But when they are lobby games

They aren't MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER online role playing games anymore.

They are ODGs. (online dungeon grinders)

Originally posted by ShakyMo
But when they are lobby games

They aren't MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER online role playing games anymore.

They are ODGs. (online dungeon grinders)

That is just semantics. I don't really care what you call them.

This, and other gaming site (like massively) is calling WOW, DCUO, DDO, ... MMOs .. so i will use that label for convenience. When you convince the gaming public that TOR and WOW should be called ODGs, i will use that label.

I like to talk about specific games, not labels.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Axxar
I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.

Which, from my perspective, is 100x better than worldly at the expense of the game part.

Exactly so.  These are games first, everything else, be it an MMO, FPS, RTS, platformer, etc. a distant second.  If it's not fun, if it doesn't draw you in and make you want to play, then everything else is irrelevant.

Yeah ..

And no design feature should be sacred. Look at the big successes. In the past, Diablo became a big success because it did away with all the story in RPGs, and focus on combat.

Recently, LOL and WOT are successes because it focuses on instanced PvP combat, and don't even bother with a world. 

For people who claim they want innovation, it is sad to see they are clinging to old ideas done back in UO, EQ and DAOC.

 

The problem is not with the phrase "they should be a game first", but with your understanding of the word game and fun, which seems to me quite narrow.

What you are essentially arguing is that the quality of the slot machine is the most important asset and things like actually winning money , the lights, free drinks and overall atmosphere of the casino are irrelevant.

Which they arent, otherwise most of us would have their slot machine at home (if you dont argue that i am writing this on one :) ) and casinos would run out of business.

The end result is always a combination of factors, even in diablo we have atmosphere, story (... vision milky then eyes rot ...), skill, stat and item metagames which complement and not disrupt each other, which in my opinion is the most important factor.

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Axxar
I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.

Which, from my perspective, is 100x better than worldly at the expense of the game part.

Exactly so.  These are games first, everything else, be it an MMO, FPS, RTS, platformer, etc. a distant second.  If it's not fun, if it doesn't draw you in and make you want to play, then everything else is irrelevant.

Yeah ..

And no design feature should be sacred. Look at the big successes. In the past, Diablo became a big success because it did away with all the story in RPGs, and focus on combat.

Recently, LOL and WOT are successes because it focuses on instanced PvP combat, and don't even bother with a world. 

For people who claim they want innovation, it is sad to see they are clinging to old ideas done back in UO, EQ and DAOC.

 

The problem is not with the phrase "they should be a game first", but with your understanding of the word game and fun, which seems to me quite narrow.

What you are essentially arguing is that the quality of the slot machine is the most important asset and things like actually winning money , the lights, free drinks and overall atmosphere of the casino are irrelevant.

Which they arent, otherwise most of us would have their slot machine at home (if you dont argue that i am writing this on one :) ) and casinos would run out of business.

The end result is always a combination of factors, even in diablo we have atmosphere, story (... vision milky then eyes rot ...), skill, stat and item metagames which complement and not disrupt each other, which in my opinion is the most important factor.

Flame on!

:)

What narrow? In fact, i think my view is more open .. nothing is sacred .. and all possibility (say without a world) should be considered.

What i am arguing is that if certain features (like i am forced to spend 20 min traveling before fighting in a dungeon) do not add fun to me, then i do not want it in my game. It is a feature by feature determination.

No one says atmosphere and story are not important. But i do enjoy the combat and progression first and foremost.

And why do you think i play MMOs and put up with some of the slower aspect of it? That is because i took the whole picture into account. I can't completely get rid of walking if i like the wow classes, right?

Folks this thread is aimed at; seriously, try Vanguard.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Axxar
I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.

Which, from my perspective, is 100x better than worldly at the expense of the game part.

Exactly so.  These are games first, everything else, be it an MMO, FPS, RTS, platformer, etc. a distant second.  If it's not fun, if it doesn't draw you in and make you want to play, then everything else is irrelevant.

That is where some of us differs from the rest. There are tons of games out there and you, and I, can play those. MMORPGs were supposed to be beyond that so that they are no longer just games but virtual worlds first. And evolution of gaming so to speak.

But like I said, there is no reason why you cant have both games and virtual worlds. Me personally have been playing games for over 25 years and I want something different, as well. I want games to evolve.

Originally posted by strangiato2112

 

GW2 is closer to the world feeling but i feel its not quite there.  the capital cities are by far the best thing in the game to that extent.  So full of life and flavor.

 

So full of life?   Are you joking?

Give me a game like SWG where at least I could find other players in a tavern, where they had an actual reason for existing, instead of just wandering into one once to pick up the "point of interest" then never visit it again.  Perhaps having a tavern as an actual gathering place for players.   Instead of spamming zone chat in a city where everyone's standing on top of the bank or something....  That's not what I would consider full of life.   Just useless clutter.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Axxar
I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.

Which, from my perspective, is 100x better than worldly at the expense of the game part.

Exactly so.  These are games first, everything else, be it an MMO, FPS, RTS, platformer, etc. a distant second.  If it's not fun, if it doesn't draw you in and make you want to play, then everything else is irrelevant.

That is where some of us differs from the rest. There are tons of games out there and you, and I, can play those. MMORPGs were supposed to be beyond that so that they are no longer just games but virtual worlds first. And evolution of gaming so to speak.

But like I said, there is no reason why you cant have both games and virtual worlds. Me personally have been playing games for over 25 years and I want something different, as well. I want games to evolve.

Why should MMORPG to be "beyond" that .. just because they have worlds? Skyrim has a world too .. and it is jsut a RPG. MMORPGs are entertainment product. I judge them as such and compete with other forms of entertainment. No more and no less.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Axxar
I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.

Which, from my perspective, is 100x better than worldly at the expense of the game part.

Exactly so.  These are games first, everything else, be it an MMO, FPS, RTS, platformer, etc. a distant second.  If it's not fun, if it doesn't draw you in and make you want to play, then everything else is irrelevant.

That is where some of us differs from the rest. There are tons of games out there and you, and I, can play those. MMORPGs were supposed to be beyond that so that they are no longer just games but virtual worlds first. And evolution of gaming so to speak.

But like I said, there is no reason why you cant have both games and virtual worlds. Me personally have been playing games for over 25 years and I want something different, as well. I want games to evolve.

Why should MMORPG to be "beyond" that .. just because they have worlds? Skyrim has a world too .. and it is jsut a RPG. MMORPGs are entertainment product. I judge them as such and compete with other forms of entertainment. No more and no less.

No I am basing my view on UO and how Richard Garriot and his team tried to create a game where you was one in a persistant virtual world of thousands of others and not the central hero as in other games.

And yes they are still entertainment but taking it to the other level. Games where you are the central hero has existed for decades in a million of forms. MMORPGs, or rather UO and a handful of other MMORPGs, tried to take it to the next level.

Less or more entertaining? That is entirely subjective, some people simply dont want to live in a virtual world and be "just" uncle owen (or Luke if he is good enough) but some people do. Problem is that now the genre has been flooded with MMORPGS which play more or less like a single player game with the only difference being is that you play on a central server. That is not what MMORPGs were about. Not in my opinion anyway.

Originally posted by Yamota

UO and a handful of other MMORPGs, tried to take it to the next level.

There is no "other level", "higher level", "next level" or anything like that. There is no spoon!

Ultima 7 has more world than many MMORPGs.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Yamota

UO and a handful of other MMORPGs, tried to take it to the next level.

There is no "other level", "higher level", "next level" or anything like that. There is no spoon!

What a terribly limited understanding you have on how everything works. There's always the next level with anything. Just because you cannot see it or do not want to see it, doesn't change this reality.

You and Matt Firor should do tea sometime. Now that would be an exciting conversation ;)

Originally posted by Yamota

 

No I am basing my view on UO and how Richard Garriot and his team tried to create a game where you was one in a persistant virtual world of thousands of others and not the central hero as in other games.

And yes they are still entertainment but taking it to the other level. Games where you are the central hero has existed for decades in a million of forms. MMORPGs, or rather UO and a handful of other MMORPGs, tried to take it to the next level.

Less or more entertaining? That is entirely subjective, some people simply dont want to live in a virtual world and be "just" uncle owen (or Luke if he is good enough) but some people do. Problem is that now the genre has been flooded with MMORPGS which play more or less like a single player game with the only difference being is that you play on a central server. That is not what MMORPGs were about. Not in my opinion anyway.

You are totally right on that fact that entertaining is totally subjective. Dishonored .. a level base stealth game is 100x more fun to me than UO & EQ combined. I doubt i would ever choose a vritual world game over it, or diablo 3, or borderlands 2, or Deus Ex.

Now the phenomenon of MMO being flooded with lobby based games (like be fair, wow is not like a SP game, it is more like Diablo with slower but co-op combat) is totally driven by the market. What a genre is about often changes. This is one of those. If you want to call the new crop of MMOs a new name, that is ok too but i doubt if the old style one virtual world type MMO will ever be popular again.

 

Originally posted by Yamota

That is where some of us differs from the rest. There are tons of games out there and you, and I, can play those. MMORPGs were supposed to be beyond that so that they are no longer just games but virtual worlds first. And evolution of gaming so to speak.

But like I said, there is no reason why you cant have both games and virtual worlds. Me personally have been playing games for over 25 years and I want something different, as well. I want games to evolve.

I don't buy for a second that MMOs were "supposed to be" anything.  They're not magical.  They're not special.  They're just games.  This whole thing reminds me of the geeks who wanted to put on VR goggles (or plug their brains into a computer) and never have to come out to deal with the real world again.  That is beyond immature and ridiculous.  Live in the real world.

And while no, there is no reason why you can't have both, a game exists, like any other product, based on it's ability to make money for the manufacturer.  If you want there to be virtual worlds, you need to demonstrate that there is a significant market for such a product, who would pay for, not only the initial box sales but the long-term monthly fees.  Developers, though, have not been convinced that such is the case or they'd already be making such things.  Until they are convinced, and that takes hundreds of thousands of people demanding that kind of game specifically, you're just not going to see them, nor should you.

Games take money to make and must make money to continue to be made.  That's how capitalism works.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

You are totally right on that fact that entertaining is totally subjective. Dishonored .. a level base stealth game is 100x more fun to me than UO & EQ combined. I doubt i would ever choose a vritual world game over it, or diablo 3, or borderlands 2, or Deus Ex.

Now the phenomenon of MMO being flooded with lobby based games (like be fair, wow is not like a SP game, it is more like Diablo with slower but co-op combat) is totally driven by the market. What a genre is about often changes. This is one of those. If you want to call the new crop of MMOs a new name, that is ok too but i doubt if the old style one virtual world type MMO will ever be popular again.

 

I agree with you.  To be honest, if there was a never-ending supply of high-end, long-lasting single-player games out there, games like Skyrim or Fallout 3, I'd probably never install an MMO again.  However, good SP games, like good MMOs seem to be few and far between and most SP games just don't last that long.  In the past month alone, I've gone through and replayed a lot of them end to end, including Crysis, Bulletstorm and Black Mesa.  That's three complete games, played by someone who has very little time to play, finished in less than 30 days.  It's no wonder some of us have to jump on the MMO bandwagon just to have something to do between worthwhile SP games.

Now I'm trying to decide if I want to play through the Serious Sam trilogy again or maybe the single-player missions on one of the CoDs.  Decisions, decisions...

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by nariusseldon

You are totally right on that fact that entertaining is totally subjective. Dishonored .. a level base stealth game is 100x more fun to me than UO & EQ combined. I doubt i would ever choose a vritual world game over it, or diablo 3, or borderlands 2, or Deus Ex.

Now the phenomenon of MMO being flooded with lobby based games (like be fair, wow is not like a SP game, it is more like Diablo with slower but co-op combat) is totally driven by the market. What a genre is about often changes. This is one of those. If you want to call the new crop of MMOs a new name, that is ok too but i doubt if the old style one virtual world type MMO will ever be popular again.

 

I agree with you.  To be honest, if there was a never-ending supply of high-end, long-lasting single-player games out there, games like Skyrim or Fallout 3, I'd probably never install an MMO again.  However, good SP games, like good MMOs seem to be few and far between and most SP games just don't last that long.  In the past month alone, I've gone through and replayed a lot of them end to end, including Crysis, Bulletstorm and Black Mesa.  That's three complete games, played by someone who has very little time to play, finished in less than 30 days.  It's no wonder some of us have to jump on the MMO bandwagon just to have something to do between worthwhile SP games.

Now I'm trying to decide if I want to play through the Serious Sam trilogy again or maybe the single-player missions on one of the CoDs.  Decisions, decisions...

I would disagree on one point though. Long-lasting is not necessarily better.

I like Dishonored MUCH better than Skyrim because it does not drone on and on, and you get to see the ending (which is great) and now i can play more games.

Skyrim just took too long. The only type of games that i can play for long term (>3 months) is those where combat itself is fun enough that i don't mind a lot of repetition, and there is enough progression (like Diablo 3 or Borderlands). Skyrim's combat is pretty meh compared to those. Skyrim combat is not even as interesting as WOW, from my point of view.

Actually i think there are many good SP games, and i never have enough time to play them all .. just a few series that i like:

- Diablo, of course.

- Borderland (haven't finished 2 yet)

- Dishonored (very good new entry)

- Deus Ex

- COD

- Dead Space (amazing series)

- Spec Ops (way under-rated game)

- Bioshock (of course)

- Red Faction

.... and i haven't even listed the smaller games like TL2 or infinity blade.

Gaming is pretty good.

I really enjoyed Skyrim. I didn't think the story or combat system were particularly great, and the characters you meet are very shallow. But the world they've scupted is fantastic, with great attention to detail. It was a joy to explore and behold.

 What we need are more games like Atlantica Online , but without the need of putting a few thousand dollars in a cash shop to be able to enjoy the game pass level 90.   Besides Fairy Land and Atlantica Online , I  don't know of any games with a turn based fighting system like old school Final Fantasy games.

Originally posted by Axxar
I really enjoyed Skyrim. I didn't think the story or combat system were particularly great, and the characters you meet are very shallow. But the world they've scupted is fantastic, with great attention to detail. It was a joy to explore and behold.

It was fun for me for a while .. but it got too repetitive and traveling became a chore. Thus, i never finish it.

I prefer games like Deus Ex or Dishonored where the core gameplay is fun, and interesting things happen all the time.

I think there is a bigger majority who like "games" such as halo, mario, etc because they don't really need to think. The story is thought out for them so they just do as they are told. When people play games they want to relax and I think thats why people prefer these types of games instead of open world.