I mean, the responsibility to form an MMO community always falls on the players and the culture found within the game. But at the same time, the game's design can greatly influence the culture of its player base.
If a game is designed with an emphasis on features like questing and grouping via dungeon finder (or similar) then this will affect the culture. Most of the players will be "single player or coop" minded.
On the other hand, if the game is designed with features that encourage cooperation or interaction on a massive level like guilds, player cities, public quests, and open-PvP. Then most players will likely be "MMO" minded.
Fair points sir, fair points.
I am not sure how accurate they may be, however.
Guilds and guild activities are a major, major part in the "modern" themepark MMO, as I discussed before I believe the community within a guild/group of friends has to some extent replaced the idea of a server-wide community.
For better for worse? Debatable.
Player cities I have always seen as an exclusionary thing. Guilds/groups build their little island of community out in the world, and they remain there isolated from others. Why? Becuase other players have their own guild/group cities that are their own little islands. Sure you may get people without their own city/home to wander in, but in both UO and SWG this is what I saw.
What is better, IMO is completely public spaces and allow players to purchase real estate in those public spaces but no MMO has done it yet...
Public quests are debatable too, Rift and WAR it's not much better then playing with NPC's because no coordination is required... no communication. Raids are a lot more social and require a lot more communication and coordination, at least before content is old and deemed "on farm."
GW2? I'm not sure, since you don't even have to click a "Join Public Group" button will anyone talk to each other? Will the Elementalists put down lines of fire so that the Engineers can shoot through them? Some will certainly, but will everyone simply change their gaming habbits because of it?
I don't think so, unfortunately.
Open PvP is very much communication/coordination dependant, I agree there. When it is not people simply fail and get steam-rolled by the team that is organized.
I mean, the responsibility to form an MMO community always falls on the players and the culture found within the game. But at the same time, the game's design can greatly influence the culture of its player base.
If a game is designed with an emphasis on features like questing and grouping via dungeon finder (or similar) then this will affect the culture. Most of the players will be "single player or coop" minded.
On the other hand, if the game is designed with features that encourage cooperation or interaction on a massive level like guilds, player cities, public quests, and open-PvP. Then most players will likely be "MMO" minded.
Fair points sir, fair points.
I am not sure how accurate they may be, however.
Guilds and guild activities are a major, major part in the "modern" themepark MMO, as I discussed before I believe the community within a guild/group of friends has to some extent replaced the idea of a server-wide community.
For better for worse? Debatable.
Player cities I have always seen as an exclusionary thing. Guilds/groups build their little island of community out in the world, and they remain there isolated from others. Why? Becuase other players have their own guild/group cities that are their own little islands. Sure you may get people without their own city/home to wander in, but in both UO and SWG this is what I saw.
What is better, IMO is completely public spaces and allow players to purchase real estate in those public spaces but no MMO has done it yet...
Public quests are debatable too, Rift and WAR it's not much better then playing with NPC's because no coordination is required... no communication. Raids are a lot more social and require a lot more communication and coordination, at least before content is old and deemed "on farm."
GW2? I'm not sure, since you don't even have to click a "Join Public Group" button will anyone talk to each other? Will the Elementalists put down lines of fire so that the Engineers can shoot through them? Some will certainly, but will everyone simply change their gaming habbits because of it?
I don't think so, unfortunately.
Open PvP is very much communication/coordination dependant, I agree there. When it is not people simply fail and get steam-rolled by the team that is organized.
I think we basically have different criteria that we judge "MMO-ness" on. You seem to judge it based on the communication and coordination between players, and I judge it based on the amount that one is influenced by the presence of other players in the world. And specifically what unique things an MMO can offer that any other game cannot.
In the end these are both opinions and neither can be right or wrong, but I will try to explain why I have the views that I do. Communication and coordination is something that can be seen in many multiplayer games. Team games of Starcraft, any FPS's, MMORPGs (obviously), coop action games...
My point is that it isn't anything exclusive to MMO games. The only thing that MMO's have unique to them is a persistent world. If that persistent world is used for little other than a host for single player quests and a glorified lobby for dungeon finder and BGs, then it's a bit weak on the MMO side of things. Even though dungeons and BGs can require a lot of coordination, they could easily exist in a typical multiplayer game.
So that's why I use the criteria that I use. I feel like things that make an MMO an "MMO" are features that are tied to the persistent world. That's really the only thing that separates an MMO from other multiplayer games.
I think we basically have different criteria that we judge "MMO-ness" on. You seem to judge it based on the communication and coordination between players, and I judge it based on the amount that one is influenced by the presence of other players in the world. And specifically what unique things an MMO can offer that any other game cannot.
In the end these are both opinions and neither can be right or wrong, but I will try to explain why I have the views that I do. Communication and coordination is something that can be seen in many multiplayer games. Team games of Starcraft, any FPS's, MMORPGs (obviously), coop action games...
My point is that it isn't anything exclusive to MMO games. The only thing that MMO's have unique to them is a persistent world. If that persistent world is used for little other than a host for single player quests and a glorified lobby for dungeon finder and BGs, then it's a bit weak on the MMO side of things. Even though dungeons and BGs can require a lot of coordination, they could easily exist in a typical multiplayer game.
So that's why I use the criteria that I use. I feel like things that make an MMO an "MMO" are features that are tied to the persistent world. That's really the only thing that separates an MMO from other multiplayer games.
Well put sir, +1 interwebz
I actually agree 100%.
I am fully with you that MMO games have become much more "personal" in terms of becoming vessles for enjoyment and achievement rather then "worlds" per say.
Just "seeing other players" goes a long way IMO because it gives you the option of grouping with other players randomly instead of pre-defined groups or match-making style grouping which is very non-MMO (as you said, not unique to the MMO genre)
Open world... anything goes a long way in this, especially open world PvP and open world cooperative PvE.
However that being said, I don't think a "lobby game" like WoW is any less MMO per say but it CERTAINLY is less of a "world."
It seems the genre is drifting back toward worlds now that the tech has caught up to the point where we can get fun/adventure/action in an open world settings.
I think the genre went too far in the instanced direction and we're slowly working our way back to the open world which (I agree) makes MMOs unique.
I honestly blame the developers who took over the development of WOW for Wrath of the Lich King as it was a VERY different over-all design philosophy then classic WoW or even BC.
But WOTLK really I think was WoW's high point in terms of sales/advertising/reach/popularity so of course THAT design philosophy is what was emulated by the WAR/AION/AOC/STO/RIFT etc.
But even WoW players (myself included) feel/felt that something really "broke" in WOTLK but due to the length of time it takes to create these games, we are stil in the WOTLK era of design philosphy.
I honestly believe TOR/GW2/Secret World etc. are the beginning of really the 3rd Age of MMO gaming.
I think we basically have different criteria that we judge "MMO-ness" on. You seem to judge it based on the communication and coordination between players, and I judge it based on the amount that one is influenced by the presence of other players in the world. And specifically what unique things an MMO can offer that any other game cannot.
In the end these are both opinions and neither can be right or wrong, but I will try to explain why I have the views that I do. Communication and coordination is something that can be seen in many multiplayer games. Team games of Starcraft, any FPS's, MMORPGs (obviously), coop action games...
My point is that it isn't anything exclusive to MMO games. The only thing that MMO's have unique to them is a persistent world. If that persistent world is used for little other than a host for single player quests and a glorified lobby for dungeon finder and BGs, then it's a bit weak on the MMO side of things. Even though dungeons and BGs can require a lot of coordination, they could easily exist in a typical multiplayer game.
So that's why I use the criteria that I use. I feel like things that make an MMO an "MMO" are features that are tied to the persistent world. That's really the only thing that separates an MMO from other multiplayer games.
Well put sir, +1 interwebz
I actually agree 100%.
I am fully with you that MMO games have become much more "personal" in terms of becoming vessles for enjoyment and achievement rather then "worlds" per say.
Just "seeing other players" goes a long way IMO because it gives you the option of grouping with other players randomly instead of pre-defined groups or match-making style grouping which is very non-MMO (as you said, not unique to the MMO genre)
Open world... anything goes a long way in this, especially open world PvP and open world cooperative PvE.
However that being said, I don't think a "lobby game" like WoW is any less MMO per say but it CERTAINLY is less of a "world."
It seems the genre is drifting back toward worlds now that the tech has caught up to the point where we can get fun/adventure/action in an open world settings.
I think the genre went too far in the instanced direction and we're slowly working our way back to the open world which (I agree) makes MMOs unique.
I honestly blame the developers who took over the development of WOW for Wrath of the Lich King as it was a VERY different over-all design philosophy then classic WoW or even BC.
But WOTLK really I think was WoW's high point in terms of sales/advertising/reach/popularity so of course THAT design philosophy is what was emulated by the WAR/AION/AOC/STO/RIFT etc.
But even WoW players (myself included) feel/felt that something really "broke" in WOTLK but due to the length of time it takes to create these games, we are stil in the WOTLK era of design philosphy.
I honestly believe TOR/GW2/Secret World etc. are the beginning of really the 3rd Age of MMO gaming.
Thanks, good post, I agree, and I hope you're right about the 3rd age of gaming .
I think what basically happened was that the 1st generation MMORPGs were all about virtual world, but they were pretty inaccessible. There was no real "content" for players to do other than explore the world and kill MOBs, so it was largely up to the players to create their own game. This worked great for some, but I don't think it was accessible to the masses.
Then the second gen MMORPGs came with WoW, and these sought to make the experience more accessible by adding familar RPG conceits like quests, storylines, etc. But as you say, they went too far with this. So far that they started to turn their persistent worlds into glorified lobbies, and just a host for single player questing.
My hope is that the 3rd gen is able to make games accessible in a way that does not sacrifice the persistent world. I think that the concept of the public quest is promising in this regard.
My problem with anyone saying, "Well Guild Wars 2 is gonna be better, I'm gonna just get that game." Guild wars 2 Is non subscription, Your gonna drop 60 bucks one time, most likely some time in 2012 to buy the game. SWTOR, is a subscription based game your gonna drop 60 bucks on it the first time and 15 a month in december, but your gonna get that first 30 days free, so just treat it like guild wars 2 play it for the first 30 days free, if you don't like it don't re-sub up. There no reason not to go out and buy it, just because you think guild wars 2 is gonna be better. If some amazing subscription game was coming out around the same time as any one time perches game is gonna come out I would say buy both don't matter what it is. If you cant afford both and are torn between the 2, well then sure do some research and find out which game you really think your gonna enjoy compared to(IE after there launched). but most gamers out there will be able to buy both.
My hope is that the 3rd gen is able to make games accessible in a way that does not sacrifice the persistent world. I think that the concept of the public quest is promising in this regard.
It is promising but it doesn't go nearly far enough IMO.
Are story and companions the way to go to bring back "the world" and immersion? I don't know, it certainly can't hurt.
Are public quests/dynamic events the way to bring back "the world" and immersion? I don't know, it certainly can't hurt.
I think the REAL answer to the question is Intelligent Artificial Intelligence but we aren't there yet, unfortunately.
My hope is that the 3rd gen is able to make games accessible in a way that does not sacrifice the persistent world. I think that the concept of the public quest is promising in this regard.
It is promising but it doesn't go nearly far enough IMO.
Are story and companions the way to go to bring back "the world" and immersion? I don't know, it certainly can't hurt.
Are public quests/dynamic events the way to bring back "the world" and immersion? I don't know, it certainly can't hurt.
I think the REAL answer to the question is Intelligent Artificial Intelligence but we aren't there yet, unfortunately.
4th gen...
Hahaha yeah...we've got quite a while to make any kind of AI in an MMORPG that could "fool" a person into thinking it's actually intelligent .
I don't really think you would have to go as far as AI to have a more sustainable virtual world solution. In my opinion, you just need a system that allows the players to constantly keep generating content for themselves just by playing the game (sandbox), while keeping the game accessible and fun for newer players (themepark). This is vague yes, but I think it's doable.
My hope is that the 3rd gen is able to make games accessible in a way that does not sacrifice the persistent world. I think that the concept of the public quest is promising in this regard.
It is promising but it doesn't go nearly far enough IMO.
Are story and companions the way to go to bring back "the world" and immersion? I don't know, it certainly can't hurt.
Are public quests/dynamic events the way to bring back "the world" and immersion? I don't know, it certainly can't hurt.
I think the REAL answer to the question is Intelligent Artificial Intelligence but we aren't there yet, unfortunately.
Hahaha yeah...we've got quite a while to make any kind of AI in an MMORPG that could "fool" a person into thinking it's actually intelligent .
I don't really think you would have to go as far as AI to have a more sustainable virtual world solution. In my opinion, you just need a system that allows the players to constantly keep generating content for themselves just by playing the game (sandbox), while keeping the game accessible and fun for newer players (themepark). This is vague yes, but I think it's doable.
I agree with you but I do not believe that this is what the majority of MMO players want. Sandbox is far to open ended and non-linear. People want to be lead by the hand. They want to have a very clear path set before them. They do not want to create they just want to experience.
Sandbox gaming is a dream that old gamers still cling to. It is not what the masses want. For proof of this all I have to do is point to the popularity of WoW or the excitement for SWTOR.
I don't think that it wasn't "made correctly". It definately is not the end all be all mmo that I wanted, like GW2 is looking to be, but it does have something that I could probably find some enjoyment off. I know I will NOT buy it without trying it out either in beta or a demo, because I have learned that the hard way
Ya know, I don't really understand these comments about GW2 and how it's going to be the best thing since pizza was invented. I see a bunch of these types of posts and I'm really wondering exactly how GW 2 is going to be THAT different from the norm. Do they have quests? Yep, I bet they do. Do they have roles? I heard they do and they don't but whatever. I guess you could say everyone's a damage dealer. If that's the case, I guess you have less choices than you did with wow/rift/tor or what have you (that's the way I'm gonna look at it anyway).
Do they have zones/mounts/dungeons? Yes? Okay. Do you have to click icons (or macro's) to activate spells/abilities? Yes? Hmm.
I'm really failing to see the GIANT (I mean leaps and bounds as posters seem to advertise) leap in MMO gaming here. Oh yeah, you don't have to sub. /shrug
I don't think that it wasn't "made correctly". It definately is not the end all be all mmo that I wanted, like GW2 is looking to be, but it does have something that I could probably find some enjoyment off. I know I will NOT buy it without trying it out either in beta or a demo, because I have learned that the hard way
Ya know, I don't really understand these comments about GW2 and how it's going to be the best thing since pizza was invented. I see a bunch of these types of posts and I'm really wondering exactly how GW 2 is going to be THAT different from the norm. Do they have quests? Yep, I bet they do. Do they have roles? I heard they do and they don't but whatever. I guess you could say everyone's a damage dealer. If that's the case, I guess you have less choices than you did with wow/rift/tor or what have you (that's the way I'm gonna look at it anyway).
Do they have zones/mounts/dungeons? Yes? Okay. Do you have to click icons (or macro's) to activate spells/abilities? Yes? Hmm.
I'm really failing to see the GIANT (I mean leaps and bounds as posters seem to advertise) leap in MMO gaming here. Oh yeah, you don't have to sub. /shrug
You seem to know a lot about GW2!
/end sarcasm
seriously you should do some Research before posting.
Hahaha yeah...we've got quite a while to make any kind of AI in an MMORPG that could "fool" a person into thinking it's actually intelligent .
I don't really think you would have to go as far as AI to have a more sustainable virtual world solution. In my opinion, you just need a system that allows the players to constantly keep generating content for themselves just by playing the game (sandbox), while keeping the game accessible and fun for newer players (themepark). This is vague yes, but I think it's doable.
I agree with you but I do not believe that this is what the majority of MMO players want. Sandbox is far to open ended and non-linear. People want to be lead by the hand. They want to have a very clear path set before them. They do not want to create they just want to experience.
Sandbox gaming is a dream that old gamers still cling to. It is not what the masses want. For proof of this all I have to do is point to the popularity of WoW or the excitement for SWTOR.
Note that I said the game would have to basically have the best of a sandbox and a themepark. My point is that the key would be to offer a game that was able to provide a player driven world in a very accessible way. So that, for example, more linear-minded players could just accept quests generated by the activity of other players and enjoy themselves.
Hahaha yeah...we've got quite a while to make any kind of AI in an MMORPG that could "fool" a person into thinking it's actually intelligent .
I don't really think you would have to go as far as AI to have a more sustainable virtual world solution. In my opinion, you just need a system that allows the players to constantly keep generating content for themselves just by playing the game (sandbox), while keeping the game accessible and fun for newer players (themepark). This is vague yes, but I think it's doable.
I agree with you but I do not believe that this is what the majority of MMO players want. Sandbox is far to open ended and non-linear. People want to be lead by the hand. They want to have a very clear path set before them. They do not want to create they just want to experience.
Sandbox gaming is a dream that old gamers still cling to. It is not what the masses want. For proof of this all I have to do is point to the popularity of WoW or the excitement for SWTOR.
Note that I said the game would have to basically have the best of a sandbox and a themepark. My point is that the key would be to offer a game that was able to provide a player driven world in a very accessible way. So that, for example, more linear-minded players could just accept quests generated by the activity of other players and enjoy themselves.
That's pretty much what I would like to see as well. Sandboxes fail (for me) because there's no point to them. There's no story to take part in that can serve as something stable to anchor all the sandbox elements to. Theme Parks fail (again, for me) because they are too restricted. Eventually, you'll run through the content and with no means to generate your own, the world gets stale quickly.
I'd like to see a proper blending of the two sub-genres, where there is an ongoing story running through the game, but one that doesn't have an end point. It would evolve over time and never give the players a sense that they've reached the end of the road. But most importantly, participating in it would be optional because the game will have enough tools put in place that players are able to carve out their own place in it. Ultimately, they would also be able to influence the story and direct it with their actions. The developers would be responsible for reacting to player activity and crafting the narrative around it on an ongoing basis.
I agree with those of you mentioning the blending of the Sandbox and the Themepark but the ONLY way I see to do this, ever, is with intelligent Artificial intelligence.
Why? What?
Players left to create everything is too imaginary for the masses, hell ever for me anymore I am older now I want to experience something fun not grind for hours searching for a purpose.
But having everything created and handed to you by developers, there is no discovery or adventure, simply consumption - and players will always consume faster then content can be created.
The only way to truly make it work is to have the game itself create content for the players based upon what actions the players take, and then the game creates more which players react to then the game reacts to the players reacting etc. etc.
No developer with no amount of money can do that.
No player-driven only system can do that.
Sure players can react to each other in a sandbox but that also means players are completely 100% dependant on other players for their enjoyment, and 9 times out of 10 players are simply not that smart nor creative and instead purely self-interested.
AI capable of running the game as a simulation where the players and the NPCs are really on more equal footing and constantly reacting to each other is the "next big thing" in gaming in general.
Intelligent AI is the only way I can think of to do this.
Like the Director AI in Left for Dead or some kind of Overlord AI etc.
Not just one AI running the NPC's but dozens if not hundreds of AI actually "playing the game" with the players but unlike the players actually following certain rules and restrictions in order to simulate certain archetypes or achieve / provide for certain goals etc.
I dont know if this makes any sense how I've described it lol
I agree with those of you mentioning the blending of the Sandbox and the Themepark but the ONLY way I see to do this, ever, is with intelligent Artificial intelligence.
Why? What?
Players left to create everything is too imaginary for the masses, hell ever for me anymore I am older now I want to experience something fun not grind for hours searching for a purpose.
But having everything created and handed to you by developers, there is no discovery or adventure, simply consumption - and players will always consume faster then content can be created.
The only way to truly make it work is to have the game itself create content for the players based upon what actions the players take, and then the game creates more which players react to then the game reacts to the players reacting etc. etc.
No developer with no amount of money can do that.
No player-driven only system can do that.
Sure players can react to each other in a sandbox but that also means players are completely 100% dependant on other players for their enjoyment, and 9 times out of 10 players are simply not that smart nor creative and instead purely self-interested.
AI capable of running the game as a simulation where the players and the NPCs are really on more equal footing and constantly reacting to each other is the "next big thing" in gaming in general.
Intelligent AI is the only way I can think of to do this.
Like the Director AI in Left for Dead or some kind of Overlord AI etc.
Not just one AI running the NPC's but dozens if not hundreds of AI actually "playing the game" with the players but unlike the players actually following certain rules and restrictions in order to simulate certain archetypes or achieve / provide for certain goals etc.
I dont know if this makes any sense how I've described it lol
With some of the engines they have these days, I'm sure you could do content like tv shows. Hire some writer's, make content like television episodes, live events and well written temporary quests. You could even have some GM controlled mobs.
I dont know if this makes any sense how I've described it lol
With some of the engines they have these days, I'm sure you could do content like tv shows. Hire some writer's, make content like television episodes, live events and well written temporary quests. You could even have some GM controlled mobs.
Make it more "live"
But for how big of an audience?
5000 people on one server, small group individual content for 5 player groups?
1000 CSMs/GMs how much would that cost?
OK let's make it content for 200 people, still that's 25 GMs/CSMs and how personal and live is that?
5000 people is nothing, not enough to keep a server up and running what if you have 50,000 people?
250 GMs/CSMs?
OK what about a team of writers and GM's that do weekly events... monthly events?
Sure, huge amount of money, amount of players = more and more money to pay CSMs/GMs.
What do you do in between monthly/weekly/daily events? Grind? Not play?
Sure sounds like it's worth 15 bucks a month to play once or twice a week for a few hours.
How long does it take to create 10 hours of quality content? 40 hours? 100 hours?
How long does it take to consume that content? 10 hours.
Again, only way to do it is if the game is smart enough to react and change and provide new stuff for you. I'm not even talking about quests and events it's all systems... systems... systems...
I have always said that I'd pay 50$ a MONTH for a AAA MMORPG with modern graphics that had enough skilled/quality GMs to run private, high quality UNIQUE game sessions for individual groups of players/guilds.
Just for an example say some GM controlled huge Godzilla sea monster rose frome the sea near stormwind and started rampaging and destroying the city. Toppoling buildings, picking on certain player's , just having fun. Live never the same way twice.
I remember in the early days of Vanilla WoW when some dudes trained Stitches up to Goldshire. It was magic, the mayhem, people had an absolute blast.
"he comes to the conclusion this is a game for people who still enjoy and want more of the WoW-esque formula."
Which to me would be just like saying BF3 is a game for people who like the battlefield-esque formula.
In other words it's not a bad thing. If you're not looking for that I don't blame ya, if you are more power to you.
As to the battlefield comparison, some people like or even prefer COD games over BF games or visa versa. There's no right or wrong when it comes to what you prefer in gaming, regardless of what some on this forum will tell you..
Personally I never liked WOW all that much, it had it's charm early on but that quickly grew thin after killing my hundreth boar before level 10 (exaggeration, well.. maybe not). The game just never clicked with me. As well as the way in which the community approached the game and I didn't sync. If WOW had had a decent narrative and something more than numbers to play for, I may have stuck around far longer, it didn't.
AOC did on the other hand, I spent a great chunk of time in the post tortage game just soaking in the lore and world I was playing in. There are not many MMO's I"ve played that had me playing like that.
I expect TOR to do that, which makes the answer to the question of how long I would play, a not so obvious one. Which wouldn't be the case if this game were exactly like WOW.
I find your comments about AOC interesting considering the number one complaint about AOC was the LACK of content post Tortage...
This dude actually thinks SWTOR has autoattack when it doesn't, go figure. And bunny-hopping with dodge button isn't the end-all of combat, to me it doesn't even make sense that all classes can magically dodge (yeah right, mages dodge?)
You mean GW2's elementalists? Yes, I agree, it's a very BIZARRE turn of events to have someone use their body as a means of defense instead of tapping a defensive skill or just....... getting hit in the face. That's sarcasm. Why in the hell should a magic user not be able to dodge? Are they too frail? Did they sign a contract? It makes perfect sense and it should have always made perfect sense. If you're going to try to put down the dodge mechanic, please think up a more substantial justification.
Besides that, GW2 combat is actually very similar to SWTOR (being still TAB combat) so there is little room to moarn and cry over there.
I wasn't sure about this one, so I thought I'd quote it too - I thought I read that in GW2, you only have to be facing an enemy (at which point they glow a certain color, showing that they are attackable)... no overuse of TAB targetting, if any. Did they change this?
Some people in the press are seriously prejudiced over SWTOR, a game doesn't have to have revolutionary claims in order to be great.
You mean like touting that expensively made, full voiced-over NPC quest givers and storylines will change questing forever? Maybe some people don't think it's that game changing. I know I don't.
I just compiled a full list of SWTOR information and the number of changes it actually tries from WoW/RIFT etc. is still pretty huge, even though it clearly doesn't want to reinvent to wheel; and for those games who are trying, there is no guarantee they will actually succeed.
On that we can fully agree. SWTOR is going to be a solid game for those looking for one of its style, and those who are trying to add fun things to a stale formula may not succeed. For the sake of the future of MMOs though, I would think most players hope they do. Nothing is set in stone, but once these releases are in full swing, we will be too busy having fun to care about these arguments.
A: The author likes GW2. It's more his cup of tea.
B: He played swtor for maybe 15 minutes. That's only enough to get to know the mechanical aspects and get a small teaser of gameplay.
C: You cannot get a feel for the entire atmosphere that is put together when playing through the complete story, by visiting a convention. Stories are made to build on you as you progress.
Did I mention he prefers GW2? I will again anyways. Of course he's going to look down on the UI/Button configuration when he likes to roll back and forth while stabbing people and capturing windmills.
Seriously people. Take this with a grain of salt. Everything he mentioned was stuff that was already common knowledge before. He just put his rather negative perception onto it. I can tell just how much I hate docter pepper but that doesn't mean it's not the best cola to millions of others. Nothing in this impression was "new" to me.
Also, many of you seem to overlook the fact that many of his complaints were about bugs/gameplay elements which are a part of the current Swtor BETA.
A: The author likes GW2. It's more his cup of tea.
B: He played swtor for maybe 15 minutes. That's only enough to get to know the mechanical aspects and get a small teaser of gameplay.
C You cannot get a feel for the entire atmosphere that is put together when playing through the complete story by doing this. Stories are made to build on you as you progress.
Did I mention he prefers GW2? I will again anyways. Of course he's going to look down on the UI/Button configuration when he likes you roll back and forth while stabbing people and capturing windmills.
Seriously people. Take this with a grain of salt. Everything he mentioned was stuff that was already common knowledge before. He just put his rather negative perception onto it. I can tell just how much I hate docter pepper but that doesn't mean it's not the best cola to millions of others.
I believe it was an "impressions" article. I think the word "impressions" in the article gave me this crazy idea, but it could have been something else. Maybe the thread title? Who knows.
A + Who cares what he prefers? Does his preference of another game make his article invalid? That's like saying you don't trust a guy who says the sky is blue because he thinks the ocean is yellow.
B: "Impressions."
C: "Impressions." And I find it sad that a game toting its story-telling prowess begins with such mediocrity. The first paragraph of the book is where you hook people, not the last.
Oh gosh, I'm glad you came here to tell me I shouldn't drop down on my knees and profess my undying belief in the gospel that is his prose. Thank you sir, thank you!
How about we all just take it as it is? An article about someone else's impressions of a video game.
A: The author likes GW2. It's more his cup of tea.
B: He played swtor for maybe 15 minutes. That's only enough to get to know the mechanical aspects and get a small teaser of gameplay.
C You cannot get a feel for the entire atmosphere that is put together when playing through the complete story by doing this. Stories are made to build on you as you progress.
Did I mention he prefers GW2? I will again anyways. Of course he's going to look down on the UI/Button configuration when he likes you roll back and forth while stabbing people and capturing windmills.
Seriously people. Take this with a grain of salt. Everything he mentioned was stuff that was already common knowledge before. He just put his rather negative perception onto it. I can tell just how much I hate docter pepper but that doesn't mean it's not the best cola to millions of others.
I believe it was an "impressions" article. I think the word "impressions" in the article gave me this crazy idea, but it could have been something else. Maybe the thread title? Who knows.
A + Who cares what he prefers? Does his preference of another game make his article invalid? That's like saying you don't trust a guy who says the sky is blue because he thinks the ocean is yellow.
B: "Impressions."
C: "Impressions." And I find it sad that a game toting its story-telling prowess begins with such mediocrity. The first paragraph of the book is where you hook people, not the last.
Oh gosh, I'm glad you came here to tell me I shouldn't drop down on my knees and profess my undying belief in the gospel that is his prose. Thank you sir, thank you!
How about we all just take it as it is? An article about someone else's impressions of a video game.
Wow, you managed to convey the exact same point that I was, while attempting to insult me. The whole point of my post was telling people to take it with a grain of salt for those following reaons. I wouldn't have made a post if people were doing what I put in red.
This may as well be a review because most people read it like one. Just because you don't "Drop on your knees and profess your undying belief", doesn't mean that others are the same as you. In fact, I don't get why you are placing yourself as an example for the whole community to begin with?
So maybe next time you read my post a little more carefully before jumping to conclusions. It's sort of annoying that you become so condenscending to someone for having having the exact same point that you are trying to make. Self hate?
And you are totally wrong about the first paragraph idea. Some books like to hook people immediatly with a strong start, others like to slowly draw you in and build up as they go. They are called slow burning books and many people enjoy these types of books as well. You may not have heard of them, because you don't have the dedication to read something unless it grabs you by the collar at the start.
A: The author likes GW2. It's more his cup of tea.
B: He played swtor for maybe 15 minutes. That's only enough to get to know the mechanical aspects and get a small teaser of gameplay.
C You cannot get a feel for the entire atmosphere that is put together when playing through the complete story by doing this. Stories are made to build on you as you progress.
Did I mention he prefers GW2? I will again anyways. Of course he's going to look down on the UI/Button configuration when he likes you roll back and forth while stabbing people and capturing windmills.
Seriously people. Take this with a grain of salt. Everything he mentioned was stuff that was already common knowledge before. He just put his rather negative perception onto it. I can tell just how much I hate docter pepper but that doesn't mean it's not the best cola to millions of others.
I believe it was an "impressions" article. I think the word "impressions" in the article gave me this crazy idea, but it could have been something else. Maybe the thread title? Who knows.
A + Who cares what he prefers? Does his preference of another game make his article invalid? That's like saying you don't trust a guy who says the sky is blue because he thinks the ocean is yellow.
B: "Impressions."
C: "Impressions." And I find it sad that a game toting its story-telling prowess begins with such mediocrity. The first paragraph of the book is where you hook people, not the last.
Oh gosh, I'm glad you came here to tell me I shouldn't drop down on my knees and profess my undying belief in the gospel that is his prose. Thank you sir, thank you!
How about we all just take it as it is? An article about someone else's impressions of a video game.
Wow, you managed to convey the exact same point that I was, while attempting to insult me. The whole point of my post was telling people to take it with a grain of salt for those following reaons. I wouldn't have made a post if people were doing what I put in read.
This may as well be a review because most people read it like one. Just because you don't "Drop on your knees and profess your undying belief", doesn't mean that others are the same as you. In fact, I don't get why you are placing yourself as an example for the whole community to begin with?
So maybe next time you read my post a little more carefull before jumping to conclusions. It's sort of annoying that you bash me for having the exact same point that you are trying to make.
I was trying to convey the same point? What?
Perhaps if you ignore all but the last line of my post. Other than that, my post is supportive of the article.
A: The author likes GW2. It's more his cup of tea.
B: He played swtor for maybe 15 minutes. That's only enough to get to know the mechanical aspects and get a small teaser of gameplay.
C You cannot get a feel for the entire atmosphere that is put together when playing through the complete story by doing this. Stories are made to build on you as you progress.
Did I mention he prefers GW2? I will again anyways. Of course he's going to look down on the UI/Button configuration when he likes you roll back and forth while stabbing people and capturing windmills.
Seriously people. Take this with a grain of salt. Everything he mentioned was stuff that was already common knowledge before. He just put his rather negative perception onto it. I can tell just how much I hate docter pepper but that doesn't mean it's not the best cola to millions of others.
I believe it was an "impressions" article. I think the word "impressions" in the article gave me this crazy idea, but it could have been something else. Maybe the thread title? Who knows.
A + Who cares what he prefers? Does his preference of another game make his article invalid? That's like saying you don't trust a guy who says the sky is blue because he thinks the ocean is yellow.
B: "Impressions."
C: "Impressions." And I find it sad that a game toting its story-telling prowess begins with such mediocrity. The first paragraph of the book is where you hook people, not the last.
Oh gosh, I'm glad you came here to tell me I shouldn't drop down on my knees and profess my undying belief in the gospel that is his prose. Thank you sir, thank you!
How about we all just take it as it is? An article about someone else's impressions of a video game.
Wow, you managed to convey the exact same point that I was, while attempting to insult me. The whole point of my post was telling people to take it with a grain of salt for those following reaons. I wouldn't have made a post if people were doing what I put in red.
This may as well be a review because most people read it like one. Just because you don't "Drop on your knees and profess your undying belief", doesn't mean that others are the same as you. In fact, I don't get why you are placing yourself as an example for the whole community to begin with?
So maybe next time you read my post a little more carefully before jumping to conclusions. It's sort of annoying that you become so condenscending to someone for having having the exact same point that you are trying to make. Self hate?
And you are totally wrong about the first paragraph idea. Some books like to hook people immediatly with a strong start, others like to slowly draw you in and build up as they go. They are called slow burning books and many people enjoy these types of books as well. You may not have heard of them, because you don't have the dedication to read something unless it grabs you by the collar at the start.
I think people do not see the difference between a reveiw and an impression.
My IMPRESSION of GW2 is that its one of the most over hyped game in exsistance and in the long run will not hold my interest for years.
My REVEIW of GW2 is that its a solid game and will bring me many hours of entertainment.
Comments
Fair points sir, fair points.
I am not sure how accurate they may be, however.
Guilds and guild activities are a major, major part in the "modern" themepark MMO, as I discussed before I believe the community within a guild/group of friends has to some extent replaced the idea of a server-wide community.
For better for worse? Debatable.
Player cities I have always seen as an exclusionary thing. Guilds/groups build their little island of community out in the world, and they remain there isolated from others. Why? Becuase other players have their own guild/group cities that are their own little islands. Sure you may get people without their own city/home to wander in, but in both UO and SWG this is what I saw.
What is better, IMO is completely public spaces and allow players to purchase real estate in those public spaces but no MMO has done it yet...
Public quests are debatable too, Rift and WAR it's not much better then playing with NPC's because no coordination is required... no communication. Raids are a lot more social and require a lot more communication and coordination, at least before content is old and deemed "on farm."
GW2? I'm not sure, since you don't even have to click a "Join Public Group" button will anyone talk to each other? Will the Elementalists put down lines of fire so that the Engineers can shoot through them? Some will certainly, but will everyone simply change their gaming habbits because of it?
I don't think so, unfortunately.
Open PvP is very much communication/coordination dependant, I agree there. When it is not people simply fail and get steam-rolled by the team that is organized.
I think we basically have different criteria that we judge "MMO-ness" on. You seem to judge it based on the communication and coordination between players, and I judge it based on the amount that one is influenced by the presence of other players in the world. And specifically what unique things an MMO can offer that any other game cannot.
In the end these are both opinions and neither can be right or wrong, but I will try to explain why I have the views that I do. Communication and coordination is something that can be seen in many multiplayer games. Team games of Starcraft, any FPS's, MMORPGs (obviously), coop action games...
My point is that it isn't anything exclusive to MMO games. The only thing that MMO's have unique to them is a persistent world. If that persistent world is used for little other than a host for single player quests and a glorified lobby for dungeon finder and BGs, then it's a bit weak on the MMO side of things. Even though dungeons and BGs can require a lot of coordination, they could easily exist in a typical multiplayer game.
So that's why I use the criteria that I use. I feel like things that make an MMO an "MMO" are features that are tied to the persistent world. That's really the only thing that separates an MMO from other multiplayer games.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Well put sir, +1 interwebz
I actually agree 100%.
I am fully with you that MMO games have become much more "personal" in terms of becoming vessles for enjoyment and achievement rather then "worlds" per say.
Just "seeing other players" goes a long way IMO because it gives you the option of grouping with other players randomly instead of pre-defined groups or match-making style grouping which is very non-MMO (as you said, not unique to the MMO genre)
Open world... anything goes a long way in this, especially open world PvP and open world cooperative PvE.
However that being said, I don't think a "lobby game" like WoW is any less MMO per say but it CERTAINLY is less of a "world."
It seems the genre is drifting back toward worlds now that the tech has caught up to the point where we can get fun/adventure/action in an open world settings.
I think the genre went too far in the instanced direction and we're slowly working our way back to the open world which (I agree) makes MMOs unique.
I honestly blame the developers who took over the development of WOW for Wrath of the Lich King as it was a VERY different over-all design philosophy then classic WoW or even BC.
But WOTLK really I think was WoW's high point in terms of sales/advertising/reach/popularity so of course THAT design philosophy is what was emulated by the WAR/AION/AOC/STO/RIFT etc.
But even WoW players (myself included) feel/felt that something really "broke" in WOTLK but due to the length of time it takes to create these games, we are stil in the WOTLK era of design philosphy.
I honestly believe TOR/GW2/Secret World etc. are the beginning of really the 3rd Age of MMO gaming.
Thanks, good post, I agree, and I hope you're right about the 3rd age of gaming
.
I think what basically happened was that the 1st generation MMORPGs were all about virtual world, but they were pretty inaccessible. There was no real "content" for players to do other than explore the world and kill MOBs, so it was largely up to the players to create their own game. This worked great for some, but I don't think it was accessible to the masses.
Then the second gen MMORPGs came with WoW, and these sought to make the experience more accessible by adding familar RPG conceits like quests, storylines, etc. But as you say, they went too far with this. So far that they started to turn their persistent worlds into glorified lobbies, and just a host for single player questing.
My hope is that the 3rd gen is able to make games accessible in a way that does not sacrifice the persistent world. I think that the concept of the public quest is promising in this regard.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
My problem with anyone saying, "Well Guild Wars 2 is gonna be better, I'm gonna just get that game." Guild wars 2 Is non subscription, Your gonna drop 60 bucks one time, most likely some time in 2012 to buy the game. SWTOR, is a subscription based game your gonna drop 60 bucks on it the first time and 15 a month in december, but your gonna get that first 30 days free, so just treat it like guild wars 2 play it for the first 30 days free, if you don't like it don't re-sub up. There no reason not to go out and buy it, just because you think guild wars 2 is gonna be better. If some amazing subscription game was coming out around the same time as any one time perches game is gonna come out I would say buy both don't matter what it is. If you cant afford both and are torn between the 2, well then sure do some research and find out which game you really think your gonna enjoy compared to(IE after there launched). but most gamers out there will be able to buy both.
It is promising but it doesn't go nearly far enough IMO.
Are story and companions the way to go to bring back "the world" and immersion? I don't know, it certainly can't hurt.
Are public quests/dynamic events the way to bring back "the world" and immersion? I don't know, it certainly can't hurt.
I think the REAL answer to the question is Intelligent Artificial Intelligence but we aren't there yet, unfortunately.
4th gen...
Hahaha yeah...we've got quite a while to make any kind of AI in an MMORPG that could "fool" a person into thinking it's actually intelligent
.
I don't really think you would have to go as far as AI to have a more sustainable virtual world solution. In my opinion, you just need a system that allows the players to constantly keep generating content for themselves just by playing the game (sandbox), while keeping the game accessible and fun for newer players (themepark). This is vague yes, but I think it's doable.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
http://www.namaste.vg/storybricks/
It's still pretty rough, but not as far off as one might think.
I agree with you but I do not believe that this is what the majority of MMO players want. Sandbox is far to open ended and non-linear. People want to be lead by the hand. They want to have a very clear path set before them. They do not want to create they just want to experience.
Sandbox gaming is a dream that old gamers still cling to. It is not what the masses want. For proof of this all I have to do is point to the popularity of WoW or the excitement for SWTOR.
Ya know, I don't really understand these comments about GW2 and how it's going to be the best thing since pizza was invented. I see a bunch of these types of posts and I'm really wondering exactly how GW 2 is going to be THAT different from the norm. Do they have quests? Yep, I bet they do. Do they have roles? I heard they do and they don't but whatever. I guess you could say everyone's a damage dealer. If that's the case, I guess you have less choices than you did with wow/rift/tor or what have you (that's the way I'm gonna look at it anyway).
Do they have zones/mounts/dungeons? Yes? Okay. Do you have to click icons (or macro's) to activate spells/abilities? Yes? Hmm.
I'm really failing to see the GIANT (I mean leaps and bounds as posters seem to advertise) leap in MMO gaming here. Oh yeah, you don't have to sub. /shrug
You seem to know a lot about GW2!
/end sarcasm
seriously you should do some Research before posting.
Note that I said the game would have to basically have the best of a sandbox and a themepark. My point is that the key would be to offer a game that was able to provide a player driven world in a very accessible way. So that, for example, more linear-minded players could just accept quests generated by the activity of other players and enjoy themselves.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
That's pretty much what I would like to see as well. Sandboxes fail (for me) because there's no point to them. There's no story to take part in that can serve as something stable to anchor all the sandbox elements to. Theme Parks fail (again, for me) because they are too restricted. Eventually, you'll run through the content and with no means to generate your own, the world gets stale quickly.
I'd like to see a proper blending of the two sub-genres, where there is an ongoing story running through the game, but one that doesn't have an end point. It would evolve over time and never give the players a sense that they've reached the end of the road. But most importantly, participating in it would be optional because the game will have enough tools put in place that players are able to carve out their own place in it. Ultimately, they would also be able to influence the story and direct it with their actions. The developers would be responsible for reacting to player activity and crafting the narrative around it on an ongoing basis.
This is what I would like to see eventually.
I agree with those of you mentioning the blending of the Sandbox and the Themepark but the ONLY way I see to do this, ever, is with intelligent Artificial intelligence.
Why? What?
Players left to create everything is too imaginary for the masses, hell ever for me anymore I am older now I want to experience something fun not grind for hours searching for a purpose.
But having everything created and handed to you by developers, there is no discovery or adventure, simply consumption - and players will always consume faster then content can be created.
The only way to truly make it work is to have the game itself create content for the players based upon what actions the players take, and then the game creates more which players react to then the game reacts to the players reacting etc. etc.
No developer with no amount of money can do that.
No player-driven only system can do that.
Sure players can react to each other in a sandbox but that also means players are completely 100% dependant on other players for their enjoyment, and 9 times out of 10 players are simply not that smart nor creative and instead purely self-interested.
AI capable of running the game as a simulation where the players and the NPCs are really on more equal footing and constantly reacting to each other is the "next big thing" in gaming in general.
Intelligent AI is the only way I can think of to do this.
Like the Director AI in Left for Dead or some kind of Overlord AI etc.
Not just one AI running the NPC's but dozens if not hundreds of AI actually "playing the game" with the players but unlike the players actually following certain rules and restrictions in order to simulate certain archetypes or achieve / provide for certain goals etc.
I dont know if this makes any sense how I've described it lol
With some of the engines they have these days, I'm sure you could do content like tv shows. Hire some writer's, make content like television episodes, live events and well written temporary quests. You could even have some GM controlled mobs.
Make it more "live"
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
But for how big of an audience?
5000 people on one server, small group individual content for 5 player groups?
1000 CSMs/GMs how much would that cost?
OK let's make it content for 200 people, still that's 25 GMs/CSMs and how personal and live is that?
5000 people is nothing, not enough to keep a server up and running what if you have 50,000 people?
250 GMs/CSMs?
OK what about a team of writers and GM's that do weekly events... monthly events?
Sure, huge amount of money, amount of players = more and more money to pay CSMs/GMs.
What do you do in between monthly/weekly/daily events? Grind? Not play?
Sure sounds like it's worth 15 bucks a month to play once or twice a week for a few hours.
How long does it take to create 10 hours of quality content? 40 hours? 100 hours?
How long does it take to consume that content? 10 hours.
Again, only way to do it is if the game is smart enough to react and change and provide new stuff for you. I'm not even talking about quests and events it's all systems... systems... systems...
I have always said that I'd pay 50$ a MONTH for a AAA MMORPG with modern graphics that had enough skilled/quality GMs to run private, high quality UNIQUE game sessions for individual groups of players/guilds.
Still wouldn't be enough $ honestly.
Just for an example say some GM controlled huge Godzilla sea monster rose frome the sea near stormwind and started rampaging and destroying the city. Toppoling buildings, picking on certain player's , just having fun. Live never the same way twice.
I remember in the early days of Vanilla WoW when some dudes trained Stitches up to Goldshire. It was magic, the mayhem, people had an absolute blast.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I find your comments about AOC interesting considering the number one complaint about AOC was the LACK of content post Tortage...
A: The author likes GW2. It's more his cup of tea.
B: He played swtor for maybe 15 minutes. That's only enough to get to know the mechanical aspects and get a small teaser of gameplay.
C: You cannot get a feel for the entire atmosphere that is put together when playing through the complete story, by visiting a convention. Stories are made to build on you as you progress.
Seriously people. Take this with a grain of salt. Everything he mentioned was stuff that was already common knowledge before. He just put his rather negative perception onto it. I can tell just how much I hate docter pepper but that doesn't mean it's not the best cola to millions of others. Nothing in this impression was "new" to me.
Also, many of you seem to overlook the fact that many of his complaints were about bugs/gameplay elements which are a part of the current Swtor BETA.
I believe it was an "impressions" article. I think the word "impressions" in the article gave me this crazy idea, but it could have been something else. Maybe the thread title? Who knows.
A +
Who cares what he prefers? Does his preference of another game make his article invalid? That's like saying you don't trust a guy who says the sky is blue because he thinks the ocean is yellow.
B: "Impressions."
C: "Impressions." And I find it sad that a game toting its story-telling prowess begins with such mediocrity. The first paragraph of the book is where you hook people, not the last.
Oh gosh, I'm glad you came here to tell me I shouldn't drop down on my knees and profess my undying belief in the gospel that is his prose. Thank you sir, thank you!
How about we all just take it as it is? An article about someone else's impressions of a video game.
Sarcasm is not a crime!
Wow, you managed to convey the exact same point that I was, while attempting to insult me. The whole point of my post was telling people to take it with a grain of salt for those following reaons. I wouldn't have made a post if people were doing what I put in red.
This may as well be a review because most people read it like one. Just because you don't "Drop on your knees and profess your undying belief", doesn't mean that others are the same as you. In fact, I don't get why you are placing yourself as an example for the whole community to begin with?
So maybe next time you read my post a little more carefully before jumping to conclusions. It's sort of annoying that you become so condenscending to someone for having having the exact same point that you are trying to make. Self hate?
And you are totally wrong about the first paragraph idea. Some books like to hook people immediatly with a strong start, others like to slowly draw you in and build up as they go. They are called slow burning books and many people enjoy these types of books as well. You may not have heard of them, because you don't have the dedication to read something unless it grabs you by the collar at the start.
I was trying to convey the same point? What?
Perhaps if you ignore all but the last line of my post. Other than that, my post is supportive of the article.
Sarcasm is not a crime!
I think people do not see the difference between a reveiw and an impression.
My IMPRESSION of GW2 is that its one of the most over hyped game in exsistance and in the long run will not hold my interest for years.
My REVEIW of GW2 is that its a solid game and will bring me many hours of entertainment.
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.