Quote:

Original post by kyoryu SWG housing wasn't far from the UO model, and (CU/NGE aside) didn't exactly do WoW numbers.

I want to comment on this from a design perspective as well.

Games based on Star Wars, or Star Trek, or LOTR are utter garbage and completely miss the point of a MMORPG.

I don't want to log on and play someone else's story and respond to cheesy movie scripts. I want to log into a world that is a blank slate and make my own story - not stand around and argue about what a Jedi Knight would do in a given instance.

I'm astonished that anyone thought basing a MMORPG on a movie franchise was a good idea.

That is an example of lore that restricts roleplaying instead of developing lore that encourages roleplaying.

Quote:

Original post by Meh_Gerbil I'll sit back and watch Darkfall fail. I'll keep hoping that someone "gets it" sometime soon - that they will understand what made UO great and set out to update that design for this century's standards.

Just out of interest, what do you consider to be the thing(s) that these games aren't getting, specifically? I saw you mentioned player run stuff, and interacting with stuff, but what would be some examples of that?

Quote:

Original post by Meh_Gerbil Quote: Original post by kyoryu SWG housing wasn't far from the UO model, and (CU/NGE aside) didn't exactly do WoW numbers. I want to comment on this from a design perspective as well. Games based on Star Wars, or Star Trek, or LOTR are utter garbage and completely miss the point of a MMORPG. I don't want to log on and play someone else's story and respond to cheesy movie scripts. I want to log into a world that is a blank slate and make my own story - not stand around and argue about what a Jedi Knight would do in a given instance. I'm astonished that anyone thought basing a MMORPG on a movie franchise was a good idea. That is an example of lore that restricts roleplaying instead of developing lore that encourages roleplaying.

I don't agree with that part. I don't think there is a point to MMORPG, it's just a description. MMO just describes the scale of the game, and RPG describes the kind of game. RPG (Role Playing Game) just means you play the role of a character. There is no rule that this has to be a character you create from the ground up. If it's a crime to make an RPG with a pre-determined story and pre-determined characters, then 99% of RPG's ever made are guilty.

What you prefer is usually referred to as "sandbox" gameplay, which is just a preference. You may love that, but plenty of people who prefer a very different kind of experience.

Quote:

Games based on Star Wars, or Star Trek, or LOTR are utter garbage and completely miss the point of a MMORPG. I don't want to log on and play someone else's story and respond to cheesy movie scripts. I want to log into a world that is a blank slate and make my own story - not stand around and argue about what a Jedi Knight would do in a given instance. I'm astonished that anyone thought basing a MMORPG on a movie franchise was a good idea. That is an example of lore that restricts roleplaying instead of developing lore that encourages roleplayin

People like having common ground. That is one of the biggest hits against awesome games like EVE online, as well as other SciFi games. People understand mythology, lore, midevil times, fantasy. Placing a game in Starwars or Startrek gives it a common ground that helps people to acclimate faster.

There is a big difference between a game not having open "sandbox" gameplay and it being in a fresh "sandbox" for story. Writing new worlds and new stories is much harder to do convincingly than stealing from stories that many people have probably already read.

Quote:

People like having common ground. That is one of the biggest hits against awesome games like EVE online, as well as other SciFi games. People understand mythology, lore, midevil times, fantasy. Placing a game in Starwars or Startrek gives it a common ground that helps people to acclimate faster. There is a big difference between a game not having open "sandbox" gameplay and it being in a fresh "sandbox" for story. Writing new worlds and new stories is much harder to do convincingly than stealing from stories that many people have probably already read.

Doesn't EVE online have more subs than SWG?
What does that do to your point?

Using subscription numbers to prove a point like that isn't a good idea. The subscription numbers of these games is determined by so many other important factors. Experienced designer or not, you should know that.

Quote:

Original post by vchile Just out of interest, what do you consider to be the thing(s) that these games aren't getting, specifically? I saw you mentioned player run stuff, and interacting with stuff, but what would be some examples of that?

It is my understanding that UO started out as a simulation. It is that fact alone that puts it in an entirely different class than every game I've seen since (at least in the MMORPG market).

The simulation went so far as attempting to make it so the amount of gold or wool in the world was fixed (limited) - that only so many sheep would spawn in a given time and so forth. I may not have the exact details correct there, my memory is sketchy. Some of these things couldn't be implemented at the time.

The point is that an attempt was made to build a simulation that a person could play as opposed to building a game.

Stop and think about that for a moment.

Any ways, the drive toward a simulation resulted in a push towards detail and depth. Since that time, the games I've seen that have tried to emulate UO have marketed themselves as UO '98 in regards to PVP combat - Darkfall is supposed to be "it" because I can kill and dry loot noobies.

Talk about missing the point.

Examples:

1: People built rune libraries in UO. They'd throw up a keep and leave it unlocked so that people could visit the library and use runes to locations they may not have been able to find on their own. Location runes were collectable.

2: People built treasure map libraries. Again, a case of knowledge a person could put on public display in a persistent world. I could *quest* to a player built library and find useful information.

3: People could buy/sell the location of falling houses. A falling house was a ready made quest/battle spot with player supplied loot (contents of the house). These could be major events randomly popping off all over the place.

4: People could trap chests, bags, or whatever and make a living using these things without ever weilding a sword.

5: People could spend hours just trying to steal a house key. Whole strategies sprung up around getting keys and protecting keys. How many people would mark a rune to a dangerous place and call the rune "Home, Sweet Home"? Funny stuff.

6: You could make a good living as a dungeon thief (magery, stealing, lockpicking, trap detection, trap removal, hiding, stealth) and never kill anyone or any monster and get rich). Yet you'd be in the dungeon (danger zone) if the safety of crafting wasn't your thing.

It was astounding what you could do because the game gave you tools that you could do just about anything with - and if you were creative you could get away with some pretty hilarious things.

Quote:

Original post by vchile Using subscription numbers to prove a point like that isn't a good idea. The subscription numbers of these games is determined by so many other important factors. Experienced designer or not, you should know that.

How would you propose that we prove your thesis that people want a common well understood world such as SWG or Star Trek?

I think EVE beating out SWG suggests the movie tie in isn't all that.

Quote:

Original post by Meh_Gerbil Quote: Original post by vchile Just out of interest, what do you consider to be the thing(s) that these games aren't getting, specifically? I saw you mentioned player run stuff, and interacting with stuff, but what would be some examples of that? It is my understanding that UO started out as a simulation. It is that fact alone that puts it in an entirely different class than every game I've seen since (at least in the MMORPG market). The simulation went so far as attempting to make it so the amount of gold or wool in the world was fixed (limited) - that only so many sheep would spawn in a given time and so forth. I may not have the exact details correct there, my memory is sketchy. Some of these things couldn't be implemented at the time. The point is that an attempt was made to build a simulation that a person could play as opposed to building a game. Stop and think about that for a moment. Any ways, the drive toward a simulation resulted in a push towards detail and depth. Since that time, the games I've seen that have tried to emulate UO have marketed themselves as UO '98 in regards to PVP combat - Darkfall is supposed to be "it" because I can kill and dry loot noobies. Talk about missing the point.

Ok I see where you are coming from now.

I don't think Darkfall missed the point. I think it just tried to do something different. With Darkfall, the focus was on PVP combat with a classless system and an emphasis on player skill, rather than loot being the all important thing. I think they are using elements of UO but I don't think it was supposed to be any kind of remake.

What you are talking about is just a virtual world with quite a lot of freedom. A real world economy, with inflation, supply and demand, and then traders, farmers, and crafters etc. Technically, other games have achieved this since UO, but the focus is less on this and more on the other things that these companies deem equally important. Things like a large attractive world, finely hand crafted quests with good dialogue, plenty of loot, plenty of challenging combat with lots of varied mobs, lots of raid content, and a balanced yet distinctive bunch of classes. There have been a lot of games to do most of what you described, just not all, and not to the same extent. It's just a different direction. Games like WoW have gone far beyond what any other game has ever made. In WoW, you can be a crafter and you can be an adventurer going to dungeons etc, and they have the raid aspect which I suspect is FAR more intricate than anything UO has. They also have full PVP on appropriate servers, where you can fight anyone, anywhere in the world. Then there are the arena based PVP matches, and there are the battlegrounds which are pretty amazing.

Just because it has this stuff but doesn't has as much focus on real virtual world things you like, doesn't make it any less of a game. It just makes it a different kind of game. What you are saying is that you can't understand why games take that direction and not the other direction. The fact is, games take whatever direction they think will make the most money. If a company focuses on the virtual world elements, it has to be at the expense of something else. Something else being raid content, quests, whatever. So if companies thought it would be profitable to make a full on virtual world, rather than trying to just do a bit of everything, they would. The reason that they don't must be because their market research suggests that there aren't as many people like you out there, as there are people who just want to casually log in to a game like WoW.

You may think that sucks, but that's life. That's what gamers have been saying for years. This isn't exclusive to gaming either. It's the same in many walks of life. It would be a pretty strange company that doesn't have making the most money possible, as it's number one objective. And companies that want to make the most money, aim for the mainstream audience.

Quote:

Original post by Meh_Gerbil Quote: Original post by vchile Using subscription numbers to prove a point like that isn't a good idea. The subscription numbers of these games is determined by so many other important factors. Experienced designer or not, you should know that. How would you propose that we prove your thesis that people want a common well understood world such as SWG or Star Trek? I think EVE beating out SWG suggests the movie tie in isn't all that.

That was someone else's thesis, but their point is that there is some value in games that use a well known intellectual property. Nobody said it "beats" anything or that one is more popular than the other. You said games like that are garbage and miss the point of MMORPG's, and someone gave you a reason why why they do have some value.

No question UO was and still is ahead of its time in terms of gameplay of any MMO. To bad EA dropped the ball and let the whole franchise go to waste. Other MMOs tried to capture the free form dynamics like UO, but they aren't really RPGs ( Second Life, Sims Online etc.. ).

A faithfull recreation of UO with modern graphics but playable on the widest range of machines, would give WOW some competition. It saids something about the longevity of a game which was the first modern MMO is still being played 10 years later.

-ddn

Quote:

Original post by ddn3 No question UO was and still is ahead of its time in terms of gameplay of any MMO. To bad EA dropped the ball and let the whole franchise go to waste. Other MMOs tried to capture the free form dynamics like UO, but they aren't really RPGs ( Second Life, Sims Online etc.. ). A faithfull recreation of UO with modern graphics but playable on the widest range of machines, would give WOW some competition. It saids something about the longevity of a game which was the first modern MMO is still being played 10 years later. -ddn

This is what I don't understand.
Obviously, there is something in game design/marketing that completely escapes me on every level.

Out of the lessons to be learned by UO the only thing developers seem to take away is the uber-dewd-gankfest formula which has been proven to be a market failure several times already.

What they seem to miss is the idea that UO really was just a toolset and it was the players that made it a game.

Fortunately, this costs me nothing.
I'll wait on the sidelines while empty world I, II, & III fail.
Maybe a couple of dozen more failures will cause developers to reconsider.