Will there ever be a good, fun Sci-FI MMO?

[Lantyssa]

Having a large amount of lore is not really a benefit.  Yes it gives the developers a starting point and is an initial draw for players, however problems quickly arise if the team is unable to strongly incorperate that lore and that is not an easy task.  They also have to fact check everything because if they contradict even miniscule events the fanbois will be screaming for blood.

If the devs get too focused on getting the lore correct, they may lose sight of making good gameplay, which is hard enough to do as is.  The lore may also prevent fun ideas from being implemented because it cannot happen in that setting.

It is far easier to come up with something original or to use something with enough backstory to make a cool setting but without enough to hinder making the game.

[schild]

No amount of lore makes an MMORPG good. I'm sorry, lore doesn't replace good gameplay. And since we haven't gotten to good gameplay yet, this thread can be answered in 3 words.

"Maybe, probably not."

[Lantyssa]

You are right, it cannot.  It is likely going to get in the way of making that gameplay, too.

(There, I can be succinct.  Sometimes.  Really.)

[Stormwaltz]

Having a large amount of lore is not really a benefit.  Yes it gives the developers a starting point and is an initial draw for players, however problems quickly arise if the team is unable to strongly incorperate that lore and that is not an easy task.  They also have to fact check everything because if they contradict even miniscule events the fanbois will be screaming for blood.

Best way would be to have one recognized lore expert review everything, so everyone doesn't have to become an expert. Turbine has Chris Pierson as lore expert for MEO:LotRO:SoA:WTF. He's always been a hardcore devotee; he has his name in the extended edition credits for all three films.

[Kail]

I think its a LOT harder to get a good sci-fi MMO simply because you are limited in the variety of effects that even futuristic "science" could reasonably produce.

Think about WoW, EQ, or any MMO like that.  Think of the staggering array of spell effects.  There is not a suspension of disbelief problem with magic, because we believe that "magic" in the fictional setting can produce any damn effect that it wants.

Sure, we could take every sort of spell/ability in WoW and paste in "Nanobot Warstomp" or some shit.  But the connection isn't as intuitive (especially given that we think of "technology" as not being castable or requiring direct contact with another person).  I believe that MMO devs thus self-consciously limit the "Magic" end of their games, which reduces tactical options and fun.

I don't know about that.  We already have games that use wierd crap like gravity guns and orbital strikes.  We have games where people are healed by walking over first aid kits.  The "staggering array of spell effects" in WoW becomes amazingly less so when you realize how many of them are just the same four effects (damage, root, DOT, heal) with different numbers; mostly I suspect that the reason games like WoW and EQ have sixty squillion special moves is because they need to give the player more carrots to string them along for a longer period of time than Quake does, not because the Devs are subconsciously afraid of sci-fi or whatever.

And even if that were true, there's no rule that sci-fi can't have magic.  Shadowrun has been mentioned a number of times in this thread, for example.  As have a lot of sci-fi settings with quasi-magical effects, like Dune.

No amount of lore makes an MMORPG good. I'm sorry, lore doesn't replace good gameplay. And since we haven't gotten to good gameplay yet, this thread can be answered in 3 words.

"Maybe, probably not."

Seconded.  The only way I can see any setting leading to a particularly high quality game is if that setting either has rules implicit to it that would make it entertaining or if it were somehow capable of attracting enough money that the devs could crank out something really spectacular.  And, after seeing Star Wars Galaxies and Matrix Online, I'm not so sure about that second one anymore.

[Lantyssa]

Best way would be to have one recognized lore expert review everything, so everyone doesn't have to become an expert. Turbine has Chris Pierson as lore expert for MEO:LotRO:SoA:WTF. He's always been a hardcore devotee; he has his name in the extended edition credits for all three films.

From a practical standpoint this is probably true.  (I imagine having someone that knowledgable whose only job is to fact check is very valuable.)  Although the rest of the team, especially those focusing on content, need to be well versed enough to make us believe we are in that setting.  Unfortunately conveying that feeling can be difficult even if someone knows the lore intimately.  Which leads us back to implementation.  Lore will not save poor implementation because most players will be too annoyed and frustrated to catch the nuances.

If a team does integrate lore to make the setting come alive and have a fun game then kudos to them.  Together these two things can give a powerful experience.  There are a few games like that out there and they deserve their praise.

[Megrim]

Everything you have mentioned is already featured in EVE, with the exception being that you can not have multiple people crewing one ship. Other than that, they have a pretty darn broad set of gameplay posibilities.

I played EVE for a year. I like and respect it, but it's not remotely what I was describing. A Firefly game would have to be very character-oriented, because the series is. It would be a game with human avatars interacting with PVE content, with handwaved travel time between firefights in cyberpunk bars, dusty mining towns, and mafia space stations.

Before Serenity, the closest Firefly came to space combat was running from that corrupt cop's interceptor in "The Message." Unless you count the Dortmunder scuttling the Reaver-struck freighter in "Bushwhacked."

I am sorry, but i still do not see in any great detail what precisely the difference between your version and EVE is. Perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by "character driven" because i am not sure what this is to mean; at the moment you mention different settings to that of EVE, not much else. Are you implying a less combat-centered game?


re: Darniaq

It would take a very long time to explain in detail what the differences are between Stracraft and War2 (and that's not including the obvious, such as, say, completely differenent gameplay). The short of it is, Star is and has been up to this point in time the best rts ever made. The depth and variety of gameplay options is presents to the player is unrivalled by any rts game made before and after.

[Trippy]

Everything you have mentioned is already featured in EVE, with the exception being that you can not have multiple people crewing one ship. Other than that, they have a pretty darn broad set of gameplay posibilities.

I played EVE for a year. I like and respect it, but it's not remotely what I was describing. A Firefly game would have to be very character-oriented, because the series is. It would be a game with human avatars interacting with PVE content, with handwaved travel time between firefights in cyberpunk bars, dusty mining towns, and mafia space stations.

Before Serenity, the closest Firefly came to space combat was running from that corrupt cop's interceptor in "The Message." Unless you count the Dortmunder scuttling the Reaver-struck freighter in "Bushwhacked."

I am sorry, but i still do not see in any great detail what precisely the difference between your version and EVE is. Perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by "character driven" because i am not sure what this is to mean; at the moment you mention different settings to that of EVE, not much else. Are you implying a less combat-centered game?

To use a loaded example, it's the difference between pre-JTL SWG and EVE. In pre-JTL SWG it was all about the "ground game" where you had an avatar you controlled directly. In EVE your avatar is a just a picture and you can't interact "physically" with anybody in, say, a space station.

[Megrim]

Well yes, but in EVE your ship is effectively the avatar. I mean, it's really only a skin-deep difference between having a "person" avatar, and a "ship" avatar. The actual interactions that happen are exactly the same, are they not?

[Trippy]

Well yes, but in EVE your ship is effectively the avatar. I mean, it's really only a skin-deep difference between having a "person" avatar, and a "ship" avatar. The actual interactions that happen are exactly the same, are they not?

Well sure at the meta level you could say that both games are just "shooters" (just focusing on combat for now) but at the implementation level it's the difference between something like Quake and X-Wing and some people prefer one style over the other.

[Soukyan]

So no-one misses Mimesis Online then?

Actually, I tested it out for a while and then I think they had it for free for a bit so I played it again. I guess they shut it down about a year ago or so, but it was a constant work-in-progress with a lot of work that needed to be done so it was probably a smart move for them. Was an interesting concept and world at least, but just never panned out.

[Lantyssa]

Well yes, but in EVE your ship is effectively the avatar. I mean, it's really only a skin-deep difference between having a "person" avatar, and a "ship" avatar. The actual interactions that happen are exactly the same, are they not?

The gameplay would have to focus on your character in a story.  Sure you could say time in WoW, EVE, or where ever is about your story, but there is a degree to it.

If you were to write a book about your EVE character, would it be interesting if you included all the details like mining ore for an hour?  Skilling up while logged out?  Firefly the Game should be something where watching your advetures are interesting for someone not playing because it is all about telling a story.  Basically a utopian ideal, but without that it is not living up to the show and there would not be much point in making the setting.

[Stormwaltz]

Well yes, but in EVE your ship is effectively the avatar. I mean, it's really only a skin-deep difference between having a "person" avatar, and a "ship" avatar. The actual interactions that happen are exactly the same, are they not?

If you can't see the difference between playing a ship in EVE and where things happen (and what scale they happen at) in Firefly, I'm not sure I can describe it any better. In Firefly, individuals form a ship's crew, and they have adventures together on planets, or face crises that "come to them" aboard their own ship. In EVE, everyone has their own ship, and they can at best fly next to each other.

Yes, you're still joining together to play as a group. The basic function is more or less the same. But Firefly, being focused on people and personalities rather than ships and technology, seems to demand a focus on skilled avatars interacting face to face rather than equipped starships flying next to each other. The latter simply feels inappropriate for the milieu.

[Telemediocrity]

I think what Stormwaltz is saying is that it's not even about being on the ship; it's about being on the ship and focused outward (EVE) versus being on the ship and focused inward (Firefly, or how I'd generally imagine a Star Trek MMO).  Where the ship is more of a setting, and sure, you might look out the window once in a while to watch the planets flying by, or briefly man the helm for some evasive maneuvers if you enter an asteroid belt or encounter some hostiles, but that a lot of the time it's the internal setting of your ship that provides the backdroip for gameplay.

Ever seen the Star Trek episode "Data's Day"?  Not saying that a MMO would be made of such things, but it's hard to imagine anything like that coming through EVE.

Oh, and as to this:

It would take a very long time to explain in detail what the differences are between Stracraft and War2 (and that's not including the obvious, such as, say, completely differenent gameplay). The short of it is, Star is and has been up to this point in time the best rts ever made. The depth and variety of gameplay options is presents to the player is unrivalled by any rts game made before and after.

Completely different gameplay?  The phrase "completely different" apparently does not mean what you think it means.  That's like saying Starcraft and Warcraft together had completely different gameplay from Command and Conquer.  (They didn't.)

Oh, and "the best RTS ever made?"  I thought that the 'elite' consensus among RTS types (of which I am not one) was that Starcraft was for the plebes, and afficionados of the genre were all about the Total Annihilation?

[HaemishM]

Total Annihilation was a much better RTS than Starcraft. Unless you are Korean.

[WayAbvPar]

kekelalala ^^^

[Hoax]

Total Annihilation was a much better RTS than Starcraft. Unless you are Korean.

QFT

I deleted a multiple page rant a few days back that basically amounted to that, but with more swearing directed in the general direction of SC and its players.  I like Megrim though so I decided against it.

[Fargull]

I think what Stormwaltz is saying is that it's not even about being on the ship; it's about being on the ship and focused outward (EVE) versus being on the ship and focused inward (Firefly, or how I'd generally imagine a Star Trek MMO).  Where the ship is more of a setting, and sure, you might look out the window once in a while to watch the planets flying by, or briefly man the helm for some evasive maneuvers if you enter an asteroid belt or encounter some hostiles, but that a lot of the time it's the internal setting of your ship that provides the backdroip for gameplay.

Exactly.  I like the universe as presented by Whedon.  Roddenberry was brilliant, but everything past the original show was not my cup of tea.  I would vote Kirk over Piccard anyday.

[Strazos]

I never liked StarCraft too much, especially the fucking zerg bullshit that went on over Bnet. I'm one of those guys bred on the AoE series, and when I played with friends, I just ended up building and building until I had a max-pop army full upgraded. Attacking 3 minutes into a game just isn't my thing.

[Akkori]

Word! The building is as fun as fighting! Try Empires at War, BTW, its actually pretty damn cool.

[schild]

Empires at War suffers the same poor building processes as Battle for Middle Earth and Z. I do not want to be told where I can build. I do not want to be told what I can build on spots. And I especially, ESPECIALLY, do not want to have to take an extra step just to get my already built units on the board. Oh, and limiting the number of people you can have that drastically is missing the fucking point of a war in space. Yea, great, I've reached my cap of seven. I ONLY BROUGHT 45 STORMTROOPERS, ONE AT-ST, AND MARA JADE. WATCH OUT GUYZ, I'M HEADING STRAIGHT FOR YOU.

Yea...pretty damn cool. /natch.

On that note, there will never be a good sci-fi MMOG in a sandbox.

[Akkori]

Well, yeah, it does have some limits, but in all I think its a step in the right direction. I like that you have free reign to build what you want, where to station them, and who to take to the fight. The static, pre-determined building locations... yeah, kinda bites and I am not sure why they did it. World size could have been bigger too I think. But having 2 battlefields to conquer is pretty cool (space and land). Maybe the next version will be more free-form.

If Microsoft took over FASA, maybe they will throw a bundle at BattleTech or Shadowrun. Their games aren't as bad as some others out there.

[Hoax]

Hell, Battle Realms was better then Starcraft if you ask me.  Being able to set other people's rice fields on fire was the shit.

[Technocrat]

Will there ever be a good, fun Sci-FI MMO?

God I hope so! But I'm not getting my hopes up...maybe we'll see one come 2010.

I vote for Dune, SWG II, Anarchy Online II, and Ghost in the Shell.

[Telemediocrity]

The quickest route to a good, fun, Sci-Fi MMO at present?

Get someone to reskin Puzzle Pirates so it's Star Trek themed.  Compared to the "wait and hope" strategy, with a couple talented artists it'd be quite feasible.

[Murgos]

Empires at War suffers the same poor building processes as Battle for Middle Earth and Z.

I do not want to be told where I can build. I do not want to be told what I can build on spots. And I especially, ESPECIALLY, do not want to have to take an extra step just to get my already built units on the board.

Battle for Middle Earth II fixes most of those problems but still suffers from the fact that it's an RTS.  My problem with RTS's is that they become tediously dull against the AI within a couple of scenarios and that they are generally so offense orientated that there is almost no tactical element at all against people.  Sure there is some strategy in the build queues, and lately a little more with resource points in some games, but it's all very straight forward.  I took years off of RTS's and just tried a couple recently and there has been, if possible, even less innovation than in MMOG land.

edit: The spell checker things genreally is a word...

[Merusk]

Exactly.  I like the universe as presented by Whedon.  Roddenberry was brilliant, but everything past the original show was not my cup of tea.  I would vote Kirk over Piccard anyday.

Tangent:

90% of everything beyond the original series wasn't even Roddenberry, so I don't blame the man.  Soon as he died the franchise decided that hope and inspiration was 'lame' and tried to be edgier.   History Channel was running a show called, "How William Shatner Changed thw World," that really emphasized this, to me.   (It was supposedly about all these inventions and what-not that were inspired by fans of all the ST series, but it focused more on the history of ST than anything else.)

[Venkman]

The trouble with sci-fi, in my mind, is that there really isn't much mass-marketable sci-fi out there that is actually sci-fi. Most are either horror (be afraid of new/unknown), drama with shiny backgrounds (people and their issues) or fantasy reskinned.

Fantasy is also a bit more approachable, because a lot of it is recognizable. Dragons and Orcs are unknowns, but kings, knights, magicians are all from history/lore we read. How much sci-fi is featured in kids and teens education?

Sci-fi is harder because there's less bounds than fantasy in my opinion. If there was fantasy without kings, knights and magicians, where nothing was recognizable, I imagine that would be the same issue. Basically, fantasy is rooted in some reality whereas sci-fi often is not. And when it is, it's to use technology as a gimmick to show how "advanced" a society is, yet which are still having the same problems.

Good sci-fi itself is hard to achieve and bad sci-fi has not been popular enough.

As to Eve vs, say, AO or Neocron, I think people need to play a character they can relate to. It's hard to relate to a ship. It's easier to relate to bipedal lifeforms. Not sure pulling an Auto Assault on Eve (adding characters) would do it though.

[Mortriden]

Exactly.  I like the universe as presented by Whedon.  Roddenberry was brilliant, but everything past the original show was not my cup of tea.  I would vote Kirk over Piccard anyday.

Tangent:

90% of everything beyond the original series wasn't even Roddenberry, so I don't blame the man.  Soon as he died the franchise decided that hope and inspiration was 'lame' and tried to be edgier.   History Channel was running a show called, "How William Shatner Changed thw World," that really emphasized this, to me.   (It was supposedly about all these inventions and what-not that were inspired by fans of all the ST series, but it focused more on the history of ST than anything else.)

To sail even further downt the tangent:  Saw this show as well, it was different to say the least.  The 'edgier' parts crept in slowly durring TNG, which is why it's ratings stayed higher longer.  The others... not so much.

[sarius]

Exactly.  I like the universe as presented by Whedon.  Roddenberry was brilliant, but everything past the original show was not my cup of tea.  I would vote Kirk over Piccard anyday.

Tangent:

90% of everything beyond the original series wasn't even Roddenberry, so I don't blame the man.  Soon as he died the franchise decided that hope and inspiration was 'lame' and tried to be edgier.   History Channel was running a show called, "How William Shatner Changed thw World," that really emphasized this, to me.   (It was supposedly about all these inventions and what-not that were inspired by fans of all the ST series, but it focused more on the history of ST than anything else.)

To sail even further downt the tangent:  Saw this show as well, it was different to say the least.  The 'edgier' parts crept in slowly durring TNG, which is why it's ratings stayed higher longer.  The others... not so much.

I can't really see an argument differing from these points.  My problem with most ST settings is at some point everything is answered by the equivalent of gods.  Whether the Q, or whoever, it always comes down to something that is a god, or becomes a god, or whatever.

How do you have good sci-fi MMOGs when the same ultimate references and achievements come down to the same shit we experiences in Forgotten Realms in the late 70's/early 80's?  I enjoy exploration and conquering -- I believe most people become bored if that's automatically equated to a Monty Haul setting.