You "Games, not Worlds" guys should just shut up and be happy. There are more MMO Games coming out all the time that you probably have time to play. Three big western AAA titles within a year and an expansion to the biggest MMO Game out there.
Us "Worlds, not Games" guys have currently ZERO viable choices if we want anything that isn't full loot FFA PvP or made by incompetent and/or underbudgeted dev teams.
But I guess it's difficult to see that from your side of the fence.
Eve? Oh and thanks for telling me to shut up..really appreciated
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
Originally posted by apocoluster Disagree. Give me games. The real world is plenty enough Sandboxy for me. I play games to get away from it.
Ill agree with you... as soon as i can travel through the universe in a straship looking for ancient civilizations or devote my life to study magic and evil planes of existance.
lol till then your sttuck in a Modern Off line Sand box RPG..with great graphics but shit communtity and its pay to win to boot
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
If I want a fantasy experience with a definite beginning and end I'll pick up a book. I'd rather make my own story when I play.
then why not try Civilization or The Sims or Spore or Second Life
Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. Lao-Tze
So I played Skyrim again yesterday and thought - boy would an open world like this be awesome as an MMO (or even Coop). And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone with those thoughts.
An MMO by definition needs a constant playerbase in order to generate recurring revenue. Right?
Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds? They create Games that have a pretty definite beginning and quite pronounced ending. Then they try to squeeze more gameplay time from the ending, by whatever methods, and hope that players like the trickle of content enough to keep paying.
When UO was launched it was a World. There simply was no "ending" in the game, unless you considered reaching 7x GM the end of the game. Nor was there a guided path taking you from the beginning to the end. When you logged in, YOU had to decide what you would do tonight, instead of the game cramming the next captain-obvious-grade path down your throat. Of course at about the time Age of Shadows hit, the devs tried to turn UO more into a game and less into a world, and we all know how well that went.
So what is it so difficult to create a World? In theory, all you have to do is a) create the landscape, populate it with mobs and NPCs and b) give players tools to make their own adventures. The tools might be anything from player housing to shops to a powerful quest scripting editor.
Of course for a) to succeed the world needs to be believeable and large enough. Instancing pretty much kills the definition of a World, although maybe some distinctively separated areas (like dungeons) could be instanced and not break the immestion too much. With today's technology, however, this is all doable.
For b) to succeed the tools need to be easy to use, but still able to affect the game world. If the player has a feeling he has an impact on the game World, no matter how small, he will want to stick around and see how his little spark of a creation will start living a life of its own. Or he will go and create something more.
I understand that the marriage of an open world and a powerful content creation tool is a difficult one, but it's not impossible. All you need is moderation. Let the players use the tools to create new adventures and if found good enough, add it to the world. FREE CONTENT created by the players themselves. I would guess the price of the moderating staff should be quite a bit less than the staff you need to churn out the same amount of content.
Neverwinter seems to be taking the b) seriously but it falls plain flat on its face on a), with a fully instanced world.
Darkfall seems to be taking a) seriously, but b) is pretty limited and the focus on FFA Full Loot PvP will attact a very distinctive crowd that has the ability to alienate everyone else from the game.
The rest are too small-time players to actually have the resources to finish their games before they either run out of steam or are horribly outdated.
I honestly think that this is the current "holy grail" of MMOs. A living, breathing WORLD that keeps on evolving and growing because the PLAYERS do all the work. All the devs need to do is to give more tools to the players and moderate the creations they come up with. The rest is history.
Hopefully, some day, a big publisher will see the light and reach out to it.
you wanna know why? because people are cheaters, exploiters, destroyers. not crafters, explorers and gatherers.
if they would build a free to roam world people would find a way to destroy it, so they could get the best stuff with the least work - as always.
it's not as simple as you think, no matter how many words you use to describe it.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
So I played Skyrim again yesterday and thought - boy would an open world like this be awesome as an MMO (or even Coop). And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone with those thoughts.
An MMO by definition needs a constant playerbase in order to generate recurring revenue. Right?
Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds? They create Games that have a pretty definite beginning and quite pronounced ending. Then they try to squeeze more gameplay time from the ending, by whatever methods, and hope that players like the trickle of content enough to keep paying.
When UO was launched it was a World. There simply was no "ending" in the game, unless you considered reaching 7x GM the end of the game. Nor was there a guided path taking you from the beginning to the end. When you logged in, YOU had to decide what you would do tonight, instead of the game cramming the next captain-obvious-grade path down your throat. Of course at about the time Age of Shadows hit, the devs tried to turn UO more into a game and less into a world, and we all know how well that went.
So what is it so difficult to create a World? In theory, all you have to do is a) create the landscape, populate it with mobs and NPCs and b) give players tools to make their own adventures. The tools might be anything from player housing to shops to a powerful quest scripting editor.
Of course for a) to succeed the world needs to be believeable and large enough. Instancing pretty much kills the definition of a World, although maybe some distinctively separated areas (like dungeons) could be instanced and not break the immestion too much. With today's technology, however, this is all doable.
For b) to succeed the tools need to be easy to use, but still able to affect the game world. If the player has a feeling he has an impact on the game World, no matter how small, he will want to stick around and see how his little spark of a creation will start living a life of its own. Or he will go and create something more.
I understand that the marriage of an open world and a powerful content creation tool is a difficult one, but it's not impossible. All you need is moderation. Let the players use the tools to create new adventures and if found good enough, add it to the world. FREE CONTENT created by the players themselves. I would guess the price of the moderating staff should be quite a bit less than the staff you need to churn out the same amount of content.
Neverwinter seems to be taking the b) seriously but it falls plain flat on its face on a), with a fully instanced world.
Darkfall seems to be taking a) seriously, but b) is pretty limited and the focus on FFA Full Loot PvP will attact a very distinctive crowd that has the ability to alienate everyone else from the game.
The rest are too small-time players to actually have the resources to finish their games before they either run out of steam or are horribly outdated.
I honestly think that this is the current "holy grail" of MMOs. A living, breathing WORLD that keeps on evolving and growing because the PLAYERS do all the work. All the devs need to do is to give more tools to the players and moderate the creations they come up with. The rest is history.
Hopefully, some day, a big publisher will see the light and reach out to it.
you wanna know why? because people are cheaters, exploiters, destroyers. not crafters, explorers and gatherers.
if they would build a free to roam world people would find a way to destroy it, so they could get the best stuff with the least work - as always.
it's not as simple as you think, no matter how many words you use to describe it.
Naturally, if you decide to let them take it, they will. That's the issue, people don't want to lose anything, but they don't have what it takes to keep everything. Then they want bunch of artifical barriers to protect them, and the vicious cycle of instancing and roller coaster rides begun.
Originally posted by Thane Originally posted by tom_gore So I played Skyrim again yesterday and thought - boy would an open world like this be awesome as an MMO (or even Coop). And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone with those thoughts.An MMO by definition needs a constant playerbase in order to generate recurring revenue. Right?Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds? They create Games that have a pretty definite beginning and quite pronounced ending. Then they try to squeeze more gameplay time from the ending, by whatever methods, and hope that players like the trickle of content enough to keep paying.When UO was launched it was a World. There simply was no "ending" in the game, unless you considered reaching 7x GM the end of the game. Nor was there a guided path taking you from the beginning to the end. When you logged in, YOU had to decide what you would do tonight, instead of the game cramming the next captain-obvious-grade path down your throat. Of course at about the time Age of Shadows hit, the devs tried to turn UO more into a game and less into a world, and we all know how well that went.So what is it so difficult to create a World? In theory, all you have to do is a) create the landscape, populate it with mobs and NPCs and b) give players tools to make their own adventures. The tools might be anything from player housing to shops to a powerful quest scripting editor.Of course for a) to succeed the world needs to be believeable and large enough. Instancing pretty much kills the definition of a World, although maybe some distinctively separated areas (like dungeons) could be instanced and not break the immestion too much. With today's technology, however, this is all doable.For b) to succeed the tools need to be easy to use, but still able to affect the game world. If the player has a feeling he has an impact on the game World, no matter how small, he will want to stick around and see how his little spark of a creation will start living a life of its own. Or he will go and create something more.I understand that the marriage of an open world and a powerful content creation tool is a difficult one, but it's not impossible. All you need is moderation. Let the players use the tools to create new adventures and if found good enough, add it to the world. FREE CONTENT created by the players themselves. I would guess the price of the moderating staff should be quite a bit less than the staff you need to churn out the same amount of content.Neverwinter seems to be taking the b) seriously but it falls plain flat on its face on a), with a fully instanced world.Darkfall seems to be taking a) seriously, but b) is pretty limited and the focus on FFA Full Loot PvP will attact a very distinctive crowd that has the ability to alienate everyone else from the game.The rest are too small-time players to actually have the resources to finish their games before they either run out of steam or are horribly outdated.I honestly think that this is the current "holy grail" of MMOs. A living, breathing WORLD that keeps on evolving and growing because the PLAYERS do all the work. All the devs need to do is to give more tools to the players and moderate the creations they come up with. The rest is history.Hopefully, some day, a big publisher will see the light and reach out to it.
you wanna know why? because people are cheaters, exploiters, destroyers. not crafters, explorers and gatherers.
if they would build a free to roam world people would find a way to destroy it, so they could get the best stuff with the least work - as always.
it's not as simple as you think, no matter how many words you use to describe it.
Naturally, if you decide to let them take it, they will. That's the issue, people don't want to lose anything, but they don't have what it takes to keep everything. Then they want bunch of artifical barriers to protect them, and the vicious cycle of instancing and roller coaster rides begun.
yeah cause nothing is more fun than a survival of the fittest, death sport,penal colony world filled with crafters and politicians...
Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. Lao-Tze
Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds?
Because there are people who prefer "games" over "worlds".
There are a few people at work who play video games (which is a first for me as usually I'm the only one or one of two people).
Of those who do and who played Skyrim (to use your example) all played for the quests and main story and stopped. One of the guys who would be considered an avid gamer told me that he didn't like skyrim because it was too open for his taste. He preferred Dishonored over Skyrim because it brought you from one section to the other and if you found a side quest then you could do it but still be firmly guided through the game. He felt that he froze when walking outside. "what now?" Didnt' like it.
My girlfriend's ex played Skyrim and after he did all the main quest and the side quests as well as things like Mage college, compansions etc, stopped playing. He also said that it was too open for his taste.
So there you go.
Likely no game is "too open" but in Skyrim's case, aside from the quest lines, its quite boring. There's really not a whole lot you can do or achieve. So why play it after you've finished the major storylines?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds?
Because there are people who prefer "games" over "worlds".
There are a few people at work who play video games (which is a first for me as usually I'm the only one or one of two people).
Of those who do and who played Skyrim (to use your example) all played for the quests and main story and stopped. One of the guys who would be considered an avid gamer told me that he didn't like skyrim because it was too open for his taste. He preferred Dishonored over Skyrim because it brought you from one section to the other and if you found a side quest then you could do it but still be firmly guided through the game. He felt that he froze when walking outside. "what now?" Didnt' like it.
My girlfriend's ex played Skyrim and after he did all the main quest and the side quests as well as things like Mage college, compansions etc, stopped playing. He also said that it was too open for his taste.
So there you go.
Likely no game is "too open" but in Skyrim's case, aside from the quest lines, its quite boring. There's really not a whole lot you can do or achieve. So why play it after you've finished the major storylines?
mostly for exploration. you can go to midieval times and explore a world you've never seen before. all while drinking beer and sitting in the comfort of your own home. the story line is fine in ES games but i think most people continue to play it because it feels like a world. which is the point i think the OP was trying to make when he brought up Skyrim. you can play it and it doesnt have to feel as 'gamey' as other games. you can become part of the world, if you want. you aren't forced to do anything, and your decisions matter.
OP, sadly that will not going to happen. "Worlds" are no longer welcomed by gaming community, let alone MMORPG players.
Why? Because they dont care for "worlds". All they want is a "level cap race" "endgame" "PHAT LEWT" and other things. I dont even understand anymore, why putting "world" or levels in MMO at all. It just cost resources.
Sad, but true fact. No one will ever make the game for us, minority of players. Well at least, im enjoying GW2 while it lasts...
EDIT: Yea, GW2 is 'instanced' ('zoned' should be proper world), but that is more about technical aspect of the discussion. I dont really mind even 'instancing' if done properly.
Main MMO at the moment: Guild Wars 2 Waiting for: Pathfinder Online
OP, sadly that will not going to happen. "Worlds" are no longer welcomed by gaming community, let alone MMORPG players.
Why? Because they dont care for "worlds". All they want is a "level cap race" "endgame" "PHAT LEWT" and other things. I dont even understand anymore, why putting "world" or levels in MMO at all. It just cost resources.
Sad, but true fact. No one will ever make the game for us, minority of players. Well at least, im enjoying GW2 while it lasts...
EDIT: Yea, GW2 is 'instanced' ('zoned' should be proper world), but that is more about technical aspect of the discussion. I dont really mind even 'instancing' if done properly.
EQ Next supposed to be Sandy...also Project Calypso for the sci fi bent is totally sandy
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
Then tell me, because I cannot by the love of god undestand, WHY do developers keep developing Games instead of Worlds?
Because there are people who prefer "games" over "worlds".
There are a few people at work who play video games (which is a first for me as usually I'm the only one or one of two people).
Of those who do and who played Skyrim (to use your example) all played for the quests and main story and stopped. One of the guys who would be considered an avid gamer told me that he didn't like skyrim because it was too open for his taste. He preferred Dishonored over Skyrim because it brought you from one section to the other and if you found a side quest then you could do it but still be firmly guided through the game. He felt that he froze when walking outside. "what now?" Didnt' like it.
My girlfriend's ex played Skyrim and after he did all the main quest and the side quests as well as things like Mage college, compansions etc, stopped playing. He also said that it was too open for his taste.
So there you go.
Likely no game is "too open" but in Skyrim's case, aside from the quest lines, its quite boring. There's really not a whole lot you can do or achieve. So why play it after you've finished the major storylines?
And yet I have 508 hours in the game. So in light of your statement, why do you think I, and perhaps others play it after those quest lines are done and "achievements" have been done (though truth be told I never play any game for achievements so usually ignore them until they happen).
That also might explain, go to the core, of why some people want more open worlds and some do not.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
implicit comparison: the use to describe somebody or something of a word or phrase that is not meant literally but by means of a vivid comparison expresses something about him, her, or it, e.g. saying that somebody is a snake
2.
figurative language: all language that involves figures of speech or symbolism and does not literally represent real things
3.
symbol: one thing used or considered to represent another
[ 15th century. Via French or Latin < Greek metaphora < metapherein "to transfer" < pherein "to carry" ]
met·a·phor·ic ADJECTIVE
met·a·phor·i·cal ADJECTIVE
met·a·phor·i·cal·ly ADVERB
Translations
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
That is a wrong question. In your generic qq about a game no developer wants to make to suit your desires, you missed out all other gamers.
So the real question here is: Do current MMO gamers want to create their own worlds and adventures?
The answer is: Unlikely.
Problem solved.
The current brunt of MMO consumers weren't around when MMORPG was defined as a technology. In it's vision, it was always meant to be more about the world than the game, eventually though, as with all things, money priorities wins out for game makers. Thus, we have the casual loot-oriented throw-away hallways of today where actual gamers have no reason to sticking around for more than a month, and even while doing it, hating it all along.
Game consumers dictate gamers these days, it's no secret.
That is a wrong question. In your generic qq about a game no developer wants to make to suit your desires, you missed out all other gamers.
So the real question here is: Do current MMO gamers want to create their own worlds and adventures?
The answer is: Unlikely.
Problem solved.
Imagine a customer wanting a product that fits his needs, what gall!
This is the institutionalized prostelizations of a Theme Park thrall in disguise as scorn. He needs you to stay in theme park raid land, to firmly secure a steady flow of more one-time MMORPG's by keeping developer interest high instead of player interest.
His biggest fear is that they will create a world, and the public will like it in lieu of spoon fed linear NPC patronage.
Originally posted by apocoluster Disagree. Give me games. The real world is plenty enough Sandboxy for me. I play games to get away from it.
^this x100
Yes, because the sandbox game where you run around in wizard robes shooting fireballs and burning down towns, is just like your real life.
DICTIONARY
metaphor
Does your dictionary have "failed metaphor" anywhere in it? If you play a sandbox game where you can shoot fire and lightning, it's not comparable even on metaphorical sense to real life, that's exactly the stuff you want to play games for vs. the real life where you can only dream of it.
Originally posted by apocoluster Disagree. Give me games. The real world is plenty enough Sandboxy for me. I play games to get away from it.
^this x100
Disagree, we have plenty of game "games" to choose from, yet little sandbox type games atmost open world games that still doesn't satisfied the wants and needs of a sandbox gamer.
And how can anyone say that the real world is sandboxy enough when we are talking about fantasy or sci-fi worlds we like our sandbox to coinsied in?
MMORPG's started of with giving gamer a complete different game experiance compared to what we already could play in other genre's.
But....I do know there is a niche audience for a sandbox type of MMORPG, it's not for the masses. The masses have proven time and time again that being more guided is more fun then being at a lost. Nothing wrong with that. But then can't you admit there is room for more?
When someone askes for a more sandboxy type of MMORPG, he/she also wants that entertaining form of escapism, but atleast speaking for myself I want that escapism in a more believable world set in a sci-fi or fantasy world where it's not only about combat, though it may take a major part. there is a hugh community that can support a game if there is more to it then just playing a online combat game. As said we have plenty of that already.....
This was a thought that I myself had about GW2 recently. As big and beautiful as the world is, it feels really closed in because there is always something going on eveywhere you go.
I just remember those times in WoW when I was on a path in the forest somewhere and I could stand there for a while with no one coming by all. All you hear is the forest and the eery Night Elf music. I always loved that. Of course it's been some time ago so WoW may not be like that anymore.
Anyway, I also feel like those quiet moments of solitude can make the world feel large and mysterious.
Naturally, if you decide to let them take it, they will. That's the issue, people don't want to lose anything, but they don't have what it takes to keep everything. Then they want bunch of artifical barriers to protect them, and the vicious cycle of instancing and roller coaster rides begun.
yeah cause nothing is more fun than a survival of the fittest, death sport,penal colony world filled with crafters and politicians...
Describes EVE perfectly, and you are correct, there is nothing more fun (for me) out there right now.
With the opportunity for great evil comes the chance for great good as well.
Everything else is just a lukewarm in between.
I'm all for more, bigger, better virtual worlds, but know that my playing preferences are clearly in the minority of paying customers.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
If I want a fantasy experience with a definite beginning and end I'll pick up a book. I'd rather make my own story when I play.
Eve? Oh and thanks for telling me to shut up..really appreciated
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
lol till then your sttuck in a Modern Off line Sand box RPG..with great graphics but shit communtity and its pay to win to boot
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
then why not try Civilization or The Sims or Spore or Second LifeWatch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
Lao-Tze
you wanna know why? because people are cheaters, exploiters, destroyers. not crafters, explorers and gatherers.
if they would build a free to roam world people would find a way to destroy it, so they could get the best stuff with the least work - as always.
it's not as simple as you think, no matter how many words you use to describe it.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Naturally, if you decide to let them take it, they will. That's the issue, people don't want to lose anything, but they don't have what it takes to keep everything. Then they want bunch of artifical barriers to protect them, and the vicious cycle of instancing and roller coaster rides begun.
you wanna know why? because people are cheaters, exploiters, destroyers. not crafters, explorers and gatherers.
if they would build a free to roam world people would find a way to destroy it, so they could get the best stuff with the least work - as always.
it's not as simple as you think, no matter how many words you use to describe it.
Naturally, if you decide to let them take it, they will. That's the issue, people don't want to lose anything, but they don't have what it takes to keep everything. Then they want bunch of artifical barriers to protect them, and the vicious cycle of instancing and roller coaster rides begun.
yeah cause nothing is more fun than a survival of the fittest, death sport,penal colony world filled with crafters and politicians...Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
Lao-Tze
This x 200.
Likely no game is "too open" but in Skyrim's case, aside from the quest lines, its quite boring. There's really not a whole lot you can do or achieve. So why play it after you've finished the major storylines?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
consoles are filled with games, have fun.
Have fun the current 'world' MMO you are playing...
mostly for exploration. you can go to midieval times and explore a world you've never seen before. all while drinking beer and sitting in the comfort of your own home. the story line is fine in ES games but i think most people continue to play it because it feels like a world. which is the point i think the OP was trying to make when he brought up Skyrim. you can play it and it doesnt have to feel as 'gamey' as other games. you can become part of the world, if you want. you aren't forced to do anything, and your decisions matter.
OP, sadly that will not going to happen. "Worlds" are no longer welcomed by gaming community, let alone MMORPG players.
Why? Because they dont care for "worlds". All they want is a "level cap race" "endgame" "PHAT LEWT" and other things. I dont even understand anymore, why putting "world" or levels in MMO at all. It just cost resources.
Sad, but true fact. No one will ever make the game for us, minority of players. Well at least, im enjoying GW2 while it lasts...
EDIT: Yea, GW2 is 'instanced' ('zoned' should be proper world), but that is more about technical aspect of the discussion. I dont really mind even 'instancing' if done properly.
Main MMO at the moment: Guild Wars 2
Waiting for: Pathfinder Online
Yes, because the sandbox game where you run around in wizard robes shooting fireballs and burning down towns, is just like your real life.
EQ Next supposed to be Sandy...also Project Calypso for the sci fi bent is totally sandy
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
And yet I have 508 hours in the game. So in light of your statement, why do you think I, and perhaps others play it after those quest lines are done and "achievements" have been done (though truth be told I never play any game for achievements so usually ignore them until they happen).
That also might explain, go to the core, of why some people want more open worlds and some do not.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
DICTIONARY
metaphor
Definition
met·a·phor
[ métt? fàwr ]
To hear the pronunciation, install Silverlight
NOUN
1.
implicit comparison: the use to describe somebody or something of a word or phrase that is not meant literally but by means of a vivid comparison expresses something about him, her, or it, e.g. saying that somebody is a snake
2.
figurative language: all language that involves figures of speech or symbolism and does not literally represent real things
3.
symbol: one thing used or considered to represent another
[ 15th century. Via French or Latin < Greek metaphora < metapherein "to transfer" < pherein "to carry" ]
met·a·phor·ic ADJECTIVE
met·a·phor·i·cal ADJECTIVE
met·a·phor·i·cal·ly ADVERB
Translations
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
That is a wrong question. In your generic qq about a game no developer wants to make to suit your desires, you missed out all other gamers.
So the real question here is: Do current MMO gamers want to create their own worlds and adventures?
The answer is: Unlikely.
Problem solved.
The current brunt of MMO consumers weren't around when MMORPG was defined as a technology. In it's vision, it was always meant to be more about the world than the game, eventually though, as with all things, money priorities wins out for game makers. Thus, we have the casual loot-oriented throw-away hallways of today where actual gamers have no reason to sticking around for more than a month, and even while doing it, hating it all along.
Game consumers dictate gamers these days, it's no secret.
Imagine a customer wanting a product that fits his needs, what gall!
This is the institutionalized prostelizations of a Theme Park thrall in disguise as scorn. He needs you to stay in theme park raid land, to firmly secure a steady flow of more one-time MMORPG's by keeping developer interest high instead of player interest.
His biggest fear is that they will create a world, and the public will like it in lieu of spoon fed linear NPC patronage.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
Does your dictionary have "failed metaphor" anywhere in it? If you play a sandbox game where you can shoot fire and lightning, it's not comparable even on metaphorical sense to real life, that's exactly the stuff you want to play games for vs. the real life where you can only dream of it.
Disagree, we have plenty of game "games" to choose from, yet little sandbox type games atmost open world games that still doesn't satisfied the wants and needs of a sandbox gamer.
And how can anyone say that the real world is sandboxy enough when we are talking about fantasy or sci-fi worlds we like our sandbox to coinsied in?
MMORPG's started of with giving gamer a complete different game experiance compared to what we already could play in other genre's.
But....I do know there is a niche audience for a sandbox type of MMORPG, it's not for the masses. The masses have proven time and time again that being more guided is more fun then being at a lost. Nothing wrong with that. But then can't you admit there is room for more?
When someone askes for a more sandboxy type of MMORPG, he/she also wants that entertaining form of escapism, but atleast speaking for myself I want that escapism in a more believable world set in a sci-fi or fantasy world where it's not only about combat, though it may take a major part. there is a hugh community that can support a game if there is more to it then just playing a online combat game. As said we have plenty of that already.....
Exactly!!
This was a thought that I myself had about GW2 recently. As big and beautiful as the world is, it feels really closed in because there is always something going on eveywhere you go.
I just remember those times in WoW when I was on a path in the forest somewhere and I could stand there for a while with no one coming by all. All you hear is the forest and the eery Night Elf music. I always loved that. Of course it's been some time ago so WoW may not be like that anymore.
Anyway, I also feel like those quiet moments of solitude can make the world feel large and mysterious.
Neither is sufficiently like real life for this to be a valid argument. Apple to Oranges to Pineapples
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
Describes EVE perfectly, and you are correct, there is nothing more fun (for me) out there right now.
With the opportunity for great evil comes the chance for great good as well.
Everything else is just a lukewarm in between.
I'm all for more, bigger, better virtual worlds, but know that my playing preferences are clearly in the minority of paying customers.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon