f13.net

Hang on.

That particular quote comes from an unrelated thread, but I hear this sort of thing a lot, and it rubs me the wrong way. There seems to be a generalized opinion that if developers just devoted more attention/manpower/money to the story it would magically improve. Not a lot more, either. I'm thinking games now, but this complaint appears in most popular entertainment -- movies and television especially.

Story is easy and inexpensive, critics say, certainly compared to special-effects.

Wrong. Everybody can tell a true story, and everybody can invent a fiction, but very few people can do so both entertainingly and at length. Dialogue and motivation, character voice, thematic tension, pacing, twists that are simultaneously unexpected and inevitable... these things are HARD. Even the great storytellers screw up from time to time and write a real stinker. And they're just writing ONE. LINEAR. NARRATIVE.

An interesting quest with ten branching endings? Two people? A couple weeks? A whole game composed of these monstrosities, somehow linked coherently?

Bull pucky.

It's theoretically possible, but the fact that nothing like it has ever been done leads me to believe that rather than simply a lack of effort on the part of developers, this is actually a task similar in challenge to writing a melodic four voice mirror fugue. An awesome storyteller might be able to do so by devoting a decade to such a project (and would only be slowed and muddled if forced to work in committee) and that just doesn't mesh with any project timetable I've ever seen.

Please. Anyone. Prove me wrong. A counter-example would be a dream come true.

Narrative, like game design, requires talent first, and then the ability to execute.

Only the latter can be helped by tossing money and time at the problem.

Story has to be a justified part of the development process. It is already or there'd be nothing in these games besides the whack-a-mole the hardcore veterans think there is (if you think WoW or EQ2 has no good stories at all, you haven't seen enough of the game). I just think the entire game must be designed from the ground up NOT as an XP curve to greater equipment, but rather as a long story about a character. Only so much of that story can be written by the player, because for one, there's a good chance they're not good at it (as in, finding creative ways to exist in a confining MMORPG), and for another, they don't even realize they're doing it, so focused they are on waiting for the game to give them something to do.

I've long held that players ALWAYS create their own stories, whether it's traveling, helping a friend for payback later, helping someone for a fee, and so on. We do this shit all the time, yet people think the stories must all be handed to them by some mythical GM because that's what they remembered from 30 years ago.

These games are empowering, but it's hard to recognize that sometimes.

Creating a story is no more difficult that anything else in the industry..... IF there are people out looking to find them. There are talented programmers, modelers, voice actors, story writers, CSR, etc, etc... But in order to find them, you gotta LOOK. And then you have to give them the room they need to produce.

I refuse to believe its a lost cause. You do admit, Pxib, that its theoretically possible. Aren't all great breakthroughs once viewed as "possible"? As D says, its just a matter of finding the right balance of script (for the LCD among us) and sandbox for those who want elbow room. I hate to keep using SWG as an example, but its the only game I have extensive experience in... I know for a fact that I could write a complex and flexible Quest for that game. I also believe it would be "good", but I recognize that the judgement would need to be done by others. I could knock out the dialogue, steps, options, and background in a couple weeks easy. And I dont even claim to be a great writer.

Shoot, lets take away the need for me to be good at coming up with a compelling story. Lets use whats already in the SW universe. Pick a story (not cannon) thats already been published, and a story can be rendered from it and can be turned into a multi-level flexible Quest. "Tales from Mos Eisley Caantina" and the like. There are tons already out there.

Even pure sandbox players surely would appreciate the existence of semi-guided stories to blow a quick hour on. And the LCD who need it to be able to play will be able to tackle them more than once. Look how often people run the damn DWB, and it is exactly the same every single time.

Dont mistake me, now, I know it would be a challenge to sprinkle these quests liberally throughout a game, but, ummm, isnt that why we pay a monthly fee? To afford these kinds of things? I know SOE thinks its to finance entirely new games (that are still not done), but youd think that a budget of over 3 million a month would make at least ONE of these per publish possible. And dont forget, LA are bastards sucking money out of SWG through their franchise fee.

I think there's a SERIOUS difference between writing some interesting quest text and crafting a good story.  The concerns which have been brought up here recently are largely related to the format of the games themselves.  I don't care if you write masterful, heart wrenching prose for each quest, a tale of love and betrayal and growing up in a society that yadda yadda yadda, it still means I have to go out and chop up bugs and pigs, doesn't it?

I don't think it's as easy as just improving the quality of the writing; there are a lot of serious limitations imposed by the nature of the medium.  First of all, unlike a single player game, you've got dozens (or more) of people working on the same quests at the same time.  So you can't have a story that changes the world, at least not on a personal scale, or else huge amounts of people are going to miss all that content.  So the only hook the devs really have to work with is the mercenary angle, the whole "kill the wizard and get ph4t l3wtz" idea, because killing him (or not) has no other benefit.  And we know where this road leads.

Also, you've got other players who are often not concerned about contributing to your story, and who are frequently only partially literate themselves anyway.  This kind of environment DESTROYS immersion.  It takes it into a corner and shoots it in the back of the fucking head.  You can't have a sweeping heroic fantasy epic when Senior Sergeant Buttplug is having a conversation with Private LJenkins about whether or not Final Fantasy X was gayer than Final Fantasy IX in the background.  You can't go on a grand journey of wonder and adventure with pauses every fifteen minutes because your priest has to go check on dinner.  It doesn't work.

I don't think it's just a matter of people being unable to write, or incompetent, or what have you.  I think they're doing the best with what they can.  If you want to see serious improvements in the quality of the stories of MMORPGs, that's going to require some serious changes in every core mechanic present in these games, and I don't have any idea what they'd be changed to.  These are the kinds of problems that crop up when you try to introduce a personal story into a multiplayer game.  If you're looking for stories, I don't think MMOs are the place to go.

What the hell, you change opinion between the threads? ;)

So, since I definitely agree with what's written at the beginning on this new thread, are you *suggesting* this? Or just making theorization about which you aren't really interested?

Because in the other thread you told *me* that it's basically pointless to have a story, because at that point it's better to just play a single player. I didn't agree, but now you seem to contradict what you said.

No, you gotta just find the money.

People think writing is easy because everyone can write. Not well, but everyone can do it. Whereas not everyone can program or play the French Horn.

And game story creating is not just writing, the writing is only the beginning. You need graphics, animation, atmosphere, etc. Two guys spending a couple weeks on a quest would look like two guys spending a couple of weeks on a quest - mostly crap.

It's worse than that. People think expressing a coherent plot is easy because everyone can talk. Except "content" isn't a conversation. You can't ask the content for more detail when you're confused, and it has no internal imagination. Books and movies work the same way. Well produced art in those mediums gives you everything you need to feel satisfied when you've finished it. Stories in narrative games must meet these same qualifications, and that has little or nothing to do with the quality of your descriptive prose.

Do I understand who this person I'm getting the quest from is?
Do I understand their motivations?
Do I care that they're lying to me?
What happens if they're wrong?
Why did they ask me to do this?
Do I want to do what they say?
Can I twist what they've asked me to do into something else?
Do I care if they get upset because I did it wrong?
Do I really want to undermine their goals?

All of these are interesting questions... the sort of questions that make your quest memorable. They define not only the game world, but your character's development. I'm not talking writing as in words, but writing as in plot.

Indeed, and all your specifics are excellent. Even a good writer, capable of the ten-ending monster, must add the challenge that each of them must be equally beneficial in-game or most people will ignore character development and go for the biggest bonus.

Possible yes, but probable no. Easy, never. HRose's single-player narrative running alongside a sandbox sounds like a reasonable hack for Kail's complaints, but even that will require investment in plotting or we'll wind up with something as stale and eye-rolly as the Guildwars cut-scenes.

Yes and no. It cannot be Guild Wars because I rigorously set concrete parameters defining how a quest is built. So the design would be strict and would allow just what I want. Secondly, the narrative I'm chasing can be delivered with a very basic dialogue system. Ultima 7 or Torment weren't all that advanced in the technology. Ultima 7 was about going to a point, talking to a guy, go to another point, talk to another. With the addition of active dialogues instead of just linear text.

The Project Lazarus that is now being praised everywhere (despite the technical bugs) as one of the best RPG of the last years, was based on Dungeon Siege. A game with an almost non-existent narrative. What they added? Just a rudimental dialogue system. And that's enough to do all you need.

So this doesn't require crazy technology. Just focused work in a precise direction. Then, to make this work as a whole, you obviously need a lot more. Because you cannot expect to have a successful mmorpg by just doing one thing right. My idea on three layers (sandbox, narrative and communal PvE) would need to dedicate enough resources to each to build a consistent world where each part adds and complete the other.

What we lost is the WILL to go in that direction. There are PLENTY of potential good quests and interesting NPCs in ALL mmorpgs. Here I STRONGLY disagree with all of you. There's plenty of great writers out there and many of these work already for the mmorpg companies we know. The point is that those stories are inserted in a context and model of questing and story that SUCKS. It's not a problem of resources, this is my strongest belief. It is HOW these resources are used.

Right now the story is built to be fluff. The story can be great or crap, but it will remain fluff. What I'm saying is that this "jump" is not possible if we spend more money into the content to make it more rich. This is false. Not what I think. What I believe is that it's the DESIGN to be flawed. The overall structure. The systems within where the story should exist. We have already those good stories. We just need to put them in a structure where they are valuable. Because right now we are just wasting them.

Right now the quests are excuses to make you move between the camping spots instead of grinding. (As Raph defined: ) The levels and power growth don't happen to let the story flow, it's the story to be functional to the power growth. The point here is about reverting the model. As simple as it is. Right now you can do a quest or not in a game, or read the text or not. Nothing will happen because that quest doesn't really exist in the world. It's just an excuse to make you go kill stuff.

So the story must return as the focus instead of remaining a backdrop. I want to see a cohesive world where the NPCs are linked together. A work that isn't made of 3000, unconnected NPC models standing still or walking in a circle. You cannot have a world with a stupid model like that.

Take a very simple example. Can you go talk about an NPC to another NPC nearby? No. They don't know each other. There aren't even dialogues in WoW. So there cannot even be real characters and interactions. There cannot be a discovery if there's nothing to discover. This sucks not because Blizzard doesn't have enough money for a story. This sucks because those stories (and I'm SURE they have great authors) are put in a model completely ARID. It cannot offer anything.

This is why I want quest marks, journals and waypoints COMPLETELY REMOVED. Replaced by a deeper interaction with the NPCs through dialogues instead of one-directional text. This is why I want branching, deep dialogues. This is why I want the NPCs to live in their world, moving through schedules and having their life instead of being immoble cheese dispenser for the players. This is why all the NPCs must be ALL interconnected and MUST KNOW about other NPCs. They must *exist* together. Be aware of each other. Negate the arid isolation to shape a believable world. You should be able to discuss a quest with multiple NPCs, researching it, asking precisations and so on. The focus on the story. And the characters. On their world.

And this is also why these quests must be interconnected. If I go out to kill10rats it's because I need to use their tails to make some kind of ritual. Quests that bring the world, the players and the NPCs *together*. So interconnected, intricate.

This is how you breath life in a world. If the world is already passive, stale and artificial as in WoW, you cannot expect to have good stories. It's just not possible. No matter how good are your writers.

And it's definitely not a problem of resources. It's a problem of how you use them.

As a writer, I'm going to call bullshit on this one. It just IS NOT TRUE. There is a lot mysterious about the creative process, but the one mystery is that IT IS NOT PREDICTABLE. Which means you can't schedule it, you can't summon it up at the drop of a hat, and it doesn't grow on trees. And even the best writer can start with a great idea, delve into and suddenly halfway through the writing look around and be mired in a shitbomb of a story.

I just finished my novel last year. I've had the basic premise, including characters, ending and main movements in the story written in my head for a decade, but actually putting fingers to keyboard and banging the thing out took 3 years. It might have taken less if that was the only job I had, but even so, it would still take time. And again, that was just for ONE ENDING, ONE PATH.

Every choice of ending and path you add onto a quest adds to the amount of writing needed exponentially. As in, the work needed for each one doesn't double, it squares and cubes. I tried writing quests and such for Neverwinter Nights and found this to be a true, especially if you are talking about choices that are diametrically opposed to one another. Then when you add in multiple people doing the quests at the same time as a group, you add even more options on, especially if you include the possibility that one or the other of the group members might be opposed to the main thrust of the quest, or have different objectives. And all of those branching paths must have writing as good as the original.

In other words, it isn't just a matter of throwing more people at it, you have to have the right people and they have to have TIGHT management to fit all the pieces together.


Actually, we pay the monthly to keep the servers running, pay for bandwidth and skeleton customer service. The monthly is no longer put forth as a fee for added content.

While not a MMORPG a great example of a game with remarkable story telling that makes it playable to this day - despite the outdated graphics - Fallout.

If we took a story that we all agreed was great - Fallout or otherwise - does that mean it can be implemented in a MMORPG?

No - at least not right now.

Sure, some themes and storylines could be lifted and adapted, but for the most part - no. Simply because in a single player game you're somebody. You're the hero. You're the antagonist. You're somebody.

In an MMORPG? You're a peon chopping wood.

Edit: To add, I've actually been struggling with adopting single player storylines to MMORPGs for a while, though I often use Deus Ex as my example. It's simply easier for me to visualize. The best way to do it though would be to heavily instance anything concerning the main story while side quests and the open city were the MMORPG part. By branching it into instances and allowing the story to morph somewhat according to your actions in the MMORPG section of the world, I think a compelling game would be created. It would require a project manager the likes of which the game industry has never seen though.

No. I said that within the current way the genre is headed, it is pointless to expect a deep and engaging story slapped atop an XP curve. Big difference.

It needs to be built into a brand new experience, one which would probably be hard-pressed to get funding. Right now, "success" is advancement for foozles for better advancement. No decision trees, no accountability, no aggravating anyone, giving them the impression of "choice" that is little more than advancing right now or advancing later. That these games do have moments of true creative writing is nice and all, but it's treated as an exception, an afterthought atop a system designed for more basic linear play. And creative though the writing may be, there's still no decision making within it anyway. As such, you either read it or you don't, because the outcome will be the same.

I accept executing a game built entirely on branching story arcs with massive amounts of multiplay may be beyond the resources and time available to deliver a title with AAA-promise and exposure.

Something jumped out at me about this quote (this time, out of all the many times I've read osmething similar).

There are GREAT stories told about peons who chop wood, or mine, or sew, or whatever.

Arguably, it takes a better writer, but we shouldn't consider this to be the boundary of story.

Raph, I hate to be that guy, but you missed the point.

I want to be a hero. Sure, great stories are written about peons. But the MMORPG writers of today aren't related to or happen to be Chaucer. It's a lot easier to write about a hero. Let me be the hero. Once. Mother of god, just once.

Other things I want to be in a MMOG include, but are not limited to: Inventor, Archaeologist, Historian, Explorer, Proper shop owner (not the RO, set up a sign, yell N00b Sw0rdz Here type - or the SWG set up some shit in my house/tent type), Restaurant Owner (with the ability to create my own recipes and food - see inventor), Propagandist (which I was in SW:G for a time....but that's another story and it was player created content - hork, ewww), black market arms dealer, kingpin, samurai or ninja, junk dealer.

Things I don't want to be in new MMORPGs include: Traveling adventurer.

Someone, somewhere, needs to fund an MMOG set in modern times/alternate universe with a sci-fi/horror backdrop with INTERESTING THINGS going on. This civil war on giant land mass/island system shit needs to stop. By making the backdrop of a game a war you are instantly forcing everyone into the peon role.

There should be a QFE smiley  :wink: .


I've thought the same thing and tried to get some discussion on it. Unfortunately I naively tried to do it on a board where the community was primarily composed of catasses.  :-P

I find myself agreeing with Schild.  His list of professions is rather interesting.  Of particular note, of them, only 1 (samurai/ninja) involves much combat.     Of the rest, we have:
 Inventor - I think it should be possible to set up things in such a way to allow crafters to experiment with items.  Something like SWG's system, only with lesser restrictions on the material types.  If something is metal, let the player use any metal to make it.  have the stats on the material determine what happens.  Have 'copper', 'iron', 'aluminum', etc, always have the same stats... Maybe not universal availability, but the same stats whenever they are found.  Perhaps have variation based on refining processes, if you want, but SWG's system of calling something 'copper (Rdsfsfdgae)' and having the stats be wildly different from 'copper (Fesdfaewr)', was not useful.  This way, a crafter could use different metals, find out what worked best.  If the world is big enough, maybe aluminum is the best conductive material Joe can get his hands on, so he uses it where he needs a good conductor.  If someone wants better, and can get ahold of copper, he might try that, etc.  With a wide enough variety of items, and a less... completely random way of distributings materials(and not locked into tier1, tier2, tier3, a la WoW and EQ2, either), you might have a more interesting interaction.

Store Owner/junk dealer - This can be made interesting, there seem to be a lot of people willing to do this... but they often want to do this AND do something else.  Running a store IRL is a full time job; it shouldn't be in an MMO.  However, it should be at least as interesting as combat, if not moreso.

Historian/Explorer/Archeologist - These are fairly similar.  Explorers already exist in most games... There's just generally nothing out there to see.  Some kind of skill you can invest in that will give you information about the history of a site, and a way to collect that information In-Game, and perhaps even add info that is useful for others(information on enemies, locations of materials used by the culture, recipies to reproduce items used by them, etc).  Perhaps add the ability to recover artifacts from some sites; useful as display items ("This belongs in a MUSEUM!"), or some other use.

Kingpin/BlackMarket Arms Dealer - For some of this, you do ened to segregate a server's playerbase.  A La DAoC, but rather than hard lockouts, add in ways for certain disreputable types to cross sides, and buy things that simply are not available on their home side... which they can then take home and sell.  Perhaps give guards a chance to notice on either end, and the player get into trouble.  Not killed, just 'into trouble'. 

Samurai/Ninja - This kinda thing has been done.  See Stalker in CoV.  stealth+high damage output 4tw.  However, I do agree that there should be more class/skillset-specific things to do in MMOs... currently, your class selection generally means 'You kill things in a different way than the other options'.  Because, well, the only gameplay is 'kill things'.  Or you can also have a second class option related to a non-'kill things' thing, but how you kill things has no relation at all on that second choice.  IMO, give a player a few options as to what they want to do.  "I wanna be a miner/Smith/Shopkeeper'.  Okay, but you don't have any real combat abilities.  If you want combat?  'Swordsman/Smith/Shopkeeper', and buy all your metal from other miners.  Wanna be all out combat?  'Swordsman/Light Fighter(defensive skillset)/Tactician', or some such.  Or even let people dabble in some things outside their choices, but only to a certain depth.  Cap points spent some how, so you don't end up with old characters that are masters of all weapons, all crafts, master mages, with super defenses who own stores where they can sell everything they make, and have done their own research at every historical point in the whole world, etc etc.

Force people into narrower options than 'everything', but let them decide later what to change.  If you're not a 'Swordsman', your skill is capped at X%.  So if you start as a Swordsman and replace it with something else, you may not lose skill gained, it's just capped at a low level, that anyone with a sword could attain.  You're rusty, since you're not actively using the skill, or some such.

That's my thoughts, anyhow.

Alkiera

For "Inventor", having a minigame similar to Incredible Machine or Rocky's Boots would be insanely cool.  Imagine if SWG's "schematics" were unique arrangements of electronic components rather than the product of random die rolls, with the best inventors in the game being the ones who are able to optimize their circuit layouts or come up with new applications for the components they're given.

The PnP D&D setting Dragonmech has some very interesting "invention" rules along these lines - they give you a giant list of components, some basic rules about how one might combine them together, and then let you go hog wild trying to min/max interesting devices out of what they've given you.

For example, an inventor character in Dragonmech can combine the "Iron Arm" (a manually controlled mechanical arm with a +4 Str bonus) with a "Boiler" (a component that doubles the output of any mechanical device) and get a mechanical arm with a +8 Str bonus.  He can also take combine three "Drill" components (a weapon that does 1d4 melee damage) and get a single gigantic drill that does 3d4 damage, which can then be bolted to the mechanical arm to create a melee weapon that does 3d4+8 damage, which compares favorably with off-the-shelf weapons that can be found in this campaign setting.  Mind you, all of those things weigh a ton, but fortunately there's an "Iron Legs" device that helps with that...

I mean, I'd like to mix the best of those classes. I'd like to have a shop that I can shut down to go excavating/mining for new parts, find the parts, make new completely unique product and sell it to the adventurer types who are completely uncreative but bring me coin. Then I want to hire NPC workers who I can send to get parts for me so I don't have to close the shop to excavate. Also, fuck the grind. If I'm a crafter class, I should have to use my wit and creativity to get by, not make 5,000 chicken fajitas.

Sigged.

I could swear it was in a thread on these forums.... a link to a web-based AI that responded to things you typed in....

A friggin java based AI, and game developers cant seem to write scripts that allow NPC's to operate with some flexibility in dialouge and options? How cool would it be if the NPC said something to you, and you didnt understand something in the text, and you asked "out loud" to say ti again, AND IT DID! Or better yet, maybe it recognized some keywords in your response that lead to it saying another piece of text that most likely fit what you were asking about? How cool would that be? In this way, maybe some NPC's DO know each other (they recognize the NPC's name) and respond in some fashion. Games already have systems in place where your pets will respond to specific phrases and do things in response to the phrase.

I agree with D, in that the inclusion of "POI Waypoints" in a datapad is terrible. Talk about removing a great Explorer feature! If the problem is that not enough people are seeing the cool stuff you put in game, then find a better, more interactive way to guide people to it!

You mean, like EQ1?  Because 'guess the magic keyword' was so much fun.  Quests didn't really have any state to them up until Planes of Power, so if you knew the keywords you could skip most of the dialog and go right to the 'NPC gives me thing'.  And then run up and give it to the target NPC, who'd take it, then see if they wanted it; if so, they'd say something about the quest, otherwise, they'd still keep it, and say 'Thank you.'.  Shoulda said 'Screw you.', cause you pretty much were at that point.

Programs like Eliza aren't so much an AI as a clever engine that spits your own words back at you, rearranged.

Alkiera

Those things are invariably moronic, especially if a moron is talking to them.  (Remember that most MMOG players can't construct English sentences or spell words correctly.)  If you made completion of a quest hinge on whether or not you could cajole a chatbot to follow a certain code path, you'd have a lot of very frustrated players.  And if you made the chatbot optional, nobody would use it.

Once the technology gets a bit further it might be worth pursuing, but right now chatbots are little more than novelties.

...and I, and Haemish I believe, are saying that this is staggeringly difficult. Not merely a matter of focus or investment or project goals, though all of those are involved, but a matter of creative impulse. To make a living, breathing world in which everyone knows and interacts with eachother, and in which every member of the audience also has a starring role... this is a task for geniuses and gods, not level-designers and middle-management. Can it be done? Yes! But, as always, it is infinitely simpler to imagine than to create.

Fallout is an instructive example. It succeeds in immersion and depth not by excess but by detail. Most of its stories don't cross paths, but many of the ones that do are related in poignant or funny or shocking ways. You remember them because they're the memorable parts, not because the game is built entirely of their like. It's great stuff, inspiring and educational for any wanna-be world builders out there...  but its living, breathing wasteland is a shallow veneer. People are still waiting for you to walk by in order to begin pre-scripted events. All manner of characters are hiding off screen, waiting for you to talk to somebody else before they step in and reveal their plot-twists...

... and even so, no story in Fallout has ten endings.

Making the research of a quest fascinating and fun -- the research of every quest -- is a laudable dream. Giving NPCs realistic,  consistant goals and routines... wow! Gradually uncovering, and taking part in, the myths of a world and the legendary individuals who live them: Priceless.

I just don't think it appears on the market any time soon,  and I wouldn't encourage any MMORPG startup to persue it. It's the holy grail, and it's farther away than you think.

True.  But how you solve each quest builds a number of consequences for your character in terms of subsequent quests available to you and and your faction.  Your character is the sum of all these * choices * you have made in solving each quest.

(my personal favorite - even when I get bored - I can kill the quest giver and look at the immediate ramifications of that single act on options/reactions/rumors regarding me for the rest of the game). 

Put another way - quest logs should show the ultimate solution we * chose * to solve the quest.  Currently, our characters are the sum of quests we executed rather than the sum of choices we made to solve each quest.

Ding.

This was my idea from the very beginning. See the scheme (http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/237).

The three layers: open pvp sandbox - (soloable) narrative - communal PvE - happen in different parts of the world:

(http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/storeroom/misc/plan.jpg)
- The "shards" here are the PvP (persistent) war maps where the players are divided in three hardcoded factions (+ player-made). Where there's also the emergent level of the RTS (managing resources, supply lines, patrols etc..) and where all the level of the trade/economy exists. The whole world here is at 100% in the hands of the players. This is the Sandbox pushed to the limit. And this layer would try to simulate much more than just combat. This should be a complete, detailed "virtual world". At war.

- From these shards the players can use portals to travel to the "planes" (see the image, these are also persistent). These are other dimensions (the game setting was based on "Stormbringer", by Michael Moorcock, one of the best "dark fantasy" writers EVER). The multiverse. The planes work like social hubs. They are one rather big zone that pivots around a NPC big outpost/city whatever (depending on the different settings for each plane). From here the players can adventure in the proximity of the city (since there's a certain amount of wilderness sourrounding the city/hub) or open portals to other dimensions (and here we have a total freedom on the content of these dimensions). These portals mean that from there onward you are instanced. It can be a dungeon as it can be a completely independent WORLD. As I wrote elsewhere the idea is to have a "fluid" perception of reality, where everything can happen and where you can add "destabilizing" elements for the player. You become a traveler of worlds, the potential is ENDLESS. This level I described is the level of the narrative I explain in this thread. This is also the part that must be COMPLETELY SOLOABLE. With groups of players of four at max and balanced by default for duos.

- Third is the level of the communal PvE. You are still on the planes and the communal PvE can be or an instance or some encounter out there in the wilderness (out of the city/hub). To have access to these encounters you need to "unblock" them by progressing in the narrative. These are more epic instances less based on a solid, involving story. And more based on the group mechanics/challenge. This is also a level deeply interconnected with the first (the PvP) because these instances have the main purpose of summoning powerful artifacts that can only be used on PvP (also unique per-world and lootable in combat if you die).

See the three levels? The Sandbox is open, persistent, not instanced. The Narrative is open (for the social hub around the main cities) and then instanced so that the player can immerse himself. The progress here is about *the story*. The quests exist for the story coherently with what I wrote just above. And finally the third level that is the "social" PvE. Both instanced and not, that is also tied with the wirst layer. Bringing every aspect of the game together.

Note: The game is skill based and on a flat power curve. The power differential is kept low between new and veteran players, so that they can ALWAY play and adventure together. The character advancement, for the most part, is optional. You can choose to advance your character playing one of the three layers or all at once. The progress dep[ending on the research, instead, (to find rarer spells, evocations and so on. Basically the "meat" of your skills) is strictly tied to the "narrative", which is, again, soloable. The third level (communal PvE), instead, is NOT tied to the character progress. You WON'T get more powerful items you cannot achieve in the "single-player" game. This level works only for some rare items, skills and spells that define a "status". But not directly the power. Never as "more powerful version of the same".

This means that the only, truly mandatory layer is the one of the narrative (and in fact it's soloable to have it accessible for everyone). The other two (sandbox and communal PvE) are optional.

I'll bite (not feeling like playing Wow this weekend).


Hate to say it, but I find that statement to be VERY accurate in MMO's.

Stop wasting all this time making dumb npc's that sit there and regurgitate the same 10 lines that are supposed to provide the grand over-arching backstory to the "world" every time they are clicked on by one of the thousands of PC's.

Just stop, it is a waste, nobody reads that crap anyways and 90% of your population doesn't care.  NPC's are only truly necessary to provide basic goods/services that no player would want to provide and to create a sometimes artificial feeling of population.

In my mind the story of a MMO should start and end with the fluff in the manual and the opening movie when you first start the game.  From there you leave it up to the players, now I know I'm going to be heaped with hate for saying that.

f13: Players are broken stupid you can't leave things in their hands.
-Sadly that may be entirely too true, but if you are subjecting yourself to participating in a game medium where the claim to fame is LOTS OF PLAYERS, well I am not exactly sympathetic.

Frankly the only MMO stories I've ever cared about are player created, the scams of EvE, the great castle sieges and defenses of SB, the first person to get the full set of uber+7 and the players who exist on every server that are known for their skills in various aspects of the game.  These are the things I remember.  I dont remember wtf was going on in DAOC, AO, WoW, EQ1 or any other MMO according to the stupid npc's.  I only talked to them when I wanted lewt and exp.  Does that make me a bad person?  A min/max'ing catass whore?  Who knows, I dont care either way.

Awhile back during one of the threads here somebody finally explained in a way I could follow that there are players who play MMO's but only want to play with their friends.  Making them feel like they need to interact with the entire population of the server would make them not want to play your game.

While I acknowledge that to be the case, I dont think those people matter to MMO's financially -I hate to stoop to this level btw. I'm not saying that if you dont raid or pvp you do not matter, nor am I saying that more casual friendly games need to exist.  

Instead I'm hypothesizing that there seem to be plenty of people (read: the vast majority of current MMO long term sub bases) who are willing and able to find niches within a community of random MMO players and be happy.  Many here can not tolerate the unwashed masses, but as it has been said a million times this is not exactly joe avg. gamerland.

Creating a world and a game-system in which the players create the story with their actions seems like the logical next step for MMO's.  Of course the world would still have a story, but merely as a backdrop for player exploits.  Instead of the current, you saved the Dam in Loch Mordan, which is saved 20 times a day every day from launch till the end of time.

P.S.  Sorry HRose, I'm going to post now and read your diagram (which does look lovely) later.

Haox wrote:


Maybe the problem is that there are two "factions" within MMO players, those who want a sandbox with no story (what you seem to enjoy) and those who want a massively single-player game (MSPG) like GuildWars or D&D online. The way I see it, a sandbox is completely non-linear with respect to choices, you can do anything your character is "physically" able to do. A MSPG restricts the player's choices (through quests, etc.) into a linear or branching narrative in order to get some of the advantages of a "story" (although I hate to use the term "story" because it's so overloaded).

In other words, a sandbox is an open-ended CRPG game (like Morrowind - although it still has quests) that's multiplayer. A MSPG is a linear CRPG (like Fable) with multiple players. Of couse, there's a continuum, with games like WoW (heavily quest oriented for a MMORPG) someplace between a sandbox and a MSPG.

Neither is good or bad, just different preferences. Maybe admitting there's a difference, and that players are working towards different ends is important. It's like people arguing whether wine or beer is better. Neither; it's just a personal preference. If this is true, the big question is whether mixing wine and beer to make "weer" produces a drink that more people like, or which fewer like.

More thoughts at http://www.mxac.com.au/drt/StorylinesIII.htm.

Scripted storyline is a losing battle from the outset.  As said, a lot of players aren't interested, and it's essentially impossible to keep up with their content gobbling.  I can tell that the devs are trying, but the entire idea feels very forced.  More importantly, it is not conductive to an MMO's strength.

What is an MMO's greatest strength?  The players, undoubtedly.  No, not the average uber that we know and love, but rather the scale of players participating simultaneously and the power of their motivations. 

An MMO's "story" needs to harness the players.

I'm no designer, but I do know that players create great stories by themselves, and that they're very often more interesting than any developer storyline.  I'm not referring to RP either; inter-guild or even cross-faction interactions are deeply engaging, no matter how insipid they might seem from an outsider.  This social potential can be reinforced if it is encouraged by a carefully coded set of world mechanics that encourages interaction, cooperation, and competition.  For instance, I haven't really played it, but I'm hearing very interesting things from EVE where all the territories in the universe are player-created.  That, I imagine, generates tons of politic war and history without any dev support.

To summarize in fewer words:  MMOs should focus on creating a setting and a series of materialistic motivation mechanics that encourage interaction.  The players sort out the details; modify ruleset for "carebear" and "pvp".

To give an example: The AQ war effort was implemented in a very boring way; I'm sure everyone agrees.  However, the social activities it has created have been very engaging.  There are huge open-pvp events in silithus, cross-faction alliances, uber-guild contests for casuals, and of course the race for first server to finish.  None of these social events are very "in-character", but they're interesting and player created. 

This is where the potential lies, imo.

Oh, look. A TerraNovian.

The point is that one can add a lot to the other. I completely agree with what you said about the Sandbox (even if the Morrowind example sucked badly in that context). But I also believe that:
1- They can exist on two separate layers so that they can express their qualities at best.
2- One adds to the other. The two levels are detached in their "rules". But they are together forming the fabric of the game.

So, instead of choosing one or the other, imho, the discussion is to place those elements to get the best out of them. And contribute to the game with something worthwhile, while solving most of the radical problems (power differentials, accessibility, barriers between players and so on).

There is no either/or here. It's quite possible to have a sandbox with a story. Scripted storylines are NOT a losing battle unless you think that you are going to have players doing ONLY storyline items.

The fact is, every crappy KILL X quest is a scripted story - a very poorly scripted one but a scripted one nonetheless.

A GOOD scripted story doesn't have to be long or drawn out or elaborate.

One of my favorite quest series in any game is in FFXI the series that starts with "Mom The Adventurer". The basic idea is this woman keeps giving you quests where you have to find/create something and give it to her daughter. The daughter thinks the mom is a great adventurer who finds all these wonderful trinkets on her outrageous journeys but she's actually a common thief. And as much as the daughter thinks her mom is so cool and loves all the trinkets what she really wants is for her mom to stop "adventuring" and spend more time with her.

What's interesting about these is that the quests themselves are trivial and not really any different than any other quests as far as mechanics, and the dialog is fairly terse. Each quest is maybe 6 sentences worth of dialog. But I find it very memorable because it is very heartfelt and just well-crafted. It's a terse but colorful story with a lot of depth that touches on single motherhood, parent child relations, the expectations of children and adults, the plight of the less fortunate.

It's just well done. As opposed to "the evil troll necromancer Rath'Uthgar has arisen from his 10,000 year slumber and teamed up with the evil dread-lords to blah blah blah now go kill some rabbits for some reason!"

---

To me the point of a sandbox is a feeling of world. And worlds have stories and characters. Maybe they don't have one entirely connected narrative from A to Z, but a world has it's memorable villains and heroes and events. That's what I need in a story. A story is not the opening intro to EQ2 that bores the shit out of you. Story and a sense of place go hand in hand.

I don't need a dedicated "lore writer" who churns out generic useless shit that's barely integrated into the game. Games are not books, they are games. (I hate the term "lore". It's retarded) In Metroid Samus turning out to be a woman is a very memorable story - a story with zero text and zero dialog. In Super Metroid when your buddy Metroid you saved in the gameboy version helps you out that's also an interesting story with no (or very little) text. And those aren't stories you can click through and ignore - they are impossible to miss. They don't fee like intrusions because they are integrated.

Bad writing often suffers from the "data dump" or extended exposition. Lore in MMORPGs is ALL basically extended exposition - the worst kind of writing. It isn't storytelling at all.

Summary: The story in most MMORPGs is something you want to click through and ignore because:

1: It has no real consequence
2: It's poorly written. (100% exposition with cliche characters, names, themes, etc)
3: It's integrated very loosely into the game. The text and voiceover may tell some story but the world does not.

1 is what people tend to fixate on, but 1 is really irrelevant. Fiction has no real consequence, ever. Fiction exists to enthrall, entertain, make think, get lost in - it does not serve some obvious pragmatic goal.

2 & 3 are much more important. Bad writing is bad writing, and bad writing in video games which are supposed to be audio/visual experiences is even worse. Exposition is the enemy! Exposition does not make sense in a medium with moving images and sound!

Like growing the e-peen?

I once I dreamed about mmorpg, where to kill npc/player you would have to trick and lure them into open and preferably make it look like it was someone else's work. Instead having hundreds  of thousands npc kills, have one, but each unique and associated with player created story. Also cRPG/IM style comminications - you have to ask to get information, and while just a few questions are enough to get generla idea of a quest, asking more right questions can save some nasty suprise. Down with 3 pages of spam descriptions.

Actually, the narrative content is tightly based on Ultima V.  Dungeon Siege was used to provide the graphic end, but the story work was all in expanding the Ultima V dialogues and storylines.  You could have done it in NWN or some other engine, but you couldn't have done the same thing with some other design and story setting.

One of the reasons the story of Ultima V is important is because generally the game progresses via the story, not via the combat.  Because the story is integral to the gameplay, it matters.  That didn't happen because they threw a bunch of writers at the problem, it happened because Garriot designed it that way from the start, and the folks doing Lazarus stayed behind the concept when they expanded the game.

The point here is that Lazarus is based on RG's original game design with expanded NPC dialogues and a relatively modern game engine.  The Lazarus team put in massive amounts of work, but followed the original game design painstakingly.  It took skilled people lots of effort, working from an inspired design.  It wasn't banged out in a couple of weeks by a couple of guys.

The biggest problem with questing in MMOG's is that no one is invested in the quest itself. Quests are nothing more than item/experience generators. The most entertaining example is WoW, but really they all do it. You have vending machine NPC's, who despite their protestations, really don't give one shit about whether you fulfill the quest for them or not. Some might move or disappear when the quest is finished, but for the most part, their station in the world does not change whether the quest is done or not. If the NPC's aren't invested in the quest, why should the player be invested in it, except for the reward?

Now, if you are going to make a DikuMud Combat style MMOG, it's better to provide the quests than not, since at its heart, DikuMud is all experience grind and item whoring. But it won't make for a world.

Quests need to give the player an investment in doing the quest, and to do that, the quest giver needs investment and it needs to alter the world. You can "fake it" with instancing right now, but for "WORLDS" that doesn't work. The truth is that if you want virtual world type games, every NPC must be a PC, and every PC must have a job that relates to the world. There must be lumberjack PC's, and miners and millers and blacksmiths, and all of these people must be given power and incentive to provide quests to adventurers. Blacksmithing must be interesting, it must be a game in and of itself that makes a player want to forego combat for the blacksmithing. And when a marauding band of orcs come along and steals the smith's iron supply, he must hire another player to get it back from the orcs for him or he will starve, his shop will close and decay or he will have to sell to the lord and work for some other player.

But in order to do all of that, players have to be able to influence and affect other players. And you won't get that in a massive, mainstream MMOG because the average player doesn't want to be affected by other players without his say so. That's why Diku's are so popular, because they provide little negative feedback, tons of positive feedback and sometimes a challenge.

The things you are talking about with WORLDS and stories in those worlds are all things that MikeRozak's massively single-player game players DO NOT WANT.

[derail] FWIW, it might be useful if "Game Design" got its own section, either for MMO's alone or with PC/Console.  This and other good threads would be worth keeping outside of comments on current/planned MMO releases.  Thank you and good night.

You mean like this forum (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?board=15.0)?

mayhaps.  I was being pendantic, seeing dev vs design, (reading too many blogs I guess).  Carry on.

FIFY.

I agree whole-heartedly.

I see a lot of this kind of thing from reading everyone's posts about EVE Online.  Sure, you start in an area with lots of NPC support, where there are contacts that give out missions and pay rewards, etc... but there is another game, where you leave that area, go out into the wooley wilds of 0.0 space, and start up a new game.  Where you mine, not for the rewards of the mining quest, or to get your skill up, or for money... You mine for your corporation.  Your corp may pay you for it, but it's for their own efforts that you mine.  When someone says 'Hey, there's some guys over yonder poking around, go take care of them' it's not an NPC, it's one of your corp members, and those guys you wander over and blow up and then pod are not NPCs, they are players.  Those quests make a difference in the world of zero-sec.  They protect your borders, they fund your stations, improve your army.  And not some theoretical-but-never-seen army, nor theoretically-in-danger-but-never-changing borders, or invulnerable 'outposts'.  Real borders, that may change if some group with enough clout decides to push you back.  Real border stations that might be lost if those borders change.  A real army(or Navy, in EVE), made up of players, that shows up to battle with other players.

It turns out, what I want is EVE Online on the ground, with elves.  Have a semi-gametic area where you can get your feet wet, work some skills up, make some cash, in a fairly stable environment, then off to the wilds to find interesting new places, meet their inhabitants, and kill them.

Alkiera

I'm not saying that you can't combine sandbox players with massively single-player gamers (MSPG), but some issues need to be overcome.

1) Goals... Why does a player want to do X (pick mushrooms, kill the troll, craft the sword, etc.) ?

In a MMO sandbox, a player wants to do X because the action either affects the player's level/power in the game, or because it affects/involves the player's friends/guildmates or enemies. (Of course, "fun" is also involved.) IMHO, a large impetus for MMO sandbox players is social in nature, since if you stuck a typical MMO sandbox player in front of a single-player sandbox (like Morrowind... which isn't a great example) then the player wouldn't enjoy the game as much. not play as long, and not be willing to spend hundreds of dollars to play. Of course, some of the lack of enjoyment from single-player MMO sandboxes is cruddy AI that's inferior to real players, but I suspect that only accounts for a fraction of the difference.

A MSPG player gets motivation from playing with friends, potentially meeting new friends, AND from the stories in the quests, as Margalis pointed out with "Mom the adventurer". The stories bring the NPCs to life (making up for very limited AI) and give the player a reason to want to collect mushrooms or kill trolls... because (a) it involves a NPC that the player "cares" about, and (b) the player wants to know what happens in the end of the story. (A poorly written story WON'T cause the player to "care" about the NPC and/or to want to learn what happens at the end of the story.)


2) Time commitment...

Because MMO sandbox players are socially involved in a world, they're willing to commit hundreds of hours.

As pointed out, MSPG player will only stick around until the content is consumed. At that point, the MSPG player and his friends will go to the next game. Furthermore, they're looking for quality content, which means that killing 5 orcs is fun, but 50 orcs is boring. I suspect that a MSPG player will stick around for 25-50 hours of play.

The time commitment works both ways... If a player can't afford to spend more than 5 hours in a game each week, then they won't be able to form strong social ties, won't join a guild, etc. Consequently, the only goals they can have are either story-based or to use the game as a way to meet up with their friends (at arranged times).


(Personally, I'm more of a MSPG player, and my assumptions/observations about MMO sandbox play could be wrong. (If so,tell me.))


I see points 1 and 2 as the most important differences, although issues like other players negatively affecting gameplay have an affect. However, if statements 1 and 2 are correct, then a world that combines both forms of play consists of two tiers: players that stay in the world for a long time and get socially involved (sandbox) and those that are more like tourists that come, consume the content, and leave (MSPG). Putting the two disperate play styles in one world seem like a tricky thing to do, both from a design perspective and a financial one. MSPG players won't pay $15/month since (a) they'll probably only play 20 hours over the entire month (1/4 of a sandox player's 20 hours per week), and (b) they'll get bored and leave after a month or two.

Hmmmm. Well, it seems I missed something in my thinking on this and other issues. Something blatant. I didnt really consider that most of the people playing MMO's are idiots. Either literally stupid, or maybe English is their second (or third) language. Maybe they are 12. Maybe they really do just want a single player game in an online environment. So, with that in mind, maybe it really is out of the realms of possibiliity to have a game as cool and fufilling as I want? Well, its probably still possible, but it seems like it would be a huge undertaking, and not worth it for a corporation to do. So this leaves me, once again, with picking my favorite niche game. Not such a bad deal I guess.

I still think a sandbox game can co-exist peacefully with a combat-only system, with a social and economic system under it, and skill based. Putting aside all SWG hate (and views on how much the implementation of everythign sucked) for just a few seconds, isnt that pretty much what SWG was in the beginning? Everything was player-driven except combat. And the combat was (supposed to be) flexible, with myriad skill templates available so everyone could be different in some way. It just bugs the shit out of me that every time I try to see it from a new perspective, it seems that SWG had the potential to be the best MMO ever. Then SOE's Suits and LA killed it (but mostly LA). Sorry about the tangent...

I like the idea that the world evolves based on player actions. I picture a new game where on Launch day, there are only 2 cities for players to start in. They start working on skills and infrastructure. After a short time, an in-game event destroys both cities, leaving the players a completely empty world to build. No Dev cities, no technonolgy... nothing. All there is are the players, and the skills they managed to learn before the cities were destroyed. From that point on, everything in the game is player created. Cities are built, new skill "discovered", inventions lead to new tools and weapons, and transportation. NPC's start to pop up due to the political actions of player-elected Players. Certain player cities are made public, and NPC's move in and out. Players take up duties in the cities. Cities are destroyed through war or political manuevering, etc...

This actually ties in to a common assertion of mine. The Devs are really missing the boat by not letting some players help develop and fill the game with content of all sorts.

And isn't this the exact same thing I'm saying?
It seems so.

I agree with all your premises but I disagree on your conclusions. As I wrote in the other thread:
So I agree on how you can make the story worthwhile. But I disagree when you say that the story is interesting only when it alters the world.

I just don't think it's one main trait. It adds something but it isn't anything fundamental.

About the first and second points of Mike Rozak. Well, this is what we are saying from a while (the two layers).

The point is that I still believe that the two parts can be brought together. And one be a gateway to the other. I strongly believe that the distinction between the two "player types" is a silly, superficial commonplace.

It's the game that should bring the player to the discovery of what it has to offer. Not the players to dictate (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20041103/bartle_pfv.htm) what they want from a game.

And I'm glad the term "massively-single player game" has been coined. That's been what I've considered the PvE side of the Diku spinoffs all along, but it's always taken me too long to say it. A bunch of people doing their own thing during combat for the singular purpose of advancement is a self-gratifying and fun experience. But there's very little "mulitplayer" about it (which is where it differs from PvP).

To me, this discussion has finally progressed to the next step, but there's still a clear dilineation:

• It can be done in theory and execution.
• It can't be done because the current players won't buy it.

I think we all understand #2 by this point, either from within this thread or more likely from general experience. People don't want the accountability a fully immersive relevant storyline would bring with it. The ideal of personal stories in a player-directed world requires factors players don't find fun en masse.

Therefore, while I feel a brand new experience is required to facilitate immersive stories, market realities will require whatever game that is to emulate something popular or it's not going to get the exposure. There's only so far outside the box one can go in the short term. This includes things like soloability, only some accountability, less punitive death, and so on.

Contrary to a popular assertion, the general playerbase are not idiots. They're just less interested in investing so deeply, emotionally and chronologically, into a game. These people want things to lean more on the side of diversionary-play, not immersive. They also outnumber those that do by many orders of magnitude.

The genre is going because the mass market games are getting less immersive. So whatever solution that comes to more relevantly integrate a story is going to need to take diversion into consideration. DDO may be the first to experiment with this, because the instances do require real decision making and do involve mistakes. Whether it becomes hugely popular will be very interesting to watch.

It was called Shadowbane...unfortunately execution sucked, and there were some fundamental game mechanics/play requirements that shot it into the ground (not to mention the crashes).

Hmm... just tossing this out there.  One of the things that has really bothered me about grouping in MMOGs is it is another division.  While certainly greifing comes about from open looting and I am not sure how to correct that mechanic.  I don't like how the current crop of MMOG's limits the play ability to aligning the roll of groups as being only x amount of players.  UO did not have and really never needed grouping or the party... outside of ease of communication.  What does this half to do with story and the drives?  More in that currently the group (forced in most cases) again stratifies not only the player base, but the content.  I just don't like it.

Why so?

It's a problem when you have 6 friends, and the group limit is 6, or 5.  You have to leave people out of what you're doing.  My group of RL friends ran into this quite a bit in later EQ.  You end up split up because you don't all fit in the artifically limited group size.

On the other hand, I can certainly see the issue from the other side... If you are designing content, you want to limit the number of people involved so that they don't trivialize it by bringing 20 people to what was designed as a 6 person fight.

Alkiera

Is there any real benefit to having an online "mostly" single-player game? Can the _online_ part of it bring value to the game, and justify the subscription? I'm just wondering if what I am now thinking (and I am sure I am waaay behind all you guys) is already being done:

An online game where you play as the Hero of the story in a "personal dimension", where the entire world revolves around Your actions. When you are not out re-shaping the world, you can hang out "in town", which is a "home" dimension, where other Hero's gather to share the heroic adventures they had in *their* dimension. You can do stuff there too... buy goods from players, learn new skills, join with a few other Hero's to embark into a particularly dangerous Dimension together, etc...

Picture Ravenloft. Several different Realms where the Story is different. You can subscribe to Realms, and play there till you get bored, then switch. You play through that content till you get bored, then can switch to a totally different dimension.

Is that enough to get the idea? Sorry its rough, its coming to me even as I type it. This seems to be a good way to have engaging stories, where the players actions *matter*, and they can still interact with others *if they choose*.

Ah well. My idea of group up to four player would work. You could still split in two groups of three if you are six.

Well, it's pretty much the idea I posted in the previous page.

Great minds and all that.... and mine has the word "dimension", so its better, lol

j/k!

Two good points; however, looking at everything from EQ to WOW, the group dynamic as currently setup is a barrier setup by the content designers as they focus on that specific size.  Yes, it makes the job easier, but again limits the play room.  If the game is broken because x amount of people have the "uBer IteM" then is it the fact they brought 20 people for an easy win or the item that is broken?

If you have content designed for x+ players, that is good, but not when it is set to five or 10 or 3... anything that isolates; at least to me, is bad design.

Does that help clarify?

:: Holy crap I should never post first thing in the morning...

I'm of the opinion the mainstream audience doesn't really give two shits about the Massive part of online games. They don't care if there are 6 billion, 600 or 6 players in the world, so long as they get to play with their friends or like minded people. They want most people to be window dressing and not much else.

As for your idea, it sounds like the Tabula Rasa concept.

Does TR have pvp these days or not?

I need two new games for the sig and I can't come up with anything for the life of me.

/pour 40oz for Twilight War and the fun in AA