Didn't realize... RPG != MMORPG

I’m afraid that it hasn’t been done yet (a realistic MMO) because it’s simply impossible. You see, reality isn’t like a MMO. Even during medieval times, when there were mercenaries, wars and such, you would never see hundreds upon hundreds of autonomous adventurers roaming the countryside and taking on “quests”, or figthing eachother over some petty excuse while the king twiddles thumbs.

Of course they could invent an actual excuse, like… two sides of the war. Then they’ll have to invent some petty excuse so that none of the two sides can ever totally defeat the other. Possibly some mechanism ensuring that none of the sides steamrolls the other. Don’t expect your suspension of disbelief to survive either of those.

1 Like

It’s definitely is not impossible, qwar. It’s a question of time, money, and resources, just as all things are in this industry. It is entirely possible to have an MMO that is based upon a historical period, replete with all its many “professions” as well as “classes” and “trades” and even its events.

The way one game company handles a world of finite story in an MMO is that they reset it every X period of time; the “status” and “meaning” in the game rests in honing your skills and achieving leaderboard or community status within the time frame of X.

Another game offers the ability to play through the entire game from different perspectives (which was what I nodded to in my thoughts); ok, you’re the son of a blacksmith and you follow that path now. When you’re “done”, go back and play through the daughter of a merchant. Or the courier of the king. Or a military scout coming up through the ranks. Or pretty much any other track that can be imagined, researched, and placed into the world.

There are easily at least ten more ways I can think of that it could work in an MMO without necessarily having to fall prety to the classic MMO doom of “levels, loots, and grinding”… most of them are already elements of other games in other genres. It’s not matter of inventing something new; it’s more of combining known winners in a new way.

As for alternative paths - replayability is a big concept for both standalone and MMO games; so KCD shares this much in common, regardless. To say that considering additional paths (be that now or in later “acts”) is not a good idea would be… well… rather obtuse. Particularly for a standalone game, replayability matters.

2 Likes

So, I’m already over 15 years thought about a game of this type, have many strands tested by theory. Covered with M & B, now it happens - but not again.

Such a game would have to be done by the development and the expected cost her in several steps. KCD Act 1 is one of those steps (the fourth step, it lacks 1-3) A third step would have been M & B. 1403 is the time frame here far too involved, too many institutions are established, an open game possible only within very narrow limits. RPG just. The key is the AI. Until about 2006, worked on it and it has been shown that it is almost endless work. After that is passed to replace KI by human intelligence and to provide the social component in the foreground. Meanwhile, younger generations had acquired a monopoly on game content, with the result that the mass of the older players, these games are no longer wanted and not bought. Sales stagnated. They tried by the consoles, WII etc to compensate, making the offer, although broadened, but the main target group still stayed away. They played Meanwhile Sim’s and agricultural simulator, many M & B - or their old titles from 1995 We will see whether they will respond on a realistic RPG …

true that the mmo market has simply spent its time chasing the dragon wow and has failed to capitalize on it but remember that it forced to be reduced to the lowest common denominator. To have many people playing requires a lower amount of settings to run things.

But dont fear it will happen and within short order I believe because people are getting tired of the wow clones and those that pretend to be not but are. you may want to look at gloria victus a f2p indie I believe is russian based on some realism/skyrim type things and in the early stages or dev.

people want more now and with things like SC and KCD things are getting pushed in the right direction so expect it to happen. There will always be people who want to give players what they want.

I just found out that microsoft has bought “mincraft”. (the first step of the above-mentioned way)
Last year, the Swedish developer Mojang with minecraft generated sales equivalent to around 225 million euros, with a profit of about 88.7 million So there is still the market for good games …:wink:
The purchase price, incidentally, was 2.5 billion :slight_smile:

1 Like

Making an MMO with only 2 million of funds is almost imnpossible. Also, if the game wasn’t designed as MMO in the first place, changing it to an MMO would mean to throw nearly all they got in the trash can and start over again. This won’t happen I guess.

Besides that, you would surely have to pay a monthly fee to be able to play, because the costs for the server maintenance and the power consumption for the cooling devices are far to much to be handled in a way like for example star citicens does it. Again. with 2 Millions, I don’t see a chance for an MMO.

1 Like

The 2 Million are by far not enough for KCD either.
They rely on their investor. The Kickstarter campaign was mainly to show the investor that there is interest for such a game.

The original Kickstarter goal was only around a tenth of what their budget was looking like, at least at the time. As it was said, the purpose of the campaign was to prove to their investor there was real interest in this game, and they did that with room to spare. That secured further funding from the investor, with the extra money raised going toward those stretch goals.

MMOs pretty much can’t get to this level… Why? They rely on other people:/ You won’t get realism with a bunch of morons bouncing around.

If that is ever achieved, it will probably be in the time were we are using flawless virtual reality.

My preference, is for single player games to stay single player, I don’t think I’ve seen a good MMO spin off before (Freaking ESO) Buuuuuuut, maybe.

3 Likes

With the current development status of mmo I think you’re right. Fully to rely on other players goes wrong. It should have a outer and an inner time-line to be built. In the first, the reality goes, the modifications made by the player against time A. flows in the other. How to program this … 0 notion. My job is the idea and concept, the work I leave basically smarter (and more industrious people) :slight_smile:
sorry, google-trans…hope u can understand, what I mean

Also the issue is MMO’s like making the player character a hero ive yet to see one that doesn’t make you a hero maybe wow but then i don’t remember that well.

Ill let city of heroes and villians off because your meant to be a super hero/villian.

but most go the stupid route of a main questline that makes you the hero which i completely disagree with now i believe making the questlines you being a soldier, of course promoting people would have to be managed by of course gm’s and dev’s if you had military rank system but in medieval times you don’t really rank up, if you lucky and survive long enough you might get some decent armour.

1 Like

I also think this game should be a single player game, but i can imagine this game could also be a good multiplayer game too. Not as a public MMO where strangers meet, but as a coop game like arma II. If you have the right people even a multiplayer-game can be really intense.
But the focus should be on singleplayer as it is, and if Warhorse need all their power on the singleplayer part they can drop a not so important multiplayer part.

2 Likes

Absolutely my opinion for Act 1

Not everything needs to have multiplayer. Some games greatly benefit from it, but this particular game is meant to be a single player experience.

What I wouldn’t mind is some multiplayer pvp on the side, although many here will have a rash reaction to that. I think this game has a big possibility to be really special, but I hope it never becomes an MMO.

Look at ESO…it’s terrible… Not everything is suited for MMO’s.

But yes, I’d like some pvp ala mount & blade. Probably won’t happen but it would be very cool :slight_smile:

I agree, I’m sick of people looking at every great single player game, and their only thought is:

“Is der muitlyplaer? ლ(´ڡ`ლ)”

Grrr… ಠ_ಠ No more!! I like both… But not both together.

2 Likes

Eh. If I wanted to play solo all the time, I’d pick Solitaire. Part of the enjoyment (for me) of gaming is the chance to do so with others in more than superficial ways. In all likelihood, I’ll give this game to my guy and wait for something that allows either small groups or they succeed wildly enough to take on an MMO. (shrug)

Then play Wow. or ESO, or anything else like that.

1 Like

I really don’t get that MMO hype. It’s the same with Star Citizen. I guess about 70% of all backers, mostly the new ones, think it is an MMO. I also don’t get how you can back a project without understanding what it will be first.

But nonetheless, good that you backed Kingdom Come, RPGs are way more fun than MMOs.

4 Likes

I can understand why people want this game to have some form of multiplayer capability. On the other hand, I would like the planned three acts to concentrate exclusively on single player. Why is that so?
The same reason I like to read my books myself, and not with my friends around me, reading the same book out loud. (This metaphor would probably be better with actually writing the book, as the story goes on in the game.) It would wreck the immersion, it would kick my story, my world, my little bubble in the groins. Skyrim just came into my mind: I’m not really into RPG-s, but I like and played a lot that game, because it felt like a whole story, where everything has it’s place, everything stands together as a coherent, monolith structure. Now look at ESO… gah. When everyone is a hero, no one is. It’s hard to tell a story, when there are strangers strolling around, killing randomly spawning stuff, being a dick and/or generally doing the same exact thing than you do. I’m not saying it’s not fun - it’s just not the fun I seek. There was, are and will be great games with multiplayer (for example, I hate the whole zombie survival thing, yet I play a tons of Unturned with my friends as it is hilarious and engaging, or Minecraft could be another fine example, though it is pretty nice in either SP or MP, with different focus points - and naturally, a million other, very different games up until Pong), but I do not want KCD simply to be a game. I want it to be a story, to be a world, to be a time machine with its own coherent rules which I can dwell into after a hard days night without having to regard what other people are screwing around with.
With that said, personally I only ever liked one MMORPG, and that is World War II Online. It doesn’t bother with storytelling, cool items, grinding, classical guilds, character stealing and all that “fun” stuff, it just does what I would like to have when I think about “massive multiplayer game”: hundreds of kilometers of moving frontlines with people on those massacring each other, and period, no bullshit. There is hard to break immersion when the whole game is about war and nothing else, and that is exactly what is happening on screen. This works. KCD’s current state and goals transplanted into a multiplayer game? Not so much I imagine. It would be being pregnant and not pregnant at the same time.

Still, I hope that one day a (or more than one) fine and accurate medieval-ish MMORPG comes out, hell, maybe even I will like it - but first of all, all I want is a nice “book”, something what I can “sit down under a tree with” - and so far KCD seems to do give me that. Give the people MMORPG-s! …but not from the budget of this particular game.

Lastly, about the “simple” multiplayer: Naah. Warband, Chivalry, War of the Roses… in those terms KCD would be just yet another “sword fighting game”, and - god forbid - maybe not even the best. Been there, done that.

2 Likes

I do want Warhorse make game they want make and that means singleplayer story.

But I could not agree with your metaphor. Thats matter of community, the people you choose to play the game with. A good RP server wouldnt be disturbing like that.
ESO is a theme park MMO and I dont see any point doing those. But there are other ways how to do it.

Also I would compare KCD with Chivalry and War of Roses like that… otherwise you can say that the whole idea of RPG is “Been therem done that”. I would play KDC “arena” rather than any of those you mentioned (and I tryied them all) as developers do claim their combat is something different (as I get it).