If you want to have honest intellectual debate about the genre as it relates to the features and framework we call MMO traditionally you cannot bring up games that have nothing to do with it.
Only if you define the genre. Clearly the genre now includes non-massively games, viewed by websites, industry.
And who is talking about "traditional" MMOs? This is a MMO site, not a "traditional" MMO site, and discussions of any MMOs go.
It doesn't matter. If you are having an discussion about how a genre works or what we want... bringing in unrelated material is useless no matter how the word is defined by you. MOBA for example have no where near the same problems or scope of a MMORPG or MMO for that matter. The word play is just that word play for useless distractions in discussions.
Despite what you say this website doesn't call those games MMO.
Here’s how we’re going to make sure that MMORPG.com still primarily remains a site about the Everquests and WoWs of the world.
Our Game List will have a field added for genre to include things like Action MMO, MMOFPS, MMORTS, MOBA, CORPG and so forth. We’ll comb through and adjust titles like Guild Wars, Vindictus to reflect this change over time.
We will (as always) preface the news about any game with a link to that game’s listing, and it will be clearly stated on the Game Listing what sub genre it fits into.
Anything else you think we need to do, we’re always glad to hear, and we do take all suggestions seriously.
And let me guess you're going to say but but but World of Tanks. I don't care about that either.
If you want to have honest intellectual debate about the genre as it relates to the features and framework we call MMO traditionally you cannot bring up games that have nothing to do with it.
Only if you define the genre. Clearly the genre now includes non-massively games, viewed by websites, industry.
And who is talking about "traditional" MMOs? This is a MMO site, not a "traditional" MMO site, and discussions of any MMOs go.
It doesn't matter. If you are having an discussion about how a genre works or what we want... bringing in unrelated material is useless no matter how the word is defined by you. MOBA for example have no where near the same problems or scope of a MMORPG or MMO for that matter. The word play is just that word play for useless distractions in discussions.
Despite what you say this website doesn't call those games MMO.
Here’s how we’re going to make sure that MMORPG.com still primarily remains a site about the Everquests and WoWs of the world.
Our Game List will have a field added for genre to include things like Action MMO, MMOFPS, MMORTS, MOBA, CORPG and so forth. We’ll comb through and adjust titles like Guild Wars, Vindictus to reflect this change over time.
We will (as always) preface the news about any game with a link to that game’s listing, and it will be clearly stated on the Game Listing what sub genre it fits into.
Anything else you think we need to do, we’re always glad to hear, and we do take all suggestions seriously.
And let me guess you're going to say but but but World of Tanks. I don't care about that either.
Take the time to read that, Narius; the game list is OUT OF DATE as per the website operators, so your usage of that list as part of your reasoning is based on antiquated and out of date info. So please keep your sources to Superdata for proof of the modern evolved definition of MMO, and as Vermillion has stated, you'll always have your prized WoT.
"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
If you want to have honest intellectual debate about the genre as it relates to the features and framework we call MMO traditionally you cannot bring up games that have nothing to do with it.
Only if you define the genre. Clearly the genre now includes non-massively games, viewed by websites, industry.
And who is talking about "traditional" MMOs? This is a MMO site, not a "traditional" MMO site, and discussions of any MMOs go.
It doesn't matter. If you are having an discussion about how a genre works or what we want... bringing in unrelated material is useless no matter how the word is defined by you. MOBA for example have no where near the same problems or scope of a MMORPG or MMO for that matter. The word play is just that word play for useless distractions in discussions.
Despite what you say this website doesn't call those games MMO.
It is not unrelated if it is defined by the site, or the industry. And you think this website does not call those games MMO?
Read the game list. Go to those games labeled as "MMOTPS". Tell me, how many are not massively MP.
Facts are facts. You can try to define MMO you way, but your way is not the way of this, and other websites. And you wish non-massively MP games are "unrelated" .. but hey .. it is not up to you.
The man who walks into a car showroom and gets persuaded to buy a motorbike for it's 'family friendly features' or the guy who leaves after hearing such a ridiculous sales pitch and buys a real car from another showroom.
It certainly isn't either showroom or the 2nd guy.
It is not unrelated if it is defined by the site, or the industry. And you think this website does not call those games MMO?
Read the game list. Go to those games labeled as "MMOTPS". Tell me, how many are not massively MP.
Facts are facts. You can try to define MMO you way, but your way is not the way of this, and other websites. And you wish non-massively MP games are "unrelated" .. but hey .. it is not up to you.
Here, because you somehow managed to miss the most important part of that quote:
"Here’s how we’re going to make sure that MMORPG.com still primarily remains a site about the Everquests and WoWs of the world.
Our Game List will have a field added for genre to include things like Action MMO, MMOFPS, MMORTS, MOBA, CORPG and so forth. We’ll comb through and adjust titles like Guild Wars, Vindictus to reflect this change over time.
We will (as always) preface the news about any game with a link to that game’s listing, and it will be clearly stated on the Game Listing what sub genre it fits into.
Anything else you think we need to do, we’re always glad to hear, and we do take all suggestions seriously."
Now make sure you read the whole thing, ok. Your using info that is ancient and soon to be updated.
Just in case that was too long for you to read here's one sentence that could help you out: "Our Game List will have a field added for genre to include things like Action MMO, MMOFPS, MMORTS, MOBA, CORPG and so forth."
No problem, anytime.
"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
If you want to have honest intellectual debate about the genre as it relates to the features and framework we call MMO traditionally you cannot bring up games that have nothing to do with it.
Only if you define the genre. Clearly the genre now includes non-massively games, viewed by websites, industry.
And who is talking about "traditional" MMOs? This is a MMO site, not a "traditional" MMO site, and discussions of any MMOs go.
It doesn't matter. If you are having an discussion about how a genre works or what we want... bringing in unrelated material is useless no matter how the word is defined by you. MOBA for example have no where near the same problems or scope of a MMORPG or MMO for that matter. The word play is just that word play for useless distractions in discussions.
Despite what you say this website doesn't call those games MMO.
It is not unrelated if it is defined by the site, or the industry. And you think this website does not call those games MMO?
Read the game list. Go to those games labeled as "MMOTPS". Tell me, how many are not massively MP.
Facts are facts. You can try to define MMO you way, but your way is not the way of this, and other websites. And you wish non-massively MP games are "unrelated" .. but hey .. it is not up to you.
I don't care about word play. I am talking about mechanics. They're not the same at all. No more than yellow be blue because someone defines yrllow as blue.
No this site defines them as what they are. I just quoted the site manager or do you have more say?
I don't care about word play. I am talking about mechanics. They're not the same at all. No more than yellow be blue because someone defines yrllow as blue.
so? I don't this forum is about what *you* care. You certainly don't have to read or respond to posts you don't care about.
I do not post solely for you. You do know that right?
I don't care about word play. I am talking about mechanics. They're not the same at all. No more than yellow be blue because someone defines yrllow as blue.
so? I don't this forum is about what *you* care. You certainly don't have to read or respond to posts you don't care about.
I do not post solely for you. You do know that right?
And I do not post solely for you. I doubt many people want their post constantly derailed by you injecting something that has nothing to do with the discussion outside of an acronym your obsessed with.
Oh boy, where do one begin! It all boils down to game design and how to make the game interesting and fun. Which is hard, because fun is subjective. You also ought to figure out what you want to achieve with your game (except making it enjoyable and fun). Are you building a world or a lobby? They are so very different. Battlefield as a lobby game is awesome and great fun, so is Heroes of the Storm. But I so want to experience a sandbox world that is dynamic, reactive and emergent. I hope I'm not the only one :awesome:
If we take a stab at how time and travel could work in a game with a world as the stage, I think the key is to make both the points of interests and the journey between points of interests just as fun, unpredictable and enjoyable.This has been poorly done in the past and I can see people that want to take the easy way out and go for fast travel around the world to the points of interest.
But therein also lies the paradox. Why would you as a developer create your game to be in a world, but also have fast travel? It does not make sense to me. Why do you pour so much resources in to meticulously creating a world that no one uses? You could use those resources in to create better gameplay or animations. Your world is nullified by the use of fast travel. Because if fast travel is in the game, people will use it. People are lazy and if the game promotes one way of doing things over another, most will go for it.
But therein also lies the paradox. Why would you as a developer create your game to be in a world, but also have fast travel? It does not make sense to me. Why do you pour so much resources in to meticulously creating a world that no one uses?
Because they are used once?
It is very common in open world single player games to have fast travel AFTER you slow travel to the spot first. This is no difference than, in single player games, you go through a level and never come back to it again.
And there are also MMOs, like World of Tank, that has no worlds.
But therein also lies the paradox. Why would you as a developer create your game to be in a world, but also have fast travel? It does not make sense to me. Why do you pour so much resources in to meticulously creating a world that no one uses?
Because they are used once?
It is very common in open world single player games to have fast travel AFTER you slow travel to the spot first. This is no difference than, in single player games, you go through a level and never come back to it again.
And there are also MMOs, like World of Tank, that has no worlds.
Im not talking about singleplayer worlds. Thought I made that clear enough in my post, my bad. But thanks for pointing out the obvious that most SP worlds are used once.
You do realise the huge difference between a sandbox mmo world and a singleplayer world right?
Im not talking about singleplayer worlds. Thought I made that clear enough in my post, my bad. But thanks for pointing out the obvious that most SP worlds are used once.
You do realise the huge difference between a sandbox mmo world and a singleplayer world right?
Given where the market is going ... MMO should learn from single player open world games. May be that is the problem. A persistent sandbox mmo world is boring. Make it like a single player game with some MP elements.
That is .. no persistent world. No sandbox. May be that will make games better (which is subjective), and more successful (financially).
Im not talking about singleplayer worlds. Thought I made that clear enough in my post, my bad. But thanks for pointing out the obvious that most SP worlds are used once.
You do realise the huge difference between a sandbox mmo world and a singleplayer world right?
Given where the market is going ... MMO should learn from single player open world games. May be that is the problem. A persistent sandbox mmo world is boring. Make it like a single player game with some MP elements.
That is .. no persistent world. No sandbox. May be that will make games better (which is subjective), and more successful (financially).
There is probably things an mmorpg could learn from its counterpart, single player rpgs, when it comes to world building. It could borrow stuff from arpgs, fps or simulators. If done right. I dont agree that a persistent sandbox mmo world per se is boring. You have to be open minded and see the potentials, it could be awesome if the formula for how it plays out is shifted. You dont know what a future title like that would hold in terms of entertainment value and fun factor. Its like saying the next Battlefield game is boring.
Its like saying the next Battlefield game is boring.
This is the problem.
Most people know that what is boring to them may not be boring to another. In a worldwide market there is room for every type of game for every type of player.
Except certain people who persistently argue that there is only 1 way to make a game, 1 label to give that game and 1 type of player to play that game.
My comment was about not being constrained by arbitrary frameworks. That is, if you set out to design an MMO but in the course of your innovation you stray away from MMOs, you shouldn't stop innovating. If the end result is Borderlands or Diablo, then good for you. Both of those are great games.
"Damn it! I got red paint in the blue paint for your blue room!" "Don't worry. We'll still call it the blue room."
There is probably things an mmorpg could learn from its counterpart, single player rpgs, when it comes to world building. It could borrow stuff from arpgs, fps or simulators. If done right. I dont agree that a persistent sandbox mmo world per se is boring. You have to be open minded and see the potentials, it could be awesome if the formula for how it plays out is shifted. You dont know what a future title like that would hold in terms of entertainment value and fun factor. Its like saying the next Battlefield game is boring.
sure .. no one knows what is in the future.
But so far i have seen a sandbox MMO that is not boring for me (now "boring" of course is subjective). So I am more than happy to be surprised.
But until then ... there are plenty of fun, non-sandbox MMO games, and it looks like devs have discovered how to make those fun for the masses.
My comment was about not being constrained by arbitrary frameworks. That is, if you set out to design an MMO but in the course of your innovation you stray away from MMOs, you shouldn't stop innovating. If the end result is Borderlands or Diablo, then good for you. Both of those are great games.
"Damn it! I got red paint in the blue paint for your blue room!" "Don't worry. We'll still call it the blue room."
Or if you think you can sway everyone else, insist on calling it the purple room. May be it will even work.
But so far, i don't see websites coming up with a new label, and instead they opt to use the old MMO label for non-massive games.
May be the simple solution is to do what Kyleran has suggested, change the word "massively" to "minimally" in the label MMO.
But therein also lies the paradox. Why would you as a developer create your game to be in a world, but also have fast travel? It does not make sense to me. Why do you pour so much resources in to meticulously creating a world that no one uses? You could use those resources in to create better gameplay or animations. Your world is nullified by the use of fast travel. Because if fast travel is in the game, people will use it. People are lazy and if the game promotes one way of doing things over another, most will go for it.
What worlds aren't being used?
In most game worlds, you travel everywhere!
...the first time. Once. The one time it's interesting to travel, that's when you travel there. The one time the place you're going is someplace new, filled with potential and new sights, that's when you travel there. Apart from that, fast travel exists -- because next session why would you want to repeat that now-discovered-and-old journey? A new journey exists, and that journey is filled with potential while the old one isn't.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
...the first time. Once. The one time it's interesting to travel, that's when you travel there. The one time the place you're going is someplace new, filled with potential and new sights, that's when you travel there. Apart from that, fast travel exists -- because next session why would you want to repeat that now-discovered-and-old journey? A new journey exists, and that journey is filled with potential while the old one isn't.
Because a game world has this magical aspect about it.
It can be used to develop multiple stories and experiences across an area to make repeat travel have meaningful content to do in it more than one time (aside from the gameplay elements that can be built into the travel to make travel itself a meaningful component of the game.
Example, the living story events in GW2 that have seen players roam all about the zones.
Building a game poorly so that you throw away the bulk of the assets after a singe use is not a great design.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
...the first time. Once. The one time it's interesting to travel, that's when you travel there. The one time the place you're going is someplace new, filled with potential and new sights, that's when you travel there. Apart from that, fast travel exists -- because next session why would you want to repeat that now-discovered-and-old journey? A new journey exists, and that journey is filled with potential while the old one isn't.
Because a game world has this magical aspect about it.
It can be used to develop multiple stories and experiences across an area to make repeat travel have meaningful content to do in it more than one time (aside from the gameplay elements that can be built into the travel to make travel itself a meaningful component of the game.
Example, the living story events in GW2 that have seen players roam all about the zones.
Building a game poorly so that you throw away the bulk of the assets after a singe use is not a great design.
You have remember most people see the genre through WOW lense. You level up and the area is done. You then hit end game and repeat the real content over and over til the expansion a year later.
Even WoW's precursor EQ had mixed level zones. To me it was far more cool to come back to a newbie zone and stomp those mobs that are now even in power to me. Before they were out of my league. I never came back go newbie zones to one shot weak NPCs unless they were higher level pest at the start. B
I still prefer that the depths of hell always be hard. In those vast vertical progressions games hell becomes a newbie zone once they out level it. It's a designer choice but just a wasteful one.
You have remember most people see the genre through WOW lense. You level up and the area is done. You then hit end game and repeat the real content over and over til the expansion a year later.
Even WoW's precursor EQ had mixed level zones. To me it was far more cool to come back to a newbie zone and stomp those mobs that are now even in power to me. Before they were out of my league. I never came back go newbie zones to one shot weak NPCs unless they were higher level pest at the start. B
I still prefer that the depths of hell always be hard. In those vast vertical progressions games hell becomes a newbie zone once they out level it. It's a designer choice but just a wasteful one.
That's not a "WOW lens", it's a gameplay lens. It relates to the root of how games are most commonly enjoyed by players (which "here, sit and do nothing while you watch this run animation" is basically the worst possible gameplay you can offer.)
WOW offering superior gameplay was perhaps the biggest factor to how successful it was. In this case WOW didn't offer perfect travel systems, but success at most things doesn't require perfection, it only requires that you're superior to your competition.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You have remember most people see the genre through WOW lense. You level up and the area is done. You then hit end game and repeat the real content over and over til the expansion a year later.
Even WoW's precursor EQ had mixed level zones. To me it was far more cool to come back to a newbie zone and stomp those mobs that are now even in power to me. Before they were out of my league. I never came back go newbie zones to one shot weak NPCs unless they were higher level pest at the start. B
I still prefer that the depths of hell always be hard. In those vast vertical progressions games hell becomes a newbie zone once they out level it. It's a designer choice but just a wasteful one.
That's not a "WOW lens", it's a gameplay lens. It relates to the root of how games are most commonly enjoyed by players (which "here, sit and do nothing while you watch this run animation" is basically the worst possible gameplay you can offer.)
WOW offering superior gameplay was perhaps the biggest factor to how successful it was. In this case WOW didn't offer perfect travel systems, but success at most things doesn't require perfection, it only requires that you're superior to your competition.
Again that's the "WOW lens" view of things. If the only thing you can think of is running through completed content of lower level MOBS than you have a "WOW lens."
WoW's already made online fan boy player base, timing and playability are what made it tops. It wasn't just a good game. It had many factors going for it But I would bet not long after the introduction of many of the gaming short cuts that eliminated much of the open world play you have a decline in subs.
Again that's the "WOW lens" view of things. If the only thing you can think of is running through completed content of lower level MOBS than you have a "WOW lens."
WoW's already made online fan boy player base, timing and playability are what made it tops. It wasn't just a good game. It had many factors going for it But I would bet not long after the introduction of many of the gaming short cuts that eliminated much of the open world play you have a decline in subs.
No.
Look when you insist it's a "WOW lens" that just makes you come off as someone very inexperienced with games.
Lots of games existed before MMORPGs. Much was learned about what players like and dislike. Having their time wasted is high on the list of dislikes, and travel is nearly always a big waste of time in games (certainly it has been in virtually every MMORPG.)
So it's not a WOW thing. Games are about gameplay. WOW just happened to offer better gameplay than most MMORPGs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Again that's the "WOW lens" view of things. If the only thing you can think of is running through completed content of lower level MOBS than you have a "WOW lens."
WoW's already made online fan boy player base, timing and playability are what made it tops. It wasn't just a good game. It had many factors going for it But I would bet not long after the introduction of many of the gaming short cuts that eliminated much of the open world play you have a decline in subs.
No.
Look when you insist it's a "WOW lens" that just makes you come off as someone very inexperienced with games.
Lots of games existed before MMORPGs. Much was learned about what players like and dislike. Having their time wasted is high on the list of dislikes, and travel is nearly always a big waste of time in games (certainly it has been in virtually every MMORPG.)
So it's not a WOW thing. Games are about gameplay. WOW just happened to offer better gameplay than most MMORPGs.
Lol, have you looked in the mirror? Travel is as meaningful as you design it to be. You have racing games that all you do is travel to MMORPG where you caravan traded goods for profit and other players try to take it from you. GTA 5 Online you do a ton of traveling but things generally happen. You sound silly. There are ton of things that can be done with travel. The whole explorer branch of players is based off travel.
Your view again is a WOW themepark view. Of course travel sucks in games where you walk across contents of outdated content for no reason.
Comments
Despite what you say this website doesn't call those games MMO.
And let me guess you're going to say but but but World of Tanks. I don't care about that either.
"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
Read the game list. Go to those games labeled as "MMOTPS". Tell me, how many are not massively MP.
Facts are facts. You can try to define MMO you way, but your way is not the way of this, and other websites. And you wish non-massively MP games are "unrelated" .. but hey .. it is not up to you.
The man who walks into a car showroom and gets persuaded to buy a motorbike for it's 'family friendly features' or the guy who leaves after hearing such a ridiculous sales pitch and buys a real car from another showroom.
It certainly isn't either showroom or the 2nd guy.
"Here’s how we’re going to make sure that MMORPG.com still primarily remains a site about the Everquests and WoWs of the world.
- Our Game List will have a field added for genre to include things like Action MMO, MMOFPS, MMORTS, MOBA, CORPG and so forth. We’ll comb through and adjust titles like Guild Wars, Vindictus to reflect this change over time.
- We will (as always) preface the news about any game with a link to that game’s listing, and it will be clearly stated on the Game Listing what sub genre it fits into.
- Anything else you think we need to do, we’re always glad to hear, and we do take all suggestions seriously."
Now make sure you read the whole thing, ok. Your using info that is ancient and soon to be updated.Just in case that was too long for you to read here's one sentence that could help you out: "Our Game List will have a field added for genre to include things like Action MMO, MMOFPS, MMORTS, MOBA, CORPG and so forth."
No problem, anytime.
"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
No this site defines them as what they are. I just quoted the site manager or do you have more say?
I do not post solely for you. You do know that right?
If we take a stab at how time and travel could work in a game with a world as the stage, I think the key is to make both the points of interests and the journey between points of interests just as fun, unpredictable and enjoyable.This has been poorly done in the past and I can see people that want to take the easy way out and go for fast travel around the world to the points of interest.
But therein also lies the paradox. Why would you as a developer create your game to be in a world, but also have fast travel? It does not make sense to me. Why do you pour so much resources in to meticulously creating a world that no one uses? You could use those resources in to create better gameplay or animations. Your world is nullified by the use of fast travel. Because if fast travel is in the game, people will use it. People are lazy and if the game promotes one way of doing things over another, most will go for it.
It is very common in open world single player games to have fast travel AFTER you slow travel to the spot first. This is no difference than, in single player games, you go through a level and never come back to it again.
And there are also MMOs, like World of Tank, that has no worlds.
You do realise the huge difference between a sandbox mmo world and a singleplayer world right?
That is .. no persistent world. No sandbox. May be that will make games better (which is subjective), and more successful (financially).
Most people know that what is boring to them may not be boring to another. In a worldwide market there is room for every type of game for every type of player.
Except certain people who persistently argue that there is only 1 way to make a game, 1 label to give that game and 1 type of player to play that game.
"Don't worry. We'll still call it the blue room."
VG
But so far i have seen a sandbox MMO that is not boring for me (now "boring" of course is subjective). So I am more than happy to be surprised.
But until then ... there are plenty of fun, non-sandbox MMO games, and it looks like devs have discovered how to make those fun for the masses.
Or if you think you can sway everyone else, insist on calling it the purple room. May be it will even work.
But so far, i don't see websites coming up with a new label, and instead they opt to use the old MMO label for non-massive games.
May be the simple solution is to do what Kyleran has suggested, change the word "massively" to "minimally" in the label MMO.
In most game worlds, you travel everywhere!
...the first time. Once. The one time it's interesting to travel, that's when you travel there. The one time the place you're going is someplace new, filled with potential and new sights, that's when you travel there. Apart from that, fast travel exists -- because next session why would you want to repeat that now-discovered-and-old journey? A new journey exists, and that journey is filled with potential while the old one isn't.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It can be used to develop multiple stories and experiences across an area to make repeat travel have meaningful content to do in it more than one time (aside from the gameplay elements that can be built into the travel to make travel itself a meaningful component of the game.
Example, the living story events in GW2 that have seen players roam all about the zones.
Building a game poorly so that you throw away the bulk of the assets after a singe use is not a great design.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Even WoW's precursor EQ had mixed level zones. To me it was far more cool to come back to a newbie zone and stomp those mobs that are now even in power to me. Before they were out of my league. I never came back go newbie zones to one shot weak NPCs unless they were higher level pest at the start. B
I still prefer that the depths of hell always be hard. In those vast vertical progressions games hell becomes a newbie zone once they out level it. It's a designer choice but just a wasteful one.
WOW offering superior gameplay was perhaps the biggest factor to how successful it was. In this case WOW didn't offer perfect travel systems, but success at most things doesn't require perfection, it only requires that you're superior to your competition.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Again that's the "WOW lens" view of things. If the only thing you can think of is running through completed content of lower level MOBS than you have a "WOW lens."
WoW's already made online fan boy player base, timing and playability are what made it tops. It wasn't just a good game. It had many factors going for it But I would bet not long after the introduction of many of the gaming short cuts that eliminated much of the open world play you have a decline in subs.
Look when you insist it's a "WOW lens" that just makes you come off as someone very inexperienced with games.
Lots of games existed before MMORPGs. Much was learned about what players like and dislike. Having their time wasted is high on the list of dislikes, and travel is nearly always a big waste of time in games (certainly it has been in virtually every MMORPG.)
So it's not a WOW thing. Games are about gameplay. WOW just happened to offer better gameplay than most MMORPGs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The problem here isn't that fast travel exists.
The problem is that fast travel is being used as a substitute for content.
Your view again is a WOW themepark view. Of course travel sucks in games where you walk across contents of outdated content for no reason.