I especially like cutscenes that show my character in the armour they are actually wearing. They can be really good and because I enjoy stories a lot. I want to be part of the lore and why I enjoyed playing SWTOR so very much.
I especially like cutscenes that show my character in the armour they are actually wearing. They can be really good and because I enjoy stories a lot. I want to be part of the lore and why I enjoyed playing SWTOR so very much.
You are reminding me of how well SWTOR did them, nothing better then a cut scene to set up some story. Only an issue if in a group.
As much as I dislike cutscenes SWTOR and FF14 do them well , but you must have the ability to quit out to not hold up grou play. You can always watch them later.
Instances do not themselves define content as fixed any more than static spawn nodes in an open world/dungeon does. Applying randomization of content to one scenario can just as easily be applied to another.
That's true that they don't have to. But they always do. Because designers who think "Instances" are also designers who think Fixed Content is good. Instances are an answer for games that lack socialness, because they don't want it. They want a SP game, in reality. Because they don't understand anything else but the status quo. It's still falling back on the old system, and still comes with all the negatives I mentioned.
Amaranthar said: Instances are artificial barriers with fixed content.
Gamers are leaving that old and boring design. It's not a "World", it's Lobbies and SP/MP stuff. The whole meaning of "Massively" in a "World" goes out the door. Socialness goes with it. Meaning goes with it. Excitement goes with it.
Not necessarily. Just consider games like Warframe that lobby/instance out almost everything and how they use procedural tilesets and randomized event behavior to vary missions.
It also demonstrates that while you could argue many devs fall back on static conventions, they demonstrably don't have to.
Similarly I could still flip this argument the other direction and point at the static nature of most open world designs that have been thus-far delivered. The amount of open world games with dynamic resource nodes, dungeons, etc, can be counted on but a few fingers. This brings with it all the previously mentioned faults/concerns as a result too.
So, a very few games that randomize their fixed delivery. But you are still stuck with the same game play. Get "quest/mission/whatever you call it.' Run "quest/etc.." Collect reward and advance. Rinse and repeat.
See, THAT's what's stale. It's fixed in the big picture, so to speak.
Yes, you can flip the argument in the other direction, but by doing so you just highlight that Worldly games have not been advanced. The other side of the problem.
The only reason it seems I am circling you over and over on this. Is because your only open world all the time arguement has a fatal flaw in it that you seem to be either ignoring or not addressing properly. Until that it solved, your arguement is pointless to me.
You can have a wonder pill that cures almost every ailment, but if you take it and die, does it even matter all the good things it cures?
Thats how I am looking at your open world only environment. No matter how many positives you come up with if the 1 fatal flaw results in driving all the players away.
Players can be completely toxic to eachother. Most players will not put up with that and will just leave. At a minimum they need the content that is most important to them to be safe so they can cooperate in an overall fun environment.
This is the main reason open worlds fail currently is the playerbase is forced to deal with jerks all the time for their important content, their is only so much people can take and most are fed up.
I've answered to all of your comments, as far as I know.
What is this fatal flaw again? I'll see if I can't make my point.
One thing I noticed is what players tend to do, they do things knowing full well it will destroy their server and kill it but they simply cannot seem to stop themselves. It is such a weird dynamic. They engage in behaviour that kills the very thing they enjoy.
For example when Classic WoW server were introduced there were several PvP servers where one side began to gather and keep killing the other side without pause or even allowing the other side to advance. This lead to people leaving the game and then petitioning for transfer which Blizzard in their infinite wisdom allowed and the whole Alliance but for a few brave souls completely left. Then of course the Horde had no one to kill. This happened on several servers with either Alliance or Horde chasing the other side away.
Why didn't they exercise restraint? Simply because human beings cannot do it. So no matter how you design something it will be lopsided in one way or another. It will never be an experience one thinks they are getting. As long as people are happy though I think it works.
I don't look at a game and see what is wrong. I tend to accept the game and then decide if I can enjoy it. If I cannot then I walk away. I feel this trend that is currently gripping this genre will last for awhile as money talks. We are not going to do away with whales or microtransactions any time soon, a pity really. However in this landscape there are releases we can enjoy, it is just a matter of how many compromises one is willing to make.
Most people want to play the content on their term and that's why instancing became the norm for group content.
WoW stopped with open world raid bosses for very good reasons, if you weren't in a guild that could get 25+ to show up immediately as they spawned you never saw them. It was a design that promotes nolife gaming.
You can't design encounter in open world like you can do for instanced content although it does lead to absurd choreography sometimes.
The race between mechanics and UI can get bit troublesome, but I find that UI limitations lead to problems that shouldn't exist in the first place. Without good UI you get limited amount of mechanics that are really slow and very obvious.
I don't find level and gear progression interesting anymore, its a carrot on a stick design that allows developers to be lazy and make copy paste content. To keep my attention the actual content has to be interesting, if its no longer interesting I play something else.
PS: the last part might not be completely true because I find that I do way too much simplistic content with silly rewards than I like to admit.
Sounds like you should be considering a "Worldly Sandbox" game as I've been talking about. But I'm not sure.
"You can't design encounter in open world like you can do for instanced content although it does lead to absurd choreography sometimes."
Are you getting bored of knowing what is going to happen and doing the same thing every time? I've proposed a simple AI system to little support.
Building it goes like this:
Start with MOB/NPC reactions of "Fight or "Flight." It's based on the MOBs type and current morale. A deer would almost certainly run, where a lion would usually attack. Add modifiers to the die roll. A well-fed Lion is less likely to attack, as an example.
Now start adding trees of other possible reactions. Things like group vs group, chances of healing, chasing, attacking, going into steal, falling back or running away, etc. And add modifiers based on morale, such as taking more damage than dealing it, fallen comrades vs. opponent's fallen, etc.
Now add special attacks or defenses, using magical stuff like wands, special maneuvers like sweeps (end arounds), circling up for defense, taking up positions, etc.
The point is to give NPCs various choices, weighted on how the current situation is, before or during encounters.
This requires a world that's "readable" for the NPCs. Mostly in Dungeons, Ruins, and other likely places. I call this a "Dungeon AI", which is basically additional instructions that are added to their choices available.
This not only gives MOBs a more intelligent action, but it's got a degree of randomness based on the modifiers. No two encounters would be exactly alike unless it's a very typical one (such as the deer running away). "Lock the doors! Man the walls!" In NPC speak.
This isn't the perfectly fleshed out choreography like Instances provide, but it's not the same thing over and over again. And it opens up a more exciting World to explore and do your thing in.
Add wandering MOBs, even to the point of taking over Dungeons to change things up there, and the world is coming alive. Add MOB constructions (limited), and they can even make some changes to the Dungeons. Changing the purpose of the rooms and the contents, adding traps, etc.
Most people want to play the content on their term and that's why instancing became the norm for group content.
WoW stopped with open world raid bosses for very good reasons, if you weren't in a guild that could get 25+ to show up immediately as they spawned you never saw them. It was a design that promotes nolife gaming.
You can't design encounter in open world like you can do for instanced content although it does lead to absurd choreography sometimes.
The race between mechanics and UI can get bit troublesome, but I find that UI limitations lead to problems that shouldn't exist in the first place. Without good UI you get limited amount of mechanics that are really slow and very obvious.
I don't find level and gear progression interesting anymore, its a carrot on a stick design that allows developers to be lazy and make copy paste content. To keep my attention the actual content has to be interesting, if its no longer interesting I play something else.
PS: the last part might not be completely true because I find that I do way too much simplistic content with silly rewards than I like to admit.
Sounds like you should be considering a "Worldly Sandbox" game as I've been talking about. But I'm not sure.
"You can't design encounter in open world like you can do for instanced content although it does lead to absurd choreography sometimes."
Are you getting bored of knowing what is going to happen and doing the same thing every time? I've proposed a simple AI system to little support.
Building it goes like this:
Start with MOB/NPC reactions of "Fight or "Flight." It's based on the MOBs type and current morale. A deer would almost certainly run, where a lion would usually attack. Add modifiers to the die roll. A well-fed Lion is less likely to attack, as an example.
Now start adding trees of other possible reactions. Things like group vs group, chances of healing, chasing, attacking, going into steal, falling back or running away, etc. And add modifiers based on morale, such as taking more damage than dealing it, fallen comrades vs. opponent's fallen, etc.
Now add special attacks or defenses, using magical stuff like wands, special maneuvers like sweeps (end arounds), circling up for defense, taking up positions, etc.
The point is to give NPCs various choices, weighted on how the current situation is, before or during encounters.
This requires a world that's "readable" for the NPCs. Mostly in Dungeons, Ruins, and other likely places. I call this a "Dungeon AI", which is basically additional instructions that are added to their choices available.
This not only gives MOBs a more intelligent action, but it's got a degree of randomness based on the modifiers. No two encounters would be exactly alike unless it's a very typical one (such as the deer running away). "Lock the doors! Man the walls!" In NPC speak.
This isn't the perfectly fleshed out choreography like Instances provide, but it's not the same thing over and over again. And it opens up a more exciting World to explore and do your thing in.
Add wandering MOBs, even to the point of taking over Dungeons to change things up there, and the world is coming alive. Add MOB constructions (limited), and they can even make some changes to the Dungeons. Changing the purpose of the rooms and the contents, adding traps, etc.
A "living, breathing world."
y I love this post. You want choices to affect the outcome of your gameplay? Isn't that what was so great about DAOC? The open world realm chaos. The unbalanced scenario manipulated to your favor. You want an opioid version of immersion. You don't want a sandbox anymore; you want a sidewalk. You want to put on a headset and forget who you are and seek asylum in an AI robot. I want it too, but I would define it as a "Worldly Sidewalk" at this point and not a "Worldly Sandbox".
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
One thing I noticed is what players tend to do, they do things knowing full well it will destroy their server and kill it but they simply cannot seem to stop themselves. It is such a weird dynamic. They engage in behaviour that kills the very thing they enjoy.
For example when Classic WoW server were introduced there were several PvP servers where one side began to gather and keep killing the other side without pause or even allowing the other side to advance. This lead to people leaving the game and then petitioning for transfer which Blizzard in their infinite wisdom allowed and the whole Alliance but for a few brave souls completely left. Then of course the Horde had no one to kill. This happened on several servers with either Alliance or Horde chasing the other side away.
Why didn't they exercise restraint? Simply because human beings cannot do it. So no matter how you design something it will be lopsided in one way or another. It will never be an experience one thinks they are getting. As long as people are happy though I think it works.
I don't look at a game and see what is wrong. I tend to accept the game and then decide if I can enjoy it. If I cannot then I walk away. I feel this trend that is currently gripping this genre will last for awhile as money talks. We are not going to do away with whales or microtransactions any time soon, a pity really. However in this landscape there are releases we can enjoy, it is just a matter of how many compromises one is willing to make.
I know you have a lot of beef with that sort of thing, I will say what I always say, Realm versus Realm. It stops that sort of server damaging silliness in its tracks.
One thing I noticed is what players tend to do, they do things knowing full well it will destroy their server and kill it but they simply cannot seem to stop themselves. It is such a weird dynamic. They engage in behaviour that kills the very thing they enjoy.
For example when Classic WoW server were introduced there were several PvP servers where one side began to gather and keep killing the other side without pause or even allowing the other side to advance. This lead to people leaving the game and then petitioning for transfer which Blizzard in their infinite wisdom allowed and the whole Alliance but for a few brave souls completely left. Then of course the Horde had no one to kill. This happened on several servers with either Alliance or Horde chasing the other side away.
Why didn't they exercise restraint? Simply because human beings cannot do it. So no matter how you design something it will be lopsided in one way or another. It will never be an experience one thinks they are getting. As long as people are happy though I think it works.
I don't look at a game and see what is wrong. I tend to accept the game and then decide if I can enjoy it. If I cannot then I walk away. I feel this trend that is currently gripping this genre will last for awhile as money talks. We are not going to do away with whales or microtransactions any time soon, a pity really. However in this landscape there are releases we can enjoy, it is just a matter of how many compromises one is willing to make.
I know you have a lot of beef with that sort of thing, I will say what I always say, Realm versus Realm. It stops that sort of server damaging silliness in its tracks.
There are many ways devs could realistically curb bad behavior, but it would take a company who places the customer experience over maximizing profits in every possible way.
Which is why we get bandaids and Hail Mary's, instead.
Instances do not themselves define content as fixed any more than static spawn nodes in an open world/dungeon does. Applying randomization of content to one scenario can just as easily be applied to another.
That's true that they don't have to. But they always do. Because designers who think "Instances" are also designers who think Fixed Content is good. Instances are an answer for games that lack socialness, because they don't want it. They want a SP game, in reality. Because they don't understand anything else but the status quo. It's still falling back on the old system, and still comes with all the negatives I mentioned.
Amaranthar said: Instances are artificial barriers with fixed content.
Gamers are leaving that old and boring design. It's not a "World", it's Lobbies and SP/MP stuff. The whole meaning of "Massively" in a "World" goes out the door. Socialness goes with it. Meaning goes with it. Excitement goes with it.
Not necessarily. Just consider games like Warframe that lobby/instance out almost everything and how they use procedural tilesets and randomized event behavior to vary missions.
It also demonstrates that while you could argue many devs fall back on static conventions, they demonstrably don't have to.
Similarly I could still flip this argument the other direction and point at the static nature of most open world designs that have been thus-far delivered. The amount of open world games with dynamic resource nodes, dungeons, etc, can be counted on but a few fingers. This brings with it all the previously mentioned faults/concerns as a result too.
So, a very few games that randomize their fixed delivery. But you are still stuck with the same game play. Get "quest/mission/whatever you call it.' Run "quest/etc.." Collect reward and advance. Rinse and repeat.
See, THAT's what's stale. It's fixed in the big picture, so to speak.
Yes, you can flip the argument in the other direction, but by doing so you just highlight that Worldly games have not been advanced. The other side of the problem.
That would just go to say the argument is criticizing the stagnation of one element while appealing to the potential of a hypothetical.
If you acknowledge the reality that stagnation is pervasive across designs, then can you not also perceive solutions across designs? Or is it just an argument of personal ideal?
Most people want to play the content on their term and that's why instancing became the norm for group content.
WoW stopped with open world raid bosses for very good reasons, if you weren't in a guild that could get 25+ to show up immediately as they spawned you never saw them. It was a design that promotes nolife gaming.
You can't design encounter in open world like you can do for instanced content although it does lead to absurd choreography sometimes.
The race between mechanics and UI can get bit troublesome, but I find that UI limitations lead to problems that shouldn't exist in the first place. Without good UI you get limited amount of mechanics that are really slow and very obvious.
I don't find level and gear progression interesting anymore, its a carrot on a stick design that allows developers to be lazy and make copy paste content. To keep my attention the actual content has to be interesting, if its no longer interesting I play something else.
PS: the last part might not be completely true because I find that I do way too much simplistic content with silly rewards than I like to admit.
Sounds like you should be considering a "Worldly Sandbox" game as I've been talking about. But I'm not sure.
"You can't design encounter in open world like you can do for instanced content although it does lead to absurd choreography sometimes."
Are you getting bored of knowing what is going to happen and doing the same thing every time? I've proposed a simple AI system to little support.
Building it goes like this:
Start with MOB/NPC reactions of "Fight or "Flight." It's based on the MOBs type and current morale. A deer would almost certainly run, where a lion would usually attack. Add modifiers to the die roll. A well-fed Lion is less likely to attack, as an example.
Now start adding trees of other possible reactions. Things like group vs group, chances of healing, chasing, attacking, going into steal, falling back or running away, etc. And add modifiers based on morale, such as taking more damage than dealing it, fallen comrades vs. opponent's fallen, etc.
Now add special attacks or defenses, using magical stuff like wands, special maneuvers like sweeps (end arounds), circling up for defense, taking up positions, etc.
The point is to give NPCs various choices, weighted on how the current situation is, before or during encounters.
This requires a world that's "readable" for the NPCs. Mostly in Dungeons, Ruins, and other likely places. I call this a "Dungeon AI", which is basically additional instructions that are added to their choices available.
This not only gives MOBs a more intelligent action, but it's got a degree of randomness based on the modifiers. No two encounters would be exactly alike unless it's a very typical one (such as the deer running away). "Lock the doors! Man the walls!" In NPC speak.
This isn't the perfectly fleshed out choreography like Instances provide, but it's not the same thing over and over again. And it opens up a more exciting World to explore and do your thing in.
Add wandering MOBs, even to the point of taking over Dungeons to change things up there, and the world is coming alive. Add MOB constructions (limited), and they can even make some changes to the Dungeons. Changing the purpose of the rooms and the contents, adding traps, etc.
A "living, breathing world."
y I love this post. You want choices to affect the outcome of your gameplay? Isn't that what was so great about DAOC? The open world realm chaos. The unbalanced scenario manipulated to your favor. You want an opioid version of immersion. You don't want a sandbox anymore; you want a sidewalk. You want to put on a headset and forget who you are and seek asylum in an AI robot. I want it too, but I would define it as a "Worldly Sidewalk" at this point and not a "Worldly Sandbox".
Most people want to play the content on their term and that's why instancing became the norm for group content.
WoW stopped with open world raid bosses for very good reasons, if you weren't in a guild that could get 25+ to show up immediately as they spawned you never saw them. It was a design that promotes nolife gaming.
You can't design encounter in open world like you can do for instanced content although it does lead to absurd choreography sometimes.
The race between mechanics and UI can get bit troublesome, but I find that UI limitations lead to problems that shouldn't exist in the first place. Without good UI you get limited amount of mechanics that are really slow and very obvious.
I don't find level and gear progression interesting anymore, its a carrot on a stick design that allows developers to be lazy and make copy paste content. To keep my attention the actual content has to be interesting, if its no longer interesting I play something else.
PS: the last part might not be completely true because I find that I do way too much simplistic content with silly rewards than I like to admit.
Sounds like you should be considering a "Worldly Sandbox" game as I've been talking about. But I'm not sure.
"You can't design encounter in open world like you can do for instanced content although it does lead to absurd choreography sometimes."
Are you getting bored of knowing what is going to happen and doing the same thing every time? I've proposed a simple AI system to little support.
Building it goes like this:
Start with MOB/NPC reactions of "Fight or "Flight." It's based on the MOBs type and current morale. A deer would almost certainly run, where a lion would usually attack. Add modifiers to the die roll. A well-fed Lion is less likely to attack, as an example.
Now start adding trees of other possible reactions. Things like group vs group, chances of healing, chasing, attacking, going into steal, falling back or running away, etc. And add modifiers based on morale, such as taking more damage than dealing it, fallen comrades vs. opponent's fallen, etc.
Now add special attacks or defenses, using magical stuff like wands, special maneuvers like sweeps (end arounds), circling up for defense, taking up positions, etc.
The point is to give NPCs various choices, weighted on how the current situation is, before or during encounters.
This requires a world that's "readable" for the NPCs. Mostly in Dungeons, Ruins, and other likely places. I call this a "Dungeon AI", which is basically additional instructions that are added to their choices available.
This not only gives MOBs a more intelligent action, but it's got a degree of randomness based on the modifiers. No two encounters would be exactly alike unless it's a very typical one (such as the deer running away). "Lock the doors! Man the walls!" In NPC speak.
This isn't the perfectly fleshed out choreography like Instances provide, but it's not the same thing over and over again. And it opens up a more exciting World to explore and do your thing in.
Add wandering MOBs, even to the point of taking over Dungeons to change things up there, and the world is coming alive. Add MOB constructions (limited), and they can even make some changes to the Dungeons. Changing the purpose of the rooms and the contents, adding traps, etc.
A "living, breathing world."
I like your concept here, I agree the AI needs to be more intelligent and there are many ways to do that including what you are saying.
However I think your insistence that instances have to be choreographed or its the same content over and over again shows you me your lack of understanding of what an instance actually is.
Do you realize that instances can be programmed to behave however the devs want them too? They can behave like an open world, be completely random, different content etc... In addition the open world mobs can behave in a completely choreographed way and it can be the same thing over and over.
I think you keep going after instances probably because you dont understand what they actually are. You seen one in a game and assume every game is like that.
The only reason it seems I am circling you over and over on this. Is because your only open world all the time arguement has a fatal flaw in it that you seem to be either ignoring or not addressing properly. Until that it solved, your arguement is pointless to me.
You can have a wonder pill that cures almost every ailment, but if you take it and die, does it even matter all the good things it cures?
Thats how I am looking at your open world only environment. No matter how many positives you come up with if the 1 fatal flaw results in driving all the players away.
Players can be completely toxic to eachother. Most players will not put up with that and will just leave. At a minimum they need the content that is most important to them to be safe so they can cooperate in an overall fun environment.
This is the main reason open worlds fail currently is the playerbase is forced to deal with jerks all the time for their important content, their is only so much people can take and most are fed up.
I've answered to all of your comments, as far as I know.
What is this fatal flaw again? I'll see if I can't make my point.
People are the fatal flaw. MMO's have lots of people, open worlds allow all these people to be in the same place. Someone will always be incentivised to screw over others. No matter what the game does short of not having lots of people in it, other people will find a way to ruin others fun.
If you put the best content and force others to share/compete for it, there will always be winners and losers. Some people will win all the time, others will lose all the time. The vast majority of people dont want to be screwed out of their most important content.
This is the number one reason instances were created. To give people a place they can go to have fun without being screwed by unscrupulous players. Unless you can solve that fatal flaw, then your full open world only design will never work successfully.
So keep spinning how cool an open world is, but not working out that problem will never work. Its not believable either. Additionally pinning all the problems to instances trying to make them out to be something they are not, wont work either because many people here are educated enough to know what you are saying is wrong.
Instances do not themselves define content as fixed any more than static spawn nodes in an open world/dungeon does. Applying randomization of content to one scenario can just as easily be applied to another.
That's true that they don't have to. But they always do. Because designers who think "Instances" are also designers who think Fixed Content is good. Instances are an answer for games that lack socialness, because they don't want it. They want a SP game, in reality. Because they don't understand anything else but the status quo. It's still falling back on the old system, and still comes with all the negatives I mentioned.
Amaranthar said: Instances are artificial barriers with fixed content.
Gamers are leaving that old and boring design. It's not a "World", it's Lobbies and SP/MP stuff. The whole meaning of "Massively" in a "World" goes out the door. Socialness goes with it. Meaning goes with it. Excitement goes with it.
Not necessarily. Just consider games like Warframe that lobby/instance out almost everything and how they use procedural tilesets and randomized event behavior to vary missions.
It also demonstrates that while you could argue many devs fall back on static conventions, they demonstrably don't have to.
Similarly I could still flip this argument the other direction and point at the static nature of most open world designs that have been thus-far delivered. The amount of open world games with dynamic resource nodes, dungeons, etc, can be counted on but a few fingers. This brings with it all the previously mentioned faults/concerns as a result too.
So, a very few games that randomize their fixed delivery. But you are still stuck with the same game play. Get "quest/mission/whatever you call it.' Run "quest/etc.." Collect reward and advance. Rinse and repeat.
See, THAT's what's stale. It's fixed in the big picture, so to speak.
Yes, you can flip the argument in the other direction, but by doing so you just highlight that Worldly games have not been advanced. The other side of the problem.
That would just go to say the argument is criticizing the stagnation of one element while appealing to the potential of a hypothetical.
If you acknowledge the reality that stagnation is pervasive across designs, then can you not also perceive solutions across designs? Or is it just an argument of personal ideal?
It's not a hypothetical. There has been ample evidence that Gamers don't want the controls on game play that level grind designs bring.
Skyrim for example, where Gamers liked that open world PvE, and how ESO was forced to add Scaling when they didn't give it to them at release. But Scaling removes the Advancement that Gamers earned, and while it's better that not having the Scaling, it's not a good answer because of that loss of Advancement.
Balder's Gate, years ago, had complaints about this too, when players went off path and found instant death.
There is no way around this. It's a problem, one way or the other, based on the level grind design controls on player choices.
BUT!!! Is this getting away from what you and a few others mean by Instances? Your intentions of how they are used? Maybe we should be talking about that instead of this?
BUT!!! Is this getting away from what you and a few others mean by Instances? Your intentions of how they are used? Maybe we should be talking about that instead of this?
Elaborate on your thought here, I am not sure how you are using instances in this context.
BUT!!! Is this getting away from what you and a few others mean by Instances? Your intentions of how they are used? Maybe we should be talking about that instead of this?
Elaborate on your thought here, I am not sure how you are using instances in this context.
I don't know. I am confused by the people arguing with me because they, including you, always seemed to think more like I do on socialness. I'm further confused because I can't figure why you need Instances when you could use special drops (for quester only) along with special Summons, or other means to do what you might want to do.
Yeah I'm a little at a loss on your argument. Scaling content is a different issue from instances and affects open world same as it would instances.
I only mentioned Scaling because it's claimed as an answer to the problem of level power gap separation. It does remove the problem of controlled player choices, but it has a different problem, as I mentioned.
Maybe you never thought like I do, after all, if you didn't understand that.
Honestly, the only way I can understand you is if you want a game, and not a world, and can't understand why gamers are tired of "go here and do this, now go there and do that" and nothing more to the Massively Multiplayer game world.
I'm just not seeing the problems as it applies to those issues, versus instances.
It's not what makes the "go here do this, now go here and do that" thing happen. This is part of why it's been said most complaints and solutions presented so far applies equally to open world and instanced content.
Unless the entire world is playing on one massive server, you are always dealing with instances. Who can access an instance, how they access it, how many can share an instance, and how much "seamless" content that instance covers can vary. I feel like using terms like "instances" is not that useful in this discussion, because that is jumping ahead to a particular implementation rather than the broader design questions. For example, if we have no instanced dungeons like WoW, but significantly limit the number of people on a given shard of the entire world, is that doing away with "instances" or is it making the whole world an "instance"? And simply saying I want instances or I don't want instances doesn't tell you much about the type of gameplay I'm hoping for. A non-instanced PvE gathering/crafting game can be very different than a non-instanced PvP game, even though neither have instances.
To that point, it seems to me that proponents of open-world, non-instanced MMOs are looking for organically emergent gameplay that the genre teases. Have a point of interest out in the open (rather than hidden in an instance) and it can be a focal point for said gameplay to emerge. Unfortunately, the quality of the outcome depends on many things, not the least of which is the community itself. A game designer might imagine players banding together to overcome another group of players in their conquest of some point of interest, but players may just decide to trade kills / caps instead, or simply move on because a group with more resources / experience / power / etc. is camping the zone. I absolutely love moments in games that are created by the players themselves, and my fondest memories playing MMOs are of such experiences. But designing a game that leads to predominantly fun moments of emergent gameplay instead of frustrating ones is not easy, instanced or not.
I'm just not seeing the problems as it applies to those issues, versus instances.
It's not what makes the "go here do this, now go here and do that" thing happen. This is part of why it's been said most complaints and solutions presented so far applies equally to open world and instanced content.
No, Instances don't make it happen, they are part of it. They break the concept of a World. They break the 4th wall, and have "Gamey" written all over them.
Everyone's the hero, guaranteed with each account that wants to be, THE hero-by-design just for signing up. You don't have to distinguish yourself through game play. Hell, you couldn't if you wanted to. It's not in the cards. It's a tie ball game.
It could be, but I would refer to Warframe again for how it also demonstrably does not have to be. Instanced content does not define the limit of challenge presented by said content, nor does it mean you have to use a hero-centric narrative or structure.
I would point out again that open world games don't really shy away from those being problems either. WoW can use as many open zones as it wants, but it follows a very individually focused narrative.
It is not about holding a gun to anyones head. I think you missed the point.
It is about the existing games available and how unfortunately there is not an abundance of good modern MMORPG's, and particularly ones that don't just follow the generic formula. The current ones are all old and tired, or just not actually that good. Some used to be good of course too, but are now dumbed down, and received many changes over time, but not in a positive way.
I'm advocating for a different take on MMORPG's, a different perspective, and explained why many of the more oldschool systems were succesful. So I explained a bunch of elements I think are missing, and why a lot of the more oldschool systems could actually potentially create 'better' games than what we currently have in the genre. So again it is not so much about people playing these current MMORPG's, it is about making NEW games that could be even more fun than those using what we have learned.
I'd rather play new fresh takes that improve and have more fun experiences, than be playing the same game for over 15 years that got dumbed down over time.
You seem to think that the current large MMORPG's are what everyone wants... The vast majority of players don't actually know what they want, and you can bet their ass if a more fun game comes along they will play it. And so what I'm arguing for is that they might be surprised by an MMORPG's with a more oldschool take.
I explained why I think this is the fact, and how you can see it happening in other genre's a lot.
How many good modern MMORPGs there are and which ones they are depends on who you're talking to. That is the point each and every time this issue is raised.
I know that each droning voice of complaint expressed over the dearth of games in forums is matched by at least one not heard because that person is too busy spending their time on the game they enjoy rather than lamenting here.
While discontent is often shouted satisfaction is often silent.
I think people are capable of determining what they want for themselves. They certainly better know what they want than you do. The only wants you are qualified to speak on are your own. What you are hoping is that if people see what you want they will magically want it as well.
Build your diamond then, and see if they will come. We'll see if it turns into the field of dreams you imagine. Just remember that such a field already existed and was largely abandoned in the past so don't get your hopes up too high for many to be rushing back to a similar one in the future.
They only see what is infront of their eyes. You seem to think everyone is an expert game designer and world builder. They are most definitely not.
I've argued giving context and reason, in a positive way, with hope for a better experience than what we have. My very argument is actually saying that I think people can be proven wrong. It also hasn't been done before, otherwise I wouldn't be be arguing for it in the first place. A new game copying the generic formula is actually, nothing new.
You can stay in your negative never changing tired old garden. I'll hope for others or myself to build a new one, taking the best of what we have learned and what people once loved, adding in interesting unique features, and a new vision that many can enjoy.
I think everyone that plays MMORPGs can put pretty much put whatever they want in front of their eyes, seeing as they must be online to do so. They only thing people must be expert in is when choosing a game to play is what they enjoy.
You put your argument forth, just as the dozens have before and will after. Many people have vague ideas of what to do to fix everything, but most lack the resources to actually do anything and as often as not the expertise as well.
Basically, such visions are so much dust in the wind.
I can go anywhere I want, and have. I've played MMORPGs from the earliest to latest, not every one but enough to have experienced their evolution over time. There is a wide range of play experiences over that period.
Some of those games are old, some newer, but the only thing that makes any of them tired is the perspective they are so. Not all share that outlook, such that some of the oldest remain commercially viable and plenty others have been resurrected by adoring fans. Apparently they are lively enough for some.
My garden is expansive, with abundant blooms of varied shape and hue. Your ideal is a vacant lot, lacking a posted notice of impending construction. Should something ever be built there I'll be happy to take a look. Until then I am content where I am.
It could be, but I would refer to Warframe again for how it also demonstrably does not have to be. Instanced content does not define the limit of challenge presented by said content, nor does it mean you have to use a hero-centric narrative or structure.
I would point out again that open world games don't really shy away from those being problems either. WoW can use as many open zones as it wants, but it follows a very individually focused narrative.
Huh? I don't know hardly anything about Warframe, but it's listed as a Multi-Player game. Don't take that "you're the hero" comment so literally. When players "win" they are the hero, and if they all do the same thing and they all "win" at those same things, that's what I'm talking about.
WoW is an "open world"? They have open zones, but those zones are each for a specific "division" of the player base. That's hardly an "Open World." As far as "individually focused narrative" (in WoW), I understand what you mean there but that's not in the context of being able to create a somewhat unique character experience. Most of the game play is about repetitive content, and not individually focused.
Comments
But you are still stuck with the same game play.
Get "quest/mission/whatever you call it.'
Run "quest/etc.."
Collect reward and advance.
Rinse and repeat.
See, THAT's what's stale. It's fixed in the big picture, so to speak.
Yes, you can flip the argument in the other direction, but by doing so you just highlight that Worldly games have not been advanced.
The other side of the problem.
Once upon a time....
What is this fatal flaw again?
I'll see if I can't make my point.
Once upon a time....
For example when Classic WoW server were introduced there were several PvP servers where one side began to gather and keep killing the other side without pause or even allowing the other side to advance. This lead to people leaving the game and then petitioning for transfer which Blizzard in their infinite wisdom allowed and the whole Alliance but for a few brave souls completely left. Then of course the Horde had no one to kill. This happened on several servers with either Alliance or Horde chasing the other side away.
Why didn't they exercise restraint? Simply because human beings cannot do it. So no matter how you design something it will be lopsided in one way or another. It will never be an experience one thinks they are getting. As long as people are happy though I think it works.
I don't look at a game and see what is wrong. I tend to accept the game and then decide if I can enjoy it. If I cannot then I walk away. I feel this trend that is currently gripping this genre will last for awhile as money talks. We are not going to do away with whales or microtransactions any time soon, a pity really. However in this landscape there are releases we can enjoy, it is just a matter of how many compromises one is willing to make.
"You can't design encounter in open world like you can do for instanced content although it does lead to absurd choreography sometimes."
Are you getting bored of knowing what is going to happen and doing the same thing every time?
I've proposed a simple AI system to little support.
Building it goes like this:
Start with MOB/NPC reactions of "Fight or "Flight."
It's based on the MOBs type and current morale.
A deer would almost certainly run, where a lion would usually attack.
Add modifiers to the die roll. A well-fed Lion is less likely to attack, as an example.
Now start adding trees of other possible reactions.
Things like group vs group, chances of healing, chasing, attacking, going into steal, falling back or running away, etc.
And add modifiers based on morale, such as taking more damage than dealing it, fallen comrades vs. opponent's fallen, etc.
Now add special attacks or defenses, using magical stuff like wands, special maneuvers like sweeps (end arounds), circling up for defense, taking up positions, etc.
The point is to give NPCs various choices, weighted on how the current situation is, before or during encounters.
This requires a world that's "readable" for the NPCs. Mostly in Dungeons, Ruins, and other likely places. I call this a "Dungeon AI", which is basically additional instructions that are added to their choices available.
This not only gives MOBs a more intelligent action, but it's got a degree of randomness based on the modifiers. No two encounters would be exactly alike unless it's a very typical one (such as the deer running away).
"Lock the doors! Man the walls!" In NPC speak.
This isn't the perfectly fleshed out choreography like Instances provide, but it's not the same thing over and over again. And it opens up a more exciting World to explore and do your thing in.
Add wandering MOBs, even to the point of taking over Dungeons to change things up there, and the world is coming alive.
Add MOB constructions (limited), and they can even make some changes to the Dungeons. Changing the purpose of the rooms and the contents, adding traps, etc.
A "living, breathing world."
Once upon a time....
I love this post. You want choices to affect the outcome of your gameplay? Isn't that what was so great about DAOC? The open world realm chaos. The unbalanced scenario manipulated to your favor. You want an opioid version of immersion. You don't want a sandbox anymore; you want a sidewalk. You want to put on a headset and forget who you are and seek asylum in an AI robot. I want it too, but I would define it as a "Worldly Sidewalk" at this point and not a "Worldly Sandbox".
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Which is why we get bandaids and Hail Mary's, instead.
If you acknowledge the reality that stagnation is pervasive across designs, then can you not also perceive solutions across designs? Or is it just an argument of personal ideal?
Once upon a time....
However I think your insistence that instances have to be choreographed or its the same content over and over again shows you me your lack of understanding of what an instance actually is.
Do you realize that instances can be programmed to behave however the devs want them too? They can behave like an open world, be completely random, different content etc... In addition the open world mobs can behave in a completely choreographed way and it can be the same thing over and over.
I think you keep going after instances probably because you dont understand what they actually are. You seen one in a game and assume every game is like that.
If you put the best content and force others to share/compete for it, there will always be winners and losers. Some people will win all the time, others will lose all the time. The vast majority of people dont want to be screwed out of their most important content.
This is the number one reason instances were created. To give people a place they can go to have fun without being screwed by unscrupulous players. Unless you can solve that fatal flaw, then your full open world only design will never work successfully.
So keep spinning how cool an open world is, but not working out that problem will never work. Its not believable either. Additionally pinning all the problems to instances trying to make them out to be something they are not, wont work either because many people here are educated enough to know what you are saying is wrong.
There has been ample evidence that Gamers don't want the controls on game play that level grind designs bring.
Skyrim for example, where Gamers liked that open world PvE, and how ESO was forced to add Scaling when they didn't give it to them at release.
But Scaling removes the Advancement that Gamers earned, and while it's better that not having the Scaling, it's not a good answer because of that loss of Advancement.
Balder's Gate, years ago, had complaints about this too, when players went off path and found instant death.
There is no way around this. It's a problem, one way or the other, based on the level grind design controls on player choices.
BUT!!!
Is this getting away from what you and a few others mean by Instances? Your intentions of how they are used?
Maybe we should be talking about that instead of this?
Once upon a time....
I am confused by the people arguing with me because they, including you, always seemed to think more like I do on socialness.
I'm further confused because I can't figure why you need Instances when you could use special drops (for quester only) along with special Summons, or other means to do what you might want to do.
Once upon a time....
Maybe you never thought like I do, after all, if you didn't understand that.
Honestly, the only way I can understand you is if you want a game, and not a world, and can't understand why gamers are tired of "go here and do this, now go there and do that" and nothing more to the Massively Multiplayer game world.
Once upon a time....
It's not what makes the "go here do this, now go here and do that" thing happen. This is part of why it's been said most complaints and solutions presented so far applies equally to open world and instanced content.
They break the concept of a World. They break the 4th wall, and have "Gamey" written all over them.
Everyone's the hero, guaranteed with each account that wants to be, THE hero-by-design just for signing up.
You don't have to distinguish yourself through game play. Hell, you couldn't if you wanted to. It's not in the cards. It's a tie ball game.
It's a blue ribbon world, baby.
Once upon a time....
I would point out again that open world games don't really shy away from those being problems either. WoW can use as many open zones as it wants, but it follows a very individually focused narrative.
I think everyone that plays MMORPGs can put pretty much put whatever they want in front of their eyes, seeing as they must be online to do so. They only thing people must be expert in is when choosing a game to play is what they enjoy.
Basically, such visions are so much dust in the wind.
I can go anywhere I want, and have. I've played MMORPGs from the earliest to latest, not every one but enough to have experienced their evolution over time. There is a wide range of play experiences over that period.
Some of those games are old, some newer, but the only thing that makes any of them tired is the perspective they are so. Not all share that outlook, such that some of the oldest remain commercially viable and plenty others have been resurrected by adoring fans. Apparently they are lively enough for some.
My garden is expansive, with abundant blooms of varied shape and hue. Your ideal is a vacant lot, lacking a posted notice of impending construction. Should something ever be built there I'll be happy to take a look. Until then I am content where I am.
I don't know hardly anything about Warframe, but it's listed as a Multi-Player game.
Don't take that "you're the hero" comment so literally. When players "win" they are the hero, and if they all do the same thing and they all "win" at those same things, that's what I'm talking about.
WoW is an "open world"? They have open zones, but those zones are each for a specific "division" of the player base. That's hardly an "Open World."
As far as "individually focused narrative" (in WoW), I understand what you mean there but that's not in the context of being able to create a somewhat unique character experience. Most of the game play is about repetitive content, and not individually focused.
Once upon a time....