I voted social. I can get superior gameplay, story, and world from single player games. The social aspect is the only thing that sets MMORPGs apart from the rest, in my opinion. This genre was born with nothing more than a chatscreen and some dice modifieres. The rest is fluff for me.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
There you go confusing your opinion with facts again.
*You* may think that a "world" is NOT a game. Does not make it a fact. I happen to think a world IS a game.
*You* may not think "chat" is a game, but I know of plenty of people who frequent chatrooms posing as a different person and play games with others in the room. I happen to agree with your opinion that "chat" is not a game, but I disagree that everyone and their fish thinks the same.
Know why I have played over 2000 hours in Skyrim with more than 20 characters? The world. I still have not been everywhere there is to be. The gameplay is good, which helps a lot, but it is the world that keeps me playing.
I just read a later response where you said, "If I give you the entire world (all of the source files) to the most elaborate game world out there, and let you float around it as a disembodied camera, but there's no gameplay, then there isn't a game." Bullcrap. Maybe *you* could not find a game in there, but *I* certainly could. Off the top of my head, "Bumper Cameras" comes to mind. "What's That Over There" is another game I could play. "How High Is The Sky?" is another game.
Certainly gameplay adds to the game, and I agree it is very important, but your "absolute" is falling very short.
You must have been a very boring child, with no imagination.
This isn't an opinion.
If I give you a game world to free-float around in as a disembodied camera, you won't be playing a game.
Until you add gameplay, it's not a game. You almost suggested adding gameplay towards the end of your post, but the examples you gave weren't gameplay (any more than a painter who asks, "How red can I make the sky before it looks weird?" is playing a game. Obviously that's not a game, it's just experimentation.) If you'd suggested gameplay, like modding the game rules so that touching the lava kills you and you have to jump between rocks in the lava flow, then you would have added gameplay and made it a game.
It's fine if exploring the world is your favorite part of the game, but there's no opinions involved in stating simple facts like (a) the world isn't the game and (b) gameplay is the game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And yet I've wandered around minecraft just exploring different random seeds without breaking a single block.
Even in your reduced-to-absurdity scenario, I'm still finding a love of worlds.
Nobody said you can't love worlds.
I'm only pointing out what should be excessively obvious: without gameplay there is no game. Gameplay is the game. The world isn't the game, and chat isn't the game. A world without gameplay is basically a level editor. Chat without gameplay is just a chatroom. Without gameplay there's no game.
So depending on your level of engagement with Minecraft seeds, you might not be playing a game at all (if using a free-floating camera.)
Which is fine. People paint. People meditate. People do all sorts of things that aren't games, and manage to love them.
But they don't claim those things are games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm only pointing out what should be excessively obvious: without gameplay there is no game.
If you want to claim the mere act of walking through a game and looking at things falls under your definition of "gameplay" then ok, but then I don't understand what exactly are you leaving behind to fulfill the definition of "world".
I might be alone in this, but the way the world seizes me defines my gameplay. The mechanics can be a bit off, but if the world itself is engaging, I can forgive the gameplay. If the world is of generic origin, I'll know right off he bat that it isn't meant for me.
Humz alot of people seem to be confused about what an MMORPG is or should be.
for any normal game gameplay comes first and if you have stunning grapichs to boot wel thats awesome.
For an MMORPG what defines the game is the world you play in. there are now countless MMORPG's with the exact same features. What makes them diffrent is the world you (live) in. How you can react with that world is determened by gameplay but if the world is really lacking then you might have the best gameplay on our planet. that game will fail.
IF you are making an mmo that have those four features included you want to do all of them right. If you focus on just making one of them strong then the rest of the game will be garbage filled with mediocre and weak content.
In my opinion that mentality of one preferred feature is what is hurting the most in the mmo industry. That is what happens with most of these latest mmos that claim to have one glorious feature that will change your life forever (Tera's combat, Swtors storytelling, etc) then the rest of the game is beyond mediocre and generic.
Creating mmos take too much time and effort. If you are not going to focus on making all features strong then dont waste your time and effort making a bad mmo.
I'm only pointing out what should be excessively obvious: without gameplay there is no game.
If you want to claim the mere act of walking through a game and looking at things falls under your definition of "gameplay" then ok, but then I don't understand what exactly are you leaving behind to fulfill the definition of "world".
I'm not really sure how you guys fell into your argument, but the original question I asked was, what is the MAIN DRAW for you in an MMORPG.
Not what is the most important feature to make a game.
Not what is the least important feature to make a game.
Not what makes a game.
Not what doesn't make a game.
Obviously you cannot have a game without gameplay. Obviously you cannot have a game without a world. But this has nothing to do with the topic.
Obviously you cannot have a game without gameplay.
Yeah, I went down the rabbit hole in this thread, but it's really all about this line.
To me there's a whole spectrum of things going on in a fantasy world between events (written or simulated) which passively add to lore at one extreme and events for which I have gameplay as my interface to probe and alter the world on the other extreme. Yet I call the whole thing "the game" and you could even cut out gameplay bit by bit until you have nothing left but a passive story unforlding for me and I would still call it "the game".
So I'm only arguing because this statement that may look obvious is actually getting in the way of my attempts to communicate how I see worlds.
Originally posted by TheHavok Haha - sorry, I didn't mean to come off as an angry narcissistic forum poster.
You're not coming across that way at all
Sorry for my own part in that derailment
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
If you want to claim the mere act of walking through a game and looking at things falls under your definition of "gameplay" then ok, but then I don't understand what exactly are you leaving behind to fulfill the definition of "world".
Depends on the gameplay involved.
A free-floating camera is not gameplay.
Even the limitations of a walk speed and obstacle navigation doesn't count as gameplay. This Dear Esther commentary rightly points out that while the experience can be enjoyable, it's not a game.
In that article Tadh draws a line in the sand regarding the Game vs. Experience definition, saying, " A game is not defined simply by the ability to walk, but to cause meaningful change within it. "
Tadh also points out that you shouldn't care (as I've been saying.) You don't try to claim that painting, hiking, or meditation are games, so why would you try to claim that walking around a gameplay-less game world was a game too? It doesn't stop you from enjoying the experience to admit the truth. It's not a game, but that doesn't prevent you from enjoying it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you want to claim the mere act of walking through a game and looking at things falls under your definition of "gameplay" then ok, but then I don't understand what exactly are you leaving behind to fulfill the definition of "world".
Depends on the gameplay involved.
A free-floating camera is not gameplay.
Even the limitations of a walk speed and obstacle navigation doesn't count as gameplay. This Dear Esther commentary rightly points out that while the experience can be enjoyable, it's not a game.
In that article Tadh draws a line in the sand regarding the Game vs. Experience definition, saying, " A game is not defined simply by the ability to walk, but to cause meaningful change within it. "
Tadh also points out that you shouldn't care (as I've been saying.) You don't try to claim that painting, hiking, or meditation are games, so why would you try to claim that walking around a gameplay-less game world was a game too? It doesn't stop you from enjoying the experience to admit the truth. It's not a game, but that doesn't prevent you from enjoying it.
I would argue that painting, hiking and meditation are all games with progression like this
painting is horizontal the more style you learn the more your style progresses
hiking is vertical you need stamina to hike farther and that takes grinding
meditation is a hybrid of both that again takes time to be good at
you really need to broaden your minimal definition of game is, and please get some experience with the real world before you post such silly shit, you this all the time on here with the kids.
ps your link is bullshit as the game is exploration in your example, your not re-inventing the wheel like you think you are.
I would argue that painting, hiking and meditation are all games with progression like this
painting is horizontal the more style you learn the more your style progresses
hiking is vertical you need stamina to hike farther and that takes grinding
meditation is a hybrid of both that again takes time to be good at
you really need to broaden your minimal definition of game is, and please get some experience with the real world before you post such silly shit, you this all the time on here with the kids.
ps your link is bullshit as the game is exploration in your example, your not re-inventing the wheel like you think you are.
Nobody is re-inventing anything and you could argue that, but then you shouldn't act surprised if people started laughing at your expense.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Axehilt In that article Tadh draws a line in the sand regarding the Game vs. Experience definition, saying, " A game is not defined simply by the ability to walk, but to cause meaningful change within it. "
So you found an author says what you wish to hear/read. Yea. How many "games" can you list that do not affect meaningful change?
I can think of: Tag. Red Light / Green Light. Hide and Go Seek.
Do you consider these games? Can you add to that list?
Or are you now going to nit-pik "meaningful change?"
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Axehilt In that article Tadh draws a line in the sand regarding the Game vs. Experience definition, saying, " A game is not defined simply by the ability to walk, but to cause meaningful change within it. "
So you found an author says what you wish to hear/read. Yea. How many "games" can you list that do not affect meaningful change?
I can think of: Tag. Red Light / Green Light. Hide and Go Seek.
Do you consider these games? Can you add to that list?
Or are you now going to nit-pik "meaningful change?"
Do those games have...
interaction (gameplay)
rules
objective
or competition/conflict
...in an isolated environment, then yes, those are games. The last of the four is not strictly mandatory since there are cooperative games, but then again one could argue that the players are then competing against the game/rules/GM.
Any useful definition would not include mere camera movement as gameplay.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by AlBQuirky So you found an author says what you wish to hear/read. Yea. How many "games" can you list that do not affect meaningful change?
I can think of: Tag. Red Light / Green Light. Hide and Go Seek.
Do you consider these games? Can you add to that list?
Or are you now going to nit-pik "meaningful change?"
Tag is a game because your decisions do enact meaningful change on the game state. The way your decisions of where you run, how you dodge, and how you predict others' dodges results in either a win or loss depending on how well you do it.
The same can be said of the other games. The decisions are meaningful because they relate to each games' rules and goal.
Walking around an empty world has no goal.
He's not just some random author. He's a designer (and techcrunch author) who's been building out that site for years which is a fantastic accumulation of definitions and pretty reliable commentary on game design (I think once or twice I've disagreed with his postings, but that's over the course of many many articles.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The only thing MMOs do better than other games are social and world.
If I want good gameplay, I generally don't go to an MMO (unless it does something that other games can't, like 400 man sieges). Story will always be better in a singleplayer game, because what you do actually impacts the game world forever and there isn't as much filler.
The entire point of MMOs is the other players. If the social is lacking, and if the world is limited and instanced, there's literally no point. It goes in the bin.
I would argue that painting, hiking and meditation are all games with progression like this
painting is horizontal the more style you learn the more your style progresses
hiking is vertical you need stamina to hike farther and that takes grinding
meditation is a hybrid of both that again takes time to be good at
you really need to broaden your minimal definition of game is, and please get some experience with the real world before you post such silly shit, you this all the time on here with the kids.
ps your link is bullshit as the game is exploration in your example, your not re-inventing the wheel like you think you are.
Wow, you just claimed painting, hiking, and meditation are games!
Given that, I'm not sure a logic- and evidence-backed argument (like pointing out the definitions of game include the important element of game rules; without game rules, there's no gameplay, so there's no game) will matter to you.
Dear Esther is an experience which only includes the game world. (This makes it an even better example of what we're talking about than my "level editor" from earlier posts) Exploration is not gameplay, so it's not a game.
Not sure how you can accuse me of re-inventing the wheel when I'm the one saying, "A wheel is a wheel" and you're the one saying "Everything is a wheel!" by implying that sharing a trait with a game (like progression or exploration) makes it a game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by AlBQuirky So you found an author says what you wish to hear/read. Yea. How many "games" can you list that do not affect meaningful change?I can think of: Tag. Red Light / Green Light. Hide and Go Seek.Do you consider these games? Can you add to that list?Or are you now going to nit-pik "meaningful change?"
Tag is a game because your decisions do enact meaningful change on the game state. The way your decisions of where you run, how you dodge, and how you predict others' dodges results in either a win or loss depending on how well you do it. The same can be said of the other games. The decisions are meaningful because they relate to each games' rules and goal.Walking around an empty world has no goal.He's not just some random author. He's a designer (and techcrunch author) who's been building out that site for years which is a fantastic accumulation of definitions and pretty reliable commentary on game design (I think once or twice I've disagreed with his postings, but that's over the course of many many articles.)
Raph Koster does not agree. To him, World is the top priority. Does that mean "My Dad is bigger than your Dad!"?
I give up. It's like conversing with a wall. Why do I even bother responding...
Again, sorry OP
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
People progress independently of one another in virtually every activity imaginable. Are you seriously claiming every activity is a game with no exceptions? Why would you make such a ridiculous claim? Don't you feel that would defeat the point of having the word "game" which refers to a specific type of activity? If every activity is a game, why have the word "game" at all?
You need to calm down and think rationally.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
its all the same discussion, game play w/o it there is no story, world, or the rest. Its gameplay, then the rest. Now you see why mmos are at a crossraods. They have been copying each others game play instead of innovating.
Comments
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
And yet I've wandered around minecraft just exploring different random seeds without breaking a single block.
Even in your reduced-to-absurdity scenario, I'm still finding a love of worlds.
This isn't an opinion.
If I give you a game world to free-float around in as a disembodied camera, you won't be playing a game.
Until you add gameplay, it's not a game. You almost suggested adding gameplay towards the end of your post, but the examples you gave weren't gameplay (any more than a painter who asks, "How red can I make the sky before it looks weird?" is playing a game. Obviously that's not a game, it's just experimentation.) If you'd suggested gameplay, like modding the game rules so that touching the lava kills you and you have to jump between rocks in the lava flow, then you would have added gameplay and made it a game.
It's fine if exploring the world is your favorite part of the game, but there's no opinions involved in stating simple facts like (a) the world isn't the game and (b) gameplay is the game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Nobody said you can't love worlds.
I'm only pointing out what should be excessively obvious: without gameplay there is no game. Gameplay is the game. The world isn't the game, and chat isn't the game. A world without gameplay is basically a level editor. Chat without gameplay is just a chatroom. Without gameplay there's no game.
So depending on your level of engagement with Minecraft seeds, you might not be playing a game at all (if using a free-floating camera.)
Which is fine. People paint. People meditate. People do all sorts of things that aren't games, and manage to love them.
But they don't claim those things are games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you want to claim the mere act of walking through a game and looking at things falls under your definition of "gameplay" then ok, but then I don't understand what exactly are you leaving behind to fulfill the definition of "world".
As I could only vote for one, I chose "World".
I might be alone in this, but the way the world seizes me defines my gameplay. The mechanics can be a bit off, but if the world itself is engaging, I can forgive the gameplay. If the world is of generic origin, I'll know right off he bat that it isn't meant for me.
Humz alot of people seem to be confused about what an MMORPG is or should be.
for any normal game gameplay comes first and if you have stunning grapichs to boot wel thats awesome.
For an MMORPG what defines the game is the world you play in. there are now countless MMORPG's with the exact same features. What makes them diffrent is the world you (live) in. How you can react with that world is determened by gameplay but if the world is really lacking then you might have the best gameplay on our planet. that game will fail.
OP, your poll is missing one option.... All Four.
IF you are making an mmo that have those four features included you want to do all of them right. If you focus on just making one of them strong then the rest of the game will be garbage filled with mediocre and weak content.
In my opinion that mentality of one preferred feature is what is hurting the most in the mmo industry. That is what happens with most of these latest mmos that claim to have one glorious feature that will change your life forever (Tera's combat, Swtors storytelling, etc) then the rest of the game is beyond mediocre and generic.
Creating mmos take too much time and effort. If you are not going to focus on making all features strong then dont waste your time and effort making a bad mmo.
I'm not really sure how you guys fell into your argument, but the original question I asked was, what is the MAIN DRAW for you in an MMORPG.
Not what is the most important feature to make a game.
Not what is the least important feature to make a game.
Not what makes a game.
Not what doesn't make a game.
Obviously you cannot have a game without gameplay. Obviously you cannot have a game without a world. But this has nothing to do with the topic.
Yeah, I went down the rabbit hole in this thread, but it's really all about this line.
To me there's a whole spectrum of things going on in a fantasy world between events (written or simulated) which passively add to lore at one extreme and events for which I have gameplay as my interface to probe and alter the world on the other extreme. Yet I call the whole thing "the game" and you could even cut out gameplay bit by bit until you have nothing left but a passive story unforlding for me and I would still call it "the game".
So I'm only arguing because this statement that may look obvious is actually getting in the way of my attempts to communicate how I see worlds.
( sorry )
Sorry for my own part in that derailment
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Depends on the gameplay involved.
A free-floating camera is not gameplay.
Even the limitations of a walk speed and obstacle navigation doesn't count as gameplay. This Dear Esther commentary rightly points out that while the experience can be enjoyable, it's not a game.
In that article Tadh draws a line in the sand regarding the Game vs. Experience definition, saying, " A game is not defined simply by the ability to walk, but to cause meaningful change within it. "
Tadh also points out that you shouldn't care (as I've been saying.) You don't try to claim that painting, hiking, or meditation are games, so why would you try to claim that walking around a gameplay-less game world was a game too? It doesn't stop you from enjoying the experience to admit the truth. It's not a game, but that doesn't prevent you from enjoying it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I would argue that painting, hiking and meditation are all games with progression like this
painting is horizontal the more style you learn the more your style progresses
hiking is vertical you need stamina to hike farther and that takes grinding
meditation is a hybrid of both that again takes time to be good at
you really need to broaden your minimal definition of game is, and please get some experience with the real world before you post such silly shit, you this all the time on here with the kids.
ps your link is bullshit as the game is exploration in your example, your not re-inventing the wheel like you think you are.
Nobody is re-inventing anything and you could argue that, but then you shouldn't act surprised if people started laughing at your expense.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I can think of:
Tag.
Red Light / Green Light.
Hide and Go Seek.
Do you consider these games? Can you add to that list?
Or are you now going to nit-pik "meaningful change?"
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Do those games have...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Tag is a game because your decisions do enact meaningful change on the game state. The way your decisions of where you run, how you dodge, and how you predict others' dodges results in either a win or loss depending on how well you do it.
The same can be said of the other games. The decisions are meaningful because they relate to each games' rules and goal.
Walking around an empty world has no goal.
He's not just some random author. He's a designer (and techcrunch author) who's been building out that site for years which is a fantastic accumulation of definitions and pretty reliable commentary on game design (I think once or twice I've disagreed with his postings, but that's over the course of many many articles.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The only thing MMOs do better than other games are social and world.
If I want good gameplay, I generally don't go to an MMO (unless it does something that other games can't, like 400 man sieges). Story will always be better in a singleplayer game, because what you do actually impacts the game world forever and there isn't as much filler.
The entire point of MMOs is the other players. If the social is lacking, and if the world is limited and instanced, there's literally no point. It goes in the bin.
Wow, you just claimed painting, hiking, and meditation are games!
Given that, I'm not sure a logic- and evidence-backed argument (like pointing out the definitions of game include the important element of game rules; without game rules, there's no gameplay, so there's no game) will matter to you.
Dear Esther is an experience which only includes the game world. (This makes it an even better example of what we're talking about than my "level editor" from earlier posts) Exploration is not gameplay, so it's not a game.
Not sure how you can accuse me of re-inventing the wheel when I'm the one saying, "A wheel is a wheel" and you're the one saying "Everything is a wheel!" by implying that sharing a trait with a game (like progression or exploration) makes it a game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I give up. It's like conversing with a wall. Why do I even bother responding...
Again, sorry OP
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Raph Koster wouldn't claim that a world devoid of gameplay was a game, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
People progress independently of one another in virtually every activity imaginable. Are you seriously claiming every activity is a game with no exceptions? Why would you make such a ridiculous claim? Don't you feel that would defeat the point of having the word "game" which refers to a specific type of activity? If every activity is a game, why have the word "game" at all?
You need to calm down and think rationally.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver