of family, job or whatever other hobby that they're most enthusiastic about.
I have a family, passion, I do lot's of activities, I spend most of the time outside home, yet I don't want to bonk monsters on the head, since I don't have much time to spend on playing games, I want that time to be spent on challenging and entertaining game, and dumb and simple, doesn't mean entertaining for me. If I'm not a hardcore gamer, nerd or whatever people call them, doesn't mean I will take any junk they will give me. I really don't belive that other milions of people are idiots either ...
This thread was pretty interesting to about 10th page, when people started to argue about technology and innovation, it got ridiculous after that.
Some people missunderstand the term innovation to begin with... form encyclopedia:
The term innovation means a new way of doing something. It may refer to incremental, radical, and revolutionary changes in thinking, products, processes, or organizations.
Innovation doesn't equal change, it is not just change itself, it is what that change brings, that defines innovation.
Also, evolution doesn't equal good, just like in biology evolution can be bad for organism, so defending mmorpgs by saying 'they evolve' is plain stupid.
And the people that talked the most in this thread are the most 'closed' people, they have their opinion and are so convinced that it is right, that all arguments of other people just bounce off of them. If someone is a wise man, he should know that even with years of experience he might be wrong.
I have a family, passion, I do lot's of activities, I spend most of the time outside home, yet I don't want to bonk monsters on the head, since I don't have much time to spend on playing games, I want that time to be spent on challenging and entertaining game
I think that is exactly right, mrkujo.
Too many developers have placed us into the "commercialized gamer" category; they do not see, believe, or understand that there are hundreds of thousands of us willing to spend 15.00+ for an "immersion MMORPG."
Frankly, immersion games are more casual because there is no race to the finish --level 1 to the terminal level-- or pressures to "gear-up" because you can gear-up in a variety of ways: Quests, crafting, hunting, camping, exploring, creating, and so forth.
By the end of the first page I was wondering why the OP did not play Eve or A Tale In The Desert, and if he was looking forward to Love.
However, by the second page I began to realize something was terribly amiss. I was being trolled! By the fifth page (30 posts per page setting), I wondered why people didn't realize they were being trolled. On the eighth and final page I had to become the voice of reason:
You're all being trolled.
There is no other logical explanation, as games do exist that fit his criteria; essentially full sandbox, socially collaborative, immersive games.
Originally posted by LostMech By the end of the first page I was wondering why the OP did not play Eve or A Tale In The Desert, and if he was looking forward to Love. However, by the second page I began to realize something was terribly amiss. I was being trolled! By the fifth page (30 posts per page setting), I wondered why people didn't realize they were being trolled. On the eighth and final page I had to become the voice of reason: You're all being trolled. There is no other logical explanation, as games do exist that fit his criteria; essentially full sandbox, socially collaborative, immersive games.
Uuuh how come? There is only EVE and it's immersion is pretty limited as avatar combat is non-existent yet. I know CCP will add avatar combat in 2-3 years and very soon they will add avatars but it still lacks some immersion. SWG is not a true sandbox anymore I won't explain why it isn't but fair enough to say I played SWG for 3 years and NGE is very very very different than what it was before.
Also UO exists but for god's sake it is ancient, it might be a good sandbox game but technically very limited.
So tell me besides those 3 MMORPGs which good sandbox MMOs exist? Well I can give you 10-15 good themepark MMOs but I believe there exists only 2 good sandbox games.
I don't believe OP is trolling and I stand behind his ideas, yes there are 2 MMO gamer profiles not casual or hardcore but immersion gamers and commercial gamers. I guarantee you one person can be both casual gamer and immersion gamer at the same time.
Right now MMO industry is oversaturated with commercial gamer MMOs.
By the end of the first page I was wondering why the OP did not play Eve or A Tale In The Desert, and if he was looking forward to Love. However, by the second page I began to realize something was terribly amiss. I was being trolled! By the fifth page (30 posts per page setting), I wondered why people didn't realize they were being trolled. On the eighth and final page I had to become the voice of reason: You're all being trolled. There is no other logical explanation, as games do exist that fit his criteria; essentially full sandbox, socially collaborative, immersive games.
First, you are misunderstanding the purpose of the entire topic. The topic is about INNOVATION; it is not about my, as you say, "criteria" for immersion. You are confusing "criteria" with "elements." I have listed elements to distinguish commercialized gamers from immersion gamers. The deep, and I mean deep, irony is that I created the tables to ease comprehension.
Second, related to the first, I have no criteria. I have explained and illustrated those factors that prevent innovation in the MMORPG industry. The tension between commercialized/linear gamers and immersion gamers is why innovation is not pursued or implemented. (EDIT: I want innovation. I am tired of the copy-and-paste WoW-model. That is my criterion; something different and unique, not just a different genre or new lore.)
Third, EVE is a platform that has already been discussed. In fact, others have explained much (much) better than I could why EVE is really just a different platform and does not implement the kind of innovation many of us on the immersion side want.
Why do you people want to flame for whatever it takes the starter of this topic, it is like you really don't want changes and are feeling fine with boinking monsters. Even if you do like current games, it wouldn't hurt if those games got better, would it?
I don't understand it, he puts good arguments and even describes how a game should look, yet you call him troll. That is phucked up, no wonder the progress in this field is so slow.
Someone said that it is all about community, well community is just a part of the game, but even if you boink monsters with your friends it is still boring, if you want just to interact with the community you should go on chat, mmorpg should be something more than chat.
I don't agree with the whole division into commercialized players and immersion players. It is more the producers fault that they don't see the profit behind such projects, they are doing what's 'safe' just to survive on the market, it's more about survival than profit. If someone accually wants to make difference, it is a small company, with not enough assets, and project becames a failure.
But there is no doubt that if it happens, and some large company will develope a game that has more to it than leveling and chatting, people won't say 'yhyhy dah that game is to smart for me yyyyy I better go boinking some monsters', but people will just switch to this game because it is better.
I thought this was a linear vs sandbox MMORPG thread, but what the hell do you mean with all that immersion gamers division? You should name games before mentioning the gamers. After all, you're talking about games lacking innovation according to the title, and not players/communities being good or bad. I also feel you're not letting your objectivity work as it should be, because of your last beloved game or something.
I don't think a single person wants MMOs to just stay the way they are. They want them to advance. They would love more community tools, ways to create GOOD content themselves, more different ways to play, ect. But none of it can come at the expense of what most people play games for, FUN. Most play to have fun. Most don't want to be frustrated. Most don't live in these games. Most don't want to invest every waking moment in them. Retain the fun, which will always revolve around playing a videogame, which means bonking things, action and adventure and exploration. If an innovative community building concept gets in the way of whats most important, NO, thats not a good innovation. Its just lateral move that doesn't make the game better for most people and MOST people is the whole point. Any developer can make a game thats fun for SOME people or a few people. Some people loved AC2. Some people love Darkfall and Horizons. But those aren't games to emulate. They aren't a standard to learn from, unless you want to know what NOT to do.
You take all the things WOW does that obviously people find fun when it comes to action and adventure, make them even better, then add in some things UO and SWG did that made people want to do social actitivites and you've got a game many people would want to play. But thats me. I like games that offer a lot. A game can cater to lots of people and it doesn't bother me. A game can have people in it that I don't get along with and it doesn't bother me. But some here don't want to game that offers a lot. They just want a game that offers what they want, what they like. They don't want OTHERS in THEIR game. Thats just not going to cut it, because you aren't going to keep a major AAA game running without OTHERS. So keep on wishing. Its not going to happen. Major developers will make games FUN first if they want the game to sell.
Great post Josher, I also believe there will a game which both themepark and sandbox players can enjoy.
However there is an important point I disagree with you.
You say developers emphasize on FUN but the thing is that the kind of fun they are focusing isn't fun for me.
For me and many sandbox gamers:
Raiding = 0 fun, grinding levels = 0 fun, doing quests which has extremely bad writing = 0 fun, easy crafting which even my 9 year old cousin can understand = 0 fun, no complex economy = 0 fun.
But the thing is themepark players love above things, and developers continue to focus on that kind of FUN. So it is kinda impossible for themepark and sandbox players to play in same MMO. They like different things, nevertheless I believe someday one firm will be able to create a MMO for both players.
First, you are misunderstanding the purpose of the entire topic. The topic is about INNOVATION; it is not about my, as you say, "criteria" for immersion. You are confusing "criteria" with "elements." I have listed elements to distinguish commercialized gamers from immersion gamers. The deep, and I mean deep, irony is that I created the tables to ease comprehension.
Second, related to the first, I have no criteria. I have explained and illustrated those factors that prevent innovation in the MMORPG industry. The tension between commercialized/linear gamers and immersion gamers is why innovation is not pursued or implemented. (EDIT: I want innovation. I am tired of the copy-and-paste WoW-model. That is my criterion; something different and unique, not just a different genre or new lore.)
Third, EVE is a platform that has already been discussed. In fact, others have explained much (much) better than I could why EVE is really just a different platform and does not implement the kind of innovation many of us on the immersion side want.
"I have no criteria." "That is my criterion." Do you not see how you are constantly contradictory in your posts? When you're not being contradictory you are using words with your own personal definition, which you do not define in your posts.
Question: do you know what A Tale In the Desert is? Or what Love is? Have you looked at all into the indie dev MMO scene? Aren't these games that offer "something different and unique, not just a different genre or new lore?" Is your main contention that mainstream games fail to satisfy your MMO desires?
You can't just use terms that you don't define, put them in a chart, and expect people to understand you. This will be my last post on this unless you can concretely and succinctly answer my part from the "question" section.
First, you are misunderstanding the purpose of the entire topic. The topic is about INNOVATION; it is not about my, as you say, "criteria" for immersion. You are confusing "criteria" with "elements." I have listed elements to distinguish commercialized gamers from immersion gamers. The deep, and I mean deep, irony is that I created the tables to ease comprehension.
Second, related to the first, I have no criteria. I have explained and illustrated those factors that prevent innovation in the MMORPG industry. The tension between commercialized/linear gamers and immersion gamers is why innovation is not pursued or implemented. (EDIT: I want innovation. I am tired of the copy-and-paste WoW-model. That is my criterion; something different and unique, not just a different genre or new lore.)
Third, EVE is a platform that has already been discussed. In fact, others have explained much (much) better than I could why EVE is really just a different platform and does not implement the kind of innovation many of us on the immersion side want.
"I have no criteria." "That is my criterion." Do you not see how you are constantly contradictory in your posts? When you're not being contradictory you are using words with your own personal definition, which you do not define in your posts.
LostMech, I want you to do me a big -very (very) big- favor. I want you to stop everything you are doing right now and focus.
Do you swear, on everything you hold dear, everything you believe in, and on your own mother's life that you failed to see my humor in saying "that is my criterion" ? STOP. Focus. This is so extremely serious that you, in real life, reading this are at serious (serious) risk.
It was a way of saying the purpose is about INNOVATION, not criterion or anyone's criteria about any game. If you do not see that, you need to be honest about it. Yes. You need to be honest about it.
Comments
Eve do not make it possibly to create your own class, the game is classless.
Big difference because in Eve you can learn anything, while in a class game you can only do or learn certain things depending on your class.
In pen and paper RPGs the skills are usually in groups and a class like say thief can choose certain skill from those groups while a knights skills to choose from would be very different. Each character however differs a lot from another with the same class there but the game is not class less like in Eve.
In Eve you could teoretical get all skills in the game, in a class based system that is not possible.
But as I said, a class system can be very flexible still the problem is just that in most MMOs the classes are very similar.
So you refuse to address EVE, which does exactly what you claim to want. I'm not an EVE fanboy, but when you refuse to acknowledge evidence that so clearly disproves your claim of "MMO's not being innovative" I can clearly see that you are just trying to get an argument from those that don't agree with, and reassurance that you're brilliant from those that do agree with you.
Originally posted by GTwander:
How are you an MMO? Or any of us for that matter?
I say we strike all users from the site for not being MMOs.
People at Blizzard, very good and very bright people, sometimes wonder why people like me ("immersion" gamers) refuse to play their game.
We, at least myself, neither take these comments seriously or really pay much attention to them, but you will not get our 15.00 to "play" with this kind of community.
It is really not worth anyone's time, and certainly not worth anyone's money.
Thank you for seeing the issue, Loke666. It is about greater flexibility, diversity, and varied options. Less "controlled" options and more player-controlled features (item appearances and abilities and even varied uses). THINK. CREATE. INNOVATE. Stop the commercialized/linear model, or at least allow for more creativity, innovation, and freedom.
It must be reasonable and within certain limitations. But the larger point is that the fixed, linear, and controlled model --these classes; these dungeons; these opportunities to gear-up-- is devastating on the ability and room for creative content and innovative MMORPG features.
It is about more freedom, ultimately. The commercialized/linear model limits freedom, which prevents innovation, because commercialized/linear gamers revere technology over and above freedom; they "honesty" believe technology is innovation. Shiny and glittery weapons with elaborate shapes is not "innovative."
So you refuse to address EVE, which does exactly what you claim to want. I'm not an EVE fanboy, but when you refuse to acknowledge evidence that so clearly disproves your claim of "MMO's not being innovative" I can clearly see that you are just trying to get an argument from those that don't agree with, and reassurance that you're brilliant from those that do agree with you.
Eve does not have classes, that is a totally different approach. Read my last post please.
There are 3 ways you can make it: No classes (eve), flexible classes (many pen and paper RPGs like Runequest, RIFTS and Shadowrun) and the regular stale classes we see in Wow and D&D.
I prefer the middle one, no classes makes balancing issues that might work for a spaceship MMO like Eve but would be very hard in a fantasy or modern MMO.
People at Blizzard, very good and very bright people, sometimes wonder why people like me ("immersion" gamers) refuse to play their game.
We, at least myself, neither take these comments seriously or really pay much attention to them, but you will not get our 15.00 to "play" with this kind of community.
It is really not worth anyone's time, and certainly not worth anyone's money.
You're a joke, and you're so full of yourself that you wont ever listen to any other viewpoint that varies slightly from your own. Even when I - not to mention several other people - took the time to carefully outline the different MMO's that - for the most part - met every criteria of your idea of "innovation" (my comment was on page 8 just in case you were wondering) you could care less in addressing any of these issues. Instead you opt to plug your ears while yelling "INNOVATION!" Is it any wonder why I say you're fucking stupid ten pages later. But here's what I will say; Yes you are right, you have always been right and will always be right, you are the Christ child come to earth to save us from linear MMO's. Feel better now?
Originally posted by GTwander:
How are you an MMO? Or any of us for that matter?
I say we strike all users from the site for not being MMOs.
You are exactly right, and I am relieved you see the point. It is about flexibility and freedom. It is not, as I have explained --and, no, I am not yet tired of explaining it at all-- Second Life or Eve.
It is about giving tools, options, and more choices to the player. More freedom. Going from controlled to varied gameplay; from forced-fed to freedom. It is not a down-with-developers concept - at all. But it does place the focus more on the individual gamer and more "individual credit" for rewards.
Innovation, however, should be persued everywhere and anywhere. Character development and customization is just one area where there is a lot of room for it.
Ahh good old PnP Warhammer, a class game (pun intended). Yes I think the PnP Warhammer method is defiantly one way to go. I don’t think you can expect people to leap into such a freeform idea as classless character creation and development without a stepping stone.
Also you have to question complexity, you can’t throw to much at players all at once. You could have a semi class system which opens up into a more classless one, once the players have a few levels under their belt. And following on from that levels could end at say 20 and from then on its skill based. I do prefer the idea that you pay more for development in areas not of your class, you can follow that through with a class system that becomes a classless one too.
I am not sure technology and bandwith is at the stage the OP needs for his ideal game. For players to be able to make major environmental changes and appear truly unique is beyond current levels of tech. However, that’s not to say we cannot move in that direction.
I think that is right. Semi-class system. You could have the standard classes, but allow players to (1) create abilities, (2) select other classes, and (3) choose different abilities. Everyone should be truly unique.
My ideal actually does not necessarily really "major environmental changes" at all. The truth is that allowing players too much creative-control would be just as bad as giving it all to developers. It is about reasonable tools and opportunities to actually have player-created town. A player-created weapon. A player-created NPC (to protect the town; or as your companion).
Players need more empowerment, which would keep the world feeling fresh. Everything is so sterile, predictable, redundant, and parallel today.
I'm curious to know why you think that EVE Online's game structure would be so difficult to adapt to a fantasy setting.
I'm curious to know why you think that EVE Online's game structure would be so difficult to adapt to a fantasy setting.
Turning 3D space, into 2D territory, and allowing players to still control territory, but not wipe each other out.
In space to stop some one from going anywhere, you must encircle thier territory with a globe, which is very hard to do. On land, you just block their progress in two or three directions, and they are stuck (especially if one side is an impassable mountain or the sea) and you wipe them out.
EVE Online is not an accurate space MMO. Strategic warfare there is actually a simple topology problem. Solar systems are nodes and jump gates are arcs. If you want to hold a node or a set of nodes, you must control the arcs that lead to them. If you want to break into a node or set of nodes, you must break through an arc - or jump expensive ships directly into the node(s) and fight from there.
Tactical englobement isn't applicable either, as I remember things.
Here's a blog that I wrote on transforming EVE Online into a fantasy MMO:
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/JB47394/112007/686_Eve-Online-as-a-Fantasy-MMO
I asked about potential problems because I don't see any. The movement system is a bit odd, given that a ship in EVE Online can leave an area without opposition once it has accelerated to its warp speed. The equivalent in a fantasy setting might be that a character can leave an area without opposition once it mounts its horse and gets it up to a gallop.
PROPOSAL
Real-life values matter more than player-character attributes
My sense is that, generally speaking, people support the Proposal to add these elements as not only a remedy to the comment that the table is underinclusive but ensure that important features such as "challenges" and "values" are added.
When I said that that Commercialized Gamers are "hostile," it is referring to the, "I owned you noob." Let's PvP culture that has increasingly pervasive, though dieing, in today's MMORPGs.
I also have a table that explores content in its own and various elements of content. The tension between between immersion and commercialized/linear gamers has never been greater.
Thats internet culture. PvP is also, not dieing.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
I have a family, passion, I do lot's of activities, I spend most of the time outside home, yet I don't want to bonk monsters on the head, since I don't have much time to spend on playing games, I want that time to be spent on challenging and entertaining game, and dumb and simple, doesn't mean entertaining for me. If I'm not a hardcore gamer, nerd or whatever people call them, doesn't mean I will take any junk they will give me. I really don't belive that other milions of people are idiots either ...
This thread was pretty interesting to about 10th page, when people started to argue about technology and innovation, it got ridiculous after that.
Some people missunderstand the term innovation to begin with... form encyclopedia:
The term innovation means a new way of doing something. It may refer to incremental, radical, and revolutionary changes in thinking, products, processes, or organizations.
Innovation doesn't equal change, it is not just change itself, it is what that change brings, that defines innovation.
Also, evolution doesn't equal good, just like in biology evolution can be bad for organism, so defending mmorpgs by saying 'they evolve' is plain stupid.
And the people that talked the most in this thread are the most 'closed' people, they have their opinion and are so convinced that it is right, that all arguments of other people just bounce off of them. If someone is a wise man, he should know that even with years of experience he might be wrong.
I think that is exactly right, mrkujo.
Too many developers have placed us into the "commercialized gamer" category; they do not see, believe, or understand that there are hundreds of thousands of us willing to spend 15.00+ for an "immersion MMORPG."
Frankly, immersion games are more casual because there is no race to the finish --level 1 to the terminal level-- or pressures to "gear-up" because you can gear-up in a variety of ways: Quests, crafting, hunting, camping, exploring, creating, and so forth.
By the end of the first page I was wondering why the OP did not play Eve or A Tale In The Desert, and if he was looking forward to Love.
However, by the second page I began to realize something was terribly amiss. I was being trolled! By the fifth page (30 posts per page setting), I wondered why people didn't realize they were being trolled. On the eighth and final page I had to become the voice of reason:
You're all being trolled.
There is no other logical explanation, as games do exist that fit his criteria; essentially full sandbox, socially collaborative, immersive games.
Uuuh how come? There is only EVE and it's immersion is pretty limited as avatar combat is non-existent yet. I know CCP will add avatar combat in 2-3 years and very soon they will add avatars but it still lacks some immersion.
SWG is not a true sandbox anymore I won't explain why it isn't but fair enough to say I played SWG for 3 years and NGE is very very very different than what it was before.
Also UO exists but for god's sake it is ancient, it might be a good sandbox game but technically very limited.
So tell me besides those 3 MMORPGs which good sandbox MMOs exist?
Well I can give you 10-15 good themepark MMOs but I believe there exists only 2 good sandbox games.
I don't believe OP is trolling and I stand behind his ideas, yes there are 2 MMO gamer profiles not casual or hardcore but immersion gamers and commercial gamers. I guarantee you one person can be both casual gamer and immersion gamer at the same time.
Right now MMO industry is oversaturated with commercial gamer MMOs.
First, you are misunderstanding the purpose of the entire topic. The topic is about INNOVATION; it is not about my, as you say, "criteria" for immersion. You are confusing "criteria" with "elements." I have listed elements to distinguish commercialized gamers from immersion gamers. The deep, and I mean deep, irony is that I created the tables to ease comprehension.
Second, related to the first, I have no criteria. I have explained and illustrated those factors that prevent innovation in the MMORPG industry. The tension between commercialized/linear gamers and immersion gamers is why innovation is not pursued or implemented. (EDIT: I want innovation. I am tired of the copy-and-paste WoW-model. That is my criterion; something different and unique, not just a different genre or new lore.)
Third, EVE is a platform that has already been discussed. In fact, others have explained much (much) better than I could why EVE is really just a different platform and does not implement the kind of innovation many of us on the immersion side want.
Why do you people want to flame for whatever it takes the starter of this topic, it is like you really don't want changes and are feeling fine with boinking monsters. Even if you do like current games, it wouldn't hurt if those games got better, would it?
I don't understand it, he puts good arguments and even describes how a game should look, yet you call him troll. That is phucked up, no wonder the progress in this field is so slow.
Someone said that it is all about community, well community is just a part of the game, but even if you boink monsters with your friends it is still boring, if you want just to interact with the community you should go on chat, mmorpg should be something more than chat.
I don't agree with the whole division into commercialized players and immersion players. It is more the producers fault that they don't see the profit behind such projects, they are doing what's 'safe' just to survive on the market, it's more about survival than profit. If someone accually wants to make difference, it is a small company, with not enough assets, and project becames a failure.
But there is no doubt that if it happens, and some large company will develope a game that has more to it than leveling and chatting, people won't say 'yhyhy dah that game is to smart for me yyyyy I better go boinking some monsters', but people will just switch to this game because it is better.
I thought this was a linear vs sandbox MMORPG thread, but what the hell do you mean with all that immersion gamers division? You should name games before mentioning the gamers. After all, you're talking about games lacking innovation according to the title, and not players/communities being good or bad. I also feel you're not letting your objectivity work as it should be, because of your last beloved game or something.
I don't think a single person wants MMOs to just stay the way they are. They want them to advance. They would love more community tools, ways to create GOOD content themselves, more different ways to play, ect. But none of it can come at the expense of what most people play games for, FUN. Most play to have fun. Most don't want to be frustrated. Most don't live in these games. Most don't want to invest every waking moment in them. Retain the fun, which will always revolve around playing a videogame, which means bonking things, action and adventure and exploration. If an innovative community building concept gets in the way of whats most important, NO, thats not a good innovation. Its just lateral move that doesn't make the game better for most people and MOST people is the whole point. Any developer can make a game thats fun for SOME people or a few people. Some people loved AC2. Some people love Darkfall and Horizons. But those aren't games to emulate. They aren't a standard to learn from, unless you want to know what NOT to do.
You take all the things WOW does that obviously people find fun when it comes to action and adventure, make them even better, then add in some things UO and SWG did that made people want to do social actitivites and you've got a game many people would want to play. But thats me. I like games that offer a lot. A game can cater to lots of people and it doesn't bother me. A game can have people in it that I don't get along with and it doesn't bother me. But some here don't want to game that offers a lot. They just want a game that offers what they want, what they like. They don't want OTHERS in THEIR game. Thats just not going to cut it, because you aren't going to keep a major AAA game running without OTHERS. So keep on wishing. Its not going to happen. Major developers will make games FUN first if they want the game to sell.
Great post Josher, I also believe there will a game which both themepark and sandbox players can enjoy.
However there is an important point I disagree with you.
You say developers emphasize on FUN but the thing is that the kind of fun they are focusing isn't fun for me.
For me and many sandbox gamers:
Raiding = 0 fun, grinding levels = 0 fun, doing quests which has extremely bad writing = 0 fun, easy crafting which even my 9 year old cousin can understand = 0 fun, no complex economy = 0 fun.
But the thing is themepark players love above things, and developers continue to focus on that kind of FUN. So it is kinda impossible for themepark and sandbox players to play in same MMO. They like different things, nevertheless I believe someday one firm will be able to create a MMO for both players.
First, you are misunderstanding the purpose of the entire topic. The topic is about INNOVATION; it is not about my, as you say, "criteria" for immersion. You are confusing "criteria" with "elements." I have listed elements to distinguish commercialized gamers from immersion gamers. The deep, and I mean deep, irony is that I created the tables to ease comprehension.
Second, related to the first, I have no criteria. I have explained and illustrated those factors that prevent innovation in the MMORPG industry. The tension between commercialized/linear gamers and immersion gamers is why innovation is not pursued or implemented. (EDIT: I want innovation. I am tired of the copy-and-paste WoW-model. That is my criterion; something different and unique, not just a different genre or new lore.)
Third, EVE is a platform that has already been discussed. In fact, others have explained much (much) better than I could why EVE is really just a different platform and does not implement the kind of innovation many of us on the immersion side want.
"I have no criteria." "That is my criterion." Do you not see how you are constantly contradictory in your posts? When you're not being contradictory you are using words with your own personal definition, which you do not define in your posts.
Question: do you know what A Tale In the Desert is? Or what Love is? Have you looked at all into the indie dev MMO scene? Aren't these games that offer "something different and unique, not just a different genre or new lore?" Is your main contention that mainstream games fail to satisfy your MMO desires?
You can't just use terms that you don't define, put them in a chart, and expect people to understand you. This will be my last post on this unless you can concretely and succinctly answer my part from the "question" section.
"I have no criteria." "That is my criterion." Do you not see how you are constantly contradictory in your posts? When you're not being contradictory you are using words with your own personal definition, which you do not define in your posts.
LostMech, I want you to do me a big -very (very) big- favor. I want you to stop everything you are doing right now and focus.
Do you swear, on everything you hold dear, everything you believe in, and on your own mother's life that you failed to see my humor in saying "that is my criterion" ? STOP. Focus. This is so extremely serious that you, in real life, reading this are at serious (serious) risk.
It was a way of saying the purpose is about INNOVATION, not criterion or anyone's criteria about any game. If you do not see that, you need to be honest about it. Yes. You need to be honest about it.