The entire mmo doesn't need to be non-combat. There just needs to be a game within the game where you can enjoy a non-combat role. Original SWG was a good example of that.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
1. Making something people will play 2. making something you want to play
sometimes there is a combination of the two, but in general this is it. People ask, “why do developers make pvp games?” The answer is simple, they like pvp games. You ask, “why are there no non combat mmos?” Because the developers don’t want to make them and not enough people want to play them.
I disagree with this, mainly because, the Era of the Developer being some gamer and making the game they want to play is past.
Modern Developers and Game Companies are not made up gamers, they approach game development as a academic or trade professional pursuit akin to psychology, where someone does not need to be crazy to know how to work with or handle people who are. That is what happens when companies become multimillion dollar business, as opposed to some niche product made as a labor of love, like the first MMO's were.
This is why we have so many modern games that seem to be what we call "Check Box" games, where they are checking off what worked, or what it is accepted that players want, and not looking at what makes the game fun from a players perspective.
Often if any feedback on that comes to them, it either comes post launch, or from their QA department.
This might also be why many games are "Launching" earlier in development, because the dev's are not gamers, they don't play these games, as such they have no idea what is actually fun. They look at metrics, mechanics, and chart statistics, as opposed to just getting in and playing the game.
So the notion of "Making something they want to play" is not really a sound stance.
They make PvP games because it's easier in overall development, as the players themselves are the content, and PvP is what sells, if you look at games like Overwatch, LOL, and Fortnight, PvP is where the big money is at.
So I highly doubt any of these Dev's make a PvP game because THEY directly want to play a PvP game or invest any real time into one.
You are referring to reason number 1. Making something people will play.
Reason 2 is your typical indie developer. And yes, most of the pvp mmos currently come from passion and no I’m not talking about having pvp IN an mmo I’m talking about pvp focused mmos.
Actually let's get back to this again.
You said there were 2 driving forces behind making games. 1) What OTHERS want to play. 2) What THEY want to play.
I was just making to clear that All your AAA MMO's, or large Studio makers are out there to make a game that will have mass appeal, and generate maximum income, and by and large they don't play their own games, hell most of the people making the big decisions in those companies don't play games at all, So #2 has zero driving force with them as far as games development goes. They have no conflict of interest in that regard.
If you have some indie developer that is working on some labor of Love, sure, but have you noticed a good chunk of those games are PvE focused.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
1. Making something people will play 2. making something you want to play
sometimes there is a combination of the two, but in general this is it. People ask, “why do developers make pvp games?” The answer is simple, they like pvp games. You ask, “why are there no non combat mmos?” Because the developers don’t want to make them and not enough people want to play them.
I disagree with this, mainly because, the Era of the Developer being some gamer and making the game they want to play is past.
Modern Developers and Game Companies are not made up gamers, they approach game development as a academic or trade professional pursuit akin to psychology, where someone does not need to be crazy to know how to work with or handle people who are. That is what happens when companies become multimillion dollar business, as opposed to some niche product made as a labor of love, like the first MMO's were.
This is why we have so many modern games that seem to be what we call "Check Box" games, where they are checking off what worked, or what it is accepted that players want, and not looking at what makes the game fun from a players perspective.
Often if any feedback on that comes to them, it either comes post launch, or from their QA department.
This might also be why many games are "Launching" earlier in development, because the dev's are not gamers, they don't play these games, as such they have no idea what is actually fun. They look at metrics, mechanics, and chart statistics, as opposed to just getting in and playing the game.
So the notion of "Making something they want to play" is not really a sound stance.
They make PvP games because it's easier in overall development, as the players themselves are the content, and PvP is what sells, if you look at games like Overwatch, LOL, and Fortnight, PvP is where the big money is at.
So I highly doubt any of these Dev's make a PvP game because THEY directly want to play a PvP game or invest any real time into one.
You are referring to reason number 1. Making something people will play.
Reason 2 is your typical indie developer. And yes, most of the pvp mmos currently come from passion and no I’m not talking about having pvp IN an mmo I’m talking about pvp focused mmos.
Actually let's get back to this again.
You said there were 2 driving forces behind making games. 1) What OTHERS want to play. 2) What THEY want to play.
I was just making to clear that All your AAA MMO's, or large Studio makers are out there to make a game that will have mass appeal, and generate maximum income, and by and large they don't play their own games, hell most of the people making the big decisions in those companies don't play games at all, So #2 has zero driving force with them as far as games development goes. They have no conflict of interest in that regard.
If you have some indie developer that is working on some labor of Love, sure, but have you noticed a good chunk of those games are PvE focused.
That’s basically what I’m saying are the two driving forces. I’m on mobile so I’m not going to go great detail it’s too obnoxious.
1. To sell a product, so you make it with as many checkboxes as you can 2. because you want it
my point about the pvp focused mmo wasn’t meant that all indies are making pvp mmos, but that most pvp focused mmos are from indies because... they don’t check enough boxes.
I am going sidestep a little bit and say that 1. Isn’t only about checking many boxes, but also, and more so, about profit. IMO that means a mmo that focuses less on combat in general will require more development elsewhere which costs more money to make. If many people already enjoy combat then it’s not worth it.
So until an indie comes along with the ability and desire for such a game the chances are slim.
PvP is the spice of life in a MMO, in RvR you get it all, zones where you can do your PvE to your hearts content and zones where you blast each other to atoms.
MMOs that don't feature combat are in short supply because they have low demand. The addition of more games few have interest in isn't going to reinvigorate the industry.
Thanks for all the comments guys. Maybe 'non-combat MMO' is too heavy a word... let's go with "creative encounters that don't necessarily require a weapon that removes health bars" MMO.
How's that? Because the reality is, you can still have encounters, but it doesn't have to revolve around healthbar swatting, right? Developers can get creative.
I thought up another MMO idea (just to give you an example); Goonies x World of Warcraft. Instead of having to beat down your opponent with swords, shields and spells and what not, you're actually trying to disable your opponent in order to win the encounter; slick shoes, rocket skateboards, trip wire, and escaping with the loot is an option for "winning" the encounter because you're kids!
I just want a little more creativity in my MMO guys!
One modern “successful” example I can think of: there are probably a half-dozen adult-themed multiplayer games out there that have no combat.
Even tabletop Dungeons and Dragons was largely based on combat. Second Life has combat options as well, and even had a once thriving vampire clan-war community. I mention those two because they were regarded as largely social (MMOs). SWG too.
Post edited by Palebane on
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Theer'e a lot of MMO's and MMORPGs that have combat but combat doesn't define them. I played Wurm Onlnie in 2012 and have played off/on. Probably 99% of my time is spent crafting, organizing inventories, farming, exploring and so on. Only a very small fraction of time is combat because fighitng is one skill in many others. Also ocassions are rare where fighting is hte only solution. And keep in mind I played exclusively on PvP servers and still only did combat rarely. Some players on the PvP server do focus exclusively on combat, but I"m not one of them. On the normal PvE servers therer'e people with very low fighting who've played for years.
So I'd say crafting, exploring and building are probably the next most popular thing to fighting in MMORPGs.
Lately i've been playing Everquest. It's mostly combat. But on the side I'm also playing Wild Terra Online on the PvE server. It's just like Wurm Online, but faster paced. So mostly so far I'm crafting, building and exploring. I would like to try the PvP server.
I do enjoy combat. Like somebody else said, other things have to capture all of the complexity of combat. Combat has many layers. It also has to have a competitive element. IMHO, a hybrid mix is best. It's better to have SOME combat, even if it's not much, then to have none at all. This way you cover all your bases. But I don't see antyiuhng wrong with having mostly combat either, and building, exploring and crafting as side activities.
EDIT: I realize now I didn't evne mention questing. Well, technically I really don't enjoy it as much as some do. But some people do derive a lot of enjoyment from quests even if they're not combat. I tihnk they enjoy the story and characters. Over the years I've seen a lot of quests in different MMO/RPG that don't involve fighting, but rather puzzle solving and detective work.
There are plenty of games that don't rely on combat. Sports games, racing games, Sim styles, turn based, stuff like Farm Simulator. Why they never made it to MMO? Likely because MMO gamers are min/ max masters and MMO's are grind whores. All of them.
I'm not saying an MMO sim where we create non combat goals isn't something a studio could try but it wouldn't be very long before the community of that game had the entire game charted down the the week you would reach a cap or a soft cap based on a diminishing returns option.
I've always been better at competition that didn't rely on punching each other in the face to dictate a winner but I'm not under any illusion that it makes me rare. Anything the developers of such game could come up with, the MMO gamer would shred in 5% of the development time. Much like they do now with dungeon and combat style combat.
Keep in mind as well, video games are character animations. What video game character animations would developers use to ensnare players if we removed combat animations? Chopping logs? Picking rocks? Variations of them based on your skill levels? Would it amount to a video game or just an expensive test project?
Combat is in the end, something to do. I don't know it the alternatives are enough to fill the gap.
Keep in mind as well, video games are character animations. What video game character animations would developers use to ensnare players if we removed combat animations? Chopping logs? Picking rocks? Variations of them based on your skill levels? Would it amount to a video game or just an expensive test project?
For some games that's pretty much the deal, the Tropico series and other such builders for example.
Combat is a widely used proven concept, investors will be drawn towards the project using it "Because that's what players want".
I dunno. I think core gamers want combat, but if you look back at the beginning of MMOs, it was the socialization that took priority over the gameplay. People can look back on it however they want, but the fact of the matter is all the old "hardcore" MMOs were mostly used as glorified chat rooms that happened to have an online RPG attached to it.
I mean things like Club Penguin, Habbo Hotel and that weird furry MMO all had sparse gameplay, but robust communities. I see no reason you can't build an MMO today around activities that don't involve any combat.
Presumably, no MMO business cares for making compelling gameplay, that aren't just gimmicks. So, shallow, gimmicky gameplay, instead of a deeply meaningful, and deeply compelling, and a coherent type of gameplay to make the gameplay itself rewarding, and by merit of having you as a player to get fully invested into the game world.
Edit: So.. collecting items, and leveling up.. and working with artificial limitations, isn't my kind of fun. Based on my experience with various games like Arma and DayZ, simplistic gameplay just suck for me. Ofc, I don't like Arma, but the gameplay is fun in multiplayer, because it has that richness to it, even if basic and buggy af.
Some spontaneous and somewhat random ideas for "non-combat" but competitive:
Arm wrestling Card playing Jousting? (horses and eh lance) Magic casting
Then there is cooperative gameplay:
Building and designing stuff (generally speaking ofc) Exploration Logistics (in whatever context) Magic casting? Doing manual work requiring more than one player, like lifting a heavy rock for example. Spotting (four eyes sees better than two)
Apparently this works for some Combat MMO's as well.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
So, I'm going to get a bit "dense" here, apologies in advance for lots of text and badly explained ideas......
The goal of most games is to let their players experience "fun". If a player is having fun, they'll continue to play and spend money.
Fun is achieved when the activity is something the player wants to do and the activity requires the player's attention. The pinacle of this could be said to be when you are "in the zone", when everything else in the world disappears from your consciousness and you are 100% engaged with the game.
There are many factors to take into account when trying to capture the player's attention, including (but not limited to) difficulty, decision making and feedback. Every player has different requirements as we all have different motivations and skill levels, but in an over-simplified way it's about matching the "intensity" with the player's abilities.
...(Snip)...
You made some great points about what makes it fun.
While I think a good MMORPG would have combat, I've been saying for a long time that we really need to expand the other stuff too.
Economics is an obvious place that could use a lot of dedication, and I think could be lots of fun for some gamers. If you can boost your total revenues by 5% because of a great economic game play, that's huge.
City building and running can be just as fun, for some gamers. The feedback comes from seeing your city (you as part of a team of "politicians" or "royalty") grow and prosper. One small part of this, in my mind, would be drawing in NPCs who have a morale factor that must be maintained, and even built up. NPC that can be hired as city guards and trained up, shop keepers hired by players, do the city dirty jobs, etc. Their morale factor influenced by the beauty of the city, the safety provided by walls and gates and towers, the food availability, the amounts they are paid (based on what Players are making in a business sense), etc. Then there's elections, laws, taxation to Players, and a lot that can make your city grow or shrink.
My opinion is that for 1% of the player base this could be very rewarding game play, but for 100% that makes a home in a city, it's of interest. Because they can hire the NPCs, run Trade Caravans between cities, sell more if the city draws outsiders, etc.
It doesn't have to be super complicated, just well done.
So, I'm going to get a bit "dense" here, apologies in advance for lots of text and badly explained ideas......
The goal of most games is to let their players experience "fun". If a player is having fun, they'll continue to play and spend money.
Fun is achieved when the activity is something the player wants to do and the activity requires the player's attention. The pinacle of this could be said to be when you are "in the zone", when everything else in the world disappears from your consciousness and you are 100% engaged with the game.
There are many factors to take into account when trying to capture the player's attention, including (but not limited to) difficulty, decision making and feedback. Every player has different requirements as we all have different motivations and skill levels, but in an over-simplified way it's about matching the "intensity" with the player's abilities.
...(Snip)...
You made some great points about what makes it fun.
While I think a good MMORPG would have combat, I've been saying for a long time that we really need to expand the other stuff too.
Economics is an obvious place that could use a lot of dedication, and I think could be lots of fun for some gamers. If you can boost your total revenues by 5% because of a great economic game play, that's huge.
City building and running can be just as fun, for some gamers. The feedback comes from seeing your city (you as part of a team of "politicians" or "royalty") grow and prosper. One small part of this, in my mind, would be drawing in NPCs who have a morale factor that must be maintained, and even built up. NPC that can be hired as city guards and trained up, shop keepers hired by players, do the city dirty jobs, etc. Their morale factor influenced by the beauty of the city, the safety provided by walls and gates and towers, the food availability, the amounts they are paid (based on what Players are making in a business sense), etc. Then there's elections, laws, taxation to Players, and a lot that can make your city grow or shrink.
My opinion is that for 1% of the player base this could be very rewarding game play, but for 100% that makes a home in a city, it's of interest. Because they can hire the NPCs, run Trade Caravans between cities, sell more if the city draws outsiders, etc.
It doesn't have to be super complicated, just well done.
I like these ideas and have often thought about ways to get players more invested in the world. Taking ownership of land and allowing players to "plant roots" is a great way to do that. Whole city management, including essentially managing sims, is the logical next step on from the small scale housing we currently have.
Have you heard of Dunbars Number?
This number (150) is the number of people whom we can normally remember their relationships to one another - more informally, this is the typical friendship circle of an average human.
Anyway, Dunbars Number is actually just one number in a sequence relating to sizes of human collections. The sequence starts with 1 (best friend), then 5 (inner circle) then 25 (friendship group). It then continues above dunbars: a few hundreds (tribe), a few thousands (chiefdom) and finally 50,000+ (state).
Given that this is the massively multiplayer genre, I get excited by the possiblity of creating virtual worlds that can experiment with these concepts.
We already have some:
Groups - typically 4-6 players, fits in with the inner circle
Raids - typically 16-24 players, fits in with friendship groups
Guilds - mmos that released numbers in the past showed guild numbers typically conform with dunbars number, averaging about 150 unique players
Alliances - the games that allow it typically have a few 100s in an alliance
Beyond that, we haven't really given the players any agency when it comes to large groupings. We usually have factions, and on a normal server a faction equates to a few 1000s of players. But players can't really interact with their faction in any meaningful way.
So, yeh, im curious how we can play with those concepts of "chiefdoms" and "states" in an MMO. How can we turn it into gameplay and how would it affect players? Things like taking over cities and managing them are a step in that direction. Could an MMO ever give us the feeling of being proud to belong to something in a game? Instead of being proud to be British, could you be proud to be an Asraelin? (or whatever...)
It could even be a place to experiment......
Like, say make one server communist, another facist, another democratic, another a monarchy.....or whatever you can think of. See how it plays out, and then apply to real life? Or rather than a server level, perhaps put that decision at the city level and in the player's hands? Would all the dictators get assassinated by their subjects? Does power always corrupt?
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I like these ideas and have often thought about ways to get players more invested in the world. Taking ownership of land and allowing players to "plant roots" is a great way to do that. Whole city management, including essentially managing sims, is the logical next step on from the small scale housing we currently have.
Have you heard of Dunbars Number?
This number (150) is the number of people whom we can normally remember their relationships to one another - more informally, this is the typical friendship circle of an average human.
Anyway, Dunbars Number is actually just one number in a sequence relating to sizes of human collections. The sequence starts with 1 (best friend), then 5 (inner circle) then 25 (friendship group). It then continues above dunbars: a few hundreds (tribe), a few thousands (chiefdom) and finally 50,000+ (state).
Given that this is the massively multiplayer genre, I get excited by the possiblity of creating virtual worlds that can experiment with these concepts.
We already have some:
Groups - typically 4-6 players, fits in with the inner circle
Raids - typically 16-24 players, fits in with friendship groups
Guilds - mmos that released numbers in the past showed guild numbers typically conform with dunbars number, averaging about 150 unique players
Alliances - the games that allow it typically have a few 100s in an alliance
Beyond that, we haven't really given the players any agency when it comes to large groupings. We usually have factions, and on a normal server a faction equates to a few 1000s of players. But players can't really interact with their faction in any meaningful way.
So, yeh, im curious how we can play with those concepts of "chiefdoms" and "states" in an MMO. How can we turn it into gameplay and how would it affect players? Things like taking over cities and managing them are a step in that direction. Could an MMO ever give us the feeling of being proud to belong to something in a game? Instead of being proud to be British, could you be proud to be an Asraelin? (or whatever...)
It could even be a place to experiment......
Like, say make one server communist, another facist, another democratic, another a monarchy.....or whatever you can think of. See how it plays out, and then apply to real life? Or rather than a server level, perhaps put that decision at the city level and in the player's hands? Would all the dictators get assassinated by their subjects? Does power always corrupt?
It seems to me that giving players some control over things is the best way to get them invested. Not just control, but an ongoing relationship. Building something, and then adding to it. Maintenance comes into play.
The key point is that it's got to be of interest to the player. Benefitting them is the best way to gain their interest.
If a player is only interested in Dungeons, adventuring, the typical game play, then about the only thing they would be interested in is gear and supplies. That works if a city can produce or import such items through Shipping and Caravans. That same availability would be important to all the other players too. All those interested in what they need for their goals for fun.
So I think it's fair to say that the first thing this game would need is a World where a wide variety of products and resources are spread out (as bulk quantities). Then this game would need a system for those Ships and Caravans.
Now that we've established the interest at the most basic level, what is needed is the interactions beyond just buying/selling stuff. Something that invests the player to the other players in their city of choice.
That's where my ideas above come from. The better their city performs, the better it can supply the needs to the players at lower costs. So city management needs a wide range of things that allow it to perform better. But there should be limiting factors based on costs and availability. (<- Those adventurers may be needed. More fun stuff for them.)
So the city leaders need to manage it with that in mind. They serve the people, rather than the people serving them. Failure means players are going to find a better city to "live" in.
I like these ideas and have often thought about ways to get players more invested in the world. Taking ownership of land and allowing players to "plant roots" is a great way to do that. Whole city management, including essentially managing sims, is the logical next step on from the small scale housing we currently have.
Have you heard of Dunbars Number?
This number (150) is the number of people whom we can normally remember their relationships to one another - more informally, this is the typical friendship circle of an average human.
Anyway, Dunbars Number is actually just one number in a sequence relating to sizes of human collections. The sequence starts with 1 (best friend), then 5 (inner circle) then 25 (friendship group). It then continues above dunbars: a few hundreds (tribe), a few thousands (chiefdom) and finally 50,000+ (state).
Given that this is the massively multiplayer genre, I get excited by the possiblity of creating virtual worlds that can experiment with these concepts.
We already have some:
Groups - typically 4-6 players, fits in with the inner circle
Raids - typically 16-24 players, fits in with friendship groups
Guilds - mmos that released numbers in the past showed guild numbers typically conform with dunbars number, averaging about 150 unique players
Alliances - the games that allow it typically have a few 100s in an alliance
Beyond that, we haven't really given the players any agency when it comes to large groupings. We usually have factions, and on a normal server a faction equates to a few 1000s of players. But players can't really interact with their faction in any meaningful way.
So, yeh, im curious how we can play with those concepts of "chiefdoms" and "states" in an MMO. How can we turn it into gameplay and how would it affect players? Things like taking over cities and managing them are a step in that direction. Could an MMO ever give us the feeling of being proud to belong to something in a game? Instead of being proud to be British, could you be proud to be an Asraelin? (or whatever...)
It could even be a place to experiment......
Like, say make one server communist, another facist, another democratic, another a monarchy.....or whatever you can think of. See how it plays out, and then apply to real life? Or rather than a server level, perhaps put that decision at the city level and in the player's hands? Would all the dictators get assassinated by their subjects? Does power always corrupt?
It seems to me that giving players some control over things is the best way to get them invested. Not just control, but an ongoing relationship. Building something, and then adding to it. Maintenance comes into play.
The key point is that it's got to be of interest to the player. Benefitting them is the best way to gain their interest.
If a player is only interested in Dungeons, adventuring, the typical game play, then about the only thing they would be interested in is gear and supplies. That works if a city can produce or import such items through Shipping and Caravans. That same availability would be important to all the other players too. All those interested in what they need for their goals for fun.
So I think it's fair to say that the first thing this game would need is a World where a wide variety of products and resources are spread out (as bulk quantities). Then this game would need a system for those Ships and Caravans.
Now that we've established the interest at the most basic level, what is needed is the interactions beyond just buying/selling stuff. Something that invests the player to the other players in their city of choice.
That's where my ideas above come from. The better their city performs, the better it can supply the needs to the players at lower costs. So city management needs a wide range of things that allow it to perform better. But there should be limiting factors based on costs and availability. (<- Those adventurers may be needed. More fun stuff for them.)
So the city leaders need to manage it with that in mind. They serve the people, rather than the people serving them. Failure means players are going to find a better city to "live" in.
There are and were many online RPGs without combat, or with combat and realistic consequences. The trouble is there are thousands and thousands of online games. Online games became an industry fast, and the picture of them now looks like an apocalyptic wasteland. This complex has haunted video games since the early days. They attract both young people with terrible taste (and some older ones) and people to whom video games are just where they clock in at work.
As far as I know, nearly all online games before '91 were not fighting games, or if they were, they had some kind of purpose, and were not slaughter simulations. Someone correct me if I am wrong. DikuMUD in '91 was the MUD on which the MMORPG today was based, though I would hesitate to call it a problem. One is charming. But then came endless ones (it was open source), and that is not even the bad part yet. Sony had not yet come. The trouble with commercial MMORPGs was (as with many other games) they were made by a team of paid professionals.
These could make say Lineage in '98, but what does it matter? After they make it, because they need to work to earn their wage (I suppose), they will either eventually ruin the game they just made, by tinkering with it, or they will make another to replace it. This of course has nothing to do with the good of online games. Thus these kinds of graphical online RPGs were doomed jut as soon as someone made them, because they were never not made by a team of paid professionals, or if they were, these aforesaid persons used an old trick well known by video game authors, to completely replace that game, making one larger and with more advanced graphics. Since nearly everyone who plays these games is either young or stupid, they were off to the races.
Now you know why I shrink involuntarily from anyone that says MMORPG. As far as I know there were some MMORPGs that were made in, say, the style of Morrowind, if you like that (I don't) -- a bit after my time (Salem, Wurm Online, A Tale in the Desert, etc.) but the good graphical ones were all made between the late 80s (I think there was one or two then) and '98. Asheron's Call (Microsoft) and Everquest (Sony) were the forerunners of the trash they make today. I might wish the people that play these well, but then I would seem to condone sloth and gluttony. It would be better if they were raising responsible children, taking an interest in their community and politics, rather than just spending their life in endless slaughter, but Sony and Microsoft know their customers. I for my part regret I was one in my 20s.
It is true though the only way MMORPGs could have been good was if they were not popular. That though was a foregone conclusion. Every year I see more and more how bad of a game Everquest was. Funny though people say Mr. McQuaid had a "vision". Ha! What vision? It seems to have been incomplete. It is marketing, to my mind. They made a game without tools for roleplayers, and expected, we might suppose, people to roleplay. Ha. That is a crock. I am more disposed to think Everquest was a whale, that is a game that cannot be moved. There were 50 people that worked on it, not including the publishers, as well as an orchestra. A "vision" doesn't go very far there. Talk about excess! I always thought the world in that game was far too large. Meridian 59 was made by 13 people and much better. But the people that play these are not exactly discriminating customers. Indeed they wouldn't know a good game if it hit them over the head. The message boards for Project '99 give one of the worst pictures of humanity imaginable, rivalled only maybe by Youtube comments section. At least some of them can communicate in words in EQ, I remember in the DAoC Classic Private server everyone communicated in symbols and acronyms! Like going from a beerhall to a juvenile detention center.
Non-Combat MMORPGs could potentially be great learning tools. Though I think it would probably be better and more entertaining if MMORPGs simply included viable non-combat roles that people could play. There's no ironclad law that says every player must be an adventurer or a hero. We have enough of those kinds of games. An actual virtual world can only be created if people are also allowed to play criminals and villains. In addition they should also be allowed to play farmers, tradesman, merchants, and all kinds of other non-combat roles. The challenge, of course, is to make those roles just as interesting as the combat roles.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Comments
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
You said there were 2 driving forces behind making games.
1) What OTHERS want to play.
2) What THEY want to play.
I was just making to clear that All your AAA MMO's, or large Studio makers are out there to make a game that will have mass appeal, and generate maximum income, and by and large they don't play their own games, hell most of the people making the big decisions in those companies don't play games at all, So #2 has zero driving force with them as far as games development goes. They have no conflict of interest in that regard.
If you have some indie developer that is working on some labor of Love, sure, but have you noticed a good chunk of those games are PvE focused.
2. because you want it
my point about the pvp focused mmo wasn’t meant that all indies are making pvp mmos, but that most pvp focused mmos are from indies because... they don’t check enough boxes.
I am going sidestep a little bit and say that 1. Isn’t only about checking many boxes, but also, and more so, about profit. IMO that means a mmo that focuses less on combat in general will require more development elsewhere which costs more money to make. If many people already enjoy combat then it’s not worth it.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
How's that? Because the reality is, you can still have encounters, but it doesn't have to revolve around healthbar swatting, right? Developers can get creative.
I thought up another MMO idea (just to give you an example); Goonies x World of Warcraft. Instead of having to beat down your opponent with swords, shields and spells and what not, you're actually trying to disable your opponent in order to win the encounter; slick shoes, rocket skateboards, trip wire, and escaping with the loot is an option for "winning" the encounter because you're kids!
I just want a little more creativity in my MMO guys!
This is not a game.
Even tabletop Dungeons and Dragons was largely based on combat. Second Life has combat options as well, and even had a once thriving vampire clan-war community. I mention those two because they were regarded as largely social (MMOs). SWG too.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Competitive costume contests.
Combat is in the end, something to do. I don't know it the alternatives are enough to fill the gap.
I dunno. I think core gamers want combat, but if you look back at the beginning of MMOs, it was the socialization that took priority over the gameplay. People can look back on it however they want, but the fact of the matter is all the old "hardcore" MMOs were mostly used as glorified chat rooms that happened to have an online RPG attached to it.
I mean things like Club Penguin, Habbo Hotel and that weird furry MMO all had sparse gameplay, but robust communities. I see no reason you can't build an MMO today around activities that don't involve any combat.
Edit: So.. collecting items, and leveling up.. and working with artificial limitations, isn't my kind of fun. Based on my experience with various games like Arma and DayZ, simplistic gameplay just suck for me. Ofc, I don't like Arma, but the gameplay is fun in multiplayer, because it has that richness to it, even if basic and buggy af.
Arm wrestling
Card playing
Jousting? (horses and eh lance)
Magic casting
Then there is cooperative gameplay:
Building and designing stuff (generally speaking ofc)
Exploration
Logistics (in whatever context)
Magic casting?
Doing manual work requiring more than one player, like lifting a heavy rock for example.
Spotting (four eyes sees better than two)
While I think a good MMORPG would have combat, I've been saying for a long time that we really need to expand the other stuff too.
Economics is an obvious place that could use a lot of dedication, and I think could be lots of fun for some gamers. If you can boost your total revenues by 5% because of a great economic game play, that's huge.
City building and running can be just as fun, for some gamers.
The feedback comes from seeing your city (you as part of a team of "politicians" or "royalty") grow and prosper.
One small part of this, in my mind, would be drawing in NPCs who have a morale factor that must be maintained, and even built up.
NPC that can be hired as city guards and trained up, shop keepers hired by players, do the city dirty jobs, etc.
Their morale factor influenced by the beauty of the city, the safety provided by walls and gates and towers, the food availability, the amounts they are paid (based on what Players are making in a business sense), etc.
Then there's elections, laws, taxation to Players, and a lot that can make your city grow or shrink.
My opinion is that for 1% of the player base this could be very rewarding game play, but for 100% that makes a home in a city, it's of interest. Because they can hire the NPCs, run Trade Caravans between cities, sell more if the city draws outsiders, etc.
It doesn't have to be super complicated, just well done.
Once upon a time....
Not just control, but an ongoing relationship. Building something, and then adding to it.
Maintenance comes into play.
The key point is that it's got to be of interest to the player. Benefitting them is the best way to gain their interest.
If a player is only interested in Dungeons, adventuring, the typical game play, then about the only thing they would be interested in is gear and supplies.
That works if a city can produce or import such items through Shipping and Caravans.
That same availability would be important to all the other players too. All those interested in what they need for their goals for fun.
So I think it's fair to say that the first thing this game would need is a World where a wide variety of products and resources are spread out (as bulk quantities).
Then this game would need a system for those Ships and Caravans.
Now that we've established the interest at the most basic level, what is needed is the interactions beyond just buying/selling stuff. Something that invests the player to the other players in their city of choice.
That's where my ideas above come from. The better their city performs, the better it can supply the needs to the players at lower costs. So city management needs a wide range of things that allow it to perform better. But there should be limiting factors based on costs and availability. (<- Those adventurers may be needed. More fun stuff for them.)
So the city leaders need to manage it with that in mind. They serve the people, rather than the people serving them. Failure means players are going to find a better city to "live" in.
Once upon a time....
Once upon a time....
As far as I know, nearly all online games before '91 were not fighting games, or if they were, they had some kind of purpose, and were not slaughter simulations. Someone correct me if I am wrong. DikuMUD in '91 was the MUD on which the MMORPG today was based, though I would hesitate to call it a problem. One is charming. But then came endless ones (it was open source), and that is not even the bad part yet. Sony had not yet come. The trouble with commercial MMORPGs was (as with many other games) they were made by a team of paid professionals.
These could make say Lineage in '98, but what does it matter? After they make it, because they need to work to earn their wage (I suppose), they will either eventually ruin the game they just made, by tinkering with it, or they will make another to replace it. This of course has nothing to do with the good of online games. Thus these kinds of graphical online RPGs were doomed jut as soon as someone made them, because they were never not made by a team of paid professionals, or if they were, these aforesaid persons used an old trick well known by video game authors, to completely replace that game, making one larger and with more advanced graphics. Since nearly everyone who plays these games is either young or stupid, they were off to the races.
Now you know why I shrink involuntarily from anyone that says MMORPG. As far as I know there were some MMORPGs that were made in, say, the style of Morrowind, if you like that (I don't) -- a bit after my time (Salem, Wurm Online, A Tale in the Desert, etc.) but the good graphical ones were all made between the late 80s (I think there was one or two then) and '98. Asheron's Call (Microsoft) and Everquest (Sony) were the forerunners of the trash they make today. I might wish the people that play these well, but then I would seem to condone sloth and gluttony. It would be better if they were raising responsible children, taking an interest in their community and politics, rather than just spending their life in endless slaughter, but Sony and Microsoft know their customers. I for my part regret I was one in my 20s.
It is true though the only way MMORPGs could have been good was if they were not popular. That though was a foregone conclusion. Every year I see more and more how bad of a game Everquest was. Funny though people say Mr. McQuaid had a "vision". Ha! What vision? It seems to have been incomplete. It is marketing, to my mind. They made a game without tools for roleplayers, and expected, we might suppose, people to roleplay. Ha. That is a crock. I am more disposed to think Everquest was a whale, that is a game that cannot be moved. There were 50 people that worked on it, not including the publishers, as well as an orchestra. A "vision" doesn't go very far there. Talk about excess! I always thought the world in that game was far too large. Meridian 59 was made by 13 people and much better. But the people that play these are not exactly discriminating customers. Indeed they wouldn't know a good game if it hit them over the head. The message boards for Project '99 give one of the worst pictures of humanity imaginable, rivalled only maybe by Youtube comments section. At least some of them can communicate in words in EQ, I remember in the DAoC Classic Private server everyone communicated in symbols and acronyms! Like going from a beerhall to a juvenile detention center.