The next game to really break out will be the game where you can set out from a city on the east coast of a continent, and walk west for 24 hours and not hit an artificial barrier. Where walking slightly south of west would have brought you to different things such that you never HAVE to specifically go to point X you just have the option of doing so.
Every game these days is so very content dense and size small. You spend 20 hours in what amounts to a 100x100 grid. You fight a monster in 6x5 you turn in the quest at 10x7 and sell your items at 35x35. When you are done you go to another 100x100 grid. When you run out of zones//are max level you actually shift from having 100x100 grids to having 2000x1 lines. Dungeons/Raids. Data points.
No real exploration and very little "I did this first."
The next game to really "win" will be one where you can carve your name on a rock 75 miles west of the city and someone eventually ends up there a year later and wonders who did that?
----
If anything we have been going in the wrong direction that way... I remember reaching the endgame of WoW a month or so after release and thinking -- this has been quite a ride -- they really need 3 more continents at least.
Everquest -- the original everquest had a much more wide open feel to it.
Things have become too content dense, too convenient, and too 6-hour playstation gameish. Yes it has happened to other genres as well -- like 6 hours of play and done -- very pretty -- very scripted -- and done. Like a book.
----
In a lot of ways I blame the graphics. I mean really, if you want to code up models for 5,000 different kinds of monsters instead of 50 -- actually in some games these days it is more like 25. It takes an awful lot of work with the number of polygons people expect.
If you want a world as opposed to a few settings, you need a lot more variety of terrain etc as well. All of which take a lot more time at the levels people expect today.
Sandbox and Themepark are the two general principles. Mudd/Diku. Rails/Freedom. Whatever you want to call it. And of gamers are turning off of Themepark, then they damn well want Sandbox, or nothing. They want something different, and there's only one other thing.
That's a overly black and white way to look at it, what about something in between or a different approach?
For many GW2 is the answer, it's something different but it's also when broken down a basic themepark that handles content differently. This alone debunks your theory.
No it doesn't... GW2 isn't even out yet. I saw lots of praise for SWTOR, AOC, Aion, etc... during their open betas as well. You can't judge how much players like an MMO till atleast a month or two in.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
Sandbox and Themepark are the two general principles. Mudd/Diku. Rails/Freedom. Whatever you want to call it. And of gamers are turning off of Themepark, then they damn well want Sandbox, or nothing. They want something different, and there's only one other thing.
That's a overly black and white way to look at it, what about something in between or a different approach?
For many GW2 is the answer, it's something different but it's also when broken down a basic themepark that handles content differently. This alone debunks your theory.
No it doesn't... GW2 isn't even out yet. I saw lots of praise for SWTOR, AOC, Aion, etc... during their open betas as well. You can't judge how much players like an MMO till atleast a month or two in.
The concept is what I am talking about, it's not a sandbox, but it is something many who are sick and tired of basic themeparks are looking forward to.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Sandbox and Themepark are the two general principles. Mudd/Diku. Rails/Freedom. Whatever you want to call it. And of gamers are turning off of Themepark, then they damn well want Sandbox, or nothing. They want something different, and there's only one other thing.
That's a overly black and white way to look at it, what about something in between or a different approach?
For many GW2 is the answer, it's something different but it's also when broken down a basic themepark that handles content differently. This alone debunks your theory.
No it doesn't... GW2 isn't even out yet. I saw lots of praise for SWTOR, AOC, Aion, etc... during their open betas as well. You can't judge how much players like an MMO till atleast a month or two in.
The concept is what I am talking about, it's not a sandbox, but it is something many who are sick and tired of basic themeparks are looking forward to.
And they were looking forward to SWTOR VO and 4th pillar, to AOC actiony combat and mature(boobs) content, Aion's flying and pvp, War's city battles and public quests, etc... But in the end they were still sick of tired of the basic themeparks and began to look forward to other MMO themepark crap covered in a slightly different sauce.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
Sandbox and Themepark are the two general principles. Mudd/Diku. Rails/Freedom. Whatever you want to call it. And of gamers are turning off of Themepark, then they damn well want Sandbox, or nothing. They want something different, and there's only one other thing.
That's a overly black and white way to look at it, what about something in between or a different approach?
For many GW2 is the answer, it's something different but it's also when broken down a basic themepark that handles content differently. This alone debunks your theory.
No it doesn't... GW2 isn't even out yet. I saw lots of praise for SWTOR, AOC, Aion, etc... during their open betas as well. You can't judge how much players like an MMO till atleast a month or two in.
The concept is what I am talking about, it's not a sandbox, but it is something many who are sick and tired of basic themeparks are looking forward to.
And they were looking forward to SWTOR VO and 4th pillar, to AOC actiony combat and mature(boobs) content, Aion's flying and pvp, War's city battles and public quests, etc... But in the end they were still sick of tired of the basic themeparks and began to look forward to other MMO themepark crap covered in a slightly different sauce.
So you're saying all these people could only really want a sandbox? There's nothing else possible in design terms that is different enough?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Sandbox and Themepark are the two general principles. Mudd/Diku. Rails/Freedom. Whatever you want to call it. And of gamers are turning off of Themepark, then they damn well want Sandbox, or nothing. They want something different, and there's only one other thing.
That's a overly black and white way to look at it, what about something in between or a different approach?
For many GW2 is the answer, it's something different but it's also when broken down a basic themepark that handles content differently. This alone debunks your theory.
No it doesn't... GW2 isn't even out yet. I saw lots of praise for SWTOR, AOC, Aion, etc... during their open betas as well. You can't judge how much players like an MMO till atleast a month or two in.
The concept is what I am talking about, it's not a sandbox, but it is something many who are sick and tired of basic themeparks are looking forward to.
We'll see how it goes. If it doesn't play like a Sandbox, I say it loses subs too. And that's the point of the general difference in Sandbox/Themepark. It's not black and white, it's general. And it's all about the game play. Players that love Skyrim call it a Sandbox (unless they understand the mechanics), even though it's got the mechanics of a Themepark. It's in how it plays. But there's a big difference in how a SPG and a MMO work with the same mechanics. GWII is similar to Skyrim in how they hope to change up from Themepark, right? (Generally speaking.)
But it's more than just the term Sandbox. It's "worldly", in my mind. Sandbox can be taken to mean the mechanics of interaction, but if you forget the freedom to go where you want to (as in directed game play, not total lack of "leveled" content)....and I'm not sure I'm saying this right....then you end up with Themepark game play.
And they were looking forward to SWTOR VO and 4th pillar, to AOC actiony combat and mature(boobs) content, Aion's flying and pvp, War's city battles and public quests, etc... But in the end they were still sick of tired of the basic themeparks and began to look forward to other MMO themepark crap covered in a slightly different sauce.
So you're saying all these people could only really want a sandbox?
Nope, honestly I don't think they know what they want. That being said, I don't think WoW lite with new feature A and B is what, going to keep these MMO hopper playing one game for years. Do I think they would play a full on sandbox like MO or Wurm, nope but mixing sandbox and themepark elements in to one game just might.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
We'll see how it goes. If it doesn't play like a Sandbox, I say it loses subs too. And that's the point of the general difference in Sandbox/Themepark. It's not black and white, it's general. And it's all about the game play. Players that love Skyrim call it a Sandbox (unless they understand the mechanics), even though it's got the mechanics of a Themepark. It's in how it plays. But there's a big difference in how a SPG and a MMO work with the same mechanics. GWII is similar to Skyrim in how they hope to change up from Themepark, right? (Generally speaking.)
But it's more than just the term Sandbox. It's "worldly", in my mind. Sandbox can be taken to mean the mechanics of interaction, but if you forget the freedom to go where you want to (as in directed game play, not total lack of "leveled" content)....and I'm not sure I'm saying this right....then you end up with Themepark game play.
Don't misunderstand, I understand what you're saying here, I too believe sandbox design lends itself far more to longevity, I really don't think there's any question about that. That's in reference to what we've seen over the years though.
I feel the thing that's really hurting themeparks today is the gated nature of it all, and too much focus on rewarding only those who want to grind for the key to those gates (gear). Replacing that with something more about long term fun may be the answer (for that design), and I think that's what GW2 is trying to do. I'm not sold on the game myself yet. I'm just speaking in terms of trending opinions shared over the last year or so.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Sandbox and Themepark are the two general principles. Mudd/Diku. Rails/Freedom. Whatever you want to call it. And of gamers are turning off of Themepark, then they damn well want Sandbox, or nothing. They want something different, and there's only one other thing.
"I don't care if a game is themepark or sandbox."
"FYI sandboxes and sims are a relative minority among games in general too."
"Its true that the sandbox selection is abysmal at best..."
There's a lot of conflict in there. Yeah, you don't care which a game is, as long as it's not Sandbox. And the last two quotes, I mean, listen to yourself. Reevaluate!
Like I wrote earlier "something more" or something different doesn't necessarily mean sandboxes. There's plenty of stuff you can do better and differently even within what you classify as themepark.
And I don't need to reevaluate my opinions. I enjoy many "sandbox" games, just not the MMORPG ones. Mostly because they simply suck. They usually have poor production values, grind, timesinks, they are unpolished, shallow or needlessly complicated - or both at the same time - they are poorly balanced with many redundant options and features, sometimes completely empty and void of purpose... You can say that I'm not a fan of bad game design but I'm certainly not a hater. Well, I loathe FFA PvP but I have my preferences too.
Anyway, discrediting me, does not support your argument.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Why we would who want a great Sandbox game want open PvP? Why even have factions with that? King-of-the-hill ruins anything else, even Sandbox.
I did say it was optional to be PvE only and it was possible to never get flagged as PvP. That is up to the person and how they make choices.
Just stick to the adventuring and stay out of war zones. By doing so you have 90% of the game world but where if you choose to PvP and get flagged open world then it was your choice. Because you’re flagged open world though does not mean those in your faction would be willing to openly attack you because if they do it to much they switch their faction.
In reading these discussions on the current state of gaming, it is clear as a bell to me what is wrong with MMO's these days. Money hungry developers and marketers, abysmally boring and rehashed content and a general lack of interest in the opinion of the customer. Online gaming has become the new cash cow (or is trying to).
So we clearly know what’s wrong, but how do we as a gaming community alter this trend? Many say speak with your wallet and stop buying games from the big offenders. But are those who feel this way in the minority? After all SWTOR (*edit* EA claims to) still has 1.3 million subscribers. That’s a lot of people who are supposedly happy with the game, or merely sticking with it and waiting to see what happens.
To use the recently announced Elder Scrolls online as an example. This announcement generated a very loud and vocal dissent towards the apparent content and style of this game. I won’t go into the many reasons why people feel ESO is missing the mark, but suffice to say it seems to offer nothing terribly new or groundbreaking. It appears to be trying to take the same tired torch that WoW has been holding for years. So all this dissatisfaction in the next attempt at mainstream MMO consumption, where can it be directed? Take a look at the following links:
Even though it’s been in the works for a while, it appears that some clever people are working on a Skyrim Online mod. This will enable 1-4 players to join together in the world of Skyrim. It sounds promising. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the modding community pulled together and made Skyrim Online as huge as it has the potential to be? That would be a nice stick in the eye for Zenimax/Bethesda!
I started this post because there appears to be a trend in the opinion of gamers lately, a general dissatisfaction in the offerings that are produced and it seems to me that people are a lot more vocal about it. Since we have already defined what appears to be wrong with the newest crop of MMO’s, what do you folks feel can be done to try and change this apparent downward spiral?
I'm not on the train with you guys but am certainly interested in seeing what all the internet complainers could possibly do because from where I sit there seem to be two development styles in mmorpgs lately those who stick with the tried and true from games like Rift,LOTRO,WOW and then those who try for this "innovation" I hear so much about and these tend to be games like EVE,Darkfall,Fallen Earth,FFXIV and Guild Wars 2.
The funny thing is EVe is the only game in that second list that seems to do anything at all and one isn't even released yet while those from the first list like it or not are the top mmorpgs on the market.
I don't see the state of the industry is really any different than it has been for the last five years or so the burn outs get all over the web whining about any game that resembles anything they've played before then they pull the "innovative" games in so many directions they crash and burn anyway because the one thing these people can't stop doing is spitting venom and it doesn't seem to matter if it's even towards a game they claimed to be in love with only weeks earlier.
So yeah when all of you innovation seekers get together and create a game or community with real growth I'll be on board to see how that goes I'm not holding my breath for it to happen though.
We'll see how it goes. If it doesn't play like a Sandbox, I say it loses subs too. And that's the point of the general difference in Sandbox/Themepark. It's not black and white, it's general. And it's all about the game play. Players that love Skyrim call it a Sandbox (unless they understand the mechanics), even though it's got the mechanics of a Themepark. It's in how it plays. But there's a big difference in how a SPG and a MMO work with the same mechanics. GWII is similar to Skyrim in how they hope to change up from Themepark, right? (Generally speaking.)
But it's more than just the term Sandbox. It's "worldly", in my mind. Sandbox can be taken to mean the mechanics of interaction, but if you forget the freedom to go where you want to (as in directed game play, not total lack of "leveled" content)....and I'm not sure I'm saying this right....then you end up with Themepark game play.
Don't misunderstand, I understand what you're saying here, I too believe sandbox design lends itself far more to longevity, I really don't think there's any question about that. That's in reference to what we've seen over the years though.
I feel the thing that's really hurting themeparks today is the gated nature of it all, and too much focus on rewarding only those who want to grind for the key to those gates (gear). Replacing that with something more about long term fun may be the answer (for that design), and I think that's what GW2 is trying to do. I'm not sold on the game myself yet. I'm just speaking in terms of trending opinions shared over the last year or so.
Understood. If there's one thing that's seems to be coming clear, it's that these companies do see the problems. But much like politicians, they don't want to give up the core beliefs. In this case, that players play primarily for the "dings" (levels and gear). And that to me is the core, the foundation, of what's wrong. That gets old, because one to another is really all the same. But a game with experiences, now that never gets old. But designing a game with the variety that comes to mind, that requires player interaction. Not PvP, but all sorts of interactions based on trade, knowledge, discovery, community, all this can be in a game if the game only allows the players the freedom to do it, mith minimal content (camparatively speaking). Look to Eve and UO (rares, trade and player contracts, player run events, all the social stuff) for this, as examples, and expand on those lessons. I believe PvP with controls for players (justice system that works) can add a lot to this, but it comes with too much bagage now. I see guild wars as a separate thing that can also be included, or not. And I believe that a great game can be made using only PvE.
Sandbox and Themepark are the two general principles. Mudd/Diku. Rails/Freedom. Whatever you want to call it. And of gamers are turning off of Themepark, then they damn well want Sandbox, or nothing. They want something different, and there's only one other thing.
That's a overly black and white way to look at it, what about something in between or a different approach?
For many GW2 is the answer, it's something different but it's also when broken down a basic themepark that handles content differently. This alone debunks your theory.
No it doesn't... GW2 isn't even out yet. I saw lots of praise for SWTOR, AOC, Aion, etc... during their open betas as well. You can't judge how much players like an MMO till atleast a month or two in.
The concept is what I am talking about, it's not a sandbox, but it is something many who are sick and tired of basic themeparks are looking forward to.
We'll see how it goes. If it doesn't play like a Sandbox, I say it loses subs too. And that's the point of the general difference in Sandbox/Themepark. It's not black and white, it's general. And it's all about the game play. Players that love Skyrim call it a Sandbox (unless they understand the mechanics), even though it's got the mechanics of a Themepark. It's in how it plays. But there's a big difference in how a SPG and a MMO work with the same mechanics. GWII is similar to Skyrim in how they hope to change up from Themepark, right? (Generally speaking.)
But it's more than just the term Sandbox. It's "worldly", in my mind. Sandbox can be taken to mean the mechanics of interaction, but if you forget the freedom to go where you want to (as in directed game play, not total lack of "leveled" content)....and I'm not sure I'm saying this right....then you end up with Themepark game play.
Except it has no subs, so it has won even before release?
Sandbox and Themepark are the two general principles. Mudd/Diku. Rails/Freedom. Whatever you want to call it. And of gamers are turning off of Themepark, then they damn well want Sandbox, or nothing. They want something different, and there's only one other thing.
That's a overly black and white way to look at it, what about something in between or a different approach?
For many GW2 is the answer, it's something different but it's also when broken down a basic themepark that handles content differently. This alone debunks your theory.
No it doesn't... GW2 isn't even out yet. I saw lots of praise for SWTOR, AOC, Aion, etc... during their open betas as well. You can't judge how much players like an MMO till atleast a month or two in.
The concept is what I am talking about, it's not a sandbox, but it is something many who are sick and tired of basic themeparks are looking forward to.
We'll see how it goes. If it doesn't play like a Sandbox, I say it loses subs too. And that's the point of the general difference in Sandbox/Themepark. It's not black and white, it's general. And it's all about the game play. Players that love Skyrim call it a Sandbox (unless they understand the mechanics), even though it's got the mechanics of a Themepark. It's in how it plays. But there's a big difference in how a SPG and a MMO work with the same mechanics. GWII is similar to Skyrim in how they hope to change up from Themepark, right? (Generally speaking.)
But it's more than just the term Sandbox. It's "worldly", in my mind. Sandbox can be taken to mean the mechanics of interaction, but if you forget the freedom to go where you want to (as in directed game play, not total lack of "leveled" content)....and I'm not sure I'm saying this right....then you end up with Themepark game play.
Except it has no subs, so it has won even before release?
We'll see how it goes. If it doesn't play like a Sandbox, I say it loses subs too. And that's the point of the general difference in Sandbox/Themepark. It's not black and white, it's general. And it's all about the game play. Players that love Skyrim call it a Sandbox (unless they understand the mechanics), even though it's got the mechanics of a Themepark. It's in how it plays. But there's a big difference in how a SPG and a MMO work with the same mechanics. GWII is similar to Skyrim in how they hope to change up from Themepark, right? (Generally speaking.)
But it's more than just the term Sandbox. It's "worldly", in my mind. Sandbox can be taken to mean the mechanics of interaction, but if you forget the freedom to go where you want to (as in directed game play, not total lack of "leveled" content)....and I'm not sure I'm saying this right....then you end up with Themepark game play.
Except it has no subs, so it has won even before release?
Good point. I really mean players, numbers.
Semantics aside, while GW2 is doing quite a bit different than the average themepark they are including some things that the bigger names mostly neglect- such as minigames and housing. I'm still personally on the fence about the game and I think it's longevity will truly be determined by how well the PvE endgame is received as well as just how tenacious the PvP crowd they acquire will be- from what I've seen the PvP crowd can be extremely fickle regardless of the quality of PvP mechanics in a game.
Anet can make the majority of gamers feel like "winners" in PvE but there will always be losers in PvP and it's only a small amount of players that are interested in learning to get better instead of hitting the forums to cry about [insert random imbalance].
I made a reply and it became a topic LOL. Her it is again.
Title:
MOVW – Massively Online Virtual World.
Post apoplectic world with medieval theme.
Any fiction goes, doesn't matter.
Archwind (Old name Kingdoms of when) – You heard it before? I talk about it many times here and elsewhere.
Features:
Immense world – 60 Km x Km. 51.2 14 cities, 100+ dungeons.
Doesn't really matter if the world is empty and the stuff in it bland and poor - see Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Bigger =/= better.
I have 100% of the landmass completed in under 70 hours of work. I am 21 days from having the world texturing to edit point. It is 100% computer generated.
Open world PvP with optional PvE only. Play how you want.
Meh... alright. Don't really care for open world PvP tho.
Three distinct factions with two sub factions.
You don't want to fragment the population too much. Other than that I don't care.
Cross faction alliances.
Could get messy. I don't care for drama. It is so juvenile in games.
Border conflicts for resource control and land control.
Interesting. Could have potential if these borders would be an accessible source of action.
Multipath quest system with multiple outcomes that effect how the world perceives you. - The writer is standing by waiting for payment. The novel is a multi-path novel where you choose the outcome and the outcome is not ending but the beginning. The quest system is based on the lore of the novel and therefore has no direct path. You will have to buy the novel to get the DvDs to play because it is a packaged deal.
Multiple paths to quests will amount to an exponential amount of work. Likely infeasible if you plan to have a lot of quests. Not to mention a lot of your work is essentially wasted because most players don't explore all the paths.
In-depth crafting system where all drops in the world are useable.
Doesn't mean anything without details.
Collections, trophies and player housing.
Achievements? Don't really care about those. Don't care about putting them on display either.
No instances.
Why? You gotta know what your getting and what you're giving up by not using instances.
No classes
Why? What kind of party dynamics have you planned and how do you plan to keep play styles distinct and balanced?
Five levels of game play skills. No monster levels or player levels just skill levels.
What skills? How does the game work? Dicerolls? What?
Status in the world means something so you can become famous or infamous. It cost gold and status to go to war and the winner get the oppositions gold and world status.
These artificial rules for war are always exploitable in one way or the other... Don't like em.
Without any details, most of what you list doesn't tell me anything about the game and how it plays out.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Why? What kind of party dynamics have you planned and how do you plan to keep play styles distinct and balanced?
I probably should have said no classes at creation.
Balance? – There is no balance and there will never be any balance. Balance is a bad thing. Life is unfair. It does not mean that anyone combination will be super overpowered either.
You get classified as you progress by which skills you choose to advance. Everyone gets to to pick from same pool of 100 skills. Choose wisely because you need to grow these skills from novice to grandmaster and only 5 can be grandmaster, 3 mastered, 1 journeyman, 1 adept and the rest are novice. Some may want to grandmaster their trades and work toward the social aspect. completely ignoring their combat skills. They can survive the open world but delving into dungeons will be more risky.
Races are not balanced either so pick wisely.
In the end it will be more about player skill and how to use the skill set anyway.
Why? What kind of party dynamics have you planned and how do you plan to keep play styles distinct and balanced?
I probably should have said no classes at creation.
Balance? – There is no balance and there will never be any balance. Balance is a bad thing. Life is unfair. It does not mean that anyone combination will be super overpowered either.
You get classified as you progress by which skills you choose to advance. Everyone gets to to pick from same pool of 100 skills. Choose wisely because you need to grow these skills from novice to grandmaster and only 5 can be grandmaster, 3 mastered, 1 journeyman, 1 adept and the rest are novice. Some may want to grandmaster their trades and work toward the social aspect. completely ignoring their combat skills. They can survive the open world but delving into dungeons will be more risky.
Races are not balanced either so pick wisely.
In the end it will be more about player skill and how to use the skill set anyway.
Being balanced means that all choices are equally viable (ideal situtaion). So one choice wouldn't be outright worse than the other, or better than the other for that matter. I don't understand. You say you don't want balance but you have balance?
Balance is a good thing. In any game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Understood. If there's one thing that's seems to be coming clear, it's that these companies do see the problems. But much like politicians, they don't want to give up the core beliefs. In this case, that players play primarily for the "dings" (levels and gear). And that to me is the core, the foundation, of what's wrong. That gets old, because one to another is really all the same. But a game with experiences, now that never gets old. But designing a game with the variety that comes to mind, that requires player interaction. Not PvP, but all sorts of interactions based on trade, knowledge, discovery, community, all this can be in a game if the game only allows the players the freedom to do it, mith minimal content (camparatively speaking). Look to Eve and UO (rares, trade and player contracts, player run events, all the social stuff) for this, as examples, and expand on those lessons. I believe PvP with controls for players (justice system that works) can add a lot to this, but it comes with too much bagage now. I see guild wars as a separate thing that can also be included, or not. And I believe that a great game can be made using only PvE.
As a person who's favorite MMO experience was SWG pre-cu, you can bet I agree with everything you said here. I think many of us who prefer that sort of thing will never grasp what it is that keeps people playing themeparks that do not incorporate these aspects, or this philosophy. You did a good job of highlighting the main problem we see in those games above the yellow.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Why? What kind of party dynamics have you planned and how do you plan to keep play styles distinct and balanced?
I probably should have said no classes at creation.
Balance? – There is no balance and there will never be any balance. Balance is a bad thing. Life is unfair. It does not mean that anyone combination will be super overpowered either.
You get classified as you progress by which skills you choose to advance. Everyone gets to to pick from same pool of 100 skills. Choose wisely because you need to grow these skills from novice to grandmaster and only 5 can be grandmaster, 3 mastered, 1 journeyman, 1 adept and the rest are novice. Some may want to grandmaster their trades and work toward the social aspect. completely ignoring their combat skills. They can survive the open world but delving into dungeons will be more risky.
Races are not balanced either so pick wisely.
In the end it will be more about player skill and how to use the skill set anyway.
Being balanced means that all choices are equally viable (ideal situtaion). So one choice wouldn't be outright worse than the other, or better than the other for that matter. I don't understand. You say you don't want balance but you have balance?
Balance is a good thing. In any game.
I guess you don't understand what i was saying here. The skills are all valid but I will ask this question.
How do you balance a poorly skilled player against a skilled player?
What the hell do you guys assume? That was want to run for half an hour and not come onto anything? Why the hell do you assume we want extremes like that? You have to run in WoW, you know.
Edit to add: at least you used to.
Edit again to add: The difference from WoW's overland and a Sandbox is that in WoW, you are restricted to where you can go, and directed via quests not only where to go, but in what you can get, as well as faster "levelling". Controlled experience vs. freedom. Cut back the level power gaps (remove godmode zoning), convert the instancing, add more worldly interaction, and add social mechanisms for a more social game, and WoW starts turning into a Sandbox.
You saw "excessive travel" and assumed I meant 30 minutes of empty travel. So don't accuse me of making extreme assumptions.
In reality, any significant chunk of non-gameplay is what players dislike. And travel in typical MMORPGs is non-gameplay (with the tiniest speck of very shallow gameplay in the form of avoiding mobs.)
Sure you have to run places in WOW. My prior post suggested that WOW would be that much better if unneeded travel was further minimized with a Diablo-like waypoint system. Travel is nearly devoid of gameplay, so a game isn't going to be as fun if you have to spend 1-2 minutes getting somewhere that could be spent engaging in interesting gameplay instead.
Coincidental that you bring level-based zones into the discussion, as minimizing travel's non-gameplay is one of the biggest reasons to design zones that way!
As for worrying about level power gaps, if there's a problem to be solved (and many players don't think so), it can be much more easily solved with a CoX-style Sidekick system where players can easily group with players regardless of level.
As for WOW becoming a sandbox, why even discuss the changes needed? The game specifically evolved away from being a sandbox based on player interest and based on what created the best gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
MMO's have become a corporate adventure. Stockholders are a main priority when developing an MMO.
My opinion is MMO's have become too large to develop alone. They need corporate funding in order to sucessfully ship a product. Until developers can find a way to develop an MMO through another souce (crowd-funding), we won't see many innovative MMO's hitting shelves any time soon.
This of course is void if we're talking about indie developers. You will always find people willing to stray from the norm and create games putting the end-users first.
I guess you don't understand what i was saying here. The skills are all valid but I will ask this question.
How do you balance a poorly skilled player against a skilled player?
You don't. No game balances for player skill. Thats what PvP is all about afterall. Ideally you'd want to always play against players close to your skill-level so that you'd always feel challenged and you'd always have a chance to win. In instanced PvP you can do this with a smart rating and matchmaking system or an auto-team-balance function. However you can't do that (it would be very tricky atleast) in open world PvP so I have to accept that.
You just make sure that all skills and races are all equally viable and you'll have a nice diversity of builds around.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
What the hell do you guys assume? That was want to run for half an hour and not come onto anything? Why the hell do you assume we want extremes like that? You have to run in WoW, you know.
Edit to add: at least you used to.
Edit again to add: The difference from WoW's overland and a Sandbox is that in WoW, you are restricted to where you can go, and directed via quests not only where to go, but in what you can get, as well as faster "levelling". Controlled experience vs. freedom. Cut back the level power gaps (remove godmode zoning), convert the instancing, add more worldly interaction, and add social mechanisms for a more social game, and WoW starts turning into a Sandbox.
You saw "excessive travel" and assumed I meant 30 minutes of empty travel. So don't accuse me of making extreme assumptions.
In reality, any significant chunk of non-gameplay is what players dislike. And travel in typical MMORPGs is non-gameplay (with the tiniest speck of very shallow gameplay in the form of avoiding mobs.)
Sure you have to run places in WOW. My prior post suggested that WOW would be that much better if unneeded travel was further minimized with a Diablo-like waypoint system. Travel is nearly devoid of gameplay, so a game isn't going to be as fun if you have to spend 1-2 minutes getting somewhere that could be spent engaging in interesting gameplay instead.
Coincidental that you bring level-based zones into the discussion, as minimizing travel's non-gameplay is one of the biggest reasons to design zones that way!
As for worrying about level power gaps, if there's a problem to be solved (and many players don't think so), it can be much more easily solved with a CoX-style Sidekick system where players can easily group with players regardless of level.
As for WOW becoming a sandbox, why even discuss the changes needed? The game specifically evolved away from being a sandbox based on player interest and based on what created the best gameplay.
The whole point of a good Sandbox's travel is wondering MOBs, and random chances of encounters, between fixed content. That adds the game play of keeping your eyes and ears open.
I know, I know, that's not "good game design" according to you. Where waypoints and controlled experience is just the bomb.
The whole point of a good Sandbox's travel is wondering MOBs, and random chances of encounters, between fixed content. That adds the game play of keeping your eyes and ears open.
I know, I know, that's not "good game design" according to you. Where waypoints and controlled experience is just the bomb.
Well I've pointed out the simple truth that travel in existingtraditional MMORPGs is virtually devoid of gameplay. Which makes it bad game design for a developer to force players into that undesirable non-gameplay for more than the bare minimum.
If you want to discuss a theoretical MMORPG which made travel fun (by filling it with interesting gameplay), then obviously I'm going to agree that's smart game design.
No traditional MMORPG is like that.
The non-traditional MMORPG which made travel fun (Puzzle Pirates) did it by making travel be the game. The very act of traveling had a depth of gameplay completely unlike any traditional MMORPGs, and as a result: it was fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
I think it is mostly a problem of content.
The next game to really break out will be the game where you can set out from a city on the east coast of a continent, and walk west for 24 hours and not hit an artificial barrier. Where walking slightly south of west would have brought you to different things such that you never HAVE to specifically go to point X you just have the option of doing so.
Every game these days is so very content dense and size small. You spend 20 hours in what amounts to a 100x100 grid. You fight a monster in 6x5 you turn in the quest at 10x7 and sell your items at 35x35. When you are done you go to another 100x100 grid. When you run out of zones//are max level you actually shift from having 100x100 grids to having 2000x1 lines. Dungeons/Raids. Data points.
No real exploration and very little "I did this first."
The next game to really "win" will be one where you can carve your name on a rock 75 miles west of the city and someone eventually ends up there a year later and wonders who did that?
----
If anything we have been going in the wrong direction that way... I remember reaching the endgame of WoW a month or so after release and thinking -- this has been quite a ride -- they really need 3 more continents at least.
Everquest -- the original everquest had a much more wide open feel to it.
Things have become too content dense, too convenient, and too 6-hour playstation gameish. Yes it has happened to other genres as well -- like 6 hours of play and done -- very pretty -- very scripted -- and done. Like a book.
----
In a lot of ways I blame the graphics. I mean really, if you want to code up models for 5,000 different kinds of monsters instead of 50 -- actually in some games these days it is more like 25. It takes an awful lot of work with the number of polygons people expect.
If you want a world as opposed to a few settings, you need a lot more variety of terrain etc as well. All of which take a lot more time at the levels people expect today.
No it doesn't... GW2 isn't even out yet. I saw lots of praise for SWTOR, AOC, Aion, etc... during their open betas as well. You can't judge how much players like an MMO till atleast a month or two in.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
The concept is what I am talking about, it's not a sandbox, but it is something many who are sick and tired of basic themeparks are looking forward to.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
And they were looking forward to SWTOR VO and 4th pillar, to AOC actiony combat and mature(boobs) content, Aion's flying and pvp, War's city battles and public quests, etc... But in the end they were still sick of tired of the basic themeparks and began to look forward to other MMO themepark crap covered in a slightly different sauce.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
So you're saying all these people could only really want a sandbox? There's nothing else possible in design terms that is different enough?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
We'll see how it goes. If it doesn't play like a Sandbox, I say it loses subs too. And that's the point of the general difference in Sandbox/Themepark. It's not black and white, it's general. And it's all about the game play. Players that love Skyrim call it a Sandbox (unless they understand the mechanics), even though it's got the mechanics of a Themepark. It's in how it plays. But there's a big difference in how a SPG and a MMO work with the same mechanics. GWII is similar to Skyrim in how they hope to change up from Themepark, right? (Generally speaking.)
But it's more than just the term Sandbox. It's "worldly", in my mind. Sandbox can be taken to mean the mechanics of interaction, but if you forget the freedom to go where you want to (as in directed game play, not total lack of "leveled" content)....and I'm not sure I'm saying this right....then you end up with Themepark game play.
Once upon a time....
Nope, honestly I don't think they know what they want. That being said, I don't think WoW lite with new feature A and B is what, going to keep these MMO hopper playing one game for years. Do I think they would play a full on sandbox like MO or Wurm, nope but mixing sandbox and themepark elements in to one game just might.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
Don't misunderstand, I understand what you're saying here, I too believe sandbox design lends itself far more to longevity, I really don't think there's any question about that. That's in reference to what we've seen over the years though.
I feel the thing that's really hurting themeparks today is the gated nature of it all, and too much focus on rewarding only those who want to grind for the key to those gates (gear). Replacing that with something more about long term fun may be the answer (for that design), and I think that's what GW2 is trying to do. I'm not sold on the game myself yet. I'm just speaking in terms of trending opinions shared over the last year or so.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Like I wrote earlier "something more" or something different doesn't necessarily mean sandboxes. There's plenty of stuff you can do better and differently even within what you classify as themepark.
And I don't need to reevaluate my opinions. I enjoy many "sandbox" games, just not the MMORPG ones. Mostly because they simply suck. They usually have poor production values, grind, timesinks, they are unpolished, shallow or needlessly complicated - or both at the same time - they are poorly balanced with many redundant options and features, sometimes completely empty and void of purpose... You can say that I'm not a fan of bad game design but I'm certainly not a hater. Well, I loathe FFA PvP but I have my preferences too.
Anyway, discrediting me, does not support your argument.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
I'm not on the train with you guys but am certainly interested in seeing what all the internet complainers could possibly do because from where I sit there seem to be two development styles in mmorpgs lately those who stick with the tried and true from games like Rift,LOTRO,WOW and then those who try for this "innovation" I hear so much about and these tend to be games like EVE,Darkfall,Fallen Earth,FFXIV and Guild Wars 2.
The funny thing is EVe is the only game in that second list that seems to do anything at all and one isn't even released yet while those from the first list like it or not are the top mmorpgs on the market.
I don't see the state of the industry is really any different than it has been for the last five years or so the burn outs get all over the web whining about any game that resembles anything they've played before then they pull the "innovative" games in so many directions they crash and burn anyway because the one thing these people can't stop doing is spitting venom and it doesn't seem to matter if it's even towards a game they claimed to be in love with only weeks earlier.
So yeah when all of you innovation seekers get together and create a game or community with real growth I'll be on board to see how that goes I'm not holding my breath for it to happen though.
Understood. If there's one thing that's seems to be coming clear, it's that these companies do see the problems. But much like politicians, they don't want to give up the core beliefs. In this case, that players play primarily for the "dings" (levels and gear). And that to me is the core, the foundation, of what's wrong. That gets old, because one to another is really all the same. But a game with experiences, now that never gets old. But designing a game with the variety that comes to mind, that requires player interaction. Not PvP, but all sorts of interactions based on trade, knowledge, discovery, community, all this can be in a game if the game only allows the players the freedom to do it, mith minimal content (camparatively speaking). Look to Eve and UO (rares, trade and player contracts, player run events, all the social stuff) for this, as examples, and expand on those lessons. I believe PvP with controls for players (justice system that works) can add a lot to this, but it comes with too much bagage now. I see guild wars as a separate thing that can also be included, or not. And I believe that a great game can be made using only PvE.
Once upon a time....
Except it has no subs, so it has won even before release?
Good point. I really mean players, numbers.
Once upon a time....
Semantics aside, while GW2 is doing quite a bit different than the average themepark they are including some things that the bigger names mostly neglect- such as minigames and housing. I'm still personally on the fence about the game and I think it's longevity will truly be determined by how well the PvE endgame is received as well as just how tenacious the PvP crowd they acquire will be- from what I've seen the PvP crowd can be extremely fickle regardless of the quality of PvP mechanics in a game.
Anet can make the majority of gamers feel like "winners" in PvE but there will always be losers in PvP and it's only a small amount of players that are interested in learning to get better instead of hitting the forums to cry about [insert random imbalance].
Without any details, most of what you list doesn't tell me anything about the game and how it plays out.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I probably should have said no classes at creation.
Balance? – There is no balance and there will never be any balance. Balance is a bad thing. Life is unfair. It does not mean that anyone combination will be super overpowered either.
You get classified as you progress by which skills you choose to advance. Everyone gets to to pick from same pool of 100 skills. Choose wisely because you need to grow these skills from novice to grandmaster and only 5 can be grandmaster, 3 mastered, 1 journeyman, 1 adept and the rest are novice. Some may want to grandmaster their trades and work toward the social aspect. completely ignoring their combat skills. They can survive the open world but delving into dungeons will be more risky.
Races are not balanced either so pick wisely.
In the end it will be more about player skill and how to use the skill set anyway.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
Being balanced means that all choices are equally viable (ideal situtaion). So one choice wouldn't be outright worse than the other, or better than the other for that matter. I don't understand. You say you don't want balance but you have balance?
Balance is a good thing. In any game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
As a person who's favorite MMO experience was SWG pre-cu, you can bet I agree with everything you said here. I think many of us who prefer that sort of thing will never grasp what it is that keeps people playing themeparks that do not incorporate these aspects, or this philosophy. You did a good job of highlighting the main problem we see in those games above the yellow.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I guess you don't understand what i was saying here. The skills are all valid but I will ask this question.
How do you balance a poorly skilled player against a skilled player?
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
You saw "excessive travel" and assumed I meant 30 minutes of empty travel. So don't accuse me of making extreme assumptions.
In reality, any significant chunk of non-gameplay is what players dislike. And travel in typical MMORPGs is non-gameplay (with the tiniest speck of very shallow gameplay in the form of avoiding mobs.)
Sure you have to run places in WOW. My prior post suggested that WOW would be that much better if unneeded travel was further minimized with a Diablo-like waypoint system. Travel is nearly devoid of gameplay, so a game isn't going to be as fun if you have to spend 1-2 minutes getting somewhere that could be spent engaging in interesting gameplay instead.
Coincidental that you bring level-based zones into the discussion, as minimizing travel's non-gameplay is one of the biggest reasons to design zones that way!
As for worrying about level power gaps, if there's a problem to be solved (and many players don't think so), it can be much more easily solved with a CoX-style Sidekick system where players can easily group with players regardless of level.
As for WOW becoming a sandbox, why even discuss the changes needed? The game specifically evolved away from being a sandbox based on player interest and based on what created the best gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
MMO's have become a corporate adventure. Stockholders are a main priority when developing an MMO.
My opinion is MMO's have become too large to develop alone. They need corporate funding in order to sucessfully ship a product. Until developers can find a way to develop an MMO through another souce (crowd-funding), we won't see many innovative MMO's hitting shelves any time soon.
This of course is void if we're talking about indie developers. You will always find people willing to stray from the norm and create games putting the end-users first.
Played - M59, EQOA, EQ, EQ2, PS, SWG[Favorite], DAoC, UO, RS, MXO, CoH/CoV, TR, FFXI, FoM, WoW, Eve, Rift, SWTOR, TSW.
Playing - PS2, AoW, GW2
You don't. No game balances for player skill. Thats what PvP is all about afterall. Ideally you'd want to always play against players close to your skill-level so that you'd always feel challenged and you'd always have a chance to win. In instanced PvP you can do this with a smart rating and matchmaking system or an auto-team-balance function. However you can't do that (it would be very tricky atleast) in open world PvP so I have to accept that.
You just make sure that all skills and races are all equally viable and you'll have a nice diversity of builds around.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The whole point of a good Sandbox's travel is wondering MOBs, and random chances of encounters, between fixed content. That adds the game play of keeping your eyes and ears open.
I know, I know, that's not "good game design" according to you. Where waypoints and controlled experience is just the bomb.
Once upon a time....
Well I've pointed out the simple truth that travel in existing traditional MMORPGs is virtually devoid of gameplay. Which makes it bad game design for a developer to force players into that undesirable non-gameplay for more than the bare minimum.
If you want to discuss a theoretical MMORPG which made travel fun (by filling it with interesting gameplay), then obviously I'm going to agree that's smart game design.
No traditional MMORPG is like that.
The non-traditional MMORPG which made travel fun (Puzzle Pirates) did it by making travel be the game. The very act of traveling had a depth of gameplay completely unlike any traditional MMORPGs, and as a result: it was fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver