Mario with full voice overs and in game cinematics. Would it be better?
Bioware will have much to prove at E3, because pre recorded audio and cinematics are not the kind of content eager hands will want to test.
The guy reminds me of that old FunCom Director of Age of Conan fame: our MMo is filet mignon compared to a hamburger.
It's his neck, not mine. Perhaps the man should have played more than AoC, one of many MMo's who lost 90% of its players in 3 months time.
90% of Dragon Age players finished the game in 3 weeks.
Single story telling tales don't last long. MMo players play along the Lore settings never along single story lines.
Thats funny that you mentioned that because super mario 64 was the first time they gave mario a voice, not just that but it also did have cinematics and was hailed as one of the best mario games ever. The legend of zelda ocarina of time was the same way. Were they great just because of the voice acting and cinematics? No.... Mario was one of the first, if not the first, full 3d free roaming game and zelda... well, a lot of what makes zelda popular is the story... but both had cinematics and voices for their characters, albeit minimal voice acting.
Are you trying to tell us mario 64 is one of the best marios becouse it had some voice overs and cinematic? LOL Man this forum is officially doomed o_O
Did you even bother reading my post or did you stop after I said "Thats funny that you mentioned that because super mario 64 was the first time they gave mario a voice, not just that but it also did have cinematics and was hailed as one of the best mario games ever."
Did you even bother to read "Were they great just because of the voice acting and cinematics? No.... "
Yeah this forum looks to be doomed alright, and it has little to do with my opinions on gaming and more to do with reading comprehension.. or lack thereof
Mario with full voice overs and in game cinematics. Would it be better?
Bioware will have much to prove at E3, because pre recorded audio and cinematics are not the kind of content eager hands will want to test.
The guy reminds me of that old FunCom Director of Age of Conan fame: our MMo is filet mignon compared to a hamburger.
It's his neck, not mine. Perhaps the man should have played more than AoC, one of many MMo's who lost 90% of its players in 3 months time.
90% of Dragon Age players finished the game in 3 weeks.
Single story telling tales don't last long. MMo players play along the Lore settings never along single story lines.
well, a lot of what makes zelda popular is the story.
I would just like to point out story is not what made OoT so popular. It had a decent storyline well better than Mario anyway..... but it was still the same old repetitive save the princess from Ganondorf. What set OoT apart from the rest was the sheer vastness of the world and it's content. You could fish, ride, swim, complete many many challenging thought provoking puzzles in dungeons, multiple mini games, interesting characters to interact with and epic boss battles, many cool mechanics like the long shot etc, all with what then looked like next gen 3d graphics.
It was at the time an absolute mammoth of a game. No other game had given so much freedom to a player in sheer amount variety of content topped off with a memorable soundtrack. The content itself was what made OoT one of the most well remember Zelda games, or games in general.
Mario with full voice overs and in game cinematics. Would it be better?
Bioware will have much to prove at E3, because pre recorded audio and cinematics are not the kind of content eager hands will want to test.
The guy reminds me of that old FunCom Director of Age of Conan fame: our MMo is filet mignon compared to a hamburger.
It's his neck, not mine. Perhaps the man should have played more than AoC, one of many MMo's who lost 90% of its players in 3 months time.
90% of Dragon Age players finished the game in 3 weeks.
Single story telling tales don't last long. MMo players play along the Lore settings never along single story lines.
well, a lot of what makes zelda popular is the story.
I would just like to point out story is not what made OoT so popular. It had a decent storyline well better than Mario anyway..... but it was still the same old repetitive save the princess from Ganondorf. What set OoT apart from the rest was the sheer vastness of the world and it's content. You could fish, ride, swim, complete many many challenging thought provoking puzzles in dungeons, multiple mini games, interesting characters to interact with and epic boss battles, many cool mechanics like the long shot etc, all with what then looked like next gen 3d graphics.
It was at the time an absolute mammoth of a game. No other game had given so much freedom to a player in sheer amount variety of content topped off with a memorable soundtrack. The content itself was what made OoT one of the most well remember Zelda games, or games in general.
I disagree with the storytelling, the story is always a big part of the zelda world.
" Ocarina of Time took storytelling in Nintendo titles to a new level with a truly cinematic experience."
Was it the only factor? Again, no it wasn't. Not just one thing creates a truly amazing game, however a myriad of good things including cinematics and story elements can bring a game from just an okay game, to... "the next level"
Mario with full voice overs and in game cinematics. Would it be better?
Bioware will have much to prove at E3, because pre recorded audio and cinematics are not the kind of content eager hands will want to test.
The guy reminds me of that old FunCom Director of Age of Conan fame: our MMo is filet mignon compared to a hamburger.
It's his neck, not mine. Perhaps the man should have played more than AoC, one of many MMo's who lost 90% of its players in 3 months time.
90% of Dragon Age players finished the game in 3 weeks.
Single story telling tales don't last long. MMo players play along the Lore settings never along single story lines.
well, a lot of what makes zelda popular is the story.
I would just like to point out story is not what made OoT so popular. It had a decent storyline well better than Mario anyway..... but it was still the same old repetitive save the princess from Ganondorf. What set OoT apart from the rest was the sheer vastness of the world and it's content. You could fish, ride, swim, complete many many challenging thought provoking puzzles in dungeons, multiple mini games, interesting characters to interact with and epic boss battles, many cool mechanics like the long shot etc, all with what then looked like next gen 3d graphics.
It was at the time an absolute mammoth of a game. No other game had given so much freedom to a player in sheer amount variety of content topped off with a memorable soundtrack. The content itself was what made OoT one of the most well remember Zelda games, or games in general.
I disagree with the storytelling, the story is always a big part of the zelda world.
" Ocarina of Time took storytelling in Nintendo titles to a new level with a truly cinematic experience."
Was it the only factor? Again, no it wasn't. Not just one thing creates a truly amazing game, however a myriad of good things including cinematics and story elements can bring a game from just an okay game, to... "the next level"
This I completely disagree with. The OoT was not well known for it's story telling. Majora's Mask was well known for it's storytelling OoT although it did have a good story it paled in comparison to the majority of it's other features. It wasn't what turned it from a good to a "great" game it just made a great game more coherent and slightly better. The world itself was pretty "magical" and helped a lot in the feel of the game but that had nothing to do with the story.
In essense the story was a boy and a girl who screwed up the world with the boy having to become the Hero of Time in order to Save the girl and the world from Ganondorf. Good but not amazing storytelling. It was great for it's time mostly because it was one of the first cinematic experiences in a game however I know of many people who look back at the game with nostalgia because it was the first time they've felt such freedom in a game, it was an amazing experience to simply explore the world of hyrule and discover it's secret's because there were just so many and so well made. Saying Story is what made the game great is like disregarding just how great the other features were and many were revolutionary.
You could strip away most of it's story and still have an amazing game. Taking away a lot of the sheer the variety of things to do or most of the world's secrets would probably not have the same effect.
Mario with full voice overs and in game cinematics. Would it be better?
Bioware will have much to prove at E3, because pre recorded audio and cinematics are not the kind of content eager hands will want to test.
The guy reminds me of that old FunCom Director of Age of Conan fame: our MMo is filet mignon compared to a hamburger.
It's his neck, not mine. Perhaps the man should have played more than AoC, one of many MMo's who lost 90% of its players in 3 months time.
90% of Dragon Age players finished the game in 3 weeks.
Single story telling tales don't last long. MMo players play along the Lore settings never along single story lines.
well, a lot of what makes zelda popular is the story.
I would just like to point out story is not what made OoT so popular. It had a decent storyline well better than Mario anyway..... but it was still the same old repetitive save the princess from Ganondorf. What set OoT apart from the rest was the sheer vastness of the world and it's content. You could fish, ride, swim, complete many many challenging thought provoking puzzles in dungeons, multiple mini games, interesting characters to interact with and epic boss battles, many cool mechanics like the long shot etc, all with what then looked like next gen 3d graphics.
It was at the time an absolute mammoth of a game. No other game had given so much freedom to a player in sheer amount variety of content topped off with a memorable soundtrack. The content itself was what made OoT one of the most well remember Zelda games, or games in general.
I disagree with the storytelling, the story is always a big part of the zelda world.
" Ocarina of Time took storytelling in Nintendo titles to a new level with a truly cinematic experience."
Was it the only factor? Again, no it wasn't. Not just one thing creates a truly amazing game, however a myriad of good things including cinematics and story elements can bring a game from just an okay game, to... "the next level"
This I completely disagree with. The OoT was not well known for it's story telling. Majora's Mask was well known for it's storytelling OoT although it did have a good story it paled in comparison to the majority of it's other features. It wasn't what turned it from a good to a "great" game it just made a great game more coherent and slightly better. The world itself was pretty "magical" and helped a lot in the feel of the game but that had nothing to do with the story.
In essense the story was a boy and a girl who screwed up the world with the boy having to become the Hero of Time in order to Save the girl and the world from Ganondorf. Good but not amazing storytelling. It was great for it's time mostly because it was one of the first cinematic experiences in a game however I know of many people who look back at the game with nostalgia because it was the first time they've felt such freedom in a game, it was an amazing experience to simply explore the world of hyrule and discover it's secret's because there were just so many and so well made. Saying Story is what made the game great is like disregarding just how great the other features were and many were revolutionary.
You could strip away most of it's story and still have an amazing game. Taking away a lot of the sheer the variety of things to do or most of the world's secrets would probably not have the same effect.
I don't know if its by chance that we must clash like this all the time or if this is something that we're doing on purpose now, but the story for Ocarina of Time was fantastic and not so simple as you put it. The cinematic events and bosses, the characters you met, without any of that it completely changes the game from being epic to being mediocre. The entire story DRIVES all the other elements. Thats the entire point of the game is the story. Having gameplay features without the story leaves you with nothing.
Majoras mask had an amazing story too, and so did the windwaker, these adventure games are ABOUT the STORY. Sure you can have adventure games that are wide open and don't have a particular story, but those games aren't zelda games.
Mario with full voice overs and in game cinematics. Would it be better?
Bioware will have much to prove at E3, because pre recorded audio and cinematics are not the kind of content eager hands will want to test.
The guy reminds me of that old FunCom Director of Age of Conan fame: our MMo is filet mignon compared to a hamburger.
It's his neck, not mine. Perhaps the man should have played more than AoC, one of many MMo's who lost 90% of its players in 3 months time.
90% of Dragon Age players finished the game in 3 weeks.
Single story telling tales don't last long. MMo players play along the Lore settings never along single story lines.
well, a lot of what makes zelda popular is the story.
I would just like to point out story is not what made OoT so popular. It had a decent storyline well better than Mario anyway..... but it was still the same old repetitive save the princess from Ganondorf. What set OoT apart from the rest was the sheer vastness of the world and it's content. You could fish, ride, swim, complete many many challenging thought provoking puzzles in dungeons, multiple mini games, interesting characters to interact with and epic boss battles, many cool mechanics like the long shot etc, all with what then looked like next gen 3d graphics.
It was at the time an absolute mammoth of a game. No other game had given so much freedom to a player in sheer amount variety of content topped off with a memorable soundtrack. The content itself was what made OoT one of the most well remember Zelda games, or games in general.
I disagree with the storytelling, the story is always a big part of the zelda world.
" Ocarina of Time took storytelling in Nintendo titles to a new level with a truly cinematic experience."
Was it the only factor? Again, no it wasn't. Not just one thing creates a truly amazing game, however a myriad of good things including cinematics and story elements can bring a game from just an okay game, to... "the next level"
This I completely disagree with. The OoT was not well known for it's story telling. Majora's Mask was well known for it's storytelling OoT although it did have a good story it paled in comparison to the majority of it's other features. It wasn't what turned it from a good to a "great" game it just made a great game more coherent and slightly better. The world itself was pretty "magical" and helped a lot in the feel of the game but that had nothing to do with the story.
In essense the story was a boy and a girl who screwed up the world with the boy having to become the Hero of Time in order to Save the girl and the world from Ganondorf. Good but not amazing storytelling. It was great for it's time mostly because it was one of the first cinematic experiences in a game however I know of many people who look back at the game with nostalgia because it was the first time they've felt such freedom in a game, it was an amazing experience to simply explore the world of hyrule and discover it's secret's because there were just so many and so well made. Saying Story is what made the game great is like disregarding just how great the other features were and many were revolutionary.
You could strip away most of it's story and still have an amazing game. Taking away a lot of the sheer the variety of things to do or most of the world's secrets would probably not have the same effect.
I don't know if its by chance that we must clash like this all the time or if this is something that we're doing on purpose now, but the story for Ocarina of Time was fantastic and not so simple as you put it. The cinematic events and bosses, the characters you met, without any of that it completely changes the game from being epic to being mediocre. The entire story DRIVES all the other elements. Thats the entire point of the game is the story. Having gameplay features without the story leaves you with nothing.
Majoras mask had an amazing story too, and so did the windwaker, these adventure games are ABOUT the STORY. Sure you can have adventure games that are wide open and don't have a particular story, but those games aren't zelda games.
Seriously ask 10 people what they're favourite part of OoT was and I would guess very few would say story. Compared to Majora's mask the story elements were just were not up to par. Seriously I'm pretty sure the majority would agree with me here in saying if you took anyway the story parts the game would not become mediocre. That's just plain insulting.
The story of the game just was not as amazing as your making it out to be. Games can be just as amazing without a story. The most Iconic games in existance Mario is a testament to this fact.
Mario with full voice overs and in game cinematics. Would it be better?
Bioware will have much to prove at E3, because pre recorded audio and cinematics are not the kind of content eager hands will want to test.
The guy reminds me of that old FunCom Director of Age of Conan fame: our MMo is filet mignon compared to a hamburger.
It's his neck, not mine. Perhaps the man should have played more than AoC, one of many MMo's who lost 90% of its players in 3 months time.
90% of Dragon Age players finished the game in 3 weeks.
Single story telling tales don't last long. MMo players play along the Lore settings never along single story lines.
well, a lot of what makes zelda popular is the story.
I would just like to point out story is not what made OoT so popular. It had a decent storyline well better than Mario anyway..... but it was still the same old repetitive save the princess from Ganondorf. What set OoT apart from the rest was the sheer vastness of the world and it's content. You could fish, ride, swim, complete many many challenging thought provoking puzzles in dungeons, multiple mini games, interesting characters to interact with and epic boss battles, many cool mechanics like the long shot etc, all with what then looked like next gen 3d graphics.
It was at the time an absolute mammoth of a game. No other game had given so much freedom to a player in sheer amount variety of content topped off with a memorable soundtrack. The content itself was what made OoT one of the most well remember Zelda games, or games in general.
I disagree with the storytelling, the story is always a big part of the zelda world.
" Ocarina of Time took storytelling in Nintendo titles to a new level with a truly cinematic experience."
Was it the only factor? Again, no it wasn't. Not just one thing creates a truly amazing game, however a myriad of good things including cinematics and story elements can bring a game from just an okay game, to... "the next level"
This I completely disagree with. The OoT was not well known for it's story telling. Majora's Mask was well known for it's storytelling OoT although it did have a good story it paled in comparison to the majority of it's other features. It wasn't what turned it from a good to a "great" game it just made a great game more coherent and slightly better. The world itself was pretty "magical" and helped a lot in the feel of the game but that had nothing to do with the story.
In essense the story was a boy and a girl who screwed up the world with the boy having to become the Hero of Time in order to Save the girl and the world from Ganondorf. Good but not amazing storytelling. It was great for it's time mostly because it was one of the first cinematic experiences in a game however I know of many people who look back at the game with nostalgia because it was the first time they've felt such freedom in a game, it was an amazing experience to simply explore the world of hyrule and discover it's secret's because there were just so many and so well made. Saying Story is what made the game great is like disregarding just how great the other features were and many were revolutionary.
You could strip away most of it's story and still have an amazing game. Taking away a lot of the sheer the variety of things to do or most of the world's secrets would probably not have the same effect.
I don't know if its by chance that we must clash like this all the time or if this is something that we're doing on purpose now, but the story for Ocarina of Time was fantastic and not so simple as you put it. The cinematic events and bosses, the characters you met, without any of that it completely changes the game from being epic to being mediocre. The entire story DRIVES all the other elements. Thats the entire point of the game is the story. Having gameplay features without the story leaves you with nothing.
Majoras mask had an amazing story too, and so did the windwaker, these adventure games are ABOUT the STORY. Sure you can have adventure games that are wide open and don't have a particular story, but those games aren't zelda games.
Seriously ask 10 people what they're favourite part of OoT was and I would guess very few would say story. Compared to Majora's mask the story elements were just were not up to par. Seriously I'm pretty sure the majority would agree with me here in saying if you took anyway the story parts the game would not become mediocre. That's just plain insulting.
The story of the game just was not as amazing as your making it out to be. Games can be just as amazing without a story. The most Iconic games in existance Mario is a testament to this fact.
"Everything, from Zelda's Z-trigger lock-on system to the game's in-game cut-scenes and well-balanced story advancement, is perfect. "
Without the story in Zelda, there is no game. Period. Theres no question about it, The Legend of Zelda, IS the story, its even in the title of the game. You can think otherwise, but if you go back through the game, anything worth achieving in any form of progression in that game is completely story based from getting your Master Sword to learning your next Ocarina Song. Its all based on the story. Mario64 was TOTALLY based on a story. SuperMarioRPG one of the best mario games AND RPGs ever --- based on a story. You go way too out of your way to try and disprove something ridiculous. These games thrive on the stories you play through... the other parts of the game make the games fun and interesting but they don't tell you why.
And the rpgamer review was a terrible review anyway. Did you even read that thing? You have to go pretty far out of your way to paint The Ocarina of Time as poorly as they painted it.
Mario with full voice overs and in game cinematics. Would it be better?
Bioware will have much to prove at E3, because pre recorded audio and cinematics are not the kind of content eager hands will want to test.
The guy reminds me of that old FunCom Director of Age of Conan fame: our MMo is filet mignon compared to a hamburger.
It's his neck, not mine. Perhaps the man should have played more than AoC, one of many MMo's who lost 90% of its players in 3 months time.
90% of Dragon Age players finished the game in 3 weeks.
Single story telling tales don't last long. MMo players play along the Lore settings never along single story lines.
well, a lot of what makes zelda popular is the story.
I would just like to point out story is not what made OoT so popular. It had a decent storyline well better than Mario anyway..... but it was still the same old repetitive save the princess from Ganondorf. What set OoT apart from the rest was the sheer vastness of the world and it's content. You could fish, ride, swim, complete many many challenging thought provoking puzzles in dungeons, multiple mini games, interesting characters to interact with and epic boss battles, many cool mechanics like the long shot etc, all with what then looked like next gen 3d graphics.
It was at the time an absolute mammoth of a game. No other game had given so much freedom to a player in sheer amount variety of content topped off with a memorable soundtrack. The content itself was what made OoT one of the most well remember Zelda games, or games in general.
I disagree with the storytelling, the story is always a big part of the zelda world.
" Ocarina of Time took storytelling in Nintendo titles to a new level with a truly cinematic experience."
Was it the only factor? Again, no it wasn't. Not just one thing creates a truly amazing game, however a myriad of good things including cinematics and story elements can bring a game from just an okay game, to... "the next level"
This I completely disagree with. The OoT was not well known for it's story telling. Majora's Mask was well known for it's storytelling OoT although it did have a good story it paled in comparison to the majority of it's other features. It wasn't what turned it from a good to a "great" game it just made a great game more coherent and slightly better. The world itself was pretty "magical" and helped a lot in the feel of the game but that had nothing to do with the story.
In essense the story was a boy and a girl who screwed up the world with the boy having to become the Hero of Time in order to Save the girl and the world from Ganondorf. Good but not amazing storytelling. It was great for it's time mostly because it was one of the first cinematic experiences in a game however I know of many people who look back at the game with nostalgia because it was the first time they've felt such freedom in a game, it was an amazing experience to simply explore the world of hyrule and discover it's secret's because there were just so many and so well made. Saying Story is what made the game great is like disregarding just how great the other features were and many were revolutionary.
You could strip away most of it's story and still have an amazing game. Taking away a lot of the sheer the variety of things to do or most of the world's secrets would probably not have the same effect.
I don't know if its by chance that we must clash like this all the time or if this is something that we're doing on purpose now, but the story for Ocarina of Time was fantastic and not so simple as you put it. The cinematic events and bosses, the characters you met, without any of that it completely changes the game from being epic to being mediocre. The entire story DRIVES all the other elements. Thats the entire point of the game is the story. Having gameplay features without the story leaves you with nothing.
Majoras mask had an amazing story too, and so did the windwaker, these adventure games are ABOUT the STORY. Sure you can have adventure games that are wide open and don't have a particular story, but those games aren't zelda games.
Seriously ask 10 people what they're favourite part of OoT was and I would guess very few would say story. Compared to Majora's mask the story elements were just were not up to par. Seriously I'm pretty sure the majority would agree with me here in saying if you took anyway the story parts the game would not become mediocre. That's just plain insulting.
The story of the game just was not as amazing as your making it out to be. Games can be just as amazing without a story. The most Iconic games in existance Mario is a testament to this fact.
"Everything, from Zelda's Z-trigger lock-on system to the game's in-game cut-scenes and well-balanced story advancement, is perfect. "
Without the story in Zelda, there is no game. Period. Theres no question about it, The Legend of Zelda, IS the story, its even in the title of the game. You can think otherwise, but if you go back through the game, anything worth achieving in any form of progression in that game is completely story based from getting your Master Sword to learning your next Ocarina Song. Its all based on the story. Mario64 was TOTALLY based on a story. SuperMarioRPG one of the best mario games AND RPGs ever --- based on a story. You go way too out of your way to try and disprove something ridiculous. These games thrive on the stories you play through... the other parts of the game make the games fun and interesting but they don't tell you why.
And the rpgamer review was a terrible review anyway. Did you even read that thing? You have to go pretty far out of your way to paint The Ocarina of Time as poorly as they painted it.
Lol can't take you seriously anymore. Really you must realise not many share your views that a game needs a story to be great. In fact very, very few of the most highly rated games even have a decent story. Look at Super Mario Galaxies 2 extremely tiny amount of story the game barely even mentions it at all yet it's one of the highest rated video games out in recent times.
Are you honestly going to argue that game had a even mediocre story? Again Mario 64's story was barely above mediocre. If you took the amazing gameplay from any of the games I've mentioned you'd have freaking terrible games no two ways about it. Seriously I doubt barely anyone agrees that a game needs a story to be good. That's just not how games work.
Sometimes an exceptional story can overcome a games bad or mediocre gameplay but that's pretty rare. Currently gameplay is king it's a pretty undeniable fact.
I mean what was the story of pack man, tetris, space invaders? Were they not games?
As Long as this does not turn out to be a PVP FFA where players kill weaker players purely because "they can" then I will give it a shot.
U shouldn't have to worrie about this. They have already Said they will have Rp and PvP server's. So unless u pick a PvP server or go into a PvP area in the PvE server then it won't be like Aion.
Mario with full voice overs and in game cinematics. Would it be better?
Bioware will have much to prove at E3, because pre recorded audio and cinematics are not the kind of content eager hands will want to test.
The guy reminds me of that old FunCom Director of Age of Conan fame: our MMo is filet mignon compared to a hamburger.
It's his neck, not mine. Perhaps the man should have played more than AoC, one of many MMo's who lost 90% of its players in 3 months time.
90% of Dragon Age players finished the game in 3 weeks.
Single story telling tales don't last long. MMo players play along the Lore settings never along single story lines.
well, a lot of what makes zelda popular is the story.
I would just like to point out story is not what made OoT so popular. It had a decent storyline well better than Mario anyway..... but it was still the same old repetitive save the princess from Ganondorf. What set OoT apart from the rest was the sheer vastness of the world and it's content. You could fish, ride, swim, complete many many challenging thought provoking puzzles in dungeons, multiple mini games, interesting characters to interact with and epic boss battles, many cool mechanics like the long shot etc, all with what then looked like next gen 3d graphics.
It was at the time an absolute mammoth of a game. No other game had given so much freedom to a player in sheer amount variety of content topped off with a memorable soundtrack. The content itself was what made OoT one of the most well remember Zelda games, or games in general.
I disagree with the storytelling, the story is always a big part of the zelda world.
" Ocarina of Time took storytelling in Nintendo titles to a new level with a truly cinematic experience."
Was it the only factor? Again, no it wasn't. Not just one thing creates a truly amazing game, however a myriad of good things including cinematics and story elements can bring a game from just an okay game, to... "the next level"
This I completely disagree with. The OoT was not well known for it's story telling. Majora's Mask was well known for it's storytelling OoT although it did have a good story it paled in comparison to the majority of it's other features. It wasn't what turned it from a good to a "great" game it just made a great game more coherent and slightly better. The world itself was pretty "magical" and helped a lot in the feel of the game but that had nothing to do with the story.
In essense the story was a boy and a girl who screwed up the world with the boy having to become the Hero of Time in order to Save the girl and the world from Ganondorf. Good but not amazing storytelling. It was great for it's time mostly because it was one of the first cinematic experiences in a game however I know of many people who look back at the game with nostalgia because it was the first time they've felt such freedom in a game, it was an amazing experience to simply explore the world of hyrule and discover it's secret's because there were just so many and so well made. Saying Story is what made the game great is like disregarding just how great the other features were and many were revolutionary.
You could strip away most of it's story and still have an amazing game. Taking away a lot of the sheer the variety of things to do or most of the world's secrets would probably not have the same effect.
I don't know if its by chance that we must clash like this all the time or if this is something that we're doing on purpose now, but the story for Ocarina of Time was fantastic and not so simple as you put it. The cinematic events and bosses, the characters you met, without any of that it completely changes the game from being epic to being mediocre. The entire story DRIVES all the other elements. Thats the entire point of the game is the story. Having gameplay features without the story leaves you with nothing.
Majoras mask had an amazing story too, and so did the windwaker, these adventure games are ABOUT the STORY. Sure you can have adventure games that are wide open and don't have a particular story, but those games aren't zelda games.
Seriously ask 10 people what they're favourite part of OoT was and I would guess very few would say story. Compared to Majora's mask the story elements were just were not up to par. Seriously I'm pretty sure the majority would agree with me here in saying if you took anyway the story parts the game would not become mediocre. That's just plain insulting.
The story of the game just was not as amazing as your making it out to be. Games can be just as amazing without a story. The most Iconic games in existance Mario is a testament to this fact.
"Everything, from Zelda's Z-trigger lock-on system to the game's in-game cut-scenes and well-balanced story advancement, is perfect. "
Without the story in Zelda, there is no game. Period. Theres no question about it, The Legend of Zelda, IS the story, its even in the title of the game. You can think otherwise, but if you go back through the game, anything worth achieving in any form of progression in that game is completely story based from getting your Master Sword to learning your next Ocarina Song. Its all based on the story. Mario64 was TOTALLY based on a story. SuperMarioRPG one of the best mario games AND RPGs ever --- based on a story. You go way too out of your way to try and disprove something ridiculous. These games thrive on the stories you play through... the other parts of the game make the games fun and interesting but they don't tell you why.
And the rpgamer review was a terrible review anyway. Did you even read that thing? You have to go pretty far out of your way to paint The Ocarina of Time as poorly as they painted it.
Lol can't take you seriously anymore. Really you must realise not many share your views that a game needs a story to be great. In fact very, very few of the most highly rated games even have a decent story. Look at Super Mario Galaxies 2 extremely tiny amount of story the game barely even mentions it at all yet it's one of the highest rated video games out in recent times.
Are you honestly going to argue that game had a even mediocre story? Again Mario 64's story was barely above mediocre. If you took the amazing gameplay from any of the games I've mentioned you'd have freaking terrible games no two ways about it. Seriously I doubt barely anyone agrees that a game needs a story to be good. That's just not how games work.
Sometimes an exceptional story can overcome a games bad or mediocre gameplay but that's pretty rare. Currently gameplay is king it's a pretty undeniable fact.
I mean what was the story of pack man, tetris, space invaders? Were they not games?
You don't have to take me seriously, you have absolutely no proof yet again that with an even minuscule change to the story that the game wouldn't have been changed from a great game to a mediocre game whereas I've provided quotes stating specifically that the story brought the game to the next level. Not just that, but these games DID have these things... and you can't go back in time and change them even if you wanted to.
I wonder if you ever get tired of being wrong.... you really should because it happens a lot. You stand there and tell me that the LEGEND of zelda... doesn't require a story. Then you try and put words in my mouth saying I said that story is more important than gameplay, its time to grow up and stand on the points you're trying to prove instead of trying to change my point. Cinematics, voiceovers and great story can change a game from being mediocre to being very polished and amazing.
You may prefer the combat system in the Zelda games or you may think that the fishing was the best part, but the entire underlying event in the whole game was the story of Link and the LEGEND of zelda. I don't have to prove any more than that, I've quoted from the very article you posted that my point has been seen from reviewers and players alike.
Its obvious we're two very different people but until you can prove unanimously that your point is unequivocally correct, you're just another guy who's opinion only matters to himself while I have already corroborated my point on two separate reviews.
Without the gameplay OoT had, the story would not have mattered at all.
OoT had a decent story but to say the only reason OoT will forever be a classic is because of it's story, would be a bit much. The gameplay in OoT was beyong words. I've played OoT countless times over and over again and not because I wanted to go through the story over and over but instead because the gameplay was extremely fun.
Stories are great tools for enjoyment but gameplay, imo, will always come out on top if you are trying to compare which is more important. This is not to say the story isn't important either. Games have become very complex entities that can not achieve greatness with just a single element.
Have a great story to tell and have gameplay that is equal in quality and great things will happen.
Edit: Oh yes and this thread has gotten way off topic I think lol. So we could turn it back to Daniel and his rather bold statements about existing MMO's lacking real goals. He seems convinced that the goal in an MMO has to be story/lore based. Why can't players freely create their own goals? I personally don't like to be spoon fed.
My sub never ends when the story does, I tend to view that as the time to PvP. My sub usually ends when there's either a) nothing to do at all, including PvP or b) the only thing to do is grind for stuff. I enjoy story tremendously, and it brings me back to the game every time. Meandering around and killing the local equivalent of a wolf or a cow for experience is dull, dull, dull. I want there to be something motivating my actions and helping me get involved. I work full time, have friends and a life, work out routinely and study Aikido. I have limited free time and if I'm going to use it on a game I want a story that's compelling enough to convince me that I want to play the game and not read a book or watch a movie.
I'm getting hungry, so forgive me if I change MMO -> Pizza for this conversation.
I like Pizza. In fact, cheese pizza is my favorite. Why? Well, it's plain. I can put whatever I want ontop of my cheese pizza. Sometimes, cheese pizza gets a little old after a while. And putting my own toppings ontop of the pizza I already paid for, well, that's just a waste sometimes.
SO.. my solution is somedays, I order a Pizza that already has toppings on it. Like mushroom and sausage. YUMMY!!!
Oh now wait.. I don't have a real pizza now do I? *Real* pizza is about me putting MY toppings on the pizza to make it what I want.. not what somebody else is trying to get me to eat..
But wait! There's more.. I ordered the pizza with stuff on it.. SO.. I got exactly what I asked for.. And it tastes pretty darn good too.
Kind of a stupid conversation about Pizza, don't you think??
I actually understand your post and am glad you used some creativity. You got your point across to me
Without the gameplay OoT had, the story would not have mattered at all.
OoT had a decent story but to say the only reason OoT will forever be a classic is because of it's story, would be a bit much. The gameplay in OoT was beyong words. I've played OoT countless times over and over again and not because I wanted to go through the story over and over but instead because the gameplay was extremely fun.
Stories are great tools for enjoyment but gameplay, imo, will always come out on top if you are trying to compare which is more important. This is not to say the story isn't important either. Games have become very complex entities that can not achieve greatness with just a single element.
Have a great story to tell and have gameplay that is equal in quality and great things will happen.
Edit: Oh yes and this thread has gotten way off topic I think lol. So we could turn it back to Daniel and his rather bold statements about existing MMO's lacking real goals. He seems convinced that the goal in an MMO has to be story/lore based. Why can't players freely create their own goals? I personally don't like to be spoon fed.
I think you understood my point better then he did. Never did I say the story was the only thing that made Zelda games good, but along with the gameplay it made it arguably the best adventure game of its time. The story elements were used in that game to tie all the other elements together, it ignited the spark that brought you to the Deku tree. It showed you the story of the triforce and its importance. Without that, we could have had just another adventure game.... well maybe not just another one, Nintendo does make some very fun features in their games, but I hope you see what I mean, the gameplay was great, the elements of item usage to accentuate that, amazing, the story to get you to the temples and experience them, flawless. It all goes hand in hand.
It is amazing how these threads do veer off topic...
EVE is a sandbox game, sure, and in my opinion the best of them, capitalizing on everything that makes that model attractive. I'd say it's a masterpiece. I'd not say that players write their own story in the sense of the word 'story' in an RPG. Players do what they will, sure. Players build alliances and wage wars as they will, sure. But if that's 'story,' the EVE community is creatively retarded. That's like saying a game of tabletop Warhammer tells a story. Bullshit. It's just a battle.
I must disagree.
An alliance battle is simply mindles pew-pew if you look at it from the outside but not if look at it within the context of the politics of the war between two alliances. And while a dev-created quest may have more twist and turns compared to an alliance leader ordered mission (ie. protect this outpost), thanks to EVE's harsh penalty in losing territory and death, the latter trumps the former in terms of emotional hook.
And the best part is that the combatants of Alliance wars are NOT only creating a 'story' that involves lots of people directly or indirectly in EVE's shared game universe, they are doing it without even realizing it. Nobody start wars in EVE to explicitly create a story or content for the game, theyre just playing the game with their egos. They would only realize that they have provided CCP with story content upon cessation of hostilities and/or CCP incorporate their war into game lore.
(On a side note, more MMORPG's should allow guild territorial control into their games, its such a handy and effective tool in creating user generated story and content. I want to be a veritable Jabba the Hutt (only a Gungan!) in SWTOR controlling swaths of territories in the Outer Rims, wheeling n' dealin' with BOTH factions. )
There may be harm in risking but there can also be regrets in doing nothing.
Without the gameplay OoT had, the story would not have mattered at all.
OoT had a decent story but to say the only reason OoT will forever be a classic is because of it's story, would be a bit much. The gameplay in OoT was beyong words. I've played OoT countless times over and over again and not because I wanted to go through the story over and over but instead because the gameplay was extremely fun.
Stories are great tools for enjoyment but gameplay, imo, will always come out on top if you are trying to compare which is more important. This is not to say the story isn't important either. Games have become very complex entities that can not achieve greatness with just a single element.
Have a great story to tell and have gameplay that is equal in quality and great things will happen.
Edit: Oh yes and this thread has gotten way off topic I think lol. So we could turn it back to Daniel and his rather bold statements about existing MMO's lacking real goals. He seems convinced that the goal in an MMO has to be story/lore based. Why can't players freely create their own goals? I personally don't like to be spoon fed.
I think you understood my point better then he did. Never did I say the story was the only thing that made Zelda games good, but along with the gameplay it made it arguably the best adventure game of its time. The story elements were used in that game to tie all the other elements together, it ignited the spark that brought you to the Deku tree. It showed you the story of the triforce and its importance. Without that, we could have had just another adventure game.... well maybe not just another one, Nintendo does make some very fun features in their games, but I hope you see what I mean, the gameplay was great, the elements of item usage to accentuate that, amazing, the story to get you to the temples and experience them, flawless. It all goes hand in hand.
It is amazing how these threads do veer off topic...
I completely understand the importance of story. I think you misunderstood my point. Story does tie the gameplay parts together but the point is story was far from the most important part in that game. That's a good thing because if you looked purely at the story of OoT and compared it to most descent books and films it would come up very far short. Games just aren't at that level yet. That's not saying story isn't important but the vast vast majority of the time you'd find the the gameplay in most critically acclaimed game to be more revolutionary than the story. Most developer's aren't film maker's or writer's they don't understand the importance of cinematography of good writing to deliver a powerful story.
It's starting to become more prevalent in games but it's still not at that level yet. Perhaps as more writer's enter the industry and as more developer's understand more about camera work games could become a whole new maybe evn superior experience. But until then gameplay will remain the backbone of games making games like Super Mario Galaxy 2 classics because of it alone.
I'd like to see a story that involves the massive number of players - for example, rather than a single player quest leading to a solitary outcome, you have a story progression that's based on hundreds of players completing the quest, and makes sense in that context. The world would change in a scripted sort of way, but the rate at which it changes would be up to all the players in their combined efforts.
Kind of like ATITD, except rather than coming to a conclusion, the change could be circular, or go back and forth, like Darkness Falls in DAOC. Players working with (and maybe against) eachother, for mutual progression, but in a system that pushes back, either through PvE or PvP or both, so that the struggle goes on indefinitely, and players level up or whatever, in the process. Still, ultimately pointless of course, but to the players in the midst of it, maybe it wouldn't feel that way, if their success (and failure) not only temporarily changes the gameworld but also rewards the individual effectively.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I'm going to have to disagree here, the countless examples of emergent gameplay, compelling drama, and "real" stories created as the result of CCP's EVE Online contend strongly with the potential for a great pre-written narrative. They both have their place.
Edit
There is room for hybrids as well. Let's not forget The Matrix Online, which featured a well crafted narrative that was guided in part (and supplemented) by the actions of players, and their own stories.
Edit
In fact, Bioware accepts these modules as an example of potential writer/designers' work as part of the application's required submissions.
These "bad Mary-Sue fan-fics" are getting many people jobs writing the narratives in the games you adore.
I very much doubt that many of those module submissions to Bioware actually ended up in getting jobs. A good writer can make a story in any context but I'm willing to bet Bioware gets far more garbage than quality applications.
You also don't bolster the validity of your views with an example like Matrix Online which was such a vast financial success it got shut down. At least EVE wasn't a disaster, but there hasn't been any rush of developers to copy them. Success usually breeds emulation, curious how that's not the case.
As for the rest of your points, we'll see what the future will hold won't we?
The one thing the last few years have shown us is that old-school expectations of MMORPGs failed repeatedly with MMORPG 'gurus' like Garriott, McQuaid, Jacobs and the rest producing disasters. And don't forget that creating a real-world simulator/sandbox is one of the original old-school expectations of of this genre. Don't be surprised if it proves to be one of the oldest flaws.
I want to add that games trying to be world simulators are completely different from games with user-created content, which I think certainly has a place in the future. There is a huge difference in City of Heroes Mission Architect tools compared to allowing players to roll up shirt-maker and musician characters just so they can be part of an over-designed economic system.
Giving players tools means giving them rules and restrictions in using those tools. Which is why that kind of mechanic will evolve into future games far better than the open-ended systems expected of simulator/sandbox games.
Comments
Did you even bother reading my post or did you stop after I said "Thats funny that you mentioned that because super mario 64 was the first time they gave mario a voice, not just that but it also did have cinematics and was hailed as one of the best mario games ever."
Did you even bother to read "Were they great just because of the voice acting and cinematics? No.... "
Yeah this forum looks to be doomed alright, and it has little to do with my opinions on gaming and more to do with reading comprehension.. or lack thereof
I would just like to point out story is not what made OoT so popular. It had a decent storyline well better than Mario anyway..... but it was still the same old repetitive save the princess from Ganondorf. What set OoT apart from the rest was the sheer vastness of the world and it's content. You could fish, ride, swim, complete many many challenging thought provoking puzzles in dungeons, multiple mini games, interesting characters to interact with and epic boss battles, many cool mechanics like the long shot etc, all with what then looked like next gen 3d graphics.
It was at the time an absolute mammoth of a game. No other game had given so much freedom to a player in sheer amount variety of content topped off with a memorable soundtrack. The content itself was what made OoT one of the most well remember Zelda games, or games in general.
I disagree with the storytelling, the story is always a big part of the zelda world.
http://wii.ign.com/articles/768/768111p1.html ( a rereview of TLoZ: OoT)
" Ocarina of Time took storytelling in Nintendo titles to a new level with a truly cinematic experience."
Was it the only factor? Again, no it wasn't. Not just one thing creates a truly amazing game, however a myriad of good things including cinematics and story elements can bring a game from just an okay game, to... "the next level"
This I completely disagree with. The OoT was not well known for it's story telling. Majora's Mask was well known for it's storytelling OoT although it did have a good story it paled in comparison to the majority of it's other features. It wasn't what turned it from a good to a "great" game it just made a great game more coherent and slightly better. The world itself was pretty "magical" and helped a lot in the feel of the game but that had nothing to do with the story.
In essense the story was a boy and a girl who screwed up the world with the boy having to become the Hero of Time in order to Save the girl and the world from Ganondorf. Good but not amazing storytelling. It was great for it's time mostly because it was one of the first cinematic experiences in a game however I know of many people who look back at the game with nostalgia because it was the first time they've felt such freedom in a game, it was an amazing experience to simply explore the world of hyrule and discover it's secret's because there were just so many and so well made. Saying Story is what made the game great is like disregarding just how great the other features were and many were revolutionary.
You could strip away most of it's story and still have an amazing game. Taking away a lot of the sheer the variety of things to do or most of the world's secrets would probably not have the same effect.
I don't know if its by chance that we must clash like this all the time or if this is something that we're doing on purpose now, but the story for Ocarina of Time was fantastic and not so simple as you put it. The cinematic events and bosses, the characters you met, without any of that it completely changes the game from being epic to being mediocre. The entire story DRIVES all the other elements. Thats the entire point of the game is the story. Having gameplay features without the story leaves you with nothing.
Majoras mask had an amazing story too, and so did the windwaker, these adventure games are ABOUT the STORY. Sure you can have adventure games that are wide open and don't have a particular story, but those games aren't zelda games.
Seriously ask 10 people what they're favourite part of OoT was and I would guess very few would say story. Compared to Majora's mask the story elements were just were not up to par. Seriously I'm pretty sure the majority would agree with me here in saying if you took anyway the story parts the game would not become mediocre. That's just plain insulting.
http://uk.gamespot.com/n64/adventure/legendofzeldaoot/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Bread-review
See I can bring up an reviews that barely even mentions the game story.
http://uk.ign64.ign.com/articles/150/150437p1.html
Even the original review IGN barely mentions it.
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/zelda/z5/reviews/z5strev3.html
This one critiques the story badly.
The story of the game just was not as amazing as your making it out to be. Games can be just as amazing without a story. The most Iconic games in existance Mario is a testament to this fact.
"Everything, from Zelda's Z-trigger lock-on system to the game's in-game cut-scenes and well-balanced story advancement, is perfect. "
Without the story in Zelda, there is no game. Period. Theres no question about it, The Legend of Zelda, IS the story, its even in the title of the game. You can think otherwise, but if you go back through the game, anything worth achieving in any form of progression in that game is completely story based from getting your Master Sword to learning your next Ocarina Song. Its all based on the story. Mario64 was TOTALLY based on a story. SuperMarioRPG one of the best mario games AND RPGs ever --- based on a story. You go way too out of your way to try and disprove something ridiculous. These games thrive on the stories you play through... the other parts of the game make the games fun and interesting but they don't tell you why.
And the rpgamer review was a terrible review anyway. Did you even read that thing? You have to go pretty far out of your way to paint The Ocarina of Time as poorly as they painted it.
Lol can't take you seriously anymore. Really you must realise not many share your views that a game needs a story to be great. In fact very, very few of the most highly rated games even have a decent story. Look at Super Mario Galaxies 2 extremely tiny amount of story the game barely even mentions it at all yet it's one of the highest rated video games out in recent times.
Are you honestly going to argue that game had a even mediocre story? Again Mario 64's story was barely above mediocre. If you took the amazing gameplay from any of the games I've mentioned you'd have freaking terrible games no two ways about it. Seriously I doubt barely anyone agrees that a game needs a story to be good. That's just not how games work.
Sometimes an exceptional story can overcome a games bad or mediocre gameplay but that's pretty rare. Currently gameplay is king it's a pretty undeniable fact.
I mean what was the story of pack man, tetris, space invaders? Were they not games?
U shouldn't have to worrie about this. They have already Said they will have Rp and PvP server's. So unless u pick a PvP server or go into a PvP area in the PvE server then it won't be like Aion.
You don't have to take me seriously, you have absolutely no proof yet again that with an even minuscule change to the story that the game wouldn't have been changed from a great game to a mediocre game whereas I've provided quotes stating specifically that the story brought the game to the next level. Not just that, but these games DID have these things... and you can't go back in time and change them even if you wanted to.
I wonder if you ever get tired of being wrong.... you really should because it happens a lot. You stand there and tell me that the LEGEND of zelda... doesn't require a story. Then you try and put words in my mouth saying I said that story is more important than gameplay, its time to grow up and stand on the points you're trying to prove instead of trying to change my point. Cinematics, voiceovers and great story can change a game from being mediocre to being very polished and amazing.
You may prefer the combat system in the Zelda games or you may think that the fishing was the best part, but the entire underlying event in the whole game was the story of Link and the LEGEND of zelda. I don't have to prove any more than that, I've quoted from the very article you posted that my point has been seen from reviewers and players alike.
Its obvious we're two very different people but until you can prove unanimously that your point is unequivocally correct, you're just another guy who's opinion only matters to himself while I have already corroborated my point on two separate reviews.
Without the gameplay OoT had, the story would not have mattered at all.
OoT had a decent story but to say the only reason OoT will forever be a classic is because of it's story, would be a bit much. The gameplay in OoT was beyong words. I've played OoT countless times over and over again and not because I wanted to go through the story over and over but instead because the gameplay was extremely fun.
Stories are great tools for enjoyment but gameplay, imo, will always come out on top if you are trying to compare which is more important. This is not to say the story isn't important either. Games have become very complex entities that can not achieve greatness with just a single element.
Have a great story to tell and have gameplay that is equal in quality and great things will happen.
Edit: Oh yes and this thread has gotten way off topic I think lol. So we could turn it back to Daniel and his rather bold statements about existing MMO's lacking real goals. He seems convinced that the goal in an MMO has to be story/lore based. Why can't players freely create their own goals? I personally don't like to be spoon fed.
My sub never ends when the story does, I tend to view that as the time to PvP. My sub usually ends when there's either a) nothing to do at all, including PvP or b) the only thing to do is grind for stuff. I enjoy story tremendously, and it brings me back to the game every time. Meandering around and killing the local equivalent of a wolf or a cow for experience is dull, dull, dull. I want there to be something motivating my actions and helping me get involved. I work full time, have friends and a life, work out routinely and study Aikido. I have limited free time and if I'm going to use it on a game I want a story that's compelling enough to convince me that I want to play the game and not read a book or watch a movie.
I actually understand your post and am glad you used some creativity. You got your point across to me
Pepsi1028
PEPSI!!!!!
Get out of your box already...
I think you understood my point better then he did. Never did I say the story was the only thing that made Zelda games good, but along with the gameplay it made it arguably the best adventure game of its time. The story elements were used in that game to tie all the other elements together, it ignited the spark that brought you to the Deku tree. It showed you the story of the triforce and its importance. Without that, we could have had just another adventure game.... well maybe not just another one, Nintendo does make some very fun features in their games, but I hope you see what I mean, the gameplay was great, the elements of item usage to accentuate that, amazing, the story to get you to the temples and experience them, flawless. It all goes hand in hand.
It is amazing how these threads do veer off topic...
I must disagree.
An alliance battle is simply mindles pew-pew if you look at it from the outside but not if look at it within the context of the politics of the war between two alliances. And while a dev-created quest may have more twist and turns compared to an alliance leader ordered mission (ie. protect this outpost), thanks to EVE's harsh penalty in losing territory and death, the latter trumps the former in terms of emotional hook.
And the best part is that the combatants of Alliance wars are NOT only creating a 'story' that involves lots of people directly or indirectly in EVE's shared game universe, they are doing it without even realizing it. Nobody start wars in EVE to explicitly create a story or content for the game, theyre just playing the game with their egos. They would only realize that they have provided CCP with story content upon cessation of hostilities and/or CCP incorporate their war into game lore.
(On a side note, more MMORPG's should allow guild territorial control into their games, its such a handy and effective tool in creating user generated story and content. I want to be a veritable Jabba the Hutt (only a Gungan!) in SWTOR controlling swaths of territories in the Outer Rims, wheeling n' dealin' with BOTH factions. )
There may be harm in risking but there can also be regrets in doing nothing.
Hey anyone looking to go to work in Vietnam...this guy says there are 500k jobs there!
I completely understand the importance of story. I think you misunderstood my point. Story does tie the gameplay parts together but the point is story was far from the most important part in that game. That's a good thing because if you looked purely at the story of OoT and compared it to most descent books and films it would come up very far short. Games just aren't at that level yet. That's not saying story isn't important but the vast vast majority of the time you'd find the the gameplay in most critically acclaimed game to be more revolutionary than the story. Most developer's aren't film maker's or writer's they don't understand the importance of cinematography of good writing to deliver a powerful story.
It's starting to become more prevalent in games but it's still not at that level yet. Perhaps as more writer's enter the industry and as more developer's understand more about camera work games could become a whole new maybe evn superior experience. But until then gameplay will remain the backbone of games making games like Super Mario Galaxy 2 classics because of it alone.
I'd like to see a story that involves the massive number of players - for example, rather than a single player quest leading to a solitary outcome, you have a story progression that's based on hundreds of players completing the quest, and makes sense in that context. The world would change in a scripted sort of way, but the rate at which it changes would be up to all the players in their combined efforts.
Kind of like ATITD, except rather than coming to a conclusion, the change could be circular, or go back and forth, like Darkness Falls in DAOC. Players working with (and maybe against) eachother, for mutual progression, but in a system that pushes back, either through PvE or PvP or both, so that the struggle goes on indefinitely, and players level up or whatever, in the process. Still, ultimately pointless of course, but to the players in the midst of it, maybe it wouldn't feel that way, if their success (and failure) not only temporarily changes the gameworld but also rewards the individual effectively.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I very much doubt that many of those module submissions to Bioware actually ended up in getting jobs. A good writer can make a story in any context but I'm willing to bet Bioware gets far more garbage than quality applications.
You also don't bolster the validity of your views with an example like Matrix Online which was such a vast financial success it got shut down. At least EVE wasn't a disaster, but there hasn't been any rush of developers to copy them. Success usually breeds emulation, curious how that's not the case.
As for the rest of your points, we'll see what the future will hold won't we?
The one thing the last few years have shown us is that old-school expectations of MMORPGs failed repeatedly with MMORPG 'gurus' like Garriott, McQuaid, Jacobs and the rest producing disasters. And don't forget that creating a real-world simulator/sandbox is one of the original old-school expectations of of this genre. Don't be surprised if it proves to be one of the oldest flaws.
I want to add that games trying to be world simulators are completely different from games with user-created content, which I think certainly has a place in the future. There is a huge difference in City of Heroes Mission Architect tools compared to allowing players to roll up shirt-maker and musician characters just so they can be part of an over-designed economic system.
Giving players tools means giving them rules and restrictions in using those tools. Which is why that kind of mechanic will evolve into future games far better than the open-ended systems expected of simulator/sandbox games.
First post hits OP's bullshit for wrecking damage. His Credibility has bugun to explode.
Give me liberty or give me lasers