I would make it so that "end game" would mean game over so that means a server restart will be needed.
You've failed to work together to progress your civilization, causing it to collapse or your people die off.
Just remember that at least half of the player base violently objects to being forced to work with other people.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Total War? Frankly I do not want hours of character progression wiped out in an MMO. But I do not want to have to go through hours of pointless grinding for shiny gear in the first place. i want polotics or player led economy. That was possibly the most unhelpful post I have ever- erm- posted.
Pretty much like the title stated, feel free to post your ideas, etc.
I always find people's opinions and ideas interesting, so that's pretty much my reason for creating this thread.
There would be a fundamental paradox with a prehistoric MMO. Prehistory by definition refers to a time before recorded history. That means a time before people (whatever races inhabit your MMO world) could communicate via language to pass down stories and lore either orally or through written text. This would eliminate all possibilty for lore, background story, context, and, logically, even communication in your MMO, which are all rather essential "MMORPG" features. A game lacking these features could hardly be called an MMO or RPG, thus the paradox.
The only way I can comprehend a "prehistoric" MMO is if you control a particular beast in a sort of Darwinian, cut-throat, survival of the fittest jungle world. You would focus on strengthening your beast in typical RPG/MMO progression fashion. Perhaps a milestone to shoot for would be to "evolve" a la Pokemon. Perhaps if you work with others to take down a larger beast, you then (inexplicably) gain control of that beast as a means of "progressing."
I don't want to be rude but i think you should check a dictionary because your definition is really off.
Actually, my definition was spot on. The only ammendment would be that prehistoric peoples, although non-literate, could communicate in a primitive way without a fully developed language.
Ho really? no your definition is totally off. During all prehistory people used oral tradition, history is written this is what make them different, it doesn't mean tradition and language wasn't fully developped, in fact very far from that. Language was fully developped during pre history i think it is confirmed in your link too. The fact you don't have proof, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All the prehistorical work in fact proove that human intelligence and language was pretty much the same as today, only the mean was poorer.
Pretty much like the title stated, feel free to post your ideas, etc.
I always find people's opinions and ideas interesting, so that's pretty much my reason for creating this thread.
There would be a fundamental paradox with a prehistoric MMO. Prehistory by definition refers to a time before recorded history. That means a time before people (whatever races inhabit your MMO world) could communicate via language to pass down stories and lore either orally or through written text. This would eliminate all possibilty for lore, background story, context, and, logically, even communication in your MMO, which are all rather essential "MMORPG" features. A game lacking these features could hardly be called an MMO or RPG, thus the paradox.
The only way I can comprehend a "prehistoric" MMO is if you control a particular beast in a sort of Darwinian, cut-throat, survival of the fittest jungle world. You would focus on strengthening your beast in typical RPG/MMO progression fashion. Perhaps a milestone to shoot for would be to "evolve" a la Pokemon. Perhaps if you work with others to take down a larger beast, you then (inexplicably) gain control of that beast as a means of "progressing."
I don't want to be rude but i think you should check a dictionary because your definition is really off.
Actually, my definition was spot on. The only ammendment would be that prehistoric peoples, although non-literate, could communicate in a primitive way without a fully developed language.
Cave paintings are a form of literature. These things evolve gradually, there is no line in the sand (other than the arbitrary era's we give them which in practice must overlap).
Cave paintings may be a form of expression of thought and, therefore, a means of communication, but it can in no way be confused with literature, which involves the use of a devoloped and mutually understood written language. And yes, prehistory did "end" in various locations around the world at various points in history.
Anyway, these are all just semantics. The only definition I gave of prehistory was that it is the period before recorded history.
Literature linked exclusively to written language? O RLY?
Tell that to Homer (if he existed), The Beowulf poet (i.e., not the scribe who wrote it down hundreds of years after it was composed by an Anglo-Saxon), The Epic of Gilgamesh poet, the tribes who passed down most of the major books of the Old Testament, the Anonymous writers of a whole series of Lyrics and Ballads, etc. Those are all considered great works of literature and they were all composed, memorized, and passed down generation to generation orally. Writing didn't become involved until hundreds of years after the fact.
True, the poems/songs/etc. may have possibly been lost to the ages if scribes didn't eventually transcribe them and put them down in writing. In fact, there is evidence that many extant earlier forms of some of these works were lost because they weren't committed to text (or, if they were, they were somehow lost or destroyed). None of this, however, changes the fact that they are great works of literature, even though they existed only within the realms of the oral tradition.
It is a relatively recent phenomenon to link literacy and knowledge to written text, but writing and written language is a relatively new development within the context of humanity's history. The printing press and the mass production of literary texts happened almost yesterday given the timeline of human civilization, and even with the proliferation of writing, for most periods of history, the masses were illiterate and a sign of knowledge and learning was based more on a person's ability to memorize the important works of the day, as well as use rhetoric adeptly (see: Plato's "Theatetus" where Socrates laments the new fad of holding writing and "book knowledge" above the memorization and masterful oral recitation of great works).
Literature as we think of it now is, indeed, linked to written texts. But, I just had to amend the record because the prominence of writing is such a recent change that it does a great disservice to many of the great bards, minstrels, and oral poets of the past to contend that literature *must* be written. Members of the oral tradition were literary giants too, despite the fact that their songs/poems/etc. were not recorded until they had been passed down through history orally over multiple generations.
Now, back to OP. If the OP intends this MMO to be "prehistory" in the sense of Clan of the Cave Bear, then perhaps language and "literature" as we are speaking of it did not exist as the cultural powerhouse we tend to imagine them to be. However, even in this popular image of cavemen grunting and being devoid of language, there is a lot of controversy. In light of this issue, there is a growing camp of anthropolgists, arcaeologists, and linguists who are starting to dispute many of the earlier conclusions made about the speech of prehistoric humans. Most of the earlier conclusions that prehistoric humans could not speak were based on analysis of the skull structure of Neanderthals (which seemed to show a lack of space for the development of areas of the brain most responsible for speech). However, recent fossil evidence and a deeper understanding of the brain and language in general has shown that prehistoric humans had anatomical structures that were nearly identical to modern humans with respect to language:
The recovery of a fossil hominid skeleton with a complete hyoid bone from Mousterian deposits in Kebara Cave, Israel, provides new evidence pertaining to the evolution of speech. Previous studies of speech in the Middle Palaeolithic (most notably those on Neandertals) have focused on the basicranium as an indicator of speech capabilities. This work critiques the use of the basicranium and instead presents the anatomical relations of the hyoid and adjacent structures in living humans as a basis for understanding the form of the vocal tract. The size and morphology of the hyoid from Kebara and its relations to other anatomical components are almost identical to those in modern humans, suggesting that Middle Palaeolithic populations were anatomically capable of fully modern speech.
Admittedly, this doesn't mean that prehistoric humans *did* speak and utililize language in a way that mirrors the literature and oral tradition of the classical period. However, considering that prehistoric humans were considered to be devoid of speech based on erroneous conclusions about the brain by earlier scientists, it is entirely possible that humans were capable of speech. In fact, most evolutionary biologists contend that the major factor that set humans apart from primates was our ability to use language to communicate, especially, when it comes to abstractions.
TL;DR = The notion that prehistoric humans didn't speak or use language is coming under more and more fire. Humans likely spoke, and in some sense, it is not out of the realm of possibility that tribal shamans and leaders of successive generations would use recitations of lineages and cultural tales to impart important historical, cultural, and spiritual knowledge to their people.
I think more a ring of fire scenario. A town or two or three are wrenched back to the prehistoric timeperiod. They can try to eak out a new civiliiazation while battleing the dinosurs, neantertals, that one evel homo erectus clans, etc. could be rather interesting if implemented right.
If you are referring to my wall of text, then my apologies. I forgot that most of the people on this site are more accustomed to the bells and whistles of the latest cookie cutter MMO than actually being interested in bothering to read something. Heaven forbid somebody take the time to write a thoughtful response to what somebody said. I might be wordy, but at least I tried to contribute something greater than a snarky comment that showcases my laziness.
Pretty much like the title stated, feel free to post your ideas, etc.
I always find people's opinions and ideas interesting, so that's pretty much my reason for creating this thread.
I'd make about 8 or 9 zones. Like one zone would be the starting area for levels 1 through 10. Next zone would be for 11 through 20. Max level about 60 or so. The remaining zones would be raid zones.
I'd have quest hubs in each area. Basically from the time you enter the game until the time you uninstall, the quests tell you everywhere you need to go. Do all the quests in the area then move onto the next quest hub. Doing this will result in you setting foot on every area of the map. You don't have to play with other people if you don't want to.
I would spend lots of money on voice acting, and I would use a famous IP to bring in a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't be playing mmorpgs. Jurassic Park would work nicely, or X Men.
You don't ever have to loot if you don't want to, since the best weapons are available from a cash shop anyway, so whip out that credit card and whoop some ass and never die. When you do die though, it's no big deal, as you are just teleported about 50 feet away from where you died with full health and mana and you can go right at it again.
"Pre-historic" shouldn't be a limiting factor on the imagination and fantasy that can be incorporated into the content, but it could work as an overall theme.
I'm guessing we're talking dinosaurs, the Ice Age, evolution, struggling for survival in a early pre-Man versus Nature environment, and an eventual almost complete annihilation of all life, followed by an emergence of new species, new continents, formations of society, development of new survival skills, so on so forth...
There is room for a lot of imaginative growth, including:
An unknown antagonist that deliberately leads the world to the brink of doom with comets and fire, darkening the sky.
Powerful forces that are eventually revealed to be the early "Gods" of mankind, influencing various skills for survival (and gameplay).
Formation of early societies in the form of "clans", "tribes", or however they will be named to increase chance of survival.
The development of crafting systems centered around a "Survival Skills" theme.
Expansions could be based around certain tumultuous events, such as the Ice Age, Meteoric Devastation, and imagined ideas purportedly caused by some unknown antagonist that wants to wipe out all life on the planet.
Perhaps the reasoning behind the near-extinction of all life on the planet could stem from the unknown antagonist, not of this world. This force could be the impetus that drives pre-Man to form societies in order to strengthen their defenses against it.
The primary antagonist could be Lovecraft-ian, something similar to the Old Gods, and it sends wave after wave of minions from the sea, and outer space, and from other dimensions. Granted, Blizzard ripped off the whole Lovecraft-ian Lore idea as well in their later World of Warcraft expansions, but the idea still has a lot of room for exploration.
Humans and dinosaurs are seperated by some 60-odd millions years. And for some of us, that's a bit too close for comfort.
But if you wanted a human-dinosaur crossover, you can either go via a time-travel setting, or an alternate world. If we're into dinosaurs, the game would need to have some distinct reason to travel back to the Jurrasic, and not just to hunt dinosaurs. And don't step on any proto-butterfly-ancestor thingies while you're there.
The other option is to have side-by-side evolution of the two species. This is a popular idea in fiction. I would guess that the best known series along these lines would be James Gurney's Dinotopia series I think that could work as a background, but am not totally sure that it would work as a game environment (and still retain any element of the source material). The challenge there would be to prevent everyone from rolling up a predator -- who doesn't want to be on top of the food chain?
And if you do a purely dinosaur game, there isn't any natural balance between the carnivores and herbivores. Again, why be the meal when you can be the diner.
Then there's the other dinosaur sterotype -- Godzilla! Again, why would I want to be in the Science Patrol unless I got to drive the Corvair. Crush, Crumble and Chomp Online!! The Creature that Ate Sheboygan MMO!! I probably need to find that available IP properties thread. (And anyone who recognizes those actual game titles, congratulations, your formative years were as misspent as mine)
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
If you are referring to my wall of text, then my apologies. I forgot that most of the people on this site are more accustomed to the bells and whistles of the latest cookie cutter MMO than actually being interested in bothering to read something. Heaven forbid somebody take the time to write a thoughtful response to what somebody said. I might be wordy, but at least I tried to contribute something greater than a snarky comment that showcases my laziness.
To be fair you were backing up my argument (thank you for that), and admittedly I haven't read it, but I think I probably know what you wrote, and I am sure it was correct. Because you have the inclination to write/ read walls of text written by (no offence) non-academics doesn't mean we all necessarily have to. Edit: wrote that in a pique, sorry shouldn't have sent the flippant response.
Pretty much like the title stated, feel free to post your ideas, etc.
I always find people's opinions and ideas interesting, so that's pretty much my reason for creating this thread.
There would be a fundamental paradox with a prehistoric MMO. Prehistory by definition refers to a time before recorded history. That means a time before people (whatever races inhabit your MMO world) could communicate via language to pass down stories and lore either orally or through written text. This would eliminate all possibilty for lore, background story, context, and, logically, even communication in your MMO, which are all rather essential "MMORPG" features. A game lacking these features could hardly be called an MMO or RPG, thus the paradox.
The only way I can comprehend a "prehistoric" MMO is if you control a particular beast in a sort of Darwinian, cut-throat, survival of the fittest jungle world. You would focus on strengthening your beast in typical RPG/MMO progression fashion. Perhaps a milestone to shoot for would be to "evolve" a la Pokemon. Perhaps if you work with others to take down a larger beast, you then (inexplicably) gain control of that beast as a means of "progressing."
I don't want to be rude but i think you should check a dictionary because your definition is really off.
Actually, my definition was spot on. The only ammendment would be that prehistoric peoples, although non-literate, could communicate in a primitive way without a fully developed language.
Cave paintings are a form of literature. These things evolve gradually, there is no line in the sand (other than the arbitrary era's we give them which in practice must overlap).
Cave paintings may be a form of expression of thought and, therefore, a means of communication, but it can in no way be confused with literature, which involves the use of a devoloped and mutually understood written language. And yes, prehistory did "end" in various locations around the world at various points in history.
Anyway, these are all just semantics. The only definition I gave of prehistory was that it is the period before recorded history.
Literature linked exclusively to written language? O RLY?
Tell that to Homer (if he existed), The Beowulf poet (i.e., not the scribe who wrote it down hundreds of years after it was composed by an Anglo-Saxon), The Epic of Gilgamesh poet, the tribes who passed down most of the major books of the Old Testament, the Anonymous writers of a whole series of Lyrics and Ballads, etc. Those are all considered great works of literature and they were all composed, memorized, and passed down generation to generation orally. Writing didn't become involved until hundreds of years after the fact.
True, the poems/songs/etc. may have possibly been lost to the ages if scribes didn't eventually transcribe them and put them down in writing. In fact, there is evidence that many extant earlier forms of some of these works were lost because they weren't committed to text (or, if they were, they were somehow lost or destroyed). None of this, however, changes the fact that they are great works of literature, even though they existed only within the realms of the oral tradition.
It is a relatively recent phenomenon to link literacy and knowledge to written text, but writing and written language is a relatively new development within the context of humanity's history. The printing press and the mass production of literary texts happened almost yesterday given the timeline of human civilization, and even with the proliferation of writing, for most periods of history, the masses were illiterate and a sign of knowledge and learning was based more on a person's ability to memorize the important works of the day, as well as use rhetoric adeptly (see: Plato's "Theatetus" where Socrates laments the new fad of holding writing and "book knowledge" above the memorization and masterful oral recitation of great works).
Literature as we think of it now is, indeed, linked to written texts. But, I just had to amend the record because the prominence of writing is such a recent change that it does a great disservice to many of the great bards, minstrels, and oral poets of the past to contend that literature *must* be written. Members of the oral tradition were literary giants too, despite the fact that their songs/poems/etc. were not recorded until they had been passed down through history orally over multiple generations.
Now, back to OP. If the OP intends this MMO to be "prehistory" in the sense of Clan of the Cave Bear, then perhaps language and "literature" as we are speaking of it did not exist as the cultural powerhouse we tend to imagine them to be. However, even in this popular image of cavemen grunting and being devoid of language, there is a lot of controversy. In light of this issue, there is a growing camp of anthropolgists, arcaeologists, and linguists who are starting to dispute many of the earlier conclusions made about the speech of prehistoric humans. Most of the earlier conclusions that prehistoric humans could not speak were based on analysis of the skull structure of Neanderthals (which seemed to show a lack of space for the development of areas of the brain most responsible for speech). However, recent fossil evidence and a deeper understanding of the brain and language in general has shown that prehistoric humans had anatomical structures that were nearly identical to modern humans with respect to language:
The recovery of a fossil hominid skeleton with a complete hyoid bone from Mousterian deposits in Kebara Cave, Israel, provides new evidence pertaining to the evolution of speech. Previous studies of speech in the Middle Palaeolithic (most notably those on Neandertals) have focused on the basicranium as an indicator of speech capabilities. This work critiques the use of the basicranium and instead presents the anatomical relations of the hyoid and adjacent structures in living humans as a basis for understanding the form of the vocal tract. The size and morphology of the hyoid from Kebara and its relations to other anatomical components are almost identical to those in modern humans, suggesting that Middle Palaeolithic populations were anatomically capable of fully modern speech.
Admittedly, this doesn't mean that prehistoric humans *did* speak and utililize language in a way that mirrors the literature and oral tradition of the classical period. However, considering that prehistoric humans were considered to be devoid of speech based on erroneous conclusions about the brain by earlier scientists, it is entirely possible that humans were capable of speech. In fact, most evolutionary biologists contend that the major factor that set humans apart from primates was our ability to use language to communicate, especially, when it comes to abstractions.
TL;DR = The notion that prehistoric humans didn't speak or use language is coming under more and more fire. Humans likely spoke, and in some sense, it is not out of the realm of possibility that tribal shamans and leaders of successive generations would use recitations of lineages and cultural tales to impart important historical, cultural, and spiritual knowledge to their people.
sorry for the somewhat off-topic but aside from that one link, are there any other books you'd recommend on the subject? and thanks for the post very interesting.
and for everyone else, prehistory means no writin - suck it
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
sorry for the somewhat off-topic but aside from that one link, are there any other books you'd recommend on the subject? and thanks for the post very interesting.
and for everyone else, prehistory means no writin - suck it
Books can be difficult to come by since this line of thought is fairly recent. A lot of the stuff I am writing about comes from journal articles and textbooks that cite very recent articles. Most of these claims are based on new developments in neurobiology, which have yielded stunning new insights into language which were thought of only in a theoretical light just 20 years ago. Plus, in all honesty, my background is applied linguistics and I only have a very superficial familiarity with this topic. Still, maybe these will help point you in the right direction of better resources:
2) Another book that does a decent job describing the likely co-evolution of the brain and species is The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain (Terrence W. Deacon). This is somewhat dated too considering recent developments... And his dismissal of Chomsky's Universal Grammar is rather unconvincing (there are detractors to Chomsky who dispute some of his claims, but a lot of his theories are still supported by current research in linguistics)
4) An intro to a rather interesting series of videos that tend to approach the topic from a "late origin" perspective. You might be able to find this DVD on Netflix or at your local library: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuUAPVFFCRQ
I must be honest that most of the links I include above (and am familiar with) tend to support an innatist view of language (versus the social-interactionist model that is also popular). It is a very complicated/complex topic, and I shouldn't have been so heavy-handed in explaining it earlier. In truth, nobody will ever know unless we can invent a time machine and go back and see what early hominids were all about. Anyway, I hope those are interesting resources for you and I am glad you find the topic worthy of more study. I apologize to OP for going horribly OT (and also to thebigchin11 for deluging him and others with so much jargon).
Regardless, I really love this idea for an MMO. I think devs could do some great things and it would make for an excellent sandbox. But, I fear gamers just don't have the patience for something of that nature. Still, it is a cool setting for a game. There are a lot of possibilities, even stuff that borders on the prehistoric tribes having to deal with technologically superior overloards a la "Chariot of the Gods" / "Stargate". If gamers could just get away from the "kill 10 rats" themepark style of gameplay, a setting like what is described by some in this thread could be amazing. Despite my rambling and OT posts, this is one of the best threads I've seen on this forum in a long time. Lots of cool ideas. I should have let the literature/language thing slide, tbh. Anyway.... Later^^
Pretty much like the title stated, feel free to post your ideas, etc.
I always find people's opinions and ideas interesting, so that's pretty much my reason for creating this thread.
I think I would go a different way.
I would have a human colony ship crash onto an earth like planet which is still in its prehistoric development phase, setting it not on earth opens up scope for a lot more imho.
Such as:
- I could have human & maybe a genetically modified/engineered race to choose from.
- I could have psionics or mind powers to replace standad magic systems or use a mutations system similar to fallen earths.
- I can draw upon all the prehistoric knowledge of earth as well as add alien prehistoric creatures, plants etc giving me scope to make things up.
- I can have a prehistoric alien race/races if I so choose.
- I can still have some technology from the crashed ship but I can limit its use if I choose to & maybe restrict lower level equipment to more primitive things like wood & stone weapons, flint spears, knives, bows, hide armor etc and later on maybe through crafting allow more advanced weapons & armour.
- Survival can be a fun part of the challenge & exploration can be a large part of the game since it is an unknown planet.
Obviously it would still have all the cool things of prehistoric earth without the limitations holding it back and leaving a lot of scope for expansion content, new races etc later on.
Pretty much like the title stated, feel free to post your ideas, etc.
I always find people's opinions and ideas interesting, so that's pretty much my reason for creating this thread.
I think I would go a different way.
I would have a human colony ship crash onto an earth like planet which is still in its prehistoric development phase, setting it not on earth opens up scope for a lot more imho.
Such as:
- I could have human & maybe a genetically modified/engineered race to choose from.
- I could have psionics or mind powers to replace standad magic systems or use a mutations system similar to fallen earths.
- I can draw upon all the prehistoric knowledge of earth as well as add alien prehistoric creatures, plants etc giving me scope to make things up.
- I can have a prehistoric alien race/races if I so choose.
- I can still have some technology from the crashed ship but I can limit its use if I choose to & maybe restrict lower level equipment to more primitive things like wood & stone weapons, flint spears, knives, bows, hide armor etc and later on maybe through crafting allow more advanced weapons & armour.
- Survival can be a fun part of the challenge & exploration can be a large part of the game since it is an unknown planet.
Obviously it would still have all the cool things of prehistoric earth without the limitations holding it back and leaving a lot of scope for expansion content, new races etc later on.
I like it but please no magic or magic pretence, ruins almost every game for me. Is risable.
Pretty much like the title stated, feel free to post your ideas, etc.
I always find people's opinions and ideas interesting, so that's pretty much my reason for creating this thread.
I think I would go a different way.
I would have a human colony ship crash onto an earth like planet which is still in its prehistoric development phase, setting it not on earth opens up scope for a lot more imho.
Such as:
- I could have human & maybe a genetically modified/engineered race to choose from.
- I could have psionics or mind powers to replace standad magic systems or use a mutations system similar to fallen earths.
- I can draw upon all the prehistoric knowledge of earth as well as add alien prehistoric creatures, plants etc giving me scope to make things up.
- I can have a prehistoric alien race/races if I so choose.
- I can still have some technology from the crashed ship but I can limit its use if I choose to & maybe restrict lower level equipment to more primitive things like wood & stone weapons, flint spears, knives, bows, hide armor etc and later on maybe through crafting allow more advanced weapons & armour.
- Survival can be a fun part of the challenge & exploration can be a large part of the game since it is an unknown planet.
Obviously it would still have all the cool things of prehistoric earth without the limitations holding it back and leaving a lot of scope for expansion content, new races etc later on.
I like it but please no magic or magic pretence, ruins almost every game for me. Is risable.
Actually for psionics I was thinking more along the lines of buff enhancements & pet class. IE: as your psionics gets stronger you can mentally dominate stronger and stronger creatures to do your bidding. not so much pew pew magic.
Just a thought anyway and games that launch without some form of "magic" seem to do poorly. Personally I like "low magic games/worlds" and was a bit dissapointed AoC had as much magic as it did.
Pretty much like the title stated, feel free to post your ideas, etc.
I always find people's opinions and ideas interesting, so that's pretty much my reason for creating this thread.
I think I would go a different way.
I would have a human colony ship crash onto an earth like planet which is still in its prehistoric development phase, setting it not on earth opens up scope for a lot more imho.
Such as:
- I could have human & maybe a genetically modified/engineered race to choose from.
- I could have psionics or mind powers to replace standad magic systems or use a mutations system similar to fallen earths.
- I can draw upon all the prehistoric knowledge of earth as well as add alien prehistoric creatures, plants etc giving me scope to make things up.
- I can have a prehistoric alien race/races if I so choose.
- I can still have some technology from the crashed ship but I can limit its use if I choose to & maybe restrict lower level equipment to more primitive things like wood & stone weapons, flint spears, knives, bows, hide armor etc and later on maybe through crafting allow more advanced weapons & armour.
- Survival can be a fun part of the challenge & exploration can be a large part of the game since it is an unknown planet.
Obviously it would still have all the cool things of prehistoric earth without the limitations holding it back and leaving a lot of scope for expansion content, new races etc later on.
I like it but please no magic or magic pretence, ruins almost every game for me. Is risable.
Actually for psionics I was thinking more along the lines of buff enhancements & pet class. IE: as your psionics gets stronger you can mentally dominate stronger and stronger creatures to do your bidding. not so much pew pew magic.
Just a thought anyway and games that launch without some form of "magic" seem to do poorly. Personally I like "low magic games/worlds" and was a bit dissapointed AoC had as much magic as it did.
Comments
I would make it so that "end game" would mean game over so that means a server restart will be needed.
You've failed to work together to progress your civilization, causing it to collapse or your people die off.
Gnomes always look sinister to me, just one rung down from clowns. Sorry, way off-topic.
Chins
Just remember that at least half of the player base violently objects to being forced to work with other people.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Have you tried Civilization? That is not a joke.
Chins
They could do that but life would be hard.
Of course. Xeno Clash would be another game to draw ideas from.
Total War? Frankly I do not want hours of character progression wiped out in an MMO. But I do not want to have to go through hours of pointless grinding for shiny gear in the first place. i want polotics or player led economy. That was possibly the most unhelpful post I have ever- erm- posted.
Chins
Ho really? no your definition is totally off. During all prehistory people used oral tradition, history is written this is what make them different, it doesn't mean tradition and language wasn't fully developped, in fact very far from that. Language was fully developped during pre history i think it is confirmed in your link too. The fact you don't have proof, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All the prehistorical work in fact proove that human intelligence and language was pretty much the same as today, only the mean was poorer.
Literature linked exclusively to written language? O RLY?
Tell that to Homer (if he existed), The Beowulf poet (i.e., not the scribe who wrote it down hundreds of years after it was composed by an Anglo-Saxon), The Epic of Gilgamesh poet, the tribes who passed down most of the major books of the Old Testament, the Anonymous writers of a whole series of Lyrics and Ballads, etc. Those are all considered great works of literature and they were all composed, memorized, and passed down generation to generation orally. Writing didn't become involved until hundreds of years after the fact.
True, the poems/songs/etc. may have possibly been lost to the ages if scribes didn't eventually transcribe them and put them down in writing. In fact, there is evidence that many extant earlier forms of some of these works were lost because they weren't committed to text (or, if they were, they were somehow lost or destroyed). None of this, however, changes the fact that they are great works of literature, even though they existed only within the realms of the oral tradition.
It is a relatively recent phenomenon to link literacy and knowledge to written text, but writing and written language is a relatively new development within the context of humanity's history. The printing press and the mass production of literary texts happened almost yesterday given the timeline of human civilization, and even with the proliferation of writing, for most periods of history, the masses were illiterate and a sign of knowledge and learning was based more on a person's ability to memorize the important works of the day, as well as use rhetoric adeptly (see: Plato's "Theatetus" where Socrates laments the new fad of holding writing and "book knowledge" above the memorization and masterful oral recitation of great works).
Literature as we think of it now is, indeed, linked to written texts. But, I just had to amend the record because the prominence of writing is such a recent change that it does a great disservice to many of the great bards, minstrels, and oral poets of the past to contend that literature *must* be written. Members of the oral tradition were literary giants too, despite the fact that their songs/poems/etc. were not recorded until they had been passed down through history orally over multiple generations.
Now, back to OP. If the OP intends this MMO to be "prehistory" in the sense of Clan of the Cave Bear, then perhaps language and "literature" as we are speaking of it did not exist as the cultural powerhouse we tend to imagine them to be. However, even in this popular image of cavemen grunting and being devoid of language, there is a lot of controversy. In light of this issue, there is a growing camp of anthropolgists, arcaeologists, and linguists who are starting to dispute many of the earlier conclusions made about the speech of prehistoric humans. Most of the earlier conclusions that prehistoric humans could not speak were based on analysis of the skull structure of Neanderthals (which seemed to show a lack of space for the development of areas of the brain most responsible for speech). However, recent fossil evidence and a deeper understanding of the brain and language in general has shown that prehistoric humans had anatomical structures that were nearly identical to modern humans with respect to language:
The recovery of a fossil hominid skeleton with a complete hyoid bone from Mousterian deposits in Kebara Cave, Israel, provides new evidence pertaining to the evolution of speech. Previous studies of speech in the Middle Palaeolithic (most notably those on Neandertals) have focused on the basicranium as an indicator of speech capabilities. This work critiques the use of the basicranium and instead presents the anatomical relations of the hyoid and adjacent structures in living humans as a basis for understanding the form of the vocal tract. The size and morphology of the hyoid from Kebara and its relations to other anatomical components are almost identical to those in modern humans, suggesting that Middle Palaeolithic populations were anatomically capable of fully modern speech.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330830202/abstract
Admittedly, this doesn't mean that prehistoric humans *did* speak and utililize language in a way that mirrors the literature and oral tradition of the classical period. However, considering that prehistoric humans were considered to be devoid of speech based on erroneous conclusions about the brain by earlier scientists, it is entirely possible that humans were capable of speech. In fact, most evolutionary biologists contend that the major factor that set humans apart from primates was our ability to use language to communicate, especially, when it comes to abstractions.
TL;DR = The notion that prehistoric humans didn't speak or use language is coming under more and more fire. Humans likely spoke, and in some sense, it is not out of the realm of possibility that tribal shamans and leaders of successive generations would use recitations of lineages and cultural tales to impart important historical, cultural, and spiritual knowledge to their people.
I think more a ring of fire scenario. A town or two or three are wrenched back to the prehistoric timeperiod. They can try to eak out a new civiliiazation while battleing the dinosurs, neantertals, that one evel homo erectus clans, etc. could be rather interesting if implemented right.
I self identify as a monkey.
Ouch my eyes.
Chins
If you are referring to my wall of text, then my apologies. I forgot that most of the people on this site are more accustomed to the bells and whistles of the latest cookie cutter MMO than actually being interested in bothering to read something. Heaven forbid somebody take the time to write a thoughtful response to what somebody said. I might be wordy, but at least I tried to contribute something greater than a snarky comment that showcases my laziness.
I'd make about 8 or 9 zones. Like one zone would be the starting area for levels 1 through 10. Next zone would be for 11 through 20. Max level about 60 or so. The remaining zones would be raid zones.
I'd have quest hubs in each area. Basically from the time you enter the game until the time you uninstall, the quests tell you everywhere you need to go. Do all the quests in the area then move onto the next quest hub. Doing this will result in you setting foot on every area of the map. You don't have to play with other people if you don't want to.
I would spend lots of money on voice acting, and I would use a famous IP to bring in a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't be playing mmorpgs. Jurassic Park would work nicely, or X Men.
You don't ever have to loot if you don't want to, since the best weapons are available from a cash shop anyway, so whip out that credit card and whoop some ass and never die. When you do die though, it's no big deal, as you are just teleported about 50 feet away from where you died with full health and mana and you can go right at it again.
That's my idea.
"Pre-historic" shouldn't be a limiting factor on the imagination and fantasy that can be incorporated into the content, but it could work as an overall theme.
I'm guessing we're talking dinosaurs, the Ice Age, evolution, struggling for survival in a early pre-Man versus Nature environment, and an eventual almost complete annihilation of all life, followed by an emergence of new species, new continents, formations of society, development of new survival skills, so on so forth...
There is room for a lot of imaginative growth, including:
An unknown antagonist that deliberately leads the world to the brink of doom with comets and fire, darkening the sky.
Powerful forces that are eventually revealed to be the early "Gods" of mankind, influencing various skills for survival (and gameplay).
Formation of early societies in the form of "clans", "tribes", or however they will be named to increase chance of survival.
The development of crafting systems centered around a "Survival Skills" theme.
Expansions could be based around certain tumultuous events, such as the Ice Age, Meteoric Devastation, and imagined ideas purportedly caused by some unknown antagonist that wants to wipe out all life on the planet.
Perhaps the reasoning behind the near-extinction of all life on the planet could stem from the unknown antagonist, not of this world. This force could be the impetus that drives pre-Man to form societies in order to strengthen their defenses against it.
The primary antagonist could be Lovecraft-ian, something similar to the Old Gods, and it sends wave after wave of minions from the sea, and outer space, and from other dimensions. Granted, Blizzard ripped off the whole Lovecraft-ian Lore idea as well in their later World of Warcraft expansions, but the idea still has a lot of room for exploration.
Humans and dinosaurs are seperated by some 60-odd millions years. And for some of us, that's a bit too close for comfort.
But if you wanted a human-dinosaur crossover, you can either go via a time-travel setting, or an alternate world. If we're into dinosaurs, the game would need to have some distinct reason to travel back to the Jurrasic, and not just to hunt dinosaurs. And don't step on any proto-butterfly-ancestor thingies while you're there.
The other option is to have side-by-side evolution of the two species. This is a popular idea in fiction. I would guess that the best known series along these lines would be James Gurney's Dinotopia series I think that could work as a background, but am not totally sure that it would work as a game environment (and still retain any element of the source material). The challenge there would be to prevent everyone from rolling up a predator -- who doesn't want to be on top of the food chain?
And if you do a purely dinosaur game, there isn't any natural balance between the carnivores and herbivores. Again, why be the meal when you can be the diner.
Then there's the other dinosaur sterotype -- Godzilla! Again, why would I want to be in the Science Patrol unless I got to drive the Corvair. Crush, Crumble and Chomp Online!! The Creature that Ate Sheboygan MMO!! I probably need to find that available IP properties thread. (And anyone who recognizes those actual game titles, congratulations, your formative years were as misspent as mine)
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
To be fair you were backing up my argument (thank you for that), and admittedly I haven't read it, but I think I probably know what you wrote, and I am sure it was correct. Because you have the inclination to write/ read walls of text written by (no offence) non-academics doesn't mean we all necessarily have to. Edit: wrote that in a pique, sorry shouldn't have sent the flippant response.
Chins
sorry for the somewhat off-topic but aside from that one link, are there any other books you'd recommend on the subject? and thanks for the post very interesting.
and for everyone else, prehistory means no writin - suck it
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Books can be difficult to come by since this line of thought is fairly recent. A lot of the stuff I am writing about comes from journal articles and textbooks that cite very recent articles. Most of these claims are based on new developments in neurobiology, which have yielded stunning new insights into language which were thought of only in a theoretical light just 20 years ago. Plus, in all honesty, my background is applied linguistics and I only have a very superficial familiarity with this topic. Still, maybe these will help point you in the right direction of better resources:
1) Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language is a good introduction to the topic, though dated.
2) Another book that does a decent job describing the likely co-evolution of the brain and species is The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain (Terrence W. Deacon). This is somewhat dated too considering recent developments... And his dismissal of Chomsky's Universal Grammar is rather unconvincing (there are detractors to Chomsky who dispute some of his claims, but a lot of his theories are still supported by current research in linguistics)
3) A fairly succinct overview of the general debate about the issue can be found here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n24_v145/ai_15517386/
4) An intro to a rather interesting series of videos that tend to approach the topic from a "late origin" perspective. You might be able to find this DVD on Netflix or at your local library: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuUAPVFFCRQ
5) This gives a very quick and easy treatment of the paleoanthropological aspects of language, namely the study of the physical "speech" structures of early hominids: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Paleoanthropology/Origin_of_Language#Origins_of_language
Finally, if you would like an academic overview of the two major camps, then this would be useful: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661303001360
(an interesting book I forgot about):
Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language (Robin Dunbar)
I must be honest that most of the links I include above (and am familiar with) tend to support an innatist view of language (versus the social-interactionist model that is also popular). It is a very complicated/complex topic, and I shouldn't have been so heavy-handed in explaining it earlier. In truth, nobody will ever know unless we can invent a time machine and go back and see what early hominids were all about. Anyway, I hope those are interesting resources for you and I am glad you find the topic worthy of more study. I apologize to OP for going horribly OT (and also to thebigchin11 for deluging him and others with so much jargon).
Regardless, I really love this idea for an MMO. I think devs could do some great things and it would make for an excellent sandbox. But, I fear gamers just don't have the patience for something of that nature. Still, it is a cool setting for a game. There are a lot of possibilities, even stuff that borders on the prehistoric tribes having to deal with technologically superior overloards a la "Chariot of the Gods" / "Stargate". If gamers could just get away from the "kill 10 rats" themepark style of gameplay, a setting like what is described by some in this thread could be amazing. Despite my rambling and OT posts, this is one of the best threads I've seen on this forum in a long time. Lots of cool ideas. I should have let the literature/language thing slide, tbh. Anyway.... Later^^
We already have one. Well, the closet thing to it anyways. Ryzom !
I can just imagine it now.
"Hey Player! Go fetch me X number of dino teeth"
or
"I need you to kill X number of T-rex's"
Sigh. This genre needs a major overhaul, otherwise the theme and setting doesn't matter..
Oh God, please can we accept the point that dino's and humanoids never co-existed.
Conversation would be 'Ugh ugh ugh'
'ugh?'
'Thats right him over there'
'Stop talking you prat'
'ugh?'
Chins
I think I would go a different way.
I would have a human colony ship crash onto an earth like planet which is still in its prehistoric development phase, setting it not on earth opens up scope for a lot more imho.
Such as:
- I could have human & maybe a genetically modified/engineered race to choose from.
- I could have psionics or mind powers to replace standad magic systems or use a mutations system similar to fallen earths.
- I can draw upon all the prehistoric knowledge of earth as well as add alien prehistoric creatures, plants etc giving me scope to make things up.
- I can have a prehistoric alien race/races if I so choose.
- I can still have some technology from the crashed ship but I can limit its use if I choose to & maybe restrict lower level equipment to more primitive things like wood & stone weapons, flint spears, knives, bows, hide armor etc and later on maybe through crafting allow more advanced weapons & armour.
- Survival can be a fun part of the challenge & exploration can be a large part of the game since it is an unknown planet.
Obviously it would still have all the cool things of prehistoric earth without the limitations holding it back and leaving a lot of scope for expansion content, new races etc later on.
I like it but please no magic or magic pretence, ruins almost every game for me. Is risable.
Chins
Actually for psionics I was thinking more along the lines of buff enhancements & pet class. IE: as your psionics gets stronger you can mentally dominate stronger and stronger creatures to do your bidding. not so much pew pew magic.
Just a thought anyway and games that launch without some form of "magic" seem to do poorly. Personally I like "low magic games/worlds" and was a bit dissapointed AoC had as much magic as it did.
kinda like the horse whisperer, I like that idea.
Chins
now this would be an mmo that could literaly live without story (theres an ongoing thread bout that).
ok how would i do it:
1. huge map
1 a. 4 seasons
2. lots of salvaging and refining for each area , for example north map holds different minerals ...so does south map
specialised miners and researchers in geography who provide crafters with materials
3. crafters providing everyone with the necessary tools , gaining schematics through craftexpirience.
4. tribe leadership and survival depending on pvp and pve, diplomacy and politics
5. interactive changeable landscape that helps to shape save enviroments(with penaltys of overharvesting)
6. random world desasters, destoying everything
7 divine interventions (GM wise) bringin destruction amongst a society