The OPs thoughts are really incoherant, really, you should try to make a sensible arguement in your head before posting. Historically, yes, sandboxes do worse than themeparks, but this is down to human nature (most people are sheep and lack the initiative to create their own stories) and accessibility (most sandboxes are hard to understand and play). Again, no correlation with game world size.
Well another way to look at it is that when we are small children we play in the sandboxes. When we grow older and get tall enough to get on the rides we go to the themepark. We might be able to make psychological and sociological reasons but I don't know if that would be a good discussion. ah ha.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I don't think so. I mean, the amount of space that's relevant to a player at any given time is actually pretty small. When leveling, if you're lucky you'll have two areas to choose from at each level range. At cap, you're limited again to a few zones and some instanced dungeons and raids. Few games make use of the whole world at all times.
Most MMOs these days center around solo play, that is not good for the longterm health of a game: people play through the content in a month or two and quit.
Most MMOs today are copies of other MMOs. It is this sameness and lack of creativity that plagues the genre. How many WoW clones or asian grinders do people need to play before they get fed up seeing the same thing for the Nth time?
And then there are the payment model problems. Western players largely hate "P2W" and advantage granting cash shops and content gating mechanics, and Asian players do not like paying a sub (for something not a FF game).
All of that is more important than a game being "too big". And open world, non-linear gameplay is more or less considered a good thing at this point.
MOBAs are not MMOs. MOBAs are successful because they play to the low attention span people vs MMOs where Successful at their peak by being in-depth and not everyone was successful. When MMOs changed into everyone is a winner and gets Epic gear, and gets into raids they lost their popularity.
The Solution to MMOs are start to become more in-depth and time consuming because you cannot make a game that cost $100+ Million and people are done with all its content in a matter of a few months. WOW Was successful when people took months to level, and was the most involve with all of its content. The reason why MMOs are boring today? Look at SWTOR Leveling and raiding content was all completed in a week. Even the most hardcore in Vanilla WOW took a month to level and that was a person playing nearly 16 hour days. The Average Player took 5 months.
Theme parks that cost hundreds of millions of dollars... for what? So that one can play them like single player rpg games without any of the m in the mmo.
So change the genre name .. or ignore the first m in mmo. Problem solved.
it is about if a game is good (subjective to the audience), not whether it has massively MP. Few gamer will insists on that feature, as shown by the great success of non-massively MP online games that the MMO industry is now trying to claim as their own.
Theme parks that cost hundreds of millions of dollars... for what? So that one can play them like single player rpg games without any of the m in the mmo.
So change the genre name .. or ignore the first m in mmo. Problem solved.
it is about if a game is good (subjective to the audience), not whether it has massively MP. Few gamer will insists on that feature, as shown by the great success of non-massively MP online games that the MMO industry is now trying to claim as their own.
"as shown by the great success of non-massively MP online games that the MMO industry is now trying to claim as their own."
I think you have that the wrong way round. Gaming houses use the MMO name to give their games a recognisable label that has more kudos than the likes of RTS. It advertisers and marketing that are choosing those labels not the games designers.
First League Of Legends is pure trash Second LOL is a PlayerVsPlayer Cheap no punishment Death match
Ark on the other hand give you huge world beautiful world quite realistic but punishments are insane months of work can be wiped in 1 hour ....
The success of LOL is not it small world but it's narrow focus of fast non punishment fun ..... While most MMORPG players like me want something more than that some pvp loads of features and Role Playing .... but no mmo at the moment does that well . That why I supported Chronicles of Elirya and Dual Universe
Scot said: It advertisers and marketing that are choosing those labels not the games designers.
....and like you said marketing chose the label based on recognition by players, therefore it is players considering those games MMOs.
Circle is complete.
Marketing does not choose terms based on recognition. They choose terms based on what will sell.
It's not about recognition, and it's not about giving people accurate and understandable descriptions of your product. That's not the aim. The aim is to create just enough positive misconceptions and associations that it will help sales without causing backslash.
I'm sure the OP is just trolling but I can't stop myself. Just because you have noticed a correlation between game world sizes and success, doesn't mean there is a causal link. Also, you haven't actually noticed a correlation, you've just cherry picked a couple of games to support your theory. I could just as easily say "Infinite Crisis had a really small world / game area and it failed, but Skyrim was massively popular with a large world, therefore large worlds are the best".
2) Accessibility
Despite the OP talking about game world size, he's got it wrong. He's actually talking about accessibility, which has nothing to do with game world size. Games that are easy to get into and play (i.e. are accessible) tend to do better, regardless of world size.
3) Sandboxes
The OPs thoughts are really incoherant, really, you should try to make a sensible arguement in your head before posting. Historically, yes, sandboxes do worse than themeparks, but this is down to human nature (most people are sheep and lack the initiative to create their own stories) and accessibility (most sandboxes are hard to understand and play). Again, no correlation with game world size.
4) MOBA =/= MMO
There is nothing massively-multiplayer about LoL. You should know this by now.
Thank you.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Marketing does not choose terms based on recognition. They choose terms based on what will sell.
Of course it is about recongnition and of course you will do your best to make your product look "better" - just like when you are structuring your CV.
Those two are not mutually exclusive tho, on the contrary.
In this case, MMO label is indeed about recognition - simple recognizeable label instead of miriad confusing terms describing each little differences(think of music industry).
... And then there are the payment model problems. Western players largely hate "P2W" and advantage granting cash shops and content gating mechanics, and Asian players do not like paying a sub (for something not a FF game). ...
You shouldn't be including Japanese players and even south Koreans with Chinese players. South Korea have 3 million paying subs in Lineage. Japan have several P2P MMOs beside FF but none of them have an English version.
Chinese players and people from some other smaller countries around don't like P2P but Asia is huge and people are rather different as well.
I think you have that the wrong way round. Gaming houses use the MMO name to give their games a recognisable label that has more kudos than the likes of RTS. It advertisers and marketing that are choosing those labels not the games designers.
Really?
Do you think LoL cares more about the MMO label, or MMO sites cares to include LoL just to boost their traffic?
MMO is not a selling point anymore for devs. For MMO websites .. well, they don't have much choice but to broaden its use.
I think the only time world size being too big and ruining an MMO is if its main focus is world pvp and people are too spread out for that to happen. I can't say I have ever played one where I felt it was too large and I have played most of them at least for awhile. Maybe way back on SWG when my speeder was basically auto piloting across a desolate world it felt too big, but even then I don't know. It actually felt kind of good(possibly rose colored glasses here).
Accessibility however was a good point brought up. MMO's cater to a wider variety of gamer demographics early in their(the games) life. The hardcore mmo types tend to stick around, but a lot of casual gamers play for a month and are done. The reason is because playerbase retention revolves around endgame raiding or pvp. People that are in it for the quest or experience feel like they finish and move on. That small demographic that remains isn't sustainable for games so they dwindle and die out unfortunately. Unless of course a new expansion with quests comes along...
Scot said: It advertisers and marketing that are choosing those labels not the games designers.
....and like you said marketing chose the label based on recognition by players, therefore it is players considering those games MMOs.
Circle is complete.
They are trying to create recognition not follow what a focus group of players said. Marketing does not just cater for what is there, it tries to push incorrect identification if that sells. Some examples:
"Closing down sale!" "This super MMO Game" "A classic car"
I think you have that the wrong way round. Gaming houses use the MMO name to give their games a recognisable label that has more kudos than the likes of RTS. It advertisers and marketing that are choosing those labels not the games designers.
Really?
Do you think LoL cares more about the MMO label, or MMO sites cares to include LoL just to boost their traffic?
MMO is not a selling point anymore for devs. For MMO websites .. well, they don't have much choice but to broaden its use.
When LoL launched it wanted that MMO label very much, what else would it be called, something backwater like RTS?
Now its success means it could not care at all what people label it as.
1) Specify what they consider failing 2) Provide sources or information that shows a correlation to the thing they think is bad and the actual failing and how there aren't any other contributing factors.
Is [Insert Game Feature] why [Game Genre] Fails?
MMORPG.com threads are supposed to devolve after a few pages, not in the middle of the original post.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Comments
Giant empty worlds/universes are a bare scrap of content.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
No need to read anymore.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Most MMOs these days center around solo play, that is not good for the longterm health of a game: people play through the content in a month or two and quit.
Most MMOs today are copies of other MMOs. It is this sameness and lack of creativity that plagues the genre. How many WoW clones or asian grinders do people need to play before they get fed up seeing the same thing for the Nth time?
And then there are the payment model problems. Western players largely hate "P2W" and advantage granting cash shops and content gating mechanics, and Asian players do not like paying a sub (for something not a FF game).
All of that is more important than a game being "too big". And open world, non-linear gameplay is more or less considered a good thing at this point.
The Solution to MMOs are start to become more in-depth and time consuming because you cannot make a game that cost $100+ Million and people are done with all its content in a matter of a few months. WOW Was successful when people took months to level, and was the most involve with all of its content. The reason why MMOs are boring today? Look at SWTOR Leveling and raiding content was all completed in a week. Even the most hardcore in Vanilla WOW took a month to level and that was a person playing nearly 16 hour days. The Average Player took 5 months.
it is about if a game is good (subjective to the audience), not whether it has massively MP. Few gamer will insists on that feature, as shown by the great success of non-massively MP online games that the MMO industry is now trying to claim as their own.
I think you have that the wrong way round. Gaming houses use the MMO name to give their games a recognisable label that has more kudos than the likes of RTS. It advertisers and marketing that are choosing those labels not the games designers.
Eve is like that, the players define Eve, thats the difference.
Second LOL is a PlayerVsPlayer Cheap no punishment Death match
Ark on the other hand give you huge world beautiful world quite realistic but punishments are insane
months of work can be wiped in 1 hour ....
The success of LOL is not it small world but it's narrow focus of fast non punishment fun .....
While most MMORPG players like me want something more than that some pvp loads of features and Role Playing .... but no mmo at the moment does that well .
That why I supported Chronicles of Elirya and Dual Universe
Circle is complete.
It's not about recognition, and it's not about giving people accurate and understandable descriptions of your product. That's not the aim. The aim is to create just enough positive misconceptions and associations that it will help sales without causing backslash.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Those two are not mutually exclusive tho, on the contrary.
In this case, MMO label is indeed about recognition - simple recognizeable label instead of miriad confusing terms describing each little differences(think of music industry).
Chinese players and people from some other smaller countries around don't like P2P but Asia is huge and people are rather different as well.
Do you think LoL cares more about the MMO label, or MMO sites cares to include LoL just to boost their traffic?
MMO is not a selling point anymore for devs. For MMO websites .. well, they don't have much choice but to broaden its use.
Accessibility however was a good point brought up. MMO's cater to a wider variety of gamer demographics early in their(the games) life. The hardcore mmo types tend to stick around, but a lot of casual gamers play for a month and are done. The reason is because playerbase retention revolves around endgame raiding or pvp. People that are in it for the quest or experience feel like they finish and move on. That small demographic that remains isn't sustainable for games so they dwindle and die out unfortunately. Unless of course a new expansion with quests comes along...
They are trying to create recognition not follow what a focus group of players said. Marketing does not just cater for what is there, it tries to push incorrect identification if that sells. Some examples:
"Closing down sale!"
"This super MMO Game"
"A classic car"
And so on.
When LoL launched it wanted that MMO label very much, what else would it be called, something backwater like RTS?
Now its success means it could not care at all what people label it as.
1) Specify what they consider failing
2) Provide sources or information that shows a correlation to the thing they think is bad and the actual failing and how there aren't any other contributing factors.
Is [Insert Game Feature] why [Game Genre] Fails?
MMORPG.com threads are supposed to devolve after a few pages, not in the middle of the original post.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯