Sign in to follow this  
Nytehauq

Providing the player incentives instead of "paths"

Recommended Posts

Nytehauq    328
I dream of a game that exists in a generalized world. The player controls a character that is customizable on a variety of levels, and the game doesn't provide a specific "purpose" for the player in the world. There isn't a straightforward level based progression scheme as in action games (Beat the first boss, go to the second level, beat the second boss, etc.) and no "encounters" are planned specifically with the intent of the player coming across them and beating them for reward. Essentially, you have a dynamic and shifting world powered by some simple form of AI, populated with non-player characters that have varying degrees of power and varying desires, all autonomously seeking out things in the world with their own artificial "self purpose." The player is thrown into this world to make something of him or herself. However, the player isn't given a path to go down. The game world is large enough with enough powerful entities (Dieties, etc.) autonomously shaping things and enough gameplay incentives to give the player reasons to explore the game world. You want the player to play so that they can experience the world and the stories that take place in it (Stories enabled by NPC's) and gain power/progress as a character for the sake of influencing, controlling, and building parts of the world. A good analogy would be "real life, unlimited" The world is full of powers beyond your control, people with their own ideals and motives, and people find reasons to do lots of things in the real world. Well, lets take that schema and dynamic and build a fantasy based simulation that functions on similar principles, but get rid of the "power ceiling" and allow the player to explore a world that approaches the dynamic nature of the real world but provides for escapism in allowing the player to garner more and more power and try and alter things as they see fit within the constraints of gameplay. Instead of a game populated with "leveling," "grinding," "quests," "bosses," "milestones," and other such arbritrary divisions, why not try and design a world where the player makes meaning out of what is given to them instead of prescribing it to them? If it were technically feasible to design an autonomous game world, would you buy into it? Lets say you take a generic MMORPG world and replace the typecast quests (E.g. collect y many of x item, escort x person to y place, kill x dragon for y reward, kill x many of y monster etc.) and characters (Characters exist on scales of power and morality. Conflicts in most games come in the form of the powerful evil characters taking advantage of the weak but good characters and you having to save them) and instead replace the static "questgiver" or "task" based gameplay with a system of autonomous non-static NPC's. Wavinator made a post about "reactive random events" some time ago, essentially a system where factions and entities could "control" certain areas of the gameworld and the player's experience would be shaped based on where they were in the world. If you were in "space pirate" territory, you'd have a high chance of running into space pirates. If you defeated them, they might decide to leave you alone for awhile. I like the idea, it's rational, but it's still random. Lets say you've got a deterministic world full of entities who have specific goals. There are bandits who like to rob banks, some like to kidnap people. There are evil sentient demi-gods who like to cause environmental havoc, and some conveniently absent good gods who need to call on you to do their bidding, and there are some neutral gods who swing either way at times. The conflict and interactions between the small (bandits, thieves, townsfolk) and the large (gods, devils, switzerland ;P) provide the player with oppurtunities to achieve. The "good" gods want you to fight off a demon uprising inspired by one of the "evil" gods, and the evil gods want you to help in their insurrection, and the neutral gods want you to get reconnisance on the evil gods without the good ones knowing. Which do you choose? There's the value in it! If you create autonomous beings in your game world with generic and easily modifiable motives and desires, you can essentially supply the player with an endless series of procedurally generated content, the product of the sentient and ongoing conflicts you have created via your world's varied characters and powers. In this way, the player can find incentives via moral dilemas and their standpoint on life, instead of a path to go down. The game doesn't "expect" you to side with the good, it is the objective staging ground for a bunch of fictional characters that all "seek" to control and modify it as they see fit. The player can then take advantage of the opportunities provided in these conflicts to experience gameplay, better their character, do whatever. If that's all to vague and esoteric for you, here's the simple version: Would you like to play in a fantasy world of apparently sentient gods and demons? Would you prefer making choices as to your progress instead of following paths planned out for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
umbrae    308
AKA something like Oblivion without the storylines but keeping guild like quests?

I'm not sure how great this would be. What sort of cut-off are you thinking about - can you talk to npcs? Do they talk about events that happen... do they get you to do things for them ('quests')?

What is the difference between a quest, a path or an incentive?

I just feel like you would be wandering around with no real purpose... players want progression in an rpg-like world. If it was coop this may be different, but a game really needs to place a target for the player, provide them with something to do. As long as there were plenty of interesting things to do, then it would be great.

I've had a look around and I believe that it's hard to dynamically generate different interesting things that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nytehauq    328
Quote:
Original post by umbrae
AKA something like Oblivion without the storylines but keeping guild like quests?


Not really...Oblivion is still a planned out game with a "branching" storyline, but those branches are still written into the game. You can choose which branch you want, but you're still going out on a specific branch.

Quote:

I'm not sure how great this would be. What sort of cut-off are you thinking about - can you talk to npcs? Do they talk about events that happen... do they get you to do things for them ('quests')?


Essentially, each NPC is an automated AI with its own "desires" and wants. You might have a farmer NPC that interacts with his environment by tending to crops and has a set of reactions to certain types of events (If bandits come into town, this NPC is programmed to try and protect his family but will leave the bandits be if they don't threaten him or his livelyhood). This NPC might need some help with something that falls outside of his normal list of actions but still serves to fullfill his programmed desires (Needs a different type of seed for his next crop, or was attacked by bandits and wants someone powerful to help him get revenge). Essentially, you populate the world with characters with opposing desires and motives and the player finds things to do by "helping" those characters fullfill their "personal" desires. Any reward is incidental - there may be a farmer you don't choose to help because you either disagree with his motives or the payment isn't worth your time. Contrast this with a game where you're better off just doing "everything" every questgives tells you because there is one linear type of progression. The key is that you create a world where NPC's don't exist for the sake of the player. That farmer might ask another NPC for help instead of you or the next random hero that walks by. He might even distrust you because you're a stranger. More detailed NPC's create a more detail world, ripe with roleplaying oppurtunities (if you're dealing with an RPG) or unplanned "progression." You can interact with these NPC's through contextual menus, each menu scripted to be populated with issues that may be of concern to the NPC, based on their character makeup.

Quote:

What is the difference between a quest, a path or an incentive?


Why do you do a quest in a standard RPG, except for the fact that it gives "experience?" You're expected to do quests, because that is the defacto point of the game. Get more experience points, get more powerful, get better gear etc. The player is given a path to follow.

Now, in life, are you given a path to follow? You're born into a world with a number of options open to you in most cases, and you choose which opportunities to capitalize on. That's the difference between a "path" and an "incentive." Life is full of incentives, games tend to be full of paths and quests, and false choices.

Quote:

I just feel like you would be wandering around with no real purpose... players want progression in an rpg-like world. If it was coop this may be different, but a game really needs to place a target for the player, provide them with something to do. As long as there were plenty of interesting things to do, then it would be great.


Well, if you're thrown into a game where there is engaging gameplay and a method of progressing said gameplay (Your gameplay oppurtunities increase as you improve your character via pursuing the incentives that you choose from your dynamic and changing environment), you're left with this choice:

Where do I want to get to with my character, and how do I want to get there? In most games, you choose a character "class" and you complete "quests" until you get to the ultimate end of progression. It's linear. You go from point A to point B.

A better proposal, in my mind, would be to challenge the player with mastering the world instead of just "beating" things and getting "more powerful." The objective of this system would not be to "be the best" as much as "explore and master as much as possible." There's a fine difference between the two.

Quote:

I've had a look around and I believe that it's hard to dynamically generate different interesting things that happen.


Have you ever though about how the few interesting things that happen daily in life happen to be? Or, how that car crash you drive by every once in awhile happens? If you put any person into a sufficiently advanced simulation, they will happen upon meaning. It isn't placed there for you, but you find it anyway.

The essence of any story is conflict. If you have enough varied sides and factions with a multitude of different motivations that often conflict with each other, your world will be populated with interesting conflicts for players to work around and through and to ponder. Good writers create intentionally conflicting characters to create interesting plots and stories, why not add a little automation to it for the purposes of a game? I'm not sure how hard it would be, but the merits of an idea aren't based on its ease of accomplishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robert4818    138
I'm one of the biggest proponents of Procedurally generated or "Randomized" components of games.

The one key is that you cannot replace quality content with randomized content. The two must be made to work hand in hand.

Anything you randomly generate will be hollow and shallow. If you are talking about missions and quests, the key is to have alternate static content that the player can use, or to place it in well made man made areas.

Here some examples.

Lets say that you create an RPG with a random map, to balance the overall blandness of the map, you need a compelling storyline with pre-generated quests stories, and events. You can randomize the placement of these, or tie them to key actions of the player. However, if you randomly generate the quests as well, then you end up with hollow missions in a hollow world, and the game will not be good.

If you instead go with generated content. You need a good world, with compelling characters who generate missions based off of. On top of that, you need to have great man-made portions of the random generation system. Things like the various tile sets etc, must be made well, and must be made in enough variety to hold off the feeling of repetiveness.

A fully randomized world will not work, not until AI increases to a point beyond where it is at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nytehauq    328
Quote:
Original post by robert4818
A fully randomized world will not work, not until AI increases to a point beyond where it is at the moment.


Well, true and not true. You could effectively procedurally generate the questlines that most RPG's rely on, minus the crappy storyline tie-ins. The key here is that nothing is random. It's deterministic, the difference is in the details. Ideally, such a world would be "seeded" with certain advanced plot elements and typecast events and NPC conflicts, and the "main" plot of the game world would have to be advanced by the steady hand of the designer. But much of the world would be autogenerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ignislupis    122
For a long time I have wished for a game very similar to what Nytehauq has described. I have wanted a randomly generated world with randomly generated NPC's and quests. I believe that the randomly generated world could be accomplished. I have played very limitedly with Pandromeda's MoJo World (it is basically a fractal terrain generator but it is designed to generate a whole world) and think that a very beautiful and complex world could be dynamically created using similar programming. Now parsing the generated world and finding appropriate sites for cities, trade routes and other story based locations could be difficult but possible.

The rest of the story content could also be generated. It would require a vast amount of quality content expertly written in modules or templates. Great care would have to be taken to create templates more like the C++ Standard Template Library rather than MadLibs.

I grew up playing Dungeons & Dragons and would very much like some of the free form play we had but with beautiful graphics, music and sound that computer games can provide.

I have never liked level grinding. I have done it but only because I wasn't strong enough to finish a quest or kill the level boss etc.. I have always liked Myst for it's tough puzzles but not for it's static story line.

If there are enough factions, opposing forces and tough puzzles designed into such a randomly generated world, it would work and people would like it. So maybe the emphasis is not on getting to level 40. Maybe just being a good person in game lands you Mayor of the town. Maybe your little group of bully buddies gets hired as thugs in the big city.

I think it could be done. It will be difficult but it will be awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper Zoid    1370
One of my goals is to figure out methods of automating stories in games in a similar fashion to what you describe. I've only got as far as a basic understanding of the magnitude of the problem - right now I'm focusing more on general game development with an aim to slowly work towards something similar to what you describe in the future.

However I don't think I'd say the "bosses" and "milestones" are a bad part of the genre - I think they form a good rhythym to the pacing of an RPG which make it more enjoyable. If possible I'd like to recreate that in an automated story world.

I'm also not sure why you've got a problem with random elements in a procedural world. If everything is truly deterministic there's a higher risk of everything becoming predictable. An element of randomness can make things more interesting.

I'm not sure exactly what more you wanted for your question: your question seem to be focused on whether people were interested in the idea (I tend to get sidetracked into writing more than I should for these kinds of questions in the design forum, so I won't try to answer any questions you haven't asked!) - so I'll just reiterate that, yes, I am interested. You can hunt down some of things I've posted in the interactive storytelling and automated story threads if you're interested (I think I remember you posting in some of them earlier).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr Default    138
Hmmm... there's some cool ideas here, but to react to the initial post:
I think there's an inverse relationship between quality and openness of gameplay. As a stereotypical example, take Half-Life 2 - zero options and total linearity; but that lets the designers get really intimate with the player and control his experience to the second, deciding what he sees, what he hears, and (to a large extent) how much health and ammo and knowledge of the world he has at any moment. Now, compare that with your game idea - the designer has very very little control over what the player sees and does, so it's very difficult to provide meaningful detail, humour, symbolism, consistency, pacing and many of the other things that create immersion. The player could easily end up not knowing what to do, or repeating a boring task again and again to convince a god that he's on their side, or spending vast amounts of time just moving around, or hanging around waiting for an AI to do something interesting.

I'm not saying that your idea is bad; just that it's the limitations, not the freedom, that make a computer game.

Quote:
If you put any person into a sufficiently advanced simulation, they will happen upon meaning.

Agreed, but it might take a hell of a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have made an idea and let it grow from this.

Picture yourself playing a first person RPG with almost real life graphics.

NPCs go to work, walk home, eat, sleep, talk, shop, anything that could happen in life could be seen happening to NPCs or even your player.

The player could do anything from work in a shop for money or even to find the best time to steal something perhaps to joining a band of adventurers that fight dragons and pile up their wealth.

Quests arent the same. If the player thinks something sounds like a quest he personally types it in his Quest Log and gives it a name. Example: Bob (the player) just heard two citizens talking about a reward for the capture of a criminal. He then types "Criminal killed a shopkeeper in a nearby town and escaped, large reward for capture." He then does some detective work and finds out about two men suspected. Bob writes the names down and watches what they do and asks about them. As he watches the men he finds out one of them works until midnight and decides to break into the man's house and search for evidence after writing this all down. So far he has written what the peasants said, the two men that were prime suspects, where they live and what their schedule is, how late they work, who they are friends with, and now finds out the first man is innocent but the second is hiding a large stash of stolen goods. He then takes this stash to the guard post and receives a nice large reward. In other words the player writes out suggestions to himself, what he has been told, and what he found out on his own without somebody doing all that for him.

Also no quest will ever be seen by two characters. Similar ones might but not the exact same people, places, objectives, etc. The game would have no real quests, only things leading to a quest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robert4818    138
Quote:
e player could do anything from work in a shop for money or even to find the best time to steal something perhaps to joining a band of adventurers that fight dragons and pile up their wealth.

Quests arent the same. If the player thinks something sounds like a quest he personally types it in his Quest Log and gives it a name. Example: Bob (the player) just heard two citizens talking about a reward for the capture of a criminal. He then types "Criminal killed a shopkeeper in a nearby town and escaped, large reward for capture." He then does some detective work and finds out about two men suspected. Bob writes the names down and watches what they do and asks about them. As he watches the men he finds out one of them works until midnight and decides to break into the man's house and search for evidence after writing this all down. So far he has written what the peasants said, the two men that were prime suspects, where they live and what their schedule is, how late they work, who they are friends with, and now finds out the first man is innocent but the second is hiding a large stash of stolen goods. He then takes this stash to the guard post and receives a nice large reward. In other words the player writes out suggestions to himself, what he has been told, and what he found out on his own without somebody doing all that for him.

Also no quest will ever be seen by two characters. Similar ones might but not the exact same people, places, objectives, etc. The game would have no real quests, only things leading to a quest.


Again though the problem is that the AI is not to the point of making that sort of conversation up.

Part of what makes RPG's good is the dialog, and scripting in them. To this day a computer is not able to spit out a creative story or even a decent conversation. Look at the poor workdone in Oblivion on the character "conversations" they had.

Computers are decent at creating "things" but nowhere near as good as a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Way Walker    745
It really sounds to me like you've simply renamed "quests" and made the goals and rewards random. I foresee any "incentives" that come about will be essentially planned by the designers. Only, instead of writing scripts, they'll tweak the inputs to the random number generators; the sorts of quests and their rewards are still predetermined. I'll also bet that an NPC giving another NPC a quest will be more annoying than anything else because we know that, in the end, they're the same entity. By him requiring that they give quests to PC's only you've culled some noise and increased your signal (Like photon-mapping algorithms that only shoot photons where they'll probably impact the final render).

I haven't played a MMORPG since Asheron's Call I, but you mentioned several things that I already did in that game. I already didn't take quests that weren't worth the reward. If it had good vs. evil like WoW, I'd have also not taken quests that went against my character. I already found meaning outside of quests (my main character was a low level crafter who would run, often for his life (due to his low level), around the world looking for different ingredients. My secondary character was an unarmed/unarmored warrior who ended up spending more time chatting in town than questing).

I wouldn't complain with a bit more randomness (e.g. randomly placing a few bandits around, or whatever), but I honestly think simulating a world is unnecessary and possibly distracting.

Quote:
Original post by Dr Default
it's the limitations, not the freedom


You, sir or madam, are a genius. [smile]

Like the OP said, I have freedom up the wazoo in real life. If I want freedom on a computer, I know where to find C++.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wodinoneeye    1689


Im working on a simulation project (not a MMORPG) that has many of these aspects as a goal.

One problem is the extent of the AI to give the player reasonably intelligent NPCs to deal with. Planners for the goal oriented mechanism, world representation tracking to maintain context for each object, script based 'solutions' to act toward satifying goals, (a cluster architecture to get enuf CPU to do all this), a system to evaluate relative worth of actions and consequences and via different approaches/strategies (ie- NPC is conservative vs a risk taker), an abstracting system to simplify the AI for the majority of the world which the players are not in (and conversion to a 'realized' mode with the details fleshed out when the player wanders near), high level entities that drive the macro (world) plot -- within what the game theme allows...

Another problem is that even with 'random' based infinite world mechanisms you still have to hand build templates and a seed patterns for your world to have cohesion/consistancy (try making something as simple as a geography generator without having an overal pre existing pattern and building terrain piecemeal). An awful lot still has to be hand crafted to match your desired game theme and game mechanics. Smart scripts to set up assemblages of related objects (props, people, terrain mods, flavor details) and fit them into locations.

If you want anything larger than a small world (at the level of detail you are talking about), I doubt you could have it 'grow' itself into shape (from chaos) with less than a supercomputer (and even then the behavior rules would have to be written to coalesce chaos into a working (stable) world).


You could do hand crafting but at a finer level and try to create general building blocks that then might be semi-randomly combined (and part of their logic would be self adjusting to match their situation). You would have to make the objects behaviors pretty flexible in any case because in a dynamic system you have greater combinations of situations to deal with than in a static pre-built world.

Simulating self stabalization will not be easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calabi    124
Sounds like a great idea to me at least someone is extolling the virtues of doing things a different way. I know of one game which is a bit like what you mention its called Sentient and it was on the playstation one. Your on a space station which is falling into the sun and its your job to stop it from doing so and discover other certain mysteries along the way. The way you do this is entirely up to you, your not told how to solve anything or where to go (unless certain NPCs request things of you). The converations are formed by you putting together words from lists to say pretty much anything you want which is within context. Everything happens within real time in it, NPCs go about their routines and things happen wether your there or not. Its a pretty good game as a concept its just a bit clunky and difficult to play through for some of the reasons above and its not very player friendly.

I'd love to see a new game like this although there would be many problems to make it more palatable for instance keeping it player centric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ajian    122
Randomness is a great thing, and procedural content is a huge step in the right direction. Having said that, I'm a firm believer that these should be tools used to create more immersive content, but not the content itself. People need to have something to process. Could be a new ability that the player needs to learn how to use, or a great storyline that engages the player to wonder whats lies ahead, even something as simple as "I wonder whats on the other side of those hills." The hard part is pacing so the player is overwhelmed or bored in between engaging parts of the game, also the logic behind the why of the games elements. Sure you have two peasants talking about some burnt out farm on the outskirts of town, but so many games lack the why...

-Why are these peasants caring about this farm
-Why should the player care about it
-Why would my character, who is on an epic quest to save the world/his wife/his dog/etc care enough about some gossip to put down what he/she is doing and investigate

Not many people think about game situations with that much depth but without at least some level of creative input, you end up with the ever so popular...

"Your quest is to take this book to my sister...ho is so close to me that I could throw it at her..."

People go thru the motions but rarely care or even remember what the whole quest was about, and why should they? This is my concern about games with more of an open ended sandbox feel, add on the randomness of catering the game to the players whim and it could go both ways, but that depends on the player. Of course in the end content would have to be made by the designers, but if it was distributed by these AI "deities" it would become hard to track and assign a good enough pacing.

My opinion is that we aren't at a point yet where a program can create or assign premade content well enough to engage a players thought process enough to keep them intensely involved in a game. maybe some would be satisfied, but most would be left wondering why.

I think these tools and this type of content should be used more of a how then as a why. But thats just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FadedPhoenix    132
Here is the problem I see with this whole idea. Games are created to entertain. The player must be immersed into his/her world. Now a free roaming world with just choice is kind of .... hmmmm well boring. Though you may think that is is fun think about your player base. Who would want to play this game. Most likely hard core RPGers. Thats a small demographic. Now mabe to throw some spice into it you could have a "random dynamic world" that has multiple key storyline plots. When the character starts playing the game the world breaths into life. Now how the character plays will start to interact with the plots going on around him. Quest unlocking and locking as the game goes by.

Ex: 3 factions in a land fighting for rule. The player starts as a refugee that was brought over by a neutral island and now must try to make his due in the new areas.

The key is that the world is going to keep living. It will not totally be bent on the characters choices. Meaning if there was a quest to stop a large battle and the character was not even near it when it appeared. Once the time is up on it that battle is now emanate and the world will deal with the consequences of the battle.

But getting back to my orignal point. What demographic would such a game hit. Remember though this is what we do for fun money is a part of it. How many players will this attract. A world that has no point other than to live. Something driving the world as a whole is important. Oblivion so far has gotten the closest in creating such a world. But yes it still has a very linear story.
The player cant choose to join the evil guy and kill him. The player has to be good. Look at GTA. The storylines and quests are secondary to the main game mechanics. But they are still there becuase they drive the world around the player. Small things change in the world as you do the quests. This keeps the player in your game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fournicolas    270
I have already done this answer times and again before, but I'll just put it here once again, just to see what it triggers with newcomers...

What if we simply replaced NPC's AI by... Real Intelligence from PCs?

Let me explain further.

What if, instead of a very large game in which we had a lot of AI going on, which would take quite a lot of bandwidth and processing power/time/whatever, we merely had a cluster of "simple" games, like some browser-based games around and successful these days, which would define the surrounding world for the MMORPGers to run in?

I know of a good many e-farmers games. Let's assume that the people playing those games actually like playing farmers, for the sake of the argument. Let us also assume that, although they DO like to play the games they play the way they play them, they might still play them with an added twist, which would be that random things might happen to their farms, like a group of animals or of goblinoïds would come and wreck havock in their fields. Let's say that they have a way of making it known.

Let's say that there are people who like to play crafters, but feel that they are a little underdoing it. I know of some people who complained (rather loudly too...) about crafting mechanisms in common MMORPGs. If we assume, once again for the sake of the argument, that those people spend rather a lot of time actually doing nothing in an MMORPG while they are claiming high that they would prefer to actually be CRAFTING the objects they are about to sell, why not provide them with a Flash game in which they would actually PLAY something and CRAFT something in according results?

Let's assume (I know we have been assuming quite a lot already, but let's keep to it...) that the people playing browser-based monster-breeding games, or online equivalents of zoo-tycoon, would just as well play the same games if they had to compete in them against hunters. And that the hunters would just as much enjoy their favourite hunting games if they had to actually go LOOKING FOR preys who would prefer to remain unkilled, rather than standing there ready to get their heads chopped off.

Now that we have assumed that much, doesn't that all remind you oddly of many of the numerous threads we have seen in here advocating so-called dynamic worlds?

What you would have to get is a single database for all the games, and dynamically (yes, that's where the ominous word falls in...) modify it? Or maybe only a small part of it.

Now, let's say that every game is linked to all the others through both the database and the "dialoguing server", a sort of disembodied chat server, which you can connect to from any of the aforementionned games.

Wouldn't the quest-creation become dynamic? A farmer discovers, when he logs in, that a group of trolls is camping in his turnips-field (either a random event, or something triggered by the fact that a monster-breeder moved his lot through his turnips-field some hours earlier). He connects to the "dialoguing server" and starts looking for someone ready to rid him of those. For the sake of the argument, we'll say that the MMORPGers can only enter their equivalent of this "dialoguing server" on the towns' central squares. And that there will be a little animation showing a very agitated little man coming a-yelling for a turnip saviour. Any of the adventurers in the MMORPG realm can acome and start discuss the reason of such an agitation, and even discuss the TERMS of the quest. They can haggle over how much money they can get from the farmer to rid him of his undesired squatters.

Meanwhile, the location of spawn points would be more or less dynamically modified, since they would depend on the last moved registered by the related account of the monster-breeder.

And since the adventurers would still have to get their equipments, they would have to go to the shop-keepers (other players playing Flash games elsewhere, and potentialy not in synch with the MMORPG world) and get their stuff from them, be it weapons, armor, potions or anything. But the crafters, being locked in their small houses, wouldn't be able to collect the needed materials to perform their daily activities. They would have to either place an add on their stores, explaining how much they are prepared to buy from any particular loot, and for how much, and could only HAGGLE while online. On the other hand, they could still sell for a fixed price when offline.

So what do you say? Could this be a solution to improve the online gaming worlds? Can you find any flaw (apart from the obvious "such a common database cannot be made in our times, maybe in ten to twenty years time, when everybody is connected though Fiberoptics...")?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do agree that the conversations in Oblivion were so retarded they made me want to cry.

"What is the news from the other parts of Tamriel?"
"Nothing I want to share"
"Be seing you"

I mean come on nothing in that conversation blends, he basically said shut up and the other person is just as happy as when they started talking.

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