Ok, so you''ve made it clear this is not your standard combat based MMORPG. So what do you *DO* in this game? You can''t define your game in what you *aren''t* going to do. Is role-playing and walking around the extent of your experience? Does my character struggle through life as a fat carpenter with dyssentary(sp) before falling in love with a near-sighted milk-maid? Actual role-playing seems to be a very rare thing limited to small groups(D&D). In a *massively multiplayer*ORPG It just doesn''t exist for the most part. people just don''t talk about the ale at the inn, they talk about eating pizza in their new ford escort. If you expect role-playing to serve as the main draw for your game I think your setting yourself up for dissapointment.
Of course, maybe you''re right, maybe there *is* an audience for that sort of thing. I just wanted to let you know that I''m DEFINITELY not part of it. You''ve taken the basic concept of MMORPG and subtracted the only actual gameplay element. So far, I haven''t heard you suggest anything to replace it. From what I''ve heard, your game sounds like little more than a bad dating service for really ugly people.
🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Final Death Clubhouse
Well, C.C., I didn''t say there would be NO combat. I like to think combat might be a vestigial part of the engine, a laste ditch effort, of sorts. But you need to look back at two items on that list in particular:
There need to be things for the player to want IN GAME, not numerical abstractions.
There need to be ways BESIDES COMBAT to get these things. In fact, combat is probably the least efficient, comparably.
This game would need a social structure and a carefully maintained setting, along with many other things. I''m not pretending that will be easy, but since I have never seen an MMORPG (mushes aside) that have incorperated this kind of social intrigue, it would be much called for, at least by every musher I''ve ever met, and a heap of bored MMORPGers. The key is in creating a huge backdrop, one where pretty much any kind of character can play, in a relatively small setting. Where people want power, or revenge, success. Where every body knows you name... and they''re always glad you came... oh wait.
I think you might even like it, but not if you''re expecting it to fill the MMORPG gap. No way. They aren''t the same thing, I don''t thing. =)
There need to be things for the player to want IN GAME, not numerical abstractions.
There need to be ways BESIDES COMBAT to get these things. In fact, combat is probably the least efficient, comparably.
This game would need a social structure and a carefully maintained setting, along with many other things. I''m not pretending that will be easy, but since I have never seen an MMORPG (mushes aside) that have incorperated this kind of social intrigue, it would be much called for, at least by every musher I''ve ever met, and a heap of bored MMORPGers. The key is in creating a huge backdrop, one where pretty much any kind of character can play, in a relatively small setting. Where people want power, or revenge, success. Where every body knows you name... and they''re always glad you came... oh wait.
I think you might even like it, but not if you''re expecting it to fill the MMORPG gap. No way. They aren''t the same thing, I don''t thing. =)
quote: Original post by MadKeithV
The MUD example where final death led to huge amounts of Trolling and PKing, that sounds like a balance problem. Make it even. There''s a PK around? Chances are, a lot of people were attached to that particular character of that particular player. Chances are even better, that they will be out for revenge, in LARGE numbers, to prevent their own deaths. Chances are, that PKer will not have a long and prosperous future if he ever shows his face anywhere near those players again.
( And that''s not even accounting for the player restarting after being PKed. )
Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.
Also I''d like to expand on this by saying if the game were to incorporate less of increasing skills over time, it won''t be like when you start over you are incredibly weaker than that pk as it is in UO for instance...
that''s if I''m inderstanding this correctly.
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." --William Blake
In the other post, we were discussing perhaps having no advancement (which I know is controversial in itself... I''m not sure about it)... but making the character creation process very detailed and extensive. This way, if you were making an expendable character to go off and kill someone, it would be a pain in the wazoo, but if you''re making a character to play out, this detail is necessary. I think that could serve as a signifigant deterrent to abuse of the system.
We''re talking detailed, here... like facial structure. You are given a template, and you have to change it a certain percentage before you are allowed to use it. That way there is a distinctive likeness to your character... hmm. I''m gonna go put that in the (inter)face thread...
We''re talking detailed, here... like facial structure. You are given a template, and you have to change it a certain percentage before you are allowed to use it. That way there is a distinctive likeness to your character... hmm. I''m gonna go put that in the (inter)face thread...
I guess what I''m trying to get at is the specifics. I''m not saying that this idea will never work, I''m saying that you haven''t yet designed all the things that are needed to make it work. I guess It''s a nit-picky concern, as this is obviously not a complete design. I''m just trying to get you to flesh out this idea with a real implementation.
You say "There need to be things". I agree. I want to know, what things? Without battle, those "things" are actually the essence of your game, and they shouldn''t be left until last. In fact, without specific "things" you don''t even really have a game at all! I want things! give me things!
You say "There need to be things". I agree. I want to know, what things? Without battle, those "things" are actually the essence of your game, and they shouldn''t be left until last. In fact, without specific "things" you don''t even really have a game at all! I want things! give me things!
Well,
RPGs have always been my favorite kind of game. Unfortunately most of them are really RPG (really pathetic games) when it comes to plot lines, story, and content. Somehow, somewhere, combat was deemed the key concept of an RPG, one to base plot and characters around. Look at all the great RPGs of the past. Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy, Lunar, etc. When I play these games I try to get out of battles as fast as possible because they don''t interest me... I want to find out more on what happens next.
Obviously, AP''s game can''t follow this model. Combat must always have a reason. How many games have monsters that are "frequenting the countryside eversince X showed up?" It is deplorable. Now, look at D&D. Most people that I know claim that they would rather role play than fight. Yet most D&D games I''ve seen quickly degenerate into hack and slash. Something has to be done... but what?
If the purpose of the game is not to kill in order to get XP and better (say it!) weapons so that you can kill more to get more XP and even better weapons, then what are you to do?
Chat? Cut wood? Oooooh! That''s real fun! Let me pay my $10/month to chop virtual wood. Go on quest? Do we log into a virtual world in order to live normal virtual lives?
The challenge, the real challenge, is how to create a game that reguardless of the number of players playing, everyone can be part of a "cool storyline (tm)." Unfortunately even that has its problems. It is really stupid when 10000 people all go on the same grand quest, even more so when they all start and complete the quest at different times.
Ultimately, you will need to generate good plot on the fly and customize it to the character, that way, even if you are one of the few paople that died, you don''t have to do the identical things over again. AP, you say that characters dying is not going to be common because there is less combat. True, that. But people will still die. And when they do, it will greatly enhance the gameplay if the game can generate events and side quests based on who the character is.
Also, and this is always overlooked in games, where did the PC come from, who is he? What is he like? Does he have any enemies? Friends? What''s his socio-political standing? Did he grow up a slave, a pauper, or a prince?
Anyway, I think that your idea has an overwhealming amount of potential.
-OberonZ
---
PAGE FAULT: Please insert "Swap File, Disk 2"
and press any key to continue.
RPGs have always been my favorite kind of game. Unfortunately most of them are really RPG (really pathetic games) when it comes to plot lines, story, and content. Somehow, somewhere, combat was deemed the key concept of an RPG, one to base plot and characters around. Look at all the great RPGs of the past. Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy, Lunar, etc. When I play these games I try to get out of battles as fast as possible because they don''t interest me... I want to find out more on what happens next.
Obviously, AP''s game can''t follow this model. Combat must always have a reason. How many games have monsters that are "frequenting the countryside eversince X showed up?" It is deplorable. Now, look at D&D. Most people that I know claim that they would rather role play than fight. Yet most D&D games I''ve seen quickly degenerate into hack and slash. Something has to be done... but what?
If the purpose of the game is not to kill in order to get XP and better (say it!) weapons so that you can kill more to get more XP and even better weapons, then what are you to do?
Chat? Cut wood? Oooooh! That''s real fun! Let me pay my $10/month to chop virtual wood. Go on quest? Do we log into a virtual world in order to live normal virtual lives?
The challenge, the real challenge, is how to create a game that reguardless of the number of players playing, everyone can be part of a "cool storyline (tm)." Unfortunately even that has its problems. It is really stupid when 10000 people all go on the same grand quest, even more so when they all start and complete the quest at different times.
Ultimately, you will need to generate good plot on the fly and customize it to the character, that way, even if you are one of the few paople that died, you don''t have to do the identical things over again. AP, you say that characters dying is not going to be common because there is less combat. True, that. But people will still die. And when they do, it will greatly enhance the gameplay if the game can generate events and side quests based on who the character is.
Also, and this is always overlooked in games, where did the PC come from, who is he? What is he like? Does he have any enemies? Friends? What''s his socio-political standing? Did he grow up a slave, a pauper, or a prince?
Anyway, I think that your idea has an overwhealming amount of potential.
-OberonZ
---
PAGE FAULT: Please insert "Swap File, Disk 2"
and press any key to continue.
quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
It's when the player is logged on that he can be involved in that bribery scandal, commit acts of arsen, catch a wanted criminal, hammer out a regal blade.
I think the idea is that the other people in the world will help to create "things to do" just by playing in the world. There will be criminals to put to justice. Or you can -be- the criminal amongst countless other things.
Plus, if you're role-playing there are even more stories that the players will create themselves just by playing.
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." --William Blake
Edited by - Nazrix on July 12, 2000 7:25:06 PM
That''s pretty much the rub there.. A game has to have something interesting about it. That''s why everquest succeeds, there''s a lot of people that find mindless combat interesting.
That''s why I''d like to make may game a struggle for survival. There should be a threat of danger at all times, even if it''s not a constant combat. I think the easiest way is to incorporate into the engine a more detailed faction system. The specifics are best saved for another topic, but the general effect would be to divide the players into groups. For example, a farming town may exist near a hideout of raiders. The villagers have to split their time between farming enough food to survive, and being strong enough to keep the raiders from stealing the food. The raiders have to balance stealing enough food to survive again making the villagers so desperate they seek revenge against the raiders. Multiply this by as many different groups in conflict as possible, and never really let it be possible to dominate and live safely, and I think you''ve got your interest there..
In this sort of world, a heroic quest for vast treasure wouldn''t happen just because you can, but because of a desperate drive for security. And, of course, once you''ve got that heroically earned wealth, others are going to want their share...
I wonder how people would take to a game where murder, theft, etc. are not abstractly restricted by the engine...
That''s why I''d like to make may game a struggle for survival. There should be a threat of danger at all times, even if it''s not a constant combat. I think the easiest way is to incorporate into the engine a more detailed faction system. The specifics are best saved for another topic, but the general effect would be to divide the players into groups. For example, a farming town may exist near a hideout of raiders. The villagers have to split their time between farming enough food to survive, and being strong enough to keep the raiders from stealing the food. The raiders have to balance stealing enough food to survive again making the villagers so desperate they seek revenge against the raiders. Multiply this by as many different groups in conflict as possible, and never really let it be possible to dominate and live safely, and I think you''ve got your interest there..
In this sort of world, a heroic quest for vast treasure wouldn''t happen just because you can, but because of a desperate drive for security. And, of course, once you''ve got that heroically earned wealth, others are going to want their share...
I wonder how people would take to a game where murder, theft, etc. are not abstractly restricted by the engine...
Oh, yeah, cheerfully replying to myself..
One thing I''d thought of to deal with murder is not with red flags or anything abstract, but to allow the victim to haunt his murderer. The more heinous and unwarranted the crime, the more ghost power the victim gets to torment the villain. Things like poltergeisting (I swear! The gun went off by itself!) to disembodied voices. (Hey! Look at me! I''m a murderer!) Maybe even possess the guy for a brief moment. Such as when he''s near a cliff...
One thing I''d thought of to deal with murder is not with red flags or anything abstract, but to allow the victim to haunt his murderer. The more heinous and unwarranted the crime, the more ghost power the victim gets to torment the villain. Things like poltergeisting (I swear! The gun went off by itself!) to disembodied voices. (Hey! Look at me! I''m a murderer!) Maybe even possess the guy for a brief moment. Such as when he''s near a cliff...
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
