Honestly, Loke, you probably had some good points there, but the fruity text made it difficult to read and I stopped after a few lines. I'm probably not the only one.
I tried to make it easier to read, just mark the text with the mouse to see it in one color.
If you're not going to take a risk, why play at all?
To socialize.
To collect blinky toys
To progress a bar somewhere in a game during a [x] minute play session
To hang out with friends that are more than a short drive away
To do some micromanaging of a persistent world project (market, crafting, shopkeeping, etc)
To mindlessly massacre a field of the same monster over and over for a half an hour if for no other reason than for some really passive entertainment. Green and fast respawn is always a plus.
Not everyone plays MMOs for the same reason. Many people will play the same game for multiple reasons. Sometimes they log in to go PvPing and other times they just want to chat in vent while they bake bread.
A lot of that could be done in a free chatroom, it certainly doesn't require a subscription-fee based game to sit around and socialize and hang out with friends. However, for the rest, since in most MMOs you cannot really progress without combat and we're talking about making combat harder and more dangerous, the question remains. If you're not going to take the risk of losing everything by going into combat, then you cannot progress, get XP, massacre anything, etc. You can sit around and chat with your friends, which seems a bit silly if you're paying MMO fees for the privilege.
I found this particular portion of the discussion to be somewhat ironic and had to comment.
Cephus404, it seems to me that your attempts to defend the trivialized death penalty, is actually more of a support for the harsher death penalty. To summarize; you say that no one will take any risks in a game with a harsh death penalty, to which I respond; if the death penalty is trivial - then what is the risk? Or, do you mean to say that there are no risks in a game with a trivial death penalty and that is what you are looking for? I think you may be confusing 'risk' with 'reckless' possibly. I believe that you will find that in games with a harsher death penalty, there is much less reckless behavior compared to trivial death penalty games. There is only risk for players in harsh death penalty games, when they have something to lose. To even reach that point takes a VERY different play-style all together compared to the trivial death penalty game-player who is allowed to be reckless, without rebuke, and is still permitted to advance despite not having risked anything to do it.
While I realize that everyone will gravitate toward whatever it is that they enjoy, I personally feel very little in the way of accomplishment when I play WoW, for example, and wipe several times in an instance and eventually get through it, compared to getting through it the 1st attempt.
If you're not going to take a risk, why play at all?
To socialize.
To collect blinky toys
To progress a bar somewhere in a game during a [x] minute play session
To hang out with friends that are more than a short drive away
To do some micromanaging of a persistent world project (market, crafting, shopkeeping, etc)
To mindlessly massacre a field of the same monster over and over for a half an hour if for no other reason than for some really passive entertainment. Green and fast respawn is always a plus.
Not everyone plays MMOs for the same reason. Many people will play the same game for multiple reasons. Sometimes they log in to go PvPing and other times they just want to chat in vent while they bake bread.
A lot of that could be done in a free chatroom, it certainly doesn't require a subscription-fee based game to sit around and socialize and hang out with friends. However, for the rest, since in most MMOs you cannot really progress without combat and we're talking about making combat harder and more dangerous, the question remains. If you're not going to take the risk of losing everything by going into combat, then you cannot progress, get XP, massacre anything, etc. You can sit around and chat with your friends, which seems a bit silly if you're paying MMO fees for the privilege.
I found this particular portion of the discussion to be somewhat ironic and had to comment.
Cephus404, it seems to me that your attempts to defend the trivialized death penalty, is actually more of a support for the harsher death penalty. To summarize; you say that no one will take any risks in a game with a harsh death penalty, to which I respond; if the death penalty is trivial - then what is the risk? Or, do you mean to say that there are no risks in a game with a trivial death penalty and that is what you are looking for? I think you may be confusing 'risk' with 'reckless' possibly. I believe that you will find that in games with a harsher death penalty, there is much less reckless behavior compared to trivial death penalty games. There is only risk for players in harsh death penalty games, when they have something to lose. To even reach that point takes a VERY different play-style all together compared to the trivial death penalty game-player who is allowed to be reckless, without rebuke, and is still permitted to advance despite not having risked anything to do it.
While I realize that everyone will gravitate toward whatever it is that they enjoy, I personally feel very little in the way of accomplishment when I play WoW, for example, and wipe several times in an instance and eventually get through it, compared to getting through it the 1st attempt.
Honest question:
What has death penalty to do with roleplaying? When you roleplay in an MMORPG, why would you try to include the game mechanic into it?
MMORPG-mechanics kill any creative impulse imo, because you need to react and cast your spells and tank and heal and all that crap. Roleplaying happens in /say and /emote and if you don't have the time to /say and /emote... how on earth can you roleplay? You can't play out injuries, panic attacks, individual skills, besides some random warcry.
The best roleplaying I had was non-combat stuff, like going for a swim at a nearby lake, trying to help a beggar with schizophrenia find his rat, helping two hobbits to get their marriage on the way... things like that...
If you're not going to take a risk, why play at all?
To socialize.
To collect blinky toys
To progress a bar somewhere in a game during a [x] minute play session
To hang out with friends that are more than a short drive away
To do some micromanaging of a persistent world project (market, crafting, shopkeeping, etc)
To mindlessly massacre a field of the same monster over and over for a half an hour if for no other reason than for some really passive entertainment. Green and fast respawn is always a plus.
Not everyone plays MMOs for the same reason. Many people will play the same game for multiple reasons. Sometimes they log in to go PvPing and other times they just want to chat in vent while they bake bread.
A lot of that could be done in a free chatroom, it certainly doesn't require a subscription-fee based game to sit around and socialize and hang out with friends. However, for the rest, since in most MMOs you cannot really progress without combat and we're talking about making combat harder and more dangerous, the question remains. If you're not going to take the risk of losing everything by going into combat, then you cannot progress, get XP, massacre anything, etc. You can sit around and chat with your friends, which seems a bit silly if you're paying MMO fees for the privilege.
Two things:
1) The argument that if you aren't engaging in some kind of harsh-penalty hardcore mechanic then you might as well just go use a free chat room made no sense ten years ago and still makes no sense today.
2) If you feel that roleplayers should just go use chatrooms, then I don't follow your presence or point in this thread.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I am not a roleplayer - the most roleplaying i was witness off happened in early SWG b4 the NGE.
People really lived virtual lifes...
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
Only game I've ever played that truly felt like I was in a living world was a MuD by Ironrealms.
Its hard to describe in a single post all the reasons this game created immersion, so I won't try.
I will say besides all the plethora of features supporting a roleplaying environment, players enforcing roleplay was the biggest factor. You didn't just shoot the s**t with some random person about yesterdays football game.
One guild i joined had a vetting test, which had to be done completely in character, where they would interview you (in-character) about lore, laws, rules, and customs which are established in this world. (finding all this information was rather difficult, you actually had to explore, read books in the library, find the guild houses and talk to npcs there etc.
That was just the tip of the iceberg, PvP and other "sandbox" features were also included. Up to and including player created items that were completely player designed. (stats, materials, name. Not a list of items all crafters draw from.)
I doubt they would ever try to recreate such an in-depth world in 3D.
PS; I've always found MuDs to be way more enveloping then any graphical based RPG. You really can't compare the imagination to computer generated graphics.
Nothing excites jaded Grandmasters more than a theoretical novelty
Cephus404, it seems to me that your attempts to defend the trivialized death penalty, is actually more of a support for the harsher death penalty. To summarize; you say that no one will take any risks in a game with a harsh death penalty, to which I respond; if the death penalty is trivial - then what is the risk? Or, do you mean to say that there are no risks in a game with a trivial death penalty and that is what you are looking for? I think you may be confusing 'risk' with 'reckless' possibly. I believe that you will find that in games with a harsher death penalty, there is much less reckless behavior compared to trivial death penalty games. There is only risk for players in harsh death penalty games, when they have something to lose. To even reach that point takes a VERY different play-style all together compared to the trivial death penalty game-player who is allowed to be reckless, without rebuke, and is still permitted to advance despite not having risked anything to do it. While I realize that everyone will gravitate toward whatever it is that they enjoy, I personally feel very little in the way of accomplishment when I play WoW, for example, and wipe several times in an instance and eventually get through it, compared to getting through it the 1st attempt.
Combat is always a risk, unless it's combat that you cannot possibly lose no matter how utterly incompetent you are. The point of virtually all MMOs is progression, to go up in level, to get better gear, better weapons, more gold, etc. If your character is not progressing, then you are losing the game. However, when you make the combat too risky, most people simply won't take part in it, the progression will stop and the game will stagnate. People will stop paying their subscription fees and the game will go out of business. You don't seem to comprehend the very basic business realities that dictate this.
Cephus404, it seems to me that your attempts to defend the trivialized death penalty, is actually more of a support for the harsher death penalty. To summarize; you say that no one will take any risks in a game with a harsh death penalty, to which I respond; if the death penalty is trivial - then what is the risk? Or, do you mean to say that there are no risks in a game with a trivial death penalty and that is what you are looking for? I think you may be confusing 'risk' with 'reckless' possibly. I believe that you will find that in games with a harsher death penalty, there is much less reckless behavior compared to trivial death penalty games. There is only risk for players in harsh death penalty games, when they have something to lose. To even reach that point takes a VERY different play-style all together compared to the trivial death penalty game-player who is allowed to be reckless, without rebuke, and is still permitted to advance despite not having risked anything to do it. While I realize that everyone will gravitate toward whatever it is that they enjoy, I personally feel very little in the way of accomplishment when I play WoW, for example, and wipe several times in an instance and eventually get through it, compared to getting through it the 1st attempt.
Combat is always a risk, unless it's combat that you cannot possibly lose no matter how utterly incompetent you are. The point of virtually all MMOs is progression, to go up in level, to get better gear, better weapons, more gold, etc. If your character is not progressing, then you are losing the game. However, when you make the combat too risky, most people simply won't take part in it, the progression will stop and the game will stagnate. People will stop paying their subscription fees and the game will go out of business. You don't seem to comprehend the very basic business realities that dictate this.
I disagree, with most of your points. I'll attempt to address each.
'Combat is always a risk...'
Combat is not always a risk. I'll refer again to WoW to illustrate. In WoW, if your character dies you run back to your body and try again - the end. What is 'risked' exactly? There is no significant drawback to dieing repeatedly aside from a gear repair fee. Hardly the amount of motivation to improve / adapt your play-style to fit the situation that killed you, (compared to other games.)
'The point of virtually all MMOs is progression...'
The 'point' of virtually all MMOs is not progression. The point is to have fun. If you are having fun and get better gear, weapons, more gold, etc. along the way - then that's great. You can still have fun w/o getting better gear, weapons, more gold, etc. though. SWG (pre NGE,) was a lot of fun even if you didn't fight anything for an entire play session.
'However, when you make the combat too risky, most people simply won't take part in it...'
Combat that is 'too risky' is entirely subjective. You and I and millions of other MMO players could have greatly varying opinions on what sort of combat is 'too risky'. There are plenty of risk-takers in the real world, and to think that because you personally find that a significant drawback to failing will somehow stop everyone altogether from even attempting something 'risky' is an inaccurate generalization. If one person can't do something on their own; they will more likely seek out help to do it; not sit huddled in a corner in the fetal position because they failed to do it on their own.
'You don't seem to comprehend the very basic business realities that dictate this.'
I actually DO comprehend the business realities of having a game with sterner rules regarding character deaths. While such games are MUCH less viable in today's market, that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate that the death penalties of old were appropriate motivation to learn to play / survive better than what I had been doing before my character got killed.
Combat is not always a risk. I'll refer again to WoW to illustrate. In WoW, if your character dies you run back to your body and try again - the end. What is 'risked' exactly? There is no significant drawback to dieing repeatedly aside from a gear repair fee. Hardly the amount of motivation to improve / adapt your play-style to fit the situation that killed you, (compared to other games.)
At the very least, you risk your time. Death is never a zero-loss game, there's always something that you have to recover, make up or go get, even if it's just your corpse. The faster this death penalty is, the faster you can get back on the horse and give it another try. If you never change your play-style for the situation, then you're just going to die over and over and over again. However, sometimes it might take a bunch of different approaches to find one that works, do you really want to have to completely rebuild your character from scratch every time you try something new? 'The point of virtually all MMOs is progression...' The 'point' of virtually all MMOs is not progression. The point is to have fun. If you are having fun and get better gear, weapons, more gold, etc. along the way - then that's great. You can still have fun w/o getting better gear, weapons, more gold, etc. though. SWG (pre NGE,) was a lot of fun even if you didn't fight anything for an entire play session. Ultimately, perhaps, but in game-terms, the point of playing is to progress your character. It's part of the construction of the game, just like making money is part of the construction of Monopoly. 'However, when you make the combat too risky, most people simply won't take part in it...' Combat that is 'too risky' is entirely subjective. You and I and millions of other MMO players could have greatly varying opinions on what sort of combat is 'too risky'. There are plenty of risk-takers in the real world, and to think that because you personally find that a significant drawback to failing will somehow stop everyone altogether from even attempting something 'risky' is an inaccurate generalization. If one person can't do something on their own; they will more likely seek out help to do it; not sit huddled in a corner in the fetal position because they failed to do it on their own.
True, but I think that if you made all combat losses result in permadeath, you wouldn't have many people fighting. As I've pointed out before, if you want permadeath, there's nothing stopping you from deleting your character if you lose a fight. You can be as hardcore as you personally want to be, you just don't want to impose it on yourself, you want to impose it on everyone else.
Personally, if I thought going on a particular mission stood a better-than-average chance of my character, that I had spent months or longer working on, becoming permanently dead and lost, I wouldn't go. It may be subjective, but there's certainly a point at which the majority of players are going to balk at the potential of losing everything because they made a mistake or because some asshole ganked them from behind or because the server lagged. 'You don't seem to comprehend the very basic business realities that dictate this.' I actually DO comprehend the business realities of having a game with sterner rules regarding character deaths. While such games are MUCH less viable in today's market, that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate that the death penalties of old were appropriate motivation to learn to play / survive better than what I had been doing before my character got killed. They may have been "appropriate" for the so-called hardcore geeks who did nothing but play games all day but in the modern era, they most certainly are not appropriate for the vast majority of people who play casually. Lots of people who used to be part of that geeky gaming core, myself included, have moved on and gotten lives and no longer have the time or the interest in playing hardcore games. Like you said before, the most important thing is having fun and permadeath and the like just aren't fun for the majority of players. And developers, like it or not, have to keep eating, which means they need to keep attracting paying customers to their games and as such, have to cater to the wants of the majority rather than the wants of the tiny minority. If you can find enough people to play hardcore games, you'd be playing them now, the fact that no developer has managed to put one out that caters to the hardcore playstyle demonstrates that no current developer thinks it's a viable market.
Hardcore may have had a place years ago, but it's a dinosaur today.
It's not the game, it's the players. You can't make people roleplay; the best you can do is give roleplayers tools. What sort of tools?
Lots of emotes.
"Roleplay" clothing. Ideally, occupying a different set of slots/resources than "combat" clothing, so you don't have to throw away your cool pirate hat to make room for your +5 Helmet Of Awesomeness.
Game design that tends to force players into the same areas -- this means limiting banks, crafting stations, etc, so that there's a reason for players to meet up and make the world feel "alive".
A rich, well developed lore with lots of "hooks" for character concepts.
A lot of cosmetic/vanity items to customize appearance.
At least one RP server where naming policies, etc, are actually enforced.
This last is touch: "Event" powers, basically, limited GM like ability to create items, NPCs, etc, all without any combat utility and no ability to affect/impact/screw with anyone not actively part of the event. It's dangerous to give players any ability to affect the game world, even something as simple as, say, making a table laden with food appear could be used to block someones LOS in PVP, or mess up monster pathing, or break the geometry. (I can see someone 'stacking' tables to make a 'ladder', for example. Players are the enemy, and any game design which forgets this is doomed. ) Still, I believe it's possible to do this (obviously, it's easier in an instanced environment), but it might not be worth it -- given limited development resources, is it worth putting effort into something only a small %age of players will use?
I think KOTOR did a great job...your character's role in the world changed aswell as his appearance based on the decision you made. Ex. if u were a mass murderer your characters face would turn pale.
Games like NWN do roleplaying best, because they more accurately model the conditions of tabletop roleplaying:
one storyteller/GM/DM
a small group of players.
Without a DM who can change the game world on a whim, you're never going to have the same experience. The closest you can come is a pre-fabricated world that offers the same types of interesting adventures to have -- but even those are limited by programming (everything players can do must be programmed into the game, or they're not capable of doing it...this is significantly different from being able to do anything you can imagine in a tabletop game.) The tradeoff of course is that videogames are a visual medium so you actually get to see, hear, and experience the game world in a dramatically superior way to when the world purely exists within the imagination of the players.
Kudos to Lizard_SF who listed some great ways roleplaying can play a larger role in MMORPGs.
Anti-kudos to pencilrick, who dragged half the thread into a completely unrelated topic.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Combat is not always a risk. I'll refer again to WoW to illustrate. In WoW, if your character dies you run back to your body and try again - the end. What is 'risked' exactly? There is no significant drawback to dieing repeatedly aside from a gear repair fee. Hardly the amount of motivation to improve / adapt your play-style to fit the situation that killed you, (compared to other games.)
At the very least, you risk your time. Death is never a zero-loss game, there's always something that you have to recover, make up or go get, even if it's just your corpse. The faster this death penalty is, the faster you can get back on the horse and give it another try. If you never change your play-style for the situation, then you're just going to die over and over and over again. However, sometimes it might take a bunch of different approaches to find one that works, do you really want to have to completely rebuild your character from scratch every time you try something new? 'The point of virtually all MMOs is progression...' The 'point' of virtually all MMOs is not progression. The point is to have fun. If you are having fun and get better gear, weapons, more gold, etc. along the way - then that's great. You can still have fun w/o getting better gear, weapons, more gold, etc. though. SWG (pre NGE,) was a lot of fun even if you didn't fight anything for an entire play session. Ultimately, perhaps, but in game-terms, the point of playing is to progress your character. It's part of the construction of the game, just like making money is part of the construction of Monopoly. 'However, when you make the combat too risky, most people simply won't take part in it...' Combat that is 'too risky' is entirely subjective. You and I and millions of other MMO players could have greatly varying opinions on what sort of combat is 'too risky'. There are plenty of risk-takers in the real world, and to think that because you personally find that a significant drawback to failing will somehow stop everyone altogether from even attempting something 'risky' is an inaccurate generalization. If one person can't do something on their own; they will more likely seek out help to do it; not sit huddled in a corner in the fetal position because they failed to do it on their own.
True, but I think that if you made all combat losses result in permadeath, you wouldn't have many people fighting. As I've pointed out before, if you want permadeath, there's nothing stopping you from deleting your character if you lose a fight. You can be as hardcore as you personally want to be, you just don't want to impose it on yourself, you want to impose it on everyone else.
Personally, if I thought going on a particular mission stood a better-than-average chance of my character, that I had spent months or longer working on, becoming permanently dead and lost, I wouldn't go. It may be subjective, but there's certainly a point at which the majority of players are going to balk at the potential of losing everything because they made a mistake or because some asshole ganked them from behind or because the server lagged. 'You don't seem to comprehend the very basic business realities that dictate this.' I actually DO comprehend the business realities of having a game with sterner rules regarding character deaths. While such games are MUCH less viable in today's market, that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate that the death penalties of old were appropriate motivation to learn to play / survive better than what I had been doing before my character got killed. They may have been "appropriate" for the so-called hardcore geeks who did nothing but play games all day but in the modern era, they most certainly are not appropriate for the vast majority of people who play casually. Lots of people who used to be part of that geeky gaming core, myself included, have moved on and gotten lives and no longer have the time or the interest in playing hardcore games. Like you said before, the most important thing is having fun and permadeath and the like just aren't fun for the majority of players. And developers, like it or not, have to keep eating, which means they need to keep attracting paying customers to their games and as such, have to cater to the wants of the majority rather than the wants of the tiny minority. If you can find enough people to play hardcore games, you'd be playing them now, the fact that no developer has managed to put one out that caters to the hardcore playstyle demonstrates that no current developer thinks it's a viable market.
Hardcore may have had a place years ago, but it's a dinosaur today.
I appreciate this response very much. It is well thought out and a little less aggressive than the one to which I originally replied. Thanks!
While I DO see your side of the discussion and definitely believe you've brought up valid points, I still think that there is validity on the side I stand on as well. While I don't claim to be a hardcore perma-death zealot, or a full loot pvp fanatic, or a corpse-run / xp-loss-with-de-leveling possible type by any means, neither am I a die-and-repair casual, or a xp-debt-but-you-can still-level-up sort, or what have you. I believe that there can be a compromise made to capture the feeling of genuine accomplishment when you come through a challenge successfully, and the lament of the consequence for failure.
In other discussions on this subject that I've posted about, I tend to ask people to recall the times before MMOs, when consoles reigned supreme; to when Super Mario Bros. was fun and challenging. It was always a bummer when you lost your last life and had to start all over from 1-1, but you learned and adapted and eventually managed to beat the game, (hopefully anyway. and I think that that sort of simple mechanic, could be used in MMOs even.
For example if you've played PnP D&D and had a character die, when you got resurrected you lost a point of CON, (Constitution,) and a level and if you got to a point where your CON reached zero or you lost too many levels; your character was permanently dead. I definitely think that a system like that for an MMO would be a good starting point, (not necessarily that EXACT mechanic mind you,) to getting folks to the point of better appreciating their time in-game. I don't think that it's fair that players who don't at the least pay attention to what they are doing with their characters should be able to advance as quickly as those that do. When you can see that a player hasn't progressed as much as others, you can reasonable presume that there's a reason for it. WoW is full of immature players who grind out quests and get to level 80 and have little to no clue as to what they are doing when it comes to either running instances, (not raids mind you - just instances,) or PVP or what have you, and it always irked me that they were max level and I might potentially, randomly end up in a group with one of these folks and have them be the cause of several wipes. If they would lose XP or a level or so, I wouldn't have to be concerned with them even being able to group with me for whatever instance. : ) (I realize that probably sounded snobbish / elitist, but I think there are plenty of people who can site a similar sort of example where one person was so n00b-ish that it caused their group to wipe. : )
I don't know about you, but when I talk to people about their experiences in MMOs, I don't hear nearly as many '...and we ALMOST died when we were trying to...' type of stories as there used to be when people could better empathize with what it meant to 'ALMOST die' when they were trying to do something. Nowadays it seems that I can hear a lot more '...so we wiped like, seven times before we finally...' sort of stories.
In the end, it unfortunately does come down to what model will pull in the most revenue, and currently, it's not the one I would prefer, but that's my preference and I can, (and do,) deal with it; or not play.
Apologies for length of post - I ramble sometimes. A LOT. : D
For a game to have good role-play they need to get rid of "You cannot do that" messages that seem to have no basis in the "reality" of the game.
I like VG for letting you cast while moving, but with a penalty to the speed of both. I like Allods spell holding mechanic. Let me do anything and then it will be a RP paradise.
Uo, EQ, SWG, EVE, and darfkfall are/were the best. You shouldnt have to roleplay inside a roleplaying game. Roleplaying should be playing the game. My opinion.
I've never "roleplayed", while Im playing a RPG. The Game should provide all of that if it's an RPG.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Uo, EQ, SWG, EVE, and darfkfall are/were the best. You shouldnt have to roleplay inside a roleplaying game. Roleplaying should be playing the game. My opinion. I've never "roleplayed", while Im playing a RPG. The Game should provide all of that if it's an RPG.
Nope. Dont agree. Just because you are playing a roleplaying game does not mean you are roleplaying with any quality. There are levels of roleplaying. Also the game should not be the one supplying all of the creativity and immersion. The player should be bringing some creativity and immersion with them into the game. They meet each other half way.
Someone who just loads up an rpg to have some fun is roleplaying on a very low level. They may feel like they were really drawn into the game world. But they didn't really bring a lot of creativity into the game, they expect the game to provide it all for them.
Uo, EQ, SWG, EVE, and darfkfall are/were the best. You shouldnt have to roleplay inside a roleplaying game. Roleplaying should be playing the game. My opinion. I've never "roleplayed", while Im playing a RPG. The Game should provide all of that if it's an RPG.
Nope. Dont agree. Just because you are playing a roleplaying game does not mean you are roleplaying with any quality. There are levels of roleplaying. Also the game should not be the one supplying all of the creativity and immersion. The player should be bringing some creativity and immersion with them into the game. They meet each other half way.
Someone who just loads up an rpg to have some fun is roleplaying on a very low level. They may feel like they were really drawn into the game world. But they didn't really bring a lot of creativity into the game, they expect the game to provide it all for them.
Tend to agree with this. I mean, SWG did the following:
1) Allowed for Stimpaks and Woundpacks to be made
2) Made those items very useful in other facets of gameplay
3) Allowed player housing
4) Allowed Vendors
5) Had multiple planets or gaming areas
With that I came up with the idea that I wanted to create a Bothan Doctor who built a galactic pharmaceutical empire and was one of the top, if not the top, supplier of medical supplies around. Once I set up my shops and my production line and stocked my vendors (which wasn't near as easy as I just wrote...it took time) then I began working medical centers healing wounds and giving out a free sample Stims along with the coords to my shops on other planets. I'd even hire myself out to help folks doing whatever and pass a free sample here and there.
Eventually, I grew a very successful business based on an idea I came up with and SWG having the toools and mechanics built into the game to make them possible.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Originally posted by Normike Nope. Dont agree. Just because you are playing a roleplaying game does not mean you are roleplaying with any quality. There are levels of roleplaying. Also the game should not be the one supplying all of the creativity and immersion. The player should be bringing some creativity and immersion with them into the game. They meet each other half way.
Someone who just loads up an rpg to have some fun is roleplaying on a very low level. They may feel like they were really drawn into the game world. But they didn't really bring a lot of creativity into the game, they expect the game to provide it all for them.
That might be true but there are many ways the game can help you out when you roleplay.
RPG clothes and emotes are just 2 common things to help you out, there is a whole lot of other things a game could help us out with (and I already listed some earlier).
To just have a RPG chat or to have people roleplaying in a FPS kind of game still makes it possible to RP but there is a lot more the game can do to up the fun.
NPCs with long conversation trees and similar stuff is not necessarily for a RPG game, you could make a good RPG game without a single NPC in it. Some people loves that stuff and other not but that is not the issue here.
The issue is what the games can do to help the roleplayers out. Many things are just graphical stuff like when it's been raining the character should look wet (like in VG) for a while, that actually opens up a bit for conversations between characters about freezing and the lousy weather. Someone who gets into the inn all wet.. It is a very simple thing and there is load of stuff like thats that helps you out.
I also think it is time we add jewelry that actually shows in the game also, another simple thing that is easy with modern computers.
While I wait for a party member to show up my character could sit and smoke a pipe, most RPG things are simple stuff.
To however turn a MMO closer to a RPG game games is another matter, that takes a lot of work and there should maybe be a mode where a player or GM could possess a certain boss in a dungeon when players are getting close.
While not an MMORPG, Neverwinter Nights (the first one) was the best roleplaying experience I've ever had in a video game. There were servers to cater to every playstyle, and some of them were really, really well designed. You had GM enforcement of rules and names, custom rulesets that promoted RP over powerleveling, and communities that were tightknit and thrived.
I've yet to see anything even remotely close to it in MMORPGs, and I'm very certain we never will, simply due to the nature of the games.
Neverwinter Nights 2 is fun, but thus far I've found it lacking when compared to the first in pretty much all ways, even graphically. The environments are nicer in NWN2, but the models and animations are hideous.
While I DO see your side of the discussion and definitely believe you've brought up valid points, I still think that there is validity on the side I stand on as well. While I don't claim to be a hardcore perma-death zealot, or a full loot pvp fanatic, or a corpse-run / xp-loss-with-de-leveling possible type by any means, neither am I a die-and-repair casual, or a xp-debt-but-you-can still-level-up sort, or what have you. I believe that there can be a compromise made to capture the feeling of genuine accomplishment when you come through a challenge successfully, and the lament of the consequence for failure. That's all well and good, you can enjoy whatever you want to enjoy and there's nothing wrong with it, but we're not talking about what you enjoy, we're talking about what works in an MMO and those two things are not necessarily one and the same. I think there can indeed be a compromise, but that compromise is going to be closer to the casual, low-impact death than to the hardcore death penalty, simply because of the makeup of the MMO market. There are many, many, many times more casual players than there are hardcore players and those are the people that any financially viable company is going to cater to. In other discussions on this subject that I've posted about, I tend to ask people to recall the times before MMOs, when consoles reigned supreme; to when Super Mario Bros. was fun and challenging. It was always a bummer when you lost your last life and had to start all over from 1-1, but you learned and adapted and eventually managed to beat the game, (hopefully anyway. and I think that that sort of simple mechanic, could be used in MMOs even. Sure, but you notice that games got easier as more and more people got involved in playing them. Hardcore *ALWAYS* gives way to casual players in every single genre. There were games back in the old days where you had one life, no continues, you died and that was it. You don't see games like that coming out today, do you? The evolution of all games, be it PnP, console or MMO, is always from the hard to the easy, just because all the money in the genre ends up being on the easy end of the scale. You might not like it but that's how reality is. For example if you've played PnP D&D and had a character die, when you got resurrected you lost a point of CON, (Constitution,) and a level and if you got to a point where your CON reached zero or you lost too many levels; your character was permanently dead. I definitely think that a system like that for an MMO would be a good starting point, (not necessarily that EXACT mechanic mind you,) to getting folks to the point of better appreciating their time in-game. I don't think that it's fair that players who don't at the least pay attention to what they are doing with their characters should be able to advance as quickly as those that do. When you can see that a player hasn't progressed as much as others, you can reasonable presume that there's a reason for it. WoW is full of immature players who grind out quests and get to level 80 and have little to no clue as to what they are doing when it comes to either running instances, (not raids mind you - just instances,) or PVP or what have you, and it always irked me that they were max level and I might potentially, randomly end up in a group with one of these folks and have them be the cause of several wipes. If they would lose XP or a level or so, I wouldn't have to be concerned with them even being able to group with me for whatever instance. : ) (I realize that probably sounded snobbish / elitist, but I think there are plenty of people who can site a similar sort of example where one person was so n00b-ish that it caused their group to wipe. : )
But the issue isn't that people ought to "appreciate their time in-game", it's that having a mechanic like you suggest is going to cost developers money. Now I don't mind losing a level, or going back to the beginning of the last level you had. Anarchy Online had a decent system whereby when you died, you went back to the start of your last level or wherever you saved last and all the XP you lost went into a pool that you had to earn back at a significantly faster rate. You also had to wait about 5 minutes while your stats regenerated. You still had a loss, it wasn't a devastating loss and you got it back pretty fast, but it taught you not to take death too lightly. It wasn't like games where you appeared instantly at the last checkpoint and just did the same thing over and over again, it gave you time to think and a reminder that doing things foolishly cost you XP and time.
I've had plenty of cases where one person caused a group to wipe, that just means you need to pick your team members more carefully. I think PUGs are the biggest waste of time around because you never know what kind of idiot you're going to get and more often than not, you regret it. It's much easier to team with known individuals or to choose out of your guild, just because they're more likely to be a better fit than some noob off the street. I don't know about you, but when I talk to people about their experiences in MMOs, I don't hear nearly as many '...and we ALMOST died when we were trying to...' type of stories as there used to be when people could better empathize with what it meant to 'ALMOST die' when they were trying to do something. Nowadays it seems that I can hear a lot more '...so we wiped like, seven times before we finally...' sort of stories. Then they wiped. So what? You act like imposing a stiff penalty on them is going to keep them from wiping. It won't. It'll stop them from trying. If you get killed and lose a level or whatever, are you going to jump back in and try again or are you going to go do something easier? Most people wouldn't go back if they wiped once or twice. They're playing to succeed, not to get frustrated. In the end, it unfortunately does come down to what model will pull in the most revenue, and currently, it's not the one I would prefer, but that's my preference and I can, (and do,) deal with it; or not play. I do the same thing, which is why I'm not playing any MMOs right now. I accept that what I want in a game is not what the majority want and therefore, what I want isn't going to be catered to. I don't sit around and complain about it, I understand the financial reality of the situation and accept reality as it comes. MMO developers need to earn my dollar and at the moment, they're not doing that. I accept it and move on, keeping my foot in the pond only so far as I can keep an eye out for any improvement.
Uo, EQ, SWG, EVE, and darfkfall are/were the best. You shouldnt have to roleplay inside a roleplaying game. Roleplaying should be playing the game. My opinion. I've never "roleplayed", while Im playing a RPG. The Game should provide all of that if it's an RPG.
Nope. Dont agree. Just because you are playing a roleplaying game does not mean you are roleplaying with any quality. There are levels of roleplaying. Also the game should not be the one supplying all of the creativity and immersion. The player should be bringing some creativity and immersion with them into the game. They meet each other half way.
Someone who just loads up an rpg to have some fun is roleplaying on a very low level. They may feel like they were really drawn into the game world. But they didn't really bring a lot of creativity into the game, they expect the game to provide it all for them.
You are misunderstanding what Im saying.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Uo, EQ, SWG, EVE, and darfkfall are/were the best. You shouldnt have to roleplay inside a roleplaying game. Roleplaying should be playing the game. My opinion. I've never "roleplayed", while Im playing a RPG. The Game should provide all of that if it's an RPG.
Nope. Dont agree. Just because you are playing a roleplaying game does not mean you are roleplaying with any quality.
He didn't say anything about the quality of roleplay. Whether or not the roleplay meets your personal standards and checklist does not negate his statement.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Comments
I tried to make it easier to read, just mark the text with the mouse to see it in one color.
Not everyone plays MMOs for the same reason. Many people will play the same game for multiple reasons. Sometimes they log in to go PvPing and other times they just want to chat in vent while they bake bread.
A lot of that could be done in a free chatroom, it certainly doesn't require a subscription-fee based game to sit around and socialize and hang out with friends. However, for the rest, since in most MMOs you cannot really progress without combat and we're talking about making combat harder and more dangerous, the question remains. If you're not going to take the risk of losing everything by going into combat, then you cannot progress, get XP, massacre anything, etc. You can sit around and chat with your friends, which seems a bit silly if you're paying MMO fees for the privilege.
I found this particular portion of the discussion to be somewhat ironic and had to comment.
Cephus404, it seems to me that your attempts to defend the trivialized death penalty, is actually more of a support for the harsher death penalty. To summarize; you say that no one will take any risks in a game with a harsh death penalty, to which I respond; if the death penalty is trivial - then what is the risk? Or, do you mean to say that there are no risks in a game with a trivial death penalty and that is what you are looking for? I think you may be confusing 'risk' with 'reckless' possibly. I believe that you will find that in games with a harsher death penalty, there is much less reckless behavior compared to trivial death penalty games. There is only risk for players in harsh death penalty games, when they have something to lose. To even reach that point takes a VERY different play-style all together compared to the trivial death penalty game-player who is allowed to be reckless, without rebuke, and is still permitted to advance despite not having risked anything to do it.
While I realize that everyone will gravitate toward whatever it is that they enjoy, I personally feel very little in the way of accomplishment when I play WoW, for example, and wipe several times in an instance and eventually get through it, compared to getting through it the 1st attempt.
Not everyone plays MMOs for the same reason. Many people will play the same game for multiple reasons. Sometimes they log in to go PvPing and other times they just want to chat in vent while they bake bread.
A lot of that could be done in a free chatroom, it certainly doesn't require a subscription-fee based game to sit around and socialize and hang out with friends. However, for the rest, since in most MMOs you cannot really progress without combat and we're talking about making combat harder and more dangerous, the question remains. If you're not going to take the risk of losing everything by going into combat, then you cannot progress, get XP, massacre anything, etc. You can sit around and chat with your friends, which seems a bit silly if you're paying MMO fees for the privilege.
I found this particular portion of the discussion to be somewhat ironic and had to comment.
Cephus404, it seems to me that your attempts to defend the trivialized death penalty, is actually more of a support for the harsher death penalty. To summarize; you say that no one will take any risks in a game with a harsh death penalty, to which I respond; if the death penalty is trivial - then what is the risk? Or, do you mean to say that there are no risks in a game with a trivial death penalty and that is what you are looking for? I think you may be confusing 'risk' with 'reckless' possibly. I believe that you will find that in games with a harsher death penalty, there is much less reckless behavior compared to trivial death penalty games. There is only risk for players in harsh death penalty games, when they have something to lose. To even reach that point takes a VERY different play-style all together compared to the trivial death penalty game-player who is allowed to be reckless, without rebuke, and is still permitted to advance despite not having risked anything to do it.
While I realize that everyone will gravitate toward whatever it is that they enjoy, I personally feel very little in the way of accomplishment when I play WoW, for example, and wipe several times in an instance and eventually get through it, compared to getting through it the 1st attempt.
Honest question:
What has death penalty to do with roleplaying? When you roleplay in an MMORPG, why would you try to include the game mechanic into it?
MMORPG-mechanics kill any creative impulse imo, because you need to react and cast your spells and tank and heal and all that crap. Roleplaying happens in /say and /emote and if you don't have the time to /say and /emote... how on earth can you roleplay? You can't play out injuries, panic attacks, individual skills, besides some random warcry.
The best roleplaying I had was non-combat stuff, like going for a swim at a nearby lake, trying to help a beggar with schizophrenia find his rat, helping two hobbits to get their marriage on the way... things like that...
M
Not everyone plays MMOs for the same reason. Many people will play the same game for multiple reasons. Sometimes they log in to go PvPing and other times they just want to chat in vent while they bake bread.
A lot of that could be done in a free chatroom, it certainly doesn't require a subscription-fee based game to sit around and socialize and hang out with friends. However, for the rest, since in most MMOs you cannot really progress without combat and we're talking about making combat harder and more dangerous, the question remains. If you're not going to take the risk of losing everything by going into combat, then you cannot progress, get XP, massacre anything, etc. You can sit around and chat with your friends, which seems a bit silly if you're paying MMO fees for the privilege.
Two things:
1) The argument that if you aren't engaging in some kind of harsh-penalty hardcore mechanic then you might as well just go use a free chat room made no sense ten years ago and still makes no sense today.
2) If you feel that roleplayers should just go use chatrooms, then I don't follow your presence or point in this thread.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I am not a roleplayer - the most roleplaying i was witness off happened in early SWG b4 the NGE.
People really lived virtual lifes...
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM
Only game I've ever played that truly felt like I was in a living world was a MuD by Ironrealms.
Its hard to describe in a single post all the reasons this game created immersion, so I won't try.
I will say besides all the plethora of features supporting a roleplaying environment, players enforcing roleplay was the biggest factor. You didn't just shoot the s**t with some random person about yesterdays football game.
One guild i joined had a vetting test, which had to be done completely in character, where they would interview you (in-character) about lore, laws, rules, and customs which are established in this world. (finding all this information was rather difficult, you actually had to explore, read books in the library, find the guild houses and talk to npcs there etc.
That was just the tip of the iceberg, PvP and other "sandbox" features were also included. Up to and including player created items that were completely player designed. (stats, materials, name. Not a list of items all crafters draw from.)
I doubt they would ever try to recreate such an in-depth world in 3D.
PS; I've always found MuDs to be way more enveloping then any graphical based RPG. You really can't compare the imagination to computer generated graphics.
Nothing excites jaded Grandmasters more than a theoretical novelty
Combat is always a risk, unless it's combat that you cannot possibly lose no matter how utterly incompetent you are. The point of virtually all MMOs is progression, to go up in level, to get better gear, better weapons, more gold, etc. If your character is not progressing, then you are losing the game. However, when you make the combat too risky, most people simply won't take part in it, the progression will stop and the game will stagnate. People will stop paying their subscription fees and the game will go out of business. You don't seem to comprehend the very basic business realities that dictate this.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
the original vanguard had a pretty severe death penalty. it's one of the reasons the game failed.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
Combat is always a risk, unless it's combat that you cannot possibly lose no matter how utterly incompetent you are. The point of virtually all MMOs is progression, to go up in level, to get better gear, better weapons, more gold, etc. If your character is not progressing, then you are losing the game. However, when you make the combat too risky, most people simply won't take part in it, the progression will stop and the game will stagnate. People will stop paying their subscription fees and the game will go out of business. You don't seem to comprehend the very basic business realities that dictate this.
I disagree, with most of your points. I'll attempt to address each.
'Combat is always a risk...'
Combat is not always a risk. I'll refer again to WoW to illustrate. In WoW, if your character dies you run back to your body and try again - the end. What is 'risked' exactly? There is no significant drawback to dieing repeatedly aside from a gear repair fee. Hardly the amount of motivation to improve / adapt your play-style to fit the situation that killed you, (compared to other games.)
'The point of virtually all MMOs is progression...'
The 'point' of virtually all MMOs is not progression. The point is to have fun. If you are having fun and get better gear, weapons, more gold, etc. along the way - then that's great. You can still have fun w/o getting better gear, weapons, more gold, etc. though. SWG (pre NGE,) was a lot of fun even if you didn't fight anything for an entire play session.
'However, when you make the combat too risky, most people simply won't take part in it...'
Combat that is 'too risky' is entirely subjective. You and I and millions of other MMO players could have greatly varying opinions on what sort of combat is 'too risky'. There are plenty of risk-takers in the real world, and to think that because you personally find that a significant drawback to failing will somehow stop everyone altogether from even attempting something 'risky' is an inaccurate generalization. If one person can't do something on their own; they will more likely seek out help to do it; not sit huddled in a corner in the fetal position because they failed to do it on their own.
'You don't seem to comprehend the very basic business realities that dictate this.'
I actually DO comprehend the business realities of having a game with sterner rules regarding character deaths. While such games are MUCH less viable in today's market, that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate that the death penalties of old were appropriate motivation to learn to play / survive better than what I had been doing before my character got killed.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
It's not the game, it's the players. You can't make people roleplay; the best you can do is give roleplayers tools. What sort of tools?
Lots of emotes.
"Roleplay" clothing. Ideally, occupying a different set of slots/resources than "combat" clothing, so you don't have to throw away your cool pirate hat to make room for your +5 Helmet Of Awesomeness.
Game design that tends to force players into the same areas -- this means limiting banks, crafting stations, etc, so that there's a reason for players to meet up and make the world feel "alive".
A rich, well developed lore with lots of "hooks" for character concepts.
A lot of cosmetic/vanity items to customize appearance.
At least one RP server where naming policies, etc, are actually enforced.
This last is touch: "Event" powers, basically, limited GM like ability to create items, NPCs, etc, all without any combat utility and no ability to affect/impact/screw with anyone not actively part of the event. It's dangerous to give players any ability to affect the game world, even something as simple as, say, making a table laden with food appear could be used to block someones LOS in PVP, or mess up monster pathing, or break the geometry. (I can see someone 'stacking' tables to make a 'ladder', for example. Players are the enemy, and any game design which forgets this is doomed. ) Still, I believe it's possible to do this (obviously, it's easier in an instanced environment), but it might not be worth it -- given limited development resources, is it worth putting effort into something only a small %age of players will use?
Welcome to MMORPG.com!
I think KOTOR did a great job...your character's role in the world changed aswell as his appearance based on the decision you made. Ex. if u were a mass murderer your characters face would turn pale.
Games like NWN do roleplaying best, because they more accurately model the conditions of tabletop roleplaying:
Without a DM who can change the game world on a whim, you're never going to have the same experience. The closest you can come is a pre-fabricated world that offers the same types of interesting adventures to have -- but even those are limited by programming (everything players can do must be programmed into the game, or they're not capable of doing it...this is significantly different from being able to do anything you can imagine in a tabletop game.) The tradeoff of course is that videogames are a visual medium so you actually get to see, hear, and experience the game world in a dramatically superior way to when the world purely exists within the imagination of the players.
Kudos to Lizard_SF who listed some great ways roleplaying can play a larger role in MMORPGs.
Anti-kudos to pencilrick, who dragged half the thread into a completely unrelated topic.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I appreciate this response very much. It is well thought out and a little less aggressive than the one to which I originally replied.
Thanks!
While I DO see your side of the discussion and definitely believe you've brought up valid points, I still think that there is validity on the side I stand on as well. While I don't claim to be a hardcore perma-death zealot, or a full loot pvp fanatic, or a corpse-run / xp-loss-with-de-leveling possible type by any means, neither am I a die-and-repair casual, or a xp-debt-but-you-can still-level-up sort, or what have you. I believe that there can be a compromise made to capture the feeling of genuine accomplishment when you come through a challenge successfully, and the lament of the consequence for failure.
In other discussions on this subject that I've posted about, I tend to ask people to recall the times before MMOs, when consoles reigned supreme; to when Super Mario Bros. was fun and challenging. It was always a bummer when you lost your last life and had to start all over from 1-1, but you learned and adapted and eventually managed to beat the game, (hopefully anyway.
and I think that that sort of simple mechanic, could be used in MMOs even.
For example if you've played PnP D&D and had a character die, when you got resurrected you lost a point of CON, (Constitution,) and a level and if you got to a point where your CON reached zero or you lost too many levels; your character was permanently dead. I definitely think that a system like that for an MMO would be a good starting point, (not necessarily that EXACT mechanic mind you,) to getting folks to the point of better appreciating their time in-game. I don't think that it's fair that players who don't at the least pay attention to what they are doing with their characters should be able to advance as quickly as those that do. When you can see that a player hasn't progressed as much as others, you can reasonable presume that there's a reason for it. WoW is full of immature players who grind out quests and get to level 80 and have little to no clue as to what they are doing when it comes to either running instances, (not raids mind you - just instances,) or PVP or what have you, and it always irked me that they were max level and I might potentially, randomly end up in a group with one of these folks and have them be the cause of several wipes. If they would lose XP or a level or so, I wouldn't have to be concerned with them even being able to group with me for whatever instance. : ) (I realize that probably sounded snobbish / elitist, but I think there are plenty of people who can site a similar sort of example where one person was so n00b-ish that it caused their group to wipe. : )
I don't know about you, but when I talk to people about their experiences in MMOs, I don't hear nearly as many '...and we ALMOST died when we were trying to...' type of stories as there used to be when people could better empathize with what it meant to 'ALMOST die' when they were trying to do something. Nowadays it seems that I can hear a lot more '...so we wiped like, seven times before we finally...' sort of stories.
In the end, it unfortunately does come down to what model will pull in the most revenue, and currently, it's not the one I would prefer, but that's my preference and I can, (and do,) deal with it; or not play.
Apologies for length of post - I ramble sometimes. A LOT. : D
For a game to have good role-play they need to get rid of "You cannot do that" messages that seem to have no basis in the "reality" of the game.
I like VG for letting you cast while moving, but with a penalty to the speed of both. I like Allods spell holding mechanic. Let me do anything and then it will be a RP paradise.
Uo, EQ, SWG, EVE, and darfkfall are/were the best. You shouldnt have to roleplay inside a roleplaying game. Roleplaying should be playing the game. My opinion.
I've never "roleplayed", while Im playing a RPG. The Game should provide all of that if it's an RPG.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
As you can see from this thread we don't agree on what hardcore or roleplaying is. I am not even sure we agree on what old school is.
Nope. Dont agree. Just because you are playing a roleplaying game does not mean you are roleplaying with any quality. There are levels of roleplaying. Also the game should not be the one supplying all of the creativity and immersion. The player should be bringing some creativity and immersion with them into the game. They meet each other half way.
Someone who just loads up an rpg to have some fun is roleplaying on a very low level. They may feel like they were really drawn into the game world. But they didn't really bring a lot of creativity into the game, they expect the game to provide it all for them.
Nope. Dont agree. Just because you are playing a roleplaying game does not mean you are roleplaying with any quality. There are levels of roleplaying. Also the game should not be the one supplying all of the creativity and immersion. The player should be bringing some creativity and immersion with them into the game. They meet each other half way.
Someone who just loads up an rpg to have some fun is roleplaying on a very low level. They may feel like they were really drawn into the game world. But they didn't really bring a lot of creativity into the game, they expect the game to provide it all for them.
Tend to agree with this. I mean, SWG did the following:
1) Allowed for Stimpaks and Woundpacks to be made
2) Made those items very useful in other facets of gameplay
3) Allowed player housing
4) Allowed Vendors
5) Had multiple planets or gaming areas
With that I came up with the idea that I wanted to create a Bothan Doctor who built a galactic pharmaceutical empire and was one of the top, if not the top, supplier of medical supplies around. Once I set up my shops and my production line and stocked my vendors (which wasn't near as easy as I just wrote...it took time) then I began working medical centers healing wounds and giving out a free sample Stims along with the coords to my shops on other planets. I'd even hire myself out to help folks doing whatever and pass a free sample here and there.
Eventually, I grew a very successful business based on an idea I came up with and SWG having the toools and mechanics built into the game to make them possible.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
That might be true but there are many ways the game can help you out when you roleplay.
RPG clothes and emotes are just 2 common things to help you out, there is a whole lot of other things a game could help us out with (and I already listed some earlier).
To just have a RPG chat or to have people roleplaying in a FPS kind of game still makes it possible to RP but there is a lot more the game can do to up the fun.
NPCs with long conversation trees and similar stuff is not necessarily for a RPG game, you could make a good RPG game without a single NPC in it. Some people loves that stuff and other not but that is not the issue here.
The issue is what the games can do to help the roleplayers out. Many things are just graphical stuff like when it's been raining the character should look wet (like in VG) for a while, that actually opens up a bit for conversations between characters about freezing and the lousy weather. Someone who gets into the inn all wet.. It is a very simple thing and there is load of stuff like thats that helps you out.
I also think it is time we add jewelry that actually shows in the game also, another simple thing that is easy with modern computers.
While I wait for a party member to show up my character could sit and smoke a pipe, most RPG things are simple stuff.
To however turn a MMO closer to a RPG game games is another matter, that takes a lot of work and there should maybe be a mode where a player or GM could possess a certain boss in a dungeon when players are getting close.
While not an MMORPG, Neverwinter Nights (the first one) was the best roleplaying experience I've ever had in a video game. There were servers to cater to every playstyle, and some of them were really, really well designed. You had GM enforcement of rules and names, custom rulesets that promoted RP over powerleveling, and communities that were tightknit and thrived.
I've yet to see anything even remotely close to it in MMORPGs, and I'm very certain we never will, simply due to the nature of the games.
Neverwinter Nights 2 is fun, but thus far I've found it lacking when compared to the first in pretty much all ways, even graphically. The environments are nicer in NWN2, but the models and animations are hideous.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Not really.
The disagreements aren't real.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Nope. Dont agree. Just because you are playing a roleplaying game does not mean you are roleplaying with any quality. There are levels of roleplaying. Also the game should not be the one supplying all of the creativity and immersion. The player should be bringing some creativity and immersion with them into the game. They meet each other half way.
Someone who just loads up an rpg to have some fun is roleplaying on a very low level. They may feel like they were really drawn into the game world. But they didn't really bring a lot of creativity into the game, they expect the game to provide it all for them.
You are misunderstanding what Im saying.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Nope. Dont agree. Just because you are playing a roleplaying game does not mean you are roleplaying with any quality.
He didn't say anything about the quality of roleplay. Whether or not the roleplay meets your personal standards and checklist does not negate his statement.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?