Schilling's Green Monster Games

[Venkman]

The problem is the cost of building. Games are still built as linear experiences. So you enter a zone, you do something, that zone is forever changed.

Are you saying changed once or can be changed many times?  Volcano makes an island, players change it, earthquake sinks it.  Repeat seasonally.

If a game is designed with changing the world from the start, ie map, texture, models changing, each patch as well as new one (already solved) it is possible to make the world change functionally and visually.

One large repeating event is not what we're talking about here, or everyone would agree that the annual holiday events in WoW are the best we'd ever get, or the way players "won" more of the Isle of Quel'Danas, or the other gate/trigger one-time events. They don't respond to players making any decision other than to grind or not to grind. It's not like the forces of Kael'thasas can take back Quel'danas if players stop defending it.

Rather, this discussion is about actual world-changing choice and how to implement in a shared space (not tucked away in some instance only the chooser can see. That's already possible). My point is that this can't really be done under current development practices because everything is made as a one time thing, created, developed, built, tested. So yes, while your pre-canned triggered volcano/island/sink is very possible, it doesn't require the players do anything except do what they're doing annually in WoW: grind out X for Y to trigger Z then hope they move on before they see the reset.

And even that is hard enough to do. How many of those events worked perfectly the first time they were patched in? And that's, over seven years after SOE experimented with We're years past Shadeweaver's Thicket and Hollowshade Moor where hunting one group of creatures increases the population of two other vying ones?

[gehrig38]

Rather, this discussion is about actual world-changing choice and how to implement in a shared space

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! Isn't that what we're after? Truly meaningful change

[UnSub]

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! Isn't that what we're after? Truly meaningful change

Thank you for clearing that up for us. 

[Musashi]

Change we can believe in?

[Falconeer]

Steven gave me an idea.  You could have a frontier world,  say the players are from a crashed spaceship and they must kill the native mobs and build a small settlement.  Then you go out from there, killing and clearing land and uncovering the mysteries of the planet until you hit the level cap and end the story. 

I love this idea. Each server is a crashed spaceship of about 5000 humans or something. Obviously you don't know everyone from before, but everyone started where you started. The crashed spaceship. The late starters are those who just woke up in their cryo room, they were left there sleeping for their own protection (food is scarce, world is dangerous).

Only problem would be that starting late is way less cool than starting on day 1. Reminds me of ATITD.

Tannhauser, I wouldn't go with "until you hit the level cap and end the story", more like "Seasons 2 (expansion): everyone's level is raised to cap (unless they specifically refuse to), and the colonization/expansion of the whole band of survivors starts again to new parts of the alien planet, with new problems, new mechanics (in the meantime they probably built some stable outposts) and everyone with the same chances, save for the equip gathered up in the first Season, to explore and discover. 

Seems like a game that would require too much content, maybe.

[dusematic]

Both those ideas sound like regular MMO's with a slightly different back story.  And don't hold your breath for an MMO where you can "win the game."  People like money.


The truth is, most people like the classical MUD paradigm.  That's why it's successful, that's why it's employed.  You can't base your product development off of a bunch of jaded armchair developers living in World 7 and have it be anything other than niche.  And that right there disqualifies all the World 7 ideas being tossed around here (hint: niche game=niche budget).  

tldr, my sig.

[Falconeer]

Yea, nothing groundbreaking. In my head it was a much more explorative kind of MMORPG compared to the usual, with a certain needs for new mechanics with every expansion due to the evolution of the "survivors" society. But the more I think of it, the more it sounds like ATITD meets EVE with in a diku spin.
Mmm... let's make the third expansion about the survivors finally feeling safe enough having founded a bunch of outposts, so they start to hate each other and invent open PvP.

+ more exploration
+ more crafting (Loot is NEVER a finished product, only and always crafting materials. The equivalent of a purple item is a purple mat, so you can eventually get your purple weapon but will always need a crafter manufacturing it for you. NPC crafters can make a temporary version of the final product, but only a human crafter can make the 100% quality item. Item decay?)
+ more city building and territorial management. PvPvE, means people can conquer your land, but the aliens (mobs) can do it too, they just want the survivors out of their planet. Players are evil by default, they just broke a perfectly working ecosystem by landing, polluting, hunting.
+ more diplomacy (EVE knows what I mean)

Hey Curt, what do you say?

[schild]

Isn't that what we're after? Truly meaningful change

Sure, but it isn't going to happen. I don't care what you say or think you intend. You can't give one person the ability to change the world for everyone else and the moment more than one person can do something, you don't get truly meaningful change. The only elegant way to handle such a thing is pre/post searing in Guild Wars, but even that was completely and totally meh after the first time, and since every person had to do it, it was absolutely not meaningful.

We're also not looking for smoke to be blown up our asses.

[Aez]

World changing mechanisms aren't impossible. EVE's world is pretty dynamic.

[gehrig38]

They aren't even close to impossible, certainly daunting and challenging, but not even remotely impossible. The key is more than one person needs to be able to do it, and it cannot be a one time thing, or a similar thing all the time.

[schild]

The key is more than one person needs to be able to do it, and it cannot be a one time thing, or a similar thing all the time.

Clearly your definition of world changing and my definition of world changing conflict. Of course, since you can't provide examples, we're back to last week. 

World changing mechanisms aren't impossible. EVE's world is pretty dynamic.

Eve's world doesn't change because of the players, just the location of hostile corps changes. Oh, and the market fluctuates. But I wouldn't really call that world changing, that's just mostly Economics done Right. At least, almost right. The changes in Eves world (wormholes, etc) are dev controlled.

[gehrig38]

World changing mechanisms aren't impossible. EVE's world is pretty dynamic.

Eve's world doesn't change because of the players, just the location of hostile corps changes. Oh, and the market fluctuates. But I wouldn't really call that world changing, that's just mostly Economics done Right. At least, almost right. The changes in Eves world (wormholes, etc) are dev controlled.
[/quote]

Agreed, I think we are talking about the same things, truly world changing stuff, not players and locations and markets, but dramatic, visual, game affecting change.

[schild]

Agreed, I think we are talking about the same things, truly world changing stuff, not players and locations and markets, but dramatic, visual, game affecting change.

Ok, so we're on the same page.

You think you can do it.

I don't.

Let's see who wins.

I love "prove me wrong" bets.

[tmp]

Eve's world doesn't change because of the players, just the location of hostile corps changes. Oh, and the market fluctuates. But I wouldn't really call that world changing, that's just mostly Economics done Right. At least, almost right. The changes in Eves world (wormholes, etc) are dev controlled.

Well, they have some influence over direction of development through that player council thing, but then that quite different kettle of fish. Directly in the game there's some world-shaping through establishing outposts and such since they are permanent additions to the game world that can change hands... but it's not exactly new, either. Bit expanded player housing.

[Nebu]

Let's see who wins.

I love "prove me wrong" bets.

You win either way.  If he's wrong, you win.  If he's right, then he just produced a game worth at least a few weeks of time. 

I'd love for you to be wrong this time, but I don't see how you could be.  A changing multiplayer world just smacks too much of a CSR nightmare. 

[gehrig38]

Agreed, I think we are talking about the same things, truly world changing stuff, not players and locations and markets, but dramatic, visual, game affecting change.

Ok, so we're on the same page.

You think you can do it.

I don't.

Let's see who wins.

I love "prove me wrong" bets.

Ya I get it sucks that we're still in the 'no info' stage and it sucks (as it's likely to be longer than i wanted:) but it's already happened, and happening. We've been internally testing, validating, throwing out and fixing for almost 6 months. I don't think we can do it because we already have in a test environment. Sure that's not open beta, or with a full server, but the change from here to there won't be one that breaks the tech side that's been proven, what needs to be validated is that it's a value add in the end and not just tech/content innovation for the sake of being different.

[schild]

Agreed, I think we are talking about the same things, truly world changing stuff, not players and locations and markets, but dramatic, visual, game affecting change.

Ok, so we're on the same page.

You think you can do it.

I don't.

Let's see who wins.

I love "prove me wrong" bets.

Ya I get it sucks that we're still in the 'no info' stage and it sucks (as it's likely to be longer than i wanted:) but it's already happened, and happening. We've been internally testing, validating, throwing out and fixing for almost 6 months. I don't think we can do it because we already have in a test environment. Sure that's not open beta, or with a full server, but the change from here to there won't be one that breaks the tech side that's been proven, what needs to be validated is that it's a value add in the end and not just tech/content innovation for the sake of being different.

This post is why I got pissed at you last week. It's all bullshit til we see it, so don't tell us you have something working that you can't show even if you preface it with not being able to show it.

[dusematic]

I almost feel bad for Curt.  I mean, he's in all likelihood a pretty cool guy that is being as honest as anyone can.  But the Peter Molyneux's of the world ruined it for everyone.  And I guess it doesn't help that he's promising something that's never been done.  

[dusematic]

In my head it was much more

I hear you brother.  Spring sweet rhythm dancing in my head.  

[Tannhauser]

Agreed, I think we are talking about the same things, truly world changing stuff, not players and locations and markets, but dramatic, visual, game affecting change.

Ok, so we're on the same page.

You think you can do it.

I don't.

Let's see who wins.

I love "prove me wrong" bets.

Lighten up Francis.

[Musashi]

Ya I get it sucks that we're still in the 'no info' stage and it sucks (as it's likely to be longer than i wanted:) but it's already happened, and happening. We've been internally testing, validating, throwing out and fixing for almost 6 months. I don't think we can do it because we already have in a test environment. Sure that's not open beta, or with a full server, but the change from here to there won't be one that breaks the tech side that's been proven, what needs to be validated is that it's a value add in the end and not just tech/content innovation for the sake of being different.

 

[Venkman]

No, he's got a point. Sometimes good ideas on paper are only good ideas on paper. And the fact remains that the most successful games have been the ones with the most predictability in them (whether it's because of the loot table optimizers in raids or because PvE is just a cross you bear until PvP like the Eastern titles, or Eve).

Permanent world-changing constantly-altering experiences have always been what people ask for. But until it's actually done in a shared space, we really don't know if it's what they want. We just get to take potshots at the results

If nothing else though, if they do back away from it because it's not fun, I'd love to see a Gamasutra feature about the post mortem on the attempt.

[Draegan]

At least Curt doesn't post in politics.

[Pezzle]

World changing mechanisms aren't impossible. EVE's world is pretty dynamic.

Eve's world doesn't change because of the players, just the location of hostile corps changes. Oh, and the market fluctuates. But I wouldn't really call that world changing, that's just mostly Economics done Right. At least, almost right. The changes in Eves world (wormholes, etc) are dev controlled.

Wrong about EVE.  Players can introduce and enforce game changing concepts(fluctuating) AND infrastructure(permanent).  I could lecture on about an area called Providence..

[Goumindong]

Wrong about EVE.  Players can introduce and enforce game changing concepts(fluctuating) AND infrastructure(permanent).  I could lecture on about an area called Providence..

These game changing concepts are just solutions to the more or less static environment(except as defined by the devs). And infrastructure is just another part of that. Not knocking what you did, but economic and political playgrounds are not what he is talking about. He is talking about changing the world permanently and affecting NPC behaviors dynamically.

Which you pretty much can't reasonably do.

[Pezzle]

The point here is that changes CAN be made on a reasonable level.  It may not be every arrow sticking out of a roof but it IS something and it is stable progress.  I only use Providence because I know it best.  Many areas of EVE contain dramatic examples of players making a difference.  The rules are static, yes.  I never saw that level of change in EQ or WoW DaoC etc etc etc.  AoC was going to contain some similar elements.  Those got the axe and the game became mediocre at best.  

Creating an MMO game where everything impacts everything else is simply not possible at present.  There is no shame in stretching the limits though.  Giving players a structure that allows influences is a huge step forward.

Oh, and you CAN actually influence npc patterns in EVE, if you try hard enough.  You Delve residents should know that ;)

[UnsGub]

Not knocking what you did, but economic and political playgrounds are not what he is talking about.

Economy and politics do not change our world?

Done well, not predictable or cyclic, they can add to any MMO and should be in my opinion.

[gehrig38]

Not knocking what you did, but economic and political playgrounds are not what he is talking about.

Economy and politics do not change our world?

Done well, not predictable or cyclic, they can add to any MMO and should be in my opinion.

Couldn't agree more. Economy is itself a 'mini' game to certain players, so you'd better have it fleshed out.
Politics CAN add to a game, but to do so you have to care about the people and politics involved, and they have to matter.

[Stormwaltz]

Economy and politics do not change our world?

Done well, not predictable or cyclic, they can add to any MMO and should be in my opinion.

One of the core mechanics of Ninth Domain (that doomed revolutionary sweetheart I worked on back in '02) was the unpredictable opening and eventual, forewarned closing of randomly-generated worlds. These would be the PVP battlefields, rich with high-level crafting resources, overrun by powerful mobs whose spawns could be "cleared," and open to construction of player outposts and fortresses.

(The backstory of thegame supposed a universe as modern science understands it, with thousands of planets connected by magical portals. The gods of light and dark fought the Final Battle, nearly destroyed the entire universe, and pulled back in horror. The portal network was destroyed, but a passage to one of the old colony worlds occasionally sputters back to life, allowing access to its resources and ruins.)

[Goumindong]

Not knocking what you did, but economic and political playgrounds are not what he is talking about.

Economy and politics do not change our world?

Done well, not predictable or cyclic, they can add to any MMO and should be in my opinion.

No, they do, but that is not what he was talking about. Which made Pezzle's comment incorrect. Which you read out of context because Pezzle and I internet know each other. He is one of the higher ups in CVA, a group which has transformed a 0.0 region in Eve into one of the most friendly and unique places in the game. But these "game changing things" that CVA and other corps in Eve have done are not what Curt was talking about. He was talking about:

Eve's world doesn't change because of the players, just the location of hostile corps changes. Oh, and the market fluctuates. But I wouldn't really call that world changing, that's just mostly Economics done Right. At least, almost right. The changes in Eves world (wormholes, etc) are dev controlled.

Agreed, I think we are talking about the same things, truly world changing stuff, not players and locations and markets, but dramatic, visual, game affecting change.

Which is ridiculous shit.

[Nerf]

Curt, since you've been advertising yourself and your vaporware ideas for about 2 years now, it's only fair that you pay for it. Perhaps a $20-$30k donation to f13 should take care of it for time spent and the remaining 2 years before release.  I'm sure that awesome new feature that's working internally will more than pay for the extra advertising expense.

[gehrig38]

Not knocking what you did, but economic and political playgrounds are not what he is talking about.

Economy and politics do not change our world?

Done well, not predictable or cyclic, they can add to any MMO and should be in my opinion.

No, they do, but that is not what he was talking about. Which made Pezzle's comment incorrect. Which you read out of context because Pezzle and I internet know each other. He is one of the higher ups in CVA, a group which has transformed a 0.0 region in Eve into one of the most friendly and unique places in the game. But these "game changing things" that CVA and other corps in Eve have done are not what Curt was talking about. He was talking about:

Eve's world doesn't change because of the players, just the location of hostile corps changes. Oh, and the market fluctuates. But I wouldn't really call that world changing, that's just mostly Economics done Right. At least, almost right. The changes in Eves world (wormholes, etc) are dev controlled.

Agreed, I think we are talking about the same things, truly world changing stuff, not players and locations and markets, but dramatic, visual, game affecting change.

Which is ridiculous shit.

Which part?

[Draegan]

Truly dynamic content?

[Goumindong]

Which part?

The sentence really is not that hard to parse

"He was talking about: [insert] which is ridiculous shit"

In case you're wondering further, its this shit which is quoted below which is the shit that is ridiculous.

|
V
 "truly world changing stuff, not players and locations and markets, but dramatic, visual, game affecting change."
^
|

That shit, with the arrows pointing to it. Its ridiculous.

[gehrig38]

A quick golf clap for the fact that you don't work in the industry!