Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Isometrix
Ummmm... there's this little game called Guild Wars 2 coming out next week, maybe you've heard it mentioned in a back alley somewhere. Fits your description.

but how do you define quest, in that case?

GW2 event are very similar to quest, just open group instead of closed.

 

same standard task is being done as well.

Yeah, and you have to kill mobs most of the time. Imagine that.

At this point I don't think I get what most people are looking for when they say "no quests."

---

Originally posted by Psychow Just because a game has quests doesn't mean you have to do them. If you prefer to mindlessly grind mobs, then just do that. Nobody is stopping you, especially the game developers.   Just don't expect to find a lot of like-minded individuals who wish to join your mob-grinding party. However, your leveling method might be pretty good for a game such as LOTRO. Buy just mindlessly grinding mobs, you will earn your deeds and earn Turbine points that you can spend on game elements that you do actually enjoy.   So LOTRO would be my recommendation.

---

Right, I can, in theory, simply ignore the quests. However, as I explained earlier, games that are quest-dependent don't have anything outside of structured content. Let me give you an example. I used to play Ragnarok Online (the "golden age" of MMOs was a little before my time, so I didn't have the opportunity to try them in their hay day). Anyway, in Ragnarok every enemy was different. You would need different skills, classes and equipment depending on what you fought. Monsters were the focus of the combat, not an obstacle. It was just plain old fun to fight; it didn't need some contrived reason to kill them. Most battles needed a unique approach and positioning was paramount. Most quest games having boring as hell combat, so it has to be spiced up with quests and objectives to distract. Trust me, during my stint in WoW, I tried the no questing thing, and it was terrible, because the game wasn't designed that way. Like I said earlier, the quests, themselves, are only have of the the problem. The other half is the game design that is often synonymous with quests.

I've tried LotRO. I got to level 15 or so, and it seemed like your standard questing affair. Thank you for the suggestion, though.

---

Originally posted by darkraxiel play wakfu, is a sandbox turnbased game wiht politics f2p but have a subsription for premium content

---

I tried Wakfu. While it seemed unique and interesting in a lot of ways, I just didn't enjoy the combat very much. I know MMOs like that have a lot more to offer other than the combat, but fighting is something that's important to me personally. Fighting is usually what I do the most of in an MMO; if I don't enjoy it, then I can't really get into the game.

Originally posted by noseforauto

 

---

Originally posted by Psychow Just because a game has quests doesn't mean you have to do them. If you prefer to mindlessly grind mobs, then just do that. Nobody is stopping you, especially the game developers.   Just don't expect to find a lot of like-minded individuals who wish to join your mob-grinding party. However, your leveling method might be pretty good for a game such as LOTRO. Buy just mindlessly grinding mobs, you will earn your deeds and earn Turbine points that you can spend on game elements that you do actually enjoy.   So LOTRO would be my recommendation.

---

 

 

Right, I can, in theory, simply ignore the quests. However, as I explained earlier, games that are quest-dependent don't have anything outside of structured content. Let me give you an example. I used to play Ragnarok Online (the "golden age" of MMOs was a little before my time, so I didn't have the opportunity to try them in their hay day). Anyway, in Ragnarok every enemy was different. You would need different skills, classes and equipment depending on what you fought. Monsters were the focus of the combat, not an obstacle. It was just plain old fun to fight; it didn't need some contrived reason to kill them. Most battles needed a unique approach and positioning was paramount. Most quest games having boring as hell combat, so it has to be spiced up with quests and objectives to distract. Trust me, during my stint in WoW, I tried the no questing thing, and it was terrible, because the game wasn't designed that way. Like I said earlier, the quests, themselves, are only have of the the problem. The other half is the game design that is often synonymous with quests.

I've tried LotRO. I got to level 15 or so, and it seemed like your standard questing affair. Thank you for the suggestion, though.

So here you are saying that combat mechanics are the issue, because if the quest had said kill 5 of these you would have been happy to do it.  I admit using the term narrow minded was harsh on my part, but I continue to disagree that simply having quests in a game somehow makes it an inferior game.   I'm sorry but that is how your original post came across to me.

I think surely somewhere in a game you game across a quest where you probably got some enjoyment.   Did you not also say previously that you were not particularly looking at a sandbox game either??  This confuse me further, because I am not sure what you are really looking for, other than to complain how lame that you feel quests are.

Originally posted by noseforauto

 

---

Originally posted by Ramanadjinn

---

Originally posted by MMOExposed

---

Originally posted by Isometrix Ummmm... there's this little game called Guild Wars 2 coming out next week, maybe you've heard it mentioned in a back alley somewhere. Fits your description.

---

but how do you define quest, in that case? GW2 event are very similar to quest, just open group instead of closed.   same standard task is being done as well.

---

  this is not entirely accurate. i suggest you check out aerowyn's videos: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/359874/Aerowyns-Video-Compilation-of-ALL-things-Guild-Wars-2.html the differences between standard ! questing in many games and GW2s DEs can not be boiled down to "open group instead of closed."  linearity, reward, and several other elements outlined in that post i linked should explain well why maybe GW2 will be what the OP is looking for or not.   edit: you also have to take into account how these systems interact with other major systems in the game.  its not simply a different sort of questing transplanted into a copy of WOW. either way, watch those videos and make an informed decision.  don't bother listening to people who want to boil the whole thing down into one inaccurate overgeneralized statement.  there is enough information there for you to make an educated guess for yourself on whether you should play this game or keep looking.  

---

 

 

That's a lot of videos, and I've probably already seen many of them. I got caught up in the GW2 whirlwind of hype was ultimately let down. I just clung on to the big thing that was different and taking risks. Its execution didn't make it feel that much different than your standard questing affair, though. I was still just doing mundane tasks on a list. Some of the problems may have just been stuff that they might iron out, like some of the events spawning absurd amounts of enemies right next to you. I didn't get the "this world is alive" feel at all. I think players make a world feel a live, not NPCs. Although, some of the towns have a nice atmosphere that the NPCs create; but beyond that, the events don't really give me that impression. They pretty much just feel like quests, and I'm still getting corralled around to level-appropriate zones. I don't need a bunch of one-sided hype videos to make my decision. I've experienced the betas, so I have a pretty good idea of what the game has to offer. I'm sure I'll give it an other chance once the game launches, but if I find myself quitting out of boredom after an hour of play, like I was doing during the weekend betas, then maybe it's just not the game for me.

Were you doing the hearts or the Dynamic Events?  Because I don't really get how most of the DE's can be confused with typical quests.  Especially if you actually follow the chain of the DEs.  Yes, there are some, guard this, collect that DE's but not many.

As for "one-sided hype videos", doesn't every gameplay video do that for every game????

Edit:  You know, after reading some of your posts on this thread, it seems there may not be any MMO out there for you at this point.  Maybe The Sims is more what you're looking for?  It may not have combat, but it seems to have everything else you're looking for.  No hunt this, kill that....

---

Originally posted by Boneserino

 

 

---

Originally posted by noseforauto  

---

Originally posted by Psychow Just because a game has quests doesn't mean you have to do them. If you prefer to mindlessly grind mobs, then just do that. Nobody is stopping you, especially the game developers.   Just don't expect to find a lot of like-minded individuals who wish to join your mob-grinding party. However, your leveling method might be pretty good for a game such as LOTRO. Buy just mindlessly grinding mobs, you will earn your deeds and earn Turbine points that you can spend on game elements that you do actually enjoy.   So LOTRO would be my recommendation.

---

    Right, I can, in theory, simply ignore the quests. However, as I explained earlier, games that are quest-dependent don't have anything outside of structured content. Let me give you an example. I used to play Ragnarok Online (the "golden age" of MMOs was a little before my time, so I didn't have the opportunity to try them in their hay day). Anyway, in Ragnarok every enemy was different. You would need different skills, classes and equipment depending on what you fought. Monsters were the focus of the combat, not an obstacle. It was just plain old fun to fight; it didn't need some contrived reason to kill them. Most battles needed a unique approach and positioning was paramount. Most quest games having boring as hell combat, so it has to be spiced up with quests and objectives to distract. Trust me, during my stint in WoW, I tried the no questing thing, and it was terrible, because the game wasn't designed that way. Like I said earlier, the quests, themselves, are only have of the the problem. The other half is the game design that is often synonymous with quests. I've tried LotRO. I got to level 15 or so, and it seemed like your standard questing affair. Thank you for the suggestion, though.

---

So here you are saying that combat mechanics are the issue, because if the quest had said kill 5 of these you would have been happy to do it.  I admit using the term narrow minded was harsh on my part, but I continue to disagree that simply having quests in a game somehow makes it an inferior game.   I'm sorry but that is how your original post came across to me.

 

I think surely somewhere in a game you game across a quest where you probably got some enjoyment.   Did you not also say previously that you were not particularly looking at a sandbox game either??  This confuse me further, because I am not sure what you are really looking for, other than to complain how lame that you feel quests are.

---

I didn't say whether or not that I would be into a sandbox. I said I'm not a hardcore gamer, and I've never really experienced what people would call a full on sandbox, so I can't say. Based on what I know, I'd probably like a sandbox over a theme park if I had to choose, but I don't really like to pigeonhole games like that.

I'm not entirely sure what I'm looking for either... well, I am, but not in terms what actually exists. Yes, I'm basically just bitching, but there is the possibility that I could try out one the suggestions that I'm getting, and I may be pleasantly surprised. So, complaining, with a little bit of function woven in, if that clears it up. But what are forums for if not for bitching?

Originally posted by evolver1972

Originally posted by noseforauto

 

---

Originally posted by Ramanadjinn

---

Originally posted by MMOExposed

---

Originally posted by Isometrix Ummmm... there's this little game called Guild Wars 2 coming out next week, maybe you've heard it mentioned in a back alley somewhere. Fits your description.

---

but how do you define quest, in that case? GW2 event are very similar to quest, just open group instead of closed.   same standard task is being done as well.

---

  this is not entirely accurate. i suggest you check out aerowyn's videos: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/359874/Aerowyns-Video-Compilation-of-ALL-things-Guild-Wars-2.html the differences between standard ! questing in many games and GW2s DEs can not be boiled down to "open group instead of closed."  linearity, reward, and several other elements outlined in that post i linked should explain well why maybe GW2 will be what the OP is looking for or not.   edit: you also have to take into account how these systems interact with other major systems in the game.  its not simply a different sort of questing transplanted into a copy of WOW. either way, watch those videos and make an informed decision.  don't bother listening to people who want to boil the whole thing down into one inaccurate overgeneralized statement.  there is enough information there for you to make an educated guess for yourself on whether you should play this game or keep looking.  

---

 

 

That's a lot of videos, and I've probably already seen many of them. I got caught up in the GW2 whirlwind of hype was ultimately let down. I just clung on to the big thing that was different and taking risks. Its execution didn't make it feel that much different than your standard questing affair, though. I was still just doing mundane tasks on a list. Some of the problems may have just been stuff that they might iron out, like some of the events spawning absurd amounts of enemies right next to you. I didn't get the "this world is alive" feel at all. I think players make a world feel a live, not NPCs. Although, some of the towns have a nice atmosphere that the NPCs create; but beyond that, the events don't really give me that impression. They pretty much just feel like quests, and I'm still getting corralled around to level-appropriate zones. I don't need a bunch of one-sided hype videos to make my decision. I've experienced the betas, so I have a pretty good idea of what the game has to offer. I'm sure I'll give it an other chance once the game launches, but if I find myself quitting out of boredom after an hour of play, like I was doing during the weekend betas, then maybe it's just not the game for me.

Were you doing the hearts or the Dynamic Events?  Because I don't really get how most of the DE's can be confused with typical quests.  Especially if you actually follow the chain of the DEs.  Yes, there are some, guard this, collect that DE's but not many.

 

As for "one-sided hype videos", doesn't every gameplay video do that for every game????

 

Edit:  You know, after reading some of your posts on this thread, it seems there may not be any MMO out there for you at this point.  Maybe The Sims is more what you're looking for?  It may not have combat, but it seems to have everything else you're looking for.  No hunt this, kill that....

I'm well aware of the difference between the hearts and the dynamic events. And yes, every single dynamic event had me collecting something, defending something, or killing some arbitrary amount of something. The only thing that was different about them was that they had more context, which didn't really do it for me, like I already said.

You're right. most, if not, every video like that is one-sided.... You used that statement as a counter, but it seemed like you're agreeing with me.

Edit:  You know, after reading some of your posts on this thread, it seems there may not be any MMO out there for you at this point.  Maybe The Sims is more what you're looking for?  It may not have combat, but it seems to have everything else you're looking for.  No hunt this, kill that....

I'm not sure you did read my other posts, otherwise you might have noticed when I said this:

"I know MMOs like that have a lot more to offer other than the combat, but fighting is something that's important to me personally."

LIke I said, the games I did like, or might have liked, are either dead or are just shadows of their former selves. Just because I don't think GW2 is the game for me doesn't mean that there isn't one. The market has been stale and full of clones for a while now, so it's not like there's been much a variety to choose from. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Guild Wars 2 is a bad game by any stretch. They put an absurd amount of effort into it, and it shows. Overall, I'm happy that it's being released whether or not I play it, because at least it's attempting to break away from the established formula. I hope its success is a message that the genre is ready to change and urges more companies to take creative risks. Unfortunately, it'll probably just cause more publishers to push for DEs. If that's the case, then we may see a brand new generation of GW2 clones, and we'll have to wait another 7 years before some more change. Only time will tell.

@ the OP's original question:

Have you tried Mabinogi? It's F2P (with fewer restrictions than most, if I remember correctly), has really interesting gameplay systems, and isn't quest based. Maybe it's changed since it's been awhile since I've played it, but it may be just what you're looking fo.

Originally posted by dreamscaper

@ the OP's original question:

 

Have you tried Mabinogi? It's F2P (with fewer restrictions than most, if I remember correctly), has really interesting gameplay systems, and isn't quest based. Maybe it's changed since it's been awhile since I've played it, but it may be just what you're looking fo.

I'll check it out. Thanks.

Originally posted by Tibernicus

Most pre WoW MMOs.

Darkfall.

Eve...that's about it.

      Really I think this person nailed it.....After WoW came out almost everyu company thought that is what we all wanted in our games......We no longer got a good world to explore but simply one where everything in the world was somehow involved in a quest.....Most of these games you sacrifice graphics due to how old they are, but most of them are still fun... ALso alot of them are f2p or have some sort of free to try option so you'd have nothing to lose...Personally I always had fun in EQ and Anarchy Online.

Warhammer AoR

But I don't think that's what you're looking for as it has evolved to hardcore RvR.

Topics like these amuse me.  I remember back in 2002-2003 or so, when people were complaining about how grindy MMO's were.  They wanted to be able to explore and kill the dragons and stuff, but they were tired of having to commit genocide for months on end just to get there.  It was repetative, and not much else.

And combat?  Combat was rarely ever difficult, provided you were attacking mobs around your level.  If you died, it was usually because you pulled too many, not because you weren't "skilled" enough.  I remember tanks in Everquest being able to hold agro with nothing more than using a /beg emote (which pissed off city guards and monsters for some reason) while the rest of the raid attacked for 30 minutes.

World of Warcraft wasn't the first MMO to use quests, but it was the first to really market the questing system as a more fun way of leveling up.  You were still killing 10 rats, but there was some sort of "story" to it, as well as some item rewards and extra XP to boot.  Combat was pretty fun for it's time as well, with crisp animations and a good amount of class diversity for it's time.  Between stats and classes and the fairly new concept of talent trees, there was even enough "crunch" to give it a sense of "easy to learn, difficult to master."  (a lot of that went away as theory-crafting sites sprang up, making it easy to know how to kill a boss long before you get to him, for example.)

Judging a game because it has quests is just silly.  Questing is a net positive for the industry.  If a game truly sucks (many do), it's for far more basic reasons than anything related to quests.

Oddly enough World of Warcraft.

The way World of Warcraft is set up, you get EXP for Participating in PVP, plus there is a dungeon finder.

Once you hit lvl10 you can level all the way up doing only a minimal amount of quests.

However the graphics are dated and  it is not F2P (so it doesn't fit everything you want)

---

The next one I would say would be, Fallen Earth, you get XP for crafting and gathering. There are certain quest that give AP, so you will probably do some quests but it does give love to the crafters.

It has a F2P option, Graphics are alright.

Originally posted by Johnie-Marz

Oddly enough World of Warcraft.

No. Almost all of WoW's development is devoted to quests, and it is the way you're meant to play the game.

If you want MMOs that don't rely on quests you have to go back in time to the golden age of MMOs (before WoW). Or play Darkfall.

Originally posted by Tibernicus

Originally posted by Johnie-Marz

Oddly enough World of Warcraft.

No. Almost all of WoW's development is devoted to quests, and it is the way you're meant to play the game.

If you want MMOs that don't rely on quests you have to go back in time to the golden age of MMOs (before WoW). Or play Darkfall.

I would agree that is the way that WoW was back when I started playing it. Now I don't think anyone levels by doing quests. They simply queue the dungeon finder or do pvp until they are max level. It is faster to level "Not" doing quests.

(btw I am not saying that is a good thing, it's just the op asked for games you didn't need to do quests to level)