Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by SpottyGekko

But I'd guess that most people couldn't be bothered doing things ingame that would cost them time, but earn them no XP.

 

Yuppers.

I wonder how many players would consider spending a year playing a character almost nightly without leveling once?

Oh, right, the kind of game immersive enough to make that possible vanished around 1997.

Not really, hehe, I spent almost a year in pre-NGE SWG as master chef, just doing what a chef does best, and decorating my house and sales area, and networking to find new suppliers/customers, etc.

Originally posted by SpottyGekko

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by SpottyGekko

But I'd guess that most people couldn't be bothered doing things ingame that would cost them time, but earn them no XP.

 

Yuppers.

I wonder how many players would consider spending a year playing a character almost nightly without leveling once?

Oh, right, the kind of game immersive enough to make that possible vanished around 1997.

Not really, hehe, I spent almost a year in pre-NGE SWG as master chef, just doing what a chef does best, and decorating my house and sales area, and networking to find new suppliers/customers, etc.

Yes, and it's sad that some people can't see the personal benefit, growth, and development that comes from that. Not everything has to be about button mashing and mob bashing. MMO(RPG)s used to allow character inter-dependency, which would allow great and healthy communities, now this is seen as a hinderance.

Originally posted by Royalkin

Originally posted by Sovrath

The op's post also implies that players are actually seeking role play. At least that is what I have gathered from it. However, there are players, myself included, who can readily buy into the unfolding drama by either accepting the narrative and then supplying a subtext for their character for that individual situation or players who just enjoy the evolving story and don't care about whether it's their own or not.

And though I'm sure there are role players who are very good and who have extensive improv experience, I've come across many who kind of think "anything goes". Which is not necessarily a good way to build on to a narrative.

If certain people such as yourself are willing to concede the lack of choice and how a linear story emphasis limits player choice, variability, and also their character's development, and within such a system you can find it fun, then that is fine, if you like that sort of thing. We aren't going to agree on everything, and I'm not going to force my opinion.

However, I do agree with your last comment, an "anything goes" approach is not a good approach at all, there are always going to be ( and there must be) rules and limits, but the point is to provide a large enough story to be engaging, but also have it be non-intrusive into the character development capabilities. The total absence of story can't exist either, there must be a median.

 

Well, let's look into some improv.

There is a yearly improv musical done at Improv Boston called "Gorefest".

It is a written story, the songs are already written, the plot is already set.

However, the players can fool around with the script and their interactions with each other within that framework. It's very enjoyable and fun and allows the players to improv.

As Stravinsky once said "Restrictions set you free". His example:

Someone says, "Write me a piece of music. Anything. No restrictions. Go!"

You're stumped. The blank page syndrome.

Instead, someone says, "Write me a piece of music using only a flute, saw, and this broken toy piano. You can only use the notes D, E, and B - but never all 3 at the same time. It has to be in 3/4 time, start quiet, get loud, then get quiet by the end. Go!"

You still have control of the piece, how it moves but there is a nice spine to follow. Or, one can just adamantly say "you are putting shackles on me and forcing me to do these things".

Same can be said for the use of story in these games. It's not Skyrim for sure. But that doesn't mean the presentation of story has to leave me stymied, scratching my head, and not knowing what to do.

This is why I can't  fully accept your initial premise. It only works for those who have to have it a certain way.

To that end, I send you to a jazz concert and they are doing some Louis Armstrong or Duke Ellington. You might find it far more entertaining than say something done by the Chicago Art Ensemble which essentially would be unlistenable for most people but has less restrictions.

Restrictions don't have to be a cage. One doesn't have to have a bad time with restrictions if they approach the material with an open mind.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by tom_gore

Guess I'll just place my faith in GW2, ArcheAge and TSW. Not ALL of them can fail, right? :)

According to this particular message board, every game since (at least) 2004 has failed.  It seems unlikely that they'll ever deem any game a success.

 

Actually, by most accounts every MMORPG has largely "failed" if we were to assume that they should have been able to carve away more of the theme park MMORPG marketplace than they did.

But if keeping the doors open is the measure of success then I suppose most of them were/are.

Back on topic, I agree, my issue with Bioware titles in the past including TOR and DA1 was after a time I felt the story line was too directed, too restrictive, and I quit playing.  I wanted to go off on my own and blaze my own trails, but somehow I felt like there was a perfect path I had to follow.  In some cases, I was trapped, unable to do something else until I completed the current action. (I recall slogging through some mages tower in DA1 and just giving up on it all, was not enjoying the experience)

It's OK for MMORPG's to have a story, and they don't have to be sandbox MMORPG's to allow players the freedom to create their own stories.

If you never played DAOC back in the early days then you won't know what I'm talking about.  It apparently was a rather unique experience where despite being a themepark style game, it had certain mechanics that let players carve their own names for themselves, excel and gain recoginition in a variety of areas, and to this day I actually still remember many of those folks, both in my faction and in my opponents.

Not true with today's MMORPG's, I played WOW for a considerable time as well, and mostly everything in it is forgotten except perhaps the raids I ran back in vanilla WOW days.

Memorable players...can't think of one anymore.

So sure, let's keep some story in our games, but make it backdrop and not the guiding force, because if I wanted a story read to me, I'd be doing something else besides playing MMORPG's.

A LOT of stuff in the replies in here is about personal preference. And people are free to like whatever they want to like (of course). But I do not see anyhting in OP that talk about what you like and do not like. It is a True or False statement. Story is False. Not Story is Bad.

Since it is written in the SWTOR forum, I will use that as an example. But where I think the whole shift in RPG started is.. in the economics of a game. You sit down in the planning stage and decide what kind of game you want. You have two choices (yes this is simplified)

1. Either you decide to build a huge world that is completly open, Thousands of people can go wherever they want, up every mountain and down every cave, and find a mix of random or scripted encounters in thousands of random locations. Maybe even different encounters on the same spot depending on what you have or have not done in the past, the world changing around you by the force of your characters history... Add to this several planets, space and just rocks in space with new little distractions.... Now build up a work board and put down amount of hours it will take.

2. You create a "STORY" (add your own amount of exclamation marks). The world is a corridor, or a semi corridor. Walking down that corridor you are handed a single story from A to B. The story is deep, filled with plots and twists and turns, emotional little tidbits, moral issues and maybe a laugh or two, heavilly scripted to catch you and drag you along, its like a movie, but you get to shoot the bad guy. No need for big open worlds, thousands of encounters people maybe wont even see because they decided not to go in that direction, and a guarantee that each and every person will see 100% of the work you have put in. No hundreds of work hours that are not appreciated because they took a left instead of a right. Build a work board.... put down amount of work hours.

This is not about good or bad, as you can see. This is not about what you like or dislike. This is about economics. One way to make a story, 1: The player controlled story, takes thousands of extra work hours and a lot of that work might go missing and just forgotten. The other 2: The company controlled story, is immensly faster to create, several times faster, and you are guaranteed that you have not put in any work that people will not see, or at least just skip over.

Then, Kotor games had a very special character progression, skill based and very original. The character progression was completly player controlled, and you could pick skills and bit however you wanted, with bonuses or penalties depending on your base class. That was scrapped as well,and they made a complete copy, a 100% blueprint of the WoW character progression system. Rigid skills and rigid bonuses, very little player control in character build. Again... Economics. Its faster and cheaper than modifying your own original system for a new setting.

You say you LOVE this... You LOVE the loss of control for the added extra of STORY. Good for you.

You like the cheap company shortcut illusion. You like something that was a easy way out... Pure business decision. And you believe the marketing department that say they saved money and time for the higher quality it creates.

And you wonder why consumers are called "Punters"?

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Royalkin

Originally posted by Sovrath

The op's post also implies that players are actually seeking role play. At least that is what I have gathered from it. However, there are players, myself included, who can readily buy into the unfolding drama by either accepting the narrative and then supplying a subtext for their character for that individual situation or players who just enjoy the evolving story and don't care about whether it's their own or not.

And though I'm sure there are role players who are very good and who have extensive improv experience, I've come across many who kind of think "anything goes". Which is not necessarily a good way to build on to a narrative.

If certain people such as yourself are willing to concede the lack of choice and how a linear story emphasis limits player choice, variability, and also their character's development, and within such a system you can find it fun, then that is fine, if you like that sort of thing. We aren't going to agree on everything, and I'm not going to force my opinion.

However, I do agree with your last comment, an "anything goes" approach is not a good approach at all, there are always going to be ( and there must be) rules and limits, but the point is to provide a large enough story to be engaging, but also have it be non-intrusive into the character development capabilities. The total absence of story can't exist either, there must be a median.

 

Well, let's look into some improv.

There is a yearly improv musical done at Improv Boston called "Gorefest".

It is a written story, the songs are already written, the plot is already set.

However, the players can fool around with the script and their interactions with each other within that framework. It's very enjoyable and fun and allows the players to improv.

As Stravinsky once said "Restrictions set you free". His example:

Someone says, "Write me a piece of music. Anything. No restrictions. Go!"

You're stumped. The blank page syndrome.

Instead, someone says, "Write me a piece of music using only a flute, saw, and this broken toy piano. You can only use the notes D, E, and B - but never all 3 at the same time. It has to be in 3/4 time, start quiet, get loud, then get quiet by the end. Go!"

 

You still have control of the piece, how it moves but there is a nice spine to follow. Or, one can just adamantly say "you are putting shackles on me and forcing me to do these things".

Same can be said for the use of story in these games. It's not Skyrim for sure. But that doesn't mean the presentation of story has to leave me stymied, scratching my head, and not knowing what to do.

 

This is why I can't  fully accept your initial premise. It only works for those who have to have it a certain way.

To that end, I send you to a jazz concert and they are doing some Louis Armstrong or Duke Ellington. You might find it far more entertaining than say something done by the Chicago Art Ensemble which essentially would be unlistenable for most people but has less restrictions.

Restrictions don't have to be a cage. One doesn't have to have a bad time with restrictions if they approach the material with an open mind.

I can agree with you to some extent, and while your argument is valid, it is also relative to the player in question. You can't place every person into the same peg. Some level of story has to exist, but when the story is dictatorial in how a player experiences the game, that is where I take offense.

Think the problem is the "story" is pretty much a fixed path that has a beginning and end. There is only one way to get through it and that way is combat. Why can't we have a world with lore, legends, ruins, economic empires to build, and political strife there for players to dig into. How deep players go into these things is their choice.

Originally posted by Xzen

Think the problem is the "story" is pretty much a fixed path that has a beginning and end. There is only one way to get through it and that way is combat. Why can't we have a world with lore, legends, ruins, economic empires to build, and political strife there for players to dig into. How deep players go into these things is their choice.

I agree whole-heartedly.

Well said.

/signed

Originally posted by Xzen

Why can't we have a world with lore, legends, ruins, economic empires to build, and political strife there for players to dig into. How deep players go into these things is their choice.

Mostly because no one will make it, and the few such games that are made are judged just as harshly as the themeparks.

It's difficult to indicate your support (other then verbally) when you refuse to play the sandbox examples that do exist, and instead wait for years for the "miracle game that has everything" to come along.

Agreed.

I haven't played SWTOR yet so I'm not referring specifically to that game, but generally speaking in an MMO, a game genre whose principal defining characteristic is multiplayer, players playing with each other, the focus should always be more on interaction, both positive and negative, between players, rather than the interaction between one player and npc's.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Xzen

Why can't we have a world with lore, legends, ruins, economic empires to build, and political strife there for players to dig into. How deep players go into these things is their choice.

Mostly because no one will make it, and the few such games that are made are judged just as harshly as the themeparks.

It's difficult to indicate your support (other then verbally) when you refuse to play the sandbox examples that do exist, and instead wait for years for the "miracle game that has everything" to come along.

Most of us are supporting that by staying with EvE and some of us are even maintaining our subs with UO still. Now the issue with EvE is that it's Sci-Fi and not everyone is into that.

Originally posted by Xzen

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Xzen

Why can't we have a world with lore, legends, ruins, economic empires to build, and political strife there for players to dig into. How deep players go into these things is their choice.

Mostly because no one will make it, and the few such games that are made are judged just as harshly as the themeparks.

It's difficult to indicate your support (other then verbally) when you refuse to play the sandbox examples that do exist, and instead wait for years for the "miracle game that has everything" to come along.

Most of us are supporting that by staying with EvE and some of us are even maintaining our subs with UO still. Now the issue with EvE is that it's Sci-Fi and not everyone is into that.

Support Eve, any other sandbox worth supporting, and don't support MMOs that aren't. I'm hopeful that Earthrise will get it's crap straightened out, but that battle may have already been lost. If so, that is dissapointing because the game had alot of potential.

@OP, there's also a reason why in games like this there are 100 PVE servers, 100 PVP servers, and 6 roleplaying servers. Now make a true roleplaying game and expect it to have enough players to fill in the 6 RP servers and I can tell you, you might have a good game in your hands at least to your likings, but it wont make any money.

I believe that is why no quality sandbox games get ever released, nobody sees good profit in them, and nobody in the business is out there just to make good games in charity spirit. Roleplaying communities are crying for "RP patches" in every themepark I've played, but they are not getting anything significant because it is so small fraction of the whole player base who gets benefit, and the game company wants to pump in patches that are for the majority.

Taking this into consideration, story works a lot better than giving people a free world where they go out there and make their own story and decisions and all that "true" RP stuff, I dont like the fact that it just wont sell because that's why we propably never will see a truly great sandbox/rp massive game, but that's how it goes.

Originally posted by Harafnir

A LOT of stuff in the replies in here is about personal preference. And people are free to like whatever they want to like (of course). But I do not see anyhting in OP that talk about what you like and do not like. It is a True or False statement. Story is False. Not Story is Bad.

i would agree but that is why I don't buy the "Story is False" premise. The OP says that some claim that Story will be a savior to MMO's.

I don't think it will be a savior but will add nice touch to those who can enjoy its inclusion.

To that end it as the op and others state "some of this is preference". And that is very much the truth. If one sees Story as a savior to mmo's then that's their preference. It doesn't mean everyone will see it that way.

Also, IceWhite's post rings very true. Start supporting the Sandbox games that are out there. Because people dont' then all companies will see is that the bulk of players flock to themepark games. Staying is another thing entirely.

As long as players flock to thempark games then companies will come to the inclusion that making themepark games will attract a lot of players. They only need to figure out the formula to make them stay.

Ryzom is a great game and of course, even though it has bothy theme park and sandbox elements, Vanguard can also be a nice choice.

EVE of course is great but not for everyone.

Originally posted by Royalkin

Why Story Is False

 

The premise presented by some people that story will save the MMO(RPG) genre is false. Specifically story is not role-playing, nor is it the mechanical aspect of placing points into attributes. Not to say that story is (or should be) absent from role-playing, but it is not (nor should be) the all-encompassing element that modern game designers seem to think it is. Role-Playing encompasses the acts and decisions that the player takes in order to make their character their own –the constructing their characters into a unique manifestation of their will. Role-playing a character in an RPG is no different from the processes we all went through as children playing with action figures. We created personas and personalities, histories and previous adventures which defined those characters’ natures. We invented adventures on the fly for them to participate in, with specific outcomes. Completing a static set of quests towards fufillment of a narrative, is not role-playing, it's a book piecemeal.

 

Story is defined as, “A usually fictional prose or verse narrative intended to interest or amuse the hearer or reader.” The key word used in this definition is narrative, which is defined as, “Consisting of or characterized by the telling of a story.” The point here is that story is narrative, or narration, being that a story in of itself involves no interactivity in its experience. You, the reader or the participator are a passive participant, and therefore do not have any influence in the events that you are reading, seeing, or are otherwise witnessing. This is typical of film and literature, but is a recent occurrence in gaming. The precursor of role-playing computer gaming was table-top and board games, the most influential of these was D&D (Dungeons and Dragons). The appeal of D&D was that stories were created on the fly, and the participatory players were free to design and develop stories for their characters and how they would also advance and develop their characters within that paradigm. Essentially, the story and character development wasn’t a prior design; it was developed on the fly, and ‘in-the-moment’. There was no linear story; it evolved as the participants needed it to. These players were free to design the backgrounds, personas, personalities, and whatever other personification of their characters they wished.

 

Skipping forward, the first MMO(RPG)s took this concept as a fundamental design characterization, wherein players were free to shape the world they lived within. Just as was the case with D&D, there was no previously designed story, the players could develop their own characters as they saw fit with the tools the developers had created for them.

 

The linear story driven RPG is not a result of role-playing, it is a shallow and base distortion of what role-playing really is. By limiting participants to a strict and specific story, developers are not catering to role-playing; they are in fact limiting it.

Don't you make decisions based on the story in the game? And don't those choices affect the outcome of your characters overall destiny? I don't understand. Just how does this game work anyway?

Originally posted by Slampig

Don't you make decisions based on the story in the game? And don't those choices affect the outcome of your characters overall destiny? I don't understand. Just how does this game work anyway?

In SWTOR you have the illusion of choice. Specifically this illusion of choice presents itself as choices in dialogue which in the grand scheme of things lead to a specific and static outcome, regardless of what you choose. So while you may think you are effecting your character's story, you really aren't, your just choosing which dialogue options get you to the end.

Real choice would involve being able to have lasting and effective change on the world in which your character exists, with SWTOR your just passing through as an unparticipatory spectator pushing buttons.

Originally posted by Royalkin

Originally posted by Slampig

Don't you make decisions based on the story in the game? And don't those choices affect the outcome of your characters overall destiny? I don't understand. Just how does this game work anyway?

 In SWTOR you have the illusion of choice. Specifically this illusion of choice presents itself as choices in dialogue which in the grand scheme of things lead to a specific and static outcome, regardless of what you choose. So while you may think you are effecting your character's story, you really aren't, your just choosing which dialogue options get you to the end.

Real choice would involve being able to have lasting and effective change on the world in which your character exists, with SWTOR your just passing through as an unparticipatory spectator pushing buttons.

I've been playing Bioware games for a long time (and enjoyed them) and yes, eventually you realize that the choices for which their games are known for are illusory.

Originally posted by Royalkin

Originally posted by Slampig

Don't you make decisions based on the story in the game? And don't those choices affect the outcome of your characters overall destiny? I don't understand. Just how does this game work anyway?

In SWTOR you have the illusion of choice. Specifically this illusion of choice presents itself as choices in dialogue which in the grand scheme of things lead to a specific and static outcome, regardless of what you choose. So while you may think you are effecting your character's story, you really aren't, your just choosing which dialogue options get you to the end.

Real choice would involve being able to have lasting and effective change on the world in which your character exists, with SWTOR your just passing through as an unparticipatory spectator pushing buttons.

As I've said before, there aer improv works where the actors don't change the story but can affect their interactions between each other. They can set the tone of the work regardless of the larger sign posts along their way.

Also, though I would agree that one can't completely remake their story in SWToR, I have made decisions on whether someone lives or dies or whether I support a particular npc's agenda. These are choices and not any illusion. Whether or not I can completely change my character's destiny to something of my own maknig could still be possible if the role player in question used the info given as a spine or signpost to their own story. Or just created their own story aside from what bioware has created and just acknowldged that there is their own storyand then "game story".

It's more than possible that this game just does't fit with a full on role playing experience and that will have to feed into the player's decision no whether this game is for them or not.

Originally posted by Royalkin

Originally posted by Slampig

Don't you make decisions based on the story in the game? And don't those choices affect the outcome of your characters overall destiny? I don't understand. Just how does this game work anyway?

 

In SWTOR you have the illusion of choice. Specifically this illusion of choice presents itself as choices in dialogue which in the grand scheme of things lead to a specific and static outcome, regardless of what you choose. So while you may think you are effecting your character's story, you really aren't, your just choosing which dialogue options get you to the end.

Real choice would involve being able to have lasting and effective change on the world in which your character exists, with SWTOR your just passing through as an unparticipatory spectator pushing buttons.

TOR's "choices" are slightly better than complete illusion, but very slightly. And it does add some flavour to the journey at least.

However, providing meaningful choices would also require a branching storyline, each "meaningful" decision point being the start of a new branch. The development time and cost would be staggering, especially in a fully VO'd game like TOR.