Nobody is making the kind of games I like, err yes they did a long time ago, but they weren't as great as the rose-tinted glasses you are wearing make them out to be, everything is better when you look back at it.
Older games WERE more innovative for 1 very simple reason......there was a lot less of them around then & there wasn't a 10 year history of the genre to get in the damn way!
The "this game feels like a living breathing world" feeling, was because your brain had to fill in so many of the bloody gaps the graphics left out, the more realism is in a game, the more your eyes do, & the less your brain has to conjure, you may mock this but the sense of immersion in a living breathing world with images that are beyond belief etc is best done by what, movies with super realistic special effects? Nope, it's books, where your imagination becomes the screen.
OP isn't seeing things the way they are, he's seeing them the way he thinks they are, people have stoppedplaying games the way they used to because they have now played a lot of games.....what you have done in the past changes you more fundamentally than you are giving those experiences credit for.
Nobody is making the kind of games I like, err yes they did a long time ago, but they weren't as great as the rose-tinted glasses you are wearing make them out to be, everything is better when you look back at it.
Older games WERE more innovative for 1 very simple reason......there was a lot less of them around then & there wasn't a 10 year history of the genre to get in the damn way!
The "this game feels like a living breathing world" feeling, was because your brain had to fill in so many of the bloody gaps the graphics left out, the more realism is in a game, the more your eyes do, & the less your brain has to conjure, you may mock this but the sense of immersion in a living breathing world with images that are beyond belief etc is best done by what, movies with super realistic special effects? Nope, it's books, where your imagination becomes the screen.
OP isn't seeing things the way they are, he's seeing them the way he thinks they are, people have stoppedplaying games the way they used to because they have now played a lot of games.....what you have done in the past changes you more fundamentally than you are giving those experiences credit for.
That jaded feeling? It's all you baby.
Play Ryzom (2004) and look around: the birds, insects, weather effects, seasons, mobs in packs (check their behavior) and the wind in the trees, all in 1 big open world. Then tell us again it's just our mind that creates that feeling...
Nobody is making the kind of games I like, err yes they did a long time ago, but they weren't as great as the rose-tinted glasses you are wearing make them out to be, everything is better when you look back at it.
Older games WERE more innovative for 1 very simple reason......there was a lot less of them around then & there wasn't a 10 year history of the genre to get in the damn way!
The "this game feels like a living breathing world" feeling, was because your brain had to fill in so many of the bloody gaps the graphics left out, the more realism is in a game, the more your eyes do, & the less your brain has to conjure, you may mock this but the sense of immersion in a living breathing world with images that are beyond belief etc is best done by what, movies with super realistic special effects? Nope, it's books, where your imagination becomes the screen.
OP isn't seeing things the way they are, he's seeing them the way he thinks they are, people have stoppedplaying games the way they used to because they have now played a lot of games.....what you have done in the past changes you more fundamentally than you are giving those experiences credit for.
That jaded feeling? It's all you baby.
I can see where you would have never noticed the things, the game play, the OP is talking about.
I remember the first time I logged into Everquest. Even though the only thing onscreen was a flat field with a few cardboard-cutout trees rising out of it, the experience was so much more meaningful. I remember taking an excited, shuddering breath as I processed it all in my mind.
Right now, there are dozens - no, hundreds - no, thousands of other players in this virtual world with me. It's a world. It's a living, breathing world.
I did a lot of people-watching. It thrilled me to see other players going about their business. It was such a departure from the video games I had played beforehand. Even though early MMOs were almost ruthlessly difficult to advance in without making a massive time commitment, things were fair. Everything was obtainable ingame once you paid for the game itself and kept up its subscription fee. For a square $15 a month, the entire world was at your fingertips. Some things were extremely difficult to get, so difficult I'd never have a chance at it, but I didn't mind. It made sense to me. Not everyone could wield Excalibur or ride Shadowfax.
As time went on, MMORPGs became friendlier beasts. This was a divisive development. Personally, I quite liked it. My fondest MMO memories are from the middle of the decade, when World of Warcraft, Everquest 2, City of Heroes, and Guild Wars were all fresh and new. The frustrations I had often felt while playing games like Everquest and Final Fantasy XI were no longer weighing me down. I could log in and strike out on my own, without having to sit around in a town hoping a group would form so I could do something as basic as go out and level up. Things were still fair in those days. For a time it looked like MMORPGs might actually get cheaper instead of more expensive, due to the success of Guild Wars. I know a lot of people were hoping monthly fees might become a thing of the past.
It wasn't to be, however. We now find ourselves in the thick of the age of cash shops and RMT. An age where having complete and total access to your MMORPG of choice is more expensive than ever. An age where the game's rarest treasure were not hidden away in the world's most dangerous dungeons and wielded by the most dedicated (or obsessed) players, but instead purchasable with real-world currency and wielded by those with the most disposable income.
I can't do it anymore. The immersion and the joy of the genre has been sucked out of me.
What's worse, even non-MMOs are doing it with their constant streams of DLC. The days where you could buy a game (and/or subscribe to it) for a flat price are over. Pieces of content, ranging in size from entire new regions and play modes to cosmetic additions like pets and alternate costumes are constantly being released. The worst thing of all is that it's working. People are eating it up. There is a large crowd out there that doesn't care when developers excise content from their own game to sell it seperately, often at very high prices.
There was once a time where alternate costumes and stages were part of the flat-rate package you purchased, and you unlocked them by showing skill or spending time playing the game. Today they are sold in DLC packs that are often 1/5th the price of the core game. Going back to MMOs, I'm finding that developers are charging ludicrous prices for things that used to be part of the flat-rate package.
All of this would be easier to swallow if it seemed like all this DLC and microtransaction stuff was content that simply wouldn't fit into the core product. This doesn't look to be the case to me, though. MMOs are releasing less content less often these days, and yet they continue to increase the rate at which they pump out DLC and microtransaction items. These things aren't leftovers from the design process - developers are actively and intentionally spending less effort on the core game and more effort on the cash shops and downloadable content. The degree to which they favor one or the other depends on the developer, but the vast majority appear to be whole-heartedly chasing after the DLC and RMT models, because they make more money.
There was once a time where the entrance fee was all you needed to experience the entirety of a game. Now, most MMOs are like a theme park that charges you to ride some of the attractions on top of having you pay the entry fee. Some people have yet to realize just how lucrative cash shops can be. A single player who spends $60 a month in the cash shop is worth four players who only pay the $15 monthly fee. These players exist. I've been running into them every day - the players with the Double XP Buff, the Double Reputation Buff, the No Cooldown Health Potions, the full collection of faction mounts which you can either buy with real-life money or spend two weeks grinding a faction's reputation to obtain each.
There was once a time where every item, pet, mount, consumable, and buff was available for that same flat price. There were often interesting and challenging ways to obtain that item. They were often woven into the lore of the game in fascinating ways. Today, they're in the cash shop, an immersion-breaking window you can bring up and spend real money in. Excalibur is on sale right now for 1950 Store Points. Shadowfax, Gandalf's one-of-a-kind mount, is 1730 Store Points. Alternatively, you can grind Maiar reputation two hours a day for three weeks to get it.
To those who don't have a problem with this - that's grand and I'm genuinely happy for you. I wish I didn't care so much. I wish it didn't matter so much to me that the coolest and rarest items are no longer earned by playing the game they are in but by wiring money to the developer. Unfortunately, I do. They did it right for so many years that I've grown weary of their new approach.
There was once a time where games felt like living, breathing worlds rife with opportunity. There was an in-game path to everything - every weapon, item, and companion. Now games are starting to feel more and more like half-filled display cases, with plenty of slots and spaces just waiting to filled - if you've got the money to spare.
Cant say the same thing for me. Ive been playing MMO's since Asherons Call back in 1999 and every so often a hint of new gaming heaven pops up. It did it to me with WoW and its doing it to me again with GW2. Honestly though I am enjoying my time in SWTOR right now, I can def see myself playing this game long term just because it has so much potential. But I am also looking forward to TSW, GW2, ArcheAge (if it can get over the whole asian inspired gameplay), 38 studios Copernicus, Blizzards Titan (as long as its not a SC MMO I'll be happy, really hoping for a Diablo MMO with full on Diablo style looting, and adventuring).
The Furture of MMO's ahve nevr looked brighter IMO so I must assume it is you that have grown tired of them, but I doubt I will ever get bored of a persistant world with character and Story progression.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Cant say the same thing for me. Ive been playing MMO's since Asherons Call back in 1999 and every so often a hint of new gaming heaven pops up. It did it to me with WoW and its doing it to me again with GW2. Honestly though I am enjoying my time in SWTOR right now, I can def see myself playing this game long term just because it has so much potential. But I am also looking forward to TSW, GW2, ArcheAge (if it can get over the whole asian inspired gameplay), 38 studios Copernicus, Blizzards Titan (as long as its not a SC MMO I'll be happy, really hoping for a Diablo MMO with full on Diablo style looting, and adventuring).
The Furture of MMO's ahve nevr looked brighter IMO so I must assume it is you that have grown tired of them, but I doubt I will ever get bored of a persistant world with character and Story progression.
Persistent world? You're playing in instances that aren't persistent at all. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your own preferences, but lets not call it something it's not.
Cant say the same thing for me. Ive been playing MMO's since Asherons Call back in 1999 and every so often a hint of new gaming heaven pops up. It did it to me with WoW and its doing it to me again with GW2. Honestly though I am enjoying my time in SWTOR right now, I can def see myself playing this game long term just because it has so much potential. But I am also looking forward to TSW, GW2, ArcheAge (if it can get over the whole asian inspired gameplay), 38 studios Copernicus, Blizzards Titan (as long as its not a SC MMO I'll be happy, really hoping for a Diablo MMO with full on Diablo style looting, and adventuring).
The Furture of MMO's ahve nevr looked brighter IMO so I must assume it is you that have grown tired of them, but I doubt I will ever get bored of a persistant world with character and Story progression.
Persistent world? You're playing in instances that aren't persistent at all. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your own preferences, but lets not call it something it's not.
Swtor is very much a persistant world. Yes it is instanced based on the number of people - I think mirrors might be a better word. But it is still persistant, the world exists even if you log off, it will exist tomorrow, the next day... regardless of what you do.
So yes, it is definately a persistant world.
Venge
edit - EQ2 an CoH did this as well. Don't know if they still do.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Cant say the same thing for me. Ive been playing MMO's since Asherons Call back in 1999 and every so often a hint of new gaming heaven pops up. It did it to me with WoW and its doing it to me again with GW2. Honestly though I am enjoying my time in SWTOR right now, I can def see myself playing this game long term just because it has so much potential. But I am also looking forward to TSW, GW2, ArcheAge (if it can get over the whole asian inspired gameplay), 38 studios Copernicus, Blizzards Titan (as long as its not a SC MMO I'll be happy, really hoping for a Diablo MMO with full on Diablo style looting, and adventuring).
The Furture of MMO's ahve nevr looked brighter IMO so I must assume it is you that have grown tired of them, but I doubt I will ever get bored of a persistant world with character and Story progression.
Persistent world? You're playing in instances that aren't persistent at all. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your own preferences, but lets not call it something it's not.
Swtor is very much a persistant world. Yes it is instanced based on the number of people - I think mirrors might be a better word. But it is still persistant, the world exists even if you log off, it will exist tomorrow, the next day... regardless of what you do.
So yes, it is definately a persistant world.
Venge
edit - EQ2 an CoH did this as well. Don't know if they still do.
You're breaking off a part of the game world that is persistent and using that as a separate entity. But the game world as a whole is not persistent in any sense, as a whole. I don't know about EQ2, but in the other 2 you play most of your action in a completely non-persistent arena. Sure, you CAN play only the persistent part, I suppose, if you can deal with slower prgression as a result and lose the core of the game's designed story-play, but that still doesn't make it a persistent world.
It might be more accurate to call it a "persistent overland with instanced separate modules" world. But I can see where that might be tedious. And I understand that it's a small thing to you, as a Themepark gamer. But it's a huge issue to folks like me who want a true persistence to our game worlds.
Cant say the same thing for me. Ive been playing MMO's since Asherons Call back in 1999 and every so often a hint of new gaming heaven pops up. It did it to me with WoW and its doing it to me again with GW2. Honestly though I am enjoying my time in SWTOR right now, I can def see myself playing this game long term just because it has so much potential. But I am also looking forward to TSW, GW2, ArcheAge (if it can get over the whole asian inspired gameplay), 38 studios Copernicus, Blizzards Titan (as long as its not a SC MMO I'll be happy, really hoping for a Diablo MMO with full on Diablo style looting, and adventuring).
The Furture of MMO's ahve nevr looked brighter IMO so I must assume it is you that have grown tired of them, but I doubt I will ever get bored of a persistant world with character and Story progression.
Persistent world? You're playing in instances that aren't persistent at all. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your own preferences, but lets not call it something it's not.
Swtor is very much a persistant world. Yes it is instanced based on the number of people - I think mirrors might be a better word. But it is still persistant, the world exists even if you log off, it will exist tomorrow, the next day... regardless of what you do.
So yes, it is definately a persistant world.
Venge
edit - EQ2 an CoH did this as well. Don't know if they still do.
You're breaking off a part of the game world that is persistent and using that as a separate entity. But the game world as a whole is not persistent in any sense, as a whole. I don't know about EQ2, but in the other 2 you play most of your action in a completely non-persistent arena. Sure, you CAN play only the persistent part, I suppose, if you can deal with slower prgression as a result and lose the core of the game's designed story-play, but that still doesn't make it a persistent world.
It might be more accurate to call it a "persistent overland with instanced separate modules" world. But I can see where that might be tedious. And I understand that it's a small thing to you, as a Themepark gamer. But it's a huge issue to folks like me who want a true persistence to our game worlds.
the game world as a whole is persistant. The game world exists whether you are there or not, that is the definition of persistant. Yes there are instanced parts, but the majority of the world is not. In Coh all the door missions were instanced and not persistant and that was by far the majority of the game world, so a world overly would be correct.
In Swtor, the majority of the missions are not instanced, and the world is not instanced. It is a persistant world in every sense.
And once agains assumptions are stupid. I am not a themepark gamer - I am a gamer. I play EQ, Vanguard, Ryzom, WoW and Istaria - at least 2 of those are not themepark.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Cant say the same thing for me. Ive been playing MMO's since Asherons Call back in 1999 and every so often a hint of new gaming heaven pops up. It did it to me with WoW and its doing it to me again with GW2. Honestly though I am enjoying my time in SWTOR right now, I can def see myself playing this game long term just because it has so much potential. But I am also looking forward to TSW, GW2, ArcheAge (if it can get over the whole asian inspired gameplay), 38 studios Copernicus, Blizzards Titan (as long as its not a SC MMO I'll be happy, really hoping for a Diablo MMO with full on Diablo style looting, and adventuring).
The Furture of MMO's ahve nevr looked brighter IMO so I must assume it is you that have grown tired of them, but I doubt I will ever get bored of a persistant world with character and Story progression.
Persistent world? You're playing in instances that aren't persistent at all. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your own preferences, but lets not call it something it's not.
Swtor is very much a persistant world. Yes it is instanced based on the number of people - I think mirrors might be a better word. But it is still persistant, the world exists even if you log off, it will exist tomorrow, the next day... regardless of what you do.
So yes, it is definately a persistant world.
Venge
edit - EQ2 an CoH did this as well. Don't know if they still do.
You're breaking off a part of the game world that is persistent and using that as a separate entity. But the game world as a whole is not persistent in any sense, as a whole. I don't know about EQ2, but in the other 2 you play most of your action in a completely non-persistent arena. Sure, you CAN play only the persistent part, I suppose, if you can deal with slower prgression as a result and lose the core of the game's designed story-play, but that still doesn't make it a persistent world.
It might be more accurate to call it a "persistent overland with instanced separate modules" world. But I can see where that might be tedious. And I understand that it's a small thing to you, as a Themepark gamer. But it's a huge issue to folks like me who want a true persistence to our game worlds.
the game world as a whole is persistant. The game world exists whether you are there or not, that is the definition of persistant. Yes there are instanced parts, but the majority of the world is not. In Coh all the door missions were instanced and not persistant and that was by far the majority of the game world, so a world overly would be correct.
In Swtor, the majority of the missions are not instanced, and the world is not instanced. It is a persistant world in every sense.
And once agains assumptions are stupid. I am not a themepark gamer - I am a gamer. I play EQ, Vanguard, Ryzom, WoW and Istaria - at least 2 of those are not themepark.
Venge
I didn't say you were strictly a Themepark gamer. But you not only play them, and like them, you also seem to have a big issue with defending SWTOR. That's ok, but lets be real here.
SWTOR isn't instanced? Let me quote from this site (Torhead) this explanation of game play:
"SWTOR has a clear visual indicator around your menu bar to show which instance you’re in."
"If it’s gold, it’s your instance; you “spawned” the instance (usually by being the first to enter). If it’s red, it’s somebody else’s. If you mouse over the indicator frame, it will tell you whether or not you can complete missions inside this instance."
That isn't a persistent world. That's instancing at it's best.
Cant say the same thing for me. Ive been playing MMO's since Asherons Call back in 1999 and every so often a hint of new gaming heaven pops up. It did it to me with WoW and its doing it to me again with GW2. Honestly though I am enjoying my time in SWTOR right now, I can def see myself playing this game long term just because it has so much potential. But I am also looking forward to TSW, GW2, ArcheAge (if it can get over the whole asian inspired gameplay), 38 studios Copernicus, Blizzards Titan (as long as its not a SC MMO I'll be happy, really hoping for a Diablo MMO with full on Diablo style looting, and adventuring).
The Furture of MMO's ahve nevr looked brighter IMO so I must assume it is you that have grown tired of them, but I doubt I will ever get bored of a persistant world with character and Story progression.
Persistent world? You're playing in instances that aren't persistent at all. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your own preferences, but lets not call it something it's not.
Swtor is very much a persistant world. Yes it is instanced based on the number of people - I think mirrors might be a better word. But it is still persistant, the world exists even if you log off, it will exist tomorrow, the next day... regardless of what you do.
So yes, it is definately a persistant world.
Venge
edit - EQ2 an CoH did this as well. Don't know if they still do.
You're breaking off a part of the game world that is persistent and using that as a separate entity. But the game world as a whole is not persistent in any sense, as a whole. I don't know about EQ2, but in the other 2 you play most of your action in a completely non-persistent arena. Sure, you CAN play only the persistent part, I suppose, if you can deal with slower prgression as a result and lose the core of the game's designed story-play, but that still doesn't make it a persistent world.
It might be more accurate to call it a "persistent overland with instanced separate modules" world. But I can see where that might be tedious. And I understand that it's a small thing to you, as a Themepark gamer. But it's a huge issue to folks like me who want a true persistence to our game worlds.
the game world as a whole is persistant. The game world exists whether you are there or not, that is the definition of persistant. Yes there are instanced parts, but the majority of the world is not. In Coh all the door missions were instanced and not persistant and that was by far the majority of the game world, so a world overly would be correct.
In Swtor, the majority of the missions are not instanced, and the world is not instanced. It is a persistant world in every sense.
And once agains assumptions are stupid. I am not a themepark gamer - I am a gamer. I play EQ, Vanguard, Ryzom, WoW and Istaria - at least 2 of those are not themepark.
Venge
I didn't say you were strictly a Themepark gamer. But you not only play them, and like them, you also seem to have a big issue with defending SWTOR. That's ok, but lets be real here.
SWTOR isn't instanced? Let me quote from this site (Torhead) this explanation of game play:
"SWTOR has a clear visual indicator around your menu bar to show which instance you’re in."
"If it’s gold, it’s your instance; you “spawned” the instance (usually by being the first to enter). If it’s red, it’s somebody else’s. If you mouse over the indicator frame, it will tell you whether or not you can complete missions inside this instance."
That isn't a persistent world. That's instancing at it's best.
SWToR is not persistant. The world "runs" without you, but none of the things that happen while you are offline affect you in any meaningful way. Compare that to something like EvE or UO.
I didn't say you were strictly a Themepark gamer. But you not only play them, and like them, you also seem to have a big issue with defending SWTOR. That's ok, but lets be real here. SWTOR isn't instanced? Let me quote from this site (Torhead) this explanation of game play: "SWTOR has a clear visual indicator around your menu bar to show which instance youre in." "If its gold, its your instance; you spawned the instance (usually by being the first to enter). If its red, its somebody elses. If you mouse over the indicator frame, it will tell you whether or not you can complete missions inside this instance." That isn't a persistent world. That's instancing at it's best.
I think you could say that TOR is a persistent world in the style of MMO's like EQ2 and AoC, that used this mechanic for their open world areas. Aion and LotrO did too, but to a somewhat lesser degree. From what I could discern so far, GW2 and TSW will likely use a sortlike mechanic in certain areas. It's a different structure than GW and Vindictus however, where most of the world isn't persistent at all.
As i said a long time ago SWTOR will be the begining of the end for themepark MMO's, and the ressurection of Sandbox MMORPG's is are future!!!
Heh. Kinda premature, I think. Reason:
- GW2: next-gen themepark, but still a themepark MMO
- The Secret World: another variant on the themepark model
- TERA: action oriented themepark MMO
- Blade & Soul: Asian styled themepark MMO
- Firefall: MMOFPS
- Planetside: MMOFPS
Those are the MMO's we can expect in the upcoming year, and all of those aren't sandbox based. A number of those are expected to be good, solid successes as well, so it'll be a continuation of the 'themepark' or better said dev-driven content model.
The only sandbox addition we'll see this upcoming year is ArcheAge, which is a themepark-sandbox hybrid. A very good looking MMO with appealing features, but still a hybrid (which imo is the better model than pure themepark or pure sandbox) and the only one so far of a whole batch of non-sandbox MMO's that is going to be released this year.
I never said it wasn't instanced I said the,majority isn't instanced. And affecting your character has nothing to do with persistence, the world still exists when your characters log off just like all other mmo games coh ryzom eq eq2 uo eve istaria... the only definition is does the world exist when you shut your computer down
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I never said it wasn't instanced I said the,majority isn't instanced. And affecting your character has nothing to do with persistence, the world still exists when your characters log off just like all other mmo games coh ryzom eq eq2 uo eve istaria... the only definition is does the world exist when you shut your computer down
That's not a feature, just a descriptor. That concept doesn't mean anything remotely relevant to the game when defined that way. That is also not what persistant world meant when the first persistant worlds came out. The fact that they stayed in existence when you logged off actually meant something to you, a ffecting your game. Modern "persistant" worlds could remove the persistance without any effect on the game. This is part of what people mean by saying that new "mmos" and srpgs or co op rpgs. Their persistance is meaningless. If I quit the game for a year aside from bugfixes and balancing playing through the content would be no different than it was if I ran through it now. So I guess you could claim it was persistant, but who cares? It means nothing to the gameplay.
I never said it wasn't instanced I said the,majority isn't instanced. And affecting your character has nothing to do with persistence, the world still exists when your characters log off just like all other mmo games coh ryzom eq eq2 uo eve istaria... the only definition is does the world exist when you shut your computer down
That's not a feature, just a descriptor. That concept doesn't mean anything remotely relevant to the game when defined that way. That is also not what persistant world meant when the first persistant worlds came out. The fact that they stayed in existence when you logged off actually meant something to you, a ffecting your game. Modern "persistant" worlds could remove the persistance without any effect on the game. This is part of what people mean by saying that new "mmos" and srpgs or co op rpgs. Their persistance is meaningless. If I quit the game for a year aside from bugfixes and balancing playing through the content would be no different than it was if I ran through it now. So I guess you could claim it was persistant, but who cares? It means nothing to the gameplay.
It's a description of a feature. The feature is persistant world, it means that the worlds exists when you the player are not there. Thats exactly what it it meant and all it ever meant. The world still exists.
No one in any MMO could affect your character when your weren't there if your character didn't have anything (such as housing) in the real world. If I don't have stations in Eve, than no one can affect me when I log off.
Persistance has never meant that other people can affect when you weren't there, it always meant that the world still existed - it was persistent.
And people never meant that when talking about new mmo's as single player games, or co-ops. I know you don't think of EQ as an MMO but by and large the community did and EQ worked exactly the same way, no affect to you or your character when you logged off.
Persistance isn't meaningless the world still exists, people are still doing things. Whether they affect you or not is a different question and a different argument. But the world still exists, so it is persistant.
You may have a different meaning and this is fine. However we don't get to arbitrarily define words and have effective communication simply because we disagree with them.
I never said it wasn't instanced I said the,majority isn't instanced. And affecting your character has nothing to do with persistence, the world still exists when your characters log off just like all other mmo games coh ryzom eq eq2 uo eve istaria... the only definition is does the world exist when you shut your computer down
That's not a feature, just a descriptor. That concept doesn't mean anything remotely relevant to the game when defined that way. That is also not what persistant world meant when the first persistant worlds came out. The fact that they stayed in existence when you logged off actually meant something to you, a ffecting your game. Modern "persistant" worlds could remove the persistance without any effect on the game. This is part of what people mean by saying that new "mmos" and srpgs or co op rpgs. Their persistance is meaningless. If I quit the game for a year aside from bugfixes and balancing playing through the content would be no different than it was if I ran through it now. So I guess you could claim it was persistant, but who cares? It means nothing to the gameplay.
It's a description of a feature. The feature is persistant world, it means that the worlds exists when you the player are not there. Thats excatctly what it it meant and all it ever meant. The world still exists.
No one in any MMO could affect your character when your weren't there if your character didn't have anything (such as housing) in the real world. If I don't have stations in Eve, than no one can affect me when I log off.
Persistance has never meant that other people can affect when you weren't there, it always meant that the world still existed - it was persistent.
And people never meant that when talking about new mmo's as single player games, or co-ops. I know you don't think of EQ as an MMO but by and large the community did and EQ worked exactly the same way, no affect to you or your character when you logged off.
Persistance isn't meaningless the world still exists, people are still doing things. Whether they affect you or not is a different question and a different argument. But the world still exists, so it is persistant.
Venge
Okay. I wasn't talking about EQ. As a matter of fact things can happen that affect your character in EvE while you are offline. They can't kill you or destroy your ship, but that isn't the be all and end all of affecting your experience. This happens in ATITD and UO also and a few other games. And thats not even getting into the fact that EvE changes while you are offline because of their famous skill system. I was actually talking about games much older than EvE or EQ like muds or habitat though. Perhaps UO. Shadowbane is not as old as the games I was referring to but is another great example. Also MMORTS games.
Just one more question, why do you sign your posts when we can see your name already? I have always wondered about people who did this..
I never said it wasn't instanced I said the,majority isn't instanced. And affecting your character has nothing to do with persistence, the world still exists when your characters log off just like all other mmo games coh ryzom eq eq2 uo eve istaria... the only definition is does the world exist when you shut your computer down
That's not a feature, just a descriptor. That concept doesn't mean anything remotely relevant to the game when defined that way. That is also not what persistant world meant when the first persistant worlds came out. The fact that they stayed in existence when you logged off actually meant something to you, a ffecting your game. Modern "persistant" worlds could remove the persistance without any effect on the game. This is part of what people mean by saying that new "mmos" and srpgs or co op rpgs. Their persistance is meaningless. If I quit the game for a year aside from bugfixes and balancing playing through the content would be no different than it was if I ran through it now. So I guess you could claim it was persistant, but who cares? It means nothing to the gameplay.
It's a description of a feature. The feature is persistant world, it means that the worlds exists when you the player are not there. Thats excatctly what it it meant and all it ever meant. The world still exists.
No one in any MMO could affect your character when your weren't there if your character didn't have anything (such as housing) in the real world. If I don't have stations in Eve, than no one can affect me when I log off.
Persistance has never meant that other people can affect when you weren't there, it always meant that the world still existed - it was persistent.
And people never meant that when talking about new mmo's as single player games, or co-ops. I know you don't think of EQ as an MMO but by and large the community did and EQ worked exactly the same way, no affect to you or your character when you logged off.
Persistance isn't meaningless the world still exists, people are still doing things. Whether they affect you or not is a different question and a different argument. But the world still exists, so it is persistant.
Venge
Okay. I wasn't talking about EQ. As a matter of fact things can happen that affect your character in EvE while you are offline. They can't kill you or destroy your ship, but that isn't the be all and end all of affecting your experience. This happens in ATITD and UO also and a few other games. And thats not even getting into the fact that EvE changes while you are offline because of their famous skill system. I was actually talking about games much older than EvE or EQ like muds or habitat though. Perhaps UO. Shadowbane is not as old as the games I was referring to but is another great example. Also MMORTS games.
Just one more question, why do you sign your posts when we can see your name already? I have always wondered about people who did this..
Force of habit - in my job I have to sign everything. And I like my handle haha.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I never said it wasn't instanced I said the,majority isn't instanced. And affecting your character has nothing to do with persistence, the world still exists when your characters log off just like all other mmo games coh ryzom eq eq2 uo eve istaria... the only definition is does the world exist when you shut your computer down
That's not a feature, just a descriptor. That concept doesn't mean anything remotely relevant to the game when defined that way. That is also not what persistant world meant when the first persistant worlds came out. The fact that they stayed in existence when you logged off actually meant something to you, a ffecting your game. Modern "persistant" worlds could remove the persistance without any effect on the game. This is part of what people mean by saying that new "mmos" and srpgs or co op rpgs. Their persistance is meaningless. If I quit the game for a year aside from bugfixes and balancing playing through the content would be no different than it was if I ran through it now. So I guess you could claim it was persistant, but who cares? It means nothing to the gameplay.
It's a description of a feature. The feature is persistant world, it means that the worlds exists when you the player are not there. Thats exactly what it it meant and all it ever meant. The world still exists.
No one in any MMO could affect your character when your weren't there if your character didn't have anything (such as housing) in the real world. If I don't have stations in Eve, than no one can affect me when I log off.
Persistance has never meant that other people can affect when you weren't there, it always meant that the world still existed - it was persistent.
And people never meant that when talking about new mmo's as single player games, or co-ops. I know you don't think of EQ as an MMO but by and large the community did and EQ worked exactly the same way, no affect to you or your character when you logged off.
Persistance isn't meaningless the world still exists, people are still doing things. Whether they affect you or not is a different question and a different argument. But the world still exists, so it is persistant.
You may have a different meaning and this is fine. However we don't get to arbitrarily define words and have effective communication simply because we disagree with them.
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.
That is the first sentence in the wiki article on persistant worlds and it agrees with me and not you. As I expected that it would. So it appears you are the one arbitrarily changing the definition and also the motives behind the word. Particularly focus on the last part of the sentence. Also Raph Koster and Richard Bartle agree with me, and Richard invented muds. So please do your research next time.
I never said it wasn't instanced I said the,majority isn't instanced. And affecting your character has nothing to do with persistence, the world still exists when your characters log off just like all other mmo games coh ryzom eq eq2 uo eve istaria... the only definition is does the world exist when you shut your computer down
That's not a feature, just a descriptor. That concept doesn't mean anything remotely relevant to the game when defined that way. That is also not what persistant world meant when the first persistant worlds came out. The fact that they stayed in existence when you logged off actually meant something to you, a ffecting your game. Modern "persistant" worlds could remove the persistance without any effect on the game. This is part of what people mean by saying that new "mmos" and srpgs or co op rpgs. Their persistance is meaningless. If I quit the game for a year aside from bugfixes and balancing playing through the content would be no different than it was if I ran through it now. So I guess you could claim it was persistant, but who cares? It means nothing to the gameplay.
It's a description of a feature. The feature is persistant world, it means that the worlds exists when you the player are not there. Thats exactly what it it meant and all it ever meant. The world still exists.
No one in any MMO could affect your character when your weren't there if your character didn't have anything (such as housing) in the real world. If I don't have stations in Eve, than no one can affect me when I log off.
Persistance has never meant that other people can affect when you weren't there, it always meant that the world still existed - it was persistent.
And people never meant that when talking about new mmo's as single player games, or co-ops. I know you don't think of EQ as an MMO but by and large the community did and EQ worked exactly the same way, no affect to you or your character when you logged off.
Persistance isn't meaningless the world still exists, people are still doing things. Whether they affect you or not is a different question and a different argument. But the world still exists, so it is persistant.
You may have a different meaning and this is fine. However we don't get to arbitrarily define words and have effective communication simply because we disagree with them.
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.
That is the first sentence in the wiki article on persistant worlds and it agrees with me and not you. As I expected that it would. So it appears you are the one arbitrarily changing the definition and also the motives behind the word. Particularly focus on the last part of the sentence. Also Raph Koster and Richard Bartle agree with me, and Richard invented muds. So please do your research next time.
Wiki is all fine and good but it still not considered acceptable source of academic infomation, Merriam webster is. Please site where Koster and Bartle agree with you, because I haven't read anything like that.
So please do your research next time.
Edit - Also using Koster and Bartle would be a logical fallacy - an appeal to authority. Legitimate authorities speaking on their areas of expertise may affirm a falsehood. However, if not using a deductive argument, a logical fallacy is only asserted when the source is not a legitimate expert on the topic at hand, or their conclusion(s) are in direct opposition to other expert consensus. Appeal to authority does not condone to agreeing to the argument.
I would agree to their being an expert, but another expert would say something else making their conclusions moot. Appealing to an expert will not win this arugment.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I never said it wasn't instanced I said the,majority isn't instanced. And affecting your character has nothing to do with persistence, the world still exists when your characters log off just like all other mmo games coh ryzom eq eq2 uo eve istaria... the only definition is does the world exist when you shut your computer down
That's not a feature, just a descriptor. That concept doesn't mean anything remotely relevant to the game when defined that way. That is also not what persistant world meant when the first persistant worlds came out. The fact that they stayed in existence when you logged off actually meant something to you, a ffecting your game. Modern "persistant" worlds could remove the persistance without any effect on the game. This is part of what people mean by saying that new "mmos" and srpgs or co op rpgs. Their persistance is meaningless. If I quit the game for a year aside from bugfixes and balancing playing through the content would be no different than it was if I ran through it now. So I guess you could claim it was persistant, but who cares? It means nothing to the gameplay.
It's a description of a feature. The feature is persistant world, it means that the worlds exists when you the player are not there. Thats exactly what it it meant and all it ever meant. The world still exists.
No one in any MMO could affect your character when your weren't there if your character didn't have anything (such as housing) in the real world. If I don't have stations in Eve, than no one can affect me when I log off.
Persistance has never meant that other people can affect when you weren't there, it always meant that the world still existed - it was persistent.
And people never meant that when talking about new mmo's as single player games, or co-ops. I know you don't think of EQ as an MMO but by and large the community did and EQ worked exactly the same way, no affect to you or your character when you logged off.
Persistance isn't meaningless the world still exists, people are still doing things. Whether they affect you or not is a different question and a different argument. But the world still exists, so it is persistant.
You may have a different meaning and this is fine. However we don't get to arbitrarily define words and have effective communication simply because we disagree with them.
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.
That is the first sentence in the wiki article on persistant worlds and it agrees with me and not you. As I expected that it would. So it appears you are the one arbitrarily changing the definition and also the motives behind the word. Particularly focus on the last part of the sentence. Also Raph Koster and Richard Bartle agree with me, and Richard invented muds. So please do your research next time.
Wiki is all fine and good but it still not considered acceptable source of academic infomation, Merriam webster is. Please site where Koster and Bartle agree with you, because I haven't read anything like that.
So please do you research next time.
Are you kidding? Are you fucking kidding me? The dictionary definition of the word persistant outside of any context has nothing to do with the complex concept of virtual worlds. I knew more words when I was 16 than you will ever know in your life. I know what persistent means and I did not even have to consult a dictionary. That has nothing to do with the intended meaning of persistant worlds as understood by not only those 2 people but several other people who were instrumental in founding persistant world games both in and out of the mmorpg genre.
Attempting to quote the dictionary at me when the dictionary is known to not apply to this type of terminology just embarasses you.
I honestly don't even know what to do now. Your argument is just so disturbing to me that I had to take some of my meds to keep my brain under control.
I never said it wasn't instanced I said the,majority isn't instanced. And affecting your character has nothing to do with persistence, the world still exists when your characters log off just like all other mmo games coh ryzom eq eq2 uo eve istaria... the only definition is does the world exist when you shut your computer down
That's not a feature, just a descriptor. That concept doesn't mean anything remotely relevant to the game when defined that way. That is also not what persistant world meant when the first persistant worlds came out. The fact that they stayed in existence when you logged off actually meant something to you, a ffecting your game. Modern "persistant" worlds could remove the persistance without any effect on the game. This is part of what people mean by saying that new "mmos" and srpgs or co op rpgs. Their persistance is meaningless. If I quit the game for a year aside from bugfixes and balancing playing through the content would be no different than it was if I ran through it now. So I guess you could claim it was persistant, but who cares? It means nothing to the gameplay.
It's a description of a feature. The feature is persistant world, it means that the worlds exists when you the player are not there. Thats exactly what it it meant and all it ever meant. The world still exists.
No one in any MMO could affect your character when your weren't there if your character didn't have anything (such as housing) in the real world. If I don't have stations in Eve, than no one can affect me when I log off.
Persistance has never meant that other people can affect when you weren't there, it always meant that the world still existed - it was persistent.
And people never meant that when talking about new mmo's as single player games, or co-ops. I know you don't think of EQ as an MMO but by and large the community did and EQ worked exactly the same way, no affect to you or your character when you logged off.
Persistance isn't meaningless the world still exists, people are still doing things. Whether they affect you or not is a different question and a different argument. But the world still exists, so it is persistant.
You may have a different meaning and this is fine. However we don't get to arbitrarily define words and have effective communication simply because we disagree with them.
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.
That is the first sentence in the wiki article on persistant worlds and it agrees with me and not you. As I expected that it would. So it appears you are the one arbitrarily changing the definition and also the motives behind the word. Particularly focus on the last part of the sentence. Also Raph Koster and Richard Bartle agree with me, and Richard invented muds. So please do your research next time.
Wiki is all fine and good but it still not considered acceptable source of academic infomation, Merriam webster is. Please site where Koster and Bartle agree with you, because I haven't read anything like that.
So please do your research next time.
Edit - Also using Koster and Bartle would be a logical fallacy - an appeal to authority. Legitimate authorities speaking on their areas of expertise may affirm a falsehood. However, if not using a deductive argument, a logical fallacy is only asserted when the source is not a legitimate expert on the topic at hand, or their conclusion(s) are in direct opposition to other expert consensus. Appeal to authority does not condone to agreeing to the argument.
I would agree to their being an expert, but another expert would say something else making their conclusions moot. Appealing to an expert will not win this arugment.
condone to agreeing? that is not what condone means. you try to use dictionary bullshit on me but you can't form proper sentence syntax. you just can't say that in english.
wikipedia doesn't count. the most famous designers of persistant worlds don't count. only your totally arbitrary context non-existent dictionary look up counts? i could understand saying that koster doesn't count, but bartle? come on.
you are not arguing in good faith. this is a waste of my time, and i once spent 12 hours collecting 20000 wood in atitd, so that is saying a lot.
Comments
I am with you OP.
I love this kind of wooly thinking.
Nobody is making the kind of games I like, err yes they did a long time ago, but they weren't as great as the rose-tinted glasses you are wearing make them out to be, everything is better when you look back at it.
Older games WERE more innovative for 1 very simple reason......there was a lot less of them around then & there wasn't a 10 year history of the genre to get in the damn way!
The "this game feels like a living breathing world" feeling, was because your brain had to fill in so many of the bloody gaps the graphics left out, the more realism is in a game, the more your eyes do, & the less your brain has to conjure, you may mock this but the sense of immersion in a living breathing world with images that are beyond belief etc is best done by what, movies with super realistic special effects? Nope, it's books, where your imagination becomes the screen.
OP isn't seeing things the way they are, he's seeing them the way he thinks they are, people have stoppedplaying games the way they used to because they have now played a lot of games.....what you have done in the past changes you more fundamentally than you are giving those experiences credit for.
That jaded feeling? It's all you baby.
IM with the OP.....
searching for the next DAoC....
Kay-exile
Play Ryzom (2004) and look around: the birds, insects, weather effects, seasons, mobs in packs (check their behavior) and the wind in the trees, all in 1 big open world. Then tell us again it's just our mind that creates that feeling...
I can see where you would have never noticed the things, the game play, the OP is talking about.
Once upon a time....
Simply... yes.
Cant say the same thing for me. Ive been playing MMO's since Asherons Call back in 1999 and every so often a hint of new gaming heaven pops up. It did it to me with WoW and its doing it to me again with GW2. Honestly though I am enjoying my time in SWTOR right now, I can def see myself playing this game long term just because it has so much potential. But I am also looking forward to TSW, GW2, ArcheAge (if it can get over the whole asian inspired gameplay), 38 studios Copernicus, Blizzards Titan (as long as its not a SC MMO I'll be happy, really hoping for a Diablo MMO with full on Diablo style looting, and adventuring).
The Furture of MMO's ahve nevr looked brighter IMO so I must assume it is you that have grown tired of them, but I doubt I will ever get bored of a persistant world with character and Story progression.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Persistent world? You're playing in instances that aren't persistent at all. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your own preferences, but lets not call it something it's not.
Once upon a time....
Swtor is very much a persistant world. Yes it is instanced based on the number of people - I think mirrors might be a better word. But it is still persistant, the world exists even if you log off, it will exist tomorrow, the next day... regardless of what you do.
So yes, it is definately a persistant world.
Venge
edit - EQ2 an CoH did this as well. Don't know if they still do.
You're breaking off a part of the game world that is persistent and using that as a separate entity. But the game world as a whole is not persistent in any sense, as a whole. I don't know about EQ2, but in the other 2 you play most of your action in a completely non-persistent arena. Sure, you CAN play only the persistent part, I suppose, if you can deal with slower prgression as a result and lose the core of the game's designed story-play, but that still doesn't make it a persistent world.
It might be more accurate to call it a "persistent overland with instanced separate modules" world. But I can see where that might be tedious. And I understand that it's a small thing to you, as a Themepark gamer. But it's a huge issue to folks like me who want a true persistence to our game worlds.
Once upon a time....
the game world as a whole is persistant. The game world exists whether you are there or not, that is the definition of persistant. Yes there are instanced parts, but the majority of the world is not. In Coh all the door missions were instanced and not persistant and that was by far the majority of the game world, so a world overly would be correct.
In Swtor, the majority of the missions are not instanced, and the world is not instanced. It is a persistant world in every sense.
And once agains assumptions are stupid. I am not a themepark gamer - I am a gamer. I play EQ, Vanguard, Ryzom, WoW and Istaria - at least 2 of those are not themepark.
Venge
The future of MMORPG's and the return to well made Sanbox!!!
https://goblinworks.com/
The future is looking very good!!!
As i said a long time ago SWTOR will be the begining of the end for themepark MMO's, and the ressurection of Sandbox MMORPG's is are future!!!
"It would be awesome if you could duel your companion. Then you could solo pvp".--Thanes
I didn't say you were strictly a Themepark gamer. But you not only play them, and like them, you also seem to have a big issue with defending SWTOR. That's ok, but lets be real here.
SWTOR isn't instanced? Let me quote from this site (Torhead) this explanation of game play:
"SWTOR has a clear visual indicator around your menu bar to show which instance you’re in."
"If it’s gold, it’s your instance; you “spawned” the instance (usually by being the first to enter). If it’s red, it’s somebody else’s. If you mouse over the indicator frame, it will tell you whether or not you can complete missions inside this instance."
That isn't a persistent world. That's instancing at it's best.
Once upon a time....
SWToR is not persistant. The world "runs" without you, but none of the things that happen while you are offline affect you in any meaningful way. Compare that to something like EvE or UO.
I think you could say that TOR is a persistent world in the style of MMO's like EQ2 and AoC, that used this mechanic for their open world areas. Aion and LotrO did too, but to a somewhat lesser degree. From what I could discern so far, GW2 and TSW will likely use a sortlike mechanic in certain areas. It's a different structure than GW and Vindictus however, where most of the world isn't persistent at all.
Heh. Kinda premature, I think. Reason:
- GW2: next-gen themepark, but still a themepark MMO
- The Secret World: another variant on the themepark model
- TERA: action oriented themepark MMO
- Blade & Soul: Asian styled themepark MMO
- Firefall: MMOFPS
- Planetside: MMOFPSThose are the MMO's we can expect in the upcoming year, and all of those aren't sandbox based. A number of those are expected to be good, solid successes as well, so it'll be a continuation of the 'themepark' or better said dev-driven content model.
The only sandbox addition we'll see this upcoming year is ArcheAge, which is a themepark-sandbox hybrid. A very good looking MMO with appealing features, but still a hybrid (which imo is the better model than pure themepark or pure sandbox) and the only one so far of a whole batch of non-sandbox MMO's that is going to be released this year.
That's not a feature, just a descriptor. That concept doesn't mean anything remotely relevant to the game when defined that way. That is also not what persistant world meant when the first persistant worlds came out. The fact that they stayed in existence when you logged off actually meant something to you, a ffecting your game. Modern "persistant" worlds could remove the persistance without any effect on the game. This is part of what people mean by saying that new "mmos" and srpgs or co op rpgs. Their persistance is meaningless. If I quit the game for a year aside from bugfixes and balancing playing through the content would be no different than it was if I ran through it now. So I guess you could claim it was persistant, but who cares? It means nothing to the gameplay.
It's a description of a feature. The feature is persistant world, it means that the worlds exists when you the player are not there. Thats exactly what it it meant and all it ever meant. The world still exists.
No one in any MMO could affect your character when your weren't there if your character didn't have anything (such as housing) in the real world. If I don't have stations in Eve, than no one can affect me when I log off.
Persistance has never meant that other people can affect when you weren't there, it always meant that the world still existed - it was persistent.
And people never meant that when talking about new mmo's as single player games, or co-ops. I know you don't think of EQ as an MMO but by and large the community did and EQ worked exactly the same way, no affect to you or your character when you logged off.
Persistance isn't meaningless the world still exists, people are still doing things. Whether they affect you or not is a different question and a different argument. But the world still exists, so it is persistant.
You may have a different meaning and this is fine. However we don't get to arbitrarily define words and have effective communication simply because we disagree with them.
The word persistant was chosen for a reason, because of it's meaning it has an accepted definition. It means (according to merriam webster - existing for a long or longer than usual time or continuously: as a: retained beyond the usual period persistent leaf> b: continuing without change in function or structure <persistent gills> c: effective in the open for an appreciable time usually through slow volatilizing persistent>
2
a: continuing or inclined to persist in a course(see persist) b: continuing to exist despite interference or treatment persistent cough> persistent vegetative state for two years>
This is why the word was chosen, not because it can affect you, or because it can change but because it exists. Actually there could be an argument made that it is persistant because it doesn't change. However it is persistant because it exists when you are note there. Period, end of story.
Venge
Okay. I wasn't talking about EQ. As a matter of fact things can happen that affect your character in EvE while you are offline. They can't kill you or destroy your ship, but that isn't the be all and end all of affecting your experience. This happens in ATITD and UO also and a few other games. And thats not even getting into the fact that EvE changes while you are offline because of their famous skill system. I was actually talking about games much older than EvE or EQ like muds or habitat though. Perhaps UO. Shadowbane is not as old as the games I was referring to but is another great example. Also MMORTS games.
Just one more question, why do you sign your posts when we can see your name already? I have always wondered about people who did this..
Force of habit - in my job I have to sign everything. And I like my handle haha.
As for your update, please read this:
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.
That is the first sentence in the wiki article on persistant worlds and it agrees with me and not you. As I expected that it would. So it appears you are the one arbitrarily changing the definition and also the motives behind the word. Particularly focus on the last part of the sentence. Also Raph Koster and Richard Bartle agree with me, and Richard invented muds. So please do your research next time.
Wiki is all fine and good but it still not considered acceptable source of academic infomation, Merriam webster is. Please site where Koster and Bartle agree with you, because I haven't read anything like that.
So please do your research next time.
Edit - Also using Koster and Bartle would be a logical fallacy - an appeal to authority. Legitimate authorities speaking on their areas of expertise may affirm a falsehood. However, if not using a deductive argument, a logical fallacy is only asserted when the source is not a legitimate expert on the topic at hand, or their conclusion(s) are in direct opposition to other expert consensus. Appeal to authority does not condone to agreeing to the argument.
I would agree to their being an expert, but another expert would say something else making their conclusions moot. Appealing to an expert will not win this arugment.
Are you kidding? Are you fucking kidding me? The dictionary definition of the word persistant outside of any context has nothing to do with the complex concept of virtual worlds. I knew more words when I was 16 than you will ever know in your life. I know what persistent means and I did not even have to consult a dictionary. That has nothing to do with the intended meaning of persistant worlds as understood by not only those 2 people but several other people who were instrumental in founding persistant world games both in and out of the mmorpg genre.
Attempting to quote the dictionary at me when the dictionary is known to not apply to this type of terminology just embarasses you.
I honestly don't even know what to do now. Your argument is just so disturbing to me that I had to take some of my meds to keep my brain under control.
condone to agreeing? that is not what condone means. you try to use dictionary bullshit on me but you can't form proper sentence syntax. you just can't say that in english.
wikipedia doesn't count. the most famous designers of persistant worlds don't count. only your totally arbitrary context non-existent dictionary look up counts? i could understand saying that koster doesn't count, but bartle? come on.
you are not arguing in good faith. this is a waste of my time, and i once spent 12 hours collecting 20000 wood in atitd, so that is saying a lot.