??? Why have "Massive Multiplayer" games? I''ve heard this touted a lot as the "future" of online gaming for the last couple years, and I have never seen justification for it, except that "we can''t do it now, but we will be able to soon". I see two major problems here that have nothing to do with technological limitations: 1.- What exactly will a game with 50,000 online players bring to the experience that a game with 50 people does not have? In the first case, you (as a player) aren''t likely to ever interact with most of the other people playing, they''ll just be blips on the radar screen or possibly never seen at all. They''ll be no different to you than a regular bot would. A few years back the next "big thing" was voice recognition: "You''ll be able to talk to on-screen characters, and they''ll talk back!!!" Big f***ing deal. We''re right on the edge of that now, and where''s the great games? Nowhere, because there never were any great ideas that required voice recognition, it was just a way of dressing up the same old sheet. If you had some really super concept that was totally based around voice recognition, you could come up with a great game ---- but nobody does. I heavily suspect that nobody has any real great concepts that actually require 50,000 players either. - 2.- The other problem is persuading 50,000 people to all attempt the same objective. In real life if you''re in a real war in a real army, you have to do what your C/O says or you''ll get thrown in jail or killed (you may get killed anyway, but that''s beside the point). In an online computer game, everyone is an equal participant. Setting up a virtual army won''t work, because everybody is going to want to be the general sooner or later, and when they can''t, they''ll quit. This might not matter with conventional games, but considering that companies want to sell subscriptions to online game services, it''s THE major issue - keeping it fun for everybody, or most people will quit and you''re going to go broke. You''re NOT going to be able to have any sort of player chain of command, where one player can order or otherwise coerce another player to do something potentially fatally destructive. The lower-rank player just isn''t going to put up with that for long; he has little incentive to cooperate. Presumably when a player dies, he''d start over at the lowest rank, so there is a perverse incentive - the higher rank a player reaches, the more he''ll be concerned with preserving his own hide than following orders. So forget about huge organized armies, it just isn''t going to happen. - The only way tht I can imagine that a large-scale game might possibly work is have a string of supply locations, and start opposing "forces" at each end, moving towards each other. The forces will have to keep advancing to maintain supplies, but this won''t have the ''free-form'' open-ended lack of structure that people seem to be imagining: there will be [more or less] only one place to go next, and that is to the next supply station (the only one you''ll be able to reach). Now let''s layout this game, just for fun. We''ll say it''s a spaceship-based battle game, with a "square" playing field, and it has supply stations scattered randomly over it. If we randomly scatter the real players across the field to start, it''s going to be a free-for-all, just like what happens in many online games now. Cheaters are going to get on with aimbots and shoot everything. Players without aimbots won''t like it and won''t play, and the game will quickly become financially unprofitable to keep operating (you''re going to need to have monster computing and connection power because at first 50,000 people may well show up and if your game runs lousy from the start, it''ll get a crap reputation and it won''t attract new players for long). You could also start each force at opposite edges of the field, and let them advance towards each other. You''d have to supply randomly scattered enemies to fight along the way though, to make amassing supplies challenging, but now the problem is you have to use computer bots. A real player isn''t going to want to get dumped in the middle of the field, to be found by 50 of the players of the opposing side and get pounded into whipped cream: he''s going to want to be back with his forces collecting supplies. So now, most of this 50,000 player game is going to be spent playing against bots and not real people. - - I keep *trying* to imagine any scenario where you''ll really need 50,000 players, and I just can''t see it. And I don''t even think it''s all that far off to write these kinds of things, just that it''s going to need a heck of a lot of computer capacity to run it. (I firmly believe that games will be the first software to be "written" using the mouse: this typing-using-the-keyboard sheet just isn''t cutting it) Your main goal is going to be to not lose subscribers though, and that sounds like a recipe for a pretty lousy game. (though the RPG guys would still likely play it anyway) - Lubb

Not having played any Massively M... games myself.

I can''t really see the point either, as Team Fortress 2 is coming with an ICQ like Friends browser, because they know that the most fun part about online shooter gaming is PLAYING WITH PEOPLE YOU KNOW ! I mean when you are playing with people you don''t know , how do you know if they care if they win or lose? So it tells you when your friends are on line and allows you to try and hook up with them.

Lubb, I think you're thinking too narrowly here. It's like saying "Who will ever need 32 players in a game! Four is enough!"

I think the major problem in invisioning what this will be like lies in thinking about the gameplay simplisticly. If all you can do is shoot and kill, then yeah, I agree that you don't need 50,000 people to do that with.

Imagine, for a sec, a game that's not so much an RPG (since it seems that you may not think RPG are a valid case because these folks will play anything-- at least that's what it seems like you're saying)

So, you have this space game that's got 50,000 people, but isn't an RPG. Well, what is it then? What if you had the ability to screw with people in not so obvious, overt ways? I mean, what if there was some subtlety to your actions? You want to think about other was to compete:

For ex., you can have politics if you have various levels of leadership. Newbies and vets can get into this right off the bat.

Now, if you have a value for things, you can have trade, and haggling and quid-pro-quo deals. If you have some system of observation/evidence collection, you can add blackmail to politics. If lead players can set some game rules, you can have different levels of law. If players can't all do the same thing, you can interdependent clans and factions.

What about organization and the jail/death problem you mentioned? You can't force anybody to do anything, right? Well, actually you can! How does your resource system work? What if lower totem players were dependent on "patrons," for some (not all) resources like fuel and ammo. Then they'd have to follow orders to some degree to keep alive.

Finally, what the hell do you do to keep everybody on track? Let player clans at various levels of power set their own goals. I vote for allowing different clans to build new game objects (technology) and expand territory (build or steal bases). Make the system work so that there are many ways to advance: financially, militarily, technologically; and make it so that you can't always be on top, so there's constant fighting.

Want to keep it balanced? In order to keep this all working, I'd install a voting and tax system, so that lower levels have some control over higher levels, and vice versa.

It seems to me what you want is tension, and lots of ways to manifest it. What I've described STILL isn't an RPG, btw, as there's no stats or story. But it seems like there *is* plenty enough for 50,000 people; and it would be a hell of a lot more interesting than any AI!!

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Edited by - Wavinator on September 22, 2000 3:01:18 PM

Well, it is immediately apparent that you will not be creating the next great gaming innovation. If massively multiplayer or voice recognition is not a potential evolution in gaming, then what do you think is? Better graphics and sound? That is far more likely to be the "same old sheet" to use your words. I''ll agree with you on your points: your scenarios of massively multiplayer games would not work. But if you would just look at the current and past crops of these types of games, you would see what does work.

Ever play TradeWars? One Hundred Years War? Ultima Online? These are all examples of massively multiplayer games. And they were successful (from a gameplay point-of-view, if not technically). Granted massively multiplayer games (MMGs) won''t become the norm, as standard multiplayer has. But like any concept in gaming, you should only apply it where it makes sense. MassMulti Monopoly is not going to work, but MassMulti RPGs probably will.

Some games wish to as closely simulate the real world, or at least a fictional abstraction of it. You only have to look at any RPG to see how much work is put into having expansive areas of territory and large numbers of NPCs. What MMGs do is to eliminate the need for as many NPCs. You commented that in a game of 50,000+ players you would never see all of them. And that''s true. But the Earth has 6+ billion, and I bet you never see more than a million over your entire life (the number you interact with would be even smaller).

BUT... and this is the big, important point... a great many of these people''s actions do AFFECT your experience in life. And that is what MMGs have to offer. Academically, this would be referred to as emergent behavior. It lies under the category of artificial intelligence/life, and is the most promising way of emulating natural systems. Here''s a quick rundown:

All of the elements of the system (players in the example of MMGs) are given a small set of rules, actions, and starting conditions (the gameplay). You then start the system and let it run by itself for extended periods of time (hours, days, months, years, decades). Over time you will see that the system will expand beyond what the designers intended. In an MMG, you will see communities develop, groups formed, alliances forged... and if the system is built correctly, new rules will exist.

Don''t believe me? Its already been demonstrated in the commercial arena. Ultima Online is an example of the possibilities of MMG. All of the players had the same rules, starting conditions of their chosing, and world to explore. As the system evolved, though, an intriguing thing developed: player killers. PKs, as they were called, began to pop up (as they had in other multiplayer games) and hunt other players. This is far from what the designers intended. But the system evolved even farther. To counteract the PKs, players formed PKKs, or player-killer killers. It was basically vigilante justice. Groups formed whose sole purpose was to eliminate suspected player killers and protect novice players until they reached the level to defend themselves. This is the type of dynamic you can''t find in other gaming systems.

Unfortunately, in the case of Ultima Online, PKs became a serious problem that could not be stopped even by the PKKs, so the rules of the system were changed. I believe its possible to design a system where this would not have been necessary. Future games of this size would begin with some form of justice system, just like exists in our world (or at least be extendable enough for one to grow within the system rapidly).

To address a different point of yours, regarding having players of varying rank: you hit the nail on the head without even realizing it. When you stated:

"the higher rank a player reaches, the more he''ll be concerned with preserving his own hide than following orders"

Precisely. Is this not true in real life? The more you have invested the more you have to lose? This would act as somewhat of a balancing act for those players who would wish to destroy the system. Their power could only extend so far before they risked losing their power. Just like in life, crime is risky; being a PK would be risky. The only adjustment I would make to your example would be develop a slightly modified system/environment that would be not so hiearchical. Players could join up with higher ranking players as a way to earn experience faster, and would be safer in the groups under the battle-aged watch of a high ranking officer. But, players would also have the option to operate on their own, earning experience through more tedious trial and error (just as if you were trying to teach yourself as opposed to learning from a master).

So, my rant has gone on too long... perhaps I have sparked some discussion.

Simagery "If massively multiplayer or voice recognition is not a potential evolution in gaming"

What Lubb was pointing out is that people were proclaiming Voice Rec. as important, but they way they were to have been incorporated in the games was as A GIMMICK. Lubb was showing that say "Voice Recognition" wasn't being designed as an integral part of the gameplay. More of a fancy UI ?

Probably...

Edited by - Ketchaval on September 22, 2000 3:07:54 PM

I didn''t make it all the way through this post, but to your first point about why 50,000 is better than 50?

With the big MMORPG games, half of the fun is meeting new people for the first time. With 50 people playing, you''re limited to 50 of such encounters. With 50,000, there is no way you''ll ever meet them all, so the potential to meet new people will likely ALWAYS be there.

(Cynic)
Just wondering, when you say Meet new people, do you mean talk with them, are they just glorified chatrooms? Or just have them there as part of the gameplay? Unless the gameplay offers something highly diverse then how interesting would that be.

Ick, I hate talking about these games, I''m sure it sounds even more nerdy than I think it does. =)

Anyway, Taking Everquest as an example, grouping is all but required in later levels. It''s virtually impossible to get anything accomplished past level 45-ish without a group of 4-6+ people.

So meeting new people in ''combat'' situations, from them giving you a hand when you needed it or whatever. It does serve a game purpose, so being popular on a social level in Everquest helps you progress through the game. The game would be boring as all hell if it weren''t for the other people playing. It''s kind of a ''pound-on-your-chest'' game, who has the coolest toys, who has killed the biggest monsters.

It''s an aquired taste though.

'Meeting new people' in an online game, at least from my experiences, generally consists of being found by someone who thinks using all the cheats he can amass is more fun than playing the game, who kills you unfairly with his god-code and says something like "1 0wn j00, b33007Ch!" At least bots play by the rules and speak proper English, heh.

-Ironblayde
 Aeon Software

Edited by - Ironblayde on September 22, 2000 4:38:13 PM

- I''m not a fan of RPG''s: I got bored with Dungeons and Dragons years ago and am not interested in a 32-bit version. I have also found that it''s difficult to attract non-computer users to something so complex and drawn out (-especially their defficient half-cousins, turn-based RPG''s). I find that most games are too complex to attract non-players already, and I can''t see that massive-multiplayer games are going to make anything simpler. Everybody may not like Doom, but at least most anyone can pick up a joystick and try playing it (-and actually do some damage on their first try-) to decide for themselves. Hey, you got a minute? Explain to me how to play Final Fantasy.
-
- Also I''ve not often heard of a bunch of experienced (read GOOD) players taking one total newbie stranger into their group. Not that it hasn''t ever happened, just that it isn''t real common. People who play a lot tend to try to stick together, because they know that they are all experienced and can do well. Usually it''s the best players who join up to prevent being attacked by the cheat-code using PK''s, the other half of the problem. Games are for having fun and clans and PK''s are doing just that: having fun. It''s sunk to the lowest common denominator, but it''s the nature of the way these games are structured: if you aren''t free to join with whom you want or attack whom you want, you''ll just be playing against bots, , , , and you don''t need 50,000 people online.
- Lubb