morrolan

Gordon Walton - are you the one who brought us Trammel?

Recommended Posts

This is typical for many people I think, they shun competitive games with more risk to them because who wants to lose stuff you worked hard for right? You pretty much have to experience it to realize that it's that very risk that makes it meaningful and worthwhile in the first place. Everyone should be forced to give games like this a serious try so they can see the error of their ways.  :D

 

I felt the same way about action based combat games until I was led kicking and screaming into them. Lowering the abilities for use at any one time was also exactly the same. 

 

Now I prefer to have 4-6 ability sets I can load at any one time and like having my concerns being more than just tab target to focus fire. 

 

A lot of times we as gamers don't know what we will enjoy until we are plopped right into a situation we are not familiar with. You play nervous and make mistakes but the moment you execute a plan that works toward team goals is a high that hooks you in forever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still feel that FFA PVP can work in a setting like that contemplated by the original UO.  But it would involve some things that many might feel diminish the fun and add tedium.   To wit:

 

- larger worlds with meaningful travel so that if you kill the crossroads ganker they don't just port right back

- game systems that emphasize players relying upon one another and reward cooperation

- game systems that provide for advancement through wider variety of activities not all tied to fighting and killing

- increased accountability through having only one character per account (not a panacea of course, since people can get more accounts, but it helps)

 

I realize the above is very unlikely to ever fly.  Most players want easy quick travel, don't want to have to rely on others, and value the ability to have many alts.  Advancing mainly through killing stuff seems here to stay.  Subscription seems to have given way to BTP or FTP.  Hence GW2 style games are very popular.  Someday someone may go there, but these concepts will remain niche.

 

The thing is, That's still going to rub some people the wrong way.

 

Some people just plain don't WANT to worry about the crossroads ganker, like ever. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

The points you've outlined are all really good pillars on which to design an FFA sandbox, but you also have to realize that the people playing GW2 aren't going to flock to, or even find interest in that style of play.

 

There isn't anything wrong with that. I actually play GW2 myself whenever I want some PvE because I like its content and its campy ongoing story patches that don't require me to grind up gear. They've done a good job of structuring the game around being a casual PvE game, and it fills that niche very well.

 

The biggest boon that the retirement of the subscription model has given the industry is that players don't have to feel obligated to log in to recoup some imagined sunk cost. It allows games to actually have more focused designs, because people are far more likely to play multiple games to scratch multiple itches.

 

I don't like the PvP in GW2, as I feel it lacks consequence, reward and fun. It feels tacked on just to draw the PvP crowd and probably would have been a better game without its inclusion, as it is obvious it isn't a primary development focus for that team. Therefore I don't play it for PvP. I log in every other weekend or so, catch up on some new themepark content, have my fun, and log out. I "main game" whatever sandboxy PvP thing is striking my fancy at the moment, and I "alt game" GW2 for some worry-free PvE now and then.

 

There's nothing wrong with that setup. There's nothing wrong with having separate games for separate preferences.

 

UO tried, and failed, to be all things to all players because the reality is that it just plain doesn't work. FFA sandboxes shouldn't attempt to be more accessible to the types of noncombat players that shy away from them due to the fundamental design of player risk. They should attempt to remain accessible to the types of noncombat players that recognize and enjoy those risk mechanics, and find them fun.

 

I know now and have known many, many crafters, traders, and other noncombat people that find doing these activites in a game like WoW or GW2 hollow. I know a lot of people in GW2 that wouldn't step foot in any environment where they could be ganked or harassed by other players for any reason. Neither group of players is really wrong, they're just two different audiences with different preferences, and it only makes sense that they should be playing two different games.

 

The "original sin" of MMOs wasn't the rise of ganking culture, it was the mistaken ideal that you can make all of the people happy all of the time. The reality is you can't, and you shouldn't try.

 

The market is broad enough to make a stand and say "This is the type of game we are making, and if it isn't what you like go play something else because someone else is making that and it's probably a lot of fun"

 

This prevents developers from getting all sorts of negative press by releasing half-realized systems just to broaden a player base, ensures communities are more cohesive because different parts of your game are not at war with one another for your overall player base, and in general breed competition that is healthy for the industry as a whole.

 

What if you didn't HAVE to make a game with arenas, battlegrounds, pvp ranking, and an overworld filled with connect the dots questing when all you really wanted to make was a game with really tough raid progression? What if you wanted to make a game with no combat at all? Why can't you? With that focused development direction you can cut costs, and as such cut the need to be as acessible as possible because your 2k or 10k population can actually keep you financially solvent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "original sin" of MMOs wasn't the rise of ganking culture, it was the mistaken ideal that you can make all of the people happy all of the time. The reality is you can't, and you shouldn't try.

 

That's well said. *applauds* What? Join, man speaks the very truth.

 

Also, another moment adjacent to that one (and quite on topic of thread). I remember as WoW grew in numbers it episodically, with every expansion more and more, lost MMO veterans I personally knew. They just quit. There were different reason for each of them but most called in list of their reasons one: 'it became casual'. I am not trying to sell 'hardcore' here. But thing is most usual thing for MMORPG of past decade was changing. Sometimes people bought a game and over time it grew into whole another one entirely. Of course I'll mention SWG, but Trammel is - from what I gather, I did not play Ultima Online back then and hardly played at all - good example of such change. All this comes from a reason PopeUrban wrote above. And yes, no one can and no one should try.

 

All my 'yay! ArtCraft' attitude rooted in their demeanor about game they make. 'Not for everyone' and 'we stand by our vision'. While everyone saw a lot of promises in general now and again level of communication alone is nothing I ever encountered. Take this thread. Like it was said before: it was easier to just cut it out. AC didn't.

 

I do not know how this will turn out for me. After all lately I don't PvP that much and I am still not really comfortable with campaign mechanic, I prefer persistent worlds. I bought into explanation why it should be so, still not my thing and it will be some time before we can see implementation. But the honesty about project and the way AC deals with communication calls for respect.

Edited by rolan storm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, when you try making a game for everyone you end up with a game that does nothing for anyone.

 

WOW did what it did for a number of reasons. People forgot it rode in on a beloved 20 year IP from a beloved company that people trusted to put out quality clean products. I remember the first thing I said about WOW was, "its not even full of bugs" because back in the day a typical MMO was stacked with bugs and crashes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully it's clear we are are trying to remake SWG, though we are making crafting as critical to the game ecosystem as the conflict is.

 

Good to know! :D

 

One can dream, back in SWG I rarely pvpd, I had a master architect and master politician(at one point had a bunch of accounts) and was pretty much playing purely for the social aspect and the fact that I ran entire cities.

 

That and the vendor/crafting system to set up harvesters/merchants/factories was pretty amazing.

 

If you can marry Rust and SWG and haz a babby that would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, when you try making a game for everyone you end up with a game that does nothing for anyone.

 

WOW did what it did for a number of reasons. People forgot it rode in on a beloved 20 year IP from a beloved company that people trusted to put out quality clean products.

 

Some do, some don't. I never was Blizzard fan, though. While they did a lot of good games and I played them they never hit anything close enough. Not like Origin, Microprose, Lucasfilm, Interplay, BioWare or Bethesda.

 

WoW was good back in the day. A lot of people said that. I think it is still good, casual or no. They just making game more and more convenient, is all. Also including some add-ons into core UI is appreciated. Still going to play 'Warlords of Draenor' at some point. Probably. Heh.

  

I remember the first thing I said about WOW was, "its not even full of bugs" because back in the day a typical MMO was stacked with bugs and crashes.

 

Yeah, I did not pick up Anarchy Online because of glitchy start. My, that was stupid of me. :) In general MMO back then was horrible code-wise and some of them hardly worked at launch.

Edited by rolan storm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, when you try making a game for everyone you end up with a game that does nothing for anyone.

 

WOW did what it did for a number of reasons. People forgot it rode in on a beloved 20 year IP from a beloved company that people trusted to put out quality clean products. I remember the first thing I said about WOW was, "its not even full of bugs" because back in the day a typical MMO was stacked with bugs and crashes. 

 

Reminds me of American car manufacturers in the late 80s - early 90s.  They did a ton of research figuring out what people hated in cars and designed their models to around that data.  In the end, they had a lot of cars that nobody could complain about, but nobody wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An on the NGE, I'm going to tell that story sometime soon, probably after the Kickstarter (a bit busy until then).  But no, I as not with SOE when the NGE was launched, and it was because of my experience with UO.

 

Kickstarter reached!  I, for one, am extremely interested in your take on this.

 

Side note:  You and I communicated quite a bit during your tenure with SWG.  At one point, I was getting emails from the Gordon family for y'alls plans during the holidays which I found extremely amusing.  I figure your wife was just going "OK, send to everyone in Gordon's email list".  

 

Anyway, I always thought the game was trending in the right way under your direction and really hated to see you go.  (I was also in a very small closed group of testers for SWTOR called the Revanites.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I always thought the game was trending in the right way under your direction and really hated to see you go.  (I was also in a very small closed group of testers for SWTOR called the Revanites.)

 

Really? Hmmm... Can you confirm/deny a few things about SWTOR alpha/closed beta?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, when you try making a game for everyone you end up with a game that does nothing for anyone.

 

This isn't a battle of extremes.  I think there is a large and unexplored gray area between "PvE Candylands" and the "the Hard Core PVP Dream."  

 

The problem is that when anyone tries to explore that grey area, very vocal elements weigh in, demanding to pull the design in one direction or another.  Anyone who disagrees is told "this game isn't for you!" and told to go elsewhere.  It takes a thick-skinned and risk-taking designer to press on with their vision in the face of determined minorities who want what they want, the rest be damned.  As both a RPer and a PVPer, I have seen the "hard core" of both ends of the spectrum and how intolerant and tunnel-visioned they can be.

 

Yes, you can never satisfy everyone.  But that isn't the goal.  The goal is to see if you can build something that will attract not just the two warring extremes, but more of the larger less vocal group of those who might enjoy a bit of both styles.  I think people will surprise you.

Edited by cemya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, That's still going to rub some people the wrong way.

 

Some people just plain don't WANT to worry about the crossroads ganker, like ever. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

The points you've outlined are all really good pillars on which to design an FFA sandbox, but you also have to realize that the people playing GW2 aren't going to flock to, or even find interest in that style of play.

 

There isn't anything wrong with that. I actually play GW2 myself whenever I want some PvE because I like its content and its campy ongoing story patches that don't require me to grind up gear. They've done a good job of structuring the game around being a casual PvE game, and it fills that niche very well.

 

The biggest boon that the retirement of the subscription model has given the industry is that players don't have to feel obligated to log in to recoup some imagined sunk cost. It allows games to actually have more focused designs, because people are far more likely to play multiple games to scratch multiple itches.

 

I don't like the PvP in GW2, as I feel it lacks consequence, reward and fun. It feels tacked on just to draw the PvP crowd and probably would have been a better game without its inclusion, as it is obvious it isn't a primary development focus for that team. Therefore I don't play it for PvP. I log in every other weekend or so, catch up on some new themepark content, have my fun, and log out. I "main game" whatever sandboxy PvP thing is striking my fancy at the moment, and I "alt game" GW2 for some worry-free PvE now and then.

 

There's nothing wrong with that setup. There's nothing wrong with having separate games for separate preferences.

 

UO tried, and failed, to be all things to all players because the reality is that it just plain doesn't work. FFA sandboxes shouldn't attempt to be more accessible to the types of noncombat players that shy away from them due to the fundamental design of player risk. They should attempt to remain accessible to the types of noncombat players that recognize and enjoy those risk mechanics, and find them fun.

 

I know now and have known many, many crafters, traders, and other noncombat people that find doing these activites in a game like WoW or GW2 hollow. I know a lot of people in GW2 that wouldn't step foot in any environment where they could be ganked or harassed by other players for any reason. Neither group of players is really wrong, they're just two different audiences with different preferences, and it only makes sense that they should be playing two different games.

 

The "original sin" of MMOs wasn't the rise of ganking culture, it was the mistaken ideal that you can make all of the people happy all of the time. The reality is you can't, and you shouldn't try.

 

The market is broad enough to make a stand and say "This is the type of game we are making, and if it isn't what you like go play something else because someone else is making that and it's probably a lot of fun"

 

This prevents developers from getting all sorts of negative press by releasing half-realized systems just to broaden a player base, ensures communities are more cohesive because different parts of your game are not at war with one another for your overall player base, and in general breed competition that is healthy for the industry as a whole.

 

What if you didn't HAVE to make a game with arenas, battlegrounds, pvp ranking, and an overworld filled with connect the dots questing when all you really wanted to make was a game with really tough raid progression? What if you wanted to make a game with no combat at all? Why can't you? With that focused development direction you can cut costs, and as such cut the need to be as acessible as possible because your 2k or 10k population can actually keep you financially solvent.

 

Yes, but...

 

I was speaking more from a creative "what is possible but risky" perspective.  Yes, it all goes smoother if we divide the market into niches, with 1,000 MMOs each catering to a niche.  No one has to do anything they don't want to, they are grouped only with like-thinking people, etc.  That works very well and some niches are pretty large.

 

I am talking about the current gap between what is creatively possible and what is perceived to be convenient (and profitable).  The last is very important since nothing gets made and maintained without money.  It also makes you realize why the greatest artists like Michelangelo could only exist due to wealthy patrons.  

 

An MMO scene of a 1,000 niches isn't pre-ordained.  But finding out whether you can transcend that will need a well-funded risk-taker willing to plunge into the unknown.  To basically cross boundaries to create something new and untapped.

 

IMO, Crowfall is doing what they can with what they have.  But I suspect their feature wish-list is much larger and would surprise people at how it would trample across niche boundaries.

Edited by cemya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "original sin" of MMOs wasn't the rise of ganking culture, it was the mistaken ideal that you can make all of the people happy all of the time. The reality is you can't, and you shouldn't try.

 

 

I am not so ready to let people off the hook.  It is not about making everyone happy.  It was about the subset of game populations that live to grief others out of the game, which results in declining populations.

 

These characters inhabit the Internet and are here to stay.  I understand and accept that.  But let's not normalize their behavior as just another play-style.  These folks basically kill MMO freedom, for others and ultimately for themselves.  The creation of Trammel, and all the hard-coded restrictions that infest MMOs to this day, rests on their shoulders, not their victims.  The likelihood that they don't care or actually enjoy that fact doesn't make it less true.

Edited by cemya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But let's not normalize their behavior as just another play-style.  These folks basically kill MMO freedom, for others and ultimately for themselves.  The creation of Trammel, and all the hard-coded restrictions that infest MMOs to this day, rests on their shoulders, not their victims.  The likelihood that they don't care or actually enjoy that fact doesn't make it less true.

Daaaaammmnn! Well said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting thing to note is that the push for bigger audiences leads directly to more "accessible" experiences.  (that's code for directed experiences, that are more forgiving, less intense games which cater a broader group of players).  There are plenty of big companies out there making those types of games (and plenty of  players who want them).

 

We are specifically making our game for players who will like the kind of experience we will create, not trying to cast a wide net to get a mass market audience.  We want the folks who will appreciate an intense gaming experience with real risk, winning *and* losing.  While we want as many players who are engaged in our game as possible, we won't need millions of players to make our game work.

 

So our game won't be for everyone, and we certainly don't want people playing who aren't enjoying the experience.  This is supposed to be an activity we experience as fun after all!

Gordon, as an avid ex UO player, still play on some player run servers here and there, I just want to say thanks for that insight from the other side of screen. What a ride it was man i'll never forget it. I still played UO for quite some time after trammel hit and still enjoyed it. It took a while for the aftermath to hit me when I realised it wasn't just quite the same anymore. What hard decisions to make during a time when every decision was one not pioneered before. It was all unchartered territory at the birth of mmorpgs. I still give all of you guys a lot of respect and with this new game Crowfall hope you and your staff learned an indespensable wealth of knowledge over the years with the likes of shadowbane,UO,SWG. Cheers.

 

Thanks again for the response though I showed it to a few of my UO buddies and they really appreciated the words.

Ha! Busted.

 

Todd

ACE

 

 

Oooosh. 

I love that the Crowfall staff have a sense of humor lol it makes me smile. You guys rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
 

 

THIS.  Emergent behavior leads to relationships.  

 

I believe people need social interaction, on a deep level  -- like hunger, or thirst.   That's why a marathon amusement-park PvE session always leaves me with a hollow feeling, like I eating a 10 lb. bag of popcorn.

 

I'm full, but my body knows it isn't really sustenance, and I'm left feeling empty.

 

 

 

This last point is key.  In fact -- I want to flag this particular note, so that once we've revealed more, we can revisit it.  I'd love to get your opinion on where we are headed.

 

Todd

ACE

 

 ON the other hand this is important to me too. After UO died down i was lost for a while as SWG shut down and i grew bored of WoW. The next home that i visited for up until now was EVE Online. In my personal opinion EVE Online is the ONLY game on the market done well enough and is the actual truest spiritual successor to Ultima Online. I spend a lot of time pvping but one of the most important things is that there is a ridiculous amount of hours i spend doing stuff NOT pvp related. Trading commodities like a real stock market, logisitics, spying, scouting, mining, industry, ETC. I mean the point is what makes a game truly special for sandbox players is also the equal amount of things you can do outside of just plain old combat itself that makes a virtual world an actual world that you feel you live in and shape on different levels instead of just violence. Cheers!

 

Also this is why I ultimately backed you guys because of the EVE inspiration coupled with shadowbane,UO,SWG. Good times

Edited by mavol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 ON the other hand this is important to me too. After UO died down i was lost for a while as SWG shut down and i grew bored of WoW. The next home that i visited for up until now was EVE Online. In my personal opinion EVE Online is the ONLY game on the market done well enough and is the actual truest spiritual successor to Ultima Online. I spend a lot of time pvping but one of the most important things is that there is a ridiculous amount of hours i spend doing stuff NOT pvp related. Trading commodities like a real stock market, logisitics, spying, scouting, mining, industry, ETC. I mean the point is what makes a game truly special for sandbox players is also the equal amount of things you can do outside of just plain old combat itself that makes a virtual world an actual world that you feel you live in and shape on different levels instead of just violence. Cheers!

 

Also this is why I ultimately backed you guys because of the EVE inspiration coupled with shadowbane,UO,SWG. Good times

Don't forget that small bit of Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so ready to let people off the hook.  It is not about making everyone happy.  It was about the subset of game populations that live to grief others out of the game, which results in declining populations.

 

These characters inhabit the Internet and are here to stay.  I understand and accept that.  But let's not normalize their behavior as just another play-style.  These folks basically kill MMO freedom, for others and ultimately for themselves.  The creation of Trammel, and all the hard-coded restrictions that infest MMOs to this day, rests on their shoulders, not their victims.  The likelihood that they don't care or actually enjoy that fact doesn't make it less true.

 

No, you should absolutely normalize that behavior as another playstyle because that's exactly what it is. Denying it or calling it wrong doesn't change the fact that playing exclusively to make other people upset is a valid and vital playstyle, and systems that make that playstyle easier are more accomodating to that playstyle.

 

In fact, a large number of "Open PvP" systems are so light on reward or consequence that the only conceivable reason to PvP it all is to upset others, or prove you can kill people. I'm not that guy, but I know a LOT of people that love that kind of meaningless danger and violence, and they're not wrong in their thinking. They're just different.

 

The degree to which you allow that playstyle to affect your design rests completely on the systems in play to punish or make impossible that type of play. As a developer, you establish the rules. You also make a silent pact with the player base that the system and moderation enforced rules are the limits of play. Part of game design is assuming players are crafty, looking for holes, and looking for advantages. You don't design a game to assume players with follow an inferred rule. You place walls and limits in play to make sure they have to follow the intended rules of the system, and if necessary, you police heavily metagaming aspects that can't be implemented in this manner with a clear and easy to follow set of behavioral guidelines. If you don't want ganking culture in your game, you simply don't make it a possibility. If you want ganking culture in your game but don't want trash talking, you get aggressive on bans for abusive chat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Social Mechanics for Shadowbane, began to mirror that of UO, however the games limitations and the lack of some updated content/support started it's death spiral as well.  I am sure there were many other factors.  I do know that when I finally asked myself what I really wanted out of online gaming it was a deeper richer experience full of immersion and realistic consequences where my choices really matters and I could for real friendships.  PvP does all of that, and Wolfpack was always on the right trail, but Shadowbane needed more content or support then it got, and the Clans needed a reason realistic enough to fight for.

 

I would say that at its end...the vindication/saedron periods...sb 'felt' pretty good. It had pretty much already eaten all of its digestible young, and those of us left were collective that frog who refursed to be eaten.

. never_give_up_travel_mug.jpg?height=250&

 

It will be interesting to see how the lessons...positive and negative...come through in cf's as a final product.

 

it would actually be refreshing to see a who new type of errors and mistakes :) as we're all pretty much accustomed to folks making the exact same ones over and over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so ready to let people off the hook.  It is not about making everyone happy.  It was about the subset of game populations that live to grief others out of the game, which results in declining populations.

 

These characters inhabit the Internet and are here to stay.  I understand and accept that.  But let's not normalize their behavior as just another play-style.  These folks basically kill MMO freedom, for others and ultimately for themselves.  The creation of Trammel, and all the hard-coded restrictions that infest MMOs to this day, rests on their shoulders, not their victims.  The likelihood that they don't care or actually enjoy that fact doesn't make it less true.

 

 

completely disagree. 

 

'Griefing' (however you want to define it) flourishes in environments where rule-sets exists that allow certain players to gain advantages that can't be overcome...or even retaliated against. you get got, there is nothing you could do to stop it, and nothing you can do to get back at whoever did it.

safe zones

pvp flags

level 'tiers'

 

i don't mind being 'ganked'...so long as a game provides me the ability to find the responsible party and make them, and/or everyone sheltering them pay...preferably by reducing their pixels to smoldering ruins. 

 

if players have no choice but to be accountable for their actions, and the game provides the tools to deliver that accountability, the gameworld becomes a decidedly better place...

 

of course a societal microcosm comes into play here...in our wonderful modernness, 'most people' don't want to be accountable for their actions...good or bad. They don't want to be accountable when they do wrong...and they don't want to be responsible for ensuring their own well being (it's someone else's job to keep them safe).

 

in any case...this defines the niche. you get the wolves...lots of wolves...and sheep that wear armor and have developed an appetite for blood soaked grass :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you should absolutely normalize that behavior as another playstyle because that's exactly what it is. Denying it or calling it wrong doesn't change the fact that playing exclusively to make other people upset is a valid and vital playstyle, and systems that make that playstyle easier are more accomodating to that playstyle.

 

In fact, a large number of "Open PvP" systems are so light on reward or consequence that the only conceivable reason to PvP it all is to upset others, or prove you can kill people. I'm not that guy, but I know a LOT of people that love that kind of meaningless danger and violence, and they're not wrong in their thinking. They're just different.

 

The degree to which you allow that playstyle to affect your design rests completely on the systems in play to punish or make impossible that type of play. As a developer, you establish the rules. You also make a silent pact with the player base that the system and moderation enforced rules are the limits of play. Part of game design is assuming players are crafty, looking for holes, and looking for advantages. You don't design a game to assume players with follow an inferred rule. You place walls and limits in play to make sure they have to follow the intended rules of the system, and if necessary, you police heavily metagaming aspects that can't be implemented in this manner with a clear and easy to follow set of behavioral guidelines. If you don't want ganking culture in your game, you simply don't make it a possibility. If you want ganking culture in your game but don't want trash talking, you get aggressive on bans for abusive chat.

 

 

completely disagree. 

 

'Griefing' (however you want to define it) flourishes in environments where rule-sets exists that allow certain players to gain advantages that can't be overcome...or even retaliated against. you get got, there is nothing you could do to stop it, and nothing you can do to get back at whoever did it.

safe zones

pvp flags

level 'tiers'

 

i don't mind being 'ganked'...so long as a game provides me the ability to find the responsible party and make them, and/or everyone sheltering them pay...preferably by reducing their pixels to smoldering ruins. 

 

if players have no choice but to be accountable for their actions, and the game provides the tools to deliver that accountability, the gameworld becomes a decidedly better place...

 

of course a societal microcosm comes into play here...in our wonderful modernness, 'most people' don't want to be accountable for their actions...good or bad. They don't want to be accountable when they do wrong...and they don't want to be responsible for ensuring their own well being (it's someone else's job to keep them safe).

 

in any case...this defines the niche. you get the wolves...lots of wolves...and sheep that wear armor and have developed an appetite for blood soaked grass :)

I agree.

 

When playing UO or Shadowbane, I never felt like anyone was actually playing like a griefer in pvp.

But in more limited pvp games, where mechanics are set up to prevent griefing, somehow, that is where I felt powerless against someone  wanting to ruin my day.

 

It is really odd thinking back, because the people were doing pretty much the same things in all the games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.