The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Originally posted by Aelious Some people like playing out a prewritten story, some like the freedom to play out their own. I honestly wish I could play more MMOs that have prewritten stories and enjoy them. I would be able to take advantage of all the options now available in the MMO space. At least there are still some that allow some imagination wiggle room before new ones come out.
It's not about better, it's about different. If you like premade storied themeparks be glad. You have more MMOs to play than those that don't.
Hate to break it to you, but all games are prewritten.
That's not true! Okay... maybe it is. So, what about Wurm Online? Salem Online? Greed Monger? Archeage? Mortal Online? Darkfall (I might be wrong about this one but i didn't see a prewritten storyline in it)? These games don't have stories. They each are full sandboxes and you the player produce the story and adventures that happen.
Of course, you're probably going to take prewritten to a literal standpoint and say that they're programmed in a computer language like C, C++, or Java. In which case, yes all video games are technically "prewritten".
On a side note, Wurm is a game I really wanted to like, It was such a cool premise but the UI was so unintuitive it got in the way of actually playing the game.
Oh yes, it did look promising but there were things about it that I really didn't like as well. However, I'm am looking forward to checking out Greed Monger, it could be what Wurm was not.
The concept behind Greed Monger is awesome, their open world model looks great but I'm not sure they'll be able to pull it off. I'm skeptical. I hope I'm wrong but I'm skeptical.
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical about their game, in fact you should be nothing but skeptical; seeing what garbage companies have been releasing these past few years. I wish them the best of luck with it. On the brighter side Archeage will pick up where other have failed as well, at least we get to see how the game is played.
Xsyon wrecked me, won't do that again.
I agree about Archeage, it looks amazing. The sheer number of systems in that game is unreal. I have issues with a couple of things such as tab-targetting but it looks to be the best sandbox on the horizon.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
So, while this may not be an MMO...and this I guess only matters if you are into the story (which I imagine you would in a linear game...otherwise there isn't any other point to it)
I watched Let's Plays of Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3...while the Youtuber didn't do all the side quests...I never had to actually buy the game. I just watched the videos, was greatly entertained and knew all the story. Saved much money just by watching videos.
MMO wise...I did the same for SWTOR. All I had to do was watch someone play multiple storylines in SWTOR and I got the whole lore and story. Never had to buy it or spend a monthly fee. It was a long Let's Play, but saved me much money.
Did the same for WoW...though the guy blitzed through most of the stuff. I mostly watched all the raids and storylines with them (especially the lich king).
And that is why linear games don't work...why buy them when all you have to do is get on Youtube and watch videos of said game? If a game is very linear (like SWTOR, Mass Effect and even Call of Duty...but people buy CoD for multiplayer)...there isn't much point to buying it and you'll save a lot of money just watching videos on it.
Granted, this would only be true for those that care about story in a game. And linear games only have story going for them. So, I don't see a point to linear games at all...
Take EVE...sure I can watch videos...but when I play, who knows what could happen. The game is so open and random, that someone doing a video of it...will have a vastly different play through as someone else. The same for SWG when that was still alive. My play through of it, is definitely very different than someone else's experience.
My personal rule is: If I can see the whole storyline of a game, then that me saves 50/60 dollars of buying said game as I won't have a reason to buy it.
I feel I have to stop you at your very first paragraph. If you ask what value a linear game has, and then explain that you can experience the story by watching videos without even playing the game, then surely the linear game's value does not lie in its story alone. If it was all story, why not just produce it as a film or book?
So the question becomes what else do we get out of games that we do not get from films and books? Or what else besides linear story do linear games offer? These are obviously questions with hugely complex answers that I cannot even begin to breakdown in a brief forum post. Because I'm presently time constricted with this post, I'll just try to spit-ball the first few things that come to mind.
First and foremost, games provide gameplay. This can range from quick reflex skills to active strategizing and puzzle solving. The advancement of the story, linear or not, is dependent upon your skills and your actions. With this comes a sense of gratification when you advance through to the next phase of the game. This creates a level of player interaction that simply cannot be achieved with movies and books. The action and strategy of good gameplay also tends to be much more stimulating than anything movies or books can provide.
Even within the story aspect of games, games can create a sense of player control over the direction of the story which is simply impossible for a mere spectator. I make this point because you called out the Mass Effect games specifically, which have one of the more brilliant inter-game systems of residual cause and effect I've ever seen, all based on players' choices. I played through those games simultaneously with 2 friends, and we frequently compared notes about events that have transpired in our respective versions of the games. They were often drastically different based on different choices we made. By time the 3rd game rolled around, we had completely different characters who were alive or dead, which led to completely different outcomes of various story events of that game, which possibly resulted in the loss of other characters' lives. Disregarding the ending to the series, it was these moments that made ME so special for many players. All of those intensely emotional moments along the journey that were almost always the result of decisions you made. This was further influenced by the relationships you built with your characters based on your dialogue choices. In a great many ways, the player drives the story of Mass Effect. Whether everyone reaches the same eventual end or not is inconsequential.
The last feature games offer that I'll mention is progression. Every game has progression nowadays. This is usually a supplement to gameplay, but I think it's important and extensive enough that it bears mentioning independently. From a purely gameplay standpoint, progression systems in games tend to offer extra layers of strategy and long term character planning which can simply be fun (and again, which spectators cannot participate in). From a psychological standpoint, progression is like virtual cocaine for many players. Experiencing constant, tangible, noticeable, fairly rapid improvement can feel very rewarding--and I would argue very addicting to people who perhaps are not experiencing a healthy level of progression and improvement elsewhere in their lives. But that's a whole other thread topic.
These are just a few examples. I'm sure you can come up with many more. You're not going to get any of this stuff just by watching the game being played. And most of this is competely independent of the story. When the whole game is masterfully put together and the level of player interaction with the game world is high, even a linear game won't feel linear, which can make all the difference. Note that everything I said about Mass Effect can also be applied to games like the Elder Scrolls, which aren't frequently thought of as linear and which I've also played along side a few friends with whom I compared and contrasted our adventures.
Originally posted by Aelious Some people like playing out a prewritten story, some like the freedom to play out their own. I honestly wish I could play more MMOs that have prewritten stories and enjoy them. I would be able to take advantage of all the options now available in the MMO space. At least there are still some that allow some imagination wiggle room before new ones come out.
It's not about better, it's about different. If you like premade storied themeparks be glad. You have more MMOs to play than those that don't.
Hate to break it to you, but all games are prewritten.
That's not true! Okay... maybe it is. So, what about Wurm Online? Salem Online? Greed Monger? Archeage? Mortal Online? Darkfall (I might be wrong about this one but i didn't see a prewritten storyline in it)? These games don't have stories. They each are full sandboxes and you the player produce the story and adventures that happen.
Of course, you're probably going to take prewritten to a literal standpoint and say that they're programmed in a computer language like C, C++, or Java. In which case, yes all video games are technically "prewritten".
On a side note, Wurm is a game I really wanted to like, It was such a cool premise but the UI was so unintuitive it got in the way of actually playing the game.
Oh yes, it did look promising but there were things about it that I really didn't like as well. However, I'm am looking forward to checking out Greed Monger, it could be what Wurm was not.
The concept behind Greed Monger is awesome, their open world model looks great but I'm not sure they'll be able to pull it off. I'm skeptical. I hope I'm wrong but I'm skeptical.
There's nothing wrong with being skeptical about their game, in fact you should be nothing but skeptical; seeing what garbage companies have been releasing these past few years. I wish them the best of luck with it. On the brighter side Archeage will pick up where other have failed as well, at least we get to see how the game is played.
Xsyon wrecked me, won't do that again.
I agree about Archeage, it looks amazing. The sheer number of systems in that game is unreal. I have issues with a couple of things such as tab-targetting but it looks to be the best sandbox on the horizon.
Definitely, but who knows. They could possibly get rid of tab targeting ( not holding my breath) and put in a more action-based combat system.
If they threw in combat ala Darkfall, wow. Not holding mine either though.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Definitely, but who knows. They could possibly get rid of tab targeting ( not holding my breath) and put in a more action-based combat system.
Depends on who "they" are. But certainly there are variety of combat.
Marvel Heroes is going to have very actiony, Diablo type combat. There are also MMOFPS with ... FPS combat. There is no reason why tab targeting is the only form of combat in MMOs.
Are you really asking why people bother buying linear video games when they can just watch them on youtube? Maybe some people think that those games are *gasp* fun to play. I've noticed that people playing video games for no other reason than fun is a forgeign concept on this website.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I think what thescavanger is not seeing in reality is that the games are interective. While the games "might" be linear in some aspects they're fun and interactive while enjoying a story. But if you were only to watch the story you wouldn't have that added depth of fun and enjoyment that people are obtaining.
Hey! Wall of text implies no formatting whatsoever. I use paragraphs, punctuation and complete sentences, thank you very much! Unfortunately it is true that the more I write, the less it tends to be read
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
It is not likely that no more linear games are going to be made. It is not likely that gamers stop to enjoy linear games like Halo, Dead space and bioshock.
So no matter what the rant is ... is not going to change anything.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
making mmos based on storyline and linear gameplay is stupid. mmo means there are lots of players playing your game which means there is huge potential for emergent gameplay and most developers waste this potential by making a retarded themepark.
i wouldnt say linear games dont work. they do work. i reckon they are generally complete and utter shit and you have point when you essentially compare them with movies. you can just watch someone play them and you have pretty much played it yourself because you will pretty much end up doing the same thing.
there are lot of braindead people out there which like this sort of stuff and will pay for it. the reason why video games are video games and not movies is because of interactivity. there a lot of games out there which are pretty much borderline movies eg. bf3 single player campaign.
Yeah .. they don't work .. that is why Dead Space sells millions. Deus Ex sells millions. COD sells MANY millions.
The point is to enjoy the mechanics (whether it is killing stuff, stealth, or what-not) while going through the stories.
I gather that you don't like linear games. I like them. Your preference is just that .. no better than anyone elses.
The point for me is that linear games only have story going for them. Don't care if the mechanics are bad, horrible or non existant or best thing since sliced bread. A linear game is only for a story. And there is no point in going through a story, when I can fully watch it on Youtube. Mass Effect is all story, and I got a good part of that story (minus side quests) from just watching videos. (edit: same with SWTOR as I mentioned, all story...and I saw a good part of the story from videos)
Well I personally like to have 1st hand experience in said storyline.While what you are saying might be true if you dont find the gameplay fun or the story it isnt if you do enjoy the game.Deus Ex HR is one of the few games I have finished to the end and watching someone else play it for me just doesnt seem as fun and I just got Max payne 3 which is another I am finishing.
Yeah .. they don't work .. that is why Dead Space sells millions. Deus Ex sells millions. COD sells MANY millions.
Not disagreeing with your point at all, but Deus Ex (the original) was actually really famous for being the a non-linear game and many choices and different outcome.
It was famed for it's revolutionary gameplay (which style had since become standard for such games as Fallout series and the Elder Scroll series). It was awarded one of the 100 Greatest Games of All Time.
I don't think the argument holds competely because it's still more fun to play once than watch once - but only once. The replayability rather than the playability is more the problem imo which is partly why i like Skyrim let's plays. Everyone plays it differently.
Yeah .. they don't work .. that is why Dead Space sells millions. Deus Ex sells millions. COD sells MANY millions.
Not disagreeing with your point at all, but Deus Ex (the original) was actually really famous for being the a non-linear game and many choices and different outcome.
It was famed for it's revolutionary gameplay (which style had since become standard for such games as Fallout series and the Elder Scroll series). It was awarded one of the 100 Greatest Games of All Time.
Yeh, i was citing Deus Ex Human Evolution, not the first one. The new one still allows you to solve any situation with multiple options, but the story is pretty linear.
I prefer to play a well-made singleplayer over a Multiplayer that tries to be a single player... if you know what I mean.
At least those games are honest, you know what you get. And if it's well done it will immerse you into the game world better than todays MMOs, where you can always and everywhere feel the scheme behind it.
A good singleplayer can still surprise you, wich most linear MMOs can not. Sure, you will play through it and probably never play it again. But if the journey was enjoyable, why not?
I honestly dont mind linear games. While i do have certain "go to" games, their linearity has had no effect on them. i still play legend of mana every now and then and i love it. Its not linear either. But i also pop in wind waker, ff8, ff6, tos 2, etc. some linear, some not.
Heck some of the characters in games im mosst attached to are from linear games. Like sugar plumps. I was crying when she "died" n i was so happy wheni found out she was alive
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Originally posted by Vrika Cursed linearity. First literature died because they were only able to make linear books, then movie industry died because they couldn't figure out how to make non-linear movies. Now it looks like games industry is fated to follow in their sad footsteps because game-makers are stupid enough to make linear games. Why haven't they learned from flops like Lord of The Rings and Star Wars that linearity is not the way to go if you want to be profitable!
You actually make one of the best points in the thread. Linearity has survived and will always survive, because linear experiences can be entertaining if the quality is there. The OP starts of with a great sentiment, but then loses a lot of gusto and moxie by going to the extreme with it.
What he should have said is this...
"Sure, linear games are great sometimes, but the gaming genre, and MMOs in particular, are capable of so much more!"
That, my friends, is a core annoyance many of us have had since the dawn of games like Everquest and WOW. The genre started off great with UO, an innovative persistent world experience. After that, companies sought ways to exploit it... big companies. Big companies make big themeparks because that is a safe business model. What needs to happen is that MMO design needs to go indie. We need MMO equivalents of games like Super Meat Boy, Mark of the Ninja, and Portal. The problem is, MMO development currently cost too damned much for that to happen. Nobody is insane enough (except for Curt Shilling- Kingdoms of Amalur -, poor guy) wants to build up a lifetime of cash and blow it on a risky IP.
TL:DR Version/Summary:
#1 Linear games are fine, but MMOs have potential to go way beyond linearity.
#2 MMO development needs to go Indie in order to make this happen.
#3 In order for MMO development to go Indie, we need a new type of technology to drastically reduce the cost of MMO development.
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
That, my friends, is a core annoyance many of us have had since the dawn of games like Everquest and WOW. The genre started off great with UO, an innovative persistent world experience. After that, companies sought ways to exploit it... big companies. Big companies make big themeparks because that is a safe business model. What needs to happen is that MMO design needs to go indie. We need MMO equivalents of games like Super Meat Boy, Mark of the Ninja, and Portal. The problem is, MMO development currently cost too damned much for that to happen. Nobody is insane enough (except for Curt Shilling- Kingdoms of Amalur -, poor guy) wants to build up a lifetime of cash and blow it on a risky IP.
And even Amalur is pretty linear.
I think you miss one point. Companies did not move to themepark just because. It is obvioulsy more popular than UO, and EQ. The market is working.
You may need the "market of the ninja" (btw, it is a great game, and ironically very linear) of MMOs .. but not everyone does.
I equate Linear gameplay in MMORPGs to watching a TV show. It's fairly predictable, fairly common in style, and doesn't really offer any player freedom. It's good if you are bored and need to waste some time in 30 minute or less chunks.
The best way to get that unpredictable experience you are talking about is through tabletop gaming just because the rules are easily broken and easily made to a person's will.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift. I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough. I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
Originally posted by Souldrainer Originally posted by VrikaCursed linearity. First literature died because they were only able to make linear books, then movie industry died because they couldn't figure out how to make non-linear movies. Now it looks like games industry is fated to follow in their sad footsteps because game-makers are stupid enough to make linear games. Why haven't they learned from flops like Lord of The Rings and Star Wars that linearity is not the way to go if you want to be profitable!
You actually make one of the best points in the thread. Linearity has survived and will always survive, because linear experiences can be entertaining if the quality is there. The OP starts of with a great sentiment, but then loses a lot of gusto and moxie by going to the extreme with it.
What he should have said is this...
"Sure, linear games are great sometimes, but the gaming genre, and MMOs in particular, are capable of so much more!"
That, my friends, is a core annoyance many of us have had since the dawn of games like Everquest and WOW. The genre started off great with UO, an innovative persistent world experience. After that, companies sought ways to exploit it... big companies. Big companies make big themeparks because that is a safe business model. What needs to happen is that MMO design needs to go indie. We need MMO equivalents of games like Super Meat Boy, Mark of the Ninja, and Portal. The problem is, MMO development currently cost too damned much for that to happen. Nobody is insane enough (except for Curt Shilling- Kingdoms of Amalur -, poor guy) wants to build up a lifetime of cash and blow it on a risky IP.
TL:DR Version/Summary:
#1 Linear games are fine, but MMOs have potential to go way beyond linearity.
#2 MMO development needs to go Indie in order to make this happen.
#3 In order for MMO development to go Indie, we need a new type of technology to drastically reduce the cost of MMO development.
#3 is what I've said several times. MMOs are just a huge undertaking, and unless it gets significantly cheaper or easier to build them, they are always going to be done by bigger companies that have developed several games in the past.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Xsyon wrecked me, won't do that again.
I agree about Archeage, it looks amazing. The sheer number of systems in that game is unreal. I have issues with a couple of things such as tab-targetting but it looks to be the best sandbox on the horizon.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I feel I have to stop you at your very first paragraph. If you ask what value a linear game has, and then explain that you can experience the story by watching videos without even playing the game, then surely the linear game's value does not lie in its story alone. If it was all story, why not just produce it as a film or book?
So the question becomes what else do we get out of games that we do not get from films and books? Or what else besides linear story do linear games offer? These are obviously questions with hugely complex answers that I cannot even begin to breakdown in a brief forum post. Because I'm presently time constricted with this post, I'll just try to spit-ball the first few things that come to mind.
First and foremost, games provide gameplay. This can range from quick reflex skills to active strategizing and puzzle solving. The advancement of the story, linear or not, is dependent upon your skills and your actions. With this comes a sense of gratification when you advance through to the next phase of the game. This creates a level of player interaction that simply cannot be achieved with movies and books. The action and strategy of good gameplay also tends to be much more stimulating than anything movies or books can provide.
Even within the story aspect of games, games can create a sense of player control over the direction of the story which is simply impossible for a mere spectator. I make this point because you called out the Mass Effect games specifically, which have one of the more brilliant inter-game systems of residual cause and effect I've ever seen, all based on players' choices. I played through those games simultaneously with 2 friends, and we frequently compared notes about events that have transpired in our respective versions of the games. They were often drastically different based on different choices we made. By time the 3rd game rolled around, we had completely different characters who were alive or dead, which led to completely different outcomes of various story events of that game, which possibly resulted in the loss of other characters' lives. Disregarding the ending to the series, it was these moments that made ME so special for many players. All of those intensely emotional moments along the journey that were almost always the result of decisions you made. This was further influenced by the relationships you built with your characters based on your dialogue choices. In a great many ways, the player drives the story of Mass Effect. Whether everyone reaches the same eventual end or not is inconsequential.
The last feature games offer that I'll mention is progression. Every game has progression nowadays. This is usually a supplement to gameplay, but I think it's important and extensive enough that it bears mentioning independently. From a purely gameplay standpoint, progression systems in games tend to offer extra layers of strategy and long term character planning which can simply be fun (and again, which spectators cannot participate in). From a psychological standpoint, progression is like virtual cocaine for many players. Experiencing constant, tangible, noticeable, fairly rapid improvement can feel very rewarding--and I would argue very addicting to people who perhaps are not experiencing a healthy level of progression and improvement elsewhere in their lives. But that's a whole other thread topic.
These are just a few examples. I'm sure you can come up with many more. You're not going to get any of this stuff just by watching the game being played. And most of this is competely independent of the story. When the whole game is masterfully put together and the level of player interaction with the game world is high, even a linear game won't feel linear, which can make all the difference. Note that everything I said about Mass Effect can also be applied to games like the Elder Scrolls, which aren't frequently thought of as linear and which I've also played along side a few friends with whom I compared and contrasted our adventures.
If they threw in combat ala Darkfall, wow. Not holding mine either though.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Depends on who "they" are. But certainly there are variety of combat.
Marvel Heroes is going to have very actiony, Diablo type combat. There are also MMOFPS with ... FPS combat. There is no reason why tab targeting is the only form of combat in MMOs.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Hey! Wall of text implies no formatting whatsoever. I use paragraphs, punctuation and complete sentences, thank you very much! Unfortunately it is true that the more I write, the less it tends to be read
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I think the whole thread is pretty moot.
It is not likely that no more linear games are going to be made. It is not likely that gamers stop to enjoy linear games like Halo, Dead space and bioshock.
So no matter what the rant is ... is not going to change anything.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
making mmos based on storyline and linear gameplay is stupid. mmo means there are lots of players playing your game which means there is huge potential for emergent gameplay and most developers waste this potential by making a retarded themepark.
i wouldnt say linear games dont work. they do work. i reckon they are generally complete and utter shit and you have point when you essentially compare them with movies. you can just watch someone play them and you have pretty much played it yourself because you will pretty much end up doing the same thing.
there are lot of braindead people out there which like this sort of stuff and will pay for it. the reason why video games are video games and not movies is because of interactivity. there a lot of games out there which are pretty much borderline movies eg. bf3 single player campaign.
Well I personally like to have 1st hand experience in said storyline.While what you are saying might be true if you dont find the gameplay fun or the story it isnt if you do enjoy the game.Deus Ex HR is one of the few games I have finished to the end and watching someone else play it for me just doesnt seem as fun and I just got Max payne 3 which is another I am finishing.
Not disagreeing with your point at all, but Deus Ex (the original) was actually really famous for being the a non-linear game and many choices and different outcome.
It was famed for it's revolutionary gameplay (which style had since become standard for such games as Fallout series and the Elder Scroll series). It was awarded one of the 100 Greatest Games of All Time.
Yeh, i was citing Deus Ex Human Evolution, not the first one. The new one still allows you to solve any situation with multiple options, but the story is pretty linear.
I prefer to play a well-made singleplayer over a Multiplayer that tries to be a single player... if you know what I mean.
At least those games are honest, you know what you get. And if it's well done it will immerse you into the game world better than todays MMOs, where you can always and everywhere feel the scheme behind it.
A good singleplayer can still surprise you, wich most linear MMOs can not. Sure, you will play through it and probably never play it again. But if the journey was enjoyable, why not?
I honestly dont mind linear games. While i do have certain "go to" games, their linearity has had no effect on them. i still play legend of mana every now and then and i love it. Its not linear either. But i also pop in wind waker, ff8, ff6, tos 2, etc. some linear, some not.
Heck some of the characters in games im mosst attached to are from linear games. Like sugar plumps. I was crying when she "died" n i was so happy wheni found out she was alive
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
You actually make one of the best points in the thread. Linearity has survived and will always survive, because linear experiences can be entertaining if the quality is there. The OP starts of with a great sentiment, but then loses a lot of gusto and moxie by going to the extreme with it.
What he should have said is this...
"Sure, linear games are great sometimes, but the gaming genre, and MMOs in particular, are capable of so much more!"
That, my friends, is a core annoyance many of us have had since the dawn of games like Everquest and WOW. The genre started off great with UO, an innovative persistent world experience. After that, companies sought ways to exploit it... big companies. Big companies make big themeparks because that is a safe business model. What needs to happen is that MMO design needs to go indie. We need MMO equivalents of games like Super Meat Boy, Mark of the Ninja, and Portal. The problem is, MMO development currently cost too damned much for that to happen. Nobody is insane enough (except for Curt Shilling- Kingdoms of Amalur -, poor guy) wants to build up a lifetime of cash and blow it on a risky IP.
TL:DR Version/Summary:
#1 Linear games are fine, but MMOs have potential to go way beyond linearity.
#2 MMO development needs to go Indie in order to make this happen.
#3 In order for MMO development to go Indie, we need a new type of technology to drastically reduce the cost of MMO development.
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
And even Amalur is pretty linear.
I think you miss one point. Companies did not move to themepark just because. It is obvioulsy more popular than UO, and EQ. The market is working.
You may need the "market of the ninja" (btw, it is a great game, and ironically very linear) of MMOs .. but not everyone does.
I equate Linear gameplay in MMORPGs to watching a TV show. It's fairly predictable, fairly common in style, and doesn't really offer any player freedom. It's good if you are bored and need to waste some time in 30 minute or less chunks.
The best way to get that unpredictable experience you are talking about is through tabletop gaming just because the rules are easily broken and easily made to a person's will.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
What he should have said is this...
"Sure, linear games are great sometimes, but the gaming genre, and MMOs in particular, are capable of so much more!"
That, my friends, is a core annoyance many of us have had since the dawn of games like Everquest and WOW. The genre started off great with UO, an innovative persistent world experience. After that, companies sought ways to exploit it... big companies. Big companies make big themeparks because that is a safe business model. What needs to happen is that MMO design needs to go indie. We need MMO equivalents of games like Super Meat Boy, Mark of the Ninja, and Portal. The problem is, MMO development currently cost too damned much for that to happen. Nobody is insane enough (except for Curt Shilling- Kingdoms of Amalur -, poor guy) wants to build up a lifetime of cash and blow it on a risky IP.
TL:DR Version/Summary:
#1 Linear games are fine, but MMOs have potential to go way beyond linearity.
#2 MMO development needs to go Indie in order to make this happen.
#3 In order for MMO development to go Indie, we need a new type of technology to drastically reduce the cost of MMO development.
#3 is what I've said several times. MMOs are just a huge undertaking, and unless it gets significantly cheaper or easier to build them, they are always going to be done by bigger companies that have developed several games in the past.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.