But the issue with open world content is that you dont feel as if you're the hero by modern standards.
In an open world game not everyone is involved directly in the saving of the world, and those that aren't (e.i. the majority) will not feel heroic.
Why not? What exactly are 'modern standards'?
Personally I feel a lot more heroic contributing to a large scale effort to achieve something as a community than I do when I single-handedly slay some monster. I know I'm not the only one who feels like this.
People who are just leveling up, people who were not part of your guild/alliance, people who died and respawned and did not see the event end. All of these people will just feel disappointed. Then you have the issue of people who want to aid the monsters. Priests that heal the monsters (Ragnarok Online) and want to see you die? Would they not also get the same worldly status as a 'hero' once the issue is resolved? Why wouldn't they? They're in-game characters just as yourself, and as a result get the same ammount of 'heroism' which you would get. I suppose if you really want to talk about your character being a hero in an open world game, it would have to be an internal psychological affect (knowing you did something good) rather than being entitled as a hero. But its the same as donating to a charity... do you feel like a hero? No, but you feel good...
This is the WoW mentality of player entitlement seeping through. If everyone is equal all the time, if the bad players are just as successful as the good ones, if the griefers are rewarded just as well as the genuinely nice players, then the game really stops being fun. Also a hero is someone who goes above and beyond what everyone else is capable of... if everyone is capable of the same thing, and everyone is a hero, then technically no one is a hero, as everyone is just the norm. See the problem? MMOs are built on players being different, doing different things, having different roles and yes, that also includes experiencing different things. The reason such a system would be a massive failure in a game like WoW (or most other modern theme-park MMOs) is because all the devs let anyone do is fight... combat is the only option. Crafting is entirely combat oriented. Everyone has to be equal in a game like WoW because if you suck at combat (or don't enjoy it) you don't have any other ways to shine as a player. This 'heroism' obsession is a flaw in the combat oriented theme-park model... it doesn't work.
If you're playing a game, a fantasy, you dont want to be some commoner, you want to be the bloody hero. If i wasn't part of the minorty that saved the world, I'd be pretty disappointed... This is why it is so difficult to be immersed into an open world... you'll have those that really did save the world, but they're a minority. In instanced zones, everyone gets to be part of that minority, just in their own little instance.
I've discussed this a countless number of times with a lot of people and it comes down to this:
Some people DO like being the commoners.
Some people like being a part of something bigger rather than being a single lone hero. It's a matter of taste. And before anyone pulls the "Wow has 11 mil players that say otherwise" card... most of those players have played nothing else and don't know any better so it's not really a good gauge on what's actually a more popular system.
This 'feeling heroic' thing has been thrown around a lot lately. It's the latest buzz word the MMO devs are using to make them sound like they know what players want. They completely overlook the fact, however, that feeling heroic has to be balanced with feeling unheroic. It works the same way a drug does... if you're being heroic all the time then it stops actually feeling heroic, the game gets stale and boring. Players need to be commoners with occasional potential to be heroic, it adds variety to gameplay and keeps them on their toes.
Off topic: Why do people sound the alarm when they see the word "WoW"? No other game seems to have captured this quite as well, its as if someone mentioned a woman who happened to be your ex girl friend, why get all worked up about it? I no longer play but can admit it was a good game.
For most people, myself included, it's because the game damaged the industry. Its popularity is the result of a ferocious marketing campaign and the feedback loop of subscription numbers encouraging more subscribers. Most of the people playing it know no better yet the industry suits think that every MMO has to have the same features so it can be just as successful (look how that turned out). WoW's a good game, but it's not a good MMO. The sooner people realise that, the better.
I know my responses have gone pretty off-topic but I really get irritated with the whole 'everyone's a hero' thing. It doesn't work and leads to burnout a hell of a lot quicker.
In response to the "we're using instancing everywhere" interview quote that was just linked: I'm not entirely sure how literally we can take that. SE has a pretty loose defintion of instancing, making a point of having instanced cutscenes which, as far as I'm aware, couldn't be done any other way. Just take that with a pinch of salt.
I agree with you. I much more valued my early EQ characters who started out very weak, with ragged armor and wimpy weapons, and to brave a harsh unforgiving fantasy world. Was great fun, and made any accomplishments seem worthy.
The WOW crowd is just too weened on the entitlement feeling. Because everyone is a hero, no one will ever know what it feels like to "become" a hero.
(And to answer some of the other earlier threads, what is the problem with someone else occasionally interfering with your gameplay or having some impact on you? Oh-My-Gosh. Someone tagged the Orc that Little Jimmy was trying to pull and now Little Jimmy doesn't feel like such a hero anymore.
C'mon, does everything have to be sanitized, isolated, instanced and spoonfed? Your "practically" offline instanced heroics have meant nothing. NOTHING to the rest of the community. The presence of others in the gameworld is the "MM" part of "MMORPG". If it doesn't happen in the same "world" as the rest of the game community, it didn't happen. Instances are about stuff that doesn't happen, as far as the rest of your server is concerned.
I could say the same thing about "phasing".)
Well, that's not the point. In a story rich and plot-filled mmo game some players might wish to enjoy the immersion and not have other players ruin there game experience for them. That doesn't mean that grouping is effected at all it just means that you don't get into the situation where bots and grinders make portions of a game unachievable, that certainly was the situation with Aion at launch. Simply put SE are removing the possibility of game bottlenecks and this can only be for the good.
But the issue with open world content is that you dont feel as if you're the hero by modern standards.
In an open world game not everyone is involved directly in the saving of the world, and those that aren't (e.i. the majority) will not feel heroic.
Why not? What exactly are 'modern standards'?
Personally I feel a lot more heroic contributing to a large scale effort to achieve something as a community than I do when I single-handedly slay some monster. I know I'm not the only one who feels like this.
People who are just leveling up, people who were not part of your guild/alliance, people who died and respawned and did not see the event end. All of these people will just feel disappointed. Then you have the issue of people who want to aid the monsters. Priests that heal the monsters (Ragnarok Online) and want to see you die? Would they not also get the same worldly status as a 'hero' once the issue is resolved? Why wouldn't they? They're in-game characters just as yourself, and as a result get the same ammount of 'heroism' which you would get. I suppose if you really want to talk about your character being a hero in an open world game, it would have to be an internal psychological affect (knowing you did something good) rather than being entitled as a hero. But its the same as donating to a charity... do you feel like a hero? No, but you feel good...
This is the WoW mentality of player entitlement seeping through. If everyone is equal all the time, if the bad players are just as successful as the good ones, if the griefers are rewarded just as well as the genuinely nice players, then the game really stops being fun. Also a hero is someone who goes above and beyond what everyone else is capable of... if everyone is capable of the same thing, and everyone is a hero, then technically no one is a hero, as everyone is just the norm. See the problem? MMOs are built on players being different, doing different things, having different roles and yes, that also includes experiencing different things. The reason such a system would be a massive failure in a game like WoW (or most other modern theme-park MMOs) is because all the devs let anyone do is fight... combat is the only option. Crafting is entirely combat oriented. Everyone has to be equal in a game like WoW because if you suck at combat (or don't enjoy it) you don't have any other ways to shine as a player. This 'heroism' obsession is a flaw in the combat oriented theme-park model... it doesn't work.
If you're playing a game, a fantasy, you dont want to be some commoner, you want to be the bloody hero. If i wasn't part of the minorty that saved the world, I'd be pretty disappointed... This is why it is so difficult to be immersed into an open world... you'll have those that really did save the world, but they're a minority. In instanced zones, everyone gets to be part of that minority, just in their own little instance.
I've discussed this a countless number of times with a lot of people and it comes down to this:
Some people DO like being the commoners.
Some people like being a part of something bigger rather than being a single lone hero. It's a matter of taste. And before anyone pulls the "Wow has 11 mil players that say otherwise" card... most of those players have played nothing else and don't know any better so it's not really a good gauge on what's actually a more popular system.
This 'feeling heroic' thing has been thrown around a lot lately. It's the latest buzz word the MMO devs are using to make them sound like they know what players want. They completely overlook the fact, however, that feeling heroic has to be balanced with feeling unheroic. It works the same way a drug does... if you're being heroic all the time then it stops actually feeling heroic, the game gets stale and boring. Players need to be commoners with occasional potential to be heroic, it adds variety to gameplay and keeps them on their toes.
Off topic: Why do people sound the alarm when they see the word "WoW"? No other game seems to have captured this quite as well, its as if someone mentioned a woman who happened to be your ex girl friend, why get all worked up about it? I no longer play but can admit it was a good game.
For most people, myself included, it's because the game damaged the industry. Its popularity is the result of a ferocious marketing campaign and the feedback loop of subscription numbers encouraging more subscribers. Most of the people playing it know no better yet the industry suits think that every MMO has to have the same features so it can be just as successful (look how that turned out). WoW's a good game, but it's not a good MMO. The sooner people realise that, the better.
I know my responses have gone pretty off-topic but I really get irritated with the whole 'everyone's a hero' thing. It doesn't work and leads to burnout a hell of a lot quicker.
In response to the "we're using instancing everywhere" interview quote that was just linked: I'm not entirely sure how literally we can take that. SE has a pretty loose defintion of instancing, making a point of having instanced cutscenes which, as far as I'm aware, couldn't be done any other way. Just take that with a pinch of salt.
I agree with you. I much more valued my early EQ characters who started out very weak, with ragged armor and wimpy weapons, and to brave a harsh unforgiving fantasy world. Was great fun, and made any accomplishments seem worthy.
The WOW crowd is just too weened on the entitlement feeling. Because everyone is a hero, no one will ever know what it feels like to "become" a hero.
(And to answer some of the other earlier threads, what is the problem with someone else occasionally interfering with your gameplay or having some impact on you? Oh-My-Gosh. Someone tagged the Orc that Little Jimmy was trying to pull and now Little Jimmy doesn't feel like such a hero anymore.
C'mon, does everything have to be sanitized, isolated, instanced and spoonfed? Your "practically" offline instanced heroics have meant nothing. NOTHING to the rest of the community. The presence of others in the gameworld is the "MM" part of "MMORPG". If it doesn't happen in the same "world" as the rest of the game community, it didn't happen. Instances are about stuff that doesn't happen, as far as the rest of your server is concerned.
I could say the same thing about "phasing".)
Well, that's not the point. In a story rich and plot-filled mmo game some players might wish to enjoy the immersion and not have other players ruin there game experience for them. That doesn't mean that grouping is effected at all it just means that you don't get into the situation where bots and grinders make portions of a game unachievable, that certainly was the situation with Aion at launch. Simply put SE are removing the possibility of game bottlenecks and this can only be for the good.
At that point, you are arguing for single player RPG's, maybe with a small multiplayer feature so that friends can join in. (Guild Wars, DnD online, Diablo, etc...)
For MMORPG's (not RPG's), the presence of other players, positive, negative, and in-between, is what makes a MMORPG a MMORPG.
Thankfully, I started playing MMORPG's back in the late '90's when folks (and designers) understood this. Because what we have on the market now are really glorified Single Player RPG's, or Multiplayer with the "Massively" absent.
At that point, you are arguing for single player RPG's, maybe with a small multiplayer feature so that friends can join in. (Guild Wars, DnD online, Diablo, etc...)
For MMORPG's (not RPG's), the presence of other players, positive, negative, and in-between, is what makes a MMORPG a MMORPG.
Thankfully, I started playing MMORPG's back in the late '90's when folks (and designers) understood this. Because what we have on the market now are really glorified Single Player RPG's, or Multiplayer with the "Massively" absent.
Not everything in an "MMO" must have the "Massively" aspect in it.
There are enough features that make MMO an MMO that even if Everything doesn't bend to the "massive" part, it is still an MMO in question, not an online RPG.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
At that point, you are arguing for single player RPG's, maybe with a small multiplayer feature so that friends can join in. (Guild Wars, DnD online, Diablo, etc...)
For MMORPG's (not RPG's), the presence of other players, positive, negative, and in-between, is what makes a MMORPG a MMORPG.
Thankfully, I started playing MMORPG's back in the late '90's when folks (and designers) understood this. Because what we have on the market now are really glorified Single Player RPG's, or Multiplayer with the "Massively" absent.
Not everything in an "MMO" must have the "Massively" aspect in it.
There are enough features that make MMO an MMO that even if Everything doesn't bend to the "massive" part, it is still an MMO in question, not an online RPG.
The more elements in an MMO that are "Massively", the more immersive the setting comes off as a "world". Now, to each their own, but to me there is nothing more lame than being instanced, linear and scripted.
And some of the best MMO experiences I have had were in stumbling across others that needed help, could help, could give directions (i.e., before the mini-map days), give escort, trade, or just pass by. The real-time interaction and sharing of the game experience is just plain immersive. In dungeon's this was even cooler. Imagine being lost in a dungeon and running from a crowd of monsters, then stumbling across another group who can save you. That stuff is exciting.
Now contrast that to some lame instanced quest where you wave the magic wand at the elite monster, turning it into a "normal" so you can easily defeat it. Then Jada Proudmore and the Lich King appear and you are a captive audience as they banter back and forth for five minutes. And you go through this with EACH AND EVERY CHARACTER YOU ROLL. Blah.
There are enough Single Player RPG's out there to satisfy those who want a solitary gaming experience. Who knows, maybe they will make a "Harry Potter" MMO where your character is the chosen one and you have your own instance of Hogwarts and can meet Hermione (and that red-headed kid) in the bathroom to accept quests. Maybe that sort of game will peel off the single player instance crowd so the rest of us can get onto real MMO's.
At that point, you are arguing for single player RPG's, maybe with a small multiplayer feature so that friends can join in. (Guild Wars, DnD online, Diablo, etc...)
For MMORPG's (not RPG's), the presence of other players, positive, negative, and in-between, is what makes a MMORPG a MMORPG.
Thankfully, I started playing MMORPG's back in the late '90's when folks (and designers) understood this. Because what we have on the market now are really glorified Single Player RPG's, or Multiplayer with the "Massively" absent.
Not everything in an "MMO" must have the "Massively" aspect in it.
There are enough features that make MMO an MMO that even if Everything doesn't bend to the "massive" part, it is still an MMO in question, not an online RPG.
The more elements in an MMO that are "Massively", the more immersive the setting comes off as a "world". Now, to each their own, but to me there is nothing more lame than being instanced, linear and scripted.
And some of the best MMO experiences I have had were in stumbling across others that needed help, could help, could give directions (i.e., before the mini-map days), give escort, trade, or just pass by. The real-time interaction and sharing of the game experience is just plain immersive. In dungeon's this was even cooler. Imagine being lost in a dungeon and running from a crowd of monsters, then stumbling across another group who can save you. That stuff is exciting.
Now contrast that to some lame instanced quest where you wave the magic wand at the elite monster, turning it into a "normal" so you can easily defeat it. Then Jada Proudmore and the Lich King appear and you are a captive audience as they banter back and forth for five minutes. And you go through this with EACH AND EVERY CHARACTER YOU ROLL. Blah.
There are enough Single Player RPG's out there to satisfy those who want a solitary gaming experience. Who knows, maybe they will make a "Harry Potter" MMO where your character is the chosen one and you have your own instance of Hogwarts and can meet Hermione (and that red-headed kid) in the bathroom to accept quests. Maybe that sort of game will peel off the single player instance crowd so the rest of us can get onto real MMO's.
Everything you listed above is definitely what's right about mmo's.
However, it's also what's "wrong".
I agree that the social interaction such as the examples you gave is what can make an mmo exciting. But fighting off a hard boss or pvp'ing or doing a quest and seeing people dance around or duel right next to you or jumping up and down because they are bored takes one away from the game as a world and really brings it home as just a play space.
And that's why traditional mmo's dont' work as worlds. They are essentially just large play spaces where players can do whatever they want, whenever they want. It takes the epic out of a moment to be fighiting something only to see another group pass by and say "hey".
And that's why we see more scriptig, more instances. Because there are players who want to play in a group (or solo ) and who want to experience the world part without a layer of the ridiculous spread over it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The non-instanced 'dungeons' or elite villages in Aion really annoyed me. There were always people pulling mobs over our healers, wiping our group and forcing us to return to the begining because of respawns. TBH, most group content should be instanced because of the society factor; you'll always have immature players. Using instances, you can distance yourself from the majority of the community and explore with the people you've chosen to grouped with.
But I do also enjoy group quests where you're required to take down a boss by forming a group, and this said boss roams around in what ever village he resides in. The fun part about these quests is not that because of the 'open world' concept, but rather that you can set the difficulty of the encounter by selecting how many/who you go with.
A good game will balance between the two, I personally enjoy instanced content more because of the increase in the number of immature players I've encountered.
I hope it's not instanced at all. Whats to explore if you know what is in there. Just the mobs and boss. Thats not exploreing. to bad if you got stuff pulled over you that should be part of the game. You keep what you can kill or take from others lol.Heck why should we cater to this type of game play when it insnt how everyone wants to play? why is it immature to not care if you get your loot or your character dies? happens to us all, why should everyone get free easy gear?
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
The more elements in an MMO that are "Massively", the more immersive the setting comes off as a "world". Now, to each their own, but to me there is nothing more lame than being instanced, linear and scripted.
And some of the best MMO experiences I have had were in stumbling across others that needed help, could help, could give directions (i.e., before the mini-map days), give escort, trade, or just pass by. The real-time interaction and sharing of the game experience is just plain immersive. In dungeon's this was even cooler. Imagine being lost in a dungeon and running from a crowd of monsters, then stumbling across another group who can save you. That stuff is exciting.
Now contrast that to some lame instanced quest where you wave the magic wand at the elite monster, turning it into a "normal" so you can easily defeat it. Then Jada Proudmore and the Lich King appear and you are a captive audience as they banter back and forth for five minutes. And you go through this with EACH AND EVERY CHARACTER YOU ROLL. Blah.
There are enough Single Player RPG's out there to satisfy those who want a solitary gaming experience. Who knows, maybe they will make a "Harry Potter" MMO where your character is the chosen one and you have your own instance of Hogwarts and can meet Hermione (and that red-headed kid) in the bathroom to accept quests. Maybe that sort of game will peel off the single player instance crowd so the rest of us can get onto real MMO's.
Your misconception is that your definition of "instance" means "single player" and "alone".
You don't have to be around 4000 other people at all times to have a social experience. You don't have to be out in the open at all times to enjoy an MMO or consider it one.
That kind of extreme thinking hurts the genre as much as thinking full instance is the way to go. Some features are better off in a linear, scripted instance, and some work better in an open world. Each has their pro's and con's, although you may not want admit it.
What you considered "lame" in an instance are features that do not define what is an "instance" in the first place. "Instance" doesn't mean "easy", or "alone", or that you are always the "hero" in the game.
Your definition of "real" MMO is really arrogant towards people who do not share such extreme opinions about these things. It is also insulting that you lump "single player" crowd together with the "instance" crowd. That makes no sense. Most of the time 20 players is just as good as 2000. It's not like you're interacting with all of them at once. And they're still there once you exit the instance.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
The more elements in an MMO that are "Massively", the more immersive the setting comes off as a "world". Now, to each their own, but to me there is nothing more lame than being instanced, linear and scripted.
And some of the best MMO experiences I have had were in stumbling across others that needed help, could help, could give directions (i.e., before the mini-map days), give escort, trade, or just pass by. The real-time interaction and sharing of the game experience is just plain immersive. In dungeon's this was even cooler. Imagine being lost in a dungeon and running from a crowd of monsters, then stumbling across another group who can save you. That stuff is exciting.
Now contrast that to some lame instanced quest where you wave the magic wand at the elite monster, turning it into a "normal" so you can easily defeat it. Then Jada Proudmore and the Lich King appear and you are a captive audience as they banter back and forth for five minutes. And you go through this with EACH AND EVERY CHARACTER YOU ROLL. Blah.
There are enough Single Player RPG's out there to satisfy those who want a solitary gaming experience. Who knows, maybe they will make a "Harry Potter" MMO where your character is the chosen one and you have your own instance of Hogwarts and can meet Hermione (and that red-headed kid) in the bathroom to accept quests. Maybe that sort of game will peel off the single player instance crowd so the rest of us can get onto real MMO's.
Your misconception is that your definition of "instance" means "single player" and "alone".
You don't have to be around 4000 other people at all times to have a social experience. You don't have to be out in the open at all times to enjoy an MMO or consider it one.
That kind of extreme thinking hurts the genre as much as thinking full instance is the way to go. Some features are better off in a linear, scripted instance, and some work better in an open world. Each has their pro's and con's, although you may not want admit it.
What you considered "lame" in an instance are features that do not define what is an "instance" in the first place. "Instance" doesn't mean "easy", or "alone", or that you are always the "hero" in the game.
Your definition of "real" MMO is really arrogant towards people who do not share such extreme opinions about these things. It is also insulting that you lump "single player" crowd together with the "instance" crowd. That makes no sense. Most of the time 20 players is just as good as 2000. It's not like you're interacting with all of them at once. And they're still there once you exit the instance.
I think you missed part of his point.
The thing that makes an MMO an MMO is the fact that a player's play experience is dependent on the other players in that space. It's a game where your experience is as much affected by everyone else's experience as it is by what the developers have given you. Pencilrick's example of stumbling across people in a dungeon is a very good representation of this. The game is kept fun due to the fact that there are an infinite number of ways that another player can impact your experience. Variety like that is lost in an overly instanced game since even with a group of players the most unpredictable thing that could happen is the healer leaves halfway...
Of course this sort of thing has negatives as well since players can grief and annoy each other... the problem is that instancing is being used as a blanket solution to any kind of negative player interaction at the expense of the positive player interaction entirely. If a player can do anything that might negatively affect the experience of another the first thing the devs do is instance it and ruin the feeling of actually playing in a virtual world.
It's kinda like this: would you like to sometimes feel bad but also sometimes feel absolutely amazing, or would you rather just feel 'average' all the time? Instancing cuts out the good and bad altogether and leaves players with an uninteresting, unchanging play experience. If you're playing with other people you have to expect that there will be highs and lows to that experience... heavy use of instancing is unrealistically restrictive and turns an MMO into a multiplayer arcade game.
EQ2 is the only MMO I've played that had instancing and got the balance right. WoW and LotRO take it too far, FFXI didn't use it quite enough (though this had an extremely positive impact on the community)...
EQ2 is the only MMO I've played that had instancing and got the balance right. WoW and LotRO take it too far, FFXI didn't use it quite enough (though this had an extremely positive impact on the community)...
I feel completely the opposite of this. I left EQ2 because the instanced world felt like pieces glued together by invisible walls., not as bad as Age of Conan, but similar. With both WOW and LOTRO, you could run for hours and never hit an invisible wall and watch as one zone slowly transitions to the next zone as you are running toward something you see far in the distance. The instancing in the latter felt appropriate, especially with the main story line in LOTRO.
EQ2 is the only MMO I've played that had instancing and got the balance right. WoW and LotRO take it too far, FFXI didn't use it quite enough (though this had an extremely positive impact on the community)...
I feel completely the opposite of this. I left EQ2 because the instanced world felt like pieces glued together by invisible walls., not as bad as Age of Conan, but similar. With both WOW and LOTRO, you could run for hours and never hit an invisible wall and watch as one zone slowly transitions to the next zone as you are running toward something you see far in the distance. The instancing in the latter felt appropriate, especially with the main story line in LOTRO.
What you're describing is zoning, not instancing. Yes EQ2 had terrible zoning, but in terms of dungeons and instanced encounters they did a very good job in my opinion.
The thing that makes an MMO an MMO is the fact that a player's play experience is dependent on the other players in that space. It's a game where your experience is as much affected by everyone else's experience as it is by what the developers have given you. Pencilrick's example of stumbling across people in a dungeon is a very good representation of this. The game is kept fun due to the fact that there are an infinite number of ways that another player can impact your experience. Variety like that is lost in an overly instanced game since even with a group of players the most unpredictable thing that could happen is the healer leaves halfway...
Of course this sort of thing has negatives as well since players can grief and annoy each other... the problem is that instancing is being used as a blanket solution to any kind of negative player interaction at the expense of the positive player interaction entirely. If a player can do anything that might negatively affect the experience of another the first thing the devs do is instance it and ruin the feeling of actually playing in a virtual world.
It's kinda like this: would you like to sometimes feel bad but also sometimes feel absolutely amazing, or would you rather just feel 'average' all the time? Instancing cuts out the good and bad altogether and leaves players with an uninteresting, unchanging play experience. If you're playing with other people you have to expect that there will be highs and lows to that experience... heavy use of instancing is unrealistically restrictive and turns an MMO into a multiplayer arcade game.
EQ2 is the only MMO I've played that had instancing and got the balance right. WoW and LotRO take it too far, FFXI didn't use it quite enough (though this had an extremely positive impact on the community)...
No, I get it... my whole point of the post was that no extreme is good, regardless of whichever extreme it happens to be.
I do agree with most of what you said. I'm not against open world, but I'm not against instances either. As long as some kind of a balance can be achieved, the game will be better off than if only one method was available. If we can work out the shortcomings of each system (phasing for example is kind of a middleroad there), even better.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
The thing that makes an MMO an MMO is the fact that a player's play experience is dependent on the other players in that space. It's a game where your experience is as much affected by everyone else's experience as it is by what the developers have given you. Pencilrick's example of stumbling across people in a dungeon is a very good representation of this. The game is kept fun due to the fact that there are an infinite number of ways that another player can impact your experience. Variety like that is lost in an overly instanced game since even with a group of players the most unpredictable thing that could happen is the healer leaves halfway...
Of course this sort of thing has negatives as well since players can grief and annoy each other... the problem is that instancing is being used as a blanket solution to any kind of negative player interaction at the expense of the positive player interaction entirely. If a player can do anything that might negatively affect the experience of another the first thing the devs do is instance it and ruin the feeling of actually playing in a virtual world.
It's kinda like this: would you like to sometimes feel bad but also sometimes feel absolutely amazing, or would you rather just feel 'average' all the time? Instancing cuts out the good and bad altogether and leaves players with an uninteresting, unchanging play experience. If you're playing with other people you have to expect that there will be highs and lows to that experience... heavy use of instancing is unrealistically restrictive and turns an MMO into a multiplayer arcade game.
EQ2 is the only MMO I've played that had instancing and got the balance right. WoW and LotRO take it too far, FFXI didn't use it quite enough (though this had an extremely positive impact on the community)...
No, I get it... my whole point of the post was that no extreme is good, regardless of whichever extreme it happens to be.
I do agree with most of what you said. I'm not against open world, but I'm not against instances either. As long as some kind of a balance can be achieved, the game will be better off than if only one method was available. If we can work out the shortcomings of each system (phasing for example is kind of a middleroad there), even better.
I disagree with that. Why does an MMO have to cater to every type of playstyle? There is nothing wrong with extremes. Extremes can be fantastic! Isnt this part of the reason why so many people feel bored with the more modern MMOs and tend to hop from one to another? Its certainly the reason why I have stopped playing them at least. There are people that want the excitement from random encounters that might wipe them out if they arent careful, random encounters that could be triggered by other players any time anywhere. They want the good and the bad situations that come from this kind of setup because its what truly seperates these types of MMO from single player or standard multiplayer rpgs. In games like this you could roll up a new character and have a different experience each and every time no matter where and when you are.
Its amazing and actually very depressing to see people claim that random occurences like this would "ruin their enjoyment" and "interrupt the progression of their character". What are they scared of? Its a game! I feel that this mentality has been fostered in the minds of players over the years due the absolute lack of any decent games that offer this level of freedom. I think a lot of people dont actually realise what they are missing. They have become so used to accepting a particular standard from MMOs that they just cant see or imagine the potential and variety that MMOs could offer. They claim that this or that will DEFINATELY ruin their gaming experience without actually knowing from experience. All they have to go on is bad experiences from past games that were badly designed and so they claim that too much freedom for the players is a bad thing.
Oh I ate a rotten apple once and it tasted horrible so I never ever want to taste an apple again or anything that remotely resembles one. I only want oranges or fruit that resembles them.
Thats not to say that scripted online games that funnel and limit players actions in a pre-defined way are bad. Some of them can be fun for a while. Its just that I dont see why ALL MMOs must have these limitations placed upon them. Not every player wants a game to feed them a "You are the hero" story. I know I certainly dont and I guarantee there are lots of others that dont as well. I have really enjoyed a number of single player games that allowed me to play through some rather entertaining stories that I could even influence to a small degree. However in an MMO I expect to have more power to change things.......not less!
There are plenty of people that want to earn the right to be a hero by actually using their own brain and trying to achieve things in a gameworld......and yeah sure not everyone would be able to make grand world changing actions and become legendary heroes......but at least some of them would be able to.......and the work of some could be undone by others. These are meant to be multiplayer online games shared by thousands of players right? Currently in mmos NO-ONE is special. All we have is a pre-scripted story that says "You are great. You are the best" no matter what you do. I would love to play a game where I might find myself being a standard adventurer who isnt a demi-god demon slayer along with everyone else and then hear through other players and npcs about the exploits of some exceptional player who managed to save a village from a dragon attack.....possibly with the help of some companions or a rare "exclusive" magic artifact. I might decide to travel and find this player and offer my services.....if he will accept someone as lowly as myself. Thats the kind of situations that happens in films and......ya know......roleplaying games. Thats what these games are supposed to be based upon right?
I often see people claiming that the RPG aspect of MMORPG doesnt neccessarily mean that genuine roleplaying (through actions......not just typing out stories in a chat channel) is a part of it. Well sure thats fine......but wouldnt it be nice if at least some of them actually focused on trying to be a genuine roleplaying game? How can that ever happen though if we are all relegated to playing against the computer and reading stories typed up by the developers. Sure player freedom has loads of potential to open a whole can of immersion breaking worms. Well.....fine! Let me play such a game and I will take the risk. It doesnt even have to mean full on free for all PvP......although it could do if a really good system was devised that practically enforced roleplaying. Even without the ability for players to slaughter each other there are plenty of ways that players could effect each other in some really fun and interesting ways.
Earlier in this thread the example of a dragon choosing to attack an area in response to the players was given. That sounds fantastic! I absolutely love the notion that something so "dangerous" could happen in an online game which would put my character at great risk.......a danger that could potentially be avoided but a danger that was unexpected. It could also be a danger that with the right cooperation with others could actually be overcome. Oh noze it would hinder a pre-scripted story for some people! Who gives a flying fuck about some text file that a developer typed up? Thats not your story. Thats the developers story. The real story is what is happening to the gameworld as a result of something some adventurers did elsewhere.......which currently happens to be a small band of adventurers (real players NOT a text file) that pissed off a dragon. How many games actually have this type of gameplay? The really sad answer is that there are virtually none that offer this. Oh yeah sure we are all more than familiar with the words EVE and Darkfall. How lame! How many years have we been hearing those names being given as an answer to anyone who wants some kind of freedom or variety in an online massively multiplayer game. Its pathetic! Oh but wait soon there will be Mortal Online. Ermm......yeah great. Sure there are people that enjoy those games but lets face it none of them are particularly amazing games are they. They offer more freedom than most other games but......come on! Thats three games!
Of course then the follow up narrow minded response is "Well go and play FPS's then" which is truly a dumbarse response that completely misses the point that we might actually want a proper roleplaying game rather than a slaughter-fest where we can create a character and have the freedom to do what we want and cause changes to occur in an online world.
I have been reading through this thread and its actually quite an interesting one for a change. I really like everything that Pencilrick and Alberet have been saying. In my opinion they seem to have a very good grasp of what has been lost from MMOs. Strangely people like this that want to have a wider and deeper ability to interact with and effect the experiences of others seem to be outnumbered by people that actually would rather just play against the computer and have the other players around them "blocked out" which surely defeats the essence of an online roleplaying game to varying degrees. I find that quite odd.
I think games developers keep making limited online multiplayer rpgs with scripted stories because its what they are familiar with and its also what the players are familiar with. I understand why they do it. MMOs are still effectively in their infancy so I think its gonna be quite a while before we start seeing a decent number of MMOs that take the risk of creating interactive worlds where players actions can impact on each other. We have started to see a couple that have tried it though at least which is something. All games can be fun to a degree. I just think its time that we started seeing more freedom in "some" MMOs for the players who want to strive for a genuine roleplaying experience. At the moment things seem pretty limited to me.
ps. Apologies for the epic wall of text. I got carried away
It's a fine line when the world is permanently changed in some way. Like the MUDMMO DragonRealms, they have areas that were affected permanently through the events they have. It's probably the closest to what you're referring to with player actions affecting the world. One of the few games that is super heavy RP that's strictly enforced, and events done by GM's in which everyone can interact and attend to have some influence on how the story goes. But, if you're a new player and want to know the history of what's going on? Good luck finding records of the events that you can use for your character, since if you try to use these things you learned on the internet, it's OOC and that's against policy. Word of mouth maybe could be your best bet, if anyone remembers. It's not too bad since it's a MUD and only one server.
I can only imagine how much harder something like that would be able to pull off in a graphic MMO. It also opens up a lot of potential issues for something that's super open world to that extent. I just think it would be vey hard for the devs to keep up with thousands of people on each server. Plus, SE is known for their storytelling. Like in FFXI, you were basically a zero and eventually become an unsung hero, so you're still nothing special to the normal folk except the key plot characters. I'm interested in what story they have to tell this time. The only real issue I noticed with FFXI, was major plot points either had to be covered up or reverted to how things were originally, in order to not expose major plot spoilers.
I don't even think I'm making sense, it's too hot...
To be the best, you must help each other become the best. FFXI Character: Satimasu FFXI Server: Valefor FFXIV Character: Tamorae Fonteil
It's a fine line when the world is permanently changed in some way. Like the MUDMMO DragonRealms, they have areas that were affected permanently through the events they have. It's probably the closest to what you're referring to with player actions affecting the world. One of the few games that is super heavy RP that's strictly enforced, and events done by GM's in which everyone can interact and attend to have some influence on how the story goes. But, if you're a new player and want to know the history of what's going on? Good luck finding records of the events that you can use for your character, since if you try to use these things you learned on the internet, it's OOC and that's against policy. Word of mouth maybe could be your best bet, if anyone remembers. It's not too bad since it's a MUD and only one server.
I can only imagine how much harder something like that would be able to pull off in a graphic MMO. It also opens up a lot of potential issues for something that's super open world to that extent. I just think it would be vey hard for the devs to keep up with thousands of people on each server. Plus, SE is known for their storytelling. Like in FFXI, you were basically a zero and eventually become an unsung hero, so you're still nothing special to the normal folk except the key plot characters. I'm interested in what story they have to tell this time. The only real issue I noticed with FFXI, was major plot points either had to be covered up or reverted to how things were originally, in order to not expose major plot spoilers.
I don't even think I'm making sense, it's too hot...
Many good recent posts, BTW. To this post, it is not so much being able to change the world as it is sharing the world. EQ1 (pre-Luclin) nailed my points completely. Minimal or no-instancing, a dangerous and mysterious world, and lots of players running around exploring, adventuring, helping one another, sometimes not helping one another.
I remember logging into EQ just to see what was going on (with other players). What other players were doing impacted my gameplay. If other players were crowding around Mistmoore Castle, then that meant there were groups to join or abandoned creature corpses to loot (for bronze armor pieces which traded in platinum).
I loved the presence other players in dungeons and zones, even when they occasionally trained (i.e, pulled monster aggro their group could not handle and which could peel off and attack other players). The trains were great, hehe. Kept you on your toes.
Well, it's a far hope that EQ3 brings back some of those elements. I know MMO's got rid of trains because it created customer service complaints, but maybe if they had a mechanism in which if someone died because of your train, then you took a faction hit, then trains would be fair game again. Just a thought.
Without getting too carried away myself, I do agree that there should be games that cater to different playstyles- PvP, PvE, sandbox, themepark, and in between.
But when we play a game with these extremes, we accept the shortcomings that each style may bring. People may not care about such shortcomings, and that's why they play the game over something else.
But if we want to have as few shortcomings as possible, we should aim for a middleroad.
My post was based on an opinion rather than fact, now that I think about it. We can't expect everyone to be the same.
But when it comes to popularity, I think the majority falls to the "in-between the two extremes" group. I am one of them, as can seen from my post.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be games that cater to the players with an extreme view. I apologize for implying that in my post.
FFXIV certainly doesn't cater to everyone- there's no PvP, and the casual elements do not rule out the hardcore elements.
But on the other hand, it aims to give the players a middleground between open world and instances. So in that way it does cater to most people.
Well, that's one thing I learned today. Thanks for that.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
The only problem with the non-instanced, changing world would be:
Who would hire the 50+GMs, who would look after the game world everyday, have a meeting everyday and recap all the things, like that player2445 told player5666 and which had a major impact on the game, which they had to implement in several hours! (Long sentence)
New players would be lost in the world and would have to ask around quite a while for the storyline to emerge(most players don't like to wait)
History will be a lot bigger with more players. Just check the freeshards on neeverwiner nights... Only a few players(tens...) and the story is BIG! Like Tolkiens Lord of the Rings in a month! This takes quite a lot of time to get back into once you go on a vacation...
Developers on-standby = when you need something done it has to be ASAP! Most mmos get a lot of developers to make the game and only a few will stay to make the patches and small changes. Most of the dev team is working on an expansion or a different mmorpg.
What if the player = king for instance gets drunk in real life and starts to go on a rampage! Who will take care of all those peasants! In a big community you can't say you know every player and his character. It will be hard to remember each and every friend in the game you meet...
Sorry if I came too much off topic... just the things I thought a lil if there was a big mmo with the RP built in as was in NWN...
Comments
Well, that's not the point. In a story rich and plot-filled mmo game some players might wish to enjoy the immersion and not have other players ruin there game experience for them. That doesn't mean that grouping is effected at all it just means that you don't get into the situation where bots and grinders make portions of a game unachievable, that certainly was the situation with Aion at launch. Simply put SE are removing the possibility of game bottlenecks and this can only be for the good.
At that point, you are arguing for single player RPG's, maybe with a small multiplayer feature so that friends can join in. (Guild Wars, DnD online, Diablo, etc...)
For MMORPG's (not RPG's), the presence of other players, positive, negative, and in-between, is what makes a MMORPG a MMORPG.
Thankfully, I started playing MMORPG's back in the late '90's when folks (and designers) understood this. Because what we have on the market now are really glorified Single Player RPG's, or Multiplayer with the "Massively" absent.
Not everything in an "MMO" must have the "Massively" aspect in it.
There are enough features that make MMO an MMO that even if Everything doesn't bend to the "massive" part, it is still an MMO in question, not an online RPG.
The more elements in an MMO that are "Massively", the more immersive the setting comes off as a "world". Now, to each their own, but to me there is nothing more lame than being instanced, linear and scripted.
And some of the best MMO experiences I have had were in stumbling across others that needed help, could help, could give directions (i.e., before the mini-map days), give escort, trade, or just pass by. The real-time interaction and sharing of the game experience is just plain immersive. In dungeon's this was even cooler. Imagine being lost in a dungeon and running from a crowd of monsters, then stumbling across another group who can save you. That stuff is exciting.
Now contrast that to some lame instanced quest where you wave the magic wand at the elite monster, turning it into a "normal" so you can easily defeat it. Then Jada Proudmore and the Lich King appear and you are a captive audience as they banter back and forth for five minutes. And you go through this with EACH AND EVERY CHARACTER YOU ROLL. Blah.
There are enough Single Player RPG's out there to satisfy those who want a solitary gaming experience. Who knows, maybe they will make a "Harry Potter" MMO where your character is the chosen one and you have your own instance of Hogwarts and can meet Hermione (and that red-headed kid) in the bathroom to accept quests. Maybe that sort of game will peel off the single player instance crowd so the rest of us can get onto real MMO's.
Everything you listed above is definitely what's right about mmo's.
However, it's also what's "wrong".
I agree that the social interaction such as the examples you gave is what can make an mmo exciting. But fighting off a hard boss or pvp'ing or doing a quest and seeing people dance around or duel right next to you or jumping up and down because they are bored takes one away from the game as a world and really brings it home as just a play space.
And that's why traditional mmo's dont' work as worlds. They are essentially just large play spaces where players can do whatever they want, whenever they want. It takes the epic out of a moment to be fighiting something only to see another group pass by and say "hey".
And that's why we see more scriptig, more instances. Because there are players who want to play in a group (or solo ) and who want to experience the world part without a layer of the ridiculous spread over it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I hope it's not instanced at all. Whats to explore if you know what is in there. Just the mobs and boss. Thats not exploreing. to bad if you got stuff pulled over you that should be part of the game. You keep what you can kill or take from others lol.Heck why should we cater to this type of game play when it insnt how everyone wants to play? why is it immature to not care if you get your loot or your character dies? happens to us all, why should everyone get free easy gear?
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
Your misconception is that your definition of "instance" means "single player" and "alone".
You don't have to be around 4000 other people at all times to have a social experience. You don't have to be out in the open at all times to enjoy an MMO or consider it one.
That kind of extreme thinking hurts the genre as much as thinking full instance is the way to go. Some features are better off in a linear, scripted instance, and some work better in an open world. Each has their pro's and con's, although you may not want admit it.
What you considered "lame" in an instance are features that do not define what is an "instance" in the first place. "Instance" doesn't mean "easy", or "alone", or that you are always the "hero" in the game.
Your definition of "real" MMO is really arrogant towards people who do not share such extreme opinions about these things. It is also insulting that you lump "single player" crowd together with the "instance" crowd. That makes no sense. Most of the time 20 players is just as good as 2000. It's not like you're interacting with all of them at once. And they're still there once you exit the instance.
I think you missed part of his point.
The thing that makes an MMO an MMO is the fact that a player's play experience is dependent on the other players in that space. It's a game where your experience is as much affected by everyone else's experience as it is by what the developers have given you. Pencilrick's example of stumbling across people in a dungeon is a very good representation of this. The game is kept fun due to the fact that there are an infinite number of ways that another player can impact your experience. Variety like that is lost in an overly instanced game since even with a group of players the most unpredictable thing that could happen is the healer leaves halfway...
Of course this sort of thing has negatives as well since players can grief and annoy each other... the problem is that instancing is being used as a blanket solution to any kind of negative player interaction at the expense of the positive player interaction entirely. If a player can do anything that might negatively affect the experience of another the first thing the devs do is instance it and ruin the feeling of actually playing in a virtual world.
It's kinda like this: would you like to sometimes feel bad but also sometimes feel absolutely amazing, or would you rather just feel 'average' all the time? Instancing cuts out the good and bad altogether and leaves players with an uninteresting, unchanging play experience. If you're playing with other people you have to expect that there will be highs and lows to that experience... heavy use of instancing is unrealistically restrictive and turns an MMO into a multiplayer arcade game.
EQ2 is the only MMO I've played that had instancing and got the balance right. WoW and LotRO take it too far, FFXI didn't use it quite enough (though this had an extremely positive impact on the community)...
I feel completely the opposite of this. I left EQ2 because the instanced world felt like pieces glued together by invisible walls., not as bad as Age of Conan, but similar. With both WOW and LOTRO, you could run for hours and never hit an invisible wall and watch as one zone slowly transitions to the next zone as you are running toward something you see far in the distance. The instancing in the latter felt appropriate, especially with the main story line in LOTRO.
There Is Always Hope!
What you're describing is zoning, not instancing. Yes EQ2 had terrible zoning, but in terms of dungeons and instanced encounters they did a very good job in my opinion.
No, I get it... my whole point of the post was that no extreme is good, regardless of whichever extreme it happens to be.
I do agree with most of what you said. I'm not against open world, but I'm not against instances either. As long as some kind of a balance can be achieved, the game will be better off than if only one method was available. If we can work out the shortcomings of each system (phasing for example is kind of a middleroad there), even better.
I disagree with that. Why does an MMO have to cater to every type of playstyle? There is nothing wrong with extremes. Extremes can be fantastic! Isnt this part of the reason why so many people feel bored with the more modern MMOs and tend to hop from one to another? Its certainly the reason why I have stopped playing them at least. There are people that want the excitement from random encounters that might wipe them out if they arent careful, random encounters that could be triggered by other players any time anywhere. They want the good and the bad situations that come from this kind of setup because its what truly seperates these types of MMO from single player or standard multiplayer rpgs. In games like this you could roll up a new character and have a different experience each and every time no matter where and when you are.
Its amazing and actually very depressing to see people claim that random occurences like this would "ruin their enjoyment" and "interrupt the progression of their character". What are they scared of? Its a game! I feel that this mentality has been fostered in the minds of players over the years due the absolute lack of any decent games that offer this level of freedom. I think a lot of people dont actually realise what they are missing. They have become so used to accepting a particular standard from MMOs that they just cant see or imagine the potential and variety that MMOs could offer. They claim that this or that will DEFINATELY ruin their gaming experience without actually knowing from experience. All they have to go on is bad experiences from past games that were badly designed and so they claim that too much freedom for the players is a bad thing.
Oh I ate a rotten apple once and it tasted horrible so I never ever want to taste an apple again or anything that remotely resembles one. I only want oranges or fruit that resembles them.
Thats not to say that scripted online games that funnel and limit players actions in a pre-defined way are bad. Some of them can be fun for a while. Its just that I dont see why ALL MMOs must have these limitations placed upon them. Not every player wants a game to feed them a "You are the hero" story. I know I certainly dont and I guarantee there are lots of others that dont as well. I have really enjoyed a number of single player games that allowed me to play through some rather entertaining stories that I could even influence to a small degree. However in an MMO I expect to have more power to change things.......not less!
There are plenty of people that want to earn the right to be a hero by actually using their own brain and trying to achieve things in a gameworld......and yeah sure not everyone would be able to make grand world changing actions and become legendary heroes......but at least some of them would be able to.......and the work of some could be undone by others. These are meant to be multiplayer online games shared by thousands of players right? Currently in mmos NO-ONE is special. All we have is a pre-scripted story that says "You are great. You are the best" no matter what you do. I would love to play a game where I might find myself being a standard adventurer who isnt a demi-god demon slayer along with everyone else and then hear through other players and npcs about the exploits of some exceptional player who managed to save a village from a dragon attack.....possibly with the help of some companions or a rare "exclusive" magic artifact. I might decide to travel and find this player and offer my services.....if he will accept someone as lowly as myself. Thats the kind of situations that happens in films and......ya know......roleplaying games. Thats what these games are supposed to be based upon right?
I often see people claiming that the RPG aspect of MMORPG doesnt neccessarily mean that genuine roleplaying (through actions......not just typing out stories in a chat channel) is a part of it. Well sure thats fine......but wouldnt it be nice if at least some of them actually focused on trying to be a genuine roleplaying game? How can that ever happen though if we are all relegated to playing against the computer and reading stories typed up by the developers. Sure player freedom has loads of potential to open a whole can of immersion breaking worms. Well.....fine! Let me play such a game and I will take the risk. It doesnt even have to mean full on free for all PvP......although it could do if a really good system was devised that practically enforced roleplaying. Even without the ability for players to slaughter each other there are plenty of ways that players could effect each other in some really fun and interesting ways.
Earlier in this thread the example of a dragon choosing to attack an area in response to the players was given. That sounds fantastic! I absolutely love the notion that something so "dangerous" could happen in an online game which would put my character at great risk.......a danger that could potentially be avoided but a danger that was unexpected. It could also be a danger that with the right cooperation with others could actually be overcome. Oh noze it would hinder a pre-scripted story for some people! Who gives a flying fuck about some text file that a developer typed up? Thats not your story. Thats the developers story. The real story is what is happening to the gameworld as a result of something some adventurers did elsewhere.......which currently happens to be a small band of adventurers (real players NOT a text file) that pissed off a dragon. How many games actually have this type of gameplay? The really sad answer is that there are virtually none that offer this. Oh yeah sure we are all more than familiar with the words EVE and Darkfall. How lame! How many years have we been hearing those names being given as an answer to anyone who wants some kind of freedom or variety in an online massively multiplayer game. Its pathetic! Oh but wait soon there will be Mortal Online. Ermm......yeah great. Sure there are people that enjoy those games but lets face it none of them are particularly amazing games are they. They offer more freedom than most other games but......come on! Thats three games!
Of course then the follow up narrow minded response is "Well go and play FPS's then" which is truly a dumbarse response that completely misses the point that we might actually want a proper roleplaying game rather than a slaughter-fest where we can create a character and have the freedom to do what we want and cause changes to occur in an online world.
I have been reading through this thread and its actually quite an interesting one for a change. I really like everything that Pencilrick and Alberet have been saying. In my opinion they seem to have a very good grasp of what has been lost from MMOs. Strangely people like this that want to have a wider and deeper ability to interact with and effect the experiences of others seem to be outnumbered by people that actually would rather just play against the computer and have the other players around them "blocked out" which surely defeats the essence of an online roleplaying game to varying degrees. I find that quite odd.
I think games developers keep making limited online multiplayer rpgs with scripted stories because its what they are familiar with and its also what the players are familiar with. I understand why they do it. MMOs are still effectively in their infancy so I think its gonna be quite a while before we start seeing a decent number of MMOs that take the risk of creating interactive worlds where players actions can impact on each other. We have started to see a couple that have tried it though at least which is something. All games can be fun to a degree. I just think its time that we started seeing more freedom in "some" MMOs for the players who want to strive for a genuine roleplaying experience. At the moment things seem pretty limited to me.
ps. Apologies for the epic wall of text. I got carried away
It's a fine line when the world is permanently changed in some way. Like the MUDMMO DragonRealms, they have areas that were affected permanently through the events they have. It's probably the closest to what you're referring to with player actions affecting the world. One of the few games that is super heavy RP that's strictly enforced, and events done by GM's in which everyone can interact and attend to have some influence on how the story goes. But, if you're a new player and want to know the history of what's going on? Good luck finding records of the events that you can use for your character, since if you try to use these things you learned on the internet, it's OOC and that's against policy. Word of mouth maybe could be your best bet, if anyone remembers. It's not too bad since it's a MUD and only one server.
I can only imagine how much harder something like that would be able to pull off in a graphic MMO. It also opens up a lot of potential issues for something that's super open world to that extent. I just think it would be vey hard for the devs to keep up with thousands of people on each server. Plus, SE is known for their storytelling. Like in FFXI, you were basically a zero and eventually become an unsung hero, so you're still nothing special to the normal folk except the key plot characters. I'm interested in what story they have to tell this time. The only real issue I noticed with FFXI, was major plot points either had to be covered up or reverted to how things were originally, in order to not expose major plot spoilers.
I don't even think I'm making sense, it's too hot...
To be the best, you must help each other become the best.
FFXI Character: Satimasu
FFXI Server: Valefor
FFXIV Character: Tamorae Fonteil
Many good recent posts, BTW. To this post, it is not so much being able to change the world as it is sharing the world. EQ1 (pre-Luclin) nailed my points completely. Minimal or no-instancing, a dangerous and mysterious world, and lots of players running around exploring, adventuring, helping one another, sometimes not helping one another.
I remember logging into EQ just to see what was going on (with other players). What other players were doing impacted my gameplay. If other players were crowding around Mistmoore Castle, then that meant there were groups to join or abandoned creature corpses to loot (for bronze armor pieces which traded in platinum).
I loved the presence other players in dungeons and zones, even when they occasionally trained (i.e, pulled monster aggro their group could not handle and which could peel off and attack other players). The trains were great, hehe. Kept you on your toes.
Well, it's a far hope that EQ3 brings back some of those elements. I know MMO's got rid of trains because it created customer service complaints, but maybe if they had a mechanism in which if someone died because of your train, then you took a faction hit, then trains would be fair game again. Just a thought.
Well, you certainly got your point across!
Without getting too carried away myself, I do agree that there should be games that cater to different playstyles- PvP, PvE, sandbox, themepark, and in between.
But when we play a game with these extremes, we accept the shortcomings that each style may bring. People may not care about such shortcomings, and that's why they play the game over something else.
But if we want to have as few shortcomings as possible, we should aim for a middleroad.
My post was based on an opinion rather than fact, now that I think about it. We can't expect everyone to be the same.
But when it comes to popularity, I think the majority falls to the "in-between the two extremes" group. I am one of them, as can seen from my post.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be games that cater to the players with an extreme view. I apologize for implying that in my post.
FFXIV certainly doesn't cater to everyone- there's no PvP, and the casual elements do not rule out the hardcore elements.
But on the other hand, it aims to give the players a middleground between open world and instances. So in that way it does cater to most people.
Well, that's one thing I learned today. Thanks for that.
The only problem with the non-instanced, changing world would be:
Who would hire the 50+GMs, who would look after the game world everyday, have a meeting everyday and recap all the things, like that player2445 told player5666 and which had a major impact on the game, which they had to implement in several hours! (Long sentence)
New players would be lost in the world and would have to ask around quite a while for the storyline to emerge(most players don't like to wait)
History will be a lot bigger with more players. Just check the freeshards on neeverwiner nights... Only a few players(tens...) and the story is BIG! Like Tolkiens Lord of the Rings in a month! This takes quite a lot of time to get back into once you go on a vacation...
Developers on-standby = when you need something done it has to be ASAP! Most mmos get a lot of developers to make the game and only a few will stay to make the patches and small changes. Most of the dev team is working on an expansion or a different mmorpg.
What if the player = king for instance gets drunk in real life and starts to go on a rampage! Who will take care of all those peasants! In a big community you can't say you know every player and his character. It will be hard to remember each and every friend in the game you meet...
Sorry if I came too much off topic... just the things I thought a lil if there was a big mmo with the RP built in as was in NWN...