On-Line Games Stink
Adam West
Here's the beef IMHO:
On-Line RPGs just aren't a good idea. Listen, I buy computer games
because I LIKE playing against a computer. I LIKE saving a game
and coming back at 1 AM to find things where I left them. And I LIKE
a story that moves along at my pace. And at first, On-Line games
seem to add something: real characters to play with. But replacing
the AI of PCs with real people leads to other problems. Namely:
people are not always fun. All I'm seeing so far is too many jerks
who find more enjoyment picking and bugging the little guy than
role-playing. Let's face it: it isn't a good trend. And where's the
story for On-Line RPGs? Hmm? We all gripe about poor stories with
Off-Line games. I don't see having hundreds of people running around
banging their sword on everything that moves helping the story at
all. The myth of On-Line Games: make it real, make it accessible,
and the story makes itself. Piffle. On-Line strategy games, great.
Arcade (Doom), fine. But RPG? I don't see it.
I can think of many people who wanted to play D&D with our group,
but we didn't want them. Now, with On-Line Games, they can all come
in and rain on the parade. I'm selfish? Silly? Crazy? Old-fashioned?
All I'm saying is lack of AI for NPCs is not the only problem with
CRPGs. And replacing the AI with a bunch of numbskulls doesn't make
things better. It makes them far worse.
Nuff Guff,
Adam
Garrett R Le-Page
Adam West (aw...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Here's the beef IMHO:
: On-Line RPGs just aren't a good idea. Listen, I buy computer games
: because I LIKE playing against a computer. I LIKE saving a game
: and coming back at 1 AM to find things where I left them. And I LIKE
: a story that moves along at my pace. And at first, On-Line games
: seem to add something: real characters to play with. But replacing
: the AI of PCs with real people leads to other problems. Namely:
: people are not always fun. All I'm seeing so far is too many jerks
: who find more enjoyment picking and bugging the little guy than
: role-playing.
I stopped playing computer games (mostly) and moved to play-by-mail to
get away from computer opponents. I have not played online games, but
the trend in pbm is that jerks don't last long. Paying money just to be
a jerk and getting constantly dished for it wears out real fast. Of
course, playing a jerk within character is another story (and adds to the
enviroment).
: Let's face it: it isn't a good trend. And where's the
: story for On-Line RPGs? Hmm? We all gripe about poor stories with
: Off-Line games. I don't see having hundreds of people running around
: banging their sword on everything that moves helping the story at
: all. The myth of On-Line Games: make it real, make it accessible,
: and the story makes itself. Piffle. On-Line strategy games, great.
: Arcade (Doom), fine. But RPG? I don't see it.
Give it time. These beasties are somewhat new. Taking on the
responsibilty of an rpg that has so many individual lives to worry about
takes a little fleshing out. What these games really need are logic
trees like stat meisters are developing for diagnosis of illness, etc.
Your party has an encounter and the computer figures out the response of
the npc through such a tree. Or, you are walking down the street and an
npc sees you and approaches you with a quest through such a tree.
Undoubtably, the main thrust of online rpgs is to have players control
these actions over time. But, it takes a lot of time for players to
evolve a world.
: I can think of many people who wanted to play D&D with our group,
: but we didn't want them.
Exclusion is not all that sporting. RPG cannot always conform to our
personal view of how the world we play within behaves.
: Now, with On-Line Games, they can all come
: in and rain on the parade. I'm selfish? Silly? Crazy? Old-fashioned?
: All I'm saying is lack of AI for NPCs is not the only problem with
: CRPGs. And replacing the AI with a bunch of numbskulls doesn't make
: things better. It makes them far worse.
The world is full of numbskulls, and so should a rpg world be. When you
role-play in a world setting with bandits and/or evil wizards, you are
facing inherently s.o.b. personalities. Playing AD&D at a table with a
bunch of friends dilutes the full weight of just how nasty these nasties
are. They are interpreted through the eyes of a gamemaster that may not
be equipped to be truly evil. The online experience allows such evil and
s.o.b. stereotypes to be in the game world. If you don't like them, then
stomp them out, make life miserable for the putzes. This is what true
rpg is all about. Fight for what your character believes within the
framework of the game. Running from a platform genre just because it
gives life to all those nasty elements you all slay in other genre rpgs
suggests that you only want safe rpgs. There is nothing wrong with
that. But, some may relish the opportunity to struggle for their ideals
in a real gameworld in which they can be as ruthless in their dealings
with other factions as they wish with only real world money/time at stake.
: Nuff Guff,
Happy gaming,
: Adam
Garrett
The High Toadlord
In article <3211CB...@worldnet.att.net>,
Adam West <aw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
->Here's the beef IMHO:
->
->On-Line RPGs just aren't a good idea. Listen, I buy computer games
->because I LIKE playing against a computer. I LIKE saving a game
->and coming back at 1 AM to find things where I left them. And I LIKE
->a story that moves along at my pace. And at first, On-Line games
->seem to add something: real characters to play with. But replacing
->the AI of PCs with real people leads to other problems. Namely:
->people are not always fun. All I'm seeing so far is too many jerks
->who find more enjoyment picking and bugging the little guy than
->role-playing. Let's face it: it isn't a good trend. And where's the
->story for On-Line RPGs? Hmm? We all gripe about poor stories with
->Off-Line games. I don't see having hundreds of people running around
->banging their sword on everything that moves helping the story at
->all. The myth of On-Line Games: make it real, make it accessible,
->and the story makes itself. Piffle. On-Line strategy games, great.
->Arcade (Doom), fine. But RPG? I don't see it.
->
->I can think of many people who wanted to play D&D with our group,
->but we didn't want them. Now, with On-Line Games, they can all come
->in and rain on the parade.
Welcome to the real world. While RPG's are fantasy, they're supposed to
simulate a moderately realistic world; IE, You're gonna run into idiots and
numskulls. Thus... Such aspects add to the realism!!
...The High Toadlord
-> I'm selfish? Silly? Crazy? Old-fashioned?
->All I'm saying is lack of AI for NPCs is not the only problem with
->CRPGs. And replacing the AI with a bunch of numbskulls doesn't make
->things better. It makes them far worse.
->
->Nuff Guff,
->
->Adam
Todd A Carter
In article <3211CB...@worldnet.att.net>,
Adam West <aw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Here's the beef IMHO:
>
<snip>
>a story that moves along at my pace. And at first, On-Line games
>seem to add something: real characters to play with. But replacing
>the AI of PCs with real people leads to other problems. Namely:
>people are not always fun. All I'm seeing so far is too many jerks
I've found the growing pains of the new online RPG's quite interesting.
I've been involved in pen-and-paper RPG's about 15 years now, and have
within the past three years gotten into live action role-playing. Live
action role playing has a lot in common with online RPG's in that it can
involve many other people. From what I've seen, many of the problems
associated with live-action role-playing are mirrored in online RPG's.
Essentially you mention two problems associated with online RPG's. One of
these problems you mention is the story that evolves or changes without
you. There are many things that change with this: you can't save the
game, try something outlandish, die, and reload thinking "Well, yeah, I
knew that was probably dumb, but I had to try anyway." That's a good part
of the fun for may games, and when you don't have the option of saving
this is a problem. Of course, the online games I've seen lessen the
finality of death by simply making it unpleasant, rather than... well,
deadly. I'm unsure of a good solution for this, as reward without risk
becomes dull, but it is currently rather too easy in most games (online or
not) to die to make an online game death absolutely final.
The idea of the constantly changing world that doesn't need you
is somewhat of a greater issue, I think. In most RPG's (both
pen-and-paper and CRPG's) you and/or your group becomes the center of
everything. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I"ve yet to see a GM that
can give the perfect illusion of a world that doesn't really care if you
exist. One of the most fun things about RPG's is the ability to greatly
influence a world, something most of us will not have the opportunity to
do in reality. This is diluted in a game with other humans in it; all of
them want this same focus of attention, so, inevitably, attention gets
spread around. This is a personal taste kind of thing. Can one rise to
the top without humans? A good online role-playing game has the ability
to do something that most live-action games do not: add as many NPC's as
the game designers feel like. Let's face it: mediocrity sucks. We want
to be GREAT ADVENTURERS, or assassins, or whatnot. Online games should
provide hordes of "common folk" for us to feel better than, or to save,
assault, etc. This can help the problem, but the game will never revolve
around a few people (if it does, eventually everyone else will stop
playing). Yet, this uncertainty in what's happening in the world through
other players is what makes the game the most interesting, and what
differentiates it from standard single-player RPG's some will prefer it,
others will stick to single-player games; many of us, I think, will play
both for their diffeent perspectives.
A final point you brought up (this post WILL eventually end!) was the
problem with bully characters. Again, this can be seen in live-action
role-playing games, and there is no perfect answer. When actual people
intract, inevitably, there will be disagreements and arguments that form.
A fantasy world gives the option to solve problems with violence; let's
face it, that's a staple of fantasy. To remove backstabbing, etc would
reduce the fun of the game. Yet there have to be controls to ensure that
some players don't rule with a fist and eliminate the enjoyment of
everyone else (again, or everyone else will eventually stop playing).
This can really only be handled by puttin geffective enforements into
place (policing, etc). Private guilds will pop up (they have in EVERY
similar instance I can thing of, including the online games out there,
MUD's, live-action games, etc); but eventually one group will have the
ability to take over, and there has to be some way for the people running
the game to step in a influence events. The guilds can greatly help the
lesser problems of bullying, etc, however.
I think, I said earlier, that there will be people who prefer
single-player, those who prefer online, and those who, er, go both ways.
Hopefully the presence of the alternate type of RPG will throw enough
competetion into the mix so that we can get some quality games out there!
Diversity os good, even if you don't like it all.
--Todd Carter
Eric Lee Wescott
The High Toadlord wrote:
> Welcome to the real world. While RPG's are fantasy, they're supposed to
> simulate a moderately realistic world; IE, You're gonna run into idiots and
> numskulls. Thus... Such aspects add to the realism!!
Well, after reading the various responses to Adam.....I felt they all
missed his point.
The problem isn't simply stealing and backstabbing. It's also the
legion of immature people (usually of a young age) that just want
to get on and say "fuck" in a myriad of ways....oh, yeah and also
all the things they're gonna do to your mother.
The problem isn't an abundance of Evil characters, the problem is
an abundance of bad and dumb non-players. They ported in from AOL
and they're gonna scroll your screen and curse just like Beavis
and Butthead would! YEAH! What fun! And if you get aggravated
you just MADE THEIR DAY!
-Eric
gar...@cinternet.net
>The problem isn't simply stealing and backstabbing. It's also the
>legion of immature people (usually of a young age) that just want
>to get on and say "fuck" in a myriad of ways....oh, yeah and also
>all the things they're gonna do to your mother.
>
>The problem isn't an abundance of Evil characters, the problem is
>an abundance of bad and dumb non-players. They ported in from AOL
>and they're gonna scroll your screen and curse just like Beavis
>and Butthead would! YEAH! What fun! And if you get aggravated
>you just MADE THEIR DAY!
>
>-Eric
>
It all depends on what type of online game you are playing. One
advantage to playing an online game that requires you to pay is that
most immature individuals, or kids for that matter, won't shell out
the money just to swear at the top of their lungs.
Besides, if the game is designed well, such things would be very
difficult to do. I'm in the 3rd year of developing a multiplayer game
of my own, and the command parser recognizes swearing and replaces the
offending words with #@% characters. (Fittingly enough :) ) Also,
there is an adult flag that a player may choose when generating a
character so that if they so desire, they may feel the, uh, full
effects of the message. :)
The best things about online roleplaying games is the great friends a
person can make and the fact that the games themselves are never
completely predictable.
Mel
Skinny
On Wed, 14 Aug 96 14:53:20 GMT, hus...@ix.netcom.com (The High Toadlord) wrote:
>->I can think of many people who wanted to play D&D with our group,
>->but we didn't want them. Now, with On-Line Games, they can all come
>->in and rain on the parade.
>
>Welcome to the real world. While RPG's are fantasy, they're supposed to
>simulate a moderately realistic world; IE, You're gonna run into idiots and
>numskulls. Thus... Such aspects add to the realism!!
Where did game companies got the idea that we want TOTAL realism in our games?
Personally I think that on-line games like Sierra's The Realm and Dark Sun On-Line are
going to be in BIG trouble if the current problems persist. There are a ton of boneheads running
around beating up on newbies and/or stealing items. It's fun for awhile, but after running into
10 or so of these losers, I didn't log on again. I've got much more important things to do with my
time.
One of the reasons for this IMHO is that there is really nothing interesting to do in these games.
In the case of The Realm, gameplay goes like this "enter game, look for NPC enemies (few and far between),
get into a scuffle with some chumps, game crashes, repeat".
I can't imagine actually paying for this crap.
Stephen Di Ciano
Have you noticed that they are in the stage of alpha or beta testing ?
Maybe when the full version comes out, your opinion on the playibility will change...
or maybe not.
BTW I heard REALM 2.0 is coming out soon.
Steve.
Adam West
Skinny wrote:
>
> Where did game companies got the idea that we want TOTAL realism in
> our games?
>
I think some want/like realism, so that's why companies do it. But my
definition of total realism is just like a role-playing game with your
friends (which of course, isn't realism at all). I really believe this
is where companies are missing the boat. The focus is on "real" world
elements. Great for flight simulators and golfing games, but how about
simulating a session of D&D? Let me choose my computer DM and my fellow
players. Let me pick up my cyber-dice. Where's the simulated chuckle
of the DM when you step into his trap?
Nuff Guff,
Adam
Dave Frankson
thi...@lardo.com (Skinny) wrote:
>Personally I think that on-line games like Sierra's The Realm and Dark Sun On-Line are
>going to be in BIG trouble if the current problems persist. There are a ton of boneheads running
>around beating up on newbies and/or stealing items. It's fun for awhile, but after running into
>10 or so of these losers, I didn't log on again. I've got much more important things to do with my
>time.
>I can't imagine actually paying for this crap.
Some games create an atmosphere with their storyline and Game engine. Dark
Sun has a dark plot where you are on a hostile world. There is limited
things to do: either talk or fight. Other games such as Ultima Online has
a game plot with virtueous themes. The gameplay allows for tons more stuff
including building your own house, owning a ship and becoming a pirate, and
the final version will have a vast land that would take months to explore.
Players are less likely to get bored and start killing eachother, and
because of Ultima's devoted Ultima fans, many powerful players would kill
anyone suspected of pkilling.
Dave
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dave Frankson fran...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Visit the Multiplayer Online Games Directory!
http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m041/fran0264/games.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Terry R. Smith
Dave Frankson wrote:
> Some games create an atmosphere with their storyline and Game engine. Dark
> Sun has a dark plot where you are on a hostile world. There is limited
> things to do: either talk or fight. Other games such as Ultima Online has
> a game plot with virtueous themes. The gameplay allows for tons more stuff
> including building your own house, owning a ship and becoming a pirate, and
> the final version will have a vast land that would take months to explore.
> Players are less likely to get bored and start killing eachother, and
> because of Ultima's devoted Ultima fans, many powerful players would kill
> anyone suspected of pkilling.
>
The aspect of building ones own house will add an incredable demension
to Ultima Online. For one thing, guilds can how have true headquarters,
with a meeting hall and possibly a treasury. Imagine raiding parties
from one quild sacking another quilds building and stealing the quild's
treasure. Then you have counter-raids etc. This may be the online RPG
that sets the standards of all to follow.
The High Toadlord
In article <32129E...@celt.microserve.com>,->The High Toadlord wrote:
->
->> Welcome to the real world. While RPG's are fantasy, they're supposed to
->> simulate a moderately realistic world; IE, You're gonna run into idiots
and
->> numskulls. Thus... Such aspects add to the realism!!
->
->Well, after reading the various responses to Adam.....I felt they all
->missed his point.
->
->The problem isn't simply stealing and backstabbing. It's also the
->legion of immature people (usually of a young age) that just want
->to get on and say "fuck" in a myriad of ways....oh, yeah and also
->all the things they're gonna do to your mother.
->
->The problem isn't an abundance of Evil characters, the problem is
->an abundance of bad and dumb non-players. They ported in from AOL
->and they're gonna scroll your screen and curse just like Beavis
->and Butthead would! YEAH! What fun! And if you get aggravated
->you just MADE THEIR DAY!
->
->-Eric
->
Well, that genre of player should be simple to deal with. They certainly
wouldn't be powerful; They couldn't get far in a decent RPG that way. So...
Ya take a knife to their throat, a sword to their belly... Maybe a Fireball
to their head. ;)
...The High Toadlord
Skinny
On Sun, 18 Aug 1996 21:07:19 +0800, Stephen Di Ciano <sdic...@carmen.murdoch.edu.au> wrote:
>> One of the reasons for this IMHO is that there is really nothing interesting to do in these games.
>> In the case of The Realm, gameplay goes like this "enter game, look for NPC enemies (few and far between),
>> get into a scuffle with some chumps, game crashes, repeat".
>>
>> I can't imagine actually paying for this crap.
>
>
>Have you noticed that they are in the stage of alpha or beta testing ?
>Maybe when the full version comes out, your opinion on the playibility will change...
>or maybe not.
Alpha, Beta or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that most of these on-line games are
flawed from the ground up. The only new one I can't comment on is Ultima On-Line, as I
haven't had a chance to play it.
The Realm, for instance, is an excellent example of how a software company said "Hey, on-line
games are going to be really hot, let's do one" before they really understood the market. The
ONLY reason I kept playing it was to determine if "that's all there was" to the product. Totally
lame interface, cartoonly KQ7 characters, no weapon/magic system beyond a rudimentary QFG
set-up, and little or no interaction among game players (except beating on each other). The server
crashed with regularity about every half hour or so.
Suffice it to say, I wouldn't pay 1 cent to play The Realm, be it Beta, Alpha or Final.
>BTW I heard REALM 2.0 is coming out soon.
Ooooooooh, should I get the red or the yellow shirt this time? :>
Stephen Di Ciano
Skinny wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Aug 1996 21:07:19 +0800, Stephen Di Ciano <sdic...@carmen.murdoch.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >> One of the reasons for this IMHO is that there is really nothing interesting to do in these games.
> >> In the case of The Realm, gameplay goes like this "enter game, look for NPC enemies (few and far between),
> >> get into a scuffle with some chumps, game crashes, repeat".
> >>
> >> I can't imagine actually paying for this crap.
> >
> >
> >Have you noticed that they are in the stage of alpha or beta testing ?
> >Maybe when the full version comes out, your opinion on the playibility will change...
> >or maybe not.
>
> Alpha, Beta or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that most of these on-line games are
> flawed from the ground up. The only new one I can't comment on is Ultima On-Line, as I
> haven't had a chance to play it.
Most ? How many have there been ? I can find few to compare...though I agree will the lack
of playibility. But as I said the 'FULL VERSION' ain't out yet.
> The Realm, for instance, is an excellent example of how a software company said "Hey, on-line
> games are going to be really hot, let's do one" before they really understood the market. The
> ONLY reason I kept playing it was to determine if "that's all there was" to the product. Totally
> lame interface, cartoonly KQ7 characters, no weapon/magic system beyond a rudimentary QFG
> set-up, and little or no interaction among game players (except beating on each other). The server
> crashed with regularity about every half hour or so.
A few of your points are very true....but 'no weapon system'...Gee, every fantasy computer game I have
played that has swords, has always allowed you to thrust, parry, disarm and slash, not to mention
pull-blow and roll-with-blow...I wonder why they did not implement all this. <sarcasm>
And your player interaction point leaves much to be desired. Obviously you want character to play chess
with eachother or have realistic sex (not a bad idea :> ).
I'd have to say that some of the stuff they said will be included in the final version are interesting,
such as the races and the quests and the prospect that there will be more than 3 monsters to slay.
> Suffice it to say, I wouldn't pay 1 cent to play The Realm, be it Beta, Alpha or Final.
I hate to tell you mate, but you already did.
> >BTW I heard REALM 2.0 is coming out soon.
> Ooooooooh, should I get the red or the yellow shirt this time? :>
Red.
Steve.