| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Moriendor
Black Ring Leader
Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 1306
Location: Germany |
| RPGDot Feature: A Tale in the Desert - Review |
|
Our latest team member, Hyrrix, has <a href="http://www.rpgdot.com/index.php?hsaction=10053&ID=533">reviewed</a> eGenesis' non-combat MMORPG 'A Tale in the Desert'. Say what? An MMORPG with no combat? How's that supposed to be fun?
<br>Well, follow the link above to find out about it...<blockquote><em>Ever since UO and Meridian59 first came out, I've been hooked on MMORPG's. I remember the times treasure huntin' somewhere around Britain or slaughtering elves in Realm vs Realm combat in DAoC, while the first beams of morning sunlight peered through the windows again. The past couple of years, although I kept loving MMORPG's with all my heart, I felt something was missing. When I started playing AC2, I began wondering why these games actually used to appeal to me: they seemed to be nothing more than looking for a suitable mob spawn and camp it. Yes, we've seen the graphics evolve and we've seen some great new player vs. player features, but almost nothing has changed the basic gameplay formula of traditional MMORPG's: fight, loot and repeat. Until I heard about eGenesis' new MMORPG: A Tale in the Desert. A game without combat *gasp*.</em></blockquote> |
Wed Mar 05, 2003 6:47 am |
|
|
albatross
Head Merchant
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 65
|
In my eyes,this mmorpg is nothing more than a great big chat room. I agree though that most mmorpgs have lost their appeal and thats because they are more and more concentrating on getting people to group together in guilds etc. I want a mmorpg where I decide if and when I join together with others,not the makers of the game.In every mmorpg todate you have to eventually ask for help to either climb the lvl. ladder or to complete some quest. |
|
Wed Mar 05, 2003 6:53 am |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by albatross
In my eyes,this mmorpg is nothing more than a great big chat room. I agree though that most mmorpgs have lost their appeal and thats because they are more and more concentrating on getting people to group together in guilds etc. I want a mmorpg where I decide if and when I join together with others,not the makers of the game.In every mmorpg todate you have to eventually ask for help to either climb the lvl. ladder or to complete some quest.
The notion of "grouping" should be the main focus of any MMORPG, wether it be in a Player vs. Player or Player vs. Engine environment. Someone that plays an MMORPG should expect to need to seek companions, and the game play should enforce this. It is the very definition of what an MMORPG is! There should also be occasions where the player may fare well on his own occasionally, but a player should not expect to go through the better parts of such a game on his own, that wouldn't make any sense at all...
If you feel this way I would suggest that the MMORPG genre just isn't for you at all 
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Wed Mar 05, 2003 3:06 pm |
|
|
Ammon777
Warrior for Heaven
Joined: 20 Apr 2002
Posts: 2011
Location: United States |
As much as i respect Ekim's opinions, i disagree that MMORPGs are all about grouping. Everquest was all about grouping, but the rest are not exclusive in that regard. There are PLENTY of people who solo in these games. I solo most of the time, and group just a little. It has got to be kept in mind that some people dont really like to associate very much and those people (like myself) do not play MMORPGs that FORCE you to group, such as Everquest. Most people in Asherons Call (the first one) solo most of the time. Also, some newer developers of upcoming MMORPGs recognize that soloing is a viable option in these games -- i know such is the case in Star Wars Galaxies, due to hit the shelves next month sometime (we hope).
To help you understand better, i play MMORPGS for the following reasons, in order of preference:
1 -- massive worlds -- i love huge varied worlds and i like exploring them
2 -- continuous development -- developers can do this as result of the subscription-based economic model -- i love the fact that a team is continually introducing new systems, monsters, locations, and features to the game; this is what keeps me going, it keeps me paying the subscription
3 -- robustness and variety -- these games are HUGE
4 -- social developments -- even soloers like to have friends, allies, and sometimes enemies (in the case of PvP)
5 -- newest technology -- because of the subscripted nature of these games, developers can afford to push the envelope and make games far better than they were before
6 -- the youth of this genre -- the MMORPG scene is newborn; many good things should be on the horizon, it is very promising and certainly an exciting time to be CRPG fans
I have played all of the big label MMORPGs except for Everquest, because i enjoy soloing most of the time, and Everquest essentially requires grouping. I just dont have the mental endurance to socialize all the time, its very draining to my mental personality, and i shouldnt be forced to group if i dont want to. Of course most people socialize easily, but those who cannot should not be penalized in MMORPGs, and they arent in most of them. I played solo through DAOC all the way up to 34th level with an elven eldritch, and i did it faster than most of those who were grouping. Some people got really mad at me because they thought that i must have been cheating, but i wasnt -- i was hunting oranges the entire time, solo, lol. So you see, soloing is a viable and recognized option in these games. If you disagree then you dont have enough experience to know that it is. |
|
Wed Mar 05, 2003 9:09 pm |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by Ammon777
As much as i respect Ekim's opinions, i disagree that MMORPGs are all about grouping.
That's ok  I don't agree with myself sometimes too... 
I enjoy soloing too, once in a while. It gets to a point when sometimes you just want to be by yourself in those games, and that's fine. But should an MMORPG shift its focus from grouping? The community is what drives an MMORPG. The possibility of banding together with companions to take on beasts that would be generally out of reach of the normal player on his own is what actually puts this genre apart. To make interesting encounters with other players, to gain fame (or infamy) among fellow players, that's what should be the focus of an MMORPG. If you tell players that it's better or even just as rewarding to play on their own, what kind of a community will you have? What will be the difference of playing a single player game? Updates?... Variety? Most of these games right now are being heavily criticized by its own public for being very repetitive already!
I understand all the points you brought Ammon, and they are all valid on different levels, but they still don't answer the question. Why play a massively multi-player role-playing game to play on your own? What role are you playing on your own in there that you are not already playing in a single-player game without needing to pay every month? I fail to grasp the logic in that, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm broken 
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Wed Mar 05, 2003 9:55 pm |
|
|
KAS
Village Dweller
Joined: 05 Mar 2003
Posts: 22
|
| Two different styles, neither is the 'right' approach |
|
The old soloing versus grouping conflict rears it's ugly head again. Before I go into this topic, I just wanted to bring the fact that Everquest is not primarily a group based game unless you decide to marry the game and take on a lifer role. This meaning you want to see the real high end content and join the guilds < Unemployed > or <Socially Inept>.
Seriously though, I've seen every high end encounter in EQ pre-Luclin (when it just got nuts with the extra time sinks they decided to start tossing in), and most of my EQ life has been spent soloing. Grouping was good when it was there, but Everquest is not solely a grouper's game, the majority of the pre-52ish game can be soloed by the right classes and some classes can solo right to level 60. For some classes, this was actually quicker and more efficient than trying to put up with the lack of ability of a group member that would ultimately hinder your advancement.
As far as the actual conflict, there really isn't one. You have two different play styles, and to tell someone that they don't belong in a genre because of their preferences isn't really the best way to approach this subject.
Soloing brings several different elements to a game which grouping can't allow for, always depending on how the game is set up. Under the current formula, my main reasons for soloing came from the fact that I could level as quick as a well rounded perma group, and I also got to keep anything that dropped for me. There were no clumsy form-a-group-a-thons (which would result in a 10 minute group before something either went wrong or everyone had to log at times), and in pvp (I played both pvp and blue in EQ, mostly out of a need for something new when pvp got old and started to seem more and more broken) I didn't have to account for someone's inability which would cause me to get myself killed.
Grouping allows for communication, it allows you more safety when fighting more dangerous creatures and often helps when entering more dangerous territories (although a good soloist can often get into those areas alone in some cases) and it allows for the building of friendships.
Both styles of play have their places in mmogs, and both should be considered when designing a mmog, which is how we've been approaching things. Too many developers look at areas of a game and feel they can only have one or the other and the fans seem to feel the same way. Inr eality, if you try to tell people how to play, or force them to do anything they would prefer not to, you're offending a percentage of your playerbase. The real solution is balancing the two and being innovative and creative enough to include features and gameplay elements that allow for players of all styles to enjoy the games.
As a final note, why do people who play mmogs solo, aside from the reasons I stated above? One major reason is, mmogs in their current state are still giant chat rooms that allow you to load up your virtual action figures and barbies and compete in a few very defined ways against everyone else using a virtual avatar. While some people feel that they must be in a 'raid guild', and those players compete with one another through their guilds, others feel that being adept in pvp is more rewarding and those players can group or solo to get their kills in these worlds. Others try to be the best traders, and many games allow for this form of competition, and this not only allows players to build their wealth, they don't have to group to enjoy this element. The venues for competition are limited, but I can assure you that the person soloing that group of mobs in the corner of area x is having just as good a time as that group that just got wiped out trying to enter an easily accessible dungeon area because one member made a 'newbie mistake' on the break in.
KAS |
|
Wed Mar 05, 2003 11:07 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
I bring things back to ATITD, I've heard this "you can't solo in this game" before, and I'll call you on it. Now, if by solo you mean "never interect with anyone else in the game" then yeah, you can't...go play Emperor or Pharaoh if you want to build things in a completely solo environment. However, if you think it's impossible to play without being in a guild, you're wrong. I soloed through Beta 3 and had one of the most advanced camps in Sinai. I'm pretty much in the same situation in live, and I have less time to play.
So I'm really interested in knowing what you can't do as a soloer.
Obelisk? Did that.
Pinches? Finishing those now.
Raise animals? I have 2 sheep pens that were full of sheep until the recent pox outbreak in Sinai.
So what is it that you can't do without a guild? |
|
Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:40 am |
|
|
Silvanis
Guest
|
Gah...Guest was me...forgot to sign in : ) |
|
Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:45 am |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
| Re: Two different styles, neither is the 'right' approach |
|
quote:
Originally posted by KAS
As far as the actual conflict, there really isn't one. You have two different play styles, and to tell someone that they don't belong in a genre because of their preferences isn't really the best way to approach this subject.
I'm not disputing that, or whether someone can have as much fun soloing or grouping. You're very right  Only my question is regarding whether an MMOG should be focused on community rather than individual players. You can have players soloing in a community-based genre, that's not the point. The point is that there are some people out there that complain that they are supposedly "forced" to group in such games. Should they complain, really? I mean, yes people have the right to solo in MMOGs, of course! Again, I do it to from time to time. But when I do it I don't expect to be able to do the same things a group of 8 people of my level would accomplish, yet those who complain seem to think that that's a problem
A strange thing: in my experience of MMOGs, a good portion of players I have met that were bonafied "soloers", people who seemed only to want to solo, were often support-type character classes! Healers, mezzers, crowd-controllers and such! How can someone expect to solo well if they take on a support role? The ability to solo also lies in the type of character class you choose to be, and for some reason that just don't seem to make sense to some (not that this applies to ATITD). Those who solo using a melee class usually fare pretty well in most games, and the majority of them never complain...
quote:
Originally posted by KAS
One major reason is, mmogs in their current state are still giant chat rooms that allow you to load up your virtual action figures and barbies and compete in a few very defined ways against everyone else using a virtual avatar.
Very true. So VERY true... And that is why a game like ATITD is refreshing in a way. At least the concept is refreshing. And it is community based because such a game doesn't need individualists. Someone that would go in there just to be the first one to be the best at everything regardless of who he has to push to get there would not do well, I think. And that's good! Yes it alienates half of the potential player base of MMORPGs, but that's just a sad fact...
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Thu Mar 06, 2003 3:15 pm |
|
|
KAS
Village Dweller
Joined: 05 Mar 2003
Posts: 22
|
| In order to evolve, group and solo focus will be necessary |
|
All of your points are valid Ekim, my general gripe from the last post was against the feeling that was given in the posts above, almost a 'if you want to solo don't play mmogs' type of feeling.
Mmogs at the core in general are very bad games that would never do well if they were single player games going up against single player game standards (going just on the core design, world structures and overall 'storyline' ((lack of?))). Mmogs have sold as well as they have and evolved into a very worthy genre using the communication and interaction with thousands of other players angle more than any other. While I, as a developer, feel this is no excuse to create mediocre game bases, I do appreciate the magic of virtual worlds and continue to enter them. The community and interaction being one of the strongest points of the genre at this point, it is fairly easy to assume that the genre should naturally be considered a grouping based genre.
From my perspective though, I feel that the single player aspect of mmogs have simply not been developed well enough. Under the current level under you hit the max, kill monsters endlessly, try to attain mass wealth formula most mmogs used as their base, the grouping angle makes the most sense. Eventually in these style of mmogs, you'll hit that wall where you simply can't outdo a group in a number of certain situations. Grouping makes the most sense for many situations in today's mmogs and in this regard I agree that this is a grouping based genre, as most games seem to expect the players to come together if they want to get the most out of the experience.
My arguments come from a point of view which looks more to the future then the current or the past time frames. I don't agree that the mmog genre, which can be summed up as virtual worlds that allow players to co-exist in environments together, should be forever branded as a 'grouping genre'. For the moment, with the games out at this time, yes. For the future, a lot of things will have to change if this genre is to survive even the next few years, and one of the changes will have to be game depth. The mmog genre should not focus simply on the grouping aspects of the world or have the players <need> to group to attain all of the game's highest achievements.
Take pvp for example, mmogs seem to be moving in a direction where they feel one on one pvp isn't the best option, and instead try to create games with team based pvp. While this element will be a very fulfilling aspect of the genre, decisions should not be made to favor one side more than the other. Many mmog developers have or seem to be working towards making mistakes in their designs, feeling a need to make a choice which will alienate a section of the prospective player bases. Pvp or no pvp, permadeath or no permadeath, first person or third person, keyboard or mouse control movement, item deterioration or no item deterioration, player slavery or no player slavery, skill based development or class based development, the list goes on and on. With some of these areas, choosing one and running with it can often save a lot of headaches, time and money, but at what cost? Many of the choices the designers make when designing the game could be implemented without a need for a choice to be made, and this includes whether the genre as a whole should be group focused or focused for those who prefer to lay their claims on their own terms.
In closing, I feel that the genre will have to alter the current formula if developers expect to continue to draw in players, seeing as a lot of players who have played the first generation mmogs are beginning to wonder if spending the time to simply do another level grind followed by the normal raiding style end game events is worth their time. You can only play the same game in a slightly different environment so many times, and as the genre evolves, the focus will eventually change to allow both group minded people and soloist types to advance within the worlds. There should be more than one linear path to success within a virtual world, and as games evolve, this will be the path the genre takes. Just like in the real world, not every successful person has found groups to help build their success stories. They may have had help along the way in some shape or form, but some of those success stories are about people who have controlled their own destinies without ever <having> to rely on anyone else.
KAS |
|
Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:19 pm |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
| Re: In order to evolve, group and solo focus will be necessa |
|
quote:
Originally posted by KAS
In closing, I feel that the genre will have to alter the current formula if developers expect to continue to draw in players, seeing as a lot of players who have played the first generation mmogs are beginning to wonder if spending the time to simply do another level grind followed by the normal raiding style end game events is worth their time. You can only play the same game in a slightly different environment so many times, and as the genre evolves, the focus will eventually change to allow both group minded people and soloist types to advance within the worlds. There should be more than one linear path to success within a virtual world, and as games evolve, this will be the path the genre takes. Just like in the real world, not every successful person has found groups to help build their success stories. They may have had help along the way in some shape or form, but some of those success stories are about people who have controlled their own destinies without ever <having> to rely on anyone else.
KAS
I completely agree with you, and in looking towards the future you are right to say that the genre needs to find something different. I wrote about this a couple of weeks back, and the subject attracted much debate as to what the genre needs to do, in some ways, to re-invent itself. I understand, too, that the need for individualism is very much important in a game that puts you in the middle of a world with 2000 other faceless adventurers. People need to differentiate themselves somehow, and right now it often comes by the kind of loot you found...
Still, everyone wants to be a hero, and if you have 2000 heroes running around the world each on their own little quest then what kind of a game that would make? I'm not sure I can even answer as to what the genre needs to do to blend the two aspects of Multiplayer gaming together (individualism and community) but there definately needs something to be done, I agree! As of right now, MMORPGs effectively force you to play in groups, and I can certainly understand that some people have problems with that. I don't necessarily sympathize with them as I am more inclined to seek companionship than others, but I can understand. Unfortunately some who are individualists don't seem to be able to adapt to a game that has different roles to play (as I mentioned in an earlier post about soloers playing support roles).
Anyway, this is a long and valid debate, and I think it's a testament to the kind of game that is ATITD that it should be the one to launch a debate like this one (I had to bring back the true subject of this thread somehow! )
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Fri Mar 07, 2003 7:36 pm |
|
|
KAS
Village Dweller
Joined: 05 Mar 2003
Posts: 22
|
| The mmog revolution, chapter one |
|
Helping with the move this closer to the thread topic push, ATITD is one of the first mmogs to attempt to recreate the genre. While I haven't actually played the game, I've read about it when I could and I do have to commend the developers for actually releasing a game of this type. Mmogs have to be one of the toughest genres to try to be innovative in, since many developers seem to feel that once something 'works' in a game it's perfect and shouldn't be tampered with (having leveling as the one and only core focus of the game being one example), hence the multitude of clone models we've seen and will seemingly continue to see released in the next year or so.
While, I don't feel that ATITD has the tools to really revolutionize the genre at all, it's a step in the right direction. These developers are hopefully the first in a new trend for the genre, which is something that is almost necessary at this point. Mind you, I'm not really all that supportive of the no combat perspective myself (the reason for my own lack of interest other than seeing them create a new type of world), as I do like the aspect of combat in some form within these worlds.
quote:
Originally posted by Ekim
Still, everyone wants to be a hero, and if you have 2000 heroes running around the world each on their own little quest then what kind of a game that would make?
This is the very idea that the developers of the comic book themed mmog City of Heroes are developing their entire design around, and one I have always disagreed with. In most classical role playing based games, the players are given one choice, one perspective to play from, the hero. Players can commit acts of evil if the game allows, but in the end, the player is expected to commit some act of heroism that attempts to make the game's story 'epic'.
Although I do agree that a majority of people want to be a 'hero' in some respect at some point in their lives, this isn't the only goal designers of role playing experiences should shoot for. You can only 'save the world' so many times before you start going into games almost expecting the plot. Sure, not all role playing games make a hero out of the player in the save the world sense, but in fantasy and role playing games, this is likely the number one base for the games available at this time (all role playing games from atari to now).
This is how I've always seen things, and the reason I've never put much stock in the save the world heroism angle. First of all, and this is very apparent in mmogs today, there is no meaning behind any accomplishment. In today's mmogs, there is no risk factor, and the 'risks' players take mean next to nothing to accomplish the important goals in mmogs. Everything can be broken down into numerical formulas as well these days, and if you don't know how to do something, just head over to your favorite site and have a look for the proper formula. Once something is done or seen in a mmog, it's likely to be repeated over and over again, with no end in sight. Even being first to 'accomplish' anything in today's mmogs doesn't really provide much in the way of rewards.
The races in most mmogs are also just cosmetically different with very little to separate them save a few statistics which, in the end, don't really make them all that different as most stats have caps and come end game most races can 'buff' their necessary stats near that cap. This similarity is a common trend in mmogs, and is meant to 'balance' the game so no player has a distinct advantage over another. Many games have even tried to allow classes that are generally weak in an area to excel to a close enough degree in any particular area that those playing the class do not whine and complain endlessly that everyone else can do something better than them.
In their attempts to balance the games though, developers have created several design flaws that they seem to feel are adequate compromises. While they allow people to kill monsters of legend in fantasy and attain items of unbelievable power, in essence, the players and their actions especially mean nothing, literally. If a player were to log his maxed out, best of their kind character out of whatever virtual world they played in, there would be no sign upon the world that character ever existed, the world would go on and others would complete the <exact> same feats as that character had. This is the number one problem with mmogs today, the players have no real meaning in the world and any 'status symbol' you may attain doesn't come about through skill, but through the current mmog formula of time equals power.
So, returning to the City of Heroes reference, why is this game not going in the right direction? They assume people want to all be heroes and play in a world where they and every other player get into their heroic looking costumes and fight computerized bad guys. This game could be amazing if there was some way to allow players to play on both sides, heroes and villains.
Players may enjoy being the hero, but developers should realize that being a hero means being courageous, doing things others can't or refuse to attempt, and having your actions shine in the eyes of a group of beings. In mmogs today, you cannot be courageous because no element of the game has any real risk, in mmogs today everyone is willing to try anything. Why not attack the dragon for the third kill attempt? You'll be resurrected and respawn having lost maybe a little experience, but you could get one of those swords every level 5000 is running around with these days right? & finally, the key. One group of being's hero may be the worst villain to another group, and human nature revolves around the me first psychology.
Sports show this best, you have many teams in professional sports, and many players and viewers are passionate about the game. Players compete for the highest honors the sport allows as a team and a select few contend for the single based honors the sport allows. Those players who accomplish the most in the game are often recognized as the best. Often, the team with the best players manages to also find themselves very close to holding the honors as the top team. This isn't concrete though, so even the teams with the most mediocre players continue to compete.
Now take a sports star, the best player on the championship team, and anyone passionate about their sport will see that person in one of two lights when the player has any form of interaction with their favorite team. Either they see him in a heroic light (he plays for the team or has just garned the respect of the viewer with his abilities), or they see him in a villainous light (he could cost the team the game or more, and/or his personality or ways rub the person wrong).
So, giving the players different factions to become close to and love (far beyond the chat groups known as guilds in today's mmogs, and giving the players goals they can compete for within these virtual worlds, against other groups and even themselves, and introducing true risk for reward situations are all key elements in creating the game that will finally revolutionize the genre.
This is the best I can hint at the new age formulas that will eventually revolutionize and push the genre forward, but for the time being we will all suffer through the same routines, the same terrible time equals power foundation, and the same 'read it on the internet first' formulated game elements.
KAS[/quote] |
|
Sat Mar 08, 2003 9:54 am |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
