Schilling's Green Monster Games

[gehrig38]

Requirement? No.  You can make any game you want and call it an MMOG if it connects to other computers.

Agreed

What the general public will expect from a MMORPG is persistent and sustained single character development.

Agreed

[tmp]

It all sounds just stupid.  If you character ends and you start up a new game or whatever, it isn't an MMOG.

The game ending at some point does not automatically need to equate with the character ending as well... it's not that unusual to have single person participate in many matches or battles or whatever, often in drastically different places.

Just sayin'

[Draegan]

Now you're getting into a stupid semantic argument.  Stop.

[tmp]

Dunno, i'd think there's more than just semantical difference between persistent character being in world that periodically resets and plain reset of everything "every two weeks" -- Pirates of the Burning Sea pretty much do the former iirc and i think it's still considered a 'legit MMO'.

But whatever.

[Lantyssa]

Now you're getting into a stupid semantic argument.  Stop.

Until we have actual concrete information, it's all speculation and semantics.

[Draegan]

Dunno, i'd think there's more than just semantical difference between persistent character being in world that periodically resets and plain reset of everything "every two weeks" -- Pirates of the Burning Sea pretty much do the former iirc and i think it's still considered a 'legit MMO'.

But whatever.

Those are both MMOGs.  I'm talking about when your character resets, hence "game over".

[tmp]

Those are both MMOGs.  I'm talking about when your character resets, hence "game over".

Yes, but since Curt doesn't explain what he means by that comment the exact nature of that "game over" thing they're planning for their game (if any) is up to anyone's guess; i'm just saying it doesn't have to mean literally everything gets reset, that's just one way to interpret it.

iow a character reset is "game over" (an for a MMO a very dumb one, granted) but not every game over is character reset.

[Kovacs]

Now you're getting into a stupid semantic argument.  Stop.

Until we have actual concrete information, it's all speculation and semantics.

And one of those arguments can be interesting and the other, isn't.

[Falconeer]

ZOMG new Lantyssa's avatar is  !!!

[gehrig38]

Those are both MMOGs.  I'm talking about when your character resets, hence "game over".

Yes, but since Curt doesn't explain what he means by that comment the exact nature of that "game over" thing they're planning for their game (if any) is up to anyone's guess; i'm just saying it doesn't have to mean literally everything gets reset, that's just one way to interpret it.

iow a character reset is "game over" (an for a MMO a very dumb one, granted) but not every game over is character reset.

Asking you to invest your time and emotion into a character(s) and then 'resetting' that character to level 1 day 1 would be about as stupid a selling point as you could come up with.

[Severian]

In baseball, to choose one example which springs to mind, game over = game over. What that doesn't necessarily mean, not counting Hundsonesque slang, is double-header over, series over, pennant race over, postseason over, "world" series over, all championships ever over, baseball itself over. It also doesn't mean a player's career is over, or the team disbands.

[gehrig38]

Good analogy. Game over doesn't mean seasons over or careers over, just means that games over.

[Khaldun]

If you invest a lot of effort in making a gameworld dynamic, the whole point is that should also involve a reduction in the emotional investment that people have in a character. Getting invested in the story of "how the world turns out" or "what's going to happen next in this story?" is different from "my character is now more uber or has changed something else about his look, powers, location, property". Investing a lot of design effort in a dynamic world design while retaining all the emphasis on character development pulls a virtual world in two opposite directions, and is likely to produce a confused, contradictory end product.

If you have a design that's about "how does the world turn out?" or "what's next in the story", I think players can have a lot of fun if the world at some point has a soft reboot of some kind. E.g., not where everything starts all over again, but where you "jump" the story because things are stuck in a very static, boring or final place. If you've got one faction in control over everything, and no way to automatically or procedurally generate an internal split or conflict within that faction, reboot the story ahead a bit to introduce a new situation, map dynamic, resource base, what have you.

There are 4X games where I form strong emotional attachments to particular factions (Alpha Centauri was a great example of this), a strong investment in the storyline of a particular game session, and yet also a pleasure in seeing the world start over with a new map and set of factions--but the basic thing in each game is "what's going to happen next, and can I achieve victory given the way the world is developing?". If that's the point where you start thinking about a dynamic-world MMO, I think you're on the right track: the world is what matters first. It doesn't preclude identifying with a character or faction, but that has to happen in a different way than what most MMOs have offered.

If it's just about building a character, then the only dynamic world elements that make sense are the kind that enhance the fun parts of character development. Stuff like the way civilians in City of Heroes say, "There goes [character name], he's awesome!" or the way that phased content gives the player a sense that *his character* has affected the world without the world really or fundamentally changing.

[Mrbloodworth]

Those are both MMOGs.  I'm talking about when your character resets, hence "game over".

Yes, but since Curt doesn't explain what he means by that comment the exact nature of that "game over" thing they're planning for their game (if any) is up to anyone's guess; i'm just saying it doesn't have to mean literally everything gets reset, that's just one way to interpret it.

iow a character reset is "game over" (an for a MMO a very dumb one, granted) but not every game over is character reset.

Asking you to invest your time and emotion into a character(s) and then 'resetting' that character to level 1 day 1 would be about as stupid a selling point as you could come up with.

Only because of the use of levels, and level = time in most definitions.

But,... yeah.

Mabinogi has that interesting age and sibling system that could be paired with world resets.

[HaemishM]

We're arguing about the semantic implications of the phrase "game over" in a thread about a game we have no details about, have seen only a few screens of concept art for and only know it's fantasy.

This thread is going places! 

[Khaldun]

Yeah, I'm not thinking the conversation is really about this hypothetical game. I hate to say it, but as far as the game goes, it feels we're talking with Zelig. Whatever the last comment was, Schilling says, "Oh, yes, absolutely, that's important, we want to do that", even when it's two really contradictory things. Oh well. It's a lot better than talking with "GL-Jeff" about how all characters in Dawn will result from the pregnancies of other characters.

[Falconeer]

I am trying to read into his idea (not game) cause I am bored and curious. I love to type down stuff, make it permanent, and in a few years laugh at myself or Curt looking how short I fell from the real thing.

* The game will be heavily and totally story-driven. Every expansion (with the launch game being the first) is a Season, like in pro sports, or a novel of epic proportion. I said heavily story-driven. You don't hire Salvatore if you don't want heavy storytelling.
* The whole server population moves the story forward, although each individual can obviously just grind levels for gear or whateva if he/she wants to do so. Achievements and Uniques will be the keys of the game. I think they found a way to make lots of people feel special, even if they are low level or if they never raided once.
* When the server-story reaches the climax, it's game over. Season 1 is over. Everyone's career and achievements are safe (your equip is safe too, but useless as it happens with every new WoW expansion) but some story arc is gone, some mobs are gone, some loots are gone and the whole "world" has been changed forever by the players into one out of different possibilities based on which climax they chose to trigger ("they = the server population", although it will probably be "they = the ruling raid guilds") what's gone is gone, not everyone can play the finals, or even the playoffs, but sure everyone can partecipate in the league.
* This leads to different servers having DIFFERENT Seasons 2s. One server completes the story arc by killing the evil god, they get a second season based on the return of the evil god, or his brother! While another server completes the story arc by betraying the good god and having the evil one precipitate him into the abyss of despair, then they get a second season based on sins to be amended and la resistance trying to get rid of the evil god they chose as a ruler in Season 1.

* Season 2 starts, everyone's level is reset to zero or boosted to max. The levels are equalized but Season 1 heroes are widely recognized through titles, unique looking things and some priviledges that carries on to Season 2. It's not like winning the MLB or the NFL title is worth nothing just because you have to start again the next year anyway.
Race for the endgame/championship starts again. New story arc, new lands, plenty of new content and "nodes" that evolve the story for the whole servers into a few different directions.

* Old content stays available in special "memory" instances a la LotRO.
* Of course it's not all about getting to the top first, as it's not about getting there first in any other MMORPG. Eventually you will do your raids, just they won't advance the server story anymore. People in PvE MMO usually have fun even without being the ruling guild(s).
* Late joiners don't get frustrated as they get their boost anyway (unless they choose not to) with every new season, to stay on par with everyone else.
* Periodically new "progression servers" get opened for everyone to try and play the whole story again from the beginning, to make different serverwide choices and to advance the epic into different directions.


Smells like ass. Or simply not feasible.

[Khaldun]

Feasibility is one thing. But if that's what it is, I kind of find a lot of that sketch notionally appealing. Doesn't mean it *must* be fun, but it's got potential. What is it that you find (hypothetically) nasty or unfun in that sketch, aside from the question of whether it's feasible or manageable?

[Falconeer]

Nothing that I especially dislike. It's just... made of vapour.
Let's say it sounds so unfeasible that it's irritating to even sketch it.

Should anyone claim they are going exactly for something like this, I would secretely hope but I would openly laugh and point.

[UnsGub]

* When the server-story reaches the climax, it's game over. Season 1 is over.  in Season 1.

And the expansion (expansion are free like in Eve) is unlocked.  Seasons could be constrained by both actions and time.  WoW already unlocks content on per server basis.

[Draegan]

We're arguing about the semantic implications of the phrase "game over" in a thread about a game we have no details about, have seen only a few screens of concept art for and only know it's fantasy.

This thread is going places! 

It was too late when I realized where this train was headed.

[Severian]

We're arguing about the semantic implications of the phrase "game over" in a thread about a game we have no details about, have seen only a few screens of concept art for and only know it's fantasy.

This thread is going places! 

I wasn't arguing the meaning of the phrase, I was providing further examples of "An end is not the same as the end", as March put it. But anyway. Falconeer's post provides some grist. About a game we have no details about have seen only a few screens of concept art for and only know it's fantasy. There's overlap from the SWTOR thread.

[Count Nerfedalot]

ZOMG new Lantyssa's avatar is  !!!

but what is going on with her head/neck interface?  It's like her neck is centered under her left ear or something.

[Margalis]

We made it this far without "game over man! Game over!" ?

Come on now.

[tmp]

Asking you to invest your time and emotion into a character(s) and then 'resetting' that character to level 1 day 1 would be about as stupid a selling point as you could come up with.

In all fairness given the track record of MMO design this is almost par for the course. So i'm not too surprised someone would seriously consider that as a possibility.

[Senses]

All I'm saying is, if your gonna pretend your game has a "Game Over" moment, have some balls, and really shut the whole thing down.  Otherwise its just like the shoe shop down the street that has been having a going out of business sale for 2 years.

[Ixxit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xm1XErUvXo

[sidereal]

All I'm saying is, if your gonna pretend your game has a "Game Over" moment, have some balls, and really shut the whole thing down.  Otherwise its just like the shoe shop down the street that has been having a going out of business sale for 2 years.

Yes, because players don't actually want a fun game, they just want developers to 'have' 'balls'.

"Wow, that fucking sucked.  But it was ballsy!  Take my dubloons!"

[Senses]

Your argument is based on the logic that a pretend game over is more fun than a real one, and if it is I would agree with you.  As tongue and cheek as my comment was, my point is, if your going to put some gimmick into your game like "game over," it might as well be real.  For all you know there is a niche out there that would actually enjoy an MMO that you start and finish a couple months later.  Obviously "fun" is the point, but who's to say how you get there.

[tazelbain]

I fail to see how Game Over is a gimmick.  It's a natural aspect of most games. 

[Senses]

You haven't played many massively multiplayer online roleplaying games have you.

[March]

You haven't played many massively multiplayer online roleplaying games have you.

On the contrary, MMORPG's all have intermediate endings, they just don't handle them very well.

Disgusted with vanilla WoW's original end-game, I quit after enjoying the 1-60 ride twice.  I skipped TBC completely and returned with WoTLK.

I can say with certitude that TBC is dead; at this point it is worthless dead stinky roadkill over which I have to step with each and any character I want to use in WoTLK.  WoTLK is a new chapter, nothing I did in Vanilla or TBC matters or enhances my character in any way; I have skullfucked TBC to get to the new chapter at the earliest possible moment, and have never set foot in a single TBC Dungeon, not even Ramparts.... further, I don't miss the TBC "content" in fact, I resent it for being in the way.  MMO's are (mostly) about the now; if I can't play with the MM part, then I'm not really playing the MMORPG, I'm paying a company for content that I can't use and am not interested in.  Since WoW is the only game in town right now, there's little choice, but artificial barriers to entry are always a bad business design.

WoTLK is a new game, if they handled the transition between their de facto endings better they would have... hmnn, probably nothing more than they already have (perhaps money hats gilded with slightly more colorful money?)... but still, they would have a more elegant game.

It's hard to argue that WoW is screwing the pooch (business wise), but saying that their game didn't end is just wrong... it ended, but now if you want to play the new game you have to waste weeks to reach the new game... I don't see this as a necessary condition, and potentially leaves them vulnerable to a game that has a persistent world that you can enter and participate at will.  How this is done and whether Mr. Schilling's game can or will do that I have no idea.

[Draegan]

Fucking dumb semantic arguments. 

Expansions are not "Game Over".

[Righ]

I do wish more online character development games had reset points. Even when they don't the players introduce them anyhow - they create new characters because they are bored with the previous ones. There's nothing wrong with the idea of playing multiple finite games involving character development and accruing some sort of rank/kudos/meta-points outside the temporary games. In fact, I'd suggest that failing to do that is forcing the game players to share a game world with the virtual world players. Which is good for some people, but not for all. Just as some people want worlds with less game (hi Raph) so some people want games with less world.

[March]

Fucking dumb semantic arguments. 

Expansions are not "Game Over".

You keep using that word... I do not think that word means what you think it means.