Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Fib MMORPGs Keep Telling Me

13»

Comments

  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,206
    Iselin said:
    Having MMORPGS where the things you do truly affect the world and everyone else in it at this moment in time is just science fiction in novels about MMORPGs like Ready player One, Reamde, etc.


    EVE, L2, Age of Wushu and many other MMORPGs. Even in AA you can change the environment with houses, gardens and putting or cutting threes. It is made poor in AA, but you can change the world.
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,298
    ikcin said:

    Sovrath, it will be player's fault, when the players start to make and sell games. The marketing models are based on historical examples and data, but not on the current conditions. 


    Look at it this way, the quests only ever reference the player as part of the story. There of course can be games that acknowledge more "special" people but I can only think of a few.

    So if the stories don't acknowledge other "special chosen" people and they always refer to "you" the player as the "chosen one" or some such thing then it's obvious that it's your story.

    But some players seem so set on the idea that all the players around them are part of that story; which, as I mentioned above, is not true unless the story actually takes that into account.

    And, if the story does take that into account then obviously it's "ok" to have other special people running around.

    These themepark mmo's try to wedge single player stories into their games but for some people it just creates unnecessary confusion.



  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Sovrath said:
    ikcin said:

    Sovrath, it will be player's fault, when the players start to make and sell games. The marketing models are based on historical examples and data, but not on the current conditions. 


    Look at it this way, the quests only ever reference the player as part of the story. There of course can be games that acknowledge more "special" people but I can only think of a few.

    So if the stories don't acknowledge other "special chosen" people and they always refer to "you" the player as the "chosen one" or some such thing then it's obvious that it's your story.

    But some players seem so set on the idea that all the players around them are part of that story; which, as I mentioned above, is not true unless the story actually takes that into account.

    And, if the story does take that into account then obviously it's "ok" to have other special people running around.

    These themepark mmo's try to wedge single player stories into their games but for some people it just creates unnecessary confusion.
    All that should really need to be said is three words, suspension of disbelief. That's a requirement in most forms of entertainment. Especially in fantasy and sci-fantasy. Readers are capable of this, movie watchers are, most single player gamers. It just seems like this is a foreign concept to many who play MMORPGs. 

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,206
    Sovrath said:
    Look at it this way, the quests only ever reference the player as part of the story. There of course can be games that acknowledge more "special" people but I can only think of a few.

    So if the stories don't acknowledge other "special chosen" people and they always refer to "you" the player as the "chosen one" or some such thing then it's obvious that it's your story.

    But some players seem so set on the idea that all the players around them are part of that story; which, as I mentioned above, is not true unless the story actually takes that into account.

    And, if the story does take that into account then obviously it's "ok" to have other special people running around.

    These themepark mmo's try to wedge single player stories into their games but for some people it just creates unnecessary confusion.

    The problem is the stories. They are solo. When you play a multiplayer game all players around you are part of your story and vice versa, you are part of theirs. I fact a MMO game does not need singleplayer quests. If you compete or cooperate with other players or groups of players for the rewards, everything you do in the game will have consequences and will be meaningful.
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Kyleran said:
    Loke666 said:
    The real problem is the serversize. Offering 10 000 players many options to change the world just isn't possible unless you do a TOR and instance all things that change.

    Now, if you had a few hundred players you could actually do that, the fewer players the more choices that matters. It still wouldn't be easy but it wouldn't be impossible.

    The best you can do without instances in a MMO is something similar to GW2: what you do have some effect but just in a very temporary way and a few hours from now everything you worked for will be reseted.

    Actually, I think there is room for a few MMO like games with 128 or 256 players and far more focus on a single player in the open world (now you have 100% focus in the instanced content where you are some kind of messiah but in the open world you are just a small piece in a huge machine). Maybe something with player run servers not that unlike Biowares Neverwinter nights.

    But for it to work in a MMO with regular sized servers or mega servers you more or less need a AI that handle everything or a whole bunch of GMs constantly on. And using tons of unpaid volunteer GMs is rarely a good idea, they tend to abuse the power. As for the AI I don't think there is something powerful enough around. and even with one of those unrealistic choices you would need to reset the servers content now and then.
    Or...you make tools available for players to do it.
    Yes, but even with tools each player need a rather large area of space or the game would be a madhouse, and that still need smaller servers unless you can make a MMORPG the size of Daggerfall.

    I nowhere in my post said anything about themepark Vs sandboxes, if you want lots of interaction with the world you need space to pull it off. A sandbox would probably be easier to design around this, while the tools is far harder to make then most people realize making enough content to make a 10K player themepark work with many world effects decided by the players just isn't humanely possible.

    You could certainly make a sandbox with the features larger then a themepark but you would still have far smaller servers then what most people today are used to.

    Myself, I don't care if a game is a themepark or a sandbox as long as it is fun to play.
  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,206
    Loke666 said:
    Yes, but even with tools each player need a rather large area of space or the game would be a madhouse, and that still need smaller servers unless you can make a MMORPG the size of Daggerfall.

    I nowhere in my post said anything about themepark Vs sandboxes, if you want lots of interaction with the world you need space to pull it off. A sandbox would probably be easier to design around this, while the tools is far harder to make then most people realize making enough content to make a 10K player themepark work with many world effects decided by the players just isn't humanely possible.

    You could certainly make a sandbox with the features larger then a themepark but you would still have far smaller servers then what most people today are used to.

    Myself, I don't care if a game is a themepark or a sandbox as long as it is fun to play.

    The Crowfall idea of small instanced solo maps is great I think. It looks poorly implemented, but if every player has a small, and relatively safe, but poor with resources realm, that will fix the problem with the solo players - they could grind, build, farm relatively safe. The tricky thing - there should be a limit of the transfer of wealth. So the players could take everything from the big open risky multiplayer world with FFA PvP, competition and cooperation, challenging mobs, player to player quests and trade, sieges, territory wars, guild wars, multiplayer crafting and economy based on the transfer of wealth, and not on the grind. But the players could not bring anything, but the gear they wear from the small realms. Such a system could fix many issues.

    Now many games use the opposite model - most of the content is singleplayer and there are some multiplayer instances. But that makes the gameplay in general solo and pointless in the terms of a MMO.

  • VolgoreVolgore Member EpicPosts: 3,872
    Amathe said:

    I help little Daisy find her doll.

    WTF?! skimming over the posting i literally read "dirty Daisy" there...




    It turned me on.

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited March 2017
    kitarad said:
    Unfortunately when a decision is made and then a player finds themselves locked out of certain areas or quests they whine and complain and the developers have to change their minds or risk the bad reviews the game will garner. So they end up creating ways to fix the faction or undo the choices the player has made or reducing the impact of the choices.

     Players cannot handle it judging from the the questions and complaints you see in  single player games. When they made some decision and obtained a bad faction with one house or companion in Pillars of Eternity they were posting about having to replay the game because certain choices screwed them for good.
    Eh, the issue here is more than likely as much with the feeling of helplessness to affect the situation in the way the player truly wants.  Which, as Torval mentioned in regards to MMORPG making "choices matter," the issue of unsatisfactory results from choosing between canned responses is an inherent problem with no simple way to resolve the issue.  At least, not without major technological advancements.

    You have a player, with the infinite depths of consciousness and a personality that makes value-based judgments in every shade of grey imaginable.  You then give them 2-5 canned responses and tell them to attempt to infer, many times, what exactly the character will say (as most RPGs these days offer a "synopsis" response description that isn't verbatim to what the character actually says when you choose the option), but also how they will say it.  I've picked response choices that seemed diplomatic based upon the response description provided to me by CDProjektRed, only to watch Geralt the Witcher deliver the general idea in a way that made them fighting words.  Hell no, I don't want to play a character that suffers from that kind of meta-schizophrenia and just "deal" with the consequences.

    And that's just touching on the discrepancies between the descriptions of the responses and what the character's actual dialogue is for that response.  People hate being locked out of content because they chose a poorly labeled response that their protagonist character delivered with all the tact of a Gallagher show, not because they cannot handle their choices actually making a difference in the game world.

    Additionally, there are times when an improper response doesn't take you down a different path, but simply shuts off content to the player.  Why would any player be okay with a response that cuts out whole swathes of game content?  It's not acceptable to simply restrict access to content based upon what amounts to (most of the time) one, singular decision made by the player..  If you wanna do a "choices matter" game right, you open up a similar set of content to replace it with so that the player doesn't experience less content, only different content.  

    I'm sure some players struggle with any kind of consequence in their video games.  But I'd say the larger majority just didn't at all expect their character to deliver the response in a particular way, or they had to settle on a response that doesn't accurately mirror their true feelings about the moral dilemma presented, which makes dealing with the consequences of the response they chose extra bitter.  Not to mention that they're attempting to respond to a character they have almost NO personality information on.  Couple that with the inability to include realistic non-verbal communication in video games (super important for us humans as well as animals), and I absolutely get why folks would be miffed.

    image
  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,206
    edited March 2017
    Eh, the issue here is more than likely as much with the feeling of helplessness to affect the situation in the way the player truly wants.  Which, as Torval mentioned in regards to MMORPG making "choices matter," the issue of unsatisfactory results from choosing between canned responses is an inherent problem with no simple way to resolve the issue.  At least, not without major technological advancements.

    You have a player, with the infinite depths of consciousness and a personality that makes value-based judgments in every shade of grey imaginable.  You then give them 2-5 canned responses and tell them to attempt to infer, many times, what exactly the character will say (as most RPGs these days offer a "synopsis" response description that isn't verbatim to what the character actually says when you choose the option), but also how they will say it.  I've picked response choices that seemed diplomatic based upon the response description provided to me by CDProjektRed, only to watch Geralt the Witcher deliver the general idea in a way that made them fighting words.  Hell no, I don't want to play a character that suffers from that kind of meta-schizophrenia and just "deal" with the consequences.

    And that's just touching on the discrepancies between the descriptions of the responses and what the character's actual dialogue is for that response.  People hate being locked out of content because they chose a poorly labeled response that their protagonist character delivered with all the tact of a Gallagher show, not because they cannot handle their choices actually making a difference in the game world.

    Additionally, there are times when an improper response doesn't take you down a different path, but simply shuts off content to the player.  Why would any player be okay with a response that cuts out whole swathes of game content?  It's not acceptable to simply restrict access to content based upon what amounts to (most of the time) one, singular decision made by the player..  If you wanna do a "choices matter" game right, you open up a similar set of content to replace it with so that the player doesn't experience less content, only different content.  

    I'm sure some players struggle with any kind of consequence in their video games.  But I'd say the larger majority just didn't at all expect their character to deliver the response in a particular way, or they had to settle on a response that doesn't accurately mirror their true feelings about the moral dilemma presented, which makes dealing with the consequences of the response they chose extra bitter.  Not to mention that they're attempting to respond to a character they have almost NO personality information on.  Couple that with the inability to include realistic non-verbal communication in video games (super important for us humans as well as animals), and I absolutely get why folks would be miffed.

    I will quote Marcin Iwinski:

    We really do our best to treat you and your gaming choices with respect. And this is what quite annoys me with certain games: When I'm playing and my choices don't matter. So then I'm asking myself, "Why the hell am I playing this, if it doesn't matter?"

    http://www.glixel.com/interviews/witcher-studio-boss-we-had-no-clue-how-to-make-games-w472316

Sign In or Register to comment.