Roleplay

[Seceres]

The issue with buying characters is it allows though for quicker travel, one can develop the character (since it has not been developed before), and it is just fun to be able to relax without feeling pressured to level. It is intimidating to see some "kool dude"fifty levels higher who does not even deserve their level as they are destroying the roleplay environment. But in the current MMRPGs, it is a hopeless cause except for small communities of roleplayers within these games

[Bear]

But buying a character does deprive someone of the joy of watching "their" character take shape under their direction, and become the product of their own imagination.

I can't count the times that friends, or even casual acquaintances, in EQ offered to powerlevel me and/or bury me under a pile of high level treasure. I accepted some of the items, but the powerleveling got so tedious I could not see wasting my limited leaisure time with it. I figured if I could not get it on my own, I did not want it. It was not that I saw (or see) anything wrong with it. But for me it was no fun at all.

Buying a high level character also buys respect from the powerlevelers, most of whom will not know who was originally running the avatar anyway. But the respect of someone who does not value the same standards I do never thrilled me much. Like I said before, anyone can level as highly as they want to. But no one else can craft a character to exactly reflect my imagination. I just don't see the point of bothering with it.

Bear

[Seceres]

Beating away at animals and monsters, in an endless almost mindless game, using the same old formulas that have been used over and over, is "character development". It develops "character thought" and "character history"? Oh well, here is the single summary of what most gamers today can say about their character's history, "Uhh, I killed lots of stuff, and now im level 10000!"

[Seceres]

I don't see how any one can enjoy day in and day out killing killing killing, mindless killing. Even if you can talk to others in the "group", it is still TEDIOUS and BORING

[Seceres]

What about the possibility of researching where guilds can set up alternative economies of investment, and a "stock market"like system so that people can work on more and more. I mean surely we can have player-made economies, since even in ancient times the economy had to be based on just simple coins which most games are.

[Bear]

Even the endless killing could be made more tolerable. There is nothing wrong with a good dungeon crawl.

But some variety would be nice. Like monsters that actually move around maybe? And periodic changes to the dungeon area, like having the boss NPC decide that he is getting hit too often in his current throne room and decide to move to a dsafer location?

Or intercepting a "runner" that drops a message saying the king of Whatchamacallit Dungeon, Lord of Orcly Stuff, is calling all good greenskins to come and help save his ass from all these mean nasty adventurous human invaders.

Almost any change would be an improvement.

Bear

[Seceres]

Even more variety, and a changing world would be better. For instance:King Crushbone of the Orcs in the Wood Elf forest on Everquest has been killed probably millions of times (literally millions) yet he has the same name, and seems to have two billion lives. Even if they entered a random name change, like King Crushbone the I, II, III and then changed the name etc. It would be MUCH better.

[Jed Norton]

Originally posted by Seceres
The issue with buying characters is it allows though for quicker travel, one can develop the character (since it has not been developed before), and it is just fun to be able to relax without feeling pressured to level. It is intimidating to see some "kool dude"fifty levels higher who does not even deserve their level as they are destroying the roleplay environment. But in the current MMRPGs, it is a hopeless cause except for small communities of roleplayers within these games

(Bold section highlighted by myself - the following are general thoughts and not diretced at Seceres post individually)

It's interesting how we "judge" characters so much on "level" and I feel that this is precisely where the whole aspect of "RPG" falls down...so much so that these surely can not be RPGs?

More and more people seem to be defining "character development" purely in terms of levels (or skill-levels) rather than in "achievements".

Of course this is natural as many, if not all, of these games do not allow the gamer to develop other than by levels.

Ask youselves how many ways these games allow for actual character development in terms of "social" achievements, the ability to be recognised for reasons outside of levels? The support and communications mechanisms for such development?

Not many are there?


This is at the heart of why I find it hard to "condemn" people who want to buy high level accounts and also why I find it difficult to "side" with the tidal wave of people who come out of the closet to decry account-sellers as people who destroy the "community" - especially where those people rage at the "roleplay" destruction that ensues from it (supposedly).

It makes no sense to me at all.

Many/most games dont reward character development outside of "levelling" - are any of us really surprised that roleplayers feel disillusioned?

Of course they are intimidated by high level players - it is almost the sole province of high level gamers to dominate what few "heroic" areas there are in the game - it is they who are aluded for their "achievements", they who are sought out for help in battles and quests and they who are "believed" above others who may, or are, more "qualified" in some instances:

An example:

I mapped the lands of DAoC for Mythic Entertainment - I know the lands intimately.

I am in a group of gamers of whom I am the lowest level - the group follows the (incorrect) directions of the highest member simply "because" he is the highest level and "therefore surely knows the most or how could he be so high a level?".

So the games best cartographer is "naturally" outvoted by the simple aspect of someone else being a higher level.

The point here is that there is no way within the game for a person to be known or recognised (easily or not) as an "expert" outside of level - and where that sort of aspect is missing the ability to easily distribute information on other avatars limits and hinders roleplay and character development.

Similar examples can be found in crafting, lore and other areas.


Im not just talking about easily recognisable titles or name-tags above the avatars head - there is a need for deeper interaction within the game world - the ability for players to distribute information on other avatars within the game... our "fame" or "characterisation" should not be reliant on the avatar having to leave the game to browse a private or corporate website to find a "whos who".

Nor, indeed, should there be a "Who's who" within the game - there needs to be a built-in ability within the game for players to freely distribute their on thoughts, rumours and experiences.

Camelot, for example, fails terribly in this area - taverns and town criers are all stationary NPCs dedicated entirely to promoting rigid game-story information that is unchageable and inviolate. There are no message board systems or rumour-mills, no "reputational" aspects - nothing that breeds characterisation outside of rigidly deliminated levels or titles based on other rigidly controlled aspects (such as Realm Points).

Indeed, that particular game has added more and more "external" resources to allow (or cajole) gamers into recognising level-based aspects over characterisation - RealmPoint score tables, league tables withina nd withour guilds, realms and "real time" score sheets detailing which "side" owns which forts and relics.

Very little - well, none, of that encourages me to even attempt any form of Roleplay - its a static world in those terms and it precludes me "becoming" something dynamic or different.


Even where the gamer accepts that they can not, or do not, want to be "famed" in their characterisation the game provides little to nothing in terms of encouraging roleplay or character development. Questing is rigid and deliminated by realm and class and level - you cannot "exceed" the inbuilt limitations of the quest system - ther eis no way to build up your level of "lore" beyond levelling to achieve it.

I could go on (and on).


Games such as this really do not appear to offer much of anything to roleplay or character development outside of pure treadmill achievement (at worst) of fun levelling at best.

However, we must remember that even with all that said and done - these types of games remain immensely popular with "the gamer"... and even the games companies have now shied away from labelling them MMO-RPGs.

The RP part is now, sadly, absent from many if not most of the genre.


(Games) Companies exist to make money and if the audience is paying hand over fist to play such games who are we to berate them and bemoan the fate of RP? Can we actually show that there is a deep need and, perhaps more importantly, a financial will to move fromt he current dull/rigid games to ones with deeper levels of RP and characterisation potential?

Most games designers will openly admit they would love to addmore depth to their games in these areas - Mythic high amongst them - but where a game (or genre) is proving markedly succesful without them who do they first need to keep pumping their resources into?

You guessed it - the existing customer base who seem happy with their current lot in life in terms of RP-potential/character development.

What is certianly true (in my mind) is this:

You cannot "destroy the roleplay environment" simply by purchasing and playing a high level account - especially where that environment doesn't really exist in the first place.

[Bear]

"Cookie cutter", "treadmill", "cut and paste", "paying your dues", "jumping through the leveling hoops"...These are the ways the players describe the MMORPGs. I agree (again). All high levels prove is that someone has sat on their inactive ass for an unbelieveable amount of time, pressing the same buttons over and over and over and over and over until the little colored bar flips over and rewards them with a statement that they are now level x. And this is regarded as an accomplishment?

I would sigh, but I no longer care enough. The mainstream gaming companies are not going to make a true RPG. They are so unimaginative that stringing together a bunch of linear "quests" in the mode of several single player games is all they can come up with. Can someone tell me the substantive difference between EQ, DAoC or similar titles with.....hm....say playing Hexen or Doom in co-op mode?

Is there any real difference between the modern MMORPG and a FPS in co-op mode? I don't see any. Kill the little monsters and get your power-ups, solve the puzzle and find the next level. Then kill the middle sized monsters and get more powerups, then solve the next puzzle and go kill the boss monster. Duke Nukem with prettier graphics. The basic formula has not changed since Wolfenstein 3D (the original game, made for a 286). Same game, different graphics.

The small outfits that might do it are too poor to survive. So I doubt that there will be any real RPGs online for quite some time, outside of MUDs. I just started with Castle Marrach, out of sheer desparation. It has a wonderful feel to it, and the players are obivously interested in RPG. It has everything except graphics. But I NEED graphics. I keep getting lost in that maze. Now I WILL sigh....

"sigh".

Bear

[Jed Norton]

Oh they will do Bear!

Whether or not we either live to see - or care enough to still be playing such games by the time one comes out...

well - that's another matter.

I have an inkling (hope?) that within 5 years we will actually see something quite - erm - "dramatic" happen in online gaming.

What we now label as one homologous MMOG genre will be radically fragmented and probably totally inacurate by todays terminology.

I've already seen ideas on MMOGs that have a "virtual end-game" to them that transcend into another entire game, where gamers will have their own (workable) justice systems, where many aspects of "treadmills" and "defined paths" are absent or minimalised - Ideas abound.

The economic forces to produce those games aren't here yet - but it won't be long. The speed of change will increase again as soon as the current model of games starts to see a dip in either (or both) subscriptions or subscription length.

I honestly believe that we are on the verge of that dip right now and that any game being produced "now" that isnt live by 2004 will have blown their chance to capatilise (massively) on the current "acceptance" of this sort of game.

Bigger pie - smaller chunks per company, sooner or later someone will make a different pie.

Recipies are under discussion now - there just aren't any rich & prominent bakers who didn't go to EQ-bakeries Inc or who aren't already tied into the current production of Same_old_Pie_101.

(ugh what a pathetic analogy - ah well, its late)

[Nom]

Originally posted by Bear
I just started with Castle Marrach, out of sheer desparation. It has a wonderful feel to it, and the players are obivously interested in RPG. It has everything except graphics. But I NEED graphics. I keep getting lost in that maze. Now I WILL sigh....


I'm sorry if I've totally missed something, but why do you need graphics?

Or, to put it another way, what do graphics add to a MPCRPG? And what do they detract from it?

[Davog]

I don't normally follow the Biting the Hand articles, as I haven't really got a clue about the industry. But I have to agree with Nom here. Why do you need graphics?

In a game like Castle Marrach, there seems to be little point. While graphics might be interesting, I think that not only would it be hard to code (thinking of trying to code the dancing here), but most of the game revolves about character interaction, which to be frank would not exactly be visually exciting.

It would also make some of the spontaneous effects in the game (free emotes that occur to enhance plots) that much harder to do unplanned, as instead of just sending the emote, you would have to prepare a graphic to match. This would enforce a rigid preparedness on the game, which would not allow for unexpected turns of events.

I would even go so far as to say that the presence of graphics actually holds back the potential to RP. First, you will have the people attracted to the game just because of the eye candy, who could care less about depth of characterisation. And second, from what I know of games, to continually have unique plots, you would have to then have unique graphics for those plots (perhaps one reason why plots in many online games are just rehashed, and the same quest is done over and over again). This would surely be a nightmare to continually have to update.

Having not played any online games other than Marrach, I may be underestimating the potential in these other games. But frankly, a game is going to attract people who are after certain things based on it's features. If a game offers hundreds of monsters, and levels, and all sorts of different character classes, then it is going to attract people who are looking for that sort of thing. Not that they are not capable of role-playing, but the emphasis is on something else.

There was an article a while ago (lousy memory, can't remember by who, or which series) which went into this. It summarised it all by saying that the game is what the game is. If you emphasise certain aspects, then it is going to attract the sort of people who are looking for that. If a game emphasises advancement by going up levels, then it will attract players who want that. If you have to advance by social interaction, then it will attract a different sort of player.

I've rambled long enough. I hope this made sense.

Paul

[Bear]

Originally posted by Davog
I don't normally follow the Biting the Hand articles, as I haven't really got a clue about the industry. But I have to agree with Nom here. Why do you need graphics?

In a game like Castle Marrach, there seems to be little point. While graphics might be interesting, I think that not only would it be hard to code (thinking of trying to code the dancing here), but most of the game revolves about character interaction, which to be frank would not exactly be visually exciting.

It would also make some of the spontaneous effects in the game (free emotes that occur to enhance plots) that much harder to do unplanned, as instead of just sending the emote, you would have to prepare a graphic to match. This would enforce a rigid preparedness on the game, which would not allow for unexpected turns of events.

I would even go so far as to say that the presence of graphics actually holds back the potential to RP. First, you will have the people attracted to the game just because of the eye candy, who could care less about depth of characterisation. And second, from what I know of games, to continually have unique plots, you would have to then have unique graphics for those plots (perhaps one reason why plots in many online games are just rehashed, and the same quest is done over and over again). This would surely be a nightmare to continually have to update.

Having not played any online games other than Marrach, I may be underestimating the potential in these other games. But frankly, a game is going to attract people who are after certain things based on it's features. If a game offers hundreds of monsters, and levels, and all sorts of different character classes, then it is going to attract people who are looking for that sort of thing. Not that they are not capable of role-playing, but the emphasis is on something else.

There was an article a while ago (lousy memory, can't remember by who, or which series) which went into this. It summarised it all by saying that the game is what the game is. If you emphasise certain aspects, then it is going to attract the sort of people who are looking for that. If a game emphasises advancement by going up levels, then it will attract players who want that. If you have to advance by social interaction, then it will attract a different sort of player.

I've rambled long enough. I hope this made sense.

Paul

I agree with everything you said. However.....

The kind of graphics I am talking about are not necessarily state-of-the-art. I mean a simple graphic, even a crude graphic, that lets me SEE WTF I am GOING. Sorry if I get loud, no offense intended. But I have to go over a section several times before I can get a good visualization of the area that I am in. I am just talking about a small crutch to help me set a solid picture in my mind of the castle layout. The top down graphic that purports to be a map hasn't helped me much.

As far as character graphics, that is a different matter. The emotes would only have to be programmed once for most of them. I understand that this is not going to happen in Marrach. Nor do I intend to advocate that it should. Obviously, most of the players are content with text only, and it is not my place to criticize. I was wishing out loud for some kind of game, like Marrach but with graphics, that would allow me to achieve the kind of immersion that only a good graphic environment can provide.

As it is, in a text only game I "feel" as if I am navigating blind, literally blind, and I have to walk around with a helper at my elbow saying things like "watch it here, there are stairs going up" or maybe whispering in my ear something like, "here comes Andre, he is wearing a pink breechclout and purple nose beads. Be polite, that obidian dagger looks sharp." In other words, I just like an environment where I can SEE what is going on, at least part of the time, without depending on some third party to describe my surroundings to me.

However, the game I describe is NOT Marrach. I am not suggesting that Marrach should do anything of the kind, nor do I intend to criticize. I like Marrach fine the way it is. I just prefer graphics in my games, thats all. Please don't kill me!

And for dancing? You might be amazed what a practiced player can do with a graphic avatar using just a few basic moves and some imagination.

Bear

[Nom]

I was wishing out loud for some kind of game, like Marrach but with graphics, that would allow me to achieve the kind of immersion that only a good graphic environment can provide.


Let me ask another question - how is VR immersion different from imagination immersion? VR is cool, but I've yet to see a VR rig that offers a fraction of the immersion I can get from, say, The Ride of the Rohirrim in LOTR. Yet others (eg Bear) obviously feel differently.

I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts.

Footnote: By LOTR I mean the books, which may or may not have been obvious given that the Ride of the Rohirrim is in Volume 5. Sorry for any confusion.

[Dariel]

Immersion in movies is a rare thing for me. After all, someone else tried to do the thinking for me, when casting and outfitting the actors, the actors in playing their parts... there is no fantasy involved anymore.

Most MMORPGS are worse than movies in that they are limited in the graphics they have, multiplied by the number of textures you can slap onto them. Fooling around with Admin privileges on an UO server the other day showed that. There is only one bookshelf object in UO, and it always looks and acts the same. You can alter its colour to represent stone or metal or lighter or darker wood, but that's arduous. So, I have one bookshelf, clones of which populate the whole world. Marrach on the other hand also only has one bookshelf Object AFAIK, but that bookshelf has several traits in its description which can be altered, among them wood colour, stain/finish and its overall design. Furthermore, when I simply look at the bookcase, it will tell me exactly what is where.

My problem with immersion? In UO, I am presented with a crutch. A crude picture that is supposed to symbolize the world. If I want to imagine the aforementioned bookshelf as looking differently, I need to get away from the preconceived image of my screen first, and then freely imagine an alternative. In Marrach, I have all that I need to know to swiftly make a nice clean mental image in a sentence or two.

*shrug* Personally, I'm very happy with Marrach over UO or EQ. The center of Marrach is Role-Playing as I always say. Everything else is just a prop to faciliate it.


Have a nice day.

[Bear]

Originally posted by Nom


Let me ask another question - how is VR immersion different from imagination immersion? VR is cool, but I've yet to see a VR rig that offers a fraction of the immersion I can get from, say, The Ride of the Rohirrim in LOTR. Yet others (eg Bear) obviously feel differently.

I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts.

Footnote: By LOTR I mean the books, which may or may not have been obvious given that the Ride of the Rohirrim is in Volume 5. Sorry for any confusion.

Nom,

I will try to explain what I meant a little differently. Maybe it will provoke more people to jump in and argue against me, so you will get more data to satisfy your curiosity:) I wish to repeat also that my preference is purely personal, and I am not saying that a graphic game is better or worse than a text only game. I am just someone who prefers graphics. You can't really compare the two types of game directly, they represent two different types of artistic approach.

To answer your question, VR immersion is no different than any other kind of immersion. It is all a willing suspension of disbelief coupled with the kind of play pretend that we all do as children. The difference is in the feedback that a player gets from his or her environment.

A text only game is a lonely game to me. Because each player visualizes that game slightly differently, you can truly say that no two people are ever really playing exactly the same game.

However, with some external graphics to focus attention, the player base is presented with a form of consensus "reality" that has an external existence outside of each person's head. Thus, there is a collective experience that (however crude) supersedes and overpowers the individual imagination. There is no denying a graphic image. There it is, "big as life", and it cannot be tuned out or ignored the way a verbal description can.

Remember that eyesight is the most important sense that a human has. The vast majority of our sensory input comes through our eyes. When you insert graphic elements into a VR environment you are engaging the attention in a way that cannot be otherwise done.

For example:

I was reading an interview a while back with one of the designers of a very old FPS called Catacomb Abyss. For those who don't remember, Wolfenstein 3D, the original one, was a flat looking FPS with big pixels and very little that would impress anyone by today's standards. Catacomb Abyss came out shortly after Wolfenstein 3D, and it had the same old-style big pixel FPS graphics. I think they were both designed to run on a 286, if that gives a reference. So the quality of the graphics was mediocre at best. But the whole FPS interface was a new thing at that time, and it gave a whole new level of immersion when compared with the top down or arcade style games that were current then.

This developer was describing how a tester was playing Catacomb Abyss and how he reacted. The tester was walking down a dark corridor in a crypt. The tester HEARD a door open behind him, turned around and SAW an undead monster leaning over his shoulder. The sudden shock of it caused the tester to jump and scream. Said the designer, "You just can't GET any more immersive than that."

Is any of this making sense?

There is also the simple fact that navigating blind is difficult for me. In a game, as in RL, I usually navigate by visual cues and landmarks. When I first started Marrach, I stepped out of my room and was met by a greeter who offered to take me to a tailor for some clothes. I followed the good samaritan up and down hallways, up stairs and around corners and through rooms until I was completely and totally lost.

After I got some clothes, he led me back to the corridor where I started. Very helpful. Which I badly needed because after watching all that text flash past me at the speed of light I could not have found that tailor again to save my ass. As it was, even after being led by the hand back to my starting hallway, I still managed to take a wrong turn somewhere and ended up wandering through the wrong door and outside the Castle entrance. I can't navigate in a thick fog in RL either, and I HATE to ask for directions from people in a strange area, because it never works out right.

Suppose there is a tapestry hanging on a wall. In a text game, everyone visualizes that tapestry differently. That allows everyone to enjoy the maximum amount of RPG immersion, unless that storyline requires a particular detail of the tapestry to be referenced. But basically everyone "sees" the tapestry that they want to see in a text game.

Same tapestry in a graphic game. See? The hawk is red and the kangaroo is wearing blue leotards. No arguing with it, there it is. This limits the player's ability to manufacture an environment in their heads, true. But it also provides a shared expereince based on shared input. You lose some individual imaginary freedom, but you gain the collectively shared experience. Neither approach is better, but they certainly have a different affect on people.

I just like to see where I am going and SEE what is coming at me. I dislike groping around blindly and trusting the game to recite directions at me.

Also I can take in a graphic scene in one swift glance, whereas it might take two or three pages to describe a room full of people in a text game. Meanwhile, I am perhaps missing the conversations and passing up some valuable clues about what is happening, simply because I haven't finished reading the description yet. But of course, NO graphic can ever be as impressive as the one I make inside my head.

It is just a matter of preference.

Bear

[Nom]

One little clarification - if you are using either of the Skotos Marrach clients (Alice for IE/Active X, and Java for Navigator), you get a nifty (and largely invaluable) little map that shows where you are and (approximately) where you can go. This makes a huge difference.

[Jed Norton]

Originally posted by Nom
One little clarification - if you are using either of the Skotos Marrach clients (Alice for IE/Active X, and Java for Navigator), you get a nifty (and largely invaluable) little map that shows where you are and (approximately) where you can go. This makes a huge difference.

Doesn't that fly in the face of what you were saying about VR though?

A map IS a visual queue - albeit a simple one and even that can render some peoples imaginations "invalid".... hmm i'll try for an example:

I drew a map of an MMOG land and my friend, who knew how to get around that land just as well as I did, said:

"Are you sure that map is right - I never imagined it would look like that."... and after that he regularly got lost until he had "re-learnt " his way around by my map. (obviously his mental ques were not the same as my visual ones)


It might not follow through to its ultimate conclusion - but isn't the "level" of visual (or aural or , erm, nasal even) queues the real key to immersiveness?

There's a shot in the film LoTR where the Fellowship are walking up the lower slopes towards Caradrhim (sp?) - and my mind just went "WOW - that is JUST how I imagined it" - but I still had to add in the bits that weren't there (the back story of the area that was totally absent in the film)...

hmm - I've made a circular arguement haven't I? ho hum... ack to the drawing board!

--

Perhaps we just have to ask ourselves a different question:

For those with of a (horrible phrase coming up - apologies in advance) lower imagination - what is more immersive? Text or graphics?

Or is it that "we" (graphics fans) are just a a tad lazier?

It's a bit like those who prefer MUSH's - the story telling of Swording the Dragon is more important than the "Action" of Swording the Dragon.

Visual fans, Action fans, want the action "content" and willingly sacrifice the "It was a graceful swing that felled the dragon" - they just want to "swing the sword" and "fell the dragon".

Roleplay for some is simply being able to have a signature that says "First to slay a Dragon on Palomides Shard".

----

It summarised it all by saying that the game is what the game is. If you emphasise certain aspects, then it is going to attract the sort of people who are looking for that. If a game emphasises advancement by going up levels, then it will attract players who want that. If you have to advance by social interaction, then it will attract a different sort of player.

Sounds like Jessica or Raph Koster or Richard Bartle - try http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/index.html

(Probably Essays or Snippets - even if it isn't, Raphs stuff is incredibly insightful about MMOGs, even if you don't agree with his views)