ID:266053
 
For the past several months now, I've been working on an MORPG title, or rather, I've been working on the Mechanical Development. I prefer not to delve into code until I have everything laid out on paper, but I digress.

I've never been an Elder Scrolls fan, nor have I played any of them before, however when Skyrim got the fanatical hype it did, it obviously peaked my curiosity. So I bought it, and I played it... and I played it... and I played it... I'll be honest, I've not touched my Xbox in over 8 months, but when I purchased this game, I couldn't put it down for 10+ hours. This made me think, how does a game like this, hold my attention better than WoW ever did? WoW was an amazing game, and I've probably spent well over 1000 hours total on my account, but it just got slow after Cataclysm, and I never renewed my account. At any rate, single player RPG's have so many more advantages than Multiplayer MORPG's with only a few cons.

Single Player
Pro's
- More room for an overarching story or plot.
- Story is more centered around the player.
- Don't have to worry about how players interact.
- No need to host a server, or hire administrators.
- More of the game can be opened due to the vast amount of data not being sucked away by 50+ players.
- Players can play how they want, being either the good guy or the bad guy.
- Others I forgot to mention or didn't care to.

Cons
- No one to play with, game may seem lonely.
- Everything must be computer controlled, no player based markets like an Auction House.
- Dungeons and Boss fights seem less epic, due to the fact that they are soloed, just like every other fight in the game.
- No competition or drive to be the best.
- Others I forgot to mention or didn't care to.

All in all, Single player RPG's can be given so much more than an MO can't. I was wondering it anyone else had anything to add, whether I should pursue this field of RPG rather than try to compete with the other 50 Generic RPG's on BYOND as is. Please don't argue, troll, flame, ect. This is a peaceful discussion that requires none of the such. Also only relevant posts, don't bother with snide comments that have nothing to do with the progression of the conversation.

Thank you and please share anything that I might have missed when deciding on the type of game to develop.
Solomn Architect wrote:
Cons
- No one to play with, game may seem lonely.

Demons/Dark Souls had a reasonable way of doing this. The game was mostly single player with elements of multiplayer, but as such it's not truly single-player (however I feel it deserves a mention).

- Everything must be computer controlled, no player based markets like an Auction House.

See above example. There are ways to make players interact in a single-player game, while not playing together.

- Dungeons and Boss fights seem less epic, due to the fact that they are soloed, just like every other fight in the game.

You can add NPC characters to aid the player, although it's still "solo" by definition of only one player playing (maybe you could allow friends to join using a different input device, like an xbox controller, as an npc, or perhaps make the game as super mario galaxy did, where you can have a second person cooperatively helping, but not making a huge impact on the game itself).

- No competition or drive to be the best.

This is almost always present. My friends consistently talk about Skyrim, despite not playing it together, you can always tell that there's a slight competition in who has the most powerful character, who beat the game the fastest, etc etc. You can also have scoreboards for just about anything, like who has the most gold, who killed the most bosses (or most of each boss), and the like.
I agree with Solomn's post about the pros and cons of single player RPGs.

Like many others in the past, Byond could be more attractive if it had a good set of Single player RPGs (That aren't only NES related, few people want to make a 30 year old game.) It's also easier to create single player Byond games since the programmer doesn't have to think about balanced PvP, Classes/Professions, and Equipment.

It'd also be better because you can handle cutscenes (Without thinking about the other 5 guys in view) and he can make equipment purely beneficial to The Player instead of having to balance it for 4 different classes with unique builds. You could even add a 2 Player Co-op mode with new levels made for a duo or add a 4 Player brawl (You'd possibly have to consider player balance at that point.)

DivineTraveller wrote:
Solemn Architect wrote:
- Dungeons and Boss fights seem less epic, due to the fact that they are soloed, just like every other fight in the game.

You can add NPC characters to aid the player, although it's still "solo" by definition of only one player playing (maybe you could allow friends to join using a different input device, like an xbox controller, as an npc, or perhaps make the game as super mario galaxy did, where you can have a second person cooperatively helping, but not making a huge impact on the game itself).

I'm also thinking about Drop in play, I'm reminded of Sonic the Hedgehog 2-3 on the genesis. Do you remember how Tails wasn't needed but he was beneficial, not to mention he could die over and over. You could almost say Tails was the better of the two with his flying ability and limitless lives (xD), but he was restricted movement wise to the player's view. It was a neat way to handle Co-op, it doesn't have much relation with an RPG yet I feel it was noteworthy with the sense of creating something different and fun that wasn't done previously.
Solomn Architect wrote:
Cons
- No one to play with, game may seem lonely.

That really understates the problem. It's not just that the player will be lonely, but that some things only work with other live players. PvP or cooperative PvE content is much more fun with human opponents/allies.

It wouldn't be much fun to take on a boss with three computer-controlled allies and lose the battle because the AI stinks. It also wouldn't be much fun to win the battle because the AI is great and carried the team even though you had no clue what to do and didn't really participate. It also wouldn't be much fun to have to do the boss battle a certain way because that's the only way the AI-controlled allies can handle it.

Luckily, with BYOND, it's not that hard to get the best of both worlds. You can easily add multiplayer support to a single player game. Anyone can run the game locally and play solo or they can host it so their friends can join. You get the "pros" of single player without most of the "cons".
In response to DivineTraveller (#1)
DivineTraveller wrote:
Solomn Architect wrote:
- No competition or drive to be the best.

This is almost always present. My friends consistently talk about Skyrim, despite not playing it together, you can always tell that there's a slight competition in who has the most powerful character, who beat the game the fastest, etc etc. You can also have scoreboards for just about anything, like who has the most gold, who killed the most bosses (or most of each boss), and the like.

Okay, I'll give way on this argument, ever since I began to play, that's the only conversation I'm hearing throughout the day, "Skyrim this" and "Skyrim that", though It's not annoying, and I love talking about it almost as much as I do playing it.

As for the "Drop in Play" style of gaming, it's feasible. When you start the game, it can prompt you to open up a connection, host it, and add it to a pool of open games, each with the players own ID Attached to it. I can set up an easy central server that merely parses the connections and lets other worlds be able to share hub addresses. No reconnecting is required by the central server, players host their own games for their friends, and they can dungeon or PvP as they wish. The bulk of the work is done by the players! Meaning no huge server needed to support such a thing!

I think that I would restrict the Player to Player access to Dungeons and the PvP area's however, and leaving the main game content to be solo play. Of course I could always allow players to chat to one another if they're in a party, but not on the same server, letting you have some connection with real people while you're going through the game.

This is actually a very nice idea that is well within the bounds of what BYOND and myself are capable of. The only problem I foresee is the fact that a Solo RPG has to be bursting with content in order to be addicting and have enough stuff to not get old. Think about Skyrim, 90% of that entire game is made up of side content not in the main storyline. You'll be so busy with other content that once you do finish the game, It'll still have way more stuff in it than you'll have time to rummage through before a new update or a sequel is developed. Solo RPG's with a single story are fun for 1 play through for each class (If there are classes that is), but after that, it's the same story and the same game.

What I think I'll do to keep the game interesting, is leave a ton of open ends on how the "Main Story" can end, whether you decide to be the good guy, the bad guy, or just a guy. Citizens react to how you acted previously and each one had their own opinion of you. Making friends with the Blacksmith may get you a better deal on armor, or picking fights with a few rogues who are in the assassins guild may be dangerous, but another quest line can open up where you fight the assassins and destroy their Order.

I'm loving the brainstorming I'm coming up with right now. Please, keep giving me your opinions.
In response to Solomn Architect (#4)
Solomn Architect wrote:
I think that I would restrict the Player to Player access to Dungeons and the PvP area's however, and leaving the main game content to be solo play. Of course I could always allow players to chat to one another if they're in a party, but not on the same server, letting you have some connection with real people while you're going through the game.

This is actually a very nice idea that is well within the bounds of what BYOND and myself are capable of. The only problem I foresee is the fact that a Solo RPG has to be bursting with content in order to be addicting and have enough stuff to not get old. Think about Skyrim, 90% of that entire game is made up of side content not in the main storyline. You'll be so busy with other content that once you do finish the game, It'll still have way more stuff in it than you'll have time to rummage through before a new update or a sequel is developed. Solo RPG's with a single story are fun for 1 play through for each class (If there are classes that is), but after that, it's the same story and the same game.

What I think I'll do to keep the game interesting, is leave a ton of open ends on how the "Main Story" can end, whether you decide to be the good guy, the bad guy, or just a guy. Citizens react to how you acted previously and each one had their own opinion of you. Making friends with the Blacksmith may get you a better deal on armor, or picking fights with a few rogues who are in the assassins guild may be dangerous, but another quest line can open up where you fight the assassins and destroy their Order.

I'm loving the brainstorming I'm coming up with right now. Please, keep giving me your opinions.

it like the game play of Pokemon
you have the "Main Story" battling the gym leaders, the Elite Four, The Champion & the "evil" team, so on
all the while trying to catch all of the Pokemon in the game, beat the Battle Tower, Pokemon Contests, the Pokéathlon, so on
and that all ONE PLAYER
the multiplayer content is trading, battle, & playing the Pokemon Contests & the Pokéathlon together