Trending Games | World of Warcraft | ArcheAge | EVE Online | Star Wars: The Old Republic

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,815,535 Users Online:0
Games:731  Posts:6,214,824
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System Req: PC | Out of date info?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 « 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 » Last Search
735 posts found
  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 19455

12/05/12 12:34:37 PM#601
Originally posted by Caliburn101
 

And naturally these sort of players believe with a breathtaking degree to certainty that MMOs cannot be anything other than flash in the pan affairs - and that designers cannot create persistently engaging worlds, or reconcile themepark and sandbox successfully.

They are as 'fast food' in their thinking as their gaming.

Oh, you are confused. It is not that we believe it is impossible for designers to create persistently engaging worlds, it is that we do not care.

Given enough money, anything is possible. But i am skeptical if it is probable. Look at the really successful online games. How many depends on a online shared virtual world? If you use xfire to compare games, PS2 is the highest at #16 .. and it has limited interaction .. no difference than a huge instanced pvp map. The sandbox poster child, Eve, is at #25.

 

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10507

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

12/05/12 12:52:02 PM#602


Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Caliburn101

 
And naturally these sort of players believe with a breathtaking degree to certainty that MMOs cannot be anything other than flash in the pan affairs - and that designers cannot create persistently engaging worlds, or reconcile themepark and sandbox successfully. They are as 'fast food' in their thinking as their gaming.
Oh, you are confused. It is not that we believe it is impossible for designers to create persistently engaging worlds, it is that we do not care.

Given enough money, anything is possible. But i am skeptical if it is probable. Look at the really successful online games. How many depends on a online shared virtual world? If you use xfire to compare games, PS2 is the highest at #16 .. and it has limited interaction .. no difference than a huge instanced pvp map. The sandbox poster child, Eve, is at #25.

 




Steam gives similar results. Game centric products heavily outweigh the World centric products in terms of players.

It's not surprising that developers go with a Game centric approach given how popular it is and how well it seems to work in general. That doesn't mean there isn't a market and it doesn't mean a developer couldn't make money with a World centric approach. It just means the deck is stacked in favor of a game approach.

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

  tablo

Novice Member

Joined: 6/27/05
Posts: 41

12/05/12 12:58:53 PM#603
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Caliburn101
 

And naturally these sort of players believe with a breathtaking degree to certainty that MMOs cannot be anything other than flash in the pan affairs - and that designers cannot create persistently engaging worlds, or reconcile themepark and sandbox successfully.

They are as 'fast food' in their thinking as their gaming.

Oh, you are confused. It is not that we believe it is impossible for designers to create persistently engaging worlds, it is that we do not care.

Given enough money, anything is possible. But i am skeptical if it is probable. Look at the really successful online games. How many depends on a online shared virtual world? If you use xfire to compare games, PS2 is the highest at #16 .. and it has limited interaction .. no difference than a huge instanced pvp map. The sandbox poster child, Eve, is at #25.

 

I know for a fact people want to play these games and EVE really does not appeal to most peopel interested in the genre for several reasons. You don't even like mmos and have yet to contribute anything to the conversation. All you're doing is repeating over and over how you hate sandboxes and how you think they will fail. Go start your own thread about d3 or whatever you play and leave the people here alone.

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 19455

12/05/12 1:07:50 PM#604
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Caliburn101

 
And naturally these sort of players believe with a breathtaking degree to certainty that MMOs cannot be anything other than flash in the pan affairs - and that designers cannot create persistently engaging worlds, or reconcile themepark and sandbox successfully. They are as 'fast food' in their thinking as their gaming.
Oh, you are confused. It is not that we believe it is impossible for designers to create persistently engaging worlds, it is that we do not care.

 

Given enough money, anything is possible. But i am skeptical if it is probable. Look at the really successful online games. How many depends on a online shared virtual world? If you use xfire to compare games, PS2 is the highest at #16 .. and it has limited interaction .. no difference than a huge instanced pvp map. The sandbox poster child, Eve, is at #25.

 




Steam gives similar results. Game centric products heavily outweigh the World centric products in terms of players.

It's not surprising that developers go with a Game centric approach given how popular it is and how well it seems to work in general. That doesn't mean there isn't a market and it doesn't mean a developer couldn't make money with a World centric approach. It just means the deck is stacked in favor of a game approach.

 

I think there are two negatives that prevent world centric online games to become popular. First, for it to be good, it needs a huge amount of investment. It is cost prohibitive to test all the interacting systems properly. Even WOW, which has a tremendous amount of polish, and quite limited world interaction, still have bugs, and Blizz is certainly not short on budget.

Secondly, there are other very compeling, much more focus gaming experiences. If an open world sandbox is not that big of an improvement, over non-open world experiences, and if it won't attract significant more paying players, why should a dev bothers with it?

Now there is always a niche that will want sandbox or nothing (and any other type of gaming preferences), but that is usually not a reason to start $10+M  investments. And unfortunately, unlike something like graphical adventures, it is much more difficult to have small indie efforts to do this.

 

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 19455

12/05/12 1:11:45 PM#605
Originally posted by tablo
 

I know for a fact people want to play these games and EVE really does not appeal to most peopel interested in the genre for several reasons. You don't even like mmos and have yet to contribute anything to the conversation. All you're doing is repeating over and over how you hate sandboxes and how you think they will fail. Go start your own thread about d3 or whatever you play and leave the people here alone.

1) I don't like Eve, UO .. and sandbox MMOs. I like WOW, DCUO, and many other MMOs enough.

2) I am not the only one who said i want a game, instead of a world in this thread. Go back and read it all.

3) Whether i hate sandbox or not ... is independent whether it will fail. The market decides that. You can keep you head in the sand. I like lock room mystery too .. and i am not under the illusion that it will become popular again. I don't like twilight, but i am under no illusion that it will die off. My preference is pretty much independent of what is going to happen in the market. May be you should be less emotional and see actually what is happening.

4) If you can't deal with opinions you don't like, it is your problem. Not mine. I am more than happy to discuss the preference of game over world here .. which is very much on topic.

  Lucioon

Novice Member

Joined: 1/12/06
Posts: 840

12/05/12 1:15:08 PM#606
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Caliburn101

 
And naturally these sort of players believe with a breathtaking degree to certainty that MMOs cannot be anything other than flash in the pan affairs - and that designers cannot create persistently engaging worlds, or reconcile themepark and sandbox successfully. They are as 'fast food' in their thinking as their gaming.
Oh, you are confused. It is not that we believe it is impossible for designers to create persistently engaging worlds, it is that we do not care.

 

Given enough money, anything is possible. But i am skeptical if it is probable. Look at the really successful online games. How many depends on a online shared virtual world? If you use xfire to compare games, PS2 is the highest at #16 .. and it has limited interaction .. no difference than a huge instanced pvp map. The sandbox poster child, Eve, is at #25.

 




Steam gives similar results. Game centric products heavily outweigh the World centric products in terms of players.

It's not surprising that developers go with a Game centric approach given how popular it is and how well it seems to work in general. That doesn't mean there isn't a market and it doesn't mean a developer couldn't make money with a World centric approach. It just means the deck is stacked in favor of a game approach.

 

I think there are two negatives that prevent world centric online games to become popular. First, for it to be good, it needs a huge amount of investment. It is cost prohibitive to test all the interacting systems properly. Even WOW, which has a tremendous amount of polish, and quite limited world interaction, still have bugs, and Blizz is certainly not short on budget.

Secondly, there are other very compeling, much more focus gaming experiences. If an open world sandbox is not that big of an improvement, over non-open world experiences, and if it won't attract significant more paying players, why should a dev bothers with it?

Now there is always a niche that will want sandbox or nothing (and any other type of gaming preferences), but that is usually not a reason to start $10+M  investments. And unfortunately, unlike something like graphical adventures, it is much more difficult to have small indie efforts to do this.

 

You are correct that no one would risk their millions on an unproven concept like Worlds. Especially when a complete game will require years to develop correctly. 

But that is if you are thinking of an fully complete MMORPG as Worlds. 

If we take a step back and look at Minecraft, where its an Unique concept, with graphics that isn't Photo Realism, yet it captured Millions of Player's attention. 

I think that should be the route that developers even Indie developers should take, to develope this indea into an popular idea and polish it where worlds can be used in future MMO.

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: 19455

12/05/12 1:22:24 PM#607
Originally posted by Lucioon

 

You are correct that no one would risk their millions on an unproven concept like Worlds. Especially when a complete game will require years to develop correctly. 

But that is if you are thinking of an fully complete MMORPG as Worlds. 

If we take a step back and look at Minecraft, where its an Unique concept, with graphics that isn't Photo Realism, yet it captured Millions of Player's attention. 

I think that should be the route that developers even Indie developers should take, to develope this indea into an popular idea and polish it where worlds can be used in future MMO.

I think something like another Minecraft is certainly possible. But i highly doubt a properly made online fantasy open world game can be done as an indie effort. The requirement of art assets, and combat mechanics programming is just too high. I remember there was a indie mmo called LOVE .. and that also have to resort to very simple graphics .. which obviously is not enough for a fantasy world.

What devs "should" do is obviously our preference and even wishful thinking.

I don't see why devs really needs to be gung-ho on the virtual world idea. There are plenty of non-virtual world gameplay style that is much easier to do .. and have space for innovation.

Recently success like WOT shows that you don't even need a world (sandbox or not) to be successful. That is another direction devs "should" pay attention to. Or you can look at PS2 .. where you do have a large world, but simplified interactions to only FPS pvp (and some communications).

 

  tablo

Novice Member

Joined: 6/27/05
Posts: 41

12/05/12 1:33:46 PM#608
Originally posted by nariusseldon

1) I don't like Eve, UO .. and sandbox MMOs. I like WOW, DCUO, and many other MMOs enough.

Fair enough, but earlier in the thread you seemed to indicate you wanted MMOs to become lobby games like LOL, which are not MMOs.

2) I am not the only one who said i want a game, instead of a world in this thread. Go back and read it all.

I read the entire thread before making my post and I realize you aren't the only one that would prefer a game to a world. What drew me to respond to you was the fact that you have made the least constructive posts in the thread and have spent your time doing nothing except bashing sandbox games. I understand not liking them, but derailing a thread like this is poor forum ettiquette.

3) Whether i hate sandbox or not ... is independent whether it will fail. The market decides that. You can keep you head in the sand. I like lock room mystery too .. and i am not under the illusion that it will become popular again. I don't like twilight, but i am under no illusion that it will die off. My preference is pretty much independent of what is going to happen in the market. May be you should be less emotional and see actually what is happening.

I don't see how they will fail. I'm also not under the illusion that sandbox games are WoW-killers or will completely replace theme-park MMOs. The point is that there is a market for both as has been clearly demonstrated in the past. Let's also not ignore the rather large number of sandbox games on the horizon, which includes some AAA titles. Though, I suppose we will have to wait and see how well they do. You aren't posting because you think they will fail, you are posting because you WANT them to fail.

4) If you can't deal with opinions you don't like, it is your problem. Not mine. I am more than happy to discuss the preference of game over world here .. which is very much on topic.

I can deal with opinions when they is some way contribute to the conversation. What you have done is completely derailed a thread because you have some kind of vendetta against a particular type of game, sandboxes. Going on and on about how sandbox games will fail is not in any way on-topic. The was about worlds vs. games, not sandbox vs. themepark or whether sandboxes can/will be successful in the market.

 

 

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 19455

12/05/12 2:05:33 PM#609
Originally posted by tablo
Originally posted by nariusseldon

1) I don't like Eve, UO .. and sandbox MMOs. I like WOW, DCUO, and many other MMOs enough.

Fair enough, but earlier in the thread you seemed to indicate you wanted MMOs to become lobby games like LOL, which are not MMOs.

You misread me. My position is:

1) I like some MMOs (as stated). I also like non-MMO like D3, WOT, PS2 (i don't like and i don't play LOL). And i think some non-MMO game play style is very close to MMO .. and i make little distinction in my gaming choice.

2) I don "want" anything. I am merely state my preference. I don't care if all MMOs become non-MMO .. and vice versa. But at the same time, i do have an assessment (not desire .. assessment) of where the market is going to go, and that is NOT in the direction of sandbox virtual world MMOs.

2) I am not the only one who said i want a game, instead of a world in this thread. Go back and read it all.

I read the entire thread before making my post and I realize you aren't the only one that would prefer a game to a world. What drew me to respond to you was the fact that you have made the least constructive posts in the thread and have spent your time doing nothing except bashing sandbox games. I understand not liking them, but derailing a thread like this is poor forum ettiquette.

"Constructive" is in teh eye of the beholder. This thread is a discussion of game vs world. It just happens i sit on the opposite side of you. I think it is highly non constructive to rehash all the rant of a lack of sandbox games, will you stop doing that? I think not.

3) Whether i hate sandbox or not ... is independent whether it will fail. The market decides that. You can keep you head in the sand. I like lock room mystery too .. and i am not under the illusion that it will become popular again. I don't like twilight, but i am under no illusion that it will die off. My preference is pretty much independent of what is going to happen in the market. May be you should be less emotional and see actually what is happening.

I don't see how they will fail. I'm also not under the illusion that sandbox games are WoW-killers or will completely replace theme-park MMOs. The point is that there is a market for both as has been clearly demonstrated in the past. Let's also not ignore the rather large number of sandbox games on the horizon, which includes some AAA titles. Though, I suppose we will have to wait and see how well they do. You aren't posting because you think they will fail, you are posting because you WANT them to fail.

My point (3) is not saying sandbox will fail .. is that whether "i hate it" has nothing to do with its chance of success. I hope you can follow that argument. Surely there are sandbox on the horizon, and there is Eve.

On the other hand, there is also data showing no sandbox has achieve level of success of online "games". Do you disagree with that statement?

4) If you can't deal with opinions you don't like, it is your problem. Not mine. I am more than happy to discuss the preference of game over world here .. which is very much on topic.

I can deal with opinions when they is some way contribute to the conversation. What you have done is completely derailed a thread because you have some kind of vendetta against a particular type of game, sandboxes. Going on and on about how sandbox games will fail is not in any way on-topic. The was about worlds vs. games, not sandbox vs. themepark or whether sandboxes can/will be successful in the market.

Now you are guessing my purpose.

Actually i don't think you can deal with opinions .. snice the way you deal with them is to classify them as "vendetta" and "non-constructive".

If that is your approach, you can feel free to ignore me.

Plus, sandbox is a kind of world game .. it is fair to discuss it (and its chance of success) in a topic about game vs world.

 

 

 

  tablo

Novice Member

Joined: 6/27/05
Posts: 41

12/05/12 2:39:28 PM#610
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by tablo
Originally posted by nariusseldon

1) I don't like Eve, UO .. and sandbox MMOs. I like WOW, DCUO, and many other MMOs enough.

Fair enough, but earlier in the thread you seemed to indicate you wanted MMOs to become lobby games like LOL, which are not MMOs.

You misread me. My position is:

1) I like some MMOs (as stated). I also like non-MMO like D3, WOT, PS2 (i don't like and i don't play LOL). And i think some non-MMO game play style is very close to MMO .. and i make little distinction in my gaming choice.

2) I don "want" anything. I am merely state my preference. I don't care if all MMOs become non-MMO .. and vice versa. But at the same time, i do have an assessment (not desire .. assessment) of where the market is going to go, and that is NOT in the direction of sandbox virtual world MMOs.

I see. That's fine then. I disagree about your assessment of the market, but that is a discussion for another thread.

2) I am not the only one who said i want a game, instead of a world in this thread. Go back and read it all.

I read the entire thread before making my post and I realize you aren't the only one that would prefer a game to a world. What drew me to respond to you was the fact that you have made the least constructive posts in the thread and have spent your time doing nothing except bashing sandbox games. I understand not liking them, but derailing a thread like this is poor forum ettiquette.

"Constructive" is in teh eye of the beholder. This thread is a discussion of game vs world. It just happens i sit on the opposite side of you. I think it is highly non constructive to rehash all the rant of a lack of sandbox games, will you stop doing that? I think not.

Opposite side? I like games and worlds. I don't see how I'm on the complete opposite side. I don't see why I can't like both. There is a lack of sandbox games, but I agree it is better not to discuss it since it is off-topic.

3) Whether i hate sandbox or not ... is independent whether it will fail. The market decides that. You can keep you head in the sand. I like lock room mystery too .. and i am not under the illusion that it will become popular again. I don't like twilight, but i am under no illusion that it will die off. My preference is pretty much independent of what is going to happen in the market. May be you should be less emotional and see actually what is happening.

I don't see how they will fail. I'm also not under the illusion that sandbox games are WoW-killers or will completely replace theme-park MMOs. The point is that there is a market for both as has been clearly demonstrated in the past. Let's also not ignore the rather large number of sandbox games on the horizon, which includes some AAA titles. Though, I suppose we will have to wait and see how well they do. You aren't posting because you think they will fail, you are posting because you WANT them to fail.

My point (3) is not saying sandbox will fail .. is that whether "i hate it" has nothing to do with its chance of success. I hope you can follow that argument. Surely there are sandbox on the horizon, and there is Eve.

On the other hand, there is also data showing no sandbox has achieve level of success of online "games". Do you disagree with that statement?

I completely agree. You know how many copies of Counter-Strike have been sold? Not to mention the f2p versions released overseas. Most gamers like normal games and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't see the point you are trying to get at? Not everyone plays mmos. Even games like LoL are small compared to social games like Farmville and mobile games like Angry Birds. Though I guess those particular ones aren't as popular anymore.

4) If you can't deal with opinions you don't like, it is your problem. Not mine. I am more than happy to discuss the preference of game over world here .. which is very much on topic.

I can deal with opinions when they is some way contribute to the conversation. What you have done is completely derailed a thread because you have some kind of vendetta against a particular type of game, sandboxes. Going on and on about how sandbox games will fail is not in any way on-topic. The was about worlds vs. games, not sandbox vs. themepark or whether sandboxes can/will be successful in the market.

Now you are guessing my purpose.

Actually i don't think you can deal with opinions .. snice the way you deal with them is to classify them as "vendetta" and "non-constructive".

If that is your approach, you can feel free to ignore me.

Plus, sandbox is a kind of world game .. it is fair to discuss it (and its chance of success) in a topic about game vs world.

I can deal with opinions fine. There was nothing constructive going on.

Hard to ignore you when you are making half the posts in a thread.

But this is still not just about sandboxes. There are other ways to do world games and you are just turning this into the internets ten trillionth sandbox vs. themepark debate. There is a sticky for that discussion so take it there.

 

 

 

  DarthRichardson

Novice Member

Joined: 12/04/12
Posts: 6

12/05/12 2:52:22 PM#611
Well said. Ultimately the creators of new MMOs are going to be like Hollywood for a while: churn out the same versions of the same thing we've seen a million times before...because that sells. Until one world comes along, takes some risks and builds an imaginative new experience for gamers that changes the tide and starts its own trend. WOW did it. We're just waiting for another world to rival it's dominance.
  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 19455

12/05/12 2:52:26 PM#612
Originally posted by tablo

I completely agree. You know how many copies of Counter-Strike have been sold? Not to mention the f2p versions released overseas. Most gamers like normal games and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't see the point you are trying to get at? Not everyone plays mmos. Even games like LoL are small compared to social games like Farmville and mobile games like Angry Birds. Though I guess those particular ones aren't as popular anymore.

But the point is that a online world game (not a sandbox .. a world game .. since you seem to want to make the distinction) that allows thousands of interacting players cost a lot to make. Farmville and Angry Birds are cheap to make.
The better comparison is COD, or HALO. If you go by xfire numbers, LOL has more online players than even COD. So LOL is not that small.
The point is world games are complicated, and expensive to do well. And that is why i don't think the benefit-cost ratio is in its favor, and i don't predict it will be a trend in the industry.

But this is still not just about sandboxes. There are other ways to do world games and you are just turning this into the internets ten trillionth sandbox vs. themepark debate. There is a sticky for that discussion so take it there.

  Actually i was talking about online world games ... so it is fine to not focus on sandbox. At the same time, i hold the position that the primary puprose of a game (for me) is to entertain, and having a world is not always necessarily, and sometimes too much of a reaslitic world simulation (like require the user to wait or walk a lot) is detrimental to fun.

 

 

 

 

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10507

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

12/05/12 2:54:06 PM#613


Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Lucioon

 
You are correct that no one would risk their millions on an unproven concept like Worlds. Especially when a complete game will require years to develop correctly.  But that is if you are thinking of an fully complete MMORPG as Worlds.  If we take a step back and look at Minecraft, where its an Unique concept, with graphics that isn't Photo Realism, yet it captured Millions of Player's attention.  I think that should be the route that developers even Indie developers should take, to develope this indea into an popular idea and polish it where worlds can be used in future MMO.
I think something like another Minecraft is certainly possible. But i highly doubt a properly made online fantasy open world game can be done as an indie effort. The requirement of art assets, and combat mechanics programming is just too high. I remember there was a indie mmo called LOVE .. and that also have to resort to very simple graphics .. which obviously is not enough for a fantasy world.

What devs "should" do is obviously our preference and even wishful thinking.

I don't see why devs really needs to be gung-ho on the virtual world idea. There are plenty of non-virtual world gameplay style that is much easier to do .. and have space for innovation.

Recently success like WOT shows that you don't even need a world (sandbox or not) to be successful. That is another direction devs "should" pay attention to. Or you can look at PS2 .. where you do have a large world, but simplified interactions to only FPS pvp (and some communications).

 




I play Minecraft almost every day on a mcMMO server and I run my own server. I have enjoyed playing Minecraft for many months, mostly because of the interactivity with the world. However, I think Minecraft is one of the worst examples of what developers should do with MMORPG in terms of game mechanics. It boils down to, if other players can ruin your experience, other players will ruin your experience, whether they mean to or not. Worlds full of holes that are nearly impossible to even run across, much less play on and gauntlets of players with more resources that you have to run through just to get someplace where you can even hide, much less build are common. It's ridiculous.

However, one thing I think developers should take from Minecraft is private servers. Many MMORPG would work fine if the developer wrote a server for the game capable of running on a single machine like the Minecraft servers. There are people who have done this with emulators...but I think it would work better if the developers themselves did it. Of course, is it even an MMORPG if millions of people are playing a game, but they are spread out over thousands of servers? I don't know. It would make world centric games more viable though, even if it didn't make world centric MMORPG more common. :-)

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: 19455

12/05/12 2:58:45 PM#614
Originally posted by DarthRichardson
Well said. Ultimately the creators of new MMOs are going to be like Hollywood for a while: churn out the same versions of the same thing we've seen a million times before...because that sells. Until one world comes along, takes some risks and builds an imaginative new experience for gamers that changes the tide and starts its own trend. WOW did it. We're just waiting for another world to rival it's dominance.

I don't doubt this business model. But i highly doubt the new trend is going to be virtual world games. They have been tried before.

In fact, the trend has already changed .. WOW was a world game .. and now more a lobby co-op dungeon and arena pvp game. Isn't that responding to players' preference?

Isn't it possible that the experience is going to be even more fusion between SP games and MMOs?

Look at Dishonored .. it is highly successful because of its new setting, and fuse elements of steam punk & stealth. May be MMO has a revival ilke that? Fuse a new setting, with more assessible online game featuers like friend list, and cross server functionalities.

  nariusseldon

Elite Member

Joined: 12/21/07
Posts: 19455

12/05/12 3:04:06 PM#615
Originally posted by lizardbones


However, one thing I think developers should take from Minecraft is private servers. Many MMORPG would work fine if the developer wrote a server for the game capable of running on a single machine like the Minecraft servers. There are people who have done this with emulators...but I think it would work better if the developers themselves did it. Of course, is it even an MMORPG if millions of people are playing a game, but they are spread out over thousands of servers? I don't know. It would make world centric games more viable though, even if it didn't make world centric MMORPG more common. :-)

 

This is not a new idea ... NWN has that .. you essentially run your own little dungeon server. But it is not a MMO (which frankly i don't care a lot about the MMO-ness of a game .. but some do).

The biggest issue, however, if progression is important for the game, is that cheating would be uncontrollable. Either you have to disallow characters moving from one server to another (which will be bad because everyone want their toons to have some permanencies) or you have to live with whatever toon another player brings to your server, whether he earns the power or not.

 

  DSWBeef

Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/09
Posts: 771

12/05/12 3:39:23 PM#616
Well said OP. I play games to escape the world I live in. If I want to "game" i would play a shooter or an rts. But when I play an mmo or rpg I wanna get sucked in and forget about the world we are really in. When I play an mmo or rpg that does it right the world around me falls away and my chars mind is replaced by my mind, I use my imagination to place myself in that world. Many modern day mmos this really isnt possible by making it a linear quest hub chase. The last game where I truly got lost in its wonder was Vangaurd.

Playing: Archeage Alpha, War Thunder, World of Tanks
Waiting on: Archeage, Wild Star, Everquest Next and The Black Desert

  Aelious

Elite Member

Joined: 9/27/11
Posts: 2355

World > Quest Progression

12/05/12 4:47:14 PM#617
Putting my personal preference aside I don't think "worlds" will be all that come out for MMOs now but we know a few that are coming. We'll have to see how they do as opposed to how closed-in themeparks are doing now.

I do not doubt there are more MMO players than MMORPG players so games will continue to get more simplified in an effort to be as "user friendly" as possible.
  Kyleran

Bitter Vet™

Joined: 9/13/06
Posts: 18932

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

12/05/12 4:54:55 PM#618
Originally posted by Lobotomist
Originally posted by Whitebeards
Originally posted by Lobotomist
Originally posted by Whitebeards
 

Lead by an example if you really want to speak for 'us'.

Start by stop buying and supporting games like GW2. When you cna do that i will take you more seriously.

I will totally change my game buying habbits right now ! Because I really care that you personally take me seriously.

So why even bother to make OP then? because if continue to support games like GW2 and then make an OP about wanting a world and ask 'if we will ever get it'. What is the point? just to raise the stink?

No one takes an alcoholic seriously when he gives advice to others on stop drinking because it is bad for their health. You need to stop drinking first and then you can speak on behalf of others. Simple logic.

So yeah sorry bud but you do need to change your gaming habits to give credibility to your OP. All i see is double standards especially when you write stuff like this...

And we have what we have today. Shallow abominations. Most laughable of which would be MMOs that came 2012. Basically Single player games with other people running around.

Sounds more like a politician talk to me.

Lets consider the crazy possibility that person can enjoy several different types of games.

GW2 is high quality game with very dedicated team behind it. Its fun CASUAL game. But should not be considered real MMO - world. As nothing made 2012 should.

And I think its also very important game for MMO history - because it put the nail in the coffin of subscription fees for themepark games.

I think everyone should buy it , and thus demonstrate that we dont want to pay subscription for shallow themepark games anymore.

 

You're correct, you are just talking crazy here, its all about the MMORPG and preferably those that emulate virutual worlds vs lobbies.

And there's a poster or two on these forums who are currently playing GW2 and claim to be eagerly awaiting DF:UW and I just find that hard to fathom. 

They are like two opposite philosophies.  Oh well, some folks can listen to Country Music and Rap on the same CD, (not I) so why not?  (edit: wait, that would be like listening to Bad and Worse, so not that surprising after all)

 

"In these forums 'honest' seems to be a symonym for 'hates the game just like I do'" - ohioastro
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

  Suraknar

Apprentice Member

Joined: 12/26/07
Posts: 808

*Everyone dies, not everyone really fights*

12/06/12 1:14:59 AM#619
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Suraknar

But I will agree with you that words alone are not enough and some action is in order, for now my action is to close my wallet on every new Themepark.

How is that working out so far?

 

Pretty good actually. So good that the industry is switching to F2P mode. :)

A bit more and maybe the Investors will start demanding World MMO's because there is no money to be made in Themeparks.

Since it has come down to this level where a Design of an MMo is decided by a Customer tendency Chart, well guess what, the chart is reflecting our tendency, and so we are in a position to change it.

- Duke Suraknar -
Order of the Silver Star, OSS


ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard

  Caliburn101

Novice Member

Joined: 3/30/11
Posts: 647

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein

12/06/12 3:53:48 AM#620
Originally posted by Suraknar
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Suraknar

But I will agree with you that words alone are not enough and some action is in order, for now my action is to close my wallet on every new Themepark.

How is that working out so far?

 

Pretty good actually. So good that the industry is switching to F2P mode. :)

A bit more and maybe the Investors will start demanding World MMO's because there is no money to be made in Themeparks.

Since it has come down to this level where a Design of an MMo is decided by a Customer tendency Chart, well guess what, the chart is reflecting our tendency, and so we are in a position to change it.

I think due to market forces, compteition and the glut of F2P short-life themeparks on the market at the moment, an immersive world platform which caters for a wide range of players and charges subs is innevitable.

There are too many companies chasing the same pool of customers usng the same short-lived themepark models.

Something has to give - and it seems to me that it is less likely that games companies walk away from the genre entirely or become so ultra-specialised they further narrow their customer base.

You get more fish with a wider net - even if you have to initially invest in a bigger boat... 

37 Pages First « 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 » Last Search