Cyberpunks Unite!

[sarius]

Cyberpunk died before most of you were even born.

[Bunk]

I never played the Genesis version of Shadowrun. Not sure if it was ever released here. Sounds like I would have enjoyed it.

Its interesting how Gibson's books started out as the hardcore Granddaddy of Cyberpunk and then progressively went backwards to the point that his latest book barely touches on futuristic tech at all.

Well, you can only write the same thing over and over so many times before you essentially become a self-cannibalising parody. See that new Red Hot Chili Peppers song for an example. I think it's called "California" something-or-other.

I'm far from forum police, but if you try it, you might find that fucking yourself is a fun activity to indulge in from time to time.

And Toast.. well just put me on the list of "ooh-kay".... 

Well, I can agree with your first statement to an extent. I think Gibson has actually been able to be more subtley creative by bringing the settings of his book closer to present day, than compared to say Neuromancer - which was very creative, but in a much blunter fashion.

Was that second statement directed at me? If so, I am confused. Though self fucking can be fun, I don't see the relevance here.

[pxib]

Guns in MMOs are indeed teh suck.

In AO (A VIRTUAL WORLD) you frequently walk past two men with guns firing three-round bursts at eachother repeatedly from about 20 feet away. Numbers come out of their heads. They say "ugh" when they get hit. Did I say guns? I meant "guns". They're just ranged weapons... nothing makes them actually feel like guns.

In Gunz (DEFINITELY NOT A VIRTUAL WORLD) the good players know how far you have to lead your targets based on the differences between your respective pings. You calculate your own ping (the game does not automatically provide this information), and estimate their's based on how quickly they lock onto you. Even a tiny amount of latency matters when time-on-target is supposed to be faster than the speed of sound. 200ms is absolutely brutal.

In both places people get shot over and over and over again before they fall down. No. If you get shot with the sort of gun a cyberpunk is going to be carried around you die. If you have a bulletproof vest and they hit you in the chest you fall down. Maybe you pass out. If they hit you in the arm, it comes off... and you go into shock and bleed to death. You don't dodge bullets. You don't evade bullets. You can't even block some bullets. I don't care what kind of super futuristic nano-weave you're wearing, somebody has invented a three types of bullet that shoot through it and kill you. Weapons tech always advances faster than armor tech. It is always easier to destroy than to protect.

I think what Toast was saying when he used the word "unrealistic" was the technological equivalent of the Uncanny Valley. Certainly swords and axes and polearms ought to sever limbs and kill just as well if not BETTER than most guns. Of course "magic" is the ultimate refuge for silly abilities. But we don't know much about swords and sorcery. We don't see them in movies and on TV very often. More of us have actually fired a gun than actually hefted a mace. We don't have expectations for their realism. To play in a game with elves and orcs you have to suspend your disbelief.

A single player game in a darkly cool near-future? Awesome. You can limit the player's options and make them the sort of badass who kills thirty people a day and doesn't break a sweat. He's so fast they never see him. She tears steel doors off their hinges with her bare hands.

No PvP, no latency, no groups, and all the realism you like.

When you say Shadowrun MMORPG I hear: ANARCHY ONLINE! NOW WITH MORE ELVES!

[Engels]

Dude, when you actually start comparing RPGs to RL physics of any sort of combat you venture into the realm of the silly. In 'rl', a mace hit or a gun shot generally make for short battles. But EQ had you smacking a humanoid mob up to 50 odd times, often for 'critical hits', and as you point out, in AO, an agent can take a 'head shot' that will only take 1/8th of a mob's life.

No matter what the genre, you don't actually want to mimic RL violence too closely, because in the end, RL violence is all sorts of no fun. RL gun shot wound that doesn't kill you? You don't keep fireing your weapon, you drop and scream bloody murder. First mace-smack to any unprotected body part? Black tunnel vision closing in, the ground coming up to meet you, followed by wretching. 

[pxib]

Indeed.

I'm just saying when we suspend belief with guns, they tend to gain the ability to throw somebody back several feet.. or never need to be reloaded.. or have no recoil... or they make effective suburban home defense. The guns still kill people. Even if you get hit in the leg with a .22 you're going to need medical attention.  Admittedly movie badasses survive more bullet wounds than is probably accurate (and continue to use their wounded arms and legs), but any time somebody gets shot they notice it, and first aid is of primary concern. Tourniquets have amazing healing powers.

When we suspend belief with swords, they tend to become completely ineffective. Swing swing swing clang clang clang whish whish clang. If they connect there might be a little blood, but it's "just a flesh wound". A man with a club isn't particularly threatening at all... give him an axe, maybe. We're not disappointed to find out that ancient weapons were abandoned because they were completely ineffective, rather than because they were harder to use. Bows were faster and more effective than crossbows, and crossbows were faster and more effective than muskets... but you could give a whole team of disposable men muskets and teach them how to use them in a few days. Mastery of the bow was product of a lifetime. The mace, for similar reasons, was probably the most popular and effective weapon in history. Here's a club, except we've weighted one end so it swings harder. Brilliant.

So anyway... cyberpunk demands a level of realism with which we believe ourselves familiar...
and that creates expectations no game is likely to fulfill.

Also, uniformly players don't like fast battles, and guns lead to fast battles. In a movie you can drop into slow-motion in combat, and perhaps some dynamic could be created to allow that in a game,  but the more players around the more bizzare that becomes. If I'm shooting at six people, bullet-time is great. If I just want to get across the room and dive out a doorway I'd rather not have it take five minutes.

[Engels]

Let's see if I understand your arguement...

As a genre's lore approaches our actual existence, the higher demand for 'realism' there is, which in turn causes the game to become unrealistic in our eyes because naturally, its a game and its combat mechanics cannot possibly reflect the expectations of realism we have for it. On the other hand, if you have a game which is based entirely upon a fantasy world so separate from lived reality, you can get away with the fact that you've smacked your zweihandler against the bleedin' orc's head and he's still not dead. Right?

[Tebonas]

The old "Strap C4 under a chair, blow the Shadowrunner up and if he makes his Consitution check he survives it" dilemma.

As already said, its as unrealistic in fantasy games, but fewer people think about that because the every day equivalents are missing. You don't want to reroll your character everytime the gamemaster gets lucky with the dice offline. We once had a session with a game that allowed that. A player rolled up his knight, gave him the constitution of a mule, full plate armor (except a helmet). First fight, the enemy got lucky. Critical headwound. Instadeath.

The player quit that system for good. The rest of the players changed system out of sympathy. And because it could have been them who made a character for 3 hours to play the game one hour.

[Velorath]

Why the fuck didn't he have a helmet?

[Kail]

As already said, its as unrealistic in fantasy games, but fewer people think about that because the every day equivalents are missing.

Subjectively, I haven't noticed this to be true.  Nobody I know (aside from a few guys in the armed forces whom I don't play with) have any kind of firsthand knowledge about what happens to someone when you shoot them OR when you whack them with a sword.  Iin either case, they would probably accept death or GBH as realistic, and irritated indifference as unrealistic.  Some of them have experience with firearms, some of them have experience with martial arts, but none of them have ever killed anyone with it.  I don't know how guns would be closer to their real-world knowledge than swords.

Having guys who are able to shrug off getting beaned by a lucern hammer is something that I haven't seen outside of computer games, and in computer games, it doesn't seem to be restricted to melee weapons.  Your guy in Diablo can survive getting run through with a dozen swords... but your guy in Unreal can survive a dozen gunshot wounds, and your guy in Tie Fighter can take a dozen missiles.  Fantasy games do not have any kind of monopoly on ludicrously unbelievable (but still popular) combat.

Every time I've heard this argument it's sounded a bit circular to me.  Why are there more Fantasy MMOs than Sci-Fi MMOs?  "Because people are more willing to suspend their disbelief in Fantasy settings than in Sci-Fi settings."  Why are people more willing to suspend their disbelief in Fantasy than in Sci-Fi games? "Because they are used to suspending their disbelief in Fantasy settings more than they are in Sci-Fi settings."  Why is that?  "Because there are more Fantasy MMOs than Sci-Fi MMOs."

[Tebonas]

Why the fuck didn't he have a helmet?

Either he played the IQ score of his warrior to the tee or he didn't have enough money left. Who cares? There are enough classes that aren't allowed to wear heavy metal helmets, so an instadeath from a headwound might be realistic but breaks the game. Which was my point.

@Kail

Lets say expectations (from media coverage). When I think gunfights I think dying after being shot once and when i think swords I think pirates and musketeer going at it for minutes. Not the most realistic view, but the most mainstream. I KNOW people seldom die after one gun shot and I KNOW it doesn't take slicing somebody to tiny pieces to kill him. But thats not the picure I get from watching movies and reading fiction books.

[Tebonas]

Why the fuck didn't he have a helmet?

Either he played the IQ score of his warrior to the tee or he didn't have enough money left. Who cares? There are enough classes that aren't allowed to wear heavy metal helmets, so an instadeath from a headwound might be realistic but breaks the game. Which was my point.

@Kail

Lets say expectations (from media coverage). When I think gunfights I think dying after being shot once and when i think swords I think pirates and musketeer going at it for minutes. Not the most realistic view, but the most mainstream. I KNOW people seldom die after one gun shot and I KNOW it doesn't take slicing somebody to tiny pieces to kill him. But thats not the picure I get from watching movies and reading fiction books.

Edit: Another problem is that Hit Points are an abstraction that are taken literally.

[Technocrat]

It doesn't matter whether your swingin' a sword or pullin' a trigger, combat itself is the most immersion-shattering aspect of MMOGs, period. The quality of AI that MMOG developers seem to insist on using just isn't good enough to handle realistically fun combat. Take a look at some of the NextGen single player projects that will be comming to store shelves throughout 2007. OMFG! For example www.worldinconflict.com/us/trailer.html. Now that's realistically fun combat!

I don't care what anybody says, I'm gettin' a Playstation 3, maybe not as soon as they hit the market, but very soon thereafter! I'll bet the MMOGs for the PS3 are gonna be...the cats ass! But I digress...

@pxib: Your arguments are disingenuous, and that's being kind! To rebut, I'll simply refer you back to Engels' irresistibly sarcastic analysis.

[Velorath]

Why the fuck didn't he have a helmet?

Either he played the IQ score of his warrior to the tee or he didn't have enough money left. Who cares? There are enough classes that aren't allowed to wear heavy metal helmets, so an instadeath from a headwound might be realistic but breaks the game. Which was my point.

It breaks the game I suppose if the groups answer to every confrontation is combat.  Your characters actually having to worry about death as a likely possibility to charging into to battle might encourage you to find other solutions.  Or to put it in other terms, I'm sure many of us while playing RPG's maybe had had weapons drawn on our characters, had blades put to their throats, or guns pointed at their heads, and we look at our hit points, think about the damage that weapon does, and decide we can survive a couple hits and should last long enough to take the enemies down.

Try to lessen the instances where someone might have the opportunity and the inclination to swing at a sword at your head.  Or shoot your enemies in the head with crossbows or something from a distance.  That could work too.

[Tebonas]

Indeed, its why many groups switched to storyteller systems, which actively support that playstyle. Hack and Slash is mostly the domain of adolescent roleplaying groups ...and online games. Because that is the easiest content.

There are many ways you can improve your PnP sessions. The easiest one is to make house rules (obvious) and for the game master to influence the dice rolls in the players favour without telling them to still give them a dangerous environment where they still can die if they act stupid, but not because their dice sucked on that day (covert). We are mainly talking about the transition to online form here, though. Where the factor game master is missing.

[Llava]

As a genre's lore approaches our actual existence, the higher demand for 'realism' there is, which in turn causes the game to become unrealistic in our eyes because naturally, its a game and its combat mechanics cannot possibly reflect the expectations of realism we have for it. On the other hand, if you have a game which is based entirely upon a fantasy world so separate from lived reality, you can get away with the fact that you've smacked your zweihandler against the bleedin' orc's head and he's still not dead. Right?

A common mistake is to claim that "realistic" combat would be fun in games.

This is, obviously, not the case.

A better word would be "dramatic".

When we think of fun battles, they are generally dramatized, choreographed movie fights.  They are quite unrealistic, but that doesn't much matter- they're cool.  With games advancing as much as they are, it would seem reasonable to expect at least moderate progression towards more dramatic combat.

All this and more in my article, "I Fucking MISS??"

[HaemishM]

Dude, when you actually start comparing RPGs to RL physics of any sort of combat you venture into the realm of the silly. In 'rl', a mace hit or a gun shot generally make for short battles. But EQ had you smacking a humanoid mob up to 50 odd times, often for 'critical hits', and as you point out, in AO, an agent can take a 'head shot' that will only take 1/8th of a mob's life.

No matter what the genre, you don't actually want to mimic RL violence too closely, because in the end, RL violence is all sorts of no fun. RL gun shot wound that doesn't kill you? You don't keep fireing your weapon, you drop and scream bloody murder. First mace-smack to any unprotected body part? Black tunnel vision closing in, the ground coming up to meet you, followed by wretching. 

Not to mention that in RL gun combat, most rounds miss. Cyberpunk 2020's combat system made this quite clear that most gun deaths happen at really close range, while most gun combat invovles shooting a shitton of bullets wildly and not hitting anything.

None of that is fun for the player for long, especially not if combat moves in real-time.

[Engels]

To rebut, I'll simply refer you back to Engels' irresistibly sarcastic analysis.

Er, to be honest, I wasn't being sarcastic at pbix, just honestly trying to understand what he was saying. I think his arguement has merit, to a point, but you can push the envelope too far to justify 'fantasy fighting'. I personally, for example, cannot for the life of me get immersed in WoW. Nevermind the cartoonish graphics, its the out-of-body disphoria I experience in any of its combat. If I were a 14 year old raised on saturday morning cartoons, then I probably could immerse myself in its coyote&roadrunner explosions and other combat animations, but between its 3rd person perspective and the over-the-top effects every single combat moves has, I am unable to feel engaged.

I think WoW is geared towards folks that feel deep immersion in, say, Super Mario Bros. Those of us who seek the real escapism of 'being' in a different world, however, might find WoW's comedic mechanics charming, but fundamentally unintersting.

[Toast]

For an idea of what realistic gun combat would look like in a game, just tune into Paintball matches on ESPN2. UGH.

Maybe the abstraction of combat via hit points and game mechanics is entirely incompatible with realistic weapons and fighting animations?

I think I might actually enjoy a more full abstraction whereby each encounter plays like a game of Magic The Gathering. This "stand in the open and shoot a mutant 1 foot away" gameplay just doesn't work.

[pxib]

Lots of good topics here:

- Yes, if we had been exposed to unrealistic modern games as much as we've been exposed to unrealistic fantasy games we'd probably be a lot more willing to suspend disbelief. That said, the phrase "unrealistic fantasy" is almost redundant,so it's no surprise that our tolerance there is very high. I group into fantasy not just swords and sorcery, but also space opera sci-fi... laser pistols and Arthur C. Clarke's "sufficiently advanced technology". Whether they're engaging or not, cartoon violence is acceptible in cartoon universes.

- Yes, fighting is the lowest sort of interaction, but death is the dramatist's cheapest trick to increase tension. A few computer games have escaped the combat dynamic, but even the most successful of those are niche projects. I believe that popular MMOGs based on trade,  politics, or exploration are certainly a possibility, but cyberpunk is not a genre open to an escape from combat. Gritty gun battles and martial arts are an important part of the mileau. A storyteller system can deal with combat on a dramatic rather than simulation level and thus use it in service to a story, but computers still understand simulation better than drama.

- Realistic combat isn't much fun. Ritualized sparring like kendo, boxing, or professional wrestling are more interesting precisely because the stakes are lower. "Sometimes you're killed instantly" is an unpleasant truth. You want a fighting chance.

I also want to agree with everything Toast just said.

[Azazel]

Was that second statement directed at me? If so, I am confused. Though self fucking can be fun, I don't see the relevance here.

Technocrat told the "forum police" to go fuck themselves. I simply suggested he might want to try it himself. It can relieve a little stress.

As for the rest. Lots of good points. I think the Wrestling is on TV in about 40mins, actually.

[Technocrat]

To rebut, I'll simply refer you back to Engels' irresistibly sarcastic analysis.

Er, to be honest, I wasn't being sarcastic at pbix, just honestly trying to understand what he was saying. I think his argument has merit, to a point, but you can push the envelope too far to justify 'fantasy fighting'. I personally, for example, cannot for the life of me get immersed in WoW. Nevermind the cartoonish graphics, its the out-of-body disphoria I experience in any of its combat. If I were a 14 year old raised on saturday morning cartoons, then I probably could immerse myself in its coyote&roadrunner explosions and other combat animations, but between its 3rd person perspective and the over-the-top effects every single combat moves has, I am unable to feel engaged.

I think WoW is geared towards folks that feel deep immersion in, say, Super Mario Bros. Those of us who seek the real escapism of 'being' in a different world, however, might find WoW's comedic mechanics charming, but fundamentally unintersting.

Oops, my bad man! It sounded sarcastic...are you from the US?

I totally agree about WoW...although I've never played it, I just can't imagine were all that money ($75 million) and all that time (6 yrs.? With god knows how many people!) went! Is that all you get for that level of commitment? Actually, yes, it is, and it seems completely reasonable and makes total sense to me. I've always felt that in order to develop a true AAA MMOG, a real masterpiece, a far bigger investment would be required...

Development teams would have to be 5x bigger (mostly artists and designers) than the current average.
Development budgets would have to be 5x bigger than the current average.
Development calanders would have to be "whatever it takes to produce a polished, high quality product".

I'm not saying that every MMOG should be a AAA masterpiece, I'm saying that there should be at least 2 or 3 on the market. You would still have low level MMOGs, ones in the $10-$15 a month range, These are the McDonald's of the MMOGs. I don't particularly like cartoons, I need far more than a "McDonaldland" MMOG to make me happy! I haven't played a MMOG in 18 months...nothin' but junk out there IMO.

Is anyone here at least a little bit interested in pushing for higher quality MMOG? Higher quality obviously means higher sub. fees...anybody with me on this, err no? Remember the old adage..."you get what you pay for".

@pxib: The Cyberpunk universe has so many non-combat career opportunities to offer, it's mind boggling!...scientists, engineers, chemists, 
hookers, corprate managers, designers, merchants, horticulturists/herbalists, televangelists, Blackmarketeer, etc., etc., the list goes on and on!:)   

@Llava: You put your finger right on it and I couldn't agree with you more: Dramatic choreographed combat!


 

[WindupAtheist]

Just shut up.

[Kail]

Is anyone here at least a little bit interested in pushing for higher quality MMOG? Higher quality obviously means higher sub. fees...anybody with me on this, err no? Remember the old adage..."you get what you pay for".

I remember it, yeah.  I just don't believe it is all.  Star Wars Galaxies had a subscription fee which was not (if I recall) very different from  EQ2.  That should set off warning bells right there.  Blizzard has been making millions of dollars every month - tens of millions of dollars - and their server stability still blows, the endgame is still generic raid stuff, and they haven't really done much with the game since it launched (aside from adding Battlegrounds).  Hell, Guild Wars has NO sub fee, and I enjoyed that game at least a little bit.  So no, I don't support the idea that higher sub fees translates to higher quality.  It does seem like higher sub fees translate to me not having as much money, though that's not a cause I'm going to champion.

It sounds to me like you're thinking that a game's development funding is going to be pulled back in time from the subscription fees which will eventually be collected.  If you want to throw together your dream MMO, with it's quintuple budget, you're first going to have to find someone who's willing to advance you enough money to finance FIVE regular projects.  THEN you've got to write this miracle game that will convince people to pay five times what they currently pay for a comparable product.  Then you've got to somehow KEEP these people paying this money while trying to pay back the hundreds of millions you spent on development while still spending more on player retension.  So yes, I am skeptical of this plan.

[pxib]

I don't know if we have good stats on "averages" but let's assume a development team of 250 people, a budget of $250 million dollars, and absolutely no deadlines.

Awesome. I'll get the VC people on the phone. I'll sell it by telling them you can play a horticulturist, a hooker, or a televangelist! I'll let them know that they'll recognize the basic setting from such blockbuster hits as The Matrix Online. I'll let them know that even though our research staff has discovered that more than half of the population doesn't know what "Cyberpunk" is, that just means we're front-runners. We'll be educating the gaming community. Helping them get in touch with their own inner desire for genetic enhancements, subcranial micro-sensor arrays, and Phased-Plasma rifles with a 40watt range.

I can already feel the humidity rise as they drool.

We'll have that quarter of a billion in no time.

[Lantyssa]

Is anyone here at least a little bit interested in pushing for higher quality MMOG? Higher quality obviously means higher sub. fees...anybody with me on this, err no? Remember the old adage..."you get what you pay for".

Like EQ Legends?

Kail's point about SWG is also true.  I believe it set the now current $15 price of recent MMOs.  While it did have some innovation, it started at a peak and went downhill from there.

[Technocrat]

First of all, let me say that MMOGs currently represent only a small fraction of the overall video game sales. The main reason why MMOGs aren't more popular is because they don't have the quality that most single player games have. None of my friends will even concider playing a MMOG now, because they've tried them in the past and walked away feeling ripped off. Like I mentioned before, I haven't played a MMOG in more than a year and a half--so, right there you have 5 people who have absolutely no intention of playing a MMOG in the forseeable future. MMOG developers know this, they know that the poor quality MMOGs of yesterday have driven away millions of players, and now they're beginning to wake up to this fact http://rubenfield.com/blog/.

It used to be that poor internet service, or rather the lack of good internet service, was the reason MMOGs sucked so badly, but that old excuse is ain't flyin' anymore; High speed internet service, like VDSL-2 and Wi-Fi, is rapidly becoming more and more pervasive throughout the US, Europe, and Asia. We also have the hardware to handle a very high quality MMOG...and then some. So, the reality is this: It has absolutely nothing to with a lack of internet service, hardware: client or server, middleware, customers or anything else...MMOG developers just don't have the motivation to make it happen, because they know they can always count on x-number of gamers to buy their junk, therefore why should they go to all that extra trouble?! Hell, that's why there are so many fantasy MMOGs out there...'cause they're easier to make than Sci-Fi games!

@pxib: Your "argument" is highly immature and is nothing more than a straw man. You are dismissed.

@Kail: You've got it ass-backwards...Not to mention the fact that your "argument" is completely nonsensical and a straw man! I especially like this sentence: "It sounds to me like you're thinking that a game's development funding is going to be pulled back in time from the subscription fees which will eventually be collected." LOL, yeah, that's the way it works! And this gem: "THEN you've got to write this miracle game that will convince people to pay five times what they currently pay for a comparable product." And last but not least, this one: "So no, I don't support the idea that higher sub fees translates to higher quality." Like I said, you've got it ass-backwards! Higher quality does translate to higher sub fees, however. You are dismissed.

Straw man: noun; a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.
 
And from wikipedia: One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
2. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.




   

 
   

[Hoax]

Reality hardly qualifies as a straw man though I'm afraid.

5x budget + 5x developer team size = 5x profits!?

Thats just bullshit.

Furthermore your ignoring something that has been proven over time:  "gamers have no idea what they want".

You say you want a game with a $75/mo fee as long as it pwns five times as hard?  Bullshit again.  Even if you do, nobody else does.  I doubt MMO's will ever reach $25/mo in sub fees, instead I expect more clever micropayments to crop up alongside the $15/mo fee.

[Miasma]

First of all, let me say that MMOGs currently represent only a small fraction of the overall video game sales.

Wow, no shit, thanks for letting me know about that.

The main reason why MMOGs aren't more popular is because they don't have the quality that most single player games have.

You seem to have this insane idea that MMOs should be more popular than other games.  MMOs are always going to be the minority because they require a monthly payment that not many people will accept, require a long term investment that not many companies are willing to commit to and need much more initial funding.  Also the quality of MMOs are probably better than the average single player game because the companies depend on people sticking around to make money.  And when I say average single player I am including the 80% of titles that completely flop, walk into any EB or Best Buy and look at every game, most are total garbage.

Like I mentioned before, I haven't played a MMOG in more than a year and a half--so, right there you have 5 people who have absolutely no intention of playing a MMOG in the forseeable future.

Holy shit, five whole people you say.  You do realize that in your year and a half absence Blizzard has racked up six million new MMO players right?

@pxib: Your "argument" is highly immature and is nothing more than a straw man. You are dismissed.

@Kail: You've got it ass-backwards...Not to mention the fact that your "argument" is completely nonsensical and a straw man!

You know what the ultimate straw man is?  Calling everyother argument a straw man out of hand and refusing to acknowledge them based on that.  As WUA mentioned "Just shut up".

[Murgos]

Spending more money on something does not guarantee greatness.  It might give you increased opportunity for greatness but there is no way to predict quality based on money spent.

One of the finest games I ever played was X-Com, I doubt if it's budget when new rivaled that of even a second rate development project.  One of the worst games I ever played was SWG, they have been throwing money at that game for years without improvement.

More money != more betterer.

[Kail]

@Kail: You've got it ass-backwards...Not to mention the fact that your "argument" is completely nonsensical and a straw man! I especially like this sentence: "It sounds to me like you're thinking that a game's development funding is going to be pulled back in time from the subscription fees which will eventually be collected." LOL, yeah, that's the way it works!

I was going with what I thought was the most likely argument.  I was not trying to "straw man" you.  The development cost of a game is entirely different from the maintenance cost of the game.  Maintenance cost comes from subscriptions, development costs have to be paid in advance.  Charging a quintuple subscription fee is not going to mean anything until after the game has been launched, and if you've got a mediocre game at launch, you're going to have a real, real hard time convincing people that they should stick around at five times the going rate.  If you've got some better idea of how this project is going to gather five times the capital, I apologize for missing it.

And last but not least, this one: "So no, I don't support the idea that higher sub fees translates to higher quality." Like I said, you've got it ass-backwards! Higher quality does translate to higher sub fees, however. You are dismissed.

Yesh, mashter.  I'm sure you have many examples to share which you have chosen to withhold for some reason.  But before I go, bowed in shame at your superior logic, I'd just like to double check that you admit that higher sub fees don't translate to higher quality, yet your basic principle for this game design is to charge higher sub fees in the hopes that this will lead to a higher quality game?  Or am I reading this wrong?

Edit: If you want to argue that higher quality games lead to higher sub fees and not the other way around, that's fine, but the question I'd ask would be "how, then, DO you make this higher quality game, the one that will outdo the current leaders of the field by 500%," and bear in mind that you can't use "more money" as an answer without contradicting yourself.

[HaemishM]

Is anyone here at least a little bit interested in pushing for higher quality MMOG? Higher quality obviously means higher sub. fees...anybody with me on this, err no? Remember the old adage..."you get what you pay for".

No we aren't interested at all. We haven't been talking about what's wrong with MMOG's since 1998.

As for higher sub prices, I refuse to pay higher sub prices until MMOG developers can show me that they can produce quality, content and fair rulesets without login queues, constant crashing, innovation without being a complete cluster fuck, or a desire to do more than just take my money for Diku-retread bullshit in a newer, shinier wrapping.

[Llava]

@Llava: You put your finger right on it and I couldn't agree with you more: Dramatic choreographed combat!

Told you guys everyone loves me.

[Technocrat]

@Kail: Where in any of my posts did I say that to charge a quintuple subscription fee is OK? I've never said that, i said in an earlier post that I would be willing to pay $50 a month for a really good, high quality MMOG. That misinterpretation plus the mere mention of "my" MMOG costing hundreds of millions of $$$, which was a deliberate misrepresentation, makes your argument a straw man.

sorry about the dismissal thing, but jesus, stop doing that.

@HaemishM: I'm not lookin' stuff anyones pockets full of unearned money, least of all MMOG developers! However, I really believe that if we send a strong unambiguous message to the development community that we would be willing to pay more for a MMOG IF: a) it has high quality real time rendered graphics (not just technically high quality as in 1600x1200 etc., but artistically high quality as well); b) it fully implements believable Newtonian physics and supports the relevant hardware (PPU); c) Introduces new innovations that give players the ability to communicate with each other much more effectively...in other words get rid of the keyboard (almost) and give us the ability to talk through our avatars (not that teamspeak junk but VoIP w/voice synthesizer so that a 200lb. man can sound like a delicate little girl, if that's his thing!), lips moving, facial expressions, the whole 9 yards!; d) high quality content and plenty of it! f) virtually bug free 64-bit code . etc., etc., you get the idea. The operative word here is IF!

@WindupAtheist: Hehe, I missed it when you sputtered out that little sentence fragment, my bad. Fuck off.

@Murgos: You've got it ass backwards...see my responce to Kail.

@Miasma: /ignore

@Hoax: In your case, my best guess is that your underpants are way too tight. Try on a pair of boxers, see if that'll help you to relax.

[Velorath]

However, I really believe that if we send a strong unambiguous message to the development community that we would be willing to pay more for a MMOG IF: a) it has high quality real time rendered graphics (not just technically high quality as in 1600x1200 etc., but artistically high quality as well); b) it fully implements believable Newtonian physics and supports the relevant hardware (PPU); c) Introduces new innovations that give players the ability to communicate with each other much more effectively...in other words get rid of the keyboard (almost) and give us the ability to talk through our avatars (not that teamspeak junk but VoIP w/voice synthesizer so that a 200lb. man can sound like a delicate little girl, if that's his thing!), lips moving, facial expressions, the whole 9 yards!; d) high quality content and plenty of it! f) virtually bug free 64-bit code . etc., etc., you get the idea. The operative word here is IF!

Out of all the shit you just mentioned, the only thing I'd pay more for is more content.  I mean fuck, you really put shinier graphics as the first item on your wish list?  Fucking voice synthesizer?  A couple dozen would use it for RPing purposes compared to the several thousand 200lb. men that would be using the little girl voice for cybering.

[Azazel]

I totally agree about WoW...although I've never played it, I just can't imagine were all that money ($75 million) and all that time (6 yrs.? With god knows how many people!) went!

Awesome argument!

"I've never played it, experienced it for myself or seen much anything of it besides a few screenshots, but I can't imagine where all that money went!"

Spending more money on something does not guarantee greatness.  It might give you increased opportunity for greatness but there is no way to predict quality based on money spent.

One of the finest games I ever played was X-Com, I doubt if it's budget when new rivaled that of even a second rate development project.  One of the worst games I ever played was SWG, they have been throwing money at that game for years without improvement.

QFT!