Did WoW push the bounds of the MMOG genre?
by Stephen Zepp · in General Discussion · 01/10/2005 (8:16 am) · 86 replies
(Note: In some ways this thread was written to try to channel discussion out of some threads where it didn't really apply, as well as open up a discussion on how Indy MMOG's may--or may not--push the genre bounds of the current definition of a Massively Multiplayer Game).
It is my opinion that even with the massive (pun intended) success of WoW as a PC game (fastest selling PC game ever according to some market surveys, as well as arguably the best MMOG launch known to date), it doesn't actually expand the boundaries of the genre nearly as much as some of the less successful titles such as Tale in the Desert, Puzzle Pirates as David Blake so kindly pointed out, or even PlanetSide (arguably the first MMFPS).
When I say "push the bounds", my meaning here is introducing fundamentally new gameplay styles, game mechanics, or design theory. I do not mean "better implementation of", or "more enhanced implementation of", or any other "it did XXX better than game YYY did"--for the purposes of this discussion, I'll concede (happily! I think they did myself) that WoW implemented standard genre expectations better than pretty much any game released to date.
For example, WoW certainly did quests better than EQ...I don't think anyone would seriously argue that. However, they are still "instanced" quests, and no matter how many times you, or anyone else, performs a quest, that exact same quest is available for someone else to walk up and perform. In my opinion, they simply provided a better implementation of a genre standard, but did not push the boundaries of quests within a MMOG in any way (obviously open to debate, which is the purpose of this thread!).
Another example is their implementation of "PvP". Surely, their "temporary PvP" flags that appear for a player in various circumstances is semi-unique, but does it fundamentally change the nature of standard genre PvP in a MMOG?
So, my question to the community is two-fold:
1) Did WoW actually push any genre boundaries, or is it simply "better than XXX, YYY, and ZZZ, and therefore the best around".
2) How exactly (or loosely) can Indy MMOG developers push the boundaries of what we know as "MMOG"...and why is this A Good Thing(tm)?
It is my opinion that even with the massive (pun intended) success of WoW as a PC game (fastest selling PC game ever according to some market surveys, as well as arguably the best MMOG launch known to date), it doesn't actually expand the boundaries of the genre nearly as much as some of the less successful titles such as Tale in the Desert, Puzzle Pirates as David Blake so kindly pointed out, or even PlanetSide (arguably the first MMFPS).
When I say "push the bounds", my meaning here is introducing fundamentally new gameplay styles, game mechanics, or design theory. I do not mean "better implementation of", or "more enhanced implementation of", or any other "it did XXX better than game YYY did"--for the purposes of this discussion, I'll concede (happily! I think they did myself) that WoW implemented standard genre expectations better than pretty much any game released to date.
For example, WoW certainly did quests better than EQ...I don't think anyone would seriously argue that. However, they are still "instanced" quests, and no matter how many times you, or anyone else, performs a quest, that exact same quest is available for someone else to walk up and perform. In my opinion, they simply provided a better implementation of a genre standard, but did not push the boundaries of quests within a MMOG in any way (obviously open to debate, which is the purpose of this thread!).
Another example is their implementation of "PvP". Surely, their "temporary PvP" flags that appear for a player in various circumstances is semi-unique, but does it fundamentally change the nature of standard genre PvP in a MMOG?
So, my question to the community is two-fold:
1) Did WoW actually push any genre boundaries, or is it simply "better than XXX, YYY, and ZZZ, and therefore the best around".
2) How exactly (or loosely) can Indy MMOG developers push the boundaries of what we know as "MMOG"...and why is this A Good Thing(tm)?
#2
First, to provide for common communication needs, I'm going to define a new-ish term:
interaction persistence: individual interactions with a world cause a observable and permanent (subject to reversal/modification of course) change to the world environment.
examples:
--pretty much what Matthew covered, where you cast a spell, or kill a mob, or perform a quest to completion, and that interaction with the world has the possibility to make an observable and permanent change to the world.
Current MMOG genre boundary conditions (as I see it):
1) Most game interactions that are semi-persistent relate to your faction, or reputation with specific NPC "population groups". How these population groups react to you in the future is in fact under the definition above, but only in regards to their instantaneous reactive behaviour to you--a member of a population group detects you, they attack or think you are friendly based on previous reputation.
--unfortunately, the acts that affect your reputation don't actually have a persistent impact except for how they relate to the individual player. Example: you kill boss mob "King Petulant" of population group "HumansForHumanity". While "HumansForHumanity" now don't like you any longer (persistent interaction persistence related to you personally), King Petulant will respawn in a certain time period, and you (or anyone else) could go ahead and kill him off again and again. Even if you made it your own personal crusade to kill off each and every single member of this population group, come back a week later and WHAM! their they are again--your interactions were not truly persistent because even though you killed 'em all, they are still there.
2) Some MMOG games do allow for modifying the game world by "building things". This is a step forward, because by definition creating a building/village/city that exists for others to experience is "interaction persistence". I'm going to kind of exclude the Sims series of games from this discussion mostly because they really are a different game genre than I'm considering right now, but that line does of course apply in some ways to the discussion.
Shadowbane was the first real MMRPG to allow for city construction as far as I am aware, but even so, while the actual act of the city construction itself meets the definition above, not only building that city, but the presence of the city itself really isn't persistent to the world environment as a whole.
--to build cities in SB, you farm gold from npcs/mobs that respawn over and over and over again. In SB, you don't even have reputations so this is a step backwards in interactive persistence.
--once the city is placed, the only world entities that interact with that city are other players--npcs/mobs have no knowledge or interaction with the cities.
Taking the two points above together, in a MMOG that pushed the boundaries further, not only would the act of collecting the resources needed to build the city (gold, whatever) be persistent:
--killing off all the mobs in the area would decrease the number of mobs in that area in the future (resource availability decreases), as well as the npc population as a whole would modify it's behaviour to you.
but placing the city itself would be "noticed" by the npc populations, and therefore become something they can interact with as well. If player guild "KillAnythingThatMoves" destroyed an entire elven kingdom's set of npc cities, don't you think that once that guild makes their own city, any surviving members of the elven kingdom would do everything they can to take vengeance?
01/10/2005 (9:17 am)
You've hit upon what I think personally is the biggest "boundary" that needs to be pushed--true persistence (and I'm not just talking about saving your character and having it come back exactly the way it was).First, to provide for common communication needs, I'm going to define a new-ish term:
interaction persistence: individual interactions with a world cause a observable and permanent (subject to reversal/modification of course) change to the world environment.
examples:
--pretty much what Matthew covered, where you cast a spell, or kill a mob, or perform a quest to completion, and that interaction with the world has the possibility to make an observable and permanent change to the world.
Current MMOG genre boundary conditions (as I see it):
1) Most game interactions that are semi-persistent relate to your faction, or reputation with specific NPC "population groups". How these population groups react to you in the future is in fact under the definition above, but only in regards to their instantaneous reactive behaviour to you--a member of a population group detects you, they attack or think you are friendly based on previous reputation.
--unfortunately, the acts that affect your reputation don't actually have a persistent impact except for how they relate to the individual player. Example: you kill boss mob "King Petulant" of population group "HumansForHumanity". While "HumansForHumanity" now don't like you any longer (persistent interaction persistence related to you personally), King Petulant will respawn in a certain time period, and you (or anyone else) could go ahead and kill him off again and again. Even if you made it your own personal crusade to kill off each and every single member of this population group, come back a week later and WHAM! their they are again--your interactions were not truly persistent because even though you killed 'em all, they are still there.
2) Some MMOG games do allow for modifying the game world by "building things". This is a step forward, because by definition creating a building/village/city that exists for others to experience is "interaction persistence". I'm going to kind of exclude the Sims series of games from this discussion mostly because they really are a different game genre than I'm considering right now, but that line does of course apply in some ways to the discussion.
Shadowbane was the first real MMRPG to allow for city construction as far as I am aware, but even so, while the actual act of the city construction itself meets the definition above, not only building that city, but the presence of the city itself really isn't persistent to the world environment as a whole.
--to build cities in SB, you farm gold from npcs/mobs that respawn over and over and over again. In SB, you don't even have reputations so this is a step backwards in interactive persistence.
--once the city is placed, the only world entities that interact with that city are other players--npcs/mobs have no knowledge or interaction with the cities.
Taking the two points above together, in a MMOG that pushed the boundaries further, not only would the act of collecting the resources needed to build the city (gold, whatever) be persistent:
--killing off all the mobs in the area would decrease the number of mobs in that area in the future (resource availability decreases), as well as the npc population as a whole would modify it's behaviour to you.
but placing the city itself would be "noticed" by the npc populations, and therefore become something they can interact with as well. If player guild "KillAnythingThatMoves" destroyed an entire elven kingdom's set of npc cities, don't you think that once that guild makes their own city, any surviving members of the elven kingdom would do everything they can to take vengeance?
#3
The quest system is, simple, fun, easy. There is no death penalty. It never feels like the game is punishing you. I really think that this is a shining example that even 6-7(?) years into the genre, there is still new stuff out there, and I think it's a prime example of a very, very well executed MMORPG.
On the downside, GarageGames and BraveTree are developing an increasing population of WoW addicts.
01/10/2005 (10:05 am)
WoW is a typical Blizzard game (not that this is a bad thing). Depeding on how you define "innovation" there is little to none. This is an MMORPG. There are many others very close to it, but this one is the best right now, why? Blizzard takes things down to their essance and then polishes them. The art alone on this game makes it stand out from pretty much everything else on the market right now. All you have to do is look at it and you instantly see something different. Every zone has it's own feel to it, completely. The textures are really the best I've ever seen in a game. The color saturation and contrast in the world is just stunning. It's the difference between taking a slide and projecting it onto concrete bricks, and making a Chrome print of it. The quest system is, simple, fun, easy. There is no death penalty. It never feels like the game is punishing you. I really think that this is a shining example that even 6-7(?) years into the genre, there is still new stuff out there, and I think it's a prime example of a very, very well executed MMORPG.
On the downside, GarageGames and BraveTree are developing an increasing population of WoW addicts.
#4
I think however that we actually disagree that this is a Good Thing(tm). Out of all the possible game development companies, Blizzard had the opportunity, experience, and knowledge to push the boundaries far beyond the "more of the same/better, but same" genre limits, and in fact caused MMOG's as a whole to probably step backwards in total innovation--mostly for market/financing reasons. Instead of demonstrating how to take the RTS playstyle they just about single handedly led the industry in early on (back in Warcraft I days, where just about all else you had was Dune--a great game in and of itself) and integrate it into a MMOG (specifically, their MMRPG), they paid lipservice to Warcraft 1/2/3 by having "The Horde" and "The Alliance", and some of the units, as well as bringing some geography in. They could have demonstrated to the market, the financiers, and everyone else just how much room MMOG's have to grow.
Not sure if you mean the employees, or the community! I know that while I post topics from time to time regarding WoW, I personally would never play the game myself--the game design theories are still resultant from an exhausted 1970's Dungeons and Dragons mindset. Been there, done that--it's time for new stuff.
It does however sound like you mean the employees--and you are correct, that would be a downside! (Unless, of course, it means that you may put terrain tiling and other "MMOG Friendly" functionality into TSE!).
01/10/2005 (10:22 am)
@Pat--I happen to completely agree with you regarding the direction Blizzard took in the genre--not to push the boundaries, but instead to polish and refine "proven" mechanics and target the unsatisfied market.I think however that we actually disagree that this is a Good Thing(tm). Out of all the possible game development companies, Blizzard had the opportunity, experience, and knowledge to push the boundaries far beyond the "more of the same/better, but same" genre limits, and in fact caused MMOG's as a whole to probably step backwards in total innovation--mostly for market/financing reasons. Instead of demonstrating how to take the RTS playstyle they just about single handedly led the industry in early on (back in Warcraft I days, where just about all else you had was Dune--a great game in and of itself) and integrate it into a MMOG (specifically, their MMRPG), they paid lipservice to Warcraft 1/2/3 by having "The Horde" and "The Alliance", and some of the units, as well as bringing some geography in. They could have demonstrated to the market, the financiers, and everyone else just how much room MMOG's have to grow.
Quote:On the downside, GarageGames and BraveTree are developing an increasing population of WoW addicts.
Not sure if you mean the employees, or the community! I know that while I post topics from time to time regarding WoW, I personally would never play the game myself--the game design theories are still resultant from an exhausted 1970's Dungeons and Dragons mindset. Been there, done that--it's time for new stuff.
It does however sound like you mean the employees--and you are correct, that would be a downside! (Unless, of course, it means that you may put terrain tiling and other "MMOG Friendly" functionality into TSE!).
#5
Anyhow maybe WoW didn't push any boundries, but it certainly perfected the standards of Mmorpg's, also WoW's graphics is amazing, like someone said, everything has this handcrafted feel, everything is unique. And also it is the most important thing: FUN
And that is after all, what blizzard does isn't it? Making FUN games...
:)
01/10/2005 (10:38 am)
WoW is so good because it is fun for new-comers and pro's alike, personaly, i LOVE WoW, a shame it doesn't get to retail here in europe until february, but hey! I got into the beta :D.Anyhow maybe WoW didn't push any boundries, but it certainly perfected the standards of Mmorpg's, also WoW's graphics is amazing, like someone said, everything has this handcrafted feel, everything is unique. And also it is the most important thing: FUN
And that is after all, what blizzard does isn't it? Making FUN games...
:)
#6
The discussion I'm hoping to have happen here is more focused on pushing those boundaries, not polishing the existing standards--and the reason for that focus is because to polish any standards above and beyond what WoW has already done will require an even better team and even more financial resources than Blizzard had--and I quite frankly don't know if that is really possible at all, much less for Indy's!
01/10/2005 (10:51 am)
As I mentioned in the first post, I completely concede all points related to "WoW is fun!", "WoW did this right!", etc.The discussion I'm hoping to have happen here is more focused on pushing those boundaries, not polishing the existing standards--and the reason for that focus is because to polish any standards above and beyond what WoW has already done will require an even better team and even more financial resources than Blizzard had--and I quite frankly don't know if that is really possible at all, much less for Indy's!
#7
I think thats the biggest thing lacking in MMO's you play it, even if it is a fun game, but you come to a point and you think
"wouldn't this be cool if it actually made a difference in the world" ...
or "what if I could rule this city"... etc etc...
Was thinking the same thing as Stephen, about the current boundaries of faction and interaction. It simply decided how they reacted to you...
It would be great to have NPC actions and not just reactions
You go and kill the king... then his son takes the throne and sends his army to attack your home city. This seems more like a realistic reaction, rather than just respawning.
Back then this was fine, but nowadays we need to progress the genre, innovate and create, rather than just fine tune. Now I love how games like WoW (like all of blizzard's games) fine tune aspects and gameplay, though I still think they missed a chance to take it a step further.
SWG (Star Wars Galaxies) was similar to SB... you could have player cities, though other than a specific group of players meeting there, it had little appeal... no wordly interaction..
This plays to a game idea that me and my team has been thinking on (if we were to do a MMO)... a MMO in which the world starts out with nothing man made... players must then build everything up from that... trade between cities would be established for survival, motivated by players though AI could run npc initiated actions as well...
this way each server would a be a whole new world... the players interaction would give it the uniqueness while the AI's would help drive such.... of course if you let AI run this it would come out almost identical each time... but thats the beauty of MMOs...
The possibilities we have now can either enable the Players to 'help' shape the world, or comletely shape the world
01/10/2005 (10:55 am)
I agree with the need for "interaction persistence."I think thats the biggest thing lacking in MMO's you play it, even if it is a fun game, but you come to a point and you think
"wouldn't this be cool if it actually made a difference in the world" ...
or "what if I could rule this city"... etc etc...
Was thinking the same thing as Stephen, about the current boundaries of faction and interaction. It simply decided how they reacted to you...
It would be great to have NPC actions and not just reactions
You go and kill the king... then his son takes the throne and sends his army to attack your home city. This seems more like a realistic reaction, rather than just respawning.
Back then this was fine, but nowadays we need to progress the genre, innovate and create, rather than just fine tune. Now I love how games like WoW (like all of blizzard's games) fine tune aspects and gameplay, though I still think they missed a chance to take it a step further.
SWG (Star Wars Galaxies) was similar to SB... you could have player cities, though other than a specific group of players meeting there, it had little appeal... no wordly interaction..
This plays to a game idea that me and my team has been thinking on (if we were to do a MMO)... a MMO in which the world starts out with nothing man made... players must then build everything up from that... trade between cities would be established for survival, motivated by players though AI could run npc initiated actions as well...
this way each server would a be a whole new world... the players interaction would give it the uniqueness while the AI's would help drive such.... of course if you let AI run this it would come out almost identical each time... but thats the beauty of MMOs...
The possibilities we have now can either enable the Players to 'help' shape the world, or comletely shape the world
#8
01/10/2005 (10:58 am)
EVE online is a very good example of a mmorpg controlled by players...
#9
Let's take Stephen's idea of "your own personal crusade to kill off each and every single member of this population group." The ability to do this definitely pushes the limit of immersion in persistent worlds. Unfortunately, this feature has more bias toward destruction than construction. Once a species is gone, it can't return. Introducing new species, on the other hand, tends to be the slow and time-consuming work of the development team. Unless you're okay with every species in your game being eliminated by dedicated hunters, this is a serious problem.
Possible solution: allow players to create new species. This is very complicated, but it also adds a new dimension to the game. Monsters created would have a set of attributes such as strength, intelligence, speed... each of which would have a cost. More expensive monsters are more difficult for players to create. They also breed more slowly in the wild. Players who created these monsters would provide a 3D model, texture, and a behavior script. The number of lines of script that will be executed per tick is a function of the intelligence attribute (think AI wars). Some players would see this as the core gameplay (takes crafting to a whole new level), while others would try to build an empire with their monsters as subjects.
01/10/2005 (11:28 am)
The ability to leave a mark on the world would be very nice, but there are some rather nasty design related obstacles. Let's take Stephen's idea of "your own personal crusade to kill off each and every single member of this population group." The ability to do this definitely pushes the limit of immersion in persistent worlds. Unfortunately, this feature has more bias toward destruction than construction. Once a species is gone, it can't return. Introducing new species, on the other hand, tends to be the slow and time-consuming work of the development team. Unless you're okay with every species in your game being eliminated by dedicated hunters, this is a serious problem.
Possible solution: allow players to create new species. This is very complicated, but it also adds a new dimension to the game. Monsters created would have a set of attributes such as strength, intelligence, speed... each of which would have a cost. More expensive monsters are more difficult for players to create. They also breed more slowly in the wild. Players who created these monsters would provide a 3D model, texture, and a behavior script. The number of lines of script that will be executed per tick is a function of the intelligence attribute (think AI wars). Some players would see this as the core gameplay (takes crafting to a whole new level), while others would try to build an empire with their monsters as subjects.
#10
While completely clearing out "Castle Whiner" of all "HumansForHumanity" would most probably remove "HumansForHumanity" from the world, it wouldn't remove all humans from the world--and I think that's an important distinction. We're pushing boundaries, not shattering them, heheh.
And even the above act of completely sweeping "Castle Whiner" of all living beings isn't a game-stopper either. In fact, in a matured world using this type of concept, land grabs are a quite important conflict generator--and now that the "Castle Whiner" is empty (and probably in ruins), you have a land grab race between player organizations as well as nearby npc populations.
You could simply spawn off a new population group (as well as population group leaders such as "Duke SmilesALot" to lead the land grab), who might struggle to rebuild "Castle Whiner" into "Castle Don'tWorryBeHappy", and inhabit it with the new population group "HumansWithStupidGrins".
01/10/2005 (11:40 am)
@Eric: I think you are confusing "population groups" with "species/races". I didn't mean to imply that "interactive persistence" requires what (as you basically describe) would be game breaking mechanics.While completely clearing out "Castle Whiner" of all "HumansForHumanity" would most probably remove "HumansForHumanity" from the world, it wouldn't remove all humans from the world--and I think that's an important distinction. We're pushing boundaries, not shattering them, heheh.
And even the above act of completely sweeping "Castle Whiner" of all living beings isn't a game-stopper either. In fact, in a matured world using this type of concept, land grabs are a quite important conflict generator--and now that the "Castle Whiner" is empty (and probably in ruins), you have a land grab race between player organizations as well as nearby npc populations.
You could simply spawn off a new population group (as well as population group leaders such as "Duke SmilesALot" to lead the land grab), who might struggle to rebuild "Castle Whiner" into "Castle Don'tWorryBeHappy", and inhabit it with the new population group "HumansWithStupidGrins".
#11
01/10/2005 (12:17 pm)
And what if the players actually do wipe out a species? Every MMORPG has a variety of levels for monster strength, giving everyone from new players to 3-year veterans something to play with. Suppose one of those 3-year veterans (or rather a large clan which includes several such players) selects a species of newbie monster to kill off. They move systematically from one region to another killing off all examples of this particular monster, one "population group" at a time. If killing off population groups is possible, I think it is inevitable that players will try something like this. The more interesting question, though, is how your game will deal with this. Will endangered species receive some sort of temporary bonus to help them through such hard times? Will the species be wiped out and then gradually reappear next week?
#12
I really am enjoying WoW, I couldn't figure it out at first, but I think it's because when I play it I don't feel like I'm playing a MMORPG at all. It's just fun. It's like a really big single player game I can play with friends occasionally (since half the people here at GarageGames are addicted and my girlfriend is as well apparently).
01/10/2005 (12:49 pm)
I hate MMORPGS really, everyone I've played never lasted more than a few days because it was boring and felt hollow.I really am enjoying WoW, I couldn't figure it out at first, but I think it's because when I play it I don't feel like I'm playing a MMORPG at all. It's just fun. It's like a really big single player game I can play with friends occasionally (since half the people here at GarageGames are addicted and my girlfriend is as well apparently).
#13
I'm just not sure which!
01/10/2005 (12:54 pm)
I have to admit I either find it troubling, or am very excited for the fallout for TGE/TSE if GarageGames is becoming MMOG'erized!I'm just not sure which!
#14
City-allowed-destruction is a very cool thing, but it leads to the cut and paste NPCs that refill the world. Fable was cool in that everyone would talk and interact and have their own feelings for you, but as you kill them off, more would eventually fill their places, if you ever wondered why none of the generic NPCs that you could kill had names...that's why: there could possibly be millions of NPCs that you interacted upon if you continually killed them and allowed more to respawn; instead of allowing the system to re-use or even make new (*shivers at the thought of a CPU creating names*) names to fit the people, it would at some point become trite.
I don't think the lack of a realtime or even quasi-realtime growing environment in RP games is due to the absence of creativity in the minds of developers, but instead to the processes of the CPU on which it runs. Fable, at one time, was to have growing trees, but LS decided it was too processor-hogging and in the end pointless because of the nearly-zero timeconstraints in the game. However, within my own game (albeit it is only in concept, those concepts are pretty logic-spective in that I really look at what can be done and cannot) I have decided that, along with a "monster ecosystem", that there will be a semi-realtime vegetation growth factor, and that is implemented into said ecosystem by means of herbivore-type creatures flocking to areas of high vegetation, and then the vegetation slowly depletes (the amount of 'grazing' animals is a large factor into the speed of the depletion) until it is gone, and once again the herbivore monsters seek food. Full arboreal realtime-growth, however, I have never considered, not from an aesthetic preference (I think it would be amazing), but from technical..its just too processor [and server] unfriendly.
01/10/2005 (2:59 pm)
Quote:say the spell would destroy the terrian. Things like this haven't been done with MMO's if not any games at all.. this woul be pushing the boundaries in my opinion.
City-allowed-destruction is a very cool thing, but it leads to the cut and paste NPCs that refill the world. Fable was cool in that everyone would talk and interact and have their own feelings for you, but as you kill them off, more would eventually fill their places, if you ever wondered why none of the generic NPCs that you could kill had names...that's why: there could possibly be millions of NPCs that you interacted upon if you continually killed them and allowed more to respawn; instead of allowing the system to re-use or even make new (*shivers at the thought of a CPU creating names*) names to fit the people, it would at some point become trite.
Quote:maybe making the world change through time..
evolving, plants growing, different environment aspects sped up to change the way the world works.
I don't think the lack of a realtime or even quasi-realtime growing environment in RP games is due to the absence of creativity in the minds of developers, but instead to the processes of the CPU on which it runs. Fable, at one time, was to have growing trees, but LS decided it was too processor-hogging and in the end pointless because of the nearly-zero timeconstraints in the game. However, within my own game (albeit it is only in concept, those concepts are pretty logic-spective in that I really look at what can be done and cannot) I have decided that, along with a "monster ecosystem", that there will be a semi-realtime vegetation growth factor, and that is implemented into said ecosystem by means of herbivore-type creatures flocking to areas of high vegetation, and then the vegetation slowly depletes (the amount of 'grazing' animals is a large factor into the speed of the depletion) until it is gone, and once again the herbivore monsters seek food. Full arboreal realtime-growth, however, I have never considered, not from an aesthetic preference (I think it would be amazing), but from technical..its just too processor [and server] unfriendly.
#15
I know what you mean...I feel that these notorious-ish and [should be at least] single-instance NPCs should no longer exist. I was thinking about how a game could create involving quests that change over time, but allow the notorious monsters to remain. Instead of having Mr. Petulant respawn, he could spawn once, as part of a weekly addition of new quests. The first PC (or NPC, if you like that kind of system ^^) to kill him gets whatever he drops and attached fame/etc. but he will never respawn...more similar monsters might popup in future quests, but he will not be one of them, nor will be the rest after they are killed the first time. This weekly addition of semi-quests (mainly just kill mob, get reward) is an idea I've been playing with but never really defined in terms of mechanics of the system, but I think it would translate into some very unique gameplay.
I really love the idea of player built and player placed buildings and even cities. While I really havent figured a working system to implement player-cities in my game, I already have a pretty much fully-defined system of how Guild Houses and Guild Fortresses work...instead of just allowing millions of "inside a building" houses that take no physical space in the world (IE: you cannot actually see them from the outside, but you are 'warped' to them when you enter the 'residential area'), there can be placed, in virtually every region, Guild Houses, which are basically outposts for the same guild's main Guild Building within its city. That (if the owners choose) can serve as a place of commerce: members of the PC-created guild are allowed to set up bazaar type shops that will sell whatever they and/or the guildmaster allows. Also, something entirely untried in MMO, is Guild Fortesses (the idea, not the name ^^), which happens when a guild, through aerial or nautical (or both) discovery (which is a key element in Delta) gets to own that island. This enters into an almost Sim City-building scheme: builders inside the guild can build and those outside can sell (or give if they choose) buildings used for storage, training, etc. and those buildings take so many 'geo-squares'. Each island will have its own amount of squares and the arrangement will also be unique. The guildmaster and other higher-rank members can place buildings within those squares on the island, and further add to their control of the island. Other guilds, or just groups of independents can come to the island, if they can find it (again discovery comes into play) and try to defeat all the PCs and take over. To prevent the "awe, I was in the shower when the attack happened" sickness, Guilds can hire NPC 'stand-ins' that are limited and proportionate to their already hired PC members that will activate in an attack situation when their PC is not online.
an ecosystem (like mine ^^) would address this, and more. Decreasing the 'tiger' population would therefore indirectly increase the 'zebra' population because they are allowed to graze in peace more, just as the inverse - decreasing 'zebra' - would start to deplete 'tiger
01/10/2005 (3:00 pm)
**Sorry about double post, but its one big post that was over the limit >_<Quote:you kill boss mob "King Petulant" of population group "HumansForHumanity". While "HumansForHumanity" now don't like you any longer
...
King Petulant will respawn in a certain time period, and you (or anyone else) could go ahead and kill him off again and again.
I know what you mean...I feel that these notorious-ish and [should be at least] single-instance NPCs should no longer exist. I was thinking about how a game could create involving quests that change over time, but allow the notorious monsters to remain. Instead of having Mr. Petulant respawn, he could spawn once, as part of a weekly addition of new quests. The first PC (or NPC, if you like that kind of system ^^) to kill him gets whatever he drops and attached fame/etc. but he will never respawn...more similar monsters might popup in future quests, but he will not be one of them, nor will be the rest after they are killed the first time. This weekly addition of semi-quests (mainly just kill mob, get reward) is an idea I've been playing with but never really defined in terms of mechanics of the system, but I think it would translate into some very unique gameplay.
Quote:Some MMOG games do allow for modifying the game world by "building things". This is a step forward, because by definition creating a building/village/city that exists for others to experience is "interaction persistence".
I really love the idea of player built and player placed buildings and even cities. While I really havent figured a working system to implement player-cities in my game, I already have a pretty much fully-defined system of how Guild Houses and Guild Fortresses work...instead of just allowing millions of "inside a building" houses that take no physical space in the world (IE: you cannot actually see them from the outside, but you are 'warped' to them when you enter the 'residential area'), there can be placed, in virtually every region, Guild Houses, which are basically outposts for the same guild's main Guild Building within its city. That (if the owners choose) can serve as a place of commerce: members of the PC-created guild are allowed to set up bazaar type shops that will sell whatever they and/or the guildmaster allows. Also, something entirely untried in MMO, is Guild Fortesses (the idea, not the name ^^), which happens when a guild, through aerial or nautical (or both) discovery (which is a key element in Delta) gets to own that island. This enters into an almost Sim City-building scheme: builders inside the guild can build and those outside can sell (or give if they choose) buildings used for storage, training, etc. and those buildings take so many 'geo-squares'. Each island will have its own amount of squares and the arrangement will also be unique. The guildmaster and other higher-rank members can place buildings within those squares on the island, and further add to their control of the island. Other guilds, or just groups of independents can come to the island, if they can find it (again discovery comes into play) and try to defeat all the PCs and take over. To prevent the "awe, I was in the shower when the attack happened" sickness, Guilds can hire NPC 'stand-ins' that are limited and proportionate to their already hired PC members that will activate in an attack situation when their PC is not online.
Quote:killing off all the mobs in the area would decrease the number of mobs in that area in the future (resource availability decreases), as well as the npc population as a whole would modify it's behaviour to you.
an ecosystem (like mine ^^) would address this, and more. Decreasing the 'tiger' population would therefore indirectly increase the 'zebra' population because they are allowed to graze in peace more, just as the inverse - decreasing 'zebra' - would start to deplete 'tiger
#16
True... though in an MMO you could define processing better between server and client, maybe let plantlife grow in sections... This day and age I'm sure there's some way to make it work.
Though I wasn't trying to say that it was a lack of creative ability; however the technology for these innovations is there for those that choose to tweak certain systems. The same as any other game technology, you can increase performance, best Idea I could relate to is the foliage... started as grass billboards, then the replicator that sends data together over network... then the recent update to increase performance, then the possiblity of passing the vertex buffer, etc etc... many ways to increase performance, of course it all comes down to time (as I'm sure you know).
I guess ways to make it possible would be limit lighting, allowing for no load of this when the plants grow (or simple lighting that is less proseccor intensive). The code to run the growth could be fairly simple... of course this all comes down to a fine tunes system..
I like the way you do it though, impressive.
this is the idealoigy now; however, this could be changed, multiple schemes could be created for when towns and cities are destroyed... or when one is destroyed you could have the other AI's try to initiate a rebuild somewhere to keep the attempted cities similar... you would need to throw in some more than just a few choice and branches for this... maybe create systems that generate many different combinations, keeping the result fairly unique.
The idea would be to have an overall AI running this, it really isn't too innovatie, considering these types of AI run RTS and Turn based Strategy games... an overall AI that does most of the processing sending commands to the rest, this would allow for the destruction of a city, then the land to deform adequately and the AI to either 'try' and reistablish this or not. Would take lots of work and tweaking, but it would be workable
01/10/2005 (3:38 pm)
Quote:I don't think the lack of a realtime or even quasi-realtime growing environment in RP games is due to the absence of creativity in the minds of developers, but instead to the processes of the CPU on which it runs.
True... though in an MMO you could define processing better between server and client, maybe let plantlife grow in sections... This day and age I'm sure there's some way to make it work.
Though I wasn't trying to say that it was a lack of creative ability; however the technology for these innovations is there for those that choose to tweak certain systems. The same as any other game technology, you can increase performance, best Idea I could relate to is the foliage... started as grass billboards, then the replicator that sends data together over network... then the recent update to increase performance, then the possiblity of passing the vertex buffer, etc etc... many ways to increase performance, of course it all comes down to time (as I'm sure you know).
I guess ways to make it possible would be limit lighting, allowing for no load of this when the plants grow (or simple lighting that is less proseccor intensive). The code to run the growth could be fairly simple... of course this all comes down to a fine tunes system..
I like the way you do it though, impressive.
Quote:but it leads to the cut and paste NPCs that refill the world
this is the idealoigy now; however, this could be changed, multiple schemes could be created for when towns and cities are destroyed... or when one is destroyed you could have the other AI's try to initiate a rebuild somewhere to keep the attempted cities similar... you would need to throw in some more than just a few choice and branches for this... maybe create systems that generate many different combinations, keeping the result fairly unique.
The idea would be to have an overall AI running this, it really isn't too innovatie, considering these types of AI run RTS and Turn based Strategy games... an overall AI that does most of the processing sending commands to the rest, this would allow for the destruction of a city, then the land to deform adequately and the AI to either 'try' and reistablish this or not. Would take lots of work and tweaking, but it would be workable
#17
CPU's are actually kinda good at doing this. I have a name generator that can spit out about 116,000 names in my game. The hard part is sitting there staring at MS Access coming up with hundreds of alien first and last names...
01/10/2005 (4:50 pm)
Quote:shivers at the thought of a CPU creating names
CPU's are actually kinda good at doing this. I have a name generator that can spit out about 116,000 names in my game. The hard part is sitting there staring at MS Access coming up with hundreds of alien first and last names...
#18
WoW, like everything else Blizzard has done on the PC, isn't widly innovative, just a known game experience polished to perfection with stunning art direction.
Is that bad? I don't think so... I love playing it. It is the first MMORPG I've subscribed to for more than one month.
Like Timothy said, it is just fun. Every other MMORPG I've played, it seemed like the designers were going out of their way to add stuff to pull the fun out of the game (extreme death penalties, etc) to appease a very small number of vocal hardcore players who spend 40 hours a week in-game... WoW is quite the opposite... an MMORPG I can jump in, play for a bit and jump out and have a fun experience each time without having to spend an hour waiting to form a full 8 person group, wait another 30 minutes for everyone to "buff up" and then wait another hour as we travelled to our destination... to fight a mob, and then wait another hour healing up after.
I'm glad the game has been as financially successful as it has, because I hope it convinces designers that there is a bigger market out there than the hardcore addicts that post to the EQ forums.
01/10/2005 (6:55 pm)
I agree with both Pat & Timothy.WoW, like everything else Blizzard has done on the PC, isn't widly innovative, just a known game experience polished to perfection with stunning art direction.
Is that bad? I don't think so... I love playing it. It is the first MMORPG I've subscribed to for more than one month.
Like Timothy said, it is just fun. Every other MMORPG I've played, it seemed like the designers were going out of their way to add stuff to pull the fun out of the game (extreme death penalties, etc) to appease a very small number of vocal hardcore players who spend 40 hours a week in-game... WoW is quite the opposite... an MMORPG I can jump in, play for a bit and jump out and have a fun experience each time without having to spend an hour waiting to form a full 8 person group, wait another 30 minutes for everyone to "buff up" and then wait another hour as we travelled to our destination... to fight a mob, and then wait another hour healing up after.
I'm glad the game has been as financially successful as it has, because I hope it convinces designers that there is a bigger market out there than the hardcore addicts that post to the EQ forums.
#20
One of the root problems is that while your world may be trying to react in a "natural" way to events, the players creating them have no such limitation. If a player finds out they can do an interesting thing, you can be sure that soon 50 players will try to do it simultaneously to see what happens.
Players will act as if there are no long-term costs to their actions (and really, there aren't) while NPCs would be expected to act as if there were. This creates a serious disconnect.
A HUGE step forward would be a way to customize quests for players. As it stands now, 90%+ of quests are "Kill X", with a dash of "FexEx" quests thrown in for variety. I don't blame designers, because any attempt at deeper writing will be thrown out the window when players are yelling the answers to any puzzle you can throw at them. In WoW I found out how most of my quests ended long before I got there simply because this stuff was being chatted about openly.
Instances are a baby step because they allow more interesting scripting, but once you're in the instance everything still plays out exactly the same way as it did for every other player. What if it *didn't* play out the same way? What if maps within an instance were somewhat randomized? What if goals and NPCs were too?
It does nothing for added persistence, but it would add a lot to the game.
BTW-My girlfriend not only plays games, but she can kick my ass at some of 'em.
01/10/2005 (10:13 pm)
Trying to create an open, natural system is a huge challenge for single player games. When you expand it to large numbers of players it becomes infinitely more difficult.One of the root problems is that while your world may be trying to react in a "natural" way to events, the players creating them have no such limitation. If a player finds out they can do an interesting thing, you can be sure that soon 50 players will try to do it simultaneously to see what happens.
Players will act as if there are no long-term costs to their actions (and really, there aren't) while NPCs would be expected to act as if there were. This creates a serious disconnect.
A HUGE step forward would be a way to customize quests for players. As it stands now, 90%+ of quests are "Kill X", with a dash of "FexEx" quests thrown in for variety. I don't blame designers, because any attempt at deeper writing will be thrown out the window when players are yelling the answers to any puzzle you can throw at them. In WoW I found out how most of my quests ended long before I got there simply because this stuff was being chatted about openly.
Instances are a baby step because they allow more interesting scripting, but once you're in the instance everything still plays out exactly the same way as it did for every other player. What if it *didn't* play out the same way? What if maps within an instance were somewhat randomized? What if goals and NPCs were too?
It does nothing for added persistence, but it would add a lot to the game.
BTW-My girlfriend not only plays games, but she can kick my ass at some of 'em.
Torque 3D Owner Matthew Langley
Torque
"for the purposes of this discussion, I'll concede (happily! I think they did myself) that WoW implemented standard genre expectations better than pretty much any game released to date."
I'll agree with this to a point... though I see it as different 'flavors' of gameplay... People still play UO and refuse to leave it, if that works for them, then to each his own... who should say that it was 'better' or 'worse' than other games...
Then you also can reference the generation and genre of games... EQ is first generation MMORPG (3D)... While WoW would at least be a second generation MMORPG, so the comparison would then lie in EQ2 and WoW (Though either of those might be 3rd generation... though I doubt any would argue that it would be more accurate to compare those two rather than EQ... especially considering EQ was the first, nearly 6 years ago, with the factors of the game being much different than 6 years ago however, surprisingly I played a little over last weekend, been months, the new systems are uncomparable to the old)
Though to not incite a philosophical debate I would agree that it made some much needed advancements of the MMORPG system.
1) I'd have to agree with your overall statements, that it really didn't push any genre boundaries, just fine tuned what already existed. Though I do like EQ2 better, but thats a personal opinion.
Though the content is changed... spell systems I would argue still fall under 'content' considering the basic way the systems work with the game is the same... the system isn't very different.
2) I think to actually "push the boundaries" one would have to take the current game systems and apply it differently to the game world and gameplay.
I would say in other genres it simply should only be the 'gameplay'; however, in MMO's I'd argue that changing the interaction with the world is just as important... Maybe some ideas from Fable, that the world responds differently to you based on what you do... though most games do this to a limited point, I'd say to push the boundaries one would have to take the current system, completely re-evaluate it... then remove it and implement a whole new system.
Now I don't mean deleting all the code and starting from scratch. Considering you could recode the same system anyways. I mean taking the strengths and weaknesses of the system and then applying it to a different system.
For example in my opinion to push the boundaries of the spell system, one would not only have to innovate some new ideas on gaining these spells... but change the way it interacts with the world. Not just taking it to a new level, but creating something original, something different...
say the spell would destroy the terrian (with your improvements to terrain this is possible to us now)... around it, permantently effecting the world... maybe allowing things to catch fire, plants to burn, forests to burn down, cities to be destroyed and renewed... plants to freeze with a cold spell, physics to be changed due to spell manipulation of such... encase someone in ice maybe they would suffocate to death... Things like this haven't been done with MMO's if not any games at all.. this woul be pushing the boundaries in my opinion.
other ideas could be
maybe making the world change through time..
evolving, plants growing, different environment aspects sped up to change the way the world works. Maybe if palyers destroyed cities causing areas to be abondoned the world in that area would turn to desolate desert.
EQ is arguably the first 3d MMOG (depending on the definition of MM...) though in any case it pushed the boundaries of the MMO genre... now they need to be pushed again, EQ 2 hasn't done that, WoW hasnt done that (in my opinion)...