Okay. So I can see we're all, more or less, on the same footing, we mostly consider the MMO part to be, at best, a bad description, and at worst, false advertisement. From what I've seen, MMO is simply a description of "many players playing the same single player experience together", instead of a social networking game.
So is there a way to shift that paradigm clearly derived from single player games?
What could a game designer do to make a better use of the clear MMO nature of its game?
Is there a way to FORCE (please bear in mind that what I am trying to do here is get players to play together instead of side by side, and definitely NOT start a flame war...) players to play with one another?
If quest is principal in your game design, is there a way of having quests that rely solely on your interaction? Maybe pushing it further than LotRO's crafting quests, where your sole interaction with players is spamming the craft channel with demands for the desired object? Can your quest be to help or hinder someone doing something? Is there a way to tie quests to the presence or absence of players, and their accomplishment of past quests?
As an exemple, would it be possible to have one player play a thief and ask him to steal something somewhere? If there is a player-played police force in your game, can you have another player take on the case of the heist? Can you get a THIRD person to try and steal back? Or silence the first thief? Or both?
If quest is secondary, then what kind of forced interaction can we have? Can we pretend to allow light death penalty through BREEDING? and therefore having offsprings come in all shapes, sizes and genders? Can romance and relationships be taken a step further from "Lv16WarMale LF Fem 16min" in a dedicated channel? Is there a way of making roleplaying an integral part of a design, and if so, what would be YOUR approach at doing this?
Can the story be ever-evolving through continual events, a la MxO, but taken even further? Matrix Online has this gimmick of making the world evolve as a result of the players actions through bi-monthly events. Can we have month long questlines be prepared in advance and let the players go free through them? Could we have not one, but MANY dedicated authors trying to outdo each others through this mean, each creating questlines for a particular group or faction? Could wars be created and stopped through this means?
Is there a way to recreate the aspect of table-top roleplaying in online sessions? I'll willingly admit that it will NOT be casual-friendly, but, if we ALSO shift from the D&D XP+gear paradigm, what is there to prevent hoarders to come in the first place?
Would such a game have a market anyway?
I am eagerly awaiting your answers...
MMO topic: Is MMO still appropriate?
Quote:Original post by Merluche
Okay. So I can see we're all, more or less, on the same footing, we mostly consider the MMO part to be, at best, a bad description, and at worst, false advertisement. From what I've seen, MMO is simply a description of "many players playing the same single player experience together", instead of a social networking game.
So is there a way to shift that paradigm clearly derived from single player games?
What could a game designer do to make a better use of the clear MMO nature of its game?
Is there a way to FORCE (please bear in mind that what I am trying to do here is get players to play together instead of side by side, and definitely NOT start a flame war...) players to play with one another?
Hope you're not counting me in that consensus, because I _don't_ agree. The single player paradigm works because it is fun. Compared to group play, solo play is more efficient (I dunno how many hours I've spent waiting for other people in mmos), safer because you don't have to worry about trusting other people, you don't have to feel guilty about making other people wait for you or whether you are hogging the drops or whether it was your screw-up that got the group killed. I'm not saying multiplayer play is bad, it can be great too. I'm saying the good philosophy of mmo building should be to build a fun solo play base and then in stead of _forcing_, think offering opportunities to _tempt_ people into multiplay sessions.
One possibility is making specific locations in the game where people can meet each other and form groups to do a specific group activity. The group activity could be anything from a dungeon to a duel to a multiplayer minigame or a type of gathering which can only be done by a team. These locations should be _easy/fast/cheap to get to_ and if your game has levels, it should be clearly marked which activities are appropriate for which levels.
So imagine your game as a cruise ship - everyone needs alone time in their cabin and wants to do restful things like sunbathing sometimes, but by providing locations stocked with toys (pool, racquetball court, craft class, lan room) and scheduled, announced special events (hypnotist performing in the main ballroom) the cruise company provides a great vacation experience by tempting people to do a variety of things and not making anyone feel forced or constrained.
Author
Matter-of-factly, NO? I wasn't counting you in the consensus, because, for some reason, you just don't seem to get the point I'm trying to make. Single-player games ARE fun, and I just LOVE Oblivion. But I wouldn't care if Oblivion went online, because there is nothing in there that requires me to play with anyone else. Oblivion online just doesn't appeal to me, because oblivion is a single-player game, and with MMOs, I want to have a MULTIPLAYER experience.
Which brings me back to my original question: why is it called Massively MULTIPLAYER if it is, basically, a single-player experience, with many people doing just the same thing as you, but alone too? And what can be achieved to adress the question? What is there, in terms of paradimatic shift, to change a basically Single-player experience into a multiplayer experience, without resorting to forced grouping? How can interaction be brought to change things?
Which brings me back to my original question: why is it called Massively MULTIPLAYER if it is, basically, a single-player experience, with many people doing just the same thing as you, but alone too? And what can be achieved to adress the question? What is there, in terms of paradimatic shift, to change a basically Single-player experience into a multiplayer experience, without resorting to forced grouping? How can interaction be brought to change things?
Quote:Original post by Merluche
Can your quest be to help or hinder someone doing something?
Yes, something like that is possible, technically. But I don't see it happening, at least for the "hinder" bit.
Most MMOs are very, very careful when it comes to offering features which involve hostile actions towards another player (in many cases a paying customer), even starting from the very basic point - PvP combat. What you're talking about is taking it a step further and creating an environment where players actively oppose and work against each other in many different ways.
What prevents this from happening in the forseeable future is the "frustration factor". As much as something unpredictable and challenging might be appealing at first thought, it is frustrating when it goes against you. MMOs have to worry about gaining and keeping thousands of players - they're not really going to make players metaphorically suffer at every step.
Quote:
Is there a way to recreate the aspect of table-top roleplaying in online sessions? I'll willingly admit that it will NOT be casual-friendly, but, if we ALSO shift from the D&D XP+gear paradigm, what is there to prevent hoarders to come in the first place?
Seeing as MMOs rely on being casual-friendly, overprotective and having that "must-get-enough-players" attitude to survive, I'd put that down as unlikely. As well as a good many other ideas when it comes to "improving" MMO genre.
MMO genre is just what it is today. Any future changes or improvements are going to follow the same philosophy, not stray from it. If you can't come to terms with that, play proper games instead. :)
As to answer your last question, I'll stick to the point in my previous post. "Massive" and "Multiplayer" simply do not go together. Proper multiplayer experience can ONLY be achieved in a small-scale multiplayer. FPS games are a good example of this (someone already mentioned BF1942), many other genres as well. Although I'd say that FPS games offer the best multiplayer experience currently.
Lets talk Boardgames...
Most of you will probably know the board game "Risk" (if you don't it is easy enough to google or find on wikipedia). It is a game of armies batteling it out for control, of the world.
I see this as being like the current set of MMOs. In Risk, it is an advantage to form aliances, but there is no real gameplay mechanic that requiers it (other than Bosses being too hard to take down solo).
However, their is a game like Risk that does use gameplay mechanics to encourage team work (oh and stabbing allies in the back :D ) called "Diplomacy" (again use google or wikipedia).
The difference with Diplomacy is that aliances are essential for victory, so there is an essential social aspect of the game. Where as Risk, although aliances can be made, they are not necessary for victory.
In the current MMOs, aliances with specific individuals (guilds) are convenient, but not necesary.
What if making and keeping aliances with specific players was necesary for advancement? What if there was a mechanic that encouraged social networking?
Now individuals forming aliances with individuals may not be necessary or feasable in an MMO, but you could use Guilds as the social networking base entity.
CUrrently the only real interaction between guilds is: who completes the latest raid expansion pack the fastest, or some other meaningless (in terms of the game world) metric (eg: most members, fastest boss kill, loot, etc).
If guilds had more stake in the game world, then the individuals within that guild would feel more of a sense of "belonging" and therfore encourage both role playing and a sense of being in an MMO.
Triba talked about "Power" and "Authority" and this is important. CUrently the only Power that aguild has is within the guild itself and the only authority is the over the members of the guild.
As an example of how this might be included into an MMO (which means building it as part of a new MMO rather than tacking it onto an existing one - and it is completly hypothetical):
Maybe when a guild is large enough (or completed certain raids), they can be given authority over contested piece(s) of the game world (this is to build the guild into the world). Depending on the fortunes of that guild and action they take (maybe helping new players within their area(s) or recruiting new members, paying loot to fund "war" efforts in that area), they can sway that section of the game world more towards their chosen faction's control. This of course would take place over several days or weeks of real time, and control is never absolute and with several degrees of control between the two extremes.
Alliances between guilds can be formed by having a more powerful guild "sponsor" a smaller guild and give it partial (or to full) control over a subsection of the regions the larger guild controls (basically a realy crude feudal system), however, the smaller guild is not the one that determines directly over the faction aliance of the region (it would be indirectly as the larger guild would depend on the performance of the smaller guild).
Nearby allied guilds could also provide aid and requests for assistance, or even just their presence (and curent performance) could have an influence over how easy it is to control that guilds lands.
So essentially what this example is supposed be about is that when you give players a stake in the game world they will naturally be drawn into taking part in the world. By making this stake dependent on interactions between guilds (guilds on the opposing sides, allied subordinate guilds and nearby allied guilds), you create links for social networking. You eliminate the vaccum that currently surounds both players and guilds.
Most of you will probably know the board game "Risk" (if you don't it is easy enough to google or find on wikipedia). It is a game of armies batteling it out for control, of the world.
I see this as being like the current set of MMOs. In Risk, it is an advantage to form aliances, but there is no real gameplay mechanic that requiers it (other than Bosses being too hard to take down solo).
However, their is a game like Risk that does use gameplay mechanics to encourage team work (oh and stabbing allies in the back :D ) called "Diplomacy" (again use google or wikipedia).
The difference with Diplomacy is that aliances are essential for victory, so there is an essential social aspect of the game. Where as Risk, although aliances can be made, they are not necessary for victory.
In the current MMOs, aliances with specific individuals (guilds) are convenient, but not necesary.
What if making and keeping aliances with specific players was necesary for advancement? What if there was a mechanic that encouraged social networking?
Now individuals forming aliances with individuals may not be necessary or feasable in an MMO, but you could use Guilds as the social networking base entity.
CUrrently the only real interaction between guilds is: who completes the latest raid expansion pack the fastest, or some other meaningless (in terms of the game world) metric (eg: most members, fastest boss kill, loot, etc).
If guilds had more stake in the game world, then the individuals within that guild would feel more of a sense of "belonging" and therfore encourage both role playing and a sense of being in an MMO.
Triba talked about "Power" and "Authority" and this is important. CUrently the only Power that aguild has is within the guild itself and the only authority is the over the members of the guild.
As an example of how this might be included into an MMO (which means building it as part of a new MMO rather than tacking it onto an existing one - and it is completly hypothetical):
Maybe when a guild is large enough (or completed certain raids), they can be given authority over contested piece(s) of the game world (this is to build the guild into the world). Depending on the fortunes of that guild and action they take (maybe helping new players within their area(s) or recruiting new members, paying loot to fund "war" efforts in that area), they can sway that section of the game world more towards their chosen faction's control. This of course would take place over several days or weeks of real time, and control is never absolute and with several degrees of control between the two extremes.
Alliances between guilds can be formed by having a more powerful guild "sponsor" a smaller guild and give it partial (or to full) control over a subsection of the regions the larger guild controls (basically a realy crude feudal system), however, the smaller guild is not the one that determines directly over the faction aliance of the region (it would be indirectly as the larger guild would depend on the performance of the smaller guild).
Nearby allied guilds could also provide aid and requests for assistance, or even just their presence (and curent performance) could have an influence over how easy it is to control that guilds lands.
So essentially what this example is supposed be about is that when you give players a stake in the game world they will naturally be drawn into taking part in the world. By making this stake dependent on interactions between guilds (guilds on the opposing sides, allied subordinate guilds and nearby allied guilds), you create links for social networking. You eliminate the vaccum that currently surounds both players and guilds.
Author
Talin> I'll agree that most games actually rely on the player-base to get their funding. So far, I only know of Acclaim games who are trying to take a different approach to the pay-per-month standard. They basically let you play for free, but if you want all the fluff, you have to pay for it. Most of what you can buy from the Acclaim store is items that don't REALLY give you an advantage, merely a better look, and sometimes, a timely help too. But that's about it. And, surprisingly, their current market model seems to hold its own. I'll grant you that 9 dragons doesn't attract as many customers as WoW, but the reason of that may be that WoW has been made by Blizzard which created much hype around it, whereas 9 dragbons has almost come out confidentially. But that's beside the point.
As for the BattleField series, they don't exactly fit into what I would call multiplayer games. they would be more team-based games. Teams could even amount to 64 at a time. But, and unless I am not enough versed into those, you can never find 64 real friends to play at once on your side, and usually end up playing 128 teamsor close at once on the same board. Which cancels the interest of having many people on the same board.
What I am trying to see is wether or not there is a way to get interaction at the core of a design for an MMO.
Edtharan> I quite like your description of the facts. And I like the way the guilds can be used to make the games progress.
IF (and that's a big if) a player doesn't feel interested enough to get into a guild, then he remains a casual, and solo player, essentially.
But IF, (and that's another major if) guilds are made to be a major component of the game, then what is there to prevent interaction between the guilds to happen in a semi-pre-scripted form?
Your example is quite interesting with the domination of a patch of land. The very same thing already happens with the infamous "spawn-points" being jealously kept by the guild-members, to a point where the casual solo players cannot get to the same spawn-point, because it is too well kept. NOT casual friendly design, then.
But, if, instead, guilds could not control physically the territory, and had to complete tasks to modify the rules, would it be more interesting? If you could, I don't know, modify the perception of the police force through bribery, would your guild be willing to accomplish it? If you could buy the town guards in order for them to let the other guild's members die before their eyes without raising a finger, would you try?
I suppose those gimmicks would be self balancing, because, although everyone may want to be the king, there is absolutely no interest in being the king on a heap of ashes. You are only the strongest if there is someone you can mesure up to. Beating everyone out of town and driving every opposition out of the game would be meaningless... After all, bragging rights are, as I have read on those boards "just another e-Penis size contest". If you're alone, how can you feel you're tall...
Although this "Guild Wars" situation sounds promising and interesting to dig, I am still unsatisfied with it. Talin's insightful remark about MMO being a market instead of a genre seems to imply that until players are ALL ready to play and accept consequences, no meaningful evolution can be conceivable. Is there no way we can think of to create a game which would make interaction more than grinding monsters and bragging about the loot?
As for the BattleField series, they don't exactly fit into what I would call multiplayer games. they would be more team-based games. Teams could even amount to 64 at a time. But, and unless I am not enough versed into those, you can never find 64 real friends to play at once on your side, and usually end up playing 128 teamsor close at once on the same board. Which cancels the interest of having many people on the same board.
What I am trying to see is wether or not there is a way to get interaction at the core of a design for an MMO.
Edtharan> I quite like your description of the facts. And I like the way the guilds can be used to make the games progress.
IF (and that's a big if) a player doesn't feel interested enough to get into a guild, then he remains a casual, and solo player, essentially.
But IF, (and that's another major if) guilds are made to be a major component of the game, then what is there to prevent interaction between the guilds to happen in a semi-pre-scripted form?
Your example is quite interesting with the domination of a patch of land. The very same thing already happens with the infamous "spawn-points" being jealously kept by the guild-members, to a point where the casual solo players cannot get to the same spawn-point, because it is too well kept. NOT casual friendly design, then.
But, if, instead, guilds could not control physically the territory, and had to complete tasks to modify the rules, would it be more interesting? If you could, I don't know, modify the perception of the police force through bribery, would your guild be willing to accomplish it? If you could buy the town guards in order for them to let the other guild's members die before their eyes without raising a finger, would you try?
I suppose those gimmicks would be self balancing, because, although everyone may want to be the king, there is absolutely no interest in being the king on a heap of ashes. You are only the strongest if there is someone you can mesure up to. Beating everyone out of town and driving every opposition out of the game would be meaningless... After all, bragging rights are, as I have read on those boards "just another e-Penis size contest". If you're alone, how can you feel you're tall...
Although this "Guild Wars" situation sounds promising and interesting to dig, I am still unsatisfied with it. Talin's insightful remark about MMO being a market instead of a genre seems to imply that until players are ALL ready to play and accept consequences, no meaningful evolution can be conceivable. Is there no way we can think of to create a game which would make interaction more than grinding monsters and bragging about the loot?
from what I understand EVE online does this. Their guilds can own property and run the local stores. In their space they guard against who ever they want to guard against.
Author
Yes, the guilds DO have a right to own property and to uphold their own law in EVE. But there isn't much to do in terms of interpersonal actions, nor in terms of out-of-the-box evolution. It's still XP and gear... Even if XP is gained through time instead of through actions, and gear can be definitely lost...
The term MMO seems a bit loaded sometimes so I took after Richard Bartle and started calling them Virtual Worlds. It implies a much more open design, MMO brings certain stereotypes to mind.
EvE Online has "End-Game" that starts pretty much right after you install it, and if you're into that sort of thing, it's a very rewarding social experience.
There are solo options and play styles available at all times, but an enormous amount of the content is only accessible via cooperation. There are those who use six accounts concurrently to do that on their own, but that's unavoidable.
There are solo options and play styles available at all times, but an enormous amount of the content is only accessible via cooperation. There are those who use six accounts concurrently to do that on their own, but that's unavoidable.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
