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!

Much of the MMO gameplay is not massive

1468910

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Aelious
    I don't think you understood Lizard's point. It's not about how many people are right there in your party or even raid. Heck, WoW raids are mostly 10 people now which I would not consider "massive". It's about the world, not the specific activity.

    The point is who else is "out there". In GW I was totally turned off by the fact that once I left the town I knew the whole instance I entered was empty save for me. It's the same reason I don't like single player RPGs. I know there is no one else there. It's not even about socializing as I may go nights without sitting down and talking to someone. It's about being in a persistent world that feels more alive because there are others out there with you while you are playing. This can be applied to small group play. You may have a handful of people with you but knowing there is a whole world of people aside from yor group makes the world seem more alive.

    In a humorous way you can apply this to real life. Even if you spent the whole day inside would you not feel more alone knowing there is not another person out there? Now what about five other people? Would having only five other people in the world make it seems like it does now?

    So what is the difference between doing an instance in WOW .. which you KNOW no one is going to be in your instance .. and a D3 game .. which similarly no one else is going to be in your game?

    The world cease to exist once you are in the instance. If you talk about the actual game .. it is massive .. whether you are talking about D3, Borderlands or WOW. There are always millions playing .. just not in your instance. The world is really not that relevant, when you are not in it .. and what is the difference between a 3D lobby like Orgrimmar, or the D3 menu lobby? You can talk to many players. You can inspect them. You can ask them to a group and go into an instance with you. You can Igo to the trade channel and ask for deals.

    I don't have this obsession with the world .. and i don't see it as a main part of the gameplay when you are not in it 99% of the time. It does not even promote socialization as well as chat-rooms, and friend lists.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by lizardbones MMOs being able to encompass small scale game play doesn't mean the massively multiplayer aspect of MMOs is no longer necessary. It just means that smaller scale game play is possible within the context of a massively multiplayer game.  
    Tell me, for pve gameplay, how necessary is massive gameplay. In fact, take WOW, LOTRO, DDO .. and another huge list of MMOs .. there is zero massive pve gameplay. All the gameplay is in small group dungeons, and raids, and solo/group quests. None is massive.

     

    The ONLY massive pve gameplay is staring at each other in a lobby (city), and AH.

    In many of these games, not even the pvp gameplay is massive.

    If you look at the percentage of time players spend in small group gameplay vs "massive" gameplay, "massive" gameplay don't seem necessary at all.

    In fact, when i was still playing WOW, I have almost never engaged in massive pve gameplay because there is none, except may be world boss, which is a) few and far in-between, b) most people i know (and myself) has little interests in it.

    Now i am playing some STO .. and once again, where is the "massive" gameplay? There is none and none is necessary to enjoy the game.



    How necessary is multiplayer game play? It's not necessary at all. There isn't anything necessary about any video game anything. People like it though. Which is why video games and MMOs exist. People like it. Many people like massively multiplayer game play. They may also like lobby based game play. That doesn't mean both types of games provide the same experience, even if there is overlap in game play between the two types of games.

    When you played WoW, if you logged into the world and ran around in it, you participated in massively multiplayer game play. Simply existing in the world and being visible to other players makes you a participant.

     

    That is what i am disputing. The ONLY "massive MP gameplay" in PVE is liek you say .. run around in a city and let people see you. How many actually like that and not "alt-tab" to surf until their dungeon pops?

    And aside from being in a city and look (and AH), there is no other form of massive MP gameplay. Don't you think people focus on dungeons & raids .. or even quests .. and none of those are massive?"

     

  • fivorothfivoroth LondonPosts: 3,652Member Uncommon

    MMOs are massive because they offer a lot of things which other multiplayer games don't. They offer continuity and a persistent world where you can come across other people without joining a "game". 

    I don't need a game with groups of 300-400 people. That's just stupid. I mean it's fun for a while but gets old fast because it is just mindless zerg. 

    Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by lizardbones  

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by lizardbones MMOs being able to encompass small scale game play doesn't mean the massively multiplayer aspect of MMOs is no longer necessary. It just means that smaller scale game play is possible within the context of a massively multiplayer game.  
    Tell me, for pve gameplay, how necessary is massive gameplay. In fact, take WOW, LOTRO, DDO .. and another huge list of MMOs .. there is zero massive pve gameplay. All the gameplay is in small group dungeons, and raids, and solo/group quests. None is massive.   The ONLY massive pve gameplay is staring at each other in a lobby (city), and AH. In many of these games, not even the pvp gameplay is massive. If you look at the percentage of time players spend in small group gameplay vs "massive" gameplay, "massive" gameplay don't seem necessary at all. In fact, when i was still playing WOW, I have almost never engaged in massive pve gameplay because there is none, except may be world boss, which is a) few and far in-between, b) most people i know (and myself) has little interests in it. Now i am playing some STO .. and once again, where is the "massive" gameplay? There is none and none is necessary to enjoy the game.
    How necessary is multiplayer game play? It's not necessary at all. There isn't anything necessary about any video game anything. People like it though. Which is why video games and MMOs exist. People like it. Many people like massively multiplayer game play. They may also like lobby based game play. That doesn't mean both types of games provide the same experience, even if there is overlap in game play between the two types of games. When you played WoW, if you logged into the world and ran around in it, you participated in massively multiplayer game play. Simply existing in the world and being visible to other players makes you a participant.  
    That is what i am disputing. The ONLY "massive MP gameplay" in PVE is liek you say .. run around in a city and let people see you. How many actually like that and not "alt-tab" to surf until their dungeon pops?

    And aside from being in a city and look (and AH), there is no other form of massive MP gameplay. Don't you think people focus on dungeons & raids .. or even quests .. and none of those are massive?"

     



    You are talking about direct interactions, and ignoring indirect interactions. You directly interact with very few people in game. You indirectly interact with many people in game. One of those indirect interactions is just seeing people running around in the world.

    I've watched people do a level 1 gnome run across the continents in WoW. They directly interacted with few people, but indirectly interacted with many people. A massive number of people heard the stories inside the game increasing the interactions and the persistent nature of the players' activities. That type of thing would not have been possible in a lobby based game.

    Except it's certainly possible to directly interact with hundreds of people. I've done it. It was choppy as heck, but it happened. It would not have been possible if the instead of a virtual world the game just had a lobby.

    So again, is it necessary? No, of course not. Nothing in video games is really necessary. Is it desired? Yes.

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

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,850Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Aelious
    I don't think you understood Lizard's point. It's not about how many people are right there in your party or even raid. Heck, WoW raids are mostly 10 people now which I would not consider "massive". It's about the world, not the specific activity.

    The point is who else is "out there". In GW I was totally turned off by the fact that once I left the town I knew the whole instance I entered was empty save for me. It's the same reason I don't like single player RPGs. I know there is no one else there. It's not even about socializing as I may go nights without sitting down and talking to someone. It's about being in a persistent world that feels more alive because there are others out there with you while you are playing. This can be applied to small group play. You may have a handful of people with you but knowing there is a whole world of people aside from yor group makes the world seem more alive.

    In a humorous way you can apply this to real life. Even if you spent the whole day inside would you not feel more alone knowing there is not another person out there? Now what about five other people? Would having only five other people in the world make it seems like it does now?

    So what is the difference between doing an instance in WOW .. which you KNOW no one is going to be in your instance .. and a D3 game .. which similarly no one else is going to be in your game?

    The world cease to exist once you are in the instance. If you talk about the actual game .. it is massive .. whether you are talking about D3, Borderlands or WOW. There are always millions playing .. just not in your instance. The world is really not that relevant, when you are not in it .. and what is the difference between a 3D lobby like Orgrimmar, or the D3 menu lobby? You can talk to many players. You can inspect them. You can ask them to a group and go into an instance with you. You can Igo to the trade channel and ask for deals.

    I don't have this obsession with the world .. and i don't see it as a main part of the gameplay when you are not in it 99% of the time. It does not even promote socialization as well as chat-rooms, and friend lists.

     

    Nothing at all except that in WoW instanced dungeons are one aspect of the game and it has a game world outside that instance, D3 does not.

     

    As far as the "world" is concerned it's not about an obsession, it's a medium for a "massive" amount of people to share the same space with thier avatars.  Doing what? doesn't matter.  Together? Doesn't matter.  What does matter is having that space.  Does that shared space go away when you're not there? Not if it's an MMORPG.

     

    Having a virtual world may not be important to you, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean a defined series of terms has to change.  It will not until those words in the english language do.  Even in a game like WoW where a lot of emphisis is placed on instanced content they did massive changes to the world for Cata.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones


    You are talking about direct interactions, and ignoring indirect interactions. You directly interact with very few people in game. You indirectly interact with many people in game. One of those indirect interactions is just seeing people running around in the world.

    I've watched people do a level 1 gnome run across the continents in WoW. They directly interacted with few people, but indirectly interacted with many people. A massive number of people heard the stories inside the game increasing the interactions and the persistent nature of the players' activities. That type of thing would not have been possible in a lobby based game.

    Except it's certainly possible to directly interact with hundreds of people. I've done it. It was choppy as heck, but it happened. It would not have been possible if the instead of a virtual world the game just had a lobby.

    So again, is it necessary? No, of course not. Nothing in video games is really necessary. Is it desired? Yes.

     

    You don't need a MMO to have indirect interations. Many non-MMOs have chat channels, so you can "hear" lots of people. You can "inspect" others from the menu in D3, no difference than the inspection you do in orgrimmar in WOW. The *only* difference, in a game like D3, or playing a MP game on steam, is that you don't *see* the 3D toons in the lobby. To me, that is not a huge difference.

    Secondly, yes, i am talking about direction interactions. The indirect ones, like you see toons running around, don't add much to gameplay experiences, particularly when it consist of only a very small percentage of play time.

    If you spend 10 min in city with this "indirect interaction", and then 2 hours in LFR raid, the 10 min of waiting is not that important. So i am disputing if this *SMALL* part of the game, which btw, many will ignore by watching a youtube video, is desirable.

    It certainly does not matter to me. A menu lobby makes zero difference to me. And btw, you can't claim that the raid/dungeon experience is not more important, when most people are playing the game for exactly that.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Aelious
     

     

    Nothing at all except that in WoW instanced dungeons are one aspect of the game and it has a game world outside that instance, D3 does not.

     

    As far as the "world" is concerned it's not about an obsession, it's a medium for a "massive" amount of people to share the same space with thier avatars.  Doing what? doesn't matter.  Together? Doesn't matter.  What does matter is having that space.  Does that shared space go away when you're not there? Not if it's an MMORPG.

     

    Having a virtual world may not be important to you, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean a defined series of terms has to change.  It will not until those words in the english language do.  Even in a game like WoW where a lot of emphisis is placed on instanced content they did massive changes to the world for Cata.

    Yes, it is only one aspect of the game, but turns out that is the aspect of the game people spend 90% of their game in. Don't tell me all aspects of games are equal. In fact, the reason why many spend any time in the world is because there is a wait time for dungeons. If LFD, LFR takes no wait (like for a tank), players won't be in teh world at all.

    Actualy that shared space is ONLY relevant when people are waiting for their dungeons to pop, which is a small amount of their play-time, and often viewed as wait-time, and people will do other stuff when waiting. Thus, many, when playing MMOs, will NOT be in that shared space most of their play time.

    I never adocate to change teh definition. In fact, i am fully articulating that games like D3 is not a MMO. However, i am pointing out that "much of the gamplay in MMOs is not massive" .. and that is a fact when most players are spending most of their time in instances ... as instances are not "massive" gameplay. And i am also drawing the parallel of this style of gameplay to D3, which has a very similar style .. which is players spending most of their time in small group co-op instances. The only difference .. is whether you see other toons in 3D in the lobby .. which to me, is very minor.

     

     

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,850Member Uncommon
    I see what your line of reasoning is but your premise to the whole thing is too presumptuous IMO. There's no way you can know what players of MMOs want, don't want, need or think is important. Again, just look at the changes they did to the world with Cata. They had the internal info to know whether that was a good investment or not and they thought it was.
  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

     

    You don't need a MMO to have indirect interations. Many non-MMOs have chat channels, so you can "hear" lots of people. You can "inspect" others from the menu in D3, no difference than the inspection you do in orgrimmar in WOW. The *only* difference, in a game like D3, or playing a MP game on steam, is that you don't *see* the 3D toons in the lobby. To me, that is not a huge difference.

    Secondly, yes, i am talking about direction interactions. The indirect ones, like you see toons running around, don't add much to gameplay experiences, particularly when it consist of only a very small percentage of play time.

    If you spend 10 min in city with this "indirect interaction", and then 2 hours in LFR raid, the 10 min of waiting is not that important. So i am disputing if this *SMALL* part of the game, which btw, many will ignore by watching a youtube video, is desirable.

    It certainly does not matter to me. A menu lobby makes zero difference to me. And btw, you can't claim that the raid/dungeon experience is not more important, when most people are playing the game for exactly that.

    Quite right, that is why we qq that the game is not massive, 100 people idling in ogrimmar is not different from 100 people idling in a chat channel.

    The illusion of a living world comes from meeting people that do something in the world  (and the illusion that the game is massive if there are dozens of people doing things everywhere), it can be benign, like a fisher fishing at a fishing spot or more action packed, like combatting clans sweeping trough the dungeon you are grinding in, occasionally roflstomping you :)

    Apart from the launch zones are barren, noone talks in global but bots and all there is left are jokes about Barrens chat as a distant memory and lobby gameplay.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Aelious
    I see what your line of reasoning is but your premise to the whole thing is too presumptuous IMO. There's no way you can know what players of MMOs want, don't want, need or think is important. Again, just look at the changes they did to the world with Cata. They had the internal info to know whether that was a good investment or not and they thought it was.

    Well, i will qualify why my opinion about what many mmo players want. By observations. Many i have come across are essentially waiting in a cit waiting for their dungeon or pvp to pop.

    dont tell me you dont see that and that is not a norm. If so, their prefered play style is not massive.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

     

    You don't need a MMO to have indirect interations. Many non-MMOs have chat channels, so you can "hear" lots of people. You can "inspect" others from the menu in D3, no difference than the inspection you do in orgrimmar in WOW. The *only* difference, in a game like D3, or playing a MP game on steam, is that you don't *see* the 3D toons in the lobby. To me, that is not a huge difference.

    Secondly, yes, i am talking about direction interactions. The indirect ones, like you see toons running around, don't add much to gameplay experiences, particularly when it consist of only a very small percentage of play time.

    If you spend 10 min in city with this "indirect interaction", and then 2 hours in LFR raid, the 10 min of waiting is not that important. So i am disputing if this *SMALL* part of the game, which btw, many will ignore by watching a youtube video, is desirable.

    It certainly does not matter to me. A menu lobby makes zero difference to me. And btw, you can't claim that the raid/dungeon experience is not more important, when most people are playing the game for exactly that.

    Quite right, that is why we qq that the game is not massive, 100 people idling in ogrimmar is not different from 100 people idling in a chat channel.

    The illusion of a living world comes from meeting people that do something in the world  (and the illusion that the game is massive if there are dozens of people doing things everywhere), it can be benign, like a fisher fishing at a fishing spot or more action packed, like combatting clans sweeping trough the dungeon you are grinding in, occasionally roflstomping you :)

    Apart from the launch zones are barren, noone talks in global but bots and all there is left are jokes about Barrens chat as a distant memory and lobby gameplay.

    Flame on!

    :)

    I certainly understand what you want, and this lobby thing is not. 

    However, this thread is not about lack of a virtual world. This thread is about this very popular style of lobby based playstyle in mmos.

    As pointed out before, there are more event driven instances like sto, and boss fight centric ones like wow. I think it is fun to discuss the pros & cons of how story instances are designed.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by lizardbones You are talking about direct interactions, and ignoring indirect interactions. You directly interact with very few people in game. You indirectly interact with many people in game. One of those indirect interactions is just seeing people running around in the world. I've watched people do a level 1 gnome run across the continents in WoW. They directly interacted with few people, but indirectly interacted with many people. A massive number of people heard the stories inside the game increasing the interactions and the persistent nature of the players' activities. That type of thing would not have been possible in a lobby based game. Except it's certainly possible to directly interact with hundreds of people. I've done it. It was choppy as heck, but it happened. It would not have been possible if the instead of a virtual world the game just had a lobby. So again, is it necessary? No, of course not. Nothing in video games is really necessary. Is it desired? Yes.  
    You don't need a MMO to have indirect interations. Many non-MMOs have chat channels, so you can "hear" lots of people. You can "inspect" others from the menu in D3, no difference than the inspection you do in orgrimmar in WOW. The *only* difference, in a game like D3, or playing a MP game on steam, is that you don't *see* the 3D toons in the lobby. To me, that is not a huge difference.

    Secondly, yes, i am talking about direction interactions. The indirect ones, like you see toons running around, don't add much to gameplay experiences, particularly when it consist of only a very small percentage of play time.

    If you spend 10 min in city with this "indirect interaction", and then 2 hours in LFR raid, the 10 min of waiting is not that important. So i am disputing if this *SMALL* part of the game, which btw, many will ignore by watching a youtube video, is desirable.

    It certainly does not matter to me. A menu lobby makes zero difference to me. And btw, you can't claim that the raid/dungeon experience is not more important, when most people are playing the game for exactly that.




    I haven't claimed that any particular thing is more or less important than anything else. I'm saying I agree that the virtual world bit isn't necessary for games to be fun. It's entirely possible to have just as much fun in a lobby game (like D3) as a virtual world game (like WoW), just not for everyone. Given a choice between hanging around in a game lobby and hanging around in a virtual world, there are people who prefer to hang around in a virtual world, even if the entire rest of the game is exactly the same.

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

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Aelious
    I see what your line of reasoning is but your premise to the whole thing is too presumptuous IMO. There's no way you can know what players of MMOs want, don't want, need or think is important. Again, just look at the changes they did to the world with Cata. They had the internal info to know whether that was a good investment or not and they thought it was.

    Well, i will qualify why my opinion about what many mmo players want. By observations. Many i have come across are essentially waiting in a cit waiting for their dungeon or pvp to pop.

    dont tell me you dont see that and that is not a norm. If so, their prefered play style is not massive.

    Unfortunately this is all too common, including Guild Wars 2. People keep complaining that the world is empty of people in Guild Wars 2, and it is. The only place you see a lot of people is in Lion's Arch as they look for a fractals group. Now that the primary dungeon can be accessed from the city, they never leave the city at all. Yet there are calls for a Dungeon Finder because they don't want to sit around in the city for longer than they have to. That's the state of the modern MMO.

  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by lizardbones


    MMOs being able to encompass small scale game play doesn't mean the massively multiplayer aspect of MMOs is no longer necessary. It just means that smaller scale game play is possible within the context of a massively multiplayer game.

     

    Tell me, for pve gameplay, how necessary is massive gameplay. In fact, take WOW, LOTRO, DDO .. and another huge list of MMOs .. there is zero massive pve gameplay. All the gameplay is in small group dungeons, and raids, and solo/group quests. None is massive.

    The ONLY massive pve gameplay is staring at each other in a lobby (city), and AH.

    In many of these games, not even the pvp gameplay is massive.

    If you look at the percentage of time players spend in small group gameplay vs "massive" gameplay, "massive" gameplay don't seem necessary at all.

    In fact, when i was still playing WOW, I have almost never engaged in massive pve gameplay because there is none, except may be world boss, which is a) few and far in-between, b) most people i know (and myself) has little interests in it.

    Now i am playing some STO .. and once again, where is the "massive" gameplay? There is none and none is necessary to enjoy the game.

    Why are you on an MMO forum if you don't want to play an MMO? Sure you try out STO and PS2...but otherwise you seem to have a disdain for a true MMO experience (ie; in game with a massive amount of people). Yet here you argue all you want to do is play a game with literally 4 to 5 people. You are grasping at straws for some exceptionally strange reason when you try to call a 5 man game an MMO. Also, a lobby is not a massive multiplayer GAME. It is a massive LOBBY. So while a game may have a massive component, it doesn't make it a massive multiplayer GAME. If you want to join MMO's and do horrible horrible quests (horrible compared to single player games for the most part, few exceptions), then you just have bad taste. You basically want boring MMO style quests in a 4-5 player game it sounds like. LAME.

    Now before you try to twist the argument and ignore my question about why you are here as you are obviously anti MMO, I admit I called the quests horrible, and for the most part they are. I enjoy MMO's for the MASSIVE part of it. I am no longer getting that because they are slowly devolving into basic multiplayer games. Some good questing can be found in TSW in my opinion, a few in GW2 as well. Otherwise, bleh. Now that you understand why I called the quests horrible but still love MMO's, what kind of straw man argument are you going to create? Maybe a newzoo stat that you don't understand as you don't have the data? 

    I recommend Kingdoms of Amular to you. It is abundant with stories and MMO quests in an MMO style instanced world with no people! Try it out! I think you'll love it. And you can rest assured it has a massive component because there are forums for the game too!

    With that said, I'd also suggest you head on over to pcgamer.com, gamespy.com , neogaf, or even gamespot.com to discuss the non mmo games you enjoy. Furthermore, we have a gaming section here too that may help you find like minded folks. See, you can stay on this site, enjoy the articles, but you really need to stop arguing for games to be limited to 4-5 players... its getting old buddy.

    I will admit, I am VERY tired of your anti-mmo stance. However, I'd still buy you a beer while we argue over it. HHAahhAahha

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

     

    You don't need a MMO to have indirect interations. Many non-MMOs have chat channels, so you can "hear" lots of people. You can "inspect" others from the menu in D3, no difference than the inspection you do in orgrimmar in WOW. The *only* difference, in a game like D3, or playing a MP game on steam, is that you don't *see* the 3D toons in the lobby. To me, that is not a huge difference.

    Secondly, yes, i am talking about direction interactions. The indirect ones, like you see toons running around, don't add much to gameplay experiences, particularly when it consist of only a very small percentage of play time.

    If you spend 10 min in city with this "indirect interaction", and then 2 hours in LFR raid, the 10 min of waiting is not that important. So i am disputing if this *SMALL* part of the game, which btw, many will ignore by watching a youtube video, is desirable.

    It certainly does not matter to me. A menu lobby makes zero difference to me. And btw, you can't claim that the raid/dungeon experience is not more important, when most people are playing the game for exactly that.

    Quite right, that is why we qq that the game is not massive, 100 people idling in ogrimmar is not different from 100 people idling in a chat channel.

    The illusion of a living world comes from meeting people that do something in the world  (and the illusion that the game is massive if there are dozens of people doing things everywhere), it can be benign, like a fisher fishing at a fishing spot or more action packed, like combatting clans sweeping trough the dungeon you are grinding in, occasionally roflstomping you :)

    Apart from the launch zones are barren, noone talks in global but bots and all there is left are jokes about Barrens chat as a distant memory and lobby gameplay.

    Flame on!

    :)

    I certainly understand what you want, and this lobby thing is not. 

    However, this thread is not about lack of a virtual world. This thread is about this very popular style of lobby based playstyle in mmos.

    As pointed out before, there are more event driven instances like sto, and boss fight centric ones like wow. I think it is fun to discuss the pros & cons of how story instances are designed.

    Wrong thread, we talk about story driven solo instances in the other one (and i dont disagree with you there, as long as it does not become the sole focus of the game, you know :) ), here you started with "lobby gameplay good, drop the world" :)

    Flame on!

    :)

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,754Member Uncommon

    MMO’s are on a design path to make them increasingly solo friendly. Being Massive, Mutliplayer and Roleplaying does not suit solo gameplay. So it is hardly surprising that MMO’s are becoming less massive, less multiplayer and less suitable for roleplaying.

  • cheyanecheyane Rome Posts: 3,002Member Uncommon

    I have sat and racked my brain trying to decide why certain games feel lonely. I mean it can have an impressive population but it still feels like you are playing alone. This is the aspect that lobby games cannot deliver. So you have a lot of players but you do not see them just running past you or stealing your objective or trying to kill you. They are just a number in the chat channel that tells you 69 people are in that channel. What is the point in that ? Do you see them they are just a random number ?

     

    However if I come across a place and I see people duelling or standing about trying to fish or farm or just running past I actually see them. That makes them part of the world. Granted a chat channel does allow communication (although some of the recent Russian chat spam on Empire Fleet has me wondering) but they are not really part of the world to me physically. I know that sounds dumb but if I do not see people running around just doing their own thing I am lonely. When I am lonely I do not like to play a game. There you have it it is not as tangible I guess but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

     

    GW 2 initially had all these people doing dynamic events even if people would not talk or hardly did any other thing but move from one DE to another I enjoyed that because it allowed me to be part of something. I know that it was a game that was actually instances because when you moved fom one area to another there is a portal but it still felt alive until the population in certain places dropped then it was very noticeably empty. However those early days were super nice.

     

    I am playing SWTOR now and I am happy to group  but people are right that I cannot call it massively but the stories make it up for me since I am just interacting to finish quests on the road to my own story so I do not really mind it and I do not  hate the game for its non massive feel because I forgive it for the story.

     

    However I played Everquest and even with 'the loading please wait' that game was definitely massively multiplayer. I think I never felt lonely there alone yes especially when I was in Kithicor at night trying not to catch the attention of anything but lonely ? No way.

    image

    Uploaded with ImageShack.us

  • RimmersmanRimmersman MonacoPosts: 885Member
    Originally posted by moosecatlol
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Sort of disagree.

    Planetside 2 and gw2 are modern mmos that certainly cover the massive part of mmo.

    But yeah I'm sick of mmos that turn into glorified lobby games once you hit endgame too.

    Too bad the current live client of GW2 does not maintain it's difficulty for large group content. Try doing The Assault on Arah with 10 players, afterwards do it with 50 players. Which is more fun?

    I was going to say the same thing, GW2 doesn't cover the massive parts of MMO's and is a glorified lobby game at end game.

    When i think of massive MMOs i think of games like EQ & Vanguard not GW2 lol.

    image
  • corpusccorpusc Chattanooga, TNPosts: 1,330Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    small group dungeons (like in DDO, WOW, LOTRO, DCUO, .....)

    arena/battleground pvp (some smaller than BF3)

    raids (biggest in WOW is 25 man ... even at 40 man .. it is smaller than BF3 battles)

    and not to mention SINGLE PLAYER quests and daily quests.

    In fact, the only massive part is the city where people wait for their dungeons/pvp to pop .. and that is just a massive lobby with a massive AH.

    So much of the gameplay experience that many players spend most of their time on are not "massive" (like a PS2 hundreds on hundreds battle) in *many* MMOs, may be it is time for MMOs to abandon its roots, and embrace a broader definition. In fact, the texas holden online game i just played is as massive as a MMO. YOu can gamble with 8 people, which has more players than heroic dungeons ... and the lobby is as massive as orgrimmar in WOW.

     

     

    let's take out all the meaning out of ALL words.  people can understand each other way too well currently.  we need more freedom to be able to assign opposite meanings to words at the drop of a hat, so that we don't pigeonhole a particular role onto a particular word.  also, there should be words that can represent ANY other word.... so we don't have to think too much about what we say.

    afterall, according to narius, logic and reason should have NOTHING to do with language or the words we  choose (yes he said that in another samey thread he started recently (something like "the meaning of MMO is expanding").  its much better that we just string different words randomly together like we're performing improv art, and not be shackled and bound by trying to communicate any idea.

    everyone benefits when nobody can understand each other!  language is pure self expression!  it has NOTHING to do with getting anyone to understand anything you're saying!  

     

    /sarcasm (since many posters here won't detect it)

     

    well thanks narius, for making it even MORE clear in your latest threads, what kind of special person you are, and how the act of engaging you in any kind of conversation,  is futile and a big waste of time.  taking logic and reason out of the use of words, takes away all reason and logic for USING words IN THE FIRST place.

    The End
    ---------------------------
    i don't expect to like Darkfall, altho i may like it MORE than other MMOs. i know it is gonna have a very frustrating level of grind to it, even if its significantly less than most. waiting for a pure FAST action virtual world. dice rolling & character levels (even "skills") IN COMBAT should have never carried over from pencil & paper to a computer that can reasonably model 3D spaces and objects

  • PurutzilPurutzil East Stroudsburg, PAPosts: 2,923Member Uncommon

    MMOs don't need to really have all those players playing together to be good. A lot of what you mention there is limited for challenge. Having an endless swarm of players forces the content to be trivialized to being a joke to do, demeaning the activity and making skill near useless in providing a good outcome. 

     

    Its not to say large scale stuff isn't good or shouldn't be there, but a lot of what you listed exists because it allows for challenge to exist, one that you don't have to rely upon others to be swarming around to do, and likely become a joke to accomplish with those numbers.

  • RimmersmanRimmersman MonacoPosts: 885Member
    Originally posted by Purutzil

    MMOs don't need to really have all those players playing together to be good. A lot of what you mention there is limited for challenge. Having an endless swarm of players forces the content to be trivialized to being a joke to do, demeaning the activity and making skill near useless in providing a good outcome. 

     

    Its not to say large scale stuff isn't good or shouldn't be there, but a lot of what you listed exists because it allows for challenge to exist, one that you don't have to rely upon others to be swarming around to do, and likely become a joke to accomplish with those numbers.

    He is not talking about whether they are good or not, he is saying that they are not massive.

    Games like GW2 and TSW should be called expanded CO-OP RPGs

    image
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    I haven't claimed that any particular thing is more or less important than anything else. I'm saying I agree that the virtual world bit isn't necessary for games to be fun. It's entirely possible to have just as much fun in a lobby game (like D3) as a virtual world game (like WoW), just not for everyone. Given a choice between hanging around in a game lobby and hanging around in a virtual world, there are people who prefer to hang around in a virtual world, even if the entire rest of the game is exactly the same.

     

    That is fair. I suppose some will want a different lobby .. since that is, no matter how small, still a part of the experience. But i guess we are in agreement that much of the gameplay in MMOs are not massive (and i am not going to repeat which parts) and they resemble the experience of online SP games.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Scot

    MMO’s are on a design path to make them increasingly solo friendly. Being Massive, Mutliplayer and Roleplaying does not suit solo gameplay. So it is hardly surprising that MMO’s are becoming less massive, less multiplayer and less suitable for roleplaying.

    "less massive" .. certainly that is the point of this thread.

    "less multiplayer" .. i don't see that. Much of the gameplay, despite in small groups, is still multiplayer. I haven't seen anyone or know anyone who only do solo quests. The most popular gameplay seems to be small group dungeons, and raids for pve, and BG for pvp. All  of those are mulitplayer.

    "less suitable for roleplaying" .. that has nothing to do with massive. The most conducive way for role-playing is PnP. Most vidoe games, online or not, MMO or not are not that suitable anyway.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by madazz
     

    Why are you on an MMO forum if you don't want to play an MMO? Sure you try out STO and PS2...but otherwise you seem to have a disdain for a true MMO experience (ie; in game with a massive amount of people). Yet here you argue all you want to do is play a game with literally 4 to 5 people. You are grasping at straws for some exceptionally strange reason when you try to call a 5 man game an MMO. Also, a lobby is not a massive multiplayer GAME. It is a massive LOBBY. So while a game may have a massive component, it doesn't make it a massive multiplayer GAME. If you want to join MMO's and do horrible horrible quests (horrible compared to single player games for the most part, few exceptions), then you just have bad taste. You basically want boring MMO style quests in a 4-5 player game it sounds like. LAME.

    Because unlike you, i am not beholden to some mythical "true MMO experience". There is no such things. I am here to discuss games like STO, PS2, DDO, WOW, .... all are classified .. even by you .. as MMOs. And you can't deny these games, which are MMOs, have a non-massive lobby aspect of teh gameplay.

    Tell me .. is WOW a MMO? Tell me .. is 5-man dungeon a very popular gameplay style in WOW?

    I recommend Kingdoms of Amular to you. It is abundant with stories and MMO quests in an MMO style instanced world with no people! Try it out! I think you'll love it. And you can rest assured it has a massive component because there are forums for the game too!

    I already did. I don't like the setting (too generic), and the combat is not special. STO is much more enjoyable. Don't you think i would be trying out all the actiony RPG on the market already?

    With that said, I'd also suggest you head on over to pcgamer.com, gamespy.com , neogaf, or even gamespot.com to discuss the non mmo games you enjoy. Furthermore, we have a gaming section here too that may help you find like minded folks. See, you can stay on this site, enjoy the articles, but you really need to stop arguing for games to be limited to 4-5 players... its getting old buddy.

    Why do you think i only frequent this site? Of course i am over at other gaming site, and also sci-fi sites, and what-not.

    And if you think talking about lobby style MMO is getting old, it is not as tiresome as the rant of a lack of sandbox, or all the bitter complaints about how MMO is no longer "massive", or the rant about lack of open world pvp. I don't see i am doing anything different from you (and other people here) .. except from a different point of view.

    I will admit, I am VERY tired of your anti-mmo stance. However, I'd still buy you a beer while we argue over it. HHAahhAahha

    Arguing is fun .. that is why you keep responding to me, right?

     

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

     The most popular gameplay seems to be small group dungeons, and raids for pve, and BG for pvp. All  of those are mulitplayer.

    Based on what? Mobas and other single purpose games that offer nothing else? Wow that has these as the only way of aquiring certain items?

    Until people can buy the latest tier on the ah for gold gained in a broad spectrum of activities, there is no overall reference.

    Flame on!

    :)

Sign In or Register to comment.