Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
World size
Scot Hartsman- "The easiest thing we could have done, literally, is create terrain. We could have created a larger world space than has ever been created in MMOGs and ship it. We can do that. The problem is that that’s not fun, because creating empty space, while creating a feeling of holy crap – this world is gigantic, also creates annoyance in travel time and you end up with a very low density of interesting things to do. To us, it’s about making sure we have enough interesting things to look at, but still make it big enough so you feel that there’s a lot of things left to explore. Somewhere in there is the balance point of where our world is. On top of that, there’s also making sure that there’s interesting dungeons and interesting raid zones and interesting war fronts along the way to tie the story together. To us, it’s about the quality of any given piece of world rather than just flopping down any number of height maps saying, look, we have the biggest world in MMOGs ever. We could do that and we’d probably get some press out of it, but it’s not what we want to do. We’re looking at having a high density of interesting things to do."
I find this comforting... They seem to be aiming for a middle ground when it comes to world size, which I think is the right way to go.
I mean, we all love the idea of humungous worlds in theory I think, but when they are largely empty terrain (VG or DF maybe) whats the point? I am an explorer by nature, and love those easter eggs, but even I can get bored of looking at continous landscapes with no PoI to grab my interest.
Comments
Middle ground would had been to create the massive world and put the effort in to fill it with mobs and content and decent traveling mechanism.
All i see is another developer taking the easy road again, developers need to push the boat out these days to stand apart from the half assed releases like we see time and time again otherwise well i guess we will see wont we, cause basicly any developer could say what he just said to justify lackness.
So, your 'middle ground' involve putting in a huge empty world with scattered PoI, and then putting in a travel system that allows the player to avoid all the open worldness to reach them...
C'mon, your not thinking...
As for 'effort in to fill it with mobs and content', do you have any idea of what your saying in terms of dev time and cost? There is a reason that games like DF and VG released with such spartan huge worlds, with so much of it just sprawling empty terrain.
No, imo, a middle sized world with an appropriate content level is far far better then a massive world with inappropiate content levels.
well since MMOs is going away from virtual world, where you can change the environment, to try making "real" games, empty space serves no purpose. in a game like archeage, I d hope there is alot of empty space as it may not be empty space forever, but not in RIFT, RIFT is for the traditional "singleplayer" gamers, like almost every MMO coming out.
that said when you see diffrent video´s, they have putted a really high detail level into the environment, which gives a feeling of it being a massive world.
What do you base this on, considering there is group content from the beginning in the Shadowlands?
Sure, solo play is supported and viable, but so apparently is group play in a big way.
sounds perfect to me
I am actually glad the Devs are being honest and open about RIFTS design. I helps me to make a decision about whether to purchase and play it.
I am a fan of huge virtual worlds, I will not apologize for that, it is the feature that initially brought me into MMOs years ago. When I am checking out a MMO the very first thing I want to know is how big is the ingame world, how much interaction does a character have in the ingame world and what is in it, in other worlds has it been finished with content or is it just empty space.
In the past few years I have tried out enough MMOs with small ingame worlds. I crave a MMO with a huge ingame World (planet)first and foremost, perhaps also Space surrounding the planet to go along with it (and content in space). This is 2010 and I secondly seek up to date graphics and UI, so the older MMOs are now off my radar simply for this fact. Thirdly I seek a MMO that is a virtual world that is NOT a virtual re-enactment of present day life on planet Earth, so anything like Second Life is out of the question. These are my desires for what I want from a MMO, Virtual World first and gameplay second, challenge first and convenience second, risk vs reward first and easy second.
Since NO MMO currently available or under development meets my wish list, NO MMO is my choice for which one I will purchase next. I had some hopes that perhaps Rifts would fill my wish list but sadly it appears that it will not. I have had hopes now for years that some Dev Team somewhere would decide to go in the design direction I would appreciate and that I crave, but so far the answer is no. EVE does NOT meet my wish list for there is no Planetary content with an avatar. Wurm Online meets some but not all the wish list because it's graphics are archaic. I have tried dozens of MMOs, yet I have found no MMOs that do fit what I am searching for.
Thank you Scot Hartsman for letting me know that your MMO, RIFTS, will not be what I am looking for. Good Luck Sir to you and the rest of the Devs, I hope your project goes smoothly and that the Players you are designing RIFTS for find it satisfying and worthy of paying for. Since 99% of all potential MMO Players have no appreciation at all for huge ingame worlds I would suspect that your Team will be richly rewarded.
Thank you OP for your post. I has been helpful to me.
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!"
...............
"I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. "
__Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__
...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
"Which of the sprawling terrain world MMORPGs are you supporting right now btw? Vanguard? Darkfall? Another one?"
None. During all the years I have played MMOs I agreed to compromise on the size of Ingame worlds. I will no longer compromise on this issue. Not only do I want them huge, I want them full of content... not just huge but empty.
I will give you an example of how I see it and what I want. In SWG each world is only 20 km at the most from east to west in player explorable area. On day one of subscribing to and playing SWG I reached all the four cardinal directions and hit the impassable mountains. To me as a fan of huge virtual worlds that was a fail, even though to 99% of all MMO gamers it was a resounding success. SWG's original design of ingame worlds that must be traversed on foot or by vehicles was good, fast travel only from shuttleports and spaceports was good, but the size was extremely small in comparison to what it should have been. If SWG's worlds were at least 200 km east to west and north to south it would have been believable and enjoyable to me at least for a while.
Another example. LotRO's recreation of Middle Earth to me is insulting as far as size goes. Ingame a Players can run from Thorin's Hall east to Rivendell in about an hour.... it should take literally days in real life to accomplish that trip. Once again I am aware that 99% of MMO Gamers would find this unacceptable and complain about it, but from my point of view a virtual Middle Earth should not have been made at all if it wasn't going to be made even partially to the right scale of size and distance. I made a few posts about the ingame world during LotRO's original Beta and was rebuffed, but that did not change my opinion on the issue. I choose to support LotRO and compromise and purchased a LT sub... and see where that led to... Cash Shop LotRO. No more compromise from me on MMO design anymore.
Until a MMO ingame world is designed and released that is 1000 km from side to side... 1,000,000 square km overall... and explorable by Player characters not just "theoretical".... until that day comes (if ever) I will not get excited enough about any MMO to purchase and subscribe to it. Some of this ingame world could be oceans or seas, but it would have to be accessible by Players with ships they can buy or build ingame in which the Players could explore themselves and it would have to have content in the form of sea creatures/flora/fauna/resources either for fighting and/or harvesting. An ingame world not just in two dimensions, but three... land, underground, and eventually with expansions the sky itself as well.
That's my personal "benchmark". I *might* be persuaded to support an ingame world of half that size if and only if the amount of detail in the ingame world is increased to compensate for the loss in area. Unless Developers set for themselves a similar "benchmark" the size of ingame worlds of MMOs will never be what they could be.
*added* I would add that Ryzom has taken several steps in the right direction.... no "ports" or fast travel except the teleports that cost ingame money, creatures with a sophisticated AI that interact with Players is surprising and unpredictable ways, seasons and seasonal changes to the ingame world, Mounts for Players that make sense and can be used to caravan cargo through the game world. Take Ryzom and times it's size by at least 100 and then that would be an ingame world I would get excited about.
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!"
...............
"I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. "
__Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__
...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
To vesavius
If you wish to accept the current MMO products that is your choice as it should always be.
I do not accept the current trend in MMO design or the products that are the result. In regards to the size of ingame worlds I want much more, regardless of whether or not it is financially beneficial to the Publishers and Investors. I have the right as a potential consumer of MMO products to be hardnosed about the size issue.
But just because I am prepared to be hardnosed about it does not mean I expect any one else to hold the same opinion. In the end I suspect a MMO with an ingame world size of what I seek will never be done, but as I said that does not stop me from deciding that that is what I will accept.
As for all the area being available at release launch... well it has to be be done and ready at launch now-a-days.... MMOs succeed or fail right out of the gate at launch now according to whether or not enough of the total planned content is available at release. If too much content is scheduled to be implemented after release the Players almost give up on it before it's launched. Any attempt to create a MMO with an ingame world the size I support would at least need half of that world available at launch. Players hop from one MMO to another too often now instead of staying in one MMO like they used to. If Players would stay for months or years in a MMO like they used to then a Dev Team could more easily release content slowly over time.
As far as 500,000 square km ingame world being a "middle ground"... there are no MMO ingame worlds that are anywhere near that big except for space in EVE, but I was discussing planets and their ingame worlds. EVE isn't really that big because there are too many limitations on where you can anchor POS's (and other Player structures) due to the EVE's Devs caring more for gameplay rather than putting virtual reality first. That is of course the Devs of EVE decision to make, not mine. Most of EVE's ingame space is wasted space because Players can not do anything with it... because the Devs seek to "corral" Players into a few places in each star system to encourage conflict.
500,00 square km would not be considered "middle ground" by any current Dev Team... it would be considered massive to an exponential degree... and THAT is the bare minimum in area size of an ingame world that I am seeking in a MMO.
I have derailed this thread long enough. I will discuss this another time and in a thread designed for this particular topic. My apologies and thank you for the discussion vesavius.
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!"
...............
"I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. "
__Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__
...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
I supported many MMOs with my entertainment dollar through the years, but the voices of convenience and speedy gameplay were louder than voices like mine for larger worlds. My conclusion is therefore that "he who has the most gold wins". Players that want to spend only an hour or two in a MMO at a time win over Players like myself that are prepared to spend many hours, and enjoy it, in a MMO.
So, supporting a MMO in the hopes it will get bigger or better doesn't work.
Which leads to why I say a MMO must be mostly complete at launch... for there is really no hope that it will get finished if you look at the track records and histories of MMOs over the last ten years.
And until a Dev Team and Publisher take a risk and make a huge world MMO they will never really know if it will pay off. Only they can choose to take the risk.. but if they do, and they do a good job at it from the beginning, I would pay a retail price of $250 and a subscription of $50 or more each month to reward the risk they took... and if it is indeed a huge world as I classify them I would be subscribing for years just to explore it all.
So a Dev Team has to make it really huge... much bigger than anything made before...
... and they have to do it RIGHT with proper content Players can use and interact with...
... and they have to put Virtual Reality first before gameplay...
... THEN I will reward them for their huge efforts and risk. I suspect there would be many others that have given up on the MMO genre that would come back and thank them with a nice subscription as well.
I really don't see how I am my own worst enemy... rather I see myself as an opportunity lost.
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!"
...............
"I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. "
__Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__
...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
Very interesting conversation, I am going to date myself, but in 1999 when Everquest 1 was released, the content was not very large but it was very full of things to do. The game also supported player based instant travel (ie play the player to port you around) and people made wizards and druids to do just that.
But my piont is that developers expanded the world added content, and after Scars of Vellious the game changed (for the worse in my opinion but i still played it for another 4 years).
Add the land masses as expansions or free content and build to that 1000 km x 1000 km world.
there is no real middle ground, either make the world busy or barren right now ... i vote for busy.
Artorus Giltanus - Ranger EQ1 Retired
Arturien - 90 Deathknight WoW
But why would they when the advocators of massive MMO worlds arnt playing the games already out there?
This is what i mean by being your own worst enemy really
Me too, but I come from the same gaming background as you it seems.
I think you didnt read my Very first sentence i said a massive world with lots of mobs and content not as your opening sentence states i said make a massive world with nothing and just cause you have some form of traveling system in place doesnt mean you have to jump aboard and miss it , if you do then thats your fault.
The fact they dont choose to is fine thats there choice is there game afterall, all im saying is until a dev pull out all the stops and covers all these bases with content across a decent size world, large world for adventuring ect its half assed in my opinion.
Just cause a developer makes a massive world doesnt mean it has to be empty it can be filled a plenty the fact that games released over the years cannot manage this and take the easy road has lowered the MMO communties standards so much now they think you cant have a massive world filled with fun things to do it will be only empty, is sad really
And guys why do you always say im glad the they are being honest .... havent you learn anything from near every development in last 5 years, just cause they throw a negative at you doesnt mean its being honest.
Because as far as I am concerned there has never been a MMO that is massive as far as size of ingame world goes.
And because I said I DID financially support some of these MMOs with big worlds... but even though I did, those MMOs have gradually been changed and altered to favor Players that do NOT appreciate big ingame worlds, rather those Players want to skip and ignore all the work and polish the Devs put into those worlds in the first place. I really don't blame the Devs for not wanting to make huge ingame worlds since most Players simply won't take the time to appreciate them. Now add to that the bean counters reminding the Devs how expensive these huge worlds are to maintain and *poof* we have the current state of MMO design philosophy.
So like I said in a previous post, financially supporting current MMOs with big worlds has accomplished nothing. What is needed is a new Dev Team not shackled to bean counters that is willing to take a risk and push the boundaries of what is possible in ingame world size and also remain committed to maintaining that MMO through release so that Players like myself can prove to them that it was a worthy investment and risk.
You used VG as an example of a huge ingame world; to me it is too small and not really any different than the size of say... Runes of Magic's world for example. It has to do with perception of scale... to most Players VG and EQ are huge because they compare them to other MMOs.... I feel and think they are small because I compare them to the size a MMO could be... much much bigger than even the largest so far. I see this from another vantage point than most do.
When Developers create a huge massive ingame world that fits more in line with my own personal definition, then I will financially support it.
I also said that I want up to date graphics for such a world... there are big (not huge) ingame worlds in some older MMOs, but without serious rework to their graphics I am not interested. Why should I spend thousands of dollars to build the best PC for MMO gaming that I can and deal with graphics that don't even begin to fully utilize all the capabilities of my PC? Excellent graphics are also a big part of the "world immersion" quality of a MMO.... poor graphics even with a huge ingame world still is not the best it should be, nor am I willing to financially support a MMO that has a huge ingame world but outdated graphics. To me me both are intertwined and inseparable.
Financially supporting anything less than that is a mistake for someone like me and what I want from a MMO. Compromise leads nowhere but to disappointment.
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!"
...............
"I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. "
__Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__
...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
If i was into man love i would take you out for dinner, this is where my mind is from aswell and where my standard arise from being EQ1.
JUst cant believe we had it so right back then (not perfect) yet so wrong now.
Before i get bombed i appreciate people have different playstyles, expectations and find joy from different kinda games but alas mmo's now just lack , but i have faith things will come full circle.
That's what I see as well.
As for Vanguard and it huge open spaces. I actually enjoyed that. The problem is that the developers didn't give us things we could do while traveling that could be used to benefit of time and character while playing in such a big open world. We couldn't make camps. Our foraging was on a stupid cool down. There was no dynamic migrations of MOB's or dynamic MOB's movement.
For instance. They needed herd animals, you know like herds of certain kinds that roam the open areas. They needed predatory MOB's, and territorial MOB's, that if not kept in check could take over areas, due to over population(say like those lizard guys expanding their territory from the small straight of beach and island to include more mainland territory). So much could have been done with the open world of Vanguard and it was squandered.
Yes Vanguard has wide open spaces but their is always content just lurking around the corner. Vanguard has so much content that you could play it for three years and still only see 3/4 of it.
Vanguard is vast but realistic and some people like that. I live in a city but as soon as i step out of the city the life and people become less,that's how it's supposed to be.
Vanguard has something like 14 different starter areas for each race and it has quests and dungeons that are second to none since EQ1.
Those who have not played it through to level 55 or have just tried it can't really comment on how much content it has.
Don't get me wrong, i am not saying that rift is wrong but don't think for one moment that having a vast world can't work.
As for Darkfall, you can't put that game in the same arena as Vanguard, it's a pvp game that lacks pve content.
Vanguard is the best PVE game out their by a mile and i contest anyone who says they have ever ran out of things to do in that game.
Adventuring.. Deplomacy... Crafting..
are all vast parts of the game and each takes as long as each other to level up.
I am interested to see how they build Telara. My preference of all the MMOs I've played would be either Dereth (Asheron's Call) or the planets of SWG. That may be too much free space for most of you that prefer a more guided approach. The cool thing about both games, though, was that though they were large they had other systems (crafting being biggest) for which you could find resources out in those expansive places. So it's not like you were just riding along doing nothing. Well, if you only chose the "swing sword/pew pew" portion of gameplay you might. But hey, that's your fault, not the game's.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
You seem to be contradicting yourself here Zazz...
Dmy seems to be supporting Rift's apporach of a middle sized world with ample content, and then growing it, the same as EQ took.
You call EQ1's approach 'so right' yet Rift's as 'half arsed'...
I'm not getting it...
no one here has claimed that as far as I can see...
I think you might have misunderstood the conversation. Not flaming, just saying. This is about game world size and the value of acres and acres of empty terrain with no PoI or anything to do in it.
yes, and all of them are empty, beause people mostly like to start in an area where there more centralised and there are other people visible playing.
a ton of people cite the perceived lack of other players, and the sense of playing a lonely single player RPG, in VG as a major reason for them quitting.