[mikhael]

I'm not sure what CM is, but I'm going to guess its a game where you manage a sports team through a series of seasons in an attempt to get the best stats or a championship of some sort.

If that is correct, no, CM is not a complex game. It is a simple game, because the goal is based directly on the outcomes of simple contests.

Contrast this to an RPG, where its possible to "win" the game, even if you "lose" at the contests. The story (an element that is not directly related to the contests) determines if you 'win' or not. In a complex game, you will always win if the story dictates. It is impossible to lose. The story is crafted in such a way that you will always win in the end. Likewise, the story can dictate that you lose the game in the end (think FS2: that's a losing situation no matter how you looks a it!). In a simple game (like a sports game), at the end of the game, you win or lose based on the outcome of the individual contests.

[.::Tin Can::.]

The original Descent. Like, the one with the really old graphics and was for Macintosh. I still play that.

But Freespace 2 is the only REAL Sim out there, RIGHT?!

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by mikhael
I'm not sure what CM is, but I'm going to guess its a game where you manage a sports team through a series of seasons in an attempt to get the best stats or a championship of some sort.

If that is correct, no, CM is not a complex game. It is a simple game, because the goal is based directly on the outcomes of simple contests.

Contrast this to an RPG, where its possible to "win" the game, even if you "lose" at the contests. The story (an element that is not directly related to the contests) determines if you 'win' or not. In a complex game, you will always win if the story dictates. It is impossible to lose. The story is crafted in such a way that you will always win in the end. Likewise, the story can dictate that you lose the game in the end (think FS2: that's a losing situation no matter how you looks a it!). In a simple game (like a sports game), at the end of the game, you win or lose based on the outcome of the individual contests.

Yep.... but, um, does the story have to be defined by the game or the user?

 i.e. the reason i used ChampMan as an example is because it's one where you can define your own goals and aims, and thus the story you aim towards....I reckon it's a perfect example of non-linearity, because you have no fixed direction, but your actions still have a lasting and defined impact.

[Stryke 9]

EV: O was actually a fairly close approximation of an open-ended game- the plot was really more a few different strings of missions that could lead in different directions, with lots of stuff that didn't follow any one "plotline" and the ability to switch to another side if you really wanted to (enough to, say, turn around and kill a hundred of your old allies' ships, all while magnanimously ignoring the fact that the guys you wanted to work for were shooting at you). It wasn't perfect, and a lot of the plot freedom had to do with the utter simplicity of the game itself (it's a lot easier to let you do anything the game engine will allow when that mostly consists of shooting and trading), but it worked.

[Knight Templar]

XWA

[mikhael]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Yep.... but, um, does the story have to be defined by the game or the user?

 i.e. the reason i used ChampMan as an example is because it's one where you can define your own goals and aims, and thus the story you aim towards....I reckon it's a perfect example of non-linearity, because you have no fixed direction, but your actions still have a lasting and defined impact.

The question you have to ask is "is the goal of Championship Manager to have the winningest team?". If so, then it is a simple game, because that goal is just an aggregation of all the contests that lead up to it. In a complex game, the goal is disconnected from the contests that lead up to it. That's why an RPG cannot be 'lost'. Your success in the game (IE the satisfactory completion of the total game) does not hinge on any of the contests that lead up to it.

It doesn't matter. Its just my insane ramblings, anyway.

[Nico]

Originally posted by mikhael

That'll never happen. That's why I detest MMORPGs and games like Morrowind. They go against the nature of storytelling (which is the essence of all games complex games*)

Meh, Morrowind has a main plot, just like any RPG. And mmorpg like WoW will have gamemasters to create complicated stories. A mmorpg like that is much closer to the pen and paper one than any other, if you ask me.

[mikhael]

Morrowind has a main plot, just like Freelancer does. I could swear, however, that it continues on after the main plot is over. Thus the main plot is just another thing to do within the engine. Its not the point of the engine.

WoW will be a different thing entirely, though. You're absolutely right about that. It'll suffer from a different set of equally ugly issues though (how do you write a story so that every one of the thousands of players feel like they're special, like they matter?)

[Nico]

They're part of something big, that's what's so cool, not just being an annonymous player doing the same plot as a thousand other players alone in front of their screen. Ever played a mmorpg? The fact that you're not the only pne struggling is what is so thrilling about it. Since when you buy a game, you do the plot, and the others do it to - solo, I mean -, why not gathering everybody and play that same plot together. In the end, you become important ( if you stand out ), in a solo rpg, no matter how well you do, nobody'll know about it. Your name can become important in a mmorpg, but that's up to you to make it so that it happens. THAT is real RPG.

So, the pb is that it goes on after the end on moorowind and co? so if they just stopped the game after the end of the plot, that would be better?
Well, to me, the plot is over, if you can go on, it's just to be able to mess around w/o having to worry about consequences. I take that as a bonus to the main plot, not the other way around ( I was about to say "just like Iwar2", but, actually, I wonder which one is the bonus ).

[mikhael]

First of all, yeah, I have played MMORPGs. I hate them.
You are wrong: as a player, in a MMORPG, you can never become important. You can go and do the same cookie cutter quests over and over again, with people or alone. you might even become popular. But can you actually change the world? No. You're locked into the story that the game's controllers create. If you want to go assassinate the king of the continent and take his place, you can't--unless the game controllers put that in. You're subject to their whims. Its just like every other MUD ever made--except its got pretty graphics.

As to your second point:
When a game doesn't end with its plot, the plot is reduced to just a sub task within the contest of the game. Sure, its a bonus, but the game world becomes static (or more accurately meta-static). It doesn't really change. Sure, you can accumulate more loot, or gain massive experience, but at no point does any of it matter. There's no purpose to it. NOTE: I am not saying this is automatically not fun. For some people it is. I said that it goes against the nature of storytelling.

[Nico]

I'm not gonna argue anymore, why am I not even surprised you hate MMORPGs?

Tell me, itho, in your regular RPG, hell, even in a paper RPG, can you deciode to go and kill the king to take his place on a whim? Of course not, unless the game master/ game designer decides so. You're giving flaws to mmorpgs that they share with 100% ( yes, ****ing 100%, NOT A SINGLE DARN EXCEPTION ) of the games out there

Oh, take Iwar2 and remove the freeform mod. The game looses a lots of its value, all of a sudden, isn't it?

[mikhael]

What can I say? I don't like certain styles of games. There's a few exceptions usually (I hate most FPS games, but I like Shock2 and Deus Ex and Thief and the Jedi Knight games, for example. I hate RTS games in general, but StarCraft is okay). With MMORPGs however, and the MUDs that came before them, I haven't found any I like yet. They all lack the critical 'make a difference' factor.

Actually, no, Venom. In a pen and paper RPG, I can make that attempt. The GM will adjust for my decision to go do something bizarre. I'll probably fail, but I can make the attempt. And if I succeed, the game world changes because of it. My participation makes a difference in that game world. Contrast that with a MMORPG. I probably can't even get to the place where the ruler supposedly lives. It might not even exist in the world. Let's assume it does and I can get to the king guy and speak to him. Chance are that I can't harm him. Lord British in Ultima Online is invulnerable (except that one time during the beta)! I can't kill him and take his place. Most games don't even give you the option to attack friendly NPCs.  Further: even if you COULD kill him, he'd just respawn. Your actions will have amounted to absolutely nothing. The game doesn't adjust to the player's actions on the macroscopic scale.

And I am drawing a distinction between closed and open games, Venom. A pen and paper RPG is open ended. Morrowind is open ended. Iwar2 is openended.

In an open ended game that is not built around the players (IE, any open ended game that is NOT a pen-and-paper RPG, basically), after the story ends, the players are irrellevant. They can do nothing to affect the world. All they can do is perform hollow actions that amount to nothing. In Freelancer, can you decide to wipe out the Blood Dragons? Nope. They just keep respawning. Can you starve a planet by interdicting all the incoming shipping? Nope. no matter how many ships you intercept, that planet thrives.

FinalFantasy9 is not open ended. The characters have a direct impact on the story (They can't help but have an impact. its designed around them). The game ends when the story ends. There's never any time during which the characters are irrellevant. You are of course limited to the story, but you are involved in that story.

If you don't see the distinction I'm making, then I'm doing a poor job explaining myself. It doesn't matter: its just my insane ramblings on the philosophy of games. Its not like its important.

As for Iwar2: I've never played the freeform mod. I start the game over and play from scratch. I have yet to fire up Freelancer since I finished the story line. Once the story goal is complete, there's really nothing left for me to do and I lose interest.

[Nico]

mmorpg are not open ended, they're open started
Well, I guess it's just a question of taste, but I enjoy a lot running around with friends in some environment, beating some quest, hunting monsters, or hell, just wandering around finding cool sceneries ( I did that a lot in Entropia - oh, yeah, entropia has elections and stuff like that, and you have poll pods in every city - a different poll each week - asking the players how they want the world to evolve. I suppose that's still not enough for you, tho ) with a bunch of friends, rather than beating the Machiavelous Master of Dark Evilness once more in solo, thanks to the Sword of Righteous Fire of the Ancient Gods I just found while slaying the Red Dragon of Doomed Doom With Blazing Eyes That Frightens. Yeepee, I'd have stoped the Machiavelous [blablabla] from summoning the Mean God of Death Uppon the World ( he does that so often, now it's part of his name ).

Yes, I have much fun making up that kind of names.

Oh, and don't tell me you wouldn't like playing your Iwar2 games with some friend online ( not the crappy multi dogfights, the solo part, but in multi ).

...

In fact, I suspect you'll tell me you wouldn't.

[mikhael]

The idea of polling pods is interesting but doesn't completely address the issue. The player cannot do the unexpected. The way MUST be prepared ahead of time. There is no real time adjustment to the player.

Only pen and paper GM (or maybe a very good NWN GM) can do what I'm talking about. Only in those cases does the story surround and respond to the players. In that MMORPG you still can't decide to assassinate the king or steal his crown or whatever, unless the administration changes the game to do so by providing another static quest. Again: it has zero impact.

Compare that to a pen and paper game where you sneak in, swipe the crown and get away. You've got the crown, the king doesn't, and he'll move heaven and earth to find you and get it back. Now the story becomes about you trying to keep a step ahead of the people chasing you. YOU. One person in the entire game world. No one else. Your situation is unique.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Nico
Oh, and don't tell me you wouldn't like playing your Iwar2 games with some friend online ( not the crappy multi dogfights, the solo part, but in multi ).

...

In fact, I suspect you'll tell me you wouldn't.

You must have missed my post in another thread.

Some of the best times I've had with a game was in Starlancer, playing co-op online with three friends.  I'd kill to be able to play an Iwar2 campaign that was designed around co-op play. That would be awesome.

Take careful note: I said 'campaign'. Last I checked, around here, a campaign means a series of missions that comprise a story, with a distinct beginning and a distinct ending.

I have no interest in co-op free-roam. That'd just suck. I can see it now:
Mik: "Hey Venom, Phreak, you wanna go hang out around the Blackeye L-Point and ventilate some Marauders?"
Venom: "Dude, we did that yesterday. This repetitive pirating is getting old."
Phreak: "You know, we could go assault a Navy station..."
Mik: "Man, what good's that? We can't blow up the station and they'll just keep spawning new waves of ships. What's the point?"

(apologies to Phreak and Venom. They're just the first two Iwar2 players that come to mind)

See what I mean? Co-op play in a campaign is meaningful and interesting. Co-op play without a point is NOT meaningful and is boring.

[Nico]

I get your point, but what I mean is that not being able to do that doesn't mean that mmorpg are crap or anything. but blah I'm rambling, as I said, I like as much playing some "worthless" adventure with a handful of friends as beating yet another of your usual RPG plots all alone.

edit: your second post was not taken into account, wasn't there when I pushed the reply button ( darn lag, that's internet for sure )
edit2: isn't it possible to play freelancer campaign in coop?
mmh, starlancer, I never tried... bah, nobody's playing it anymore, anyway, no need reinstalling it.

[mikhael]

That's understandable, Venom. I like to play Pod Racer on a LAN with my friends. That's groovy. But that's not what I was initially talking about. I was saying what I don't like about MMORPGs, not that they're all crap and you shouldn't play them.

If I'm just going to play a game with some friends, its not going to be an MMORPG. Its going to be a fighting game tournament, or Mario Party, or Pod Racer. The 'simple' games I was talking about before.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Nico

mmh, starlancer, I never tried... bah, nobody's playing it anymore, anyway, no need reinstalling it.

That's a shame. Just imagine it: having wingmen who know how to fly, understand tactics and know how to cover your ass.

WINGMEN WHO DON'T SUCK.

Man. What more can a pilot ask for?

[Nico]

ah well, I like them all.

[Nico]

Originally posted by mikhael

That's a shame. Just imagine it: having wingmen who know how to fly, understand tactics and know how to cover your ass.

WINGMEN WHO DON'T SUCK.

Man. What more can a pilot ask for?

Actually having someone to play that wingmen who doesn't suck?