It''s seemed online games beat offline games down! How do you think about it?

Careful, this is a personal preference of yours. There are many of us who can''t see the value of on-line games at all, or who have only negative experiences to report (me and Battlenet, mostly).

Online games can''t do the following very well:

* Permit the irregular flow of time (like skipping turns, or making time pass quickly)

* Allow for a huge play area (esp. in 3D because of poly limits, but more importantly because of rates of player interaction being too low)

* Provide complex gameplay (not impossible, mostly for marketing reasons)

* Allow for lots of exploration and discovery (to slow, not active enough)

* Ensure all characters / people act in a way appropriate to the milieu (no Sir Doodz PKers, or people who curse you in chat)

* Ensure that you''re playing with like minded people who actually care about the game

I''m sure others can come up with more. This isn''t saying OL games are bad, just that they''re not the panacea that some people think they are.


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

I hate online games! I played Ultima Online
and it was damn boring. All there was to kill was
people as all the monsters were killed off. The mines
were always empty and muggers were everywhere. All
there was to do was stay in the towns an practice weapon
skills. How much fun is that? After playing UO I have never
had any desire to play an online game.

Completely disagree with your list


* Permit the irregular flow of time (like skipping turns, or making time pass quickly)
------------------------------------------------------
Archmage is a online game using turns. Multi-player games have limited usage of turns - but its not impossible and its really a multi-player issue - not a off-/on-line issue.


* Allow for a huge play area (esp. in 3D because of poly limits, but more importantly because of rates of player interaction being too low)
------------------------------------------------------
Asherons call is like the biggest game... ever. EQ, AC and UO have some of the biggest play areas.


* Provide complex gameplay (not impossible, mostly for marketing reasons)
------------------------------------------------------
You must be kidding - the most complex game are online games. Some muds are extremely complex and so is ultima online.


* Allow for lots of exploration and discovery (to slow, not active enough)
------------------------------------------------------
Again the big three AC, EQ, UO have plenty compared with single player games. To slow?? (what do u mean) - not active enough (like single players games are active - lol - )

* Ensure all characters / people act in a way appropriate to the milieu (no Sir Doodz PKers, or people who curse you in chat)
----------------------------------------------------
People are usually even more lame in single player games - however it affects no one.


* Ensure that you''re playing with like minded people who actually care about the game
-------------------------------------------------------
like that is even possible in a single player game. - lol -

quote: Original post by Kim Graef

* Permit the irregular flow of time (like skipping turns, or making time pass quickly)
------------------------------------------------------
Archmage is a online game using turns. Multi-player games have limited usage of turns - but its not impossible and its really a multi-player issue - not a off-/on-line issue.

I'm not sure I follow you. If you and I are playing a game of Master of Orion 2, I can't skip 50 turns. If we were playing multiplayer Fallout (heh, as if) I can't make time pass quickly.

Are you saying that Archmage lets you be out of synch with other players?

quote:
* Allow for a huge play area (esp. in 3D because of poly limits, but more importantly because of rates of player interaction being too low)
------------------------------------------------------
Asherons call is like the biggest game... ever. EQ, AC and UO have some of the biggest play areas.

Oh, I see. You're only thinking on a continental scale. That explains everything...

If you wanted a much bigger playing field, you'd see what I was talking about. For instance, a multiplayer Starflight might take place in a setting with 200 stars, 800 planets, each with surface terrain.

I submit that Verant's MMO Star Wars game will only take place on 4 or so worlds for the reasons I originally mentioned. A single player game would likely not have to be as constrained because there's less need to process events simultaneously.

quote:
* Provide complex gameplay (not impossible, mostly for marketing reasons)
------------------------------------------------------
You must be kidding - the most complex game are online games. Some muds are extremely complex and so is ultima online.

No, I'm not kidding. Maybe we define complexity differently. I don't know about muds, but UO's core gameplay is hack & slash, is it not? And the anatomy of this is really click and watch the health bars drop, right?

quote:
* Allow for lots of exploration and discovery (to slow, not active enough)
------------------------------------------------------
Again the big three AC, EQ, UO have plenty compared with single player games. To slow?? (what do u mean) - not active enough (like single players games are active - lol - )

The exploration of a large playing field for exploration's sake that you might find in a single player game is seemingly too slow for the pace of a multi-player game. Hence the wilderness is littered more with combat challenges and PKs than mysteries, puzzles, and other noncombat challenges.

quote:
* Ensure all characters / people act in a way appropriate to the milieu (no Sir Doodz PKers, or people who curse you in chat)
----------------------------------------------------
People are usually even more lame in single player games - however it affects no one.

Point still stands. You may name yourself Howdie Doodie, but unless the creators have put in easter eggs and in-jokes, the rest of the world will be consistent. I prefer this (because of immersion) and gameplay over all else, and you can't guarantee it in an on-line game because people are unpredictable.

quote:
* Ensure that you're playing with like minded people who actually care about the game
-------------------------------------------------------
like that is even possible in a single player game. - lol -

What's the impact of one bored, mischeiveous player in a single player game? Now, what's the impact of that same player in a multiplayer game?

I rest my case.

The beauty of the single player experience is that you get to play in a very controlled environment, without outsiders screwing up your fun.


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


Edited by - Wavinator on December 20, 2000 4:56:24 PM

quote:
* Allow for lots of exploration and discovery (to slow, not active enough)
------------------------------------------------------
Again the big three AC, EQ, UO have plenty compared with single player games. To slow?? (what do u mean) - not active enough (like single players games are active - lol - )

* Ensure all characters / people act in a way appropriate to the milieu (no Sir Doodz PKers, or people who curse you in chat)
----------------------------------------------------
People are usually even more lame in single player games - however it affects no one.


* Ensure that you're playing with like minded people who actually care about the game
-------------------------------------------------------
like that is even possible in a single player game. - lol -

Everybody laugh at the idiot. We are discussing OFFLINE vs. ONLINE games, not single, vs. multiplayer.

OFFLINE games can be multiplayer, that's where the argument of "playing with like minded people who actually care about the game" comes from.

Nice try


Edited by - morfe on December 20, 2000 4:58:52 PM

quote: Original post by morfe
OFFLINE games can be multiplayer, that''s where the argument of "playing with like minded people who actually care about the game" comes from.

Thank you, that''s exactly what I was talking about. It''s a question of community size and maybe anonymity. For some reason, some seemingly civil people behave like immature idiots when they can hide behind an easily changable handle. I don''t know why.

A friend of mine who I used to play many LAN games with admitted that he liked to go online and f**k with people just for the fun of it. This included, but wasn''t limited to, hacks, taunts, and exploits left and right. It thrilled him, and he could get away with it.

(He and I were never really good friends, maybe this lame attitude was a reason why...)

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

Morpe

************
Ok i forgot lan-games in which úsually makes Sir Doodz PKers a less problem and community control a bit easier. - besides that the points still stand.





Wavinator

Are you saying that Archmage lets you be out of synch with other players?
************
Well both yes and no (in archmage case) - but what i mean is that is possible to design games that ''skip'' the boring part with something ala turns. EG a MMORPG in which you can buy skills with aging of your char. - never seen it used - though - but these things are possible to do.

************
Oh, I see. You''re only thinking on a continental scale. That explains everything...
************
When i compare online games UO, EQ, AC with single/multi games within same segment (eg baldurs gate) i find that the online games are much larger - both in scope and content (number items, skill, size ect). - but online gamers play these games alot. last time i saw a report it was around 2-3 hours per day for EQ - when UO and EQ was brand new the avg was around 5 hours - these figures suprise everybody and with that in mind its no suprise that online-players often scream after more content.

******************
* Provide complex gameplay (not impossible, mostly for marketing reasons)
*****************
If i re-started playing UO it will take me days before i will get used to all the old- and new-rules in that game. And yes its hack''n''slash game at its core like most rpg''s - but that doesnt mean its simple. In fact since these games are being changed all the time (to add content) they have sofar always ended up being rather complex.

*****************
* Allow for lots of exploration and discovery (to slow, not active enough)
*****************
AC actually has a good deal of exploration and UO has treasure maps. Personally i find that the online-rpg actually has a slow pace - but it depend who you are playing with - WWII online might be the first slow-pace-online-fps. A problem with puzzles and exsotic sites is that the players will be able to find info about them on webpages - it also very hard to keep making interring puzzles (which is more a problem related to game-time spend on online games).

***************************
* Ensure all characters / people act in a way appropriate to the milieu (no Sir Doodz PKers, or people who curse you in chat)
***************************
If online = anonymity then yes and granted this is the current norm. However you could make rules as strict as a ''real-life'' themeparks and the industry will eventually mature to get there. But as games can have a unique id and some even have a real life account name/number (for payment) i would consided this to be a business/design problem - to a level anonymity is not something you have per default - its a feature. (the games could show the real id or account name)

*****************************
* Ensure that you''re playing with like minded people who actually care about the game
*****************************
single versus multi : sorry i cannot see how to compare
multi-offline versus multi-online: community matters - books could be written about this. Hopefully when the MMO''s matures players will know what to play and not - and developers will have target customer segment and service that target.
The fact is that alot of new games are targeting Sir Doodz PKers and alike. Sir Doodz PKers do not play every new game - but games that attact them by design.

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

Gametypes that doesnt work well online.
1 Games that are played like a book is read (eg tomb raider)
2 Strong Hero based games - (everybody cant save the world)

Both gametypes represent consumers that are rarely found in a multi-player game anyway (off or online).

must sleeep........zzzzz

1. Keep it civil in here guys, I know it hasn''t gotten too bad yet, but it''s threatening to get a bit ugly.

2. I''m another of those people that isn''t terribly interested in massively multiplayer online games. I run into that a lot, people thinking Goblin is a design for an online game and such. I''ve played my share of very multiplayer internet games, and I''ve stopped playing them all. The reason? If you disagree with the community spirit, you''re doomed. A particular game I played, Monarchy, had unwritten rules about not attacking guilds smaller or weaker than you, because it was really unfair. During the course of my playing, some of the largest guilds successfully challenged that rule, just hitting everything they could lay their hands on, with hardly a challenge to it. I simply quit after that, because I realised that there was no true community spirit, and it just doesn''t work that way.

I''d rather see small-scale local games, by invitation only, with people you know well. Games you can control, where you can kick people out that are disruptive.
I''d like to see more social games. The kind you play with your family, or you invite a few friends to join in for a quick burst of fun. I don''t want to spend time in a universe populated by millions of real people when I''m choosing my computer for my entertainment. If I want to be bothered by lots of real people, I''ll go outside .


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

what do you mean by this exactly? are you thinking of full online play games or games with online stratagy guides? if you have any question about the success of non-online games you should look at any major console game magazine. most of the people who buy games know little aobut computers or are too young to really be on the net. take final fantasy IX for instance. this game has sold mad crazy copies and it is linier as hell. there is no online play. games are still being made for the origional playstation even with the release of the ps2. people will not run out and buy a new system just so they MIGHT be able to play SOME games online. on top of that, these systems require their own isp and in some cases, subscription to their servers and game services. this is getting to be too much. sure, the pc games are making a killing online but that is not to say that they are even remotly close to the console market. you will need to be a little more concise in the future.
besides, ill take a game with an excellent story over these online shooters and rts''s any day. this is why im still in wiht the snes rpg''s as they do everything that i liked with less resources and it is rare to find games of at least the same quality today. i dont know... games need to remain games.

I am not text, I am not organized pixels, I am not killed by turning off your monitor, I am not isolated by turning off your computer. I just am.

Conshape Electronic Arts