A big problem many people have with some games is that they force too many players together that it becomes all zergy and extremely boring. I personally don't think I've ever enjoyed an MMO experience that consisted of more than 50 players. All fun tends to get thrown out the window and only chaos ensues.
A big problem many people have with some games is that they force too many players together that it becomes all zergy and extremely boring. I personally don't think I've ever enjoyed an MMO experience that consisted of more than 50 players. All fun tends to get thrown out the window and only chaos ensues.
Can't please everyone.
Of course not, and i don't think the devs are aiming to please everyone.
Obviously they want to cater to casual, solo players, and less to those who look for player interactions, and truly "massive" worlds.
Vanguard wasn't seamless. It had chunk lines which worked the same way as zone lines. A small pause in the game when you crossed it when the game loaded the next areas assets.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
In the past when MMORPGs were a relatively "new" thing it was something incredible and unheard of to be playing with tens of people all on one screen and knowing there are hundreds (or thousands total) playing at the same time in the same world.
People got over that and no longer care anymore for various reasons. Personally I don't care because it typically doesn't affect the game in any significant way at all. Worlds are not dynamic and almost never change and players can't change the world either in a meaningful way. You don't interact with a vast majority of the players, they're just there to be ignored (they hold little to no importance overall in the grand scheme of things) or on occasion make a trade with if there's no auction house (or to be invited to a group if what you're trying to do requires one).
Someone simply needs to redefine "MMORPG" or create one in a way where the amount of players present play a significant role in the game and its evolution/progression. Far too many features are implemented in a half-assed manner in MMORPGs these days and not a lot of care or innovation is happening in the genre which is why I think it has become very stale. Right now the "Massive" for me refers more to the world rather than the amount of players. Until a large amount of players actually mean something it's not going to bother me if an online game markets itself as an MMORPG, it's simply far easier to say they're an MMORPG rather than an "online game" or something of the sort because people typically search for MMOs or MMORPGs. Even from a search engine standpoint it's likely a much better decision to label yourself that even if you aren't.
Tech limitations is the answer. Developers found there are limits on how many players can exist in one area at a time. To solve this they had to separate players through phasing. This allowed more players to exist within smaller content space. This allowed developers to make less content. Mmos have shrunk ever since. The concept of building a real time, massive world flew out the window.
Mmorpgs have devolved over the last decade ... not evolved (even though their marketers have tried to brain wash us otherwise). The very first and best mmorpgs succeeded because the designers planned at the very beginning to create a massive world to explore. Much of their content wasn't even seen by the majority of the player base just like our planet Earth is not seen first hand by the majority of the human race.
Most mmos over the last decade were designed exactly the opposite at their very core. Developers minimized content and maximized traffic through that content. The definition of what an mmo is has also been mutated and changed. We will only see mmorpgs evolve from what they used to be when developers actually attempt to do so. They have gone out of their way not to make those games and to convince us we do not need them.
The last decade of mmo conceptual design itself destroyed to genre. It was purposeful and inevitable. Designers made exactly what they wanted to make because they planned it that way. De-evolution not evolution.
The core and attracting principle of any pnp rpg game is the ability to sit down and enter a limitless world where countless mysteries and limitless exploration exists. When was the last time you gained that sense in a modern mmo? When was the last time you logged into an mmo and honestly and realistically though you could head off and find something no other gamer in the world discovered? That is the core problem with today's mmos. They are little more than a board game with defined borders you cannot cross and every other player stands next to you with the same frustration.
It's not technical limitations, but design choices. We had the technology 20 years ago, so it can be done today, too. What is not possible is to have visuals even remotely close to what we are used today and have several hundred, if not thousands of players on a screen. So the design choice is whether to focus on "massive" or on "visuals".
Of course you can call it a technical limitation, not being able to have both is defintively one, but that just shows how closed-minded most games and/or studios are: "Next-gen" visual are a given, taking most of our current machines powers. Everything else is squeezed in what little room is left.
If everything would be given equal value, games would be totally different from what the are now. As we would not yet have such amazing visuals in any game, we would not actively miss them, so MMOs would not be "forced" to focus on visuals first, too.
If they would be truly better is hard to say, evne when i think so. Even if one game really focused on different aspects right now, we judge it with what we know of every aspect, not with what could be, so it is not the same as not having such visuals in the first place etc.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
The problem is just.. that most players don't want accept it.. most just want everything.. which is not possible.
That is not true.
Most want instanced type gameplay and there is little need to do massive player interactions, particularly in pve.
You are not most.. You are one single nerd on the internet.
30M+ every month play LoL .. instanced online play.
Most WoW endgame gameplay (and much of the dungeon leveling) is instanced online play. Millions are still playing that.
Just WoW + LoL ... covers a lot of ground. Adding WoT, MH, D3, and so on ... *most* like instanced online play. And we haven't even throw in FPS, Destiny, and Starcraft yet.
Yeap.. and what does that mean? I do play LoL, DoTA2, Civilization, Crysis, Battlefield and hundreds of other games of all genres, single player, multiplayer, multiplayer online and mmo.
In games like Lol or MOBAs generally, or for that matter any FPS or RTS instancing is not really even a issue. It just doesn't matter there.. you see the whole world, and the whole world is one small single map.
But all that says nothing about MMOs, about Virtual Worlds, where the World, the Map is actually bigger, and gameplay leans to the question, if you make it seamless or instanced/phased.
And if someone plays one or the other game, does not say if he does like instanced more.. maybe he just like the game more, the graphic more or whatever reason, that works the other way around, too. Buttonline.. you are still one single nerd claiming to be most.. and you are not.
Originally posted by Dreamo84 Destiny isn't a true MMORPG, and not even they claim it to be. It's similar to Guild Wars 1 in a lot of ways... though Anet did try to say GW1 was an MMORPG...
Yeap.. and what does that mean? I do play LoL, DoTA2, Civilization, Crysis, Battlefield and hundreds of other games of all genres, single player, multiplayer, multiplayer online and mmo.
In games like Lol or MOBAs generally, or for that matter any FPS or RTS instancing is not really even a issue. It just doesn't matter there.. you see the whole world, and the whole world is one small single map.
But all that says nothing about MMOs, about Virtual Worlds, where the World, the Map is actually bigger, and gameplay leans to the question, if you make it seamless or instanced/phased.
And if someone plays one or the other game, does not say if he does like instanced more.. maybe he just like the game more, the graphic more or whatever reason, that works the other way around, too. Buttonline.. you are still one single nerd claiming to be most.. and you are not.
nariussdelion is right.
This 'map' you see and play on in Lobby games like LoL, WoT, Dota2, Battlefield, etc is an instance.
There is no 'world' there at all. You enter the game - map (instance) is created, you play your 'match' on it and then it does 'cease to exist'.
Exactly the same as instanced dungeon, raid, arena or battleground in your average themepark mmorpg.
Also very similar to copied/phased zone in your average mmorpg that is using either story-phasing and/or megaserver zone creation.
Real persistant seamless 'world' is very rarely used nowadays in any kind of game. Even most games described as MMORPGs are not using 'world' at all - just a bunch of diffrent kind of instances.
Most players want instances. Which is not surprised because:
1. Most players want to play clearly defined 'matches'
2. Many of players that overally would want 'worlds' - don't want them right now - because gaming industry can't solve many problems that come with 'virtual world' because of technical, conceptual, law and lack of demand reasons.
But all that says nothing about MMOs, about Virtual Worlds, where the World, the Map is actually bigger, and gameplay leans to the question, if you make it seamless or instanced/phased.
Yes it does. By omission it says people are happen with games that have no virtual persistent worlds.
If you think about it a large mmo-rpg could blow movies out of the water with the diversity of sub-plots and stories simultaneously operating... tbh George RR Martin does a good job of this in literary form while maintaining quality per story/character.
Guess it's that much more challenging to pull off even if it's a written story let alone a movie or an mmo?!
If you think about it a large mmo-rpg could blow movies out of the water with the diversity of sub-plots and stories simultaneously operating... tbh George RR Martin does a good job of this in literary form while maintaining quality per story/character.
Guess it's that much more challenging to pull off even if it's a written story let alone a movie or an mmo?!
only if instances and phasing are used. Devs cannot control the illusion of plot & events effectively, otherwise.
You're only going to get 'massive' MMOs from Korea devs at this point, since they don't have to worry about latency or system requirements when designing their games as their market consists mostly of PC Cafes, which always have adequate hardware and < 10 ping internet.
Haha, first time in a long time I've been on this website. I still remember the threads around here and one of the things I ranted about was how MMORPGs have been trending to SPRPGs with an always-online requirement to play.
And lo and behold, this thread questioning "Massive" in the "MMORPG" title is at the top of "The Pub."
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Haha, first time in a long time I've been on this website. I still remember the threads around here and one of the things I ranted about was how MMORPGs have been trending to SPRPGs with an always-online requirement to play.
And lo and behold, this thread questioning "Massive" in the "MMORPG" title is at the top of "The Pub."
Yeh .. pretty much that is the trend.
In fact, i don't see how "massive" can be compelling in adding to the fun in most MMO gameplay. Dungeon adventure is better (for me) when it is about small groups. I have no desire to go into a dungeon with 200 others. That is a virtual chatroom, not a dungeon run.
Comments
Exactly. Some are under the illusion that covering old MMO design is enough .... apparently many game site operators disagree.
A big problem many people have with some games is that they force too many players together that it becomes all zergy and extremely boring. I personally don't think I've ever enjoyed an MMO experience that consisted of more than 50 players. All fun tends to get thrown out the window and only chaos ensues.
Can't please everyone.
Of course not, and i don't think the devs are aiming to please everyone.
Obviously they want to cater to casual, solo players, and less to those who look for player interactions, and truly "massive" worlds.
Vanguard wasn't seamless. It had chunk lines which worked the same way as zone lines. A small pause in the game when you crossed it when the game loaded the next areas assets.
People stopped caring is what happened.
In the past when MMORPGs were a relatively "new" thing it was something incredible and unheard of to be playing with tens of people all on one screen and knowing there are hundreds (or thousands total) playing at the same time in the same world.
People got over that and no longer care anymore for various reasons. Personally I don't care because it typically doesn't affect the game in any significant way at all. Worlds are not dynamic and almost never change and players can't change the world either in a meaningful way. You don't interact with a vast majority of the players, they're just there to be ignored (they hold little to no importance overall in the grand scheme of things) or on occasion make a trade with if there's no auction house (or to be invited to a group if what you're trying to do requires one).
Someone simply needs to redefine "MMORPG" or create one in a way where the amount of players present play a significant role in the game and its evolution/progression. Far too many features are implemented in a half-assed manner in MMORPGs these days and not a lot of care or innovation is happening in the genre which is why I think it has become very stale. Right now the "Massive" for me refers more to the world rather than the amount of players. Until a large amount of players actually mean something it's not going to bother me if an online game markets itself as an MMORPG, it's simply far easier to say they're an MMORPG rather than an "online game" or something of the sort because people typically search for MMOs or MMORPGs. Even from a search engine standpoint it's likely a much better decision to label yourself that even if you aren't.
Tech limitations is the answer. Developers found there are limits on how many players can exist in one area at a time. To solve this they had to separate players through phasing. This allowed more players to exist within smaller content space. This allowed developers to make less content. Mmos have shrunk ever since. The concept of building a real time, massive world flew out the window.
Mmorpgs have devolved over the last decade ... not evolved (even though their marketers have tried to brain wash us otherwise). The very first and best mmorpgs succeeded because the designers planned at the very beginning to create a massive world to explore. Much of their content wasn't even seen by the majority of the player base just like our planet Earth is not seen first hand by the majority of the human race.
Most mmos over the last decade were designed exactly the opposite at their very core. Developers minimized content and maximized traffic through that content. The definition of what an mmo is has also been mutated and changed. We will only see mmorpgs evolve from what they used to be when developers actually attempt to do so. They have gone out of their way not to make those games and to convince us we do not need them.
The last decade of mmo conceptual design itself destroyed to genre. It was purposeful and inevitable. Designers made exactly what they wanted to make because they planned it that way. De-evolution not evolution.
The core and attracting principle of any pnp rpg game is the ability to sit down and enter a limitless world where countless mysteries and limitless exploration exists. When was the last time you gained that sense in a modern mmo? When was the last time you logged into an mmo and honestly and realistically though you could head off and find something no other gamer in the world discovered? That is the core problem with today's mmos. They are little more than a board game with defined borders you cannot cross and every other player stands next to you with the same frustration.
You stay sassy!
It's not technical limitations, but design choices. We had the technology 20 years ago, so it can be done today, too. What is not possible is to have visuals even remotely close to what we are used today and have several hundred, if not thousands of players on a screen. So the design choice is whether to focus on "massive" or on "visuals".
Of course you can call it a technical limitation, not being able to have both is defintively one, but that just shows how closed-minded most games and/or studios are: "Next-gen" visual are a given, taking most of our current machines powers. Everything else is squeezed in what little room is left.
If everything would be given equal value, games would be totally different from what the are now. As we would not yet have such amazing visuals in any game, we would not actively miss them, so MMOs would not be "forced" to focus on visuals first, too.
If they would be truly better is hard to say, evne when i think so. Even if one game really focused on different aspects right now, we judge it with what we know of every aspect, not with what could be, so it is not the same as not having such visuals in the first place etc.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
Yeap.. and what does that mean? I do play LoL, DoTA2, Civilization, Crysis, Battlefield and hundreds of other games of all genres, single player, multiplayer, multiplayer online and mmo.
In games like Lol or MOBAs generally, or for that matter any FPS or RTS instancing is not really even a issue. It just doesn't matter there.. you see the whole world, and the whole world is one small single map.
But all that says nothing about MMOs, about Virtual Worlds, where the World, the Map is actually bigger, and gameplay leans to the question, if you make it seamless or instanced/phased.
And if someone plays one or the other game, does not say if he does like instanced more.. maybe he just like the game more, the graphic more or whatever reason, that works the other way around, too. Buttonline.. you are still one single nerd claiming to be most.. and you are not.
Nope, ANet themselves said it was a CORPG.
nariussdelion is right.
This 'map' you see and play on in Lobby games like LoL, WoT, Dota2, Battlefield, etc is an instance.
There is no 'world' there at all. You enter the game - map (instance) is created, you play your 'match' on it and then it does 'cease to exist'.
Exactly the same as instanced dungeon, raid, arena or battleground in your average themepark mmorpg.
Also very similar to copied/phased zone in your average mmorpg that is using either story-phasing and/or megaserver zone creation.
Real persistant seamless 'world' is very rarely used nowadays in any kind of game. Even most games described as MMORPGs are not using 'world' at all - just a bunch of diffrent kind of instances.
Most players want instances. Which is not surprised because:
1. Most players want to play clearly defined 'matches'
2. Many of players that overally would want 'worlds' - don't want them right now - because gaming industry can't solve many problems that come with 'virtual world' because of technical, conceptual, law and lack of demand reasons.
Yes it does. By omission it says people are happen with games that have no virtual persistent worlds.
If you think about it a large mmo-rpg could blow movies out of the water with the diversity of sub-plots and stories simultaneously operating... tbh George RR Martin does a good job of this in literary form while maintaining quality per story/character.
Guess it's that much more challenging to pull off even if it's a written story let alone a movie or an mmo?!
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
only if instances and phasing are used. Devs cannot control the illusion of plot & events effectively, otherwise.
Haha, first time in a long time I've been on this website. I still remember the threads around here and one of the things I ranted about was how MMORPGs have been trending to SPRPGs with an always-online requirement to play.
And lo and behold, this thread questioning "Massive" in the "MMORPG" title is at the top of "The Pub."
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Yeh .. pretty much that is the trend.
In fact, i don't see how "massive" can be compelling in adding to the fun in most MMO gameplay. Dungeon adventure is better (for me) when it is about small groups. I have no desire to go into a dungeon with 200 others. That is a virtual chatroom, not a dungeon run.