Skarlath
10-21-2005, 04:51 PM
I don't think that anyone can deny that the focus of most mainstream MMORPGs has continuously been combat. Apparently thats what the masses want. Well another trend in this is the traditional levelling system where kills=xp=improvement and therefore progression. A player enters the world, and continuously progresses through various lands and monsters, until they hit the cap on levels, or run out of content. All the while, it is the player moving, whilst the world remains the same.
A Tale in the Desert was something a little different. A game that was created solely for crafting and social interaction. It was a game to create communities, and because of the time players put into their community - spending time with other players and together crafting a settlement - many players have made it their home. By asking for dedication to player communities, it has achieved dedication to the game itself.
But why just one?! Are we gamers so bloodthirsty that after just one mainstream community-centric game, the market is already saturated? Is demand that low? I think World of Warcraft showed that there is definitely room for pulling gamers from other genres, and even non-gamers, into MMORPGs. I think that community centric MMORPGs still have quite a lifespan ahead of them.
So how do you all feel about them? A game where combat is not what everyone plays for. ATitD didn't feature combat at all, but what if a game simply focused on a community centic pivot, whilst allowing some players to assume combat orientated roles within a community.
How well would a game in which players had to actively manage an online village be recieved? Think guilds, but with player towns being the focus of the entire game. Players would need to hunt, gather and craft to improve their village. They will need to construct utility buildings, housing and defenses. They may want to expand their villages boundaries, and so would work together to construct new perimeters. They may wish to move the location of their guild/tribe to somewhere more advantageous, and so the whole village would work together to scout a new location, transport everything, and set up the village again.
All the while, NPCs would join the village, and work alongside the players. Players would take more leadership orientated roles in the community, but would also have to be organised into their own social structures. Players would work on understanding the game world and constantly improving their community in competition with other communities and with the environment itself.
Rather than progression through the game being around a player moving through the content, the players would bunch together and content would move around them. The game would be about social interaction and working as a large team.
Competition and progression would still be there, but would be in a vastly different way to what we see in current MMORPGs.
Over the last week or so, I have been playing with thoughts about a game I have been inventing. Running over what might work, what might not. What might be fun, how things could work. My game is set in a semi-prehistoric (with many liberties taken) setting, but what I posted this to discuss can refer to many settings.
What do people feel about the future of community Centric MMORPGs?
A Tale in the Desert was something a little different. A game that was created solely for crafting and social interaction. It was a game to create communities, and because of the time players put into their community - spending time with other players and together crafting a settlement - many players have made it their home. By asking for dedication to player communities, it has achieved dedication to the game itself.
But why just one?! Are we gamers so bloodthirsty that after just one mainstream community-centric game, the market is already saturated? Is demand that low? I think World of Warcraft showed that there is definitely room for pulling gamers from other genres, and even non-gamers, into MMORPGs. I think that community centric MMORPGs still have quite a lifespan ahead of them.
So how do you all feel about them? A game where combat is not what everyone plays for. ATitD didn't feature combat at all, but what if a game simply focused on a community centic pivot, whilst allowing some players to assume combat orientated roles within a community.
How well would a game in which players had to actively manage an online village be recieved? Think guilds, but with player towns being the focus of the entire game. Players would need to hunt, gather and craft to improve their village. They will need to construct utility buildings, housing and defenses. They may want to expand their villages boundaries, and so would work together to construct new perimeters. They may wish to move the location of their guild/tribe to somewhere more advantageous, and so the whole village would work together to scout a new location, transport everything, and set up the village again.
All the while, NPCs would join the village, and work alongside the players. Players would take more leadership orientated roles in the community, but would also have to be organised into their own social structures. Players would work on understanding the game world and constantly improving their community in competition with other communities and with the environment itself.
Rather than progression through the game being around a player moving through the content, the players would bunch together and content would move around them. The game would be about social interaction and working as a large team.
Competition and progression would still be there, but would be in a vastly different way to what we see in current MMORPGs.
Over the last week or so, I have been playing with thoughts about a game I have been inventing. Running over what might work, what might not. What might be fun, how things could work. My game is set in a semi-prehistoric (with many liberties taken) setting, but what I posted this to discuss can refer to many settings.
What do people feel about the future of community Centric MMORPGs?