Originally posted by Mithrundir I like my mmo's to be as realistic as possible, instances aren't realistic, so I would much rather prefer an open world (sandbox) mmo over a theme park. Same thing with my pvp, doing an instanced 12v12 or whatever in the same instances over and over isn't realistic, so I play open world rvr pvp (much more realistic).
and i see no reason why entertainment products need to be realistic.
In fact, "as realistic as possible" is a recipe for non-fun. Do you want to have to go to a virtual toilet every 2 hours, and you have to watch your toon to sleep for 8 hours too? That is realistic, isn't it?
Because someone people consider MMORPGs a hobby, not a form of entertainment. That is what you are not getting.
*Edit* I already asked you this question in another thread, which you sort of answered.
and i see no reason why entertainment products need to be realistic.
In fact, "as realistic as possible" is a recipe for non-fun. Do you want to have to go to a virtual toilet every 2 hours, and you have to watch your toon to sleep for 8 hours too? That is realistic, isn't it?
Because someone people consider MMORPGs a hobby, not a form of entertainment. That is what you are not getting.
*Edit* I already asked you this question in another thread, which you sort of answered.
You mean if you consider MMORPG a hobby ... you want to go to a virtual toilet every 2 hours, and watch your toon sleep 8 hours a day? (as state in the post "as realistic as possible")
Oh .. i am certainly not getting that. But don't let me stop you from asking devs to cater to *that* demand.
and i see no reason why entertainment products need to be realistic.
In fact, "as realistic as possible" is a recipe for non-fun. Do you want to have to go to a virtual toilet every 2 hours, and you have to watch your toon to sleep for 8 hours too? That is realistic, isn't it?
Because someone people consider MMORPGs a hobby, not a form of entertainment. That is what you are not getting.
*Edit* I already asked you this question in another thread, which you sort of answered.
You mean if you consider MMORPG a hobby ... you want to go to a virtual toilet every 2 hours, and watch your toon sleep 8 hours a day? (as state in the post "as realistic as possible")
Oh .. i am certainly not getting that. But don't let me stop you from asking devs to cater to *that* demand.
You are stopping the rest of us from having that.
You and the 4 others on this site, like you, who spam the front page every day about F2P, themeparks, lobby-based PVE, easymode, it gives the perception that this an accepted trend. Which the powers that be adapt to. I don't even want to know how many e-mails, letters, and phone calls you send to companies about your complaints and ideas.
You can't insist that every game should be dumbed-down for freeloaders. Sooner or later, all these people that DO invest and contribute money to this industry will move on.
You are only playing games because other people like me allow you to do so by paying into the system. We walk, the money keeping the game on walks too. You're gaming "entertainment" days would be over.
And I don't know if you've noticed, but those days are coming. Playerbases are shrinking for various reasons. Then there are people like me who simply refuse to fund freeloaders.
you know, instead of coming here everyday to post your daily F2P propaganda and berate older games, you should thank everyone of us that pays your way to be in a game in the first place.
Honestly to some extent I agree. In most cases, open worlds are just way to barren and empty. At the same time, open world games with freedom to explore and lots to do often lack direction making the world far to complicated or complex. It is extremely hard in those types of games to really balance it as well, making players really fumble to get around to the point they might rely upon a guide to get anywhere.
A lot of open world games, despite being cried for, don't actually end up being successful. I feel people crying for open world dont really know what they truly want. If anything I think a nice balance needs to be reached. An open world game that gives direction and choice rather then leaving things open ended will far more likely become appealing, giving players many options but being able to direct them in so many different ways around, leaving some to be discovered through exploration alone.
They are teenagers and there is an endless supply of them growing up. Small and closed worlds are "bad" for MMOs but you are always going to get likes of nari who somehow thinks this is all great.
You and the 4 others on this site, like you, who spam the front page every day about F2P, themeparks, lobby-based PVE, easymode, it gives the perception that this an accepted trend. Which the powers that be adapt to. I don't even want to know how many e-mails, letters, and phone calls you send to companies about your complaints and ideas.
You can't insist that every game should be dumbed-down for freeloaders. Sooner or later, all these people that DO invest and contribute money to this industry will move on.
You are only playing games because other people like me allow you to do so by paying into the system. We walk, the money keeping the game on walks too. You're gaming "entertainment" days would be over.
And I don't know if you've noticed, but those days are coming. Playerbases are shrinking for various reasons. Then there are people like me who simply refuse to fund freeloaders.
you know, instead of coming here everyday to post your daily F2P propaganda and berate older games, you should thank everyone of us that pays your way to be in a game in the first place.
This post isn't based on fact.
'Playerbases are shrinking' is false. There are more MMOs in the market with more players playing them than ever before.
You can elect to not 'fund freeloaders'. There are millions more who will.
And ROFL on how Nari and 4 others can influence MILLIONS / Billions of MMO development dollars.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by NorseGodOriginally posted by nariusseldon
and i see no reason why entertainment products need to be realistic.In fact, "as realistic as possible" is a recipe for non-fun. Do you want to have to go to a virtual toilet every 2 hours, and you have to watch your toon to sleep for 8 hours too? That is realistic, isn't it?Because someone people consider MMORPGs a hobby, not a form of entertainment. That is what you are not getting.*Edit* I already asked you this question in another thread, which you sort of answered.You mean if you consider MMORPG a hobby ... you want to go to a virtual toilet every 2 hours, and watch your toon sleep 8 hours a day? (as state in the post "as realistic as possible")
Oh .. i am certainly not getting that. But don't let me stop you from asking devs to cater to *that* demand.
I think people want MMORPG to be a thing. A lobby based game isn't really a MMORPG anymore. At this point WoW is barely a MMORPG. They aren't saying every game has to be like this, there just should be a couple. You seem to want all games to become aRPG. aRPG are fine and all but if they becomes the complete standard in gaming I'll likely just quit gaming personally. I want something with some depth to it at least some of the time.
Agreed. I don't know where these "I-play-a-game-for-two-weeks-then-move-on" MOBA players are coming from, but many old MMO'ers like myself, and I suspect yourself, want a lasting game with a rich, mysterious, populated game world to explore.
MOBA players are actually quite devoted to their specific games. :P
It takes a lot of time for them to work their way up the rankings and then compete in the leagues. Short-attention span =/= MOBA player automatically.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
You and the 4 others on this site, like you, who spam the front page every day about F2P, themeparks, lobby-based PVE, easymode, it gives the perception that this an accepted trend. Which the powers that be adapt to. I don't even want to know how many e-mails, letters, and phone calls you send to companies about your complaints and ideas.
You can't insist that every game should be dumbed-down for freeloaders. Sooner or later, all these people that DO invest and contribute money to this industry will move on.
You are only playing games because other people like me allow you to do so by paying into the system. We walk, the money keeping the game on walks too. You're gaming "entertainment" days would be over.
And I don't know if you've noticed, but those days are coming. Playerbases are shrinking for various reasons. Then there are people like me who simply refuse to fund freeloaders.
you know, instead of coming here everyday to post your daily F2P propaganda and berate older games, you should thank everyone of us that pays your way to be in a game in the first place.
This post isn't based on fact.
'Playerbases are shrinking' is false. There are more MMOs in the market with more players playing them than ever before.
You can elect to not 'fund freeloaders'. There are millions more who will.
And ROFL on how Nari and 4 others can influence MILLIONS / Billions of MMO development dollars.
Agreed. I don't know where these "I-play-a-game-for-two-weeks-then-move-on" MOBA players are coming from, but many old MMO'ers like myself, and I suspect yourself, want a lasting game with a rich, mysterious, populated game world to explore.
MOBA players are actually quite devoted to their specific games. :P
It takes a lot of time for them to work their way up the rankings and then compete in the leagues. Short-attention span =/= MOBA player automatically.
I agree with the first sentiment, but not the last. Yeah, moba players seem to be at least somewhat devoted to their respective game. Or at least, they argue vehemently that x is better than y, but they probably play both.
But at any rate, I don't think that means they have long attention spans. I think MOBAs are just good at wrangling in the masses with short-attention spans. Constant balance tweaks, hundreds of champions, etc keep people engaged.
nariusseldon.. mmorpgs are not for you. They really just aren't.
nari reminds me of a car enthusiast who loves his Volkswagen Beetle but has no interest in owning another type of car. We tell him about the splendour of an open world AAA MMO Ferrari and he cannot see it. We tell him about the sandbox utility of our Ford pick-up truck but again he just can't see the point. His Beetle gets him around town, what more does he need?
Maybe one day, one day he will realise there are better cars on the road, but I am not holding my breath.
nariusseldon.. mmorpgs are not for you. They really just aren't.
We have told him that before but he seems certain they are.
That's because his definition of MMO includes a lot of games which aren't. Although he'll now insist they are because of writers on sites like this and massively using the term MMO to apply to a wider range of games than the term strictly applies to.
When writers here and elsewhere start using "MMO" to describe games like LoL, WoT, Smite (the list is too long to include them all) it's understandable how the true meaning of the term becomes corrupted.
Nari isn't describing an MMO as many of us would agree, but a co-op online dungeon runner. Unfortunately there are more than enough people who have bought into the hype and just don't know any better to agree with him. Thanks to Developer spin trying to justify a cash shop and a piss poor job by editors to keep their writers in check and actually providing us with accurate information and terminology the term MMO is now so corrupted that most people can't even be bothered to make an attempt at keeping it's definition accurate.
Bill Murphy even said it himself recently, how nobody can even agree on what MMO means any more. Well, Bill, that's partly your fault and the fault of other site editors for not doing your jobs.
The problem with this thread is there are two factions at polar opposites. On the one hand you have Nari and his like minded posters insisting that anything with an online presence is an MMO if enough people play it because it's massive....
And on the other you have the older purist MMO players who understand that MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER means multiplayer exponentially increased to hundreds of players in the same game world together.
These two sides will never see eye to eye, will never agree with each other and so the whole thread is pointless as anything other than an opinion piece.
Nari, I hope you find the games you like and enjoy them, have fun. But please leave me to find the games I like which have open worlds, hundreds of players running around together and all the other stuff we disagree on. If you don't like that kind of game and don't play it then fine but allow those of us who do enjoy them the curtesy of following a different path.
That's because his definition of MMO includes a lot of games which aren't. Although he'll now insist they are because of writers on sites like this and massively using the term MMO to apply to a wider range of games than the term strictly applies to.
When writers here and elsewhere start using "MMO" to describe games like LoL, WoT, Smite (the list is too long to include them all) it's understandable how the true meaning of the term becomes corrupted.
Nari isn't describing an MMO as many of us would agree, but a co-op online dungeon runner. Unfortunately there are more than enough people who have bought into the hype and just don't know any better to agree with him. Thanks to Developer spin trying to justify a cash shop and a piss poor job by editors to keep their writers in check and actually providing us with accurate information and terminology the term MMO is now so corrupted that most people can't even be bothered to make an attempt at keeping it's definition accurate.
Nari, I hope you find the games you like and enjoy them, have fun. But please leave me to find the games I like which have open worlds, hundreds of players running around together and all the other stuff we disagree on. If you don't like that kind of game and don't play it then fine but allow those of us who do enjoy them the curtesy of following a different path.
You got it.
MMOs are not "traditional" MMOs anymore. If they have not be changed, i would not even be interested enough to be here.
instanced games are part of MMOs now, like it or not. Even if you can debate the fine points of definitions (and obviously we still do here), these sites are all talking about games like LoL, Smite, World of Tanks, Marvel heroes .... and i am not the only one who brings them up.
If you look pass the definition, the open world adds nothing and can be detracting from these kind of games. I am talking about the wow dungeon runs. For players who do that all day, do they really need an open world to go with them? I think not.
Oh, i find too many fun games. I am not here to find games (just go on steam for 15 min, and there are more games than i have time to play). The funny thing is this .. why are you asking me to "leave you to find games that you like"?
I don't control you. You don't even have to read my posts. You can go find games as you wish. We are not here to find games (at least i am not). I am here to engage in another hobby ... .talking about games (which is a very different activity than playing them).
That's because his definition of MMO includes a lot of games which aren't. Although he'll now insist they are because of writers on sites like this and massively using the term MMO to apply to a wider range of games than the term strictly applies to.
When writers here and elsewhere start using "MMO" to describe games like LoL, WoT, Smite (the list is too long to include them all) it's understandable how the true meaning of the term becomes corrupted.
Nari isn't describing an MMO as many of us would agree, but a co-op online dungeon runner. Unfortunately there are more than enough people who have bought into the hype and just don't know any better to agree with him. Thanks to Developer spin trying to justify a cash shop and a piss poor job by editors to keep their writers in check and actually providing us with accurate information and terminology the term MMO is now so corrupted that most people can't even be bothered to make an attempt at keeping it's definition accurate.
Nari, I hope you find the games you like and enjoy them, have fun. But please leave me to find the games I like which have open worlds, hundreds of players running around together and all the other stuff we disagree on. If you don't like that kind of game and don't play it then fine but allow those of us who do enjoy them the curtesy of following a different path.
You got it.
MMOs are not "traditional" MMOs anymore. If they have not be changed, i would not even be interested enough to be here.
instanced games are part of MMOs now, like it or not. Even if you can debate the fine points of definitions (and obviously we still do here), these sites are all talking about games like LoL, Smite, World of Tanks, Marvel heroes .... and i am not the only one who brings them up.
If you look pass the definition, the open world adds nothing and can be detracting from these kind of games. I am talking about the wow dungeon runs. For players who do that all day, do they really need an open world to go with them? I think not.
Oh, i find too many fun games. I am not here to find games (just go on steam for 15 min, and there are more games than i have time to play). The funny thing is this .. why are you asking me to "leave you to find games that you like"?
I don't control you. You don't even have to read my posts. You can go find games as you wish. We are not here to find games (at least i am not). I am here to engage in another hobby ... .talking about games (which is a very different activity than playing them).
The only reason I replied at all is because you originally said that the open world is bad for MMO's. I don't agree. It's not required for the kind of game you want, I completely agree with you.
I have spent hundreds of hours playing WoT, and I support Wargaming by buying premium time. It's a good game and I enjoy it. But that doesn't mean I think open worlds are bad for MMO's, at least not the kinds that I like to play.
The reason I asked you to allow us the courtesy of following a different path is because you appear, and I stress appear to be trying to force this opinion on people that open worlds are bad for MMO's. That's a fairly general statement that includes both your preferred kind of MMO and mine.
I'm quite happy to concede that open worlds are not needed in certain games, and I've played plenty of them myself. I just have a problem keeping my mouth shut when someone starts a thread entitled "The Open World is *bad* for MMOs" when I really enjoy MMO's that come with an open world and all that this entails.
All I'm doing here is talking about it too, but as I pointed out, we're never going to agree on the subject because you seem uncompromising when it comes to this Open World idea. I don't see why you're making such a big deal about it when it's just a different kind of game that some people, not you obviously, like to play.
Do open world MMO's really offend you that much that you don't want anyone to make or play them? It certainly seems that way from some of your other posts and your replies in this thread. Can you not accept that there's room for both kinds of game and the people that play them?
Do open world MMO's really offend you that much that you don't want anyone to make or play them? It certainly seems that way from some of your other posts and your replies in this thread. Can you not accept that there's room for both kinds of game and the people that play them?
Apparently not.
I'm pretty sure you can say this statement to many people on this website alone on the opposite side of naris so why is it ok for them to speak their mind and he can't? The only reason you're letting the other side go is because you agree with them but they are doing exactly what naris is doing but are just on the opposite coin.
The confusion is that this is a mmorpg forum not a MMO forum. Open world within the context of rpg are very different from MMO and we gave people In here mixing genre in their arguements.
re MMO (not rpg) it's pretty obvious map/action Based games need boundaries to define the are in which ths players are interacting. doesn't need 45 million posts to prove this when you rake rpg out of the picture.
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
Do open world MMO's really offend you that much that you don't want anyone to make or play them? It certainly seems that way from some of your other posts and your replies in this thread. Can you not accept that there's room for both kinds of game and the people that play them?
Apparently not.
I'm pretty sure you can say this statement to many people on this website alone on the opposite side of naris so why is it ok for them to speak their mind and he can't? The only reason you're letting the other side go is because you agree with them but they are doing exactly what naris is doing but are just on the opposite coin.
Actually no, I've never openly supported any thread that said "instanced games are bad" or "open world MMO's are the only way to make MMO's" or anything like that. I've argued over the term MMO and it's definition on many occasions but I would never try and force an opinion that shut out a whole genre of games. I might quibble about whether a game deserves the title MMO but I've never said such a game shouldn't be made. That's something Nari is suggesting in the OP, that open worlds are no longer needed so why bother with them? Well, because some of us like to play those games is why.
As you can see from the red highlighted line from my previous post I'm quite clearly saying that there is room for both open worlds and instanced dungeon runners. Just for the record anyone who thinks the small group instanced games should all be scrubbed and turned into open world MMO's is equally wrong. I don't beleive they should be called MMO's but I don't adhere to some belief that they shouldn't exist at all or shouldn't be made. Clearly they have a large following of fans that enjoy them. Good for them. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.
What does bother me is anyone who makes a blanket statement that open worlds are bad for the genre and posits that they shouldn't be made.
Do open world MMO's really offend you that much that you don't want anyone to make or play them? It certainly seems that way from some of your other posts and your replies in this thread. Can you not accept that there's room for both kinds of game and the people that play them?
Apparently not.
I'm pretty sure you can say this statement to many people on this website alone on the opposite side of naris so why is it ok for them to speak their mind and he can't? The only reason you're letting the other side go is because you agree with them but they are doing exactly what naris is doing but are just on the opposite coin.
Actually no, I've never openly supported any thread that said "instanced games are bad" or "open world MMO's are the only way to make MMO's" or anything like that.
I'm not saying you, I'm saying this site in general. There are many people that are on opposite spectrums of Naris that are doing the same thing and seems like you're only pointing naris out because you agree with the other side.
Originally posted by Bladestrom The confusion is that this is a mmorpg forum not a MMO forum. Open world within the context of rpg are very different from MMO and we gave people In here mixing genre in their arguements.
re MMO (not rpg) it's pretty obvious map/action Based games need boundaries to define the are in which ths players are interacting. doesn't need 45 million posts to prove this when you rake rpg out of the picture.
I'm pretty sure this forum hasnt been a MMORPG forum in a very long time.
Do open world MMO's really offend you that much that you don't want anyone to make or play them? It certainly seems that way from some of your other posts and your replies in this thread. Can you not accept that there's room for both kinds of game and the people that play them?
Apparently not.
I'm pretty sure you can say this statement to many people on this website alone on the opposite side of naris so why is it ok for them to speak their mind and he can't? The only reason you're letting the other side go is because you agree with them but they are doing exactly what naris is doing but are just on the opposite coin.
Actually no, I've never openly supported any thread that said "instanced games are bad" or "open world MMO's are the only way to make MMO's" or anything like that.
I'm not saying you, I'm saying this site in general. There are many people that are on opposite spectrums of Naris that are doing the same thing and seems like you're only pointing naris out because you agree with the other side.
No the reason I replied at all, which I stated in the post you edited, is the title of the thread. I don't agree that open worlds are bad for MMO's. I agree that the kinds of game Nari describes don't require an open world but that's a completely different thing to saying open worlds are *bad*.
This isn't personal with Nari, not for me at least, it's just that he's started this thread and we don't agree on several things, as can be seen with the replies we've made to each other. If it was someone else that posted the thread I'd still be making the same comments.
Do I agree with "the other side"? What other side? I have my own opinions on the subject and that's what I've written. I'm pointing this thread out because I disagree with it, not because I support some other faction inhabiting these boards, or that is was posted by a specific person. I disagree emphatically that "The Open World is *bad* for MMOs" and that's the only reason I'm posting in this thread. I'm offering my counter argument, my opinion on the subject, without malice, and accepting the fact that there's room for different kinds of games without trying to completely exclude one or the other.
I disagree with lots of people on these boards like many others. I also tend to agree with a lot of people, those who have similar ideas and preferrences to me. That's just life.
Do open world MMO's really offend you that much that you don't want anyone to make or play them? It certainly seems that way from some of your other posts and your replies in this thread. Can you not accept that there's room for both kinds of game and the people that play them?
Apparently not.
I'm pretty sure you can say this statement to many people on this website alone on the opposite side of naris so why is it ok for them to speak their mind and he can't? The only reason you're letting the other side go is because you agree with them but they are doing exactly what naris is doing but are just on the opposite coin.
Actually no, I've never openly supported any thread that said "instanced games are bad" or "open world MMO's are the only way to make MMO's" or anything like that.
I'm not saying you, I'm saying this site in general. There are many people that are on opposite spectrums of Naris that are doing the same thing and seems like you're only pointing naris out because you agree with the other side.
No the reason I replied at all, which I stated in the post you edited, is the title of the thread. I don't agree that open worlds are bad for MMO's. I agree that the kinds of game Nari describes don't require an open world but that's a completely different thing to saying open worlds are *bad*.
This isn't personal with Nari, not for me at least, it's just that he's started this thread and we don't agree on several things, as can be seen with the replies we've made to each other. If it was someone else that posted the thread I'd still be making the same comments.
Do I agree with "the other side"? What other side? I have my own opinions on the subject and that's what I've written. I'm pointing this thread out because I disagree with it, not because I support some other faction inhabiting these boards, or that is was posted by a specific person. I disagree emphatically that "The Open World is *bad* for MMOs" and that's the only reason I'm posting in this thread. I'm offering my counter argument, my opinion on the subject, without malice, and accepting the fact that there's room for different kinds of games without trying to completely exclude one or the other.
I disagree with lots of people on these boards like many others. I also tend to agree with a lot of people, those who have similar ideas and preferrences to me. That's just life.
I have spent hundreds of hours playing WoT, and I support Wargaming by buying premium time. It's a good game and I enjoy it. But that doesn't mean I think open worlds are bad for MMO's, at least not the kinds that I like to play.
You think WoT needs an open world?
And who is talking about "the kinds that you like to play". I am talking about the kinds of MMO that is like WoT and so on.
It is pretty clear in my first post .. i am talking about MMO gameplays like small group dungeons, instanced pvp, and so on. And don't tell me those are not popular game modes in today's MMOs.
Originally posted by Bladestrom The confusion is that this is a mmorpg forum not a MMO forum. Open world within the context of rpg are very different from MMO and we gave people In here mixing genre in their arguements.
re MMO (not rpg) it's pretty obvious map/action Based games need boundaries to define the are in which ths players are interacting. doesn't need 45 million posts to prove this when you rake rpg out of the picture.
I'm pretty sure this forum hasnt been a MMORPG forum in a very long time.
since I joined .. pretty much. If it is a forum only for the "real" "true" "proper" MMORPGs, i would not be here.
Comments
Because someone people consider MMORPGs a hobby, not a form of entertainment. That is what you are not getting.
*Edit* I already asked you this question in another thread, which you sort of answered.
You mean if you consider MMORPG a hobby ... you want to go to a virtual toilet every 2 hours, and watch your toon sleep 8 hours a day? (as state in the post "as realistic as possible")
Oh .. i am certainly not getting that. But don't let me stop you from asking devs to cater to *that* demand.
You are stopping the rest of us from having that.
You and the 4 others on this site, like you, who spam the front page every day about F2P, themeparks, lobby-based PVE, easymode, it gives the perception that this an accepted trend. Which the powers that be adapt to. I don't even want to know how many e-mails, letters, and phone calls you send to companies about your complaints and ideas.
You can't insist that every game should be dumbed-down for freeloaders. Sooner or later, all these people that DO invest and contribute money to this industry will move on.
You are only playing games because other people like me allow you to do so by paying into the system. We walk, the money keeping the game on walks too. You're gaming "entertainment" days would be over.
And I don't know if you've noticed, but those days are coming. Playerbases are shrinking for various reasons. Then there are people like me who simply refuse to fund freeloaders.
you know, instead of coming here everyday to post your daily F2P propaganda and berate older games, you should thank everyone of us that pays your way to be in a game in the first place.
Honestly to some extent I agree. In most cases, open worlds are just way to barren and empty. At the same time, open world games with freedom to explore and lots to do often lack direction making the world far to complicated or complex. It is extremely hard in those types of games to really balance it as well, making players really fumble to get around to the point they might rely upon a guide to get anywhere.
A lot of open world games, despite being cried for, don't actually end up being successful. I feel people crying for open world dont really know what they truly want. If anything I think a nice balance needs to be reached. An open world game that gives direction and choice rather then leaving things open ended will far more likely become appealing, giving players many options but being able to direct them in so many different ways around, leaving some to be discovered through exploration alone.
This post isn't based on fact.
'Playerbases are shrinking' is false. There are more MMOs in the market with more players playing them than ever before.
You can elect to not 'fund freeloaders'. There are millions more who will.
And ROFL on how Nari and 4 others can influence MILLIONS / Billions of MMO development dollars.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
Because someone people consider MMORPGs a hobby, not a form of entertainment. That is what you are not getting. *Edit* I already asked you this question in another thread, which you sort of answered.
You mean if you consider MMORPG a hobby ... you want to go to a virtual toilet every 2 hours, and watch your toon sleep 8 hours a day? (as state in the post "as realistic as possible")
Oh .. i am certainly not getting that. But don't let me stop you from asking devs to cater to *that* demand.
I think people want MMORPG to be a thing. A lobby based game isn't really a MMORPG anymore. At this point WoW is barely a MMORPG. They aren't saying every game has to be like this, there just should be a couple. You seem to want all games to become aRPG. aRPG are fine and all but if they becomes the complete standard in gaming I'll likely just quit gaming personally. I want something with some depth to it at least some of the time.
MOBA players are actually quite devoted to their specific games. :P
It takes a lot of time for them to work their way up the rankings and then compete in the leagues. Short-attention span =/= MOBA player automatically.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
Yeah, that post was golden. I LMAO!!!!!
I agree with the first sentiment, but not the last. Yeah, moba players seem to be at least somewhat devoted to their respective game. Or at least, they argue vehemently that x is better than y, but they probably play both.
But at any rate, I don't think that means they have long attention spans. I think MOBAs are just good at wrangling in the masses with short-attention spans. Constant balance tweaks, hundreds of champions, etc keep people engaged.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
nariusseldon.. mmorpgs are not for you. They really just aren't.
nari reminds me of a car enthusiast who loves his Volkswagen Beetle but has no interest in owning another type of car. We tell him about the splendour of an open world AAA MMO Ferrari and he cannot see it. We tell him about the sandbox utility of our Ford pick-up truck but again he just can't see the point. His Beetle gets him around town, what more does he need?
Maybe one day, one day he will realise there are better cars on the road, but I am not holding my breath.
That's because his definition of MMO includes a lot of games which aren't. Although he'll now insist they are because of writers on sites like this and massively using the term MMO to apply to a wider range of games than the term strictly applies to.
When writers here and elsewhere start using "MMO" to describe games like LoL, WoT, Smite (the list is too long to include them all) it's understandable how the true meaning of the term becomes corrupted.
Nari isn't describing an MMO as many of us would agree, but a co-op online dungeon runner. Unfortunately there are more than enough people who have bought into the hype and just don't know any better to agree with him. Thanks to Developer spin trying to justify a cash shop and a piss poor job by editors to keep their writers in check and actually providing us with accurate information and terminology the term MMO is now so corrupted that most people can't even be bothered to make an attempt at keeping it's definition accurate.
Bill Murphy even said it himself recently, how nobody can even agree on what MMO means any more. Well, Bill, that's partly your fault and the fault of other site editors for not doing your jobs.
The problem with this thread is there are two factions at polar opposites. On the one hand you have Nari and his like minded posters insisting that anything with an online presence is an MMO if enough people play it because it's massive....
And on the other you have the older purist MMO players who understand that MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER means multiplayer exponentially increased to hundreds of players in the same game world together.
These two sides will never see eye to eye, will never agree with each other and so the whole thread is pointless as anything other than an opinion piece.
Nari, I hope you find the games you like and enjoy them, have fun. But please leave me to find the games I like which have open worlds, hundreds of players running around together and all the other stuff we disagree on. If you don't like that kind of game and don't play it then fine but allow those of us who do enjoy them the curtesy of following a different path.
Peace.
You got it.
MMOs are not "traditional" MMOs anymore. If they have not be changed, i would not even be interested enough to be here.
instanced games are part of MMOs now, like it or not. Even if you can debate the fine points of definitions (and obviously we still do here), these sites are all talking about games like LoL, Smite, World of Tanks, Marvel heroes .... and i am not the only one who brings them up.
If you look pass the definition, the open world adds nothing and can be detracting from these kind of games. I am talking about the wow dungeon runs. For players who do that all day, do they really need an open world to go with them? I think not.
Oh, i find too many fun games. I am not here to find games (just go on steam for 15 min, and there are more games than i have time to play). The funny thing is this .. why are you asking me to "leave you to find games that you like"?
I don't control you. You don't even have to read my posts. You can go find games as you wish. We are not here to find games (at least i am not). I am here to engage in another hobby ... .talking about games (which is a very different activity than playing them).
The only reason I replied at all is because you originally said that the open world is bad for MMO's. I don't agree. It's not required for the kind of game you want, I completely agree with you.
I have spent hundreds of hours playing WoT, and I support Wargaming by buying premium time. It's a good game and I enjoy it. But that doesn't mean I think open worlds are bad for MMO's, at least not the kinds that I like to play.
The reason I asked you to allow us the courtesy of following a different path is because you appear, and I stress appear to be trying to force this opinion on people that open worlds are bad for MMO's. That's a fairly general statement that includes both your preferred kind of MMO and mine.
I'm quite happy to concede that open worlds are not needed in certain games, and I've played plenty of them myself. I just have a problem keeping my mouth shut when someone starts a thread entitled "The Open World is *bad* for MMOs" when I really enjoy MMO's that come with an open world and all that this entails.
All I'm doing here is talking about it too, but as I pointed out, we're never going to agree on the subject because you seem uncompromising when it comes to this Open World idea. I don't see why you're making such a big deal about it when it's just a different kind of game that some people, not you obviously, like to play.
Do open world MMO's really offend you that much that you don't want anyone to make or play them? It certainly seems that way from some of your other posts and your replies in this thread. Can you not accept that there's room for both kinds of game and the people that play them?
Apparently not.
I'm pretty sure you can say this statement to many people on this website alone on the opposite side of naris so why is it ok for them to speak their mind and he can't? The only reason you're letting the other side go is because you agree with them but they are doing exactly what naris is doing but are just on the opposite coin.
re MMO (not rpg) it's pretty obvious map/action Based games need boundaries to define the are in which ths players are interacting. doesn't need 45 million posts to prove this when you rake rpg out of the picture.
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
Actually no, I've never openly supported any thread that said "instanced games are bad" or "open world MMO's are the only way to make MMO's" or anything like that. I've argued over the term MMO and it's definition on many occasions but I would never try and force an opinion that shut out a whole genre of games. I might quibble about whether a game deserves the title MMO but I've never said such a game shouldn't be made. That's something Nari is suggesting in the OP, that open worlds are no longer needed so why bother with them? Well, because some of us like to play those games is why.
As you can see from the red highlighted line from my previous post I'm quite clearly saying that there is room for both open worlds and instanced dungeon runners. Just for the record anyone who thinks the small group instanced games should all be scrubbed and turned into open world MMO's is equally wrong. I don't beleive they should be called MMO's but I don't adhere to some belief that they shouldn't exist at all or shouldn't be made. Clearly they have a large following of fans that enjoy them. Good for them. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.
What does bother me is anyone who makes a blanket statement that open worlds are bad for the genre and posits that they shouldn't be made.
I'm not saying you, I'm saying this site in general. There are many people that are on opposite spectrums of Naris that are doing the same thing and seems like you're only pointing naris out because you agree with the other side.
I'm pretty sure this forum hasnt been a MMORPG forum in a very long time.
No the reason I replied at all, which I stated in the post you edited, is the title of the thread. I don't agree that open worlds are bad for MMO's. I agree that the kinds of game Nari describes don't require an open world but that's a completely different thing to saying open worlds are *bad*.
This isn't personal with Nari, not for me at least, it's just that he's started this thread and we don't agree on several things, as can be seen with the replies we've made to each other. If it was someone else that posted the thread I'd still be making the same comments.
Do I agree with "the other side"? What other side? I have my own opinions on the subject and that's what I've written. I'm pointing this thread out because I disagree with it, not because I support some other faction inhabiting these boards, or that is was posted by a specific person. I disagree emphatically that "The Open World is *bad* for MMOs" and that's the only reason I'm posting in this thread. I'm offering my counter argument, my opinion on the subject, without malice, and accepting the fact that there's room for different kinds of games without trying to completely exclude one or the other.
I disagree with lots of people on these boards like many others. I also tend to agree with a lot of people, those who have similar ideas and preferrences to me. That's just life.
Understood, my apologies.
You think WoT needs an open world?
And who is talking about "the kinds that you like to play". I am talking about the kinds of MMO that is like WoT and so on.
It is pretty clear in my first post .. i am talking about MMO gameplays like small group dungeons, instanced pvp, and so on. And don't tell me those are not popular game modes in today's MMOs.
since I joined .. pretty much. If it is a forum only for the "real" "true" "proper" MMORPGs, i would not be here.