Do levels suck?

[HRose]

Or how about people getting rejected for shit because they don't have Flowing Thought 15 or some nonsense? Fuck that uber shit.

This is happening already in WoW. Some would say it's because the players decided that themselves, but it's instead the game to impose its mechanics in the longer run (we are at this point now). And it's why the great majority of the "casual guild" have a very short life.

All the high-end guilds right now HAVE TO shape themselves around 40-man raid content. Smaller guilds dissolve or flow into bigger ones because they cannot survive if they cannot support those raids. At the same time the raiding guilds need to close themselves because they cannot support more members than those strictly required for the raid. Right now most of them are in fact closed and joining them would be harder that sneaking in the Pentagon. From interviews in voice chat, to obligatory links to profiles about what your character currently wears. Joining one of them requires more commitment than a REAL JOB.

As I said this brings these communities to isolate themselves, also because the progress in the raid content is only possible if you are able to rinse and repeat it endlessly. If your raid has always different players at each run, you are going to fail big time. This is why all these guilds and the whole endgame is focusing on really stable and reliable groups of "friends" that can progress all at once and why these groups of friends don't welcome any new player if not under very special circumstances.

It's also similar to what happened in FFXI and the concept of "static party" that I NEVER heard in any other game.

It's ABSOLUTELY FALSE that the players shape these games and the communities. It's the game to shape its community.

[Nyght]

All I see here is the blind men and the elepahant. Are we trying to build an everlasting world or the next highly sucessful broad market MMORPG?

People in the room who think both goals can be achieved in the same product raise there hand.

[HRose]

Are we trying to build an everlasting world or the next highly sucessful broad market MMORPG?

People in the room who think both goals can be achieved in the same product raise there hand.

Me. Unashamedly. I believe Raph too.

I summarized somewhere else what I think of this discussion: "doing better, not doing without."

This discussion is *useless* if we cannot find better mechanics that retain ALL the qualities of the levels and then some. If possible new ideas aren't unquestionably better, then we can as well keep developing and playing level-based games.

If it's true that "levels suck" it's also true that better models are possible. *And* that they can be more successful.

If you beileve instead that level up mechanics are the best we can have, then the premises of this discussion would have been proven wrong. Raph wrote those two articles because he obviously believes that there could be better models, or there wouldn't be any reason to doubt of those level-up mechanics in the first place.

From my point of view this is a pragmatic manifesto. Not abstract theorization.

[HRose]

Oh, and let me finish, because I went past Raph in this discussion and moved forward to discuss the *solutions*, not just the premises.

I've already pasted my ideas on the "sandbox" and systemic games. But there's also the problem about why the sandboxes have failed, because they did (coping from Darniaq's page):

Darniaq:
Linear games are easier to sell to a larger crowd it seems.

The point is that the "sandbox" games are still rudimental and the industry doesn't have a lot of experience making them. The outcome just cannot compare to a linear game that is the direct heritage of a single-player game with a long history behind.

Making a good sandbox game is just way harder than sticking with a simpler, consolidated model. It's more risky, less predictable (so the industry rejects it).

But then we have to go back at the roots. Why WoW is successful? Because it is accessible. Because it's the very BEST game for a new player approaching this genre (without a doubt).

And what's the first flaw of a sandbox? It's lack of direction. The fact that you don't know what you are supposed to do next and you feel overwhelmed and lost.

This CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED.

In my personal experience I had the exact same problems in UO, SWG and Eve-Online. It's definitely not a coincidence. All these three games are very hard to figure out and enjoy. I'm not a total newbie but I had LOTS of problems in these games and I can see clearly why something like WoW is more popular. I know because it affects me as well.

In all those three games, for example, I found really, really hard to find people to group with, while it's almost impossible to not get invited in a group in WoW at some point. I wrote about this in various occasions but the first, supposed quality of these games was instead my very first issue: the socialization.

I always found *extremely hard* to talk to strangers in UO, SWG or Eve if not within strictly formal relationship (like to repair my things in UO).

So the point is that the sandbox games aren't simply "not successful". The fact is that they aren't ready. Just that. They are still too partial, incomplete, rough and inconsistent.

Still today the sandbox games are those where I had the LESS fun. So why I love them anyway? Because what I see is their potential beyond those flaws that have been impassable barriers for me. And if have that silly dream of becoming a developer it's because I dream about what these games will be when those barriers will be removed.

That's the myth I'm chasing.

(give a look to these ideas for some context)

[Nyght]

If it's true that "levels suck" it's also true that better models are possible. *And* that they can be more successful.

There is not a design tenant anywhere that I am aware of that does not have both benefits and drawbacks. If there were such a thing, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Whether of not levels suck is very much dependant on the details of the total design.

My point it that there is no one size fits all. No absolute best. And that game development is a quid pro quo between the user and the developer. Users want entertainment (fun). Developers want revenue. If you chart the possibilities you would probably end up with kind of a flattened bell curved shaped graph like almost all sociological based things.

I believe you can find points on the top of that curve with or without levels. I am suggesting, once again, you guys are focusing on the developer side of the relationship too heavily. If you want hit the top of the curve, you have to focus on what the customer wants first. Then work on your systems to fit your revenue model underneath it.

Edited to add: Why is subscription longevity important to me as a user? Short answer: Its not.

I'll shut up now. Merry Christmas and Happy Holiday to all.

[Typhon]

The generated content and AIs are *chimeras*. They will never work. Going in that direction won't bring to any result. The demand for (that type of) "content" can only be delivered in that way. You cannot magically (algoritmically) produce content. you won't fool anyone if not yourself (see Mike Rozak's splendid definition of content).

I don't believe this.  You don't have to create an AI that can have conversations with humans to create an AI that can produce content.  We can create AI that can beat the best chess player in the world, which says to me that we can create AI to wage war against another AI in a MMO.  The players are the foot soldiers, captains and colonels, the AI is the general.  This allows you as the player to focus on character and skill development without worrying about some human general and all the politics that brings.  Player ability to successfully implement directives influences faction success, so players influence world evolution, but they aren't at the whim of capricious leaders (well, not emotionally capricious leaders, anyway).  Guilds form squads, companies and battalions within faction armies.

This is not to say that story doesn't exists within the game.  Here is the proposed stages of character evolution:

Stage 1: Flexible character creation (SWG, CoH)
Stage 2: Nimble Character development with optional Story (WoW leveling pace, DAOC story/battlegrounds option)
Stage 3: Story intersecting with endgame-prep (DAOC battlegrounds with AI generals)
Stage 4: Main story completion with player entrance to end game conflict (DAOC endgame with mutable endgame world and AI generals)

One trick is to have the scripted content lead players to the point where they are handed off to the end game, where AI generals direct endless conflict.  This succeeds where worlds fail by giving people an idea about what it is they should (could) be doing.  Another trick is to have some (largely illusionary) sense of character progression within the endgame.

It's PvP, but the generals/conflict rules decide where and when PvP occurs.  When AI generals lose new generals must rise to take the place of the old.  Forces within empires that get larger must force them to split (civil war, AI general aging and death, wrath of god, AI proposed guild defection*, etc)

*AI chooses a guild(s) within a winning faction to bribe to switch sides to a lesser faction to modify the balance of power.

[Nija]

I've already pasted my ideas on the "sandbox" and systemic games. But there's also the problem about why the sandboxes have failed, because they did (coping from Darniaq's page):

Yeah, the sandbox games just have to take another step. Look at Morrowind and the Grand Theft Auto games. You have this main story line that is doing one thing, and you have all these other things that you can do in the meantime that are fun. Sometimes you get so caught up in the other things that you totally forget what you're supposed to be doing.

The next step is banging hookers then running them over to get your money back, but only in mmo terms - surrounded by other people who can also laugh at it.

[Xanthippe]

On a mostly unrelated tangent, thanks for reminding me why I quit WoW.  I was thinking about resubbing, but now I remember why I left.  (And I saved $15!).

Merry Christmas.

[Krakrok]

The generated content and AIs are *chimeras*. They will never work. Going in that direction won't bring to any result. The demand for (that type of) "content" can only be delivered in that way. You cannot magically (algoritmically) produce content. you won't fool anyone if not yourself (see Mike Rozak's splendid definition of content).

I can sit in Bryce and click "Random Sky", "Random Sky", "Random Sky" and algorithmically generate content. Another example is the CoH character generation system. You can click randomize and get a randomly generated character look. Why can't I fight these randomly generated characters instead of the same Thug #1, Thug #2, and Thug #3 500 times? Bottom line is, given a framework and/or a human filter, random and algorithmically generated content does work. I think a number of 20% human and 80% random has been mentioned before. MMOGs don't even have Eliza level conversation systems and Eliza is ~20 years old.

Stage 2: Nimble Character development with optional Story (WoW leveling pace, DAOC story/battlegrounds option)

My only question is why would I want to level in your game at all if the "endgame" is PvP? Just give me the PvP now and reward me with powerless shiny loot.

---

Skill systems are not levels in disguise. Real life doesn't have levels. If I have X million dollars and 3 cars while you have $5 and 8 kids what level are you and what level am I? If I'm a skilled stock broker I can still make mistakes. Power level progression systems don't leave room for mistakes. But look at Planetside's levels. It's meaningless to even call them levels. Why didn't they have a military "rank" system to be less immersion breaking? What sounds better, "Hello Level 25 what can I do for you today?", "Hello General what can I do for you today?"? Are MMOG characters/players so Borg that we are reduced to number designations to flaunt e-peen?

[Typhon]

My only question is why would I want to level in your game at all if the "endgame" is PvP? Just give me the PvP now and reward me with powerless shiny loot.

Some folks like their games to have stories that they get told, i.e. quests or missions.  Some folks like their to be a reason why they are going to fight enemy X, and a good backstory is a decent part of that.  Often the backstory is told through quests/missions.  In my opinion, folks view levels as the most important part of the story (journey) that the quests/missions tell (so much so that many people don't even read the quest stories).  If people didn't enjoy the journey that leveling represents, and they just wanted to jump into the PvP action, way more people would be playing Planetside.

Please note that the above Stages were only one example of where AI could generate content (without it being the "AI generates a story and/or writes Shakespearan plays").  The same game could be played without any PvP, players could always just be facing off against NPC enemies (i.e., raiding). This type of raiding would be driven by some AI attempting to secure some strategic goal rather then a story waiting to happen.

[Slyfeind]

Skill systems are not levels in disguise. Real life doesn't have levels.

I think what we're looking at is consolidated levels don't exist in real life. We see levels every day in areas such as the martial arts (combat), labor unions (trade skills), fraternity/sorority organizations (social skills) and the military (leadership). They're called different things, as you pointed out, but they're still levels. And also as you point out, a high level in one area does not guarantee a high level in another area.

Interestingly enough, those real-life levels often prevent people of a low level from grouping with people of a higher level. But they also allow for side-kick grouping.

[tazelbain]

Skill systems are not levels in disguise. Real life doesn't have levels.

I think what we're looking at is consolidated levels don't exist in real life. We see levels every day in areas such as the martial arts (combat), labor unions (trade skills), fraternity/sorority organizations (social skills) and the military (leadership). They're called different things, as you pointed out, but they're still levels. And also as you point out, a high level in one area does not guarantee a high level in another area.

Interestingly enough, those real-life levels often prevent people of a low level from grouping with people of a higher level. But they also allow for side-kick grouping.

Those aren't levels; those are certifications. Getting a black belt doesn't make you stronger.  Becoming stronger gets you the black belt.

Anyway, I have been flundering around Eve for a few days.  A lack of level or classes have left me nonplused and the slow game play doesn't give me much incentive to figure that mess out.

[Krakrok]

Please note that the above Stages were only one example of where AI could generate content

Oh I totally agree with your chess AI metagame played on top of the main game (that would be sweet). I'm just pointing out that it need not be tied to a level system which cockblocks players from playing the real game. The setting and story doesn't need a level system to give it legs. Missions and quests don't need levels. The reason Planetside fails longterm is because there is no setting or reason for fighting at all. There is nothing to defend, nothing to gain, no one to fight for, and frankly no setting to speak of other than "we're stuck here lets fight". This works in the short term OMGFPS this is fun way but but arguable not in the long term.

I think what we're looking at is consolidated levels don't exist in real life. We see levels every day in areas such as the martial arts (combat), labor unions (trade skills), fraternity/sorority organizations (social skills) and the military (leadership).

I disagree.  Martial arts might look like a level system (red belt, green belt, black belt, whatever) but it is really a skill system because it's falliable. You can be a master martial artist and I can shoot you down or run you over with a tank without any problem. You yourself just listed "trade skills" and "social skills". Master Craftsman is not a level; it's a skillset. Why? Because you can get old and blind and not able to perform masterfully any more. You have to learn it. If you just plain suck at something it's possible that you will never get much better than you are now regardless of how much time you throw at it. And military rank is NOT a level system. Why? Because you can lose rank; you can screw up and be demoted to nothing.

I will admit that while thinking about this reply I decided that the American education system is a level system. Highschool level. BA. BS. MBA. PHD. Whatever. The reason I feel it is a level system is because it really doesn't have anything to do with skill and you can't lose it once you've gained it (beyond it being revoked for cheating). The "getting old and senile" doesn't apply here because it is a achievement that is bestowed by society.

Interestingly enough, those real-life levels often prevent people of a low level from grouping with people of a higher level. But they also allow for side-kick grouping.

I disagree. Your social class doesn't prevent you from interacting with people of different social classes. People of different social classes other than your own just may not be able to relate or get along with you. You certainly can try though and sidekicking is a nice hack as Raph says. Wealth however is also not a level system because you can lose it all. It is like a pitcher of water sitting in the sun.


See the problem with MMORPG level systems is that they are based on an infallible irrevocable god complex. To err is human but MMORPG level systems don't take this into account. Your character is basically the body of an automaton and you are the plugin AI brain. As long as you plug in all the right buttons for long enough you win and advance. You can't lose. There are not a lot of things in life that you can't lose at. And that is why levels suck (as they exist in MMORPG EQ clones today).


That all being said, sandboxes as they have been implimented in the past are not the answer either. I feel the directionless pain of EVE as well. Twitch sandboxes with a driving setting (such as a real evolving AI controlled faction war) could possibly be the answer. Wow, I wrote a lot of crap.

[Typhon]

I'm just pointing out that it need not be tied to a level system which cockblocks players from playing the real game.

I agree, it doesn't need to be tied.  But I'm not sure that if the game doesn't have a demostrative increase in character power that you'll have the same sense of connection between player and character.  Players do not care out the Doom marine.  Players barely care about Morgan Freeman.  I'd say that a level system can be created that moves along quickly enough so that it doesn't feel like it's cockblocking players from playing the end game.  If it's 1) entertaining during the entire leveling process, 2) informative and/or instructive and/or formative (specifically from a community perspective), 3) not specifically required for alts or "remorts" (if the game has alts or "remorts", I'll trust Raph to know what the right word is for re-rolling without wiping) then it can be a decent addition to the game, and potentially takes a game with a good end game, and makes it a great game.

I'd also agree (if you'd said it) that levels aren't required to tell a story or give a sense of progression. 

[I repeat myself here in a slightly different way that I'm unwilling to simply cut, feel free to skip]: Where I'm uncertain is whether games without levels/skill system (I disagree that a skill system is significantly different then levels) or increasingly powerful items give the player as much of a sense of growth or connection with his character.  My feeling is that the greatest evil that levels cause is mudflation, and there hasn't been enough effort directed at mudflation to determine whether it's as unsolvable as everyone acts like it is (my feeling is that designers say things like, "we should have problems like mudflation"... until it's too late to do something about it).

[HRose]

There is not a design tenant anywhere that I am aware of that does not have both benefits and drawbacks. If there were such a thing, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Whether of not levels suck is very much dependant on the details of the total design.

In fact you don't build an entire game just with one idea. In the post above yours I pointed what is the biggest flaw of the sandbox from my point of view. That's what needs to be improved and if you follow the link at the bottom you see some practical, concrete ideas that I suggested for Eve-Online.

Of course there's not a one-size-fits-all game. What I say is not that. What I say is that I believe that you can have possibly (more) successful games even without levels.

Just that.

[HRose]

I don't believe this.  You don't have to create an AI that can have conversations with humans to create an AI that can produce content.  We can create AI that can beat the best chess player in the world, which says to me that we can create AI to wage war against another AI in a MMO.  The players are the foot soldiers, captains and colonels, the AI is the general.  This allows you as the player to focus on character and skill development without worrying about some human general and all the politics that brings.  Player ability to successfully implement directives influences faction success, so players influence world evolution, but they aren't at the whim of capricious leaders (well, not emotionally capricious leaders, anyway).  Guilds form squads, companies and battalions within faction armies.

I'm not saying that this isn't "possible", I'm saying that this is "single-player". A mmorpg doesn't need that. It's redundant. Too much work that should be focused on THE PLAYERS, not the NPCs.

There's a blog post Ubiq wrote that I cannot find right now that explains why we really didn't want true AI in games.

My theories are simplified here:

Dynamism works better in PvP. So those ideas are more interesting if applied in a PvP environment.

Instead PvE needs good stories and good stories need staticity or it would be just impossible to narrate good ones when you don't have the controls on what is going on.

Dynamism means contingency and the contingency is the opposite of identity. Identity is essential to narrate stories. So the needs of PvP and PvE are antithetic.

AI is more like a "toy" than "content". This is why it would be more appropriate in PvP, where you don't need the control to tell a good story. But then the PvP really doesn't need AI by definition.

My point in a line about the AI: it simply doesn't contribute to a MMORPG in a way I see as worthwhile.

Anyway, I have been flundering around Eve for a few days.  A lack of level or classes have left me nonplused and the slow game play doesn't give me much incentive to figure that mess out.

Yes, that's a huge problem and one that seems to exist in every sandbox. But this doesn't mean that the problem CANNOT be solved.

Raph says:

There’s plenty of good stuff they bring to the table. But if we’re smart, I think we can have all that stuff without levels themselves.

And I added my perspective on this point:

while you cannot have a freeform game within a linear one, you can still have linear paths (and more than one) within freeform games

We all know how sandbox games SUCK. And they do. But this doesn't mean that they HAVE TO.

Still today the sandbox games are those where I had the LESS fun. So why I love them anyway? Because what I see is their potential beyond those flaws that have been impassable barriers for me. And if have that silly dream of becoming a developer it's because I dream about what these games will be when those barriers will be removed.

That's the myth I'm chasing.

[Zane0]

What I'd like to know is how one can account for say, AO's system, which gives you attributes and skill points to allocate when you level up.  The distinctions bleed together.

I think WoW's approach is a step forward in terms of the mudflation-newb problem.  The WoW solo experience was entertaining enough -in narrative and gameplay- for me to play alone for a lot of my time to lvl 60, which is basically an unprecedented move in the industry.  Whether one makes the transition to the more-social lvl 60 raid gameplay is another matter, but that's still a few months of subscription opposed to a cancellation in the first month.

[Typhon]

I understood that you meant AI cannot create good stories.  I agree, at this point, AI can't create good prose that is often synonymous with story.  I disagree that story can only mean prose.  You played DAOC, you know that each server had a story about who had what relic when.  All stories aren't those you read.

I disagree that raiding content needs to have anything to do with story.  Raiding content usually is the most craptastic story in the game, great zones, great monsters, thin to no story.  Most raiders aren't reading any story that is provided, they are raiding... again, and again, and again.  What was the backstory around Legion and the DF princes in DAOC?  I have no idea, but I killed all of them multiple times.

Instead PvE needs good stories

Only during the journey, not at the endgame.  The endgame needs to be nearly static so mudflation doesn't fuck up your game before players are done playing with it.  As above, the endgame doesn't need story that isn't world changing because players aren't consuming endgame story, they are fighting the big scary for the fat loot.

A world changing story, on the other hand, seems like it could generate player interest if it was done in a way that folks felt like they had some degree of influence over.  A good way for story to be world changing, is for it to be dynamic.  A good way for it for it to be dynamic, is for it to be directed by an AI that is trying to win a war.  Writers can come in and write backstory/flavor story after the event has occurred and post it in the "news" section of that server instance to make players excited about making their own mark upon that server's game world.  In this way folks interested in story can read story, folks not so much don't have to.  To some extent this could be considered part of the "loot" to be collected - getting your name on the permanent record of ass-kicking for that server.

Stories aren't just linear things that end the same way each time that require reading.  History, for instance, is a "true" story told after the fact.

In my opinion, you'll never get a world until you completely abandon your predetermined stories and embrace entities with motivations and character descriptions that are free to act independently based upon input from the world.  In these worlds, each server would have completely different stories.  In these worlds, the stories don't dictate player action, player action creates the stories.

I'd be happy if the next step was a fusion of stories (quests) during character evolution that ends with AI driven strife (with stories told after/about that strife).  If that doesn't sound interesting consider the following example: An AI general is losing the war.  The game engine decides that the general needs a boost.  It flags the GM, who, working with server writers, decide that the general will consort with dark powers.  Over the next couple of days/weeks that faction's armies are bolstered with demons, and that general begins to recover.  If a rough balance of power is restored then no further change is required.  If the demon summoning general is becoming too powerful he can be eliminated and a demon-only force (NPC) can come into power with a cease fire breaking out between other AI generals occuring to band together to put down the demon menance (and players/guilds under the former AI general be subsumed into other armies as a way of evening the sides).  Players find out about what is going on through the communications (writen by the writer) that occur within the chain of command within the army (and possibly through stories released to the "news" section of the website for that server/instance).

It's a different model then everyone is used to.  Content that is developer created is made availabe to server-GMs/Writers who then wait for a in-game opportunity for that content to be used (such as the demons in the example above).

[HRose]

I understood that you meant AI cannot create good stories.  I agree, at this point, AI can't create good prose that is often synonymous with story.  I disagree that story can only mean prose.  You played DAOC, you know that each server had a story about who had what relic when.  All stories aren't those you read.

I totally agree with this. There was a comment from Amberyl on Raph's blog explaning exactly this:

I’m not convinced that MMORPG players aren’t capable of reading, or don’t like reading. I don’t think they like reading the text that they’re presented in today’s MMORPG, in the context that it’s presented in.

You’re talking about a demographic that also devours 800-page Robert Jordan novels. Clearly they like reading *sometimes*.

Now the point is that, as I said, I prefer to see that dynamism that also DAoC has, in PvP. And expand it way beyond what DAoC did.

I disagree that raiding content needs to have anything to do with story.  Raiding content usually is the most craptastic story in the game, great zones, great monsters, thin to no story.  Most raiders aren't reading any story that is provided, they are raiding... again, and again, and again.  What was the backstory around Legion and the DF princes in DAOC?  I have no idea, but I killed all of them multiple times.

Because the raids are game-y. You wouldn't have the time to read a story even if you wish.

Most of WoW is game-y and the immersion is the result of many other elements, not the text in the quests.

Only during the journey, not at the endgame.  The endgame needs to be nearly static so mudflation doesn't fuck up your game before players are done playing with it.  As above, the endgame doesn't need story that isn't world changing because players aren't consuming endgame story, they are fighting the big scary for the fat loot.

I don't agree here. I already find absolutelly silly this distinction between the "endgame" and the rest. We don't need that gap if our goal is to BRING THE PLAYERS TOGETHER. It's a burden, not an advantage.

In FFXI there are good stories. The two expansions add a whole lot of storylines and chapters to follow. But still they are nearly worthless for the treadmill. You don't do them because you want more power, nor you are required to do them. Still, they are what the appeal of the game is.

A world changing story, on the other hand, seems like it could generate player interest if it was done in a way that folks felt like they had some degree of influence over.

And again I'm all for integrating some PvE "toys" in the PvP game. Again my idea is that you can add some of these mechanics to a PvP game. But not strictly PvE, because it's in the PvP that this type of dynamism is more fun and effective.

It goes also beyond what we are describing here. Complex dynamic events also driven by AI like the one you proposed are even HARDER to figure out and implement than the linear content. So you are going to burn even more resources on them.

So that type of dynamic content isn't even more optimized than hadcrafting everything in the smaller detail.

[Slyfeind]

I disagree.  Martial arts might look like a level system (red belt, green belt, black belt, whatever) but it is really a skill system because it's falliable. You can be a master martial artist and I can shoot you down or run you over with a tank without any problem. You yourself just listed "trade skills" and "social skills".

Yeah, I agreed with you in my original post, when I said "a high level in one area does not guarantee a high level in another area."

Master Craftsman is not a level; it's a skillset. Why? Because you can get old and blind and not able to perform masterfully any more. You have to learn it. If you just plain suck at something it's possible that you will never get much better than you are now regardless of how much time you throw at it.

GURPS takes those things into account; skill level declining with age, or an inborn ineptitude at one thing or another. They might suck in an MMO, but game systems do exist for them.

And military rank is NOT a level system. Why? Because you can lose rank; you can screw up and be demoted to nothing.

I'm kinda undecided about that one. On the one hand, the prestige that can come with military rank can indeed be taken away. At the same time, the skills one can learn through that rank can stay with you.

I will admit that while thinking about this reply I decided that the American education system is a level system. Highschool level. BA. BS. MBA. PHD. Whatever. The reason I feel it is a level system is because it really doesn't have anything to do with skill and you can't lose it once you've gained it (beyond it being revoked for cheating). The "getting old and senile" doesn't apply here because it is a achievement that is bestowed by society.

Bear in mind I'm talking about these things in the context of game design. Game designers put artificial levels on their game mechanics, just as humans put artificial levels on skill sets (Apprentice, Journeyman, Foreman, 1st degree black belt, Grandmaster, etc). We try to find structure in the world around us, and when we can't find that structure, we imagine it.

Your social class doesn't prevent you from interacting with people of different social classes.

Privates in the military cannot hang out in officers clubs. I know very few white belts that can hang in a fight between grandmasters. (They're out there, to be sure, but not in abundance.) Using the education analogy, my non-existant skill level in mathematics is of no assistance to my friend who's working on his thesis right now.

[Krakrok]

Privates in the military cannot hang out in officers clubs. I know very few white belts that can hang in a fight between grandmasters. (They're out there, to be sure, but not in abundance.) Using the education analogy, my non-existant skill level in mathematics is of no assistance to my friend who's working on his thesis right now.

My comments regarding this were in relation to upper class vs. white collar vs. blue collar. You can converse with your mathematics friend regarding other topics. Additionally, you can probably do algerbra and possibly calculus while he/she can do more advanced math. I don't see those as levels because they feel like a learnable skillset. The actual title of PHD or what have you is the level. I also don't see the officers club vs. privates as a level thing either. It's more of a "what's the password old boys club" kind of thing which makes me think of the British army officers circa 1800s being all aristocrats and someone moving up from the ranks just not being accepted because of the same social class (re: Sharpe's Rifles).

I’m not convinced that MMORPG players aren’t capable of reading, or don’t like reading. I don’t think they like reading the text that they’re presented in today’s MMORPG, in the context that it’s presented in.

You’re talking about a demographic that also devours 800-page Robert Jordan novels. Clearly they like reading *sometimes*.

I've read hundreds of scifi/fantasy books. However, ingame, any block of text that is more than two sentences causes my eyes to glaze over and me to click the next button as fast as possible so I can get back to stabbing things in the face. If you want to tell me a story in game my suggested method is to have a "sargeant" type character (and this is just one example) radio in and scream at me with urgency. Things like "They're breaking through! We need you over here right now! GO GO GO!". Make it urgent and make it matter when you fail. Halo captured some of this but in a MMOG it would/should be more dynamic. I am NOT going to read your two paragraph fedex quest dialog box in 10px font.

[HRose]

I've read hundreds of scifi/fantasy books. However, ingame, any block of text that is more than two sentences causes my eyes to glaze over and me to click the next button as fast as possible so I can get back to stabbing things in the face. If you want to tell me a story in game my suggested method is to have a "sargeant" type character (and this is just one example) radio in and scream at me with urgency. Things like "They're breaking through! We need you over here right now! GO GO GO!". Make it urgent and make it matter when you fail. Halo captured some of this but in a MMOG it would/should be more dynamic. I am NOT going to read your two paragraph fedex quest dialog box in 10px font.

I don't think that the problem is that reading on a screen cannot work. In fact I'm reading right now. And I do plenty of reading while in front of the PC. I don't mind it.

I hate reading in mmorpgs, though. Still, a few days ago I was able to run again Ultima 8 and I'm replaying it. I love so much reading in that game. Without the dialogues with the NPCs and its story, it would be a shitty game, probably the worst ever since the gameplay sucks so badly in U8 (but it's more or less the same in every Ultima).

So I don't believe that "reading" doesn't work in a game. But I do believe, as Amberyl said, that the "presentation" of what we read is just plain bad. Which makes reading in mmorpgs suck so badly.

This also triggered a bunch of ideas that I'm planning to write down in detail. But the summary is: Enough of functional quests, waypoints, quest journals, marks hovering the NPCs, quest levels and so on. I was the first to propose and beg for those a few years ago, but now I would like these games to go in the opposite direction.

I want real dialogues and "living" NPCs as it happened in the Ultima series. Where you don't skip the quest text to get a strict summary of the objectives, but where, instead, you have to RESEARCH and EXPLORE. Talk with different NPCs, taking notes, figuring out the stories. Where you can ask about different topics and not just click, click, click and click again till you reached the end of a one-way text and finally got the quest. Where these NPCs are interconnected and where the dialogues are more rich. So that the world comes to life as something cohesive and not a bunch of quests glued together without any tie between one or the other if not a vague reference. A world where EVERY item is interconnected.

And dialogues that aren't simply functional to get or finish a quest, or flagged clearly that way. The NPCs would tell things to you, recommend who to speak to, where to search what you are looking for, give ideas of the world where you live, explain how to open that portal. But without strictly functional quests that trigger at some point. Without the game recognizing between "this is the text for a quest" and "this is extra text". Without a "you got a quest!". Without functional mechanics "you gained 300xp!".

If you are trapped in a dungeon, your duty would be to escape alive. Not to get experience points because you killed the monsters. If you are working to open a portal to another world your duty is to research and collect the items and knowledge you need to do that, and not other unexcused rewards. If you are researching a new spell, your duty is about studying it, learn where you can acquire it, train it. But not magically "dinging" and the spell appearing in your hotbar because you "gained a level".

Then, maybe, reading will regain its function instead of remaining "optional" extra text without a purpose.

EDIT- This would also mean that a "quest" would be completely detached from the purpose of being a "mean" to progress in the treadmill. Questing should be about living a story and just it. Not an pretence to kill mobs and disguise the treadmill.

[HRose]

To explain (more to myself than anything):
In a mmorpg the "kill10rats" model is about an "excuse" to disguise the treadmill. The strict purpose of this quest is that you gain experience and get loot. These quests are excuses so that the process seems more varied (kill10 this, then move and kill10 of that, instead of just plain grinding in one spot). Once you killed those 10 rats, you are exactly in the same situation of before. The quest is no more availiable and you pass on something else. But the quest itself, has no purpose or actual sense in the world. It was there as a pretence, not as a strong, motivating element. An "extra" in the game, not the subject of the game.

In my idea (that mimics that magic that made me love so much those early games and that the modern ones have lost) a quest is a mean for the story. A quest can be a way to get access to a different zone, discover a new spell and so on. If an NPC asks you to obtains some reagents (kill10rats) it's because once you have accomplished that simple quest, something will happen after. And then something else. You don't chase strictly your character progress. You chase a story and discover a world. If you don't deliver those reagents that were requested, or if you don't find an alternate way to pass that point, you won't be able to continue with the (your) story.

This means that there could be "kill10rats" quests. But they would be part of a world and a story that goes on, cohesively. And not a redundant action without a purpose.

[HRose]

Now an experiment. Roleplaying design instead of explaining the theory.

This is a rough idea I used to paint visually and define some concepts. The concept of a "plane" should work like a large "hub" of player. This dimension will be accessed from a portal located in the homeworld of the game. After stepping in this portal, the players will be moved on one of the planes/hubs available (themed after the magic schools). The hub will usually exist around a large outpost/city from where the players will have access to other dimensions and "adventures".

Think to one of this hub like a zone filled with mist. You cannot really look and distinguish things far away. There's a reddish light and mood that permeates everything, like seeing the world through red lenses. The surroundings are rocky, with bigger and smaller stalagmites, strangely shaped natural "sculptures" and a few odd plants that you cannot recognize. If it wasn't for the mist you could wonder if the whole place wasn't just inside a huge cavern. If you look up you don't see a sky or a ceiling but just more mist. All the sounds seem to have a weak echo. You seem to be on a road, vaguely discernable from the rocky landscape but looking as built by someone and not natural. Dotting the side of the irregular road are a few feebles, floating blue lights. On the distance you seem to discern some odd structures resembling to buildings. S you walk toward this city, the more you get closer to it the more you discover how huge and complex it is. The buildings have no doors and seem built directly in the rock. You cannot really define the landscape, there are slopes, ladders, buildings on top of other buildings, endless walls and narrow passages. Some odd bridges, dead ends. The whole place doesn't seem to have a "top" or "bottom". You enter what looks like a huge palace, there are odd people hidden in red cloaks, gliding around and whispering things you cannot discern, busy with their own duties. Some look at you but turn away if you look in their direction. The whole place is more complex than the city outside. The architecture doesn't seem to have a sense and seems coming out directly from a dream of Escher. Some rooms seem to not have entrances, some are nearly suspended, some are built at odd inclinations or have sections that have crumbled.

You may decide to leave the place and move away from the city to see if the zone where you are has borders, if it is a cavern and if you can find one wall, or if it leads to a different place. So you follow the road from where you arrived. The landscape remains rocky but it is not regular and you seem to move up, then down again, never in a straight line. You walk through some narrow passages and in some points the road continues in different directions. So you choose one and continue walking. You aren't sure if you will be able to return back without getting lost. You can just hear your steps and a weak wind in your ears that seems to pick up. The mist seems to become more thick, the visibility decreasing. You start to hear some creepy sounds, some steps just behind you, then running after you and moving in front of you. One of the lights that are bordering the road fades out, then another. reducing even more the visibility.

You aren't left with many options so you decide to stop for a while and see what happens. But nothing happens. You wait some more and then continue walking. At some point you see a shape, not far away, on the road you are following. It's rather big but you cannot really understand what it is. Just a dark shape in the mist, blocking your way. So you continue to walk toward it. As you walk closer you start to notice that it moves slightly, regularly. It seems to... breath. You start to see some more of it. It seems to turn toward you. You see distinguish a frightening face, glowing red eyes open on you. You hear it breathing slowly,  ruggedly. Then everything happens at the sudden, the demon seems to stand up from its position, becoming much bigger than how it appeared on the road. And it starts to move toward you, faster and faster. A loud growl tearing the dull quietness that permeated the place till that moment.

Note: This idea for a game assumes a total immersion. All the mechanics of the game will have to *bend* to that rule with no exception. This means, for example and as described, that there won't be any "pulling" mechanic. If you can see a mob, the mob can see you (if you aren't disguised, or hidden, or stealthed). And if the mob is aggressive, it will charge on you without giving you the time to organize. The demon in that scenario wants your blood, and it is going to get it.

Now we can see what actually would happen in a "mmorpg". People would spam "LFM demon run" in the town and gather at one of the portals. But then? The mood and gameplay is lost like that? I believe not. Not at all. You cannot outplay the mist. You are still moving through an ambient where you cannot see clearly what's around you. where you cannot predict the attacks even if you have been there various times. The demons don't stand still on a point and react and move as they see humans close to them. And they can perceive them from far away. They don't wait you to "pull" them. They don't sit waiting to be farmed. They FARM YOU and all the other players that dare to pass. And, maybe, there could be a mechanic making them stronger for every player they kill and devour, making this scenario even more unpredictable.

You won't have any radar or map in the game. So? Spoiler site! Okay, I still want to see how you'll figure out a place with multiple levels and a true z-axis that isn't just a flat map with a hill on the right and a tree in the middle. Where things are one above the other and not linearly connected. Slopes, passages, tunnels, peaks. It would be easier to describe it with words than map it. Maybe there will be players that will learn a path through these levels and avoid the meanest demons, and they will become "guides" for other group of players, escorting them from place to place. Hopefully safe. Good. That's what "content" is. And that's how you shape a world.

And I want the players to *die horribly*. Not swing a stick at the air. I want those demons to charge you, to hurl you away with a slap. I want them to uproot a stalagmite and throw it at you. I want them to tear you apart. Grab your sword and throw it far away and then chomp your head. I want them to jump on you and block you on the ground while your party tries to pull the beast off you before it devours you. I want the players to become PREYS. That's your "hero's journey". Survive that.

And that's how I was also hoping to recapture that mood and atmosphere that is now lost. We play these games boredly, like a routine. While I would like the game to make you feel like in a Lovecraft book. And be on your toes every second, if you are out in the mist.

And now I shut up to not definitely kill Raph's poor thread :)

[Slyfeind]

My comments regarding this were in relation to upper class vs. white collar vs. blue collar. You can converse with your mathematics friend regarding other topics. Additionally, you can probably do algerbra and possibly calculus while he/she can do more advanced math. I don't see those as levels because they feel like a learnable skillset. The actual title of PHD or what have you is the level. I also don't see the officers club vs. privates as a level thing either. It's more of a "what's the password old boys club" kind of thing which makes me think of the British army officers circa 1800s being all aristocrats and someone moving up from the ranks just not being accepted because of the same social class (re: Sharpe's Rifles).

Ah, I see. I think we're coming from different sides of the argument. I'm seeing things more like, we as humans put levels onto aspects of our life, in order to make sense of it. The black belt is a better fighter than the white belt, the PhD is better at mathematics than the high school student, etc. Developers put levels onto game content to try to make sense of that too. Level 10 content is more challenging than level 1 content, etc. Neither works out perfectly, of course, and in fact sometimes it makes things worse, but there it is.

I think we're totally in agreement that proficiency in one skillset does not constitute overall level of power. Me and my friend can work (form a group) evenly in the realm of poetry, and almost evenly with music. We've both studied and practiced it. Give me a set of drums and he a guitar, and we could pound out some good stuff. But if I were to try to help him with his math, I would give him bad results. If he were to join me in dance, it would cause spacial and rhythmic awkwardness. But we could use a side-kicking method where he gave me easier problems to solve for him, or I gave him different yet complimentary choreography.

[heck]

And re: Being able to jump into a game and immediately pose any threat whatsoever to an established player.  That kills the whole point of building up a character in the first place.  

Raph's article debunks the notion that your character is getting more powerful. Your character is actually getting LESS powerful the more you level. You just don't notice because you get distracted by the shiny and the fact that you can peacock strut your number to players with a lesser number.

That is pretty sad for achievers actually. No matter how fast they run on the treadmill they get less and less powerful. What happened to the lone hero who could kill the dragon? WoW gives you a mob of 40 peasants and calls it a "raid".

Don't they have games where the sensible noob can challenge a vet?  Quakes, Halos, Battlefronts, etc.  Most people I game with play those games when they want to have some instant gratification on an anonymous level.  They function as a break from MMOs. 

On an existential level, I see Raph's point:  a player may gain levels, but with that the playable environment becomes exponentially more difficult.
But on a 1:1 basis, someone with experience in a particular environment should definitely have the clear advantage when matched against a person entering that environment for the first time.  There has to be a justification for the time investment, otherwise it's just a simple shooter.

[Kageru]

Level 1-60 in WoW is just the tutorial, and rather superbly balanced (skirting the edge of tedium) to
the amount of content they were able to produce with the money / time they had available. Sure, it
would be nice to have hand-crafted, intricate, meaningful and tailored content for every step of the
way but that's just not economical even if it was possible... and people see through auto-generated
content very very quickly, intelligence is all about pattern recognition after all.

The levels themselves are just a generalized indication of character progression. They get rid of the
weakness with skill based systems where you have to grind each possible parameter of your character.
Such as "jumping" training in morrowind, or lock-picking in WoW or EQ. There's not actually enough content
that demands those skills so repetition is mandatory. This is why WoW has recently sprinkled empty, pickable,
locked boxes over various zones. Not to mention the amusing knots skill based games tie themselves
into when they have to consider HP increases. Instead you can say that a character is level "X" of class
"Y" and assign the skills they can be expected to have, without the boring gameplay involved in levelling
each skill individually. And there's lots of ways you can mix the two systems, such as rolemaster where
each level gave you points and your class determined how much each skill in the game cost for you, or
fallout which had tag skills where each point invested was worth more due to your specialisation. Of course
this is what talents do in WoW, though not very well.

Also somewhat amusing Raph didn't mention the game that had the ultimate skill grinding, SWG. Why not
grind up an endless sequence of skill sets you don't actually care about, that don't have much actual content,
for the Jedi carrot? Even more amusing because ultimately you were grinding the skills simply to delete
them.

In any case paying too much attention to the issues of levels is simply over-optimising the first month or two
of your MMORPG's gameplay. If you want a real challenge address meaningful character progression in the
end game that doesn't fracture game mechanics. This is certainly something WoW has no answers too (nor
was able to borrow from elsewhere). Although it is interesting they've so far resisted the easy answer of EQ's
Alternate Advancement system which was basically a way of extending the level grind to infinity, although it
did significant damage to the game.

[Xilren's Twin]

Think to one of this hub like a zone filled with mist.
SNIP
And I want the players to *die horribly*. Not swing a stick at the air. I want those demons to charge you, to hurl you away with a slap. I want them to uproot a stalagmite and throw it at you. I want them to tear you apart. Grab your sword and throw it far away and then chomp your head. I want them to jump on you and block you on the ground while your party tries to pull the beast off you before it devours you. I want the players to become PREYS. That's your "hero's journey". Survive that.

And that's how I was also hoping to recapture that mood and atmosphere that is now lost. We play these games boredly, like a routine. While I would like the game to make you feel like in a Lovecraft book. And be on your toes every second, if you are out in the mist.

Remind me to never play a game you design  :-D

Seriously, you want dramatic tension and role playing in a mass market game?  Good luck with that.  Much of what you want isn't easily doable in a Massive game simply due to the shared knowledge and the random playerbase.  You can't dismiss spoiler sites and the dissemination of information that way b/c as soon as you talk to one other person in game, they've expanded your knowledge whether you wanted it or not AND affected the mood.  So going through the area with a "guide" (other player who knows the area) will still spoil the mood unless that other player is intentionally trying to preserve it and using things like voice chat to do so than just fumble typing text at you (i.e. "big scari demno near!").  What you want is MUCH more akin to a small group focus rpg than these massive beasts.  Having a big sandbox game wouldn't change this.

(BTW, ironically enough, the original D&D pen and paper game, the mother of all levels, was very much the kind of sandbox game you want.  Just because so many of it's rules are combat related did not limit the scope of it b/c a skilled DM could tailor the experience to suit the players.  Even D&D had tradeoffs like Paladins having to follow the tenets of their faith in order to keep their powers, yet that is something which incredibly few crpgs let alone mmorpgs have implemented, mainly b/c their content isn't tailored to the players.  A good DM could have a great shared story about a paladin's faith being tested with no combat involved at all.  Levels and sandbox are not mutually exclusive especially if the power curve is small.)

In my mind, what you are seeking is a better NWN which allows for a human to fulfil the role of DM for a small group that has it's own adventures and more embedded game systems.  Levels (of skill levels) don't take the focus b/c all they are used for is to set appropriate difficulty challenges, and even than they aren't the end all be all.  How many quests have you played through where the Foozle you had to defeat was much too strong to fight head on, so you had to do something else to weaken, defeat, trick, entrap or otherwise find a non head on solution to deal with it?  "That dragon eats armies for breakfast, we'd better go search for the last dragonorb of gygax so we can mind control him into thinking he's a butterfly..."

Current popular MMORPGS are all about head on combat with generic content strictly to fuel advancement up a power curve.  Current sandboxy games give you game systems and freedom but no direction or reasons for wanting to do any of it, and again, generic content.  What you want simply isn't generic.

A small step in the right direction would be to allow instances to at least tailor adventures to best challenge the parties entering it but even that would be fairly cookie cutter (i.e. if party has a rogue, include 4 traps, 7 locked doors/containers, 3 pick pocket spots, a wall climb, 2 sneakable areas and 3 secret doors).  Another way to approach it would be true sever divergence based on player actions.  But again, the less generic you make things they more expensive it becomes to create them. 

I really hope someone is able to take the concept of NWN, flesh it out and figure out a way to make money doing it.  Sure 95-99% of all player created content is crap (no matter what form it takes), but just finding a way to harness that 1% applied to WoW millions of users help create a ton of content.

Xilren

[Sky]

Power differentials between levels are at the root of countless systems in modern MMORPGs

I've talked about power differential for years, now. I mainly started on that when Planetside came out with an advancement mechanism that promoted diversity instead of power. Of course, it's also exposed to what I call 'mmogtardation', in which people play the game badly (from a tactical sense...and it's mostly a tactical game...) because they want to get more 'exp'.

I still think a shallow UO-like (NOT SWG skill era) advancement scheme is nice. Use weapons to get better at them, and thus customize your character. But don't make that customization take forever (SWG). The goal to me should be customization, not advancement.

Then, with a flat power differential (which is to say, none, but more realistically it's based on skill choices and player ability) you can have ungated content so people can enjoy what they'd like to in a game. You could still gate things by remoteness or other factors, just not some "Sorry, go kill more rats, no cool stuff for you" that makes most mmogs crap.

And that's not even getting into the divisiveness of levels, or all of the game systems you mention that cropped up because of such a silly mechanism sticking around forever.

[Krakrok]

The levels themselves are just a generalized indication of character progression.

I disagree. Normal levels yes. EQ clone levels no. EQ levels and EQ clone levels were designed as a cockblocking subscription retention mechanism. Or at least that is what I keep reading from Brad Mcquaid.

[HRose]

What you want is MUCH more akin to a small group focus rpg than these massive beasts.  Having a big sandbox game wouldn't change this.

In fact the sandbox is "in the other direction":

The concept of a "plane" should work like a large "hub" of player. This dimension will be accessed from a portal located in the homeworld of the game.

That "homeworld" is the sandbox. Divided into regions that can be conquered and managed by the players. That's where the economy exists and where some elements of the "RTS" layer take place (gathering resources through NPCs).

For a scheme look here.

The "other side" is PvE, instead. PvP and PvE are geographically cut apart, even if the PvP has some PvE "toys" and the PvE some parallel competitive elements. The planes are shared hubs and also persistent, but from there you can open portals to other dimensions that will be instanced. This follow the model I described on a extra-long post when I was discussing "instancing" after the articles of Lum, Raph and Brad:

PvP - Not instanced: persistent, dynamic, emergent, contingent, systemic, player-centered, toys, unbalanced, competitive, killer/socializer, player economy, sandbox.

PvE - instanced: static, identity, myths, stories, authorship, control, linear, handcrafted, world centered, balanced, cooperative, achiever/explorer, definite with a start and a conclusion.

The advantage of the sandbox part in PvE (and on the planes I described) is that the game is completely skill based (even if I use a trick for endless progression with diminished returns) and the power curve flat.

Basically all the players (new and veterans) can access all the content available (and on the PvP side they HAVE TO play together). The PvE content isn't "repetable" because, as I said, PvE needs a story to be good. It needs involvement and identity. It cannot be "contingent". Contingent is antithetic to identity. So, by definition, you cannot radomly generate good PvE content or make it dynamic beyond a certain level (that must still be carefully planned).

As I said there ISN'T and there WON'T EVER BE a way to magically create good content with an algorithm. My "solution" on this aspect is about changing the overall scheme. So that every player can access the same content and not just a small fraction of it. So that new content won't mudflate out of the game old content. And so that the players are brought TOGETHER instead of apart.

The rest IS carefully handcrafted content. And it is NOT used as an excuse for the advancement. Instead it is founded on the ideas (about questing) I explained above.

Which is exactly what Sky wrote just below:

Then, with a flat power differential you can have ungated content so people can enjoy what they'd like to in a game. You could still gate things by remoteness or other factors, just not some "Sorry, go kill more rats, no cool stuff for you" that makes most mmogs crap.

[Raging Turtle]

/generalizing

You guys don't want a game, you want Reality 2.0 with an optional elf boobies upgrade    Fuck all that 'my bronze sword ought to have a .037 chance to hit the armpit of the guy in steel plate armor' and 'skill points ARE/AREN'T levels' ... people want a FUN game, and while stuff like that may be fun for the hardcore masochists on this board, most people wont give a shit about the small details.  I am 100 percent sure that you can make a FUN level based system (WoW seems to do it pretty damn well) and a FUN skill point or whatever system (UO, EVE, ATITD).  There's too much worrying about perfecting the small stuff and not enough worrying about if its FUN.  As has been said before, WoW is a great game, but a very average world.  One could argue that power creep for equipment is a very necessary thing, in that it becomes

My take on levels/some kind of grind:  They're necessary for player retention.  If you give everyone (quick) access to the good stuff immediately, they're not going to want to stick around once they've tried everything.  There's no attachment to a character if he can be replaced in a few minutes, and therefore, probably not much attachment to the game.  How many people played Guild Wars beyond a month or two?  I hear people complaining about power creep, but really, why the hell would you stay in the game otherwise? Just move the whole guild to the next shiny game.

I have more points to make in a more coherent fashion, but I'm late for a movie. 

[cevik]

I have more points to make in a more coherent fashion, but I'm late for a movie. 

As with all things, there are two camps here at f13.  I find it easiest as a "game guy" to let the "virtual world" guys wax poetically about how, when someone finally makes the "ideal" virtual world, that genre will be fun.  I find it's best to stir things up occasionally by pointing out that thousands of fun games have been made, but no one has yet succeeded in making a fun virtual world.  They'll deny that fact, but that's what puts them firmly in the "wrong" camp.  :)

[heck]

I have more points to make in a more coherent fashion, but I'm late for a movie. 

As with all things, there are two camps here at f13.  I find it easiest as a "game guy" to let the "virtual world" guys wax poetically about how, when someone finally makes the "ideal" virtual world, that genre will be fun.  I find it's best to stir things up occasionally by pointing out that thousands of fun games have been made, but no one has yet succeeded in making a fun virtual world.  They'll deny that fact, but that's what puts them firmly in the "wrong" camp.  :)

A fun virtual world, in and of itself, won't exist until someone invents a working holodeck.  Until then, virtual worlds are going to require a bit of effort on behalf of the participants.  No?

[HRose]

A fun virtual world, in and of itself, won't exist until someone invents a working holodeck.  Until then, virtual worlds are going to require a bit of effort on behalf of the participants.  No?

What's the point here?