Are We A MMO?

I think there are differences. In an MMO everyone is the hero. Everyone kills the evil dragon, who then respawns. Everyone rescues the princess who is kidnapped again and again. There are no consequences to what I do. I could even chose to not rescue the princess, it wouldn't make any difference.
In a single-player game I kill the dragon, it never respawns, the people cheer when they see me. I alone rescue the princess and she is not kidnapped again. She mighte ven marry me and the land prospers. If I don't rescue her then she might die and the land mourns for her and plunges into chaos.

But aside from that I wonder why they chose the wording single-player narrative. If - as you say - the narrative in an MMO and a single-player game is the same why use this term at all?

 

Oh yes they came and go, were corrupted, many were partying with "RMT money" all night long and never came at the job on time but as much as there were "bad apples" there were geniuses and great community leaders.

It's funny I was thinking about it earlier, and if my best friend didn't give me any hint on the UO storyline I probably would have never found it, the chance in such a big world to fall upon an event or clues (if you weren't following Britannian News Network closely, and even then) was very slim. There was supposed to be NPC integration and all... but live game being live it was all pretty much running after the clock and people didn't have time to complete what they started because of the corruption and deliberate stick in the wheels (to enhance RMT profits, moves that weren't as obvious at first).

I understand what you say about EA but you cannot generalize either, let me say that the people who did UO @ EA were every bit as passionate as Origin folks about the continuity and integrity of the story, in fact even after our liege left, many kept on wanting to honor his art. Many I got to know were total fans and pushed so that UO would remain alive even after it became less profitable for EA.

But then, jump back in time, corruption... as I've explained before I was a foolish little boy and had found a way to break the game from behind the scenes (and abused it, not proud of it, at least it wasn't for money but to attract EA's attention after I was left on my own for months without updates following the court episode with the GMs and firing of the whole live teams), I wanted to trade that knowledge with EA for a job (the begged me for it at some point, made me a companion without any contract, on the spot) I was to become a world builder... a few weeks later I was famous and many people contacted me, even total strangers from all around the world to know how I came up with such an ingenuous script.

I was floored... then I found out that the person I trusted with the knowledge @EA was a disguised RMT actor (I'm not by all means accusing all RMT folks, just a few really bad ones that made a fortune with UO dupes and hacks and then much worse). He had shared my scripts even on the worse hacker networks like skunk works and UOExtreme.

They didn't know that I had done my homework and had contacts also spying from the inside, and soon I knew for SURE who are the people who "bought" UO from our liege. They used the legal problems to force him to sell, he did not abandon us.

Of course they couldn't displace the whole EA UO team, but they took control and turned the game into a RMT heaven with age of shadows... (fitting title don't you think?)

Almost perfect crime, then the RMT folks moved unto other games, opened operations in china and other poor places where they paid children to farm other games that couldn't be hacked and abused like UO. They never even denied it and there are multiple interviews you can find about it, they were actually bragging about it, even disclosing profit amounts.

But detective Ahu and his companions found the truth.

The thing is that times change... thats why I keep saying PUSH FOR INNOVATION, all over the place.

Because as long as your system is based upon virtual goods and you have gated content and controlled conflict, you are bound to end up in stagnation and creation takes the back seat. Sure we have devs creating, but I am speaking of the co-creative collaboration that makes a world alive.

If your system lets those bad apples profit more than the devs on your own title, then the system needs to evolve along with the times, no band-aids but a total flipping inside out and renewing of mechanics.

I am not particularly good at programming, designing, engeneering anymore... I'll be honest, but I have the virtues on my side, and the reward was to see the evolution of such a genius system (that was UO) in the future.

I know I talk about the wisps all the time, seem to make tons of continuity errors (thats what travelling in time does to you)...

If I was portalarium I would be "oh look at that freak, lol"...

totally understandable Once they get over the novelty then you might see your dream come true Bowen, and you could be the 7th person on the team. (for luck, and for your great attention span and logical/analytical capability)

You see why I insist on making it all public, to polish the truths we have uncovered ?

Oh I could have hid key details and not have gone through that maddening process... but since I am not the one who came up with the ideas (the wisp did) it would be wrong.

That was a lesson in humility, to realise that what I saw in visions and lucid dreams weren't the creation of my own mind but rather came from the emotional charge combined with genius combined with a very sophisticated AI that took life of its own.

That is why I irradiate doom and gloom sometimes and people would rather not have to deal with me, I'm an annoyance because I am a living reminder that we need to evolve, and this before another AI becomes powerful enough to grasp those concepts.

Then the idea that was created all thanks to the hard work of folks @Origin @EA and @Portalarium would be stolen, distorted and corrupted.

I am not going to let this happen.

Have a good day brother

 

How many people per scene does not influence whether its "massively" multiplayer online.... the fact that it has multiple instances and many scenes going on at once satisfies the criteria for "MMO". Why is this still even being debated?

 

Everyone who plays the same single-player games as you are also heroes. If you were hypnotized and convinced that every other player is an NPC, you'd think you'd be playing a single-player game. So the only difference is that, for you, the illusion is broken the moment you see and identify another player.

In a single-player game like Skyrim, when I kill and wipe out a bandit camp, it comes back after a few days. If I kill a dragon, another one will take its place. If you don't rescue the princess, she'll be waiting for you until you do with no consequences.
In Zelda, I can waste my time cooking food or do silly carnival challenges and Zelda's will still be there.
In Dragon Age: Origins, I can make a companion hate me for murdering all of the rogue mages but, after a couple of gifts, that companion will forget all about it and love me.

In GuildWars 2, there are stories that you cannot experience because you weren't there at the time. I witnessed the fall of Lion's Arch among thousands of other players, but my actions (with the help of others) determined whenever or not the city would stay intact. It will never be the same town again. You start the game right now and you will see the aftermath of what we, as a community, have done (or failed to do).

It's not the medium that make these differences, it's the developers.

Because one is played online with a massive amount of people and some MMOs have no narrative at all. Beyond that, it's just a PR move... just like no-man-sky's sold the idea that the universe was infinite and that the likelyhood of seeing another player were very slim.

Because people are obsessed with labels.

 

It's an MMO and MMORPG. It allows you play in the full MP world or to go into solo/group/friends, etc. instancing. It has an optional single player side as well. None of that changes the fact it's still an MMORPG. People keep wanting to change definitions by their own preferences and that is not how it works. Why is this even still being debated here?

 

You are right about some of it. Its changed since the first iterations but indeed not enough.

It's been somewhat decentralized, but theres still alot of work to do. There are ways to go around those limitations and I am sure I am not the only one aware of it.

 

Because people have been left in the dark about the true vision for a little too long ? It seems obvious...

 

Wth does that even mean or have to do with the question of whether we are an MMO / MMORPG, or not? Sounds like people are just throwing things in there to convolute the question.

 

They do, I didn't deny that... and I have been tempted to tell them, but that is their right.

One great saying is that if you cannot teach it to a child, then you are not going about it the right way

 

What is it with all the "guru" stylized talk from posters in these forums?

Still does not take away or change anything from the fact that it's still an MMO/MMORPG. Why even defend any of the red herrings if it's not true? You're just empowering them to continue to do so.

 

You argue it is, some argue it isn't.

Everyone should be empowered. This is what forums are for, to collect feedback that has stood the test of time through violent mud pit style arguments

About your accusation of me being a guru... HA, HAHAHAHA !

*rofls*

 

It's not an argument. It is a fact. Arguing against facts is not empowerment. This is not a lecture of what forums are for. Never accused you of being a guru either.

 

Sure some single-player game borrow elements from MMOs. But let's take the Witcher 3 for example. If I free the mansion from the ghosts they are gone. If I lift the curse from the old woman, she is herself again - or I can kill her or or leave her alone.
I couldn't do this in a MMORPG. Not because I identify other players but because they are doing the exact same things I do in my world, in my game. I can even watch them doing this. This is not the case in a single-player game. In MY game there are no other players or heroes lifting the curse of freeing the mansion. Yes, they may do this in their games and in their worlds but this doesn't affect me as I don't have to see it. In my world there is just me and only I am doing the quests. I am the hero, only I lift the curse and only I free the mansion and this has lasting consequences for my game.

 

Well you think its a fact, science and logic is all about arguing against facts and verifying if they still apply after we find new facts. You are asking for this not to happen ?

I'm not sure I get who you were accusing of being a guru then... sure my posting style and vocabulary have spread like wildfire round here, its always nice to see but I cannot see anyone with such an attitude here. In fact I'm the only freak around that even hints at something mystical going on...

 

This is generally the way they make MMORPGs for the masses, where everyone has their chance to do whatever quest or put their imput upon the world. Sometimes only dialogue changes. In some mmorpgs the world changes. Those that havent done the events are usually in a pre-questpath instance. Those that have are placed in another so they can see their actions in effect. It would be crazy to ask any developer to make it where everyone who joins the game have a completely separate experience and yet effect the gaming world at the same time, in a story/quest fashion. You can arguably say that some can have unique experiences and impact the world just by being merchants and selling goods they craft or acquire.

But my question in this whole line of talk is... why is this a concern with whether it's an MMO/MMORPG? It would still be one regardless of all this other stuff.

 

It's because SotA is described as sandbox-MMORPG with a single-player narrative and I try to find out what and where this single-player narrative is. Right now playing the quests is like playing the quests in any other MMORPG. So what makes this "single-player narrative" a single-player narrative and special?

 

It's an MMO/MMORPG. It meets all the criteria. There is nothing contrariwise to make it not so. That is a fact.

I didn't accuse you of being a guru. I asked why there were so many people with "guru" stylized talk from posters. There are many. Its the posting of bits of "enlightenment" people around her have a tendency to do whether or not it has anything to do with the forum subject.

 

Supposedly your experience is different in the "Single player mode" with quest, storyline, and experience. You can even have npc companions.

 

Welcome to the paradox... I have been worshipped and hated about equally as much, so theres people who want to be me, and people who want to be the exact opposite.

That is the magic of this game and why "the original avatar" is different from the term "Avatar" which means basically a projection of your own self within various worlds/dimensions.

There is continuity, there is integrity, I guess you better start getting used to it

BTW, welcome on the forums, I look forward to your contributions.

 

In the original GuildWars, once I've defeated the Lich, that lich is gone from my game. In my world, there is just me and only I am doing the quests. If I party with other players, the world is populated with characters that is fitting for each player in the group. I will never see that lich again.

That's why I say that your concerns are only based on whenever or not the illusion is broken. You're far less likely to have that illusion broken in a single-player game, but that doesn't mean that the games are fundamentally different.

The stories and quest progressions work the same way. The dialogues work the same way. The sidequests work the same way. The difference is that you see other players and that other guy can steal your mining node.

I am specifically telling you that it's possible in MMOs and I'm telling you that some single-player games do the same things that MMOs do when it comes to respawning enemies (including the ones you use as examples... like the Witcher). Whenever or not the game is multi-player is not the issue; it's how you build the game that makes or break that illusion.

Phasing and instancing technology prevents you from seeing players that haven't killed the Lich yet... because, in your instance, that Lich is already dead.

Here's another example: Destiny.

Destiny is a first-person shooter that very much borrows from Halo's single-player campaign. It opens up where you can meet other players in the game because, like in SotA, everyone's a potential savior but, as far as you can tell, only you end up defeating the ultimate enemy. When you group with other players, you as a team become the saviors. That's the story.

The economy of the game is different in single-player but I believe the quests are identical. I just don't understand why you can't have companions in multi-player. Guildwars does it and it's an amazing feature.