quote:

---

Would you elaborate on what you consider quality?

---

Gameplay choices are what I consider quality. Currently, the only real gameplay element in MMORPG is combat. Sure, there are other things one can do, but those elements are heavily underdeveloped. I say start out by making combat only one of several elements (in my own design, combat is 1 of 5), and spend an equal amount of time on the design of each element.

This is not to say that I would love a game like EQ if only they develop their secondary elements (combat being the primary) like quests and trading. You have to start out by figuring out what kind of things a player would like to do, what they would enjoy, and then design accordingly. Each of the elements should be able to support its own group of players. When that is accomplished, you can really give players choices as to gameplay.

quote:

---

Original post by Silvermyst
Gameplay choices are what I consider quality. Currently, the only real gameplay element in MMORPG is combat. Sure, there are other things one can do, but those elements are heavily underdeveloped. I say start out by making combat only one of several elements (in my own design, combat is 1 of 5), and spend an equal amount of time on the design of each element.

This is not to say that I would love a game like EQ if only they develop their secondary elements (combat being the primary) like quests and trading. You have to start out by figuring out what kind of things a player would like to do, what they would enjoy, and then design accordingly. Each of the elements should be able to support its own group of players. When that is accomplished, you can really give players choices as to gameplay.

---

The problem I''ve always run into is the fact that its difficult to make other things as fun as running around hacking monsters to pieces (or blowing them to bits with magic). Player created weapons/armor was an example. It was supposed to allow a player to basically turn his character in a fletcher, weaponsmith, armorsmith, etc.. But what really happened is if you decided to become an armorsmith. Instead of running around hacking at amusing monsters for hours.. You sat in front of a forge (with about 20 other smiths doing the same thing) watching your item completing bar slowly rising and then inevitably saying: "Creation failed!!". Then after running out of gold you were left running around begging your clan (or random people) for a few gold pieces. Eventually you got to the point to where you could make the cool armor, so you made alot of it and gave it away to your clan/friends.. sold a few pieces to high level newbies and that was it.. The character was basically done. Occasionally you could log back on if somebody needed a certain level armor, but the game was virtually over.

The idea of creating an entirely new style of playing just turned into a few new utility characters...

quote:

---

Original post by Charlie_246
There is also the prick factor.

---

I appreciate your comments Charlie. I wanted to add that this grouping of players with similar interests can be supported even by the skill system: Players that enjoy controling things can take up leadership and political skills. Merchants and crafters should take up trade and crafting skills.

And the "pricks" can take up skills that allow them to practice their prickishness more prickishly -- such as pirating, thievery, etc -- if a player wants to commit wanton murder, perhaps they will have no chance of success (whether because they are easily caught, or the character simply doesn''t have the "guts" to do it) unless they take up a rogue-ish profession.

Point being that any type of behavior a player may want to exercise in game can be taken into account in the game design, and thus roleplaying is NOT enforced but IS naturally encouraged due to the nature of the game.

quote:

---

Original post by Escherial
Now, as far as PvP goes, how about having a karma system instead of a complicated method for reporting murderers?

---

Ever played UO? It has exactly this type of system. Not trying to sell UO here though -- I agree with you that this system works quite well, but there are a lot of factors involved with PvP besides just the karma or murder-reporting system -- the balance between keeping PvP fun and realistic and protecting players with no interest in PvP is very difficult, and in my opinion has never before been implemented successfully in a mainstream MMORPG.

quote:

---

Original post by usser
You CAN encourage roleplaying so that it is fun for everyone. Here is a far fetched example: Let''s say you have a game that gives wizards bonuses if they research their spells in desolate places.

---

I completely agree, Usser, and I LOVE your example!

quote:

---

Original post by Saluk
Look to a tale in the desert for an example of a very innovative semi-mainstream mmorpg that basis the whole game on its dynamic world.

---

I looked at A Tale in the Desert and was quite impressed with its open-ended gameplay. It''s especially impressive that it was/is developed by an indie. I agree that MMORPGs are going this direction, but I worry that mainstream commercial developers are still not seeing the importance of this kind of dynamic gameplay.

quote:

---

Original post by haro
I think the best solution is a non-open ended game.

---

That would completely defeat the purpose of the MMORPG. They are the most open-ended games out there because people WANT a more open-ended experience. I could use the same argument to support MUDs.

quote:

---

Original post by Ronixus
Either way, IMHO, both the games you guys (Haro, Usser) are arguing over could use some much appreciated improvement, but they both serve the purposes they were developed for. They just didn''t delve deeper into player satisfaction...

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

Original post by usser
Well I realize that there still is alot more that I don''t agree with Haro on, but I just feel I dont have the energy to answer all the points that he mentions, although most of them would make for some very interesting discussions! Hopefully they will be adressed in future MMORPGs.

---

Its true, Haro pointed out some very important (if pessimistic) issues with current games. But thats why I''m interested in improving them. I''m not trying to defend existing games, I''m trying to find ways to make them better. As the title of this topic indicates, in particular I would like to see more dynamic MMORPGs, which I actually feel would address many if not all of the legitimate concerns Haro has mentioned.

quote:

---

Original post by Dauntless
The massive part may actually turn out to be more of a detriment than a boon for some players.

---

To me, the seemingly obvious answer to this question actually does more to support my argument... The reason "Massive" games are so important, and so popular, is because the world is alive with players. In a PPRPG, 6-8 characters are just fine because every character they run into is played by a human. And when you get more players than that, it slows down a turn-based game and makes things confusing. Frankly, for that reason I prefer about 3-5 players in any PPRPG I run or join. But in a MMORPG, those limits don''t apply.. you can play with 2 or 20 or 200 players, depending on your preference, or you can play all alone.. and the game still basically functions the same. In fact, in a dynamic MMORPG, the larger the group you play with, the more opportunities they have to influence the world.

quote:

---

Original post by Dauntless
My point wasn''t that people are stupid (mostly), but that they simply don''t care or understand about roleplaying.
...
Most people played roleplaying games to kill things, get rich, or be more powerful.

---

And that''s just fine. There should be plenty of opportunties in these games for the people who want to do that. Who said anything about taking those opportunities away?? I''m just talking about opening up opportunties as well for the people who DO like to roleplay or DO want to have an influence on the world. Why should MMORPGs be ONLY for people who just want to power play (aka metagame)?

And I still say you''d be very surprised at just how many people would participate in those opportunities once their available -- and just how many non-roleplayers people would consider the venture once they''re given the chance.

The social stigma will be there for a long, long time yet (although I think it''s slowly getting better). But for those that are already playing MMORPGs and enjoying them, why not give them something more?

I think maybe you keep coming back to my earlier reference to "mainstream" games. I''m not trying to change MMORPGs to the extent that people have to roleplay in them, and I''m not sure what more I can say to clarify that point. I''m just saying that a great many MMORPG players would enjoy more opportunities to feel like they have a part in the game, rather than the game just generating hordes of mindless beasts to throw their uber-sword at. It gets old, I think we can all agree to that, and I''m trying to present options for making things more interesting for those that already play.

Note: I thought I posted this already, but I don''t see it. Please forgive me if this post shows up twice.

quote:

---

The problem I''ve always run into is the fact that its difficult to make other things as fun as running around hacking monsters to pieces

---

If that were true, running around hacking monsters to pieces would be the only kind of game around. It''s not that it''s difficult to create fun game elements, it''s that it''s difficult to find other things to be fun within the current concept of MMORPG.

quote:

---

The idea of creating an entirely new style of playing

---

It wasn''t an entirely new style of playing though... Or did the designers seriously think that this game element could''ve stood on its own and entertained people?

quote:

---

I''m not trying to defend existing games, I''m trying to find ways to make them better.

---

I think this is the problem: we''re trying to improve existing games. In my opinion, existing games have taken a wrong turn somewhere along the path, so we have to take a few steps back and reconsider where we want to go.

quote:

---

Original post by Silvermyst
I think this is the problem: we're trying to improve existing games. In my opinion, existing games have taken a wrong turn somewhere along the path, so we have to take a few steps back and reconsider where we want to go.

---

What I mean is that I'm trying to find ways to improve the concept behind the games that people currently find entertaining, or improve the genre, rather than try to replace the genre entirely. For example, it was previously suggested (by Haro I think) that MMORPGs ought to be finite. This would be a completely different genre of game.

I do think its important to build a game from the ground up, as opposed to saying "Let's make a game like Everquest but with the following differences.." If necessary, there is no reason one cannot borrow a very few elements that are already known to work well, especially with regard to interface. But for the most part, the product should be a completely original creation.

My own MMORPG design, for example, completely transcends all stereotypes in terms of setting and playstyle, and offers the player far more substance than merely repetitive, mindless combat and acquisition of wealth. Its focus is on the story of the individual characters -- where they came from, why they are in this world, and what their ultimate personal goals are. I will spare you the details, but the point is that it will be a completely original work with dynamic world- and character-building gameplay.

Despite these unique factors though, it is still essentially a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, with open-ended gameplay, a huge world supporting thousands of players, and a focus on character building.

****************************************

Brian Lacy
ForeverDream Studios

Comments? Questions? Curious?
brian@foreverdreamstudios.com

"I create. Therefore I am."

[edited by - irbrian on May 1, 2003 4:25:10 PM]

[edited by - irbrian on May 1, 2003 4:26:06 PM]

[edited by - irbrian on May 1, 2003 4:26:25 PM]

Not quite what you''re talking about, but almost:
Project Entropia

A controversial, open-ended star-settler MMORPG based on "real economics". That is, 1 PED (The games currency) is roughly equal to 0.1 USD, and here comes the controversial part, you can insert or get money out of the game whenever you want. Yes. You can insert 1$, buy a rifle, go hunting weird animals, sell them, and then extract 3$. In fact, there are a few people making their ling entirely from playing this game. It is a bit under-featured atm, you cannot build things, and you cannot kill other players (Due to the extremely open-ended nature of the game, these things could be sweet, since it would encourage the founding of factions and organized warfare. Yummy.), but it is still under development. It is freeware, so if you have a fast connection (the download is roughly 500 megs), check it out. As for me, I haven''t enough RAM to run it.

---------------------------------------------
How many nukes could a fat duck duck if a fat duck could duck nukes?

www.warhammeronline.com is about the closest you''re gonna get in the next few years

Remember - it takes long enough to make shallow games. To implement half of the cool features people think of would take decades. Also, ideas like this aren''t original - the developers have countless inovations which end up on the cutting room floor due to time and budgetary constraints.


Stuffing feathers up your ass does not make you a chicken.