Alright, lets hear it: Which part of Dark Souls is from MMORPGs? I wonder how you're going to spin this...
You never had any player comments fed into your game?
The game runs on client, but on the back end there is a server that tracks and hosts pretty much all the shareable information. That underlying framework is rather directly a core component that drives MMOs and is technically not necessary for a single player title.
Dark Souls uses that aspect in a relatively finite manner, but it gives the single player experience a link into a larger community that persists globally.
The other multiplayer components work on a different server component that ends up connecting between clients, so that's not so much an MMO component.
...Did you think they stored all that player comment data on the client? It needs a way to be actively contributed to and called to the global playerbase at any time, a persistent server which all clients ping to is about the only way that's possible.
It's the same principle as how Spore is 'massively single player' and a similar aspect to how players can rent out your sidekick in Dragon's Dogma. While the core game remains single player, there is an online component the game can plug into that generally is in place to enrich the game in some manner.
That component exists and operates on an mmo-server styled framework, that has to track account data and player interaction/contributions to stream between clients on a technically massive scale, even if the client's user experience is that of a single player title.
I'll try and think up some 'spin' for you later.
EDIT: On the simple end, it's as Creslin said, I'm not calling Dark Souls an MMO, it's a single player and multiplayer title. I'm generally noting that there's the underlying framework in place however that is used to enrich the gaming experience, without turning it into something else.
See my response to Creslin.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Trying to shoehorn an MMORPG style persistent world into what is essentially a single player story based RPG just doesn't work. You wind up with tons of problems. Some games try to implement lots of bizarre workaround systems like phasing and excessive instancing in an attempt to get around these problems, but I never think they really hit the mark.
True .. one solution is to ditch or minimize the persistent world. It is not like a persistent world is that important in every MMO. GW1 don't have it. DDO don't have it. WoW minimize it at end game.
Yep. So I really think the answer to the question posed in your OP is to simply make MMORPGs that want to be SPRPGs...into good old SPRPGs. Problem solved.
I think that after WoW made a metric butt ton of money, there was a huge MMORPG craze where every major company felt like they needed a piece of the MMORPG market as well. So they all tried to leverage their expertise and unique niche in the market to make an MMORPG...even if it made no sense at all.
I really think that if SWTOR had been an SPRPG with some multiplayer elements it would have been a much better game. I don't think very many people play SWTOR for its "amazing" open world.
Hopefully in the future we won't get these "forced" MMORPGs. Even if that means far less MMORPGs, I'm cool with it.
I think you're taking his statement to be more than it is. Saying Dark Souls has some MMORPG-esque features is like saying Call of Duty has some RPG features (the leveling).
This by no means implies that Dark Souls IS an MMORPG. But it DOES have features commonly found in MMORPGs like players communicating with other players without having to join another player's game and open world PvP.
I also think Borderlands 2 has MMORPG-esque features, and I definitely don't think that's an MMORPG.
To my knowledge, PvP is restricted to the invaded area, therefore it is equivalent to any map in any multiplayer game. The ghost can't even leave the area in which his intended target is.
Communicating with other players is hardly uninque to MMORPGs either, even if its done through quirky ways: messages, musical melodies or otherwise.
You could encounter a ghost of your past self in your old dungeon crawlers such as Dungeon Crawler, Nethack and Adom. Maybe the devs had a sudden inspiration "what if those ghosts were other players". Bottom line, you don't know where the inspiration of those invasions came from.
Hell, old Diablo (1) multiplayer and PvP is very much similar to what you encounter in Dark Souls.
Do you know what really has come from MMORPG side of more regular RPGs and perhaps tainted it somewhat? Aggro manipulation and hard trinity (meaning the holy trinity is mandatory and all too obvious). I mean holy shit 4th edition D&D was practically an MMORPG in P&P form.
Not good. Not good at all.
If you're seeing MMORPGs in Dark Souls, you're seeing something that isn't there.
LOL, MMORPG-esque features does not mean MMORPG . You don't need to meet these tight standards.
The fact that you can be invaded just about anywhere "like" how open-PvP works in MMORPGs qualifies as an MMORPG-esque feature. The fact that players can communicate with you anywhere without the need to actually connect to their game "like" an MMORPG qualifies.
Just like how Borderlands 2's focus on loot, leveling, and "MMORPG-esque" questing qualify as MMORPG-esque features.
It just means that these games were likely influenced by MMORPGs, or at least share some things in common with them.
Like I am more than willing to say that CoD has RPG-esque features...but I would never call CoD an RPG.
I think you're taking his statement to be more than it is. Saying Dark Souls has some MMORPG-esque features is like saying Call of Duty has some RPG features (the leveling).
This by no means implies that Dark Souls IS an MMORPG. But it DOES have features commonly found in MMORPGs like players communicating with other players without having to join another player's game and open world PvP.
I also think Borderlands 2 has MMORPG-esque features, and I definitely don't think that's an MMORPG.
To my knowledge, PvP is restricted to the invaded area, therefore it is equivalent to any map in any multiplayer game. The ghost can't even leave the area in which his intended target is.
Communicating with other players is hardly uninque to MMORPGs either, even if its done through quirky ways: messages, musical melodies or otherwise.
You could encounter a ghost of your past self in your old dungeon crawlers such as Dungeon Crawler, Nethack and Adom. Maybe the devs had a sudden inspiration "what if those ghosts were other players". Bottom line, you don't know where the inspiration of those invasions came from.
Hell, old Diablo (1) multiplayer and PvP is very much similar to what you encounter in Dark Souls.
Do you know what really has come from MMORPG side of more regular RPGs and perhaps tainted it somewhat? Aggro manipulation and hard trinity (meaning the holy trinity is mandatory and all too obvious). I mean holy shit 4th edition D&D was practically an MMORPG in P&P form.
Not good. Not good at all.
If you're seeing MMORPGs in Dark Souls, you're seeing something that isn't there.
LOL, MMORPG-esque features does not mean MMORPG . You don't need to meet these tight standards.
The fact that you can be invaded just about anywhere "like" how open-PvP works in MMORPGs qualifies as an MMORPG-esque feature. The fact that players can communicate with you anywhere without the need to actually connect to their game "like" an MMORPG qualifies.
Just like how Borderlands 2's focus on loot, leveling, and "MMORPG-esque" questing qualify as MMORPG-esque features.
It just means that these games were likely influenced by MMORPGs, or at least share some things in common with them.
Like I am more than willing to say that CoD has RPG-esque features...but I would never call CoD an RPG.
Borderlands' loot and leveling is most likely inspired by Diablo. You're purposefully annoying me by stating this and that is an "MMORPG-esque feature". If everything is MMORPG-esque, does your whole gaming career include only MMORPGs?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think you're taking his statement to be more than it is. Saying Dark Souls has some MMORPG-esque features is like saying Call of Duty has some RPG features (the leveling).
This by no means implies that Dark Souls IS an MMORPG. But it DOES have features commonly found in MMORPGs like players communicating with other players without having to join another player's game and open world PvP.
I also think Borderlands 2 has MMORPG-esque features, and I definitely don't think that's an MMORPG.
To my knowledge, PvP is restricted to the invaded area, therefore it is equivalent to any map in any multiplayer game. The ghost can't even leave the area in which his intended target is.
Communicating with other players is hardly uninque to MMORPGs either, even if its done through quirky ways: messages, musical melodies or otherwise.
You could encounter a ghost of your past self in your old dungeon crawlers such as Dungeon Crawler, Nethack and Adom. Maybe the devs had a sudden inspiration "what if those ghosts were other players". Bottom line, you don't know where the inspiration of those invasions came from.
Hell, old Diablo (1) multiplayer and PvP is very much similar to what you encounter in Dark Souls.
Do you know what really has come from MMORPG side of more regular RPGs and perhaps tainted it somewhat? Aggro manipulation and hard trinity (meaning the holy trinity is mandatory and all too obvious). I mean holy shit 4th edition D&D was practically an MMORPG in P&P form.
Not good. Not good at all.
If you're seeing MMORPGs in Dark Souls, you're seeing something that isn't there.
LOL, MMORPG-esque features does not mean MMORPG . You don't need to meet these tight standards.
The fact that you can be invaded just about anywhere "like" how open-PvP works in MMORPGs qualifies as an MMORPG-esque feature. The fact that players can communicate with you anywhere without the need to actually connect to their game "like" an MMORPG qualifies.
Just like how Borderlands 2's focus on loot, leveling, and "MMORPG-esque" questing qualify as MMORPG-esque features.
It just means that these games were likely influenced by MMORPGs, or at least share some things in common with them.
Like I am more than willing to say that CoD has RPG-esque features...but I would never call CoD an RPG.
Borderlands' loot and leveling is most likely inspired by Diablo. You're purposefully annoying me by stating this and that is an "MMORPG-esque feature". If everything is MMORPG-esque, does your whole gaming career include only MMORPGs?
I think if you're annoyed here...that's all on you lol.
The quests in Borderlands are almost exactly like themepark MMORPG quests. A lot of the design in BL is extremely similar to themepark MMORPGs. It's almost like if you made a themepark MMORPG into just a normal multiplayer game. This article goes into this more...
Anyway, I'm not really sure why this bothers you. I could say that DOTA has RPG elements and I would not be wrong, even though DOTA is not an RPG. It just means that it has things in common with RPGs.
I think if you're annoyed here...that's all on you lol.
The quests in Borderlands are almost exactly like themepark MMORPG quests. A lot of the design in BL is extremely similar to themepark MMORPGs. It's almost like if you made a themepark MMORPG into just a normal multiplayer game. This article goes into this more...
Anyway, I'm not really sure why this bothers you. I could say that DOTA has RPG elements and I would not be wrong, even though DOTA is not an RPG. It just means that it has things in common with RPGs.
Quests like that have existed in SRPGs since... oh I don't know... FOREVER?! They are just quests. The manner in which you accept them (go through the town and accept all), the manner which you return them (return all at once), the quests themselves (kill X amount of Y, fetch Z), they've all been done before in SRPGs, without the influence of MMORPGs.
If you need to describe Borderlands to someone through MMORPGs, that someone is ignorant of the past.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think if you're annoyed here...that's all on you lol.
The quests in Borderlands are almost exactly like themepark MMORPG quests. A lot of the design in BL is extremely similar to themepark MMORPGs. It's almost like if you made a themepark MMORPG into just a normal multiplayer game. This article goes into this more...
Anyway, I'm not really sure why this bothers you. I could say that DOTA has RPG elements and I would not be wrong, even though DOTA is not an RPG. It just means that it has things in common with RPGs.
Quests like that have existed in SRPGs since... oh I don't know... FOREVER?! They are just quests. The manner in which you accept them (go through the town and accept all), the manner which you return them (return all at once), the quests themselves (kill X amount of Y, fetch Z), they've all been done before in SRPGs, without the influence of MMORPGs.
If you need to describe Borderlands to someone through MMORPGs, that someone is ignorant of the past.
I can see this argument isn't going to end so this will be my last post on the matter.
Anyway...the quests are SPECIFICALLY like those you do in a game like WoW. There are quest hubs, there are NPCs with essentially exclamation points over their heads, the quests are normally to kill X of Y monster just like WoW. The quests in BL are FAR more similar to those in WoW than they are to those in a normal SPRPG.
Furthermore, the trait system is very similar to trait systems found in WoW like games. There are three branches, each of which kind of specializes you into a sub-class.
I by no means think that BL is an MMORPG. But I think that if you can't see the similarities between BL and the modern themepark MMORPG...then you're blind.
I think if you're annoyed here...that's all on you lol.
The quests in Borderlands are almost exactly like themepark MMORPG quests. A lot of the design in BL is extremely similar to themepark MMORPGs. It's almost like if you made a themepark MMORPG into just a normal multiplayer game. This article goes into this more...
Anyway, I'm not really sure why this bothers you. I could say that DOTA has RPG elements and I would not be wrong, even though DOTA is not an RPG. It just means that it has things in common with RPGs.
Quests like that have existed in SRPGs since... oh I don't know... FOREVER?! They are just quests. The manner in which you accept them (go through the town and accept all), the manner which you return them (return all at once), the quests themselves (kill X amount of Y, fetch Z), they've all been done before in SRPGs, without the influence of MMORPGs.
If you need to describe Borderlands to someone through MMORPGs, that someone is ignorant of the past.
I can see this argument isn't going to end so this will be my last post on the matter.
Anyway...the quests are SPECIFICALLY like those you do in a game like WoW. There are quest hubs, there are NPCs with essentially exclamation points over their heads, the quests are normally to kill X of Y monster just like WoW. The quests in BL are FAR more similar to those in WoW than they are to those in a normal SPRPG.
Furthermore, the trait system is very similar to trait systems found in WoW like games. There are three branches, each of which kind of specializes you into a sub-class.
I by no means think that BL is an MMORPG. But I think that if you can't see the similarities between BL and the modern themepark MMORPG...then you're blind.
You need to play more games other than MMORPGs. Especially old ones.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Borderlands aside, are you seriously not going to consider the actual mechanics in play rather than the superficial aesthetic over it?
Because I'd like to talk about something that's not governed solely by taste in style. For example, what I posted about the game's architecture that went rather completely ignored.
"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 Creslin321Trying to shoehorn an MMORPG style persistent world into what is essentially a single player story based RPG just doesn't work. You wind up with tons of problems. Some games try to implement lots of bizarre workaround systems like phasing and excessive instancing in an attempt to get around these problems, but I never think they really hit the mark.
True .. one solution is to ditch or minimize the persistent world. It is not like a persistent world is that important in every MMO. GW1 don't have it. DDO don't have it. WoW minimize it at end game.
I have an idea why not make mmorpg's single player games outright with some multiplayer functionality that you can control. You could play with others or not as it pleases you. It would garner support (cash) from single player game people.
On the other hand moba's and dungeon crawls like diablo are just missing out as they don't really appeal to the persistent seamless world mmo gamers so we could change that and make sure the have persistent worlds which would garner the support of these type of gamers!
Awesome isn't, if it works one way it should, work the other way too, the best of both world ya!
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Alright, lets hear it: Which part of Dark Souls is from MMORPGs? I wonder how you're going to spin this...
You never had any player comments fed into your game?
The game runs on client, but on the back end there is a server that tracks and hosts pretty much all the shareable information. That underlying framework is rather directly a core component that drives MMOs and is technically not necessary for a single player title.
So far, nothing different from a regular multiplayer.
Dark Souls uses that aspect in a relatively finite manner, but it gives the single player experience a link into a larger community that persists globally.
As much as when you'd play Diablo in a ladder, no doubt. ...or Quake Live, or countless other games.
The other multiplayer components work on a different server component that ends up connecting between clients, so that's not so much an MMO component.
As much as any matchmaking system or lobby.
...Did you think they stored all that player comment data on the client? It needs a way to be actively contributed to and called to the global playerbase at any time, a persistent server which all clients ping to is about the only way that's possible.
No they are almost certainly stored in a remote database somewhere. This is not unique to MMORPGs.
It's the same principle as how Spore is 'massively single player' and a similar aspect to how players can rent out your sidekick in Dragon's Dogma. While the core game remains single player, there is an online component the game can plug into that generally is in place to enrich the game in some manner.
That component exists and operates on an mmo-server styled framework, that has to track account data and player interaction/contributions to stream between clients on a technically massive scale, even if the client's user experience is that of a single player title.
Look, I'm not familiar with Dragon's Dogma, but Spores nifty matchmaking is nothing special. And streaming data between clients is no way unique to MMORPGs. Areas are likely run on different servers, this means they are by all intents and purposes regular multiplayer servers linked together.
This is slightly more complicated than it sounds of course. But you get the general idea.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
So far, nothing different from a regular multiplayer.
As much as when you'd play Diablo in a ladder, no doubt. ...or Quake Live, or countless other games.
As much as any matchmaking system or lobby.
No they are almost certainly stored in a remote database somewhere. This is not unique to MMORPGs.
Look, I'm not familiar with Dragon's Dogma, but Spores nifty matchmaking is nothing special. And streaming data between clients is no way unique to MMORPGs. Areas are likely run on different servers, this means they are by all intents and purposes regular multiplayer servers linked together.
This is slightly more complicated than it sounds of course. But you get the general idea.
One, Spore doesn't do matchmaking.
Two, streaming data between clients nor a central server hosting game assets might not be new, but feel free to show me the active use of such a design prior to MMOs and MUDS.
You're stretching your argument very thin and it made little sense to begin with. The chat system in many games is an example of the server architecture that drives MMOs being put to use in alternative game types.
However, one also can easily note that your examples of older titles that do the 'same' thing, aren't actually doing such. It's similar, but relies on local client data and potentially that of between peers. It's not built on a persistent server and it does not trade or track the same kind of data.
Regular multiplayer does not operate in the same fashion as an mmo, only the fundamentals are the same. The major differences is where the bulk of the data is stored and how it's disseminated between clients. A factor you ignore in order to try and make your point.
The type of architecture in place to operate components of these games are unmistakably the same as that of mmo server architecture. The type of central data to client hosting is not done in other forms of gaming, there is generally no point unless there is a constant need to stream data from clients globally to one another.
Be it a chat box that's persistent across any instance of a game, the notes left throughout Dark Souls, the seeding of player creatures and content in Spore, or the mercenary work of of your sidekick in Dragon's Dogma (or killing the Ur Dragon). There are smaller scale equivalents, yes, but your argument rests squarely on trying to semantically dismiss the reality of the architecture by dancing around every even addressing what it really is, it's actual use in games, and how it interacts with the rest of the features.
If all you're gonna do is bullshit me, this isn't going to be an interesting conversation.
"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 have an idea why not make mmorpg's single player games outright with some multiplayer functionality that you can control. You could play with others or not as it pleases you. It would garner support (cash) from single player game people.
On the other hand moba's and dungeon crawls like diablo are just missing out as they don't really appeal to the persistent seamless world mmo gamers so we could change that and make sure the have persistent worlds which would garner the support of these type of gamers!
Awesome isn't, if it works one way it should, work the other way too, the best of both world ya!
Oh ... i have no problem if devs make SP games outright. In fact, i play more SP games than MMOs. But you miss the point. Many MMO devs seem to want to put SP experiences into MMOs ... to get more audience, i suppose. If so, there is no reason we cannot talk about HOW they should do it.
Oh, i am all for genre bending. Didn't D3 put in a AH (a MMO feature), and PoE and Marvel Heroes both have "public zones"? I always say ... ARPGs are close enough to MMOs .. (or vice versa) particularly when one genre is putting features of another.
Of course, if a game require a player to walk miles in a persistent world, i would not be playing that game. But so far, devs seem to like to cater to me, and make persistent world less of an incovenience ... so it is all good.
I have an idea why not make mmorpg's single player games outright with some multiplayer functionality that you can control. You could play with others or not as it pleases you. It would garner support (cash) from single player game people.
On the other hand moba's and dungeon crawls like diablo are just missing out as they don't really appeal to the persistent seamless world mmo gamers so we could change that and make sure the have persistent worlds which would garner the support of these type of gamers!
Awesome isn't, if it works one way it should, work the other way too, the best of both world ya!
Oh ... i have no problem if devs make SP games outright. In fact, i play more SP games than MMOs. But you miss the point. Many MMO devs seem to want to put SP experiences into MMOs ... to get more audience, i suppose. If so, there is no reason we cannot talk about HOW they should do it.
Oh, i am all for genre bending. Didn't D3 put in a AH (a MMO feature), and PoE and Marvel Heroes both have "public zones"? I always say ... ARPGs are close enough to MMOs .. (or vice versa) particularly when one genre is putting features of another.
Of course, if a game require a player to walk miles in a persistent world, i would not be playing that game. But so far, devs seem to like to cater to me, and make persistent world less of an incovenience ... so it is all good.
Awesome ... as you say!
You know, I think that, for the most part, it's the other way around. I think that some devs try to make single player games into MMORPGs, as opposed to putting SP experiences into their MMORPG.
There are games that are "built" to be MMORPGs like UO, EQ, even GW2. If you try to remove the persistent shared world from any of these games, the games would basically not work at all.
But then there are games that seem to have been built to be primarily SP experiences like SWTOR, TSW (from what I've heard) etc. If you remove the persistent world from these games...not much really changes.
So my feeling is...if you are building a primarily SP experience...don't bother trying to make it into an MMORPG .
Then again never understood people saying these games are like singleplayer games. Sure you can solo in many of today's MMORPG or MMO's but they are far far from a actually singleplayer experiance because there is simple so much more that can be done in a singleplayer game where you are the only person playing in that gameworld.
So no I never felt a MMO or even Themeparks felt like singleplayer games.
Meaningfull characters are mostly Boss NPC's in a MMO, why? pretty simply you remember a meaning regular NPC in singleplayer more because those games are very short and often have certain characters come back several times during play. When MMORPG where still younger we also met several meaningfull characters during our journey but that just because this genre was still very new. In a MMO or MMORPG you meet so many characters that after 200, 300 or what ever hours played meaningfull losses it's true meaning with characters. Unless they can make meaningfull character you meet up every now and then during your MMO/rpg journey. Else that meaningfull NPC you meet at level 5 is long forgotten by the time you have met meaningfull NPC number 1234 at level/skill cap.
Instanced wise we already know it's limit when we look at single/multiplayer games.
We might get to a point where that singleplayer experiance of today will have that excact fibe/feel in maybe 4 to 6 years from now in a MMO/rpg? And that's not meant as in release but more as in starting development.
I have an idea why not make mmorpg's single player games outright with some multiplayer functionality that you can control. You could play with others or not as it pleases you. It would garner support (cash) from single player game people.
On the other hand moba's and dungeon crawls like diablo are just missing out as they don't really appeal to the persistent seamless world mmo gamers so we could change that and make sure the have persistent worlds which would garner the support of these type of gamers!
Awesome isn't, if it works one way it should, work the other way too, the best of both world ya!
Oh ... i have no problem if devs make SP games outright. In fact, i play more SP games than MMOs. But you miss the point. Many MMO devs seem to want to put SP experiences into MMOs ... to get more audience, i suppose. If so, there is no reason we cannot talk about HOW they should do it.
Oh, i am all for genre bending. Didn't D3 put in a AH (a MMO feature), and PoE and Marvel Heroes both have "public zones"? I always say ... ARPGs are close enough to MMOs .. (or vice versa) particularly when one genre is putting features of another.
Of course, if a game require a player to walk miles in a persistent world, i would not be playing that game. But so far, devs seem to like to cater to me, and make persistent world less of an incovenience ... so it is all good.
Awesome ... as you say!
You know, I think that, for the most part, it's the other way around. I think that some devs try to make single player games into MMORPGs, as opposed to putting SP experiences into their MMORPG.
There are games that are "built" to be MMORPGs like UO, EQ, even GW2. If you try to remove the persistent shared world from any of these games, the games would basically not work at all.
But then there are games that seem to have been built to be primarily SP experiences like SWTOR, TSW (from what I've heard) etc. If you remove the persistent world from these games...not much really changes.
So my feeling is...if you are building a primarily SP experience...don't bother trying to make it into an MMORPG .
Bingo, Creslin321 gets it!
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
You know, I think that, for the most part, it's the other way around. I think that some devs try to make single player games into MMORPGs, as opposed to putting SP experiences into their MMORPG.
Great .. then we have more reasons to discuss SP experiences in MMORPGs .. since most of those conversion will retain some SP elements. TOR, marvel heroes ... are all good examples.
I hope you are not seriously trying to tell me that MMORPGs are no longer solo-able.
So now if a SP is making into a MMORPGs with all the MMO features .... how best to highlight its original SP features? What MMORPG features are "good" for SP games? Blizz tried the AH, and it did not work out so well. May be making a 3D lobby and call it a city .. since so many MMORPGs are already doing that. What do you think?
Then again never understood people saying these games are like singleplayer games. Sure you can solo in many of today's MMORPG or MMO's but they are far far from a actually singleplayer experiance because there is simple so much more that can be done in a singleplayer game where you are the only person playing in that gameworld.
Much more is done today .. that does not mean that MMO cannot learn and improve.
For example, instances allow designers to change the "state of the world around". WoW is already using that (a SP game feature before) in many dungeon & raid instances with scripting and stuff. They are just not doing enough, and that they reset when you come out of the instance.
It should not be technical impossible when they are already doing some of it.
You know, I think that, for the most part, it's the other way around. I think that some devs try to make single player games into MMORPGs, as opposed to putting SP experiences into their MMORPG.
Great .. then we have more reasons to discuss SP experiences in MMORPGs .. since most of those conversion will retain some SP elements. TOR, marvel heroes ... are all good examples.
I hope you are not seriously trying to tell me that MMORPGs are no longer solo-able.
So now if a SP is making into a MMORPGs with all the MMO features .... how best to highlight its original SP features? What MMORPG features are "good" for SP games? Blizz tried the AH, and it did not work out so well. May be making a 3D lobby and call it a city .. since so many MMORPGs are already doing that. What do you think?
Whats is there to discuss? SP gaming in a mmorpg defeats the purpose of playing a mmorpg in the first place. That's not saying there can't be some things you can do solo only that you play mmorpg to play with other live people. As for lobbies and the like they are for MOBAs really.
Really group finders were added for the anti social that don't join guilds yet want to experience group content like raids and the like and has turned into a tool for lazy people and has IMO been nothing but bad for the mmorpg genre.
It has warped what mmorpgs are to younger impressionable people to the point that they no longer have a clue what a mmorpg is and think they should work like console games with multiplayer function via lobbies and such.
It is pretty sad to see people sheepishly fall for wacky marketing tricks, lazy shortcuts and the like.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Oh, it does not matter at all if I like any game or not, you, other, any1 .... EVERY company want to make money, so usually they will simply adapt to PLAYERS. So there is REASON if MMO's become more and more single player friendly. Simple as that.
Comments
See my response to Creslin.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Yep. So I really think the answer to the question posed in your OP is to simply make MMORPGs that want to be SPRPGs...into good old SPRPGs. Problem solved.
I think that after WoW made a metric butt ton of money, there was a huge MMORPG craze where every major company felt like they needed a piece of the MMORPG market as well. So they all tried to leverage their expertise and unique niche in the market to make an MMORPG...even if it made no sense at all.
I really think that if SWTOR had been an SPRPG with some multiplayer elements it would have been a much better game. I don't think very many people play SWTOR for its "amazing" open world.
Hopefully in the future we won't get these "forced" MMORPGs. Even if that means far less MMORPGs, I'm cool with it.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
LOL, MMORPG-esque features does not mean MMORPG
. You don't need to meet these tight standards.
The fact that you can be invaded just about anywhere "like" how open-PvP works in MMORPGs qualifies as an MMORPG-esque feature. The fact that players can communicate with you anywhere without the need to actually connect to their game "like" an MMORPG qualifies.
Just like how Borderlands 2's focus on loot, leveling, and "MMORPG-esque" questing qualify as MMORPG-esque features.
It just means that these games were likely influenced by MMORPGs, or at least share some things in common with them.
Like I am more than willing to say that CoD has RPG-esque features...but I would never call CoD an RPG.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
See the response you quoted. You only talked about the player experience end. I explained it from the mechanical one.
"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
Borderlands' loot and leveling is most likely inspired by Diablo. You're purposefully annoying me by stating this and that is an "MMORPG-esque feature". If everything is MMORPG-esque, does your whole gaming career include only MMORPGs?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I think if you're annoyed here...that's all on you lol.
The quests in Borderlands are almost exactly like themepark MMORPG quests. A lot of the design in BL is extremely similar to themepark MMORPGs. It's almost like if you made a themepark MMORPG into just a normal multiplayer game. This article goes into this more...
http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/CRingerPrime/borderlands-2-kinda-like-an-mmo-236858.phtml
Anyway, I'm not really sure why this bothers you. I could say that DOTA has RPG elements and I would not be wrong, even though DOTA is not an RPG. It just means that it has things in common with RPGs.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Quests like that have existed in SRPGs since... oh I don't know... FOREVER?! They are just quests. The manner in which you accept them (go through the town and accept all), the manner which you return them (return all at once), the quests themselves (kill X amount of Y, fetch Z), they've all been done before in SRPGs, without the influence of MMORPGs.
If you need to describe Borderlands to someone through MMORPGs, that someone is ignorant of the past.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
"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 can see this argument isn't going to end so this will be my last post on the matter.
Anyway...the quests are SPECIFICALLY like those you do in a game like WoW. There are quest hubs, there are NPCs with essentially exclamation points over their heads, the quests are normally to kill X of Y monster just like WoW. The quests in BL are FAR more similar to those in WoW than they are to those in a normal SPRPG.
Furthermore, the trait system is very similar to trait systems found in WoW like games. There are three branches, each of which kind of specializes you into a sub-class.
I by no means think that BL is an MMORPG. But I think that if you can't see the similarities between BL and the modern themepark MMORPG...then you're blind.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
You need to play more games other than MMORPGs. Especially old ones.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Borderlands aside, are you seriously not going to consider the actual mechanics in play rather than the superficial aesthetic over it?
Because I'd like to talk about something that's not governed solely by taste in style. For example, what I posted about the game's architecture that went rather completely ignored.
"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 have an idea why not make mmorpg's single player games outright with some multiplayer functionality that you can control. You could play with others or not as it pleases you. It would garner support (cash) from single player game people.
On the other hand moba's and dungeon crawls like diablo are just missing out as they don't really appeal to the persistent seamless world mmo gamers so we could change that and make sure the have persistent worlds which would garner the support of these type of gamers!
Awesome isn't, if it works one way it should, work the other way too, the best of both world ya!
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
So far, nothing different from a regular multiplayer.
As much as when you'd play Diablo in a ladder, no doubt. ...or Quake Live, or countless other games.
As much as any matchmaking system or lobby.
No they are almost certainly stored in a remote database somewhere. This is not unique to MMORPGs.
Look, I'm not familiar with Dragon's Dogma, but Spores nifty matchmaking is nothing special. And streaming data between clients is no way unique to MMORPGs. Areas are likely run on different servers, this means they are by all intents and purposes regular multiplayer servers linked together.
This is slightly more complicated than it sounds of course. But you get the general idea.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
One, Spore doesn't do matchmaking.
Two, streaming data between clients nor a central server hosting game assets might not be new, but feel free to show me the active use of such a design prior to MMOs and MUDS.
You're stretching your argument very thin and it made little sense to begin with. The chat system in many games is an example of the server architecture that drives MMOs being put to use in alternative game types.
However, one also can easily note that your examples of older titles that do the 'same' thing, aren't actually doing such. It's similar, but relies on local client data and potentially that of between peers. It's not built on a persistent server and it does not trade or track the same kind of data.
Regular multiplayer does not operate in the same fashion as an mmo, only the fundamentals are the same. The major differences is where the bulk of the data is stored and how it's disseminated between clients. A factor you ignore in order to try and make your point.
The type of architecture in place to operate components of these games are unmistakably the same as that of mmo server architecture. The type of central data to client hosting is not done in other forms of gaming, there is generally no point unless there is a constant need to stream data from clients globally to one another.
Be it a chat box that's persistent across any instance of a game, the notes left throughout Dark Souls, the seeding of player creatures and content in Spore, or the mercenary work of of your sidekick in Dragon's Dogma (or killing the Ur Dragon). There are smaller scale equivalents, yes, but your argument rests squarely on trying to semantically dismiss the reality of the architecture by dancing around every even addressing what it really is, it's actual use in games, and how it interacts with the rest of the features.
If all you're gonna do is bullshit me, this isn't going to be an interesting conversation.
"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
Oh ... i have no problem if devs make SP games outright. In fact, i play more SP games than MMOs. But you miss the point. Many MMO devs seem to want to put SP experiences into MMOs ... to get more audience, i suppose. If so, there is no reason we cannot talk about HOW they should do it.
Oh, i am all for genre bending. Didn't D3 put in a AH (a MMO feature), and PoE and Marvel Heroes both have "public zones"? I always say ... ARPGs are close enough to MMOs .. (or vice versa) particularly when one genre is putting features of another.
Of course, if a game require a player to walk miles in a persistent world, i would not be playing that game. But so far, devs seem to like to cater to me, and make persistent world less of an incovenience ... so it is all good.
Awesome ... as you say!
You know, I think that, for the most part, it's the other way around. I think that some devs try to make single player games into MMORPGs, as opposed to putting SP experiences into their MMORPG.
There are games that are "built" to be MMORPGs like UO, EQ, even GW2. If you try to remove the persistent shared world from any of these games, the games would basically not work at all.
But then there are games that seem to have been built to be primarily SP experiences like SWTOR, TSW (from what I've heard) etc. If you remove the persistent world from these games...not much really changes.
So my feeling is...if you are building a primarily SP experience...don't bother trying to make it into an MMORPG
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I say its currently technically impossible.
Then again never understood people saying these games are like singleplayer games. Sure you can solo in many of today's MMORPG or MMO's but they are far far from a actually singleplayer experiance because there is simple so much more that can be done in a singleplayer game where you are the only person playing in that gameworld.
So no I never felt a MMO or even Themeparks felt like singleplayer games.
Meaningfull characters are mostly Boss NPC's in a MMO, why? pretty simply you remember a meaning regular NPC in singleplayer more because those games are very short and often have certain characters come back several times during play. When MMORPG where still younger we also met several meaningfull characters during our journey but that just because this genre was still very new. In a MMO or MMORPG you meet so many characters that after 200, 300 or what ever hours played meaningfull losses it's true meaning with characters. Unless they can make meaningfull character you meet up every now and then during your MMO/rpg journey. Else that meaningfull NPC you meet at level 5 is long forgotten by the time you have met meaningfull NPC number 1234 at level/skill cap.
Instanced wise we already know it's limit when we look at single/multiplayer games.
We might get to a point where that singleplayer experiance of today will have that excact fibe/feel in maybe 4 to 6 years from now in a MMO/rpg? And that's not meant as in release but more as in starting development.
Remove all the hostility and hate! lol /sarcasm (kinda)
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Bingo, Creslin321 gets it!
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Great .. then we have more reasons to discuss SP experiences in MMORPGs .. since most of those conversion will retain some SP elements. TOR, marvel heroes ... are all good examples.
I hope you are not seriously trying to tell me that MMORPGs are no longer solo-able.
So now if a SP is making into a MMORPGs with all the MMO features .... how best to highlight its original SP features? What MMORPG features are "good" for SP games? Blizz tried the AH, and it did not work out so well. May be making a 3D lobby and call it a city .. since so many MMORPGs are already doing that. What do you think?
Much more is done today .. that does not mean that MMO cannot learn and improve.
For example, instances allow designers to change the "state of the world around". WoW is already using that (a SP game feature before) in many dungeon & raid instances with scripting and stuff. They are just not doing enough, and that they reset when you come out of the instance.
It should not be technical impossible when they are already doing some of it.
Whats is there to discuss? SP gaming in a mmorpg defeats the purpose of playing a mmorpg in the first place. That's not saying there can't be some things you can do solo only that you play mmorpg to play with other live people. As for lobbies and the like they are for MOBAs really.
Really group finders were added for the anti social that don't join guilds yet want to experience group content like raids and the like and has turned into a tool for lazy people and has IMO been nothing but bad for the mmorpg genre.
It has warped what mmorpgs are to younger impressionable people to the point that they no longer have a clue what a mmorpg is and think they should work like console games with multiplayer function via lobbies and such.
It is pretty sad to see people sheepishly fall for wacky marketing tricks, lazy shortcuts and the like.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.