I started MMOs on EQ Tallon Zek server, which was teams PVP server with one-item+coin loot. Back then you had druid and wizard teleports and that was that, you had to hoof it to wherever you wanted to go.
Part of the fun was getting organized to get going to the zone/dungeon and then setting off. Yeah, it would take an hour or so to get everything together but once you set off it was great fun. Along the way, if PVP happened you had to deal with it or try to run, so grouping was essential.
Then once you got into the dungeon, you had to get to where you were going and then set up an EXP camp.
So you had no real method of fast travel, no instances, team based PVP with item loot. And ti was great, lol. You cannot find that in any MMO today. Some have total item loot, but those games are just frustrating.
MMOs are fail today because they have no RISK. So the rewards don't seem rewardy. Yea, sit in town all day with your instance finder, then get into an instance and get the same piece of loot 200 other people have, don't interact with anyone for 99% of your playing time and when you finish that dungeon run, just /quit out. Rinse and repeat for 10 years.....sounds like a lot of fun, right?
Part of the fun was getting organized to get going to the zone/dungeon and then setting off. Yeah, it would take an hour or so to get everything together but once you set off it was great fun. Along the way, if PVP happened you had to deal with it or try to run, so grouping was essential.
Fun is subjective. What you described is horribly boring to me. I don't play games to spend time organizing. That is why i don't play MMOs without a LFD function anymore.
And you also said "once you set off it was great fun" .. seems to imply BEFORE you set off it, it was not fun.
-I remember playing little league baseball and T-Ball as a kid. I remember the pride I had as I hit my first home run, won my first game and our team made it to the Championships (we didnt win...)
-Went to my Nephews T-ball game last year. Wow was it different.
No keeping score.
No winners and losers (everyone wins)
No strikes (everyone swings until they hit)
Parents clap for everyone regardless of outcome.
-But I am sure it was more "fun" than when I had to actually , you know, play the game- practice, learn a skill. Where I could fail and winning wasnt a guarantee. Where practice made perfect and if you practices hard enough , played well enough and had a little luck- You could win a trophy. (now everyone gets a trophy)
I got home and looked at my old trophies from baseball and Soccer. Not that many. But I earned them.
To me, I do not feel I "earned something" nor can I find enjoyment in something if the outcome is guaranteed. Why show up to play if no matter what you do- You Win? Hell, everyone "wins" now which in reality means "everyone really loses"
-I see this now in gaming as well (especially MMOs) people who never learned how to properly lose in real life and are accustomed to the 'everyone wins road"- Creativity non existent unless there is one single linear path to traverse.
-People who dont know when to quit arguing .
This entire conversation has debased into mudslinging and a back and forth- No discussion going on either. Just "I am right." (because again, when there is never any losing in ones life how could they possibly see things from another point of view?)
Open World games should be far more immersive. Are they? No. Sadly in most cases they are not because the "open World" has no more going on in it than a lobby where you have to run around quest grinding. But that is part and parcel to the entire problem with the genre as a whole- A "theme park" linear world does not need anything more than a lobby IF there is no way to effect the "open world" anyhow.
People screaming for a lobby are right- The open World AS THEY SEE IT is pointless for the most part- And it is.
People screaming for Open World are right- IF developers would get back to their roots and give us a dynamic World with interaction and randomness- An Open World is clearly more immersive.
As things stand with the genre, what point is the open world? As MMORPGs are becoming e-sport, action games which are totally on rails- Why waste my time (and yours) with the false illusion of a "world" when none really exists and the resources could be used elsewhere?
-Everyone here is right and wrong and unwilling to bend at all to try to see the others point.
I blame this on giving trophies to everyone and not allowing anyone to strike out...ever.
-I remember playing little league baseball and T-Ball as a kid. I remember the pride I had as I hit my first home run, won my first game and our team made it to the Championships (we didnt win...)
-Went to my Nephews T-ball game last year. Wow was it different.
No keeping score.
No winners and losers (everyone wins)
No strikes (everyone swings until they hit)
Parents clap for everyone regardless of outcome.
-But I am sure it was more "fun" than when I had to actually , you know, play the game- practice, learn a skill. Where I could fail and winning wasnt a guarantee. Where practice made perfect and if you practices hard enough , played well enough and had a little luck- You could win a trophy. (now everyone gets a trophy)
I got home and looked at my old trophies from baseball and Soccer. Not that many. But I earned them.
To me, I do not feel I "earned something" nor can I find enjoyment in something if the outcome is guaranteed. Why show up to play if no matter what you do- You Win? Hell, everyone "wins" now which in reality means "everyone really loses"
-I see this now in gaming as well (especially MMOs) people who never learned how to properly lose in real life and are accustomed to the 'everyone wins road"- Creativity non existent unless there is one single linear path to traverse.
-People who dont know when to quit arguing .
This entire conversation has debased into mudslinging and a back and forth- No discussion going on either. Just "I am right." (because again, when there is never any losing in ones life how could they possibly see things from another point of view?)
Open World games should be far more immersive. Are they? No. Sadly in most cases they are not because the "open World" has no more going on in it than a lobby where you have to run around quest grinding. But that is part and parcel to the entire problem with the genre as a whole- A "theme park" linear world does not need anything more than a lobby IF there is no way to effect the "open world" anyhow.
People screaming for a lobby are right- The open World AS THEY SEE IT is pointless for the most part- And it is.
People screaming for Open World are right- IF developers would get back to their roots and give us a dynamic World with interaction and randomness- An Open World is clearly more immersive.
As things stand with the genre, what point is the open world? As MMORPGs are becoming e-sport, action games which are totally on rails- Why waste my time (and yours) with the false illusion of a "world" when none really exists and the resources could be used elsewhere?
-Everyone here is right and wrong and unwilling to bend at all to try to see the others point.
I blame this on giving trophies to everyone and not allowing anyone to strike out...ever.
Exactly. My recent Taekwando Tournament everyone got a trophy just for going to it. I mean really?
Only trophy remotely earned at it is the Grand Champion trophy, which was won on points from the other categories and how you placed. When I played 11 years of soccer, I was on a winning team twice. Although sure, it sucked sometimes constantly losing, it made it MUCH more gratifying when you did win because you worked hard for it and it was earned.
MMORPG's are about the journey, not the destination. They were different from console games for a reason...a different form of entertainment. But now they are just becoming like console games. Character development, reputation of said character, socialization, exploration, immersion are all going out the window for these lobby-like, heavily instanced, reward handing at every turn, solo laden shallow games they are calling MMORPG's that rarely last a year before server merges, or shut downs. Sad...
I'm a 20 warrior in Wow. The world seems exciting, it's beauriful and has nice lore. So, why do I don't explore it? Simple, for what sake? I will don't find any open dungeon with dangerous monsters and the boss from which I can loot very rare item to become rich. All the challenge is in the instances, so even if I loot something worth it will be nothing after 3 lvls. So I stay in city and queque for instances.
I'm a 20 warrior in open world mmo. Now I have only a wolf to ride on. I see a big hole in the middle of mountain. I go there, enter, but the monsters are too strong, I can't cope with them. 2 more people have arrived, because there were rumours that here is a monster which drops a very unique mount (1% chance). We clear the cave. Fight with the boss, but there isn't anything worth to loot. So, we come to the nearest village. People are talking about a raid on their village. In few minutes a dragon attacks the city. Only few people have killed him, but now I have a unique mount, and can explore the world, seeking for the adventure.
What is better, standing in city queueing for instances and loot mounts which are useless, cuz you stay in city the whole time while not raiding/ doing instances/bg/ arenas, or the second option. I'm waiting for your opinion .
That's a perfect example of a dated themepark for ya.
If you have a game with declining community or a game that has aged and grown too vast, players want instant gratifications, so devs are giving in and giving ppl teleportations, instance qeues etc, so it's easy to skip 80% of the content to reach your goal.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
I don't think that the open world in and of itself creates immersion. I think that for some people the dungeon finders eliminate immersion. For me anything that reinforces "This is just a game I am playing" make sit feel less immersive. This can range from certain sound effects to mechanical aspects to dungeon finders.
Back in EQ 1, I had a group of people I consistently adventured with, getting there was half the fun, and combat was slow enough that we actually had time to chat. In modern games, you get instantly teleported to instances that you run through instances with strangers barely ever speaking. Not a lot of fun for me.
I don't think that the open world in and of itself creates immersion. I think that for some people the dungeon finders eliminate immersion. For me anything that reinforces "This is just a game I am playing" make sit feel less immersive. This can range from certain sound effects to mechanical aspects to dungeon finders.
Back in EQ 1, I had a group of people I consistently adventured with, getting there was half the fun, and combat was slow enough that we actually had time to chat. In modern games, you get instantly teleported to instances that you run through instances with strangers barely ever speaking. Not a lot of fun for me.
And yet most players use LFD, despite the option of not using it, and run to the dungeon.
I don't think immersion is that important. Players are obviously choosing convenience at the expense of a little immersion breaking.
Originally posted by ConjuremanI don't think that the open world in and of itself creates immersion. I think that for some people the dungeon finders eliminate immersion. For me anything that reinforces "This is just a game I am playing" make sit feel less immersive. This can range from certain sound effects to mechanical aspects to dungeon finders.Back in EQ 1, I had a group of people I consistently adventured with, getting there was half the fun, and combat was slow enough that we actually had time to chat. In modern games, you get instantly teleported to instances that you run through instances with strangers barely ever speaking. Not a lot of fun for me.
And yet most players use LFD, despite the option of not using it, and run to the dungeon.
I don't think immersion is that important. Players are obviously choosing convenience at the expense of a little immersion breaking.
Having players use a LFD or LFR tool doesn't mean the virtual world doesn't serve any purpose. There are some players using those tools exclusively, but even if half the players are using those tools exclusively, it doesn't make the virtual world irrelevant.
** ** **
Even reversing it with the reality of most players leveling in the world and then most players using LFD at end game doesn't make the virtual world irrelevant.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by ConjuremanI don't think that the open world in and of itself creates immersion. I think that for some people the dungeon finders eliminate immersion. For me anything that reinforces "This is just a game I am playing" make sit feel less immersive. This can range from certain sound effects to mechanical aspects to dungeon finders.Back in EQ 1, I had a group of people I consistently adventured with, getting there was half the fun, and combat was slow enough that we actually had time to chat. In modern games, you get instantly teleported to instances that you run through instances with strangers barely ever speaking. Not a lot of fun for me.
And yet most players use LFD, despite the option of not using it, and run to the dungeon.
I don't think immersion is that important. Players are obviously choosing convenience at the expense of a little immersion breaking.
Having players use a LFD or LFR tool doesn't mean the virtual world doesn't serve any purpose. There are some players using those tools exclusively, but even if half the players are using those tools exclusively, it doesn't make the virtual world irrelevant.
It makes the virtual world irrelevant for half of the players .. in your example. But that is not my point. My point is that immersion is just not that important.
Originally posted by ConjuremanI don't think that the open world in and of itself creates immersion. I think that for some people the dungeon finders eliminate immersion. For me anything that reinforces "This is just a game I am playing" make sit feel less immersive. This can range from certain sound effects to mechanical aspects to dungeon finders.Back in EQ 1, I had a group of people I consistently adventured with, getting there was half the fun, and combat was slow enough that we actually had time to chat. In modern games, you get instantly teleported to instances that you run through instances with strangers barely ever speaking. Not a lot of fun for me.
And yet most players use LFD, despite the option of not using it, and run to the dungeon.I don't think immersion is that important. Players are obviously choosing convenience at the expense of a little immersion breaking.
Having players use a LFD or LFR tool doesn't mean the virtual world doesn't serve any purpose. There are some players using those tools exclusively, but even if half the players are using those tools exclusively, it doesn't make the virtual world irrelevant.
It makes the virtual world irrelevant for half of the players .. in your example. But that is not my point. My point is that immersion is just not that important.
It depends on what you mean by immersion. Immersion is being engaged in or immersed in what you are doing. You can be immersed in reading a book, assembling a wood table from planks of wood you've cut or in playing a game, with or without a virtual world. Players can be immersed in playing Tetris, which has no virtual world at all.
As far as a virtual world being important, it depends on the game. If you removed the virtual world from WoW, and half the players left the game, that would make the virtual world very important. In Diablo, if you added a virtual world, you probably wouldn't double the number of players, so there it's probably not an important concept.
** ** **
Take a game like Minecraft. If you removed the virtual world, you wouldn't have a game at all. What about Skyrim? How much of a game would you have without a virtual world there? Eve is almost nothing but virtual world. The idea that you can just trade a virtual world for a menu driven lobby is just silly. Many games with thousands or millions of players would no longer exist.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
As far as a virtual world being important, it depends on the game. If you removed the virtual world from WoW, and half the players left the game, that would make the virtual world very important. In Diablo, if you added a virtual world, you probably wouldn't double the number of players, so there it's probably not an important concept.
I wonder if you remove the virtual world from WOW, half will leave. Most players are at max level doing LFR/LFD/BG/arena anyway. A better question is if you create a WOW like game without the world (all the gameplay are in instances), will it be successful?
** ** **
Take a game like Minecraft. If you removed the virtual world, you wouldn't have a game at all. What about Skyrim? How much of a game would you have without a virtual world there? Eve is almost nothing but virtual world. The idea that you can just trade a virtual world for a menu driven lobby is just silly. Many games with thousands or millions of players would no longer exist.
Hmm .. Minecraft has no persistent world. It is just a large zone you can build. SKYRIM also don't have a persistent world. It is more like a large SP zone. The only difference between the SKYRIM "world", and the Deus Ex "levels" is that the SKYRIM levels are bigger.
Comments
This.
Fun is subjective. What you described is horribly boring to me. I don't play games to spend time organizing. That is why i don't play MMOs without a LFD function anymore.
And you also said "once you set off it was great fun" .. seems to imply BEFORE you set off it, it was not fun.
-I remember playing little league baseball and T-Ball as a kid. I remember the pride I had as I hit my first home run, won my first game and our team made it to the Championships (we didnt win...)
-Went to my Nephews T-ball game last year. Wow was it different.
No keeping score.
No winners and losers (everyone wins)
No strikes (everyone swings until they hit)
Parents clap for everyone regardless of outcome.
-But I am sure it was more "fun" than when I had to actually , you know, play the game- practice, learn a skill. Where I could fail and winning wasnt a guarantee. Where practice made perfect and if you practices hard enough , played well enough and had a little luck- You could win a trophy. (now everyone gets a trophy)
I got home and looked at my old trophies from baseball and Soccer. Not that many. But I earned them.
To me, I do not feel I "earned something" nor can I find enjoyment in something if the outcome is guaranteed. Why show up to play if no matter what you do- You Win? Hell, everyone "wins" now which in reality means "everyone really loses"
-I see this now in gaming as well (especially MMOs) people who never learned how to properly lose in real life and are accustomed to the 'everyone wins road"- Creativity non existent unless there is one single linear path to traverse.
-People who dont know when to quit arguing .
This entire conversation has debased into mudslinging and a back and forth- No discussion going on either. Just "I am right." (because again, when there is never any losing in ones life how could they possibly see things from another point of view?)
Open World games should be far more immersive. Are they? No. Sadly in most cases they are not because the "open World" has no more going on in it than a lobby where you have to run around quest grinding. But that is part and parcel to the entire problem with the genre as a whole- A "theme park" linear world does not need anything more than a lobby IF there is no way to effect the "open world" anyhow.
People screaming for a lobby are right- The open World AS THEY SEE IT is pointless for the most part- And it is.
People screaming for Open World are right- IF developers would get back to their roots and give us a dynamic World with interaction and randomness- An Open World is clearly more immersive.
As things stand with the genre, what point is the open world? As MMORPGs are becoming e-sport, action games which are totally on rails- Why waste my time (and yours) with the false illusion of a "world" when none really exists and the resources could be used elsewhere?
-Everyone here is right and wrong and unwilling to bend at all to try to see the others point.
I blame this on giving trophies to everyone and not allowing anyone to strike out...ever.
Exactly. My recent Taekwando Tournament everyone got a trophy just for going to it. I mean really?
Only trophy remotely earned at it is the Grand Champion trophy, which was won on points from the other categories and how you placed. When I played 11 years of soccer, I was on a winning team twice. Although sure, it sucked sometimes constantly losing, it made it MUCH more gratifying when you did win because you worked hard for it and it was earned.
MMORPG's are about the journey, not the destination. They were different from console games for a reason...a different form of entertainment. But now they are just becoming like console games. Character development, reputation of said character, socialization, exploration, immersion are all going out the window for these lobby-like, heavily instanced, reward handing at every turn, solo laden shallow games they are calling MMORPG's that rarely last a year before server merges, or shut downs. Sad...yeah reason being its cheaper to make instance worlds, easier on resources.
So your point of argument is invalid.
That's a perfect example of a dated themepark for ya.
If you have a game with declining community or a game that has aged and grown too vast, players want instant gratifications, so devs are giving in and giving ppl teleportations, instance qeues etc, so it's easy to skip 80% of the content to reach your goal.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
I don't think that the open world in and of itself creates immersion. I think that for some people the dungeon finders eliminate immersion. For me anything that reinforces "This is just a game I am playing" make sit feel less immersive. This can range from certain sound effects to mechanical aspects to dungeon finders.
Back in EQ 1, I had a group of people I consistently adventured with, getting there was half the fun, and combat was slow enough that we actually had time to chat. In modern games, you get instantly teleported to instances that you run through instances with strangers barely ever speaking. Not a lot of fun for me.
And yet most players use LFD, despite the option of not using it, and run to the dungeon.
I don't think immersion is that important. Players are obviously choosing convenience at the expense of a little immersion breaking.
Having players use a LFD or LFR tool doesn't mean the virtual world doesn't serve any purpose. There are some players using those tools exclusively, but even if half the players are using those tools exclusively, it doesn't make the virtual world irrelevant.
** ** **
Even reversing it with the reality of most players leveling in the world and then most players using LFD at end game doesn't make the virtual world irrelevant.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It makes the virtual world irrelevant for half of the players .. in your example. But that is not my point. My point is that immersion is just not that important.
It depends on what you mean by immersion. Immersion is being engaged in or immersed in what you are doing. You can be immersed in reading a book, assembling a wood table from planks of wood you've cut or in playing a game, with or without a virtual world. Players can be immersed in playing Tetris, which has no virtual world at all.
As far as a virtual world being important, it depends on the game. If you removed the virtual world from WoW, and half the players left the game, that would make the virtual world very important. In Diablo, if you added a virtual world, you probably wouldn't double the number of players, so there it's probably not an important concept.
** ** **
Take a game like Minecraft. If you removed the virtual world, you wouldn't have a game at all. What about Skyrim? How much of a game would you have without a virtual world there? Eve is almost nothing but virtual world. The idea that you can just trade a virtual world for a menu driven lobby is just silly. Many games with thousands or millions of players would no longer exist.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.