Sadly, I think the only thing limiting this so called "player-skill-based" type of RPG is the very limited input devices that a computer possesses. The most you can do is click your mouse in certain locations and enter certain combinations of buttons. It would take a lot of work to create a combat system that a) has a suitable learning curve (not too shallow or steep, and more importantly, without a "ceiling", so that players could always improve) b) made strategic sense (logical and not random) and c) had a great "fun-factor"
If those challenges could be met, it would be a great idea. Though you still might want to incorporate some sort of level-based progress throughout the game, so that perhaps someone who wasnt so naturally talented at the battle system, but had played for months, couldnt be beaten by first-week players. This could be in the form of improved items, improved damage, etc.
Let's discuss a somewhat "radical" MMORPG theory
Quote:Original post by invicticide
Anyway, my point is that if a player wants to build a sword out of, say, straw, he can do so, but it will be a very flimsy sword!
1) Building a sword out of straw the sword is useless 2) It's not intutive 3) waste of resource and time in development cycle = really bad example.
Quote:Item collections are one possibility. Allow players to collect pretty much anything and everything. Give players a house or similar dwelling in which to display their collectibles. Let them configure these displays in the aesthetic manner which most pleases them. Sure, it has no effect on gameplay, but it's the true essence of role-playing, desu ne? Ditto for everything else related to the player's house, including decorations, artwork, furnishings, even architectural modifications/additions.
Have fun negotiating with the artists. It sounds like alot of time need to be spend on drawing items that "has no effect on gameplay". Unless you're planning this as text mud?
@invicticide
Skimming over some of the replies I think most people are missing one big point. Having a mmorpg based off of the skills of players makes no difference! You might as well be using levels because there are very clear differences in player skill levels. Have you ever played counter strike? You can tell the people who have been playing the longest. They usually dominate the game. Beginners, newbie’s, etc have no chance of beating them... they might as well be level 5 and 50. The "level 5" still doesn't have any fun and the "level 50" is still looking for a challenge.
Now with a level system you can compare levels and adjust rules accordingly. Why let a level 50 even fight a level 5?!? Unless the level 5 commits to it there should be no reason other than to have a pure pk environment. Sure you could take a similar approach with the player skill system by giving them ranks and such based on their performance, but that’s getting back into a level system albeit with a little less grind (still takes time and commitment to hone those skills).
Not to mention that at least in a level based system the, how should I put it, crappy player will at least have a chance once they level up. Some people just aren't made for skill based games and instead devote their efforts in developing a character that can make up for that difference.
Besides hasn't this been tried before? Has anyone ever played PlanetSide? I have not but from what I've seen/heard this is what it is like? Someone please feel free to correct me on this!
Skimming over some of the replies I think most people are missing one big point. Having a mmorpg based off of the skills of players makes no difference! You might as well be using levels because there are very clear differences in player skill levels. Have you ever played counter strike? You can tell the people who have been playing the longest. They usually dominate the game. Beginners, newbie’s, etc have no chance of beating them... they might as well be level 5 and 50. The "level 5" still doesn't have any fun and the "level 50" is still looking for a challenge.
Now with a level system you can compare levels and adjust rules accordingly. Why let a level 50 even fight a level 5?!? Unless the level 5 commits to it there should be no reason other than to have a pure pk environment. Sure you could take a similar approach with the player skill system by giving them ranks and such based on their performance, but that’s getting back into a level system albeit with a little less grind (still takes time and commitment to hone those skills).
Not to mention that at least in a level based system the, how should I put it, crappy player will at least have a chance once they level up. Some people just aren't made for skill based games and instead devote their efforts in developing a character that can make up for that difference.
Besides hasn't this been tried before? Has anyone ever played PlanetSide? I have not but from what I've seen/heard this is what it is like? Someone please feel free to correct me on this!
Quote:Original post by Dauntless
If you remove the idea that you the player are seperate from the character you play, then you remove in many people's minds, the very notion of role-playing itself. Indeed, computer RPG's are so different from what I consider to be roleplaying, that I see it as a misnomer to even call computer RPG's roleplaying.
What do I mean? Let's examine what roleplaying really is. The word itself gives us the strongest clue. It is playing a role or identity. Roleplaying games in a nutshell are about stepping into the shoes of a protagonist who has different abilities and possibly different philosophies, convictions and beliefs from the player. It is because the character has different abilities from the player himself that the player lives vicariously through the protagonist (the character). But what ties the experience together is the knowledge that even if the skills, abilities and beliefs of the character are different from his own, it is the player's choice that guides the player through whatever happens, for good or ill.
If we remove the idea of skills, attributes, or other quantifiable means of determining the capabilities of the character, then the player IS the character. RTS games, FPS games and some adventure games take this approach. In essence, it is the ability of the player that matters, and is what makes the first two genres of games so competitive. But the appeal of roleplaying for many is that they are able to step into the shoes of someone who id different from themselves. For example, my father has very poor vision and as he's older, his reflexes aren't what they used to be. He can't even play Diablo-esque type RPG's very well because they require the skill of the player rather than the skill of the character. But when it comes to turn-based strategy games which are slower paced, he's very good at them. But my father likes the notion that he is able to be someone that has different capabilities from himself.
Your approach would work for some, but it would be less appealing for others. An approach like this would IMHO also encourage PvP. When you play a protagonist with the abilities of yourself, it begs for a competitive mindset. This is why RTS and FPS games are so competitive and encourage the notion of pitting one player's talent against another. True roleplaying however is not about "winning and losing" or even about making your character more powerful. It's supposed to be about the experience itself and the tale that is told. But computer RPG's are unable to do this (Neverwinter Nights excepting), so in lieu of the gameplay being centered around the experiencing of a tale, it is about making your character more powerful.
I think that much of the "roll playing" qualities of games can be reduced if all of the skills, attributes and other quantifiers are made unknown to the player. Afterall, in real life, you don't know exactly how strong, intelligent or charming you are. If your character's personality is overconfident, they will overestimate their abilities. Another example is that a player should never know exactly how wounded their character is. That hit to the leg may have severed an artery or vein and they may be internally bleeding. Player access to too much information is what causes the "roll playing" syndrome, not the very existence of things like skills, attributes and abilities.
Well put! If only people could focus on how to add more Role Playing appeal to mmorpgs, I think they could develope quite a hardcore following. There are a lot of people I think looking for this.
I like your idea. But I also like the way MMORPG is nowadays... Of course there are many mistakes, as well as your suggestion. But I really liked your idea, and that's why we should think in "mixing" these styles of gameplay... There's no need to be "radical", and also, why can't we experiment something new?
And yes, we need more roleplay! Definetely, that's the reason why I get bored so soon with some MMORPG.
I like when people discuss this matter... and I think you should consider the feedback you're getting, but also, try your hand at it. People often fear something new, without knowing it. Try to do something like that if you can, prove your points. I think that's what lacks in games these days, they want to profit, not to improve. I really like old rpg games like Lunar 2, Breath of Fire 3, and others, much more than the latest comercial final fantasy games - Final Fantasy XI is cool, fine, but for me Xenogears beats it to the ground. Why? Hell, it has feeling, and at its time, it had something new.
Forgive my poor english.
And yes, we need more roleplay! Definetely, that's the reason why I get bored so soon with some MMORPG.
I like when people discuss this matter... and I think you should consider the feedback you're getting, but also, try your hand at it. People often fear something new, without knowing it. Try to do something like that if you can, prove your points. I think that's what lacks in games these days, they want to profit, not to improve. I really like old rpg games like Lunar 2, Breath of Fire 3, and others, much more than the latest comercial final fantasy games - Final Fantasy XI is cool, fine, but for me Xenogears beats it to the ground. Why? Hell, it has feeling, and at its time, it had something new.
Forgive my poor english.
So...we're basically talking about Tekken/Fatal Fury/Street Fighter Online? Make a character, roam the game world, collect items that have no meaning, use your game controller to fight against other gamers.
While I do like the concept of an MMO with no (visible) stats or levels, I also think you run a number of risks with a pure twitch-based MMO. Lag suddenly becomes even more of a factor than it is now; can you imagine having an army of players fighting each other while the server tries to keep up with the twitch-commands from the gamers? Get 30 players in an area and you'll probably crash the server!
I also worry that, depending on the design, there is no way to learn new skills or increase your attack/defense. If each avatar is identical except in appearance, then there is no "advantage" to keep playing other than advancing on the leaderboard - which, in and of itself, will get tedious. Especially if you're paying a monthly fee for the privalege. As others have said, there has to be some kind of incentive to win. An increase in defensive ability, better weaponry, better armor, speed increases, stronger stamina - something to say "look, I'm a veteran" other than a win-loss record.
If everyone starts with the same moves, what's to distinguish the new player from the old, grizzled veteran? I do realize your argument is "that's the point!", from a practical standpoint you end up with a lot of bored vets who see no benefit in playing beyond a month, except to alleviate RL boredom - which they could do by loading up their PS2 or XBox.
I'd also be concerned that you end up alienating the older/casual gamer. On the one hand, if everyone is equal - and always equal - in one-on-one combat, whether you've logged on for 2 minutes or 2000 minues - then as a casual gamer I'd probably love it. My time, or lack thereof, means nothing because I'm just as good as anyone else. However, the downside of that is - why should I pay monthly for this, then? What's the appeal?
On the other hand, if you do institute bonuses and advantages for continuous wins - well then the casual gamer is at an incredible disadvantage. At least in (some) current MMOs a low level player is generally combined with other low-level players; you're on somewhat equal footing. DAOC is a good example of this in PVP combat; until you reach the outer realms, PvP is limited to those within 4 levels of you. Without levels, it becomes a slaughterhouse - a casual gamer is thrown in the fighting pits against better armed, better defended "power gamers" and would rarely stand a chance. It's similar to the problem in the arcades; the older gamer walks up to a game, considers playing it, and as soon as you stick that quarter in some 12 year old comes up and says "challenge?", popping in his quarter and slamming down that 2-player button before you've had a chance to consider the offer. 30 seconds later, you walk away grumbling while junior is happily bragging to his friends about how he ganked your sorry butt! ;)
So, again - how do you avoid it being little more than a Street Fighter Online with a monthly fee?
While I do like the concept of an MMO with no (visible) stats or levels, I also think you run a number of risks with a pure twitch-based MMO. Lag suddenly becomes even more of a factor than it is now; can you imagine having an army of players fighting each other while the server tries to keep up with the twitch-commands from the gamers? Get 30 players in an area and you'll probably crash the server!
I also worry that, depending on the design, there is no way to learn new skills or increase your attack/defense. If each avatar is identical except in appearance, then there is no "advantage" to keep playing other than advancing on the leaderboard - which, in and of itself, will get tedious. Especially if you're paying a monthly fee for the privalege. As others have said, there has to be some kind of incentive to win. An increase in defensive ability, better weaponry, better armor, speed increases, stronger stamina - something to say "look, I'm a veteran" other than a win-loss record.
If everyone starts with the same moves, what's to distinguish the new player from the old, grizzled veteran? I do realize your argument is "that's the point!", from a practical standpoint you end up with a lot of bored vets who see no benefit in playing beyond a month, except to alleviate RL boredom - which they could do by loading up their PS2 or XBox.
I'd also be concerned that you end up alienating the older/casual gamer. On the one hand, if everyone is equal - and always equal - in one-on-one combat, whether you've logged on for 2 minutes or 2000 minues - then as a casual gamer I'd probably love it. My time, or lack thereof, means nothing because I'm just as good as anyone else. However, the downside of that is - why should I pay monthly for this, then? What's the appeal?
On the other hand, if you do institute bonuses and advantages for continuous wins - well then the casual gamer is at an incredible disadvantage. At least in (some) current MMOs a low level player is generally combined with other low-level players; you're on somewhat equal footing. DAOC is a good example of this in PVP combat; until you reach the outer realms, PvP is limited to those within 4 levels of you. Without levels, it becomes a slaughterhouse - a casual gamer is thrown in the fighting pits against better armed, better defended "power gamers" and would rarely stand a chance. It's similar to the problem in the arcades; the older gamer walks up to a game, considers playing it, and as soon as you stick that quarter in some 12 year old comes up and says "challenge?", popping in his quarter and slamming down that 2-player button before you've had a chance to consider the offer. 30 seconds later, you walk away grumbling while junior is happily bragging to his friends about how he ganked your sorry butt! ;)
So, again - how do you avoid it being little more than a Street Fighter Online with a monthly fee?
Well i've mentioned before elsewhere, don't award exp for killing monsters.
First remove the idea of the massive level gaining, let all characters start proficient. ie New characters don't have to stay in newbie zone untill such and such level. This doesnt mean no progress just allow stronger starting characters. Heck just set the entire world to work off of a common sense skill stat model. Whatever creatures there are should be on par with the players.
Next remove the award on killing creatures. This is the second guilty party for grinding. Instead offer experience based on effective interaction in the world and quest rewards.
Example 1. Player Skieve kills npc Dukes son. First don't respawn the son. Second offer xp for the action. Third there is now a bounty on Skieve head.
Example 2. The player who accepts the bounty on Skieve will gain xp for returning or killing Skieve.
Example 3. Orc band kills some npc hunters that wander too close to there hunting lands. The town offers quest to get these Orcs.
Possibly also award exp for community based participation. Set it up though that the more you use a skill the more exp is put into it when exp is awarded.
Of course to implement would be a redisgn on the entire mmorpg content delivery system. instead of content being something that story written, it would be created through a simulator. Or in a simple way take a RTS let the computer be the rulers and players are just solitary characters.
As for the idea of player skill check out Yohoho Puzzle Pirates. There are no levels no grinding right from the start it's all based on player skills, and there is a ranking system. Problem here is that if you not good at puzzle games your not going to have fun.
How many Hardcore fps players go out at hardcore play a mmorpg. Simply is that they don't. How many hardcore puzzle players rock at fps, simple they don't. But at least with the "rpg" mechanics both could play a mmorpg without penalizing the other. Will they want to play, eh who knows. But at least it has a more open player market.
First remove the idea of the massive level gaining, let all characters start proficient. ie New characters don't have to stay in newbie zone untill such and such level. This doesnt mean no progress just allow stronger starting characters. Heck just set the entire world to work off of a common sense skill stat model. Whatever creatures there are should be on par with the players.
Next remove the award on killing creatures. This is the second guilty party for grinding. Instead offer experience based on effective interaction in the world and quest rewards.
Example 1. Player Skieve kills npc Dukes son. First don't respawn the son. Second offer xp for the action. Third there is now a bounty on Skieve head.
Example 2. The player who accepts the bounty on Skieve will gain xp for returning or killing Skieve.
Example 3. Orc band kills some npc hunters that wander too close to there hunting lands. The town offers quest to get these Orcs.
Possibly also award exp for community based participation. Set it up though that the more you use a skill the more exp is put into it when exp is awarded.
Of course to implement would be a redisgn on the entire mmorpg content delivery system. instead of content being something that story written, it would be created through a simulator. Or in a simple way take a RTS let the computer be the rulers and players are just solitary characters.
As for the idea of player skill check out Yohoho Puzzle Pirates. There are no levels no grinding right from the start it's all based on player skills, and there is a ranking system. Problem here is that if you not good at puzzle games your not going to have fun.
How many Hardcore fps players go out at hardcore play a mmorpg. Simply is that they don't. How many hardcore puzzle players rock at fps, simple they don't. But at least with the "rpg" mechanics both could play a mmorpg without penalizing the other. Will they want to play, eh who knows. But at least it has a more open player market.
Author
It seems that several people got the idea that I'm proposing an action- or twitch-based game. I'm not proposing a combat system to dethrone Street Fighter or similar such games, by any means. But current MMO combat systems revolve around repeating the same attack over and over until the monster dies. Movement is rarely effective, changing to different types of attacks is only effective in very specific circumstances and not nearly often enough, etc. So, your ability to win a battle is dependent on the power of your strongest attack/spell/skill/whatever and how many times in a row you can use it before running out of mana/stamina/skill points/whatever.
I'd like players to be able to construct a huge variety of different attacks, blocks, maneuvers, and other "tactical actions" where it's not the power of the skill, but the context in which the skill is used that determines your success in the fight. It's not twitch-based stuff; it would still be based on a "tick" system like most current MMO's. The idea is not to increase the speed of combat, but to increase the depth, and to make that depth available to players early on rather than forcing them to earn every little baby step along the way.
There were also numerous comments about losing the sense of achievement by losing level-ups. That's a truth, in many ways. My proposal is to give back the sense of achievement through a huge variety of other things. Immediately coming to mind are better/cooler equipment, good-looking clothes, rare items, collections, additions/decorations for your home, etc. I've spent inordinate amounts of time online not fighting, but trying to track down just the right cloak for my character to make him look like an uber-badass, and I know I'm not alone in that. Additionally, many of the ideas about competitive arenas and global rankings are an excellent start in this department.
One thing that could really liven the appeal of the game is to introduce a wider variety of gameplay styles. Contemporary MMO's tend to focus on the "RPG" play style, that is, run around and kill monsters, find items, level-up, talk to people, etc. But there's a much wider variety of multiplayer games out there, beyond MMO's, which could be integrated as "mini-games" which are a major focus of the game world. Puzzle games, racing games, turn-based strategy, SCUMM-style adventures (quests), even some old-school twitch-based arcade-type stuff... the list goes on. What better way to exemplify an MMO than to include every kind of multiplayer gaming experience imaginable?
Sure, that sounds like a pretty big job. As we all know, MMO's *are* a big job. Collosal, in fact. I'm not trying to put forth any kind of "actual" design here, I'm just throwing around some ideas which could be selectively integrated into the "next big thing"... or so my ego tells me. ;)
Anyway, it's cool to see so many thoughtful responses to my humble little idea. An effective back-and-forth dialog is always a good thing in my book. :)
Oh, and to that anonymous poster who bashed my straw sword example: dude, grow some balls and put a name with your opinions, and try backing up your criticisms with actual *ideas*. Yeah, a straw sword is pretty stupid, but that was the point of the example. As for your other jab, I'm willing to bet plenty of artists will be more than happy to build items that have no effect on gameplay, IF YOU PAY THEM A SALARY!
/rant off
Sheesh, at least the rest of you used your brains while responding! :P
That is all.
I'd like players to be able to construct a huge variety of different attacks, blocks, maneuvers, and other "tactical actions" where it's not the power of the skill, but the context in which the skill is used that determines your success in the fight. It's not twitch-based stuff; it would still be based on a "tick" system like most current MMO's. The idea is not to increase the speed of combat, but to increase the depth, and to make that depth available to players early on rather than forcing them to earn every little baby step along the way.
There were also numerous comments about losing the sense of achievement by losing level-ups. That's a truth, in many ways. My proposal is to give back the sense of achievement through a huge variety of other things. Immediately coming to mind are better/cooler equipment, good-looking clothes, rare items, collections, additions/decorations for your home, etc. I've spent inordinate amounts of time online not fighting, but trying to track down just the right cloak for my character to make him look like an uber-badass, and I know I'm not alone in that. Additionally, many of the ideas about competitive arenas and global rankings are an excellent start in this department.
One thing that could really liven the appeal of the game is to introduce a wider variety of gameplay styles. Contemporary MMO's tend to focus on the "RPG" play style, that is, run around and kill monsters, find items, level-up, talk to people, etc. But there's a much wider variety of multiplayer games out there, beyond MMO's, which could be integrated as "mini-games" which are a major focus of the game world. Puzzle games, racing games, turn-based strategy, SCUMM-style adventures (quests), even some old-school twitch-based arcade-type stuff... the list goes on. What better way to exemplify an MMO than to include every kind of multiplayer gaming experience imaginable?
Sure, that sounds like a pretty big job. As we all know, MMO's *are* a big job. Collosal, in fact. I'm not trying to put forth any kind of "actual" design here, I'm just throwing around some ideas which could be selectively integrated into the "next big thing"... or so my ego tells me. ;)
Anyway, it's cool to see so many thoughtful responses to my humble little idea. An effective back-and-forth dialog is always a good thing in my book. :)
Oh, and to that anonymous poster who bashed my straw sword example: dude, grow some balls and put a name with your opinions, and try backing up your criticisms with actual *ideas*. Yeah, a straw sword is pretty stupid, but that was the point of the example. As for your other jab, I'm willing to bet plenty of artists will be more than happy to build items that have no effect on gameplay, IF YOU PAY THEM A SALARY!
/rant off
Sheesh, at least the rest of you used your brains while responding! :P
That is all.
Quote:Original post by invicticide
Oh, and to that anonymous poster who bashed my straw sword example: dude, grow some balls and put a name with your opinions, and try backing up your criticisms with actual *ideas*. Yeah, a straw sword is pretty stupid, but that was the point of the example. As for your other jab, I'm willing to bet plenty of artists will be more than happy to build items that have no effect on gameplay, IF YOU PAY THEM A SALARY!
I've made the post. My apologies if it seems I'm trying to flame.
"Yeah, a straw sword is pretty stupid, but that was the point of the example."
So the purpose of the straw sword is for someone to role-play an idiot?...
Actual game development and talking about theoretical game design are two complete different things. Money is scarce; management will not throw down the cash on something that has little effect on the game. Combining all the MMORPG feature into one game will not get you anywhere when you propose it to publisher or client; they will want unique features else the game will have to compete with EVERYTHING in the market. Personally I think removing the kill level scale is doable in MMORPG,. Ie. A tale in the Desert. However your design need a lot more work.
Need to get back to work¡K
Well firewindshadow, I didn't expect you to actually step up. Hat's off to you. :)
The purpose of the straw sword example is not to say that people should run around using straw swords -- quite the opposite, I would hope! -- but to illustrate the intended flexibility of the crafting system (which, not being the focus of this topic, has not been fleshed out by any means). The idea is that a player can *try* numerous combinations -- like a straw sword -- and it's the player's ability to put things together *intelligently* -- *not* like a straw sword -- that determines how good he is at crafting.
As for the art thing, look at any MMO running today and start counting up all the art assets that do not directly affect gameplay. To use one example, there's a rather sizeable variety of different furnishings a player can craft or purchase for his house in Star Wars Galaxies. I think that maybe 1% of them have any kind of gameplay function, the rest are just there so you can make your pad look cool. That's what I'm all about here, and with respect to role-playing, I contend that such things *do* directly affect gameplay.
With the growing proliferation of outsourcing -- particularly overseas -- as well as the evolution of new design and development techniques, I think that massive-scale projects such as MMO's can and will continue to expand in scope, and an all-inclusive online "experience" (as opposed to just a "game") could be a reality within the next five years. Someone just has to put all the right pieces together, as they've all been done already, somewhere in the fragmented morass of thousands of active MMO's.
And as far as the real world of game development goes, well, I work in it. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I'm just saying that I have some idea about what will and will not get funding. I'm no expert and I'm not in charge of accounting at my company, but neither am I an ignorant 12-year-old who thinks game budgets grow on trees. I think that a properly defined and, more importantly, properly presented design for such an all-inclusive game could well garner funding, but not only would the game design have to be excellent, it would have to be backed with -- and *integrated* with -- a very solid business plan. Just as games are getting bigger and better, so are game budgets growing (astronomically!) and publishers are gaining more and more power every day. The means are there now to bring ideas like these -- not necessarily *mine*, but something in this general area -- to life. The developers just have to prove that they've got what it takes to follow through with such an ambitious project.
That is all.
The purpose of the straw sword example is not to say that people should run around using straw swords -- quite the opposite, I would hope! -- but to illustrate the intended flexibility of the crafting system (which, not being the focus of this topic, has not been fleshed out by any means). The idea is that a player can *try* numerous combinations -- like a straw sword -- and it's the player's ability to put things together *intelligently* -- *not* like a straw sword -- that determines how good he is at crafting.
As for the art thing, look at any MMO running today and start counting up all the art assets that do not directly affect gameplay. To use one example, there's a rather sizeable variety of different furnishings a player can craft or purchase for his house in Star Wars Galaxies. I think that maybe 1% of them have any kind of gameplay function, the rest are just there so you can make your pad look cool. That's what I'm all about here, and with respect to role-playing, I contend that such things *do* directly affect gameplay.
With the growing proliferation of outsourcing -- particularly overseas -- as well as the evolution of new design and development techniques, I think that massive-scale projects such as MMO's can and will continue to expand in scope, and an all-inclusive online "experience" (as opposed to just a "game") could be a reality within the next five years. Someone just has to put all the right pieces together, as they've all been done already, somewhere in the fragmented morass of thousands of active MMO's.
And as far as the real world of game development goes, well, I work in it. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I'm just saying that I have some idea about what will and will not get funding. I'm no expert and I'm not in charge of accounting at my company, but neither am I an ignorant 12-year-old who thinks game budgets grow on trees. I think that a properly defined and, more importantly, properly presented design for such an all-inclusive game could well garner funding, but not only would the game design have to be excellent, it would have to be backed with -- and *integrated* with -- a very solid business plan. Just as games are getting bigger and better, so are game budgets growing (astronomically!) and publishers are gaining more and more power every day. The means are there now to bring ideas like these -- not necessarily *mine*, but something in this general area -- to life. The developers just have to prove that they've got what it takes to follow through with such an ambitious project.
That is all.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
