We got enough Games. Give me a World.

tom_gore · November 2012

So I played Skyrim again yesterday and thought - boy would an open world like this be awesome as an MMO (or even Coop). And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone with those thoughts.

An MMO by definition needs a constant playerbase in order to generate recurring revenue. Right?

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds? They create Games that have a pretty definite beginning and quite pronounced ending. Then they try to squeeze more gameplay time from the ending, by whatever methods, and hope that players like the trickle of content enough to keep paying.

When UO was launched it was a World. There simply was no "ending" in the game, unless you considered reaching 7x GM the end of the game. Nor was there a guided path taking you from the beginning to the end. When you logged in, YOU had to decide what you would do tonight, instead of the game cramming the next captain-obvious-grade path down your throat. Of course at about the time Age of Shadows hit, the devs tried to turn UO more into a game and less into a world, and we all know how well that went.

So what is it so difficult to create a World? In theory, all you have to do is a) create the landscape, populate it with mobs and NPCs and b) give players tools to make their own adventures. The tools might be anything from player housing to shops to a powerful quest scripting editor.

Of course for a) to succeed the world needs to be believeable and large enough. Instancing pretty much kills the definition of a World, although maybe some distinctively separated areas (like dungeons) could be instanced and not break the immestion too much. With today's technology, however, this is all doable.

For b) to succeed the tools need to be easy to use, but still able to affect the game world. If the player has a feeling he has an impact on the game World, no matter how small, he will want to stick around and see how his little spark of a creation will start living a life of its own. Or he will go and create something more.

I understand that the marriage of an open world and a powerful content creation tool is a difficult one, but it's not impossible. All you need is moderation. Let the players use the tools to create new adventures and if found good enough, add it to the world. FREE CONTENT created by the players themselves. I would guess the price of the moderating staff should be quite a bit less than the staff you need to churn out the same amount of content.

Neverwinter seems to be taking the b) seriously but it falls plain flat on its face on a), with a fully instanced world.

Darkfall seems to be taking a) seriously, but b) is pretty limited and the focus on FFA Full Loot PvP will attact a very distinctive crowd that has the ability to alienate everyone else from the game.

The rest are too small-time players to actually have the resources to finish their games before they either run out of steam or are horribly outdated.

I honestly think that this is the current "holy grail" of MMOs. A living, breathing WORLD that keeps on evolving and growing because the PLAYERS do all the work. All the devs need to do is to give more tools to the players and moderate the creations they come up with. The rest is history.

Hopefully, some day, a big publisher will see the light and reach out to it.

apocoluster · November 2012

Disagree. Give me games. The real world is plenty enough Sandboxy for me. I play games to get away from it.

Kenze · November 2012

Originally posted by apocoluster

Disagree. Give me games. The real world is plenty enough Sandboxy for me. I play games to get away from it.

^this x100

TsaboHavoc · November 2012

Originally posted by tom_gore
So I played Skyrim again yesterday and thought - boy would an open world like this be awesome as an MMO (or even Coop). And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone with those thoughts.

An MMO by definition needs a constant playerbase in order to generate recurring revenue. Right?

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds? They create Games that have a pretty definite beginning and quite pronounced ending. Then they try to squeeze more gameplay time from the ending, by whatever methods, and hope that players like the trickle of content enough to keep paying.

When UO was launched it was a World. There simply was no "ending" in the game, unless you considered reaching 7x GM the end of the game. Nor was there a guided path taking you from the beginning to the end. When you logged in, YOU had to decide what you would do tonight, instead of the game cramming the next captain-obvious-grade path down your throat. Of course at about the time Age of Shadows hit, the devs tried to turn UO more into a game and less into a world, and we all know how well that went.

So what is it so difficult to create a World? In theory, all you have to do is a) create the landscape, populate it with mobs and NPCs and b) give players tools to make their own adventures. The tools might be anything from player housing to shops to a powerful quest scripting editor.

Of course for a) to succeed the world needs to be believeable and large enough. Instancing pretty much kills the definition of a World, although maybe some distinctively separated areas (like dungeons) could be instanced and not break the immestion too much. With today's technology, however, this is all doable.

For b) to succeed the tools need to be easy to use, but still able to affect the game world. If the player has a feeling he has an impact on the game World, no matter how small, he will want to stick around and see how his little spark of a creation will start living a life of its own. Or he will go and create something more.

I understand that the marriage of an open world and a powerful content creation tool is a difficult one, but it's not impossible. All you need is moderation. Let the players use the tools to create new adventures and if found good enough, add it to the world. FREE CONTENT created by the players themselves. I would guess the price of the moderating staff should be quite a bit less than the staff you need to churn out the same amount of content.

Neverwinter seems to be taking the b) seriously but it falls plain flat on its face on a), with a fully instanced world.

Darkfall seems to be taking a) seriously, but b) is pretty limited and the focus on FFA Full Loot PvP will attact a very distinctive crowd that has the ability to alienate everyone else from the game.

The rest are too small-time players to actually have the resources to finish their games before they either run out of steam or are horribly outdated.

I honestly think that this is the current "holy grail" of MMOs. A living, breathing WORLD that keeps on evolving and growing because the PLAYERS do all the work. All the devs need to do is to give more tools to the players and moderate the creations they come up with. The rest is history.

Hopefully, some day, a big publisher will see the light and reach out to it.

/ signed

Sovrath · November 2012

Originally posted by tom_gore

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds?

Because there are people who prefer "games" over "worlds".

There are a few people at work who play video games (which is a first for me as usually I'm the only one or one of two people).

Of those who do and who played Skyrim (to use your example) all played for the quests and main story and stopped. One of the guys who would be considered an avid gamer told me that he didn't like skyrim because it was too open for his taste. He preferred Dishonored over Skyrim because it brought you from one section to the other and if you found a side quest then you could do it but still be firmly guided through the game. He felt that he froze when walking outside. "what now?" Didnt' like it.

My girlfriend's ex played Skyrim and after he did all the main quest and the side quests as well as things like Mage college, compansions etc, stopped playing. He also said that it was too open for his taste.

So there you go.

Souleater04 · November 2012

Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by tom_gore

My girlfriend's ex played Skyrim and after he did all the main quest and the side quests as well as things like Mage college, compansions etc, stopped playing. He also said that it was too open for his taste.

So there you go.

Jeez, you sat there and listened to your girlfriend give you a history of her ex's gaming? I think she still might be a little attached.

escarreta · November 2012

Originally posted by apocoluster
Disagree. Give me games. The real world is plenty enough Sandboxy for me. I play games to get away from it.

So true, you already are in a real world, just takes your life, and do not close you in a virtual world...

Vhaln · November 2012

Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by tom_gore

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds?

Because there are people who prefer "games" over "worlds".

Still, there's obviously a market for both. Even if the market for linear scripted games is bigger, it doesn't make sense for every single game to fight over that piece of the pie, instead of developing something for the other side, which is just sitting there, an almost completely untapped market.

Sovrath · November 2012

Originally posted by Souleater04
Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by tom_gore

My girlfriend's ex played Skyrim and after he did all the main quest and the side quests as well as things like Mage college, compansions etc, stopped playing. He also said that it was too open for his taste.

So there you go.

Jeez, you sat there and listened to your girlfriend give you a history of her ex's gaming? I think she still might be a little attached.

lol, no.

It might surprise you (and I guess it does) but some people actually can come to terms with their ex's because they dated them because they were good people. I was talking with her ex while we moved a couch. I also hang with one of my ex's every monday and play left 4 dead while drinking wine and popcorn. I also officiated that same ex's wedding. I'm actually on good terms with all my ex's.

On topic, that same ex of mine also prefers more traditional games over open world games.

Blessings · November 2012

Its the same thinking that companies like square enix used to post warnings about (ffxi login warning).

People want a world to escape this world. Its possible, but immersion of that level will never be produced by a gaming company because it would cost too much to produce. The sheer amount of content would have to be incredible, and you would almost have to have AI-evolving dynamic events and NPCs that retain information and use it to alter the content as you go. Which is impossible at the moment. Might as well throw in virtual reality while you're at it.

What you want is this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_Art_Online . Minus the fried brain. The only problem is games like that would probably quite literally cause society to crumble, or at least break down a bit.

I used to want that perfect game as well, but you know, the longer I kept waiting for it, the more I've realized... real life can be just as interesting if you give it a chance, there's plenty to do. Give me the game I can pick up and put down after an hour or two any day now. I don't wanna be sucked into a game for 72 hours like I used to do before.

ShakyMo · November 2012

Yes give me a aaa mmo with zero bloody instancing

Roxtarr · November 2012

I actually think many games get the "world" right but it's obfuscated by so much noise and 'action'. Even in GW2, which IMHO has the most gorgeous world I've seen in an MMO, the constant 'bings' and UI noises take away from it.

I can imagine how frustrating it must be for a designer to see his world come to life - the peacefull brook, rippling waters, glistening sunbeams - and then to have a big fat event spawning right on top of it every 10 minutes with pirates shouting, 'I need backup!", "BING" from the dynamic events starting and cannons firing at a deafening pitch.

Yeah, the game has to be there, but sometimes those peaceful places to just enjoy the world is hard to find.

Po_gg · November 2012

What previous ones said. Most players want games, and not a second world ( ).

And you started your point with Skyrim, which has a pretty good story, additional stuff to do, etc. It's not a mmo-ish sandbox in a sense posters means sandbox in the last few days threads. That's exactly why I love Skyrim, it's open, but still have a story and a goal.

Then you bring in player-created adventures. I love the Foundry too, so I'm with you on this one. But if you fill your open world with players adventures, what's the problem with the dev's adventures? Why rule out predefined story in favor of the players story?

tom_gore · November 2012

You "Games, not Worlds" guys should just shut up and be happy. There are more MMO Games coming out all the time that you probably have time to play. Three big western AAA titles within a year and an expansion to the biggest MMO Game out there.

Us "Worlds, not Games" guys have currently ZERO viable choices if we want anything that isn't full loot FFA PvP or made by incompetent and/or underbudgeted dev teams.

But I guess it's difficult to see that from your side of the fence.

Sovrath · November 2012

Originally posted by Roxtarr
I actually think many games get the "world" right but it's obfuscated by so much noise and 'action'.

I think there is some truth to it though I was amazingly dissapointed at Aion when I realized it was just one "section next to another all surrounded by close mountains you couldn't scale".

ONe of the reasons I like Vanguard is becuase there is a world there. But some think that world is empty. They want action everywhere they go.

So then you are going to get people who can't agree with what this world would be made of. Action all around or paths that lead to fields that eventually lead to "action".

tom_gore · November 2012

Originally posted by Po_gg
what's the problem with the dev's adventures? Why rule out predefined story in favor of the players story?

I didn't. If the devs have time to create adventures after creating superb tools for the players, all the better. The problem is that the devs can never make enough content to keep even the average MMO player interested and playing their game week after week, month after month.

Roxtarr · November 2012

Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by Roxtarr
I actually think many games get the "world" right but it's obfuscated by so much noise and 'action'.

I think there is some truth to it though I was amazingly dissapointed at Aion when I realized it was just one "section next to another all surrounded by close mountains you couldn't scale".

ONe of the reasons I like Vanguard is becuase there is a world there. But some think that world is empty. They want action everywhere they go.

So then you are going to get people who can't agree with what this world would be made of. Action all around or paths that lead to fields that eventually lead to "action".

Aion and WAR were just environments built around a leveling path. When you can take an entire "leveling path" and basically just stretch it out into one long path, there's a world problem there. RIFT didn't feel that way, neither does GW2. Now I'm thinking I didn't give Vanguard a fair shot.

Sovrath · November 2012

Originally posted by Roxtarr
Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by Roxtarr
I actually think many games get the "world" right but it's obfuscated by so much noise and 'action'.

I think there is some truth to it though I was amazingly dissapointed at Aion when I realized it was just one "section next to another all surrounded by close mountains you couldn't scale".

ONe of the reasons I like Vanguard is becuase there is a world there. But some think that world is empty. They want action everywhere they go.

So then you are going to get people who can't agree with what this world would be made of. Action all around or paths that lead to fields that eventually lead to "action".

Aion and WAR were just environments built around a leveling path. When you can take an entire "leveling path" and basically just stretch it out into one long path, there's a world problem there. RIFT didn't feel that way, neither does GW2. Now I'm thinking I didn't give Vanguard a fair shot.

Vanguard has one of the best worlds if not the best world I've ever been in. I agree that those games were set around leveling paths (shivers) even though quests would open up and allow players to go back to those areas. Of course, people cried about that as they hated searching for quests.

I didn't like rift's world because if felt like a large open field with leveling stations. You then get to the areas that are more narrow with quest hubs.

Essentially I despise quest hubs.

Kuro1n · November 2012

Signed OP, didn't read your whole post but I've said it before. The problem with MMOs is that they try to make too much of a game out of it and not a world thus ruining it imo.

Terranah · November 2012

I'm startng to wonder if it might be some kind of left brain vs right brain thing. Because I'm right brain and the whole going from point a to point b thing is incredibly boring to me. If that played some part, well then 90 percent or more of the population needs to have their hand held from one quest and zone to another and hence we get games vs worlds.

It's like everyone wants to live in a box or something.

Pratt2112 · November 2012

Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by tom_gore

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds?

Because there are people who prefer "games" over "worlds".

There are also people who enjoy "worlds" over "games".

Going with the Skyrim example. You noted some people who couldn't get into it because it was too open and, basically, not guided enough.

However, of all the praise heaped on games like Skyrim, Morrowind, Oblivion and their ilk, how much of it comes down to "I played it just for the main storyline", compared to things like "I just wandered off and did whatever seemed interesting and wouldn't come back to the main storyline for days sometimes".

Why has Minecraft - most certainly a sandbox world experience - gained and maintained so much popularity?

Because there is a market for both types of experiencs. Are there more people who like "games" than there are who like "worlds"? Yeah, probably. Why that's the case, I don't know. Probably fodder for another thread.

I think this topic is already in danger of veering off into a false dichotomy - an "either/or" situation that simply doesn't exist, and doesn't need to. I don't know why, but so many people seem to see things as Black or White. It's either "A" or B". We can either have "worlds" or "games". Nonsense. We can have both.

Personally, for a MMO experience, I prefer worlds over games. The idea of "I live in a world already, I play games to escape" just doesn't make sense to me. Entering Skyrim isn't an escape from the real world? It's not a fantasy setting, pretty much completely removed from reality in every way, shape and form? There's as much game-type content in Skyrim as there is in any other "game". The difference is, Skyrim gives you a ton of options of what kind of game you want it to be, and sets you on your way to forge that experience. It can be as linear or as un-linear as you, the player, want it to be. However, it still takes place in an environment that is very much a world.

Po_gg · November 2012

Originally posted by tom_gore
Originally posted by Po_gg
what's the problem with the dev's adventures? Why rule out predefined story in favor of the players story?

I didn't. If the devs have time to create adventures after creating superb tools for the players, all the better. The problem is that the devs can never make enough content to keep even the average MMO player interested and playing their game week after week, month after month.

Agreed, that's why the Foundry is a great idea, it gave a LOT of great missions into STO (and that's where CoH's Architect failed, and used only for grinding). And it's good to see a sandboxer who doesn't oppose stories

Skyrim with multiplayer, and lots of dev updates, and constant flow of player-created missions, and the option to start a settlement at an unoccupied place fitting in the world and the bigger story, I guess that would be my ideal sandbox/themepark combo.

To bad it never going to happen. There's not enough players left who'd love such a game I guess. Beside those who left from the old games, only a few people would play such a game. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just noting.

Sovrath · November 2012

Originally posted by TangentPoint
Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by tom_gore

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds?

Because there are people who prefer "games" over "worlds".

However, of all the praise heaped on games like Skyrim, Morrowind, Oblivion and their ilk, how much of it comes down to "I played it just for the main storyline", compared to things like "I just wandered off and did whatever seemed interesting and wouldn't come back to the main storyline for days sometimes".

Why has Minecraft - most certainly a sandbox world experience - gained and maintained so much popularity?

Hey you dont' have to tell me, I currently have 508 hours into Skyrim. I played morrowind for over two years and still play it from time to time.

but maybe, as was mentioned, it is a right brain vs left brain thing?

Maybe there is truth that some people want to be given puzzles to solve and roaming keeps them from doing that whereas those who are a bit more right brained are enjoying the roaming on another level.

Pratt2112 · November 2012

Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by TangentPoint
Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by tom_gore

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds?

Because there are people who prefer "games" over "worlds".

However, of all the praise heaped on games like Skyrim, Morrowind, Oblivion and their ilk, how much of it comes down to "I played it just for the main storyline", compared to things like "I just wandered off and did whatever seemed interesting and wouldn't come back to the main storyline for days sometimes".

Why has Minecraft - most certainly a sandbox world experience - gained and maintained so much popularity?

Hey you dont' have to tell me, I currently have 508 hours into Skyrim. I played morrowind for over two years and still play it from time to time.

but maybe, as was mentioned, it is a right brain vs left brain thing?

Maybe there is truth that some people want to be given puzzles to solve and roaming keeps them from doing that whereas those who are a bit more right brained are enjoying the roaming on another level.

Very good point.

I think Right Brain and Left Brain could have a lot to do with it... at least assuming there's an aspect to that where one side wants to be actively engaged and more in control of what they're doing, while the other side wants to just sorta kick back and enjoy the show.

That kinda works with movies, too, when I think about it, heh.

Icewhite · November 2012

Give me whatever kind of game you want to.

I'll decide on its merits if I like it or not.

Po_gg · November 2012

Originally posted by Sovrath

Hey you dont' have to tell me, I currently have 508 hours into Skyrim. I played morrowind for over two years and still play it from time to time.

Wow... /bow

I guess I'm just a rookie then (none of them has more than 200 hours in my case, except maybe Daggerfall, I played it a lot)

Howdy, Stranger!

We got enough Games. Give me a World.

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

We got enough Games. Give me a World.

Comments