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!

Will most player even notice if the virtual world is taken away from MMO pve gameplay?

2456710

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Mortemia
    Instances, lobbies, teleports etc. That's everything I hate in games that take away the social aspect and kills the community.

    But you have chat rooms & friend list.

    I made more friends, and play with more people in a non-MMO like D3, than a MMO like STO. So why is the virtual even relevant to maknig friends, and community? Community are nothing but players you can be friends with, and play togther.

    It makes zero difference (to me) whether i met them in a 3D city, or a instanced dungeon. People are people.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,462Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Sovrath

    I think the point is being missed regarding "seing thousands of players".

    Of course people aren't going to want to log in only to find 5000 players standing around him and his framerate dropping to 0.

    The idea is that one can have access to any of the numerous thousands of players and have some sort of encounter or adventure because of it.

    This happened to me all the time in Lineage 2. not very much in most other games... perhaps Aion it did.

    Have you ever crested a hill to take a boss only to find your enemy with a larger army around that very same boss?

    Have you ever been besieged by several mobs only to find a higher level, helpful stranger lend aid?

    Have you ever been leveling in a group, only to be attacked by a rival of one of your party members?

    or on your way through a dungeon only to see a group of people who desperately need help with the mobs? You help them then finish your business there and then someone suggests "hey let's go to that island in the north" and you then start a whole new experience there.

    Or meet some new player who had no idea what the game is about so you take him/her under your wing, get him equipment, money and then give them a tour of the world.

    All that an more can happen when one has a world to wander around in.

    In GW1 (a great game) that didn't really happen to me. I would enter a hub and people would be grouping up for that hub. That's about it. DDO? never got that game as it seemed to be people grouping so they can blaze through a dungeon as fast as they could only to do the same again, or with another dungeon.

    I'll take my virtual world.

    These never happen in WOW, DDO, GW1, and many other instanced centric PvE MMOs.

    The point of this thread is not what should be the MMO design, but in these specific MMOs, why do we need a world if the experience is the same?

    The stuff you talk about .. .like meeting another group in a dungeon .. is just not the gameplay in these MMO i am discussing. So irrelevant.

    Well, perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of your thread but I was taking it to meaning "what if the virtual world vanished, what if things proceeded from wow to DDO and GW1 and stayed that way. Maybe even just a screen in front of you with information, like Diablo 2 (my addition to the logical conclusion).

    So what if there is no virtual world? Just a city lobby. Will they even notice the difference?

    Which is why the above struck me as an important piece and hence why I made my post.

     

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

    Well, perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of your thread but I was taking it to meaning "what if the virtual world vanished, what if things proceeded from wow to DDO and GW1 and stayed that way. Maybe even just a screen in front of you with information, like Diablo 2 (my addition to the logical conclusion).

    So what if there is no virtual world? Just a city lobby. Will they even notice the difference?

    Which is why the above struck me as an important piece and hence why I made my post.

     

    Sure. There are obvious way of using virtual world for gameplay. For example, PS2 is purely virtual world gameplay. There is no instanced.

    But my point is that there are also many, and more and more, MMOs that does not need the virtual world. DDO & GW1 are good examples. Note that GW1 is very successful. DDO is also successful to the point of having major expansion after turning F2P.

    And of course games like Diablo, Torchlight ... are very popular.

    The question is for the kind of MMOs that are "light" on virtual world gameplay anyway, shouldn't it be just taken away?

  • dave6660dave6660 New York, NYPosts: 2,543Member Uncommon
    I noticed.  Which explains why no game company has seen a dime of my money in about a year now.

    “There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.”
    -- Herman Melville

  • Trudge34Trudge34 Stevens Point, WIPosts: 392Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
     

    Well, perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of your thread but I was taking it to meaning "what if the virtual world vanished, what if things proceeded from wow to DDO and GW1 and stayed that way. Maybe even just a screen in front of you with information, like Diablo 2 (my addition to the logical conclusion).

    So what if there is no virtual world? Just a city lobby. Will they even notice the difference?

    Which is why the above struck me as an important piece and hence why I made my post.

     

    Sure. There are obvious way of using virtual world for gameplay. For example, PS2 is purely virtual world gameplay. There is no instanced.

    But my point is that there are also many, and more and more, MMOs that does not need the virtual world. DDO & GW1 are good examples. Note that GW1 is very successful. DDO is also successful to the point of having major expansion after turning F2P.

    And of course games like Diablo, Torchlight ... are very popular.

    The question is for the kind of MMOs that are "light" on virtual world gameplay anyway, shouldn't it be just taken away?

    Addressing the last question....yes they should. They can forget about the world and focus more on the gameplay giving us a better single player / multiplayer RPG instead of wanting the MMO tag and giving us a watered down experience since they need to develop the world and fitting more people in. Would be the best of both worlds. Instead of constantly blurring the lines between the two genres, focus on your target crowd and it'll end up being a better game in the end.

    Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
    Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
    Currently Playing: GW2

    Nytlok Sylas
    80 Sylvari Ranger

  • RefMinorRefMinor MyTownPosts: 3,452Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
     

    Well, perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of your thread but I was taking it to meaning "what if the virtual world vanished, what if things proceeded from wow to DDO and GW1 and stayed that way. Maybe even just a screen in front of you with information, like Diablo 2 (my addition to the logical conclusion).

    So what if there is no virtual world? Just a city lobby. Will they even notice the difference?

    Which is why the above struck me as an important piece and hence why I made my post.

     

    Sure. There are obvious way of using virtual world for gameplay. For example, PS2 is purely virtual world gameplay. There is no instanced.

    But my point is that there are also many, and more and more, MMOs that does not need the virtual world. DDO & GW1 are good examples. Note that GW1 is very successful. DDO is also successful to the point of having major expansion after turning F2P.

    And of course games like Diablo, Torchlight ... are very popular.

    The question is for the kind of MMOs that are "light" on virtual world gameplay anyway, shouldn't it be just taken away?

    Why, there are plenty of CORPGs to cover that section of the market.

  • kadepsysonkadepsyson sun prairie, WIPosts: 1,937Member

    What, people honestly think WoW players would not notice if their game world suddenly became a lobby only?

    I mean, how is that even a reasonable thought to have and ask about?

    El Psy Congroo

  • WarmakerWarmaker San Diego, CAPosts: 2,231Member
    Originally posted by Sovrath

    I think the point is being missed regarding "seing thousands of players".

    Of course people aren't going to want to log in only to find 5000 players standing around him and his framerate dropping to 0.

    The idea is that one can have access to any of the numerous thousands of players and have some sort of encounter or adventure because of it.

    This happened to me all the time in Lineage 2. not very much in most other games... perhaps Aion it did.

    Have you ever crested a hill to take a boss only to find your enemy with a larger army around that very same boss?

    Have you ever been besieged by several mobs only to find a higher level, helpful stranger lend aid?

    Have you ever been leveling in a group, only to be attacked by a rival of one of your party members?

    or on your way through a dungeon only to see a group of people who desperately need help with the mobs? You help them then finish your business there and then someone suggests "hey let's go to that island in the north" and you then start a whole new experience there.

    Or meet some new player who had no idea what the game is about so you take him/her under your wing, get him equipment, money and then give them a tour of the world.

    All that an more can happen when one has a world to wander around in.

    In GW1 (a great game) that didn't really happen to me. I would enter a hub and people would be grouping up for that hub. That's about it. DDO? never got that game as it seemed to be people grouping so they can blaze through a dungeon as fast as they could only to do the same again, or with another dungeon.

    I'll take my virtual world.

    Nice post.  The "Virtual World" is the great divider between old school MMORPGs and alot of the modern ones.  I'd further add that the "Virtual World" tried to let you do more activities outside combat.

    Regarding your experience with GW1, I felt the same way also.  Prior to GW1, I had been exposed to UO and SWG (esp. the latter), and the sharp contrasts in how players were handled and placed in the world was a huge shock.  I also thought that GW1 was a fine game but the severe instance heavy nature was by far my biggest gripe with it.  It's interesting to see Arenanet trying to mesh people together a bit more with GW2.  That looks like a very welcome change compared to the isolation when outside the towns in GW1.

    If I didn't want to see other players and not deal with them, I could put on a fine SPRPG like Skyrim or Dark Souls on.

    "I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,462Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
     

    Well, perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of your thread but I was taking it to meaning "what if the virtual world vanished, what if things proceeded from wow to DDO and GW1 and stayed that way. Maybe even just a screen in front of you with information, like Diablo 2 (my addition to the logical conclusion).

    So what if there is no virtual world? Just a city lobby. Will they even notice the difference?

    Which is why the above struck me as an important piece and hence why I made my post.

     

    Sure. There are obvious way of using virtual world for gameplay. For example, PS2 is purely virtual world gameplay. There is no instanced.

    But my point is that there are also many, and more and more, MMOs that does not need the virtual world. DDO & GW1 are good examples. Note that GW1 is very successful. DDO is also successful to the point of having major expansion after turning F2P.

    And of course games like Diablo, Torchlight ... are very popular.

    The question is for the kind of MMOs that are "light" on virtual world gameplay anyway, shouldn't it be just taken away?

    hmmm, well, my thought is that the "world" is used as a set.

    For instance, take bioware games (not SWToR). Mos of their game worlds are just theater sets where the action takes place.

    for instance, in Dragon Age, I was in the Dwarf Kingdone and marveling at the architecture across the fissue and knowing full well that it was all a bunch of theater flats.

    However, take that away and the focus comes off of the "world as a set but still the posing of a world" and more on the immediate action.

    DDO could possibly do it but Guild Wars 1 was supposed to give the player a world, just one where they only shared it with people they wanted to travel with.

    Take the "theater set" away and it becomes less about the player "being" in a place and more about what they are about to do. So it depends on whether the developers want the player to have a sense of place or is it just about the maps? I wonder how Neverwinter will do it?

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Stow, OHPosts: 1,214Member

    My God...does this guy ever stop with the attempts to completely render the MMORPG genre extinct?

    You know why there isn't  a need for "virtual worlds" in today's MMO genre? Because of players like you. Everything now. If you don't feel immediate progress within the first 10 minutes, it's a grind and boring. Hence, all the game companies cater to you, because sadly, the larger majority are players with your mindset.

    For the umpteenth time, there are a plethora of other game genres out there that already provide that experience for you, so why remain in this one and try to make it something it wasn't meant to be? That seperated it FROM those other genres?

    That's like if you were (Or maybe are) a bigtime FPS fanatic, and a bunch of MMORPG players started flooding the genre asking why do the games need to be so fast paced? Why can't they be slowed down and made more team oriented rather than so erratic and solo based? And because this influx of players grows tremendously, the market starts shifting that direction....even though there is already an MMORPG genre/market they could be playing.

    How would you feel about that? Does it make sense for these players to try and make it something it isn't if they already have the options available to them in another venue? It's senseless and selfish IMO. And I just can't wrap my head around why you are here based on what you want other than to troll out of boredom or you really just don't understand the difference.

     

  • ignore_meignore_me Apple Valley, CAPosts: 1,987Member
    I'm for splitting the genre at this point. Console, SPRPG, CORPG one one side; MMORPG VWS on the other.

    Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Goatgod76

    My God...does this guy ever stop with the attempts to completely render the MMORPG genre extinct?

    How is discussing a trend "render the MMORPG genre extinct"? I am merely making an observation. If the MMORPG genre is going to be extinct, it is because of the choices of players, and devs.

    And what is so special about extinction? Text adventures are almost all extinct. Graphical adventure is almost all extinct (but with an indie revival recently. Oh, horse carriages are more or less extinct too. Paper books are probably going to go extinct soon. Are you going to rant online about that too?

    You know why there isn't  a need for "virtual worlds" in today's MMO genre? Because of players like you. Everything now. If you don't feel immediate progress within the first 10 minutes, it's a grind and boring. Hence, all the game companies cater to you, because sadly, the larger majority are players with your mindset.

    And you point? So what if my gaming preference do not need a virtual world. It is what it is. I don't apologize for it. You don't seem to understand that what is boring for you, may be fun for many. And why is this sad?

    For the umpteenth time, there are a plethora of other game genres out there that already provide that experience for you, so why remain in this one and try to make it something it wasn't meant to be? That seperated it FROM those other genres?

    Because for the umpteenth time, it is not i want to remain in this genre, it is this genre is now catering to my desire. And there is no good reason to refuse a MMO when i like it. If i want to play STO mission solo, is there a reason not to, just because that is not what some other dude on the internet like?

    And lastly, you don't seem to understand that MMOs are not magical. They don't have destinies, and they certainly don't "meant to be" anything. They are just entertainment products, responding to market demand, just like FPS, smart phones and books.

    That's like if you were (Or maybe are) a bigtime FPS fanatic, and a bunch of MMORPG players started flooding the genre asking why do the games need to be so fast paced? Why can't they be slowed down and made more team oriented rather than so erratic and solo based? And because this influx of players grows tremendously, the market starts shifting that direction....even though there is already an MMORPG genre/market they could be playing.

    That you are wrong. I like ARPG more than FPS. FPS are too much run-&-gun. And if i am a big FPS fanatic, why would i spend more time playing D3, STO, and games like that?

    How would you feel about that? Does it make sense for these players to try and make it something it isn't if they already have the options available to them in another venue? It's senseless and selfish IMO. And I just can't wrap my head around why you are here based on what you want other than to troll out of boredom or you really just don't understand the difference.

    What does this thread have anything to do with what i want? (Not that i apologize for what i want)

    This is about much of MMO gameplay has little to do with the virtual world. Many examples have been cited. Don't you agree it is a trend? Don't you agree it is here to stay.

    Certainly i see it as a positive thing. It is not like there is no virtual world left. Eve has one. PS2 has one. I thought people here like variety and innvoation. Go away from old ideas is innovative. Have you wonder why WOT is classified as a MMO when there is no world? Have you wonder why GW1 is so successful?

    Everything points to devs are being more flexible now and no featuer and idea is sacred. That is only a good thing.

     

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by ignore_me
    I'm for splitting the genre at this point. Console, SPRPG, CORPG one one side; MMORPG VWS on the other.

    No disagreement from me. I don't care about genre labels, only if a specific game is fun.

    If you call STO a CORPG, it won't make it less fun, or more fun to me. It is the same game.

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Stow, OHPosts: 1,214Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Goatgod76

    My God...does this guy ever stop with the attempts to completely render the MMORPG genre extinct?

    How is discussing a trend "render the MMORPG genre extinct"? I am merely making an observation. If the MMORPG genre is going to be extinct, it is because of the choices of players, and devs.

    And what is so special about extinction? Text adventures are almost all extinct. Graphical adventure is almost all extinct (but with an indie revival recently. Oh, horse carriages are more or less extinct too. Paper books are probably going to go extinct soon. Are you going to rant online about that too?

    You know why there isn't  a need for "virtual worlds" in today's MMO genre? Because of players like you. Everything now. If you don't feel immediate progress within the first 10 minutes, it's a grind and boring. Hence, all the game companies cater to you, because sadly, the larger majority are players with your mindset.

    And you point? So what if my gaming preference do not need a virtual world. It is what it is. I don't apologize for it. You don't seem to understand that what is boring for you, may be fun for many. And why is this sad?

    For the umpteenth time, there are a plethora of other game genres out there that already provide that experience for you, so why remain in this one and try to make it something it wasn't meant to be? That seperated it FROM those other genres?

    Because for the umpteenth time, it is not i want to remain in this genre, it is this genre is now catering to my desire. And there is no good reason to refuse a MMO when i like it. If i want to play STO mission solo, is there a reason not to, just because that is not what some other dude on the internet like?

    And lastly, you don't seem to understand that MMOs are not magical. They don't have destinies, and they certainly don't "meant to be" anything. They are just entertainment products, responding to market demand, just like FPS, smart phones and books.

    That's like if you were (Or maybe are) a bigtime FPS fanatic, and a bunch of MMORPG players started flooding the genre asking why do the games need to be so fast paced? Why can't they be slowed down and made more team oriented rather than so erratic and solo based? And because this influx of players grows tremendously, the market starts shifting that direction....even though there is already an MMORPG genre/market they could be playing.

    That you are wrong. I like ARPG more than FPS. FPS are too much run-&-gun. And if i am a big FPS fanatic, why would i spend more time playing D3, STO, and games like that?

    How would you feel about that? Does it make sense for these players to try and make it something it isn't if they already have the options available to them in another venue? It's senseless and selfish IMO. And I just can't wrap my head around why you are here based on what you want other than to troll out of boredom or you really just don't understand the difference.

    What does this thread have anything to do with what i want? (Not that i apologize for what i want)

    This is about much of MMO gameplay has little to do with the virtual world. Many examples have been cited. Don't you agree it is a trend? Don't you agree it is here to stay.

    Certainly i see it as a positive thing. It is not like there is no virtual world left. Eve has one. PS2 has one. I thought people here like variety and innvoation. Go away from old ideas is innovative. Have you wonder why WOT is classified as a MMO when there is no world? Have you wonder why GW1 is so successful?

    Everything points to devs are being more flexible now and no featuer and idea is sacred. That is only a good thing.

     

     

    Apparently english and reading comprehension are not your strong points. The FPS thing was an EXAMPLE that you failed to comprehend, not a direct comment labeling you.

    NM, not going to waste my time any further with you...another that doesn't get it, or just doesn't want to get it.

  • ignore_meignore_me Apple Valley, CAPosts: 1,987Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by ignore_me
    I'm for splitting the genre at this point. Console, SPRPG, CORPG one one side; MMORPG VWS on the other.

    No disagreement from me. I don't care about genre labels, only if a specific game is fun.

    If you call STO a CORPG, it won't make it less fun, or more fun to me. It is the same game.

    I think it should work like a warning label.

     

    This game rated as a CORPG/Limited MMO.

    -Limited Virtual World

    -Options for play limited to: Solo Quests, 4 player challenge maps.

    -Streamlined Gameplay

     

    This Game rated as a MMOVWS.

    -Open Worlds

    -Options for play limited to: Undirected Objectives, Player Made Content

    -Complex/Time Consuming Gameplay

     

    Now if there were only some objective body, impervious to the lobbying of the manufacturers advertising departments,  to administer the ratings

    Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by ignore_me
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by ignore_me
    I'm for splitting the genre at this point. Console, SPRPG, CORPG one one side; MMORPG VWS on the other.

    No disagreement from me. I don't care about genre labels, only if a specific game is fun.

    If you call STO a CORPG, it won't make it less fun, or more fun to me. It is the same game.

    I think it should work like a warning label.

     

    This game rated as a CORPG/Limited MMO.

    -Limited Virtual World

    -Options for play limited to: Solo Quests, 4 player challenge maps.

    -Streamlined Gameplay

     

    This Game rated as a MMOVWS.

    -Open Worlds

    -Options for play limited to: Undirected Objectives, Player Made Content

    -Complex/Time Consuming Gameplay

     

    Now if there were only some objective body, impervious to the lobbying of the manufacturers advertising departments,  to administer the ratings

    It is not like things like LFD is a secret. It is actually a sort after feature. Plus, most MMOs are F2P anyway. It is not like one cannot find out how it plays after an hour of test run.

    Don't tell me people don't know GW1 is all instanced, or DDO is focus on dungeon adventures. In fact, that is their selling point. I think the information is already out there, and clear enough.

    Take TOR for another example. Does anything mistake TOR but as a story heavy game? That is their selling point (not that they are very successful in making a profit)!!

     

     

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Goatgod76

    NM, not going to waste my time any further with you...another that doesn't get it, or just doesn't want to get it.

    Or i am just discussing a MMO characteristic that you don't like.

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Stow, OHPosts: 1,214Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by ignore_me
    I'm for splitting the genre at this point. Console, SPRPG, CORPG one one side; MMORPG VWS on the other.

    No disagreement from me. I don't care about genre labels, only if a specific game is fun.

    If you call STO a CORPG, it won't make it less fun, or more fun to me. It is the same game.

    This comment here BTW, tells me you don't care about genre lables, as long as it's fun for you. Which is fine...UNTIL you try to spread these same ideas onto other genres they don't belong really. Because again, there are different genres for different tastes. Although yes, there are different variations of MMORPG's too. But every post of yours seems to want to make them ALL the same way. Quick fun.

    Like having all chess pieces able to move anywhere because it's more convenient and makes for quicker fun (To you) rather than a specific range and pattern as they are meant to move in order to make it more strategic and different from checkers.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by ignore_me
    I'm for splitting the genre at this point. Console, SPRPG, CORPG one one side; MMORPG VWS on the other.

    No disagreement from me. I don't care about genre labels, only if a specific game is fun.

    If you call STO a CORPG, it won't make it less fun, or more fun to me. It is the same game.

    This comment here BTW, tells me you don't care about genre lables, as long as it's fun for you. Which is fine...UNTIL you try to spread these same ideas onto other genres they don't belong really. Because again, there are different genres for different tastes.

    Like having all chess pieces able to move anywhere because it's more convenient and makes for quicker fun (To you) rather than a specific range and pattern as they are meant to move in order to make it more strategic and different from checkers.

    Sure. That is true. But did i spread the idea? Look at it. MMO has non-massive, co-op small group gameplay long before i even joined this site. I am just merely commenting on it. The ideas are already implemented in MMOs. If you read the thread, no one disagree that much of the gameplay (like a dungeon run) does not happen in a virtual world. All people are ranting, is that they don't like it.

    Secondly, spreading ideas across genre, in my view, is a GOOD thing. Borderland is a great fun game because it is a mix-up of RPG and FPS. Does anyone complain .. no no we can't have first person shooting in a RPG?

     

     

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Stow, OHPosts: 1,214Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by ignore_me
    I'm for splitting the genre at this point. Console, SPRPG, CORPG one one side; MMORPG VWS on the other.

    No disagreement from me. I don't care about genre labels, only if a specific game is fun.

    If you call STO a CORPG, it won't make it less fun, or more fun to me. It is the same game.

    This comment here BTW, tells me you don't care about genre lables, as long as it's fun for you. Which is fine...UNTIL you try to spread these same ideas onto other genres they don't belong really. Because again, there are different genres for different tastes.

    Like having all chess pieces able to move anywhere because it's more convenient and makes for quicker fun (To you) rather than a specific range and pattern as they are meant to move in order to make it more strategic and different from checkers.

    Sure. That is true. But did i spread the idea? Look at it. MMO has non-massive, co-op small group gameplay long before i even joined this site. I am just merely commenting on it. The ideas are already implemented in MMOs. If you read the thread, no one disagree that much of the gameplay (like a dungeon run) does not happen in a virtual world. All people are ranting, is that they don't like it.

    Secondly, spreading ideas across genre, in my view, is a GOOD thing. Borderland is a great fun game because it is a mix-up of RPG and FPS. Does anyone complain .. no no we can't have first person shooting in a RPG?

     

     

    No reason you can't. I actually had an idea for a Wild West sandbox RPG that incorporated FPS gun fights. But I don't have the time nor energy to go back and forth with you on this anymore.

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member

    And here he is again, trying to get MMOs to become something they never were intended to be. There sure are lots of other genres that cover this very thing, though. I guess he won't happy until ALL online games are lobby based games...

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • GrayGhost79GrayGhost79 Webster, MAPosts: 4,813Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by XAPGames

    Yeah, they would notice.  Just look at all the threads of people complaining about empty overland zones indicating that a game is dead.

     

    It's a paradox.  They might not want to play with others, but they like having them around.

     

    This. If the world seems empty, it doesn't seem like a world anymore to most.

    You don't need a world for this. You just need a city like Orgrimmar.

    In fact, the world *is* empty. They may as well take it away.

    There is a market for that kind of game, but... not here in the MMO sector. Look at ARPG's like Torchlight 2, I think thats what you are looking for. People come to MMO's for that virtual world, so your idea won't be an overly popular one. Again though, ARPG's have you covered :) 

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by GrayGhost79

    You don't need a world for this. You just need a city like Orgrimmar.

    In fact, the world *is* empty. They may as well take it away.

    There is a market for that kind of game, but... not here in the MMO sector. Look at ARPG's like Torchlight 2, I think thats what you are looking for. People come to MMO's for that virtual world, so your idea won't be an overly popular one. Again though, ARPG's have you covered :) 

    Really? Then explain to me that how it is not true that much of the MMO gameplay happens in instances, and that cities are used as lobby. Isn't that true?

    Look at MMOs like WOW, DDO, GW1, STO ... tell me how that kind of gameplay is not happening in these games?

    Sure there are other games for that too in other genre (ARPG), but that does not mean that some MMOs are not like that. And if my idea is not popular, why is many doing that in orgrimmar, stormwind, and so on ....

  • YakkinYakkin irvine, CAPosts: 919Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Sure there are other games for that too in other genre (ARPG), but that does not mean that some MMOs are not like that. And if my idea is not popular, why is many doing that in orgrimmar, stormwind, and so on ....

    "Insert something about there not being any games that allow for a different approach/incentivize the open world as an alternate solution to being stuck in a lobby."

  • Orthus.AkuOrthus.Aku Swartz Creek, MIPosts: 12Member
    I have a few questions. wouldn't removing the presistent world sorta turn said game into more of a MPRPG instead of a MMORPG? Also isn't the reason end-game isntancing is popular because it allows developers to control how fast the content is burned through with gear and other checks? Also in wow for example wouldn't raiders bitch if the best gear and hardest content was in the world and not in raids(breaking the status-quo)?
Sign In or Register to comment.