So let's get back on topic, forget about definitions and about this game or that game, and let's look at why an open world is good or bad for an MMO, however you want to define an MMO.
Player housing, non-instanced, leading to player run towns or cities, which in turn help to build the game community. That is a definite plus in my book.
The other example I gave was World Bosses, rather than the instanced 25 man raid variety. Bosses so big and mean that you might be glad of an open world and the massively multiplayer nature of the game which allows you to take 200 players along to bitch slap said boss. Again this is something that builds communtiy and teamwork in the playerbase. Another plus in my book.
since you agree to table the def discussion, let's go to your example.
Player housing is totally irrelevant to the game modes i discussed earlier (small group dungeons/raid, fair e-sport pvp). How you can argue (and you are arguing) that adding irrelevant, fluff features can "help" a game .. and I don't disagree ... but i would say that a true, no instanced 3D housing system is expensive ... and if the core game is about dungeon runs, why bother wasting money on it? It probably will be no different than dressing up the game with a better lobby (like the improvement done on warframe) and cost much less.
World boss is certainly a game mode that I did not talk about. The problem with world boss is that with 200 players .. it is just a zerg because no coordination is possible, and most players are there just for the loot. In fact, world boss is so not-fun (as a combat game) that WoW decreases the use of it.
Marvel Heroes also have world boss .. and the fight is a mess .. most of the time, you can't even see what it is. As a combat centric game, it is very "bad" (my opinion).
Lastly, these games are not about community anymore. It is about combat, progression and loot. And why you will chalk that up as my opinion, just go into WoW (or any of these games) and tell me how many want to make friends, and form a community.
That's assuming that the core game is about group instanced dungeons, which it may not be. I said in my first reply that I have played small instanced group games, they have a place in the market and they can be fun, but that's not the same thing as saying that open worlds are *bad* for MMO's, which as we can all see is the title of the thread.
If that's the focus then you don't need an open world, but if you have a game design that suits one it can be beneficial to the game. It offers a different focus to the game and while that may not be to your particular tastes you just use that as an argument, and you are arguing, that open worlds are bad for MMO's. It's just not a requirement for the type of game you prefer. On the other hand it's a pre-requisite for the kind of MMO I prefer.
I agree that MMO's are no longer about community, but I see that as a sad after effect of a changing market. I think that the lack of community building in todays MMO's is far more damaging to the genre than the presence or lack thereof of an open world. That's my personal opinion of course.
Tha last point I want to mention is the world bosses.Yes they can be chaotic, but not all the time. I remember my first run up to Plane of Sky in EQ and there probably was close to 200 of us. Yes it was a bit mad and a bit chaotic but it was organised, it was loosley controlled and it was an absolute blast.
I remember when WoW dropped from 40 man to 25 man raids. I never understood the 40 man limitation and to drop that to 25 seemed insanity to me, if you're gonna drop it why not go for 20 then you could still run 2 x 20 man raids, but no 25 it was, meaning that 15 of your previous 40 were now basically screwed. 25 man raids I thought? That's not a raid it's a frikkin school outing.
This again comes down to personal preferrence, and I don't see the point in a perfectly controlled, perfectly boring scenario. Battle is chaotic and confusing. One thing that was drummed into us when I was in the army was this: No plan survives first contact with the enemy. I'd much rather have a fluid, constantly changing fight than the current crop of scripted events that we see, where everyone involved just loads up a boss mod and follows the on-screen prompts.
At the end of the day we just prefer different types of gameplay, and while I can acknowledge the ones you like as fun and having their place I cannot agree that just because mine have an open world they are somehow wrong or bad for the genre. I can't and I won't, because they're not bad, they're just different.
So let's get back on topic, forget about definitions and about this game or that game, and let's look at why an open world is good or bad for an MMO, however you want to define an MMO.
Player housing, non-instanced, leading to player run towns or cities, which in turn help to build the game community. That is a definite plus in my book.
The other example I gave was World Bosses, rather than the instanced 25 man raid variety. Bosses so big and mean that you might be glad of an open world and the massively multiplayer nature of the game which allows you to take 200 players along to bitch slap said boss. Again this is something that builds communtiy and teamwork in the playerbase. Another plus in my book.
since you agree to table the def discussion, let's go to your example.
Player housing is totally irrelevant to the game modes i discussed earlier (small group dungeons/raid, fair e-sport pvp). How you can argue (and you are arguing) that adding irrelevant, fluff features can "help" a game .. and I don't disagree ... but i would say that a true, no instanced 3D housing system is expensive ... and if the core game is about dungeon runs, why bother wasting money on it? It probably will be no different than dressing up the game with a better lobby (like the improvement done on warframe) and cost much less.
World boss is certainly a game mode that I did not talk about. The problem with world boss is that with 200 players .. it is just a zerg because no coordination is possible, and most players are there just for the loot. In fact, world boss is so not-fun (as a combat game) that WoW decreases the use of it.
Marvel Heroes also have world boss .. and the fight is a mess .. most of the time, you can't even see what it is. As a combat centric game, it is very "bad" (my opinion).
Lastly, these games are not about community anymore. It is about combat, progression and loot. And why you will chalk that up as my opinion, just go into WoW (or any of these games) and tell me how many want to make friends, and form a community.
That's assuming that the core game is about group instanced dungeons, which it may not be. I said in my first reply that I have played small instanced group games, they have a place in the market and they can be fun, but that's not the same thing as saying that open worlds are *bad* for MMO's, which as we can all see is the title of the thread.
If that's the focus then you don't need an open world, but if you have a game design that suits one it can be beneficial to the game. It offers a different focus to the game and while that may not be to your particular tastes you just use that as an argument, and you are arguing, that open worlds are bad for MMO's. It's just not a requirement for the type of game you prefer. On the other hand it's a pre-requisite for the kind of MMO I prefer.
I agree that MMO's are no longer about community, but I see that as a sad after effect of a changing market. I think that the lack of community building in todays MMO's is far more damaging to the genre than the presence or lack thereof of an open world. That's my personal opinion of course.
Tha last point I want to mention is the world bosses.Yes they can be chaotic, but not all the time. I remember my first run up to Plane of Sky in EQ and there probably was close to 200 of us. Yes it was a bit mad and a bit chaotic but it was organised, it was loosley controlled and it was an absolute blast.
I remember when WoW dropped from 40 man to 25 man raids. I never understood the 40 man limitation and to drop that to 25 seemed insanity to me, if you're gonna drop it why not go for 20 then you could still run 2 x 20 man raids, but no 25 it was, meaning that 15 of your previous 40 were now basically screwed. 25 man raids I thought? That's not a raid it's a frikkin school outing.
This again comes down to personal preferrence, and I don't see the point in a perfectly controlled, perfectly boring scenario. Battle is chaotic and confusing. One thing that was drummed into us when I was in the army was this: No plan survives first contact with the enemy. I'd much rather have a fluid, constantly changing fight than the current crop of scripted events that we see, where everyone involved just loads up a boss mod and follows the on-screen prompts.
At the end of the day we just prefer different types of gameplay, and while I can acknowledge the ones you like as fun and having their place I cannot agree that just because mine have an open world they are somehow wrong or bad for the genre. I can't and I won't, because they're not bad, they're just different.
Bloody well said. Hot damn!
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I can see his point where as if a (And I speak exclusively for this) MMO games have to open of a world they can be confusing and some players can loose there way, now there is something to say about the open world that EVE Online has to offer. That is a completely unique online world that offers extreme amounts of help so that you don't get lost in it.
I feel what makes a great game is a perfect balance between a sense of the need to explore, however not getting board or lost with it. Also we as humans need a sense of accomplishment when we do find or discover something, in some MMO perhaps like the new elder Scrolls title. We have lost of sense of victory when we feel as though an area has already been touched a lot.
Of course this could be said regarding all types of MMO, cynically thinking that "Of course everyone has been here before, its a freaking MMO!" However when we play a game we tend not to think these thoughts, We sometimes only think of our self in the current situation or in the team in which we belong.
So when we first get to that boss, or approach that treasure it feels like the first time, not making it feel obvious that your only 1 in a million that have done that same thing. That for a second you feel special within this huge vast world that you are participating.
You talk about how dungeons, pvp and questing work with open worlds is how you do it. He's listing instanced stuff and then pointing to them and saying, "look at how we don't need open world." It makes no sense to do this. It makes no point to do this. It's futile to do this. Considering that you somehow found praise in my sentence about world pvp, it's also apt to say that it's dishonest to do this.
Well the holistic way of measuring this stuff is:
Sum up the positives and negatives with doing things with instancing.
Sum up the positives and negatives with doing things without instancing.
Find the difference between the two.
Compare against the cost of doing things either way.
Instanced content consistently comes out ahead when purely looking at it in terms of content quality. As for cost? Well in practice world content tends to feel far more mass-produced, which means it's cheap (and it also feels cheap.) But if you tried to replicate the same content quality in both, the non-instanced content would cost more because there are a lot more edge cases with how things reset and interact with multiple players.
So I'm not sure I'd go right out and say open world is bad for MMOs, but certainly with the same budget I would be able to produce a much more enjoyable instanced game than an open world game.
As for talking about the details? Well hopefully we've all done world dungeons and instanced dungeons to know how much other players ruin the experience in the former, but not as much in the latter. An instanced dungeon has the capability of feeling like a high-quality experience tailored just for you, while a world dungeon is just a big map with a bunch of mob spawns.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Nari, not everyone wants your kind of game. I know you have issues with this and keep flooding the forums with threads. But that's not going to change.
and i didn't say everyone wants this kind of game.
But i am saying .. if people want to play small group instanced pve dungeon runs, why bother with an open world?
Do you disagree?
.....if somebody doesn't want an open world, why would they want an open world? Is that basically what you're saying?
Nari, not everyone wants your kind of game. I know you have issues with this and keep flooding the forums with threads. But that's not going to change.
and i didn't say everyone wants this kind of game.
But i am saying .. if people want to play small group instanced pve dungeon runs, why bother with an open world?
Do you disagree?
And you missed the entire point of his post.. Which is that not everyone wants small group instanced PvE dungeon runs. So your point doesn't even apply to his post.
As for talking about the details? Well hopefully we've all done world dungeons and instanced dungeons to know how much other players ruin the experience in the former, but not as much in the latter. An instanced dungeon has the capability of feeling like a high-quality experience tailored just for you, while a world dungeon is just a big map with a bunch of mob spawns.
Herein lies the difference. I don't ask for a dungeon tailored just for me. If I wanted that, I'd play Skyrim. The mobs even level with me there.
I want a dungeon that gets progressively more dangerous the deeper you go, with accompanying rewards. I want it to be awe-inspiring at the depth and complexity of the thing, not because the text bubble over the boss's head says "MadFrenchie, I'm going to smash you to bits!!" That's not awe-inspiring to me. Being able to get lost in a dungeon and spend a number of hours there exploring it with a group.. That's awe-inspiring. Not the one-shot, "ooh those rocks crumbled as I went by, how awesomely scripted!" instanced versions implemented in so many MMOs.
The argument for me stems from the fact that there are way too many singleplayer RPGs with great scripting and events revolving around the player that, no matter how much money is thrown into scripted events in an MMO, it will never compare. Why the hell would you take a minivan to Talladega? The vehicles there serve a different purpose, and you'll never pass the leader (or even the middle of the field).
I hate it that I am forced to agree with Narius on this topic, but phrased the way the OP is, I have to agree that some half-assed open world tacked on to a Dungeon Noder is a waste of time. Look at SWTOR for instance: anything outside of an instance isn't important to the game, It's just a giant lobby for green doors. Same thing with GW2, the world is just a pastime between dungeons or PvPvP.
If the REAL content is in an instance, then your world is just fluff.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
And you missed the entire point of his post.. Which is that not everyone wants small group instanced PvE dungeon runs. So your point doesn't even apply to his post.
and yet most MMOs have small group instanced pve as the main gameplay mode (i include raids). Not to mention that is how pnp RPGs were built on.
I hate it that I am forced to agree with Narius on this topic, but phrased the way the OP is, I have to agree that some half-assed open world tacked on to a Dungeon Noder is a waste of time. Look at SWTOR for instance: anything outside of an instance isn't important to the game, It's just a giant lobby for green doors. Same thing with GW2, the world is just a pastime between dungeons or PvPvP.
If the REAL content is in an instance, then your world is just fluff.
Finally someone see the point ...
For these MMOs that focuses on instanced gameplay ... and not just pve dungeon runs, but also e-sport pvp, the open world is just fluff and a waste of resources.
That's assuming that the core game is about group instanced dungeons, which it may not be. I said in my first reply that I have played small instanced group games, they have a place in the market and they can be fun, but that's not the same thing as saying that open worlds are *bad* for MMO's, which as we can all see is the title of the thread.
It is the same as saying the open worlds are bad for MMOs that focuses on instanced dungeons and e-sport pvp (which are many). I did point out that the open is useful for open war MMO (like PS2). But seriously, how many MMOs focuses on dungeon runs & e-sports, and how many focus on wars?
I agree that MMO's are no longer about community, but I see that as a sad after effect of a changing market. I think that the lack of community building in todays MMO's is far more damaging to the genre than the presence or lack thereof of an open world. That's my personal opinion of course.
Sad is just a matter to perspective. I think it is great that I no longer need to depend on others for fun, and finally MMO devs realize that the game is more important than the "community".
I want a dungeon that gets progressively more dangerous the deeper you go, with accompanying rewards. I want it to be awe-inspiring at the depth and complexity of the thing, not because the text bubble over the boss's head says "MadFrenchie, I'm going to smash you to bits!!" That's not awe-inspiring to me. Being able to get lost in a dungeon and spend a number of hours there exploring it with a group.. That's awe-inspiring. Not the one-shot, "ooh those rocks crumbled as I went by, how awesomely scripted!" instanced versions implemented in so many MMOs.
The argument for me stems from the fact that there are way too many singleplayer RPGs with great scripting and events revolving around the player that, no matter how much money is thrown into scripted events in an MMO, it will never compare. Why the hell would you take a minivan to Talladega? The vehicles there serve a different purpose, and you'll never pass the leader (or even the middle of the field).
Well if you can point me to a singleplayer game with the dungeon and boss quality of WOW, I'd be interested. It feels like that "minivan" is leader of the pack.
It's true that if someone were to create a singleplayer RPG where that was a focus, it would be easier to produce higher quality scripted content. But that simply isn't happening.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I want a dungeon that gets progressively more dangerous the deeper you go, with accompanying rewards. I want it to be awe-inspiring at the depth and complexity of the thing, not because the text bubble over the boss's head says "MadFrenchie, I'm going to smash you to bits!!" That's not awe-inspiring to me. Being able to get lost in a dungeon and spend a number of hours there exploring it with a group.. That's awe-inspiring. Not the one-shot, "ooh those rocks crumbled as I went by, how awesomely scripted!" instanced versions implemented in so many MMOs.
The argument for me stems from the fact that there are way too many singleplayer RPGs with great scripting and events revolving around the player that, no matter how much money is thrown into scripted events in an MMO, it will never compare. Why the hell would you take a minivan to Talladega? The vehicles there serve a different purpose, and you'll never pass the leader (or even the middle of the field).
Well if you can point me to a singleplayer game with the dungeon and boss quality of WOW, I'd be interested. It feels like that "minivan" is leader of the pack.
It's true that if someone were to create a singleplayer RPG where that was a focus, it would be easier to produce higher quality scripted content. But that simply isn't happening.
marvel heroes is another example. There is simply no single player RPG that allows you to play so many marvel characters. The last one is the now ancient marvel ultimate alliance, which is not as complex a RPG as MH, nor has as much content.
Slow night on TV? Nothing good to read? Already done with your 15 minutes of Marvel Heroes?
Getting ready to move out into Null sec (again) here in EVE where it's about as wild an open world as there is in any MMORPG ever made.
Long travel times will take me roughly 18 minutes per character just to fly out to new home, using an extremely fast ship, and I'll have to deal with marauding fleets, raging npc rats, meglomaniacal corp mates, asshats, griefers, and continue my quest towards total domination of all of free space.
Er...what was your post about again? NM, probably not important.
I see what you're doing here lol. You can try to make that sound as cool as you want. Every time I come back to Eve, before quitting again, it ends up with me playing order and chaos on my tablet while waiting to get where I'm going lol. Last time I came back for a free trial, I played for a week and saw a total of six other players. Maybe it was a light week lol
Build a game for average gamers and you will be stuck with an average game. That is what you seem to want. You want MMORPG to turn into aRPG which is obviously what you enjoy most since you always talk about Marvel Heroes and D3. I have to tell you though, those games are not very good and I say that as someone playing through Marvel Heroes atm. They were thrown together with no real thought put into them which is why they keep throwing bandaid after bandaid at them to try to fix them. They are games you play because you just want to turn your mind off and not play a real game. The kind of thing you used to do with console games before they matured.
These games you want are the summer action blockbuster of the video game world. Built for the masses, dumbed down, lacking in any sort of depth. They are a fun ride that you forget about right after it is over. If these were the only movies made the entire movie industry would collapse after a time because eventually viewers want something with more depth to it.
Average means a lot of things to me. Mediocre, uninspired, derivative, boring, forgettable. This is the type of game you keep asking for. It is a good thing that there are people out there that want a whole lot more out of their games.
MMORPG need to stop pandering to the masses and start going more niche and finding their personal fanbase. The entire WoW clone era has been caused by catering to the average player and we've had nothing but garbage games because of it.
If I'm going to play a MMORPG I am playing it because I want to be part of a community. The game you describe is really better off just being a single player RPG with the ability to play with a few friends. Those games exist but they shouldn't be the standard model. The entire point of MMORPG is to experience an alternate world, that is why they were made in the first place. Why get rid of the world and leave just another game. You can get that experience from other types of games.
I want a dungeon that gets progressively more dangerous the deeper you go, with accompanying rewards. I want it to be awe-inspiring at the depth and complexity of the thing, not because the text bubble over the boss's head says "MadFrenchie, I'm going to smash you to bits!!" That's not awe-inspiring to me. Being able to get lost in a dungeon and spend a number of hours there exploring it with a group.. That's awe-inspiring. Not the one-shot, "ooh those rocks crumbled as I went by, how awesomely scripted!" instanced versions implemented in so many MMOs.
The argument for me stems from the fact that there are way too many singleplayer RPGs with great scripting and events revolving around the player that, no matter how much money is thrown into scripted events in an MMO, it will never compare. Why the hell would you take a minivan to Talladega? The vehicles there serve a different purpose, and you'll never pass the leader (or even the middle of the field).
Well if you can point me to a singleplayer game with the dungeon and boss quality of WOW, I'd be interested. It feels like that "minivan" is leader of the pack.
It's true that if someone were to create a singleplayer RPG where that was a focus, it would be easier to produce higher quality scripted content. But that simply isn't happening.
marvel heroes is another example. There is simply no single player RPG that allows you to play so many marvel characters. The last one is the now ancient marvel ultimate alliance, which is not as complex a RPG as MH, nor has as much content.
The PVE nari, how many times are we expected to do the same PvE in Marvel Heroes? Yes you can play just about every Marvel character I know of and some I have never heard of. But the same PvE, again and again and again and again. You don't need the impatience of the Hulk to find that tires very quickly.
The PVE nari, how many times are we expected to do the same PvE in Marvel Heroes? Yes you can play just about every Marvel character I know of and some I have never heard of. But the same PvE, again and again and again and again. You don't need the impatience of the Hulk to find that tires very quickly.
as many times as people run greater rifts in D3, run mephisto or whatever boss in D2, and dungeons in WoW?
If combat is fun, and a different hero plays differently, what is the problem? If you think playing Iron Man is the same as Wolverine in the same zone, then hack-n-slash gameplay is clearly not for you. I would recommend point-n-click adventures like Sherlock Holmes or the new Life is Strange. You only go through the stories ONCE.
When it gets old, i will move on (and it has not happened yet).
If I'm going to play a MMORPG I am playing it because I want to be part of a community. The game you describe is really better off just being a single player RPG with the ability to play with a few friends. Those games exist but they shouldn't be the standard model. The entire point of MMORPG is to experience an alternate world, that is why they were made in the first place. Why get rid of the world and leave just another game. You can get that experience from other types of games.
nah .. don't have time or the interests of being a part of a community that play games. And yes, they are better off being single player RPGs .. isn't that what this topic is about .. the open world is *bad* for these kind of MMOs.
Whether they are standard or not, is up to the market.
There is no "point" to MMORPG except that they are entertainment products. If the target audience don't care about "experience an alternate world", scrap that idea. Why it is made in the first place is irrelevant (at least to me)?
Build a game for average gamers and you will be stuck with an average game. That is what you seem to want. You want MMORPG to turn into aRPG which is obviously what you enjoy most since you always talk about Marvel Heroes and D3. I have to tell you though, those games are not very good and I say that as someone playing through Marvel Heroes atm. They were thrown together with no real thought put into them which is why they keep throwing bandaid after bandaid at them to try to fix them. They are games you play because you just want to turn your mind off and not play a real game. The kind of thing you used to do with console games before they matured.
These games you want are the summer action blockbuster of the video game world. Built for the masses, dumbed down, lacking in any sort of depth. They are a fun ride that you forget about right after it is over. If these were the only movies made the entire movie industry would collapse after a time because eventually viewers want something with more depth to it.
Average means a lot of things to me. Mediocre, uninspired, derivative, boring, forgettable. This is the type of game you keep asking for. It is a good thing that there are people out there that want a whole lot more out of their games.
MMORPG need to stop pandering to the masses and start going more niche and finding their personal fanbase. The entire WoW clone era has been caused by catering to the average player and we've had nothing but garbage games because of it.
If I'm going to play a MMORPG I am playing it because I want to be part of a community. The game you describe is really better off just being a single player RPG with the ability to play with a few friends. Those games exist but they shouldn't be the standard model. The entire point of MMORPG is to experience an alternate world, that is why they were made in the first place. Why get rid of the world and leave just another game. You can get that experience from other types of games.
I think open worlds are "good" for mmos. I think it comes down to how you want to spend your time really... playing by yourself or with other people.
Some have limited time so do not want to play with others or just spend way way to much time spreading their opinion in forums to have time or interest in playing with friends or amongst a group.
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.
Build a game for average gamers and you will be stuck with an average game. That is what you seem to want. You want MMORPG to turn into aRPG which is obviously what you enjoy most since you always talk about Marvel Heroes and D3. I have to tell you though, those games are not very good and I say that as someone playing through Marvel Heroes atm. They were thrown together with no real thought put into them which is why they keep throwing bandaid after bandaid at them to try to fix them. They are games you play because you just want to turn your mind off and not play a real game. The kind of thing you used to do with console games before they matured.
These games you want are the summer action blockbuster of the video game world. Built for the masses, dumbed down, lacking in any sort of depth. They are a fun ride that you forget about right after it is over. If these were the only movies made the entire movie industry would collapse after a time because eventually viewers want something with more depth to it.
Average means a lot of things to me. Mediocre, uninspired, derivative, boring, forgettable. This is the type of game you keep asking for. It is a good thing that there are people out there that want a whole lot more out of their games.
MMORPG need to stop pandering to the masses and start going more niche and finding their personal fanbase. The entire WoW clone era has been caused by catering to the average player and we've had nothing but garbage games because of it.
If I'm going to play a MMORPG I am playing it because I want to be part of a community. The game you describe is really better off just being a single player RPG with the ability to play with a few friends. Those games exist but they shouldn't be the standard model. The entire point of MMORPG is to experience an alternate world, that is why they were made in the first place. Why get rid of the world and leave just another game. You can get that experience from other types of games.
Wow, full of yourself much?
Seems like common sense, average = average, niche = specialised = choice.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
I think open worlds are "good" for mmos. I think it comes down to how you want to spend your time really... playing by yourself or with other people.
Some have limited time so do not want to play with others or just spend way way to much time spreading their opinion in forums to have time or interest in playing with friends or amongst a group.
Imagine not wanting to spend time playing video games with friends or other human beings yet not being to stop pumping out posts of opinion on a video gaming forum full of other people.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Build a game for average gamers and you will be stuck with an average game. That is what you seem to want. You want MMORPG to turn into aRPG which is obviously what you enjoy most since you always talk about Marvel Heroes and D3. I have to tell you though, those games are not very good and I say that as someone playing through Marvel Heroes atm. They were thrown together with no real thought put into them which is why they keep throwing bandaid after bandaid at them to try to fix them. They are games you play because you just want to turn your mind off and not play a real game. The kind of thing you used to do with console games before they matured.
These games you want are the summer action blockbuster of the video game world. Built for the masses, dumbed down, lacking in any sort of depth. They are a fun ride that you forget about right after it is over. If these were the only movies made the entire movie industry would collapse after a time because eventually viewers want something with more depth to it.
Average means a lot of things to me. Mediocre, uninspired, derivative, boring, forgettable. This is the type of game you keep asking for. It is a good thing that there are people out there that want a whole lot more out of their games.
MMORPG need to stop pandering to the masses and start going more niche and finding their personal fanbase. The entire WoW clone era has been caused by catering to the average player and we've had nothing but garbage games because of it.
If I'm going to play a MMORPG I am playing it because I want to be part of a community. The game you describe is really better off just being a single player RPG with the ability to play with a few friends. Those games exist but they shouldn't be the standard model. The entire point of MMORPG is to experience an alternate world, that is why they were made in the first place. Why get rid of the world and leave just another game. You can get that experience from other types of games.
Wow, full of yourself much?
Seems like common sense, average = average, niche = specialised = choice.
I think open worlds are "good" for mmos. I think it comes down to how you want to spend your time really... playing by yourself or with other people.
Some have limited time so do not want to play with others or just spend way way to much time spreading their opinion in forums to have time or interest in playing with friends or amongst a group.
Imagine not wanting to spend time playing video games with friends or other human beings yet not being to stop pumping out posts of opinion on a video gaming forum full of other people.
Indeed, sadly I see this often here at mmorpg
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.
Comments
That's assuming that the core game is about group instanced dungeons, which it may not be. I said in my first reply that I have played small instanced group games, they have a place in the market and they can be fun, but that's not the same thing as saying that open worlds are *bad* for MMO's, which as we can all see is the title of the thread.
If that's the focus then you don't need an open world, but if you have a game design that suits one it can be beneficial to the game. It offers a different focus to the game and while that may not be to your particular tastes you just use that as an argument, and you are arguing, that open worlds are bad for MMO's. It's just not a requirement for the type of game you prefer. On the other hand it's a pre-requisite for the kind of MMO I prefer.
I agree that MMO's are no longer about community, but I see that as a sad after effect of a changing market. I think that the lack of community building in todays MMO's is far more damaging to the genre than the presence or lack thereof of an open world. That's my personal opinion of course.
Tha last point I want to mention is the world bosses.Yes they can be chaotic, but not all the time. I remember my first run up to Plane of Sky in EQ and there probably was close to 200 of us. Yes it was a bit mad and a bit chaotic but it was organised, it was loosley controlled and it was an absolute blast.
I remember when WoW dropped from 40 man to 25 man raids. I never understood the 40 man limitation and to drop that to 25 seemed insanity to me, if you're gonna drop it why not go for 20 then you could still run 2 x 20 man raids, but no 25 it was, meaning that 15 of your previous 40 were now basically screwed. 25 man raids I thought? That's not a raid it's a frikkin school outing.
This again comes down to personal preferrence, and I don't see the point in a perfectly controlled, perfectly boring scenario. Battle is chaotic and confusing. One thing that was drummed into us when I was in the army was this: No plan survives first contact with the enemy. I'd much rather have a fluid, constantly changing fight than the current crop of scripted events that we see, where everyone involved just loads up a boss mod and follows the on-screen prompts.
At the end of the day we just prefer different types of gameplay, and while I can acknowledge the ones you like as fun and having their place I cannot agree that just because mine have an open world they are somehow wrong or bad for the genre. I can't and I won't, because they're not bad, they're just different.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I can see his point where as if a (And I speak exclusively for this) MMO games have to open of a world they can be confusing and some players can loose there way, now there is something to say about the open world that EVE Online has to offer. That is a completely unique online world that offers extreme amounts of help so that you don't get lost in it.
I feel what makes a great game is a perfect balance between a sense of the need to explore, however not getting board or lost with it. Also we as humans need a sense of accomplishment when we do find or discover something, in some MMO perhaps like the new elder Scrolls title. We have lost of sense of victory when we feel as though an area has already been touched a lot.
Of course this could be said regarding all types of MMO, cynically thinking that "Of course everyone has been here before, its a freaking MMO!" However when we play a game we tend not to think these thoughts, We sometimes only think of our self in the current situation or in the team in which we belong.
So when we first get to that boss, or approach that treasure it feels like the first time, not making it feel obvious that your only 1 in a million that have done that same thing. That for a second you feel special within this huge vast world that you are participating.
Any Ideas to piggy back on this?
Avatar Gaming
Gaming PC Power
Well the holistic way of measuring this stuff is:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
.....if somebody doesn't want an open world, why would they want an open world? Is that basically what you're saying?
And you missed the entire point of his post.. Which is that not everyone wants small group instanced PvE dungeon runs. So your point doesn't even apply to his post.
Herein lies the difference. I don't ask for a dungeon tailored just for me. If I wanted that, I'd play Skyrim. The mobs even level with me there.
I want a dungeon that gets progressively more dangerous the deeper you go, with accompanying rewards. I want it to be awe-inspiring at the depth and complexity of the thing, not because the text bubble over the boss's head says "MadFrenchie, I'm going to smash you to bits!!" That's not awe-inspiring to me. Being able to get lost in a dungeon and spend a number of hours there exploring it with a group.. That's awe-inspiring. Not the one-shot, "ooh those rocks crumbled as I went by, how awesomely scripted!" instanced versions implemented in so many MMOs.
The argument for me stems from the fact that there are way too many singleplayer RPGs with great scripting and events revolving around the player that, no matter how much money is thrown into scripted events in an MMO, it will never compare. Why the hell would you take a minivan to Talladega? The vehicles there serve a different purpose, and you'll never pass the leader (or even the middle of the field).
I hate it that I am forced to agree with Narius on this topic, but phrased the way the OP is, I have to agree that some half-assed open world tacked on to a Dungeon Noder is a waste of time. Look at SWTOR for instance: anything outside of an instance isn't important to the game, It's just a giant lobby for green doors. Same thing with GW2, the world is just a pastime between dungeons or PvPvP.
If the REAL content is in an instance, then your world is just fluff.
and yet most MMOs have small group instanced pve as the main gameplay mode (i include raids). Not to mention that is how pnp RPGs were built on.
Finally someone see the point ...
For these MMOs that focuses on instanced gameplay ... and not just pve dungeon runs, but also e-sport pvp, the open world is just fluff and a waste of resources.
Well if you can point me to a singleplayer game with the dungeon and boss quality of WOW, I'd be interested. It feels like that "minivan" is leader of the pack.
It's true that if someone were to create a singleplayer RPG where that was a focus, it would be easier to produce higher quality scripted content. But that simply isn't happening.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
marvel heroes is another example. There is simply no single player RPG that allows you to play so many marvel characters. The last one is the now ancient marvel ultimate alliance, which is not as complex a RPG as MH, nor has as much content.
I see what you're doing here lol. You can try to make that sound as cool as you want. Every time I come back to Eve, before quitting again, it ends up with me playing order and chaos on my tablet while waiting to get where I'm going lol. Last time I came back for a free trial, I played for a week and saw a total of six other players. Maybe it was a light week lol
Build a game for average gamers and you will be stuck with an average game. That is what you seem to want. You want MMORPG to turn into aRPG which is obviously what you enjoy most since you always talk about Marvel Heroes and D3. I have to tell you though, those games are not very good and I say that as someone playing through Marvel Heroes atm. They were thrown together with no real thought put into them which is why they keep throwing bandaid after bandaid at them to try to fix them. They are games you play because you just want to turn your mind off and not play a real game. The kind of thing you used to do with console games before they matured.
These games you want are the summer action blockbuster of the video game world. Built for the masses, dumbed down, lacking in any sort of depth. They are a fun ride that you forget about right after it is over. If these were the only movies made the entire movie industry would collapse after a time because eventually viewers want something with more depth to it.
Average means a lot of things to me. Mediocre, uninspired, derivative, boring, forgettable. This is the type of game you keep asking for. It is a good thing that there are people out there that want a whole lot more out of their games.
MMORPG need to stop pandering to the masses and start going more niche and finding their personal fanbase. The entire WoW clone era has been caused by catering to the average player and we've had nothing but garbage games because of it.
If I'm going to play a MMORPG I am playing it because I want to be part of a community. The game you describe is really better off just being a single player RPG with the ability to play with a few friends. Those games exist but they shouldn't be the standard model. The entire point of MMORPG is to experience an alternate world, that is why they were made in the first place. Why get rid of the world and leave just another game. You can get that experience from other types of games.
The PVE nari, how many times are we expected to do the same PvE in Marvel Heroes? Yes you can play just about every Marvel character I know of and some I have never heard of. But the same PvE, again and again and again and again. You don't need the impatience of the Hulk to find that tires very quickly.
as many times as people run greater rifts in D3, run mephisto or whatever boss in D2, and dungeons in WoW?
If combat is fun, and a different hero plays differently, what is the problem? If you think playing Iron Man is the same as Wolverine in the same zone, then hack-n-slash gameplay is clearly not for you. I would recommend point-n-click adventures like Sherlock Holmes or the new Life is Strange. You only go through the stories ONCE.
When it gets old, i will move on (and it has not happened yet).
nah .. don't have time or the interests of being a part of a community that play games. And yes, they are better off being single player RPGs .. isn't that what this topic is about .. the open world is *bad* for these kind of MMOs.
Whether they are standard or not, is up to the market.
There is no "point" to MMORPG except that they are entertainment products. If the target audience don't care about "experience an alternate world", scrap that idea. Why it is made in the first place is irrelevant (at least to me)?
Wow, full of yourself much?
I think open worlds are "good" for mmos. I think it comes down to how you want to spend your time really... playing by yourself or with other people.
Some have limited time so do not want to play with others or just spend way way to much time spreading their opinion in forums to have time or interest in playing with friends or amongst a group.
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.
Seems like common sense, average = average, niche = specialised = choice.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Imagine not wanting to spend time playing video games with friends or other human beings yet not being to stop pumping out posts of opinion on a video gaming forum full of other people.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Common Sense? lol right.....
Indeed, sadly I see this often here at mmorpg
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.