If you made an MMO without killing, or at least one where killing is reserved for situations worthy of it (and we must remember that back in the D&D days, while a good battle was the usual way of ending a fun night, most of that night had been spent doing other things), then you could be a lot smarter with bosses and storylines. You can’t have the world change when Uberbear gets killed for every player unless killing Uberbear is a signficiant achievement. One that would have to be prepared for and would take the determined efforts of many people over a long period of time.

That’s a problem with games like WoW and EQ2. Venril Sathir, in EQ2, is a legendary opponent with a long history in lore. And yet I could solo him in EQ1 and he is seen as a trivial gateway mob in EQ2. Clearly killing him SHOULD change the world in a significant way, yet it doesn’t. Clearly it should be something more like “Acolyte of Sathir” or something. But it isn’t.

Anyway, the MMOs work the way they work because people want to know they can always have the experience of killing a big baddie, and if they liked it enough to do it again, they can. This is just giving players more things to do that are fun, and I have no problem with it, however questionable it might be given the lore. You can think of it just being fair — player characters don’t stay dead, so monsters rez and respawn, too!

It’s that division between GAME and SANDBOX — MMOGs always have to remember that they are a game, and their purpose is to give you interesting ways to have fun. You can go total SANDBOX like in Second Life, make your own raid scenario if you like, complete with boss, hand out little tickets good for one visit only, and hand them out to everyone you know. But would you really refuse to give someone another ticket for a second trip through?

Single player games can have the world revolve around the single player. I think it’s dangerous for MMOs to copy single player games too much.

I LOVE dead Zombies (after their undeath that is…)

But, your option would work as well,,,new dragon settles in after time, etc..

Hey …we are postulating anyways. My theory is based on how they had an example of quests in Guild Wars 2. I doubt repetition will ever disappear from MMO’s…lol.

I am sure that Dragon resets after a while..

But what if it did not?

I would like MY one character to experience a situation once, and be done. I don’t want to go kill Raid Boss Myjel 4 times a week.
I want him to stay DEAD after I kill him…for me.

Especially if, as in your example, you get to kill the dragon, and I get to cut lumber.

Now, if you made a quest for which had a persistent state such that one group comes in, kills the dragon, gets its treasure and leaves, and then another one rebuilds the town, and another replaces the cattle, and that ends with another dragon moving in and the whole thing resets, well, that could be pretty fun — has everything you wanted, but everyone can eventually see all the parts.

Fable 2, I dunno. Being a PS3 owner, I won’t get to see it. But I will get to see LittleBigPlanet, and I’ll be writing about how that goes here.

I agree…somewhat.

Like the Dragon example.

Say the village is attacked by that dragon…well, bummer, you missed that quest.

But, now the Villagers are rebuilding that village, and oh no, they need extra wood for the tiki bar hut@! (hehe)
Then you must go into the forest not far from there and get the wood..
ooo…nasty undead there, so you kill a few, and get the wood and go back.
OH NO, now come to find out a spirit lives within this wood that was to protect the forest, and now the Undead want their wood back (hmm)

So, this is not to say that the adventure just stops. But changes to reflect the situation?
Would this even be possible with today’s developers capabilities?
But, maybe you are correct. WE need to be designing these games dangit, as I would play that game I just described!!!

I am interested in how Fable 2 will handle their multiplayer world design where changes you make affect your world. Yet, now someone else can come to that world…and THEY can make changes there (like the infamous video of the other player killing Peters husband…lol…oh my!)
How does THAT play into this concept?

Thanks for a great “mind massaging” post.

I remember the uproar on Stromm when we woke the Sleeper, a once-in-a-server event that changed Sleeper’s Tomb forever once done (killing the real cash cows that other guilds were exploiting along the way, but anyway).

Asheron’s Call had a bunch of server events, one every month, that players could influence. I have never played Ryzom — I want to, but I just am overscheduled as it is :(

But what I really meant was, devs can only do so much. And there’s nothing about a dev that says there aren’t players out there who could design something better. There’s ALWAYS someone out there better than you are. But maybe these master designers couldn’t get a job in the game industry or are happy doing whatever else they do but would make cool stuff if given the chance? History has shown that the stuff these untapped players come up with can be up to par or better than the efforts from internal developers. Half Life: Counterstrike or WC3: Defense of the Ancients are the usual examples, but there are hundreds more. Hero’s Journey was meant to have nearly all of its content be player created.

I’m not a level designer or an artist; I’m a writer. Do I think I can do better than a ‘kill ten rats’ mission? Yes. But that’s not a stretch. Do I think I can craft a piece of lore into a long quest that would tell a fun story, give you a sense of accomplishment, and add something new to the genre? Yeah. I want a chance to do that. I’m going to GET my chance when CoX Issue 14 comes out.

And I bet every single player out there has come up against some quest or mission and said, you know, here’s a story they didn’t tell, about this graveyard, or that mountain, or those ruins over there, they could be more than a skeleton respawn point. Or maybe a flipside thing where the players play monsters waiting around for other players to try and kill them (yes, EverQuest has their monster missions and LotRO their Creeps vs Freeps… more of that, please!).

Companies are increasingly handing the tools to the players and inviting them to play. It’s coming, and it is the sign of the REAL next generation of MMOs. Not a retread. Something actually new.

But, this seems to be in line with something that Saylah at Mystic Worlds wrote about, and the fact that people may enjoy themselves more if they were not lead by the nose.

So based on that concept (I still hate the word “Sandbox” as it is difficult to do I think, but somewhat applies) what if the changes you made to the world held on?

One developer (I think I posted on this a while back, but has entered the ether since then) has discussed a setting where if you “rescue the princess” in their game, that the Princess cannot be rescued by another player.

This type of scripting may be more in line of what this genre needs.

Guild Wars 2 has been discussing real world events taking place, and not being “scripted” but random.

One day a village is attacked by a Dragon, and anyone that is there can join to defeat it. But, any damage the village receives will stay until the villagers repair it. If the villagers are all killed, then a new set of people may move into that plot of land and build.

Sounds very much like Black and White except the Gods are the developers, and the NPC AI is in line of a “God game”.

Is this off, or is it what you envision?

But your walker scooping up my meat beasts was hilarious!

Overall, what matters isn’t that the industry is moving forward or backward. Whats important is that MMO developers create compelling, motivating and unique game systems that drive the player experience. How we define those parameters is up to each individual MMO studio.