I answered No because if it was a single player offline game I would never have played it. I never played either of the KOTORs and don't plan to in the future.
Hah priceless. It is no wonder that there is such an opposition against anything and anyone that says something critical about this game. Damn haters they dont know the "facts" .
In this case, it appears that they don't. But I wouldn't write all of them off so easily.
Oh really? Tell me again then what does it mean when we say "a persisten world" in an mmo then?
Geez really? I've already posted this, but here ya go...
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.[1][2] The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games,[3] including other narrative forms of a media franchise.
The persistence comes from maintaining and developing a single or dynamic instance state of the world in the game around the clock shared and viewed by all players. Quite unlike other types of games, the plot and events in a single permainstance world game continue to develop even while some of the players are not playing their characters. That aspect is similar to the real world where events do occur regardless if they are directly or indirectly related to a person, as they continue to happen while a person is asleep, etc. Conversely, a player's character can also influence and change a persistent world. The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. Since the game does not pause or create player-accessible back-up files, a character's actions will have consequences that the player must deal with.
That is in TOR.
Ok. Even if I didnt replied to you. What changes are permanent?
Here's one example: I can put some gear on the auction house, someone else can buy it. Now that player has that gear, and I don't. I have his money. That's a change. It affects the game world. It affects the other players involved, and it can happen while I'm logged out.
Player characters are also a part of this game world. If I log off and my friends keep playing, they will level up past me, and be in a different place and point of the story quests. They are now interacting with a different part of the world from me.
Illum is another great example of this. The open world pvp zone is open for capture 24 hours a day. If I help capture it as empire, then log off, that stays until the republic captures it back. This also satisfies the fact that the game world continues to change while I'm logged off because that combat will continue.
Also, I'm getting tired of teaching grammar school here, but the definition clearly states that changes are "to some extent, permanent" This doesn't say that they are permanent.
When talking about permanent changes it clearly states that " The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. "
Tor very obviously satisfies all of these requirements.
Stupid thread, just so unbelievably stupid. Years ago this thread would have been laughed off the forum, this is what happens over decades of stooping the general consciousness to the lowest common denominator.
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Hah priceless. It is no wonder that there is such an opposition against anything and anyone that says something critical about this game. Damn haters they dont know the "facts" .
In this case, it appears that they don't. But I wouldn't write all of them off so easily.
Oh really? Tell me again then what does it mean when we say "a persisten world" in an mmo then?
Geez really? I've already posted this, but here ya go...
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.[1][2] The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games,[3] including other narrative forms of a media franchise.
The persistence comes from maintaining and developing a single or dynamic instance state of the world in the game around the clock shared and viewed by all players. Quite unlike other types of games, the plot and events in a single permainstance world game continue to develop even while some of the players are not playing their characters. That aspect is similar to the real world where events do occur regardless if they are directly or indirectly related to a person, as they continue to happen while a person is asleep, etc. Conversely, a player's character can also influence and change a persistent world. The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. Since the game does not pause or create player-accessible back-up files, a character's actions will have consequences that the player must deal with.
That is in TOR.
Ok. Even if I didnt replied to you. What changes are permanent?
Here's one example: I can put some gear on the auction house, someone else can buy it. Now that player has that gear, and I don't. I have his money. That's a change. It affects the game world. It affects the other players involved, and it can happen while I'm logged out.
Player characters are also a part of this game world. If I log off and my friends keep playing, they will level up past me, and be in a different place and point of the story quests. They are now interacting with a different part of the world from me.
Illum is another great example of this. The open world pvp zone is open for capture 24 hours a day. If I help capture it as empire, then log off, that stays until the republic captures it back. This also satisfies the fact that the game world continues to change while I'm logged off because that combat will continue.
Also, I'm getting tired of teaching grammar school here, but the definition clearly states that changes are "to some extent, permanent" This doesn't say that they are permanent.
When talking about permanent changes it clearly states that " The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. "
Tor very obviously satisfies all of these requirements.
Omg, please, if you are already in a hole stop digging. You clearly dont know what an persistent world is in an mmo, so just say it. From your description all mmos have by definition a persistent world and the only thing that you need to implement this in a mmo is an on/off button.
Hah priceless. It is no wonder that there is such an opposition against anything and anyone that says something critical about this game. Damn haters they dont know the "facts" .
In this case, it appears that they don't. But I wouldn't write all of them off so easily.
Oh really? Tell me again then what does it mean when we say "a persisten world" in an mmo then?
Geez really? I've already posted this, but here ya go...
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.[1][2] The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games,[3] including other narrative forms of a media franchise.
The persistence comes from maintaining and developing a single or dynamic instance state of the world in the game around the clock shared and viewed by all players. Quite unlike other types of games, the plot and events in a single permainstance world game continue to develop even while some of the players are not playing their characters. That aspect is similar to the real world where events do occur regardless if they are directly or indirectly related to a person, as they continue to happen while a person is asleep, etc. Conversely, a player's character can also influence and change a persistent world. The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. Since the game does not pause or create player-accessible back-up files, a character's actions will have consequences that the player must deal with.
That is in TOR.
Ok. Even if I didnt replied to you. What changes are permanent?
Here's one example: I can put some gear on the auction house, someone else can buy it. Now that player has that gear, and I don't. I have his money. That's a change. It affects the game world. It affects the other players involved, and it can happen while I'm logged out.
Player characters are also a part of this game world. If I log off and my friends keep playing, they will level up past me, and be in a different place and point of the story quests. They are now interacting with a different part of the world from me.
Illum is another great example of this. The open world pvp zone is open for capture 24 hours a day. If I help capture it as empire, then log off, that stays until the republic captures it back. This also satisfies the fact that the game world continues to change while I'm logged off because that combat will continue.
Also, I'm getting tired of teaching grammar school here, but the definition clearly states that changes are "to some extent, permanent" This doesn't say that they are permanent.
When talking about permanent changes it clearly states that " The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. "
Tor very obviously satisfies all of these requirements.
Diablo 3 has an auction house.
If I do not play Diablo 3, my friends will level past me and be at a different place of the story-quest than me.
In Stellar Impact (a moba game) the Infinity War can be captured and held by one faction untill the other takes it back, even if i log off.
Do those games also feature a persistent world?
Or are you just stretching the definition to the max...
The only reason BW/EA decided to go mmo with this game is the promise of subs. Nobody said "Ooh!!! I know! Kotor would be so much better if it were a mmorpg!" No, someone said: "Make it a mmo this time or else. I want monthly subs on top of the box sales."
And it shows in the basic game structure. I'm quite sure many creatives from Bioware would be much happier if it were a single player game called KOTOR3 with some online capabilites... Heck, that's what they do best. But if you want to justify taking subs you do have to make it a mmo.
Personally, I think the greedy suits made a wrong decision. They'll sell less boxes than what they could have and sub retention is not going to be that great.
*disclaimer* This is just my opinion and is stated as such.
What I think is that someone in charge of design had more experience with single player games than MMO's.
This is not me saying TOR is a bad game or that its a single player game with multi player options.
Its simply me saying I think the lead or person in charge of design decisions should have had MMO design experience (and I don't feel that they did).
There are a couple of things here.
1) MMO's have been a market for some time now so there is a lot of knowledge that early game designers didn't have access to.
2) BioWare was in a unique postion because even tho this was there first MMO. As part of EA and having been put in charge of EA's current MMO's... the people at BioWare had direct access to *live* products and teams working on them.
A company like Trion had some MMO design veterans but no currently running MMO that they could go look at and monitor .. as an example.
Now.. the reason I feel the way I do is entirely based on world aka planet design. There are just too many areas where quests become choke points if a couple people are trying to get updates for that quest (or a couple groups). Obviously anyone who has played or designed MMO's knows that when a game is new... there is going to be masses of people going through zones.
Ah.. you say "but there is instancing for the zones". Then I say.. um yes but it seems to be about where EQ2 was.. where after around 100 people are in an area the next opens.
So see what I'm saying? If I can totally bork your ability to complete your quest because *I* a single person exist... and maybe I won't group with you because I'm a jerk. Now add 90 more of me and what do you get? Major choke points.
Well if this was just on the Origin planets big deal... except it goes beyond the Origin planets.
Imperial side...
Anyone remember going to Nar Shaddaa and one of the first quests you get is to kill 30 guys... part 2 is like 8 power modules (they are on walls) and you could have a hard time getting those two steps done just becuase 1 or 2 other people were there..
Or you go to Tat and there is those infiltrators... you need ot get 5 items off them but they don't drop 100%. You might have to kill 5.. you might have to kill 100. They spawn in various places but there is really not that many of them... for say when 100 people are in the zone.. because the game is new blah blah
Even on the large planets .. the golden quest path stuffs you into many small areas that are the only area to get an update.
This is what I am talking about... they didn't make very good use of the world they designed and it could have been designed better to deal with the masses than an MMO should expect.
Like I said.. its not that the game is "bad" or even a single player game with multi player options. Its the fact that they designed a game with so many choke points... or purposely made other players to be "barriers in your path" which GeorgeZ just the other day said was a bad thing that dated back to arcade mentality... oddly enough.
Hoth as an example has so much open unused space.. they could have made it far more efficient and enjoyable for a launch sized audience to level through.
*edited to add*
I saw this comment after I finished my post.
"The only reason BW/EA decided to go mmo with this game is the promise of subs"
You do realize that the only reason EA purchased BioWare was because of TOR? EA had no part in the decision to make this game an MMO. Two people who had been working on SWG left to join a new studio that BioWare opened in Austin for an unannounced MMO....
One was Tyrant who had originally been on UO and I forget the other one. Tyrant (as I knew him) left BioWare early this year I believe.. maybe even before then. Anyway EA didn't purchase BioWare until after all of this and not that I can prove it.. but I would assume the reason was because of this at the time "unannounced mmo".
They certainly didn't pay 860 million and change for ME2 and DA2.. *.* ((There are still press releases I'm sure but the 860 million and change figue was what the purchase cost EA.. just to be clear I'm not talking about TOR cost.. it was what they paid for BioWare... this was not long before they tried a hostile take over of I think it was Take2 Interactive? Where they had 2 billion on the table and after that fell apart they had massive layoffs.. but anyway..))
Hah priceless. It is no wonder that there is such an opposition against anything and anyone that says something critical about this game. Damn haters they dont know the "facts" .
In this case, it appears that they don't. But I wouldn't write all of them off so easily.
Oh really? Tell me again then what does it mean when we say "a persistent world" in an mmo then?
Depends on who "we" is. I think it is fairly obvious that sandbox fans and thempark fans have different ideas about what it means and both think they are "right." So is there really a point? I think of persistent as something that exists outside of me, they don't go away when I leave. Skyrim isn't persistent because when I leave (unless I leave my computer running) nothing happens. In mmos (themepark or otherwise) things are still going on without me. That is it. I know it means something different to you and I'm ok with that.
I'm not stretching the definition at all. The ability to change the world is only one part of a persistent game world. The world also has to stay there no matter who logs off of it.
I've offered a definition of the term and you guys haven't. I've stated how that definition applies to TOR and you guys haven't offered any reasons why it doesn't.
Make your case because I made mine. I'm not seeing anything in your posts that disproved what I say.
Just because there is an auction house in Diablo 3 doesn't meanthe world is persistent. The game world that everyone is playing on has to remain when you log off. If I host a Diablo game and log off, that game world is gone. Not persistent.
If everyone on a TOR server logs off, the world is still there. It is persistent. It stays.
He asked for examples of how players can make changes to the world and I provided them. That is not the only criteria to meet to be a persistent world, but it is the one he chose to question so I responded.
The other criteria for a persistent world are easily met by TOR. The game world persists after I log off.
You guys can nit pick all you wan but you aren't disproving me in any way.
Hah priceless. It is no wonder that there is such an opposition against anything and anyone that says something critical about this game. Damn haters they dont know the "facts" .
In this case, it appears that they don't. But I wouldn't write all of them off so easily.
Oh really? Tell me again then what does it mean when we say "a persisten world" in an mmo then?
Geez really? I've already posted this, but here ya go...
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.[1][2] The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games,[3] including other narrative forms of a media franchise.
The persistence comes from maintaining and developing a single or dynamic instance state of the world in the game around the clock shared and viewed by all players. Quite unlike other types of games, the plot and events in a single permainstance world game continue to develop even while some of the players are not playing their characters. That aspect is similar to the real world where events do occur regardless if they are directly or indirectly related to a person, as they continue to happen while a person is asleep, etc. Conversely, a player's character can also influence and change a persistent world. The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. Since the game does not pause or create player-accessible back-up files, a character's actions will have consequences that the player must deal with.
That is in TOR.
Ok. Even if I didnt replied to you. What changes are permanent?
Here's one example: I can put some gear on the auction house, someone else can buy it. Now that player has that gear, and I don't. I have his money. That's a change. It affects the game world. It affects the other players involved, and it can happen while I'm logged out.
Player characters are also a part of this game world. If I log off and my friends keep playing, they will level up past me, and be in a different place and point of the story quests. They are now interacting with a different part of the world from me.
Illum is another great example of this. The open world pvp zone is open for capture 24 hours a day. If I help capture it as empire, then log off, that stays until the republic captures it back. This also satisfies the fact that the game world continues to change while I'm logged off because that combat will continue.
Also, I'm getting tired of teaching grammar school here, but the definition clearly states that changes are "to some extent, permanent" This doesn't say that they are permanent.
When talking about permanent changes it clearly states that " The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. "
Tor very obviously satisfies all of these requirements.
Omg, please, if you are already in a hole stop digging. You clearly dont know what an persistent world is in an mmo, so just say it. From your description all mmos have by definition a persistent world and the only thing that you need to implement this in a mmo is an on/off button.
Um. yeah, they do. That is what makes them an MMO as you so succinctly put in your post. By your definition, only sandbox games are mmos. If that's what you think then fine, run with it.
Games like D3 and GW1 can have persistant world features, but neither of them are mmo's. What's the difficulty here, is there some kind of school holiday atm?
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Games like D3 and GW1 can have persistant world features, but neither of them are mmo's. What's the difficulty here, is there some kind of school holiday atm?
Games like D3 and GW1 can have persistant world features, but neither of them are mmo's. What's the difficulty here, is there some kind of school holiday atm?
No, they don't have a persistant world (well GW1 has a kind of persistant city, but the vast majority of the world isn't persistant which is why it isn't an mmo. Nothing about D3 is persistant. If I'm not in the world, nothing is happening. If I'm in the lobby waiting for a group to form nobody else is in the world hense, its not persistant, nothing is occuring it is the same as if I had turned off the game. In an MMO (even themeparks) when I turn off the game people are still there in the same world I was just in, and they will be there tomorrow. Some things change as was pointed out in the PvP worlds. Those changes stay there until someone makes a different change. That freaking fits every part of your definition including the "world changes" part.
I don't see how my arguments are bad. I have provided a very clear definition of a persistent world required for an mmo. Noone is debating that definition (yet) and I have shown how this applies to TOR repeatedly.
The world stays there when you log off. Players affect the world. Gameplay events continue in the world while I am not there.
That's all there is to it. If anyone can disprove that I'd love to see it. So far all i have seen is insults and questions. Not one single person has offered any kind of evidence that disproved what I have said.
After playing it for 40 odd hours ... i must say the "online" part was actually kinda ruining the game for me
Completely immersed in my epic missions, i ran into 19 people on the same heroic mission ... waiting for a spawn or quest item. While on Teamspeak ... my friends actually annoyed me, because them chatting killed the whole voice over immersion, so I turned TS off. The global chat I turned off immediatly.
"The story" is their biggest selling point, yet the online part kinda ruins it. It would have been an awesome Kotor 3 with Co-op though. I'm not happy paying a monthly fee for this.
I think a system i would have preferred would have been where you pay for end-game content and make only that MMO ... the first 50 levels you only buy the box and play offline.
If, however, they'd designed everything from the ground-up as a singleplayer game - then I think it might have been a better game for fans of singleplayer Bioware games.
I think thats implied in the OP... so your answer would be -yes-.
I don't let the interpretations of other people dictate my answers, but if you are indeed right - and I felt like answering that precise question - then my answer would actually be: probably, but I don't know.
I don't see how my arguments are bad. I have provided a very clear definition of a persistent world required for an mmo. Noone is debating that definition (yet) and I have shown how this applies to TOR repeatedly.
The world stays there when you log off.
Players affect the world.
Gameplay events continue in the world while I am not there.
That's all there is to it. If anyone can disprove that I'd love to see it. So far all i have seen is insults and questions. Not one single person has offered any kind of evidence that disproved what I have said.
Nobody disagrees with your definition -IF- and only -IF- you are able to consistently apply it to -everything- other than TOR.
If you can't, you just made up a definition (and examples) in your head for one very specific game to make it fit.
And we are questioning that your examples can be applied to other games that have persistant world features, yet we do not call them "persistant worlds" (GW, Diablo 3, Team Fortress, Stellar Impact etc was named)
What you have to do is show us a distinguishing feature that would make those games -not- persistant, but TOR persistant.
Or you would need to agree that those games feature, by your definition, a persistant world.
Its a binary choice, there is no neutral option.
Burden of proof lies on you as you made the claim that TOR is persistant, nobody needs to disporve anything.
I don't see how my arguments are bad. I have provided a very clear definition of a persistent world required for an mmo. Noone is debating that definition (yet) and I have shown how this applies to TOR repeatedly.
The world stays there when you log off.
Players affect the world.
Gameplay events continue in the world while I am not there.
That's all there is to it. If anyone can disprove that I'd love to see it. So far all i have seen is insults and questions. Not one single person has offered any kind of evidence that disproved what I have said.
There is a definition of it and that is pretty loose one if I have ever seen any. TOR is about as persisitant as WoW's approach to a World. In response to the OP yes up to 50. After 50 then no the game would lose its purpose and would have to be redone.
The beauty of this game is that you can have fun while soloing, due to the story and creative combat.
You can have just as much fun in a group, either doing group based content or helping each other through the regular missions and story.
You can have so much fun just grouping up with some random person while out and about. I grouped with another BH last week (I was Power Tech, he was Mercenary) and we just had a Hell of a good time running missions, and doing the heroic bosses at the ends of the bonus missions.
Plus, it's fun to get a bunch together and take down the world bosses. They drop some damn nice loot these days.
So, IMO, NO! SWTOR is a great mmorpg, and I can't wait for live.
I don't see how my arguments are bad. I have provided a very clear definition of a persistent world required for an mmo. Noone is debating that definition (yet) and I have shown how this applies to TOR repeatedly.
The world stays there when you log off.
Players affect the world.
Gameplay events continue in the world while I am not there.
That's all there is to it. If anyone can disprove that I'd love to see it. So far all i have seen is insults and questions. Not one single person has offered any kind of evidence that disproved what I have said.
There is a definition of it and that is pretty loose one if I have ever seen any. TOR is about as persisitant as WoW's approach to a World. In response to the OP yes up to 50. After 50 then no the game would lose its purpose and would have to be redone.
There. You know what, we have solved the problem of the lack of world persistency in mmo games. Tor did it! Lets just say all mmo have a persistent wold. So reviewers beware, there is always a persistent world in all mmos and is nonsense to say that players actions do not change the game world - we have the auction house!
Comments
HAH. If you allow me full access to the Drunken Scottish Rambling over vent I will get the game
I answered No because if it was a single player offline game I would never have played it. I never played either of the KOTORs and don't plan to in the future.
This game IS a single player game. It just have added an optional multiplayer component.
My gaming blog
Nope. A hypothetical KOTOR 3+ would never have been designed with the sort of combat, class, and gear mechanics you see in TOR.
Here's one example: I can put some gear on the auction house, someone else can buy it. Now that player has that gear, and I don't. I have his money. That's a change. It affects the game world. It affects the other players involved, and it can happen while I'm logged out.
Player characters are also a part of this game world. If I log off and my friends keep playing, they will level up past me, and be in a different place and point of the story quests. They are now interacting with a different part of the world from me.
Illum is another great example of this. The open world pvp zone is open for capture 24 hours a day. If I help capture it as empire, then log off, that stays until the republic captures it back. This also satisfies the fact that the game world continues to change while I'm logged off because that combat will continue.
Also, I'm getting tired of teaching grammar school here, but the definition clearly states that changes are "to some extent, permanent" This doesn't say that they are permanent.
When talking about permanent changes it clearly states that " The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. "
Tor very obviously satisfies all of these requirements.
Shadow's Hand Guild
Open recruitment for
The Secret World - Dragons
Planetside 2 - Terran Republic
Tera - Dragonfall Server
http://www.shadowshand.com
Stupid thread, just so unbelievably stupid. Years ago this thread would have been laughed off the forum, this is what happens over decades of stooping the general consciousness to the lowest common denominator.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Omg, please, if you are already in a hole stop digging. You clearly dont know what an persistent world is in an mmo, so just say it. From your description all mmos have by definition a persistent world and the only thing that you need to implement this in a mmo is an on/off button.
Diablo 3 has an auction house.
If I do not play Diablo 3, my friends will level past me and be at a different place of the story-quest than me.
In Stellar Impact (a moba game) the Infinity War can be captured and held by one faction untill the other takes it back, even if i log off.
Do those games also feature a persistent world?
Or are you just stretching the definition to the max...
Let's get real.
The only reason BW/EA decided to go mmo with this game is the promise of subs. Nobody said "Ooh!!! I know! Kotor would be so much better if it were a mmorpg!" No, someone said: "Make it a mmo this time or else. I want monthly subs on top of the box sales."
And it shows in the basic game structure. I'm quite sure many creatives from Bioware would be much happier if it were a single player game called KOTOR3 with some online capabilites... Heck, that's what they do best. But if you want to justify taking subs you do have to make it a mmo.
Personally, I think the greedy suits made a wrong decision. They'll sell less boxes than what they could have and sub retention is not going to be that great.
*disclaimer* This is just my opinion and is stated as such.
What I think is that someone in charge of design had more experience with single player games than MMO's.
This is not me saying TOR is a bad game or that its a single player game with multi player options.
Its simply me saying I think the lead or person in charge of design decisions should have had MMO design experience (and I don't feel that they did).
There are a couple of things here.
1) MMO's have been a market for some time now so there is a lot of knowledge that early game designers didn't have access to.
2) BioWare was in a unique postion because even tho this was there first MMO. As part of EA and having been put in charge of EA's current MMO's... the people at BioWare had direct access to *live* products and teams working on them.
A company like Trion had some MMO design veterans but no currently running MMO that they could go look at and monitor .. as an example.
Now.. the reason I feel the way I do is entirely based on world aka planet design. There are just too many areas where quests become choke points if a couple people are trying to get updates for that quest (or a couple groups). Obviously anyone who has played or designed MMO's knows that when a game is new... there is going to be masses of people going through zones.
Ah.. you say "but there is instancing for the zones". Then I say.. um yes but it seems to be about where EQ2 was.. where after around 100 people are in an area the next opens.
So see what I'm saying? If I can totally bork your ability to complete your quest because *I* a single person exist... and maybe I won't group with you because I'm a jerk. Now add 90 more of me and what do you get? Major choke points.
Well if this was just on the Origin planets big deal... except it goes beyond the Origin planets.
Imperial side...
Anyone remember going to Nar Shaddaa and one of the first quests you get is to kill 30 guys... part 2 is like 8 power modules (they are on walls) and you could have a hard time getting those two steps done just becuase 1 or 2 other people were there..
Or you go to Tat and there is those infiltrators... you need ot get 5 items off them but they don't drop 100%. You might have to kill 5.. you might have to kill 100. They spawn in various places but there is really not that many of them... for say when 100 people are in the zone.. because the game is new blah blah
Even on the large planets .. the golden quest path stuffs you into many small areas that are the only area to get an update.
This is what I am talking about... they didn't make very good use of the world they designed and it could have been designed better to deal with the masses than an MMO should expect.
Like I said.. its not that the game is "bad" or even a single player game with multi player options. Its the fact that they designed a game with so many choke points... or purposely made other players to be "barriers in your path" which GeorgeZ just the other day said was a bad thing that dated back to arcade mentality... oddly enough.
Hoth as an example has so much open unused space.. they could have made it far more efficient and enjoyable for a launch sized audience to level through.
*edited to add*
I saw this comment after I finished my post.
"The only reason BW/EA decided to go mmo with this game is the promise of subs"
You do realize that the only reason EA purchased BioWare was because of TOR? EA had no part in the decision to make this game an MMO. Two people who had been working on SWG left to join a new studio that BioWare opened in Austin for an unannounced MMO....
One was Tyrant who had originally been on UO and I forget the other one. Tyrant (as I knew him) left BioWare early this year I believe.. maybe even before then. Anyway EA didn't purchase BioWare until after all of this and not that I can prove it.. but I would assume the reason was because of this at the time "unannounced mmo".
They certainly didn't pay 860 million and change for ME2 and DA2.. *.* ((There are still press releases I'm sure but the 860 million and change figue was what the purchase cost EA.. just to be clear I'm not talking about TOR cost.. it was what they paid for BioWare... this was not long before they tried a hostile take over of I think it was Take2 Interactive? Where they had 2 billion on the table and after that fell apart they had massive layoffs.. but anyway..))
Flashpoints and raids might be a difficult without other people. Considering the whole game leads up to these, being offline would be pointless.
Depends on who "we" is. I think it is fairly obvious that sandbox fans and thempark fans have different ideas about what it means and both think they are "right." So is there really a point? I think of persistent as something that exists outside of me, they don't go away when I leave. Skyrim isn't persistent because when I leave (unless I leave my computer running) nothing happens. In mmos (themepark or otherwise) things are still going on without me. That is it. I know it means something different to you and I'm ok with that.
I've offered a definition of the term and you guys haven't. I've stated how that definition applies to TOR and you guys haven't offered any reasons why it doesn't.
Make your case because I made mine. I'm not seeing anything in your posts that disproved what I say.
Just because there is an auction house in Diablo 3 doesn't meanthe world is persistent. The game world that everyone is playing on has to remain when you log off. If I host a Diablo game and log off, that game world is gone. Not persistent.
If everyone on a TOR server logs off, the world is still there. It is persistent. It stays.
He asked for examples of how players can make changes to the world and I provided them. That is not the only criteria to meet to be a persistent world, but it is the one he chose to question so I responded.
The other criteria for a persistent world are easily met by TOR. The game world persists after I log off.
You guys can nit pick all you wan but you aren't disproving me in any way.
Shadow's Hand Guild
Open recruitment for
The Secret World - Dragons
Planetside 2 - Terran Republic
Tera - Dragonfall Server
http://www.shadowshand.com
Um. yeah, they do. That is what makes them an MMO as you so succinctly put in your post. By your definition, only sandbox games are mmos. If that's what you think then fine, run with it.
Games like D3 and GW1 can have persistant world features, but neither of them are mmo's. What's the difficulty here, is there some kind of school holiday atm?
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
The difficulty is bad arguments from both sides.
No, they don't have a persistant world (well GW1 has a kind of persistant city, but the vast majority of the world isn't persistant which is why it isn't an mmo. Nothing about D3 is persistant. If I'm not in the world, nothing is happening. If I'm in the lobby waiting for a group to form nobody else is in the world hense, its not persistant, nothing is occuring it is the same as if I had turned off the game. In an MMO (even themeparks) when I turn off the game people are still there in the same world I was just in, and they will be there tomorrow. Some things change as was pointed out in the PvP worlds. Those changes stay there until someone makes a different change. That freaking fits every part of your definition including the "world changes" part.
The world stays there when you log off.
Players affect the world.
Gameplay events continue in the world while I am not there.
That's all there is to it. If anyone can disprove that I'd love to see it. So far all i have seen is insults and questions. Not one single person has offered any kind of evidence that disproved what I have said.
Shadow's Hand Guild
Open recruitment for
The Secret World - Dragons
Planetside 2 - Terran Republic
Tera - Dragonfall Server
http://www.shadowshand.com
After playing it for 40 odd hours ... i must say the "online" part was actually kinda ruining the game for me
Completely immersed in my epic missions, i ran into 19 people on the same heroic mission ... waiting for a spawn or quest item. While on Teamspeak ... my friends actually annoyed me, because them chatting killed the whole voice over immersion, so I turned TS off. The global chat I turned off immediatly.
"The story" is their biggest selling point, yet the online part kinda ruins it. It would have been an awesome Kotor 3 with Co-op though. I'm not happy paying a monthly fee for this.
I think a system i would have preferred would have been where you pay for end-game content and make only that MMO ... the first 50 levels you only buy the box and play offline.
I don't let the interpretations of other people dictate my answers, but if you are indeed right - and I felt like answering that precise question - then my answer would actually be: probably, but I don't know.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Nobody disagrees with your definition -IF- and only -IF- you are able to consistently apply it to -everything- other than TOR.
If you can't, you just made up a definition (and examples) in your head for one very specific game to make it fit.
And we are questioning that your examples can be applied to other games that have persistant world features, yet we do not call them "persistant worlds" (GW, Diablo 3, Team Fortress, Stellar Impact etc was named)
What you have to do is show us a distinguishing feature that would make those games -not- persistant, but TOR persistant.
Or you would need to agree that those games feature, by your definition, a persistant world.
Its a binary choice, there is no neutral option.
Burden of proof lies on you as you made the claim that TOR is persistant, nobody needs to disporve anything.
Ball's in your court.
There is a definition of it and that is pretty loose one if I have ever seen any. TOR is about as persisitant as WoW's approach to a World. In response to the OP yes up to 50. After 50 then no the game would lose its purpose and would have to be redone.
HELL No!!
The beauty of this game is that you can have fun while soloing, due to the story and creative combat.
You can have just as much fun in a group, either doing group based content or helping each other through the regular missions and story.
You can have so much fun just grouping up with some random person while out and about. I grouped with another BH last week (I was Power Tech, he was Mercenary) and we just had a Hell of a good time running missions, and doing the heroic bosses at the ends of the bonus missions.
Plus, it's fun to get a bunch together and take down the world bosses. They drop some damn nice loot these days.
So, IMO, NO! SWTOR is a great mmorpg, and I can't wait for live.
There. You know what, we have solved the problem of the lack of world persistency in mmo games. Tor did it! Lets just say all mmo have a persistent wold. So reviewers beware, there is always a persistent world in all mmos and is nonsense to say that players actions do not change the game world - we have the auction house!