Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Can a hit mmo "have it all"
Relatively simple question and poll here. Can a hit mmo have it all? e.g. balanced pve, pvp, crafting, sandbox features, and other social aspects? Or must a hit mmo focus on one specific aspect? e.g. pvp focused, pve focused, sandbox only.
Discuss if you wish....
Comments
The perfect MMO would manage all of them, but in reality every MMO that's tried has ended up shallow across the board, or some parts feel like an afterthought.
Aiming at a niche or sticking to one specific style of gameplay and building around that is the way forward I think, especially in the post-WoW era. If a company wants to try and 'have it all' then they'd better have a LOT of time, a LOT of money, and one hell of a lot of experience.
Let's wait and see how Earthrise turns out.
Basically it will have it all.
The feature-list reads: story-driven PvE, factional warfare, FFA PvP, full loot (with insurance system), sandbox, territorial warfare with ressource-control, player-driven economy, item-decay, skill-based character-advancement, no classes, 3rd-person-shooter-combat, etc.
And then, if you look at EvE, it just lacks avatars to run around with basically.
Voted no, although the wording is a little harsher than I feel. Mostly I think it's obvious that trying to do everything will result in some elements falling short of quality standards, and that's unavoidable. But I also think that it's not necessarily going to cause you to fail if you attempt to offer a broad range of gameplay modes and activities.
It's just that if I were designing a MMORPG, I would focus on one goal and ensure that was awesome before anything else -- and any additional elements I added would have to be done in a way that doesn't distract from my strength.
WAR's an example of a game where it's bad PVE totally distracted from it's above average PVP, resulting in many players thinking it was a bad game when in fact it was above average. (Sadly it's not a great example of this phenomenon, since it has a lot of other problems.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I doubt that there is a way for a single MMO to have it all. To be honest, the MMO world is so diverse that there are niche markets that appeal to individual tastes. Now MMOs have to compete with one another to pull in users with their unique features.
www.ryzom.com
I agree 100%,it would take a giant size developer and one with much experience,imo only a handful exist.
IMO the one developer that has shown me the MOST diversity in game play,is Square Enix,they just so happen to be one the largest developers out there as well and do have the money.
The problem is that there is no guarantee to success,none what so ever,so i do not see any developer willing to take on the risk of making a masterful game and possibly go bankrupt doing it.
I look at all the big developers right now,Bioware and EA with their Mass Effect,looks good but graphics are dithered badly,all you see is fog in the background,so if they cannot manage to up the anti on a single player game,imagine how dumb down the game would be for a MMO.
Then we have Blizzard,my god they have not advanced one iota in the last 5 years a truly stagnant developer,so no way they could master a complete game.Has anyone seen the req specs for SC2?lol the game is a low end graphic game and yet has req's that would lead you to think it is a high end game,so Blizzard is really an inept developer,low skilled people.
SOE?a slight possibility here,they do have a lot of skilled people under their roof,but most of them are in console game design.We have seen them make some moves in different directions,so it is possible they do have the size and money,the know how in their PC division is in question.
THQ?hard to say,they are imo more of a publisher than a great game maker,their newest release is a bold attempt at a DX10 only game,so they do have some ability,but the game was made by another developer,but it is a MMO,so again a possibility here and they do have more projects on the go for the future.
I leave anyone out?I can't think of any other developer with a remote chance at making a large scale ,fully complete game with great visuals/animations and game play.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Considering the following statement is true:
Only humans can design MMOs.
No, it is not possible, while an MMO can have it all, humans are not capable of grasping that amazing concept and put it down on its current technology, now if god made a perfect MMO, then there we would have it.
Quite the opposite. One of the most prevalent reasons I've seen for people returning to WoW was the diversity of gameplay that other games just don't offer.
Most players aren't monochrome .. we're not just PvPers. We're not just PvErs. We like variety, and the freedom to choose what type of gameplay we want to enjoy at any given time. If we can do that in one single MMO that is "decent" in every aspect rather than having to pay subscriptions for two games that each excel in a particular area, then that's a very attractive option.
So, I guess I would say that a hit MMO must have it all.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
WoW has it all.
And it's a hit.
PvP, the best class balancing of any MMO. WoW has dozens of excellent raids and group instances.
And WoW is mostly lag free. Lag being my number one gripe.
Doing it all is one reason WoW has done so well.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
There's a pretty large list of things that you're specifically restricted from doing in WOW that other games offer, including many that I personally would consider essential for my enjoyment. And most of the players want it that way, which is fine, but it illustrates why the idea of "one perfect MMO" is an oxymoron: differently players want different, mutually exclusive things.
Player A wants a FFA single-server sandbox with maximal player freedom, because he wants a game where he can involve himself as fully as possible in exploring and exploiting a virtual world. Arbitrary barriers and "unrealistic" NPCs and most especially instancing and sharding are anathema to him.
Player B wants to be entertained by epic story content alongside his friends. Not only is he not interested in contending with other players in a virtual world, he actively dislikes having to even consider the possibility of other players "spoiling his game".
No single game can fully accomodate player A and player B. Bother Player A and Player B want perfectly valid and reasonable things from their gameplay, and there's nothing wrong with either of them. Player A isn't a child-abused, basement dwelling sociopath. Player B isn't a no-skill only child coward. It's just that they want different things from their game time and they can't possibly co-exist in the same game.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
While I voted that a game can 'have it all', I can't see a way how to achieve it myself.
The very basic antagonistic force for PVE and PVP is motivation.
In majority of MMOs, the motivation for PVE gameplay is character progression and items, dependencies you want to avoid for any reasonable PVP gameplay.
Then, the question is: What PVE rewards assuring continuous motivation could be?
I think it is possible to create a game which combines all those elements. A game like DAoC for instance provided a structure by which it could be done. However, for every aspect of the game to be successful would be a bit like hitting several home runs in a row and there is the additional problem that is difficult to balance a game for both PvE and PvP at the same time.
The thing is though i'm sure I am not alone in enjoying a wide variety of gamestyles whether it's PvE, PvP, sandbox, themepark or whatever. So a game that tried to 'have it all' would appeal to me and players like me simply because of its diversity, even if it was not perfect in every respect.
I'm unclear on the confusion here, given that WOW's PVE and PVP are both immensely popular. Both speak towards progression, with PVE adding interesting boss patterns and PVP adding competition, as motivating factors.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yes it can, with planing, for thath make sure to launch with the basic features working, and latter in x-packs launching "superfulous" features ( house, taming...) than looking for player feedback for balance
now: GW2 (11 80s).
Dark Souls 2.
future: Mount&Blade 2 BannerLord.
"Bro, do your even fractal?"
Recommends: Guild Wars 2, Dark Souls, Mount&Blade: Warband, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning.
'Wow have it all'?
I don't think so at all.
It has some aspects, but I don't like them so much. The gameplay is as boring as almost every mmo. The fee's is as high as no mmo... It's addictive, I heard.
I'm very sure I don't like it at all, just due another boring 'click 'nd wait' mmorpg.
There's a pretty large list of things that you're specifically restricted from doing in WOW that other games offer, including many that I personally would consider essential for my enjoyment. And most of the players want it that way, which is fine, but it illustrates why the idea of "one perfect MMO" is an oxymoron: differently players want different, mutually exclusive things.
Player A wants a FFA single-server sandbox with maximal player freedom, because he wants a game where he can involve himself as fully as possible in exploring and exploiting a virtual world. Arbitrary barriers and "unrealistic" NPCs and most especially instancing and sharding are anathema to him.
Player B wants to be entertained by epic story content alongside his friends. Not only is he not interested in contending with other players in a virtual world, he actively dislikes having to even consider the possibility of other players "spoiling his game".
No single game can fully accomodate player A and player B. Bother Player A and Player B want perfectly valid and reasonable things from their gameplay, and there's nothing wrong with either of them. Player A isn't a child-abused, basement dwelling sociopath. Player B isn't a no-skill only child coward. It's just that they want different things from their game time and they can't possibly co-exist in the same game.
/thread
See the violence inherent in the system!
Have you played it past level 10?
It may be a lot of things but it is not "click 'nd wait"
Skaroth
See the violence inherent in the system!
I hold with this reasoning. Technically, an MMO can "have it all" with proper scaling and successive growth. I think a game that focuses on having complete and polished core features at launch can add in other elements in future patches and/or expansions, depending on its development cycle. At this point, you'd have to give something players can latch onto in order to further your desired growth.
As far as pleasing everyone though... I don't think that should ever be a priority for a developer.
As I understand 'Have it all' means to me to accomodate various types of gameplay. It has nothing to do with the popularity.
WoW PVP system is not much different from PVE.
This is how the game is designed and as such it is closing many opportunities for other players who do not want to follow this path.
I voted no, though i didn't like some of the phrasing.
There are several categories of players, but just let me list 2.
A) This type of player doesn't want to do any PvP.
You can't please them both at the same time. The game can't have it all.