It is hard to design features that allow a single player to make a difference on the world, while still maintaining some sort of balance.
If EVERY player could make major changes to the world solo, the world would or at least could, change so much and so fast that it would be a chaotic mess. So there does seem to be an upper limit of how much you can allow a single player to change the world, and still maintain some sort of coherence.
Housing is a good example of a player changing the world. To some extent so is crafting. You bring something into the world that didn't exist before, and it has an impact on other players, it becomes gear they can use.
That's my defintion of "change the world" basically has to have an impact on other players.
If you build a house, and before a player could walk right through that patch, and now they see a house and htey have to walk around, then you've certainly changed the game world for other players.
What else would you like as a feature that can change the game world that a single player could do, besides build a house?
Have you ever played Minecraft (i think that's the name) It's a pure building game somewhat like online lego, anyone can build anything and anyone can destroy anything.
It's an interesting dynamic, of course there are the occaisional screams of people that had their work destroyed, but I think the key is not to have something where its value is in its permanence, but in its creativity.
It's the old "ice-swan" adage.
When I log into minecraft I love how the whole world has changed and set about exploring what people have done. How the server has eroded my work away or built into it. Also quite interesting is how 90% of people will work with you rather than against you. Maybe it's just a good community, but "griefing" is pretty rare. I guess this is why pvp focused mmos are less successful =p
Also, thanks for the monkey, I will pet it and love it, and I will call him monkey (yeah I should have read the thread more - my bad)
On the "guilds be ownin' ma world!" point, upkeep might fix that, when upkeep is exponential. Though maybe I shouldn't be here, since i'm not a solo player, and I don't really understand the solo mindset *shrug* (I play healers / support classes)
I understand the dislike of giving guilds to much power, and I agree with that sentiment.
If for example, you can make a city, and all the controls to the city (taxes, guards, shops, etc.) are handled by the guild leader.
Well, why do I give a crap about that feature? I'm not the guild leader, unlikely I will be the guild leader, so that feature might as well not even exist as far as I'm concerned. A few people in the game world will get to use that feature, and that's all.
I have not played minecraft, but I think it points out why this would not work in an MMORPG. It sounds fun for a building block game, but not a living breathing world. Way to chaotic when you still have character advancement, questing, and PvP and crafting to consider as part of the game.
If the entire game is building stuff and tearing it down, ok that's fine.
For me it's both. My character is important. I want to be able to have as customizable a character as possible. That's why I like (good) skill-based systems as opposed to class-based systems most of the time and is the main reason I've been playing EvE for 3 years even though I'm not much of a sci-fi fan. But the world is equally important. I made the determination some time ago that I wasn't going to play a monthly fee for an MMO where the actions of players don't meaningfully impact the larger world, or games that don't offer any meaningful challenges - if everyone can do everything why am I paying a monthly fee to do it?
You win a monkey.
Totally agree with him, its something thats actually very hard to find in a game though..
Becoming the first jedi doesn't change the game world, it changes that person's character. Naming a quest item after the first person to do the quest changes the game world, but only in a meaningless way, the name of the quest. But nothing about the world is changed, is it? What's different fro me after you become Jedi? Nothing. What's different for me after solve the quest? Nothing, except the quest now has a name. Yes, the quest is now called something different, but it has no real impact of any kind on me.
Becoming the first Jedi does change the world. First, it introduces a character class into the game that wasn't there before. People want to find out how that was done so they can open their own Jedi slot. It was a PvP world, and now one faction has a Jedi. Because at the time a Jedi could be perma-killed, one faction is trying to keep their Jedi alive and the other faction is trying to kill him (or her). One faction is trying to hide their Jedi so he doesn't get killed, and the other side is trying to find him.
The difference with the earring is that an item (which was at the time a very good one) that previously could not be attained now can be, and people had the knowledge for how to do it.
But of course anyone can minimize anything. If your character blew up an entire game continent, I could say what has changed? I never wanted to go there anyway. I can still level, quest and raid on other continents. The developer will have to add new content to replace the old, with zero net gain. My character is still alive and the destruction of that continent doesn't change that. It's all just pixels anyway. So who cares? Poo pooing is a very easy game to play.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Why do I have to split the 2 ideologies at all? I actually would play both games equally. They both appeal to me. Would be even better if one could combine it.
Why do I have to split the 2 ideologies at all? I actually would play both games equally. They both appeal to me. Would be even better if one could combine it.
I acknowledge this as a valid opinion. If you like both games equally, then you like both games equally. You are truly neutral on the subject.
Becoming the first jedi doesn't change the game world, it changes that person's character. Naming a quest item after the first person to do the quest changes the game world, but only in a meaningless way, the name of the quest. But nothing about the world is changed, is it? What's different fro me after you become Jedi? Nothing. What's different for me after solve the quest? Nothing, except the quest now has a name. Yes, the quest is now called something different, but it has no real impact of any kind on me.
Becoming the first Jedi does change the world. First, it introduces a character class into the game that wasn't there before. People want to find out how that was done so they can open their own Jedi slot. It was a PvP world, and now one faction has a Jedi. Because at the time a Jedi could be perma-killed, one faction is trying to keep their Jedi alive and the other faction is trying to kill him (or her). One faction is trying to hide their Jedi so he doesn't get killed, and the other side is trying to find him.
The difference with the earring is that an item (which was at the time a very good one) that previously could not be attained now can be, and people had the knowledge for how to do it.
But of course anyone can minimize anything. If your character blew up an entire game continent, I could say what has changed? I never wanted to go there anyway. I can still level, quest and raid on other continents. The developer will have to add new content to replace the old, with zero net gain. My character is still alive and the destruction of that continent doesn't change that. It's all just pixels anyway. So who cares? Poo pooing is a very easy game to play.
The game world is the same. Becoming the first Jedi in the world doesn't introduce that character class into the world.
It was always there.
Just like becoming Max level for the first character, doesnt' create level 50. It was always there.
The item, in the earring example, could always be obtained. It was always part of the game. The person that did the quest for the first time didnt' create teh quest, or the earring. It was always part of the game, and the person doing the quest changed nothing for the other people playing the game. The quest, the steps to get the earring are still exactly the same as when the game was released, still exactly the same before the person did the quest, and after.
The game world is the same.
Here's another, perhaps easier way to look at it.
When you "change the game world" that means something is different for me playing the game, even when you log out and are not playing the game.
Now, compare the "earring quest" to the simply example of building a house.
I had to walk around the house after it was built. The game is changed for me, even when you are not there. My actions are different, and YOU made me play the game differently. I used to walk this way, but now I walk that way. I have no choice in the matter, because the game world is changed.
But wit the earring, how is the game world changed for me? The quest is the same, nothing has changed for my character, there is nothing I have to do now I didn't before.
Or try this one. The earring quest is just knowledge, but knowledge doesn't change the game world.
Look, behind that tree is a +1 sword. Now that I told you about it, you can go pick it up.
Yes, something has changed for you the player. You know something you didn't before. Something has changed for your character. They now have a +1 sword they didn't before.
But did me telling you about the sword change the game world? The sword existed before I told you about it, and after I told you about it, right? The sword exists whether I tell you about it or not.
Just like the earring quest exists whether you know about it or not. The game world has not changed.
character development through a very broad skill system
a static world
gear grind galore for tiered sets / specific items
vs.
option 2
limited character build options
a dynamic and changing world
meaningful crafting
I'm bored with option 1. So I'll try my luck with option 2 and hopefully the game will offer some possibilities for exploration and other non-combat stuff (just for a change).
You seem to equate "change" in a world only to pixilated alterations to it, or the aquisition of personal power. That is hardly the only sense of change.
For those of us who value mysteries and the solving of puzzles, there is a big difference between a mystery people are trying to solve and one that has been solved.
Change can also mean changes to how people play the game. Anyone who played original SWG was there to see how differently people played after they knew what was involved in opening a Jedi slot then the way they played before.
It can also mean the attainment of knowledge. A boss that cannot be defeated gets defeated. People learn how and that changes a great deal.
It can also mean that a goal people were competing for now has a winner.
Adding a player city or destroying a bridge is a form of change, but it is far from being the only type. I think your view of "change" to a game world is too narrow.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Ultimately it is the player behind the character that matters, not the character. It is difficult to be "unique" in EvE online for example, many will fly the same ship as you and have roughly the same skills, despite the many options in that area, but your actions as a player truly matters.
In some games like Champions online you can make unique looking characters and have tons of options when creating the character. But if it is quest based and the quests resembles each other you will eventually get tired of the game no matter how unique the character is.
You seem to equate "change" in a world only to pixilated alterations to it, or the aquisition of personal power. That is hardly the only sense of change.
For those of us who value mysteries and the solving of puzzles, there is a big difference between a mystery people are trying to solve and one that has been solved.
Change can also mean changes to how people play the game. Anyone who played original SWG was there to see how differently people played after they knew what was involved in opening a Jedi slot then the way they played before.
It can also mean the attainment of knowledge. A boss that cannot be defeated gets defeated. People learn how and that changes a great deal.
It can also mean that a goal people were competing for now has a winner.
Adding a player city or destroying a bridge is a form of change, but it is far from being the only type. I think your view of "change" to a game world is too narrow.
None of your examples change the game world for me. The game world is still the same.
Everyone decides that template X is the new uber template, so now everyone makes a character with template X, when last month, everyone made a character with Template A.
Nothing in the game world has changed. The ability to make template A or template X existed last month, exists this month, is still the same.
I decide I will sit on my ass and rolelplay instead of killing mobs. I have completely changed the way I play the game. But the game is still the same. Nothing in the gameworld has changed.
If you're looking for the right answer, I don't think I have one. For me personally it's about a 50/50 split. I place both aspects at about the same degree of importance. I must feel a connection to my character, which means the class choices, gear choices and build choices given to me must appeal to my preferences.
The same goes for the world, which to me encompasses the lore, world set-up and the atmosphere.
Things like instances don't bother me as long as I feel a connection to the world around me. Graphics aren't as important as art direction. Prime example would be Morrowind over Oblivion. While Oblivion is pushing a higher poly count and high definition rendering. Morrowind has a very original look and the atmosphere is ten fold more engaging than oblivion IMO. Single player games I know, but I think that explains what i am referring to.
in the end both of these aspects carry the same influence over my experience. If I feel a disconnection to either, I'm unlikely to stick around.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If you're looking for the right answer, I don't think I have one. For me personally it's about a 50/50 split. I place both aspects at about the same degree of importance. I must feel a connection to my character, which means the class choices, gear choices and build choices given to me must appeal to my preferences. The same goes for the world, which to me encompasses the lore, world set-up and the atmosphere. Things like instances don't bother me as long as I feel a connection to the world around me. Graphics aren't as important as art direction. Prime example would be Morrowind over Oblivion. While Oblivion is pushing a higher poly count and high definition rendering. Morrowind has a very original look and the atmosphere is ten fold more engaging than oblivion IMO. Single player games I know, but I think that explains what i am referring to. in the end both of these aspects carry the same influence over my experience. If I feel a disconnection to either, I'm unlikely to stick around.
When WAR first released, if you wanted to play "good" and you wanted to play a tank, you had only one choice. Dwarf. I don't like playing dwarfs, but I wanted to play a tank, so it was very discouraging.
This left me with play a race I don't like, or play a different class than the one I want to play.
Since your identity is constructed out of your interactions with the world in real life, the world obviously.
If there was a class based game like how you want (where you can build and destroy everything and are an actual part of the world), then the advancement system is a secondary concern.
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii. --In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses. --The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! --CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
If we go purely by your examples then I'd choose the 2nd one. Some people equate productivity with personal gain. I equate it to how much I can affect my surroundings, be it real life or a game.
If I were to elaborate on my choice then I'd say I'd like then 2nd choice with the ability to choose exactly the abilities my character has rather then being pigeon holed into a class because like in real life I can go out and at least attempt to learn different things. I see no reason why I couldn't do this in game. I may not be very good at it or I might find out that I don't like it but I still have the option.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
My character is supremely important to me in an RPG. It represents the ways I'm able to interact with the world, and controls whether or not the decisions a game offers me will be engaging and interesting.
A capless skill system is no sure-fire way of making the above true. Until the OP's character system itself is described in better detail, it actually introduces more problems then benefits imo.
Teamplay in MMORPGs is tremendously improved by having clear-cut roles for players to participate in. Could a capless system accomplish this? Well, yes and no -- some cap or limitation is necessary. It could be that anyone can learn tanking skills but only the guy wearing the heavy armor actually functions well using those skills, in which case gear is the "cap" on character capabilities. A FF11 style system works perfectly too (the "cap" being that you can only have one primary and one secondary job active at a time, even though you can independantly level all of your jobs.)
The question "What can I do with my character?" is really the more important one to ask here. Some answers lie in "the world" (you can construct a house), but most answers typically lie in the character itself (you can become a mage, cast fireballs, protect teammates with energy shields, etc.) ...it's just that in the OP's question he assumes one specific way of designing player characters which isn't necessarily that fun (but it's not necessarily bad either, even though right out of the gates it's introduced some problems.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What is a world without characters, and what are characters without a world ? Meaningless. If any one of those things lacks it inevitably drags the other down with it.
I strongly believe there must be a freedom and huge variety of choises,talents,feats,skills,builds so u can make the character archetype u want to play.
On the other side id like a game where the world could be shaped by players and altered by their actions. Id like every day i login that i wont know what adventures will lie ahead. I d takemy horse and ride north to explroe lands hiden treasures,explore ruins that are hard to be found,secret passages to hidden crypts etc.ADVENTURING.
In order to enjoy a game u need both above.If i was to choose i guess i d choose the world.But cant see why both deep character advencment system and a hug world full of adventuring and exploration that can be altered and shaped by players cant co-exist together.Weird dilemma u put OP.
What do you want to have an affect on? What's more important to you, the world, or your character? I'm asking this question to gage your penchant for one or the other.
Let's say you have to choose between two games. One game has a skill system. You have a bazillion skills to choose from. There are no caps on any skills, and no restrictions on any skills. So you can build whatever character you want with no limits at all. However, the game is a standard themepark, like WoW. You will mostly grind quests, and collect gear as you gain skills. You have ZERO affect on the world. You save the princess, she still asks to be saved by the next player, and the next thousand players. but who cares, you're on to the next area of the game to do the next quest, to kill the next mob, to collect the next gear, to get more skills. The next game has a class and level system, with a level cap. Level 100 is max level. you can be one of say 5 classes, and each class has a few specializations you can choose from. However, in this game you CAN affect the game world. you can take over territory. You can build a city, and destroy a city. You can build a bridge or destroy it. YOu can build giant monuments that open up new dungeons, or create new never before seen gear. There are quests taht are not static. You save the Princess, and she is actually saved. Unless someone kidnaps her again. There are all manner of changes you can make to the game world, some on an individual level, some which require coordinated action by a large guild. Which one do you prefer? It's a hypothetical to gage how important character is to you, over the game world. If you want to say, I dont' like either one, I like X instead, then you're avoiding the question and the purpose of the thread, but of course that is your prerogative to say, I like monkeys, instead of answering the question.
I would have to go with the world, i could care less about the character really as long as you have some sort of impact on the game world around you.
Teamplay in MMORPGs is tremendously improved by having clear-cut roles for players to participate in.
In a huge variety of talents skills feats there is always the options forthe players to choose those that will help them be pure healers,tanks,dps etc
Taking away though the right of freedom and huge depth on character creation (wow,lotro,aoc,and every other mmorpg that uses the usual 3 talent tree system) is clearly deminishing the depth of gameplay,character advanement and the right of the player t build the avatar he wants to. Example if someone wants to create a battlemage,a warrior-archer hybrid(ranger),a barbarian style fighter ala d&d, or warrior similar to samurai style, damn right the game should have the talents,feats,skills so players can choose them and create those classes.
Honestly I want both... but if I have to choose I would definitely say the world.
My reason against the character advancement option is the skill based advancement systems. Unfortunately the "optimal" skill build(s) is(are) eventually determined and everyone will end up the same, or with a few different builds, or classes (unofficially). Even though most skill based advancement system advocates hate that word.
Even in skill based systems most people end up playing "classes". I know myself and all of my friends did in UO.
I'm basing my reasoning on a limited skill based system because a completely unlimited skill based system would kill the game in my opinion. I just do not see how it could possibly work and not get boring after a certain point, in that case there would be no contest in my opinion between option 1 and 2.
My reason for choosing the world is that it has never really been done up to this point in a full and successful way. UO had some things right with their persistent housing system, SB had some things right with their guild/alliance land ownership system, SWG had some things right with their housing system and harvesting/crafting system.
Unfortunately no one has put all of these things together with a real persistent way to effect the world we play in where everyone else who plays sees what we have done in the past. That type of world combined with WoW type combat/advancement would be great in my opinion.
I would much prefer to get a tell from someone saying "Hey Dameon, I was just in X town and I saw the plaque there where you saved the town from undead invaders 2 years ago, good job man!"
Over a tell saying, "Hey Dameon, what skills should I raise to shoot a bow like you do?"
Edit: Thinking more about Shadowbane I realize they did a lot of really great things with their city building/siege system. Unfortunately that's one of the only things they did well in that game. If the rest of the game had been more like DAOC I think it would have been one of the most successful games to date.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
I do not identify with my toon(s) as much as with the time, energy, currency, etc. invested in them. A couple questions:
Are these MMOs or single player games?
What about PvP? If I can build a house where there was space a moment before, can someone else tear down my house and put up their own? Or can they invent a bomb and blow it up? Must I invest in lock-building skills to offset the lockpicking skills of the thief in the alley? If so, I will spend all my time safeguarding my stuff instead of exploring or building a world. If I can affect the world, then all the other players can as well, and you can bet some asshat will be intent on destroying whatever is built.
So if the answer to the questions is MMO and no PvP, I would choose world.
The more I think about it, the more world comes to the forefront, really character is for the self-centred type, and a vibrant world is for people that wish to work together to create something. At least in my optimistic view. There's will always be those that live to destroy other's work. I think the key in those situations is to make building and rebuilding quick, simple and creative, while making destruction a little more tedious.
I'm an artist by profession so I guess it spills into the games I play too, I often get bored of playing linear RPGs if the story doesn't keep up, but loving tower defence and base building rts for example :P making efficient mazes is sort of like urban planning.
Teamplay in MMORPGs is tremendously improved by having clear-cut roles for players to participate in.
In a huge variety of talents skills feats there is always the options forthe players to choose those that will help them be pure healers,tanks,dps etc
Taking away though the right of freedom and huge depth on character creation (wow,lotro,aoc,and every other mmorpg that uses the usual 3 talent tree system) is clearly deminishing the depth of gameplay,character advanement and the right of the player t build the avatar he wants to. Example if someone wants to create a battlemage,a warrior-archer hybrid(ranger),a barbarian style fighter ala d&d, or warrior similar to samurai style, damn right the game should have the talents,feats,skills so players can choose them and create those classes.
If I can Tank+Heal+DPS all in one character, my desire to group is only driven by DPS need. That same need exists in games where roles are more defined, but you have additional extremely lucrative advantages from working with the other players. These advantages only exist if there are constraints on what one player is capable of.
As for "clearly diminishing the depth of gameplay", that's just nonsense. Games can have tremendous depth with zero customization options -- do you feel Chess is a shallow game, where absolute flawless mastery can be achieved 15 minutes after you learn it? Probably not, but that's a game with no play customization which nevertheless has tons of game depth. The same is true in MMORPGs.
Really once you go past a certain point of removing constraints, a game becomes shallower not deeper. Removing the constraints limiting piece movement in Chess would totally ruin the game -- if every piece moved like a Queen, the optimal strategy would be discovered inside a week and it'd be as shallow as Tic-Tac-Toe. The rules of a game must include constraints or the gameplay pattern will be too easy to master.
None of this prevents players from making kickass custom classes, as long as proper constraints exist. My previous post pointed out 2 of the many ways games can offer "unlimited" advancement along job/skill paths, while having the right constraints to maintain deep gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I love the idea of having an impact on the game world around. especially when it can be introduced into a mmorpg. Most boring thing for me is go kill x number of rats and move on to another area were I kill 10 of them. *yawns* Hell the only thing that kept me motivated in some of those games was to collect gold so I could go buy new clothes.
One of the games you got me thinking about tonight was Black and White. It wasn't a mmorg , but I still enjoyed playing it because it did impact the gameplay. You played the role of a god , who had to train and control this creature in your new world. You could train him to be evil and eat the people of the land , or smack him around a bit and tell him to leave them alone. Depending on what choices you made , your creature would learn to become good , or evil , and his appearance would change with it . Of course there were several other things that he could be trained to do , and it did have and impact. Not always knowing the outcome of your decisions in a game , makes it so much more appealing. In todays games if you don't kill x rats you go back and do it again.
With you discussion you kinda got me thinking about a game that would be ever changing by the choices you and others made around you. If there is one ...please direct me to it . Could you imagine a game similiar to Black and white ... Little towns of people who could open up new technologies and skils, they would have a choice by opening up say... a skill that could give them the ability to make swords or ..they could open up one that could generate healing armor. Opening up one , would void the other out. and depending on which one they opened , either a say good or bad new skill would open. The town would also change , towns that opened up say more positive and friendly skills would grow more beautiful , greener , sunnier , while those people living in the towns researching mass destruction skills would grow doomy and gray. Towns that also reseach majical spells. Most of all the town itself would be a great selling point. Someplace where you avatar could set up a home , a town where you meet your neighbors , and work with them. I could go on for a while , but I won't bore you. The ideas are just running wild.
I think that not only having an impact on the world is a great selling point for me , but with the choices you make , it not always good to know what outcome they will have. ATITD ( A Tale in the Desert) has come close to this , but it needs to take it to the next level in order to save that game. It has a good structure and base to build upon the idea. But has been done so many times now , everyone knows ahead of time what is going to happen and how things will play out. I am hoping more developers will stop trying to sell the idea that killing x amout of rats is fun. Its just boring.
IMO it is a no brainer ,the WORLD,without it my player means nothing.I could easily start up my Unreal editor and make an empty box ,put a player in it and it would mean nothing.This is why i find it real hard to enjoy games,the buildings all look fake and static,trees don't look like trees,stone does not look like stone,it really gives no immersion at all.
In saying that ,i of course expect proper character customization and interaction within the world,i want the entire game to feel cohesive,like it was well thought out.Instead games now a days feel like the world is generated,a few mobs dotted around,make an npc to tag/link quests and there ya go enjoy,umm ...no thanks.
With the tools developers can use ,we should have some really unique worlds,as soon as you enter the first day it should feel epic,you should feel the immersion.
If YOUR player stands out in the world,then how does everyone else player stand out?Answer is they don't that is why the world needs to be the center point,not the player.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Comments
It is hard to design features that allow a single player to make a difference on the world, while still maintaining some sort of balance.
If EVERY player could make major changes to the world solo, the world would or at least could, change so much and so fast that it would be a chaotic mess. So there does seem to be an upper limit of how much you can allow a single player to change the world, and still maintain some sort of coherence.
Housing is a good example of a player changing the world. To some extent so is crafting. You bring something into the world that didn't exist before, and it has an impact on other players, it becomes gear they can use.
That's my defintion of "change the world" basically has to have an impact on other players.
If you build a house, and before a player could walk right through that patch, and now they see a house and htey have to walk around, then you've certainly changed the game world for other players.
What else would you like as a feature that can change the game world that a single player could do, besides build a house?
Have you ever played Minecraft (i think that's the name) It's a pure building game somewhat like online lego, anyone can build anything and anyone can destroy anything.
It's an interesting dynamic, of course there are the occaisional screams of people that had their work destroyed, but I think the key is not to have something where its value is in its permanence, but in its creativity.
It's the old "ice-swan" adage.
When I log into minecraft I love how the whole world has changed and set about exploring what people have done. How the server has eroded my work away or built into it. Also quite interesting is how 90% of people will work with you rather than against you. Maybe it's just a good community, but "griefing" is pretty rare. I guess this is why pvp focused mmos are less successful =p
Also, thanks for the monkey, I will pet it and love it, and I will call him monkey
(yeah I should have read the thread more - my bad)
On the "guilds be ownin' ma world!" point, upkeep might fix that, when upkeep is exponential. Though maybe I shouldn't be here, since i'm not a solo player, and I don't really understand the solo mindset *shrug* (I play healers / support classes)
I understand the dislike of giving guilds to much power, and I agree with that sentiment.
If for example, you can make a city, and all the controls to the city (taxes, guards, shops, etc.) are handled by the guild leader.
Well, why do I give a crap about that feature? I'm not the guild leader, unlikely I will be the guild leader, so that feature might as well not even exist as far as I'm concerned. A few people in the game world will get to use that feature, and that's all.
I have not played minecraft, but I think it points out why this would not work in an MMORPG. It sounds fun for a building block game, but not a living breathing world. Way to chaotic when you still have character advancement, questing, and PvP and crafting to consider as part of the game.
If the entire game is building stuff and tearing it down, ok that's fine.
You win a monkey.
Totally agree with him, its something thats actually very hard to find in a game though..
Sorry, I am out of monkeys. Here is a banana.
Becoming the first Jedi does change the world. First, it introduces a character class into the game that wasn't there before. People want to find out how that was done so they can open their own Jedi slot. It was a PvP world, and now one faction has a Jedi. Because at the time a Jedi could be perma-killed, one faction is trying to keep their Jedi alive and the other faction is trying to kill him (or her). One faction is trying to hide their Jedi so he doesn't get killed, and the other side is trying to find him.
The difference with the earring is that an item (which was at the time a very good one) that previously could not be attained now can be, and people had the knowledge for how to do it.
But of course anyone can minimize anything. If your character blew up an entire game continent, I could say what has changed? I never wanted to go there anyway. I can still level, quest and raid on other continents. The developer will have to add new content to replace the old, with zero net gain. My character is still alive and the destruction of that continent doesn't change that. It's all just pixels anyway. So who cares? Poo pooing is a very easy game to play.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Why do I have to split the 2 ideologies at all? I actually would play both games equally. They both appeal to me. Would be even better if one could combine it.
I acknowledge this as a valid opinion. If you like both games equally, then you like both games equally. You are truly neutral on the subject.
Becoming the first Jedi does change the world. First, it introduces a character class into the game that wasn't there before. People want to find out how that was done so they can open their own Jedi slot. It was a PvP world, and now one faction has a Jedi. Because at the time a Jedi could be perma-killed, one faction is trying to keep their Jedi alive and the other faction is trying to kill him (or her). One faction is trying to hide their Jedi so he doesn't get killed, and the other side is trying to find him.
The difference with the earring is that an item (which was at the time a very good one) that previously could not be attained now can be, and people had the knowledge for how to do it.
But of course anyone can minimize anything. If your character blew up an entire game continent, I could say what has changed? I never wanted to go there anyway. I can still level, quest and raid on other continents. The developer will have to add new content to replace the old, with zero net gain. My character is still alive and the destruction of that continent doesn't change that. It's all just pixels anyway. So who cares? Poo pooing is a very easy game to play.
The game world is the same. Becoming the first Jedi in the world doesn't introduce that character class into the world.
It was always there.
Just like becoming Max level for the first character, doesnt' create level 50. It was always there.
The item, in the earring example, could always be obtained. It was always part of the game. The person that did the quest for the first time didnt' create teh quest, or the earring. It was always part of the game, and the person doing the quest changed nothing for the other people playing the game. The quest, the steps to get the earring are still exactly the same as when the game was released, still exactly the same before the person did the quest, and after.
The game world is the same.
Here's another, perhaps easier way to look at it.
When you "change the game world" that means something is different for me playing the game, even when you log out and are not playing the game.
Now, compare the "earring quest" to the simply example of building a house.
I had to walk around the house after it was built. The game is changed for me, even when you are not there. My actions are different, and YOU made me play the game differently. I used to walk this way, but now I walk that way. I have no choice in the matter, because the game world is changed.
But wit the earring, how is the game world changed for me? The quest is the same, nothing has changed for my character, there is nothing I have to do now I didn't before.
Or try this one. The earring quest is just knowledge, but knowledge doesn't change the game world.
Look, behind that tree is a +1 sword. Now that I told you about it, you can go pick it up.
Yes, something has changed for you the player. You know something you didn't before. Something has changed for your character. They now have a +1 sword they didn't before.
But did me telling you about the sword change the game world? The sword existed before I told you about it, and after I told you about it, right? The sword exists whether I tell you about it or not.
Just like the earring quest exists whether you know about it or not. The game world has not changed.
So the choices are:
option 1
vs.
option 2
I'm bored with option 1. So I'll try my luck with option 2 and hopefully the game will offer some possibilities for exploration and other non-combat stuff (just for a change).
You seem to equate "change" in a world only to pixilated alterations to it, or the aquisition of personal power. That is hardly the only sense of change.
For those of us who value mysteries and the solving of puzzles, there is a big difference between a mystery people are trying to solve and one that has been solved.
Change can also mean changes to how people play the game. Anyone who played original SWG was there to see how differently people played after they knew what was involved in opening a Jedi slot then the way they played before.
It can also mean the attainment of knowledge. A boss that cannot be defeated gets defeated. People learn how and that changes a great deal.
It can also mean that a goal people were competing for now has a winner.
Adding a player city or destroying a bridge is a form of change, but it is far from being the only type. I think your view of "change" to a game world is too narrow.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
The World.
Ultimately it is the player behind the character that matters, not the character. It is difficult to be "unique" in EvE online for example, many will fly the same ship as you and have roughly the same skills, despite the many options in that area, but your actions as a player truly matters.
In some games like Champions online you can make unique looking characters and have tons of options when creating the character. But if it is quest based and the quests resembles each other you will eventually get tired of the game no matter how unique the character is.
None of your examples change the game world for me. The game world is still the same.
Everyone decides that template X is the new uber template, so now everyone makes a character with template X, when last month, everyone made a character with Template A.
Nothing in the game world has changed. The ability to make template A or template X existed last month, exists this month, is still the same.
I decide I will sit on my ass and rolelplay instead of killing mobs. I have completely changed the way I play the game. But the game is still the same. Nothing in the gameworld has changed.
If you're looking for the right answer, I don't think I have one. For me personally it's about a 50/50 split. I place both aspects at about the same degree of importance. I must feel a connection to my character, which means the class choices, gear choices and build choices given to me must appeal to my preferences.
The same goes for the world, which to me encompasses the lore, world set-up and the atmosphere.
Things like instances don't bother me as long as I feel a connection to the world around me. Graphics aren't as important as art direction. Prime example would be Morrowind over Oblivion. While Oblivion is pushing a higher poly count and high definition rendering. Morrowind has a very original look and the atmosphere is ten fold more engaging than oblivion IMO. Single player games I know, but I think that explains what i am referring to.
in the end both of these aspects carry the same influence over my experience. If I feel a disconnection to either, I'm unlikely to stick around.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
When WAR first released, if you wanted to play "good" and you wanted to play a tank, you had only one choice. Dwarf. I don't like playing dwarfs, but I wanted to play a tank, so it was very discouraging.
This left me with play a race I don't like, or play a different class than the one I want to play.
Since your identity is constructed out of your interactions with the world in real life, the world obviously.
If there was a class based game like how you want (where you can build and destroy everything and are an actual part of the world), then the advancement system is a secondary concern.
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii.
--In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses.
--The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
--CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
If we go purely by your examples then I'd choose the 2nd one. Some people equate productivity with personal gain. I equate it to how much I can affect my surroundings, be it real life or a game.
If I were to elaborate on my choice then I'd say I'd like then 2nd choice with the ability to choose exactly the abilities my character has rather then being pigeon holed into a class because like in real life I can go out and at least attempt to learn different things. I see no reason why I couldn't do this in game. I may not be very good at it or I might find out that I don't like it but I still have the option.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
My character is supremely important to me in an RPG. It represents the ways I'm able to interact with the world, and controls whether or not the decisions a game offers me will be engaging and interesting.
A capless skill system is no sure-fire way of making the above true. Until the OP's character system itself is described in better detail, it actually introduces more problems then benefits imo.
Teamplay in MMORPGs is tremendously improved by having clear-cut roles for players to participate in. Could a capless system accomplish this? Well, yes and no -- some cap or limitation is necessary. It could be that anyone can learn tanking skills but only the guy wearing the heavy armor actually functions well using those skills, in which case gear is the "cap" on character capabilities. A FF11 style system works perfectly too (the "cap" being that you can only have one primary and one secondary job active at a time, even though you can independantly level all of your jobs.)
The question "What can I do with my character?" is really the more important one to ask here. Some answers lie in "the world" (you can construct a house), but most answers typically lie in the character itself (you can become a mage, cast fireballs, protect teammates with energy shields, etc.) ...it's just that in the OP's question he assumes one specific way of designing player characters which isn't necessarily that fun (but it's not necessarily bad either, even though right out of the gates it's introduced some problems.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What is a world without characters, and what are characters without a world ? Meaningless. If any one of those things lacks it inevitably drags the other down with it.
- Shijeer
I strongly believe there must be a freedom and huge variety of choises,talents,feats,skills,builds so u can make the character archetype u want to play.
On the other side id like a game where the world could be shaped by players and altered by their actions. Id like every day i login that i wont know what adventures will lie ahead. I d takemy horse and ride north to explroe lands hiden treasures,explore ruins that are hard to be found,secret passages to hidden crypts etc.ADVENTURING.
In order to enjoy a game u need both above.If i was to choose i guess i d choose the world.But cant see why both deep character advencment system and a hug world full of adventuring and exploration that can be altered and shaped by players cant co-exist together.Weird dilemma u put OP.
I would have to go with the world, i could care less about the character really as long as you have some sort of impact on the game world around you.
List of SOE lies
In a huge variety of talents skills feats there is always the options forthe players to choose those that will help them be pure healers,tanks,dps etc
Taking away though the right of freedom and huge depth on character creation (wow,lotro,aoc,and every other mmorpg that uses the usual 3 talent tree system) is clearly deminishing the depth of gameplay,character advanement and the right of the player t build the avatar he wants to. Example if someone wants to create a battlemage,a warrior-archer hybrid(ranger),a barbarian style fighter ala d&d, or warrior similar to samurai style, damn right the game should have the talents,feats,skills so players can choose them and create those classes.
Honestly I want both... but if I have to choose I would definitely say the world.
My reason against the character advancement option is the skill based advancement systems. Unfortunately the "optimal" skill build(s) is(are) eventually determined and everyone will end up the same, or with a few different builds, or classes (unofficially). Even though most skill based advancement system advocates hate that word.
Even in skill based systems most people end up playing "classes". I know myself and all of my friends did in UO.
I'm basing my reasoning on a limited skill based system because a completely unlimited skill based system would kill the game in my opinion. I just do not see how it could possibly work and not get boring after a certain point, in that case there would be no contest in my opinion between option 1 and 2.
My reason for choosing the world is that it has never really been done up to this point in a full and successful way. UO had some things right with their persistent housing system, SB had some things right with their guild/alliance land ownership system, SWG had some things right with their housing system and harvesting/crafting system.
Unfortunately no one has put all of these things together with a real persistent way to effect the world we play in where everyone else who plays sees what we have done in the past. That type of world combined with WoW type combat/advancement would be great in my opinion.
I would much prefer to get a tell from someone saying "Hey Dameon, I was just in X town and I saw the plaque there where you saved the town from undead invaders 2 years ago, good job man!"
Over a tell saying, "Hey Dameon, what skills should I raise to shoot a bow like you do?"
Edit: Thinking more about Shadowbane I realize they did a lot of really great things with their city building/siege system. Unfortunately that's one of the only things they did well in that game. If the rest of the game had been more like DAOC I think it would have been one of the most successful games to date.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
I do not identify with my toon(s) as much as with the time, energy, currency, etc. invested in them. A couple questions:
Are these MMOs or single player games?
What about PvP? If I can build a house where there was space a moment before, can someone else tear down my house and put up their own? Or can they invent a bomb and blow it up? Must I invest in lock-building skills to offset the lockpicking skills of the thief in the alley? If so, I will spend all my time safeguarding my stuff instead of exploring or building a world. If I can affect the world, then all the other players can as well, and you can bet some asshat will be intent on destroying whatever is built.
So if the answer to the questions is MMO and no PvP, I would choose world.
The more I think about it, the more world comes to the forefront, really character is for the self-centred type, and a vibrant world is for people that wish to work together to create something. At least in my optimistic view. There's will always be those that live to destroy other's work. I think the key in those situations is to make building and rebuilding quick, simple and creative, while making destruction a little more tedious.
I'm an artist by profession so I guess it spills into the games I play too, I often get bored of playing linear RPGs if the story doesn't keep up, but loving tower defence and base building rts for example :P making efficient mazes is sort of like urban planning.
This monkey is flipping out!
<Welcome to my world>
In a huge variety of talents skills feats there is always the options forthe players to choose those that will help them be pure healers,tanks,dps etc
Taking away though the right of freedom and huge depth on character creation (wow,lotro,aoc,and every other mmorpg that uses the usual 3 talent tree system) is clearly deminishing the depth of gameplay,character advanement and the right of the player t build the avatar he wants to. Example if someone wants to create a battlemage,a warrior-archer hybrid(ranger),a barbarian style fighter ala d&d, or warrior similar to samurai style, damn right the game should have the talents,feats,skills so players can choose them and create those classes.
If I can Tank+Heal+DPS all in one character, my desire to group is only driven by DPS need. That same need exists in games where roles are more defined, but you have additional extremely lucrative advantages from working with the other players. These advantages only exist if there are constraints on what one player is capable of.
As for "clearly diminishing the depth of gameplay", that's just nonsense. Games can have tremendous depth with zero customization options -- do you feel Chess is a shallow game, where absolute flawless mastery can be achieved 15 minutes after you learn it? Probably not, but that's a game with no play customization which nevertheless has tons of game depth. The same is true in MMORPGs.
Really once you go past a certain point of removing constraints, a game becomes shallower not deeper. Removing the constraints limiting piece movement in Chess would totally ruin the game -- if every piece moved like a Queen, the optimal strategy would be discovered inside a week and it'd be as shallow as Tic-Tac-Toe. The rules of a game must include constraints or the gameplay pattern will be too easy to master.
None of this prevents players from making kickass custom classes, as long as proper constraints exist. My previous post pointed out 2 of the many ways games can offer "unlimited" advancement along job/skill paths, while having the right constraints to maintain deep gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I love the idea of having an impact on the game world around. especially when it can be introduced into a mmorpg. Most boring thing for me is go kill x number of rats and move on to another area were I kill 10 of them. *yawns* Hell the only thing that kept me motivated in some of those games was to collect gold so I could go buy new clothes.
One of the games you got me thinking about tonight was Black and White. It wasn't a mmorg , but I still enjoyed playing it because it did impact the gameplay. You played the role of a god , who had to train and control this creature in your new world. You could train him to be evil and eat the people of the land , or smack him around a bit and tell him to leave them alone. Depending on what choices you made , your creature would learn to become good , or evil , and his appearance would change with it . Of course there were several other things that he could be trained to do , and it did have and impact. Not always knowing the outcome of your decisions in a game , makes it so much more appealing. In todays games if you don't kill x rats you go back and do it again.
With you discussion you kinda got me thinking about a game that would be ever changing by the choices you and others made around you. If there is one ...please direct me to it . Could you imagine a game similiar to Black and white ... Little towns of people who could open up new technologies and skils, they would have a choice by opening up say... a skill that could give them the ability to make swords or ..they could open up one that could generate healing armor. Opening up one , would void the other out. and depending on which one they opened , either a say good or bad new skill would open. The town would also change , towns that opened up say more positive and friendly skills would grow more beautiful , greener , sunnier , while those people living in the towns researching mass destruction skills would grow doomy and gray. Towns that also reseach majical spells. Most of all the town itself would be a great selling point. Someplace where you avatar could set up a home , a town where you meet your neighbors , and work with them. I could go on for a while , but I won't bore you. The ideas are just running wild.
I think that not only having an impact on the world is a great selling point for me , but with the choices you make , it not always good to know what outcome they will have. ATITD ( A Tale in the Desert) has come close to this , but it needs to take it to the next level in order to save that game. It has a good structure and base to build upon the idea. But has been done so many times now , everyone knows ahead of time what is going to happen and how things will play out. I am hoping more developers will stop trying to sell the idea that killing x amout of rats is fun. Its just boring.
IMO it is a no brainer ,the WORLD,without it my player means nothing.I could easily start up my Unreal editor and make an empty box ,put a player in it and it would mean nothing.This is why i find it real hard to enjoy games,the buildings all look fake and static,trees don't look like trees,stone does not look like stone,it really gives no immersion at all.
In saying that ,i of course expect proper character customization and interaction within the world,i want the entire game to feel cohesive,like it was well thought out.Instead games now a days feel like the world is generated,a few mobs dotted around,make an npc to tag/link quests and there ya go enjoy,umm ...no thanks.
With the tools developers can use ,we should have some really unique worlds,as soon as you enter the first day it should feel epic,you should feel the immersion.
If YOUR player stands out in the world,then how does everyone else player stand out?Answer is they don't that is why the world needs to be the center point,not the player.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.