again its there just not the way YOU want it so you complain some more

That's like saying we already have swoop-racing because there are speeders on offer. It's already there in the game, just not the way we want it.

And how am I complaining, exactly? I'm just inviting discourse, trying to see what players would like to see in the future of MMOs in general, and SWTOR specifically.

Was, was. He died years ago.

and might I add, he died in 1992. The concept of Artificial Intelligence when he actually created the 3 laws was virtually non-existent. The fact that he had the foresight to predict that a sentient artificial being would turn on human beings unless some extraordinary measure were taken is to be commended. Not to mention the guy practically self-invented the entire genre of robot fiction. You can't be a visionary of that proportion and be stupid.

As a regress, I am pretty sure that the Pod Racing game was licensed to another company. I could be wrong, but if I am not, adding a pod racing element to this game could be interpreted as patent infringement.

and might I add, he died in 1992. The concept of Artificial Intelligence when he actually created the 3 laws was virtually non-existent. The fact that he had the foresight to predict that a sentient artificial being would turn on human beings unless some extraordinary measure were taken is to be commended. Not to mention the guy practically self-invented the entire genre of robot fiction. You can't be a visionary of that proportion and be stupid.

 

As a regress, I am pretty sure that the Pod Racing game was licensed to another company. I could be wrong, but if I am not, adding a pod racing element to this game could be interpreted as patent infringement.

Just a thought -- I take it you don't know who Alan Turing is? If you did -- you'd slap yourself in the face after writing that first paragraph.

That's like saying we already have swoop-racing because there are speeders on offer. It's already there in the game, just not the way we want it.

 

And how am I complaining, exactly? I'm just inviting discourse, trying to see what players would like to see in the future of MMOs in general, and SWTOR specifically.

you complained mmos were not taking steps in these directions I pointed out swtor is exactly the kind of single player influenced mmo your talking about just in its beginning stage

the features are there the game is only a year old and has had some pretty pressing problems that were way more important than the features you gave as examples.

swtor was designed as a bioware game [just like DA and ME] but in a new genre. you cant have super awesome new innovative game at launch it will need to grow into a real bioware game but has taken longer due to it being a mmo and having to deal with mmo players demands first

you complained mmos were not taking steps in these directions I pointed out swtor is exactly the kind of single player influenced mmo your talking about just in its beginning stage

 

the features are there the game is only a year old and has had some pretty pressing problems that were way more important than the features you gave as examples.

 

swtor was designed as a bioware game [just like DA and ME] but in a new genre. you cant have super awesome new innovative game at launch it will need to grow into a real bioware game but has taken longer due to it being a mmo and having to deal with mmo players demands first

Now you're talking.

I hope you're right, that it's just a matter of time before SWTOR does implement some of the feature we discussed, and that they just haven't do so yet by virtue of its infancy.

I don't think they are.

I think that SWG came closest so far but in my opinion the money men got a hold of MMORPG's once they saw how popular WOW became and realised they could make a Quid or Two out of these games, from then on I think componies have copied the WOW model for quick buck and now no one else dare try anything to out of the box through fear of failure.

The best chance we have of see'ing another truely innovative MMORPG in my opinion is if it is made in someones bedroom. but then the money men will take hold again, rince repeat...

I don't think they are.

 

I think that SWG came closest so far but in my opinion the money men got a hold of MMORPG's once they saw how popular WOW became and realised they could make a Quid or Two out of these games, from then on I think componies have copied the WOW model for quick buck and now no one else dare try anything to out of the box through fear of failure.

 

The best chance we have of see'ing another truely innovative MMORPG in my opinion is if it is made in someones bedroom. but then the money men will take hold again, rince repeat...

I see where you're coming from, but I have a little more faith in the creativity and ambition of a select few professional developers.

Just a thought -- I take it you don't know who Alan Turing is? If you did -- you'd slap yourself in the face after writing that first paragraph.

well, if your going to bring up Alan Turing, I will raise you the Abacus and the Antikythera Mechanism. In otherwords citing Alan Turing as the inventor of the modern sci fi genre of artificial intelligence assumes that he set out with intent of creating an artificially intelligent being and not a computational machine. In which case you might as well assume that the same was true of both those ancient artifacts.

MMO potential isn't actually creating virtual worlds, Elf. Sorry to burst that bubble.

You see, the reality is that the potential of the MMO game is to waste your time. That's it. It's purpose, intention and end result is a massive time waste. Seems a bit wrong, sure, but it's all in the name of good entertainment. I mean really, name some for of fun that's productive. It's impossible.

Are MMO's fulfilling their potential?

No, they are not.

Other than bells and whistle being improved, the games themselves are devolving.

The players have been "tricked" into thinking that endgame is what it is all about. This means the adventuring (levelling) part of the game, which used to actually be the game, is now an afterthought to be burned through as fast as possible. This has been done because it is either too much work or too expensive to design and develop compelling adventuring games. It is much cheaper and easier to knock out a few short missions and have people play them over and over. It's been a brilliantly nefarious plan. Devolve the adventuring/levelling part of the game into nothing more than a boringly repetitive grind to minimize the importance of it so that you can yank it away from players and have them actually be thankful for the removal of content.

The multiplayer part of the game has devolved into near irrelevance. An MMO that can be solo'ed from start to finish is a complete waste of the genre. Yes, some people prefer to solo but why bother playing an MMO if that is the case? Why pay a subscription to play a game when you have so many actual solo games to play for the price of the box.

Cash shops are another sign of this devolution. Everything in cash shops used to be included in the game for the price of subscription. Again, they have conditioned the customers into not only accepting this, but to actually embrace it. They have done this gradually. It started by holding features back long enough that the players will be so happy when they are finally added that they will pay extra for them. Now players actually think charging extra is good and that these features would never be implemented without extra charges even though that was not the case just a few years ago. And they haven't stopped there. Now, new content and features can't even bought outright, but have to be purchased via gambling bags/lottery tickets.

The "innovation" in TOR is voice over and cutscenes. Wing Commander had both, with much better actors. Fallout had many known actors voicing the NPC's, and had branching plots with actual multiple outcomes that actually affected the outcome of the story. This was nearly 20 years ago, and now an "innovative" feature is a lesser version of these predecessors.

MMO potential isn't actually creating virtual worlds, Elf. Sorry to burst that bubble.

 

You see, the reality is that the potential of the MMO game is to waste your time. That's it. It's purpose, intention and end result is a massive time waste. Seems a bit wrong, sure, but it's all in the name of good entertainment. I mean really, name some for of fun that's productive. It's impossible.

That's a bit nihilistic a viewpoint, isn't it?

Nope. Simply because of the cost of making MMO content. Anything a singleplayer does cost at least twice as much to do in an MMO. Along with that, unlike Singleplayer games, MMO players focus heavily on the end-game content. In a way, we can blame our playstyle for the "raiding" priority focus in MMOs.

So what? A subscriber playing an MMO will pay more than double the cost of a solo game in less than 4 months.

Some MMO players do focus on the endgame but MMO's are now designed to do just that. The game has been changed to make it easier and cheaper to make, not to make it more fun to play. That is accomplished by shifting the focus to what used to be 5% of the game.

That's a bit nihilistic a viewpoint, isn't it?

A bit, yeah. But it's the accurate viewpoint. Video games, hell all games in general, were created solely to waste time. Can't spend your whole life with a goal, you'd go mad and kill yourself. Though, flip side, too much wasted time and you'd die of stagnation. That's why it's good to have a blend of both. A good balance of waste and work and you'll generally live to see 80, give or take a falling piano.

MMO potential isn't actually creating virtual worlds, Elf. Sorry to burst that bubble.

 

You see, the reality is that the potential of the MMO game is to waste your time. That's it. It's purpose, intention and end result is a massive time waste. Seems a bit wrong, sure, but it's all in the name of good entertainment. I mean really, name some for of fun that's productive. It's impossible.

I could potentially list half a dozen things that are fun or for fun that are productive in some manner of argumentation. MMO's (at least the first person shooter variety or so I am told) are one such example. Did you know that Brain Surgeons practice their eye hand coordination by playing video games?

I happen to think that, as constantly evolving products, MMOs have the most potential out of all the video-game genres. Especially fully voiced MMOs, like SWTOR.

 

Adaptive conversation systems, meticulously crafted NPC reactions to cater individual players, unparalleled amounts of musical scores triggering automatically depending on the area and situation, conversation interrupt mechanisms (a la Mass Effect 2), voice-triggered emotes/abilities, player-choice, etc... are some of the ways in which I think the genre—and specifically, SWTOR—could evolve. Essentially, I believe MMOs provide the ideal template for which to build a truly immersive virtual reality.

 

How about you? What are some of the things you'd like to see MMOs tackle which haven't been done before?

The problem here is you created a thread based on a subjective measure. There is no objective measure of what "full potential" means for an MMO, or any consumer product really.

MMOs are entertainment. No media or method of entertainment lives up to full potential, because the term means different things to different people.

For example: read any internet movie review.. read the reviews of the viewers.... one says something like "this movie sux..I'd give it a 0 of 5 if I could"... yet the very next one says.. "best movie evar!! I'd give it a 10 of 5 if I could." Then we have the full range of variations in between.

Now go read an MMO player review site.

Notice a pattern with the human beings here?

So.. in the simplest analysis.. NO.. MMOs will never fulfill their potential in players eyes. EVER. Some players, yes. All players no. And what one player thinks is the best thing since sliced bread.. another player will barf it up and stomp on it.

A bit, yeah. But it's the accurate viewpoint. Video games, hell all games in general, were created solely to waste time. Can't spend your whole life with a goal, you'd go mad and kill yourself. Though, flip side, too much wasted time and you'd die of stagnation. That's why it's good to have a blend of both. A good balance of waste and work and you'll generally live to see 80, give or take a falling piano.

okay, this is blatantly false. The very first games every created by **** sapiens were not created for fun. They were among other things created to teach children how to hunt. And I cannot believe that h o m o is censored but not homosapiens when spelled exactly that way.

well, if your going to bring up Alan Turing, I will raise you the Abacus and the Antikythera Mechanism. In otherwords citing Alan Turing as the inventor of the modern sci fi genre of artificial intelligence assumes that he set out with intent of creating an artificially intelligent being and not a computational machine. In which case you might as well assume that the same was true of both those ancient artifacts.

Merely pointing out that Turing is widely considered the father of Computer Science AND Artificial Intelligence. Asimov is HARDLY to the same level -- mainly because his focus was on philosophy and the morality of AI. Many of Asimov's ideas came from Turing himself -- and Turing was, in turn, influenced by the moral questions posed by Asimov.

I could potentially list half a dozen things that are fun or for fun that are productive in some manner of argumentation. MMO's (at least the first person shooter variety or so I am told) are one such example. Did you know that Brain Surgeons practice their eye hand coordination by playing video games?

They also flip coins through fingers. But they don't see it as fun, they see it as work because if it's fun, they will fail later. It's fascinating. When you view something fun as work, you tend to dread doing it and become negative, but you're more focused on the tasks. But you view work as fun, you end up doing something completely different from what work you set out to do, but you're happy with the result anyway. It's weirdly marvelous.

okay, this is blatantly false. The very first games every created by **** sapiens were not created for fun. They were among other things created to teach children how to hunt.

Correction... the very first primative games were to teach children to RUN! To survive from the big bad predators. THEN... you can learn to hunt what you can survive from.

Merely pointing out that Turing is widely considered the father of Computer Science AND Artificial Intelligence. Asimov is HARDLY to the same level -- mainly because his focus was on philosophy and the morality of AI. Many of Asimov's ideas came from Turing himself -- and Turing was, in turn, influenced by the moral questions posed by Asimov.

and I feel forced to mention that none of these questions would be asked if humans didn't have five fingers (thumbs included) and didn't create the abacus in the first place to count things that exceeded the number of fingers and toes they had in total.

The problem here is you created a thread based on a subjective measure. There is no objective measure of what "full potential" means for an MMO, or any consumer product really.

 

MMOs are entertainment. No media or method of entertainment lives up to full potential, because the term means different things to different people. .

Well, of course. Lets try to be a little less literally-minded here...

Correction... the very first primative games were to teach children to RUN! To survive from the big bad predators. THEN... you can learn to hunt what you can survive from.

Both wrong. Those weren't games. They were known as "survival". I mean, how bored would one would have been to think "Hey, we spend our whole lives being chased by big cats and birds and stuff. Wonder what it'd feel like to BE that big cat and chase people around?"

And that's how Tag was created.

Correction... the very first primative games were to teach children to RUN! To survive from the big bad predators. THEN... you can learn to hunt what you can survive from.

when you get that far back into unrecorded history... the problem is... it is in fact all unrecorded. We cannot know which came first, teaching them to run from predators or teaching them to hunt predators. But seeing as how we evolved from omnivorous apes, I assume that the running was already instinctual on some level and did not in fact need to be taught. Rather it is the throwing of rocks or other specified objects at hostile targets that in fact needed to be taught.

Both wrong. Those weren't games. They were known as "survival". I mean, how bored would one would have been to think "Hey, we spend our whole lives being chased by big cats and birds and stuff. Wonder what it'd feel like to BE that big cat and chase people around?"

 

And that's how Tag was created.

and obviously you just disqualified yourself from any discussion on anthropology.