Massive multiplayer online. I claim we have yet to see a real MMO game. Since I am having difficulties defining what a real MMO game is, let me give some examples of fake MMO games. An singleplayer arcade game is not a MMO game. It has a highscore table hence it has many many players competing for a single goal, but there is no gameplay involving interaction between players. It can also be claimed that most players aren''t "players" at all - they cannot hope to even come close to the record scores. Not only do they not interact with other players, they don''t and cannot affect the competition - the "game" in any way. Now how is that different from the average kill orcs to gain experience MMORPG? Most often you don''t hope to win and the interaction between players is severely limited (both by the limited number of online players and the anti-PK rules). I want a game that is technologically modest, allowing for as many people to play it as they will. It should not require nor reward excessive time used on the game. Its gameplay should allow all the people in the game to make a difference. Its gameplay should grow more interesting as the number of players increases.

quote:

---

It should not require nor reward excessive time used on the game.

---

Isn''t this already one of the holy grails of MMO game design? To come up with a system that gives a so-called "casual" player the same level of game play that a "power" gamer can pursue?

While I''d love to see someone pull it off I question whether this is even possible. I don''t care if you make a Checkers MMO - the person who plays more often, learning new strategies and playing against stronger opponents, will have the decided edge against someone who plays sparingly.

Any stat-based/achiever system guarantees that the longer/more you play, the better your character becomes. Again, the casual player is at a disadvantage.

Eliminate cumulative stats and make it an item/skill based system? You still give the advantage to those who can take the time to explore further and longer.

Social interactions? People who spend more time in-game are much more likely to form groups and alliances than a casual gamer, simply by visual recognition - the casual gamer is an unknown and will have to "prove" himself to a group every time, while the power gamer is always in-system and is highly recognizable - a known commodity.

You don''t make it clear what this particular subject has anything to do with a "real MMO" - especially since you don''t explain what you consider a "real" one to be. You''ve told us, in your last paragraph, what you''d like to see in a MMO but that isn''t a definition but a personal desire.

I''m also waiting to see what you consider a "fake" MMO - which you noted you''d give examples of, but instead made a comparison to a singleplayer arcade game.

Could you clarify for the huddled masses?

Planetside (MMOFPS!) - you gain ranks from play time (well, from participating in battles but the two are essentially the same), which gives certain access to different weapons/vehicles (not necessarily more powerful ones, but more specialized).

However, it is not essential to play excessively to be useful to the team - for instance I played for only about 10 hours to gain enough ''experience'' to create the character I want, and have basically left that one at that level.

Of course, it is totally dependent on player intelligence and skill, and the willingness of players to take on the tasks like transport pilot or artillery spotter to make the experience really good for everyone. The actual game itself isn''t all that brilliant (too much nerfing going on and not enough incentives to hold ground), but the ''MMO'' aspects are very well honed (IMO).

I think, like what has already been said, mmo games really do require an cirtain level of playtime, but if one thinks for a second so do single player games and other multiplayer games (as in where did all that skill in couter-strike or unreal tournement 2003 come from?).

Perhaps a better way of going about allowing casual gamers to play in mmo worlds is offering no consistency points. in ultima online you have to log in once per week and walk into your house (or something like that) to make sure it stays alive. That''s great and all but i''d rather only be able to have 2 houses or even just 1 house than have to log in every week and walk into it.

If we can allow casual gamers to play when they can afford the time but not require it then it may be less drastic than in previous attempts.

Another thing is skill gain, if we want more PKing then we''re gonna have to allow that players arn''t going to lose loads of exp or stats. Players just arn''t gonna like it (especially people who don''t play enough to get good stats).

And lastly do you really need stats at all. In another thread the idea was pointed out that one could have a sort of equivelence or certification (s/he actually used the term badges but that really isn''t good terminology). If the game is more player based then a casual gamer is only limited by their own physical experience in the game and the game world. Something that casual gamers already generally accept in other genres.

< krysole || krysollix >
sleep, caffeine for the weak minded

one of the problem is to making the player play some aspect of the game out of connection... but how to prevent hacking and cheating??? once we don''t resolve that we were greatly limited in the TRUE possibility of MMO

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

quote:

---

Original post by EricTrickster

Isn''t this already one of the holy grails of MMO game design? To come up with a system that gives a so-called "casual" player the same level of game play that a "power" gamer can pursue?

---

It may be, but when you decide you are going to make a real time MMO with player controlled avatars (as in a MMORPG), you have forsaken this "holy" grail to begin with.

quote:

---

You don''t make it clear what this particular subject has anything to do with a "real MMO" - especially since you don''t explain what you consider a "real" one to be. You''ve told us, in your last paragraph, what you''d like to see in a MMO but that isn''t a definition but a personal desire.

I''m also waiting to see what you consider a "fake" MMO - which you noted you''d give examples of, but instead made a comparison to a singleplayer arcade game.

---

I guess you''re right, I sort of left the opening post unfinished. OK, a real MMO is one where interaction _between players_ is the _core_ of the game and every player can interact with every other players at the same time (hence the massive _massive_ multiplayer part) - should there be 100 players or 10000 players or more.

A fake MMO is one where the core of the game is interacting with the virtual world and the player-player interaction is limited to but a few other players at all times (say 10-20 at the most) and also limited through game design rules (anti PK, etc.). As they stand, the interactivity in MMOs is somewhere higher than singleplayer games and lower than confrontational multiplayer games. Real multiplayer games (the Starcraft / Counterstrike lot) offer more direct player to player interaction than a MMORPG.

That being said, I don''t claim I have many ideas concerning how to build a "real" MMO, nor am I an expert (or even a knowledgeable person) regarding current MMO games.

quote:

---

Original post by JuNC

However, it is not essential to play excessively to be useful to the team - for instance I played for only about 10 hours to gain enough ''experience'' to create the character I want, and have basically left that one at that level.

---

Ten hours is huge. I want a game I can play 15-30 minutes for three days a week and for 5 minutes in the other four.

People who invest more of their time into a game SHOULD get more out of it, but i agree, not so much that the casual players have no chance in competing with them. I don''t see why its so big of an issue, though... there are plenty of ways to balance out the power/casual player difference, depending on the game mechanics of each particular game. I''d have to say that the creators of any MMO who cant deal with this issue need to step back and get someone else on the job who has a bit of innovation.

You don''t have to give regular players an advantage over casual players. You can also give them other things, like better looking clothing, armor, houses, etc. That way it is clear who plays the game a lot and who doesn''t.
Also, advantages don''t always come from items and ''skills'', they can also come from real experience. Like in a race game. An experienced player can drive his car much faster around the track then a casual gamer while it''s the same car. In a rpg like game an experienced player knows more about the monsters and items and that gives him/her an advantage over casual players. Not a +5 ubersword of slaying, but how you use it is what makes the difference.
I think regular players should always have a little advantage over casual players, just not to great. Regular players should not be able to ruin the game for the casual players, but also not the other way around.

quote:

---

Ten hours is huge. I want a game I can play 15-30 minutes for three days a week and for 5 minutes in the other four.

---

I didn''t say it was all at once. You can have fun from the start, of course the better you are at playing, the more rewarding the experience at first. In order to rack up enough (real-life) experience to be good at *any* game, you''re going to have to put in some effort.

quote:

---

A fake MMO is one where the core of the game is interacting with the virtual world and the player-player interaction is limited to but a few other players at all times (say 10-20 at the most) and also limited through game design rules (anti PK, etc.). As they stand, the interactivity in MMOs is somewhere higher than singleplayer games and lower than confrontational multiplayer games. Real multiplayer games (the Starcraft / Counterstrike lot) offer more direct player to player interaction than a MMORPG.

---

Planetside is soley PvP, the only interaction with the world is due to base captures or crashing into trees

I don''t mean to harp on about Planetside (since I don''t consider it exactly a brilliant game), but it does seem to qualify under your definition of ''real'' MMO.