Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
I DEMAND a seamless virtual world that provides a living, active society.
Consuetudo
Member UncommonPosts: 191
DECLARATION: Over the past decade the ideological advancement of MMOs has naturally evolved to such a distance that the actual content delivered in released MMOs is not only substantially inferior to what we are expecting, but actually insulting in the capacity that we are made to condescend to them, constrain ourselves for a brief time into the limited little game world presented to us, and attempt to convince ourselves that this is what we want.
I DEMAND:
- That a development team respond to the growing unrest in the community by providing players with a satisfying, seamless virtual world that provides a living, active society in which we as virtual characters can reside as citizens and residents
- That such a game offer the player the opportunity to substantially impact the environment and world, in such a way that if the game is to have multiple servers, the degree of difference between them will be wide and unpredictable, given that individual people making conscious decisions at specific moments in time brought major change to the game world around them
- That rather than a domination by NPCs, the factional leadership is to be populated by players themselves, who organize their faction, coordinate, lead it to war, conduct it in peace, etc
- That rather than providing the players with fixed cities and environments, cities are able to be constructed and destroyed; environments reaped and burned
- That players not be meaningless "heroes" whose impact upon the world is functionally minimal to the degree that if the players never entered the game, the entire thing would look exactly the same and have suffered no change
IF NOT FOR THESE THINGS, the genre will continue to stagnate, as it has done for the past 10 years, an embarrassment to us all, an active insult.
Comments
But I can relate, thought these would evolve into ever better virtual worlds, but it seems most folks would rather just play a "game."
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"Technological limitations"
Sound's like a good idea though. Patrols and store front owners should all be company staffers.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, the demands plus about twenty million dollars might get that vision made. It would be kind of cr@ppy though. Forty million dollars might get a lot closer to it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm trying to help the companies, whose failure-games are an insult to the time and effort put in by their developers. MMOs have been failing since the releases of Age of Conan and Warhammer. The failure of both of those games is closely synonymous with the disease of MMO stagnation that has come into effect ever since Warcraft. Literally, the solution to the WoW-clone concept--and I wouldn't hesitate to say that just about every substantial MMO made since that one is merely a redesigned copy of it--is to fulfill the demands of the players by providing a seamless virtual world.
I nowhere say that it is easy. At the same time, I do not doubt that the technology exists.
Why is the market so failing in this regard? Are we who want a virtual world so effectively silent as consumers that the market does not even detect us as potential sources of profit? Does the market not see a need and fill it as quickly and as efficiently as possible?
It sounds to me like you should get some fresh air?
Maybe go out on a date?
This is NOT reality, this is a killer of time at best, not a substitute for life!
Go out and live it!
I got your Deliverance!
Where's my banjo?!!
Ahh, another slice of the easiest dessert recipe in the history of gaming...
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
I agree with most of what you had to say and hope that it comes to pass some day. The one thing that I disagree with is the NPC thing. I think that the players should be part of a virtual world and that means that most of the world will be populated by NPCs. I am not talking about the current ways NPCs are depicted in MMOs. PCs need to operate within the worlds they inhabit. There needs to be a simulation for economy and politics running in the background of any virtual world simulation. Want to become king or leader of a city? You would need to gain the support of both players and the unwashed masses so to speak. Even if you have 10k players in a given game, this would be a tiny fraction of the world's population. A true world simulation would include the ability to influence NPCs.
IMO to have a realistic but playable game, there would need to be permanent death. To balance this, the players should be able to have multiple toons and the ability to train characters. I would envision that this type of game would need a House system where the player is invested in his family or stable of characters. Perhaps, the top lord of your house could not be killed for the sake of gameplay but all of your agents would be fair game. IMO, there cannot be a world sim if there is no death.
Can you expand at length upon the apparent necessity of permanent death?
Sure. If you take any good fantasy IP (either medieval or sci-fi, books or movies), the risk of death or loss of loved ones is always one of the major pillars of the story. If the hero or heroes cannot die (lose), there would no tension in the story. In fact whether IRL or in good fantasy, a hero is a hero because at some point they risked death. Aside from that, there are other reasons to have death. One of the primary reasons religions exist is to explain what happens after death. There are rituals around the deceased as well. While most people don't like to think about it, death and how people deal with it is a part of every culture. So, if you want a living, breathing society and world simulation, there must be death. The risk is what makes the whole prospect interesting.
IMO to make this work in a game, the main PC would be the leader of a House like in the feudal systems. Think Game of Thrones type houses. When you start out, the player would have X number of people under him or her. They could be crafters, military, adventurers. These would be your heroes and they in turn would be able to control a certain number of peasants or fighters etc. As the lord gains power and wealth, he would be able to control more heroes and influence more peasants. Of course, your opponents won't like that and they may try to do away with your henchman to lessen your power. Anyway, managing your heroes and planning for their eventual demise would be a big part of a good sim IMO. The only way PD could work is if the heroes are replaceable and the player is able to play multiple characters under the same account.
It might help if the OP learned the difference between something failing and him not liking it.
^This is pretty much how I feel about it. You want some high-octane, realistic fun? Go play in traffic.
That is about as real as any game can get. And in that game, permadeath means permadeath. Well, actually, just death. As human beings, and not avatars in games we can continue to load, the one death does it's job the first time.
I just want the worlds in video games to get more interactive. After playing GTA, I realize- game worlds are so empty. There's alot to do in GTA, don't get me wrong. And plenty of buildings to enter... but it's still not enough to feel like a thriving world.
In MMO's, NPC's just stand around, or walk along a set path (never a long one). I'd like to see more NPC interactions like Fallout/ES in MMO's- where they have lives and schedules. Something about that seems, to me, one of the most immersive things I've ever experienced in a video game.
"It might help if the OP learned the difference between something failing and him not liking it."
^I also agree with this.
Loves: SMITE, WildStar, Project Zomboid, PSO2, DCUO,
Worst Online Communities: WoW/WoD(the OG MMO Trolls), DayZ/WarZ, SMITE/LoL/DOTA, EVE Online, APB
"Im ready for
All the comparisons
I think its dumb and its embarrassing
Im switching off
No longer listening
Ive had enough of persecution and conditioning
Maybe its instinct- Were only animal" - Lily Allen, Sheezus
I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.
I disagree with this point in that players shouldn't all expect to save the world and be king. In a world simulation players aren't omnipotent superheroes that can expect to become kings themselves.
We don't really want innovation.
RAWR
However player r expectations have risen even higher.
I do not believe players have realistic expectations of pretty much anything and mmo gamers are the winiest biggest self entitled group of whiner babies in the entire gaming universe
Get over yourselves. You are not entitiled to anything.
You make me like charity
Not to mention most content is disseminated before it's actually released, between the various beta's, "let's play" videos, and datamine sites. Players are as much to blame for the current problems.
You make me like charity
Depending on how old you are OP, i'm saddened to say, you might not actually live to see an mmo that fits your idea of "The Right MMO", or at the very least you'l be 90 and "slightly forgetful" xD :P
Even if u had a billion dollars, and knew a 100+ man team that is capable of programming and developing all u want, you still need to go and find/convince at least 100,000(prolly more like 500,000) people to have the same exact expectations as you, if u don't there simple won't be enough "mass appeal" to even bother making anything.
I just wanna add that theoretically you could get it, by having a game made just for you, serviced just for you, updated just for you, you would only need the combined peak fortunes of Andrew Carnegie, John D.Rockefeller and Bill Gates, so i reckon a trillion dollars would do the trick