Slashdot Mirror
RPG Devs Should Beware MMOGs
CVG is reporting on comments made by Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart. In an interview with the site, he points out that traditional PC RPG developers are in danger of permanently losing out to the developers of Massively Multiplayer Online Games. "He believes it's key that developers of non-MMO RPGs look closely at what the genre offers over MMORPGs to ensure the RPG genre doesn't lose out to the increasingly popular massively multiplayer online world. 'I think those of us that make non-MMO RPGs need to look at what a single-player/small multiplayer RPG can do that MMOs can't and spend our time and effort on those things', Urquhart said. "
After playing my first MMO, a non MMO seems rather "lonely" and "empty", and I am not even that social. I think that will be hard to overcome.
A RPG should focus more on a dynamically changing storyline that gives the player a real sense of interaction, power, and accomplishment. Where as the MMO player will get those from interactions with other live players, but the world will remain static and respawn again.
One example I can think of would be Gothic 2 & Gothic 3. Gothic 2 gave players a real choice about how they would... role-play, being good, or bad, or neutral. Where as Gothic 3 felt like a single player MMO, runnig around killing things, only without the respawns.
'I think those of us that make non-MMO RPGs need to look at what a single-player/small multiplayer RPG can do that MMOs can't and spend our time and effort on those things', Urquhart said.
Granted it was a WHILE back that I looked for (S)mallMORPG, but I didn't find anything so I eventually setup a MaNGOS server. Blizzard is missing out BIG TIME. If they were to release a version of WoW that was scaled for personal use, they would make a killing. I would have no problem paying $120.00+ US for something like that (PLUS a yearly fee for content updates). Obviously there are people out there that want / need the "massiveness" of the MMORPG, but there are others (like me) that just want to play the game. Granted I have kinda gotten into the aspect of developing the game (the database not the core), but at times it would be nice to just PLAY and know that things work, not have to hunt down why a particular quest is bugged.
For those that don't know MaNGOS is the Massive Network Game Object Server. It isn't being developed for any one client, it just HAPPENS to work with the World of Warcraft client. In addition to the MaNGOS core, you need a backend database that drives the world. There are several out there that are being actively developed, but I prefer SDB.
-- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
It's not really that hard to handle, and there are several solutions for handling it.
One possible solution is to simply restrict the player from bringing goodies, stat bonuses, et cetera back to their world. While players would be bummed, they could still adventure on those servers and have a jolly good time.
Another scheme would be that items have cryptographic signatures which are generated and tracked by the main server. The main server would actually send the cryptographically signed items (strings of data, really, but anyway) to the sub-server which would then grant them to the player. In this way, the server can control the distribution of items.
And not trusting the client is a good thing, because it means that the client can be open and modifiable and still not permit cheating.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Fearghus is a good person to be talking about this, since his Obsidian Studios is the developer of NWN2 and its upcoming expansion.
NWN and NWN2 are games designed with multiplayer in mind. The original spawned hundreds, if not thousands, of "persistent worlds", which were mini-MMOs. Some linked servers ended up supporting hundreds of simultaneous players, and individual popular servers handled 50-95 simultaneous users, often stopping only at the limit of the hardware and the engine (as an NWN PW developer, and experienced sysadmin, it seemed very much to me that the engine had some sort of O(n squared) cost associated with users; going from 1 to 35 would barely dent a server, but going 35 to 55 could bring the same server practically to its knees).
Imagine if WoW supported user mods. There could be an "official server" and any number of player servers. The people setting up a player server could allow a player joining there to import their character in from the official server (not the other way around, of course). The people on the player servers would start with a base world, but have tools to add, remove, and modify the content. Add in a scripting language and a way to distribute customized art assets (models, animations, etc), and you have something like Quake 3 w/autodownload, but applied to an RPG instead of an FPS.
Bioware began to hook into another possibility when they started offering their "digital distribution" modules for NWN. For some small amount ($4-$12 depending on the module), you got an add-on game experience for NWN; a sort of new official campaign to play through. Imagine if a game like NWN or NWN2 had an "NWN live" service you could subscribe to. You pay $8 a month or something, and it gives you access to some cooler online features, as well as content updates. New models, new portraits, new adventures, etc. Bioware seemed to indicate they were pleasantly surprised with the reception of DD modules for NWN1.
One of the things about NWN and its expansions was that each expansion featured a bunch of new things (new classes, support for prestige classes, new models, new spells, new voices, new vfx and sfx). These were featured in a new official campaign adventure - one you could play through - but they were also remixable into a lot of new user adventures, and also could be combined with custom content for more possibilities. And a nice toolset to tie it all together.
A game that was gorgeous and easy to use and fun like City of Heroes could have reached its true potential with a scripting language and a toolset and a way to use that end-user content, because hobby content creators would have come up with enough refreshing content to avoid the "gets dull" label CoH earned for its repetitive missions.
single-player, non-linear RPGs, however, do not. Elder Scrolls, I'm looking at YOU!
That's an interesting statement, given how successful Oblivion was.
I liked Oblivion, but I hate online games. I can't be the only one. I like having a sandbox to play in that has no connection to anyone else. I don't want to have to worry about people cheating, or bad behaviour from other people. Conversely, I want to be able to cheat and use the world editor to change or screw things up as much as I like without causing problems for other people. I also want to be able to install the game at some date in the indeterminate future and have it still work.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Solo RPG video games give you sense of being unique.
You are Neo or Luke Skywalker and noone else can have that power.
Only you can save the world.
No MMO gives that today.
Even super heroes games like http://www.cityofheroes.com/ have so many heroes that you dont have the sensation of being so marvelous.
You spend your time harvesting missions, badges and now crafting.
Not very heroic !
MMO RPG (or so called) emphaze on the community experience.
You share stories with others,
you show your achievements to others,
you develop your character with others.
You oppose and win against others.
These "others" are people,
and this is important.
Even though oponents were bots with behaviour no different that humans,
knowning they are bots would render them not as interesting as humans.
After all I prefer to chat a girl than a bot and
I prefer to constantly win and humiliate another player rather than a mob.
OK, some would prefer chatting a bot...
Last comment, MMO RPG are no RPG.
I spent a tremendous amount of days playing table top RPG when I were young.
And the experiment is no comparison with computer RPG.
Compared, computer RPG are really flat and
MMO RPG are event flatter than solo RPG.
There is only basic heroism, limited sense of achievement and
no way to come with innovative solution that game author did not imagine.
The killer game will provide real freedom and content ,
the sense of being unique and
still experiencing with tons of other players.
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
1) Scale. An MMO is limited in how many units can be operating in a single battle. Network limitations are the reason World of Warcraft couldn't deliver on its promise of world pvp. Dunno if anyone knows what happened in the old "world pvp" days of Tarren Mill... but the general problem was once enough people showed up it became so laggy that it was unplayable. That really sucked. Talk about destroying immersion.
/golfclap, and walk away.
2) Continuity of Storyline. Look at Matrix Online. Everyone wants to be Neo, but nobody can. Look at SWG. Everyone wanted to be a Jedi. But nobody could be Luke Skywalker. Not true in an offline RPG. You can literally live the storyline of your favorite character.
3) User created content. Look at Morrowind for example. The game came with a construction set. You could build your own world. You were the god of that world you created. Now shift to WoW. You're a peon, and if you're lucky you can get 24 other people together to take down raid mobs. But you'll never be able to do it solo. You'll never BE that raid mob.
When the day comes that they give a player the chance to control a raid mob (with their current abilities and hitpoints) that's the day a raid wipes every time on that mob, forever. The AI on those mobs is particularly stupid. Tactically, if I were said mob, I would immediately kill all the healers, then the DPS. Which would leave the tank beating on me with his sword 'n board. To which I would let loose a huge laugh, do a
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
That said, it might be fun to read a book (play an RPG) with others some time
Isn't that (shared experience of enjoying a story) called a Movie today?
The gaming equivalent closest to this is actually online co-op play I think since the storytelling aspect is more direct...
MMORPG's are more like virtual workplaces, where you log in and go about your daily chores in the context of a larger and slower moving story that unfolds around you even as you perform your menial tasks. A companies day to day workings are like the story in an MMORPG, though successful MMORPG creators have found a way to make this shared story compelling enough to have people pay THEM to take part in it, unlike a company where it's the other way around.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But movies aren't interactive... why must something be either one extreme (interactive) or another (non-interactive). I crave a movie where I can float around in the story, choose my own camera angles, talk to various secondary characters about what they feel about what's going on, and explore the surrounding area a little.
Where am I going to find that opportunity? Obviously not on the big screen!
The bottom line is that computers allow for a variety of different story telling opportunities. Story-telling, in all its linear, pre-composed glory, has existed for thousands of years. I, personally, as an artist, am a lot more comfortable with a distinct "author/audience" separation. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of "lack of author", it scares me a little... as a creative person. I want to hear what other people have to say, and be able to interpret that for myself... not the other way around.
I know I'm just one opinion, but I think there's room for both. And A LOT of people out there crave a story where they have the interactivity to simply be immersed in it, but not neccessarilly control it. I find this desire for complete control a bit eerie, to say the least. A certain amount of it may be healthy, and there is a place for open-ended story-telling, but I certainly don't think it should be required.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Or at least that's how I see it. I admit I haven't been able to MMO for a couple of years since moving out to the back of beyond in and not having broadband - I'm not sure I miss it.
;-)
...... ( on Linux would be nice ;-p )
See, I enjoy the role-play. I used to do the old "sitting in a darkened room" roleplay games - the entire attraction is playing the ROLE ( I know, repeating the concept, but it seems to me that lately the 'RP' has vanished from 'RPG' ).
The problem that I see online, is that most of the players I've come across in various games don't want to role-play. Casting all your actions, speech, aparent persona into a specific character, starts to get a little boring with conversations like.
ME: "Wither goest thou' ? Mayhap we may share our experiences on the road ahead, that better aware, we mayest travel in safety?"
SomeIdiot: "Dude - LOL - I'm l33t - gonna pown you!!!!!! SUX0RZ"
To be honest, I had fun with Oblivion ( tho found it's replay value to be very limited, even with the expansions ). True, there were times when I couldn't do what I ( my avatar ) would of wanted - but it beat the hell out of MMO. ( And I *liked* both KOTORs - okay not perfect, KOTOR2 was a little unpolished in areas but still more fun, even on replay, than MMO ever gave me ).
This, I think, is possibly the market for RPG - I suspect there are still plenty of us 'RP' gamers left ( now over 25 or 40 with our own money ) who will always pay for good stories, plenty of personal character scope, and no kids playing other characters
-- still waiting for KOTOR3
What about that game he played on his "desk" where he had full freedom to go wherever he wanted and do what he wanted. That would be cool.
Comment removed based on user account deletion