A View From The Road: Boldly Going Nowhere

VanBasten

New member
Aug 20, 2009
233
0
0
Raithnor said:
The more "introspective" episodes of Star Trek don't work very well in an MMO format.
I think the point is that yes, it wouldn't work in what we've come to know as an MMO format. But MMO only says massive, multiplayer and online. Nowhere does it state killing and looting in those three letters. What would be wrong with attempting to implement "quests" in MMOs more like adventure(or maybe sandbox) games, rather than hack and slash ones. It would be more difficult(how the hell do you make it multiplayer?), it would be risky(do people really wanna not shoot stuff all the time?), and it would probably fail(i came from WoW and what is this?), but it would be more in line with what Star Trek, Harry Potter or Firefly are. And you could still fit in occasional space (or troll:)) fights in there.

BTW, please fix your quote up there because it looks like I said something which I didn't.
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
VanBasten said:
DTWolfwood said:
ah yes DS9 the show that happened almost exclusively inside a station showed a lot of exploration alright. And the lovely fighting that incurred in the last seasons of the series was very Star Trek too.
Uhm, I got lost in the contradictions in your statements. Firstly, your description of DS9 is dead wrong. Secondly, the description of DS9 you are suggesting is actually more similar to what STO is. And then thirdly you're implying that DS9 sucked and STO is great? Dude... what?

DS9 handled wars the star trek way, thoughtfully and personally. It wasn't about the war, it was about the people. STO handles it the space invaders way: "You're here, there's thousands of other ships there. Go destroy them, upgrade your phasers."

And I wouldn't complain if it was marketed as a space/ground future combat game(although i find it a bit disappointing even as that). But it's marketed as Star Trek Online, which sort of implies a Star Trek universe which you get a chance to inhabit. But this isn't a Star Trek universe I know, I cannot just go about and explore strange new worlds, I always have to kill someone, so immersion factor is nonexistent for me, as is any reason to continue playing.
ok ill be honest didnt watch DS9 what i said is word of mouth from those whom supposed to have seen it XD yeh doesn't help my argument on that regard, kudos to catching me :D

still though really would have like more weapon slots on the ships. Kinda hard to go from a 50+ gun broadside from Pirated of the Burning Sea to a 6-8 beams :(
 

domicius

New member
Apr 2, 2008
212
0
0
Gotta agree with the article - the requirements of a game are very different from the requirements of a show.

What should not be ignored, however, is that a well written character centred show creates a very well realised location, in which a game can be set. Games are always "a world apart" due to the suspension of disbelief required from the "press start" prompt.

The MMO setting taps into a desire for "massive inclusion", or "shared play", while relegating the ability to tell stories and characters to the text of the missions, or to the efforts of the players.

Which, to cut my long waffle (or pancake) short, means this:
1. MMO gives you setting and a stage.
2. Lots of gribblies to kill and stuff to collect if you just want to play.
3. The ability to "play pretend" if you want to with other people.

MMOs, like all things expensive in the world of entertainment, try to be all things to all people. Use them cautiously.

And burn, Romulus, burn!
 

ccesarano

New member
Oct 3, 2007
523
0
0
I think the real trick is taking a philosophy similar to that of Rocksteady when they developed Batman: Arkham Asylum. Don't try to fit the IP to a genre, but think of what bits of various other games/genres would make a good Batman game. There are a ton of ideas that Batman uses, but because of the IP and the execution it doesn't feel like it's an amalgamation of previous ideas. It feels like Batman.

I've actually brain-stormed on multiple occasions how one would go about making a Pokemon MMO. I've never considered taking a game like World of Warcraft or Everquest and applying Pokemon to it. I've thought about how Pokemon games play and how you throw tons of players in there. You wouldn't have quests to go out and catch 30 Rattata's or any crap like that, because that's just lame. Quests would probably do more with using Pokemon to accomplish tasks. "The house is on fire and the fire department is stuck at a road block!" Do you have water pokemon? Use them to put out the fire. You don't? Use Rock Type or Fighting Type to clear the road block so the fire department can make their way to the house. Or, if you happen to be working with friends, you can do both. Start putting out the fire while a friend gets the fire department, making sure the job gets done as quickly as possible.

I've got a ton of ideas as to how to try and make a Pokemon MMO, but admittedly I also don't expect one to ever happen. I can't see Nintendo making one. Still, it's fun to think about. But again, I think the key isn't to take the current IP and apply it to the template of generic MMO. I think the real trick is taking the IP and getting a ton of players to experience the world all at once.
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
Ok a MMO about exploring doesn't make for a compelling game. But assuming that STO is a game against the grain of the Star Trek Ip erks me when the man saying it haven't at least tried it first. If he arrived at the same conclusion say after playing it, than ok, i'll concede to his point. but when you have a title like "boldly going nowhere" and calling out a specific game in the subtitle, you'd have to expect some fanboy rage, (guilty as charge)

Raithnor said:
Misquoted u my bad XD
 

Raithnor

New member
Jul 26, 2009
224
0
0
VanBasten said:
Raithnor said:
The more "introspective" episodes of Star Trek don't work very well in an MMO format.
I think the point is that yes, it wouldn't work in what we've come to know as an MMO format. But MMO only says massive, multiplayer and online. Nowhere does it state killing and looting in those three letters. What would be wrong with attempting to implement "quests" in MMOs more like adventure(or maybe sandbox) games, rather than hack and slash ones. It would be more difficult(how the hell do you make it multiplayer?), it would be risky(do people really wanna not shoot stuff all the time?), and it would probably fail(i came from WoW and what is this?), but it would be more in line with what Star Trek, Harry Potter or Firefly are. And you could still fit in occasional space (or troll:)) fights in there.

BTW, please fix your quote up there because it looks like I said something which I didn't.
Quote fixed.

The problem isn't "MMO", the problem is "Computer-based RPG" which has highly refined the concept of "Kill, Loot, Level, Rinse, Repeat" gameplay. WOW didn't invent the concept, they just refined and made it part of the "fandom" mainstream.

Let's be real, Cryptic developed an MMO engine so they can mass produce MMOs for Atari and they were on a deadline from CBS. They were going for "bankable" and when you do that you don't think outside the box too often, or at least you risk the "core" gameplay experience.

My gripes with STO is more basic: A good chunk of what their base design was poorly implemented or badly designed. The existing gameplay is entertaining enough to justify a subscription, but they really need to spend time improving some of the basic systems.

Trying to judge a game on "What you think it should be." is a recipe for disappointment. Either they'll go for the "mass-market" approach and produce bland gameplay or they'll create a niche product for a niche market which limits profitablity which is a big no-no when you have other people involved that aren't the game designers.
 

aegios187

New member
Jun 17, 2007
90
0
0
Telperion said:
This article reminded me once again of CCP North America: that part of CCP, which is currently working on World of Darkness Online. Considering White Wolf's IP - and I own about 70 RPG books to back that claim up - combat is only a minor part of what makes games like Vampire: the Requiem great. I desperately want to the creators of a very successful MMO to bring something different, something that works, to the table.

Time will tell.

I've played my fair share of WoD, a good campaign of Vampire had combat as a minor accent to the overall story going on, the exception was probably Werewolf as fighting the Wyrm etc was central theme to everything. You didn't actually want to fight very much (AT ALL) because it was very deadly, very quickly. Unfortunately, I don't think such individualized character driven interaction can be translated into a computerized format at this point. You have to remember the Storyteller system only worked so well because typically the audience was small and focused, it really can't provide that level of interaction or attention on such a large level. People interested in an approximate WoD-esque experience will have to fall into certain roleplay groups that will be player driven. They typical online player will simply take to the mechanical view of things (kill, get xp, "level" up) versus the organic system that the Storyteller system is rooted in. Sadly, "other" outnumbers "roleplayer" so if we reason that CCP will go where the dollars can be made, I wouldn't hold out for any reasonable approximation of the Storyteller system.
 

Robo_Doc

New member
Sep 24, 2009
2
0
0
JEBWrench said:
Honestly? In the view of most of the gaming community, it doesn't.

Plenty of people play an exploration game and come up with, "Okay, so what do you actually DO?"

That's one of the reasons why Uru failed (twice) on a pay-to-play model. Nobody wants to play a story-based MMO and pay for it.
So would you say then that the exploration-based gameplay/reward system of URU had a weakness in amount of content or substantial value in its rewards (unlocking Ages/Worlds, story content discovered)? What makes me interested in this particular game is the fact that:

1) URU did go under twice (like you said) and now in this game market is online again as an open-source project.

2) URU Presents an experience that seems to be inline with what John Funk was seeking through the Star Trek IP to an extent (Exploration, Peace-Making, Conflict that is not centered around combat). Though this is not the strongest parallel, it still works to an extent, and

3) What does it mean to have "something to do?" Action-Adventure MMOs such as WoW, Conan, and even PSO centered their content around equipment upgrades, content unlocking, and advancement in some sort of statistical way. Multi-player raiding also played a role in the progression of the content, emphasizing teamwork and socializing. While these relationships with content are tangible, they are only tangible within the mechanics of the game. Looking back at URU, it achieves similar goals by providing payers with puzzles that, when solved, unlock avatar clothing items, early enhancements to some device that is on the avatar's hand (used for chat and group invites), unlocking new ages based on the progression of previous ones (which even intersect at points), and overall build a library in your home area for easy transportation and grouping. Even through the multi-player, many avatars can get together to tackle tough puzzles and explore these worlds together. Again, these benefits, while tangible, are only tangible within the mechanics of this particular game. Excluding the meta-game involved, the rewards are only deeply related to its game's goals. Does this mean that players seek more combat-oriented conflicts to experience rather than the ones presented by URU? Maybe it is this combat/looting/light exploration that WoW presents that are elements already familiar to today's gamers. The whole exploration-mechanic driven game "died out" with many adventure games. Then again, adventure games are also on the rise again thanks to digital distribution and episodic delivery.

What could be the future state of the MMO? At some point, it will escape the model the WoW has established so well. Maybe concepts like URU are truly dead for a while, yet a need also seems to be there for that kind of exploratory experience. Your thoughts?
 

dead_rebel

New member
Jan 13, 2010
78
0
0
JEBWrench said:
dead_rebel said:
Vampire from World of Darkness is being made into a MMO and I'd LOVE to see a spawning area where instead of CHOOSING a race (Vampire, Mage or Werewolf) yourself, other players can "turn" you either by surrendering to them or fighting them off to stay human as long as possible. THAT kind of interaction between players is missing even from World of Warcraft.

Make it so.
That could work, and I'd find it a lot of fun, but what about the people who don't want to be a Vampire? Tough titty, re-roll, hope someone makes you a werewolf. Or hope that your character had the random chance to be a Mage?
I'm thinking that there are different starting areas in which you can be turned. So basically you enter a known werewolf forest area and by being there you can be turned, leave the forest and you cannot be turned. There could also be a nightclub that is a known Vampire hotspot, will you dare enter?

I do believe though that if you decide to stay human through the MMO, that should be possible too so after a certain level you cannot be turned because...maybe a quest renders you immune. You can be a vampire hunter, mage-killer or Werewolf's bane.

It needs ironing, but I'm sure there's something there that works. Just think, the player that turns you will immediately have a bond with you throughout your career creating interaction and friendships.
 

JEBWrench

New member
Apr 23, 2009
2,572
0
0
Robo_Doc said:
So would you say then that the exploration-based gameplay/reward system of URU had a weakness in amount of content or substantial value in its rewards (unlocking Ages/Worlds, story content discovered)? What makes me interested in this particular game is the fact that:
To most people's perception of gameplay-reward functions, yes. Being able to read a few more books doesn't appeal to a whole lot of gamers. (It does to me, because Myst is like heroin to me.) Yet, as a whole, the thrill of unlocking new Ages at the moment is hard for a lot of new players to really identify with.
Secondly, there's not much sense of character advancement, apart from being able to go to new places (and since Ages can be shared, even that gets simmered down a bit) and some new outfits. (Though I do love my GoW (Guild of Writers used it first) shirt).

1) URU did go under twice (like you said) and now in this game market is online again as an open-source project.
Thrice, if you count the last time it was free. ;) And unfortunately, the source still hasn't gone open, it's still Cyan running (and straining) some servers owned by Amazon.

2) URU Presents an experience that seems to be inline with what John Funk was seeking through the Star Trek IP to an extent (Exploration, Peace-Making, Conflict that is not centered around combat). Though this is not the strongest parallel, it still works to an extent, and
The lack of conflict, I think, is what denegrates MO:ULa in the eyes of many gamers. Because the Ages are all uninhabited, there's nothing to resolve, apart from solving the puzzles.

The whole appeal of the game is exploration, but without much tangible reward to exploration (at the moment), the exploration seems quite shallow. As my wife said while playing it, "Why?"

3) What does it mean to have "something to do?" Action-Adventure MMOs such as WoW, Conan, and even PSO centered their content around equipment upgrades, content unlocking, and advancement in some sort of statistical way. Multi-player raiding also played a role in the progression of the content, emphasizing teamwork and socializing. While these relationships with content are tangible, they are only tangible within the mechanics of the game. Looking back at URU, it achieves similar goals by providing payers with puzzles that, when solved, unlock avatar clothing items, early enhancements to some device that is on the avatar's hand (used for chat and group invites), unlocking new ages based on the progression of previous ones (which even intersect at points), and overall build a library in your home area for easy transportation and grouping. Even through the multi-player, many avatars can get together to tackle tough puzzles and explore these worlds together. Again, these benefits, while tangible, are only tangible within the mechanics of this particular game. Excluding the meta-game involved, the rewards are only deeply related to its game's goals. Does this mean that players seek more combat-oriented conflicts to experience rather than the ones presented by URU? Maybe it is this combat/looting/light exploration that WoW presents that are elements already familiar to today's gamers. The whole exploration-mechanic driven game "died out" with many adventure games. Then again, adventure games are also on the rise again thanks to digital distribution and episodic delivery.
Okay, here's the fun part.
To most familiar with MMOs, finding a new T-shirt or funky hat isn't a strong appeal to scour every corner of a game. Not unless there's actually a benefit to having said T-shirt or funky hat. Also, as gradually more and more of the content is discovered, the player can feel as if there efforts are actually removing individualization of their explorer. The best rewards to be found in my opinion are the Relto pages, which, after discovering more and more of those, essentially allow your Relto to look like everyone else's, or else appear barren.
Having not played much of the new content, I don't yet know how much the Ages intersect, though the game still has the feel of "Okay, this is Uru. This is To D'ni. This is Path of the Shell."
I do think that fans of adventure games will feel that the rewards in MO:ULa will be worthwhile, but as far as appealing to the MMO audience, I believe it will be unfortunately lacking until something more substantial (for lack of a better word), is provided.
However, Uru's gameplay might not appeal to adventure game fans either. Jumping puzzles + wonky controls = frustration. Frustrating elements, while enhancing challenge in the actual game aspect, can really turn people away from the game's social nature.


What could be the future state of the MMO? At some point, it will escape the model the WoW has established so well. Maybe concepts like URU are truly dead for a while, yet a need also seems to be there for that kind of exploratory experience. Your thoughts?
I think, an exploratory game would still need to have some element of risk/reward other than trial-and-error. Not necessarily risk in the form of combat, but something. Something tangible. In Uru, thankfully, you cannot die. But it actually in some ways increases frustration - miss a jump, back to Relto, link back, try again. That's two loading screens (at least), for every mis-step. There's a particular Relto page to be found that requires an extremely finesse jump to be made, and it also involves quite a bit of plodding back to get to it should you miss.

A frustrating variant on die-respawn-corpse drag, but to be frank, a typical respawn mechanism would actually keep the game more accessible, while disrupting flow a bit, probably not as much as the load screens.

Going back to my prior statement, to focus heavily on exploration, there needs to be, in my opinion, to establish a risk element - resources to be expended, a sense of danger, and the possibility of disappointing spoils. Yes, people hate lousy rewards for what they've accomplished, but to really capture the explorative nature, there has to be a chance that while you're looking for the Fountain of Youth, you're going to find the Fountain of Ordinary Tap Water.

I think CivNet has a very good chance of creating this effect to some extent, while still having combat in it obviously, being Civ, by nature may also have that explorer's edge to it.
 

Telperion

Storyteller
Apr 17, 2008
432
0
0
aegios187 said:
I've played my fair share of WoD, a good campaign of Vampire had combat as a minor accent to the overall story going on, the exception was probably Werewolf as fighting the Wyrm etc was central theme to everything. <snippety, snippety, snippety> They typical online player will simply take to the mechanical view of things (kill, get xp, "level" up) versus the organic system that the Storyteller system is rooted in. Sadly, "other" outnumbers "roleplayer" so if we reason that CCP will go where the dollars can be made, I wouldn't hold out for any reasonable approximation of the Storyteller system.
I hear what you are saying, and all I got say in response is: I Want To Believe!

Maybe they can make it so that all the good roleplaying stuff will be splintered into countless little instances with a strict limits on how many players can enter at one time. And then there will be like actual people running those instances. And the combat stuff can just go and do its thing WoW style for all I care.
 

IanBrazen

New member
Oct 17, 2008
726
0
0
John Funk said:
A View From The Road: Boldly Going Nowhere

Are games like Star Trek Online missing the point?

Read Full Article
very nice article, and I would totally agree that killing countless Klingon's for xp has no place in a star trek game, if it weren't taking place during a war.

This would have been a disaster in my opinion if the writers hadn't been so clever with the story set up.

Romulus has been destroyed and the Klingons are takeing advantage by trying to take over.
the federation is trying to help but that causes a war with the klingons.
The khitomer accords have been abolished and the Borg have decided show up as well.
So the federation has no shortage of enemy's to fight, and even if this were a series there would be this much fighting anyways.

Im a Big Trekkie, to the point of it being embarrassing, but I love this game to death and cant wait for more, in fact I think I might play some right now.
 

yanipheonu

New member
Jan 27, 2010
429
0
0
"Harry Potter might have adventures on his own - which is why the single-player games work well - but the average student in Hogwarts probably isn't sneaking into the dungeons to fight trolls every other week."

On the other hand, I know plenty of people who would be happy with a simple Hogwarts simulator game, myself included.