Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The problem with MMOs these days is developers are making games and not virtual worlds.
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I'm not sure that we see this differently, but it does matter what sort of game it is when you consider how it should play. It still leaves your comment accurate otherwise, though.
There are many similarities, but there's a big difference basic concept.
If you are making a Themepark, you need to have "go here, then go there next" basic concept. And with that you need to have 2 things.
Once upon a time....
It's a forum with a lot of niche opinions, but MMORPGs are rather mainstream.
MMORPGs as a whole aren't niche.
Only the obsessively virtual world-focused games are.
So it's not weird at all that people discuss MMORPGs on MMORPG.com. It actually is a little weird for them to fixate too much on virtual worlds when it's such a tiny sub-genre of MMORPGs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well, yeah. But Theme Park does not equal Game and Sandbox does not equal World.
I'm trying to stick to the Game vs World discussion, but I don't think it makes any sense.
A game's World is designed to facilitate the game's Game.
Xyson's world was designed to facilitate Xyson's Game elements. Ditto for WoW's World. The World isn't a cause or driver, it's a result and that's the way it should be. If the intent is to build a Game where player interactions are important, and the ability to capture as many possible outcomes is the goal, the World will be much more interactive. If the intent is the build a Game where the player has a clear progression path, then the World will be less interactive, and more of a stage. You wouldn't put Xyson's World in WoW's Game unless Xyson's World somehow worked with WoW's Game. It wouldn't because players wouldn't take advantage of the added interactivity and if they did, it would disrupt the Game. You certainly wouldn't put WoW's World in Xyson's Game because it just wouldn't work because WoW's World lacks the elements necessary for Xyson's Game to function.
Whatever the game is, whether it's a Sandbox, Theme Park or somewhere in between, the game's World will be a result of what the game's Game needs. So when talking about Game vs World, the type of game is irrelevant.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
MMORPGs are still very much as niche maket as whole. WOW has made them significantly less so, but they still are. Other forms of computer games, let alone entertainment, dwarf all kinds of MMOs in acceptance and usage.
On the original topic, having an MMORPG that isn't a virtual world makes no sense to me personally. The whole idea in the first place was to create a place where thousands of people could play together, and having a reasonably well developed base world for the interactions to take place in is, to me at least, a very important aspect of the whole notion. I personally have difficulty understanding how it can be a tiny sub-genre when it's very presence is a critical underpinning to the entire enterprise.
That being said, there does need to be at least some development of the world that allows the players to create their own game. Star Wars Galaxy and EVE did and do this very well. Both were wide open worlds with a good overall metaplot, but neither tried to create a storyline in which the character was the hero, but rather allowed the player to make their own storyline within the given universe. Perhaps the problem isn't game vs world as much as it is the way the personal story lines are presented in modern MMOs. Epic hero stories are great, fascinating, and interesting to a point, but they have one big factor that kills their ability to work well in a genre intended to be long lasting, and that is they have an end. The problem with modern MMOs is that they focus on writing a single epic. They are often very good epics, but there is still only one of them, and once that is done, there isn't much of anything else to do. Expansions that introduce new BBEG's only work to a point because once you've saved the world at least twice, the third time starts to feel bland. EVE, SWG, and from the single player world, TES, avoids this by allowing for thousands of little stories to unfold consecutively. There is no end, because there is always another story unfolding that can hold the player's interest. Game in and of itself is not an enemy to MMO's but how it is presented can be; end game is fatal, perpetual game that supports the world as a whole is not. In either case, the world is not an option; it must be there even if it isn't something that the player consciously thinks about.
yeah. And this forum is not 100% about the "true" MMORPG. Diablo, LOL, WoT, GW1, and many other online games that some do not considered MMO have their own corner here, and fair game in discussion.
I think some fixates on virtual world only because it is their first. It is like fixated on DOOM and think that gun & run is the only way to build FPS.
The genre moves onto other ideas, and expand whether people like it or not.
A 50M player US market is niche? Where do you get that illusion?
http://www.superdataresearch.com/us-free-to-play-does-it-pay-to-switch/
The whole idea .. "in the first place" ... is not relevant. Ideas change. Many people don't even go out to the world when it is available. They jsut queue up their pve or pvp instances. The reason of any gameplay element to exist is to entertain, not because it is there from the start.
We're just looking at it from 2 different angles. You're right in what you are saying, I think. One of the reasons (among several) WoW did so well was that they had much more "world" in their game. Even "immersion". Even though it was zone to zone content, which hurts immersion in a grand sense, they had remarkable immersion in that world for a Themepark goal.
And along these same lines, if you'll bear with me a bit here, you could take WoW and transform it into a Sandbox game simply by removing the huge level power gaps, and removing the zone to zone content. You could even leave in the quest linear content. You'd lose the wide eyed "ding" effect of new power, but you could leave in the new skills/abilities gained for the most part, modified to fit the new power gap structure. And you'd gain the freedom to go anywhere and play (some areas require help from the more advanced, of course). And you'd also lose that same ding effect in crafting. But you'd gain a more Worldly Sandbox ability and a whole new level of economics as game play. The game play itself changes from "paint by numbers" to "open world". Yet, the game play would also be very similar.
Of course, there's problems with an open world in the details. Things like player numbers in zones, etc. But once you open up an open world game, you can also add social aspects to help control those issues. As just one example, if resources are limited, players would spred out to other zones. You can add housing (WoW would have needed a bigger world to accomodate it) so as to make that spread more stable. A great Sandbox would be more expensive to make if it's otherwise the same, compared to a Themepark. But the rewards are considerable. And compared to today's situation where it's almost impossible to come close to WoW, it seems like the thing to do. Because Themeparks after WoW are stretched out in the "long tail" and destined to remain there.
Once upon a time....
Uh, no, Xfire and several other sources make it pretty clear that despite being dwarfed by MOBA and FPS genres, MMORPGs are either the 3rd (or maybe 4th) most popular core game genre.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Precisely. Very few stays to enjoy the world if the game is shit.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Because if the potential market is diminutive, no one is going to bother making a game for them. Then they make threads like "The problem with MMOs these days is developers are making games and not virtual worlds".
You have to make concessions to make them more popular. Expand the target audience to make such a project profitable.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I'm not sure that we see this differently, but it does matter what sort of game it is when you consider how it should play. It still leaves your comment accurate otherwise, though. There are many similarities, but there's a big difference basic concept. If you are making a Themepark, you need to have "go here, then go there next" basic concept. And with that you need to have 2 things. [*] You need a way to control the players to stick with the "paint by numbers" goal of primary game play. [*] You absolutely do NOT want Sandbox like principles of freedom in the game because that would get in the way of that goal. If you are making a Sandbox, you have the opposite. You absolutely do not want that "paint by numbers" as a goal of primary game play, although you can include it in with the rest of the game play as another activity. You absolutely want Sandbox principles of freedom, or you don't have a Sandbox.
Well, yeah. But Theme Park does not equal Game and Sandbox does not equal World. I'm trying to stick to the Game vs World discussion, but I don't think it makes any sense. A game's World is designed to facilitate the game's Game. Xyson's world was designed to facilitate Xyson's Game elements. Ditto for WoW's World. The World isn't a cause or driver, it's a result and that's the way it should be. If the intent is to build a Game where player interactions are important, and the ability to capture as many possible outcomes is the goal, the World will be much more interactive. If the intent is the build a Game where the player has a clear progression path, then the World will be less interactive, and more of a stage. You wouldn't put Xyson's World in WoW's Game unless Xyson's World somehow worked with WoW's Game. It wouldn't because players wouldn't take advantage of the added interactivity and if they did, it would disrupt the Game. You certainly wouldn't put WoW's World in Xyson's Game because it just wouldn't work because WoW's World lacks the elements necessary for Xyson's Game to function. Whatever the game is, whether it's a Sandbox, Theme Park or somewhere in between, the game's World will be a result of what the game's Game needs. So when talking about Game vs World, the type of game is irrelevant.
We're just looking at it from 2 different angles. You're right in what you are saying, I think. One of the reasons (among several) WoW did so well was that they had much more "world" in their game. Even "immersion". Even though it was zone to zone content, which hurts immersion in a grand sense, they had remarkable immersion in that world for a Themepark goal.
And along these same lines, if you'll bear with me a bit here, you could take WoW and transform it into a Sandbox game simply by removing the huge level power gaps, and removing the zone to zone content. You could even leave in the quest linear content. You'd lose the wide eyed "ding" effect of new power, but you could leave in the new skills/abilities gained for the most part, modified to fit the new power gap structure. And you'd gain the freedom to go anywhere and play (some areas require help from the more advanced, of course). And you'd also lose that same ding effect in crafting. But you'd gain a more Worldly Sandbox ability and a whole new level of economics as game play. The game play itself changes from "paint by numbers" to "open world". Yet, the game play would also be very similar.
Of course, there's problems with an open world in the details. Things like player numbers in zones, etc. But once you open up an open world game, you can also add social aspects to help control those issues. As just one example, if resources are limited, players would spred out to other zones. You can add housing (WoW would have needed a bigger world to accomodate it) so as to make that spread more stable. A great Sandbox would be more expensive to make if it's otherwise the same, compared to a Themepark. But the rewards are considerable. And compared to today's situation where it's almost impossible to come close to WoW, it seems like the thing to do. Because Themeparks after WoW are stretched out in the "long tail" and destined to remain there.
They're going to have to do something to differentiate themselves as more and more MMOs get released and as the Indie game market outside of MMOs is starting to heat up. It certainly seems like sandbox style game play is going to be explored again with modern games.
I think it's less likely that they'll go with Open World than with Sandbox style player interactions. I get the impression that players just running around willy nilly makes developers nervous.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And, the reverse is not true. If the game is good, you don't even need a world for many to enjoy.
I don't think it is the impresion that is the problem. Open world is an old, tried and failed concept. It is not like it has not been tried before.
Correct.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
That link suggests one out of every six humans in the USA, which includes infants and the elderly, are playing MMOS. Think I'll call BS on that.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Not suggest .. they outright say it with research. I will trust marketing company report over some random dude (like you) on the internet.
How is so strange about 1/6 humans in the US play MMO? In my house hold, it is 3/4 .. way higher than that.
I'm seconding the calling that report BS. They are either using a very loose definition of "play" or "MMO" to get those numbers; either way, it sounds like someone trying to inflate the results. MMOs as a whole may not be niche that they used to be, but they are still largely a niche product. It's a growing niche to be certain, but still a niche when compared to games like Farmville or console games.
http://www.entropiapartners.com/?r=22415
That's why I suggested the social aspects, and mentioned resources. Think of a social-economic design that causes players to spread out in both localized communities as well as into wide frontiers in search of their fortunes, adventures, explorations and discoveries.
Once upon a time....
Sometimes needs to order the study to actually find their methodolgy. However I do suspect that they are duplicating, unintentially, the number of people.
E.g. (making up numbers). LOL says 20 million, WoW says 5 million, 10 other games say 10 million. That makes 35 million subscribers. But 2 million of those LOL also play WoW...
Actually I am pretty sure that is happening.
I can't imagine the games are revealing player identities and without the identities there is no way to ensure they are not being counted in another game.
I am not sure what you are referring to as a virtual world MMO. I do not think such a game exists. If you mean open world MMO there are more than a few, it is hardly a niche area. But then every other MMO type is smaller than the easymode majority we now have. I do not regard open world as niche, just as I don’t regard MMOFPS as a niche. They are different games essentially.
You can call them all MMO's with sub genres, but it is getting harder and harder to do so. The gameplay is diverging so much that putting "MMO" in a games title is only there to give players an easy handle on what the game is about. A handle which can be quite deceptive, as a lot of modern games are MMO wannabes at best.
We do have supporters of non traditional MMO formats on here. Am I one such because I like a MMOFPS? Am I a MMO traditionalist because I see modern MMO's as losing so much? To me MMOFPS is essentially a new game, a hybrid between MMO's and FPS. Modern easymode MMO's on the other hand, are stripped down shadows of what they could be, pandering to the solo crowd. To call some of them themeparks is an insult to some good themeparks I have been to.
So all of us are putting forward their gaming agenda, what’s best for gaming. As long as posters are honest about where they stand I see no issue.
Looks to me you're taking two features, basing niches around those features. First Person Shooter is a shooter and a real genre, but many here actually mean First Person Perspective(FPP). You, on the otherhand, are just misusing the term. For example, Skyrim is not a Shooter, so its not really an FPS, but an RPG with FPP. Now, Planetside, is genuinely an MMOFPS, however both games are open world. You cannot define a genre with just one feature. Games that have open world are far and between.
You are branding games arbitrarily only because you don't like them. Just like someone who doesn't enjoy themeparks call every themepark a WoW clone. Surely you understand that someone who is not interested in cars, for example, thinks "a car is a car" - same as the next. Still, whichever way that person sees it, this doesn't make every car the same.
We all know you are bitter, but you should look into why you have the need to abuse people for enjoying games that you don't care about. It is perfectly fine to like different things and it doesn't necessarily make them any less intelligent or less imaginative than you are.
Today, a CCP employee gave a lecture about Eve's economy, which is unrelated to the topic, but one small detail was farily interesting. He said: 50% of Eve players usually play alone - only 25% usually play with a group. Isn't that a significant number? I think so.
So even in the praised Eve universe, people play alone most of the time. Arenanet knew this when they envisioned GW2 and hoped players would form these "ad hoc groups" ot atleast were helpful to other players when encountering them. Atleast it sounded good in paper, while in practice, the system only worked "sort of".
Thing is, you seem to have quite an idealistic view on MMORPGs, the players and their behavior. MMORPGs aren't supposed to be anything other than fun. They don't need to fill some narrow definition. What would be the point? -Unless you think fulfilling this definition would magically render the game fun and successful.
Surely you do not believe this, right?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
You're right that any virtual world is a virtual world, and therefore all MMORPGs are virtual worlds and the thread is a bit silly in that regard.
But within the context of the thread, we're discussing simulations (games trying to simulate a virtual world) vs. games (games trying to be fun). Given that, virtual worlds are a sub-genre of MMORPGs.
"Tradition" doesn't enter into it, it's purely a matter of sim vs. gameplay focus.
Not sure we can call MMOFPSes "new" or "hybrid". It's been literally 10 years now since I first played Planetside, so they're not new. And they're not a hybrid unless you would also call MMORPGs a "hybrid of MMO and RPG genres", which would seem very weird to me. "MMO" isn't a genre, it's a description of multiplayer size.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not suggest .. they outright say it with research. I will trust marketing company report over some random dude (like you) on the internet. How is so strange about 1/6 humans in the US play MMO? In my house hold, it is 3/4 .. way higher than that.
I'm seconding the calling that report BS. They are either using a very loose definition of "play" or "MMO" to get those numbers; either way, it sounds like someone trying to inflate the results. MMOs as a whole may not be niche that they used to be, but they are still largely a niche product. It's a growing niche to be certain, but still a niche when compared to games like Farmville or console games.
Does anyone besides me realize that 'niche' isn't related to size? A niche market is one that is targeted by a specific product. For instance, there is the MMO market which has a broad range of tastes, but within the MMO market, there is the MMOFPS niche market and Planetside 2 targets the MMOFPS niche market. It doesn't matter how big the MMOFPS market is, just that it's targeted by a specific product.
The only way the MMO market can be considered niche is if you lump all MMOs into a single type of product (named MMO perhaps), and the MMO market is a specific niche market within the overall Gaming Market that is targeted by MMOs. It doesn't matter how large the MMO Market is, if you're talking about 'niche'.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Hmm I'm not so sure. Niche, in this case, means a specialized market. Now likely that does mean a specialized product as well, however a specialized market is smaller than the general market.
If the market in this case is games, MMO"s are a niche. If the market is MMO's, virtual worlds are a niche.
I guess it all depends on what we are considering the market and what we are considering specialized. They are terms of relativity.