A colleague of mine is saying that our MMORPG should have an ending. With all the talk that we have been having about linear -vs- non-linear stories in games, I''m wondering if a MMORPG with an ending is a good thing? I personally don''t like it. Let me explain; If there is an ending date, you somewhat force the player to participate in the game. Instead of joining that soccer legue you will hear people saying, "I need to play ''Times of Zondor'' because it''s going to end in four years and I can''t miss any of it." Instead of the player being able to log-in and play for a few hours... Basically, I''m thinking that the fun of the game is removed because of the forced ending... I suppose my question is, what do you think about an MMORPG that will say this is the ending date? Dave "Dak Lozar" Loeser
"GreatShot.com

As long as another form of the game continues after the end. It''s like starting a new chapter in a history of the world. You could keep a history of what happend before, and there could be tales of deeds done long ago. I think it has potential.

-------------------------------------------
"What's the story with your face, son?!?"

My answer could be one word and a digit long : "Babylon 5".
Babylon 5 is the coolest sci-fi show I have seen in ages. It kicks ass because it''s a 5 years arc, and because rather than trying to make it last forever because of its success, they kept the concept of the 5 years arc story and stopped it. I think you have to have some balls to do that. I mean, imagine Chris Carter actually stopping the X-files instead of diluting it over and over and over ...ad nauseam. Idem for most of the Star Trek that jsut never finish.

All I am saying is that having something that begins, develop, and concludes is somehow frustrating, but as well it''s more fulfilling in a sense. And if you add to that the possibility of a similarly good sequel. I am sure this could be done.

Babylon 5 has a sequel hasn''t it ? I think it''s called Crusade ?

I hope we get it soon here in Europe ... I had to go to Ireland to finally discover the jewel that is B5.

youpla :-P

Actually,

The thing about ending is one of the reasons that I have stopped playing massive multiuser online roleplaying games (MMORPG).

For me the story and the part about being the hero appeals a lot to me which is why a prefer single player games instead.

Without an ending, how can there be an overall story?

The MMORPGs today don''t have ending and they don''t have a story neither. If people decided to make short lived games with a clear story getting along every day it would be much more interesting and the players might be able to take more active part of it. Of course, the drawback is that people would have to make new characters in the start of every story, but that could maybe finish of the tyranny formed by the hardcore players on most MMORPGs.

Jacob Marner

MMORPG games have the same problem that I have with the open ended game I''m making now. One the other side of all that non-narrative freedom can be massive pointlessness.

I think you should be able to have a story that ends without the world itself ending. Armaggeddon will likely inspire a few types of behavior, such as the massive bloodshed that occurred at the end of the first Ultima Online beta. (Besides, in most tales the "everybody dies" ending is a little unsatisfactory, dontcha think? )

If characters could choose to retire or had limited lives I think you could give players an end to their personal stories. There something a bit more optimistic about this, to me, and it gives their play meaning.

I''m planning on weighting the characters actions, assets and reputation to make up their semi personalized endings... things like zero money but high rep meaning "Although you die penniless, you''re well respected throughout the empire"... or very bad karma and remote death location maybe meaning "You die, unloved and unmourned, on an airless asteroid in the middle of nowhere..."

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Just because an MMORPG doesn't end, it wouldn't mean that you'd only be murdering things. If the game is designed correctly, then there could be many more things to do. Ideally the players would keep it alive, but the game would have to include more than just killing stuff.





"NPC's are people too!" --dwarfsoft

"`Nazrix is cool.' --Nazrix" --Darkmage

Edited by - Nazrix on September 6, 2000 10:33:28 PM

quote: Original post by ahw
...because it''s a 5 years arc, and because rather than trying to make it last forever because of its success, they kept the concept of the 5 years arc story and stopped it...

All I am saying is that having something that begins, develop, and concludes is somehow frustrating, but as well it''s more fulfilling in a sense. And if you add to that the possibility of a similarly good sequel. I am sure this could be done.

Ok, good points... when I look at it like this, I can see the logic. I suppose people like to have things complete.

Thinking about my own experiences with movies that end with the story seeming to be continuing... I walk away thinking damn... I hate when they do that. I like a nicely wrapped up ending to a movie. And although games aren''t movies, most have linear plots. So, I suppose it makes sense

Dave"Dak Lozar" Loeser

GreatShot.com

YEs, of course games are not movies. My point was to make a parallel : the difference between never ending serie and 5 year arc story (long, but with a start, developement, conclusion, and its fair share of twists and cliffhanger in between).
Babylon 5 vs Star Trek, for instance.
Now just compare the quality in terms of drama, and you see that there are some advantages. I have the utter respect for someone who decide that enough is enough, and let''s move on to something different. Similarly, there was a CCG (collectible card game), called Guardians, that was quite succesfull. And at least had the best illustrations I have ever seen, even now. After three expansions, the authors felt that there wasn''t really anything more they could add without losing the initial spirit, and so they simply stopped and moved on to another project.
Counter example, the X-Files were excellent, but not stopping them is a terrible mistake from the dramatic point of view.
I think a never ending game, with the technology we have so far (mainly AI and plot generation), would be maybe very sucesfull, then all other games would try and finally be at the same level, then the glory ould slowly fade away, and finally you would end up with a game that no one wants to play anymore, because all the other new games would be so much better.
Create a story taht finishes, and you will create a legend. A game whose players would remember with nostalgia as a thing of the past. Hopefully, in the mean time, you will have developped something even better thanks to the success of the first.

just my thoughts of course, don''t listen to me, that way I''ll be the first to do it

youpla :-P