Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by nariusseldon
 

It's massively and not massive. And altough it is not mandatory for "fun" it is mandatory for a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. It is like creating a multiplayer game and not having any actual multiplayer.

No its not. Being multiplayer or not is a binary issue whereas being massive or massively multiplayer is highly debatable.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Nitth

Just to put on sum perspective, Eve has 50k players on concurrently and usually your the loneliest guy in your corner of space.

People is the problem. they don't want massive anymore.

Why is it a problem? It is just a gaming preference. There is certainly no problem if the devs respond to that desire.

And why would anyone think "massive" is mandatory for fun? Old PnP RPGs are not massive. AD&D is not massive. In fact, most PNP RPG is about small groups of comrades fighting through a dungeon.

Personally i don't think massive is that important for PvE gameplay. The only place that  i enjoy "massive" combat is big pvp battles. (ALthough i do like massive AH/trading, and a massive lobby so you can form small group easily).

It's massively and not massive. And altough it is not mandatory for "fun" it is mandatory for a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. It is like creating a multiplayer game and not having any actual multiplayer.

No longer true. Have you been reading? Lots of MMORPGs have non-massive gameplay like 5-man dungeons. So it is certainly not mandatory anymore.

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by Yamota

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by Nitth Just to put on sum perspective, Eve has 50k players on concurrently and usually your the loneliest guy in your corner of space. People is the problem. they don't want massive anymore.

---

Why is it a problem? It is just a gaming preference. There is certainly no problem if the devs respond to that desire. And why would anyone think "massive" is mandatory for fun? Old PnP RPGs are not massive. AD&D is not massive. In fact, most PNP RPG is about small groups of comrades fighting through a dungeon. Personally i don't think massive is that important for PvE gameplay. The only place that  i enjoy "massive" combat is big pvp battles. (ALthough i do like massive AH/trading, and a massive lobby so you can form small group easily).

---

It's massively and not massive. And altough it is not mandatory for "fun" it is mandatory for a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. It is like creating a multiplayer game and not having any actual multiplayer.

---

No longer true. Have you been reading? Lots of MMORPGs have non-massive gameplay like 5-man dungeons. So it is certainly not mandatory anymore.

---

Originally posted by lizardbones


MMOs being able to encompass small scale game play doesn't mean the massively multiplayer aspect of MMOs is no longer necessary. It just means that smaller scale game play is possible within the context of a massively multiplayer game.

 

Tell me, for pve gameplay, how necessary is massive gameplay. In fact, take WOW, LOTRO, DDO .. and another huge list of MMOs .. there is zero massive pve gameplay. All the gameplay is in small group dungeons, and raids, and solo/group quests. None is massive.

The ONLY massive pve gameplay is staring at each other in a lobby (city), and AH.

In many of these games, not even the pvp gameplay is massive.

If you look at the percentage of time players spend in small group gameplay vs "massive" gameplay, "massive" gameplay don't seem necessary at all.

In fact, when i was still playing WOW, I have almost never engaged in massive pve gameplay because there is none, except may be world boss, which is a) few and far in-between, b) most people i know (and myself) has little interests in it.

Now i am playing some STO .. and once again, where is the "massive" gameplay? There is none and none is necessary to enjoy the game.

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by lizardbones MMOs being able to encompass small scale game play doesn't mean the massively multiplayer aspect of MMOs is no longer necessary. It just means that smaller scale game play is possible within the context of a massively multiplayer game.  

---

Tell me, for pve gameplay, how necessary is massive gameplay. In fact, take WOW, LOTRO, DDO .. and another huge list of MMOs .. there is zero massive pve gameplay. All the gameplay is in small group dungeons, and raids, and solo/group quests. None is massive.

The ONLY massive pve gameplay is staring at each other in a lobby (city), and AH.

In many of these games, not even the pvp gameplay is massive.

If you look at the percentage of time players spend in small group gameplay vs "massive" gameplay, "massive" gameplay don't seem necessary at all.

In fact, when i was still playing WOW, I have almost never engaged in massive pve gameplay because there is none, except may be world boss, which is a) few and far in-between, b) most people i know (and myself) has little interests in it.

Now i am playing some STO .. and once again, where is the "massive" gameplay? There is none and none is necessary to enjoy the game.

---

Originally posted by Aelious
I don't think you understood Lizard's point. It's not about how many people are right there in your party or even raid. Heck, WoW raids are mostly 10 people now which I would not consider "massive". It's about the world, not the specific activity.

The point is who else is "out there". In GW I was totally turned off by the fact that once I left the town I knew the whole instance I entered was empty save for me. It's the same reason I don't like single player RPGs. I know there is no one else there. It's not even about socializing as I may go nights without sitting down and talking to someone. It's about being in a persistent world that feels more alive because there are others out there with you while you are playing. This can be applied to small group play. You may have a handful of people with you but knowing there is a whole world of people aside from yor group makes the world seem more alive.

In a humorous way you can apply this to real life. Even if you spent the whole day inside would you not feel more alone knowing there is not another person out there? Now what about five other people? Would having only five other people in the world make it seems like it does now?

So what is the difference between doing an instance in WOW .. which you KNOW no one is going to be in your instance .. and a D3 game .. which similarly no one else is going to be in your game?

The world cease to exist once you are in the instance. If you talk about the actual game .. it is massive .. whether you are talking about D3, Borderlands or WOW. There are always millions playing .. just not in your instance. The world is really not that relevant, when you are not in it .. and what is the difference between a 3D lobby like Orgrimmar, or the D3 menu lobby? You can talk to many players. You can inspect them. You can ask them to a group and go into an instance with you. You can Igo to the trade channel and ask for deals.

I don't have this obsession with the world .. and i don't see it as a main part of the gameplay when you are not in it 99% of the time. It does not even promote socialization as well as chat-rooms, and friend lists.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by lizardbones MMOs being able to encompass small scale game play doesn't mean the massively multiplayer aspect of MMOs is no longer necessary. It just means that smaller scale game play is possible within the context of a massively multiplayer game.  

---

Tell me, for pve gameplay, how necessary is massive gameplay. In fact, take WOW, LOTRO, DDO .. and another huge list of MMOs .. there is zero massive pve gameplay. All the gameplay is in small group dungeons, and raids, and solo/group quests. None is massive.

 

The ONLY massive pve gameplay is staring at each other in a lobby (city), and AH.

In many of these games, not even the pvp gameplay is massive.

If you look at the percentage of time players spend in small group gameplay vs "massive" gameplay, "massive" gameplay don't seem necessary at all.

In fact, when i was still playing WOW, I have almost never engaged in massive pve gameplay because there is none, except may be world boss, which is a) few and far in-between, b) most people i know (and myself) has little interests in it.

Now i am playing some STO .. and once again, where is the "massive" gameplay? There is none and none is necessary to enjoy the game.

---

How necessary is multiplayer game play? It's not necessary at all. There isn't anything necessary about any video game anything. People like it though. Which is why video games and MMOs exist. People like it. Many people like massively multiplayer game play. They may also like lobby based game play. That doesn't mean both types of games provide the same experience, even if there is overlap in game play between the two types of games.

When you played WoW, if you logged into the world and ran around in it, you participated in massively multiplayer game play. Simply existing in the world and being visible to other players makes you a participant.

 

That is what i am disputing. The ONLY "massive MP gameplay" in PVE is liek you say .. run around in a city and let people see you. How many actually like that and not "alt-tab" to surf until their dungeon pops?

And aside from being in a city and look (and AH), there is no other form of massive MP gameplay. Don't you think people focus on dungeons & raids .. or even quests .. and none of those are massive?"

MMOs are massive because they offer a lot of things which other multiplayer games don't. They offer continuity and a persistent world where you can come across other people without joining a "game". 

I don't need a game with groups of 300-400 people. That's just stupid. I mean it's fun for a while but gets old fast because it is just mindless zerg. 

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by lizardbones  

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by lizardbones MMOs being able to encompass small scale game play doesn't mean the massively multiplayer aspect of MMOs is no longer necessary. It just means that smaller scale game play is possible within the context of a massively multiplayer game.  

---

Tell me, for pve gameplay, how necessary is massive gameplay. In fact, take WOW, LOTRO, DDO .. and another huge list of MMOs .. there is zero massive pve gameplay. All the gameplay is in small group dungeons, and raids, and solo/group quests. None is massive.   The ONLY massive pve gameplay is staring at each other in a lobby (city), and AH. In many of these games, not even the pvp gameplay is massive. If you look at the percentage of time players spend in small group gameplay vs "massive" gameplay, "massive" gameplay don't seem necessary at all. In fact, when i was still playing WOW, I have almost never engaged in massive pve gameplay because there is none, except may be world boss, which is a) few and far in-between, b) most people i know (and myself) has little interests in it. Now i am playing some STO .. and once again, where is the "massive" gameplay? There is none and none is necessary to enjoy the game.

---

How necessary is multiplayer game play? It's not necessary at all. There isn't anything necessary about any video game anything. People like it though. Which is why video games and MMOs exist. People like it. Many people like massively multiplayer game play. They may also like lobby based game play. That doesn't mean both types of games provide the same experience, even if there is overlap in game play between the two types of games. When you played WoW, if you logged into the world and ran around in it, you participated in massively multiplayer game play. Simply existing in the world and being visible to other players makes you a participant.  

---

That is what i am disputing. The ONLY "massive MP gameplay" in PVE is liek you say .. run around in a city and let people see you. How many actually like that and not "alt-tab" to surf until their dungeon pops?

And aside from being in a city and look (and AH), there is no other form of massive MP gameplay. Don't you think people focus on dungeons & raids .. or even quests .. and none of those are massive?"

 

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aelious
I don't think you understood Lizard's point. It's not about how many people are right there in your party or even raid. Heck, WoW raids are mostly 10 people now which I would not consider "massive". It's about the world, not the specific activity.

The point is who else is "out there". In GW I was totally turned off by the fact that once I left the town I knew the whole instance I entered was empty save for me. It's the same reason I don't like single player RPGs. I know there is no one else there. It's not even about socializing as I may go nights without sitting down and talking to someone. It's about being in a persistent world that feels more alive because there are others out there with you while you are playing. This can be applied to small group play. You may have a handful of people with you but knowing there is a whole world of people aside from yor group makes the world seem more alive.

In a humorous way you can apply this to real life. Even if you spent the whole day inside would you not feel more alone knowing there is not another person out there? Now what about five other people? Would having only five other people in the world make it seems like it does now?

So what is the difference between doing an instance in WOW .. which you KNOW no one is going to be in your instance .. and a D3 game .. which similarly no one else is going to be in your game?

The world cease to exist once you are in the instance. If you talk about the actual game .. it is massive .. whether you are talking about D3, Borderlands or WOW. There are always millions playing .. just not in your instance. The world is really not that relevant, when you are not in it .. and what is the difference between a 3D lobby like Orgrimmar, or the D3 menu lobby? You can talk to many players. You can inspect them. You can ask them to a group and go into an instance with you. You can Igo to the trade channel and ask for deals.

I don't have this obsession with the world .. and i don't see it as a main part of the gameplay when you are not in it 99% of the time. It does not even promote socialization as well as chat-rooms, and friend lists.

Nothing at all except that in WoW instanced dungeons are one aspect of the game and it has a game world outside that instance, D3 does not.

As far as the "world" is concerned it's not about an obsession, it's a medium for a "massive" amount of people to share the same space with thier avatars.  Doing what? doesn't matter.  Together? Doesn't matter.  What does matter is having that space.  Does that shared space go away when you're not there? Not if it's an MMORPG.

Having a virtual world may not be important to you, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean a defined series of terms has to change.  It will not until those words in the english language do.  Even in a game like WoW where a lot of emphisis is placed on instanced content they did massive changes to the world for Cata.

Originally posted by lizardbones


You are talking about direct interactions, and ignoring indirect interactions. You directly interact with very few people in game. You indirectly interact with many people in game. One of those indirect interactions is just seeing people running around in the world.

I've watched people do a level 1 gnome run across the continents in WoW. They directly interacted with few people, but indirectly interacted with many people. A massive number of people heard the stories inside the game increasing the interactions and the persistent nature of the players' activities. That type of thing would not have been possible in a lobby based game.

Except it's certainly possible to directly interact with hundreds of people. I've done it. It was choppy as heck, but it happened. It would not have been possible if the instead of a virtual world the game just had a lobby.

So again, is it necessary? No, of course not. Nothing in video games is really necessary. Is it desired? Yes.

 

You don't need a MMO to have indirect interations. Many non-MMOs have chat channels, so you can "hear" lots of people. You can "inspect" others from the menu in D3, no difference than the inspection you do in orgrimmar in WOW. The *only* difference, in a game like D3, or playing a MP game on steam, is that you don't *see* the 3D toons in the lobby. To me, that is not a huge difference.

Secondly, yes, i am talking about direction interactions. The indirect ones, like you see toons running around, don't add much to gameplay experiences, particularly when it consist of only a very small percentage of play time.

If you spend 10 min in city with this "indirect interaction", and then 2 hours in LFR raid, the 10 min of waiting is not that important. So i am disputing if this *SMALL* part of the game, which btw, many will ignore by watching a youtube video, is desirable.

It certainly does not matter to me. A menu lobby makes zero difference to me. And btw, you can't claim that the raid/dungeon experience is not more important, when most people are playing the game for exactly that.

Originally posted by Aelious

 

 

Nothing at all except that in WoW instanced dungeons are one aspect of the game and it has a game world outside that instance, D3 does not.

 

As far as the "world" is concerned it's not about an obsession, it's a medium for a "massive" amount of people to share the same space with thier avatars.  Doing what? doesn't matter.  Together? Doesn't matter.  What does matter is having that space.  Does that shared space go away when you're not there? Not if it's an MMORPG.

 

Having a virtual world may not be important to you, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean a defined series of terms has to change.  It will not until those words in the english language do.  Even in a game like WoW where a lot of emphisis is placed on instanced content they did massive changes to the world for Cata.

Yes, it is only one aspect of the game, but turns out that is the aspect of the game people spend 90% of their game in. Don't tell me all aspects of games are equal. In fact, the reason why many spend any time in the world is because there is a wait time for dungeons. If LFD, LFR takes no wait (like for a tank), players won't be in teh world at all.

Actualy that shared space is ONLY relevant when people are waiting for their dungeons to pop, which is a small amount of their play-time, and often viewed as wait-time, and people will do other stuff when waiting. Thus, many, when playing MMOs, will NOT be in that shared space most of their play time.

I never adocate to change teh definition. In fact, i am fully articulating that games like D3 is not a MMO. However, i am pointing out that "much of the gamplay in MMOs is not massive" .. and that is a fact when most players are spending most of their time in instances ... as instances are not "massive" gameplay. And i am also drawing the parallel of this style of gameplay to D3, which has a very similar style .. which is players spending most of their time in small group co-op instances. The only difference .. is whether you see other toons in 3D in the lobby .. which to me, is very minor.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

 

You don't need a MMO to have indirect interations. Many non-MMOs have chat channels, so you can "hear" lots of people. You can "inspect" others from the menu in D3, no difference than the inspection you do in orgrimmar in WOW. The *only* difference, in a game like D3, or playing a MP game on steam, is that you don't *see* the 3D toons in the lobby. To me, that is not a huge difference.

Secondly, yes, i am talking about direction interactions. The indirect ones, like you see toons running around, don't add much to gameplay experiences, particularly when it consist of only a very small percentage of play time.

If you spend 10 min in city with this "indirect interaction", and then 2 hours in LFR raid, the 10 min of waiting is not that important. So i am disputing if this *SMALL* part of the game, which btw, many will ignore by watching a youtube video, is desirable.

It certainly does not matter to me. A menu lobby makes zero difference to me. And btw, you can't claim that the raid/dungeon experience is not more important, when most people are playing the game for exactly that.

Quite right, that is why we qq that the game is not massive, 100 people idling in ogrimmar is not different from 100 people idling in a chat channel.

The illusion of a living world comes from meeting people that do something in the world  (and the illusion that the game is massive if there are dozens of people doing things everywhere), it can be benign, like a fisher fishing at a fishing spot or more action packed, like combatting clans sweeping trough the dungeon you are grinding in, occasionally roflstomping you :)

Apart from the launch zones are barren, noone talks in global but bots and all there is left are jokes about Barrens chat as a distant memory and lobby gameplay.

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Aelious
I see what your line of reasoning is but your premise to the whole thing is too presumptuous IMO. There's no way you can know what players of MMOs want, don't want, need or think is important. Again, just look at the changes they did to the world with Cata. They had the internal info to know whether that was a good investment or not and they thought it was.

Well, i will qualify why my opinion about what many mmo players want. By observations. Many i have come across are essentially waiting in a cit waiting for their dungeon or pvp to pop.

dont tell me you dont see that and that is not a norm. If so, their prefered play style is not massive.

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by nariusseldon

 

You don't need a MMO to have indirect interations. Many non-MMOs have chat channels, so you can "hear" lots of people. You can "inspect" others from the menu in D3, no difference than the inspection you do in orgrimmar in WOW. The *only* difference, in a game like D3, or playing a MP game on steam, is that you don't *see* the 3D toons in the lobby. To me, that is not a huge difference.

Secondly, yes, i am talking about direction interactions. The indirect ones, like you see toons running around, don't add much to gameplay experiences, particularly when it consist of only a very small percentage of play time.

If you spend 10 min in city with this "indirect interaction", and then 2 hours in LFR raid, the 10 min of waiting is not that important. So i am disputing if this *SMALL* part of the game, which btw, many will ignore by watching a youtube video, is desirable.

It certainly does not matter to me. A menu lobby makes zero difference to me. And btw, you can't claim that the raid/dungeon experience is not more important, when most people are playing the game for exactly that.

Quite right, that is why we qq that the game is not massive, 100 people idling in ogrimmar is not different from 100 people idling in a chat channel.

The illusion of a living world comes from meeting people that do something in the world  (and the illusion that the game is massive if there are dozens of people doing things everywhere), it can be benign, like a fisher fishing at a fishing spot or more action packed, like combatting clans sweeping trough the dungeon you are grinding in, occasionally roflstomping you :)

Apart from the launch zones are barren, noone talks in global but bots and all there is left are jokes about Barrens chat as a distant memory and lobby gameplay.

Flame on!

:)

I certainly understand what you want, and this lobby thing is not. 

However, this thread is not about lack of a virtual world. This thread is about this very popular style of lobby based playstyle in mmos.

As pointed out before, there are more event driven instances like sto, and boss fight centric ones like wow. I think it is fun to discuss the pros & cons of how story instances are designed.

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by lizardbones You are talking about direct interactions, and ignoring indirect interactions. You directly interact with very few people in game. You indirectly interact with many people in game. One of those indirect interactions is just seeing people running around in the world. I've watched people do a level 1 gnome run across the continents in WoW. They directly interacted with few people, but indirectly interacted with many people. A massive number of people heard the stories inside the game increasing the interactions and the persistent nature of the players' activities. That type of thing would not have been possible in a lobby based game. Except it's certainly possible to directly interact with hundreds of people. I've done it. It was choppy as heck, but it happened. It would not have been possible if the instead of a virtual world the game just had a lobby. So again, is it necessary? No, of course not. Nothing in video games is really necessary. Is it desired? Yes.  

---

You don't need a MMO to have indirect interations. Many non-MMOs have chat channels, so you can "hear" lots of people. You can "inspect" others from the menu in D3, no difference than the inspection you do in orgrimmar in WOW. The *only* difference, in a game like D3, or playing a MP game on steam, is that you don't *see* the 3D toons in the lobby. To me, that is not a huge difference.

Secondly, yes, i am talking about direction interactions. The indirect ones, like you see toons running around, don't add much to gameplay experiences, particularly when it consist of only a very small percentage of play time.

If you spend 10 min in city with this "indirect interaction", and then 2 hours in LFR raid, the 10 min of waiting is not that important. So i am disputing if this *SMALL* part of the game, which btw, many will ignore by watching a youtube video, is desirable.

It certainly does not matter to me. A menu lobby makes zero difference to me. And btw, you can't claim that the raid/dungeon experience is not more important, when most people are playing the game for exactly that.

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aelious
I see what your line of reasoning is but your premise to the whole thing is too presumptuous IMO. There's no way you can know what players of MMOs want, don't want, need or think is important. Again, just look at the changes they did to the world with Cata. They had the internal info to know whether that was a good investment or not and they thought it was.

Well, i will qualify why my opinion about what many mmo players want. By observations. Many i have come across are essentially waiting in a cit waiting for their dungeon or pvp to pop.

dont tell me you dont see that and that is not a norm. If so, their prefered play style is not massive.

Unfortunately this is all too common, including Guild Wars 2. People keep complaining that the world is empty of people in Guild Wars 2, and it is. The only place you see a lot of people is in Lion's Arch as they look for a fractals group. Now that the primary dungeon can be accessed from the city, they never leave the city at all. Yet there are calls for a Dungeon Finder because they don't want to sit around in the city for longer than they have to. That's the state of the modern MMO.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by lizardbones


MMOs being able to encompass small scale game play doesn't mean the massively multiplayer aspect of MMOs is no longer necessary. It just means that smaller scale game play is possible within the context of a massively multiplayer game.

 

Tell me, for pve gameplay, how necessary is massive gameplay. In fact, take WOW, LOTRO, DDO .. and another huge list of MMOs .. there is zero massive pve gameplay. All the gameplay is in small group dungeons, and raids, and solo/group quests. None is massive.

The ONLY massive pve gameplay is staring at each other in a lobby (city), and AH.

In many of these games, not even the pvp gameplay is massive.

If you look at the percentage of time players spend in small group gameplay vs "massive" gameplay, "massive" gameplay don't seem necessary at all.

In fact, when i was still playing WOW, I have almost never engaged in massive pve gameplay because there is none, except may be world boss, which is a) few and far in-between, b) most people i know (and myself) has little interests in it.

Now i am playing some STO .. and once again, where is the "massive" gameplay? There is none and none is necessary to enjoy the game.

Why are you on an MMO forum if you don't want to play an MMO? Sure you try out STO and PS2...but otherwise you seem to have a disdain for a true MMO experience (ie; in game with a massive amount of people). Yet here you argue all you want to do is play a game with literally 4 to 5 people. You are grasping at straws for some exceptionally strange reason when you try to call a 5 man game an MMO. Also, a lobby is not a massive multiplayer GAME. It is a massive LOBBY. So while a game may have a massive component, it doesn't make it a massive multiplayer GAME. If you want to join MMO's and do horrible horrible quests (horrible compared to single player games for the most part, few exceptions), then you just have bad taste. You basically want boring MMO style quests in a 4-5 player game it sounds like. LAME.

Now before you try to twist the argument and ignore my question about why you are here as you are obviously anti MMO, I admit I called the quests horrible, and for the most part they are. I enjoy MMO's for the MASSIVE part of it. I am no longer getting that because they are slowly devolving into basic multiplayer games. Some good questing can be found in TSW in my opinion, a few in GW2 as well. Otherwise, bleh. Now that you understand why I called the quests horrible but still love MMO's, what kind of straw man argument are you going to create? Maybe a newzoo stat that you don't understand as you don't have the data? 

I recommend Kingdoms of Amular to you. It is abundant with stories and MMO quests in an MMO style instanced world with no people! Try it out! I think you'll love it. And you can rest assured it has a massive component because there are forums for the game too!

With that said, I'd also suggest you head on over to pcgamer.com, gamespy.com , neogaf, or even gamespot.com to discuss the non mmo games you enjoy. Furthermore, we have a gaming section here too that may help you find like minded folks. See, you can stay on this site, enjoy the articles, but you really need to stop arguing for games to be limited to 4-5 players... its getting old buddy.

I will admit, I am VERY tired of your anti-mmo stance. However, I'd still buy you a beer while we argue over it. HHAahhAahha