If immersion is based on reality and general realism, and unrealistic things take you out of the game, breaking your immersion, how do you continue to play games? Calling upon the power of dark gods to shoot fireballs from your fingertips is, last I checked, not real. I have never seen a talking dragon bent on world domination before on my way to Sears... And I seriously cannot recall the time ever running into a reanimated skeleton wielding a sword promising to end my life in ancient dwarven tongue before...
Immersion is in the eye of the beholder, plain and simple.
I can't disagree that immersion is in the eye of the beholder or whatever. I can see Holophoner's viewpoint as well though with the objective immersion, although I personally will probably just stick to territory I am more familiar with out of the dictionary.
Still, would you not admit there is a difference between believable fantasy realism and just crazy crap happening for no reason?
A dragon is not realistic by most definitions right. I dig that but perhaps in some other world far away it is possible for a dragon to exist. Why not?
you have to admit that this sort of thing is slightly different from stuff that occurs from bad game design or game bugs. If Tolkien had wrote that instead of the hobbit being saved by giant eagles that were Gandalf's friends, the hobbits just suddenly decided to fly away themselves, there would have been a distinct difference in his story. One way is ok, the other is just a bit more removed from realism within the context of the world that has been developed that we cannot "suspend our disbelief" as well and accept it.
So hobbits exist, giant eagles exist, but why can hobbits suddenly fly? This is "unrealistic" within the confines of the fantasy realism we are working under.
This is a very old topic of discussion among creative types. Where is that line between realism and just bad writing when making stories about dragons and magic? I feel it is a bit intellectually dishonest though to lump it all together as unrealistic and equivalent. Not all fantasy is equivalent.
Again you ignore the point I made about over-immersion. People may not like pvp because it's too immersive... that certainly doesn't mean it's not immersive.
Hate to chime in at this late time, but if your point is that realism creates immersion and being able to kill people is realistic, therefore more immersive... how many people have you killed? Where in the world do you live, where you can go around and attack and kill, say 20 people in a given day? If PVP is more likely to get you killed, which it is, are you Jesus Christ, that you can be killed and then reincarnated? By your own argument, PVP is less realistic. Murdering people with very little consequence is about as far from reality as you can get. Resurrection is non-immersive, so any activity you engage in which is likely to cause your character to die (in a non permadeath game) ruins immersion.
That specific aspect aside. It's asinine to argue that realism creates immersion. At best there's a loose correlation. Do you not think that people were immersed in World of Warcraft? The game with spells, trolls and orcs, cartoony graphics, and even 3rd person view? None of that bothered you, but PVP is inherently more immersive? Bull.
You're playing a game that's set in a dangerous world. Yes, killing would be commonplace in the world you're playing in. And I agree that resurrection is inherently non-immersive.
And yes I believe people were immersed in world of warcraft. That doesn't mean every aspect of it was immersive, but on the whole yes it was an immersive game. You felt like you were in a real, organic world. I despise the game now but the first time I played it and used a gryffin to travel across large distances, I was incredibly immersed in that world. Creating a world where magic exists, is completely different from an arbitrary force field around a player that says you can't be killed by a sword if another player is holding it.
Oh dear the highly intuitive force field argument. ROFLMAO. Do you hate the arbitrary rule that prevents you from running across the top of lakes too?
Yep been saying that, round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows.
The problem is I am using a generally accepted definition of immersion as a subjective state, you are using your own private definition based on a misinterpretation of comments by others.
Generally accepted by who exactly? The dictionary definition clearly doesn't apply to video games. In my experience the consensus among gamers is that immersion is tied to realism. Unrealistic things take you out of the game.
Again you ignore the point I made about over-immersion. People may not like pvp because it's too immersive... that certainly doesn't mean it's not immersive.
Actually Immersion is based on an individuals choice, regardless if its in movies, literature, gaming, etc. What you find immersive may not be immersive to another. Has nothing to do with reality, but more about how it speaks to ones imagination. To become immersed is to be accepting of a story or subject, real or fiction. Realism is what you may find immersive, but someone else may find fantasy immersive. You may think PvP is immersive, I find it on par with kickball - fun for a bit but not something I really care to do on a daily basis and therefore not immersive.
If immersion is based on reality and general realism, and unrealistic things take you out of the game, breaking your immersion, how do you continue to play games? Calling upon the power of dark gods to shoot fireballs from your fingertips is, last I checked, not real. I have never seen a talking dragon bent on world domination before on my way to Sears... And I seriously cannot recall the time ever running into a reanimated skeleton wielding a sword promising to end my life in ancient dwarven tongue before...
Immersion is in the eye of the beholder, plain and simple.
As others have pointed out, realism doesn't just mean real given the laws of our world. Think of it like this: realistic given how you would explain the game world in a lore sense. You would explain the world as one with magic and dragons and trolls etc, but you wouldn't say it's a world where you can't climb to the top of a mountain... for no reason, or where you couldn't attack other people... for no reason. These are things that developers impose on top of the fantasy world they've created, and they're non-immersive.
Actually Immersion is based on an individuals choice, regardless if its in movies, literature, gaming, etc. What you find immersive may not be immersive to another. Has nothing to do with reality, but more about how it speaks to ones imagination. To become immersed is to be accepting of a story or subject, real or fiction. Realism is what you may find immersive, but someone else may find fantasy immersive. You may think PvP is immersive, I find it on par with kickball - fun for a bit but not something I really care to do on a daily basis and therefore not immersive.
If immersion is based on reality and general realism, and unrealistic things take you out of the game, breaking your immersion, how do you continue to play games? Calling upon the power of dark gods to shoot fireballs from your fingertips is, last I checked, not real. I have never seen a talking dragon bent on world domination before on my way to Sears... And I seriously cannot recall the time ever running into a reanimated skeleton wielding a sword promising to end my life in ancient dwarven tongue before...
Immersion is in the eye of the beholder, plain and simple.
As others have pointed out, realism doesn't just mean real given the laws of our world. Think of it like this: realistic given how you would explain the game world in a lore sense. You would explain the world as one with magic and dragons and trolls etc, but you wouldn't say it's a world where you can't climb to the top of a mountain... for no reason, or where you couldn't attack other people... for no reason. These are things that developers impose on top of the fantasy world they've created, and they're non-immersive.
Actually in a virtual world it is all set by the developers and is all arbitrary. Unless you are using one of your own special word definitions again.
Actually Immersion is based on an individuals choice, regardless if its in movies, literature, gaming, etc. What you find immersive may not be immersive to another. Has nothing to do with reality, but more about how it speaks to ones imagination. To become immersed is to be accepting of a story or subject, real or fiction. Realism is what you may find immersive, but someone else may find fantasy immersive. You may think PvP is immersive, I find it on par with kickball - fun for a bit but not something I really care to do on a daily basis and therefore not immersive.
If immersion is based on reality and general realism, and unrealistic things take you out of the game, breaking your immersion, how do you continue to play games? Calling upon the power of dark gods to shoot fireballs from your fingertips is, last I checked, not real. I have never seen a talking dragon bent on world domination before on my way to Sears... And I seriously cannot recall the time ever running into a reanimated skeleton wielding a sword promising to end my life in ancient dwarven tongue before...
Immersion is in the eye of the beholder, plain and simple.
As others have pointed out, realism doesn't just mean real given the laws of our world. Think of it like this: realistic given how you would explain the game world in a lore sense. You would explain the world as one with magic and dragons and trolls etc, but you wouldn't say it's a world where you can't climb to the top of a mountain... for no reason, or where you couldn't attack other people... for no reason. These are things that developers impose on top of the fantasy world they've created, and they're non-immersive.
Actually in a virtual world it is all set by the developers and is all arbitrary. Unless you are using one of your own special word definitions again.
I specifically said that they're things that developers implement on top of the overall world they've created. They're not arbitrary. Features like hotkeys for different weapons exist because virtual reality doesn't exist yet so they HAVE to be in the game as a way for us to interact with our items. That's not "arbitrary." There's a necessity for it.
A taunt is a form of agro. Agro is another way of taunting. They are basically the same thing. I have played about 15 or more mmorpg's over the years. All of them had ways to taunt a mob.
Your checklist of /played MMOs isn't in question. It's your understanding of subsets that is failing you, which is why you are having trouble understanding what people are trying to explain to you.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Actually Immersion is based on an individuals choice, regardless if its in movies, literature, gaming, etc. What you find immersive may not be immersive to another. Has nothing to do with reality, but more about how it speaks to ones imagination. To become immersed is to be accepting of a story or subject, real or fiction. Realism is what you may find immersive, but someone else may find fantasy immersive. You may think PvP is immersive, I find it on par with kickball - fun for a bit but not something I really care to do on a daily basis and therefore not immersive.
If immersion is based on reality and general realism, and unrealistic things take you out of the game, breaking your immersion, how do you continue to play games? Calling upon the power of dark gods to shoot fireballs from your fingertips is, last I checked, not real. I have never seen a talking dragon bent on world domination before on my way to Sears... And I seriously cannot recall the time ever running into a reanimated skeleton wielding a sword promising to end my life in ancient dwarven tongue before...
Immersion is in the eye of the beholder, plain and simple.
As others have pointed out, realism doesn't just mean real given the laws of our world. Think of it like this: realistic given how you would explain the game world in a lore sense. You would explain the world as one with magic and dragons and trolls etc, but you wouldn't say it's a world where you can't climb to the top of a mountain... for no reason, or where you couldn't attack other people... for no reason. These are things that developers impose on top of the fantasy world they've created, and they're non-immersive.
Actually in a virtual world it is all set by the developers and is all arbitrary. Unless you are using one of your own special word definitions again.
I specifically said that they're things that developers implement on top of the overall world they've created. They're not arbitrary. Features like hotkeys for different weapons exist because virtual reality doesn't exist yet so they HAVE to be in the game as a way for us to interact with our items. That's not "arbitrary." There's a necessity for it.
....and yet you include mountain climbing in plate mail as a reasonable activity and suggest preventing it is arbitrary.
Yep another word with a special definition just for you. You must have been a real chore to deal with as a child.
Actually I didn't include that. In a pure sandbox you'd have limitations for wearing heavy armor. Do you make stuff up about me because you have no argument?
the merges of pvp and pve in sandbox games, is something have already been done to death. over and over and so far the only mmo that managed to do somewhat ok, was Eve. if they really want to reach every playing style and want to have as many player subscriptions as possible. having forced pvp and pve together won't cut it. there are tons of players, who will never ever, touch a game with forced pvp, even if their lifes depended on it.
best way to please everyone is to have different type of servers.
the merges of pvp and pve in sandbox games, is something have already been done to death. over and over and so far the only mmo that managed to do somewhat ok, was Eve. if they really want to reach every playing style and want to have as many player subscriptions as possible. having forced pvp and pve together won't cut it. there are tons of players, who will never ever, touch a game with forced pvp, even if their lifes depended on it.best way to please everyone is to have different type of servers.
Actually mmo's without ow pvp have been done over and over and over. Their failures dwarf the failure of any ow pvp game. There really haven't been any AAA ow pvp sandbox games aside from eve, but there have been dozens of AAA non pvp games.
the merges of pvp and pve in sandbox games, is something have already been done to death. over and over and so far the only mmo that managed to do somewhat ok, was Eve. if they really want to reach every playing style and want to have as many player subscriptions as possible. having forced pvp and pve together won't cut it. there are tons of players, who will never ever, touch a game with forced pvp, even if their lifes depended on it.
best way to please everyone is to have different type of servers.
Actually mmo's without ow pvp have been done over and over and over. Their failures dwarf the failure of any ow pvp game. There really haven't been any AAA ow pvp sandbox games aside from eve, but there have been dozens of AAA non pvp games.
oh really?
what about lineage 2? dark falls? mortal online? Grimlands? Xsyon?Wurm Online?Perpetuum? etc, etc?
the merges of pvp and pve in sandbox games, is something have already been done to death. over and over and so far the only mmo that managed to do somewhat ok, was Eve. if they really want to reach every playing style and want to have as many player subscriptions as possible. having forced pvp and pve together won't cut it. there are tons of players, who will never ever, touch a game with forced pvp, even if their lifes depended on it.
best way to please everyone is to have different type of servers.
Its true what Holo says about failure being from all types of games.
I want to add that you should read through the thread, there is a lot of good points (and a lot of not so good points) made by all sides of the argument on why separate pve and pvp servers can both work and why it can also be viewed as a bad solution by some of us.
I think the spirit of your argument with that is we can't all be happy playing the same game the same way and I agree there. I mainly differ there in that I believe the only real true way many of us can be happy is by playing different games, not just different game servers.
having said that, try not to just look at the market and think "oh theres more pve players so pve games must be the way to go." Markets, and games, are not that simple. Forgive me if I oversimplify your point on maximizing subscriptions.
As for your list above, do you want a list of every bad PVE game created? It would be a long list. But even still, a list is no proof of what you are claiming.
what about lineage 2? dark falls? mortal online? Grimlands? Xsyon?Wurm Online?Perpetuum? etc, etc?
So he talked about failures and you're listing failures? Darkfall, MO, Perpetuum (which is a blatant EVE clone). And Xsyson? Xsyson? Are you kidding me? Those are not AAA games.
Lineage II is probably the one worth a mention but it's old as hell.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
but we can't forget that every mmo, game company main goal, is to make a healthy profit, the more the better, therefore the more subscriptions and game sales they make, the more succesful the game will be. going for a niche game path is fine, but the truth is. every gaming company wants to make money.
alienating a big chunk of the mmo community, is not the best way to do so. from a business perspective.
you only have to read some of the above comments, to realise there are many players, that will never touch a game, with forced pvp in it. no matter how good that game is.
for instance my gf hates every form of pvp lol, no matter how hard and patiently i try getting her into pvp with me, she just hates it.
Taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. Guildwars 2 comes to mind most when I think about zerg. There is a concept of agro but it's bounced around to whoever is the closest much of the time. And it changes at the drop of a hat with a whimsical manor that can't be taken seriously. Anyone that has played through any of the dungeon content can tell you this. Once again it leads to every character having to block/dodge/heal/revive/dps/take hits. The dungeon encounter mechanics were in many ways lowered to the point of bosses showing clear telegraphs of impending attacks and then the rest of the time jumping to whoever they thought needed a bonk for no valid reason. I also played several other games with A.I. that was totally nonsense like Mortal Online when it was released. Maybe you just don't like PvE much? Not sure what point you are even driving at anymore....lol.
This all sounds like issues you've had with bad AI (and it sounds like you have some good cause for issue). But poor AI in one or many games does not really prove taunts are necessary by any reasoning I can muster.
taunts done by characters can literally change an impossible fight into a possible one. There are many kinds of taunts that can be used and they all rely on agro control as the key to making them interesting and fun. Without the high agro control abilities (see taunt) none of these more interesting game mechanics would be possible without lowering the overall difficulty of an encounter. Maybe those in favor of this zero taunt have not had the chance to dive into the years of games I have, which is fine.
/agree
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
but we can't forget that every mmo, game company main goal, is to make a healthy profit, the more the better, therefore the more subscriptions and game sales they make, the more succesful the game will be. going for a niche game path is fine, but the truth is. every gaming company wants to make money.
alienating a big chunk of the mmo community, is not the best way to do so. from a business perspective.
you only have to read some of the above comments, to realise there are many players, that will never touch a game, with forced pvp in it. no matter how good that game is.
for instance my gf hates every form of pvp lol, no matter how hard and patiently i try getting her into pvp with me, she just hates it.
It all depends.
Say for example, you want the most people playing your game possible - understandable. If you were to look at the market and do some research though and find out of all those millions of MMO players, 80% of them will simply not play a game with PVP in it at all.
Your first instinct might be to say "well we can't have pvp!"
But what if the remaining 20% won't play a game with PVE in it?
Then you were to predict that realistically out of that larger 80% PVE player chunk only 10% of the larger total will actually leave WOW/SWTOR/Rift/GW2/Gw1/EQ/EQ2/STO/Tera/TSW/AOC/etc.. to play your game..
Whereas you predict you might get 15% out of the smaller market due to much less competition and player entrenchment.
You would find your initial assessment as wrong. Your actual attainable share of people you could get playing your game is only 10% if you make a PVE game and 15% of the total market if you make it a PVP game, even though the total MMO market is made up of 80% PVE players and 20% PVP players.
I made all of these numbers up and I oversimplified everything to make a point, and I don't claim to know one bit about what the actual facts and figures are. I merely created the example as a proof that unless you DO know in great detail ALL of those facts and figures -from SOE's perspective- you cannot say definitively what they consider the best way to get the most players would be.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by MoonBeans the merges of pvp and pve in sandbox games, is something have already been done to death. over and over and so far the only mmo that managed to do somewhat ok, was Eve. if they really want to reach every playing style and want to have as many player subscriptions as possible. having forced pvp and pve together won't cut it. there are tons of players, who will never ever, touch a game with forced pvp, even if their lifes depended on it.best way to please everyone is to have different type of servers.
Actually mmo's without ow pvp have been done over and over and over. Their failures dwarf the failure of any ow pvp game. There really haven't been any AAA ow pvp sandbox games aside from eve, but there have been dozens of AAA non pvp games.
oh really?
what about lineage 2? dark falls? mortal online? Grimlands? Xsyon?Wurm Online?Perpetuum? etc, etc?
Yes, really. Those aren't AAA games. That's my entire point: you've had your turn with the large budgets and you've squandered it. It's our turn.
And separate pvp and non-pvp servers is a BAD idea. We want a genre that has pvp systematically built in. If its possible to have functioning pvp and non-pvp servers, then clearly pvp is a tacked on afterthought. Game developers are free to make them, but just so you know, it's not a solution... it's just you getting what you want while we don't get what we want.
the merges of pvp and pve in sandbox games, is something have already been done to death. over and over and so far the only mmo that managed to do somewhat ok, was Eve. if they really want to reach every playing style and want to have as many player subscriptions as possible. having forced pvp and pve together won't cut it. there are tons of players, who will never ever, touch a game with forced pvp, even if their lifes depended on it.
best way to please everyone is to have different type of servers.
Actually mmo's without ow pvp have been done over and over and over. Their failures dwarf the failure of any ow pvp game. There really haven't been any AAA ow pvp sandbox games aside from eve, but there have been dozens of AAA non pvp games.
oh really?
what about lineage 2? dark falls? mortal online? Grimlands? Xsyon?Wurm Online?Perpetuum? etc, etc?
None of those are AAA titles. Mostly indie games that never could produce what they envisioned, so they compromised or flat out ran out of funds and launched with broken crap.
the merges of pvp and pve in sandbox games, is something have already been done to death. over and over and so far the only mmo that managed to do somewhat ok, was Eve. if they really want to reach every playing style and want to have as many player subscriptions as possible. having forced pvp and pve together won't cut it. there are tons of players, who will never ever, touch a game with forced pvp, even if their lifes depended on it.
best way to please everyone is to have different type of servers.
Actually mmo's without ow pvp have been done over and over and over. Their failures dwarf the failure of any ow pvp game. There really haven't been any AAA ow pvp sandbox games aside from eve, but there have been dozens of AAA non pvp games.
oh really?
what about lineage 2? dark falls? mortal online? Grimlands? Xsyon?Wurm Online?Perpetuum? etc, etc?
He specifically said AAA - none of the games you mentioned are AAA. DF was an indie company from Greece, where the game company also worked on gov't software or something like that. MO was another indie. For the rest I haven't even heard of them.
"We" haven't squandered anything and talking about "turns" doesn't apply to people when the companies make the game. Fact is there has been even less AAA non-PvP sandboxes than PvP AAA sandboxes.
PvP is shown to be the lesser preffered playstyle. Though SoE may in fact have EQN as OWPvP hoping that they are putting thier flagship IP, one that even Smed said had to work for SoE, on a lesser preffered platform isn't likely.
He specifically said AAA - none of the games you mentioned are AAA. DF was an indie company from Greece, where the game company also worked on gov't software or something like that. MO was another indie. For the rest I haven't even heard of them.
"We" haven't squandered anything and talking about "turns" doesn't apply to people when the companies make the game. Fact is there has been even less AAA non-PvP sandboxes than PvP AAA sandboxes.
PvP is shown to be the lesser preffered playstyle. Though SoE may in fact have EQN as OWPvP hoping that they are putting thier flagship IP, one that even Smed said had to work for SoE, on a lesser preffered platform isn't likely.
Themeparks are where you end up once you start down the road of giving in to every whim of the masses, first and foremost restricting ow pvp.
The reason there are so few non pvp sandbox games is because restricting pvp is in general an anti-sandbox feature.
Originally posted by Bidwood EVE style with hi sec for the people who don't like PVP. You're welcome.
Or Wushu style with separate continents.
Works out effectively the same as separate servers, but that really offends some people, for some reason no one quite understands.
"Someone I can't see is enjoying this game in a way that I don't like! Summon the media, I need to hold a press conference. This cannot be allowed to continue."
I understand my reason, but maybe you won't. I don't see why it would be better to have 1 server with 2 continents (maybe more, just example.) 1 with PvP and 1 without. This means I as a player who would prefer a PVE game would be limited to the one continent and PVPers would likely spend most of their time on one continent.
or
Have a PvP server seperate from PVE server, that way PVE players can enjoy the whole world doing what we enjoy and PVPers can enjoy the whole world doing what they enjoy. Makes more sense to me.
Originally posted by Aelious "We" haven't squandered anything and talking about "turns" doesn't apply to people when the companies make the game. Fact is there has been even less AAA non-PvP sandboxes than PvP AAA sandboxes.
PvP is shown to be the lesser preffered playstyle. Though SoE may in fact have EQN as OWPvP hoping that they are putting thier flagship IP, one that even Smed said had to work for SoE, on a lesser preffered platform isn't likely.
I just can't imagine a non-PvP sandbox, let alone one that would be fun. That's not a rip on anyone, just my personal view, I really can't understand how people could enjoy being limited in their game play. A sandbox PvE game (or non-PvP as you stated) just doesn't give me the freedom that I envision in a persistent world.
Persistent meaning it lives and dies according to the players in 1 world. You can't have persistent if you have instances that allow players to escape the world to gain resources/loot. I have changed my view on instances slightly because of EQ2 and their housing system. I am now in the mindset that instances could be ok for personal housing where decorators spend their time. When it comes to going to personal instances for quests, or group fights I am really against it, it makes the world feel hollow to me.
PvP servers are the lesser preferred playstyle. Polls on this very site and shown that over 50% of polltakers would partake in PvP; not it might be on their own terms in an instanced bg, but it is still in the category of player vs player. My big gripe with AAA companies is being greedy. It's fine for a company to make a profit, but when they casualize games so much just for an extra $ or $$ that's when I lose heart. Instead I think that more AAA companies should develop 10-20 niche games: 1 for PvE themeparks, 1 for PvE sandparks, 1 for PvP themeparks, 1 for PvP sandbox, FPS, sci-fi, fantasy etc. Aim for populations around 500k on each game for a grand total of 5-10million for their group of games. Engines, graphics, code can all be shared for a lot of the stuff they do, so it's an economies of scale type thing.
I can really see SOE doing this exact thing, where they have a PvE sandpark (EQ1) they have a PvE themepark (EQ2), they have a sci-fi FPS (PS2), and now they add a fantasy PvP sandbox (EQN). If they limit how easy it is to kill someone then they can bring both PvP and PvE under the same game. The OP at least is thinking it a better direction than all the division we have seen between entrenched camps.
Originally posted by Icewhite Originally posted by Bidwood EVE style with hi sec for the people who don't like PVP. You're welcome.
Or Wushu style with separate continents.
Works out effectively the same as separate servers, but that really offends some people, for some reason no one quite understands.
"Someone I can't see is enjoying this game in a way that I don't like! Summon the media, I need to hold a press conference. This cannot be allowed to continue."
I understand my reason, but maybe you won't. I don't see why it would be better to have 1 server with 2 continents (maybe more, just example.) 1 with PvP and 1 without. This means I as a player who would prefer a PVE game would be limited to the one continent and PVPers would likely spend most of their time on one continent.
or
Have a PvP server seperate from PVE server, that way PVE players can enjoy the whole world doing what we enjoy and PVPers can enjoy the whole world doing what they enjoy. Makes more sense to me.
This cancer of an idea is debunked almost every time it's brought up. If it's possible to take pvp out of the game without ruining the game itself or in-game economy, that means that pvp isn't an important or meaningful part of the game. Thats not what we want. We don't just want instanced arenas or battlegrounds that dont mean anything. We want a game that includes pvp, pve, harvesting, crafting etc all as essential parts of the game.
Originally posted by Bidwood EVE style with hi sec for the people who don't like PVP. You're welcome.
Or Wushu style with separate continents.
Works out effectively the same as separate servers, but that really offends some people, for some reason no one quite understands.
"Someone I can't see is enjoying this game in a way that I don't like! Summon the media, I need to hold a press conference. This cannot be allowed to continue."
I understand my reason, but maybe you won't. I don't see why it would be better to have 1 server with 2 continents (maybe more, just example.) 1 with PvP and 1 without. This means I as a player who would prefer a PVE game would be limited to the one continent and PVPers would likely spend most of their time on one continent.
or
Have a PvP server seperate from PVE server, that way PVE players can enjoy the whole world doing what we enjoy and PVPers can enjoy the whole world doing what they enjoy. Makes more sense to me.
Critical mass of players. No one enjoys being on empty servers. I personally love to have PvE players in my PvP games; because it makes the world more alive. Actually buying from a player and not an NPC broker is more "immersive", it's more relational and in the end makes the experience more meaningful. I don't know what word describes the type of PvP player I'm getting at, but "good" PvP players don't just recklessly go around killing lowbies, griefing or ganking. It's a minority few in the PvP crowd that want to limit a players fun. What a lot of PvP player want is some good competitive fun with players that enjoy PvP as well. For me single player PvP is not as fun as group PvP. I love sieges, group battles and watching a group of 3 out think and out play a group of 10. It's those types of non-scripted fights I love.
But at the end of a fight, if I need a repair, I would rather go to a non-PvP player to get my things fixed, I would rather help guard a non-PvP player from a dangerous mob they can't get past. PvE players are great for PvP games, if the PvE players would just give them a chance.
Comments
I can't disagree that immersion is in the eye of the beholder or whatever. I can see Holophoner's viewpoint as well though with the objective immersion, although I personally will probably just stick to territory I am more familiar with out of the dictionary.
Still, would you not admit there is a difference between believable fantasy realism and just crazy crap happening for no reason?
A dragon is not realistic by most definitions right. I dig that but perhaps in some other world far away it is possible for a dragon to exist. Why not?
you have to admit that this sort of thing is slightly different from stuff that occurs from bad game design or game bugs. If Tolkien had wrote that instead of the hobbit being saved by giant eagles that were Gandalf's friends, the hobbits just suddenly decided to fly away themselves, there would have been a distinct difference in his story. One way is ok, the other is just a bit more removed from realism within the context of the world that has been developed that we cannot "suspend our disbelief" as well and accept it.
So hobbits exist, giant eagles exist, but why can hobbits suddenly fly? This is "unrealistic" within the confines of the fantasy realism we are working under.
This is a very old topic of discussion among creative types. Where is that line between realism and just bad writing when making stories about dragons and magic? I feel it is a bit intellectually dishonest though to lump it all together as unrealistic and equivalent. Not all fantasy is equivalent.
That's not arbitrary....
As others have pointed out, realism doesn't just mean real given the laws of our world. Think of it like this: realistic given how you would explain the game world in a lore sense. You would explain the world as one with magic and dragons and trolls etc, but you wouldn't say it's a world where you can't climb to the top of a mountain... for no reason, or where you couldn't attack other people... for no reason. These are things that developers impose on top of the fantasy world they've created, and they're non-immersive.
Actually in a virtual world it is all set by the developers and is all arbitrary. Unless you are using one of your own special word definitions again.
I specifically said that they're things that developers implement on top of the overall world they've created. They're not arbitrary. Features like hotkeys for different weapons exist because virtual reality doesn't exist yet so they HAVE to be in the game as a way for us to interact with our items. That's not "arbitrary." There's a necessity for it.
Your checklist of /played MMOs isn't in question. It's your understanding of subsets that is failing you, which is why you are having trouble understanding what people are trying to explain to you.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Actually I didn't include that. In a pure sandbox you'd have limitations for wearing heavy armor. Do you make stuff up about me because you have no argument?
the merges of pvp and pve in sandbox games, is something have already been done to death. over and over and so far the only mmo that managed to do somewhat ok, was Eve. if they really want to reach every playing style and want to have as many player subscriptions as possible. having forced pvp and pve together won't cut it. there are tons of players, who will never ever, touch a game with forced pvp, even if their lifes depended on it.
best way to please everyone is to have different type of servers.
Actually mmo's without ow pvp have been done over and over and over. Their failures dwarf the failure of any ow pvp game. There really haven't been any AAA ow pvp sandbox games aside from eve, but there have been dozens of AAA non pvp games.oh really?
what about lineage 2? dark falls? mortal online? Grimlands? Xsyon?Wurm Online?Perpetuum? etc, etc?
Its true what Holo says about failure being from all types of games.
I want to add that you should read through the thread, there is a lot of good points (and a lot of not so good points) made by all sides of the argument on why separate pve and pvp servers can both work and why it can also be viewed as a bad solution by some of us.
I think the spirit of your argument with that is we can't all be happy playing the same game the same way and I agree there. I mainly differ there in that I believe the only real true way many of us can be happy is by playing different games, not just different game servers.
having said that, try not to just look at the market and think "oh theres more pve players so pve games must be the way to go." Markets, and games, are not that simple. Forgive me if I oversimplify your point on maximizing subscriptions.
As for your list above, do you want a list of every bad PVE game created? It would be a long list. But even still, a list is no proof of what you are claiming.
So he talked about failures and you're listing failures? Darkfall, MO, Perpetuum (which is a blatant EVE clone). And Xsyson? Xsyson? Are you kidding me? Those are not AAA games.
Lineage II is probably the one worth a mention but it's old as hell.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
i somewhat agree with you.
but we can't forget that every mmo, game company main goal, is to make a healthy profit, the more the better, therefore the more subscriptions and game sales they make, the more succesful the game will be. going for a niche game path is fine, but the truth is. every gaming company wants to make money.
alienating a big chunk of the mmo community, is not the best way to do so. from a business perspective.
you only have to read some of the above comments, to realise there are many players, that will never touch a game, with forced pvp in it. no matter how good that game is.
for instance my gf hates every form of pvp lol, no matter how hard and patiently i try getting her into pvp with me, she just hates it.
/agree
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
It all depends.
Say for example, you want the most people playing your game possible - understandable. If you were to look at the market and do some research though and find out of all those millions of MMO players, 80% of them will simply not play a game with PVP in it at all.
Your first instinct might be to say "well we can't have pvp!"
But what if the remaining 20% won't play a game with PVE in it?
Then you were to predict that realistically out of that larger 80% PVE player chunk only 10% of the larger total will actually leave WOW/SWTOR/Rift/GW2/Gw1/EQ/EQ2/STO/Tera/TSW/AOC/etc.. to play your game..
Whereas you predict you might get 15% out of the smaller market due to much less competition and player entrenchment.
You would find your initial assessment as wrong. Your actual attainable share of people you could get playing your game is only 10% if you make a PVE game and 15% of the total market if you make it a PVP game, even though the total MMO market is made up of 80% PVE players and 20% PVP players.
I made all of these numbers up and I oversimplified everything to make a point, and I don't claim to know one bit about what the actual facts and figures are. I merely created the example as a proof that unless you DO know in great detail ALL of those facts and figures -from SOE's perspective- you cannot say definitively what they consider the best way to get the most players would be.
Actually mmo's without ow pvp have been done over and over and over. Their failures dwarf the failure of any ow pvp game. There really haven't been any AAA ow pvp sandbox games aside from eve, but there have been dozens of AAA non pvp games.oh really?
what about lineage 2? dark falls? mortal online? Grimlands? Xsyon?Wurm Online?Perpetuum? etc, etc?
Yes, really. Those aren't AAA games. That's my entire point: you've had your turn with the large budgets and you've squandered it. It's our turn.And separate pvp and non-pvp servers is a BAD idea. We want a genre that has pvp systematically built in. If its possible to have functioning pvp and non-pvp servers, then clearly pvp is a tacked on afterthought. Game developers are free to make them, but just so you know, it's not a solution... it's just you getting what you want while we don't get what we want.
None of those are AAA titles. Mostly indie games that never could produce what they envisioned, so they compromised or flat out ran out of funds and launched with broken crap.
He specifically said AAA - none of the games you mentioned are AAA. DF was an indie company from Greece, where the game company also worked on gov't software or something like that. MO was another indie. For the rest I haven't even heard of them.
PvP is shown to be the lesser preffered playstyle. Though SoE may in fact have EQN as OWPvP hoping that they are putting thier flagship IP, one that even Smed said had to work for SoE, on a lesser preffered platform isn't likely.
none of those he mentioned are AAA.
Themeparks are where you end up once you start down the road of giving in to every whim of the masses, first and foremost restricting ow pvp.The reason there are so few non pvp sandbox games is because restricting pvp is in general an anti-sandbox feature.
I understand my reason, but maybe you won't. I don't see why it would be better to have 1 server with 2 continents (maybe more, just example.) 1 with PvP and 1 without. This means I as a player who would prefer a PVE game would be limited to the one continent and PVPers would likely spend most of their time on one continent.
or
Have a PvP server seperate from PVE server, that way PVE players can enjoy the whole world doing what we enjoy and PVPers can enjoy the whole world doing what they enjoy. Makes more sense to me.
I just can't imagine a non-PvP sandbox, let alone one that would be fun. That's not a rip on anyone, just my personal view, I really can't understand how people could enjoy being limited in their game play. A sandbox PvE game (or non-PvP as you stated) just doesn't give me the freedom that I envision in a persistent world.
Persistent meaning it lives and dies according to the players in 1 world. You can't have persistent if you have instances that allow players to escape the world to gain resources/loot. I have changed my view on instances slightly because of EQ2 and their housing system. I am now in the mindset that instances could be ok for personal housing where decorators spend their time. When it comes to going to personal instances for quests, or group fights I am really against it, it makes the world feel hollow to me.
PvP servers are the lesser preferred playstyle. Polls on this very site and shown that over 50% of polltakers would partake in PvP; not it might be on their own terms in an instanced bg, but it is still in the category of player vs player. My big gripe with AAA companies is being greedy. It's fine for a company to make a profit, but when they casualize games so much just for an extra $ or $$ that's when I lose heart. Instead I think that more AAA companies should develop 10-20 niche games: 1 for PvE themeparks, 1 for PvE sandparks, 1 for PvP themeparks, 1 for PvP sandbox, FPS, sci-fi, fantasy etc. Aim for populations around 500k on each game for a grand total of 5-10million for their group of games. Engines, graphics, code can all be shared for a lot of the stuff they do, so it's an economies of scale type thing.
I can really see SOE doing this exact thing, where they have a PvE sandpark (EQ1) they have a PvE themepark (EQ2), they have a sci-fi FPS (PS2), and now they add a fantasy PvP sandbox (EQN). If they limit how easy it is to kill someone then they can bring both PvP and PvE under the same game. The OP at least is thinking it a better direction than all the division we have seen between entrenched camps.
Or Wushu style with separate continents.
Works out effectively the same as separate servers, but that really offends some people, for some reason no one quite understands.
"Someone I can't see is enjoying this game in a way that I don't like! Summon the media, I need to hold a press conference. This cannot be allowed to continue."
I understand my reason, but maybe you won't. I don't see why it would be better to have 1 server with 2 continents (maybe more, just example.) 1 with PvP and 1 without. This means I as a player who would prefer a PVE game would be limited to the one continent and PVPers would likely spend most of their time on one continent.
or
Have a PvP server seperate from PVE server, that way PVE players can enjoy the whole world doing what we enjoy and PVPers can enjoy the whole world doing what they enjoy. Makes more sense to me.
This cancer of an idea is debunked almost every time it's brought up. If it's possible to take pvp out of the game without ruining the game itself or in-game economy, that means that pvp isn't an important or meaningful part of the game. Thats not what we want. We don't just want instanced arenas or battlegrounds that dont mean anything. We want a game that includes pvp, pve, harvesting, crafting etc all as essential parts of the game.Critical mass of players. No one enjoys being on empty servers. I personally love to have PvE players in my PvP games; because it makes the world more alive. Actually buying from a player and not an NPC broker is more "immersive", it's more relational and in the end makes the experience more meaningful. I don't know what word describes the type of PvP player I'm getting at, but "good" PvP players don't just recklessly go around killing lowbies, griefing or ganking. It's a minority few in the PvP crowd that want to limit a players fun. What a lot of PvP player want is some good competitive fun with players that enjoy PvP as well. For me single player PvP is not as fun as group PvP. I love sieges, group battles and watching a group of 3 out think and out play a group of 10. It's those types of non-scripted fights I love.
But at the end of a fight, if I need a repair, I would rather go to a non-PvP player to get my things fixed, I would rather help guard a non-PvP player from a dangerous mob they can't get past. PvE players are great for PvP games, if the PvE players would just give them a chance.