It comes down to 2 distinct issues, the mechanics of questing and the writing.
Easiest to address is the writing aspect. Quests could be written not to address the individual, but rather address a plural character. "You and your friends" as opposed to "You". It's a matter of writing quality.
The mechanics are far more difficult to address. Quests are given to individual characters and rewards are given to individuals. Each individual tracks their progress in a quest independently of others, with the basic exception of raid-level events. If all groups functioned like raids it could be dealt with at a raid level.
Group quests wouldn't belong to any individual, but rather functions more like a triggered raid event. Group loot would drop much like raid loot. Ideally, group level bosses would not spawn periodically in the world, but a trigger mob could. The group leader talks to the mob, triggering the group event, and the group performs the functions required by the group event.
Some group level events already work this way in EQ1. Certainly, any of the old Monster Missions and LDoN Missions already function similar to this. There is often a 'Completion Chest' to reward each player individually with loot, flags and the like. The only 'gotcha' is that many, if not most, missions use instanced locations to host the event. That's not open world bosses and there's a very vocal segment that opposes instancing over open world. I see that as a pragmatics versus preferences thing.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
3. Discuss whatever point you wish, or beat a dead horse some more, the OP is irrelevant.
The reality of most threads here, particularly ill constructed ones.
Happy to assist.
My comment wasn't aimed at you
But regarding beating a dead horse, that's forums in general. Have a look at the list of the recent discussions, the usual suspects outnumber the others. I guess that's just the nature of gaming sites.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
No game should force anybody to group with other players period. I dont even like instance dungeons where you have to go in a que and match up with a full group before you enter. Bring back the days of open world dungeons where you could just walk into alone or in a group.
You want to not have the option to play your own way and be forced to do things then thats good for you. I want to log into a game and make my own choices and walk my own path.
It does not matter what you want. You are not the center of the universe neither me. The question is how the MMOs should be made to be MMOs.
/SMH,
What I want matters to me and thats why I choose to play mmos that offer what I look for in a mmo. I dont care about what you want. XD
I dont want to be forced to play single or grouped. I want the option to play solo if I want or grouped if I want. I want to be able to play the way I want to play. MMOs have always been about giving players choices to do things like choosing Elf or Dwarf, mage or warrior, male or female, exploring a dungeon or the open world, being a armor crafter or a weapon crafter.
When you take away choices mmos become more like single player games and you can see a lot of that in the genre today because things have become to scripted and predetermined.
What made mmos special was that they let people play the way they want to play and be who they wanted to be. Thats how MMOs should be made to be MMOS.
The trick is - when you play a singlelayer game, you cannot feel part of a community. The people are social animals. They need other people. But to feel part of a community and to be part of a community are two very different things.
Poppycock.
Bethesda singleplayer games (Elderscrolls & Fallout) prove otherwise.
Even Minecraft which is designed around the single player experience has a great community.
Are you talking about those communities OUTSIDE of the games?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
What I want matters to me and thats why I choose to play mmos that offer what I look for in a mmo. I dont care about what you want. XD
I dont want to be forced to play single or grouped. I want the option to play solo if I want or grouped if I want. I want to be able to play the way I want to play. MMOs have always been about giving players choices to do things like choosing Elf or Dwarf, mage or warrior, male or female, exploring a dungeon or the open world, being a armor crafter or a weapon crafter.
When you take away choices mmos become more like single player games and you can see a lot of that in the genre today because things have become to scripted and predetermined.
What made mmos special was that they let people play the way they want to play and be who they wanted to be. Thats how MMOs should be made to be MMOS.
So you claim every game must let you do everything? Or you claim solo RPGs do not give you choices? Or you claim that your opinion is only one that matters, because it is yours - no arguments or facts, or logic - you are right, because you are right, period? MMO is a multiplayer game, not a game where you can do anything. Above all it should be multiplayer, even massively multiplayer - so open world and sandbox.
I can make only one conclusion - you are not talking about MMOs. WoW is not a MMO, no matter what Blizzard claims. If you like such games - this is completely fine. I do not think or argue that you shall change your attitude. But please do not call them MMOs, as they are not such. If a game is not massively multiplayer, it is not a MMO. Very obvious fact.
Ohh god, not another one of those "X MMO isn't an MMO" because of feelings and some made up arbritary rules and then confusing opinion with fact....
Many can dispute whether or not WoW is a good game, but not an MMO? You definitely are a minority then and stretching it beyond the reasonable. And then calling it an obvious fact? It doesn't make you look smart or edgy, it makes you look oblivious.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Ohh god, not another one of those "X MMO isn't an MMO" because of feelings and some made up arbritary rules and then confusing opinion with fact....
Many can dispute whether or not WoW is a good game, but not an MMO? You definitely are a minority then and stretching it beyond the reasonable. And then calling it an obvious fact? It doesn't make you look smart or edgy, it makes you look oblivious.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Sorry, but in the best case WoW is MORPG - multiplayer online - as it has multiplayer features. There is not any way to be called massively multiplayer. Well, it has massive world, so if you think MMO is just massive, multiplayer, then OK it is a MMO.
But massively multiplayer can be only a sandbox game with open world like EVE or L2, because this is the only way your actions as a player to affect hundreds or thousands of other players. And I'm not talking about cutting trees (I assume many people think about that when someone says sandbox). Multiplayer sandbox game is a very different thing. When you are part or you support a guild or a corporation, then your actions affect the members, the allies, the enemies - this is a sandbox massively multiplayer game. A game focused on the group, but not on the solo player.
An MMORPG really doesn't have to be sandbox to qualify, thats just your opinion. The rest of it is just rules you think should apply, thats fine but not fact.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Discussion / The major reason MMOs like WoW and LOTRO (as two examples) don't work for an "MMO"RPG for me.
Clearly the gaming companies have done everything in their power to maximize profits by attracting the largest playerbase they can. Not easy to do with so much competition.
No way, they have the power to do so much more. And they would be able to make more money buy doing so. But the people who make the decisions just don't know what they are doing.
All MMORPGs became solo player games as gaming studios eyed up the solo player market. That's the history of MMOs, perpetually looking for a bigger market and changing the nature of what a MMO is each time they do so.
All MMORPGs became solo player games as gaming studios eyed up the solo player market. That's the history of MMOs, perpetually looking for a bigger market and changing the nature of what a MMO is each time they do so.
Self-playing games are going to be the next wave of MMOs. You don't even have to play solo. You don't have to worry about your connection, or your hardware. You'd just sign-up and they'd send you a bill every month.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
For me personally during all these years I've been playing MMORPGs are not defined by grouping It's defined by sharing the same world, you and thousands of players playing in the same world, doing what you want, crafting, solo, grouping, raiding, pvp, It's all in the same world, you run into people everywhere doing their own thing very much like yourself going to the mall.
As far as I know massively don't means grouping It just means a lot of players sharing the same gameworld.
You can be grinding mobs somewhere in the woods and another player showing up doing the same thing and it ends in we group up and having a nice evening together.
It's about choice and thousands of other players on your server also making a choice when logging in, that's an MMORPG for me.
For me personally during all these years I've been playing MMORPGs are not defined by grouping It's defined by sharing the same world, you and thousands of players playing in the same world, doing what you want, crafting, solo, grouping, raiding, pvp, It's all in the same world, you run into people everywhere doing their own thing very much like yourself going to the mall.
As far as I know massively don't means grouping It just means a lot of players sharing the same gameworld.
You can be grinding mobs somewhere in the woods and another player showing up doing the same thing and it ends in we group up and having a nice evening together.
It's about choice and thousands of other players on your server also making a choice when lgging in, that's an MMORPG for me.
I agree with you and I think the MMORPG is an evolving thing. It has changed from the days of Everquest and it continues to change.
I also feel that anyone who tries to insist that their definition and concept is gospel has an agenda that has nothing to do with what makes the world of the MMORPG work. It works in different games in different ways and just because you insist something is not an MMORPG does not magically make it something else.
Worlds that can attracts thousands of players are by the fact that they are able to attract that many already succeeded in creating a living world. Dead worlds that follow anyone else definitions do not lend itself to that meaning at all.
People are constantly quibbling over definitions and what they think are essential qualities but an empty world will not work. Successful games like WoW may not be what people really think or argue are what they want but games are meant to be played and if you are not playing the game it has already failed.
This is why people constantly hold up WoW numbers and use it as the successful implementation of an MMORPG. I really don't give a damn whether you personally don't think it is an MMORPG because in my eyes and the only ones that matter it most definitely is. The same goes for ESO, BDO, LotRO, Everquest and many, many others who all manage to bring different things to the genre.
Ohh god, not another one of those "X MMO isn't an MMO" because of feelings and some made up arbritary rules and then confusing opinion with fact....
Many can dispute whether or not WoW is a good game, but not an MMO? You definitely are a minority then and stretching it beyond the reasonable. And then calling it an obvious fact? It doesn't make you look smart or edgy, it makes you look oblivious.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Sorry, but in the best case WoW is MORPG - multiplayer online - as it has multiplayer features. There is not any way to be called massively multiplayer. Well, it has massive world, so if you think MMO is just massive, multiplayer, then OK it is a MMO.
But massively multiplayer can be only a sandbox game with open world like EVE or L2, because this is the only way your actions as a player to affect hundreds or thousands of other players. And I'm not talking about cutting trees (I assume many people think about that when someone says sandbox). Multiplayer sandbox game is a very different thing. When you are part or you support a guild or a corporation, then your actions affect the members, the allies, the enemies - this is a sandbox massively multiplayer game. A game focused on the group, but not on the solo player.
lol EVE players..
WoW is for sure an MMORPG. There are some games that are mislabeled today based on new information presented to us but WoW isn't one of them. I think games like EQ, and WoW are the previous generation versions of the "MMO" and today games like Destiny, Warframe, and Division are the new wave of "MMO" (MMO Lites) even if they have fewer users in an area. It's the experience that should matter. Hell, I get the MMO experience more from Destiny than I have in most other MMOs.
My opinion of course.
WoW though has never been mislabeled. It is what it is. An MMORPG.
MMOs will always evolve... people shouldn't get too stuck on their favorite version of it and help promote the new ideas and evolution. The good thing is we can play any generation of MMO we want to today, it's not going anywhere but just because you prefer one over the other doesn't make all others irrelevant.
MMOs went from Dragons and Magic all the way to Space Soldier, Dystopian Future, Space Ninja and back to Magic and Dragons.. and I'm here for it all.
Post edited by klash2def on
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
When you start telling developers how they have to make a game, it's time to get off the games a while go grab a beer and maybe do some fishing. It's a game, the rules are what they tell you they are. No one makes you play their game, and while I'm sure they will happily take your input, there is no "right" way to make any game
Your thesis is all over the place. On the one hand, you're saying WoW is a single player game because it focuses only on the player whereas group quests that don't involve the group are still single player games because it ignores the group.
What game has quests that say, okay, red bull, your job is to break into the bank and steal some gold, Johnny, your job is to be the lookout, ted and bill, your task is to create a diversion. If Red Bull is successful, he gets a pirate hat, if ted and bill are successful they get 30 gold, if Johnny is successful he gets a new weapon? No quest has ever been written like that. A group quest is still a single player quest that basically requires more than one person to complete at a certain gear level. So you could take a fetch 10 rats quest and make it so that only a group of 5 can complete it and now it is a group quest. But is it really any different than a solo quest without the added difficulty?
Every quest is scripted out and has a pre-determined outcome. You may think you are changing the story by choosing to kill this person versus helping them, but in the end, said choice makes zero difference at all. It's all your perception. Your choices are limited because it would be insane to create a quest system in which anyone can alter the story or game at any point. That sort of game could never be written. There hasn't been a game written that does that. You just think some games do that. It's called immersion... you let yourself believe you are the hero... making choices... when in fact it has all been pre-planned out for you.
Stop looking at the facade and look underneath at the code. It is very spelled out in code. Show me a game where the code changes on the fly at the players whim. Unless you are writing the code, it doesn't. You last look at a game that did that was a MUD.
MMOs have become solo player games with grouping options. Which isn't a bad thing. I think it's safe to say that the majority of online players enjoy the idea of grouping, but by the end of the day, would rather solo. Most of this has to do with other players being completely unreliable. When a game's focus is directly tied to player reliability, you are creating a huge detriment to your fun factor. That doesn't mean there aren't players and guilds that enjoy group content, but as I said, there's probably more players that enjoy soloing more then grouping.
+1
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The other guy had it wrong..Clearly WoW started a new generation and it has been that way since...Your slotting seems more accurate...>You could just call gen 3 WoW and its clones... I dont thin Im ready to call the gaems he has listed in gen 4 as the next generation.
The other guy had it wrong..Clearly WoW started a new generation and it has been that way since...Your slotting seems more accurate...>You could just call gen 3 WoW and its clones... I dont thin Im ready to call the gaems he has listed in gen 4 as the next generation.
yeah those games in his list for gen 4 are not a paradigm shift in any way. They are consolified shooter MMO's.
We'll know when Gen 4 arrives as it will revitalize the genre. It will probably require either truly immersive VR or incredibly humanlike AI behavior with true dynamic worlds(not the GW2 scripted crap).
For me personally during all these years I've been playing MMORPGs are not defined by grouping It's defined by sharing the same world, you and thousands of players playing in the same world, doing what you want, crafting, solo, grouping, raiding, pvp, It's all in the same world, you run into people everywhere doing their own thing very much like yourself going to the mall.
As far as I know massively don't means grouping It just means a lot of players sharing the same gameworld.
This is a massive multiplayer world, but not massively multiplayer game. As you see these things are very different. WoW definitely has a massive world, a lot of players can play simultaneously there solo. But this is not a MMO.
An MMORPG really doesn't have to be sandbox to qualify, thats just your opinion. The rest of it is just rules you think should apply, thats fine but not fact.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Well, if you point how a game could be massively multiplayer, but not sandbox open world, I will admit I'm wrong.
Uhhm, there really isn't any relation so that will be hard, massively multiplayer simply means a large group of players interacting, sandbox means the type of world in which they are able do so.
To clarify, massively multiplayer most definitely doesn't refer to a huge group doing the same thing or player actions having an effect on all the others. It refers to a large group of people doing their thing in the same world/space, be it solo or grouping.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Since MMORPG means Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, WoW and LoTRO do not fail as MMORPGs due to being solo friendly, as MMORPG does not mean you must group to play, it just means you can, if you want to, interact with a massive amount of other players in the persistent world your character inhabits.
It is a funny world we live in. We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
MMOs have become solo player games with grouping options. Which isn't a bad thing. I think it's safe to say that the majority of online players enjoy the idea of grouping, but by the end of the day, would rather solo. Most of this has to do with other players being completely unreliable. When a game's focus is directly tied to player reliability, you are creating a huge detriment to your fun factor. That doesn't mean there aren't players and guilds that enjoy group content, but as I said, there's probably more players that enjoy soloing more then grouping.
+1
The consistent experience of playing solo is hard to compete with. I am a fan of making group content rewarding enough to warrant the effort, but the trend seems to have been to eradicate as much of the effort required to complete group content as possible via group finders.
Uhhm, there really isn't any relation so that will be hard, massively multiplayer simply means a large group of players interacting, sandbox means the type of world in which they are able do so.
Indeed. Without the sandbox open world the massively multiplayer gameplay seems impossible.
To clarify, massively multiplayer most definitely doesn't refer to a huge group doing the same thing or player actions having an effect on all the others. It refers to a large group of people doing their thing in the same world/space, be it solo or grouping.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. Massive world is not equal to massively multiplayer gameplay. Obviously the existence of many players do not make the game multiplayer. This is the reason of sandbox - even when you play solo, your actions affect the world and the other players. And that multiplayer gameplay could become massively multiplayer only in an open world, where the links among the players are not limited.
To see a player, or even to talk with a player is not the same like to play with a player. Even in party, if the game does not provide mechanisms for multiplayer gameplay, the people could play singleplayer. MMORPG is not Massive shared world online role playing game.
It is not Massive group oriented interconnected role playing either.
It is fallacy to say that in an MMORPG you actions have to affect the world or other players. That is not in the definition and arguing that as a base is what is fueling this misapprehension. Sandbox is not necessary either in an MMORPG. Don't try to hoodwink people with false premises and asking them to argue with those base falsehoods.
Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game does not say anything about sandboxes or influencing other players by your actions. So soloing and working alone in an MMORPG is perfectly within this world and scope.
It's amazing how people fall for this nonsense and keep arguing on his premises without challenging the very basic false premises he has based it on.
Uhhm, there really isn't any relation so that will be hard, massively multiplayer simply means a large group of players interacting, sandbox means the type of world in which they are able do so.
Indeed. Without the sandbox open world the massively multiplayer gameplay seems impossible.
To clarify, massively multiplayer most definitely doesn't refer to a huge group doing the same thing or player actions having an effect on all the others. It refers to a large group of people doing their thing in the same world/space, be it solo or grouping.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. Massive world is not equal to massively multiplayer gameplay. Obviously the existence of many players do not make the game multiplayer. This is the reason of sandbox - even when you play solo, your actions affect the world and the other players. And that multiplayer gameplay could become massively multiplayer only in an open world, where the links among the players are not limited.
To see a player, or even to talk with a player is not the same like to play with a player. Even in party, if the game does not provide mechanisms for multiplayer gameplay, the people could play singleplayer. MMORPG is not Massive shared world online role playing game.
What a load of absurd nonsense you spout. Your gibberish has no relation to the term MMORPG created and defined by Richard Garriott in the slightest, trying to base a discussion on that premise is simply deceitful and manipulative.
A simple observation, when you come up with far out, bold claims like you do, its not up to others to prove you are wrong, it is up to you to prove you are right. You haven't done any of that, its just made up wishful thinking cowardly hidden behind the word "fact." Like I said before, you don't look intelligent or edgy with your opinions, you look oblivious. And I don't have to straighten that out, you do. Good luck proving yourself right.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Comments
Easiest to address is the writing aspect. Quests could be written not to address the individual, but rather address a plural character. "You and your friends" as opposed to "You". It's a matter of writing quality.
The mechanics are far more difficult to address. Quests are given to individual characters and rewards are given to individuals. Each individual tracks their progress in a quest independently of others, with the basic exception of raid-level events. If all groups functioned like raids it could be dealt with at a raid level.
Group quests wouldn't belong to any individual, but rather functions more like a triggered raid event. Group loot would drop much like raid loot. Ideally, group level bosses would not spawn periodically in the world, but a trigger mob could. The group leader talks to the mob, triggering the group event, and the group performs the functions required by the group event.
Some group level events already work this way in EQ1. Certainly, any of the old Monster Missions and LDoN Missions already function similar to this. There is often a 'Completion Chest' to reward each player individually with loot, flags and the like. The only 'gotcha' is that many, if not most, missions use instanced locations to host the event. That's not open world bosses and there's a very vocal segment that opposes instancing over open world. I see that as a pragmatics versus preferences thing.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
But regarding beating a dead horse, that's forums in general. Have a look at the list of the recent discussions, the usual suspects outnumber the others. I guess that's just the nature of gaming sites.
/SMH,
What I want matters to me and thats why I choose to play mmos that offer what I look for in a mmo. I dont care about what you want. XD
I dont want to be forced to play single or grouped. I want the option to play solo if I want or grouped if I want. I want to be able to play the way I want to play.
MMOs have always been about giving players choices to do things like choosing Elf or Dwarf, mage or warrior, male or female, exploring a dungeon or the open world, being a armor crafter or a weapon crafter.
When you take away choices mmos become more like single player games and you can see a lot of that in the genre today because things have become to scripted and predetermined.
What made mmos special was that they let people play the way they want to play and be who they wanted to be. Thats how MMOs should be made to be MMOS.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Many can dispute whether or not WoW is a good game, but not an MMO? You definitely are a minority then and stretching it beyond the reasonable. And then calling it an obvious fact? It doesn't make you look smart or edgy, it makes you look oblivious.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I also feel that anyone who tries to insist that their definition and concept is gospel has an agenda that has nothing to do with what makes the world of the MMORPG work. It works in different games in different ways and just because you insist something is not an MMORPG does not magically make it something else.
Worlds that can attracts thousands of players are by the fact that they are able to attract that many already succeeded in creating a living world. Dead worlds that follow anyone else definitions do not lend itself to that meaning at all.
People are constantly quibbling over definitions and what they think are essential qualities but an empty world will not work. Successful games like WoW may not be what people really think or argue are what they want but games are meant to be played and if you are not playing the game it has already failed.
This is why people constantly hold up WoW numbers and use it as the successful implementation of an MMORPG. I really don't give a damn whether you personally don't think it is an MMORPG because in my eyes and the only ones that matter it most definitely is. The same goes for ESO, BDO, LotRO, Everquest and many, many others who all manage to bring different things to the genre.
WoW is for sure an MMORPG. There are some games that are mislabeled today based on new information presented to us but WoW isn't one of them. I think games like EQ, and WoW are the previous generation versions of the "MMO" and today games like Destiny, Warframe, and Division are the new wave of "MMO" (MMO Lites) even if they have fewer users in an area. It's the experience that should matter. Hell, I get the MMO experience more from Destiny than I have in most other MMOs.
My opinion of course.
WoW though has never been mislabeled. It is what it is. An MMORPG.
How I see it:
MMO Generation 1 - UO, M59, Muds
MMO Generation 2- WoW, EQ, DAoC, SWG, EVE ("MASSIVELY" RPG era)
MMO Generation 3- Tera, SWTOR, ESO, FFXIV, Archage, Rift, GW2 (WoW Clone Era)
MMO Generation 4- Destiny, The Division, Warframe, Anthem (MMO Lite Era)
MMOs will always evolve... people shouldn't get too stuck on their favorite version of it and help promote the new ideas and evolution. The good thing is we can play any generation of MMO we want to today, it's not going anywhere but just because you prefer one over the other doesn't make all others irrelevant.
MMOs went from Dragons and Magic all the way to Space Soldier, Dystopian Future, Space Ninja and back to Magic and Dragons.. and I'm here for it all.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
What game has quests that say, okay, red bull, your job is to break into the bank and steal some gold, Johnny, your job is to be the lookout, ted and bill, your task is to create a diversion. If Red Bull is successful, he gets a pirate hat, if ted and bill are successful they get 30 gold, if Johnny is successful he gets a new weapon? No quest has ever been written like that. A group quest is still a single player quest that basically requires more than one person to complete at a certain gear level. So you could take a fetch 10 rats quest and make it so that only a group of 5 can complete it and now it is a group quest. But is it really any different than a solo quest without the added difficulty?
Every quest is scripted out and has a pre-determined outcome. You may think you are changing the story by choosing to kill this person versus helping them, but in the end, said choice makes zero difference at all. It's all your perception. Your choices are limited because it would be insane to create a quest system in which anyone can alter the story or game at any point. That sort of game could never be written. There hasn't been a game written that does that. You just think some games do that. It's called immersion... you let yourself believe you are the hero... making choices... when in fact it has all been pre-planned out for you.
Stop looking at the facade and look underneath at the code. It is very spelled out in code. Show me a game where the code changes on the fly at the players whim. Unless you are writing the code, it doesn't. You last look at a game that did that was a MUD.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
To clarify, massively multiplayer most definitely doesn't refer to a huge group doing the same thing or player actions having an effect on all the others. It refers to a large group of people doing their thing in the same world/space, be it solo or grouping.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game does not say anything about sandboxes or influencing other players by your actions. So soloing and working alone in an MMORPG is perfectly within this world and scope.
It's amazing how people fall for this nonsense and keep arguing on his premises without challenging the very basic false premises he has based it on.
A simple observation, when you come up with far out, bold claims like you do, its not up to others to prove you are wrong, it is up to you to prove you are right. You haven't done any of that, its just made up wishful thinking cowardly hidden behind the word "fact." Like I said before, you don't look intelligent or edgy with your opinions, you look oblivious. And I don't have to straighten that out, you do. Good luck proving yourself right.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer