Conversations or monologues?
By
Anti_Proton,
Posted on: 2012-02-26 08:45 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
You've stepped into the thread but it's not the simple question you expected it to be. Samuel_Tow is standing on a soapbox and looking at you with an almost fanatical glint in his eye.
Option 1: Listen to him (go to message 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8...536)
Option 2: Back slowly out of the thread (go to COH & COV General Discussions)
Don't count your weasels before they pop dink!
Quote:
Yes, I would have to agree, here. Everything you laid out is pretty much what I've been trying to grasp. Even if I'm not running with my team, the old stories gave us just enough to 'fill in the blanks with our own characters' viewpoints, decisions, reactions.'|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I don't exactly roleplay as such, just because I find the game's tools for it a bit too limiting, but I also always have a core story about the character I'm playing in my head. Whenever something at least reasonably meaningful happens to my character, I try to find a reason for it, I try to explain my character's actions and reaction in regard to it, and generally I try to explain it. Ye olde missions more or less required me to do this, because they never really bothered to give me a reason. They simply told me what to do, but never explained WHY I wanted to do it. I found that quite liberating. Newer City of Heroes missions are a lot harder to "roleplay" in because they really give you all the details in such completeness that there's no real way for you to deviate from the story that you're given. This might be good for a first-impressions experience, but it's murder for replayability. Why WOULD I replay the same story over and over again if it'll always be the exact same story? You can't "fill in the blanks" and craft your own experience because there are no blanks to fill. Everything has been filled in for you, and only ONE single experience is on offer. Where before you could craft different interpretations for different characters, now you go with whatever interpretation the story spells out for you. It's a lot like a particular game which started me off as a dead person coming back to life with no memories of my past, then asked me to choose my own destiny. I figured... OK, cool. Maybe I can be creative here and invent a wild and wonderful story about my past, of how I'm not even human and came from another plain of existence to... No. By the end, it turns out I'm one member of one order with one goal and that's that. So that's my story, eh? So much for having no past. Turns out I do have a very much solidly-written past, I just didn't know about it until right at the end of the game. Well, now I REALLY have no reason to replay it, because I just don't like that story. You can only ever roleplay in an environment that gives you room to do so. The reason I say our writers of today are trying way too hard is because they go so far out of their way to leave us no room for interpretation. |
When teamed, we'd play out the stories, react to them, the characters would fuss, rage, be motivated by the details in whatever way suited them. To a certain extent they still are, but now their reactions are more dictated and this bothers me a bit.
This is a large reason why I had so much issue with the current popular MMO feeding me my dialogue and all of that. It just felt... TOO much out of my hands. And on the other hand, I think it forced people who could give a damn about reading all that dialogue and just want to smash things, move on, to deal with it, too.
I think the happy medium I'd personally love to see is something between First Ward and the old stories. I DO like the contacts with personality. I just have a tougher time letting my characters write their own stories when the dialogues and details do that for them.
Quote:
It's funny you think of it this way.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
...
Newer City of Heroes missions are a lot harder to "roleplay" in because they really give you all the details in such completeness that there's no real way for you to deviate from the story that you're given. This might be good for a first-impressions experience, but it's murder for replayability. Why WOULD I replay the same story over and over again if it'll always be the exact same story? You can't "fill in the blanks" and craft your own experience because there are no blanks to fill. Everything has been filled in for you, and only ONE single experience is on offer. Where before you could craft different interpretations for different characters, now you go with whatever interpretation the story spells out for you... |
I would compare a "traditional" novel to a choose your own adventure book same way I would a traditional city of heroes mission to one where you have lots of options and stuff and the outcome changes.
Yet there are still books to be written that people read over and over.
Biggest book series of all time? Harry Potter.
Biggest movie series of all time? Harry Potter.
And that's just a retelling of someone else's story from a specific person's point of view.
(My personal favorite? book 2 and movie 2. "Master has given Dobby a sock!" gets me every time.)
A single story, told from a specific point of view, told very well, beats the interactive story every time.
Doesn't matter if it's a videogame that railroads you along...
Or a movie where a lot of characters do things you wouldn't agree with "NO ***** NO DON'T OPEN THAT DOOR HE GON KILL YOU"...
Or a book where there are things that just don't jive with you...
Or a story told by your creepy uncle that never seems to go anywhere until it's finally dinnertime and he falls asleep mid-sentence...
If you let yourself get into the story, it's nice to give your brain a little bit of a rest and just go along for the ride.
So few games built right now actually make you feel like you're in control of the entire destiny of the story - maybe that's just me being aware of game mechanics enough that I can't be surprised by cheap tricks. Maybe it's because I'm just so much better at it than others. Oh well, I'll have my fun making stuff and unleashing it on the world in my own time and I'll see how people like it or not.
Honestly I think the newer storylines are FAR better than the blander stories that have come before. I find the interaction between my character and Dean MacArthur more interesting than that of (gasp) The Radio or (gasper) Television. Yes, the dialogue doesn't work very well if your character is supposed to be mute. Or a pirate. Or a Rikti. Or an awakened Vacuum cleaner that only speaks in VRRRRRRRMMMMMM. But whatever. a stretch of the imagination to make it work? Sold. Every time. If that's slightly more challenging, bring it. I got no problem making these stories work with all my characters. (including the one that will be remotely detonated if it communicates with anyone or anything in any language other than simple hand signals)
you could have it all
My empire of dirt
I will let you down
I will make you <3
Quote:
I can't speak for Samual_Tow but I should at least clarify, yes, I do agree, they are fantastically written. I don't take that away from them. I appreciate the hard work the devs have put into the storylines and do enjoy them. |
Originally Posted by Party_Kake
It's funny you think of it this way.
I would compare a "traditional" novel to a choose your own adventure book same way I would a traditional city of heroes mission to one where you have lots of options and stuff and the outcome changes. Yet there are still books to be written that people read over and over. Biggest book series of all time? Harry Potter. Biggest movie series of all time? Harry Potter. And that's just a retelling of someone else's story from a specific person's point of view. (My personal favorite? book 2 and movie 2. "Master has given Dobby a sock!" gets me every time.) A single story, told from a specific point of view, told very well, beats the interactive story every time. Doesn't matter if it's a videogame that railroads you along... Or a movie where a lot of characters do things you wouldn't agree with "NO ***** NO DON'T OPEN THAT DOOR HE GON KILL YOU"... Or a book where there are things that just don't jive with you... Or a story told by your creepy uncle that never seems to go anywhere until it's finally dinnertime and he falls asleep mid-sentence... If you let yourself get into the story, it's nice to give your brain a little bit of a rest and just go along for the ride. So few games built right now actually make you feel like you're in control of the entire destiny of the story - maybe that's just me being aware of game mechanics enough that I can't be surprised by cheap tricks. Maybe it's because I'm just so much better at it than others. Oh well, I'll have my fun making stuff and unleashing it on the world in my own time and I'll see how people like it or not. Honestly I think the newer storylines are FAR better than the blander stories that have come before. I find the interaction between my character and Dean MacArthur more interesting than that of (gasp) The Radio or (gasper) Television. Yes, the dialogue doesn't work very well if your character is supposed to be mute. Or a pirate. Or a Rikti. Or an awakened Vacuum cleaner that only speaks in VRRRRRRRMMMMMM. But whatever. a stretch of the imagination to make it work? Sold. Every time. If that's slightly more challenging, bring it. I got no problem making these stories work with all my characters. (including the one that will be remotely detonated if it communicates with anyone or anything in any language other than simple hand signals) |
My observation is more from the point of view of someone that does enjoy being able to immerse into the story self-insertion wise and see the story change from character to character based on our reactions and such. The new stories, however, as you are more or less saying, reading along a novel and it does feel a touch like I'm following someone else's story that only says it's directed at me.
The evolution of 'self-insertion' as the stories are progressing from old school stories where they're just a bland summary to a more 'we give you your dialogue and script' days is just occasionally frustrating from mine and my friends' standpoints.
But yes, the old stories are definitely needing SOMETHING to bring them to life, I agree. The dialogues with Dean and Roy Cooling are just fantastic and make you feel like they're talking to you. This is why I say there's a happy medium between giving us a 'general, bland summary' like the old days versus 'it's now giving you all your dialogue for you'.
Quote:
Stories read over and over again sell themselves on their superb quality and amazing ideas. Maybe someone really does feel that the writing in City of Heroes is so breath-taking that it's worth reading over and over again, but I'm not one of these people. In fact, if the SSAs are anything to go by, the writing is looking more and more likely to be the thing that pisses me right off. I like Dean McArthut's arc just because I like Dean McArthut, but I don't recall having "liked" a story since then.|
Originally Posted by Party_Kake
It's funny you think of it this way.
I would compare a "traditional" novel to a choose your own adventure book same way I would a traditional city of heroes mission to one where you have lots of options and stuff and the outcome changes. Yet there are still books to be written that people read over and over. Biggest book series of all time? Harry Potter. Biggest movie series of all time? Harry Potter. |
Maybe the game's writers and I just don't see eye to eye, maybe it's something else, but the stories I go through are not stories I want to experience again. I would not, for instance, touch First Ward again with a ten foot pole. It's not because it's badly written, mind you. On a technical level, it's one of the better examples of writing out there. I simply HATE the story it's trying to tell. I'm past sick and tired of darker and edgier stories, and if these stories continually refuse to let me improvise my actions, reactions and motivations, then I'm left with very little reason to replay them.
I don't, for instance, like Unai Kemen's "To Save a Thousand Worlds," I'll admit that right off the bad. It's a giant waste of my time, sending me from world to world to world because my princess is in another castle. But at the same time, being as empty of substance as these are allows me to fill in my own narrative, motivations and even the scope of my adventures there. Because not every detail is spelled out for me, I can take what is a legitimately BAD story and make it interesting. Mind you, that's still 20 missions of sweeping the same five outdoor instances, but no story can salvage that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Party_Kake
So few games built right now actually make you feel like you're in control of the entire destiny of the story - maybe that's just me being aware of game mechanics enough that I can't be surprised by cheap tricks. Maybe it's because I'm just so much better at it than others. Oh well, I'll have my fun making stuff and unleashing it on the world in my own time and I'll see how people like it or not.
|
What I mean by "my own story" is just the story of my own character existing as part of a broader world, facing challenges, having adventures and carving a spot. So long as I can represent the game in this way, that's more than enough.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
You seem to have paired up a "bad" story with a "tight" story as if to infer they're opposites of each other, but I don't necessarily agree. Personally, I've almost always found "tight" stories to be the worst of the lot exactly because they do and say so much there's bound to be a LOT I will disagree with. In fact, whether I leave liking or disliking a tight story is based entirely around how many things impressed me vs. how many things pissed me off. And there are always things that piss me off because my tastes are so specific.|
Originally Posted by Gangrel_EU
A bad storyline, but decent general background allows you to expand on it with what you know. But a storyline that is *tight* from the outset is very hard to RP with if it *also* has a lot of decent background to it.
|
It is, however, a widely-known fact of life that a person's fantasy is ALWAYS better than any kind of entertainment other people can provide, exactly because our fantasies are so personal and so geared to what we like. To me, a tight story misses on the opportunity to let my brain fill in a few blanks, because when that happens, my brain will invariably fill them in with stuff that appeals to me in a personal way. Just as an idle point of comparison, I enjoyed the prospect of the "Oracle" in the Matrix movie a lot more when it wasn't explained. I didn't really have a concrete explanation for it, but I had guesses. What ended up being used as the official explanation, by comparison, wasn't nearly as appealing to me.
I'm obviously not saying that a "tight" story can't work. Many can and many have. But these need to be done with the greatest of care simply because they need SO MUCH to be done right for them to work. If you can pull that off, great! If you can't, though, that's a problem, and a big one. By contrast, a basic sandbox doesn't require one to do all that much storytelling and writing because the whole point of the sandbox is to empower and motivate the player to make his own fun.
I really cannot stress that hard enough: A person's own fabricated fantasies are always going to be superior to the real thing. That's just how our brains work. The smartest thing a sandbox game can do is encourage people to use those fantasies, and I find that recent writing does a lot to suppress them, instead.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
QR:
My bad, i should have use "loose" instead of "bad" equivilency...
Good and Bad story lines, and if they are tight or loose.
The rest of my argument doesnt need changing as far as i can tell.
Quote:
Annoyingly though... CoX isnt a "sandbox" MMO in the more traditional sense. But that is more because of what I view a "sandbox" MMO to be compared to a "Themepark" MMO.| I really cannot stress that hard enough: A person's own fabricated fantasies are always going to be superior to the real thing. That's just how our brains work. The smartest thing a sandbox game can do is encourage people to use those fantasies, and I find that recent writing does a lot to suppress them, instead. |
All MMO's however *can* have elements of a sandbox, but how big that sandbox varies from game to game.
Quote:
That's an interesting point to make, and I'd like to hear your argument for it. And yes, I mean that. I find it genuinely interesting.|
Originally Posted by Gangrel_EU
Annoyingly though... CoX isnt a "sandbox" MMO in the more traditional sense. But that is more because of what I view a "sandbox" MMO to be compared to a "Themepark" MMO.
All MMO's however *can* have elements of a sandbox, but how big that sandbox varies from game to game. |
I suppose that does come down to what we consider to be a sandbox. For instance, there's no question that Gary's Mod is a sandbox, literally and figuratively, from what I've seen. But I'm not sure I'd call it a "game" per se. But what do you envision a sandbox game constituting? Are we talking ye olde EQ where most of the game doesn't actually have a plot and missions but is instead just an environment with enemies to kill? That might fit the bill, but does it imply that having focused plots to pursue if you should choose to make the game less of a sandbox?
It's widely held that the various GTA games are sandboxes, though these usually do have a central plot and a main story. Nevertheless, much of their fun is to be found in vaulting cars over buses, throwing random grannies off of rooftops and finding new ways to get run over by speeding traffic. As Yahtzee describes another game, "It was most fun when I stopped playing," by which he means when he stopped playing by the game's rules and just went to goof off. That should, I think, count as a sandbox, and it kind of is a lot like City of Heroes.
The question, then, becomes where we actually pin the flag, so to speak, and claim that "THIS is what a sandbox game is." I will grant you that City of Heroes is not a true sandbox, but I would still argue that it has many sandbox elements. More importantly, I feel that sandbox elements would and do add a LOT to City of Heroes. Street Hunting is obviously not very popular, but I'd wager that's because of the inconvenience of an uncontrolled environment. With that said, does a sandbox have to necessarily feature an open world?
To me, a game like The Incredible Machine is a sandbox just as much as Gary's Mod is, even though it really has no open world. It's split down into individual puzzles with no overarching connection between them. I've not played Little Big Planet, but I have to assume it's much the same way. These are games that constitute sandboxes not because they are literally one box full of sand and toy to play with, but rather because they're designed for players to make their own fun in.
City of Heroes, I think, is a more structured game which enacts its sandbox nature less in letting players loose upon an open world, but rather by giving people a wide selection of fairly predetermined experiences. Sure, there's little point in throwing ourselves off high places or beating up everybody in a neighbourhood (and people do it anyway), but that's because the game is trying to provide us with a selection of thrills as opposed to just letting us loose on our own. I suppose that's less of a sandbox and more of a toy box, but the idea is roughly the same - we are given the tools, but these are tools with which we can make our own murder time fun time, to quote Professor Genki.
The reason I say this is because the content really is set in stone, content is only one part of the experience. The whole experience also involves who we are, what we bring and how we interact with it. City of Heroes is a game that gives us the opportunity to express ourselves, and this can alter the experience quite a bit. For instance, many people hate Twinshot's arc because she treats us like low-brow rookies, and to be fair, I see where they're coming from. At the same time, my experience with her was excellent because I really WAS playing a character who's supposed to be a low-brow rookie - an energetic but dense your girl who'd just gotten her license at the time. If I'd brought a different character, however - say my scientist who owns his own corporation but whose gear started off terrible - I too would have resented the arc.
Of course, Twinshot's arc is a choice, and it's a choice I really haven't made since I originally ran it. Didn't have the characters for it. However, it's that choice in which path to pick for my character and the almost compulsive need for me to explain why this character chose that path that makes the game a sandbox to me. Or at least makes it into a game with that one, very strong sandbox element.
But like I said - this is an interesting argument, and I'd really like to hear it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Pretty much, there are other games out there that fall into the sandbox category.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I suppose that does come down to what we consider to be a sandbox. For instance, there's no question that Gary's Mod is a sandbox, literally and figuratively, from what I've seen. But I'm not sure I'd call it a "game" per se. But what do you envision a sandbox game constituting? Are we talking ye olde EQ where most of the game doesn't actually have a plot and missions but is instead just an environment with enemies to kill? That might fit the bill, but does it imply that having focused plots to pursue if you should choose to make the game less of a sandbox?
|
Quote:
| It's widely held that the various GTA games are sandboxes, though these usually do have a central plot and a main story. Nevertheless, much of their fun is to be found in vaulting cars over buses, throwing random grannies off of rooftops and finding new ways to get run over by speeding traffic. As Yahtzee describes another game, "It was most fun when I stopped playing," by which he means when he stopped playing by the game's rules and just went to goof off. That should, I think, count as a sandbox, and it kind of is a lot like City of Heroes. |
Quote:
| The question, then, becomes where we actually pin the flag, so to speak, and claim that "THIS is what a sandbox game is." I will grant you that City of Heroes is not a true sandbox, but I would still argue that it has many sandbox elements. More importantly, I feel that sandbox elements would and do add a LOT to City of Heroes. Street Hunting is obviously not very popular, but I'd wager that's because of the inconvenience of an uncontrolled environment. With that said, does a sandbox have to necessarily feature an open world? |
Quote:
| To me, a game like The Incredible Machine is a sandbox just as much as Gary's Mod is, even though it really has no open world. It's split down into individual puzzles with no overarching connection between them. I've not played Little Big Planet, but I have to assume it's much the same way. These are games that constitute sandboxes not because they are literally one box full of sand and toy to play with, but rather because they're designed for players to make their own fun in. |
Little Big Planet "single player" mode is *not* a sandbox, it is a puzzle game. HOWEVER, its creation mode IS a sandbox... but then when you download *someone elses* creation, it no longer is a sandbox.
Quote:
| City of Heroes, I think, is a more structured game which enacts its sandbox nature less in letting players loose upon an open world, but rather by giving people a wide selection of fairly predetermined experiences. Sure, there's little point in throwing ourselves off high places or beating up everybody in a neighbourhood (and people do it anyway), but that's because the game is trying to provide us with a selection of thrills as opposed to just letting us loose on our own. I suppose that's less of a sandbox and more of a toy box, but the idea is roughly the same - we are given the tools, but these are tools with which we can make our own murder time fun time, to quote Professor Genki. |
Quote:
|
The reason I say this is because the content really is set in stone, content is only one part of the experience. The whole experience also involves who we are, what we bring and how we interact with it. City of Heroes is a game that gives us the opportunity to express ourselves, and this can alter the experience quite a bit. For instance, many people hate Twinshot's arc because she treats us like low-brow rookies, and to be fair, I see where they're coming from. At the same time, my experience with her was excellent because I really WAS playing a character who's supposed to be a low-brow rookie - an energetic but dense your girl who'd just gotten her license at the time. If I'd brought a different character, however - say my scientist who owns his own corporation but whose gear started off terrible - I too would have resented the arc. Of course, Twinshot's arc is a choice, and it's a choice I really haven't made since I originally ran it. Didn't have the characters for it. However, it's that choice in which path to pick for my character and the almost compulsive need for me to explain why this character chose that path that makes the game a sandbox to me. Or at least makes it into a game with that one, very strong sandbox element. But like I said - this is an interesting argument, and I'd really like to hear it. |
I would say that City of Heroes *DOES* have a very excellent Sandbox for creating your character. You are not limited to what you can make (ok, you need a head, arms and legs... but apart from that, your imagination is your limit).
Anyways, back to the question of "what makes a sandbox MMO":
To me, a lack of "developer chosen" goal is a sign of a sandbox MMO. The player is one who chooses their goal (whatever it may be).
There have to be several valid ways to actually *play* the game. ie crafting/combat/exploration all need to be actually valid play styles. You shouldnt be forced to go from A to B to do stuff to enable to you to be able to go to C to do the same to go to D etc to get to the end. If you wanted to, you could go from A to F and voila, you are able to do it.
As minimal "scripted hand holding" as possible. I will let the tutorial slip on this part, as the tutorial is there to actually *teach* you how to play the game. However, once you have completed that... You are on your own. The developer might drop you "tid bits" of stuff to get you going, but the onus is really on the player to decide to what to do and how to get there.
I would also have to say that the ripple effect would also be a factor ie I gather up all of the stuff from location X, raising the prices in location A (due to lack of supply). I sell the stuff in Location B, dropping the price there. There is now a trade route available between A and B (for others to fill in). THAT would help make a game more "sandboxy".
Annoyingly, i cannot easily think of a sandbox MMO that would work with "character levels" like the traditional linear/themepark MMO. I would say that if you were PvPing; then player skills would have to have a chance to tip the balance instead of relying on the "age" of the character.
So the more "skill set based" games inherently lend themselves to being more "sandbox". You need the choice to be able to choose what to take, when you take it, and have minimal limitation in terms of what you can take.
I am also inclined to believe that there is minimal dev created plot. The players are the ones who make the plot through their interactions. The developers are free to add in new stuff to the game... and to progress their OWN plot. But it never takes center stage. It should almost be more "background fluff" than anything else.
Example of this is in the big space faring MMO. They introduced Incursions (an NPC faction raiding both NPC and player owned space (high sec/low sec/ 0.0 space). Not a single region of space could avoid the *potential* for being raided by them.
It was to add in another way of earning ingame cash whilst getting non PvPers to use PvP fits (the more traditional PvE fits were not always suitable for it).
Whereas in contrast to CoX for example... pretty much every single expansion has added more content that advances (or introduces) a developer created main line story arc. The characters are the one who "act out the story". If you choose not to do it, what else is there for you to do? Are you still able to advance your character?
Can you realistically advance your character by doing no "dev generated stuff"?
The only real sandbox *once you are past* the character creation is the AE to make your own content, and the tailor (although i would still put that in the character creation section).
Also, you need to have the ability to make a *lasting* impression in the server that everyone has the potential to see. So player made housing/structures are very handy for this.
There is no one singular thing that differentiates a game between a sandbox or a Themepark MMO. They can indeed share features across the board.
If CoX suddenly introduced player housing, which you could actually decorate, other players could see the outside of (i will allow the interior to be instanced!), then that would move it closer to being a "sandbox".
If CoX allowed player to choose *any* combination of powers... or even to focus on just 2 or 3 abilities, then that would be more Sandboxy ie if you could take Footstomp and Fire Cages only, that would indeed be more interesting, especially if you could *focus your development into them*
A good definition that i read recently is
Quote:
| Sandbox = You get sand and tools to play with the sand, what you do with it is up to you, the developer hasn't given you an objective, thats your job |
That is developer plot... in a sandbox, you *shouldn't* need that big of a stick to do something. It should add more "flavour" to the world.
Unfortunately, sandbox MMO's also tend to include *some form* of Player Vs Player conflict. So they are *not* entirely suitable for everyone. Safe zones are the exception rather than the norm.
Eve Online probably gets a lot of press concerning its sandbox, and how the alliances work together/against each other; their backstabbing, collaborations, side switching and so on. Sometimes it is just to "change the look of the universe"... other times it is more steeped in ingame lore (CVA/Ushra'Khan alliances battle for Providence).
Sure, Eve Online has its "high sec" regions of space, where you *more* safe than if you were in Low sec.
But you are not 100% safe.
Infact you would have to stay docked up to be 100% safe (hello market gameplay... the more "spreadsheet side of the game!)
Some of the stuff i agree with are taken from Massively as it was a question that was asked recently.
Unfortunately you cannot just stick a flag in the ground and say "if it has this is must be a sandbox". Because there *are* MMO's who have X feature and are NOT Sandbox MMO's. It is more a combination of features that make it a sandbox (and even then, a balance has to be struck across the board); but if there was one... it would have to be "heavy focus of "player/player interaction" and not "Player Vs Developer stuff"
Developers add in the tools, the players build what they can with it. The developers add in more tools to allow them to do more stuff (or to mix up the status quo possibly) and the players still run with it.
If the new stuff is to help you "take down Grand BooPah Bob", then I would be heavily inclined to throw that stuff into "theme park" mode.
Then we simply vastly disagree on what a "sandbox" constitutes, I'd say. Either that, or I need to abandon that particular term and pick another one, because what you describe as a proper sandbox sounds holly and entirely unappealing to me. What you describe is essentially MineCraft, and though I've sunk hours into that, those weren't really spent playing it, they were spent cheating for resources and using it as a terrain editor. I don't mean to imply that's a bad design, it's just miles and miles away from what appeals to me. It's the difference between buying a Lego set and buying one of those tubs of parts. The former I've sunk many hundreds of dollars on. The latter I can't really justify spending a cent on.
You are correct in that a lot of MMOs and RPGs would constitute sandboxes to me. I don't need a sandbox to be so literal. More importantly, I don't need it to specifically LACK anything. As well, being able to leave a lasting impression on the game is sometimes a plus, but this requires that I actually have the skill to leave an impression that's worth leaving behind. It's simply not something I require out of my sandboxes.
Honestly, if you want to call it something else, I'd be fine with it, but what I require out of what I define as a "sandbox" is the ability to bring my own creations into someone else's established world and have them be granted the freedom to behave as their concepts require. In essence, what I enjoy is the old, rather childish question of who would win - Superman or Naruto. In order for this to happen, I really do need an established world built on rules and backstory within which to explore my characters. That, to me, is a sandbox. Whether it's linear or open-world, instanced or overworld.
If you can come up with something more appropriate for me to call it, that'd be fine.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Eh, give it a name.
I personally say that to the extent that the game allows me to alter the environment, that is the extent to which it is a sandbox. Can I build a castle? Can I build castle defenders? Can I assault the castle I built with antagonists? etc
A game is Open World to the extent that I can ignore the Main Quest (supposing there is one) and do what I want within the world itself. If I answer the ringing phone, I get assigned missions, but I can ignore it to go wandering across the world beating people up and advancing my character without locking myself out of the main quest. Note that having the Main Quest lock out is not a dealbreaker, it just makes the game LESS Open World.
To relate this back to the OP:
Various missions can and should emphasize various levels of dialogue interactivity based on the mission. That said, if you are going to give me a choice, please make me beleive it is a choice.
And if you are going to give me a choice, I am indeed in the camp that prefers the choice be 'vague' enough that I can use my own made up internal 'voice' for my character.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
The thing is though, "Sandbox", "Linear", "Themepark" are just labels to quickly set an idea across, more notably between actual game play mechanics than anything else.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Then we simply vastly disagree on what a "sandbox" constitutes, I'd say. Either that, or I need to abandon that particular term and pick another one, because what you describe as a proper sandbox sounds wholly and entirely unappealing to me. What you describe is essentially MineCraft, and though I've sunk hours into that, those weren't really spent playing it, they were spent cheating for resources and using it as a terrain editor. I don't mean to imply that's a bad design, it's just miles and miles away from what appeals to me. It's the difference between buying a Lego set and buying one of those tubs of parts. The former I've sunk many hundreds of dollars on. The latter I can't really justify spending a cent on.
You are correct in that a lot of MMOs and RPGs would constitute sandboxes to me. I don't need a sandbox to be so literal. More importantly, I don't need it to specifically LACK anything. As well, being able to leave a lasting impression on the game is sometimes a plus, but this requires that I actually have the skill to leave an impression that's worth leaving behind. It's simply not something I require out of my sandboxes. Honestly, if you want to call it something else, I'd be fine with it, but what I require out of what I define as a "sandbox" is the ability to bring my own creations into someone else's established world and have them be granted the freedom to behave as their concepts require. |
"Linear" and "Themepark" are pretty much swappable between the same style of MMORPG. WoW/CoX/SWTOR/Rift/Aion/Guild Wars style of game. You go from A to B to C to D to E... there is a well laid route for you. There might be a lot of separate routes for you, but there is still an over reaching goal that the developers would *love* for you to reach. Walk off that path, and it gets very difficult very fast.
A "Sandbox" is where the developers DO NOT have a goal for the players to complete... it is an open world for the players to act out in. There will be some hard and fast rules (the actual mechanics of the game), but a lot of the time, there is also a lot more freedom in the game itself for you to be able to do what you want to do, with relevant punishment if need be. (Eve Online, Star Wars Galaxies (pre New Game Edition release), Ultima Online, Darkfall, Mortal Online)
A quick and easy guide (for MMO game mechanics at least):
If it has CHARACTER levels: Themepark/Linear (character dinging as main form of player advancement). Gear limited to Character of "X level" is also a good indicator.
If it has SKILL levels: It is Sandbox (skill dinging as main form of player advancement).
That for me has worked so far (touch wood)
Another guideline is "you should not be FORCED to take combat skills (or advance them if all characters start with them) if the game setting allows it"; I put the advance one in because pretty much every single Sandbox MMO has *some* form of combat skill, even if it is just as a "starter" skill. It allows you to defend yourself if need be. eg Miner/Industry/Trading character from Eve Online. The Entertainer skill set from Star Wars Galaxies, advanced by *dancing* and got more XP if people actually sat and watched them (the player watching needed to type in /watch as well!), otherwise the XP gain was normal.
Also to advance your character you should not have to go out and kill 10 rats, kill 20 snakes, carry to X, escort G to location H etc etc.
Quote:
|
In essence, what I enjoy is the old, rather childish question of who would win - Superman or Naruto. In order for this to happen, I really do need an established world built on rules and backstory within which to explore my characters. That, to me, is a sandbox. Whether it's linear or open-world, instanced or overworld. If you can come up with something more appropriate for me to call it, that'd be fine. |
However, the *actual* CoX gameplay system is very linear. You do have to go from A to B to C to D. You ding and you have a limited choice of what to advance next, you know that at level 10 a player will have X number of abilities, at level 30 Y number of abilities etc; and it is very very very hard to actually skip too far ahead of yourself (due to character levels and how combat works)
Side note: In a skill based system, enough "newbie" characters should be able to swarm out an established character (or even a tough NPC). Goonswarm have a handy image for this:
(i would like to point out that i am not affiliated with Goonswarm, i spent more of my time fighting Goonswarm than teaming up with them)
The incident that the image refers to... that could have been done by a *brand new* 1 day old character.
Quote:
How does "toy box game" sound? |
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Eh, give it a name.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Various missions can and should emphasize various levels of dialogue interactivity based on the mission. That said, if you are going to give me a choice, please make me beleive it is a choice.
|
That's actually where the duality of "dialogue vs monologue" came from initially. I realised that I really don't mind having NPCs monologue at me with my only input being "Accept/Ask about something else." Really, if that's all a dialogue comes to, then I don't mind it being presented like that, especially if I can keep it after the fact as a clue. If we're going to go through with making dialogues, then at least let's pretend they're actual dialogues.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
And if you are going to give me a choice, I am indeed in the camp that prefers the choice be 'vague' enough that I can use my own made up internal 'voice' for my character.
|
Of course, then you lose on the ability to bounce around witty repartee by having my character assume the hero Twinshot is referring to MUST be a man, only for Twinshot to specify that SHE is Miss Liberty. Despite she, Miss Liberty, being the heroine we've seen the most of by the time we get to level 4 because we've levelled up at her. Despite the fact that we've already spoken with Numina to even get to Atlas Park. Despite the fact that our own characters may be female and therefore less likely to automatically assume any great hero must be a man.
Frankly... I would not miss that in most instances I can think of off-hand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
You're reading way too much into that.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
...my character assume the hero Twinshot is referring to MUST be a man, only for Twinshot to specify that SHE is Miss Liberty. Despite she, Miss Liberty, being the heroine we've seen the most of by the time we get to level 4 because we've levelled up at her. Despite the fact that we've already spoken with Numina to even get to Atlas Park. Despite the fact that our own characters may be female and therefore less likely to automatically assume any great hero must be a man.
Frankly... I would not miss that in most instances I can think of off-hand. |
Here's a few different ways in which the way those words are spoken (that is, no text changes) changes the meaning of the sentences completely.
1. your character is from Texas (or probably other places nearby) where the word "guy" is most of the time gender-neutral, and you don't even care that you say "he" instead of the more proper "he or she". Twinshot, however, is particularly proud of the fact that one of her favorite idols talks to her regularly, and like a giddy schoolgirl on speed, (side note: newest character concept there lol) she takes the opportunity to point it out not to correct you but to bask in her own joy. Picture her sighing right after the word "she" and it becomes a bit more clear.
2. Your character does not possess the godlike power to never say anything they do not mean, and simply accidentally said "he" when you knew who she was talking about to begin with. Twinshot, however, goes into full-on feminist tirade mode and before you can even roll your eyes at her assumption of you being sexist, she's already acting like a moron.
3. Twinshot misheard you, either because you could have sworn you said "she" or you mumbled or maybe she heard you wrong over the sound of that carbomb nearby or perhaps the mugger stealing that young man's purse nearby is affecting her hearing. In any event she's more than eager to correct your "sexism" because she's the kind of person who would leap at the opportunity to correct you like that, for one of two reasons: she's in a good mood and loves to brag about the female superheroes of the city, or she's in a bad mood and you're "a sexist jerk."
Not a one of those multiple scenarios above assumes anything about your character. They are all very believable situations that revolve around how you assume Twinshot reacts to you.
you could have it all
My empire of dirt
I will let you down
I will make you <3
Quote:
I'm not objecting to the insinuations of the situation so much as I'm objecting to the conversation being so heavily tied into the specific wording my character used. My point is that having loose, descriptive dialogue options like "Ask about ____" instead of "Hey, sugar, tell me about ____" would indeed limit the conversations' ability to play off player wording, but in most cases where this shows up, it's a loss I wouldn't really mind. That sort of back-and-forth isn't inherently bad, but at least to me, it's far less important than having my interaction less rigidly defined, so I wouldn't mind losing it.
|
Originally Posted by Party_Kake
You're reading way too much into that.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I'm not objecting to the insinuations of the situation so much as I'm objecting to the conversation being so heavily tied into the specific wording my character used. My point is that having loose, descriptive dialogue options like "Ask about ____" instead of "Hey, sugar, tell me about ____" would indeed limit the conversations' ability to play off player wording, but in most cases where this shows up, it's a loss I wouldn't really mind. That sort of back-and-forth isn't inherently bad, but at least to me, it's far less important than having my interaction less rigidly defined, so I wouldn't mind losing it.
|
This is a thing that the writers REALLY need to drill in their heads. The breadth of characters that the game allows makes any accurate assumptions regarding our characters exceedingly difficult. Better to use dryer, more generic conversation options and let the player fill in the gaps than try to fill the gap and fail spectacularly (Dr. Graves, how does your machine conduct genetic analisis of samples taken from robots? )
Overall though I really like the newer, 'talky' missions a good deal. And I'd really like to see more extensive dialogue trees. But making them skippable is very important. I've run the Faultline arcs many times (I have a real soft spot for 'em), but I skip pretty much all the text since I know it fairly well by now. I'd hate having to click through a half-dozen dialogue options every time I run them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UberGuy
More and more, new content acknowledges gender. I'm not sure the game has internal variables exposed for powersets, but I'm not at all sure it would be a good idea. Some people like to take their powersets, recolor them and pretend they are something else entirely. I think it might be best to leave that alone.
|
Essentially, what I would like to see are a few different 'types' of conversational options.
INFO OPTIONS: This is where the NPC (or the mission) has a deep personality and backstory, and I have conversational options where I can try to find out more of their backstory.
Example 1: While interacting with the Millionaire Playboy, I have a series of straightforward options that take me straight to the mission, but I can also follow an optional line of questioning (perhaps outlined in its' own color?) that leads me to suspect that he may moonlight as some sort of costumed detective. For bonus points, doing so changes a minor variable or reward in the mission to something equivalent but different, like maybe you are armed with a 'Call Chiropteran Detective' temp power instead of a 'Call PPD' temp Power.
Example 2: I have the option to skip most of the interaction and just retreive the glowing cube from the opposing faction. However, I can also question the NPC about the cube and find out that it contains a nascent universe and can grant a holder nearly unlimited power if it chooses to do so. Rewared for doing so: recapturing the Universe Cube grants you a temp power instead of XP.
NPC INTERACTIONS: It also includes cases where they have quirks and I can choose to interact with those quirks in a variety of ways. The important thing here is keeping the interactions vague or varied enough that I can stay 'in character'. Choosing whether or not to High Five Dean MacArthur is perfect (it's basically a yes or no, I can fill in my own attitude, expression, explanations, etc).
Other examples might be choosing to 'accept' 'gently rebuff' or 'forcefully object' when my Contact threatens me. Alternatively, a choice to 'accept' 'reject' or 'haggle' (which could randomly choose between accept and reject).
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
I'm not sure I can agree with this. You're really taking the term "sandbox" to such extremes that I have a hard time seeing it as relevant to modern-day gaming. Maybe in something like Second Life, maybe in MineCraft, but these are exceptions to the rule as far as I'm concerned. They're as popular as they are because these games are literally THE ONLY GAME in their respected genres, and this collect essentially all the people who have even a passing interest in that particular genre in one place, making them economic successes. I'm really not sure if there's much room for competition there.|
Originally Posted by Gangrel_EU
Another guideline is "you should not be FORCED to take combat skills (or advance them if all characters start with them) if the game setting allows it"; I put the advance one in because pretty much every single Sandbox MMO has *some* form of combat skill, even if it is just as a "starter" skill. It allows you to defend yourself if need be. eg Miner/Industry/Trading character from Eve Online. The Entertainer skill set from Star Wars Galaxies, advanced by *dancing* and got more XP if people actually sat and watched them (the player watching needed to type in /watch as well!), otherwise the XP gain was normal.
|
More appropriately, I'm more than positive you can have a sandbox game close to your definition that's all combat all the time. A sandbox does not have to be a world and the player characters that populate the sandbox don't have to be humans and don't have to have regular lives. What you're describing is less of a general-terminology game and more of a "life simulator," and that's not the same thing as a sandbox. This, as a point of fact, is one of by far my largest beefs with most Fantasy MMOs - they go out of their lives to be medieval simulators. You need to chop trees, cook food, craft tools, go to marker, build houses and so on. That's not fundamental to a sandbox, not as far as I'm concerned, not even if we go with your general definition.
To me, the fundamental defining characteristic of a sandbox is the ability to craft your own experience, but that CAN be done within a world with rigid rules. It does not have to happen in a world where nothing is defined. A sandbox, in other words, does not have to be a level editor like MineCraft essentially is in order to be a sandbox. The City of Heroes Architect, as you mention, is a sandbox, but that's still based on levels, it's still based on instanced maps and it's still limited to the assets the game provides. Crucially, it's still all about combat because the whole of City of Heroes is all about combat. You CAN perform non-combat activities, but they don't reward you.
In general, I don't need a sandbox game to cover the "regular" part of a character's life. I don't need a sandbox to cover pooping, eating, sleeping, foraging for food, finding shelter, maintaining gear or finding entertainment. Yes, a sandbox can have all of this, but I don't believe it needs to. To me, a game which sends you out into the world with the only goal of killing stuff, getting better at killing stuff and finding bigger stuff to kill with NOTHING else covered can still be a sandbox, even by your definition of it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
The real kicker is that's really not that hard to do. Being vague and general actually takes less effort to pull off. It's just that it's very hard to resist being so specific, because then you can't show how clever and biting your writing is, or at least it's not as easy to do so, and that's just hard to do once you're used to doing it. And that actually is one part of what bugs me about contemporary City of Heroes writing - it seems like whoever is doing the writing really wants to show off how well he or she can write, so a lot of it comes off as forced and exaggerated.
|
Originally Posted by SlyGuyMcFly
This is a thing that the writers REALLY need to drill in their heads. The breadth of characters that the game allows makes any accurate assumptions regarding our characters exceedingly difficult. Better to use dryer, more generic conversation options and let the player fill in the gaps than try to fill the gap and fail spectacularly.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Other sandbox MMORPG's would disagree with you on that one. |
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I'm not sure I can agree with this. You're really taking the term "sandbox" to such extremes that I have a hard time seeing it as relevant to modern-day gaming. Maybe in something like Second Life, maybe in MineCraft, but these are exceptions to the rule as far as I'm concerned. They're as popular as they are because these games are literally THE ONLY GAME in their respected genres, and this collect essentially all the people who have even a passing interest in that particular genre in one place, making them economic successes. I'm really not sure if there's much room for competition there.
|
Quote:
| More appropriately, I'm more than positive you can have a sandbox game close to your definition that's all combat all the time. A sandbox does not have to be a world and the player characters that populate the sandbox don't have to be humans and don't have to have regular lives. What you're describing is less of a general-terminology game and more of a "life simulator," and that's not the same thing as a sandbox. This, as a point of fact, is one of by far my largest beefs with most Fantasy MMOs - they go out of their lives to be medieval simulators. You need to chop trees, cook food, craft tools, go to marker, build houses and so on. That's not fundamental to a sandbox, not as far as I'm concerned, not even if we go with your general definition. |
(And if you actually look at the system and what the system requires, there can indeed be a reason for cooking! Typically buffs for the players though)
Quote:
| To me, the fundamental defining characteristic of a sandbox is the ability to craft your own experience, but that CAN be done within a world with rigid rules. It does not have to happen in a world where nothing is defined. A sandbox, in other words, does not have to be a level editor like MineCraft essentially is in order to be a sandbox. The City of Heroes Architect, as you mention, is a sandbox, but that's still based on levels, it's still based on instanced maps and it's still limited to the assets the game provides. Crucially, it's still all about combat because the whole of City of Heroes is all about combat. You CAN perform non-combat activities, but they don't reward you. |
Quote:
| In general, I don't need a sandbox game to cover the "regular" part of a character's life. I don't need a sandbox to cover pooping, eating, sleeping, foraging for food, finding shelter, maintaining gear or finding entertainment. Yes, a sandbox can have all of this, but I don't believe it needs to. |
Quote:
| To me, a game which sends you out into the world with the only goal of killing stuff, getting better at killing stuff and finding bigger stuff to kill with NOTHING else covered can still be a sandbox, even by your definition of it. |
There is a sandbox MMORPG that is *entirely* non combat, and is entirely dependent on player/player interaction to progress.
If you look at the more traditional pen and paper RPG's... you *could* play a non combat character. Sure, the XP systems varied wildly, and character levels were included in some of them (most notably Dungeons and Dragons, there are others out there), but there were also a lot of other RPG's out there that eschewed the "character level" concept.
Those RPG's allowed a newer player into an established group far easier. They had the same number of hit points (more often than not), and more often than not they allowed a character to be *created and developed* as the person desired (Shadowrun/Cyberpunk 2020/Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay/Ars Magica/White Wolf's D10 system etc etc).
The "Themepark" style would be the "GM lead and dictated" style of game; whilst the "sandbox" style would be the "player lead" style of game.
Obviously a tabletop RPG is more sandbox than themepark anyway, due to the huge potential for stuff to change on the fly due to player actions... but that just reinforces my point.
A sandbox is where the developer/GM has *no* control over the eventual actions of the player... in fact, the players might decide to suddenly go off in totally the *wrong* direction and just pillage everything in their sight. That is a distinct possibility.
In a themepark though... the developer/GM *prevent* the players from being able to go off the rails, they *force* the route that the players have to go
How much freedom that is available for the players to act (and progress) is what ultimately differentiates between "Theme park" and "sandbox". And this is why i state that valid "non combat" routes to progress your character are pretty much essential in the "sandbox" MMORPG. If combat is the *only* option to play in a game, than at most, i would call it "open world".
And to be honest, I tend to avoid using "sandbox" for single player games as well, because once again, the developers typically have a plot for the player to follow (once again there are exceptions.. but non puzzle wise they are few and far between until you start hitting the "simulation" side of stuff!)
The annoying thing is that due to the fact that *most* (if not all) "sandbox" MMORPG's feature an element/side helping/full dinner plate) of PvP does also put people off from playing them (even if it is purely consensual... see UO post Trammel).. *HOWEVER* on the flip side, it does allow more emergent gameplay to arise.
A "Theme park" MMORPG is very limited in the "emergent gameplay" front. Pretty much the result of your action (or inaction) has already been scripted for. A sandbox MMORPG does *not* rely on this; indeed, it could be said that the Sandbox MMORPG is *reliant* upon the "emergent gameplay" that arises due to heavy player/player interactions.
In fact, i would say that this is because the "player/player" interaction is at the forefront of the developers mind, and not the "player/developer created story"
As i stated, there are some *marvelous* sandbox elements for City of Heroes. The character creator is one of them (purely because at least cosmetically you can pretty much make anything you want... as long as it is humanoid in shape), but the AE is also another side (because the developers gave us tools to make something). But apart from that, the flexibility of the game to allow us to do what we want in the "open game world" is not a lot.
Sure we can explore with minimal level restrictions (although Cimmermoria is a notable exception to this... especially considering you can unlock it at level 10!).
But apart from that, there is really not much else that you can do without having to resort to combat.
Note: It is FAR FAR easier to make a "sandbox" MMORPG into a "themepark" MMORPG, than it is to turn it the other way around. You just add in more restrictions. REMOVING the restrictions though, requires far more effort on the developers side, especially if the game initially wasn't designed to take them into consideration.
*rewrote this about 30 different times, trying to get idea's across. In the end this mess is what I came up with and hammered submit to!*
Two videos i know of that *might* help explain a bit more as to how much flexibility a sandbox has over a themepark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hmqyejCYU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGplrpWvz0I
Quote:
I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, you insist that a sandbox has to have something for everyone, so if it lacks a non-combat alternative, it's not a sandbox. On the other hand, in the very next sentence, you state that a sandbox MMO that is entirely non-combat exists and you're perfectly fine with calling it a sandbox. Why is one that has only combat but no non-combat activities rejected but one that has only non-combat activities and no combat accepted? Doesn't that seem one-sided and not really about having something for everyone? Because from everything you've said so far, it seems like you define "sandbox" as a "game" that's entirely non-combat, but can have combat as an alternative if you REALLY wanted to.|
Originally Posted by Gangrel_EU
I would disagree on this part. You might have a very good combat simulator with a huge open world. But what can a non combat person do?
There is a sandbox MMORPG that is *entirely* non combat, and is entirely dependent on player/player interaction to progress. |
I'm sad to say that I don't feel this has been entirely satisfactory, and not because I don't think you've done enough to explain. It just seems to me that your interpretation of "sandbox" is so far removed from anything I'd even begin to consider gaming that I really find I have quite literally no use for the term, as defined like this. Again, that's not a dig against you, I just really can't think of a situation that interests me, personally, where this term with this definition would come into play, aside from Second Life, MineCraft and... Um, Myst Online Uru? Maybe there are more I'm not aware of, but I can't imagine there are that many which aren't PNP or MUD or otherwise non-graphical.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
In Star Wars Galaxies (as previously mentioned), you could create a character that was a dancer, get missions to go dance in various places, and get experience for dancing there.
You could use this experience to learn new dances.
The dances had healing effects on other players, who could then improve your rate of xp gain by letting the game know they preferred your personal dancing.
The dances you could learn could be strung together in various orders and modified on the fly, so you could dance completely uniquely if you had the skill (or the proper macros), thus getting actual players to prefer your dancing, resulting in more xp, etc.
It was entirely possible to max out your character along some skill trees via nothing but dancing and being a dancer.
No combat required.
Any number of modern MMOs could use a similar system to populate a world with crafters and various service professions and create an environment with no combat, but plenty of interaction, competition and conflict.
But not easily, and why not have combat also?
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
The simple truth of the matter is that I'm biassed. Heavily. Maybe it's just that I grew up on combat games and combat cartoons and played with action figures and green soldiers and the like, but I really have very little interest in game "stuff" other than combat. Crafting, in particular, is something which infuriates me greatly, which is easily the primary reason why I'm so stubborn when it comes to Inventions. To me, it seems like heedless busywork and an obstacle I need to deal with before I can get to the actual game.
Now, I know that's not exactly fair or objective, which is why I say I'm biassed. To be honest, one of the biggest reasons I stayed out of MMOs until City of Heroes is because I'd gotten the impression they were one part gameplay to two parts heedless busywork... And a lot of MMOs really are. It just doesn't interest me to live an ordinary life in a fictional universe. I much prefer to kill stuff in that fictional universe, preferably through the use of wild and audacious stunts.
That, really, is why I find myself disappointed. It's not because I disrespect the concept of a sandbox or the people who explained it so much as because I really have no stake in this at all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
I find it interesting in that peoples expectations of writing has changed over the years.
A friend of mine recently commented about a game, and that although the game had very good writing, they found it extremely limiting to RP in...
My response was " case of damned if you do make it a good story, damned if you dont make it a good story LOL.... (note: good *background* can help with bad story, but a good story can be too limiting even with excellent background to work in)"
Which was something that they agreed with.
A bad storyline, but decent general background allows you to expand on it with what you know. But a storyline that is *tight* from the outset is very hard to RP with if it *also* has a lot of decent background to it.
The fine line to walk is making the story/dialogue loose enough to allow established characters/players to play in whilst also keeping it tight enough to give those who do not have enough of a grounding in the game an enjoyable experience.
How much information is enough to work with for older characters (and trying to ensure that you do not encroach upon a players "established" character *whilst* also making it a nice story for a players 1st time play through?
Multiple choices that actually HAS an effect, either mechanically or story wise, is a way to go forward, It allows you to choose different options when you play through again.
But if you are able to "hit all the options all the time and it doesn't make a blind bit of difference ever" is poor (and in my mind, an abuse of dialogue boxes).
Which is why i *DO* enjoy that mmo in a galaxy far far away. The choices, when they do appear, can turn the light on or make it dimmer! (which also affects the gear that you can wear).