donjn said: The word RPG does equal story. RPG is you playing a role. People did that fine in Ultima Online which had no story.
Role Playing Game and you play the role of the character in an overarching story cause the world is part of the story and your actions are just that of your character in the over all story of the game. Also UO had a massive story and lore that came before it and many already knew most of it. As for games not have a story there is no way to make a rpg with out a story or lore that is story as well. As for mmo's yeah they have story some might be huge like GW2 or ESO or SWTRO or they could have massive lore like Darkfall or Mortal or UO were the story is more about the characters actions on the world then it is there actions in a story. But either way they will always have some story to them.
Sherman's Gaming
Youtube Content creator for The Elder Scrolls Online
@Scot ; Thanks for the welcome. You bring up a good point about MMO's not being very creative with the methods they use for storytelling. I love the idea of having books in game that you can read. I like games where the more you put into it the more you get out of it and optional in-game content like this seems like a great way to implement this.
My MMO playing is probably more limited than most (SWG, WoW, EVE, SWTOR, FF14), so I have never heard of any MMO's that have had semi-official human controlled characters in-game, but it sounds like an interesting idea. Not sure exactly how you would implement this or make sure that the semi-official in-game characters are doing a good job (unless there were development team staff), but I can see how it would create some very interesting story-telling. In the game I am working on we are making sure that all mobs in the game could be possessed by human players if needed, but I guess we could also do the same with NPC's. Very interesting.
To my knowledge players acting in any sort of semi-official capacity was only in the early year of MMOs. I remember when the player community "advisors" (I think that's what they were called) were removed for "legal reasons" form one of my early MMOs.
Underlight had a game community of factions and players who could tutor you with new "powers". This was roleplayed but they gave you actual new abilities. Open to abuse, but then anything players do is, that's not a reason not to try.
I think one of the biggest issues is that developers make YOU part of the story. There can be tons of lore and events for you to experience without any of it ever being about you.
I would say that in an MMORPG the world should be the main character with its stories, lore, conflicts, events etc. The player is just passing through, discovering, experiencing. I also don't always need obvious stories, I love piecing it all together from lore like the Dark Souls series does it. Don't put it in my face, make me look for it should I desire.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Part of the problem was the transformation of the player from just another guy to superhero.... All of a sudden the MMO went from its all about the community to its all about the individual.
i've played MANY mmorpg and for the life of me i cannot remember a single story line. EQ, WoW, Aion, AoC, FE, SW:ToR, BDO, ESO, MO, DF, EvE, LIF.....and many more.
can't remember a single story line.
the point is, i don't play mmorpgs for the story. i play them to be in a world and adventure with other people. i remember communities, i remember guild mates, i remember alliances, struggles for territory and guild feuds/wars, i remember awesome raids and intense arena seasons.....but not story lines. story lines were simply something i clicked through to get on par with everyone else, so that i could start adventuring/fighting on an even platform. that is is all.
the saddest part is mmos are losing their focus on communities and group content in favor of solo experience. that is the true death of mmorpgs.
I think one of the biggest issues is that developers make YOU part of the story. There can be tons of lore and events for you to experience without any of it ever being about you.
I would say that in an MMORPG the world should be the main character with its stories, lore, conflicts, events etc. The player is just passing through, discovering, experiencing. I also don't always need obvious stories, I love piecing it all together from lore like the Dark Souls series does it. Don't put it in my face, make me look for it should I desire.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I think the bigger issue is the quality of the quest writing rather than not. Not many quests in MMORPGs don't put the player in a central role in progressing the story. Even LotRO, with it's epic story as its framework, constantly pulls the individual player into a critical role. 'You must distract the orcs so Frodo and company can get away'. The imposition of the player into the story line almost always feels forced, and is almost always from a single person perspective.
I look at 'lore' and 'quests' as different ends of a spectrum of storytelling. 'Lore' focuses on events that happened in the past, 'quests' tell the current story. There's a disconnect between the two. I'd rather see 'quests' replaced by 'events', a GM-run bit of story that maybe not every player could experience.
If the developers really wanted to make an 'event' repeatable, they could build a 'record' system to capture the structure of the story and allow a GM to replay the event as needed. This would allow a live GM to choose from a set of responses/actions that drive the event, making it probable that the event would not play out in the same way -- a rudimentary form of dynamic content. Ignore the wolf raid on Farmer Smith's chicken coop and go to comfort Miss Emily instead? The 'event' changes to something else, the wolves disappear and an orc leader hiding in Emily's barn spawns to direct the raid. Just like a face-to-face GM would handle a group of players who simply refused to follow the 'Adventure this way' signs.
As it stands with the current state of MMORPGs, I tend to fall on the side of 'remove all quests' and let players develop/be the content even though I'm very much not a PvP player. The current 'quests' are written to drive the story, but are ineffective in that role. The only real draw keeping people from ignoring them completely is the over-inflated rewards (XP, money, items).
Quest writing is certainly something that could be improved. In a group-oriented game, a single person story should only have a secondary role.
So, MMORPGs don't need less story, they need better story.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I think one of the biggest issues is that developers make YOU part of the story. There can be tons of lore and events for you to experience without any of it ever being about you.
I would say that in an MMORPG the world should be the main character with its stories, lore, conflicts, events etc. The player is just passing through, discovering, experiencing. I also don't always need obvious stories, I love piecing it all together from lore like the Dark Souls series does it. Don't put it in my face, make me look for it should I desire.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
This 100%, especially when it comes to being the hero. When everyone is a hero, no one is a hero. When Rainz killed Lord British/Richard Garriott in the UO beta, he didn't become infamous and go down in UO history because it was part of some quest chain open to every player.
Edit: I believe Eve has done a good job commemorating players, player battles, and events with monuments dedicated to those deeds.
Great thread with tons of great ideas. So much I can agree with here. But here is the real question: If I made an MMO that wasn't a single player experience and required you to group up for MOST of the content, would you play it or complain about not being able to finish all the content by yourself? Are there still people like myself who want to play multiplayer games to primarily play with other people or are we okay with the convenience of playing a single player game in a multiplayer world? Also, what do you consider the optimum group size? Personally I have had the most fun with 3 to 5 players, but I am wondering what other group sizes people prefer?
Great thread with tons of great ideas. So much I can agree with here. But here is the real question: If I made an MMO that wasn't a single player experience and required you to group up for MOST of the content, would you play it or complain about not being able to finish all the content by yourself? Are there still people like myself who want to play multiplayer games to primarily play with other people or are we okay with the convenience of playing a single player game in a multiplayer world? Also, what do you consider the optimum group size? Personally I have had the most fun with 3 to 5 players, but I am wondering what other group sizes people prefer?
What you have is two incompatible types of gameplay, firstly grouping because the original designers of MMOs thought that as this is massively multiplayer it might be an idea if the players worked together. Secondly solo, mostly brought in to expand the player base to those who played solo rpg's.
There are many who want a shift back to grouping, the problem is where to find the balance and how to achieve it. Solutions range from forced grouping to a solo mode where you can play single player in a MMO.
@Scot ; Thanks for the welcome. You bring up a good point about MMO's not being very creative with the methods they use for storytelling. I love the idea of having books in game that you can read. I like games where the more you put into it the more you get out of it and optional in-game content like this seems like a great way to implement this.
My MMO playing is probably more limited than most (SWG, WoW, EVE, SWTOR, FF14), so I have never heard of any MMO's that have had semi-official human controlled characters in-game, but it sounds like an interesting idea. Not sure exactly how you would implement this or make sure that the semi-official in-game characters are doing a good job (unless there were development team staff), but I can see how it would create some very interesting story-telling. In the game I am working on we are making sure that all mobs in the game could be possessed by human players if needed, but I guess we could also do the same with NPC's. Very interesting.
To my knowledge players acting in any sort of semi-official capacity was only in the early year of MMOs. I remember when the player community "advisors" (I think that's what they were called) were removed for "legal reasons" form one of my early MMOs.
Underlight had a game community of factions and players who could tutor you with new "powers". This was roleplayed but they gave you actual new abilities. Open to abuse, but then anything players do is, that's not a reason not to try.
EQ1 had actual in game GMs. They would answer (usually fairly quickly) reports. They also helped players who were stuck or had other requests. Some of these GMs were full-time staff, others were players that got "paid subscriptions" while they were GMs.
What was awesome was that there was a "corporate presence", ie: customer service, in the game at all times. Also, the GMs often ran "events", like Emperor Crush rampaging through Greater Feydark
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
@Scot ; Thanks for the welcome. You bring up a good point about MMO's not being very creative with the methods they use for storytelling. I love the idea of having books in game that you can read. I like games where the more you put into it the more you get out of it and optional in-game content like this seems like a great way to implement this.
My MMO playing is probably more limited than most (SWG, WoW, EVE, SWTOR, FF14), so I have never heard of any MMO's that have had semi-official human controlled characters in-game, but it sounds like an interesting idea. Not sure exactly how you would implement this or make sure that the semi-official in-game characters are doing a good job (unless there were development team staff), but I can see how it would create some very interesting story-telling. In the game I am working on we are making sure that all mobs in the game could be possessed by human players if needed, but I guess we could also do the same with NPC's. Very interesting.
To my knowledge players acting in any sort of semi-official capacity was only in the early year of MMOs. I remember when the player community "advisors" (I think that's what they were called) were removed for "legal reasons" form one of my early MMOs.
Underlight had a game community of factions and players who could tutor you with new "powers". This was roleplayed but they gave you actual new abilities. Open to abuse, but then anything players do is, that's not a reason not to try.
EQ1 had actual in game GMs. They would answer (usually fairly quickly) reports. They also helped players who were stuck or had other requests. Some of these GMs were full-time staff, others were players that got "paid subscriptions" while they were GMs.
What was awesome was that there was a "corporate presence", ie: customer service, in the game at all times. Also, the GMs often ran "events", like Emperor Crush rampaging through Greater Feydark
That's actually common for a lot of older games. I know WoW had (has?) in game GM's that respond to tickets, I'm not sure if it's still a thing, but there was always a lot of really fun pictures online of GM's being in character helping people with really dumb questions.
I can't remember what game it was from I want to say GW2, but there was public bot executions by GM's in town at least it happened once? I can't remember if it was GW2 as I can't find information about it anymore.
I actually can't remember off the top of my head, but I know there were other games with in game GM's that were staffed by companies that did events. It's not as common anymore, maybe because support is done through forums and ticket systems online now.
Great thread with tons of great ideas. So much I can agree with here. But here is the real question: If I made an MMO that wasn't a single player experience and required you to group up for MOST of the content, would you play it or complain about not being able to finish all the content by yourself? Are there still people like myself who want to play multiplayer games to primarily play with other people or are we okay with the convenience of playing a single player game in a multiplayer world? Also, what do you consider the optimum group size? Personally I have had the most fun with 3 to 5 players, but I am wondering what other group sizes people prefer?
For me, there should be both solo and group activities. I did not like waiting for help in EQ just to "hunt monsters." But Dungeons (liberally sprinkled throughout the game), bosses (both world and raids), and if one wants to group to "hunt monsters", they would do so mush faster than that solo players.
After all, sometimes I want to be on my own, other times I want to be part of a group. I'd never "expect" to run a dungeon or tackle a boss all by myself.
EQ1 was set up nicely with "monster camps" in most zones. These could be tackled either solo (if higher level than the monsters and crowd control) or with a group, which was much safer and faster. But requiring a group in order to fight most things would keep me from logging in if I was feeling anti-social, even just to craft which is usually a solo activity.
Even feeling anti-social, I could solo monsters and still "see" other players in the game. I could help them out if they called for help. On my Bard in EQ, I was asked by a Monk to help him deliver a load of metals to Sol A(?) for a quest. He knew of my Selo's Accelerando song and we zipped on through to Sol A. He paid me a lot of money for the help. Totally unexpected. Totally unplanned. I did not expect to be doing this when I logged on. I think I was hunting cats for pelts to craft later on.
What I am saying is that "requiring" grouping for everything is never good, in my opinion. Making grouping better (more fun?) than soloing is a much better approach. There are lots of ways to interact with others besides "just grouping", though that can be fun.
PS: A belated welcome to the boards!
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Even feeling anti-social, I could solo monsters and still "see" other players in the game. I could help them out if they called for help. On my Bard in EQ, I was asked by a Monk to help him deliver a load of metals to Sol A(?) for a quest. He knew of my Selo's Accelerando song and we zipped on through to Sol A. He paid me a lot of money for the help. Totally unexpected. Totally unplanned. I did not expect to be doing this when I logged on. I think I was hunting cats for pelts to craft later on.
What I am saying is that "requiring" grouping for everything is never good, in my opinion. Making grouping better (more fun?) than soloing is a much better approach. There are lots of ways to interact with others besides "just grouping", though that can be fun.
PS: A belated welcome to the boards!
Thanks for the welcome. You reminded me that some of my favorite moments playing SWG were unexpectedly positive experiences with grouping up with other players when I wasn't planning on grouping up. Those were the best! Unfortunately I have not had those kinds of experiences in MMO's since. Negative experiences with grouping up are usually what make me pull the plug on a game.
The hard part I guess is figuring out where the balance is. Personally I think single player chain quest leveling in WoW was the worst thing in the world. I would rather be at work or the dentist... ok, not the second one, but definitely the first But I can see the appeal of having stuff you can do in game when your friends are not on or you can't find other players (or you just don't want to talk to anyone).
It isn't hard to have monsters throughout the world that can be killed by a single player, but since they don't give XP (there is no XP), I am not sure how interesting players will find that. I guess they could drop crafting supplies that can be used or sold. We could also have quests in cities that are less combat driven and more storyline driven (used to disseminate information about the current state of the city/world).
Combat design can also help with encouraging people to group up without requiring them to. By not letting every class (or ever role in a classless system) do every task well, you can encourage people to group up like you mentioned.
Another idea we floated is to have a mobile version of the game (full 3d, but possibly only containing the city areas) that could be used for guild chat, crafting, trading/auction house, reviewing quest text (required to be able to complete quests), combat customization, etc. Then players could handle more of these downtime system while they are out and about and then focus on group challenges when they are at their PC.
Even feeling anti-social, I could solo monsters and still "see" other players in the game. I could help them out if they called for help. On my Bard in EQ, I was asked by a Monk to help him deliver a load of metals to Sol A(?) for a quest. He knew of my Selo's Accelerando song and we zipped on through to Sol A. He paid me a lot of money for the help. Totally unexpected. Totally unplanned. I did not expect to be doing this when I logged on. I think I was hunting cats for pelts to craft later on.
What I am saying is that "requiring" grouping for everything is never good, in my opinion. Making grouping better (more fun?) than soloing is a much better approach. There are lots of ways to interact with others besides "just grouping", though that can be fun.
PS: A belated welcome to the boards!
Thanks for the welcome. You reminded me that some of my favorite moments playing SWG were unexpectedly positive experiences with grouping up with other players when I wasn't planning on grouping up. Those were the best! Unfortunately I have not had those kinds of experiences in MMO's since. Negative experiences with grouping up are usually what make me pull the plug on a game.
The hard part I guess is figuring out where the balance is. Personally I think single player chain quest leveling in WoW was the worst thing in the world. I would rather be at work or the dentist... ok, not the second one, but definitely the first But I can see the appeal of having stuff you can do in game when your friends are not on or you can't find other players (or you just don't want to talk to anyone).
It isn't hard to have monsters throughout the world that can be killed by a single player, but since they don't give XP (there is no XP), I am not sure how interesting players will find that. I guess they could drop crafting supplies that can be used or sold. We could also have quests in cities that are less combat driven and more storyline driven (used to disseminate information about the current state of the city/world).
Combat design can also help with encouraging people to group up without requiring them to. By not letting every class (or ever role in a classless system) do every task well, you can encourage people to group up like you mentioned.
Another idea we floated is to have a mobile version of the game (full 3d, but possibly only containing the city areas) that could be used for guild chat, crafting, trading/auction house, reviewing quest text (required to be able to complete quests), combat customization, etc. Then players could handle more of these downtime system while they are out and about and then focus on group challenges when they are at their PC.
Classes also add to the problem. In early EQ1, it was very difficult for Druids or Shaman to fulfill the healing role, that ws almost exclusively needed a Cleric. So, with a 6-man group, this pretty much required 1/6 of the players to be clerics. (The need for clerics to heal was eventually alleviated, but that was several expansions later when better gear with +HPs and improved spells came into the game).
When there are 30 people online, but only 2 are clerics, you end up with 12 in 2 'functional' groups, and 18 waiting. Maybe some of those craft, some try to solo, being unsocial, or attempting to do content with 'suboptimal' group. Chances are. those 18 players are not being entertained by the game.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Think back to the days of Ultima Online. It was a world. It was a living, breathing world. The world was the story. The same held true for vanilla World of Warcraft. You are just another character along with many others, setting out into the world for good cause or bad, living off the land. Some zones had small stories, but there was not (nor did there need to be) this large, overarching story.
Ultima Online had a HUGE story behind it. Lore expanding over 10 of the best computer RPGs ever made.
Same for WoW, the Warcraft games provided a massive story background for that game.
So I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
The only thing I can think of is he means as compared to the likes of AoC or SWTOR, where you had a story of quests from start to end. I like both versions of MMO, but prefer not to have that overarching story.
I was thinking about this lately because of GW2. And i realized how much i hated having a main story line to follow. I remember back when i played Anarchy Online in 2000. The world had a lore story with 3 factions and one of them was neutral. You could play both sides if you wanted too. The game had no main story and didn't need one. Playing as a neutral character was a little harder but was so worth it and so much fun. You could hang out in both faction social city hubs without getting killed by the guards. Talk about real freedom in an mmo. We don't get that anymore.
Great thread with tons of great ideas. So much I can agree with here. But here is the real question: If I made an MMO that wasn't a single player experience and required you to group up for MOST of the content, would you play it or complain about not being able to finish all the content by yourself? Are there still people like myself who want to play multiplayer games to primarily play with other people or are we okay with the convenience of playing a single player game in a multiplayer world? Also, what do you consider the optimum group size? Personally I have had the most fun with 3 to 5 players, but I am wondering what other group sizes people prefer?
Interdependency can happen in a MMORPG. It just not forced combat grouping. UO and SWG had plenty of community and solo combat.
I've never been able to get into MMO stories at all. I love the stories in the Witcher and Mass Effect series, but most games follow the safe path when it comes to storytelling and it makes for a dull experience. The safe path is the one where no one is offended, but the story isn't really interesting either.
I'm not certain I would want to just jump into a sandbox either at this point in my life. MMOs are the most time consuming and repetitive games. In older games, you got to think a bit with the very open environments. Now you just follow the trodden path that everyone else does. That is a bit dull.
I enjoyed making my own story in older games, but my imagination isn't quite what it used to be. I was much more easily entertained by my own thoughts. It didn't take much to make me happy. Just a lot of chaos, people running around doing crazy things, etc. The rest I just drew from books I read. It was almost unconscious. I never actually wrote anything down on paper.
Story has always been part of RPGs, be it table top or CRPGs. There's no Ultima series, no Wizardry, no Elder Scrolls series, no Witcher series, without a good story.
There's no valid reason why MMORPGs would be different.
And to those who will reply that in MMORPGs, the players should create their own stories... well, the very vast majority of players totally suck as creating and RPing. Without a strong guidance from the developers, there's only kindergarten courtyard drama level of story in most player created stories. I'm personally not interested in that.
Great thread with tons of great ideas. So much I can agree with here. But here is the real question: If I made an MMO that wasn't a single player experience and required you to group up for MOST of the content, would you play it or complain about not being able to finish all the content by yourself? Are there still people like myself who want to play multiplayer games to primarily play with other people or are we okay with the convenience of playing a single player game in a multiplayer world? Also, what do you consider the optimum group size? Personally I have had the most fun with 3 to 5 players, but I am wondering what other group sizes people prefer?
Interdependency can happen in a MMORPG. It just not forced combat grouping. UO and SWG had plenty of community and solo combat.
And Asheron's Call too, without any forced grouping either.
I think story to be consumed as progression will always be looked as a barrier and overproduced to give the game "content." You know, I am farmer Joe who has problems with ravens kill 10 of them x Players should be creating majority of the story. Not roleplaying but just their natural responses to adversities the game gives or trading or whatever. The back drop of the world is the developer side of the story. Why you are there and why things are the way they are.
The safe path is the one where no one is offended, but the story isn't really interesting either.
hmmm, you can have a good story and not have "offensive" material.
Though you might prefer stories that are more gritty.
That is true.
I guess it is more than just whether it is a safe story or not. I usually can anticipate what path the story is going to follow and the dialogue is often a bit dull.
A good instance of this would be the Witcher 3 vs the Witcher 1 and 2 or even the Witcher 3 sidequests vs the main quest. The main quest followed a fairly safe path that was fairly predictable. The side quests very also a bit predictable, but they often had a dark side that made them more interesting. This is the case with many classical tales vs modern day storytelling.
Most quests in MMOs play out like the main quest in The Witcher 3.
Story has always been part of RPGs, be it table top or CRPGs. There's no Ultima series, no Wizardry, no Elder Scrolls series, no Witcher series, without a good story.
There's no valid reason why MMORPGs would be different.
And to those who will reply that in MMORPGs, the players should create their own stories... well, the very vast majority of players totally suck as creating and RPing. Without a strong guidance from the developers, there's only kindergarten courtyard drama level of story in most player created stories. I'm personally not interested in that.
There is story, and then there's STORY. The story about why the wolves are becoming aggressive in an area is different from the story about *you* being the savior of the world, ala Elder Scrolls.
In single player games, I enjoy saving the world. I can save it however I feel like most of the time. In an MMORPG, not so much. It breaks my immersion knowing that thousands of other "saviors" are running about, just like me. But I enjoy knowing the story behind the Ogre migration to a new area. That story has nothing to do with me... unless *I* am the cause of that migration
Did that make sense?
PS: Basically I agree that stories need to be in MMORPGs. I just wanted to clarify which kinds of stories.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Comments
Or I may have been high...
VG
Sherman's Gaming
Youtube Content creator for The Elder Scrolls Online
Channel:http://https//www.youtube.com/channel/UCrgYNgpFTRAl4XWz31o2emw
Underlight had a game community of factions and players who could tutor you with new "powers". This was roleplayed but they gave you actual new abilities. Open to abuse, but then anything players do is, that's not a reason not to try.
I would say that in an MMORPG the world should be the main character with its stories, lore, conflicts, events etc. The player is just passing through, discovering, experiencing. I also don't always need obvious stories, I love piecing it all together from lore like the Dark Souls series does it. Don't put it in my face, make me look for it should I desire.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
i've played MANY mmorpg and for the life of me i cannot remember a single story line. EQ, WoW, Aion, AoC, FE, SW:ToR, BDO, ESO, MO, DF, EvE, LIF.....and many more.
can't remember a single story line.
the point is, i don't play mmorpgs for the story. i play them to be in a world and adventure with other people. i remember communities, i remember guild mates, i remember alliances, struggles for territory and guild feuds/wars, i remember awesome raids and intense arena seasons.....but not story lines.
story lines were simply something i clicked through to get on par with everyone else, so that i could start adventuring/fighting on an even platform. that is is all.
the saddest part is mmos are losing their focus on communities and group content in favor of solo experience. that is the true death of mmorpgs.
I look at 'lore' and 'quests' as different ends of a spectrum of storytelling. 'Lore' focuses on events that happened in the past, 'quests' tell the current story. There's a disconnect between the two. I'd rather see 'quests' replaced by 'events', a GM-run bit of story that maybe not every player could experience.
If the developers really wanted to make an 'event' repeatable, they could build a 'record' system to capture the structure of the story and allow a GM to replay the event as needed. This would allow a live GM to choose from a set of responses/actions that drive the event, making it probable that the event would not play out in the same way -- a rudimentary form of dynamic content. Ignore the wolf raid on Farmer Smith's chicken coop and go to comfort Miss Emily instead? The 'event' changes to something else, the wolves disappear and an orc leader hiding in Emily's barn spawns to direct the raid. Just like a face-to-face GM would handle a group of players who simply refused to follow the 'Adventure this way' signs.
As it stands with the current state of MMORPGs, I tend to fall on the side of 'remove all quests' and let players develop/be the content even though I'm very much not a PvP player. The current 'quests' are written to drive the story, but are ineffective in that role. The only real draw keeping people from ignoring them completely is the over-inflated rewards (XP, money, items).
Quest writing is certainly something that could be improved. In a group-oriented game, a single person story should only have a secondary role.
So, MMORPGs don't need less story, they need better story.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Edit: I believe Eve has done a good job commemorating players, player battles, and events with monuments dedicated to those deeds.
Current game: Pillars of Eternity
Played: UO, AC, Eve, Fallen Earth, Aion, GW, GW2
Tried: WOW, Rift, SWTOR, ESO
Future: Camelot Unchained? Crowfall? Bless?
There are many who want a shift back to grouping, the problem is where to find the balance and how to achieve it. Solutions range from forced grouping to a solo mode where you can play single player in a MMO.
What was awesome was that there was a "corporate presence", ie: customer service, in the game at all times. Also, the GMs often ran "events", like Emperor Crush rampaging through Greater Feydark
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I can't remember what game it was from I want to say GW2, but there was public bot executions by GM's in town at least it happened once? I can't remember if it was GW2 as I can't find information about it anymore.
I actually can't remember off the top of my head, but I know there were other games with in game GM's that were staffed by companies that did events. It's not as common anymore, maybe because support is done through forums and ticket systems online now.
After all, sometimes I want to be on my own, other times I want to be part of a group. I'd never "expect" to run a dungeon or tackle a boss all by myself.
EQ1 was set up nicely with "monster camps" in most zones. These could be tackled either solo (if higher level than the monsters and crowd control) or with a group, which was much safer and faster. But requiring a group in order to fight most things would keep me from logging in if I was feeling anti-social, even just to craft which is usually a solo activity.
Even feeling anti-social, I could solo monsters and still "see" other players in the game. I could help them out if they called for help. On my Bard in EQ, I was asked by a Monk to help him deliver a load of metals to Sol A(?) for a quest. He knew of my Selo's Accelerando song and we zipped on through to Sol A. He paid me a lot of money for the help. Totally unexpected. Totally unplanned. I did not expect to be doing this when I logged on. I think I was hunting cats for pelts to craft later on.
What I am saying is that "requiring" grouping for everything is never good, in my opinion. Making grouping better (more fun?) than soloing is a much better approach. There are lots of ways to interact with others besides "just grouping", though that can be fun.
PS: A belated welcome to the boards!
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
The hard part I guess is figuring out where the balance is. Personally I think single player chain quest leveling in WoW was the worst thing in the world. I would rather be at work or the dentist... ok, not the second one, but definitely the first
It isn't hard to have monsters throughout the world that can be killed by a single player, but since they don't give XP (there is no XP), I am not sure how interesting players will find that. I guess they could drop crafting supplies that can be used or sold. We could also have quests in cities that are less combat driven and more storyline driven (used to disseminate information about the current state of the city/world).
Combat design can also help with encouraging people to group up without requiring them to. By not letting every class (or ever role in a classless system) do every task well, you can encourage people to group up like you mentioned.
Another idea we floated is to have a mobile version of the game (full 3d, but possibly only containing the city areas) that could be used for guild chat, crafting, trading/auction house, reviewing quest text (required to be able to complete quests), combat customization, etc. Then players could handle more of these downtime system while they are out and about and then focus on group challenges when they are at their PC.
When there are 30 people online, but only 2 are clerics, you end up with 12 in 2 'functional' groups, and 18 waiting. Maybe some of those craft, some try to solo, being unsocial, or attempting to do content with 'suboptimal' group. Chances are. those 18 players are not being entertained by the game.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I'm not certain I would want to just jump into a sandbox either at this point in my life. MMOs are the most time consuming and repetitive games. In older games, you got to think a bit with the very open environments. Now you just follow the trodden path that everyone else does. That is a bit dull.
I enjoyed making my own story in older games, but my imagination isn't quite what it used to be. I was much more easily entertained by my own thoughts. It didn't take much to make me happy. Just a lot of chaos, people running around doing crazy things, etc. The rest I just drew from books I read. It was almost unconscious. I never actually wrote anything down on paper.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I guess it is more than just whether it is a safe story or not. I usually can anticipate what path the story is going to follow and the dialogue is often a bit dull.
A good instance of this would be the Witcher 3 vs the Witcher 1 and 2 or even the Witcher 3 sidequests vs the main quest. The main quest followed a fairly safe path that was fairly predictable. The side quests very also a bit predictable, but they often had a dark side that made them more interesting. This is the case with many classical tales vs modern day storytelling.
Most quests in MMOs play out like the main quest in The Witcher 3.
In single player games, I enjoy saving the world. I can save it however I feel like most of the time. In an MMORPG, not so much. It breaks my immersion knowing that thousands of other "saviors" are running about, just like me. But I enjoy knowing the story behind the Ogre migration to a new area. That story has nothing to do with me... unless *I* am the cause of that migration
Did that make sense?
PS: Basically I agree that stories need to be in MMORPGs. I just wanted to clarify which kinds of stories.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR