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.
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.
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.
No, I did, I just addressed it in the part I have marked green above. Hope that clarifies for you, didnt mean to confuse.
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.
Have you any idea of what you are demanding though?
A massive world rammed full of PoI and content? What other game are you comparing Rift to as 'half assed' at launch that does this? I would like to know your measuring stick here.
All your points are totally valid mate but didnt really want to get into discussion about budget, that could go on for ever.
If you like the RPG side of MMo's have a look at Tealas's post on first page at the bottom, im just talking about simple additions to a world makes all the difference ofc content to boot, but aye its a hard one with every individual wanting different things.
If you and i dont mean you personaly want fat lootz everytime you kill a mob aye its expensive but if you like to run through a forest full of deers with your friends not knowing what you will find shooting off your bow hoping theres something you will find on route to your primary destination in a lush vibrant world as the sun gleams through the trees at the floor, then aye i dont think this is such a reach.
Mainly im just commenting on the developers own comments I find fair but not comforting and abit of a backdoor for him, not on the final outcome im sure it will have its good points maybe even a great game.
You know I think I can sum it up for myself in one sentence. "theres no adventure anymore, no surprises".
People say its graphics, content, end game! and even being able to jump! in a game that makes it great and it is all these but truly its the communit and the friendships that trully make a great MMO , but you need a platform for that and that is a great world to explore together otherwise your just passing each other by and 2/3 of teh fun, cause its best shared.
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.
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.
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.
No, I did, I just addressed it in the part I have marked green above. Hope that clarifies for you, didnt mean to confuse.
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.
Have you any idea of what you are demanding though?
A massive world rammed full of PoI and content? What other game are you comparing Rift to as 'half assed' at launch that does this? I would like to know your measuring stick here.
All your points are totally valid mate but didnt really want to get into discussion about budget, that could go on for ever.
If you like the RPG side of MMo's have a look at Tealas's post on first page at the bottom, im just talking about simple additions to a world makes all the difference ofc content to boot, but aye its a hard one with every individual wanting different things.
If you and i dont mean you personaly want fat lootz everytime you kill a mob aye its expensive but if you like to run through a forest full of deers with your friends not knowing what you will find shooting off your bow hoping theres something you will find on route to your primary destination in a lush vibrant world as the sun gleams through the trees at the floor, then aye i dont think this is such a reach.
Mainly im just commenting on the developers own comments I find fair but not comforting and abit of a backdoor for him, not on the final outcome im sure ity will have its good points m,aybe even a great game.
You know I think I can sum it up for myself in one sentence. "theres no adventure anymore, no surprises".
ahh ok, I see clearer now
Thankfully Scott has said repeatedly that he fully gets the need for exploring, easter eggs, and the fact that people love all that (including me). He seems very confident that his 'middle' sized world can offer it, while keeping the content density up as well, which sounds great to me.
This was the main reason for the inclusion of EQ2 style collections and open world bosses it seems.
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.
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.
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.
No, I did, I just addressed it in the part I have marked green above. Hope that clarifies for you, didnt mean to confuse.
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.
Have you any idea of what you are demanding though?
A massive world rammed full of PoI and content? What other game are you comparing Rift to as 'half assed' at launch that does this? I would like to know your measuring stick here.
All your points are totally valid mate but didnt really want to get into discussion about budget, that could go on for ever.
If you like the RPG side of MMo's have a look at Tealas's post on first page at the bottom, im just talking about simple additions to a world makes all the difference ofc content to boot, but aye its a hard one with every individual wanting different things.
If you and i dont mean you personaly want fat lootz everytime you kill a mob aye its expensive but if you like to run through a forest full of deers with your friends not knowing what you will find shooting off your bow hoping theres something you will find on route to your primary destination in a lush vibrant world as the sun gleams through the trees at the floor, then aye i dont think this is such a reach.
Mainly im just commenting on the developers own comments I find fair but not comforting and abit of a backdoor for him, not on the final outcome im sure ity will have its good points m,aybe even a great game.
You know I think I can sum it up for myself in one sentence. "theres no adventure anymore, no surprises".
ahh ok, I see clearer now
Thankfully Scott has said repeatedly that he fully gets the need for exploring, easter eggs, and the fact that people love all that (including me). He seems very confident that his 'middle' sized world can offer it, while keeping the content density up as well, which sounds great to me.
This was the main reason for the inclusion of EQ2 style collections and open world bosses it seems.
Middle Size is good if your comparison before was of Vanguard to me that was just spot on and would be very happy with that when i say massive im not meaning like maybe Dark n Light where you could basicly chuck every land mmo in there ever made and still have room for the next ten years.
But your confidence in the game has made me little more interested in this game now lol so I will be paying it proper attention now.
I remember taking my first steps into Kunark then Vellious not knowing what to expect and growing from there, but what i remember most are the people, it was crowded and camp checks were everywhere people looking for groups and active invites. I hope that this world is built with the same thoughts in mind. I tried not to bring up VG, EQ2, and World of Warcraft now falls into that trap pretty hard.
VG was a very pretty game, infact in my opinion when you have the graphic power probably one of the best designed (graphically AoC gives it a run for money). But its barren, barren of people barren of activity ... wait till end game ... yea your limited to APW and a few other spots but its just a small area. If VG stared with just the one main continent made that perfect and expanded to the other 2 over time ... that game probaby would be busy.
Todays mentality is rush to max level then what, never focusing on the journey, respect in so many areas of this gaming world have disappeared. I am hoping that Rift brings the return to respect and just not another same ole mmo. VG had so much potential but due to management decisions failed miserably.
In EQ1 ... there was wildlife all over the place and mobs that would flat out kill you that were higher than the level area stuff (Giants and Wraiths in Oasis de Marr), Griffons in SK, Bad ass dragon in Dreadlands.
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.
The bigger the world, the more development time and money is used up filling it with stuff to do. A good developer will base the size of their world and content according to the project's budget and time scale so that they don't end up pulling a Duke Nukem Forever.
All they're saying is that they chose to make the world as big as possible without spreading their content too thinly, I don't see how that's "taking the easy road", it's just good game design. Who wants to play a game for 2 hours and spend 90 minutes of that staring at empty fields?
Vanguard has something like 14 different starter areas for each race
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.
It's not so much that people like to play in more centralised areas. The reason for them being empty is the lack of players to fill them. That is not down to it being a big world it's down to the game having the bad start.
If the game would of been a success then those areas would have plenty of people in them. Empty or not the point is the content is there even though it's a vast world.
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.
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
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 do not think your expectations of world size in an mmo are ever going to be realized. Why so? Short answer, it wouldnt be profitable. It would cost a ton of money just to make the world you want and then there would have to be content and an enjoyable game to play and guess what? That cost money too!
PS-I am saying this as nicely as I can so dont take it wrong, but I would imagine that you want people to read what you write. If thats the case, it might be in your best interest to write shorter, more concise posts. I feel I have to mention, on other boards, you would get flamed for your multiple walls of text. Take it for what its worth.
Huge World Size is great for Sandboxes where players can place crafting structures, housing, or even player made cities. Not so much for themeparks though. If they are planning on filling every corner with content and quests and promote very little real exploring then they are right on path.
Still makes me wish they would have taken this great engine and made some huge landmasses and made a sandbox/themepark mix instead of more of the same.
Pros and cons to every side. WoW is a much smaller world than LOTRO (just examples). From an immersion perspective, LOTRO comes out ahead...but you do have to spend more time traveling. WoW takes a lot less time to get from place to place. Once you get to travel services, WoW does have the flying mounts to get you across the map, but it does take a good amount of time. Since the LOTRO world is so much larger, they do offer "swift" travel that is essentially instantaneous travel. Both have ways to get you to destinations quickly via certain class skills or items.
I mention these two since I've played these two for a good deal of time. The difference in feel is substantial.
Although the reduced travel time is very convenient in WoW, transitions seem rather jarring, and every deviation not on a road is going to be a battle every step of the way due to relatively high mob density on every map.
For LOTRO, you have a fairly annoying travel time until you get your own mount and discover the travel point. However, due to the large size of the maps, transitions are less frequent and don't seem quite as jarring. There are some fairly large areas of the map that you don't have fight every step of the way, which is a nice break and seems like a more rounded world as a result.
I can definitely see peoples attraction to either concept. It really comes down to what you prefer.
I do not think your expectations of world size in an mmo are ever going to be realized. Why so? Short answer, it wouldnt be profitable. It would cost a ton of money just to make the world you want and then there would have to be content and an enjoyable game to play and guess what? That cost money too!
PS-I am saying this as nicely as I can so dont take it wrong, but I would imagine that you want people to read what you write. If thats the case, it might be in your best interest to write shorter, more concise posts. I feel I have to mention, on other boards, you would get flamed for your multiple walls of text. Take it for what its worth.
I agree with you, I doubt anyone will ever decide to make a huge MMO like I have described. This is what I have always sought in a MMO and still do. It is my right as a MMO consumer to decide what I feel is acceptable and what is not, and then vote with my wallet, and that is what I am doing. My wallet vote is the only right I have as a MMO customer... the MMO Publishers through the legal wording of the TOS's and EULA's hold all the power so to speak. We either accept what they offer and spend money or we decide to keep our money and wait for what we do want. I am waiting.
As for your encouraging advice in your "PS"...
I write with the only style I personally can write with. I have attempted to write in a short and concise manner, but every time I attempt it most people that read it don't understand what I am trying to say. I speak in the same manner as well, and I always have.
As for being flamed... bring it on. I have been flamed by the best of them and lived just fine to post another day.
I take the time to read everyone's posts usually... the short ones and the long ones. If other people are not willing to read my posts because they are long... that's their business and their choice, as it should be.
Thank you.
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 do not think your expectations of world size in an mmo are ever going to be realized. Why so? Short answer, it wouldnt be profitable. It would cost a ton of money just to make the world you want and then there would have to be content and an enjoyable game to play and guess what? That cost money too!
PS-I am saying this as nicely as I can so dont take it wrong, but I would imagine that you want people to read what you write. If thats the case, it might be in your best interest to write shorter, more concise posts. I feel I have to mention, on other boards, you would get flamed for your multiple walls of text. Take it for what its worth.
I agree with you, I doubt anyone will ever decide to make a huge MMO like I have described. This is what I have always sought in a MMO and still do. It is my right as a MMO consumer to decide what I feel is acceptable and what is not, and then vote with my wallet, and that is what I am doing. My wallet vote is the only right I have as a MMO customer... the MMO Publishers through the legal wording of the TOS's and EULA's hold all the power so to speak. We either accept what they offer and spend money or we decide to keep our money and wait for what we do want. I am waiting.
As for your encouraging advice in your "PS"...
I write with the only style I personally can write with. I have attempted to write in a short and concise manner, but every time I attempt it most people that read it don't understand what I am trying to say. I speak in the same manner as well, and I always have.
As for being flamed... bring it on. I have been flamed by the best of them and lived just fine to post another day.
I take the time to read everyone's posts usually... the short ones and the long ones. If other people are not willing to read my posts because they are long... that's their business and their choice, as it should be.
Thank you.
I understand how you are voting with your wallet, I just think its an unreasonable, unobtainable expectation. To me, its akin to refusing to buy an automobile until they are jet powered and get great gas mileage....or expecting anyone to read your huge posts :P just joking!
In all seriousness what do you expect the game to be like? Would it be a sandbox? Would it be theme-parkish? What game has come the closest to what you would like to see?
From what I gather the engine that trion is using allows them to add stuff on the fly, rather than having downtime for massive patches.
Theres a fair chance that at some point the player, at end game could come to a previously unexplored part of the map and find a new raid zone or place to explore that wasnt there previously.
It does seem they are starting out with medium sized zones that are rich in content, totally because it is relatively easy to patch in new stuff as and when it is required.
Guess we will have to wait till launch though to find the proof!
RIFT is for the traditional "singleplayer" gamers, like almost every MMO coming out.
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.
sorry for a late reply on this when I say it aim for singleplayer gamers, I didnt think of ppl going off playing solo, but rather that you have a story line, quests, to follow from start to the end, and make sure that there is small gabs between the visually experiences, and make sure there is action almost all the time - there is as far as I know very little to nothing to do in this game other than fighting, the crafting system that is in the alpha, is of the kind could as well not have been there at all...it could change but am not holding my breath for that.
also mind that alot of singleplayer games developed for this and next year actually have grouping with friends online possible, in the same way as borderlands have done, but sorry for not being more specific in my first post .
RIFT is for the traditional "singleplayer" gamers, like almost every MMO coming out.
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.
sorry for a late reply on this when I say it aim for singleplayer gamers, I didnt think of ppl going off playing solo, but rather that you have a story line, quests, to follow from start to the end, and make sure that there is small gabs between the visually experiences, and make sure there is action almost all the time
Ahh you mean linear, not solo then?
Can i ask where you have got your details about how heavy the storyline is? Because I havent read much about that yet... I don't get the impression at all that this will be as story oppressive as SWTOR , or even GW2, though. What has led you believe otherwise?
Also, can you link to source for the 'small gaps' and 'action almost all the time'?
there is as far as I know very little to nothing to do in this game other than fighting, the crafting system that is in the alpha, is of the kind could as well not have been there at all...it could change but am not holding my breath for that.
The craft system in place has been stated to be a 'placeholder' system and still being developed. I am surpirsed you know so much about the current model and havent heard this.
also mind that alot of singleplayer games developed for this and next year actually have grouping with friends online possible, in the same way as borderlands have done, but sorry for not being more specific in my first post .
This game already has group co-op content from the Shadowlands, thats the newbie zone, which is unsual to say the least in a modern MMO, and from what has been said is aimed at group play as well as solo.
I am not sure why the fact that some single player games having a co-op mode has anything to do with that.
I do not think your expectations of world size in an mmo are ever going to be realized. Why so? Short answer, it wouldnt be profitable. It would cost a ton of money just to make the world you want and then there would have to be content and an enjoyable game to play and guess what? That cost money too!
PS-I am saying this as nicely as I can so dont take it wrong, but I would imagine that you want people to read what you write. If thats the case, it might be in your best interest to write shorter, more concise posts. I feel I have to mention, on other boards, you would get flamed for your multiple walls of text. Take it for what its worth.
I agree with you, I doubt anyone will ever decide to make a huge MMO like I have described. This is what I have always sought in a MMO and still do. It is my right as a MMO consumer to decide what I feel is acceptable and what is not, and then vote with my wallet, and that is what I am doing.
Of course that is your right, I am 100% behind consumer power to change things, but for that to be effective you actually have to be a consumer of one thing, if not the other.
I feel as strongly about cash shops as you do this, but I support my view with playing cash shop free games as much as possible. I also love supporting indie devs and buy and play those games, even if they don't have the market hype, or maybe even graphical quality or whatever, of the larger games. They might not be the ideal of what I am looking for, but I realise that for more to be made the current ones have to sell.
Imo, If you want massive worlds full of content, then you need to support existing massive worlds until they become full of content.
At the moment you arnt voting, you are abstaining, thats not the same thing, and you are invisible.
Brave massive games full of content that require huge investment and risk are not made for invisible markets
While it is nice with logical and fitting content I kinda miss the large worlds with exploration myself.
Totally empty wasteland isn't good either but a large wood for one thing with a few things in it is more exiting to me than one of the woods were they put monsters with a certain distance from eachother at the whole place, a forest with not so many monsters or animals but a few nasty is in many ways more exiting than the overpopulated forests in games with small zones.
There seems to be a big difference in view here between MMO vets and newer players. We vets have seen both things in many games but that doesn't mean that one of the opinions are wrong, it is a matter of taste. But I really miss exploration, new MMOs seems to have very little of that.
On another matter do I wonder how large Rifts world is compared to GW2 and TOR.
While it is nice with logical and fitting content I kinda miss the large worlds with exploration myself.
Totally empty wasteland isn't good either but a large wood for one thing with a few things in it is more exiting to me than one of the woods were they put monsters with a certain distance from eachother at the whole place, a forest with not so many monsters or animals but a few nasty is in many ways more exiting than the overpopulated forests in games with small zones.
There seems to be a big difference in view here between MMO vets and newer players. We vets have seen both things in many games but that doesn't mean that one of the opinions are wrong, it is a matter of taste. But I really miss exploration, new MMOs seems to have very little of that.
On another matter do I wonder how large Rifts world is compared to GW2 and TOR.
You just gave me a flashback of the woods north of Glendonwood in Asheron's Call. After about a 4-5 minut run north of town you'd hit these "wintry" woods. They'd have Banderlings and Drudges scattered about such that you would run into them but not in a claustrophobic manner that is prevalent today in MMO making.
"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..."
Large world is doable...teleport class,bind stones ect ect,the ideas has already been done over several games.I wouldn't let VG scare anyone from a large world,it was a great idea if had the players and if Rift ends up a small player base,then i doubt it really matters what size the world is as people will stay away.
All i have been able to gather is the 6 planes/rifts,earth,fire,air,water,life ,death.Could mean 6 main maps with most of the rest of the content in instances?
Trion talks about reason or giving palyers things to do in a smaller world,does this mean the over played thousands of useless quest design we have seen far too much of?Can you trust Trion will actually come up with tons of unique ideas to keep players in their small zones,because there will always be players that just want to go off and explore.
I think bottom line is weather or not Trion has the budget to make enough resources to fill the game world.Game files/resources don't make themselves,it takes lots of manpower and a budget to fund it.Players want lots of weapon/armour sets to feel unique,they also want lots of crafting choices that make a diference.
I think it would be fair to let Trion make a "comfortable "sized world and not expect a giant world that only Blizzard/Soe or Square Enix could produce.I could allow them time to constantly make the world grow,so long i am not tied/bound into repeating boring quests over and over to fill my time.I will be frank,i cannot take one more quest>quest>quest game design,it is too simple and boring,or at the very least give quests a real purpose aka Rank/Fame as in FFXI.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Have any of you played Shadowbane? It was my first mmo so while it had some serious problems, I remember it fondly. One thing I liked was how large it was....at least how large it felt to me.
Was it large? What do you guys think? Because it seemed large because there werent flight paths and only certain classes could summon if I remember correctly. There were bind stones and there were also spots you could port from but it took time to get to those spots and depending on where you wanted to go, it took multiple Port stones to get there.
Originally posted by zazz 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.
A "decent traveling mechanism"? So we can just skip the massive open world?
Ya...there's a reason why you're just a MMORPG.com forum poster and not actually a game developer.
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.
A "decent traveling mechanism"? So we can just skip the massive open world?
Ya...there's a reason why you're just a MMORPG.com forum poster and not actually a game developer.
I dont agree with the snide remark, but I have to agree with the sentiment. Making a massive world say like WoW and STUFFING it with mobs....well, how is that different from what WoW has?
Not that I am going all anti WoW but, were talking about optimal world size/content. And making it big, and stuffing it full of mobs that you have to navigate and being able to bypass that all via travel mechanisms, that is NOT optimal.
I think bottom line is weather or not Trion has the budget to make enough resources to fill the game world.Game files/resources don't make themselves,it takes lots of manpower and a budget to fund it.Players want lots of weapon/armour sets to feel unique,they also want lots of crafting choices that make a diference.
I have yet to see a game launched with a massive world that has filled with with a appropriate desnity of content... By 'massive' though i don't mean EQ2 size, which wasnt, but more like VG or DF size (at least). See below though.
I think it would be fair to let Trion make a "comfortable "sized world and not expect a giant world that only Blizzard...
How big was WoW at launch? Bigger or smaller then EQ2? (as a point of reference to me)
Comments
All your points are totally valid mate but didnt really want to get into discussion about budget, that could go on for ever.
If you like the RPG side of MMo's have a look at Tealas's post on first page at the bottom, im just talking about simple additions to a world makes all the difference ofc content to boot, but aye its a hard one with every individual wanting different things.
If you and i dont mean you personaly want fat lootz everytime you kill a mob aye its expensive but if you like to run through a forest full of deers with your friends not knowing what you will find shooting off your bow hoping theres something you will find on route to your primary destination in a lush vibrant world as the sun gleams through the trees at the floor, then aye i dont think this is such a reach.
Mainly im just commenting on the developers own comments I find fair but not comforting and abit of a backdoor for him, not on the final outcome im sure it will have its good points maybe even a great game.
You know I think I can sum it up for myself in one sentence. "theres no adventure anymore, no surprises".
People say its graphics, content, end game! and even being able to jump! in a game that makes it great and it is all these but truly its the communit and the friendships that trully make a great MMO , but you need a platform for that and that is a great world to explore together otherwise your just passing each other by and 2/3 of teh fun, cause its best shared.
ahh ok, I see clearer now
Thankfully Scott has said repeatedly that he fully gets the need for exploring, easter eggs, and the fact that people love all that (including me). He seems very confident that his 'middle' sized world can offer it, while keeping the content density up as well, which sounds great to me.
This was the main reason for the inclusion of EQ2 style collections and open world bosses it seems.
Middle Size is good if your comparison before was of Vanguard to me that was just spot on and would be very happy with that when i say massive im not meaning like maybe Dark n Light where you could basicly chuck every land mmo in there ever made and still have room for the next ten years.
But your confidence in the game has made me little more interested in this game now lol so I will be paying it proper attention now.
I remember taking my first steps into Kunark then Vellious not knowing what to expect and growing from there, but what i remember most are the people, it was crowded and camp checks were everywhere people looking for groups and active invites. I hope that this world is built with the same thoughts in mind. I tried not to bring up VG, EQ2, and World of Warcraft now falls into that trap pretty hard.
VG was a very pretty game, infact in my opinion when you have the graphic power probably one of the best designed (graphically AoC gives it a run for money). But its barren, barren of people barren of activity ... wait till end game ... yea your limited to APW and a few other spots but its just a small area. If VG stared with just the one main continent made that perfect and expanded to the other 2 over time ... that game probaby would be busy.
Todays mentality is rush to max level then what, never focusing on the journey, respect in so many areas of this gaming world have disappeared. I am hoping that Rift brings the return to respect and just not another same ole mmo. VG had so much potential but due to management decisions failed miserably.
In EQ1 ... there was wildlife all over the place and mobs that would flat out kill you that were higher than the level area stuff (Giants and Wraiths in Oasis de Marr), Griffons in SK, Bad ass dragon in Dreadlands.
Artorus Giltanus - Ranger EQ1 Retired
Arturien - 90 Deathknight WoW
The bigger the world, the more development time and money is used up filling it with stuff to do. A good developer will base the size of their world and content according to the project's budget and time scale so that they don't end up pulling a Duke Nukem Forever.
All they're saying is that they chose to make the world as big as possible without spreading their content too thinly, I don't see how that's "taking the easy road", it's just good game design. Who wants to play a game for 2 hours and spend 90 minutes of that staring at empty fields?
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.
It's not so much that people like to play in more centralised areas. The reason for them being empty is the lack of players to fill them. That is not down to it being a big world it's down to the game having the bad start.If the game would of been a success then those areas would have plenty of people in them. Empty or not the point is the content is there even though it's a vast world.
I do not think your expectations of world size in an mmo are ever going to be realized. Why so? Short answer, it wouldnt be profitable. It would cost a ton of money just to make the world you want and then there would have to be content and an enjoyable game to play and guess what? That cost money too!
PS-I am saying this as nicely as I can so dont take it wrong, but I would imagine that you want people to read what you write. If thats the case, it might be in your best interest to write shorter, more concise posts. I feel I have to mention, on other boards, you would get flamed for your multiple walls of text. Take it for what its worth.
Huge World Size is great for Sandboxes where players can place crafting structures, housing, or even player made cities. Not so much for themeparks though. If they are planning on filling every corner with content and quests and promote very little real exploring then they are right on path.
Still makes me wish they would have taken this great engine and made some huge landmasses and made a sandbox/themepark mix instead of more of the same.
Pros and cons to every side. WoW is a much smaller world than LOTRO (just examples). From an immersion perspective, LOTRO comes out ahead...but you do have to spend more time traveling. WoW takes a lot less time to get from place to place. Once you get to travel services, WoW does have the flying mounts to get you across the map, but it does take a good amount of time. Since the LOTRO world is so much larger, they do offer "swift" travel that is essentially instantaneous travel. Both have ways to get you to destinations quickly via certain class skills or items.
I mention these two since I've played these two for a good deal of time. The difference in feel is substantial.
Although the reduced travel time is very convenient in WoW, transitions seem rather jarring, and every deviation not on a road is going to be a battle every step of the way due to relatively high mob density on every map.
For LOTRO, you have a fairly annoying travel time until you get your own mount and discover the travel point. However, due to the large size of the maps, transitions are less frequent and don't seem quite as jarring. There are some fairly large areas of the map that you don't have fight every step of the way, which is a nice break and seems like a more rounded world as a result.
I can definitely see peoples attraction to either concept. It really comes down to what you prefer.
I agree with you, I doubt anyone will ever decide to make a huge MMO like I have described. This is what I have always sought in a MMO and still do. It is my right as a MMO consumer to decide what I feel is acceptable and what is not, and then vote with my wallet, and that is what I am doing. My wallet vote is the only right I have as a MMO customer... the MMO Publishers through the legal wording of the TOS's and EULA's hold all the power so to speak. We either accept what they offer and spend money or we decide to keep our money and wait for what we do want. I am waiting.
As for your encouraging advice in your "PS"...
I write with the only style I personally can write with. I have attempted to write in a short and concise manner, but every time I attempt it most people that read it don't understand what I am trying to say. I speak in the same manner as well, and I always have.
As for being flamed... bring it on. I have been flamed by the best of them and lived just fine to post another day.
I take the time to read everyone's posts usually... the short ones and the long ones. If other people are not willing to read my posts because they are long... that's their business and their choice, as it should be.
Thank you.
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 understand how you are voting with your wallet, I just think its an unreasonable, unobtainable expectation. To me, its akin to refusing to buy an automobile until they are jet powered and get great gas mileage....or expecting anyone to read your huge posts :P just joking!
In all seriousness what do you expect the game to be like? Would it be a sandbox? Would it be theme-parkish? What game has come the closest to what you would like to see?
From what I gather the engine that trion is using allows them to add stuff on the fly, rather than having downtime for massive patches.
Theres a fair chance that at some point the player, at end game could come to a previously unexplored part of the map and find a new raid zone or place to explore that wasnt there previously.
It does seem they are starting out with medium sized zones that are rich in content, totally because it is relatively easy to patch in new stuff as and when it is required.
Guess we will have to wait till launch though to find the proof!
sorry for a late reply on this when I say it aim for singleplayer gamers, I didnt think of ppl going off playing solo, but rather that you have a story line, quests, to follow from start to the end, and make sure that there is small gabs between the visually experiences, and make sure there is action almost all the time - there is as far as I know very little to nothing to do in this game other than fighting, the crafting system that is in the alpha, is of the kind could as well not have been there at all...it could change but am not holding my breath for that.
also mind that alot of singleplayer games developed for this and next year actually have grouping with friends online possible, in the same way as borderlands have done, but sorry for not being more specific in my first post .
Of course that is your right, I am 100% behind consumer power to change things, but for that to be effective you actually have to be a consumer of one thing, if not the other.
I feel as strongly about cash shops as you do this, but I support my view with playing cash shop free games as much as possible. I also love supporting indie devs and buy and play those games, even if they don't have the market hype, or maybe even graphical quality or whatever, of the larger games. They might not be the ideal of what I am looking for, but I realise that for more to be made the current ones have to sell.
Imo, If you want massive worlds full of content, then you need to support existing massive worlds until they become full of content.
At the moment you arnt voting, you are abstaining, thats not the same thing, and you are invisible.
Brave massive games full of content that require huge investment and risk are not made for invisible markets
Reads a lot like excuses to me.
While it is nice with logical and fitting content I kinda miss the large worlds with exploration myself.
Totally empty wasteland isn't good either but a large wood for one thing with a few things in it is more exiting to me than one of the woods were they put monsters with a certain distance from eachother at the whole place, a forest with not so many monsters or animals but a few nasty is in many ways more exiting than the overpopulated forests in games with small zones.
There seems to be a big difference in view here between MMO vets and newer players. We vets have seen both things in many games but that doesn't mean that one of the opinions are wrong, it is a matter of taste. But I really miss exploration, new MMOs seems to have very little of that.
On another matter do I wonder how large Rifts world is compared to GW2 and TOR.
You just gave me a flashback of the woods north of Glendonwood in Asheron's Call. After about a 4-5 minut run north of town you'd hit these "wintry" woods. They'd have Banderlings and Drudges scattered about such that you would run into them but not in a claustrophobic manner that is prevalent today in MMO making.
"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
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Large world is doable...teleport class,bind stones ect ect,the ideas has already been done over several games.I wouldn't let VG scare anyone from a large world,it was a great idea if had the players and if Rift ends up a small player base,then i doubt it really matters what size the world is as people will stay away.
All i have been able to gather is the 6 planes/rifts,earth,fire,air,water,life ,death.Could mean 6 main maps with most of the rest of the content in instances?
Trion talks about reason or giving palyers things to do in a smaller world,does this mean the over played thousands of useless quest design we have seen far too much of?Can you trust Trion will actually come up with tons of unique ideas to keep players in their small zones,because there will always be players that just want to go off and explore.
I think bottom line is weather or not Trion has the budget to make enough resources to fill the game world.Game files/resources don't make themselves,it takes lots of manpower and a budget to fund it.Players want lots of weapon/armour sets to feel unique,they also want lots of crafting choices that make a diference.
I think it would be fair to let Trion make a "comfortable "sized world and not expect a giant world that only Blizzard/Soe or Square Enix could produce.I could allow them time to constantly make the world grow,so long i am not tied/bound into repeating boring quests over and over to fill my time.I will be frank,i cannot take one more quest>quest>quest game design,it is too simple and boring,or at the very least give quests a real purpose aka Rank/Fame as in FFXI.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Have any of you played Shadowbane? It was my first mmo so while it had some serious problems, I remember it fondly. One thing I liked was how large it was....at least how large it felt to me.
Was it large? What do you guys think? Because it seemed large because there werent flight paths and only certain classes could summon if I remember correctly. There were bind stones and there were also spots you could port from but it took time to get to those spots and depending on where you wanted to go, it took multiple Port stones to get there.
ps-GSP is the man.
A "decent traveling mechanism"? So we can just skip the massive open world?
Ya...there's a reason why you're just a MMORPG.com forum poster and not actually a game developer.
Alltern8 Blog | Star Wars Space Combat and The Old Republic | Cryptic Studios - A Pre Post-Mortem | Klingon Preview, STO's Monster Play
I dont agree with the snide remark, but I have to agree with the sentiment. Making a massive world say like WoW and STUFFING it with mobs....well, how is that different from what WoW has?
Not that I am going all anti WoW but, were talking about optimal world size/content. And making it big, and stuffing it full of mobs that you have to navigate and being able to bypass that all via travel mechanisms, that is NOT optimal.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다