And I think you are looking waaay to deeply into what was said and searching for more than there was though it was clearly laid out for you. On top of that I think you are hijacking a thread to throw philosophy and sociological beleifs into a forum on a video game........ yeah..... I can't speak for society and I only claim to speak for myself in forum.
you were kinda forcing my hand there... and the one insisting I was in the wrong for it
The point of it was that these sociological underpinnings are what have driven the MMO industry to make games where you are the chosen hero of the story. I was only providing background for why it happened, and not suggesting what is "right".
That doesn't mean it has to be that way in the future, but I think that unless game writers face that reality and accept that individualism is the reason why these things always end up happening in MMOs, even in the simplest quest chains, then nothing will ever change. I'm also not suggesting there needs to be a change; rather, just that if you don't like "the chosen one" mentality and want to change, that's what it'll require.
The "fix" for it is to start seeing the player's character as a member of a larger group of people all working together for a common good rather than as a solitary hero.
Actually I wasn't trying to force any hand. I read your post and thought then as I do now, you have too much time on your hands and are trying to make a point about a game. As a couple have tried to point out, it isn't as simple as saying it's an east/west thing that games are designed that way. American "gunslinger" mentality do not influence a game like, we'll use Elocks example Aion, Korean game not american and the only game I as well have been put as the only savior of humanity. I only thought your first post was waaay over thinking it and thought I'd edit my own to reflect I just said I actually felt the opposit and I am an american. Wasn't to start a debate or claiming you were right and wrong. Save Sociology 1101 for that type of thread. I wasn't debating it just pointing out that regardless of influence, we don't all share your sentiment.
Don't have an epic intro for your game setting the player up for being 'the one'.
Don't make the first few quests/missions/tutorials lead the player into being 'the one'.
Let the player decide how they want to play the game, becoming the one in the end if they complete x task.
It would really set up it's self if players had to work their way into being a hero in games, maybe enlist in some form of military, or become the best blacksmith in the server, or provide whatever to whatever faction to become recognized. I don't really see how it would be a problem, you just need content, and to not set every player up to do so eventually. It should really be a desire thing. If you wanna save the world, find out what one of the bigger issues is (could be a huge questline, or various huge questlines that you are not forced to take on) and level up to assume responsibility to take it on.
I agree- there is simply no feeling of any heroism in MMOs at all. Not only is the player doing the same things as every other player, there are consequences for anything. There can be no heroes unless there is risk involved. Real heroes risk their lives and thats why they are considered heroes. MMO 'heroes' risk 5 minutes of down time before slaying their next mob.
IMO, MMOs could take the next step by implementing some more real world type scenarios. I wish developers would create a world system and then place the players in it rather than simply developing game mechanics:
1) Realistic societies and NPCs- these need not be graphically represented. However, games should model societies and economies. The players themselves would only represent a small fraction of the population of any believable world. Where is everyone else? Where is their economic input and output? What are their societal goals and atitudes? Where is their military? What is the structure of their government?
2) Allow players to fill roles in such societies from craftsmen to members of the military to political leaders.
3) Injuries should have the potential to be serious and death should be permanent.
4) Set the stage for players and let them create at least some of the story through economics, politics and warfare.
Now, I can already hear why this wouldn't work and in the current MMO paradigm it would not. This scenario only works if the players are allowed to have multiple characters under a 'house' concept. The main character could be a lord or some type of leader and depending on status (level etc), he or she could would have multiple underlings. The player could fill every role in the game just not at the same time. Characters not in play are still affecting the world and could be given orders for things to do. Power in the game would not come from items but rather from the support of underlings, NPCs and other players.
Would there be quests and tasks? Certainly and there should be the possibility of failure. In this way, characters could become heroes and if they fail, the players wouldn't have to start from scratch.
This is why we need random-generated mobs + player-made questing (to kill or deal with those mobs). Those two things together will make sure that nobody feels like the same as everybody else, as everybody will have different quests to handle different situations differently - and when the mobs are dead, they don't respawn back at the same place - thereby creating a different situation for everybody!
Unfortunately, this translates into some odd play with the epic storylines of many themepark MMOs in which there are thousands of "The One". It makes immersion a little difficult on that level, just as killing the same Mighty Foozle at the end of such MMO storylines over and over is problematic.
A small minority seem to care about immersion breaking in this way, whereas a large chunk of players (probably the majority) care about whether they're doing something Epic vs. something Mundane.
Although admittedly it's more about presentation than Epic vs. Mundane. A good story is more about how it's told than what it's about. And if anything, that's probably the failing of MMORPGs (because they often don't tell stories well compared to non-MMO games.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Because the idea of RPG is to let you become a new character, but right now in most MMORPG, we are basically are bunch of interface with buttons to execute certain actions in the game world.
I think we need to be a character in a gameworld, where player interaction isn't just about right clicking on portraits and initiate a trade or chatbox talk, we need to interact visualy, most PvP players are actually looking for visual interaction with other players. We need to be able to interact with the environment on a interactive/visual style, we need to be able to be able to do normal human movement mechanics, it isn't just about walking, running, sprinting, but also climbing.
The idea that we are all "the chosen one" is certainly not going to work in a MMO setting, we simply cannot have 1million hero of Azeroth walking around. But if we put the idea of hero in forms of factions or similar of sorts, having that faction become the hero, and us players is the helping force to drive that 'hero' to victory, that becomes plausible because factions are much much more finite that player populations.
This also have a thing to do with storytelling, a lot of MMOG story are written in a single player format, since most are writer turn game writers, they consider one player to win, that works in single palyer or, to a lesser extent, instances, but in a open MMO environment, that kinda story just doesn't work. The problem is that, writers only considers RPG when writing, but not MMO, the story is crafted to cater one player, not the entire world, that is what, I think, causes the problem.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
Originally posted by FlawSGI Actually I wasn't trying to force any hand. I read your post and thought then as I do now, you have too much time on your hands and are trying to make a point about a game. As a couple have tried to point out, it isn't as simple as saying it's an east/west thing that games are designed that way. American "gunslinger" mentality do not influence a game like, we'll use Elocks example Aion, Korean game not american and the only game I as well have been put as the only savior of humanity. I only thought your first post was waaay over thinking it and thought I'd edit my own to reflect I just said I actually felt the opposit and I am an american. Wasn't to start a debate or claiming you were right and wrong. Save Sociology 1101 for that type of thread. I wasn't debating it just pointing out that regardless of influence, we don't all share your sentiment.
Whether you were trying or not isn't the point. And there is no such thing as "overthinking" an issue - imagine saying that to Einstein when he was trying to figure out relativity!
In the world we have now, societies influence each other. American society has heavily, heavily influenced Korean society ever since the Korean war. No one acts entirely on their own; you know that poem by John Donne, "No Man is an Island"? It's true not only of people's deaths, but also of their lives. As we live, we impact those around us, and they impact us in turn. This occurs at every level of society, from the smallest social units to the largest. When two societies meet, their beliefs, desires, and needs change those of the other society and vice-versa.
Look at China for an excellent example of this - whereas Western Europe held a largely explorative conquer-the-world mentality, China held a societal belief that the only thing important in the world was *China*. This is why they didn't feel the need to set off across the Pacific to discover new lands, didn't try to colonize new places, didn't try to take over other countries, and so on. But when Hong Kong came back under Chinese rule, and China was having to deal with the influx of the Internet and information, all of this started to change. The China that was communist is now becoming capitalist; the China that looked only to itself for all its needs has started welcoming outsiders and has started trying to learn from the other cultures of the world.
So what I'm arguing is that American culture, and this belief as a culture of the superiority of a singular man able to pull himself up by his bootstraps and save the day against an overwhelming force of evil, has spread around the world and has changed how people all over the world treat their stories. Cultures outside the U.S. are also influencing us, so that perhaps at some point the myth of the American Hero will be dispelled, but it is still a powerful and prevalent myth.
Is this myth the only driving factor of the creation of the "chosen one" stories? No, of course not - any time we try to argue in terms of "only", we're deceiving ourselves. Nothing is ever that simple. But has it influenced these stories? Absolutely!
Ok I think we can agree to disagree then!?! You apparently want to keep trying to make a point towards me that I never really disagreed with. I merely pointed out that while you see it your way, I don't. You are now going off topic, again, to do so. I never claimed that influences didn't exist cause thats common knowlegde. I just don't agree that every person wants to be the hero no matter what influences are there. But you seem to enjoy trying to sound superior, in a game forum I might add, by making a point and claiming I painted you wrong. I didn't I just disagree with your point of view, Either way I am done since you seem to take from my post something thats not there and are making a case on the point of annoyance. I won't respond yo your drivel, though well written. Let the OP have his thread back please.
Your entire post focuses on some games, in Eve for example, you're not a super duper blessed by the gods hero. You're a nobody, unless you make yourself into one.
In UO, you were just a player living in the virtual world, the Hero's were the ones who did the cool stuff in game, changed the way people thought about it.
Some other less open games, sure there's a lot of kill 10 rabbits, save 10 princesses, bring me back 10 dragon's teeth, you're my hero. But on the flip side, there are other games that don't have you do that, so why not just play one of those?
------- Check out my side project http://lfger.com/ - a mobile lfg tool for any game, any time. -------
Unfortunately, this translates into some odd play with the epic storylines of many themepark MMOs in which there are thousands of "The One". It makes immersion a little difficult on that level, just as killing the same Mighty Foozle at the end of such MMO storylines over and over is problematic.
A small minority seem to care about immersion breaking in this way, whereas a large chunk of players (probably the majority) care about whether they're doing something Epic vs. something Mundane.
Although admittedly it's more about presentation than Epic vs. Mundane. A good story is more about how it's told than what it's about. And if anything, that's probably the failing of MMORPGs (because they often don't tell stories well compared to non-MMO games.)
I don't think the story, or the epicness of what one is doing, really matters in a lot of the current crop of games. Story has taken a distant back seat to the mechanics of character improvement - the repeated killing of the Foozle for gear, so that one might do better in repeatedly killing the next higher Foozle for even better gear.
The trend nowadays is to script all this. Every last bit of it. You're in a movie, you're following a script.
WoW is scripted. Completely, to include raid bosses.
Everyone has more or less the same experience, as envisioned by the developers. If you vary from that experience (that is, you find a different way to solve the puzzle than the developers envisioned), steps are taken to make sure that experience is forstalled in the future.
The advantage of this is that it's repeatable, and automatable. It's economically efficient from the perspective of whoever is offering up the experience. If you had to have a live GM walk you through a dungeon, it would be economically impossible for some game with 10,000 players (each in units of 10), let alone one with players counted in the millions.
So, yeah. Each individual player is the hero, or one of the heroes. Your little group of 10 or 25 is the group who are going to be the Lich King's generals who will first conquer Azeroth, then get the Lich King's revenge on Sargeras.
Never mind that someone already did that six months ago!
You're going to have to accept that you really are not unique in a theme park based MMO. It's just the way it is. Suspend your disbelief and enjoy the ride.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Originally posted by FlawSGI You are now going off topic, again, to do so.
Actually, part of my argument was that this is on topic...
I never claimed that influences didn't exist cause thats common knowlegde. I just don't agree that every person wants to be the hero no matter what influences are there.
I never said that that was not the case. I'm simply trying to explain that the issue of game companies making games is caused by a social idea of it. Individuals may not want to be a hero, but overall most people do, and I gave the background of "why."
But you seem to enjoy trying to sound superior, in a game forum I might add, by making a point and claiming I painted you wrong.
Here's how the argument has gone so far: I made an argument. You claimed not that the claim was wrong, but that it was inappropriate because it didn't consider individual differences. I argued that individual differences don't matter to the claim itself. You claimed I was hijacking the thread. I argued that I was not hijacking the thread, by showing how my initial statement was part of the overall argument. You finally agreed to argue my point about societies by giving an example of how a game from another society didn't fit my model. I explained that, in fact, that society does fit my model, and provided an additional example to further back up my point.
Of the two of us, I'm not the one attempting to derail the thread. I'm only providing a theoretical model under which we can examine the issue. It's certainly possible that my theoretical model isn't the best model to use, or isn't even a valid model to use. Those would be valid arguments to make, and, in fact, you did finally make such an argument right at the end. The majority of your arguments have not been about the accuracy of mine.
I don't know where you get the idea that I'm trying to be superior - maybe it's the fact that we rarely encounter theory outside of college classrooms (and that's a shame); maybe it's the fact that I use lots of big words because they are more specific than colloquial language and carry connotations of other theoretical models that I hope to tie mine into - but whether or not a person is attempting to be "superior" has nothing to do with the argument that person is making. Your attack is an ad hominem logical fallacy.
I've felt for a long time that devs should look to table tops for their inspiration when it comes to games. What I mean here is, insert dramatic music here, the random dungeon tables. Instead of "My daughter has been kidnapped by pirates." Make the quest my daughter is missing. Then once accepted the randomizer in the game rolls up a few tables, mad libs them together on a set template for the quest and off you go. One guy may have to go to a grave yard where ghostly music drew the girl into a tomb. Another might have to deal with pirate kidnappers, and another might have to deal with her having run off with her boyfriend, a petty theif. Then the person has to prove he is two timing her to get her home. In the end you still have the same reward, the same base story (that being find the missing girl), and the same quest giver. To me this is where mmo's should evolve to, so they make a game that is more enjoyable.
The end result however is a lot more dynamic. The game paints the picture of a girl constantly running away from home and ending up in trouble. As players we wonder why, does the father abuse her, did someone she care about die, is she just a cruel little bimbo. We as players don't get to know. In our head every time we see someone ask about the quest, we think to ourselves there she goes again, or what is wrong with that girl. Maybe we think something else, but we don't think yeah all he has to do is x, because we know it's random. Sure there is a limit to how random it can be. At most there is maybe 50 different versions of the quest, but we know each time it's not exactly the same. The fact is that a changing quest, even limited in the way it works, makes a feeling of life.
It's a lot like CoX's random instance maker, but taken to another level. At the end of the day the story is what matters, not the games story, but our own. Weather we are a leet player looking to pwn face and get props or someone just looking to escape the world for an hour or two we all want that story. We all want to be the hero or villian of our life but we can't. Our world has no dragons, no super powers, and no magic. These things we chase in game form is the momentary flash of the story we would die to live if we could. Because at the end of the day, to each and every one of us, the central focus of our own life story is ourselves. And for the time we play an mmo we get to be more than someone infront of a screne typing away at the keys.
I've felt for a long time that devs should look to table tops for their inspiration when it comes to games. What I mean here is, insert dramatic music here, the random dungeon tables. Instead of "My daughter has been kidnapped by pirates." Make the quest my daughter is missing. Then once accepted the randomizer in the game rolls up a few tables, mad libs them together on a set template for the quest and off you go. One guy may have to go to a grave yard where ghostly music drew the girl into a tomb. Another might have to deal with pirate kidnappers, and another might have to deal with her having run off with her boyfriend, a petty theif. Then the person has to prove he is two timing her to get her home. In the end you still have the same reward, the same base story (that being find the missing girl), and the same quest giver. To me this is where mmo's should evolve to, so they make a game that is more enjoyable.
The end result however is a lot more dynamic. The game paints the picture of a girl constantly running away from home and ending up in trouble. As players we wonder why, does the father abuse her, did someone she care about die, is she just a cruel little bimbo. We as players don't get to know. In our head every time we see someone ask about the quest, we think to ourselves there she goes again, or what is wrong with that girl. Maybe we think something else, but we don't think yeah all he has to do is x, because we know it's random. Sure there is a limit to how random it can be. At most there is maybe 50 different versions of the quest, but we know each time it's not exactly the same. The fact is that a changing quest, even limited in the way it works, makes a feeling of life.
It's a lot like CoX's random instance maker, but taken to another level. At the end of the day the story is what matters, not the games story, but our own. Weather we are a leet player looking to pwn face and get props or someone just looking to escape the world for an hour or two we all want that story. We all want to be the hero or villian of our life but we can't. Our world has no dragons, no super powers, and no magic. These things we chase in game form is the momentary flash of the story we would die to live if we could. Because at the end of the day, to each and every one of us, the central focus of our own life story is ourselves. And for the time we play an mmo we get to be more than someone infront of a screne typing away at the keys.
I'm sorry, but I disagree completely.
First off, I think the premise is flawed. A player is only going to experience the content once. If they only experience it once, then the additional content is pretty much wasted on them. In your example, it seems like the person only gets an appreciation for the struggles of the girl if after they do the quest, they talk to someone else who got a different story.
It also seems to be like the story can just be told in a linear, straightforward way as well. You get a quest to save the girl from a tomb, then you get one to save her from pirate kidnappers, then one where she ran off with her boyfriend. Combined they tell the story of a girl who keeps running away. Follow it up with a quest to take her father to jail and you've got a nice arc.
With a tabletop game, the dungeon master is making it up on the fly. They can mad lib up a different story and kill in the details as they go. But it's functionally the same as if ahead of time they just combined those elements into 50 quests and just went in order.
The difference with an MMO is one of practicality. MMOs take time to develop and test. If you're going to code up 50 events, you want your players to experience all 50 of them, not just have 50 possibilities for one quest that each player is going to see one. It's quickly going to get out of hand trying to develop the thousands of quests needed for any MMO.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I didn't start my MMO career as the "chosen one". I started it as one of thousands of colonists on a newly colonized world. There was nothing special about who I was compared to the other colonists. The world itself, however, was equally new and strange and exciting to all of us. The story of the world, what was happening on it, the conflict between the peoples that populated it, it was exciting and interesting.
The ability to work for some of these shady taskmasters or to just make my own way exploring and adventuring made it exciting and interesting and i still felt plenty "special" to be a colonist on this world as compared to my real life self sitting on the computer chair in a terran suburb.
That world was Rubi-ka. That game was Anarchy Online. That approach made sense to me. I played it for 3 years and never had a lack of feeling "special". After all, if you're the "chosen one" in a world with a million other "chosen ones", then you aren't special either, so it's all for nothing.
Mindya, to be fair, AO eventually did add some "chosen one" elements to the game in a later expac, but overall it remained mostly true to the original as long as I played it.
SWG (pre-nge) was the same way, i wasn't "chosen" for anything, i was just a regular correllian, trying to make my way in this amazing universe full of interesting things, creatures and places.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
I've felt for a long time that devs should look to table tops for their inspiration when it comes to games. What I mean here is, insert dramatic music here, the random dungeon tables. Instead of "My daughter has been kidnapped by pirates." Make the quest my daughter is missing. Then once accepted the randomizer in the game rolls up a few tables, mad libs them together on a set template for the quest and off you go. One guy may have to go to a grave yard where ghostly music drew the girl into a tomb. Another might have to deal with pirate kidnappers, and another might have to deal with her having run off with her boyfriend, a petty theif. Then the person has to prove he is two timing her to get her home. In the end you still have the same reward, the same base story (that being find the missing girl), and the same quest giver. To me this is where mmo's should evolve to, so they make a game that is more enjoyable.
The end result however is a lot more dynamic. The game paints the picture of a girl constantly running away from home and ending up in trouble. As players we wonder why, does the father abuse her, did someone she care about die, is she just a cruel little bimbo. We as players don't get to know. In our head every time we see someone ask about the quest, we think to ourselves there she goes again, or what is wrong with that girl. Maybe we think something else, but we don't think yeah all he has to do is x, because we know it's random. Sure there is a limit to how random it can be. At most there is maybe 50 different versions of the quest, but we know each time it's not exactly the same. The fact is that a changing quest, even limited in the way it works, makes a feeling of life.
It's a lot like CoX's random instance maker, but taken to another level. At the end of the day the story is what matters, not the games story, but our own. Weather we are a leet player looking to pwn face and get props or someone just looking to escape the world for an hour or two we all want that story. We all want to be the hero or villian of our life but we can't. Our world has no dragons, no super powers, and no magic. These things we chase in game form is the momentary flash of the story we would die to live if we could. Because at the end of the day, to each and every one of us, the central focus of our own life story is ourselves. And for the time we play an mmo we get to be more than someone infront of a screne typing away at the keys.
Your talkin' my kind of english.
Games should be random and totally unpredicatble. Not just the combat, but everything else.
Noone has come up with a system that appeases all players yet. It doesn't help that especially in the west players will only kill 10 rats after klicking on a npc with a !-sign. Its also easier for the devs to create 1000 meaningless static quests than a highly dynamic quest-generator.
Player generated quests would not help either (low quality).
The only thing I can imagine is to remove all quests from the game and create a world that is dynamic by itself. Landscape that changes over time (and creating new treasures and dungeons to find and explore). AI nations that fight against each other for land, resources and out of ulterior motives. Make them build cities and industries, have their own technology and give them a basic intelligence and motivation.
Then add the player. His only goal: survive and prosper. The world itself is the enemy.
--- Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I've felt for a long time that devs should look to table tops for their inspiration when it comes to games. What I mean here is, insert dramatic music here, the random dungeon tables. Instead of "My daughter has been kidnapped by pirates." Make the quest my daughter is missing. Then once accepted the randomizer in the game rolls up a few tables, mad libs them together on a set template for the quest and off you go. One guy may have to go to a grave yard where ghostly music drew the girl into a tomb. Another might have to deal with pirate kidnappers, and another might have to deal with her having run off with her boyfriend, a petty theif. Then the person has to prove he is two timing her to get her home. In the end you still have the same reward, the same base story (that being find the missing girl), and the same quest giver. To me this is where mmo's should evolve to, so they make a game that is more enjoyable.
The end result however is a lot more dynamic. The game paints the picture of a girl constantly running away from home and ending up in trouble. As players we wonder why, does the father abuse her, did someone she care about die, is she just a cruel little bimbo. We as players don't get to know. In our head every time we see someone ask about the quest, we think to ourselves there she goes again, or what is wrong with that girl. Maybe we think something else, but we don't think yeah all he has to do is x, because we know it's random. Sure there is a limit to how random it can be. At most there is maybe 50 different versions of the quest, but we know each time it's not exactly the same. The fact is that a changing quest, even limited in the way it works, makes a feeling of life.
It's a lot like CoX's random instance maker, but taken to another level. At the end of the day the story is what matters, not the games story, but our own. Weather we are a leet player looking to pwn face and get props or someone just looking to escape the world for an hour or two we all want that story. We all want to be the hero or villian of our life but we can't. Our world has no dragons, no super powers, and no magic. These things we chase in game form is the momentary flash of the story we would die to live if we could. Because at the end of the day, to each and every one of us, the central focus of our own life story is ourselves. And for the time we play an mmo we get to be more than someone infront of a screne typing away at the keys.
Do you want to have 10 quests with three different paths each (you will experience only one path anyway) or 30 quests with only one path? 10 stories or 30 stories? Dynamic quests are hard to do because the risk + time invested = reward ratio must be identical for all players doing that quest.
--- Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Do you want to have 10 quests with three different paths each (you will experience only one path anyway) or 30 quests with only one path? 10 stories or 30 stories? Dynamic quests are hard to do because the risk + time invested = reward ratio must be identical for all players doing that quest.
How about zero quests and a game environment that evolves and creates changing opportunities based on player actions or non actions?
Do you want to have 10 quests with three different paths each (you will experience only one path anyway) or 30 quests with only one path? 10 stories or 30 stories? Dynamic quests are hard to do because the risk + time invested = reward ratio must be identical for all players doing that quest.
How about zero quests and a game environment that evolves and creates changing opportunities based on player actions or non actions?
See my first post.
--- Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Do you want to have 10 quests with three different paths each (you will experience only one path anyway) or 30 quests with only one path? 10 stories or 30 stories? Dynamic quests are hard to do because the risk + time invested = reward ratio must be identical for all players doing that quest.
How about zero quests and a game environment that evolves and creates changing opportunities based on player actions or non actions?
I would love to play that kind of game. Maybe someday someone can develop that kind of system properly.
Ill weigh in on this one. Interesting topic and discussion all in all. Kudos to some of the well thought out posts thus far.
First, while I do agree with something that was mentioned earlier in this thread by one poster about the whole concept of individualism (american/western/Randian/whatever/etc) informing the way that games are made, and the people to which they are geared, I would argue that the whole "seeking out of recognition and acknowledgement from our peers and/or communities" thing is an intrinsically human want, and is not entirely culturally determined. Essentially, I believe that being "special" is something that everyone wants and needs on some level or another.
Humans are naturally social/political animals (because lets face it, we are not only mammals, but primates, and thus are naturally suited to living in societies/groups), and part of that involves being acknowledged and respected in some way, shape, or form, by those around us. Its all about fitting in, or at least knowing where you fit in, and lets face it, the top is pretty appealing most of the time, so thats where we want to be...
However, with all of that said, I will note that I personally find far more enjoyment in the whole "Hey look, you're a nobody, go carve your place in the world with this crappy sword, and btw, dont get killed you n00b" way of generating a character, because it leaves far more to me in terms of creating my character's story and is just more interesting as a whole. I enjoy the fact that if im going to make something of myself, it will be entirely up to me and will be determined based on my decisions and interactions with others. This lies at the core of the whole Sandbox Vs Themepark debate, because it is a question of whether people prefer to be guided (easymode), or to create something for themselves, which is infinitely more challenging.
This leads into a discussion that is, both to myself as well as to many other people who have studied sociology and psychology to some degree, quite interesting, which is the way in which games speak to both our inherent human nature as well as the state and general feel of our societies and cultures. I think that it ultimately becomes a battle between the parts of ourselves that are rooted so deeply in our hearts and minds we barely even know that they're even there... It becomes about which traits in each of us are more dominant.
Themeparks, to me, speak to the laziness of humans, as well as their need to be led and/or cared for by some system greater than themselves, as it basicaly holds their hands and tells them what they are and where theyre going.
Sandboxes however, are the exact opposite, and speaks to our drive to excel, take risks, and reach for great heights. This format is also truer to reality, as the world is a big scary place, and you are more often than not very small and unimposing at the start, and anything worth having in life, you will have to make for yourself, earn, and put a great deal of effort into.
Which we choose or gravitate towards speaks volumes on who we are as people, I think.
Dunno, maybe just rambling, might all be nonsense .
Bah I meant to click strongly disagree, but misclicked and ended up voting strongly agree
Anyway, I can follow your logic quite far, but it is your concluding paragraph that I disagree with. Youre saying that quests should be redone, and make like a 100 different versions of basically the exact same thing, just wording or phrasing it differently.
You know what - if that's your point, it would truly suck. If I have to put up with many quests being all the same, I would be drawn out of my skull having to read every single one to comprehend which of the linear quests this one actually is. If it is going to be repetitous, at least make the quest easy to understand! Preferably, get rid of all the booring quests - that would actually be more of a solution I want!
Edit: And one last thing: Id like to NOT be superman in my games. I'd like to be Joe Schmoe, with some above average skills perhaps Cookie Cutter Heroes is so ironic.
I've always wanted to see an MMORPG that had less content.
Why? Because the content is what is causing this problem. The developers add a new epic storyline quest to the game, and a week later, everyone in the game has completed said quest and is now a legendary champion. So what do you have to brag about?
Where a game really shines is when roleplayers make a name for themselves, Not because they completed the same task that everyone else did, but because they completed a task no one else could. Very few MMORPG's have been able to create an enviroment where such things are possiple.
Anyone remember Isvaan Shogaatsu from EVE online? He was the Guy who planned the takedown of the Ubiqua Seraph Corporation, and succeeded! Not only that, but in the process, destroyed a ship of which there were only two in the whole game. EVE did something right here. They created a world where you could becoume famous. Log onto EVE and ask just about anyone who has been around, and they know Istvaan.
He truly is a legend.
I wont be the only one who says this, and soon, developers will take note; We, as MMORPG gamers want a world that we can shape for ourselves, where we can strive to become greater, and succeed. We want to become legends and heros, not just in our own mind, but in the eyes of our peers. We want to fight, conquer, and win!
The only drawback to what I propose is that for a system like this to work, you would have to allow players to fail as well. For Istvaans plan to work, he had to make someone elses fail. Not only did he destroy all that Ubiqua Seraph had worked for, he even kept their leaders vacuum packed corpse as a trophy to humiliate them. While I am okay with this kind of world, there are many players who always want equality. They pay for subscriptions as well, and because they do- We are all "The Chosen One".
Comments
Actually I wasn't trying to force any hand. I read your post and thought then as I do now, you have too much time on your hands and are trying to make a point about a game. As a couple have tried to point out, it isn't as simple as saying it's an east/west thing that games are designed that way. American "gunslinger" mentality do not influence a game like, we'll use Elocks example Aion, Korean game not american and the only game I as well have been put as the only savior of humanity. I only thought your first post was waaay over thinking it and thought I'd edit my own to reflect I just said I actually felt the opposit and I am an american. Wasn't to start a debate or claiming you were right and wrong. Save Sociology 1101 for that type of thread. I wasn't debating it just pointing out that regardless of influence, we don't all share your sentiment.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
To stop this problem;
Don't have an epic intro for your game setting the player up for being 'the one'.
Don't make the first few quests/missions/tutorials lead the player into being 'the one'.
Let the player decide how they want to play the game, becoming the one in the end if they complete x task.
It would really set up it's self if players had to work their way into being a hero in games, maybe enlist in some form of military, or become the best blacksmith in the server, or provide whatever to whatever faction to become recognized. I don't really see how it would be a problem, you just need content, and to not set every player up to do so eventually. It should really be a desire thing. If you wanna save the world, find out what one of the bigger issues is (could be a huge questline, or various huge questlines that you are not forced to take on) and level up to assume responsibility to take it on.
I agree- there is simply no feeling of any heroism in MMOs at all. Not only is the player doing the same things as every other player, there are consequences for anything. There can be no heroes unless there is risk involved. Real heroes risk their lives and thats why they are considered heroes. MMO 'heroes' risk 5 minutes of down time before slaying their next mob.
IMO, MMOs could take the next step by implementing some more real world type scenarios. I wish developers would create a world system and then place the players in it rather than simply developing game mechanics:
1) Realistic societies and NPCs- these need not be graphically represented. However, games should model societies and economies. The players themselves would only represent a small fraction of the population of any believable world. Where is everyone else? Where is their economic input and output? What are their societal goals and atitudes? Where is their military? What is the structure of their government?
2) Allow players to fill roles in such societies from craftsmen to members of the military to political leaders.
3) Injuries should have the potential to be serious and death should be permanent.
4) Set the stage for players and let them create at least some of the story through economics, politics and warfare.
Now, I can already hear why this wouldn't work and in the current MMO paradigm it would not. This scenario only works if the players are allowed to have multiple characters under a 'house' concept. The main character could be a lord or some type of leader and depending on status (level etc), he or she could would have multiple underlings. The player could fill every role in the game just not at the same time. Characters not in play are still affecting the world and could be given orders for things to do. Power in the game would not come from items but rather from the support of underlings, NPCs and other players.
Would there be quests and tasks? Certainly and there should be the possibility of failure. In this way, characters could become heroes and if they fail, the players wouldn't have to start from scratch.
This is why we need random-generated mobs + player-made questing (to kill or deal with those mobs). Those two things together will make sure that nobody feels like the same as everybody else, as everybody will have different quests to handle different situations differently - and when the mobs are dead, they don't respawn back at the same place - thereby creating a different situation for everybody!
A small minority seem to care about immersion breaking in this way, whereas a large chunk of players (probably the majority) care about whether they're doing something Epic vs. something Mundane.
Although admittedly it's more about presentation than Epic vs. Mundane. A good story is more about how it's told than what it's about. And if anything, that's probably the failing of MMORPGs (because they often don't tell stories well compared to non-MMO games.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I strongly agree
Because the idea of RPG is to let you become a new character, but right now in most MMORPG, we are basically are bunch of interface with buttons to execute certain actions in the game world.
I actually started a thread about having new mechanics in MMOG (not specifically MMORPG) in terms of platform/freerunning and stealth based gameplay http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4319187/thread/320662#4319187
I think we need to be a character in a gameworld, where player interaction isn't just about right clicking on portraits and initiate a trade or chatbox talk, we need to interact visualy, most PvP players are actually looking for visual interaction with other players. We need to be able to interact with the environment on a interactive/visual style, we need to be able to be able to do normal human movement mechanics, it isn't just about walking, running, sprinting, but also climbing.
The idea that we are all "the chosen one" is certainly not going to work in a MMO setting, we simply cannot have 1million hero of Azeroth walking around. But if we put the idea of hero in forms of factions or similar of sorts, having that faction become the hero, and us players is the helping force to drive that 'hero' to victory, that becomes plausible because factions are much much more finite that player populations.
This also have a thing to do with storytelling, a lot of MMOG story are written in a single player format, since most are writer turn game writers, they consider one player to win, that works in single palyer or, to a lesser extent, instances, but in a open MMO environment, that kinda story just doesn't work. The problem is that, writers only considers RPG when writing, but not MMO, the story is crafted to cater one player, not the entire world, that is what, I think, causes the problem.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
Whether you were trying or not isn't the point. And there is no such thing as "overthinking" an issue - imagine saying that to Einstein when he was trying to figure out relativity!
In the world we have now, societies influence each other. American society has heavily, heavily influenced Korean society ever since the Korean war. No one acts entirely on their own; you know that poem by John Donne, "No Man is an Island"? It's true not only of people's deaths, but also of their lives. As we live, we impact those around us, and they impact us in turn. This occurs at every level of society, from the smallest social units to the largest. When two societies meet, their beliefs, desires, and needs change those of the other society and vice-versa.
Look at China for an excellent example of this - whereas Western Europe held a largely explorative conquer-the-world mentality, China held a societal belief that the only thing important in the world was *China*. This is why they didn't feel the need to set off across the Pacific to discover new lands, didn't try to colonize new places, didn't try to take over other countries, and so on. But when Hong Kong came back under Chinese rule, and China was having to deal with the influx of the Internet and information, all of this started to change. The China that was communist is now becoming capitalist; the China that looked only to itself for all its needs has started welcoming outsiders and has started trying to learn from the other cultures of the world.
So what I'm arguing is that American culture, and this belief as a culture of the superiority of a singular man able to pull himself up by his bootstraps and save the day against an overwhelming force of evil, has spread around the world and has changed how people all over the world treat their stories. Cultures outside the U.S. are also influencing us, so that perhaps at some point the myth of the American Hero will be dispelled, but it is still a powerful and prevalent myth.
Is this myth the only driving factor of the creation of the "chosen one" stories? No, of course not - any time we try to argue in terms of "only", we're deceiving ourselves. Nothing is ever that simple. But has it influenced these stories? Absolutely!
Ok I think we can agree to disagree then!?! You apparently want to keep trying to make a point towards me that I never really disagreed with. I merely pointed out that while you see it your way, I don't. You are now going off topic, again, to do so. I never claimed that influences didn't exist cause thats common knowlegde. I just don't agree that every person wants to be the hero no matter what influences are there. But you seem to enjoy trying to sound superior, in a game forum I might add, by making a point and claiming I painted you wrong. I didn't I just disagree with your point of view, Either way I am done since you seem to take from my post something thats not there and are making a case on the point of annoyance. I won't respond yo your drivel, though well written. Let the OP have his thread back please.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
The funny thing is..
The title is right, MMO's treat us like we're all the chosen hero of the world, risen from a weak little grunt to the conquerer of all things evil.
but
It's single player rpg's that treat one character in your group, and not all of them, as heroes.
Just a funny musing.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
Your entire post focuses on some games, in Eve for example, you're not a super duper blessed by the gods hero. You're a nobody, unless you make yourself into one.
In UO, you were just a player living in the virtual world, the Hero's were the ones who did the cool stuff in game, changed the way people thought about it.
Some other less open games, sure there's a lot of kill 10 rabbits, save 10 princesses, bring me back 10 dragon's teeth, you're my hero. But on the flip side, there are other games that don't have you do that, so why not just play one of those?
-------
Check out my side project http://lfger.com/ - a mobile lfg tool for any game, any time.
-------
I don't think the story, or the epicness of what one is doing, really matters in a lot of the current crop of games. Story has taken a distant back seat to the mechanics of character improvement - the repeated killing of the Foozle for gear, so that one might do better in repeatedly killing the next higher Foozle for even better gear.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
OK, let's cut to the chase.
The trend nowadays is to script all this. Every last bit of it. You're in a movie, you're following a script.
WoW is scripted. Completely, to include raid bosses.
Everyone has more or less the same experience, as envisioned by the developers. If you vary from that experience (that is, you find a different way to solve the puzzle than the developers envisioned), steps are taken to make sure that experience is forstalled in the future.
The advantage of this is that it's repeatable, and automatable. It's economically efficient from the perspective of whoever is offering up the experience. If you had to have a live GM walk you through a dungeon, it would be economically impossible for some game with 10,000 players (each in units of 10), let alone one with players counted in the millions.
So, yeah. Each individual player is the hero, or one of the heroes. Your little group of 10 or 25 is the group who are going to be the Lich King's generals who will first conquer Azeroth, then get the Lich King's revenge on Sargeras.
Never mind that someone already did that six months ago!
You're going to have to accept that you really are not unique in a theme park based MMO. It's just the way it is. Suspend your disbelief and enjoy the ride.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
Actually, part of my argument was that this is on topic...
I never said that that was not the case. I'm simply trying to explain that the issue of game companies making games is caused by a social idea of it. Individuals may not want to be a hero, but overall most people do, and I gave the background of "why."
Here's how the argument has gone so far:
I made an argument.
You claimed not that the claim was wrong, but that it was inappropriate because it didn't consider individual differences.
I argued that individual differences don't matter to the claim itself.
You claimed I was hijacking the thread.
I argued that I was not hijacking the thread, by showing how my initial statement was part of the overall argument.
You finally agreed to argue my point about societies by giving an example of how a game from another society didn't fit my model.
I explained that, in fact, that society does fit my model, and provided an additional example to further back up my point.
Of the two of us, I'm not the one attempting to derail the thread. I'm only providing a theoretical model under which we can examine the issue. It's certainly possible that my theoretical model isn't the best model to use, or isn't even a valid model to use. Those would be valid arguments to make, and, in fact, you did finally make such an argument right at the end. The majority of your arguments have not been about the accuracy of mine.
I don't know where you get the idea that I'm trying to be superior - maybe it's the fact that we rarely encounter theory outside of college classrooms (and that's a shame); maybe it's the fact that I use lots of big words because they are more specific than colloquial language and carry connotations of other theoretical models that I hope to tie mine into - but whether or not a person is attempting to be "superior" has nothing to do with the argument that person is making. Your attack is an ad hominem logical fallacy.
I've felt for a long time that devs should look to table tops for their inspiration when it comes to games. What I mean here is, insert dramatic music here, the random dungeon tables. Instead of "My daughter has been kidnapped by pirates." Make the quest my daughter is missing. Then once accepted the randomizer in the game rolls up a few tables, mad libs them together on a set template for the quest and off you go. One guy may have to go to a grave yard where ghostly music drew the girl into a tomb. Another might have to deal with pirate kidnappers, and another might have to deal with her having run off with her boyfriend, a petty theif. Then the person has to prove he is two timing her to get her home. In the end you still have the same reward, the same base story (that being find the missing girl), and the same quest giver. To me this is where mmo's should evolve to, so they make a game that is more enjoyable.
The end result however is a lot more dynamic. The game paints the picture of a girl constantly running away from home and ending up in trouble. As players we wonder why, does the father abuse her, did someone she care about die, is she just a cruel little bimbo. We as players don't get to know. In our head every time we see someone ask about the quest, we think to ourselves there she goes again, or what is wrong with that girl. Maybe we think something else, but we don't think yeah all he has to do is x, because we know it's random. Sure there is a limit to how random it can be. At most there is maybe 50 different versions of the quest, but we know each time it's not exactly the same. The fact is that a changing quest, even limited in the way it works, makes a feeling of life.
It's a lot like CoX's random instance maker, but taken to another level. At the end of the day the story is what matters, not the games story, but our own. Weather we are a leet player looking to pwn face and get props or someone just looking to escape the world for an hour or two we all want that story. We all want to be the hero or villian of our life but we can't. Our world has no dragons, no super powers, and no magic. These things we chase in game form is the momentary flash of the story we would die to live if we could. Because at the end of the day, to each and every one of us, the central focus of our own life story is ourselves. And for the time we play an mmo we get to be more than someone infront of a screne typing away at the keys.
I'm sorry, but I disagree completely.
First off, I think the premise is flawed. A player is only going to experience the content once. If they only experience it once, then the additional content is pretty much wasted on them. In your example, it seems like the person only gets an appreciation for the struggles of the girl if after they do the quest, they talk to someone else who got a different story.
It also seems to be like the story can just be told in a linear, straightforward way as well. You get a quest to save the girl from a tomb, then you get one to save her from pirate kidnappers, then one where she ran off with her boyfriend. Combined they tell the story of a girl who keeps running away. Follow it up with a quest to take her father to jail and you've got a nice arc.
With a tabletop game, the dungeon master is making it up on the fly. They can mad lib up a different story and kill in the details as they go. But it's functionally the same as if ahead of time they just combined those elements into 50 quests and just went in order.
The difference with an MMO is one of practicality. MMOs take time to develop and test. If you're going to code up 50 events, you want your players to experience all 50 of them, not just have 50 possibilities for one quest that each player is going to see one. It's quickly going to get out of hand trying to develop the thousands of quests needed for any MMO.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I didn't start my MMO career as the "chosen one". I started it as one of thousands of colonists on a newly colonized world. There was nothing special about who I was compared to the other colonists. The world itself, however, was equally new and strange and exciting to all of us. The story of the world, what was happening on it, the conflict between the peoples that populated it, it was exciting and interesting.
The ability to work for some of these shady taskmasters or to just make my own way exploring and adventuring made it exciting and interesting and i still felt plenty "special" to be a colonist on this world as compared to my real life self sitting on the computer chair in a terran suburb.
That world was Rubi-ka. That game was Anarchy Online. That approach made sense to me. I played it for 3 years and never had a lack of feeling "special". After all, if you're the "chosen one" in a world with a million other "chosen ones", then you aren't special either, so it's all for nothing.
Mindya, to be fair, AO eventually did add some "chosen one" elements to the game in a later expac, but overall it remained mostly true to the original as long as I played it.
SWG (pre-nge) was the same way, i wasn't "chosen" for anything, i was just a regular correllian, trying to make my way in this amazing universe full of interesting things, creatures and places.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
Your talkin' my kind of english.
Games should be random and totally unpredicatble. Not just the combat, but everything else.
FEEL THE FULL
FREE-TO-FLAME
FANTASY.
Agreed.
Noone has come up with a system that appeases all players yet. It doesn't help that especially in the west players will only kill 10 rats after klicking on a npc with a !-sign. Its also easier for the devs to create 1000 meaningless static quests than a highly dynamic quest-generator.
Player generated quests would not help either (low quality).
The only thing I can imagine is to remove all quests from the game and create a world that is dynamic by itself. Landscape that changes over time (and creating new treasures and dungeons to find and explore). AI nations that fight against each other for land, resources and out of ulterior motives. Make them build cities and industries, have their own technology and give them a basic intelligence and motivation.
Then add the player. His only goal: survive and prosper. The world itself is the enemy.
---
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Do you want to have 10 quests with three different paths each (you will experience only one path anyway) or 30 quests with only one path? 10 stories or 30 stories? Dynamic quests are hard to do because the risk + time invested = reward ratio must be identical for all players doing that quest.
---
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
How about zero quests and a game environment that evolves and creates changing opportunities based on player actions or non actions?
See my first post.
---
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I would love to play that kind of game. Maybe someday someone can develop that kind of system properly.
Ill weigh in on this one. Interesting topic and discussion all in all. Kudos to some of the well thought out posts thus far.
First, while I do agree with something that was mentioned earlier in this thread by one poster about the whole concept of individualism (american/western/Randian/whatever/etc) informing the way that games are made, and the people to which they are geared, I would argue that the whole "seeking out of recognition and acknowledgement from our peers and/or communities" thing is an intrinsically human want, and is not entirely culturally determined. Essentially, I believe that being "special" is something that everyone wants and needs on some level or another.
Humans are naturally social/political animals (because lets face it, we are not only mammals, but primates, and thus are naturally suited to living in societies/groups), and part of that involves being acknowledged and respected in some way, shape, or form, by those around us. Its all about fitting in, or at least knowing where you fit in, and lets face it, the top is pretty appealing most of the time, so thats where we want to be...
However, with all of that said, I will note that I personally find far more enjoyment in the whole "Hey look, you're a nobody, go carve your place in the world with this crappy sword, and btw, dont get killed you n00b" way of generating a character, because it leaves far more to me in terms of creating my character's story and is just more interesting as a whole. I enjoy the fact that if im going to make something of myself, it will be entirely up to me and will be determined based on my decisions and interactions with others. This lies at the core of the whole Sandbox Vs Themepark debate, because it is a question of whether people prefer to be guided (easymode), or to create something for themselves, which is infinitely more challenging.
This leads into a discussion that is, both to myself as well as to many other people who have studied sociology and psychology to some degree, quite interesting, which is the way in which games speak to both our inherent human nature as well as the state and general feel of our societies and cultures. I think that it ultimately becomes a battle between the parts of ourselves that are rooted so deeply in our hearts and minds we barely even know that they're even there... It becomes about which traits in each of us are more dominant.
Themeparks, to me, speak to the laziness of humans, as well as their need to be led and/or cared for by some system greater than themselves, as it basicaly holds their hands and tells them what they are and where theyre going.
Sandboxes however, are the exact opposite, and speaks to our drive to excel, take risks, and reach for great heights. This format is also truer to reality, as the world is a big scary place, and you are more often than not very small and unimposing at the start, and anything worth having in life, you will have to make for yourself, earn, and put a great deal of effort into.
Which we choose or gravitate towards speaks volumes on who we are as people, I think.
Dunno, maybe just rambling, might all be nonsense
.
My 2c.
Bah I meant to click strongly disagree, but misclicked and ended up voting strongly agree
Anyway, I can follow your logic quite far, but it is your concluding paragraph that I disagree with. Youre saying that quests should be redone, and make like a 100 different versions of basically the exact same thing, just wording or phrasing it differently.
You know what - if that's your point, it would truly suck. If I have to put up with many quests being all the same, I would be drawn out of my skull having to read every single one to comprehend which of the linear quests this one actually is. If it is going to be repetitous, at least make the quest easy to understand! Preferably, get rid of all the booring quests - that would actually be more of a solution I want!
Edit: And one last thing: Id like to NOT be superman in my games. I'd like to be Joe Schmoe, with some above average skills perhaps
Cookie Cutter Heroes is so ironic.
I've always wanted to see an MMORPG that had less content.
Why? Because the content is what is causing this problem. The developers add a new epic storyline quest to the game, and a week later, everyone in the game has completed said quest and is now a legendary champion. So what do you have to brag about?
Where a game really shines is when roleplayers make a name for themselves, Not because they completed the same task that everyone else did, but because they completed a task no one else could. Very few MMORPG's have been able to create an enviroment where such things are possiple.
Anyone remember Isvaan Shogaatsu from EVE online? He was the Guy who planned the takedown of the Ubiqua Seraph Corporation, and succeeded! Not only that, but in the process, destroyed a ship of which there were only two in the whole game. EVE did something right here. They created a world where you could becoume famous. Log onto EVE and ask just about anyone who has been around, and they know Istvaan.
He truly is a legend.
I wont be the only one who says this, and soon, developers will take note; We, as MMORPG gamers want a world that we can shape for ourselves, where we can strive to become greater, and succeed. We want to become legends and heros, not just in our own mind, but in the eyes of our peers. We want to fight, conquer, and win!
The only drawback to what I propose is that for a system like this to work, you would have to allow players to fail as well. For Istvaans plan to work, he had to make someone elses fail. Not only did he destroy all that Ubiqua Seraph had worked for, he even kept their leaders vacuum packed corpse as a trophy to humiliate them. While I am okay with this kind of world, there are many players who always want equality. They pay for subscriptions as well, and because they do- We are all "The Chosen One".