Some definitions of the term "game" say that rules are the essential element of a game that differentiates it from "play". Other definitions say that a true absence of rules is an impossible condition, and all play must take place in some environment, which has rules even if those rules aren't written down.
Reality does in fact have a lot of inescapable rules, such as the laws of physics, which humans chafe under. The existence of entropy, for example, makes your house get dirty and gradually decay, and then you have to waste your time and money fixing it when you could be doing something much more fun.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
At the same time games are an interactive media and more like a playground.
I would also argue many of those mediums are more like brainwashing. It's arguable whether that is good or bad. It depends on what you personally like and what is the popular thought.
So? May be people like interactive movies more than playgrounds?
In fact, I am reading a novel now (Abaddon's Gate .. Expanse #3) and it is 100x (for me) more entertaining than EQ, UO or even WoW. Freedom and enjoyment does not always correlate.
At the same time games are an interactive media and more like a playground.
I would also argue many of those mediums are more like brainwashing. It's arguable whether that is good or bad. It depends on what you personally like and what is the popular thought.
So? May be people like interactive movies more than playgrounds?
In fact, I am reading a novel now (Abaddon's Gate .. Expanse #3) and it is 100x (for me) more entertaining than EQ, UO or even WoW. Freedom and enjoyment does not always correlate.
At the same time games are an interactive media and more like a playground.
I would also argue many of those mediums are more like brainwashing. It's arguable whether that is good or bad. It depends on what you personally like and what is the popular thought.
So? May be people like interactive movies more than playgrounds?
In fact, I am reading a novel now (Abaddon's Gate .. Expanse #3) and it is 100x (for me) more entertaining than EQ, UO or even WoW. Freedom and enjoyment does not always correlate.
Video games don't have to be playgrounds with lots of freedom. I'm just saying I feel that they have gotten way too stringent IMO. This is just my opinion based on what I enjoyed in different activities in my life.
Video games don't have to be playgrounds with lots of freedom. I'm just saying I feel that they have gotten way too stringent IMO. This is just my opinion based on what I enjoyed in different activities in my life.
and i say .. they are designed for audience OTHER than you. Too stringent for you .. just right for their target audience.
Video games don't have to be playgrounds with lots of freedom. I'm just saying I feel that they have gotten way too stringent IMO. This is just my opinion based on what I enjoyed in different activities in my life.
and i say .. they are designed for audience OTHER than you. Too stringent for you .. just right for their target audience.
That is what targeting means, right?
What is the point of saying this? I clearly stated this is my opinion because I wanted to avoid a comment of this nature.
I remember when I was a kid it wasn't always fun. There was a lot of bullying both physically and verbally. I was on both ends. I think this is why there is such a large push for strict rules to be enforced.
"I have found a desire within myself that no experience in this world can satisfy; the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." ~ C. S. Lewis
Video games don't have to be playgrounds with lots of freedom. I'm just saying I feel that they have gotten way too stringent IMO. This is just my opinion based on what I enjoyed in different activities in my life.
and i say .. they are designed for audience OTHER than you. Too stringent for you .. just right for their target audience.
That is what targeting means, right?
What is the point of saying this? I clearly stated this is my opinion because I wanted to avoid a comment of this nature.
To alleviate my boredom? And make you a participant in that
Don't take it personally, but this forum is more fun than MMOs.
In your UO example, once people had the freedom to choose (Trammel), a gigantic percentage of the player base moved away from the supposed golden age.
I think you could argue that the understanding of psychological aspects has gotten a lot deeper. I was alive when lobotomies were still considered a legitimate medical procedure.....
But most didn't like either one. Sure, Trammel brought back a bunch of players, but then the bleeding just started back up again. And Felucca was different in converting the dungeons to that arena PvP thing they did. Some liked it, but it turned into a zerg thing.
I think the real argument is more along the lines of Flyte's point. These game designers do not understand "people" at all. There is pizz poor social play in them. They've walked away from it because they can't figure it out. But there's a natural human interactive element that should guide them. They would rather build "go here, do this" and then charge you for extras.
These game designers do not understand "people" at all. There is pizz poor social play in them.
Or maybe they do ...
to add, I rarely party these days because the people I'm running into aren't really great.
I could subject myself to these people or do the stuff where I don't need these people.
Party play/social play is only good with "good people".
I'm going to assume games that have very small communities are probably the way to go going forward.
I believe they just like to control people. It is a common theme in this age whether it is in-game or outside of the game. You are probably correct in that they do know what they are doing. I'm sure they discuss such things as part of the development process.
These game designers do not understand "people" at all. There is pizz poor social play in them.
Or maybe they do ...
to add, I rarely party these days because the people I'm running into aren't really great.
I could subject myself to these people or do the stuff where I don't need these people.
Party play/social play is only good with "good people".
I'm going to assume games that have very small communities are probably the way to go going forward.
On of the jokes my clique used to make, was, if we want a challenge, invite a full group to add to scaling and just carry them through the dungeon...
But if you want a real challenge... ask them to help.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
These game designers do not understand "people" at all. There is pizz poor social play in them.
Or maybe they do ...
to add, I rarely party these days because the people I'm running into aren't really great.
I could subject myself to these people or do the stuff where I don't need these people.
Party play/social play is only good with "good people".
I'm going to assume games that have very small communities are probably the way to go going forward.
No, that's just giving up on it.
If you want to create a world, one with freedom, "Sandbox", then you actually want the "bad guys". That's for the "good guys" to have game play against them.
Now right away, what's your thoughts? I know what most people are going to think... 1) But the "bad guys" will run all over the "good guys" just like in every game so far. 2) Nobody wants to play with the "bad guys".
But that's entirely based on the very fact that developers don't understand people, or what it takes to -ALLOW- people to play together (NOT MAKE them play together).
And here's the big problem with this failure. A) It's game play of a deeper social nature, more like a real world would have. It's a "System", and once created doesn't require more work and costs for the game. The players provide the content. And it's a lot of content even when not "in play" (bad guys being "bad"), because it's a constant social interest for all.
The whole answer is to identify "criminal" activities and give tools to the player base to extract retribution on the perpetrator that actually hurts said player. This gives said would-be-players pause to do such "criminal" acts in the first place. But it doesn't remove such activity entirely if the cause outweighs the costs. This is the depth of social interactions that is hard to see for those who simply don't want to do it, or lack the ability to see it... ...at the cost of a much deeper worldly interaction between players, a much deeper game, a much more interesting world, and the glue that binds players together in a natural social atmosphere.
When I was growing up, people didn't have access to automatic weapons.
Sarin gas wasn't a thing, flesh eating bacteria was unheard of, and terrorism was a rarity, not the daily norm.
We've managed to make the world a deadlier place to live in.
Like the old saying goes, if you make it idiot proof, they'll just make a better idiot. Welcome to the 21st century. Stop trying to compare it to the 60's.
I completely disagree with this. The world had always been just as deadly, the 24 hour news coverage and social media just put it in your face now. There is video for everything now.
You forget that terrorists attacks have always happened, it is just that not all of people had access to the info, nor was it politicized. Furthermore, the violence that occurred in WWI and WWII to civilian populations makes ISIS look like boy scouts.
Armenian genocode Rape of nanking Holocaust Bhutan death march in the philipines Whatever stalin did to people
Funny you say flesh eating bacteria was unheard of but miss all the other more common things that kill people so much more frequently than flesh eating bacteria.
To put terrorism in perspective, way more people die in accidental drowning in the US (10 per day) than terrorism by far.
Humans have always been shit, we just record it a lot better now.
Cryomatrix
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Video games don't have to be playgrounds with lots of freedom. I'm just saying I feel that they have gotten way too stringent IMO. This is just my opinion based on what I enjoyed in different activities in my life.
and i say .. they are designed for audience OTHER than you. Too stringent for you .. just right for their target audience.
That is what targeting means, right?
Good to see Nari has not given up on singing the same old songs
There is room for different audiences, MMOs of a different strip, that is true for the whole of gaming. Unless you want us only playing Destiny 5 and SWB 4 in a couple of years time.
When I was growing up, people didn't have access to automatic weapons.
Sarin gas wasn't a thing, flesh eating bacteria was unheard of, and terrorism was a rarity, not the daily norm.
We've managed to make the world a deadlier place to live in.
Like the old saying goes, if you make it idiot proof, they'll just make a better idiot. Welcome to the 21st century. Stop trying to compare it to the 60's.
I completely disagree with this. The world had always been just as deadly, the 24 hour news coverage and social media just put it in your face now. There is video for everything now.
You forget that terrorists attacks have always happened, it is just that not all of people had access to the info, nor was it politicized. Furthermore, the violence that occurred in WWI and WWII to civilian populations makes ISIS look like boy scouts.
Armenian genocode Rape of nanking Holocaust Bhutan death march in the philipines Whatever stalin did to people
Funny you say flesh eating bacteria was unheard of but miss all the other more common things that kill people so much more frequently than flesh eating bacteria.
To put terrorism in perspective, way more people die in accidental drowning in the US (10 per day) than terrorism by far.
Humans have always been shit, we just record it a lot better now.
Cryomatrix
We also organize to stop terrible things and help other recover when possible. We're not the only species that acts badly. Look at chimpanzees. They organize attacks and then bite each other's nutz off, rip them apart, before killing them. Killer whales and cats are known to play with their prey before killing them. There's an ugly side to nature and we're not excluded. But we also do positive things, as a species and as individuals. Look at the astounding charitable works and amounts of money that flows around the world. There's good and there's bad. Lets hope the good keeps winning.
As far as social interaction in games, there's obviously some places I don't we should go. But there's also some stuff, as far as conflicts and competition, that I think would be good for MMORPG's.
When I was growing up, people didn't have access to automatic weapons.
Sarin gas wasn't a thing, flesh eating bacteria was unheard of, and terrorism was a rarity, not the daily norm.
We've managed to make the world a deadlier place to live in.
Like the old saying goes, if you make it idiot proof, they'll just make a better idiot. Welcome to the 21st century. Stop trying to compare it to the 60's.
I completely disagree with this. The world had always been just as deadly, the 24 hour news coverage and social media just put it in your face now. There is video for everything now.
You forget that terrorists attacks have always happened, it is just that not all of people had access to the info, nor was it politicized. Furthermore, the violence that occurred in WWI and WWII to civilian populations makes ISIS look like boy scouts.
Armenian genocode Rape of nanking Holocaust Bhutan death march in the philipines Whatever stalin did to people
Funny you say flesh eating bacteria was unheard of but miss all the other more common things that kill people so much more frequently than flesh eating bacteria.
To put terrorism in perspective, way more people die in accidental drowning in the US (10 per day) than terrorism by far.
Humans have always been shit, we just record it a lot better now.
Cryomatrix
We also organize to stop terrible things and help other recover when possible. We're not the only species that acts badly. Look at chimpanzees. They organize attacks and then bite each other's nutz off, rip them apart, before killing them. Killer whales and cats are known to play with their prey before killing them. There's an ugly side to nature and we're not excluded. But we also do positive things, as a species and as individuals. Look at the astounding charitable works and amounts of money that flows around the world. There's good and there's bad. Lets hope the good keeps winning.
As far as social interaction in games, there's obviously some places I don't we should go. But there's also some stuff, as far as conflicts and competition, that I think would be good for MMORPG's.
Rather deep for here, people will be falling of the boards.
It is true that developments in communication have meant that people now see a lot of awful things they did not see before. From cities being bombed to tornado destruction, this is making people think these events now happen far more than they used to. For those in their twenties though this is the norm, so this process will over decades equalise itself.
It is also true to a lesser extent in my eyes, that we have increased our capability to do awful things to each other. Its just that in the last 20 years communication technology has vastly outstripped any other, so its effect is paramount.
And yes, we have seen many good things as well, you can dwell too much on the dark side of life.
These game designers do not understand "people" at all. There is pizz poor social play in them.
Or maybe they do ...
to add, I rarely party these days because the people I'm running into aren't really great.
I could subject myself to these people or do the stuff where I don't need these people.
Party play/social play is only good with "good people".
I'm going to assume games that have very small communities are probably the way to go going forward.
No, that's just giving up on it.
If you want to create a world, one with freedom, "Sandbox", then you actually want the "bad guys". That's for the "good guys" to have game play against them.
Now right away, what's your thoughts? I know what most people are going to think... 1) But the "bad guys" will run all over the "good guys" just like in every game so far. 2) Nobody wants to play with the "bad guys".
But that's entirely based on the very fact that developers don't understand people, or what it takes to -ALLOW- people to play together (NOT MAKE them play together).
And here's the big problem with this failure. A) It's game play of a deeper social nature, more like a real world would have. It's a "System", and once created doesn't require more work and costs for the game. The players provide the content. And it's a lot of content even when not "in play" (bad guys being "bad"), because it's a constant social interest for all.
The whole answer is to identify "criminal" activities and give tools to the player base to extract retribution on the perpetrator that actually hurts said player. This gives said would-be-players pause to do such "criminal" acts in the first place. But it doesn't remove such activity entirely if the cause outweighs the costs. This is the depth of social interactions that is hard to see for those who simply don't want to do it, or lack the ability to see it... ...at the cost of a much deeper worldly interaction between players, a much deeper game, a much more interesting world, and the glue that binds players together in a natural social atmosphere.
Or maybe as @Sevroth said, they understand better then most.
It is not an issue of Freedom Among the players, but the fact that Players Have the Freedom to play with the community they want to play with.
As such, if anyone was given the choice to not have to deal with "bad people" or "criminal like" behavior , they wouldn't, not in their game, not in their real life, no one would miss the criminal element among their society if it went away.
And make no mistake, This is not limited to the "Good People", good people just find it easier to follow the rules because that is more along what they want to start with, but, no one wants to play with "bad people" not even other "bad people", if you look at criminal groups and organizations, they do not tolerate any dissent among their ranks, while they may not respect 'societies rules', they demand that their 'personal' rules and codes be followed. As such, even criminals don't want "bad people" among their ranks.
In games, we can see all the time, it's still the same, "bad people" don't like when their jerk behavior is turned upon them, case in point, Gankers don't like it when they get Ganked, Cheaters don't like it when other use Cheats against them, etc
Truth is, what makes a person "Bad" is a deliberate desire to be disruptive to the society around them, this quality is such that even other bad people don't want that kind of person around them, everyone that is a jerk in game, knows they are a jerk, and they are this way because the game allows them to be.
This is why games that allow this kind of behavior die swiftly, even games with some kind of "Law" system in place, still often die away, because people don't want to deal with it, "bad people" don't get the hint they are not wanted, by anyone, in any type of environment, be it a game, or real life.
So, what profit is it to a developer to entertain these people, when they don't even want to play with each other?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
There is room for different audiences, MMOs of a different strip, that is true for the whole of gaming. Unless you want us only playing Destiny 5 and SWB 4 in a couple of years time.
Who is "you"? What i want is irrelevant. It is about the market. There is clearly no room for new AAA "traditional" MMOs, or at least the devs think so.
These game designers do not understand "people" at all. There is pizz poor social play in them.
Or maybe they do ...
to add, I rarely party these days because the people I'm running into aren't really great.
I could subject myself to these people or do the stuff where I don't need these people.
Party play/social play is only good with "good people".
I'm going to assume games that have very small communities are probably the way to go going forward.
No, that's just giving up on it.
If you want to create a world, one with freedom, "Sandbox", then you actually want the "bad guys". That's for the "good guys" to have game play against them.
Now right away, what's your thoughts? I know what most people are going to think... 1) But the "bad guys" will run all over the "good guys" just like in every game so far. 2) Nobody wants to play with the "bad guys".
But that's entirely based on the very fact that developers don't understand people, or what it takes to -ALLOW- people to play together (NOT MAKE them play together).
And here's the big problem with this failure. A) It's game play of a deeper social nature, more like a real world would have. It's a "System", and once created doesn't require more work and costs for the game. The players provide the content. And it's a lot of content even when not "in play" (bad guys being "bad"), because it's a constant social interest for all.
The whole answer is to identify "criminal" activities and give tools to the player base to extract retribution on the perpetrator that actually hurts said player. This gives said would-be-players pause to do such "criminal" acts in the first place. But it doesn't remove such activity entirely if the cause outweighs the costs. This is the depth of social interactions that is hard to see for those who simply don't want to do it, or lack the ability to see it... ...at the cost of a much deeper worldly interaction between players, a much deeper game, a much more interesting world, and the glue that binds players together in a natural social atmosphere.
erm "no"?
I'm not sure I really understand what you are trying to say but if I'm getting it:
Look, some games have the bad guys (players who run amok causing all sorts of "mayhem" for others) and some don't.
I disagree with your quote:
If you want to create a world, one with freedom, "Sandbox", then
you actually want the "bad guys". That's for the "good guys" to have
game play against them.
I'm perfectly happy to have a sandbox without the bad guys. I'll live, really.
You're assuming that people who don't want to play with the "bad guys" would be ok with it with better systems. That's simply not the case.
I"m also perfectly happy to have one with the bad guys should my mood dictate that's the case.I played Lineage 2 for almost 5 years. I get it.
But I think that developers are getting that as time goes on, players are losing patience with these "I'm an open sandbox and anything goes" type games.
This is not to say there isn't an audience for them. There is. And more power to them. But if developers want to make money they are going to have to pick a segment of the population and go for it.
I don't think most AAA developers are going to make games where people can't opt out of the wild wild west of gamers.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
There is room for different audiences, MMOs of a different strip, that is true for the whole of gaming. Unless you want us only playing Destiny 5 and SWB 4 in a couple of years time.
Who is "you"? What i want is irrelevant. It is about the market. There is clearly no room for new AAA "traditional" MMOs, or at least the devs think so.
"Us" as in everyone, that's the way the "market" is headed now. I did not mention AAA, perhaps that was someone else. Diversity of gameplay is key in any hobby, just like diversity in TV shows is important.
Talking TV we have a load of shows with an element of fantasy or Sci-Fi in them. I like most of them but it is nice to have a show with none or indeed set in a real SF world like ST Discovery.
Funnily enough that show is showing the extremes, the PvE Federation, as opposed to the PvP Teran Empire.
People can feel pleasure for a variety of reasons. If you're hungry and grab a burger, your body is satisfied and happy. If you have a strong social network, you enjoy the interaction. If you build a project every step of the way, you feel great success at its release.
Some of these are basic activities (like eating food), others are much more complex (like developing a community project).
Unstructured games can be incredibly fun. At the same time, they require a large investment and the payoff isn't immediate. Feeling happy with Ultima Online takes a bit of dedication. Imposing heavy rules on an unstructured game won't necessarily change this reward pathway - something like Ultime Online with firm rules will still reward you for similar things (unless you change the nature of the rewards).
What I believe is happening, is a change of reward structure, complemented by the introduction of heavy rules. Publishers understood that appealing to simpler "needs" yields quicker rewards for the player. This allows a publisher to heavily monetise players very early on, because the rewards are already working. If I asked you to give me $50 first day into playing Ultima Online, you'd probably laugh at me - you are still figuring it all out and don't feel attached. If I let you play Farmville, where everything guides your every action, flashing "good job" signs at you since minute one, asking for $50 is a lot more manageable.
This practice reached a tricky point. It is a steep uphill battle for any game that isn't "basic". If you release a deep social experience, you are trying to capture people for weeks. Your game promises (and hopefully delivers) a meaningful payoff unlike a "basic" game, but this isn't immediately obvious. All the while, "basic" games are competing for your player base offering sweet short-term rewards. It's a bit of an extreme example - games with no short-term goals are probably bad, but it's generally what is happening.
So from my experience, it comes down to what actions are being rewarded - and how. Where is the "fun" in a game? And if it isn't immediate, is the mainstream user ready to explore that?
Running Minecraft servers has driven me crazy for that exact reason. Kids today are not ready to interact with anything that doesn't provide an immediate "reward". A successful product with open gameplay ends up being as much about educating players as about the gameplay design.
Because of the environment today, filled with experiences rewarding your "basic" needs, young players have to be retaught the value of long-term experiences.
These game designers do not understand "people" at all. There is pizz poor social play in them.
Or maybe they do ...
to add, I rarely party these days because the people I'm running into aren't really great.
I could subject myself to these people or do the stuff where I don't need these people.
Party play/social play is only good with "good people".
I'm going to assume games that have very small communities are probably the way to go going forward.
No, that's just giving up on it.
If you want to create a world, one with freedom, "Sandbox", then you actually want the "bad guys". That's for the "good guys" to have game play against them.
Now right away, what's your thoughts? I know what most people are going to think... 1) But the "bad guys" will run all over the "good guys" just like in every game so far. 2) Nobody wants to play with the "bad guys".
But that's entirely based on the very fact that developers don't understand people, or what it takes to -ALLOW- people to play together (NOT MAKE them play together).
And here's the big problem with this failure. A) It's game play of a deeper social nature, more like a real world would have. It's a "System", and once created doesn't require more work and costs for the game. The players provide the content. And it's a lot of content even when not "in play" (bad guys being "bad"), because it's a constant social interest for all.
The whole answer is to identify "criminal" activities and give tools to the player base to extract retribution on the perpetrator that actually hurts said player. This gives said would-be-players pause to do such "criminal" acts in the first place. But it doesn't remove such activity entirely if the cause outweighs the costs. This is the depth of social interactions that is hard to see for those who simply don't want to do it, or lack the ability to see it... ...at the cost of a much deeper worldly interaction between players, a much deeper game, a much more interesting world, and the glue that binds players together in a natural social atmosphere.
erm "no"?
I'm not sure I really understand what you are trying to say but if I'm getting it:
Look, some games have the bad guys (players who run amok causing all sorts of "mayhem" for others) and some don't.
I disagree with your quote:
If you want to create a world, one with freedom, "Sandbox", then
you actually want the "bad guys". That's for the "good guys" to have
game play against them.
I'm perfectly happy to have a sandbox without the bad guys. I'll live, really.
You're assuming that people who don't want to play with the "bad guys" would be ok with it with better systems. That's simply not the case.
I"m also perfectly happy to have one with the bad guys should my mood dictate that's the case.I played Lineage 2 for almost 5 years. I get it.
But I think that developers are getting that as time goes on, players are losing patience with these "I'm an open sandbox and anything goes" type games.
This is not to say there isn't an audience for them. There is. And more power to them. But if developers want to make money they are going to have to pick a segment of the population and go for it.
I don't think most AAA developers are going to make games where people can't opt out of the wild wild west of gamers.
I think maybe you and Ungood both misunderstood what I mean by "bad guys".
Look if the "bad guys" are NPC's, that's alright, right? If you can turn those "bad guys" into players, and replace AI with players, but still not have the "bad guys" run amuck over the other players through controls, wouldn't that be better?
If said "bad guys" (as players) can be defeated and end their "crime", and it gets played out with player intelligence vs. player intelligence, wouldn't that be better than "go there and kill the MOB's" ?
If players can form an evil cult, and have certain game play allowed against other player groups who know that there are player formed evil cults out there against them, and results in competition for relics and battles based on the intelligence of real people, wouldn't that be better?
The point is that you can control what the "bad guys" can do, and punish them heavily if they step out of line and go free-for-all. And still have it play out freely in the desired game play. You do this by creating goals, such as ownership of specific items (relics, tomes, other specific things), land spaces (ancient ruins, ritual grounds, etc.), specific knowledge (summoning the cult's daemon), and whatever else. So in other words, you allow specific goals as long as certain conditions are maintained.
I know this is hard to follow without me writing up a very long post, but see if you can think this through and how it can benefit a game world. As game play, with players behind it, making it into a competitive and free flowing thing. And no player has to participate, it's limited to those who join. And it's free to do anywhere in the game world outside of where, say, player run cities have laws against fighting and you become "criminal" in their city's zone of control if you fight there.
All this can be set up as a system, and once that's done it's game play of a free nature (anywhere, any time/ more or less) forever.
Comments
Reality does in fact have a lot of inescapable rules, such as the laws of physics, which humans chafe under. The existence of entropy, for example, makes your house get dirty and gradually decay, and then you have to waste your time and money fixing it when you could be doing something much more fun.
So? May be people like interactive movies more than playgrounds?
In fact, I am reading a novel now (Abaddon's Gate .. Expanse #3) and it is 100x (for me) more entertaining than EQ, UO or even WoW. Freedom and enjoyment does not always correlate.
That is what targeting means, right?
Don't take it personally, but this forum is more fun than MMOs.
Sure, Trammel brought back a bunch of players, but then the bleeding just started back up again.
And Felucca was different in converting the dungeons to that arena PvP thing they did. Some liked it, but it turned into a zerg thing.
I think the real argument is more along the lines of Flyte's point. These game designers do not understand "people" at all. There is pizz poor social play in them. They've walked away from it because they can't figure it out.
But there's a natural human interactive element that should guide them. They would rather build "go here, do this" and then charge you for extras.
Once upon a time....
to add, I rarely party these days because the people I'm running into aren't really great.
I could subject myself to these people or do the stuff where I don't need these people.
Party play/social play is only good with "good people".
I'm going to assume games that have very small communities are probably the way to go going forward.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
But if you want a real challenge... ask them to help.
If you want to create a world, one with freedom, "Sandbox", then you actually want the "bad guys". That's for the "good guys" to have game play against them.
Now right away, what's your thoughts? I know what most people are going to think...
1) But the "bad guys" will run all over the "good guys" just like in every game so far.
2) Nobody wants to play with the "bad guys".
But that's entirely based on the very fact that developers don't understand people, or what it takes to -ALLOW- people to play together (NOT MAKE them play together).
And here's the big problem with this failure.
A) It's game play of a deeper social nature, more like a real world would have.
The whole answer is to identify "criminal" activities and give tools to the player base to extract retribution on the perpetrator that actually hurts said player. This gives said would-be-players pause to do such "criminal" acts in the first place. But it doesn't remove such activity entirely if the cause outweighs the costs.
This is the depth of social interactions that is hard to see for those who simply don't want to do it, or lack the ability to see it...
...at the cost of a much deeper worldly interaction between players, a much deeper game, a much more interesting world, and the glue that binds players together in a natural social atmosphere.
Once upon a time....
You forget that terrorists attacks have always happened, it is just that not all of people had access to the info, nor was it politicized. Furthermore, the violence that occurred in WWI and WWII to civilian populations makes ISIS look like boy scouts.
Armenian genocode
Rape of nanking
Holocaust
Bhutan death march in the philipines
Whatever stalin did to people
Funny you say flesh eating bacteria was unheard of but miss all the other more common things that kill people so much more frequently than flesh eating bacteria.
To put terrorism in perspective, way more people die in accidental drowning in the US (10 per day) than terrorism by far.
Humans have always been shit, we just record it a lot better now.
Cryomatrix
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
There is room for different audiences, MMOs of a different strip, that is true for the whole of gaming. Unless you want us only playing Destiny 5 and SWB 4 in a couple of years time.
We're not the only species that acts badly.
Look at chimpanzees. They organize attacks and then bite each other's nutz off, rip them apart, before killing them. Killer whales and cats are known to play with their prey before killing them.
There's an ugly side to nature and we're not excluded. But we also do positive things, as a species and as individuals.
Look at the astounding charitable works and amounts of money that flows around the world.
There's good and there's bad.
Lets hope the good keeps winning.
As far as social interaction in games, there's obviously some places I don't we should go. But there's also some stuff, as far as conflicts and competition, that I think would be good for MMORPG's.
Once upon a time....
Rather deep for here, people will be falling of the boards.
It is true that developments in communication have meant that people now see a lot of awful things they did not see before. From cities being bombed to tornado destruction, this is making people think these events now happen far more than they used to. For those in their twenties though this is the norm, so this process will over decades equalise itself.
It is also true to a lesser extent in my eyes, that we have increased our capability to do awful things to each other. Its just that in the last 20 years communication technology has vastly outstripped any other, so its effect is paramount.
And yes, we have seen many good things as well, you can dwell too much on the dark side of life.
Scot: Looks like he agrees.
It is not an issue of Freedom Among the players, but the fact that Players Have the Freedom to play with the community they want to play with.
As such, if anyone was given the choice to not have to deal with "bad people" or "criminal like" behavior , they wouldn't, not in their game, not in their real life, no one would miss the criminal element among their society if it went away.
And make no mistake, This is not limited to the "Good People", good people just find it easier to follow the rules because that is more along what they want to start with, but, no one wants to play with "bad people" not even other "bad people", if you look at criminal groups and organizations, they do not tolerate any dissent among their ranks, while they may not respect 'societies rules', they demand that their 'personal' rules and codes be followed. As such, even criminals don't want "bad people" among their ranks.
In games, we can see all the time, it's still the same, "bad people" don't like when their jerk behavior is turned upon them, case in point, Gankers don't like it when they get Ganked, Cheaters don't like it when other use Cheats against them, etc
Truth is, what makes a person "Bad" is a deliberate desire to be disruptive to the society around them, this quality is such that even other bad people don't want that kind of person around them, everyone that is a jerk in game, knows they are a jerk, and they are this way because the game allows them to be.
This is why games that allow this kind of behavior die swiftly, even games with some kind of "Law" system in place, still often die away, because people don't want to deal with it, "bad people" don't get the hint they are not wanted, by anyone, in any type of environment, be it a game, or real life.
So, what profit is it to a developer to entertain these people, when they don't even want to play with each other?
Who is "you"? What i want is irrelevant. It is about the market. There is clearly no room for new AAA "traditional" MMOs, or at least the devs think so.
Are you saying single player games are not profitable? And who says people don't want to play with each other.
Isn't the most popular new game PUBG .. a MULTI-player game? Now if you say people don't want to socialize .. then i agree. But so what?
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I'm not sure I really understand what you are trying to say but if I'm getting it:
Look, some games have the bad guys (players who run amok causing all sorts of "mayhem" for others) and some don't.
I disagree with your quote:
If you want to create a world, one with freedom, "Sandbox", then you actually want the "bad guys". That's for the "good guys" to have game play against them.
I'm perfectly happy to have a sandbox without the bad guys. I'll live, really.
You're assuming that people who don't want to play with the "bad guys" would be ok with it with better systems. That's simply not the case.
I"m also perfectly happy to have one with the bad guys should my mood dictate that's the case. I played Lineage 2 for almost 5 years. I get it.
But I think that developers are getting that as time goes on, players are losing patience with these "I'm an open sandbox and anything goes" type games.
This is not to say there isn't an audience for them. There is. And more power to them. But if developers want to make money they are going to have to pick a segment of the population and go for it.
I don't think most AAA developers are going to make games where people can't opt out of the wild wild west of gamers.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Talking TV we have a load of shows with an element of fantasy or Sci-Fi in them. I like most of them but it is nice to have a show with none or indeed set in a real SF world like ST Discovery.
Funnily enough that show is showing the extremes, the PvE Federation, as opposed to the PvP Teran Empire.
Some of these are basic activities (like eating food), others are much more complex (like developing a community project).
Unstructured games can be incredibly fun. At the same time, they require a large investment and the payoff isn't immediate. Feeling happy with Ultima Online takes a bit of dedication. Imposing heavy rules on an unstructured game won't necessarily change this reward pathway - something like Ultime Online with firm rules will still reward you for similar things (unless you change the nature of the rewards).
What I believe is happening, is a change of reward structure, complemented by the introduction of heavy rules. Publishers understood that appealing to simpler "needs" yields quicker rewards for the player. This allows a publisher to heavily monetise players very early on, because the rewards are already working. If I asked you to give me $50 first day into playing Ultima Online, you'd probably laugh at me - you are still figuring it all out and don't feel attached. If I let you play Farmville, where everything guides your every action, flashing "good job" signs at you since minute one, asking for $50 is a lot more manageable.
This practice reached a tricky point. It is a steep uphill battle for any game that isn't "basic". If you release a deep social experience, you are trying to capture people for weeks. Your game promises (and hopefully delivers) a meaningful payoff unlike a "basic" game, but this isn't immediately obvious. All the while, "basic" games are competing for your player base offering sweet short-term rewards. It's a bit of an extreme example - games with no short-term goals are probably bad, but it's generally what is happening.
So from my experience, it comes down to what actions are being rewarded - and how. Where is the "fun" in a game? And if it isn't immediate, is the mainstream user ready to explore that?
Running Minecraft servers has driven me crazy for that exact reason. Kids today are not ready to interact with anything that doesn't provide an immediate "reward". A successful product with open gameplay ends up being as much about educating players as about the gameplay design.
Because of the environment today, filled with experiences rewarding your "basic" needs, young players have to be retaught the value of long-term experiences.
Look if the "bad guys" are NPC's, that's alright, right?
If you can turn those "bad guys" into players, and replace AI with players, but still not have the "bad guys" run amuck over the other players through controls, wouldn't that be better?
If said "bad guys" (as players) can be defeated and end their "crime", and it gets played out with player intelligence vs. player intelligence, wouldn't that be better than "go there and kill the MOB's" ?
If players can form an evil cult, and have certain game play allowed against other player groups who know that there are player formed evil cults out there against them, and results in competition for relics and battles based on the intelligence of real people, wouldn't that be better?
The point is that you can control what the "bad guys" can do, and punish them heavily if they step out of line and go free-for-all. And still have it play out freely in the desired game play.
You do this by creating goals, such as ownership of specific items (relics, tomes, other specific things), land spaces (ancient ruins, ritual grounds, etc.), specific knowledge (summoning the cult's daemon), and whatever else.
So in other words, you allow specific goals as long as certain conditions are maintained.
I know this is hard to follow without me writing up a very long post, but see if you can think this through and how it can benefit a game world. As game play, with players behind it, making it into a competitive and free flowing thing.
And no player has to participate, it's limited to those who join. And it's free to do anywhere in the game world outside of where, say, player run cities have laws against fighting and you become "criminal" in their city's zone of control if you fight there.
All this can be set up as a system, and once that's done it's game play of a free nature (anywhere, any time/ more or less) forever.
Once upon a time....