I would say LOTRO for story, hands down. The problem is after you hit max, you go to sleep. There isnt as much endgame raiding/things to do as one would like. Thats really the only problem I had with Lotro. The gameplay was good, game polished, good graphics. But for all of that it had, that game was never a "thrill' to play, and it wasnt "grindy" at all. Reading all the quests and such were very good but only got so far.
Final Fantasy for me was the reverse.. that story was ho hum. There was one but it was slow evolving and there were times you actually forgot there was some kind of story you could follow for all the grinding you did. But that said, I dunno why, but I got the most satisfaction out of leveling 4 characters to max than any other game Ive played. The fact that you could just change your characters job in a instant and go from pure healer to pure dps or tank.. was extremely fun and novel. I really hate the games I play now where I have to keep "inventing" new character names, and then re-introducing them to friends. (hey, its me!!). But lore was not so hot here.
EQ2 was about the same lore wise. There was a story but youd forget there was. Although different from FFXI (not grindy at all) you bounced around a lot so I didnt usually follow how the character went. I did love the character variety in this game more than any other game I have played. You play the "good" side, then switch over and play the "bad" side (up to you to figure who was who:P) At end game though, I got bored but no where as near bored as Lotro.
I think the basic problem with a lot of these MMOs now, is that makers are trying to catch too many fish with a too small a net. They want the PvE crowd AND the PvP crowd. So these games get spread so thin, BOTH sides suffer. Pvp cries cause the classes arent balanced, and PvE cries cause theres little endgame. I long for a company to come out and make a pure PvP game, with NO PvE.. so the pvp people can just go there, and one to make a PURE PvE game so adults can go to that one. (statistically, more adults go for pve, more under 25 go for PvP; not bashing) That way, the pve game would focus on: STORY, Raiding, party mechanics and the pvp game would focus on class balance, arena diversity, and RvR.
Until a company comes out and does this, we are gonna keep getting these messed up games that sastify no one in particular.
true, but not talking about those console type games. Those dont count as MMOs, which is what we are talking about. And I think thousands is a "slight" exaggeration.
The age thing, again, going off of statistics you can pull anywhere- the PvP crowd is USUALLY under 25 as the main. While the PvE crowd is USUALLY 30-35+. To cite yourself as an example of a almost 40 year old pvper (if thats what your doing by posting your age) just shows you are in the minority, not the norm.
Ten more almost middle aged guys can post they like to PvP too, but it still wouldnt speak for the average.
It sounds like you'd rather be playing single player games. I'm not trying to be mean, but why do you dislike PvP and like PvE? I could never figure this out. PvP is PvE against other players. Anyways, I feel that WAR has (suprisingly) great PvE/Story. EVERY quest in WAR fits right in to the story. Dare I go as far as saying that WAR's quests/story are better than most other MMOs (including WoW)? Personally, I'm getting the vibe that I'm in war-torn lands just trying to help out my faction (which is the story in a nutshell).
Seriously, you can't figure this out?
There are plenty of people who are just not wired to go head to head with other people. They don't enjoy the adrenaline rush, they don't enjoy dealing with the l33t kidz or emotionally stunted who smack talk back or that they are ganked when they are just in the mood to do other things in game. They are more interested in story line and perhaps the social aspects of tackling objectives with others. PvP is not PvE against other players.
For me personally I enjoy the choice. Sometimes I want to pvp and sometimes I just want to do quests or level.
this is how i feel. of course PvP would be ok (to me) if the players actually did the roleplay thing and we had an objective other than "hey, let's kill these guys". but (from the PvP that i have encountered) it's all about "OMG i totally PWNd U!!" or whatever. it's all about hack and slash and winning for the sake of winning. don't get me wrong, i don't think there's anything wrong with people who enjoy it and i think it does take more strategy and teamwork to win at PvP than PvE. i will do PvP on rare occasion. i can do it, i mean, i don't suck at it but i'm not that great either. it's just not for me and the reasons mentioned, are why.
i accept that i should probably just stick with single player RPGs but i was hoping there might be some other good story driven MMOs, like Guild Wars (my opinion), out there. i know the others like WAR and WOW do have stories there, and i do read everything available about them, it's just not good in my opinion and i can't get into them. i played WOW for a while and had a level 70 (basically kept playing it just to get to 70 even though i was bored, lol) but it feels like the stories in those games were just tossed in to keep it from being pure PvP and grinding. i know others don't feel that way however, it's just my opinion.
speaking of which, it was mentioned that GW is just a single player RPG with online capabilities and there are others like that out there. what are some others? sorry for my ignorance, it's just i don't spend much time around gaming communities and whatnot. i basically pick and choose my games from advertisements or best sellers from amazon so i'm sure there's probably some great games out there that i've missed. someone mentioned THE WITCHER earlier and i actually just ordered that one yesterday. not a MMO but it looks amazing!
I would say LOTRO for story, hands down. The problem is after you hit max, you go to sleep. There isnt as much endgame raiding/things to do as one would like. Thats really the only problem I had with Lotro. The gameplay was good, game polished, good graphics. But for all of that it had, that game was never a "thrill' to play, and it wasnt "grindy" at all. Reading all the quests and such were very good but only got so far. Final Fantasy for me was the reverse.. that story was ho hum. There was one but it was slow evolving and there were times you actually forgot there was some kind of story you could follow for all the grinding you did. But that said, I dunno why, but I got the most satisfaction out of leveling 4 characters to max than any other game Ive played. The fact that you could just change your characters job in a instant and go from pure healer to pure dps or tank.. was extremely fun and novel. I really hate the games I play now where I have to keep "inventing" new character names, and then re-introducing them to friends. (hey, its me!!). But lore was not so hot here. EQ2 was about the same lore wise. There was a story but youd forget there was. Although different from FFXI (not grindy at all) you bounced around a lot so I didnt usually follow how the character went. I did love the character variety in this game more than any other game I have played. You play the "good" side, then switch over and play the "bad" side (up to you to figure who was who:P) At end game though, I got bored but no where as near bored as Lotro. I think the basic problem with a lot of these MMOs now, is that makers are trying to catch too many fish with a too small a net. They want the PvE crowd AND the PvP crowd. So these games get spread so thin, BOTH sides suffer. Pvp cries cause the classes arent balanced, and PvE cries cause theres little endgame. I long for a company to come out and make a pure PvP game, with NO PvE.. so the pvp people can just go there, and one to make a PURE PvE game so adults can go to that one. (statistically, more adults go for pve, more under 25 go for PvP; not bashing) That way, the pve game would focus on: STORY, Raiding, party mechanics and the pvp game would focus on class balance, arena diversity, and RvR. Until a company comes out and does this, we are gonna keep getting these messed up games that sastify no one in particular.
I was reading through your post and at first although it was clear that you lack a decent imagination, it all seemed like a pretty bog standard opinion that most people have of mmos. The usual thing about LotRO having a great story got said followed by the same old "but the end game isnt so good".....which by the way CLEARLY indicates why online games that play like single player games and tell you a story are shit because.......guess what? The story is gonna end just like it does in a single player game! Ta da! Game over! You've "finished" the game as it has nothing further to tell you and as you the player have no ability within the game to actually do anything except follow the storyline you are left to just raid the same old dungeon or whatever over and over again until your eyes bleed. Yeah brilliant game design!
Then you describe the other two bog standard mmos you have played.....yada yada......and then we get to your AWESOME nugget of wisdom. I highlighted it for you. Can ya see it? Can you? So basicly you're saying that all the childish people and kids want PvP and the more mature adults want PvE. Are you one of those "mature" adults then? A pure PvE game? You already have plenty of them you moron. You just talked about how you played them! LotRO, EQ2, Final Fantasy. There is also Vanguard, WoW (you can totally avoid PvP if you want to), Tabula Rasa, D&D online, Horizons (it flopped unfortunately) etc. Your "ideal game" has already been made multiple times. How many more do you need for god sake?! The only vaguely decent PvP game around has been EvE and the old and outdated UO (there is now WAR of course). All the other PvP options just simply got added onto games that were designed arounf PvE content.
You really are a complete retard arent you. Statistically more adults go for PvE? What a load of complete and utter shit! Hmmm let me guess......did you research these "statistics" or did you perhaps PULL THAT ONE OUT OF YOUR ARSE?!!!
Thankfully though there are people with more brains than you working in the games industry so your ideas wont have any real effect on the games that come out in the future.
It sounds like you'd rather be playing single player games. I'm not trying to be mean, but why do you dislike PvP and like PvE? I could never figure this out. PvP is PvE against other players. Anyways, I feel that WAR has (suprisingly) great PvE/Story. EVERY quest in WAR fits right in to the story. Dare I go as far as saying that WAR's quests/story are better than most other MMOs (including WoW)? Personally, I'm getting the vibe that I'm in war-torn lands just trying to help out my faction (which is the story in a nutshell).
Seriously, you can't figure this out?
There are plenty of people who are just not wired to go head to head with other people. They don't enjoy the adrenaline rush, they don't enjoy dealing with the l33t kidz or emotionally stunted who smack talk back or that they are ganked when they are just in the mood to do other things in game. They are more interested in story line and perhaps the social aspects of tackling objectives with others. PvP is not PvE against other players.
For me personally I enjoy the choice. Sometimes I want to pvp and sometimes I just want to do quests or level.
this is how i feel. of course PvP would be ok (to me) if the players actually did the roleplay thing and we had an objective other than "hey, let's kill these guys". but (from the PvP that i have encountered) it's all about "OMG i totally PWNd U!!" or whatever. it's all about hack and slash and winning for the sake of winning. don't get me wrong, i don't think there's anything wrong with people who enjoy it and i think it does take more strategy and teamwork to win at PvP than PvE. i will do PvP on rare occasion. i can do it, i mean, i don't suck at it but i'm not that great either. it's just not for me and the reasons mentioned, are why.
i accept that i should probably just stick with single player RPGs but i was hoping there might be some other good story driven MMOs, like Guild Wars (my opinion), out there. i know the others like WAR and WOW do have stories there, and i do read everything available about them, it's just not good in my opinion and i can't get into them. i played WOW for a while and had a level 70 (basically kept playing it just to get to 70 even though i was bored, lol) but it feels like the stories in those games were just tossed in to keep it from being pure PvP and grinding. i know others don't feel that way however, it's just my opinion.
speaking of which, it was mentioned that GW is just a single player RPG with online capabilities and there are others like that out there. what are some others? sorry for my ignorance, it's just i don't spend much time around gaming communities and whatnot. i basically pick and choose my games from advertisements or best sellers from amazon so i'm sure there's probably some great games out there that i've missed. someone mentioned THE WITCHER earlier and i actually just ordered that one yesterday. not a MMO but it looks amazing!
Yeah the Witcher is a very good game. Story-wise it is pretty fantastic and very different. You will want to buy Oblivion as well if you havent played that already. Its pretty and allows a lot of freedom. The story is a bit basic but the level of immersion you can get in that game is pretty good. Mass Effect is supposed to be rather good as well. You also might want to consider looking at some of the older D&D games such as Baldurs Gate II as they are rather good on the story side.
I would avoid mmos though if you are looking for a decent storyline. None of them are very good at all. Singleplayer games are the way to go for decent stories.
I wont go thru all the cut/paste, but how you read into things is amazing. No where did I say childish ppl and kids play PvP, or only adults play PvE. I was pointing to the usual numbers. Go get statistics to prove otherwise if you can.. but you wont because they dont show that. They show exactly what i said age wise, I didnt say Maturity wise.
But the way you posted, calling people retards for their opinion and ranting on.. You sir really give light to those numbers. Your charm and politeness speak volumes of the class and quality of the PvP genre. Yes, I made an assumption just there. You PROBABLY are a pvper, as most people reading your response would gather. Not all pvpers are as classy as you.
Either way, you some some issues you must deal with personally that dont involve a MMO...
All those games you listed have some element of PvP; which is what I was saying. They took manpower away from PvE to make some pvp content. Should have been spent all on the PvE. Thats why a lot of them didnt do so well. But again, they are all not pure PvE games. You didnt list one. Maybe DnD.. FFXI HAS some pvp. so does LOTRO, so does EQ2, I believe.
How about games with "less story", "less PVP", and more "world". It has been years since I have played an MMO that is a "world" and not some "theme park" or "PVP stadium".
And as far as "story" goes, story = linear = bad, bad, bad. Let players have the freedom to explore and adventure in a "world". No one needs to follow some story, chapter by chapter.
How about games with "less story", "less PVP", and more "world". It has been years since I have played an MMO that is a "world" and not some "theme park" or "PVP stadium". And as far as "story" goes, story = linear = bad, bad, bad. Let players have the freedom to explore and adventure in a "world". No one needs to follow some story, chapter by chapter.
everyone has different tastes in games, there are sandboxes out there. But this digresses from the op's statement and adding a personal agenda.
me personally, loved LOTRO, but hated its pvp. The storyline was great. I also played Swg for 5 years, eq2 for a few months, and eve for 8 months. Now i am into WAR. I miss the sandbox of SWG, but honestly, i find fun wherever i go if i am with friends.
How about games with "less story", "less PVP", and more "world".
Games with:
1) Linear Stories = interactive storybook or single-player adventure game, perhaps with online multiplayer capabilities.
2) Stadium PvP = combat game (Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, etc.), perhaps with online multiplayer features.
3) World Simulation = massively multiplayer online roleplaying game, also known as a MMORPG.
Now, if we could just get the right people lined up with the right games, all would be well in Gameville. If anyone needs directions to the right game, you might try starting here: www.amazon.com.
On a side note, searching Amazon.com for adventure games returned 1,934 results. Go crazy!!!
Games are full of small storylines catually, quests and quest followups. If they just made those longer, to form decent stories, and remove the 'main' story. They could get plenty of story, but than more sandbox style. I know lotro has a similar quest line, about 10-15 quests, where you help to reforge aragorn's sword. Their main storyline is way too linear though.
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
first off, i'm not knocking PvP, it's just not my thing. even though i tend to play some sort of game (usually MMORPGs) daily, i wouldn't really consider myself to be a hardcore gamer. such as, i don't study and critique a game's combat style and whatnot. i simply play for fun and the main thing that really keeps me playing a game is one with a good story.
now, the only MMORPGs i have played are Neverwinter Nights, WOW, FFXI, LOTRO (briefly), Guild Wars and,now, WAR. the one i most enjoyed was (is) Guild Wars. it's the only one, in my opinion, with a good (and easy to follow) storyline. i have all expansions etc. but the only problem (in my opinion) with GW is that it's just too short.
i've recently started playing WAR and so far it just seems too much like WOW and the community too focused on RvR. i'm only level 17 but so far, there's just no story in my opinion. it's like, what is the goal here? i need a purpose in a game, not just "level for the sake of leveling". games like WAR and WOW would be so much better (for me at least) if they would have just put a little more into the story and perhaps throw in more cutscenes, like the opening scenes, to amp the players up when things get dull.
i know i can find plenty of non-MMORPGs to play that would satisfy my need for a story but i really enjoy the community of online games, and they're often much longer than non-online games. are there any other good MMORPGs out there with decent storylines and are actually fun to play for people who aren't into PvP?
Themepark mmos that you are referring to are very badly written stories. In fact I've seen childrens books which have more depth and character to them. I play online games to interact with other players.....the story aspect is always just a joke which often bores and irritates me if I pay too much attention to it. Quite often after playing an mmo I go and read a good book to refresh my brain cells. I suggest you do the same.
sounds like you need to be playing COD4 and such.
I wouldn't call pre-NGE SWG, EVE, AO, Neocron, EQ1, DAOC, etc "theme park mmos" by any degree. There was/is quite a healthy dose of player interaction, as the players enjoyed the stories TOGETHER.
It's because of the current generation of PS2 babies ignoring the story for a chance to "pwn some n00bs" that we have the shallow e-sport games of today.
Nahh COD4 isnt for me thanks.
But yeah EVE is a good game for roleplaying as you can mostly act out in the game what you actually want to be. DAoC was pretty good for that too although its now too old for my tastes.
I agree with the PS2 babies comment. The thing is all it takes is a well designed game that allows player actions to have an impact on things to allow players to roleplay properly. WAR may well be a fun game for many but it obviously doesnt fall into this category. That doesnt mean PvP cant be used in a good roleplaying game though.
I personally think that restricted PVP is an RP killer.
When I spoke of players making their own story, I didn't really mean one person in their own little world of make-believe. I was more referring to inter-guild politics, etc.
Let me give you an example, In a theoretical MMO, where there is this war between factions, with a neutral aligned faction in the middle. Players form guilds with specific goals...IE, destroying guilds of the opposing factions. All well and good, right?
But...what about tensions within a faction? In the current MMO model...this leads to forum wars, and soap-opera drama, as in almost ALL games....even in pvp areas, you cannot attack players of your own faction.
What if your guild leader is an idiot, and you think you could do a better job? In the best RP environment...you would be able to kill him (provided you were stronger / smarter) and take his place.
Restricted PVP prevents this, and is an immersion killer.
I think back to the days when Neocron was at it's prime. There was PVP...mutants in the wild and quests to do...although no main "story". It was up to the players to build the story....based largely on the tensions between the half-dozen factions within the game. PVP was an option almost EVERYWHERE in the game, and you could kill people even in your own faction.
Gankers who picked on lower levels were hunted by player guilds who's PURPOSE was to protect the n00bs, for example. A rival faction might gather their forces and occupy your faction's "base", forcing you out of your home, until you gathered your allies and reclaimed it.
You could even kill the moron in your group who kept spamming AOE, and accidentally killing his group mates.
There was enough PVE to be able to grind up your template (it was a skill based game), and to be able to hunt for loot. Other than that, the meat of the game was inter-guild war and politics.
It was fantastic. You could become a drug dealer, a mercenary, a hero, a villain. Whatever you wanted to be, and you were not restricted by artificial rules as to who you cold or could not kill.
Kill enough innocents, and the cops would shoot you on sight in populated areas...or you would make too many enemies. You had to think about who you killed, and if the risk was worth it.
And so, this was, IMO the ultimate RP environment. The devs gave their players a world...and let them do whatever the hell they wanted.
Unfortunately, the game was so buggy that after awhile even the most dedicated players couldn't take it anymore. But if there comes a game like this again that not infested with orcs and elves, I'll be there.
Its not an mmorpg but it plays like one. The witcher is a offline RPG old school (Not the Jrpg or Krpg crap we get on mmos) but a Western mmo style. like Goblins. orcs, picture The elder scrolls oblivion, Now take off a lot of the free roaming aspects, add a wonderful 80h + storyline + about the same ammount of side quests, crafting system alchemy, and many different ways to build the character to your liking. Hell the only thing it lacks is range weapons like bows and stuff...but other than that the Witcher is a great offline RPG that plays and feels like an mmo.
LOTRO is book story basis mmo and that was why I quit after 7 months because I had enough books. But the majority loves stories. If you want to play LOTRO maybe it'd better to read the book first just like if you watch the Davinci Code you may need to read the book to enjoy more.
Also, If you play Pirates of Caribbean Online then you should have seen the movie or DVD movie from Disney first. The game characters and ships are nearly 100% like the movie. It is also story basis mmo.
Lord of the Rings Online or Everquest 2. Those are my two best options for storylined, non-pvp focused MMO's. While they both offer varients of PvP, they don't focus on it.
I would agree with that. The only problem with EQ2 is that the storyline has gotten so large that I would no longer call it "simple".
I agree with the original poster. Storyline is important to me too. I don't think it has to be one or the other, though. I'm playing one game that allows PvP everywhere all the time, but I haven't seen anyone actually doing PvP.
The storyline changes every time I play and it is directly affected by player actions. I'll give you an example. Everything I'm about to describe is storyline that has emerged during gameplay. None of this is backstory that the game devs had already written up at the start of the game:
I've been invited to join a group of players that are going to meet in-game today at 3:30 US Pacific Time to go try to recapture Sheep Island from Ogre Raiders and possibly a dragon named Zern. The ogres and the dragon have been at war with the Realm of Azmar which is mostly dwarves with some gnomes. Azmar and another dwarven realm named Stondar defeated the ogres at the Battle of Ogre Island, but Karleg, warlord of Azmar was killed by the dragon Zern at the battle and the dragon then used magic to escape even though it was wounded.
Because Karleg was killed, his son Yarleg (Yarl) has become the ruler of Azmar with the title of Prince Yarl of Azmar. Unlike his father, Yarl is not a warrior and the realm is now losing the war. The Ogre Raiders have recaptured Ogre Island. They have also attacked Sheep Island. Sheep Island, previously known as Tower Island because of an ancient stone tower there, had been a peaceful place inhabited only by on dwarf shepherd named Garon. Other than getting help killing wolves and a strange beast that were preying on his sheep, Garon has been living in peace. Due to the threat of Ogre Raiders, he allowed his island to be annexed by Azmar. The dwarves of Azmar set up a colony there so there was a village of dwarves on the island instead of just one shepherd.
Then, after the Warlord Karleg was killed by the dragon, Azmar didn't do a good job of defending Sheep Island and Ogre Raiders and the dragon conquered Sheep Island and all the dwarves were killed or fled by ship.
So now Garon has declared independence from Azmar and is seeking help from Stondar. One of the players I'm working with is Thaero, the High Ranger of Azmar, the leader of the elves that are helping Azmar. The players I'm working with negotiated with Prince Noreg of Stondar to try to get him to send troops to help retake Sheep Island for Azmar. He refused and said if he was going to send troops, he'd just take the island and make it part of the Realm of Stondar. So they went to Garon instead and he urged them to just help him retake it and offered to give them all land on the island if they succeeded. Meanwhile the players cut a deal with Prince Noreg of Stondar that if they killed the dragon, which threatens everyone, they would be allowed to enter Stondar City any time they want even though everyone except dwarves has been banned. Then they got the prince to agree to let non-dwarves in if they'll pay a tax. This is important because Stondar City is the main center of trade in the known world and it was seriously messing up trade that people couldn't go in there. Next we need to figure out how to get rid of the tax. But first, Sheep Island must be free! Death to the Ogres!
If Garon does get Sheep Island back, he'll still have to worry about more attacks by ogres or the dragon. His island is still claimed by Azmar and there is still a chance that Stonar will try to annex it as well. If they both get involved there is a possibility of war between the two dwarven princes which has never happened before. They have been allies against the ogres and if they turn on each other, the ogres will probably capture more lands. Possibly because his position is so weak, Garon has offered to let the players I'm with build houses or even a guild house for their guild on his island. One of the players with us is Beepe, a healer and priestess of the Fellowship of Kraylus. She is also the leader of a guild called The Soul which is the largest guild in the known world. If their guild house gets built on Sheep Island, that adds one more complexity to an already volatile political crisis. Assuming we kick the ogres out. The Soul guild has their own army, by the way. I'm not sure if they're going to be part of the attack today or not.
How's that for a storyline? Maybe not good enough to be a novel, but when did you ever have anything like that in an MMO? It's not just backstory. It's not a quest that people can do over and over again and it changes nothing. I mean, this battle will only happen one time and it will determine who controls Sheep Island. If the ogres die, they don't respawn. If the players die, they go to the underworld, the land of the dead, where it is very difficult to ever come back to life. If Zern the dragon dies, he's gone forever and everyone in the known world will be a lot safer with him not flying around anymore. Personally I think if the dragon shows up we're doomed, but I don't think he'll be there.
Sorry for the wall of text.
EDIT: PS, the game I'm talking about is Magic of the Gods, by the way.
Games played:
Runescape -------------- www.runescape.com Magic of the Gods ------ www.magicofthegods.com Saga of Ryzom ---------- www.ryzom.com World of Warcraft ------- www.worldofwarcraft.com
How about games with "less story", "less PVP", and more "world".
Games with:
1) Linear Stories = interactive storybook or single-player adventure game, perhaps with online multiplayer capabilities.
2) Stadium PvP = combat game (Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, etc.), perhaps with online multiplayer features.
3) World Simulation = massively multiplayer online roleplaying game, also known as a MMORPG.
Now, if we could just get the right people lined up with the right games, all would be well in Gameville. If anyone needs directions to the right game, you might try starting here: www.amazon.com.
On a side note, searching Amazon.com for adventure games returned 1,934 results. Go crazy!!!
This is exactly what I have been trying to tell people! You are one of the few people left that truly understand what an MMOrpg is.
Ok, as for the people who don't like PvP: Do you dislike PvP or do you dislike the people who PvP? Personally, I love PvP and I love meaningful PvE. Most MMOs really don't have that essence that actually makes them MMOs. LOTRO (no offence!) is BARELY an MMO. Guild Wars is not an MMO. I could continue, but I'm sort of bashing games that people enjoy, and I mean not to begin a flame war. To truly have an MMORPG though, you need both PvE and PvP along with many other things like an open world, crafting, etc. If these aren't in place, you've basically cut off an essential MMO feature. To play WITH a MASSIVE amount of other players is why this genre is even popular. Isn't that how most of you got into MMOs anyways? Didn't the promise of being a character in a LARGE, LIVING, BREATHING, VIBRANT world full of people entice you? I think most of the anti-PvP crowd nowadays could just as easily play a co-op RPG and think that they would make "better MMOs" than the "real" MMOs (i.e. Guild Wars). Story is great, but having everyone be the hero is just kind of lame. How is that an interactive story if everyone is just playing the story at the same time alongside each other? In order to truly make a good story, developers would need some sort of dynamic story that everyone could participate in, but each have their own roles in it. Once the arc is done, it's done -- none of this WoW crap where everyone is the champion.
Also, it sounds like many of you who are saying that you dislike PvP really mean that you dislike PvP'ers (as I have said). Since none of you have stated WoW as a game that you particularly like PvE-wise (which actually has a great story in it), I'll assume you don't like WoW because of the community. Now, I agree that if the community in a game sucks, the game sucks (as far as MMOs are concerned) because the whole point is to play WITH a community. It's unfortunate that you have come accross the clearly infantile PvP'ers, and they definitely do cast a horid shadow on those of us who enjoy the MMO and the RPG combined into one awesome package.
Now, am I trying to say that PvP is awesome and that you are all big babies? Not at all. I agree with your sentiment that most of the PvP community sucks, but I don't think you should campaign for anti-PvP games. What we don't need is fake-MMOs. This being said, PvP is not perfect. What developers need to do is add in meaningful PvP. WAR does a decent job with its RvR, but to truly get the full PvP experience, the game NEEDS to be a sandbox game, otherwise it is, once again, bordering not being an mmoRPG. There needs to be consequences for PvP and reasons for PvPing. An example if I may: Suppose there was a chunk of land that had a very nice resource for crafting super-awesome-swords. The ultimate combination of MMO and RPG would seem to imply that there would possibly be a fight for that land. Whoever controls that land has access to the resource and can therefore make the super-awesome-swords. Unless the players figured out a diplomatic solution, they would either have to fight for it, or give up on it. Now, if players fight for it, they might lose favor with those that were previously controlling it. I could go on and on into how detailed the diplomatic implications can get, but I think you understand. MMORPGs are suppose to be big open lands were a community can play. I'm not saying that the developers shouldn't put in their own content, because they should. The game should be guided, but not a theme park. Theme parks are not good ways to tell meaningful stories. In fact, if you are going to make a theme park, why would you even bother telling a story in a game? Why not just write a book?
Bah! Sorry for the TLDR post, I sort of rambled Feel free to rip apart what I have said, but I hope I've sparked that real MMO interest in some of you - a land where people are part of the world and affect it and each other, not a land where everyone is the hero and there is a chatbox thrown in!
______________________ Give a man some fun and you entertain him for a day. Teach a man to make fun and you entertain him for a lifetime.
I don't think so. That totally depends on the player. Personally I want a game with a unique story, rather than a game with more brawl. You know, sometimes the story part of the game becomes only a front. After you're done with all the level cap and stuff, then that's it. There is totally no sense of closure.
Comments
I would say LOTRO for story, hands down. The problem is after you hit max, you go to sleep. There isnt as much endgame raiding/things to do as one would like. Thats really the only problem I had with Lotro. The gameplay was good, game polished, good graphics. But for all of that it had, that game was never a "thrill' to play, and it wasnt "grindy" at all. Reading all the quests and such were very good but only got so far.
Final Fantasy for me was the reverse.. that story was ho hum. There was one but it was slow evolving and there were times you actually forgot there was some kind of story you could follow for all the grinding you did. But that said, I dunno why, but I got the most satisfaction out of leveling 4 characters to max than any other game Ive played. The fact that you could just change your characters job in a instant and go from pure healer to pure dps or tank.. was extremely fun and novel. I really hate the games I play now where I have to keep "inventing" new character names, and then re-introducing them to friends. (hey, its me!!). But lore was not so hot here.
EQ2 was about the same lore wise. There was a story but youd forget there was. Although different from FFXI (not grindy at all) you bounced around a lot so I didnt usually follow how the character went. I did love the character variety in this game more than any other game I have played. You play the "good" side, then switch over and play the "bad" side (up to you to figure who was who:P) At end game though, I got bored but no where as near bored as Lotro.
I think the basic problem with a lot of these MMOs now, is that makers are trying to catch too many fish with a too small a net. They want the PvE crowd AND the PvP crowd. So these games get spread so thin, BOTH sides suffer. Pvp cries cause the classes arent balanced, and PvE cries cause theres little endgame. I long for a company to come out and make a pure PvP game, with NO PvE.. so the pvp people can just go there, and one to make a PURE PvE game so adults can go to that one. (statistically, more adults go for pve, more under 25 go for PvP; not bashing) That way, the pve game would focus on: STORY, Raiding, party mechanics and the pvp game would focus on class balance, arena diversity, and RvR.
Until a company comes out and does this, we are gonna keep getting these messed up games that sastify no one in particular.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Otherwise known as a single player game with online capabilities. There are thousands of them.
P.S. I'm almost 40.
true, but not talking about those console type games. Those dont count as MMOs, which is what we are talking about. And I think thousands is a "slight" exaggeration.
The age thing, again, going off of statistics you can pull anywhere- the PvP crowd is USUALLY under 25 as the main. While the PvE crowd is USUALLY 30-35+. To cite yourself as an example of a almost 40 year old pvper (if thats what your doing by posting your age) just shows you are in the minority, not the norm.
Ten more almost middle aged guys can post they like to PvP too, but it still wouldnt speak for the average.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Seriously, you can't figure this out?
There are plenty of people who are just not wired to go head to head with other people. They don't enjoy the adrenaline rush, they don't enjoy dealing with the l33t kidz or emotionally stunted who smack talk back or that they are ganked when they are just in the mood to do other things in game. They are more interested in story line and perhaps the social aspects of tackling objectives with others. PvP is not PvE against other players.
For me personally I enjoy the choice. Sometimes I want to pvp and sometimes I just want to do quests or level.
this is how i feel. of course PvP would be ok (to me) if the players actually did the roleplay thing and we had an objective other than "hey, let's kill these guys". but (from the PvP that i have encountered) it's all about "OMG i totally PWNd U!!" or whatever. it's all about hack and slash and winning for the sake of winning. don't get me wrong, i don't think there's anything wrong with people who enjoy it and i think it does take more strategy and teamwork to win at PvP than PvE. i will do PvP on rare occasion. i can do it, i mean, i don't suck at it but i'm not that great either. it's just not for me and the reasons mentioned, are why.
i accept that i should probably just stick with single player RPGs but i was hoping there might be some other good story driven MMOs, like Guild Wars (my opinion), out there. i know the others like WAR and WOW do have stories there, and i do read everything available about them, it's just not good in my opinion and i can't get into them. i played WOW for a while and had a level 70 (basically kept playing it just to get to 70 even though i was bored, lol) but it feels like the stories in those games were just tossed in to keep it from being pure PvP and grinding. i know others don't feel that way however, it's just my opinion.
speaking of which, it was mentioned that GW is just a single player RPG with online capabilities and there are others like that out there. what are some others? sorry for my ignorance, it's just i don't spend much time around gaming communities and whatnot. i basically pick and choose my games from advertisements or best sellers from amazon so i'm sure there's probably some great games out there that i've missed. someone mentioned THE WITCHER earlier and i actually just ordered that one yesterday. not a MMO but it looks amazing!
They don't, I agree. Which is why suggesting that some developer make a PURE PvE MMO is both ironic and sad.
I was reading through your post and at first although it was clear that you lack a decent imagination, it all seemed like a pretty bog standard opinion that most people have of mmos. The usual thing about LotRO having a great story got said followed by the same old "but the end game isnt so good".....which by the way CLEARLY indicates why online games that play like single player games and tell you a story are shit because.......guess what? The story is gonna end just like it does in a single player game! Ta da! Game over! You've "finished" the game as it has nothing further to tell you and as you the player have no ability within the game to actually do anything except follow the storyline you are left to just raid the same old dungeon or whatever over and over again until your eyes bleed. Yeah brilliant game design!
Then you describe the other two bog standard mmos you have played.....yada yada......and then we get to your AWESOME nugget of wisdom. I highlighted it for you. Can ya see it? Can you? So basicly you're saying that all the childish people and kids want PvP and the more mature adults want PvE. Are you one of those "mature" adults then? A pure PvE game? You already have plenty of them you moron. You just talked about how you played them! LotRO, EQ2, Final Fantasy. There is also Vanguard, WoW (you can totally avoid PvP if you want to), Tabula Rasa, D&D online, Horizons (it flopped unfortunately) etc. Your "ideal game" has already been made multiple times. How many more do you need for god sake?! The only vaguely decent PvP game around has been EvE and the old and outdated UO (there is now WAR of course). All the other PvP options just simply got added onto games that were designed arounf PvE content.
You really are a complete retard arent you. Statistically more adults go for PvE? What a load of complete and utter shit! Hmmm let me guess......did you research these "statistics" or did you perhaps PULL THAT ONE OUT OF YOUR ARSE?!!!
Thankfully though there are people with more brains than you working in the games industry so your ideas wont have any real effect on the games that come out in the future.
Seriously, you can't figure this out?
There are plenty of people who are just not wired to go head to head with other people. They don't enjoy the adrenaline rush, they don't enjoy dealing with the l33t kidz or emotionally stunted who smack talk back or that they are ganked when they are just in the mood to do other things in game. They are more interested in story line and perhaps the social aspects of tackling objectives with others. PvP is not PvE against other players.
For me personally I enjoy the choice. Sometimes I want to pvp and sometimes I just want to do quests or level.
this is how i feel. of course PvP would be ok (to me) if the players actually did the roleplay thing and we had an objective other than "hey, let's kill these guys". but (from the PvP that i have encountered) it's all about "OMG i totally PWNd U!!" or whatever. it's all about hack and slash and winning for the sake of winning. don't get me wrong, i don't think there's anything wrong with people who enjoy it and i think it does take more strategy and teamwork to win at PvP than PvE. i will do PvP on rare occasion. i can do it, i mean, i don't suck at it but i'm not that great either. it's just not for me and the reasons mentioned, are why.
i accept that i should probably just stick with single player RPGs but i was hoping there might be some other good story driven MMOs, like Guild Wars (my opinion), out there. i know the others like WAR and WOW do have stories there, and i do read everything available about them, it's just not good in my opinion and i can't get into them. i played WOW for a while and had a level 70 (basically kept playing it just to get to 70 even though i was bored, lol) but it feels like the stories in those games were just tossed in to keep it from being pure PvP and grinding. i know others don't feel that way however, it's just my opinion.
speaking of which, it was mentioned that GW is just a single player RPG with online capabilities and there are others like that out there. what are some others? sorry for my ignorance, it's just i don't spend much time around gaming communities and whatnot. i basically pick and choose my games from advertisements or best sellers from amazon so i'm sure there's probably some great games out there that i've missed. someone mentioned THE WITCHER earlier and i actually just ordered that one yesterday. not a MMO but it looks amazing!
Yeah the Witcher is a very good game. Story-wise it is pretty fantastic and very different. You will want to buy Oblivion as well if you havent played that already. Its pretty and allows a lot of freedom. The story is a bit basic but the level of immersion you can get in that game is pretty good. Mass Effect is supposed to be rather good as well. You also might want to consider looking at some of the older D&D games such as Baldurs Gate II as they are rather good on the story side.
I would avoid mmos though if you are looking for a decent storyline. None of them are very good at all. Singleplayer games are the way to go for decent stories.
Neon,
I wont go thru all the cut/paste, but how you read into things is amazing. No where did I say childish ppl and kids play PvP, or only adults play PvE. I was pointing to the usual numbers. Go get statistics to prove otherwise if you can.. but you wont because they dont show that. They show exactly what i said age wise, I didnt say Maturity wise.
But the way you posted, calling people retards for their opinion and ranting on.. You sir really give light to those numbers. Your charm and politeness speak volumes of the class and quality of the PvP genre. Yes, I made an assumption just there. You PROBABLY are a pvper, as most people reading your response would gather. Not all pvpers are as classy as you.
Either way, you some some issues you must deal with personally that dont involve a MMO...
All those games you listed have some element of PvP; which is what I was saying. They took manpower away from PvE to make some pvp content. Should have been spent all on the PvE. Thats why a lot of them didnt do so well. But again, they are all not pure PvE games. You didnt list one. Maybe DnD.. FFXI HAS some pvp. so does LOTRO, so does EQ2, I believe.
"TO MICHAEL!"
How about games with "less story", "less PVP", and more "world". It has been years since I have played an MMO that is a "world" and not some "theme park" or "PVP stadium".
And as far as "story" goes, story = linear = bad, bad, bad. Let players have the freedom to explore and adventure in a "world". No one needs to follow some story, chapter by chapter.
everyone has different tastes in games, there are sandboxes out there. But this digresses from the op's statement and adding a personal agenda.
me personally, loved LOTRO, but hated its pvp. The storyline was great. I also played Swg for 5 years, eq2 for a few months, and eve for 8 months. Now i am into WAR. I miss the sandbox of SWG, but honestly, i find fun wherever i go if i am with friends.
Games with:
1) Linear Stories = interactive storybook or single-player adventure game, perhaps with online multiplayer capabilities.
2) Stadium PvP = combat game (Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, etc.), perhaps with online multiplayer features.
3) World Simulation = massively multiplayer online roleplaying game, also known as a MMORPG.
Now, if we could just get the right people lined up with the right games, all would be well in Gameville. If anyone needs directions to the right game, you might try starting here: www.amazon.com.
On a side note, searching Amazon.com for adventure games returned 1,934 results. Go crazy!!!
Games are full of small storylines catually, quests and quest followups. If they just made those longer, to form decent stories, and remove the 'main' story. They could get plenty of story, but than more sandbox style. I know lotro has a similar quest line, about 10-15 quests, where you help to reforge aragorn's sword. Their main storyline is way too linear though.
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
Themepark mmos that you are referring to are very badly written stories. In fact I've seen childrens books which have more depth and character to them. I play online games to interact with other players.....the story aspect is always just a joke which often bores and irritates me if I pay too much attention to it. Quite often after playing an mmo I go and read a good book to refresh my brain cells. I suggest you do the same.
sounds like you need to be playing COD4 and such.
I wouldn't call pre-NGE SWG, EVE, AO, Neocron, EQ1, DAOC, etc "theme park mmos" by any degree. There was/is quite a healthy dose of player interaction, as the players enjoyed the stories TOGETHER.
It's because of the current generation of PS2 babies ignoring the story for a chance to "pwn some n00bs" that we have the shallow e-sport games of today.
Nahh COD4 isnt for me thanks.
But yeah EVE is a good game for roleplaying as you can mostly act out in the game what you actually want to be. DAoC was pretty good for that too although its now too old for my tastes.
I agree with the PS2 babies comment. The thing is all it takes is a well designed game that allows player actions to have an impact on things to allow players to roleplay properly. WAR may well be a fun game for many but it obviously doesnt fall into this category. That doesnt mean PvP cant be used in a good roleplaying game though.
I personally think that restricted PVP is an RP killer.
When I spoke of players making their own story, I didn't really mean one person in their own little world of make-believe. I was more referring to inter-guild politics, etc.
Let me give you an example, In a theoretical MMO, where there is this war between factions, with a neutral aligned faction in the middle. Players form guilds with specific goals...IE, destroying guilds of the opposing factions. All well and good, right?
But...what about tensions within a faction? In the current MMO model...this leads to forum wars, and soap-opera drama, as in almost ALL games....even in pvp areas, you cannot attack players of your own faction.
What if your guild leader is an idiot, and you think you could do a better job? In the best RP environment...you would be able to kill him (provided you were stronger / smarter) and take his place.
Restricted PVP prevents this, and is an immersion killer.
I think back to the days when Neocron was at it's prime. There was PVP...mutants in the wild and quests to do...although no main "story". It was up to the players to build the story....based largely on the tensions between the half-dozen factions within the game. PVP was an option almost EVERYWHERE in the game, and you could kill people even in your own faction.
Gankers who picked on lower levels were hunted by player guilds who's PURPOSE was to protect the n00bs, for example. A rival faction might gather their forces and occupy your faction's "base", forcing you out of your home, until you gathered your allies and reclaimed it.
You could even kill the moron in your group who kept spamming AOE, and accidentally killing his group mates.
There was enough PVE to be able to grind up your template (it was a skill based game), and to be able to hunt for loot. Other than that, the meat of the game was inter-guild war and politics.
It was fantastic. You could become a drug dealer, a mercenary, a hero, a villain. Whatever you wanted to be, and you were not restricted by artificial rules as to who you cold or could not kill.
Kill enough innocents, and the cops would shoot you on sight in populated areas...or you would make too many enemies. You had to think about who you killed, and if the risk was worth it.
And so, this was, IMO the ultimate RP environment. The devs gave their players a world...and let them do whatever the hell they wanted.
Unfortunately, the game was so buggy that after awhile even the most dedicated players couldn't take it anymore. But if there comes a game like this again that not infested with orcs and elves, I'll be there.
Its not an mmorpg but it plays like one. The witcher is a offline RPG old school (Not the Jrpg or Krpg crap we get on mmos) but a Western mmo style. like Goblins. orcs, picture The elder scrolls oblivion, Now take off a lot of the free roaming aspects, add a wonderful 80h + storyline + about the same ammount of side quests, crafting system alchemy, and many different ways to build the character to your liking. Hell the only thing it lacks is range weapons like bows and stuff...but other than that the Witcher is a great offline RPG that plays and feels like an mmo.
people want more pvp less story
if people want story they can go rp with the other cakeeatting nerds. real players want a pvp system like uo had with pking and pvp everywhere.
LOTRO is book story basis mmo and that was why I quit after 7 months because I had enough books. But the majority loves stories. If you want to play LOTRO maybe it'd better to read the book first just like if you watch the Davinci Code you may need to read the book to enjoy more.
Also, If you play Pirates of Caribbean Online then you should have seen the movie or DVD movie from Disney first. The game characters and ships are nearly 100% like the movie. It is also story basis mmo.
I would agree with that. The only problem with EQ2 is that the storyline has gotten so large that I would no longer call it "simple".
I agree with the original poster. Storyline is important to me too. I don't think it has to be one or the other, though. I'm playing one game that allows PvP everywhere all the time, but I haven't seen anyone actually doing PvP.
The storyline changes every time I play and it is directly affected by player actions. I'll give you an example. Everything I'm about to describe is storyline that has emerged during gameplay. None of this is backstory that the game devs had already written up at the start of the game:
I've been invited to join a group of players that are going to meet in-game today at 3:30 US Pacific Time to go try to recapture Sheep Island from Ogre Raiders and possibly a dragon named Zern. The ogres and the dragon have been at war with the Realm of Azmar which is mostly dwarves with some gnomes. Azmar and another dwarven realm named Stondar defeated the ogres at the Battle of Ogre Island, but Karleg, warlord of Azmar was killed by the dragon Zern at the battle and the dragon then used magic to escape even though it was wounded.
Because Karleg was killed, his son Yarleg (Yarl) has become the ruler of Azmar with the title of Prince Yarl of Azmar. Unlike his father, Yarl is not a warrior and the realm is now losing the war. The Ogre Raiders have recaptured Ogre Island. They have also attacked Sheep Island. Sheep Island, previously known as Tower Island because of an ancient stone tower there, had been a peaceful place inhabited only by on dwarf shepherd named Garon. Other than getting help killing wolves and a strange beast that were preying on his sheep, Garon has been living in peace. Due to the threat of Ogre Raiders, he allowed his island to be annexed by Azmar. The dwarves of Azmar set up a colony there so there was a village of dwarves on the island instead of just one shepherd.
Then, after the Warlord Karleg was killed by the dragon, Azmar didn't do a good job of defending Sheep Island and Ogre Raiders and the dragon conquered Sheep Island and all the dwarves were killed or fled by ship.
So now Garon has declared independence from Azmar and is seeking help from Stondar. One of the players I'm working with is Thaero, the High Ranger of Azmar, the leader of the elves that are helping Azmar. The players I'm working with negotiated with Prince Noreg of Stondar to try to get him to send troops to help retake Sheep Island for Azmar. He refused and said if he was going to send troops, he'd just take the island and make it part of the Realm of Stondar. So they went to Garon instead and he urged them to just help him retake it and offered to give them all land on the island if they succeeded. Meanwhile the players cut a deal with Prince Noreg of Stondar that if they killed the dragon, which threatens everyone, they would be allowed to enter Stondar City any time they want even though everyone except dwarves has been banned. Then they got the prince to agree to let non-dwarves in if they'll pay a tax. This is important because Stondar City is the main center of trade in the known world and it was seriously messing up trade that people couldn't go in there. Next we need to figure out how to get rid of the tax. But first, Sheep Island must be free! Death to the Ogres!
If Garon does get Sheep Island back, he'll still have to worry about more attacks by ogres or the dragon. His island is still claimed by Azmar and there is still a chance that Stonar will try to annex it as well. If they both get involved there is a possibility of war between the two dwarven princes which has never happened before. They have been allies against the ogres and if they turn on each other, the ogres will probably capture more lands. Possibly because his position is so weak, Garon has offered to let the players I'm with build houses or even a guild house for their guild on his island. One of the players with us is Beepe, a healer and priestess of the Fellowship of Kraylus. She is also the leader of a guild called The Soul which is the largest guild in the known world. If their guild house gets built on Sheep Island, that adds one more complexity to an already volatile political crisis. Assuming we kick the ogres out. The Soul guild has their own army, by the way. I'm not sure if they're going to be part of the attack today or not.
How's that for a storyline? Maybe not good enough to be a novel, but when did you ever have anything like that in an MMO? It's not just backstory. It's not a quest that people can do over and over again and it changes nothing. I mean, this battle will only happen one time and it will determine who controls Sheep Island. If the ogres die, they don't respawn. If the players die, they go to the underworld, the land of the dead, where it is very difficult to ever come back to life. If Zern the dragon dies, he's gone forever and everyone in the known world will be a lot safer with him not flying around anymore. Personally I think if the dragon shows up we're doomed, but I don't think he'll be there.
Sorry for the wall of text.
EDIT: PS, the game I'm talking about is Magic of the Gods, by the way.
Games played:
Runescape -------------- www.runescape.com
Magic of the Gods ------ www.magicofthegods.com
Saga of Ryzom ---------- www.ryzom.com
World of Warcraft ------- www.worldofwarcraft.com
Games with:
1) Linear Stories = interactive storybook or single-player adventure game, perhaps with online multiplayer capabilities.
2) Stadium PvP = combat game (Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, etc.), perhaps with online multiplayer features.
3) World Simulation = massively multiplayer online roleplaying game, also known as a MMORPG.
Now, if we could just get the right people lined up with the right games, all would be well in Gameville. If anyone needs directions to the right game, you might try starting here: www.amazon.com.
On a side note, searching Amazon.com for adventure games returned 1,934 results. Go crazy!!!
This is exactly what I have been trying to tell people! You are one of the few people left that truly understand what an MMOrpg is.
Ok, as for the people who don't like PvP: Do you dislike PvP or do you dislike the people who PvP? Personally, I love PvP and I love meaningful PvE. Most MMOs really don't have that essence that actually makes them MMOs. LOTRO (no offence!) is BARELY an MMO. Guild Wars is not an MMO. I could continue, but I'm sort of bashing games that people enjoy, and I mean not to begin a flame war. To truly have an MMORPG though, you need both PvE and PvP along with many other things like an open world, crafting, etc. If these aren't in place, you've basically cut off an essential MMO feature. To play WITH a MASSIVE amount of other players is why this genre is even popular. Isn't that how most of you got into MMOs anyways? Didn't the promise of being a character in a LARGE, LIVING, BREATHING, VIBRANT world full of people entice you? I think most of the anti-PvP crowd nowadays could just as easily play a co-op RPG and think that they would make "better MMOs" than the "real" MMOs (i.e. Guild Wars). Story is great, but having everyone be the hero is just kind of lame. How is that an interactive story if everyone is just playing the story at the same time alongside each other? In order to truly make a good story, developers would need some sort of dynamic story that everyone could participate in, but each have their own roles in it. Once the arc is done, it's done -- none of this WoW crap where everyone is the champion.
Also, it sounds like many of you who are saying that you dislike PvP really mean that you dislike PvP'ers (as I have said). Since none of you have stated WoW as a game that you particularly like PvE-wise (which actually has a great story in it), I'll assume you don't like WoW because of the community. Now, I agree that if the community in a game sucks, the game sucks (as far as MMOs are concerned) because the whole point is to play WITH a community. It's unfortunate that you have come accross the clearly infantile PvP'ers, and they definitely do cast a horid shadow on those of us who enjoy the MMO and the RPG combined into one awesome package.
Now, am I trying to say that PvP is awesome and that you are all big babies? Not at all. I agree with your sentiment that most of the PvP community sucks, but I don't think you should campaign for anti-PvP games. What we don't need is fake-MMOs. This being said, PvP is not perfect. What developers need to do is add in meaningful PvP. WAR does a decent job with its RvR, but to truly get the full PvP experience, the game NEEDS to be a sandbox game, otherwise it is, once again, bordering not being an mmoRPG. There needs to be consequences for PvP and reasons for PvPing. An example if I may: Suppose there was a chunk of land that had a very nice resource for crafting super-awesome-swords. The ultimate combination of MMO and RPG would seem to imply that there would possibly be a fight for that land. Whoever controls that land has access to the resource and can therefore make the super-awesome-swords. Unless the players figured out a diplomatic solution, they would either have to fight for it, or give up on it. Now, if players fight for it, they might lose favor with those that were previously controlling it. I could go on and on into how detailed the diplomatic implications can get, but I think you understand. MMORPGs are suppose to be big open lands were a community can play. I'm not saying that the developers shouldn't put in their own content, because they should. The game should be guided, but not a theme park. Theme parks are not good ways to tell meaningful stories. In fact, if you are going to make a theme park, why would you even bother telling a story in a game? Why not just write a book?
Bah! Sorry for the TLDR post, I sort of rambled
Feel free to rip apart what I have said, but I hope I've sparked that real MMO interest in some of you - a land where people are part of the world and affect it and each other, not a land where everyone is the hero and there is a chatbox thrown in!
______________________
Give a man some fun and you entertain him for a day. Teach a man to make fun and you entertain him for a lifetime.
I don't think so. That totally depends on the player. Personally I want a game with a unique story, rather than a game with more brawl. You know, sometimes the story part of the game becomes only a front. After you're done with all the level cap and stuff, then that's it. There is totally no sense of closure.
Watch Vitali Klitschko vs Juan Carlos Gomez Live Free Video Streaming, Result|Watch Ricardo Cordoba vs Bernard Dunne Live Free Video Streaming, Result|Watch Roy Jones Jr. vs Omar Sheika Live Free Video Streaming, Result