No MMORPG has done it right.

[Razzle Bathbone]

We could talk for hours about what constitutes a "real" RPG.

However, it would be a moot gesture that only you would care about.

Computers have taken the term "RPG" and twisted it in a way that, by accepted popular definition, has very little to do with roleplaying.

Best to abandon the label and say exactly what it is you want in the game.

The OP said (paraphrasing here, correct me if I've misinterpreted his intent) that he wants some roleplaying in his roleplaying games.

I replied that this requires a human game master (i.e. a non-computer roleplaying game or a MUD).

The question of whether RPGs with no RP are "real" RPGs is irrelevant to the issue at hand (despite the fact that I'm right ).

What is relevant is that you can't effectively roleplay without a human GM. That's what the OP wants to do, therefore that's the kind of game the OP should play.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

what about an intrusive chat filter which ommitts enough general english terms and leet speak to make generic computer conversation frustratingly cumbersome or impossible?

you could even include a little language guide with the game, explaining how to talk

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

You don't need a GM at all.

I suppose not. Some of the more avant-garde RPGs like My Life With Master and Primetime Adventures blur the lines between player and GM. And children have been playing variants on Cowboys & Indians for centuries without a GM.

But on a computer? No.

 

[geldonyetich]

The OP said (paraphrasing here, correct me if I've misinterpreted his intent) that he wants some roleplaying in his roleplaying games.

I replied that this requires a human game master (i.e. a non-computer roleplaying game or a MUD).

The question of whether RPGs with no RP are "real" RPGs is irrelevant to the issue at hand (despite the fact that I'm right ).

What is relevant is that you can't effectively roleplay without a human GM. That's what the OP wants to do, therefore that's the kind of game the OP should play.

Hmm, I see. Even so, I think I'd want to talk more about what makes a roleplaying game, really. I'd be surprised if people don't come up with difference answers.

Earlier I referred to abandoning "the label", because that's basically what the words "RPG" or "roleplay" are - words; labels used to describe things. However, the specifics of what's being described are going to differ, and that's a point of contention to clear up: To you, what exact design of a game defines a roleplaying game, and why are MMORPGs capable/not capable of suiting it?

For example, some kinds of roleplay would certainly require a human GM because they need to be able to do things like adapt to every screwball solution that players come up with. Other kinds of roleplay might work quite well with a ingeniously designed GUI alone, for example a complete hero customizer with keep construction.

 

[Alex_P]

You don't need a GM at all.

I suppose not. Some of the more avant-garde RPGs like My Life With Master and Primetime Adventures blur the lines between player and GM. And children have been playing variants on Cowboys & Indians for centuries without a GM.

But on a computer? No.

Sure, you need the oversight of human GMs if you're going to be building a massive virtual world and then making each player a "character" in it.

... But that's why the "roleplaying" thing fails in the first place, with or without GMs.

Notice how much easier it is in a MU*, with only minimal computer-controlled detail and a flexible, text-based interface?

-- Alex

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

To you, what exact design of a game defines a roleplaying game, and why are MMORPGs capable/not capable of suiting it?

Although that could make for an interesting discussion, it's a little off-topic. Let's look instead at what the OP wants out of an RPG (which isn't too far off from what I'd consider roleplaying).

This leads me to how they all get it wrong. Sure, these games are massive, played by many, and online, and they are obviously some sort of game, but they lack the element of Role playing. Sure, people become attached to their avatar, but no one is the paladin or the swordsman, or the mage, or the frog man. They talk about the lives of the characters they are supposed to depict in general terms, like "Damage dealer," and "Tank."

My second point is about the world itself. the only time I have felt like I was playing a genuine role playing game was in Perfect World, where I took my level 20 character into the level 90 arctic tundra, narrowly avoiding the monsters while seeing all there was to see. It felt refreshing, and gave the same feeling as being outside in the wilderness, though to a far lesser degree.

My impression (which could easily be incorrect) is that Erana wants to feel like his (her? can't tell for sure) character has a life of its own. Like it gets to make its own choices about what to believe and how to act on it. Also, Erana wants the world to respond to that character in a believable way. This would involve, among other things, NPCs who can actually converse with PCs. Real conversations, not dialogue trees.

If you can think of a way to do this without a human GM, I shall be very impressed indeed.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

Notice how much easier it is in a MU*, with only minimal computer-controlled detail and a flexible, text-based interface?

Easier still in a traditional face-to-face RPG, with with no computer-controlled detail and an infinitely adaptable human-based interface.

 

[Another]

The only MMORPG that ever fuffiled the need for some sort of epic battle was, (I feel like I am gonna be made fun of for this) Ragnarok online. Got myself on a free server that had lots of people and was most like the regular P2P game. Every Wendsday and Saterday the various guilds get together for War of Emperium. The winner gets to have castles and the battles can be epic. All the other MMORPG's I have played make me feel that I have to try really hard to make something feel like an epic battle.

 

[geldonyetich]

My impression (which could easily be incorrect) is that Erana wants to feel like his (her? can't tell for sure) character has a life of its own.
[...]
If you can think of a way to do this without a human GM, I shall be very impressed indeed.

We have to jump to this conclusion because it's not quite defined enough, so it's not entirely off-topic to ask it to be.

However, lets go with this definition. We want the player to feel as though their character has a life of its own, and the question is, can we do this without a human GM?

I'd say the answer is a resounding, "yes." This is under the reasoning that there already exist many movies and books which can do a fairly convincing job of portraying the character as having a life of their own. Games introduce an element of interactivity, and are capable of introducing all the multimedia aspects from movies and literary aspects from books.

Of course, I'm not saying it'd be easy. You have to have some real talent behind the production. Even a poor GM can't manage to create the compelling illusion the character has a life of their own.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

My impression (which could easily be incorrect) is that Erana wants to feel like his (her? can't tell for sure) character has a life of its own.
[...]
If you can think of a way to do this without a human GM, I shall be very impressed indeed.

We have to jump to this conclusion because it's not quite defined enough, so it's not entirely off-topic to ask it to be.

Good point.

However, lets go with this definition. We want the player to feel as though their character has a life of its own, and the question is, can we do this without a human GM?

I'd say the answer is a resounding, "yes." This is under the reasoning that there already exist many movies and books which can do a fairly convincing job of portraying the character as having a life of their own.

Based on what I actually wrote, I would have to agree with you.

Unfortunately, what I wrote isn't actually what I was trying to say. I was unclear; sorry about that.

You're quite right that there are zillions of fictional characters running around in our minds, many of whom have so much life in them they almost seem real to us. What I was trying (and failing) to say was that I believe Erana (and other gamers of a similar mindset, such as myself) want the life in their PCs to come from them. They want to be able to create and control their character (including their personality, background, memories, dialogue, etc., not just their combat statistics) and interact with a world that acknowledges their character's existence in a believable way.

They want their character to have a story, not just a series of battles. And they want that story to be their own, not someone else's.

Even a poor GM can't manage to create the compelling illusion the character has a life of their own.

Hell, even the best GM in the world can't do it if the player isn't willing to breathe some life into their own character. But until we have sentient computers, no CRPG will manage it.

 

[geldonyetich]

You're quite right that there are zillions of fictional characters running around in our minds, many of whom have so much life in them they almost seem real to us. What I was trying (and failing) to say was that I believe Erana (and other gamers of a similar mindset, such as myself) want the life in their PCs to come from them. They want to be able to create and control their character (including their personality, background, memories, dialogue, etc., not just their combat statistics) and interact with a world that acknowledges their character's existence in a believable way.

They want their character to have a story, not just a series of battles. And they want that story to be their own, not someone else's.

Now that sounds pretty good. Basically, we're talking about a virtual world that interacts with complete believability with our characters, and we can even go back into their back stories to flesh it out even further. Plus, we want them to do more than just play Mad-libs until a complete character history is assembled, we want them to live it.

I'm reminded a lot of Peter Molyneux' Fable when I say that. I think this is what he honestly wanted to do. What we ended up with was a game that's about raising a hero within a certain limitation of flexibility - but the flexibility was there more than you'd see in most games. That's because he probably wanted to do this, he was trying. However, the overcoming to realize this utterly would require extensive effort.

That, I think, is probably where we end up. Is it doable? Sure. However, it probably wouldn't be very feasible for most designs, as it would be a ton of developer effort for very little actual result

Think Wall-E. Truly a masterpiece with a computer generated movie that breaths and thoroughly evocative characters. 97 minutes. 180 million dollars. And it's not even interactive - our goal here on a computer would be Wall-E quality craftsmanship, completely interactive. Projected budget: 180 million dollars, squared. You're taking the same development time you'd spend crafting 60 hour epics and compressing it down to individual moments, and repeating until every possibility is covered.

It's probably better to scale things back a bit and ask the player's suspension of disbelief to fill in the gaps.

Looking at something like Mass Effect, they give you the ability to come up with your own character, complete with one of three pre-established back stories, who establishes themselves as a Paragon, Renegade, or something in between as the game plays out. It's not complete customization, nor is it as flexible as a good human GM can manage, but it does produce a pretty satisfying experience.

 

[AlphaWolf13]

When I was young, and the only MMOs out there seemed to be MUDs and Everquest, I wanted to play an MMORPG. Games had always been a starting point for my imagination, rather than a brain rotter, so the idea of adventuring around with a bunch of other people in for a grand adventure was grand.
Years later, I catch wind of half decent 3-D MMOs available for free, so I give it a go. I downloaded Fiesta, and started playing. It was exciting to have others to talk with, to fight with, to dance with, but when I reached level 20, I realised what had brought me to that level. It was the expectation for a grand adventure.
I felt like I was preparing for the actual game, yet to come.
I have tried many other games, but they are all the same. Each one filling me with anticipation, as if the Level cap that everyone yearns for will bring some sort of glory.
But there is nothing.

This leads me to how they all get it wrong. Sure, these games are massive, played by many, and online, and they are obviously some sort of game, but they lack the element of Role playing. Sure, people become attached to their avatar, but no one is the paladin or the swordsman, or the mage, or the frog man. They talk about the lives of the characters they are supposed to depict in general terms, like "Damage dealer," and "Tank."

My second point is about the world itself. the only time I have felt like I was playing a genuine role playing game was in Perfect World, where I took my level 20 character into the level 90 arctic tundra, narrowly avoiding the monsters while seeing all there was to see. It felt refreshing, and gave the same feeling as being outside in the wilderness, though to a far lesser degree.

Why is it that the most spiritually enriching thing in all of these games is an activity that was never intended to be? Am I the only one who feels that, "MMORPG" is an extreme misnomer?

You should really say the words "in my opinion" =p, because some of us do not feel the MMORPG's are "doing it wrong".

 

[teknoarcanist]

I think even in terms of gameplay alone most MMO's have failed. If the battle system from any one of these games were to exist in a single-player game, it would be universally and critically panned. Why not develop an engine with the speed and frenzy of an action game, and then adapt it to an MMO? Why not a massive post-apocalyptic wasteland, driven by the Gears cover engine? Why not a sprawling fantasy world where players wield swords, spears, chains, etc, driven by a God of War-like combat engine?
Instead we get this sort of weird crappiness that we settle for. Don't get me wrong, I play City of Heroes and ffxi as much as the next guy, but any real mmo fan with a lick of sense can tell you that online games, in general, suck.

 

[Alex_P]

Notice how much easier it is in a MU*, with only minimal computer-controlled detail and a flexible, text-based interface?

Easier still in a traditional face-to-face RPG, with with no computer-controlled detail and an infinitely adaptable human-based interface.

I think that the moment you start with a big ol' virtual world, even in a purely human-mediated form, you're doomed to failure.

It goes back to what "my character" means.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

I think even in terms of gameplay alone most MMO's have failed. If the battle system from any one of these games were to exist in a single-player game, it would be universally and critically panned.

Well, people put up with absolutely shitty gameplay in single-player CRPGs, too.

-- Alex

 

[teknoarcanist]

Sure, to a certain extent. But if you don't like Dragon Quest, you can sell it and try Grim Grimoire, or Final Fantasy XXIXIBCCDDMBL, or something else entirely. MMO's on the other hand are very similar in gameplay styles (all deriving, basically, from the WoW and EQ format)

 

[geldonyetich]

I think even in terms of gameplay alone most MMO's have failed. [...] Why not develop an engine with the speed and frenzy of an action game, and then adapt it to an MMO? Why not a massive post-apocalyptic wasteland, driven by the Gears cover engine? Why not a sprawling fantasy world where players wield swords, spears, chains, etc, driven by a God of War-like combat engine?

I think you're absolutely right here, but I have one answer for all of your questions here:

Because massively multiplayer games have a tremendous technical overhead that stand-alone, offline games don't.

It works something like this. You start with 1 kilobyte of data the server needs to know, per second from a single player. That player downloads 1 kilobyte of data from the server for every player around him and those players have to do the same. What we end up with is an exponential model of what the server needs to send everybody: 2 players: 2 kilobytes (1 for each player). 3 players: 6 kilobytes (2 from each player, to each player). 4 players: 12 kilobytes. 100 players: 9,900 kilobytes. Output only - per second.

This is a real newbie explanation that only outlines a real basic principle. Naturally, you have to design the server that it only updates nearby players, or else you'd have a problem when you get 2000 players on the server. However, you get the point, there's a technical reason every MMORPG sucks. Designers have to keep the action really simple (so you're only broadcasting that 1 kilobyte instead of 25), and slow (so you're only broadcasting every second instead of every quarter second).

On top of that, Internet latency will always be an issue, so we have to assume all players are going to be about 300-1000 ms behind the server - the client and game mechanic takes up the slack in such a way that it can mask the difference. Auto-attack combat mechanics and slowly recharging abilities are all about this: you're still attacking on the server, you just can't see it when you're lagging.

Technology is improving. That's why we get games like City of Heroes and Age of Conan that were previously unheard of. However, it'll be quite awhile until they catch up to what stand-alone games are capable of.

A pretty good approach is doing like Guild Wars, where you limit players to instancing with only up to 32 players a map or somesuch (except in congregation areas where nothing is going on except finding people). Last I heard, Huxley (if it's not already canceled) was doing this. That works, but most would agree that's not really a MMORPG.

 

[Erana]

He's right,

Do I really seem masculine?

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

It's probably better to scale things back a bit and ask the player's suspension of disbelief to fill in the gaps.

For computer games, that's definitely the case. I do it all the time. Once I have a clear idea of what kind of person my character is, I start making things up. If I know exactly what my character would say or do and it's not an option in the game, I'll imagine whatever I need to make the experience complete.

Sometimes that means imagining an awful lot, though. And although this might be fine in single player CRPGs, it doesn't work so well in MMORPGs, because my inner experiences won't be reflected in the virtual world of the game, which means the other players cannot meaningfully interact with them.

The kind of roleplaying I want (and I suspect Erana wants) needs to be more than multiple choice. It needs to be sufficiently open-ended to make my character's story my own. A good human GM will devise subplots and side-quests specifically for that purpose. No computer can.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

Notice how much easier it is in a MU*, with only minimal computer-controlled detail and a flexible, text-based interface?

Easier still in a traditional face-to-face RPG, with with no computer-controlled detail and an infinitely adaptable human-based interface.

I think that the moment you start with a big ol' virtual world, even in a purely human-mediated form, you're doomed to failure.

It goes back to what "my character" means.

-- Alex

Could you explain what you mean in more detail? I don't think I understand what you're getting at.