Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Do I really need to be leet?

1356789

Comments

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Myria
    Originally posted by Alberel

    Currently you can't choose not to be though, I think that's the OP's point; all modern MMOs basically force you to play a hero battling evil whether you really want to or not.

    But that's the problem with the whole discussion... They don't.

    There are people in pretty much any MMO with any kind of economy, in fact quite a lot of them, whose main form of gameplay is to manipulate the AH. In the guild I ran in Rift there was a fair contingent whose main, almost entirely only, endgame activity was finding, collecting, trading, and selling artifacts. I'd be shocked if there weren't at least some players in Aion who didn't enjoy being essentially shopkeepers. A couple of my friends playing WoW right now are focused entirely on the WoWkemon mini-game, collecting, leveling, trading, and selling mini-pets -- it's suffeciently complex to keep one going just on that for months, if not longer. In Fallen Earth (granted, unlike the others not a raid-based game), at least before the crafting XP nerfs, there were people who did nothing but craft, you could easily level to endgame just by crafting. There were even clans set up to do parallel crafting and selling of more complicated and time intensive items (mounts, cars mostly).

    The problem is that people around here see a combat-based/raid-based game and automatically think that getting to endgame as fast as possible, collecting the best gear possible, learning the tightest most effecient use of skills possible, and going out to save the world (albeit if you actually pay attention it's almost never the players who save the world, they just help the guy who does) is what you do. The focus on that is such that there's an inherent assumption that it's the only thing to do.

    It's not.

    I tend to play that way as well, but so many of the people I've played with did not that I've learned that most of these games are bigger than just the narrow view that is so depressingly common here.

    You're confusing side content with main content.

    Yes, you can have fun playing Pokemon in WOW for months. However, your primary role is killer of things, and that is how you got those pets.

    Yes, someone can play the market endlessly. They can be a level 1 that never leaves the AH. However, they had to be a killer of things to just get to that auction house and they can't do much else in the game - including raise money and collect items to play the market - unless they spend a good amount of time as a killer of things.

    They are playing what they want as a non-killer in spite of game mechanics, not because of them. That is what us 'people around here' are discussing. ;)

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • MeriliremMerilirem Member Posts: 77
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Originally posted by Merilirem
    Originally posted by dreamscaper
    This is currently my biggest problem with the genre. We have virtual worlds to play in, but they design them so that EVERYTHING revolves around combat. I'd like for non-combat to be more profitable. While it's possible to focus on non-combat stuff, Eve is really the only game that makes it somewhat viable. They all suffer from the same problem where the final product sells for less than the base materials, due to the top-end inflation. I wish there was an easy way to fix that.
    This and indeed everything I say is only my best of thoughts on the matter. That's actually a really easy one to fix. Just make an npc shopkeep who sells materials at the correct value for players to be able to perform their crafts. Sure the miners and woodcutters would have to undercut th merchant npc to make profit, but thats not as bad as it sounds. Of course I could be missing a really huge problem with that, but as long as it's done right, with multiple vendors scattered in logical locations and some other minor tweaks to pricing from time to tim based on market research, everyone should be happy.

    We murdered them and jettisoned their corpses into space for the good of the market. The 'correct value for players' in a working multi-market economy is the value determined by players, often arrived at using variables that no computer can or will ever conceive of.

     

    Free markets are indeed a valid point. I have yet to figure out a way to completely protect the players while still allowing them to chose the prices of everything. I have however given it a shot. Failure would of course grant exp into whatever endeavor, however you could only learn so much from let's say, making a 2h sword. If you made enough it would become maxed and u would need to make something else. Entire groups of items would also share a larger but still finite exp cap, since u can only learn so much from hitting some steel. This combined with a large variety of types should mean that you can come up with the needed practice without having to spend on pricier materials until you can make enough as a smith to afford them. I also suggest a reasonable flat rate from shops and npc military outlets based on current market value data on the materials used to construct them. Paying you for your work. This only works however if the making of said items took up large amounts of time and effort, unlike now where it takes like two seconds and 3 mouse clicks. The game would also devalue items based on how many were sold, eventually stopping purchase completely beyond a certain point. The value of items it did not have would never go beyond the calculated reasonable level unless boosted by some sort of special in game event, like a war.I know we cannot fully work out the players, but math of this level is perfectly within our means. Never forget, just because it's not easy, doesn't mean it can't be done. Well that's my best for now. Tell me if I overlooked something.

    If a butterfly learnt to speak, to live in human society, paid its bills, had a job, lived in a fancy house and married a human, is it human?

    Now what if that same butterfly knew how to write code better than any human and had years of experience in the game industry, would that make it a game designer?

    If u wouldn't let a construction worker design your house, then why let a programmer design your world?

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Merilirem
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Merilirem
    Originally posted by dreamscaper

    This is currently my biggest problem with the genre. We have virtual worlds to play in, but they design them so that EVERYTHING revolves around combat. I'd like for non-combat to be more profitable.

    While it's possible to focus on non-combat stuff, Eve is really the only game that makes it somewhat viable. They all suffer from the same problem where the final product sells for less than the base materials, due to the top-end inflation. I wish there was an easy way to fix that.

    This and indeed everything I say is only my best of thoughts on the matter. That's actually a really easy one to fix. Just make an npc shopkeep who sells materials at the correct value for players to be able to perform their crafts. Sure the miners and woodcutters would have to undercut th merchant npc to make profit, but thats not as bad as it sounds. Of course I could be missing a really huge problem with that, but as long as it's done right, with multiple vendors scattered in logical locations and some other minor tweaks to pricing from time to tim based on market research, everyone should be happy.

    We murdered them and jettisoned their corpses into space for the good of the market. The 'correct value for players' in a working multi-market economy is the value determined by players, often arrived at using variables that no computer can or will ever conceive of.

     

    Free markets are indeed a valid point. I have yet to figure out a way to completely protect the players while still allowing them to chose the prices of everything. I have however given it a shot. Failure would of course grant exp into whatever endeavor, however you could only learn so much from let's say, making a 2h sword. If you made enough it would become maxed and u would need to make something else. Entire groups of items would also share a larger but still finite exp cap, since u can only learn so much from hitting some steel. This combined with a large variety of types should mean that you can come up with the needed practice without having to spend on pricier materials until you can make enough as a smith to afford them. I also suggest a reasonable flat rate from shops and npc military outlets based on current market value data on the materials used to construct them. Paying you for your work. This only works however if the making of said items took up large amounts of time and effort, unlike now where it takes like two seconds and 3 mouse clicks. The game would also devalue items based on how many were sold, eventually stopping purchase completely beyond a certain point. The value of items it did not have would never go beyond the calculated reasonable level unless boosted by some sort of special in game event, like a war.I know we cannot fully work out the players, but math of this level is perfectly within our means. Never forget, just because it's not easy, doesn't mean it can't be done. Well that's my best for now. Tell me if I overlooked something.

    You overlooked EVE.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • EnerzealEnerzeal Member Posts: 326
    Didn't vote, I see my MMO character being free of the idea that I must do anything, that I must be forced down any one path. I enjoy Eve for this very reason, I am free to progress how I see fit. I enjoy sandboxes for this reason also, SWG was a great game for people who didn't want to fight 24/7. I am  hoping the world of darkness holds true to its social progression ideas.
  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    We murdered them and jettisoned their corpses into space for the good of the market. The 'correct value for players' in a working multi-market economy is the value determined by players, often arrived at using variables that no computer can or will ever conceive of.

    You underestimate the power of future computers, they will far surpass the collective human intelligence.

    We're talking about now, not the future... or are you from the future and forgot you travelled back in time?

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 5,781
    Originally posted by MyTabbycat
    To me, the most fun aspect of any game is exploration. So that is what I picked. But knowledge came in a close second. I love picking up and collecting all the books in TES games. I have them stacked in piles against the walls of my houses because I run out of book shelf space.

    I just wish "knowledge" played a much bigger role in MMOs.

    There's two kinds of knowledge to make playable.

    1. The kind of knowledge that a player gains from a one-use source, like learning a spell from a spell book that then goes *poof*. Knowledge of this kind everyone knows about, but only those who gain it through game play can actually use it. Even level based skills (making the best sword, for example) fall into this category.
    2. Special knowledge that the "owner" can protect it's source and thus keep the knowledge to himself. Lots of would-be-examples here that we all know make their way to web sites as "cheats". But I am certain that there are ways to make such knowledge worth enough that players don't do this.
    There are ways to expand these into newer versions and greater game play.
    • You could have magical tomes or tokens that confer knowledge onto the bearer. Not one-use, but ownership required. So that, for some examples; a blacksmith might be able to put a little extra edge on his swords while wearing a token, a mage might be able to cast a little more powerful Fireball while carrying a rare tome, or a character might know the secret password to a secret door (a wyrd that he will forget otherwise) while carrying a stone tablet.
    • You could have ancient languages in the form of glyphs or runes that relay information about the game world to those who know their meanings. Clues and warnings.
     

    Once upon a time....

  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 5,781
    Originally posted by Merilirem
    Ahem, ----------- clip----------
    "Villager, with a home, maybe even someone to share it as children grow"

    I think it would be cool to have a limited number of deaths for characters, but also have children that can be "trained up" as you play. Then when that first character dies that final time (if that happens), the player can take over with the grown up child at something close to the first character in advancement.

    Edit to add: OP, an excellent post and topic, and very well done. Welcome aboard!

    Once upon a time....

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Amaranthar
    Originally posted by Merilirem
    Ahem, ----------- clip----------
    "Villager, with a home, maybe even someone to share it as children grow"

    I think it would be cool to have a limited number of deaths for characters, but also have children that can be "trained up" as you play. Then when that first character dies that final time (if that happens), the player can take over with the grown up child at something close to the first character in advancement.

    Edit to add: OP, an excellent post and topic, and very well done. Welcome aboard!

    I'm hoping that more sim-style sandboxes start rearing their heads, because things like families, pets, livestock or whole villages would make for some interesting gameplay. Currently we only see that kind of stuff on the most basic level in the PBBGs (EmpireCraft, Grepolis, Lords of Ultima, etc).

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • itgrowlsitgrowls Member Posts: 2,951

    I like this line of thinking as well. Some things do need simplification in the games but now they've become so simple that there is no diversity in the personal story of the pc.

    Horizontal progression appeals to me more and more as time goes by with these games as well, I have yet to see a game with truly horizontal progression and I would love to.

  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 5,781
    Originally posted by itgrowls

    I like this line of thinking as well. Some things do need simplification in the games but now they've become so simple that there is no diversity in the personal story of the pc.

    Horizontal progression appeals to me more and more as time goes by with these games as well, I have yet to see a game with truly horizontal progression and I would love to.

    You can add loads of depth, both personal and community, as well as build heavily on the game's economy and such systems, with horizontal progression.

    Once upon a time....

  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 5,781
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Amaranthar
    Originally posted by Merilirem
    Ahem, ----------- clip----------
    "Villager, with a home, maybe even someone to share it as children grow"

    I think it would be cool to have a limited number of deaths for characters, but also have children that can be "trained up" as you play. Then when that first character dies that final time (if that happens), the player can take over with the grown up child at something close to the first character in advancement.

    Edit to add: OP, an excellent post and topic, and very well done. Welcome aboard!

    I'm hoping that more sim-style sandboxes start rearing their heads, because things like families, pets, livestock or whole villages would make for some interesting gameplay. Currently we only see that kind of stuff on the most basic level in the PBBGs (EmpireCraft, Grepolis, Lords of Ultima, etc).

     

    100% agree.

    Once upon a time....

  • HomituHomitu Member UncommonPosts: 2,030

    I'm all for promoting uniqueness, thinking outside the box, and questioning principles that we have thus far assumed were fundamental givens.  However, I have a few issues with this poll.  

    First, the intro paragraph and even some of the text within the first 2 options goes out of its way to negatively portray those very options.  You basically tell people that by choosing those options, they are admitting they are ordinary bandwagoners.  Who wants to readily admit that?  As such, I'd suggest that choosing either of those first 2 options requires greater courage and self confidence than any of the other choices.  

    This is in contrast to the last option, which was given the most positive description by far, going as far as to use an embellishing adverb like "truly."  It's also the only option written in the first person, which makes it feel more personal, more self-affirming.

    The other main issue I have with the poll is that it creates a false dilema.  Many of those options are not mutually exclusive.  One does not, would not or even should not ever have to choose between them.  In fact, in storytelling of any format (literature, games, movies), many of those roles almost always do overlap.  Moreover, the one thing almost any of the roles you describe have in common in fantasy storytelling is that they also aways become heroes.  There are scholars who use their knowledge to do great deeds.  There are crafters who craft legendary weapons and wield them to victory.  And very very very  frequently, stories begin with average everyday innocent people like you or me who very quickly get wrapped up in schemes beyond anything they've ever imagined.  This, of course, has the advantage of creating main characters that readers/viewers/players can easily relate to.  

    Imagine a story that only follows a character that doesn't go on to become a hero of any sort.  The Diaries of a Farmer.  It would be the most boring story ever.  The intrigue in storytelling stems from characters with strengths and weaknesses who are presented with conflicts and adversity that they have to overcome. 

    All that said, I totally think you should be able to roleplay any role you wish in *most* games.  (It was never really made clear what kind of game you're talking about: MMOs, linear single player RPGs, open RPGs?)  In an open RPG or a good MMO, I think you should be able to be any type of character you want.  And on a moment by moment basis, you certainly may choose to not participate in the immediate events (ie. your dragon attacking a village).  I also think it would be nice to have a solid good/evil system.  But when all is said and done, the main story of the game should always have you play the hero in the end.  If you're not helping or saving or winning or otherwise interacting with a dramatic conflict, there can be no resolution and, ultimately, no story at all.  

    So the real question becomes do you want to play a game that takes you through a story, or do you just want to play a sandboxy sim game?

     

     

  • MeriliremMerilirem Member Posts: 77
    Originally posted by Homitu

    I'm all for promoting uniqueness, thinking outside the box, and questioning principles that we have thus far assumed were fundamental givens.  However, I have a few issues with this poll.  First, the intro paragraph and even some of the text within the first 2 options goes out of its way to negatively portray those very options.  You basically tell people that by choosing those options, they are admitting they are ordinary bandwagoners.  Who wants to readily admit that?  As such, I'd suggest that choosing either of those first 2 options requires greater courage and self confidence than any of the other choices.  This is in contrast to the last option, which was given the most positive description by far, going as far as to use an embellishing adverb like "truly."  It's also the only option written in the first person, which makes it feel more personal, more self-affirming.The other main issue I have with the poll is that it creates a false dilema.  Many of those options are not mutually exclusive.  One does not, would not or even should not ever have to choose between them.  In fact, in storytelling of any format (literature, games, movies), many of those roles almost always do overlap.  Moreover, the one thing almost any of the roles you describe have in common in fantasy storytelling is that they also aways become heroes.  There are scholars who use their knowledge to do great deeds.  There are crafters who craft legendary weapons and wield them to victory.  And very very very  frequently, stories begin with average everyday innocent people like you or me who very quickly get wrapped up in schemes beyond anything they've ever imagined.  This, of course, has the advantage of creating main characters that readers/viewers/players can easily relate to.  Imagine a story that only follows a character that doesn't go on to become a hero of any sort.  The Diaries of a Farmer.  It would be the most boring story ever.  The intrigue in storytelling stems from characters with strengths and weaknesses who are presented with conflicts and adversity that they have to overcome. All that said, I totally think you should be able to roleplay any role you wish in *most* games.  (It was never really made clear what kind of game you're talking about: MMOs, linear single player RPGs, open RPGs?)  In an open RPG or a good MMO, I think you should be able to be any type of character you want.  And on a moment by moment basis, you certainly may choose to not participate in the immediate events (ie. your dragon attacking a village).  I also think it would be nice to have a solid good/evil system.  But when all is said and done, the main story of the game should always have you play the hero in the end.  If you're not helping or saving or winning or otherwise interacting with a dramatic conflict, there can be no resolution and, ultimately, no story at all.  So the real question becomes do you want to play a game that takes you through a story, or do you just want to play a sandboxy sim game?  

     

    I never said anything about choosing a single solid path to play. I'm sorry that people have seen it as such but my intent is tofind out the most popular aspects. The choices are primary, your fave way to play or part of a game, a lot of people will play every conceivable way. I have nothing against people who play to be epic heroes and personally I love combat. I just wanted to see how many would choose the various styles I could come up with as their primary interest. My beginning is simply asking whether i need to intervene in the lives of the villagers getting slaughtered. I would almost certainly rush in to face the threat, cuz i like to fight and I like villagers. Th only problem with that is when you don't have a choice in the matter. Fate is a concept which was misunderstood and taken as a linear path in which you have no choice. Hence fate can go to hell in the face of free will. The whole point of this is that you don't have to be an epic hero, the world will need an epic hero or an army, but you don't have to do it. Not everyone in the world is a prophet or a football star or a hero who saved thousands of lives. The rest of us however still live despite not following that path. I also don't believe victory is a must, I thought I was pretty clear in that respect. If the good guys get owned, their should be consequences. I am also not talking about any limd of game specifically. You can apply this to all and any kind of game. The term sandbox is just a way to describe the simple idea of open gameplay as opposed to following a set path written by another person. Write one million paths and let them choose is all I want for a game. I also can't understand why someone would feel that they need courage to answer a poll truthfully. Its not even possible to tell who voted or how unless they say so. Do you know what I would have voted for? Please stop talking about stories in books when making your point, a game should not be a book, it can be based on a book, but in lord of the rings online your not frodo. Please remember that while you may not enjoy reading a story about a farmer, or playing one, some do.

    If a butterfly learnt to speak, to live in human society, paid its bills, had a job, lived in a fancy house and married a human, is it human?

    Now what if that same butterfly knew how to write code better than any human and had years of experience in the game industry, would that make it a game designer?

    If u wouldn't let a construction worker design your house, then why let a programmer design your world?

  • MeriliremMerilirem Member Posts: 77

    Originally posted by Amaranthar

    Originally posted by MyTabbycat
    To me, the most fun aspect of any game is exploration. So that is what I picked. But knowledge came in a close second. I love picking up and collecting all the books in TES games. I have them stacked in piles against the walls of my houses because I run out of book shelf space.

    I just wish "knowledge" played a much bigger role in MMOs.

    There's two kinds of knowledge to make playable.

    1. The kind of knowledge that a player gains from a one-use source, like learning a spell from a spell book that then goes *poof*. Knowledge of this kind everyone knows about, but only those who gain it through game play can actually use it. Even level based skills (making the best sword, for example) fall into this category.
    2. Special knowledge that the "owner" can protect it's source and thus keep the knowledge to himself. Lots of would-be-examples here that we all know make their way to web sites as "cheats". But I am certain that there are ways to make such knowledge worth enough that players don't do this.
    There are ways to expand these into newer versions and greater game play.
    • You could have magical tomes or tokens that confer knowledge onto the bearer. Not one-use, but ownership required. So that, for some examples; a blacksmith might be able to put a little extra edge on his swords while wearing a token, a mage might be able to cast a little more powerful Fireball while carrying a rare tome, or a character might know the secret password to a secret door (a wyrd that he will forget otherwise) while carrying a stone tablet.
    • You could have ancient languages in the form of glyphs or runes that relay information about the game world to those who know their meanings. Clues and warnings.
     

    Originally posted by Amaranthar

    Originally posted by Merilirem
    Ahem, ----------- clip----------

    "Villager, with a home, maybe even someone to share it as children grow"

    I think it would be cool to have a limited number of deaths for characters, but also have children that can be "trained up" as you play. Then when that first character dies that final time (if that happens), the player can take over with the grown up child at something close to the first character in advancement.

    Edit to add: OP, an excellent post and topic, and very well done. Welcome aboard!

     

    I understand your thoughts and agree on certain levels. While i have written some technical stuff, its not really the time to make a game. Tis thread simply wants to know what people actually enjoy. I have a number of ideas for the "perfect" game but this is not yet the time or place to discuss. I'm waiting for the poll to decide my next course of action.

    If a butterfly learnt to speak, to live in human society, paid its bills, had a job, lived in a fancy house and married a human, is it human?

    Now what if that same butterfly knew how to write code better than any human and had years of experience in the game industry, would that make it a game designer?

    If u wouldn't let a construction worker design your house, then why let a programmer design your world?

  • RaysheRayshe Member UncommonPosts: 1,279

    Qoute opening of TSW Templar storyline

     

    "Never mind why this power has been awakened in you. You're not the only one, and your not the chosen one. Your part of an Army OUR army, and from now on you'll do as your told. It's the way of the templar's"

     

    Great way to start things off. really its the best way it can be explained. You can have a personal story with a ton of things happening, However you don't have to be the chosen one.

    Because i can.
    I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
    Logic every gamers worst enemy.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Merilirem
     Please remember that while you may not enjoy reading a story about a farmer, or playing one, some do.

    And some would like to be carpenter, some like to be a painter, some like to be an accountant ... you can easily make a list of hundreds of occupations.

    The point is that EACH occupation needs its specific mechanics and implementation, and that means money.

    I doubt any company, including blizz, has enough money to implement everything under the sun.

    So the bottomline is HOW MANY players would like to be the farmer, instead of the knight? I bet the reason why there is no "farmer" class in most fantasy MMO is because if someone make that long occupation list, and prioritize it by the size of the audience, it is down below the cut off point.

    Now, given the popularity of farmville, you will imagine being a farmer should be higher on that list. But i suppose the market segment that play farmville (casual & old ladies?) is not the kind who play fantasy MMOs.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Merilirem

    I think it would be cool to have a limited number of deaths for characters, but also have children that can be "trained up" as you play. Then when that first character dies that final time (if that happens), the player can take over with the grown up child at something close to the first character in advancement.

    Edit to add: OP, an excellent post and topic, and very well done. Welcome aboard!

     

    I understand your thoughts and agree on certain levels. While i have written some technical stuff, its not really the time to make a game. Tis thread simply wants to know what people actually enjoy. I have a number of ideas for the "perfect" game but this is not yet the time or place to discuss. I'm waiting for the poll to decide my next course of action.

    Well, infinity blade (not a MMO)  does exactly that. When you die, you die .. and a "copy of you" continues as the descendant.

    So technically, it is easy to implement. In fact, you can even throw in a little "variation" on the character, so it is not an exact copy (like in IB).

  • MeriliremMerilirem Member Posts: 77

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by Merilirem
    I think it would be cool to have a limited number of deaths for characters, but also have children that can be "trained up" as you play. Then when that first character dies that final time (if that happens), the player can take over with the grown up child at something close to the first character in advancement.

    Edit to add: OP, an excellent post and topic, and very well done. Welcome aboard!

     

    I understand your thoughts and agree on certain levels. While i have written some technical stuff, its not really the time to make a game. Tis thread simply wants to know what people actually enjoy. I have a number of ideas for the "perfect" game but this is not yet the time or place to discuss. I'm waiting for the poll to decide my next course of action.

    Well, infinity blade (not a MMO)  does exactly that. When you die, you die .. and a "copy of you" continues as the descendant.

    So technically, it is easy to implement. In fact, you can even throw in a little "variation" on the character, so it is not an exact copy (like in IB).

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Yes it's easy enough to implement death into a game, it just depends on how the world and story handle it. I have nothing against it, in fact if i had my way it would be a big game over screen, but a lot of reasons including death by lag or disconnect stop such a thing from being viable with our current tech and social factors.


    Originally posted by Merilirem
     Please remember that while you may not enjoy reading a story about a farmer, or playing one, some do.

    And some would like to be carpenter, some like to be a painter, some like to be an accountant ... you can easily make a list of hundreds of occupations.

    The point is that EACH occupation needs its specific mechanics and implementation, and that means money.

    I doubt any company, including blizz, has enough money to implement everything under the sun.

    So the bottomline is HOW MANY players would like to be the farmer, instead of the knight? I bet the reason why there is no "farmer" class in most fantasy MMO is because if someone make that long occupation list, and prioritize it by the size of the audience, it is down below the cut off point.

    Now, given the popularity of farmville, you will imagine being a farmer should be higher on that list. But i suppose the market segment that play farmville (casual & old ladies?) is not the kind who play fantasy MMOs.

     

    That's the point of this pole,to start a discussion on which aspect are more appropriate and should be focused on. Having every choice isn't an option yet, but having 10 or something like that is definitely possible. Now I'm not saying the poll is perfect and demonstrates an absolute understanding of anything but it does seem that there would be a market for a game with combat as a secondary concern, development wise. Focus being placed on other aspects when it comes to fleshing and content. Just to live in a world where u don't have to be capable of killing enemies by the dozen just so you can be a smith or collect pretty things.

    If a butterfly learnt to speak, to live in human society, paid its bills, had a job, lived in a fancy house and married a human, is it human?

    Now what if that same butterfly knew how to write code better than any human and had years of experience in the game industry, would that make it a game designer?

    If u wouldn't let a construction worker design your house, then why let a programmer design your world?

  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 5,781
    Originally posted by Merilirem

     

    I understand your thoughts and agree on certain levels. While i have written some technical stuff, its not really the time to make a game. Tis thread simply wants to know what people actually enjoy. I have a number of ideas for the "perfect" game but this is not yet the time or place to discuss. I'm waiting for the poll to decide my next course of action.

    Understood. I'll refrain from adding a response directly, so as to allow you to keep this post "on topic".

     

    Once upon a time....

  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Member EpicPosts: 5,897

    I'd love to be the epic villain.  99% of games don't allow that.

     

    FYI - anti-hero and villain aren't the same thing.  Generally anti-heroes are still heroes but have major flaws.  Think the Punisher.

  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Member EpicPosts: 5,897
    So 20% of players want something that's impossible in an MMO.  They want to be the unique hero.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by FrodoFragins
    So 20% of players want something that's impossible in an MMO.  They want to be the unique hero.

    Games are just illusions .. you are not really killing that dragon .. it is just how the devs trick you into feeling so. So it is not that difficult to maket the illusion of being a "unique hero'. Just use a story instance. That is no different than being a unique hero in a SP or online game, where millions of others are also "unique heroes".

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Merilirem
    That's the point of this pole,to start a discussion on which aspect are more appropriate and should be focused on. Having every choice isn't an option yet, but having 10 or something like that is definitely possible. Now I'm not saying the poll is perfect and demonstrates an absolute understanding of anything but it does seem that there would be a market for a game with combat as a secondary concern, development wise. Focus being placed on other aspects when it comes to fleshing and content. Just to live in a world where u don't have to be capable of killing enemies by the dozen just so you can be a smith or collect pretty things.

    I doubt an unscientific poll here would be representative.

    Don't you think devs would have done extensive research before they commit their money on creating these systems?

    I would say combat is by far the most popular with dungeons, quests, raids, battlegrounds and arenas all focus on combat. I think collecting pets/mounts (or other stuff) is also kind of popular given how much you can collect in many of these games. Being a farmer, i don't know, although there is a large population playing farmville.

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper Member CommonPosts: 2,751
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by FrodoFragins
    So 20% of players want something that's impossible in an MMO.  They want to be the unique hero.

    Games are just illusions .. you are not really killing that dragon .. it is just how the devs trick you into feeling so. So it is not that difficult to maket the illusion of being a "unique hero'. Just use a story instance. That is no different than being a unique hero in a SP or online game, where millions of others are also "unique heroes".

     

    Everyone outside of complete mentalists are aware they are "playing a game".

     

    Multiplayer games also do afford the opportunity for "unique" or "stand out" players/characters within the context of the game world.

     

    @OP, it is nice when an mmo offers something other than whackamole (and when that "something" is a nicely fleshed out system and not just tacked on crap).

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • MeriliremMerilirem Member Posts: 77

    Originally posted by FrodoFragins

    I'd love to be the epic villain.  99% of games don't allow that.

     

    FYI - anti-hero and villain aren't the same thing.  Generally anti-heroes are still heroes but have major flaws.  Think the Punisher.

    Originally posted by FrodoFragins

    Ok it seems I accidentally used a term, I meant it in the sense of the counter to heroes, but I admit I made a small mistake. No ones perfect lol


    So 20% of players want something that's impossible in an MMO.  They want to be the unique hero.

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Not quite right, nowhere does it say hero. It just means a unique position within the game, such as commander of a kingdoms army or the title of best bard or smith. It doesn't so much matter what it is, just that it's something earned by outdoing every other player. Something unique earned through ones own ability. Being the hero isn't out of the question, but u would have to earn it.


    Originally posted by Merilirem
    That's the point of this pole,to start a discussion on which aspect are more appropriate and should be focused on. Having every choice isn't an option yet, but having 10 or something like that is definitely possible. Now I'm not saying the poll is perfect and demonstrates an absolute understanding of anything but it does seem that there would be a market for a game with combat as a secondary concern, development wise. Focus being placed on other aspects when it comes to fleshing and content. Just to live in a world where u don't have to be capable of killing enemies by the dozen just so you can be a smith or collect pretty things.

    I doubt an unscientific poll here would be representative.

    Don't you think devs would have done extensive research before they commit their money on creating these systems?

    I would say combat is by far the most popular with dungeons, quests, raids, battlegrounds and arenas all focus on combat. I think collecting pets/mounts (or other stuff) is also kind of popular given how much you can collect in many of these games. Being a farmer, i don't know, although there is a large population playing farmville.

     

    Ok I understand your point. Yes I think they do market research, yes I think lots of people enjoy raids and stuff. However it doesn't change the fact that all games in existence are fairly terrible. The graphics are fine, the technology is getting better each year. The problem lies with the laziness and lack of integrity when it comes to making a game. So many perfectly plausible games are just ruined by easily avoidable completely illogical flaws. People are either not trying or constrained by some sort of upper level management issues. The end result is the same. Just because things are the way they are, doesn't mean it's the best way. Please forget the farmer thing, as it was only an example. I'm not saying lots of people want to be farmers, I just don't think any possibility should be ignored. To assume is to stunt the pursuit of knowledge, if you assume everyones likes cats, then bring home a big box of cats you basically just took a huge unfounded risk. A lot of people assume they are heterosexual and never question it. People assumed the world was flat because it looked that way. I don't mean to sound condescending or arrogant or say I know everything. I just want to ask the questions. Asking questions and making mistakes is how we learn after all.

    If a butterfly learnt to speak, to live in human society, paid its bills, had a job, lived in a fancy house and married a human, is it human?

    Now what if that same butterfly knew how to write code better than any human and had years of experience in the game industry, would that make it a game designer?

    If u wouldn't let a construction worker design your house, then why let a programmer design your world?

Sign In or Register to comment.