I happen to believe that a part of the problem with that formula is that the MMO is like a New York street:
Thousands of faces that you happen across briefly and then move on. Occasionally you pick up something they dropped and hand it to them with a quick smile, but then you move on. I feel like I man that lonely New Yorker surrounded by thousands all to busy with whatever it is they are doing alone to notice there are people around they could interact with. And that's the issue, there is no reason or reward for much meaningful interaction.
And yet, somehow, New Yorkers do manage to belong to multiple communities, social circles and intimate groups. It seems the more sensible approach would be to emulate how they go about doing that rather than to create contrived scenarios or conditions to force an environment that human beings (present day, at least) simply aren't wired for.
To do this big city dwellers have social mechanisms which enable and encourage their community. From events organised by the local community to dating sites. Having such things in MMO's are needed to encourage community...not sure about the dating site though.
But housing, guilds and guild HQ's, quests you need a group for, even just official forums with a server sub forum. These are some of the social mechanisms that help create an in game community.
I happen to believe that a part of the problem with that formula is that the MMO is like a New York street:
Thousands of faces that you happen across briefly and then move on. Occasionally you pick up something they dropped and hand it to them with a quick smile, but then you move on. I feel like I man that lonely New Yorker surrounded by thousands all to busy with whatever it is they are doing alone to notice there are people around they could interact with. And that's the issue, there is no reason or reward for much meaningful interaction.
And yet, somehow, New Yorkers do manage to belong to multiple communities, social circles and intimate groups. It seems the more sensible approach would be to emulate how they go about doing that rather than to create contrived scenarios or conditions to force an environment that human beings (present day, at least) simply aren't wired for.
To do this big city dwellers have social mechanisms which enable and encourage their community. From events organised by the local community to dating sites. Having such things in MMO's are needed to encourage community...not sure about the dating site though.
But housing, guilds and guild HQ's, quests you need a group for, even just official forums with a server sub forum. These are some of the social mechanisms that help create an in game community.
muvfuxxin spot on, Scot. That's exactly what I'm thinking, too.
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
I say go in the opposite direction, put everybody on one big server.
Players will band together if the game design encourages it. The number of people logged in is irrelevant.
I'm not sure what that would look like. But I'm completely uninterested in seeing it.
Ever been to a football game with 80-100k people in a stadium? Questing in such a game would be like looking for quarters on the ground after the game was over and everyone was heading for their car. Now imagine all those people looking for the same 10 quarters...
No thanks...
You're assuming the game world is build for a small population. Eve successfully puts everybody on one server and players can still find uninhabited systems.
The current quest mechanics need to die a painful death. They're old, stale, unoriginal and just plain boring.
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
Quite the 100% opposite. Most MMO's that have released in the past 5years have been tiny, restricted, and instanced to hell. In other words, not "Massive" whatsoever.
Yeah.
And yet many MMORPG sites classified them as MMORPGs. The word "massive" has little literal meaning in the context of this label.
Massive doesn't mean massive. Multiplayer doesn't mean multiplayer. RPG doesn't mean role playing game.
Does online still mean online or do the industry experts not use the literal meaning of online either?
Why ask me? I am not the one doing the categorization. I am just using them because they are convenient.
Plus, don't tell me English is always literal. There is no cake, not even sugar ... in "a piece of cake".
And yet many MMORPG sites classified them as MMORPGs. The word "massive" has little literal meaning in the context of this label.
Those sites classifying things as MMORPG says more about the amount of thought the site is putting into "MMO" than whether those games actually are MMOs.
If the term is to retain any meaning, it needs to actually hold onto the old implication that these games involved more players co-habitating the same world server than a typical multiplayer game. Certainly as MMO games have become popular, this line has blurred (because "typical" has shifted towards larger-scale multiplayer) but a reasonably good definition is games where a single area can support more than 64 players.
The alternative is that "MMO" means nothing, because it's applied to all multiplayer online games regardless of size. Why would you want a useless term?
It does not have to mean anything to be a label for a collection of games. It is still useful because it refers to a subset of games, instead of all of them.
For example, if you read a market research firm report of the MMO market ... the category MMO usually includes LoL but exclude facebook games. That is useful even if the categorization is somewhat arbitrary because you know exactly what the numbers correspond to.
Originally posted by FoeHammerJT I'm interested in the communities thoughts on this topic.
This was the original question.
Yet this
Originally posted by FoeHammerJT I feel like "Massive" is getting the dang way!
as well as well as the rest of your answers in this thread leave in *me* the impression that you're not at all interested in the communities' thoughts, but only in those that agree with you. You ask "evidence" or "proof" from people not of your opinion, but offering only your opinion and "feels" in return.
Well, for what it's worth, i disagree with you, strongly. To ME, "massive" isn't about numbers, it's about feelings. One can feel "alone" on a large and populated world, but certainly even moreso in a less populated world the same size. And feeling alone takes the "massive" out for *me*.
So you want to limit the numbers of players? (after all you asked for "Something like 3-400 people you could get to know." and explicitly said "I'd like to see a game world with a smaller community.") That would either mean that you don't allow for a big world, or that you herd this crowd to certain areas so they actually feel populated. The natural trend of players though is to spread out as the game world expands, and resist "herding".
IMO the way to go is AWAY from different servers/shards/worlds, to one world on a single "server" (obviously not just one box but a cluster). Yes, that poses other difficulties, like what i presume has sparked the "too massive" part of your initial question.
Yes there are problems, especially when a huge number of players "clogs" login-servers or certain zones. But these problems are of a technical nature, one can overcome them not only by adding more boxes, but also restructuring the cluster (which runs what when) and of course the (technical) game design itself but most of all a backend that can keep up.
Personally, i think it's the latter two where most mistakes are made, reinforced by using a perfectly logical but still sub-optimal structure of the game's programming.
So, no: Games are not "too massive". At worst, their technical design isn't up the task yet. But that'll change i'm sure.
Originally posted by FoeHammerJT Recent play time on FF 14 ARR, have led my guild to discuss MMOs in general and an interesting theme among those with disappointments reared up.Are there too many players per server now?How many does it take for a title to be "Massive"Would a few hundred players on a game world the size of Ezorea be enough?Could "community" and players band together around a smaller server size where interaction was a requirement?I'm interested in the communities thoughts on this topic. Especially with a another "AAA" title release (or re-release as it were.)
Well, If I could someday see a great sandbox filled with an unsrupassable amount of freedom in-game and it was a single server with 100k+ people on that server, that would be incredible, the player-built cities, the raid groups, the guild-wars and so forth, that game would be quite amazing, but with a game like these modern MMOs(just themepark) it would seem like a massive annoyance, the unbalance between healer/tank/mage in dungeon finder or gatehring resources or whatnot would be tiring and tedious with all the competition. Not to mention PvP tournament winnings would be like hitting the lottery.
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here.... just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio. Thank you for your patience.
So, no: Games are not "too massive". At worst, their technical design isn't up the task yet. But that'll change i'm sure.
Games are massive many years ago. Right now, the new wave is MOBA, instanced pvp games, and many are not massive. In fact, i think some MMORPGs like Marvel Heroes, and NWO are not even MMOs. They are going for lobby based small group gameplay.
If you look at the new AAA developments like Destiny and Division, they are not massive.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Games are massive many years ago. Right now, the new wave is MOBA, instanced pvp games, and many are not massive.
I cannot follow you on how your reply is related to the thread?
The OP said that FF:AAR has sparked a discussion in his guild about MMO's so i figure the talk is about MMOs and technical issues like clogged login-servers (FF:AAR) or games that can't keep up (i.e. scale) with population in a zone (e.g. EVE, or EQ in certain raidzones with lots of mobs).
Both of these problems are of a technical nature only, and even though the problems manifest with high player numbers, drawing the conclusion that player-numbers should be restricted is exactly the wrong thing to do!
Originally posted by nariusseldon Games are massive many years ago. Right now, the new wave is MOBA, instanced pvp games, and many are not massive.
I cannot follow you on how your reply is related to the thread?
The OP said that FF:AAR has sparked a discussion in his guild about MMO's so i figure the talk is about MMOs and technical issues like clogged login-servers (FF:AAR) or games that can't keep up (i.e. scale) with population in a zone (e.g. EVE, or EQ in certain raidzones with lots of mobs).
Both of these problems are of a technical nature only, and even though the problems manifest with high player numbers, drawing the conclusion that player-numbers should be restricted is exactly the wrong thing to do!
And i am saying it is not just technical, but also gameplay related.
Games are moving away from being massive. Tell me, which game has really massive gameplay? The most popular sub-MMO ... wow ... has most of the gameplay instanced and non-massive. The only massive thing is queuing in a city ... as a lobby.
Devs don't spend the resources to really push massive .. may be because "massive" does not add much to the fun factor (at least to me .. since fun is subjective).
Originally posted by FoeHammerJT Recent play time on FF 14 ARR, have led my guild to discuss MMOs in general and an interesting theme among those with disappointments reared up.
Are there too many players per server now?
How many does it take for a title to be "Massive"
Would a few hundred players on a game world the size of Ezorea be enough?
Could "community" and players band together around a smaller server size where interaction was a requirement?
I'm interested in the communities thoughts on this topic. Especially with a another "AAA" title release (or re-release as it were.)
imo the issue is less about server size, and more about things like x-fers and x-server lfd / lfr ... hell the people in the zones in wow are likely not from your server now. those are the things that bypass community. I think servers could be 100k as someone else hinted at, and still maintain a community feel. though it would require something different in ways idk much about from what we have now.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity. I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
Originally posted by nariusseldon Games are massive many years ago. Right now, the new wave is MOBA, instanced pvp games, and many are not massive.
I cannot follow you on how your reply is related to the thread?
The OP said that FF:AAR has sparked a discussion in his guild about MMO's so i figure the talk is about MMOs and technical issues like clogged login-servers (FF:AAR) or games that can't keep up (i.e. scale) with population in a zone (e.g. EVE, or EQ in certain raidzones with lots of mobs).
Both of these problems are of a technical nature only, and even though the problems manifest with high player numbers, drawing the conclusion that player-numbers should be restricted is exactly the wrong thing to do!
And i am saying it is not just technical, but also gameplay related.
Games are moving away from being massive. Tell me, which game has really massive gameplay? The most popular sub-MMO ... wow ... has most of the gameplay instanced and non-massive. The only massive thing is queuing in a city ... as a lobby.
Devs don't spend the resources to really push massive .. may be because "massive" does not add much to the fun factor (at least to me .. since fun is subjective).
Everything you say about MMO's not needing to be massive contradicts what most gamers want Nari. Look at gaming as a whole, all you hear about in MMOs and solo games is how important it is they get bigger and more open every year. You do not hear players asking for them to be smaller do you? Everything from the size of Final Fantasy MMO's, CoD, Assassins Creed, racing games, to platform games based on Disney IP's. Big is better. But for some reason you keep coming on here and try to tell us that the MMO genre that helped define the idea of big in gaming does not need to be big at all.
You often talk about how posters on here are out of synch with the gaming industry, for example in the use of the term MMO. Well when it comes to massive you are totally out of synch with the entire gaming industry, they know big is better. Big in terms of size and number of players. When a solo game like GTA announces you can play in GTA 5 with 11 players (I think) it is a big deal, when larger MMO worlds are announced it is a big deal. They don't make a song and dance at Pax Prime that an upcoming game is going to be smaller and have less players do they?
If gaming companies build small it is down to having a small budget. It has nothing to do with a small game being a better game or even as good as one that is larger. Most F2P MMOs are small, small budget equals small MMO, its that simple.
Saying it with pictures:
1. small
2. LARGE
Does not matter about the game genre, big is better.
Originally posted by FoeHammerJT I'm not sure what that would look like. But I'm completely uninterested in seeing it. Ever been to a football game with 80-100k people in a stadium?
If your world is limited to that statium, then you're perhaps correct.
But take the example, and picture a world the size of just New York filled with only the "Something like 3-400 people you could get to know." you mentioned. Would be pretty empty, no?
In your first reply, you state that you "feel no fear/concern even in late game zones, and just see mobs of people everywhere". Well, if that's the case, couldn't it be that you are simply playing the wrong games? Or perhaps there ARE zones/areas in these games you COULD go to but choose not to?
Perhaps you are the kind of player who should hop into his ship in EVE and fly out into null-sec just to see how far you come. Or you take your level90 EQ-char (max for FtP and max level for the expansion where this was a tier1 zone iirc) and take him for a walk through Feerott2, from Innothule swamps to Rathe Mountains. I promise there won't be more than 2groups there, if that many. And if that's still too easy, leave your merc at home...
. Instead of asking for lower-populated worlds, imo you should be asking for games that let you play when you choose to (no clogged login servers as was the case with FF, the game you started this thread with) and offer enough zones/areas per level so you can (because that's apprently what you want to do) solo to your heart's delight without encountering 20 other people "competing" for the same mobs you are after.
Does not matter about the game genre, big is better.
Were you making a joke or were you saying you feel SWTOR is a better game than Prince of Persia? To be clear, I'm not saying there is any right answer to that, as it is all opinion. Just trying to get a handle on where you were heading with that.
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
Everything you say about MMO's not needing to be massive contradicts what most gamers want Nari.
I doubt you know what gamers want better than i do. Do you have data to show what they want?
Let me put it this way .. look at what sells. Are MMO with bigger open worlds sell better? Eve is the most open .. and it is a pittance compared to WOW, with much less massive gameplay.
The top online games are LOL ... and it is not massive. WoT is a big success. It is not massive.
Sure ... you have popular open world games like SKYRIM, but it is not primiarily an online game.
Everything you say about MMO's not needing to be massive contradicts what most gamers want Nari.
I doubt you know what gamers want better than i do. Do you have data to show what they want?
Let me put it this way .. look at what sells. Are MMO with bigger open worlds sell better? Eve is the most open .. and it is a pittance compared to WOW, with much less massive gameplay.
The top online games are LOL ... and it is not massive. WoT is a big success. It is not massive.
Sure ... you have popular open world games like SKYRIM, but it is not primiarily an online game.
With the pictures I am trying to illustrate that gaming worlds have got bigger over time regardless of genre. So the successors of PoP are bigger, the successors to early MMOs were bigger too. They are very different styles of games and hard to compare, but all genres have strived to deliver bigger "worlds" across the history of gaming. This is as much to do with the increasing power of computers as with design decisions.
Games keep getting bigger, more of them are online and each year feature more players playing together.
Nari seems to be arguing that small is beautiful and this means designers can ditch Massive and large scale Multiplayer. Sure you can make a game on a small scale and it can still be very good. Take Angry Birds for example, but is their scope for depth and long term satisfaction in such a game?
So small F2P MMOs do make cash shop money, they generate the income needed to support the game. I am assuming F2P here, don't know of any P2P small MMOs. But did they design small because they think that's a better way to make a game? The decision to make MMO like games on a small scale is as much about the spiralling cost of making MMO's as it is about design decisions.
But I am not talking about what makes money, I am talking about what has happened to all games over time. They get bigger and offer the player more.
Nari mentions that I do not know what players want more than he does. This is not directly about players, it is about what the gaming industry has done over time.
Even in the small MMO's and MMO like games that Nari is referring to they have content updates, they try to make their games bigger. Why? Because that's what sells it is what players seem to be happy to pay for. They don't do content patches to make their games smaller do they?
Small is beautiful, but it is only the acorn from which a glorious tree may grow.
Its only too massive if 20+ people are competing for a single mob spawn of normal mobs.
However I have been around for ages in MMO's and only time ever saw that really was EQ1 when a new server came out and tons of people switched servers thinking they could be the next bigshot top level / guild on the server. Had TONS of newbie characters in like Nek Forest so much if you died (people training level 9 skeletons to level 1 starting spawn) you were stuck in a huge pile of respawning people.
Of course that lasted maybe 2 days at most and the vast majority went back to their original server realizing they aren't as leet levelers as they thought they were who could beat the rush.
Games keep getting bigger, more of them are online and each year feature more players playing together.
Nari seems to be arguing that small is beautiful and this means designers can ditch Massive and large scale Multiplayer. Sure you can make a game on a small scale and it can still be very good. Take Angry Birds for example, but is their scope for depth and long term satisfaction in such a game?
Really? Is Deus Ex Human Evolution bigger than COD 3? Is LoL "bigger" than WoW? Is WoT "bigger" than UO? I don't buy the "games keep getting bigger" statement unless you have some statistics and proof.
The answer is "yes". Deus Ex Human Evolution is small compared to EQ. It gave me much more depth in gameplay (i.e. i can choose how to complete a mission) and much more satisfaction. Long term? Yeah .. when i think back of DE .. i have much better memories than EQ.
Ditto for Bioshock, D1-3, Dishonored, and many other games. Games don't need to be big to be good ... for me at least.
The problem is Narui that at certain point you just as well play a single or regular multiplayer game. The content is sharper and more focused and the latency issues are minimal or non existent. Combat is usually better because there aren't MMORPG limitations.
I will play Skyrim before I will play SWTOR because I can save and play the game how I want. My role in the story changes things and matters.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal The problem is Narui that at certain point you just as well play a single or regular multiplayer game. The content is sharper and more focused and the latency issues are minimal or non existent. Combat is usually better because there aren't MMORPG limitations.
I will play Skyrim before I will play SWTOR because I can save and play the game how I want. My role in the story changes things and matters.
Who says i am not playing SP or online games? Playing SP/online games and playing MMORPGs are not mutually exclusive.
*Some* MMOs have good IP that i like, so i include them in my gaming. You don't think i only play MMORPGs, do you?
It does not have to mean anything to be a label for a collection of games. It is still useful because it refers to a subset of games, instead of all of them.
For example, if you read a market research firm report of the MMO market ... the category MMO usually includes LoL but exclude facebook games. That is useful even if the categorization is somewhat arbitrary because you know exactly what the numbers correspond to.
It's not a particularly good label if there's a simpler pre-existing term (like "online games") which better describes what these games are.
It was just poor methodology for that firm to call it a report on MMOs, if it was going to include LoL.
Dividing things into useful categorires isn't a problem. But that can be done without misleading, false labels for things.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It does not have to mean anything to be a label for a collection of games. It is still useful because it refers to a subset of games, instead of all of them.
For example, if you read a market research firm report of the MMO market ... the category MMO usually includes LoL but exclude facebook games. That is useful even if the categorization is somewhat arbitrary because you know exactly what the numbers correspond to.
It's not a particularly good label if there's a simpler pre-existing term (like "online games") which better describes what these games are.
It was just poor methodology for that firm to call it a report on MMOs, if it was going to include LoL.
Dividing things into useful categorires isn't a problem. But that can be done without misleading, false labels for things.
It is not misleading if the categorization is clearly stated.
"Online games" does include COD and BF4 so the label "MMO" is a smaller set, and that is why it is useful.
It is not poor methodology if that inclusion is what their customer wants. I am sure they can easily re-cut & dice their data according to customer needs.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal The problem is Narui that at certain point you just as well play a single or regular multiplayer game. The content is sharper and more focused and the latency issues are minimal or non existent. Combat is usually better because there aren't MMORPG limitations.
I will play Skyrim before I will play SWTOR because I can save and play the game how I want. My role in the story changes things and matters.
Who says i am not playing SP or online games? Playing SP/online games and playing MMORPGs are not mutually exclusive.
*Some* MMOs have good IP that i like, so i include them in my gaming. You don't think i only play MMORPGs, do you?
I never said that you didn't.
I am saying that a certain point if you break down a MMO and minimize beyond being massive, it just as well be a single player or multiplayer game and if that's what's your looking for then maybe that what players should request.
Its like saying if your designing a race of giants for a game. If your engine has restrictions, you don't have a budge for model correctly for the armor and your world doors are too small and you end up shrinking race to 6'3 and your humans are 6'0... you just as well not have giants or call them something else.
I am saying that a certain point if you break down a MMO and minimize beyond being massive, it just as well be a single player or multiplayer game and if that's what's your looking for then maybe that what players should request.
I agree.
If they make Marvel Heroes a SP game instead of a MMO, i will continue to play it.
If they make STO a SP game instead of a MMO, i will continue to play it.
Now since i already like those two MMORPGs, tell me, is there a reason why i should not play them? I don't see any.
I am saying that a certain point if you break down a MMO and minimize beyond being massive, it just as well be a single player or multiplayer game and if that's what's your looking for then maybe that what players should request.
I agree.
If they make Marvel Heroes a SP game instead of a MMO, i will continue to play it.
If they make STO a SP game instead of a MMO, i will continue to play it.
Now since i already like those two MMORPGs, tell me, is there a reason why i should not play them? I don't see any.
I don't think anyone has said you shouldn't. Most question why because of your attitude towards the genre. You attitude towards MMORPG's is what dismays people. Not that it has any effect but you go against the origin of MMORPG's.
Comments
To do this big city dwellers have social mechanisms which enable and encourage their community. From events organised by the local community to dating sites. Having such things in MMO's are needed to encourage community...not sure about the dating site though.
But housing, guilds and guild HQ's, quests you need a group for, even just official forums with a server sub forum. These are some of the social mechanisms that help create an in game community.
muvfuxxin spot on, Scot. That's exactly what I'm thinking, too.
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
You're assuming the game world is build for a small population. Eve successfully puts everybody on one server and players can still find uninhabited systems.
The current quest mechanics need to die a painful death. They're old, stale, unoriginal and just plain boring.
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
Why ask me? I am not the one doing the categorization. I am just using them because they are convenient.
Plus, don't tell me English is always literal. There is no cake, not even sugar ... in "a piece of cake".
It does not have to mean anything to be a label for a collection of games. It is still useful because it refers to a subset of games, instead of all of them.
For example, if you read a market research firm report of the MMO market ... the category MMO usually includes LoL but exclude facebook games. That is useful even if the categorization is somewhat arbitrary because you know exactly what the numbers correspond to.
Yet this
as well as well as the rest of your answers in this thread leave in *me* the impression that you're not at all interested in the communities' thoughts, but only in those that agree with you.You ask "evidence" or "proof" from people not of your opinion, but offering only your opinion and "feels" in return.
Well, for what it's worth, i disagree with you, strongly.
To ME, "massive" isn't about numbers, it's about feelings.
One can feel "alone" on a large and populated world, but certainly even moreso in a less populated world the same size.
And feeling alone takes the "massive" out for *me*.
So you want to limit the numbers of players?
(after all you asked for "Something like 3-400 people you could get to know." and explicitly said "I'd like to see a game world with a smaller community.")
That would either mean that you don't allow for a big world, or that you herd this crowd to certain areas so they actually feel populated.
The natural trend of players though is to spread out as the game world expands, and resist "herding".
IMO the way to go is AWAY from different servers/shards/worlds, to one world on a single "server" (obviously not just one box but a cluster).
Yes, that poses other difficulties, like what i presume has sparked the "too massive" part of your initial question.
Yes there are problems, especially when a huge number of players "clogs" login-servers or certain zones.
But these problems are of a technical nature, one can overcome them not only by adding more boxes, but also restructuring the cluster (which runs what when) and of course the (technical) game design itself but most of all a backend that can keep up.
Personally, i think it's the latter two where most mistakes are made, reinforced by using a perfectly logical but still sub-optimal structure of the game's programming.
So, no:
Games are not "too massive".
At worst, their technical design isn't up the task yet.
But that'll change i'm sure.
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here....
just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development
and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio.
Thank you for your patience.
Games are massive many years ago. Right now, the new wave is MOBA, instanced pvp games, and many are not massive. In fact, i think some MMORPGs like Marvel Heroes, and NWO are not even MMOs. They are going for lobby based small group gameplay.
If you look at the new AAA developments like Destiny and Division, they are not massive.
The OP said that FF:AAR has sparked a discussion in his guild about MMO's so i figure the talk is about MMOs and technical issues like clogged login-servers (FF:AAR) or games that can't keep up (i.e. scale) with population in a zone (e.g. EVE, or EQ in certain raidzones with lots of mobs).
Both of these problems are of a technical nature only, and even though the problems manifest with high player numbers, drawing the conclusion that player-numbers should be restricted is exactly the wrong thing to do!
And i am saying it is not just technical, but also gameplay related.
Games are moving away from being massive. Tell me, which game has really massive gameplay? The most popular sub-MMO ... wow ... has most of the gameplay instanced and non-massive. The only massive thing is queuing in a city ... as a lobby.
Devs don't spend the resources to really push massive .. may be because "massive" does not add much to the fun factor (at least to me .. since fun is subjective).
imo the issue is less about server size, and more about things like x-fers and x-server lfd / lfr ... hell the people in the zones in wow are likely not from your server now. those are the things that bypass community. I think servers could be 100k as someone else hinted at, and still maintain a community feel. though it would require something different in ways idk much about from what we have now.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
Everything you say about MMO's not needing to be massive contradicts what most gamers want Nari. Look at gaming as a whole, all you hear about in MMOs and solo games is how important it is they get bigger and more open every year. You do not hear players asking for them to be smaller do you? Everything from the size of Final Fantasy MMO's, CoD, Assassins Creed, racing games, to platform games based on Disney IP's. Big is better. But for some reason you keep coming on here and try to tell us that the MMO genre that helped define the idea of big in gaming does not need to be big at all.
You often talk about how posters on here are out of synch with the gaming industry, for example in the use of the term MMO. Well when it comes to massive you are totally out of synch with the entire gaming industry, they know big is better. Big in terms of size and number of players. When a solo game like GTA announces you can play in GTA 5 with 11 players (I think) it is a big deal, when larger MMO worlds are announced it is a big deal. They don't make a song and dance at Pax Prime that an upcoming game is going to be smaller and have less players do they?
If gaming companies build small it is down to having a small budget. It has nothing to do with a small game being a better game or even as good as one that is larger. Most F2P MMOs are small, small budget equals small MMO, its that simple.
Saying it with pictures:
1. small
2. LARGE
Does not matter about the game genre, big is better.
But take the example, and picture a world the size of just New York filled with only the "Something like 3-400 people you could get to know." you mentioned.
Would be pretty empty, no?
In your first reply, you state that you "feel no fear/concern even in late game zones, and just see mobs of people everywhere".
Well, if that's the case, couldn't it be that you are simply playing the wrong games?
Or perhaps there ARE zones/areas in these games you COULD go to but choose not to?
Perhaps you are the kind of player who should hop into his ship in EVE and fly out into null-sec just to see how far you come.
Or you take your level90 EQ-char (max for FtP and max level for the expansion where this was a tier1 zone iirc) and take him for a walk through Feerott2, from Innothule swamps to Rathe Mountains.
I promise there won't be more than 2groups there, if that many.
And if that's still too easy, leave your merc at home...
.
Instead of asking for lower-populated worlds, imo you should be asking for games that let you play when you choose to (no clogged login servers as was the case with FF, the game you started this thread with) and offer enough zones/areas per level so you can (because that's apprently what you want to do) solo to your heart's delight without encountering 20 other people "competing" for the same mobs you are after.
Were you making a joke or were you saying you feel SWTOR is a better game than Prince of Persia? To be clear, I'm not saying there is any right answer to that, as it is all opinion. Just trying to get a handle on where you were heading with that.
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
With the pictures I am trying to illustrate that gaming worlds have got bigger over time regardless of genre. So the successors of PoP are bigger, the successors to early MMOs were bigger too. They are very different styles of games and hard to compare, but all genres have strived to deliver bigger "worlds" across the history of gaming. This is as much to do with the increasing power of computers as with design decisions.
Games keep getting bigger, more of them are online and each year feature more players playing together.
Nari seems to be arguing that small is beautiful and this means designers can ditch Massive and large scale Multiplayer. Sure you can make a game on a small scale and it can still be very good. Take Angry Birds for example, but is their scope for depth and long term satisfaction in such a game?
So small F2P MMOs do make cash shop money, they generate the income needed to support the game. I am assuming F2P here, don't know of any P2P small MMOs. But did they design small because they think that's a better way to make a game? The decision to make MMO like games on a small scale is as much about the spiralling cost of making MMO's as it is about design decisions.
But I am not talking about what makes money, I am talking about what has happened to all games over time. They get bigger and offer the player more.
Nari mentions that I do not know what players want more than he does. This is not directly about players, it is about what the gaming industry has done over time.
Even in the small MMO's and MMO like games that Nari is referring to they have content updates, they try to make their games bigger. Why? Because that's what sells it is what players seem to be happy to pay for. They don't do content patches to make their games smaller do they?
Small is beautiful, but it is only the acorn from which a glorious tree may grow.
Its only too massive if 20+ people are competing for a single mob spawn of normal mobs.
However I have been around for ages in MMO's and only time ever saw that really was EQ1 when a new server came out and tons of people switched servers thinking they could be the next bigshot top level / guild on the server. Had TONS of newbie characters in like Nek Forest so much if you died (people training level 9 skeletons to level 1 starting spawn) you were stuck in a huge pile of respawning people.
Of course that lasted maybe 2 days at most and the vast majority went back to their original server realizing they aren't as leet levelers as they thought they were who could beat the rush.
Really? Is Deus Ex Human Evolution bigger than COD 3? Is LoL "bigger" than WoW? Is WoT "bigger" than UO? I don't buy the "games keep getting bigger" statement unless you have some statistics and proof.
The answer is "yes". Deus Ex Human Evolution is small compared to EQ. It gave me much more depth in gameplay (i.e. i can choose how to complete a mission) and much more satisfaction. Long term? Yeah .. when i think back of DE .. i have much better memories than EQ.
Ditto for Bioshock, D1-3, Dishonored, and many other games. Games don't need to be big to be good ... for me at least.
I will play Skyrim before I will play SWTOR because I can save and play the game how I want. My role in the story changes things and matters.
Who says i am not playing SP or online games? Playing SP/online games and playing MMORPGs are not mutually exclusive.
*Some* MMOs have good IP that i like, so i include them in my gaming. You don't think i only play MMORPGs, do you?
It's not a particularly good label if there's a simpler pre-existing term (like "online games") which better describes what these games are.
It was just poor methodology for that firm to call it a report on MMOs, if it was going to include LoL.
Dividing things into useful categorires isn't a problem. But that can be done without misleading, false labels for things.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It is not misleading if the categorization is clearly stated.
"Online games" does include COD and BF4 so the label "MMO" is a smaller set, and that is why it is useful.
It is not poor methodology if that inclusion is what their customer wants. I am sure they can easily re-cut & dice their data according to customer needs.
I never said that you didn't.
I am saying that a certain point if you break down a MMO and minimize beyond being massive, it just as well be a single player or multiplayer game and if that's what's your looking for then maybe that what players should request.
Its like saying if your designing a race of giants for a game. If your engine has restrictions, you don't have a budge for model correctly for the armor and your world doors are too small and you end up shrinking race to 6'3 and your humans are 6'0... you just as well not have giants or call them something else.
I agree.
If they make Marvel Heroes a SP game instead of a MMO, i will continue to play it.
If they make STO a SP game instead of a MMO, i will continue to play it.
Now since i already like those two MMORPGs, tell me, is there a reason why i should not play them? I don't see any.
I don't think anyone has said you shouldn't. Most question why because of your attitude towards the genre. You attitude towards MMORPG's is what dismays people. Not that it has any effect but you go against the origin of MMORPG's.