I'd prefer a large open world, without real questhubs. Ryzom or Vanguard come to mind. Even though those need a larger playerbase to not feel empty they actually felt like worlds. I had things to walk to, just to see what's there or how the view was. I just enjoyed the view from a waterfall in Ryzom, or had a ten minute walk to a tower in Vanguard. Why? Because it was there and intetresting. That's the point. You could make a virtual massive world with thousands of km² and leave it as desert. That would be boring. A large world needs details, it needs to actually feel like a world. Forests, mountains, rivers, mobs that are actually animals living there, not just quest-fodder. Anarchy Online is another good example. You hade named mobs, mobs that were just there and "quests" were actually instanced missions. Loved that model. It made the world feel alive, since you didn't do what everyone does and the world gave you choice. Explore, level, hunt.. Do what you feel like.
Nowadays the layout of MMOs is more oriented on CRPGs to attract more players. Maps feel like levels. TSW is a good example of this. I liked this game, but it did give me the feeling of having levels with two or thre sublevels instead of a world. It is all linear in new games, all directed and thus the gameworld just optimized space. If you view a MMORPG as a CRPG mith multiplayer and want to play it that way, then you don't need a huge massive world, since every m² without use is "wasted" space that could lead you offroad and "waste" time that you could have used to level, but if you see MMORPGs as virtual worlds you need it to at least feel big and alive with places that are just there to explore, little secrets, beautiful view points and flora and fauna fitting the place.
I'd prefer a large open world, without real questhubs. Ryzom or Vanguard come to mind. Even though those need a larger playerbase to not feel empty they actually felt like worlds. I had things to walk to, just to see what's there or how the view was. I just enjoyed the view from a waterfall in Ryzom, or had a ten minute walk to a tower in Vanguard. Why? Because it was there and intetresting. That's the point. You could make a virtual massive world with thousands of km² and leave it as desert. That would be boring. A large world needs details, it needs to actually feel like a world. Forests, mountains, rivers, mobs that are actually animals living there, not just quest-fodder. Anarchy Online is another good example. You hade named mobs, mobs that were just there and "quests" were actually instanced missions. Loved that model. It made the world feel alive, since you didn't do what everyone does and the world gave you choice. Explore, level, hunt.. Do what you feel like.
Nowadays the layout of MMOs is more oriented on CRPGs to attract more players. Maps feel like levels. TSW is a good example of this. I liked this game, but it did give me the feeling of having levels with two or thre sublevels instead of a world. It is all linear in new games, all directed and thus the gameworld just optimized space. If you view a MMORPG as a CRPG mith multiplayer and want to play it that way, then you don't need a huge massive world, since every m² without use is "wasted" space that could lead you offroad and "waste" time that you could have used to level, but if you see MMORPGs as virtual worlds you need it to at least feel big and alive with places that are just there to explore, little secrets, beautiful view points and flora and fauna fitting the place.
I'd agree except for the fact that players don't typically just ride all over the world just to check out the flowers. People want a reason to go places.You don't need 20-30 large zones to give the feeling of a real world. Just like the real world, there's some places you go to and some that you know are out there but you can't go for any given reason and are left to assume and imagine about what those places are like. Developers can create the illusion of a larger world out there without having to create it right out the gate. They could make half the number of zones for you to explore, make them challenging and beautiful and chock-full of stuff to do all throughout your play experience and you'd still feel like it's a real world.
The truth is if 80-90% of the virtual real estate isn't getting used much at any given time past the first 3 months in most of the current games (and it isn't), then reducing the size of them and packing them denser won't make them feel any more overpopulated. You'd still get many deserted areas with game worlds 1/3rd to 1/2 smaller.
I think MMOs need to have some larger areas from launch. A MMO forest should not be 5 trees standing around with lots of space between them.
Cities should also be pretty large and at least feel like real cities.
I rather see some large places that are almost empty and filled with more content later than small zones which get more added later. I loved the feeling when you walked in the huge wilderness of some of the early MMOs (and even more in the singleplayer game "Daggerfall", it made EQ look like a really tiny game).
MMOs don't have to be huge but they should be. Small zones get so full with mobs that they just don't feel real, it is like walking in a small park instead of a huge dark wood.
I think MMOs need to have some larger areas from launch. A MMO forest should not be 5 trees standing around with lots of space between them.
Cities should also be pretty large and at least feel like real cities.
I rather see some large places that are almost empty and filled with more content later than small zones which get more added later. I loved the feeling when you walked in the huge wilderness of some of the early MMOs (and even more in the singleplayer game "Daggerfall", it made EQ look like a really tiny game).
MMOs don't have to be huge but they should be. Small zones get so full with mobs that they just don't feel real, it is like walking in a small park instead of a huge dark wood.
I think you're confusing lowering the size of the overall gameworlds with lowering the size of the individual zones themselves. I too think the zones should look realistically big (cities included) but that we should have less zones to travel to and more interesting things to engage in at all levels IN those zones (for the sake of not wasting the development time and money spent on them). Additionally the game should be harder (and i'm not talking about just the combat, i'm talking obstacles, puzzles, minigames, platforming, hidden passages or trails you have to discover etc) so you blaze through these zones at a slower pace than we have been in these recent MMO offerings.
Originally posted by azzamasin I disagree with the OP 100%. A bugger world allows developers to add in more content and gives more areas to explore. One look at Rift proved the fallacy of small worlds for me.
There are few, if any, MMOs where the map at release is the entirety of the game world. From Ultima Online to modern day releases, devs have always found places to not only add new content, but add entire new continents.
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
This was a decision that Turbine faced when discussing the size of Middle-Earth in Lord of the Rings Online. Here's a bit from Jeff Anderson, former CEO/President of Turbine:
Some people were saying that they wanted it to actually take - calendar time - 6 months to walk from the Shire all the way to Mount Doom just like it took Frodo in the books. Someone else replied basically, "Are you kidding me? I want to teleport there." Both sides were arguing the pros and cons with one guy getting very lore-specific and the next guy saying "Well you're going to be walking through wastelands for week. How much fun would that be? Tolkien was about entertainment, he wasn't about boredom."
It was a very interesting and heartfelt conversation about the world-size. Well the realization we came to is that you can't make both sides happy; they are just too diametrically opposed. But what you can do is the same thing that I talked about with Melanie over three years ago now. You can make sure that people understand the objective what you've got. In our case, it's to just build a great Tolkien game. The marriage of those two concepts requires us to make choices.
Sometimes you want to make things that are fun, but we also don’t want to do anything that is in direct conflict with Tolkien’s work. We make those game design choices. So for most of the game, you'll find pretty much a very tried and true experience. You have to walk to a place first before you have to “teleport” there a second time, in essence. In our case, you can walk from the Shire to Bree and once you’ve done that, you can have access to the fast horse travel back. - Jeff Anderson (source)
It's all about what value that extra worldspace brings to the game. In Asheron's Call, players enjoyed the expansive, dangerous frontier of the Direlands, but over time they found that in regular gameplay they wanted more freedom to quickly get to where they needed to go. As a result, more portals and more ways to portal were added to make travel to content faster, while leaving most of the Direlands and northern regions a relatively free roam area for those that still wanted something to explore.
IMO, for most mainstream MMOs, the game world should be as big as its content but small enough that players do not feel they are alone in a world. Many devs have gone the other route and tried to make the game world seem huge, compensating for that with zone and global chat channels. This often has had a rather noticeable negative effects when populations drop.
For those who don't want the large open space, they could create a lobby server with microzones with only "the real content" they would like. They will never have to walk in the open world and can simply port around with a queue system.
I want a large world.
That post was incomplete. You left out *folds arms and says HMMPH!* at the end.
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 prefer a bigger world, that has plenty to see and do, stuff to go out and explore and stumble upon.
As for mixed level content, or mixed power content (if you had no levels, but skills).
Ultima Online : Outside of towns was the lower area, with animals to fight/skin and such, but you could also stumble across gargoyals and treants that were nasty if you were not a player with a decent amount of skill and or potions. The game began with dungeons being the higher content for the most part, but the land was scattered with things to go to, and you had many roaming monsters that were not all push overs. It wasn't an optimal blend, to get everyone to go back to every zone, but it decently kept people moving around....Travel was quick with recall runes.
EQ: EQ usually had atleast 1 higher level roaming monster in a zone that would smash someone that was on level with the other stuff in the zone. These roaming higher level monsters were also often used in quests/crafting or had to be brought down with a raid. Travel was slower/more limited till a few expansions came out.
GW2: I can not say I know the whole game, as I didn't like it. I felt like I was tripping over heart/quest guys every couple steps, it felt crowded/cluttered. I bring it up, because if this smaller mmo was cluttered with content, and felt like it did not have exploration anymore, I do not think I would like it.
Originally posted by azzamasin I disagree with the OP 100%. A bugger world allows developers to add in more content and gives more areas to explore. One look at Rift proved the fallacy of small worlds for me.
This was one of the major reasons I quit playing Rift, I was a little tired of the quest hub thing, and the crafting/harvesting were not that great either, but the world being too small and game feeling too railed were the biggest reasons I stopped playing.
Also, I get the funny feeling Seacow1g is really Mark Kern, or some other Red 5 employee, and this is really a big discussion about Firefall.
I don't know about that, but you brought up Firefall, and that game is a good example of a game world and content sized to fit its playerbase. Wherever you go there is something to do or something happening. Fast travel is possible but not all over the place. For traveling medium distances, there are even these wing things at most bases that you can use to quickly glide back to a local destination.
As for exploration, they cleverly reuse the environment by keeping events happening because, truthfully, after you've explored a neat little path it is just a path like any other every trip thereafter. However, by renewing and changing the experience/content/resources on that path, a certain level of exploration is returned to it.
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
While I agree that I would like a mix of difficulty within the same regions, I still think a game world needs to be larger. I say this mainly because one of my favorite things to do in MMOs is explore. A small game world would have less to explore obviously.
First of all i agree with the OP.
@Nizur: And that is in my opinion the misconception caused from Themepark MMOs with static worlds, and static level areas. If the world is not that huge, but rather dynamic, with wandering animals, wandering monsters and monster camps, with changing terrain to some degree, no area have to be the same after within a few weeks. So everytime you go to "valley x" it may look different, you may experience something else, you may find different animals, monsters or whatever.. and in that case it does not matter if the world is not that large.
Don't get me wrong, a large world is always a bonus, but isn't worth a lot if it is static and always the same. So i personally will be happy with a smaller world as long as it is a ever changing world, and were every traveling/exploration is a complete new experience. Because as long as the world is static it can't be big enough without getting boring at one point. And it can not be a solution to always increase the world, especially if it almost feels the same as areas before that.
And i do feel the same about server size or playerbase/server. If a server can host 500-1000 players and the world is large enough(without level zones) that those players spread out somewhat with a few more crowded spots, like cities and trading posts it is more than enough.
I prefer a bigger world, that has plenty to see and do, stuff to go out and explore and stumble upon.
As for mixed level content, or mixed power content (if you had no levels, but skills).
Ultima Online : Outside of towns was the lower area, with animals to fight/skin and such, but you could also stumble across gargoyals and treants that were nasty if you were not a player with a decent amount of skill and or potions. The game began with dungeons being the higher content for the most part, but the land was scattered with things to go to, and you had many roaming monsters that were not all push overs. It wasn't an optimal blend, to get everyone to go back to every zone, but it decently kept people moving around....Travel was quick with recall runes.
EQ: EQ usually had atleast 1 higher level roaming monster in a zone that would smash someone that was on level with the other stuff in the zone. These roaming higher level monsters were also often used in quests/crafting or had to be brought down with a raid. Travel was slower/more limited till a few expansions came out.
GW2: I can not say I know the whole game, as I didn't like it. I felt like I was tripping over heart/quest guys every couple steps, it felt crowded/cluttered. I bring it up, because if this smaller mmo was cluttered with content, and felt like it did not have exploration anymore, I do not think I would like it.
Interesting observation. For me GW2 felt also smaller than UO. Although UO was a lot smaller in comparsion to GW2. At least factor 10. GW2 felt to crowded, and one zone was more or less the same as the last.. as in almost any themepark mmo. (this was even worst in WAR) Whereas the forest in DAoC near Avalon i think felt somewhat realistic and huge, and was not over crowded. As much as i recall this was one of the best forest i ever experienced.. and know think about it, if this game and the forest would be more dynamic.
While I understand your point of view OP, I far prefer a large open gameworld. I dont just want the illusion of a zone with carefully planned events and mobs. I want that large zone where it takes some time to traverse it. Where areas in the zone may have different groups of mobs with a variety of difficulties.
To me, when I am running through an area that takes some time I actually feel like an intrepid explorer on the hunt for new creatures and adventure. If I reach a zone wall after too short a period of time, that feeling of adventure and wonder disappears mighty quickly.
I do agree that each area should be viable and contain something either event, quest, creature or crafting item related. Shallow filler is obvious and for me, not wanted or liked.
I think you're confusing lowering the size of the overall gameworlds with lowering the size of the individual zones themselves. I too think the zones should look realistically big (cities included) but that we should have less zones to travel to and more interesting things to engage in at all levels IN those zones (for the sake of not wasting the development time and money spent on them). Additionally the game should be harder (and i'm not talking about just the combat, i'm talking obstacles, puzzles, minigames, platforming, hidden passages or trails you have to discover etc) so you blaze through these zones at a slower pace than we have been in these recent MMO offerings.
Small games do tend to have small zones as well. Then again I am the "explorer" type of player so I have probably very different perspective from the other types of players. And I do prefer fewer larger zones to many small but I even more prefer a large zoneless game over both of them.
And yes, they should indeed be harder, a lot harder. I do really enjoy hidden stuff in zones.
Small easy zones with long loading time, overcrowded by players and monsters really suck.
Another thing is that I think MMOs are really bad using the space they actually have. Nowadays you tend to spend a few hours in each zone until you hit max level and just see a city and 2 or 3 high level places. I blame this on the level system, or more exactly the gap in power between the levels.
What is the point of making 90% of the game into a 3 week long tutorial you never have to go to (and if you will it will be grey)again unless you make an alt?
Spooky how this post is almost identical to another post or article or whatever it was that i read on this very web page i think it was from Mark Kern if i remember correctly
Vacant big and badly scaled (textures) game worlds are a big NO
good examples are PWO, Age of Wushu (Wulin), Final fantasy ARR and what else? i have already forgotten all the bad ones.
other NO is bad design of the towns with no logic behind them. use dem stairs dont pussy around it i hate it when some places look like a stair case would be a smarter choice rather than just a smooth surface climbing upwards and some of them are ridiculously steep same with arc bridges where you need to climb almost verticaly upwards before reaching the half way of the bridge when the bridge is crossed
just because it looks "cool" doesnt make it logicaly valid option
same applies to stairs as well if its too steep its not cool
For those who don't want the large open space, they could create a lobby server with microzones with only "the real content" they would like. They will never have to walk in the open world and can simply port around with a queue system.
Yes, that would be ideal. Incidentally, many MMOs are trying to satisfy these type of customers. Of course there are games straight going for instanced lobby gameplay without even pretending the need of a world (D3, Warframe, Star control, WoT ....).
However, i have a open mind. If MMOs want to do it too, i will give them a chance.
For those who don't want the large open space, they could create a lobby server with microzones with only "the real content" they would like. They will never have to walk in the open world and can simply port around with a queue system.
Yes, that would be ideal. Incidentally, many MMOs are trying to satisfy these type of customers. Of course there are games straight going for instanced lobby gameplay without even pretending the need of a world (D3, Warframe, Star control, WoT ....).
However, i have a open mind. If MMOs want to do it too, i will give them a chance.
Because those are Lobby gamers affecting MMORPGs like a cancer, interrupting normal development with unworkable mutations of simpleton gameplay. Go play lobby and console games instead of being a virus, attempting to break down the cellular walls of large zones, and complex game play. Your games already exist, go play them.
For those who don't want the large open space, they could create a lobby server with microzones with only "the real content" they would like. They will never have to walk in the open world and can simply port around with a queue system.
Yes, that would be ideal. Incidentally, many MMOs are trying to satisfy these type of customers. Of course there are games straight going for instanced lobby gameplay without even pretending the need of a world (D3, Warframe, Star control, WoT ....).
However, i have a open mind. If MMOs want to do it too, i will give them a chance.
Because those are Lobby gamers affecting MMORPGs like a cancer, interrupting normal development with unworkable mutations of simpleton gameplay. Go play lobby and console games instead of being a virus, attempting to break down the cellular walls of large zones, and complex game play. Your games already exist, go play them.
Lol .. of course i play other games. You think i only play MMOs?
However, why shouldn't i play some MMOs if MMO devs want my time and try to cater to my preference? Is there a reason why i should discriminate just because a game is a MMO?
While I agree that I would like a mix of difficulty within the same regions, I still think a game world needs to be larger. I say this mainly because one of my favorite things to do in MMOs is explore. A small game world would have less to explore obviously.
I'm sure you say this with the concept in mind that the MMO would play like your average modern MMO, i.e. most of the land wouldn't have anything to do or see and it would be easy to travel from one area to another. What if you actually had to WORK to explore the smaller gameworld? My mind goes to games like Zelda where the world was populated with puzzles you had to figure out or hidden passageways you'd have to discover in order to get to new areas. What if it had some platforming and terrain that was difficult or dangerous to cross in the middle of it all? All this would significantly increase the time it takes to travel around in the gameworld and make it feel larger and more interesting than a pointlessly large game world that you just run through mindlessly.
This all feeds into the concept that a world should be more densely populated with things to do, whether they be quests, minigames, platforming challenges, puzzles etc. Have you ever taken a hike into the wild irl? Even if nothing happens it's still often an adventure in of itself because the land fights back unless you're following a trail (and low level players in such a game would be STRONGLY encouraged to follow the trail ).
You may say you like exploring but you won't explore anything unless you have a reason to do so. What if the game were smaller but gave you more reasons to explore every bit of whats there? It'll still end up taking a huge chunk of your time.
Having challenges/puzzles/hidden passageways is fine, but that's not the only reason I enjoy exploring. I like the feeling of immensity. Of seeing something in the distance and having to figure out a way to get there. And by figure out I don't necessarily mean an actual puzzle. The land itself could be imposing or difficult to cross. Like your IRL hike example.
I don't need someone to feed me a reason to explore. I enjoy discovering things on my own, or hearing about cool out-of-the-way things others have discovered and then going to find them myself. For example, in WoW years ago before flying mounts and BC, there was a way to get above Ironforge, but there was a specific trick to it and you could only do this trick in one place that wasn't marked on the map or in the game. So you had to explore to try and find it. Once you made it, there was a whole airfield and a gigantic waterfall and farms with hilarious signs and a tunnel that led to an endless pit below Ironforge. Finding all of that was the reward for me.
Another example in WoW, again years ago and before BC, there was an island way off the southern tip of Tanaris that was not on the game map, but you could see it just barely in the distance. There was deep water between it and you and you normally ran out of breath and drowned before you reached it. I eventually figured out a way to make it to the island though and discovered an oil rig and goblin workers.
And my final example, also in WoW before BC, was also in Tanaris. I found a way into the Caverns of Time area before it was released. It wasn't complete, but you could see the swirling galaxy and stars and the tunnel with the embedded houses.
In all three examples, there was no game reward or amazing loot to be had (although that'd be cool). The reward was knowing I had figured out how to get there. A smaller game world doesn't lend itself to this kind of exploring as easily as a larger game world.
Also your IRL hiking example is more like what I enjoy. You could hike for countless miles and not see anything other than plants and wildlife. Some of that wildlife could even attack or chase you. Eventually you could reach some secluded grotto or cave that's not marked on a map.
Current: None Played: WoW, CoX, SWG, LotRO, EVE, AoC, VG, CO, Ryzom, DF, WAR Tried: Lineage2, Dofus, EQ2, CoS, FE, UO, Wurm, Wakfu Future: The Repopulation, ArcheAge, Black Desert, EQN
For those who don't want the large open space, they could create a lobby server with microzones with only "the real content" they would like. They will never have to walk in the open world and can simply port around with a queue system.
Yes, that would be ideal. Incidentally, many MMOs are trying to satisfy these type of customers. Of course there are games straight going for instanced lobby gameplay without even pretending the need of a world (D3, Warframe, Star control, WoT ....).
However, i have a open mind. If MMOs want to do it too, i will give them a chance.
Because those are Lobby gamers affecting MMORPGs like a cancer, interrupting normal development with unworkable mutations of simpleton gameplay. Go play lobby and console games instead of being a virus, attempting to break down the cellular walls of large zones, and complex game play. Your games already exist, go play them.
Lol .. of course i play other games. You think i only play MMOs?
However, why shouldn't i play some MMOs if MMO devs want my time and try to cater to my preference? Is there a reason why i should discriminate just because a game is a MMO?
Luckily the tides seem to be turning, but the influence that the post-WoW players brought to MMORPGs was both lucrative for the production houses and destructive to the genre. Making MMOs like the lesser games mentioned before only weakens them and dilutes the experience into rapid-fire endgames in which you will happily jump to the next title, but those who want longevity are left in the locusts path.
It's not your fault, but your tastes are degenerative to the MMORPG, goading the developers to produce less expansive games with the promise of quick, easy money in turnover projects.
Luckily the tides seem to be turning, but the influence that the post-WoW players brought to MMORPGs was both lucrative for the production houses and destructive to the genre. Making MMOs like the lesser games mentioned before only weakens them and dilutes the experience into rapid-fire endgames in which you will happily jump to the next title, but those who want longevity are left in the locusts path.
It's not your fault, but your tastes are degenerative to the MMORPG, goading the developers to produce less expansive games with the promise of quick, easy money in turnover projects.
There is no fault here. We are talking about entertainment tastes. Everyone is valid and the market decides what is produced.
All this talk about "weaken" and "degenerative" is just another way of saying you don't like the progress and the change. Tough.
Luckily the tides seem to be turning, but the influence that the post-WoW players brought to MMORPGs was both lucrative for the production houses and destructive to the genre. Making MMOs like the lesser games mentioned before only weakens them and dilutes the experience into rapid-fire endgames in which you will happily jump to the next title, but those who want longevity are left in the locusts path.
It's not your fault, but your tastes are degenerative to the MMORPG, goading the developers to produce less expansive games with the promise of quick, easy money in turnover projects.
There is no fault here. We are talking about entertainment tastes. Everyone is valid and the market decides what is produced.
All this talk about "weaken" and "degenerative" is just another way of saying you don't like the progress and the change. Tough.
same to you in reverse. I didn't write my responses out of concern for your entertainment in case you somehow misunderstood. You are just a convenient coathanger representing the "make it simple and stupid crowd"
Luckily the tides seem to be turning, but the influence that the post-WoW players brought to MMORPGs was both lucrative for the production houses and destructive to the genre. Making MMOs like the lesser games mentioned before only weakens them and dilutes the experience into rapid-fire endgames in which you will happily jump to the next title, but those who want longevity are left in the locusts path.
It's not your fault, but your tastes are degenerative to the MMORPG, goading the developers to produce less expansive games with the promise of quick, easy money in turnover projects.
There is no fault here. We are talking about entertainment tastes. Everyone is valid and the market decides what is produced.
All this talk about "weaken" and "degenerative" is just another way of saying you don't like the progress and the change. Tough.
same to you in reverse. I didn't write my responses out of concern for your entertainment in case you somehow misunderstood. You are just a convenient coathanger representing the "make it simple and stupid crowd"
Can't resist to be patronizing and condenscending?
I will say i represent the fun loving crowd, and not the "live-in-the-basement-no-life-crowd". And if you think raiding hard core mode is easy and simple, show us your achievements.
In the end, you vote with your time and wallet, i vote with mine (more time than wallet, haha). We will see what the market will do.
The worlds don't have to start out super huge, but if you choose to start small, there must be plans on how to expand in the future, and there needs to be hints and clues in the world as to how that expansion will play out. The best example I can think of is actually from tabletop gaming. Most campaigns start in a single town or region, but the DM still needs to have some idea of the world as a whole, and especially the regions immediately surrounding that first town, so that the town feels like part of the world at large, and when it's time to move forward to somewhere else, its a natural progression, not just a metagame moment of "now this region exists just because."
Comments
I'd prefer a large open world, without real questhubs. Ryzom or Vanguard come to mind. Even though those need a larger playerbase to not feel empty they actually felt like worlds. I had things to walk to, just to see what's there or how the view was. I just enjoyed the view from a waterfall in Ryzom, or had a ten minute walk to a tower in Vanguard. Why? Because it was there and intetresting. That's the point. You could make a virtual massive world with thousands of km² and leave it as desert. That would be boring. A large world needs details, it needs to actually feel like a world. Forests, mountains, rivers, mobs that are actually animals living there, not just quest-fodder. Anarchy Online is another good example. You hade named mobs, mobs that were just there and "quests" were actually instanced missions. Loved that model. It made the world feel alive, since you didn't do what everyone does and the world gave you choice. Explore, level, hunt.. Do what you feel like.
Nowadays the layout of MMOs is more oriented on CRPGs to attract more players. Maps feel like levels. TSW is a good example of this. I liked this game, but it did give me the feeling of having levels with two or thre sublevels instead of a world. It is all linear in new games, all directed and thus the gameworld just optimized space. If you view a MMORPG as a CRPG mith multiplayer and want to play it that way, then you don't need a huge massive world, since every m² without use is "wasted" space that could lead you offroad and "waste" time that you could have used to level, but if you see MMORPGs as virtual worlds you need it to at least feel big and alive with places that are just there to explore, little secrets, beautiful view points and flora and fauna fitting the place.
I'd agree except for the fact that players don't typically just ride all over the world just to check out the flowers. People want a reason to go places.You don't need 20-30 large zones to give the feeling of a real world. Just like the real world, there's some places you go to and some that you know are out there but you can't go for any given reason and are left to assume and imagine about what those places are like. Developers can create the illusion of a larger world out there without having to create it right out the gate. They could make half the number of zones for you to explore, make them challenging and beautiful and chock-full of stuff to do all throughout your play experience and you'd still feel like it's a real world.
The truth is if 80-90% of the virtual real estate isn't getting used much at any given time past the first 3 months in most of the current games (and it isn't), then reducing the size of them and packing them denser won't make them feel any more overpopulated. You'd still get many deserted areas with game worlds 1/3rd to 1/2 smaller.
I think MMOs need to have some larger areas from launch. A MMO forest should not be 5 trees standing around with lots of space between them.
Cities should also be pretty large and at least feel like real cities.
I rather see some large places that are almost empty and filled with more content later than small zones which get more added later. I loved the feeling when you walked in the huge wilderness of some of the early MMOs (and even more in the singleplayer game "Daggerfall", it made EQ look like a really tiny game).
MMOs don't have to be huge but they should be. Small zones get so full with mobs that they just don't feel real, it is like walking in a small park instead of a huge dark wood.
I think you're confusing lowering the size of the overall gameworlds with lowering the size of the individual zones themselves. I too think the zones should look realistically big (cities included) but that we should have less zones to travel to and more interesting things to engage in at all levels IN those zones (for the sake of not wasting the development time and money spent on them). Additionally the game should be harder (and i'm not talking about just the combat, i'm talking obstacles, puzzles, minigames, platforming, hidden passages or trails you have to discover etc) so you blaze through these zones at a slower pace than we have been in these recent MMO offerings.
There are few, if any, MMOs where the map at release is the entirety of the game world. From Ultima Online to modern day releases, devs have always found places to not only add new content, but add entire new continents.
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
That post was incomplete. You left out *folds arms and says HMMPH!* at the end.
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 prefer a bigger world, that has plenty to see and do, stuff to go out and explore and stumble upon.
As for mixed level content, or mixed power content (if you had no levels, but skills).
Ultima Online : Outside of towns was the lower area, with animals to fight/skin and such, but you could also stumble across gargoyals and treants that were nasty if you were not a player with a decent amount of skill and or potions. The game began with dungeons being the higher content for the most part, but the land was scattered with things to go to, and you had many roaming monsters that were not all push overs. It wasn't an optimal blend, to get everyone to go back to every zone, but it decently kept people moving around....Travel was quick with recall runes.
EQ: EQ usually had atleast 1 higher level roaming monster in a zone that would smash someone that was on level with the other stuff in the zone. These roaming higher level monsters were also often used in quests/crafting or had to be brought down with a raid. Travel was slower/more limited till a few expansions came out.
GW2: I can not say I know the whole game, as I didn't like it. I felt like I was tripping over heart/quest guys every couple steps, it felt crowded/cluttered. I bring it up, because if this smaller mmo was cluttered with content, and felt like it did not have exploration anymore, I do not think I would like it.
This was one of the major reasons I quit playing Rift, I was a little tired of the quest hub thing, and the crafting/harvesting were not that great either, but the world being too small and game feeling too railed were the biggest reasons I stopped playing.
I don't know about that, but you brought up Firefall, and that game is a good example of a game world and content sized to fit its playerbase. Wherever you go there is something to do or something happening. Fast travel is possible but not all over the place. For traveling medium distances, there are even these wing things at most bases that you can use to quickly glide back to a local destination.
As for exploration, they cleverly reuse the environment by keeping events happening because, truthfully, after you've explored a neat little path it is just a path like any other every trip thereafter. However, by renewing and changing the experience/content/resources on that path, a certain level of exploration is returned to it.
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
First of all i agree with the OP.
@Nizur: And that is in my opinion the misconception caused from Themepark MMOs with static worlds, and static level areas. If the world is not that huge, but rather dynamic, with wandering animals, wandering monsters and monster camps, with changing terrain to some degree, no area have to be the same after within a few weeks. So everytime you go to "valley x" it may look different, you may experience something else, you may find different animals, monsters or whatever.. and in that case it does not matter if the world is not that large.
Don't get me wrong, a large world is always a bonus, but isn't worth a lot if it is static and always the same. So i personally will be happy with a smaller world as long as it is a ever changing world, and were every traveling/exploration is a complete new experience. Because as long as the world is static it can't be big enough without getting boring at one point. And it can not be a solution to always increase the world, especially if it almost feels the same as areas before that.
And i do feel the same about server size or playerbase/server. If a server can host 500-1000 players and the world is large enough(without level zones) that those players spread out somewhat with a few more crowded spots, like cities and trading posts it is more than enough.
Interesting observation. For me GW2 felt also smaller than UO. Although UO was a lot smaller in comparsion to GW2. At least factor 10. GW2 felt to crowded, and one zone was more or less the same as the last.. as in almost any themepark mmo. (this was even worst in WAR) Whereas the forest in DAoC near Avalon i think felt somewhat realistic and huge, and was not over crowded. As much as i recall this was one of the best forest i ever experienced.. and know think about it, if this game and the forest would be more dynamic.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
To me, when I am running through an area that takes some time I actually feel like an intrepid explorer on the hunt for new creatures and adventure. If I reach a zone wall after too short a period of time, that feeling of adventure and wonder disappears mighty quickly.
I do agree that each area should be viable and contain something either event, quest, creature or crafting item related. Shallow filler is obvious and for me, not wanted or liked.
Small games do tend to have small zones as well. Then again I am the "explorer" type of player so I have probably very different perspective from the other types of players. And I do prefer fewer larger zones to many small but I even more prefer a large zoneless game over both of them.
And yes, they should indeed be harder, a lot harder. I do really enjoy hidden stuff in zones.
Small easy zones with long loading time, overcrowded by players and monsters really suck.
Another thing is that I think MMOs are really bad using the space they actually have. Nowadays you tend to spend a few hours in each zone until you hit max level and just see a city and 2 or 3 high level places. I blame this on the level system, or more exactly the gap in power between the levels.
What is the point of making 90% of the game into a 3 week long tutorial you never have to go to (and if you will it will be grey)again unless you make an alt?
Vacant big and badly scaled (textures) game worlds are a big NO
good examples are PWO, Age of Wushu (Wulin), Final fantasy ARR and what else? i have already forgotten all the bad ones.
other NO is bad design of the towns with no logic behind them. use dem stairs dont pussy around it i hate it when some places look like a stair case would be a smarter choice rather than just a smooth surface climbing upwards and some of them are ridiculously steep same with arc bridges where you need to climb almost verticaly upwards before reaching the half way of the bridge when the bridge is crossed
just because it looks "cool" doesnt make it logicaly valid option
same applies to stairs as well if its too steep its not cool
Yes, that would be ideal. Incidentally, many MMOs are trying to satisfy these type of customers. Of course there are games straight going for instanced lobby gameplay without even pretending the need of a world (D3, Warframe, Star control, WoT ....).
However, i have a open mind. If MMOs want to do it too, i will give them a chance.
Because those are Lobby gamers affecting MMORPGs like a cancer, interrupting normal development with unworkable mutations of simpleton gameplay. Go play lobby and console games instead of being a virus, attempting to break down the cellular walls of large zones, and complex game play. Your games already exist, go play them.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
Lol .. of course i play other games. You think i only play MMOs?
However, why shouldn't i play some MMOs if MMO devs want my time and try to cater to my preference? Is there a reason why i should discriminate just because a game is a MMO?
Having challenges/puzzles/hidden passageways is fine, but that's not the only reason I enjoy exploring. I like the feeling of immensity. Of seeing something in the distance and having to figure out a way to get there. And by figure out I don't necessarily mean an actual puzzle. The land itself could be imposing or difficult to cross. Like your IRL hike example.
I don't need someone to feed me a reason to explore. I enjoy discovering things on my own, or hearing about cool out-of-the-way things others have discovered and then going to find them myself. For example, in WoW years ago before flying mounts and BC, there was a way to get above Ironforge, but there was a specific trick to it and you could only do this trick in one place that wasn't marked on the map or in the game. So you had to explore to try and find it. Once you made it, there was a whole airfield and a gigantic waterfall and farms with hilarious signs and a tunnel that led to an endless pit below Ironforge. Finding all of that was the reward for me.
Another example in WoW, again years ago and before BC, there was an island way off the southern tip of Tanaris that was not on the game map, but you could see it just barely in the distance. There was deep water between it and you and you normally ran out of breath and drowned before you reached it. I eventually figured out a way to make it to the island though and discovered an oil rig and goblin workers.
And my final example, also in WoW before BC, was also in Tanaris. I found a way into the Caverns of Time area before it was released. It wasn't complete, but you could see the swirling galaxy and stars and the tunnel with the embedded houses.
In all three examples, there was no game reward or amazing loot to be had (although that'd be cool). The reward was knowing I had figured out how to get there. A smaller game world doesn't lend itself to this kind of exploring as easily as a larger game world.
Also your IRL hiking example is more like what I enjoy. You could hike for countless miles and not see anything other than plants and wildlife. Some of that wildlife could even attack or chase you. Eventually you could reach some secluded grotto or cave that's not marked on a map.
Current: None
Played: WoW, CoX, SWG, LotRO, EVE, AoC, VG, CO, Ryzom, DF, WAR
Tried: Lineage2, Dofus, EQ2, CoS, FE, UO, Wurm, Wakfu
Future: The Repopulation, ArcheAge, Black Desert, EQN
Luckily the tides seem to be turning, but the influence that the post-WoW players brought to MMORPGs was both lucrative for the production houses and destructive to the genre. Making MMOs like the lesser games mentioned before only weakens them and dilutes the experience into rapid-fire endgames in which you will happily jump to the next title, but those who want longevity are left in the locusts path.
It's not your fault, but your tastes are degenerative to the MMORPG, goading the developers to produce less expansive games with the promise of quick, easy money in turnover projects.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
There is no fault here. We are talking about entertainment tastes. Everyone is valid and the market decides what is produced.
All this talk about "weaken" and "degenerative" is just another way of saying you don't like the progress and the change. Tough.
same to you in reverse. I didn't write my responses out of concern for your entertainment in case you somehow misunderstood. You are just a convenient coathanger representing the "make it simple and stupid crowd"
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
Can't resist to be patronizing and condenscending?
I will say i represent the fun loving crowd, and not the "live-in-the-basement-no-life-crowd". And if you think raiding hard core mode is easy and simple, show us your achievements.
In the end, you vote with your time and wallet, i vote with mine (more time than wallet, haha). We will see what the market will do.