I'm startng to wonder if it might be some kind of left brain vs right brain thing.  Because I'm right brain and the whole going from point a to point b thing is incredibly boring to me.  If that played some part, well then 90 percent or more of the population needs to have their hand held from one quest and zone to another and hence we get games vs worlds.

It's like everyone wants to live in a box or something.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tom_gore

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds?

Because there are people who prefer "games" over "worlds".

 

There are also people who enjoy "worlds" over "games".

Going with the Skyrim example. You noted some people who couldn't get into it because it was too open and, basically, not guided enough.

However, of all the praise heaped on games like Skyrim, Morrowind, Oblivion and their ilk, how much of it comes down to "I played it just for the main storyline", compared to things like "I just wandered off and did whatever seemed interesting and wouldn't come back to the main storyline for days sometimes".

Why has Minecraft - most certainly a sandbox world experience - gained and maintained so much popularity?

Because there is a market for both types of experiencs. Are there more people who like "games" than there are who like "worlds"? Yeah, probably. Why that's the case, I don't know. Probably fodder for another thread.

I think this topic is already in danger of veering off into a false dichotomy - an "either/or" situation that simply doesn't exist, and doesn't need to. I don't know why, but so many people seem to see things as Black or White. It's either "A" or B". We can either have "worlds" or "games". Nonsense. We can have both.

Personally, for a MMO experience, I prefer worlds over games. The idea of "I live in a world already, I play games to escape" just doesn't make sense to me. Entering Skyrim isn't an escape from the real world? It's not a fantasy setting, pretty much completely removed from reality in every way, shape and form? There's as much game-type content in Skyrim as there is in any other "game". The difference is, Skyrim gives you a ton of options of what kind of game you want it to be, and sets you on your way to forge that experience. It can be as linear or as un-linear as you, the player, want it to be. However, it still takes place in an environment that is very much a world.

Originally posted by tom_gore

Originally posted by Po_gg

 what's the problem with the dev's adventures? Why rule out predefined story in favor of the players story? :)

I didn't. If the devs have time to create adventures after creating superb tools for the players, all the better. The problem is that the devs can never make enough content to keep even the average MMO player interested and playing their game week after week, month after month.

Agreed, that's why the Foundry is a great idea, it gave a LOT of great missions into STO (and that's where CoH's Architect failed, and used only for grinding). And it's good to see a sandboxer who doesn't oppose stories :)

Skyrim with multiplayer, and lots of dev updates, and constant flow of player-created missions, and the option to start a settlement at an unoccupied place fitting in the world and the bigger story, I guess that would be my ideal sandbox/themepark combo.

To bad it never going to happen. There's not enough players left who'd love such  a game I guess. Beside those who left from the old games, only a few people would play such a game. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just noting.

Originally posted by TangentPoint

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tom_gore

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds?

Because there are people who prefer "games" over "worlds".

 

However, of all the praise heaped on games like Skyrim, Morrowind, Oblivion and their ilk, how much of it comes down to "I played it just for the main storyline", compared to things like "I just wandered off and did whatever seemed interesting and wouldn't come back to the main storyline for days sometimes".

Why has Minecraft - most certainly a sandbox world experience - gained and maintained so much popularity?

Hey you dont' have to tell me, I currently have 508 hours into Skyrim. I played morrowind for over two years and still play it from time to time.

but maybe, as was mentioned, it is a right brain vs left brain thing?

Maybe there is truth that some people want to be given puzzles to solve and roaming keeps them from doing that whereas those who are a bit more right brained are enjoying the roaming on another level.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by TangentPoint

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tom_gore

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds?

Because there are people who prefer "games" over "worlds".

 

However, of all the praise heaped on games like Skyrim, Morrowind, Oblivion and their ilk, how much of it comes down to "I played it just for the main storyline", compared to things like "I just wandered off and did whatever seemed interesting and wouldn't come back to the main storyline for days sometimes".

Why has Minecraft - most certainly a sandbox world experience - gained and maintained so much popularity?

Hey you dont' have to tell me, I currently have 508 hours into Skyrim. I played morrowind for over two years and still play it from time to time.

but maybe, as was mentioned, it is a right brain vs left brain thing?

Maybe there is truth that some people want to be given puzzles to solve and roaming keeps them from doing that whereas those who are a bit more right brained are enjoying the roaming on another level.

Very good point.

I think Right Brain and Left Brain could have a lot to do with it... at least assuming there's an aspect to that where one side wants to be actively engaged and more in control of what they're doing, while the other side wants to just sorta kick back and enjoy the show.

That kinda works with movies, too, when I think about it, heh.

Give me whatever kind of game you want to.

I'll decide on its merits if I like it or not.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Hey you dont' have to tell me, I currently have 508 hours into Skyrim. I played morrowind for over two years and still play it from time to time.

Wow... /bow

I guess I'm just a rookie then :) (none of them has more than 200 hours in my case, except maybe Daggerfall, I played it a lot)

Originally posted by tom_gore

You "Games, not Worlds" guys should just shut up and be happy. There are more MMO Games coming out all the time that you probably have time to play. Three big western AAA titles within a year and an expansion to the biggest MMO Game out there.

Us "Worlds, not Games" guys have currently ZERO viable choices if we want anything that isn't full loot FFA PvP or made by incompetent and/or underbudgeted dev teams.

But I guess it's difficult to see that from your side of the fence.

Eve?  Oh and thanks for telling me to shut up..really appreciated

Originally posted by cura

Originally posted by apocoluster
   Disagree.  Give me games.  The real world is plenty enough Sandboxy for me.  I play games to get away from it.

Ill agree with you... as soon as i can travel through the universe in a straship looking for ancient civilizations or devote my life to study magic and evil planes of existance.

lol till then your sttuck in a Modern Off line Sand box RPG..with great graphics but shit communtity and its pay to win to boot  

Originally posted by Aelious
OP +1

If I want a fantasy experience with a definite beginning and end I'll pick up a book. I'd rather make my own story when I play.

Originally posted by tom_gore

So I played Skyrim again yesterday and thought - boy would an open world like this be awesome as an MMO (or even Coop). And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone with those thoughts.

An MMO by definition needs a constant playerbase in order to generate recurring revenue. Right?

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds? They create Games that have a pretty definite beginning and quite pronounced ending. Then they try to squeeze more gameplay time from the ending, by whatever methods, and hope that players like the trickle of content enough to keep paying.

When UO was launched it was a World. There simply was no "ending" in the game, unless you considered reaching 7x GM the end of the game. Nor was there a guided path taking you from the beginning to the end. When you logged in, YOU had to decide what you would do tonight, instead of the game cramming the next captain-obvious-grade path down your throat. Of course at about the time Age of Shadows hit, the devs tried to turn UO more into a game and less into a world, and we all know how well that went.

So what is it so difficult to create a World? In theory, all you have to do is a) create the landscape, populate it with mobs and NPCs and b) give players tools to make their own adventures. The tools might be anything from player housing to shops to a powerful quest scripting editor.

Of course for a) to succeed the world needs to be believeable and large enough. Instancing pretty much kills the definition of a World, although maybe some distinctively separated areas (like dungeons) could be instanced and not break the immestion too much. With today's technology, however, this is all doable.

For b) to succeed the tools need to be easy to use, but still able to affect the game world. If the player has a feeling he has an impact on the game World, no matter how small, he will want to stick around and see how his little spark of a creation will start living a life of its own. Or he will go and create something more.

I understand that the marriage of an open world and a powerful content creation tool is a difficult one, but it's not impossible. All you need is moderation. Let the players use the tools to create new adventures and if found good enough, add it to the world. FREE CONTENT created by the players themselves. I would guess the price of the moderating staff should be quite a bit less than the staff you need to churn out the same amount of content.

Neverwinter seems to be taking the b) seriously but it falls plain flat on its face on a), with a fully instanced world.

Darkfall seems to be taking a) seriously, but b) is pretty limited and the focus on FFA Full Loot PvP will attact a very distinctive crowd that has the ability to alienate everyone else from the game.

The rest are too small-time players to actually have the resources to finish their games before they either run out of steam or are horribly outdated.

I honestly think that this is the current "holy grail" of MMOs. A living, breathing WORLD that keeps on evolving and growing because the PLAYERS do all the work. All the devs need to do is to give more tools to the players and moderate the creations they come up with. The rest is history.

Hopefully, some day, a big publisher will see the light and reach out to it.

you wanna know why? because people are cheaters, exploiters, destroyers. not crafters, explorers and gatherers.

if they would build a free to roam world people would find a way to destroy it, so they could get the best stuff with the least work - as always.

it's not as simple as you think, no matter how many words you use to describe it.

Originally posted by Thane

Originally posted by tom_gore

So I played Skyrim again yesterday and thought - boy would an open world like this be awesome as an MMO (or even Coop). And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone with those thoughts.

An MMO by definition needs a constant playerbase in order to generate recurring revenue. Right?

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds? They create Games that have a pretty definite beginning and quite pronounced ending. Then they try to squeeze more gameplay time from the ending, by whatever methods, and hope that players like the trickle of content enough to keep paying.

When UO was launched it was a World. There simply was no "ending" in the game, unless you considered reaching 7x GM the end of the game. Nor was there a guided path taking you from the beginning to the end. When you logged in, YOU had to decide what you would do tonight, instead of the game cramming the next captain-obvious-grade path down your throat. Of course at about the time Age of Shadows hit, the devs tried to turn UO more into a game and less into a world, and we all know how well that went.

So what is it so difficult to create a World? In theory, all you have to do is a) create the landscape, populate it with mobs and NPCs and b) give players tools to make their own adventures. The tools might be anything from player housing to shops to a powerful quest scripting editor.

Of course for a) to succeed the world needs to be believeable and large enough. Instancing pretty much kills the definition of a World, although maybe some distinctively separated areas (like dungeons) could be instanced and not break the immestion too much. With today's technology, however, this is all doable.

For b) to succeed the tools need to be easy to use, but still able to affect the game world. If the player has a feeling he has an impact on the game World, no matter how small, he will want to stick around and see how his little spark of a creation will start living a life of its own. Or he will go and create something more.

I understand that the marriage of an open world and a powerful content creation tool is a difficult one, but it's not impossible. All you need is moderation. Let the players use the tools to create new adventures and if found good enough, add it to the world. FREE CONTENT created by the players themselves. I would guess the price of the moderating staff should be quite a bit less than the staff you need to churn out the same amount of content.

Neverwinter seems to be taking the b) seriously but it falls plain flat on its face on a), with a fully instanced world.

Darkfall seems to be taking a) seriously, but b) is pretty limited and the focus on FFA Full Loot PvP will attact a very distinctive crowd that has the ability to alienate everyone else from the game.

The rest are too small-time players to actually have the resources to finish their games before they either run out of steam or are horribly outdated.

I honestly think that this is the current "holy grail" of MMOs. A living, breathing WORLD that keeps on evolving and growing because the PLAYERS do all the work. All the devs need to do is to give more tools to the players and moderate the creations they come up with. The rest is history.

Hopefully, some day, a big publisher will see the light and reach out to it.

you wanna know why? because people are cheaters, exploiters, destroyers. not crafters, explorers and gatherers.

 

if they would build a free to roam world people would find a way to destroy it, so they could get the best stuff with the least work - as always.

 

it's not as simple as you think, no matter how many words you use to describe it.

Naturally, if you decide to let them take it, they will. That's the issue, people don't want to lose anything, but they don't have what it takes to keep everything. Then they want bunch of artifical barriers to protect them, and the vicious cycle of instancing and roller coaster rides begun.

Originally posted by Neherun

Originally posted by Thane

Originally posted by tom_gore

So I played Skyrim again yesterday and thought - boy would an open world like this be awesome as an MMO (or even Coop). And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone with those thoughts.

An MMO by definition needs a constant playerbase in order to generate recurring revenue. Right?

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds? They create Games that have a pretty definite beginning and quite pronounced ending. Then they try to squeeze more gameplay time from the ending, by whatever methods, and hope that players like the trickle of content enough to keep paying.

When UO was launched it was a World. There simply was no "ending" in the game, unless you considered reaching 7x GM the end of the game. Nor was there a guided path taking you from the beginning to the end. When you logged in, YOU had to decide what you would do tonight, instead of the game cramming the next captain-obvious-grade path down your throat. Of course at about the time Age of Shadows hit, the devs tried to turn UO more into a game and less into a world, and we all know how well that went.

So what is it so difficult to create a World? In theory, all you have to do is a) create the landscape, populate it with mobs and NPCs and b) give players tools to make their own adventures. The tools might be anything from player housing to shops to a powerful quest scripting editor.

Of course for a) to succeed the world needs to be believeable and large enough. Instancing pretty much kills the definition of a World, although maybe some distinctively separated areas (like dungeons) could be instanced and not break the immestion too much. With today's technology, however, this is all doable.

For b) to succeed the tools need to be easy to use, but still able to affect the game world. If the player has a feeling he has an impact on the game World, no matter how small, he will want to stick around and see how his little spark of a creation will start living a life of its own. Or he will go and create something more.

I understand that the marriage of an open world and a powerful content creation tool is a difficult one, but it's not impossible. All you need is moderation. Let the players use the tools to create new adventures and if found good enough, add it to the world. FREE CONTENT created by the players themselves. I would guess the price of the moderating staff should be quite a bit less than the staff you need to churn out the same amount of content.

Neverwinter seems to be taking the b) seriously but it falls plain flat on its face on a), with a fully instanced world.

Darkfall seems to be taking a) seriously, but b) is pretty limited and the focus on FFA Full Loot PvP will attact a very distinctive crowd that has the ability to alienate everyone else from the game.

The rest are too small-time players to actually have the resources to finish their games before they either run out of steam or are horribly outdated.

I honestly think that this is the current "holy grail" of MMOs. A living, breathing WORLD that keeps on evolving and growing because the PLAYERS do all the work. All the devs need to do is to give more tools to the players and moderate the creations they come up with. The rest is history.

Hopefully, some day, a big publisher will see the light and reach out to it.

you wanna know why? because people are cheaters, exploiters, destroyers. not crafters, explorers and gatherers.

 

if they would build a free to roam world people would find a way to destroy it, so they could get the best stuff with the least work - as always.

 

it's not as simple as you think, no matter how many words you use to describe it.

 

Naturally, if you decide to let them take it, they will. That's the issue, people don't want to lose anything, but they don't have what it takes to keep everything. Then they want bunch of artifical barriers to protect them, and the vicious cycle of instancing and roller coaster rides begun.

 

Originally posted by Kenze

Originally posted by apocoluster
   Disagree.  Give me games.  The real world is plenty enough Sandboxy for me.  I play games to get away from it.

 

^this x100

This x 200.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tom_gore

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds?

Because there are people who prefer "games" over "worlds".

There are a few people at work who play video games (which is a first for me as usually I'm the only one or one of two people).

Of those who do and who played Skyrim (to use your example) all played for the quests and main story and stopped. One of the guys who would be considered an avid gamer told me that he didn't like skyrim because it was too open for his taste. He preferred Dishonored over Skyrim because it brought you from one section to the other and if you found a side quest then you could do it but still be firmly guided through the game. He felt that he froze when walking outside. "what now?" Didnt' like it.

My girlfriend's ex played Skyrim and after he did all the main quest and the side quests as well as things like Mage college, compansions etc, stopped playing. He also said that it was too open for his taste.

So there you go.

Likely no game is "too open" but in Skyrim's case, aside from the quest lines, its quite boring. There's really not a whole lot you can do or achieve. So why play it after you've finished the major storylines?

Originally posted by halflife25

Originally posted by Kenze

Originally posted by apocoluster
   Disagree.  Give me games.  The real world is plenty enough Sandboxy for me.  I play games to get away from it.

 

^this x100

This x 200.

consoles are filled with games, have fun.

Originally posted by maddhatter44

Originally posted by halflife25

Originally posted by Kenze

Originally posted by apocoluster
   Disagree.  Give me games.  The real world is plenty enough Sandboxy for me.  I play games to get away from it.

 

^this x100

This x 200.

consoles are filled with games, have fun.

Have fun the current 'world' MMO you are playing...

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by tom_gore

Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds?

Because there are people who prefer "games" over "worlds".

There are a few people at work who play video games (which is a first for me as usually I'm the only one or one of two people).

Of those who do and who played Skyrim (to use your example) all played for the quests and main story and stopped. One of the guys who would be considered an avid gamer told me that he didn't like skyrim because it was too open for his taste. He preferred Dishonored over Skyrim because it brought you from one section to the other and if you found a side quest then you could do it but still be firmly guided through the game. He felt that he froze when walking outside. "what now?" Didnt' like it.

My girlfriend's ex played Skyrim and after he did all the main quest and the side quests as well as things like Mage college, compansions etc, stopped playing. He also said that it was too open for his taste.

So there you go.

Likely no game is "too open" but in Skyrim's case, aside from the quest lines, its quite boring. There's really not a whole lot you can do or achieve. So why play it after you've finished the major storylines?

mostly for exploration.  you can go to midieval times and explore a world you've never seen before.  all while drinking beer and sitting in the comfort of your own home.  the story line is fine in ES games but i think most people continue to play it because it feels like a world.  which is the point i think the OP was trying to make when he brought up Skyrim.  you can play it and it doesnt have to feel as 'gamey' as other games.  you can become part of the world,   if you want.  you aren't forced to do anything,  and your decisions matter.

OP, sadly that will not going to happen. "Worlds" are no longer welcomed by gaming community, let alone MMORPG players.

Why? Because they dont care for "worlds". All they want is a "level cap race" "endgame" "PHAT LEWT" and other things. I dont even understand anymore, why putting "world" or levels in MMO at all. It just cost resources.

Sad, but true fact. No one will ever make the game for us, minority of players. Well at least, im enjoying GW2 while it lasts...

EDIT: Yea, GW2 is 'instanced' ('zoned' should be proper world), but that is more about technical aspect of the discussion. I dont really mind even 'instancing' if done properly.