It's worth pointing out that Puzzle Pirates has already done this, really. It's a skill based, not leveling based MMORPG. There's money you can earn, but it mostly seems to apply to fashion stylings.
The more you fight, the higher you're ranked overall, but it's ranking you based off of how skillfully you have been performing the puzzles.
The only problem with Puzzle Pirates of course is that it's not so good if you don't want to play puzzle games all day long.
does it have an explorable non-instanced world? if not entirely, are PARTS of the world like that?
i personally have no interest in exploring either sea or space because they are pretty featureless and repetitive compared to a landscape.
______________________________________ Play my entire game FREE if you want
does it have an explorable non-instanced world? if not entirely, are PARTS of the world like that?
i personally have no interest in exploring either sea or space because they are pretty featureless and repetitive compared to a landscape.
I'm not entirely sure about the world, actually! I've neve bought my own ship, just ridden around on other people's ships, haha.
I'm not necessarily recommending it as 'Everybody should play this game', because it is definitely a niche title in a lot of ways (The graphics, the setting, the puzzle gaming), all I'm saying is that it proves that MMO games work perfectly well as skill based games, and can still have progression (Fashion options and rating vs. other players) and so on.
This isn't a 'this game is the answer to all your problems' response, just a 'This game did something like that (and so did GW, though it's not an MMO), so there's no reason why more games can't be made this way, and no reason for them not to be considered MMOs'
Originally posted by CazCore Originally posted by lizardbones
There may not need to be in game rewards for beating npc mobs, but there has to be a financial reward for the company delivering the software. The 'virtual world' thing doesn't pay well. Second Life only works because a bunch of people, not the developer are making content. If the Second Life developer had to make all the content, they'd go bankrupt trying to pay for developers and designers to make it.
In short, you couldn't write and program a virtual world right now and expect to actually make money off of it. The development costs are too high. Either the development costs have to drop or the market needs to suddenly shift to people willing to pay to live out virtual lives instead of play games in virtual playgrounds.
* edit * There's other stuff. For instance, if there's no loot reward for beating a tough monster, then that monster needs to be really tough so that the bragging rights are worth bragging with. If it's really tough, few people will actually beat it. It would be like me trying to fight Mike Tyson. There's no point. Sure, I could go beat all the easy monsters, but I'm getting nothing for it, so why do that? Giving people virtual rewards for their virtual accomplishments works. That's why they use it.
Not saying you couldn't do something else, but so far, nobody has thought of anything else, so nobody is using anything else.
nobody knows if a gamey virtual world couldn't make money until several are put on the market. and so far we don't have even one (of the type i'm waiting for). also nothing is stopping one from being UGC based ala Second Life. as a matter of fact, my longterm goal in life is to make exactly that. the UGC would be handled entirely differently, as well as many things about it. i wouldn't wanna restrict world building to only paying users. and further restrict THOSE users to only to certain plots of land for example. free labour would be freely encouraged instead of CHARGING people to make my content like SL does. and they would be able to make imrovements to the WHOLE world. also, crappy designers wouldn't be guaranteed of having ANY of their work in-game. think of BBSes, youtube or any other UGC based system for clues on how that can be managed, altho i have further ideas as well. i'm not against loot or in-game rewards (altho i don't think they are NECESSARY). i'm specifically against experience points, levels and "skills". which are trying to "simulate" a character that is supposed to be seperate and distinct from your real life self (and yet never really is). you can still role play if you wish in a game without RPG mechanics, as games like Second Life (which has none) demonstrates. for many that's the whole point of SL.
It is true, we have no idea what could happen with the current technology. However, the virtual world thing has been around longer than Second Life. There was a whole web standard based around it (VRML) which never took off. Either virtual worlds happened too soon, or they were just too cr@ppy to be worth it.
What follows is my opinion, but I'm pretty confident in the conclusions I've drawn. You can't just have a virtual world. Not if you want it to be financially stable. There has to be some sort of point to it. For Second Life that point is creation. That's why MindCraft has sold over a million copies. So far, the best selling point is combat and the aquisition of virtual goods. You can dress it up differently but that's what it boils down to. Find something else to draw people in, and you'll be the first of a new breed of something. Unforunately, you'll have to convince a bunch of investors that it's a good idea too.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It is true, we have no idea what could happen with the current technology. However, the virtual world thing has been around longer than Second Life. There was a whole web standard based around it (VRML) which never took off. Either virtual worlds happened too soon, or they were just too cr@ppy to be worth it.
What follows is my opinion, but I'm pretty confident in the conclusions I've drawn. You can't just have a virtual world. Not if you want it to be financially stable. There has to be some sort of point to it. For Second Life that point is creation. That's why MindCraft has sold over a million copies. So far, the best selling point is combat and the aquisition of virtual goods. You can dress it up differently but that's what it boils down to. Find something else to draw people in, and you'll be the first of a new breed of something. Unforunately, you'll have to convince a bunch of investors that it's a good idea too.
the ones before SL were basically glorified 3D chat rooms, which is why none of them. ActiveWorlds was one of the better ones, but........ (thought continued below)
it all depends on what you're looking for as to whether they are "too cr@ppy".
most of the people that enter them (especially all the ones talking on gaming websites) are not surprisingly looking for and expecting a game. none of them were games.
SL allows games to be made WITHIN it, but since gameplay wasn't part of the foundation, it'd be a miracle if their in-game general purpose scripting allowed for complicated and yet smooth action games to be programmed. and while certain aspects of SL is ALMOST miraculous (compared to most MMO technology), their scripting fell quite short of that ability. as everyone should have expected.
smooth gameplay has to be BUILT IN to the foundation of the engine. otherwise SL and the like are fairly pointless to most gamers. that's why they all "failed" to gamers. shouldn't be too much of a surprise there.
so yeah, combat.....gameplay. yeah my kind of vw def needs that......... i've been TALKING about that.
thats what all the "grindless" "real life skills" talk was about.
world creation alone isn't enough, otherwise minecraft wouldn't have made all that money. cuz Minecraft Classic, which has freeform UNLIMITED building is FREE.
what people are paying for is the GAMEPLAY based version of minecraft.
______________________________________ Play my entire game FREE if you want
I am open on a ton of details - the main points I highlighted are my main concerns.
A world I think this could work in is a Darkfall-like sandbox. Pause your internal dialogue. Something similar. Player politics... instead of a major focus on resource aquisition, just make it about taking over the game world. Where guild cities are strategic points for launching attacks, defending chokepoints or portals to friendly cities. I'll tell you why this will work: with an in-depth stat system, bragging rights for being a part of the dominant guild or coalition is all you need for constant conflict and fun. With an integrated arena system that can streamline organized combat and alter politics, the fun factor is multiplied and guaranteed.
^A persistant world mmo without the grind and a ton of fun.
I am open on a ton of details - the main points I highlighted are my main concerns.
A world I think this could work in is a Darkfall-like sandbox. Pause your internal dialogue. Something similar. Player politics... instead of a major focus on resource aquisition, just make it about taking over the game world. I'll tell you why this will work: with an in-depth stat system, bragging rights for being a part of the dominant guild or coalition is all you need for constant conflict and fun. With an integrated arena system that can streamline organized combat, the fun factor is multiplied and guaranteed.
^A persistant world mmo without the grind and a ton of fun.
You know, I think it would be more fun and sandboxy if you allow the guilds to hold tournaments instead of the arena. The guildmaster could match up people in duels, dusts (2 sided melee with a certain number of people on each side), jousting and archery instead. Maybe some other cotests as well.
That would mean that the hosting guild would set up prices and that your knights and warriors will fight for their own guild (country, noble family, fellowship or whatever you call it).
Just regular arenas kinda misses that player created part, a tournament would have people watching between the games, deals between visiting players and a lot of other possible interactions where you can learn to know your fellow players. When I feel for arenas I play Guildwars, with a sandbox I want more.
I do agree that politics should be about land (and vassals for that matter). I think there is a huge possibility to make a really interesting game there. Something a bit like Geaorge R R Martins "A game of throne" where you backstab, fight, buy and do anything else you have to for the purpose of your clan.
Thats fine but it still doesn't beat the argument. If you have progression you have the opportunity/curse of grind.
The only way to get rid of it will be to get rid of progression and even that won't stop it.
One of my favorite games was golden eye, awesome, no progression but way fun especially when playing against my brother. He alway wooped my butt. But after awhile I got bored of it, he still wanted to play, but it was just the same. A repetitive monotonous experience... a grind.
Venge
you never had a real argument.
The argument, since you obviously missed it, was about how grind ties in with character progression. And, how char. progression ties in with traditional MMO's. This is a very valid argument towards the OP, as a big part of his post was the elimination of grind in MMO's.
if you can't recognize the clear differences in character based versus real life skills based game types there's no amount of explaining that will get it across to you. I'm not even sure where you're coming up with this one, or what real life skills you feel you will bring to a medieval based MMOFPS..... you really even seemed to think that Darkfall was as far away as an MMO could possibly break from the formula which i got quite a bit of amusement out of. 8) DFO is a very good, conceptually speaking, break from the norm. Just because its not the concept you wanted to see, doesn't make it a bad concept.
now its SLOWLY starting to dawn on you that we want games WITHOUT character based progression. (yes, levels versus character "skills" really doesn't reduce the grind, as Darkfall proves, and as my ancient signature predicted WAY before it actually came out). The MMO community stands in awe of your prophetic brilliance.
you are of such a different grind-based mindset that you couldn't realize that until just now,
when you should have started getting that idea at around the first post of this thread. Thank you so very much, now I know where my gaming life has gone astray. I see it so clearly now!! How could I have possibly enjoyed EQ and DAoC so much?!? I would never have enjoyed my time in those games if I'd only known......aaahhhh
Those last two statements were complete sarcasm, in case you missed it.
Back to the thread: Is there room for the OP's game in the MMO market? I would like to think so, as I'd like to think there is room for a good AAA sandbox/RvR game. My guess is, however, that most MMO developers look at FPS and realize that no matter how good they can make the "action" in an MMOFPS, it will never hold a candle to console based online FPS's, or even 'puter based ones. The combat won't be as fluid, and the graphics won't be as good. The important part of an FPS is that it allows you to bring your real world ski....sorry, can't say that with a straight face....your twitch based skills to bear in a competitive game against other players. Why muck that up with crafting and a persistant world? I understand that is what you are asking for, I just don't understand why. In addition, there was nothing in the OP's game that can't be done by an online shooter.
Back to the thread: Is there room for the OP's game in the MMO market? I would like to think so, as I'd like to think there is room for a good AAA sandbox/RvR game. My guess is, however, that most MMO developers look at FPS and realize that no matter how good they can make the "action" in an MMOFPS, it will never hold a candle to console based online FPS's, or even 'puter based ones. The combat won't be as fluid, and the graphics won't be as good. The important part of an FPS is that it allows you to bring your real world ski....sorry, can't say that with a straight face....your twitch based skills to bear in a competitive game against other players. Why muck that up with crafting and a persistant world? I understand that is what you are asking for, I just don't understand why. In addition, there was nothing in the OP's game that can't be done by an online shooter.
We've already talked about this... you can't get passed the black and white thinking... which is a real bummer. I don't want to play a shooter. I want the diverse 'fantasy-setting' combat currently found in mmo's, without restrictions, with greater detail and customization, with fluid twitch based combat. It is completely possible, that's not the issue.
no matter how good they can make the "action" in an MMOFPS, it will never hold a candle to console based online FPS's, or even 'puter based ones. The combat won't be as fluid, and the graphics won't be as good. The important part of an FPS is that it allows you to bring your real world ski....sorry, can't say that with a straight face....your twitch based skills to bear in a competitive game against other players. Why muck that up with crafting and a persistant world? I understand that is what you are asking for, I just don't understand why. In addition, there was nothing in the OP's game that can't be done by an online shooter.
the obliviousness and confused stuck-in-the-box thinking in this post is astounding. congrats.
1) you think console FPS games are somehow superior to PC FPS games
2) you think fluidity and graphics can't be done in an MMO, when plenty of MMOs exist that prove otherwise
3) you somehow think twitch skills don't come from real life?! lol
4) you think crafting, an optional experience automatically mucks up gameplay somehow, regardless of whether it does that or not for an RPG based world
5) you sound like a newer generation "mmo" player who only likes grindy gameplay and doesn't care about a virtual world, therefore your happy with instancing and have no idea why anybody would like a proper virtual world. just trust me and the others in this forum that are constantly railing against instancing....... people actually exist out there who love virtual worlds. PEOPLE ARE SOMETIMES DIFFERENT FROM YOU.
6) you don't understand WHY because you have different tastes and can't comprehend how other people have DIFFERENT tastes and priorities from you, and somehow feel like you should be a taste police and come in here and tell us what we should or shouldn't want. lol what other point is there in your post other than "i can't understand you guys, and i'm gonna let you know that i look down on you for thinking differently!"
7) that's no revelation, thats you ignoring the whole thread. yeah, it COULD be done in an MMO shooter (as well as OTHER gameplay types), that's one of the whole points of this thread; "doesn't anybody else on this forum want this kinda thing?"
______________________________________ Play my entire game FREE if you want
The argument, since you obviously missed it, was about how grind ties in with character progression. And, how char. progression ties in with traditional MMO's. This is a very valid argument towards the OP, as a big part of his post was the elimination of grind in MMO's.
......snip......
you are of such a different grind-based mindset that you couldn't realize that until just now,
when you should have started getting that idea at around the first post of this thread. Thank you so very much, now I know where my gaming life has gone astray. I see it so clearly now!! How could I have possibly enjoyed EQ and DAoC so much?!? I would never have enjoyed my time in those games if I'd only known......aaahhhh
Those last two statements were complete sarcasm, in case you missed it.
since you missed it 2 or 3 times by now, both me and the original OP acknowledged that grind comes from char progression, and since you can't seem to follow how the logic is linked let me spell it out in such a way that you MAY be able to understand.
1) we don't want grind
2) grind is intrinsically linked to char progression
3) so to get rid of grind, get rid of char progression
so thanks for re-iterating what we are saying,
and thanks for acting like its YOUR idea and that you're having to educate US about it, cuz it is quite hilarious. 8)
now maybe you can understand why there is no point in you saying that, other than to amuse us.
also, you didn't seem to pick up on the clues that what he wants is not a "traditional MMO". the logical extension of that is that in order to get rid of traditional problems with traditional mechanics you use non-traditional ones instead. so why are "traditional MMOs" brought up in that context?
its also quite amusing and hypocritical that you are taking this personal, as if by us saying we want something different that its a personal attack on YOUR tastes and looking down on you for what YOU enjoy. not at all. that's great that you're happy with traditional MMOs man, i envy you having such a wide range of choices of the gameplay you enjoy.
how about a little sympathy for us not having ANY grind free choices, instead of being hypocritical and trying to tell us what we should or shouldn't want to play, and looking down at us for OUR preferences and tastes.
if you can't recognize the clear differences in character based versus real life skills based game types there's no amount of explaining that will get it across to you. I'm not even sure where you're coming up with this one, or what real life skills you feel you will bring to a medieval based MMOFPS..... you really even seemed to think that Darkfall was as far away as an MMO could possibly break from the formula which i got quite a bit of amusement out of. 8) DFO is a very good, conceptually speaking, break from the norm. Just because its not the concept you wanted to see, doesn't make it a bad concept.
yup....no amount of explaining will get it across to you as well.
you have no idea how real life skills come to play in a game cuz you are spending so much time in games where IT DOESN'T.
Darkfall is very good (notice to one of the previous guys, DF has alot of PVE in it, not just PVP) in many ways. its the best MMO out currently for my tastes. if they'd eliminate the char progression it would be pretty close to the kind of game i am looking for.
but if thats as far from the norm as you think MMOs can get, you have a very limited imagination.
If you don't like grind, don't play MMOs. It's as simple as that. If there's no grind, people won't be playing for months/years on end but will burn through all the content in like 2-3 months and be done with it. MMOs want you to pay a sub so they need grind.
Do you really expect MMOs to have huge content updates?
MMOs = leveling (a month worth of grinding quests) + gear/skill grind at max level + minor updates + major updates once in a blue moon.
I so loved the idea of a game which constantly expands and there's a dedicated team which creates content for it all the time. This is what I thought MMOs were about when I first started. But was I wrong.... MMOs are just a way of saying 'pay us a sub n00b!"
Bottom line is don't play MMOs if you don't want to grind!
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
If you don't like grind, don't play MMOs. It's as simple as that. If there's no grind, people won't be playing for months/years on end but will burn through all the content in like 2-3 months and be done with it. MMOs want you to pay a sub so they need grind.
Do you really expect MMOs to have huge content updates?
MMOs = leveling (a month worth of grinding quests) + gear/skill grind at max level + minor updates + major updates once in a blue moon.
I so loved the idea of a game which constantly expands and there's a dedicated team which creates content for it all the time. This is what I thought MMOs were about when I first started. But was I wrong.... MMOs are just a way of saying 'pay us a sub n00b!"
Bottom line is don't play MMOs if you don't want to grind!
I've already pointed out numerous times that this argument is completely ridiculous. Yes, we know, that's what the genre is and has been about, but it's time for a change. The "content" you speak of should be competition - player created content - with the potential for replayability like many other classic compeititve games.
The instances are controlled as once a day or a few times a day.
Even drops are controlled as weekend only.
The mmo industry being now a copy model of something published before is making new F2p models almost one in a month.
I still go and try to find that very game.
But SIGH, still miss my AO days.
The OP is not alone.
But where is that kind of game?
Cheers Sourajit Nandi
" Don't listen to anyone who tells you that you can't play this or that. That's nonsense. Make up your mind,and you'll never whine or repent about gaming hours anymore, then have a go at every Game. Open up the Internet, join in all the Mmorpgs you can. Go make the Guild. But never, never let them persuade you that things are too difficult or impossible. "
even after this post was made, people keep asking that same oblivious question.
maybe instead of asking that same question over and over again you should say "what value is there in a virtual world"?
when getting right down to the heart of the matter, MOST of you would PROBABLY see that there is an intrinsic value in THAT ASPECT ALONE and not bother to ask the question.
Both questions essentially end in the same realization that most people like games, and fewer want virtual worlds (unless they're also strong games.)
For me, virtual worlds are Second Life and sandbox MMORPGs and hold very little appeal because they're not entertaining. They don't offer interesting decisions, and instead offer very empty-feeling worlds. I would paint or code before participating in virtual worlds, because both are freeform experiences with more interesting products.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Pretty much everything you describe sounds contrary to everything an MMO should be. My first and only thought is the "cRPG" mod for Mount and Blade: Warband. There are a few severs with 100+ people almost always on.
There's nothing that even resembles grinding since there's nothing to grind. You just bash people around or die a lot, repeatedly and then your stats get updated with your experience points so you can gain levels to bash people around even harder.
There's no economy getting in the way of bashing people. There's no world to explore that cuts into your bashing time. There are no PvE spawns to bash repeatedly so you can improve your bashing skill.
It might sound easy, but it's not for the faint of heart. You will die all the time for the first several days. After that you'll have enough skill to hold a shield and throw some rocks at people so you'll live 2 seconds longer.
For me, virtual worlds are Second Life and sandbox MMORPGs and hold very little appeal because they're not entertaining. They don't offer interesting decisions, and instead offer very empty-feeling worlds. I would paint or code before participating in virtual worlds, because both are freeform experiences with more interesting products.
That is a good point and one that is essential to the mainstream success of any future virtual world sandbox games. They will need to be a good game in addition to being a good virtual world. I don't see why a game with a high enough budget couldn't be both.
On the topic of eliminating grinds, I'll assume that no developer will be able to create enough content to keep a game from becoming a grind. As content gets more rich (full voice acting, cutscenes, higher detail) it becomes even more difficult for developers to do this. So releasing a game with enough content is not practical, thus the need for grinds.
The only option is player generated content. The only developer making any serious effort toward player created content right now is Cryptic. I LOL'd a bit when I realized that the pariah of MMOG developers may become our only hope for developing grind-free MMOG's.
For me, virtual worlds are Second Life and sandbox MMORPGs and hold very little appeal because they're not entertaining. They don't offer interesting decisions, and instead offer very empty-feeling worlds. I would paint or code before participating in virtual worlds, because both are freeform experiences with more interesting products.
That is a good point and one that is essential to the mainstream success of any future virtual world sandbox games. They will need to be a good game in addition to being a good virtual world. I don't see why a game with a high enough budget couldn't be both.
On the topic of eliminating grinds, I'll assume that no developer will be able to create enough content to keep a game from becoming a grind. As content gets more rich (full voice acting, cutscenes, higher detail) it becomes even more difficult for developers to do this. So releasing a game with enough content is not practical, thus the need for grinds.
The only option is player generated content. The only developer making any serious effort toward player created content right now is Cryptic. I LOL'd a bit when I realized that the pariah of MMOG developers may become our only hope for developing grind-free MMOG's.
That's what I'm getting at, though.... make the content - player politics, player interaction and character tweaking/customization. Screw the "meh" quests, full voice acting, cutscenes, monotonous environments and quests... you don't need grind.
Pretty much everything you describe sounds contrary to everything an MMO should be. My first and only thought is the "cRPG" mod for Mount and Blade: Warband. There are a few severs with 100+ people almost always on.
There's nothing that even resembles grinding since there's nothing to grind. You just bash people around or die a lot, repeatedly and then your stats get updated with your experience points so you can gain levels to bash people around even harder.
There's no economy getting in the way of bashing people. There's no world to explore that cuts into your bashing time. There are no PvE spawns to bash repeatedly so you can improve your bashing skill.
It might sound easy, but it's not for the faint of heart. You will die all the time for the first several days. After that you'll have enough skill to hold a shield and throw some rocks at people so you'll live 2 seconds longer.
Comments
does it have an explorable non-instanced world? if not entirely, are PARTS of the world like that?
i personally have no interest in exploring either sea or space because they are pretty featureless and repetitive compared to a landscape.
______________________________________
Play my entire game FREE if you want
http://PlayRealNotes.com
I'm not entirely sure about the world, actually! I've neve bought my own ship, just ridden around on other people's ships, haha.
I'm not necessarily recommending it as 'Everybody should play this game', because it is definitely a niche title in a lot of ways (The graphics, the setting, the puzzle gaming), all I'm saying is that it proves that MMO games work perfectly well as skill based games, and can still have progression (Fashion options and rating vs. other players) and so on.
This isn't a 'this game is the answer to all your problems' response, just a 'This game did something like that (and so did GW, though it's not an MMO), so there's no reason why more games can't be made this way, and no reason for them not to be considered MMOs'
There may not need to be in game rewards for beating npc mobs, but there has to be a financial reward for the company delivering the software. The 'virtual world' thing doesn't pay well. Second Life only works because a bunch of people, not the developer are making content. If the Second Life developer had to make all the content, they'd go bankrupt trying to pay for developers and designers to make it.
In short, you couldn't write and program a virtual world right now and expect to actually make money off of it. The development costs are too high. Either the development costs have to drop or the market needs to suddenly shift to people willing to pay to live out virtual lives instead of play games in virtual playgrounds.
* edit * There's other stuff. For instance, if there's no loot reward for beating a tough monster, then that monster needs to be really tough so that the bragging rights are worth bragging with. If it's really tough, few people will actually beat it. It would be like me trying to fight Mike Tyson. There's no point. Sure, I could go beat all the easy monsters, but I'm getting nothing for it, so why do that? Giving people virtual rewards for their virtual accomplishments works. That's why they use it.
Not saying you couldn't do something else, but so far, nobody has thought of anything else, so nobody is using anything else.
nobody knows if a gamey virtual world couldn't make money until several are put on the market. and so far we don't have even one (of the type i'm waiting for).
also nothing is stopping one from being UGC based ala Second Life. as a matter of fact, my longterm goal in life is to make exactly that. the UGC would be handled entirely differently, as well as many things about it. i wouldn't wanna restrict world building to only paying users. and further restrict THOSE users to only to certain plots of land for example. free labour would be freely encouraged instead of CHARGING people to make my content like SL does. and they would be able to make imrovements to the WHOLE world. also, crappy designers wouldn't be guaranteed of having ANY of their work in-game. think of BBSes, youtube or any other UGC based system for clues on how that can be managed, altho i have further ideas as well.
i'm not against loot or in-game rewards (altho i don't think they are NECESSARY). i'm specifically against experience points, levels and "skills". which are trying to "simulate" a character that is supposed to be seperate and distinct from your real life self (and yet never really is). you can still role play if you wish in a game without RPG mechanics, as games like Second Life (which has none) demonstrates. for many that's the whole point of SL.
It is true, we have no idea what could happen with the current technology. However, the virtual world thing has been around longer than Second Life. There was a whole web standard based around it (VRML) which never took off. Either virtual worlds happened too soon, or they were just too cr@ppy to be worth it.
What follows is my opinion, but I'm pretty confident in the conclusions I've drawn. You can't just have a virtual world. Not if you want it to be financially stable. There has to be some sort of point to it. For Second Life that point is creation. That's why MindCraft has sold over a million copies. So far, the best selling point is combat and the aquisition of virtual goods. You can dress it up differently but that's what it boils down to. Find something else to draw people in, and you'll be the first of a new breed of something. Unforunately, you'll have to convince a bunch of investors that it's a good idea too.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
the ones before SL were basically glorified 3D chat rooms, which is why none of them. ActiveWorlds was one of the better ones, but........ (thought continued below)
it all depends on what you're looking for as to whether they are "too cr@ppy".
most of the people that enter them (especially all the ones talking on gaming websites) are not surprisingly looking for and expecting a game. none of them were games.
SL allows games to be made WITHIN it, but since gameplay wasn't part of the foundation, it'd be a miracle if their in-game general purpose scripting allowed for complicated and yet smooth action games to be programmed. and while certain aspects of SL is ALMOST miraculous (compared to most MMO technology), their scripting fell quite short of that ability. as everyone should have expected.
smooth gameplay has to be BUILT IN to the foundation of the engine. otherwise SL and the like are fairly pointless to most gamers. that's why they all "failed" to gamers. shouldn't be too much of a surprise there.
so yeah, combat.....gameplay. yeah my kind of vw def needs that......... i've been TALKING about that.
thats what all the "grindless" "real life skills" talk was about.
world creation alone isn't enough, otherwise minecraft wouldn't have made all that money. cuz Minecraft Classic, which has freeform UNLIMITED building is FREE.
what people are paying for is the GAMEPLAY based version of minecraft.
______________________________________
Play my entire game FREE if you want
http://PlayRealNotes.com
I am open on a ton of details - the main points I highlighted are my main concerns.
A world I think this could work in is a Darkfall-like sandbox. Pause your internal dialogue. Something similar. Player politics... instead of a major focus on resource aquisition, just make it about taking over the game world. Where guild cities are strategic points for launching attacks, defending chokepoints or portals to friendly cities. I'll tell you why this will work: with an in-depth stat system, bragging rights for being a part of the dominant guild or coalition is all you need for constant conflict and fun. With an integrated arena system that can streamline organized combat and alter politics, the fun factor is multiplied and guaranteed.
^A persistant world mmo without the grind and a ton of fun.
You know, I think it would be more fun and sandboxy if you allow the guilds to hold tournaments instead of the arena. The guildmaster could match up people in duels, dusts (2 sided melee with a certain number of people on each side), jousting and archery instead. Maybe some other cotests as well.
That would mean that the hosting guild would set up prices and that your knights and warriors will fight for their own guild (country, noble family, fellowship or whatever you call it).
Just regular arenas kinda misses that player created part, a tournament would have people watching between the games, deals between visiting players and a lot of other possible interactions where you can learn to know your fellow players. When I feel for arenas I play Guildwars, with a sandbox I want more.
I do agree that politics should be about land (and vassals for that matter). I think there is a huge possibility to make a really interesting game there. Something a bit like Geaorge R R Martins "A game of throne" where you backstab, fight, buy and do anything else you have to for the purpose of your clan.
I miss political backstabbing in MMOs.
Back to the thread: Is there room for the OP's game in the MMO market? I would like to think so, as I'd like to think there is room for a good AAA sandbox/RvR game. My guess is, however, that most MMO developers look at FPS and realize that no matter how good they can make the "action" in an MMOFPS, it will never hold a candle to console based online FPS's, or even 'puter based ones. The combat won't be as fluid, and the graphics won't be as good. The important part of an FPS is that it allows you to bring your real world ski....sorry, can't say that with a straight face....your twitch based skills to bear in a competitive game against other players. Why muck that up with crafting and a persistant world? I understand that is what you are asking for, I just don't understand why. In addition, there was nothing in the OP's game that can't be done by an online shooter.
We've already talked about this... you can't get passed the black and white thinking... which is a real bummer. I don't want to play a shooter. I want the diverse 'fantasy-setting' combat currently found in mmo's, without restrictions, with greater detail and customization, with fluid twitch based combat. It is completely possible, that's not the issue.
the obliviousness and confused stuck-in-the-box thinking in this post is astounding. congrats.
1) you think console FPS games are somehow superior to PC FPS games
2) you think fluidity and graphics can't be done in an MMO, when plenty of MMOs exist that prove otherwise
3) you somehow think twitch skills don't come from real life?! lol
4) you think crafting, an optional experience automatically mucks up gameplay somehow, regardless of whether it does that or not for an RPG based world
5) you sound like a newer generation "mmo" player who only likes grindy gameplay and doesn't care about a virtual world, therefore your happy with instancing and have no idea why anybody would like a proper virtual world. just trust me and the others in this forum that are constantly railing against instancing....... people actually exist out there who love virtual worlds. PEOPLE ARE SOMETIMES DIFFERENT FROM YOU.
6) you don't understand WHY because you have different tastes and can't comprehend how other people have DIFFERENT tastes and priorities from you, and somehow feel like you should be a taste police and come in here and tell us what we should or shouldn't want. lol what other point is there in your post other than "i can't understand you guys, and i'm gonna let you know that i look down on you for thinking differently!"
7) that's no revelation, thats you ignoring the whole thread. yeah, it COULD be done in an MMO shooter (as well as OTHER gameplay types), that's one of the whole points of this thread; "doesn't anybody else on this forum want this kinda thing?"
______________________________________
Play my entire game FREE if you want
http://PlayRealNotes.com
since you missed it 2 or 3 times by now, both me and the original OP acknowledged that grind comes from char progression, and since you can't seem to follow how the logic is linked let me spell it out in such a way that you MAY be able to understand.
1) we don't want grind
2) grind is intrinsically linked to char progression
3) so to get rid of grind, get rid of char progression
so thanks for re-iterating what we are saying,
and thanks for acting like its YOUR idea and that you're having to educate US about it, cuz it is quite hilarious. 8)
now maybe you can understand why there is no point in you saying that, other than to amuse us.
also, you didn't seem to pick up on the clues that what he wants is not a "traditional MMO". the logical extension of that is that in order to get rid of traditional problems with traditional mechanics you use non-traditional ones instead. so why are "traditional MMOs" brought up in that context?
its also quite amusing and hypocritical that you are taking this personal, as if by us saying we want something different that its a personal attack on YOUR tastes and looking down on you for what YOU enjoy. not at all. that's great that you're happy with traditional MMOs man, i envy you having such a wide range of choices of the gameplay you enjoy.
how about a little sympathy for us not having ANY grind free choices, instead of being hypocritical and trying to tell us what we should or shouldn't want to play, and looking down at us for OUR preferences and tastes.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
which ones are those?
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
yup....no amount of explaining will get it across to you as well.
you have no idea how real life skills come to play in a game cuz you are spending so much time in games where IT DOESN'T.
Darkfall is very good (notice to one of the previous guys, DF has alot of PVE in it, not just PVP) in many ways. its the best MMO out currently for my tastes. if they'd eliminate the char progression it would be pretty close to the kind of game i am looking for.
but if thats as far from the norm as you think MMOs can get, you have a very limited imagination.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
If you don't like grind, don't play MMOs. It's as simple as that. If there's no grind, people won't be playing for months/years on end but will burn through all the content in like 2-3 months and be done with it. MMOs want you to pay a sub so they need grind.
Do you really expect MMOs to have huge content updates?
MMOs = leveling (a month worth of grinding quests) + gear/skill grind at max level + minor updates + major updates once in a blue moon.
I so loved the idea of a game which constantly expands and there's a dedicated team which creates content for it all the time. This is what I thought MMOs were about when I first started. But was I wrong.... MMOs are just a way of saying 'pay us a sub n00b!"
Bottom line is don't play MMOs if you don't want to grind!
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
lol, if that's your idea of dealing with subjects, then...
...if you don't like this thread, don't post in it. simple as that.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
I've already pointed out numerous times that this argument is completely ridiculous. Yes, we know, that's what the genre is and has been about, but it's time for a change. The "content" you speak of should be competition - player created content - with the potential for replayability like many other classic compeititve games.
Nowadays games are all about control.
The instances are controlled as once a day or a few times a day.
Even drops are controlled as weekend only.
The mmo industry being now a copy model of something published before is making new F2p models almost one in a month.
I still go and try to find that very game.
But SIGH, still miss my AO days.
The OP is not alone.
But where is that kind of game?
Cheers
Sourajit Nandi
" Don't listen to anyone who tells you that you can't play this or that. That's nonsense. Make up your mind,and you'll never whine or repent about gaming hours anymore, then have a go at every Game. Open up the Internet, join in all the Mmorpgs you can. Go make the Guild. But never, never let them persuade you that things are too difficult or impossible. "
Once An Addict Always An Addict .
Grindless arena action multiplayer with diffrent calsses? Sounds like League of Legends. Link in sig.
I enjoyed HoN but it's not what i'm describing.
Good to see a lot of other people complaining about these issues.
Both questions essentially end in the same realization that most people like games, and fewer want virtual worlds (unless they're also strong games.)
For me, virtual worlds are Second Life and sandbox MMORPGs and hold very little appeal because they're not entertaining. They don't offer interesting decisions, and instead offer very empty-feeling worlds. I would paint or code before participating in virtual worlds, because both are freeform experiences with more interesting products.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Pretty much everything you describe sounds contrary to everything an MMO should be. My first and only thought is the "cRPG" mod for Mount and Blade: Warband. There are a few severs with 100+ people almost always on.
There's nothing that even resembles grinding since there's nothing to grind. You just bash people around or die a lot, repeatedly and then your stats get updated with your experience points so you can gain levels to bash people around even harder.
There's no economy getting in the way of bashing people. There's no world to explore that cuts into your bashing time. There are no PvE spawns to bash repeatedly so you can improve your bashing skill.
It might sound easy, but it's not for the faint of heart. You will die all the time for the first several days. After that you'll have enough skill to hold a shield and throw some rocks at people so you'll live 2 seconds longer.
That is a good point and one that is essential to the mainstream success of any future virtual world sandbox games. They will need to be a good game in addition to being a good virtual world. I don't see why a game with a high enough budget couldn't be both.
On the topic of eliminating grinds, I'll assume that no developer will be able to create enough content to keep a game from becoming a grind. As content gets more rich (full voice acting, cutscenes, higher detail) it becomes even more difficult for developers to do this. So releasing a game with enough content is not practical, thus the need for grinds.
The only option is player generated content. The only developer making any serious effort toward player created content right now is Cryptic. I LOL'd a bit when I realized that the pariah of MMOG developers may become our only hope for developing grind-free MMOG's.
That's what I'm getting at, though.... make the content - player politics, player interaction and character tweaking/customization. Screw the "meh" quests, full voice acting, cutscenes, monotonous environments and quests... you don't need grind.
I lol'd at this. Well put.
He who keeps his cool best wins.
if you don't want grind you're playing the wrong genre.....>.> simple as that.