You do realize that edit you added just repeats exactly what I said. You can see as much in my post you quoted.
Which goes into point, you just responded to me without even comprehending the argument and instead making up an excuse to not even think about it.
Irony in the end is that what you have claimed irrelevant is simply corrections to your remarks and clarifications on things you asked for.
I gave you explicit answers in that post to every question you posed, the onus is entirely on you at this point to whether or not you want to read it and respond.
I have no onus to respond to half of what you wrote because half of what you wrote was not relevant to the request I posed on you which was: What is an "MMO system"?
Even if you described the networking of half a dozen more games, accurately, you have not explained what the definition of MMO system is. The only part where you touch this is:
'MMO system' I already noted what was.
" The noting of them using 'MMO systems' refers specifically to the architecture of the game..."
Client-server system architecture, while not universal nor always built the same, is generally a common aspect of how MMOs operate. When talking about a single or multiplayer game, you're more than likely not going to see the use of such a system because it does not support the gameplay efficiently.
So is it basically the game's network architecture? -They are not universal, nor always built the same but all MMOs have one. Well, d'uh! Aren't we talking about online multiplayer here?!
Instead of listing games and describing their network/server architecture, why don't you start listing why "MMO system" deserves to be differentiated from all other network/server architectures?
As for your world of tanks comment. No, because we know that mechanic operates differently from the server-client in the regard that it's contributed to, but not interactive within the context of playing the games. That's a big distinction between the likes of a leaderboard and the likes of even the single player titles in question. Your assertion just now is complete hyperbole.
Is not interactive? You need to revisit World of Tanks, my friend. The map is interactive. Pieces on the battlemap correlate on the number of tanks in the match. Where you decide to move those pieces dictate the maps you will be fighting in the game. The lobbies for organized battles which people then join to fight are initiated by that battlemap. You lose tanks in the game, you lose pieces in the map.
Well? Is it in an "MMO feature" or not? To me, it is just another online component in a game.
Trending problems with your argument. You ask things, but do not read or comprehend the answers. You assert things that are either patently false, or make up an argument tat cannot be substantiated to try and validate your stance.
The fact you make as ridiculous mistakes as trying to correct me on something that wasn't even a mistake on my end, is a good example.
Also, you might not have been consciously attempting it, but by saying something as vague as 'I know a guy at this place...' and then refusing to substantiate the claim, you rather exactly made a claim to false authority. That was the point of my asking for information as well as referencing my past work. Without us establishing valid standing on such an argument it is not one of evidence nor does it prove you're diligent or serious. It only proves you will claim anything to appear to have information.
Even if more than half of what I write is inaccurate it is not as big of a wrong as you acting like we should know your made-up word. But hey "offense is the best defense", right?
Additionally, false on the end of client-server gaming coming first from quake. MUDs were established on the client-server model almost a full ten years before the first Quake was released, and there were other games and shooters that ran multiplayer clients before Quake's launch in 1996.
I'm sure client-server gaming existed before Quake but Quake revolutionized it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I guess one big help would be to actually charge everyone for playing them, just like single player games, which I think is the root to all your "MMOs need to be more like single player games" threads.
You don't want to pay for your entertainment. Most MMOs are F2P. Otherwise, you'd just play Single Player games and be happy instead of trying to change a whole genre into something it was never intended to be.
Well said friend. That is a interesting observation that I never really thought about that.
I guess one big help would be to actually charge everyone for playing them, just like single player games, which I think is the root to all your "MMOs need to be more like single player games" threads.
You don't want to pay for your entertainment. Most MMOs are F2P. Otherwise, you'd just play Single Player games and be happy instead of trying to change a whole genre into something it was never intended to be.
Well said friend. That is a interesting observation that I never really thought about that.
Yeah, it had not occurred to me either.
It could explain a lot.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I guess one big help would be to actually charge everyone for playing them, just like single player games, which I think is the root to all your "MMOs need to be more like single player games" threads.
You don't want to pay for your entertainment. Most MMOs are F2P. Otherwise, you'd just play Single Player games and be happy instead of trying to change a whole genre into something it was never intended to be.
Well said friend. That is a interesting observation that I never really thought about that.
well .. i just pay $7 for Tomb Raider and it is a steal. If MMOs turn into something as good as tomb raider, I am more than happy to pay $7 for it.
Or better yet .. something as fun as RoS, and i will preorder at $40.
Given that most of the horrible experiences I've had in MMOs have been guild-related, I kind of wonder if the removal of guilds might improve MMOs as a whole, especially ones intended to be solo-friendly.
But eh, I can imagine some version of guilds that I would like. Not every single implementation of guilds creates a breeding ground for drama, backstabbing, and theft.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Given that most of the horrible experiences I've had in MMOs have been guild-related, I kind of wonder if the removal of guilds might improve MMOs as a whole, especially ones intended to be solo-friendly.
But eh, I can imagine some version of guilds that I would like. Not every single implementation of guilds creates a breeding ground for drama, backstabbing, and theft.
But you don't have to join or stay in a guild. If i ignore all guilds, it would as if the guild system does not exist.
Given that most of the horrible experiences I've had in MMOs have been guild-related, I kind of wonder if the removal of guilds might improve MMOs as a whole, especially ones intended to be solo-friendly.
But eh, I can imagine some version of guilds that I would like. Not every single implementation of guilds creates a breeding ground for drama, backstabbing, and theft.
But you don't have to join or stay in a guild. If i ignore all guilds, it would as if the guild system does not exist.
Not quite. Many games have things that can only be done by a guild, for example property ownership. That means if you want to fully play the game you have to make your own guild. But a lot of guild systems penalize small guilds or require a minimum number of people to start a guild. Also if you aren't in a guild you constantly get spammed and begged to join one, I've experience that many times.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Given that most of the horrible experiences I've had in MMOs have been guild-related, I kind of wonder if the removal of guilds might improve MMOs as a whole, especially ones intended to be solo-friendly.
But eh, I can imagine some version of guilds that I would like. Not every single implementation of guilds creates a breeding ground for drama, backstabbing, and theft.
But you don't have to join or stay in a guild. If i ignore all guilds, it would as if the guild system does not exist.
Not quite. Many games have things that can only be done by a guild, for example property ownership. That means if you want to fully play the game you have to make your own guild. But a lot of guild systems penalize small guilds or require a minimum number of people to start a guild. Also if you aren't in a guild you constantly get spammed and begged to join one, I've experience that many times.
All those are true .. and certainly games can be more "non-guild" friendly. However, may be the solution is a "no guild" button to ignore all guild activity, and make sure there is no penalty not joining a guild, as opposed to eliminate the option.
I have no onus to respond to half of what you wrote because half of what you wrote was not relevant to the request I posed on you which was: What is an "MMO system"?
Even if you described the networking of half a dozen more games, accurately, you have not explained what the definition of MMO system is. The only part where you touch this is:
'MMO system' I already noted what was.
" The noting of them using 'MMO systems' refers specifically to the architecture of the game..."
Client-server system architecture, while not universal nor always built the same, is generally a common aspect of how MMOs operate. When talking about a single or multiplayer game, you're more than likely not going to see the use of such a system because it does not support the gameplay efficiently.
So is it basically the game's network architecture? -They are not universal, nor always built the same but all MMOs have one. Well, d'uh! Aren't we talking about online multiplayer here?!
Instead of listing games and describing their network/server architecture, why don't you start listing why "MMO system" deserves to be differentiated from all other network/server architectures?
Is not interactive? You need to revisit World of Tanks, my friend. The map is interactive. Pieces on the battlemap correlate on the number of tanks in the match. Where you decide to move those pieces dictate the maps you will be fighting in the game. The lobbies for organized battles which people then join to fight are initiated by that battlemap. You lose tanks in the game, you lose pieces in the map.
Well? Is it in an "MMO feature" or not? To me, it is just another online component in a game.
Even if more than half of what I write is inaccurate it is not as big of a wrong as you acting like we should know your made-up word. But hey "offense is the best defense", right?
I'm sure client-server gaming existed before Quake but Quake revolutionized it.
I have made the distinctions multiple times. This is again you throwing away even the idea of reading what I've written in favor of making erroneous claims and then acting indignant about it.
As for your world of tanks commentary. You spoke of the leader board initially, what you are talking about is not the leader board. Perhaps keep your logic and examples in line.
The battle map, if it is acting to stream real-time the data of all available players to interact with, would be functioning on at least a similar principle.
If you are going to complain about my phrasing, then get yours in line too.
The irony is none of what I have said is made up. Try a little google sometime and 'MMO system" will actually link you to a specific section of a wikipedia page touching upon it. You don't need to know what the term means necessarily, but if you're gonna act like you know what you're talking about then you should probably have less of a blank reaction to such things.
And no quake was not considered revolutionary for it's multiplayer. It was considered such of it's gameplay. What it brought to multiplayer was not anything new on the client-server model, but that it was one of the first major action games and consequently got coined as the first e-sport.
It revolutionized competitive play in a sense, but not the mechanics for multiplayer.
EDIT: Broad versus local. Many versus few. Persistence versus time. Centralized versus fragmented. I've given plenty of distinctions that are characteristic to that of MMOs and the server-client models in place versus the generally smaller scale and finite versions used in other forms of gameplay and media.
The reason I talk about game examples is because they are the concepts in action, and one would hope that the reader can understand what they experience in game and how the underlying mechanics would serve to drive that interactivity.
I use these examples and tie them back to my points on how they are not traditional to any of their genres, and generally derivative of the mechanics we utilize for much larger scale gameplay (AKA MMOs). The fact that MMOs contain multiple types of server architecture does not fundamentally change the principles or overarching mechanics about how they operate. They certainly change the means, but not the objectives and consequent scope.
The exception to this is the example. When these large scale mechanics are used to make shards that clients play on instead of a more unified environment. When interactive elements are extracted and used to accompany a more personal kind of gameplay. When player data is used globally to influence back and forth the experience of others.
You certainly can claim "But that's just multiplayer." and to a degree you're not wrong. However, that's about as accurate as saying a trout is an animal. Not every multiplayer system operates on the same scale or with the same means, you've agreed with me on as much. Classifying them based on their scale and ulderlying operation helps going a long way into understanding the way the game as whole can and does operate, rather than waving your hands about and proclaiming it's achieved by magic.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I have no onus to respond to half of what you wrote because half of what you wrote was not relevant to the request I posed on you which was: What is an "MMO system"?
Even if you described the networking of half a dozen more games, accurately, you have not explained what the definition of MMO system is. The only part where you touch this is:
'MMO system' I already noted what was.
" The noting of them using 'MMO systems' refers specifically to the architecture of the game..."
Client-server system architecture, while not universal nor always built the same, is generally a common aspect of how MMOs operate. When talking about a single or multiplayer game, you're more than likely not going to see the use of such a system because it does not support the gameplay efficiently.
So is it basically the game's network architecture? -They are not universal, nor always built the same but all MMOs have one. Well, d'uh! Aren't we talking about online multiplayer here?!
Instead of listing games and describing their network/server architecture, why don't you start listing why "MMO system" deserves to be differentiated from all other network/server architectures?
Is not interactive? You need to revisit World of Tanks, my friend. The map is interactive. Pieces on the battlemap correlate on the number of tanks in the match. Where you decide to move those pieces dictate the maps you will be fighting in the game. The lobbies for organized battles which people then join to fight are initiated by that battlemap. You lose tanks in the game, you lose pieces in the map.
Well? Is it in an "MMO feature" or not? To me, it is just another online component in a game.
Even if more than half of what I write is inaccurate it is not as big of a wrong as you acting like we should know your made-up word. But hey "offense is the best defense", right?
I'm sure client-server gaming existed before Quake but Quake revolutionized it.
I have made the distinctions multiple times. This is again you throwing away even the idea of reading what Ive writren in favor of making erronious claims and then acting indignant about it.
As for your world of tanks commentary. You spoke of the leaderboard initally, what you are talking about is not the leaderboard. Perhaps keep your logic and examples in line.
The battlemap, if it is acting to stream realtime the data of all available players to interact with, would be functioning on at least a similar principle.
The irony is none of what I have said is made up. Try a little google sometime and 'MMO system" will actually link you to a specific section of a wikipedia page touching upon it. You don't need to know what the term means necessarily, but if you're gonna act like you know what you're talking about then you should probably have less of a blank reaction to such things.
And no quake was not considered revolutionary for it's multiplayer. It was considered such of it's gameplay. What it brought to multiplayer was not anything new on the client-server model, but that it was one of the first major action games and consequently got coined as the first e-sport.
It revolutionized competitive play in a sense, but not the mechanics for multiplayer.
Personal habit and speech/writing patterns. The fact you were able to understand and reference what I meant means you know what I mean, and are making a conscious effort to refute pointlessly.
Saying "MMO system" to refer to an MMOs system architecture is quite literally me simply dropping one phrase to shorten the amount I have to write. Saying just system architecture is vague, and requires that I then specify what it's in relation to. Consequently I say mmo system instead because it shouldn't need a qualifier, as both terms somewhat simply state their intended meaning, assuming one comprehends english.
As for the Quake comment, thank you for agreeing with me. Seeing as that article notes Quake was an action game that switched from peer to peer into the client server model, and the innovation he introduced only coming after in an update called QuakeWorld.
That also fails to alleviate the fact that the client-server model was in use almost ten years prior to it in the creation of MUDS and their ilk, just that Quake was one of the first action games to develop a better version of the client-server model for action oriented gameplay.
I other words, not the first, an evolution.
Your claim...
"client-server gaming was first done in Quake - a first person shooter back in '96."
...is still false.
Not to mention it fails to address the gap between the likes of it and larger scale implementations. QSpy has more in common by being a constantly updated master server doling out it's data to connected client programs.
EDIT: Correction, client server model for online gaming in MUDs and their ilk actually predates the likes of Quake by almost twenty years, not ten.
Point being that your bringing that game up has very little to do with, well, anything. It was not the first as you originally tried to claim, and your insistence on it's value has only come to show it innovated the mechanics for action play and cosmetics (though it did introduce rubberbanding), not massive scale communication or interactions.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I like MMOs, but I love closed co-op games like Borderlands. I hate end-game and raiding (10 man plus content) and being forced to team up with random people. There shouldn't be a requirement to do these activities to enjoy all of the content in the game.
My position has always been that every instance/closed event should be scalable, perhaps from 1-25 (we don't need anything that requires more than 25 people except maybe world pvp). It should be simple to do and just adjust the loot table accordingly. If you run with 25 people against the horrendous 14 different boss mechanics and win, you have a 1 in 10 chance of getting the flying boots of ultimate awesomeness. But if I don't want to play with you "if you are one minute late, you are out of the raid and the guild" asshats, then I should be able to farm that boss solo all day long for my 1 in 250 chance at the flying boots of ultimate awesomeness. Make it so, because I am sure not going back to WoW by playing something like Wildstar.
Ideally, and all of my gamer friends (yes, more than 5) would prefer this type of game over every other type, we will get more MMOPGs (Massively Multiplayer Private Games) in the future. These would be games like Minecraft on a private server but on a huge world with story and coop and pvp possibilities. When you register the game, you get your own space on a server in the cloud and pay based on how many people you want to allow to join you. If you only want to play alone or have 4 committed friends for coop or want to open it up to a 100 person world with open pvp, it is up to you.
I love Elder Scrolls, but I never wanted ESO. I hated the idea from the very mention of the possibility. I never wanted my Elder Scrolls memories to be tarnished by mandatory grouping with losers named Leetzorurmom! or Legolas or any of the MMO crap. All most of us ever wanted was the ability to invite one or more friends along to play with us in Morrowind or Oblivion or any of the games. That way we could show off our gear or house to people who actually care and we could team up against the coolest worlds in the history of gaming. Instead, for me, MMOs are just a matter of getting to the highest level, finishing my character story, and then find another game as quick as possible. So, for me, they are really SP games or, if my RL friends join in, limited coop.
I like MMOs, but I love closed co-op games like Borderlands. I hate end-game and raiding (10 man plus content) and being forced to team up with random people. There shouldn't be a requirement to do these activities to enjoy all of the content in the game.
My position has always been that every instance/closed event should be scalable, perhaps from 1-25 (we don't need anything that requires more than 25 people except maybe world pvp). It should be simple to do and just adjust the loot table accordingly. If you run with 25 people against the horrendous 14 different boss mechanics and win, you have a 1 in 10 chance of getting the flying boots of ultimate awesomeness. But if I don't want to play with you "if you are one minute late, you are out of the raid and the guild" asshats, then I should be able to farm that boss solo all day long for my 1 in 250 chance at the flying boots of ultimate awesomeness. Make it so, because I am sure not going back to WoW by playing something like Wildstar.
Ideally, and all of my gamer friends (yes, more than 5) would prefer this type of game over every other type, we will get more MMOPGs (Massively Multiplayer Private Games) in the future. These would be games like Minecraft on a private server but on a huge world with story and coop and pvp possibilities. When you register the game, you get your own space on a server in the cloud and pay based on how many people you want to allow to join you. If you only want to play alone or have 4 committed friends for coop or want to open it up to a 100 person world with open pvp, it is up to you.
I love Elder Scrolls, but I never wanted ESO. I hated the idea from the very mention of the possibility. I never wanted my Elder Scrolls memories to be tarnished by mandatory grouping with losers named Leetzorurmom! or Legolas or any of the MMO crap. All most of us ever wanted was the ability to invite one or more friends along to play with us in Morrowind or Oblivion or any of the games. That way we could show off our gear or house to people who actually care and we could team up against the coolest worlds in the history of gaming. Instead, for me, MMOs are just a matter of getting to the highest level, finishing my character story, and then find another game as quick as possible. So, for me, they are really SP games or, if my RL friends join in, limited coop.
Dealing with strangers in a game certainly is a chore and not something that I want. Recent MMOs are all more like co-op lobby game probably because of that. Couple of comments on what you say:
- 25 is too large for me. 1-5 is quite enough. 10 people .. even all friends is a mess and chore to coordinate. If i can have fun with just me, or a friend or two, why bother with co-ordinating more people? To me, fighting a boss with 25 guys is not more fun than fighting one with 3.
- The loot problem is already solved. D3, and LFR in WOW rolls your own loot. It is an individual roll and the item can be picked up only by you. So there is no loot drama. I like this. No one is going to interact with my loot unless i give it to him/her.
Originally posted by ikcin There shall be a thread - How to make single player games even more like MMO I don't understand why someone who hates MMOs write about MMOs, but anyway. For me single player games are stupid, after few good MMOs I don't see any point to play a big single player game. It is boring when you play alone with yourself, far better is to play with someone else and more people are more fun [mod edit]
You obviously have a different preference than the millions who play and enjoy "stupid" single player game. It seems to be that you think everyone should like what you like ... which is obviously wrong and stupid. The market already shows that people like different things.
And no .. it is far worse (to me) to play with someone else ... fewer people ... particularly one .. is more fun to me.
Oh .. you can start your thread about "how to make SP games even more like MMO" .. it is a free forum.
Seems you talk about yourself I don't need market to show me that people like different things. In fact I agree with some of your opinions, but often /than me/ you sound so selfish, and write subjects without arguments, except explanation what you like. Anyway still I think it is ridiculous to start discussion how to make MMOs to be like SP games. Devs already do it, and less and less people play AAA MMORPGs, and more and more play Mobas or Action MMOs, with zero solo playing. You shall think about it.
well .. that is what people on this forum do all day .. write about what they like. Do you write about what I like? I do not think so.
At least i don't pretend to a hypocrite and pretend what i like is "good for the genre".
And devs are already doing it ... it is interesting to discuss how to do it BETTER. If devs are putting in SP experiences in MMOs, what is wrong with talking about the details of HOW they are doing it?
And what is wrong with "less people play AAA MMORPGs"? It is not like I own stocks of companies making AAA mmorpgs or anything.
Comments
I have no onus to respond to half of what you wrote because half of what you wrote was not relevant to the request I posed on you which was: What is an "MMO system"?
Even if you described the networking of half a dozen more games, accurately, you have not explained what the definition of MMO system is. The only part where you touch this is:
'MMO system' I already noted what was.
" The noting of them using 'MMO systems' refers specifically to the architecture of the game..."
Client-server system architecture, while not universal nor always built the same, is generally a common aspect of how MMOs operate. When talking about a single or multiplayer game, you're more than likely not going to see the use of such a system because it does not support the gameplay efficiently.
So is it basically the game's network architecture? -They are not universal, nor always built the same but all MMOs have one. Well, d'uh! Aren't we talking about online multiplayer here?!
Instead of listing games and describing their network/server architecture, why don't you start listing why "MMO system" deserves to be differentiated from all other network/server architectures?
Is not interactive? You need to revisit World of Tanks, my friend. The map is interactive. Pieces on the battlemap correlate on the number of tanks in the match. Where you decide to move those pieces dictate the maps you will be fighting in the game. The lobbies for organized battles which people then join to fight are initiated by that battlemap. You lose tanks in the game, you lose pieces in the map.
Well? Is it in an "MMO feature" or not? To me, it is just another online component in a game.
Even if more than half of what I write is inaccurate it is not as big of a wrong as you acting like we should know your made-up word. But hey "offense is the best defense", right?
I'm sure client-server gaming existed before Quake but Quake revolutionized it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Well said friend. That is a interesting observation that I never really thought about that.
Yeah, it had not occurred to me either.
It could explain a lot.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
well .. i just pay $7 for Tomb Raider and it is a steal. If MMOs turn into something as good as tomb raider, I am more than happy to pay $7 for it.
Or better yet .. something as fun as RoS, and i will preorder at $40.
Given that most of the horrible experiences I've had in MMOs have been guild-related, I kind of wonder if the removal of guilds might improve MMOs as a whole, especially ones intended to be solo-friendly.
But eh, I can imagine some version of guilds that I would like. Not every single implementation of guilds creates a breeding ground for drama, backstabbing, and theft.
But you don't have to join or stay in a guild. If i ignore all guilds, it would as if the guild system does not exist.
Not quite. Many games have things that can only be done by a guild, for example property ownership. That means if you want to fully play the game you have to make your own guild. But a lot of guild systems penalize small guilds or require a minimum number of people to start a guild. Also if you aren't in a guild you constantly get spammed and begged to join one, I've experience that many times.
All those are true .. and certainly games can be more "non-guild" friendly. However, may be the solution is a "no guild" button to ignore all guild activity, and make sure there is no penalty not joining a guild, as opposed to eliminate the option.
I have made the distinctions multiple times. This is again you throwing away even the idea of reading what I've written in favor of making erroneous claims and then acting indignant about it.
As for your world of tanks commentary. You spoke of the leader board initially, what you are talking about is not the leader board. Perhaps keep your logic and examples in line.
The battle map, if it is acting to stream real-time the data of all available players to interact with, would be functioning on at least a similar principle.
If you are going to complain about my phrasing, then get yours in line too.
The irony is none of what I have said is made up. Try a little google sometime and 'MMO system" will actually link you to a specific section of a wikipedia page touching upon it. You don't need to know what the term means necessarily, but if you're gonna act like you know what you're talking about then you should probably have less of a blank reaction to such things.
And no quake was not considered revolutionary for it's multiplayer. It was considered such of it's gameplay. What it brought to multiplayer was not anything new on the client-server model, but that it was one of the first major action games and consequently got coined as the first e-sport.
It revolutionized competitive play in a sense, but not the mechanics for multiplayer.
EDIT: Broad versus local. Many versus few. Persistence versus time. Centralized versus fragmented. I've given plenty of distinctions that are characteristic to that of MMOs and the server-client models in place versus the generally smaller scale and finite versions used in other forms of gameplay and media.
The reason I talk about game examples is because they are the concepts in action, and one would hope that the reader can understand what they experience in game and how the underlying mechanics would serve to drive that interactivity.
I use these examples and tie them back to my points on how they are not traditional to any of their genres, and generally derivative of the mechanics we utilize for much larger scale gameplay (AKA MMOs). The fact that MMOs contain multiple types of server architecture does not fundamentally change the principles or overarching mechanics about how they operate. They certainly change the means, but not the objectives and consequent scope.
The exception to this is the example. When these large scale mechanics are used to make shards that clients play on instead of a more unified environment. When interactive elements are extracted and used to accompany a more personal kind of gameplay. When player data is used globally to influence back and forth the experience of others.
You certainly can claim "But that's just multiplayer." and to a degree you're not wrong. However, that's about as accurate as saying a trout is an animal. Not every multiplayer system operates on the same scale or with the same means, you've agreed with me on as much. Classifying them based on their scale and ulderlying operation helps going a long way into understanding the way the game as whole can and does operate, rather than waving your hands about and proclaiming it's achieved by magic.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Topmost result in Google is a Wikipedia article about Massively multiplayer online role-playing games. The search engine highlights the header "System architecture". Nowhere in the article is "MMO system" mentioned. If you search for "MMO system" on Wikipedia, the topmost result is talks about Methane monooxygenase, MMO for short.
I ask you again, if you meant to say "system architecture" or "network architecture", why not use those well-established terms instead?
Oh, and you can read about Quake here: http://gafferongames.com/networking-for-game-programmers/what-every-programmer-needs-to-know-about-game-networking/
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Personal habit and speech/writing patterns. The fact you were able to understand and reference what I meant means you know what I mean, and are making a conscious effort to refute pointlessly.
Saying "MMO system" to refer to an MMOs system architecture is quite literally me simply dropping one phrase to shorten the amount I have to write. Saying just system architecture is vague, and requires that I then specify what it's in relation to. Consequently I say mmo system instead because it shouldn't need a qualifier, as both terms somewhat simply state their intended meaning, assuming one comprehends english.
As for the Quake comment, thank you for agreeing with me. Seeing as that article notes Quake was an action game that switched from peer to peer into the client server model, and the innovation he introduced only coming after in an update called QuakeWorld.
That also fails to alleviate the fact that the client-server model was in use almost ten years prior to it in the creation of MUDS and their ilk, just that Quake was one of the first action games to develop a better version of the client-server model for action oriented gameplay.
I other words, not the first, an evolution.
Your claim...
"client-server gaming was first done in Quake - a first person shooter back in '96."
...is still false.
Not to mention it fails to address the gap between the likes of it and larger scale implementations. QSpy has more in common by being a constantly updated master server doling out it's data to connected client programs.
EDIT: Correction, client server model for online gaming in MUDs and their ilk actually predates the likes of Quake by almost twenty years, not ten.
Point being that your bringing that game up has very little to do with, well, anything. It was not the first as you originally tried to claim, and your insistence on it's value has only come to show it innovated the mechanics for action play and cosmetics (though it did introduce rubberbanding), not massive scale communication or interactions.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I like MMOs, but I love closed co-op games like Borderlands. I hate end-game and raiding (10 man plus content) and being forced to team up with random people. There shouldn't be a requirement to do these activities to enjoy all of the content in the game.
My position has always been that every instance/closed event should be scalable, perhaps from 1-25 (we don't need anything that requires more than 25 people except maybe world pvp). It should be simple to do and just adjust the loot table accordingly. If you run with 25 people against the horrendous 14 different boss mechanics and win, you have a 1 in 10 chance of getting the flying boots of ultimate awesomeness. But if I don't want to play with you "if you are one minute late, you are out of the raid and the guild" asshats, then I should be able to farm that boss solo all day long for my 1 in 250 chance at the flying boots of ultimate awesomeness. Make it so, because I am sure not going back to WoW by playing something like Wildstar.
Ideally, and all of my gamer friends (yes, more than 5) would prefer this type of game over every other type, we will get more MMOPGs (Massively Multiplayer Private Games) in the future. These would be games like Minecraft on a private server but on a huge world with story and coop and pvp possibilities. When you register the game, you get your own space on a server in the cloud and pay based on how many people you want to allow to join you. If you only want to play alone or have 4 committed friends for coop or want to open it up to a 100 person world with open pvp, it is up to you.
I love Elder Scrolls, but I never wanted ESO. I hated the idea from the very mention of the possibility. I never wanted my Elder Scrolls memories to be tarnished by mandatory grouping with losers named Leetzorurmom! or Legolas or any of the MMO crap. All most of us ever wanted was the ability to invite one or more friends along to play with us in Morrowind or Oblivion or any of the games. That way we could show off our gear or house to people who actually care and we could team up against the coolest worlds in the history of gaming. Instead, for me, MMOs are just a matter of getting to the highest level, finishing my character story, and then find another game as quick as possible. So, for me, they are really SP games or, if my RL friends join in, limited coop.
Dealing with strangers in a game certainly is a chore and not something that I want. Recent MMOs are all more like co-op lobby game probably because of that. Couple of comments on what you say:
- 25 is too large for me. 1-5 is quite enough. 10 people .. even all friends is a mess and chore to coordinate. If i can have fun with just me, or a friend or two, why bother with co-ordinating more people? To me, fighting a boss with 25 guys is not more fun than fighting one with 3.
- The loot problem is already solved. D3, and LFR in WOW rolls your own loot. It is an individual roll and the item can be picked up only by you. So there is no loot drama. I like this. No one is going to interact with my loot unless i give it to him/her.
You obviously have a different preference than the millions who play and enjoy "stupid" single player game. It seems to be that you think everyone should like what you like ... which is obviously wrong and stupid. The market already shows that people like different things.
And no .. it is far worse (to me) to play with someone else ... fewer people ... particularly one .. is more fun to me.
Oh .. you can start your thread about "how to make SP games even more like MMO" .. it is a free forum.
well .. that is what people on this forum do all day .. write about what they like. Do you write about what I like? I do not think so.
At least i don't pretend to a hypocrite and pretend what i like is "good for the genre".
And devs are already doing it ... it is interesting to discuss how to do it BETTER. If devs are putting in SP experiences in MMOs, what is wrong with talking about the details of HOW they are doing it?
And what is wrong with "less people play AAA MMORPGs"? It is not like I own stocks of companies making AAA mmorpgs or anything.