Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The KEY to a revolutionary MMORPG?
vrielgame
Member Posts: 2
I believe some of you are getting bored about those look-like-the-same games and the cliche they'd added...hence I've been searching for games with revolutionary elements such as Blade & Soul or Core Blaze. I think they overthrew the traditional thought of a online game for the following reasons:
Blade & Soul:
When you think of this game, what comes into your mind first? Despite its beautiful artworks (yeah I love it!), I bet you are impressive about the "freedom", including the fluent movement and the sky-walk system(WHOA!). In case anyone of you hasn't seen the video before, check it out here: 
Core Blaze:
I was wondering if anyone of you ever heard of this game? This game is not released yet but their fans keep asking for the release date. I've watched their producer interview video(
) and found out that they put the emphasis on freedom as well, and some of their thoughts impressed me:
1. no weapon binding: you can use any weapon they got on one character according to different situation (something like Monster Hunter)
2. no class: since you can use different kinds of weapon, it decides the role you play
3. no levels: they want to pull ppl out from the hell of leveling
4.open world: this means a lot to me - it combines the world of online game and console game, let players feel like the adventure happens in the real life (finally, I don't have to host a game and wait for other ppl)
If you are interested in this game, I think their fan page is a better place than the official site:
https://www.facebook.com/coreblaze
What do you think is the key to a revolutionary MMORPG?
Comments
So sandbox mmorpgs are revolutionary mmorpgs? You do realize those have been arround for over a decade right?
I believe that what the mmorpg genre need, is not sandbox mmorpgs but it's a new form of themepark mmorpgs and I believe GW2 is a step in the right direction. Although how good it will be and how much impact it will have remain to be seen.
The key to a revolutionary mmo is a mmorpg that you can play with virtual reality glasses and wii or b-move style controls.
Think about it, awesome.
I think the "key" to a revolutionary MMORPG is a better understanding of the term revolutionary. Often, people simply accept the term revolutionary to mean some form of forward progress - new and interesting!
How about we take a closer look at the term itself?
Change. Not necessarily forward change. Return is change.
Picture an invading force taking over a country. Eventually, revolutionary forces within that country overthrow that invading force to return their country to how it was before that invasion.
The MMORPG genre has been invaded. It has been infected. I would argue that the genre has not seen revolutionary changes - it has seen changes do to an invasion...an infection. A plague has spread amongst the genre. The term has lost meaning.
Some might view it from a more evolutionary path. Evolution can be brought about by a catalyst - good, bad, etc. This is where the discussion where MMORPGs have gone can become very subjective. The amount of time that a person has viewed them - can definitely affect how they view them. A person that has played them since UO may very well feel differently than somebody that has only played them since WoW.
Perhaps it is a simple case of needing to ignore labels and to break away from them?
Perhaps it is a case of accepting that we need to separate the genres, and that "modern MMORPGs" are another genre all together.
When the very term itself has lost meaning...what is one to do?
So I believe the "key" to a revolutionary MMORPG is a two-fold process:
Definte the Term.
Work toward that - even if it appears to be a case of going backward.
Personally, I think a revolutionary MMORPG will return to the traditional roots of the MMORPG - will include that heavy influence from PnP RPGs - mixed witih the technological advances that we have.
Some call it the Holy Grail. Some call it a delusion.
It is where we thought we would be now...
...not the nonsense that we have.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Core Blaze looks most impressive. i just love ability to climb. i wouldn't call it an rpg (but, then again, there rare few "mmorpg" that live up to that). also, i wonder how much will twitch-factor play a role. i'm not getting any younger, you know.
not revolutionary, nor evolutionary. maybe just a synergy of playstyles. would try at least.
Social networking will be big thing. Game that won't be just thing you play but where you "live". I'm not talking facebook games but real MMO with access from different sources. You could access chats in website, have access to some systems from your mobile phone.
Good game design seem like a minimum requirement, for the development of a revolutionary MMOMRPG, whatever "revolutionary" would mean in this context.
Another important point, would be to really describe and understand how the game works, and not so much by providing an idealized description of it, an abstraction only suitable for making people dumb, and not at all being helpful in learning about what is different with some novel and lets say revolutionary game design.
One difficulty in game design I think, is the problematizing of "pacing" in games. Probably an aesthetic choice on the part of the game developers that can lead to many different solutions. Timesinks would be bad imo and level grinds would also be bad, yet I will argue they act as a method of "pacing" the gameplay. Probably playing on the manipulative lure of "advancement" for achieving something (getting an item, or improving some char. stat). If games go "it is about the story, we are so proud, and you should like this too", they could utilize some form of pacing known from watching a movie, yet if they leave leveling grind and timesinks in, the game is not really improved.
Good intentions is not enough either, either the game "works" or it does not work as intended. And then, for the purpose of speculating about any revolutionary MMORPG's it seem fair to avoid wanting, and avoid hoping for something accidental novelty to come about.
So more and more things to break immersion...?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
For example, if one made a game that simulated melee combat, such a combat system itself would offer the pacing that one likely find fun and rewarding in itself, playing on a gamers sense of fun insofar as the gameplay is though of as being worthwhile, given certain expectations that a player will already have for his presence in the game, or if a new experience offers challenges and new possibilities.
A damning flaw with games that simulate the real world, are well.. pacing issues. Walking from A to B tend to take alot of time in real life, combat systems probably have technical limitations and being prepared as a game designer seem really hard, if a particular part of a system in a game end up being exploited, misused or otherwise becoming subject to the unexpected and perhaps without some obvious way in how to deal with the following consequences.
I still think one can go along way in "simulating" certain things in a game, making things seem realistic, but it has to be well thought out, and fit in with all the other parts of the game design. An interesting point about offering more player choices in a game, could be to offer more ways of failing in some task. I believe that a greater range of possibilities for failure, would make for a better game of adventure and fun, insofar as this is a consequence of how player options have been added to the game.
Oh, another pacing issue just came to my mind. Eve online and Battlefield 3 (and probably others) tend to rely on pitting players against eachother, forcefully. This seem fun enough if it works, but when this is dominant part of the gameplay, I suspect this could seriously undermine other aspects and other possibilities of a game, by being dependent on this action packed part of the game.
I guess my concern here would be about how gamedevelopers probably will not stray away from something they think is working for them. Here I guess one could wonder what gamedevelopers really want out of their games. Beside creating a functional game, it seem sensible to want to create a good game in its own, but I wonder now if perhaps there is more to it. It seem to me to be a good idea, to have beforehand the great ideas and visionary thinking, before commiting to something that could resemble a genre of gaming, then maybe you can have something that works, is fun and has that special something that you think is awesome.
A leap in internet and server technology allowing a single world server so that all players could play together with minimal lag.
NPC AI that requires more in depth combat and planning in fights.
Headset monitors that allow you to look around the world in first person. The world would be much larger and immersive.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
In reply to the original post:
So jump-around-flying-shooter-manga-style MMO's are new?
...please...
If they would make an MMORPG similar to the style you play on Neverwinter Nights 1 persistent worlds...THAT would be new...
Buy Neverwinter Nights 1 here! | Unofficial NWN1 homepage | NWN1 guild on X-Fire
And you think immersion sells, no it doesn't. Old games were build on basement that people wanted immersion and spend hours in-game, they don't. People play MMOs to feel social not to have second life. Besides immersion have always been broken since people used guild forums, voice chats and many other things to break it.
Instead of having players take care of these services they could excist in game. Think how much better it would be if there was twitter/facebook style system that you could access both in- and outside of game. Instead of trying push player inside game it should be opposite. Have player access parts of game outside.
And you think immersion sells, no it doesn't. Old games were build on basement that people wanted immersion and spend hours in-game, they don't. People play MMOs to feel social not to have second life. Besides immersion have always been broken since people used guild forums, voice chats and many other things to break it.
Instead of having players take care of these services they could excist in game. Think how much better it would be if there was twitter/facebook style system that you could access both in- and outside of game. Instead of trying push player inside game it should be opposite. Have player access parts of game outside.
I think this is a pretty key thing that is lacking in mmorpg right now. Even while people are in the game, they are socializing outside of the game. If they are socializing inside the game, it's with their guild or a small, select group of friends. Games are way behind the curve on social features compared to pretty much anything else you can do online.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
@Sasami
I will have to say, that the claim of people playing MMO's to feel social, is like saying people eat food because they feel hungry, it goes without saying and holds no merit of interest beyond the obvious.
New generation of today want this ingame with smartphone or facebook twitter youtube so all can see the movie they just fraps and when your in there group they always know what your doing when and with there own music you have to listend to these days ingame sounds dont matter anymore they wanne hear gaga/bieber/rianna or hip hop:P, thats new age. I on the other end avoid such games like a plague it takes away totally my immersion in games i realy dont wanne play games with all kinds of outside programs that have made there way ingame.
Blade and soul looks great btw and some nice little things like when a character lose on mob he can crawl away and rejuvinate dont have to run all the way back to his corpse hehe. Moving by speedrun fly is also nice.
But these are not sandbox games there just themeparks with more freedom and open world,
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
But the thing is, I want more features to encourage people to socialize within the game, not outside of it, there's already enough tools to do that already IMO.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So more and more things to break immersion...?
And you think immersion sells, no it doesn't. Old games were build on basement that people wanted immersion and spend hours in-game, they don't. People play MMOs to feel social not to have second life. Besides immersion have always been broken since people used guild forums, voice chats and many other things to break it.
Instead of having players take care of these services they could excist in game. Think how much better it would be if there was twitter/facebook style system that you could access both in- and outside of game. Instead of trying push player inside game it should be opposite. Have player access parts of game outside.
I think this is a pretty key thing that is lacking in mmorpg right now. Even while people are in the game, they are socializing outside of the game. If they are socializing inside the game, it's with their guild or a small, select group of friends. Games are way behind the curve on social features compared to pretty much anything else you can do online.
But the thing is, I want more features to encourage people to socialize within the game, not outside of it, there's already enough tools to do that already IMO.
That's my point. The tools available for socializing in games are primitive compared to what's available outside games. You can add anything you want to encourage socialization, but if you filter it through a 90's era chat interface, it's going to fail.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
A mmorpg where the players control and change the world.
There's a signature quote I've seen that pretty well sums it up:
*paraphrased* "I like the MMORPG genre. I hope that someday a developer will make another one."
To me, revolutionary isn't a game with a lot of gimmicks. It's a game with none.
About two years ago I was anxious to see social tools for the 21st century player enter MMOs, and I genuinely thought it would happen, but the closest we've come is mobile trading apps and integrated Twitter updating.
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
Not looking for revolutionary game-play, but game-play and mechanics that were lost, leading to the dumbing-down and stupification of the concept of mmorpg.
Todays so-called mmorpg's, a term first introduced and coined by Richard Garriott with Ultima Online, are nothing more than inorgaic repetitive cooperative online multiplayer games that are void of player interactivity, influence and replayability.
They are not virtual worlds (examples being AoC, WAR, STO, and seen with SWTOR) where people concurrently play in the same world, but where people play in a controlled pve lobby, funneled down a linear path of quest hubs as they redundantly perform the same pve kill 10 rats mini-game ad nauseam, as they queue for an instanced 8v8 shoe-box third-person shooter match of attack/defend.
The vast majority of today’s mmorpg’s are shallow attempts at ‘massively-multiplayer’, void of organic activities accomplished by players whose activities in a world should leave a trail which can be adopted, shared, lost or impact someone else's trail or activity in that virtual world in a cooperative and competitive means.
The vast majority of today’s so-called mmorpg’s are also emphasized with Linear Content that expires once completed, of which the most obvious examples being raids, dungeons, and quests. There's some minimal replay value, but it diminishes rapidly, and players demand more Content and Features. More organic Content and features, otherwise these studios will continue to see ~70% of box purchasers to said supposed mmorpg’s cancel their subscriptions, beginning at 3-months, then 6-months post commercialization. It’s been happening like clock-work for several years. It has turned the vast majority of mmorpg consumers into CORPG Nomads as they jump from one game to the next.
This doesn't necessarily mean that a mmorpg has to be a pure sandbox or have to be a PvP sandbox such as EVE’s, because the sandbox can be cooperative, as seen in A Tale in the Desert. Sure, some traditional content is inevitable in almost every game, but the game-play emphasis mechanics, content and features has to focus back on the community and players in a sandboxy way. So, getting back to it’s roots will only stop calling-out these games for what they really are; limited replayable Cooperative Online RPG’s.
That's my point. The tools available for socializing in games are primitive compared to what's available outside games. You can add anything you want to encourage socialization, but if you filter it through a 90's era chat interface, it's going to fail.
About two years ago I was anxious to see social tools for the 21st century player enter MMOs, and I genuinely thought it would happen, but the closest we've come is mobile trading apps and integrated Twitter updating.
Developers seem to be struggling just to make games with enough unbroken game play that the social aspects have fallen to the wayside. It's hard (I guess) to create a dynamic groups system when you can't build a functional combat system.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It's really just about the core activity (usually combat) being an entire redesign. All the other framework can stay basically the same (although I think you'd actually want to prune out features to give yourself more time to really perfect that new core activity, because you'd want to spend a lot of time making that one new thing fun.)
Apart from that, the question itself is a little self-conflicting. Players want innovation (change) in MMORPGs (a game which is similar enough to other games to be considered a MMORPG.) Change and similarity are opposites.
It's certainly possible to have change with similarity (by varying the core activity, as I mentioned) but I think a lot of these players could find something they liked if they dropped one of the conflicting requirements (either seeking games outside of MMORPGs which are purely about change, or accept the fact that MMORPGs will probably not vary wildly within the genre and just enjoy them for what they are.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In your opinion... much like I have my own opinion. MMORPGs arose from MUDs. MUDs arose from PnP RPGs. It was about world immersion.
Picture this - you go to a movie at a theater. While watching that movie, do you want members of the audience to speaking on their cell phones? Do you want to catch the sight of various lights from their mobile devices? Do you want to hear the various alerts from those devices?
Instead of infecting MMORPGs with all of this nonsense, why not further develop things such as Facebook apps to that point then? The same goes for console games, etc.
If people want more MMORPG features in their games, add those features to their games... not the travesty that we have had occur, where other features have been added to MMORPGs.
The genre was very social...unto such additional social features were added... odd, eh?
Thus...the revolution...kicking all the OCD/ADHD console kiddies and Web 2.0 junkies out of the genre.... and then allowing the genre to have progress unhindered toward the point technology could have taken the genre.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
They do not realize that the out-of-game socializing is little more than free crowd advertising for the companies by creating a curious buzz... and it does not actually create a more social game - it only furthers breakdown of socialization that existed in the game.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
That would be awsome and I could cancel my membership to the gym, plus I would be a better melee fighter in rl to boot