Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

We dont want games - we want worlds.

1246730

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by fernetek
    This is EXACTLY why I loved RIFT when it first came out. The danger of towns being taken over by monsters was constant, making it so you had to work with players to protect them. I LOVED it. 

    How about now? Do you stil love it?

  • ZekiahZekiah Aurora, COPosts: 2,499Member
    Originally posted by fernetek
    This is EXACTLY why I loved RIFT when it first came out. The danger of towns being taken over by monsters was constant, making it so you had to work with players to protect them. I LOVED it. 

    Hmm, I couldn't stomach going past 15 minutes into my second Rift beta. I think I dropped Rift faster than any other MMO I've played. Rifts were/are just gimmicks and themeparks are chock full of 'em.

    "Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,978Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by apocoluster
     The same problem i really have with this thread..much like the one started two weeks ago..with almost the same name...is the use of We.  Im sure you have plenty of people who agree with you, but to use "WE" implies that Everyone agrees with you.  Maybe for furture referance..the Poster should start with a " I dont want games..I want a world" as his title.  Just my 2 cents...feel free to whine and complain to each other now about how modern games suck.

    Exactly. I want games, not worlds.

    I'm cool if my game has a world in it.  I'm not going to treat it like a virtual escape though, I think anyone who does that is an idiot.

    You should see what they think of you.

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "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

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by apocoluster
     The same problem i really have with this thread..much like the one started two weeks ago..with almost the same name...is the use of We.  Im sure you have plenty of people who agree with you, but to use "WE" implies that Everyone agrees with you.  Maybe for furture referance..the Poster should start with a " I dont want games..I want a world" as his title.  Just my 2 cents...feel free to whine and complain to each other now about how modern games suck.

    Exactly. I want games, not worlds.

    I'm cool if my game has a world in it.  I'm not going to treat it like a virtual escape though, I think anyone who does that is an idiot.

    You should see what they think of you.

    You seem to think I care.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • SpiiderSpiider BinzPosts: 474Member Uncommon

    Deralied thread back on track.

    Worlds! You sir made my day, it's been a while since I read a thread that makes sense and I agree with.

    I dare to say that even worlds are too little. I want a universe. Limitless opportunities to be or do what I would like to.

    No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.

  • garrettgarrett Posts: 260MMORPG.COM Staff Uncommon

    I love this quote and could not agree more! 

     

    Worlds are where things are going...hopefully, back to the beginnings with Ultima Online. 

     

     

     

     :p 
  • /signed

    Sums it up nicely

  • TheHavokTheHavok San Jose, CAPosts: 2,398Member Uncommon
  • TheHavokTheHavok San Jose, CAPosts: 2,398Member Uncommon
    Haha all joking aside, I see the point the OP is trying to make.  Personally i'm fine with playing games.
  • ForumPvPForumPvP KingstownPosts: 871Member
    Originally posted by Lobotomist

    And than it stopped.

     

    Maan,2004 playing Anarchy Online and thinking how MMORPGs are going to be at 2010.

    We have 5000 more skills ,we are conquering new planets and flying in the space,and someone opened CoH chests.

    but no.

     

     

     

    Let's internet

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by garrett
    I love this quote and could not agree more!  Worlds are where things are going...hopefully, back to the beginnings with Ultima Online.    

    Hmmm. We've already been there. Let's go someplace new.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • wes4mu089wes4mu089 Dayton, OHPosts: 19Member

    Fear not Ultima lovers, you are in for a bright future.

     

    I think many developers are realizing that Sandbox is the future of gaming, as technology expands, and limitations become less and less.

     

    Sandbox gaming isn't so much a niche as someone earlier described, in as much as it is not so well executed in most games. Most sandbox games tend to be too over the top in complexity so much so that building a house is a fulltime job in itself to the point that you might as well be living a second life. (see what I did there?)

    But that is not to say that Sandbox can not be refined, streamlined to where complexity finds equal and common ground with user friendlyness. And thats the biggest detractor from Sandbox games. People think sandbox games and they get so overexcited about the possibilities, but when they actually get in to play the game their response is, "Well, this sucks." Not because Sandbox isn't an awesome idea, but simply because it is too difficult to get into or understand when done at such an extreme level. (Wurm will drive you nuts!... and FUCK Salem.)

    Those over the top hardcore games do have their merits to the type of people that are into that thing but usually require dedication to them on a near daily basis to be able to maintain your little virtual life.

    BUT, as technology expands, and people are figuring out new ways to do things, we are constantly refining our games and making them easier to play, yet as well, achieving that complex feel. Look at Assassin's Creed for example. When I first saw the tech demo for Assassin's Creed 1.0 I was blown away. And thinking on how that could even be done on a single controller blew my mind. But they did it... and they continued to evolve the formula. Or hell, look at Metal Gear Solid 4. That had a complex control scheme, with so many interactions in comparison to your average shooter, and yet, they also did it on a single controller. And thats why I think we only have a few more years to go until Sandbox games grow on the rise again. Because they are the next expansion and next step into making these 'MMORPGs' more believable, more immersive. But as well, developers are refining old mistakes, and finding ways to make games more 'ergonomic'. And that really comes down to what will be successful for a Sandbox MMO. An ergonomical control scheme. The ability to control complex functions with ease and little effort.

    Archeage looks like it is the first MMO taking a big step into streamlining the gap between the themebox and the sandbox. What little I participated in the Korean Beta, I saw that the game was beauitful, and the UI (despite being in a language I couldn't understand) was detailed with lots of user friendly information regarding different tasks. IT was the fun of playing Sandbox, with the ease of playing any other MMO. I think bridging this gap will be what makes Sandbox Games largely successful.

    Graphics and technology continue to expand, but eventually we're going to hit a wall there. If the game starts looking like real life, well, there isn't a whole lot else you can do there, can you? Asthetics in the long run of gaming will not be half as important as gameplay, and the functionality and ease of use of future games. Its not making a complex game less complicated and less interesting. Its simply making them egornomically easier to perform complex tasks. Its going to be about not losing your player base in the first five minutes of playing a game because they can't figure out how to do a damn thing (which is typical in most indie sandbox games. *Coughs* Xsyon *Coughs* Salem *Coughs*)

     

    I think games that should be on your watch list will be games like:

     

    Archeage -

    Archeage will play, (and does play) like a typical themepark game in terms of questing and combat. Its much like WoW in that regard, only much more beautiful. And it has an insane amount of sandbox elements, largely inspired by the lead developer himself by his love for Ultima Online series. He even goes as far in saying that it is Ultima Online's spiritual predecessor.

     

    Black Desert Online -

    Not much info out on this game yet, but it looks incredibly promising. While it likely is going to be less sandboxy than Archeage, that isn't necessarily a good reason to write it off your list. It also is a korean developed game like Archeage, but do not let that alarm you. The Artstyle is very much Western inspired... and incredibly realistic looking. The armors and architecture I saw in the reveal trailer is very comparible to what you see in the Game of Thrones HBO series. It is by far one of the sexiest games I've ever seen, let alone an MMO. Think of playing a Fable game Online with graphics better than Crysis 3, --- (Maybe on Par with is a better term. But it IS sexy) an entirely seamless world with no loading screens, and *gasps* almost every building in game being able to be player owned and operated?  Oh, the Skyrim-Esque action combat system looks beautiful as well with the fluid animations and the active block and dodge skills. There will be a place in a game like that for good warriors, politicians, craftsman, among many other things... it might be a lot of hype, but its worth keeping an eye on!

     

    Everquest Next -

    Or Everquest 3, is reported by the Devteam to be focused on Sandbox Features, breaking away from its predecessors in that regard (which more or less could be described as the father of themepark MMOs.) Not a whole lot of info beyond that, but suffice it to say the lead developer made a public statement along the lines of, "Exploring the Sandbox in MMO gaming, is the next step in evolving MMOs. We want to do something new, we want to break away from today's perception of MMORPGs"

     

    Project Titan -

    This one probably doesn't even deserve to be on the list, because no one knows what the fuck it is, besides that it is Blizzard's secret MMO behemoth title they've been working on now for almost four years. Using words such as, "It will blow peoples minds" can be described as an easy salesman's trick to pull on potential customers legs to lure them in and get them interested... but lets face it. If any company has the power, and resources to put together a well thought out, beautiful, and completely stunning sandbox title its Blizzard. They have a near infiinite budget, and more talent in the gaming industry than they could possible ever need to put a beautiful game together. They're not going to do the same formula as WoW, because WoW is still going strong and will be for many more years to come. But the fact that the name of the Project has been confirmed as Project Titan, it eludes that whatever it is they're working on, its something big. They're not idiots at blizzard, no matter how hard we try to hate them for the countless times they dissapoint us. But lets not forget what they've achieved either. And the potential and capacity for them to achieve greater things in the MMO industry by far surpasses the resources of other gaming companies.

    No, I don't think what we're getting will be anything like WoW at all. I think Blizzard is going all in with a royal flush, ready to define what it is to sit on the "Iron Throne" of the MMO industry. And I think the test and challenge of doing something new and different from what WoW is something that will drive them to do so. Now is not a time for repitition. Its a time for evolution.

     

    Speculation aside though, I wouldn't daydream all day about the glorious potential Sandbox titles we'll get in the future. They're not that far away at all, and they'll be here before you know it.

  • fernetekfernetek North Adams, MAPosts: 61Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by fernetek
    This is EXACTLY why I loved RIFT when it first came out. The danger of towns being taken over by monsters was constant, making it so you had to work with players to protect them. I LOVED it. 

    How about now? Do you stil love it?

    Nope...outside of the rifts I didn't think there was alot of "worldishness" to the game. As soon as I started having to do dungeons, I quit.

  • lotapartylotaparty taxila canttPosts: 514Member
    Originally posted by Metentso
    Remember EQ "You are in our world now". Developers where the Gods in that world. We adapted to what they chosed, not the other way around like today.

    very much true

    image

  • VhalnVhaln Chicago, ILPosts: 3,159Member
    Originally posted by fernetek
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by fernetek
    This is EXACTLY why I loved RIFT when it first came out. The danger of towns being taken over by monsters was constant, making it so you had to work with players to protect them. I LOVED it. 

    How about now? Do you stil love it?

    Nope...outside of the rifts I didn't think there was alot of "worldishness" to the game. As soon as I started having to do dungeons, I quit.

    Same here.  I wish they'd focused more on the whole rift mechanic, in all sorts of ways, instead of going the way of instance grinding.  They could have worked endgame and even PvP into it, but instead it was just a great example of "one step forward, two steps back."

    When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by lotaparty
    Originally posted by Metentso
    Remember EQ "You are in our world now". Developers where the Gods in that world. We adapted to what they chosed, not the other way around like today.

    very much true

    Why would i want to adapt to anything?

    a) This is entertainment. It is not like work that i have to do something valuable to the world.

    b) It is not like there isn't other entertainment choice. If devs don't  make games i want to play, it is their choice, but they are not getting my money.

  • NavalTech86NavalTech86 San Diego, CAPosts: 4Member
    My vote goes to Wurm Online (http://www.wurmonline.com). Yes, it's a little old, and the graphics could be better, but for an indie game it's amazing. You take the time to work your skills up, and you can terraform pretty much anything and build almost anything. It has multiple servers that are as big as some complete games. It is the definition of sandbox, and so far I am loving it.
  • I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Axxar
    I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.

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

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member

    I know this has been said before, but I think games that have aspects of both are the way to go. Especially if the two types of players could interface with each other. Stuff that players got from playing the game could be sold to players who were living in the world, and stuff the players produced in the world could be sold to players for progression in their game.

    I do think if the starting point is a world, it's easier to add a game, rather than the other way around.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Axxar
    I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.

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

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

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Axxar
    I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.

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

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

    Yeah ..

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

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

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

     

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    You don't want an actual mmo though nari.

    What you need is a lobby where you can go do dungeons without the "boring" leveling and outdoor bits.

    And that would not be a mmo.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    You don't want an actual mmo though nari.

    What you need is a lobby where you can go do dungeons without the "boring" leveling and outdoor bits.

    And that would not be a mmo.

    1) No. i don't want a virtual world MMO. And yes, i want a lobby instanced game with fun levelilng and combat. Some outdoor bits is good. Diablo 3 is the perfect game. Won't touch a MMO until i am sick of it.

    2) Secondly, MMOs are turning into lobby games, are they not? If so, why shouldn't i play them if i like lobby game? I am quitting wow, but that is only because the combat is boring compared to the competition. I played it as a lobby game for quite a while already.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    But when they are lobby games

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

    They are ODGs. (online dungeon grinders)
Sign In or Register to comment.