I'm not convinced that an open world need have zero publisher content, I work on the idea that a strategic story is unfolding (similar to your own brief) yet players can define their own interaction with this plot. Indeed it may be possible for the more capable characters (need not be 'high-level', just played well) to establish plot lines to rival the publisher, and in time such plot developments to move to the fore. But like I initially stated, this will only work for those who are following the development teams story; I assume therefore that attempts to clear a different pass wont have any effect?
I'd like to quote you twice, but I can't figure out how with this forum system...
Re: player plot lines
You're talking about community content contributions. The closer you get to the core features of a service, the less involvement players can have. I wouldn't pursue player-crafted plots, and I wouldn't give players the tools to create them. However, I might give them tools to create AI for NPCs, artwork for objects, etc. Those things can be created outside of the game and then get submitted to the publisher for review and possible inclusion to the game.
Re: clearing a different pass
There wouldn't be another pass that needed clearing, or it just wouldn't be practical to get to it. The goal is to very carefully structure the player experience.
What I actually have in mind is a kind of linear RPG. Literally linear. The world is a long strip of land, perhaps a mile wide and as long as the game runs. Its length is determined by the game run time because as the players complete the current tasks, the new tasks are geographically farther along the strip. The players don't stay in the same geography. They're constantly advancing through content, consuming it as they go.
The terrain would keep changing as they moved along. Mountains, then plains, then forests, then hills, then swamps, etc. All the while, fighting, exploring, harvesting and building. The idea is that the content is constantly changing, and nothing gets repeated. The nostalgic types can always go back over all the terrain they played through in the past, and it can retain the scars and evidence of whatever took place - something that is lost in repeated content. If the game can record players, then it might be possible to rewatch the taking of the bridge across the gorge 10 miles back.
Again, I'm just repeating a stock RPG's formula: keep the players moving along through the game content. It's mostly linear, perhaps with a branch here or there. In the case of an MMO, I'd rely heavily on procedural content (it'll be churned through quicklly anyway) and on just a very few monster types that emphasize AI far more than how tough they look. Orcs, goblins and trolls that are as smart as the characters in Far Cry, using cover to approach, being distracted by sounds, etc. Entertaining because of the way they are fought, not because they drop nice toys.
With the linear world, the players are kept together. There are no significant issues of travel. Typically, nobody is more than a few minutes away. The game is a travelling front line that rolls up the content of the game as the entire player base moves forward. Just like a single player RPG.
No people looking for groups. Nobody begging for money. Nobody worrying about their level, their gear, or who gets the drops. No kill stealing. Nobody triggering a wipe of the raid because they needed to answer the phone. No old timers who camp all the 'good spots'. Just a bunch of folks slaughtering baddies, finding resources, building stuff and watching the game unfold.
You're talking about community content contributions. The closer you get to the core features of a service, the less involvement players can have. I wouldn't pursue player-crafted plots, and I wouldn't give players the tools to create them. ...
Re: clearing a different pass
...
I dont think I'm talking about community content contributions if this means that quests are 'submitted' to the dev team and then created by them; if however you mean player defined quests and a economic and political system that will drive strategic goals for the players due to the earlier actions of the players, then yeah, thats what I mean. But that doesn't matter, I'm more interested in the rest of your post. Its basically a rolling war model, I assume you can lose as well as win, hence you can be pushed back as well as your enemy? Is the enemy only NPC or are PCs on both sides (I guess that would demand that war can role forwards or backwards)?
This is indeed a simple enough development from current mmos, coupled with the 'group action' and enhanced NPC AI, I believe it could be pretty fun. But its a little short term for my likings, ok to pop into but I'd know whatever I did would be old in a few hours. Afterall its a rolling battlefield (a bit like RvR).
... What are your thoughts? Is soloing killing MMO's and what they're about?
To go back to the original question... I dont think grouping should be enforced or that soloing is a worse gameplay style. Don't get me wrong - i like harcore games like EVE. I'm all for penalties, and would like to see finally body loot. It's just that I dont define MMO as a game in which you have to play in groups, but rather as a world in which you do stuff in relation to others, world which you influence...it is an interconnected web of people. You are not forced to cooperate with them...you may simple treat them as your customers etc. If i dont like people I should still be able to trade with them, kill them, run away from them... feel all the excitement of multiplayer without the need to cooperate.
So I say no to MMO's which force grouping...grouping just should be a tool that makes life easier, but if you like it the hard way, you should be able to try...of course there should be risk:)
Its basically a rolling war model, I assume you can lose as well as win, hence you can be pushed back as well as your enemy? Is the enemy only NPC or are PCs on both sides (I guess that would demand that war can role forwards or backwards)?
There's no player-versus-player action here. PvP is an entirely different game. In the game I'm postulating, players fight the environment environment, where the environment is more actively opposing the players because the gamemasters are operating the monsters. Not at the individual level, but at the group level.
Imagine gamemasters who have an Age of Empires interface to direct monsters. "These six go here, that one runs around to the side, those 15 attack there" and so on. Meanwhile, the players are operating using a standard MMO interface for their single character. Importantly, the players have a thinking opponent. You don't know when or where a monster is going to show up unless you're carefully scouting out the enemy.
As for losing a battle, that's determined by the publisher's goals. The storyline may make greater or lesser allowances for the players to influence its direction. If the gamemasters think that players are fighting particularly well together in a battle, they may decide to give them a victory by withholding the troll squad that was going to get thrown in. If the gamemasters think that the players are bickering too much, they may throw in an extra troll squad to get their minds back on the fight. Other times, it may be critical to the storyline that the players win or lose, meaning that the publishers will ensure that things progress the right way. The players will never know if they won an easy fight because that's just the way things worked out or if the gamemasters set it up that way.
That may sound silly to some, but it works for me. When I played old style D&D, we knew that we were up against the whims of the dungeonmaster. If he wanted to kill off our characters, he would. Mostly, he made sure that we were entertained by keeping the outcome hanging on the roll of a die. That would be the job of the gamemasters in this electronic version - to keep things close.
Sounds fine JB, nothing silly about it, the idea of GMs controlling the enemy force ensures intelligent enemy and provides that 'challenge without malice' that we enjoyed 'on paper'.
Back to the OP, solo is fine, its not the end of the world; given the option to group with friends or strangers, and given some reason for doing so, then MMOs will retain grouping. This issue is, do we have a good reason to do so and any given game, one that does not seem unreasonable.
90% of the people in this thread prefer a solo friendly game. 10% of the people in this thread prefer a forced grouping game. If you were a mmorpg developer, which crowd would you write your game for? Oh, there were mmorpgs that were made in the past to cater to the forced grouping crowd (EQ2, Vanguard, etc), and within a year, they had added solo content, because noone was playing their game. The game developers figured it out eventually......why can't you?
Honestly, I'd go for the people that like forced grouping.
That means you aren't competing with WoW, and you have a chance to develop a very profitable niche market with a player base that is very loya.
Or, you can continue to make solo friendly games taht compete with WoW, and fail. So your plan to compete with WoW doesn't really seem that appealing.
That sounds exactly like what Vanguard tried to do. How well did that work for them?
EVEN if those statistics were accurate, they only reflect the MMORPG.com Community lol. Think of the Millions of MMO gamer who are'nt on this website bitching in the forums
Division Bell ( best Pink Floyd album) + Ibanez Guitar = divibanez
What is it with devs nowadays? MMO is for grouping and having fun together
Wow, this topic is totally new and really, really interesting. /sarcasm off
"MMO" basically means no more than "large numbers of people online gaming". Sorry to pop your little bubble, but nothing about grouping, or even soloing, is specifically referred to. It is merely a game in which a lot of people log on to play - end of story. I pay my money to play the way I want to, and fully expect other people to do whatever floats their boat without other people constantly weeping and wailing because they think they should be playing THEIR way.
Real life is a sort of MMO, and nothing says we have to group-hug and follow each other about joined at the hip. If you wish to be a team player in real life and in virtual life, fine. If you wish to be a loner, fine.
What is it with devs nowadays? MMO is for grouping and having fun together
Wow, this topic is totally new and really, really interesting. /sarcasm off
"MMO" basically means no more than "large numbers of people online gaming". Sorry to pop your little bubble, but nothing about grouping, or even soloing, is specifically referred to. It is merely a game in which a lot of people log on to play - end of story. I pay my money to play the way I want to, and fully expect other people to do whatever floats their boat without other people constantly weeping and wailing because they think they should be playing THEIR way.
Real life is a sort of MMO, and nothing says we have to group-hug and follow each other about joined at the hip. If you wish to be a team player in real life and in virtual life, fine. If you wish to be a loner, fine.
Want some cheese to go with your whine?
That was awesome, couldn't of said it better myself.
Comments
I'd like to quote you twice, but I can't figure out how with this forum system...
Re: player plot lines
You're talking about community content contributions. The closer you get to the core features of a service, the less involvement players can have. I wouldn't pursue player-crafted plots, and I wouldn't give players the tools to create them. However, I might give them tools to create AI for NPCs, artwork for objects, etc. Those things can be created outside of the game and then get submitted to the publisher for review and possible inclusion to the game.
Re: clearing a different pass
There wouldn't be another pass that needed clearing, or it just wouldn't be practical to get to it. The goal is to very carefully structure the player experience.
What I actually have in mind is a kind of linear RPG. Literally linear. The world is a long strip of land, perhaps a mile wide and as long as the game runs. Its length is determined by the game run time because as the players complete the current tasks, the new tasks are geographically farther along the strip. The players don't stay in the same geography. They're constantly advancing through content, consuming it as they go.
The terrain would keep changing as they moved along. Mountains, then plains, then forests, then hills, then swamps, etc. All the while, fighting, exploring, harvesting and building. The idea is that the content is constantly changing, and nothing gets repeated. The nostalgic types can always go back over all the terrain they played through in the past, and it can retain the scars and evidence of whatever took place - something that is lost in repeated content. If the game can record players, then it might be possible to rewatch the taking of the bridge across the gorge 10 miles back.
Again, I'm just repeating a stock RPG's formula: keep the players moving along through the game content. It's mostly linear, perhaps with a branch here or there. In the case of an MMO, I'd rely heavily on procedural content (it'll be churned through quicklly anyway) and on just a very few monster types that emphasize AI far more than how tough they look. Orcs, goblins and trolls that are as smart as the characters in Far Cry, using cover to approach, being distracted by sounds, etc. Entertaining because of the way they are fought, not because they drop nice toys.
With the linear world, the players are kept together. There are no significant issues of travel. Typically, nobody is more than a few minutes away. The game is a travelling front line that rolls up the content of the game as the entire player base moves forward. Just like a single player RPG.
No people looking for groups. Nobody begging for money. Nobody worrying about their level, their gear, or who gets the drops. No kill stealing. Nobody triggering a wipe of the raid because they needed to answer the phone. No old timers who camp all the 'good spots'. Just a bunch of folks slaughtering baddies, finding resources, building stuff and watching the game unfold.
Re: player plot lines
You're talking about community content contributions. The closer you get to the core features of a service, the less involvement players can have. I wouldn't pursue player-crafted plots, and I wouldn't give players the tools to create them. ...
Re: clearing a different pass
...
I dont think I'm talking about community content contributions if this means that quests are 'submitted' to the dev team and then created by them; if however you mean player defined quests and a economic and political system that will drive strategic goals for the players due to the earlier actions of the players, then yeah, thats what I mean. But that doesn't matter, I'm more interested in the rest of your post. Its basically a rolling war model, I assume you can lose as well as win, hence you can be pushed back as well as your enemy? Is the enemy only NPC or are PCs on both sides (I guess that would demand that war can role forwards or backwards)?
This is indeed a simple enough development from current mmos, coupled with the 'group action' and enhanced NPC AI, I believe it could be pretty fun. But its a little short term for my likings, ok to pop into but I'd know whatever I did would be old in a few hours. Afterall its a rolling battlefield (a bit like RvR).
Well I prefer to group actually, but not any group. If there are no decent ones around, I want the option to solo. Both have to be there for me really
To go back to the original question... I dont think grouping should be enforced or that soloing is a worse gameplay style. Don't get me wrong - i like harcore games like EVE. I'm all for penalties, and would like to see finally body loot. It's just that I dont define MMO as a game in which you have to play in groups, but rather as a world in which you do stuff in relation to others, world which you influence...it is an interconnected web of people. You are not forced to cooperate with them...you may simple treat them as your customers etc. If i dont like people I should still be able to trade with them, kill them, run away from them... feel all the excitement of multiplayer without the need to cooperate.
So I say no to MMO's which force grouping...grouping just should be a tool that makes life easier, but if you like it the hard way, you should be able to try...of course there should be risk:)
There's no player-versus-player action here. PvP is an entirely different game. In the game I'm postulating, players fight the environment environment, where the environment is more actively opposing the players because the gamemasters are operating the monsters. Not at the individual level, but at the group level.
Imagine gamemasters who have an Age of Empires interface to direct monsters. "These six go here, that one runs around to the side, those 15 attack there" and so on. Meanwhile, the players are operating using a standard MMO interface for their single character. Importantly, the players have a thinking opponent. You don't know when or where a monster is going to show up unless you're carefully scouting out the enemy.
As for losing a battle, that's determined by the publisher's goals. The storyline may make greater or lesser allowances for the players to influence its direction. If the gamemasters think that players are fighting particularly well together in a battle, they may decide to give them a victory by withholding the troll squad that was going to get thrown in. If the gamemasters think that the players are bickering too much, they may throw in an extra troll squad to get their minds back on the fight. Other times, it may be critical to the storyline that the players win or lose, meaning that the publishers will ensure that things progress the right way. The players will never know if they won an easy fight because that's just the way things worked out or if the gamemasters set it up that way.
That may sound silly to some, but it works for me. When I played old style D&D, we knew that we were up against the whims of the dungeonmaster. If he wanted to kill off our characters, he would. Mostly, he made sure that we were entertained by keeping the outcome hanging on the roll of a die. That would be the job of the gamemasters in this electronic version - to keep things close.
Sounds fine JB, nothing silly about it, the idea of GMs controlling the enemy force ensures intelligent enemy and provides that 'challenge without malice' that we enjoyed 'on paper'.
Back to the OP, solo is fine, its not the end of the world; given the option to group with friends or strangers, and given some reason for doing so, then MMOs will retain grouping. This issue is, do we have a good reason to do so and any given game, one that does not seem unreasonable.
Honestly, I'd go for the people that like forced grouping.
That means you aren't competing with WoW, and you have a chance to develop a very profitable niche market with a player base that is very loya.
Or, you can continue to make solo friendly games taht compete with WoW, and fail. So your plan to compete with WoW doesn't really seem that appealing.
That sounds exactly like what Vanguard tried to do. How well did that work for them?
EVEN if those statistics were accurate, they only reflect the MMORPG.com Community lol. Think of the Millions of MMO gamer who are'nt on this website bitching in the forums
Division Bell ( best Pink Floyd album) + Ibanez Guitar = divibanez
Wow, this topic is totally new and really, really interesting. /sarcasm off
"MMO" basically means no more than "large numbers of people online gaming". Sorry to pop your little bubble, but nothing about grouping, or even soloing, is specifically referred to. It is merely a game in which a lot of people log on to play - end of story. I pay my money to play the way I want to, and fully expect other people to do whatever floats their boat without other people constantly weeping and wailing because they think they should be playing THEIR way.
Real life is a sort of MMO, and nothing says we have to group-hug and follow each other about joined at the hip. If you wish to be a team player in real life and in virtual life, fine. If you wish to be a loner, fine.
Want some cheese to go with your whine?
OMG ZOMBEEEZZZZZZ!!11!!!1111@1
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
Wow, this topic is totally new and really, really interesting. /sarcasm off
"MMO" basically means no more than "large numbers of people online gaming". Sorry to pop your little bubble, but nothing about grouping, or even soloing, is specifically referred to. It is merely a game in which a lot of people log on to play - end of story. I pay my money to play the way I want to, and fully expect other people to do whatever floats their boat without other people constantly weeping and wailing because they think they should be playing THEIR way.
Real life is a sort of MMO, and nothing says we have to group-hug and follow each other about joined at the hip. If you wish to be a team player in real life and in virtual life, fine. If you wish to be a loner, fine.
Want some cheese to go with your whine?
That was awesome, couldn't of said it better myself.
/agree w/ above
Agreed x 3.
The force-grouping-groupies are just sad. Those days are not coming back. No amount of bitching & moaning will bring it back.