After playing Undecember I realised that a game that can played on a phone is not necessarily bad. The game plays very well and I play it on the PC and it is not at all like how I imagined a mobile game would be. It is complex and fun like hell. Yes you can whale but I didn't. So my prejudice against mobile games have somewhat diminished greatly. Now I judge every game on its merits rather than whether it can be played on a phone.
There are some good mobile games available, even some without aggressive monetization. One just has to be open to that possibility to find them as you now are.
They are still rare though so can take a bit of digging to find if you aren't lucky right from the start.
If I remember correctly, you enjoy turn-based games. If so, you may enjoy some made by the Trese Brothers. They started on mobile but have also joined Steam with PC enhanced versions of some of their mobile games along with making a PC dedicated one.
They are primarily tactical/strategy games with the focus depending on title. Star Traders: Frontiers (the PC dedicated one) has some role-play aspects as well.
They are all b2p with no micro-transactions.
As it happens, at the time of this writing, Star Traders: Frontiers is 50% off for a whopping $10 CDN. If you want to give it a try now is a good time.
I think the whole "MMOs are dead" thing is more about what kind of MMOs are being made and less about how many there are or how many people are playing.
It is more a statement that the kind of MMOs you like are currently not being made.
For example, my favorite MMO ever, and my gold standard of MMO design is City of Heroes. The only games that have that CoH DNA are Champions Online (not as good IMO) DCUO (a little bit) Star Trek Online (more like a distant cousin)
And there really aren't any new MMOs in development that have that CoH feel ( doesn't actually have to be super heroes, just play like CoH) Other than a few fan projects which, let's be honest, were never going to happen anyway.
So I guess for my particular tastes the MMO genre is "dead", even though there are a bunch of new games coming out.
So I get the "MMOs are dead" thing, even if they literally aren't I mean I am still waiting for a new Powerstone and Megaman Legends.
There are "plenty" of MMOs coming out, but "true" MMORPGS, none on the near horizon that I can see.
Scotsman, attack!
There is no MMORPG more true than another, in terms of those actually released at any rate.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
But also the point is that for a team of three, massive FPS battles and destructible environments blocky low poly characters make perfect sense
It allows the devs to make 254 person battles and destructible environments that run on most all modernish computers But also allows the art department (which I think is 1 guy) to actually make the assests needed for the game.
It is a great example of a team embracing their limitations and making something truly great that no AAA company would even attempt much less pull off.
Compared to Battlefield, which they obviously take inspiration from, Battlebit is averaging a little more players in 24 hours than the vastly more expensive 2042.
Yes AAA games still make way more money, but their bar for success is far higher and a game can still flop despite making profit. Indie games have such low costs that they can make money hand over fist by selling a 15$ box price.
So we need more MMO devs that think like the Battlebit guys and do more with less.
I can't agree with you because the natural conclusion for developers to draw is the same as "going to mobile". Cheaper is better, so lets make cheap games.
Being bigger and better both graphically and gameplay wise should be what gaming always aims for.
But also the point is that for a team of three, massive FPS battles and destructible environments blocky low poly characters make perfect sense
It allows the devs to make 254 person battles and destructible environments that run on most all modernish computers But also allows the art department (which I think is 1 guy) to actually make the assests needed for the game.
It is a great example of a team embracing their limitations and making something truly great that no AAA company would even attempt much less pull off.
Compared to Battlefield, which they obviously take inspiration from, Battlebit is averaging a little more players in 24 hours than the vastly more expensive 2042.
Yes AAA games still make way more money, but their bar for success is far higher and a game can still flop despite making profit. Indie games have such low costs that they can make money hand over fist by selling a 15$ box price.
So we need more MMO devs that think like the Battlebit guys and do more with less.
I can't agree with you because the natural conclusion for developers to draw is the same as "going to mobile". Cheaper is better, so lets make cheap games.
Being bigger and better both graphically and gameplay wise should be what gaming always aims for.
That's great for everyone that has the biggest and best hardware available but that's only part of the PC market. The developer should consider their target audience and the type of computer they are likely to have. There are reasons for going low other than just keeping costs down.
But also the point is that for a team of three, massive FPS battles and destructible environments blocky low poly characters make perfect sense
It allows the devs to make 254 person battles and destructible environments that run on most all modernish computers But also allows the art department (which I think is 1 guy) to actually make the assests needed for the game.
It is a great example of a team embracing their limitations and making something truly great that no AAA company would even attempt much less pull off.
Compared to Battlefield, which they obviously take inspiration from, Battlebit is averaging a little more players in 24 hours than the vastly more expensive 2042.
Yes AAA games still make way more money, but their bar for success is far higher and a game can still flop despite making profit. Indie games have such low costs that they can make money hand over fist by selling a 15$ box price.
So we need more MMO devs that think like the Battlebit guys and do more with less.
I can't agree with you because the natural conclusion for developers to draw is the same as "going to mobile". Cheaper is better, so lets make cheap games.
Being bigger and better both graphically and gameplay wise should be what gaming always aims for.
There is a trade off, like with anything
Graphics keep getting "better" while the games keep getting worse (imo) That is because the companies making the the ever increasing graphics are mega corporations, and they cater to an explicitly mainstream audience.
So if your preferences don't align with mainstream preferences, which being on a MMO forum they probably don't, then pushing for higher fidelity graphics inevitably means games you probably won't like.
Plus, I honestly think high fidelity realism is the most soulless and boring graphical style, on top of being expensive, I just don't like it, those games legit look ugly to me.
And I know that is a hipster position to say mainstream equals bad, but I am not their target audience at all. The worst position to be in is to have niche tastes but only want AAA production, the likelihood you will ever get what you want is basically zero.
But also the point is that for a team of three, massive FPS battles and destructible environments blocky low poly characters make perfect sense
It allows the devs to make 254 person battles and destructible environments that run on most all modernish computers But also allows the art department (which I think is 1 guy) to actually make the assests needed for the game.
It is a great example of a team embracing their limitations and making something truly great that no AAA company would even attempt much less pull off.
Compared to Battlefield, which they obviously take inspiration from, Battlebit is averaging a little more players in 24 hours than the vastly more expensive 2042.
Yes AAA games still make way more money, but their bar for success is far higher and a game can still flop despite making profit. Indie games have such low costs that they can make money hand over fist by selling a 15$ box price.
So we need more MMO devs that think like the Battlebit guys and do more with less.
I can't agree with you because the natural conclusion for developers to draw is the same as "going to mobile". Cheaper is better, so lets make cheap games.
Being bigger and better both graphically and gameplay wise should be what gaming always aims for.
There is a trade off, like with anything
Graphics keep getting "better" while the games keep getting worse (imo) That is because the companies making the the ever increasing graphics are mega corporations, and they cater to an explicitly mainstream audience.
So if your preferences don't align with mainstream preferences, which being on a MMO forum they probably don't, then pushing for higher fidelity graphics inevitably means games you probably won't like.
Plus, I honestly think high fidelity realism is the most soulless and boring graphical style, on top of being expensive, I just don't like it, those games legit look ugly to me.
And I know that is a hipster position to say mainstream equals bad, but I am not their target audience at all. The worst position to be in is to have niche tastes but only want AAA production, the likelihood you will ever get what you want is basically zero.
I am a fan of hyper realism, but it depends on the game, I don't think it is best for MMORPG's due to server stress and how quickly the game goes out of date. But for most other genres HR is what should be aimed for, especially in solo games.
My tastes are hybrid rather than niche as I think the best MMO that can be made today would take elements of classic mixed with elements of modern. I don't think I will ever get the MMO that "I want" but that's been the case since post ESO. So it is really down to how well it fits what I am looking for and can I get a good guild. That's enough for me.
I have never played an mmorpg for longer than 2 years. I don't think I will live long enough to see the technology capable of making a true virtual world to live in.
I have never played an mmorpg for longer than 2 years. I don't think I will live long enough to see the technology capable of making a true virtual world to live in.
No, but a great simulation could be made. UO, all those years ago, did a pretty good job of it, and if they had WoW's budget it could have been spectacular. As a simulation. No one wants a virtual world that's too "real."
As an example, take paper and pencil D&D. All those things you tell the DM you do, and he gives you the results after the roll. All those NPCs that have reactions and say things, that can all be simulated, even with individual NPC goals and desires. It's not a technical marvel so much as the labor to code.
I thought UO was terrible and that is not my idea of a good simulation. I just have never seen one because it’s y possible.
Maybe my kids kids will see it.
Speaking of the simulation only (not the rampant PKing and other such mistakes), what was terrible about that simulation?
Sure, it was limited, but as I inferred, if they had WoW money it would have been spectacular (simulation wise). Even with half of WoW money. I just feel that what they did, simulation wise, was eye opening on what could be done simply by expanding on it. (With polish, of course.)
I have never played an mmorpg for longer than 2 years. I don't think I will live long enough to see the technology capable of making a true virtual world to live in.
No, but a great simulation could be made. UO, all those years ago, did a pretty good job of it, and if they had WoW's budget it could have been spectacular. As a simulation. No one wants a virtual world that's too "real."
As an example, take paper and pencil D&D. All those things you tell the DM you do, and he gives you the results after the roll. All those NPCs that have reactions and say things, that can all be simulated, even with individual NPC goals and desires. It's not a technical marvel so much as the labor to code.
How was UO a good simulation?
and AI no doubt on looking to be able to remove all that NPC chatter code with organic AI interactions, we might also witness AI controlled Boss mobs that will be able to respond to player actions so they no longer become scripted encounters, or adaptable fights, that feel more visceral and real.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I have never played an mmorpg for longer than 2 years. I don't think I will live long enough to see the technology capable of making a true virtual world to live in.
No, but a great simulation could be made. UO, all those years ago, did a pretty good job of it, and if they had WoW's budget it could have been spectacular. As a simulation. No one wants a virtual world that's too "real."
As an example, take paper and pencil D&D. All those things you tell the DM you do, and he gives you the results after the roll. All those NPCs that have reactions and say things, that can all be simulated, even with individual NPC goals and desires. It's not a technical marvel so much as the labor to code.
How was UO a good simulation?
and AI no doubt on looking to be able to remove all that NPC chatter code with organic AI interactions, we might also witness AI controlled Boss mobs that will be able to respond to player actions so they no longer become scripted encounters, or adaptable fights, that feel more visceral and real.
Mainly by having a very interactive world, and items. This would take a lot of text to explain it all. But I'll try to explain by telling about some of it. When it comes to items, tools, etc., a lot of that was mundane stuff, but I can see how that can be expanded into more exciting stuff.
First off is the wide social atmosphere, which is lost by the power gaps that separate players in most games, and the level grind that dictates what a player does to advance.
Then there's "items on the ground." You could put anything anywhere it could fit, and stack items too. A table in the corner, a book on the table, and a crystal ball on the book. Or a stack of several books in there. Or a quill on a book. You get the idea.
Books. You could write in them, or copy a story from a website and paste it in a book. A game could add scrolls to write in too. Or anything else desired.
You could put your books in a container (cabinet or any other) or place them anywhere else. Same for all items.
Pitchers could be filled with drinkables: water, wine, ale. When full they had "charges", and you could fill a number of glasses until you used up the charges. Then you could drink the fluids. NOW THIS sounds pretty useless, but I can see expanding that into more. Imagine trying to figure out how to open an unbreakable door in a dungeon, and nothing seems to work. Other things in the dungeon hall are a pool of water, a bucket, a large water font, and a number of other items. And then you fill up the bucket from the pool and pour it into the water font, and it sinks down into the floor a little. So you do a few more buckets, the font drops all the way down, and it activates the door to open. A game could do all kinds of this sort of thing, with all kinds of items.
Tools. In UO, you double clicked on a tool, clicked on an item it could be used on, and either got a result or a list of options to make. A smith hammers was used on ingot to make metal items (gear). Lockpicks were a tool that you used on locks. Why can't a smith's hammer be expanded to use on a large silver bell in a dungeon to get just the right ring tone, and open a secret door? Again, lots of option here. Even leg bones might be useable as a prybar, if the game adds things that can be pried.
So, a very interactive world that simulates how you do things in RL, where you can use that interactivity to enhance the greater experience. Get the idea?
Those are set pieces with scripting. Simulated worlds have not been made yet.
Kenshi, Shenmue Gothic all had scripting as well but that is not the same thing.
A.I. will have to advance to a much more powerful level for a simulated world to be created. A.I. would have to simulate weather, erosion, hundred's of thousands of individual NPCs, millions of individual creatures and insects, natural decay, life, death, ecology, biology, time itself. It just isn't possible.
Everything made prior, today or tomorrow are just set pieces with basic scripts.
Those are set pieces with scripting. Simulated worlds have not been made yet.
Kenshi, Shenmue Gothic all had scripting as well but that is not the same thing.
A.I. will have to advance to a much more powerful level for a simulated world to be created. A.I. would have to simulate weather, erosion, hundred's of thousands of individual NPCs, millions of individual creatures and insects, natural decay, life, death, ecology, biology, time itself. It just isn't possible.
Everything made prior, today or tomorrow are just set pieces with basic scripts.
A.I. is a script with in itself. A.I. would simply be generating real time code with scripts.
if{ and{}} created by a robot or human is literally all the same thing
The only way to get around that is adding A.I. to procedural contnet.
Those are set pieces with scripting. Simulated worlds have not been made yet.
Kenshi, Shenmue Gothic all had scripting as well but that is not the same thing.
A.I. will have to advance to a much more powerful level for a simulated world to be created. A.I. would have to simulate weather, erosion, hundred's of thousands of individual NPCs, millions of individual creatures and insects, natural decay, life, death, ecology, biology, time itself. It just isn't possible.
Everything made prior, today or tomorrow are just set pieces with basic scripts.
A.I. is a script with in itself. A.I. would simply be generating real time code with scripts.
if{ and{}} created by a robot or human is literally all the same thing
The only way to get around that is adding A.I. to procedural contnet.
You are proving the point. All we are capable of is basic scripting. It is not possible to create an A.I. generated simulated world. The level of computational complexity required to do so is not possible with our level of technological sophistication.
Those are set pieces with scripting. Simulated worlds have not been made yet.
Kenshi, Shenmue Gothic all had scripting as well but that is not the same thing.
A.I. will have to advance to a much more powerful level for a simulated world to be created. A.I. would have to simulate weather, erosion, hundred's of thousands of individual NPCs, millions of individual creatures and insects, natural decay, life, death, ecology, biology, time itself. It just isn't possible.
Everything made prior, today or tomorrow are just set pieces with basic scripts.
A.I. is a script with in itself. A.I. would simply be generating real time code with scripts.
if{ and{}} created by a robot or human is literally all the same thing
The only way to get around that is adding A.I. to procedural contnet.
You are proving the point. All we are capable of is basic scripting. It is not possible to create an A.I. generated simulated world. The level of computational complexity required to do so is not possible with our level of technological sophistication.
Period. End of story.
End of the story ? that is simply the beginning of an adventure !
Those are set pieces with scripting. Simulated worlds have not been made yet.
Kenshi, Shenmue Gothic all had scripting as well but that is not the same thing.
A.I. will have to advance to a much more powerful level for a simulated world to be created. A.I. would have to simulate weather, erosion, hundred's of thousands of individual NPCs, millions of individual creatures and insects, natural decay, life, death, ecology, biology, time itself. It just isn't possible.
Everything made prior, today or tomorrow are just set pieces with basic scripts.
A.I. is a script with in itself. A.I. would simply be generating real time code with scripts.
if{ and{}} created by a robot or human is literally all the same thing
The only way to get around that is adding A.I. to procedural contnet.
You are proving the point. All we are capable of is basic scripting. It is not possible to create an A.I. generated simulated world. The level of computational complexity required to do so is not possible with our level of technological sophistication.
Period. End of story.
End of the story ? that is simply the beginning of an adventure !
I agree with that but not in my lifetime. Hence end of story. Maybe my grandkids will see it. Or theirs.
Those are set pieces with scripting. Simulated worlds have not been made yet.
Kenshi, Shenmue Gothic all had scripting as well but that is not the same thing.
A.I. will have to advance to a much more powerful level for a simulated world to be created. A.I. would have to simulate weather, erosion, hundred's of thousands of individual NPCs, millions of individual creatures and insects, natural decay, life, death, ecology, biology, time itself. It just isn't possible.
Everything made prior, today or tomorrow are just set pieces with basic scripts.
A.I. is a script with in itself. A.I. would simply be generating real time code with scripts.
if{ and{}} created by a robot or human is literally all the same thing
The only way to get around that is adding A.I. to procedural contnet.
You are proving the point. All we are capable of is basic scripting. It is not possible to create an A.I. generated simulated world. The level of computational complexity required to do so is not possible with our level of technological sophistication.
Period. End of story.
End of the story ? that is simply the beginning of an adventure !
I agree with that but not in my lifetime. Hence end of story. Maybe my grandkids will see it. Or theirs.
There's a really fun episode on Black Mirror , "Joan is Aweful" ...
Those are set pieces with scripting. Simulated worlds have not been made yet.
Kenshi, Shenmue Gothic all had scripting as well but that is not the same thing.
A.I. will have to advance to a much more powerful level for a simulated world to be created. A.I. would have to simulate weather, erosion, hundred's of thousands of individual NPCs, millions of individual creatures and insects, natural decay, life, death, ecology, biology, time itself. It just isn't possible.
Everything made prior, today or tomorrow are just set pieces with basic scripts.
A.I. is a script with in itself. A.I. would simply be generating real time code with scripts.
if{ and{}} created by a robot or human is literally all the same thing
The only way to get around that is adding A.I. to procedural contnet.
You are proving the point. All we are capable of is basic scripting. It is not possible to create an A.I. generated simulated world. The level of computational complexity required to do so is not possible with our level of technological sophistication.
Period. End of story.
End of the story ? that is simply the beginning of an adventure !
I agree with that but not in my lifetime. Hence end of story. Maybe my grandkids will see it. Or theirs.
There's a really fun episode on Black Mirror , "Joan is Aweful" ...
That was so good, Charlie Brooker has a talent for making amazing stories out of pertinent issues. He got started with that one when he saw a TV series based on a real women which came out within about two years of the real events happening.
Comments
There are some good mobile games available, even some without aggressive monetization. One just has to be open to that possibility to find them as you now are.
They are still rare though so can take a bit of digging to find if you aren't lucky right from the start.
If I remember correctly, you enjoy turn-based games. If so, you may enjoy some made by the Trese Brothers. They started on mobile but have also joined Steam with PC enhanced versions of some of their mobile games along with making a PC dedicated one.
They are primarily tactical/strategy games with the focus depending on title. Star Traders: Frontiers (the PC dedicated one) has some role-play aspects as well.
They are all b2p with no micro-transactions.
As it happens, at the time of this writing, Star Traders: Frontiers is 50% off for a whopping $10 CDN. If you want to give it a try now is a good time.
There is no MMORPG more true than another, in terms of those actually released at any rate.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Being bigger and better both graphically and gameplay wise should be what gaming always aims for.
That's great for everyone that has the biggest and best hardware available but that's only part of the PC market. The developer should consider their target audience and the type of computer they are likely to have. There are reasons for going low other than just keeping costs down.
Graphics keep getting "better" while the games keep getting worse (imo)
That is because the companies making the the ever increasing graphics are mega corporations, and they cater to an explicitly mainstream audience.
So if your preferences don't align with mainstream preferences, which being on a MMO forum they probably don't, then pushing for higher fidelity graphics inevitably means games you probably won't like.
Plus, I honestly think high fidelity realism is the most soulless and boring graphical style, on top of being expensive, I just don't like it, those games legit look ugly to me.
And I know that is a hipster position to say mainstream equals bad, but I am not their target audience at all.
The worst position to be in is to have niche tastes but only want AAA production, the likelihood you will ever get what you want is basically zero.
My tastes are hybrid rather than niche as I think the best MMO that can be made today would take elements of classic mixed with elements of modern. I don't think I will ever get the MMO that "I want" but that's been the case since post ESO. So it is really down to how well it fits what I am looking for and can I get a good guild. That's enough for me.
I don't think I will live long enough to see the technology capable of making a true virtual world to live in.
As a simulation. No one wants a virtual world that's too "real."
As an example, take paper and pencil D&D. All those things you tell the DM you do, and he gives you the results after the roll.
All those NPCs that have reactions and say things, that can all be simulated, even with individual NPC goals and desires.
It's not a technical marvel so much as the labor to code.
Once upon a time....
I just have never seen one because it’s y possible.
Sure, it was limited, but as I inferred, if they had WoW money it would have been spectacular (simulation wise). Even with half of WoW money.
I just feel that what they did, simulation wise, was eye opening on what could be done simply by expanding on it. (With polish, of course.)
Once upon a time....
and AI no doubt on looking to be able to remove all that NPC chatter code with organic AI interactions, we might also witness AI controlled Boss mobs that will be able to respond to player actions so they no longer become scripted encounters, or adaptable fights, that feel more visceral and real.
This would take a lot of text to explain it all. But I'll try to explain by telling about some of it.
When it comes to items, tools, etc., a lot of that was mundane stuff, but I can see how that can be expanded into more exciting stuff.
First off is the wide social atmosphere, which is lost by the power gaps that separate players in most games, and the level grind that dictates what a player does to advance.
Then there's "items on the ground." You could put anything anywhere it could fit, and stack items too. A table in the corner, a book on the table, and a crystal ball on the book.
Or a stack of several books in there. Or a quill on a book. You get the idea.
Books. You could write in them, or copy a story from a website and paste it in a book.
A game could add scrolls to write in too. Or anything else desired.
You could put your books in a container (cabinet or any other) or place them anywhere else.
Same for all items.
Pitchers could be filled with drinkables: water, wine, ale. When full they had "charges", and you could fill a number of glasses until you used up the charges.
Then you could drink the fluids.
NOW THIS sounds pretty useless, but I can see expanding that into more.
Imagine trying to figure out how to open an unbreakable door in a dungeon, and nothing seems to work.
Other things in the dungeon hall are a pool of water, a bucket, a large water font, and a number of other items. And then you fill up the bucket from the pool and pour it into the water font, and it sinks down into the floor a little. So you do a few more buckets, the font drops all the way down, and it activates the door to open.
A game could do all kinds of this sort of thing, with all kinds of items.
Tools. In UO, you double clicked on a tool, clicked on an item it could be used on, and either got a result or a list of options to make.
A smith hammers was used on ingot to make metal items (gear).
Lockpicks were a tool that you used on locks.
Why can't a smith's hammer be expanded to use on a large silver bell in a dungeon to get just the right ring tone, and open a secret door?
Again, lots of option here. Even leg bones might be useable as a prybar, if the game adds things that can be pried.
So, a very interactive world that simulates how you do things in RL,
where you can use that interactivity to enhance the greater experience. Get the idea?
Once upon a time....
To me, a real simulation is a world that fully functions as a world without human intervention.
Which is why I said there won't be one in my lifetime.
Maybe not my children's lifetimes.
Simulated worlds have not been made yet.
Kenshi, Shenmue Gothic all had scripting as well but that is not the same thing.
A.I. will have to advance to a much more powerful level for a simulated world to be created.
A.I. would have to simulate weather, erosion, hundred's of thousands of individual NPCs, millions of individual creatures and insects, natural decay, life, death, ecology, biology, time itself.
It just isn't possible.
Everything made prior, today or tomorrow are just set pieces with basic scripts.
All we are capable of is basic scripting.
It is not possible to create an A.I. generated simulated world.
The level of computational complexity required to do so is not possible with our level of technological sophistication.
Period.
End of story.
End of the story ? that is simply the beginning of an adventure !
There's a really fun episode on Black Mirror , "Joan is Aweful" ...
I'm a MUDder. I play MUDs.
Current: Dragonrealms