| 89 posts found | |
|---|---|
Originally posted by ShakyMo I am not interested in definitions. I did not say this is about MMOs. I said this is about online MP games. And non-MMO online games can be fun, can they?
|
|
Originally posted by lizardbones I don't think discussing if there *is* a persistent world is very helpful. The focus should be if the persistent world is contributing to the fun. Take WOW as an example. Yes, there is a virtual world. But a lot of players ignore it and spend 90% of their time in LFD/LFR instances, and pvp arenas. If so, the world contributes very little to the fun, and it may as well not be there. I am not interested in definitions of MMOs .. but what is contributing to the fun. I see that the reason why the gameplay is moving AWAY from playing the world .. is because those lobby based co-op dungeons, and arenas are capturing fun factors that is not in the world. So the question is whether the world is obsolete, whether it is their or not ... or is there other types of changes (like phasing, or limited interaction like PS2) that make the world a better feature for "fun".
|
|
|
12/10/12 7:42:55 PM#23
Originally posted by nariusseldon Sure. All games, or any form of entertainment for that matter, can be fun. That goes without saying. Am I missing something here? "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen F Roberts |
|
Originally posted by Cecropia Yes. If you look at xfire data, or what MOGs (multiplayer online games) are popular recently, those with virtual worlds are not on it. And if you look at MMO trends, it is moving away from virtual world gameplay to lobby type gameplay. So the question is what characteristics of virtual world gameplay turned players off, and are there any fix? One thing i can think of .. is focus .. like PS2 .. limited focused pvp interaction. Or are more and more MMOs going to turn away from the virtual world idea? Are more online games being made either non-MMO (like MWO, or WOT) or have very little vritual world component (like Marvel Heroes)? |
|
|
12/10/12 8:09:42 PM#25
Originally posted by nariusseldon The reason your xfire data is false is because MMO's where never mainstream and should never have become mainstream, WoW is what made MMO's mainstream and because of their methods the MMO world has changed significantly. People don't seem to understand that we people who love MMORPG's dont want any of this shit. we want our persistant world to escape from reality and meet new people, hang out with them do things with them without being guided by anyone. |
|
|
12/10/12 8:15:44 PM#26
Originally posted by nariusseldonIf I provide data that coca cola has higher sales than the video game industry would you be arguing that publishers should all quit using computers and turn to selling bottled sugar water instead? |
|
|
VengeSunsoar
 Elite Member
Joined: 3/10/04
GRIND DOES NOT EXIST. IT IS ENTIRELY YOUR PERCEPTION. |
12/10/12 8:52:37 PM#27
Mmo's should never have become mainstream.
Imo that is the silliest thimg I've ever heard on these forums. Congratulations, here's your sign. You know, in ancient Egypt. One of the hieroglyphics on the walls of the pyramids actually says 'I am upset as my heir will ruin my kingdom' or something to that affect. This is 5000BC stuff and you know what? Nothing has changed. :P |
|
12/10/12 9:04:37 PM#28
A persistent world certainly makes my playing experience better and more fun. This comes from my background as a general fantasy fan. The draw to MMOs nine years ago with EQ was not only the idea of playing with other people but also what I was doing, playing out my own character in a virtual world. I can read all the books I want but the story is written from front to back. A persistent world shared directly with others in an online environment is as close to playing your own fantasy story as you can get.
Is a persistent world required to have fun playing an MMO? Not at all but you would be hard pressed to keep my interest very long without it. Outside of fantasy I'm playing PS2 and having a blast. One reason I like it so much is that it is a large persistent world. Dear developers, In my humble and inexperienced opinion if I can get through all the content you spent the last 5+ years working on within 6 months you have not done your work justice. Please give me, and everyone else, some tools to create our own content from what you have made so I can stay in your world and appreciate it longer than three weeks before I say "meh". It's a shame and I'd rather not do that to something you put so much of yourself in to. |
|
|
12/10/12 9:21:35 PM#29
Virtual worlds provide an element of continuity to your character's progression, an element of continuity to quest content and are designed for exploration. While these things are possible without a persistent virtual world, they feel less important without the persistent virtual world. In games where players can have an impact on the environment, persistent virtual worlds are necessary...this kind of thing is only possible with persistent virtual worlds. For instance, players helping each others' farms in Farmville is only possible with persistent virtual worlds. Farms in ArcheAge may operate the same way. Protecting a neighbors farm from marauders in ArcheAge is only possible with a persistent virtual world. I know I wouldn't have played WoW nearly as long as I did if it didn't have a persistent virtual world. From Blizzard's perspective, they made more money off of me than they would have otherwise. I do agree that a persistent virtual world isn't necessary for fun, there are things that are fun in a persistent virtual world that otherwise wouldn't be that much fun or wouldn't make that much sense. Some types of game play wouldn't be possible without a persistent virtual world. Everything has a time and a place. Join the League For Gamers. |
|
|
12/10/12 9:25:28 PM#30
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar So have you seen alot of good things come after they went mainstream? i havnt actually. |
|
|
12/10/12 9:56:10 PM#31
I think the most important part of "persistant world" can be broken down into 2 things.
1: The actions of someone else affect my situation and the actions that I do can affect other players. Generally the longer lasting the better and how persistant this affect can be (as in it can still affect them while I am distant to their location, have not played in a while or am offline. PvP is a weak example of this, Controllable objectives that give an affect to the holder only as long as they hold them are a strong example and a interdependant crafitng system is a very strong example of this.
2: The relationships (or read this as interactions) matter and will affect the next things I do. Do I know people to get groups. Can someone tell me a nice grind spot? A rare resource or monster to team up and get? Etc. Social media friend lists are a weak example of this, forming groups to jointly solve a problem is a strong example of this and the allegiance/vassal system from Asheron's Call is a very strong example of this.
Also, Don't get me wrong I love single player games but I wish MMOS had become more MMO like rather then single player RPG like. And yes, that is based on the old school game definition.
I would argue skyrim has a lot of elements of an MMO besides not being multiplayer. What you do matters, it is relatively open ended and there is a degree of persistance of your actions on your enviroment. So The interesting question is" If you could play with 10 other people in the game world at the same time would you consider Skyrim an MMO? |
|
|
VengeSunsoar
Elite Member
Joined: 3/10/04
GRIND DOES NOT EXIST. IT IS ENTIRELY YOUR PERCEPTION. |
12/10/12 11:32:17 PM#32
Originally posted by xeniar Most of them. I love MMO's and play them almost exclusively over spg. By and large I find spg boring. However I like modern MMO's by and large loads better than early MMO's. As I've stated numerous times I like having choice in how I pay and how I play. Today's MMO's offer me more choice in not only the type of game but in how I play. No more grinding in spot for hours, now I half a dozen or more ways to play the game. More games, more choice in how to play the games, for classes there is more more choice in how to design my class. There is less waiting around, less dependance on others allowing me to just jump in and do what I want to do. The games (by and large) offer just as much potential for roleplaying (which admittedly is and always was minimal). I like todays games better than the old games. Plus there is a crap metric tonne of new games coming which makes even more choice. All as a result of being mainstream. The golden age of MMO's hasn't passed, we are just starting to reach it. You know, in ancient Egypt. One of the hieroglyphics on the walls of the pyramids actually says 'I am upset as my heir will ruin my kingdom' or something to that affect. This is 5000BC stuff and you know what? Nothing has changed. :P |
|
12/10/12 11:56:03 PM#33
I seem to have interpreted the topic in a different way. Let's say you're reading a novel. Two of the main characters are talking in a shopping mall. The chapter ends, and the next chapter begins with a minor character at her apartment. But wait! What happened to the mall? Does it still exist? It doesn't make sense to answer that question with "yes" or "no". It's a meaningless question because "existence" doesn't have a meaning in this context. The mall and the characters don't really exist even when you're reading about them. Why even ask? It doesn't make sense. Approach an online game from the same angle. You're the only person in a dungeon. You walk out. Does the dungeon still exist? Are the orcs and goblins still scurrying around the corridors while no one's there to aggro them? In a sense, those goblins don't exist even when you are fighting them. Still, you could answer yes with some justification if the servers work that way. But you're better off realizing that it doesn't matter. The idea that When I leave this world, it's still there is pure illusion. It's not there. There is no there, it's a fictional world. And there is really no use in begrudging the game server for not continuing to run a simulation with no audience just for giggles. We don't expect the novel to go on continuously describing the mall for the entire remainder of the book just because the characters went there once. It's different if the game's draw is its persistence. If, for example, you leave the game and think to yourself "When I come back, things may be different. The fence I built might get knocked down. The acolyte I met might become head priestess, or might leave to become a traveling missionary." Farmville is a great example of an online game that is built entirely around persistence. The fact that things change in the time that you're gone is vital to the game's core mechanic. The entire game depends upon this. If you don't care about what's changed while you were logged off, the persistence is completely going to waste. And I think that's perhaps the message that was intended. Focusing on the persistent aspect of MMOs means missing the point. Persistence must serve a purpose or else it's just a feature for the sake of having that feature. If you necessarily exclude any game from being called an MMORPG because it is lobby-based, are you sure you know what the genre is all about?
Food for thought: Despite the supposed importance of a persistent world—even to the extent of keeping empty areas "running" with no players inside—how many MMOs keep the player character in the world when the player logs out? If lobbies and instances break the illusion of a fictional world so easily, how do you rationalize a player character ceasing to exist whenever the player stops playing?  |
|
|
rojo6934
 Elite Member
Joined: 8/13/09
"It is double pleasure to deceive the deceiver". - Niccolo Machiavelli |
12/11/12 12:14:38 AM#34
if its an mmo give me persistent world or ill never touch your game. Thats enough deal breaker for me and only reason i stepped away from Vindictus, C9, Dragon Nest, among others. Even if its the second coming, no persistent world as an mmo = fail in my book "in peace, in sleep under the barren, abandoned soil"
|
|
12/11/12 12:15:04 AM#35
Originally posted by nariusseldon Some people are looking for a world to live in, others are just looking for a game with other players to play with. Thats the difference between the two subsets. You will never convince the players who want a world (sandboxers) that a non-persistent world (themepark) is good. So don't bother. Now to get them to stop invading each others forums and preaching. |
|
|
12/11/12 12:49:27 AM#36
I have less fun in mmos with no persistant world.
But I do have fun in games with no persistant worlds.
It's almost as though I desire different attributes from different genres.
Having said that, streets of rage 2 is my favourite game of all time. As I had SO much fun with that, then I suppose all games should follow that design.
I suppose. |
|
|
12/11/12 12:57:15 AM#37
Originally posted by nariusseldon Here's the problem with people thinking that persitant worlds are not fun!
First of all when any fun stuff is removed from the world like world bosses, world pvp ( see WoW's southshore), and ect is moved into instanced pools and all you have to do is sit in cities (Lobbys) for content then why should the world be fun? Second Devs most of time see this an easy way to make quick content that most people can kill/defeat in a matter of hours after release. Third the generation group has a changed its perception of why an MMO should be built this way from that way. Fourth is that most gaming budgets are outrageous and the suits that fund them are not wanting to put forth risk over profit.
Below is where we can disscuss and come up with new ideas for Sandparks! http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5164689#5164689 |
|
|
12/11/12 1:10:42 AM#38
if your going to make an MMO it has to have 'persistent world' or 'worlds' otherwise why bother playing it at all, im probably not the only one either that wouldnt touch an MMO without a persistent world, there are enough lobby games out there already, too many imo, and their all the same kind of rehashed thing, the OP's using Xfire as an example is a good one though, although one of the things the OP has to realise, is that Xfire isnt a tool commonly used by MMO players, its often used as a communication tool etc for people who play games like LoL and DoTA, because they don't have persistent worlds. But any game development company now would be laughed at if they tried to release an MMO without a peristent world, its just a lazy way of doing things on the cheap, lobby games with instanced environments may make financial sense, but they don't make sense for MMO's and every attempt to try and make them has so far ended in failure, and with good reason, if you want a successful MMO you cannot afford to cut corners, and thats just what having a nonpersistent world is, an attempt to cut corners, its lazy, wasteful and ultimately a significant factor in any games demise.
 |
|
|
12/11/12 1:37:56 PM#39
Stagnation is a thing of the past.
Express your opinion http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/371172/Poll-Most-hated-MMORPG.html |
|
|
12/11/12 2:14:48 PM#40
Originally posted by nariusseldon There is a general gaming forum for non-mmo discussion. For an MMO since you are in an MMO forum, I believe a persistent world is required. For non mmo games, go nuts. Persistent or not, if its fun, woot woot. |
|
Friends: vgchartz.com
Not a member? You can still subscribe to our newsletters and daily updates here!
May 19, 2013 6:45 AM
- Page Created in 0.828 seconds -
