Making games great again, simple, just ban all the 'diversity and identity politics agendas' from being force fed into them, huge positive step just from that alone.
Be unapologetic (See: Dark Souls) - Don't be afraid to make something challenging and great and don't be afraid to tell half the gaming public to take a hike.
While I agree with you in spirit, that last statement cuts both ways.
It just doesn't feel so good when it's you who isn't included.
I only wish this were true.
You see, being excluded works in my favor because then I don't end up spending money or time on a game where the developer pivots from a premium title into a FTP/Pay To Win abomination.
What I abhor is a game that is hardmode from the start but not making that fact clear. The developer then goes out, attracting an entire continent of easy-moders. After about a year the developer has to capitulate to the 'majority' who didn't read up on the game before purchase. I'm tired of having great games ruined right underneath me.
So the problem isn't me being excluded from a game - oh please, if you're making a piece of shit let me know upfront - but rather, being dupped into a vision that the developer quickly abandons because it attracted a huge player base of people who don't understand the product.
It would be like Battlefield 5 attracting a huge player base of people who want to craft and who spend all their time complaining about getting shot. So the Battlefield 5 developers add a bunch of safe zones and a crafting system - it is that bad out there.
Are they changing the game because it attracted a large group people who wouldn't have liked the "hard version" of the game or that they don't have enough of those who do like the hard version so they might as well go with the community they have?
I strongly suspect it's the latter.
To be fair.. I agree with @WargfootYV about this. It is better for a developer to have a vision for their game as opposed to flopping around.
I don't disagree. If an artist/creator/developer has a vision then let them realize their vision.
But reality is that if the artist/creator/developer needs to put food on their table but they insist that they must be true to their vision then they should expect people to go find something else if that vision isn't in line with what people like.
Developers don't change their games because whiny forum goers complain and complain.
They change their games because they see that they are not making money and they need to stay open.
but some players don't understand that. To the point where I've seen players say "well then they should just close it down."
I bet those developers like their paycheck and might even have bills to pay so closing it down might be the last option.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I want a game that gives you a metric crap ton of things to do solo, small grouped or raiding from beginning to end, and then at the end/cap of a game (if it has one), come up with a way to open up gameplay even more for everyone as well.
IMO, Gamers like collecting and unlocking and earning and working toward things, but we also like just being able to jump in and fart around sometimes too, or just to do a few things and then log out if time doesn't allow. As long as we can chip away at stuff over time we'll keep coming back I think.
Make the systems have meaning, and keep those system going and tweaked as the game keeps going.
For example, I wouldn't mind Garrisons/Class halls being updated/upgraded to current content in WoW. It seems like they make a system to last one expansion and then abandon it for the next one, or replace it with something more watered down/less meaningful.
I want the opposite of that. I want games to evolve as time goes on like characters evolve by earning levels, getting gear, unlocking skills etc...
Give us a reason to stick around every area of the game always, so we can do what we're in the mood for.
I don't disagree. If an artist/creator/developer has a vision then let them realize their vision.
But reality is that if the artist/creator/developer needs to put food on their table but they insist that they must be true to their vision then they should expect people to go find something else if that vision isn't in line with what people like.
Developers don't change their games because whiny forum goers complain and complain.
They change their games because they see that they are not making money and they need to stay open.
but some players don't understand that. To the point where I've seen players say "well then they should just close it down."
I bet those developers like their paycheck and might even have bills to pay so closing it down might be the last option.
Okay, it would be cool if people in this thread would stop pretending to care about the developers as a means of justifying horrible products and ideas. It isn't binary, it isn't "introduce crap into the game" or "starve to death".
The thread is about "How to make games great again." and part of the answer is "Have a vision, stick to it" and not "prostitute out your vision for lazy ass cash grabs" or "do whatever you have to in order to keep the lights on".
^--- If you're at that point you already made a crap game. This thread is about how to make a great game, not how to patch garbage to milk it for cash.
It isn't fair to any of the players when games undergo significant changes because developers are too weak in the knees to follow through with a great idea. If you want to make a great game come up with an idea and follow through with it at all costs. That is how the great emerge.
I don't disagree. If an artist/creator/developer has a vision then let them realize their vision.
But reality is that if the artist/creator/developer needs to put food on their table but they insist that they must be true to their vision then they should expect people to go find something else if that vision isn't in line with what people like.
Developers don't change their games because whiny forum goers complain and complain.
They change their games because they see that they are not making money and they need to stay open.
but some players don't understand that. To the point where I've seen players say "well then they should just close it down."
I bet those developers like their paycheck and might even have bills to pay so closing it down might be the last option.
Okay, it would be cool if people in this thread would stop pretending to care about the developers as a means of justifying horrible products and ideas. It isn't binary, it isn't "introduce crap into the game" or "starve to death".
The thread is about "How to make games great again." and part of the answer is "Have a vision, stick to it" and not "prostitute out your vision for lazy ass cash grabs" or "do whatever you have to in order to keep the lights on".
^--- If you're at that point you already made a crap game. This thread is about how to make a great game, not how to patch garbage to milk it for cash.
It isn't fair to any of the players when games undergo significant changes because developers are too weak in the knees to follow through with a great idea. If you want to make a great game come up with an idea and follow through with it at all costs. That is how the great emerge.
Well, I'll tell you, given the conversations I've had on this site, I usually side with the developers. Players are sometimes living in their little dream worlds and can certainly become untethered from reality.
No one is saying it's one or another. But guess what? Most developers really do want to make great games.
But it's not as easy as "Hey guys, let's just make a great game and cal it a day. The checks will just roll in"
As far as justifying "horrible products and ideas" part of that is subjective and part of that is what happens sometimes. I do see a lot of crying from players, sometimes justified and sometimes they just want to jump on a bandwagon with their pitchforks.
I don't normally listen to players unless what they say makes sense.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
3: Social Groups/Guilds/Adventure Groups/Channels. 3 B: Social Groups/Guilds
Ok one of things that always annoyed me was that there was pretty much a "Guild" and that was it. Nothing else.
In a game where we have a whole social world open to us, we should have a few levels of social groups.
As such my idea game would have more then guilds, it would have Social Groups in tiers, that would go something like this.
Clan (This is purely like a family clan) and joining one gives someone a last name, like Do'urden, and everyone in the clan would have the last name Do'urden. So you could have your toon "Buffbody Badass" join the Do'urden clan (Assuming they accept you) and you become Buffbody Badass Do'urden. Of course clans could buy a Clan house, or hall. You can only join 1 Clan*.
Union: This is for a Trade of a Focus. IE: The Tailors Union, Woodworkers Union, etc, and an applicant would need to meet set requirements to join a Union. IE: be a Tailor, or a Blacksmith, etc. Unions would have their own shops, where they could purchase raw materials at discounts, and get access to advanced tools of the trade. You can only join 1 Union.
Guilds: Large Social groups for a Goal. IE: The Thieves Rogue Guild, where anyone that had levels in thief Rogue, could join. Or something a bit more broad base, like 'The Explorers Guild" for example. Halls and Shops would be open to this guild, depending on their focus. I wager up to 4 Guilds.
Society: Pretty much just a social group, no real leader, just a group of "officers" at best, and you get a social channel, they can buy halls, or houses, for gatherings. No limit, join as many as you like, this is like a chat channel with a house attached if they want.
So, I would like to see systems where there are social groups, but some of them matter and can be important, and confer advantages and even be rivals. Like two separate tailor unions trying to have the best Tailors and renowned for their stuff and gear.
3: C: Adventure Groups/LFG
AKA: PUGs, or just LFG's or some system that allows players to team up and do content together.
This needs to be a major part of the game. Getting players together to do content is what builds social aspects of the game. Equally so, having a system that makes it clear what the group is looking for is also important.
If the group is looking for a Cleric, or a healer, they don't want a bunch of Warriors and DPS HP sponges spamming their LFG.
If they are looking for levels 245 - 252, to do the dungeon, they do not want someone level 144 or less spamming their LFG, nor do they want that 795th level person trying to join either.
The LFG system of DDO was pretty good in that they could pick (by Icon) what classes they wanted, they selected (by Drop Down Box), what content they were doing, and they could enter a level range for the group. There was also a tab for anyone looking for a group to hide any LFG that did not fit them, and if they didn't hide the LFG's, any LFG that didn't fit them was made dark so that is looked "Unavailable"
This was a pretty good system.
GW2 had a system where you could teleport into the Dungeon as soon as you were in the same zone as the dungeon was in, and join the group in progress.
This was a really good feature.
Autogroup or random grouping features are horrible.
Players should have control over who enters their group, and have control over who they get to kick from the group.
Which brings us to:
Kicking players from a group.
I believe that if someone opts to kick someone from a group, they should have to select a reason for it.
Equally so, anyone kicked from a group should receive EXP and loot for as far as they were with the group.
If they get kicked at the very start, they get nothing.
If they made it halfway though the Dungeon, they get 50% of the exp, and 25% of what would be the end loot, regardless if the rest of the group completes the content or not.
If they were with the group right up to the boss fight, and the group kicks them, they get 90% of the EXP and they get 75% of the end chest treasure, again no matter if the rest of the group completes the content or not.
Equally so.. Someone that joins (After someone was kicked) would suffer a -10% to loot and exp. (and the groups LFG, if they put up one, would show a "Kicked" icon on it, so anyone that joins would know this)
If someone willingly leaves the group, they left, and thus get no reward. It is what it is. But the arriving/replacing player could only get their contribution, IE: If they joined at the end fight, they still would only get at best (depending on how hard the end fight is) around 20% of the EXP and Treasure.
This keeps things more fair, and best for a group to start and end a dungeon as a team, which is the way things should be.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Again, it's an MMO, there is no surprise that Social is keynote of the foundation of the game.
First, given players a World to Play in. IE: Open World. Second give them something to do with each other. IE: Dungeons. Third Give Players a Means to Gather IE: Social Groups.
Part Four: Give Players a Means to Interact.
Social Events/Emotes/Player Interaction.
Social Events. Now I am not talking world bosses, or holiday grind events, I am talking player run social events. As campy and silly as this may sound, Weddings, Birthdays, Anniversaries, any kind of party you can think of, helps players build community.
Old MMO's like EQ did in fact have weddings, older MUD's had them as well. This gave these games a core base, where those players would be there for years after they ran out of things to do, or cared about the loot/levels, because now they had an emotional tie to the game.
The Big one is of Course getting Married.
MMO's have been around for a while, the people playing these games are not snort nosed pimple faced socially awkward juveniles anymore, they are now snot nosed pimply faced socially awkward adults. But more then that, they are married, have families, and in some cases, they met their wife in game, or their SO/children play with them to some extent.
So social/family events are a big thing to them. Allowing Player run events like this, on clan, or society level is a great way to build community.
But see, the ability to do something like get married, is what truly separates the nature and availability of something like an MMO with all these other players, from a single player game.
So social events of some kind should be looked into.
Verbs/Emotes/Interaction.
Ok. anyone but me notice the massive lack of interaction verbs open to players in most MMO's?
Aion had a whole list of Emots you could buy from their store, which I thought was really cool, that they had all these emotes to begin with, not that I liked the game enough to buy emotes, but I loved the idea they were there to start with.
Which is something I really miss from some of the older MMO's, like CoH that had fun emotes you could link to text chat as well. Moving away from that I think robbed the games of a deep ability to interact with each other, and because of that, they became "games" not social worlds.
Just something to think about on this one.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Thanks for all the Great replies. I will try to find time later today to read, digest and comment back. I see some great feedback already. Thanks again guys In a game design meeting for the remainder of the day!
While dealing with venture capitalist over the past few weeks The idea came to me to possibly offer a kickstarter with shares to the investors in release profits based on total investment. 51 % owned by the developer and 49% to the players.. Not sure the legality of this just yet but I have an SEC attorney working on it. Is this something you think the community would be interested in? Maybe some ownership in a community driven games versus a silly cloak, mount and a week early access? Thoughts?
The entitlement and petty spite I have seen some gamers erupt into over how grandiose and important they must be because they paid a 15/month sub to play game, scares the hell out of me to see how they would act if they so much as owned 1% of the company itself.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Well, I'll tell you, given the conversations I've had on this site, I usually side with the developers. Players are sometimes living in their little dream worlds and can certainly become untethered from reality.
No one is saying it's one or another. But guess what? Most developers really do want to make great games.
But it's not as easy as "Hey guys, let's just make a great game and cal it a day. The checks will just roll in"
As far as justifying "horrible products and ideas" part of that is subjective and part of that is what happens sometimes. I do see a lot of crying from players, sometimes justified and sometimes they just want to jump on a bandwagon with their pitchforks.
I don't normally listen to players unless what they say makes sense.
I completely understand.
I'm currently on a 'survival' game site watching players complain that a person can die and lose her stuff. What irritates me about that scenario is that the game is clearly marked 'survival' which is a genre that usually includes forging for food, and dying and losing stuff.
Now if a bunch of people buy that game as part of the 'survival' genre and suddenly it is converted to 'themepark' to appeal to the masses it would make sense that the people who bought the game as originally advertised would be a tad bit upset. I'd pay $$$ just to see a developer once say, "Hey, read the #$%#! box before you buy"
I swear I'd no longer be surprised to visit a porn site forum and find people there complaining about online nudity. HEY, PUT SOME CLOTHS ON THESE ACTORS OR I'M LEAVING THIS SITE!
So here is where the initial question of the thread comes into play: A great game first and foremost has to start with a vision, and secondly, the game has to make sense within the context of it's own world and development. The problem is that when a game makes a huge switch the vision is compromised and the world no longer makes sense.
In short, a game in the midst of that sort of transition might be profitable but it will never be great.
I don't disagree. If an artist/creator/developer has a vision then let them realize their vision.
But reality is that if the artist/creator/developer needs to put food on their table but they insist that they must be true to their vision then they should expect people to go find something else if that vision isn't in line with what people like.
Developers don't change their games because whiny forum goers complain and complain.
They change their games because they see that they are not making money and they need to stay open.
but some players don't understand that. To the point where I've seen players say "well then they should just close it down."
I bet those developers like their paycheck and might even have bills to pay so closing it down might be the last option.
Okay, it would be cool if people in this thread would stop pretending to care about the developers as a means of justifying horrible products and ideas. It isn't binary, it isn't "introduce crap into the game" or "starve to death".
The thread is about "How to make games great again." and part of the answer is "Have a vision, stick to it" and not "prostitute out your vision for lazy ass cash grabs" or "do whatever you have to in order to keep the lights on".
^--- If you're at that point you already made a crap game. This thread is about how to make a great game, not how to patch garbage to milk it for cash.
It isn't fair to any of the players when games undergo significant changes because developers are too weak in the knees to follow through with a great idea. If you want to make a great game come up with an idea and follow through with it at all costs. That is how the great emerge.
Well, I'll tell you, given the conversations I've had on this site, I usually side with the developers. Players are sometimes living in their little dream worlds and can certainly become untethered from reality.
No one is saying it's one or another. But guess what? Most developers really do want to make great games.
But it's not as easy as "Hey guys, let's just make a great game and cal it a day. The checks will just roll in"
I know what you are saying, and I agree with you to a point.
But I also agree with @WargfootYV that a big part of making a great game to start with is having that vision.
As I see it, and I could be wrong, but this is my feels, without that deftness of direction, we both know that no matter how hard they try, they are just going to end up with some kind of "everything porridge" and there really is no way that will ever transform into a great game.
And I am sure there must be that one case somewhere in existence, but AFIK no game took off because it let the masses affect its development direction, and just kinda followed the money.
Too often when I hear about those games, they follow the money and it runs out anyway.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
What's Missing that would make you excited about a game? What do you feel MMos need to remain popular in the future and give players a sense of accomplishment? Where did they go wrong Post WOW? If you had 100 Million to spend on a video game being developed, What would you do that is different?
Interesting replies so far. My ideas on specific questions posed.
What is missing that would make you excited about a game? A new major system beyond the combat and crafting with magic we've seen so far. Religion in a fantasy game or science in a SF game. Politics in any genre. Allow players to achieve positions in the game that influence the game (in limited ways). Functional cities, with civic plans and projects (build a new wall, refurbish the old well) that multiple players can participate in simultaneously. Focus more on social aspects in game -- festivals, parties, etc. Add mechanisms to evaluate an aesthetic rating for artistic crafts and allow craft fairs to 'judge' entries -- who can make the 'best' urn, pie, dance, etc. Develop mechanisms to rate and reward role-playing.
What went wrong post-WoW? Games basically didn't evolve. A modern MMORPG, including most upcoming titles, simply provide minor variations on the basic formula -- melee, magic and crafting. Instead of making combat something to be avoided, games (and players) have embraced combat, engaging in hundreds and even thousands of life-or-death struggles each game day becomes the norm to progress. Groups could function somewhat better than individuals (faster, safer, etc.), but the rewards (loot, xp) rarely scale with the group, making it more lucrative to solo for some things. Characters (and the players behind them) became less dependent on others, and were able to be self sufficient.
How to make MMORPGs popular? No clue. They're pretty popular already, as more solo titles become more like MMORPGs, further blurring the lines of what an MMORPG is.
What could give players a sense of accomplishment? More ways to immerse the character into the game world. Allow players to run against NPCs for the office of mayor. Let players develop throw their own parties. Give the players limited positions within the game with specific duties, responsibilities or privileges -- give players unique decisions to make based on their position in-game.
What would I do with 100 million? I don't know exactly, but the lunches would be epic.
Hope this helps.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
1st, You need a story, a really good story, like Dune or the Wheel of Time.
2nd, you need a complex class system. Of all the MMOs ever, SWG had the best, 40 classes and you could be 2 and 1/2 of any combo of them, and change when you wanted. Like a ranger beastmaster doc, or a dancer image designer bounty hunter.
3. You need a development team that is given time to play the game, no hacks, to understand what the players are going through if the dev team doesn't play what they make then they have lost the love of gaming and should go work at some other coding job.
4. You need a balanced cash shop with everything in it. Big explanation incoming .
Part 1Balanced is if an in-game item say a legendary sword is selling on the net for 100 bucks it sells in the game for 100 bucks sites like player auctions are a good indicator of what things are worth in what games. If 3rd parties are making more then the game dev companies the compony is not being maniged right. pay to win may have a bad rep with freeloaders but no one would fault a company from wanting to stay positive hire more people and build more better games.
Part 2 balanced so that every item in the game can be earned with no cash shop use over time, keeping in mind time is money to people. Example iv sold a lot of farmed gear in eq for years best in slot items for certian classes and builds in eq can take 4 weeks to farm 1 drop or sell it for 100 bucks. Part 3 balanced so that nothing in the game takes longer than 3 months to earn. The average American is not patient enough to learn Kung Fu for more than 3 months, even when they say and spend time learning Kung Fu.
5. Lots of customization with the characters, armor, dyes, races shiny-glowing effects etc. GW2 has proven people will spend a lot on fashion wars . A lot of time or money.
6. House and Guild Halls building SWG Rift EQ2 are good examples of games that made players feel like the game world was their new home.
7. Single player soloable content with group party and raid content. Big public events that scale with the amount of players.
Well, I'll tell you, given the conversations I've had on this site, I usually side with the developers. Players are sometimes living in their little dream worlds and can certainly become untethered from reality.
No one is saying it's one or another. But guess what? Most developers really do want to make great games.
But it's not as easy as "Hey guys, let's just make a great game and cal it a day. The checks will just roll in"
As far as justifying "horrible products and ideas" part of that is subjective and part of that is what happens sometimes. I do see a lot of crying from players, sometimes justified and sometimes they just want to jump on a bandwagon with their pitchforks.
I don't normally listen to players unless what they say makes sense.
I completely understand.
I'm currently on a 'survival' game site watching players complain that a person can die and lose her stuff. What irritates me about that scenario is that the game is clearly marked 'survival' which is a genre that usually includes forging for food, and dying and losing stuff.
Now if a bunch of people buy that game as part of the 'survival' genre and suddenly it is converted to 'themepark' to appeal to the masses it would make sense that the people who bought the game as originally advertised would be a tad bit upset. I'd pay $$$ just to see a developer once say, "Hey, read the #$%#! box before you buy"
I swear I'd no longer be surprised to visit a porn site forum and find people there complaining about online nudity. HEY, PUT SOME CLOTHS ON THESE ACTORS OR I'M LEAVING THIS SITE!
So here is where the initial question of the thread comes into play: A great game first and foremost has to start with a vision, and secondly, the game has to make sense within the context of it's own world and development. The problem is that when a game makes a huge switch the vision is compromised and the world no longer makes sense.
In short, a game in the midst of that sort of transition might be profitable but it will never be great.
I don't disagree and completely agree with your last sentence.
that person who is complaining about that game (what game is it?) should know better and the developers "should" just say "this is what the game is about."
But as I mentioned, there is another game, worlds adrift (finally remembered the name) where people have been asking for a more pve oriented server. The World's Adrift developers initially said they wouldn't but now they are.
The "pvp people" seem to be up in arms. Did the developers abandoned their vision to listen to the complainers or did they realize they can't stay in business and need that revenue? I believe it's the latter.
many people asked for an easy mode for the Dark Souls games and they got nothing. From Software could make money on their vision and not have to change.
Worlds Adrift Developers? Not so much.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Yeah, that's what we thought way back when Kickstarter began.
Hasn't worked out too well so far. Seems that left to their own with nobody to play the "adult" role, developers are kind of lost on how to actually deliver a product.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I don't disagree. If an artist/creator/developer has a vision then let them realize their vision.
But reality is that if the artist/creator/developer needs to put food on their table but they insist that they must be true to their vision then they should expect people to go find something else if that vision isn't in line with what people like.
Developers don't change their games because whiny forum goers complain and complain.
They change their games because they see that they are not making money and they need to stay open.
but some players don't understand that. To the point where I've seen players say "well then they should just close it down."
I bet those developers like their paycheck and might even have bills to pay so closing it down might be the last option.
Okay, it would be cool if people in this thread would stop pretending to care about the developers as a means of justifying horrible products and ideas. It isn't binary, it isn't "introduce crap into the game" or "starve to death".
The thread is about "How to make games great again." and part of the answer is "Have a vision, stick to it" and not "prostitute out your vision for lazy ass cash grabs" or "do whatever you have to in order to keep the lights on".
^--- If you're at that point you already made a crap game. This thread is about how to make a great game, not how to patch garbage to milk it for cash.
It isn't fair to any of the players when games undergo significant changes because developers are too weak in the knees to follow through with a great idea. If you want to make a great game come up with an idea and follow through with it at all costs. That is how the great emerge.
Well, I'll tell you, given the conversations I've had on this site, I usually side with the developers. Players are sometimes living in their little dream worlds and can certainly become untethered from reality.
No one is saying it's one or another. But guess what? Most developers really do want to make great games.
But it's not as easy as "Hey guys, let's just make a great game and cal it a day. The checks will just roll in"
I know what you are saying, and I agree with you to a point.
But I also agree with @WargfootYV that a big part of making a great game to start with is having that vision.
As I see it, and I could be wrong, but this is my feels, without that deftness of direction, we both know that no matter how hard they try, they are just going to end up with some kind of "everything porridge" and there really is no way that will ever transform into a great game.
And I am sure there must be that one case somewhere in existence, but AFIK no game took off because it let the masses affect its development direction, and just kinda followed the money.
Too often when I hear about those games, they follow the money and it runs out anyway.
True but there is always change because of various reasons.
I do a lot of creating and start out with my "vision." That vision also changes as I discover things, as I work and realize it could be better to follow other avenues of thought.
Also, other things affect that as well. I remember that I had to get 3 songs for Voice and Classical Guitar out on a particular day. I had my "vision" but then realized that keeping that vision would mean I'd miss the deadline.
So I changed my vision.
I'm desperately trying to finish my Skyrim mod but finding that my vision needs to be altered because of my capabilities. It's not really an issue but it's an in the moment "I need to finish this but I can't seem to make what I want 'happen' Therefore x will have to do."
Projects always start out with great intentions but things sometimes have to change and hopefully the end result will still be good.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I don't disagree and completely agree with your last sentence.
that person who is complaining about that game (what game is it?) should know better and the developers "should" just say "this is what the game is about."
But as I mentioned, there is another game, worlds adrift (finally remembered the name) where people have been asking for a more pve oriented server. The World's Adrift developers initially said they wouldn't but now they are.
The "pvp people" seem to be up in arms. Did the developers abandoned their vision to listen to the complainers or did they realize they can't stay in business and need that revenue? I believe it's the latter.
many people asked for an easy mode for the Dark Souls games and they got nothing. From Software could make money on their vision and not have to change.
Worlds Adrift Developers? Not so much.
I dunno about your example in that if the game doesn't change, and continues to develop, on the PVP servers I don't see where the loss is for anyone. If there is a loss it would be 95% of the players moving to the PVE servers leaving the gankers with nothing to do.
I guess before I'd create a new set of servers I'd want to take a hard looks at what could be done to make PvP endurable for the PvE crowd. In UO I didn't mind getting ganked occasionally, but every 10 minutes got to be old. Why do developers in 2018 think allowing high level people to slaughter noobs is workable?
If your vision for a game is allowing struggling starting players to get serially destroyed ad nauseum then you're a bit of an idiot. It would be good for those kinds of developers to fail, TBH.
But as I mentioned, there is another game, worlds adrift (finally remembered the name) where people have been asking for a more pve oriented server. The World's Adrift developers initially said they wouldn't but now they are.
The "pvp people" seem to be up in arms. Did the developers abandoned their vision to listen to the complainers or did they realize they can't stay in business and need that revenue? I believe it's the latter.
Your voice has only the weight of the gold in your pocket.
Anyway, I see what you are saying.
This is a case of players who wanted something but were not willing to pay the price for this, when something like that happens, they have only themselves to blame.
But here is where I am left wondering, why are all these people that the game was never intended for playing it in the first place?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I'm finding that I like the "session based" gameplay of the battle royal and rogue-like type games more and more.
I also really enjoy the permanence and character building of a traditional RPG.
I like building a character and progressing over time, becoming more powerful and versatile etc. but at the same time, with the session-based gameplay, I like how each play experience is unique and you are always starting over and really exploring anew.
One of the problems with MMO's (and most game types in general) is that it takes hundreds if not thousands of hours for developers to create dozens of hours of gameplay content, and we crazy gamers burn through dozens of hours of gameplay very, very quickly.
So the solution is systems-based gameplay: you don't create story/content for players to consume, you create tools for players to make their own stories, to create and experience their own content.
All you do as the developer is create the rules and the tools, give those rules and tools a space to live in, and then let players do their thing.
So, to answer the question more directly, I'd invest that money into tools and technologies that enabled a "smart" AI DM (if such a thing is possible) to create and manage all the procedurally/programatically/"randomly" generated content it could.
Then each play session would be truly customized to you / you and your party and each adventure would be different. Like finding a really, really well prepared DM with thousands of stories prepped for your party.
So you'd still have your permanent RPG character to level up, but an endless stream of content. Expansions and additions would add more tile sets, more rulesets, more options, more tools to the tool box, more customization options, etc. but the core gameplay would still revolve around the core concept that each play experience, is session was truly something unique.
Players would have to have enough tools where every session wasn't as formulaic - the player could go outside of the bounds if simple interactions and experimentation, and the AI would have to be able to adapt.
You'd have to be able to counter the classic D&D/Pathfinder joke of, "you spend hours creating a unique and interesting backstory and spell list and all of this dialogue for a special NPC... and then your Barbarian decided to attack and rolls a nat 20 crit and one-shots your key plot character before the first line is spoken."
That's the next innovation in gaming. Not graphics, not accessibility, not VR, not connectivity, not platform agnostic, not streaming... none of that.
The next big leap in gaming is better AI. With my 100 million, I would invest as much as I could in pushing that boundary.
I don't disagree and completely agree with your last sentence.
that person who is complaining about that game (what game is it?) should know better and the developers "should" just say "this is what the game is about."
But as I mentioned, there is another game, worlds adrift (finally remembered the name) where people have been asking for a more pve oriented server. The World's Adrift developers initially said they wouldn't but now they are.
The "pvp people" seem to be up in arms. Did the developers abandoned their vision to listen to the complainers or did they realize they can't stay in business and need that revenue? I believe it's the latter.
many people asked for an easy mode for the Dark Souls games and they got nothing. From Software could make money on their vision and not have to change.
Worlds Adrift Developers? Not so much.
I dunno about your example in that if the game doesn't change, and continues to develop, on the PVP servers I don't see where the loss is for anyone. If there is a loss it would be 95% of the players moving to the PVE servers leaving the gankers with nothing to do.
I guess before I'd create a new set of servers I'd want to take a hard looks at what could be done to make PvP endurable for the PvE crowd. In UO I didn't mind getting ganked occasionally, but every 10 minutes got to be old. Why do developers in 2018 think allowing high level people to slaughter noobs is workable?
If your vision for a game is allowing struggling starting players to get serially destroyed ad nauseum then you're a bit of an idiot. It would be good for those kinds of developers to fail, TBH.
I would agree and there is absolutely no harm in having an alternate server. Some would argue it separates the player base but that is a huge assumption that those PvE players would tolerate PvP servers instead of leaving. Which is what they would do.
all I know is that, at least from what I saw, they never had the inclination to make pve servers and suddenly they announced it.
I guess the pvp players think it's time/money taken away from developing pvp servers, separating the player base and capitulating to whiners and "breaking their promise" as they said they would never have them.
What I have to say to them is "life." Deal with it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I don't disagree and completely agree with your last sentence.
that person who is complaining about that game (what game is it?) should know better and the developers "should" just say "this is what the game is about."
But as I mentioned, there is another game, worlds adrift (finally remembered the name) where people have been asking for a more pve oriented server. The World's Adrift developers initially said they wouldn't but now they are.
The "pvp people" seem to be up in arms. Did the developers abandoned their vision to listen to the complainers or did they realize they can't stay in business and need that revenue? I believe it's the latter.
many people asked for an easy mode for the Dark Souls games and they got nothing. From Software could make money on their vision and not have to change.
Worlds Adrift Developers? Not so much.
I dunno about your example in that if the game doesn't change, and continues to develop, on the PVP servers I don't see where the loss is for anyone. If there is a loss it would be 95% of the players moving to the PVE servers leaving the gankers with nothing to do.
I guess before I'd create a new set of servers I'd want to take a hard looks at what could be done to make PvP endurable for the PvE crowd. In UO I didn't mind getting ganked occasionally, but every 10 minutes got to be old. Why do developers in 2018 think allowing high level people to slaughter noobs is workable?
If your vision for a game is allowing struggling starting players to get serially destroyed ad nauseum then you're a bit of an idiot. It would be good for those kinds of developers to fail, TBH.
I would agree and there is absolutely no harm in having an alternate server. Some would argue it separates the player base but that is a huge assumption that those PvE players would tolerate PvP servers instead of leaving. Which is what they would do.
all I know is that, at least from what I saw, they never had the inclination to make pve servers and suddenly they announced it.
I guess the pvp players think it's time/money taken away from developing pvp servers, separating the player base and capitulating to whiners and "breaking their promise" as they said they would never have them.
What I have to say to them is "life." Deal with it.
Just as a theoretical though consider this: What if the developer had to do or die with the current servers?
Necessity is the mother of invention, I've heard said.
Perhaps true innovation in this space could be achieved if the answer wasn't always abandoning the vision and back pedaling to separate servers, cash shops, FTP, and other abominations. I'll grant you encouraging correct player behavior is whopper of an undertaking - but figuring out those tough problems is what makes innovation so great.
It seems the current solutions are around milking players for cash and developing for the lowest common denominator. This thread is about making a great game - those answers won't get us there.
I don't disagree and completely agree with your last sentence.
that person who is complaining about that game (what game is it?) should know better and the developers "should" just say "this is what the game is about."
But as I mentioned, there is another game, worlds adrift (finally remembered the name) where people have been asking for a more pve oriented server. The World's Adrift developers initially said they wouldn't but now they are.
The "pvp people" seem to be up in arms. Did the developers abandoned their vision to listen to the complainers or did they realize they can't stay in business and need that revenue? I believe it's the latter.
many people asked for an easy mode for the Dark Souls games and they got nothing. From Software could make money on their vision and not have to change.
Worlds Adrift Developers? Not so much.
I dunno about your example in that if the game doesn't change, and continues to develop, on the PVP servers I don't see where the loss is for anyone. If there is a loss it would be 95% of the players moving to the PVE servers leaving the gankers with nothing to do.
I guess before I'd create a new set of servers I'd want to take a hard looks at what could be done to make PvP endurable for the PvE crowd. In UO I didn't mind getting ganked occasionally, but every 10 minutes got to be old. Why do developers in 2018 think allowing high level people to slaughter noobs is workable?
If your vision for a game is allowing struggling starting players to get serially destroyed ad nauseum then you're a bit of an idiot. It would be good for those kinds of developers to fail, TBH.
I would agree and there is absolutely no harm in having an alternate server. Some would argue it separates the player base but that is a huge assumption that those PvE players would tolerate PvP servers instead of leaving. Which is what they would do.
all I know is that, at least from what I saw, they never had the inclination to make pve servers and suddenly they announced it.
I guess the pvp players think it's time/money taken away from developing pvp servers, separating the player base and capitulating to whiners and "breaking their promise" as they said they would never have them.
What I have to say to them is "life." Deal with it.
Just as a theoretical though consider this: What if the developer had to do or die with the current servers?
Necessity is the mother of invention, I've heard said.
Perhaps true innovation in this space could be achieved if the answer wasn't always abandoning the vision and back pedaling to separate servers, cash shops, FTP, and other abominations. I'll grant you encouraging correct player behavior is whopper of an undertaking - but figuring out those tough problems is what makes innovation so great.
It seems the current solutions are around milking players for cash and developing for the lowest common denominator. This thread is about making a great game - those answers won't get us there.
Well, I've worked for small companies, one being a software company.
It's possible that the developers can pull an "i-Mac" type product out of their ass which will save the company or most likely they will fail like so many others.
Look at the game landscape; it's so full of failure, of small ventures tanking, because they were being run by passionate people who didn't have the talent or resources or patience to make it happen.
And what is that mother of invention? if it's monetization and monetization that some players don't want, they are going to scream their bloody heads off.
Even if they make a "good game" is it going to be enough to keep them in business. So many game companies release games and then close.
Heck, famous game companies, game companies that created notable games closed.
It's not always about a "we can do it!" attitude.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I don't disagree and completely agree with your last sentence.
that person who is complaining about that game (what game is it?) should know better and the developers "should" just say "this is what the game is about."
But as I mentioned, there is another game, worlds adrift (finally remembered the name) where people have been asking for a more pve oriented server. The World's Adrift developers initially said they wouldn't but now they are.
The "pvp people" seem to be up in arms. Did the developers abandoned their vision to listen to the complainers or did they realize they can't stay in business and need that revenue? I believe it's the latter.
many people asked for an easy mode for the Dark Souls games and they got nothing. From Software could make money on their vision and not have to change.
Worlds Adrift Developers? Not so much.
I dunno about your example in that if the game doesn't change, and continues to develop, on the PVP servers I don't see where the loss is for anyone. If there is a loss it would be 95% of the players moving to the PVE servers leaving the gankers with nothing to do.
I guess before I'd create a new set of servers I'd want to take a hard looks at what could be done to make PvP endurable for the PvE crowd. In UO I didn't mind getting ganked occasionally, but every 10 minutes got to be old. Why do developers in 2018 think allowing high level people to slaughter noobs is workable?
If your vision for a game is allowing struggling starting players to get serially destroyed ad nauseum then you're a bit of an idiot. It would be good for those kinds of developers to fail, TBH.
I would agree and there is absolutely no harm in having an alternate server. Some would argue it separates the player base but that is a huge assumption that those PvE players would tolerate PvP servers instead of leaving. Which is what they would do.
all I know is that, at least from what I saw, they never had the inclination to make pve servers and suddenly they announced it.
I guess the pvp players think it's time/money taken away from developing pvp servers, separating the player base and capitulating to whiners and "breaking their promise" as they said they would never have them.
What I have to say to them is "life." Deal with it.
Just as a theoretical though consider this: What if the developer had to do or die with the current servers?
Necessity is the mother of invention, I've heard said.
Perhaps true innovation in this space could be achieved if the answer wasn't always abandoning the vision and back pedaling to separate servers, cash shops, FTP, and other abominations. I'll grant you encouraging correct player behavior is whopper of an undertaking - but figuring out those tough problems is what makes innovation so great.
It seems the current solutions are around milking players for cash and developing for the lowest common denominator. This thread is about making a great game - those answers won't get us there.
Well, I've worked for small companies, one being a software company.
It's possible that the developers can pull an "i-Mac" type product out of their ass which will save the company or most likely they will fail like so many others.
Look at the game landscape; it's so full of failure, of small ventures tanking, because they were being run by passionate people who didn't have the talent or resources or patience to make it happen.
And what is that mother of invention? if it's monetization and monetization that some players don't want, they are going to scream their bloody heads off.
Even if they make a "good game" is it going to be enough to keep them in business. So many game companies release games and then close.
Heck, famous game companies, game companies that created notable games closed.
It's not always about a "we can do it!" attitude.
I know what you are saying, but, a large part of making something good, is knowing who you are making it for.
You don't try to market apple pie to people who don't like apples or pie.
As such, one of the major points of game design is "Who is our target market"... and if the answer comes back "Anyone with a dollar" you are better off opening a Starbucks then trying to build a game.
See, some games take off because they know their market, they know who this game is designed for, and they not only build the game for them, they market the game to them as well.
And it's not as easy as "Do you like Animie Panty Shots? Our game has Animie Panty Shots! You will love our game!"
Which, sadly seems to be how some MMO function.
When Wildstar closed down, people cried that it was not because that is was hardcore, and there was some other reason for it, some even cited all the casual stuff people could do.
But the reality is, the game was marketed as a hardcore raiders game, as such, it's failure is based on the fact that the game itself either didn't deliver that experience and that would be the fault of the dev team not really knowing what hardcore raiders wanted, (which happens), or they were not marketing their game to their correct audience.
Now the later is most likely true, that they really wanted anyone, put in what they thought all these other groups would want, and would retain them, and then said this was a hardcore game so a vast staple of their content was pointless. Their is a good chance they also realized too late that demographic was not going to support them and tried to turn things around, but by then it was too late, and they just ended up wasting money.
Hence their "good bye" with their story and all that jazz.. really.. only casual/moderate players get into that, or care, so the reality is, they really didn't focus on their market.
So.. having that target demographic, and reaching them is a key point of MMO development.
Just my two bits.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
A game that forces you to play together because that the entire purpose of an MMORPG. Must be sandbox, must be party based PvP, must be group based PvE content, and must have player driven economy with no "quick selling" option. Knight Online has the best economy concept I've ever seen in an MMO so that would be my example.
Must have to rely on others because this is not a single player RPG.
That's all I ask for. Simple.
The only solo aspect of the game should be working the economy and having a few farmable spots for solo players when your friends aren't online or if you just want to make some IGC yourself.
Oh and I am a firm believer that an MMORPG should have the trinity system to make people and their characters unique.
Comments
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
IMO, Gamers like collecting and unlocking and earning and working toward things, but we also like just being able to jump in and fart around sometimes too, or just to do a few things and then log out if time doesn't allow. As long as we can chip away at stuff over time we'll keep coming back I think.
Make the systems have meaning, and keep those system going and tweaked as the game keeps going.
For example, I wouldn't mind Garrisons/Class halls being updated/upgraded to current content in WoW. It seems like they make a system to last one expansion and then abandon it for the next one, or replace it with something more watered down/less meaningful.
I want the opposite of that. I want games to evolve as time goes on like characters evolve by earning levels, getting gear, unlocking skills etc...
Give us a reason to stick around every area of the game always, so we can do what we're in the mood for.
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
How about making money by making a good product?
Lazy, half hearted cash grabs are lazy, half-hearted cash grabs. Period.
The thread is about "How to make games great again." and part of the answer is "Have a vision, stick to it" and not "prostitute out your vision for lazy ass cash grabs" or "do whatever you have to in order to keep the lights on".
^--- If you're at that point you already made a crap game. This thread is about how to make a great game, not how to patch garbage to milk it for cash.
It isn't fair to any of the players when games undergo significant changes because developers are too weak in the knees to follow through with a great idea. If you want to make a great game come up with an idea and follow through with it at all costs. That is how the great emerge.
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
My Ideal MMOL Make MMO's Great Again (MMGA)
3: Social Groups/Guilds/Adventure Groups/Channels.3 B: Social Groups/Guilds
Ok one of things that always annoyed me was that there was pretty much a "Guild" and that was it. Nothing else.
In a game where we have a whole social world open to us, we should have a few levels of social groups.
As such my idea game would have more then guilds, it would have Social Groups in tiers, that would go something like this.
- Clan (This is purely like a family clan) and joining one gives someone a last name, like Do'urden, and everyone in the clan would have the last name Do'urden. So you could have your toon "Buffbody Badass" join the Do'urden clan (Assuming they accept you) and you become Buffbody Badass Do'urden. Of course clans could buy a Clan house, or hall. You can only join 1 Clan*.
- Union: This is for a Trade of a Focus. IE: The Tailors Union, Woodworkers Union, etc, and an applicant would need to meet set requirements to join a Union. IE: be a Tailor, or a Blacksmith, etc. Unions would have their own shops, where they could purchase raw materials at discounts, and get access to advanced tools of the trade. You can only join 1 Union.
- Guilds: Large Social groups for a Goal. IE: The Thieves Rogue Guild, where anyone that had levels in thief Rogue, could join. Or something a bit more broad base, like 'The Explorers Guild" for example. Halls and Shops would be open to this guild, depending on their focus. I wager up to 4 Guilds.
- Society: Pretty much just a social group, no real leader, just a group of "officers" at best, and you get a social channel, they can buy halls, or houses, for gatherings. No limit, join as many as you like, this is like a chat channel with a house attached if they want.
So, I would like to see systems where there are social groups, but some of them matter and can be important, and confer advantages and even be rivals. Like two separate tailor unions trying to have the best Tailors and renowned for their stuff and gear.3: C: Adventure Groups/LFG
AKA: PUGs, or just LFG's or some system that allows players to team up and do content together.
This needs to be a major part of the game. Getting players together to do content is what builds social aspects of the game. Equally so, having a system that makes it clear what the group is looking for is also important.
If the group is looking for a Cleric, or a healer, they don't want a bunch of Warriors and DPS HP sponges spamming their LFG.
If they are looking for levels 245 - 252, to do the dungeon, they do not want someone level 144 or less spamming their LFG, nor do they want that 795th level person trying to join either.
The LFG system of DDO was pretty good in that they could pick (by Icon) what classes they wanted, they selected (by Drop Down Box), what content they were doing, and they could enter a level range for the group. There was also a tab for anyone looking for a group to hide any LFG that did not fit them, and if they didn't hide the LFG's, any LFG that didn't fit them was made dark so that is looked "Unavailable"
This was a pretty good system.
GW2 had a system where you could teleport into the Dungeon as soon as you were in the same zone as the dungeon was in, and join the group in progress.
This was a really good feature.
Autogroup or random grouping features are horrible.
Players should have control over who enters their group, and have control over who they get to kick from the group.
Which brings us to:
Kicking players from a group.
I believe that if someone opts to kick someone from a group, they should have to select a reason for it.
Equally so, anyone kicked from a group should receive EXP and loot for as far as they were with the group.
- If they get kicked at the very start, they get nothing.
- If they made it halfway though the Dungeon, they get 50% of the exp, and 25% of what would be the end loot, regardless if the rest of the group completes the content or not.
- If they were with the group right up to the boss fight, and the group kicks them, they get 90% of the EXP and they get 75% of the end chest treasure, again no matter if the rest of the group completes the content or not.
Equally so.. Someone that joins (After someone was kicked) would suffer a -10% to loot and exp. (and the groups LFG, if they put up one, would show a "Kicked" icon on it, so anyone that joins would know this)If someone willingly leaves the group, they left, and thus get no reward. It is what it is. But the arriving/replacing player could only get their contribution, IE: If they joined at the end fight, they still would only get at best (depending on how hard the end fight is) around 20% of the EXP and Treasure.
This keeps things more fair, and best for a group to start and end a dungeon as a team, which is the way things should be.
Make MMO's Great Again:
Again, it's an MMO, there is no surprise that Social is keynote of the foundation of the game.First, given players a World to Play in. IE: Open World.
Second give them something to do with each other. IE: Dungeons.
Third Give Players a Means to Gather IE: Social Groups.
Part Four: Give Players a Means to Interact.
Social Events/Emotes/Player Interaction.
Social Events. Now I am not talking world bosses, or holiday grind events, I am talking player run social events. As campy and silly as this may sound, Weddings, Birthdays, Anniversaries, any kind of party you can think of, helps players build community.
Old MMO's like EQ did in fact have weddings, older MUD's had them as well. This gave these games a core base, where those players would be there for years after they ran out of things to do, or cared about the loot/levels, because now they had an emotional tie to the game.
The Big one is of Course getting Married.
MMO's have been around for a while, the people playing these games are not snort nosed pimple faced socially awkward juveniles anymore, they are now snot nosed pimply faced socially awkward adults. But more then that, they are married, have families, and in some cases, they met their wife in game, or their SO/children play with them to some extent.
So social/family events are a big thing to them. Allowing Player run events like this, on clan, or society level is a great way to build community.
But see, the ability to do something like get married, is what truly separates the nature and availability of something like an MMO with all these other players, from a single player game.
So social events of some kind should be looked into.
Verbs/Emotes/Interaction.
Ok. anyone but me notice the massive lack of interaction verbs open to players in most MMO's?
Aion had a whole list of Emots you could buy from their store, which I thought was really cool, that they had all these emotes to begin with, not that I liked the game enough to buy emotes, but I loved the idea they were there to start with.
Which is something I really miss from some of the older MMO's, like CoH that had fun emotes you could link to text chat as well. Moving away from that I think robbed the games of a deep ability to interact with each other, and because of that, they became "games" not social worlds.
Just something to think about on this one.
I'm currently on a 'survival' game site watching players complain that a person can die and lose her stuff. What irritates me about that scenario is that the game is clearly marked 'survival' which is a genre that usually includes forging for food, and dying and losing stuff.
Now if a bunch of people buy that game as part of the 'survival' genre and suddenly it is converted to 'themepark' to appeal to the masses it would make sense that the people who bought the game as originally advertised would be a tad bit upset. I'd pay $$$ just to see a developer once say, "Hey, read the #$%#! box before you buy"
I swear I'd no longer be surprised to visit a porn site forum and find people there complaining about online nudity. HEY, PUT SOME CLOTHS ON THESE ACTORS OR I'M LEAVING THIS SITE!
So here is where the initial question of the thread comes into play: A great game first and foremost has to start with a vision, and secondly, the game has to make sense within the context of it's own world and development. The problem is that when a game makes a huge switch the vision is compromised and the world no longer makes sense.
In short, a game in the midst of that sort of transition might be profitable but it will never be great.
But I also agree with @WargfootYV that a big part of making a great game to start with is having that vision.
As I see it, and I could be wrong, but this is my feels, without that deftness of direction, we both know that no matter how hard they try, they are just going to end up with some kind of "everything porridge" and there really is no way that will ever transform into a great game.
And I am sure there must be that one case somewhere in existence, but AFIK no game took off because it let the masses affect its development direction, and just kinda followed the money.
Too often when I hear about those games, they follow the money and it runs out anyway.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
2nd, you need a complex class system. Of all the MMOs ever, SWG had the best, 40 classes and you could be 2 and 1/2 of any combo of them, and change when you wanted. Like a ranger beastmaster doc, or a dancer image designer bounty hunter.
3. You need a development team that is given time to play the game, no hacks, to understand what the players are going through if the dev team doesn't play what they make then they have lost the love of gaming and should go work at some other coding job.
4. You need a balanced cash shop with everything in it. Big explanation incoming
Part 1Balanced is if an in-game item say a legendary sword is selling on the net for 100 bucks it sells in the game for 100 bucks sites like player auctions are a good indicator of what things are worth in what games. If 3rd parties are making more then the game dev companies the compony is not being maniged right. pay to win may have a bad rep with freeloaders but no one would fault a company from wanting to stay positive hire more people and build more better games.
Part 2 balanced so that every item in the game can be earned with no cash shop use over time, keeping in mind time is money to people. Example iv sold a lot of farmed gear in eq for years best in slot items for certian classes and builds in eq can take 4 weeks to farm 1 drop or sell it for 100 bucks. Part 3 balanced so that nothing in the game takes longer than 3 months to earn. The average American is not patient enough to learn Kung Fu for more than 3 months, even when they say and spend time learning Kung Fu.
5. Lots of customization with the characters, armor, dyes, races shiny-glowing effects etc. GW2 has proven people will spend a lot on fashion wars
6. House and Guild Halls building SWG Rift EQ2 are good examples of games that made players feel like the game world was their new home.
7. Single player soloable content with group party and raid content. Big public events that scale with the amount of players.
8. Fast action smooth gameplay.
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
Hasn't worked out too well so far. Seems that left to their own with nobody to play the "adult" role, developers are kind of lost on how to actually deliver a product.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
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
I guess before I'd create a new set of servers I'd want to take a hard looks at what could be done to make PvP endurable for the PvE crowd. In UO I didn't mind getting ganked occasionally, but every 10 minutes got to be old. Why do developers in 2018 think allowing high level people to slaughter noobs is workable?
If your vision for a game is allowing struggling starting players to get serially destroyed ad nauseum then you're a bit of an idiot. It would be good for those kinds of developers to fail, TBH.
Anyway, I see what you are saying.
This is a case of players who wanted something but were not willing to pay the price for this, when something like that happens, they have only themselves to blame.
But here is where I am left wondering, why are all these people that the game was never intended for playing it in the first place?
I also really enjoy the permanence and character building of a traditional RPG.
I like building a character and progressing over time, becoming more powerful and versatile etc. but at the same time, with the session-based gameplay, I like how each play experience is unique and you are always starting over and really exploring anew.
One of the problems with MMO's (and most game types in general) is that it takes hundreds if not thousands of hours for developers to create dozens of hours of gameplay content, and we crazy gamers burn through dozens of hours of gameplay very, very quickly.
So the solution is systems-based gameplay: you don't create story/content for players to consume, you create tools for players to make their own stories, to create and experience their own content.
All you do as the developer is create the rules and the tools, give those rules and tools a space to live in, and then let players do their thing.
So, to answer the question more directly, I'd invest that money into tools and technologies that enabled a "smart" AI DM (if such a thing is possible) to create and manage all the procedurally/programatically/"randomly" generated content it could.
Then each play session would be truly customized to you / you and your party and each adventure would be different. Like finding a really, really well prepared DM with thousands of stories prepped for your party.
So you'd still have your permanent RPG character to level up, but an endless stream of content. Expansions and additions would add more tile sets, more rulesets, more options, more tools to the tool box, more customization options, etc. but the core gameplay would still revolve around the core concept that each play experience, is session was truly something unique.
Players would have to have enough tools where every session wasn't as formulaic - the player could go outside of the bounds if simple interactions and experimentation, and the AI would have to be able to adapt.
You'd have to be able to counter the classic D&D/Pathfinder joke of, "you spend hours creating a unique and interesting backstory and spell list and all of this dialogue for a special NPC... and then your Barbarian decided to attack and rolls a nat 20 crit and one-shots your key plot character before the first line is spoken."
That's the next innovation in gaming. Not graphics, not accessibility, not VR, not connectivity, not platform agnostic, not streaming... none of that.
The next big leap in gaming is better AI. With my 100 million, I would invest as much as I could in pushing that boundary.
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
Necessity is the mother of invention, I've heard said.
Perhaps true innovation in this space could be achieved if the answer wasn't always abandoning the vision and back pedaling to separate servers, cash shops, FTP, and other abominations. I'll grant you encouraging correct player behavior is whopper of an undertaking - but figuring out those tough problems is what makes innovation so great.
It seems the current solutions are around milking players for cash and developing for the lowest common denominator. This thread is about making a great game - those answers won't get us there.
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
You don't try to market apple pie to people who don't like apples or pie.
As such, one of the major points of game design is "Who is our target market"... and if the answer comes back "Anyone with a dollar" you are better off opening a Starbucks then trying to build a game.
See, some games take off because they know their market, they know who this game is designed for, and they not only build the game for them, they market the game to them as well.
And it's not as easy as "Do you like Animie Panty Shots? Our game has Animie Panty Shots! You will love our game!"
Which, sadly seems to be how some MMO function.
When Wildstar closed down, people cried that it was not because that is was hardcore, and there was some other reason for it, some even cited all the casual stuff people could do.
But the reality is, the game was marketed as a hardcore raiders game, as such, it's failure is based on the fact that the game itself either didn't deliver that experience and that would be the fault of the dev team not really knowing what hardcore raiders wanted, (which happens), or they were not marketing their game to their correct audience.
Now the later is most likely true, that they really wanted anyone, put in what they thought all these other groups would want, and would retain them, and then said this was a hardcore game so a vast staple of their content was pointless. Their is a good chance they also realized too late that demographic was not going to support them and tried to turn things around, but by then it was too late, and they just ended up wasting money.
Hence their "good bye" with their story and all that jazz.. really.. only casual/moderate players get into that, or care, so the reality is, they really didn't focus on their market.
So.. having that target demographic, and reaching them is a key point of MMO development.
Just my two bits.
Must have to rely on others because this is not a single player RPG.
That's all I ask for. Simple.
The only solo aspect of the game should be working the economy and having a few farmable spots for solo players when your friends aren't online or if you just want to make some IGC yourself.
Oh and I am a firm believer that an MMORPG should have the trinity system to make people and their characters unique.