Answer: Because if they weren't about killing, MMOs would be about universal peace. What would you do in a game like this with zero conflict? The only games that would occur would be "simulators" that try their hardest to emulate either reality or a constant state of perpetual accuracy that can't be achieved with modern technology (Fantasy Simulators). Seeing as how unpopular CitiesXL was (and even that had some sort of conflict to keep the city up & alive), we won't be seeing an advancement of tech towards this goal.
Simple Answer: Humans still carry with them the primal functions of the brain. These "primal functions" require stimulai by natural means. For the laymen, this means that our species by default wishes for conflict or some unforseable event to be conquered. Without this, we are bored and pointless. This is the root psychology of our species, and it makes sense that our games reflect this. (sorry, it ended up not being simple :P).
-Faded
ps: I suck at speed typing, sorry for typos and/or inconsistant thought processes.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity: Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
Football you can win/lose but you can also draw... and yet its still such a popular game. Partly due to the chance of winning/scoring but also due to the actual game itself - what you have to do. The GAMEPLAY is what makes a game good, and that's the most fundimental part of game design, regardless of opposing force.
RE: the original post. Adding aditional ways to have fun that appeal to many people in different ways is like having lots of flavours of icecream. One flavour you might hate, another might be great, and some just ok. You could mix a few. And it is a damn good idea to have more than one, otherwise your customers are going elsewhere.
I could go on, but doubtless there will be some response OPPOSING me which will ultimately be fruitless. lol. Mmmm strawberry flavour.
Some people love to destroy while others love to build. I am a builder type so I play MMORPGs to build something new and better whether it is a better character, a better guild, better in-game business or simply figuring out the best way to accomplish something in the game. Playstyles that focus on destruction are the antithesis of this and provide very little enjoyment to me.
Frankly I would love if MMORPGs forcused more on he creative and builder aspects and let go of the kiddie stuff like FFA PvP
I think the only reason we disagree is because I think your definition of a game is really the definition of a contest, Plasmicredx. You don't need an opposing force in a game all you need is: rules, challenge, interaction, and a goal. But you do need an opposing force in a contest.
Besides, an entertainer does have an opposing force, you just refuse to accept the opposing force as other players.
If a game is not a contest (no winner or loser), then all it is, is a linear sequential slideshow that leads to some outcome but you can't really say you won anything because you couldn't lose anything. It's more of an art program (like a lego game where the goal is to just build anything at all it doesn't matter) or a story book or movie.
I did already say an entertainer has an opposing force but it's a weak one. It's like a puzzle you just go play music and hope to get tips. There is no real winner or loser. If you didn't get tips that day it doesn't set you back in any way. You just keep going and playing music.
By your definition Simon Says would be a puzzle and not a game. but for the opposite reason, there's no way to win, ever.
Weak to you. It's a definate conflict. If the entertainer sucks or is an ass, people won't give him money even if he had the best buffs. If the entertainer is good and very charismatic, that player could earn more from customers, just from impressing them. The goal is money. The challenge is social, mechanics, and visual skills. The conflict is or can be getting money, social standing, popularity, or even fans from the player populace as a whole. And this is not counting the competition between entertainers.
physically attacking is a rather local conflict as it can only injure 1 or a few people. Manipulation through words can afftect millions of people and the conflict becomes a broad. Game wise the entertainer's skill at atracting other players to pay them is a for of social manipulation. the losers would be those entertainers than can't attract people, or do worse than the entertainer across the street. The winners are the opposite. Being the local deva that other entertainers can't even compete against, or becoming highly renown amongst others is a definate reward.
Still that's a sandbox goal, as the devs don't define the goal, the player does.
On the grand scale though there are no winners in any MMO, as no one can beat the game. They can only do better than the rest, or achieve their goals. So, would an MMO itself be considered a game if you can't win?
While this debate could be considered a game so long as one of us concedes or gives up.
In Simon Says, the winner is the remaining player. The losers are the rest who didn't follow. The rules are that you keep playing, getting faster and faster and tricking people. The problem with simon says is that sometimes no one ever loses so the game eventually has to stop. If you never encountered that in simon says like I did, then you must have not played it enough times. That was a flaw in its game design, but it was a good strong game design because it does have winners and losers.
Again, entertainer in swg is not weak because I think it's weak. It's weak because it puts the game on a sequential track where you may ONLY advance forward to a progressive outcome like a puzzle with no setting the player back at all unlike simon says where if you lose, then you don't get to be simon says for next round. You can't be a musician entertainer in swg and lose. You are also leaving out the fact that even if you are incredibly good at being an entertainer, even if you are the best, that players can still decide not to tip you. So in order to play an entertainer in swg, you must be willing to accept that the game has no design in place for this. "Bad" entertainers can still make money or even make more money than the best entertainers because it's based on player choice.
Winning a game comes from getting any sorts of desirable outcomes (as long as there is an undesirable outcome for each winnable outcome). You might win at short term goals and this is still considered winning a small amount as long as you could have lost. There are multiple desirable outcomes in sandbox and mmorpg games. The ultimate desirable outcome in wow is to defeat the dark lord and his minions. You can lose this ultimate goal by getting killed by the dark lord. The dark lord usually changes every expansion pack. Though some people don't even bother with the ultimate goal.
Some are satisfied with shorter goals. But the ultimate goal is there which is why it's good game design. In sandboxes you still can have an ultimate goal to defeat a dark lord. What makes a sandbox is nonlinear gameplay which allows the players to do anything they want. Being able to write your own world is impossible without uploadable community content, and even this is still playing some player's story he wrote for you.
If there is no conflict at all and no monsters to defeat or players to defeat then there's just an empty world with no history. If you allow players to play as monsters and form civilizations, then and only then can players start to write their own sandbox while playing the game, but even then, the game is being written within some sort of context: medieval fantasy, sci-fi, western, a mix of all, and others. Sandboxes I've seen always had pvp and pve unless it was an art program (not a real game) like second life. So even though you are free to do whatever you want in most real sandbox games, there is always some discoverable desirable or undesirable outcome. Some of the goals are to be the best at pvp or pve, acquire the most stuff, build destructible castles from lots of resource gathering, etc. What if someone blows up your castle in your sandbox?
Other desirable outcomes in themeparks are generally winning pvp matches, gaining a lot of gold, not dieing when you attempt to get better gear, explore the world, etc. All of which are ways to win the game and even have undesirable outcomes like if you head to a pve dungeon and there's some enemy players camping the door. Losing gold from bad purchases. Acquiring gear has undesirable outcomes that is tied to your character like if your character dies on the boss and have to wait to fight him next time.
A virtual world where you are only able to interact with other players and things doesn't make something a full game. It only makes it a facet of a game. Design a game where you throw a ball back and forth to one another for example. You throw the ball, the ball goes to them, then they may throw the ball back at their leisure. This is a very weak game design. Now design an opposing force into the game such as that the other player may drop or not catch the ball. Whoever drops it, the other player gets +1 to their score. Now you have a stronger game design than before. Stronger game design does not mean that the weaker game design cannot be enjoyed. It means that it is better design overall because it completes it as a full game. This also has important effects on the players such as making them want to try harder at not dropping the ball, and giving the game an extra final score such as playing best 2 out of 3 or play until first to a score of 5 can give the game "closure" rather than just passing a ball back and forth with no other outcome or ending like you can find in a movie.
I think the real question here is "Is interaction without multiple outcomes good enough make a full game?" Well news media having trouble describing second life as a game probably doesn't make it so, but clearly games like it are closer to a 3D chat room than an actual game.
And no, before someone further questions that I disagree with the OP and the main subject of the thread, no. I don't. Just having a talk about why swg entertainer had weak game design and how it can be strengthened.
I seriously hope you aren't actually a game designer or that you'll stay away from any games I intend to play in the future.
If you can't understand that adding all the non combat profession in SWG was pure genius then get back to your books. I very often disagreed with quite a few takes made by Ralph Koster, but he got (or his team) this one pretty well on the nail.
I'm not against non combat professions. I'm critiquing the ones found in swg. There's a huge difference.
I gave you a heads up that I was going to be as hard as I could on it in order to explain how non combat professions can be made into actual games instead of a chat room mode. Disagree? Fine. However, don't make personal comments about me over it.
I blame D&D. While combat happens in most P&P RPGs it is most common in D&D, other games have a lot more non combat things. In certain more realistic games are combat really dangerous and should be avoided at all cost.
In games like Call of Cthulu combat is usually fatal unless you fight some really wussy cultists and even that it is always dangerous.
But the thing is that combat is the simplest way to keep the players occupied. A stealth mission were combat means failure takes pretty long time to make. Problem solving is more or less destroyed by the net and so are riddles and puzzles.
There is of course the building thing, were the players can build great things together but even in most sandboxes it is usually just about choosing something out of a few basic things.
A few games have some minigames like jousting, archery contsests and similar things, I think those at least will become more common, GW2 plans to take them to the next level.
But I agree, MMOs should have more non combat activities. In most P&P fighting is really fun and exiting, but that is because you often do it pretty rarely. And you plan ahead with tactics and strategy in a very different way from MMOs.
More possibilities for non combat but no forcing of the players to do anything is the best way to go. Add a bit of dungeon keeper or the Sims to the game, a bit of strategy and more micro manegment.
Sadly for now adding a few walking loot bags with more or less random stats is way cheaper to do than say implementing a Call of Cthulu scenario. Also in the former you usually need your brain and be very cautious while exploring, while in MMO most of the time it's hack and slash.
Thanks for remembering me the old days of P&P *cheers*
Typically most responses seem to go off on semantic/definition tangents or argue extreemes. I'd like to see VG diplomacy like minigames tried in another game. It comes down to development effort versus player uptake.
The problem is predicting the enjoyment of minigames. I still play free cell and soliatire while listening to music after over 10 years. Some people still play minesweeper. Why are these games so addictive? How can you design minigames like VG diplomacy that will be as playable longterm? I don't blame developers for playing safe but some lower budget games could afford to take more risks.
due to most mmorpg's being fantasy, in which the only option to "save the world" is to kill some sort of evil, the majority of the game echoes that concept making killing evil the dominating feature.
Other types of MMO's tend to follow this trend since its so popular but some have broken the mold, a good example of this would be EVE online.
OP, I've had the exact same sentiments so many times. Particularly when I'm looking at all the new games on the horizon and see they are all from the same formulaic boring re-hashed mold.
I played Free Realms also and I really appreciated their questing and in- game events. Not sure why some other developer hasn't caught on to that type of game experience for an older crowd.
And one game I have to mention: Free Realms. Yes, its a kid game. But I really loved those non violent activities and while the game did not keep me, I wished many of these non violent activities were possible in my main AAA MMO of choice. Like being a real doctor and just healing people, or doing races or doing any of the fun stuff you could in Free Realms.
MMOs would have to do two things:
1) Include non-combat professions the way SWG did, as real professions not just hobbies.
2) Make quests with choices how you can solve it. Example: A group of bandits roams some streets in the wild. A soldier could just kill them, a "guard" would try to arrest them, a diplomat could persuade them or see they are just poor and help them to settle in an honest life. A spy could spy the rogues out for an ambush of the official forces. A strategist could lead them into a trap and magically ensnare them to give up. The quest would just contain "remove the bandits", and HOW you do that would be up to you entirely.
I mean, yes killing will always be a central part of the game; nothing to say here. But how much kill 2000000 of X has become an unquestioned norm these days is just unsettling, and in the end you are always just a soldier, a killing machine. So many helpless bears, boars and badgers... it is just tiring me.
heh, an mmo without action would not survive these days ( it would result on some kind of Barbie mmo).... its hard to enjoy 100% a full online game where you dont have to kill or beat or hurt or chase anybody or any mob.... of course u can get a non violent mmo if it offers something for kids to learn some stuff..... thats it. bigger audience would not play it, therefore, it'd die...
and for the number 2 thing you mentioned: that sounds somewhat good, but!!.... it will still have violence... the soldier would kill the bandits, the guard would try to arrest them (bandits would try to escape, therefore, guards will beat them up and then arrest them).... the diplomat could persuade them or see they are poor and help them? sorry, only polititians do that to get the votes.... spy + rogues + ambush + special forces = violence..... strategist and trap and force to give up through magic ? thats torture (violence) so..... lol there is still violence in every option u have given
lets just keep mmos violent for the sake of enjoyment
Well, it's probably for showing your dominance over other players/NPCs/Monsters (Hey! I killed UberCrystalDragon on Hell difficulty - and I got this st***d t-shirt to prove it!), and that's why it's like that.
Still, there are other things, such as collecting stuff and showing off that you have oh-so-cool stuff. That game (which I'm also trying out) is Cardmon hero, where you collect monster cards (summons), rare equips, and skill cards. It's a really fun game.
Not all MMOs are about killing... virtually any MMO with a serious crafting system allows you to progress while bypassing the combat system in the game entirely. Personally though, I wish more MMOs had stat systems like Fallout- where a player who specialized in Barter or Speech could negotiate their way out of trouble rather than have to fight through it. Who knows, maybe Fallout Online will use this system if it's ever released.
Comments
Question: Why are MMOs only about killing?
Answer: Because if they weren't about killing, MMOs would be about universal peace. What would you do in a game like this with zero conflict? The only games that would occur would be "simulators" that try their hardest to emulate either reality or a constant state of perpetual accuracy that can't be achieved with modern technology (Fantasy Simulators). Seeing as how unpopular CitiesXL was (and even that had some sort of conflict to keep the city up & alive), we won't be seeing an advancement of tech towards this goal.
Simple Answer: Humans still carry with them the primal functions of the brain. These "primal functions" require stimulai by natural means. For the laymen, this means that our species by default wishes for conflict or some unforseable event to be conquered. Without this, we are bored and pointless. This is the root psychology of our species, and it makes sense that our games reflect this. (sorry, it ended up not being simple :P).
-Faded
ps: I suck at speed typing, sorry for typos and/or inconsistant thought processes.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
Football you can win/lose but you can also draw... and yet its still such a popular game. Partly due to the chance of winning/scoring but also due to the actual game itself - what you have to do. The GAMEPLAY is what makes a game good, and that's the most fundimental part of game design, regardless of opposing force.
RE: the original post. Adding aditional ways to have fun that appeal to many people in different ways is like having lots of flavours of icecream. One flavour you might hate, another might be great, and some just ok. You could mix a few. And it is a damn good idea to have more than one, otherwise your customers are going elsewhere.
I could go on, but doubtless there will be some response OPPOSING me which will ultimately be fruitless. lol. Mmmm strawberry flavour.
p.s. I hate football. Mmmm snowboarding.
Some people love to destroy while others love to build. I am a builder type so I play MMORPGs to build something new and better whether it is a better character, a better guild, better in-game business or simply figuring out the best way to accomplish something in the game. Playstyles that focus on destruction are the antithesis of this and provide very little enjoyment to me.
Frankly I would love if MMORPGs forcused more on he creative and builder aspects and let go of the kiddie stuff like FFA PvP
I'm not against non combat professions. I'm critiquing the ones found in swg. There's a huge difference.
I gave you a heads up that I was going to be as hard as I could on it in order to explain how non combat professions can be made into actual games instead of a chat room mode. Disagree? Fine. However, don't make personal comments about me over it.
Sadly for now adding a few walking loot bags with more or less random stats is way cheaper to do than say implementing a Call of Cthulu scenario. Also in the former you usually need your brain and be very cautious while exploring, while in MMO most of the time it's hack and slash.
Thanks for remembering me the old days of P&P *cheers*
Typically most responses seem to go off on semantic/definition tangents or argue extreemes. I'd like to see VG diplomacy like minigames tried in another game. It comes down to development effort versus player uptake.
The problem is predicting the enjoyment of minigames. I still play free cell and soliatire while listening to music after over 10 years. Some people still play minesweeper. Why are these games so addictive? How can you design minigames like VG diplomacy that will be as playable longterm? I don't blame developers for playing safe but some lower budget games could afford to take more risks.
due to most mmorpg's being fantasy, in which the only option to "save the world" is to kill some sort of evil, the majority of the game echoes that concept making killing evil the dominating feature.
Other types of MMO's tend to follow this trend since its so popular but some have broken the mold, a good example of this would be EVE online.
agrees op
Guild Wars 2 is my religion
My first mmorpg was actually not about killing at all, but about solving mysteries, based on the awesome MYST series.
An mmorpg called URU online. Unfortunately not very popular, it went up and down, but it's now up again as MYST online.
OP, I've had the exact same sentiments so many times. Particularly when I'm looking at all the new games on the horizon and see they are all from the same formulaic boring re-hashed mold.
I played Free Realms also and I really appreciated their questing and in- game events. Not sure why some other developer hasn't caught on to that type of game experience for an older crowd.
heh, an mmo without action would not survive these days ( it would result on some kind of Barbie mmo).... its hard to enjoy 100% a full online game where you dont have to kill or beat or hurt or chase anybody or any mob.... of course u can get a non violent mmo if it offers something for kids to learn some stuff..... thats it. bigger audience would not play it, therefore, it'd die...
and for the number 2 thing you mentioned: that sounds somewhat good, but!!.... it will still have violence... the soldier would kill the bandits, the guard would try to arrest them (bandits would try to escape, therefore, guards will beat them up and then arrest them).... the diplomat could persuade them or see they are poor and help them? sorry, only polititians do that to get the votes.... spy + rogues + ambush + special forces = violence..... strategist and trap and force to give up through magic ? thats torture (violence) so..... lol there is still violence in every option u have given
lets just keep mmos violent for the sake of enjoyment
Well, it's probably for showing your dominance over other players/NPCs/Monsters (Hey! I killed UberCrystalDragon on Hell difficulty - and I got this st***d t-shirt to prove it!), and that's why it's like that.
It's also the reason why I play mostly PvP based games such as Aika Global. I mean, check out this raid video I found on the net (skip to the middle parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6tcySf-VqE
Still, there are other things, such as collecting stuff and showing off that you have oh-so-cool stuff. That game (which I'm also trying out) is Cardmon hero, where you collect monster cards (summons), rare equips, and skill cards. It's a really fun game.
Summons:
<TBA>
Because killing is my business and business is good -Megadeth
Not all MMOs are about killing... virtually any MMO with a serious crafting system allows you to progress while bypassing the combat system in the game entirely. Personally though, I wish more MMOs had stat systems like Fallout- where a player who specialized in Barter or Speech could negotiate their way out of trouble rather than have to fight through it. Who knows, maybe Fallout Online will use this system if it's ever released.
Why is the Iliad about killing? You know, along with The Odyssey which had killing too, is the most important piece of Western Literature of all time.