Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I play games for entertainment. If I'm not entertained, which includes if I'm bored, then the game is not accomplishing it's reason for existence on my hard drive and will care to exist on my hard drive.
So yes in my mind a game has to be fun all the time. I get my non fun activities outside of my entertainment products.
this is the entitlement of the new generation, "oh I must have fun all the tyme, YOLO" and "If Im not insta-ported to the fun all the tyme, dis game suxxors" "If another player dares to gank me in an OW pvp game, he is taking away my fun tyme, OMG OMG, DAT GAME SUX!!!"
Sorry I"m not the "new generation". Been around a long time.
And the position is valid.
Games are entertainment products. I buy them to have fun. If I'm not having fun, the game is not doing it's job.
Therefore yes the game has to be fun 100% of the time, or it is a waste of money.
I buy a car for transportation.
I buy a pen to write.
I buy a game for fun.
If it isn't fun, then it's a waste of my money and my money will go to something else that is fun.
Not everyone needs to have fun the same way. I certainly don't have fun the same way all the time. Sometimes crafting is fun, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes dungeons are fun. Sometimes they aren't. The point is, if it isn't fun it isn't doing its job.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Plus, i am of the old generation and i don't see why i should not have in an entertainment product all the time. That is the POINT of entertainment, isn't it?
And yes, i do not want to depend on others for fun. Hence, i do not like traditional MMOs, and prefer new ones (or non-MMOs).
it is like a movie with nothing but car chases. You need pacing or it just becomes dumb, not exciting. Plus it's pretty obvious that the people complaining about MMOs aren't having fun all the time in current games and would have more fun in more immersive games.
Like I actually had more fun in Skyrim by not using the fast travel because it made the world seem more genuine to me. Maybe you don't understand but not everybody has fun in exactly the way you do.
Careful, pacing is actually something that supports the gamified side, because those games are the ones where devs can control pacing much better.
MMORPG doesn't mean what it use to anymore. The word has evolved because companies wanted to jump in on the bandwagon and "coolness" of it and jammed in different genres into it, this gets further acerbated by a newer generation that began gaming in this new mixed up era.
Sure we all want fun but fun is different for everyone, that is why we had genres.
That said I agree with the OP that doesn't mean I think others that prefer hub games or love fast travel are wrong either, I only believe they do not really want to play mmorpg's but rather one of it sub-genres.
Really these threads turn into argument about which mmorpg "sub genres" we like rather than what the OP is talking about.
I for one would love a "mmorpg" that has good combat, good story and strong sandbox elements yet have a vast persistent world we can explore.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
They now only design zones that link to other zones. Zones are also one-use in many games. Once I'm past level 26, I have no need to ever visit the Wild Lands of Zelata in Age of Conan for instance. That zone, which a game developer, or several, spent hundreds of hours designing, is now useless to me as a player and I may have only spent a couple of hours there.
I think this is one of the reasons that "Themepark" has become such a dirty word to some players who want to play in worlds rather than a series of quick travel linked zones. In many cases the only games with worlds are sandbox games.
I agree. And the silly thing is that they try to give the illusion that your actions change the world with phasing and what not. But the reality is that you will probably NEVER see the area that you "changed" after you complete the quest because you're done with it at that point. So most of the time when I trigger world phasing I think "that's nice," but then I move on never to see that part of the world again, and I'm left wondering what the point of it changing was.
Like you say, they design the world to be "consumed" not to be lived in. Once you consume a part of the world, you move on.
And this frustrates me sometimes because I may actually really like the visual aesthetic of a zone, but I know that once I consume it, I can't stay there any more. In ESO for example, some of the cities in it are absolutely beautiful. I would love to be able to just hang out there and have fun...but instead the city is just reduced to a quest hub because of the "consumeable world" design.
I loved how in older games you could basically choose any area to be your "home" and you were encouraged to play in whatever area you felt like.
What? most older games had the same exact issue.The only games I can really think of that did anything at all to fix this were SWG, UO and GW2. SWG however used a similar mob population. The farther away from the starter towns you got the more dangerous it got during the early game, and the exact opposite for the higher level toons.
They even had whole plenets that were essentially a death trap for anything but a higher tiered group unless you were fully skilled and geared. Essentially the only place SWG and UO broke away was in housing and things like that. Which gave the starter worlds life after reaching skill cap. On the other hand it had a detrimental effect in that it rendered most NPC cities devoid of player life.
The rest were pretty much all populated by level, as we see today.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by tixylixThe world offers so much of the game, it gives it the potential, it gives you social interaction, it gives you exploration, a sense of having a home and pride in what you're playing.
That might be true but it does not imply people want any of that.
You list those features because you prefer them, you claim the world matters because it matters to you.
In fact, people only care about fun and "world" does add any. In fact, it is safe to assume people do not want worlds - they prefer single player experience with optional player interaction. The proof if out there - billions of USD made on "no world" concept.
The world offers so much of the game, it gives it the potential, it gives you social interaction, it gives you exploration, a sense of having a home and pride in what you're playing.
That might be true but neither it implies people want any of that.
You list those apsects because you prefer them, you claim the world matters because it matters to you.
In fact, people only care about fun and "world" does add the game any fun. In fact, it is safe to assume people do not want worlds - they prefer single player experience with optional player interaction. The proof if out there - billions of USD made on "no world" concept.
I rather think it implies that the market for sub genres is there and is easier to do than say full worlds like the OP is thinking about.
Think about it, if the OP is talking about what he "prefers" it stands to reason there are others like him that prefer the same thing, just like there are many that would prefer something different or that prefer hub game etc etc.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Originally posted by Asm0deus I rather think it implies that the market for sub genres is there and is easier to do than say full worlds like the OP is thinking about.
No, it does not imply it either.
However, there is not enough demand for those games that would justify the budget of quality MMO title.
You can still play those "niche" MMOs but do not expect any nice graphics, polish or high population...
I rather think it implies that the market for sub genres is there and is easier to do than say full worlds like the OP is thinking about.
No, it does not imply it either.
However, there is not enough demand for those games that would justify the budget of quality MMO title.
You can still play those "niche" MMOs but do not expect any nice graphics, polish or high population...
No it's not that, I think it has more to do with current limitation on what they can do with a full persistent world compared to hub and zoned worlds. The same way most people will agree graphics in mmorpg are not as nice as in single player games as it a hardware limitation.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Originally posted by Asm0deus No it's not that, I think it has more to do with current limitation on what they can do with a full persistent world compared to hub and zoned worlds. The same way most people will agree graphics in mmorpg are not as nice as in single player games as it a hardware limitation.
There is no reason to build seamless world.
In fact you want to avoid it, and that is not only due technical reasons but also by design.
No it's not that, I think it has more to do with current limitation on what they can do with a full persistent world compared to hub and zoned worlds. The same way most people will agree graphics in mmorpg are not as nice as in single player games as it a hardware limitation.
There is no reason to build seamless world.
In fact you want to avoid it, and that is not only due technical reasons but also by design.
There is no technical limitation on MMO graphics.
You want to avoid it right now because of technical limitations, thanks for making my point clearer as for limitation with graphics, same difference and your right about it being by design but again it is limited by design for technical reasons
Was a thread about it awhile ago where Quizzical and some other of the more technical oriented peeps in these forums went on about this very thing, I would link it to you as you probably would learn quite a bit by reading it but I don't recall which thread it was and can't be bothered to search for it.
It is pretty foolish to think there are no constraints or hardware limitations when it comes to persistent worlds or graphics.
Anyhoot you believe what you want this topic has been discussed ad nauseam and I don't feel like rehashing it.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Originally posted by Asm0deusYou want to avoid it right now because of technical limitations, thanks for making my point clearer as for limitation with graphics, same difference and your right about it being by design but again it is limited by design for technical reasons ;)Was a thread about it awhile ago where Quizzical and some other of the more technical oriented peeps in these forums went on about this very thing, I would link it to you as you probably would learn quite a bit by reading it but I don't recall which thread it was and can't be bothered to search for it.
Can you read?
The MMOs started as seamless worlds but diverted from there due mostly design decisions - seamless worlds do not provide desired player experience.
Seamless, persistant worlds are not wanted by design, technical reasons are just a secondary issue, issue that can be worked on.
You can observe that on low MMO budgets such as MO or DF that goes with seamless persistant worlds because it is desired by design. Most games tho, have no desire for seamless persistant worlds because they have negative impact on game experience, thus you avoid them due design reasons.
You want to avoid it right now because of technical limitations, thanks for making my point clearer as for limitation with graphics, same difference and your right about it being by design but again it is limited by design for technical reasons
Was a thread about it awhile ago where Quizzical and some other of the more technical oriented peeps in these forums went on about this very thing, I would link it to you as you probably would learn quite a bit by reading it but I don't recall which thread it was and can't be bothered to search for it.
Can you read?
The MMOs started as seamless worlds but diverted from there due mostly design decisions - seamless worlds do not provide desired player experience.
Seamless, persistant worlds are not wanted by design, technical reasons are just a secondary issue, issue that can be worked on.
You can observe that on low MMO budgets such as MO or DF that goes with seamless persistant worlds because it is desired by design. Most games tho, have no desire for seamless persistant worlds.
Can you read?
Just because you have some backward idea that games diverted from seamless was a wanted design choice rather than a forced one because of limitation is asinine and further claiming most games avoid seamless worlds because they have no desire for it rather than because of limitations is also asinine.
MMO's started seamless and devs had big dreams for mmorpgs but technical limitation forced them to tone down the dream for more viable options, it is that simple.
Take those same games you mention and you can plainly see the limitations they have. Your right on one thing though as hardware and other limitation are slowly worked on it will become easier for seamless worlds to be viable for the "big AAA companies".
Like I said though this has been rehashed ad nauseam and after reading some of your past posts on various threads it is pretty clear to me there is no point in keeping on this chat with you.
Carry on.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Originally posted by Asm0deus Can you read? Just because you have some backward idea that games diverted from seamless was a wanted design choice rather than a forced one because of limitation is asinine and further claiming most world games avoid seamless worlds because they have no desire for it rather than because of limitations is also asinine.Take those same games you mention and you can plainly see the limitations they have. Your right on one thing though as hardware and other limitation are slowly worked on it will become easier for seamless worlds to be viable for the "big AAA companies".Like I said though this has been rehashed ad nauseam and after reading some of your past posts on various threads it is pretty clear to me there is no point in keeping on this chat with you.Carry on.
You might want to read some devs talking about the days of old and why they started to implement instances into their games - fighting over mob spawns, much better control over game experience, etc.
And you are right, it was rehashed ad nauseam, you just happen to miss that.
Just because you have some backward idea that games diverted from seamless was a wanted design choice rather than a forced one because of limitation is asinine and further claiming most world games avoid seamless worlds because they have no desire for it rather than because of limitations is also asinine.
Take those same games you mention and you can plainly see the limitations they have. Your right on one thing though as hardware and other limitation are slowly worked on it will become easier for seamless worlds to be viable for the "big AAA companies".
Like I said though this has been rehashed ad nauseam and after reading some of your past posts on various threads it is pretty clear to me there is no point in keeping on this chat with you.
Carry on.
You might want to read some devs talking about the days of old and why they started to implement instances into their games - fighting over mob spawns, much better control over game experience, etc.
And you are right, it was rehashed ad nauseam, you just happen to miss that.
No you just are ignoring every other reason they started using zones and instances because it fits what you want to believe. If you were honest and stopped cherry picking some of the facts you might not look so foolish right now.
Anyways I am done replying to someone like you, your posting history pretty much makes it clear what type of poster you are.
Keep on trolling mate.
I will just agree to disagree with you.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
They now only design zones that link to other zones. Zones are also one-use in many games. Once I'm past level 26, I have no need to ever visit the Wild Lands of Zelata in Age of Conan for instance. That zone, which a game developer, or several, spent hundreds of hours designing, is now useless to me as a player and I may have only spent a couple of hours there.
I think this is one of the reasons that "Themepark" has become such a dirty word to some players who want to play in worlds rather than a series of quick travel linked zones. In many cases the only games with worlds are sandbox games.
I agree. And the silly thing is that they try to give the illusion that your actions change the world with phasing and what not. But the reality is that you will probably NEVER see the area that you "changed" after you complete the quest because you're done with it at that point. So most of the time when I trigger world phasing I think "that's nice," but then I move on never to see that part of the world again, and I'm left wondering what the point of it changing was.
Like you say, they design the world to be "consumed" not to be lived in. Once you consume a part of the world, you move on.
And this frustrates me sometimes because I may actually really like the visual aesthetic of a zone, but I know that once I consume it, I can't stay there any more. In ESO for example, some of the cities in it are absolutely beautiful. I would love to be able to just hang out there and have fun...but instead the city is just reduced to a quest hub because of the "consumeable world" design.
I loved how in older games you could basically choose any area to be your "home" and you were encouraged to play in whatever area you felt like.
What? most older games had the same exact issue.The only games I can really think of that did anything at all to fix this were SWG, UO and GW2. SWG however used a similar mob population. The farther away from the starter towns you got the more dangerous it got during the early game, and the exact opposite for the higher level toons.
They even had whole plenets that were essentially a death trap for anything but a higher tiered group unless you were fully skilled and geared. Essentially the only place SWG and UO broke away was in housing and things like that. Which gave the starter worlds life after reaching skill cap. On the other hand it had a detrimental effect in that it rendered most NPC cities devoid of player life.
The rest were pretty much all populated by level, as we see today.
I probably should have just said uo because that's what I was thinking of . I can remember hanging out on the mg bank roof and in player made towns in uo.
I think more people want the world than you think, it is one of the main reasons WoW was so popular. When you talk to players on days gone by, the same things always come up time and time again, they remember locations in the world, they remember exploration and discovery.
It is why every mmo has failed since, they copy everything wow did, but they lack the world.
It is the one reason swtor failed, it would have been a hit if people had a sense of living in a Star Wars universe, sadly though it felt like a bunch of small maps.
Originally posted by Gravarg Fun is number one. If you aren't having fun, then why are you playing the game?
Holding up "fun" as the objective of a game is kind of a circular argument. Because really, we're asking the question "what makes the game the most fun?" And if your answer "to make the game fun," then you can see the obvious circular reasoning here.
Plus, i am of the old generation and i don't see why i should not have in an entertainment product all the time. That is the POINT of entertainment, isn't it?
And yes, i do not want to depend on others for fun. Hence, i do not like traditional MMOs, and prefer new ones (or non-MMOs).
it is like a movie with nothing but car chases. You need pacing or it just becomes dumb, not exciting. Plus it's pretty obvious that the people complaining about MMOs aren't having fun all the time in current games and would have more fun in more immersive games.
Wrong analogy.
Put in a good story with good scripting events and stuff, and it is exactly like a movie with good control in pacing.
Originally posted by Gravarg Fun is number one. If you aren't having fun, then why are you playing the game?
Holding up "fun" as the objective of a game is kind of a circular argument. Because really, we're asking the question "what makes the game the most fun?" And if your answer "to make the game fun," then you can see the obvious circular reasoning here.
and the answer is clearly different for different people.
Some will want to walk for hours .. and call that fun .. and personally, an instance with instant travel is much more fun to me.
A world is NOT required to be fun for me, and many others (given the big sales of many games which do not focus on a world).
Originally posted by Gravarg Fun is number one. If you aren't having fun, then why are you playing the game?
Holding up "fun" as the objective of a game is kind of a circular argument. Because really, we're asking the question "what makes the game the most fun?" And if your answer "to make the game fun," then you can see the obvious circular reasoning here.
and the answer is clearly different for different people.
Some will want to walk for hours .. and call that fun .. and personally, an instance with instant travel is much more fun to me.
A world is NOT required to be fun for me, and many others (given the big sales of many games which do not focus on a world).
I don't believe they are big sales. That is why they went free to play. If they are free to play they are not sales unless you spend money in game.
I agree I want a WORLD to play in but since PvP is so popular I've given up on it. No matter how beautiful the WORLD is I don't want to be there if someone is pounding my ass into the ground.
Originally posted by Gravarg Fun is number one. If you aren't having fun, then why are you playing the game?
Holding up "fun" as the objective of a game is kind of a circular argument. Because really, we're asking the question "what makes the game the most fun?" And if your answer "to make the game fun," then you can see the obvious circular reasoning here.
and the answer is clearly different for different people.
Some will want to walk for hours .. and call that fun .. and personally, an instance with instant travel is much more fun to me.
A world is NOT required to be fun for me, and many others (given the big sales of many games which do not focus on a world).
I don't believe they are big sales. That is why they went free to play. If they are free to play they are not sales unless you spend money in game.
Who are "they"?
D3 sold 15M boxes. Is that big?
LoL is making like $600M a year .. and yet it is F2P. Is that big sale?
I think more people want the world than you think, it is one of the main reasons WoW was so popular. When you talk to players on days gone by, the same things always come up time and time again, they remember locations in the world, they remember exploration and discovery.
It is why every mmo has failed since, they copy everything wow did, but they lack the world.
It is the one reason swtor failed, it would have been a hit if people had a sense of living in a Star Wars universe, sadly though it felt like a bunch of small maps.
The reason why WoW has been so popular was that it was a game that was very open to start and it was the first time people experienced the MMO-gamestyle. The reason why MMO's fail to give that same experience is that you can only give that fresh experience once, which is why people new to MMO's are far more positive about wow's world compared to players that had already experienced MMO's.
Once you hit level 60 people stopped caring about 95% of the world, and frankly it was just in your way when trying to reach the gameplay you actually wanted to experience. The attitude of "the game starts at endgame" shows that quite a lot of people never cared about the world, they only care about the instanced experienced that WoW gives.
What got me hooked in WoW was the MMO world experience, what made me stick around for so long was the gameplay experience. In new games I don't care about the world, I only look for gameplay.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
If you want the best PvP, you don't play MMORPG, you play MOBA/RTS etc.
If you want the best dungeon crawler, you don't play MMORPG, you play Diablo/Torchlight etc.
If you want the best crafting sim, you don't play MMORPG, you play anything from cooking mama to some hardcore architecture software.
If you want the best stories, you don't play MMORPG, you play solo adventure games.
If you want the best combats, you don't play MMORPG, you play console action games.
So why even play MMORPG then ?
Well, MMORPG have ONE thing that all those others games haven't: a world full of other players to interact with. A world that should EVOLVE: building could be crafted by some guild, empires could rise and fall, love stories could appears, economy would be alive and logical etc.
Comments
Sorry I"m not the "new generation". Been around a long time.
And the position is valid.
Games are entertainment products. I buy them to have fun. If I'm not having fun, the game is not doing it's job.
Therefore yes the game has to be fun 100% of the time, or it is a waste of money.
I buy a car for transportation.
I buy a pen to write.
I buy a game for fun.
If it isn't fun, then it's a waste of my money and my money will go to something else that is fun.
Not everyone needs to have fun the same way. I certainly don't have fun the same way all the time. Sometimes crafting is fun, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes dungeons are fun. Sometimes they aren't. The point is, if it isn't fun it isn't doing its job.
Careful, pacing is actually something that supports the gamified side, because those games are the ones where devs can control pacing much better.
MMORPG doesn't mean what it use to anymore. The word has evolved because companies wanted to jump in on the bandwagon and "coolness" of it and jammed in different genres into it, this gets further acerbated by a newer generation that began gaming in this new mixed up era.
Sure we all want fun but fun is different for everyone, that is why we had genres.
That said I agree with the OP that doesn't mean I think others that prefer hub games or love fast travel are wrong either, I only believe they do not really want to play mmorpg's but rather one of it sub-genres.
Really these threads turn into argument about which mmorpg "sub genres" we like rather than what the OP is talking about.
I for one would love a "mmorpg" that has good combat, good story and strong sandbox elements yet have a vast persistent world we can explore.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
What? most older games had the same exact issue.The only games I can really think of that did anything at all to fix this were SWG, UO and GW2. SWG however used a similar mob population. The farther away from the starter towns you got the more dangerous it got during the early game, and the exact opposite for the higher level toons.
They even had whole plenets that were essentially a death trap for anything but a higher tiered group unless you were fully skilled and geared. Essentially the only place SWG and UO broke away was in housing and things like that. Which gave the starter worlds life after reaching skill cap. On the other hand it had a detrimental effect in that it rendered most NPC cities devoid of player life.
The rest were pretty much all populated by level, as we see today.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
That might be true but it does not imply people want any of that.
You list those features because you prefer them, you claim the world matters because it matters to you.
In fact, people only care about fun and "world" does add any. In fact, it is safe to assume people do not want worlds - they prefer single player experience with optional player interaction. The proof if out there - billions of USD made on "no world" concept.
I rather think it implies that the market for sub genres is there and is easier to do than say full worlds like the OP is thinking about.
Think about it, if the OP is talking about what he "prefers" it stands to reason there are others like him that prefer the same thing, just like there are many that would prefer something different or that prefer hub game etc etc.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
No, it does not imply it either.
However, there is not enough demand for those games that would justify the budget of quality MMO title.
You can still play those "niche" MMOs but do not expect any nice graphics, polish or high population...
No it's not that, I think it has more to do with current limitation on what they can do with a full persistent world compared to hub and zoned worlds. The same way most people will agree graphics in mmorpg are not as nice as in single player games as it a hardware limitation.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
There is no reason to build seamless world.
In fact you want to avoid it, and that is not only due technical reasons but also by design.
There is no technical limitation on MMO graphics.
You want to avoid it right now because of technical limitations, thanks for making my point clearer as for limitation with graphics, same difference and your right about it being by design but again it is limited by design for technical reasons
Was a thread about it awhile ago where Quizzical and some other of the more technical oriented peeps in these forums went on about this very thing, I would link it to you as you probably would learn quite a bit by reading it but I don't recall which thread it was and can't be bothered to search for it.
It is pretty foolish to think there are no constraints or hardware limitations when it comes to persistent worlds or graphics.
Anyhoot you believe what you want this topic has been discussed ad nauseam and I don't feel like rehashing it.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Can you read?
The MMOs started as seamless worlds but diverted from there due mostly design decisions - seamless worlds do not provide desired player experience.
Seamless, persistant worlds are not wanted by design, technical reasons are just a secondary issue, issue that can be worked on.
You can observe that on low MMO budgets such as MO or DF that goes with seamless persistant worlds because it is desired by design. Most games tho, have no desire for seamless persistant worlds because they have negative impact on game experience, thus you avoid them due design reasons.
Can you read?
Just because you have some backward idea that games diverted from seamless was a wanted design choice rather than a forced one because of limitation is asinine and further claiming most games avoid seamless worlds because they have no desire for it rather than because of limitations is also asinine.
MMO's started seamless and devs had big dreams for mmorpgs but technical limitation forced them to tone down the dream for more viable options, it is that simple.
Take those same games you mention and you can plainly see the limitations they have. Your right on one thing though as hardware and other limitation are slowly worked on it will become easier for seamless worlds to be viable for the "big AAA companies".
Like I said though this has been rehashed ad nauseam and after reading some of your past posts on various threads it is pretty clear to me there is no point in keeping on this chat with you.
Carry on.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
You might want to read some devs talking about the days of old and why they started to implement instances into their games - fighting over mob spawns, much better control over game experience, etc.
And you are right, it was rehashed ad nauseam, you just happen to miss that.
No you just are ignoring every other reason they started using zones and instances because it fits what you want to believe. If you were honest and stopped cherry picking some of the facts you might not look so foolish right now.
Anyways I am done replying to someone like you, your posting history pretty much makes it clear what type of poster you are.
Keep on trolling mate.
I will just agree to disagree with you.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I probably should have just said uo because that's what I was thinking of
. I can remember hanging out on the mg bank roof and in player made towns in uo.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I think more people want the world than you think, it is one of the main reasons WoW was so popular. When you talk to players on days gone by, the same things always come up time and time again, they remember locations in the world, they remember exploration and discovery.
It is why every mmo has failed since, they copy everything wow did, but they lack the world.
It is the one reason swtor failed, it would have been a hit if people had a sense of living in a Star Wars universe, sadly though it felt like a bunch of small maps.
Holding up "fun" as the objective of a game is kind of a circular argument. Because really, we're asking the question "what makes the game the most fun?" And if your answer "to make the game fun," then you can see the obvious circular reasoning here.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Wrong analogy.
Put in a good story with good scripting events and stuff, and it is exactly like a movie with good control in pacing.
and the answer is clearly different for different people.
Some will want to walk for hours .. and call that fun .. and personally, an instance with instant travel is much more fun to me.
A world is NOT required to be fun for me, and many others (given the big sales of many games which do not focus on a world).
I don't believe they are big sales. That is why they went free to play. If they are free to play they are not sales unless you spend money in game.
Who are "they"?
D3 sold 15M boxes. Is that big?
LoL is making like $600M a year .. and yet it is F2P. Is that big sale?
The reason why WoW has been so popular was that it was a game that was very open to start and it was the first time people experienced the MMO-gamestyle. The reason why MMO's fail to give that same experience is that you can only give that fresh experience once, which is why people new to MMO's are far more positive about wow's world compared to players that had already experienced MMO's.
Once you hit level 60 people stopped caring about 95% of the world, and frankly it was just in your way when trying to reach the gameplay you actually wanted to experience. The attitude of "the game starts at endgame" shows that quite a lot of people never cared about the world, they only care about the instanced experienced that WoW gives.
What got me hooked in WoW was the MMO world experience, what made me stick around for so long was the gameplay experience. In new games I don't care about the world, I only look for gameplay.
If you want the best PvP, you don't play MMORPG, you play MOBA/RTS etc.
If you want the best dungeon crawler, you don't play MMORPG, you play Diablo/Torchlight etc.
If you want the best crafting sim, you don't play MMORPG, you play anything from cooking mama to some hardcore architecture software.
If you want the best stories, you don't play MMORPG, you play solo adventure games.
If you want the best combats, you don't play MMORPG, you play console action games.
So why even play MMORPG then ?
Well, MMORPG have ONE thing that all those others games haven't: a world full of other players to interact with. A world that should EVOLVE: building could be crafted by some guild, empires could rise and fall, love stories could appears, economy would be alive and logical etc.