Do you play MMORPGs?

[CannibalBob]

No. Something about having have to pay to play a game I paid for doesn't seem right. I don't care if the developers need to update the world all the time. To me, that doesn't seem like something worth $7 a month.

[fable]

Originally posted by CannibalBob
No. Something about having have to pay to play a game I paid for doesn't seem right. I don't care if the developers need to update the world all the time. To me, that doesn't seem like something worth $7 a month.

Your choice. I prefer to think of it as paying for a game on installments. Even so, if you don't like the idea, there are literally more than a hundred smaller, text-based MUDs and MUCKs which are fun but don't charge a thing.

[dragon wench]

I have considered MMPORGS, but truthfully I am a bit wary of playing a game OL with people I do not know; I would rather play IWD or SoA with friends. I know this sounds a little hyperbolic, and I suppose it is, but for me MMPORGs seem somewhat analagous to frequenting pickup bars in RL. There does not seem to be much meaningful contact, and often you really don't know what you are getting into. Which works fine for some people, but it doesn't much appeal to me personally.

Um... okay... I'm paranoid...

*dons asbestos armour*

[Gwalchmai]

I don't know much about MMORPGs (I don't even know what that stands for! Mighty Morphin Online Rat Patrol Games?), so I appreciate the information provided by Draephon. The idea of an on-line game where people would have the luxury of chatting in-character and occasionally doing something (like killing goblins or saving a town) is very appealing. Of course, my major online experience has been in SYM, and we've seen role-playing stories start up that mirror what MMORPGs must be like, but without the visuals. Maybe that would be fun. But the fact is, I perforce have to keep to games I can play in a solitary mode, since my time is so limited.

Is Argyle and other NWN persistent worlds considered MMORPGs?

[Aegis]

NWN attempts some form of PW, but it isn't anywhere near the scope or reliability of MMORPG's (massive multiplayer online role playing games, just so you know )

[Xandax]

Originally posted by CannibalBob
No. Something about having have to pay to play a game I paid for doesn't seem right. I don't care if the developers need to update the world all the time. To me, that doesn't seem like something worth $7 a month.

Considering I, when I played MMO.games, (none out at the moment that I feel I like to play - but got my eyes on 3-4 currently, some near or in beta), I played one for about on and off 2 years over a periode of 2½ year and another for 6 months. In that periode of time I purchased maybe 2-3 other games totally over 3 years. Then I feel it is more cheap then haveing to shell out much more money for a game that last no where near that long. Of couse one needs to be captivated by the game, otherwise there is little reason to pay2play

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
<snip>
Is Argyle and other NWN persistent worlds considered MMORPGs?

Nope - they are no where near "massive" enough. They are simply multiplayer online RPGs. Massive indicates (up to)thousands of players. That is one of the charmes in MMO.games in my oppinion. I actually miss some of the players I formed "in-game" friendship with in DAoC. (but larger populations equals more idiots also )

[CannibalBob]

Well my comments on MMORPGs is that it doesn't seem to GO anywhere. There's no grand storyline that you get involved in.

It's mostly levelling up and buying more fancy stuff. What I like about IWD(1+2), BG(1+2), etc. online is that you go through the story with friends, and it's an actual story!

[Xandax]

Well - MMO.games "go" (can) just as far as Single Player games. You just have to remember, in MMO.games there are thousands that experience the same story line.

In DAoC for instance, many quests are connected, do one to open up for another that continues a specific story line (where there are many story lines). That is the same way single player games work (BG2: Pay 10.000 gold to get to next chapter?). There are just many more quests, and more that keeps getting added. So there - story lines are developed and expanded constantly.

In EVE-Online, the developers have done much for the players to involve the story line of the universe. For instance when the old emperer of one of the "races" died, all players of that race (each player belonged to a "house", that they selected a character creation) would battle against each other (sort of a civil-war/contest) and the winners "house" was allowed to elect a new emperor from that house. Of couse this didn't mean that a player became emperor, but the player had influence on the game universe.

I've seen such things happen many times in both DAoC and EVE-online.

But yes, much of the games in MMO. games is about "leveling" up, buying fancy stuff and getting better then your enemies - but such is it in most all games, - you level up and get better equiptment in BG2 also, there you just compete with computer controlled NPCs.

But much of the MMO. atmosphere is - you are doing so with and against thousands of other players at once.

[fable]

I've heard the term MMORPG applied to small MUDs and EverCrack, so I suspect "massively mulitplayer online roleplaying game" is now a generic term that has unfortunately come to stay. And in a sense, it's just as accurate for 100 people as 10,000. You can feel crowded in a small world for very few netizens, while a world that sustains 15,000 simultaneously can feel relatively empty if you've got enough activities and areas to keep them relatively separate. The important thing is to build a sense of community, a feeling that the game comprises a separate reality, and a secure environment.

It's true that MMORPGs lack plot, in general. Remember, the go-anywhere kind of CRPG tends to be like this, while the game with a clear storyline tends to be linear; the best traditional standalone CRPGs, like BG2 and Planescape: Torment effect a compromise between the two, and camouflage the linearity by throwing multiple sidequests at you which appear of a similar order of importance as the main path through the game.

MMORPGs can't really do this effectively. When I was working as a developer for one MMORPG for several years, we attempted to build large quests into our game. The idea was that we would run the same quest once or twice a day, in a special area, with limited attendance. The people who came in had to split up into parties, and generally start in different areas. We monitored all the parties, their activities and comments. If we ever got the sense that anybody had found out the details in advance from someone who had played before, and was trying to max out their experience and item gain, they were yanked from the area, and quizzed. If this was confirmed, they were banned from taking part, and anything they'd gained thus far was removed from 'em.

These quests were *extremely* DM-intensive. They had to be, because there was no way you could predict exactly how the customers would react in a complex, event-heavy area. It would have been much easier, IMO, to simply build more plotless regions, develop an elaborate new merchant faire, or even add a new gaming subsystem than run these quests--but the bosses wanted 'em.

And they were popular. Players with characters above a certain level really enjoyed the change of pace, the complex puzzles, the unexpected monsters, surprises, and the goodies they took away with pride. So...yes, themed plots are possible in wide-open MMORPGs, but they're damn hard to do.

[CannibalBob]

Well Morrowind is definitely non-linear, but there are a lot of "plots", like joining each guild and doing each quest. I think if Morrowind were to be converted to a MMORPG, it would work quite well, with a few changes (ie.NPCs are invincible. Otherwise, everyone would be dead!)

[fable]

Originally posted by CannibalBob
Well Morrowind is definitely non-linear, but there are a lot of "plots", like joining each guild and doing each quest.

Only if you redefine "plots" to mean "a simple chain of quests having very little roleplaying interactivity with complex NPCs," and that's typical of the non-linear genre (Morrowind, Might and Magic, Wizardry, etc). If by plot, we mean an intensive, large-scale story that involves extensive interaction with a host of important and secondary characters that can go down multiple paths--then, no. Morrowind is a wonderful RPG environment, but there's little personality to nearly everybody you encounter, and virtually no conversational customization according to personal approach. I dearly love Morrowind; but by contrast, the plots of BG2 and PS:T feel a lot less like a series of combat encounters strung together. The trade off is that non-linearity means you can concetrate on localizing and personalizing the feel of those few areas, encounters and NPCs a PC or party finds.

[corsair]

I dont play MMORPG's for one reason: Lack of dead presidents.
Really people, like I have an extra 10 bucks a month to keep my account active.

[fable]

Originally posted by corsair
I dont play MMORPG's for one reason: Lack of dead presidents.
Really people, like I have an extra 10 bucks a month to keep my account active.

The irony is that ten years ago, before AOL broke the dam with its "30 days free," MMORPGs on the Web were several dollars an hour, with special rates applying on weekends. Those were the days when on GEnie there were players we called "credit parollees," because they'd show up in Gemstone III and play for huge amounts of time until their credit cards went into hock; then pay it all offline; then show up some more.

$10/month doesn't seem like that much by today's standards in most relatively affluent middleclass Euro-Asian-American families. But I think that the MMORPG boom will eventually bust for a variety of reasons--just as I predicted ten years ago that the boom itself would ultimately happen. (Had an editor back then who told me to shut up when I wanted to do a feature on 'em, and said that MMORPGs wouldn't hit for 25 years.)

[Xandax]

Originally posted by corsair
I dont play MMORPG's for one reason: Lack of dead presidents.
Really people, like I have an extra 10 bucks a month to keep my account active.

Well - if it is a game you like, then considere it another game each month for $10.

In Denmark, with our game prices, I could subscripe to DAoC for about 5-6 months for the price of 1 newly released game in retail. (And I played for about 2 years)

Not many games have had that longevity in my gaming world

So that would proberly have ment that I would have bought more games, if I hadn't played DAoC, which would have resulted in a higher expense over that periode of time.

[CannibalBob]

MMORPGs will definitely become more popular, as they prevent piracy. Sure you can download the game and all, but to actually PLAY it, you have to pay for it for sure. I guess for some games you can find cracked servers or whatever, but its a pain to play on those as the servers can be brought down anytime and such.

Just one problem, $10 a month isn't that expensive, true, but the method of payment is a problem. Face it, most PC gamers don't HAVE credit cards. Gamers' ages can span from 7 to 2,000 (those damn elves!). I know I started gaming around 6, and I'm sure there are kids that start gaming in these years. There's no reason why they can't play a Star Wars MMORPG or something! $10 is not a lot of money for them either, especially since it's monthly.