What I see in a game is that combat is a fun spontaneous activity which rolls in adrenaline especially when done only at certain climatic moments (You are questioning someone uncooperative only to get into some sort of bar fight).
Now onto the exploration, I do not exactly plan having the players walk around empty lanscapes to find any quests at all (Although I would like to add a couple of "OMG I have stumbled upon something no one else has ever seen before, should I keep exploring or bring back my friends without anyone following us?"), I plan to divide these quests or missons into sub types.
Yes, but what games without combat manage to offer players an interesting enough breadth of activities and decisions to keep gameplay interesting?
In a tabletop RPG setting, combat can be rare because the game is a collaborative storytelling experience where dynamic interactions can shift events in wild and spontaneous directions, all created on the fly. Because you're collaboratively telling a story by bouncing ideas off the DM/GM, you always have a lot of interesting choices to make in non-combat situations as a player (if you can think of it, and it's within the bounds of your character, you can do it.) This is not possible in a videogame RPG, because things are set in stone and hardcoded, and both content and the decision systems themselves are time-consuming to create.
Perhaps most important in the comparison between tabletop and videogame RPGs is the fact that the DM/GM is always with you in a tabletop game -- the game's content always revolves around the party. Whereas in videogame RPGs which try to mimic a similar feel, you often have to spend long periods searching for content. There's no DM to tell you "okay, you journey 7 days to the next town" (which essentially flash-forwards the plot through 7 days that the DM knows aren't filled with content.) In a videogame there's often no ability to fast-forward to the next town to immediately engage in new content (although to a degree that's exactly what instancing accomplishes; highly-instanced games are actually capable of being more similar to tabletop RP than non-instanced games.)
The Short Version Being:
Basically good game design requires a high density of interesting activities to engage in. But thus far you've only described a shift away from interesting activities and towards bland/boring ones. So it reads a little like, "I want players to spend less time doing interesting things," which means less fun.
To convince others of your idea, you have to provide examples of ways you'd actually make those bland/boring activities fun -- if you're steering players strongly towards those activities, you have to make them fun. Traveling and Quest-finding typically don't involve many interesting decisions. So they're usually rather boring. You dodge a few mobs, and that's about it. If they became the primary gameplay activity in a game, they'd have to become substantially more interesting -- and it's your job to describe how that should come to pass, if you intend to get people to buy in to your ideas.
That's actually a good post.
to add, it seems that game developers are continually adding things to mitigate exploration. In LOTRO they added a map system so that you can find your target relatively easily.
sure, there is a sort of "blob" of color so that you know the area but it does drill down to a single npc at times.
In essence it's the difference between morrowind and oblviion.
Morrowind you were given directions and you had to find your pot of gold. Oblivion, you have an arrow on the map.
I'm all for more exploration with the fun to be had once I found my target but many players don't seem to want to go that route.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I thought I'd post about a subject that always seems to irk me: Wandering field mobs.
Just go into most game worlds and what do you see? Hordes of cramped beasts/creatures walking lazily about waiting for someone to decide to stab them to death.
I think in this day and age we can allow them to have at least a little more sophisticated AI; i.e., take shelter from weather, sleep at night (awoken by loud noises), etc. etc. Instead of just stand here... Step step step... Turn... Step step step....
It always looked like they were guarding some sort of invisible SOMETHING.... WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
tl;dr Mobs need to do more than just walk around in circles, do you agree or not, give reason ktxbai.
So you have a complaint. Let's see some real details on what you want to see. Be very specific.
Roleplaying requires human interaction, not human to machine. In order to make the machine give the player a sense of adventure (PVE) without grinding mobs is by getting them off the spotlight, it is impossible for machine to cater to millions of users. It is not impossible for millions of users to entertain other millions of users if given the correct tools.
Yes, but what games without combat manage to offer players an interesting enough breadth of activities and decisions to keep gameplay interesting?
In my opinion this single question with regards to MMOs is part of the reason why so many MMOs are boring.
In my opinion the key thing lacking in MMOs is variety. So much empasis on combat is why they ultimately lose their shine.
Have you ever raised a chocobo in FFXI? Have you ever searched for a rare material in Ryzom? Have you ever tried your hand at politics in Vanguard? Have you ever run a shop in SWG?
Combat is boring if that's all there is. Even more so given that the tactics never change. It's just 4,3,6,4,3,2,4,3,6 etc.
My daughter plays free realms which has a driving mini game. Even Runes of Magic has an (admittedly crap) horse racing mini game. Sometimes it feels like there is more variety in Animal Crossing than the average MMO.
Judging by games like Metal Gear Solid; stealth and the avoidance of combat can be fun.
Judging by games like Prince of Persia (or Tomb Raider); getting around a dungeon can be fun.
Judging by games like Farmville; even growing crops can be fun.
Sorry if this is off topic but I hate this whole notion that MMOs must be 99% combat. It really isn't true. Unfortunately as MMOs develop they often seem increasingly stuck on this unispired ideal.
Roleplaying requires human interaction, not human to machine. In order to make the machine give the player a sense of adventure (PVE) without grinding mobs is by getting them off the spotlight, it is impossible for machine to cater to millions of users. It is not impossible for millions of users to entertain other millions of users if given the correct tools.
Well that's still a rather zoomed-out view of things which doesn't really describe how fun the activities themselves will actually be.
Last night I played a boardgame. It could be described as, "Build an empire by forging alliances with nations of dwarves, elves, goblins, and more. Use your monarch to bravely command from the frontlines with powerful combat abilities, as your armies lay siege to castles, search for powerful relics, or as your king ascends the Throne of Kings to gain a gift from the gods themselves!"
The zoomed-out view of the boardgame sounded awesome! An epic wargame with diplomacy, war, relic-seeking, and tons of distinct unit types with their own unique abilities? Sign me up!
But the zoomed-out featurelist of any game is often useless, as was evidenced in this particular boardgame (a 1979 TSR game called Divine Right) where two of the three players rolled terribly and were utterly crushed -- and yet because it was a wargame it still took over 5 hours before we finished (even when we called it early.) It was grueling boredom as a result of poorly-designed game systems.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Sorry if this is off topic but I hate this whole notion that MMOs must be 99% combat. It really isn't true. Unfortunately as MMOs develop they often seem increasingly stuck on this unispired ideal.
I didn't mean to sound like I feel games should be 99% combat. I said it primarily to get wisesquirrel to start thinking about the types of games that do manage to be fun without a combat focus (such as the ones you mentioned, or MMOs like Haven & Hearth and ATITD.) I felt it would get him thinking in a better direction in regards to making a more unique MMO than typical combat games.
I'm not sure merely "thinking in a better direction" would really teach him though. There are some things people need to start working on firsthand in order to truly understand the unreasonable nature of their request. It's not impossible to create new types of gameplay from scratch, but it's fairly challenging and even veteran game designers struggle with it. That's why so many games rehash old concepts (and why many of the best games tend to be polished versions of prior gameplay formulas.)
Or at least, those are the realities I observed while working on projects and observing how veteran game designers approached problems, and how newbie game designers had their initial enthusiasm diminished once they really understood the magnitude of what their requests entailed (and honestly I'd probably lump myself in there with the newbies too, as those were some of the very lessons I learned.)
I honestly wouldn't mind a game which was focused on activities apart from combat. Part of it is how the suggested game is presented. If it's presented as "WoW, except without 75% of the quests and mobs" then people are naturally going to be clueless as to how that could be enjoyable. But if it's presented as a new idea, or piggy-backing off existing examples of fun non-combat gameplay ("A fantasy-based ATITD-style city-building/diplomacy MMO") then people are much more likely to understand how such a game might be fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'll try describing a major events that could take place, invasion. This when a city attacks another city ot town to take over rulership of it.
A community may be attacked in open world at any time, but aggressors would have to face guards and would not be able to do anything in the sense of getting a reward or do permanent damage to the community (City).
But if a community (City) is officially attacked by another city, these may capture, raze or steal goods from the target city. Each city would be assigned number of slots of players they can recruit to the armies (50 attackers vs 45 defenders plus guards would be probably max for large cities).
When the scheduled time arrives, all players are evacuated from the target city (Teleported ina neabry zone) and are not allowed entrance, while the soldiers assigned to the battle whom are online are put into an instance being an exact replica of the city in its current state (This would be to make combat as fluid as possible and avoid as much outside intervention as possible).
In a scenario of 2 large city armies engaging in battle it would probably be a setting of 50 attackers with a maximum of 5 siege engines (That damage structures) and 45 defenders plus 20 guard NPCs (Considering the defending city took precaution and hired as many guards as allowed for the battle).
The battle would last a maximum of 1 hour, if the city is not captured by then or if the atatckers decide to loot and retreat instead of taking the main hall by the hour, the battle will automatically end and the city will newly become available in the open world.
I think it would function similar to a wow battleground battle.
I see what you are talking about now though, I know what will happen for the few players who strive. But not much for those who are beaten to the epic quests, now unless I can give these players tasks which are equally rewarding or in a way give them roleplaying opportunities besides player interaction quests.
The problem is how to make it not seem repetitive or like a task that is simply done for the sake of grinding.
An idea of a solution to make filler content which can be done by everyone but does not need to call you a complete hero would be a dynamic quest chain system like Guild Wars 2 is attempting. Basically a quest being done opens another quest depending if this one was fulfilled or not.
Another activity might be instance minigames, perhaps there could be a hunting instance which you can use to build your skills as a mob hunter and learning how to adapt to the nature of mobs so you may capture some in the open world. This minigame could even be made into a hutning match with another player, first one to capture the prey first wins (They would have to climb, hide, swim, get into small tunnels and then make sure their target doesn't run away through traps, nets or sniping them with longbow.
An instanced arena could also be placed for players to battle it out and practice one on one matches for whenever they have to engage in war for the first time or do guerillas out in the open world.
Those would add plenty of easy to obtain content for all players to try out in addition to having player requests, dynamic world events and city war pvp.
I thought I'd post about a subject that always seems to irk me: Wandering field mobs.
Just go into most game worlds and what do you see? Hordes of cramped beasts/creatures walking lazily about waiting for someone to decide to stab them to death.
I think in this day and age we can allow them to have at least a little more sophisticated AI; i.e., take shelter from weather, sleep at night (awoken by loud noises), etc. etc. Instead of just stand here... Step step step... Turn... Step step step....
It always looked like they were guarding some sort of invisible SOMETHING.... WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
tl;dr Mobs need to do more than just walk around in circles, do you agree or not, give reason ktxbai.
Take a look at Ryzom.
You can like or dislike the game, but you'll find there exactly what you are asking for.
Herds of herbivores do their own jobs, they sleep and feed, carnivores attack herbivores for food or rest a bit. Animals migrate at season changes, animal bosses are guarded and are not always in the same place.
Exploration is a real challenge and need personal abilities, regardless how high are your skills.
Because of this, gathering materials is not a simple click-and-wait activity, but sometimes it requires grouping.
Peaceful animals can be aware of your presence and come close to look at you, just for curiosity. Small "yubos" pee on your feet.
I played tons of MMO but the only one with an immersive ecosystem is Ryzom.
You can like or dislike the game but, if you want to see an attempt to make a "living world" just jump in and see by yourself: there is a 21 days free trial.
I thought I'd post about a subject that always seems to irk me: Wandering field mobs.
Just go into most game worlds and what do you see? Hordes of cramped beasts/creatures walking lazily about waiting for someone to decide to stab them to death.
I think in this day and age we can allow them to have at least a little more sophisticated AI; i.e., take shelter from weather, sleep at night (awoken by loud noises), etc. etc. Instead of just stand here... Step step step... Turn... Step step step....
It always looked like they were guarding some sort of invisible SOMETHING.... WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
tl;dr Mobs need to do more than just walk around in circles, do you agree or not, give reason ktxbai.
Take a look at Ryzom.
You can like or dislike the game, but you'll find there exactly what you are asking for.
Herds of herbivores do their own jobs, they sleep and feed, carnivores attack herbivores for food or rest a bit. Animals migrate at season changes, animal bosses are guarded and are not always in the same place.
Exploration is a real challenge and need personal abilities, regardless how high are your skills.
Because of this, gathering materials is not a simple click-and-wait activity, but sometimes it requires grouping.
Peaceful animals can be aware of your presence and come close to look at you, just for curiosity. Small "yubos" pee on your feet.
I played tons of MMO but the only one with an immersive ecosystem is Ryzom.
You can like or dislike the game but, if you want to see an attempt to make a "living world" just jump in and see by yourself: there is a 21 days free trial.
I might give the trial a try to see how a migrating mob world feels later on, this system would be interesting to have semi humanoid mobs hunt players down as well (In groups of say 7 or 5) and being able to lose track of a player in steep hills.
I have a long way from reaching my vision, but I trust that I am not going to be alone in achieving it.
Comments
That's actually a good post.
to add, it seems that game developers are continually adding things to mitigate exploration. In LOTRO they added a map system so that you can find your target relatively easily.
sure, there is a sort of "blob" of color so that you know the area but it does drill down to a single npc at times.
In essence it's the difference between morrowind and oblviion.
Morrowind you were given directions and you had to find your pot of gold. Oblivion, you have an arrow on the map.
I'm all for more exploration with the fun to be had once I found my target but many players don't seem to want to go that route.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
So you have a complaint. Let's see some real details on what you want to see. Be very specific.
The activites I had in mind would ones that involve player interaction in the form of cities, churches and guilds.
Over here you can see a post of me elaborating on what kind of activities would be taken in the needs of cities.
Roleplaying requires human interaction, not human to machine. In order to make the machine give the player a sense of adventure (PVE) without grinding mobs is by getting them off the spotlight, it is impossible for machine to cater to millions of users. It is not impossible for millions of users to entertain other millions of users if given the correct tools.
In my opinion this single question with regards to MMOs is part of the reason why so many MMOs are boring.
In my opinion the key thing lacking in MMOs is variety. So much empasis on combat is why they ultimately lose their shine.
Have you ever raised a chocobo in FFXI? Have you ever searched for a rare material in Ryzom? Have you ever tried your hand at politics in Vanguard? Have you ever run a shop in SWG?
Combat is boring if that's all there is. Even more so given that the tactics never change. It's just 4,3,6,4,3,2,4,3,6 etc.
My daughter plays free realms which has a driving mini game. Even Runes of Magic has an (admittedly crap) horse racing mini game. Sometimes it feels like there is more variety in Animal Crossing than the average MMO.
Judging by games like Metal Gear Solid; stealth and the avoidance of combat can be fun.
Judging by games like Prince of Persia (or Tomb Raider); getting around a dungeon can be fun.
Judging by games like Farmville; even growing crops can be fun.
Sorry if this is off topic but I hate this whole notion that MMOs must be 99% combat. It really isn't true. Unfortunately as MMOs develop they often seem increasingly stuck on this unispired ideal.
Well that's still a rather zoomed-out view of things which doesn't really describe how fun the activities themselves will actually be.
Last night I played a boardgame. It could be described as, "Build an empire by forging alliances with nations of dwarves, elves, goblins, and more. Use your monarch to bravely command from the frontlines with powerful combat abilities, as your armies lay siege to castles, search for powerful relics, or as your king ascends the Throne of Kings to gain a gift from the gods themselves!"
The zoomed-out view of the boardgame sounded awesome! An epic wargame with diplomacy, war, relic-seeking, and tons of distinct unit types with their own unique abilities? Sign me up!
But the zoomed-out featurelist of any game is often useless, as was evidenced in this particular boardgame (a 1979 TSR game called Divine Right) where two of the three players rolled terribly and were utterly crushed -- and yet because it was a wargame it still took over 5 hours before we finished (even when we called it early.) It was grueling boredom as a result of poorly-designed game systems.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I didn't mean to sound like I feel games should be 99% combat. I said it primarily to get wisesquirrel to start thinking about the types of games that do manage to be fun without a combat focus (such as the ones you mentioned, or MMOs like Haven & Hearth and ATITD.) I felt it would get him thinking in a better direction in regards to making a more unique MMO than typical combat games.
I'm not sure merely "thinking in a better direction" would really teach him though. There are some things people need to start working on firsthand in order to truly understand the unreasonable nature of their request. It's not impossible to create new types of gameplay from scratch, but it's fairly challenging and even veteran game designers struggle with it. That's why so many games rehash old concepts (and why many of the best games tend to be polished versions of prior gameplay formulas.)
Or at least, those are the realities I observed while working on projects and observing how veteran game designers approached problems, and how newbie game designers had their initial enthusiasm diminished once they really understood the magnitude of what their requests entailed (and honestly I'd probably lump myself in there with the newbies too, as those were some of the very lessons I learned.)
I honestly wouldn't mind a game which was focused on activities apart from combat. Part of it is how the suggested game is presented. If it's presented as "WoW, except without 75% of the quests and mobs" then people are naturally going to be clueless as to how that could be enjoyable. But if it's presented as a new idea, or piggy-backing off existing examples of fun non-combat gameplay ("A fantasy-based ATITD-style city-building/diplomacy MMO") then people are much more likely to understand how such a game might be fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'll try describing a major events that could take place, invasion. This when a city attacks another city ot town to take over rulership of it.
A community may be attacked in open world at any time, but aggressors would have to face guards and would not be able to do anything in the sense of getting a reward or do permanent damage to the community (City).
But if a community (City) is officially attacked by another city, these may capture, raze or steal goods from the target city. Each city would be assigned number of slots of players they can recruit to the armies (50 attackers vs 45 defenders plus guards would be probably max for large cities).
When the scheduled time arrives, all players are evacuated from the target city (Teleported ina neabry zone) and are not allowed entrance, while the soldiers assigned to the battle whom are online are put into an instance being an exact replica of the city in its current state (This would be to make combat as fluid as possible and avoid as much outside intervention as possible).
In a scenario of 2 large city armies engaging in battle it would probably be a setting of 50 attackers with a maximum of 5 siege engines (That damage structures) and 45 defenders plus 20 guard NPCs (Considering the defending city took precaution and hired as many guards as allowed for the battle).
The battle would last a maximum of 1 hour, if the city is not captured by then or if the atatckers decide to loot and retreat instead of taking the main hall by the hour, the battle will automatically end and the city will newly become available in the open world.
I think it would function similar to a wow battleground battle.
I see what you are talking about now though, I know what will happen for the few players who strive. But not much for those who are beaten to the epic quests, now unless I can give these players tasks which are equally rewarding or in a way give them roleplaying opportunities besides player interaction quests.
The problem is how to make it not seem repetitive or like a task that is simply done for the sake of grinding.
An idea of a solution to make filler content which can be done by everyone but does not need to call you a complete hero would be a dynamic quest chain system like Guild Wars 2 is attempting. Basically a quest being done opens another quest depending if this one was fulfilled or not.
Another activity might be instance minigames, perhaps there could be a hunting instance which you can use to build your skills as a mob hunter and learning how to adapt to the nature of mobs so you may capture some in the open world. This minigame could even be made into a hutning match with another player, first one to capture the prey first wins (They would have to climb, hide, swim, get into small tunnels and then make sure their target doesn't run away through traps, nets or sniping them with longbow.
An instanced arena could also be placed for players to battle it out and practice one on one matches for whenever they have to engage in war for the first time or do guerillas out in the open world.
Those would add plenty of easy to obtain content for all players to try out in addition to having player requests, dynamic world events and city war pvp.
Take a look at Ryzom.
You can like or dislike the game, but you'll find there exactly what you are asking for.
Herds of herbivores do their own jobs, they sleep and feed, carnivores attack herbivores for food or rest a bit. Animals migrate at season changes, animal bosses are guarded and are not always in the same place.
Exploration is a real challenge and need personal abilities, regardless how high are your skills.
Because of this, gathering materials is not a simple click-and-wait activity, but sometimes it requires grouping.
Peaceful animals can be aware of your presence and come close to look at you, just for curiosity. Small "yubos" pee on your feet.
I played tons of MMO but the only one with an immersive ecosystem is Ryzom.
You can like or dislike the game but, if you want to see an attempt to make a "living world" just jump in and see by yourself: there is a 21 days free trial.
Nickname registered on www.mynickname.org
I might give the trial a try to see how a migrating mob world feels later on, this system would be interesting to have semi humanoid mobs hunt players down as well (In groups of say 7 or 5) and being able to lose track of a player in steep hills.
I have a long way from reaching my vision, but I trust that I am not going to be alone in achieving it.