just wanted to add that only in the West our servers can support most to 5000players while in the East well im not sure about the exact number but its much higher then 5k
to be fair in the East the grand majority of mmo player use much faster internet connections then in the West. i'm especially talking about Korea where the internet infrustructure it's incredibly more sophisticated then most of the US.
yes i agree with you on that, i think Japan has the fastest internet in the world and then SK china and other asian countries not all of them of course! but its not just there internet thats more advance i have a friend that just came back from SK and he says everything there is done electronically, Japan, SK, China are much more advance then the western countries in general! Tho going back to the point of the forum ill say this to the OP the best thing to do is wait for archeage to come as its suppose to be the 3rd generation MMO it will basically give you the freedom to do whatever you want, look it up online if you didnt hear about it
Yeah I have looked Archeage up before. It definietly looks promising. But we won't know if it delivers on these promises until it's released.
I remain optimistic, but skeptical. I have been fooled plenty of times by promises that publishers make prior to release.
I agree with the OP. When playing any of these games, there is no way to forget even for one second that you are playing a game. The world is not believable even in the slightest. Good games (and books for that matter even ones with fantastical premises) have one thing in common- the environment is believable even though it isn't real. Believable environments lead to believable characters and interesting events. I think most MMOs should drop the pretense of being a virtual world.
There are several problems that if addressed would lead to more immersion and living worlds:
1) Characters have no needs- they dont need to eat or drink or sleep. This impacts a huge range of activities. These worlds dont really need farmers or homes. Therefore, the only 'professions' available revolve around klling things. I say give players the ability to have multiple characters including more mundane professions.
2) The econmy in most games is ridiculous. Without needs, the only economy comes from trading weapons, armor and magic items. I believe games need a simulated and realistic NPC economy that operates on its own which leads to the next point.
3) Where are all the other people in the world? 5k players dont represent even a small fraction of any world even one that is based of medieval times. Developers should look to create an interesting world first and then add the players to that world. Great numbers of NPCs do not need to be graphically represented, however, their activities should be taken into account for military, economic and political purposes. This would also allow a poltical system to develop where the strongest players are not necessarily the greatest warriors but rather the wealthiest and most politically connected.
4) There are no consequences for anything. There is no death, no permanent injuries and everyone will reach max level if they play long enough. Characters should be able to die, towns destroyed etc. However, this should be made as hard as possible. If players want to PK for whatever reason, they should risk being caught and executed. Kingdoms who want to take territory should have to hire and train an army and pay for it.
IMO, MMOs need both an RPG element and multiple strategy elements to become living worlds. Sadly, these are both missing in the current crop of games. These games are nothing more than combat simulators with chat rooms.
I think the biggest thing slowing down the development of new things in MMOs is technology. In order to do things like have monsters running around doing there own thing, there has to be a very long code to do that. This takes resources away from things that others might seem more critical to an MMO. Things like stability take a higher priority to developers, for good reason. Who wants to play a game that has an awesome AI, but crashes the server all the time. Servers can only do so much, and unfortunately (or not) our tastes for games has grown to where if one thing is wrong with a game, alot of people won't even touch it.
People like to come out and complain about 1 single issue and blast it across the internet in blogs, forums, chats, e-mails, facebook, etc. The fact that 1 person can affect so many people's decision whether to play or not is kinda scary to me. Unfortunately, there aren't as many people that will say good things about MMOs (and yes new MMOs have alot of good points to them that old ones didn't). For one, it doesn't take years to level up or finish a quest. I can remember playing DAoC, and almost quitting at level 49 because it was just so much experience to gain for 1 level. Luckily I had a guild to help me. Newer MMOs don't have tight-knit communities anymore. This can be expected just due to the masses that have joined in the past 5 years. However, the communication and UI systems in modern MMOs are things you could only dream of back in the day.
I guess the whole point of this post is that if your server has a capacity of let's say 100 units (not players just for resources). Companies aren't willing to handicap populations, stability, etc. for lets say 20 units just to have monsters with intricate UI. That would be 20% less population, 20% stability, 20% less income, 20% more downtime, or 20% from somewhere. Which just isn't feasible for business.
How about 20% less static quests? Hell, make that 100% less static quests and give me another 80% of great world.
Heh, I know that wouldn't work out that way. Just had to point towards a point, ya know?
It seems like many Developers just don't think that things that add "soul" to a game like cities, landmarks and player-created content are important anymore. Instead, they just focus on game mechanics, but I think this winds up being a losing strategy. I wondered for a time if my preference for games that more lifelike worlds/culture was a dying breed in the industry, but then I play a game like Portal 2 and I realize that players DO like games that have a lot of character.
There is a technical issue.
It is much harder to create player created content in a 3d environment than the 2d environment of UO.
You can have those things, if you want to go back to play a 2d game.
Let's say I can build a house anywhere.
In a 2d game, it takes up some resources, but not that much. It's just a picture of a house that has to be downloaded and displayed.
In a 3d game, that house has to be displayed as a 3d model to all players within range to see it. It has to load, because it's not part of the game that was already built and on the DVD you installed. And you have to reload the scene, in 3d, everytime there is a change.
And it gets more and more difficult the more you have to load.
Instead of one house, thousands of 3d houses....
I don't think anyone has cracked that nut yet so that it's doable on the same scale as UO in 3d.
The game would be logging in and waiting for everything to load so you could see all the changes.
By the time it was all loaded, you'd need to load again to see all the new changes...
Remembe the last time you installed an MMORPG?
It'd be kinda like that every time you played the game.
That's not quite right, I don't think. The textures and model for the "player built" house could already be part of the client. The server would just have to notify the client that this preexisting model now existed at this location within the game world. The client would then render it in the proper location. I believe that it would require very little server to client communication if done in that manner. Now if we're talking about player creating textures and models, then building a unique house or other building, that's going to be a different story and is probably not feasible.
Why can't MMORPGs embrace this kind of development? Do you think that developers should once again focus on giving their games character and spirit?
Character and spirit are not as feasible for an MMORPG because it's goal is to keep the person paying the monthly fees. This requires vast amounts of content in conjunction with several systems of virtual skinner boxes. Eventually the character and spirit of an environment die off no matter what you do, and the user needs something new to do or something to work for. Not even Blizzard with their millions in cash flow can create enough content to retain enough people - they too must rely on mindless things to grind on to force the populace to "play" for longer and longer. Portal is great, but is completely different from the MMORPG repetetiveness of spending hundreds of hours "advancing" your character.
When an MMO lacks character and spirit, then the fact that it's nothing more than a virtual skinner box becomes extremely transparent. When us mice can see the skinner box for what it is, we quickly tire of it and move on.
That's why I personally get so tired of new MMOs so quickly, because the developers aren't even trying to give the game any atmosphere that doesn't feel as artificial as biting down on a rubber steak chew toy. They're focusing too much on the 'addictiveness', and not paying enough attention to actually making an actual enjoyable gamepaly experience with substance and atmosphere.
I don't mind that MMOs are skinner boxes. I go into the game to play (have recreational activity) with other players.
For me, community is #1. Everything else is just window-dressing.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
It seems like many Developers just don't think that things that add "soul" to a game like cities, landmarks and player-created content are important anymore. Instead, they just focus on game mechanics, but I think this winds up being a losing strategy. I wondered for a time if my preference for games that more lifelike worlds/culture was a dying breed in the industry, but then I play a game like Portal 2 and I realize that players DO like games that have a lot of character.
There is a technical issue.
It is much harder to create player created content in a 3d environment than the 2d environment of UO.
You can have those things, if you want to go back to play a 2d game.
Let's say I can build a house anywhere.
In a 2d game, it takes up some resources, but not that much. It's just a picture of a house that has to be downloaded and displayed.
In a 3d game, that house has to be displayed as a 3d model to all players within range to see it. It has to load, because it's not part of the game that was already built and on the DVD you installed. And you have to reload the scene, in 3d, everytime there is a change.
And it gets more and more difficult the more you have to load.
Instead of one house, thousands of 3d houses....
I don't think anyone has cracked that nut yet so that it's doable on the same scale as UO in 3d.
The game would be logging in and waiting for everything to load so you could see all the changes.
By the time it was all loaded, you'd need to load again to see all the new changes...
Remembe the last time you installed an MMORPG?
It'd be kinda like that every time you played the game.
That's not quite right, I don't think. The textures and model for the "player built" house could already be part of the client. The server would just have to notify the client that this preexisting model now existed at this location within the game world. The client would then render it in the proper location. I believe that it would require very little server to client communication if done in that manner. Now if we're talking about player creating textures and models, then building a unique house or other building, that's going to be a different story and is probably not feasible.
Even that, the game could treat it like most do with mountains in the distance, and start with gray walls (at a closer distance, of course). Then fill in details as you move closer. Ranging details for more detailed work, building the system around that.
It seems like many Developers just don't think that things that add "soul" to a game like cities, landmarks and player-created content are important anymore. Instead, they just focus on game mechanics, but I think this winds up being a losing strategy. I wondered for a time if my preference for games that more lifelike worlds/culture was a dying breed in the industry, but then I play a game like Portal 2 and I realize that players DO like games that have a lot of character.
There is a technical issue.
It is much harder to create player created content in a 3d environment than the 2d environment of UO.
You can have those things, if you want to go back to play a 2d game.
Let's say I can build a house anywhere.
In a 2d game, it takes up some resources, but not that much. It's just a picture of a house that has to be downloaded and displayed.
In a 3d game, that house has to be displayed as a 3d model to all players within range to see it. It has to load, because it's not part of the game that was already built and on the DVD you installed. And you have to reload the scene, in 3d, everytime there is a change.
And it gets more and more difficult the more you have to load.
Instead of one house, thousands of 3d houses....
I don't think anyone has cracked that nut yet so that it's doable on the same scale as UO in 3d.
The game would be logging in and waiting for everything to load so you could see all the changes.
By the time it was all loaded, you'd need to load again to see all the new changes...
Remembe the last time you installed an MMORPG?
It'd be kinda like that every time you played the game.
That's not quite right, I don't think. The textures and model for the "player built" house could already be part of the client. The server would just have to notify the client that this preexisting model now existed at this location within the game world. The client would then render it in the proper location. I believe that it would require very little server to client communication if done in that manner. Now if we're talking about player creating textures and models, then building a unique house or other building, that's going to be a different story and is probably not feasible.
Even that, the game could treat it like most do with mountains in the distance, and start with gray walls (at a closer distance, of course). Then fill in details as you move closer. Ranging details for more detailed work, building the system around that.
That's how most 3D render applications work, particularly for games. The further away a 3D object is, it will render with a lower polygon count model and lower resolution texture. The closer you get, the model is replaced with a higher quality version of the same model and a higher resolution texture.
There's nothing stopping non-instanced housing from being in a 3D perspective MMO. In fact, Star Wars Galaxies had absolutely zero technical issues regarding non-instanced player housing in a 3D perspective MMO, and that tech is 7-8 years old.
How could it be otherwise really, they have a super winning formula: buy an engine, make a nice map, create some nice looking races with generic class and nice names, generate zillion spawn without any structure behind it with copy cat mobs with different colors, create a super basic AI like melle or ranged ai, put a huge amount of npc with fed ex quest. Launch the game and grab the money. Needless to say you don't even need to polish since mmos are in perpetual development right so you can deal with this later
Granted, but there are plenty of ways to add character to a game without having player created houses/content. I thought that EQ did a good job of this by adding all of the unique cities. Other ways I think developers could add character are:
1. More dynamic MOBs that don't just stand around.
2. More unique MOBs. When games used cliched MOBs over and over again it can get tiring.
3. Infusing a UNIQUE "style" into all aspects of the game. For example, pick a style for your game and make sure that all of your art really embraces that style. It looks like GW2 is doing this. Picking "generic fantasy" as a style simply isn't enough anymore.
4. Abilities/spells that don't have any combat purpose but are just "fun" to use. UO and EQ both had a lot of spells like this, like minor illusion in EQ that let you turn yourself into an item, and polymorph in UO that let you turn into a myriad of different creatures.
5. WORLD INTERACTIVITY. Most MMORPGs have very little world interactivity nowadays and it feels like you are walking through a painting most of the time. You're lucky if you can open doors in most modern MMORPGs, let alone do things like use a chess board to play chess, write in a book, etc. etc.
Granted that there are many MMORPGs do have some of these features, but my issue is that they are getting de-emphasized more and more as time goes on.
Finally, I would love player generated content in a 3d game but I realize there are technical limitations. Then again, I think that there are many things in game development that are "impossible" until someone does them . Hopefully the developers of Archeage will be this someone.
I know exactly what you're referring to here and could add further examples, but for lack of time (on lunch break, gotta head back soon).
But one example...
Race and/or Culture specific details such as unique language (I know in EQ2 you had to learn other races' languages, or else what they said was indecipherable). If that sounds "useless" to someone reading this, then you are clearly not the type of person to appreciate such things. To someone who appreciates and enjoys that kind of depth and attention to detail, it's a great thing.
Back in the games you refer to, such details were considered to bring more depth and detail to the world. These days, with the way many newer MMO players are, it would be considered "a useless grind" because it doesn't help them get to level cap any faster.
I think that's a big part of it... Players have increasingly developed tunnel-vision about their gameplay. What are the most common things you see discussed or asked when it comes to MMORPGs? "How fast can you get to level cap?", "What's the fastest way to get to level cap?", "What's the best class to play to get into parties so I can get to level cap faster, and then get into raids?", "What's the best build for "x" class, so I can solo to level cap?", "How quickly can you become viable in end-game PvP?", "What's the end-game like and how long does it take to get there?"... and so on.
If anything in a game doesn't fall within the very narrow parameter of "Must help me get to level-cap/end-game faster", many people simply aren't interested and would prefer it not even be in the game at all.
More so, if it's something that they're required to partake in, in order to unlock or obtain something that they want... but it doesn't help them level any faster... you see a deluge of complaints on various forums about it.
Sadly, those folks do seem to out-number those of us who better appreciate partaking in a massive and deep virtual world.. They certainly have the loudest voices. So.. they are the ones most newer MMO devs listen to, ever chasing the $$$ and trying to ride Blizzard's coat-tails.
At the same time, you see more and more people complaining of how boring, shallow and uninteresting the games are becoming... Ironically, many of them are the same ones calling for the elimination of "useless content" and demanding faster leveling, more end-game focus, etc.
The games have become more and more one-dimensional because, frankly, that's what more and more vocal players have been demanding... though they'd never accept it as such.
Cause and Effect, I'd say.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Granted, but there are plenty of ways to add character to a game without having player created houses/content. I thought that EQ did a good job of this by adding all of the unique cities. Other ways I think developers could add character are:
1. More dynamic MOBs that don't just stand around.
2. More unique MOBs. When games used cliched MOBs over and over again it can get tiring.
3. Infusing a UNIQUE "style" into all aspects of the game. For example, pick a style for your game and make sure that all of your art really embraces that style. It looks like GW2 is doing this. Picking "generic fantasy" as a style simply isn't enough anymore.
4. Abilities/spells that don't have any combat purpose but are just "fun" to use. UO and EQ both had a lot of spells like this, like minor illusion in EQ that let you turn yourself into an item, and polymorph in UO that let you turn into a myriad of different creatures.
5. WORLD INTERACTIVITY. Most MMORPGs have very little world interactivity nowadays and it feels like you are walking through a painting most of the time. You're lucky if you can open doors in most modern MMORPGs, let alone do things like use a chess board to play chess, write in a book, etc. etc.
Granted that there are many MMORPGs do have some of these features, but my issue is that they are getting de-emphasized more and more as time goes on.
Finally, I would love player generated content in a 3d game but I realize there are technical limitations. Then again, I think that there are many things in game development that are "impossible" until someone does them . Hopefully the developers of Archeage will be this someone.
Totally agreed, except on your final point. CPUs and GPUs are at a performance level that "technical limitations" are just no longer any kind of an excuse. Processor power is no longer a limitation, only development time.
The big issue, in my mind, is that developers have not realized that it's not the "meat" of the game, it's the "sauce". They're like sandwich shop owners who advertise long and loud about having the best bread and the best meat, but don't offer any toppings on the sandwich, and then wonder where the customers are.
I think World of Warcraft's secret is in the "sauce". I haven't played any online game that has as much content not directly related to core gameplay. Yes, WoW is saddled with static NPCs and too many semi-static generic mobs; but it also has an incredible range of environments, costumes, pets, mounts, critters, furniture, readable books, fireworks, crazy gadgets, holidays, etc., etc. Recent competitors like Warhammer and Rift have nearly zero comparable content. And they wonder why they can't compete with WoW?
I think the solution to the problem is simple: design "living" worlds with more active content from the ground up. Gear/level grinds can always be added afterward. From a programming perspective, a lot of triggers and a very flexible code would enable very dynamic content (one of the secrets to Blizzard's success has certainly been its extremely powerful meta-programming systems that allow for developing custom content very quickly).
Two things I would add:
Developers have to let go of insisting on ensuring that every player can experience very encounter. That is absolutely hobbling dynamic content by keeping it limited to instance encounters and phased encounters. Making dynamic encounters fully open-world will really add to the feel of a "living" world while making those encounters more special.
Developers also need to let go of the severe fear of negative and/or permanent consequences. Death penalties are laughable and player decisions have no permanent consequences after the character design screen. That ruins the immersion and again eliminates the reward of making difficult decisions. Players have been complaining since forever that their actions have no permanent effect on the game; developers have insisted that there are programming limitations, but I think the real limitation is a reluctance to allow the players the ability to permanently change the game. Taht needs to change.
I think that most of the praise for EQ is just nostalgia talking. Compared to a game like Portal 2 where an incredible amount of deliberate care was put into crafting the exact experience that they wanted the player to have, most of what EQ did right was largely by accident and not by rigorous testing and refinement.
More so, if it's something that they're required to partake in, in order to unlock or obtain something that they want... but it doesn't help them level any faster... you see a deluge of complaints on various forums about it.
Sadly, those folks do seem to out-number those of us who better appreciate partaking in a massive and deep virtual world.. They certainly have the loudest voices. So.. they are the ones most newer MMO devs listen to, ever chasing the $$$ and trying to ride Blizzard's coat-tails.
At the same time, you see more and more people complaining of how boring, shallow and uninteresting the games are becoming... Ironically, many of them are the same ones calling for the elimination of "useless content" and demanding faster leveling, more end-game focus, etc.
The games have become more and more one-dimensional because, frankly, that's what more and more vocal players have been demanding... though they'd never accept it as such.
Cause and Effect, I'd say.
They complain, but it's a classic case of the customer not really knowing what he wants. As Henry Ford said, "if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." They get what they "want"--faster leveling, easier end-game content, instanced PvP arenas, and, of course, "realistic" graphics ("realistic" apparently involves incredible numbers of scantily-clad ladies and absurd amounts of blood splattering and lighting special effects) . . . and then they get bored, leave after a month, and go back to World of Warcraft.
At some point, developers need to trust their intuition and push back on what players claim they want. Slower leveling times, more difficult unlock paths for end-game content, more serious death penalties, etc., all are extremely unpopular, but arguably make for a better game.
And most importantly, content not related to the level/gear grind deeply enriches gameplay even though it's not first on the list of requests from players, if it's even on the list. But it's enormously important for making an engaging game world that players will want to come back to.
It seems like many Developers just don't think that things that add "soul" to a game like cities, landmarks and player-created content are important anymore. Instead, they just focus on game mechanics, but I think this winds up being a losing strategy. I wondered for a time if my preference for games that more lifelike worlds/culture was a dying breed in the industry, but then I play a game like Portal 2 and I realize that players DO like games that have a lot of character.
There is a technical issue.
It is much harder to create player created content in a 3d environment than the 2d environment of UO.
You can have those things, if you want to go back to play a 2d game.
Let's say I can build a house anywhere.
In a 2d game, it takes up some resources, but not that much. It's just a picture of a house that has to be downloaded and displayed.
In a 3d game, that house has to be displayed as a 3d model to all players within range to see it. It has to load, because it's not part of the game that was already built and on the DVD you installed. And you have to reload the scene, in 3d, everytime there is a change.
And it gets more and more difficult the more you have to load.
Instead of one house, thousands of 3d houses....
I don't think anyone has cracked that nut yet so that it's doable on the same scale as UO in 3d.
The game would be logging in and waiting for everything to load so you could see all the changes.
By the time it was all loaded, you'd need to load again to see all the new changes...
Remembe the last time you installed an MMORPG?
It'd be kinda like that every time you played the game.
That's not quite right, I don't think. The textures and model for the "player built" house could already be part of the client. The server would just have to notify the client that this preexisting model now existed at this location within the game world. The client would then render it in the proper location. I believe that it would require very little server to client communication if done in that manner. Now if we're talking about player creating textures and models, then building a unique house or other building, that's going to be a different story and is probably not feasible.
Even that, the game could treat it like most do with mountains in the distance, and start with gray walls (at a closer distance, of course). Then fill in details as you move closer. Ranging details for more detailed work, building the system around that.
That's how most 3D render applications work, particularly for games. The further away a 3D object is, it will render with a lower polygon count model and lower resolution texture. The closer you get, the model is replaced with a higher quality version of the same model and a higher resolution texture.
There's nothing stopping non-instanced housing from being in a 3D perspective MMO. In fact, Star Wars Galaxies had absolutely zero technical issues regarding non-instanced player housing in a 3D perspective MMO, and that tech is 7-8 years old.
This is not correct.
I didn't play SWG, but as far as I know, you could not put a house anywhere in SWG.
I'm not talking about prearranged areas where a building will pop up, or disappear.
I"m talking about UO, where you could drop an object on the ground, and it would stay there, indefinitely till someone picked it up and moved it.
Or, you could build a house. Anywhere. Not in a predefined "city area".
Again, as far as I know, that is still an technological obstacle to do it in a 3d environment.
If you're talking about a pre-determined plot that will turn into a house if you buy it or whatever, sure you can do that in a 3d game.
Well, Jake Song's wonderchild ArcheAge IS THE Holy Grail filled with potential on the current AAA MMO horizon. Housing, farming, ship building/travel, physics, powered by CryEngine 2/3, outspoken ambition to make AI have its own life.... Now we are of course not bozos, and we realize that we have no idea if these features will get implemented or implemented well. Heck, we don't even know if the game is going to be fun or even get published in the West. But still, it IS a game that IS in early closed beta with alot of these "character" features in it that perhaps will satisfy some of your needs.
I think the solution to the problem is simple: design "living" worlds with more active content from the ground up. Gear/level grinds can always be added afterward. From a programming perspective, a lot of triggers and a very flexible code would enable very dynamic content (one of the secrets to Blizzard's success has certainly been its extremely powerful meta-programming systems that allow for developing custom content very quickly).
Two things I would add:
Developers have to let go of insisting on ensuring that every player can experience very encounter. That is absolutely hobbling dynamic content by keeping it limited to instance encounters and phased encounters. Making dynamic encounters fully open-world will really add to the feel of a "living" world while making those encounters more special.
Developers also need to let go of the severe fear of negative and/or permanent consequences. Death penalties are laughable and player decisions have no permanent consequences after the character design screen. That ruins the immersion and again eliminates the reward of making difficult decisions. Players have been complaining since forever that their actions have no permanent effect on the game; developers have insisted that there are programming limitations, but I think the real limitation is a reluctance to allow the players the ability to permanently change the game. Taht needs to change.
See, with changes like those, I think you're going in the opposite direction of what the OP suggested. He drew comparisons to the immersive world of Portal 2, a game that I liked a lot so forgive me if I ramble about it for a minute.
In particular, there's a part in Portal 2 where (SPOILERS) you fall down into the underground portion where the old Aperture Science Center lies decaying. While you're heading down a walkway, there's a triggered tremor that knocks a few cables loose. If you listen to the developer commentary, the intention is that your eye will be drawn from the tower looming in front of you up to the sparking, swinging cables so that you notice the huge Enrichment Spheres filling the cavernous space above you. (screenshot) It's a major aesthetic transition from the little rooms that you spend the first third of the game in, and they make sure you notice it. This is accomplished through careful scripting and a large amount of control. You have no choice but to progress along that specific walkway and from that direction.
You can't accomplish this same thing in a "living" world. The more you move away from developer control, the more you lose the ability to give glimpses at the hints of the world's realness. I would much rather have a game shove a bit of lore in my face than to allow me to miss it because I was never in a particular place at a particular time when the planets aligned. Talking about living worlds sounds a lot more amazing than the actual experience, because you can sit and talk about just the best parts and how they might fit together in such a unique and compelling way when the stars are right.
It seems like many Developers just don't think that things that add "soul" to a game like cities, landmarks and player-created content are important anymore. Instead, they just focus on game mechanics, but I think this winds up being a losing strategy. I wondered for a time if my preference for games that more lifelike worlds/culture was a dying breed in the industry, but then I play a game like Portal 2 and I realize that players DO like games that have a lot of character.
There is a technical issue.
It is much harder to create player created content in a 3d environment than the 2d environment of UO.
You can have those things, if you want to go back to play a 2d game.
Let's say I can build a house anywhere.
In a 2d game, it takes up some resources, but not that much. It's just a picture of a house that has to be downloaded and displayed.
In a 3d game, that house has to be displayed as a 3d model to all players within range to see it. It has to load, because it's not part of the game that was already built and on the DVD you installed. And you have to reload the scene, in 3d, everytime there is a change.
And it gets more and more difficult the more you have to load.
Instead of one house, thousands of 3d houses....
I don't think anyone has cracked that nut yet so that it's doable on the same scale as UO in 3d.
The game would be logging in and waiting for everything to load so you could see all the changes.
By the time it was all loaded, you'd need to load again to see all the new changes...
Remembe the last time you installed an MMORPG?
It'd be kinda like that every time you played the game.
That's not quite right, I don't think. The textures and model for the "player built" house could already be part of the client. The server would just have to notify the client that this preexisting model now existed at this location within the game world. The client would then render it in the proper location. I believe that it would require very little server to client communication if done in that manner. Now if we're talking about player creating textures and models, then building a unique house or other building, that's going to be a different story and is probably not feasible.
Even that, the game could treat it like most do with mountains in the distance, and start with gray walls (at a closer distance, of course). Then fill in details as you move closer. Ranging details for more detailed work, building the system around that.
That's how most 3D render applications work, particularly for games. The further away a 3D object is, it will render with a lower polygon count model and lower resolution texture. The closer you get, the model is replaced with a higher quality version of the same model and a higher resolution texture.
There's nothing stopping non-instanced housing from being in a 3D perspective MMO. In fact, Star Wars Galaxies had absolutely zero technical issues regarding non-instanced player housing in a 3D perspective MMO, and that tech is 7-8 years old.
This is not correct.
I didn't play SWG, but as far as I know, you could not put a house anywhere in SWG.
I'm not talking about prearranged areas where a building will pop up, or disappear.
I"m talking about UO, where you could drop an object on the ground, and it would stay there, indefinitely till someone picked it up and moved it.
Or, you could build a house. Anywhere. Not in a predefined "city area".
Again, as far as I know, that is still an technological obstacle to do it in a 3d environment.
If you're talking about a pre-determined plot that will turn into a house if you buy it or whatever, sure you can do that in a 3d game.
Put a house anywhere on the map?
No.
I did play SWG, and I can definitely tell you that you're wrong.
You could put a house "anywhere" on the map in SWG if the terrain wasn't too steep, and it wasn't in a no-build zone (an NPC city, on a POI). You could build in far more places than you couldn't, very similarly to UO. In fact, you had more freedom in SWG in house placement than in UO because you could build over bushes, trees, and uneven terrain. There were absolutely no "pre-determined" plots in SWG.
The technology has been around for nearly a decade, so there is absolutely no technological restraint holding back free-placement (non pre-determined plot) housing in a non-instance gameworld.
It seems like many Developers just don't think that things that add "soul" to a game like cities, landmarks and player-created content are important anymore. Instead, they just focus on game mechanics, but I think this winds up being a losing strategy. I wondered for a time if my preference for games that more lifelike worlds/culture was a dying breed in the industry, but then I play a game like Portal 2 and I realize that players DO like games that have a lot of character.
There is a technical issue.
It is much harder to create player created content in a 3d environment than the 2d environment of UO.
You can have those things, if you want to go back to play a 2d game.
Let's say I can build a house anywhere.
In a 2d game, it takes up some resources, but not that much. It's just a picture of a house that has to be downloaded and displayed.
In a 3d game, that house has to be displayed as a 3d model to all players within range to see it. It has to load, because it's not part of the game that was already built and on the DVD you installed. And you have to reload the scene, in 3d, everytime there is a change.
And it gets more and more difficult the more you have to load.
Instead of one house, thousands of 3d houses....
I don't think anyone has cracked that nut yet so that it's doable on the same scale as UO in 3d.
The game would be logging in and waiting for everything to load so you could see all the changes.
By the time it was all loaded, you'd need to load again to see all the new changes...
Remembe the last time you installed an MMORPG?
It'd be kinda like that every time you played the game.
That's not quite right, I don't think. The textures and model for the "player built" house could already be part of the client. The server would just have to notify the client that this preexisting model now existed at this location within the game world. The client would then render it in the proper location. I believe that it would require very little server to client communication if done in that manner. Now if we're talking about player creating textures and models, then building a unique house or other building, that's going to be a different story and is probably not feasible.
Even that, the game could treat it like most do with mountains in the distance, and start with gray walls (at a closer distance, of course). Then fill in details as you move closer. Ranging details for more detailed work, building the system around that.
That's how most 3D render applications work, particularly for games. The further away a 3D object is, it will render with a lower polygon count model and lower resolution texture. The closer you get, the model is replaced with a higher quality version of the same model and a higher resolution texture.
There's nothing stopping non-instanced housing from being in a 3D perspective MMO. In fact, Star Wars Galaxies had absolutely zero technical issues regarding non-instanced player housing in a 3D perspective MMO, and that tech is 7-8 years old.
This is not correct.
I didn't play SWG, but as far as I know, you could not put a house anywhere in SWG.
I'm not talking about prearranged areas where a building will pop up, or disappear.
I"m talking about UO, where you could drop an object on the ground, and it would stay there, indefinitely till someone picked it up and moved it.
Or, you could build a house. Anywhere. Not in a predefined "city area".
Again, as far as I know, that is still an technological obstacle to do it in a 3d environment.
If you're talking about a pre-determined plot that will turn into a house if you buy it or whatever, sure you can do that in a 3d game.
Put a house anywhere on the map?
No.
I did play SWG, and I can definitely tell you that you're wrong.
You could put a house "anywhere" on the map in SWG if the terrain wasn't too steep, and it wasn't in a no-build zone (an NPC city, on a POI). You could build in far more places than you couldn't, very similarly to UO. In fact, you had more freedom in SWG in house placement than in UO because you could build over bushes, trees, and uneven terrain. There were absolutely no "pre-determined" plots in SWG.
The technology has been around for nearly a decade, so there is absolutely no technological restraint holding back free-placement (non pre-determined plot) housing in a non-instance gameworld.
The restraint is purely financial. This feature would cost money, and only draw in 7 users. Profitability matters!
The restraint is purely financial. This feature would cost money, and only draw in 7 users. Profitability matters!
You're correct that it's about money, but for the wrong reasons.
There is a perception that player housing isn't something people would like or wouldn't enjoy is just that, a perception.
Developers won't add it because they don't think it will add value to the game by brigning in more revenue. Yet, it's a good part of what kept me playing Ultima Online for 6+ years, 2-3 years longer than I probably otherwise would have.
I know that my preferences aren't the same as everyone else, but it's just as foolish to assume that there aren't others that also share my same preferences.
The restraint is purely financial. This feature would cost money, and only draw in 7 users. Profitability matters!
You're correct that it's about money, but for the wrong reasons.
There is a perception that player housing isn't something people would like or wouldn't enjoy is just that, a perception.
Developers won't add it because they don't think it will add value to the game by brigning in more revenue. Yet, it's a good part of what kept me playing Ultima Online for 6+ years, 2-3 years longer than I probably otherwise would have.
I know that my preferences aren't the same as everyone else, but it's just as foolish to assume that there aren't others that also share my same preferences.
Yeah I agree, I don't see any "proof" that player housing won't bring in players or more importantly, keep them subscribed longer. In fact, I could argue the opposite.
Allowing the player to "own" content that is part of the game world, and make that content their own through design can foster an emotional connection to the MMORPG that just can't be made through having a pure combat sim. I remember when my house was robbed in UO I was surprisingly devastated simply because it was *MY* house that was robbed, it felt like a violation much like you would feel if your real belongings were robbed. I believe that this emotional connection will encourage players to stay subscribed longer.
It's a proven fact that emotional connections create what are known as "exit barriers" for consumers, much like someone would grow attached to their iPhone and not want to switch brands. The more emotional connections the developer can create, the less possibility there is that players will leave them for a competitor. I think that many game developers ignore this though.
I think the solution to the problem is simple: design "living" worlds with more active content from the ground up. Gear/level grinds can always be added afterward. From a programming perspective, a lot of triggers and a very flexible code would enable very dynamic content (one of the secrets to Blizzard's success has certainly been its extremely powerful meta-programming systems that allow for developing custom content very quickly).
Two things I would add:
Developers have to let go of insisting on ensuring that every player can experience very encounter. That is absolutely hobbling dynamic content by keeping it limited to instance encounters and phased encounters. Making dynamic encounters fully open-world will really add to the feel of a "living" world while making those encounters more special.
Developers also need to let go of the severe fear of negative and/or permanent consequences. Death penalties are laughable and player decisions have no permanent consequences after the character design screen. That ruins the immersion and again eliminates the reward of making difficult decisions. Players have been complaining since forever that their actions have no permanent effect on the game; developers have insisted that there are programming limitations, but I think the real limitation is a reluctance to allow the players the ability to permanently change the game. Taht needs to change.
See, with changes like those, I think you're going in the opposite direction of what the OP suggested. He drew comparisons to the immersive world of Portal 2, a game that I liked a lot so forgive me if I ramble about it for a minute.
In particular, there's a part in Portal 2 where (SPOILERS) you fall down into the underground portion where the old Aperture Science Center lies decaying. While you're heading down a walkway, there's a triggered tremor that knocks a few cables loose. If you listen to the developer commentary, the intention is that your eye will be drawn from the tower looming in front of you up to the sparking, swinging cables so that you notice the huge Enrichment Spheres filling the cavernous space above you. (screenshot) It's a major aesthetic transition from the little rooms that you spend the first third of the game in, and they make sure you notice it. This is accomplished through careful scripting and a large amount of control. You have no choice but to progress along that specific walkway and from that direction.
You can't accomplish this same thing in a "living" world. The more you move away from developer control, the more you lose the ability to give glimpses at the hints of the world's realness. I would much rather have a game shove a bit of lore in my face than to allow me to miss it because I was never in a particular place at a particular time when the planets aligned. Talking about living worlds sounds a lot more amazing than the actual experience, because you can sit and talk about just the best parts and how they might fit together in such a unique and compelling way when the stars are right.
Hmm...I wouldn't say that's the opposite direction of what I was talking about. I did reference Portal 2 in my OP, but only because I think it's an excellent example of a game that succeeds at creating a lifelike world (I loved Portal 2 as well btw !). I think the methods of doing this in an MMORPG would have to differ from how it is done in Portal 2 (scripted events).
I listed a few ways I think it could be done in an MMORPG in a previous post.
But thats NOT because their NPCs dont wander around. NPCs that wander around are only annoying, because then you have to search or worse, if they also sleep, even wait for them. And MMOs do NOT have some kind of trick for a "fast forward" like you can have with singleplayer games.
MMOs feel dead if everything is instanced. Guild Wars is a major offender in this respect. You leave the city and BANG you're alone (or alone with your group). Nobody else is there. You are practically in a single player game.
But thats NOT because their NPCs dont wander around. NPCs that wander around are only annoying, because then you have to search or worse, if they also sleep, even wait for them. And MMOs do NOT have some kind of trick for a "fast forward" like you can have with singleplayer games.
MMOs feel dead if everything is instanced. Guild Wars is a major offender in this respect. You leave the city and BANG you're alone (or alone with your group). Nobody else is there. You are practically in a single player game.
Yeah I agree about the instancing, heavily instanced MMO's definitely feel dead because as you say they are essentially single player games.
About the "wandering" NPCs though, when people complain about this, I don't think they are saying that we should maintain the current quest-based MMO structure and just make NPCs wander around and be more difficult to find, I think they are arguing that we should change the quest-based structure all together. When you think about it, the only reason stationary NPCs are necessary is because modern MMO's are all built around the WoW-esque quest structure. You go to a "quest node" get 10 quests, run to objectives, kill MOBs that are standing around, turn in quest. To me, this gets old fast, and it really does contribute to the world feeling "dead."
Hopefully the dynamic events in GW2 will fight this problem...
Comments
Yeah I have looked Archeage up before. It definietly looks promising. But we won't know if it delivers on these promises until it's released.
I remain optimistic, but skeptical. I have been fooled plenty of times by promises that publishers make prior to release.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I agree with the OP. When playing any of these games, there is no way to forget even for one second that you are playing a game. The world is not believable even in the slightest. Good games (and books for that matter even ones with fantastical premises) have one thing in common- the environment is believable even though it isn't real. Believable environments lead to believable characters and interesting events. I think most MMOs should drop the pretense of being a virtual world.
There are several problems that if addressed would lead to more immersion and living worlds:
1) Characters have no needs- they dont need to eat or drink or sleep. This impacts a huge range of activities. These worlds dont really need farmers or homes. Therefore, the only 'professions' available revolve around klling things. I say give players the ability to have multiple characters including more mundane professions.
2) The econmy in most games is ridiculous. Without needs, the only economy comes from trading weapons, armor and magic items. I believe games need a simulated and realistic NPC economy that operates on its own which leads to the next point.
3) Where are all the other people in the world? 5k players dont represent even a small fraction of any world even one that is based of medieval times. Developers should look to create an interesting world first and then add the players to that world. Great numbers of NPCs do not need to be graphically represented, however, their activities should be taken into account for military, economic and political purposes. This would also allow a poltical system to develop where the strongest players are not necessarily the greatest warriors but rather the wealthiest and most politically connected.
4) There are no consequences for anything. There is no death, no permanent injuries and everyone will reach max level if they play long enough. Characters should be able to die, towns destroyed etc. However, this should be made as hard as possible. If players want to PK for whatever reason, they should risk being caught and executed. Kingdoms who want to take territory should have to hire and train an army and pay for it.
IMO, MMOs need both an RPG element and multiple strategy elements to become living worlds. Sadly, these are both missing in the current crop of games. These games are nothing more than combat simulators with chat rooms.
How about 20% less static quests? Hell, make that 100% less static quests and give me another 80% of great world.
Heh, I know that wouldn't work out that way. Just had to point towards a point, ya know?
Once upon a time....
That's not quite right, I don't think. The textures and model for the "player built" house could already be part of the client. The server would just have to notify the client that this preexisting model now existed at this location within the game world. The client would then render it in the proper location. I believe that it would require very little server to client communication if done in that manner. Now if we're talking about player creating textures and models, then building a unique house or other building, that's going to be a different story and is probably not feasible.
When an MMO lacks character and spirit, then the fact that it's nothing more than a virtual skinner box becomes extremely transparent. When us mice can see the skinner box for what it is, we quickly tire of it and move on.
That's why I personally get so tired of new MMOs so quickly, because the developers aren't even trying to give the game any atmosphere that doesn't feel as artificial as biting down on a rubber steak chew toy. They're focusing too much on the 'addictiveness', and not paying enough attention to actually making an actual enjoyable gamepaly experience with substance and atmosphere.
I don't mind that MMOs are skinner boxes. I go into the game to play (have recreational activity) with other players.
For me, community is #1. Everything else is just window-dressing.
Even that, the game could treat it like most do with mountains in the distance, and start with gray walls (at a closer distance, of course). Then fill in details as you move closer. Ranging details for more detailed work, building the system around that.
Once upon a time....
That's how most 3D render applications work, particularly for games. The further away a 3D object is, it will render with a lower polygon count model and lower resolution texture. The closer you get, the model is replaced with a higher quality version of the same model and a higher resolution texture.
There's nothing stopping non-instanced housing from being in a 3D perspective MMO. In fact, Star Wars Galaxies had absolutely zero technical issues regarding non-instanced player housing in a 3D perspective MMO, and that tech is 7-8 years old.
How could it be otherwise really, they have a super winning formula: buy an engine, make a nice map, create some nice looking races with generic class and nice names, generate zillion spawn without any structure behind it with copy cat mobs with different colors, create a super basic AI like melle or ranged ai, put a huge amount of npc with fed ex quest. Launch the game and grab the money. Needless to say you don't even need to polish since mmos are in perpetual development right so you can deal with this later
I know exactly what you're referring to here and could add further examples, but for lack of time (on lunch break, gotta head back soon).
But one example...
Race and/or Culture specific details such as unique language (I know in EQ2 you had to learn other races' languages, or else what they said was indecipherable). If that sounds "useless" to someone reading this, then you are clearly not the type of person to appreciate such things. To someone who appreciates and enjoys that kind of depth and attention to detail, it's a great thing.
Back in the games you refer to, such details were considered to bring more depth and detail to the world. These days, with the way many newer MMO players are, it would be considered "a useless grind" because it doesn't help them get to level cap any faster.
I think that's a big part of it... Players have increasingly developed tunnel-vision about their gameplay. What are the most common things you see discussed or asked when it comes to MMORPGs? "How fast can you get to level cap?", "What's the fastest way to get to level cap?", "What's the best class to play to get into parties so I can get to level cap faster, and then get into raids?", "What's the best build for "x" class, so I can solo to level cap?", "How quickly can you become viable in end-game PvP?", "What's the end-game like and how long does it take to get there?"... and so on.
If anything in a game doesn't fall within the very narrow parameter of "Must help me get to level-cap/end-game faster", many people simply aren't interested and would prefer it not even be in the game at all.
More so, if it's something that they're required to partake in, in order to unlock or obtain something that they want... but it doesn't help them level any faster... you see a deluge of complaints on various forums about it.
Sadly, those folks do seem to out-number those of us who better appreciate partaking in a massive and deep virtual world.. They certainly have the loudest voices. So.. they are the ones most newer MMO devs listen to, ever chasing the $$$ and trying to ride Blizzard's coat-tails.
At the same time, you see more and more people complaining of how boring, shallow and uninteresting the games are becoming... Ironically, many of them are the same ones calling for the elimination of "useless content" and demanding faster leveling, more end-game focus, etc.
The games have become more and more one-dimensional because, frankly, that's what more and more vocal players have been demanding... though they'd never accept it as such.
Cause and Effect, I'd say.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Totally agreed, except on your final point. CPUs and GPUs are at a performance level that "technical limitations" are just no longer any kind of an excuse. Processor power is no longer a limitation, only development time.
The big issue, in my mind, is that developers have not realized that it's not the "meat" of the game, it's the "sauce". They're like sandwich shop owners who advertise long and loud about having the best bread and the best meat, but don't offer any toppings on the sandwich, and then wonder where the customers are.
I think World of Warcraft's secret is in the "sauce". I haven't played any online game that has as much content not directly related to core gameplay. Yes, WoW is saddled with static NPCs and too many semi-static generic mobs; but it also has an incredible range of environments, costumes, pets, mounts, critters, furniture, readable books, fireworks, crazy gadgets, holidays, etc., etc. Recent competitors like Warhammer and Rift have nearly zero comparable content. And they wonder why they can't compete with WoW?
I think the solution to the problem is simple: design "living" worlds with more active content from the ground up. Gear/level grinds can always be added afterward. From a programming perspective, a lot of triggers and a very flexible code would enable very dynamic content (one of the secrets to Blizzard's success has certainly been its extremely powerful meta-programming systems that allow for developing custom content very quickly).
Two things I would add:
Developers have to let go of insisting on ensuring that every player can experience very encounter. That is absolutely hobbling dynamic content by keeping it limited to instance encounters and phased encounters. Making dynamic encounters fully open-world will really add to the feel of a "living" world while making those encounters more special.
Developers also need to let go of the severe fear of negative and/or permanent consequences. Death penalties are laughable and player decisions have no permanent consequences after the character design screen. That ruins the immersion and again eliminates the reward of making difficult decisions. Players have been complaining since forever that their actions have no permanent effect on the game; developers have insisted that there are programming limitations, but I think the real limitation is a reluctance to allow the players the ability to permanently change the game. Taht needs to change.
I think that most of the praise for EQ is just nostalgia talking. Compared to a game like Portal 2 where an incredible amount of deliberate care was put into crafting the exact experience that they wanted the player to have, most of what EQ did right was largely by accident and not by rigorous testing and refinement.
They complain, but it's a classic case of the customer not really knowing what he wants. As Henry Ford said, "if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." They get what they "want"--faster leveling, easier end-game content, instanced PvP arenas, and, of course, "realistic" graphics ("realistic" apparently involves incredible numbers of scantily-clad ladies and absurd amounts of blood splattering and lighting special effects) . . . and then they get bored, leave after a month, and go back to World of Warcraft.
At some point, developers need to trust their intuition and push back on what players claim they want. Slower leveling times, more difficult unlock paths for end-game content, more serious death penalties, etc., all are extremely unpopular, but arguably make for a better game.
And most importantly, content not related to the level/gear grind deeply enriches gameplay even though it's not first on the list of requests from players, if it's even on the list. But it's enormously important for making an engaging game world that players will want to come back to.
This is not correct.
I didn't play SWG, but as far as I know, you could not put a house anywhere in SWG.
I'm not talking about prearranged areas where a building will pop up, or disappear.
I"m talking about UO, where you could drop an object on the ground, and it would stay there, indefinitely till someone picked it up and moved it.
Or, you could build a house. Anywhere. Not in a predefined "city area".
Again, as far as I know, that is still an technological obstacle to do it in a 3d environment.
If you're talking about a pre-determined plot that will turn into a house if you buy it or whatever, sure you can do that in a 3d game.
Put a house anywhere on the map?
No.
Well, Jake Song's wonderchild ArcheAge IS THE Holy Grail filled with potential on the current AAA MMO horizon. Housing, farming, ship building/travel, physics, powered by CryEngine 2/3, outspoken ambition to make AI have its own life.... Now we are of course not bozos, and we realize that we have no idea if these features will get implemented or implemented well. Heck, we don't even know if the game is going to be fun or even get published in the West. But still, it IS a game that IS in early closed beta with alot of these "character" features in it that perhaps will satisfy some of your needs.
See, with changes like those, I think you're going in the opposite direction of what the OP suggested. He drew comparisons to the immersive world of Portal 2, a game that I liked a lot so forgive me if I ramble about it for a minute.
In particular, there's a part in Portal 2 where (SPOILERS) you fall down into the underground portion where the old Aperture Science Center lies decaying. While you're heading down a walkway, there's a triggered tremor that knocks a few cables loose. If you listen to the developer commentary, the intention is that your eye will be drawn from the tower looming in front of you up to the sparking, swinging cables so that you notice the huge Enrichment Spheres filling the cavernous space above you. (screenshot) It's a major aesthetic transition from the little rooms that you spend the first third of the game in, and they make sure you notice it. This is accomplished through careful scripting and a large amount of control. You have no choice but to progress along that specific walkway and from that direction.
You can't accomplish this same thing in a "living" world. The more you move away from developer control, the more you lose the ability to give glimpses at the hints of the world's realness. I would much rather have a game shove a bit of lore in my face than to allow me to miss it because I was never in a particular place at a particular time when the planets aligned. Talking about living worlds sounds a lot more amazing than the actual experience, because you can sit and talk about just the best parts and how they might fit together in such a unique and compelling way when the stars are right.
Fallen earth -
One of the few MMORPG's that felt alive to me, TPS or FPS.
You can even find chupacabra there, unique
no i
Right. Classic MMORPGs are dead. Casual arcade WoW clones are the rage.
I did play SWG, and I can definitely tell you that you're wrong.
You could put a house "anywhere" on the map in SWG if the terrain wasn't too steep, and it wasn't in a no-build zone (an NPC city, on a POI). You could build in far more places than you couldn't, very similarly to UO. In fact, you had more freedom in SWG in house placement than in UO because you could build over bushes, trees, and uneven terrain. There were absolutely no "pre-determined" plots in SWG.
The technology has been around for nearly a decade, so there is absolutely no technological restraint holding back free-placement (non pre-determined plot) housing in a non-instance gameworld.
The restraint is purely financial. This feature would cost money, and only draw in 7 users. Profitability matters!
You're correct that it's about money, but for the wrong reasons.
There is a perception that player housing isn't something people would like or wouldn't enjoy is just that, a perception.
Developers won't add it because they don't think it will add value to the game by brigning in more revenue. Yet, it's a good part of what kept me playing Ultima Online for 6+ years, 2-3 years longer than I probably otherwise would have.
I know that my preferences aren't the same as everyone else, but it's just as foolish to assume that there aren't others that also share my same preferences.
Yeah I agree, I don't see any "proof" that player housing won't bring in players or more importantly, keep them subscribed longer. In fact, I could argue the opposite.
Allowing the player to "own" content that is part of the game world, and make that content their own through design can foster an emotional connection to the MMORPG that just can't be made through having a pure combat sim. I remember when my house was robbed in UO I was surprisingly devastated simply because it was *MY* house that was robbed, it felt like a violation much like you would feel if your real belongings were robbed. I believe that this emotional connection will encourage players to stay subscribed longer.
It's a proven fact that emotional connections create what are known as "exit barriers" for consumers, much like someone would grow attached to their iPhone and not want to switch brands. The more emotional connections the developer can create, the less possibility there is that players will leave them for a competitor. I think that many game developers ignore this though.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Hmm...I wouldn't say that's the opposite direction of what I was talking about. I did reference Portal 2 in my OP, but only because I think it's an excellent example of a game that succeeds at creating a lifelike world (I loved Portal 2 as well btw
!). I think the methods of doing this in an MMORPG would have to differ from how it is done in Portal 2 (scripted events).
I listed a few ways I think it could be done in an MMORPG in a previous post.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Well ... I agree that many modern MMOs feel dead.
But thats NOT because their NPCs dont wander around. NPCs that wander around are only annoying, because then you have to search or worse, if they also sleep, even wait for them. And MMOs do NOT have some kind of trick for a "fast forward" like you can have with singleplayer games.
MMOs feel dead if everything is instanced. Guild Wars is a major offender in this respect. You leave the city and BANG you're alone (or alone with your group). Nobody else is there. You are practically in a single player game.
Yeah I agree about the instancing, heavily instanced MMO's definitely feel dead because as you say they are essentially single player games.
About the "wandering" NPCs though, when people complain about this, I don't think they are saying that we should maintain the current quest-based MMO structure and just make NPCs wander around and be more difficult to find, I think they are arguing that we should change the quest-based structure all together. When you think about it, the only reason stationary NPCs are necessary is because modern MMO's are all built around the WoW-esque quest structure. You go to a "quest node" get 10 quests, run to objectives, kill MOBs that are standing around, turn in quest. To me, this gets old fast, and it really does contribute to the world feeling "dead."
Hopefully the dynamic events in GW2 will fight this problem...
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?