Part of it is simply that defensive play isn’t typically as friendly to players as aggressive play is — you can’t take a smoke break in the middle of an ambush string, some options such as toggling up or other preemptive powers aren’t viable, and you can only fail once in a defensive mission while an aggressive mission has virtually unlimited tries. Another part is that anything involving player creation does have the potential for harm, whether it be as small a problem as a crudely-drawn curse or as major as player-created glitches or griefing. It also relies on people working together : it’s not fun to play an RTS with unresponsive units, and just as little fun to be a single unit being given random commands. Good grouping can counter that, but most instances of player buildings aren’t really strong on ally selection.

The big issue is simply that this sorta stuff takes a lot of time. Mob AI has to be made extremely strong at things most players won’t notice until they break it : path-seeking, target selection, and cooperation, all have to be orders of magnitude more complex than standard MMO baddies, or they’ll be exploited. The construction engine, typically a dumbed-down version of the in-house level editor, has to be rock-solid, incapable of making “broken” maps, and just generally designed for complete idiots to use. Extra balance considerations have to be made — players can’t have widely varying amounts of downtime, or too little burst damage.

That wouldn’t be a problem, if Guardians at the Gates really revolutionized the game’s play.

It doesn’t. It’d be a fun aspect, sure. But combat itself is the same once it starts.

/start NDA protected speech/

***** ****** *** ******* ********
** * ***** ********* ***,
***** ** ******* *********
*** ****** ***** *** ** ******!

**** ***** * ******* **** ****** ****
***** ** ******* *********?

***** ** ******* *********
*** ****** ***** *** ** ******!

/end NDA protected speech/.

Pretty kick ass huh? I can’t wait either.

Nicodemus

Dark and Light promised much in the way of player controlled cities and fortresses, including a complex government heirarchy. It delivered little.

On the basis of promise alone, though, the Dark and Light forums had one of the most active communities of any in-development game I’ve followed (and, as I recall, nearly 200,000 forum registrations while it was still in early beta).

There’s certainly more than niche interest in a game like this. The companies with the many tens of million of dollars to pull such a game off, don’t currently seem interested in assuming tha additional risk of such a game.

Unfortunate. I’d p(l)ay.

Wurm, I’ve never heard of. A Tale in the Desert starts you off running along picking grass and slate; it turns from too slow into too ridiculous (gliders, fireworks, and traffic puzzles) to survive most new players. I can’t speak for Shadowbane and SWG. Horizons interfaced and looked too awkwardly for any but the concept-lovers to really get into it (that and those who wanted to play dragons).

I think the biggest obstacle between here and there is the game design. Aggro-based systems are not well-designed for large-scale or long-term PvP combat, and heavily PvE-based systems tend to have power level issues which break balance and give little fun/incentive for low-level players to participate. Alternatives get into the realm of awkward FPSs (fantasy Planetside?), and build-centric action-RPG’s, which don’t fare well with the majority of unjaded gamers.

What you are asking for is neither impossible, nor beyond the technology (though the state of broadband in the US might be a limiting factor), but it’s not the game we know, which frightens off job security, and it’s doesn’t ring of blockbuster, which scares publishers. Don’t hold your breath… we’re waiting for a world-toppling underdog, or a wealthy philanthropist to toss in a WoW-launch-comparable marketing budget.