So What? If You Want Fairness Why Not Play an FPS/MOBA/Whatever...
MMOs are more than stat progression. MMOs are massive worlds that offer chances to explore the world, randomly encounter other players but peacefully, and in random encounter Open World PvP. MMOs can feature meaningful crafting, and a greater variety of content. MMOs give you a chance to make a mark on a world inhabited by real players. Some MMOs even have deep politics with player created factions. Some people love and desire to take part in many or all of these things without being subjected to massive power disparities based on level and gear.
It's effectiveness is rendered moot in his very first sentence which implies that he is unable to make the distinct differentiation between an MMO and an MMORPG. As explained above, while MMO's may indeed involve all of the above, there is a distinct difference between an MMO and an MMORPG. If what he is looking for is an "MMO" without story and level gating, then he would be well advised to take his concerns to any of the dozens of FPS/MOBA/Whatever game forums and express his concerns regarding making those games include all of the above features minus the story telling and level gating play that are core to MMO"RPG" game play. I think it is safe to say that MMORPG gamers are fed up with the bastardization of the MMORPG genre by "FPS/MOBA/Whatever" players complaining about this core feature and trying to change it into something unrecognizable from the origin of its concepts.
Strongly agree with the "if you want a different genre, you should play a different genre"implication behind that opening line.
Strongly disagree with the way you're differentiating "MMO" and "MMORPG".
All red cars are red.
Not all cars are red.
Cars aren't the only thing which are red.
Until you pair "red" with a noun, it isn't describing anything. It's nothing by itself.
MMO is an adjective just like "red":
All MMORPGs are MMOs.
Not all RPGs are MMOs.
RPGs aren't the only thing which are MMOs.
Until you pair "MMO" with a genre, it isn't describing anything. It's nothing by itself.
This is why I want people around here to write mmorpg when they mean mmorpgs. If they mean any kind of mmo including those that aren't rpgs then mmo is ok.
I believe this is just a little game they are playing on the forum.
This is exactly at the core of my entire debate on this thread. Yet the same poster that agreed with you disputed the entire basis of my posts which support exactly that point. Just goes to show you some on this website argue just for the sake of arguing.
I suppose the fundamental question that helps me define what is and isn't RPG is this. If you started a game of Dungeons and Dragons at level 20 with super good gear and never advance your character would it still be an RPG?
If you said yes then you are agreeing character progression isn't what makes an RPG and RPG.
If Skyrim didn't have a scripted intro quest and you just ran around the world stealing things, exploring random dungeons and fighting NPCs is it still an RPG?
If you said yes then you are agreeing scripted story content isn't what makes an RPG an RPG.
So if those aren't the defining factors then what are?
In every single RPG you make your character you own. Even if you don't pick your name and appearance at the start of the game you'll be able to pick your skills, equipment etc. as you progress through the game.
So while there is no clear definition, I would say deep character customization is the defining element of an RPG. This is an element you don't really see outside of RPGs. It is an element you would see in a game with high levels of horizontal progression without verticle progression.
So if games like the one I've been creating concepts for are not MMORPGS:
That's a very flawed concept of what the RPG part in MMORPG constitutes. First off, RPGs are not intrinsically tied to levels to define progression. Neither are they defined by a rigid narrative path, as open world RPG titles with free-form approach or prioritization of goals and plot already exist.
As we covered previously actually, the notion of progress in an RPG takes many forms. Vertical progression and heavy power scaling is not inherently necessary for that, and can actually act in opposition to the narrative focus that is integral to RPGs.
Again, we aren't just talking about progress as it pertains to character customization and power development. That is the very definition of an FPS/MOBA or Whatever. Its very easy to spout out baseless and unsubstantiated opinions about what constitutes RPGs and how they are not intrisically tied to levels to define progression, its a whole different story actually describing how an RPG is to tell their story in a sequential and chronological order without a level gating game play design.
I'd be interested in hearing some of these other existing open world "MMORPG" titles with a free-form approach or prioritization of goals and plots that do not involve level gating in some form or another.
Again, the key acronym as it pertains to the context in question of this thread is "RPG" not just "MMO." An MMO without the RPG is an FPS/MOBA/Whatever, not an "MMORPG."
The fact it states RPG is rather the point of my own statement.
As if you look to the common usage and characteristics of computer RPG titles, you will immediately see that what constitutes xp and leveling is not a particularly strictly defined function beyond the fact that players accrue points to unlock new content in some form.
To put it very simply, I can say the very same of your argument as you have said of mine. Is is very easy to spout baseless and unsubstantiated opinions about what constitutes RPGs and how content is somehow chained to a very specific iteration of a game mechanic to define progression.
You can say what you want, but then I can look at titles like Witcher 3 whish was touted as RPG of the year and say "but that obviously didn't stop this game". Right there, you have a title that breaks away from strict sequential stroytelling and gating through leveled content to allow a player to pick and order the quests as they prefer. Similarly, while Fallout and Elderscrolls both have vertical progression, they leave the pace and approach to leveling in the user's hands and you can complete the main plot of the game at 20 all the same as you can complete it at 200.
This is exactly the same principle for which MMORPG titles are capable of utilizing as well, and level gating content is by no means necessary for achieving this. Hell, you can make the quests themselves be the means of gating content by simply locking off areas or certain events for the player until they are on X stage of a quest. Then you have hard-staged progression, yet no level requirement tethered to it.
As for MMOs that take such a free-form approach to their questing, STO, Neverwinter, Champions, Saga of Ryzom, and many, many other all possess very free-form mechanics when it comes to doing quests in the world and prioritizing activities as you want because they scale content around the player. Ryzom would be the only open world of those specifically mentioned and it's content doesn't inherently scale, they just built a numeric balance to the game that lets people roam relatively freely back and forth through the content.
This would also be the point of demanding innovation in a title, you don't ask for something if it's available everywhere. The fact that it has yet to be fully explored or utilized by a large number of titles is in fact part of the problem to be overcome.
"In some ways, the emphasis on character development has impeded progress in storytelling with RPGs. The central premise of these [computer RPGs] is that the player steadily builds his abilities by acquiring wealth, tools, weapons, and experience. This emphasis on character development tends to work against the needs of dramatic development - dramatic twists and turns clash with the prevailing tone of steady development. Fortunately, this impediment is not fundamental to the RPG genre; it is a cultural expectation rather than an architectural necessity." (Chris Crawford 2003)
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And I'll remain convinced that defining an RPG by number values, rather than the literal meaning of the words it's comprised of, doesn't make any sense.
The function of words is in distinction.
"Blue" functions because it refers to a color that's distinct from other colors. If we called everything "blue", it would be objectively useless as a word.
With "MMO" I often argue the literal meaning. Why? Because when all games are called "MMO" the term is objectively useless, but when the literal meaning is used the term distinguishes massively multiplayer games from non-massive ones.
With "RPG" 99% of games involve playing a role. So the term would be objectively useless because it would fail to distinguish one type of game from another.
There's a strong logical basis for using words in a way which keeps them useful and functional. Only people who deliberately want conversations on a topic to be confusing should argue in favor of words that objectively provide less meaning.
Besides which, there is a vast gulf of difference between adopting a role and playing a character versus controlling an avatar to do stuff.
If you want to be super semantic you can claim that you are "roleplaying" as Master Chief when you play Halo. However, the primary goal of that game is not to "be Master Chief", it is for Master Chief to be a window for the player. This is a very big reason for the faceless protagonist element in such games. The more vague a character is the more easily a person simply substitutes their own personality in for a power trip through game land.
With an RPG it is different because you are adopting the role of the character, not simply using them as a cardboard insert of yourself. Hence the term "roleplaying".
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterisation, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games."
You are right in that there is a logical basis for how terms should be used. You are wrong however in that you are actively trying to sabotage the purpose of a term and it's existence.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It is an element you would see in a game with high levels of horizontal progression without verticle progression.
False.
/thread
Let's put this back into context for a second and pull up the full relevant statement:
"So while there is no clear definition, I would say deep character customization is the defining element of an RPG. This is an element you don't really see outside of RPGs. It is an element you would see in a game with high levels of horizontal progression without verticle progression."
So you are saying that deep character customization is not an element that would be found in a game with high levels of horizontal progression but no vertical progression.
Given that WoW is still considered a MMORPG after the removal of skill trees the definition of "deep" character customization is a bar that has been set pretty low unless you want to argue WoW has lost it's MMORPG status.
Can a game with horizontal character customization offer name and appearance customization?
Yes.
Can it offer the ability to swap around equipment with different benefits?
Yes, even if you maintain your ridiculous argument that gear lost on death is no different that permanent gear progression you could still allow equipment customization through gear that has various upsides and downsides of equivalent power.
Can you customize your skills?
Yes. To a far greater degree than WoW. By limiting skill slots and allowing players to swap skills in and out of them you enable hundreds or thousands of skill loadout choices as opposed to the 4 choices currently available in WoW. You could also run a full skill tree system it's just that you would either have to start players with all the points they would ever receive or make every ability you take out come with an equal downside.
So exactly how is what I said false? A game with horizontal progression has capacity for customization FAR greater than the standard vertical progression based games which are become rapidly more brainless and limited with each expansion.
Well, as an adult, I am pretty sure I know what I want. I'm not getting what I want which is why I'm not playing any of the new games. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the more time I invest into something, the more value I feel it has, and the more I enjoy it.
This guy explains it well:
and this guy
I did watch the entire 24 minute and some odd second video by the first guy. I didn't watch the second yet.
I think the first guy in some ways makes my point whether he intends to or not. There is a part where he gets into the concept of "endgame" and how "there should be no endgame" it should all be about the "journey". I agree, hence this topic.
Dramatic power progression is always going to lead to rushing content to get to the "end game" because the "end game" is:
A. Where you can do content together with ALL your friends and have fun.
B. Where you can compete in PvP and not have your stats / quantity of grinding determine the outcome the majority of the time.
C. Where you can do the content you truly want to be doing.
As long as those goals are withheld from players at the beginning, the majority are going to rush through and power level to reach that point as quickly as possible. For me the end game isn't so much where the game ends, as where it begins, and everything leading up to that point is a needless hurdle I need to jump over in order to reach that point.
And THAT is what separates grinding in Skyrim from grinding in your general MMO. Skyrim is single player, therefore doing content together with my friends and being able to participate in PvP without serving as a punching bag due to stat imbalance are not a concern. So I do not feel a need to reach an endgame AKA the true beginning of the game. The game is fun from the start.
Now the thing is this guy is talking the entire time about how you need to be able to work at things. How you should be able to be proud of your accomplishments. How if anyone can come along and do something it cheapens it and makes it feel non-unique.
Again I agree with ALL of these things.
The thing that he hit on, the true heart of the problem though, came when he was talking about burning core or whatever it was in WoW. How it used to take strategy and wits to overcome it, and now a tank can go charging through like a madman while the healer is just trying to keep up.
WoW still has leveling, and fast or slow it isn't the leveling that creates the problem he's describing. It's the fact that the content is easy. As we've gone over quite at length in this topic if there is no stat progression you can create content so it is always easy or always challenging more easily. Instead of each challenging dungeon becoming easy the moment you lift the level cap or add higher tiers of gear. Or the moment you get that next tier of gear that takes forever to reach, the content remains super difficult all the time.
As far as having to work at things and feeling unique. I've lead alliances that were so powerful people called on the admins of our server to break them apart. I've started and ended more wars than I can count and over the years probably thousands of players have fought in them. Give me a good game with the ability to build cities and civilizations and I'll build you something far more meaningful than a number next to my character's name. Give me a game a game where I can fight over territory, build and destroy alliances and I'll accomplish things far more unique and interesting than being the first to overcome a scripted encounter or getting the rarest color of gear.
I can agree with a lot of what this guy says. But he's being short sighted. Levels, permanent gear, etc. isn't needed to create the kind of game he's describing. It just gets in the way of it. There are other ways to build something worth being proud of and other challenges than "how long do I have to spend building levels". Just because levels was how it was done before people discovered powerleveling doesn't mean returning to slow leveling will bring a return to the mystical "good old days" of gaming.
I enjoyed the Phantasy Star Online and Phantasy Star Universe games for this reason. Level is not a requirement, stats are. The enemies at higher difficulties can be upwards of 20 levels higher than you, but still beatable in a group of similarly leveled players. The discrepancy at higher levels is not as big. That is what makes it good.
I read the OP, but there's an festering problem I see with it.
First, I think RPGs are split between two kinds: story-driven and character-driven. They both share common traits. They're both worlds. You develop in both of them. Where they're different is control. In story driven RPGs, the player hands the reigns of control over to the story teller. The story teller does their utmost to convince the player control has not been exchanged. Story-driven RPGs are about telling a set story--sometimes branching--to the player. The player can interact with the story and pretend to be that character. It's a more interactive way to read AND watch a story. For character-driven RPGs, the control is given to the player. The world is your playground. You make the story by choosing what next to do. It requires a very different philosophy from the game makers because they don't know exactly what you're going to do. They have to fashion a world which can be played many different ways. The focus is less on delivery and presentation and more on convincingly assuring the player they're in control without restricting their game too much and hence failing. The reverse is true too, they can restrict too little. Despite it's character-driven, it still strongly relies on content and arcane game design principles.
Second, and most important, it's not character development. It's character development. You develop your character's stats/skills. You develop your knowledge of the game. You develop a collection of items. You develop a guild. You develop a house, or a city. You create. If you add something to the world not already there from the start then it's development. The definition is the same whether you develop (or create) alone or cooperatively. (Creating with others might change other aspects of the MMO though.)
Thirdly, the gap between new players and old players will always exist if there's development, even the most trivial. Even a first-person shooter with no progression whatsoever still has development because the payer is learning and getting better. If a veteran player is pitted against a new player the veteran player will win no question. In a MMORPG environment this automatically creates problems. It's the same probelm occuring when, in a level-based MMORPG, you can't group with someone because their level is too high. The difference is it's far more natural, if equally problematic, in the former example. The only way to prevent this from occurring is to make your game so simple even a baby could play it competently. Throwing out level-progression will remove artificial barriers, but it's not a "final solution".
A real answer to the new player versus veteran player problem is to remove artificial barriers as much as possible, while also ensuring new players can both contribute to the veteran population and be appropriately situated with others of their kind. It's often important to old players to invite a new player because they're RL friends. In that situation, artificial bariers need to be a minimum. And yet it must also be understood the veteran player is donating their time and energy to educate and assist that new player. They're not equal. New players, whoever they might be, still need ready and easy access to others who're also new, especially in competitive scenarios where their knowledge of the game will be more important than anything else and playing against someone of similar skill level will encourage htem to keep playing.
So I think the OP has a lot of good things to say about artificial barriers and how to improve the gaps in MMORPGs, but it's not the whole picture and the OP has more to learn about what causes hte gaps, IMHO. I also think his/her definition of RPG is debatable, as it usually is anyway.
@Hawkaya399 - I do not disagree there will always be gaps in power and disparity. But I think these gaps are more meaningful and fun when they are real gaps and not artificial gaps. Yeah if I was to introduce my fiance who has not played FPSes into an FPS and have her fight alongside me I would be very powerful compared to her.
But the experience in getting her to my level in an FPS vs. an RPG I'm high level in that she has not played is very different.
In the FPS I would be teaching her skills and strategies. I would use my knowledge to enhance her knowledge and bring her to my level. Given my reflexes are not the greatest and I heavily rely on knowledge and techniques to get ahead, and her twitch skills are a bit better... I could have her performing competently within a day, and besting me within a week or two of consistent play. No matter how long I've been playing.
In an vertical progression heavy RPG the game is probably simpler and I can answer her occasional questions and help her get her keys binded properly for the game with pretty minimal effort. After that, getting her to my level is going to be a repetitive process of telling her "kill more stuff." In a game with a crafting based economy I can use my funds to prop her up to get her on my level faster. In a raid based progression game she will have to play as long as I've been playing to get on my level. That could be months, even years.
So why do I prefer the non-artificial progression? First off it's faster. By the end of that first day we will really be having fun, and after that week or two we'll be an unstoppable duo.
Second off it's more rewarding. It's more of a collaborative effort. I can work with her every step of the way. Leveling, it's often a process best done solo. Run around and turn in those boring linear quests. Ask my help of you get a group quest. Unless I'm on the same level and leveling with her then we're really doing our own separate things. Even then I've often found games sometimes pushing me in a direction where I want to break off and do my own thing for awhile (Class unique storylines in SWTOR for instance.)
As a socializer on the Bartel test I've found level based games really tend to push people apart, while (player) skill based progression makes it rewarding and fun to mentor people.
To this date my most fun cooperative gameplay experiences have been playing StarCraft 2 with my highschool friends, and Age of Empires II with my fiance. I did have a lot of fun leveling together with her in ESO too but we had to start characters at the same time and only log in to play together to get the kind of experience we did. It's just more natural in games like RTSes, FPSes, and Open World games with limited progression such as Freelancer.
I would 100% prefer to play a pencil-and-paper rpg with a dungeonmasters/gamemaster that ran a character-driven (open-narrative sandbox) campaign than one who ran a story-driven (closed-narrative themepark) campaign. I made a lot of mistakes when I ran some adventures as a DM with AD&D right after high school, but I've since learned from all of them. There's no way I would want to force my players to do anything while playing a pencil-and-paper rpg. Totally ruins the point of even playing one. Personally, I think it ruins the point of playing any game that calls itself a role-playing game.
sounds like a you problem. just do what most people like you do, buy a max level item and be done with leveling. don't wanna do that? don't play that game or don't play any mmorpgs because they are clearly not for you. any game with any sort of progression you should stay away from.
sounds like a you problem. just do what most people like you do, buy a max level item and be done with leveling. don't wanna do that? don't play that game or don't play any mmorpgs because they are clearly not for you. any game with any sort of progression you should stay away from.
A "you" problem shared across many people I've encountered both on these boards and in the many MMOs I've played.
When a "you" problem is shared across many thousands of people it's no longer called a "you" problem. It's called an unfulfilled market need AKA a blue ocean market AKA a purple cow AKA a market opportunity.
That's fine. Why is it always "Go play a MOBA" instead of another MMO. What makes it that makes people think that every single MMO needs to fit perfectly with their personal preferences?
I don't want a MOBA. I want an MMO without massive disparity based on leveling or gearing. As do many other people. Hell one of my real life friends told me he ran into this topic while searching for a leveless MMO himself a few months back. You don't have to play it. You can play MMOs you like.
I consider GW2 to be utter trash. You like it apparently. That's fine. You can play it and I don't have to.
I would 100% prefer to play a pencil-and-paper rpg with a dungeonmasters/gamemaster that ran a character-driven (open-narrative sandbox) campaign than one who ran a story-driven (closed-narrative themepark) campaign. I made a lot of mistakes when I ran some adventures as a DM with AD&D right after high school, but I've since learned from all of them. There's no way I would want to force my players to do anything while playing a pencil-and-paper rpg. Totally ruins the point of even playing one. Personally, I think it ruins the point of playing any game that calls itself a role-playing game.
I play in both and each have it's fun parts. Running dungeons have it's charms, just like a sandbox setting where the players are nobles and intrigue and lead armies.
A good DM can more or less make everything fun while a bad can mess everything up no matter how cool the premise is.
And MMORPGs are like that too, a well though well made game is awesome, sandbox or themepark. A bad one just sucks.
Of course the story driven campaigns needs to motivate the players to actually want to run that dungeon or whatever the story demands but that is no problem for an experienced DM. Sometimes a player wont work out for one or the other and then it is better to move them to something more their style (and if I don't DM something like that at the moment I send them to someone that is).
Generally though do I have little problems with it, ran some puzzle dungeons with a bunch of vampire intrigue players a while ago and they had a great time (kept bugging me to make more of them and puzzles and traps get hard to think out when you already used a lot of them).
The sandbox styles campaigns usually takes more job to get right and that is why I think most MMOs go for themeparks. It isn't always so, Amber for instance tend to be rather easy to make sandbox campaigns for (try it if you want to have the ultimate sandbox game).
That's fine. Why is it always "Go play a MOBA" instead of another MMO. What makes it that makes people think that every single MMO needs to fit perfectly with their personal preferences?
I don't want a MOBA. I want an MMO without massive disparity based on leveling or gearing. As do many other people. Hell one of my real life friends told me he ran into this topic while searching for a leveless MMO himself a few months back. You don't have to play it. You can play MMOs you like.
I consider GW2 to be utter trash. You like it apparently. That's fine. You can play it and I don't have to.
Not every MMO needs to be for everyone.
gw2 was my top 3 mmo
ragnarok online, gw2, archeage, then teso, but i hate fps aim
albion online has no level i think.. i like albion too. my top 5, teso and albion
To me it was just a WoWification of one of my favorite games. The original Guild Wars. It had almost no redeeming value in my eyes. I just didn't enjoy it on any level. It offered no meaningful improvements over the original. Ended up paying 50$ for like 2 hours of playtime before I just couldn't stand it anymore, wish I could have gotten a refund.
A lot of people really loved it though. While I feel that it being Guild Wars 2 is an insult to the original, I don't see any issue with it's existence in the MMO space. People enjoy it. It made a profit. Successful game.
So back to my question. Why do you feel that there shouldn't be an MMO that me and the many others like me can enjoy? You don't have to play it so why are you telling us we need to go play a MOBA instead?
To me it was just a WoWification of one of my favorite games. The original Guild Wars. It had almost no redeeming value in my eyes. I just didn't enjoy it on any level. It offered no meaningful improvements over the original. Ended up paying 50$ for like 2 hours of playtime before I just couldn't stand it anymore, wish I could have gotten a refund.
A lot of people really loved it though. While I feel that it being Guild Wars 2 is an insult to the original, I don't see any issue with it's existence in the MMO space. People enjoy it. It made a profit. Successful game.
So back to my question. Why do you feel that there shouldn't be an MMO that me and the many others like me can enjoy? You don't have to play it so why are you telling us we need to go play a MOBA instead?
i never played gw1 because i got hooked to ro
no level..then u need some kind of progressions. equipment perhaps? or just a pvp zergfest?
You shift vertical character progress to non-vertical character progression, temporary progression, and progression in other areas. I explain it all in the original post.
I play Path of Exiles and Diablo 3 for grinding...they have it set up so i can do it infinitely and it still feels fun and rewarding....and i dont need a massive community to be active for it to be fun (though both games do have that)
For no progression grinding i love Vermintide which offers a nice action combat gameplay, though gear isnt too varied. Fun as hell though.
I actually rather liked GW2, spent a decent amount of time in there. Interestingly enough i really enjoyed putzing around all the zones clearing stuff more than anything in that game, didn't like the newish expansion zones though. Reached a point of my life where gaming isnt a priority and i hardly get an hour or two in a week and well...thats just not enough time to gain satisfaction from any mmorpg...
Comments
This is exactly at the core of my entire debate on this thread. Yet the same poster that agreed with you disputed the entire basis of my posts which support exactly that point. Just goes to show you some on this website argue just for the sake of arguing.
Only on MMORPG.com
If you said yes then you are agreeing character progression isn't what makes an RPG and RPG.
If Skyrim didn't have a scripted intro quest and you just ran around the world stealing things, exploring random dungeons and fighting NPCs is it still an RPG?
If you said yes then you are agreeing scripted story content isn't what makes an RPG an RPG.
So if those aren't the defining factors then what are?
In every single RPG you make your character you own. Even if you don't pick your name and appearance at the start of the game you'll be able to pick your skills, equipment etc. as you progress through the game.
So while there is no clear definition, I would say deep character customization is the defining element of an RPG. This is an element you don't really see outside of RPGs. It is an element you would see in a game with high levels of horizontal progression without verticle progression.
So if games like the one I've been creating concepts for are not MMORPGS:
http://harbingerhideout.enjin.com/forum/viewforum/7479163/m/39251331
Then they would be an entirely new genre of games.
Without a game, they're not "players".
Without players, it's not massively multiplayer online.
(So yes, technically your question is a paradox: you can't have an MMO with no game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As if you look to the common usage and characteristics of computer RPG titles, you will immediately see that what constitutes xp and leveling is not a particularly strictly defined function beyond the fact that players accrue points to unlock new content in some form.
To put it very simply, I can say the very same of your argument as you have said of mine. Is is very easy to spout baseless and unsubstantiated opinions about what constitutes RPGs and how content is somehow chained to a very specific iteration of a game mechanic to define progression.
You can say what you want, but then I can look at titles like Witcher 3 whish was touted as RPG of the year and say "but that obviously didn't stop this game". Right there, you have a title that breaks away from strict sequential stroytelling and gating through leveled content to allow a player to pick and order the quests as they prefer. Similarly, while Fallout and Elderscrolls both have vertical progression, they leave the pace and approach to leveling in the user's hands and you can complete the main plot of the game at 20 all the same as you can complete it at 200.
This is exactly the same principle for which MMORPG titles are capable of utilizing as well, and level gating content is by no means necessary for achieving this. Hell, you can make the quests themselves be the means of gating content by simply locking off areas or certain events for the player until they are on X stage of a quest. Then you have hard-staged progression, yet no level requirement tethered to it.
As for MMOs that take such a free-form approach to their questing, STO, Neverwinter, Champions, Saga of Ryzom, and many, many other all possess very free-form mechanics when it comes to doing quests in the world and prioritizing activities as you want because they scale content around the player. Ryzom would be the only open world of those specifically mentioned and it's content doesn't inherently scale, they just built a numeric balance to the game that lets people roam relatively freely back and forth through the content.
This would also be the point of demanding innovation in a title, you don't ask for something if it's available everywhere. The fact that it has yet to be fully explored or utilized by a large number of titles is in fact part of the problem to be overcome.
"In some ways, the emphasis on character development has impeded progress in storytelling with RPGs. The central premise of these [computer RPGs] is that the player steadily builds his abilities by acquiring wealth, tools, weapons, and experience. This emphasis on character development tends to work against the needs of dramatic development - dramatic twists and turns clash with the prevailing tone of steady development. Fortunately, this impediment is not fundamental to the RPG genre; it is a cultural expectation rather than an architectural necessity." (Chris Crawford 2003)
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Besides which, there is a vast gulf of difference between adopting a role and playing a character versus controlling an avatar to do stuff.
If you want to be super semantic you can claim that you are "roleplaying" as Master Chief when you play Halo. However, the primary goal of that game is not to "be Master Chief", it is for Master Chief to be a window for the player. This is a very big reason for the faceless protagonist element in such games. The more vague a character is the more easily a person simply substitutes their own personality in for a power trip through game land.
With an RPG it is different because you are adopting the role of the character, not simply using them as a cardboard insert of yourself. Hence the term "roleplaying".
"Role-playing games
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterisation, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games."
You are right in that there is a logical basis for how terms should be used. You are wrong however in that you are actively trying to sabotage the purpose of a term and it's existence.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"So while there is no clear definition, I would say deep character customization is the defining element of an RPG. This is an element you don't really see outside of RPGs. It is an element you would see in a game with high levels of horizontal progression without verticle progression."
So you are saying that deep character customization is not an element that would be found in a game with high levels of horizontal progression but no vertical progression.
Given that WoW is still considered a MMORPG after the removal of skill trees the definition of "deep" character customization is a bar that has been set pretty low unless you want to argue WoW has lost it's MMORPG status.
Can a game with horizontal character customization offer name and appearance customization?
Yes.
Can it offer the ability to swap around equipment with different benefits?
Yes, even if you maintain your ridiculous argument that gear lost on death is no different that permanent gear progression you could still allow equipment customization through gear that has various upsides and downsides of equivalent power.
Can you customize your skills?
Yes. To a far greater degree than WoW. By limiting skill slots and allowing players to swap skills in and out of them you enable hundreds or thousands of skill loadout choices as opposed to the 4 choices currently available in WoW. You could also run a full skill tree system it's just that you would either have to start players with all the points they would ever receive or make every ability you take out come with an equal downside.
So exactly how is what I said false? A game with horizontal progression has capacity for customization FAR greater than the standard vertical progression based games which are become rapidly more brainless and limited with each expansion.
A. Where you can do content together with ALL your friends and have fun.
B. Where you can compete in PvP and not have your stats / quantity of grinding determine the outcome the majority of the time.
C. Where you can do the content you truly want to be doing.
As long as those goals are withheld from players at the beginning, the majority are going to rush through and power level to reach that point as quickly as possible. For me the end game isn't so much where the game ends, as where it begins, and everything leading up to that point is a needless hurdle I need to jump over in order to reach that point. And THAT is what separates grinding in Skyrim from grinding in your general MMO. Skyrim is single player, therefore doing content together with my friends and being able to participate in PvP without serving as a punching bag due to stat imbalance are not a concern. So I do not feel a need to reach an endgame AKA the true beginning of the game. The game is fun from the start.
_______________________________________________________________
Now the thing is this guy is talking the entire time about how you need to be able to work at things. How you should be able to be proud of your accomplishments. How if anyone can come along and do something it cheapens it and makes it feel non-unique. Again I agree with ALL of these things.
The thing that he hit on, the true heart of the problem though, came when he was talking about burning core or whatever it was in WoW. How it used to take strategy and wits to overcome it, and now a tank can go charging through like a madman while the healer is just trying to keep up. WoW still has leveling, and fast or slow it isn't the leveling that creates the problem he's describing. It's the fact that the content is easy. As we've gone over quite at length in this topic if there is no stat progression you can create content so it is always easy or always challenging more easily. Instead of each challenging dungeon becoming easy the moment you lift the level cap or add higher tiers of gear. Or the moment you get that next tier of gear that takes forever to reach, the content remains super difficult all the time.
As far as having to work at things and feeling unique. I've lead alliances that were so powerful people called on the admins of our server to break them apart. I've started and ended more wars than I can count and over the years probably thousands of players have fought in them. Give me a good game with the ability to build cities and civilizations and I'll build you something far more meaningful than a number next to my character's name. Give me a game a game where I can fight over territory, build and destroy alliances and I'll accomplish things far more unique and interesting than being the first to overcome a scripted encounter or getting the rarest color of gear.
_______________________________________________________________
I can agree with a lot of what this guy says. But he's being short sighted. Levels, permanent gear, etc. isn't needed to create the kind of game he's describing. It just gets in the way of it. There are other ways to build something worth being proud of and other challenges than "how long do I have to spend building levels". Just because levels was how it was done before people discovered powerleveling doesn't mean returning to slow leveling will bring a return to the mystical "good old days" of gaming.
...gratz?
First, I think RPGs are split between two kinds: story-driven and character-driven. They both share common traits. They're both worlds. You develop in both of them. Where they're different is control. In story driven RPGs, the player hands the reigns of control over to the story teller. The story teller does their utmost to convince the player control has not been exchanged. Story-driven RPGs are about telling a set story--sometimes branching--to the player. The player can interact with the story and pretend to be that character. It's a more interactive way to read AND watch a story. For character-driven RPGs, the control is given to the player. The world is your playground. You make the story by choosing what next to do. It requires a very different philosophy from the game makers because they don't know exactly what you're going to do. They have to fashion a world which can be played many different ways. The focus is less on delivery and presentation and more on convincingly assuring the player they're in control without restricting their game too much and hence failing. The reverse is true too, they can restrict too little. Despite it's character-driven, it still strongly relies on content and arcane game design principles.
Second, and most important, it's not character development. It's character development. You develop your character's stats/skills. You develop your knowledge of the game. You develop a collection of items. You develop a guild. You develop a house, or a city. You create. If you add something to the world not already there from the start then it's development. The definition is the same whether you develop (or create) alone or cooperatively. (Creating with others might change other aspects of the MMO though.)
Thirdly, the gap between new players and old players will always exist if there's development, even the most trivial. Even a first-person shooter with no progression whatsoever still has development because the payer is learning and getting better. If a veteran player is pitted against a new player the veteran player will win no question. In a MMORPG environment this automatically creates problems. It's the same probelm occuring when, in a level-based MMORPG, you can't group with someone because their level is too high. The difference is it's far more natural, if equally problematic, in the former example. The only way to prevent this from occurring is to make your game so simple even a baby could play it competently. Throwing out level-progression will remove artificial barriers, but it's not a "final solution".
A real answer to the new player versus veteran player problem is to remove artificial barriers as much as possible, while also ensuring new players can both contribute to the veteran population and be appropriately situated with others of their kind. It's often important to old players to invite a new player because they're RL friends. In that situation, artificial bariers need to be a minimum. And yet it must also be understood the veteran player is donating their time and energy to educate and assist that new player. They're not equal.
New players, whoever they might be, still need ready and easy access to others who're also new, especially in competitive scenarios where their knowledge of the game will be more important than anything else and playing against someone of similar skill level will encourage htem to keep playing.
So I think the OP has a lot of good things to say about artificial barriers and how to improve the gaps in MMORPGs, but it's not the whole picture and the OP has more to learn about what causes hte gaps, IMHO. I also think his/her definition of RPG is debatable, as it usually is anyway.
But the experience in getting her to my level in an FPS vs. an RPG I'm high level in that she has not played is very different.
In the FPS I would be teaching her skills and strategies. I would use my knowledge to enhance her knowledge and bring her to my level. Given my reflexes are not the greatest and I heavily rely on knowledge and techniques to get ahead, and her twitch skills are a bit better... I could have her performing competently within a day, and besting me within a week or two of consistent play. No matter how long I've been playing.
In an vertical progression heavy RPG the game is probably simpler and I can answer her occasional questions and help her get her keys binded properly for the game with pretty minimal effort. After that, getting her to my level is going to be a repetitive process of telling her "kill more stuff." In a game with a crafting based economy I can use my funds to prop her up to get her on my level faster. In a raid based progression game she will have to play as long as I've been playing to get on my level. That could be months, even years.
So why do I prefer the non-artificial progression? First off it's faster. By the end of that first day we will really be having fun, and after that week or two we'll be an unstoppable duo.
Second off it's more rewarding. It's more of a collaborative effort. I can work with her every step of the way. Leveling, it's often a process best done solo. Run around and turn in those boring linear quests. Ask my help of you get a group quest. Unless I'm on the same level and leveling with her then we're really doing our own separate things. Even then I've often found games sometimes pushing me in a direction where I want to break off and do my own thing for awhile (Class unique storylines in SWTOR for instance.)
As a socializer on the Bartel test I've found level based games really tend to push people apart, while (player) skill based progression makes it rewarding and fun to mentor people.
To this date my most fun cooperative gameplay experiences have been playing StarCraft 2 with my highschool friends, and Age of Empires II with my fiance. I did have a lot of fun leveling together with her in ESO too but we had to start characters at the same time and only log in to play together to get the kind of experience we did. It's just more natural in games like RTSes, FPSes, and Open World games with limited progression such as Freelancer.
When a "you" problem is shared across many thousands of people it's no longer called a "you" problem. It's called an unfulfilled market need AKA a blue ocean market AKA a purple cow AKA a market opportunity.
i love grinding.
i want it forever
I don't want a MOBA. I want an MMO without massive disparity based on leveling or gearing. As do many other people. Hell one of my real life friends told me he ran into this topic while searching for a leveless MMO himself a few months back. You don't have to play it. You can play MMOs you like.
I consider GW2 to be utter trash. You like it apparently. That's fine. You can play it and I don't have to.
Not every MMO needs to be for everyone.
A good DM can more or less make everything fun while a bad can mess everything up no matter how cool the premise is.
And MMORPGs are like that too, a well though well made game is awesome, sandbox or themepark. A bad one just sucks.
Of course the story driven campaigns needs to motivate the players to actually want to run that dungeon or whatever the story demands but that is no problem for an experienced DM. Sometimes a player wont work out for one or the other and then it is better to move them to something more their style (and if I don't DM something like that at the moment I send them to someone that is).
Generally though do I have little problems with it, ran some puzzle dungeons with a bunch of vampire intrigue players a while ago and they had a great time (kept bugging me to make more of them and puzzles and traps get hard to think out when you already used a lot of them).
The sandbox styles campaigns usually takes more job to get right and that is why I think most MMOs go for themeparks. It isn't always so, Amber for instance tend to be rather easy to make sandbox campaigns for (try it if you want to have the ultimate sandbox game).
ragnarok online, gw2, archeage, then teso, but i hate fps aim
albion online has no level i think.. i like albion too. my top 5, teso and albion
A lot of people really loved it though. While I feel that it being Guild Wars 2 is an insult to the original, I don't see any issue with it's existence in the MMO space. People enjoy it. It made a profit. Successful game.
So back to my question. Why do you feel that there shouldn't be an MMO that me and the many others like me can enjoy? You don't have to play it so why are you telling us we need to go play a MOBA instead?
no level..then u need some kind of progressions. equipment perhaps? or just a pvp zergfest?
For no progression grinding i love Vermintide which offers a nice action combat gameplay, though gear isnt too varied. Fun as hell though.
I actually rather liked GW2, spent a decent amount of time in there. Interestingly enough i really enjoyed putzing around all the zones clearing stuff more than anything in that game, didn't like the newish expansion zones though. Reached a point of my life where gaming isnt a priority and i hardly get an hour or two in a week and well...thats just not enough time to gain satisfaction from any mmorpg...