How to make something not original original
by J Sears · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 11/02/2006 (3:51 pm) · 15 replies
I was wondering on something like mmorpgs, especially the medievel ones, how you would go about making it something unique, I was thinking first on things like the class/race system. If you try to do off the wall races, people might not be able to get into it, but everything has been done. Human race done more then anything else (for obvious reasons) elves halflings dwarfs gnomes, done to death. Practically every other creature has been tried I've seen rat people, frog people, even playable dragons by horizons (good game concept flopped hard though). So how do you make yours stand out? only human players? been done. I haven't seen one that had no playable human characters and only had humans as evil mobs but that might not go over well.
Then there's classes, oddly enough one of the first mmorpgs to make it really big was Ultima Online, and it chose classless system, then all the ones to follow went back to classes, (with a few exceptions like AC, and I think AO and a couple others, both those titles were great too). So either you go classless with a skill tree which is no longer unique or you try classes and everything has been done to death with those, I'm a fighter I'm a rogue I'm a mage. how can you stand out at this point. Or is the only way to stand out with the gameplay itself and accept that the character creation isn't unique?
Then there's classes, oddly enough one of the first mmorpgs to make it really big was Ultima Online, and it chose classless system, then all the ones to follow went back to classes, (with a few exceptions like AC, and I think AO and a couple others, both those titles were great too). So either you go classless with a skill tree which is no longer unique or you try classes and everything has been done to death with those, I'm a fighter I'm a rogue I'm a mage. how can you stand out at this point. Or is the only way to stand out with the gameplay itself and accept that the character creation isn't unique?
#2
So set it up so there are the basic repeatable quests but a couple times a week there are big events like town attacks and the like that form a story line? one of my favorite times on UO was when they launched an undead army onto the major city hang out spot. But I guess that could get old too. I think some kind of player vs player is required to keep it fresh but not in the let's go sit outside newbie cities and gank type of style I think a whole LoTR (the actual stories) war with players on both sides and cities can be lost to one side or the other so that could create a constant quest system also.
I think keeping the game constantly "new" could truly be impossible
11/02/2006 (6:30 pm)
That's a tough spot too, everyone wants to create the mmorpg that the players truly shape the world and quests aren't repeats and there isn't a grind. But how much time would it take in preperation before release to have millions of quests that don't repeat and build off the changes that come from the earlier quests ? and then the whole time creat new quests constantly every day. Would be intense work. So there are those gmes that have the users create quests when they're high enough levels in the political system but that doesn't guarantee any fun. So set it up so there are the basic repeatable quests but a couple times a week there are big events like town attacks and the like that form a story line? one of my favorite times on UO was when they launched an undead army onto the major city hang out spot. But I guess that could get old too. I think some kind of player vs player is required to keep it fresh but not in the let's go sit outside newbie cities and gank type of style I think a whole LoTR (the actual stories) war with players on both sides and cities can be lost to one side or the other so that could create a constant quest system also.
I think keeping the game constantly "new" could truly be impossible
#3
But let me just throw this out there. 3D games aren't truly 3D yet; think using those cheap paper/plastic 3D glasses. Imaging seeing object pop out of the monitor, balls flying at you and making you move out of the way. Now obviously hardware is the issue here. The way they work is they polarize light, you are shown two images at once via two polarized projectors. One lens on the 3D glasses is polarized vertically and the other horizontally, each lens blocks one of the images from entering your eye and the images are offset at the appropriate angle to cause our eyes to think that it is a 3D object. The power of parallax!
Most LCD monitors are polarized, so if you put on a pair of those glasses you would notice that you only see the monitor through one eye, then tilt your head sideways and you will see it with the other.
There are other methods of doing this; I think you can use color filters instead of polarization to filter out a color from one eye. This would result in the viewer seeing a black and white image but at least it would be in 3D.
If you don't mind the black and white part, then this can be done easily using a shader. Basically, draw two images on the screen superimposed on top of each other, one in green and one in blue. Offset each to achieve the parallax needed and filter out the green image using a green filter on one eye, and filter out the blue image using a blue filter on the other eye. :)
Maybe a little of topic but hope that helps!
11/02/2006 (8:16 pm)
You can make a 4D game :) just kidding, but aren't these questions that everyone in here is asking themselves?But let me just throw this out there. 3D games aren't truly 3D yet; think using those cheap paper/plastic 3D glasses. Imaging seeing object pop out of the monitor, balls flying at you and making you move out of the way. Now obviously hardware is the issue here. The way they work is they polarize light, you are shown two images at once via two polarized projectors. One lens on the 3D glasses is polarized vertically and the other horizontally, each lens blocks one of the images from entering your eye and the images are offset at the appropriate angle to cause our eyes to think that it is a 3D object. The power of parallax!
Most LCD monitors are polarized, so if you put on a pair of those glasses you would notice that you only see the monitor through one eye, then tilt your head sideways and you will see it with the other.
There are other methods of doing this; I think you can use color filters instead of polarization to filter out a color from one eye. This would result in the viewer seeing a black and white image but at least it would be in 3D.
If you don't mind the black and white part, then this can be done easily using a shader. Basically, draw two images on the screen superimposed on top of each other, one in green and one in blue. Offset each to achieve the parallax needed and filter out the green image using a green filter on one eye, and filter out the blue image using a blue filter on the other eye. :)
Maybe a little of topic but hope that helps!
#4
11/05/2006 (2:28 pm)
A black and white mmo... would definitely help save on graphics and bandwith... Maybe a noir-type adventure? What would medieval-noir look like?
#5
11/06/2006 (6:39 am)
It would look like orcs in gangster outfits, which could be amusing enough. would black and white really save much bandwidth you would still have the same polycounts, and the renderer would still have to go through all it's stuff to decide what shade of grey different things would be. It would be interesting though
#6
Me personally (and make no mistake, I've painted on the aforementioned canvas many times before), I like to take an idea that I love and reshape it into a game that I like. Taking the nightmare creatures from the sweat-drenched (I hope that was sweat) nights of my childhood, I started work on an MMO (because everyone has one...I want to be cool too) that features the godless landscape of a ten-year olds midnight imagination instead of another rehash of medevial Europe.
Because clowns with mouths where their eyes should be are cooler than elves...even dark elves.
It's possible to take an old idea and re-create it into something uniquely your own. It's too bad the word "re-imagining" brings up images of things that suck so very hard because that word would fit quite nicely here.
11/09/2006 (8:06 pm)
Well, you could do the same thing "differently" which is certainly not a bad thing. There are lots of games out there that are "reminiscent of the classics" or which "hearken back to the days of coin-op gaming" or some other such game reviewer pablum that says "you've played this before, but it'll take you a while to remember that."Me personally (and make no mistake, I've painted on the aforementioned canvas many times before), I like to take an idea that I love and reshape it into a game that I like. Taking the nightmare creatures from the sweat-drenched (I hope that was sweat) nights of my childhood, I started work on an MMO (because everyone has one...I want to be cool too) that features the godless landscape of a ten-year olds midnight imagination instead of another rehash of medevial Europe.
Because clowns with mouths where their eyes should be are cooler than elves...even dark elves.
It's possible to take an old idea and re-create it into something uniquely your own. It's too bad the word "re-imagining" brings up images of things that suck so very hard because that word would fit quite nicely here.
#7
11/12/2006 (9:58 am)
That's actually a very interesting idea I hope you make out well with that one
#8
However, as I'm new to the engine, my first project will just be a board game. I figure I should start with player one vs. player two before I start building a Korean server.
11/13/2006 (2:33 pm)
Here's hopin'.However, as I'm new to the engine, my first project will just be a board game. I figure I should start with player one vs. player two before I start building a Korean server.
#9
...and then some! ;)
Not at all true, there is much that anyone could fail to fathom. Realization, awareness, that's the key to creating a newer experience, but if all possible, let it be better experiences.
I intend to create a newer, better experience.
- Ronixus
P.S.: Are you in P-burgh, J.?
04/02/2007 (2:17 am)
Nice thread.Quote:
...everyone wants to create the mmorpg that the players truly shape the world and quests aren't repeats and there isn't a grind.
...and then some! ;)
Quote:
If you try to do off the wall races, people might not be able to get into it, but everything has been done.
Not at all true, there is much that anyone could fail to fathom. Realization, awareness, that's the key to creating a newer experience, but if all possible, let it be better experiences.
I intend to create a newer, better experience.
- Ronixus
P.S.: Are you in P-burgh, J.?
#10
04/02/2007 (2:23 am)
I think if you're thinking about classes and races and quest systems as ways of making it original, then you're not thinking outside the box enough. Originality doesn't mean taking an approach that's already been beaten to death and tweaking it: originality means inventing something new.
#11
@chris the only states I have lived have been MA, NY, SC, GA but my brother lives in PA
04/02/2007 (3:22 am)
Well I agree Sam there's a lot more to a game then just the classes races and quests, but as I said the first step, since at least the way my mind works I would think of what would the choices for a character in the world be then what choices would they have etc etc so I was just thinking of the first step in the chain.@chris the only states I have lived have been MA, NY, SC, GA but my brother lives in PA
#12
People will play for a bit, if it looks nice, feels immersing.
People will stay for a bit, if there are enough original challenges and goals.
People will stay for awhile and become loyal to an mmo if the social value is there (too many are just hack and slash).
There is also a deep link between the producers belief in the content and how players perceive the game as well. Where a developer that doesn't enjoy their art and feels it to be a struggle to "get it right", so they just "get it done" hurts the game before it's even released. Many indie games have alot of heart, but lack the technicals, where commercial games have a lot of technicals but lack heart. This isn't true of all games for sure, but it's a pretty steadfast rule for development in general. In the case of guild wars and pumping out content every 6 months actually hurt the game more then it helped and those guys have a lot of heart and decent technicals.
Bottom line is, I stand pretty firm in my development projects and don't or won't ever make something to just make it, i put a lot of heart in and much effort into concepts as well. So i have no choice but to trust the other developers to feel as intense about the game as i do, this way you have a really deep and full-filling game on release. A perfect current example of a game that really could have been great but is so incomplete is Vanguard, maybe if the people playing now stick it out long enough.
It's very hard to get a good team and thats my struggle as someone fully committed to development of Neophagia.
04/03/2007 (11:26 am)
In the case of mmo's...People will play for a bit, if it looks nice, feels immersing.
People will stay for a bit, if there are enough original challenges and goals.
People will stay for awhile and become loyal to an mmo if the social value is there (too many are just hack and slash).
There is also a deep link between the producers belief in the content and how players perceive the game as well. Where a developer that doesn't enjoy their art and feels it to be a struggle to "get it right", so they just "get it done" hurts the game before it's even released. Many indie games have alot of heart, but lack the technicals, where commercial games have a lot of technicals but lack heart. This isn't true of all games for sure, but it's a pretty steadfast rule for development in general. In the case of guild wars and pumping out content every 6 months actually hurt the game more then it helped and those guys have a lot of heart and decent technicals.
Bottom line is, I stand pretty firm in my development projects and don't or won't ever make something to just make it, i put a lot of heart in and much effort into concepts as well. So i have no choice but to trust the other developers to feel as intense about the game as i do, this way you have a really deep and full-filling game on release. A perfect current example of a game that really could have been great but is so incomplete is Vanguard, maybe if the people playing now stick it out long enough.
It's very hard to get a good team and thats my struggle as someone fully committed to development of Neophagia.
#13
Steve
04/03/2007 (11:40 am)
Well, I may be a minority, but I've always wanted to see more episodic content. Stuff like Half-Life 2 where you've purchased the initial game and then release a new chapter every so often. I personally don't mind the gnomes, dwarves and humans in the game if it's a good story. I think one of the main reasons so many companies are doing mmo's is nothing more than the fact they can milk $14.99 a month out of you. I would have no problem playing a game like World of Warcraft but without Massive Multiplayer part. I'd like it to be a game like Oblivion but the multiplayer ability of a game like NWN2. I would then enjoy a new chapter of the story or quest line released periodically. Steve
#14
I think being "original" for its own sake can be a big mistake. First and foremost, design for yourself.
Naturally, if you succeed in making something that hadn't previously existed, it's going to be "original"... but the driving force should always be about the game you wanted to play, and not what people are going to compare it to!*
*I had to laugh out loud when one reviewer recently dubbed our new game "thematically challenged" because it doesn't really fit into any existing genre.
And reviewers are just people. One reviewer will praise you for being original, and another will condemn you for being derivative. Some can't resist can't resist trying to pigeonhole it... i.e., forcing it into their preconceived notions of some existing game they like (or don't like). Still others will never even bother to play the game, writing their reviews based on press releases or snapshots alone... naively thinking that describing the idea is the same as describing the game.
If you're going to devote months or years of your blood, sweat and tears into something...
make sure it's something you're passionate about!
Note to J Sears...
Hope you don't mind, I kinda followed this train of thought from your recent post in the "Game ideas are cheap" thread... :)
04/03/2007 (12:16 pm)
Lot of very valuable comments & responses here; but Jason makes an excellent point; remember to keep it all in perspective. I think being "original" for its own sake can be a big mistake. First and foremost, design for yourself.
Naturally, if you succeed in making something that hadn't previously existed, it's going to be "original"... but the driving force should always be about the game you wanted to play, and not what people are going to compare it to!*
*I had to laugh out loud when one reviewer recently dubbed our new game "thematically challenged" because it doesn't really fit into any existing genre.
And reviewers are just people. One reviewer will praise you for being original, and another will condemn you for being derivative. Some can't resist can't resist trying to pigeonhole it... i.e., forcing it into their preconceived notions of some existing game they like (or don't like). Still others will never even bother to play the game, writing their reviews based on press releases or snapshots alone... naively thinking that describing the idea is the same as describing the game.
If you're going to devote months or years of your blood, sweat and tears into something...
make sure it's something you're passionate about!
Note to J Sears...
Hope you don't mind, I kinda followed this train of thought from your recent post in the "Game ideas are cheap" thread... :)
#15
@Jason I completly agree on the social factor, the mmo's I've always stuck with the longest have been the ones in which I made a great group of friends that liked to quest/kill together. But as I look at it, it's also been the ones in which you didn't max out quickly either. AC1 had a max level of like 125 or something insane and I was in between high school and heading off to boot camp so I played it for many hours every day for a couple months and didn't even hit level 50. WoW I played casually for a month and hit the max level that's boring to me.
I bought vanguard and I enjoyed the game despite it's largely incomplete release, I got real busy for a while about 2 weeks after it came out and had to stop playing it and have been hoping to get back into it soon but I agree that game can be incredible. But I hate the excuse people use it's such a large project it has to be released broken so they can figure it all out. WoW despite how horribly simple it is for a mmorpg was pretty solid on release. Which I think helped it's numbers big time.
@M-theory I can certainly enjoy episodic content but I don't like the prices most larger companies put on it, EA for example charged something like $30 for the SF add on to BF2, which was insane since all it added was more multiplayer maps and weapons, that should be like a $10 sell.
The unfortunate thing about most companies now is they don't want to do rpgs even with multiplayer support. I don't know if it's just the selling numbers or if it's the fact to make a very well done rpg game you have to create a pretty massive story with quests rules etc and for probably less then double the amount of creativity you could make an mmorpg world which brings in that monthly check. I enjoyed Dungeon Siege 2 because I could hop on there with my buddy and fight monsters and have some fun (certainly more of a hack and slash game then a true rpg though)
04/04/2007 (12:41 am)
@brian thought it sounded a little familiar ;-)@Jason I completly agree on the social factor, the mmo's I've always stuck with the longest have been the ones in which I made a great group of friends that liked to quest/kill together. But as I look at it, it's also been the ones in which you didn't max out quickly either. AC1 had a max level of like 125 or something insane and I was in between high school and heading off to boot camp so I played it for many hours every day for a couple months and didn't even hit level 50. WoW I played casually for a month and hit the max level that's boring to me.
I bought vanguard and I enjoyed the game despite it's largely incomplete release, I got real busy for a while about 2 weeks after it came out and had to stop playing it and have been hoping to get back into it soon but I agree that game can be incredible. But I hate the excuse people use it's such a large project it has to be released broken so they can figure it all out. WoW despite how horribly simple it is for a mmorpg was pretty solid on release. Which I think helped it's numbers big time.
@M-theory I can certainly enjoy episodic content but I don't like the prices most larger companies put on it, EA for example charged something like $30 for the SF add on to BF2, which was insane since all it added was more multiplayer maps and weapons, that should be like a $10 sell.
The unfortunate thing about most companies now is they don't want to do rpgs even with multiplayer support. I don't know if it's just the selling numbers or if it's the fact to make a very well done rpg game you have to create a pretty massive story with quests rules etc and for probably less then double the amount of creativity you could make an mmorpg world which brings in that monthly check. I enjoyed Dungeon Siege 2 because I could hop on there with my buddy and fight monsters and have some fun (certainly more of a hack and slash game then a true rpg though)
Brian Wolf