quote: "I''m not one for Internet games, if only because I can''t stand lag and unstable connections. I don''t think I''m the only person here who''s been disconnected in the middle of a fight in Asheron''s Call or another such MMORPG. I cancelled my account almost a year ago."

Yes, but this will become less and less of an issue. However, offline games will always have a market, because many people are afraid of the "shame" that can accompany multiplayer games. As many of us so-called "hard core" gamers seem to forget, many video game consumers out there just like to play by themselves. Just look at the PC Data charts and see games like "Who Wants to Be a Millioniare" or "The Sims" for proof.

By the way, if you''re more interested in the shame/glory psychology of multiplayer games, a good article was written about it here: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19991110/Baron_01.htm

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham
What i find interesting is that Blizzard have kept Diablo 1 surver running. That's very bizzare. When i logged on a few weeks ago i was expecting some sort of no answer.

Ah, but if you had played Diablo online for a few months you'd see that Blizzard has been pissing on the players.

They used to have the ability to find someone by their account number, instead of by handle, as a player can have as many handles as they want. This was nice, since if a friend was playing with a different character, you'd still find them. Nicer still is that the PKers couldn't hide behind a new handle once you found out their account number (through an openly accesible command.) Obviously its removal has had only negative effects. PKers can now run rampant, and finding friends is a huge pain. To top it off, this is just ONE of several "adjustments" that Blizzard has made to Diablo. Clearly they want players to move on to Diablo II (with which they've been tinkering around with as well.)

And you thought Sir Doodzes and Sir H4x0r5 were a large problem.


Edited by - SonicSilcion on December 28, 2000 1:25:57 PM

Online games and offline games are two different categories of games. You can only compare their differences, not claim one is better than the other.

It''s like comparing genres. It''s an opinion and can be argued from either side with equal determination.

Apples and oranges.

-------
Monkey eat deadCricket, checkmate!

I would like to think that there is room for both online (multi-player) games and offline (single-player) games.

As a long time player of UO - I can agree with Davaris, UO can be boring. If you play by yourself the game is incredibly boring. Once you find a group to play with the game comes to life. The reason I quit playing was because I needed to get some of my own work (on my game) done and that all of the people I played with were not playing much anymore...

Having said that, I have been playing Freespace2 alot lately... It can be played online, but I prefer the singleplayer missions. And because I don''t have as much time anymore the single player game fits into my schedule better.

As I said, I think there is room for both "styles" of play and depending on each players likes/dislikes thats what they will play. I wouldn''t rule out single player games.... ever. I think there will always be a "demand" for them; and corollary, I think there will be an increased "demand" for MP games, especially with broadband connectivity (is this the case in Europe?) here in the states, I suppose on-line only games will be the rage - if they aren''t considered that now. At last look, there were about 20 of these games in development...



Dave "Dak Lozar" Loeser

Hallo!
I think online games can be fun if they are simple and not to advanced, for example chess and so on.
However Ultima Online isn''t that revolutionary and fun(hmm chess isn''t either but at least it''s simple and doesn''t have high ping times).

Regards
Daniel

0 players (movies, books) - best storyline (but no interaction)
1 player (offline games) - decent storyline
more players (online games) - no storyline usually

In online games you can''t be leader of the universe, because other human players must be equal with you. Also in online games you can''t be invincible. And you can''t change timestep (like Wav said).

quote:
I've noticed that i lot of people here tend to think the same way but there's something about this statement that just doesn't agree with me. Is it just that it hasn't been proven or done yet - the real reason why people say this?

[note, I'm only speaking about persistent online games here that have a large number of players at one time (ie, muds or massivly multiplayer rpgs]

You're right, I'm lying when I say that multiplayer games can't have stories. It is possible to have convincing stories in multiplayer games, but it's extremely difficult. The problem is that in persistent online games one of the primary goals is to let players shape the world. Having a linear story controlled by the designers goes against that idea. The players lose control over the world.

Of course, then again, I haven't really seen any multiplayer games that allow the players to truly shape them (I haven't looked hard, either, though ), so maybe my whole point is moot. Maybe multiplayer RPG's are more just about socializing then they are about making a shapable universe?

Perhaps what it really comes down to is that you have to chose between letting the players truly influence the world, or letting players *think* that they're influencing the world while giving them an interesting story at the same time.

I'm rambling a bit here, but the point I'm trying to make is that the strength of the story is dependent on what your goals for a multiplayer game are. If you're just aiming to make a hackfest where you can socialize, than a story is very well possible. But if you're aiming to let the players control the world, then it's much more difficult to also put in significant story elements without interfering.

Edited by - The Senshi on January 2, 2001 2:54:20 PM

Personally i find that consumers that prefer single player games simply doesnt like to compete with other players.

BTW Acherons call has a monthly event/story

What is a story in the first place?
If quest = story then diabloI/II is story based :-)
If objective = story then counter-strike is story based

Mostly then i hear people say story i read them as saying:
tons of text + linear events

OT: persistent worlds - there is something about that term i dont like. EQ and AC are persistent like a counter-strike server running 24 hours a day - whats the big deal about that! (ok AC has alot of world changing patches) - the world is on the harddisk and is 100% static only the items and players change. Of the big 3 only UO used the persistence to anything usefull with a dynamical house layer. Diablo II shards are those persistent world? (why and why not).

rgds

quote: Original post by Kim Graef

Personally i find that consumers that prefer single player games simply doesnt like to compete with other players.

I think that''s too simple.

I''m an Unreal Tournament fiend. I LOVE to play Starcraft vs. my friends. But this doesn''t diminish my single player gaming in the least.

When I''m playing SP there''s 2 drawbacks: I miss the gameworld cooperating with me, and lose really intelligent competition. But these are AI issues.

I don''t think you can get around the fact that each style of gaming has its own drawbacks and rewards. The more I involve other people in my experience, the more I have to accept that the experience won''t exclusively cater to me. This is fine, sometimes (and worth the company), but othertimes not.

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