Where do I hope they will head? Free Range or Sandbox. Where do I think they will head? Heavier instancing and phasing, with centralized quest hubs and mini-games. (And I think this will be their undoing; they will rob themselves of their own crown).
Comon....
BE honest here: Northrend landscape in Wotlk had the best laid out open world feeling of any MMORPG these last 5 years.
Complete freedom of movement in Northrend and a fabulous designed 3D vertcial build up world ... but most importantly you can go and land anywhere (and some people found it even TOO open because for them the personal choice of flying everywhere was even too much).
Also if you read the interviews and speeches of Jeff Kaplan - as lead designer - you just know he likes the free open worlds of Azeroth, so I don't see him doing "little boxes only" things.
The new "competitors" like ST and SW , they will do the heavy instanced stuff btw (mostly for easy graphics loading). ST will not even be hurt by this as the original TV series were all about limited zones. SW will suffer from it far more as initial play will be all about planet play with zone loading (as we know from these RPG developpers).
But no, Jeff Kaplan is an assurance of having always big open world designs you can go to with background screen loading.
The dungeon and battleground instances in WOW are used for game purposes, not for lazy and lame graphics loading.
Hope so. The "Phasing" technology has me concerned, because that means more instancing, more hits upon immersion and isolation by separating folks in time and space.
I really wish they would take the stance of "this is a world, it will exist in the here and now whether your character survives or not", instead of creating an environment that is a character's sequential story-type play. Northrend felt like a stage-play to me. BC was a better expansion, IMO.
Nope. I think phasing is a GOOD thing because it allows a player to experience a changing world. I am really not too concern about out of phase with some people. If the game is populous enough (and WOW certainly fits that bill), then there will be ENOUGH people in phase with you.
It really does not matter if it is 1000 or 2000 people to be in phase with me, i can't interact with all of them anyway.
I'd love to play in a world where my actions actually have a consequence on the world. Every single mmo I've played has nothing like that. Perhaps it is too complicated to create a world like that but it would be my ideal mmo. And along with that...actual AI on the npc's.
I'd love to play in a world where my actions actually have a consequence on the world. Every single mmo I've played has nothing like that. Perhaps it is too complicated to create a world like that but it would be my ideal mmo. And along with that...actual AI on the npc's.
Me too, but being in a world different from my friends until they finish the same quests as me, it's not so cool.
I'd love to play in a world where my actions actually have a consequence on the world. Every single mmo I've played has nothing like that. Perhaps it is too complicated to create a world like that but it would be my ideal mmo. And along with that...actual AI on the npc's.
Everyone in an MMO wants to be the hero. If you can change the world, that means someone else can't. Why not just play a single player like Dragon Age where you can change the world?
All MMORPGs already are a mix of both (with the possible exception of Second Life; not sure if it has themepark elements.)
Blizzard will make a game which is a strong Game. This means that while it may have sandbox elements (as WOW does), it will still be considered Themepark by most, due to the presence of strongly designed activities.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A sandbox? A Theme Park? What about both put together in the same MMO?. If anyone can manage to do it and succeed is Blizzard. They have the talent, the money and the time. And the will to amass milions of players and money of course. So how can this be accomplished? The simplest way would be to have sepparate servers with different rules. I bet this is not what they would want at all, because of the added difficulty of maintaining two different versions of the code, and managing the servers. So it must be something else. How do you make a 35yo mom, a leet PVPr 19yo boy, a RPlayer, a soloer and a grouper enjoy the same MMO? I hope this is Blizzard's challenge right now.
I think that's the Holy Grail of MMORPGs. A Themepark within a Sandbox.
if you do it right, the Themepark riders will not even know they are in a Sandbox.
The Sandbox players will ride the rides once, then graduate to manipulating the world and other players.
I'd love to play in a world where my actions actually have a consequence on the world. Every single mmo I've played has nothing like that. Perhaps it is too complicated to create a world like that but it would be my ideal mmo. And along with that...actual AI on the npc's.
Everyone in an MMO wants to be the hero. If you can change the world, that means someone else can't. Why not just play a single player like Dragon Age where you can change the world?
This is not true if changing the world requires a group effort.
Much like taking control of the dungeon Darkness Falls in DAoC. It was a major change in the world, but you could not do it alone.
And, it could be changed back by other players that oppose you.
I love how people always single out Blizzard for being in it for the money. THEY ARE ALL IN IT FOR THE MONEY. None of these MMO games would exist if it wasn't for the money. These companies, large or small, are not developing games out of charity to make the world a better place. They are all in it for the paycheck just like Blizzard. Anyway... One of my hopes for the new Blizzard MMO is that it has more action oriented combat. Along the lines of C9 or TERA. We have no idea whether it's fantasy, sci fi, something in between, or something completely different so it is difficult to think about what I would hope for beyond that.
QFT
If you think the developers of Darkfall hoped they would go broke, and just wanted to make a game they thought would be fun, think again.
ALL developers, since the commodore 64, have made games hoping to make money.
Think about it. If you are making a FUN game, it will be popular, and you'll make money. If you make a game that is crappy it will not be FUN, and it will not make money.
Are there developers TRYING to make crappy games that are not fun becuase they are scared they might make money? I don't see that as a real possibility.
Originally posted by Ihmotepp Think about it. If you are making a FUN game, it will be popular, and you'll make money. If you make a game that is crappy it will not be FUN, and it will not make money. Are there developers TRYING to make crappy games that are not fun becuase they are scared they might make money? I don't see that as a real possibility.
People sell defective products all the time. Why assume MMO companies are any better?
A quality product is just one way to make money. Buying the license to a popular IP and making a cheap product is another way of doing it.
People don't generally try to make poor products, but sometimes they don't try to make a good product - which is enough to result in a poor one.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Originally posted by Ihmotepp Think about it. If you are making a FUN game, it will be popular, and you'll make money. If you make a game that is crappy it will not be FUN, and it will not make money. Are there developers TRYING to make crappy games that are not fun becuase they are scared they might make money? I don't see that as a real possibility.
People sell defective products all the time. Why assume MMO companies are any better?
A quality product is just one way to make money. Buying the license to a popular IP and making a cheap product is another way of doing it.
People don't generally try to make poor products, but sometimes they don't try to make a good product - which is enough to result in a poor one.
Yes, they DO try to make a good product. Why? Because good products make more money than bad products.
They end up making a shitty product because they can't make a good product. They don't have the knowledge or ability to produce a quality product, otherwise they would because every dummy knows a good product will make more money than a bad one, and devs work for a living just like anyone else.
They make the best product they can, which sometimes mean they make crap because they have no talent, no vision, no budget, and no imagination.
But believe me, they're trying to make something good because they want the money.
They are not thinking, well, let's see if we can make a game so bad people cry after they load it onto their computer. I bet that will make us a lot of money!
The devs of Darkfall, EQ, Tabula Rasa, Mortal Online, WoW, all trying to make a good game that makes them lots of money.
The difference is, some will succeed, some will fail.
you think Richard Garriott was TRYING to make a 100 million dollar piece of crap?
Nope. I think phasing is a GOOD thing because it allows a player to experience a changing world. I am really not too concern about out of phase with some people. If the game is populous enough (and WOW certainly fits that bill), then there will be ENOUGH people in phase with you. It really does not matter if it is 1000 or 2000 people to be in phase with me, i can't interact with all of them anyway.
While I agree phasing is a vast improvement to the content quality of open world gaming, I do think there needs to be some improvements to it. Not knowing whether you're in a different phase is confusing to players, and the system needs to let players join each others' phase. Similarly Blizzard games need to let players play together in general, through a sidekick system. If one of the fundamental strong points of MMO gaming is the social element, then preventing players from playing with one another should be seen as a cardinal sin.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A sandbox? A Theme Park? What about both put together in the same MMO?. If anyone can manage to do it and succeed is Blizzard. They have the talent, the money and the time. And the will to amass milions of players and money of course. So how can this be accomplished? The simplest way would be to have sepparate servers with different rules. I bet this is not what they would want at all, because of the added difficulty of maintaining two different versions of the code, and managing the servers. So it must be something else. How do you make a 35yo mom, a leet PVPr 19yo boy, a RPlayer, a soloer and a grouper enjoy the same MMO? I hope this is Blizzard's challenge right now.
I think that's the Holy Grail of MMORPGs. A Themepark within a Sandbox.
if you do it right, the Themepark riders will not even know they are in a Sandbox.
The Sandbox players will ride the rides once, then graduate to manipulating the world and other players.
Sounds a little like SWG with the Rebel/Imperial/Jabba themeparks inside the sandbox environment.
Originally posted by Ihmotepp Yes, they DO try to make a good product. Why? Because good products make more money than bad products.
Good products take more time and money to make - which is why virtually every MMO released since WoW has released early and unfinished. The companies settle for 'good enough'.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I have played a couple MMOs by now and when I think about the reason why I left some of them almost instantly was because of the instance play. So I really hope that the majority of the world Blizzard is creating will be seamless...
Originally posted by Joas I have played a couple MMOs by now and when I think about the reason why I left some of them almost instantly was because of the instance play. So I really hope that the majority of the world Blizzard is creating will be seamless...
Yeah, right. WoW had a lot more open world in closed/open betas. Then they instanced everything they could because it's a lot easier to code and maintain.
Nope. I think phasing is a GOOD thing because it allows a player to experience a changing world. I am really not too concern about out of phase with some people. If the game is populous enough (and WOW certainly fits that bill), then there will be ENOUGH people in phase with you. It really does not matter if it is 1000 or 2000 people to be in phase with me, i can't interact with all of them anyway.
While I agree phasing is a vast improvement to the content quality of open world gaming, I do think there needs to be some improvements to it. Not knowing whether you're in a different phase is confusing to players, and the system needs to let players join each others' phase. Similarly Blizzard games need to let players play together in general, through a sidekick system. If one of the fundamental strong points of MMO gaming is the social element, then preventing players from playing with one another should be seen as a cardinal sin.
I love WoW's phasing .. really makes the gameworld seem much more reactive to the stuff that I'm doing. It's nice to see my heroic efforts reflected in the world itself, and I don't think that can be meaningfully accomplished in an MMO without phasing.
I'll confess to not knowing exactly how phasing interacts with grouping. Would I be right in thinking that if a group of 3 players enter a "phased" area and are on different stages, they won't be able to see one another or interact in the game world at all?
If so, a simple "fix" to that problem would be to incorporate phased stage control into the group mechanic. If you're grouped, then your perspective of a phased area is locked to that of the group leader, regardless of which stage you are actually on.
I'd also like a sidekick/mentor system to help overcome differences in levels .. I've seen the mechanic work well in other MMOs, and I'm a bit surprised that WoW hasn't "borrowed" it yet.
Another change I'd like to see is an end to mixed-requirement questlines and zones. I hate getting 8/10ths through a questline only to have the last two quests throw a "Group of 5 Players" requirement at me. I'd really like to see everything scale based on group size, so that the content tailors itself to every players preference (and rewards them accordingly).
Ah, I'd also like to see an end to the loot-ladder progression model. My personal preference would be for 100% of gear to be tradeable, with the best gear in-game coming from player crafters using difficult-to-obtain components that can be gathered through gameplay and resold.
Unfortunately, I've a sinking feeling that the last one won't be possible since MMOs have pretty much adopted "soulbound" items as a de facto solution to the gold farming/buying problem.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Comments
Comon....
BE honest here: Northrend landscape in Wotlk had the best laid out open world feeling of any MMORPG these last 5 years.
Complete freedom of movement in Northrend and a fabulous designed 3D vertcial build up world ... but most importantly you can go and land anywhere (and some people found it even TOO open because for them the personal choice of flying everywhere was even too much).
Also if you read the interviews and speeches of Jeff Kaplan - as lead designer - you just know he likes the free open worlds of Azeroth, so I don't see him doing "little boxes only" things.
The new "competitors" like ST and SW , they will do the heavy instanced stuff btw (mostly for easy graphics loading). ST will not even be hurt by this as the original TV series were all about limited zones. SW will suffer from it far more as initial play will be all about planet play with zone loading (as we know from these RPG developpers).
But no, Jeff Kaplan is an assurance of having always big open world designs you can go to with background screen loading.
The dungeon and battleground instances in WOW are used for game purposes, not for lazy and lame graphics loading.
Hope so. The "Phasing" technology has me concerned, because that means more instancing, more hits upon immersion and isolation by separating folks in time and space.
I really wish they would take the stance of "this is a world, it will exist in the here and now whether your character survives or not", instead of creating an environment that is a character's sequential story-type play. Northrend felt like a stage-play to me. BC was a better expansion, IMO.
Nope. I think phasing is a GOOD thing because it allows a player to experience a changing world. I am really not too concern about out of phase with some people. If the game is populous enough (and WOW certainly fits that bill), then there will be ENOUGH people in phase with you.
It really does not matter if it is 1000 or 2000 people to be in phase with me, i can't interact with all of them anyway.
I'd love to play in a world where my actions actually have a consequence on the world. Every single mmo I've played has nothing like that. Perhaps it is too complicated to create a world like that but it would be my ideal mmo. And along with that...actual AI on the npc's.
Me too, but being in a world different from my friends until they finish the same quests as me, it's not so cool.
Everyone in an MMO wants to be the hero. If you can change the world, that means someone else can't. Why not just play a single player like Dragon Age where you can change the world?
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
It will probably be a mmo that runs on facebook
All MMORPGs already are a mix of both (with the possible exception of Second Life; not sure if it has themepark elements.)
Blizzard will make a game which is a strong Game. This means that while it may have sandbox elements (as WOW does), it will still be considered Themepark by most, due to the presence of strongly designed activities.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think that's the Holy Grail of MMORPGs. A Themepark within a Sandbox.
if you do it right, the Themepark riders will not even know they are in a Sandbox.
The Sandbox players will ride the rides once, then graduate to manipulating the world and other players.
Everyone in an MMO wants to be the hero. If you can change the world, that means someone else can't. Why not just play a single player like Dragon Age where you can change the world?
This is not true if changing the world requires a group effort.
Much like taking control of the dungeon Darkness Falls in DAoC. It was a major change in the world, but you could not do it alone.
And, it could be changed back by other players that oppose you.
QFT
If you think the developers of Darkfall hoped they would go broke, and just wanted to make a game they thought would be fun, think again.
ALL developers, since the commodore 64, have made games hoping to make money.
Think about it. If you are making a FUN game, it will be popular, and you'll make money. If you make a game that is crappy it will not be FUN, and it will not make money.
Are there developers TRYING to make crappy games that are not fun becuase they are scared they might make money? I don't see that as a real possibility.
People sell defective products all the time. Why assume MMO companies are any better?
A quality product is just one way to make money. Buying the license to a popular IP and making a cheap product is another way of doing it.
People don't generally try to make poor products, but sometimes they don't try to make a good product - which is enough to result in a poor one.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
People sell defective products all the time. Why assume MMO companies are any better?
A quality product is just one way to make money. Buying the license to a popular IP and making a cheap product is another way of doing it.
People don't generally try to make poor products, but sometimes they don't try to make a good product - which is enough to result in a poor one.
Yes, they DO try to make a good product. Why? Because good products make more money than bad products.
They end up making a shitty product because they can't make a good product. They don't have the knowledge or ability to produce a quality product, otherwise they would because every dummy knows a good product will make more money than a bad one, and devs work for a living just like anyone else.
They make the best product they can, which sometimes mean they make crap because they have no talent, no vision, no budget, and no imagination.
But believe me, they're trying to make something good because they want the money.
They are not thinking, well, let's see if we can make a game so bad people cry after they load it onto their computer. I bet that will make us a lot of money!
The devs of Darkfall, EQ, Tabula Rasa, Mortal Online, WoW, all trying to make a good game that makes them lots of money.
The difference is, some will succeed, some will fail.
you think Richard Garriott was TRYING to make a 100 million dollar piece of crap?
While I agree phasing is a vast improvement to the content quality of open world gaming, I do think there needs to be some improvements to it. Not knowing whether you're in a different phase is confusing to players, and the system needs to let players join each others' phase. Similarly Blizzard games need to let players play together in general, through a sidekick system. If one of the fundamental strong points of MMO gaming is the social element, then preventing players from playing with one another should be seen as a cardinal sin.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think that's the Holy Grail of MMORPGs. A Themepark within a Sandbox.
if you do it right, the Themepark riders will not even know they are in a Sandbox.
The Sandbox players will ride the rides once, then graduate to manipulating the world and other players.
Sounds a little like SWG with the Rebel/Imperial/Jabba themeparks inside the sandbox environment.
Good products take more time and money to make - which is why virtually every MMO released since WoW has released early and unfinished. The companies settle for 'good enough'.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I have played a couple MMOs by now and when I think about the reason why I left some of them almost instantly was because of the instance play. So I really hope that the majority of the world Blizzard is creating will be seamless...
While I agree phasing is a vast improvement to the content quality of open world gaming, I do think there needs to be some improvements to it. Not knowing whether you're in a different phase is confusing to players, and the system needs to let players join each others' phase. Similarly Blizzard games need to let players play together in general, through a sidekick system. If one of the fundamental strong points of MMO gaming is the social element, then preventing players from playing with one another should be seen as a cardinal sin.
I love WoW's phasing .. really makes the gameworld seem much more reactive to the stuff that I'm doing. It's nice to see my heroic efforts reflected in the world itself, and I don't think that can be meaningfully accomplished in an MMO without phasing.
I'll confess to not knowing exactly how phasing interacts with grouping. Would I be right in thinking that if a group of 3 players enter a "phased" area and are on different stages, they won't be able to see one another or interact in the game world at all?
If so, a simple "fix" to that problem would be to incorporate phased stage control into the group mechanic. If you're grouped, then your perspective of a phased area is locked to that of the group leader, regardless of which stage you are actually on.
I'd also like a sidekick/mentor system to help overcome differences in levels .. I've seen the mechanic work well in other MMOs, and I'm a bit surprised that WoW hasn't "borrowed" it yet.
Another change I'd like to see is an end to mixed-requirement questlines and zones. I hate getting 8/10ths through a questline only to have the last two quests throw a "Group of 5 Players" requirement at me. I'd really like to see everything scale based on group size, so that the content tailors itself to every players preference (and rewards them accordingly).
Ah, I'd also like to see an end to the loot-ladder progression model. My personal preference would be for 100% of gear to be tradeable, with the best gear in-game coming from player crafters using difficult-to-obtain components that can be gathered through gameplay and resold.
Unfortunately, I've a sinking feeling that the last one won't be possible since MMOs have pretty much adopted "soulbound" items as a de facto solution to the gold farming/buying problem.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift