Originally posted by ignore_me
This is a disturbing trend of thought in MMOs. Strip it down, give the programmers what they want, make it casual and solo friendly to the exclusion of the deep mmo players. There is already a place like that, it's called SPRPGs.

I don't see why "deep" MMO is better than a "deep" SP game. It is just a matter of preference. And what is wrong with devs chasing the market? It is called "making your customers happy".

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aeonblades

Originally posted by XAPGames

Yeah, they would notice.  Just look at all the threads of people complaining about empty overland zones indicating that a game is dead.

 

It's a paradox.  They might not want to play with others, but they like having them around.

 

This. If the world seems empty, it doesn't seem like a world anymore to most.

You don't need a world for this. You just need a city like Orgrimmar.

In fact, the world *is* empty. They may as well take it away.

... or fix it.  But obviously the games aren't MMORPGs anymore or they wouldn't have empty overlands in the first place.  So in an odd way I agree with you.  Trash the massively multiplayer aspects completely, and rename the games for what they have become.

Large scale single player games with multi-user lobbies and embedded cooperative or competitive mini-games.

MMORPGs are becoming Guild Wars 1.

But I like MMORPGs.  I just hope that someday a dev will come along and make a new one.

Originally posted by Grixxitt
Narius, I'm starting to think you get paid by a MOBA collective to do your best in making sure that future MMORPGs are absolute shit

I bet they sponsor him based on posts per day on the subject.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by ignore_me
This is a disturbing trend of thought in MMOs. Strip it down, give the programmers what they want, make it casual and solo friendly to the exclusion of the deep mmo players. There is already a place like that, it's called SPRPGs.

I don't see why "deep" MMO is better than a "deep" SP game. It is just a matter of preference. And what is wrong with devs chasing the market? It is called "making your customers happy".

Development: I'm talking about devs following the path of least resistance and also cloning other games in design meetings. Making choices based on customers is not the same as attempting to put something out that is crap, hype it as good, and then not fix it when it is objectively crap.

Deep MMOs are an experience in themselves, and when the experience is dumbed down, you lose the value of that experience for those who want it. The games become a crude simulacrum of the complexity and depth of older games. I like some of the quality of life features in contemporary games, but there is such a thing as too much. People who like the basic MMO play can usually get that even in deeper MMOs, but people who like having to manage a lot of information and have options of play are stifled by stripped-down games. 

When you like Risk and are forced to play Checkers because "everyone likes checkers" or "Risk is too difficult to balance" etc. It has a tendency to make one unsatisfied.

Luckily there are signs that the cycle is reversing and deeper games are on the horizon.

Originally posted by Mortemia
Instances, lobbies, teleports etc. That's everything I hate in games that take away the social aspect and kills the community.

But you have chat rooms & friend list.

I made more friends, and play with more people in a non-MMO like D3, than a MMO like STO. So why is the virtual even relevant to maknig friends, and community? Community are nothing but players you can be friends with, and play togther.

It makes zero difference (to me) whether i met them in a 3D city, or a instanced dungeon. People are people.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Sovrath

I think the point is being missed regarding "seing thousands of players".

Of course people aren't going to want to log in only to find 5000 players standing around him and his framerate dropping to 0.

The idea is that one can have access to any of the numerous thousands of players and have some sort of encounter or adventure because of it.

This happened to me all the time in Lineage 2. not very much in most other games... perhaps Aion it did.

Have you ever crested a hill to take a boss only to find your enemy with a larger army around that very same boss?

Have you ever been besieged by several mobs only to find a higher level, helpful stranger lend aid?

Have you ever been leveling in a group, only to be attacked by a rival of one of your party members?

or on your way through a dungeon only to see a group of people who desperately need help with the mobs? You help them then finish your business there and then someone suggests "hey let's go to that island in the north" and you then start a whole new experience there.

Or meet some new player who had no idea what the game is about so you take him/her under your wing, get him equipment, money and then give them a tour of the world.

All that an more can happen when one has a world to wander around in.

In GW1 (a great game) that didn't really happen to me. I would enter a hub and people would be grouping up for that hub. That's about it. DDO? never got that game as it seemed to be people grouping so they can blaze through a dungeon as fast as they could only to do the same again, or with another dungeon.

I'll take my virtual world.

These never happen in WOW, DDO, GW1, and many other instanced centric PvE MMOs.

The point of this thread is not what should be the MMO design, but in these specific MMOs, why do we need a world if the experience is the same?

The stuff you talk about .. .like meeting another group in a dungeon .. is just not the gameplay in these MMO i am discussing. So irrelevant.

Well, perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of your thread but I was taking it to meaning "what if the virtual world vanished, what if things proceeded from wow to DDO and GW1 and stayed that way. Maybe even just a screen in front of you with information, like Diablo 2 (my addition to the logical conclusion).

So what if there is no virtual world? Just a city lobby. Will they even notice the difference?

Which is why the above struck me as an important piece and hence why I made my post.

Originally posted by Sovrath

 

Well, perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of your thread but I was taking it to meaning "what if the virtual world vanished, what if things proceeded from wow to DDO and GW1 and stayed that way. Maybe even just a screen in front of you with information, like Diablo 2 (my addition to the logical conclusion).

So what if there is no virtual world? Just a city lobby. Will they even notice the difference?

Which is why the above struck me as an important piece and hence why I made my post.

 

Sure. There are obvious way of using virtual world for gameplay. For example, PS2 is purely virtual world gameplay. There is no instanced.

But my point is that there are also many, and more and more, MMOs that does not need the virtual world. DDO & GW1 are good examples. Note that GW1 is very successful. DDO is also successful to the point of having major expansion after turning F2P.

And of course games like Diablo, Torchlight ... are very popular.

The question is for the kind of MMOs that are "light" on virtual world gameplay anyway, shouldn't it be just taken away?

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Sovrath

 

Well, perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of your thread but I was taking it to meaning "what if the virtual world vanished, what if things proceeded from wow to DDO and GW1 and stayed that way. Maybe even just a screen in front of you with information, like Diablo 2 (my addition to the logical conclusion).

So what if there is no virtual world? Just a city lobby. Will they even notice the difference?

Which is why the above struck me as an important piece and hence why I made my post.

 

Sure. There are obvious way of using virtual world for gameplay. For example, PS2 is purely virtual world gameplay. There is no instanced.

But my point is that there are also many, and more and more, MMOs that does not need the virtual world. DDO & GW1 are good examples. Note that GW1 is very successful. DDO is also successful to the point of having major expansion after turning F2P.

And of course games like Diablo, Torchlight ... are very popular.

The question is for the kind of MMOs that are "light" on virtual world gameplay anyway, shouldn't it be just taken away?

Addressing the last question....yes they should. They can forget about the world and focus more on the gameplay giving us a better single player / multiplayer RPG instead of wanting the MMO tag and giving us a watered down experience since they need to develop the world and fitting more people in. Would be the best of both worlds. Instead of constantly blurring the lines between the two genres, focus on your target crowd and it'll end up being a better game in the end.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Sovrath

 

Well, perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of your thread but I was taking it to meaning "what if the virtual world vanished, what if things proceeded from wow to DDO and GW1 and stayed that way. Maybe even just a screen in front of you with information, like Diablo 2 (my addition to the logical conclusion).

So what if there is no virtual world? Just a city lobby. Will they even notice the difference?

Which is why the above struck me as an important piece and hence why I made my post.

 

Sure. There are obvious way of using virtual world for gameplay. For example, PS2 is purely virtual world gameplay. There is no instanced.

But my point is that there are also many, and more and more, MMOs that does not need the virtual world. DDO & GW1 are good examples. Note that GW1 is very successful. DDO is also successful to the point of having major expansion after turning F2P.

And of course games like Diablo, Torchlight ... are very popular.

The question is for the kind of MMOs that are "light" on virtual world gameplay anyway, shouldn't it be just taken away?

Why, there are plenty of CORPGs to cover that section of the market.

What, people honestly think WoW players would not notice if their game world suddenly became a lobby only?

I mean, how is that even a reasonable thought to have and ask about?

Originally posted by Sovrath

I think the point is being missed regarding "seing thousands of players".

Of course people aren't going to want to log in only to find 5000 players standing around him and his framerate dropping to 0.

The idea is that one can have access to any of the numerous thousands of players and have some sort of encounter or adventure because of it.

This happened to me all the time in Lineage 2. not very much in most other games... perhaps Aion it did.

Have you ever crested a hill to take a boss only to find your enemy with a larger army around that very same boss?

Have you ever been besieged by several mobs only to find a higher level, helpful stranger lend aid?

Have you ever been leveling in a group, only to be attacked by a rival of one of your party members?

or on your way through a dungeon only to see a group of people who desperately need help with the mobs? You help them then finish your business there and then someone suggests "hey let's go to that island in the north" and you then start a whole new experience there.

Or meet some new player who had no idea what the game is about so you take him/her under your wing, get him equipment, money and then give them a tour of the world.

All that an more can happen when one has a world to wander around in.

In GW1 (a great game) that didn't really happen to me. I would enter a hub and people would be grouping up for that hub. That's about it. DDO? never got that game as it seemed to be people grouping so they can blaze through a dungeon as fast as they could only to do the same again, or with another dungeon.

I'll take my virtual world.

Nice post.  The "Virtual World" is the great divider between old school MMORPGs and alot of the modern ones.  I'd further add that the "Virtual World" tried to let you do more activities outside combat.

Regarding your experience with GW1, I felt the same way also.  Prior to GW1, I had been exposed to UO and SWG (esp. the latter), and the sharp contrasts in how players were handled and placed in the world was a huge shock.  I also thought that GW1 was a fine game but the severe instance heavy nature was by far my biggest gripe with it.  It's interesting to see Arenanet trying to mesh people together a bit more with GW2.  That looks like a very welcome change compared to the isolation when outside the towns in GW1.

If I didn't want to see other players and not deal with them, I could put on a fine SPRPG like Skyrim or Dark Souls on.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Sovrath

 

Well, perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of your thread but I was taking it to meaning "what if the virtual world vanished, what if things proceeded from wow to DDO and GW1 and stayed that way. Maybe even just a screen in front of you with information, like Diablo 2 (my addition to the logical conclusion).

So what if there is no virtual world? Just a city lobby. Will they even notice the difference?

Which is why the above struck me as an important piece and hence why I made my post.

 

Sure. There are obvious way of using virtual world for gameplay. For example, PS2 is purely virtual world gameplay. There is no instanced.

But my point is that there are also many, and more and more, MMOs that does not need the virtual world. DDO & GW1 are good examples. Note that GW1 is very successful. DDO is also successful to the point of having major expansion after turning F2P.

And of course games like Diablo, Torchlight ... are very popular.

The question is for the kind of MMOs that are "light" on virtual world gameplay anyway, shouldn't it be just taken away?

hmmm, well, my thought is that the "world" is used as a set.

For instance, take bioware games (not SWToR). Mos of their game worlds are just theater sets where the action takes place.

for instance, in Dragon Age, I was in the Dwarf Kingdone and marveling at the architecture across the fissue and knowing full well that it was all a bunch of theater flats.

However, take that away and the focus comes off of the "world as a set but still the posing of a world" and more on the immediate action.

DDO could possibly do it but Guild Wars 1 was supposed to give the player a world, just one where they only shared it with people they wanted to travel with.

Take the "theater set" away and it becomes less about the player "being" in a place and more about what they are about to do. So it depends on whether the developers want the player to have a sense of place or is it just about the maps? I wonder how Neverwinter will do it?

My God...does this guy ever stop with the attempts to completely render the MMORPG genre extinct?

You know why there isn't  a need for "virtual worlds" in today's MMO genre? Because of players like you. Everything now. If you don't feel immediate progress within the first 10 minutes, it's a grind and boring. Hence, all the game companies cater to you, because sadly, the larger majority are players with your mindset.

For the umpteenth time, there are a plethora of other game genres out there that already provide that experience for you, so why remain in this one and try to make it something it wasn't meant to be? That seperated it FROM those other genres?

That's like if you were (Or maybe are) a bigtime FPS fanatic, and a bunch of MMORPG players started flooding the genre asking why do the games need to be so fast paced? Why can't they be slowed down and made more team oriented rather than so erratic and solo based? And because this influx of players grows tremendously, the market starts shifting that direction....even though there is already an MMORPG genre/market they could be playing.

How would you feel about that? Does it make sense for these players to try and make it something it isn't if they already have the options available to them in another venue? It's senseless and selfish IMO. And I just can't wrap my head around why you are here based on what you want other than to troll out of boredom or you really just don't understand the difference.

Originally posted by Goatgod76

My God...does this guy ever stop with the attempts to completely render the MMORPG genre extinct?

How is discussing a trend "render the MMORPG genre extinct"? I am merely making an observation. If the MMORPG genre is going to be extinct, it is because of the choices of players, and devs.

And what is so special about extinction? Text adventures are almost all extinct. Graphical adventure is almost all extinct (but with an indie revival recently. Oh, horse carriages are more or less extinct too. Paper books are probably going to go extinct soon. Are you going to rant online about that too?

You know why there isn't  a need for "virtual worlds" in today's MMO genre? Because of players like you. Everything now. If you don't feel immediate progress within the first 10 minutes, it's a grind and boring. Hence, all the game companies cater to you, because sadly, the larger majority are players with your mindset.

And you point? So what if my gaming preference do not need a virtual world. It is what it is. I don't apologize for it. You don't seem to understand that what is boring for you, may be fun for many. And why is this sad?

For the umpteenth time, there are a plethora of other game genres out there that already provide that experience for you, so why remain in this one and try to make it something it wasn't meant to be? That seperated it FROM those other genres?

Because for the umpteenth time, it is not i want to remain in this genre, it is this genre is now catering to my desire. And there is no good reason to refuse a MMO when i like it. If i want to play STO mission solo, is there a reason not to, just because that is not what some other dude on the internet like?

And lastly, you don't seem to understand that MMOs are not magical. They don't have destinies, and they certainly don't "meant to be" anything. They are just entertainment products, responding to market demand, just like FPS, smart phones and books.

That's like if you were (Or maybe are) a bigtime FPS fanatic, and a bunch of MMORPG players started flooding the genre asking why do the games need to be so fast paced? Why can't they be slowed down and made more team oriented rather than so erratic and solo based? And because this influx of players grows tremendously, the market starts shifting that direction....even though there is already an MMORPG genre/market they could be playing.

That you are wrong. I like ARPG more than FPS. FPS are too much run-&-gun. And if i am a big FPS fanatic, why would i spend more time playing D3, STO, and games like that?

How would you feel about that? Does it make sense for these players to try and make it something it isn't if they already have the options available to them in another venue? It's senseless and selfish IMO. And I just can't wrap my head around why you are here based on what you want other than to troll out of boredom or you really just don't understand the difference.

What does this thread have anything to do with what i want? (Not that i apologize for what i want)

This is about much of MMO gameplay has little to do with the virtual world. Many examples have been cited. Don't you agree it is a trend? Don't you agree it is here to stay.

Certainly i see it as a positive thing. It is not like there is no virtual world left. Eve has one. PS2 has one. I thought people here like variety and innvoation. Go away from old ideas is innovative. Have you wonder why WOT is classified as a MMO when there is no world? Have you wonder why GW1 is so successful?

Everything points to devs are being more flexible now and no featuer and idea is sacred. That is only a good thing.

 

Originally posted by ignore_me
I'm for splitting the genre at this point. Console, SPRPG, CORPG one one side; MMORPG VWS on the other.

No disagreement from me. I don't care about genre labels, only if a specific game is fun.

If you call STO a CORPG, it won't make it less fun, or more fun to me. It is the same game.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Goatgod76

My God...does this guy ever stop with the attempts to completely render the MMORPG genre extinct?

How is discussing a trend "render the MMORPG genre extinct"? I am merely making an observation. If the MMORPG genre is going to be extinct, it is because of the choices of players, and devs.

And what is so special about extinction? Text adventures are almost all extinct. Graphical adventure is almost all extinct (but with an indie revival recently. Oh, horse carriages are more or less extinct too. Paper books are probably going to go extinct soon. Are you going to rant online about that too?

You know why there isn't  a need for "virtual worlds" in today's MMO genre? Because of players like you. Everything now. If you don't feel immediate progress within the first 10 minutes, it's a grind and boring. Hence, all the game companies cater to you, because sadly, the larger majority are players with your mindset.

And you point? So what if my gaming preference do not need a virtual world. It is what it is. I don't apologize for it. You don't seem to understand that what is boring for you, may be fun for many. And why is this sad?

For the umpteenth time, there are a plethora of other game genres out there that already provide that experience for you, so why remain in this one and try to make it something it wasn't meant to be? That seperated it FROM those other genres?

Because for the umpteenth time, it is not i want to remain in this genre, it is this genre is now catering to my desire. And there is no good reason to refuse a MMO when i like it. If i want to play STO mission solo, is there a reason not to, just because that is not what some other dude on the internet like?

And lastly, you don't seem to understand that MMOs are not magical. They don't have destinies, and they certainly don't "meant to be" anything. They are just entertainment products, responding to market demand, just like FPS, smart phones and books.

That's like if you were (Or maybe are) a bigtime FPS fanatic, and a bunch of MMORPG players started flooding the genre asking why do the games need to be so fast paced? Why can't they be slowed down and made more team oriented rather than so erratic and solo based? And because this influx of players grows tremendously, the market starts shifting that direction....even though there is already an MMORPG genre/market they could be playing.

That you are wrong. I like ARPG more than FPS. FPS are too much run-&-gun. And if i am a big FPS fanatic, why would i spend more time playing D3, STO, and games like that?

How would you feel about that? Does it make sense for these players to try and make it something it isn't if they already have the options available to them in another venue? It's senseless and selfish IMO. And I just can't wrap my head around why you are here based on what you want other than to troll out of boredom or you really just don't understand the difference.

What does this thread have anything to do with what i want? (Not that i apologize for what i want)

This is about much of MMO gameplay has little to do with the virtual world. Many examples have been cited. Don't you agree it is a trend? Don't you agree it is here to stay.

Certainly i see it as a positive thing. It is not like there is no virtual world left. Eve has one. PS2 has one. I thought people here like variety and innvoation. Go away from old ideas is innovative. Have you wonder why WOT is classified as a MMO when there is no world? Have you wonder why GW1 is so successful?

Everything points to devs are being more flexible now and no featuer and idea is sacred. That is only a good thing.

 

 

Apparently english and reading comprehension are not your strong points. The FPS thing was an EXAMPLE that you failed to comprehend, not a direct comment labeling you.

NM, not going to waste my time any further with you...another that doesn't get it, or just doesn't want to get it.