...for me.

More and more games covered on this site are of a type that I am not looking for.  It is nothing bad, but I joined this particular site to get info and discuss about mmorpg's - rpg games with worlds to be precise.  

Currently not only mmorpg genre include games that are more similar to loby games at expense of world games, but also mmorpg.com is both covering and giving forums to games that are non-rpg mmo's and even a games that are not mmo's of any kind.  

I started reading this site to get specific mmorpg info & forums. I joined mmorpg.com not videogames.com. Nor eurogamer or ign.

Business is business and I understand mmorpg.com decision makers. Mmorpg genre is also changing and if they would only cover 'world' mmoprg's then site would start shrinking in close future.

Anyway - 9 pages long thread got locked without explaining. Thread that was discussing simialr but also bit diffrent thing. That got me thinking.

I am tired of plowing through info and discussions about games of types that does not interest me. I DO have other sites I sometimes visit for this. When I choose to. 

I also realized that big amount of mmorpg.com userbase are looking for games that are totally opposite of what I am looking for. So opposite that they certain solutuins exlcude themself.   I am tired of endless arguments about same things that are unsolvable because certain part of playerbase is totally separate with what they want and conisder an mmorpg.

It is like discussions between turn based strategy player and racing game player.  Two diffrent needs and expectations.

Site and what is considered mmorpg nowadays got too broad and stopped being satisfying to discuss and follow. 

Thanks for all discussions. I propably won't join any mmorpg site for quite some time, not until I stumble upon one that group 'virtual world mmorpg'  players and is technically&cintent wise good enough at same time.  Which might be looong time.

I am also not staying for general gaming or even "mmo and neighbourhood" nes and discussions because I am not interested in discussing about those things as often as about mmorpg's and I do have other sites I know for this if I choose to do so.

Bye and thanks for all discussions on this forums I participated in.  o/

Mmorpg?  Nope, never had it.    I had opposite effect that I started disliking alot mmorpg I once loved.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by fenistil

 MMO in that sense is nothing more than descriptor of how many people play certain game.  Which I guess is right now.

 

I've been playing this kind of browser games like around 10 years ago.   If we start calling that kind of games MMO's (or MMORPG's when there is personal character you play) then we need more subgenres created, because "world simulation" mmorpg's and those games have very little in common.  

 

Anyway - I am all for it.  Just need subgenres.   MMO  and MMORPG desciptor grown way too big anyway and lose their 'genre' desciptive function. 

MMO nowadays is like saying game is Single Player or Multiplayer. Does not bring any knowegedle to player aside of how much players can play with themself at once at same time.

 

Same with MMORPG where 'RPG' part is used just in most basic sense that game have some kind of statistics attached to personified being and more than half of games nowadays have something like this.    Afterall EvE Online and GW2 have practically nothing in common, not more than in example Prototype and Morrowind and yet they are placed in same genre and Prototype and Morrowind are not.

 

Detach 'virtual world rpg games' into separate genre from mmorpg's and then it will be easy to call non 'world'' games an mmorpg without much resistance.

And yet, people like to make a distiction when one small detail changes here and there. For example, in another thread, if it is something is scripted or determined by game engine - even if the end result is exactly the same. Or this one small detail of being instanced, when otherwise the two games play exactly the same.

Rather, don't sweat about genres and definitions. Let them be broad strokes, because they're only useful that way. Sort less, play more.

Genres and definitions are by definiton (pun intended lol) ideal models that rarely if ever present in actual world.  Still they are here and are created by people because that how human mind works and because it is actually needed to save time. 

Civlization and Mortal Kombat are descirbed diffrently and put into diffrent genres because it does help player to make a decision. With thousands of games it is needed.  

MMO(and mmorpg) word(s) now has diffrent meaning that it had 10+ years ago and it will lead to creation of new (sub)genres and desciptors. Whenever you like it or not.    Only question remain is how long that will take.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by ObiClownobi
When you say Western, you must be referring to the US, disregarding the quality, the EU has produced EvE, Salem, MO and Darkfall, none, of which are like the standard US themeparks.

---

Do you really want to include Mortal Online in that list? It's certainly different, but it's also certainly a piece of cr@p.

 

Lol agreed.   Concepts were / are not bad but actual realistation / implementation is utter crap in MO.

None. I don't play any mmorpg.

I don't like lobby-like gameplay and business models made on cash shops.

Those few mmorpg's that do diffrently are not good enough or too old.

 MMO in that sense is nothing more than descriptor of how many people play certain game.  Which I guess is right now.

I've been playing this kind of browser games like around 10 years ago.   If we start calling that kind of games MMO's (or MMORPG's when there is personal character you play) then we need more subgenres created, because "world simulation" mmorpg's and those games have very little in common.  

Anyway - I am all for it.  Just need subgenres.   MMO  and MMORPG desciptor grown way too big anyway and lose their 'genre' desciptive function. 

MMO nowadays is like saying game is Single Player or Multiplayer. Does not bring any knowegedle to player aside of how much players can play with themself at once at same time.

Same with MMORPG where 'RPG' part is used just in most basic sense that game have some kind of statistics attached to personified being and more than half of games nowadays have something like this.    Afterall EvE Online and GW2 have practically nothing in common, not more than in example Prototype and Morrowind and yet they are placed in same genre and Prototype and Morrowind are not.

Detach 'virtual world rpg games' into separate genre from mmorpg's and then it will be easy to call non 'world'' games an mmorpg without much resistance.

Originally posted by Grunty
Well they are similar in that one person keeps making new accounts and asking the same question about how similiar rogues and warriors are.

+1

Really end those fu***in threads. 

Actually mmo market in last 7 years did not stagnate.   Don't confuse mmo with mmorpg which is just a subgroup of mmo, just like apples are subgroup of fruits.

Mmorpg market on the other hand was much closer to stagnation, but also could not be called it stagnated. 

It was still changing. Just for me personally in almost opposite direction I would like. Basically detoriating.

1) Bugs

2) Very high PC requirements at time of release

3) No content at higher levels

4) No coherent working vision

5) Zoning - at time of release it was big issue on forums since many people were used to wow open world being not zoned and this being their second mmorpg ever so they were put off by this.

6) Making PVP game and offering nothing for PVP players - siege system broken and eventually turned off, huge gank-fest on servers with people quitting. At same time neglecting PVE players.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Axehandle

Remember the first time that you hit max level on some of the older mmorpg titles you felt so accomplished because the journey was epic. From my experience the first time I hit max level in wow I was thrilled to have achieved something so meaningful but now games like swtor the journey was just an obstacle to overcome and not really an enjoyable part of the experience. 

 

I want that feeling back in games. That pull factor that kept you logging on each day and playing for hours because your goal was to get a few more levels in and really immerse yourself in the world.

Accomplished? That is just an illusion.

Whole game is an illusion.

Originally posted by Axehandle

Remember the first time that you hit max level on some of the older mmorpg titles you felt so accomplished because the journey was epic. From my experience the first time I hit max level in wow I was thrilled to have achieved something so meaningful but now games like swtor the journey was just an obstacle to overcome and not really an enjoyable part of the experience. 

 

I want that feeling back in games. That pull factor that kept you logging on each day and playing for hours because your goal was to get a few more levels in and really immerse yourself in the world.

When you hike a mountain for 14 hours in harsh conditions and you finally get to the top you will feel accomplished.

If you get there on ropeway then you won't feel that way.

Originally posted by FromHell

Originally posted by Larsa

Originally posted by mothefo

it's tricky because when you dont' allow pvp you are limiting freedom. ...

And when you allow PvP you are limiting freedom as well. One freedom is the freedom of the killer to kill, the other one is the freedom of the victim to live. The freedom argument is a very weak one.

You might prefer sandboxes with PvP and that's fine. I prefer them as well, playing Wurm on a PvP server. But I can see that it's very well possible to have a sandbox MMORPG without PvP, I need only point to Wurm again, this time to the PvE servers.

[Edit. typo]

complete BS.

A sandbox is supposed to simulate reality.

In RL you could walk out of your house and get run over by a bus or stabbed by a criminal who wants to rob you.

RL=ultimate sandbox

 

a good sandbox game simulates this or it's just another average carebear themepark

In reality when you get caught for murdering someone it is very long break for you.   Create sandbox where your account will be locked for 5 years (assuming that game has 4x faster time than realisty) real time if you murdering any other player and that it will require box fee to play and then I will play it.

----------------------

Sandbox can be done without pvp or with big safe zones (aka EVE Online or Trammel in UO) or with systems severely limiting PVP (SWG).  Does not have to be one giant deatchmatch like DFO or MO.

Originally posted by maccarthur2004

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by Yalexy

Maybe ArcheAge will deliver some two years down the road, but until then there's nothing on the horizon peaking my interest.

AA has potential to be nice good game, BUT it is not pure sandbox. FAR from it.   It has very big themepark parts.   So it is something similar to hmm Fallen Earth with few more sandbox features and bit bigger budget? Or Lineage II mixed with Vanilla WoW and some UO features.

AA will be 80-90% sandbox and 10-20% themepark. The themepark feature will be mainly the quests and a instanced "training camp" that will only give small to medium rewards. The "endgame" of AA will be 100% sandbox with FFA partial loot PVP, with some penaltys to who pk same faction players in southern continent and none in the northern.

There will also be instanced (and non-instanced) dungeons. Only a few not that much as in WoW or Rift or other themeparks, but still there will be.  Lately XL games went more into themepark teritories.  Don't misunderstand me - I still wait for this game and I still think AA have potential. I am not bashing it.  

I just personally believe that if someone expect next Ultima Online or SWG - will be disappointed, cause it won't be as sandboxy.

Still it might be great :)

Originally posted by Yalexy

Maybe ArcheAge will deliver some two years down the road, but until then there's nothing on the horizon peaking my interest.

AA has potential to be nice good game, BUT it is not pure sandbox. FAR from it.   It has very big themepark parts.   So it is something similar to hmm Fallen Earth with few more sandbox features and bit bigger budget? Or Lineage II mixed with Vanilla WoW and some UO features.

-----------

On topic:

Never was big on pvp in sandbox mmorpg's.  I did not mind bit of danger and even some pvp action, but most of the time I was playing for PvE, Economy, Cooperation and Crafting when playing UO.   So solution similar to EVE, but even more catrered to non-pvp with aound 70% of land without PVP and only 20-30% with pvp allowed would be perfect for me.

Originally posted by allendale5
 

1) NPC's that stand in the same spot for all of eternity

2) Mobs that are so crowded together that it loses all semblance of reality - even that of the theme-parked suspended disbelief realty.

3) Zones that cannot be traversed without weaving through mindless mobs 

4) Quest objectives that are right next to the quest giver.  For the love of God, he could do it himself.

5) Class specific weapons and gear.  As if a human mage could not pick up a sword if she had to.  

Agreed.  

Additionally:

6 ) Cash shops, mrah's, currency selling

7 ) Non-seamless zoned world and zone duplicating.

8) Automatic LFG tools and auto-teleport

9) cross-server zone & tools.  Does not belong to any game that is descibed as virtual world.

10) Arrows, markers and hand-holdiong..  Following arrows and markers is not playing.  It does cut 'play' part from virtual world game.

11) Linear progression through series of closed maps (zones).