What got me hooked in WoW was the MMO world experience, what made me stick around for so long was the gameplay experience. In new games I don't care about the world, I only look for gameplay.
Gameplay and world are related.
In themepark 99% of the gameplay is about combat because there isn't much else to do.
But if you could do more (in EQN maybe ?) gameplay would also be about crafting building, interact with players in a more complex way (diplomacy, elections, empire ?) , creating stories on your own etc.
If you want the best PvP, you don't play MMORPG, you play MOBA/RTS etc.
If you want the best dungeon crawler, you don't play MMORPG, you play Diablo/Torchlight etc.
If you want the best crafting sim, you don't play MMORPG, you play anything from cooking mama to some hardcore architecture software.
If you want the best stories, you don't play MMORPG, you play solo adventure games.
If you want the best combats, you don't play MMORPG, you play console action games.
So why even play MMORPG then ?
Well, MMORPG have ONE thing that all those others games haven't: a world full of other players to interact with. A world that should EVOLVE: building could be crafted by some guild, empires could rise and fall, love stories could appears, economy would be alive and logical etc.
The "if you want X(part of a game) then play this other game" agruement has never made much sense and even less so when you split it out to 5-10 other games. Who really wants to play so many games to get little bites of what they want at that moment when they can play(and pay for) just 1 game with all of it included.
Originally posted by Gravarg Fun is number one. If you aren't having fun, then why are you playing the game?
Holding up "fun" as the objective of a game is kind of a circular argument. Because really, we're asking the question "what makes the game the most fun?" And if your answer "to make the game fun," then you can see the obvious circular reasoning here.
and the answer is clearly different for different people.
Some will want to walk for hours .. and call that fun .. and personally, an instance with instant travel is much more fun to me.
A world is NOT required to be fun for me, and many others (given the big sales of many games which do not focus on a world).
I don't believe they are big sales. That is why they went free to play. If they are free to play they are not sales unless you spend money in game.
Who are "they"?
D3 sold 15M boxes. Is that big?
LoL is making like $600M a year .. and yet it is F2P. Is that big sale?
D3 isn't an massively multiplayer online game. It's a 4 player coop / single player game. The only thing it qualifies for is being online all the time and that is dumb since it is basically an offline game. Most people complained about having to play online and having no LAN option like the original Diablo games.
If you want the best PvP, you don't play MMORPG, you play MOBA/RTS etc.
If you want the best dungeon crawler, you don't play MMORPG, you play Diablo/Torchlight etc.
If you want the best crafting sim, you don't play MMORPG, you play anything from cooking mama to some hardcore architecture software.
If you want the best stories, you don't play MMORPG, you play solo adventure games.
If you want the best combats, you don't play MMORPG, you play console action games.
So why even play MMORPG then ?
Well, MMORPG have ONE thing that all those others games haven't: a world full of other players to interact with. A world that should EVOLVE: building could be crafted by some guild, empires could rise and fall, love stories could appears, economy would be alive and logical etc.
Well said. And this is one of the primary reasons that I don't think MMORPGs should try to emulate SP games at the expense of their MMORPG-defining features.
I have nothing against SP/Coop games, but I don't see the point in forcing the whole MMORPG shared world concept on something like ESO or SWTOR. Just let them be coop RPGs!
What got me hooked in WoW was the MMO world experience, what made me stick around for so long was the gameplay experience. In new games I don't care about the world, I only look for gameplay.
Gameplay and world are related.
In themepark 99% of the gameplay is about combat because there isn't much else to do.
But if you could do more (in EQN maybe ?) gameplay would also be about crafting building, interact with players in a more complex way (diplomacy, elections, empire ?) , creating stories on your own etc.
They are indeed connected and its the tools that you mentioned that could make the gaming world more interesting but so far we haven't heard about the gameplay that you speak about in EQN and without them the world just isn't enough. Archeage hit that trap, there isn't enough to do in the world to keep people invested in the game.
If we look at black desert they have keeps that guilds and guild-alliances can fight for, but its not the world itself that makes this interesting, its the keep and how it could promote PvP. However, wildstar creates the very same thing by having players making their own keeps and fight for domination in a fight where both sides are equal in numbers. Similar gameplay, one with the world and one without it.
The gameworld do give the chance for random PvP, and with guild-alliances being important you could get interesting conflicts because of them, but all you really have to do to get PvP going is having people go to the same place and give them some bonuses for killing one another.
In the end all MMOs are just games, and when it comes to games its all about the big pictures. If all you do is create a world and forget about the gameplay all you created was an empty world but you can create something special by focusing on solid gameplay (that's what I meant by only looking for gameplay).
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Put in a good story with good scripting events and stuff, and it is exactly like a movie with good control in pacing.
In a game, downtime is part of the pacing. Making you earn your reward so it feels meaningful is also part of the pacing. Beating the big boss and getting rewards may be the most fun part of the game for a lot of people but if that's all you do in the game over and over it loses its meaning and quickly becomes much less fun.
Same as would happen if someone tried to make a movie that was nothing but car chases from beginning to end.
Gameplay is an important element, but in mmorgs story and lore is required to add depth and emgagmemt with the virtual world - and gameplay is In turn complimented by an interesting and engaging world. This is especially relevant to pve, and less on pvp. Gw2 has good gameplay, but the portals harm the feeling of an open world and exploration. In wow the raiding is tight, but lObbies are awful.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
If you want the best PvP, you don't play MMORPG, you play MOBA/RTS etc.
If you want the best dungeon crawler, you don't play MMORPG, you play Diablo/Torchlight etc.
If you want the best crafting sim, you don't play MMORPG, you play anything from cooking mama to some hardcore architecture software.
If you want the best stories, you don't play MMORPG, you play solo adventure games.
If you want the best combats, you don't play MMORPG, you play console action games.
So why even play MMORPG then ?
I reject those either-or scenario. It is not mutually exclusive.
I like ARPGs, i play Diablo 3, TL ... and Marvel Heroes ... a MMORPG.
Similar, i don't restrict my choice to a single genre. It depends on if they do something well. For example, STO has the best star trek theme RPG adventures (because frankly there is no other alternatively) so i play it despite it is a MMORPG.
Originally posted by Gravarg Fun is number one. If you aren't having fun, then why are you playing the game?
Holding up "fun" as the objective of a game is kind of a circular argument. Because really, we're asking the question "what makes the game the most fun?" And if your answer "to make the game fun," then you can see the obvious circular reasoning here.
and the answer is clearly different for different people.
Some will want to walk for hours .. and call that fun .. and personally, an instance with instant travel is much more fun to me.
A world is NOT required to be fun for me, and many others (given the big sales of many games which do not focus on a world).
I don't believe they are big sales. That is why they went free to play. If they are free to play they are not sales unless you spend money in game.
Who are "they"?
D3 sold 15M boxes. Is that big?
LoL is making like $600M a year .. and yet it is F2P. Is that big sale?
D3 isn't an massively multiplayer online game. It's a 4 player coop / single player game. The only thing it qualifies for is being online all the time and that is dumb since it is basically an offline game. Most people complained about having to play online and having no LAN option like the original Diablo games.
close enough for me. MMOs can be played as 4-5 player co-op or even solo game. I doubt you need me to point out how.
Plus, i am talking about "fun for me". I do not only include MMORPGs.
Right now my guild splits its time between Star Trek Online and Fallen Earth. I like STO but I only play it on the prescribed night we have setup for it.
All of my other gaming time is devoted to Fallen Earth.
STO is a fun game, it really is. I think it's the best average MMO out there but there's nothing about it which is special and the game world... well, there isn't one. It's really difficult to even find an actual mission area that accommodate more than four players. There's like TWO in the entire game! WUT?
FE, though, well... FE has the best gameworld of any MMO out there. Aside from a little chunk of one area it's all one contiguous body.
The graphics are a little dated, the animations are pretty bad, and the combat is downright clunky, but it's got some real immersion to it and it all starts with the gameworld. It's the type of gameworld where you can just wander off in a direction and get lost for (literally) days. Where you can see something out on the horizon and it looks amazing and you just HAVE to get to it to see what it's all about.
STO has none of that. It's an entire IP BASED ON EXPLORATION and there's absolutely nothing to explore. I can barely even find activities that all of my guild members can participate in simultaneously regardless of level. It's frustrating.
Put in a good story with good scripting events and stuff, and it is exactly like a movie with good control in pacing.
In a game, downtime is part of the pacing.
Says you. I would say ... the 10 min of trash fighting before the big boss is pacing. The scripted events before the dungeon is pacing.
No one says you need to have down-time (boring to me) to have pacing.
I believe down time adds a lot, but one of the main reasons it was added was to increase challenge. It meant you couldn't go on fighting indefinitely mob after mob after mob. You had to be efficient in your abilities during combat. You said you like Bioshock and it was a bit like that. In Bioshock you are limited by how many items you have to replenish you health and powers bar. Downtime is s similar mechanic. You have to be careful about the way you fight because you won't be getting that health or magic back that you wasted right away. You have to sit and wait to get it back meaning you can't be in combat when you are doing it.
STO has none of that. It's an entire IP BASED ON EXPLORATION and there's absolutely nothing to explore. I can barely even find activities that all of my guild members can participate in simultaneously regardless of level. It's frustrating.
ST is not about the audience actually doing any exploration. It is about interesting STORIES when the enterprise is exploring. That is a completely different thing.
And in fact, if you look at DS9 (which STO is partly based on .. you can even go to DS9), there is zero exploration. It is about politics and war.
I believe down time adds a lot, but one of the main reasons it was added was to increase challenge. It meant you couldn't go on fighting indefinitely mob after mob after mob. You had to be efficient in your abilities during combat.
And i believe down-time is boring, and have no place in my entertainment.
And how is it increase challenge? In fact, it decreases challenge because there are times you have nothing to do. And nothing .. by def .. is not challenging.
Look at D3 .. very challenging game with zero down-time. You don't need down-time to limit use of ability. You can have resources (mana), CD, procs, and other limiting factors.
And of course you don't have to fight mobs indefinitely. Just go back to town to sell is break enough .. no down-time is needed.
If you like to have time to do nothing in your game, that is your prerogative .. but certainly there are plenty of games with challenges with zero down-time. And i see no reason to play any game with down-time.
(Note that down-time also does not equate pacing ... for example, i am just playing Call of Juarez last night .. there are nice little interludes, and voice overs, and scripting events which server very nicely to pace the action). MMORPGs should learn from that.
I believe down time adds a lot, but one of the main reasons it was added was to increase challenge. It meant you couldn't go on fighting indefinitely mob after mob after mob. You had to be efficient in your abilities during combat.
And i believe down-time is boring, and have no place in my entertainment.
And how is it increase challenge? In fact, it decreases challenge because there are times you have nothing to do. And nothing .. by def .. is not challenging.
Look at D3 .. very challenging game with zero down-time. You don't need down-time to limit use of ability. You can have resources (mana), CD, procs, and other limiting factors.
And of course you don't have to fight mobs indefinitely. Just go back to town to sell is break enough .. no down-time is needed.
If you like to have time to do nothing in your game, that is your prerogative .. but certainly there are plenty of games with challenges with zero down-time. And i see no reason to play any game with down-time.
(Note that down-time also does not equate pacing ... for example, i am just playing Call of Juarez last night .. there are nice little interludes, and voice overs, and scripting events which server very nicely to pace the action). MMORPGs should learn from that.
I just explained why it's challenging. It's why Bioshock 1 was challenging. You had to be careful about what abilities you were using in combat. It's similar to turn based combat (which is in turn like chess). You don't get your health back quickly during or after combat so what you have is what you have for the duration of whatever you are doing. If you are going into a dungeon your life and magic may have to to last you the entire time if you can't find time to rest and recover. That means you have to plan out what you do carefully. You can just rush around wherever you want whenever you want. It's strategic thinking. The actual down time may not be thrilling, but it's there for a reason and you can find things to do during the down time.
I believe down time adds a lot, but one of the main reasons it was added was to increase challenge. It meant you couldn't go on fighting indefinitely mob after mob after mob. You had to be efficient in your abilities during combat.
And i believe down-time is boring, and have no place in my entertainment.
And how is it increase challenge? In fact, it decreases challenge because there are times you have nothing to do. And nothing .. by def .. is not challenging.
Look at D3 .. very challenging game with zero down-time. You don't need down-time to limit use of ability. You can have resources (mana), CD, procs, and other limiting factors.
And of course you don't have to fight mobs indefinitely. Just go back to town to sell is break enough .. no down-time is needed.
If you like to have time to do nothing in your game, that is your prerogative .. but certainly there are plenty of games with challenges with zero down-time. And i see no reason to play any game with down-time.
(Note that down-time also does not equate pacing ... for example, i am just playing Call of Juarez last night .. there are nice little interludes, and voice overs, and scripting events which server very nicely to pace the action). MMORPGs should learn from that.
I think that downtime is often in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't really like Day-Z...I consider the potential hours spent wandering around nothingness as "downtime." But others may consider that to be exciting gameplay. Considering how well the game sells, I'm guessing they do lol.
The thing is people have different definitions of the world in an MMO. To me it has nothing to do with linear or open world really. Its the feeling I have while playing and leveling. The music is huge for me to draw me in and very few games capture this but that is one thing I believe AOC kills every game at. And I loved AOC's world eventhough it was linear. It was gritty, realistic, bloody, very detailed, incredible graphics with an amazing soundtrack. It gave me a "feeling" in the game like no other game ever has. But I understand many people here hated that world because it was linear and the loading screens but those things don't bother me one bit. It all comes down to personal taste, nobody is right and nobody is wrong.
I believe down time adds a lot, but one of the main reasons it was added was to increase challenge. It meant you couldn't go on fighting indefinitely mob after mob after mob. You had to be efficient in your abilities during combat.
And i believe down-time is boring, and have no place in my entertainment.
And how is it increase challenge? In fact, it decreases challenge because there are times you have nothing to do. And nothing .. by def .. is not challenging.
Look at D3 .. very challenging game with zero down-time. You don't need down-time to limit use of ability. You can have resources (mana), CD, procs, and other limiting factors.
And of course you don't have to fight mobs indefinitely. Just go back to town to sell is break enough .. no down-time is needed.
If you like to have time to do nothing in your game, that is your prerogative .. but certainly there are plenty of games with challenges with zero down-time. And i see no reason to play any game with down-time.
(Note that down-time also does not equate pacing ... for example, i am just playing Call of Juarez last night .. there are nice little interludes, and voice overs, and scripting events which server very nicely to pace the action). MMORPGs should learn from that.
I think that downtime is often in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't really like Day-Z...I consider the potential hours spent wandering around nothingness as "downtime." But others may consider that to be exciting gameplay. Considering how well the game sells, I'm guessing they do lol.
Dayz is exciting because people like dynamic open world PVP and all the craziness you can do with it. Griefing is fun and lots of people enjoy it and with Dayz having your game experience disturbed by griefers is the fun a lot of the time. It's like ALTIS Life the ARMA 3 mod, it's basically a better MMO than most MMOs out today, it is actually open world with no loading screens. The fun people have is the cops vs robbers nature of it, you'll get a dirty cop who handcuffs you and takes all your stuff and... it's just funny.
I don't understand the MMO crowds need to feel safe and keep items they've earnt... just earn them again, it is a game, you need a reason to replay stuff and that is the perfect excuse.
I've never feared loss in a game though, play EVE Online, get blown up and podded... just doesn't bother me. At the time knowing the stakes gets my heart beating so fast, without loss I'm bored, if I can just keep respawning over and over... lame. The same time I'm bored if I don't get anything when I kill someone, I want all their stuff and to know they've suffered a loss and down time.
There is a massive market for that though, EVE proved it, Dayz proved it, Rust has proved it and even Minecraft has, that game will be the biggest selling PC game of all time soon.
I just explained why it's challenging. It's why Bioshock 1 was challenging. You had to be careful about what abilities you were using in combat. It's similar to turn based combat (which is in turn like chess). You don't get your health back quickly during or after combat so what you have is what you have for the duration of whatever you are doing. If you are going into a dungeon your life and magic may have to to last you the entire time if you can't find time to rest and recover. That means you have to plan out what you do carefully. You can just rush around wherever you want whenever you want. It's strategic thinking. The actual down time may not be thrilling, but it's there for a reason and you can find things to do during the down time.
I do not follow your logic. If a dungeon does not give you the opportunity to rest and recover your health or mana then the dungeon has no downtime at all. As such the challenge is provided by the lack of downtime and adding downtime would actually decrease the challenge. I would sometimes handicap myself by chain pulling mobs and thus being unable to recover health or mana to make the fights more challenging. Stopping for downtime would make it less challenging.
If the dungeon provides you with an opportunity to rest and recover than baring a timer, it would be poor strategy not to recover all your health and mana no matter how long it took. Thus it only makes the dungeon last longer but makes the fights easier.
I believe down time adds a lot, but one of the main reasons it was added was to increase challenge. It meant you couldn't go on fighting indefinitely mob after mob after mob. You had to be efficient in your abilities during combat.
And i believe down-time is boring, and have no place in my entertainment.
And how is it increase challenge? In fact, it decreases challenge because there are times you have nothing to do. And nothing .. by def .. is not challenging.
Look at D3 .. very challenging game with zero down-time. You don't need down-time to limit use of ability. You can have resources (mana), CD, procs, and other limiting factors.
And of course you don't have to fight mobs indefinitely. Just go back to town to sell is break enough .. no down-time is needed.
If you like to have time to do nothing in your game, that is your prerogative .. but certainly there are plenty of games with challenges with zero down-time. And i see no reason to play any game with down-time.
(Note that down-time also does not equate pacing ... for example, i am just playing Call of Juarez last night .. there are nice little interludes, and voice overs, and scripting events which server very nicely to pace the action). MMORPGs should learn from that.
I think that downtime is often in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't really like Day-Z...I consider the potential hours spent wandering around nothingness as "downtime." But others may consider that to be exciting gameplay. Considering how well the game sells, I'm guessing they do lol.
Dayz is exciting because people like dynamic open world PVP and all the craziness you can do with it. Griefing is fun and lots of people enjoy it and with Dayz having your game experience disturbed by griefers is the fun a lot of the time. It's like ALTIS Life the ARMA 3 mod, it's basically a better MMO than most MMOs out today, it is actually open world with no loading screens. The fun people have is the cops vs robbers nature of it, you'll get a dirty cop who handcuffs you and takes all your stuff and... it's just funny.
I don't understand the MMO crowds need to feel safe and keep items they've earnt... just earn them again, it is a game, you need a reason to replay stuff and that is the perfect excuse.
I've never feared loss in a game though, play EVE Online, get blown up and podded... just doesn't bother me. At the time knowing the stakes gets my heart beating so fast, without loss I'm bored, if I can just keep respawning over and over... lame. The same time I'm bored if I don't get anything when I kill someone, I want all their stuff and to know they've suffered a loss and down time.
There is a massive market for that though, EVE proved it, Dayz proved it, Rust has proved it and even Minecraft has, that game will be the biggest selling PC game of all time soon.
I love the concept of Day-Z and Eve...unfortunately I don't really like the gameplay of either. Eve I feel like I'm playing an RTS where I control one dude lol. Day-Z, waaaay too much time spent walking/running for me.
I would LOVE a game that had the sandbox nature and consequence of these two, but had gameplay that I enjoyed. For now, I will settle for Dark Souls lol.
I just explained why it's challenging. It's why Bioshock 1 was challenging. You had to be careful about what abilities you were using in combat. It's similar to turn based combat (which is in turn like chess). You don't get your health back quickly during or after combat so what you have is what you have for the duration of whatever you are doing. If you are going into a dungeon your life and magic may have to to last you the entire time if you can't find time to rest and recover. That means you have to plan out what you do carefully. You can just rush around wherever you want whenever you want. It's strategic thinking. The actual down time may not be thrilling, but it's there for a reason and you can find things to do during the down time.
I do not follow your logic. If a dungeon does not give you the opportunity to rest and recover your health or mana then the dungeon has no downtime at all. As such the challenge is provided by the lack of downtime and adding downtime would actually decrease the challenge. I would sometimes handicap myself by chain pulling mobs and thus being unable to recover health or mana to make the fights more challenging. Stopping for downtime would make it less challenging.
If the dungeon provides you with an opportunity to rest and recover than baring a timer, it would be poor strategy not to recover all your health and mana no matter how long it took. Thus it only makes the dungeon last longer but makes the fights easier.
I believe you are correct in that it would be more challenging not to be able to recover your health and magic at all during the course of one dungeon or area in a game, but I also believe they didn't think that would work in a persistent work with no quests. That is why they allowed people to rest. This offered some challenge, but still had a way for you to get your health and magic back after when there were no mobs left to kill. If there were no way to recover your health and magic at some point during and MMO you would never get it back or at least you wouldn't have in the old days when there were no quests and instances. A good example would be in EQ when you were in a dungeon you generally had to be very careful if resting because you might have a respawn on top of you or you might get an add disrupting your opportunity to get your health and magic back. Everything had to be done very meticulously.
I have to agree, that the world is one of the important things in a mmmo. A world should feel huge, immersive and dangerous to players. different elements within that world should make it fun. MMO devs have gotten to lazy and investors have gotten cheap and greedy.
Below is where we can disscuss and come up with new ideas for Sandparks!
I believe down time adds a lot, but one of the main reasons it was added was to increase challenge. It meant you couldn't go on fighting indefinitely mob after mob after mob. You had to be efficient in your abilities during combat.
And i believe down-time is boring, and have no place in my entertainment.
And how is it increase challenge? In fact, it decreases challenge because there are times you have nothing to do. And nothing .. by def .. is not challenging.
Look at D3 .. very challenging game with zero down-time. You don't need down-time to limit use of ability. You can have resources (mana), CD, procs, and other limiting factors.
And of course you don't have to fight mobs indefinitely. Just go back to town to sell is break enough .. no down-time is needed.
If you like to have time to do nothing in your game, that is your prerogative .. but certainly there are plenty of games with challenges with zero down-time. And i see no reason to play any game with down-time.
(Note that down-time also does not equate pacing ... for example, i am just playing Call of Juarez last night .. there are nice little interludes, and voice overs, and scripting events which server very nicely to pace the action). MMORPGs should learn from that.
I think that downtime is often in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't really like Day-Z...I consider the potential hours spent wandering around nothingness as "downtime." But others may consider that to be exciting gameplay. Considering how well the game sells, I'm guessing they do lol.
Of course. You will find those here who like down-time, and there is me ... that i cannot fathom why someone would like to do nothing in a VIDEO GAME.
But that is their prerogative to do so ... just don't expect me to play a game with down-time.
Comments
Gameplay and world are related.
In themepark 99% of the gameplay is about combat because there isn't much else to do.
But if you could do more (in EQN maybe ?) gameplay would also be about crafting building, interact with players in a more complex way (diplomacy, elections, empire ?) , creating stories on your own etc.
The "if you want X(part of a game) then play this other game" agruement has never made much sense and even less so when you split it out to 5-10 other games. Who really wants to play so many games to get little bites of what they want at that moment when they can play(and pay for) just 1 game with all of it included.
D3 isn't an massively multiplayer online game. It's a 4 player coop / single player game. The only thing it qualifies for is being online all the time and that is dumb since it is basically an offline game. Most people complained about having to play online and having no LAN option like the original Diablo games.
I'd argue the most important thing in an MMO is the other players.
If folks near you are fun to play with or against, you can play on a 2d un-textured plane and still have fun.
So... if I were making an MMO, id want features in the game to encourage friendly and/or entertaining interaction between players.
-WL
Werewolf Online(R) - Lead Developer
Well said. And this is one of the primary reasons that I don't think MMORPGs should try to emulate SP games at the expense of their MMORPG-defining features.
I have nothing against SP/Coop games, but I don't see the point in forcing the whole MMORPG shared world concept on something like ESO or SWTOR. Just let them be coop RPGs!
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
They are indeed connected and its the tools that you mentioned that could make the gaming world more interesting but so far we haven't heard about the gameplay that you speak about in EQN and without them the world just isn't enough. Archeage hit that trap, there isn't enough to do in the world to keep people invested in the game.
If we look at black desert they have keeps that guilds and guild-alliances can fight for, but its not the world itself that makes this interesting, its the keep and how it could promote PvP. However, wildstar creates the very same thing by having players making their own keeps and fight for domination in a fight where both sides are equal in numbers. Similar gameplay, one with the world and one without it.
The gameworld do give the chance for random PvP, and with guild-alliances being important you could get interesting conflicts because of them, but all you really have to do to get PvP going is having people go to the same place and give them some bonuses for killing one another.
In the end all MMOs are just games, and when it comes to games its all about the big pictures. If all you do is create a world and forget about the gameplay all you created was an empty world but you can create something special by focusing on solid gameplay (that's what I meant by only looking for gameplay).
In a game, downtime is part of the pacing. Making you earn your reward so it feels meaningful is also part of the pacing. Beating the big boss and getting rewards may be the most fun part of the game for a lot of people but if that's all you do in the game over and over it loses its meaning and quickly becomes much less fun.
Same as would happen if someone tried to make a movie that was nothing but car chases from beginning to end.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I reject those either-or scenario. It is not mutually exclusive.
I like ARPGs, i play Diablo 3, TL ... and Marvel Heroes ... a MMORPG.
Similar, i don't restrict my choice to a single genre. It depends on if they do something well. For example, STO has the best star trek theme RPG adventures (because frankly there is no other alternatively) so i play it despite it is a MMORPG.
Says you. I would say ... the 10 min of trash fighting before the big boss is pacing. The scripted events before the dungeon is pacing.
No one says you need to have down-time (boring to me) to have pacing.
close enough for me. MMOs can be played as 4-5 player co-op or even solo game. I doubt you need me to point out how.
Plus, i am talking about "fun for me". I do not only include MMORPGs.
Says who.
There are games with no world, but only instances, and also gameplay. You don't need a world to have gameplay.
Right now my guild splits its time between Star Trek Online and Fallen Earth. I like STO but I only play it on the prescribed night we have setup for it.
All of my other gaming time is devoted to Fallen Earth.
STO is a fun game, it really is. I think it's the best average MMO out there but there's nothing about it which is special and the game world... well, there isn't one. It's really difficult to even find an actual mission area that accommodate more than four players. There's like TWO in the entire game! WUT?
FE, though, well... FE has the best gameworld of any MMO out there. Aside from a little chunk of one area it's all one contiguous body.
The graphics are a little dated, the animations are pretty bad, and the combat is downright clunky, but it's got some real immersion to it and it all starts with the gameworld. It's the type of gameworld where you can just wander off in a direction and get lost for (literally) days. Where you can see something out on the horizon and it looks amazing and you just HAVE to get to it to see what it's all about.
STO has none of that. It's an entire IP BASED ON EXPLORATION and there's absolutely nothing to explore. I can barely even find activities that all of my guild members can participate in simultaneously regardless of level. It's frustrating.
I believe down time adds a lot, but one of the main reasons it was added was to increase challenge. It meant you couldn't go on fighting indefinitely mob after mob after mob. You had to be efficient in your abilities during combat. You said you like Bioshock and it was a bit like that. In Bioshock you are limited by how many items you have to replenish you health and powers bar. Downtime is s similar mechanic. You have to be careful about the way you fight because you won't be getting that health or magic back that you wasted right away. You have to sit and wait to get it back meaning you can't be in combat when you are doing it.
ST is not about the audience actually doing any exploration. It is about interesting STORIES when the enterprise is exploring. That is a completely different thing.
And in fact, if you look at DS9 (which STO is partly based on .. you can even go to DS9), there is zero exploration. It is about politics and war.
And i believe down-time is boring, and have no place in my entertainment.
And how is it increase challenge? In fact, it decreases challenge because there are times you have nothing to do. And nothing .. by def .. is not challenging.
Look at D3 .. very challenging game with zero down-time. You don't need down-time to limit use of ability. You can have resources (mana), CD, procs, and other limiting factors.
And of course you don't have to fight mobs indefinitely. Just go back to town to sell is break enough .. no down-time is needed.
If you like to have time to do nothing in your game, that is your prerogative .. but certainly there are plenty of games with challenges with zero down-time. And i see no reason to play any game with down-time.
(Note that down-time also does not equate pacing ... for example, i am just playing Call of Juarez last night .. there are nice little interludes, and voice overs, and scripting events which server very nicely to pace the action). MMORPGs should learn from that.
I just explained why it's challenging. It's why Bioshock 1 was challenging. You had to be careful about what abilities you were using in combat. It's similar to turn based combat (which is in turn like chess). You don't get your health back quickly during or after combat so what you have is what you have for the duration of whatever you are doing. If you are going into a dungeon your life and magic may have to to last you the entire time if you can't find time to rest and recover. That means you have to plan out what you do carefully. You can just rush around wherever you want whenever you want. It's strategic thinking. The actual down time may not be thrilling, but it's there for a reason and you can find things to do during the down time.
I think that downtime is often in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't really like Day-Z...I consider the potential hours spent wandering around nothingness as "downtime." But others may consider that to be exciting gameplay. Considering how well the game sells, I'm guessing they do lol.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Dayz is exciting because people like dynamic open world PVP and all the craziness you can do with it. Griefing is fun and lots of people enjoy it and with Dayz having your game experience disturbed by griefers is the fun a lot of the time. It's like ALTIS Life the ARMA 3 mod, it's basically a better MMO than most MMOs out today, it is actually open world with no loading screens. The fun people have is the cops vs robbers nature of it, you'll get a dirty cop who handcuffs you and takes all your stuff and... it's just funny.
I don't understand the MMO crowds need to feel safe and keep items they've earnt... just earn them again, it is a game, you need a reason to replay stuff and that is the perfect excuse.
I've never feared loss in a game though, play EVE Online, get blown up and podded... just doesn't bother me. At the time knowing the stakes gets my heart beating so fast, without loss I'm bored, if I can just keep respawning over and over... lame. The same time I'm bored if I don't get anything when I kill someone, I want all their stuff and to know they've suffered a loss and down time.
There is a massive market for that though, EVE proved it, Dayz proved it, Rust has proved it and even Minecraft has, that game will be the biggest selling PC game of all time soon.
I do not follow your logic. If a dungeon does not give you the opportunity to rest and recover your health or mana then the dungeon has no downtime at all. As such the challenge is provided by the lack of downtime and adding downtime would actually decrease the challenge. I would sometimes handicap myself by chain pulling mobs and thus being unable to recover health or mana to make the fights more challenging. Stopping for downtime would make it less challenging.
If the dungeon provides you with an opportunity to rest and recover than baring a timer, it would be poor strategy not to recover all your health and mana no matter how long it took. Thus it only makes the dungeon last longer but makes the fights easier.
I love the concept of Day-Z and Eve...unfortunately I don't really like the gameplay of either. Eve I feel like I'm playing an RTS where I control one dude lol. Day-Z, waaaay too much time spent walking/running for me.
I would LOVE a game that had the sandbox nature and consequence of these two, but had gameplay that I enjoyed. For now, I will settle for Dark Souls lol.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I believe you are correct in that it would be more challenging not to be able to recover your health and magic at all during the course of one dungeon or area in a game, but I also believe they didn't think that would work in a persistent work with no quests. That is why they allowed people to rest. This offered some challenge, but still had a way for you to get your health and magic back after when there were no mobs left to kill. If there were no way to recover your health and magic at some point during and MMO you would never get it back or at least you wouldn't have in the old days when there were no quests and instances. A good example would be in EQ when you were in a dungeon you generally had to be very careful if resting because you might have a respawn on top of you or you might get an add disrupting your opportunity to get your health and magic back. Everything had to be done very meticulously.
Below is where we can disscuss and come up with new ideas for Sandparks!
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5164689#5164689
Of course. You will find those here who like down-time, and there is me ... that i cannot fathom why someone would like to do nothing in a VIDEO GAME.
But that is their prerogative to do so ... just don't expect me to play a game with down-time.