Originally posted by Kaynos1972

And please give the reasons for your answers.  Personally PVP has never been my cup of tea.   It's not that i never tried, i just dont feel any sense of accomplishement fighting others peoples for what really  ?  Bragging rights ?   There is already TONS of pvp game out there, mostly shooters, why does every MMO that comes out MUST have some sort of PVP in it ?   Do you think we could have a succesful MMO without the PVP aspect ?

I definitely would. I only liked PvP in shooters, not in MMORPG genre.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Complete nonsense.

The core of RPG systems since the dawn of RPGs has been, and will always be PVE.

Yep. PvP is only a part of MMORPG genre, not the core.

Well, I'm not buying it.

Originally posted by redcloud16

I personally found encumberance to be one of the more moronic game systems. 

I love role playing and I am by no means one of the instant gratification crowd, but I am playing a game. I have no intention of playing a reality simulation. 

There are certain real life trappings I simply do not want to have to deal with. But to each his own. 

I agreee with this. I really don't want to have "eating" or "sleeping" in the game. I prefer those things to do in real life, not in the game.

Originally posted by antshock32

First you have gamestop saying tht gw2 will be out in june 26th then they post a idk and don't tell anyone I am good with that. If

gw2 doesnt come out to dec thts fine with me gives us time to play TSW and as3 plus other games before gw2 takes over our lives.

 

 

 

I hope Guild Wars 2 comes out sooner. I just can't wait any longer. And I'm skiping TSW, don't have much interest.

Originally posted by nilden

Why when a MMORPG has so much it could do with it's world and systems does it have to have stuff tacked on from other genres?

Why would they focus on a single player story with a bunch of cutscences in an MMORPG? When the focus should be on grouping with other people.

Why would they have instanced pvp with smaller team numbers than FPS? When you could have open world pvp with contested and controlled territory and massive numbers of people.

Why on earth would they ignore the primary strengths of an open persistant virtual world and make everything private little instances?

There are so many design decisions that just seem counter to the entire purpose of making a MMORPG.

 

 

At least Arenanet is trying to change things with Guild Wars 2.

I might even try it if it goes f2p.

Originally posted by Royalkin

Story is False.

 

Specifically story is not role-playing, nor is it the mechanical aspect of placing points into attributes. Not to say that story is (or should be) absent from role-playing, but it is not (nor should be) the all-encompassing element that modern game designers seem to think it is. Role-Playing encompasses the acts and decisions that the player takes in order to make their character their own –the constructing their characters into a unique manifestation of their will. Role-playing a character in an RPG is no different from the processes we all went through as children playing with action figures. We created personas and personalities, histories and previous adventures which defined those characters’ natures. We invented adventures on the fly for them to participate in, with specific outcomes. Completing a static set of quests towards fufillment of a narrative, is not role-playing, it's a book piecemeal.

 

Story is defined as, “A usually fictional prose or verse narrative intended to interest or amuse the hearer or reader [notice it doesn't mention "player"].” The key word used in this definition is narrative, which is defined as, “Consisting of or characterized by the telling of a story.” The point here is that story is narrative, or narration, being that a story in of itself involves no interactivity in its experience. You, the reader or the participator are a passive participant, and therefore do not have any influence in the events that you are reading, seeing, or are otherwise witnessing. This is typical of film and literature, but has no place in an MMO(RPG). In fact they contradict each other heavily.

Yeah, pretty much agree on that one.

I'm so looking forward to this game.

I might resub to Rift when this expansion comes out, but I don't think I'll have enough time to play it because of the GW2.

Originally posted by FredomSekerZ

Dumb title when you consider that 1 doesn't have a sub, so you can enjoy both.

"My new boss is awesome and better than your boss, so i win"

"My boss is already that awesome at level 20, so i win"

"I'll enjoy both bosses and games, so I win" :D

True, you can enjoy both, but you also need time to play both.

Originally posted by itgrowls

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/06/05/the-soapbox-why-solo-players-dont-just-play-a-single-player-ga/

 

Love this article, awesome points. It gives the freedom to do both if you want, and generally even in the lobby games there are more options then in solo only titles which tend to be more static. Especially when it comes to updates with improvements, mmo's tend to put more of those out.

Yeah, pretty cool.

Originally posted by rabite256

I too uninstalled LoL because of the terrible community. Out of all the online games I have ever played, LoL's community was the worst.

Hehe, try playing "Heroes of Newerth", then you'll see that LoL community is not that bad :)

Originally posted by Lonzo

 

There is no alternative for us MMO-Fans out there. LoL is the perfect thing to play between MMO releases and right now there is really no MMORPG out there that is really worth to play.

I tried LoL, but I get "stuffed" pretty fast. DOTA games are just not for me. My alternative to MMORPG would be single player RPG.

Not really. I need to see the endgame.

I'm still playing Tera. Level 51 atm. Have nothing else to play atm really. Can't wait for GW2 and Neverwinter :)

So far, I like the Tera's combat system the most.

Originally posted by Divona

I very much prefer personal story created by myself based on what I do in game rather than have it pen up by developer, and being hand holding me through to save the world from the burning fire, being the one hero, just like every other thousands players in the game.

I see MMORPG to be different than other genre where the story is about lore and the history of the game world, where it will continue moving forward when I'm offline. World events are one off, and if I miss it, then I will be read about it or hear the story about the events from other players who participated in.

Having static personal story disrupted the feel of the virtual world, but instead turn it into a game where there is the end point to reach.

EVE Online does a pretty good job at create the on going world story based on the players action, and put them together into timeline. Even though, the main quests are static, but that is optional.

Simply say, I prefer to play MMORPG because of the community and ongoing of the living virtual world than have my character become God and save the world from danger with the epic loots, until the next expansion come out so I can save the world once again, and again, and again.

I agree with that. All I care is a world and his "lore". Just give me huge explorable world with lot's of dungeons and random things happening. Like event's that makes players to join and go defend a city from mobs or some bigg boss or something. :)

For me it was Lord of the Rings Online.

Originally posted by Reizla

Originally posted by Emrendil

Originally posted by Reizla

Middle-Earth, period!

In Middle-Earth, I would choose Rivendell, or Lindon.

Question was about WORLD, not location ;)

But if I'd have to pick a location, I'd say either The Shire or the (yet to be developed / now underdevelopment?) White City...

That's true, but it's nothing wrong if you mention the location too. :)