A persistent world certainly makes my playing experience better and more fun. This comes from my background as a general fantasy fan. The draw to MMOs nine years ago with EQ was not only the idea of playing with other people but also what I was doing, playing out my own character in a virtual world. I can read all the books I want but the story is written from front to back. A persistent world shared directly with others in an online environment is as close to playing your own fantasy story as you can get.
Is a persistent world required to have fun playing an MMO? Not at all but you would be hard pressed to keep my interest very long without it. Outside of fantasy I'm playing PS2 and having a blast. One reason I like it so much is that it is a large persistent world.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by lizardbones
Those games have persistent, shared worlds. Well, I'm not sure about CoV and DDO to be honest, but the rest of them have virtual worlds that are persistent and shared. Those games could be set in a white, featureless cube that is 10 yards on a side, and it would still be a virtual world. A 10 yards per side cube would be a bad virtual world, but a virtual world it would be. I don't think discussing if there *is* a persistent world is very helpful. The focus should be if the persistent world is contributing to the fun.
Take WOW as an example. Yes, there is a virtual world. But a lot of players ignore it and spend 90% of their time in LFD/LFR instances, and pvp arenas. If so, the world contributes very little to the fun, and it may as well not be there.
I am not interested in definitions of MMOs .. but what is contributing to the fun. I see that the reason why the gameplay is moving AWAY from playing the world .. is because those lobby based co-op dungeons, and arenas are capturing fun factors that is not in the world.
So the question is whether the world is obsolete, whether it is their or not ...
or is there other types of changes (like phasing, or limited interaction like PS2) that make the world a better feature for "fun".
Virtual worlds provide an element of continuity to your character's progression, an element of continuity to quest content and are designed for exploration. While these things are possible without a persistent virtual world, they feel less important without the persistent virtual world.
In games where players can have an impact on the environment, persistent virtual worlds are necessary...this kind of thing is only possible with persistent virtual worlds. For instance, players helping each others' farms in Farmville is only possible with persistent virtual worlds. Farms in ArcheAge may operate the same way. Protecting a neighbors farm from marauders in ArcheAge is only possible with a persistent virtual world.
I know I wouldn't have played WoW nearly as long as I did if it didn't have a persistent virtual world. From Blizzard's perspective, they made more money off of me than they would have otherwise.
I do agree that a persistent virtual world isn't necessary for fun, there are things that are fun in a persistent virtual world that otherwise wouldn't be that much fun or wouldn't make that much sense. Some types of game play wouldn't be possible without a persistent virtual world.
Everything has a time and a place.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think the most important part of "persistant world" can be broken down into 2 things.
1: The actions of someone else affect my situation and the actions that I do can affect other players. Generally the longer lasting the better and how persistant this affect can be (as in it can still affect them while I am distant to their location, have not played in a while or am offline. PvP is a weak example of this, Controllable objectives that give an affect to the holder only as long as they hold them are a strong example and a interdependant crafitng system is a very strong example of this.
2: The relationships (or read this as interactions) matter and will affect the next things I do. Do I know people to get groups. Can someone tell me a nice grind spot? A rare resource or monster to team up and get? Etc. Social media friend lists are a weak example of this, forming groups to jointly solve a problem is a strong example of this and the allegiance/vassal system from Asheron's Call is a very strong example of this.
Also, Don't get me wrong I love single player games but I wish MMOS had become more MMO like rather then single player RPG like. And yes, that is based on the old school game definition.
I would argue skyrim has a lot of elements of an MMO besides not being multiplayer. What you do matters, it is relatively open ended and there is a degree of persistance of your actions on your enviroment. So The interesting question is" If you could play with 10 other people in the game world at the same time would you consider Skyrim an MMO?
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Mmo's should never have become mainstream.
Imo that is the silliest thimg I've ever heard on these forums. Congratulations, here's your sign.
So have you seen alot of good things come after they went mainstream?
i havnt actually.
Most of them. I love MMO's and play them almost exclusively over spg. By and large I find spg boring.
However I like modern MMO's by and large loads better than early MMO's. As I've stated numerous times I like having choice in how I pay and how I play. Today's MMO's offer me more choice in not only the type of game but in how I play. No more grinding in spot for hours, now I half a dozen or more ways to play the game. More games, more choice in how to play the games, for classes there is more more choice in how to design my class. There is less waiting around, less dependance on others allowing me to just jump in and do what I want to do.
The games (by and large) offer just as much potential for roleplaying (which admittedly is and always was minimal).
I like todays games better than the old games.
Plus there is a crap metric tonne of new games coming which makes even more choice.
All as a result of being mainstream. The golden age of MMO's hasn't passed, we are just starting to reach it.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I seem to have interpreted the topic in a different way.
Let's say you're reading a novel. Two of the main characters are talking in a shopping mall. The chapter ends, and the next chapter begins with a minor character at her apartment. But wait! What happened to the mall? Does it still exist?
It doesn't make sense to answer that question with "yes" or "no". It's a meaningless question because "existence" doesn't have a meaning in this context. The mall and the characters don't really exist even when you're reading about them. Why even ask? It doesn't make sense.
Approach an online game from the same angle. You're the only person in a dungeon. You walk out. Does the dungeon still exist? Are the orcs and goblins still scurrying around the corridors while no one's there to aggro them? In a sense, those goblins don't exist even when you are fighting them. Still, you could answer yes with some justification if the servers work that way. But you're better off realizing that it doesn't matter. The idea that When I leave this world, it's still there is pure illusion. It's not there. There is no there, it's a fictional world. And there is really no use in begrudging the game server for not continuing to run a simulation with no audience just for giggles. We don't expect the novel to go on continuously describing the mall for the entire remainder of the book just because the characters went there once.
It's different if the game's draw is its persistence. If, for example, you leave the game and think to yourself "When I come back, things may be different. The fence I built might get knocked down. The acolyte I met might become head priestess, or might leave to become a traveling missionary." Farmville is a great example of an online game that is built entirely around persistence. The fact that things change in the time that you're gone is vital to the game's core mechanic. The entire game depends upon this. If you don't care about what's changed while you were logged off, the persistence is completely going to waste.
And I think that's perhaps the message that was intended. Focusing on the persistent aspect of MMOs means missing the point. Persistence must serve a purpose or else it's just a feature for the sake of having that feature. If you necessarily exclude any game from being called an MMORPG because it is lobby-based, are you sure you know what the genre is all about?
Food for thought: Despite the supposed importance of a persistent world—even to the extent of keeping empty areas "running" with no players inside—how many MMOs keep the player character in the world when the player logs out? If lobbies and instances break the illusion of a fictional world so easily, how do you rationalize a player character ceasing to exist whenever the player stops playing?
if its an mmo give me persistent world or ill never touch your game. Thats enough deal breaker for me and only reason i stepped away from Vindictus, C9, Dragon Nest, among others. Even if its the second coming, no persistent world as an mmo = fail in my book
Originally posted by Yamota Single player offline games can be fun too so can sport games, platform games, puzzle games and so on. So I dont see your point.
The point is to discuss the role of persistent world, and why many popular online games (and you can look at the xifre top games .. a convenient place to compare) do not need a persistent world while have persistent characters, and trading.
I am trying to distill the desirable elements of the old persistent world idea, and see how it is evolving in the market. The scope is online games, with some persistency.
Some people are looking for a world to live in, others are just looking for a game with other players to play with.
Thats the difference between the two subsets. You will never convince the players who want a world (sandboxers) that a non-persistent world (themepark) is good. So don't bother.
Now to get them to stop invading each others forums and preaching.
But I do have fun in games with no persistant worlds.
It's almost as though I desire different attributes from different genres.
Having said that, streets of rage 2 is my favourite game of all time. As I had SO much fun with that, then I suppose all games should follow that design.
Those games have persistent, shared worlds. Well, I'm not sure about CoV and DDO to be honest, but the rest of them have virtual worlds that are persistent and shared.
Those games could be set in a white, featureless cube that is 10 yards on a side, and it would still be a virtual world. A 10 yards per side cube would be a bad virtual world, but a virtual world it would be.
I don't think discussing if there *is* a persistent world is very helpful. The focus should be if the persistent world is contributing to the fun.
Take WOW as an example. Yes, there is a virtual world. But a lot of players ignore it and spend 90% of their time in LFD/LFR instances, and pvp arenas. If so, the world contributes very little to the fun, and it may as well not be there.
I am not interested in definitions of MMOs .. but what is contributing to the fun. I see that the reason why the gameplay is moving AWAY from playing the world .. is because those lobby based co-op dungeons, and arenas are capturing fun factors that is not in the world.
So the question is whether the world is obsolete, whether it is their or not ...
or is there other types of changes (like phasing, or limited interaction like PS2) that make the world a better feature for "fun".
Here's the problem with people thinking that persitant worlds are not fun!
First of all when any fun stuff is removed from the world like world bosses, world pvp ( see WoW's southshore), and ect is moved into instanced pools and all you have to do is sit in cities (Lobbys) for content then why should the world be fun?
Second Devs most of time see this an easy way to make quick content that most people can kill/defeat in a matter of hours after release.
Third the generation group has a changed its perception of why an MMO should be built this way from that way.
Fourth is that most gaming budgets are outrageous and the suits that fund them are not wanting to put forth risk over profit.
Below is where we can disscuss and come up with new ideas for Sandparks!
if your going to make an MMO it has to have 'persistent world' or 'worlds' otherwise why bother playing it at all, im probably not the only one either that wouldnt touch an MMO without a persistent world, there are enough lobby games out there already, too many imo, and their all the same kind of rehashed thing, the OP's using Xfire as an example is a good one though, although one of the things the OP has to realise, is that Xfire isnt a tool commonly used by MMO players, its often used as a communication tool etc for people who play games like LoL and DoTA, because they don't have persistent worlds. But any game development company now would be laughed at if they tried to release an MMO without a peristent world, its just a lazy way of doing things on the cheap, lobby games with instanced environments may make financial sense, but they don't make sense for MMO's and every attempt to try and make them has so far ended in failure, and with good reason, if you want a successful MMO you cannot afford to cut corners, and thats just what having a nonpersistent world is, an attempt to cut corners, its lazy, wasteful and ultimately a significant factor in any games demise.
Unfortunately this is the way "mmos" are heading though. All your wow clone style games are like this anyway once you level, just queueing in cities to go instanced dungeons or shite instanced pvp.
Someone's bound to crack on to the money making wheeze of just have the city and the instances, have a development budget of a cooprpg but sell it as a mmo and rake in some sub cash for 6 months before converting to "free" 2 play and making more cash.
I am not interested in definitions. I did not say this is about MMOs. I said this is about online MP games. And non-MMO online games can be fun, can they?
There is a general gaming forum for non-mmo discussion. For an MMO since you are in an MMO forum, I believe a persistent world is required. For non mmo games, go nuts. Persistent or not, if its fun, woot woot.
But I do have fun in games with no persistant worlds.
It's almost as though I desire different attributes from different genres.
That is most weird that labels actually impact your enjoyment. If for some weird reason, the term MMO disappear, and we only have the category "online games", you will now enjoy a game previously classified as MMO, but with no persistent world?
I am very surprised that just a definition has so much power over people. Personally i evaluate games, and whether it is a MMO or not, is quite irrelevant.
But I do have fun in games with no persistant worlds.
It's almost as though I desire different attributes from different genres.
That is most weird that labels actually impact your enjoyment. If for some weird reason, the term MMO disappear, and we only have the category "online games", you will now enjoy a game previously classified as MMO, but with no persistent world?
I am very surprised that just a definition has so much power over people. Personally i evaluate games, and whether it is a MMO or not, is quite irrelevant.
In no way shape or form did Dim_sum dictate that a defintion or label impacts their enjoyment of game.
Themeparks and static worlds are a borefest. You obviously love them but thankfully more and more gamers are getting bored of these too.
The future looks brighter and brighter for sandbox MMOs every day.
"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
Themeparks and static worlds are a borefest. You obviously love them but thankfully more and more gamers are getting bored of these too.
The future looks brighter and brighter for sandbox MMOs every day.
The op stated that this thread isn't even about MMO's in one of his posts. This is just a thread in the wrong forum.
In regards to what you said, I agree. I think people being frustrated with the stagnant worlds created now a days will only lead to bigger and better things for MMO's and other larger multiplayer games.
Here's the problem with people thinking that persitant worlds are not fun!
Finally people are at least talking about what is fun .. and not some definition.
First of all when any fun stuff is removed from the world like world bosses, world pvp ( see WoW's southshore), and ect is moved into instanced pools and all you have to do is sit in cities (Lobbys) for content then why should the world be fun?
That is an interesting point. The reason why world boss and world pvp are removed from WOW is obvious .. they are not fun and hence not popular to many players. I suppose the question is why do you think open world pvp is fun in a pve centric game? Personally i don't think it is fun. It is inconvenient.
And i agree with that point that if players prefer to wait in cities like a lobby, you may as well not have the world.
In fact, that is why so many WOW players play D3 .. the play style is so close. You go into a dungeon with 3-4 guys and kill stuff. The only real difference is the combat mechanics and progression system.
Second Devs most of time see this an easy way to make quick content that most people can kill/defeat in a matter of hours after release.
If so, and if these quick content is fun, why is this a problem. Isn't quick better than waiting years before you have more content?
Third the generation group has a changed its perception of why an MMO should be built this way from that way.
That is why i want to move away from the MMO strait jacket. The old MMO design .. a world .. have to have crafting .. no cross server/cross game communication .. is very limiting.
There should be no limit to how a fun online, co-op or pvp game should be built. MMO is just one style. No one says it cannot evolve, or combine with other ideas.
Fourth is that most gaming budgets are outrageous and the suits that fund them are not wanting to put forth risk over profit.
I disagree. We have good risky games like Dishonored (successful), Xcom (not so successufl). May be MMO devs are more risk averse becuase of the bigger budget, and even then, we have DarkFall, TSW (totally differen setting), and TOR (story centric).
The op stated that this thread isn't even about MMO's in one of his posts. This is just a thread in the wrong forum.
Why? This site obviously cover other types of online games like D3, LOL, WOT, DDO, and obviously it is a missed opportunity not to discuss them in relation with MMO's biggest feature .. the persistent world.
Themeparks and static worlds are a borefest. You obviously love them but thankfully more and more gamers are getting bored of these too.
The future looks brighter and brighter for sandbox MMOs every day.
Or the solution is not to have the world at all. LOL, WOT, MWO, even Marvel Heroes are going in the direction of less world, more instanced, combat centric gamepaly.
LOL & WOT are hugely successful.
If static world are boring ... one solution is to get rid of them. Sandbox has been tried before. If you look at a place like xfire, no sandbox game came close (except may be Minecraft .. which is more a building game then pve or pvp centric) to non-world or themepark games.
Themeparks and static worlds are a borefest. You obviously love them but thankfully more and more gamers are getting bored of these too.
The future looks brighter and brighter for sandbox MMOs every day.
Or the solution is not to have the world at all. LOL, WOT, MWO, even Marvel Heroes are going in the direction of less world, more instanced, combat centric gamepaly.
LOL & WOT are hugely successful.
If static world are boring ... one solution is to get rid of them. Sandbox has been tried before. If you look at a place like xfire, no sandbox game came close (except may be Minecraft .. which is more a building game then pve or pvp centric) to non-world or themepark games.
That may be your solution but I find your solution just as boring if not more so.
Your supporter numbers are diminishing. Finally. Thankfully.
"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
Originally posted by Phry if your going to make an MMO it has to have 'persistent world' or 'worlds' otherwise why bother playing it at all, im probably not the only one either that wouldnt touch an MMO without a persistent world, there are enough lobby games out there already, too many imo, and their all the same kind of rehashed thing, the OP's using Xfire as an example is a good one though, although one of the things the OP has to realise, is that Xfire isnt a tool commonly used by MMO players, its often used as a communication tool etc for people who play games like LoL and DoTA, because they don't have persistent worlds. But any game development company now would be laughed at if they tried to release an MMO without a peristent world, its just a lazy way of doing things on the cheap, lobby games with instanced environments may make financial sense, but they don't make sense for MMO's and every attempt to try and make them has so far ended in failure, and with good reason, if you want a successful MMO you cannot afford to cut corners, and thats just what having a nonpersistent world is, an attempt to cut corners, its lazy, wasteful and ultimately a significant factor in any games demise.
You are right .. but what if it is not a MMO. Just relabel it. The point is whether the game is good, not if it is a MMO that fit your description.
If WOW takes out the world .. and make orgrimmar a menu lobby, 90% of the end game players will probably do the same thing.
And i disagree we have enough good lobby game. There are a few with fantasy setting .. but few with other settings. There is no good sci-fi online lobby ARPG (except may be gundam capsule fighter .. but that is more anime mechna than hardcore sci-fi). There is no mecha online lobby game until MWO is released.
If a MMO is attracting its audience because of its combat, dungeons and raids, and not its world, don't you think it should be best turned into a lobby game instead?
Or the solution is not to have the world at all. LOL, WOT, MWO, even Marvel Heroes are going in the direction of less world, more instanced, combat centric gamepaly.
LOL & WOT are hugely successful.
If static world are boring ... one solution is to get rid of them. Sandbox has been tried before. If you look at a place like xfire, no sandbox game came close (except may be Minecraft .. which is more a building game then pve or pvp centric) to non-world or themepark games.
That may be your solution but I find your solution just as boring if not more so.
Your supporter numbers are diminishing. Finally. Thankfully.
Boring to you .. for sure. Given the kind of games that is popular, i doubt my position is very different than most. And the final judge is the market, not the number of ranters on this forum .. thankfully.
Let me post one more thought why a persistent world may not be conducive to fun.
Challenge ... or the lack of different levels of challenge.
It is quite obvious that different players enjoy different levels of challengs (from the QQing on different forums about a game is too easy, and at the same time, it is too hard, you can easily see this).
It is much more difficult to tailor different level of challenge in a persistent world. In an instance, that is simple. Just let the player pick. There are many successful examples of this from the different levels of raid in WOW (LFR, normal and hard) to the 10 levels of monster power in D3.
if a game is indeed massive, it needs to accomodate different needs of difficulty levels, and it is more difficulty to do so in an open world, than an instance.
Comments
Imo that is the silliest thimg I've ever heard on these forums. Congratulations, here's your sign.
Is a persistent world required to have fun playing an MMO? Not at all but you would be hard pressed to keep my interest very long without it. Outside of fantasy I'm playing PS2 and having a blast. One reason I like it so much is that it is a large persistent world.
I don't think discussing if there *is* a persistent world is very helpful. The focus should be if the persistent world is contributing to the fun.
Take WOW as an example. Yes, there is a virtual world. But a lot of players ignore it and spend 90% of their time in LFD/LFR instances, and pvp arenas. If so, the world contributes very little to the fun, and it may as well not be there.
I am not interested in definitions of MMOs .. but what is contributing to the fun. I see that the reason why the gameplay is moving AWAY from playing the world .. is because those lobby based co-op dungeons, and arenas are capturing fun factors that is not in the world.
So the question is whether the world is obsolete, whether it is their or not ...
or is there other types of changes (like phasing, or limited interaction like PS2) that make the world a better feature for "fun".
Virtual worlds provide an element of continuity to your character's progression, an element of continuity to quest content and are designed for exploration. While these things are possible without a persistent virtual world, they feel less important without the persistent virtual world.
In games where players can have an impact on the environment, persistent virtual worlds are necessary...this kind of thing is only possible with persistent virtual worlds. For instance, players helping each others' farms in Farmville is only possible with persistent virtual worlds. Farms in ArcheAge may operate the same way. Protecting a neighbors farm from marauders in ArcheAge is only possible with a persistent virtual world.
I know I wouldn't have played WoW nearly as long as I did if it didn't have a persistent virtual world. From Blizzard's perspective, they made more money off of me than they would have otherwise.
I do agree that a persistent virtual world isn't necessary for fun, there are things that are fun in a persistent virtual world that otherwise wouldn't be that much fun or wouldn't make that much sense. Some types of game play wouldn't be possible without a persistent virtual world.
Everything has a time and a place.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
So have you seen alot of good things come after they went mainstream?
i havnt actually.
I think the most important part of "persistant world" can be broken down into 2 things.
1: The actions of someone else affect my situation and the actions that I do can affect other players. Generally the longer lasting the better and how persistant this affect can be (as in it can still affect them while I am distant to their location, have not played in a while or am offline. PvP is a weak example of this, Controllable objectives that give an affect to the holder only as long as they hold them are a strong example and a interdependant crafitng system is a very strong example of this.
2: The relationships (or read this as interactions) matter and will affect the next things I do. Do I know people to get groups. Can someone tell me a nice grind spot? A rare resource or monster to team up and get? Etc. Social media friend lists are a weak example of this, forming groups to jointly solve a problem is a strong example of this and the allegiance/vassal system from Asheron's Call is a very strong example of this.
Also, Don't get me wrong I love single player games but I wish MMOS had become more MMO like rather then single player RPG like. And yes, that is based on the old school game definition.
I would argue skyrim has a lot of elements of an MMO besides not being multiplayer. What you do matters, it is relatively open ended and there is a degree of persistance of your actions on your enviroment. So The interesting question is" If you could play with 10 other people in the game world at the same time would you consider Skyrim an MMO?
Most of them. I love MMO's and play them almost exclusively over spg. By and large I find spg boring.
However I like modern MMO's by and large loads better than early MMO's. As I've stated numerous times I like having choice in how I pay and how I play. Today's MMO's offer me more choice in not only the type of game but in how I play. No more grinding in spot for hours, now I half a dozen or more ways to play the game. More games, more choice in how to play the games, for classes there is more more choice in how to design my class. There is less waiting around, less dependance on others allowing me to just jump in and do what I want to do.
The games (by and large) offer just as much potential for roleplaying (which admittedly is and always was minimal).
I like todays games better than the old games.
Plus there is a crap metric tonne of new games coming which makes even more choice.
All as a result of being mainstream. The golden age of MMO's hasn't passed, we are just starting to reach it.
I seem to have interpreted the topic in a different way.
Let's say you're reading a novel. Two of the main characters are talking in a shopping mall. The chapter ends, and the next chapter begins with a minor character at her apartment. But wait! What happened to the mall? Does it still exist?
It doesn't make sense to answer that question with "yes" or "no". It's a meaningless question because "existence" doesn't have a meaning in this context. The mall and the characters don't really exist even when you're reading about them. Why even ask? It doesn't make sense.
Approach an online game from the same angle. You're the only person in a dungeon. You walk out. Does the dungeon still exist? Are the orcs and goblins still scurrying around the corridors while no one's there to aggro them? In a sense, those goblins don't exist even when you are fighting them. Still, you could answer yes with some justification if the servers work that way. But you're better off realizing that it doesn't matter. The idea that When I leave this world, it's still there is pure illusion. It's not there. There is no there, it's a fictional world. And there is really no use in begrudging the game server for not continuing to run a simulation with no audience just for giggles. We don't expect the novel to go on continuously describing the mall for the entire remainder of the book just because the characters went there once.
It's different if the game's draw is its persistence. If, for example, you leave the game and think to yourself "When I come back, things may be different. The fence I built might get knocked down. The acolyte I met might become head priestess, or might leave to become a traveling missionary." Farmville is a great example of an online game that is built entirely around persistence. The fact that things change in the time that you're gone is vital to the game's core mechanic. The entire game depends upon this. If you don't care about what's changed while you were logged off, the persistence is completely going to waste.
And I think that's perhaps the message that was intended. Focusing on the persistent aspect of MMOs means missing the point. Persistence must serve a purpose or else it's just a feature for the sake of having that feature. If you necessarily exclude any game from being called an MMORPG because it is lobby-based, are you sure you know what the genre is all about?
Food for thought: Despite the supposed importance of a persistent world—even to the extent of keeping empty areas "running" with no players inside—how many MMOs keep the player character in the world when the player logs out? If lobbies and instances break the illusion of a fictional world so easily, how do you rationalize a player character ceasing to exist whenever the player stops playing?
if its an mmo give me persistent world or ill never touch your game. Thats enough deal breaker for me and only reason i stepped away from Vindictus, C9, Dragon Nest, among others. Even if its the second coming, no persistent world as an mmo = fail in my book
Some people are looking for a world to live in, others are just looking for a game with other players to play with.
Thats the difference between the two subsets. You will never convince the players who want a world (sandboxers) that a non-persistent world (themepark) is good. So don't bother.
Now to get them to stop invading each others forums and preaching.
I have less fun in mmos with no persistant world.
But I do have fun in games with no persistant worlds.
It's almost as though I desire different attributes from different genres.
Having said that, streets of rage 2 is my favourite game of all time. As I had SO much fun with that, then I suppose all games should follow that design.
I suppose.
Here's the problem with people thinking that persitant worlds are not fun!
First of all when any fun stuff is removed from the world like world bosses, world pvp ( see WoW's southshore), and ect is moved into instanced pools and all you have to do is sit in cities (Lobbys) for content then why should the world be fun?
Second Devs most of time see this an easy way to make quick content that most people can kill/defeat in a matter of hours after release.
Third the generation group has a changed its perception of why an MMO should be built this way from that way.
Fourth is that most gaming budgets are outrageous and the suits that fund them are not wanting to put forth risk over profit.
Below is where we can disscuss and come up with new ideas for Sandparks!
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5164689#5164689
Express your opinion
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/371172/Poll-Most-hated-MMORPG.html
There is a general gaming forum for non-mmo discussion. For an MMO since you are in an MMO forum, I believe a persistent world is required. For non mmo games, go nuts. Persistent or not, if its fun, woot woot.
That is most weird that labels actually impact your enjoyment. If for some weird reason, the term MMO disappear, and we only have the category "online games", you will now enjoy a game previously classified as MMO, but with no persistent world?
I am very surprised that just a definition has so much power over people. Personally i evaluate games, and whether it is a MMO or not, is quite irrelevant.
In no way shape or form did Dim_sum dictate that a defintion or label impacts their enjoyment of game.
Themeparks and static worlds are a borefest. You obviously love them but thankfully more and more gamers are getting bored of these too.
The future looks brighter and brighter for sandbox MMOs every day.
"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
The op stated that this thread isn't even about MMO's in one of his posts. This is just a thread in the wrong forum.
In regards to what you said, I agree. I think people being frustrated with the stagnant worlds created now a days will only lead to bigger and better things for MMO's and other larger multiplayer games.
Why? This site obviously cover other types of online games like D3, LOL, WOT, DDO, and obviously it is a missed opportunity not to discuss them in relation with MMO's biggest feature .. the persistent world.
Or the solution is not to have the world at all. LOL, WOT, MWO, even Marvel Heroes are going in the direction of less world, more instanced, combat centric gamepaly.
LOL & WOT are hugely successful.
If static world are boring ... one solution is to get rid of them. Sandbox has been tried before. If you look at a place like xfire, no sandbox game came close (except may be Minecraft .. which is more a building game then pve or pvp centric) to non-world or themepark games.
That may be your solution but I find your solution just as boring if not more so.
Your supporter numbers are diminishing. Finally. Thankfully.
"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
You are right .. but what if it is not a MMO. Just relabel it. The point is whether the game is good, not if it is a MMO that fit your description.
If WOW takes out the world .. and make orgrimmar a menu lobby, 90% of the end game players will probably do the same thing.
And i disagree we have enough good lobby game. There are a few with fantasy setting .. but few with other settings. There is no good sci-fi online lobby ARPG (except may be gundam capsule fighter .. but that is more anime mechna than hardcore sci-fi). There is no mecha online lobby game until MWO is released.
If a MMO is attracting its audience because of its combat, dungeons and raids, and not its world, don't you think it should be best turned into a lobby game instead?
Boring to you .. for sure. Given the kind of games that is popular, i doubt my position is very different than most. And the final judge is the market, not the number of ranters on this forum .. thankfully.
Let me post one more thought why a persistent world may not be conducive to fun.
Challenge ... or the lack of different levels of challenge.
It is quite obvious that different players enjoy different levels of challengs (from the QQing on different forums about a game is too easy, and at the same time, it is too hard, you can easily see this).
It is much more difficult to tailor different level of challenge in a persistent world. In an instance, that is simple. Just let the player pick. There are many successful examples of this from the different levels of raid in WOW (LFR, normal and hard) to the 10 levels of monster power in D3.
if a game is indeed massive, it needs to accomodate different needs of difficulty levels, and it is more difficulty to do so in an open world, than an instance.