Stay away from Warhammer then, because the developers have even said it is not going to be a world, just a theme park game
Lets wait til open beta to say that. I for once, disagree.
I agree with above post that WAR will be theme park-ish (linear, Levels, Classes, instances, etc). But I also agree with Teiman it is better to wait til open beta (even though we know the DEveloper has confirmed that)
I'm not sure how I feel on this topic it really varies how Instances are employed. In the case of guild wars, I didn't mind them at all because its not even trying to be an MMO in the 1st place. It's a fresh, non-grindy game that lets me use my player skill over gear. plus I pay no monthly fee. I have enjoyed GW far more then the average grindfest MMO....
I also greatly enjoy games that are completely non-instanced. Perhaps I play these way more. The non-instanced games are usually striving to give us impact, depth, deep character development, and so forth.
The problem with Instancing, for me, is how the lazy developers employ them. EQ2 was just plain lazy. Entire towns being sharded off was just awful. Also, I cannot understand why a simple auto attach MMO needs to shard off hunting grounds when hundreds of ASian grinders don't need too.
I could maybe understand if developers use instancing to give us true realtime aim and dodging. If you can really justify it that is fine (like MMOFPS game). But just being lazy and instancing off entire hunting areas in a simple auto attack MMO no, I just don't get it
About World of Warcraft hmm.... The Battlegrounds really really nailed the coffin for me. 40 versus 40 PVP? I can get that in a first person shooter and get much more responsive pvp for much less grind. So I quit because that is something I can get anywhere else.
Where Category would you put EQ2 & WoW in? I gues what I am saying is I don't like paying for Intancing. That is not an MMO that is a Multi Player Gamer disguised as an MMO!
I'd say WoW is not a real game world because so much of the old world was off-limits (Ironforge Airstrip) and because looking at the world, the placement of areas did not make sense. When Redridge Mountains were one zone away from the Burning Steppes, or Searing Gorge a very very brief flight from Stormwind, I don't find this to be a true world. If this were a true world, I would expect drake raids on Stormwind or blackrock orcs to raze Lakeshore to the ground just for kicks.
From a world perspective, I think EQ1 and 2 are fairly accurate. A general venturing out from one's home will eventually lead to increasingly dangerous situations. This, for me is the generic true fantasy theme written about in novels for decades. Hero sets off to fight evil and after a long, perilious journey, does so with his friends... The End.
Fantasy novels are never written stating that a Hero sets off to fight evil and after a pretty short journey ends up in the big, bad, evil's area where he accidentally gets toasted by a fire imp. The End.
EQ2 - Good Elf Hero sets off from Qeynos to fight the forces of evil. Good Elf Hero meets Evil Troll Hero but cant kill him because the game says he cant. Good Elf Hero joins forces with Evil Troll Hero because the game says alignment doesnt matter. Good Ef Hero and Evil Troll Hero forget about the whole good vs evil thing and skip hand-in-hand to the nearest dungeon to save puppies and find fairy cakes.
EQ2's fantasy world is TERRIBLE!
I agree with your description of WoW though, although despite the proximity of alliance and horde territory it still manages to portray a much more convincing resemblance to a gameworld than fluffy poncy EQ2 does.
Op you bring up a great point but it also goes back to if not having fun do not play it.
I got on explore bent and went to many places within the game that was above my character'
level.
Was very dissapointed. The areas seemed one way in one way out. I saw the same mobs i have killed eariler with a different name. Including the pests that just had a higher number.
I remember back in daoc days there were areas i loved to hunt loved to go to because of interestning caves critters and ways around the problem parts. I think the smallish or feeling of caved in seems to lose the game wonder of a "boxed " in place.Games that i stayed at a long time had mutliple areas one could hunt in and if someone hated one area there was another area one could play at. They were not forced by developers/ quest line to be in areas they hated.
I hear over and over here and else where the game was fun 1- 20 but after that soured. Well if it was fun 1 - 20 why not try different classes or races and see if that brings a bit of fun back into what you are doing?
If not having any fun then perhaps mmorpgs have lost their appeal for you it's ok to have out grown them.
When I subscribe to an MMO I justify the Subscription by telling myself I am paying for the "World". But it seems as of late a ton of games are being released claiming to have a "World" but It sure doesn't feel like it. These worlds are nothing but Multiplayer Lobbies for small groups. There is no continuity, the player has no way of making any "Impact" on the world. The following are type of "Worlds" true to the MMO Concept : SWG - Best Game "World" Ever, Ultima Vanguard (I know the Game Sucks) but the "World" is constant. ~ "Real" Dark Age Of Camelot
Game "Worlds" that are not: Guild Wars (Yes I know it's Free). DDO AOC POTBS PSU LOTRO Tabula Rassa
Where Category would you put EQ2 & WoW in? I gues what I am saying is I don't like paying for Intancing. That is not an MMO that is a Multi Player Gamer disguised as an MMO!
i would put WOW under true world & EQ2 Under Not a real world.
When I subscribe to an MMO I justify the Subscription by telling myself I am paying for the "World". But it seems as of late a ton of games are being released claiming to have a "World" but It sure doesn't feel like it. These worlds are nothing but Multiplayer Lobbies for small groups. There is no continuity, the player has no way of making any "Impact" on the world. The following are type of "Worlds" true to the MMO Concept : SWG - Best Game "World" Ever, Ultima Vanguard (I know the Game Sucks) but the "World" is constant. ~ "Real" Dark Age Of Camelot
Game "Worlds" that are not: Guild Wars (Yes I know it's Free). DDO AOC POTBS PSU LOTRO Tabula Rassa
Where Category would you put EQ2 & WoW in? I gues what I am saying is I don't like paying for Intancing. That is not an MMO that is a Multi Player Gamer disguised as an MMO!
i would put WOW under true world & EQ2 Under Not a real world.
Op you bring up a great point but it also goes back to if not having fun do not play it. I got on explore bent and went to many places within the game that was above my character' level. Was very dissapointed. The areas seemed one way in one way out. I saw the same mobs i have killed eariler with a different name. Including the pests that just had a higher number. I remember back in daoc days there were areas i loved to hunt loved to go to because of interestning caves critters and ways around the problem parts. I think the smallish or feeling of caved in seems to lose the game wonder of a "boxed " in place.Games that i stayed at a long time had mutliple areas one could hunt in and if someone hated one area there was another area one could play at. They were not forced by developers/ quest line to be in areas they hated. I hear over and over here and else where the game was fun 1- 20 but after that soured. Well if it was fun 1 - 20 why not try different classes or races and see if that brings a bit of fun back into what you are doing? If not having any fun then perhaps mmorpgs have lost their appeal for you it's ok to have out grown them.
The OP wasnt referring to one game in particular. He was talking about mmos in general so.....ummm.....what game are you talking about?
I'm not sure how I feel on this topic it really varies how Instances are employed. In the case of guild wars, I didn't mind them at all because its not even trying to be an MMO in the 1st place. It's a fresh, non-grindy game that lets me use my player skill over gear. plus I pay no monthly fee. I have enjoyed GW far more then the average grindfest MMO....
I also greatly enjoy games that are completely non-instanced. Perhaps I play these way more. The non-instanced games are usually striving to give us impact, depth, deep character development, and so forth.
The problem with Instancing, for me, is how the lazy developers employ them. EQ2 was just plain lazy. Entire towns being sharded off was just awful. Also, I cannot understand why a simple auto attach MMO needs to shard off hunting grounds when hundreds of ASian grinders don't need too.
I could maybe understand if developers use instancing to give us true realtime aim and dodging. If you can really justify it that is fine (like MMOFPS game). But just being lazy and instancing off entire hunting areas in a simple auto attack MMO no, I just don't get it
About World of Warcraft hmm.... The Battlegrounds really really nailed the coffin for me. 40 versus 40 PVP? I can get that in a first person shooter and get much more responsive pvp for much less grind. So I quit because that is something I can get anywhere else.
Well, I'm not going to refight the whole Guild Wars isn't an MMOG battle, but it's incorrect to say your actions have no effect on the game world.
1. Towns and Cities on the Canthan continent can be conquered by a group of allied guilds. The front line between the Kurzicks and Luxons changes depending on how well either group is figthing in the global conflict.
2. ArenaNet has recognized top PVP players with trophies and plaques in-game.
3. By attaining certain titles, you gain the blessing of the gods for every player in your geographic region. For example, become the highest ranked Sunspear and every North American player gets certain bonuses and free access to the realm of the gods.
4. Guild Wars offers player housing with the Hall Of Monuments. No, it's not as expansive as SWG - but you do have a place to store your top armor and weapons and commemorate your top accomplishments.
GW 2 promises to be an open, persistent world where you can make a mark on the game environment. I'm really looking forward to it.
MMO stands for Massively Multiplayer Online, and does not require that the game contain a "world" of any kind. The only thing that defines the genre is the massive multiplayer element. Too many people expect that a game will be like an open book, and you can write the pages as you go. Unless a game explicitly offers this as a feature, then you are subject to playing within the confines of an IP and its content. The only true "world" games, are games such as Second Life. Why? Because a world will be just as tedious at times as real life can be.
I thought all games had created a "world" whether they were singleplayer or otherwise? The point I think most people are trying to make is that they have no influence on the "world".
But is playing in instances massively multiplayer?
Is fighting NPC creatures even multiplayer?
Is fighting NPC creatures with other players multiplayer? I mean you could call that co-op mode.
I think alot of people feel that the term MMORPG is very misleading. I believe it is impossible.
I thought all games got tedious? What you enjoy grinding? They call it that for a reason you know.
I don't think you understand what is meant by the term "world" when it comes to MMO's. Most people consider the game world of an MMO to have an economy and active social aspect(politics). However, there is nowhere in the definition of the genre itself that mentions the need for a persistent world. And the point that you have no influence on the MMO's game world is partly right, but thats what happens when a game is made with a current IP, most writers aren't going to want gamers to dictate what their world is like(i.e., George Lucas and Star Wars).
As for instances, you are right to a point. However, most multiplayer games support a maximum of 64 or so simultaneous players. This would mean that even an instanced game like AoC is more massive than your ordinary multiplayer game.
Fighting creatures/npc's solo is of course, not multiplayer. Fighting with other players against creatures/npc's is. Multiplayer means multiple human players, playing together, co-op or versus.
You're right, the term MMORPG is nearly impossible, as not everyone wants to roleplay and some games make doing so difficult.
All games do get tedious, but in a real virtual world, you would need to periodically use the bathroom, groom yourself, sit around and wait for something to happen, etc.
WoW and EQ2 both have just as much instancing as LOTRO so they would have to fit in your non-world section.
WoW have all there dungeons and batlle grounds instanced yes, but still its a big open world, you cant compare wow with eq2 or aoc.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
When I subscribe to an MMO I justify the Subscription by telling myself I am paying for the "World". But it seems as of late a ton of games are being released claiming to have a "World" but It sure doesn't feel like it. These worlds are nothing but Multiplayer Lobbies for small groups. There is no continuity, the player has no way of making any "Impact" on the world. The following are type of "Worlds" true to the MMO Concept : SWG - Best Game "World" Ever, Ultima Vanguard (I know the Game Sucks) but the "World" is constant. ~ "Real" Dark Age Of Camelot
Game "Worlds" that are not: Guild Wars (Yes I know it's Free). DDO AOC POTBS PSU LOTRO Tabula Rassa
Where Category would you put EQ2 & WoW in? I gues what I am saying is I don't like paying for Intancing. That is not an MMO that is a Multi Player Gamer disguised as an MMO!
lineage2 a much bigger and succesfull game then all on your top list, also belong in that list, its one big open world without instance and millions play it.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
Mythick representative, one of the big guys, said in a recorded interview that they had focused more in the game than in creating a world. That means that this is a selling point now, so we can say good bye to virtual worlds in MMOS.
In a couple of years WOW will be that game with an amazing living world. Go figure.
Having been able to participate in some of EQ2's events to erect new griffon towers and teleport spires, I'd have to say it does have a world feeling to it. Instances don't bother me. I don't need to be able to build a house to feel like it's a world. I just need to be interactive with people.
As for the arguement someone made about WoW being more of a world because it's such a big world... after a large number of expansions, EQ2 isn't exactly a small world either.
As in all things, this is entirely opinion based, and that opinion revolves around what someone wants and expects. And there are as many different opinions on that as there are MMORPG subscriptions.
When I subscribe to an MMO I justify the Subscription by telling myself I am paying for the "World". But it seems as of late a ton of games are being released claiming to have a "World" but It sure doesn't feel like it. These worlds are nothing but Multiplayer Lobbies for small groups. There is no continuity, the player has no way of making any "Impact" on the world. The following are type of "Worlds" true to the MMO Concept : SWG - Best Game "World" Ever, Ultima Vanguard (I know the Game Sucks) but the "World" is constant. ~ "Real" Dark Age Of Camelot
Game "Worlds" that are not: Guild Wars (Yes I know it's Free). DDO AOC POTBS PSU LOTRO Tabula Rassa
Where Category would you put EQ2 & WoW in? I gues what I am saying is I don't like paying for Intancing. That is not an MMO that is a Multi Player Gamer disguised as an MMO!
I know it may be unfashionable but I personally found the WoW world to be beautiful, ingenious and subtly designed. My objection though was that it just isn't large enough. That's understandable - one SWG planet probably has more area than all the zones and instances of WoW put together however that planet was also a great deal emptier, certainly it would not have the mobs/encounters per m2 of WoW. How I would love a WoW world that was enormous - but also, relfecting 'reality', just a little bit emptier and also with the user ability to 'change' the wolrd, by putting up their own homestead, shop or palace. It would take a design, badnwidth and game revolution to achieve this though.
Not only are the non-instanced maps, also the "what can I do in the map". SWG, UO, EvE and the likes have lots of "social" tools and generaly developed big anc complex societies. Housing, non combat professions, cities, decoration, etc. It's like the web 1.0 vs web 2.0, it's all about being social. Don't know why mmos are going back to 1.0 when they already where in the 2.0 phase some years ago.
this is a great point, since we are in the age of social networking i dont understand why mmo's dont jump on this..instead they are going back to a linear less social system.
Having been able to participate in some of EQ2's events to erect new griffon towers and teleport spires, I'd have to say it does have a world feeling to it. Instances don't bother me. I don't need to be able to build a house to feel like it's a world. I just need to be interactive with people. As for the arguement someone made about WoW being more of a world because it's such a big world... after a large number of expansions, EQ2 isn't exactly a small world either. As in all things, this is entirely opinion based, and that opinion revolves around what someone wants and expects. And there are as many different opinions on that as there are MMORPG subscriptions.
housing in an mmo is one of the most important social elements.. not just housing but players cities, this giives people a social hub..these days people are just out leveling and looking for gear..give the power back to the crafters and people will have to deal with real life people and not some boring instance.
When I subscribe to an MMO I justify the Subscription by telling myself I am paying for the "World". But it seems as of late a ton of games are being released claiming to have a "World" but It sure doesn't feel like it. These worlds are nothing but Multiplayer Lobbies for small groups. There is no continuity, the player has no way of making any "Impact" on the world. The following are type of "Worlds" true to the MMO Concept : SWG - Best Game "World" Ever, Ultima Vanguard (I know the Game Sucks) but the "World" is constant. ~ "Real" Dark Age Of Camelot
Game "Worlds" that are not: Guild Wars (Yes I know it's Free). DDO AOC POTBS PSU LOTRO Tabula Rassa
Where Category would you put EQ2 & WoW in? I gues what I am saying is I don't like paying for Intancing. That is not an MMO that is a Multi Player Gamer disguised as an MMO!
Actually, it sounds like you prefer open world games by design. Instanced games are another way of design and you just don't prefer them.
I however have no preference, just need a good game to play that can out last me.
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
When I subscribe to an MMO I justify the Subscription by telling myself I am paying for the "World". But it seems as of late a ton of games are being released claiming to have a "World" but It sure doesn't feel like it. These worlds are nothing but Multiplayer Lobbies for small groups. There is no continuity, the player has no way of making any "Impact" on the world. The following are type of "Worlds" true to the MMO Concept : SWG - Best Game "World" Ever, Ultima Vanguard (I know the Game Sucks) but the "World" is constant. ~ "Real" Dark Age Of Camelot
Game "Worlds" that are not: Guild Wars (Yes I know it's Free). DDO AOC POTBS PSU LOTRO Tabula Rassa
Where Category would you put EQ2 & WoW in? I gues what I am saying is I don't like paying for Intancing. That is not an MMO that is a Multi Player Gamer disguised as an MMO!
I hear what you are saying. I have enough unpleasant surprises in rl. I like the idea of having pleasant surprises in my gaming experience, and one such surprise is the meeting of minds. When I am adventuring I like encountering familiar faces and chatting or at least asking how they are doing. That sort of thing can't happen if all the adventuring is done in instances. I don't know about you, but I like finding new friends by chance(as opposed to shouting on a general channel for a specific purpose); crossing paths with old well-known faces is essential for continuity.
Comments
WOW is a seemless world, the only problem with it is it's level based and makes the world dead once you past a certain level.
----------------------------------------
Talking about SWG much?
Lets wait til open beta to say that. I for once, disagree.
I agree with above post that WAR will be theme park-ish (linear, Levels, Classes, instances, etc). But I also agree with Teiman it is better to wait til open beta (even though we know the DEveloper has confirmed that)
I'm not sure how I feel on this topic it really varies how Instances are employed. In the case of guild wars, I didn't mind them at all because its not even trying to be an MMO in the 1st place. It's a fresh, non-grindy game that lets me use my player skill over gear. plus I pay no monthly fee. I have enjoyed GW far more then the average grindfest MMO....
I also greatly enjoy games that are completely non-instanced. Perhaps I play these way more. The non-instanced games are usually striving to give us impact, depth, deep character development, and so forth.
The problem with Instancing, for me, is how the lazy developers employ them. EQ2 was just plain lazy. Entire towns being sharded off was just awful. Also, I cannot understand why a simple auto attach MMO needs to shard off hunting grounds when hundreds of ASian grinders don't need too.
I could maybe understand if developers use instancing to give us true realtime aim and dodging. If you can really justify it that is fine (like MMOFPS game). But just being lazy and instancing off entire hunting areas in a simple auto attack MMO no, I just don't get it
About World of Warcraft hmm.... The Battlegrounds really really nailed the coffin for me. 40 versus 40 PVP? I can get that in a first person shooter and get much more responsive pvp for much less grind. So I quit because that is something I can get anywhere else.
I'd say WoW is not a real game world because so much of the old world was off-limits (Ironforge Airstrip) and because looking at the world, the placement of areas did not make sense. When Redridge Mountains were one zone away from the Burning Steppes, or Searing Gorge a very very brief flight from Stormwind, I don't find this to be a true world. If this were a true world, I would expect drake raids on Stormwind or blackrock orcs to raze Lakeshore to the ground just for kicks.
From a world perspective, I think EQ1 and 2 are fairly accurate. A general venturing out from one's home will eventually lead to increasingly dangerous situations. This, for me is the generic true fantasy theme written about in novels for decades. Hero sets off to fight evil and after a long, perilious journey, does so with his friends... The End.
Fantasy novels are never written stating that a Hero sets off to fight evil and after a pretty short journey ends up in the big, bad, evil's area where he accidentally gets toasted by a fire imp. The End.
EQ2 - Good Elf Hero sets off from Qeynos to fight the forces of evil. Good Elf Hero meets Evil Troll Hero but cant kill him because the game says he cant. Good Elf Hero joins forces with Evil Troll Hero because the game says alignment doesnt matter. Good Ef Hero and Evil Troll Hero forget about the whole good vs evil thing and skip hand-in-hand to the nearest dungeon to save puppies and find fairy cakes.
EQ2's fantasy world is TERRIBLE!
I agree with your description of WoW though, although despite the proximity of alliance and horde territory it still manages to portray a much more convincing resemblance to a gameworld than fluffy poncy EQ2 does.
Op you bring up a great point but it also goes back to if not having fun do not play it.
I got on explore bent and went to many places within the game that was above my character'
level.
Was very dissapointed. The areas seemed one way in one way out. I saw the same mobs i have killed eariler with a different name. Including the pests that just had a higher number.
I remember back in daoc days there were areas i loved to hunt loved to go to because of interestning caves critters and ways around the problem parts. I think the smallish or feeling of caved in seems to lose the game wonder of a "boxed " in place.Games that i stayed at a long time had mutliple areas one could hunt in and if someone hated one area there was another area one could play at. They were not forced by developers/ quest line to be in areas they hated.
I hear over and over here and else where the game was fun 1- 20 but after that soured. Well if it was fun 1 - 20 why not try different classes or races and see if that brings a bit of fun back into what you are doing?
If not having any fun then perhaps mmorpgs have lost their appeal for you it's ok to have out grown them.
i would put WOW under true world & EQ2 Under Not a real world.
i would put WOW under true world & EQ2 Under Not a real world.
Why? Whats the difference between them?
The OP wasnt referring to one game in particular. He was talking about mmos in general so.....ummm.....what game are you talking about?
good points
lol neonwire
, trolls and elves.
Well, I'm not going to refight the whole Guild Wars isn't an MMOG battle, but it's incorrect to say your actions have no effect on the game world.
1. Towns and Cities on the Canthan continent can be conquered by a group of allied guilds. The front line between the Kurzicks and Luxons changes depending on how well either group is figthing in the global conflict.
2. ArenaNet has recognized top PVP players with trophies and plaques in-game.
3. By attaining certain titles, you gain the blessing of the gods for every player in your geographic region. For example, become the highest ranked Sunspear and every North American player gets certain bonuses and free access to the realm of the gods.
4. Guild Wars offers player housing with the Hall Of Monuments. No, it's not as expansive as SWG - but you do have a place to store your top armor and weapons and commemorate your top accomplishments.
GW 2 promises to be an open, persistent world where you can make a mark on the game environment. I'm really looking forward to it.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
I don't think you understand what is meant by the term "world" when it comes to MMO's. Most people consider the game world of an MMO to have an economy and active social aspect(politics). However, there is nowhere in the definition of the genre itself that mentions the need for a persistent world. And the point that you have no influence on the MMO's game world is partly right, but thats what happens when a game is made with a current IP, most writers aren't going to want gamers to dictate what their world is like(i.e., George Lucas and Star Wars).
As for instances, you are right to a point. However, most multiplayer games support a maximum of 64 or so simultaneous players. This would mean that even an instanced game like AoC is more massive than your ordinary multiplayer game.
Fighting creatures/npc's solo is of course, not multiplayer. Fighting with other players against creatures/npc's is. Multiplayer means multiple human players, playing together, co-op or versus.
You're right, the term MMORPG is nearly impossible, as not everyone wants to roleplay and some games make doing so difficult.
All games do get tedious, but in a real virtual world, you would need to periodically use the bathroom, groom yourself, sit around and wait for something to happen, etc.
WoW have all there dungeons and batlle grounds instanced yes, but still its a big open world, you cant compare wow with eq2 or aoc.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
lineage2 a much bigger and succesfull game then all on your top list, also belong in that list, its one big open world without instance and millions play it.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
Mythick representative, one of the big guys, said in a recorded interview that they had focused more in the game than in creating a world. That means that this is a selling point now, so we can say good bye to virtual worlds in MMOS.
In a couple of years WOW will be that game with an amazing living world. Go figure.
Having been able to participate in some of EQ2's events to erect new griffon towers and teleport spires, I'd have to say it does have a world feeling to it. Instances don't bother me. I don't need to be able to build a house to feel like it's a world. I just need to be interactive with people.
As for the arguement someone made about WoW being more of a world because it's such a big world... after a large number of expansions, EQ2 isn't exactly a small world either.
As in all things, this is entirely opinion based, and that opinion revolves around what someone wants and expects. And there are as many different opinions on that as there are MMORPG subscriptions.
I know it may be unfashionable but I personally found the WoW world to be beautiful, ingenious and subtly designed. My objection though was that it just isn't large enough. That's understandable - one SWG planet probably has more area than all the zones and instances of WoW put together however that planet was also a great deal emptier, certainly it would not have the mobs/encounters per m2 of WoW. How I would love a WoW world that was enormous - but also, relfecting 'reality', just a little bit emptier and also with the user ability to 'change' the wolrd, by putting up their own homestead, shop or palace. It would take a design, badnwidth and game revolution to achieve this though.
this is a great point, since we are in the age of social networking i dont understand why mmo's dont jump on this..instead they are going back to a linear less social system.
housing in an mmo is one of the most important social elements.. not just housing but players cities, this giives people a social hub..these days people are just out leveling and looking for gear..give the power back to the crafters and people will have to deal with real life people and not some boring instance.
Actually, it sounds like you prefer open world games by design. Instanced games are another way of design and you just don't prefer them.
I however have no preference, just need a good game to play that can out last me.
-----------------------------
IVE PLAYED WOW AND LIKED IT SO IM A FANBOI PLZ FLAME MY THREADS CUZ I MIGHT MENTION WOW
I hear what you are saying. I have enough unpleasant surprises in rl. I like the idea of having pleasant surprises in my gaming experience, and one such surprise is the meeting of minds. When I am adventuring I like encountering familiar faces and chatting or at least asking how they are doing. That sort of thing can't happen if all the adventuring is done in instances. I don't know about you, but I like finding new friends by chance(as opposed to shouting on a general channel for a specific purpose); crossing paths with old well-known faces is essential for continuity.