Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Do we really need the "massive" in MORPG's ?
Boneserino
Member UncommonPosts: 1,768
Just curious what people think. What is the benefit to gameplay of having large numbers of "real" players playing a game? I realize it depends on the type of game somewhat, in that if you want a PVP type of game or some type of game that features competition then you need a required number of players. But does it have to be a massive number?
I agree with many here that Skyrim seems to be the type of world that lots of us would like to spend some time in with other "real" players. To me that would only work if you had a limited number of players in each game. And that those players agreed to certain rules of gameplay, to make the game enjoyable for all. Essentially a limited Co-op game.
IMO (and from reading these forums) a big problem with MMO's these days is not the games so much, but the people playing them. I personally would prefer a smaller number of people in a game world that you can truly get to know, instead of just random thousands with all types (you know what I mean) included. And as a means of controlling the possible morons who might ruin the experience, players could be given a vote, and if say 51% of people vote to have someone removed that person is booted and has to try again with a new group of people.
Anyway, I wonder if by allowing smaller groups in multiple instances of an MMO, say similar to Skyrim, might be a better direction for future MMO's to go. A better player community and gaming experience might be the result if maybe we just toned down the size of our MASSIVE MMO's.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Comments
I dislike the over instancing in mmos now, so my vote is no on that...
A lot of mmos now are too instanced, don't have open dungeons and such...I miss open dungeons.
I vote that yes, we do need it. But unfortunely it seems that a majority of companies are going away from it.
I understand what you are saying Xthos, but what I really meant was an instance of the entire game. Probably a bad term to use. Think yourself and maybe 100 others playing something like Skyrim. The number of players in the game are limited. I think there would be a lot of benefits to that. Less lag. Tighter community. Ability for Devs to add more gameplay elements in, etc.
That is the sort of thing I am getting at.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Massive in the eyes of the beholder I guess... I recognize MMO's for being massive by content (how big the world is) not subscripitions. After all sure you can have a few million worldwide players but you only play with a couple thousand on one server and realisticly only a couple hundred at a time anyways
.
edit. Yes we need the # base of massive for the genre. I do not want to play a co-op rpg if i do, I'll play halo, or l4d, or dead island, etc, etc. It's just that we need it revamped! we have seen the same old same old with the community and it needs and update. Real Player driven economies should be in every game. We should have PvP Bounties out on every griefing player. A real foot print should be left behind in the world by every player. People should have to group up not by trinity views but by who ever you want to play with just to get out of a neutral zone.
Glad to see some games are trying to bring foward a better use of the community, rift with it's attempt at dynamic events (hopefully gw2 will perfect this, looks like they do really), or Aion with it's new housing communities. But this is what we need something for the community to take effort in other than organized raids/dungeons and instanced pvp.
Note that i am not saying that these need to be removed because I would hate to see them taken away, it's just that we need to bring back the core of what makes an MMO an MMO and that is a community effort.
This isn't a bad idea, but this isn't an MMORPG your thinking of, it's just a multiplayer game, but a persistent one, instead of the common "death match" we are used to in games like CoD.
I personally like the feeling of being in a REAL (persistent) area, with a REAL (in aspect to real life) number of people, EVE for example, there are 35,000 people online at a given point, and the universe is immensly large, with a ton of things going on.
Now I don't interact with people unless I get into a corporation, but I don't get into a small community, (well I kind of do in some games, guilds, and kind of corporations in this game I guess), I get put into the grand scheme of things, my goal is to make an impact, not to have it gaurenteed. I live in a universe, and I play a role. Game's like WoW are trying to do more of what you are doing, but in bursts, not throughout the whole game.
This is an instance.
So what I am getting at in the end, is that you are looking for a game that isn't an MMORPG, instead of trying to change the market for you, go to a different market. Try multiplayer co-op games. Or something with a slightly higher player base, i'm sure there is something.
I hope this opened your eyes a little bit.
From a 14 year old.
Tbrown, Love me or die!
I still like MMO's, I attribute the poor communities of newer games to a variety of factors, though mostly solo centric game design and easy mode gameplay. I prefer my MMO game worlds large and persistant with lots of people bringing life to the world.
I do think that the OP has a good idea though, if I understand it correctly. As I understand it, the OP wants what amounts to a scaled up single player or co op game. Not to MMO levels but to something about twice the size of BF3. That might be fun and I would give it a look at least. I think there may be an untapped market there, but I still like my big massive MMOs.
I just wish there was more variety out there among AAA titles, rather than the attempt to appeal to everyone model. I think one of the posters here describes it as different flavors of ice cream. How about some cake or pie too. No need to get rid of the ice cream, but give people the choice of cake and pie as well.
It's super fun to see hundreds of people around you. It's just fun for me.
I don't really like instances, it pulls players out of the world into a closed environment. I mean it is their choice, but I don't like playing instanced games really.
It is a no with the current type of MMORPG. The "massive" would only work when the MMORPG is about being a virtual world than a game where things in the world are affect by the action of players in the server.
"Massive" is requires in a game where the economy are run by players, where the items are crafted and sell in the market by players. Where the trading between town and cites are important, and the PvP involves over 1000 players at a time siege the territories or castles to gain control over resources and economy itself.
These day MMO are closely ties to single player, or co-op role playing game, where small group of party would be enough to go through every single contents that available in the game. The world itself is static, and no matter in what day you play the game, what developer put there in the first place will always stay like how it was when it was placed. It's just no longer "massive" in the sense of how the term was created in the first place.
I, personally, prefer a role playing game in an evolving virtual world than static co-op online role playing game where large number of players in the server equal more immersive and fun than a content where no matter how many time you play it will always be the same.
It's a matter of taste.
Well I definitely regret using the word "instance" now!
EVE is an example of a somewhat successful sand box and hence because of its economy, that large number of players is pretty much required. As I said it depends on the game. In most cases though, EVE is sort of an exception to what generally works in MMO's.
I just think that what a large majority of people are looking for is the sense of adventure that seems to missing in MMO's. Because you get dumped into a game at level one with thousands of people and then you do quests acording to your level. Thousands doing the same thing as you. Level after level.
Lets say instead you are place in Skyrim. In an open world such as that you have many non linear options and then it becomes a much more "social" game because you are only 1 of 100 and you may need others to survive, or complete objectives. But the real point is that with a relatively small number of people, players would be more likely to want to be part of the community, and it would remove a lot of the unwanted social deviants, whose only joy is to ruin the experience for others.
Some of my best online experiences were playing the old Age of empires games. Even though I sucked, I made some good friends and playing was a blast. Small groups work best in games I think.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Thnx Manticorps, this is what I was trying to get at. A scaled up version of Skyrim but not massive numbers of players. Lets call them small communities. Perhaps the game itself could give you the option of how large you wanted the community to be.
And not an instance!!! All I meant by that was if millions wanted to play they would all be in separate versions of the same game. Does that make sense?
Anyway it doesn't mean we have to get rid of all the massives out there, but I think if something like this was available I would like to give it a shot.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Without the notion of massively in MORPG, one is left with online roleplaying game, a name I dare say is tasteless given the shallow gamemechanics that are out there.
No fantasy = No roleplaying
---
Edit: Oops, it seem clear now that I missed a letter here in MMORPG. :P (OP seem to have done so as well)
I will now attempt to rewrite it all:
Without the notion of massively in MMORPG, one is left with "multiplayer online roleplaying game", a name I dare say is tasteless given the shallow gamemechanics that are out there.
No fantasy = No roleplaying
Imo, it seem misplaced to leave the "multiplayer" part alone with "online", since anything online tend to be a social thing with lots of people involved. Surely MMORPG was meant to "say" more about the large number of players involved in a game, rather than it saying anything about so called "roleplaying" or "roleplaying game".
How would the OP's question look like if removing RPG? Then it would be: Do we really need the "massively" in MMO?
OP seem to have either written his question wrong, referring to MORPG instead of MMORPG, or senselessly implying that the acronym MORPG should be a meaningful term like MMORPG.
This ought to interest a few ancient mud-ers.
No, massively isn't something we need. But it is something that stockholders need.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
This is something I have thought of before,
Really I do see games being massive and having thousands on a server to greatly limit gameplay while adding very little extra benefit.
I really think that the number of people you are playing with at one time suffers from diminishing returns, adding the fist person adds a lot of fun to the game but when you get to the 1,000th person it is pretty much moot.
And at the same time the number of sacrifices that need to be made increase with more people, so while playing with a couple of people requires very little sacrifice in the gameplay, housing thousands requires a ton of sacrifice.
So I think there is a line that MMOs frequently cross where the number of people playing at one time adds too little benefit and demands too much sacrifice of gameplay. Really of all of the MMOs I can think of nearly all would be better games to me, opening more possibilities and better gameplay, if they were significantly less massive.
I feel there is an optimal number range for people playing together or being in any community where you can promote meaningful interaction, outside of that range though people tend to become faceless and that interaction too remote for players to value it much. I do think massive servers of 1,000 or more is far too big.
Guilds in a very real way illustrate this, the forming of social groups that promote meaningful interaction between members.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
+ 1
Agreed.
--------------------------
There is new genre beign born for some time, with game like Vindictus, so... you have your kind of games there.
For mmorpg's - yeah I want massive.
I have no interest in playing them if they're not. I want worlds and worlds have to be massive.
There is plenty multiplayer / lobby / co-op games on the market.
BUT
@ OP
it depends what you mean by massive?
If you mean less ppl by server, then it is ok with me. Few hundread / few thousand is already massive if they play on one server and there is open world that everyone can explore at same time and meet. I don't need 10 or 20 k ppl on one server.
Then you can have game like Diablo or CoD which have massive playerbase, but they are not massive games.
Two diffrent things.
And what "massive" means?
- More then 10 players?
- More then 100?
- More then 1.000?
Anyway, in MMORPG we need the "massive" thing, otherwise it becomes MORPG.
In a MORPG we dont need the "massive", otherwise it becomes MMORPG.
There is alot of diferent types of games around and sometimes ppl are playing the wrong game type, but they will find out soon or later
I think the general rule is more than 128 players which was what Biowares Neverwinter nights had as max on servers. Under that is "just" a multiplayer RPG.
If however all combat zones is in instances but towns are massive it is a CORPG, a special undergroup to MMOs. GW, DDO and STO are typical CORPGs.
A game surely don't need to be massive to fun, but they need to be massive to be a "Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game", anything else would make no sense whatsoever.
A great game is a great game no matter if it is a offline singleplayer game or a MMO with 50K players on the same server.
A persistant multiplayer RPG like that would be fun.
And it does make sense, in fact does on multiplayer Elder scroll game exist allready, it is called "Battlespire" but for some reason did they fail that one, it is the worst Elder scroll game.
But Bethesda already had the same idea as you, and they might do it again. Regular multiplayer RPGs were rather common in the late 90s, the best one is Biowares Neverwinter nights from 2001. There you can actually create your own world with your own NPCs and quests rather simply, there are still plenty of good player created servers for it up and you can find the game for a few bucks if you are interested.
Edit: Seems like the "Y" on my keyboard is dying:(
Massive has to do with number of connections to the server.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
There isn't a clear dividing line of what constitutes "massive". Surely 5 people in an instance isn't massive, and 10000 is. But where is the dividing line? Is 10 people in an instance massive? 50? 200? 1000? 5000?
Even if you want to argue that EVE-style only one server is the only way to be massive, what about a game that does that and only has 100 players online concurrently? Is that massive? What if there are only 10?
I'm more interested in interesting gameplay than in debating whether it constitutes "massive".
I think many real players is definitely better. Humans add an element of unpredictabilty, intelligence (at least more humans) that can't be mirrorer in 'cyber creatures; ... yet. Not to mention the shere joy of competing with Humans. Its the thrill of the hunt... that wonder feeling when you stalk your prey..... then you pounce....your enemy lies dead beneath your feet... nothing better.
I self identify as a monkey.
Because for most players it doesn't add a lot of value (and at the same time introduces several major disadvantages.)
Planetside has been the only gaming experience where being massive was valuable. Partially due to how commonly you experienced truly massive gameplay (basically every session) and how it added enough to the experience to justify what was lost (by being massive, your personal contribution to PVP mattered less compared to matches of merely 30-40 players in typical FPSes.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
After playing Skyrim, I'm not so sure we need "Massively" any longer. I would prefer to play with maybe a few to a dozen playres. I would love to be able to set up a persistent world Skyrim server and let just a few of my gaming friends play within it, instead of hundreds. I would be quiet content.
the massive is only needed when there is room for massive stuff.
You don't need "massive" amount of players to play WoW or anyother from this gender... but if you played EVE, Darkfall, Mortal, Ryzom, UO, Tibia or even Vanguard (mostly the sandbox types) you cann see where the massiviness is needed.
You need people because the game is designed as such (a virtual world), if there is no people there is no game almost... no trading going on no guilds fighting over anything...
Now in a game like SWTOR too many people ruin the thing istead of adding to it, you loose value because there is always a jerk to break the immersion with a silly name or silly behavior. You end up playing with your guild/friends only and only goes beyond that when there is no other way and even if you do that player interaction is almost none in those cases.
How many times you talked with the total stranger in your BG groups ? Sometimes people don't even talk before/after the invite for a group quest or instanced area... it's odd.
You and I are thinking along the same lines Cactus-Man. Excellent post, thank you!
A lot of what I hear on the forums these days is "when is the next big game that is going to take over my life going to happen??" And most of these people talk fondly about the older games, or their first MMO. Also the friends they made and how games were more social back then. That was the true reason people enjoyed those games so much I think. It was a new experience and everyone was enjoying it together.
Now it is no longer a new experience. And everyone comes with a been there, done that attitude and just plough through games like a meat grinder. And I am as guilty of that as the next guy. The guild reference is a good one. These are the people you want to play with. Your friends. A small ( say your average guild size) group with the same objectives for playing and enjoying the game. And that is what should make any online game memorable and fun. The people you play with. Otherwise, why are we playing online?
I'm not saying all but in certain games, as some have pointed out, would you not sometimes prefer a smaller group that says " hey this is our game, lets play it our way and get the most fun we can out of it" versus running around with thousands of other anonymous players doing the same things in the same order just so we can get where someone else has already been?
The interesting questions I see asked here are : 1) How big is massive? and 2) Can game companies make money with this style of play?
I am not sure the answer to 1 but I agree with Cactus that I think 1000 is definitely too many. The bigger the group the more the random elements will slip in to disrupt it. And you can never get to know 1000 people in a game. I would say more like 100 to 500 people would be a good range and some games might work better with double digits. Some call this co-op but isn't that term true for any game with more than one player? As for number 2 , I don't see why companies can't make money. Look at Call of Duty. Not sure how many people play in each match, but there are multiple matches going on , and plenty of game copies being sold! Money should not be an issue.
Anyway if someone sees a game out there that offers this, I would sure like to know about it. Because this is my idea of fun in online gaming. Playing with good people who just want a little escape from reality now and then and who you can share you adventure with in a rowdy tavern afterward! LOL
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!