My preferred genres for an MMORPG are medieval Western-based fantasy, historical medieval Europe, feudal Japan, or feudal Japanese fantasy.
Incidentally settings that are almost always associated with war and politics ... Be it in writing, film, TV, or games.
True. Also the ancestors and precursors of cultures and nations represented by the principal players in World War II. World War I as well. Russia is/was a mix of European and Asian culture and ethicities, but western Russia more closely resembled Medieval Europe, of which it is/was considered a part.
"I would like to see (for the sake of a 'shock' to the industry) an MMO that doesnt even remotely come close to violent conflict in anyway. Not becuase I consider such content bad or immoral but because there is sooooooo much oportunity out there and I think much of the industry has been doing one thing for so long its hard for them to see very far outside of the box."
"An" implies singular. Atitd meets the requirements you set out above.
I've disrupted nothing. I pointed out a game that meets the parameters you stated.
An MMO that does what you would like to see exists.
Why are you being so defensive? Do you feel threatened? My post wasn't an attack. It was pointing out that the the game you stated you would like to see exists.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
"I would like to see (for the sake of a 'shock' to the industry) an MMO that doesnt even remotely come close to violent conflict in anyway. Not becuase I consider such content bad or immoral but because there is sooooooo much oportunity out there and I think much of the industry has been doing one thing for so long its hard for them to see very far outside of the box."
"An" implies singular. Atitd meets the requirements you set out above.
I've disrupted nothing. I pointed out a game that meets the parameters you stated.
An MMO that does what you would like to see exists.
Why are you being so defensive? Do you feel threatened? My post wasn't an attack. It was pointing out that the the game you stated you would like to see exists.
yeah that quote would NOT be me asking 'for one'
look its really not complicated what I am saying are you not understanding the intent of what I am saying? are you really thinking that what I am asking for as a 'shock to the industry' is one indie mmo that nobody has ever heard of? are you really taking the position that after reading what I said that THAT is what I am asking for?
I think you are smarter than that.
what I dont understand is why you want to do, take the time to even go and quote it even. why?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
"an MMO" is singular. That is exactly asking for one.
I understand thap what you hope is a shock to the industry. But what you asked for is an MMO
The part you missed in what I said is very clearly the 'shock' part. Be it one game, two games, three games, or 1 unfinised game all is not the important part of the request. The 'shock' part is.
I am very confident that you understood that to begin with, I am confident that you knew I was not refering to 'one game' and that 'one game' is a game that nearly nobody knew about. I am very confident that you understood exactly what I was talking about and that posting the name of one game that very few people even knew existed would not qualify as 'a shock'
what I dont know however, is why you did that. I think the reason (but not sure) is that you are going into a somewhat desperate defensive position on this argument. I think you know the point but for reasons I am not sure about are concerned that it might be correct. I dont know why you would be concerned that it could be correct but it seems as if you think its threatening but its not
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Once again. You asked for an MMO. I understand you hope for a shock to the system. What you asked for was an MMO. One I pointed it out. I am not a mind reader. If you wanted more than one MMO you should have asked for that but you asked for an MMO.
If you have a problem with what you wrote you need to look in the mirror. If you meant something different than what you wrote then you need to look in the mirror.
I did not Overlook anything. I even acknowledge the shock part. Once again you asked for an MMO
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I'm not going into any defensive positions at all. I don't care about any mmo or about the industry in any way shape or form whatsoevr. Could not care less at this point. I am merely pointing out that an MMO exists that meets the requirements you set up that's it
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Once again. You asked for an MMO. I understand you hope for a shock to the system. What you asked for was an MMO. One I pointed it out. I am not a mind reader. If you wanted more than one MMO you should have asked for that but you asked for an MMO.
If you have a problem with what you wrote you need to look in the mirror. If you meant something different than what you wrote then you need to look in the mirror.
I did not Overlook anything. I even acknowledge the shock part. Once again you asked for an MMO
welcome to my ignore list
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'd like to see more gambling systems in MMOs. Gambling (as in BETTING against others), politics (done correctly), and sentencing players in court through means of player voting.
EVE online has a lot of great ideas, but unfortunately they ruined the game by forcing you to wait for your content to unlock -- along with PvE being immensely unenjoyable.
If only the best minds from MMO developers could come together and create something amazing -- one day.
-----
side note: I would spend hours on Ultima Online shards playing poker against other players. We'd wager gold and it'd feel amazing to wipe others for their entire bank.
Gambling, politics, trials, voting, those can all work in an mmorpg. Even temporary imprisonment (with the possibility of breaking someone out of jail or a dungeon) or public executions (with the possibility of rescuing them from the axe or the noose). And many, many more things than that.
I agree that it can work but I also think its still very limited. Those topics are still within the realm of violent conflict. I would like to see (for the sake of a 'shock' to the industry) an MMO that doesnt even remotely come close to violent conflict in anyway. Not becuase I consider such content bad or immoral but because there is sooooooo much oportunity out there and I think much of the industry has been doing one thing for so long its hard for them to see very far outside of the box. They say the best way to kill a habit is a radical transformation even if its normally out of perportion to the end result. so yeah MMO that is miles away from anything similar to violence is needed
and when people argue that a game needs to have content that is not something one can experience in real life I have to say this. How many people get to be rocket scientists, build a rocket, launch it and land on a moon? well nobody really
Seconded.
What I find bizzare on this level is so many gamers take on of two positions on this either
A. how DARE you suggest a game without violence you must be a moral hypocrite etc etc etc. and they treat violent content as if it is a sacred subject that only the most unholy would suggest needs to be less.
B. That because such games (non-violent ones) exist that its evidence that the industry is filled with variety of game play outside of violence and its all balanced.
What I dont understand to be honest is why such gamers take such a radical defensive position on this subject. They know damn good and well what we are talking about here, but they use a lot of very bizarre defensive tactics that are borderline desperate and for some reason think people are going to buy into the argument. What I dont know is why they feel so threaten that maybe something like Kerbal Space Program could become more popular the Call of Duty.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There's nothing wrong with having games that are not about violence but it would be pretty silly to have a a war game that isn't about war.
P&P RPGs were about killing monsters... dragons... in dungeons. The video games made based on those games followed suit as did the MMORPGs that followed that and became persistent worlds.
It was really only at that point, when they became persistent 24/7 worlds that things other than fighting were added to round out the experience and make the worlds seem more like a simulation of our own world with economies and crafting and professions.
There's no doubt that those non-violent things became an attraction for many to the extent that some players wanted to do just those things.
But you got to remember that at their core, RPGs always were and always will be about fighting not about the other stuff. If you've had it with that and want to try something different, more power to you, but you're really looking for a different type of game to play.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
There's nothing wrong with having games that are not about violence but it would be pretty silly to have a a war game that isn't about war.
P&P RPGs were about killing monsters... dragons... in dungeons. The video games made based on those games followed suit as did the MMORPGs that followed that and became persistent worlds.
It was really only at that point, when they became persistent 24/7 worlds that things other than fighting were added to round out the experience and make the worlds seem more like a simulation of our own world with economies and crafting and professions.
There's no doubt that those non-violent things became an attraction for many to the extent that some players wanted to do just those things.
But you got to remember that at their core, RPGs always were and always will be about fighting not about the other stuff. If you've had it with that and want to try something different, more power to you, but you're really looking for a different type of game to play.
Is there a reason why games have to be a certian way because it was the way they were 30 years ago? is it some kind of sacred text like the bible or something?
game can be whatever it wants to do, it doesnt have to be because of tradition just because
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There's nothing wrong with having games that are not about violence but it would be pretty silly to have a a war game that isn't about war.
P&P RPGs were about killing monsters... dragons... in dungeons. The video games made based on those games followed suit as did the MMORPGs that followed that and became persistent worlds.
It was really only at that point, when they became persistent 24/7 worlds that things other than fighting were added to round out the experience and make the worlds seem more like a simulation of our own world with economies and crafting and professions.
There's no doubt that those non-violent things became an attraction for many to the extent that some players wanted to do just those things.
But you got to remember that at their core, RPGs always were and always will be about fighting not about the other stuff. If you've had it with that and want to try something different, more power to you, but you're really looking for a different type of game to play.
Is there a reason why games have to be a certian way because it was the way they were 30 years ago? is it some kind of sacred text like the bible or something?
game can be whatever it wants to do, it doesnt have to be because of tradition just because
Is there some reason why you can't invent a new type of game and give it its own unique name instead of trying to redefine old labels?
In my world cars have 4 wheels and motorcycles have 2. If you want to invent a vehicle with 3, you should probably call it something new... maybe starting with the prefix "tri"?
War games are about war. Sports games are about sports.... deal with it.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
There's nothing wrong with having games that are not about violence but it would be pretty silly to have a a war game that isn't about war.
P&P RPGs were about killing monsters... dragons... in dungeons. The video games made based on those games followed suit as did the MMORPGs that followed that and became persistent worlds.
It was really only at that point, when they became persistent 24/7 worlds that things other than fighting were added to round out the experience and make the worlds seem more like a simulation of our own world with economies and crafting and professions.
There's no doubt that those non-violent things became an attraction for many to the extent that some players wanted to do just those things.
But you got to remember that at their core, RPGs always were and always will be about fighting not about the other stuff. If you've had it with that and want to try something different, more power to you, but you're really looking for a different type of game to play.
Is there a reason why games have to be a certian way because it was the way they were 30 years ago? is it some kind of sacred text like the bible or something?
game can be whatever it wants to do, it doesnt have to be because of tradition just because
Is there some reason why you can't invent a new type of game and give it its own unique name instead of trying to redefine old labels?
In my world cars have 4 wheels and motorcycles have 2. If you want to invent a vehicle with 3, you should probably call it something new... maybe starting with the prefix "tri"?
War games are about war. Sports games are about sports.... deal with it.
Except the first bicycles were called Velocipedes and the first motorcycles were steam velocipedes. Names change, evolve, change again all the time.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
There's nothing wrong with having games that are not about violence but it would be pretty silly to have a a war game that isn't about war.
P&P RPGs were about killing monsters... dragons... in dungeons. The video games made based on those games followed suit as did the MMORPGs that followed that and became persistent worlds.
It was really only at that point, when they became persistent 24/7 worlds that things other than fighting were added to round out the experience and make the worlds seem more like a simulation of our own world with economies and crafting and professions.
There's no doubt that those non-violent things became an attraction for many to the extent that some players wanted to do just those things.
But you got to remember that at their core, RPGs always were and always will be about fighting not about the other stuff. If you've had it with that and want to try something different, more power to you, but you're really looking for a different type of game to play.
Is there a reason why games have to be a certian way because it was the way they were 30 years ago? is it some kind of sacred text like the bible or something?
game can be whatever it wants to do, it doesnt have to be because of tradition just because
Is there some reason why you can't invent a new type of game and give it its own unique name instead of trying to redefine old labels?
In my world cars have 4 wheels and motorcycles have 2. If you want to invent a vehicle with 3, you should probably call it something new... maybe starting with the prefix "tri"?
War games are about war. Sports games are about sports.... deal with it.
Except the first bicycles were called Velocipedes and the first motorcycles were steam velocipedes. Names change, evolve, change again all the time.
Are we going to have that "Path of Exile is an MMO" discussion again?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
There's nothing wrong with having games that are not about violence but it would be pretty silly to have a a war game that isn't about war.
P&P RPGs were about killing monsters... dragons... in dungeons. The video games made based on those games followed suit as did the MMORPGs that followed that and became persistent worlds.
It was really only at that point, when they became persistent 24/7 worlds that things other than fighting were added to round out the experience and make the worlds seem more like a simulation of our own world with economies and crafting and professions.
There's no doubt that those non-violent things became an attraction for many to the extent that some players wanted to do just those things.
But you got to remember that at their core, RPGs always were and always will be about fighting not about the other stuff. If you've had it with that and want to try something different, more power to you, but you're really looking for a different type of game to play.
Is there a reason why games have to be a certian way because it was the way they were 30 years ago? is it some kind of sacred text like the bible or something?
game can be whatever it wants to do, it doesnt have to be because of tradition just because
Is there some reason why you can't invent a new type of game and give it its own unique name instead of trying to redefine old labels?
In my world cars have 4 wheels and motorcycles have 2. If you want to invent a vehicle with 3, you should probably call it something new... maybe starting with the prefix "tri"?
War games are about war. Sports games are about sports.... deal with it.
unfortunately for you tabletop RTS games evolved into RPG games and are basically not very similar at all.
so if I understand you correctly you are deeply concerned about naming convention and would be perfectly fine with a game that is not about violence, connects thousand of people together just as long as you dont call it an MMORPG because that would be an insult to a sacred trust.
I have that right?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There's nothing wrong with having games that are not about violence but it would be pretty silly to have a a war game that isn't about war.
P&P RPGs were about killing monsters... dragons... in dungeons. The video games made based on those games followed suit as did the MMORPGs that followed that and became persistent worlds.
It was really only at that point, when they became persistent 24/7 worlds that things other than fighting were added to round out the experience and make the worlds seem more like a simulation of our own world with economies and crafting and professions.
There's no doubt that those non-violent things became an attraction for many to the extent that some players wanted to do just those things.
But you got to remember that at their core, RPGs always were and always will be about fighting not about the other stuff. If you've had it with that and want to try something different, more power to you, but you're really looking for a different type of game to play.
Is there a reason why games have to be a certian way because it was the way they were 30 years ago? is it some kind of sacred text like the bible or something?
game can be whatever it wants to do, it doesnt have to be because of tradition just because
Is there some reason why you can't invent a new type of game and give it its own unique name instead of trying to redefine old labels?
In my world cars have 4 wheels and motorcycles have 2. If you want to invent a vehicle with 3, you should probably call it something new... maybe starting with the prefix "tri"?
War games are about war. Sports games are about sports.... deal with it.
unfortunately for you tabletop RTS games evolved into RPG games and are basically not very similar at all.
so if I understand you correctly you are deeply concerned about naming convention and would be perfectly fine with a game that is not about violence, connects thousand of people together just as long as you dont call it an MMORPG because that would be an insult to a sacred trust.
I have that right?
Table top RTS? Real... time... strategy... on a tabletop? Sounds chaotic as hell. I'm glad I missed out on those lol.
Every Avalon Hill game I ever played prior to D&D becoming a thing was turn-based not RTS.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
There's nothing wrong with having games that are not about violence but it would be pretty silly to have a a war game that isn't about war.
P&P RPGs were about killing monsters... dragons... in dungeons. The video games made based on those games followed suit as did the MMORPGs that followed that and became persistent worlds.
It was really only at that point, when they became persistent 24/7 worlds that things other than fighting were added to round out the experience and make the worlds seem more like a simulation of our own world with economies and crafting and professions.
There's no doubt that those non-violent things became an attraction for many to the extent that some players wanted to do just those things.
But you got to remember that at their core, RPGs always were and always will be about fighting not about the other stuff. If you've had it with that and want to try something different, more power to you, but you're really looking for a different type of game to play.
Is there a reason why games have to be a certian way because it was the way they were 30 years ago? is it some kind of sacred text like the bible or something?
game can be whatever it wants to do, it doesnt have to be because of tradition just because
Is there some reason why you can't invent a new type of game and give it its own unique name instead of trying to redefine old labels?
In my world cars have 4 wheels and motorcycles have 2. If you want to invent a vehicle with 3, you should probably call it something new... maybe starting with the prefix "tri"?
War games are about war. Sports games are about sports.... deal with it.
unfortunately for you tabletop RTS games evolved into RPG games and are basically not very similar at all.
so if I understand you correctly you are deeply concerned about naming convention and would be perfectly fine with a game that is not about violence, connects thousand of people together just as long as you dont call it an MMORPG because that would be an insult to a sacred trust.
I have that right?
Table top RTS? Real... time... strategy... on a tabletop? Sounds chaotic as hell. I'm glad I missed out on those lol.
Every Avalon Hill game I ever played prior to D&D becoming a thing was turn-based not RTS.
very good point!
so turned based table top gaming evolved into RPG but you are ok with that ONLY because the name change however you still think RPG needs to hold true to table top wargames even though they dont.
very ironical
well honestly, I dont give a flying fuck what you want to call it. come up with a name and lets move on to the core part of this discussion. thanks for your input though
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There's nothing wrong with having games that are not about violence but it would be pretty silly to have a a war game that isn't about war.
P&P RPGs were about killing monsters... dragons... in dungeons. The video games made based on those games followed suit as did the MMORPGs that followed that and became persistent worlds.
It was really only at that point, when they became persistent 24/7 worlds that things other than fighting were added to round out the experience and make the worlds seem more like a simulation of our own world with economies and crafting and professions.
There's no doubt that those non-violent things became an attraction for many to the extent that some players wanted to do just those things.
But you got to remember that at their core, RPGs always were and always will be about fighting not about the other stuff. If you've had it with that and want to try something different, more power to you, but you're really looking for a different type of game to play.
Is there a reason why games have to be a certian way because it was the way they were 30 years ago? is it some kind of sacred text like the bible or something?
game can be whatever it wants to do, it doesnt have to be because of tradition just because
Is there some reason why you can't invent a new type of game and give it its own unique name instead of trying to redefine old labels?
In my world cars have 4 wheels and motorcycles have 2. If you want to invent a vehicle with 3, you should probably call it something new... maybe starting with the prefix "tri"?
War games are about war. Sports games are about sports.... deal with it.
unfortunately for you tabletop RTS games evolved into RPG games and are basically not very similar at all.
so if I understand you correctly you are deeply concerned about naming convention and would be perfectly fine with a game that is not about violence, connects thousand of people together just as long as you dont call it an MMORPG because that would be an insult to a sacred trust.
I have that right?
Table top RTS? Real... time... strategy... on a tabletop? Sounds chaotic as hell. I'm glad I missed out on those lol.
Every Avalon Hill game I ever played prior to D&D becoming a thing was turn-based not RTS.
very good point!
so turned based table top gaming evolved into RPG but you are ok with that ONLY because the name change however you still think RPG needs to hold true to table top wargames even though they dont.
very ironical
well honestly, I dont give a flying fuck what you want to call it. come up with a name and lets move on to the core part of this discussion. thanks for your input though
No they did not evolve into RPGs. RPGs were created as something new and different by the same people who were already involved with table top strategy gaming. You do see the distinction don't you?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
There's nothing wrong with having games that are not about violence but it would be pretty silly to have a a war game that isn't about war.
P&P RPGs were about killing monsters... dragons... in dungeons. The video games made based on those games followed suit as did the MMORPGs that followed that and became persistent worlds.
It was really only at that point, when they became persistent 24/7 worlds that things other than fighting were added to round out the experience and make the worlds seem more like a simulation of our own world with economies and crafting and professions.
There's no doubt that those non-violent things became an attraction for many to the extent that some players wanted to do just those things.
But you got to remember that at their core, RPGs always were and always will be about fighting not about the other stuff. If you've had it with that and want to try something different, more power to you, but you're really looking for a different type of game to play.
Is there a reason why games have to be a certian way because it was the way they were 30 years ago? is it some kind of sacred text like the bible or something?
game can be whatever it wants to do, it doesnt have to be because of tradition just because
Is there some reason why you can't invent a new type of game and give it its own unique name instead of trying to redefine old labels?
In my world cars have 4 wheels and motorcycles have 2. If you want to invent a vehicle with 3, you should probably call it something new... maybe starting with the prefix "tri"?
War games are about war. Sports games are about sports.... deal with it.
unfortunately for you tabletop RTS games evolved into RPG games and are basically not very similar at all.
so if I understand you correctly you are deeply concerned about naming convention and would be perfectly fine with a game that is not about violence, connects thousand of people together just as long as you dont call it an MMORPG because that would be an insult to a sacred trust.
I have that right?
Table top RTS? Real... time... strategy... on a tabletop? Sounds chaotic as hell. I'm glad I missed out on those lol.
Every Avalon Hill game I ever played prior to D&D becoming a thing was turn-based not RTS.
very good point!
so turned based table top gaming evolved into RPG but you are ok with that ONLY because the name change however you still think RPG needs to hold true to table top wargames even though they dont.
very ironical
well honestly, I dont give a flying fuck what you want to call it. come up with a name and lets move on to the core part of this discussion. thanks for your input though
No they did not evolve into RPGs. RPGs were created as something new and different by the same people who were already involved with table top strategy gaming. You do see the distinction don't you?
that is 100% incorrect. RPG absolutly and has been documented as such has having evolved from table top war games. Its well documented as such AND I was gaming then so I have personal experience with that having happened.
regardless..
lets make a new genre and call it 'hope dickless gaming' and we can connect thousands of people together into a virtual living world with a lot of game activities that are not around violence. how about that? 'hope dickless gaming' does that work for you?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm still not sure what the problem is. No one said there couldn't be a game where there wasn't violence. There are even a few examples of those games. But progression really is a part of RPGs and yes, if you remove it you move into another genre. Which again, is fine.
Remember this as well, the OP presented his example and it includes violence to the point where there is permadeath. And his form of progression is like what is found in games like Rogue Legacy (which would lead to what he wanted to avoid: people being more powerful than other people in PVP).
There's nothing wrong with having games that are not about violence but it would be pretty silly to have a a war game that isn't about war.
P&P RPGs were about killing monsters... dragons... in dungeons. The video games made based on those games followed suit as did the MMORPGs that followed that and became persistent worlds.
It was really only at that point, when they became persistent 24/7 worlds that things other than fighting were added to round out the experience and make the worlds seem more like a simulation of our own world with economies and crafting and professions.
There's no doubt that those non-violent things became an attraction for many to the extent that some players wanted to do just those things.
But you got to remember that at their core, RPGs always were and always will be about fighting not about the other stuff. If you've had it with that and want to try something different, more power to you, but you're really looking for a different type of game to play.
Is there a reason why games have to be a certian way because it was the way they were 30 years ago? is it some kind of sacred text like the bible or something?
game can be whatever it wants to do, it doesnt have to be because of tradition just because
Is there some reason why you can't invent a new type of game and give it its own unique name instead of trying to redefine old labels?
In my world cars have 4 wheels and motorcycles have 2. If you want to invent a vehicle with 3, you should probably call it something new... maybe starting with the prefix "tri"?
War games are about war. Sports games are about sports.... deal with it.
unfortunately for you tabletop RTS games evolved into RPG games and are basically not very similar at all.
so if I understand you correctly you are deeply concerned about naming convention and would be perfectly fine with a game that is not about violence, connects thousand of people together just as long as you dont call it an MMORPG because that would be an insult to a sacred trust.
I have that right?
Table top RTS? Real... time... strategy... on a tabletop? Sounds chaotic as hell. I'm glad I missed out on those lol.
Every Avalon Hill game I ever played prior to D&D becoming a thing was turn-based not RTS.
very good point!
so turned based table top gaming evolved into RPG but you are ok with that ONLY because the name change however you still think RPG needs to hold true to table top wargames even though they dont.
very ironical
well honestly, I dont give a flying fuck what you want to call it. come up with a name and lets move on to the core part of this discussion. thanks for your input though
No they did not evolve into RPGs. RPGs were created as something new and different by the same people who were already involved with table top strategy gaming. You do see the distinction don't you?
that is 100% incorrect. RPG absolutly and has been documented as such has having evolved from table top war games. Its well documented as such AND I was gaming then so I have personal experience with that having happened.
regardless..
lets make a new genre and call it 'hope dickless gaming' and we can connect thousands of people together into a virtual living world with a lot of game activities that are not around violence. how about that? 'hope dickless gaming' does that work for you?
Remind me why I unblocked you? I forget.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
that is 100% incorrect. RPG absolutly and has been documented as such has having evolved from table top war games. Its well documented as such AND I was gaming then so I have personal experience with that having happened.
regardless..
lets make a new genre and call it 'hope dickless gaming' and we can connect thousands of people together into a virtual living world with a lot of game activities that are not around violence. how about that? 'hope dickless gaming' does that work for you?
Remind me why I unblocked you? I forget.
I think three reasons.
1. you are not familiar with the specific and well documented history of how RPG came directly out of the table top war gaming.
2. you find naming convention to the be the cornerstone of why we cant have more MMOs that do not focus around violence and I do not think naming convention trumps the point.
3. You feel threaten by the idea that maybe there should be more variety in video games away from violence. I dont know however why you feel threatend.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm still not sure what the problem is. No one said there couldn't be a game where there wasn't violence. There are even a few examples of those games. But progression really is a part of RPGs and yes, if you remove it you move into another genre. Which again, is fine.
Remember this as well, the OP presented his example and it includes violence to the point where there is permadeath. And his form of progression is like what is found in games like Rogue Legacy (which would lead to what he wanted to avoid: people being more powerful than other people in PVP).
progression and violence has nothing remotely to do with each other.
you can (and do) have games with progression but also not related to violence. why would anyone even think the two points are related in anyway?
So 'the problem' as I see it now is that maybe gamers and developers are so used to the tiny box they live in that they think if you take away violence you take away progression. you dont even come remotely close to that fact.
and yes..I agree even the OP is looking at it from a world of violence. I am looking at it from much farther outside the box then he is
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
True. Also the ancestors and precursors of cultures and nations represented by the principal players in World War II. World War I as well. Russia is/was a mix of European and Asian culture and ethicities, but western Russia more closely resembled Medieval Europe, of which it is/was considered a part.
I did NOT say I want to see 'one game' without violence.
Why are you disrupting on what I am saying intentionally? do you feel threatened by this point or something? I dont know
I was pretty clear the first time, lets try for once to not go down that path...please
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"I would like to see (for the sake of a 'shock' to the industry) an MMO that doesnt even remotely come close to violent conflict in anyway. Not becuase I consider such content bad or immoral but because there is sooooooo much oportunity out there and I think much of the industry has been doing one thing for so long its hard for them to see very far outside of the box."
"An" implies singular. Atitd meets the requirements you set out above.
I've disrupted nothing. I pointed out a game that meets the parameters you stated.
An MMO that does what you would like to see exists.
Why are you being so defensive? Do you feel threatened? My post wasn't an attack. It was pointing out that the the game you stated you would like to see exists.
yeah that quote would NOT be me asking 'for one'
look its really not complicated what I am saying are you not understanding the intent of what I am saying? are you really thinking that what I am asking for as a 'shock to the industry' is one indie mmo that nobody has ever heard of? are you really taking the position that after reading what I said that THAT is what I am asking for?
I think you are smarter than that.
what I dont understand is why you want to do, take the time to even go and quote it even. why?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I understand thap what you hope is a shock to the industry. But what you asked for is an MMO
The part you missed in what I said is very clearly the 'shock' part. Be it one game, two games, three games, or 1 unfinised game all is not the important part of the request. The 'shock' part is.
I am very confident that you understood that to begin with, I am confident that you knew I was not refering to 'one game' and that 'one game' is a game that nearly nobody knew about. I am very confident that you understood exactly what I was talking about and that posting the name of one game that very few people even knew existed would not qualify as 'a shock'
what I dont know however, is why you did that. I think the reason (but not sure) is that you are going into a somewhat desperate defensive position on this argument. I think you know the point but for reasons I am not sure about are concerned that it might be correct. I dont know why you would be concerned that it could be correct but it seems as if you think its threatening but its not
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If you have a problem with what you wrote you need to look in the mirror. If you meant something different than what you wrote then you need to look in the mirror.
I did not Overlook anything. I even acknowledge the shock part. Once again you asked for an MMO
welcome to my ignore list
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What I find bizzare on this level is so many gamers take on of two positions on this either
A. how DARE you suggest a game without violence you must be a moral hypocrite etc etc etc. and they treat violent content as if it is a sacred subject that only the most unholy would suggest needs to be less.
B. That because such games (non-violent ones) exist that its evidence that the industry is filled with variety of game play outside of violence and its all balanced.
What I dont understand to be honest is why such gamers take such a radical defensive position on this subject. They know damn good and well what we are talking about here, but they use a lot of very bizarre defensive tactics that are borderline desperate and for some reason think people are going to buy into the argument. What I dont know is why they feel so threaten that maybe something like Kerbal Space Program could become more popular the Call of Duty.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
P&P RPGs were about killing monsters... dragons... in dungeons. The video games made based on those games followed suit as did the MMORPGs that followed that and became persistent worlds.
It was really only at that point, when they became persistent 24/7 worlds that things other than fighting were added to round out the experience and make the worlds seem more like a simulation of our own world with economies and crafting and professions.
There's no doubt that those non-violent things became an attraction for many to the extent that some players wanted to do just those things.
But you got to remember that at their core, RPGs always were and always will be about fighting not about the other stuff. If you've had it with that and want to try something different, more power to you, but you're really looking for a different type of game to play.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Is there a reason why games have to be a certian way because it was the way they were 30 years ago?
is it some kind of sacred text like the bible or something?
game can be whatever it wants to do, it doesnt have to be because of tradition just because
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Is there some reason why you can't invent a new type of game and give it its own unique name instead of trying to redefine old labels?
In my world cars have 4 wheels and motorcycles have 2. If you want to invent a vehicle with 3, you should probably call it something new... maybe starting with the prefix "tri"?
War games are about war. Sports games are about sports.... deal with it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Except the first bicycles were called Velocipedes and the first motorcycles were steam velocipedes. Names change, evolve, change again all the time.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Are we going to have that "Path of Exile is an MMO" discussion again?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
unfortunately for you tabletop RTS games evolved into RPG games and are basically not very similar at all.
so if I understand you correctly you are deeply concerned about naming convention and would be perfectly fine with a game that is not about violence, connects thousand of people together just as long as you dont call it an MMORPG because that would be an insult to a sacred trust.
I have that right?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Table top RTS? Real... time... strategy... on a tabletop? Sounds chaotic as hell. I'm glad I missed out on those lol.
Every Avalon Hill game I ever played prior to D&D becoming a thing was turn-based not RTS.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
very good point!
so turned based table top gaming evolved into RPG but you are ok with that ONLY because the name change however you still think RPG needs to hold true to table top wargames even though they dont.
very ironical
well honestly, I dont give a flying fuck what you want to call it. come up with a name and lets move on to the core part of this discussion. thanks for your input though
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
No they did not evolve into RPGs. RPGs were created as something new and different by the same people who were already involved with table top strategy gaming. You do see the distinction don't you?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
that is 100% incorrect. RPG absolutly and has been documented as such has having evolved from table top war games. Its well documented as such AND I was gaming then so I have personal experience with that having happened.
regardless..
lets make a new genre and call it 'hope dickless gaming' and we can connect thousands of people together into a virtual living world with a lot of game activities that are not around violence. how about that? 'hope dickless gaming' does that work for you?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Remember this as well, the OP presented his example and it includes violence to the point where there is permadeath. And his form of progression is like what is found in games like Rogue Legacy (which would lead to what he wanted to avoid: people being more powerful than other people in PVP).
Remind me why I unblocked you? I forget.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I think three reasons.
1. you are not familiar with the specific and well documented history of how RPG came directly out of the table top war gaming.
2. you find naming convention to the be the cornerstone of why we cant have more MMOs that do not focus around violence and I do not think naming convention trumps the point.
3. You feel threaten by the idea that maybe there should be more variety in video games away from violence. I dont know however why you feel threatend.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
progression and violence has nothing remotely to do with each other.
you can (and do) have games with progression but also not related to violence. why would anyone even think the two points are related in anyway?
So 'the problem' as I see it now is that maybe gamers and developers are so used to the tiny box they live in that they think if you take away violence you take away progression. you dont even come remotely close to that fact.
and yes..I agree even the OP is looking at it from a world of violence. I am looking at it from much farther outside the box then he is
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me