You could always play Pathfinder Society through the online options. There are online tabletop simulators like Roll20 that allow for actual RPG play with players and a GM. Of course, even PFS runs somewhat "on rails" because the adventures are written ahead of time. The GM can react to unique solutions to the obstacles presented though. All that said, the experience is going to really depend on the rest of the players and even more so on the GM.
Originally posted by Axehilt Originally posted by ArChWindYou'll never get a true RPG in a MMO so don't even try. I finally understood that after 10 years.
Look back through all videogame RPGs since they started making them, and realize that MMORPGs are RPGs in exactly the same way, with the same focus on combat, character progression, and story.
That's ~35 years of videogame RPG history. Definitely a long enough lineage to establish themselves as a true RPG.
Yes, that is fact BUT in a SP you can mod, you have the options to change the game play so MY game is totally different than YOUR game.
MMO you have a set rail and have to follow it. In a game like Skyrim you can change the scripts from the interface to the core mechanics and create a whole different world including networking.
NOW throw in a multiplayer environment into something like Skyrim where your friends can connect to you and have SAME interests in the niche and you have a winner.
Originally posted by filmoret Sir you do not know what RPG means. So you are playing a character's role in a game. Who,What,When,Where,How will always change but the 1 element that must remain for it to be a RPG is for you to play the role of a character or group of characters. Its your fault if you aren't playing a role when you log into a mmo. They allow you to create a role if you want and play it. Some of them give you a role and you have to stick with it. Either way lets take WOW for example you are an orc,warrior. Now you have to play that role or you are the one refusing to be a RPG player.
By that definition, the SIMS or even Football manager are RPGs.
But they are simulation game. So there is more to it than that (=> storyline/world and single character progression)
But by that definition, Legend of Zelda is an RPG. So there is more to it than that.
RPG means Role Playing Game so yes if you are playing the role of a character or group of characters then it is definitely a RPG. Its not my fault you think it means something else. If you wish we can go back to Dungeons and Dragons tabletop. Sometimes you followed a story set by the dungeon master and other times you wrote your own story. All depended on who the dungeon master was. The mmo is a dungeon master and you are the player nothing has really changed.
Yes, that is fact BUT in a SP you can mod, you have the options to change the game play so MY game is totally different than YOUR game.
MMO you have a set rail and have to follow it. In a game like Skyrim you can change the scripts from the interface to the core mechanics and create a whole different world including networking.
NOW throw in a multiplayer environment into something like Skyrim where your friends can connect to you and have SAME interests in the niche and you have a winner.
Eh, the only point I was making is that we have 35 years worth of RPGs being exactly like MMORPGs are. So implying MMORPGs aren't true RPGs is silly.
It's fine for you to enjoy a specific kind of RPG, but just don't try to pretend it's more "true".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well to be honest MMORPGs got gradually both less MMO-ish and less RPG-ish.
In return what mainly was introduced to MMORPGs was more:
- lobby mutliplayer
- facebook/mobile/browser like gaming
There are good reasons for which that was done and why it was hard / impossible to create better more engaging and complex virtual world and role-play gameplay.
Those good reasons for what happened does not change what actually happened though.
There are good reasons for which that was done and why it was hard / impossible to create better more engaging and complex virtual world and role-play gameplay.
Virtual worlds are virtual worlds. They are not RPGs. RPGs are not them. If virtual worlds are what you want, you should be completely unconcerned with the term RPG, because you want virtual worlds.
The ~35 year history of videogame RPGs means it's a well-established genre, so while you may have an argument that MMORPGs are less MMO-ish, they're just as RPG-like as ever.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
“Players take on the role of author in addition to the role of the characters they’re writing about.” Will explains. You’re not just controlling a single character’s actions in a simulated world, you can control anything you can write about. So when you play the last card of a ‘strong’ outcome, you win control of the story from the narrator and get to explain exactly how everyone present, and even the environment itself, responds to you.
So why would you ever play a weak card? Well that’s the other big departure Storium makes from videogames: a story where the hero succeeds at everything is boring, so you have to let yourself fail sometimes (or you’ll run out of cards). But unlike so many games where you win the fight but lost the cutscene, how and when that happens is entirely up to you. Jason Morningstar, the creator of Fiasco and one of Storium’s setting authors, puts it like this: “The best stories are told on erratic trajectories – highs and lows, victories and defeats – and games like Storium (and tabletop RPGs generally) systematise this very satisfying arc you see in cinema and literature.” Pen and paper RPGs have been trying to do this for the last ten years. Videogames? Not so much.
Interesting, but I don't agree where they say you can't do that in a video game... It only takes a dedicated community of players. That's why dev content never really meets the criteria, because it can't create as it goes. Players can, given the tools to do so...
In SWG on the server I played on we created such events, filled in the cast, created the plot, and at times expanded it as we went. Rarely was the point to "kill the guy"... A popular one was capture/rescue missions, we involved everything from PVP, Jump to lightspeed, far off POI's, purchasable NPC's/ bases..etc..
It was a blast.. The sad part is, you could actually do this in any MMO today, but no one does.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
There are good reasons for which that was done and why it was hard / impossible to create better more engaging and complex virtual world and role-play gameplay.
Virtual worlds are virtual worlds. They are not RPGs. RPGs are not them. If virtual worlds are what you want, you should be completely unconcerned with the term RPG, because you want virtual worlds.
The ~35 year history of videogame RPGs means it's a well-established genre, so while you may have an argument that MMORPGs are less MMO-ish, they're just as RPG-like as ever.
What 'RPG' is in practical terms in games, is an discussion that goes as far back as first tabletop RPG games. Even then there were at least two groups who understoood completly diffrently what RPG or more precisely role-playing stands for in RPG.
One group said it is simply numbers associated with RPG games (levels, xp, stats, etc) that stand for RPG, other group thought that it is not the case and levels/xp are both not enough and not even completly required for a game to be an RPG game.
Many (I would say even most) discussion on both single player&co-op RPG forums and MMORPG forums are an continuation of same kind of discussions that date back to tabletop RP games, even though many of participants are diffrent, most of them did not play tabletop games and don't even realize that same stuff was discussed 20+ years ago.
What 'RPG' is in practical terms in games, is an discussion that goes as far back as first tabletop RPG games. Even then there were at least two groups who understoood completly diffrently what RPG or more precisely role-playing stands for in RPG.
One group said it is simply numbers associated with RPG games (levels, xp, stats, etc) that stand for RPG, other group thought that it is not the case and levels/xp are both not enough and not even completly required for a game to be an RPG game.
Many (I would say even most) discussion on both single player&co-op RPG forums and MMORPG forums are an continuation of same kind of discussions that date back to tabletop RP games, even though many of participants are diffrent, most of them did not play tabletop games and don't even realize that same stuff was discussed 20+ years ago.
Perhaps 35 years ago when these things were new there was a discussion.
Today? There's no discussion. We have 35 years, and hundreds of videogame RPGs, and while the details can vary slightly, the core pillars of character progression, combat, and storyline remain unchanged since the very beginning. If we wanted to we could literally dredge up 100 game names of videogame RPGs where these things were the core pillars.
...and given that we're talking about a genre, the core pillars are giant concepts. They're not tiny incorrect details like "RPGs have levels". Levels are just a form of character progression. RPGs always involve progression, but don't always involve levels.
We know what videogame RPGs are.
Sure, the occasional new gamer wanders in who mistakenly thinks videogame RPGs are or were supposed to be identical to tabletop RPGs (which are a different genre), but then we rattle of 5-10 names fo videogame RPGs over the years. And at that point usually it becomes clear to them that the unique traits which distinguish tabletop RPGs (improv, imagination, and collaborative storytelling) are not present in 99% of videogame RPGs (going back all 35 years.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Flyte27 I believe this is what EQ was intended to be, but was turned into a loot race by the players. This lead to more and more games focused on loot and fast easy progression to satisfy the player. When I first started playing EQ all I did was think about how neat it was to be a Ranger in a fantasy world like Tanis in Chronicles. After a while I started to become envious of more powerful players and wanted to level up/get better items. I don't believe the game was ever intended to be played this way. I don't believe devs expected players to sit around and kill the same mob for a specific item all day. I think the intention was to have people go out into the world and continue to be on the move. They might get lucky like Bilbo in the Hobbit or Tanis in the Chronicles and happen on some nice loot. Then again they might happen on some nasty enemies and get killed. The core of the RPG is to go out and have some fun. It seems to me that fun is a lot more then just grinding quests/mobs for loot or whatever mini war games most MMOs use these days. IMO you have to find the adventure. The adventure isn't handed to you on a silver platter. IMO that is the best way because you don't know what is going to happen and it's not nearly as monotonous. Perhaps there shouldn't be a goal for any game to repeat the same content over and over again for better loot. That seems more like an addiction to a game mechanic or the feeling it produces.
I like your analysis. I think it makes sense that they didn't set out to make a soulless numbers grind.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
What 'RPG' is in practical terms in games, is an discussion that goes as far back as first tabletop RPG games. Even then there were at least two groups who understoood completly diffrently what RPG or more precisely role-playing stands for in RPG.
One group said it is simply numbers associated with RPG games (levels, xp, stats, etc) that stand for RPG, other group thought that it is not the case and levels/xp are both not enough and not even completly required for a game to be an RPG game.
Many (I would say even most) discussion on both single player&co-op RPG forums and MMORPG forums are an continuation of same kind of discussions that date back to tabletop RP games, even though many of participants are diffrent, most of them did not play tabletop games and don't even realize that same stuff was discussed 20+ years ago.
Perhaps 35 years ago when these things were new there was a discussion.
Today? There's no discussion. We have 35 years, and hundreds of videogame RPGs, and while the details can vary slightly, the core pillars of character progression, combat, and storyline remain unchanged since the very beginning. If we wanted to we could literally dredge up 100 game names of videogame RPGs where these things were the core pillars.
...and given that we're talking about a genre, the core pillars are giant concepts. They're not tiny incorrect details like "RPGs have levels". Levels are just a form of character progression. RPGs always involve progression, but don't always involve levels.
We know what videogame RPGs are.
Sure, the occasional new gamer wanders in who mistakenly thinks videogame RPGs are or were supposed to be identical to tabletop RPGs (which are a different genre), but then we rattle of 5-10 names fo videogame RPGs over the years. And at that point usually it becomes clear to them that the unique traits which distinguish tabletop RPGs (improv, imagination, and collaborative storytelling) are not present in 99% of videogame RPGs (going back all 35 years.)
It is true that there is a long history of video games that have defined RPGs, but it still seems like semantic drift to me because the computer games don't really do what the predecessor did. You may say that computer RPGs are now actually RPGs because it is said over and over again, but they don't have the main ingredient that makes actual RPGs work at a table.
A table game containing only what you can do on the video versions would be too restrictive and simple to be much fun.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
I like your analysis. I think it makes sense that they didn't set out to make a soulless numbers grind.
This feels like an outright insult to EQ's creators. They created some terrain and populated it with monsters, some of whom dropped upgrades that made your character stronger.
What sort of visionless fool wouldn't expect players to want to spend time trying to better their position in life? I don't know any of the EQ creators, but my impression is they weren't visionless fools. They knew what they were doing, even if some results may have been a surprise.
There is nothing soulless to players bettering themselves, just as there's nothing intrinsically better about the player who wandered the terrain endlessly without killing the monsters (in fact there's definitely something objectively worse about that player -- his gear -- though we can't exactly know how much subjective fun he's having in spite of that.) Calling out a few memorable characters from fiction doesn't really change things. They got their magic items almost accidentally in cases, in order to move a story along, but RPGs as games are both about story and character progression so it's logical that they involve more gameplay around attempting to better your character.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Ths problem in problematical gear heavy games is not the fact that you get more powerful through the gear, it's that the cadance of gearing up has increased - a cynical cheap move, lots of little adrenalin hits is easier and cheaper to provide than trying to develop expensive content that has a long gestation period/slow gain and appeals to a smaller ldemographic - the original MMO/fan. an ever increasing cycle which we can clearly see playing out.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
You must figure out this calculus equation before you can enter this room... using a differential equation, calculate the amount of swing is necessary to hit your target... given the following story problem, estimate the amount of damage will be absorbed if your character's armor is at 13%...
I will have disagree with you that the tech isn't there to support a proper MMORPG. It's the people.
Both the devs/corporate, and the mass player. The corporation wants a model that will make money, they could care less about immersion and choice and things like a sense of personal accomplishment.
Devs often times are programmers in a basement who are learning to program as they go or perhaps aren't given the freedom to create what they want. Maybe not enough time or money. On the other hand, there is mass player that wants instant gratification. But to say It can't be done is an outright false.
SWG before the fall allowed for the musician class. This class actually had many uses both on the battlefield, and in social settings. Anarchy Online allowed for player made quests that other players could accept and carry out. Dark Age of Camelot has an amazing PvP system where you actually see damage done to structures and you must actually listen for stealth players that may be stalking you. DAOC also sports an awesome guild house system that allows expansion, decorating with trophies that you have killed or other accomplishments, crafting facilities, etc... D&D with it's traps and such. Now many games are supporting environment interaction to have the ability to landscape and destroy buildings, start fires, etc..
One of my biggest complaints has always been a lack of meaningful choice. Soandso wants you to kill soandso for stealing his family necklace. Maybe I don't kill the bad guy, but steal it from him instead of killing him for it. Maybe I keep the necklace and sell it or give it away. Maybe if I give it away or sell it and the person that I passed in onto later gets stomped by the npc when the npc finds out that person is in town. Maybe that npc finds out I kept it and send mercs after me. Maybe the npc reports it to the town guard and they stop me when trying to enter the city. Either way, there are only so many possible outcomes. it's just a matter of embracing them.
The point being is that it's not that it isn't possible. It's that most designers have no real imagination, the time or money, backing, permission, knowledge, or inspiration to allow a wide of range of situations and possible outcomes.
Originally posted by Distopia Originally posted by Nadiai'm looking forward to Storiumhttp://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/09/storium-pen-and-paper-rpg-pc/Players take on the role of author in addition to the role of the characters theyre writing about. Will explains. Youre not just controlling a single characters actions in a simulated world, you can control anything you can write about. So when you play the last card of a strong outcome, you win control of the story from the narrator and get to explain exactly how everyone present, and even the environment itself, responds to you.So why would you ever play a weak card? Well thats the other big departure Storium makes from videogames: a story where the hero succeeds at everything is boring, so you have to let yourself fail sometimes (or youll run out of cards). But unlike so many games where you win the fight but lost the cutscene, how and when that happens is entirely up to you. Jason Morningstar, the creator of Fiasco and one of Storiums setting authors, puts it like this: The best stories are told on erratic trajectories highs and lows, victories and defeats and games like Storium (and tabletop RPGs generally) systematise this very satisfying arc you see in cinema and literature. Pen and paper RPGs have been trying to do this for the last ten years. Videogames? Not so much.https://storium.com/
Interesting, but I don't agree where they say you can't do that in a video game... It only takes a dedicated community of players. That's why dev content never really meets the criteria, because it can't create as it goes. Players can, given the tools to do so...
In SWG on the server I played on we created such events, filled in the cast, created the plot, and at times expanded it as we went. Rarely was the point to "kill the guy"... A popular one was capture/rescue missions, we involved everything from PVP, Jump to lightspeed, far off POI's, purchasable NPC's/ bases..etc..
It was a blast.. The sad part is, you could actually do this in any MMO today, but no one does.
I was there for a few of those. It got even better when they introduced the storyteller profession.
It is true that there is a long history of video games that have defined RPGs, but it still seems like semantic drift to me because the computer games don't really do what the predecessor did. You may say that computer RPGs are now actually RPGs because it is said over and over again, but they don't have the main ingredient that makes actual RPGs work at a table.
A table game containing only what you can do on the video versions would be too restrictive and simple to be much fun.
Eh, well you have to take the whole history of both genres into consideration.
Early tabletop RPGs were much closer to wargames. At the same time, videogame RPGs split off. At that time the main difference between the genres was they lacked player-made content (ie a DM creating a dungeon.)
While that was a pretty distinct change, this list of early videogame RPGs shows how after that early change they've basically stayed on the exact same course all the way up til today.
Meanwhile, tabletop RPGs shifted in the other direction, focusing more on improv and collaborative storytelling.
So both genres drifted, and both have a legit claim to the genre name and neither is "The One True RPG" because they've both laid claim to the name for so long that it's ridiculous to claim only one is an actual RPG.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There are lots of RPG systems around. The first goal of an RPG system is to take care of a lot of technicalities (i.e. how to calculate the outcome of an action).
You can play an RPG in many different ways. Not every way will appeal to everyone.
In the end it's the people who play a game that shape said game. If people focus on the item hunting and fast XP then the game world will sooner or later reflect this (since you mainly interact with other players). If you want to do some roleplaying you can do so (doing something may be the reward itself). Saying "I don't want to do XY because the reward is lousy" is no excuse, it just shows the mindset of a person.
It's like the chicken-egg problem. Things slowly evolved in a certain direction. If enoug people would have cared for the roleplaying they'd changed things themselves. Sooner or later the makers behind a CRPG/MMORPG would have to implement features the customers want.
It is true that there is a long history of video games that have defined RPGs, but it still seems like semantic drift to me because the computer games don't really do what the predecessor did. You may say that computer RPGs are now actually RPGs because it is said over and over again, but they don't have the main ingredient that makes actual RPGs work at a table.
A table game containing only what you can do on the video versions would be too restrictive and simple to be much fun.
Eh, well you have to take the whole history of both genres into consideration.
Early tabletop RPGs were much closer to wargames. At the same time, videogame RPGs split off. At that time the main difference between the genres was they lacked player-made content (ie a DM creating a dungeon.)
While that was a pretty distinct change, this list of early videogame RPGs shows how after that early change they've basically stayed on the exact same course all the way up til today.
Meanwhile, tabletop RPGs shifted in the other direction, focusing more on improv and collaborative storytelling.
So both genres drifted, and both have a legit claim to the genre name and neither is "The One True RPG" because they've both laid claim to the name for so long that it's ridiculous to claim only one is an actual RPG.
only it isn't, because one preceded the other.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Originally posted by Festano MMORPGs are Tomb Raider games with stats? Okaaaay...
Yeah, makes me wonder if the OP actually played Tomb Raider...
The original tomb raider games are essentially 3d platformers with ability to interact with certain objects and to jump and dodge your way through the game. It's been a long time since I played them, but that's what I recall about those games.
Modern MMOs are becoming action games with stats. Not sure how you don't get that comparison.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
There are lots of RPG systems around. The first goal of an RPG system is to take care of a lot of technicalities (i.e. how to calculate the outcome of an action).
You can play an RPG in many different ways. Not every way will appeal to everyone.
In the end it's the people who play a game that shape said game. If people focus on the item hunting and fast XP then the game world will sooner or later reflect this (since you mainly interact with other players). If you want to do some roleplaying you can do so (doing something may be the reward itself). Saying "I don't want to do XY because the reward is lousy" is no excuse, it just shows the mindset of a person.
It's like the chicken-egg problem. Things slowly evolved in a certain direction. If enoug people would have cared for the roleplaying they'd changed things themselves. Sooner or later the makers behind a CRPG/MMORPG would have to implement features the customers want.
I don't know if I can agree with you on this though because it is not really about what the customers want. When a game is in Beta you will hear plenty of complaining about features or design that isn't what was desired (at least by those potential customers who bothered to say anything). The MMORPG industry seems to be a big boat that neither turns fast nor at the whim of the customers.
There is obviously still an idea that making a game like WoW is a safe way to spend development dollars.
But the thread isn't about saying that MMORPGs should be about role-playing, cause that isn't going to happen. My point is that MMORPGs aren't Role-Playing games, and they move further away from that description with each passing year.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
I would agree and hope that more character differentiation features happen in order to feel like the digital "me" is different than the guy next to me, which at the moment features really don't facilitate that. One of the problems I believe is the urge to balance everything since it's a shared space that needs to be equal across the board. That is just the combat aspect however so maybe that isn't as important to what you are saying.
I would certainly play titles where any one character is based on more than combat or overt numerical values. I say overt because in some instances "faction" with certain groups of people or things may add to the "other than combat" virtue of a character. Maybe repeated selling to a merchant has brought you into their good graces and now everybody they knew, even family and friends throughout the town, treats you better while those who disliked the merchant treat you worse. Maybe paracombat systems also tie into this. The ability to play music may allow you to set up outside where PCs and NPCs alike could toss you change and gather 'round to listen. Same for a dancer.
As I think of these things it immediately makes me think of additional technology and AI in order to make these things happen. Combat, when you think about it, is a lot more strait forward so that's probably why it's gotten all the attention. That and the penchant for people to come for the action, which is fun but only part of a fully featured MMORPG experience.
Comments
You could always play Pathfinder Society through the online options. There are online tabletop simulators like Roll20 that allow for actual RPG play with players and a GM. Of course, even PFS runs somewhat "on rails" because the adventures are written ahead of time. The GM can react to unique solutions to the obstacles presented though. All that said, the experience is going to really depend on the rest of the players and even more so on the GM.
uh? This topic is already on page 2 ... i would say this is a great way to start a discussion.
Heh, you forgot..
*drops mic*
*walks out of thread and never returns*
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Of course
That's ~35 years of videogame RPG history. Definitely a long enough lineage to establish themselves as a true RPG.
Yes, that is fact BUT in a SP you can mod, you have the options to change the game play so MY game is totally different than YOUR game.
MMO you have a set rail and have to follow it. In a game like Skyrim you can change the scripts from the interface to the core mechanics and create a whole different world including networking.
NOW throw in a multiplayer environment into something like Skyrim where your friends can connect to you and have SAME interests in the niche and you have a winner.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
RPG means Role Playing Game so yes if you are playing the role of a character or group of characters then it is definitely a RPG. Its not my fault you think it means something else. If you wish we can go back to Dungeons and Dragons tabletop. Sometimes you followed a story set by the dungeon master and other times you wrote your own story. All depended on who the dungeon master was. The mmo is a dungeon master and you are the player nothing has really changed.
Eh, the only point I was making is that we have 35 years worth of RPGs being exactly like MMORPGs are. So implying MMORPGs aren't true RPGs is silly.
It's fine for you to enjoy a specific kind of RPG, but just don't try to pretend it's more "true".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well to be honest MMORPGs got gradually both less MMO-ish and less RPG-ish.
In return what mainly was introduced to MMORPGs was more:
- lobby mutliplayer
- facebook/mobile/browser like gaming
There are good reasons for which that was done and why it was hard / impossible to create better more engaging and complex virtual world and role-play gameplay.
Those good reasons for what happened does not change what actually happened though.
Virtual worlds are virtual worlds. They are not RPGs. RPGs are not them. If virtual worlds are what you want, you should be completely unconcerned with the term RPG, because you want virtual worlds.
The ~35 year history of videogame RPGs means it's a well-established genre, so while you may have an argument that MMORPGs are less MMO-ish, they're just as RPG-like as ever.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Interesting, but I don't agree where they say you can't do that in a video game... It only takes a dedicated community of players. That's why dev content never really meets the criteria, because it can't create as it goes. Players can, given the tools to do so...
In SWG on the server I played on we created such events, filled in the cast, created the plot, and at times expanded it as we went. Rarely was the point to "kill the guy"... A popular one was capture/rescue missions, we involved everything from PVP, Jump to lightspeed, far off POI's, purchasable NPC's/ bases..etc..
It was a blast.. The sad part is, you could actually do this in any MMO today, but no one does.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
What 'RPG' is in practical terms in games, is an discussion that goes as far back as first tabletop RPG games. Even then there were at least two groups who understoood completly diffrently what RPG or more precisely role-playing stands for in RPG.
One group said it is simply numbers associated with RPG games (levels, xp, stats, etc) that stand for RPG, other group thought that it is not the case and levels/xp are both not enough and not even completly required for a game to be an RPG game.
Many (I would say even most) discussion on both single player&co-op RPG forums and MMORPG forums are an continuation of same kind of discussions that date back to tabletop RP games, even though many of participants are diffrent, most of them did not play tabletop games and don't even realize that same stuff was discussed 20+ years ago.Perhaps 35 years ago when these things were new there was a discussion.
Today? There's no discussion. We have 35 years, and hundreds of videogame RPGs, and while the details can vary slightly, the core pillars of character progression, combat, and storyline remain unchanged since the very beginning. If we wanted to we could literally dredge up 100 game names of videogame RPGs where these things were the core pillars.
...and given that we're talking about a genre, the core pillars are giant concepts. They're not tiny incorrect details like "RPGs have levels". Levels are just a form of character progression. RPGs always involve progression, but don't always involve levels.
We know what videogame RPGs are.
Sure, the occasional new gamer wanders in who mistakenly thinks videogame RPGs are or were supposed to be identical to tabletop RPGs (which are a different genre), but then we rattle of 5-10 names fo videogame RPGs over the years. And at that point usually it becomes clear to them that the unique traits which distinguish tabletop RPGs (improv, imagination, and collaborative storytelling) are not present in 99% of videogame RPGs (going back all 35 years.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I like your analysis. I think it makes sense that they didn't set out to make a soulless numbers grind.
It is true that there is a long history of video games that have defined RPGs, but it still seems like semantic drift to me because the computer games don't really do what the predecessor did. You may say that computer RPGs are now actually RPGs because it is said over and over again, but they don't have the main ingredient that makes actual RPGs work at a table.
A table game containing only what you can do on the video versions would be too restrictive and simple to be much fun.
This feels like an outright insult to EQ's creators. They created some terrain and populated it with monsters, some of whom dropped upgrades that made your character stronger.
What sort of visionless fool wouldn't expect players to want to spend time trying to better their position in life? I don't know any of the EQ creators, but my impression is they weren't visionless fools. They knew what they were doing, even if some results may have been a surprise.
There is nothing soulless to players bettering themselves, just as there's nothing intrinsically better about the player who wandered the terrain endlessly without killing the monsters (in fact there's definitely something objectively worse about that player -- his gear -- though we can't exactly know how much subjective fun he's having in spite of that.) Calling out a few memorable characters from fiction doesn't really change things. They got their magic items almost accidentally in cases, in order to move a story along, but RPGs as games are both about story and character progression so it's logical that they involve more gameplay around attempting to better your character.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I think there should be more math...
You must figure out this calculus equation before you can enter this room... using a differential equation, calculate the amount of swing is necessary to hit your target... given the following story problem, estimate the amount of damage will be absorbed if your character's armor is at 13%...
Yep... more math...
I will have disagree with you that the tech isn't there to support a proper MMORPG. It's the people.
Both the devs/corporate, and the mass player. The corporation wants a model that will make money, they could care less about immersion and choice and things like a sense of personal accomplishment.
Devs often times are programmers in a basement who are learning to program as they go or perhaps aren't given the freedom to create what they want. Maybe not enough time or money. On the other hand, there is mass player that wants instant gratification. But to say It can't be done is an outright false.
SWG before the fall allowed for the musician class. This class actually had many uses both on the battlefield, and in social settings. Anarchy Online allowed for player made quests that other players could accept and carry out. Dark Age of Camelot has an amazing PvP system where you actually see damage done to structures and you must actually listen for stealth players that may be stalking you. DAOC also sports an awesome guild house system that allows expansion, decorating with trophies that you have killed or other accomplishments, crafting facilities, etc... D&D with it's traps and such. Now many games are supporting environment interaction to have the ability to landscape and destroy buildings, start fires, etc..
One of my biggest complaints has always been a lack of meaningful choice. Soandso wants you to kill soandso for stealing his family necklace. Maybe I don't kill the bad guy, but steal it from him instead of killing him for it. Maybe I keep the necklace and sell it or give it away. Maybe if I give it away or sell it and the person that I passed in onto later gets stomped by the npc when the npc finds out that person is in town. Maybe that npc finds out I kept it and send mercs after me. Maybe the npc reports it to the town guard and they stop me when trying to enter the city. Either way, there are only so many possible outcomes. it's just a matter of embracing them.
The point being is that it's not that it isn't possible. It's that most designers have no real imagination, the time or money, backing, permission, knowledge, or inspiration to allow a wide of range of situations and possible outcomes.
A tiny mind is a tidy mind...
In SWG on the server I played on we created such events, filled in the cast, created the plot, and at times expanded it as we went. Rarely was the point to "kill the guy"... A popular one was capture/rescue missions, we involved everything from PVP, Jump to lightspeed, far off POI's, purchasable NPC's/ bases..etc..
It was a blast.. The sad part is, you could actually do this in any MMO today, but no one does.
I was there for a few of those. It got even better when they introduced the storyteller profession.
Eh, well you have to take the whole history of both genres into consideration.
Early tabletop RPGs were much closer to wargames. At the same time, videogame RPGs split off. At that time the main difference between the genres was they lacked player-made content (ie a DM creating a dungeon.)
While that was a pretty distinct change, this list of early videogame RPGs shows how after that early change they've basically stayed on the exact same course all the way up til today.
Meanwhile, tabletop RPGs shifted in the other direction, focusing more on improv and collaborative storytelling.
So both genres drifted, and both have a legit claim to the genre name and neither is "The One True RPG" because they've both laid claim to the name for so long that it's ridiculous to claim only one is an actual RPG.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There are lots of RPG systems around. The first goal of an RPG system is to take care of a lot of technicalities (i.e. how to calculate the outcome of an action).
You can play an RPG in many different ways. Not every way will appeal to everyone.
In the end it's the people who play a game that shape said game. If people focus on the item hunting and fast XP then the game world will sooner or later reflect this (since you mainly interact with other players). If you want to do some roleplaying you can do so (doing something may be the reward itself). Saying "I don't want to do XY because the reward is lousy" is no excuse, it just shows the mindset of a person.
It's like the chicken-egg problem. Things slowly evolved in a certain direction. If enoug people would have cared for the roleplaying they'd changed things themselves. Sooner or later the makers behind a CRPG/MMORPG would have to implement features the customers want.
only it isn't, because one preceded the other.
The original tomb raider games are essentially 3d platformers with ability to interact with certain objects and to jump and dodge your way through the game. It's been a long time since I played them, but that's what I recall about those games.
Modern MMOs are becoming action games with stats. Not sure how you don't get that comparison.
I don't know if I can agree with you on this though because it is not really about what the customers want. When a game is in Beta you will hear plenty of complaining about features or design that isn't what was desired (at least by those potential customers who bothered to say anything). The MMORPG industry seems to be a big boat that neither turns fast nor at the whim of the customers.
There is obviously still an idea that making a game like WoW is a safe way to spend development dollars.
But the thread isn't about saying that MMORPGs should be about role-playing, cause that isn't going to happen. My point is that MMORPGs aren't Role-Playing games, and they move further away from that description with each passing year.
I would agree and hope that more character differentiation features happen in order to feel like the digital "me" is different than the guy next to me, which at the moment features really don't facilitate that. One of the problems I believe is the urge to balance everything since it's a shared space that needs to be equal across the board. That is just the combat aspect however so maybe that isn't as important to what you are saying.
I would certainly play titles where any one character is based on more than combat or overt numerical values. I say overt because in some instances "faction" with certain groups of people or things may add to the "other than combat" virtue of a character. Maybe repeated selling to a merchant has brought you into their good graces and now everybody they knew, even family and friends throughout the town, treats you better while those who disliked the merchant treat you worse. Maybe paracombat systems also tie into this. The ability to play music may allow you to set up outside where PCs and NPCs alike could toss you change and gather 'round to listen. Same for a dancer.
As I think of these things it immediately makes me think of additional technology and AI in order to make these things happen. Combat, when you think about it, is a lot more strait forward so that's probably why it's gotten all the attention. That and the penchant for people to come for the action, which is fun but only part of a fully featured MMORPG experience.