Whatever results derive from a player driven world is superior than someone's elses script.
Freedom, 1 or 0.
By its own nature, a story driven world is limited by itself and limits players.
The players, by their own choices, actions and behaviors, entangled by the complex net of relations and interests, wich one a protagonist of its own story and a pawn for the next one.
I'm playing a game to be entertained by it. Players are just along for the ride to share & help out or in many cases an annoyance who get in the way and cause problems 1/2 the time. PLAYERS do not create GOOD stories. They just create RPing that doesn't matter unless you invest loads of time into following whatever these freaks are chatting about. What else can players create besides petty wars over virtual crap? What do these "stories" consist of? Nerd A guild hates Nerd B guild. They fight. Its all the nerds in highschool who sat on the sidelines watching or being picked on but have POWER in MMO land. If you're REALLY lucky, something amazingly nerdy & semi interesting occurs like in Eve, where someone fakes being friends with a guild for a year then dismantles it and goes "SURPRISE LOSERS, I just PUNKED YOU ALL, HAHA!!!" And that happened ONCE in 6 or so years=) For that to happen you need to play with people with NO life outside the game....not me. AND you have to be in that specific guild, which lets face it, is bound not to happen in a game played by 100s of thousands or millions. If you're not involved in whatever that "story" might be, who cares really?
Players don't make stories. Its all just a form of griefing each other. Developers create stories. Players just create virtual forms of LARPing, which is sad enough in real life. If players are making all the content, I'm not paying a fee to play that "game".
"Players are just along for the ride to share & help out or in many cases an annoyance who get in the way and cause problems 1/2 the time."
From what you said in this statement, you make me think that you desire MMORPG's to be focused entirely on single player, with others just playing the same single player game at the same time that can hardly affect your gameplay at all? Please correct me if you were trying to say something else.
"PLAYERS do not create GOOD stories"
Now this is just vauge and dependent on what your definition of "player driven world" means. Do you feel it is a "sandbox" game as defined by many MMORPG'ers? I personally do, and if so, the "stories" are the events that occur within the game world caused by the players. Now, you say that players do not create good stories. Do you think a player in a game with boundaries such a steriotypical themepark game has greater potential to have "good"/interesting stories to tell ingame friends/real life friends than the players in a steriotypical sandbox game? In the story driven world, (for the most part) people undergoe most of the same general situations and events, as in a single player RPG. Sure, other players are in the world, but how many ingame "events" can you name in a story driven world that were actually worth sharing? That nobody else had done before? Events like these are rare (to my knowledge), and when even a semblence of one occurs in a themepark/story driven world, people talk about them; because they're different, they're fun. There is more potential to have a unique story to tell others about in a world that doesn't guide you, where events are much more random and a players choice more likely affects their gaming experience.
"If players are making all the content, I'm not paying a fee to play that "game" "
This is similar to saying that you would not pay to buy a shovel and bucket in order to make a sandcastle in the sandbox, which you also have to buy. You are suggesting that you would not desire to buy the tools to create your own fun? Maybe if you have no idea what to do what is given to you (bought in this case), but for many, that is all that is needed. One does not need to buy a "game", (such as Monopoly) with the rules entirely set and the playing board created and premade in order to have a good time. You seem to believe that player driven games are just an empty shell and an excuse for developers to not add content. That, I think, is a mass player misunderstanding of what many believe a sandbox/player driven world should be. Content should be added, sure, but it should be up to the players what to do with that content within the boundaries of what the content is specified to do (Such as, giving a player a new object that can be used in various manners).
By the way, I hate examples that use terms that apply to only certain games, such as "guild". It makes it seem as though you base your story driven/player driven worlds on games already released, instead of those that MAY exist in the future. In fact, many responses and proofs in this thread are based on many game specific things, such as raids/guilds/quest types. By doing this, I believe you are limiting yourself to what may occur in a story driven/player driven world. In my opinion, it shows how too many games have become far too similar.
Whatever results derive from a player driven world is superior than someone's elses script.
Freedom, 1 or 0.
By its own nature, a story driven world is limited by itself and limits players.
The players, by their own choices, actions and behaviors, entangled by the complex net of relations and interests, wich one a protagonist of its own story and a pawn for the next one.
And in the same way, a player driven world is limited by the barriers that the developers set. You can only do so much in a world like that, and the end result is always weaker than if the developers created the story. They're not bound by the limitations, like the players are. They can do almost anything they want (or the game engine allows them). Players can only do so much as the developers allow them.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Originally posted by Rockgod99 Originally posted by elocke
Originally posted by Rockgod99
Originally posted by elocke
Both. I think FFXI comes really close to offering both. As does the current installment of SWG. Lotro is close to come to think of it.
How do you figure any of those games eve come close to a player driven world? Due to housing? I don't know man when i think of player driven worlds I think of territorial conflic, players changing the lore specific to their server and everything a player does has an affect on everyone else in some way. I didn't see that in those games.
In FFXI you don't HAVE to do any of the storyline. Ever. Hence player driven. YOu make your own goals. Same with SWG. LOTRO on the other hand, yeah you probably have a point, BUT I've seen more RP in LOTRO then I have in any other game, and RP is totally player driven. You can do that in any mmo. A player driven world makes the players the focus, through conflicts and social ties. It has the players actions affect other players in the game. How does choosing to avoid the story make it a players driven world? What mechanics are in place that lets players affect the world as a whole? Im not trying to slam you or even give you a hard time bro but I think you have a strange idea of what player driven really means.
Maybe I am seeing it a different way. I've always been outside the norm with all issues why not this one. I could argue that all player driven games aren't really affected by me at all. Take Eve. I played that this week. Barely, but I did. I logged in and trained a few skills. Did that affect other players? Darkfall online. If I don't log in is that going to affect the player world? Probably not. Maybe the issue is player driven is fine but only if it truly changes the world, which I think, all MMOs do not have as yet. Heroes of Telara may change that though. And Xsyon from the looks of it.
I still prefer a hybrid of sandbox/themepark though, as many above have stated, I actually like to play all types of games, from Eve to WoW. Even better if they could be combined.
what do you prefer. a world with a great story as a main feature. eg [only example of story driven, not great] wow.
or a world in which a player can create his or her own story.
i prefer player driven.
pros of player driven
players have more customization of rp
they get to create their own story
they arnt forced into roles
they arnt forced into unwanted activities like having to kill rats when they want to craft swords
cons of story driven
opposite of points above
post your own opinions.
I like to have my cake and eat it too, but in all honesty I don't really see the debate that way my opinion is that I hate games that offer a "rule set" but no content and that is often the type of development that people refer to as player driven. Games like Darkfall to me are not really my cup of tea, while I think LOTRO is one of the closest games to being open ended enough to not need the story to play (though they don't do a very good job of it either).
I just don't see why people automatically equate the inclusion of a good story line and lore as being a negative, if I simply took all of LOTRO' s quest lines and put them in Darkfall just as they are I don't see how that would change the gameplay of DF. The only negative I can see is those players involved in quests at times being unaccesible to the rest of the population but I'd think anyone trying to make that argument can be considered selfish atleast.
I've played many "player driven" mmo's that don't have all that great rp tools that is again relative to the game you're playing. Next you mention that in a player driven mmo you get to create your own story, how so? What tools exist in a player driven mmo that actually let you "create your own story" that doesn't exist in sotry driven mmo's the only difference I really see is that in a story driven mmo you are given a story by the devs to go along with the other experiences that you will have in game, which is what your player created story amounts to,nothing more than your interpretation of your in game experiences.
Again as I understand it a player driven game isn't just a game with no classes as your forced roles point implies.
And lastly I wonder what game forces you to kill rats if all you want to do is craft swords, most mmo's I've played have some pretty open ended crafting and even when/if you are forced to do something to continue to advance crafting it's certainly much more profound than killing rats.
I think my problem is the whole "have to be against something" thing is tired no one has ever told me anything that would convince me that both can't be had but as long as we keep acting like this a sa community devs will continue to be absovled of their responsibilities that should be associated with earning our money and equally with advancing the genre as a whole.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
"Next you mention that in a player driven mmo you get to create your own story, how so?"
You said that a player driven MMO's story is "nothing more than your interpretation of your in game experiences.". Nothing more, NOTHING more??? I'm sorry, but realize what you are saying and what you are asking. Let's look at this. What IS a story, when refering to games? I am pretty sure that the story, at least in reference to a player driven game, IS the players experiences. There is no "story" you can literaly create that is preexisting. What occurs in the game IS the story. In story driven worlds, much of what has happened in the world has already been decided, and your are thrown into the midsts of it. In a player driven one, for most games I know of, the PLAYERS create what the game is about, what matters, and what the game's history is. You stated that a player driven MMO'ers story is "nothing more than your interpretation of your in game experience", but that is the point. A story doesn't have one point of view, or shouldn't at least. For most cases in life, it is a series of events that occur to a person or many people that is told and retold by various people. Stories change, stories are not always constant. That's one of the exciting parts about a player driven world. The players make choices in the world, and are remembered by the people in the world.
Also, the tools that you are given are whatever the developers deside exist in their world, but don't cause the events. The tools of the world are the world itself, and whatever is in it. Just because a game does not give players the proper tools to exist within the world to cause major change, doesn't mean that it can't be done. It just HASN'T been done in a way that appeals to a very, very large amount of players. I would respond with more, but I have to go for now.
Really interesting topic and deffinately has some polar aspect to it.
For me it's incomprehensible that anyone would prefer a story driven world for anything other than single player rpg's. I don't really need a story in any way at all, just need a life to live within a world that gives me the tools to have fun within it, accompanied by friends.
It's all about preference.
I feel the exact opposite; I find it incomprehensible that anyone would seek such depth from what is (in my view) supposed to be a simple form of recreation to wind down after a days work.
There's no right or wrong answer, it's 100% dependant on the individuals tastes.
Totally agree, which was why I found it pretty interesting.
The life to live comment was not a search for meaning in my existance, I was just explaining that so long as there are activities that have meaning and purpose while I'm in the game world and the tools are there to have fun, I don't then need a story based reason to go out and kill x pigs, x rats etc. To the point that I have been put off of games because it sometimes feels as though the stories are there to make me 'feel better' in some way.
But it is totally personal and I understand some people prefer to follow a story.
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
I'm playing a game to be entertained by it. Players are just along for the ride to share & help out or in many cases an annoyance who get in the way and cause problems 1/2 the time. PLAYERS do not create GOOD stories. They just create RPing that doesn't matter unless you invest loads of time into following whatever these freaks are chatting about. What else can players create besides petty wars over virtual crap? What do these "stories" consist of? Nerd A guild hates Nerd B guild. They fight. Its all the nerds in highschool who sat on the sidelines watching or being picked on but have POWER in MMO land. If you're REALLY lucky, something amazingly nerdy & semi interesting occurs like in Eve, where someone fakes being friends with a guild for a year then dismantles it and goes "SURPRISE LOSERS, I just PUNKED YOU ALL, HAHA!!!" And that happened ONCE in 6 or so years=) For that to happen you need to play with people with NO life outside the game....not me. AND you have to be in that specific guild, which lets face it, is bound not to happen in a game played by 100s of thousands or millions. If you're not involved in whatever that "story" might be, who cares really?
Players don't make stories. Its all just a form of griefing each other. Developers create stories. Players just create virtual forms of LARPing, which is sad enough in real life. If players are making all the content, I'm not paying a fee to play that "game".
"Players are just along for the ride to share & help out or in many cases an annoyance who get in the way and cause problems 1/2 the time."
From what you said in this statement, you make me think that you desire MMORPG's to be focused entirely on single player, with others just playing the same single player game at the same time that can hardly affect your gameplay at all? Please correct me if you were trying to say something else.
I'm playing a story driven multiplayer game with other people. I'm not playing a game where I just exist with other people and find things to do that may or may not be fun.
"PLAYERS do not create GOOD stories"
Now this is just vauge and dependent on what your definition of "player driven world" means. Do you feel it is a "sandbox" game as defined by many MMORPG'ers? I personally do, and if so, the "stories" are the events that occur within the game world caused by the players. Now, you say that players do not create good stories. Do you think a player in a game with boundaries such a steriotypical themepark game has greater potential to have "good"/interesting stories to tell ingame friends/real life friends than the players in a steriotypical sandbox game? In the story driven world, (for the most part) people undergoe most of the same general situations and events, as in a single player RPG. Sure, other players are in the world, but how many ingame "events" can you name in a story driven world that were actually worth sharing? That nobody else had done before? Events like these are rare (to my knowledge), and when even a semblence of one occurs in a themepark/story driven world, people talk about them; because they're different, they're fun. There is more potential to have a unique story to tell others about in a world that doesn't guide you, where events are much more random and a players choice more likely affects their gaming experience.
True, stories other people would care about in a themepark are rare. But decent stories are rare in sandboxes too, because they're mostly inside jokes, meaning if you weren't there, you really don't care. There were events in WOW...the first opening of the gates that everyone participated in. The curse bug from ZG that spread to players outside the dungeon...quite fun. I had plenty of rivalries with guilds and certain players. There were the big stories of course, like the actual virtual funeral that was crashed. Not my server, but a big deal in MMO land. I don't care about any of these events though unless I'm a part of them and in a sandbox, I don't have all the great content to fill in the gaps.
"If players are making all the content, I'm not paying a fee to play that "game" "
This is similar to saying that you would not pay to buy a shovel and bucket in order to make a sandcastle in the sandbox, which you also have to buy. You are suggesting that you would not desire to buy the tools to create your own fun? Maybe if you have no idea what to do what is given to you (bought in this case), but for many, that is all that is needed. One does not need to buy a "game", (such as Monopoly) with the rules entirely set and the playing board created and premade in order to have a good time. You seem to believe that player driven games are just an empty shell and an excuse for developers to not add content. That, I think, is a mass player misunderstanding of what many believe a sandbox/player driven world should be. Content should be added, sure, but it should be up to the players what to do with that content within the boundaries of what the content is specified to do (Such as, giving a player a new object that can be used in various manners).
By the way, I hate examples that use terms that apply to only certain games, such as "guild". It makes it seem as though you base your story driven/player driven worlds on games already released, instead of those that MAY exist in the future. In fact, many responses and proofs in this thread are based on many game specific things, such as raids/guilds/quest types. By doing this, I believe you are limiting yourself to what may occur in a story driven/player driven world. In my opinion, it shows how too many games have become far too similar.
Maybe people perceive sandboxes as having no content because its actually true. They don't have content. They have tools. Tools aren't content. Quests are content. Dungeons with bosses and lore are content. Battlegrounds and arenas are content. Don't talk hypotheticals. What may exist doesn't, so saying people should judge opinions on what COULD BE is stupid. Give players to ability to do whatever they want and you get Second Life...mostly cybering and porn or just hanging out accomplishing and doing nothing FUN. I'm an animator for 15+ years now...building stuff in a game is LAME to me(unless I'm actually getting paid to do it), because the tools SUCK. I'm using Maya and 3DSMax on a daily basis. A videogame won't let me build what I do 8+ hrs a day. Its kiddie stuff. I want to come home and be entertained since I'm creating and entertaining others all the time. The last thing I want to do is PAY to make MORE content for other people or myself. I want to go kill a dragon with my friends and call it a night. I don't want to make a name for myself or leave a mark...its just a videogame, not a virtual life. Once I quit, I'm done. I won't care what happens to the game after I leave.
I prefer somewhere in between. I don't care for a whole linear story-driven game - that's what SP games are for - but I do think a good MMO should have a lot of the content filled in and defined by NPC's, lore, and such. Players make too much of a mess of things, if you let them.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I prefer player driven, but I don't like it to be either/or. My only problems with story driven is when it defines my char for me and/or precludes player driven dynamics.
I think EQ did it the best. You had lore and quests to do if you wanted to look for them or if you wanted to do your own thing you didn't have to quest at all. I miss the group oriented approach EQ took though.
i find most mmo's to be wanted to be player driven, but you still have primary quest. in that, most of the time you can't pic good or evil till very late in the game. as a result the question is more do you want awesome cinematics and instancing or do you want stremline dialog and crafting.
to me the answer is : depends on what games I just got done with and what I am in the mood for. I often play mmo's after I get gone with RPG's and vice versa, and both need a lil FPS relief all the meanwhile.
Maybe I am seeing it a different way. I've always been outside the norm with all issues why not this one. I could argue that all player driven games aren't really affected by me at all. Take Eve. I played that this week. Barely, but I did. I logged in and trained a few skills. Did that affect other players? Darkfall online. If I don't log in is that going to affect the player world? Probably not. Maybe the issue is player driven is fine but only if it truly changes the world, which I think, all MMOs do not have as yet. Heroes of Telara may change that though. And Xsyon from the looks of it.
I still prefer a hybrid of sandbox/themepark though, as many above have stated, I actually like to play all types of games, from Eve to WoW. Even better if they could be combined.
Eve is player Driven due to the economy, even the newest player contributes to the overall picture. Also the game has serveral different mechanics in place that lets players interact with eachother and by doing that changing the map.
Darkfall is kind of the same way minus the economy.
Im real big on variety in the mmo genre so im willing to atleast try a Hybrid game that's leaning more toward the themepark style.
First, the principle that it's a binary decision is in error. Second your presentation is highly biased. If you're going to cover the pros of onem, cover the pros of both. And cover the cons accurately. It's not entirely accurate to say that they're simply opposites.
99% of player created content is crap. I would MUCH rather have a story driven MMO (WOW).
Playing with others are fine ... but i don't want to hear their stories.
It's not a matter of "player created content", but a matter of "player freedom" vs "listen to Jaida Proudhome confront the Lich King for 3 minutes for the upteenth time."
"Free Range" worlds can be great. Story-driven worlds, especially tight linear ones, have a lameness factor that increases exponentially each time you re-roll.
I think EQ did it the best. You had lore and quests to do if you wanted to look for them or if you wanted to do your own thing you didn't have to quest at all. I miss the group oriented approach EQ took though.
100% CORRECT. Early EQ was great. Now the game is long in the tooth and needs some rework in the movement/animation/interface department, but the core design remains unbeaten.
Hoping EQ NEXT will carry the torch in this manner and not be the crapfest that EQ2 was.
I think EQ did it the best. You had lore and quests to do if you wanted to look for them or if you wanted to do your own thing you didn't have to quest at all. I miss the group oriented approach EQ took though.
100% CORRECT. Early EQ was great. Now the game is long in the tooth and needs some rework in the movement/animation/interface department, but the core design remains unbeaten.
Hoping EQ NEXT will carry the torch in this manner and not be the crapfest that EQ2 was.
I agree with both of you
I can feel your anger. This game is defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike this game down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards towards the Dark Side will be complete.
The best scenario would be if the game took what players did and crafted some sort of lore based on those events. Like in the battle of Horde vs. Alliance, could you imagine if Horde and Alliance were completely run by players, and they both were formed by groups of players? That would be sick. I am not completely sure how that would work, but I'm not the video game creator, only the buyer.
The best scenario would be if the game took what players did and crafted some sort of lore based on those events. Like in the battle of Horde vs. Alliance, could you imagine if Horde and Alliance were completely run by players, and they both were formed by groups of players? That would be sick. I am not completely sure how that would work, but I'm not the video game creator, only the buyer.
Pretty much happened in EQ. Guilds on Fennin RO formed sides like aliiance and horde the grudge bearers and the skorchers. dwarves on one side while the other where trolls and ogers. No one was forced to battle but they did.
I am sure it happend on other servers but that was one example.
I can feel your anger. This game is defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike this game down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards towards the Dark Side will be complete.
i clearly stated opinion. I am biased. this is not a neutral discussion. so ploease stop wasting peoples time by posting unnesesary pieces of info irrelevent to the topic.
Keep in mind that "story-driven" and "lore" are two different things. Any world needs "lore" and "factions" and "political events" to trigger off from time to time. What a world does not need is some banal linear single player storyline that EVERYONE is forced to follow each time the roll an alt. This is why AOC failed. This is why WOLTK is arguably an annoying expansion that over time has resulted in a reduction of WOW's population.
i clearly stated opinion. I am biased. this is not a neutral discussion. so ploease stop wasting peoples time by posting unnesesary pieces of info irrelevent to the topic.
thank you for obliging
Having a preference is one thing. Having a bias prevents you from even understanding both sides fairly or accurately, rendering any discussion ultimately fruitless. Which is entirely relevant to the topic, because if you can't discuss things with an open mind, well, there's no point to it.
Get back to me when you can see that you're making a condition that is not necessary and when you can represent matters with at least a pretense of even-handedness.
Otherwise, please stop wasting people's time yourself.
blueharp, i said OPINION. NOT a NEAUTRAL DISCUSSION. ifr i wanted to havbe a neutral discusion the title would be LIST THE PROS AND CONS OF A PLAYER DRIVEN WORLD AND A STOLRY DRIVIN WORLD [ABSOLU5TLELY UNBIASED DISCUSSION, NO TAKING SIDES] is that the title. i consciously decided to not list the other side of the argument in order to highlight my OPINION.
now please stop arguing and stay on topic. its my thread and i understand the original reason i posted this. this is to state the preferencem not the pros and cons of both sides,
thank you if you decide to cooperate. if you decide to argue against me well then your post will be a comple waste of time and space and will waste even more by forcing me to reply to you.
Comments
Player driven world.
Whatever results derive from a player driven world is superior than someone's elses script.
Freedom, 1 or 0.
By its own nature, a story driven world is limited by itself and limits players.
The players, by their own choices, actions and behaviors, entangled by the complex net of relations and interests, wich one a protagonist of its own story and a pawn for the next one.
"Players are just along for the ride to share & help out or in many cases an annoyance who get in the way and cause problems 1/2 the time."
From what you said in this statement, you make me think that you desire MMORPG's to be focused entirely on single player, with others just playing the same single player game at the same time that can hardly affect your gameplay at all? Please correct me if you were trying to say something else.
"PLAYERS do not create GOOD stories"
Now this is just vauge and dependent on what your definition of "player driven world" means. Do you feel it is a "sandbox" game as defined by many MMORPG'ers? I personally do, and if so, the "stories" are the events that occur within the game world caused by the players. Now, you say that players do not create good stories. Do you think a player in a game with boundaries such a steriotypical themepark game has greater potential to have "good"/interesting stories to tell ingame friends/real life friends than the players in a steriotypical sandbox game? In the story driven world, (for the most part) people undergoe most of the same general situations and events, as in a single player RPG. Sure, other players are in the world, but how many ingame "events" can you name in a story driven world that were actually worth sharing? That nobody else had done before? Events like these are rare (to my knowledge), and when even a semblence of one occurs in a themepark/story driven world, people talk about them; because they're different, they're fun. There is more potential to have a unique story to tell others about in a world that doesn't guide you, where events are much more random and a players choice more likely affects their gaming experience.
"If players are making all the content, I'm not paying a fee to play that "game" "
This is similar to saying that you would not pay to buy a shovel and bucket in order to make a sandcastle in the sandbox, which you also have to buy. You are suggesting that you would not desire to buy the tools to create your own fun? Maybe if you have no idea what to do what is given to you (bought in this case), but for many, that is all that is needed. One does not need to buy a "game", (such as Monopoly) with the rules entirely set and the playing board created and premade in order to have a good time. You seem to believe that player driven games are just an empty shell and an excuse for developers to not add content. That, I think, is a mass player misunderstanding of what many believe a sandbox/player driven world should be. Content should be added, sure, but it should be up to the players what to do with that content within the boundaries of what the content is specified to do (Such as, giving a player a new object that can be used in various manners).
By the way, I hate examples that use terms that apply to only certain games, such as "guild". It makes it seem as though you base your story driven/player driven worlds on games already released, instead of those that MAY exist in the future. In fact, many responses and proofs in this thread are based on many game specific things, such as raids/guilds/quest types. By doing this, I believe you are limiting yourself to what may occur in a story driven/player driven world. In my opinion, it shows how too many games have become far too similar.
And in the same way, a player driven world is limited by the barriers that the developers set. You can only do so much in a world like that, and the end result is always weaker than if the developers created the story. They're not bound by the limitations, like the players are. They can do almost anything they want (or the game engine allows them). Players can only do so much as the developers allow them.
How do you figure any of those games eve come close to a player driven world? Due to housing? I don't know man when i think of player driven worlds I think of territorial conflic, players changing the lore specific to their server and everything a player does has an affect on everyone else in some way.
I didn't see that in those games.
In FFXI you don't HAVE to do any of the storyline. Ever. Hence player driven. YOu make your own goals. Same with SWG. LOTRO on the other hand, yeah you probably have a point, BUT I've seen more RP in LOTRO then I have in any other game, and RP is totally player driven.
You can do that in any mmo. A player driven world makes the players the focus, through conflicts and social ties. It has the players actions affect other players in the game.
How does choosing to avoid the story make it a players driven world? What mechanics are in place that lets players affect the world as a whole?
Im not trying to slam you or even give you a hard time bro but I think you have a strange idea of what player driven really means.
Maybe I am seeing it a different way. I've always been outside the norm with all issues why not this one. I could argue that all player driven games aren't really affected by me at all. Take Eve. I played that this week. Barely, but I did. I logged in and trained a few skills. Did that affect other players? Darkfall online. If I don't log in is that going to affect the player world? Probably not. Maybe the issue is player driven is fine but only if it truly changes the world, which I think, all MMOs do not have as yet. Heroes of Telara may change that though. And Xsyon from the looks of it.
I still prefer a hybrid of sandbox/themepark though, as many above have stated, I actually like to play all types of games, from Eve to WoW. Even better if they could be combined.
I like to have my cake and eat it too, but in all honesty I don't really see the debate that way my opinion is that I hate games that offer a "rule set" but no content and that is often the type of development that people refer to as player driven. Games like Darkfall to me are not really my cup of tea, while I think LOTRO is one of the closest games to being open ended enough to not need the story to play (though they don't do a very good job of it either).
I just don't see why people automatically equate the inclusion of a good story line and lore as being a negative, if I simply took all of LOTRO' s quest lines and put them in Darkfall just as they are I don't see how that would change the gameplay of DF. The only negative I can see is those players involved in quests at times being unaccesible to the rest of the population but I'd think anyone trying to make that argument can be considered selfish atleast.
I've played many "player driven" mmo's that don't have all that great rp tools that is again relative to the game you're playing. Next you mention that in a player driven mmo you get to create your own story, how so? What tools exist in a player driven mmo that actually let you "create your own story" that doesn't exist in sotry driven mmo's the only difference I really see is that in a story driven mmo you are given a story by the devs to go along with the other experiences that you will have in game, which is what your player created story amounts to,nothing more than your interpretation of your in game experiences.
Again as I understand it a player driven game isn't just a game with no classes as your forced roles point implies.
And lastly I wonder what game forces you to kill rats if all you want to do is craft swords, most mmo's I've played have some pretty open ended crafting and even when/if you are forced to do something to continue to advance crafting it's certainly much more profound than killing rats.
I think my problem is the whole "have to be against something" thing is tired no one has ever told me anything that would convince me that both can't be had but as long as we keep acting like this a sa community devs will continue to be absovled of their responsibilities that should be associated with earning our money and equally with advancing the genre as a whole.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Jax, I will respond to your questions.
"Next you mention that in a player driven mmo you get to create your own story, how so?"
You said that a player driven MMO's story is "nothing more than your interpretation of your in game experiences.". Nothing more, NOTHING more??? I'm sorry, but realize what you are saying and what you are asking. Let's look at this. What IS a story, when refering to games? I am pretty sure that the story, at least in reference to a player driven game, IS the players experiences. There is no "story" you can literaly create that is preexisting. What occurs in the game IS the story. In story driven worlds, much of what has happened in the world has already been decided, and your are thrown into the midsts of it. In a player driven one, for most games I know of, the PLAYERS create what the game is about, what matters, and what the game's history is. You stated that a player driven MMO'ers story is "nothing more than your interpretation of your in game experience", but that is the point. A story doesn't have one point of view, or shouldn't at least. For most cases in life, it is a series of events that occur to a person or many people that is told and retold by various people. Stories change, stories are not always constant. That's one of the exciting parts about a player driven world. The players make choices in the world, and are remembered by the people in the world.
Also, the tools that you are given are whatever the developers deside exist in their world, but don't cause the events. The tools of the world are the world itself, and whatever is in it. Just because a game does not give players the proper tools to exist within the world to cause major change, doesn't mean that it can't be done. It just HASN'T been done in a way that appeals to a very, very large amount of players. I would respond with more, but I have to go for now.
Totally agree, which was why I found it pretty interesting.
The life to live comment was not a search for meaning in my existance, I was just explaining that so long as there are activities that have meaning and purpose while I'm in the game world and the tools are there to have fun, I don't then need a story based reason to go out and kill x pigs, x rats etc. To the point that I have been put off of games because it sometimes feels as though the stories are there to make me 'feel better' in some way.
But it is totally personal and I understand some people prefer to follow a story.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
I prefer somewhere in between. I don't care for a whole linear story-driven game - that's what SP games are for - but I do think a good MMO should have a lot of the content filled in and defined by NPC's, lore, and such. Players make too much of a mess of things, if you let them.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I prefer player driven, but I don't like it to be either/or. My only problems with story driven is when it defines my char for me and/or precludes player driven dynamics.
I think EQ did it the best. You had lore and quests to do if you wanted to look for them or if you wanted to do your own thing you didn't have to quest at all. I miss the group oriented approach EQ took though.
i find most mmo's to be wanted to be player driven, but you still have primary quest. in that, most of the time you can't pic good or evil till very late in the game. as a result the question is more do you want awesome cinematics and instancing or do you want stremline dialog and crafting.
to me the answer is : depends on what games I just got done with and what I am in the mood for. I often play mmo's after I get gone with RPG's and vice versa, and both need a lil FPS relief all the meanwhile.
Eve is player Driven due to the economy, even the newest player contributes to the overall picture. Also the game has serveral different mechanics in place that lets players interact with eachother and by doing that changing the map.
Darkfall is kind of the same way minus the economy.
Im real big on variety in the mmo genre so im willing to atleast try a Hybrid game that's leaning more toward the themepark style.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
First, the principle that it's a binary decision is in error. Second your presentation is highly biased. If you're going to cover the pros of onem, cover the pros of both. And cover the cons accurately. It's not entirely accurate to say that they're simply opposites.
After playing CoH and seeing what some players consider "content, I'll let the devs tell the story. They do it much better than most of the players.
It's not a matter of "player created content", but a matter of "player freedom" vs "listen to Jaida Proudhome confront the Lich King for 3 minutes for the upteenth time."
"Free Range" worlds can be great. Story-driven worlds, especially tight linear ones, have a lameness factor that increases exponentially each time you re-roll.
100% CORRECT. Early EQ was great. Now the game is long in the tooth and needs some rework in the movement/animation/interface department, but the core design remains unbeaten.
Hoping EQ NEXT will carry the torch in this manner and not be the crapfest that EQ2 was.
I agree with both of you
I can feel your anger. This game is defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike this game down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards towards the Dark Side will be complete.
The best scenario would be if the game took what players did and crafted some sort of lore based on those events. Like in the battle of Horde vs. Alliance, could you imagine if Horde and Alliance were completely run by players, and they both were formed by groups of players? That would be sick. I am not completely sure how that would work, but I'm not the video game creator, only the buyer.
Can I have story driven and player centric?
Pretty much happened in EQ. Guilds on Fennin RO formed sides like aliiance and horde the grudge bearers and the skorchers. dwarves on one side while the other where trolls and ogers. No one was forced to battle but they did.
I am sure it happend on other servers but that was one example.
I can feel your anger. This game is defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike this game down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards towards the Dark Side will be complete.
i clearly stated opinion. I am biased. this is not a neutral discussion. so ploease stop wasting peoples time by posting unnesesary pieces of info irrelevent to the topic.
thank you for obliging
Keep in mind that "story-driven" and "lore" are two different things. Any world needs "lore" and "factions" and "political events" to trigger off from time to time. What a world does not need is some banal linear single player storyline that EVERYONE is forced to follow each time the roll an alt. This is why AOC failed. This is why WOLTK is arguably an annoying expansion that over time has resulted in a reduction of WOW's population.
Having a preference is one thing. Having a bias prevents you from even understanding both sides fairly or accurately, rendering any discussion ultimately fruitless. Which is entirely relevant to the topic, because if you can't discuss things with an open mind, well, there's no point to it.
Get back to me when you can see that you're making a condition that is not necessary and when you can represent matters with at least a pretense of even-handedness.
Otherwise, please stop wasting people's time yourself.
blueharp, i said OPINION. NOT a NEAUTRAL DISCUSSION. ifr i wanted to havbe a neutral discusion the title would be LIST THE PROS AND CONS OF A PLAYER DRIVEN WORLD AND A STOLRY DRIVIN WORLD [ABSOLU5TLELY UNBIASED DISCUSSION, NO TAKING SIDES] is that the title. i consciously decided to not list the other side of the argument in order to highlight my OPINION.
now please stop arguing and stay on topic. its my thread and i understand the original reason i posted this. this is to state the preferencem not the pros and cons of both sides,
thank you if you decide to cooperate. if you decide to argue against me well then your post will be a comple waste of time and space and will waste even more by forcing me to reply to you.