Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
To Think Forward! What a Living Breathing MMO Should Really Look Like
Consuetudo
Member UncommonPosts: 191
Simply put, I profoundly believe that the feeling of being in a "living breathing" world is almost axiomatically necessary in order to enjoy an MMO, and some people will find this feeling in available games, while most do not.
What kind of game then are the rest of us desiring? We are veterans, that much is sure: we've been hand-held through quest-based linear themeparks and naturally are desiring more: the quest-based linear themepark can feel like a living breathing world to a new MMO player perhaps, though most of know better.
It follows that what we want is an impactable world. The novelty of themeparks has worn off for us, and within them we no longer feel ourselves to be part of a living breathing world. What we require is:
- THE ABILITY TO MAKE PERMANENT AND LASTING CHANGES to the landscape itself, and this through the construction of new and the destruction of the old. If there is a forest, I should be able to chop down every single tree, and in place of those trees I should be able to build log cabins; not only that, but I should not be required to do this as any integral part of the game (ie I took it upon myself to think to chop down these trees and make log cabins here, though there was no intrinsic factor about the trees that made this necessary) and also the trees should not thereafter be able to respawn unless if I plant seeds, and it should take real time for them to grow back into trees.
- THE ABILITY TO BUILD AND DESTROY cities, buildings, etc. While it is acceptable for there to be developer-created cities, even more emphasis should be placed on the ability of players to destroy those cities and make their own. I want to hear nothing about the plausibility of this being the case, as in Minecraft this is extremely possible. If it is possible to do this in one game, it is possible to do this in another. The criticism of "then just play that game" is invalid because the ability to build and destroy cities should be only one aspect of the game: it is not the whole game itself.
- THE FACTIONS AND ALL GOVERNMENTAL BODIES SHOULD BE RUN BY PLAYERS. If there is a city, then there will be a mayor who is a player. This player will have subordinates, whom he will dictate policy to. These subordinates will then put the policy into action no matter in what way they are implementing it, but they are cognizant of the importance of their task and will do it. "But that is boring, I don't want to do that! Nobody wants to play your real-life game, I just want to have fun!" But this is something I would gladly do, and if I would do it, it is almost certain another person would. I would gladly be a subordinate to my beloved city's mayor and have to ensure a certain quota of wheat crop yields in a given period of time.
- WAR BETWEEN FACTIONS IS FOUGHT BETWEEN PLAYERS ALONE. Not only this, but there doesn't even need to be factions. Factions only exist if players have created them. At the start of the game, there can either be developer created factions to which players can choose to belong, or, more interestingly, there could be no factions, and players will thereafter group themselves into what we presently conceive of as being guilds, and these will come to be petty factions of their own, the best guilds, I think, developing into large-scale factions the size of the Horde or the Alliance. It should be entirely possible for one faction to completely eradicate the other.
- Hand-in-hand with a living breathing world is a LIVING BREATHING PLAYER-RUN ECONOMY. The economy of WoW for example is nonexistent. NPCs sell an infinite stock of items, and the kinds of things you can buy on the auction house are not very necessary. There is effectively no real economy. Players in WoW, for example, will never experience an economic depression from a crop shortage, an inflation of the money, scarcity, or any of these things. Yet a living breathing world requires a living breathing player-run economy, such where the crops are grown by players, the items made by players, the money issued by the player-run government, etc. And the game should be sandbox enough to the extent that there is no intrinsic organization making all of this possible: players have to take it upon themselves to form societies. It is such a game where the player will realize it is actually in their best interests to be part of a society with others: that this one person can actually contribute their best to the city by planting crops of wheat, which the player-bureaucrats in the city will reward him for.
- THE WHOLE IS OF MORE IMPORTANCE THAN THE ONE. You are not important. You are not a hero, or a character of any renown. In reality, you are really no different from any other player around you, and what you bring to the table is what you as a gamer sitting there at your computer actually bring forward. Permanent death is a thing, because your character is ultimately meaningless: where you existed and what you were doing, another could fill your place. What actually matters is the health and progress of the society that you have helped to build: it is the forest you have chopped down, the city you helped construct, the wars you helped to win, the actual permanent changes that you have helped to introduce into that world. The world is such a place that it will actually change without you actually having ever participated: you are not necessary, but you contribute to it.
- THE GAME SHOULD LOOK AND FEEL THAT IT BENEFITS FROM AND IS UP TO STANDARD OF MODERN TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. In the quick-paced world of technology, MMOs are utter black sheep in that they really look and feel no different from MMOs made 10 years ago. The modern MMO, while being revolutionary in concept, must also be revolutionary in design, in that it looks so different from the MMOs of before (and not different for the sake of being different, but different because it is actually embracing the potential of modern technology). It should feel smooth and seamless, and should not seem clunky or laggy.
I believe that these above are the necessary elements that at this point we are desiring: I believe that an MMO which features all of these characteristics will be nothing less than revolutionary and will sweep the old rotten order off the table completely, and will be the new MMO by which others are judged. In the future, these factors will be taken for granted, and I will probably at that point desire more, but, presently, I recognize that these are the features deep down I am craving in an MMO, and which I feel must be implemented. True, some of them are present in other games (WURM , Minecraft) but they have never been excellently synthesized into one realized great game.
Your primary objection will always be: but that sounds boring and too much like real life, I just want to play a game--then you do not actually want a living breathing world. That is fine: the market revolves around you. I am merely asking for the game that I would like to play.
"Develop it yourself!" I am the consumer with my own life to live: there are those who devote their entire lives to game design, and they will do the designing.
Comments
While I mostly agree I must say that I all sounds a bit to extreme in my book. The main issue I see is that the world has to be griefing-proof to some extent. If the game allows the players to destroy and to kill everything, some of them will just do that all day and they will turn the game world into a wasteland in no time. It is the same with players forcing their will on others, it needs to have limits.
As basic rules I would suggest that:
- To destroy something has to take about as long as to build it.
- It should be possible to kill other charakters (although I'm not a fan of permadeath) but to do so should be worthwhile at all. You have to consider that many players really want to PK. So to limit that a PK hast to have a really hard time.
A living world just means one that permanently changes based on the players actions in the game (meaning the "story" of the world changes, not necessarily the literal terrain.) . Most of the things you've listed, while I understand they are things that you personally desire in an MMORPG, have nothing actually do do with making the game a living world. Also a very niche game is never going to have the budget to launch with the greatest graphics, that's an unreasonable expectation. If you *need* the best graphics in the industry best get used to playing bland themeparks.
Most elements of OP said belong to "sandbox"
If you want to know what "living" (breathing) mean , then search for the mean of yin , yang and the cycle of how life work .
Basically "living" mean repeat of the cycle through time with the change of layer depend on the elements inside the cycle to create new situation,
It a complex system like how future be made by the action in the past.
The "living" game world (game broad) are the game broad that calculate the effect cause by action of player into the cycle of the being inside the game world (NPC) .
in the end i don't even know what i talk about .
Take it easy .
I don't think anything should at first be introduced to this extent. People who will go around destroy things at first en masse will probably get bored, as that isn't what the game is about. Nevertheless, criminals like that could be a great immersive element of the game and players would have to figure out how to protect their societies against them.
Really I couldn't disagree with you more, these are the necessary elements to make the world living. You've not introduced any alternative, and I don't see this as being any niche game either: this will be the revolutionary MMO that sweeps the others off the table. There's no need for the best graphics, and it's not even graphics: it's the simple utilization of the existent level of both techno- and ideological development.
I'm not saying that your ideas are bad. I actually like a lot of them but they are not needed to make a world feel living to me. All that is needed is the ability to affect the world in some lasting way and sorry but yes the kind of game you want would be a niche game (again, speaking as someone who wants many of these same things) many people just do not want to farm or play politics or be architects in a game, they just want to log on and kill things and get loot. You will never interest people like that in the kind of game you are proposing. There is an audience for this type of game but it is not in the mainstream.
This game would be made by a small team on a tight budget and have to get many complex systems right and balance them (just the idea of destructible terrain that doesn't become a griefing magnet or a player driven economy that actually functions properly is a huge undertaking.) To expect a bug-free super-polished experience on top of that is very unrealistic.
Player conflict isn't the same as a living world, but it's pretty much what your entire post is about.
A game that feels alive can do just fine as coop only.
Interesting settings, game mechanics, and eco systems, attention to details, and sense of discovery are what make a game feel alive.
The problem is that we are not subscribing to the very narrow definition of a living breathing world that GW2s marketing department came up with to hype their game that is not very living or breathing at all.
GW2 completely failed at creating a living world despite all the promises ANet made. "Oh look, that merchant I just escorted to safety 5 minutes ago is back in the same place asking to be rescued again." Ugh, hopefully EQNext will do better.
What game is like this?
Ability to make permanent and lasting changes...
If you can destroy someone else's changes, doesn't that make the changes not permanent nor lasting?
Today there is a stream, tomorrow it's a mountain, the next day it's a garden. None of this has been permanent or lasting. Permanent or lasting would imply once done, it's done forever. You etch your name in the sand, it cannot be undone by anyone... that's permanent and lasting. Of course eventually you will run out of space in which you can alter at all... rather rapidly I might add.
I LOL'd when I got to the highlighted line because up to that point I was saying to myself that I think this is the first post by you that I not only understand but actually agree with.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I don't think that the PKs will get bored quickly, since they get what they want.
You have to consider, that even a sandbox mmo how living and breathing it may be is still only a game and a game community is fundamentally different to a real life society. The players don't really live there and therefore I wouldn't count on them to organize and to police everything on there own. Who wants to be on guard for several hours to keep the city safe. That doesn't sound like fun.
Just look at games like Darkfall and Mortal Online. I'm all for freedom but this issue has to be addressed.
#1 and 2 are realistically impossible to pull off in a MMORPG unless you have crap graphics/instances,boring models low poly assets ect ect.
The ability to build would have to be extremely limited,example you get a PLOT or an instance.To destroy with nice looking particle effects again won't happen and it is also not feasible within a game where players want to build,the two would be like negatives to each other.
I agree Factions should be run by players but also npc factions adds to the game.Government nope unless you have a LOT of freedom in space rather than plots.Also i do NOT want to see another Eve type game run by larger corps controlling areas of a game.Now if the game's systems were structured really well i could go for it.An example would be to control a certain region your clan/guild has to defeat an entire Faction of NPC's but ONLY with a set amount of players.Example i don't want to see that large corp of 300 players defeating 25 NPC's while a small guild of 10 players would struggle.In other words size should not matter in a well structured game.
Player run economy is of course great but again if done right NPC"s can and should be included.They would buy and sell just as an open market would and prices would fluctuate based on the market.NPC's would ONLY get their wares from players first.
I agree with the HERO idea,that is a single player game idea.If you are claiming to be a MMO that takes more than simply running a mega server,you need to play and act like a MMO.Why that SIMPLE idea has never sunk in to so many gamer's is beyond me,we are not simply logging into a server we are login to play a MMORPG.
One important aspect was missed>>>depth.You can't simply make a game of big sword has +32 damage and said gear offers 31 dmg resistance,the whole system/s need a lot of depth to allow players to be unique and creative and have to think.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
But isn't that what Landmark is doing already. We still don't know how they are going to implement that in EQN, and whether EQN will be released some day, but that part still works.
Of course the ability to permanently build and destroy structures are going to be quite limited in EQN.
A Tale In The Desert, though it's not by any means the only MMO with a player government of some kind.
Giving players "admin" privileges in an MMO is asking for trouble because when it comes down to it your only giving the benefits of the "real world" without the consequences. People will play it like a game in that regard, because it is, and can log out anytime they want.
This may work for some but I'll pass. I do want to play in a "living world" but not one completely controlled by others. Luckily technology is making this possible.
English is hard today.
The first idea a developer should have is how to implement an ECO system.Then we need to lose levels because a level number really means nothing aside from basically saying you did 500 linear quests just like everyone else is going to do.
If you want to use level numbers to base some form of judgement on ones skill then utilize every stat including kills/deaths efficiency whatever but imo it really is something these games should lose.AGE should replace it and yes death should eventually happen but only after a long time and there should be family trees/offspring inheriting abilities down the line.
The cultures should advance some faster than others based on realistic factors.Example you start with primitive stone and clubs advancing to maybe guns then lasers far down the road.Start with horses/training other wildlife advancing to engine powered transportation.
To save time,a good developer/producer should know what it takes to make a really good game but they ALWAYS treat it more like a business than a game they can be proud of.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Replies all seem to assume an average contemporary game with the added features listed. I use the term features deliberately as this belies the flaw in the negative responses. If the game wasn't about pvp, levels or item grind or any of the crap dumped on the OP's idea it would be the game for me.
Imagine a first fleet expedition to a new world like wurm without all the insecure 'lets please the idiot people' crap like pvp and progression through crafting grind.
There are actually some significantly different ways to implement leveling. I was just working with a single-player RPG system where level number = (number of stat points + number of trunk skill points)/20. Stat points can be gained (up to a practically unreachable max of 10,000) by practicing relevant actions, until you hit the difficulty level of the particular action, at which point you've mastered it and can't get any more stat points from it. Trunk skill points can be gained (again, up to 10,000) by learning new branch skills and practicing those branch skills up to their level of difficulty. So overall, your level represents the total amount of time you've spent seeking out new activities within the game and doing the activities you've discovered. And the player receives 5 tokens to spend in any unlocked faction shop each time they level up. Level does correspond vaguely to how difficult an opponent might be in combat or in a social or economic struggle, but because the combat and non-combat stats and skills are counted together it's much less accurate for humanoids than for monsters. Pretty hilarious though when you try to attack an NPC humanoid that is weak as a kitten but has ridiculously high charisma, and they are just too appealing and persuasive to attack.