cRPG

Other Games => ... and all the other things floating around out there => Topic started by: shazbot on November 19, 2012, 05:35:14 pm

Title: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: shazbot on November 19, 2012, 05:35:14 pm
It's quick to label your game a MMORPG, but as far as I'm concerned, they are not. They are standard coop games.

In your standard MMO, every player feels entitled to be a hero. For me, a proper game has only very few heroes. And you don't become a hero by playing or grinding the longest. You become a hero by gaining a reputation, which is not a number in a char sheet, but how many people actually know and respect or fear you. For me, progress is not moving in teams and wiping substandard AI troops over and over again to see your little XP bar rise. For me, a real MMORPG is one where the players write the story. Giving players a detailed sandbox, but only few rules. The rest is up to the players themselves. Betray, Group up, rise, fall, everything affects everyone else, and nothing is scripted.

Am I naive in that regard? Or the only one who has a strong interest in such a project?

Discuss.
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Malaclypse on November 19, 2012, 06:07:46 pm
I'd have to say that most gamers feel the same way, it's just that making a game based around emergent gameplay is a huge risk for a development team, whereas making a cookie cutter game that follows a familiar formula is at least likely to make it's money back no matter how terrible it is.
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Polobow on November 19, 2012, 06:17:33 pm
I really wanted to make a 'joker'-like post in length about how games are not the same from real-life, and the time investment being spent in it, but my lack of english skills and to express my mind into words are lacking, so i can't do that, sadly.

Shortly done: To really have those moments, you'd need to spend alot of time into a game, and time is precious. We gotta sleep, work, and then (next to eating and sleeping) the time is yours, but usually few of that is for gaming.
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Mala on November 19, 2012, 07:38:31 pm
Hmm, i have found all sandbox like mmorpgs, which i have tried yet, rather boring.
Nothing was going on, and when, then it was all over quite fast.

The standard linear mmorpg on the other hand were quite entertaining for me.
It was more like a puzzle. You got different classes with different skills and you had to find out how you could beat the dungeon boss and later you could try it again with more exotic groups or one class only teams.

But people have become lazy these days. They die one time in an unknown instance and then they will google for an guide already.
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Joseph Porta on November 19, 2012, 11:51:13 pm
Open world like skyrim + no magic + no char "stats" + m&b mellee& ranged combat + good goals for money making etc like caravans? To be accompanied by you and your pals(faction)

All this immersed in one badass game would make me never ever leave it.

I wish i was like a master coder talented bastard
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Leshma on November 20, 2012, 12:05:03 am
First of all, this alter ego of yours is kinda lame...

That being said, yes I've been thinking about this for years. After many dreaming sessions about my ideal game I came to conclusion that "hero" games are out of the question. But forcing everyone to take a role is also bad because it mimics real life "slavery" and most people don't want that.

For me, best way to balance those things is to design a game with different roles in mind, not a hero game. But you'll to fill the world with very well codded AI for starters. Put AI everywhere, make trader AI, guard AI, even hero AI. Test it to see if it's actually working and are they able to somewhat replace real human beings.

Then comes his holiness "Player#", difference between my idea for an MMORPG and every other is that Player isn't roleplaying one char all the time. He can be anyone at any given time, like taking over bodies. Now comes the problem, how to track his progress and what happens when he leaves the "host". My idea is to reset AI to previous state (before possesion) and only keep stats and skills on player side (his own personal memory). Kinda like what buddhist believe life consist of. You're constantly upgrading yourself but to prevent you becoming omnipotent roles change should come with a cost and that's "forgetfulness" aka you lose some portion of your previous abilities every time you change the role. Making it a bit more random, allowing total lose of "current char memory" in certain situations could spice things up.

Combining that with true sandbox could end up as being fun and challenging game, without boring people to death with stupid roles and tasks.

But I doubt you can make such a game. Also, I hope you don't think my idea is total crap, I'm kinda proud of it...
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Leshma on November 20, 2012, 12:24:03 am
If you don't reply to my previous post I'm going to hurt myself in ways unknown to ordinary man :mrgreen:
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Bjord on November 20, 2012, 12:54:44 am
But if only a few people can be self-entitled "heroes", how will other (envious) players be able to enjoy the game? Are there any advantages to being a hero? Or is it merely a title?

And if so, what is the difference between your version and today's run-of-the-mill MMORPG? All of this assuming the players are equal.
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Leshma on November 20, 2012, 12:57:50 am
Who are you asking?
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Vibe on November 20, 2012, 08:14:30 am
Quote from: shazbot on November 19, 2012, 05:35:14 pm
Giving players a detailed sandbox, but only few rules. The rest is up to the players themselves. Betray, Group up, rise, fall, everything affects everyone else, and nothing is scripted.

Am I naive in that regard? Or the only one who has a strong interest in such a project?

Discuss.

This is something I'm looking for in games as well. Player generated content is the most fun. The only type of game to be able to have such content are sandboxes. The best sandboxes have few rules and provide the players with just the basic tools (a pen) and let them generate their own content (a story).

Then again, such MMOs are very special and do not appeal to everyone, but which game does? A few years ago the world of sandboxes was in a pretty sad state, only a few decent sandboxes that were mostly indies, with the standard generic EQ(WoW)-like MMOs dominating the market. They still do, but we're seeing a pretty huge rise in sandbox popularity lately, as a lot more companies, including AAA ones, are trying to bring such games to light - Archeage, Salem, Darkfall: UW, EQ: Next, DayZ, WarZ, The Repopulation and quite a few more.

So no, you are not naive in that regard at all. People are already starting to show that they want more than just your standard tab target grind gear themepark MMOs. To conclude this post I will quote something relevant from a certain article:

Anyway, if you don't already see where I'm going with this, allow me to spell it out: the only meaningful MMORPG "endgame" -- i.e., something novel to do after the progression process is over -- is that of the sandbox.


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Firebrand on November 20, 2012, 08:46:56 am
Vibe, pls remove this gif - i can't stop laughting looking at it! :D :D
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Vibe on November 20, 2012, 08:49:26 am
Quote from: Firebrand on November 20, 2012, 08:46:56 am
Vibe, pls remove this gif

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Falka on November 20, 2012, 06:44:11 pm
Quote from: Leshma on November 20, 2012, 12:24:03 am
I'm going to hurt myself in ways unknown to ordinary man :mrgreen:
You've made me curious...
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: EponiCo on November 22, 2012, 02:22:47 am
Quote from: shazbot on November 19, 2012, 05:35:14 pm
You become a hero by gaining a reputation, which is not a number in a char sheet, but how many people actually know and respect or fear you.

You can be famous pretty easily by constantly running around doing the same stupid thing over and over. First they will think "wait, don't I know that guy" then "hey, it's that guy again" and then you are famous. Maybe hated and banned, but famous.
I don't really know what your goal really is. Have a good story? I don't know, do you have any examples where the population of a sandbox game made a better story than a single good author? For me the big drawback was always that it felt somewhat pointless and empty.
Have a big free for all, with alliances forming and wars being fought? Well, I'm not saying that isn't fun, but being famous for being the richest or longest survivor is just as much dick waving as who has the highest score or best items.
Coop is just for people who want to have some fun without screwing others or worrying about being fucked. Instances further limit conflicts. Everyone can be a hero, and where's the problem with that? Different strokes for different blokes. Well it is ofc really surreal, but the sandboxers are weird also.
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Kafein on November 22, 2012, 01:18:24 pm
I think in the ideal MMO a limited amount of players should be able to become "heroes", seeking to keep their status (becomes it has advantages), and others should try to acheive it. It's what EvE online does extremely well : players are all racing against each other to become the king of the hill, the bandit warlord, the corporation manager, the head of the security forces, and so on. What is especially interesting is that players are very far from just fighting each other over the actual ingame combat. They start social influence games inside corporations, try to take over political structures etc. That's the kind of (slightly emergent) competition I want to see in a truly pvp MMO.

Edit : let's expand a bit :

First, the gameplay itself should require more player-player interactions, and not necessarily competitive or cooperative. The classical problem with this is that it's very difficult to have meaningful interactions with people you don't already know outside the game, without devoting waaaay too much time to the game. Even a casual player without friends playing the same game should be able to play with others, and that I think is a real challenge in game design.

Secondly, in most classical MMO's, when you have seen/defeated everything that the game had to offer, that's pretty much it. You can still play for pixel crack, sure. But that's empty. The end game shouldn't be a competition over nothing like a CS game, but it shouldn't be a quest for super rare pixel crack either. I think end game players should, depending on what path they chose, be more like guild masters, organising their alliance, training other players, etc. and generally monopolizing the benefits of your guild. But also fight against the inside threats, especially people from the same organisation as you trying to take command.
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Bjord on November 22, 2012, 11:07:13 pm
Quote from: Leshma on November 20, 2012, 12:57:50 am
Who are you asking?

schazbot

(they removed my prior reply post btw)
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Leshma on November 22, 2012, 11:09:51 pm
No need for repost, I already saw that.
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Bjord on November 22, 2012, 11:23:56 pm
I know.
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Grumbs on November 23, 2012, 12:39:59 am
Quote from: Kafein on November 22, 2012, 01:18:24 pm
I think in the ideal MMO a limited amount of players should be able to become "heroes", seeking to keep their status (becomes it has advantages), and others should try to acheive it. It's what EvE online does extremely well : players are all racing against each other to become the king of the hill, the bandit warlord, the corporation manager, the head of the security forces, and so on. What is especially interesting is that players are very far from just fighting each other over the actual ingame combat. They start social influence games inside corporations, try to take over political structures etc. That's the kind of (slightly emergent) competition I want to see in a truly pvp MMO.

Edit : let's expand a bit :

First, the gameplay itself should require more player-player interactions, and not necessarily competitive or cooperative. The classical problem with this is that it's very difficult to have meaningful interactions with people you don't already know outside the game, without devoting waaaay too much time to the game. Even a casual player without friends playing the same game should be able to play with others, and that I think is a real challenge in game design.

Secondly, in most classical MMO's, when you have seen/defeated everything that the game had to offer, that's pretty much it. You can still play for pixel crack, sure. But that's empty. The end game shouldn't be a competition over nothing like a CS game, but it shouldn't be a quest for super rare pixel crack either. I think end game players should, depending on what path they chose, be more like guild masters, organising their alliance, training other players, etc. and generally monopolizing the benefits of your guild. But also fight against the inside threats, especially people from the same organisation as you trying to take command.

The original Ultima Online was a great example of a sandbox online RPG. Everyone was a role, whether it was something they chose to be or something thrust onto them while they played. The way the roles interacted together made for some awesome on the spot (dynamic) gameplay. Everything you did could impact another player. You had murderers, thieves, adventurers, traders, miners, crafters. People even created their own little niches for making money, like house decorating. It was a true RPG, but it simply had other players instead of NPC's. The key with these games is giving players choices, with lasting consequences that impact the world and other players. You never get to play the bad guy in modern MMO's, and no being Sith or something with thousands of allies around that you can't attack is not being a bad guy in this sense. Everyone plays the same role really in a world that seems to revolve around the player character. Its not very immersive for me when I feel like i'm playing single player with my own story, with others doing the same thing or are also supposed to be the same hero.

Eve Online does a good job at sandbox style. Just for me I don't really like that style of gameplay of rock/paper/scissors or money invested having such a large impact in pvp. Its a good team game though but can feature hours and hours of nothing happening

Darkfall has decent pvp and allows you to be the bad guy, but really thats all it has. You only get bad guys in that with no sense of wider community or people with different agendas. Its just kill kill kill with no real point to it. As a pvp style sandbox game its decent (just kind of died out through several issues). Darkfall 2.0 is out next month so worth a try

I would really like to see a true sandbox game that doesn't hold you hand thats released by a big name company, that allows players to take each other's metaphorical candy. All you need is game design that allows players to hunt down the bad guys, you shouldn't just remove them from the game. It adds a whole other dimension,engages the player and gets them invested in what they're doing, like theres actually something on the line when you have some consequences.

Risk vs reward, player choice and consequences, design that appeals to a broad playerbase (not just pk's), player skill based pvp and as little hand holding as possible, thats what i'm looking for in an MMO.
Title: Re: why are most 'MMOs' just 'coop'?
Post by: Weren on November 23, 2012, 08:18:09 pm
Quote from: Joseph_Porta on November 19, 2012, 11:51:13 pm
Open world like skyrim + no magic + no char "stats" + m&b mellee& ranged combat + good goals for money making etc like caravans? To be accompanied by you and your pals(faction)
You just pretty much described Persistent Worlds (http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/board,184.0.html).

Brilliant and heavily underrated mod. You have to have quite a bit of roleplayer in you to get the most of it, though.