Convenience vs. Inconvenience. Play vs. Work. Fun vs. Serious.
Er no, this is a thread about what features contribute to games not being like MMOs, such as features that remove multiplayer emphasis. It's pretty clear.
It is not clear at all. The definition of MMOs have changed over the years.
And if you are talking about MULTIPLAYER features, i would say LFD is a great help to form GROUPS, and it helps the multiplayer aspect of the game.
In fact, it is credited to move WOW's leveling from mainly SP questing to running old dungeons. In fact, Blizz revamped many old dungeons because of this.
It is quite clear. The definition of MMO's has changed over the last decade and is changing again now. Games like SWTOR and TESO getting dumped on because of stagnation and copying. Games like archage, TSW, GW2, Repop are being elevated because they are different and non traditional games. You do not need to have a lobby or even LFG tools to encourage grouping (a la GW2 group without grouping) that is the change that is coming now ready or not.
Vindictus is lobby based, Rusty Hearts is lobby based these games are several rungs lower than a AAA mmo.
Vertical progression is a flawed idea. People don't like to grind. Your going to start seeing horizontal progression, open worlds, sandbox elements mixed in with the convenience of themepark. Multiple ways to level that do not involve combat of any kind. Choice will be expanded. The genre will have to expand to include new ideas or it will cease to be as profitable as it has been, demonstrated by the playerbases reaction to Tera, SWTOR, Rift, TESO and the total tonnage of clones that followed it.
It is quite clear. The definition of MMO's has changed over the last decade and is changing again now. Games like SWTOR and TESO getting dumped on because of stagnation and copying. Games like archage, TSW, GW2, Repop are being elevated because they are different and non traditional games. You do not need to have a lobby or even LFG tools to encourage grouping (a la GW2 group without grouping) that is the change that is coming now ready or not.
Vindictus is lobby based, Rusty Hearts is lobby based these games are several rungs lower than a AAA mmo.
Vertical progression is a flawed idea. People don't like to grind. Your going to start seeing horizontal progression, open worlds, sandbox elements mixed in with the convenience of themepark. Multiple ways to level that do not involve combat of any kind. Choice will be expanded. The genre will have to expand to include new ideas or it will cease to be as profitable as it has been, demonstrated by the playerbases reaction to Tera, SWTOR, Rift, TESO and the total tonnage of clones that followed it.
TSW has story elements and instances. True it has no classes, and is ability based .. so you still improve (i.e. level up) your abilities.
GW2 is "elevated" only by lots of talk. It is not even out yet, and we won't know how successful it is.
TOR sold >2M in the first month. How many does TSW sell?
Now i would grant that group without grouping may be interesting. But i will see the actual implementation before making up my mind. It is not clear that you can do interesting scripted mechanics withotu instances.
Honestly, I don't really think games are simple enough to have a universal feature list. You ask me what's wrong with a game that I dislike and my answer should be obvious. The main issue with MMORPG development is that it's strayed from a vision to a business. It will be difficult to find an ideal game as long as games are being created because they're profitable. I can't say all games are like that, because the indie scene is thriving currently, especially single player games. I would like to see more indie MMORPG's, but it's costly, time consuming and not very accessible in general. Basically, I think the whole 'Hollywood' direction that game development is taking sucks.
Honestly, I don't really think games are simple enough to have a universal feature list. You ask me what's wrong with a game that I dislike and my answer should be obvious. The main issue with MMORPG development is that it's strayed from a vision to a business. It will be difficult to find an ideal game as long as games are being created because they're profitable. I can't say all games are like that, because the indie scene is thriving currently, especially single player games. I would like to see more indie MMORPG's, but it's costly, time consuming and not very accessible in general. Basically, I think the whole 'Hollywood' direction that game development is taking sucks.
Personally i think MANY enjoyable entertainment cannot be done without large investment.
If there is no "Hollywood", there is no Avenger, no Dark Knight, no Avatar, no Terminator 2, no Aliens ...
In the case of AC/AO/DAOC, you're right about not waiting for boss mobs, but for all the wrong reasons. Boss mobs in those games either (a) didn't exist, (b) were so rare they weren't part of the core gameplay, and/or (c) were unrewarding or had no unique abilities so that they weren't really even boss mobs. ("Oh people don't like waiting for boss mobs? Well let's completely remove the idea of unique, story-driven, unique ability-using villains from the game world!" isn't exactly what we want developers saying.)
I'm not trying to imply it's not cool to meet up with other adventurers in a dungeon. I'm trying to imply that seeing those players adds so little, so rarely, compared with the strong negatives of the experience.
Even without boss mob camping, there were definitely times in early MMORPG dungeoning where 1-3 other parties are in there and you're all the same level and everyone's killing rate is massively slowed because you're all aiming for the same mobs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think the biggest one for me is cutscenes....They jsut have no place in a MMO....THey make me feel like the story is already written and my character isn't really a part of it.......Cutscenes are fine in a game like Dragon Age, especially where your choices do matter....In a game like TSW though, it absolutely destroys any immersion right off the bat.
Just started looking at this thread so that's why I'm picking out post number 2 to quote out of a thread of many. I'll get to the rest later.
I disagree on this one, though also agree. In the disagree section, I think TSW did it right, all they're doing is giving you a scene of someone talking to you. You don't even answer back so your character, however you imagined it, isn't harmed by the responses it gives. Because it doesn't give any. And that's where I agree, as TOR did it so badly that it did destroy the immersion. The game was basically playing the character for me, it was telling me what my character would say and how it would feel, what its voice would sound like. Awful awful. Remove these from MMO's, sure. TSW's way of doing it though, it's more like the wall of quest text, just voiced and acted.
1. I am not too concerned about if the new mechanics "destory" any of the old ones. If the change make the game more fun, I am in. Obviously whether a mechanic is fun or not, is subjective.
2. Two more points. First, there is no true world longevity. You play a game on the same server for years, many don't. People come and go. The community on a server is highly dynamic. Secondly, like i said before, i really don't care about people i don't know ANYWAY. Whether they are on the server for 10 years, or a month, is quite irrelevant to me.
Oh one more point. What about the larger community? With X-realm tools, and matching system like D3, you can play with ANYONE on earth. Wouldn't that even be better? No more artificial boundaries.
3. What do you mean? Tactical combat with complicated mechanics work EXTREMELY well in this genre.
4. No. Take WOW as an example. I play mostly wizard types in both SP & MMOs. Its mage mechanics is MUCH better than those in, for example, SKYRIM. You have CDs & procs to manage. There is mana management with arcance mage. SKYRIM mage is mostly shooting fireballs until your mana is out.
5. They sound as if they do .. all clamouring the return to UO or EQ ... more than a decade old games.
1. Not a great deal to say to point 1 as it is completely and utterly subjective as you say.
2. There is plenty of game longevity. People may come and go but a game that offers a dynamic meta game (aka game world) has more longevity than the vast majority of scripted content/single player style mmorpgs/games.
You might not care about other people on the server you "don't know". For others the point is you get to know a great deal of them (in game terms) as you engage in the meta game with them. If you look in isolation at each gaming session and only consider the arena you are in at the time, it will not matter. If you are engaged in longer term conflict over territory (for example), it matters to many. That longevity comes from mechanics allowing the players freedom to drive their own conent, that is what is missing (for many) from modern mmorpgs.
Matching tools whilst useful for some games, for some things, are not the same as being engaged with a community in the traditional sense at all.
3. Stat progression, heavy itemization, constant rebalancing attempts, having to combine stuff origninally designed for pve into pvp, tab targeting.... A game which is purely skill driven, which is completely and utterly dedicated to pvp and designed for pvp from the ground up. Which everyone who plays it knows it's purely about pvp. Tends to be far, far, far better for competitive, arena, instanced, e-sport pvp than an mmorpg.
Mmorpgs can add larger scale combat, can add longer term combat, can add dynamic events which alter the combat. Can mix pvp with the rest of the meta game (economic, territory, resource etc). Can allow for mutliple threads to impact upon pvp, or just allow for small scale, balls to the walls combat. Well they can if the don't instantize(sic) everything and remove the meta game.
4. That is not really what I meant. A "mage" is something traditionally seen in mmorpgs, WoW having good or bad "Mage mechanics" is not relevant to what I was pointing out. You could have "mage mechanics" in a traditional world simulator, it is not a case of one or the other. It is the anti world driving mechanics, the instances and focus on arenas, the lack of player economies. The crappy scripted stories you are forced into instead of writing your own. These are the single player type mechanics that are dumbed down in mmorpgs compared to their single player versions (for the main).
As I say, you may not care about that, others do.
5. Well it is a bit unfair to classify it as living in the past just because what are often widely regarded as being the best examples are older games.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Since this thread has gotten bloated and hard to follow with far too much arguing over opinions, I'll put the highlights of what most of you have to say that are Anti-MMO features in the opening post. If you think I'm missing something or I made an error, let me know.
2. There is plenty of game longevity. People may come and go but a game that offers a dynamic meta game (aka game world) has more longevity than the vast majority of scripted content/single player style mmorpgs/games.
But is that more fun? I would much rather play 10 different scripted content game, each for a few weeks, than ONE long game with dynamic meta game. So far, i have not seen dynamic events that do not have a generic random feel.
Scripted, well designed content is more fun to me, so far in my experience.
You might not care about other people on the server you "don't know". For others the point is you get to know a great deal of them (in game terms) as you engage in the meta game with them. If you look in isolation at each gaming session and only consider the arena you are in at the time, it will not matter. If you are engaged in longer term conflict over territory (for example), it matters to many. That longevity comes from mechanics allowing the players freedom to drive their own conent, that is what is missing (for many) from modern mmorpgs.
I get to know people playing different games over the battlenet too. There is no reason to focus on a single server. In fact, most gamers are playing meta games ... engage in multiple titles. No reason i should not play with people i like over multiple games.
And long term conflict is missing .. but i do not really care for two reasons. One, i have no intention of having to commit to a long term conflict, particularly one that i cannot jump in and play. If i can jump in and play, short term scripted content is as fun (as long as i am not repeating too much) compared to long term conflict.
In fact, long term conflict over the same region is probably no more fun than WG in WOW, which you fight the same battle in the same zone again and again.
Matching tools whilst useful for some games, for some things, are not the same as being engaged with a community in the traditional sense at all.
No. It is not the same. It is BETTER for me. Less wait. No commitment. Can quit any time. No need to be on the same server.
4. That is not really what I meant. A "mage" is something traditionally seen in mmorpgs, WoW having good or bad "Mage mechanics" is not relevant to what I was pointing out. You could have "mage mechanics" in a traditional world simulator, it is not a case of one or the other. It is the anti world driving mechanics, the instances and focus on arenas, the lack of player economies. The crappy scripted stories you are forced into instead of writing your own. These are the single player type mechanics that are dumbed down in mmorpgs compared to their single player versions (for the main).
Crappy scripted stories? Many professional scripted stories are better than 99.9% of the player created crap out there. If they can be done well in SP games (which you cannot deny), they can be done in instances. A scripted sequence is a scripted sequence no matter where you play it.
As I say, you may not care about that, others do.
No i don't. I want a game that is fun, with no dead time.
5. Well it is a bit unfair to classify it as living in the past just because what are often widely regarded as being the best examples are older games.
That is the definition of living in the past .. hold on to the best examples of the past. In fact, i played those two games extensive (because i have no choice). I like modern MMOs much better. Won't go back to a game without instances, and some lfg tools.
Comments
It is quite clear. The definition of MMO's has changed over the last decade and is changing again now. Games like SWTOR and TESO getting dumped on because of stagnation and copying. Games like archage, TSW, GW2, Repop are being elevated because they are different and non traditional games. You do not need to have a lobby or even LFG tools to encourage grouping (a la GW2 group without grouping) that is the change that is coming now ready or not.
Vindictus is lobby based, Rusty Hearts is lobby based these games are several rungs lower than a AAA mmo.
Vertical progression is a flawed idea. People don't like to grind. Your going to start seeing horizontal progression, open worlds, sandbox elements mixed in with the convenience of themepark. Multiple ways to level that do not involve combat of any kind. Choice will be expanded. The genre will have to expand to include new ideas or it will cease to be as profitable as it has been, demonstrated by the playerbases reaction to Tera, SWTOR, Rift, TESO and the total tonnage of clones that followed it.
TSW has story elements and instances. True it has no classes, and is ability based .. so you still improve (i.e. level up) your abilities.
GW2 is "elevated" only by lots of talk. It is not even out yet, and we won't know how successful it is.
TOR sold >2M in the first month. How many does TSW sell?
Now i would grant that group without grouping may be interesting. But i will see the actual implementation before making up my mind. It is not clear that you can do interesting scripted mechanics withotu instances.
Honestly, I don't really think games are simple enough to have a universal feature list. You ask me what's wrong with a game that I dislike and my answer should be obvious. The main issue with MMORPG development is that it's strayed from a vision to a business. It will be difficult to find an ideal game as long as games are being created because they're profitable. I can't say all games are like that, because the indie scene is thriving currently, especially single player games. I would like to see more indie MMORPG's, but it's costly, time consuming and not very accessible in general. Basically, I think the whole 'Hollywood' direction that game development is taking sucks.
Personally i think MANY enjoyable entertainment cannot be done without large investment.
If there is no "Hollywood", there is no Avenger, no Dark Knight, no Avatar, no Terminator 2, no Aliens ...
In the case of AC/AO/DAOC, you're right about not waiting for boss mobs, but for all the wrong reasons. Boss mobs in those games either (a) didn't exist, (b) were so rare they weren't part of the core gameplay, and/or (c) were unrewarding or had no unique abilities so that they weren't really even boss mobs. ("Oh people don't like waiting for boss mobs? Well let's completely remove the idea of unique, story-driven, unique ability-using villains from the game world!" isn't exactly what we want developers saying.)
I'm not trying to imply it's not cool to meet up with other adventurers in a dungeon. I'm trying to imply that seeing those players adds so little, so rarely, compared with the strong negatives of the experience.
Even without boss mob camping, there were definitely times in early MMORPG dungeoning where 1-3 other parties are in there and you're all the same level and everyone's killing rate is massively slowed because you're all aiming for the same mobs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Just started looking at this thread so that's why I'm picking out post number 2 to quote out of a thread of many. I'll get to the rest later.
I disagree on this one, though also agree. In the disagree section, I think TSW did it right, all they're doing is giving you a scene of someone talking to you. You don't even answer back so your character, however you imagined it, isn't harmed by the responses it gives. Because it doesn't give any. And that's where I agree, as TOR did it so badly that it did destroy the immersion. The game was basically playing the character for me, it was telling me what my character would say and how it would feel, what its voice would sound like. Awful awful. Remove these from MMO's, sure. TSW's way of doing it though, it's more like the wall of quest text, just voiced and acted.
1. Not a great deal to say to point 1 as it is completely and utterly subjective as you say.
2. There is plenty of game longevity. People may come and go but a game that offers a dynamic meta game (aka game world) has more longevity than the vast majority of scripted content/single player style mmorpgs/games.
You might not care about other people on the server you "don't know". For others the point is you get to know a great deal of them (in game terms) as you engage in the meta game with them. If you look in isolation at each gaming session and only consider the arena you are in at the time, it will not matter. If you are engaged in longer term conflict over territory (for example), it matters to many. That longevity comes from mechanics allowing the players freedom to drive their own conent, that is what is missing (for many) from modern mmorpgs.
Matching tools whilst useful for some games, for some things, are not the same as being engaged with a community in the traditional sense at all.
3. Stat progression, heavy itemization, constant rebalancing attempts, having to combine stuff origninally designed for pve into pvp, tab targeting.... A game which is purely skill driven, which is completely and utterly dedicated to pvp and designed for pvp from the ground up. Which everyone who plays it knows it's purely about pvp. Tends to be far, far, far better for competitive, arena, instanced, e-sport pvp than an mmorpg.
Mmorpgs can add larger scale combat, can add longer term combat, can add dynamic events which alter the combat. Can mix pvp with the rest of the meta game (economic, territory, resource etc). Can allow for mutliple threads to impact upon pvp, or just allow for small scale, balls to the walls combat. Well they can if the don't instantize(sic) everything and remove the meta game.
4. That is not really what I meant. A "mage" is something traditionally seen in mmorpgs, WoW having good or bad "Mage mechanics" is not relevant to what I was pointing out. You could have "mage mechanics" in a traditional world simulator, it is not a case of one or the other. It is the anti world driving mechanics, the instances and focus on arenas, the lack of player economies. The crappy scripted stories you are forced into instead of writing your own. These are the single player type mechanics that are dumbed down in mmorpgs compared to their single player versions (for the main).
As I say, you may not care about that, others do.
5. Well it is a bit unfair to classify it as living in the past just because what are often widely regarded as being the best examples are older games.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Thank you everyone that contributed.
Since this thread has gotten bloated and hard to follow with far too much arguing over opinions, I'll put the highlights of what most of you have to say that are Anti-MMO features in the opening post. If you think I'm missing something or I made an error, let me know.
OK edited the opening post for you that like thread-TLDR