These are just symatics.

Very many MMORPGs today is very much in the vein of Diablo .. you can call it action RPG or hack-n-slash game. It distill the whole RPG mechanics into fighting (trash + boss) and cool loot.

This is ultraly fun to many (as in the very successful Diablo & WOW).

I highly doubt people like this kind of game would just want to wander around with nothing to do but only to admire the scenary. I will be bored in 5 min.

Originally posted by laokoko

A world that large with that good of a graphic will cost billions to make.

My personal dream is mmorpg with arcade type of fighting.  With competitive arena combat.

You underestimate the effectiveness of procedural content generation to fill in the gaps.

Originally posted by alecbr

Dax.9, I apologize, but I will not follow your advice. I think we should discuss Role Play (RP) because that's the main point of this thread and probably one of the main points in most of the discussions about MMORPG.

For simplicity let's take single-player games. What's the difference between a non RP game and a RP game. In a non RP game you can have only one type of character and the character can evolve only in one predefined direction. In a RP game you can have different type of characters and the most important thing is that you can evolve the character in different ways. You can influence how the character will evolve through time.

You can have two types of RP games:

1. You can have a RP game with several predefined characters and then you have for each character several predefined directions in which they can evolve the character. You as a player are only making choices between different predefined paths. This is how most of MMORPGs work. This is only halfway to true RP.

2. You can have a RP game where there are no limitations how you can evolve your character. Every player can evolve his character in completely different ways. This is true RP. And my game would be closer to this type of RP.

You mentioned Second Life. Second Life is not a MMORPG, because it's not a world. It's a large and empty open space where people can do what they want. A world has to have predefined limitations which are in accordance with it's history and lore. Second Life has no limitations, no history and no lore.

But in Second Life you have RP communities. The theme of RP in defined - for example medieval. Then the rules for RP are defined. Players then decide which role they will play in this community. Then they are playing their role. My opinion is that these communities are probably the only true RPG games on Internet. And if there are a lot of players in these communities then they are probably the only true MMORPGs.

And now something about simulation. Every game is a simulation. The only difference is that a simulation can be more or less realistic. One of the main differences between a non RP game and a RP game is that a RP game is by definition a much more realistic simulation. More realistic is the simulation more true RP is the game. 

A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game.

This is actually definition of Role playing games, as we can all see it is not essentialy to have any kind of customisation of the character or his development. And if we look at: "their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game" then we can all agree that MMORPG-s are not role playing games since players do not influence world in any way, exept EVE online and other sandbox games, considering singe player I can remember Deus ex as a true roleplay, where there was acctualy 3 different endings and unfolding of storyline dependent of player choices. But I like to think role playing as what a word really says role play, if I play game I am role playing no matter what I play since it is some fictional game character in that game, not me.

If anyone else has some other idea or some thoughts please say so, I see there is a lot of discussion of what role play acctualy is and I like debating on the subject. But please do not attack or anything like that, I would like to have a productive conversation.

Originally posted by DaX.9

A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game.

One might think that's the defintion of an RPG, but the current definition is that it is a game of character stat progression and advancement. The biggest mistake we ever made is shifting the focus of the RPG from the story to character stats.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by DaX.9

A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game.

 

One might think that's the defintion of an RPG, but the current definition is that it is a game of character stat progression and advancement. The biggest mistake we ever made is shifting the focus of the RPG from the story to character stats.

 

 

I have taken that from wikipedia, it is not mine definition, if it is outdated then I appologise for providing wrong stuff. And I agree with you, shifting the focus from the story to character stats is big mistake.
 

I remember when we played table RPGs, only story and campain really mattered, not character status. Ah good old times.

Must share must thought that with great MMORPG expansion and impact on the market we see less and less true role play, it is all turning into some PvP craze, its starting to look like quake 3 arena more and more. Do not get me wrong I like pvp, its just it is becaming primary focus of all players, they do not care why they are acctualy killing other player (why? Is it cause he is arch enemy of state? Has he done something bad, etc), or do they behave like their characters (this is deff a turn off for me, speccialy when I see some Paladin spitting and laugtning on killed corpse of his enemy, I mean he is a Paladin for god's sake).

A lot of comments in this thread were saying that this game would be only about wandering and admiring scenery. This game would be about exploring. There's a huge difference between exploring and just wandering and admiring scenery. It would be like saying that the greatest sailors in human history who explored the oceans of the world were just wandering around the world and admiring scenery.

let me develop the idea of exploring in the game a little further.

1. Death. No one could kill you, but you could still fall from a cliff and dye. You would be resurrected in the nearest hospital. Every NPC settlement would have a hospital. Players could also build hospitals. So if they would be exploring a distant part of the world they could build a hospital there so they would be ressurrected nearby.

2. Eating and drinking. In this world you would have to eat and drink to survive. You could go on a long expedition but if you would stay without food you would dye. You could take food with you - horses and other means of transporting food and other stuff. But more food you would take slower you would progress. Long expeditions would have to be planned very carefully. You could get water from streams, rivers, lakes. You could hunt animals for food (animals would not attack you - no fighting) or lay down traps or you could farm.

3. Solving real world puzzles. You would want to get on the other side of the mountain. There would be a cave system in the mountain. You would have to find a way through the complex 3D labyrinth of the cave system. There would be a large canyon. You would have to find a way to cross that canyon. Probably there would be players who would be guides in this world.

4. Building ships. A group of players would build a ship to sail to another continent. But they wouldn't made the ship strong enough because it would be to expensive so they would all dye in a storm. The weather on the oceans would be dynamic and it would depend on seasons. There would be calm periods and dangerous periods. Probably there would be players who would be experienced sailors, they would know the seas and they would sail the ship safely to another continent.

Without danger (fighting etc), it doesn't sound like much of an adventure. Exploration can't be easy or it wouldn't be rewarding. Humans crave a challenge. Simply traversing land to see yet another sunset wouldn't be truly rewarding because it wasn't really an accomplishment of any great worth.

Although I've never seen the view from atop a great mountain, I imagine it's made more impressive if you've shed some sweat (and a lot of practice climbing) to get there.

Just my 2¢.

Originally posted by alecbr

A lot of comments in this thread were saying that this game would be only about wandering and admiring scenery. This game would be about exploring. There's a huge difference between exploring and just wandering and admiring scenery. It would be like saying that the greatest sailors in human history who explored the oceans of the world were just wandering around the world and admiring scenery.

let me develop the idea of exploring in the game a little further.

1. Death. No one could kill you, but you could still fall from a cliff and dye. You would be resurrected in the nearest hospital. Every NPC settlement would have a hospital. Players could also build hospitals. So if they would be exploring a distant part of the world they could build a hospital there so they would be ressurrected nearby.

2. Eating and drinking. In this world you would have to eat and drink to survive. You could go on a long expedition but if you would stay without food you would dye. You could take food with you - horses and other means of transporting food and other stuff. But more food you would take slower you would progress. Long expeditions would have to be planned very carefully. You could get water from streams, rivers, lakes. You could hunt animals for food (animals would not attack you - no fighting) or lay down traps or you could farm.

3. Solving real world puzzles. You would want to get on the other side of the mountain. There would be a cave system in the mountain. You would have to find a way through the complex 3D labyrinth of the cave system. There would be a large canyon. You would have to find a way to cross that canyon. Probably there would be players who would be guides in this world.

4. Building ships. A group of players would build a ship to sail to another continent. But they wouldn't made the ship strong enough because it would be to expensive so they would all dye in a storm. The weather on the oceans would be dynamic and it would depend on seasons. There would be calm periods and dangerous periods. Probably there would be players who would be experienced sailors, they would know the seas and they would sail the ship safely to another continent.

Alright, so how would those puzzles be any different from or better than what we already do in games?

How I see it:

1 - invulnerability to other people, the environment can kill you. That's not a very good puzzle due to its linearity - you'd end up avoiding dangerous things instead of inspecting them. If there's no penalty for death, why the heck bother implementing it?

2 - Here's Oregon Trail's one-trick pony. Such a fun game, don't you think? "Oops! You forgot to pack an extra day's worth of supplies, so now you're dead and now you get to start over! FUN!" How is farming even remotely interesting? Your game is really starting to sound like a grind.

3 - Yeah, big obstacles. Those are called environmental hazards or dungeons in other games. The funny thing is: once you figure out these puzzles, there's nothing left to figure out. You can go online and read a strategy guide or have somebody direct you through it - that's not adventure, FYI. It's just a linear puzzle.

4 - Yay for simulated real-life consequences! "If you don't make a good ship, you all get to start over! HA-HA!" Fail a level, start over at square-one. I thought we already designed ourselves out of this mentality. Even pro gamers use save states and checkpoints because repeating the same shit again to get to the point of error is very boring.

Also, how would this magical ship-building system work? Is it a crafting system not unlike any other? Or is it some new technique I have yet to know exists?

You can probably tell that all your ideas really are stemmed from previous ones. So take advantage of that: look at previous designs and see how you can improve them. If you really try to push to be original, you'll get something that seems soul-less and plays poorly.

To design a good game worth the amount of effort it would take to make, you have to consider the development risk vs. reward. If it takes a LOT to develop, but all you get out of it are a few hours of puzzles, you've got a sour design on your hands.

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

2 - Here's Oregon Trail's one-trick pony. Such a fun game, don't you think? "Oops! You forgot to pack an extra day's worth of supplies, so now you're dead and now you get to start over! FUN!" How is farming even remotely interesting? Your game is really starting to sound like a grind.

If the OP asserted that his game would be more popular than WOW, that might be questionable.  But some things to keep in mind:

• Lots of people did enjoy Oregon Trail (or at least I did as a kid playing the C64 version.)
• More players play Farmville than play WOW.  (and Farmville isn't even a good example of a game with farming.)
• A Tale in the Desert (ATITD) has zero combat, is all about crafting (some exploration), and has made enough money to survive since 2003 -- and was able to afford to develop a reasonably nice 3D engine in the process.

I don't think a game purely about exploration would be fun (to me at least) but add crafting to the equation and I get suckered in.  It becomes empire constructing, which I find fun (even if my empire is one measly farm.)

But I feel one of the best ways to make exploration fun is to make crafting deep.  ATITD had artistic sculptures (constructed out of any craftable item, positioned as you saw fit.) Between the sculptures and massive amount of crafting/building in the game, exploration actually became pretty fun -- you got to see all sorts of ways other players played the game, and some of the sculptures were rather impressive.

Originally posted by alecbr

 I would love to play a MMORPG with the following concepts:

1. There would be absolutely no fights in the game: no PvE and no PvP. There would be no NPCs, monsters or animals who would attack you. Of course there would be no weapons and no armors in the game.

2. There would be no levels, XP, achievements. There would be no skills - the only skills that would matter would be the skills of the player. Someone who would play the game for a year would play it better than a newbie only because of his skills as a player - the characters would be absolutely the same.

3. There would be no missions. There would be absolutely no grinding.

 

 

What would players do in such a MMORPG? They would explore the world, they would explore the lore, they would socialize and they would build.

1. The graphics would be breathtaking.

2. The world would be huge and very diverse with a complex weather system and with seasons.

3. You would have to explore the world on ground. No flight, no instant jumps. There would be a lot of hidden paths, difficult to find passages over mountains, hidden valleys. You could climb on mountain tops to see some spectacular sunsets. It would take you for example 100 hours or more of gameplay to reach the farthest places of the world. Exploring the world, going where no player went before would be a challenge.

4. By exploring the world and talking to the NPCs you would learn about the fascinating history and lore of the world. Some great and epic stories would be revealed.

5. The players would build houses, cities. They would build roads, bridges. They would build ships so they would be able to explore the oceans on long expeditions.

 

 

I think that this kind of MMORPG would be very interesting and very refreshing. I'm interested how many of you would like to play in this kind of MMORPG.

That's a bit like i wish it but  with some differences:

1. No heavy graphics, just....good looking and performant, my PC sucks.

2. I want there to be pvp and pve, but people has to: gang up, build a village, raise it up, start militarization and compete with other villages, or make it a feud or a castle, or defend from wild animal's attacks.

And much other im too lazy to think of.

 isnt that game called blue mars..

Uhm, Myst online?

As someone else said, there is already a game like that called second life.

Without violence you would need to have other ways for people to compete and amuse themselves. Say that people could make companies and compete about products, that works in many games.

They could play sports with eachother, like Soccer, golf and a whole bunch of other games.

Casinos of course. Maybe a rock band function?

But everyone just wandering around and doing nothing wont keep people interesting in the long run. Second life is usually used for finding dates today, kinda like a online facebook.

Any game must have reasons for people to play it. Violence isn't really a must in a RPG game but you must replace the violence with something else. Look on every single succesful PC game out there, they don't all have voilence but they do have some kind of competition.

Take the Sims. No violence but the game is about getting stuff and money. More stuff, more fun. A MMO with something like that could sell well (Sims Online didn't but that doesn't mean that the idea is bad, just what EA did with it).

Real Life is very sandbox. But I don't want a sandbox MMO that replicates RL. We want fantasy, sci-fi and great stories, the ability to do that which we can't do in RL.

Thank you for the link to the game "A Tale in the Desert IV"  www.atitd.com. It's a very interesting game and I will try it.

Does anybody else know some other non-combat MMORPGs? If you do, please list it here in this thread.