If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   MMOrpg's for hardcore players? The Loch Ness monster of gaming   (gamemethod.com) divider line 213
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

19364 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2003 at 5:50 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-12-11 09:37:58 AM  
Wow, the interviewer really grilled that guy didn't he? No softball questions at all, no SIR!

I find it hard to be impressed by a webmaster who mispells "waste" as "waist."

I guess I'm just an intellectual snob. /shrug

And, ForceMcCocken, have you written any lengthier essays on this issue? I'd be interested in reading any more detailed works you have on the subject.
 
2003-12-11 09:55:17 AM  
ForceMcCocken- as usual your take seems to be point on. I agree with you- which unfortunatly in this case is just means more shared sadness for the state of games.

Krantzstone- ive been thinkin about goin into game design for a long time- but dont really have the education for it. Just wishful thinking..( id give my left nut, seriously )

are their any games you two are lookin forward to?
 
2003-12-11 09:59:03 AM  
 
2003-12-11 10:08:11 AM  
Regarding hacks/cheats/bugs etc. If you don't want to deal with this sort of crap (or at least deal with less of it) try playing a game that's been around for over 10 years, and is based on the old DIKU MUD:

www.medievia.com

Text only. PK, PK no-loot, and PK loot zones. If you don't want PK, don't go in the pk zones. Simple as that. 600 or so players online at most times. 4 million rooms at least. I've been playing it on and off since it went online in '92. Great system, constantly growing. Oh yeah, and it's FREE - and always will be.
 
2003-12-11 10:08:35 AM  
Meridian 59 had the best player vs player system hands down. Those red skies massing killing spree was so much fun. It also appealed to the casual gamer (like myself) since it didn't take years to build your characters. I miss those Random Player Killing sprees, Guild Battles in TOS, RPK Hunting, Guild Hall Wars, etc. It is the most underrated MMORPG ever and the reason why it's ignored by the industry is because of the shiatty graphics. I think the MMORPG developers should do some research on Meridian 59 and model their game after it.

After Meridian 59, I played Ultima Online and was not as satisfied with their Pvp system because of that Trammel crap, so I quit after a month. And don't get me started on Evercrack either. I haven't played MMORPGs ever since and probably never will again unless the game matches the greatness of Meridian 59.

server 101
 
2003-12-11 10:11:43 AM  
Meridian 59 had the best player vs player system hands down. Those red skies massing killing spree was so much fun. It also appealed to the casual gamer (like myself) since it didn't take years to build your characters. I miss those Random Player Killing sprees, Guild Battles in TOS, RPK Hunting, Guild Hall Wars, etc. It is the most underrated MMORPG ever and the reason why it's ignored by the industry is because of the shiatty graphics. I think the MMORPG developers should do some research on Meridian 59 and model their game after it.

After Meridian 59, I played Ultima Online and was not as satisfied with their Pvp system because of that Trammel crap, so I quit after a month. And don't get me started on Evercrack either. I haven't played MMORPGs ever since and probably never will again unless the game matches the greatness of Meridian 59.

server 101
 
2003-12-11 10:14:35 AM  
Know what's sadder than a MMOrpg?

Arguing about a MMOrpg.

/no illusions of grandeur
 
2003-12-11 10:22:38 AM  
I play SWG...well, actually, that may be played here pretty soon...and I'm not to the point where my player can't advance much farther. So I'm looking at the game thinking, "Now what?" Do I start over. fark that. Do I dedicate myself to PvP. fark that. What's the point.

I used to MUD and I compare current MMORPGs to MUD. Hands down, MUDs do a much better job of keeping you there than the current shiat that has been coming out.

With that in mind, WoW looks interesting.
 
2003-12-11 10:23:29 AM  
he has a few points, I don't agree with them all (EQ has a market because they are in fact good at some things) but he's going in the right direction.

I just finished as a Betatester of Horzon's... I did not buy the game afterwards. It should tell you something when long-time Betatesters stay away from a product in droves.

Every tester seemed to like it when they first started, after a month? Half were not so happy and left, after two months the half that were left were bored to tears, after that half of those became annoyed and left as well. They kept opening the beta wider as they lost beta participants constantly. That is a grand clue all by itself, to the long term potential of a game.

The genre does need help. Maybe Darkfall? Its looking pretty sharp. Of course, once one of them make a success with an alternate system, the big boys (EQ II, et al) willcopy it and we'll start the next round of bi***ing.

:)
 
2003-12-11 10:25:32 AM  
I can't believe the text based Gemstone 3 and Dragonrealms aren't mentioned.

People stay in character, good learning curve.

Oh yeah there are no graphics. But its still better than most of those games out there today.
 
2003-12-11 10:26:37 AM  
2003-12-11 07:08:49 AM Stucco
I agree with Teenwolf. Dragonrealms is the best multiplayer roleplaying game ever. Plus, it has every single system that this article mentions games should have.


Man, I miss that game. I used to play when it was free on AOL, and then for a short while when they started charging. Then their payment system made the game suck.
 
2003-12-11 10:27:01 AM  
I play SWG...well, actually, that may be played here pretty soon...and I'm not to the point where my player can't advance much farther.

Let me correct myself. I'm now to the point where my player can't advance much farther.
 
2003-12-11 10:29:14 AM  
Krantzstone:
that's the trick isn't it? High level arm-chair design is so easy. but actually trying to figure out the details, and then how it all fits together is quite maddening.

Dadx6:
I haven't. I've thought about it, but there's maybe a handful of people who would actually understand, and I have the feeling they already know in their heart what i'm trying to say.

I just don't see what's so damned sacred about the idea of having to 'put time in' to a game to be able to do fun things. Or why it is that developers don't see that it's the level-based system that's also breaking their art budgets, because it generates so much waste content. I mean, once the mass of players is beyond a certain level-range, all content that caters to all the levels outside that range is 100% waste. in EQ today, probably 90% of the content they ever made sits idle.

but i digress. maybe someday i'll find the time and gumption to code something myself, but i've given up hoping anyone else is going to make the game i want to play. No publisher is going to ever take a chance on an unproven idea, and no independent game maker would ever spend their time and energy building someone else's dream. I know I wouldn't :)
 
2003-12-11 10:32:05 AM  
I couldn't imagine "l337 players" actually sitting their Ritalin asses down and learning a text system in Gemstone and Dragonrealms, and then not talking OC all the time.

It just takes a certain intelligence and discipline level to play text based games that most graphical gamers don't have.
 
2003-12-11 10:32:57 AM  
It just takes a certain intelligence and discipline level to play text based games that most graphical gamers don't have.

Amen.
 
2003-12-11 10:36:52 AM  
CatchrNdRy- i agree with you partially- im sure most of these 'l337' players dont have the patience to play text based games- however i dont think thats the sole reason some shy away from MUDs. I cant really get into them because ive been an artist my whole life- and watching the art and design on screen is one of my favorite parts of a game.
 
2003-12-11 10:40:37 AM  
the difference between text and graphical muds is simply that the 'old timers' and their friends/associates dominate the text muds. The communities are so tight, and generally self-administering, that asshats get punted before most of the player-base ever runs into them.

it's not the display that keeps the asshats away, its the community.

put that kind of control in the hands of an EQ server and you'd see the same thing.
 
2003-12-11 10:42:22 AM  
Time for my 2 pennies...

I am pretty new to the whole MMORPG expereince. It really can be a lot of fun. I played D&D in the basement through most of my teenage years. It's fun to see a video game form of that with many other players.

However, I am also a realist. These games are for-profit, as has been mentioned. Any insentive to change will be market-driven. They are also created by humans. As such, they are flawed.

Many people are stupid, lazy and have no concept of teamwork. On these games, as in real life, an inability to function in a group will get you isolated, hurt or killed.

Many people are little snots. Some don't pay for their subscriptions, they don't work for their entertainment. Others just somehow expect things handed to them on a platter. They're dumb.

If these games are that bad, cancel your subscription and volunteer your time with people who need it. Everyone can serve food at a homeless shelter or spend time with the elderly or read to children or a hundred different other things.

Beeyotching about how these games are too much of this or not enough of that is pointless. Don't like it? You don't have to buy it. This is a consumer product, for goodness sake.

Makes me long for the junior high and high school days where, even though we were geeks in the basement with dice pretending to be elves and wizards and knights, at least we had some actual real human contact.

Perhaps some people need to focus on more actual, real and immediate problems.
 
2003-12-11 10:43:17 AM  
I didn't mean to say graphical game players are all idiots, or aren't attracted based on aesthetic purposes, but the analogy is reading versus TV. TV can be just as stimulating and intellectual as reading, but the very nature of the medium lends it to our more sedentary instinct.
 
2003-12-11 10:44:02 AM  
ForceMcCocken,very nicely said in all points.

Personally I am currently playing FFXI and so far it has been an great experience. After playing EQ, DAOC, SB, SWG, EVE and Planetside FFXI is one that has really caught ahold of my interest.
 
2003-12-11 10:45:38 AM  
modernhamlet: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this "Hardcore Gamer" rant really just a "PKing Asshole" rant?


I read it that way, myself. I've been playing EQ for a bit under two years now, and I've done PVP. I got totally owned because there were a couple of guys who hung around in my newbie zone with gear that characters 30 levels higher would normally be required to attain, and had apparently been Multi-quested for them(i.e. someone else got most of the parts, and they turned in the final quest item - usually cash they were handed - to receive the reward; alternately, looted something from a corpse killed by someone else from a dungeon they never could have survived). I'm trying to level, they kill me 7 or 8 times while trying to find monsters I can defeat for XP.

It was then I decided that if I wanted PVP, I'd go play Unreal over the 'Net. Or Counterstrike. Anything but a game based on an RPG model. At least I could count on my opponent defeating me on his skills alone, and that my gear would be equal to theirs, and I actually stood a chance of winning. I used to play Duke Nukem 3D like a fiend, and I probably still would if I had the opportunity to hook up with some friends and play. Simple, straightforward killing. All well and good.

But since my share of pen-n-paper D&D games has dropped off (having a daughter with special medical needs), I miss the fun of hanging out with real people and going on adventures and doing good deeds for fun and profit. Thus, I play Everquest. I get to do some tradeskills, I get to do quests on my own, and I get to talk to/adventure with other people passionate about gaming and having fun. Frankly, I have no use for PK; none. There's no value that can be added to my gaming experience by it. If I want to play a game where I kill other players, I'll do that. If I want to play an RPG, that's different - and I'm already doing that.

It's my firm belief that doing quests and interacting with others is mutually exclusive to a game with PKing. Just because you want the freedom to kick the ass of the guy who didn't contribute jack crap in the last adventure, doesn't mean that having the ability to is going to make the game better for those of us who don't care to PK at all. We RPGers have a method for the useless asshats of EQ - we keep a handwritten list that says "Don't adventure with , because he's farking useless."
 
2003-12-11 10:47:12 AM  
Ringersol,

Yes, that's what gets me about today's MMORPGS, especially ones that are PvP based. I've played PvP mud's and if the people there acted like the people I run into in graphical stuff they would be laughed at and punted.

I think what happaned is that the industry made MMORPGs simple enough for the Counter Strike fan boys to play. It was all down hill from there.
 
2003-12-11 10:48:38 AM  
i keep holding out for the next best thing to reflare my passion for MOGs
but it never happens...
its just the same crap over and over

i find myself reading books now...
SOMEONE HELP ME!!!!
 
2003-12-11 10:57:24 AM  
Why is that if there is something you don't enjoy doing then it sucks? This thread is full of people explaining why, in their not-so-humble-opinions, MMORPGS are terrible. I hate brussel sprouts, but that doesn't mean it's a flaw in the vegetable, it just means it doesn't suit my taste.

I play Star Wars Galaxies(tm) quite frequently, and I love the heck out of it. I'm not a powergamer; I have yet to master a single elite profession after playing it for a little over 4 months, and I don't care. I don't play to level up and I don't grind. I play only to RP with a group of fun, mature friends I've met from around the country.

There is nothing inherently broken about MMORPGS, it's just that they aren't for all gamers.

[forward slash] rant off. Ahh, I feel better. Now back to work.
 
2003-12-11 11:08:46 AM  
I don't buy you TV vs Books difference as being on a medium level. The very existence of shallow and lame books, and some pretty darn good TV outright disproves it.

Media develop trends in content due to market realities.

Books tend to be longer and more intellectual because they can be consumed on the consumers schedule. put down, reread, loaned. You don't have to worry about someone getting bored half-way through, or taking longer than someone else to understand the plot. they already bought it.

TV is consumed on the producers schedule; not the consumers. It isn't purchased up front, it's paid for by advertisers over time. All of whom want a piece of the action, and not necessarily in the same breath as their competitors.

So it tries to be all things to all people, to keep people tuned in to as many ads as possible. as such, individual episodes became short. It's worth noting the early series were much longer and more serial than today's 'conflict resolved nealy in 22 minutes with the same characters as last week' tv programs.

tv networks also realized that the serial nature lost viewers who missed a few episodes - and so that has largely left as well.

similarly with film. film is relatively short compared to a novel because you just can't keep people in a theatre for more than 4 hours tops. you certainly can't keep them in a theatre for the 20+ hours you can take to read a good book.

But that doesn't mean that tv and film as media lend themselves more to passive entertainment. I mean, how -active- is reading a book compared to watching a movie? In neither case are you actually affecting the outcome, and in neither case are you incapable of applying your imagination and insight. moving pictures have nothing to do with it on average being 'dumbed down'. Not in a literate society anyhow.

In the end its the actual particular content of a medium that determines audience and depth. the gameplay difference is why MUSHers snicker just as much about Diku/Merc MUDs being dumbed down as text MUDders do in turn about graphical MUDders. (and similarly the disdain of 'powergamers' by hardcore RPers)

your text mud/mush/moo of preference either has a more intellectual constituency because of the gameplay, or because of the community. but not at all because of medium. i've played some diku muds that aren't at all different from EQ, aside from scale.
 
2003-12-11 11:12:17 AM  
The only people who are in favor of player-killing are those who like player-killing. It's a truism, obviously. It's bully mentality. "I can kill you so I'm better than you at this game. I enjoy inflicting suffering on you. I enjoy interfering with your enjoyment of the game to advance my own."

There's absolutely no reason for any RPG to let hardcore player-killers wander around and kill players who don't want to be killed. Any more than you could wander in the streets of the town called Real Life and just slaughter passers-by. Anyone arguing that you should be able to kill anyone and everyone, all the time, is an idiot player-killer. Find a different game where killing players is the goal (Unreal, the Half-Life variants, etc.)
 
2003-12-11 11:13:20 AM  
I was pretty happy with SWG 4 months into it too. You might be fine. Just ask yourself what your going to do once you have finally mastered an elite profession. Pay $15 a month for a chat room? Build a base and constantly defend it during a war that will never end? Work on being the biggest player city in the galaxy? Meh.

Secondly, people are not ranting that they don't enjoy MMORPGs. They are ranting that they don't enjoy today's MMORPGs.
 
2003-12-11 11:16:42 AM  
Let's play something even more engrossing than the best MMORPG out there... Something called real life! Woo.
 
2003-12-11 11:19:16 AM  
I'm sitting in a cube Valkore. How engrossing is that?
 
2003-12-11 11:29:58 AM  
Let's play something even more engrossing than the best MMORPG out there... Something called real life! Woo.

Yeah, because gamers don't have lives and live in their parents' basement, and never go outside, and don't have jobs/school from which they like to occasionally escape! LMAOROTFL! U re4lly PWned all us g4mers!!1
 
2003-12-11 11:38:45 AM  
ColSanders:
why do you care how they view your passtime? you like it, they don't. Their saying 'it sucks' doesn't invalidate your fun. unless they're falling to ad hominem attacks on those that play the games i dont see why you'd bother to get your dander up. and in that case, they're probably just ignorant, so its not worth it either.

but the article and thread are about -why- today's massmogs aren't for all gamers. so you have to expect the gamers they're not 'for' to throw in their opinions.

Rindred:
I don't see it entirely as a PK'ing asshole rant. He knows he wants more parity between characters, a more fair fight (he says no levels, but doesn't note the similar problems between skill power or gear power) and he says there should be more risk (though he doesn't state -how- to increase it).

What he's primarily looking for is a consistant world that's not about the treadmill, and where you can care about your cohorts and have actual unexpected adventures with true danger. Not just wandering from known spawn to known spawn to combat the endlessly repopping goblin horde, that never quite seems to make progress in their fight against the townspeople.

He doesn't just want a field of sheeple to gank. If he did, he'd be advocating perpetuating or extending the faults of UO, not suggesting that those faults be fixed.

In the end, no AI enemy is as fun or as scary as a person. AI's are only more fun in massmog rpgs because fighting people is currently so lopsided.

The fact that you bring up you do enjoy playing cstrike or unreal for pvp is directly in line with my core point. The reason people don't mind pvp in those setting is simply because of parity.

No-one in those games can get their character that much more powerful than anyone else. if you're a good player, you can always be competitive, and will have a chance to win or make a fighting retreat to bring the combat to more equal terms. and any two decent players have the odds in their favor against someone with all the 'best' stuff.

Contrarily in early UO (the pre-eminent example of free-range massmog pvp) you start the game effectively helpless. 5 newbies couldn't touch a half-GM with standard equipment, let alone the 2-3x GMs that were griefing in the early days. and even if a killer did go down, there was no gain for those who managed it, as the killer need only grab a new set of cheap gear and returns with just as much overwhelming power as he just had. even when notoriety and stat loss were added, they were treatments for the symptoms of the problem. At best they provided a temporary reprieve from a particular PK, until they gamed the system and then returned to leverage their overwhelming character power.

If they addressed the cause of the inequality in pvp (levels & gear being the trump card over player skill and teamwork) -- there'd be no reason why it wouldn't be a healthy aspect of massmog rpg gaming.

you are welcome however to maintain that no pvp whatsoever is your preferred method of play. it takes all kinds, and there's plenty of room. I'm just pointing out why it's as unpopular as it is in massmogs, despite that openly pvp games in other genres (fps, sports, racing) are so much more popular.
 
2003-12-11 11:39:17 AM  
ForceMcCocken: I haven't. I've thought about it, but there's maybe a handful of people who would actually understand, and I have the feeling they already know in their heart what i'm trying to say

Hmm. I know I'd publish you. And I know people would read it, too. Take that as a compliment, or a suggestion... Either way!
 
2003-12-11 11:42:42 AM  
This article fails to mention Shadowbane. It's allright, though, I wouldn't remember it either. But in the month or so I played the game I not only levelled up to near-maximum in a really short amount of time, but I also enjoyed the PvP raiding aspect.

Believe it or not, when you have a FFA, players will stick together to take out the assholes. Not once was I PKed senselessly, and every time I was pickpocketed (a common occurence, but I learned to just not have a lot of gold on me) everyone in my group would chase the farker down.

Instead of relying on human nature and natural deterrents, all these other MMORPGs rely on artificial systems. I wish there was an MMORPG where they kept the numbers hidden so there isn't all this dickflicking going on.
 
2003-12-11 11:44:16 AM  
Ditto: Fair enough. Again, some like them, some don't. No big deal.

As far as what I'll do when I finally master a profession? Probably the same thing I'm doing now -- RPing with my friends. As I said earlier, I don't care about my character's level. For me the best part about an MMORPG is the "RP."
 
2003-12-11 11:46:18 AM  
Wow, that headline made absolutely no sense to me.

Thank God.
 
2003-12-11 11:50:58 AM  
No gamer is hardcore.

No MMORPG gamer is hardcore.

Just.. don't mix those terms. Please.
 
2003-12-11 11:53:19 AM  
ForceMcCocken (giggle): It didn't really get my dander up. I'm just having a slow day at work and felt like ranting.

I just get tired of the "I don't like it therefore it sucks" mentality. There is a big difference between saying "I don't like X because..." and "X sucks and so do all the people who like it," and there is much more of the latter here than the former.
 
2003-12-11 11:56:58 AM  
Good post, ringersoll.

Aeonite, I agree in some respects with what you're saying: there are plenty of PK-hungry players whose sole purpose is to cause people misery (i.e. grief players). Hell, I've been one myself (although I had my reasons/excuses).

But non-PKers also can't seem to grasp the notion that it's wholly unrealistic to have an RP world where everything else is realistic, except that players are differentiated from mobiles (monsters, NPCs) so that it's alright to kill NPCs that are computer controlled, but it's not alright to kill other players? Technically, from an RP perspective, an race human NPC and a race human Player Character should be treated the same: if it's alright to kill one, it's alright to kill the other. If it's not alright to kill one, it's not alright to kill another.

I dislike the fact that you can't attack or kill shopkeepers but you can attack the bandit NPC not more than several feet away, just because of game mechanics. IMHO, it would be better served if the game was redesigned so that you could attack either, but was balanced in such a way that 1) killing the shopkeeper would be difficult, and 2) allowing the shopkeeper to be killed wouldn't inconvenience anyone for very long, and 3) wouldn't imbalance the game. Same goes for Playerkill.

Of course, playerkill as a concept is neither good nor bad for RP in and of itself. Poorly implemented PvP is as anathema to roleplaying that they might as well just take out the PvP aspect. However, a realistic PvP system with a carefully balanced Playerkill code can serve only to enhance RP. After all, what is more realistic than the fear that as you walk outside in the dark forest that some evil drow will not sneak up on you and kill you for your gold? What is not realistic is thinking you can just saunter around all over the world and not expect to be attacked by any other player, just because it's been hardcoded that way. That's not RP at all.

However, being constantly killed sucks, and is unrealistic to boot. Even in a fantasy setting, it's difficult to rationalize away why a person who was murdered, suddenly appears back in their temple minus their equipment, and maybe experience points lost, vitae gone, as a ghost, etc. So you have to set up an RP reason for why players magically reappear alive after they've clearly been murdered.

Or, as some MUDs have done, make it so it's permadeath, where you only get one life, and if you die, whether to another player, to a monster, to a plague or your own stupidity, that character is POOF! gone, and there's a nice little wake and funeral procession as you're buried somewhere.

Sure, that is harsh, especially when you've built up your character with so much time and effort, but if the risks can be justified by huge rewards for not dying, there's more at stake, and therefore makes things more exciting.

But to keep things fair, you have to have a fair and equitable Player versus player system in place beforehand, and you have to be extremely careful about game balance issues, equipment power, class/skill/race balance, etc. That's not to say that a warrior, thief, mage and cleric should all be as equally proficient in all things as the others, since that wouldn't be terribly realistic either, but every class (or race, or set of skills) should be balanced so that there is either a way to counter it, or a certain skill, or race, performs better in combat under certain conditions (time of day, locale, age, what have you) different from another skill/race/class/etc, and even if a warrior could physically tear apart a thief, mage or cleric, a thief could sneak up on the warrior and choke him unconscious, poison him or backstab him, a mage could summon powerful fiends to protect her or use powerful offensive magicks to smite the warrior, or the cleric could heal himself and pray for powerful maladictions to afflict the warrior, rendering his physical prowess useless. The thief could sneak up on the mage and steal her magical jewellery, but the mage has detection spells that can spot hiding people. The mage could inflict massive spell damage on a cleric, but the cleric could pray for powerful defensive magicks which reduce damage taken or otherwise protect him physically, and heal any other damage.

Each race, skill or class would be very powerful in certain situations, but not in all situations all the time, and an opposing race or class, or a counterskill would be just as effective in nullifying such advantages, but not under every circumstance or all the time.

It's that kind of balance which ensures that player versus player remains fun and exciting, and doesn't rely entirely on things like race/class combination, skill set, a single piece of armour or weaponry, etc.

My personal opinion is that things like levels, hardcoded classes, etc. should be gotten rid of in favour of a level-less, skill-based system where pretty much everyone, save for individual physical attributes and racial modifiers, starts off on an equal footing.

I'd actually throw in age and stat modifiers as well so that as your character ages, you may become more intelligent and wiser, but you may become weaker and less dextrous/agile, and you may lose some of your charisma and constitution. I'd even be interested in instituting death from old age, with a chance to have certain magicks speed up your metabolism but make you age faster for the duration of the spell, while counterspells would retard your aging or even reverse it. Or dark magicks which would allow you the option of becoming a lichlord, an undead, etc. which would make age essentially meaningless, give you new powers but with accompanying weaknesses which would help balance things out.

Having a skill-based system would ensure that a character's skills (and percentage ability in said skills) would play a major role in how well one does in combat (or successfully using the skill), and allow players the option to train in whatever combination of skills took their fancy. Having skill-trees would ensure that with certain, more complex skills/spells, you would have to learn a more basic form of the skill/spell before you could progress to learning a more complex one (in other words, prerequisites), but these wouldn't be tied to 'levels'. Nor would you be forced to choose and stick to one 'class' (such as warrior, thief, mage or cleric), and instead be able to fully customize your character to be a true individual. Of course, specialization would have its own advantages over being a jack-of-all-trades, but would lack the kind of flexibility that having a wide variety of different skills and spells would give you.

Anyway, there are now plenty of colleges and universities which now offer game design and programming courses, that I'd be interested in taking some. I know a couple of people who might be going into that field as well, so who knows, I may just end up in the field. ;)
 
2003-12-11 11:58:33 AM  
Heh, what's your definition of 'hardcore', doombringer? Jenna Jameson? Brianna Banks? Peter North?

Pulp's last album?
 
2003-12-11 12:00:41 PM  
The problem with all MMORPG's is the people who play them. Behind every wanton player-killer, looter, etc, is a teenage boy who hasn't yet mastered adequate social skills. Banning the under 18 crowd from a game would do a lot to improve its playability, since the whole point of MMORPG's is interaction with other players.

Oh, and you kids get off my lawn!
 
2003-12-11 12:02:56 PM  
Why doesn't the community described in the article get together and make their own game?
 
2003-12-11 12:04:11 PM  
Aeonite:
the bully or griefer mentality to pvp only applies when the bully is of overwhelming ability and the fight unfair.

Most pvp proponents, believe it or don't, are not looking for a game to grief unsuspecting combatants. what they want is to -compete- with one other in a more direct way than racing to the next spawn.

for instance, a world where 2 or more player nations war over actual objectives with actual benefits would be enjoyable for them much longer than whacking the same foozles over and over that have no chance of ever being actually victorious against the players or the townspeople.

they don't want pvp in an unorganized grab-ass-tic way (though many prefer that level of excitement being possible, again provided some level of parity of opponents). they want their nation to take over that town for whatever reason, and they'd like another nation to actually oppose them with a capable force in a fair fight.

even in shooters, not many people actually enjoy winning when the teams are clearly unbalanced. and those that do, don't like the gametype overall so much because their opponents are always capable of fighting back effectively.

it's not 'player killing' most are looking for, so much as an understood competition, like a traditional sport, but with a persistant gamestate. where each victory isn't erased the next round, but the next opponent always has the capability to take you out.

Dark Age of Camelot comes close to doing pvp well, but fails due to the inability to actually capture territory, fractionalize dominant nations, switch teams, remain neutral, or have a well-balanced combat system. (last i played)

clearly, though, there's a demand for both types of games.
 
2003-12-11 12:05:20 PM  
I played a MUD called Medievia for 5 years...now I'm trying my hand at EverQuest. I am getting real tired of EQ, there's no adventuring, there's no roleplay..if you want to battle there's no exploring a zone for highlevel beasties,you join a camp and mindlessly slaughter mobs. People get mad if you just walk around and slaughter mobs cause they have the area camped. What's the point?
As for PvP/PK...I think most MUDS have it right. PVP should be dependant on what zone you are in. If you enter a zone that is PVP you take a risk, but the exp is usually better.

Sorry, I'm going back to Medievia
 
2003-12-11 12:05:57 PM  
Nomad! Lucid!

It's great to run into people who used to play M59. There are so few out there. Lucid, you're right pvp in M59 was the best. However, I think one of the main reasons why was the relatively small gameworld. There weren't all that many players so I always knew who the pkers were, and that made it a lot easier to avoid death. Plus the anti-pk guilds were able to hunt them down pretty well since the travel distances weren't massive.

But yeah, PVP was massive amounts of fun. Guild wars, chasing KOS's, pk take-overs. Aaahhhhhhhh.
 
2003-12-11 12:06:02 PM  
I just get tired of the "I don't like it therefore it sucks" mentality. There is a big difference between saying "I don't like X because..." and "X sucks and so do all the people who like it," and there is much more of the latter here than the former.

I second that. That mentality is rampant among gamers. There are good reasons for not playing MMORPGs, the biggest of which is cost. Besides that, most MMORPGs are based around a hack-and-slash formula that gets real boring, real quickly, and no MMORPG has satisfyingly implemented non-combat professions.

However, a lot of people like the games, which are terribly addictive. They have their good points, and to generalize such a huge genre by saying "all MMORPGs suck" just makes you look like a pimply 16 year old, which isn't a step up unless you're a pimply 14 year old.
 
2003-12-11 12:08:18 PM  
Scrotar:
because the technical demands of creating a game to support a community that size outstrip the capabilities of independent game developers.

eventually though, i'm certain, somewhere, someone will find the time or money to do it.
 
2003-12-11 12:11:12 PM  
bdbthinker I tried medievia for a while. Excellent game and incredible war system. Are there still 2 nations? Or has that one eeevil nation finally squashed the good guys? For some reason I didn't play it for very long, but it was good stuff.
 
2003-12-11 12:11:39 PM  
As for "there's no roleplaying," that's a really good point. I got my online gaming start playing a MUD called DragonRealms, in which RPing was a requirement. It was very enjoyable and the players were friendly and for the most part decent spellers. When I started playing other online RPGs, I didn't get this kind of atmosphere. I suppose I was naive, but if the genre has RPG in it, I'd expect at least some form of roleplaying. It's stupid as hell to hear that Trandoshan master creature handler say "my mom neds to use the comp ill be back l8r!!!"
 
2003-12-11 12:16:36 PM  
Im not a fan of PvP. I like to decide when Im gonna die. So I play EQ on emarr. A non pvp server. And I play a soloing class because I dont always feel like looking for a group.
For those who think gamers are nerds who live in their parents basement Ive got news for you. Id have to say there is only a small percantage of that kind of player. Most Ive met are either teenagers, or parents like me playing while the kids are asleep.
For the record, I find your non gaming lifestyle a bore. And expensive too. So you do your thing, and Ill do mine kk?
/Rotclaw 34 Necromancer...but Im drinking milk!
 
2003-12-11 12:16:44 PM  
Scrotoa because designing a MMORPG takes Millions of dollars and man-hours, and maintaining it costs a ton too...

Plus, no matter what you do, players will allways want MORE.

In the beginning: "I want a horse"

Then "Now i want a cart!"

And "now i want a fancy carrage!"

Soon: "I want a piece of towed artillery!"

It'll never be enough.

"I want to PK!"
"I want justice!"
"I want a Prison!"
"Wahhh! I didn't want to spend my entire game-life locked up in a dungeon just 'cause of some PKing! I'm making a new character!"

I'm not a fan of PKing. Sparring is all well and good, but murder is murder most foul.
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report