Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="davidschwartznz" data-source="post: 2802566" data-attributes="member: 7287">For this to work, you need more player control of the world, and less computerized villains.Essentially, your opponents need to be real people, not mobs.Anyone remeber Trade Wars? (Recently, while doing research for a RPG product, I had to explain to a 'kid' that I hadn't played a multiplayer online game since before the internet.) Back in the early 90's I was involved in two different Trade War games (on a couple of BBSs). One had a good interplay of good and evil chatacters. The other, however, had almost no evil characters, so there was lot of trade and very little war. I decided to something about this. I sent a message to all the major players telling them my plan: I would turn evil and start a crime syndicate. I would then encourage new players to turn evil and come work for me. All my underlings would be fair game for the good side, but I would be inviolate, because, hey, I'm doing a service for the forces of good by giving them someone to fight.  It even seem to be working, until a rather unfortunate misunderstanding involving a planetary defense system.Back to my original point: Player vs. Player action has long been possible, but I'd like to see a way that player action can change a region from contested to aligned (or vice versa). I'd liked to see a game where a player can say he defeated a certain Big Evil and be the only player who can say that (at least on that server). A game where worlds (read: servers) evolve differently because of the players in it.These sorts of things might already exist (as I said, I'm not too up on modern games), but I have a feeling it's more lucrative for companies to just create massively multiplayer video games, rather than immersive roleplaying; I also suspect that's what the public prefers too.PS I have since played WoW - I pwned some trolls with my massive hammer. Booyah.</blockquote>

Verification