Seem to be quite a few of these quest haters coming out of the woodwork these days....
First off, I take exception to someone who tries to insinuate that all quests are bad. They are not. Bad quests are the ones that that basically repeat the same kill x get y while repeatedly mashing the same button in order to do so. Even then I can enjoy them if the combat or the world is compelling. Probably not for months or years, but who knows.
Good quest is generally on multilevels, usually with vaying means to achieve success which the player must evaluate in order to be successful. And in doing so it draws you into the world and makes you forget that you are doing a simple fetch or kill quest.
So ruling out a game because it has quests, is plainly narrowminded and simplistic thinking IMO.
Seems all gamers want to do is complain anymore!
i'm sorry, but did you just call the OP narrowminded because he asked what games dont rely on quests?
.....serioulsly?.....
somebody asks you what kind of icecream doesnt have vanilla on it, and you tell him that not all vanilla is bad and he must be narrowminded for trying to exclude vanilla?
how about instead you just answer his question or dont answer at all?
AND then you end with a comment about the complaining of others!....oh! the irony that just does not die..
Originally posted by PsychowHey OP, can you quickly explain WHY you dislike quests? I understand that almost all MMOs use some form of questing/missions, so I'm wondering what it is about the actual questing you dislike.
The fact that they are just boring tasks is only half of it. My main issue with them is that they are often indicative of a game's lackluster design (i.e. the game itself is so boring that they need to manufacture goals for the players). I just can't really get into an MMO that tells me what to do every step of the way. Games that have contrived, quantized objectives usually lack anything beyond them. Those kinds of games feel really restrictive, because they don't want you to do anything beyond what the game allows. There are leveled zones, overly-balanced classes/builds that all feel the same, and monsters are treated like nothing more than bland obstacles between each goal that the game sets for you. There is absolutely no sense of discovery or exploration. It's like exploring my back yard. At least with old grinders, there was a sense of wonderment; you weren't being corralled from area to area being told to perform mundane tasks. In quest-based games, I'm not really motivated to explore (by explore, I mean move to the next zone) because I already have a pretty good idea of what's there... more boring quests and tasks. Sadly, quests are just the norm now. You either have high-budget questing games, or low-budget hardcore sandbox games. There used to be more of a middle ground. It seems like all games these days are designed around a target audience, and that can be fine; it's how companies strive to make a profit. Games weren't always like that, though. Some games were just made, and the audience found them. I think someday a game is going to be made like that. It's going to take a huge risk, be vastly different, and it's not going to give a shit what Joe the Douchebag wants; it's just going to be a game that's designed around a set of ideals that have continuity. And it's going to blow the market away.
Yes I call this narrow minded thinking. If I were reading this I would ay no game will make this person happy!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Dragon Nest is a pretty nice F2P game. I played it a while ago during the beta and enjoyed smashing enemies in dungeons. It has very active combat fun smashy gameplay. While it has quests to lead you to dungeons they are not terribly invasive. In game cut scenes too! They're pretty neat.
Gw2 also at the end of the week. Although I would wait a while if you don't want to drop 60 bucks on a completely new game.
Play for fun. Play to win. Play for perfection. Play with friends. Play in another world. Why do you play?
I think someday a game is going to be made like that. It's going to take a huge risk, be vastly different, and it's not going to give a shit what Joe the Douchebag wants; it's just going to be a game that's designed around a set of ideals that have continuity. And it's going to blow the market away.
yep; in a magical world where nothing requires funding.
Originally posted by PsychowHey OP, can you quickly explain WHY you dislike quests? I understand that almost all MMOs use some form of questing/missions, so I'm wondering what it is about the actual questing you dislike.
The fact that they are just boring tasks is only half of it. My main issue with them is that they are often indicative of a game's lackluster design (i.e. the game itself is so boring that they need to manufacture goals for the players). I just can't really get into an MMO that tells me what to do every step of the way. Games that have contrived, quantized objectives usually lack anything beyond them. Those kinds of games feel really restrictive, because they don't want you to do anything beyond what the game allows. There are leveled zones, overly-balanced classes/builds that all feel the same, and monsters are treated like nothing more than bland obstacles between each goal that the game sets for you. There is absolutely no sense of discovery or exploration. It's like exploring my back yard. At least with old grinders, there was a sense of wonderment; you weren't being corralled from area to area being told to perform mundane tasks. In quest-based games, I'm not really motivated to explore (by explore, I mean move to the next zone) because I already have a pretty good idea of what's there... more boring quests and tasks. Sadly, quests are just the norm now. You either have high-budget questing games, or low-budget hardcore sandbox games. There used to be more of a middle ground. It seems like all games these days are designed around a target audience, and that can be fine; it's how companies strive to make a profit. Games weren't always like that, though. Some games were just made, and the audience found them. I think someday a game is going to be made like that. It's going to take a huge risk, be vastly different, and it's not going to give a shit what Joe the Douchebag wants; it's just going to be a game that's designed around a set of ideals that have continuity. And it's going to blow the market away.
Yes I call this narrow minded thinking. If I were reading this I would ay no game will make this person happy!
How is it narrow-minded? There are a few games that fit into my description of what I like, but they've either been changed to adapt to the same old crap, eaten by bots and power curve, or just don't plain exist anymore. So, explain how this is narrow-minded, instead of throwing blind accusations with no reasoning. I can say that the Earth is flat and the sun and stars revolve around us, but if I don't back it up, I'll just come across as an ass.
I think someday a game is going to be made like that. It's going to take a huge risk, be vastly different, and it's not going to give a shit what Joe the Douchebag wants; it's just going to be a game that's designed around a set of ideals that have continuity. And it's going to blow the market away.
yep; in a magical world where nothing requires funding.
Yes, games do require funding, but eventually some company is going to try to expand on a very stale market and it might pay off big. It's clear that going the "safe" route is not the way to success. In business... or anything, really, it rarely is. There are a lot of successful games that stem from good ideas, rather than only market research. Besides, there are still people taking risks in this industry; they might not always pay off, like 38 Studios (even though they could have been successful had the scales been tipped in their favor, and a certain governor didn't have a big mouth), and even ArenaNet with GW2, even though they did do a fair amount of pandering to the WoW crowd. My point is, the idea of taking a risk is not far-fetched, and thankfully not everyone has your attitude; if we did, we'd all still be rubbing sticks together for fire.
Just because a game has quests doesn't mean you have to do them. If you prefer to mindlessly grind mobs, then just do that. Nobody is stopping you, especially the game developers.
Just don't expect to find a lot of like-minded individuals who wish to join your mob-grinding party. However, your leveling method might be pretty good for a game such as LOTRO. Buy just mindlessly grinding mobs, you will earn your deeds and earn Turbine points that you can spend on game elements that you do actually enjoy.
OP, you should wait for ArcheAge, the game does have kill 10 quests but it's going to be the most open and sandboxy MMO ever made since EvE, AAA budget wise, there are other stuff to do than just kill mobs and lvl up.
Ignore the fools who flame anyone who has a different opinion, GW2 is exactly how you describe it, im still killing 10 rats and picking up 5 apples just because an NPC tells me to do it, and because i will get XP, who actually cares if the area changes for 5 minutes before resetting... it's still a themepark that lacks real meaning after the fun factor of playing a new game wears off.
I would rather have a game where there are REAL reasons to kill mobs, like Politics, Economy, Guild Wars, etc.
My advice, wait for ArcheAge and The Repopulation, or maybe you could try a Lineage 2 private server.
"Dogs are the leaders of the planet. If you see two life forms, one of them's making a poop, the other one's carrying it for him, who would you assume is in charge."
"The idea behind the tuxedo is the woman's point of view that men are all the same; so we might as well dress them that way. That's why a wedding is like the joining together of a beautiful, glowing bride and some guy" -Seinfeld
EverQuest I: The only game to date that not only puts the emphasis on mob killing for leveling, but does so more efficiently and faster than just about any MMO out there right now. With it's current leveling curve, you don't start slowing down till the 50's or so, out of 95 levels currently.
In regards to GW2, quests, hearts and dynamic events are still much more efficient for leveling than just running around and killing stuff, by a substantial margin.
Originally posted by Isometrix Ummmm... there's this little game called Guild Wars 2 coming out next week, maybe you've heard it mentioned in a back alley somewhere. Fits your description.
but how do you define quest, in that case?
GW2 event are very similar to quest, just open group instead of closed.
same standard task is being done as well.
Yeah, and you have to kill mobs most of the time. Imagine that.
At this point I don't think I get what most people are looking for when they say "no quests."
Originally posted by PsychowJust because a game has quests doesn't mean you have to do them. If you prefer to mindlessly grind mobs, then just do that. Nobody is stopping you, especially the game developers.Just don't expect to find a lot of like-minded individuals who wish to join your mob-grinding party. However, your leveling method might be pretty good for a game such as LOTRO. Buy just mindlessly grinding mobs, you will earn your deeds and earn Turbine points that you can spend on game elements that you do actually enjoy.So LOTRO would be my recommendation.
Right, I can, in theory, simply ignore the quests. However, as I explained earlier, games that are quest-dependent don't have anything outside of structured content. Let me give you an example. I used to play Ragnarok Online (the "golden age" of MMOs was a little before my time, so I didn't have the opportunity to try them in their hay day). Anyway, in Ragnarok every enemy was different. You would need different skills, classes and equipment depending on what you fought. Monsters were the focus of the combat, not an obstacle. It was just plain old fun to fight; it didn't need some contrived reason to kill them. Most battles needed a unique approach and positioning was paramount. Most quest games having boring as hell combat, so it has to be spiced up with quests and objectives to distract. Trust me, during my stint in WoW, I tried the no questing thing, and it was terrible, because the game wasn't designed that way. Like I said earlier, the quests, themselves, are only have of the the problem. The other half is the game design that is often synonymous with quests.
I've tried LotRO. I got to level 15 or so, and it seemed like your standard questing affair. Thank you for the suggestion, though.
Originally posted by darkraxielplay wakfu, is a sandbox turnbased game wiht politics f2p but have a subsription for premium content
I tried Wakfu. While it seemed unique and interesting in a lot of ways, I just didn't enjoy the combat very much. I know MMOs like that have a lot more to offer other than the combat, but fighting is something that's important to me personally. Fighting is usually what I do the most of in an MMO; if I don't enjoy it, then I can't really get into the game.
Originally posted by PsychowJust because a game has quests doesn't mean you have to do them. If you prefer to mindlessly grind mobs, then just do that. Nobody is stopping you, especially the game developers.Just don't expect to find a lot of like-minded individuals who wish to join your mob-grinding party. However, your leveling method might be pretty good for a game such as LOTRO. Buy just mindlessly grinding mobs, you will earn your deeds and earn Turbine points that you can spend on game elements that you do actually enjoy.So LOTRO would be my recommendation.
Right, I can, in theory, simply ignore the quests. However, as I explained earlier, games that are quest-dependent don't have anything outside of structured content. Let me give you an example. I used to play Ragnarok Online (the "golden age" of MMOs was a little before my time, so I didn't have the opportunity to try them in their hay day). Anyway, in Ragnarok every enemy was different. You would need different skills, classes and equipment depending on what you fought. Monsters were the focus of the combat, not an obstacle. It was just plain old fun to fight; it didn't need some contrived reason to kill them. Most battles needed a unique approach and positioning was paramount. Most quest games having boring as hell combat, so it has to be spiced up with quests and objectives to distract. Trust me, during my stint in WoW, I tried the no questing thing, and it was terrible, because the game wasn't designed that way. Like I said earlier, the quests, themselves, are only have of the the problem. The other half is the game design that is often synonymous with quests.
I've tried LotRO. I got to level 15 or so, and it seemed like your standard questing affair. Thank you for the suggestion, though.
So here you are saying that combat mechanics are the issue, because if the quest had said kill 5 of these you would have been happy to do it. I admit using the term narrow minded was harsh on my part, but I continue to disagree that simply having quests in a game somehow makes it an inferior game. I'm sorry but that is how your original post came across to me.
I think surely somewhere in a game you game across a quest where you probably got some enjoyment. Did you not also say previously that you were not particularly looking at a sandbox game either?? This confuse me further, because I am not sure what you are really looking for, other than to complain how lame that you feel quests are.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Originally posted by IsometrixUmmmm... there's this little game called Guild Wars 2 coming out next week, maybe you've heard it mentioned in a back alley somewhere. Fits your description.
but how do you define quest, in that case?GW2 event are very similar to quest, just open group instead of closed.same standard task is being done as well.
this is not entirely accurate.i suggest you check out aerowyn's videos: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/359874/Aerowyns-Video-Compilation-of-ALL-things-Guild-Wars-2.htmlthe differences between standard ! questing in many games and GW2s DEs can not be boiled down to "open group instead of closed." linearity, reward, and several other elements outlined in that post i linked should explain well why maybe GW2 will be what the OP is looking for or not. edit: you also have to take into account how these systems interact with other major systems in the game. its not simply a different sort of questing transplanted into a copy of WOW.either way, watch those videos and make an informed decision. don't bother listening to people who want to boil the whole thing down into one inaccurate overgeneralized statement. there is enough information there for you to make an educated guess for yourself on whether you should play this game or keep looking.
That's a lot of videos, and I've probably already seen many of them. I got caught up in the GW2 whirlwind of hype was ultimately let down. I just clung on to the big thing that was different and taking risks. Its execution didn't make it feel that much different than your standard questing affair, though. I was still just doing mundane tasks on a list. Some of the problems may have just been stuff that they might iron out, like some of the events spawning absurd amounts of enemies right next to you. I didn't get the "this world is alive" feel at all. I think players make a world feel a live, not NPCs. Although, some of the towns have a nice atmosphere that the NPCs create; but beyond that, the events don't really give me that impression. They pretty much just feel like quests, and I'm still getting corralled around to level-appropriate zones. I don't need a bunch of one-sided hype videos to make my decision. I've experienced the betas, so I have a pretty good idea of what the game has to offer. I'm sure I'll give it an other chance once the game launches, but if I find myself quitting out of boredom after an hour of play, like I was doing during the weekend betas, then maybe it's just not the game for me.
Were you doing the hearts or the Dynamic Events? Because I don't really get how most of the DE's can be confused with typical quests. Especially if you actually follow the chain of the DEs. Yes, there are some, guard this, collect that DE's but not many.
As for "one-sided hype videos", doesn't every gameplay video do that for every game????
Edit: You know, after reading some of your posts on this thread, it seems there may not be any MMO out there for you at this point. Maybe The Sims is more what you're looking for? It may not have combat, but it seems to have everything else you're looking for. No hunt this, kill that....
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Originally posted by PsychowJust because a game has quests doesn't mean you have to do them. If you prefer to mindlessly grind mobs, then just do that. Nobody is stopping you, especially the game developers.Just don't expect to find a lot of like-minded individuals who wish to join your mob-grinding party. However, your leveling method might be pretty good for a game such as LOTRO. Buy just mindlessly grinding mobs, you will earn your deeds and earn Turbine points that you can spend on game elements that you do actually enjoy.So LOTRO would be my recommendation.
Right, I can, in theory, simply ignore the quests. However, as I explained earlier, games that are quest-dependent don't have anything outside of structured content. Let me give you an example. I used to play Ragnarok Online (the "golden age" of MMOs was a little before my time, so I didn't have the opportunity to try them in their hay day). Anyway, in Ragnarok every enemy was different. You would need different skills, classes and equipment depending on what you fought. Monsters were the focus of the combat, not an obstacle. It was just plain old fun to fight; it didn't need some contrived reason to kill them. Most battles needed a unique approach and positioning was paramount. Most quest games having boring as hell combat, so it has to be spiced up with quests and objectives to distract. Trust me, during my stint in WoW, I tried the no questing thing, and it was terrible, because the game wasn't designed that way. Like I said earlier, the quests, themselves, are only have of the the problem. The other half is the game design that is often synonymous with quests. I've tried LotRO. I got to level 15 or so, and it seemed like your standard questing affair. Thank you for the suggestion, though.
So here you are saying that combat mechanics are the issue, because if the quest had said kill 5 of these you would have been happy to do it. I admit using the term narrow minded was harsh on my part, but I continue to disagree that simply having quests in a game somehow makes it an inferior game. I'm sorry but that is how your original post came across to me.
I think surely somewhere in a game you game across a quest where you probably got some enjoyment. Did you not also say previously that you were not particularly looking at a sandbox game either?? This confuse me further, because I am not sure what you are really looking for, other than to complain how lame that you feel quests are.
I said that combat mechanics are part of the issue. I was just using it as an example. Like I said, I don't actually enjoy doing the quests themselves, either. The problem stems from these games putting so much weight on the quests as the main part of the content, instead of simpler options that would have more depth. A minute to learn; a lifetime to master. One thing I noticed while playing Rift was that it was essentially the opposite of that. There is so much information you need right off the bat when choosing your souls and all of your skills, but when it comes down to it, it's just shallow complexity, because most of the builds end up feeling the same anyway.
I didn't say whether or not that I would be into a sandbox. I said I'm not a hardcore gamer, and I've never really experienced what people would call a full on sandbox, so I can't say. Based on what I know, I'd probably like a sandbox over a theme park if I had to choose, but I don't really like to pigeonhole games like that.
I'm not entirely sure what I'm looking for either... well, I am, but not in terms what actually exists. Yes, I'm basically just bitching, but there is the possibility that I could try out one the suggestions that I'm getting, and I may be pleasantly surprised. So, complaining, with a little bit of function woven in, if that clears it up. But what are forums for if not for bitching?
Originally posted by IsometrixUmmmm... there's this little game called Guild Wars 2 coming out next week, maybe you've heard it mentioned in a back alley somewhere. Fits your description.
but how do you define quest, in that case?GW2 event are very similar to quest, just open group instead of closed.same standard task is being done as well.
this is not entirely accurate.i suggest you check out aerowyn's videos: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/359874/Aerowyns-Video-Compilation-of-ALL-things-Guild-Wars-2.htmlthe differences between standard ! questing in many games and GW2s DEs can not be boiled down to "open group instead of closed." linearity, reward, and several other elements outlined in that post i linked should explain well why maybe GW2 will be what the OP is looking for or not. edit: you also have to take into account how these systems interact with other major systems in the game. its not simply a different sort of questing transplanted into a copy of WOW.either way, watch those videos and make an informed decision. don't bother listening to people who want to boil the whole thing down into one inaccurate overgeneralized statement. there is enough information there for you to make an educated guess for yourself on whether you should play this game or keep looking.
That's a lot of videos, and I've probably already seen many of them. I got caught up in the GW2 whirlwind of hype was ultimately let down. I just clung on to the big thing that was different and taking risks. Its execution didn't make it feel that much different than your standard questing affair, though. I was still just doing mundane tasks on a list. Some of the problems may have just been stuff that they might iron out, like some of the events spawning absurd amounts of enemies right next to you. I didn't get the "this world is alive" feel at all. I think players make a world feel a live, not NPCs. Although, some of the towns have a nice atmosphere that the NPCs create; but beyond that, the events don't really give me that impression. They pretty much just feel like quests, and I'm still getting corralled around to level-appropriate zones. I don't need a bunch of one-sided hype videos to make my decision. I've experienced the betas, so I have a pretty good idea of what the game has to offer. I'm sure I'll give it an other chance once the game launches, but if I find myself quitting out of boredom after an hour of play, like I was doing during the weekend betas, then maybe it's just not the game for me.
Were you doing the hearts or the Dynamic Events? Because I don't really get how most of the DE's can be confused with typical quests. Especially if you actually follow the chain of the DEs. Yes, there are some, guard this, collect that DE's but not many.
As for "one-sided hype videos", doesn't every gameplay video do that for every game????
Edit: You know, after reading some of your posts on this thread, it seems there may not be any MMO out there for you at this point. Maybe The Sims is more what you're looking for? It may not have combat, but it seems to have everything else you're looking for. No hunt this, kill that....
I'm well aware of the difference between the hearts and the dynamic events. And yes, every single dynamic event had me collecting something, defending something, or killing some arbitrary amount of something. The only thing that was different about them was that they had more context, which didn't really do it for me, like I already said.
You're right. most, if not, every video like that is one-sided.... You used that statement as a counter, but it seemed like you're agreeing with me.
Edit: You know, after reading some of your posts on this thread, it seems there may not be any MMO out there for you at this point. Maybe The Sims is more what you're looking for? It may not have combat, but it seems to have everything else you're looking for. No hunt this, kill that....
I'm not sure you did read my other posts, otherwise you might have noticed when I said this:
"I know MMOs like that have a lot more to offer other than the combat, but fighting is something that's important to me personally."
LIke I said, the games I did like, or might have liked, are either dead or are just shadows of their former selves. Just because I don't think GW2 is the game for me doesn't mean that there isn't one. The market has been stale and full of clones for a while now, so it's not like there's been much a variety to choose from. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Guild Wars 2 is a bad game by any stretch. They put an absurd amount of effort into it, and it shows. Overall, I'm happy that it's being released whether or not I play it, because at least it's attempting to break away from the established formula. I hope its success is a message that the genre is ready to change and urges more companies to take creative risks. Unfortunately, it'll probably just cause more publishers to push for DEs. If that's the case, then we may see a brand new generation of GW2 clones, and we'll have to wait another 7 years before some more change. Only time will tell.
Have you tried Mabinogi? It's F2P (with fewer restrictions than most, if I remember correctly), has really interesting gameplay systems, and isn't quest based. Maybe it's changed since it's been awhile since I've played it, but it may be just what you're looking fo.
Have you tried Mabinogi? It's F2P (with fewer restrictions than most, if I remember correctly), has really interesting gameplay systems, and isn't quest based. Maybe it's changed since it's been awhile since I've played it, but it may be just what you're looking fo.
Minecraft multiplayer server. There are a lot of different flavours (even with quests if you like:p ). Can be focussed on building, or on PVP or both. It is the ultimate sandbox game.
Really I think this person nailed it.....After WoW came out almost everyu company thought that is what we all wanted in our games......We no longer got a good world to explore but simply one where everything in the world was somehow involved in a quest.....Most of these games you sacrifice graphics due to how old they are, but most of them are still fun... ALso alot of them are f2p or have some sort of free to try option so you'd have nothing to lose...Personally I always had fun in EQ and Anarchy Online.
Comments
i'm sorry, but did you just call the OP narrowminded because he asked what games dont rely on quests?
.....serioulsly?.....
somebody asks you what kind of icecream doesnt have vanilla on it, and you tell him that not all vanilla is bad and he must be narrowminded for trying to exclude vanilla?
how about instead you just answer his question or dont answer at all?
AND then you end with a comment about the complaining of others!....oh! the irony that just does not die..
Yes I call this narrow minded thinking. If I were reading this I would ay no game will make this person happy!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
it's like watching the dog chase his tail...it never gets old.
Dragon Nest is a pretty nice F2P game. I played it a while ago during the beta and enjoyed smashing enemies in dungeons. It has very active combat fun smashy gameplay. While it has quests to lead you to dungeons they are not terribly invasive. In game cut scenes too! They're pretty neat.
Gw2 also at the end of the week. Although I would wait a while if you don't want to drop 60 bucks on a completely new game.
Play for fun. Play to win. Play for perfection. Play with friends. Play in another world. Why do you play?
yep; in a magical world where nothing requires funding.
How is it narrow-minded? There are a few games that fit into my description of what I like, but they've either been changed to adapt to the same old crap, eaten by bots and power curve, or just don't plain exist anymore. So, explain how this is narrow-minded, instead of throwing blind accusations with no reasoning. I can say that the Earth is flat and the sun and stars revolve around us, but if I don't back it up, I'll just come across as an ass.
Yes, games do require funding, but eventually some company is going to try to expand on a very stale market and it might pay off big. It's clear that going the "safe" route is not the way to success. In business... or anything, really, it rarely is. There are a lot of successful games that stem from good ideas, rather than only market research. Besides, there are still people taking risks in this industry; they might not always pay off, like 38 Studios (even though they could have been successful had the scales been tipped in their favor, and a certain governor didn't have a big mouth), and even ArenaNet with GW2, even though they did do a fair amount of pandering to the WoW crowd. My point is, the idea of taking a risk is not far-fetched, and thankfully not everyone has your attitude; if we did, we'd all still be rubbing sticks together for fire.
Most pre WoW MMOs.
Darkfall.
Eve...that's about it.
Just because a game has quests doesn't mean you have to do them. If you prefer to mindlessly grind mobs, then just do that. Nobody is stopping you, especially the game developers.
Just don't expect to find a lot of like-minded individuals who wish to join your mob-grinding party. However, your leveling method might be pretty good for a game such as LOTRO. Buy just mindlessly grinding mobs, you will earn your deeds and earn Turbine points that you can spend on game elements that you do actually enjoy.
So LOTRO would be my recommendation.
OP, you should wait for ArcheAge, the game does have kill 10 quests but it's going to be the most open and sandboxy MMO ever made since EvE, AAA budget wise, there are other stuff to do than just kill mobs and lvl up.
Ignore the fools who flame anyone who has a different opinion, GW2 is exactly how you describe it, im still killing 10 rats and picking up 5 apples just because an NPC tells me to do it, and because i will get XP, who actually cares if the area changes for 5 minutes before resetting... it's still a themepark that lacks real meaning after the fun factor of playing a new game wears off.
I would rather have a game where there are REAL reasons to kill mobs, like Politics, Economy, Guild Wars, etc.
My advice, wait for ArcheAge and The Repopulation, or maybe you could try a Lineage 2 private server.
"Dogs are the leaders of the planet. If you see two life forms, one of them's making a poop, the other one's carrying it for him, who would you assume is in charge."
"The idea behind the tuxedo is the woman's point of view that men are all the same; so we might as well dress them that way. That's why a wedding is like the joining together of a beautiful, glowing bride and some guy"
-Seinfeld
EverQuest I: The only game to date that not only puts the emphasis on mob killing for leveling, but does so more efficiently and faster than just about any MMO out there right now. With it's current leveling curve, you don't start slowing down till the 50's or so, out of 95 levels currently.
In regards to GW2, quests, hearts and dynamic events are still much more efficient for leveling than just running around and killing stuff, by a substantial margin.
Yeah, and you have to kill mobs most of the time. Imagine that.
At this point I don't think I get what most people are looking for when they say "no quests."
Right, I can, in theory, simply ignore the quests. However, as I explained earlier, games that are quest-dependent don't have anything outside of structured content. Let me give you an example. I used to play Ragnarok Online (the "golden age" of MMOs was a little before my time, so I didn't have the opportunity to try them in their hay day). Anyway, in Ragnarok every enemy was different. You would need different skills, classes and equipment depending on what you fought. Monsters were the focus of the combat, not an obstacle. It was just plain old fun to fight; it didn't need some contrived reason to kill them. Most battles needed a unique approach and positioning was paramount. Most quest games having boring as hell combat, so it has to be spiced up with quests and objectives to distract. Trust me, during my stint in WoW, I tried the no questing thing, and it was terrible, because the game wasn't designed that way. Like I said earlier, the quests, themselves, are only have of the the problem. The other half is the game design that is often synonymous with quests.
I've tried LotRO. I got to level 15 or so, and it seemed like your standard questing affair. Thank you for the suggestion, though.
I tried Wakfu. While it seemed unique and interesting in a lot of ways, I just didn't enjoy the combat very much. I know MMOs like that have a lot more to offer other than the combat, but fighting is something that's important to me personally. Fighting is usually what I do the most of in an MMO; if I don't enjoy it, then I can't really get into the game.
So here you are saying that combat mechanics are the issue, because if the quest had said kill 5 of these you would have been happy to do it. I admit using the term narrow minded was harsh on my part, but I continue to disagree that simply having quests in a game somehow makes it an inferior game. I'm sorry but that is how your original post came across to me.
I think surely somewhere in a game you game across a quest where you probably got some enjoyment. Did you not also say previously that you were not particularly looking at a sandbox game either?? This confuse me further, because I am not sure what you are really looking for, other than to complain how lame that you feel quests are.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Were you doing the hearts or the Dynamic Events? Because I don't really get how most of the DE's can be confused with typical quests. Especially if you actually follow the chain of the DEs. Yes, there are some, guard this, collect that DE's but not many.
As for "one-sided hype videos", doesn't every gameplay video do that for every game????
Edit: You know, after reading some of your posts on this thread, it seems there may not be any MMO out there for you at this point. Maybe The Sims is more what you're looking for? It may not have combat, but it seems to have everything else you're looking for. No hunt this, kill that....
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
I said that combat mechanics are part of the issue. I was just using it as an example. Like I said, I don't actually enjoy doing the quests themselves, either. The problem stems from these games putting so much weight on the quests as the main part of the content, instead of simpler options that would have more depth. A minute to learn; a lifetime to master. One thing I noticed while playing Rift was that it was essentially the opposite of that. There is so much information you need right off the bat when choosing your souls and all of your skills, but when it comes down to it, it's just shallow complexity, because most of the builds end up feeling the same anyway.
I didn't say whether or not that I would be into a sandbox. I said I'm not a hardcore gamer, and I've never really experienced what people would call a full on sandbox, so I can't say. Based on what I know, I'd probably like a sandbox over a theme park if I had to choose, but I don't really like to pigeonhole games like that.
I'm not entirely sure what I'm looking for either... well, I am, but not in terms what actually exists. Yes, I'm basically just bitching, but there is the possibility that I could try out one the suggestions that I'm getting, and I may be pleasantly surprised. So, complaining, with a little bit of function woven in, if that clears it up. But what are forums for if not for bitching?
I'm well aware of the difference between the hearts and the dynamic events. And yes, every single dynamic event had me collecting something, defending something, or killing some arbitrary amount of something. The only thing that was different about them was that they had more context, which didn't really do it for me, like I already said.
You're right. most, if not, every video like that is one-sided.... You used that statement as a counter, but it seemed like you're agreeing with me.
Edit: You know, after reading some of your posts on this thread, it seems there may not be any MMO out there for you at this point. Maybe The Sims is more what you're looking for? It may not have combat, but it seems to have everything else you're looking for. No hunt this, kill that....
I'm not sure you did read my other posts, otherwise you might have noticed when I said this:
"I know MMOs like that have a lot more to offer other than the combat, but fighting is something that's important to me personally."
LIke I said, the games I did like, or might have liked, are either dead or are just shadows of their former selves. Just because I don't think GW2 is the game for me doesn't mean that there isn't one. The market has been stale and full of clones for a while now, so it's not like there's been much a variety to choose from. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Guild Wars 2 is a bad game by any stretch. They put an absurd amount of effort into it, and it shows. Overall, I'm happy that it's being released whether or not I play it, because at least it's attempting to break away from the established formula. I hope its success is a message that the genre is ready to change and urges more companies to take creative risks. Unfortunately, it'll probably just cause more publishers to push for DEs. If that's the case, then we may see a brand new generation of GW2 clones, and we'll have to wait another 7 years before some more change. Only time will tell.
@ the OP's original question:
Have you tried Mabinogi? It's F2P (with fewer restrictions than most, if I remember correctly), has really interesting gameplay systems, and isn't quest based. Maybe it's changed since it's been awhile since I've played it, but it may be just what you're looking fo.
I'll check it out. Thanks.
Really I think this person nailed it.....After WoW came out almost everyu company thought that is what we all wanted in our games......We no longer got a good world to explore but simply one where everything in the world was somehow involved in a quest.....Most of these games you sacrifice graphics due to how old they are, but most of them are still fun... ALso alot of them are f2p or have some sort of free to try option so you'd have nothing to lose...Personally I always had fun in EQ and Anarchy Online.
Warhammer AoR
But I don't think that's what you're looking for as it has evolved to hardcore RvR.