You know, I think that, for the most part, it's the other way around. I think that some devs try to make single player games into MMORPGs, as opposed to putting SP experiences into their MMORPG.
Great .. then we have more reasons to discuss SP experiences in MMORPGs .. since most of those conversion will retain some SP elements. TOR, marvel heroes ... are all good examples.
I hope you are not seriously trying to tell me that MMORPGs are no longer solo-able.
So now if a SP is making into a MMORPGs with all the MMO features .... how best to highlight its original SP features? What MMORPG features are "good" for SP games? Blizz tried the AH, and it did not work out so well. May be making a 3D lobby and call it a city .. since so many MMORPGs are already doing that. What do you think?
Whats is there to discuss? SP gaming in a mmorpg defeats the purpose of playing a mmorpg in the first place. That's not saying there can't be some things you can do solo only that you play mmorpg to play with other live people. As for lobbies and the like they are for MOBAs really.
Defeat YOUR purpose of playing a MMORPG. It does not defeat my purpose, or many who just play solo.
And it certainly does not defeat the purpose of the devs who want to do so (presumably to cater to a larger audience).
What is there to discuss? Much ....
For example, it is interesting to see if more scripting can be done in instances, so MMO can tell better stories. Don't you think TOR is not doing as good a job as Bioshock, or Dishonor and there is room for improvement?
Don't you think MMO instances has a lack of physical effects based combat mechanics like fun skill like slow-time in D3, or pulling someone out a window in Splinter Cell? Wouldn't it be nice if that can be done in a MMO?
And don't tell me you disagree that i can play MANY mmos as lobby games. I did that with WoW, Marvel Heroes, STO, NWO, DDO .. and a bunch of others ...
Originally posted by daltanious Oh, it does not matter at all if I like any game or not, you, other, any1 .... EVERY company want to make money, so usually they will simply adapt to PLAYERS. So there is REASON if MMO's become more and more single player friendly. Simple as that.
I think that is long established.
I am not starting a thread to say that .. but if a devs want a MMO to be more like a SP game (and don't tell me no dev think that way), here is a discussion of how to do it.
Originally posted by daltanious Oh, it does not matter at all if I like any game or not, you, other, any1 .... EVERY company want to make money, so usually they will simply adapt to PLAYERS. So there is REASON if MMO's become more and more single player friendly. Simple as that.
Sure devs want to make money and it sure is true they have conned some people into believing they are playing "mmorp" when they are not.
I will go a step further even I do not mind if some people join a mmorpg and then play it like a single player game and I don't even mind if devs add this elemtn to make more cash what I do mind is when foolish people then claim they should take the mmorpg elements out like persistent worlds and make them lobby based instead.
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Asm0deus
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Creslin321
You know, I think that, for the most part, it's the other way around. I think that some devs try to make single player games into MMORPGs, as opposed to putting SP experiences into their MMORPG.
Great .. then we have more reasons to discuss SP experiences in MMORPGs .. since most of those conversion will retain some SP elements. TOR, marvel heroes ... are all good examples.
I hope you are not seriously trying to tell me that MMORPGs are no longer solo-able.
So now if a SP is making into a MMORPGs with all the MMO features .... how best to highlight its original SP features? What MMORPG features are "good" for SP games? Blizz tried the AH, and it did not work out so well. May be making a 3D lobby and call it a city .. since so many MMORPGs are already doing that. What do you think?
Whats is there to discuss? SP gaming in a mmorpg defeats the purpose of playing a mmorpg in the first place. That's not saying there can't be some things you can do solo only that you play mmorpg to play with other live people. As for lobbies and the like they are for MOBAs really.
Defeat YOUR purpose of playing a MMORPG. It does not defeat my purpose, or many who just play solo.
And it certainly does not defeat the purpose of the devs who want to do so (presumably to cater to a larger audience).
What is there to discuss? Much ....
For example, it is interesting to see if more scripting can be done in instances, so MMO can tell better stories. Don't you think TOR is not doing as good a job as Bioshock, or Dishonor and there is room for improvement?
Don't you think MMO instances has a lack of physical effects based combat mechanics like fun skill like slow-time in D3, or pulling someone out a window in Splinter Cell? Wouldn't it be nice if that can be done in a MMO?
And don't tell me you disagree that i can play MANY mmos as lobby games. I did that with WoW, Marvel Heroes, STO, NWO, DDO .. and a bunch of others ...
1. Mmorpgs have one thing in common, they are meant to be played with others period, if you think other wise your sadly deluded, having some solo content doesn't mean you never play with others.
Joining a mmorpg then playing solo defeats the point of it, doesn't matter if it can be done or not or if the company makes money off of you.
I do not want to discuss scripting in instances, I am simply saying mmorpg should concentrate on group content and real mmorpg features rather than on single player game features. If I want those single player features I will play a single player game,it is quite simple to grasp. You do not need to agree and I am sure there are many that agree with me.
2. Many things that can be done in single player games just cannot be done in mmorpgs for technical reasons but I am sure when it does become viable some of those features will find there way in a variety of online genres. Again I dont see the point in talking about it.
3. A lobby game being called a mmorpg is a funny oxymoron but I am sure some people will swallow hook line and sinker! Please do not confuse a lobby game with a mmorpg that has a group finder for the anti social!
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I will go a step further even I do not mind if some people join a mmorpg and then play it like a single player game and I don't even mind if devs add this elemtn to make more cash what I do mind is when foolish people then claim they should take the mmorpg elements out like persistent worlds and make them lobby based instead.
1. Mmorpgs have one thing in common, they are meant to be played with others period, if you think other wise your sadly deluded, having some solo content doesn't mean you never play with others.
Joining a mmorpg then playing solo defeats the point of it, doesn't matter if it can be done or not or if the company makes money off of you.
well, i am playing MMOs like SP games, so i guess you won't mind. And how many i deluding myself. I log into STO, i go into an instance ... and play solo-ly. If you have to insist the 10 second before i go into the instance when i see some other people around ... well .. if that is "playing with others", seeing the chat box before going into a D3 game is "playing with someone".
I don't see a different at all. For all intent and purpose, other people do not exist when i play mmo like a SP game.
And again, what you think about whether there is a point affect no one else but yourself.
The point (to me) of a game is to have fun, and i do when i play solo/sp in some MMOs. And i continue to do so. And many MMOs allow me to do so. So i don't see you have a point .. except that you are mad someone else is enjoying MMOs in ways that you do not like.
To me, mmo's mean if I log in at 2 am or 2 pm I'll see the same thing anyone else logged in would. Those drunk Aussie's or that weird guy trying to sell weapons in his underpants. If I want something off a vendor, someone could get there while I mull it over and get it first. Not some lobby based game of instances. People like those games, good for them, but marvel heroes isn't an mmorpg. Saying because some website or journalist lists it as one doesn't make it so. Babies aren't diapers, but they sure are on the same websites a lot. Whales aren't fish, but they get mentioned togther often because they're similar....
I will go a step further even I do not mind if some people join a mmorpg and then play it like a single player game and I don't even mind if devs add this elemtn to make more cash what I do mind is when foolish people then claim they should take the mmorpg elements out like persistent worlds and make them lobby based instead.
1. Mmorpgs have one thing in common, they are meant to be played with others period, if you think other wise your sadly deluded, having some solo content doesn't mean you never play with others.
Joining a mmorpg then playing solo defeats the point of it, doesn't matter if it can be done or not or if the company makes money off of you.
well, i am playing MMOs like SP games, so i guess you won't mind. And how many i deluding myself. I log into STO, i go into an instance ... and play solo-ly. If you have to insist the 10 second before i go into the instance when i see some other people around ... well .. if that is "playing with others", seeing the chat box before going into a D3 game is "playing with someone".
I don't see a different at all. For all intent and purpose, other people do not exist when i play mmo like a SP game.
And again, what you think about whether there is a point affect no one else but yourself.
The point (to me) of a game is to have fun, and i do when i play solo/sp in some MMOs. And i continue to do so. And many MMOs allow me to do so. So i don't see you have a point .. except that you are mad someone else is enjoying MMOs in ways that you do not like.
I do not care how you play your game if you enjoy to play that way it is your prerogative, it doesn't affect me. What does affect me is when you go on a crusade to try encourage and the loss of elements a genre is known for that I think is fun and essential.
Again I do not see why you would even want to play mmorpgs if you want to play solo and avoid others as you seem to be claiming.
Ah if the point affects no one but myself why does it seem to affect you so much that some people enjoy persistent worlds over instances and why does it seem to affect you that some people think mmorpgs should be group games, in fact it affects you so much you even made this thread?
The point (to me) of a game is to have fun, and I do so when I play with others in mmorpgs. And I continue to do so. And many mmorpgs allow me to do so. So I don't see you have a point..except that you are mad someone else is enjoying mmorpgs they way they feel they should be played which is in a way you do not like.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
So far, nothing different from a regular multiplayer.
As much as when you'd play Diablo in a ladder, no doubt. ...or Quake Live, or countless other games.
As much as any matchmaking system or lobby.
No they are almost certainly stored in a remote database somewhere. This is not unique to MMORPGs.
Look, I'm not familiar with Dragon's Dogma, but Spores nifty matchmaking is nothing special. And streaming data between clients is no way unique to MMORPGs. Areas are likely run on different servers, this means they are by all intents and purposes regular multiplayer servers linked together.
This is slightly more complicated than it sounds of course. But you get the general idea.
One, Spore doesn't do matchmaking.
Two, streaming data between clients nor a central server hosting game assets might not be new, but feel free to show me the active use of such a design prior to MMOs and MUDS.
You're stretching your argument very thin and it made little sense to begin with. The chat system in many games is an example of the server architecture that drives MMOs being put to use in alternative game types.
However, one also can easily note that your examples of older titles that do the 'same' thing, aren't actually doing such. It's similar, but relies on local client data and potentially that of between peers. It's not built on a persistent server and it does not trade or track the same kind of data.
Regular multiplayer does not operate in the same fashion as an mmo, only the fundamentals are the same. The major differences is where the bulk of the data is stored and how it's disseminated between clients. A factor you ignore in order to try and make your point.
The type of architecture in place to operate components of these games are unmistakably the same as that of mmo server architecture. The type of central data to client hosting is not done in other forms of gaming, there is generally no point unless there is a constant need to stream data from clients globally to one another.
Be it a chat box that's persistent across any instance of a game, the notes left throughout Dark Souls, the seeding of player creatures and content in Spore, or the mercenary work of of your sidekick in Dragon's Dogma (or killing the Ur Dragon). There are smaller scale equivalents, yes, but your argument rests squarely on trying to semantically dismiss the reality of the architecture by dancing around every even addressing what it really is, it's actual use in games, and how it interacts with the rest of the features.
If all you're gonna do is bullshit me, this isn't going to be an interesting conversation.
You are right Spore does not do matchmaking it takes the saved data from the server which is sent to your client. In a way, you are playing another player's saved game. But that does not mean you are playing multiplayer, because you are not playing together, or even sharing the same gamespace.
If I sent you my Civilization 5 save games, for you to play, it would be as much of a multiplayer as Spore is. In other words, Spore is a single player game with an online component. Hardly anything to do with MMOs.
But out of curiosity, what do you think my argument is? Like narious already noted, you are introducing awfully many red herrings for some reason.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
The easiest way is to make them single player games and be done with it lol. Its like asking how can you make a car more like a motorcycle... just freaking make a motorcycle.
You are right Spore does not do matchmaking it takes the saved data from the server which is sent to your client. In a way, you are playing another player's saved game. But that does not mean you are playing multiplayer, because you are not playing together, or even sharing the same gamespace.
If I sent you my Civilization 5 save games, for you to play, it would be as much of a multiplayer as Spore is. In other words, Spore is a single player game with an online component. Hardly anything to do with MMOs.
But out of curiosity, what do you think my argument is? Like narious already noted, you are introducing awfully many red herrings for some reason.
And yet again you dodge the point on architecture and the mechanics that underlies the games.
Nariu doesn't claim any of my comments were herrings. In fact he didn't even respond to or about my last couple posts. So pulling that claim out of your ass to make an argument is illogical (and ironically is a red herring itself).
The fact you say "but you are not playing multiplayer" in response to me means you rather completely failed to even grasp what my commentary was about.
Did I at any point say any of those games were MMOs? No
In fact I rather said the opposite. My commentary was that these games used MMO components to make their fundamental gameplay, that of single player focused titles, more complex or varied without changing the core nature of the games.
You seemed to take that as me saying they weren't actually single player games or something, and have been throwing an illogical hissy fit since then.
You've even gone so far repeatedly to use false examples. Like the one you just made here about sending save game data.
There is a big difference between sending a save between peers or clients, and hosting a server that constantly pools and disseminates data.
Taking this quote from you.
"...it takes the saved data from the server which is sent to your client. In a way, you are playing another player's saved game."
You do understand that this essentially describes the core mechanic of playing any MMO, right? Each client queues actions that a server processes, which becomes the updated state of the serverside client, and that state is shared out to all applicable clients connected to that server.
MMOs in that context are just a bunch of people playing on the same game save.
The difference is that there is that centralized server. A system that is connected not finitely between peers and theoretically not subject to extended inaccessibility. Something that can constantly be fed and share out data that spans many individuals play, not a few people.
There is no other system that can support that mechanic. Every example you have given is finite in scope and function by contrast, because they do not operate on that same underlying MMO architecture.
Your argument was semantic bullshit to begin with. You don't like the word MMO to describe how the game's underlying system operates, and would rather blur and dismiss the literal function of the systems and the consequences they have and can bear.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I do not care how you play your game if you enjoy to play that way it is your prerogative, it doesn't affect me. What does affect me is when you go on a crusade to try encourage and the loss of elements a genre is known for that I think is fun and essential.
Again I do not see why you would even want to play mmorpgs if you want to play solo and avoid others as you seem to be claiming.
And you have no way of stopping others to state their preference, even if you don't like it. Are you going to try to shut up people who like to talk about other aspects of games you may not like whether that is DP, instance, pvp or what-not?
Elements you think are essential are not for me, and i don't see why your opinion is more valid. I will state my opinion. You can state yours. The market will decide.
Why would i want to play MMORPGs? I am glad you ask. Here is the answer.
Nariu doesn't claim any of my comments were herrings. In fact he didn't even respond to or about my last couple posts. So pulling that claim out of your ass to make an argument is illogical (and ironically is a red herring itself).
I was playing D3, and other fun SP games. You don't think going to forum is the only fun thing i do, do you?
Nariu doesn't claim any of my comments were herrings. In fact he didn't even respond to or about my last couple posts. So pulling that claim out of your ass to make an argument is illogical (and ironically is a red herring itself).
I was playing D3, and other fun SP games. You don't think going to forum is the only fun thing i do, do you?
I don't see how that relates to the part you quoted from me.
Quir was trying to claim you had called my posts/arguments red herrings, to which I was noting you had not.
I wasn't bringing any accusation about you not responding to my posts, just that what Quir was doing was essentially trying to bullshit again.
Point being, complaint was at Quir for trying to use your name to claim something false.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Then again never understood people saying these games are like singleplayer games. Sure you can solo in many of today's MMORPG or MMO's but they are far far from a actually singleplayer experiance because there is simple so much more that can be done in a singleplayer game where you are the only person playing in that gameworld.
Much more is done today .. that does not mean that MMO cannot learn and improve.
For example, instances allow designers to change the "state of the world around". WoW is already using that (a SP game feature before) in many dungeon & raid instances with scripting and stuff. They are just not doing enough, and that they reset when you come out of the instance.
It should not be technical impossible when they are already doing some of it.
I agree allot is done today but I don't see much of in a positive light. Not to say I am not enjoying some of them.
But YOU want that singleplayer experiance that is vastly different then the "singleplayer" experiance I would accept in a MMORPG.
So to give my opinion on things I want from singleplayer games in my MMORPG is the following
Assassin's Creed movement/free running/climbing
Again Assassin's Creed mix with Batman melee combat but with more RPG/character building options/feature's
The Sims. Now this is one of those games I don't play and just dislike. But....that same game style placed within a MMORPG in a different setting than The Sims real life similation for example sci/fi-fantasy or what ever setting would be something I can enjoy aslong everything else I expect from a MMORPG is still in that game. Else I might aswell get some of The Sims DLC´s.
Many singleplayer games already have these hugh realistic open world. This is something I want to see in my MMORPG. Not only NPC´s going about their business, where Day-Night changes what happens, stores open-close, people going to their houses at night, different creature´s or NPC patrols at night.
What NPC´s can do in singleplayer games should be things a player could do. Want to be that farmer, shopkeeper, crafter, trader or just a fighting class. While these options are not provided for players in singleplayer games I believe putting those NPC `jobs` into player hands those MMORPG worlds can finaly get it´s soul back. And I disagree with the notion that some people think that only a small part of the gamers like that, but that small part can make a pretty big difference within that a gameworld.
So I agree that some of the things YOU want from singleplayer games could be more possible.
But I don´t think the things I want are techically possible just yet.
Nariu doesn't claim any of my comments were herrings. In fact he didn't even respond to or about my last couple posts. So pulling that claim out of your ass to make an argument is illogical (and ironically is a red herring itself).
I was playing D3, and other fun SP games. You don't think going to forum is the only fun thing i do, do you?
I don't see how that relates to the part you quoted from me.
I am merely pointing out that i don't respond to every posts here because there are other fun things to do. Playing SP games is one of them.
Then again never understood people saying these games are like singleplayer games. Sure you can solo in many of today's MMORPG or MMO's but they are far far from a actually singleplayer experiance because there is simple so much more that can be done in a singleplayer game where you are the only person playing in that gameworld.
Much more is done today .. that does not mean that MMO cannot learn and improve.
For example, instances allow designers to change the "state of the world around". WoW is already using that (a SP game feature before) in many dungeon & raid instances with scripting and stuff. They are just not doing enough, and that they reset when you come out of the instance.
It should not be technical impossible when they are already doing some of it.
I agree allot is done today but I don't see much of in a positive light. Not to say I am not enjoying some of them.
But YOU want that singleplayer experiance that is vastly different then the "singleplayer" experiance I would accept in a MMORPG.
So to give my opinion on things I want from singleplayer games in my MMORPG is the following
Assassin's Creed movement/free running/climbing
Again Assassin's Creed mix with Batman melee combat but with more RPG/character building options/feature's
The Sims. Now this is one of those games I don't play and just dislike. But....that same game style placed within a MMORPG in a different setting than The Sims real life similation for example sci/fi-fantasy or what ever setting would be something I can enjoy aslong everything else I expect from a MMORPG is still in that game. Else I might aswell get some of The Sims DLC´s.
Many singleplayer games already have these hugh realistic open world. This is something I want to see in my MMORPG. Not only NPC´s going about their business, where Day-Night changes what happens, stores open-close, people going to their houses at night, different creature´s or NPC patrols at night.
What NPC´s can do in singleplayer games should be things a player could do. Want to be that farmer, shopkeeper, crafter, trader or just a fighting class. While these options are not provided for players in singleplayer games I believe putting those NPC `jobs` into player hands those MMORPG worlds can finaly get it´s soul back. And I disagree with the notion that some people think that only a small part of the gamers like that, but that small part can make a pretty big difference within that a gameworld.
So I agree that some of the things YOU want from singleplayer games could be more possible.
But I don´t think the things I want are techically possible just yet.
1. Agreed. The zone needs to be more complicated with tall building and stuff. Also, this is more suitable for a stealth approach to combat (which is fine with me).
2. Batman melee combat is nice ... but i like the stealth mechanics better.
3. Not for me. I hate the SIMS.
4. Not focus enough for me. If you look at DIshonored or Deus Ex, each level is not huge, but stuff are placed nicely with a lot of option of how to approach the objective. That is way better (for me) to waste time going from point A to B. In fact, that is my biggest complainst with Arkham City. Going to the objective is a pain in the ass. You have to swinging around 10 min to the next place. I wish i can just port there (and yes, there is some fast travel, but not enough for me).
5. Nah .. i don't play games to craft, or be a trader. I don't mind them as long as I don't have to do any of it. The ONLY non-combat type of games i play is puzzle games, and I don't want my puzzle games in a MP setting.
I suppose technology will evolved. Someday... some of the what you say will be possible, but it is left up to the market to decide whether there is an audience.
I am merely pointing out that i don't respond to every posts here because there are other fun things to do. Playing SP games is one of them.
Seems pointless to say, but ok.
I do other stuff than post on forums too.
Inconsequential to any previous commentary.
lol.
He has a tendency to make comments like that that just leave you scratching your head.
They call things "obvious" that are obvious for a reason.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
You are right Spore does not do matchmaking it takes the saved data from the server which is sent to your client. In a way, you are playing another player's saved game. But that does not mean you are playing multiplayer, because you are not playing together, or even sharing the same gamespace.
If I sent you my Civilization 5 save games, for you to play, it would be as much of a multiplayer as Spore is. In other words, Spore is a single player game with an online component. Hardly anything to do with MMOs.
But out of curiosity, what do you think my argument is? Like narious already noted, you are introducing awfully many red herrings for some reason.
And yet again you dodge the point on architecture and the mechanics that underlies the games.
Architecture? See, I explained to you why Spore is not the same as MMORPG or its online component is not the same as what is used in MMORPGs. In Spore, you are not connecting to a server to play. You are sent the gamestate (or part of) of someone else's game. That is not multiplayer.
Nariu doesn't claim any of my comments were herrings. In fact he didn't even respond to or about my last couple posts. So pulling that claim out of your ass to make an argument is illogical (and ironically is a red herring itself).
He didn't use the word red herring, but he said something along those lines - if not in this thread, then in another one, I'm sure.
The fact you say "but you are not playing multiplayer" in response to me means you rather completely failed to even grasp what my commentary was about.
Did I at any point say any of those games were MMOs? No
In fact I rather said the opposite. My commentary was that these games used MMO components to make their fundamental gameplay, that of single player focused titles, more complex or varied without changing the core nature of the games.
You brought up Spore as having an online component akin to MMOs, correct? Well, I showed you how it is not.
You seemed to take that as me saying they weren't actually single player games or something, and have been throwing an illogical hissy fit since then.
You've even gone so far repeatedly to use false examples. Like the one you just made here about sending save game data.
There is a big difference between sending a save between peers or clients, and hosting a server that constantly pools and disseminates data.
Taking this quote from you.
"...it takes the saved data from the server which is sent to your client. In a way, you are playing another player's saved game."
You do understand that this essentially describes the core mechanic of playing any MMO, right? Each client queues actions that a server processes, which becomes the updated state of the serverside client, and that state is shared out to all applicable clients connected to that server.
MMOs in that context are just a bunch of people playing on the same game save.
Look, the creatures (or civilizations) you may encounter from someone else's game in Spore are not being played by that player. It is nowhere near what MMOs do.
Believe me or not, I consulted someone who worked for EA (just for this post) and he doesn't know what you're talking about either.
The difference is that there is that centralized server. A system that is connected not finitely between peers and theoretically not subject to extended inaccessibility. Something that can constantly be fed and share out data that spans many individuals play, not a few people.
There is no other system that can support that mechanic. Every example you have given is finite in scope and function by contrast, because they do not operate on that same underlying MMO architecture.
I am unsure if you understand the underlying technology. The fact that you used "mmo-server styled framework" in one of your previous posts raised a few flags.
Your argument was semantic bullshit to begin with. You don't like the word MMO to describe how the game's underlying system operates, and would rather blur and dismiss the literal function of the systems and the consequences they have and can bear.
There is no such thing as an "MMO system". You need to explain what you are trying to say when you use that term. There is no underlying framework that these games are working from. Are you talking about design patterns? Cause if you are, you might be closer to truth, but still way far off, and you are still using the wrong terms.
I'm sorry if you don't like to talk about semantics but if we don't understand one another, how are we supposed to have a discussion?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I do not care how you play your game if you enjoy to play that way it is your prerogative, it doesn't affect me. What does affect me is when you go on a crusade to try encourage and the loss of elements a genre is known for that I think is fun and essential.
Again I do not see why you would even want to play mmorpgs if you want to play solo and avoid others as you seem to be claiming.
And you have no way of stopping others to state their preference, even if you don't like it. Are you going to try to shut up people who like to talk about other aspects of games you may not like whether that is DP, instance, pvp or what-not?
Elements you think are essential are not for me, and i don't see why your opinion is more valid. I will state my opinion. You can state yours. The market will decide.
Why would i want to play MMORPGs? I am glad you ask. Here is the answer.
And you have no way of stopping others to state their preference, even if you don't like it. Are you going to try to shut up people who like to talk about other aspects of games you may not like whether seamless persistent worlds, group oriented content or what-not?
Elements you think are not essential are for me, and I don't see why your opinion is more valid. I will state my opinion. You can state yours. The market will not give a pile of manure what either one of us thinks.
Then again never understood people saying these games are like singleplayer games. Sure you can solo in many of today's MMORPG or MMO's but they are far far from a actually singleplayer experiance because there is simple so much more that can be done in a singleplayer game where you are the only person playing in that gameworld.
Much more is done today .. that does not mean that MMO cannot learn and improve.
For example, instances allow designers to change the "state of the world around". WoW is already using that (a SP game feature before) in many dungeon & raid instances with scripting and stuff. They are just not doing enough, and that they reset when you come out of the instance.
It should not be technical impossible when they are already doing some of it.
I agree allot is done today but I don't see much of in a positive light. Not to say I am not enjoying some of them.
But YOU want that singleplayer experiance that is vastly different then the "singleplayer" experiance I would accept in a MMORPG.
So to give my opinion on things I want from singleplayer games in my MMORPG is the following
Assassin's Creed movement/free running/climbing
Again Assassin's Creed mix with Batman melee combat but with more RPG/character building options/feature's
The Sims. Now this is one of those games I don't play and just dislike. But....that same game style placed within a MMORPG in a different setting than The Sims real life similation for example sci/fi-fantasy or what ever setting would be something I can enjoy aslong everything else I expect from a MMORPG is still in that game. Else I might aswell get some of The Sims DLC´s.
Many singleplayer games already have these hugh realistic open world. This is something I want to see in my MMORPG. Not only NPC´s going about their business, where Day-Night changes what happens, stores open-close, people going to their houses at night, different creature´s or NPC patrols at night.
What NPC´s can do in singleplayer games should be things a player could do. Want to be that farmer, shopkeeper, crafter, trader or just a fighting class. While these options are not provided for players in singleplayer games I believe putting those NPC `jobs` into player hands those MMORPG worlds can finaly get it´s soul back. And I disagree with the notion that some people think that only a small part of the gamers like that, but that small part can make a pretty big difference within that a gameworld.
So I agree that some of the things YOU want from singleplayer games could be more possible.
But I don´t think the things I want are techically possible just yet.
You are right 1 and 2 CORPGs are your best bet for these (which means instances).
With 3, I don't know what you're talking about.
No. 4 is unlikely to be possible without client-based AI calculations, I think. Microsoft has been updating a patent on it, but there's no way to know how they are progressing.
5 has little to do with technology, but is mainly a matter of game design.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Architecture? See, I explained to you why Spore is not the same as MMORPG or its online component is not the same as what is used in MMORPGs. In Spore, you are not connecting to a server to play. You are sent the gamestate (or part of) of someone else's game. That is not multiplayer.
He didn't use the word red herring, but he said something along those lines - if not in this thread, then in another one, I'm sure.
You brought up Spore as having an online component akin to MMOs, correct? Well, I showed you how it is not.
Look, the creatures (or civilizations) you may encounter from someone else's game in Spore are not being played by that player. It is nowhere near what MMOs do.
Believe me or not, I consulted someone who worked for EA (just for this post) and he doesn't know what you're talking about either.
I am unsure if you understand the underlying technology. The fact that you used "mmo-server styled framework" in one of your previous posts raised a few flags.
There is no such thing as an "MMO system". You need to explain what you are trying to say when you use that term. There is no underlying framework that these games are working from. Are you talking about design patterns? Cause if you are, you might be closer to truth, but still way far off, and you are still using the wrong terms.
I'm sorry if you don't like to talk about semantics but if we don't understand one another, how are we supposed to have a discussion?
Feel free to PM me some contact info for that person you contacted then. I've talked to EA before and done due diligence with them on Bioware before as well as know people from that studio. I've also done the same with Steam and a couple of it's acquisitions, Red Five Studios, and Cryptic Studios. Similarly I have a cousin and a few friends who have worked at SOE and with dev studios for Sony and WB. I could at any point refer to anyone from any of those places I've worked with, but ultimately that doesn't really prove I would know either what they said nor what I said to be accurate. More so, if left unnamed we face the question of if they knew either.
Additionally, you'd need to talk to someone from Maxis, not EA, seeing as Maxis was the developer.
Waving a vague banner of 'I know a guy' is as bogus a remark as you can make.
[mod edit - please keep things on topic in here and not personal arguments]
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I am merely pointing out that i don't respond to every posts here because there are other fun things to do. Playing SP games is one of them.
Seems pointless to say, but ok.
I do other stuff than post on forums too.
Inconsequential to any previous commentary.
You did comment at least twice ... so it was fun pointing it out. Don't tell me you think all the posts here are insightful and full of information.
Most are rehashing stuff from years ago .. and stating the obvious again and again ... .let's do it in fun ways!
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Comments
Defeat YOUR purpose of playing a MMORPG. It does not defeat my purpose, or many who just play solo.
And it certainly does not defeat the purpose of the devs who want to do so (presumably to cater to a larger audience).
What is there to discuss? Much ....
For example, it is interesting to see if more scripting can be done in instances, so MMO can tell better stories. Don't you think TOR is not doing as good a job as Bioshock, or Dishonor and there is room for improvement?
Don't you think MMO instances has a lack of physical effects based combat mechanics like fun skill like slow-time in D3, or pulling someone out a window in Splinter Cell? Wouldn't it be nice if that can be done in a MMO?
And don't tell me you disagree that i can play MANY mmos as lobby games. I did that with WoW, Marvel Heroes, STO, NWO, DDO .. and a bunch of others ...
I think that is long established.
I am not starting a thread to say that .. but if a devs want a MMO to be more like a SP game (and don't tell me no dev think that way), here is a discussion of how to do it.
Sure devs want to make money and it sure is true they have conned some people into believing they are playing "mmorp" when they are not.
I will go a step further even I do not mind if some people join a mmorpg and then play it like a single player game and I don't even mind if devs add this elemtn to make more cash what I do mind is when foolish people then claim they should take the mmorpg elements out like persistent worlds and make them lobby based instead.
1. Mmorpgs have one thing in common, they are meant to be played with others period, if you think other wise your sadly deluded, having some solo content doesn't mean you never play with others.
Joining a mmorpg then playing solo defeats the point of it, doesn't matter if it can be done or not or if the company makes money off of you.
I do not want to discuss scripting in instances, I am simply saying mmorpg should concentrate on group content and real mmorpg features rather than on single player game features. If I want those single player features I will play a single player game,it is quite simple to grasp. You do not need to agree and I am sure there are many that agree with me.
2. Many things that can be done in single player games just cannot be done in mmorpgs for technical reasons but I am sure when it does become viable some of those features will find there way in a variety of online genres. Again I dont see the point in talking about it.
3. A lobby game being called a mmorpg is a funny oxymoron but I am sure some people will swallow hook line and sinker! Please do not confuse a lobby game with a mmorpg that has a group finder for the anti social!
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
well, i am playing MMOs like SP games, so i guess you won't mind. And how many i deluding myself. I log into STO, i go into an instance ... and play solo-ly. If you have to insist the 10 second before i go into the instance when i see some other people around ... well .. if that is "playing with others", seeing the chat box before going into a D3 game is "playing with someone".
I don't see a different at all. For all intent and purpose, other people do not exist when i play mmo like a SP game.
And again, what you think about whether there is a point affect no one else but yourself.
The point (to me) of a game is to have fun, and i do when i play solo/sp in some MMOs. And i continue to do so. And many MMOs allow me to do so. So i don't see you have a point .. except that you are mad someone else is enjoying MMOs in ways that you do not like.
I do not care how you play your game if you enjoy to play that way it is your prerogative, it doesn't affect me. What does affect me is when you go on a crusade to try encourage and the loss of elements a genre is known for that I think is fun and essential.
Again I do not see why you would even want to play mmorpgs if you want to play solo and avoid others as you seem to be claiming.
Ah if the point affects no one but myself why does it seem to affect you so much that some people enjoy persistent worlds over instances and why does it seem to affect you that some people think mmorpgs should be group games, in fact it affects you so much you even made this thread?
The point (to me) of a game is to have fun, and I do so when I play with others in mmorpgs. And I continue to do so. And many mmorpgs allow me to do so. So I don't see you have a point..except that you are mad someone else is enjoying mmorpgs they way they feel they should be played which is in a way you do not like.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
You are right Spore does not do matchmaking it takes the saved data from the server which is sent to your client. In a way, you are playing another player's saved game. But that does not mean you are playing multiplayer, because you are not playing together, or even sharing the same gamespace.
If I sent you my Civilization 5 save games, for you to play, it would be as much of a multiplayer as Spore is. In other words, Spore is a single player game with an online component. Hardly anything to do with MMOs.
But out of curiosity, what do you think my argument is? Like narious already noted, you are introducing awfully many red herrings for some reason.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And yet again you dodge the point on architecture and the mechanics that underlies the games.
Nariu doesn't claim any of my comments were herrings. In fact he didn't even respond to or about my last couple posts. So pulling that claim out of your ass to make an argument is illogical (and ironically is a red herring itself).
The fact you say "but you are not playing multiplayer" in response to me means you rather completely failed to even grasp what my commentary was about.
Did I at any point say any of those games were MMOs? No
In fact I rather said the opposite. My commentary was that these games used MMO components to make their fundamental gameplay, that of single player focused titles, more complex or varied without changing the core nature of the games.
You seemed to take that as me saying they weren't actually single player games or something, and have been throwing an illogical hissy fit since then.
You've even gone so far repeatedly to use false examples. Like the one you just made here about sending save game data.
There is a big difference between sending a save between peers or clients, and hosting a server that constantly pools and disseminates data.
Taking this quote from you.
"...it takes the saved data from the server which is sent to your client. In a way, you are playing another player's saved game."
You do understand that this essentially describes the core mechanic of playing any MMO, right? Each client queues actions that a server processes, which becomes the updated state of the serverside client, and that state is shared out to all applicable clients connected to that server.
MMOs in that context are just a bunch of people playing on the same game save.
The difference is that there is that centralized server. A system that is connected not finitely between peers and theoretically not subject to extended inaccessibility. Something that can constantly be fed and share out data that spans many individuals play, not a few people.
There is no other system that can support that mechanic. Every example you have given is finite in scope and function by contrast, because they do not operate on that same underlying MMO architecture.
Your argument was semantic bullshit to begin with. You don't like the word MMO to describe how the game's underlying system operates, and would rather blur and dismiss the literal function of the systems and the consequences they have and can bear.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And you have no way of stopping others to state their preference, even if you don't like it. Are you going to try to shut up people who like to talk about other aspects of games you may not like whether that is DP, instance, pvp or what-not?
Elements you think are essential are not for me, and i don't see why your opinion is more valid. I will state my opinion. You can state yours. The market will decide.
Why would i want to play MMORPGs? I am glad you ask. Here is the answer.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5903519/thread/393247#5903519
I don't see how that relates to the part you quoted from me.
Quir was trying to claim you had called my posts/arguments red herrings, to which I was noting you had not.
I wasn't bringing any accusation about you not responding to my posts, just that what Quir was doing was essentially trying to bullshit again.
Point being, complaint was at Quir for trying to use your name to claim something false.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I agree allot is done today but I don't see much of in a positive light. Not to say I am not enjoying some of them.
But YOU want that singleplayer experiance that is vastly different then the "singleplayer" experiance I would accept in a MMORPG.
So to give my opinion on things I want from singleplayer games in my MMORPG is the following
I am merely pointing out that i don't respond to every posts here because there are other fun things to do. Playing SP games is one of them.
1. Agreed. The zone needs to be more complicated with tall building and stuff. Also, this is more suitable for a stealth approach to combat (which is fine with me).
2. Batman melee combat is nice ... but i like the stealth mechanics better.
3. Not for me. I hate the SIMS.
4. Not focus enough for me. If you look at DIshonored or Deus Ex, each level is not huge, but stuff are placed nicely with a lot of option of how to approach the objective. That is way better (for me) to waste time going from point A to B. In fact, that is my biggest complainst with Arkham City. Going to the objective is a pain in the ass. You have to swinging around 10 min to the next place. I wish i can just port there (and yes, there is some fast travel, but not enough for me).
5. Nah .. i don't play games to craft, or be a trader. I don't mind them as long as I don't have to do any of it. The ONLY non-combat type of games i play is puzzle games, and I don't want my puzzle games in a MP setting.
I suppose technology will evolved. Someday... some of the what you say will be possible, but it is left up to the market to decide whether there is an audience.
Seems pointless to say, but ok.
I do other stuff than post on forums too.
Inconsequential to any previous commentary.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
lol.
He has a tendency to make comments like that that just leave you scratching your head.
They call things "obvious" that are obvious for a reason.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Architecture? See, I explained to you why Spore is not the same as MMORPG or its online component is not the same as what is used in MMORPGs. In Spore, you are not connecting to a server to play. You are sent the gamestate (or part of) of someone else's game. That is not multiplayer.
He didn't use the word red herring, but he said something along those lines - if not in this thread, then in another one, I'm sure.
You brought up Spore as having an online component akin to MMOs, correct? Well, I showed you how it is not.
Look, the creatures (or civilizations) you may encounter from someone else's game in Spore are not being played by that player. It is nowhere near what MMOs do.
Believe me or not, I consulted someone who worked for EA (just for this post) and he doesn't know what you're talking about either.
I am unsure if you understand the underlying technology. The fact that you used "mmo-server styled framework" in one of your previous posts raised a few flags.
There is no such thing as an "MMO system". You need to explain what you are trying to say when you use that term. There is no underlying framework that these games are working from. Are you talking about design patterns? Cause if you are, you might be closer to truth, but still way far off, and you are still using the wrong terms.
I'm sorry if you don't like to talk about semantics but if we don't understand one another, how are we supposed to have a discussion?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And you have no way of stopping others to state their preference, even if you don't like it. Are you going to try to shut up people who like to talk about other aspects of games you may not like whether seamless persistent worlds, group oriented content or what-not?
Elements you think are not essential are for me, and I don't see why your opinion is more valid. I will state my opinion. You can state yours. The market will not give a pile of manure what either one of us thinks.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5903519/thread/393247#5903519
If you read your own thread there's quite a few people telling you how it is.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
You are right 1 and 2 CORPGs are your best bet for these (which means instances).
With 3, I don't know what you're talking about.
No. 4 is unlikely to be possible without client-based AI calculations, I think. Microsoft has been updating a patent on it, but there's no way to know how they are progressing.
5 has little to do with technology, but is mainly a matter of game design.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Feel free to PM me some contact info for that person you contacted then. I've talked to EA before and done due diligence with them on Bioware before as well as know people from that studio. I've also done the same with Steam and a couple of it's acquisitions, Red Five Studios, and Cryptic Studios. Similarly I have a cousin and a few friends who have worked at SOE and with dev studios for Sony and WB. I could at any point refer to anyone from any of those places I've worked with, but ultimately that doesn't really prove I would know either what they said nor what I said to be accurate. More so, if left unnamed we face the question of if they knew either.
Additionally, you'd need to talk to someone from Maxis, not EA, seeing as Maxis was the developer.
Waving a vague banner of 'I know a guy' is as bogus a remark as you can make.
[mod edit - please keep things on topic in here and not personal arguments]
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You did comment at least twice ... so it was fun pointing it out. Don't tell me you think all the posts here are insightful and full of information.
Most are rehashing stuff from years ago .. and stating the obvious again and again ... .let's do it in fun ways!
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb