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!

Which MMO can be improved by taking the virtual world out?

nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member

I have played quite a few recent MMOs that the public zones are not really adding to the fun (to me, course), and i think they are better off as online RPGs, rather than MMOs.

NWO - fun game. A good take on action combat, much better than DDO. However, most of the good stuff are done in instances. I found myself wasting time walking through the city (following glittering dots) again and again. Backtracking in the same place is no fun, and waste my time before getting into the action. I would like a menu driven lobby better, and let me just enter the dungeon instantly.

PoE - the only public zone (so far i can see) is the town. All i get is seeing other people standing in front of the seller. It is much easier to just have a menu, a list of players that i can inspect and talk to.

Marvel Heroes - this one is the worse offender. They should just stick to a online marvel ultimate alliance. I don't enjoy seeing 20 spidermans (or should that be spidermEn?) running around. Just do a diablo in the marvel universe, and they will have a good game.

Are there other games that can become better to ditch the virtual world?

 

 

Comments

  • JacxolopeJacxolope Jackson, MIPosts: 924Member

    Almost everything new(er) that I have tried would have been better with a lobby only. The "World" being pointless.

    I totally agree. The world is pretty static and pointless in MOST MMORPGs these days so why waste resources on them when the "world" is only acting as a lobby anyhow. Nothing you can do can change the world- it isnt dynamic and you cannot interact with it in a meaningful way.

    The "World" is just filler content to give you time to run from quest to quest and follow arrows.

    NOTE: OR sandbox elements could be added...But that will never happen. Hell, most MMO"RPG"s would be better off as FPS these days.

     

  • RefMinorRefMinor MyTownPosts: 3,452Member
    No
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Jacxolope

    Almost everything new(er) that I have tried would have been better with a lobby only. The "World" being pointless.

    I totally agree. The world is pretty static and pointless in MOST MMORPGs these days so why waste resources on them when the "world" is only acting as a lobby anyhow. Nothing you can do can change the world- it isnt dynamic and you cannot interact with it in a meaningful way.

    The "World" is just filler content to give you time to run from quest to quest and follow arrows.

    NOTE: OR sandbox elements could be added...But that will never happen. Hell, most MMO"RPG"s would be better off as FPS these days.

     

    That is a completely different discussion. There are enough sandbox discussions of what could-be will-be might-be that i am not interested in that.

    This thread is about existing games .. which one can be better by jettisoning the virtual world.

    Now where does the FPS comments comes from. For example, it is obvious that it would be completely INAPPROPRIATE to make Marvel Heroes into a FPS. It should be a online ARPG like diablo.

    Similar none of these other games are first person. NWO is more like a third person action RPG. So i would say the FPS comment is totally off. I don't see ANY MMO can be better as a FPS.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by RefMinor
    No

    Really?

    Tell me, why do you enjoy seeing 20 spidermans running around? I thought you like immersion. Or is that not immersion breaking?

  • JacxolopeJacxolope Jackson, MIPosts: 924Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Jacxolope

    Almost everything new(er) that I have tried would have been better with a lobby only. The "World" being pointless.

    I totally agree. The world is pretty static and pointless in MOST MMORPGs these days so why waste resources on them when the "world" is only acting as a lobby anyhow. Nothing you can do can change the world- it isnt dynamic and you cannot interact with it in a meaningful way.

    The "World" is just filler content to give you time to run from quest to quest and follow arrows.

    NOTE: OR sandbox elements could be added...But that will never happen. Hell, most MMO"RPG"s would be better off as FPS these days.

     

    That is a completely different discussion. There are enough sandbox discussions of what could-be will-be might-be that i am not interested in that.

    This thread is about existing games .. which one can be better by jettisoning the virtual world.

    Now where does the FPS comments comes from. For example, it is obvious that it would be completely INAPPROPRIATE to make Marvel Heroes into a FPS. It should be a online ARPG like diablo.

    Similar none of these other games are first person. NWO is more like a third person action RPG. So i would say the FPS comment is totally off. I don't see ANY MMO can be better as a FPS.

     

    I understand this isnt about sandbox gaming but I am providing the only way to make the "Virtual World" anything more than a Lobby- I fully agree with you, its pointless in most games.

    Concerning action Rpgs/FPS - I again agree with you (these are action RPG's) but my FPS comment was in regards to adding some skill into the mix as opposed to button combinations which you can look up online- Every raid I have been on in the past 3-4 years has either been "led" by someone who knew where everyone needed to stand, what to do OR it was led by people who had never been there and constantly halted to "check the wiki"- Somy FPS coment was geared more towards what would make a more interesting game when doing instances IMHO.

    EDIT: MMO"rpg"'s have become a rush to the end and for best gear- Everyone worries about "wasting time" and its GO GO GO GO- So yeah, trying to find a group who wants to explore and learn an instance/raid is nearly impossible- The second there is a walktrough (and since its scripted its all the same every time) its "wasting time" NOT to look up how to beat the raid and not have to "learn it"- And since its a rush to endgame- Why not? Everyone has fought and killed Mordokon the Blue Dragon, his castle is mapped and his moves are outlined- The spells you need and when to use them are right there on the WIKI- So my FPS comment was wishful thinking since at least the raids will be different every time and not so...IDK... Static.

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by RefMinor
    No
    Really?Tell me, why do you enjoy seeing 20 spidermans running around? I thought you like immersion. Or is that not immersion breaking?
    Why does every statement you make go to extremes? How many "Spidermans" do you see in your city instance? Is the number greater or lesser? Does it have ANY bearing on a virtual world or not?

    I agree with RefMinor. No. No MMO improves by taking out the virtual world. When this is removed, you have a combat game.

    If you do not like "virtual Worlds", why play an MMO?
    Is it for the online gameplay? You can get that with other genres.
    Is it for the combat? You can get MUCH better combat in other genres.

    I realize that you find anything non-combat boring. Don't you already have a genre or 5 to play?

    - 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

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


    Why does every statement you make go to extremes? How many "Spidermans" do you see in your city instance? Is the number greater or lesser? Does it have ANY bearing on a virtual world or not?

    20. Play the beta and see for yourself. Yes, the city zone is the persistent "virtual world" of that game.

    I agree with RefMinor. No. No MMO improves by taking out the virtual world. When this is removed, you have a combat game.

    And some MMOs are better as combat games (or ARPGs), as the ones i have pointed out.

    If you do not like "virtual Worlds", why play an MMO?

    Because many MMOs are not about virtual worlds?


    Is it for the online gameplay? You can get that with other genres.

    Yes. Of course i play other genre. But that is no reason i should ignore a MMO that is fun. Why should i not play Marvel Heroes, or NWO, when i am also playing Diablo3?


    Is it for the combat? You can get MUCH better combat in other genres.

    For combat & setting. I don't get any Star Trek games in other genre. Plus, you are like saying because Bioshock Infinite is better, i should not play other FPS. Well, i don't only play one game, nor one genre. Heck, i just wrote about 3 MMOs that i play. There will be more.

    I realize that you find anything non-combat boring. Don't you already have a genre or 5 to play?

    Of course. MMO will be the 6th .. if it pleases me.

     

  • NadiaNadia Canonsburg, PAPosts: 11,866Member Common

    GW1 could be converted into a lobby game but i would not call it an improvement

    I like seeing players at town outposts and capitals

     

    I cannot imagine GW1 with no Lions Arch or Droknar's Forge

     

    DDO can also be converted into a lobby game

    -- i have no love for any of DDOs outposts heh

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

    GW1 could be converted into a lobby game but i would not call it an improvement

    I like seeing players at town outposts and capitals

     

    I cannot imagine GW1 with no Lions Arch or Droknar's Forge

     

    DDO can also be converted into a lobby game

    -- i have no love for any of DDOs outposts heh

    I agree with the DDO comment. In fact, it is pretty much the same experience as NWO (except NWO has better combat & prettier graphics).

    But do you really need to see players in a 3D zone? I don't find it much difference if they are in a menu lobby, as long as you can inspect them (with a little 3D model and such).

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    NWO - fun game. A good take on action combat, much better than DDO. However, most of the good stuff are done in instances. I found myself wasting time walking through the city (following glittering dots) again and again. Backtracking in the same place is no fun, and waste my time before getting into the action. I would like a menu driven lobby better, and let me just enter the dungeon instantly.

    This x2.

    Imagine if you had to do a "travel around town" scenario between each PnP DnD campaign you did. Neverwinter has fun gameplay and some really cool player made missions, but having to wander up and down the length of town to claim rewards and find the next sewer grate is just annoying. I'm not sure why they thought that would be fun for anyone, and I get the feeling it's only there to try to "add life to the game world" or some other idiotic reason.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • BrucyBonusBrucyBonus londonPosts: 220Member

    There have been a lot of single player games released recently with mmo add-ons/ after-thoughts, SWTOR being the most obvious example.  

    I wish games would either concentrate on being a heavily story-driven single/ mutli-player game; or being a massive world for many people to play in.   

  • fantasyfreak112fantasyfreak112 Orange County, CAPosts: 499Member

    Neverwinter

    Guild Wars 2

     

  • OzivoisOzivois Phoenix, AZPosts: 598Member
    Menu-driven lobbies would be a downgrade and do nothing more than take away from the game. No MMO would be improved by this kind of downgrade.
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member

    I can't think of an MMO that I've played that would work better without the virtual world. I can think of some where the virtual world needed work, or where I'd rather the virtual world be more of an open world, but not one where the world is actually an issue and needs to be removed. I can think of MMOs that I think would make better single player games or which would be better as private, invite only servers or player run servers too, but again, not one where the virtual world needs to be removed.

    I haven't played Marvel Heroes though. I'm not sure I will. I've been reading comics for a long time and I'm afraid that the many copies of each hero with no explanation might bother me immensely.

    I'm also not a huge fan of lobby based games. I don't hate them, but I'm not drawn towards them either. Global Agenda was as close to a lobby based game that still had a virtual world as you could get. You did level from 1 to about 17 in the world, but after that you spent your time in Dome City going to instances and match based PvP to finish leveling. It did have a lobby, but the lobby was a city and a bunch of other people were there too. Even there, I would prefer the Dome City with people running around to just having a lobby. *shrug* I like virtual worlds and prefer virtual worlds to lobbies, even when the virtual worlds are weak.

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

  • JacxolopeJacxolope Jackson, MIPosts: 924Member
    Originally posted by BrucyBonus

    There have been a lot of single player games released recently with mmo add-ons/ after-thoughts, SWTOR being the most obvious example.  

    I wish games would either concentrate on being a heavily story-driven single/ mutli-player game; or being a massive world for many people to play in.   

    100%

    -Anything "story driven" or "Theme park" really doesnt need an open world. Why have to run to "farmer John" to learn about the rat problem in his basement, then run to his house. All with 10,000 other people jump running for the same "quest"- its pointless.

    Essentially in a story driven MMO we all have the exact same story. No C&C, no "off the beaten path" and any choices are totally scripted as well- So why have the "Virtual World" when it really is just "filler content" and time wasting and can be counter productive for immersion.

    Give me a lobby and just let me jump from encounter to encounter until endgame.

    -But as you say, a "massive World" where C&C matter and there are sandbox elements is crucial since a sandbox cannot be scripted and "we" make the game.

    In a Theme park I am on a ride that was thought up and written by "writers" (not very good ones) to be tackled in a specific way and order. Why waste my time giving the "illusion" of a World when there is none?

    -And I am not knocking theme-parks. I PERSONALLY like WOW - But I see the Ops point.

    I prefer Sandboxes but there are none and sandbox today means PVP gankfest in an open World (which is a persistent arena game IMHO) which should be a whole separate genre,.

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

    NWO - fun game. A good take on action combat, much better than DDO. However, most of the good stuff are done in instances. I found myself wasting time walking through the city (following glittering dots) again and again. Backtracking in the same place is no fun, and waste my time before getting into the action. I would like a menu driven lobby better, and let me just enter the dungeon instantly.

    This x2.

    Imagine if you had to do a "travel around town" scenario between each PnP DnD campaign you did. Neverwinter has fun gameplay and some really cool player made missions, but having to wander up and down the length of town to claim rewards and find the next sewer grate is just annoying. I'm not sure why they thought that would be fun for anyone, and I get the feeling it's only there to try to "add life to the game world" or some other idiotic reason.

     

    So that it can be called a MMO? Idiotic indeed. Lots of games are super successful with that label (D3, LoL, WoT ...)

    May be they can put a LFD type interface on top and side-step this.

  • BrucyBonusBrucyBonus londonPosts: 220Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    I can't think of an MMO that I've played that would work better without the virtual world. I can think of some where the virtual world needed work, or where I'd rather the virtual world be more of an open world, but not one where the world is actually an issue and needs to be removed. I can think of MMOs that I think would make better single player games or which would be better as private, invite only servers or player run servers too, but again, not one where the virtual world needs to be removed.

    I haven't played Marvel Heroes though. I'm not sure I will. I've been reading comics for a long time and I'm afraid that the many copies of each hero with no explanation might bother me immensely.

    I'm also not a huge fan of lobby based games. I don't hate them, but I'm not drawn towards them either. Global Agenda was as close to a lobby based game that still had a virtual world as you could get. You did level from 1 to about 17 in the world, but after that you spent your time in Dome City going to instances and match based PvP to finish leveling. It did have a lobby, but the lobby was a city and a bunch of other people were there too. Even there, I would prefer the Dome City with people running around to just having a lobby. *shrug* I like virtual worlds and prefer virtual worlds to lobbies, even when the virtual worlds are weak.

    But I can think of games where the story-driven/ single-player elements detract from the massively-multiplayer world; whether because a large chunk of the finite development time and budget have been spent on them or whether they compel you to solo vast amounts of content.   

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

    There have been a lot of single player games released recently with mmo add-ons/ after-thoughts, SWTOR being the most obvious example.  

     

    That is why i think the virtual world should be taken out in many games. TOR is another good example, as you said.

     

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

    But I can think of games where the story-driven/ single-player elements detract from the massively-multiplayer world; whether because a large chunk of the finite development time and budget have been spent on them or whether they compel you to solo vast amounts of content.   

    Or vice versa. In the examples some cited, the virtual world is detracting from good fun SP (or online MP) content. And exaclty because of limited budget, they should ditch the less important part.

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

    There have been a lot of single player games released recently with mmo add-ons/ after-thoughts, SWTOR being the most obvious example.  

    I wish games would either concentrate on being a heavily story-driven single/ mutli-player game; or being a massive world for many people to play in.   

    100%

    -Anything "story driven" or "Theme park" really doesnt need an open world. Why have to run to "farmer John" to learn about the rat problem in his basement, then run to his house. All with 10,000 other people jump running for the same "quest"- its pointless.

    Essentially in a story driven MMO we all have the exact same story. No C&C, no "off the beaten path" and any choices are totally scripted as well- So why have the "Virtual World" when it really is just "filler content" and time wasting and can be counter productive for immersion.

    Give me a lobby and just let me jump from encounter to encounter until endgame.

    -But as you say, a "massive World" where C&C matter and there are sandbox elements is crucial since a sandbox cannot be scripted and "we" make the game.

    In a Theme park I am on a ride that was thought up and written by "writers" (not very good ones) to be tackled in a specific way and order. Why waste my time giving the "illusion" of a World when there is none?

    -And I am not knocking theme-parks. I PERSONALLY like WOW - But I see the Ops point.

    I prefer Sandboxes but there are none and sandbox today means PVP gankfest in an open World (which is a persistent arena game IMHO) which should be a whole separate genre,.

    Agree on all points.

    I just don't see the benefit of an open world on scripted pve content. In fact, there is virtually no large scale pve content except world bosses .. which a) is not that massive (unlike large battles in Ps2), and b) not that fun/compelling/popular anyway.

    Sure an open world is suited for large scale warfare (like PS2) but that is a separate discussion.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member

    bump .. my topic was mistakenly moved to the "general" forum.

    Thank you for the moderator to move it back since it is obviously on topic discussing about MMOs.

Sign In or Register to comment.