Two basic ways to play

Amaranthar

I'm an explorer type. That's how I like to play.
For others, they like the Quest driven system. 
But I get tired of being locked out of content because I didn't run to the nearest Pez dispenser and just follow the bread crumbs as designed. 

Exploration gives you a sense of accomplishment, you find it and sometimes have to figure it out to gain access. You did something. 
That's what's so boring to me with the Quest designs. They just give it to you, and you just do what they give you like a rat in a maze. 
Follow the cheese...not fun. 

Wouldn't it be nice if you can play the same content from both perspectives in the same game world? 

Theocritus

Run 10 minutes to quest mob, kill quest mob, run back ten minutes to quest giver ......RInse and repeat to max level.....I burned out on quests years ago....Games like WoW, EQ2, LoTRO, and several others that was basically all you did....and there wasnt much to explore in the world because everything was part of a quest.

Dibdabs

The problem with exploration is there's very little practical incentive to actually do it because all the shiny rewards (such as they are) and XP are tied to questing.

Sovrath

Theocritus said:

Run 10 minutes to quest mob, kill quest mob, run back ten minutes to quest giver ......RInse and repeat to max level.....I burned out on quests years ago....Games like WoW, EQ2, LoTRO, and several others that was basically all you did....and there wasnt much to explore in the world because everything was part of a quest.

that's my big problem with these types of games.

It's also why I get into so much trouble as I don't want to follow endless relay race quests in order to progress through the world.

I'm stuck in Lord of the rings online because I didn't do the quests leading up to MInas Tirith, did what I thought would get me through it but now I'm essentially stuck on the battlefield with no clear way to make it past everything. I also blame their stupid "big battles" which are tiresome.

I couldn't get a compass in Black Desert because I needed to do some quests leading to the guy who gives you a compass. Though to be honest, making my way across the desert without it had it's own level of fun.

Hate in Lord of the Rings Online when I'm exploring and come to an area that says I need to be on a certain quest.

I'm just over theme park games.

Sovrath

Dibdabs said:

The problem with exploration is there's very little practical incentive to actually do it because all the shiny rewards (such as they are) and XP are tied to questing.

That's just because  that's the way the game was created.

It could be done differently.

You can explore, perhaps find a space station or an old monastery and inside you have to fight your way through and whatever you can take are the "rewards."

I remember being in vanguard and there was this old stone tower on a hill. Sort of a ruin. I climbed it and right in the center was this moving blob. At least I remember it moving . In any case, I couldn't attack it  but if I clicked on it I got some cheese. It was something like "stinky cheese" or pungent cheese or "whatever it was called."

More stuff like that can count as rewards. Fighting your way through a dungeon or a ruin or cave can yield rewards.

But this thing with getting quest, running to quest, killing, obtaining a small amount of something and running back (or if it's a futuristic game, turning in the quest on some sort of in game device) is dull.

It's more than dull when there is a big quest marker over the thing you are supposed to find. ugh.

mekhere

Amaranthar said:

I'm an explorer type. That's how I like to play.
For others, they like the Quest driven system. 
But I get tired of being locked out of content because I didn't run to the nearest Pez dispenser and just follow the bread crumbs as designed. 

Exploration gives you a sense of accomplishment, you find it and sometimes have to figure it out to gain access. You did something. 
That's what's so boring to me with the Quest designs. They just give it to you, and you just do what they give you like a rat in a maze. 
Follow the cheese...not fun. 

Wouldn't it be nice if you can play the same content from both perspectives in the same game world? 

I miss open worlds to. I miss the Everquest and DAOC of old. Those games will come back into fashion. Right now, a socialist them park is what the public wants. people will get burnt out and we will see an open world come back into fashion. just be patient. I have to say though, quests do give you a sense of direction when exploration gets boring. Without quests, you wouldn't even know a particular spot in the open world exists. I wouldn't recommend getting rid of all the quests. They do have their uses cases.

Sovrath

mekhere said:

Amaranthar said:

I'm an explorer type. That's how I like to play.
For others, they like the Quest driven system. 
But I get tired of being locked out of content because I didn't run to the nearest Pez dispenser and just follow the bread crumbs as designed. 

Exploration gives you a sense of accomplishment, you find it and sometimes have to figure it out to gain access. You did something. 
That's what's so boring to me with the Quest designs. They just give it to you, and you just do what they give you like a rat in a maze. 
Follow the cheese...not fun. 

Wouldn't it be nice if you can play the same content from both perspectives in the same game world? 

I miss open worlds to. I miss the Everquest and DAOC of old. Those games will come back into fashion. Right now, a socialist them park is what the public wants. people will get burnt out and we will see an open world come back into fashion. just be patient. I have to say though, quests do give you a sense of direction when exploration gets boring. Without quests, you wouldn't even know a particular spot in the open world exists. I wouldn't recommend getting rid of all the quests. They do have their uses cases.

"Without quests, you wouldn't even know a particular spot in the open world exists."

Not really true if one has a more explorer mindset.

I found all sorts of wonderous places, some much higher level than my character though I still went in, precisely because I explored.

It's called exploration for a reason.

Amaranthar

Sovrath said:

mekhere said:

Amaranthar said:

I'm an explorer type. That's how I like to play.
For others, they like the Quest driven system. 
But I get tired of being locked out of content because I didn't run to the nearest Pez dispenser and just follow the bread crumbs as designed. 

Exploration gives you a sense of accomplishment, you find it and sometimes have to figure it out to gain access. You did something. 
That's what's so boring to me with the Quest designs. They just give it to you, and you just do what they give you like a rat in a maze. 
Follow the cheese...not fun. 

Wouldn't it be nice if you can play the same content from both perspectives in the same game world? 

I miss open worlds to. I miss the Everquest and DAOC of old. Those games will come back into fashion. Right now, a socialist them park is what the public wants. people will get burnt out and we will see an open world come back into fashion. just be patient. I have to say though, quests do give you a sense of direction when exploration gets boring. Without quests, you wouldn't even know a particular spot in the open world exists. I wouldn't recommend getting rid of all the quests. They do have their uses cases.

"Without quests, you wouldn't even know a particular spot in the open world exists."

Not really true if one has a more explorer mindset.

I found all sorts of wonderous places, some much higher level than my character though I still went in, precisely because I explored.

It's called exploration for a reason.

Yes, but also discovered places are likely to get out on info sites. 

This is one of the reasons I want a huge world. So that there's new places to explore for a long time, and by then you can get the yearn to go back to old ones. 

I'd love to see hidden, major "quests" in a game like this. Clues hidden in the decorations of dungeons and other places out in the wide world, or in semi-rare tomes. These can sometimes tie into the game lore. 
They could lead to lost treasures of all sorts. Rewards that are better or more unusual than the norm. 

Amaranthar

mekhere said:

Amaranthar said:

I'm an explorer type. That's how I like to play.
For others, they like the Quest driven system. 
But I get tired of being locked out of content because I didn't run to the nearest Pez dispenser and just follow the bread crumbs as designed. 

Exploration gives you a sense of accomplishment, you find it and sometimes have to figure it out to gain access. You did something. 
That's what's so boring to me with the Quest designs. They just give it to you, and you just do what they give you like a rat in a maze. 
Follow the cheese...not fun. 

Wouldn't it be nice if you can play the same content from both perspectives in the same game world? 

I miss open worlds to. I miss the Everquest and DAOC of old. Those games will come back into fashion. Right now, a socialist them park is what the public wants. people will get burnt out and we will see an open world come back into fashion. just be patient. I have to say though, quests do give you a sense of direction when exploration gets boring. Without quests, you wouldn't even know a particular spot in the open world exists. I wouldn't recommend getting rid of all the quests. They do have their uses cases.

Many players are so tied into quests right now that they need them. It's probably best to have them. But they don't have to take up all of the world's content. Eventually, those players are going to get excited about the other places and content. 
Maybe quests can lead them to areas where they see plenty of other locations, and get that explorer bug to go see what's there. 

"A cave. I wonder what's in there." (even NPCs get the bug. lol)

Uwakionna

This is rather why I want spawning system that uses spawn nodes more dynamically.


Rather than pin quests to a rote spot to to go or a small area to find interactable in, allow quest objectives to spawn in a variety of potential node locations relative to a) the player and b) obtaining the initial quest/lead.

Meaning even if you retread the same area and even the exact same quest. You aren't going to the exact same place and hopefully not doing the exact same thing(s) along the way. Quests should have steps that can be mix and matched to allow for fluidity in player experience while still maintaining the overarching goal and pace/structure.

Gives the framework that even old zones can be continually explored as you aren't bound to entirely rote tasks within the game world.

Amaranthar

Uwakionna said:

This is rather why I want spawning system that uses spawn nodes more dynamically.


Rather than pin quests to a rote spot to to go or a small area to find interactable in, allow quest objectives to spawn in a variety of potential node locations relative to a) the player and b) obtaining the initial quest/lead.

Meaning even if you retread the same area and even the exact same quest. You aren't going to the exact same place and hopefully not doing the exact same thing(s) along the way. Quests should have steps that can be mix and matched to allow for fluidity in player experience while still maintaining the overarching goal and pace/structure.

Gives the framework that even old zones can be continually explored as you aren't bound to entirely rote tasks within the game world.

Awesome, I like it. I like it a lot. 

I've never thought in depth about this sort of thing, maybe you have. 
I'm picturing a world full of Landmarks, that could be used to guide the player to the next point of interest. 
Each Landmark could have a variety of clues pointing to it. From there, each possible location (Dungeon, cave, ruins, island, etc.) nearby can have their own clues for their identities. Each clue, for both a location and then which clue specifically, is randomly chosen. 
Etc., etc., etc. 
The player finds the next clue at each location. 
Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? 

Dattelis

I forgot what interview it was, but an original wow dev said that quests were originally designed as a way to get players to explore and also hide the leveling grind. That was a time where most mmorpgs would just have you find 'camps' to grind at and move from one to the next, then try to find the 'optimal' way to do it on another character or a different way based on the class (like mobs that are more vulnerable to magic damage etc).

Personally, I like how GW2 and other similar styles tried to do leveling by giving you the option to level via crafted or even pvp (wow did this to an extent as well, iterations kinda got borked over the years). The problem with having '2 lanes' as the OP kind of put it is that it leads to burnout quicker or outright quitting, especially if you're someone that doesn't like to be tied down to one thing. If you have other ways of progressing, it creates new incentives for people. "Well I dont like actually playing rogue but I want it up so maybe I'll level it via crafting or pvp" etc.

Now I know some people will try and argue "well more options is just an illusion of choice" but let me ask you this. Do you seriously like to do the same thing every day if its it optimal? That's the point of options. It provides you with progress while also preventing you from burning out and hating whatever it is you're doing all together. Lack of options is a serious problem with many things today (not just games) and trying to do EVERYTHING optimally doesn't really separate a person from a machine. Games are meant to be fun first and not everyone categorizes fun the same way. So options should exist even if they aren't 'optimal.'

Amaranthar

Dattelis said:

I forgot what interview it was, but an original wow dev said that quests were originally designed as a way to get players to explore and also hide the leveling grind. That was a time where most mmorpgs would just have you find 'camps' to grind at and move from one to the next, then try to find the 'optimal' way to do it on another character or a different way based on the class (like mobs that are more vulnerable to magic damage etc).

Personally, I like how GW2 and other similar styles tried to do leveling by giving you the option to level via crafted or even pvp (wow did this to an extent as well, iterations kinda got borked over the years). The problem with having '2 lanes' as the OP kind of put it is that it leads to burnout quicker or outright quitting, especially if you're someone that doesn't like to be tied down to one thing. If you have other ways of progressing, it creates new incentives for people. "Well I dont like actually playing rogue but I want it up so maybe I'll level it via crafting or pvp" etc.

Now I know some people will try and argue "well more options is just an illusion of choice" but let me ask you this. Do you seriously like to do the same thing every day if its it optimal? That's the point of options. It provides you with progress while also preventing you from burning out and hating whatever it is you're doing all together. Lack of options is a serious problem with many things today (not just games) and trying to do EVERYTHING optimally doesn't really separate a person from a machine. Games are meant to be fun first and not everyone categorizes fun the same way. So options should exist even if they aren't 'optimal.'

I agree with most of what you said, but I don't get where you get this "2 lanes." 
I'm tossing out ideas to widen the experience, basically. To make MMORPGs feel more like the player is "living in a world." Simulated realism" and a wide scope of what we can all do. 
Games are boring, with little variety. That's what I see needs to change if the genre is to be healthy. 

I totally agree about options. 

Dattelis

Amaranthar said:

Dattelis said:

I forgot what interview it was, but an original wow dev said that quests were originally designed as a way to get players to explore and also hide the leveling grind. That was a time where most mmorpgs would just have you find 'camps' to grind at and move from one to the next, then try to find the 'optimal' way to do it on another character or a different way based on the class (like mobs that are more vulnerable to magic damage etc).

Personally, I like how GW2 and other similar styles tried to do leveling by giving you the option to level via crafted or even pvp (wow did this to an extent as well, iterations kinda got borked over the years). The problem with having '2 lanes' as the OP kind of put it is that it leads to burnout quicker or outright quitting, especially if you're someone that doesn't like to be tied down to one thing. If you have other ways of progressing, it creates new incentives for people. "Well I dont like actually playing rogue but I want it up so maybe I'll level it via crafting or pvp" etc.

Now I know some people will try and argue "well more options is just an illusion of choice" but let me ask you this. Do you seriously like to do the same thing every day if its it optimal? That's the point of options. It provides you with progress while also preventing you from burning out and hating whatever it is you're doing all together. Lack of options is a serious problem with many things today (not just games) and trying to do EVERYTHING optimally doesn't really separate a person from a machine. Games are meant to be fun first and not everyone categorizes fun the same way. So options should exist even if they aren't 'optimal.'

I agree with most of what you said, but I don't get where you get this "2 lanes." 
I'm tossing out ideas to widen the experience, basically. To make MMORPGs feel more like the player is "living in a world." Simulated realism" and a wide scope of what we can all do. 
Games are boring, with little variety. That's what I see needs to change if the genre is to be healthy. 

I totally agree about options. 

Well I was reading what you were saying as two 'basic' ways to play so I said '2 lanes' but I'm sure you meant the 2 most known ways to play. But yeah the whole 'illusion of choice' argument and 'meta' has really set the mmorpg scene back imo. Options create longevity simply because not everyone plays the same way or for the same reason. Blizzard admitted themselves in their metrics I think during legion that a large portion of their playerbase doesn't even raid past LFR. So why should the largest population of the game suffer for a 'meta' metric that doesn't even apply to them? Some people like to goof around, or use certain options to solo certain things. That's why the 'illusion of choice' argument has always fell flat but developers give in to that because its easier to design around. Less options means less work and if they can get paid the same or more for doing less work, then of course they'll do it.

kitarad

I cannot raid any more I cannot follow that carrot. I've given up MMORPGs that focus on raiding but I can also understand why games like WoW and FFXIV still mainly focus on this aspect. I do other stuff and I am more into building my character slowly through crafting and alternate content. If a game offers me this I play it otherwise I am playing other genres now. May be I've grown out of this genre. I've grown weary of it.

nate1980

kitarad said:

I cannot raid any more I cannot follow that carrot. I've given up MMORPGs that focus on raiding but I can also understand why games like WoW and FFXIV still mainly focus on this aspect. I do other stuff and I am more into building my character slowly through crafting and alternate content. If a game offers me this I play it otherwise I am playing other genres now. May be I've grown out of this genre. I've grown weary of it.

You haven't outgrown the genre, the genre just hasn't evolved quickly enough to keep up with the aging demographic that launched this genre into popularity.

Just like the core of every game  genre never changes, nor should the core of the MMORPG genre. The core of the MMORPG genre is simply a large persistent world with long term character progression, with the ability to interact and play with massive amounts of other players.

Outlets for multi-player cooperation, such as Raiding, can be outgrown. The reason why is because it's a time consuming activity that doesn't scale well with adulthood. It's natural for adults to settle down, have a family, and advance in their careers. So while a parent and career person may be able to find time to play in a virtual world, they cannot responsibly spend 3-6 hours at a time raiding.

Developers of RPGs, FPS, Strategy games etc don't just toss their playerbase as they age. They just evolve to keep things interesting and to become more accessible. Likewise, MMORPG developers.shouldnt be casting their aging demographic to the wayside by remaining stagnant in what they spend their developing resources on. So why are they tossing us to the side and why has the genre become stagnant? 

We saw some evolution in the genre when EQ came out, then games like SWG, then again with games like WoW, followed by games like GW2. But after that,.it's just been the reinvention of the wheel with each successive MMORPG 

Brainy

nate1980 said:

We saw some evolution in the genre when EQ came out, then games like SWG, then again with games like WoW, followed by games like GW2. But after that,.it's just been the reinvention of the wheel with each successive MMORPG 

Actually its devolving.  They are not even making it as good as they used to.  The only thing that is evolving is the cash scams/monetization.  I dont even think its evolving in a good way for the players, but monetizatoin has been changing over time.

Brainy

Amaranthar said:

Awesome, I like it. I like it a lot. 

I've never thought in depth about this sort of thing, maybe you have. 
I'm picturing a world full of Landmarks, that could be used to guide the player to the next point of interest. 
Each Landmark could have a variety of clues pointing to it. From there, each possible location (Dungeon, cave, ruins, island, etc.) nearby can have their own clues for their identities. Each clue, for both a location and then which clue specifically, is randomly chosen. 
Etc., etc., etc. 
The player finds the next clue at each location. 
Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? 

Ugggggh

That vast majority of players dont want to be running around finding clues in an MMORPG.  Just like Easter, finding the eggs only goes for a short time, usually 1 time, then it becomes repetitive.  Puzzles dont work with MMO's very well, not enough people want them.

I remember in Wurm the staff would sometimes (rarely) have some world puzzle challenge where people would run around the world going clue to clue to try to find the final treasure.  The treasure was always something HUGE the devs would give away, and yet only 15-20 people would show up world wide.  Maybe 2-4 would actually finish.

Throw a standard world boss or dragon event and immediately 100+ people would easily show.

nate1980

Brainy said:

nate1980 said:

We saw some evolution in the genre when EQ came out, then games like SWG, then again with games like WoW, followed by games like GW2. But after that,.it's just been the reinvention of the wheel with each successive MMORPG 

Actually its devolving.  They are not even making it as good as they used to.  The only thing that is evolving is the cash scams/monetization.  I dont even think its evolving in a good way for the players, but monetizatoin has been changing over time.

While the genre overall has become stagnant, and a hyper-focus on monetization seems to be the driving force of each feature developed, to say the genre has devolved is looking at the genre through bias and is lacking examples and specifics.

While not most games have contributed to the evolution of the genre, some have improved the following:

1. Number of players that can coexist without lag.
2. Graphical quality
3. Supported resolution
4. Quest quality and variety
5. Complexity of combat mechanics both from players and the enemy (found more in group content to my regret)
6. Variety of meaningful things for solo players to do.
7. UI and responsiveness

Obviously some of these haven't evolved in over a decade and some stuff hasn't seemed to evolve in 20 years, such as some open-world sandbox features.

But this is all my opinion. I started in this genre in 2001 with DAOC and I've played most MMOs release. So I like to think I have a good perspective of the progress (in some areas) of the genre and most of the pitfalls it's fell into as well.

Dattelis

nate1980 said:

Brainy said:

nate1980 said:

We saw some evolution in the genre when EQ came out, then games like SWG, then again with games like WoW, followed by games like GW2. But after that,.it's just been the reinvention of the wheel with each successive MMORPG 

Actually its devolving.  They are not even making it as good as they used to.  The only thing that is evolving is the cash scams/monetization.  I dont even think its evolving in a good way for the players, but monetizatoin has been changing over time.

While the genre overall has become stagnant, and a hyper-focus on monetization seems to be the driving force of each feature developed, to say the genre has devolved is looking at the genre through bias and is lacking examples and specifics.

While not most games have contributed to the evolution of the genre, some have improved the following:

1. Number of players that can coexist without lag.
2. Graphical quality
3. Supported resolution
4. Quest quality and variety
5. Complexity of combat mechanics both from players and the enemy (found more in group content to my regret)
6. Variety of meaningful things for solo players to do.
7. UI and responsiveness

Obviously some of these haven't evolved in over a decade and some stuff hasn't seemed to evolve in 20 years, such as some open-world sandbox features.

But this is all my opinion. I started in this genre in 2001 with DAOC and I've played most MMOs release. So I like to think I have a good perspective of the progress (in some areas) of the genre and most of the pitfalls it's fell into as well.

I'd say 4 and 5 are more subjective. Questing is like finding a book or song you like, not everyone will like it regardless of how 'good' it is for whatever reason. Combat 'complexity' also depends as well. More games adopt the 'stay out of red' design philosophy instead of a more 'pre-emptive' approach (doing certain things to avoid triggering a certain mechanic or having a certain item to counter a certain mechanic). More games float towards the 'reactive' approach (stay out of red/interrupt a move) and have drifted more away from CC/impairment/bolstering strategies of gameplay. So sure things are evolving but as to how good or bad the change in will depend on the individuals involved.

One thing I will say is that more mmorpgs are 'devolving' in the sense that there's no cohesive components even in the same expansion, just 'resets' when the 'new season' is out. I'm sure many people that like that do not mind it but it kind of invalids effort which can then result in lack of motivation past a certain point. The main reason I dont push higher in content is simply because all I need to do is wait usually 6 months for that content to either be made irrelevant due to an artificial timer or nerfed into the group/ppl getting better items simply by logging in and doing the same content they've been doing all along. Rewarding people on a timer helps no one in the long term. The people getting the rewards will just decide to stop logging in because they know they can just log in and carry on within a margin as others and the people that do decide to stick around just eventually fall into the same category.

olepi

In DAOC, there were no quests that I remember at the beginning. So you explored and found good farming spots.

I'll put my plug in for Ryzom's method of exploring. First, there are no quests, except simple craft X and turn it in. Second, there are no drops, except for mats; all equipment is player made. All armor, weapons, everything.

And mats are hidden. You don't find them lying around on the surface, you have to prospect for them. Once you find some, you can dig them up. Some mats drop from mobs.

So the game is mostly exploring, prospecting for that special spot (which you won't share), and then digging mats and crafting. There is a real reason to explore and look around.

Uwakionna

Brainy said:

Amaranthar said:

Awesome, I like it. I like it a lot. 

I've never thought in depth about this sort of thing, maybe you have. 
I'm picturing a world full of Landmarks, that could be used to guide the player to the next point of interest. 
Each Landmark could have a variety of clues pointing to it. From there, each possible location (Dungeon, cave, ruins, island, etc.) nearby can have their own clues for their identities. Each clue, for both a location and then which clue specifically, is randomly chosen. 
Etc., etc., etc. 
The player finds the next clue at each location. 
Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? 

Ugggggh

That vast majority of players dont want to be running around finding clues in an MMORPG.  Just like Easter, finding the eggs only goes for a short time, usually 1 time, then it becomes repetitive.  Puzzles dont work with MMO's very well, not enough people want them.

I remember in Wurm the staff would sometimes (rarely) have some world puzzle challenge where people would run around the world going clue to clue to try to find the final treasure.  The treasure was always something HUGE the devs would give away, and yet only 15-20 people would show up world wide.  Maybe 2-4 would actually finish.

Throw a standard world boss or dragon event and immediately 100+ people would easily show.

To be fair that's, like, half the server in Wurm.

Joke aside, I do think trying to gamify the unlocking of the objective destination would likely be a bit much for most players. However the notion of utilizing more generic spawn nodes that allow for quests to be placed in a variety of places, and having interim steps/objectives that are randomized, would still go a long way to adding more exploratory elements to standard play.

Though I will say this element is also a bit subjective to presentation. For example if the "puzzle" was itself the narrative fluff of quest chain progression going to point A to do something before it sends you to point B, without expressly making you solve something to do so, you can pan things out so players are being sent to a few different places before hitting the final destination, and each location for quest progression could still be different from the last time someone ran it.

Big thing for me is not reducing the quests into daily mission type experience. When one says 'random spawn node' or 'random quest location' it shouldn't conjure the notion of "kill 10 rats" or "look for the interactable(s)", instead the spawn nodes need to have basically set pieces that can be spawned in at each location. Like little groves you can spawn different types of camps and stuff in that cater to different event sequences that the quest objective can be completed/rewarded through.

mcrippins

I'm reminded in my time in Archeage. Like most, I grinded out quests to get to Max level as quickly as possible. However, when I introduced the game to a friend of mine, she did the same until about lvl 10, where she found her first illegal farm. Once I explained the system to her, that's all she ever did. Ran around for months just camping and stealing people's hidden farms all throughout the lands, and she always talks about how fun it was. 2 very different styles of playing the game, and both worked.

nate1980

Dattelis said:

nate1980 said:

Brainy said:

nate1980 said:

We saw some evolution in the genre when EQ came out, then games like SWG, then again with games like WoW, followed by games like GW2. But after that,.it's just been the reinvention of the wheel with each successive MMORPG 

Actually its devolving.  They are not even making it as good as they used to.  The only thing that is evolving is the cash scams/monetization.  I dont even think its evolving in a good way for the players, but monetizatoin has been changing over time.

While the genre overall has become stagnant, and a hyper-focus on monetization seems to be the driving force of each feature developed, to say the genre has devolved is looking at the genre through bias and is lacking examples and specifics.

While not most games have contributed to the evolution of the genre, some have improved the following:

1. Number of players that can coexist without lag.
2. Graphical quality
3. Supported resolution
4. Quest quality and variety
5. Complexity of combat mechanics both from players and the enemy (found more in group content to my regret)
6. Variety of meaningful things for solo players to do.
7. UI and responsiveness

Obviously some of these haven't evolved in over a decade and some stuff hasn't seemed to evolve in 20 years, such as some open-world sandbox features.

But this is all my opinion. I started in this genre in 2001 with DAOC and I've played most MMOs release. So I like to think I have a good perspective of the progress (in some areas) of the genre and most of the pitfalls it's fell into as well.

I'd say 4 and 5 are more subjective. Questing is like finding a book or song you like, not everyone will like it regardless of how 'good' it is for whatever reason. Combat 'complexity' also depends as well. More games adopt the 'stay out of red' design philosophy instead of a more 'pre-emptive' approach (doing certain things to avoid triggering a certain mechanic or having a certain item to counter a certain mechanic). More games float towards the 'reactive' approach (stay out of red/interrupt a move) and have drifted more away from CC/impairment/bolstering strategies of gameplay. So sure things are evolving but as to how good or bad the change in will depend on the individuals involved.

One thing I will say is that more mmorpgs are 'devolving' in the sense that there's no cohesive components even in the same expansion, just 'resets' when the 'new season' is out. I'm sure many people that like that do not mind it but it kind of invalids effort which can then result in lack of motivation past a certain point. The main reason I dont push higher in content is simply because all I need to do is wait usually 6 months for that content to either be made irrelevant due to an artificial timer or nerfed into the group/ppl getting better items simply by logging in and doing the same content they've been doing all along. Rewarding people on a timer helps no one in the long term. The people getting the rewards will just decide to stop logging in because they know they can just log in and carry on within a margin as others and the people that do decide to stick around just eventually fall into the same category.

Yeah, I don't bother getting into games that have these hard resets. It's just a waste of my time. The developers know it and we know it. They just are banking on enough players to be addicted or enjoy that kind of treadmill treadmill. I used to resub just for the story arch to games like those, but I can't even do that anymore. Single player RPGs is where I typically spend my time now. 

Amaranthar

Brainy said:

Amaranthar said:

Awesome, I like it. I like it a lot. 

I've never thought in depth about this sort of thing, maybe you have. 
I'm picturing a world full of Landmarks, that could be used to guide the player to the next point of interest. 
Each Landmark could have a variety of clues pointing to it. From there, each possible location (Dungeon, cave, ruins, island, etc.) nearby can have their own clues for their identities. Each clue, for both a location and then which clue specifically, is randomly chosen. 
Etc., etc., etc. 
The player finds the next clue at each location. 
Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? 

Ugggggh

That vast majority of players dont want to be running around finding clues in an MMORPG.  Just like Easter, finding the eggs only goes for a short time, usually 1 time, then it becomes repetitive.  Puzzles dont work with MMO's very well, not enough people want them.

I remember in Wurm the staff would sometimes (rarely) have some world puzzle challenge where people would run around the world going clue to clue to try to find the final treasure.  The treasure was always something HUGE the devs would give away, and yet only 15-20 people would show up world wide.  Maybe 2-4 would actually finish.

Throw a standard world boss or dragon event and immediately 100+ people would easily show.

I understand that. You are assuming the worst from my comment. 

By saying "etc., etc., etc." I was referring to the fact that such a system can possibly do that on a limited basis, and yes, have players running around the local map, or even farther. But my thinking is that that's for the top end quests, for really good items. Maybe even one-of-a-kind items at the very top end. Like a special sword or staff. 

The usual quest, the most common, would be those where you find something that leads you on to one more point, and that point might even be deeper in the same dungeon you are in. 

Also, who says you aren't earning a reward for each step, each location? 

I would think that a system like I'm talking about would have some sort of item for each location, so that the player can trade it to another player if they don't want it themselves. The quest being locked to the item, not the player, but said item being locked to the possessor. It might even be something like a "memory token" that signifies knowledge (or maybe ownership rights) and not a real "item", although functioning like one. 

My intention here was just an idea. Naturally, game design makes a big difference in how the idea might be used. 

Amaranthar

Uwakionna said:

Brainy said:

Amaranthar said:

Awesome, I like it. I like it a lot. 

I've never thought in depth about this sort of thing, maybe you have. 
I'm picturing a world full of Landmarks, that could be used to guide the player to the next point of interest. 
Each Landmark could have a variety of clues pointing to it. From there, each possible location (Dungeon, cave, ruins, island, etc.) nearby can have their own clues for their identities. Each clue, for both a location and then which clue specifically, is randomly chosen. 
Etc., etc., etc. 
The player finds the next clue at each location. 
Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? 

Ugggggh

That vast majority of players dont want to be running around finding clues in an MMORPG.  Just like Easter, finding the eggs only goes for a short time, usually 1 time, then it becomes repetitive.  Puzzles dont work with MMO's very well, not enough people want them.

I remember in Wurm the staff would sometimes (rarely) have some world puzzle challenge where people would run around the world going clue to clue to try to find the final treasure.  The treasure was always something HUGE the devs would give away, and yet only 15-20 people would show up world wide.  Maybe 2-4 would actually finish.

Throw a standard world boss or dragon event and immediately 100+ people would easily show.

To be fair that's, like, half the server in Wurm.

Joke aside, I do think trying to gamify the unlocking of the objective destination would likely be a bit much for most players. However the notion of utilizing more generic spawn nodes that allow for quests to be placed in a variety of places, and having interim steps/objectives that are randomized, would still go a long way to adding more exploratory elements to standard play.

Though I will say this element is also a bit subjective to presentation. For example if the "puzzle" was itself the narrative fluff of quest chain progression going to point A to do something before it sends you to point B, without expressly making you solve something to do so, you can pan things out so players are being sent to a few different places before hitting the final destination, and each location for quest progression could still be different from the last time someone ran it.

Big thing for me is not reducing the quests into daily mission type experience. When one says 'random spawn node' or 'random quest location' it shouldn't conjure the notion of "kill 10 rats" or "look for the interactable(s)", instead the spawn nodes need to have basically set pieces that can be spawned in at each location. Like little groves you can spawn different types of camps and stuff in that cater to different event sequences that the quest objective can be completed/rewarded through.

I'm wondering right now if this sort of quest system shouldn't be tied to special actions. I'm thinking chiefly of magical spoken "wyrds." Using the game's Lore as a premise, ancient lost civilizations being the source of such. 
So these "wyrds of power" are used to gain an action, whether that's to open a secret door, be imparted specific information, be gifted a locked down item, or whatever variety the design chooses. 

I'm not thinking of instances with this, I really don't like instances. But you may be, I don't know. Lots of gamers don't mind instances, it seems. 
These ideas are dependent on the game.