Add new comment

My point is that storylines can benefit from a massive number of characters.

How?

You say:

I fail to see why MMORPGs should distance themselves from the entire concept of narrative structure, something which has stood the test of centuries, simply because they can.

Well, what has stood the test of the centuries surely ISN'T a form of narrative that involves hundreds of players at the same time.

Books, movies, comics, TV serials. It's always YOU and the story.

ALL the games that have relied heavily on story lines are single player or actively limiting other players (see the trend of the instancing).

No, current MMORPGs are suffering because they do think they're something different.

Your example of story lines involving massive numbers of players is FAR more peculiar and unverified than what I wrote. So your ideas would mean that your mmorpgs would definitely be "something different". Something COMPLETELY different since they should be based on a different model already at the very base.

Thirdly, whether or not the MMORPG genre is the "best vehicle" for a story is totally irrelevant. The issue is whether or not MMORPGs would be improved by having an involving and continuing storyline that engages players. In my opinion yes, they would. I think that MMORPGs already follow your vision of ignoring storyline.

No, I NEVER wrote that the stories should be removed. This cannot be more false since it's NOT what I think, and I have repeated this concept even in what I wrote up here.

The point is that a mmorpg shouldn't be just ONE story with a start and an end, because simply that's not what a mmorpg should do.

Story elements CAN and SHOULD be integrated in that "traveller of worlds" model, aka the "gated content".

EACH WORLD, or sub-world can have its story. The character IS YOU. You don't need other characters to experience more stories, and those stories in those worlds CAN and SHOULD "end". But not the game and not your character.

I'm aggressive here because this is THE WHOLE POINT of what I wrote in the article. And it's rather obvious that I wasn't able to explain it properly since it's being misinterpreted to a huge degree.