It is not misleading if the categorization is clearly stated.
"Online games" does include COD and BF4 so the label "MMO" is a smaller set, and that is why it is useful.
It is not poor methodology if that inclusion is what their customer wants. I am sure they can easily re-cut & dice their data according to customer needs.
It's a little ironic that you claim the term is useful because it includes LoL (a 5 vs. 5 game) and doesn't include BF4 (a 32 vs. 32 game.) It's also wrong, since there's really very little actual usefulness to making the distinction (and certainly no usefulness to using an entirely inappropriate and illogical term to describe that subset of games.)
That's why it's poor methodology.
If the customer (the person(s) requesting/purchasing the research) wants research on a certain set of games, that's entirely appropriate. But calling things by unclear, misleading, and outright wrong terms is just sloppy. It has more to do with researchers being unfamiliar with what they're researching than a decision made with conscious, knowledgeable intent.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It is not misleading if the categorization is clearly stated.
"Online games" does include COD and BF4 so the label "MMO" is a smaller set, and that is why it is useful.
It is not poor methodology if that inclusion is what their customer wants. I am sure they can easily re-cut & dice their data according to customer needs.
It's a little ironic that you claim the term is useful because it includes LoL (a 5 vs. 5 game) and doesn't include BF4 (a 32 vs. 32 game.) It's also wrong, since there's really very little actual usefulness to making the distinction (and certainly no usefulness to using an entirely inappropriate and illogical term to describe that subset of games.)
That's why it's poor methodology.
If the customer (the person(s) requesting/purchasing the research) wants research on a certain set of games, that's entirely appropriate. But calling things by unclear, misleading, and outright wrong terms is just sloppy. It has more to do with researchers being unfamiliar with what they're researching than a decision made with conscious, knowledgeable intent.
Narius, you are so off the mark on this one that I actually have to give Axehilt (an intelligent poster that I next to never agree with) a big ass +1.
In a nutshell you fundamentally make no sense whatsoever; your quest to destroy the meaning of an already established term is pointless and ultimately just makes something simple confusing. This is borderline and questionable logic.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
It's a little ironic that you claim the term is useful because it includes LoL (a 5 vs. 5 game) and doesn't include BF4 (a 32 vs. 32 game.) It's also wrong
Why is it not useful? Now we have a category that includes LoL, and not BF4. It is perfectly clear which is which. Size has little to do with this categorization, it is based on common usage.
"Wrong"? A definition cannot be wrong. If we called this category A ... no one will object. The only reason you are objecting is because the use of the label "MMO" has been changes. It turns out no one has a claim on the English language.
So you say it is wrong. This site, and others also listed LoL as a MMO. I will change the usage when you get all the sites to delist it and change the labeling.
Why is it not useful? Now we have a category that includes LoL, and not BF4. It is perfectly clear which is which. Size has little to do with this categorization, it is based on common usage.
"Wrong"? A definition cannot be wrong. If we called this category A ... no one will object. The only reason you are objecting is because the use of the label "MMO" has been changes. It turns out no one has a claim on the English language.
So you say it is wrong. This site, and others also listed LoL as a MMO. I will change the usage when you get all the sites to delist it and change the labeling.
It's not useful because it lacks a use. There isn't really a situation under which that specific slice of games (all actual MMOs, plus LoL) is particularly useful, and if you have to take the time to specifically explain that's what you mean by "MMO", then why bother using the term to attempt to describe the grouping of games in the first place? It's inefficient, wasted effort when you could simply say "all MMOs, and LoL."
If millions of people decide to use the word "up" to mean down, language changes because it's a shared thing.
If a handful of irresponsible or under-educated people decide to use the word "MMO" to mean all online games (except CoD, and BF4, and...), language doesn't change: they're just wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I happen to believe that a part of the problem with that formula is that the MMO is like a New York street:
Thousands of faces that you happen across briefly and then move on. Occasionally you pick up something they dropped and hand it to them with a quick smile, but then you move on. I feel like I man that lonely New Yorker surrounded by thousands all to busy with whatever it is they are doing alone to notice there are people around they could interact with. And that's the issue, there is no reason or reward for much meaningful interaction.
And yet, somehow, New Yorkers do manage to belong to multiple communities, social circles and intimate groups. It seems the more sensible approach would be to emulate how they go about doing that rather than to create contrived scenarios or conditions to force an environment that human beings (present day, at least) simply aren't wired for.
I was speaking metaphorically. I know that a city where people actually live their entire lives will be more full of community that a game world visited for a few hours each day.
I like your ideas about creatively providing new ways for player to interact in a meaningful way and I agree it sounds great.
Yet, I see no evidence of this in the upcoming/current games. I don't see a trend here towards more group play. I see a trend towards more solo content and instant cross server queue content with people you will likely NEVER meet again.
Unless you can provide specific evidence that grand new schemes are in the works by developers to provide more meaningful community interaction; I still respectfully that someone try a smaller more intimate game world where how you treat others around you has meaningful impact.
Originally posted by FoeHammerJT I'm interested in the communities thoughts on this topic.
This was the original question.
Yet this
Originally posted by FoeHammerJT I feel like "Massive" is getting the dang way!
as well as well as the rest of your answers in this thread leave in *me* the impression that you're not at all interested in the communities' thoughts, but only in those that agree with you. You ask "evidence" or "proof" from people not of your opinion, but offering only your opinion and "feels" in return.
Well, for what it's worth, i disagree with you, strongly. To ME, "massive" isn't about numbers, it's about feelings. One can feel "alone" on a large and populated world, but certainly even moreso in a less populated world the same size. And feeling alone takes the "massive" out for *me*.
So you want to limit the numbers of players? (after all you asked for "Something like 3-400 people you could get to know." and explicitly said "I'd like to see a game world with a smaller community.") That would either mean that you don't allow for a big world, or that you herd this crowd to certain areas so they actually feel populated. The natural trend of players though is to spread out as the game world expands, and resist "herding".
IMO the way to go is AWAY from different servers/shards/worlds, to one world on a single "server" (obviously not just one box but a cluster). Yes, that poses other difficulties, like what i presume has sparked the "too massive" part of your initial question.
Yes there are problems, especially when a huge number of players "clogs" login-servers or certain zones. But these problems are of a technical nature, one can overcome them not only by adding more boxes, but also restructuring the cluster (which runs what when) and of course the (technical) game design itself but most of all a backend that can keep up.
Personally, i think it's the latter two where most mistakes are made, reinforced by using a perfectly logical but still sub-optimal structure of the game's programming.
So, no: Games are not "too massive". At worst, their technical design isn't up the task yet. But that'll change i'm sure.
If you've read my posts you've seen me agree with many people that have different ideas. I think some useful exchange is occurring here.
Can you imagine how massive a game world would need to be to provide sufficient content to a limitless number of millions?
Eve gets away with this because it numbers in the thousands. Not the millions.
Can you imagine Azeroth with 12 million people on it? If the game had 1 million PVE enemies in the entire world, that would be 12 people for each enemy.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "technical limitations" beyond the fact that what you are asking for on a large scale simply isn't possible with a reasonable about of cash for even a mega cluster servers. The amount of bandwidth such a system would require for even the few million playing FF14 right now would rival any of the super computing systems we have out there.
IF we can one day simulate a 25k mile diameter sphere, and create interesting environs in it. Sounds great!
I want a fresh gaming experience this century though..
I also have to dissent with your argument that players tend to resist herding. Its my experience that people tend to gravitate towards others. hence the world's many hugely populated cities. Almost 60% of the worlds population lives in 10% of the most crowded cities. (Look it up) People congregate naturally.
This forum and this topic are about opinions by the way. So yes, I'm freely sharing mine. There is no facts to base this discussion on, since to date we have Online RPGs predominately in two groups: Massive and Small Scale. Very little, if anything exists in between.
I'm merely hopeful that others with a similar desire to be part of a more intimate world will help scare up enough demand for a SINGLE title to try this out. I'm not suggesting every game made into the future only have 400 people in a single game world.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Games are massive many years ago. Right now, the new wave is MOBA, instanced pvp games, and many are not massive.
I cannot follow you on how your reply is related to the thread?
The OP said that FF:AAR has sparked a discussion in his guild about MMO's so i figure the talk is about MMOs and technical issues like clogged login-servers (FF:AAR) or games that can't keep up (i.e. scale) with population in a zone (e.g. EVE, or EQ in certain raidzones with lots of mobs).
Both of these problems are of a technical nature only, and even though the problems manifest with high player numbers, drawing the conclusion that player-numbers should be restricted is exactly the wrong thing to do!
And i am saying it is not just technical, but also gameplay related.
Games are moving away from being massive. Tell me, which game has really massive gameplay? The most popular sub-MMO ... wow ... has most of the gameplay instanced and non-massive. The only massive thing is queuing in a city ... as a lobby.
Devs don't spend the resources to really push massive .. may be because "massive" does not add much to the fun factor (at least to me .. since fun is subjective).
Everything you say about MMO's not needing to be massive contradicts what most gamers want Nari. Look at gaming as a whole, all you hear about in MMOs and solo games is how important it is they get bigger and more open every year. You do not hear players asking for them to be smaller do you? Everything from the size of Final Fantasy MMO's, CoD, Assassins Creed, racing games, to platform games based on Disney IP's. Big is better. But for some reason you keep coming on here and try to tell us that the MMO genre that helped define the idea of big in gaming does not need to be big at all.
You often talk about how posters on here are out of synch with the gaming industry, for example in the use of the term MMO. Well when it comes to massive you are totally out of synch with the entire gaming industry, they know big is better. Big in terms of size and number of players. When a solo game like GTA announces you can play in GTA 5 with 11 players (I think) it is a big deal, when larger MMO worlds are announced it is a big deal. They don't make a song and dance at Pax Prime that an upcoming game is going to be smaller and have less players do they?
If gaming companies build small it is down to having a small budget. It has nothing to do with a small game being a better game or even as good as one that is larger. Most F2P MMOs are small, small budget equals small MMO, its that simple.
Saying it with pictures:
A blanket statement that bigger is better is pretty simplistic. The world and people rarely operate on such a generic basis.
The current MMOs have massive player pools and terrible communities. Please explain how the larger player pool has improved community and social interaction if you would.
It's a little ironic that you claim the term is useful because it includes LoL (a 5 vs. 5 game) and doesn't include BF4 (a 32 vs. 32 game.) It's also wrong
Why is it not useful? Now we have a category that includes LoL, and not BF4. It is perfectly clear which is which. Size has little to do with this categorization, it is based on common usage.
"Wrong"? A definition cannot be wrong. If we called this category A ... no one will object. The only reason you are objecting is because the use of the label "MMO" has been changes. It turns out no one has a claim on the English language.
So you say it is wrong. This site, and others also listed LoL as a MMO. I will change the usage when you get all the sites to delist it and change the labeling.
Yes, the reason LoL is massive is the player pool size. Millions.
The reason MMOs even with instanced content are more massive than previous games: Player pool size!
The reason you will not see Everquest 1 like open dungeons is there are tooooooo many people per server for this to be manageable. Everquest's population grew slowly. Can you imagine that world with 4 million people playing it on 100 servers of 40k each? A long pull time wait for a boss to fight would become days, not hours.
My suggested answer: Leave the world large, make the player pool much smaller and open up the game. Give players more choices, not fewer with instanced content. You can make a world much more open when you don't have 10k people in one area.
The other issue with a large per server player size is that you have to duplicate areas. FF14 has 3 starter areas to spread that population out. And it still felt like I was in the NY Marathon going from place to place cause there were stil so many people around.
Everything you say about MMO's not needing to be massive contradicts what most gamers want Nari.
I doubt you know what gamers want better than i do. Do you have data to show what they want?
Let me put it this way .. look at what sells. Are MMO with bigger open worlds sell better? Eve is the most open .. and it is a pittance compared to WOW, with much less massive gameplay.
The top online games are LOL ... and it is not massive. WoT is a big success. It is not massive.
Sure ... you have popular open world games like SKYRIM, but it is not primiarily an online game.
With the pictures I am trying to illustrate that gaming worlds have got bigger over time regardless of genre. So the successors of PoP are bigger, the successors to early MMOs were bigger too. They are very different styles of games and hard to compare, but all genres have strived to deliver bigger "worlds" across the history of gaming. This is as much to do with the increasing power of computers as with design decisions.
Games keep getting bigger, more of them are online and each year feature more players playing together.
Nari seems to be arguing that small is beautiful and this means designers can ditch Massive and large scale Multiplayer. Sure you can make a game on a small scale and it can still be very good. Take Angry Birds for example, but is their scope for depth and long term satisfaction in such a game?
So small F2P MMOs do make cash shop money, they generate the income needed to support the game. I am assuming F2P here, don't know of any P2P small MMOs. But did they design small because they think that's a better way to make a game? The decision to make MMO like games on a small scale is as much about the spiralling cost of making MMO's as it is about design decisions.
But I am not talking about what makes money, I am talking about what has happened to all games over time. They get bigger and offer the player more.
Nari mentions that I do not know what players want more than he does. This is not directly about players, it is about what the gaming industry has done over time.
Even in the small MMO's and MMO like games that Nari is referring to they have content updates, they try to make their games bigger. Why? Because that's what sells it is what players seem to be happy to pay for. They don't do content patches to make their games smaller do they?
Small is beautiful, but it is only the acorn from which a glorious tree may grow.
I think you and Nari have gotten caught up on a single faucet of Massive.
If you could give me a beautiful world with a simulated space of thousands and thousands of square miles Id still only want a few hundred people on it (Maybe getting into the low thousands). I don't know what the right population correlation is; I just know I'm extremely dissatisfied with the current open worlds, and the current instanced, instant queue no community games.
The actual size of the world doesn't matter except in relation to its population. This is why people think Eve is so amazing that every game should be like Eve and be 1 server!
What they don't realize is how small Eve's population is compared to these MMO releases. Its not even close and Eve's galaxy is so large and mostly empty space. A land game with that size would be a truly massive beast of an undertaking to populate. Perhaps as our programing Algo's get better we can have AI create us that large of render world, but for now its just not possible (or hasn't been so far..)
Games keep getting bigger, more of them are online and each year feature more players playing together.
Nari seems to be arguing that small is beautiful and this means designers can ditch Massive and large scale Multiplayer. Sure you can make a game on a small scale and it can still be very good. Take Angry Birds for example, but is their scope for depth and long term satisfaction in such a game?
Really? Is Deus Ex Human Evolution bigger than COD 3? Is LoL "bigger" than WoW? Is WoT "bigger" than UO? I don't buy the "games keep getting bigger" statement unless you have some statistics and proof.
The answer is "yes". Deus Ex Human Evolution is small compared to EQ. It gave me much more depth in gameplay (i.e. i can choose how to complete a mission) and much more satisfaction. Long term? Yeah .. when i think back of DE .. i have much better memories than EQ.
Ditto for Bioshock, D1-3, Dishonored, and many other games. Games don't need to be big to be good ... for me at least.
You have misunderstood what I said. Within genre and even more within titles games have always got bigger. You are comparing different genres. Compare COD 1,2,3 etc. And LoL is not a MMO, so you can't compare it to WoW. LoL is one of the many MMO like games that are a genre of their own. My argument would be that LOL's successors will get bigger and that it is bigger than its predecessors.
This has happened across the history of gaming, I can't see how you can deny it? Are you going to make out that games on mobile phones show that small is better? The reasons games have come to the fore across platforms is down to budget, rising costs, trying to reach a non gamer market or the lesser computing power of the devices running them.
Like I said they don't do content updates in the games you play to make the game smaller do they?
Yes it is an oversimplification to say big is better. But I am pointing out here what the gaming industry is doing as much as my own preference. One of the results of having more computing power is larger games.
I take your point on population size, they can get too big. But that size is needed for large scale battles and so on, gameplay that smaller MMO like games struggle to deliver on.
I do agree that the ratio of population size to game size is important. I am not saying just throw in as many players as you can as that makes the game more multiplayer and somehow better. But most of the smaller MMO like games remove possibilities of interaction and that is important. If you have no housing, crafting that has no relevance, no need to group, no guild HQ etc, the population of a MMO will seem more impersonal and the experience of playing with others will seem somewhat pointless.
The problems with large communities is the feeling of being lost in the crowd, but that is as much to do with the changing nature of the MMO community. Which roughly changed over the years like this - roleplayers and PC RPG fans to console players and now to anyone with a social media account. This led to a lack of common interests and a schism as to what gameplay elements were important in MMOs. These factors I think were more important than the unwieldy size of the population.
mmos can never be too massive. They are made for massive amounts of people. On the contrary, they have been not-so-massive for the past few years after every launch. Companies focus less on varied fun content and more on threadmills. Threadmill players rush to lvl cap for the "fun" part of the game to begin (the threadmill), then a lot of people get bored of that same ol same ol and leave.
Also too many games in the market significantly decrease the "massive" part in mmo
I happen to believe that a part of the problem with that formula is that the MMO is like a New York street:
Thousands of faces that you happen across briefly and then move on. Occasionally you pick up something they dropped and hand it to them with a quick smile, but then you move on. I feel like I man that lonely New Yorker surrounded by thousands all to busy with whatever it is they are doing alone to notice there are people around they could interact with. And that's the issue, there is no reason or reward for much meaningful interaction.
And yet, somehow, New Yorkers do manage to belong to multiple communities, social circles and intimate groups. It seems the more sensible approach would be to emulate how they go about doing that rather than to create contrived scenarios or conditions to force an environment that human beings (present day, at least) simply aren't wired for.
I was speaking metaphorically. I know that a city where people actually live their entire lives will be more full of community that a game world visited for a few hours each day.
I like your ideas about creatively providing new ways for player to interact in a meaningful way and I agree it sounds great.
Yet, I see no evidence of this in the upcoming/current games. I don't see a trend here towards more group play. I see a trend towards more solo content and instant cross server queue content with people you will likely NEVER meet again.
Unless you can provide specific evidence that grand new schemes are in the works by developers to provide more meaningful community interaction; I still respectfully that someone try a smaller more intimate game world where how you treat others around you has meaningful impact.
I get the feeling the two lines highlighted above are one in the same to you - group play and meaningful community interaction, that is. Am I reading you correctly on that one?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You have misunderstood what I said. Within genre and even more within titles games have always got bigger. You are comparing different genres. Compare COD 1,2,3 etc. And LoL is not a MMO, so you can't compare it to WoW. LoL is one of the many MMO like games that are a genre of their own. My argument would be that LOL's successors will get bigger and that it is bigger than its predecessors.
Bioshock Infinite is not "bigger" than 1 or 2. Deadspace 3 is not bigger than 2 or 1. In fact, even COD, when you mentioned .... black ops, or modern warfare are not bigger than the previous WW2 ones. Ditto for Splinter cells.
The number of levels are roughly the same ... may vary a bit, but the size of the levels certainly do not increase in size in any significant manner. Many of the levels are quite small, compared to MMO zones.
The actual size of the world doesn't matter except in relation to its population. This is why people think Eve is so amazing that every game should be like Eve and be 1 server!
Let's address that too.
Many MMOs are focused on small group instanced gameplay. So "massive" is irrelevant except the city lobby that you are in. Most of the time, you won't see more than a few players (may be up to 40 in a big battleground?).
You have misunderstood what I said. Within genre and even more within titles games have always got bigger. You are comparing different genres. Compare COD 1,2,3 etc. And LoL is not a MMO, so you can't compare it to WoW. LoL is one of the many MMO like games that are a genre of their own. My argument would be that LOL's successors will get bigger and that it is bigger than its predecessors.
Bioshock Infinite is not "bigger" than 1 or 2. Deadspace 3 is not bigger than 2 or 1. In fact, even COD, when you mentioned .... black ops, or modern warfare are not bigger than the previous WW2 ones. Ditto for Splinter cells.
The number of levels are roughly the same ... may vary a bit, but the size of the levels certainly do not increase in size in any significant manner. Many of the levels are quite small, compared to MMO zones.
So where is this "bigger" idea coming from?
The history of computers is one where they have increased in processing power and storage capacity over time. Games have matched this, increasing graphical complexity and size of the game world.
To see this though you rarely get big jumps between titles, it is a gradual thing, and I doubt either you or I can use memory to be sure they are increasing in size each year. But taking your examples, I think you may be right and why is that? Console is king, simple as that. Between generations in consoles there is no increase in the platforms power, so it is difficult to make the games larger. And these games are built for consoles not PC's which get a console sized port. So let me rephrase the question, do you think CoD and DS on the next generation of consoles will not have larger worlds?
On the PC this is not a problem, processing power and storage capacity get larger each year, they don't have to wait for a new itineration of the platform. And this is not a problem on smart phones either, gaming apps are getting bigger. As this link shows:
Over time games get bigger, that's what I was crudely trying to show with the pictures. Gaming does not stand still, and that's what you seem to think it will do.
The actual size of the world doesn't matter except in relation to its population. This is why people think Eve is so amazing that every game should be like Eve and be 1 server!
Let's address that too.
Many MMOs are focused on small group instanced gameplay. So "massive" is irrelevant except the city lobby that you are in. Most of the time, you won't see more than a few players (may be up to 40 in a big battleground?).
You need a large population to do that though. Lets say there are only 40 players on the server, they cannot be on 24/7 ready for a big battleground. And they want to do other things, they only do big battleground once a week in the evening. So you need tons more. I would point out the even a FPS like Battlefield can handle more then 40 players in a match. And Nari you have played the MMOFPS PS2, those mega battles need a lot more as I imagine GW2 does.
You have misunderstood what I said. Within genre and even more within titles games have always got bigger. You are comparing different genres. Compare COD 1,2,3 etc. And LoL is not a MMO, so you can't compare it to WoW. LoL is one of the many MMO like games that are a genre of their own. My argument would be that LOL's successors will get bigger and that it is bigger than its predecessors.
Bioshock Infinite is not "bigger" than 1 or 2. Deadspace 3 is not bigger than 2 or 1. In fact, even COD, when you mentioned .... black ops, or modern warfare are not bigger than the previous WW2 ones. Ditto for Splinter cells.
The number of levels are roughly the same ... may vary a bit, but the size of the levels certainly do not increase in size in any significant manner. Many of the levels are quite small, compared to MMO zones.
So where is this "bigger" idea coming from?
The history of computers is one where they have increased in processing power and storage capacity over time. Games have matched this, increasing graphical complexity and size of the game world.
To see this though you rarely get big jumps between titles, it is a gradual thing, and I doubt either you or I can use memory to be sure they are increasing in size each year. But taking your examples, I think you may be right and why is that? Console is king, simple as that. Between generations in consoles there is no increase in the platforms power, so it is difficult to make the games larger. And these games are built for consoles not PC's which get a console sized port. So let me rephrase the question, do you think CoD and DS on the next generation of consoles will not have larger worlds?
On the PC this is not a problem, processing power and storage capacity get larger each year, they don't have to wait for a new itineration of the platform. And this is not a problem on smart phones either, gaming apps are getting bigger. As this link shows:
Over time games get bigger, that's what I was crudely trying to show with the pictures. Gaming does not stand still, and that's what you seem to think it will do.
We are not talking about size in memory, or number of polygons. If you are talking about those things, then yes, you are right.
We are talking about size of the level. That has not changed much .. in fact, it may even have decreased in size. There are fewer open big levels in the later COD, then early WW2 ones.
The latest splinter cell, which i have just finished not too long ago .. the levels feel no bigger (and some smaller) than the previous entry.
The actual size of the world doesn't matter except in relation to its population. This is why people think Eve is so amazing that every game should be like Eve and be 1 server!
Let's address that too.
Many MMOs are focused on small group instanced gameplay. So "massive" is irrelevant except the city lobby that you are in. Most of the time, you won't see more than a few players (may be up to 40 in a big battleground?).
You need a large population to do that though. Lets say there are only 40 players on the server, they cannot be on 24/7 ready for a big battleground. And they want to do other things, they only do big battleground once a week in the evening. So you need tons more. I would point out the even a FPS like Battlefield can handle more then 40 players in a match. And you have played the MMO FPS PS2 Nari, those mega battles need a lot more as I imagine GW2 does.
Large population ... yes .. no different that LoL, WoT, and many online games need a large population to keep the matching with groups fast, and so on.
But the gameplay itself is not massive.
You may as well say CoD is massive in population, which is true.
The actual size of the world doesn't matter except in relation to its population. This is why people think Eve is so amazing that every game should be like Eve and be 1 server!
What they don't realize is how small Eve's population is compared to these MMO releases. Its not even close and Eve's galaxy is so large and mostly empty space. A land game with that size would be a truly massive beast of an undertaking to populate. Perhaps as our programing Algo's get better we can have AI create us that large of render world, but for now its just not possible (or hasn't been so far..)
Of all the reasons I've heard for and against the single-server architecture, that seems to be one I've rarely seen presented, most likely because it's an odd combination of two unrelated things - single server design and physical world size.
While in EVE, one *can* go to an isolated place and feel all alone, the reality is that most players are in populated and trafficked areas. It's very true that the size of the game world doesn't matter except in relation to its population. However, in more massive world environments, the difference lies in where the content is and what the content is. In a more themepark design (ex: WOW, LOTRO, AoC), the content is not only tiered but every last bit of space is used. When acquisition slows, bigger gaps of empty space start to build in the middle zones because there are less characters in that level range. The problem comes in the fact that in those games, the players must complete the content of those areas to progress to the later areas. This creates undesirable empty space, as players feel they are alone in the world or on a 'dead' server.
To give you a better understanding of why some players and developers like single-server MMOs, here are a few links:
My affinity for the single-server design is one of the reasons I've been watching several of the indie games. They tend to focus on a single server for their games, allowing for greater player control and more dynamic storytelling since less resources have to be devoted toward maintaining and controlling it all. The things we could learn from a game like The Repopulation, combined with what we've seen in existing single-server worlds (ex: ATITD, EVE) could prove invaluable for game designers, as it allows us to watch a new community grow, whereas the existing games already have very formed core communities due to how long they've been around.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Single server game also remain niche for only catering to a single section of the player base. See Darkfall and MO, and their refusal to add non-PvP servers. Those games would double their player base with PvE servers with optional PvP, instead of forcing it on everyone playing.
Originally posted by Neo_Viper Single server game also remain niche for only catering to a single section of the player base. See Darkfall and MO, and their refusal to add non-PvP servers. Those games would double their player base with PvE servers with optional PvP, instead of forcing it on everyone playing.
Are you suggesting that Free Realms and ATITD would double their playerbase if they offered PVP combat servers, too? That seems a hard sell, as I don't see the correlation between the server architecture and the game design choices that you are suggesting.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
It's a little ironic that you claim the term is useful because it includes LoL (a 5 vs. 5 game) and doesn't include BF4 (a 32 vs. 32 game.) It's also wrong, since there's really very little actual usefulness to making the distinction (and certainly no usefulness to using an entirely inappropriate and illogical term to describe that subset of games.)
That's why it's poor methodology.
If the customer (the person(s) requesting/purchasing the research) wants research on a certain set of games, that's entirely appropriate. But calling things by unclear, misleading, and outright wrong terms is just sloppy. It has more to do with researchers being unfamiliar with what they're researching than a decision made with conscious, knowledgeable intent.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Narius, you are so off the mark on this one that I actually have to give Axehilt (an intelligent poster that I next to never agree with) a big ass +1.
In a nutshell you fundamentally make no sense whatsoever; your quest to destroy the meaning of an already established term is pointless and ultimately just makes something simple confusing. This is borderline and questionable logic.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Why is it not useful? Now we have a category that includes LoL, and not BF4. It is perfectly clear which is which. Size has little to do with this categorization, it is based on common usage.
"Wrong"? A definition cannot be wrong. If we called this category A ... no one will object. The only reason you are objecting is because the use of the label "MMO" has been changes. It turns out no one has a claim on the English language.
So you say it is wrong. This site, and others also listed LoL as a MMO. I will change the usage when you get all the sites to delist it and change the labeling.
More accurately .. a term that has lost its literal meaning in this and most other MMO sites while still signify a subset of online games.
It's not useful because it lacks a use. There isn't really a situation under which that specific slice of games (all actual MMOs, plus LoL) is particularly useful, and if you have to take the time to specifically explain that's what you mean by "MMO", then why bother using the term to attempt to describe the grouping of games in the first place? It's inefficient, wasted effort when you could simply say "all MMOs, and LoL."
If millions of people decide to use the word "up" to mean down, language changes because it's a shared thing.
If a handful of irresponsible or under-educated people decide to use the word "MMO" to mean all online games (except CoD, and BF4, and...), language doesn't change: they're just wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I was speaking metaphorically. I know that a city where people actually live their entire lives will be more full of community that a game world visited for a few hours each day.
I like your ideas about creatively providing new ways for player to interact in a meaningful way and I agree it sounds great.
Yet, I see no evidence of this in the upcoming/current games. I don't see a trend here towards more group play. I see a trend towards more solo content and instant cross server queue content with people you will likely NEVER meet again.
Unless you can provide specific evidence that grand new schemes are in the works by developers to provide more meaningful community interaction; I still respectfully that someone try a smaller more intimate game world where how you treat others around you has meaningful impact.
If you've read my posts you've seen me agree with many people that have different ideas. I think some useful exchange is occurring here.
Can you imagine how massive a game world would need to be to provide sufficient content to a limitless number of millions?
Eve gets away with this because it numbers in the thousands. Not the millions.
Can you imagine Azeroth with 12 million people on it? If the game had 1 million PVE enemies in the entire world, that would be 12 people for each enemy.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "technical limitations" beyond the fact that what you are asking for on a large scale simply isn't possible with a reasonable about of cash for even a mega cluster servers. The amount of bandwidth such a system would require for even the few million playing FF14 right now would rival any of the super computing systems we have out there.
IF we can one day simulate a 25k mile diameter sphere, and create interesting environs in it. Sounds great!
I want a fresh gaming experience this century though..
I also have to dissent with your argument that players tend to resist herding. Its my experience that people tend to gravitate towards others. hence the world's many hugely populated cities. Almost 60% of the worlds population lives in 10% of the most crowded cities. (Look it up) People congregate naturally.
This forum and this topic are about opinions by the way. So yes, I'm freely sharing mine. There is no facts to base this discussion on, since to date we have Online RPGs predominately in two groups: Massive and Small Scale. Very little, if anything exists in between.
I'm merely hopeful that others with a similar desire to be part of a more intimate world will help scare up enough demand for a SINGLE title to try this out. I'm not suggesting every game made into the future only have 400 people in a single game world.
A blanket statement that bigger is better is pretty simplistic. The world and people rarely operate on such a generic basis.
The current MMOs have massive player pools and terrible communities. Please explain how the larger player pool has improved community and social interaction if you would.
Yes, the reason LoL is massive is the player pool size. Millions.
The reason MMOs even with instanced content are more massive than previous games: Player pool size!
The reason you will not see Everquest 1 like open dungeons is there are tooooooo many people per server for this to be manageable. Everquest's population grew slowly. Can you imagine that world with 4 million people playing it on 100 servers of 40k each? A long pull time wait for a boss to fight would become days, not hours.
My suggested answer: Leave the world large, make the player pool much smaller and open up the game. Give players more choices, not fewer with instanced content. You can make a world much more open when you don't have 10k people in one area.
The other issue with a large per server player size is that you have to duplicate areas. FF14 has 3 starter areas to spread that population out. And it still felt like I was in the NY Marathon going from place to place cause there were stil so many people around.
I think you and Nari have gotten caught up on a single faucet of Massive.
If you could give me a beautiful world with a simulated space of thousands and thousands of square miles Id still only want a few hundred people on it (Maybe getting into the low thousands). I don't know what the right population correlation is; I just know I'm extremely dissatisfied with the current open worlds, and the current instanced, instant queue no community games.
The actual size of the world doesn't matter except in relation to its population. This is why people think Eve is so amazing that every game should be like Eve and be 1 server!
What they don't realize is how small Eve's population is compared to these MMO releases. Its not even close and Eve's galaxy is so large and mostly empty space. A land game with that size would be a truly massive beast of an undertaking to populate. Perhaps as our programing Algo's get better we can have AI create us that large of render world, but for now its just not possible (or hasn't been so far..)
You have misunderstood what I said. Within genre and even more within titles games have always got bigger. You are comparing different genres. Compare COD 1,2,3 etc. And LoL is not a MMO, so you can't compare it to WoW. LoL is one of the many MMO like games that are a genre of their own. My argument would be that LOL's successors will get bigger and that it is bigger than its predecessors.
This has happened across the history of gaming, I can't see how you can deny it? Are you going to make out that games on mobile phones show that small is better? The reasons games have come to the fore across platforms is down to budget, rising costs, trying to reach a non gamer market or the lesser computing power of the devices running them.
Like I said they don't do content updates in the games you play to make the game smaller do they?
In reply to Foehammer:
Yes it is an oversimplification to say big is better. But I am pointing out here what the gaming industry is doing as much as my own preference. One of the results of having more computing power is larger games.
I take your point on population size, they can get too big. But that size is needed for large scale battles and so on, gameplay that smaller MMO like games struggle to deliver on.
I do agree that the ratio of population size to game size is important. I am not saying just throw in as many players as you can as that makes the game more multiplayer and somehow better. But most of the smaller MMO like games remove possibilities of interaction and that is important. If you have no housing, crafting that has no relevance, no need to group, no guild HQ etc, the population of a MMO will seem more impersonal and the experience of playing with others will seem somewhat pointless.
The problems with large communities is the feeling of being lost in the crowd, but that is as much to do with the changing nature of the MMO community. Which roughly changed over the years like this - roleplayers and PC RPG fans to console players and now to anyone with a social media account. This led to a lack of common interests and a schism as to what gameplay elements were important in MMOs. These factors I think were more important than the unwieldy size of the population.
mmos can never be too massive. They are made for massive amounts of people. On the contrary, they have been not-so-massive for the past few years after every launch. Companies focus less on varied fun content and more on threadmills. Threadmill players rush to lvl cap for the "fun" part of the game to begin (the threadmill), then a lot of people get bored of that same ol same ol and leave.
Also too many games in the market significantly decrease the "massive" part in mmo
I get the feeling the two lines highlighted above are one in the same to you - group play and meaningful community interaction, that is. Am I reading you correctly on that one?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Bioshock Infinite is not "bigger" than 1 or 2. Deadspace 3 is not bigger than 2 or 1. In fact, even COD, when you mentioned .... black ops, or modern warfare are not bigger than the previous WW2 ones. Ditto for Splinter cells.
The number of levels are roughly the same ... may vary a bit, but the size of the levels certainly do not increase in size in any significant manner. Many of the levels are quite small, compared to MMO zones.
So where is this "bigger" idea coming from?
Let's address that too.
Many MMOs are focused on small group instanced gameplay. So "massive" is irrelevant except the city lobby that you are in. Most of the time, you won't see more than a few players (may be up to 40 in a big battleground?).
The history of computers is one where they have increased in processing power and storage capacity over time. Games have matched this, increasing graphical complexity and size of the game world.
To see this though you rarely get big jumps between titles, it is a gradual thing, and I doubt either you or I can use memory to be sure they are increasing in size each year. But taking your examples, I think you may be right and why is that? Console is king, simple as that. Between generations in consoles there is no increase in the platforms power, so it is difficult to make the games larger. And these games are built for consoles not PC's which get a console sized port. So let me rephrase the question, do you think CoD and DS on the next generation of consoles will not have larger worlds?
On the PC this is not a problem, processing power and storage capacity get larger each year, they don't have to wait for a new itineration of the platform. And this is not a problem on smart phones either, gaming apps are getting bigger. As this link shows:
http://www.macgasm.net/2012/10/17/average-size-of-ios-apps-increasing-especially-in-games-category/
Over time games get bigger, that's what I was crudely trying to show with the pictures. Gaming does not stand still, and that's what you seem to think it will do.
You need a large population to do that though. Lets say there are only 40 players on the server, they cannot be on 24/7 ready for a big battleground. And they want to do other things, they only do big battleground once a week in the evening. So you need tons more. I would point out the even a FPS like Battlefield can handle more then 40 players in a match. And Nari you have played the MMOFPS PS2, those mega battles need a lot more as I imagine GW2 does.
We are not talking about size in memory, or number of polygons. If you are talking about those things, then yes, you are right.
We are talking about size of the level. That has not changed much .. in fact, it may even have decreased in size. There are fewer open big levels in the later COD, then early WW2 ones.
The latest splinter cell, which i have just finished not too long ago .. the levels feel no bigger (and some smaller) than the previous entry.
Large population ... yes .. no different that LoL, WoT, and many online games need a large population to keep the matching with groups fast, and so on.
But the gameplay itself is not massive.
You may as well say CoD is massive in population, which is true.
Of all the reasons I've heard for and against the single-server architecture, that seems to be one I've rarely seen presented, most likely because it's an odd combination of two unrelated things - single server design and physical world size.
While in EVE, one *can* go to an isolated place and feel all alone, the reality is that most players are in populated and trafficked areas. It's very true that the size of the game world doesn't matter except in relation to its population. However, in more massive world environments, the difference lies in where the content is and what the content is. In a more themepark design (ex: WOW, LOTRO, AoC), the content is not only tiered but every last bit of space is used. When acquisition slows, bigger gaps of empty space start to build in the middle zones because there are less characters in that level range. The problem comes in the fact that in those games, the players must complete the content of those areas to progress to the later areas. This creates undesirable empty space, as players feel they are alone in the world or on a 'dead' server.
To give you a better understanding of why some players and developers like single-server MMOs, here are a few links:
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2009/05/opinion_designing_a_single_ser.php
http://themess.com/gamestuff/2009/02/single-shard-universe-eve-online/
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132563/infinite_space_an_argument_for_.php (a very great read on the topic)
My affinity for the single-server design is one of the reasons I've been watching several of the indie games. They tend to focus on a single server for their games, allowing for greater player control and more dynamic storytelling since less resources have to be devoted toward maintaining and controlling it all. The things we could learn from a game like The Repopulation, combined with what we've seen in existing single-server worlds (ex: ATITD, EVE) could prove invaluable for game designers, as it allows us to watch a new community grow, whereas the existing games already have very formed core communities due to how long they've been around.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
My computer is better than yours.
Are you suggesting that Free Realms and ATITD would double their playerbase if they offered PVP combat servers, too? That seems a hard sell, as I don't see the correlation between the server architecture and the game design choices that you are suggesting.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre