Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Will most player even notice if the virtual world is taken away from MMO pve gameplay?

14567810»

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by MurlockDance
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    So how about not use any definition.

    Let's use examples.

    WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in WOW?

    WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in DCUO?

    WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in DDO?

    ....

    Now there is no confusion. And you ask "How can you pick up a role and be immersed in the world if all you do is sit in a lobby waiting for something to happen otherwise ?" ... it is not like "immersed in the world" is the only reason to play a game, is it?

     

    How about you play your lobby games since you like them and I play my open world MMORPGs since I like them ? Lets not change one genre into something else.

    You are strange, you want less choice for everyone. I want more choice.

    You are making a red herring argument anyway.

    Sure .. go ahead. I will play the lobby MMO. No problem. And i never said open world MMO like PS2 should change. But don't you agree some MMOs are going down to the path of lobby co-op games.

     

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by sunshadow21

    I think that if someone were to execute the rest of the game well enough, and I do appreciate that is a very big if, even if the open world would be missed, the game would still likely be a success. Whether you could call such a game an MMO is another question entirely, but we've already seen one major example where it worked, GW, and a fair number of people are obviously willing to classify that game as an MMO of sorts. It's not a game that I would play, but if it would help loosen up the definition sufficiently to convince publishers and developers that being different is not a financial kiss of death, I'd be wishing all the luck I could throw at it.

    The classficiation is just a red herring that people here throw all the time. Whether game X is a MMO or not, as long as it is listed here with a forum, is fair game for discussion.

    And reasonably people would agree that playing a diablo 3 dungeon, is not so different from playing a WOW one (in the sense that you click a button and go into a 4/5-man instance). In fact, the reason why some non-MMOs are supported here is because they share a large overlap in audience with MMOs.

    And if you look at DDO, it is certainly a legimate game design to focus on small dungeon adventures. It is not clear that it would be a better game if it is made into a true MMO. Isn't the new Neverwinter night following the same approach?

  • SpectralHunterSpectralHunter Member UncommonPosts: 455
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    The classficiation is just a red herring that people here throw all the time. Whether game X is a MMO or not, as long as it is listed here with a forum, is fair game for discussion.

    And reasonably people would agree that playing a diablo 3 dungeon, is not so different from playing a WOW one (in the sense that you click a button and go into a 4/5-man instance). In fact, the reason why some non-MMOs are supported here is because they share a large overlap in audience with MMOs.

    And if you look at DDO, it is certainly a legimate game design to focus on small dungeon adventures. It is not clear that it would be a better game if it is made into a true MMO. Isn't the new Neverwinter night following the same approach?

    I agree that calling a game a MMO or not is not that important a topic.  But in general, historically, MMOs had wide open persistent zones with content (not just lobbies).

    Actually Neverwinter will have persistent areas.  Cryptic wanted to go the DDO route but PWE changed it.

  • AeolynAeolyn Member UncommonPosts: 350
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Take WOW as an example. What are the pve gameplay? Solo-quest, 5-man instanced dungeons and raids. In between dungeons, players waited in a city.

    So what if there is no virtual world? Just a city lobby. Will they even notice the difference?

    You may say .. what about meeting other players when you solo quest? Well, that also don't need a persistent virtual world. You can use an instanced and match random players into it. You will never be seeing 10000 others outside of a city anyway. In fact, most questing players won't want 10000 others to share their quest mobs.

    In DDO, most of the gameplay is in the dungeons. There isn't much of even the open world solo-questing like in WOW.

    LOTRO is similar to WOW.

    In STO, most mission/pve content is in instanced. I do see lots of other players (space ships) in sector space. However, i doubt i would even notice if the sector space is not persistent, or if some of the space ships are NPCs (in fact, some of them are).

    In fact, didn't GW1 tried this idea and was very successful. 

     

     

    I think you're missing the e in pve... what you're describing is more of a pvd or imo just a fighter style game with a few bells and whistles to entertain people while they're waiting for their turn to try and become the biggest baddest on the block. 

     

    What some of us want is the virtual type world(environment) that we can roleplay in(be it a fisher, crafter, explorer, hero or a-hat) that we were given in UO and other like-minded games.  We don't want to just rush through and "win" the game, we want to be able to "live" and play in it and yes some will want to be the "leader" of their pack in it too though that doesn't preclude wanting a world that you can be part of and make a name for yourself in.  In  fact, even though DE's can be fun and all, we don't all want our environments to change to the point that we can never go back and replay them on alts or introduce friends to the world we fell in love with.  Cata in WoW may have been great fun for some but for others, like me, it just killed a large part of the world that was what made me play the game.  Compare it if you will to Trammel in UO.

     

    The only game on the horizon that looks promising in those respects for me is ArcheAge, and even that doesn't quite fit the bill with it's bikini parties and such.  I don't know why games lately have moved so far from the old medieval settings, I guess some people can't seem to marry the idea of teleportation without nuclear weapons, I find good old magic more fun.

  • MurlockDanceMurlockDance Member Posts: 1,223
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Sure .. go ahead. I will play the lobby MMO. No problem. And i never said open world MMO like PS2 should change. But don't you agree some MMOs are going down to the path of lobby co-op games.

    Are you talking about MMORPGs or MMOGs in general ?

    If we are talking about MMORPGs, I do not agree. People can choose to play how they want to, but it is clear to me the devs still support overworld zones.

    I mean just look at MoP : most of the content released is still based in the main world zones. Same with Cataclysm, they revamped Azeroth and added to it, and only released a small number of dungeons during the downtime between its release and MoP's.

    If the world zones are lacking players, it is partly because WoW is losing steam overall. I have noticed a few signs since MoP's release that people aren't playing as heavily as they have been in the past.

    Older games tend to have more people doing high end content which unfortunately seems to be a lot of dungeon instances. There are still many players kicking about the MoP areas at max level though, and I see a lot of people doing crafts, harvesting, getting achievements out in the world, so obviously they are not all queued up all the time waiting in Ogrimmar or whatever.

    In fact, if anything, it seems like real MMORPG devs are going in the opposite direction and giving us more world : ArcheAge, the Repopulation, just to name two in development, and in the case of games released already, Minecraft, Rift, and GW2 for recent releases.

    I am no way saying that open MMORPGs are more popular than MMOGs with lobbies, because I do not have any data to back that up, and since I am not attracted to them, I do not follow them. But remove the open world from MMORPGs and changing everything to MMOG status like DDO, DOTA, or something like that, hell yeah, people would notice and probably bitch once 90% of their game is suddenly removed.

    Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.

    image
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    The classficiation is just a red herring that people here throw all the time. Whether game X is a MMO or not, as long as it is listed here with a forum, is fair game for discussion.

    And reasonably people would agree that playing a diablo 3 dungeon, is not so different from playing a WOW one (in the sense that you click a button and go into a 4/5-man instance). In fact, the reason why some non-MMOs are supported here is because they share a large overlap in audience with MMOs.

    And if you look at DDO, it is certainly a legimate game design to focus on small dungeon adventures. It is not clear that it would be a better game if it is made into a true MMO. Isn't the new Neverwinter night following the same approach?

    I agree that calling a game a MMO or not is not that important a topic.  But in general, historically, MMOs had wide open persistent zones with content (not just lobbies).

    Actually Neverwinter will have persistent areas.  Cryptic wanted to go the DDO route but PWE changed it.

    That is the point. Historically it is so .. but it is changed now. Everything changed.

    Does NWN going to have persistent large world areas? Or just some city zones like Orgrimmar. And surely they will have instanced dungeons as the main adventure gameplay, right?

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by MurlockDance

    If the world zones are lacking players, it is partly because WoW is losing steam overall. I have noticed a few signs since MoP's release that people aren't playing as heavily as they have been in the past.

    Then how come SW and Org are still very crowded?

    Sure WOW is losing player. But the problem of empty world went all the way back to WOTLK

  • MurlockDanceMurlockDance Member Posts: 1,223
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by MurlockDance

    If the world zones are lacking players, it is partly because WoW is losing steam overall. I have noticed a few signs since MoP's release that people aren't playing as heavily as they have been in the past.

    Then how come SW and Org are still very crowded?

    Sure WOW is losing player. But the problem of empty world went all the way back to WOTLK

    Because these are both the main social hubs for the game ?

    Guess what ? Ogrimmar has always been crowded, even before the df tool existed and before people could teleport straight to their dungeon-of-choice.

    And there is no proof that everyone in Ogrimmar is waiting in some sort of queue, never leaving to go out into the large and dangerous Azeroth world. I have seen a lot of evidence that tells me that many people are not in Ogrimmar just to be in queue, after all, they could be anywhere in the world and in a queue.

    They might just be in Ogrimmar because they are doing something else that is easier to do there than other places, such as : talk in one of the global chat channels, look at the AH, look at gear vendors, craft, do some dailies, organize their bank, socialize, etc.

    By the way, people in SWG use to congregate in cantinas, especially the Mos Eisley one. Are you going to tell me that SWG was a lobby game too ?

    Anyway, you are so convinced you are right I guess it doesn't matter what I say, so this is my last post on this thread. Good luck playing your lobby games and I will have fun playing my fully fleshed MMORPGs. *wave*

    Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.

    image
  • SpectralHunterSpectralHunter Member UncommonPosts: 455
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    The classficiation is just a red herring that people here throw all the time. Whether game X is a MMO or not, as long as it is listed here with a forum, is fair game for discussion.

    And reasonably people would agree that playing a diablo 3 dungeon, is not so different from playing a WOW one (in the sense that you click a button and go into a 4/5-man instance). In fact, the reason why some non-MMOs are supported here is because they share a large overlap in audience with MMOs.

    And if you look at DDO, it is certainly a legimate game design to focus on small dungeon adventures. It is not clear that it would be a better game if it is made into a true MMO. Isn't the new Neverwinter night following the same approach?

    I agree that calling a game a MMO or not is not that important a topic.  But in general, historically, MMOs had wide open persistent zones with content (not just lobbies).

    Actually Neverwinter will have persistent areas.  Cryptic wanted to go the DDO route but PWE changed it.

    That is the point. Historically it is so .. but it is changed now. Everything changed.

    Does NWN going to have persistent large world areas? Or just some city zones like Orgrimmar. And surely they will have instanced dungeons as the main adventure gameplay, right?

    Changed according to whom? You? I suppose we're at a disagreement because I still think the historical definition still stands. 

    As desperately as you wish it weren't the case to support your position, Neverwinter will have persistent zones and I don't mean just sections of the city where you just stand around. In fact Cryptic called the game a co-op when they were just going to have lobby style areas. When they added the persistent zones they called it a MMO. Seems the industry agrees with my definition. 

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by SpectralHunter
     

    Changed according to whom? You? I suppose we're at a disagreement because I still think the historical definition still stands. 

    As desperately as you wish it weren't the case to support your position, Neverwinter will have persistent zones and I don't mean just sections of the city where you just stand around. In fact Cryptic called the game a co-op when they were just going to have lobby style areas. When they added the persistent zones they called it a MMO. Seems the industry agrees with my definition. 

    According to the market, of course. Didn't you see the trend. Don't tell me you don't know that the use of instances have increased dramatically, practically a must-have feature, in MMOs. And don't tell me you don't know that if you look at xfire ranking, there are a lot of instanced gaming at the top of the chart.

    And i wouldn't be worried about my own preferencse. There are so many games that if NWN is not what i like, i simply move on to something else.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by MurlockDance

    And there is no proof that everyone in Ogrimmar is waiting in some sort of queue, never leaving to go out into the large and dangerous Azeroth world. I have seen a lot of evidence that tells me that many people are not in Ogrimmar just to be in queue, after all, they could be anywhere in the world and in a queue.

    Fact 1: Org is crowded

    Fact 2: world is mostly empty

    Fact 3: lots of people are doing dungeons/raids

    So tell me what people are doing in Org? Chat?

  • BanaghranBanaghran Member Posts: 869
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by MurlockDance

    And there is no proof that everyone in Ogrimmar is waiting in some sort of queue, never leaving to go out into the large and dangerous Azeroth world. I have seen a lot of evidence that tells me that many people are not in Ogrimmar just to be in queue, after all, they could be anywhere in the world and in a queue.

    Fact 1: Org is crowded

    Fact 2: world is mostly empty

    Fact 3: lots of people are doing dungeons/raids

    So tell me what people are doing in Org? Chat?

    A) Respect for making world enthusiasts defent lobby gameplay and overcrowded cities which are more a symptom of lack of things to do outside than popularity, historically only trade areas were overcrowded.

    B) Bout market dictating and evolving the genre, this is a debatable topic, and you know it, sure instances are a more streamlined experience, maybe even easier to do from a manhours and design standpoint, but they also have negative impacts, impacts which you are discussing, back in the day most smartphones had styluses, maybe in the future we will have gestures and stuff, since even apple touch interface does suffer from not enough information shown on the screen, which the styluses were designed to battle in the past.

    Flame on!

    :)

Sign In or Register to comment.