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.
But the popular game modes in today's MMOs (such as pve instanced dungeons) have a lot to do with whether an open world is suitable or not.
As i have said before, for example, small group dungeon runs, the essential fantasy coming from table top RPGs, does not need an open world.
There are few game modes, except big scale war (like PS2) needs a open world.
Even the economics/trading, can be simply done by a menu auction house like that in D3. ESO does not really need an open world ... in fact, an un-open, personal world is more suitable. SKYRIM kind of games are not about massively multiplayer .. it is about a big world that you call a world .. that world does not need many other players.
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..
I do agree people should read more than the title.
But none the less many people won't read the whole OP in detail (especially if the OP is as long as this one) and thus the thread gets unnecessarily boggled down by the misunderstandings caused by the unspecific title instead of being an on topic discussion. That's why choosing a less potentially misleading title would be better IF he wants an ontopic discussion instead of pages upon pages of "you need to read the whole OP, it's about something else than the title by itself implies".
On the other hand if he doesn't mind the discussion heading off in different directions based on the misunderstanding, then the title is appropiate and will rattle some cages. Can be fun too, no question.
For what it's worth (and tostay on the main topic) I actually agree to Nari's points made in the OP. In the scenarios he describes (and for the target audience he is talking about) an open world setup isn't necessary.
I also agree to the point that "But MMOs all need to be like this or that" arguments are irrelevant. MMOs don't need to be anything but a good/successful product for/in the intended target audience.
Originally posted by Dullahan Apparently according to you. What you need to do is find one of those rpgs without the mmo in front of it and profit.
I cannot even guess what you are trying to say...
Popular features/traits aren't going the way of dodo like non-instanced worlds did, that is nothing "according to me". Players made it happen, they voted with their wallets.
Apparently according to you. What you need to do is find one of those rpgs without the mmo in front of it and profit.
I cannot even guess what you are trying to say...
Popular features/traits aren't going the way of dodo like non-instanced worlds did, that is nothing "according to me". Players made it happen, they voted with their wallets.
In other words, its antithetical to say a massively multiplayer game should remove contested content (the mutiplayer aspect) in order to achieve what you would in a single player game. Its tantamount to heresy.
Ya, people voted with their wallets because every company or investor has been chasing the white whale funding and producing "WoW-killers" that dry up in a matter of months. Thankfully that era is over and other non-instanced games will have a chance to flourish again.
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.
But the popular game modes in today's MMOs (such as pve instanced dungeons) have a lot to do with whether an open world is suitable or not.
As i have said before, for example, small group dungeon runs, the essential fantasy coming from table top RPGs, does not need an open world.
There are few game modes, except big scale war (like PS2) needs a open world.
Even the economics/trading, can be simply done by a menu auction house like that in D3. ESO does not really need an open world ... in fact, an un-open, personal world is more suitable. SKYRIM kind of games are not about massively multiplayer .. it is about a big world that you call a world .. that world does not need many other players.
That has nothing to do with my point, MMO is an aspect not a genre. some genres that are mmo's suit open world, some do not. liking or not liking a genre does not invalidate a genre.
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
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.
But the popular game modes in today's MMOs (such as pve instanced dungeons) have a lot to do with whether an open world is suitable or not.
As i have said before, for example, small group dungeon runs, the essential fantasy coming from table top RPGs, does not need an open world.
There are few game modes, except big scale war (like PS2) needs a open world.
Even the economics/trading, can be simply done by a menu auction house like that in D3. ESO does not really need an open world ... in fact, an un-open, personal world is more suitable. SKYRIM kind of games are not about massively multiplayer .. it is about a big world that you call a world .. that world does not need many other players.
That has nothing to do with my point, MMO is an aspect not a genre. some genres that are mmo's suit open world, some do not. liking or not liking a genre does not invalidate a genre.
I agree with you here.
MMO is a broad term that encompasses many things these days. Most of which are the MMORPG and then the "Lobby Games" that are MMOGs more like.
I think the issue people have is what separates these sub-genres and when does an MMORPG become more of an MMOG?
For instance, if you remove all open-world aspects, but keep the e-Sports PvP and e-Sports PvE (instanced PvE with a ranking system). You get an e-Sports game that's more of an MMOG than an RPG. This is fine. Devs should focus on those main aspects for eSports.
When it comes to an RPG, in general these games have ALWAYS been about open world experiences ever since final fantasy 1! All Final Fantasy games...pokemon...fallout... elderscrolls... DragonQuest...Tales... It's all about simulating a complete world where "events" happen within them. The fewer loading screens the more seamless the world. An MMORPG should keep these principles with tweaks that focus on the sum of all players rather than the single player. In a sense, the MMORPG is the multiplayer aspect of the single-player genre where stories are discovered rather than pre-written.
Unfortunately, more and more games have been coming out that put less of a focus on the multiplayer aspects and more focus on the single-player/solo ones. This is a step in the wrong direction for MMORPGs in my opinion. Single-player games always benefit from concise pre-written storytelling and interesting mechanics that don't work in a multiplayer setting. I can always get better pre-written stories/quests from a 50 hour single player game.
What defines the MMORPG genre is the multiplayer aspect tuned to the "simulated world" concept! Removing the simulated world may not remove it from the RPG genre, but it will trade the RPG-like experience for a simpler "video game" one.
Originally posted by Dullahan In other words, its antithetical to say a massively multiplayer game should remove contested content (the mutiplayer aspect) in order to achieve what you would in a single player game. Its tantamount to heresy.
And that is where "accordto you " applies. Players do not care about labels, they playand payfor what they find fun and worth their time and money.
As for your 2nd paragraph - even if there was some dramatic change in "standard" MMO game design, it does not mean that non-instanced games will "flourish". Wishful thinking and false logic.
In fact what is flourishing are MOBAs, instancing(Destiny?) and in the future my bet is cross platform - driven by purely economical pressure because making of large world games is being more and more expensive so developers will seek ways how to produce less costly games while expanding their potential customer base.
When it comes to an RPG, in general these games have ALWAYS been about open world experiences ever since final fantasy 1! All Final Fantasy games...pokemon...fallout... elderscrolls... DragonQuest...Tales...
are you kidding me? Did you actually read the first post?
"BTW, "open world" in this case refers to a large "zone" where lots of players can come and go with no restriction (as opposed to an instanced with only 5) and also different from the "open world" in a single player game like Skyrim."
None of these games you talk about is about open world. They are about single player worlds. In fact, RPGs are never about open world until UO & EQ.
your confusing open world with MMO again. RPG's were always open world (see baldurs gate etc), once the tech became available in early 2000 RPG's became open world mmo.
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 Bladestrom your confusing open world with MMO again. RPG's were always open world (see baldurs gate etc), once the tech became available in early 2000 RPG's became open world mmo.
RPG is about open world .. where do you get that? Baldur is about stories and AD&D combat .. with a party of 6. What open world?
You are confused between open world with players vs just a big single player world.
Originally posted by Bladestrom your confusing open world with MMO again. RPG's were always open world (see baldurs gate etc), once the tech became available in early 2000 RPG's became open world mmo.
RPG is about open world .. where do you get that? Baldur is about stories and AD&D combat .. with a party of 6. What open world?
You are confused between open world with players vs just a big single player world.
RPGs are also about exploration of the world, finding new wonders etc etc. Player concurrency is a different thing.
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
....The gameplay style was expanded to make the game more like an RPG, the ability to craft weapons, armor and amulets was added, Baldur's Gate became a hub city with the addition of a world map and being able to travel back to areas, making the game open world and many more side-quests were added as well as the ability to level up one's class.
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 Bladestrom your confusing open world with MMO again. RPG's were always open world (see baldurs gate etc), once the tech became available in early 2000 RPG's became open world mmo.
RPG is about open world .. where do you get that? Baldur is about stories and AD&D combat .. with a party of 6. What open world?
You are confused between open world with players vs just a big single player world.
I think you confusing multiplayer vs singleplayer with just the point of the mechanic.
Think of the mechanic by itself regardless of how many players are playing it. What's the point of having an open world in general?
Think of an instance in and of itself... what is the point of an instance in general?
Between the two, though, the player will always grow to understand the world of an open game better. The freedom tends to be more realistic. Most of the time it's up to the player to do what they want. Story-driven content, however, will always be tailored EASIER in an instanced setting. In all the games I mentioned you can literally go out an spend all your time in the open-world and do NO quests, but successfully doing whatever you want within the world's ruleset AND STILL PROGRESS. You can spend all your time doing meaningless quests/errands for others. You can choose to do quests that are primarily geared toward progressing the main story of the game.
There's no reason why you can't do any of those things with multiple people, and it's already been possible to do so.
The issue I have with current MMORPGs in particular is YOU MUST DO MEANINGLESS QUESTS/ERRANDS to progress when before you could do multiple things to progress. Yes that includes killing mobs a nothing else.
"Quests for the sake of questing"
"PvP for the sake of PvP"
"Open-world for the sake of having an open-world"
"PvE for the sake of having PvE"
"Crafting for the sake of crafting"
"Instance for the sake of instancing"
The above in quotes is what defines the "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" MMORPGs that have surfaced. What's BAD for MMORPGs in general is adding features "just because" people want them. When done poorly it creates the illusion that people hate the idea completely. What's GOOD for MMORPGs is adding features that each have a desirable effect on the world and feed off each other because just adding an open-world won't do much without adding the things that make an open-world interesting. Same for anything else.
Now in the case of other MMOGs... those are predominately lobby games and thus satisfy only 1 or 2 of the items in the quotes except for open-world. In each case it's usually a quick matchmaking and all PvP or PvE is there just to play it rather than anything deeper.
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.
I cannot remember the name right now, but there is a game in which you fight large boss monsters with a party of AI companions. You can climb the monsters, cut off parts that change the way the monsters fight. Much more interactive than WoW could ever hope to be. The Witcher has great boss fights and pretty eerie dungeon delves. Tried any of the Final Fantasy series? It's turn-based, but I hear great things. Dark Souls? I hear the new Dragon Age is pretty damn good, too. Divinity: Original Sin is another turn-based one. The Mass Effect series. Are you really suggesting that bosses in WoW, in terms of responsiveness and interactivity with the player character, are better than the bosses of any of those titles?
Also, try Vindictus. It's not an MMO (by any real definition), but there's a class that can "clash" with huge bosses, holding them in place in a struggle while the other players are able to reposition themselves. Other classes in that game can interact with mobs in different ways such as this as well. Again, you're not going to find WoW doing that. The closest thing you'll find to that in WoW is unique buff/debuffs. It's not the leader of the boss quality fight (when SRPGs are included) by a long shot, unless you want to ignore interactivity, dynamics, and responsiveness completely when considering all the other options.
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.
You deny that playerbases in MMOs are getting smaller? Games that launch with a huge population then lose more than half of that within 3 months of launch isn't happening? People like to make fun of EQ peaking with 450K players, but how many MMOs today would kill to have 450K subs? The number of MMOs releasing doesn't reflect growth in playerbases.
Do you have ratios of players to MMOs? If you pooled together all MMO players and divided them up by the amount of games, would the ratios be higher or lower today, when compared to say, 2002? I think it's lower.
Millions more who will what? What millions? You mean the group of players of unknown number that are divided by the number of MMOs? We know a rough estimate of each playerbase for each MMO. There are very few MMOs that have "millions". There was just a recent article that those players don't even stick around.
Lastly, a small group (10 active) in SWTOR, got GLAAD to pressure EA into putting LGBT content in. Google the articles yourself, I'm not doing it for you. Small numbers can influence others.
But, that is not what I was getting at.
I'm saying, there is a very few people always keeping the topic of F2P and dumbing down games on the front pages of gaming sites. If YOU think developers are in control of the games that they create, you've been asleep for the past 13 years.
These companies spend a lot of time on researching trends with their think tanks and bean counters. They don't know squat about playing games. The first thing they see in their research is this illusion created by this small group of people with an agenda.
Let's get real.
This thread isn't about problems with open worlds. This thread is about Nari, who only plays free games, wanting to access the fun stuff behind paywalls, such as instances and raids (there are exceptions, I know). He wants to see the F2P content (generally the open world) taken away and shifted to allow him and people like him, access to instances as a new baseline for F2P content.
If you carefully read his threads and posts, there's always an underlining agenda. It always comes back to giving freeloaders more access to content behind paywalls, always. Meanwhile, costs rise for those of us who pay for full content, you know, actual fans of the genre.
So I stand by what I say, and if you disagree, then fine. But if you want to talk about facts, throw up some citations. I'd be more than happy to read whatever you got.
In preparation to the bad news that you may deliver. I'm not kidding myself. I don't like the direction MMORPGs have taken and I have been losing interest this past decade. I play less and less each year. Maybe it's time for me to go away. I'm sure people would love to see old schoolers disappear. But when we do, remember this, there's a reason why you have to find a new game to play every few months. There's a reason you are paying more on a monthly basis. We all had a chance to warn where this was all heading.
Like us, you will be forced to the leave the genre too.
Originally posted by Bladestrom your confusing open world with MMO again. RPG's were always open world (see baldurs gate etc), once the tech became available in early 2000 RPG's became open world mmo.
RPG is about open world .. where do you get that? Baldur is about stories and AD&D combat .. with a party of 6. What open world?
You are confused between open world with players vs just a big single player world.
RPGs are also about exploration of the world, finding new wonders etc etc. Player concurrency is a different thing.
and the first post clearly states that I am talking about the player concurrency aspect of the "open world" in a MMO.
If you just want a huge empty space to explore, you don't need a MMO. SKYRIM can do just fine.
If the Old Schoolers don't support the style of games they want with their dollars, those games won't get made anymore. And while I hold no great hope for Star Citizen, the amount of monetary support for Space games it's brought about has rekindled a ton of interest in the genre.
I personally like big open worlds, immersion, RP, etc. But when I looked at the classic games in their time, they failed for me on too many levels. No starry eyed nostalgia here: UO and EQ kept me from playing MMOs for years. The fabled 'redo with modern graphics' mantra carries no sway.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I had to stop my daily musings on the Star Citizen forums, because I don't see how the devs there are doing much right, and so lingering on their forums became a little painful for me.
I can't help but think they push out one half assed idea onto another. The big and deep ideas just aren't there imo. Weak understanding of concepts is my impression. I suspect that somewhere in their offices, there is a 10 year old design document. Such design documents are my big fear with games because devs as I see it, probably intend to just shoehorn in every shitty idea they came up with early on, perhaps having with no intention, or even leaving no room, for change.
If the Old Schoolers don't support the style of games they want with their dollars, those games won't get made anymore. And while I hold no great hope for Star Citizen, the amount of monetary support for Space games it's brought about has rekindled a ton of interest in the genre.
The fact that instanced gameplay has become so popular tell you something about whether people really support open world massively multiplayer gameplay.
Disclaimer: of course i am talking about my opinion and preferences. So take it as such, and don't tell me i am forcing my opinion or preferences on others. I am merely stating my opinions, as "good" and "bad" are subjective.
If I consider all the popular MMO gameplay modes, i really don't think an open world adds to fun, and often detract from it. BTW, "open world" in this case refers to a large "zone" where lots of players can come and go with no restriction (as opposed to an instanced with only 5) and also different from the "open world" in a single player game like Skyrim.
Let's look at the popular game modes:
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.
But what about meeting a lone adventurer from time to time? You don't need an open world to do that. Just match another player into your game randomly ... and control how many (i.e. share world shooter). In fact, give me an option to prevent that.
Pve dungeons & raids - The tabletop (though video games don't have to adhere to pnp 100%) adventures are all about small groups. That is why instanced dungeons are so popular (and i throw raid in here .. since raid is no different than a dungeon with a larger group). And open world will make it hard to control the experience. Either you will have too few and in this case, doing it in an instance won't make a difference ... or you have too many players and you have to take turns camping, which again is a) no fun, and b) not immersive.
In fact, since dungeon runs are about small groups, there is really no advantage to have an open world. And some may say clever design may solve the "too few too many" problem. My answer is this .. why bother ... if it is about small group co-op gameplay, there is no need to put it into an open world
Pvp e-sport or arena - for the "fair" controlled pvp games (e-sport, capture the flag, ....), again, open world lost the ability to make the game fair and control the experience (like those battleground in WoW ... if it is open world, it is a lot harder to do the fun stuff like siege machines).
Pvp large scale war - this is the ONLY game mode that I think an open world design is warranted.
So .. if i think through all the gameplay mode, actually very few need an open world .. and often an open world make the game LESS fun. Now some may say .. design new game modes to "fit" an open world. But why bother? The point of games are to have fun ... and not to have an open world for the sake of it.
I think many MMOs are better off just forget about the open world (some already do, some are minimizing it anyway) because it is expensive and adds little or even detracting from some of making these gameplay modes fun. Now games like PS2 still have a real use for it, but those are in the minorities.
and oh ... what about the original intent of MMOs? I say that is irrelevant. If the original intent is bad design (and to me, it is), junk it and do something new.
And you're 2.5, almost 3 years behind the something new. That would be Guild Wars 2.
In fact it can easily tackle almost every point you have there:
PvE Questing is modeled differently than others. Only the Living Story and Personal Story (i.e. the main story arcs of the game) are assigned like quests, but are instances within their own mini worlds for the sake of narrative that plays out excellently. But every other "quest" in the game is set up through Hearts (helping NPCs in an area by completing multiple optioned tasks) or Dynamic Events. Mobs are credit shared, so it's not possible to "kill steal" either. Group play and "questing" is very much encouraged in this game.
Lobbies for "meeting up" sucks. Randomly encountering people in cities, at a burning village you're trying to save, and so on is how people meet new friends and guild mates. It's a stable of the genre and socializing in these virtual worlds.
Dungeons are instances because they usually come with a set story and theme as well have have set designed challenges for small groups of players teaming up to face them. That is normal. However having open world events that lock away dungeons and require large group efforts and teamwork to open up is a good thing that helps put players into helping other players, who may not even be in their group. This is what GW2 does well with things like the Gates of Arah, the Coil Reactor, and the Citadel of Flame. The event of the game's persistent world effect whether or not the dungeon is even accessible to the players.
sPvP is separated out via the Mists because a players gear stats aren't used so that it keeps balanced gameplay. And players are artificially boosted to level 80 while there, again for the purpose of balance.
WvWvW siege game play is open world. However it is in a location that is separated out from the game's "PvE" area so that there's no heavy clash of gameplay. It provides the freedom for PvEers to play without worrying of getting ganked and PvPers to still do their thing.
And if you think that "Massive Multiplayer Online" games are good to go away with the "massive multiplayer" aspects and just have only 5 people games.....THEN YOU'RE IN THE WRONG GENRE! That's the whole point of these games in the first place. You're asking these games to basically not be what they are and to become Borderlands; that's very much wrong.
Disclaimer: of course i am talking about my opinion and preferences. So take it as such, and don't tell me i am forcing my opinion or preferences on others. I am merely stating my opinions, as "good" and "bad" are subjective.
If I consider all the popular MMO gameplay modes, i really don't think an open world adds to fun, and often detract from it. BTW, "open world" in this case refers to a large "zone" where lots of players can come and go with no restriction (as opposed to an instanced with only 5) and also different from the "open world" in a single player game like Skyrim.
Let's look at the popular game modes:
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.
But what about meeting a lone adventurer from time to time? You don't need an open world to do that. Just match another player into your game randomly ... and control how many (i.e. share world shooter). In fact, give me an option to prevent that.
Pve dungeons & raids - The tabletop (though video games don't have to adhere to pnp 100%) adventures are all about small groups. That is why instanced dungeons are so popular (and i throw raid in here .. since raid is no different than a dungeon with a larger group). And open world will make it hard to control the experience. Either you will have too few and in this case, doing it in an instance won't make a difference ... or you have too many players and you have to take turns camping, which again is a) no fun, and b) not immersive.
In fact, since dungeon runs are about small groups, there is really no advantage to have an open world. And some may say clever design may solve the "too few too many" problem. My answer is this .. why bother ... if it is about small group co-op gameplay, there is no need to put it into an open world
Pvp e-sport or arena - for the "fair" controlled pvp games (e-sport, capture the flag, ....), again, open world lost the ability to make the game fair and control the experience (like those battleground in WoW ... if it is open world, it is a lot harder to do the fun stuff like siege machines).
Pvp large scale war - this is the ONLY game mode that I think an open world design is warranted.
So .. if i think through all the gameplay mode, actually very few need an open world .. and often an open world make the game LESS fun. Now some may say .. design new game modes to "fit" an open world. But why bother? The point of games are to have fun ... and not to have an open world for the sake of it.
I think many MMOs are better off just forget about the open world (some already do, some are minimizing it anyway) because it is expensive and adds little or even detracting from some of making these gameplay modes fun. Now games like PS2 still have a real use for it, but those are in the minorities.
and oh ... what about the original intent of MMOs? I say that is irrelevant. If the original intent is bad design (and to me, it is), junk it and do something new.
And you're 2.5, almost 3 years behind the something new. That would be Guild Wars 2.
In fact it can easily tackle almost every point you have there:
PvE Questing is modeled differently than others. Only the Living Story and Personal Story (i.e. the main story arcs of the game) are assigned like quests, but are instances within their own mini worlds for the sake of narrative that plays out excellently. But every other "quest" in the game is set up through Hearts (helping NPCs in an area by completing multiple optioned tasks) or Dynamic Events. Mobs are credit shared, so it's not possible to "kill steal" either. Group play and "questing" is very much encouraged in this game.
Lobbies for "meeting up" sucks. Randomly encountering people in cities, at a burning village you're trying to save, and so on is how people meet new friends and guild mates. It's a stable of the genre and socializing in these virtual worlds.
Dungeons are instances because they usually come with a set story and theme as well have have set designed challenges for small groups of players teaming up to face them. That is normal. However having open world events that lock away dungeons and require large group efforts and teamwork to open up is a good thing that helps put players into helping other players, who may not even be in their group. This is what GW2 does well with things like the Gates of Arah, the Coil Reactor, and the Citadel of Flame. The event of the game's persistent world effect whether or not the dungeon is even accessible to the players.
sPvP is separated out via the Mists because a players gear stats aren't used so that it keeps balanced gameplay. And players are artificially boosted to level 80 while there, again for the purpose of balance.
WvWvW siege game play is open world. However it is in a location that is separated out from the game's "PvE" area so that there's no heavy clash of gameplay. It provides the freedom for PvEers to play without worrying of getting ganked and PvPers to still do their thing.
And if you think that "Massive Multiplayer Online" games are good to go away with the "massive multiplayer" aspects and just have only 5 people games.....THEN YOU'RE IN THE WRONG GENRE! That's the whole point of these games in the first place. You're asking these games to basically not be what they are and to become Borderlands; that's very much wrong.
Don't forget, he needs them to be free, too. With full access and no paywalls.
When it comes to an RPG, in general these games have ALWAYS been about open world experiences ever since final fantasy 1! All Final Fantasy games...pokemon...fallout... elderscrolls... DragonQuest...Tales... It's all about simulating a complete world where "events" happen within them. The fewer loading screens the more seamless the world. An MMORPG should keep these principles with tweaks that focus on the sum of all players rather than the single player. In a sense, the MMORPG is the multiplayer aspect of the single-player genre where stories are discovered rather than pre-written.
"Open world" implies two components, which are pretty distinct (and perhaps should be thought of separately.)
The first component is a shared world. The games you list were not shared worlds. World-sharing is where all the problems come from. While I don't agree with everything Narius has said, world-sharing generally is a net-negative for MMOs.
The second component is free roaming. The games you list do allow free roaming.
So while those games allow free roaming, they're effectively private instance games. When I played Final Fantasy 1, I didn't see any other players. Nobody came and killed Garland right before I got there, ruining both my immersion and my gameplay. I got there and Garland was waiting specifically for me in my own private instance of the game. So free roaming is fine, but world-sharing tends not to be, and both are basically part of what players refer to by the term "open world".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
But the popular game modes in today's MMOs (such as pve instanced dungeons) have a lot to do with whether an open world is suitable or not.
As i have said before, for example, small group dungeon runs, the essential fantasy coming from table top RPGs, does not need an open world.
There are few game modes, except big scale war (like PS2) needs a open world.
Even the economics/trading, can be simply done by a menu auction house like that in D3. ESO does not really need an open world ... in fact, an un-open, personal world is more suitable. SKYRIM kind of games are not about massively multiplayer .. it is about a big world that you call a world .. that world does not need many other players.
I do agree people should read more than the title.
But none the less many people won't read the whole OP in detail (especially if the OP is as long as this one) and thus the thread gets unnecessarily boggled down by the misunderstandings caused by the unspecific title instead of being an on topic discussion. That's why choosing a less potentially misleading title would be better IF he wants an ontopic discussion instead of pages upon pages of "you need to read the whole OP, it's about something else than the title by itself implies".
On the other hand if he doesn't mind the discussion heading off in different directions based on the misunderstanding, then the title is appropiate and will rattle some cages. Can be fun too, no question.
For what it's worth (and tostay on the main topic) I actually agree to Nari's points made in the OP. In the scenarios he describes (and for the target audience he is talking about) an open world setup isn't necessary.
I also agree to the point that "But MMOs all need to be like this or that" arguments are irrelevant. MMOs don't need to be anything but a good/successful product for/in the intended target audience.
Apparently according to you. What you need to do is find one of those rpgs without the mmo in front of it and profit.
I cannot even guess what you are trying to say...
Popular features/traits aren't going the way of dodo like non-instanced worlds did, that is nothing "according to me". Players made it happen, they voted with their wallets.
The Open World is what the genre is about. If you don't want one I think devs should focus on different games that do non-openworld events better.
Open World is the reason I play mmorpgs ever since 1999.
If you take that away any more than it has been removed, you're pretty much turning the genre into more of the same.
In other words, its antithetical to say a massively multiplayer game should remove contested content (the mutiplayer aspect) in order to achieve what you would in a single player game. Its tantamount to heresy.
Ya, people voted with their wallets because every company or investor has been chasing the white whale funding and producing "WoW-killers" that dry up in a matter of months. Thankfully that era is over and other non-instanced games will have a chance to flourish again.
That has nothing to do with my point, MMO is an aspect not a genre. some genres that are mmo's suit open world, some do not. liking or not liking a genre does not invalidate a genre.
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
I agree with you here.
MMO is a broad term that encompasses many things these days. Most of which are the MMORPG and then the "Lobby Games" that are MMOGs more like.
I think the issue people have is what separates these sub-genres and when does an MMORPG become more of an MMOG?
For instance, if you remove all open-world aspects, but keep the e-Sports PvP and e-Sports PvE (instanced PvE with a ranking system). You get an e-Sports game that's more of an MMOG than an RPG. This is fine. Devs should focus on those main aspects for eSports.
When it comes to an RPG, in general these games have ALWAYS been about open world experiences ever since final fantasy 1! All Final Fantasy games...pokemon...fallout... elderscrolls... DragonQuest...Tales... It's all about simulating a complete world where "events" happen within them. The fewer loading screens the more seamless the world. An MMORPG should keep these principles with tweaks that focus on the sum of all players rather than the single player. In a sense, the MMORPG is the multiplayer aspect of the single-player genre where stories are discovered rather than pre-written.
Unfortunately, more and more games have been coming out that put less of a focus on the multiplayer aspects and more focus on the single-player/solo ones. This is a step in the wrong direction for MMORPGs in my opinion. Single-player games always benefit from concise pre-written storytelling and interesting mechanics that don't work in a multiplayer setting. I can always get better pre-written stories/quests from a 50 hour single player game.
What defines the MMORPG genre is the multiplayer aspect tuned to the "simulated world" concept! Removing the simulated world may not remove it from the RPG genre, but it will trade the RPG-like experience for a simpler "video game" one.
And that is where "accordto you " applies. Players do not care about labels, they playand payfor what they find fun and worth their time and money.
As for your 2nd paragraph - even if there was some dramatic change in "standard" MMO game design, it does not mean that non-instanced games will "flourish". Wishful thinking and false logic.
In fact what is flourishing are MOBAs, instancing(Destiny?) and in the future my bet is cross platform - driven by purely economical pressure because making of large world games is being more and more expensive so developers will seek ways how to produce less costly games while expanding their potential customer base.
MMOs will get likely smaller than bigger.
are you kidding me? Did you actually read the first post?
"BTW, "open world" in this case refers to a large "zone" where lots of players can come and go with no restriction (as opposed to an instanced with only 5) and also different from the "open world" in a single player game like Skyrim."
None of these games you talk about is about open world. They are about single player worlds. In fact, RPGs are never about open world until UO & EQ.
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
RPG is about open world .. where do you get that? Baldur is about stories and AD&D combat .. with a party of 6. What open world?
You are confused between open world with players vs just a big single player world.
RPGs are also about exploration of the world, finding new wonders etc etc. Player concurrency is a different thing.
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
description of baldurs gate dark aliance :
....The gameplay style was expanded to make the game more like an RPG, the ability to craft weapons, armor and amulets was added, Baldur's Gate became a hub city with the addition of a world map and being able to travel back to areas, making the game open world and many more side-quests were added as well as the ability to level up one's class.
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
I think you confusing multiplayer vs singleplayer with just the point of the mechanic.
Think of the mechanic by itself regardless of how many players are playing it. What's the point of having an open world in general?
Think of an instance in and of itself... what is the point of an instance in general?
Between the two, though, the player will always grow to understand the world of an open game better. The freedom tends to be more realistic. Most of the time it's up to the player to do what they want. Story-driven content, however, will always be tailored EASIER in an instanced setting. In all the games I mentioned you can literally go out an spend all your time in the open-world and do NO quests, but successfully doing whatever you want within the world's ruleset AND STILL PROGRESS. You can spend all your time doing meaningless quests/errands for others. You can choose to do quests that are primarily geared toward progressing the main story of the game.
There's no reason why you can't do any of those things with multiple people, and it's already been possible to do so.
The issue I have with current MMORPGs in particular is YOU MUST DO MEANINGLESS QUESTS/ERRANDS to progress when before you could do multiple things to progress. Yes that includes killing mobs a nothing else.
"Quests for the sake of questing"
"PvP for the sake of PvP"
"Open-world for the sake of having an open-world"
"PvE for the sake of having PvE"
"Crafting for the sake of crafting"
"Instance for the sake of instancing"
The above in quotes is what defines the "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" MMORPGs that have surfaced. What's BAD for MMORPGs in general is adding features "just because" people want them. When done poorly it creates the illusion that people hate the idea completely. What's GOOD for MMORPGs is adding features that each have a desirable effect on the world and feed off each other because just adding an open-world won't do much without adding the things that make an open-world interesting. Same for anything else.
Now in the case of other MMOGs... those are predominately lobby games and thus satisfy only 1 or 2 of the items in the quotes except for open-world. In each case it's usually a quick matchmaking and all PvP or PvE is there just to play it rather than anything deeper.
I cannot remember the name right now, but there is a game in which you fight large boss monsters with a party of AI companions. You can climb the monsters, cut off parts that change the way the monsters fight. Much more interactive than WoW could ever hope to be. The Witcher has great boss fights and pretty eerie dungeon delves. Tried any of the Final Fantasy series? It's turn-based, but I hear great things. Dark Souls? I hear the new Dragon Age is pretty damn good, too. Divinity: Original Sin is another turn-based one. The Mass Effect series. Are you really suggesting that bosses in WoW, in terms of responsiveness and interactivity with the player character, are better than the bosses of any of those titles?
Also, try Vindictus. It's not an MMO (by any real definition), but there's a class that can "clash" with huge bosses, holding them in place in a struggle while the other players are able to reposition themselves. Other classes in that game can interact with mobs in different ways such as this as well. Again, you're not going to find WoW doing that. The closest thing you'll find to that in WoW is unique buff/debuffs. It's not the leader of the boss quality fight (when SRPGs are included) by a long shot, unless you want to ignore interactivity, dynamics, and responsiveness completely when considering all the other options.
You deny that playerbases in MMOs are getting smaller? Games that launch with a huge population then lose more than half of that within 3 months of launch isn't happening? People like to make fun of EQ peaking with 450K players, but how many MMOs today would kill to have 450K subs? The number of MMOs releasing doesn't reflect growth in playerbases.
Do you have ratios of players to MMOs? If you pooled together all MMO players and divided them up by the amount of games, would the ratios be higher or lower today, when compared to say, 2002? I think it's lower.
Millions more who will what? What millions? You mean the group of players of unknown number that are divided by the number of MMOs? We know a rough estimate of each playerbase for each MMO. There are very few MMOs that have "millions". There was just a recent article that those players don't even stick around.
Lastly, a small group (10 active) in SWTOR, got GLAAD to pressure EA into putting LGBT content in. Google the articles yourself, I'm not doing it for you. Small numbers can influence others.
But, that is not what I was getting at.
I'm saying, there is a very few people always keeping the topic of F2P and dumbing down games on the front pages of gaming sites. If YOU think developers are in control of the games that they create, you've been asleep for the past 13 years.
These companies spend a lot of time on researching trends with their think tanks and bean counters. They don't know squat about playing games. The first thing they see in their research is this illusion created by this small group of people with an agenda.
Let's get real.
This thread isn't about problems with open worlds. This thread is about Nari, who only plays free games, wanting to access the fun stuff behind paywalls, such as instances and raids (there are exceptions, I know). He wants to see the F2P content (generally the open world) taken away and shifted to allow him and people like him, access to instances as a new baseline for F2P content.
If you carefully read his threads and posts, there's always an underlining agenda. It always comes back to giving freeloaders more access to content behind paywalls, always. Meanwhile, costs rise for those of us who pay for full content, you know, actual fans of the genre.
So I stand by what I say, and if you disagree, then fine. But if you want to talk about facts, throw up some citations. I'd be more than happy to read whatever you got.
In preparation to the bad news that you may deliver. I'm not kidding myself. I don't like the direction MMORPGs have taken and I have been losing interest this past decade. I play less and less each year. Maybe it's time for me to go away. I'm sure people would love to see old schoolers disappear. But when we do, remember this, there's a reason why you have to find a new game to play every few months. There's a reason you are paying more on a monthly basis. We all had a chance to warn where this was all heading.
Like us, you will be forced to the leave the genre too.
and the first post clearly states that I am talking about the player concurrency aspect of the "open world" in a MMO.
If you just want a huge empty space to explore, you don't need a MMO. SKYRIM can do just fine.
If the Old Schoolers don't support the style of games they want with their dollars, those games won't get made anymore. And while I hold no great hope for Star Citizen, the amount of monetary support for Space games it's brought about has rekindled a ton of interest in the genre.
I personally like big open worlds, immersion, RP, etc. But when I looked at the classic games in their time, they failed for me on too many levels. No starry eyed nostalgia here: UO and EQ kept me from playing MMOs for years. The fabled 'redo with modern graphics' mantra carries no sway.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I had to stop my daily musings on the Star Citizen forums, because I don't see how the devs there are doing much right, and so lingering on their forums became a little painful for me.
I can't help but think they push out one half assed idea onto another. The big and deep ideas just aren't there imo. Weak understanding of concepts is my impression. I suspect that somewhere in their offices, there is a 10 year old design document. Such design documents are my big fear with games
because devs as I see it, probably intend to just shoehorn in every shitty idea they came up with early on, perhaps having with no intention, or even leaving no room, for change.
The fact that instanced gameplay has become so popular tell you something about whether people really support open world massively multiplayer gameplay.
And you're 2.5, almost 3 years behind the something new. That would be Guild Wars 2.
In fact it can easily tackle almost every point you have there:
Don't forget, he needs them to be free, too. With full access and no paywalls.
"Open world" implies two components, which are pretty distinct (and perhaps should be thought of separately.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver