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.
Then let us pray they someday return to their roots.
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.
MMOs with small group dungeons and instanced PvP are already instanced. Open world is not even relevant to them.
Its like creating a thread called Big cars are bad for the automotive industry, and then talking about how theres no reason for compact cars to be big.
This whole thread is dishonest and was created for no other reason than to rustle people.
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.
Then let us pray they someday return to their roots.
I think we have a higher chance of idiots calling Solitaire Online a MMO that has MMORPG elements. That plus cards are *bad* for Solitaire.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
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.
Then let us pray they someday return to their roots.
I think we have a higher chance of idiots calling Solitaire Online a MMO that has MMORPG elements. That plus cards are *bad* for Solitaire.
Solitaire is so grindy. I mean all those cards you have to go through just to get the ones you need. Then its all, like random and you have to start over multiple times before you can actually win. Definitely not a skill based game like the card genre needs.
The OP is not wrong in the assessment that the features of MMOs are basically instanced as good quality or balanced.
However the caveat of MMO means its going to have to support the feel of a large virtual reality.
If we can agree that solo questing is bad, and simply open world is bad, but instanced features are of higher quality... then we would want to focus on the high quality variety at the core of development... but also since it is an mmo integrating some of those systems to an open world.
You can have the best of both.
To not have an open world, and just an instanced dungeon run game with e-sport pvp, as it were if it were not an MMO to an extrmeme, would mean
1. crafting is useless or at least should be,
2.NPCs become pointless outside of raids, Makes for an empty experience in story world. even single players try to create a large enough world.
3 .overall RP is gone, lobby socializing
4. Character customization is less important
5. virtual aspect of an MMo is also diminished as a result
6. No open world pvp
7. No mounts, and no achievement/completionist for open world
8. Player housing feels hollow with an instanced pvp/raid
9. No player bounties (most likely)
10. Economy and currency will be based on simple earnings or P2w/boost packs
11. No events
Overall the difference I find is that an MMO makes an economy matter, and makes personal reward for time invested much more important than other games in MOBAs with booster packs for example.
So, maybe crafting is not as important, but the depth an MMO can offer really does add to the personal development of a character. I think the problem is that MMOs do not deliver as well as they could on synergizing those experiences while offering a high quality instance experience but also a high quality open world experience.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
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.
Well, in all fairness, there really hasn't been a new "true", "proper" MMORPG created in over 10 years, the genre has been dead for that long at least.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
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.
Well, in all fairness, there really hasn't been a new "true", "proper" MMORPG created in over 10 years, the genre has been dead for that long at least.
Shhh, you're not allowed to say that here. If they make a type of game long enough calling it an mmorpg, we have to accept it as part of the family.
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.
Well, in all fairness, there really hasn't been a new "true", "proper" MMORPG created in over 10 years, the genre has been dead for that long at least.
Shhh, you're not allowed to say that here. If they make a type of game long enough calling it an mmorpg, we have to accept it as part of the family.
And treat them like family members, I don't want to sit next to uncle Shyster at Xmas who always wants to tell us about his latest casino-easymode con. Its a sure fire win apparently as you bait a game with mechanics to make players want to play and pay more and more.
Pve Questing - most quests are solo, and seeing 50 others competing for the quest mobs is not fun nor immersive. (Really, i am going to get the super rare herb to heal whatever, and 50 others are farming it????) In fact, it is hard to add story content in an open world ... and the attempts (like phasing) are really not that effective. To me, it would be much better to put story quests into instances .. so you can put in scripting and other narrative elements.
Then maybe soloable questing is bad for MMO's? In your whole post you do not show me that Open World is bad for MMO's, but you show feature that are bad in open world MMO's.
Skipped all the way to the end and saw the last two responses....just another argument
Open word is great for any game as long as it's not attached to PvP. Nothing to do with questing or anything else. Create an open world and add areas that have side jobs beyond the main story is fine by me. Not hard either.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
The actual topic seems to be "Open world setups don't fit well in the specific game types I like to play because..."
Which is a fair point, and the arguments are mostly valid.
I actually agree that many MMOs don't need an open world because the rest of their design doesn't fit to the concept and they don't really target the "open world" audience anyway.
But this can't be generalized, there are MMOs that do target that audience.
Originally posted by ComanThen maybe soloable questing is bad for MMO's? In your whole post you do not show me that Open World is bad for MMO's, but you show feature that are bad in open world MMO's.
He makes it very clear that he speaks about MMOs as they are, not an abstraction of MMO concept:
Originally posted by nariusseldonLet's look at the popular game modes:Pve Questing - most quests are solo, and seeing...
Then maybe soloable questing is bad for MMO's? In your whole post you do not show me that Open World is bad for MMO's, but you show feature that are bad in open world MMO's.
He makes it very clear that he speaks about MMOs as they are, not abstract concepts:
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Let's look at the popular game modes:
Pve Questing - most quests are solo, and seeing...
This is exactly what i'm talking about, nars continually confuses genre. The thread is about MMO in relation to MMO that does not suit open world - then goes on to talk about questing which is obviously in the domain of RPGs, and Open worlds do suit Role playing games.
If you like Role playing that means you like a mixture of open worlds and dungeons, since adventuring and exploring is a big part of Role playing. MMO describes a particular aspect of a game (i.e is it massively multiplayer online)
So is open world bad for Massively Multiplayer online games? - well that obviously depend on the genre of game, is it RPG or not.
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
Read his and my post above carefully - he speaks about specific MMOs with specific traits.
He just does better than job with avoiding pointless labeling and stuffing terms with personal bias, thing you are trying to argue about.
oh yes it is, comprehend what im saying. he talks about PVE questing and this is part of the RPG genre. Some games may have perverted questing and turned it into an xp engine - that's a mechanic.
PVE questing makes sense in an open world - you want all quests to be in closed spaces?
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
Originally posted by Bladestromoh yes it is, comprehend what im saying. he talks about PVE questing and this is part of the RPG genre. Some games may have perverted questing and turned it into an xp engine - that's a mechanic.
See, I told you...
Originally posted by GdemamiHe just does better than job with avoiding pointless labeling and stuffing terms with personal bias, thing you are trying to argue about.
Originally posted by BladestromPVE questing makes sense in an open world - you want all quests to be in closed spaces?
So now you are going to argue something you make up?
Forget the labels, focus on mechanics:
If an MMO uses questing mechanics, open world may and likely will cause issues - fighting over quest objective with other players, immersion breaking, etc.
Fairly well known issues of questing in open world and a reason for using instances as solution, reason why prety much any MMO with questing uses instancing.
If an MMO uses questing mechanics, open world may and likely will cause issues - fighting over quest objective with other players, immersion breaking, etc.
Fairly wel known issues of questing in open world and a reason for using instances as solution.
Thats weird, contested mobs and quest items was what EQ was all about and its considered one of the most highly immersive games.
Read his and my post above carefully - he speaks about specific MMOs with specific traits.
He just does better than job with avoiding pointless labeling and stuffing terms with personal bias, thing you are trying to argue about.
oh yes it is, comprehend what im saying. he talks about PVE questing and this is part of the RPG genre. Some games may have perverted questing and turned it into an xp engine - that's a mechanic.
PVE questing makes sense in an open world - you want all quests to be in closed spaces?
Thing is, Nari isn't talking about the "PVE questing" you are talking about, but about a specific type of PVE questing, which he described.
Just like the thread title is misleading, some of the terminology he uses can be misleading too if you don't take his specific descriptions and personal preferences and definitions into account.
So you are kinda both right and just talking about different things.
His specific questing would work well in an instanced setting that mainly pushes the story and is aimed at solo / small scale questing. I agree to that. It's a valid way to design games and is well accepted in a large target audience.
But your more oldschool style (not meant negatively) view of PVE questing (and all it's social aspects) is ofcourse valid too and is much better suited for open world setups.
You two are in totally different target audiences, you won't reach a concensus on these things.
Originally posted by Dullahan Thats weird, contested mobs and quest items was what EQ was all about and its considered one of the most highly immersive games.
Apparently there was more poeple who found it immersion breaking...and there still is today.
Read his and my post above carefully - he speaks about specific MMOs with specific traits.
He just does better than job with avoiding pointless labeling and stuffing terms with personal bias, thing you are trying to argue about.
oh yes it is, comprehend what im saying. he talks about PVE questing and this is part of the RPG genre. Some games may have perverted questing and turned it into an xp engine - that's a mechanic.
PVE questing makes sense in an open world - you want all quests to be in closed spaces?
Thing is, Nari isn't talking about general "PVE questing" but about a specific type of PVE questing, which he described.
Just like the thread title is misleading, some of the terminology he uses can be misleading too if you don't take his specific descriptions and personal definitions into account.
So you are kinda both right and talking about different things.
His specific questing would work well in an instanced setting that mainly pushes the story and is aimed at solo / small scale questing. I agree to that.
But your more general and oldschool style (not meant negatively) view of PVE questing (and all it's social aspects) is ofcourse valid too and is much better suited for open world setups.
You two are in totally different target audiences, you won't reach a concensus on these things.
Where I am comming from is the thread title, is open world *bad* for mmo. the answer is simply - sometimes, it depends on the genre, i.e is it a co-op mmo which is what Nar is referring to (instances, small tactical, lobby) or is it an mmoRPG, which does get enhanced by well done open worlds. Edit, i agree with what you are saying in other words
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
Originally posted by GaendricJust like the thread title is misleading, some of the terminology he uses can be misleading too if you don't take his specific descriptions and personal preferences and definitions into account.
Title isn't misleading, you just have to read more than the title. See the post above?
Terminology is fine too, but people tend to re-write terms when they dislike/disagree with something or when the meaning of the term simply does not fly their boat..
Just like the thread title is misleading, some of the terminology he uses can be misleading too if you don't take his specific descriptions and personal preferences and definitions into account.
Title isn't misleading, you just have to read more than the title.
Terminology is fine too, but people tend to re-write terms when they disagree/dislike with something or when the meaning of the term simply does not fly their boat..
MMO is an aspect of a game - Masssively Multiplayer Online - that's got nothing to do with wether a game suits open world or not since the latter depends on the genre of game.
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.
Then let us pray they someday return to their roots.
why return to an idea that is not that popular? You think they change "the root" just because?
Comments
Then let us pray they someday return to their roots.
MMOs with small group dungeons and instanced PvP are already instanced. Open world is not even relevant to them.
Its like creating a thread called Big cars are bad for the automotive industry, and then talking about how theres no reason for compact cars to be big.
This whole thread is dishonest and was created for no other reason than to rustle people.
I think we have a higher chance of idiots calling Solitaire Online a MMO that has MMORPG elements. That plus cards are *bad* for Solitaire.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Solitaire is so grindy. I mean all those cards you have to go through just to get the ones you need. Then its all, like random and you have to start over multiple times before you can actually win. Definitely not a skill based game like the card genre needs.
The OP is not wrong in the assessment that the features of MMOs are basically instanced as good quality or balanced.
However the caveat of MMO means its going to have to support the feel of a large virtual reality.
If we can agree that solo questing is bad, and simply open world is bad, but instanced features are of higher quality... then we would want to focus on the high quality variety at the core of development... but also since it is an mmo integrating some of those systems to an open world.
You can have the best of both.
To not have an open world, and just an instanced dungeon run game with e-sport pvp, as it were if it were not an MMO to an extrmeme, would mean
1. crafting is useless or at least should be,
2.NPCs become pointless outside of raids, Makes for an empty experience in story world. even single players try to create a large enough world.
3 .overall RP is gone, lobby socializing
4. Character customization is less important
5. virtual aspect of an MMo is also diminished as a result
6. No open world pvp
7. No mounts, and no achievement/completionist for open world
8. Player housing feels hollow with an instanced pvp/raid
9. No player bounties (most likely)
10. Economy and currency will be based on simple earnings or P2w/boost packs
11. No events
Overall the difference I find is that an MMO makes an economy matter, and makes personal reward for time invested much more important than other games in MOBAs with booster packs for example.
So, maybe crafting is not as important, but the depth an MMO can offer really does add to the personal development of a character. I think the problem is that MMOs do not deliver as well as they could on synergizing those experiences while offering a high quality instance experience but also a high quality open world experience.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Well, in all fairness, there really hasn't been a new "true", "proper" MMORPG created in over 10 years, the genre has been dead for that long at least.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Shhh, you're not allowed to say that here. If they make a type of game long enough calling it an mmorpg, we have to accept it as part of the family.
And treat them like family members, I don't want to sit next to uncle Shyster at Xmas who always wants to tell us about his latest casino-easymode con. Its a sure fire win apparently as you bait a game with mechanics to make players want to play and pay more and more.
Then maybe soloable questing is bad for MMO's? In your whole post you do not show me that Open World is bad for MMO's, but you show feature that are bad in open world MMO's.
Skipped all the way to the end and saw the last two responses....just another argument
Open word is great for any game as long as it's not attached to PvP. Nothing to do with questing or anything else. Create an open world and add areas that have side jobs beyond the main story is fine by me. Not hard either.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
The thread title is misleading.
The actual topic seems to be "Open world setups don't fit well in the specific game types I like to play because..."
Which is a fair point, and the arguments are mostly valid.
I actually agree that many MMOs don't need an open world because the rest of their design doesn't fit to the concept and they don't really target the "open world" audience anyway.
But this can't be generalized, there are MMOs that do target that audience.
You should have set the title appropiately.
He makes it very clear that he speaks about MMOs as they are, not an abstraction of MMO concept:
This is exactly what i'm talking about, nars continually confuses genre. The thread is about MMO in relation to MMO that does not suit open world - then goes on to talk about questing which is obviously in the domain of RPGs, and Open worlds do suit Role playing games.
If you like Role playing that means you like a mixture of open worlds and dungeons, since adventuring and exploring is a big part of Role playing. MMO describes a particular aspect of a game (i.e is it massively multiplayer online)
So is open world bad for Massively Multiplayer online games? - well that obviously depend on the genre of game, is it RPG or not.
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
It is not.
Read his and my post above carefully - he speaks about specific MMOs with specific traits.
He just does better than job with avoiding pointless labeling and stuffing terms with personal bias, something you are trying to argue about.
Sorry...Blade makes more sense.....in this "WTF am I talking about thread"
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Says the man that only read the title and 2 last posts...
oh yes it is, comprehend what im saying. he talks about PVE questing and this is part of the RPG genre. Some games may have perverted questing and turned it into an xp engine - that's a mechanic.
PVE questing makes sense in an open world - you want all quests to be in closed spaces?
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
See, I told you...
So now you are going to argue something you make up?
Forget the labels, focus on mechanics:
If an MMO uses questing mechanics, open world may and likely will cause issues - fighting over quest objective with other players, immersion breaking, etc.
Fairly well known issues of questing in open world and a reason for using instances as solution, reason why prety much any MMO with questing uses instancing.
Thats weird, contested mobs and quest items was what EQ was all about and its considered one of the most highly immersive games.
Thing is, Nari isn't talking about the "PVE questing" you are talking about, but about a specific type of PVE questing, which he described.
Just like the thread title is misleading, some of the terminology he uses can be misleading too if you don't take his specific descriptions and personal preferences and definitions into account.
So you are kinda both right and just talking about different things.
His specific questing would work well in an instanced setting that mainly pushes the story and is aimed at solo / small scale questing. I agree to that. It's a valid way to design games and is well accepted in a large target audience.
But your more oldschool style (not meant negatively) view of PVE questing (and all it's social aspects) is ofcourse valid too and is much better suited for open world setups.
You two are in totally different target audiences, you won't reach a concensus on these things.
Apparently there was more poeple who found it immersion breaking...and there still is today.
Where I am comming from is the thread title, is open world *bad* for mmo. the answer is simply - sometimes, it depends on the genre, i.e is it a co-op mmo which is what Nar is referring to (instances, small tactical, lobby) or is it an mmoRPG, which does get enhanced by well done open worlds. Edit, i agree with what you are saying in other words
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
Title isn't misleading, you just have to read more than the title.
See the post above?
Terminology is fine too, but people tend to re-write terms when they dislike/disagree with something or when the meaning of the term simply does not fly their boat..
MMO is an aspect of a game - Masssively Multiplayer Online - that's got nothing to do with wether a game suits open world or not since the latter depends on the genre of game.
Concrete MMO examples:
e.g : Diable - suits instances, gw1 suits instances.
e.g : Elite dangerous, ESO. suit wide open world.
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
why return to an idea that is not that popular? You think they change "the root" just because?