Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Virtual words, next gen gaming, a pipe dream?
Yamota
Member UncommonPosts: 6,593
I am a dinosaur when it comes to MMORPGs, in the sense that my first MMORPG was in late 90s when UO was in open beta. And in that time MMORPGs felt alot more like persistant, virtual worlds than just games and me who had been playing games since the 80s felt my interest in computer games being revitalized as I was getting bored of single player, linear games playing against a predictable AI and a story that was, at best, the quality of a C grade Hollywood movie.
However since then MMORPGs seems to have gone back to being more more and more like games and less like virtual worlds so much that they are almost in-distinguishible to standard multiplayer games and the only games that try to mimick the old MMORPGs are indy companies with limited budget and talent.
So I am wondering, is the next step in the evolution of gaming, i.e. virtual worlds, a failure and now just a pipe dream?
With the games scheduled to be released in 2011 the future of virtual, immersive worlds does seem bleak indeed and the best we can hope for it seems to be Mass Effect in a Star Wars setting (SW ToR) and Dragon Age Origins Online made by Arena Net (Guild Wars 2). None of them even attempting to create worlds...
Comments
Ah, but what makes you think that the "next gen" in mmo's was ever going to be virtual worlds? Maybe the next gen in mmo's was always moving toward more game like elements where each individual can have the experience of their choice?
I think it is a pipe dream. Most people don't want to travel to get places in games, Most people seem not to want "down time"
Until an indy company can come together with a lot of funding and talent mmos will proceed to move toward being games.
But again, as I've been saying for years now, this is natural and was predictable. All entertainment/media tends to move toward more mass friendly and palatable incarnations.
This is no surprise.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Worlds seem to be what a good number people really want, but we are getting less and less of so we are setteling for what is out there. On the other hand the mmo market has branched out into other gamers, and now were getting this action mmo's that are less of an mmo and more of a multiplayer rpg which requires you to be online to play. The evolution of mmo's start with muds, then go to UO and on through AC and EQ to today. Each one getting more players into the genre. As a result a lot of players now want more consolish games. We need a large, new, and ingrossing world that is less about pretty grind and more about being alive.
Have to agree with the OP. Game companies are going cookie cutter to find success..aka WoW clones. Or worse, they are making them even more simple. I stopped playing pen and paper games as well because the computer was making the gaming spaces so much more "real". Now, they just make it simple and uninteresting in many cases.
I agree about the comments on SWTOR as well. So much potential and so little in the way of exploration. I was appalled at Biowares lack of caring for "exploration" and the caviler way in which they pooh-poohed that concept in "their game". It is sad that many new gamers will not experience the vast worlds that COULD BE and only experience small worlds that are given in breif snipets.
Let's party like it is 1863!
I think worlds are what a good number of the early adopters/old school players want but I don't see evidence that this is what the new influx of mmo players want. They don't want worlds, they want games.
As far as an engrossing world that is about being alive, I think the only thing that comes close is "life".
Besides, too much money goes into these things without ever knowing if they will be successful.
You essentially need an extremely talented team with gobs of money that is willing to fail. I just don't see that happening as a good amount of money is raised by investment. "Most" people invest money to make back more money.
I just don't see these games as being a good financial investment. I certainly wouldn't invest in one of my purpoes was to actually make money. The investment would have to be believing in the project and the desire of its success. But again, most people aren't going to invest substantial amounts for that.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Exactly.
The next generation is social networking and virtual communities, which seems like the natural evolution of the platform as it becomes more and more mainstream.
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
The two signs that I saw that was the turnings away from virtual worlds and towards linear single-player like games were a) the failure of SWG and b) the success of WoW.
First, a game that had a large budget and brought the dynamic world concept to a new level received some bad reviews and failed to bring in a larger audience despite having a huge IP behind it (although few people would claim SWG failed outright since it got decent #s, it just did not thrive).
Then a game that takes a step on the opposite direction, WoW, becomes a monster and expands the mmorpg market significantly. It is no wonder that other developers chose to follow in WoW's footsteps and not games like SWG.
The sad thing is, the success and failure of these games was not all about their dynamic vs linear gameplay. A lot of it was more simple things like accessibility, marking, and polish. But until a game hits it big in the dynamic direction we will not see big developers taking any significant risks into the realm of dynamic worlds.
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
Back in early 90's I dreamed of a game that would combine flight simulator, tank simulator, FPS and strategy game, all played by real people over internet. Today it could be technically almost possible but it certainly doesn't seem to go that direction at all.
Other dream is that some day we could have a EVE with Perpetuum like explorable planets and systems. Of course this sounds rediculous but this is how I liked the genre to evolve. It's sad developers and gamers don't share my dream.
A game with massive world exists. Vanguard. If this is what majority was looking for, it wouldn't be on life support right now. Sorry guys but game companies only produce what masses want. Unless some indie companies decide to make such MMO, yes it will be a pipe dream. But then again it will be a suicidal move as Vanguard is a proof that people only like to complain and not play even if what they are looking for already exists.
I find it's like the american made godzilla movie, lets stamp a name on it people like, make it how we want as cheeply as we can, limit it as much as possible to make people invest time and money in it while waiting for what they expect to see. The new mmo's are the same, pick a new IP or an old IP or make up one, market it with the prettiest trailer you can, limit it to make people pay for more crap once they buy it, then show the best of it while it's in production to hype the hell out of it. Never show the bad, never show the things people won't like, and keep the nda up long enough to ensure the beta testers can't ruin your preorders. Drop it late enough that most people who have been following the game are to hooked to buy the negative press, and then sell a lot of copies. Thats how the mmo market of today seems to be.
Much like all markets, they want look, quantity of sales, and a need for you to buy new stuff quickly. Or in other words, they don't make um like they used to.
And vanguard died becuase of the way it launched, the game was almost unplayable for the first month. Launches pretty much make or kill a game, and Vanguard failed that. The same went with SWG, the game lanuched with bugs and unfinished quests, and the dev's choose to nerf things instead of fixing those issues. In the end the world mmo's can make money, the problem is they are hard to make and people tend to like to work on easy.
As another MMO dinosaur. Yes
My first step in MMO world was MUD. Text based online rpg. I was amazed by share possibilities.
Soon after that Ultima Online.
And thats it. It was the peak. The best it will get. 15 years old programm - and it was all downhill from there.
But the worst is. As someone that is following MMO development.
There is nothing in making, not even in planning that is even close to Virtual online world.
NOTHING
There is no talent and even worse - there is no interest.
In mean time MMOs got very bad rep.
So bad that , if I mention it to someone. People are entering panic mode.
It is now known as hugamonguous super expensive enterprise set for failure from very start.
This is what developers think of MMOs today.
And this is where all the lame WOW copies got us.
Its safe to say that Blizzard killed Virtual worlds, and pretty much killed MMO.
Than Zynga and Facebook put the nails on the coffin.
So NO, again
EVE is the last virtual world we will see in long long time ( perhaps next 10 years )
Virtual worlds are dead , MMORPGs are dead , welcome to MSG multiplayer singleplayer games
Well i think it is about commercial balance in fact, rather than designer/developer choice or even "lack of".
Old 2d mmo didn't need such expensive and time consuming engines. The developers, designers could work on the world mainly at that time. 2d was on its top when the first mmo was launched. When 3d hit they had to make a step backward and focus on fluff, graphism, limited Ai. You can see it for exemple in Darkfall, the engine took them all the resources and time to be made, they had no time do to anything else in fact even tought they tryed, but its the case of all other mmo before it, i remember quiet well L2 being nothing less but an engine when it was first launched, no mob ai, nothing but the core of a game. But things are easier now, companies have a lot easier tools, engines can be baught... You can definityl see that in the next few gen designer and dev team will have more time working on the game itself rather than the engine of the game. Big companies can afford very nice engines, they just need to not listen too much the greedy guys that can often lead them, thats all. A good mmo can last for a very long time (Uo have more than a decade and is still doing better than some new mmo, most new mmo?), a bad mmo won't last be few years at most, i think enough people knows this very well, so some companies will at least try to make a good mmo, rather than a pleasing mmo, even if those aren't really disconnect. You still can feel when a product is made to be a good product, or is made to please his customer, somhow it have an internal balance and strong structure, the pleasing product won't have, as if it was a copy of something.
Also i think the designers and dev teams where pushed by the players to the wall, no more cheap buggy easy buck making mmo, i mean they will still do it, but players are just yelling at developers having such philosophy, its pretty clear. Some of the last gen where totally smashed even before they went live because of their bugs, they don't have much choice anymore. So it is time for them to engage the second gear. Some are more willing to do it than other, thats all.
This didn't start out as a wall-o-text, it just sort of grew....thus ive added a TL:DR for anyone to lazy to read.
I am of the belief that the major draw to older MMO's and their vastness comes down to simply enjoying "the journey" as opposed to the "goal". I dont mean "goal" in the sense of the commonly used phrase "instant gratification" but goal in the sense of your destination. When games like The Realm, EQ, UO, etc. were released much of your time was spent walking from a given town to a given quest location, as many of the worlds SEEMED extremely large (whether they were is up for debate). The major difference I see today is how quickly you arrive at your "goal" compared to then. Back then you might have a mental goal of getting to "fantasy valley" so you could find and kill "mr. greenie the orc" and thus receive the sword of destiny, however you'd likely find that your entire play session, and coincidently your goal, was altered by the fact that you suddenly realize your going to end up spending your entire night, and maybe even tomorrow, slaying little green goblins that are crossing your path instead. Or that you cant go directly to "fantasy valley" because theres an extremely large dragon that stands in the middle of the straight path you'd likely take, and as such youll have to first pass through the "dark forest", take an in-game 2 hour boat ride, and then answer "some ogre dudes" riddles in order to find a way around.
Eventually you'd get to "fantasy valley" (provided you dont die in the process), but it would take you a day or two to do so (or at least a number of hours). To add to this, that sword of destiny then became a thing of prestige (for lack of a better word). If someone saw you wielding this sword they might ask you "wow! how'd you get that crazy sword?" and then you may or may not tell them about your epic journey to get said sword, which in turn spawned their desire to do the same quest. The big difference here being that many times folks didnt wish to pursue that incredibly arduous journey due to time, and as such that sword would hold its in-game "prestige'ness" (if thats even a word). This in turn created an almost social order which rewarded those that explored the game and took the time to find things, but not generally in the sense of "my gear score is better than your gear score" or "You cant get the sword of destiny? Reroll you noob".
Newer games (EQ2,WoW, and beyond if you will) have switched to a dfferent style of game play however. Now adays (likely due to customer sales of specific games) players no longer have that "journey". Sure games like WoW, or EQ2 offer a "journey" but its not riddled with the potential to push you off track like it used to be. Generally speaking its much easier to reach your "goal". Whether thats due to a quicker journey in general (due to map sizes, instancing etc) or due to world/map level scaling so that characters dont end up in dire situations (like attempting to fight a dragon at lvl 3) it has changed the way that games play out and has taken away that sense of "adventure". Now adays if you decided to go find "fantasy valley" and slay "mr. greenie the orc" so you could get your "sword of destiny" the quest goes something like this:
Talk to quest giver, make sure your the right level first
set out on said quest (or in some games, just find the instance and click it - this totally destroys the journey aspect)
walk in a straight path directly to "fantasy valley" (usually with minimal interuptions)
complete said goal (in this case kill mr. greenie the orc)
walk straight back, and turn in quest for your sword of destiny.
Since theres no real fear involved in any of this, the reward you receive doesnt really have any real "meaning" to you aside from being better than what you had before. Since theres no real "journey" involved, you dont walk away from the quest feeling like you've accomplished anything spectacular, and furthermore you dont have a special story to tell, regarding your actual adventure when asked.
TL:DR the whole point being - games now adays have removed the entire "story" concept from the game. sure theres an underlying storyline, but the stories that are created solely based on your individual adventure throughout the world (the ones you dont create, but that are created amongst you and your friends due to random actions) no longer exist due to games no longer forcing gamers to take the time to "journey" and explore within the world in order to complete their "goals".
This is true, but the problem is most media still have a grass roots movement that can push boundaries (look at music and film for example).
While gaming in general does have this, MMOs dont so much. Even the indies need massive funding to deliver a viable product in this genre, and that funding usually has to come from VC or other sources that have an interest in turning into a cash cow, screw the game. This is how the mainstream has killed the future of MMOs.
This is why people should give compaines like Aventurine credit and support, even if their game isnt to their taste.
100% agree.
I will add though that if EVE was made today, in todays's climate and it's commercial expectations, it would have been a very different game.
Not enough to push a company to take notice and make vast world open sandbox MMO. And these forums hardly represent the majority who are looking for such a MMO.
Honestly i don't share the same vision as the poster above "SequenceLost", in old rpg games they offered you nothing, you had to go to that journey alone, find your goal by your own. Now its more like here is what you have to do, go out there kid. So i definitly share the OP point of view about world versus game. In fact they now offer you The journey with those linear quests, leveling and all this. They used to offer you nothing but what you have choosen for you character to do, they just set the background of your journey, not the journey by itself. Thats also why Role play is that weak today, you have no room to play any role, you just have to play the role given to you, this mean there is nothing left to play in fact
Guildwars 2 have very little in common with Dragon age. Possibly the personal storyline but besides that the game is closer to DaoC than DA:O (but not that close). And they do try to create a virtual world but not at all in the same way as UO did. There were some things in common between DA:O and GW1 but even there it is stretching your facts thin to say they are similar.
If you want something more similar to UO you need to look on CCP & White wolfs "World of darkness online" instead.
And even in the 90s were games like UO limited to a single game, I started with MMOs before UO even launched in Meridian 59 and both it and EQ might not either be what you call virtual world. The reason so few companies make that kind of game is the fact that UO is the only fantasy MMO with sandbox style that actually sold games. There are also Eve and for a short time SWG but you seems to think that MMOs started like that and then turned into Wow and nothing can be further from the truth.
Personally do I only want fun. If I have fun in UO or M59, or GW2 or WoDO does not really matter to me. I am however rather tired of games that are almost exactly the same.
Well, you don't have to play Vanguard like WoW. Don't quest. I don't. Or rarely do. The areas are distinct so I'm not sure why you would say that?
Whether it's the sandy beaches where the lizard folk are, the deserts or the luch forest, the game world has distinct areas They are just large.
And though it's valid to not like the music, I think that's beting a bit picky.
And here is where the issue is. Players want what they want. So why would anyone invest in making a game that costs Millions of dollars only to have players say "well, I don't like the music and the art design doesn't go far enough... Pass". Or "I really wanted something that was more open pvp but with perma-death... pass" or "too many dark dungeons I want more outside areas.. pass" or whatever else a player might want.
And then of course the "I'd play Vanguard but there aren't enough players" which is a catch 22 because a game is never going to get more players of more players don't play.
If this is the crux of the open world "world' then we are in big trouble because games lose people. If suddenly a game's population goes below a certain point then it's "on to next game". Nice investment of millions when talking about a game taht is going to have niche appeal.
Not saying you or anyone else "has to" like vanguard but if no one supports these games then developers are going to look at the games that ARE supported.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
What? VG failed because it was one of the worst launches in history of MMOs, only AO are in the same class. It took SOE 2 years to fix the game up enough so you can compare it with other games.
VG had the worst coding any so called AAA MMO ever had. By far. No matter of sandbox or themepark factor can save a game that releases that bad. AoC was a pleasure at launch to compare.
That's very true, having a grass roots movement would at least keep alternative worlds alive. but it takes so much money to make these things I don't ever see a grass roots movement actually happening.
well, There are underfunded, understaffed games out there but they have too many issues for some players so they are fated to be what they are. Maybe over time, if they survive they can set an example.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Over reacting much guys?
The guys that makes mmo todays are mainly the old dudes that played d&d you know they know what it is about. its just that they can't get it right for many reason, commercial, technicals and all this.
If anyone of you ever played Dwarf fortress you can easely see a 2d game have huge adventage over a 3d game even today, all the comput resource of a processor is eaten by fluff, like a 3d model, in a 2d game all this can be taken to create a world with all the deepness attached to it. There is no room left for anything else really but the fluff in a 3d game. Try to create a dynamic world, world realistic building, history, mobs interactions... are just not possible or very hard to acheive in a 3d environement, because you don't have the resource to do it. Once more go try Dwarf fortress to get a better idea of this.
On the contrary, you do share the same vision as I do. Your just re-interating the point. In the old games you still talked to an NPC who gave you a quest, in which you had some sort of goal to accomplish, however the entire journey and how you went about accomplishing it was totally player driven. I agree that you would generally end up journeying alone and actually had to FIND your goal (which is what i was attempting to state to begin with...sorry if that wasnt clear). I also agree that now adays I agree that the questing is much more linear however your point about leveling is debatable and definitely game dependent since games of old (with possibly the exception of UO) still had linear leveling most of the time, just not half as linear as games like WoW.
I don't think it's an over reaction at all. If EVE were made today it would definitely have a lot of pressures to be what it is today as opposed to what it was at release. Unless you are talking about the "mmo's are dead" statement then I do think that's a bit of an over reaction. ; )
And though you are correct that there are many more things that have to happen to make a 3d game successful, the biggest thing is "baggage".
Any indy 3d game that comes out seems to draw quips such as "what a piece of crap, when was that made, in the 90's?" or "I'm never playing a game with graphics like that!"
And to be honest, there really doesn't have to be cutting edge 3d graphics in order to make a great game. But many players expect there to be cutting edge graphics and that is a huge problem.
As far as 2d? That's going to be more niche than 3d. I would offer that a 3d game that didn't have to have cutting edge graphics might be able to do more than games that require all the bells and whistles but once you go into the 3d worlds then they are going to be judged harshley.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Levels plays totally differently in pen&paper or even in mud than it plays in MMo. Level were a scale of power lets say or acheivement. But in mmo it is the source of power and acheivement, you have to be that level to access this or this part of the game. In pen& paper, or even mud, level wouldn't stop you doing anything, because the GM would make it work for you, it was an advantage, not a contraint. Thats why i put leveling in the same bag, i think thats why R.G had a better vision of character power in Uo, it was dictated by the experice he got making the ultima series. Leveling just did not port well from pen&paper, or mud to mmo, thats the reason why R.G made the skill system.
I agree with you and the other poster that was talking about how 3D games spend most of the time on the game engine and there isnt enough time for anything else... HOWEVER, we had a taste of what could be via SWG. It was so very close to being the dynamic MMO that many of us are looking for, and could be by now had its continued development aimed in the correct direction. It is proof that a 3D game at least could be a dynamic world.
/agree
I understand how someone could see VG as being like WoW. VG tried to incorporate a lot of WoW into itself, probably because they were scared to be missing what has become standards for mmorpgs to contain- hand holding quests. I feel like they could have spent their time better elsewhere (BUG FIXING!!!).
I wouldn't know if the areas were distinct or not. I was so bored when I played VG at release from questing and leveling at what felt like an ultra slow pace that I stopped playing. I was in a desert area and I never saw anything else of the whole world because I didn't know where/how to get to the other areas besides the desert one and I figured it would take walking for hours on end. That isnt a problem though, IMO, it would be fine had the game been more interesting for me to play, which is was not, probably most of all because of the lack of social element. I did not feel the inclination to party often and I when I did there was very little bonding experiences with group mates, and people just weren't that friendly in general. In comparison to the only other sandboxy game I've played, SWG- I have fond memories of chatting in the cantina in SWG when people first started playing... And the armorsmith being in there telling us to bring him some sticks and he can make us newbie armor. And everyone was like ohh ok cool sticks...
All my newbie gear in VG came from quests.
Just one example though.
I agree with you and the other poster that was talk
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.