Originally posted by nerovipus32 I blame the negative mmorpg community for all the bad mmo's that are being released. All that negative energy you nerds keep sending out into the universe just keeps manifesting itself as mediocre mmorpg's. You get what you think about.
Well, that explains the boobs.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
If you haven't Noticed yet Nilden, they're going to keep arguing about how one defines an MMO or remark on how X is an MMO because it's big.
I don't really think they're interested in realizing you're saying 'MMOs fundamental characteristic, that of it being an MMO, isn't being supported by the game elements'.
It's apparently a pretty hard notion to wrap one's head around, because people keep interpreting it to mean something entirely different.
At no point does 'supporting an MMO' preclude any specific kind of game, be it RPG, FPS, RTS, etc.
Single player game's aren't RPGs. There are RPGs that are single player games though. People need to divorce the structure upon which the game is built from the elements that makes up a game in order to understand that what's being commented on is the traits defined not by what gameplay elements you chose to make, but the structure within which you chose to make it.
Trying to define what the term MMO means is of little bearing on the matter as it's not the definition, but the literal structure that's in question.
Trying to define the term MMORPG is doubly meaningless, as that's just semantic prodding.
The issue being addressed, of why make it an MMO if the game functionally does not take advantage of anything on the MMO structure, pretty much is remaining elusive to them. I mean just read the last few posts made.
Thats because there are NO fundamental MMO characteristics other than it being having lots of people and being online
Any other characteristics are just your preference.
I'll repeat it again, there are NO OTHER FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS AN MMO NEEDS TO HAVE OTHER THAN LOTS OF PEOPLE ONLINE.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Thats because there are NO fundamental MMO characteristics other than it being having lots of people and being online
Any other characteristics are just your preference.
I'll repeat it again, there are NO OTHER FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS AN MMO NEEDS TO HAVE OTHER THAN LOTS OF PEOPLE ONLINE.
Yeah, you didn't get it.
Read what I wrote to Nariu, because what you're babbling about is far from the point or consequence.
Making the exact same mistake/misunderstanding too as you're still interpreting 'fundamental' to refer to anything but the actual fundamental characteristics.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I think the reason that it's crumbling is "sadly" the developers.
Nah .. it is the players who would not "support" sub-only games and prefer free ones.
"Sad" is just a matter of perspective.
The reason that some players don't want to support sub only games is that it's not of value to them.
Why isn't it of value? because paying what amounts to a small amount of money each month isn't giving them satisfactory game play experiences.
These games tend to boom at the start so obviously there is great interest. But as people burn through content there isn't enough to keep them.
It's very hard to support a subscription when you have nothing to do. I know that I am pro sub. completely pro sub. But what happens is that there isn't enough in the game that is interesting as end game raiding seems like a nightmare of tedum because of the repetition. So I end my sub. No reason to continue.
Yet, with an open world game like morrowind or skyrim I am still playing them to this day with minimal added content. I would pay a monthly sub for a similar online game that would update the content on a reasonably regular rate. I bet dollars to donuts that a good, compelling game world would do the same for others.
People will always pay for something that is good or of value to them.
Guild Wars 2: new content every two weeks... and the action combat is quite similar to Skyrim too.
And if Guild Wars 2 was sub then people would still play it. I think you are trying to make a leap that's not necessary. I'm not saying that subs are the only way to go but I am saying:
people will pay for good value
If that is a sub and the value is good they WILL pay it.
There are plenty of completely free games out there that hardly have any players. why? Because even though it's free ithey are not fun.
So in the case of GW 2 they have, at the moment been able to keep up with new content and hopefully are getting enough money from new customers as well as their cash shop. We will see how the game progresses going forward.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
There were actually some very unique MMOs. TSW and Age of Wulin to name a few (both great games and very different).
I personally back to WoW (quit it soon after Cata). Blizzard did amazing job with Pandaria
The design of Pandaria is amazing, but the game mechanics have taken a BIG hit, dumbed down badly. And Pandaria has only one single leveling path from 85 to 90 too, unlike the previous expansions which had at least 2 starter areas.
Still playing it, still a good game, but very dumbed down, simplified for the masses.
Thats because there are NO fundamental MMO characteristics other than it being having lots of people and being online
Any other characteristics are just your preference.
I'll repeat it again, there are NO OTHER FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS AN MMO NEEDS TO HAVE OTHER THAN LOTS OF PEOPLE ONLINE.
Yeah, you didn't get it.
Read what I wrote to Nariu, because what you're babbling about is far from the point or consequence.
Oh I get what your trying to say, I just completely disagree.
And I was responding to your point to nilden that people are not willing to debate fundamental MMO characteristics other than that it's big.
I'm saying there are no other MMO characteristics. If you have one, please state it.
...
You disagree that an MMOG has to be built with a networking layer as part of an engine, servers, and other architecture that enables the ability to fulfill the capacity to be an MMO?
You really don't know what you're arguing about. The fundamental characteristics of an MMO are not things you build as part of the game, they are what you build the game upon.
Do you get it yet? That you can't physically have an MMO if you don't have the underlying components?
Because if you don't then you also still don't get that the point is what these components are capable of versus what they are utilized for.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
There were actually some very unique MMOs. TSW and Age of Wulin to name a few (both great games and very different).
I personally back to WoW (quit it soon after Cata). Blizzard did amazing job with Pandaria
The design of Pandaria is amazing, but the game mechanics have taken a BIG hit, dumbed down badly. And Pandaria has only one single leveling path from 85 to 90 too, unlike the previous expansions which had at least 2 starter areas.
Still playing it, still a good game, but very dumbed down, simplified for the masses.
What exactly was 'simplified'. Dont say talents, since Im fully with Blizz on this one. Most old talents were crap, many never taken and everyone had cookie cutter builds. Raids are challenging, more so then Cata. Quests more complex and scripted then ever before. So what exactly did you mean?
Thats because there are NO fundamental MMO characteristics other than it being having lots of people and being online
Any other characteristics are just your preference.
I'll repeat it again, there are NO OTHER FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS AN MMO NEEDS TO HAVE OTHER THAN LOTS OF PEOPLE ONLINE.
Yeah, you didn't get it.
Read what I wrote to Nariu, because what you're babbling about is far from the point or consequence.
Oh I get what your trying to say, I just completely disagree.
And I was responding to your point to nilden that people are not willing to debate fundamental MMO characteristics other than that it's big.
I'm saying there are no other MMO characteristics. If you have one, please state it.
...
You disagree that an MMOG has to be built with a networking layer as part of an engine, servers, and other architecture that enables the ability to fulfill the capacity to be an MMO?
You really don't know what you're arguing about. The fundamental characteristics of an MMO are not things you build as part of the game, they are what you build the game upon.
Do you get it yet? That you can't physically have an MMO if you don't have the underlying components?
Because if you don't then you also still don't get that the point is what these components are capable of versus what they are utilized for.
I never disagreed with that, that is what is necessary for it to be big.
You are the one that said "other than being big" not me. What are those other things.
What they are capable of is not the point, that is a wishlist.
The only thing that matters is are they big. And yes there needs to be the engine and software that make it big. That was never the debate.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
There were actually some very unique MMOs. TSW and Age of Wulin to name a few (both great games and very different).
I personally back to WoW (quit it soon after Cata). Blizzard did amazing job with Pandaria
The design of Pandaria is amazing, but the game mechanics have taken a BIG hit, dumbed down badly. And Pandaria has only one single leveling path from 85 to 90 too, unlike the previous expansions which had at least 2 starter areas.
Still playing it, still a good game, but very dumbed down, simplified for the masses.
What exactly was 'simplified'. Dont say talents, since Im fully with Blizz on this one. Most old talents were crap, many never taken and everyone had cookie cutter builds. Raids are challenging, more so then Cata. Quests more complex and scripted then ever before. So what exactly did you mean?
Talents are part of it, mind you, I liked to have complex talent trees requiring some research.
The worst is the linearization of the whole world which started with Cataclysm though. You are stuck in moving from quest hub to quest hub with no alternative now, since the other content will be "phased" and therefore inaccessible before you finished the previous one. The result is that the replay value of the game dropped catastrophically, personally, I couldn't be arsed to level more than two characters through the Pandaria areas when I had 4 max level chars during Cata and 8 during WotLK.
To me, WoW was the best theme park MMORPG during WotLK, specially during the Ulduar times. Then, it has started to be dumbed down for the masses (and I do NOT talk about stuff like raid finder, which I think are GOOD additions) and has become a very linear and way more boring game than it was before.
I never disagreed with that, that is what is necessary for it to be big.
You are the one that said "other than being big" not me. What are those other things.
What they are capable of is not the point, that is a wishlist.
The only thing that matters is are they big. And yes there needs to be the engine and software that make it big. That was never the debate.
Actually if you look back, you're the only one that railed on defintion of MMO as a genre. I never mentioned anything about what defines it 'other than being big', so please don't blatantly lie like that.
In fact, it's the exact opposite that I have rather bluntly stated that trying to define MMO in the context of genre or function on the gameplay end, is pointless.
You even kept the whole quote in my post when you replied to me.
"Trying to define what the term MMO means is of little bearing on the matter as it's not the definition, but the literal structure that's in question.
Trying to define the term MMORPG is doubly meaningless, as that's just semantic prodding."
Next, what they are capable of is the point, and it's not a wishlist.
The problem is you still fail to get the point. It's not a conversation of trying to define the genre, it's a comment on the systems used and how they are used.
EDIT: Or in summary, that many titles are functionally indistinguishable(or at least their gameplay/experience would not suffer for the shift) from games built on non-MMO systems.
Meaning there's minimal reason these MMOs would be developed using the MMO platform, as they do not capitalize any features native to the platform.
It's not suddenly calling them bad games. It's more saying their design did not adapt between the change in the underlying mechanics to provide anything other than the same thing in a different place.
How the structure of the game's engine, hardware, etc, is developed for, around, on top of, or otherwise for a developer to produce their title is very important and an integral principle in this matter.
In many instances developers aren't using their own engines. It's not uncommon for the root to be a modified licensed engine. This alone goes a long way in describing the capacity and limitations of a game before it's even developed, as the onus rests upon the developers to modify and tweak things until they can reach their goals.
You can see the impact the choice in engine and quality of the team has on games pretty easily. For example you look at TOR. It's the poster child of why you don't use the prototype version of a game engine to make a AAA game.
Then there's Fury, All Points Bulletin, and Mortal online. Each of these titles had a developer group take the Unreal engine and attempt to apply a solution to the engine's inherent lack of a strong networking layer.
One went the lobby route and didn't manage to get the game stable.
One tried to rebuild parts of the networking layer and only got far enough to support ~ 100 players per instance..
And one relied on a plugin Epic developed and was testing, which has caused ongoing stability issues.
This is an example of how games were largely victims of their platform of choice. Where their decision for engine was simply not the right one, and they were trying to shoehorn a game into something that just didn't fit.
On the flip-side is when you develop games that are essentially built in a shoe that's too big for them or is simply not the right type of shoe. It's almost overkill essentially. And that's in part what many of the MMO titles out there really constitute.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by lizardbonesSo, take an empty, three dimensional space where players log into avatars that are just pyramids. Also in this space are other geometric shapes that are various sizes of spheres. Players can shoot the spheres with cubes, reducing the size of the spheres until they are small enough to be absorbed by the avatars, increasing the avatar's level. When a player shoots a sphere, it's 'tapped' and belongs to them. Other players cannot shoot that sphere, and they cannot absorb the small spheres that result from shooting the large sphere. As the avatar's level increases, the avatar grows larger, and it becomes easier to shoot the larger spheres. That's about as minimal an MMORPG I can come up with. The game play is a single player activity, and it's the only activity. The game is an MMORPG.
Interestingly, you've inadvertently created a PvP game.
It wasn't inadvertent. Some aspects of PvP in multiplayer games are not avoidable, when all the players are engaging in "single player" activities. Each player is engaging in a single player activity (killing spheres), and when they kill a sphere, it's a resource that isn't available to any other players. That doesn't mean there are no other spheres available though. In order to remove the PvP aspects, some element of cooperative play would have to be added, but at that point the players are engaged in group play activities, not single player activities.
If all the players were each in their own partitioned space, where other players did not exist, the game would no longer be an MMORPG. Depending on how many people were playing, and depending on if there was some sort of global lobby or something it could still be an MMO.
**
Which is something interesting to think about. Single player activities will necessarily lead to competitive effects, and Group or Multiplayer activities will necessarily lead to cooperative effects.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
My point with my comment is that group interaction is essentially unavoidable at that level. Be it trying to horde kills, cooperatively kill, or otherwise, people will be finding a way to interact with the other's around them when given the opportunity.
Or to put it another way that addressed the argument of it, it's still not strictly a single player action taking place, by virtue of the system within which the game is operating and the consequences of that.
Though to note I don't actually disagree with what you're trying to explain.
A single player experience is functionally achievable in an MMO, and the game can still for all purposes be an MMO.
Like say each player has their own phased location where monsters spawn or they are provisioned with their own monsters to slay. It takes nothing away from other players, yet leaves them technically within a shared environment.
It's essentially bringing the game closer to an industrial line type situation, but the capacity is there.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
What happened to mmos? You did. People like you ruined mmos. Why does an mmo have to be mind blowing graphics, cinematics, and realism? Your just what the current game companies are looking for. Someone who wants to be wowed with new, shiny, and sparkly. I also say mmos are dieing, so are console games. Theyre getting crappy not because of lack of graphics and wow, but from lack of depth. I can play a game with Runescape graphics as long as it has depth. Skills to train, people to meet, endless things to do. In fact I played Runescape until it sadly fell into next gen games. Game companies want people who will spend $60 just to watch amazing cinematics, have epic music, graphics, etc. They no longer have to spend years adding depth and meaning to a game. Just spend a load of cash to have 400 people make the meaningless game look good, and sit back and watch the money roll in from people who don't want meaning in a game anymore.
Originally posted by DamonVile Anyone's mind been changed from what they came in, yet ?
Of course not.
I doubt this place will change any minds.
Aw come on buddy just because people are not changing minds doesn't mean they are not opening eyes. While I disagree with a lot of opinions it doesn't mean I don't find them interesting.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Originally posted by page975 I don't care so much about next gen. Infact I think there is only so much they can do with a PC, and I dont care if it is 2013BUT :I do care that mmos are crap for the fact that there not made for community and Open world ! Bad ideas ?1) f2p = GARBAGE2) dynamic events are killing the social interactions3) Dungeon finders are killing the social interactions4) Dynamic Realms and servers are killing the social interactions Some may call this next gen...I call it crap and bad ideas, not next gen.
I agree with the OP and this post here. Bravo.
Originally posted by Kyleran ...I've been playing over 5 months now on a DAOC shard that is reset to 2003 and having a terrific time.
I always wanted to try DAOC. Maybe I should check this out!
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
I care little right now because i see nothing on the horizon that will have me watching the calender for it's release.
years ago Bill Gates talked of some super platform where we all login in to some sky servers and with super fast bandwidth speeds.That would enable us to have really high tech games.
With so many people paying 150+ on cable having to add another 15 a month to sub a game is about all gamer's want to endure.However we need devs to start releasing material that needs 10x the bandwidth to achieve some top notch gaming.How are we going to accomplish this without developers raising the standards of the games and the cost of the subscription,it simply is not possible.
That is why i lol at the notion F2p is the way to go,you are NEVER going to get a good quality game on f2p absolutely NEVER!
A developer is not going to release a game that needs 30 bucks/month in bandwidth alone just to run,they would lose their shirt.One enough of the gaming populace becomes totally educated on what developers are doing the MMORPG genre will be in serious trouble,players will stop supporting them.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by DamonVile Anyone's mind been changed from what they came in, yet ?
Of course not.
I doubt this place will change any minds.
Aw come on buddy just because people are not changing minds doesn't mean they are not opening eyes. While I disagree with a lot of opinions it doesn't mean I don't find them interesting.
so? The question is about changing minds. Whatever you says does not change the conclusion.
Sure .. things are interesting .. of course they are .. otherwise why do you think i am spending time here? In fact, wouldn't it be very boring if everyone is just preaching to the choir?
Comments
Well, that explains the boobs.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Thats because there are NO fundamental MMO characteristics other than it being having lots of people and being online
Any other characteristics are just your preference.
I'll repeat it again, there are NO OTHER FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS AN MMO NEEDS TO HAVE OTHER THAN LOTS OF PEOPLE ONLINE.
I am truthfully lol.
And I see that now xD
Yeah, you didn't get it.
Read what I wrote to Nariu, because what you're babbling about is far from the point or consequence.
Making the exact same mistake/misunderstanding too as you're still interpreting 'fundamental' to refer to anything but the actual fundamental characteristics.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And if Guild Wars 2 was sub then people would still play it. I think you are trying to make a leap that's not necessary. I'm not saying that subs are the only way to go but I am saying:
people will pay for good value
If that is a sub and the value is good they WILL pay it.
There are plenty of completely free games out there that hardly have any players. why? Because even though it's free ithey are not fun.
So in the case of GW 2 they have, at the moment been able to keep up with new content and hopefully are getting enough money from new customers as well as their cash shop. We will see how the game progresses going forward.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Oh I get what your trying to say, I just completely disagree.
And I was responding to your point to nilden that people are not willing to debate fundamental MMO characteristics other than that it's big.
I'm saying there are no other MMO characteristics. If you have one, please state it.
You keep saying we are not willing to debate a fundamental characteristic. You keep talking about infrasturcture other than it being big.
So here is your chance. What is a fundamental characteristic of MMO's?
There were actually some very unique MMOs. TSW and Age of Wulin to name a few (both great games and very different).
I personally back to WoW (quit it soon after Cata). Blizzard did amazing job with Pandaria
The design of Pandaria is amazing, but the game mechanics have taken a BIG hit, dumbed down badly. And Pandaria has only one single leveling path from 85 to 90 too, unlike the previous expansions which had at least 2 starter areas.
Still playing it, still a good game, but very dumbed down, simplified for the masses.
My computer is better than yours.
...
You disagree that an MMOG has to be built with a networking layer as part of an engine, servers, and other architecture that enables the ability to fulfill the capacity to be an MMO?
You really don't know what you're arguing about. The fundamental characteristics of an MMO are not things you build as part of the game, they are what you build the game upon.
Do you get it yet? That you can't physically have an MMO if you don't have the underlying components?
Because if you don't then you also still don't get that the point is what these components are capable of versus what they are utilized for.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
What exactly was 'simplified'. Dont say talents, since Im fully with Blizz on this one. Most old talents were crap, many never taken and everyone had cookie cutter builds. Raids are challenging, more so then Cata. Quests more complex and scripted then ever before. So what exactly did you mean?
I never disagreed with that, that is what is necessary for it to be big.
You are the one that said "other than being big" not me. What are those other things.
What they are capable of is not the point, that is a wishlist.
The only thing that matters is are they big. And yes there needs to be the engine and software that make it big. That was never the debate.
Talents are part of it, mind you, I liked to have complex talent trees requiring some research.
The worst is the linearization of the whole world which started with Cataclysm though. You are stuck in moving from quest hub to quest hub with no alternative now, since the other content will be "phased" and therefore inaccessible before you finished the previous one. The result is that the replay value of the game dropped catastrophically, personally, I couldn't be arsed to level more than two characters through the Pandaria areas when I had 4 max level chars during Cata and 8 during WotLK.
To me, WoW was the best theme park MMORPG during WotLK, specially during the Ulduar times. Then, it has started to be dumbed down for the masses (and I do NOT talk about stuff like raid finder, which I think are GOOD additions) and has become a very linear and way more boring game than it was before.
My computer is better than yours.
Actually if you look back, you're the only one that railed on defintion of MMO as a genre. I never mentioned anything about what defines it 'other than being big', so please don't blatantly lie like that.
In fact, it's the exact opposite that I have rather bluntly stated that trying to define MMO in the context of genre or function on the gameplay end, is pointless.
You even kept the whole quote in my post when you replied to me.
"Trying to define what the term MMO means is of little bearing on the matter as it's not the definition, but the literal structure that's in question.
Trying to define the term MMORPG is doubly meaningless, as that's just semantic prodding."
Next, what they are capable of is the point, and it's not a wishlist.
The problem is you still fail to get the point. It's not a conversation of trying to define the genre, it's a comment on the systems used and how they are used.
EDIT: Or in summary, that many titles are functionally indistinguishable(or at least their gameplay/experience would not suffer for the shift) from games built on non-MMO systems.
Meaning there's minimal reason these MMOs would be developed using the MMO platform, as they do not capitalize any features native to the platform.
It's not suddenly calling them bad games. It's more saying their design did not adapt between the change in the underlying mechanics to provide anything other than the same thing in a different place.
How the structure of the game's engine, hardware, etc, is developed for, around, on top of, or otherwise for a developer to produce their title is very important and an integral principle in this matter.
In many instances developers aren't using their own engines. It's not uncommon for the root to be a modified licensed engine. This alone goes a long way in describing the capacity and limitations of a game before it's even developed, as the onus rests upon the developers to modify and tweak things until they can reach their goals.
You can see the impact the choice in engine and quality of the team has on games pretty easily. For example you look at TOR. It's the poster child of why you don't use the prototype version of a game engine to make a AAA game.
Then there's Fury, All Points Bulletin, and Mortal online. Each of these titles had a developer group take the Unreal engine and attempt to apply a solution to the engine's inherent lack of a strong networking layer.
One went the lobby route and didn't manage to get the game stable.
One tried to rebuild parts of the networking layer and only got far enough to support ~ 100 players per instance..
And one relied on a plugin Epic developed and was testing, which has caused ongoing stability issues.
This is an example of how games were largely victims of their platform of choice. Where their decision for engine was simply not the right one, and they were trying to shoehorn a game into something that just didn't fit.
On the flip-side is when you develop games that are essentially built in a shoe that's too big for them or is simply not the right type of shoe. It's almost overkill essentially. And that's in part what many of the MMO titles out there really constitute.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It wasn't inadvertent. Some aspects of PvP in multiplayer games are not avoidable, when all the players are engaging in "single player" activities. Each player is engaging in a single player activity (killing spheres), and when they kill a sphere, it's a resource that isn't available to any other players. That doesn't mean there are no other spheres available though. In order to remove the PvP aspects, some element of cooperative play would have to be added, but at that point the players are engaged in group play activities, not single player activities.
If all the players were each in their own partitioned space, where other players did not exist, the game would no longer be an MMORPG. Depending on how many people were playing, and depending on if there was some sort of global lobby or something it could still be an MMO.
**
Which is something interesting to think about. Single player activities will necessarily lead to competitive effects, and Group or Multiplayer activities will necessarily lead to cooperative effects.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
My point with my comment is that group interaction is essentially unavoidable at that level. Be it trying to horde kills, cooperatively kill, or otherwise, people will be finding a way to interact with the other's around them when given the opportunity.
Or to put it another way that addressed the argument of it, it's still not strictly a single player action taking place, by virtue of the system within which the game is operating and the consequences of that.
Though to note I don't actually disagree with what you're trying to explain.
A single player experience is functionally achievable in an MMO, and the game can still for all purposes be an MMO.
Like say each player has their own phased location where monsters spawn or they are provisioned with their own monsters to slay. It takes nothing away from other players, yet leaves them technically within a shared environment.
It's essentially bringing the game closer to an industrial line type situation, but the capacity is there.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Because that will be more fun to many players?
Of course not.
I doubt this place will change any minds.
Aw come on buddy just because people are not changing minds doesn't mean they are not opening eyes. While I disagree with a lot of opinions it doesn't mean I don't find them interesting.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/I agree with the OP and this post here. Bravo.
I always wanted to try DAOC. Maybe I should check this out!
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
I care little right now because i see nothing on the horizon that will have me watching the calender for it's release.
years ago Bill Gates talked of some super platform where we all login in to some sky servers and with super fast bandwidth speeds.That would enable us to have really high tech games.
With so many people paying 150+ on cable having to add another 15 a month to sub a game is about all gamer's want to endure.However we need devs to start releasing material that needs 10x the bandwidth to achieve some top notch gaming.How are we going to accomplish this without developers raising the standards of the games and the cost of the subscription,it simply is not possible.
That is why i lol at the notion F2p is the way to go,you are NEVER going to get a good quality game on f2p absolutely NEVER!
A developer is not going to release a game that needs 30 bucks/month in bandwidth alone just to run,they would lose their shirt.One enough of the gaming populace becomes totally educated on what developers are doing the MMORPG genre will be in serious trouble,players will stop supporting them.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
so? The question is about changing minds. Whatever you says does not change the conclusion.
Sure .. things are interesting .. of course they are .. otherwise why do you think i am spending time here? In fact, wouldn't it be very boring if everyone is just preaching to the choir?