Thursday's hurt my brain

[El Gallo]

UO had a metric fuckton of grinding in it.  Recall that people paid monthly fees to let a macro program play for them.

That being said, it was different.  It was largely free form.  But also keep in mind that a lot of the free-formlessness was accidental.  Do you think they intended you to stack things up so they loked like aquariums?  No, but that is what UO's elder game was.

I think that a UO done right could be a lot of fun.  But it would have to either be buggy as hell in a way that just happens to work, or else it will have to consciously design the tools for freeform play.  SWG tried to do that I think, but was saddled by the license and the fact that the game was rushed, unpolished and soulless.  {Note that "UO done right" here means "Trammel done right.  Because, as someone said here, the victems are gone and they are never ever coming back.  SWG proved that no matter how hard Designer Dragon begs, pleads, cajoles, bribes or threatens people to become fodder, they won't do it.}

I think that SB done right could also be a lot of fun, but it will always be somewhat niche because of competition from multiplayer FPS games.  I think that they will need some time played/character building/nation building mechanic to differentiate themselves from FPS games.

Finally, I think that EQ done right could be a lot of fun.  And I think that these will always be the most successful MMORPG's, because these games gain the most from the massively multiplayer part, being essentially cooperative.

But I don't see many options other than EQ done right, Trammel done right, and SB done right, for monthly fee persistent state worlds.

[Fargull]

Good Stuff

Haemish,

Not in beta, but from what I have been reading, it is beginning to look like WOW might have some innovation.  I am seeing more and more baby steps towards a model different than EQ.  Is EQ without the SUCK innovation?  I will gladly stand beside you and keep waving the banner for a game based in a world that is not driven by time invested pellets, but with the downfall of E&B and the hacked remains of the games tossed to the wayside recently, I am thinking those with money are getting a little ansy about investing into games that break the money mold currently in place.  I can understand the decision to not charge blindly into the night, but to keep a level of fundamental design and innovate around it. We are still in the infancy of this little jungle.  Radical change is rare in a market that is showing driving steam, but radical change in the gaming media does happen.  I have faith as long as money is being made by the genrea that Innovation will come, and as Foix so elogantly put it earlier, hopefully those that are raising voice now against the grain will have some impact on that innovation.

[Sloth]

Have you PLAYED the FPS mode of ESPN NFL2k4? No? Because sure, the game of football is the same, but an innovation such as FPS mode completely changes the gameplay. I lack the words to describe how different the game plays from "standard" football games such as Madden 2004. It's a simple thing, it may not sound like much, but it's such a singularly fresh take on an old favorite as to be astounding. That's innovation, as opposed to renovation. Sure, PGR is "just" a driving game; but the fundamentals of what you do in that driving game are so far afield of Pole Position, it's a complete innovation.

You seem to think that innovation has to change the core game; it doesn't. Hell, at heart, Ultima Underworld was just another Ultima RPG. Only, it wasn't. The addition of FPS drastically changed the way the game was played. Same with the original Wolfenstein (on the Mac) to the current Return to Castle Wolfenstein or the ET mod. INNOVATION. You could say that at heart they are both games about shooting Nazis dead.

But if you are going to be that simple-minded, then you'll be playing a reskinned EQ for a long time.

WoW could be an "innovation" on the whole EQ paradigm. If combat was much more involving, took actual player skill more seriously instead of time-played or levels, it would be an innovation. Since you seem to be in beta, you tell me. Is it? Does it feel innovative? Or does it feel a good bit like EQ with differences in skins, timing, etc. ? If it's just EQ without the suck, then it hasn't innovated.

The MMOG genre seems capable or willing to only give us "EQ without the suck" or "UO without the PVP."

I took the liberty of bolding the key sentance in your first paragraph. Old Favorite. Since you keep trying to divert the arguement into semantics I'm going to steer it back around to the original point. You still liked football even before NFL ESPN. If I didn't like Football, why would I sit around every year buying football games? Is ESPNs FPS mode going to make me like playing football if the things I don't like about football is the actual game?

You bring up Ultima Underworld and there isn't a more clear cut game of my point than that. Ultima Underworld is an RPG, adding the FPS mode doesn't change the inherent concepts of RPGS. If you don't like leveling and questing, you aren't going to like UW just because its in first person.

I'm not in the WoW beta I only played it for about 4 hours. I can't tell you much about WoW other than the initial impressions up to level 7. I can say that yes WoW is basically reskinned EQ, except that it masks the grind better with questing.

But lets get back to the term "innovation". You say an innovation would be playerskill instead of time-played or levels, but how are you going to do that and retain players? Why are people going to stay long if they have access to everything at the start? Or maybe you mean that its sort of like PS where its twitch based and you gain "xp", but at that point it still becomes an advancement grind. When you are coming up with new ideas for an MMOG you have consider is this going to keep people playing? Because that is the primary goal. Now you might hate "The Man" and think the concept of making money is evil, but only discussing games in theory can you discount the money, when talking about reality the money matters.

I agree with you that Gotham is way more technologically advanced than pole position and that someone who didn't like pole position because it wasn't a real driving experience would like Gotham better. But your complaint with MMOGs isn't about a technological limitation, its a philosophical one. You complain that MMOGs are all reskinned EQ. No matter how technologically advanced we make EQ, even a Holodeck, if you still have to gain xp, spend a year playing, and camp for loot your philosophical difference is going to keep you from having fun.

Now maybe you don't have an ideological problem, maybe you've just been conveying that by accident. Maybe as I said here and several posts ago that a game like WoW that does a good job of masking the negatives of MMOG will appeal to you even though its reskinned EQ.

[HaemishM]

And with that post, you have proven you are a complete and utter DUMBFUCK.

Would I have bothered to play EQ, or DAoC if I didn't like CRPG's? Or Fantasy-themed combat-oriented RPG's? Or that I don't like massively multiplayer online games that involve lots of other people? You are correct, if I didn't like any of those things, I wouldn't have played them in the first place. That is such a no brainer statement that I honestly cannot believe you even said it.

No, what you've said is that MMOG's are and can never be anything but fundamentally-based on time investment, loot collecting, grinding, and grouping. Which is not true, and which I've already discounted (except for the grouping part, because I agree with you that is a fundamental tenet of Massively multiplayer online games).

Now, can a subscription-based game make bank on something other than those concepts for an extended period of time? I begin to doubt it, and it seems no one in the industry is the least bit interested in finding out.

I want CRPG's with multiple people in them (maybe not 2000 per server massive, more like 500 massive) that allow me to create my own story in conjunction with other people, without worries about leveling or item whoring, without basing my power upon how much time I've invested in the game doing the same things. You are telling me that is fundamentally impossible, as that is an entirely different genre of game than MMOG's. Except that that is exactly the concept being used to sell MMOG's to the market.

[Rasix]

This topic is ready for the deep freeze.  

Really, all it is now is optimism v. the brick wall of status quo.  Well, at least the SirBrucing has been kept to a minimum.

[Sloth]

Would I have bothered to play EQ, or DAoC if I didn't like CRPG's? Or Fantasy-themed combat-oriented RPG's? Or that I don't like massively multiplayer online games that involve lots of other people? You are correct, if I didn't like any of those things, I wouldn't have played them in the first place. That is such a no brainer statement that I honestly cannot believe you even said it.

No, what you've said is that MMOG's are and can never be anything but fundamentally-based on time investment, loot collecting, grinding, and grouping. Which is not true, and which I've already discounted (except for the grouping part, because I agree with you that is a fundamental tenet of Massively multiplayer online games).

Now, can a subscription-based game make bank on something other than those concepts for an extended period of time? I begin to doubt it, and it seems no one in the industry is the least bit interested in finding out.

I want CRPG's with multiple people in them (maybe not 2000 per server massive, more like 500 massive) that allow me to create my own story in conjunction with other people, without worries about leveling or item whoring, without basing my power upon how much time I've invested in the game doing the same things. You are telling me that is fundamentally impossible, as that is an entirely different genre of game than MMOG's. Except that that is exactly the concept being used to sell MMOG's to the market.

Why do you keep trying to insult me? I'm only going by what you've already said previously in this thread...

And not one MMOG since then has either made me think I'm playing a NEW game. They ALL have made me feel like I'm playing the SAME GODDAMN GAME AGAIN, just with different skins. Which I'm pretty sure I've articulated multiple fucking times. Needless to say (although obviously not as you still don't seem to get it), if I've already burned out on EQ-style gameplay, why the fuck would more of the same in WoW, ONLY OMFG WITH WARCRAFT SKINS, would matter one fucking whit.

I want a NEW game, not an "EQ ONLY BETTER!!!11!"

As I said earlier, and if you go back, I pointed out that you spent 2 years in EQ, which meant that you did LIKE EQ and that you would probably like WoW too, but then you replied with the above. Which brings me back to what I said, you have a philosophical difference with MMOGs now. I never said you didn't at any point not like MMOG, in fact I said you did! What I'm saying, based on what you've ALREADY said,  is Post EQ you don't like the grouping, time investment, etc etc.

I can't read your mind, i can only go by what you are posting so don't start insulting me because I'm following the train of logic you provided.

As for the last part, finally some substance. And to which I say yes if you want to make money, no if you plan on hosting the server yourself. I'll admit I should have been more clear at the beginning, i'm basing my four concepts on the fact you want to make money through player retention.

From what I can tell about your theory of innovation, WoW should fit into your model because the game does tend to be more fun even though the basic philosophy is the same. For that matter RoT should as well, although it has permadeath. Both these games are about the loot whoring and the 8 hour game day, but I can see , at least in WoW case how its not as frustrating as EQ.

[Daeven]

UO had a metric fuckton of grinding in it.  Recall that people paid monthly fees to let a macro program play for them.

Yep. Everyone macroed their way to the fun part. It stuck me as inheretly obvious that instead of 'macroing' through character creation I should be able to simply create the character I wanted (ala Traveler) and then play the damned game. And everyone missed this lesson completely resulting in more levels, or Shadowbanes more levels faster!

Hellooooo? McFly? Anyone in there?

The single greatest mental hurdle that needs to be addressed in this genre is this whole implementing inappropiate single player cRPG mechanics in something that is manifestly NOT a single player cRPG.

Unless you like levelling as gameplay. In which case ignore me and keep playing the games you enjoy.

*shrug*

[El Gallo]

Yeah, you can do the static characters thing, but you need to come up with a reason for people to pay a monthly fee to access their static character.  

For static PvP, Planetside did it (mostly, the characters aren't totally static like you want them to be) and it was greeted with a yawn as people went back to Counterstrike.  You need to make massively multiplayer capture the flag -- with zero in game consequences for capturing such flags -- that is not only fun, but monthly fee fun.

For static PvE, you are going to have even more work cut out for you.  You'd have to start with something like "Trammel done right" or "Sims online done right" and then remove all the item collection aspects of those games and still have a game that is worth ponying up a monthly fee for.