Discussion

[BladeSabre]

What different people enjoy doesn't matter - the fact is that women play computer games 2x as much as men, but they tend to stick to games of a passive nature where there is cumulative reward, rather than a risk/reward system - that is, something like cyberpets or the Sims, where they can build, nurture and grow - rather than Doom where it's kill or be killed.

Ok, I get that this happens on average. I was just being difficult, 'cause I'm a girl. (And I don't like The Sims, or the vast majority of virtual pets; but then I don't like Doom either.)

Impossible to become the 'highest' level means just that - people keep playing so long as there's a goal to attain;  if people can max-out they lose interest.

I thought that might be what you meant. Whether or not it's a good thing is very debatable, however.

Probably there will be some text window, where you still can type commands (as it is done in 2d muds which Teh_Luggage mentioned), but majority of interaction will be done through mouse and graphics.

Most people don't mind intuitive keyboard controls like the arrow keys. They can sometimes give the game a better feel. Personally I'm not very fond of point-and-click movement.

[T3h luggage]

or better  unix-shell-console vs. Windows or X-Windows. Console is mostly far superior, but most people refuse to use it.

They don't use it because Microsoft used illegal meathods to make game companies make their games only for windows.

[Bakster]

I think runescape's new 3D graphics suck too. The 2D graphics were much better. The gameplay is good for the first few levels, but it eventually becomes very repetitive and boring (unless you become a member).

I am very picky with games, but what I find with most online RPGs is that they are very repetitive. Some RPGs are just *To get level 1, click 5 times. To get level 100, click 500 times*. Shimlar is an example of this infinitely clicking game (However, it is purely text-based).

There is a game called Stratholm: www.stratholm.com that uses the same click-to-level feature. However, it also uses a little bit of graphics and a world map feature with lots of quests. It is a browser-based game, but you must download the 3D graphics in a zip file I think. It is a very small file, and there is no trouble extracting it. (I'm a computer dummy, and I did it easily ) You might want to consider this option when making your RPG.

"A good RPG is:
- too complicated for any one person to understand
- easy to start, infinitely difficult to master
- timeless in its representation (clarity, rather than simplicity)
- endless in possible permutations
- impossible to become the 'highest' level
- & lots of passive gameplay options so that girls can enjoy themselves"

Stratholm is the only RPG I enjoy right now:
- It isn't complicated, it doesn't even have a storyline.
- It is easy to start and difficult to master
- Don't ask me what that means
- Stop with the complicated words! (permutations)
- I don't think Stratholm has a level cap. There is a monster called Omega (horseshoe sign) that can attack for 100,000,000,000,000,000 damage. It will take years for someone to get to a level to kill that thing.
- I'm not sure what you mean by 'passive gameplay options'

Stratholm (and other RPGs like Shimlar) occur in 'rounds'.

Basically, after a few months of gameplay, the administrators reset the game, and everyone is at level 0. This means that people who join in halfway through a round will not be behind the start players forever. Also, updates are made which are implemented in-between rounds. This might be a feature you might want to add.

That is all for now.

-Bakster-

[TheMcCool]

I believe that if people get bored after maxing out, then that means the game is crap. If the only thing it has going for it is the ability to gain levels, then there's no point. Games should be about fun, not work.

In my opinion this is a major flaw in online rpgs these days. It should ideally take from a couple weeks, to a couple months to reach max level, depending on the player's style of playing. The main purpose of that journey to max level should be to learn the various aspects of the game, and explore the world. Once you're at max level, that's when the real game should start. Balanced competition/pvp/guild wars/politics/whatever. Epic quests/treasure hunts/areas/etc that require a good party to finish. Monsters that require strategy and/or teamwork to beat. If all this is actually designed in a fun way, no one will care that their character is maxed out.

They could still have "work" to do, if resources like magical ingredients, arrows, food, potions, etc get used up and need to be replaced. Armor and weapons could get worn out too. That way exploration and killing stuff/each other (or stealing- rogues rule ) will still have a purpose besides the fun factor, and it's also where The Crafters (passive gamplay ) come in.

... I know what I describe would probably be very difficult to make in browser based form, but some of the preceeding posts set me off. The game I described used to exist, and it was awesome. Then Electronic Arts took it over and turned it into crap. Ever since then I've seen wave after wave of boring level-grind rpgs whose main attraction seemed to be how much shinier the graphics were than what came before them...

[BladeSabre]

Well said McCool.  That's pretty much what I intend to do with mine, when I eventually reach the skill level required to do it.

I'm curious what game you're talking about.


I'd like to add, that if there's endless levelling, you can never have balanced competition, because it's always about who's spent the most time working to gain XP. (Note RS)

Also, it means people aren't inclined to stop and have fun, because then they get left behind. And even if they're not worried about that, there's always the promise of being able to have MORE fun at a higher level.

[matlu]

I'm curious what game you're talking about.

I'm also interested And if anybody is willing to do some game design, he/she is most welcome In any case your opinions are very valuable.

[god]

Huge randomly generated world - no pre-made towns, quests etc... explore the vast world!

Terrain manipulation - ditches, mounds, channels etc...

Player built structures - let players make there own towns/villages

[matlu]

hm, interesting idea. But wouldn't it be boring? Without quests. Would you at least keep basic rpg elements, like stats, stregth,dexterity etc. and experience, levels?
And I'm also not sure about building own buildings. If everybody started to build his own house it could become too big very soon.
It could go like this: you have to kill many monsters, to earn money, then you can buy land and material to build a house, but what then? When you already have it.

I'm not sure if it's suitable for browser-based games and if it's possible to make it interesting with runescape1-like graphics. I'm also not sure if it's technically possible (for browser based game). Will have to think about it

[TheMcCool]

Well, the game was called Ultima Online. After EA took over Origin, and Lord British left, etc, they started releasing patches and expansions that slowly turned the game into total crap. There are now free emulated servers run by players, based on earlier versions of the game, but they're not the same as they seem to attract a much larger ratio of demented players than the official servers... Not to mention the small playerbases.

[BladeSabre]

I remember reading about that, now you mention it. It's sad, how big companies keep taking over small companies and wrecking them.

Regarding your earlier description of what makes a good RPG, I've heard AOL Neverwinter Nights being described like that. It was very popular, but the story goes that AOL scrapped it because it didn't fit their "image" any more. I wish I'd had a chance to play both of these games in the old times.

[matlu]

Player built structures - let players make there own towns/villages

btw, this is very nice idea, but how could it work? If you have hundreds concurrent players, each of them wanting to build village, house or whatever, wouldn't it turn into chaos?

[matlu]

Player built structures - let players make there own towns/villages

this is very nice idea, but how could it work? Imagine hundreds concurrent players, each of them wanting to build a house/village, whatever. How could they come to any agreement? Wouldn't it turn into total chaos?

[god]

"But wouldn't it be boring? Without quests."

make your own quests. eg. explore the huge world, take over the world, build yourself a kingdom

"Would you at least keep basic rpg elements, like stats, stregth,dexterity etc. and experience, levels?"

yes

"I'm also not sure if it's technically possible"

If it's possible to drop an item on the ground then it's possible. Just change the item to a wall and make it so you cant walk through it.

"How could they come to any agrrement?"

get off my land or i will kill you

[matlu]

If it's possible to drop an item on the ground then it's possible. Just change the item to a wall and make it so you cant walk through it.

well this is not a problem of course

"How could they come to any agreement?"
get off my land or i will kill you

again, it's nice - but it's not real life. People cannot be logged in 24 hours per day, 7 days in week, but usually only quite short time per day. Well, what happens when you are "out"? Who will kill the "trespassers"? What if other player from the other side of the world wants to take your land - but he plays when you sleep, and he sleeps when you play. Who will prevent your house from being plundered, when you are logged off?

But wouldn't it be boring? Without quests."
make your own quests. eg. explore the huge world, take over the world, build yourself a kingdom

Not sure if this is possible. If a player is expected to have a chance to achieve this, it must be programmed in the game. It is not possible to establish a kingdom in virtual world just based on some "verbal" agreement of some players. It must be programmed in the game that you may become a king, and it must be exactly programmed what impact it's going to have on you and the other players. Thus, there is no real freedom. If you want to have a "republic" instead of a "kingdom", you cannot have it, unless some game designer/programmer makes it possible.
Well, and this pre-programmed process of becoming a "king" may be easily called a "quest".

At least this are my opinions. I never player any real "big" (pay-to-play) popular mmorpg, so I have no idea what features cutting-edge games have. I just don't think that it's enough to give players possibility to pick/drop items and build walls and houses, because it will end up in total chaos (in my opinion)

[Parsley]

They're developing a 'build your own city' mmorpg at the moment.
www.atriarch.com

Although it's been in development for 3-4 years already, and is only just reaching alpha (!) it looks fairly good.

Persistent online world without zones, and if you move a chunk of soil, it stays moved, permanently. 

------------

Yeah, the telnet/graphical combo is probably a little too retro.

But try and think of a very original angle to differentiate your game from others.

If you make another hack 'n slash I'll be very disappointed!

Make something 100% original, weird & crazy.

imho