An idea for the next generation of MMO

Started by winkio, March 31, 2014, 01:44:45 am

Previous topic - Next topic

winkio

We have all heard some common complaints about MMO's


  • they are just a race to the finish

  • there is little reward for creativity or uniqueness

  • it's just a grind for the top gear

  • too much focus on being "the best" in terms of skills/builds/etc.



Now I am not naive enough to think that adding in the latest gimmick will solve any of these problems, whether it be motion controls or higher resolution graphics or virtual reality.  In fact, my idea draws on some very old-school concepts from tabletop games such as D&D:

At the core of the game is an AI that can control everything from what quests are offered, to environment design, to NPC interaction, to enemy spawns and characteristics, and even game mechanics.  This AI is constantly receiving information from all the players connected to the game such as how quickly quests are completed, how many players are in a person's friend's list, and when players die.  This information is used to make decisions that affect future gameplay for all players connected to the server, and in a way that is much more sophisticated than simply buffing/nerfing classes and weapons.  For example, if there is an area of the world that is not often traveled, a new outpost and dungeon can be added in order to attract more players.  If certain players are progressing through the game very quickly, the game may send extremely difficult quests their way.  If other players are spending most of their time traveling, they may receive a quest line that allows them to be the first to explore an expansive new wilderness.  If yet others are into crafting, they may unlock a new crafting mechanic that greatly expands the types and qualities of items that they can craft.

The game rewards the players for playing the game in a unique way that is meaningful to the player, but does not give them a global advantage.  In doing so, the game also diversifies the player base, as no matter how much a single person plays on any number of accounts, it will be impossible for them to be an expert on all aspects of the game.

But it doesn't stop there.  Quests can be made that handpick a certain group of individuals that must work together, providing easy opportunities to meet new players and grow and maintain a list of friends.  Clans can be set up to compete for a huge sum of prize money, or forced into an alliance to raid a new dungeon filled with monstrous creatures.  Consequences of player choices can be generated in real time, instead of following a preset story branch.  Every new character would experience a completely unique story that takes place in the same game world, although they may have some shared experiences with other players.

So at this point, people are probably taking a step back and saying "well that's a cool idea, but that AI is a few decades away at the very least."  And if you were to make a fully capable AI before releasing the game, I might agree.  But if instead, you only partially design the AI, and then use the gameplay data from the users to tweak it bit by bit until it is fully formed, I think it could feasibly be developed right now.

Blizzard

Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

winkio

I don't know, a lot of those ideas in the videos rely on player effort, and on the player's mind aligning with the developers' minds.  To me it just seems like another gimmick that people would get bored with after some time.

My idea doesn't so much rely on how clever the developers are at setting up the world, but rather on the freedom that the game world offers, and the diversity of approaches that players will take.

Blizzard

There is only so much freedom you can offer in a game. Fact is that too much freedom will bore the players as well. Sure, there are exceptions like Minecraft where you can do whatever you want. But in general games without some sort of goal or purpose can be problematic to both make it to be fun and having fun while playing.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

winkio

I'm talking about the freedom offered by a tabletop game compared to a modern RPG.  In a tabletop, whoever is running the game is creating the story as they go, and incorporates the player's characters and actions, making unique situations and challenges.  This is directly opposite the rigid quest lines of many RPGs.

Blizzard

I understand that, but I am arguing the complexity this brings with it for players, dungeon masters and developers. You would have to make a game that supports custom dungeons which can be set up by dungeon masters so that the players can play. This is what I meant with freedom. Dungeon masters would almost have to be able to make games within the game.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

tSwitch

I think what MMO's should do is stop trying to be WoW.
Not as in "stop cloning WoW" but rather, stop trying to have that level of broad appeal.

WoW was an accident really, it happened at the perfectly right time when videogames and MMO's were just picking up steam.  It had a critical mass of interest, brand recognition, and it was a HUGE improvement over Everquest to the point where some of the most famous EQ guilds jumped to WoW during the beta.

If another MMO is going to hit it big like that, it won't be by design.

I think MMO's should shoot for strong, individual niches.  Guild Wars 2, EVE Online, and Final Fantasy XIV are strong examples of MMO's that launched ( or re-launched ) with the intent to serve a focused audience; not the entire gaming population.  They have their identities, they stick with them, and if you have noticed...2 of the 3 launched with monthly fees, and have yet to go F2P due to lack of interest.

I could go on for hours about game mechanics, design, and content, and how gameplay itself evolves due to copying and copy-improvements and etc... but now is not the time or the place.

Basically, I think there is a place in our market for themepark MMO's like WoW, or Final Fantasy XIV ( though arguably this game contains a measure of sandbox mechanics that most themepark games do not ) and also a place for things like EVE Online, where the players control everything.

To say either end of the spectrum is inferior is just a flawed statement, as they are intended to serve different audiences.


FCF3a A+ C- D H- M P+ R T W- Z- Sf RLCT a cmn+++ d++ e++ f h+++ iw+++ j+ p sf+
Follow my project: MBlok | Find me on: tSwitch.us | Twitter | Tumblr

Blizzard

Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

WhiteRose

April 02, 2014, 04:33:05 am #8 Last Edit: April 02, 2014, 04:34:53 am by WhiteRose
I agree with a lot of winkio shared. I also agree with Blizz and NAMK in that it depends on the type of audience that the developers want to meet. Take my tastes, for example. Even though I usually stick to single player games, I've found that I do really enjoy the COOPERATIVE aspect on online games. I like the feeling of having someone else's back and them having yours, and the sense that the group would fall apart without any one of you as you face more and more difficult challenges and grow stronger together in order to face mightier foes and all of that kind of thing.

However, I strongly dislike the COMPETITIVE aspect of online games (or anything else, really; I know that life tends to be a competition, but that doesn't mean I have to like it :P.) I almost always downright refuse to do anything that is directly player-versus-player, and I sigh at the inevitable comparisons made even in cooperative groups - someone always has to be "the best."

A few other random bits: I love a sense of progression; this is probably one reason I like RPGs so much. It's one of those funny things that's kind of hard to explain. Take, for example, level scaling. I hate level scaling. I despite it with a passion. I even dislike it when you're killing dragons for 30,000 experience, and you run across a kobold, and it doesn't give you the 4 experience that it gave you back when 4 experience meant something, though this is something that I can let slide as long as I can still laugh at how easy my lowly kobold foes have become.
From a strict game-play perspective, level scaling SHOULD make the game more fun - it means that you don't have to wade through useless, time-wasting encounters, and it means that you have to use actual strategy even in the simplest of fights against enemies from a long time ago. But it doesn't, for me, at least. I've never liked it. Again, I'm not really quite sure why I don't like it, but to me, it kind of breaks the magic of the game. Of course, level scaling in an MMO is a bit of a different beast on its own, but I'm starting to get off on a tangent here.
On a slightly similar note, I like open world exploration, but it still needs to have direction. I could never really get into Minecraft for that very reason. Grand Theft Auto, in addition to just being the type of game that I wouldn't find interesting whatever the case, suffered from those same problems when I tried it - there are a million and one things to do, but there's not really any point to doing them.

All progress in games is an illusion anyway, since you're just manipulating bytes on a computer somewhere while staring at a screen, but on some level, there is that imaginary sense of progress, and a sense that your character is really developing through your actions, and to me, that's what makes it fun.

I actually think WoW is a pretty decent game. It's far from perfect, and it's far from being the best game out there, but it does have a lot of good aspects that sometimes I feel are discounted on account of "LOL it's WoW." Yes, it suffers from the majority of issues that winkio mentioned (and is the epitome of some of them, such as the whole race to the finish idea. And don't get me started on the toxic community....) However, as I think I mentioned somewhere around here before at some point, if you play it with a group of people you know and with your own agenda, it can be a blast, despite its flaws.

TL;DR / Conclusion: Riding off the ideas that many of the rest of you have mentioned, my ideal MMO would have characters that need to work together in order to accomplish goals - and not just through numbers (eg, challenges that need three people to beat simply to arbitrarily require three people,) but through cooperation of synergizing skills and abilities, coupled, to some extent, with player skill. These characters, however, also shouldn't just fit into cookie cutter builds, (ie: classes are either a "healer," "damage dealer,"  or whatever, and it doesn't matter who you have in your group as long as they fit the necessary cookie-cutter role,) but should allow players to customize their character is such a way that they don't ever feel exactly the same as someone else, especially someone else with a largely different skillset. Somehow, these groups would go out to explore the world and have adventures, gaining virtual wealth and power, while at the same time, making it feel like a joint effort, and not a competition to be wealthier or more powerful than others. This is where a lot of winkio's ideas about an AI driven "story" of sorts would come into play. I know that what I have in mind is probably not exactly the same as what he or anyone else has in mind, but I figured I'd share.






That was way more than I meant to write; this is something that I always find interesting to talk about, though, so I figured I'd throw out my two cents. I don't blame you if you just skimmed the whole thing. XD

Blizzard

April 02, 2014, 05:33:25 am #9 Last Edit: April 02, 2014, 05:34:36 am by Blizzard
I personally have nothing against a bit of friendly competition with friends in a game (Soldat, UT, Worms, etc.), but I dislike highly competitive games and games that were exclusively made to be competitive on a small scale (Starcraft, LoL, DOTA, CoD, etc.) and this usually includes online play. I think this is why I stopped playing League of Legends. It just got tedious. It wasn't fun anymore, it was work. And I could care less about "working" to get good at a game if I'm not planning to go pro and earn a living with it. I did have fun playing War Thunder for a short time, but only because I played with friends together in a larger team against another team (in a scale of 15v15 or 20v20).
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

PhoenixFire

One of the reasons I have stuck with some of the games that I have, such as Diablo II, is the co-operative nature of them. D2 has a little bit of a competitive streak to it in a way, with the ladder ranking system, but it's not required that you place on it. I've made friends on there, and we rush-level characters for each other, instead of worry about placing high on a ranking board. Once you get into hell mode, most people are there to help each other too, since that's kind of the only way to survive, unless you have a godly character.. Trading is a big part of the game too, and adds another layer of gameplay with each other in a friendly way :)   I know D2 isn't the only game like this.. Just seemed like a good example..
Quote from: Subsonic_Noise on July 01, 2011, 02:42:19 amNext off, how to create a first person shooter using microsoft excel.

Quote from: Zeriab on September 09, 2011, 02:58:58 pm<Remember when computers had turbo buttons?

Spaceman McConaughey

I want more MMOs to stop using fake combat (sorry, I'm calling it that, because the game attacking for me is the most absolute boring thing ever).
I want more MMOs using real-time, action-y combat. More of them are doing it, but... I want them ALL to do it.

Any MMO that doesn't do this just isn't worth my time.

winkio

One of the reasons why fake combat became the standard is that with 20+ people all participating in combat, there is going to be significant and noticeable delay from networking, so fast-paced combat would be very inaccurate/buggy/difficult.  What games have recently started to do is simplify the combat systems (less spells / animations / extra effects) in order to speed up the pace without bogging down the network.  There are games in other genres that have much less actually happening (FPS for example) that manage to network 20-30 players with fast-paced action no problem, but they have very simple combat and have somewhat sophisticated prediction algorithms.

tSwitch

Quote from: Colonel Blinx on April 02, 2014, 02:11:15 pm
I want more MMOs to stop using fake combat (sorry, I'm calling it that, because the game attacking for me is the most absolute boring thing ever).
I want more MMOs using real-time, action-y combat. More of them are doing it, but... I want them ALL to do it.

Any MMO that doesn't do this just isn't worth my time.


Bolded the part I'm replying to.

Obviously MMO's without realtime combat aren't searching for you as part of their target audience then.  You can play the ones that do appeal to you, that's how it works.

All but demanding that ALL MMO's should cater to your whims is just harmful.


FCF3a A+ C- D H- M P+ R T W- Z- Sf RLCT a cmn+++ d++ e++ f h+++ iw+++ j+ p sf+
Follow my project: MBlok | Find me on: tSwitch.us | Twitter | Tumblr

Spaceman McConaughey

Quote from: tSwitch on April 02, 2014, 02:40:12 pm
Quote from: Colonel Blinx on April 02, 2014, 02:11:15 pm
I want more MMOs to stop using fake combat (sorry, I'm calling it that, because the game attacking for me is the most absolute boring thing ever).
I want more MMOs using real-time, action-y combat. More of them are doing it, but... I want them ALL to do it.

Any MMO that doesn't do this just isn't worth my time.


Bolded the part I'm replying to.

Obviously MMO's without realtime combat aren't searching for you as part of their target audience then.  You can play the ones that do appeal to you, that's how it works.

All but demanding that ALL MMO's should cater to your whims is just harmful.


There's a difference between wanting and demanding, and I'd expect you to know that.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a gamer wanting a certain genre to go in a specific direction, and it's absolutely not "demanding".

@winkio:
Thanks for the constructive post. I didn't think of it that way.

Blizzard

Quote from: winkio on April 02, 2014, 02:26:25 pm
One of the reasons why fake combat became the standard is that with 20+ people all participating in combat, there is going to be significant and noticeable delay from networking, so fast-paced combat would be very inaccurate/buggy/difficult.  What games have recently started to do is simplify the combat systems (less spells / animations / extra effects) in order to speed up the pace without bogging down the network.  There are games in other genres that have much less actually happening (FPS for example) that manage to network 20-30 players with fast-paced action no problem, but they have very simple combat and have somewhat sophisticated prediction algorithms.


I was going to literally say the same thing until I realized that I'm a lazy ass.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Spaceman McConaughey

Yeah, like I said, I didn't really think of it that way (or, shit, I honestly didn't even know).

I mean, I wasn't demanding it, or anything.
Just saying I want it to go in that direction, since I would assume at this point, it's perfectly viable.

Blizzard

Lol, it's cool. I just wanted to say that I was going to say the same thing. So partially it's a technical reason.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Spaceman McConaughey


WhiteRose

Quote from: PhoenixFire on April 02, 2014, 08:36:27 am
One of the reasons I have stuck with some of the games that I have, such as Diablo II, is the co-operative nature of them. D2 has a little bit of a competitive streak to it in a way, with the ladder ranking system, but it's not required that you place on it. I've made friends on there, and we rush-level characters for each other, instead of worry about placing high on a ranking board. Once you get into hell mode, most people are there to help each other too, since that's kind of the only way to survive, unless you have a godly character.. Trading is a big part of the game too, and adds another layer of gameplay with each other in a friendly way :)   I know D2 isn't the only game like this.. Just seemed like a good example..


That is a great example, and I completely agree with you. I really like Diablo II; it does have a little bit of competition, but, exactly as you mentioned, by the time you get to hell, the majority of players have stopped worrying about being better than one another because they have to work together just to progress in the game. Diablo II was a great game. :)

Diablo III actually misses out on a lot of this due to level scaled monsters regardless of difficulty setting, and a greater dependence on player gear in order to even survive. This pushes the online competition just a little too far for me, to the point that I only play single player. However, it does have some really great ideas, and I find the single player to be quite a bit of fun - enough so, in fact, that I'm willing to forgive it that it uses level scaling. One feature that I think is really awesome is the Paragon leveling system. You can literally level up your character infinitely, but after level 60, the level bonuses are only very tiny. (Monsters stop scaling at 60, as well, so maybe that's why I can forgive it the scaling. Haha.)

tSwitch

Quote from: Colonel Blinx on April 02, 2014, 02:59:19 pm
Yeah, like I said, I didn't really think of it that way (or, shit, I honestly didn't even know).

I mean, I wasn't demanding it, or anything.
Just saying I want it to go in that direction, since I would assume at this point, it's perfectly viable.


You're right, it is viable, thats why games are doing it.
I'm just saying that due to markets, niches, differing opinions, and creative decisions, you will NOT get your wish, and it is better that way.


FCF3a A+ C- D H- M P+ R T W- Z- Sf RLCT a cmn+++ d++ e++ f h+++ iw+++ j+ p sf+
Follow my project: MBlok | Find me on: tSwitch.us | Twitter | Tumblr

locowhiteknight

April 02, 2014, 09:04:09 pm #21 Last Edit: April 02, 2014, 09:34:39 pm by locowhiteknight
Diablo 2  LOD to me, was a near perfect multiplayer action rpg game. Of course it wasn't always such a great game, but after version 9.0 on, it was spectacular. I realize Diablo 2 isn't an MMO, but since I have little to no experience with MMO's like WOW, this will need to suffice as a standard for my references.

What made the game great:

1. Joining the ladder:

Upon joining a new ladder all players start at level one with a brand new economy. After a specified period of time (months)  the ladder resets and a new one starts. At the end of a ladder your character is placed into open battle.net where you could continue adventuring with your character if you so desired.

What I like about the ladder:

You always have a relatively fresh economy and the game just feels new every time it resets.

What I dislike about the ladder:
It's painful to let your favorite character go to open battle.net knowing that it is full of hackers, and has a broken economy. Basically when the ladder resets, there is no reason to continue playing your character.

2. Trading

Trading was a major part of Diablo 2 that I think the developers of Diablo 3 failed to understand. When I played Diablo 2 back in the day, over 50% of my time was spent monitoring the trade chat looking for good deals on gear.

What I like about trading:

You spend all of this time in the game killing monsters for loot. That's the basis of a good ARPG. Every kill was like putting a coin in a slot machine: you never knew what you might find; most likely nothing, but there was always that chance you'd find something godly. The drops were rare enough that trading was a necessity. It was fun and entertaining to set up deals and trades with other players.
 
I liked the fact that other players could scam an unwary player. That is some excellent roleplaying on their part. They were crafty enough to trick another player into making a bad deals, using bait and switch techniques.
 
What I dislike about trading:

I guess anytime real money is involved it ruins the economy too quickly. Also, the prevalence of bots advertising sites to purchase equipment ruins the gaming experience.

3. Looting:

I always thought it was a blast to join up with a bunch of players and run a boss hoping to find a good piece of gear.

What I like about looting:

I liked the fact that it was a free-for-all, in that whatever dropped was given to the first person to grab it. Some people would try to dictate the rules of the run, stating that whatever dropped from should go to the host, but you could never really trust the people that were adventuring with you. This further deepened the roleplaying aspect of the game in which few other games have been capable of achieving, because you were emotionally invested in the game. When you were the high level character performing boss runs, and somebody stole one of the good drops (a unique ring for example) there is nothing more infuriating. But that to me is what makes it great. People could actually roleplay thieves in this game. I don't think this was an intentional design choice, this or the scammers in the trading, but it greatly deepened the gaming experience. It made the world feel, unsafe and sketchy.  

What I dislike about looting:

I guess this doesn't apply to just this game, but all games with looting in general. Every type of item needs to have a use or a way to make it useful. Either by selling, crafting, converting, etc... I don't like to see items that have absolutely no way to derive a use out of them.

4. Character Building:
It's fun to understand the rules of the game you're playing and creating a character that can thrive under those harsh conditions.

What I like about character building:
This gives you a chance to think about all the different ways you can create a truly badass character. That is why we enjoy playing the heroes and heroines isn't it.

What I dislike about character building:
I'm not a fan of respecing. I think perhaps there is a way it can be included into a game in a limited way without negatively affecting game-play too severely. I would maybe make it a one time reward for a difficult quest.

It's getting late, I'll try to post something more on track tomorrow.    
"Let's get down to brass tacks. How much for the ape?"

Ryex

The problem is that is there are so few effective ways of scaling the game while still providing a sense of progression that doesn't reliy on levels.

personally I like the idea of skill based scaling. in that you gain new skills and learn to use your current ones more effectively. I only really sees these kinds of systems in highly competitive games like LoL and S4Leage though. I think that;s because in order to provide an engaging experience after someone gets the hang of it is that it requires a scaling AI difficulty that can either be easily outscailed by a real player (AI ability limit, ie LoL's Bots) or near impossible to learn with SSB:M level 9 bots?

It a very difficult balance.
I no longer keep up with posts in the forum very well. If you have a question or comment, about my work, or in general I welcome PM's. if you make a post in one of my threads and I don't reply with in a day or two feel free to PM me and point it out to me.<br /><br />DropBox, the best free file syncing service there is.<br />

Spaceman McConaughey

April 03, 2014, 12:41:31 am #23 Last Edit: April 03, 2014, 12:54:07 am by Colonel Blinx
Quote from: tSwitch on April 02, 2014, 08:33:32 pm
Quote from: Colonel Blinx on April 02, 2014, 02:59:19 pm
Yeah, like I said, I didn't really think of it that way (or, shit, I honestly didn't even know).

I mean, I wasn't demanding it, or anything.
Just saying I want it to go in that direction, since I would assume at this point, it's perfectly viable.


You're right, it is viable, thats why games are doing it.
I'm just saying that due to markets, niches, differing opinions, and creative decisions, you will NOT get your wish, and it is better that way.


Do you HAVE to be so confrontational?
And honestly, since newer MMOs seem to be adopting this type of combat, it seems like I don't even have to wish for it.
Before long, MMOs featuring the (already) archaic battle systems will be in the minority, and I will be happy.

So, yeah, weather I wish for it or not, it's happening. Sorry.

EDIT:
Also, feel free to reply, but I don't feel like getting into an argument with you (this seems like it will go there), so I've nothing further to add to this particular discussion.

tSwitch

Quote from: Colonel Blinx on April 03, 2014, 12:41:31 am
Do you HAVE to be so confrontational?
And honestly, since newer MMOs seem to be adopting this type of combat, it seems like I don't even have to wish for it.
Before long, MMOs featuring the (already) archaic battle systems will be in the minority, and I will be happy.

So, yeah, weather I wish for it or not, it's happening. Sorry.

EDIT:
Also, feel free to reply, but I don't feel like getting into an argument with you (this seems like it will go there), so I've nothing further to add to this particular discussion.


I'm not being confrontational here, I'm just offering a difference in philosophy as to what would be 'good' for the genre.  I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to do this...as it is the subject of the topic after all.

You want the genre to appeal more heavily to your tastes, and I want the genre to be diverse and innovative, appealing to a variety of tastes.  That, and I don't necessarily believe that action MMO's are inherently better, but I wasn't attempting to make that point, as it is entirely subjective, and you are more than allowed your opinion.

I'm not saying you can't want what you want, and enjoy what you want, or that your opinion is wrong.  You're also totally right that "action" MMO's are getting more common, and I think they will stay common, but that facet of the genre still needs a little R&D in my opinion.  That's another conversation entirely, however.

I'm just saying that if every MMO was an action MMO, that would be bad for the genre, as it would be stagnant and homogenous.  It is a sign of a healthy genre that we have games with such drastically different gameplay.  You can easily pick between EVE, GW2, TERA, FFXIV, WoW, and a myriad of other games based on a number of crucial differences that make each game into their own identity.  Developers are being creative, niches are being filled, and as a whole...innovation is simply growing in the MMO scene.

I would just hate to see it return to homogeny.  We saw that already with WoW clones after WoW got successful, and it was a tiring time for MMO's as a whole.


FCF3a A+ C- D H- M P+ R T W- Z- Sf RLCT a cmn+++ d++ e++ f h+++ iw+++ j+ p sf+
Follow my project: MBlok | Find me on: tSwitch.us | Twitter | Tumblr

Spaceman McConaughey

Alright, I just have to reply so I can point this out to you:
If every MMO suddenly shifted to action battle systems, nothing is stopping them from using different types of ABS and systems in the game.

All I got from the last paragraph was that it somehow would prevent innovation, or make developers unable to do anything unique with their MMO.

Also, when I say I want MMOs to have action combat, I'm only referring to games that would benefit from it. I'm not suggesting the developers of EVE Online to put swords on peoples' space ships and let them go at it, for Christ sake. If someone wants to make an innovative MMO, more power to them.

But if someone makes an MMO set in some fantasy world, or whatever, and it has the same old shitty battle system in THIS day and age? That would be a poor decision. And geeze, you know, I don't see what's so wrong with it if you don't want things to be stagnant. Why not weed out the old battle systems and replace them with action ones?

Let's face it: you can have more variety and uniqueness in a real time action battle system than you ever could in some static... thing that just attacks for you. There is a lot of creative potential with action battle systems, and even plenty of room for innovation to set the game apart from other games that have an action battle system.

tSwitch

Quote from: Colonel Blinx on April 03, 2014, 04:36:23 pm
Alright, I just have to reply so I can point this out to you:
If every MMO suddenly shifted to action battle systems, nothing is stopping them from using different types of ABS and systems in the game.

All I got from the last paragraph was that it somehow would prevent innovation, or make developers unable to do anything unique with their MMO.

Also, when I say I want MMOs to have action combat, I'm only referring to games that would benefit from it. I'm not suggesting the developers of EVE Online to put swords on peoples' space ships and let them go at it, for Christ sake. If someone wants to make an innovative MMO, more power to them.

But if someone makes an MMO set in some fantasy world, or whatever, and it has the same old shitty battle system in THIS day and age? That would be a poor decision. And geeze, you know, I don't see what's so wrong with it if you don't want things to be stagnant. Why not weed out the old battle systems and replace them with action ones?

Let's face it: you can have more variety and uniqueness in a real time action battle system than you ever could in some static... thing that just attacks for you. There is a lot of creative potential with action battle systems, and even plenty of room for innovation to set the game apart from other games that have an action battle system.


You're making all of your statements based on the point that you feel Action-systems are innately superior. 
I'm saying that encouraging diversity in MMO space is a better idea than only encouraging one avenue of growth.

"Older" doesn't necessarily mean "bad."

You are absolutely free to have and voice your opinion, but I am also free to disagree with it and voice my disagreement.  I think it would be a mistake for us as a community to tell developers that only action games are worth making.


FCF3a A+ C- D H- M P+ R T W- Z- Sf RLCT a cmn+++ d++ e++ f h+++ iw+++ j+ p sf+
Follow my project: MBlok | Find me on: tSwitch.us | Twitter | Tumblr

Spaceman McConaughey

Yes, that IS what my whole point is. This is an opinionated discussion, is it not? Why would my point NOT be based off of personal opinion?

Also, isn't the old way just action, but with very limited control?
What's wrong with giving people more control?

And yes, I know you're free to disagree. That's why I'm not telling you to stop.

locowhiteknight

April 03, 2014, 07:03:55 pm #28 Last Edit: April 03, 2014, 08:28:56 pm by locowhiteknight
To continue on from my last post, and to tie this into Winkio's idea for the next step for MMOs.

I like your idea for a Dungeon Master styled AI, that can track certain statistics of gameplay, to generate a more dynamic and satisfying gaming experience. You seem to dismiss new technology (VR) as being gimmicky, and most likely not the saving grace for MMO shortcomings. My argument in favor of VR for MMOs is not very strong as of late  :'(, but I think it (VR) will be part of the next evolutionary step for MMOs for sure.

So here's a bulleted list of items I think a good MMO should strive for:

1. A fully realized fantasy world with enemies you don't have to feel bad about killing. I hate when I feel guilty about killing monsters. I'm playing a fantasy game, I want to kill monsters and find loot.

2. I would like to see a combat system implemented similar to Dark Souls or Bushido Blade. Something bordering on simulation, but still very strategic.

3.  A game designed with VR in mind. Just the goggles though, not anything that requires any actual effort or movement on the player's part.

4.  A compelling overarching story that gives your adventuring a purpose. This is where Diablo 2 really shined for me. There wasn't much of a story, but the cinematics did a good of job of creating a sense of purpose to your chase after the wanderer.

5. I want a world where your decisions matter. I like the way Dark Souls handled multiplayer, though it could have been much better. But I thought it was interesting how they incorporated the multiverse/world angle to explain how changes in one world wouldn't affect changes in another. This would fit perfectly with an MMO where you could kill important NPC's and need to live with your decisions. Of course not just kill NPC's but offend people, or make enemies,  choose sides, etc...

6. I always look to Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition as being the pinnacle of the character creation process. Any formula that stays relatively close to this kind of character creation would be fine with me.

7. Covenants in Dark Souls were handled extremely well and I would like to similar mechanics incorporated into MMOs.

8. Trading would need to be a big part of the experience. While I liked Diablo 2's trading, I think it would have been better if there was a place you could go with your characters, like a tavern, to trade.

9. Make the loot a free-for-all, and keep items random and the good stuff rare. Let people role play as theives and let heroes/heroines be cautious of who they choose to join them on an adventure.

10. Incorporate a Ladder system so the game stays fresh. Also, it might be cool if you could transform a high level character at the end of a Ladder season, into a useful item that a "descendant" character could take with him into the new Ladder season.

11. Maybe Steam could create a reputation system similar to Ebay to help keep track of hackers and spammers.

I'm out of time again... lol...
"Let's get down to brass tacks. How much for the ape?"

tSwitch

Quote from: Colonel Blinx on April 03, 2014, 05:17:07 pm
Yes, that IS what my whole point is. This is an opinionated discussion, is it not? Why would my point NOT be based off of personal opinion?

Also, isn't the old way just action, but with very limited control?
What's wrong with giving people more control?

And yes, I know you're free to disagree. That's why I'm not telling you to stop.


It's sort of real-time but I would argue it's not an action system.
I'd consider GW2 to be action, and typical MMO's are sort of like an ATB based game ( because of the Global Cooldowns ).


FCF3a A+ C- D H- M P+ R T W- Z- Sf RLCT a cmn+++ d++ e++ f h+++ iw+++ j+ p sf+
Follow my project: MBlok | Find me on: tSwitch.us | Twitter | Tumblr

Spaceman McConaughey

I meant in the sense that you initiate and watch action-y stuff play out, albeit you can't do any more than that.
I just think more control over the combat in some fantasy MMO or whatever is nice.

Blizzard

I want to offer a 3rd perspective on the innovation discussion: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cxhs-GLE29Q
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

WhiteRose

@locowhiteknight: It's funny that we can love the same games but for different reasons. XD For example, I would never even begin to think of other people being able to steal my hard earned items as a positive thing. Ever. One of the changes I actually didn't mind in D3 was the personalized loot drops. I do really like your emphasis on the role-playing aspect of things. You know, it kind of makes me think, it would be really awesome to have an MMO with some actual D&D-style role-playing, as you mentioned. Of course, it would almost be an entirely different GENRE than MMOs like WoW, which has little to no role-playing in the traditional sense, instead focusing on the "role-playing" aspect of statistical character development.

I really like both forms of role-playing, so it would be fun to see them in an actual MMO together. Of course, character-based role-play from the traditional standpoint would require a lot more cooperation between characters, and players would have to be willing to accept some set limits on the extent to which they are able to role-play their characters. (eg., you can't win a fight through narration of your actions; it would be up to the game mechanics and your character stats) It would also take some clever programming to make it immersive enough to work. Once again, having some advanced winkio-sytled AI would do the trick. Anyway, I'm rambling now.

Quote from: Blizzard on April 04, 2014, 01:17:00 am
I want to offer a 3rd perspective on the innovation discussion: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cxhs-GLE29Q


Definitely some interesting figures. (On a completely and totally unrelated note, the narrator guy really irked me for some reason. Not sure why. Anyway, solid ideas and data.) On that note, perhaps one reason that each new WoW-styled game fails to achieve the commercial success that WoW has is because WoW itself is still around, albeit quite a bit different in its current incarnation from its original form. If Super Mario Brothers received regular content and graphical updates along the same lines as WoW, the original game would probably still be alive and kicking in markets today, (console generation gap notwithstanding, of course.)

@NAMK and Blinx's conversation: Kind of like what I said to locowhiteknight, it's almost as if we're looking at too broad of a genre entirely. Almost like taking Amnesia and Call of Duty and balling them together into "first-person games." I think each type of game appeals to different people. For example, I recently played both FFXIV, which was a "WoW-styled" combat system, and Phantasy Star Online 2, which is more along the lines of what I think Blinx has in mind. They felt completely different! Now, I'm sure that there were more differences in them than simply the type of combat system. The player-base, setting, and even method of payment (F2P versus subscription-based,) among other things, were different between the two games. Regardless, they definitely played very differently, and I would even go so far as to put them into two genres as distinct and separate as Fallout 2 and Final Fantasy VI. Both are "RPGs" but people often make the distinction between "WRPGs" and "JRPGs." Maybe a similar distinction could be made in the MMO market.

Spaceman McConaughey

April 04, 2014, 02:02:53 am #33 Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 02:04:49 am by Colonel Blinx
Quote from: WhiteRose on April 04, 2014, 01:56:28 am
Maybe a similar distinction could be made in the MMO market.


When we're looking at them as being different genres in the MMO market, that makes more sense.


Off-topic: ShowHide
Quote from: Blizzard on April 04, 2014, 01:17:00 am
I want to offer a 3rd perspective on the innovation discussion: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cxhs-GLE29Q


Bleh, that guy has always annoyed me.
(that really had nothing to do with the content of the video, just sayin')

Blizzard

The way he talks is annoying, I agree. But he makes some interesting points as whether innovation is being driven forward the right way or at all. I mean sure, Nintendo does innovate and they are probably the only ones with the balls to do so. But it's kind of sad that the same game released each year over and over has blasting sales like that. Even when you take into account that the number of people who play has increased over the last 20 years, it does not change the facts much.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS


Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.

Spaceman McConaughey

Yeah, definitely. He does talk annoyingly.

And yeah, definitely to that other thing.

Tazero

I dunno, I can do a lot of things in Mabinogi -- And its not just click and kill either, they have different combat elements but I think its implemented pretty well...mostly. There is a freedom to the game as well so its not all bad.
@Innovation: I saw that word and was about to link the same video o-o;;


If you were a fish...