beware of using the term 'God', or this might be the coming of a Software version of Titanic :P

WOW I didn't expect this many replies! I'm grateful. Haha!! And grateful no one admits they think I'm retarded. :)

Lightblade, that's okay, I am a weirdo compared to the rest of the world.

Run-

Quote:

So your entire theory is that game designers need to be creative and make good games?

PRECISELY!

LOL. You're funny though. Most of what I said, is that, yes, but I also suggested at a way to make them better, overall. Maybe I didn't get into detail on it though. I will try to simplify it in this post.

Anon-

Quote:

The Apple.

Well, yeah, I guess. Maybe we'll have to wait another 20 years for better technology.

Guimo! Thanks, haha!

Quote:

I'm a bit too lazy to read all of it, but the first half of it sounds pretty good.

Cool!

Matrix-

Quote:

I refute your logic in that hackers equate to evil ... this is using the same logic which proves guns by themselves are evil.

What? But guns are machines, and hackers are people who can think about their actions. Also they become the source of unhappiness when they disturb the balance (however much of it) in an MMG. Anyway I don't like calling people "evil", I like to call evil itself evil. "Evil" people are really just ignorant or unlucky.

Quote:

Furthermore, game developers should not innocently give away their private networks, data, server access, or anything. Innocence and presumptuousness, do not a good network admin make.

True, but I guess by "innocent" what I meant was that they equally give their game to everyone in the hopes that people will use their game for fun and not to ruin the fun of others.

Quote:

You have some interesting points, but I think your logic is diminished by a very narrow view on the reality of games, religion, system administration, and business. (Personally, I don't think logic and religion should even dare approach one another... one is based on facts and deduction, the other is based on faith.)

Well I guess that's a fair point (I don't like imposing religion or philosophy on anyone muahahah)--but I still believe reason/logic can exist to support religion, even though science and empirical data can't. But even if it can't, and even if no one believes in a God we can still dream of a perfect reality though, whether it be designed by God or by human consciousness.

Ellis-

Quote:

I can't do much about debating the philosophy, but on an interesting note, the #1 character in MUD/MUX/MUSH code, the one who controls everything, is called God. :)

Likewise eh?!

Iron Chef-

Quote:

I'm just joshing you. Break your OP into smaller, more coherent questions if you want to engage in pointed, meaningful discussion around here. We've got itty-bitty attention spans, and are easily distracted.

Okay here guys let me try to re-explain as briefly as I can (which is laughable), for the balance part at least.

MMGs are treated as "games". They are not treated as "worlds". They are treated as "games" but that is semi-strange because they are eternal games, and eternal "games" (competitive sports or board games etc. complete with rules and regulations by which to play) don't exist in the real world. I think only those MMGs which are treated as a perfect world instead of a perfect game are the ones that will be most successful (and there have been those that attempt to treat it that way).

To stop beating around the bush as I have done before, is to say that I think the best MMG would be one where competition between PCs (not PCs and monsters) is voluntary and that the game should establish the best environment so that hatred and anger are not felt in the MMG, but only a love and companionship/friendship, even when someone loses to someone else during a competitive event. Anything that is, I am gonna call it a "perma-LOSS", that serves to create a competitive disadvantage to some PCs, would not serve as something that creates a loving environment between players when the game goes on for eternity. Healthy competition in the real world is such that you go in, but when you come back out, after victory or defeat, you haven't actually lost anything. If you lost the competition, you haven't lost anything but the competition. Unhealthy competition in the real world is that of say, rich vs. poor. It MAY give the ILLUSION of winning or feeling good when we are rich, but in reality it has the potential to stir up hatred within the poor. Some MMGs are built in an eternal world that mimicks ours, where there is unhealthy competition. This is not to say there will be immature unsportsmanship during a healthy competitive event in an MMG, but there are ways to minimize it. I like the idea personally, of one day your enemy is your enemy in competition, but another day he may be your friend in competition. I believe that any MMG that supports the concept that all players ARE inherently friends with each other and ARE connected, in any way (and doesn't just toss them into the pan and pretend it's up to everyone to become friends), will succeed because of its alignment with the laws of the universe, which I say, is to love. It should create the notion for the player that we are friends and we all have been, from the start.

Swordfights and battle and war can still exist and stuff, if we go about it properly. It's the "permalosses" to me that seem to be the problem. Also PC vs. monster (AI) competition is fun, but it's also a different story. I'm focusing on PC to PC relationships.

Is that better maybe? For the balance part?

[Edited by - Sylon on March 17, 2006 9:07:38 PM]

Quote:

Original post by Sylon MMGs are treated as "games". They are not treated as "worlds". They are treated as "games" but that is semi-strange because they are eternal games, and eternal "games" (competitive sports or board games etc. complete with rules and regulations by which to play) don't exist in the real world. I think only those MMGs which are treated as a perfect world instead of a perfect game are the ones that will be most successful (and there have been those that attempt to treat it that way). To stop beating around the bush as I have done before, is to say that I think the best MMG would be one where competition between PCs (not PCs and monsters) is voluntary and that the game should establish the best environment so that hatred and anger are not felt in the MMG, but only a love and companionship/friendship, even when someone loses to someone else during a competitive event. Anything that is, I am gonna call it a "perma-LOSS", that serves to create a competitive disadvantage to some PCs, would not serve as something that creates a loving environment between players when the game goes on for eternity. Healthy competition in the real world is such that you go in, but when you come back out, after victory or defeat, you haven't actually lost anything. If you lost the competition, you haven't lost anything but the competition. Unhealthy competition in the real world is that of say, rich vs. poor. It MAY give the ILLUSION of winning or feeling good when we are rich, but in reality it has the potential to stir up hatred within the poor. Some MMGs are built in an eternal world that mimicks ours, where there is unhealthy competition. This is not to say there will be immature unsportsmanship during a healthy competitive event in an MMG, but there are ways to minimize it. I like the idea personally, of one day your enemy is your enemy in competition, but another day he may be your friend in competition. I believe that any MMG that supports the concept that all players ARE inherently friends with each other and ARE connected, in any way (and doesn't just toss them into the pan and pretend it's up to everyone to become friends), will succeed because of its alignment with the laws of the universe, which I say, is to love. It should create the notion for the player that we are friends and we all have been, from the start. Swordfights and battle and war can still exist and stuff, if we go about it properly. It's the "permalosses" to me that seem to be the problem. Also PC vs. monster (AI) competition is fun, but it's also a different story. I'm focusing on PC to PC relationships. Is that better maybe? For the balance part?

I think pretty much every major MMO post-UO has included 'PvE' servers alongside it's 'PvP' servers. This pretty much thoroughly satisfies your condition that all player competition should be voluntary. Regarding 'perma-loss', it's another non-issue in the MMO's of today. Duelling, or playing PvP Battlegrounds, or any other player competition in the game incurs absolutely no loss to the player's character whatsoever - unless you get super technical and decide that a loss of 'honor'(defined in WoW terms as 'PvP ladder rank score') is a permanent unforgivable loss; In which case I'd note that the players are the ones who demanded the honor system in the first place.

If you're looking for a purely human connection type MMO, ignoring facets of 'gameplay'(unless desired) I'd also say you've pretty much been beaten to the revelation that sometimes people just want to login to a Second Life and hang out with friends and just be There.

That's interesting. If it's been done so much "post-UO" then why do people still debate about things like consequences of PKing? I thought games like Lineage and stuff have PK systems where there are consequences for PKers, and therefore even if there is nothing lost by a victim, there still becomes something the PKer will "lose", by his being punished somehow. Not sure of Lineage's system, maybe I am thinking of another (don't have time to surf now gotta go to bed)--but surely there are some of those games that do such a thing?

And Second Life is not my type of game for a number of reasons, mostly because I don't just want to hang out, BUT, I think you understand what I mean, now, anyway. Haha.

Quote:

Original post by Sylon That's interesting. If it's been done so much "post-UO" then why do people still debate about things like consequences of PKing? I thought games like Lineage and stuff have PK systems where there are consequences for PKers, and therefore even if there is nothing lost by a victim, there still becomes something the PKer will "lose", by his being punished somehow. Not sure of Lineage's system, maybe I am thinking of another (don't have time to surf now gotta go to bed)--but surely there are some of those games that do such a thing? And Second Life is not my type of game for a number of reasons, mostly because I don't just want to hang out, BUT, I think you understand what I mean, now, anyway. Haha.

I said "alongside" if you'll note. There are generally servers which enforce a PvP ruleset(players can always kill players, based on various rules about which team players are on) and servers that enforce a PvE ruleset(players can only kill players when both consent to the combat, otherwise it's only players against the NPCs).

Some games(Eve Online, UO for sure, I'm sketchy about others) tend to support a very free and dangerous style of gameplay. You die, you lose your stuff, and that's that. There are people who flock to these sort of games and situations because it's a thrill. Eve has peaked at around 25,000 users online at one time, it seems to average around 15,000 at any given time of day. It's a very dangerous game, with no coddling of the players or safety nets against random acts of PvP.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have games like Everquest 2(until recently) and WoW's PvE servers - servers where players posed no immediate danger to one another at all. Zero. You could not attack another player unless that player authorized you to do so. Even then, if that player killed you, you lost absolutely nothing, except maybe a few minutes of time. The point of these servers is to play cooperatively with other players against the NPC opponents, or at least to avoid random ganking or other player aggression that you see on PvP servers. This conforms completely to your very hard-to-read theory about 'voluntary loss-less player competition'.

People still debate the specific rules or boundaries of PvP combat because it's one more facet of their creation of their own metarules for the game in question. Some people love PvP, but only when there's nothing to be lost. Some people love PvP when everything is on the table and there's no safety. This is little more important to the topic of MMG design than two players arguing about which weapon should do more damage, or whether or not powerful loot should be made more common.

If you really want to understand why people would actually willingly play in PvP conditions, I suggest you read:
The Big Scam, by Nightfreeze(EVE Online)

Which I think perfectly defines the allure of a game that allows for Player versus Player interaction without boundaries.

Oh okay. I'm sure that not all of my ideas are represented in the PvE servers 100%, but I won't talk about it much anymore (might be extra weird), and also the fact that you mention some games support and enforce NPC-fighting with cooperation between PCs is pretty much most of what I was trying to say, yes.

Quote:

Original post by Run_The_Shadows If you really want to understand why people would actually willingly play in PvP conditions, I suggest you read: The Big Scam, by Nightfreeze(EVE Online) Which I think perfectly defines the allure of a game that allows for Player versus Player interaction without boundaries.

AHA! This is exactly what I meant by what I didn't like! I LOVE the story though. Ture or not, it could happen I bet. It's a perfect demonstration of how someone who works hard to achieve something may lose it all and thus the potential for real-life people to hate real-life people is great. I admit the thrill of getting revenge and getting away clean after committing a crime is intense and enjoyable when you succeed. But I would ask myself, is it a natural happiness, a natural high, to feel that thrill, and is there a better way to achieve a more enjoyable happiness through virtual worlds.

However I think you've answered my post as good as it could be answered, and even though I have some other minor ideas (which may or may not be answerable) I see not much reason to say much else! Partially because I end up confusing people anyway. Thanks a lot though.

The perfect world does mpt exist, due to one reason it is subjective. What would your pefect world be would be much different then my own. This applies to every other being on this forsaken planet. Though I do admire your conviction withing your writing, know I do share simular views. Some differ here and there, but overall what you proposed is much like I've been plotting for years now, but with a few key differences. But, that may be for another time.

What most forget is that games designers need to be creative and make good games. Designers of the upcomming generation of things will have to think above and beyound that they normally do. And sooner or later simply taking the apporach of this is a job, will be inadecuate. Games should be treated like art, a life, as they are direct relations with our imagination so why sell ourselves short?

On another note, keep this in mind, yin-yang. You used this to represent the title, but remember the concept holds true to life, and thus the games we create.

Anonymous,

OHH! Okay. Well, I mean, I guess it depends on the beliefs surrounding the "Apple" (I never called it apple, just called it "fruit"!). If Satan caused God's Paradise to fail and it was not a rule within God's Paradise that caused the failure, then we're all set, all we have to do is mimic God's Paradise the best we can! Which is to mimic a perfect reality. Then hope "Satan" doesn't come along and ruin it. Of course there are human beings that can ruin it besides hackers, by the way they act in-game, but that just ties into reality's problems. At least we can design the game as if there weren't any obnoxious players!

Verg--

I see what you're saying, and I know philosophy well, but I also said in my first post I believe we should think "in the direction of God", and where there is dispute, we should choose what we think best respresents a perfect world in reality (of course my post was so large it's hard to remember everything). Yes, you and I will have different ideas of what is perfect, but for both of us when it comes to designing an MMG, there will be times when we will think of satisfying a particular game audience by coming up with game rules that supposedly "balance" it. I am saying, do what you think is right, is perfect, in accordance with a perfect reality, and forget about what the audience thinks because (what you said) we all are subjective and thus everyone's ideas of perfect fun are different. So I say, choose the direction of "fun" which you think best represents perfection in in reality, instead of trying to "appease" the best of both audiences.

The closer we move toward God (whether He exists or not--hopefully so, and of course I believe so), the better our chances of gaining a spiritual support from God. This support could be anything from completing our project to becoming famous, to having our games loved by a large number of people--to name a few hopes. Of course nothing's guaranteed but it's worth a shot at some of that isn't it? Even if our perceptions of Him and perfect reality aren't 100% accurate and everyone's is all different we can still try our best.

I actually chose the Yin-Yang because I thought it best reflected God (male and female). LOL. Yes, true to life and games we create indeed.

I'm glad you like some of my ideas. I like you for liking them. I have been thinking of my own design for about 3 years. What you said is true, and deep. Games are art. I love a game that can send me unique, beautiful emotions. Those emotions usually come from combined graphics and music. If only smells could be introduced...!!

I think that your fundamental maxim of emulating divine creation is flawed. Having never seen a world without the taint of original sin, "to mimic a perfect reality" is impossible. Earth before the Fall is incomprehensible to us, except as a negative definition, as a world without so many of the things we understand. We don't really know what to put into it, except for abstract philosophical notions like "love" and "beauty" and "excellence".

Beyond that, I object to the notion of a game world as being a world first and letting the experience arise epiphenomenally from that world, as it does in ours. I don't think that people will choose a world devoid of teleological content over a world (like this one around us) which seems to possess a priori motivations in the form of salient needs and sophisticated pre-existing schemas of social, geographic and physical principles.

Your best bet is to make a world that serves as an extension of this one, not a reflection. It should be extended with purpose and order, and it should have a simple set of objectives that will guide design throughout the process.

Well, it's just that I am under the impression that the best of current life is actually a "piece" of the perfect world. Everyone can experience a piece of the perfect world, only, not the entire thing, based on their life experiences and what has been recorded into their subconscious. If I watch a lion attack my brother, from then on I will fear or hate lions. What if it was my brother who instigated the lion to attack, and I never knew? From then on my understanding of lions, hence the world, will be tainted. Of course in reality it's more complicated like how parents raise/love their child, etc., and societal effects.

All I'm suggesting is that if such a perfect world were to exist, at any time in history or the future, that it would most definitely exist to give us utmost happiness, which would mean there must be something about it that would make it happier than this one. And, you're right that no one would understand the world now, and no one would agree. But if we have any ideas about what it could be, we could look at what makes ourselves happy (hence a "piece" of perfect reality), and step 2 would be to look at what makes us UNhappy (Fear? Anger? Sadness?), and then filter out the "happinesses" that arise out of some negative emotions like sadness and anger--such as a desire for a satisfying revenge, or a need to destroy things, or an adrenaline-pumped thrill to "survive". Serial killers and drug addicts usually have tragic pasts but yet they must think they're happy doing what they do. For example would we rather continue fighting wars in reality or would we rather just chill out and have everyone do the same? Why do we feel the need for war instead of healthy competition in a peaceful world? I know I love to play RPGs where there is war and suffering and triumph over it all, but when I am playing with other human beings (PCs) it takes on a whole new spectrum. If NPCs are the enemy when it comes to survival within the game, and PCs are only enemies during healthy competition within the world, it would make sense to me according to my understanding of true happiness!