One Medium, Many Genres

[mven]

Actually the part about doing laundry etc was in response to someone saying that doing inconsequential things take "life" out of the game.  I was implying that "life" tends to be a collection of inconsequential things.  If what you imagine as being a living breathing world is some place where every moment is action filled then why not play CoH?  It feels dead to me because all of the inconsequential details are left out of the game (with perhaps the exception of tedium).  AC2 is the same way.

Zelda feels less alive to me than AC2 any day however.  There is no randomness in Zelda.  All of the mobs act the exact same way each time you play.  There is no other person playing to alter your experience in any way shape or form.

You are right the the "game" has to come before the "life" as it provides the setting for which life can interract.  However it does not mean that you are completely restricted and that every action and event within has to be pre-scripted. 

In GW it pretty much is.  Sure you can pick up a band of merry men to go adventuring with.  However while on your adventure will you ever encounter another living breathing person who might aid your group, irritate your group, or attack and kill your group?  Obviously not.  Basically you and your friends are playing your own game, away from anyone else.  Is this a bad thing?  Probably not.  But is it anything new?  Not really.

I guess what I am rambling on about is the only thing MMOGs have going for them is large scale social interaction, you take that away and you basically just have a single player or small scale multiplayer game.  If that is what you are looking for then there are thousands of titles already out that should fit that description.  What is Massively Multiplayer about being in an instance with 3 other people?

[Margalis]

You are right, other than that there are actually very few RPG style games based around small groups. There are plenty of FPS games, not many RPGs. I can only name 2: Guild Wars and Neverwinter Nights. Take a game like WoW and make it all instancing, and I don't think it is really massive anymore. But there are actually very few games like that.

[HaemishM]

I guess what I am rambling on about is the only thing MMOGs have going for them is large scale social interaction,

That's part of the problem. If all they are is large scale social interaction, I can get that in IRC for free. They have to be MORE than that, and since they are being sold as GAMES, they should be games first, world second. If the games are good, the world will feel more alive, but if they are the same retreaded shit we already have, they will feel less alive.

you take that away and you basically just have a single player or small scale multiplayer game.  If that is what you are looking for then there are thousands of titles already out that should fit that description.  What is Massively Multiplayer about being in an instance with 3 other people?

That's the problem with the thinking that MASSIVE is what's really needed. It isn't, or I should say, it isn't good enough in and of itself. There has to be more to the game than just massive social interaction, and if it means smaller, more focused boutique style action, that's a good thing. At some point, the ability for one person to reasonably interact with large groups of people tops out; you can only interact with so many people before they all become faceless retards other than the people you've met and known. There's no reason you have to have 3000 people on a server, when 500 will do.

[Evangolis]

There's no reason you have to have 3000 people on a server, when 500 will do.

Actually, there is, in theory.  The idea being that there being many people you see, but never meet, the whole thing becomes more 'realistic', and gives the idea that there is an unexplored 'social dimension'.

Obvious downside is the inevitable net increase in the absolute number of assholes.

[mven]

Well I think the problem isn't so much in the desire to make the "massively" well..more massive so much as it is in the attempt to make the MMO more like other games.  It's like rather than cultivating the one advantage this genre has (massive social interaction) they instead minimize the effect of social interaction to focus on providing more of the same game.  Most of the current MMOs contain endless chains of the same types of quests you could find in any console RPG except that they can be done in groups.  It can be fun to do this with your friends but it's nothing that couldn't be done w/ say Baldur's gate or Diablo 2.  So why is this the direction MMOs are heading?  Why take the easy path like GW and promote even more of the same?  Money obviously but where is the vision?

[Daeven]

I dunno any real "soldier" who would want some untrained civilian with a pitchfork as a partner in an assault they would just be a liability.

Well, a good thing the MMORPG "civilian with a pitchfork" never would run into enemy soldiers then, because the enemy soldiers would spawn in "soldier" level areas only.

'cause, you know, There is absolutely no place for 'Peasant levees' in any sort of game world involving modeling medieval combat.
...

[mven]

I could see the peasants participating, just not them being part of an "elite" (higher level) combat squadron.  Or something like that.

[Margalis]

One legit reason to have "massive" gaming is that you need a certan size population for economic stability. On a server with 300 people, the prices of various goods are going to be all over the place because the law of averages isn't really going to kick in. There might be just one person selling some item for 2 weeks, then 10 people selling it the next.

Then again, is that a bad thing? With only 300 people per server the economy would be much more dynamic, and most people would be able to carve out a niche for themselves rather than just being replaceable cogs. On a server with 300 people you might be the only guy on the server farming for The Sword of Werewolf Slaying +10 rather than one of 20 guys. I do imagine you would get more complaints from players though, like "why does this potion of minor healing cost 10,000,000 on my server? WTF!!!?!?!?"

Bigger numbers lowers variance. On a very small population server you might also have a problem of random distribution making a certain key class very rare, like a server with only 10 healers on it.

[HaemishM]

That brings up a question. Is a smaller server population going to be more conducive to a skill-based game or a class-based one? Would having only 300 people on a WoW server be bad because of the variance in class/race population imbalances?

[Pococurante]

I still think the next business model are small niche worlds that players can seamlessly travel between and help build, Otherland-style.

[mven]

That brings up a question. Is a smaller server population going to be more conducive to a skill-based game or a class-based one? Would having only 300 people on a WoW server be bad because of the variance in class/race population imbalances?

Well, I think in the case of WoW 300 people would be a huge problem considering you have single instances that alone require 30-40 people in a single raid to complete.  That's 10% of the people on the server.  On top of that if you stuck with the same class percentages you'd end up with like 30-50 each of rogues, hunters, warriors, and paladin/shamans as oposed to maybe 15 priests/locks?  Maybe 20 of each druid/mage?  I think it would end up being so hard to find decent instance groups that everyone would just switch to playing classes that PvP well solo which would amount to everyone and their brother being a rogue/hunter even more so than now.

In a class based game like EQ I think it would work out a little better since casters actually held fairly respectable numbers if I remember correctly.  Clerics seemed a lot more popular than priests seem to be in WoW.  I still think you would encounter problems.

A skill based system would probably work out better, not because a skill based system is any better than a class based system but because with a true skill based system it is much easier for people to "jack of all trades" their character.  Which will allow them to be effective solo or grouped or at least in a wider variety of group situations.  I'm sure a few people would still specialize but I think spreading their abilities out would work better in a smaller scale environment where there is not so much of a demand for a specific role.

I personally do not think a 300 pop server is that great of an idea even excluding the fact that it might have a screwy economy.  Again I revert back to my argument that these games are social in nature.  On a 300 pop server if I log in at 4 am how many people are going to be on?  10?  20?  If the world is a decent size will I be running around for hours before encountering another player even during peak?  That's not really social.

The one upside I can see to this is that smaller communities tend to encourage that feeling of "family".  I admit I had a better relationship with people who posted messages on the same BBSes I did way back when.  I was probably closer to anyone who I played L.O.R.D. or TW2002 with than 99% of anyone on the WoW server I play on.  I still wouldn't trade WoW to go back to the BBS tho haha.

[Yegolev]

One legit reason to have "massive" gaming is that you need a certan size population for economic stability. On a server with 300 people, the prices of various goods are going to be all over the place because the law of averages isn't really going to kick in. There might be just one person selling some item for 2 weeks, then 10 people selling it the next.

Then again, is that a bad thing? With only 300 people per server the economy would be much more dynamic, and most people would be able to carve out a niche for themselves rather than just being replaceable cogs. On a server with 300 people you might be the only guy on the server farming for The Sword of Werewolf Slaying +10 rather than one of 20 guys. I do imagine you would get more complaints from players though, like "why does this potion of minor healing cost 10,000,000 on my server? WTF!!!?!?!?"

Bigger numbers lowers variance. On a very small population server you might also have a problem of random distribution making a certain key class very rare, like a server with only 10 healers on it.

Yeeesss... I can feel the power of the Small Side growing within you.

The thing I expect would happen is that instead of muttering to yourself about how expensive a potion is, you could talk directly to the seller.  Chances are that you know him or her, and if not you certainly know one of his or her friends.  Consider the more intimate social setting and realize that people will be less likely to act like fuckers with the veil of anonymity somewhat lifted.  I envision a game where a friend list is not necessary because you can remember everyone you interact with.

A cross-realm auction house might work to stablize things.  I'm not sure you would want to do this, though, since a dynamic economy is more fun and would serve as one more minigame.  Hoarding to drive up prices or flooding to lower them, could be fun if done right.  Not that this isn't being done right now in WoW and probably FFXI, except in those games you only notice that "some dick" is manipulating the AH rather than "Razath, that fucker I saw on Mount Ordeals two days ago".

I think, for consistency's sake, you would want a small number of "races", as it were.  Putting fifteen distinct racial capitals into your world adds unnecessary complexity in this situation.  I figure a single large urban area as a starting point with towns of various sizes in the rest of the world.  But that is a design detail.

I'm a big proponent of skills over levels in most contexts.  My bias is flavored by too much EQ.