Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by fenistil

 

Yes it is semantics.

Whenever you like it or not, putting "mmo" tag on everything will result in spawn of new acronym / sub-genre for games with seamless world and / or for games creating 'virtual worlds'

 

Sure. But people will care less about the label when they choose the game to play. They will go for the actual fun game. Do you know how many WOW players go play Diablo 3? (At least 1.2M with annual pass and perhaps many more, when i logged onto WOW on D3 launch day, every one there was waiting for the D3 server to come back out). No one cares that Diablo 3 is not a proper MMO.

So while there may be more splitting hair in nomenclature, it is clear that the play style in many MMOs is getting closer to playstyle of lobby based co-op RPGs. And that is not a bad thing.

Even more ppl play Call of Duty or Farmville and so what?

I think we're misunderstanding here.  I don't care that Diablo is not "proper" mmo / mmorpg.

I seriously don't.  For me industry can push 'mmo' or / and 'mmorpg' tag on anything they like - it will just result in what I said sooner or later.

----------------------------

I also don't have nothing against "close to lobby based mmos" myself. They bore me to death, but I don't have anything against their existence. 

What I do care about is that in last 5-7 years there were very few non-indie mmorpg's that could still provide 'virtual world' experience and not 'lobby based co-op' experience.

I just want some games I like. 

There can be 100 lobby based, instanced mmos for 1 'virtual world' mmorpg - as long as there are few good non-inide, non-old-like hell titles like that.

Originally posted by fenistil

What I do care about is that in last 5-7 years there were very few non-indie mmorpg's that could still provide 'virtual world' experience and not 'lobby based co-op' experience.

I just want some games I like. 

There can be 100 lobby based, instanced mmos for 1 'virtual world' mmorpg - as long as there are few good non-inide, non-old-like hell titles like that.

Then i suggest you vote with your wallet. If that does not work, find another hobby. The market has no obligation to fulfill what you want. If it happens that what you want is too niche, or for whatever reasons, there is no development interests, there is really little you can do.

Personally, i highly doubt if virtual world games will ever be popular. It is just too chaotic and uncontrollable to be fun for a large market. In fact, it is an old, tried and not too successful concept (UO, Eve .. never create a huge market for it). May be it is time for some innovation.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by fenistil

What I do care about is that in last 5-7 years there were very few non-indie mmorpg's that could still provide 'virtual world' experience and not 'lobby based co-op' experience.

I just want some games I like. 

There can be 100 lobby based, instanced mmos for 1 'virtual world' mmorpg - as long as there are few good non-inide, non-old-like hell titles like that.

Then i suggest you vote with your wallet. If that does not work, find another hobby. The market has no obligation to fulfill what you want. If it happens that what you want is too niche, or for whatever reasons, there is no development interests, there is really little you can do.

Personally, i highly doubt if virtual world games will ever be popular. It is just too chaotic and uncontrollable to be fun for a large market. In fact, it is an old, tried and not too successful concept (UO, Eve .. never create a huge market for it). May be it is time for some innovation.

I do both of those things.

I vote with my wallet by not buying or playing any (even no freeloading on f2p titles as cost of subscription is not an issue) mmorpg's atm. 

There is one themepark title I will propably play oe at least try to just because it is trying new things.

Apart of that - nothing and I havent bough or played any mmorpg since 06/2011 when my boredom with lobby, linear gameplay hit proverbal ceiling.  I admit I checked out few betas and things like that, but that's not much of a support isn't it?

I cannot support current 'virtual world' games though anymore - as I cannot accept low production values anymore. DFO, UO, UWO, MO, etc they are either too old or have to low production values for me.

Not a product I want cause of that and they can go and shut-down for all I care.

EVE Online is propably only game with 'virtual world' parts that is close enough to producion quality, support and updates that I could play and pay for - there is one small thing. Flying a speceship is really really not my thing. 

I am preety mainstream in this regard. TPP view, humanoid character and fantasy setting (dark fantasy best, but I can live with good enough high-fantasy as well). 

Copy & pasing UO would not work and yeah some innovation in 'virtual world' genre would be good. 

==============

For your second advice - yeah I do have other hobbies and I follow them.

Still they really cannot be a substitue for 'virtual world' type of mmorpg - so I am and I will still lurk around few pages and forums like this in my spare time. 

==================

Market has no "obligation" to provide me with a games I want. Sure it does not.

I am not taking hostages and making demands though.

Just discussing on discussion forum and expressing my thoughts.

My take is that there is enough good entertainment out there that no one needs to be bored.

That is why i always have a few hobbies. If one goes down for whatever reasons, just entertain myself with another. In fact, i also found that nothnig is interesting forever. It is better to have some variety. This is particularly true for video games.

But what I really wonder is how many people are playing D3 solo vs in a small group co-op setting.

I'm willing to guess its about the same ratio as those who participate in small group content in MMORPG's.

In fact, I think it might be the same audience enjoying both titles.

My son and his friends all bought D3 and beat the first wave together, and are now working on their 2nd run through.

Yet they regularly return to WOW because it offers them gameplay experiences that a linear shooter like D3 can't really offer.

In fact, they seem to enjoy the virtual world that WOW offers as opposed to the small scale focus of D3.

I myself tried D3, found it to be boring and repetitive.

What I want from an MMORPG is entirely different from what the OP is looking for.

Neither one of us is wrong, or right for that matter.

I do vote with my wallet, I won't be buying D3 for myself or any of its clones, just not for me.

I will support more fuly featured MMO's that have more virtual worlds built in them, and I think there's a enough like minded players like myself to keep a few solid titles going for a good long time. 

And what the heck, if not, I can always return to EVE and live in the last great bastion of virtual worlds.

Originally posted by Kyleran

But what I really wonder is how many people are playing D3 solo vs in a small group co-op setting.

I'm willing to guess its about the same ratio as those who participate in small group content in MMORPG's.

In fact, I think it might be the same audience enjoying both titles.

My son and his friends all bought D3 and beat the first wave together, and are now working on their 2nd run through.

Yet they regularly return to WOW because it offers them gameplay experiences that a linear shooter like D3 can't really offer.

In fact, they seem to enjoy the virtual world that WOW offers as opposed to the small scale focus of D3.

I myself tried D3, found it to be boring and repetitive.

What I want from an MMORPG is entirely different from what the OP is looking for.

Neither one of us is wrong, or right for that matter.

I do vote with my wallet, I won't be buying D3 for myself or any of its clones, just not for me.

I will support more fuly featured MMO's that have more virtual worlds built in them, and I think there's a enough like minded players like myself to keep a few solid titles going for a good long time. 

And what the heck, if not, I can always return to EVE and live in the last great bastion of virtual worlds.

 

 

Like what?

Except PvP, most players in WOW are only doing dungeons & raids together. Very few are doing open world quests together, because 99.9% are just single player quests. And dungeons & raids in WOW are more or less similar to D3. Sure, the combat mechanics are different but essentially you are killing stuff together with another few friends.

I don't know anyone in WOW that is there for the open world. Most are there for the dungeons & raids. Hence they camp in cities waiting for their dungeon queues to pop.

In fact, there is little open world pvp in WOW. Most pvp are also done in groups (abate larger than that of dungeons & raids).

Originally posted by nariusseldon

This notion of a world, of lots of toons interacting at the same time, is not always conducive to fun. I can see that large number of players may work in a war situation (hence WW2 online, or all the MMOFPS being developed now), but not so much in small group adventures, which are where fantasy RPG started.

However, there are games that bravely ditch the world, and focus on small group co-op combat, gameplay with some MMO elements. DDO & GW are two good examples.

The huge success of Diablo 3 hopefully will push gaming (and you are free to call it MMO or not) *more* in this direction. The key features, i think, that makes a good game in this genre is:

- progression

- deep combat mechanics

- some permanancy of your character. I found that i care about if my character is powerful or not. Whether he goes to an instance, a game-world, or hope between game is less important. This is the core part of RPG .. character centric (or even account centric) progression, independent of the game world.

- some kind of trade exchange (AH & RMAH on D3)

- may be some arena/BG type PvP

There are few development (Torchlight 2, PotE ...) in this area even before the success of D3. Hopefully, D3 has demonstrated that there is a huge market in this, there will be more development, and more importantly, games with different settings.

 

Wait, wait, wait..

so you want to get rid of the massive part of the game, keep structured PVP/BG, focus on centric-based objectives in small areas. What's next? Get rid of character progression? Wonderful, we have those already, they are called FPS's, hack-n-slash dungeon crawlers, and facebook lobby games.

Stop with the non-sense and go find another genre to destroy. 

This new crowd of "mmo'ers" pretty much are dead-set on ruining everything that used to set MMORPgs apart from the other genres. Hack n slashes existed long before MMORPGs. Maybe it's time to realize MMORPGs just aren't for you, there are quite a few dungeon crawlers and hack n slashes with extensive character progressions. You should check them out.

Originally posted by Nevulus

 

Wait, wait, wait..

so you want to get rid of the massive part of the game, keep structured PVP/BG, focus on centric-based objectives in small areas. What's next? Get rid of character progression? Wonderful, we have those already, they are called FPS's, hack-n-slash dungeon crawlers, and facebook lobby games.

Stop with the non-sense and go find another genre to destroy. 

 

This new crowd of "mmo'ers" pretty much are dead-set on ruining everything that used to set MMORPgs apart from the other genres. Hack n slashes existed long before MMORPGs. Maybe it's time to realize MMORPGs just aren't for you, there are quite a few dungeon crawlers and hack n slashes with extensive character progressions. You should check them out.

I already did. That is why i am playing Diablo 3 instead of a MMO. *BUT* more and more MMOs are like what i am describing, no doubt in respond to market demand.

And many MMO is providing good hack-n-slash co-op content with trading. There is no reason NOT to play them if they are fun.

Traditional MMOs are not for me. Took me a week of playing UO beta to find out that it was a BAD game (for me). However, the NEWER MMOs are going into directions that i like (LFD/LFR on WOW, pvp instances, AH, ...). Thus, i am going to support them by voting with my WALLET.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

This notion of a world, of lots of toons interacting at the same time, is not always conducive to fun. I can see that large number of players may work in a war situation (hence WW2 online, or all the MMOFPS being developed now), but not so much in small group adventures, which are where fantasy RPG started.

However, there are games that bravely ditch the world, and focus on small group co-op combat, gameplay with some MMO elements. DDO & GW are two good examples.

The huge success of Diablo 3 hopefully will push gaming (and you are free to call it MMO or not) *more* in this direction. The key features, i think, that makes a good game in this genre is:

- progression

- deep combat mechanics

- some permanancy of your character. I found that i care about if my character is powerful or not. Whether he goes to an instance, a game-world, or hope between game is less important. This is the core part of RPG .. character centric (or even account centric) progression, independent of the game world.

- some kind of trade exchange (AH & RMAH on D3)

- may be some arena/BG type PvP

There are few development (Torchlight 2, PotE ...) in this area even before the success of D3. Hopefully, D3 has demonstrated that there is a huge market in this, there will be more development, and more importantly, games with different settings.

 

Stay away from our genre. 

Thanks.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

I already did. That is why i am playing Diablo 3 instead of a MMO. *BUT* more and more MMOs are like what i am describing, no doubt in respond to market demand.

And many MMO is providing good hack-n-slash co-op content with trading. There is no reason NOT to play them if they are fun.

Traditional MMOs are not for me. Took me a week of playing UO beta to find out that it was a BAD game (for me). However, the NEWER MMOs are going into directions that i like (LFD/LFR on WOW, pvp instances, AH, ...). Thus, i am going to support them by voting with my WALLET.

It isn't market demand.  Developers can't develop a large virtual world when they cannot get funding for it.   What you are seeing is what publishers are demanding.  

Originally posted by nariusseldon

 

However, there are games that bravely ditch the world, and focus on small group co-op combat, gameplay with some MMO elements. DDO & GW are two good examples.

The huge success of Diablo 3 hopefully will push gaming (and you are free to call it MMO or not) *more* in this direction. The key features, i think, that makes a good game in this genre is:

- progression

- deep combat mechanics

- some permanancy of your character. I found that i care about if my character is powerful or not. Whether he goes to an instance, a game-world, or hope between game is less important. This is the core part of RPG .. character centric (or even account centric) progression, independent of the game world.

- some kind of trade exchange (AH & RMAH on D3)

- may be some arena/BG type PvP

the diablo Action RPG franchise has always been a success but it pertains to Action RPGs

no mmo has tried adopting this gamestyle to mmo until Marvel Heroes http://www.marvelheroes.com/game-info

- and really its only because a former Diablo dev (Dave Brevik) is behind it

whether the mix of an Action RPG and mmo is popular?   who knows

Originally posted by thinktank001

Originally posted by nariusseldon

I already did. That is why i am playing Diablo 3 instead of a MMO. *BUT* more and more MMOs are like what i am describing, no doubt in respond to market demand.

And many MMO is providing good hack-n-slash co-op content with trading. There is no reason NOT to play them if they are fun.

Traditional MMOs are not for me. Took me a week of playing UO beta to find out that it was a BAD game (for me). However, the NEWER MMOs are going into directions that i like (LFD/LFR on WOW, pvp instances, AH, ...). Thus, i am going to support them by voting with my WALLET.

 

It isn't market demand.  Developers can't develop a large virtual world when they cannot get funding for it.   What you are seeing is what publishers are demanding.  

How do you know? UO is a large virtual world (at that time) and EQ, with LESS world interacting elements, become more successful. Eve is a large virtual world and it never goes over 350k users.

Second Life is a virtual world, and it is no where as successful as the good themepark games. You don't really have evidence that there is a high market demand for virtual worlds.

In fact, players are asking for small group features (see how TOR players is ranting that they don't have LFD from the start), not more virtual world features on existing MMOs.

Originally posted by UOvet

Stay away from our genre. 

 

Thanks.

It is not "your" genre. It is a genre evolving according to market demand, just like any OTHER entertainment genre.

And why would i? If there is a MMO that has a lot of fun co-op small group content, why would i NOT play it if i find it fun? And why would I not talk about it and reflect my opinion?

Originally posted by Nadia

 

no mmo has tried adopting this gamestyle to mmo until Marvel Heroes http://www.marvelheroes.com/game-info

- and really its only because a former Diablo dev (Dave Brevik) is behind it

 

whether the mix of an Action RPG and mmo is popular?   who knows

 

Well, Diablo 3 is adopting some MMO elements, and it is certainly popular (all the down-time not withstanding).

I would argue that many MMOs have similar hack-n-slash and progerssion elements too. WOW is the best example. The focus is obviously on dungeon & raid content, which is very similar to Diablo's action RPG concept, abate the combat mechanics, and camera placement, are different. DDO & GW are more like Diablo than virtual world MMOs. And GW is certainly popular.

As for marvel heroes, i dunno if it is going to be successful. But i certainly will try it out since it is F2P and that Marvel Ultimate Alliance is one of my fav games.

Originally posted by Mardukk
I do hope they divide the mmo genre and possibly this site so I can skip over the lobby games and op can skip virtual world games. Op and I have such different tastes that there's really no point in us sharing our opinions with one another.