It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Playing - Waiting on GW2Formerly played - Aion, CO, CoX, EVE, GW1, LotRO, RIFT, Ryzom, SWG, SWTOR, WAR, WoWTrialed - AA, DDO, EQ2, L2, MxO, RYL, TERA, VSoHBeta'd - HGL, GW2, PotBS, SWTOR, TCoS, TRAnticipating - GW2, PS2
I could imagine a GTA MMO.
This is just some thoughts I came up with while reading this article so don't flame me too bad. Add some more ideas if you want, i personally just salivate thinking about this.
Originally posted by Alienovrlord Nice article which brings up the question that MMORPG developers should have asked years ago.Why did all other genres of video games have successes that sold millions of copies while MMORPGs never came close (outside of those wacky Korean gaming markets)The OP 's article hits it exactly - terrible game design. First generation MMORPGs were designed to be timesinks. Fun was secondary to keeping people playing as long as possible. Unfortunately there were enough people willing to pay for this kind of tedious gameplay to make MMORPGs just profitable enough for it to become a formula that plagued the genre for a decade.Now we've finally seen that MMORPGs can meet with the same success as FPS, RTS and all the other video game genres out there. All they need to do is make a FUN game. Amazing that this idea, which has been central in every other type of video game, is only just now catching on with MMORPG developers.It's also amazing how many people bemoan about the 'good old days' and whine that new generation MMORPGs aren't a 'challenge'. This is one time when I am truly glad a market is driven by profits, not by blind opinions about what is correct.
Did you even play MMO's when the first generation was released? The fact that you put it all down to 'terrible game design' being only reason the genere didn't have the same market as the single player games tells me you didn't, our you have seriously forgotten what it was like then. When I started my first in '97 I was still in high school- getting my parents to accept paying a monthly fee for internet acces was hard enough (I spent my early days thanking AOL for the CD's in the mail to keep me going) and getting acces to a credit card to pay monthly for a game was mission impossible- the concept of paying for a game in a store, then having to pay again- every month- was crazy.
Comparing that to now, when almost everyone has broadband internet access and people pay monthly fees for everything from satellite radio stations to internet for their cellphone, and your saying 'terrible game design'? I don't think so. For the fact that they managed to even make an MMO work on my pentium 1 computer with 14.4 dialup, I'd say awesome game design.
and as for your view on first generation MMO's being timesinks- I never once felt that UO was a timesink- EQ yes, but at least the concept was brand new at the time, and not the same timesink part 3 like we get now.
Originally posted by RevMrBlack I also think that it was a well written article, and I agree with the writer's opinion that GTA has a good sense of sandbox and linear content. I've even mentioned to my friends before how an MMO like GTA would be interesting, and could provide a good blend of sandbox and linear progression elements. Morrowind is another game someone mentioned that I think was a good example of the same style of design.Personally, I think more developers need to "roll the dice" and break the mold of current MMO design. Copying WoW's linear design will only go so far in the future. How many players will get burned out on the same repetitive gameplay and grind in the future, if MMOs all end up like WoW? I know I'm already burned out on that style of play, and I only spent 6 months in WoW.And to Shoal, and his comment that all MMOs have sandbox content, I say "get serious".In WoW, aside from combat, there is only Crafting. And it's not very complicated. Plus it's almost a complete money sink until near the max skill when you can finally make items that are half way decent compared to looted items. Other than Crafting and PvP (which is simply a different grind for gear), WoW has nothing. The only thing I found sandboxy was when I practiced wall-walking to see areas of the gameworld no one was meant to see. And of course, that got fixed. There's no player cities, housing (guild or otherwise), trophies (like you spoke of), etc.CoX, even though I like the game for a number of reasons, is utterly one sided. The only thing that made me play it for the amount I did was the people I knew, and RPing.SWG had TONS of sandbox content, but no linear progression (quests). Ryzom and EVE are other examples of similar styles.I think you've simply got a different idea than the writer as to what sandbox content means. To me, his idea is content, designed in part by the developers, that players can choose to do (or not) at their leisure. It's not things like the player deciding to go grind mobs somewhere instead of following the quest lines. More like a series of quests that the player can do as an aside to the main storyline of quests. Or simply places they can go explore, like a dungeon off in the mountains. Basically, giving the player the freedom to explore the world, and progress their character, in more than one fundamental way. Grinding mobs in area A vs area B is not intrinsically different, it's only different in ways like XP rates, and loot drops. But both are the same thing: PvE combat.An example of a blend of sandbox and linear design could have a tons of quests, of varying types, scattered over the gamespace. Players could pick and choose which ones they wanted to do, and might only be limited by faction ratings, prerequisite quests (ie. quest lines) and possibly level ranges (so lvl 1s don't start doing the impossible end quests right off the bat). This is simply an example, but you can see how different this is from current MMO game design.Personally, I haven't seen any MMO to date that has had a decent blend of Linear design and Sandbox content. It's either completely one sided, or one type with a couple minor features of the other thrown in. If someone could create an MMO with a good blend (50/50, or maybe 60/40) of the two types, I think they could really have a winner. You could get people from both types of gameplay in one game, and your potential market would increase. That is, assuming, that you make sure each type is equally well done. Having polished sandbox content, and bug ridden, boring linear gameplay just wouldn't cut it, for example.But I think because of the success of WoW, and the urge for MMO investors to get a piece of the pie, most of the future MMOs will revolve around the exceedingly linear gameplay design. Also, the idea of sandbox content, created by developers, will probably not be implemented anytime soon. MMOs are all about the money, no matter what people say. And developers aren't necessarily willing to devote time and resources (ie. money) to content that players may or may not use. They might put in player content, but it'll be shallow and most likely ignored while other linear content gets regularly updated.It's sad but true. Your turn. *points to the poster below him*
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
There is only ONE thing GTA can teach......
and its coming our way http://www.rockstargames.com/IV/trailer_splash.html
Originally posted by NeverForever mmorpgs don't sell millions simply because of the american/western culture. computers are still for geeks,(1/3 of every houshold all over the world will disagree with that statement) and MMORPGS are still targeted toward computer games not console games. MMORPGs are complicated and believe it or not... rarely PURE hack and slash. This is why the market will never become 'WTF HUGE!'. The market IS growing however and the future is unknown. Some of its future is already known like AoC which as far we can tell right now will be ported towards a console, something i'm not really looking forward too, AoC i am looking forward to but not to the console portingThe article touches base on major key points. Many of which are true. However, one must realize.... MMORPGs mostly are directed to 1 type of world and 1 alone.... Fantasy. In the Fantasy world there is chaos and disorder and survival is through 1 thing.... power. This is what makes MMORPGs exciting. The struggle for power. If any of you have played an MMORPG where power is easily gained, the game blatently sucks. Why? cuz it's too easy. wel we all know which game is meant here and fully agree with you on thisHowever to compare MMORPGs to GTA, is totally... stupid? GTA is mostly single player which makes ALL, lemme repeat, ALL the difference. Lets compare MMORPGs to racing sims why don't you? Again fully agree with youThe plain fact is, MMORPGs need to adapt toward the casual audiance WITHOUT losing the hardcore players. WoW has attempted to shift toward the casual players, time required to play WoW is signficantly lower to say that of Lineage 2 or final fantasy XI. I believe it's possible hot hit 70 in WoW in literally 3 days of straight playing. That is a joke.There are many ideas out there, but the fact is, it's not that easy to take ideas from the drawing board into the real thing. There is more to it then that.
Why in the heck is he lauding a kiddie game. Hardly something an adult would play. My kids played it for a bit, not something that kept their attention for long.
Any MMO that attempts to take lessons from them is going to be in a rude surprise.
Originally posted by Ciredric Why in the heck is he lauding a kiddie game. Hardly something an adult would play. My kids played it for a bit, not something that kept their attention for long. Any MMO that attempts to take lessons from them is going to be in a rude surprise.
Understand that at your age that maybe people between 18/35 might be kids, but this does not count as a little kids game my friend. For me little kids are age 12 and under and no one should let their kids of that age play GTA, atleast not the responseble parents. But like i said i think your kids are some what older then 18 thus you still might see them as kids as they are your kids regardless how old they get
And to get back on Topic, a game like GTA as a MMO will not work right now i say so because to many people are unable to play a sandbox mmo we have seen this in the past, so i don't understand all these people wanting something like GTA, sure it awesome game but it should remain just that the single player version. tech can not handle that much complexity into a MMO yet, this might happen but tech isn't really for that atleast another 2/3 years.
Originally posted by LordFarid I would love a GTA MMO, imagine a GTA FFA PVP server where you can create gangs, or even join the police.
I too would love a GTA pvp mmo... just to demonstrate what a miserable failure such a thing would be.
For an example of what it would be like, see ShadowBane.