Sign in to follow this  
Sylon

GOD and MMORPG design!

Recommended Posts

Hello! I was reading a lot of the MMORPG ideas on this forum, mostly on how to create the "perfect MMORPG". They really fascinate me. I will just refer to them as MMGs. In this post I am trying to deal with the philosophy behind our problems in MMG design. You may remember "absolutism vs. relativism" and "freedom vs. determinism" in philosophy 101! That's what my post comes down to; absolute vs relative, freedom, and my belief that there is an objective reality that exists by which all subjective perceptions are relative to, but that might be obvious, so I am also going to describe how it may help (maybe it can't). If you bear with my first paragraphs, which may seem vague or overgeneralized, I will get to a more concrete explanation of my idea down further. I hope my point will piece together clearly eventually, and I do believe it does, anyway. As we all know, to devise a working, balanced MMG world that can provide fun for everyone is to take on the position of a God. The "perfect MMG" theoretically is the one that satisfies everyone (most think it's not possible), and to be more extreme, one that everyone could love equally as the best MMG ever (I think we all believe that is not possible). What I've noticed is that, in searching for the perfect MMG, what we often end up doing is think about how an MMG world can be designed relative to the real world that we live in, and all aspects of its current state. This is where all of the trouble seems to come in, to me. In the real world there are moments of happiness and suspense, but there are also moments of sadness and anger. There are instances of love and instances of hate. As much as we would like to create a balanced MMG world off of the current real world, it can't be done, partially because within real-life humanity there is a blatant imbalance of happiness. Some might think "that's tough" or "that's life", and thus it should be so in an MMG to add "realism", but is that really the right attitude? Also it seems that in finding balance, there are always two sides of the spectrum, whether between immature chatters and mature chatters, PKers and carebears, newbies and veterans, hardcore gamers and casual gamers, etc.--and positions fall from one side to the other or in between. I think to FIND the solutions (in other words I don't claim to have a solid one quite yet but I believe I'm at least close), the direction we should move our minds in, is towards God, and to devise a method to model an MMG off of the "laws of happiness" of our real-life world, and leave out all those qualities of it that don't fall in line with those "laws of happiness". To find these laws we should put ourselves in God's shoes. What happened to God when He took on the task of devising a perfectly balanced world? What did He want to give us in this world that would cause us to have maximum happiness and how can we mimic that in a game? What in this world is impure and unacceptable and why? Here is an analogy: 1. God. 1. Lead game developer (creator). 2. God must have planned beforehand how to create a world that provides maximum happiness for everyone who exists in it. 2. Same with game creator. 3. Satan. 3. Hacker. 4. Satan betrayed God and all beings on the side of God. 4. Hackers betray game development teams who have innocently given hackers access to their world, and they betray all other players as well. 5. Satan was claimed to be "the God of this world" by unfairly taking the power from God. And, where he exercises his power it is sometimes difficult for us to point him out and say "that's evil and things could be better"--instead we accept the world as it is, as if he is not there, as if he has not tainted God's perfect design, and accept the inequality that was given to us since birth because of him, and we continue to let ourselves be influenced by Satan as if it is "all good". 5. Hackers give power to themselves and take glory, kill others, abuse their power or whatever, and other PCs may never realize that the guy cheated to be that good, and thus accept their fate and continue to play the game even though the inequality exists and always will. 6. There will always be those that God has been able to protect from Satan more than others, but nonetheless they have been affected in some minute way as well. 6. There will always be those players on the other side of the continent that may not have been killed by a hacker, and perhaps a GM could have helped filter out some hackers to defend some players, but of course if the hackers are good enough they can ruin the game enough to affect everyone, and the fact that they stepped into the game once is bad enough. So NOW, when we try creating a sub-world (MMG) within God's crumbled, stolen world (reality), we have no perfect Godly reference by which to design it. Our perception of creating the balanced perfect MMG relative to current reality will never work because: Either 1. Our perceptions of the perfect reality are false, due to the fact that our own perception of this world is FINAL in our minds, YET this world has been twisted in ways we can't see. This spills over into our perception of creating the perfect MMG world. Or 2. We have had the luxury of perceiving a higher % of the truth about reality and happiness and thus can conceive of a perfectly balanced MMG in line with laws of happiness God intended to provide us for our own world, BUT it will never be called "perfect" in the real world, because others will reject it due to their distorted perception of what "fun" really is in the real world. It's not to say one is at fault or utterly stupid for thinking how they do. It is just saying that one's idea of fun is higher and IS more enjoyable than another's, but the other has not had the opportunity to see it as such simply because there is a metaphoric brick wall between them and the higher form of fun. That, guys, "is life". It's like being a drug addict smoking crack, or a little girl playing with dolls, or a serial killer who kills for fun. Ehem, most of us reading this post would not think any of those activities are fun, or at least that 2 of the 3 are not healthy forms of fun. I believe that a "potential maximum fun" exists in a perfect world designed by God and doesn't exist here/now--and that this "potential maximum fun" doesn't include doing drugs, or playing with dolls. A little girl and a serial killer may not be consciously aware that a higher form of fun/happiness exists and therefore they can't relate to ideas from anyone that proposes such a fun does exist, because their minds simply can't wrap around the concept unless they somehow have been through or had the same experience as the one claiming that it's fun. With all that said, it's true when people say there is no "perfect MMG". So this is what I propose when we think of ideas. When you're debating in your own mind how gameplay should be based, choose the option that more closely resembles what you think God would choose for your game, and simply not what you think a distorted mind would, no matter how much of your audience is compromised! These are aspects of reality which I believe God intended to have us exist within, in order to feel an "ultimate" happiness. 1. Uniqueness but Balance. This is the huge, major issue everyone seems to have trouble with, and it has to do with freedom and balance. Obvious human beings are unique. MMG balance depends on freedom and uniqueness so much--everyone as well as myself are always complaining about how we want to have a unique role in the game and perhaps change the world, while at the same time we don't want to permanently lose our valuable items or permanently die or, as in my case, miss out on what could have been killing a ferocious monster or miss out on exploring a certain city before it was razed or anything of the sort, etc. What I perceive the solution to be, is to first figure out how God would have originally planned for us to experience uniqueness but total equality within our reality. Issues in designing an MMG are things like the thought of "permadeaths" and "what we lose by dying and how much of it" etc. This scares us. We are scared of being permanently scarred or disadvantaged within the game, and that is just like it is in reality. In God's perfect world, would He think we can experience equality by dying prematurely? So logically most of us know allowing permadeaths in an eternal MMG world would be impractical (of course there is 1, maybe more games out there that don't think so!). In reality, there are so many things which permanently negatively affect us, that it's absurd to mimic those qualities in an eternal MMG. I think I've found only one thing God has prepared for us in terms of equality during any competition, and that is, that in a perfect world, by our choices and by the effects of others on us, we will either gain nothing, or gain something, but never, ever, lose anything. We can choose our role in life, who to be, good at soccer or good at tetris, but our progress at becoming the best will never be stunted as long as we push at it. We will always be able to feel we are gaining progress in a perfect real world, DESPITE the fact that others may be progressing along side of us, constantly topping us when it comes down to competition--the point is, we should always improve if we want to, and it will feel good to know it, even if it is an illusion. As for others who have chosen to progress when we have chosen to idle (therefore we think we are "losing" something), well if it is inevitable in a perfect real world, due to age difference or opportunity, then it should be accepted in an MMG world. As for losing something (substantially feeling a reverse in progress), no one likes to get pushed back in the real world, or else they lose motivation--and those that keep pushing forward after they fell down are honorable, but in a perfect world would such a fall be necessary or desired? If I get paralyzed and continue to push forward in life that may be honorable, and I may pursue living even though I have lost much, but is such pain necessary to me in God's perfect design? So should falling hard and losing anything besides a competitive showdown itself be necessary in an MMG, if it shouldn't be necessary in a perfect world? Only now, if you agree with me so far, we have the task of finding out how to make people feel either gaining nothing, or progress, but never a loss in an MMG--particularly, with keeping the infinite and finite in mind. Do we want the world to exist in a cycle, so nothing pops out of nowhere and the world is finite, or should items, money, monsters and resources and levels be infinite? Should there be a mixture? What in reality allows us all to progress and grow every time, giving us the illusion that it's infinite? I'm not saying it's definite or discovered yet, I'm just proposing a method to achieving that goal of designing an MMG so everyone feels that they can progress at will, without the threat of being stunted. 2. Loving/Friendly Relationships This issue is another major one. In reality, God has given us the opportunity to experience joy with people. But not only that, I believe in a perfect world, everyone will be friends with everyone. I'm sure venturing through a world of mature players would satisfy so many people, and it's sad that this isn't true. Some players like to chat with internet lingo, or be immature, and some don't. In our perfect reality, I'm sure we'd all believe negative or unfitting immaturity would not exist. There is little that can be done about this problem except separating the immature from the mature, or tolerating the immaturity. A couple theoretical solutions. One thing we can hope for is that perhaps the game we design does not attract the immature ones, so they are repelled to even play the game. But this doesn't guarantee that the mature ones would like to play it either. Once again we can design it according to how we think God would like us to, and let it go from there. This doesn't mean there has to be fairy princesses and candyland in our games, but perhaps, to change rules regarding how we go about competition--should there be PKing? War? The other solution, is that if we are able to design a game they really really love, so much that they want to be accepted by the community within the game in order to enjoy the game more fully, they might just desire to be less of a pain towards others. Of course they'd first have to see that they're being immature in the first place, and they'd also have to see that being immature prevents them from experiencing the world and the people in it as fully as possible. I don't mean to physically experience the world better, as in, to travel farther or gain better items. What I mean is, if they see the intrinsic value, the atmosphere, a world that welcomes them into it, a world that they want to be a part of simply because of itself and not because they want to be the best explorer or fighter or anything, but just because they enjoy being a part of that world. They might tone themselves down because they enjoy the world for itself so much that they themselves will not enjoy their own immaturity. To them it should feel out of place. Is it possible? Highly unlikely, but then again, if a game could be designed according to the laws of a perfect world imagined by God, maybe it could? 3. Beauty! God obviously has a talent for creating lush landscapes and jaw-dropping scenery. It's a pity we can't hear any of His music except as wind through leaves, seashores, and birds chirping, but I guess He left music up to us! Beauty is actually #1 in my mind when it comes to thinking of fun maximization in an MMG. Having beautiful artwork and beautiful music is an OBVIOUS quality game developers look for in their games and I'm not saying no one looks for it! But surprisingly, two things: some people ditch the beauty aspect as a side issue because they claim a good game doesn't need beauty--true, but only when other MMG aspects are boosted and/or actually WORK! The second thing is, on gamedev I have seen very few people talk about the importance of beauty in creating a stunning MMG because they'd rather talk solely about gameplay and balance, which in my opinion are immensely important, but shouldn't hog the debate, thereby shoving aside the potential that an exceptionally beautiful game can offer, when beauty is one area which can be developed and advanced without much dispute between developers or players, unlike gameplay and balance. I think to focus on an area that has potential to succeed without conflicting opinions is more efficient than to dabble in the realms that are constantly argued over. However beauty once again is relative, and there are reasons, and I understand that, but I'll bet we can all agree that large crowds of people generally accept similar standards of what make "beautiful" audio and visuals. I have always, always thought, that in an age where gameplay debate consumes us all, that the major practical escape is to put our players through an otherworldly experience that leaves them simply itching to explore the whole world just because of its beauty. If gameplay fails or cannot be guaranteed, just the sight of a game combined with great music should keep a player wanting more. Beauty and art is an area that creativity can basically be expressed within an infinite range, so why struggle with gameplay issues which can be quite limited, when creating a visually attractive and musically stimulating MMG has so much potential? Don't we all agree that we understand some form of visual or audial beauty? I keep thinking that even in a world without conflict or danger, if I could explore a great vast land with musically-enhanced, beautiful artwork, alone or with other MMG players, it could be extremely enjoyable! This is why as an artist I love Legend of Mana background art as opposed to realistic 3D imitations of real trees and plants. Real trees and plants are beautiful, but they have already been created and already been experienced, and God gave us the ability to design our own trees and our own plants and planets through art and we should exploit it. An MMG is really a virtual world, and doesn't need to be "a game". Despite the differences in artistic taste, once again I think the general audience will agree on what is a great experience of beauty. Satisfactory artists and musicians may be hard to find, and that is an obvious problem, and I don't claim to have a solution to that. Also I'm not saying current computer hardware or server power is able to provide for such beauty though. That's beside my point. Anyway I hope this has been something different, and helpful, for once, despite its monstrosity. I welcome any debate. Like I said I don't claim to have solid idea, but I will pursue these ideas as much as I can unless someone can prove to me why they might fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
but I will pursue these ideas as much as I can unless someone can prove to me why they might fail.



The Apple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Quote:
Original post by Run_The_Shadows
So your entire theory is that game designers need to be creative and make good games?


No he's trying to make you join his cult. I will resist.

Hard work Sylon, I'll give you that, but not very practical like Run_The_Shadows mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm...when I read this thread, I thought it was gonna be about something a bit different. I'm a bit too lazy to read all of it, but the first half of it sounds pretty good.

Personally though, I thought this thread was gonna be about making an MMORPG with "Gods" which are moderators/company players who are immortal and control different things about the world. Actually...that'd make a kinda cool Ancient Greeek MMORPG...but I'll save the game design for those who know what they're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I refute your logic in that hackers equate to evil ... this is using the same logic which proves guns by themselves are evil.

Furthermore, game developers should not innocently give away their private networks, data, server access, or anything. Innocence and presumptuousness, do not a good network admin make.

You have some interesting points, but I think your logic is diminished by a very narrow view on the reality of games, religion, system administration, and business.

(Personally, I don't think logic and religion should even dare approach one another... one is based on facts and deduction, the other is based on faith.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't do much about debating the philosophy, but on an interesting note, the #1 character in MUD/MUX/MUSH code, the one who controls everything, is called God. :)

Myself, I'm not going to make the perfect MMO. I'm making the one I'd like to play, which I haven't seen made yet. I can pretty much guarantee it won't be perfect or balanced. But it's the one I envision I'd want to log into an hour or two a night, and just play. :)

If someone does manage to make the perfect one, though, I'll play there, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather than setting forth a series of maxims by which to guide the organic development of a teleologically intact, optimized surrogate universe by following in the ontologically prior footsteps of an omniscient being, why not embrace your mortal finitude and set about applying the toolset of physical, mental and spiritual virtues with which that Creator has imbued you? Instead of creating a universe ex nihilo or drawing it out of a realm of perfect forms, try to deconstruct the end goal that you have in mind, and use rigorous analysis to reverse engineer the things you love, so that you can approximate them in the simulated world?

After all, gaming isn't a thing, it's an event, a relationship between the gamer and the game. In an MMG, it's the sophisticated relationship between the gamer, the game and the other gamers. Use a framework of interfaces to guide interaction, and then you can fill the rest in around it. Just as an animal's form is determined most prominently by its skeleton, let the game's for be set forth by the underlying and overarching metagame, which sophisticated players will quickly detect. Blemishes in presentation, like damage to a vehicles aesthetic body panels, are easily forgiven. If the chassis of the thing is damaged or improperly affixed, then performance and satisfaction will be ruined.

I'm just joshing you. Break your OP into smaller, more coherent questions if you want to engage in pointed, meaningful discussion around here. We've got itty-bitty attention spans, and are easily distracted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by MatrixCubed
I refute your logic in that hackers equate to evil ... this is using the same logic which proves guns by themselves are evil.

Hackers, while maybe not 'satan' are perhaps more the equivlent of a thief stealing something he doesn't need just because he wants it. (As opposed to a thief who steals because he's hungry and has no way of paying, whilst still completely wrong, it's a different thing almost entirely)
Quote:
Furthermore, game developers should not innocently give away their private networks, data, server access, or anything. Innocence and presumptuousness, do not a good network admin make.

So If I let slip my social security code; it's your civic duty to whip me into shape by ID fraud?
Quote:
You have some interesting points, but I think your logic is diminished by a very narrow view on the reality of games, religion, system administration, and business.

Actaully, I agree with this.
Quote:

(Personally, I don't think logic and religion should even dare approach one another... one is based on facts and deduction, the other is based on faith.)

All facts must be first guessed and then proven; so logic is built upon assumptions and hypothsisses(Wow; how the heck do I spell that word?)

Although I agree with the fact that the OP shouldn't have mixed the two in this scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:

So If I let slip my social security code; it's your civic duty to whip me into shape by ID fraud?


If you let slip your social security number to the Billions of people in the world, what's the chance that one of them will misuse it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Hypothesis
Hypo - Meaning below, under. Like hypodermic, hypothermia
thesis - Intellectual proposition.

"You say hypahthisis, I say hypo-theesis."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WOW I didn't expect this many replies! I'm grateful. Haha!! And grateful no one admits they think I'm retarded. :)

Lightblade, that's okay, I am a weirdo compared to the rest of the world.

Run-
Quote:
So your entire theory is that game designers need to be creative and make good games?


PRECISELY!

LOL. You're funny though. Most of what I said, is that, yes, but I also suggested at a way to make them better, overall. Maybe I didn't get into detail on it though. I will try to simplify it in this post.

Anon-
Quote:
The Apple.


Well, yeah, I guess. Maybe we'll have to wait another 20 years for better technology.

Guimo! Thanks, haha!

Quote:
I'm a bit too lazy to read all of it, but the first half of it sounds pretty good.


Cool!

Matrix-

Quote:
I refute your logic in that hackers equate to evil ... this is using the same logic which proves guns by themselves are evil.


What? But guns are machines, and hackers are people who can think about their actions. Also they become the source of unhappiness when they disturb the balance (however much of it) in an MMG. Anyway I don't like calling people "evil", I like to call evil itself evil. "Evil" people are really just ignorant or unlucky.

Quote:
Furthermore, game developers should not innocently give away their private networks, data, server access, or anything. Innocence and presumptuousness, do not a good network admin make.


True, but I guess by "innocent" what I meant was that they equally give their game to everyone in the hopes that people will use their game for fun and not to ruin the fun of others.

Quote:
You have some interesting points, but I think your logic is diminished by a very narrow view on the reality of games, religion, system administration, and business.

(Personally, I don't think logic and religion should even dare approach one another... one is based on facts and deduction, the other is based on faith.)


Well I guess that's a fair point (I don't like imposing religion or philosophy on anyone muahahah)--but I still believe reason/logic can exist to support religion, even though science and empirical data can't. But even if it can't, and even if no one believes in a God we can still dream of a perfect reality though, whether it be designed by God or by human consciousness.

Ellis-

Quote:
I can't do much about debating the philosophy, but on an interesting note, the #1 character in MUD/MUX/MUSH code, the one who controls everything, is called God. :)


Likewise eh?!

Iron Chef-

Quote:
I'm just joshing you. Break your OP into smaller, more coherent questions if you want to engage in pointed, meaningful discussion around here. We've got itty-bitty attention spans, and are easily distracted.


Okay here guys let me try to re-explain as briefly as I can (which is laughable), for the balance part at least.

MMGs are treated as "games". They are not treated as "worlds". They are treated as "games" but that is semi-strange because they are eternal games, and eternal "games" (competitive sports or board games etc. complete with rules and regulations by which to play) don't exist in the real world. I think only those MMGs which are treated as a perfect world instead of a perfect game are the ones that will be most successful (and there have been those that attempt to treat it that way).

To stop beating around the bush as I have done before, is to say that I think the best MMG would be one where competition between PCs (not PCs and monsters) is voluntary and that the game should establish the best environment so that hatred and anger are not felt in the MMG, but only a love and companionship/friendship, even when someone loses to someone else during a competitive event. Anything that is, I am gonna call it a "perma-LOSS", that serves to create a competitive disadvantage to some PCs, would not serve as something that creates a loving environment between players when the game goes on for eternity. Healthy competition in the real world is such that you go in, but when you come back out, after victory or defeat, you haven't actually lost anything. If you lost the competition, you haven't lost anything but the competition. Unhealthy competition in the real world is that of say, rich vs. poor. It MAY give the ILLUSION of winning or feeling good when we are rich, but in reality it has the potential to stir up hatred within the poor. Some MMGs are built in an eternal world that mimicks ours, where there is unhealthy competition. This is not to say there will be immature unsportsmanship during a healthy competitive event in an MMG, but there are ways to minimize it. I like the idea personally, of one day your enemy is your enemy in competition, but another day he may be your friend in competition. I believe that any MMG that supports the concept that all players ARE inherently friends with each other and ARE connected, in any way (and doesn't just toss them into the pan and pretend it's up to everyone to become friends), will succeed because of its alignment with the laws of the universe, which I say, is to love. It should create the notion for the player that we are friends and we all have been, from the start.

Swordfights and battle and war can still exist and stuff, if we go about it properly. It's the "permalosses" to me that seem to be the problem. Also PC vs. monster (AI) competition is fun, but it's also a different story. I'm focusing on PC to PC relationships.

Is that better maybe? For the balance part?

[Edited by - Sylon on March 17, 2006 9:07:38 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Sylon
MMGs are treated as "games". They are not treated as "worlds". They are treated as "games" but that is semi-strange because they are eternal games, and eternal "games" (competitive sports or board games etc. complete with rules and regulations by which to play) don't exist in the real world. I think only those MMGs which are treated as a perfect world instead of a perfect game are the ones that will be most successful (and there have been those that attempt to treat it that way).

To stop beating around the bush as I have done before, is to say that I think the best MMG would be one where competition between PCs (not PCs and monsters) is voluntary and that the game should establish the best environment so that hatred and anger are not felt in the MMG, but only a love and companionship/friendship, even when someone loses to someone else during a competitive event. Anything that is, I am gonna call it a "perma-LOSS", that serves to create a competitive disadvantage to some PCs, would not serve as something that creates a loving environment between players when the game goes on for eternity. Healthy competition in the real world is such that you go in, but when you come back out, after victory or defeat, you haven't actually lost anything. If you lost the competition, you haven't lost anything but the competition. Unhealthy competition in the real world is that of say, rich vs. poor. It MAY give the ILLUSION of winning or feeling good when we are rich, but in reality it has the potential to stir up hatred within the poor. Some MMGs are built in an eternal world that mimicks ours, where there is unhealthy competition. This is not to say there will be immature unsportsmanship during a healthy competitive event in an MMG, but there are ways to minimize it. I like the idea personally, of one day your enemy is your enemy in competition, but another day he may be your friend in competition. I believe that any MMG that supports the concept that all players ARE inherently friends with each other and ARE connected, in any way (and doesn't just toss them into the pan and pretend it's up to everyone to become friends), will succeed because of its alignment with the laws of the universe, which I say, is to love. It should create the notion for the player that we are friends and we all have been, from the start.

Swordfights and battle and war can still exist and stuff, if we go about it properly. It's the "permalosses" to me that seem to be the problem. Also PC vs. monster (AI) competition is fun, but it's also a different story. I'm focusing on PC to PC relationships.

Is that better maybe? For the balance part?


I think pretty much every major MMO post-UO has included 'PvE' servers alongside it's 'PvP' servers. This pretty much thoroughly satisfies your condition that all player competition should be voluntary. Regarding 'perma-loss', it's another non-issue in the MMO's of today. Duelling, or playing PvP Battlegrounds, or any other player competition in the game incurs absolutely no loss to the player's character whatsoever - unless you get super technical and decide that a loss of 'honor'(defined in WoW terms as 'PvP ladder rank score') is a permanent unforgivable loss; In which case I'd note that the players are the ones who demanded the honor system in the first place.

If you're looking for a purely human connection type MMO, ignoring facets of 'gameplay'(unless desired) I'd also say you've pretty much been beaten to the revelation that sometimes people just want to login to a Second Life and hang out with friends and just be There.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's interesting. If it's been done so much "post-UO" then why do people still debate about things like consequences of PKing? I thought games like Lineage and stuff have PK systems where there are consequences for PKers, and therefore even if there is nothing lost by a victim, there still becomes something the PKer will "lose", by his being punished somehow. Not sure of Lineage's system, maybe I am thinking of another (don't have time to surf now gotta go to bed)--but surely there are some of those games that do such a thing?

And Second Life is not my type of game for a number of reasons, mostly because I don't just want to hang out, BUT, I think you understand what I mean, now, anyway. Haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Sylon
That's interesting. If it's been done so much "post-UO" then why do people still debate about things like consequences of PKing? I thought games like Lineage and stuff have PK systems where there are consequences for PKers, and therefore even if there is nothing lost by a victim, there still becomes something the PKer will "lose", by his being punished somehow. Not sure of Lineage's system, maybe I am thinking of another (don't have time to surf now gotta go to bed)--but surely there are some of those games that do such a thing?

And Second Life is not my type of game for a number of reasons, mostly because I don't just want to hang out, BUT, I think you understand what I mean, now, anyway. Haha.


I said "alongside" if you'll note. There are generally servers which enforce a PvP ruleset(players can always kill players, based on various rules about which team players are on) and servers that enforce a PvE ruleset(players can only kill players when both consent to the combat, otherwise it's only players against the NPCs).

Some games(Eve Online, UO for sure, I'm sketchy about others) tend to support a very free and dangerous style of gameplay. You die, you lose your stuff, and that's that. There are people who flock to these sort of games and situations because it's a thrill. Eve has peaked at around 25,000 users online at one time, it seems to average around 15,000 at any given time of day. It's a very dangerous game, with no coddling of the players or safety nets against random acts of PvP.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have games like Everquest 2(until recently) and WoW's PvE servers - servers where players posed no immediate danger to one another at all. Zero. You could not attack another player unless that player authorized you to do so. Even then, if that player killed you, you lost absolutely nothing, except maybe a few minutes of time. The point of these servers is to play cooperatively with other players against the NPC opponents, or at least to avoid random ganking or other player aggression that you see on PvP servers. This conforms completely to your very hard-to-read theory about 'voluntary loss-less player competition'.

People still debate the specific rules or boundaries of PvP combat because it's one more facet of their creation of their own metarules for the game in question. Some people love PvP, but only when there's nothing to be lost. Some people love PvP when everything is on the table and there's no safety. This is little more important to the topic of MMG design than two players arguing about which weapon should do more damage, or whether or not powerful loot should be made more common.

If you really want to understand why people would actually willingly play in PvP conditions, I suggest you read:
The Big Scam, by Nightfreeze(EVE Online)

Which I think perfectly defines the allure of a game that allows for Player versus Player interaction without boundaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh okay. I'm sure that not all of my ideas are represented in the PvE servers 100%, but I won't talk about it much anymore (might be extra weird), and also the fact that you mention some games support and enforce NPC-fighting with cooperation between PCs is pretty much most of what I was trying to say, yes.

Quote:
Original post by Run_The_Shadows
If you really want to understand why people would actually willingly play in PvP conditions, I suggest you read:
The Big Scam, by Nightfreeze(EVE Online)

Which I think perfectly defines the allure of a game that allows for Player versus Player interaction without boundaries.


AHA! This is exactly what I meant by what I didn't like! I LOVE the story though. Ture or not, it could happen I bet. It's a perfect demonstration of how someone who works hard to achieve something may lose it all and thus the potential for real-life people to hate real-life people is great. I admit the thrill of getting revenge and getting away clean after committing a crime is intense and enjoyable when you succeed. But I would ask myself, is it a natural happiness, a natural high, to feel that thrill, and is there a better way to achieve a more enjoyable happiness through virtual worlds.

However I think you've answered my post as good as it could be answered, and even though I have some other minor ideas (which may or may not be answerable) I see not much reason to say much else! Partially because I end up confusing people anyway. Thanks a lot though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Not the Apple computer... The Apple. Man's temptation to sin. Following the analogy, wouldn't the same thing that caused God's Paradise to fail be the same thing to cause an imperfect emulation of Paradise to fail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The perfect world does mpt exist, due to one reason it is subjective. What would your pefect world be would be much different then my own. This applies to every other being on this forsaken planet. Though I do admire your conviction withing your writing, know I do share simular views. Some differ here and there, but overall what you proposed is much like I've been plotting for years now, but with a few key differences. But, that may be for another time.

What most forget is that games designers need to be creative and make good games. Designers of the upcomming generation of things will have to think above and beyound that they normally do. And sooner or later simply taking the apporach of this is a job, will be inadecuate. Games should be treated like art, a life, as they are direct relations with our imagination so why sell ourselves short?

On another note, keep this in mind, yin-yang. You used this to represent the title, but remember the concept holds true to life, and thus the games we create.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anonymous,

OHH! Okay. Well, I mean, I guess it depends on the beliefs surrounding the "Apple" (I never called it apple, just called it "fruit"!). If Satan caused God's Paradise to fail and it was not a rule within God's Paradise that caused the failure, then we're all set, all we have to do is mimic God's Paradise the best we can! Which is to mimic a perfect reality. Then hope "Satan" doesn't come along and ruin it. Of course there are human beings that can ruin it besides hackers, by the way they act in-game, but that just ties into reality's problems. At least we can design the game as if there weren't any obnoxious players!

Verg--

I see what you're saying, and I know philosophy well, but I also said in my first post I believe we should think "in the direction of God", and where there is dispute, we should choose what we think best respresents a perfect world in reality (of course my post was so large it's hard to remember everything). Yes, you and I will have different ideas of what is perfect, but for both of us when it comes to designing an MMG, there will be times when we will think of satisfying a particular game audience by coming up with game rules that supposedly "balance" it. I am saying, do what you think is right, is perfect, in accordance with a perfect reality, and forget about what the audience thinks because (what you said) we all are subjective and thus everyone's ideas of perfect fun are different. So I say, choose the direction of "fun" which you think best represents perfection in in reality, instead of trying to "appease" the best of both audiences.

The closer we move toward God (whether He exists or not--hopefully so, and of course I believe so), the better our chances of gaining a spiritual support from God. This support could be anything from completing our project to becoming famous, to having our games loved by a large number of people--to name a few hopes. Of course nothing's guaranteed but it's worth a shot at some of that isn't it? Even if our perceptions of Him and perfect reality aren't 100% accurate and everyone's is all different we can still try our best.

I actually chose the Yin-Yang because I thought it best reflected God (male and female). LOL. Yes, true to life and games we create indeed.

I'm glad you like some of my ideas. I like you for liking them. I have been thinking of my own design for about 3 years. What you said is true, and deep. Games are art. I love a game that can send me unique, beautiful emotions. Those emotions usually come from combined graphics and music. If only smells could be introduced...!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that your fundamental maxim of emulating divine creation is flawed. Having never seen a world without the taint of original sin, "to mimic a perfect reality" is impossible. Earth before the Fall is incomprehensible to us, except as a negative definition, as a world without so many of the things we understand. We don't really know what to put into it, except for abstract philosophical notions like "love" and "beauty" and "excellence".

Beyond that, I object to the notion of a game world as being a world first and letting the experience arise epiphenomenally from that world, as it does in ours. I don't think that people will choose a world devoid of teleological content over a world (like this one around us) which seems to possess a priori motivations in the form of salient needs and sophisticated pre-existing schemas of social, geographic and physical principles.

Your best bet is to make a world that serves as an extension of this one, not a reflection. It should be extended with purpose and order, and it should have a simple set of objectives that will guide design throughout the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it's just that I am under the impression that the best of current life is actually a "piece" of the perfect world. Everyone can experience a piece of the perfect world, only, not the entire thing, based on their life experiences and what has been recorded into their subconscious. If I watch a lion attack my brother, from then on I will fear or hate lions. What if it was my brother who instigated the lion to attack, and I never knew? From then on my understanding of lions, hence the world, will be tainted. Of course in reality it's more complicated like how parents raise/love their child, etc., and societal effects.

All I'm suggesting is that if such a perfect world were to exist, at any time in history or the future, that it would most definitely exist to give us utmost happiness, which would mean there must be something about it that would make it happier than this one. And, you're right that no one would understand the world now, and no one would agree. But if we have any ideas about what it could be, we could look at what makes ourselves happy (hence a "piece" of perfect reality), and step 2 would be to look at what makes us UNhappy (Fear? Anger? Sadness?), and then filter out the "happinesses" that arise out of some negative emotions like sadness and anger--such as a desire for a satisfying revenge, or a need to destroy things, or an adrenaline-pumped thrill to "survive". Serial killers and drug addicts usually have tragic pasts but yet they must think they're happy doing what they do. For example would we rather continue fighting wars in reality or would we rather just chill out and have everyone do the same? Why do we feel the need for war instead of healthy competition in a peaceful world? I know I love to play RPGs where there is war and suffering and triumph over it all, but when I am playing with other human beings (PCs) it takes on a whole new spectrum. If NPCs are the enemy when it comes to survival within the game, and PCs are only enemies during healthy competition within the world, it would make sense to me according to my understanding of true happiness!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever happend to seperation of religion and game developing????

And where'd the 'online' go in MMOGs?? Is it a single-player Massively Multiplayer Game? :D

Presonally, I'm just gonna stick with singleplayer games for a *long* time. Much more simple.

And BTW, sadness makes me unhappy.

Quote:
I refute your logic in that hackers equate to evil ... this is using the same logic which proves guns by themselves are evil.


Hackers don't ruin games, game developers ruin games!

(sorry if this post wasn't that helpful! Someone should smack me for this...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this