Author
|
Topic: Star Control MMO: Good idea or bad? (Read 12692 times)
|
Admiral Zeratul
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 223
I enjoy overthinking things.
|
You made this statistic up. Not every game is the same, MMO or otherwise. Then why assume that a Star Control MMO will be full of assholes and retards?
If assholes and retards do show up to ruin the experience it will have unnecessarily damaged the confidence of many sane-minded players in the game's ability to give them quality entertainment. Even if they do not show up in droves, keep in mind that it takes fewer rotten apples among small groups to sour the unique and interesting gameplay that could have had potential had it been made single-player.
I am not trying to point fingers at people nor say which philosophy is ultimately correct, but we have already seen first hand how different the ways that the WOW-goers (most likely Angelfish) and "old-school" gamers (definitely Draxas) like to enjoy a video game. Choosing one over the other as objectively correct is comparable to attempting to settle the matter of which strategy of proactive defense against slavery is better -- Kzer-Za's imperial Path of Now and Forever or Kohr-Ah's genocidal yet much simpler Eternal Doctrine.
That is a perfect analogy, actually. Angelfish's doctrine consists of building a hierarchy of enslaved species (players in the online experience) who choose to either be encased in an impenetrable slave shield (try to do their own thing and ignore the idiots) or become battle thralls (people who war other "guilds" in an attempt to subjugate additional following) and help others to see the boon of slavery (the dynamics of online play). On the other hand, Draxas's doctrine is to be the last remaining (only) player in the game. He cleanses his destiny, and so he must annihilate the filth (other players) to prevent them from ever subjugating (annoying) his species again. Of course, unlike the pro-MMO side, Draxas is backed by statistical proof. In the Star Control II story, guess which side won? 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Priority override. New behavior dictated. Must break post into component ideas.
|
|
|
Mad Cat
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 12
|
I will admit that, despite my otherwise positive attitudes, I tend to exaggerate over issues dealing with groups of people, especially large groups who communicate directly over the internet (I am an unusual combination of optimist and cynic). However, my point does not rely on that assumption. Rather, I suggest you consider the possible ramifications posed by fanbase friction resulting from the introduction of MMO-goers in their many, often aggravating forms.
If assholes and retards do show up to ruin the experience it will have unnecessarily damaged the confidence of many sane-minded players in the game's ability to give them quality entertainment. Even if they do not show up in droves, keep in mind that it takes fewer rotten apples among small groups to sour the unique and interesting gameplay that could have had potential had it been made single-player.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. It seems like your argument is that a Star Control MMO would be bad because you don't want to play with other people; you just want another single-player Star Control game. That's fine if that is what you would like, and it's fine if you just don't like socializing with other players when you play a game, but I don't see how that in and of itself is any argument as to why a Star Control MMO would be bad.
At most, you could argue that with an MMO the chances of getting a single player Star Control game are then non-existent (e.g. see what happened to Knights of the Old Republic), but that's about it. If you don't like MMOs, that's fine. The genre is not for everyone, but then, no genre is. And I'm not the kind of person who thinks any cool idea is made better by being an MMO. I wouldn't say a Star Control MMO might be worth a look if I didn't think the idea had merit.
I am not trying to point fingers at people nor say which philosophy is ultimately correct, but we have already seen first hand how different the ways that the WOW-goers (most likely Angelfish) and "old-school" gamers (definitely Draxas) like to enjoy a video game. Choosing one over the other as objectively correct is comparable to attempting to settle the matter of which strategy of proactive defense against slavery is better -- Kzer-Za's imperial Path of Now and Forever or Kohr-Ah's genocidal yet much simpler Eternal Doctrine. That is a perfect analogy, actually. Angelfish's doctrine consists of building a hierarchy of enslaved species (players in the online experience) who choose to either be encased in an impenetrable slave shield (try to do their own thing and ignore the idiots) or become battle thralls (people who war other "guilds" in an attempt to subjugate additional following) and help others to see the boon of slavery (the dynamics of online play). On the other hand, Draxas's doctrine is to be the last remaining (only) player in the game. He cleanses his destiny, and so he must annihilate the filth (other players) to prevent them from ever subjugating (annoying) his species again. Of course, unlike the pro-MMO side, Draxas is backed by statistical proof. In the Star Control II story, guess which side won?
I don't see how that analogy works at all. No one is forcing you to play an MMO. Furthermore, no one is forcing you to play with others if you do play an MMO, as most of the good MMOs allow you to play the game solo. And even if you do play with others, I don't see how the teamwork required to do group content is akin to "slavery". That's rather over-the-top, don't you think?
Furthermore, I don't see what this "statistical proof" is, where you got it from, or how it proves anything you said above.
As for which side of the Ur-Quan war won, IIRC, it was never actually resolved, but it's been a while since I've played the game.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 18, 2010, 09:54:13 am by Mad Cat »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mad Cat
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 12
|
As for which side of the Ur-Quan war won, IIRC, it was never actually resolved, but it's been a while since I've played the game.
If you wait long enough (early 2160 if the Utwig and Supox have done their thing, early 2159 if not), the Kohr-Ah defeat the Kzer-Za and begin rampaging around the starmap killing everyone. Eventually they destroy the Starbase and you lose the game.
Oh, that! Yeah, I remember having that happen when I was just fooling around with some of my game choices. Usually I'd get to the Sa-Mattra before the war concluded.
I thought Zeratul was referring to what happens to the war if you destroy the Sa-Mattra BEFORE the war concludes; again, IIRC, it's never actually revealed what the outcome is. I don't even think there is an indication in Star Control 3 as to what happened, but, again, it's been a while since I played SC3 (and then, only once, 'cause it was so mediocre).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lakota.james
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 111
|
I think in SC3 they said that the Ur-Quan were pretty strongly affected by the destruction of the sumatra, and then the black were easy pickings for the alliance, and the green joined the alliance for some reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angelfish
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 568
|
You made this statistic up. Not every game is the same, MMO or otherwise. Then why assume that a Star Control MMO will be full of assholes and retards? I will admit that, despite my otherwise positive attitudes, I tend to exaggerate over issues dealing with groups of people, especially large groups who communicate directly over the internet (I am an unusual combination of optimist and cynic). However, my point does not rely on that assumption. Rather, I suggest you consider the possible ramifications posed by fanbase friction resulting from the introduction of MMO-goers in their many, often aggravating forms. If assholes and retards do show up to ruin the experience it will have unnecessarily damaged the confidence of many sane-minded players in the game's ability to give them quality entertainment. Even if they do not show up in droves, keep in mind that it takes fewer rotten apples among small groups to sour the unique and interesting gameplay that could have had potential had it been made single-player. I am not trying to point fingers at people nor say which philosophy is ultimately correct, but we have already seen first hand how different the ways that the WOW-goers (most likely Angelfish) and "old-school" gamers (definitely Draxas) like to enjoy a video game. Choosing one over the other as objectively correct is comparable to attempting to settle the matter of which strategy of proactive defense against slavery is better -- Kzer-Za's imperial Path of Now and Forever or Kohr-Ah's genocidal yet much simpler Eternal Doctrine. That is a perfect analogy, actually. Angelfish's doctrine consists of building a hierarchy of enslaved species (players in the online experience) who choose to either be encased in an impenetrable slave shield (try to do their own thing and ignore the idiots) or become battle thralls (people who war other "guilds" in an attempt to subjugate additional following) and help others to see the boon of slavery (the dynamics of online play). On the other hand, Draxas's doctrine is to be the last remaining (only) player in the game. He cleanses his destiny, and so he must annihilate the filth (other players) to prevent them from ever subjugating (annoying) his species again. Of course, unlike the pro-MMO side, Draxas is backed by statistical proof. In the Star Control II story, guess which side won?
Nope, your analogy is flawed  .
I am actually the precursor starship captain who works with the entire galaxy (all the players on the MMO) to overthrow the Ur-Quan. Some of the aliens are assholes (the um-gah, thraddash and druuge for example) but by using the correct approach I get them to work with me instead of against me.
In an MMO I like the same kind of challenge.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
All right, we've veered pretty far off topic for a bit, so back to business.
I wouldn't want a Star Control MMO for 3 reasons:
1. I do not want to pay a monthly fee.
2. I do not want to deal with griefers and SHFGs.
3. I do not think that we're ever going to see a sequel to whatever SC game comes out next, assuming that game comes out at all. Thus, I don't want the final SC game to be one that I wouldn't play.
Simple and to the point. Attempt "MMOs are the future and awesome" arguments all you want, but you cannot topple these 3 pillars of my position.
Well, it depends on how much time you spend on a game. Over a three year period I have roughly paid for 30 months of game time at $15 per month. Plus the initial $20 I paid for WoW, and the roughly $130 for the two expansion packs (I bought one of the collector's editions), this comes out to roughly $600 over three years. This seems like an excessive amount of money. However, I have about 100 days played on all my characters in WoW (NOTE: I have only ONE max-level character, on whom I spent 95+ days; the other 5 days were spent on very low level characters I experimented with for a little while, so it's not like I have an army of high-level alts - far from it, actually). The gametime played per character is tracked in game, so the 100 days (and that's whole, 24-hour days) is NOT an estimate. Over 32 months (the extra two months are for the first free month, two 10-day trials and some bonus days for downtime), that comes out to roughly 2.5 hours of gameplay per day. Not exactly a hardcore number of hours, is it? Now let's put them together: $600 total paid / 2400 hours of gameplay = $0.25 / hour of game play. And please remember this is NOT an estimate - all the money and gametime you spent in game is tracked and available for you to see in your account management page. You can use this to calculate your own numbers if you wish. So, if, say, you only play half as often as me (so about 1.25 hours per day, or 9 hours per week), you'd pay twice as much, which is still only 50 cents / hour. With that being said, find me a game or other form of entertainment that comes out to be as cheap. I doubt you will find many. (And I say "many" only because I paid $10 for Star Control 2 and got many hours of fun out of it
Nonsense. I have got more value out of 90% of the games I've bought because I don't have to pay by the month. For example:
Final Fantasy Tactics: 3 full playthroughs at 100+ hous per playthrough (probably a lot more, but the game timer breaks itself at 99:99:99). I'll assume 100 hours per play. I paid $20 for the Greatest Hits release. 20 / 300 = ~7 cents per hour.
Super Metroid: I must have played through the game at least 50 times. Full playthroughs run anywhere from 2 - 10 hours each (I'll call the average time 4 hours, since I got faster as I got better). I paid full retail price for the SNES version, and bought the game again for the Virtual Console, so $58 total. 58 / 200 = 29 cents per hour; pretty close to your WoW cost, can only go down from there, and is my favorite game of all time anyway.
Dragon Quest 9: My one and only playthrough just tipped the scale at ~150 hours, and I'm still playing. I paid $20 for the game net cost ($35 at release day, offset by the game coming with a $15 giftcard). 20 / 150 = 13 cents per hour. Also includes free multiplayer co-op (local only, which suits me just fine), and new quests and events are added every Friday.
I could cite more examples, and do bear in mind that I've used some quite conservative figures; actual cost per hour is likely significantly less for all cited games.
Let's not forget that for $600, I could easily purchase a new console and a selection of games, or 30 games at my $20 price point, or 60 (or more!) Virtual Console games for my Wii, or the upgrades I would need to get back into the PC gaming scene, or a myriad of other things not gaming related. I can think of way better ways to spend that rather significant amount of money, and it breaks my brain that someone would spend that kind of money on a single game. No game is that good.
I don't see how that analogy works at all. No one is forcing you to play an MMO. Furthermore, no one is forcing you to play with others if you do play an MMO, as most of the good MMOs allow you to play the game solo. And even if you do play with others, I don't see how the teamwork required to do group content is akin to "slavery". That's rather over-the-top, don't you think?
Not particularly. As I mentioned before, I feel like if I'm paying a monthly fee for something, I ought to be using it. And so I feel a personal obligation to play the MMO, since I'm paying for it by the month and am wasting money if I'm not playing. Already I've been "enslaved" by the fee system. And as much as I might like to play the game solo, it's simply not possible; the other players are there, and most MMO are in fact not designed to have solo content (or much solo content, anyway), because then it's pretty tough to sell the game as multiplayer (or at least, disappointingly easy for those who play it in large groups). Since I don't have any friends who play these games, I am then forced to try to group with random Internet People to make the most of the content provided. And so, my chat channels are assaulted by goldfarmers, my loot is ninja'd, my noob ass is ganked, I am kicked from parties by the SHFGs, and I quit with extreme predjudice and weep for my wasted money. With the exception of the wasted money part, this has all happened to me before, so why would any other MMO b the exception? And even if it is, that still makes it the EXCEPTION.
Really, it not slavery to other players, though, it's slavery to the game itself... At least until you stop paying the fee, and then you have no choice but to quit for good.
The reason most MMOs are just like WoW is because WoW is phenomenally successful, and the "follow the leader" mentality is a time-honored tradition in every type of media humanity has ever produced. Your desired features would have to be pretty amazing to justify breaking the quick-buck mold that many companies fit their MMO games into. I think the fact that pretty much every WoW-clone has failed in some sense would be a wake up call to the industry that you CANNOT compete with WoW, and therefore, should not. If an MMO feels like WoW with a different skin, players will not play that game for one of two reasons: a) they hate WoW and therefore hate the MMO copying it b) they like WoW and see no reason to play another WoW-clone when they could just go play WoW, especially when the number of players is greater and the game polish is better in WoW.
You are correct. However, it is much easier to make a clone and some quick cash than spend the time and effort required for a truly unique and high-quality product. Don't forget that we're talking about a game that would be produced by Activision.
Besides, everyone who makes a WoW clone thinks that their game will be the WoW-killer. Just like everyone who makes a Zelda clone thinks they have the Zelda-killer, etc. The games industry is filled with creatively challenged people, to at least the same extent as the movie industry, maybe even moreso, and the same goes for the size of their egos.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Angelfish
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 568
|
All right, we've veered pretty far off topic for a bit, so back to business.
I wouldn't want a Star Control MMO for 3 reasons:
1. I do not want to pay a monthly fee.
2. I do not want to deal with griefers and SHFGs.
3. I do not think that we're ever going to see a sequel to whatever SC game comes out next, assuming that game comes out at all. Thus, I don't want the final SC game to be one that I wouldn't play.
Simple and to the point. Attempt "MMOs are the future and awesome" arguments all you want, but you cannot topple these 3 pillars of my position.
Oh really? Those are your pillars of your position? This is too easy!
1. A monthly fee is just a subscription model, and doesn't represent how a Star Control MMO has to be. For example Guild wars is entirely free to play for as long as you want.
2. You won't have to. Most MMO's have great soloing possibilities and something for everyone who doesn't like griefers etc. EVE online has space where you can't be attacked, WoW has PVE and Roleplaying servers, etc. Alternatively you could try playing on european servers since the problems you've had proably appeared on american servers, and I haven't experienced them to that extent.
3. Well, with those 2 pillars down you might end up liking the game after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Admiral Zeratul
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 223
I enjoy overthinking things.
|
Good idea, let's get back to the topic. That is the reason I started this thread after all...
Oh really? Those are your pillars of your position? This is too easy!
1. A monthly fee is just a subscription model, and doesn't represent how a Star Control MMO has to be. For example Guild wars is entirely free to play for as long as you want.
2. You won't have to. Most MMO's have great soloing possibilities and something for everyone who doesn't like griefers etc. EVE online has space where you can't be attacked, WoW has PVE and Roleplaying servers, etc. Alternatively you could try playing on european servers since the problems you've had proably appeared on american servers, and I haven't experienced them to that extent.
3. Well, with those 2 pillars down you might end up liking the game after all.
I do not have quite as much conviction as Angelfish or Draxas, but my position is leaning against producing yet another MMO. Both sides have presented excellent arguments. I will likewise share three pillars of my own. In the interest of not repeating myself, I will respond to yours.
1. Guild Wars is a relatively big player in the industry. It is already well-known and thus profits from a larger player base. A sequel to Star Control will not have this advantage. Even if this idea makes its way off the ground (so to speak), funding still has to come from somewhere.
2. I have played EVE online, and technically there is no "space where you can't be attacked". A determined aggressor can still blow you to bits if they do it quickly enough that the cops cannot stop them in time. This is not to say that makes it or any other MMO bad, but every online game has its share of griefers and drama, regardless of the form it takes. The reason I left was really because I grew tired of the boring point-and-click control scheme, but that is another story.
3. This point has no material in and of itself. You have made your overconfidence clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Priority override. New behavior dictated. Must break post into component ideas.
|
|
|
|
