Build a game for average gamers and you will be stuck with an average game. That is what you seem to want. You want MMORPG to turn into aRPG which is obviously what you enjoy most since you always talk about Marvel Heroes and D3. I have to tell you though, those games are not very good and I say that as someone playing through Marvel Heroes atm. They were thrown together with no real thought put into them which is why they keep throwing bandaid after bandaid at them to try to fix them. They are games you play because you just want to turn your mind off and not play a real game. The kind of thing you used to do with console games before they matured.
These games you want are the summer action blockbuster of the video game world. Built for the masses, dumbed down, lacking in any sort of depth. They are a fun ride that you forget about right after it is over. If these were the only movies made the entire movie industry would collapse after a time because eventually viewers want something with more depth to it.
Average means a lot of things to me. Mediocre, uninspired, derivative, boring, forgettable. This is the type of game you keep asking for. It is a good thing that there are people out there that want a whole lot more out of their games.
MMORPG need to stop pandering to the masses and start going more niche and finding their personal fanbase. The entire WoW clone era has been caused by catering to the average player and we've had nothing but garbage games because of it.
If I'm going to play a MMORPG I am playing it because I want to be part of a community. The game you describe is really better off just being a single player RPG with the ability to play with a few friends. Those games exist but they shouldn't be the standard model. The entire point of MMORPG is to experience an alternate world, that is why they were made in the first place. Why get rid of the world and leave just another game. You can get that experience from other types of games.
Wow, full of yourself much?
Seems like common sense, average = average, niche = specialised = choice.
Common Sense? lol right.....
yup average = average, niche = specialised, I just asked my 8 year old daughter and she confirmed she understood this basic idea.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
I think the OP, as usual, has a sprinkle of sense among the sensationalized nonsense as in his title.
There definitely is something weird about the disconnect between a quest narrative script that tries to emphasize just how unique and important your task is and then seeing 50 people all around you engaged in the pursuit of the one unique and important pursuit. There is sense in that observation.
Where the nonsense comes in is going from there to declaring that open worlds are bad for MMOs. What's bad is writing quests and stories about you the special snowflake, that are immediately undermined by all the other special snowflakes around you.
But all that this means is that stories and quests have to be written in a way that incorporate the openness of the world instead of working against it. Go kill the 10 orcs attacking the village so you can save it is not all that different from go kill some of the orcs... say, 10, attacking the village so you can contribute to saving it.
The first is a poorly written special snowflake quest and the second one isn't and fits better with the open world concept. That's just a very simple example but you get the drift,
You can take it a step further using the much-maligned but open-world-friendly concept of phasing where when you and the others around you kill the sufficient (300?) number of orcs in the area, you enter a new phase where the orcs are no longer attacking and the village is repairing the damage,
So no, open world ain't bad, but it can't be ignored in lazy quest writing.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Build a game for average gamers and you will be stuck with an average game. That is what you seem to want. You want MMORPG to turn into aRPG which is obviously what you enjoy most since you always talk about Marvel Heroes and D3. I have to tell you though, those games are not very good and I say that as someone playing through Marvel Heroes atm. They were thrown together with no real thought put into them which is why they keep throwing bandaid after bandaid at them to try to fix them. They are games you play because you just want to turn your mind off and not play a real game. The kind of thing you used to do with console games before they matured.
These games you want are the summer action blockbuster of the video game world. Built for the masses, dumbed down, lacking in any sort of depth. They are a fun ride that you forget about right after it is over. If these were the only movies made the entire movie industry would collapse after a time because eventually viewers want something with more depth to it.
Average means a lot of things to me. Mediocre, uninspired, derivative, boring, forgettable. This is the type of game you keep asking for. It is a good thing that there are people out there that want a whole lot more out of their games.
MMORPG need to stop pandering to the masses and start going more niche and finding their personal fanbase. The entire WoW clone era has been caused by catering to the average player and we've had nothing but garbage games because of it.
If I'm going to play a MMORPG I am playing it because I want to be part of a community. The game you describe is really better off just being a single player RPG with the ability to play with a few friends. Those games exist but they shouldn't be the standard model. The entire point of MMORPG is to experience an alternate world, that is why they were made in the first place. Why get rid of the world and leave just another game. You can get that experience from other types of games.
Wow, full of yourself much?
Seems like common sense, average = average, niche = specialised = choice.
Common Sense? lol right.....
yup average = average, niche = specialised, I just asked my 8 year old daughter and she confirmed she understood this basic idea.
Imagine not wanting to spend time playing video games with friends or other human beings yet not being to stop pumping out posts of opinion on a video gaming forum full of other people.
Precisely .. forum is more convenient ... 30 second, and I can write a post. Only if video games are so convenient.
Plus, i can't really disseminate my opinions when i am killing monsters, can i?
There definitely is something weird about the disconnect between a quest narrative script that tries to emphasize just how unique and important your task is and then seeing 50 people all around you engaged in the pursuit of the one unique and important pursuit. There is sense in that observation.
Where the nonsense comes in is going from there to declaring that open worlds are bad for MMOs. What's bad is writing quests and stories about you the special snowflake, that are immediately undermined by all the other special snowflakes around you.
read carefully ..
open world is bad for MMO gameplay modes where small group dungeon runs are the focus. I specifically describe several gameplay modes, and why open world are bad for them (except the open war).
And i doubt you can deny that a lot of MMOs are primarily doing small group dungeon runs and raids, or instanced pvp.
Build a game for average gamers and you will be stuck with an average game. That is what you seem to want. You want MMORPG to turn into aRPG which is obviously what you enjoy most since you always talk about Marvel Heroes and D3. I have to tell you though, those games are not very good and I say that as someone playing through Marvel Heroes atm. They were thrown together with no real thought put into them which is why they keep throwing bandaid after bandaid at them to try to fix them. They are games you play because you just want to turn your mind off and not play a real game. The kind of thing you used to do with console games before they matured.
These games you want are the summer action blockbuster of the video game world. Built for the masses, dumbed down, lacking in any sort of depth. They are a fun ride that you forget about right after it is over. If these were the only movies made the entire movie industry would collapse after a time because eventually viewers want something with more depth to it.
Average means a lot of things to me. Mediocre, uninspired, derivative, boring, forgettable. This is the type of game you keep asking for. It is a good thing that there are people out there that want a whole lot more out of their games.
MMORPG need to stop pandering to the masses and start going more niche and finding their personal fanbase. The entire WoW clone era has been caused by catering to the average player and we've had nothing but garbage games because of it.
If I'm going to play a MMORPG I am playing it because I want to be part of a community. The game you describe is really better off just being a single player RPG with the ability to play with a few friends. Those games exist but they shouldn't be the standard model. The entire point of MMORPG is to experience an alternate world, that is why they were made in the first place. Why get rid of the world and leave just another game. You can get that experience from other types of games.
Wow, full of yourself much?
Seems like common sense, average = average, niche = specialised = choice.
Common Sense? lol right.....
yup average = average, niche = specialised, I just asked my 8 year old daughter and she confirmed she understood this basic idea.
She is still at that age when they think mom and dad know everything.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
There definitely is something weird about the disconnect between a quest narrative script that tries to emphasize just how unique and important your task is and then seeing 50 people all around you engaged in the pursuit of the one unique and important pursuit. There is sense in that observation.
Where the nonsense comes in is going from there to declaring that open worlds are bad for MMOs. What's bad is writing quests and stories about you the special snowflake, that are immediately undermined by all the other special snowflakes around you.
read carefully ..
open world is bad for MMO gameplay modes where small group dungeon runs are the focus. I specifically describe several gameplay modes, and why open world are bad for them (except the open war).
And i doubt you can deny that a lot of MMOs are primarily doing small group dungeon runs and raids, or instanced pvp.
Yes, but that was the only one that made sense. All you said with your other examples is that instanced game play modes don't need an open world. I didn't think I had to say "Yeah, duh!" to those
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Ye I like cohesive living worlds, Whilevin that 'mode' I don't want long corridors with dangly cobwebs ;p damn but wait sometimes that's good too when the dungeon is on the context of a rich virtual world, bugger.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
In all fantasy & sci-fi novels, the basis of any and all movies, games, etc. the story follows a collections of characters - characters of note, or purpose, of destiny, of special ability, etc.
You don't find a fantasy story about random farmer Joe who nothing interesting ever happens to, or sci-fi star freighter captain Bob who runs cargo between worlds with no excitement.
TL;DR - the entire fantasy and sci-fi genres are built upon the idea of "heroes"
Most video games also cast you, the player, in this role as the hero - because that is just the way narrative works. We enjoy these narratives because they are not as mundane and common as our (typical) daily lives.
Some games, even successful ones yes, have allowed you to forgo being the hero and allowed you to be farmer Joe or star freighter captain Bob, people tend to call these games "sandbox" games - you are just another player in a greater world/universe, and will only rise to "hero" status via your actions - if you even want to try.
This is what the MMO genre was originally founded on - the freedom to be what you wanted to be, to strive to be a great hero conquering evil, a great villain feared by many for their power, or a simple craftsmen honing his trade.. etc.
Unfortunately for fans of the sandbox, this view is drastically less popular than the count of those who want to be a hero in the games they play.
So already, the very narrative of the sandbox MMO is in contrast to the fundamental narrative of the entire fantasy/sci-fi genres, however as a game the simple Joe/Bob narrative is less problematic than the themepark.
However, the "themepark" game where you get to be the "hero" is also fundamentally flawed, as if everyone is the hero and does the same heroic acts, they really aren't a hero and the acts really not all that heroic. You can't allow players to create change as the experience of others is thus ruined.
So built into the very nature of the MMO genre is these inherent problems. Do you make everyone fend for themselves, and thus most/many will never achieve the desired results of "playing the hero"? Or do you give players that established purpose in the narrative, and in doing so invalidate their uniqueness and freedom of choice? Undermining the achievement itself?
Well what does this have to do with open world?
Everything.
The open world is necessary for a sandbox as limiting players and their interactions and in a sense forcing them into "heroic" activity in your carefully scripted encounters is directly opposed to the intended goal of freedom and the responsibility of forging your own destiny.
The open world is a major hindrance to the themepark sub genre as it highlights and accentuates the obvious problem of everyone being the hero and doing heroic things - making nothing truly matter or have any impact.
So the real TL:DR is:
Open world is bad for theme parks, and good for sandboxes.
The more you try and mix and match, the more muddled and watered down the experience becomes - you can't please everyone, aim for your target players, and fill their needs.
Originally posted by vandal5627 Originally posted by Ender4Build a game for average gamers and you will be stuck with an average game. That is what you seem to want. You want MMORPG to turn into aRPG which is obviously what you enjoy most since you always talk about Marvel Heroes and D3. I have to tell you though, those games are not very good and I say that as someone playing through Marvel Heroes atm. They were thrown together with no real thought put into them which is why they keep throwing bandaid after bandaid at them to try to fix them. They are games you play because you just want to turn your mind off and not play a real game. The kind of thing you used to do with console games before they matured.These games you want are the summer action blockbuster of the video game world. Built for the masses, dumbed down, lacking in any sort of depth. They are a fun ride that you forget about right after it is over. If these were the only movies made the entire movie industry would collapse after a time because eventually viewers want something with more depth to it.Average means a lot of things to me. Mediocre, uninspired, derivative, boring, forgettable. This is the type of game you keep asking for. It is a good thing that there are people out there that want a whole lot more out of their games. MMORPG need to stop pandering to the masses and start going more niche and finding their personal fanbase. The entire WoW clone era has been caused by catering to the average player and we've had nothing but garbage games because of it.If I'm going to play a MMORPG I am playing it because I want to be part of a community. The game you describe is really better off just being a single player RPG with the ability to play with a few friends. Those games exist but they shouldn't be the standard model. The entire point of MMORPG is to experience an alternate world, that is why they were made in the first place. Why get rid of the world and leave just another game. You can get that experience from other types of games.
Wow, full of yourself much?
Not at all. YOu can't just keep building games to target the most players possible because you end up with the same game over and over. They need to diversify and target smaller audiences but make those audiences happier. It is the same in every media. Country, Rock etc exist because not everyone just wants to listen to pop music all the time. Well not everyone wants to play a lobby theme park so stop giving us that as the only real option.
I like my mmo's to be as realistic as possible, instances aren't realistic, so I would much rather prefer an open world (sandbox) mmo over a theme park. Same thing with my pvp, doing an instanced 12v12 or whatever in the same instances over and over isn't realistic, so I play open world rvr pvp (much more realistic).
Haxus Council Member 21 year MMO veteran PvP Raid Leader Lover of The Witcher & CD Projekt Red
Originally posted by Mithrundir I like my mmo's to be as realistic as possible, instances aren't realistic, so I would much rather prefer an open world (sandbox) mmo over a theme park. Same thing with my pvp, doing an instanced 12v12 or whatever in the same instances over and over isn't realistic, so I play open world rvr pvp (much more realistic).
MMORPG PvP is highly unrealisticand open world PvP is more unrealistic then tournament style PvP.
Also I find instanced dungeons much more realistic then open world ones since it is highly unrealistic to have multiple groups camping the same dungeon for hours waiting for respawns.
The open world is necessary for a sandbox as limiting players and their interactions and in a sense forcing them into "heroic" activity in your carefully scripted encounters is directly opposed to the intended goal of freedom and the responsibility of forging your own destiny.
The open world is a major hindrance to the themepark sub genre as it highlights and accentuates the obvious problem of everyone being the hero and doing heroic things - making nothing truly matter or have any impact.
So the real TL:DR is:
Open world is bad for theme parks, and good for sandboxes.
The more you try and mix and match, the more muddled and watered down the experience becomes - you can't please everyone, aim for your target players, and fill their needs.
The real problem tends to be with the way open worlds are implemented. Too often they tend to be grindfests which go against bot the Hero Bob and Farmer Bob playstyle. Despite appearance, Farmer Bob also wants to progress in a meanigful way but in a more measured way by building up the environment around them. A boring Open World is just as anti-sandbox as it is anti-themepark.
Originally posted by Mithrundir I like my mmo's to be as realistic as possible, instances aren't realistic, so I would much rather prefer an open world (sandbox) mmo over a theme park. Same thing with my pvp, doing an instanced 12v12 or whatever in the same instances over and over isn't realistic, so I play open world rvr pvp (much more realistic).
MMORPG PvP is highly unrealisticand open world PvP is more unrealistic then tournament style PvP.
Also I find instanced dungeons much more realistic then open world ones since it is highly unrealistic to have multiple groups camping the same dungeon for hours waiting for respawns.
That's why I think themeparks should just be lobby based games, most people who play them only port around to what they are doing so why would they need a world.
An open world is good for a sandbox style game with PvP, territory conflicts, resource hot spots and anything else worth fighting over.
Well what does this have to do with open world?Everything.The open world is necessary for a sandbox as limiting players and their interactions and in a sense forcing them into "heroic" activity in your carefully scripted encounters is directly opposed to the intended goal of freedom and the responsibility of forging your own destiny.The open world is a major hindrance to the themepark sub genre as it highlights and accentuates the obvious problem of everyone being the hero and doing heroic things - making nothing truly matter or have any impact. So the real TL:DR is:Open world is bad for theme parks, and good for sandboxes.The more you try and mix and match, the more muddled and watered down the experience becomes - you can't please everyone, aim for your target players, and fill their needs.
The real problem tends to be with the way open worlds are implemented. Too often they tend to be grindfests which go against bot the Hero Bob and Farmer Bob playstyle. Despite appearance, Farmer Bob also wants to progress in a meanigful way but in a more measured way by building up the environment around them. A boring Open World is just as anti-sandbox as it is anti-themepark.
I agree with this sentiment. I think the idea of an open world has always been part of the allure of MMORPGs, and though a good implementation can be challenging, I don't think it's fair to write off the idea entirely.
Originally posted by Mithrundir I like my mmo's to be as realistic as possible, instances aren't realistic, so I would much rather prefer an open world (sandbox) mmo over a theme park. Same thing with my pvp, doing an instanced 12v12 or whatever in the same instances over and over isn't realistic, so I play open world rvr pvp (much more realistic).
MMORPG PvP is highly unrealisticand open world PvP is more unrealistic then tournament style PvP.
Also I find instanced dungeons much more realistic then open world ones since it is highly unrealistic to have multiple groups camping the same dungeon for hours waiting for respawns.
That's why I think themeparks should just be lobby based games, most people who play them only port around to what they are doing so why would they need a world.
An open world is good for a sandbox style game with PvP, territory conflicts, resource hot spots and anything else worth fighting over.
I also find instanced dungeons more realistic, but you shouldn't been able to teleport anywhere unless you are a mage and know 'teleport' -spell.
Open world is bad for theme parks, and good for sandboxes.
The more you try and mix and match, the more muddled and watered down the experience becomes - you can't please everyone, aim for your target players, and fill their needs.
The real problem tends to be with the way open worlds are implemented. Too often they tend to be grindfests which go against bot the Hero Bob and Farmer Bob playstyle. Despite appearance, Farmer Bob also wants to progress in a meanigful way but in a more measured way by building up the environment around them. A boring Open World is just as anti-sandbox as it is anti-themepark.
I agree with this sentiment. I think the idea of an open world has always been part of the allure of MMORPGs, and though a good implementation can be challenging, I don't think it's fair to write off the idea entirely.
Well, to be honest I have always felt that grind had NO place in sandbox, where as grind/chasing carrots is a necessary component of the themepark.
I've always thought of the sandbox as a blank canvas, and the developers hand you a series of tools in which to craft your own story.
Problem is, most sandbox games go too far on the RPG side and ask you to grind for XX hours in order to use the tools.
It's like, hey - over here in the sandbox is this dump truck - it's really cool, you can move tons of sand at once with it... oh but in order to use it, first you have to dig with your hands for 97 hours.
Where as in themepark, it's - hey, there is this cool ride over here, but you have to be this ^ tall to ride - but that's ok, there are these rides over here that are more your current speed for now.
I think it's because themepark shows you your goals, dangles them in front of you as a place to reach - so having to grind a bit, chase that carrot, is really ok.
Where as sandbox, well you should be setting your own goals, and if you have to beat your head against a wall for eons to get there, it really takes away from the experience.
Yeah, they shouldn't just give you everything you want quickly, as the goals would then be meaningless, but I think a sandbox like Minecraft works because you can see your progress so clearly. Like if I'm building a castle, yeah there is going to be some grinding to strip mine enough materials, but I can lay the foundation.. and then build the outer walls, and then build the towers, and etc. etc. the progress is measured, meaningful, and personal.
Much better, imo, than "hey, in order to use this fancy new Greatsword +5 I just made, I have to first grind skeletons in the bone room (UO reference anyone?) for hours and hours and hours over many days/weeks to skill up my Greatsword use skill from 70-85.
Pve Questing - most quests are solo, and seeing 50 others competing for the quest mobs is not fun nor immersive. (Really, i am going to get the super rare herb to heal whatever, and 50 others are farming it????) In fact, it is hard to add story content in an open world ... and the attempts (like phasing) are really not that effective. To me, it would be much better to put story quests into instances .. so you can put in scripting and other narrative elements.
This is the only problem with current open world MMO's, but it's not a problem with the open world, it's a problem with the design of the game. Themeparks seem to consist of happily running from one quest to the next without a care for the open world. It forces a form of tunnel vision on the player, where they're not even looking at the world around them, but looking at that little dot on the map so they can quickly get there and back again to do the next mindless task.
Quest chains need to go, not open worlds.
Exactly.
"Most quests are solo, and seeing 50 others competing for the quest mobs is not fun nor immersive." - This is the problem in game design. You shouldn't have to compete with other players for mobs or quest objectives in MMOs, you should be encouraged to co-op with them.
"It would be much better to put story quests into instances" - And this i would call 'playing a single player game'. SPGs are big instances for a one player, and no one would ever bother you or compete for resources or mobs.
These games needs to go back from this singe player game design and become MMOs once again. Massive number of players in most new MMOs is only a burden for the game, since the design doesn't support that at all. Even in WoW the number of multiplayer elements have decreased, and there are mobs barely for one player, yet they call it MMO.
If you take the open world away and put everything in instances, how can you call it an MMO anymore?
Open world games are all about the competition with others. Sure, you co-operate with a small portion of players but you compete with many more for just about everything. I like the concept of open world because it does make the world feel larger and more lively with other players running around. However, I also like instancing because it allows me to experience the game's content without having to be online 24-7. A perfect game for me would have both. 95% of the game open world with important areas like raids being instanced.
Open world games are all about the competition with others. Sure, you co-operate with a small portion of players but you compete with many more for just about everything. I like the concept of open world because it does make the world feel larger and more lively with other players running around. However, I also like instancing because it allows me to experience the game's content without having to be online 24-7. A perfect game for me would have both. 95% of the game open world with important areas like raids being instanced.
Most are but not all. In GW2 you will co-operate with others most of the time... The open world is really what you make of it.
You can design it so that it is all about single players or small groups, you can even have raid bosses in the open world like EQ.
Open world games are all about the competition with others. Sure, you co-operate with a small portion of players but you compete with many more for just about everything. I like the concept of open world because it does make the world feel larger and more lively with other players running around. However, I also like instancing because it allows me to experience the game's content without having to be online 24-7. A perfect game for me would have both. 95% of the game open world with important areas like raids being instanced.
Most are but not all. In GW2 you will co-operate with others most of the time... The open world is really what you make of it.
You can design it so that it is all about single players or small groups, you can even have raid bosses in the open world like EQ.
Or full PvP for that matter.
I can't imagine an open world game that doesn't involve competition among the players. EQ in it's open world days was always competition. Guilds compete for the open world targets all the time and some guilds NEVER got to experience any of it, at least until it was so old that there wasn't any reason to do it except to see it. On the last progression servers for EQ, guilds locked targets down every time. They will raid at 3am to kill them. Not because they need it but just so others don't get it. There's always something to fight for in open world games and that's fine to me as long as it's not things like raids. Just my opinion.
Open world is bad for theme parks, and good for sandboxes.
The more you try and mix and match, the more muddled and watered down the experience becomes - you can't please everyone, aim for your target players, and fill their needs.
This.
If your game is a themepark focused on end game gear grinding, the open world usually becomes irrelevant at max level.
But in sandboxes and sandparks, especially if they have an emphasis on open world pvp, the open world is the 'endgame'.
Open world is bad for theme parks, and good for sandboxes.
The more you try and mix and match, the more muddled and watered down the experience becomes - you can't please everyone, aim for your target players, and fill their needs.
The real problem tends to be with the way open worlds are implemented. Too often they tend to be grindfests which go against bot the Hero Bob and Farmer Bob playstyle. Despite appearance, Farmer Bob also wants to progress in a meanigful way but in a more measured way by building up the environment around them. A boring Open World is just as anti-sandbox as it is anti-themepark.
I agree with this sentiment. I think the idea of an open world has always been part of the allure of MMORPGs, and though a good implementation can be challenging, I don't think it's fair to write off the idea entirely.
Well, to be honest I have always felt that grind had NO place in sandbox, where as grind/chasing carrots is a necessary component of the themepark.
I've always thought of the sandbox as a blank canvas, and the developers hand you a series of tools in which to craft your own story.
Problem is, most sandbox games go too far on the RPG side and ask you to grind for XX hours in order to use the tools.
It's like, hey - over here in the sandbox is this dump truck - it's really cool, you can move tons of sand at once with it... oh but in order to use it, first you have to dig with your hands for 97 hours.
Where as in themepark, it's - hey, there is this cool ride over here, but you have to be this ^ tall to ride - but that's ok, there are these rides over here that are more your current speed for now.
I think it's because themepark shows you your goals, dangles them in front of you as a place to reach - so having to grind a bit, chase that carrot, is really ok.
Where as sandbox, well you should be setting your own goals, and if you have to beat your head against a wall for eons to get there, it really takes away from the experience.
Yeah, they shouldn't just give you everything you want quickly, as the goals would then be meaningless, but I think a sandbox like Minecraft works because you can see your progress so clearly. Like if I'm building a castle, yeah there is going to be some grinding to strip mine enough materials, but I can lay the foundation.. and then build the outer walls, and then build the towers, and etc. etc. the progress is measured, meaningful, and personal.
Much better, imo, than "hey, in order to use this fancy new Greatsword +5 I just made, I have to first grind skeletons in the bone room (UO reference anyone?) for hours and hours and hours over many days/weeks to skill up my Greatsword use skill from 70-85.
That just isn't fun.
That was my main issue with SWG which I still consider the best example of MMORGP sandbox. The game required you to do a massive amount of mindless grinding in order to reach the creative content that made the game so interesting. I am actually all for grinding that teaches you to get better at a task but SWG had grinds that required you to move the mouse and click on a button over and over. It was an activity that taught you nothing, produced nothing of value and made my mouse hand cramp up for a week.
Originally posted by Mithrundir I like my mmo's to be as realistic as possible, instances aren't realistic, so I would much rather prefer an open world (sandbox) mmo over a theme park. Same thing with my pvp, doing an instanced 12v12 or whatever in the same instances over and over isn't realistic, so I play open world rvr pvp (much more realistic).
and i see no reason why entertainment products need to be realistic.
In fact, "as realistic as possible" is a recipe for non-fun. Do you want to have to go to a virtual toilet every 2 hours, and you have to watch your toon to sleep for 8 hours too? That is realistic, isn't it?
Comments
yup average = average, niche = specialised, I just asked my 8 year old daughter and she confirmed she understood this basic idea.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I think the OP, as usual, has a sprinkle of sense among the sensationalized nonsense as in his title.
There definitely is something weird about the disconnect between a quest narrative script that tries to emphasize just how unique and important your task is and then seeing 50 people all around you engaged in the pursuit of the one unique and important pursuit. There is sense in that observation.
Where the nonsense comes in is going from there to declaring that open worlds are bad for MMOs. What's bad is writing quests and stories about you the special snowflake, that are immediately undermined by all the other special snowflakes around you.
But all that this means is that stories and quests have to be written in a way that incorporate the openness of the world instead of working against it. Go kill the 10 orcs attacking the village so you can save it is not all that different from go kill some of the orcs... say, 10, attacking the village so you can contribute to saving it.
The first is a poorly written special snowflake quest and the second one isn't and fits better with the open world concept. That's just a very simple example but you get the drift,
You can take it a step further using the much-maligned but open-world-friendly concept of phasing where when you and the others around you kill the sufficient (300?) number of orcs in the area, you enter a new phase where the orcs are no longer attacking and the village is repairing the damage,
So no, open world ain't bad, but it can't be ignored in lazy quest writing.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Right....i'm sure that's all he said.../rolleyes
Precisely .. forum is more convenient ... 30 second, and I can write a post. Only if video games are so convenient.
Plus, i can't really disseminate my opinions when i am killing monsters, can i?
read carefully ..
open world is bad for MMO gameplay modes where small group dungeon runs are the focus. I specifically describe several gameplay modes, and why open world are bad for them (except the open war).
And i doubt you can deny that a lot of MMOs are primarily doing small group dungeon runs and raids, or instanced pvp.
She is still at that age when they think mom and dad know everything.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Yes, but that was the only one that made sense. All you said with your other examples is that instanced game play modes don't need an open world. I didn't think I had to say "Yeah, duh!" to those
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
OP has some very goods points.
Consider:
In all fantasy & sci-fi novels, the basis of any and all movies, games, etc. the story follows a collections of characters - characters of note, or purpose, of destiny, of special ability, etc.
You don't find a fantasy story about random farmer Joe who nothing interesting ever happens to, or sci-fi star freighter captain Bob who runs cargo between worlds with no excitement.
TL;DR - the entire fantasy and sci-fi genres are built upon the idea of "heroes"
Most video games also cast you, the player, in this role as the hero - because that is just the way narrative works. We enjoy these narratives because they are not as mundane and common as our (typical) daily lives.
Some games, even successful ones yes, have allowed you to forgo being the hero and allowed you to be farmer Joe or star freighter captain Bob, people tend to call these games "sandbox" games - you are just another player in a greater world/universe, and will only rise to "hero" status via your actions - if you even want to try.
This is what the MMO genre was originally founded on - the freedom to be what you wanted to be, to strive to be a great hero conquering evil, a great villain feared by many for their power, or a simple craftsmen honing his trade.. etc.
Unfortunately for fans of the sandbox, this view is drastically less popular than the count of those who want to be a hero in the games they play.
So already, the very narrative of the sandbox MMO is in contrast to the fundamental narrative of the entire fantasy/sci-fi genres, however as a game the simple Joe/Bob narrative is less problematic than the themepark.
However, the "themepark" game where you get to be the "hero" is also fundamentally flawed, as if everyone is the hero and does the same heroic acts, they really aren't a hero and the acts really not all that heroic. You can't allow players to create change as the experience of others is thus ruined.
So built into the very nature of the MMO genre is these inherent problems. Do you make everyone fend for themselves, and thus most/many will never achieve the desired results of "playing the hero"? Or do you give players that established purpose in the narrative, and in doing so invalidate their uniqueness and freedom of choice? Undermining the achievement itself?
Well what does this have to do with open world?
Everything.
The open world is necessary for a sandbox as limiting players and their interactions and in a sense forcing them into "heroic" activity in your carefully scripted encounters is directly opposed to the intended goal of freedom and the responsibility of forging your own destiny.
The open world is a major hindrance to the themepark sub genre as it highlights and accentuates the obvious problem of everyone being the hero and doing heroic things - making nothing truly matter or have any impact.
So the real TL:DR is:
Open world is bad for theme parks, and good for sandboxes.
The more you try and mix and match, the more muddled and watered down the experience becomes - you can't please everyone, aim for your target players, and fill their needs.
Not at all. YOu can't just keep building games to target the most players possible because you end up with the same game over and over. They need to diversify and target smaller audiences but make those audiences happier. It is the same in every media. Country, Rock etc exist because not everyone just wants to listen to pop music all the time. Well not everyone wants to play a lobby theme park so stop giving us that as the only real option.
21 year MMO veteran
PvP Raid Leader
Lover of The Witcher & CD Projekt Red
MMORPG PvP is highly unrealisticand open world PvP is more unrealistic then tournament style PvP.
Also I find instanced dungeons much more realistic then open world ones since it is highly unrealistic to have multiple groups camping the same dungeon for hours waiting for respawns.
The real problem tends to be with the way open worlds are implemented. Too often they tend to be grindfests which go against bot the Hero Bob and Farmer Bob playstyle. Despite appearance, Farmer Bob also wants to progress in a meanigful way but in a more measured way by building up the environment around them. A boring Open World is just as anti-sandbox as it is anti-themepark.
That's why I think themeparks should just be lobby based games, most people who play them only port around to what they are doing so why would they need a world.
An open world is good for a sandbox style game with PvP, territory conflicts, resource hot spots and anything else worth fighting over.
The real problem tends to be with the way open worlds are implemented. Too often they tend to be grindfests which go against bot the Hero Bob and Farmer Bob playstyle. Despite appearance, Farmer Bob also wants to progress in a meanigful way but in a more measured way by building up the environment around them. A boring Open World is just as anti-sandbox as it is anti-themepark.
I agree with this sentiment. I think the idea of an open world has always been part of the allure of MMORPGs, and though a good implementation can be challenging, I don't think it's fair to write off the idea entirely.I also find instanced dungeons more realistic, but you shouldn't been able to teleport anywhere unless you are a mage and know 'teleport' -spell.
Well, to be honest I have always felt that grind had NO place in sandbox, where as grind/chasing carrots is a necessary component of the themepark.
I've always thought of the sandbox as a blank canvas, and the developers hand you a series of tools in which to craft your own story.
Problem is, most sandbox games go too far on the RPG side and ask you to grind for XX hours in order to use the tools.
It's like, hey - over here in the sandbox is this dump truck - it's really cool, you can move tons of sand at once with it... oh but in order to use it, first you have to dig with your hands for 97 hours.
Where as in themepark, it's - hey, there is this cool ride over here, but you have to be this ^ tall to ride - but that's ok, there are these rides over here that are more your current speed for now.
I think it's because themepark shows you your goals, dangles them in front of you as a place to reach - so having to grind a bit, chase that carrot, is really ok.
Where as sandbox, well you should be setting your own goals, and if you have to beat your head against a wall for eons to get there, it really takes away from the experience.
Yeah, they shouldn't just give you everything you want quickly, as the goals would then be meaningless, but I think a sandbox like Minecraft works because you can see your progress so clearly. Like if I'm building a castle, yeah there is going to be some grinding to strip mine enough materials, but I can lay the foundation.. and then build the outer walls, and then build the towers, and etc. etc. the progress is measured, meaningful, and personal.
Much better, imo, than "hey, in order to use this fancy new Greatsword +5 I just made, I have to first grind skeletons in the bone room (UO reference anyone?) for hours and hours and hours over many days/weeks to skill up my Greatsword use skill from 70-85.
That just isn't fun.
Open world games are all about the competition with others. Sure, you co-operate with a small portion of players but you compete with many more for just about everything. I like the concept of open world because it does make the world feel larger and more lively with other players running around. However, I also like instancing because it allows me to experience the game's content without having to be online 24-7. A perfect game for me would have both. 95% of the game open world with important areas like raids being instanced.
Most are but not all. In GW2 you will co-operate with others most of the time... The open world is really what you make of it.
You can design it so that it is all about single players or small groups, you can even have raid bosses in the open world like EQ.
Or full PvP for that matter.
I can't imagine an open world game that doesn't involve competition among the players. EQ in it's open world days was always competition. Guilds compete for the open world targets all the time and some guilds NEVER got to experience any of it, at least until it was so old that there wasn't any reason to do it except to see it. On the last progression servers for EQ, guilds locked targets down every time. They will raid at 3am to kill them. Not because they need it but just so others don't get it. There's always something to fight for in open world games and that's fine to me as long as it's not things like raids. Just my opinion.
This.
If your game is a themepark focused on end game gear grinding, the open world usually becomes irrelevant at max level.
But in sandboxes and sandparks, especially if they have an emphasis on open world pvp, the open world is the 'endgame'.
That was my main issue with SWG which I still consider the best example of MMORGP sandbox. The game required you to do a massive amount of mindless grinding in order to reach the creative content that made the game so interesting. I am actually all for grinding that teaches you to get better at a task but SWG had grinds that required you to move the mouse and click on a button over and over. It was an activity that taught you nothing, produced nothing of value and made my mouse hand cramp up for a week.
Why not? In a game with magic, who says a warrior cannot wear a pair of magical teleporting underpants?
and i see no reason why entertainment products need to be realistic.
In fact, "as realistic as possible" is a recipe for non-fun. Do you want to have to go to a virtual toilet every 2 hours, and you have to watch your toon to sleep for 8 hours too? That is realistic, isn't it?