I used to be anti-FFA-PVP just for the fact I never played a full-pvp game. I was comfortable with harsher mechanics because I played EQ1 in 1999, but never played a game with Full-pvp with full-loot.

I began playing mortal online a couple years ago and the full-pvp aspect was a harsh pill to swallow at first. My first few deaths I raged a couple times cursing the persons who killed me. But then as my skills went up and I was able to put up a fight, or was fast enough to haul arse out of there, or learned better travel routes, or just had replacement gear sitting in the bank just in case I did lose my gear, the pill became easier to swallow.

FFA-PVP now is an adrenalin rush. I now have to know my surroundings at all times and am ready for almost anything to come my way. There are people that look at my character all decked out in gear and dont want to try to kill me because they know that there is a good chance that they may end up being at the end of my sword with all their gear taken.

When I went back to play a themepark it feels unchallenging because I can just afk and not experience that risk or adrenalin rush. It feels like there are no consequences for anything I do in themeparks. I will never get looted and will never lose anything if I die. It feels so pointless as there are no consequences for failing or being careless.

If I can warm to FFA-pvp Im sure alot of people who are currently anti-FFA can also.

Originally posted by Silvermink

 

Originally posted by nariusseldon

MMOs are moving towards lobby co-op games. Lots of MMOs have features like that (LFD) and those are popular features.

This site has plenty of discussions for that kind of games. I do not see why i should not voice my opinion here.

Lobby Co-op games have been around longer than MMOs. This isn't a new trend. Some people like a lobby, others prefer a persistant world. I play very few lobby games and wouldn't even consider playing a lobby MMO.

It is a new trend that MMO is converging to lobby co-op games. In the early days of MMO (EQ days), there is no instance, no LFD, no LFR, no waiting for battleground pvp. Now those are STANDARD features.

From the action RPG sides, there are no AH, and no persistencies of toons & items (cause everything is stored on your own PC). It is not until Diablo 3 that characters & items are persistent on the dev's servers, and you can trade on a world wide AH.

That is convergence.

Many play MMOs like lobby games. I gather you don't but you do not have to play WOW, DDO, Global Agenda ... and the MMOs that are like that.

I would prefer lobby co-op games not even be called MMOs, they are not massive multiplayer, they are group multiplayer, single player story hybrids, that are becoming more and more disposable.

I will take a huge world to explore, that feels alive, and people actually have to play with each other in it, over a railed and over instanced co-op game. 

Hopefully we get some good hybrids atleast in the future.

Originally posted by Asuran24

Originally posted by GreenishBlue

the trend is single player MMOs ?

What mmo out there is like that?

Guild Wars Nightfall fits the bill pretty well. It's also hella fun, the most engaging combat of any game I've played solo.

Originally posted by Darkmoth

Originally posted by Asuran24

Originally posted by GreenishBlue

the trend is single player MMOs ?

What mmo out there is like that?

Guild Wars Nightfall fits the bill pretty well. It's also hella fun, the most engaging combat of any game I've played solo.

If you can group and play in a game without having to change versions or settings to play with another player in the gama , such as having to restart the game or enter a specilized part of the game to access the co-up functions of the game, it is not a single player game as you have a choice to play alone or in a group persistently. There is a huge difference between a solo freindly design, and a single player design, one favors players playing alone while the other is build around the entire fact of the players playing alone without aid from other players. I would agree there is a trend in mmos of focusing on solo play (rather on speeding to level cap i see it) during the persistent leveling phase in the open world, but that there iss still a large focus on group play at cap or near cap levels. I would agree that alot of single player games have had some of the funnest combat out there, while co-op or large group play das it own thrill an enjoyment.

Originally posted by Asuran24

Originally posted by Darkmoth

Originally posted by Asuran24

Originally posted by GreenishBlue

the trend is single player MMOs ?

What mmo out there is like that?

Guild Wars Nightfall fits the bill pretty well. It's also hella fun, the most engaging combat of any game I've played solo.

If you can group and play in a game without having to change versions or settings to play with another player in the gama , such as having to restart the game or enter a specilized part of the game to access the co-up functions of the game, it is not a single player game as you have a choice to play alone or in a group persistently.

Nightfall isn't a single-player game, it's a single player MMO. The presence of other players is a given, but they are entirely optional to the experience.

There is a huge difference between a solo freindly design, and a single player design, one favors players playing alone while the other is build around the entire fact of the players playing alone without aid from other players.

I'm not sure I see the difference, at least in PvE. Other than in towns (aka lobbies), I am the only person in the entirety of my instanced world zones. I do missions requiring a full group without anyone but me being present, and have done so from level 1 to cap. The storyline revolves around me and my exploits, without any reference to (or effect from) any other player. The experience is completely indistiguishable from, say, Dragon Age.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

It is a new trend that MMO is converging to lobby co-op games. In the early days of MMO (EQ days), there is no instance, no LFD, no LFR, no waiting for battleground pvp. Now those are STANDARD features.

From the action RPG sides, there are no AH, and no persistencies of toons & items (cause everything is stored on your own PC). It is not until Diablo 3 that characters & items are persistent on the dev's servers, and you can trade on a world wide AH.

That is convergence.

Many play MMOs like lobby games. I gather you don't but you do not have to play WOW, DDO, Global Agenda ... and the MMOs that are like that.

You can argue that lobby games that get 64 or 128 people into 1 instance approach massive...or minecraft with 500 people...but for me unless you get 2000 people into a persistant world, one you can't leave and restart to respawn mobs, it's not a true MMO. I don't know global agenda but i'm not sure even DDO qualifies to me. WoW if you pvp can kinda feel like your sitting in a lobby waiting for the next bg to start. But there was a time in WoW when people used to open world pvp, much better time to me. D3 and many other games have enough people to be massive, but they don't all play together in the same world.

There are far too many games where players get to max level without seeing much of the world they are playing in.

The main cities become the lobby for people to port into a dungeon or the battle grounds.

Many of these people have the audacity to complain that the world is just too empty but would crap themselves if their group and dungeon finder was absent from the game forcing them back to the world they rushed through.

Theme Parks...a thing of the past??  lol..

Theme Parks are the only MMO's being made mainly,and this is why the genre has become dull,boring,and stagnant.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by GTwander

 

Or, it's the games you discredit are done by small studios that are either amatuers, or lack the backing to make a serious giant of a game - while all the ones you laud are by long-running companies that don't give a shit about their artistry anymore, and know how to make a quick buck off of hypemongers such as yourself.

Next you are gonna tell me Minecraft is a fail.

No. But i will tell you Minecraft is not an MMO.

And i don't know what those companies give a shit about, and i don't care. All i care is whether I find a game fun or not. And for ALL OF THE f2P ones, i can play a few hours and be the judge myself.

Minecraft is more of an MMO than Diablo 3, League of Legends, Dota, Global Agenda, and a ton of other games listed on this site.

You can have pvp, survival, creation, roleplay and so many mods your head will spin.

Go to youtube and type in minecraft mmo.

Originally posted by Darkmoth

Originally posted by Asuran24

Originally posted by Darkmoth

Originally posted by Asuran24

Originally posted by GreenishBlue

the trend is single player MMOs ?

What mmo out there is like that?

Guild Wars Nightfall fits the bill pretty well. It's also hella fun, the most engaging combat of any game I've played solo.

If you can group and play in a game without having to change versions or settings to play with another player in the gama , such as having to restart the game or enter a specilized part of the game to access the co-up functions of the game, it is not a single player game as you have a choice to play alone or in a group persistently.

Nightfall isn't a single-player game, it's a single player MMO. The presence of other players is a given, but they are entirely optional to the experience.

There is a huge difference between a solo freindly design, and a single player design, one favors players playing alone while the other is build around the entire fact of the players playing alone without aid from other players.

I'm not sure I see the difference, at least in PvE. Other than in towns (aka lobbies), I am the only person in the entirety of my instanced world zones. I do missions requiring a full group without anyone but me being present, and have done so from level 1 to cap. The storyline revolves around me and my exploits, without any reference to (or effect from) any other player. The experience is completely indistiguishable from, say, Dragon Age.

Well you first of all you have content that is built to allow for a multi-player experince that is persistent in the world not just a compeltely different version or part of the game, where as in a single player game it is built to be played solo with out any other player being able to participate in the content period (in single player games other players are not optional to the experince as they can not exist in the game with you.). This fact of being able to play alongside other players is why the game would be a mmo as you all are playing together (weither you are working together or against each other does not matter.), In games where they have much more complex or tasks it is required to have several group mambers, which in many rpgs are Ai controlled, as you can not play these games with another living players at all an is a gimic really to make the game funner to many. Where as in a solo friendly game you can if you so desire populate your group with other players if you so desire, but to allow players to be able to do the content still giving players other opitions ranging from mercs you can hire to scaling content that makes the content doable for a ssingle player. The fact that single player games are bult with the knowlege you will only have a single living player controlling a character in the game, where as in a solo friendly game/mmo it is about making solo play viable alongside group and other forms of playing in a game that has the option to play with other players.

Originally posted by Silvermink

Originally posted by nariusseldon

It is a new trend that MMO is converging to lobby co-op games. In the early days of MMO (EQ days), there is no instance, no LFD, no LFR, no waiting for battleground pvp. Now those are STANDARD features.

From the action RPG sides, there are no AH, and no persistencies of toons & items (cause everything is stored on your own PC). It is not until Diablo 3 that characters & items are persistent on the dev's servers, and you can trade on a world wide AH.

That is convergence.

Many play MMOs like lobby games. I gather you don't but you do not have to play WOW, DDO, Global Agenda ... and the MMOs that are like that.

You can argue that lobby games that get 64 or 128 people into 1 instance approach massive...or minecraft with 500 people...but for me unless you get 2000 people into a persistant world, one you can't leave and restart to respawn mobs, it's not a true MMO. I don't know global agenda but i'm not sure even DDO qualifies to me. WoW if you pvp can kinda feel like your sitting in a lobby waiting for the next bg to start. But there was a time in WoW when people used to open world pvp, much better time to me. D3 and many other games have enough people to be massive, but they don't all play together in the same world.

Just semantics.

Who cares what it is called? You can say WOW is not a MMO .. but that is what the game industry call it, and what most players call it.

And most MMOs don't have massive gameplay. All PvE are in small group instances. Even 25 man is not massive.

I am sure lots of modern day MMOs are not "MMOs" in YOUR definition. So what? Things change. Definitions change. I will use whatever the market will use. You are free to come up with new names and see if that sticks.

Originally posted by xDayx

I used to be anti-FFA-PVP just for the fact I never played a full-pvp game. I was comfortable with harsher mechanics because I played EQ1 in 1999, but never played a game with Full-pvp with full-loot.

I began playing mortal online a couple years ago and the full-pvp aspect was a harsh pill to swallow at first. My first few deaths I raged a couple times cursing the persons who killed me. But then as my skills went up and I was able to put up a fight, or was fast enough to haul arse out of there, or learned better travel routes, or just had replacement gear sitting in the bank just in case I did lose my gear, the pill became easier to swallow.

FFA-PVP now is an adrenalin rush. I now have to know my surroundings at all times and am ready for almost anything to come my way. There are people that look at my character all decked out in gear and dont want to try to kill me because they know that there is a good chance that they may end up being at the end of my sword with all their gear taken.

When I went back to play a themepark it feels unchallenging because I can just afk and not experience that risk or adrenalin rush. It feels like there are no consequences for anything I do in themeparks. I will never get looted and will never lose anything if I die. It feels so pointless as there are no consequences for failing or being careless.

If I can warm to FFA-pvp Im sure alot of people who are currently anti-FFA can also.

I feel the same way when I play EvE online. And yes more people would think it was fun if they tried it. Loss is something that you need to feel a sence of acomplishment. Withoutit things become pointless and meaningless. And alot of the Themeparkes are slowly waking up to this realisation. It might be to little to late though.... I think the hole genre is slowly dying off..

Originally posted by Darkmoth

That's an odd thing to believe when almost all of the most recent and upcoming MMO offerings (TES:O,Rift,Tera,GW2) are themeparks. I haven't played TSW, but from what I gather it is also a themepark. I know Archeage is supposed to be a sandbox, but are there any others?

Archeage isn't really a sandbox, either.  It's a hybrid.  I always laugh at the MMO snobs who believe that themepark is going the way of the dinosaur, when there is very little on the horizon in terms of sandbox games that has a legitimate shot of succeeding.  

Making an MMO is risky. You invest a lot of money into developing the game, and then have to hope that the game is good enough to keep the interest of the most fickle consumer on the planet (the MMO player) over the long haul in order to make a profit.  So, with this being the case, why would a company develop a slow-paced, enjoy-over-time sandbox game where the players create their own content when they can provide the content for you, shove it in your face from the beginning, let you blow through it over a few months time, make their money back quickly, and hope to have enough subscribers left in order to possibly turn an actual profit?  

In short, developers treat MMOs these days like single player games:  Load it up with pre-packaged content, and then ship it out in order to make your money back on box sales + adding in a few months worth of subs, then turn your profit with the people still playing after that.  It's not a foolproof system, but it's much more "safe" then creating a sandbox, allowing players to create their own content, and then expecting that to keep interest long enough to turn a profit.  There is a reason you don't see AAA developers create sandbox games these days.  They want the guaranteed money, and don't want to take a risk with all the money it costs to develop a AAA game. 

Now, that doesn't mean everything is bleak on the MMO front.  What we are beginning to see is a lot of companies at least attempting to add in some wrinkles to the common thempark model.  Dynamic events, heavier emphasis on crafting, classless design, skill-based levelling, ability to build structures, siege warfare, action oriented combat, etc.  Anything that is different is good.  If enough of these "wrinkles" start working, we may start seeing a shift away from the themepark design into, at the very least, a hybrid version like Archeage.  And if a game like Archeage can succeed, developers may start having the courage to incorporate more sandbox elements into their games in the future, except this time they'll actually have the development dollars to back it up. 

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

There are a few reasons why all those sandbox MMORPGs (Darkfall, Mortal Online, etc...) fail and remain niche games. Poor quality, bug ridden coding, poor design, arrogant developers... but the main reason is that those games confuse "sandbox" and "FFA PvP". That's why they fail. Make a polished quality sandbox game where PvP is not forced on everybody and you will have a winner.

Originally posted by PyrateLV

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 

---

Originally posted by Mephster
Theme parks are only good for the moment then when the better game comes along people swarm to the next theme park. Whatever happened to mmos like FFXI that took you many months to level, so much immersion, group play and great communities. 

---

THOSE games are truly "things of the past."

 

Yep. Depth and Immersion are ancient relics

Oh yes, because awful grinds equal depth and immersion...

I have to agree with this,why oh why do the few sandboxes go for full loot pvp?

Are you in 2025 or something??

With only one sandbox (ArcheAge) on the way I don't really see how themeparks are a thing of the past.

Originally posted by Xzen

With only one sandbox (ArcheAge) on the way I don't really see how themeparks are a thing of the past.

There are more than one sandbox game on the way... ArcheAge is just the one with the highest profile right now.

Originally posted by Zlayer77

 

I feel the same way when I play EvE online. And yes more people would think it was fun if they tried it. Loss is something that you need to feel a sence of acomplishment. Withoutit things become pointless and meaningless. And alot of the Themeparkes are slowly waking up to this realisation. It might be to little to late though.... I think the hole genre is slowly dying off..

I tried it. TWICE .. once after they have this update claiming "improved missions".

It was NOT fun for me.

What is pointless or meaningless if for the player to decide. Plenty don't like harsh losses. Just look at the Diablo 3 forums with all the QQing about an increase in repair cost. (And it was reduced somewhat because of the complaints).

So are monthly subscriptiond...as much as I like Perfect World I refuse to pay a monthly sub.