Originally posted by thebigchin11

Originally posted by Homitu

Originally posted by Requiamer

Originally posted by Homitu

Originally posted by Karesh

Pretty much like the title stated, feel free to post your ideas, etc.

I always find people's opinions and ideas interesting, so that's pretty much my reason for creating this thread.

There would be a fundamental paradox with a prehistoric MMO.  Prehistory by definition refers to a time before recorded history.  That means a time before people (whatever races inhabit your MMO world) could communicate via language to pass down stories and lore either orally or through written text.  This would eliminate all possibilty for lore, background story, context, and, logically, even communication in your MMO, which are all rather essential "MMORPG" features.  A game lacking these features could hardly be called an MMO or RPG, thus the paradox.  

 

The only way I can comprehend a "prehistoric" MMO is if you control a particular beast in a sort of Darwinian, cut-throat, survival of the fittest jungle world.  You would focus on strengthening your beast in typical RPG/MMO progression fashion.  Perhaps a milestone to shoot for would be to "evolve" a la Pokemon.  Perhaps if you work with others to take down a larger beast, you then (inexplicably) gain control of that beast as a means of "progressing."  

I don't want to be rude but i think you should check a dictionary because your definition is really off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prehistory

 

Actually, my definition was spot on.  The only ammendment would be that prehistoric peoples, although non-literate, could communicate in a primitive way without a fully developed language.  

 Cave paintings are a form of literature.  These things evolve gradually, there is no line in the sand (other than the arbitrary era's we give them which in practice must overlap). 

Cave paintings may be a form of expression of thought and, therefore, a means of communication, but it can in no way be confused with literature, which involves the use of a devoloped and mutually understood written language.  And yes, prehistory did "end" in various locations around the world at various points in history.  

Anyway, these are all just semantics.  The only definition I gave of prehistory was that it is the period before recorded history.  

I'd make it a game of survival in which you either learn to work with others and contribute to the greater good or you won't make it for long. The only crafting is what was available to man at that time in history. Weather would play a big part in the game and conflict would have no rules. Your character would age and when death comes you wander in the spirit world until you randomly are reborn.

I know it would be difficult to pull off but that's the dream I've had for many years.

Yeah, fair enough. <- aimed at Homitu

I wouldn't use prehistoric.

But I would use a Lost World/Land That Time Forgot concept.  Early 1900's romantic-adventurer game with some Hollow Earth/Symzonia thrown in.  Your intrepid team of adventurers must survive the native wildlife (classic T-Rex, of course) and the cunning native aborigines--canibals, naturally--and is there a much more sinister plot at the center of this lost world?

Originally posted by Icewhite

I wouldn't use prehistoric.

But I would use a Lost World/Land That Time Forgot concept.  Early 1900's romantic-adventurer game with some Hollow Earth/Symzonia thrown in.  Your intrepid team of adventurers must survive the native wildlife (classic T-Rex, of course) and the cunning native aborigines--canibals, naturally--and is there a much more sinister plot at the center of this lost world?

 Can I play a gnome?

Originally posted by thebigchin11

 Can I play a gnome?

Hmm, gnomes as the sinister plot?  Sure, why not.

Do you mind terribly if we put this grass skirt and the pygmy nose-bone on you?

I would make it so that "end game" would mean game over so that means a server restart will be needed.

You've failed to work together to progress your civilization, causing it to collapse or your people die off.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by thebigchin11

 Can I play a gnome?

Hmm, gnomes as the sinister plot?  Sure, why not.

Do you mind terribly if we put this grass skirt and the pygmy nose-bone on you?

 Gnomes always look sinister to me, just one rung down from clowns.  Sorry, way off-topic. 

Originally posted by mmoguy43

I would make it so that "end game" would mean game over so that means a server restart will be needed.

You've failed to work together to progress your civilization, causing it to collapse or your people die off.

Just remember that at least half of the player base violently objects to being forced to work with other people.

Originally posted by mmoguy43

I would make it so that "end game" would mean game over so that means a server restart will be needed.

You've failed to work together to progress your civilization, causing it to collapse or your people die off.

 Have you tried Civilization?  That is not a joke. 

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by mmoguy43

I would make it so that "end game" would mean game over so that means a server restart will be needed.

You've failed to work together to progress your civilization, causing it to collapse or your people die off.

Just remember that at least half of the player base violently objects to being forced to work with other people.

They could do that but life would be hard.

Originally posted by thebigchin11

Originally posted by mmoguy43

I would make it so that "end game" would mean game over so that means a server restart will be needed.

You've failed to work together to progress your civilization, causing it to collapse or your people die off.

 Have you tried Civilization?  That is not a joke. 

Of course. Xeno Clash would be another game to draw ideas from.

Total War?  Frankly I do not want hours of character progression wiped out in an MMO.  But I do not want to have to go through hours of pointless grinding for shiny gear in the first place.  i want polotics or player led economy.  That was possibly the most unhelpful post I have ever- erm- posted.

Originally posted by Homitu

Originally posted by Requiamer

Originally posted by Homitu

Originally posted by Karesh

Pretty much like the title stated, feel free to post your ideas, etc.

I always find people's opinions and ideas interesting, so that's pretty much my reason for creating this thread.

There would be a fundamental paradox with a prehistoric MMO.  Prehistory by definition refers to a time before recorded history.  That means a time before people (whatever races inhabit your MMO world) could communicate via language to pass down stories and lore either orally or through written text.  This would eliminate all possibilty for lore, background story, context, and, logically, even communication in your MMO, which are all rather essential "MMORPG" features.  A game lacking these features could hardly be called an MMO or RPG, thus the paradox.  

 

The only way I can comprehend a "prehistoric" MMO is if you control a particular beast in a sort of Darwinian, cut-throat, survival of the fittest jungle world.  You would focus on strengthening your beast in typical RPG/MMO progression fashion.  Perhaps a milestone to shoot for would be to "evolve" a la Pokemon.  Perhaps if you work with others to take down a larger beast, you then (inexplicably) gain control of that beast as a means of "progressing."  

I don't want to be rude but i think you should check a dictionary because your definition is really off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prehistory

 

Actually, my definition was spot on.  The only ammendment would be that prehistoric peoples, although non-literate, could communicate in a primitive way without a fully developed language.  

Ho really? no your definition is totally off. During all prehistory people used oral tradition, history is written this is what make them different, it doesn't mean tradition and language wasn't fully developped, in fact very far from that. Language was fully developped during pre history i think it is confirmed in your link too. The fact you don't have proof, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All the prehistorical work in fact proove that human intelligence and language was pretty much the same as today, only the mean was poorer.

Originally posted by Homitu

Originally posted by thebigchin11

Originally posted by Homitu

Originally posted by Requiamer

Originally posted by Homitu

Originally posted by Karesh

Pretty much like the title stated, feel free to post your ideas, etc.

I always find people's opinions and ideas interesting, so that's pretty much my reason for creating this thread.

There would be a fundamental paradox with a prehistoric MMO.  Prehistory by definition refers to a time before recorded history.  That means a time before people (whatever races inhabit your MMO world) could communicate via language to pass down stories and lore either orally or through written text.  This would eliminate all possibilty for lore, background story, context, and, logically, even communication in your MMO, which are all rather essential "MMORPG" features.  A game lacking these features could hardly be called an MMO or RPG, thus the paradox.  

 

The only way I can comprehend a "prehistoric" MMO is if you control a particular beast in a sort of Darwinian, cut-throat, survival of the fittest jungle world.  You would focus on strengthening your beast in typical RPG/MMO progression fashion.  Perhaps a milestone to shoot for would be to "evolve" a la Pokemon.  Perhaps if you work with others to take down a larger beast, you then (inexplicably) gain control of that beast as a means of "progressing."  

I don't want to be rude but i think you should check a dictionary because your definition is really off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prehistory

 

Actually, my definition was spot on.  The only ammendment would be that prehistoric peoples, although non-literate, could communicate in a primitive way without a fully developed language.  

 Cave paintings are a form of literature.  These things evolve gradually, there is no line in the sand (other than the arbitrary era's we give them which in practice must overlap). 

 

Cave paintings may be a form of expression of thought and, therefore, a means of communication, but it can in no way be confused with literature, which involves the use of a devoloped and mutually understood written language.  And yes, prehistory did "end" in various locations around the world at various points in history.  

 

Anyway, these are all just semantics.  The only definition I gave of prehistory was that it is the period before recorded history.  

Literature linked exclusively to written language? O RLY?

Tell that to Homer (if he existed), The Beowulf poet (i.e., not the scribe who wrote it down hundreds of years after it was composed by an Anglo-Saxon), The Epic of Gilgamesh poet, the tribes who passed down most of the major books of the Old Testament, the Anonymous writers of a whole series of Lyrics and Ballads, etc. Those are all considered great works of literature and they were all composed, memorized, and passed down generation to generation orally. Writing didn't become involved until hundreds of years after the fact.

True, the poems/songs/etc. may have possibly been lost to the ages if scribes didn't eventually transcribe them and put them down in writing. In fact, there is evidence that many extant earlier forms of some of these works were lost because they weren't committed to text (or, if they were, they were somehow lost or destroyed). None of this, however, changes the fact that they are great works of literature, even though they existed only within the realms of the oral tradition.

It is a relatively recent phenomenon to link literacy and knowledge to written text, but writing and written language is a relatively new development within the context of humanity's history. The printing press and the mass production of literary texts happened almost yesterday given the timeline of human civilization, and even with the proliferation of writing, for most periods of history, the masses were illiterate and a sign of knowledge and learning was based more on a person's ability to memorize the important works of the day, as well as use rhetoric adeptly (see: Plato's "Theatetus" where Socrates laments the new fad of holding writing and "book knowledge" above the memorization and masterful oral recitation of great works).

Literature as we think of it now is, indeed, linked to written texts. But, I just had to amend the record because the prominence of writing is such a recent change that it does a great disservice to many of the great bards, minstrels, and oral poets of the past to contend that literature *must* be written. Members of the oral tradition were literary giants too, despite the fact that their songs/poems/etc. were not recorded until they had been passed down through history orally over multiple generations.

Now, back to OP. If the OP intends this MMO to be "prehistory"  in the sense of Clan of the Cave Bear, then perhaps language and "literature" as we are speaking of it did not exist as the cultural powerhouse we tend to imagine them to be. However, even in this popular image of cavemen grunting and being devoid of language, there is a lot of controversy. In light of this issue, there is a growing camp of anthropolgists, arcaeologists, and linguists who are starting to dispute many of the earlier conclusions made about the speech of prehistoric humans. Most of the earlier conclusions that prehistoric humans could not speak were based on analysis of the skull structure of Neanderthals (which seemed to show a lack of space for the development of areas of the brain most responsible for speech). However, recent fossil evidence and a deeper understanding of the brain and language in general has shown that prehistoric humans had anatomical structures that were nearly identical to modern humans with respect to language:

The recovery of a fossil hominid skeleton with a complete hyoid bone from Mousterian deposits in Kebara Cave, Israel, provides new evidence pertaining to the evolution of speech. Previous studies of speech in the Middle Palaeolithic (most notably those on Neandertals) have focused on the basicranium as an indicator of speech capabilities. This work critiques the use of the basicranium and instead presents the anatomical relations of the hyoid and adjacent structures in living humans as a basis for understanding the form of the vocal tract. The size and morphology of the hyoid from Kebara and its relations to other anatomical components are almost identical to those in modern humans, suggesting that Middle Palaeolithic populations were anatomically capable of fully modern speech.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330830202/abstract

Admittedly, this doesn't mean that prehistoric humans *did* speak and utililize language in a way that mirrors the literature and oral tradition of the classical period. However, considering that prehistoric humans were considered to be devoid of speech based on erroneous conclusions about the brain by earlier scientists, it is entirely possible that humans were capable of speech. In fact, most evolutionary biologists contend that the major factor that set humans apart from primates was our ability to use language to communicate, especially, when it comes to abstractions.

TL;DR = The notion that prehistoric humans didn't speak or use language is coming under more and more fire. Humans likely spoke, and in some sense, it is not out of the realm of possibility that tribal shamans and leaders of successive generations would use recitations of lineages and cultural tales to impart important historical, cultural, and spiritual knowledge to their people.

I think more a ring of fire scenario.  A town or two or three are wrenched back to the prehistoric timeperiod.  They can try to eak out a new civiliiazation while battleing the dinosurs, neantertals, that one evel homo erectus clans, etc.  could be rather interesting if implemented right.

Ouch my eyes.

Originally posted by thebigchin11

Ouch my eyes.

If you are referring to my wall of text, then my apologies. I forgot that most of the people on this site are more accustomed to the bells and whistles of the latest cookie cutter MMO than actually being interested in bothering to read something. Heaven forbid somebody take the time to write a thoughtful response to what somebody said. I might be wordy, but at least I tried to contribute something greater than a snarky comment that showcases my laziness.

Originally posted by Karesh

Pretty much like the title stated, feel free to post your ideas, etc.

I always find people's opinions and ideas interesting, so that's pretty much my reason for creating this thread.

I'd make about 8 or 9 zones. Like one zone would be the starting area for levels 1 through 10. Next zone would be for 11 through 20. Max level about 60 or so. The remaining zones would be raid zones. 

I'd have quest hubs in each area. Basically from the time you enter the game until the time you uninstall, the quests tell you everywhere you need to go. Do all the quests in the area then move onto the next quest hub. Doing this will result in you setting foot on every area of the map. You don't have to play with other people if you don't want to. 

I would spend lots of money on voice acting, and I would use a famous IP to bring in a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't be playing mmorpgs. Jurassic Park would work nicely, or X Men. 

You don't ever have to loot if you don't want to, since the best weapons are available from a cash shop anyway, so whip out that credit card and whoop some ass and never die. When you do die though, it's no big deal, as you are just teleported about 50 feet away from where you died with full health and mana and you can go right at it again.

That's my idea. 

"Pre-historic" shouldn't be a limiting factor on the imagination and fantasy that can be incorporated into the content, but it could work as an overall theme.

I'm guessing we're talking dinosaurs, the Ice Age, evolution, struggling for survival in a early pre-Man versus Nature environment, and an eventual almost complete annihilation of all life, followed by an emergence of new species, new continents, formations of society, development of new survival skills, so on so forth...

There is room for a lot of imaginative growth, including:

• An unknown antagonist that deliberately leads the world to the brink of doom with comets and fire, darkening the sky.
• Powerful forces that are eventually revealed to be the early "Gods" of mankind, influencing various skills for survival (and gameplay).
• Formation of early societies in the form of "clans", "tribes", or however they will be named to increase chance of survival.
• The development of crafting systems centered around a "Survival Skills" theme.
• Expansions could be based around certain tumultuous events, such as the Ice Age, Meteoric Devastation, and imagined ideas purportedly caused by some unknown antagonist that wants to wipe out all life on the planet.

Perhaps the reasoning behind the near-extinction of all life on the planet could stem from the unknown antagonist, not of this world.  This force could be the impetus that drives pre-Man to form societies in order to strengthen their defenses against it.

The primary antagonist could be Lovecraft-ian, something similar to the Old Gods, and it sends wave after wave of minions from the sea, and outer space, and from other dimensions.  Granted, Blizzard ripped off the whole Lovecraft-ian Lore idea as well in their later World of Warcraft expansions, but the idea still has a lot of room for exploration.

Humans and dinosaurs are seperated by some 60-odd millions years.  And for some of us, that's a bit too close for comfort.

But if you wanted a human-dinosaur crossover, you can either go via a time-travel setting, or an alternate world.  If we're into dinosaurs, the game would need to have some distinct reason to travel back to the Jurrasic, and not just to hunt dinosaurs.  And don't step on any proto-butterfly-ancestor thingies while you're there.

The other option is to have side-by-side evolution of the two species.  This is a popular idea in fiction.  I would guess that the best known series along these lines would be James Gurney's Dinotopia series   I think that could work as a background, but am not totally sure that it would work as a game environment (and still retain any element of the source material).  The challenge there would be to prevent everyone from rolling up a predator -- who doesn't want to be on top of the food chain?

And if you do a purely dinosaur game, there isn't any natural balance between the carnivores and herbivores.  Again, why be the meal when you can be the diner.

Then there's the other dinosaur sterotype -- Godzilla!  Again, why would I want to be in the Science Patrol unless I got to drive the Corvair.  Crush, Crumble and Chomp Online!!   The Creature that Ate Sheboygan MMO!!   I probably need to find that available IP properties thread.  (And anyone who recognizes those actual game titles, congratulations, your formative years were as misspent as mine)