Trending Games | Elder Scrolls Online | WildStar | Star Wars: The Old Republic | ArcheAge

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,644,396 Users Online:0
Games:681  Posts:6,078,151
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

General Discussion Forum » The Pub at MMORPG.COM » We dont want games - we want worlds.

37 Pages First « 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 » Last Search
735 posts found
  Lobotomist

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/20/07
Posts: 4701

I got so much trouble on my mind Refuse to lose.

 
OP  12/04/12 6:29:58 AM#561
Originally posted by Quirhid
Originally posted by Lobotomist
Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Yes and no

What you mention would be themepark simulation of the real thing. Premade events set to trigger if certan requirements are met. It looks like the real thing , but as all themepark its just a prop.

In example of virtual world changes are not prescripted events they are run by NPC AI.

For example if a certain faction (planet in above elite example) is suffering food shortage it will start importing food , perhaps try to invide other faction and steal their food. Other faction will maybe take advantage of their weaknes and attack , or blocade food import.

Anything can happen and its not pre-scripted at all (as in examples you mentioned)

And this time themepark players (the ones that enjoy quests and story) will really have what to talk about with their friends :)

You don't know whether they are scripted or not (likely to an extent, they are) and even if they weren't the end result is the same. Don't see what the fuzz is about. There's not much difference.

You are grasping. To invalidate my idea you are talking about actual technical implementation of a game that I only used as example. Game that is not yet finished , and we dont know if its going to be MMO or not.

What I lay before you is a concept. And this you should concentrate and discuss upon.

  Quirhid

Elite Member

Joined: 1/28/05
Posts: 5371

I dare you to pin a label on me.

12/04/12 8:08:36 AM#562
Originally posted by Lobotomist
Originally posted by Quirhid
 

You are grasping. To invalidate my idea you are talking about actual technical implementation of a game that I only used as example. Game that is not yet finished , and we dont know if its going to be MMO or not.

What I lay before you is a concept. And this you should concentrate and discuss upon.

I'm grasping? But your whole distinction seems to be based on actual technical implementation!

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 9953

I've become dependent upon spell check. My apologies for stupid grammatical errors.

12/04/12 8:19:21 AM#563


Originally posted by Scot
I was very interested in the concept of putting a themepark in the same game as a sandbox. it is something we have talked about on here before. The idea that one lot of players goes one way, doing all the quests, running the raids and so on. While another group of players goes of and never does a quest, they pillage a village or build one, craft a set of armour and puts their name on it, dam a river and start a fisihing industry.

Hard to achieve, but the best of both worlds.




I always wondered if a game where the usual leveling game was in place, but the end game, instead of being nothing but raids, was a sandbox style world. It would be like reading a book, and at the end of the book you get to hang around in the world of the book and do stuff.

For every large, complex problem, there is a simple, clear solution that also happens to be absolutely wrong.

  Lobotomist

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/20/07
Posts: 4701

I got so much trouble on my mind Refuse to lose.

 
OP  12/04/12 8:35:31 AM#564
Originally posted by Quirhid
Originally posted by Lobotomist
Originally posted by Quirhid
 

You are grasping. To invalidate my idea you are talking about actual technical implementation of a game that I only used as example. Game that is not yet finished , and we dont know if its going to be MMO or not.

What I lay before you is a concept. And this you should concentrate and discuss upon.

I'm grasping? But your whole distinction seems to be based on actual technical implementation!

Based on design concept.

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 17959

12/04/12 11:26:17 AM#565
Originally posted by Cecropia
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by toddze

One problem, the majority of MMO players are not true MMO players, most are single player rpg players.

Why is this a "problem"? MMO should be adapting to players, not the other way around.

There is nothing sacred about "true MMOs" .. they are just a form of entertainment.

Enough already, we all understand that games are entertainment. You are not having an epiphany the 20 times a day you post this. lol.

The same that posting "i want a sandbox" 200 times does not magically make sandbox game appearing. It is an internet forum, i am not the only one repeating my opinions.

Also, I am completely aware that you are struggling to understand why some of us hold this genre in a different light. A lot of us treat MMOs as more of a hobby than a mere game. They aren't "sacred", that's just being dramatic and silly. The concept of playing a game in a huge world with massive amounts of other players, that had so much to offer that people could potentially play for periods longer than a few weeks or months is what brought me here. Commitment to a good mmo does not mean that that's the only game that can be played. I have still remained a RTS/FPS gamer throughout my time with MMOs.

That is your problem .. so emotionally attached to a hobby. Oh, i understand what you want, i just don't care for it .. and think that it is a lot of hoola for entertainment.

Singleplayer/multiplayer online games have all benefitted from borrowed MMO features and design. MMOs, on the hand, have had their foundation ripped out and are quickly losing any sense of what they were intended for. Now we have people literally gobbling them up like potato chips because they have zero lasting power. MMOs really got the shit end of the stick as these new disposable gamers started flooding the industry. 

All good. And this obsessino with "staying power". Do you enjoy Avenger, the movie? Do you need to watch it 200 times? If many good single players can be fun for 2 weeks, MMOs can .. and are too. Disposable .. entertainment .. you are damn right. Some entertainment is and should be disposable. Whether MMO is such, depends on what players prefer.

You might be having a fiesta with this unfortunate abomination, but surely you can see why so many of us do not like where this genre is heading. Frankly, when we do get to the other side, I doubt many will be thrilled with the end result; yourself included.

"unfortunate abombination"? That is just a point of view. Note that if MMO stops to be fun to me, i will just do something else. Like i said before, there is an abundance of entertainment .. games, novels, anime, movies .... so i am not beholden to ONE hobby.

 

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 17959

12/04/12 11:29:15 AM#566
Originally posted by Onomas
 

Sure i can, just look at the front page ;)

And you keep comparing single player games to mmorpgs, yet again. We dont care about your single player games, we are sandbox junkies.....get it?

You are that narrow? You can't appreciate a good SP game? How about movies? You don't watch movies either?

I am surprised if all you do (or want to do) is play sandbox MMOs.

Personally i am not beholden to any hobby like that. I play MMOs, SP games, online games, read, watch movies ....

Sad to have all your entertainment eggs in one basket, don't you think?

  Apraxis

Hard Core Member

Joined: 9/28/05
Posts: 1242

12/04/12 12:07:18 PM#567
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Onomas
 

Sure i can, just look at the front page ;)

And you keep comparing single player games to mmorpgs, yet again. We dont care about your single player games, we are sandbox junkies.....get it?

You are that narrow? You can't appreciate a good SP game? How about movies? You don't watch movies either?

I am surprised if all you do (or want to do) is play sandbox MMOs.

Personally i am not beholden to any hobby like that. I play MMOs, SP games, online games, read, watch movies ....

Sad to have all your entertainment eggs in one basket, don't you think?

First of all i dont care much about the discussion.. just because a few people babble about something nothing will change anyway.. so it is just babbling.

About your response and get you some insight on other gamers interests and motiviations. Actually a lot of player are seriously not really interested in any single player game, or games playing just against some AI controlled enemy, and still more a bad AI in most cases.

There are a lot of players, which are solely interested in games with other human players, be it tabletop games, sport games or computer games for a lot of reasons. And therefore they prefer games, which are heavily multiplayer and with the option to play with and against other humans.. and actually Sandbox gaming is one of those options, where player interaction is the core of those gameplay.

As example, i player singleplayer games with a good multiplayer mode, and i play more or less just the multiplayer version of it.. and about story.. if i want a good story i read a book, or listen to a audiobook.. games lack  considerably in that department. But as always different people, different opinions, different tastes.. do what ever you want and let other do whatever they want. Just imho of course.

  Onomas

Hard Core Member

Joined: 7/05/11
Posts: 1138

Sandbox is your only hope for a decent mmo ;)

12/04/12 12:14:48 PM#568
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Onomas
 

Sure i can, just look at the front page ;)

And you keep comparing single player games to mmorpgs, yet again. We dont care about your single player games, we are sandbox junkies.....get it?

You are that narrow? You can't appreciate a good SP game? How about movies? You don't watch movies either?

I am surprised if all you do (or want to do) is play sandbox MMOs.

Personally i am not beholden to any hobby like that. I play MMOs, SP games, online games, read, watch movies ....

Sad to have all your entertainment eggs in one basket, don't you think?

Actualy i work, take care of my family, spend time with my 2 year old.

And when i have time i try to find a sandbox, but enjoy strategy games. Total war series, civ series, etc. Every so often ill play BF3, PS2, etc.

I even play themepark mmo's. Currently i dabble in EQ2, Rift, PoTBS, Tera.

 

But you see....this conversation isnt about all that. Its about large open worlds. Something you cant seem to grasp!

 

  Kyleran

Bitter Vet™

Joined: 9/13/06
Posts: 18368

Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

12/04/12 12:17:20 PM#569
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Onomas
 

Sure i can, just look at the front page ;)

And you keep comparing single player games to mmorpgs, yet again. We dont care about your single player games, we are sandbox junkies.....get it?

You are that narrow? You can't appreciate a good SP game? How about movies? You don't watch movies either?

I am surprised if all you do (or want to do) is play sandbox MMOs.

Personally i am not beholden to any hobby like that. I play MMOs, SP games, online games, read, watch movies ....

Sad to have all your entertainment eggs in one basket, don't you think?

Of course we enjoy other hobbies, including movies (all kinds), reading, running and of course, time with the family.

But when it comes to some things, my tastes are very narrow.  I only drink beer.  All kinds of beer, but I don't drink hard liquor or wine in any form.  Reading, pretty much limited only to Science Fiction, with occasionally forays into horror, or even Fantasy (though why bookstores think those two catgories belong mixed together is beyond me. I don't do recreational drugs of any kind, and wouldn't even in a state where some are legal now.

And when it comes to gaming, for the past 10 years, only MMORPG's for the most part.  No console games of any kind, and while I've tried an occasional single player game here and there (Starcraft II and Skyrim most recently) they just don't hold  my interest like even the worst MMORPG does.

But this makes sense, one of my primary reasons for playing MMORPG's is for social interaction, hence why I favor more vitrual world design vs the lobby style that you enjoy.

Doesn't really matter if its a sandbox style game, truthfully I've really only played one, EVE, (Xyson didn't count, I didn't actually run into anyone when I was there) but I do enjoy games with strong mechanics that permit socialization (I really should have played SWG, I'm sure I would have loved it)

Point is, sometimes my tastes are fairly broad (music being one such thing) and other times quite narrow (I won't eat fish in any form, its just nasty)

But no, I don't find my preferences sad in any way, it's what I like after all right?

 

 

 

 

"The discrepancy between what we know is possible and what we currently have to choose from is beyond disappointing" - GeezerGamer
Kyleran - Bitter Vet ™ since 2006
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  Zekiah

Novice Member

Joined: 1/06/07
Posts: 2527

Hype (noun)
1. to trick; gull.
2. exaggerated publicity; hoopla.
3. swindle, deception, or trick.

12/04/12 12:21:59 PM#570
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Onomas
 

Sure i can, just look at the front page ;)

And you keep comparing single player games to mmorpgs, yet again. We dont care about your single player games, we are sandbox junkies.....get it?

You are that narrow? You can't appreciate a good SP game?

I believe they meant we don't care about YOUR single player games. IE, the discussion is about world design and not your game preference.

"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 17959

12/04/12 12:31:31 PM#571
Originally posted by Onomas

But you see....this conversation isnt about all that. Its about large open worlds. Something you cant seem to grasp!

 

No the conservation is about whether a choice between world and games. No one says i have to agree with the OP's assertation in the topic.

And if the discussion is about world and games, certainly it is fair game to discuss the game side of things. You don't seem to grasp that.

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 17959

12/04/12 12:35:07 PM#572
Originally posted by Kyleran
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Onomas
 

Sure i can, just look at the front page ;)

And you keep comparing single player games to mmorpgs, yet again. We dont care about your single player games, we are sandbox junkies.....get it?

You are that narrow? You can't appreciate a good SP game? How about movies? You don't watch movies either?

I am surprised if all you do (or want to do) is play sandbox MMOs.

Personally i am not beholden to any hobby like that. I play MMOs, SP games, online games, read, watch movies ....

Sad to have all your entertainment eggs in one basket, don't you think?

Of course we enjoy other hobbies, including movies (all kinds), reading, running and of course, time with the family.

But when it comes to some things, my tastes are very narrow.  I only drink beer.  All kinds of beer, but I don't drink hard liquor or wine in any form.  Reading, pretty much limited only to Science Fiction, with occasionally forays into horror, or even Fantasy (though why bookstores think those two catgories belong mixed together is beyond me. I don't do recreational drugs of any kind, and wouldn't even in a state where some are legal now.

And when it comes to gaming, for the past 10 years, only MMORPG's for the most part.  No console games of any kind, and while I've tried an occasional single player game here and there (Starcraft II and Skyrim most recently) they just don't hold  my interest like even the worst MMORPG does.

But this makes sense, one of my primary reasons for playing MMORPG's is for social interaction, hence why I favor more vitrual world design vs the lobby style that you enjoy.

Doesn't really matter if its a sandbox style game, truthfully I've really only played one, EVE, (Xyson didn't count, I didn't actually run into anyone when I was there) but I do enjoy games with strong mechanics that permit socialization (I really should have played SWG, I'm sure I would have loved it)

Point is, sometimes my tastes are fairly broad (music being one such thing) and other times quite narrow (I won't eat fish in any form, its just nasty)

But no, I don't find my preferences sad in any way, it's what I like after all right?

 

 

Well, i guess there are those who are extremely narrow in their gaming preference. But you certainly agree taht there are those who are broader. Not every play only play MMOs. In fact, not every gamer cares about social aspects of games.

(BTW, i drink wine, not beer, so that is a second difference).

So if your preference is not sad, then it is the same taht my (or those who prefer broader, non-virtual world MMOs) also not sad. After all, they are just preferences. Thus, i find it condenscending that someone here talk as if the trend of MMOs is a bad thing. It is only a bad thing for SOME pregferences, not all.

I don't dictate what you like .. and neither should you.

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 9953

I've become dependent upon spell check. My apologies for stupid grammatical errors.

12/04/12 12:42:25 PM#573


Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Onomas But you see....this conversation isnt about all that. Its about large open worlds. Something you cant seem to grasp!  
No the conservation is about whether a choice between world and games. No one says i have to agree with the OP's assertation in the topic.

And if the discussion is about world and games, certainly it is fair game to discuss the game side of things. You don't seem to grasp that.




According to the OP, it has nothing to do with the size of the world. It's about the interactivity of the world. The description was something like this:

The player enters an area and kills some goblins. Because the player killed some goblins, the people in the town have some additional work for the player.

There's more, but that's a bare bones summary.

I would add something like the town becoming more prosperous, or more run down depending on how the player interacts with the town. The player is changing the world in an indirect manner by interacting with it, and the world is responding to the player's actions in both direct and indirect manners.

There's no particular reason this couldn't exist in game centric MMO.

For every large, complex problem, there is a simple, clear solution that also happens to be absolutely wrong.

  Lucioon

Novice Member

Joined: 1/12/06
Posts: 840

12/04/12 12:53:25 PM#574
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Kyleran
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Onomas
 

Sure i can, just look at the front page ;)

And you keep comparing single player games to mmorpgs, yet again. We dont care about your single player games, we are sandbox junkies.....get it?

You are that narrow? You can't appreciate a good SP game? How about movies? You don't watch movies either?

I am surprised if all you do (or want to do) is play sandbox MMOs.

Personally i am not beholden to any hobby like that. I play MMOs, SP games, online games, read, watch movies ....

Sad to have all your entertainment eggs in one basket, don't you think?

Of course we enjoy other hobbies, including movies (all kinds), reading, running and of course, time with the family.

But when it comes to some things, my tastes are very narrow.  I only drink beer.  All kinds of beer, but I don't drink hard liquor or wine in any form.  Reading, pretty much limited only to Science Fiction, with occasionally forays into horror, or even Fantasy (though why bookstores think those two catgories belong mixed together is beyond me. I don't do recreational drugs of any kind, and wouldn't even in a state where some are legal now.

And when it comes to gaming, for the past 10 years, only MMORPG's for the most part.  No console games of any kind, and while I've tried an occasional single player game here and there (Starcraft II and Skyrim most recently) they just don't hold  my interest like even the worst MMORPG does.

But this makes sense, one of my primary reasons for playing MMORPG's is for social interaction, hence why I favor more vitrual world design vs the lobby style that you enjoy.

Doesn't really matter if its a sandbox style game, truthfully I've really only played one, EVE, (Xyson didn't count, I didn't actually run into anyone when I was there) but I do enjoy games with strong mechanics that permit socialization (I really should have played SWG, I'm sure I would have loved it)

Point is, sometimes my tastes are fairly broad (music being one such thing) and other times quite narrow (I won't eat fish in any form, its just nasty)

But no, I don't find my preferences sad in any way, it's what I like after all right?

 

 

Well, i guess there are those who are extremely narrow in their gaming preference. But you certainly agree taht there are those who are broader. Not every play only play MMOs. In fact, not every gamer cares about social aspects of games.

(BTW, i drink wine, not beer, so that is a second difference).

So if your preference is not sad, then it is the same taht my (or those who prefer broader, non-virtual world MMOs) also not sad. After all, they are just preferences. Thus, i find it condenscending that someone here talk as if the trend of MMOs is a bad thing. It is only a bad thing for SOME pregferences, not all.

I don't dictate what you like .. and neither should you.

I can't believe that you can't understand what the OP meant in the original post. It isn't about whether or not Single Player games is better or worst than MMorpg, or certain MMORPG is better than another. Its not about preference nor taste nor is it an discussion on Themepark versus Sandbox.

What everyone is trying to inform you is, we are having an discussion on Worlds in our MMORPG. 

This term of Worlds, means an living breathing Virtual Playground that is of an entire new world to some and to others something entirely different, and thats where the discussion is. 

You keep beating on preferences and games on your discussions that really adds nothing to the argument. 

You said it yourself, once the MMO loses its fun factor, you move on, you move on to other MMO or SP, FPS, RTS....etc other genres, so to you MMORPG can be replaced easily. 

Yet those that adds to the Discussion are saying they don't want MMO to disappear, they don't want it to be replaced by other Genre. They want MMO to stay strong and get better. And how does it get better? Maybe Worlds instead of games!!!

Do you now see the discussion part of the post.

If you still don't get it, then how about this, you said you brink Beer, so when you order an Beer, you expect Beer, but instead they give you some fruity drink that has 10 % beer in it. Sure you can drink it, and if you hate it you move on, but what we are doing is telling the bartender that when you order Beer, you expect it to be Beer, even if its atleast 80% beer, not 10% beer. 

 

Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 17959

12/04/12 12:59:36 PM#575
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Onomas But you see....this conversation isnt about all that. Its about large open worlds. Something you cant seem to grasp!  
No the conservation is about whether a choice between world and games. No one says i have to agree with the OP's assertation in the topic.

 

And if the discussion is about world and games, certainly it is fair game to discuss the game side of things. You don't seem to grasp that.




According to the OP, it has nothing to do with the size of the world. It's about the interactivity of the world. The description was something like this:

The player enters an area and kills some goblins. Because the player killed some goblins, the people in the town have some additional work for the player.

There's more, but that's a bare bones summary.

I would add something like the town becoming more prosperous, or more run down depending on how the player interacts with the town. The player is changing the world in an indirect manner by interacting with it, and the world is responding to the player's actions in both direct and indirect manners.

There's no particular reason this couldn't exist in game centric MMO.

 

Cost of programming and testing?

Popularity of the style of gameplay?

There is no technical reason this couldn't exist in a game centric MMO .. but technical reasons are not the only reasons out there. Putting in a gameplay system with high interactivity takes resources ... so a devs need to determine if each kind of interactivity is needed.

 

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 17959

12/04/12 1:03:15 PM#576
Originally posted by Lucioon

You keep beating on preferences and games on your discussions that really adds nothing to the argument. 

That is your point of view. I feel that i added the notion that MMOs need to change .. and take what is good in other genre. It is a message of change.

You said it yourself, once the MMO loses its fun factor, you move on, you move on to other MMO or SP, FPS, RTS....etc other genres, so to you MMORPG can be replaced easily. 

Yes.

Yet those that adds to the Discussion are saying they don't want MMO to disappear, they don't want it to be replaced by other Genre. They want MMO to stay strong and get better. And how does it get better? Maybe Worlds instead of games!!!

And i say that is a narrow view. They should look at other genre and take what works. If MMO changes ... so what .. i am arguing against only using old ideas, and don't allow for any innovation. "Better" is a loaded word .. it is in the eye of the beholder. If you close your mind, and don't try MOBA, how do you know if MOBA is not also a fun game?

Do you now see the discussion part of the post.

If you still don't get it, then how about this, you said you brink Beer, so when you order an Beer, you expect Beer, but instead they give you some fruity drink that has 10 % beer in it. Sure you can drink it, and if you hate it you move on, but what we are doing is telling the bartender that when you order Beer, you expect it to be Beer, even if its atleast 80% beer, not 10% beer. 

(BTW, i drink wine).

That is a very rigid, and close minded position. May be you should try wine once in a while. Beer is not sacred, you know. It is just a drink.

 

 

 

  Onomas

Hard Core Member

Joined: 7/05/11
Posts: 1138

Sandbox is your only hope for a decent mmo ;)

12/04/12 1:17:27 PM#577
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Lucioon

You keep beating on preferences and games on your discussions that really adds nothing to the argument. 

That is your point of view. I feel that i added the notion that MMOs need to change .. and take what is good in other genre. It is a message of change.

You said it yourself, once the MMO loses its fun factor, you move on, you move on to other MMO or SP, FPS, RTS....etc other genres, so to you MMORPG can be replaced easily. 

Yes.

 

 

MMO's already changed. They went from having meaning to being just another console rpg. You must not have played many older mmorpg's. But there was purpose, fun, excitement, freedom, single player time, group time, interaction, social aspects, and so much more. The games today dont offer this. Why many companies are going back to sandbox games, because they offer you an entire world in a game and allow you the choice. If you dont want that choice, then dont play.  But you trying to get MMORPG to turn into singleplayer games on a mmorpg forum is a bad way to express your opinion. Perhaps you should be more open minded.

And you moving around so much, just proves my point. Newer mmo's have the longevity of a single player game, which is horrible. MMO's once were designed to last years, now they last months. And you want them to change even more towads that?

You probably never played a real mmorpg sandbox before. Guess what, with 15+ new sandboxes in production and set to release in the next 1-3 years you will have your chance.

If this was single player rpg or shooter forum i would agree with you on several issues and opinions you have. But its not, its about making Mmorpg's better for the entire community.

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 9953

I've become dependent upon spell check. My apologies for stupid grammatical errors.

12/04/12 1:18:49 PM#578


Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Onomas But you see....this conversation isnt about all that. Its about large open worlds. Something you cant seem to grasp!  
No the conservation is about whether a choice between world and games. No one says i have to agree with the OP's assertation in the topic.   And if the discussion is about world and games, certainly it is fair game to discuss the game side of things. You don't seem to grasp that.
According to the OP, it has nothing to do with the size of the world. It's about the interactivity of the world. The description was something like this: The player enters an area and kills some goblins. Because the player killed some goblins, the people in the town have some additional work for the player. There's more, but that's a bare bones summary. I would add something like the town becoming more prosperous, or more run down depending on how the player interacts with the town. The player is changing the world in an indirect manner by interacting with it, and the world is responding to the player's actions in both direct and indirect manners. There's no particular reason this couldn't exist in game centric MMO.  
Cost of programming and testing?

Popularity of the style of gameplay?

There is no technical reason this couldn't exist in a game centric MMO .. but technical reasons are not the only reasons out there. Putting in a gameplay system with high interactivity takes resources ... so a devs need to determine if each kind of interactivity is needed.

 




It would need to be worth the cost, and it would need to fit the game itself.

The features of the world would have to be part of the 'game' that the player was playing. In the example above, the player would have to have some sort of expectation that they should kill those goblins, or go to that town. At the very minimum, the player should have some idea that they need to travel around so that they run into the goblins and see the town. They could receive a quest that tells them to kill the goblins for their delicious brains, and a side effect is that the town becomes prosperous. The two things, games and worlds can be dovetailed into each other.

MMORPG, whether they are game centric, world centric, theme park or sandbox are some form of simulation. The simulator accepts input, and based on a set of rules, generates some output. The output is then counted, or fed into another simulator or something. The game takes the player actions as input, follows some rules and generates some output. The input is the player following a quest or exploring. The output is a quest reward or a change in the behavior of NPCs towards the player. The output could also be a change in the world itself...a town growing or shrinking. Developing the rules either for a 'game' or a 'world' isn't that different and the development costs are not that different either.

I think it would involve more design time though. Depending on how open the world is, and how open the player's progression through the world is, it could lead to having to design a lot more content that may or may not get used. Kind of like the 'Choose Your Own Adventure' books. After you're two or three choices in, if you don't bring the storyline back to the main storyline, you end up with tens or hundreds of choices instead of a few manageable ones. So the design would be more time consuming. Not necessarily more complex, but definitely more work. I don't have any reference for how much 'design' costs though.

I still think the biggest obstacle to that kind of stuff is the players themselves. They would find a way to break it, or to manipulate it. The town would yo-yo between prosperity and slums on a daily basis because guilds would find a way to both eliminate the goblins or allow them to over run the town on demand. Like in the original UO, when they tried to have dynamic mobs and monsters, but players just killed them so fast, the developers had to give up and just have them spawn in randomly.

For every large, complex problem, there is a simple, clear solution that also happens to be absolutely wrong.

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 17959

12/04/12 1:34:25 PM#579
Originally posted by Onomas

 

MMO's already changed. They went from having meaning to being just another console rpg. You must not have played many older mmorpg's. But there was purpose, fun, excitement, freedom, single player time, group time, interaction, social aspects, and so much more. The games today dont offer this. Why many companies are going back to sandbox games, because they offer you an entire world in a game and allow you the choice. If you dont want that choice, then dont play.  But you trying to get MMORPG to turn into singleplayer games on a mmorpg forum is a bad way to express your opinion. Perhaps you should be more open minded.

I played UO beta, EQ for a year. Tried AC. Eve for 21 days. None is as much fun (to me) as modern MMOs or online ARPGs.

Oh, don't worry .. i don't play games i don't like. And don't blame me ... when MMOs add more SP game feature taht i like .. i will play. I don't try to turn anything into anything else .. too much work.

I think you should be more open minded and see the old MMO ideas are not the only thing out there. I tried them all. Did you try MOBA, ARPG, WOT, and so other online games with MMO features?

And you moving around so much, just proves my point. Newer mmo's have the longevity of a single player game, which is horrible. MMO's once were designed to last years, now they last months. And you want them to change even more towads that?

You sound like it is a bad thing. What i want is fun games. A fun 2 hours beat a less-fun 2 years. If a game can be fun, i play it. Longevity is not required (which is logically different than i don't want it).

You probably never played a real mmorpg sandbox before. Guess what, with 15+ new sandboxes in production and set to release in the next 1-3 years you will have your chance.

Does the horrible UO and EQ count?

If this was single player rpg or shooter forum i would agree with you on several issues and opinions you have. But its not, its about making Mmorpg's better for the entire community.

"MMORPG better for the entire community" .. LOL

MMOs are games .. if they are fun, i will play. Better for the entire community? Are you doing charity or something?

 

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 17959

12/04/12 1:36:08 PM#580
Originally posted by lizardbones


I still think the biggest obstacle to that kind of stuff is the players themselves. They would find a way to break it, or to manipulate it. The town would yo-yo between prosperity and slums on a daily basis because guilds would find a way to both eliminate the goblins or allow them to over run the town on demand. Like in the original UO, when they tried to have dynamic mobs and monsters, but players just killed them so fast, the developers had to give up and just have them spawn in randomly.

 

That is the point. If you think it costs a lot to stop bots and root out cheaters, think about what happen to testing costs, and time cycle of player management if you allows even more world like interactions.

Don't think it will make a very fun game .. but devs are welcomed to spend billions to prove me wrong.

37 Pages First « 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 » Last Search