MMO Adaptation Will Ruin What You Love About Your Favorite Franchise
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I keep bringing it up, but I still think City of Heroes remains the best example of an MMO. Yes, it exists in a similar status quo but it doesn't keep a singular story thread going for too long and only a few game zones had a single plot to follow. Rather then an over-arching narrative that covers the whole level range, the short sharp plots didn't force you down a singular path within the world or overstay their welcomes (though some of the original content released early in the game's life did drag on a bit) and you didn't even have to do them if you didn't want to.
The current trend of MMOs to funnel you through different, huge fields on a tight plot that's getting played through by everyone else (who you're usually fighting with for objectives) is more then tired at this point.
The current trend of MMOs to funnel you through different, huge fields on a tight plot that's getting played through by everyone else (who you're usually fighting with for objectives) is more then tired at this point.
Yeah, I never say "this could be interesting" unless I specifically emphasize "could" as a way expression my doubt that it "will" be interesting. Because, really, everything *could* be interesting, but most things won't.
More often, I employ the phrase, "It could have been interesting," as a way of expressing my disappointment for things.
But I'm a cynic.
More often, I employ the phrase, "It could have been interesting," as a way of expressing my disappointment for things.
But I'm a cynic.
I disagree, I think that plenty of franchises can work as a mmo, the problem is that most mmo games are created not because people think this franchise would make a fun mmo, but because publishers want to make wow money.
Both you and more recently, Jim Sterling really inspired me to be more critical of the games I buy and who I give my money to. It's amazing how easy it is to just completely put out of mind how not engaging so many games are simply because this is the system that gets hammered into a gamer's mind all the time.
That said, I still play WoW and SWTOR. So, baby steps I guess.
That said, I still play WoW and SWTOR. So, baby steps I guess.
The real way to make a Game of Thrones MMO would be when you make a new character you have to start out in some crappy kingdom as a regular troop, a mercenary, or at The Wall, and then have to work your way into power and influence before you can even go to King's Landing or what have you to compete with the people who hold actual power in the Kingdom.Phrozenflame500 said:
And the people at the top are constantly backstabbing and assassinating each other, opening the way for new people to muscle their way in. People form alliances out of paranoia and trust no one. Guild "families" would form hoarding all the resources and killing anyone who got in their way.
See, the only way you could make a good Game of Thrones MMO would be for all characters to have PERMADEATH. Good luck trying to get that past the suits.
There are so many MMORPG's based on licensed properties (not inherently bad, it's in the execution), I'm forgetting about MMO's from the pre-WoW era. The only series I can remember is Ultima, and I think Everquest.
I tend to stay away from MMOs to avoid the time sink as well, especially when they have subscriptions. Just having an active subscription makes it into an obligation for me to log in and "get my money's worth" out of it every month. Add the un-fun mechanics of most MMOs (and ESO found a way to include all the ones I hate) and I have plenty of reasons to stay away from any that ask for my money. To me Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 were both worth the purchase and since there was no subscription I could pick them up and drop out of them as I felt like it.TheMadDoctorsCat said:
I was going to bring up Warcraft Pre-WoW as an example while reading the article, but you already nailed that one. I remember visibly wrenching when I learned that Illidan, who used to be the closest thing to a protagonist in Warcraft 3, became a raid boss that hundreds of people would line up to shit on each and every day.
Which really is the definition of MMORPGs, right? You chain up important characters to locations and charge an entrance fee for people to come in and ejaculate all over their faces. While they can only struggle against their bonds, swiping at the dirty, hairy person who has decided to put their digital filthy man jam all over their faces. MMOs don't seem so glorified when you look at them that way, do they? Probably because that's actually what you are doing when you go kill a boss who is unable to leave a dungeon or even put a dagger through the neck of some Orc who's job it is to stand around in a field all day being slaughtered by player characters. All because some NPC in town told you they were evil, one has to wonder who the real villains of MMOs are.
Tabula Rasa will remain one of the few games that was an MMO and actually did the player vs monster aspect correctly because the monsters there actually teamed up to complete their agenda and take on the players. Too bad Burning Crusade crushed it like a tin can when it released the same week. I guess it really does speak about the personality types of the MMO playerbase when they choose with their wallets what kind of gameplay they prefer.
Which really is the definition of MMORPGs, right? You chain up important characters to locations and charge an entrance fee for people to come in and ejaculate all over their faces. While they can only struggle against their bonds, swiping at the dirty, hairy person who has decided to put their digital filthy man jam all over their faces. MMOs don't seem so glorified when you look at them that way, do they? Probably because that's actually what you are doing when you go kill a boss who is unable to leave a dungeon or even put a dagger through the neck of some Orc who's job it is to stand around in a field all day being slaughtered by player characters. All because some NPC in town told you they were evil, one has to wonder who the real villains of MMOs are.
Tabula Rasa will remain one of the few games that was an MMO and actually did the player vs monster aspect correctly because the monsters there actually teamed up to complete their agenda and take on the players. Too bad Burning Crusade crushed it like a tin can when it released the same week. I guess it really does speak about the personality types of the MMO playerbase when they choose with their wallets what kind of gameplay they prefer.
Everquest Next is about the only MMO I have any hope for, and that only because it looks like they're trying to move away from the whole static theme-park approach. I have some friends who keep trying to convince me to get on ESO because "It's not like any other MMO," but everything I've seen on it points to it just being another same-old grind with slightly different combat and art design.
So let's say you're some high lord in King's Landing, and you're planning to assassinate some prick you don't like. But then this other guy finds out about your plan and threatens to squeal, so now you have to kill him. Once that character is dead, you can scheme in peace... for five minutes as the player rolls a new character and PM's the guy you were gonna assassinate.
See, exchange of information is key for player-driven games. In Westeros, information can only ever travel as fast as a raven can fly or a messenger can ride. But in an mmo, information moves at the speed of instant messages and Skype calls. What people know or don't know about the actions of other characters is integral to the intrigue of GoT, so having players who are able to communicate instantly from across the map, or retain knowledge from previous characters, would make it nearly impossible to simulate.
While I agree with you to a degree, this would be hard to implement, since one of the primary reasons people get offed in GoT is to keep them from spilling your secrets and plots.Darth_Payn said:
So let's say you're some high lord in King's Landing, and you're planning to assassinate some prick you don't like. But then this other guy finds out about your plan and threatens to squeal, so now you have to kill him. Once that character is dead, you can scheme in peace... for five minutes as the player rolls a new character and PM's the guy you were gonna assassinate.
See, exchange of information is key for player-driven games. In Westeros, information can only ever travel as fast as a raven can fly or a messenger can ride. But in an mmo, information moves at the speed of instant messages and Skype calls. What people know or don't know about the actions of other characters is integral to the intrigue of GoT, so having players who are able to communicate instantly from across the map, or retain knowledge from previous characters, would make it nearly impossible to simulate.
I tend to be fairly inclined to point out that certain games are not nearly so bad as people say. Aliens Colonial Marines, for example, isn't a particularly bad game; indeed, that game's greatest flaw is that it never seemed to know what sort of game it wanted to be. The result was a game that jumped from poor COD clone to tense survival horror to arcade shooter to arena shooter ever few minutes. While I agree that the game that resulted was far from good it at least had moments where you could see how it might have been good. That isn't a defense of the game or an argument that it ought to be better received but simply pointing out that it occasionally got things right.
Pointing out when a game does something right is just as important as pointing out all the ways in which it fails.
Pointing out when a game does something right is just as important as pointing out all the ways in which it fails.
"This could be interesting" is a phrase I will continue to use that more or less translates to "This has the potential to not be utter excrement". As such, I probably wouldn't apply it to Game of Thrones: Seven Kingdoms.
Every time I hear the "It's not like any other MMO" spiel I always, always ask them to defend that opinion. It's to the point where there are no new original MMOs. Anything someone can put into MMO form, they already have.Maphysto said:
I'm guessing their response to 'Why is it not like any other MMO?' would be "It forces you into single player instances where you can't play the game with your friends".
I think what happens is companies are all in search of that franchise name that's going to grab players initially. It feels like they're playing roulette - each one hoping that they snagged the franchise with loyal players that had enough interest in the name alone to become initial subscribers, so as to say "look at us! We're the fastest growing MMO!" to anyone else that is either not already on the market or is currently playing WoW and looking to play something else. Elder Scrolls Online just feels like another roll of the dice, another attempt by a publisher to see if they can get their own MMO cash cow by slapping the name Elder Scrolls on it and making it look just enough like an Elder Scrolls game to trick people into thinking it was one.
I remember playing the beta and all anyone was talking about was that it wasn't enough like the actually Elder Scrolls games to be worth their while, that or that there was a 'lot of potential for something good here.' That is a phrase that always catches me off guard too, because you know that when you see a beta for the game, you're more or less looking at the final product. It might be prettier, more cleaned up, more functional later on, but the beta's still pretty indicative of what's shipping. At that point, 'potential' kind of ceases to be relevant in an MMO, because with a few rare exceptions, MMOs are generally static. They may tweak things here or there, but they're always going to be the same game until it gets shut down. Companies just write them off as losses and then jump to the Free-to-Pay model and leave the game to rot.
I remember playing the beta and all anyone was talking about was that it wasn't enough like the actually Elder Scrolls games to be worth their while, that or that there was a 'lot of potential for something good here.' That is a phrase that always catches me off guard too, because you know that when you see a beta for the game, you're more or less looking at the final product. It might be prettier, more cleaned up, more functional later on, but the beta's still pretty indicative of what's shipping. At that point, 'potential' kind of ceases to be relevant in an MMO, because with a few rare exceptions, MMOs are generally static. They may tweak things here or there, but they're always going to be the same game until it gets shut down. Companies just write them off as losses and then jump to the Free-to-Pay model and leave the game to rot.
There would be no "PMs." You would only be able to speak to people in sight. But maybe someone is hiding in a hallway nearby, listening....Maphysto said:
Of course, this doesn't prevent out of band communication, but that only ramps up the paranoia even more. Are they talking behind our backs? That IS just a bot in our vent channel, right?
And who are you going to trust with your contact information.....?
Not all MMOs are in a frozen place in time. I know you dislike it very Mr. Croshaw much but EVE is always moving forward. In terms of storyline and player created content. Say what you will about my space submarines but it is a constantly changing landscape.
Ha, I had almost the exact opposite reaction when I learnt that Arthas Menthir was a killable boss in WoW. Honestly the only reason I could ever think to start playing WoW myself would be for the pleasure of killing that unbearably obnoxious little douchebag.Sticky said:
Argh, the memories I have of him in Warcraft 3...