I agree, I dislike MMOs as well (excepting Age of Conan.) Classical RPGs with online components (like D&D games such as Neverwinter Nights) are far superior in depth and realism (where it counts.) A game like Oblivion (or better yet in terms of depth, Morrowind) which allowed online play would be excellent, so long as it avoided degenerating into an MMO. TES games are a step closer at emulating the workings of the market than most RPGs, and D&D (esp. 3.5e) rules already allow supply and demand to affect the prices of items; by requiring components for the creation of items, one has a working capital goods model even. I’d like to see a game like TES (but even more interactive), with the 3.5e D&D ruleset, and an online component. So what you could have is a group of adventurers (say 4-5) and a sophisticated AI to handle NPCs. MW (and Oblivion, to a degree), had very believable NPCs, and as technology progresses it’ll only improve. With sufficiently open-ended play the game could allow the emulation of an anarchist society.
This sounds narrowminded to me. Striving for some sort of “anarchist gameplay” seems to be glossing over the fact that online gaming communities for any game are already anarchist. You have a wast number of user mods and additions, teams or squads, tournaments, leagues, server infrastructure… All functioning without any sort of central authority, on private and voluntary basis. MMORPG communities are actually the least decentalised in this respect.
Demonstrate where I denied this…
Why?
I’m just curious what was “narrowminded” about the post. My point was games like TES are already immensely open-ended and interactive, so why not go a step further in their design.
I meant narrow-minded as in conventional.
Well, Half-Life is all about a scientist trying to take over a totalitarian state. It’s a dystopic future, very much like 1984.