Jpoku(notloggedin) (not verified) on June 1, 2006 - 17:00.
Maybe the issue here is one of definition... MMORPG's in general are actually built up themselves of smaller genre models that are emerging to have very strong distinctions. Roughly: Sandbox, Story and World. Or for the non-brevity inclined Massively Multiplayer Sandboxes , Massively Multiplayer Narratives and Virtual Worlds.
You can say there's the RPG's that aim to be Sandboxes of sorts (but none that are really successful in doing so). I think this is where your endgame solution fits in. These games aim to be replayed forever and are designed to be played in many different ways. I really like the idea of Content Patterns and maybe using some form of Procedural Generation to keep the gameplay alive. Customised raiding for example. I even like the idea of player generated content but supported by a 'community process' Meaning that if players want to produce and consume content it has to be a peer-process. A group can make an attempt to produce new content. It ends up in a sort of 'half-world' where people can jump in and try out content. Over several iterations of trials and comments and voting, that content might be 'ratified' and end up as game content.
And you can say there's the RPG's that aim to be Stories/Narratives but then fail to provide a proper 'ending' (Wow is a good example) . They give you a definite curve of events and growth and then... because there is no ending... boil you alive until your life on that server ends. There's still the unanswered question there of whether you can end a game like that. Blizzard decided that they would just expand the narrative and implement time-sinks or ridiculous difficulties. No idea how that's going to end. I see it is a kind of 'hourglass model'. It starts full... but over time people leave and go onto another game. Over time all the players are converging on the same point the point where they leave and head off to fill up another game. Then someone just turns the hourglass over.
Then you can say that there are just worlds with people in them, who do stuff and seem to like it but it's not really a game. (Second Life.) People role play in them but they don't really have objectives and goals to aim for through fighting or adventure. Your solution sort of fits in a general sense
They all have a place. Game-wise, your solution definitely suits the 'sandbox' model though, not a narrative one. And mainly because Sandbox narratives and Story narratives are different beasts. Sandboxes tend to be based on the individual making their own stories up as they go along or someone making stories up that contain the individuals (a la 'Eve') that way they go on forever. Story narratives are about individuals listening to detailed stories of another world, they need endings.
Re: The defenitive solution to the endgame: "gated content"
Maybe the issue here is one of definition... MMORPG's in general are actually built up themselves of smaller genre models that are emerging to have very strong distinctions. Roughly: Sandbox, Story and World. Or for the non-brevity inclined Massively Multiplayer Sandboxes , Massively Multiplayer Narratives and Virtual Worlds.
You can say there's the RPG's that aim to be Sandboxes of sorts (but none that are really successful in doing so). I think this is where your endgame solution fits in. These games aim to be replayed forever and are designed to be played in many different ways. I really like the idea of Content Patterns and maybe using some form of Procedural Generation to keep the gameplay alive. Customised raiding for example. I even like the idea of player generated content but supported by a 'community process' Meaning that if players want to produce and consume content it has to be a peer-process. A group can make an attempt to produce new content. It ends up in a sort of 'half-world' where people can jump in and try out content. Over several iterations of trials and comments and voting, that content might be 'ratified' and end up as game content.
And you can say there's the RPG's that aim to be Stories/Narratives but then fail to provide a proper 'ending' (Wow is a good example) . They give you a definite curve of events and growth and then... because there is no ending... boil you alive until your life on that server ends. There's still the unanswered question there of whether you can end a game like that. Blizzard decided that they would just expand the narrative and implement time-sinks or ridiculous difficulties. No idea how that's going to end. I see it is a kind of 'hourglass model'. It starts full... but over time people leave and go onto another game. Over time all the players are converging on the same point the point where they leave and head off to fill up another game. Then someone just turns the hourglass over.
Then you can say that there are just worlds with people in them, who do stuff and seem to like it but it's not really a game. (Second Life.) People role play in them but they don't really have objectives and goals to aim for through fighting or adventure. Your solution sort of fits in a general sense
They all have a place. Game-wise, your solution definitely suits the 'sandbox' model though, not a narrative one. And mainly because Sandbox narratives and Story narratives are different beasts. Sandboxes tend to be based on the individual making their own stories up as they go along or someone making stories up that contain the individuals (a la 'Eve') that way they go on forever. Story narratives are about individuals listening to detailed stories of another world, they need endings.