No - what you are talking about is a completely different problem, and certainly not one that is unsolvable.
Yes, current MMORPG's might have problems scaling up so far - but then, they wern't designed for that, so it's completely unfair to compare them.
What an RPG is all about is having greater options and power for the players in the stories they can write. You're complaining that just because there are so many people playing a game, that the numbers of different stories they can write would be too limited.
Not necessarily - it all depends on how the game is designed. In fact there is absolutely NO reason why an MMORPG can't have enough depth and options to allow each and every individual character to create their own, UNIQUE, story.
This, IMO, is exactly what MMORPG's should be aiming for, but so far the only one which has even come close to getting it right, is of course Eve Online.
But it's NOT the fact that it has one server that allows it to do this. In fact, the number of servers/shards/instances etc. has absolutely no real effect upon this.
What DOES have an effect, and is the reason Eve Online supports this, is that the game-world is PERSISTENT.
THAT, IMO, is something that is FAR more important for MMORPG's than the amount of shards, size and population a game and it's world might have.
No. Again, you're getting mixed up between story telling - (which is what the article is about) - and story WRITING, which is what GAMES are about...
Sure, you can tell stories in games, but only at the expense of the story being written, which is why the two are generally interleaved.
The ONLY thing that's really any different in computer games, compared to any others, (say, board games), are the options and power over stories the player can WRITE, not the story the game has to tell - since they are already defined independently of games, regardless of whether they run on a computer.
Yes and no. What they REALLY require, like many other games, are setting and background. Anything beyond that is simply an opinion, depending on the individual game.
The problem I have with a lot of games these days, is that some developers seem to forget that the story the player WRITES, is actually more important than the story the game has to TELL.
Just because a lot of RPG's focus on telling a story, does NOT mean that they have to do so.
What makes an RPG what it is, is NOT the story being told, but the options and power it gives the player in writing their OWN story. Whether it has a straight-jacket of a story to follow or is completely open for the player makes NO difference to it's genre.
Games, are about story WRITING, not story TELLING - even RPG's. Just because you can interleave a story being told with one being written doesn't mean it HAS to be that way. Most games, in fact, don't involve a story being told at all - (chess/draughts/tag/hopscotch etc.) - ALL they are concerned about is the player(s) creating his/her/their OWN.
The problem some people have in the computer games industry atm, is that, coming from the other media companies and industry, (film/tv etc.), which is BUILT around story TELLING, they want to do the same thing in computer games.
I am NOT saying that using a computer game to tell a story is BAD, though, since, in itself, it's not - it's just different. What DOES make it bad, though, is when the story the players can write gets overshadowed by the story being told. At that moment, it ceases to become a GAME, and moves towards becoming inter-active fiction...
What I want is the opposite - I want MORE power over the stories I can write, but the industry seems to be moving in the opposite direction atm:(
How 'close' would a game come to being covered under gambling laws, if any and every item you randomly find/get given as a reward in a game, actually has official real-life monetary value?
The 'problem' Spector is talking about certainly isn't unique, but has become far bigger with the creation of computer games...
Most forms of 'entertainment' exist purely to TELL stories, such as books, films, music, plays etc., and a large industry exists just to manufacture and distribute them.
Games, on the hand, are about the OPPOSITE. They're about letting players WRITE their OWN stories whist playing the game, and generally competing or co-operating in trying to get the ending they desire.
Computer games, are not quite unique in this respect, but they DO have the most amount of scope in allowing games to encompass BOTH of these in the same product - i.e. both telling a story and letting the player write their own.
The PROBLEM, is that you can't do BOTH at the SAME TIME. They have to take it in turns. Now, because games are about story WRITING, their MAIN focus should be on letting the player have enough influence and power over the story they can create, rather than the story the game is trying to tell them, especially in computer games, where the amount of options that can be given to the player to do so are almost limitless.
Unfortunately, so many people involved in the computer games industry have come there from the normal entertainment industry, and are therefore more experienced in TELLING stories, rather than knowing how to give people opportunities in WRITING them.
This is one of the reasons why so many of the high-end computer games now seem to all about the story being TOLD, rather than the game and game-play experience of the player, and, unfortunately, sometimes to it's detriment.
The fact is, though, is that there is room for EVERYTHING, or at least, there should be. The only thing that matters is exactly what it is that you're trying to make - is it an interactive story, or a game, or some balance between the two?
For Spector to say that story writing, is lazier than story telling, however, only tells me that he doesn't understand GAMES for what they really are. It merely tells me what his own opinion is on what games should be, and I'm sorry Mr Spector, but you're WRONG.
Unfortunately, this outlook doesn't seem to be at all uncommon atm., which I feel does a great disservice to both story telling AND writing as creative media.
In fact, I had a long argument with another person on a forum recently, (who also seems to be involved in the industry), about this very subject: She also said that games, (mainly role-playing games it has to be said), were more about the stories being told, than the ones being written.
I'm sorry, but the definitions of story writing (games) and story telling, are separate and DISTINCT - to try and define either by confusing one for, or involving, the other, is to belittle BOTH.
The only thing you need to decide, Mr Spector, is exactly which one of those it is that you wish to do: tell a story, or let someone write one for themselves, or interleave one with the other, and try and balance both of them out to your satisfaction, (which, yes, a lot modern games now seem to try and do).
To try and say that only one of these options is viable, or a better form of entertainment than the other is simply arrogant, misleading, or a result of misunderstanding about the subject. matter. I'll leave other readers and yourself to decide which was the most likely outcome here.
Note: I've been thinking about doing a paper about story writing in RPG's, based upon this subject in reaction to, and following up on the argument I had recently...
Is it me or is that paper looking like a better idea all the time???
It's pretty obvious to me exactly where games should be heading, and 'open world' games, regardless of type - (shooter/RPG etc.) - are no exception.
The first step, is something certain games are now starting to really get into:
Dynamic content. I.e. game worlds/objects/characters etc. that react to the player and each other in as many ways as possible. Of course, this means stuff like destructible scenery, aswell as dynamic plot generation etc..
The second step is something most RPG's have really taken steps towards, but there's an awful lot of room left to explore:
Dynamic Game-play. (I.e. the accompaniment to dynamic content - not the 'generic' dynamic game-play tag you tend to see on most games these days. Again, it means giving the player some power over the type of game-play options aswell as any and maybe all of the development thereof. Though of course there's no reason why any of this has to all be in the players domain, and remain completely separate from the content or reliant on the basic game-play....
The third step is also something a few types of games have done, but again, usually in a very limited and similar fashion. It's usually used as a way of providing different difficulty settings, but elements have also been used in a couple of other games, though rarely under the power or influence of the player:
Dynamic Game-play Mechanics. This is the one area I feel with the most amount of room left to explore, simply because games so far have done so little with it. Even if we take a similar route to the way difficulty settings operate - (generally going from simple/easy to complex/hard), there's no reason why for certain types of game, where player skill isn't as influential, where those two options could be balanced out and made to work in the same game without any overall penalties/advantages - (though probably balanced out by generalist/specialist settings would be best, rather than difficulty). again, though, this is merely scratching the surface of what's possible. Imagine a game where the player could influence the game-play mechanics of both entities under his own control, AND those under the players in different ways...
Okay, so now you've read all that, (and hopefully understood it), NOW imagine a game with all three - (the 'holy' trinity, if you like;) ):
Dynamic content, game-play AND game-play mechanics, IN THE SAME GAME...
Down side? We'll probably have to wait another 10-20 years before it all gets worked out...:(
(I'm thinking about doing an article about all this for somewhere - (Like gamasutra or something?) - anyone think it's worthwhile?).
Again, another article talking about the matter of game-play vs storytelling...
The fact is, is that if you get the basic game-play right for the game and audience your aiming for, then you'll do well - and if you tell the story well, then you'll do even better. This, though, shouldn't be news to ANYONE here...
The thing they seem to be aiming for here - (though I'm not quite sure how well they've hit this target) - is to try and find out just what sort of emotional impact both can have upon certain types of gamers.
The market has already shown, however, that if you get the basic game-play right for most types of game, regardless of the plot or story, then you'll do ok. If you get the story right and the basic game-play wrong, however, then you probably won't...
Someone in a post above talked about Oblivion - this to me is a game where, for the market it was aimed at, it got it's priorities right - (plot/story with particular game-play) which is why it was successful.
Unfortunately for me, I'm more interested in the game-play than I am in the story, which generally puts me at odds with most of the market, especially considering I like RPG's... (The reason I like RPG's however, is the opportunity they have for scope and depth of game-play and game-play DEVELOPMENT over most other types of game. Unfortunately for me, the games which use this feature well are very few and far between:( ).
A keyboard is simply the most efficient way we've found of inputting text into a computer, and I really don't see that changing at all for a very long time.
Mice/joysticks/gamepads/tablets are all about the same - it's all about creating the most efficient way of interacting with the computer, whilst taking into account human behaviour...
By human behaviour, I mean that not every gesture we make will want to involve the computer, be it consciously, or subconsciously, and being able to therefore a) have full control over exactly when and how we are, and are NOT, interacting with the computer, and b) multi-task, (such as talking to someone else whilst typing), are two prerequisites for any human-computer interface that wishes to sell to the 'mass-market'.
NOTE: I know about the Wii's interface, and it could be said that it's a mass-market product, but the reason it's succeeded is because it's able to get away with it, since it's not a system that's designed to be used for long periods...
Any interface that does not take these two into account will only ever sell to small niche market, unless they find they can get away with a specific implementation, like the Wii. (I'm sure that someone somewhere will find a use for almost anything - even the system demo'd here).
If people and companies are making more money reselling your product than you're making selling it new, then you have a problem - and it's NOT with the resellers - (though of course you'd like to think so).
In other words, if you can't sell enough new copies of a product, and/or get enough people to buy and keep that product in order to minimize the 'losses' to the 2nd hand market in order to make a profit and stay in business, then guess what? You don't deserve to...
A lot of people in the book industry hate the 2nd hand market too, but without it, they wouldn't actually be able to make as much money - why?
The way the book market deals with the 2nd hand market, is to release as many new books as possible. The reason they can do so, is that the development, production and distribution of a book is so well known, and the industry is no so mature, that they know how to use it to make the most amount of money, and keep everyone happy...
The reason the computer games are having problems, is that their market is not as mature, and they haven't figured out how to get the market working properly yet, with the biggest problem being the overall cost of developing the games to begin with. But that's NOT the consumers fault, and any attempt to place all the blame and burden on the consumer for their own failures will be a quick way to go out of business. (I hope).
A friend of mine did a degree course like that at Lincoln Uni over here in the UK...
Unfortunately such a course has one major downside:
It's TOO generalist. My friend new exactly what it is he wants to do - (game/level design) - and he only spent two months or so on each subject out of two years, which simply wasn't enough.
After talking to him for a while, it became obvious that the course he took would actually have been better if split into two - one for the game system(s) and one for the content - and then have both courses work together on the same project(s).
Having spent most of my life in Loughborough - (I've since moved to Leeds) - I was really miffed when Craig Charles never called it Lugabruga, after a team from Loughborough Uni made it onto robot wars - I mean, if there's ONE person in the UK you want to hear say that word - it's him:p
WRONG - the ONLY way to kill gold selling is to remove the NEED for gold in the first place>
I'm not talking about removing gold or currency completely, but if a character can get all the gold, experience and items they NEED during normal play, then the gold market will be much smaller and have less of an impact.
Of course, there should always be more items that people WANT, but it's possible to make it so they don't impact the gold supply either...
In MMO's there are TWO types of quests - those that you are given, and those you make for yourself.
The problem with the missions you get given however, is that they are generally in their own separate little world and have no bearing on anything else, which gets linked with the dynamic content side of things.
The other type are the missions you do yourself - for instance if you get a group of people together and just decide to go on a raid or something...
I'm a musician and composer - (though I don't really have the resources - (software/hardware etc.) - to write the music the way I'd like) - and there's been quite a lot of talk about how to make in-game music work/fit with the action in the game etc..
I had this talk with someone a while ago, about being able to create a modular soundtrack using phrases and/or tunes - (I write tunes, so you'd think it wouldn't be too hard). Basically, you'll want a really long medley of music, say lots of parts of 4 or 8 bars long, in various keys and styles that can segue in and out of each other, related to the in-game activity.
It's definitely something I've thought of doing, but I don't have the instruments to really make it sound that great, and since my computer died I've yet to reinstall all my music software - (new motherboard/chip=no working backups:( ).
(My homepage has some of my music on, but the site's not that great - (really old and a crap picture) - need a better pic and stuff, then I'll see about getting a myspace page up or something).
To do a persistent world properly, and make it worth playing in, means making it dynamic - i.e. it reacts to what the player(s) is/(are) doing.
There are two ways to make a world dynamic:
Either you:
a) rely on player and player interactions to add the dynamics, (such as in Eve Online).
b) design the game world and NPC mechanics etc. to react to the players. (Have no idea if the second one has been achieved yet).
B is obviously a LOT harder to do than A, which is why it hasn't really happened yet (to my knowledge), but can have the biggest impact. The problem with A, is that it automatically means having a PvP orientated game, and making it all work properly etc. does place a lot of limits on what is possible, whereas B can be done regardless, in a PvE only game, or even one with both PvE and PvP. (Though to really get the most out of it, a PvE only system would probably work best).
Stopping farming is easy - just design the game in such a way as to make it not worthwhile.
Unfortunately, I've yet to see an MMO designed in such a fashion.
Complaining about this issue, is like making an online game, and giving the user dice to roll, then complaining that some people are using different dice that have been loaded.
If you design a game that not only makes an issue like this possible, but likely, then you only have yourself to blame.
Rather than an individual game idea - I've been working on something a little more powerful:
A (flexible/modular/scalable - (width and depth) - etc.) computer-based RPG 'system'.
Well - I say 'system' because it's not just one complete system, like, say, the D20 system or anything like that - I.e. 1 set system that gets used over again - though it can certainly be used as one, or 10, or a hundred - it's more like a framework which you can use to create the RPG system you need for the specific game you are creating - without having to create an entire system - (having to work out all the relationships between all the numbers etc.) - from scratch.
I began thinking about this after playing Diablo 2 and Everquest one after the other and seeing so many problems repeat themselves - from then on I started analysing all the RPG's I could and figuring out why/how/what the problems were and how to fix them - my 'system' is the result.
To really see how far it could go, and what could be done with it, though, I knew I needed specific game idea to tie it to - of course, the bigger the better in this case, so an MMORPG went without saying. Even my game idea is pretty interesting - (as-in, it doesn't currently exist in any way shape or form - (A co-operative only MMORPG)) - but TBH, it doesn't really matter so much next to the system itself.
To give you some idea of what it could allow a game to do - I had a long chat with some people after I played World of Warcraft, about the system as I had it then, (which was a pretty heavy hard-core RPG system), and was talking about a specific combat system I'd though of implementing - (for the game-idea I had) - and the first thing they complained about was no auto-combat. Then they complained about the fact that my system sounded too complicated to play and the 'discussion' went from there...
After I sat down and had another look at my system, though, I realised something important:
It could be HIGHLY, (almost totally), automated. Without changing any figures or anything else about the system - or anything to do with the game, I realised that it would be possible to use my system to create a game where you could give the player as little or as much choice about the RPG elements as they'd like:
Want it all on rails/auto combat etc. - (adventure mode)? Can do. Want to have full total control over how all the figures, (attributes/skills etc.) are manipulated/improved as-well as a (optional!) more involved combat system - (hard-core/full RPG mode)? Can do. Want a half-way house between the two? Can do. WANT A BALANCED/COMPATIBLE CHOICE BETWEEN ALL THREE IN THE SAME GAME? Can do!!!
The thing is, is that I KNOW that this is what the industry is after - so many games seem to be trying to aim for something like this - but they take it SO slowly - most of the ideas I've had to solve a lot of the problems I've seen are, really, only just starting to appear - unfortunately, they are very sporadic throughout the number of games, whereas my system is about incorporating it all, (and more), into a single game - but I haven't a clue how to go about doing that...
That's the point - what can I do with my 'system' - it cannot be used for a Pen and Paper based RPG - (it's too automated for that) - so that's out, but I'm not sure where to start.
Well - I know what I'd like - I'd like to get a small group of people together and do a little action/hack-and-slash RPG, just to prove the basic system works, but I'm not sure how to even go about doing that. Unfortunately I'm not a programmer - I'm a (poor/broke etc.) musician/composer - (with a strong logical/analytical side).
Also, it hasn't helped that a lot of people I've spoken to, don't quite 'get' it. I've had quite a few 'discussions' with other people about why my system works the way it does, and it appears that either a) people don't seem to understand RPG's the way I do, or b) they don't understand the philosophy I have that underpins my system.
Exactly - it's all about finding the most efficient method of input - computer mice and keyboards need far less energy to use, than either touch screens or remotes like the Nintendo Wii's controller. For short intermittent use, it might not be a problem, but when you're using a computer for hours at a time, the most efficient answer will always win, and so far, we've yet to beat the mouse and keyboard...
Lol. You should never say NEVER about anything like this, since talking about unlimited timeframes for anything is not a very good bet. They used to say we'd never visit the moon - you know what happened there. Yes, it may take centuries, or even millennia to colonise another planet or moon, but since the moon and mars are the first on the list when such a thing actually occurs - I wouldn't say never.
Of course, if you meant 'in our life-time', then you'd probably be correct.
Slashdot Mirror
No - what you are talking about is a completely different problem, and certainly not one that is unsolvable.
Yes, current MMORPG's might have problems scaling up so far - but then, they wern't designed for that, so it's completely unfair to compare them.
What an RPG is all about is having greater options and power for the players in the stories they can write. You're complaining that just because there are so many people playing a game, that the numbers of different stories they can write would be too limited.
Not necessarily - it all depends on how the game is designed. In fact there is absolutely NO reason why an MMORPG can't have enough depth and options to allow each and every individual character to create their own, UNIQUE, story.
This, IMO, is exactly what MMORPG's should be aiming for, but so far the only one which has even come close to getting it right, is of course Eve Online.
But it's NOT the fact that it has one server that allows it to do this. In fact, the number of servers/shards/instances etc. has absolutely no real effect upon this.
What DOES have an effect, and is the reason Eve Online supports this, is that the game-world is PERSISTENT.
THAT, IMO, is something that is FAR more important for MMORPG's than the amount of shards, size and population a game and it's world might have.
No. Again, you're getting mixed up between story telling - (which is what the article is about) - and story WRITING, which is what GAMES are about...
Sure, you can tell stories in games, but only at the expense of the story being written, which is why the two are generally interleaved.
The ONLY thing that's really any different in computer games, compared to any others, (say, board games), are the options and power over stories the player can WRITE, not the story the game has to tell - since they are already defined independently of games, regardless of whether they run on a computer.
RPG's require story?
Yes and no. What they REALLY require, like many other games, are setting and background. Anything beyond that is simply an opinion, depending on the individual game.
The problem I have with a lot of games these days, is that some developers seem to forget that the story the player WRITES, is actually more important than the story the game has to TELL.
Just because a lot of RPG's focus on telling a story, does NOT mean that they have to do so.
What makes an RPG what it is, is NOT the story being told, but the options and power it gives the player in writing their OWN story. Whether it has a straight-jacket of a story to follow or is completely open for the player makes NO difference to it's genre.
Games, are about story WRITING, not story TELLING - even RPG's. Just because you can interleave a story being told with one being written doesn't mean it HAS to be that way. Most games, in fact, don't involve a story being told at all - (chess/draughts/tag/hopscotch etc.) - ALL they are concerned about is the player(s) creating his/her/their OWN.
The problem some people have in the computer games industry atm, is that, coming from the other media companies and industry, (film/tv etc.), which is BUILT around story TELLING, they want to do the same thing in computer games.
I am NOT saying that using a computer game to tell a story is BAD, though, since, in itself, it's not - it's just different. What DOES make it bad, though, is when the story the players can write gets overshadowed by the story being told. At that moment, it ceases to become a GAME, and moves towards becoming inter-active fiction...
What I want is the opposite - I want MORE power over the stories I can write, but the industry seems to be moving in the opposite direction atm :(
How 'close' would a game come to being covered under gambling laws, if any and every item you randomly find/get given as a reward in a game, actually has official real-life monetary value?
The 'problem' Spector is talking about certainly isn't unique, but has become far bigger with the creation of computer games...
Most forms of 'entertainment' exist purely to TELL stories, such as books, films, music, plays etc., and a large industry exists just to manufacture and distribute them.
Games, on the hand, are about the OPPOSITE. They're about letting players WRITE their OWN stories whist playing the game, and generally competing or co-operating in trying to get the ending they desire.
Computer games, are not quite unique in this respect, but they DO have the most amount of scope in allowing games to encompass BOTH of these in the same product - i.e. both telling a story and letting the player write their own.
The PROBLEM, is that you can't do BOTH at the SAME TIME. They have to take it in turns. Now, because games are about story WRITING, their MAIN focus should be on letting the player have enough influence and power over the story they can create, rather than the story the game is trying to tell them, especially in computer games, where the amount of options that can be given to the player to do so are almost limitless.
Unfortunately, so many people involved in the computer games industry have come there from the normal entertainment industry, and are therefore more experienced in TELLING stories, rather than knowing how to give people opportunities in WRITING them.
This is one of the reasons why so many of the high-end computer games now seem to all about the story being TOLD, rather than the game and game-play experience of the player, and, unfortunately, sometimes to it's detriment.
The fact is, though, is that there is room for EVERYTHING, or at least, there should be. The only thing that matters is exactly what it is that you're trying to make - is it an interactive story, or a game, or some balance between the two?
For Spector to say that story writing, is lazier than story telling, however, only tells me that he doesn't understand GAMES for what they really are. It merely tells me what his own opinion is on what games should be, and I'm sorry Mr Spector, but you're WRONG.
Unfortunately, this outlook doesn't seem to be at all uncommon atm., which I feel does a great disservice to both story telling AND writing as creative media.
In fact, I had a long argument with another person on a forum recently, (who also seems to be involved in the industry), about this very subject: She also said that games, (mainly role-playing games it has to be said), were more about the stories being told, than the ones being written.
I'm sorry, but the definitions of story writing (games) and story telling, are separate and DISTINCT - to try and define either by confusing one for, or involving, the other, is to belittle BOTH.
The only thing you need to decide, Mr Spector, is exactly which one of those it is that you wish to do: tell a story, or let someone write one for themselves, or interleave one with the other, and try and balance both of them out to your satisfaction, (which, yes, a lot modern games now seem to try and do).
To try and say that only one of these options is viable, or a better form of entertainment than the other is simply arrogant, misleading, or a result of misunderstanding about the subject. matter. I'll leave other readers and yourself to decide which was the most likely outcome here.
Note: I've been thinking about doing a paper about story writing in RPG's, based upon this subject in reaction to, and following up on the argument I had recently...
Is it me or is that paper looking like a better idea all the time???
DOh - *and those under the COMPUTER's control
It's pretty obvious to me exactly where games should be heading, and 'open world' games, regardless of type - (shooter/RPG etc.) - are no exception.
The first step, is something certain games are now starting to really get into:
Dynamic content. I.e. game worlds/objects/characters etc. that react to the player and each other in as many ways as possible. Of course, this means stuff like destructible scenery, aswell as dynamic plot generation etc..
The second step is something most RPG's have really taken steps towards, but there's an awful lot of room left to explore:
Dynamic Game-play. (I.e. the accompaniment to dynamic content - not the 'generic' dynamic game-play tag you tend to see on most games these days. Again, it means giving the player some power over the type of game-play options aswell as any and maybe all of the development thereof. Though of course there's no reason why any of this has to all be in the players domain, and remain completely separate from the content or reliant on the basic game-play....
The third step is also something a few types of games have done, but again, usually in a very limited and similar fashion. It's usually used as a way of providing different difficulty settings, but elements have also been used in a couple of other games, though rarely under the power or influence of the player:
Dynamic Game-play Mechanics. This is the one area I feel with the most amount of room left to explore, simply because games so far have done so little with it. Even if we take a similar route to the way difficulty settings operate - (generally going from simple/easy to complex/hard), there's no reason why for certain types of game, where player skill isn't as influential, where those two options could be balanced out and made to work in the same game without any overall penalties/advantages - (though probably balanced out by generalist/specialist settings would be best, rather than difficulty). again, though, this is merely scratching the surface of what's possible. Imagine a game where the player could influence the game-play mechanics of both entities under his own control, AND those under the players in different ways...
Okay, so now you've read all that, (and hopefully understood it), NOW imagine a game with all three - (the 'holy' trinity, if you like ;) ):
Dynamic content, game-play AND game-play mechanics, IN THE SAME GAME...
Down side? We'll probably have to wait another 10-20 years before it all gets worked out... :(
(I'm thinking about doing an article about all this for somewhere - (Like gamasutra or something?) - anyone think it's worthwhile?).
Again, another article talking about the matter of game-play vs storytelling...
The fact is, is that if you get the basic game-play right for the game and audience your aiming for, then you'll do well - and if you tell the story well, then you'll do even better. This, though, shouldn't be news to ANYONE here...
The thing they seem to be aiming for here - (though I'm not quite sure how well they've hit this target) - is to try and find out just what sort of emotional impact both can have upon certain types of gamers.
The market has already shown, however, that if you get the basic game-play right for most types of game, regardless of the plot or story, then you'll do ok. If you get the story right and the basic game-play wrong, however, then you probably won't...
Someone in a post above talked about Oblivion - this to me is a game where, for the market it was aimed at, it got it's priorities right - (plot/story with particular game-play) which is why it was successful.
Unfortunately for me, I'm more interested in the game-play than I am in the story, which generally puts me at odds with most of the market, especially considering I like RPG's... (The reason I like RPG's however, is the opportunity they have for scope and depth of game-play and game-play DEVELOPMENT over most other types of game. Unfortunately for me, the games which use this feature well are very few and far between :( ).
I think you mean Bocce...
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Bocce
(I don't know - coming to slashdot and getting you're Star Wars references wrong... *sigh*).
Exactly - it's all about efficiency...
A keyboard is simply the most efficient way we've found of inputting text into a computer, and I really don't see that changing at all for a very long time.
Mice/joysticks/gamepads/tablets are all about the same - it's all about creating the most efficient way of interacting with the computer, whilst taking into account human behaviour...
By human behaviour, I mean that not every gesture we make will want to involve the computer, be it consciously, or subconsciously, and being able to therefore a) have full control over exactly when and how we are, and are NOT, interacting with the computer, and b) multi-task, (such as talking to someone else whilst typing), are two prerequisites for any human-computer interface that wishes to sell to the 'mass-market'.
NOTE: I know about the Wii's interface, and it could be said that it's a mass-market product, but the reason it's succeeded is because it's able to get away with it, since it's not a system that's designed to be used for long periods...
Any interface that does not take these two into account will only ever sell to small niche market, unless they find they can get away with a specific implementation, like the Wii. (I'm sure that someone somewhere will find a use for almost anything - even the system demo'd here).
If people and companies are making more money reselling your product than you're making selling it new, then you have a problem - and it's NOT with the resellers - (though of course you'd like to think so).
In other words, if you can't sell enough new copies of a product, and/or get enough people to buy and keep that product in order to minimize the 'losses' to the 2nd hand market in order to make a profit and stay in business, then guess what? You don't deserve to...
A lot of people in the book industry hate the 2nd hand market too, but without it, they wouldn't actually be able to make as much money - why?
The way the book market deals with the 2nd hand market, is to release as many new books as possible. The reason they can do so, is that the development, production and distribution of a book is so well known, and the industry is no so mature, that they know how to use it to make the most amount of money, and keep everyone happy...
The reason the computer games are having problems, is that their market is not as mature, and they haven't figured out how to get the market working properly yet, with the biggest problem being the overall cost of developing the games to begin with. But that's NOT the consumers fault, and any attempt to place all the blame and burden on the consumer for their own failures will be a quick way to go out of business. (I hope).
A friend of mine did a degree course like that at Lincoln Uni over here in the UK...
Unfortunately such a course has one major downside:
It's TOO generalist. My friend new exactly what it is he wants to do - (game/level design) - and he only spent two months or so on each subject out of two years, which simply wasn't enough.
After talking to him for a while, it became obvious that the course he took would actually have been better if split into two - one for the game system(s) and one for the content - and then have both courses work together on the same project(s).
READ:
http://rpgforumsonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20613
Having spent most of my life in Loughborough - (I've since moved to Leeds) - I was really miffed when Craig Charles never called it Lugabruga, after a team from Loughborough Uni made it onto robot wars - I mean, if there's ONE person in the UK you want to hear say that word - it's him :p
Maybe the make/brand matters?
I have a 4-year-old Sapphire 9800 Pro still going strong in this computer - (well, as strong as it gets, (woefully underpowered now)).
DOH - (message problems).
WRONG - the ONLY way to kill gold selling is to remove the NEED for gold in the first place>
I'm not talking about removing gold or currency completely, but if a character can get all the gold, experience and items they NEED during normal play, then the gold market will be much smaller and have less of an impact.
Of course, there should always be more items that people WANT, but it's possible to make it so they don't impact the gold supply either...
WRONG.
In MMO's there are TWO types of quests - those that you are given, and those you make for yourself.
The problem with the missions you get given however, is that they are generally in their own separate little world and have no bearing on anything else, which gets linked with the dynamic content side of things.
The other type are the missions you do yourself - for instance if you get a group of people together and just decide to go on a raid or something...
I'm a musician and composer - (though I don't really have the resources - (software/hardware etc.) - to write the music the way I'd like) - and there's been quite a lot of talk about how to make in-game music work/fit with the action in the game etc..
I had this talk with someone a while ago, about being able to create a modular soundtrack using phrases and/or tunes - (I write tunes, so you'd think it wouldn't be too hard). Basically, you'll want a really long medley of music, say lots of parts of 4 or 8 bars long, in various keys and styles that can segue in and out of each other, related to the in-game activity.
It's definitely something I've thought of doing, but I don't have the instruments to really make it sound that great, and since my computer died I've yet to reinstall all my music software - (new motherboard/chip=no working backups :( ).
(My homepage has some of my music on, but the site's not that great - (really old and a crap picture) - need a better pic and stuff, then I'll see about getting a myspace page up or something).
How do you know that the second foundation doesn't exist? (Unless you're waiting for the Mule...?)
To do a persistent world properly, and make it worth playing in, means making it dynamic - i.e. it reacts to what the player(s) is/(are) doing.
There are two ways to make a world dynamic:
Either you:
a) rely on player and player interactions to add the dynamics, (such as in Eve Online).
b) design the game world and NPC mechanics etc. to react to the players. (Have no idea if the second one has been achieved yet).
B is obviously a LOT harder to do than A, which is why it hasn't really happened yet (to my knowledge), but can have the biggest impact. The problem with A, is that it automatically means having a PvP orientated game, and making it all work properly etc. does place a lot of limits on what is possible, whereas B can be done regardless, in a PvE only game, or even one with both PvE and PvP. (Though to really get the most out of it, a PvE only system would probably work best).
No they don't.
Stopping farming is easy - just design the game in such a way as to make it not worthwhile.
Unfortunately, I've yet to see an MMO designed in such a fashion.
Complaining about this issue, is like making an online game, and giving the user dice to roll, then complaining that some people are using different dice that have been loaded.
If you design a game that not only makes an issue like this possible, but likely, then you only have yourself to blame.
Rather than an individual game idea - I've been working on something a little more powerful:
A (flexible/modular/scalable - (width and depth) - etc.) computer-based RPG 'system'.
Well - I say 'system' because it's not just one complete system, like, say, the D20 system or anything like that - I.e. 1 set system that gets used over again - though it can certainly be used as one, or 10, or a hundred - it's more like a framework which you can use to create the RPG system you need for the specific game you are creating - without having to create an entire system - (having to work out all the relationships between all the numbers etc.) - from scratch.
I began thinking about this after playing Diablo 2 and Everquest one after the other and seeing so many problems repeat themselves - from then on I started analysing all the RPG's I could and figuring out why/how/what the problems were and how to fix them - my 'system' is the result.
To really see how far it could go, and what could be done with it, though, I knew I needed specific game idea to tie it to - of course, the bigger the better in this case, so an MMORPG went without saying. Even my game idea is pretty interesting - (as-in, it doesn't currently exist in any way shape or form - (A co-operative only MMORPG)) - but TBH, it doesn't really matter so much next to the system itself.
To give you some idea of what it could allow a game to do - I had a long chat with some people after I played World of Warcraft, about the system as I had it then, (which was a pretty heavy hard-core RPG system), and was talking about a specific combat system I'd though of implementing - (for the game-idea I had) - and the first thing they complained about was no auto-combat. Then they complained about the fact that my system sounded too complicated to play and the 'discussion' went from there...
After I sat down and had another look at my system, though, I realised something important:
It could be HIGHLY, (almost totally), automated. Without changing any figures or anything else about the system - or anything to do with the game, I realised that it would be possible to use my system to create a game where you could give the player as little or as much choice about the RPG elements as they'd like:
Want it all on rails/auto combat etc. - (adventure mode)? Can do. Want to have full total control over how all the figures, (attributes/skills etc.) are manipulated/improved as-well as a (optional!) more involved combat system - (hard-core/full RPG mode)? Can do. Want a half-way house between the two? Can do. WANT A BALANCED/COMPATIBLE CHOICE BETWEEN ALL THREE IN THE SAME GAME? Can do!!!
The thing is, is that I KNOW that this is what the industry is after - so many games seem to be trying to aim for something like this - but they take it SO slowly - most of the ideas I've had to solve a lot of the problems I've seen are, really, only just starting to appear - unfortunately, they are very sporadic throughout the number of games, whereas my system is about incorporating it all, (and more), into a single game - but I haven't a clue how to go about doing that...
That's the point - what can I do with my 'system' - it cannot be used for a Pen and Paper based RPG - (it's too automated for that) - so that's out, but I'm not sure where to start.
Well - I know what I'd like - I'd like to get a small group of people together and do a little action/hack-and-slash RPG, just to prove the basic system works, but I'm not sure how to even go about doing that. Unfortunately I'm not a programmer - I'm a (poor/broke etc.) musician/composer - (with a strong logical/analytical side).
Also, it hasn't helped that a lot of people I've spoken to, don't quite 'get' it. I've had quite a few 'discussions' with other people about why my system works the way it does, and it appears that either a) people don't seem to understand RPG's the way I do, or b) they don't understand the philosophy I have that underpins my system.
It's because of THIS, tha
Exactly - it's all about finding the most efficient method of input - computer mice and keyboards need far less energy to use, than either touch screens or remotes like the Nintendo Wii's controller. For short intermittent use, it might not be a problem, but when you're using a computer for hours at a time, the most efficient answer will always win, and so far, we've yet to beat the mouse and keyboard...
Lol. You should never say NEVER about anything like this, since talking about unlimited timeframes for anything is not a very good bet. They used to say we'd never visit the moon - you know what happened there. Yes, it may take centuries, or even millennia to colonise another planet or moon, but since the moon and mars are the first on the list when such a thing actually occurs - I wouldn't say never.
Of course, if you meant 'in our life-time', then you'd probably be correct.