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.
This ^. The MMORPG community's rejection and subsequent failure of Vanguard is really what started this dark age. The failure of Vanguard pretty much killed the massive world style games for good. This insured nothing but WoW clones would be made for the forseeable future.
I would have played it despite the bad coding. Heck, Shadowbane had, IMO, worse coding at launch, but I played the heck out of that early on and I'm not even into PVP.
I play for design, and to me a good design is a "world" in which you choose your journeys, and not today's messes of MMO's giving you a "fixed journey" and the world only serves as a backdrop or temporary stage setting.
I tell you, the linear themepark MMO concept is dying. WOW, IMO, is going to start losing lots of subs and soon. The new players WOW brought in are no longer new and many of them want more from their gaming.
Most players aren't like you though, although I am.
I agree the linear concept is dying and people are hoping for more. They are looking forward to more as in, GW2 though, not as in what we are hoping for. Or as in SW:TOR, because look guys it has cinematic cut scenes with voices! Way cool! So much better than WoW!
WoW subs have been declining for a while now probably. They should have started merging servers A LONG TIME AGO in my opinion, theres a ton of empty zones now in WoW. Everyone's moved into the instances. It is very clear that its in a late-stage of life. Its a typical thing to happen though, it has happened to every MMO. WoW will probably be the most successful mmorpg for decades to come (relative to its market).
Just to play devil's advocate here, could anyone make a case for why the older games were ever considered virtual worlds and why the newer games are not.
Wasn't EQ just a quest-less WoW with a ridiculous exp curve and forced grouping? Would you even want something like that these days? Would you play it? Its not like directionless gameplay and forced grouping are realistic. In the real world I always have direction (my boss tells me what to do like a quest giver) and I do most tasks alone rather than in a close knit group.
Could you (the old timers) even handle the monotony of UO's gameplay anymore? Last time I tried I made it about 3 days before quitting and that was 5 years ago. Most of us have no appreciation for the improvements in gameplay we have seen in the last decade.
What about UO made it more of a virtual world? They removed the dynamic ecosystem at release. It had a logical crafting system and placable houses, but other than that the day to day gameplay was quite tediuos and boring without a whole lot of immersion or variety.
Why can't you explore in WoW? Its a seamless open world with no artificial boundaries. Just because YOU choose to grind out quests and nothing more doesn't make it a problem with the game.
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.
Im a dinosaur myself , and still have a 12 year UO Vet account , that i keep active but dont play , EA detroyed RG Virtual world..And yes things do look a lil bleak for gamers looking for a World to play , I am currently in FAllen Earth and it really is a great Virtual World so far very immersive and the journey has been really immersive , at lvl 18 i am really just takin my time and soaking up all this great World has to offer..
And yes things do look a lil bleak , i dont think we are hurting as gamers because of it , we do have many options ...
Devs that have stuck to there vision do have success and really bring some of the best experiences to gaming for us ...
CCP with Eve is one example , great game , a harsh world for sure , and for those folks who enjoy that setting its second to none....
Icarus Ent with Fallen Earth , brings really the only game to the table where you really feel the need to survive , Everyday brings challenges where learning and molding your toon become paramount in a truly post apocolyptic world.....
Cornered Rat with WW2 online , another truly epic feel to a game and setting that is second to none...
Aventurine with Darkfall have carved out there corner of the world with there vision of a warring fantasy world.....
All examples of Devs that are doing it for the love of the game, of building a world that lives and breathes for you, to live or die in , true artists that believe in there vision , and all have success with it..
Like many of the original groundbreakers created this genre, Garriot and Long with UO wanted to create a world to mold "your story" or Brad McQuaid with EQ remember "You are in our World Now " slogan , and you were, it was a dream a vision of love for these guys, a true adventure for them just building it im sure,And Turbine with AC , we were all just blown away by this living World to discover ,explore and die in ..
But in contrast now Sony slogan is "We are in your Wallet Now" and EA has shredded Britannia from Garriots vision for the dollar, And Turbine is now a debunked bride cashier of the item shop for Warner Bros..
Theme park games have a much easier time borkin there Lore, most are not run by artists with a true vision , they are run by the corporate conglmerate that will bend your mothers lore if it will make them a dollar..
It's an interesting discussion the OP has started. I wonder how many of us self-identified "old schoolers" play Minecraft for example (I know I do)? Extremely basic graphics, but more sandbox than anything else out there, and sheer joy to some of us, while to others it's just pixellated lego. But it is very much a world in which you make your own stories, and everyone who has played for any length of time has plenty of those to tell. It has done very very well for Notch too....if there is any sort of grass-roots movement afoot, Minecraft is a great mascot for it.
I'm with the earlier poster who said it used to be about the journey (and not being literal about travel times here!), and a journey that could be unique to each player. In the majority of today's games there's this massive rush to "endgame" and nobody ever stops to smell the metaphorical flowers on the way. I'm not saying you can't play newer games the old way (I have always played FE that way, seems to lend itself to it) but the majority of players don't/won't/will tell you they don't have "time". It's all about hitting cap asap, feeling leet and uber, and ignoring the fact that there's a heck of a lot of game they missed. Oh, and complaining that there's "nothing to do".
I was disappointed by Rift only having two starter zones (even WoW has increased the number of starter zones with Cata, so having them must be a good thing....) but then I started thinking about it and realised if the current "average" player is just going to blast through these zones.....why invest in having one for each race? Trion probably figured they could better spend their money elsewhere. And that, more than any recital of my gaming history, is what has me feeling like a dinosaur these days. I don't seem to be part of the "target market", and I would have expected that to be because I'm (a) too darn old or (b) female, and not because the majority seem to want linear, tab-targeting, gcd-driven, themepark, on-rails experiences, with a twist or two. Because it sure seems that's what the market research folks are advising game companies to make.
When it comes to MMOs, the wheel has been invented and reinvented til it's a faded last-sheet carbon-copy of what it once was. Screw the wheel, I'm waiting for the game that becomes the internal combustion engine for the genre.
Just to play devil's advocate here, could anyone make a case for why the older games were ever considered virtual worlds and why the newer games are not.
Wasn't EQ just a quest-less WoW with a ridiculous exp curve and forced grouping? Would you even want something like that these days? Would you play it? Its not like directionless gameplay and forced grouping are realistic. In the real world I always have direction (my boss tells me what to do like a quest giver) and I do most tasks alone rather than in a close knit group.
Could you (the old timers) even handle the monotony of UO's gameplay anymore? Last time I tried I made it about 3 days before quitting and that was 5 years ago. Most of us have no appreciation for the improvements in gameplay we have seen in the last decade.
What about UO made it more of a virtual world? They removed the dynamic ecosystem at release. It had a logical crafting system and placable houses, but other than that the day to day gameplay was quite tediuos and boring without a whole lot of immersion or variety.
Why can't you explore in WoW? Its a seamless open world with no artificial boundaries. Just because YOU choose to grind out quests and nothing more doesn't make it a problem with the game.
That is about SWG and some of the features that helped make it a great game (most of them are related to it being a virtual world). Sometimes it is things that you would not expect, like having one character per server, which forces you to relate to your specific character more and really feel like you are living in the world as well as make it so you are more likely to randomly bump into the same other players multiple times (because they aren't running alts). Social interaction played a really key role for me in SWG, because I was constantly interacting with other players, most of the time about things that had little to do with combat. Some of my favorite time was spent as a tailor, talking up rich jedis and helping them choose an outfit hoping for a big tip to pay for my expensive explorations (expensive because I died so much hah). Talking about it makes me feel almost light headed.
But theres a ton of different ways of going about creating a virtual world, and I don't know how UO did it for those players.
It talks about cantinas, trainers (you had to be trained in skills by other players, who often would become sort of mentors), quality PvP, skill trees instead of classes.
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.
This ^. The MMORPG community's rejection and subsequent failure of Vanguard is really what started this dark age. The failure of Vanguard pretty much killed the massive world style games for good. This insured nothing but WoW clones would be made for the forseeable future.
I think you're missing the point.
Vanguards failure had nothing to do with the massive world style.
We haven't seen a properly funded, properly developed, finished and polished fantasy virtual world MMO yet. I absolutely think it's possible but someone has to pony up the money. If you build it, they will come.
I wouldn't say it's dead or a pipe dream. All it takes is one developer/producer to attack the market for these games properly. Keep an eye on ArcheAge and World of Darkness.
Just to play devil's advocate here, could anyone make a case for why the older games were ever considered virtual worlds and why the newer games are not..
The thing people talking like "you" (its not personal right) don't seam to understand is that it is not about the game itself. It is about what philosophy, or state of mind the designesr had making their game. Definitly R.G tryed to make a virtual world, there is no argument about this, i could even got some quote from him stating this if needed. Sure the game failed in many domain, but the intention was there, and it was very strong. Also i think the all dream of being able to create a virtual world was a lot more vivid at this time. Now we are all a lot more apathic about this. The end product in fact can be whatever it end up to be, it could be a stupid game at the end even if the designer wanted to make a realistic world right. But you still feel the internal structure, the design behind the persistant world or the game overall. It is pretty obvious, and self explanatory when playing a mmo. It is just not easy to explain because it underline the game.
And about SWG, i didn't play this game, but it sure had no luck. Internet had a boom just when WOW launched, and internet needed more than ever a simple but quiet effective mmo game rather than a complicated mmorpg, to attract the massive demand. So ye Wow got the crown because it was there at the right moment fithfulling the exact type of demand. SGW got trashed because it didn't and the Dev kind of accelareted the process thinking they could grab something more, but they just missed twice the mark i guess. Sometime being greedy doesn't help being rich really.
Sometimes it is things that you would not expect, like having one character per server, which forces you to relate to your specific character more and really feel like you are living in the world as well as make it so you are more likely to randomly bump into the same other players multiple times (because they aren't running alts).
The one character per server thing SWG had ended up making me completely not care about my character. Whenever I wanted to try something new in the game, I would have to change how my character worked which killed any 'personality' it developed. If SWG allowed alts on the same account I would have played it for much longer.
The problem with SWG was that while it might have been a 'virtual world' it was a very stagnant world. You figured out what you wanted to be, skilled up, built up your character to as close to your ideal as you could and then you were just sitting there, doing the same things over and over. The only way to try something new was to dismantle what you built before at which point you might as well move to a different game.
I think the concept of creating a virtual world is too strong an idea to be considered a pipe dream but in the last few years it has become clear that the mainstream market strongly prefers fun and easily accessible gameplay over immersion.
That doesn't mean the idea of virtual world MMOs is going to go away but I think you can draw comparisons with more established entertainment industries. Some people like to watch movies which take them on a thought-provoking journey but the majority just want to be entertained by the latest action blockbuster so that is where the big budgets go.
At the moment the economics of creating an MMO don't favour the virtual world idea but that may change in the future. If costs come down then we may start to see indy developers creating more virtual world MMOs using off the shelf game engines. Even if that doesn't happen it is likely that some AAA developer will revisit the concept once the rest of the market is saturated.
However, I don't see the virtual world MMO as being what defines the next generation of MMOs. Seems to me it is more of a niche subgenre than anything else.
Just to play devil's advocate here, could anyone make a case for why the older games were ever considered virtual worlds and why the newer games are not.
Wasn't EQ just a quest-less WoW with a ridiculous exp curve and forced grouping? Would you even want something like that these days? Would you play it? Its not like directionless gameplay and forced grouping are realistic. In the real world I always have direction (my boss tells me what to do like a quest giver) and I do most tasks alone rather than in a close knit group.
Could you (the old timers) even handle the monotony of UO's gameplay anymore? Last time I tried I made it about 3 days before quitting and that was 5 years ago. Most of us have no appreciation for the improvements in gameplay we have seen in the last decade.
What about UO made it more of a virtual world? They removed the dynamic ecosystem at release. It had a logical crafting system and placable houses, but other than that the day to day gameplay was quite tediuos and boring without a whole lot of immersion or variety.
Why can't you explore in WoW? Its a seamless open world with no artificial boundaries. Just because YOU choose to grind out quests and nothing more doesn't make it a problem with the game.
That is about SWG and some of the features that helped make it a great game (most of them are related to it being a virtual world). Sometimes it is things that you would not expect, like having one character per server, which forces you to relate to your specific character more and really feel like you are living in the world as well as make it so you are more likely to randomly bump into the same other players multiple times (because they aren't running alts). Social interaction played a really key role for me in SWG, because I was constantly interacting with other players, most of the time about things that had little to do with combat. Some of my favorite time was spent as a tailor, talking up rich jedis and helping them choose an outfit hoping for a big tip to pay for my expensive explorations (expensive because I died so much hah). Talking about it makes me feel almost light headed.
But theres a ton of different ways of going about creating a virtual world, and I don't know how UO did it for those players.
It talks about cantinas, trainers (you had to be trained in skills by other players, who often would become sort of mentors), quality PvP, skill trees instead of classes.
Thanks for trying to define what most people are just beating around the bush about. I think most people are just pounding their shields for something, yet they don't really know what that something is. It usually followed by big words that are used to fill in the gaps like "dynamic content", "virtual world", "adaptive AI" and other things that really have no meaning without a concise definition of mechanics and features.
In my own experience, the great nostalgic memories are of sitting around waiting for something to happen (a boat to arrive, the puller to get a MOB, some PK's to be spotted, whatever...). During that downtime you get to socialize. Newer games have reduced the downtime and therefore don't have the social moments anymore. Nowadays it would bore most of us to tears.
The other great moment was having a home. I think we all want a place to call home. Newer games either don't have homes or they are so removed from the game world that your home doesn't have a place anymore and is instead some detached space that is mostly meaningless. Newer games have too many players and not enough space for them all. The only way to allow player housing would be to make the game world so big that it would inevitably feel empty and barren. Having a vibrant dense and interesting world has become the standard. I don't know if players would accept a step backward in that regard just to make room for homes. Seen the latest Earthrise video? Looks empty and boring, right? Is having a home worth that?
I'm not in disagreement with the topic of the thread at all. I'm just playing devil's advocate here and trying to be realistic in our expectations. I'd love to see a developer take on some more of Richard Bartle's ideas. Balance the player types (meaning let the game appeal to all types rather than just one like most newer games are doing), and his genius idea of mixing a themepark game with player generated content and a sandbox end-game.
Games that are striving for a virtual world do exist, but they are not what the mainstream wants. As a result, small indie game companies are the only ones that will touch them - a major developer is not going to invest that kind of money for what will likely be a much smaller return than if they produce a mainstream game.
Games like Mortal Online, Xsyon, Dawntide, Perpetuum, and Archeage are actually virtual world games. They are out there, or are being developed.
Obviously, small developers have issues peculiar to them - to deny that is foolish. But, if you want to play a virtual world game, they are the only ones really making them.
I agree with you and the other poster that was talk
Well, not to turn this into a "Vanguard" thread, but very little of my noob gear came from quests. I bought it from players. A drop here and there.
Here's the thing (and getting back on topic)
What's happening is a product of both developers and players.
Developers are trying to find ways to make game play better. they add quests. Add drops, gear, etc. Then players start only doing quests for drops and gear and rewards. Developers see this and make them more compelling, expand the system.
The more they change these games the more players come and stay.
Of course they then make it so that quested gear is a bit better (as opposed to different) so then players put themselves on the quest/raiding treadmill to get this stuff. They then say how horrible the game is because they had to raid/quest over and over again to get geared up.
It's a never ending cycle.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Games that are striving for a virtual world do exist, but they are not what the mainstream wants. As a result, small indie game companies are the only ones that will touch them - a major developer is not going to invest that kind of money for what will likely be a much smaller return than if they produce a mainstream game.
Games like Mortal Online, Xsyon, Dawntide, Perpetuum, and Archeage are actually virtual world games. They are out there, or are being developed.
Obviously, small developers have issues peculiar to them - to deny that is foolish. But, if you want to play a virtual world game, they are the only ones really making them.
ArcheAge is not being made by a very small or low budget developer. It isn't massive, but around $25 million initial budget and a publishing deal putting it around $50-60 million in worth with a group of talented devs. No news on NA publisher yet, but I am sure it will make its way over eventually.
In the month of September 2010, a new contract was announced between XL Games and Tencent to publish the game in China. This generated much attention as it was worth from $50 to $60 million USD; making it the second largest deal recorded in Korean gaming exports, behind NCSoft's deal with Shanda for Aion.
Games that are striving for a virtual world do exist, but they are not what the mainstream wants. As a result, small indie game companies are the only ones that will touch them - a major developer is not going to invest that kind of money for what will likely be a much smaller return than if they produce a mainstream game.
Games like Mortal Online, Xsyon, Dawntide, Perpetuum, and Archeage are actually virtual world games. They are out there, or are being developed.
Obviously, small developers have issues peculiar to them - to deny that is foolish. But, if you want to play a virtual world game, they are the only ones really making them.
ArcheAge is not being made by a very small or low budget developer. It isn't massive, but around $25 million initial budget and a publishing deal putting it around $50-60 million in worth with a group of talented devs. No news on NA publisher yet, but I am sure it will make its way over eventually.
In the month of September 2010, a new contract was announced between XL Games and Tencent to publish the game in China. This generated much attention as it was worth from $50 to $60 million USD; making it the second largest deal recorded in Korean gaming exports, behind NCSoft's deal with Shanda for Aion.
True, it's not small, but it's also not coming from the West. It's probably a long way off, and its uncertain if it'll find its way to NA.
I hope it does make it to the West, though. It's look good.
Still, while the offerings of virtual world games are limited, they are there.
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.
The lack of diversity in MMORPGs may be a good thing these days. Makes a "Mass Extinction" easier to happen since they're practically all the same. And it's probably what this genre needs if you want a breath of fresh air.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
To be honest, the mainstream do not know what they want, all they know is that they want a fun game. And who can blamre them?, they know nothing of game design (That's the game designer's job after all).
What can those who are not designers do about it?, discuss specific features and ideas, pros and cons, there is no point in bashing on current games (That is pondering about the past).
So games are not what you want, how would you approach this problem? what system can you think up that might be a good start to build on?
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.
The lack of diversity in MMORPGs may be a good thing these days. Makes a "Mass Extinction" easier to happen since they're practically all the same. And it's probably what this genre needs if you want a breath of fresh air.
What I expect to happen is that the major game producers will stop making MMORPGs as we know them, altogether. The existing ones will ride their own wave and mostly slow down as gamers drop off over time.
Nothing new or different will come into this general genre. Those companies just don't have what it takes to do that, all they know is Single Player Games, with Multi-Player finctionality. Indies still won't have the funds to do anything.
You can already see it coming. Gaming companies are moving to the Facebook crowd, and simplistic mini-games as games.
That is about SWG and some of the features that helped make it a great game (most of them are related to it being a virtual world). Sometimes it is things that you would not expect, like having one character per server, which forces you to relate to your specific character more and really feel like you are living in the world as well as make it so you are more likely to randomly bump into the same other players multiple times (because they aren't running alts). Social interaction played a really key role for me in SWG, because I was constantly interacting with other players, most of the time about things that had little to do with combat. Some of my favorite time was spent as a tailor, talking up rich jedis and helping them choose an outfit hoping for a big tip to pay for my expensive explorations (expensive because I died so much hah). Talking about it makes me feel almost light headed.
But theres a ton of different ways of going about creating a virtual world, and I don't know how UO did it for those players.
It talks about cantinas, trainers (you had to be trained in skills by other players, who often would become sort of mentors), quality PvP, skill trees instead of classes.
Thanks for trying to define what most people are just beating around the bush about. I think most people are just pounding their shields for something, yet they don't really know what that something is. It usually followed by big words that are used to fill in the gaps like "dynamic content", "virtual world", "adaptive AI" and other things that really have no meaning without a concise definition of mechanics and features.
In my own experience, the great nostalgic memories are of sitting around waiting for something to happen (a boat to arrive, the puller to get a MOB, some PK's to be spotted, whatever...). During that downtime you get to socialize. Newer games have reduced the downtime and therefore don't have the social moments anymore. Nowadays it would bore most of us to tears.
The other great moment was having a home. I think we all want a place to call home. Newer games either don't have homes or they are so removed from the game world that your home doesn't have a place anymore and is instead some detached space that is mostly meaningless. Newer games have too many players and not enough space for them all. The only way to allow player housing would be to make the game world so big that it would inevitably feel empty and barren. Having a vibrant dense and interesting world has become the standard. I don't know if players would accept a step backward in that regard just to make room for homes. Seen the latest Earthrise video? Looks empty and boring, right? Is having a home worth that?
I'm not in disagreement with the topic of the thread at all. I'm just playing devil's advocate here and trying to be realistic in our expectations. I'd love to see a developer take on some more of Richard Bartle's ideas. Balance the player types (meaning let the game appeal to all types rather than just one like most newer games are doing), and his genius idea of mixing a themepark game with player generated content and a sandbox end-game.
Well in my opinion I dont think virtual worlds has neccessarily anything to do with MMORPGs. What it means to me, is simply a world where you are not bound by artifical boundaries created by the devs such as levels and classes or the gaming areas being designed in such a way that place A is for levels 1-10, place B for levels 11-20 and so on. Nor are gears restricted to the artifical level requirement.
Instead a world is created that is similar in dynamics to a real world, where your skills is what you make of it. I.e. how well you can handle a sword is defined by how skillful you are in swordmanship and if you are not skillfull enough it does not matter what kind of sword you are using.
Mobs are not herded into small squares, waiting to be killed by a specific level range but rather they live in the world, move and go on with their own agendas. In PvP these "mobs" would be other PCs.
There are no identical private instances where resources, such as mobs, are private but rather it is persistant and shared between all on the same server so you would have to fight over them, just like nations have fought and are still fighting over natural resources.
The world is dynamic and actions that take place in one place can have profound effects somewhere else. A.k.a the butterfly effect in chaos theory.
When you start your life in such a world you are nothing more than anyone else and just like in real world, not everyone can be the best and not everyone can be the hero but rather what you achieve will decide who is loser, winner or in between.
Such an extremely complex game does ofcourse not exist but I saw a glimpse of it when the first major MMORPGs were released, specifically Asheron Call and Ultima Online but it seems their attempts are now all but abandoned projects with each year the game with the most budgets are glorified WoW clones and only fraction of the development money are going into virtual worlds projects which in effect means that they will most likely never be fully developed virtual worlds because the complexity of such an endevour is extreme and require alot of money and talent.
And with regards to being "realistic". If you are being "realistic" you will never break boundaries because only when you try to do the impossible is when true evolution occurs. Think big and big things may happen, think small and it will for sure never happen.
Finally, a great quote from Einstein: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Not sure if the industry is expecting different results, but they sure are doing the same thing over and over again and then wondering why they are not getting the sub numbers of WoW?
Comments
This ^. The MMORPG community's rejection and subsequent failure of Vanguard is really what started this dark age. The failure of Vanguard pretty much killed the massive world style games for good. This insured nothing but WoW clones would be made for the forseeable future.
Most players aren't like you though, although I am.
I agree the linear concept is dying and people are hoping for more. They are looking forward to more as in, GW2 though, not as in what we are hoping for. Or as in SW:TOR, because look guys it has cinematic cut scenes with voices! Way cool! So much better than WoW!
WoW subs have been declining for a while now probably. They should have started merging servers A LONG TIME AGO in my opinion, theres a ton of empty zones now in WoW. Everyone's moved into the instances. It is very clear that its in a late-stage of life. Its a typical thing to happen though, it has happened to every MMO. WoW will probably be the most successful mmorpg for decades to come (relative to its market).
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
Just to play devil's advocate here, could anyone make a case for why the older games were ever considered virtual worlds and why the newer games are not.
Wasn't EQ just a quest-less WoW with a ridiculous exp curve and forced grouping? Would you even want something like that these days? Would you play it? Its not like directionless gameplay and forced grouping are realistic. In the real world I always have direction (my boss tells me what to do like a quest giver) and I do most tasks alone rather than in a close knit group.
Could you (the old timers) even handle the monotony of UO's gameplay anymore? Last time I tried I made it about 3 days before quitting and that was 5 years ago. Most of us have no appreciation for the improvements in gameplay we have seen in the last decade.
What about UO made it more of a virtual world? They removed the dynamic ecosystem at release. It had a logical crafting system and placable houses, but other than that the day to day gameplay was quite tediuos and boring without a whole lot of immersion or variety.
Why can't you explore in WoW? Its a seamless open world with no artificial boundaries. Just because YOU choose to grind out quests and nothing more doesn't make it a problem with the game.
Im a dinosaur myself , and still have a 12 year UO Vet account , that i keep active but dont play , EA detroyed RG Virtual world..And yes things do look a lil bleak for gamers looking for a World to play , I am currently in FAllen Earth and it really is a great Virtual World so far very immersive and the journey has been really immersive , at lvl 18 i am really just takin my time and soaking up all this great World has to offer..
And yes things do look a lil bleak , i dont think we are hurting as gamers because of it , we do have many options ...
Devs that have stuck to there vision do have success and really bring some of the best experiences to gaming for us ...
CCP with Eve is one example , great game , a harsh world for sure , and for those folks who enjoy that setting its second to none....
Icarus Ent with Fallen Earth , brings really the only game to the table where you really feel the need to survive , Everyday brings challenges where learning and molding your toon become paramount in a truly post apocolyptic world.....
Cornered Rat with WW2 online , another truly epic feel to a game and setting that is second to none...
Aventurine with Darkfall have carved out there corner of the world with there vision of a warring fantasy world.....
All examples of Devs that are doing it for the love of the game, of building a world that lives and breathes for you, to live or die in , true artists that believe in there vision , and all have success with it..
Like many of the original groundbreakers created this genre, Garriot and Long with UO wanted to create a world to mold "your story" or Brad McQuaid with EQ remember "You are in our World Now " slogan , and you were, it was a dream a vision of love for these guys, a true adventure for them just building it im sure,And Turbine with AC , we were all just blown away by this living World to discover ,explore and die in ..
But in contrast now Sony slogan is "We are in your Wallet Now" and EA has shredded Britannia from Garriots vision for the dollar, And Turbine is now a debunked bride cashier of the item shop for Warner Bros..
Theme park games have a much easier time borkin there Lore, most are not run by artists with a true vision , they are run by the corporate conglmerate that will bend your mothers lore if it will make them a dollar..
It's an interesting discussion the OP has started. I wonder how many of us self-identified "old schoolers" play Minecraft for example (I know I do)? Extremely basic graphics, but more sandbox than anything else out there, and sheer joy to some of us, while to others it's just pixellated lego. But it is very much a world in which you make your own stories, and everyone who has played for any length of time has plenty of those to tell. It has done very very well for Notch too....if there is any sort of grass-roots movement afoot, Minecraft is a great mascot for it.
I'm with the earlier poster who said it used to be about the journey (and not being literal about travel times here!), and a journey that could be unique to each player. In the majority of today's games there's this massive rush to "endgame" and nobody ever stops to smell the metaphorical flowers on the way. I'm not saying you can't play newer games the old way (I have always played FE that way, seems to lend itself to it) but the majority of players don't/won't/will tell you they don't have "time". It's all about hitting cap asap, feeling leet and uber, and ignoring the fact that there's a heck of a lot of game they missed. Oh, and complaining that there's "nothing to do".
I was disappointed by Rift only having two starter zones (even WoW has increased the number of starter zones with Cata, so having them must be a good thing....) but then I started thinking about it and realised if the current "average" player is just going to blast through these zones.....why invest in having one for each race? Trion probably figured they could better spend their money elsewhere. And that, more than any recital of my gaming history, is what has me feeling like a dinosaur these days. I don't seem to be part of the "target market", and I would have expected that to be because I'm (a) too darn old or (b) female, and not because the majority seem to want linear, tab-targeting, gcd-driven, themepark, on-rails experiences, with a twist or two. Because it sure seems that's what the market research folks are advising game companies to make.
When it comes to MMOs, the wheel has been invented and reinvented til it's a faded last-sheet carbon-copy of what it once was. Screw the wheel, I'm waiting for the game that becomes the internal combustion engine for the genre.
Pipe dream? Probably.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Star-Wars-Galaxies:-Best-MMORPG-Ever&id=5352331
That is about SWG and some of the features that helped make it a great game (most of them are related to it being a virtual world). Sometimes it is things that you would not expect, like having one character per server, which forces you to relate to your specific character more and really feel like you are living in the world as well as make it so you are more likely to randomly bump into the same other players multiple times (because they aren't running alts). Social interaction played a really key role for me in SWG, because I was constantly interacting with other players, most of the time about things that had little to do with combat. Some of my favorite time was spent as a tailor, talking up rich jedis and helping them choose an outfit hoping for a big tip to pay for my expensive explorations (expensive because I died so much hah). Talking about it makes me feel almost light headed.
But theres a ton of different ways of going about creating a virtual world, and I don't know how UO did it for those players.
Heres another article about it:
http://gamerlimit.com/2010/01/editorial-what-star-wars-galaxies-did-right/
It talks about cantinas, trainers (you had to be trained in skills by other players, who often would become sort of mentors), quality PvP, skill trees instead of classes.
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
I think you're missing the point.
Vanguards failure had nothing to do with the massive world style.
We haven't seen a properly funded, properly developed, finished and polished fantasy virtual world MMO yet. I absolutely think it's possible but someone has to pony up the money. If you build it, they will come.
I wouldn't say it's dead or a pipe dream. All it takes is one developer/producer to attack the market for these games properly. Keep an eye on ArcheAge and World of Darkness.
http://www.aaportal.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=77⟨=en
http://www.aaportal.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51%3Aobzor&catid=34%3A2010-11-20-11-57-56&Itemid=72&lang=en
The thing people talking like "you" (its not personal right) don't seam to understand is that it is not about the game itself. It is about what philosophy, or state of mind the designesr had making their game. Definitly R.G tryed to make a virtual world, there is no argument about this, i could even got some quote from him stating this if needed. Sure the game failed in many domain, but the intention was there, and it was very strong. Also i think the all dream of being able to create a virtual world was a lot more vivid at this time. Now we are all a lot more apathic about this. The end product in fact can be whatever it end up to be, it could be a stupid game at the end even if the designer wanted to make a realistic world right. But you still feel the internal structure, the design behind the persistant world or the game overall. It is pretty obvious, and self explanatory when playing a mmo. It is just not easy to explain because it underline the game.
And about SWG, i didn't play this game, but it sure had no luck. Internet had a boom just when WOW launched, and internet needed more than ever a simple but quiet effective mmo game rather than a complicated mmorpg, to attract the massive demand. So ye Wow got the crown because it was there at the right moment fithfulling the exact type of demand. SGW got trashed because it didn't and the Dev kind of accelareted the process thinking they could grab something more, but they just missed twice the mark i guess. Sometime being greedy doesn't help being rich really.
The one character per server thing SWG had ended up making me completely not care about my character. Whenever I wanted to try something new in the game, I would have to change how my character worked which killed any 'personality' it developed. If SWG allowed alts on the same account I would have played it for much longer.
The problem with SWG was that while it might have been a 'virtual world' it was a very stagnant world. You figured out what you wanted to be, skilled up, built up your character to as close to your ideal as you could and then you were just sitting there, doing the same things over and over. The only way to try something new was to dismantle what you built before at which point you might as well move to a different game.
I think the concept of creating a virtual world is too strong an idea to be considered a pipe dream but in the last few years it has become clear that the mainstream market strongly prefers fun and easily accessible gameplay over immersion.
That doesn't mean the idea of virtual world MMOs is going to go away but I think you can draw comparisons with more established entertainment industries. Some people like to watch movies which take them on a thought-provoking journey but the majority just want to be entertained by the latest action blockbuster so that is where the big budgets go.
At the moment the economics of creating an MMO don't favour the virtual world idea but that may change in the future. If costs come down then we may start to see indy developers creating more virtual world MMOs using off the shelf game engines. Even if that doesn't happen it is likely that some AAA developer will revisit the concept once the rest of the market is saturated.
However, I don't see the virtual world MMO as being what defines the next generation of MMOs. Seems to me it is more of a niche subgenre than anything else.
Thanks for trying to define what most people are just beating around the bush about. I think most people are just pounding their shields for something, yet they don't really know what that something is. It usually followed by big words that are used to fill in the gaps like "dynamic content", "virtual world", "adaptive AI" and other things that really have no meaning without a concise definition of mechanics and features.
In my own experience, the great nostalgic memories are of sitting around waiting for something to happen (a boat to arrive, the puller to get a MOB, some PK's to be spotted, whatever...). During that downtime you get to socialize. Newer games have reduced the downtime and therefore don't have the social moments anymore. Nowadays it would bore most of us to tears.
The other great moment was having a home. I think we all want a place to call home. Newer games either don't have homes or they are so removed from the game world that your home doesn't have a place anymore and is instead some detached space that is mostly meaningless. Newer games have too many players and not enough space for them all. The only way to allow player housing would be to make the game world so big that it would inevitably feel empty and barren. Having a vibrant dense and interesting world has become the standard. I don't know if players would accept a step backward in that regard just to make room for homes. Seen the latest Earthrise video? Looks empty and boring, right? Is having a home worth that?
I'm not in disagreement with the topic of the thread at all. I'm just playing devil's advocate here and trying to be realistic in our expectations. I'd love to see a developer take on some more of Richard Bartle's ideas. Balance the player types (meaning let the game appeal to all types rather than just one like most newer games are doing), and his genius idea of mixing a themepark game with player generated content and a sandbox end-game.
Games that are striving for a virtual world do exist, but they are not what the mainstream wants. As a result, small indie game companies are the only ones that will touch them - a major developer is not going to invest that kind of money for what will likely be a much smaller return than if they produce a mainstream game.
Games like Mortal Online, Xsyon, Dawntide, Perpetuum, and Archeage are actually virtual world games. They are out there, or are being developed.
Obviously, small developers have issues peculiar to them - to deny that is foolish. But, if you want to play a virtual world game, they are the only ones really making them.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
Well, not to turn this into a "Vanguard" thread, but very little of my noob gear came from quests. I bought it from players. A drop here and there.
Here's the thing (and getting back on topic)
What's happening is a product of both developers and players.
Developers are trying to find ways to make game play better. they add quests. Add drops, gear, etc. Then players start only doing quests for drops and gear and rewards. Developers see this and make them more compelling, expand the system.
The more they change these games the more players come and stay.
Of course they then make it so that quested gear is a bit better (as opposed to different) so then players put themselves on the quest/raiding treadmill to get this stuff. They then say how horrible the game is because they had to raid/quest over and over again to get geared up.
It's a never ending cycle.
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
ArcheAge is not being made by a very small or low budget developer. It isn't massive, but around $25 million initial budget and a publishing deal putting it around $50-60 million in worth with a group of talented devs. No news on NA publisher yet, but I am sure it will make its way over eventually.
In the month of September 2010, a new contract was announced between XL Games and Tencent to publish the game in China. This generated much attention as it was worth from $50 to $60 million USD; making it the second largest deal recorded in Korean gaming exports, behind NCSoft's deal with Shanda for Aion.
True, it's not small, but it's also not coming from the West. It's probably a long way off, and its uncertain if it'll find its way to NA.
I hope it does make it to the West, though. It's look good.
Still, while the offerings of virtual world games are limited, they are there.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
The lack of diversity in MMORPGs may be a good thing these days. Makes a "Mass Extinction" easier to happen since they're practically all the same. And it's probably what this genre needs if you want a breath of fresh air.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
To be honest, the mainstream do not know what they want, all they know is that they want a fun game. And who can blamre them?, they know nothing of game design (That's the game designer's job after all).
What can those who are not designers do about it?, discuss specific features and ideas, pros and cons, there is no point in bashing on current games (That is pondering about the past).
So games are not what you want, how would you approach this problem? what system can you think up that might be a good start to build on?
What I expect to happen is that the major game producers will stop making MMORPGs as we know them, altogether. The existing ones will ride their own wave and mostly slow down as gamers drop off over time.
Nothing new or different will come into this general genre. Those companies just don't have what it takes to do that, all they know is Single Player Games, with Multi-Player finctionality. Indies still won't have the funds to do anything.
You can already see it coming. Gaming companies are moving to the Facebook crowd, and simplistic mini-games as games.
Once upon a time....
Well in my opinion I dont think virtual worlds has neccessarily anything to do with MMORPGs. What it means to me, is simply a world where you are not bound by artifical boundaries created by the devs such as levels and classes or the gaming areas being designed in such a way that place A is for levels 1-10, place B for levels 11-20 and so on. Nor are gears restricted to the artifical level requirement.
Instead a world is created that is similar in dynamics to a real world, where your skills is what you make of it. I.e. how well you can handle a sword is defined by how skillful you are in swordmanship and if you are not skillfull enough it does not matter what kind of sword you are using.
Mobs are not herded into small squares, waiting to be killed by a specific level range but rather they live in the world, move and go on with their own agendas. In PvP these "mobs" would be other PCs.
There are no identical private instances where resources, such as mobs, are private but rather it is persistant and shared between all on the same server so you would have to fight over them, just like nations have fought and are still fighting over natural resources.
The world is dynamic and actions that take place in one place can have profound effects somewhere else. A.k.a the butterfly effect in chaos theory.
When you start your life in such a world you are nothing more than anyone else and just like in real world, not everyone can be the best and not everyone can be the hero but rather what you achieve will decide who is loser, winner or in between.
Such an extremely complex game does ofcourse not exist but I saw a glimpse of it when the first major MMORPGs were released, specifically Asheron Call and Ultima Online but it seems their attempts are now all but abandoned projects with each year the game with the most budgets are glorified WoW clones and only fraction of the development money are going into virtual worlds projects which in effect means that they will most likely never be fully developed virtual worlds because the complexity of such an endevour is extreme and require alot of money and talent.
And with regards to being "realistic". If you are being "realistic" you will never break boundaries because only when you try to do the impossible is when true evolution occurs. Think big and big things may happen, think small and it will for sure never happen.
Finally, a great quote from Einstein: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Not sure if the industry is expecting different results, but they sure are doing the same thing over and over again and then wondering why they are not getting the sub numbers of WoW?
My gaming blog