It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Recently I ran a thread about the popularity of MMORPGs as compared to single player games. I got a lot of really great responses that mostly pointed to the major differences between the two markets. Given the fact that everyone here likes this sort of game (yes, even me), quite a few of you jumped up to correct my numbers or explain why the comparison was inadequate as a trend detector. I'd like to thank those of you that replied.
Moving right along, the two most frequent answers that I got about the limited public appeal of MMORPGs were: "The monthly fee scares people away." and "MMORPGs make a lot of money so they can't be all that limited in appeal." Both of these are very valid arguements.
MMORPGs do make quite a bit more cash than a single player/ multi-player box game. This is mainly due to the fact that MMORPGs cost quite a bit more than single player/multi-player box games. With this in mind, how does the game play actually stack up? Yes, you can spend an infinate amount of time playing a Mass-MOG, but do you get the same feeling of reward that you get from something like FFX or Knights of The Old Republic? Does that feeling stay with you after you hit the Mass-MOG's level cap? Is the time spent in an MMORPG just as rewarding? More rewarding? Less rewarding? Why?
The goal is always to find better games. In the eyes of developers, the goal is to make better games. If we want developers to make better games, then we need to define what we really, really like about these games and what we despise completely about them. I may sound like I'm playing twenty questions here, but I'm pretty sure that future MMORPG designers are reading these boards and we need to tell them what we want to see.
Comments
Interesting question.
I think you might get this from others also - but they are two totally different animals (to me anyway)
When i play a FPS (half-life(2), doom3, CS:source etc) i want a fast paced game, where i can win/loose in a few minutes or so, and play for 20min - 1hour tops.
i cant think of a MMORPG that gives that.
When i play a RTS or RPG game, i normally want the experience of building up my "ability" (levels, units, etc) and thinking of ways to beat the challenges put in front of me.
this i sort of get in MMORPGs.
When i play an MMORPG, i am looking for the community and being able to make an impact on it - either ingame on on the forums. I like building/being part of guids that play together. I like co-operative play, as well as competitive play... (team v team is fun)
I dont think its fair to try and compare (for example) World of Warcraft vs Half Life 2. There is no real overlap or basis for comparison. Yes they are both games, but its like trying to compare slalom ski-ing with ice-hockey.
You can have a "good" mmorpg, and a "good" single player game, but for totally different reasons.
Like he said its all about community, sure Riku's a colourful character but she doesn't carry on a good conversations. MMORPG's are great but the developers only do half the job making the game, the players do the rest by forming great communities and adding unpredictable life to a game.
I kind of have this Matrix analogy rolling around in my head but I just got home from a night shift and can't quite spit it out lol. Maybe when I wake up I'll be able to think clearer.
I think if MMORPG's incorporated some kind of "end-game" into them, it would make them a whole lot better. But how can a MMOG have an end game? Well, first you must ask what exactly is the "end game". In stand alone, single player games, the "end game" is the culmination of the story. It's the apex of everything you did in the game coming together to bring closure to the story you've just experienced. The games that give you a sense of accomplishment at the conclusion of the game are the games which are best known for their story lines. The games which just end where you are like "That's it??" leaving you not quite satisfied are more akin to MMOG's but you just never say "That's it??" for a MMOG because it's assumed the world would just keep rolling on.
So, now how do we bring that sense of accomplishment to a MMOG. I think the obvious answer is Quests/Missions. I think that's where MMOG's fall short. Yes, you have games like the Everquest series touting hundreds upon hundreds of quests. But none of them give you that "Wow!" at the conclusion of them. You just get the "ok, finished that, what next" feeling.
I don't have the answer as to how to make that eye popping sense of accomplishment feeling that would work in a MMOG simply because once someone does it, everyone after that is just following someone elses footsteps. Yes, in a stand alone boxed game, there are others who have completed the game LONG before you do, but the difference is, you don't see or hear about it unless you go looking for it on the web. It's not like they call you at home and say "Hey, I've already done what you're trying to accomplish. Good luck." So although others have gone before you in a boxed game, at the conclusion of it, it makes you feel like you've done something.
I know MMOG game companies realize that this is what is missing from MMOG's. This is apparent in multiple games toting "You can change the face of the world you live in". I think AC2 was the first to try this concept with towns forming around where people congregate or something like that. The problem is, it takes next to forever for you to see ANY results of this, which people just get bored of waiting.
So again, I don't have a solution to the problem and I haven't seen a game come out or that is in development that promises this sense of accomplishment. If one does ever come out, I think they will need to re-evaluate the MMOG-Stand alone game comparison again.
I agree with Dsorrent. I have often thought of and discussed with friends the WOW factor of MMORPGs. The WOW factor is when you first start playing and you think WOW that is really cool but after playing a while and see all the monster and window dressing and other cool stuff the WOW factor fades, so the devs add more content but after a while even this does not invoke the same reaction.
The difference with linear games and MMO games is that when you play a linear game you are striving for tha goal that you know is reachable every new encounter can be specific and indepth. The story can be long and complex. But with a MMO while the back story can be complex you , as a player cannot do much to effect that story, if the great Foozle can be killed thus bringing the alliance of oppressive evil to its knees and freeing the good lands so the people can live forever in peace then the game doesnt have much left after a group of high levels do it. So IMO you have to view a MMO as a "long haul game" one in which you have set what ever goals are available for your character and follow thru with the goals. Now it is up to the devs to make a game were you can set goals for your char other than killing 2000 large skunks to level and get enuff money to buy cool armor.
Even in games were the community can interact on many levels (chat, pvp, guild battles, raids) which does give you something to do, these endevors have to have some substantial goal or you just killing 2000 skunks ( or other players) with friends.
Quests are the meat of a MMO but as Dsorrent indicated when you are going after the Rose Sword which is, according to the story line for the quest nearly unatainable, and you see 50 other players running around with on or camping the drop (or worse buying one on Ebay) it has a tendancy to lose its luster.
Dedthom has always been ded, thats why they call him Dedthom.
""But Coyote, you could learn! You only prefer keyboard and mouse because that's all you've ever known!" You might say right before you hug a rainforest and walk in sandals to your drum circle where you're trying to raise group consciousness of ladybugs or whatever it is you dirty goddamn hippies do when you're not busy smoking pot and smelling bad."
Coyote's Howling: Death of the Computer
The Problem I see with situation be is that what if faction a has 200 people online and faction b has 50 people online because there was a major snow storm in the city where most of faction b are form and the power is off. What is to keep faction a from taking advantage of the situation and wiping faction b out. While your point is well taken, being a gopher NPC can be a drag, hopefully devs will come up with something more useful or intresting than the situation you sescribe in example 1.
Let me throw this at you. The game has NPC and such. But you and some other players form a mining company. But instead of every on trouping off to the mountains to mine you are *able* to hire NPC caravaan guards, mule trains and spend an hour or two mining and fighting of monsteres or PC bandits or wot not. Bring the load back to the city that you helped to build and smelt it down to make a profit. I know there are holes in this scenario, but I think that if there was a game that could make activities like this balanced and fun would be a game I would play.
I agree 100% tho rentantilus about the level thing.
Dedthom has always been ded, thats why they call him Dedthom.
""But Coyote, you could learn! You only prefer keyboard and mouse because that's all you've ever known!" You might say right before you hug a rainforest and walk in sandals to your drum circle where you're trying to raise group consciousness of ladybugs or whatever it is you dirty goddamn hippies do when you're not busy smoking pot and smelling bad."
Coyote's Howling: Death of the Computer
Your "B" scenario is great, except it really won't work for the long term. The issue is purely a timing issue like it was pointed out before. When Faction A has 200 people online and Faction B has 50 online, Faction A would wipe out Faction B in a heartbeat. But you follow up with that Faction B might have a secret alliance with Faction D who has 75 people online. You would need some kind of mecahnism in the Faction that EVERYONE in the Faction needs to be aware of this "secret alliance" because if the people who are "in the know" are not logged in, you're dead. In making this "secret" available to everyone in the faction, it's not really a secret anymore since someone in the faction could be a spy.
Then what happens when you login and your Faction is decimated. Do you leave your Faction to try to join another one? Who's going to take you, you might be a spy. Now you're on your own getting ganked by everyone around because you're free points in an open PvP world and you have nobody to come save you. After days of logging in and dying, you cancel your subscription out of pure frustration.
While, yes, the concept sound quite exciting to be in the middle of something like that, I don't see how it could work for the long haul with people playing these games at all diffferent times. Each game does have a peak and a valley of volume of online players. Now with your system, your asking people to wake up at 2am when the server population is low and organize to take over various faction points. That pretty much eliminates everyone who is a casual gamer, holds down a job and has a family. It's a VERY small population of the working class which has a family that's going to wake up in the middle of the night to play a game. College kids and younger, yes, I can see them getting up and doing these things, but, if you are a company, do you try to cater to the college kids and younger who don't have much money or do you cater to the working class who has money to spend?
The trick is.. any game like that option needs to have 2 more things
1) NPC which are hirable/trainable etc.
2) perma characters /perma death..
basically, each PC should be able to be scripted to some extent.. if(enemy) then run - or give the afk PCs some kind of NPC intelligence or able to be commanded by fellow faction members..
this will allow a faction to build up defenses and npc etc - but will also make them have to think about setting up defenses to defend their own characters...
and even if most people in a faction are off line, those online can still mount a defense with the full forces of the faction - with the npc acting something like units in a rts perhaps.
The difference between a mmorpg and an offline game have already been stated as no defined end game. You can't complete any mmorpg, you can out live it's contents until you find something else. PvP adds a certain amount of longevity. But I don't think thats enough for future mmorpgs. PvP tends to be about gear and class/race balances.
Im hoping future mmorpgs will have a realistic weather/environment system, more complex crafting (imagine a crafting tree like Alpha Centauri, in fact imagine a mmorpg designed by Sid Meier or Peter Molyneux), smarter mobs, and yet still be engaging and fun so that no matter how often you log and play you will stay be playing it a year or more away. Economies in mmorpgs that spiral out of control are also one of my biggest bugbears.
I personally think the reward of a MMORPG is greater then that of a single player game, as in MMORPG you're actually playing with thousands of other people, so you can brag and be admired when you find your legendary spear of uber pwnage + 1.
"Everything between these floating comma type things is my sig. Not part of my above text.
If ignorance is bliss, you'd think people would be happier when you point out what morons they are!"
In order for MMOs to get this great fun factor, there needs to be a few things done differently.
First, death needs to mean something. In a single player RPG, when your character dies, typically they're dead. Forever. Load a previous save and try again. If you are killed in an MMO, no problems. I'll just go and respawn, potentially with a small XP penalty or at worst some lost items and XP, and charge right back into the fight. Nobody can win this, as you can never remove all of your opponents from combat.
Second, the player needs to actually impact the story. Horizons had good ideas when it came to this - nobody can go to this area until the tunnel is cleared or the bridge is built. If I helped build that bridge or dig that tunnel, I ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTED to the story. In current MMOs - I'll pick on WoW in this case - I got a mission to kill the guy that helped lead to the downfall of Gnomeregan. Killing him, combined with several other quests I completed in Gnomeregan, were to allow the Gnomes to move back. Will that ever happen? Not likely in my time in the game. Make what I do in game make a difference.
Third, the story can't end. This solves the end-game dilema. If I'm actually contributing to the story, and the story doesn't end, why would I ever quit playing the game? It would be Morrowind that I can play forever and always find somehting new. As it stands right now, no game has a content team even remotely large enough for this undertaking, though some have begun to think about it - Saga of Ryzom supposedly has story planned for the next 8 years.
Finally, as mentioned above, levels need to fade away. In most games, the new player is worthless in meaningful content. You have to be in the top 10% of levels to compete in PvP, most dungeons, etc. I'd rather see this level system go away towards skills, where less skilled players can assist more skilled players in different roles in any content situation. When you can't group with friends because they had 2 extra hours to play over the weekend and got 5 levels ahead of you, it loses fun. When you can't participate in the live content because it's geared to levels 50-70 and you're only 20, it becomes frustrating. WoW is guilty of this - they've been pumping up battlegrounds for a while now, but the first one will only be for the top levels.
MMOs are finally starting to become good games, reaching out to more people. It's stilll a relatively new genre, with lots of room to grow.
Damn, you've got some good ideas there Rentantilus. And I'm starting to see you whichever MMORPG forum I go to So why do I get the feeling that no developer would ever...ever.. actually make a MMO like that. Is it really because they haven't got the balls to try something new? Or is it because however good an idea it is..it wouldn't sell? I would certainly buy it, but is the MMO audience ready to leave the 'Everquest mold'?
I say, bring on the new generation of PvP.
Interesting. But then you have to think about how many of the 'I'd buy it..but no one else would' people would really buy it. Wouldn't they but off by the fact that they believe..no one would buy it. Therefore in their mind..it would have a extremely low/ non existent player base. Who wants to play an MMORPG with nobody else in the world? Actually, it just came to me, that some people would play a single-player MMORPG. If you understand what I mean. A single player game, but with MMORPG game mechanics. Actually, now that I think about it, that wouldn't work.
I have a strange mind.
The problem that I have with rentantilus's idea is that it's sort of already been done. It sounds alot like WW2 Online and Planetside. I agree that Massive PvP can be a blast when It's done right, but in practice it rarely works as it's intended.
As far as the end game issue goes, I'm goint to take a cue from the MUDs of years long gone. Way back, lost in the mists of time that seperate now from 1992, MUDs were about the only online game you could play. They were alot like EverCrack done in text. The major difference being the size of the community and the way the overall world was managed. Basically, the world had a story line and several "Vend-A-Quests" with the daily/weekly/monthly GM run event. The quests all led up to a final "end game" and the first players to beat it "won" the game. At this point, the admin would update the code to reflect the outcome of the game and start a new storyline with the "winners" becoming immortals that acted as impromptu GMs.
As you can probably guess, this kind of gameplay would take a lot of thought before launch and the complexity would only increase with branching storylines, side quests, and PvP quests. Not only that, but alot of the main quests would have to be one shot with several side quests that could lead other players into the current main quest. FFXI is kind of messing with this concept, but I haven't had a chance to sit down and play it yet.
As for ditching levels, I'm all for it. I loved Morrwind and UO specifically because it allowed greater freedom in character development. I liked GURPS more than AD&D for the same reason.
I would say that I am relatively new to MMORPGs but that is no longer true. I have been playing for about a year and have played at least four, with only one active current subscription.
There is, in any development process, a gathering of input, requirements gathering. Then, there is the analysis phase, sifting through the requirements to determine what are the common threads. The fact is, the more people you have giving input, the number exponentially goes up for conflicting requirements and requests.
This thread is interesting but it points out that what one may want, 2 others don't. Someone might come along and completely revitalize how the MMORPG is played and when they do, it will blow everyone away but to try and speculate what that will be against current models is always difficult.
I for one can appreciate what the NPCs bring to the game. Managing 'in world' economies is a hard thing and if nothing else, NPCs set a certain bar. The example that comes to my mind of a world economy that has run rampant is Lineage 2. Items for the top grade run into the 10s of millions of adena. It makes for a much more ruthless PvP world where people are basically mugged in the hopes of them dropping something good. Some might argue that is good, but again, to my first point, I am someone who plays in the evenings and I do it for the social aspect and relaxing, if I want ruthless, I can watch the nightly news.
I think things like 'world events' would make the game more interesting. World event is something staged that involves something of a cataclysmic <sp> magnitude that would involve the entire community coming together to address it. I have heard that some on line games do that.
I think about what it was that has made some games so popular, if even for a brief time.
City of Heroes got a lot of attention because of their character modeling and the cool 'super powers'. Some of the complaints I heard was the PvE at some point became boring.
Lineage 2 had a buzz because of the entire PvP taking over territories and their graphics were pretty amazing, even if the character modeling selection was slightly limited.
EQ2 had buzz because it was the next generation for one of the most NA popular MMORPG, the one (they say) made online gaming a viable business. If you pop over to those boards you see the pros and cons listed fairly well.
WoW polished a lot of aspects and IMO has answered some of the common complaints in online gaming. I know the graphics and the 'ease of leveling' is part of the list of what is not so great about it. Myself, I have no opinion on those 2 items.
SWG offered a unique world but some said it took too long for anything to happen.
I know the list could go on and on, so maybe the larger question is, what about all the games out there make them appealing and then what is it, in general, that makes them not the end all be all for MMORPGs. A large part of it is the community that is built in game that can make or break a game.
Good topic and good insight on this thread. Thanks for starting it
Infensus Scriptus
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"
Infensus Scriptus
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"
I think that a mmorpg is something to do now and again because the experience really doestn end
but the single player games i buy complete em thennline most ppl are like wh play the mmorpg either way the develpor counts so much in mmorpg i mean take anarchy o i like cheese!
Omfg 0ei39%^&I8FCHUIA&*(&w£")(u*(w)ue iLIKE CANDY!!!!
Omfg 0ei39%^&I8FCHUIA&*(&w£")(u*(w)ue iLIKE CANDY!!!!
So, now to play this game, you need to go prying into the private lives of the people playing. "What timezone are you in? How often do you play? What hours do you play?" How many factions are going to want the guy who replies "Oh, I have a family and kids so I try to get on when I can, but I can't specify when that is."? How many people are going to want to go into detail of their lifes schedules to total strangers to play a game?
Maybe I missed something, but, why are people playing this game? Is the whole concept of the game just to kill other people? If there's no levels is there anything that differentiates the newbie from the player of 5 years other than the veterans knowledge of the game? Your original concept described the purpose of the team to be a distration so another part of the team can sneak in somewhere. Is the purpose of this game a ground control game? So you have a map of the "world" with various area's and they are colored by the faction who owns it so the whole game is about bragging rights as to landmass control? So if the whole game becomes one giant FPS game, then the issue you run into is ping dependancies. Those with the lower pings, rule. So then I guess that could be a Faction question as well, "What time zone are you in? What's your ping?"
I don't think it's a matter of "having the balls" to say something like that. The issue is that when they make these MMOG games, they try to make the game fair for all people playing. If you start basing your rule set on the fact that the persons real life geographic location comes into play when they are playing giving them an in game advantage over other people, what's next? The player's sex? Their race? Their religious beliefs?
Lastly, comparing a game to a hospital has to be one of the most ridiculous comparisons I've seen to date, no offense. A hospital's sole purpose is to help people who are in need of medical attention. A game's sole purpose is for entertainment purposes. You can't compare the possibility of actual loss of life to the loss of your virtual life. Sorry, I don't get that.
It really boils down to one thing, keep the player experience fun, exciting and meaningful. Not having an extreme amount of time to devote to my character and no real incentive to complete collection quests has turned me away from many MMORPG's. Make what I am doing meaningful. It doesn't have to be a world changing thing, it just must feel like it made some difference to my character or in turn me. It is no fun to spend the couple of hours I have to play just grinding for an insignificant weapon or armor upgrade.
The comment about Horizons was nice to see, as I feel at least there player actions could be reflected in the ingame world. There was nothing like defending a town from a werewolf attach. And if you failed the town could be put to ruins.
The only downside to that system again had to do with levels. All world effecting events were geared for super high level characters. Even at level twenty all you were was fodder while the greater level characters took care of business.
Levels are another area that can greatly reduce the overal player experience. Character development needs to become skill based. Yes I can swing a sword but it takes practice to become proficient. Many old MUDS did this well and I would like to see the increased skill development added to MMORPGS. Basically the more you do something the better at it you become.
Thus I do not have to spend hours to level up my character when all I am trying to do is to make him more proficient in a particular skill. I would just have to use the skill to become better.
----
If you never strive for more and are afraid to take a chance, then you have all you deserve.
I dont know what you mean by "good games." Anything thats fun is a good game.
MMORPG's are simply the newest way for gaming companies to milk gamers. Instead of spending 3 years developing a first-person shooter, and recouping your investment + profits by selling the $50 boxes, you spend 3 years developing an MMORPG, and do the same thing + the $15 a month everyone pays.
Sure, running the game servers costs money, but it's definitely a profit center and not a cost center.
Thats why all these upstart gaming companies jumped on the bandwagon, they saw Verant getting paid well, and they wanted a piece of it.
I'm feeling fine, thanks for asking. I'm just saying here that in your game you will just wind up with PowerFactions who are selectively choosing members based on their locations IRL.
Actually, I'm against the level thing for open PvP systems. I think we've had this discussion once before in another thread somewhere. I agree in an open PvP environment, the new player logging in should have a character equally as powerful as someone who's been playing for 5 years. I was just asking if in your system there was any kind of in game skill set which makes one more powerful than the other. I was just clarifying your game rules.
In a game where you're Faction is looking for people globally to man the garrison, I think socialization is not the primary objective of creating a Faction in your game. Team combat is usually tied in with your next ite, conquering. Again, I was asking these questions more for clarification on what your view point is. I was not "attacking" you with my post, it was more of an information request. As for gathering resources and building things, I guess in this game anyone can build things since there are no skills associated with it?
Yes, but you're talking about a game which will require a faction which consists of people on a global scale, not just in North America, in order to dominate the game. The rest of the world isn't "progressing" at the same rate as Americans in the broadband category.
You're game is. You said yourself:
Isn't that basing your faction on where the person lives? Do you think you're the only one who will have this idea? No, because based on the ruleset, it's the most wise thing to do, as you clearly pointed out. That's what I am saying. Based on the ruleset, people will build their factions based on where the people live. So, there is nothing wrong with me, I'm just saying once you start including game dynamics which give people an advantage in the game based on things such as where they live, what's next?
There is nothing wrong with me. I'm trying to understand the relationship you are comparing an online game to a hospital with. One is a paying job where people help the sick, the other is a form of entertainment. I don't get the relationship.
You're comparing a real life job, where someone gets paid money so that they can live with an optional form of entertainment. Working is a necessity in life, the game isn't. You're going to take the graveyard shift if your only other option is unemployment. The hospital gets these people to come in 24 hours a day because they pay them to do so. If the people had the option to come in and work when they felt like it, I bet the hospital would not be staffed 24 hours a day. Also, again, here you are saying that the mechanics of the game are designed around where the person lives, so please stop asking:
No, your game is not for the CASUAL gamer at all. Who cares about the "CAREBEAR" gamers. Your game is strictly for the hardcore, have nothing else to do in life, gamers. Which, unfortunately for you is a VERY small market. And that is why your game will never be made. Because as this thread said in the beginning, MMOG's are a good business choice. MMOG's are all about money, and your concept won't make much money at all.
Actually, before you go assuming what games I play or like, maybe you should try asking. I tried WoW and was totally turned off by the cartoony graphics. I played EQ2 for quite some time and realized that I need some sort of PvP aspect to keep my interest in a MMOG.
I think you need to go outside and get a breath of fresh air before you start replying to these threads. For whatever reason, you can't deal with questions about your "ultimate game concept" without feeling like someone is attacking you.
You'd never even get a company to look at your concept because of the defensive stance you take whenever someone asks questions regarding it.
Edited for formatting.
i think there are lots out there now cause there so many different types of people that like different types of things.
Daoc's strength was its choice pvp and or leveling
swg's break through was leveling classes without ever having to combat
entertainers that brought non mmorpgs into the game, merchant classes buying sell
as long as there are players certain games will do certain things well
wow took same ole same ole and did very well as far as sales, well see in time about server managment and playablity issues as time goes on.....
there will never be, the be all end all game for all players na.................
folks like different things in a game and that is what they will choose to play
no some of mmorpgs are bad games, that love to punish there players, but for some reason folks still play them ?????
MMORPGs offer options others games dont.
However, they have a nasty tendancy to ''enforce'' those options, see, even if someone like apple pies, if he have to eat a full apple pie every week, I bet that in a few years he will hate apple pies.
If I need to solo or group in order to do what I really wanna do(exemple raid or tradeskill), odds are I will dislike grouping and soloing even if at start I like them all.
The MMORPG that will offer every gameplay from the first time you log to the last time in 5 years is the MMORPG that will win a HUGE player base. Be it solo or PvP, folks want to do it NOW, and until THEY are choosing to do something else, not because the game ask them to do something else after this point or cant do it before that point.
- "Solo is, will always be, the main market. A MMORPG that succeed with little or no solo appeal is doing great considering they are ignoring the main player base.''
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Bit off topic.Ok I'm fairly new to mmorpgs so bear with me.These are just a few ideas I had maybe they are good maybe not just putting out there.
To make a truly great mmorpg you have to take bits from all the rpgs out now and some ideas not used yet.
If levels aren't gonna be used anymore there has to be some way to separate newbies from veterans. I say 1.gear 2.skills.
1.For the gear there should be common through legendary. It's been menchaned before it takes fun out of it when others have the weapon thats supposed to be legendary. So I suggest there only one or every few on a server. First to complete the quest gets it then everyone else will have to kill the owner if they want it. This will create constant conflict between clans because of the power it will give a certain clan in say battles.
2A.If theres no levels then whats keeping a newbie from beating a vet?Skills.Maybe one day there will actually have to be some real interaction when pvp or pveing.You know more like a fighting game.
2B.As for the skills heres where WOW comes in. I like that WOW made it so causal games get a little help in leveling by resting. It would be cool to have your character training while you away or you can play your social class.But, so players wont be forced into doing so they can do something like a quest or training course.
I haven't heard much from you guys about people that don't want to pvp.There was a mmorpg coming out for xbox which I found interesting because it offered professions in which you would never have to pvp(I hear SWG was like that but I never tried it so cant comment). These would be good for people who like to socialize. They also had proffesion which can alter your characters appearance such as barbers. These would help make everyone unique and you all know why that is good. The thing is I don't know many people who would do that all day but, thats just me.
As mmorpgs can't really end there should be many small ending more like an end to a chapter. Say the orcs rule over part of the world. It should not be a one man mission not even a one clan mission but a army to kill the orc king and take the land back. Also small chapters like the death of a pker(perma death?).Would be cool to have newbies stop complaining about griefers and come together to put an end to pkers themselves.Its always fun to overcome something and actually have it end. Single player games and mmorpgs will never be alike since on is like a movie while the other is like a series. Some people prefer one over the other. 1player=story everybody does nearly alike. Mmorpg=open story nobody can tell you the end to.
I know most of that stuff is me dreaming but isn't that what todays games were years ago?
Okay, so let's see if I understand what's gone on so far.....
1) Rent's idea is basically a massive version of Savage and can be compared to Planetside, WW2 Online and 10 Six. Don't know if these can be considered MMORPGs but they certainly qualify as Mass-MOGs.
2) Aside from just making serialized quests that dovetail into live GM events and PvP missions, we would also need some kind of easy to understand tradeskill system. I'm thinking Vagrant Story for some reason.
3) All rude comments about "carebears" considered. Co-op play needs to also be available. Be honest, haven't you played Quake or Rainbow Six levels with your friends over a LAN?
4) Resources (like items) should be limited and non-renewable.
5) Vets should be able to trounce newbies every single time. Hell, a vet should be able to slaughter a whole army of newbs!
6) Levels are so 1977! skill based, classless systems offer more options and the ability to improve without combat.
And I think that's about it. If I left anything out, let me know. If I got anything wrong, I'm sure you'll let me know.
I would also like to touch on the broken economies in many MMORPG. To me the problem is the "infinite money". You kill something it either drops coin or items that can be sold for money that has no end. AC was the worst for this as even a moderatly leveled char could earn up to a 100,000 pyreals an hour. This led to moneybeing practically useless in the game and player found another form of exchange in SIKs and that other thing I cant remember. I feel there should be a finite amount of money in the game world and the devs should regulate the amount according to the number of players and the needs of the game. EQ had the oppisite problem. While you could easily make enuff money to buy food and such, the cost of other items like armor and wepons was so outrageous as to be unreachable by most players unless they joined a guild or grouped constantly.
Also, if you think about it "carebear" players are what devs want. Someone who plays 10 hours a week but still pays 12 buck as opposed to someone who plays 50 hours a week for the same amount. Its the band width baby and casual players are less likely to demand new content after a month.
Dedthom has always been ded, thats why they call him Dedthom.
""But Coyote, you could learn! You only prefer keyboard and mouse because that's all you've ever known!" You might say right before you hug a rainforest and walk in sandals to your drum circle where you're trying to raise group consciousness of ladybugs or whatever it is you dirty goddamn hippies do when you're not busy smoking pot and smelling bad."
Coyote's Howling: Death of the Computer