Well, it does not matter to me what your opinion of what a MMO is.
For this topic, i am using the classification used by this site, mmofront, many reviews, and the now defunct massively.com. And for that common use, there are plenty of MMOs which has no virtual world (e.g. warframe, world of tanks, LoL, marvel heroes ....).
So we are talking about why THOSE MMOs do not need open world .. and why open world are sometimes even bad for the kind of game modes those games are using.
And incidentally, those game modes (like instanced dungeons) are used in games that has open worlds, like WoW. So it is a reasonable questions to ask ... if a game like wow has most of its gameplay in instances, why bother with an open world?
And given your (jmcdermottuk) post, you actually agree that these MMOs don't need open worlds ... you only have a problem that they are called MMOs. And that is a discussion for some other topic, but not this one.
(in fact, there are few MMOs that need an open world .. except the "war" ones like PS2 .. and they are in the way minority).
It's not an opinion. MMO has a definition and meaning. Massively Multiplayer Online.
Your misusing the term. Not that it's surprising since you have admitted it's just a marketing tactic in other posts and you try and put forth a common usage argument like it means something. SuperData is just as much at fault for listing Hearthstone and League of Legends as MMOs. There is nothing massive about 1v1 or 5v5. All it takes is common sense to see the term is being misused for marketing purposes.
I have however am 100% sure you will never grasp this and keep beating the same old dead horse because this very thing has been explained to you hundreds of times by dozens of people at the very least.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
I can't even take this guy seriously. He wanted to bet with me in two years that no sandbox game will have 5 million subs, since "WoW" did it. Keeping in mind it took a year for WoW to attain that number, meaning the game in question would need to release in the next year and exactly mirror WoW's success during that time frame to be a winning bet. And if that doesn't happen, open world games are trash.
That's sort of like making a bet with a 15 year old virgin in Arkansas if they don't bed a sports illustrated swimsuit model in the next 25 minutes, they have to murder their entire family. Ready, set, go!
I have no idea where the internet finds them, but thank you internet.
For this topic, i am using the classification used by this site, mmofront, many reviews, and the now defunct massively.com. And for that common use, there are plenty of MMOs which has no virtual world (e.g. warframe, world of tanks, LoL, marvel heroes ....).
The fact that sites like this are covering their asses due to a lack of development of MMOs in the forseeable future does not automatically transform TPSs and ARPGs into MMOs.
Use. Your. Head.
Why are you upset if someone thinks TPS and ARPGs are MMOs?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Pve Questing - most quests are solo, and seeing 50 others competing for the quest mobs is not fun nor immersive. (Really, i am going to get the super rare herb to heal whatever, and 50 others are farming it????) In fact, it is hard to add story content in an open world ... and the attempts (like phasing) are really not that effective. To me, it would be much better to put story quests into instances .. so you can put in scripting and other narrative elements.
This is the only problem with current open world MMO's, but it's not a problem with the open world, it's a problem with the design of the game. Themeparks seem to consist of happily running from one quest to the next without a care for the open world. It forces a form of tunnel vision on the player, where they're not even looking at the world around them, but looking at that little dot on the map so they can quickly get there and back again to do the next mindless task.
Pve Questing - most quests are solo, and seeing 50 others competing for the quest mobs is not fun nor immersive. (Really, i am going to get the super rare herb to heal whatever, and 50 others are farming it????) In fact, it is hard to add story content in an open world ... and the attempts (like phasing) are really not that effective. To me, it would be much better to put story quests into instances .. so you can put in scripting and other narrative elements.
This is the only problem with current open world MMO's, but it's not a problem with the open world, it's a problem with the design of the game. Themeparks seem to consist of happily running from one quest to the next without a care for the open world. It forces a form of tunnel vision on the player, where they're not even looking at the world around them, but looking at that little dot on the map so they can quickly get there and back again to do the next mindless task.
Quest chains need to go, not open worlds.
Exactly.
"Most quests are solo, and seeing 50 others competing for the quest mobs is not fun nor immersive." - This is the problem in game design. You shouldn't have to compete with other players for mobs or quest objectives in MMOs, you should be encouraged to co-op with them.
"It would be much better to put story quests into instances" - And this i would call 'playing a single player game'. SPGs are big instances for a one player, and no one would ever bother you or compete for resources or mobs.
These games needs to go back from this singe player game design and become MMOs once again. Massive number of players in most new MMOs is only a burden for the game, since the design doesn't support that at all. Even in WoW the number of multiplayer elements have decreased, and there are mobs barely for one player, yet they call it MMO.
If you take the open world away and put everything in instances, how can you call it an MMO anymore?
90% of the "problems" you mention aren't even located in the open world anymore. Raids, dungeons, arena's etc. have all been moved off to instances in most recent releases.
Open world also doesn't exclude any of the things you mentioned at all. You can have raids, dungeons, small group play and even arena's in the open world. If quests are to much solo-oriented, it's the developer who needs to design better quests and group goals. It's not like stuffing everyone in a corridor game will suddenly result in people playing together more.
Personally I will not even play a game that isn't open. I have no interest in lobby games and linear corridor designs like you see in Dragon's Prophet have me quit within the hour.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Originally posted by sketocafe You're using the "popular game modes" from instanced stuff to talk about open world games. This is an exercise in futility. PVE dungeons and raids don't have anything to do with open world discussion. Neither do pvp esports and arenas. You want to talk open world in MMOS talk about huge open dungeons in everquest. Talk about world PVP.
How else would he talk about open world except in the context of the other ways of making a game?
While I'd personally stop short of calling open world bad for MMOs, there are some pretty clear disadvantages to creating content that way and a lot of examples of bad gameplay being created out of it. For example, the world PVP you're praising here is really just awful as PVP goes. It's not an interesting back-and-forth battle where skill decides the victors. It's one side tromping over another that was engaged in PVE. Now if you're the sort of player who lacks PVP skill, then sure that situation sounds like one of the few times you might win PVP, but generally people seem to strongly agree that sort of casual (world) PVP is bad compared with the pure PVP you can find in other genres.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Open worlds are great for more realistically designed MMORPGS and not so good for multiplayer games. Two different play styles and some people strongly favor one over the other.
Whether one style is more popular than the other has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by LootHorder OP This is why there are single players.. Why would you want to play a multiplayer if you dont want to see other people doing quests with you.
what does what you say have anything to do with open world?
You can have multiplayer without an open world as succinctly demonstrated by D3, MOBAs, instanced games, and instances in WoW.
You just stated the case I was going to make. What you're talking about are not MMO's and I know you're going to disagree with this because I've read many of your posts and replies concerning what constitutes an MMO and what doesn't.
All of this.
Well, it does not matter to me what your opinion of what a MMO is.
For this topic, i am using the classification used by this site, mmofront, many reviews, and the now defunct massively.com. And for that common use, there are plenty of MMOs which has no virtual world (e.g. warframe, world of tanks, LoL, marvel heroes ....).
So we are talking about why THOSE MMOs do not need open world .. and why open world are sometimes even bad for the kind of game modes those games are using.
And incidentally, those game modes (like instanced dungeons) are used in games that has open worlds, like WoW. So it is a reasonable questions to ask ... if a game like wow has most of its gameplay in instances, why bother with an open world?
And given your (jmcdermottuk) post, you actually agree that these MMOs don't need open worlds ... you only have a problem that they are called MMOs. And that is a discussion for some other topic, but not this one.
(in fact, there are few MMOs that need an open world .. except the "war" ones like PS2 .. and they are in the way minority).
Actually the definition of an MMO is absolutely relevant to this topic. You again listed games that don't have open worlds like Wot and LoL, neither of which are MMO's, and yet you insist on calling them MMO's.
WoT is counterstrike in tanks, 15 v 15 battles. Now nobody I ever met or talked to would call CS an MMO. WoT is an online multiplayer tank arcade game. For one simple reason, 15v15 isn't MASSIVELY multiplayer, it's just plain old regular multiplayer. The kind that's been around for years in FPS games that have never once been referred to as MMO's. Wargaming tagged MMO onto WoT for one reason and one reason only, to legitimise the use of a cash shop. It's pure spin. Saying it's an MMO doesn't make it one, because it blatantly isn't. You can't put a pig in a stable and call it a horse.
LoL is a MOBA. MOBA is a genre all of it's own and once again we see small scale team battles, nothing MASSIVELY multiplayer going on there.
Now I agree that these online games don't need an open world but I disagree that open worlds are bad for MMO's and gave a few examples of things that an open world contributes to an MMO, but I see that you chose not to comment on that part of my post and instead tried to twist things to suit your argument based on the definition of MMO, rather than commenting on what the post was about, namely the pros and cons of an open world.
So let's get back on topic, forget about definitions and about this game or that game, and let's look at why an open world is good or bad for an MMO, however you want to define an MMO.
I gave two examples of what an open world can offer, other than PvP, which you say is all it's good for.
Player housing, non-instanced, leading to player run towns or cities, which in turn help to build the game community. That is a definite plus in my book.
The other example I gave was World Bosses, rather than the instanced 25 man raid variety. Bosses so big and mean that you might be glad of an open world and the massively multiplayer nature of the game which allows you to take 200 players along to bitch slap said boss. Again this is something that builds communtiy and teamwork in the playerbase. Another plus in my book.
Now let's just restate the discussion. This isn't about whether or not an "MMO" however you define it needs an open world. You stated that open worlds are BAD for MMO's. I think they are needed to be called MMO's but that's not the relevant argument as you so rightly pointed out, but I don't think they're bad for MMO's either as shown with the examples above.
The open world experience is bad in WoW. It's just how that particular game design works. It just doesn't mean that MMOs are generally bad at giving enjoyable open world content.
WOW is actually a perversion of the open world concept - Blizzards left hand creates a huge open world at huge expense (according to them...) and their right hand creates a progression model that encourages people to rush past it + overpower it in a matter of hours. This is where a lot of the confusion comes from, its an insanely stupid contradiction.
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
Originally posted by rertez The open world experience is bad in WoW. It's just how that particular game design works. It just doesn't mean that MMOs are generally bad at giving enjoyable open world content.
I seem to recall that WoWs open world wasn't all that bad when the game first came out. There were a lot of quests, but I don't remember as linear a path to follow. Also originally there were a lot of elite mobs in the open world. Many times they would have packs of normal mobs that aggroed with them. Those were some of my favorite parts of the game. The mobs were labeled as group, but the challenge was about where I would want all mobs to be in the world. I also don't recall there being GPS for quests when the game first came out. That made things more interesting for me as you had to read the quest more carefully and explore a bit to find what you were looking for.
I went back recently and the open world portion of the game is way to easy. You are show exactly where to go by the GPS. All the elite mobs have been removed. You are generally never attacked by more then 1 to 4 easy mobs. You only really need to use 2 or 3 skills when soloing. The quests now take you from quest hub to quest hub directly. There isn't really a reason to explore and find quests in another area. I also hate all the random battles going with the Cataclysm. It really bothers me when walking around outside to see all these things going on constantly. I much preferred the feeling of running around in a large forest or plains where things were fairly normal.
all i know is after playing 7days to die i can never go back to the hand holding again. there is just no way.
and the funny part was watching my friend who has never played a sandbox game in his life, just newer mmos.
when he logged in ( with a can of soup bottle of water and thats it ) he stood there lookinig around like wtf do i do?? i laughed, im like its a huge open world and you can do anything you want, go find stuff, or build something.
next day he had built a castle and couldnt wait to tell me about all the exploreing and looting/crafting he had done, once he got out of that mindset that this game isnt going to tell you what to do he was amazed.
and this isnt even some huge company built MMO, its just a small taste of what could really be made.
Wow. I've been on a hiatus from this site for quite awhile (because I am actually playing games) and came to see if their is any info on up and coming MMORPG's worth looking at (Haven't played one since disappointing ESO). I see the same select few belching out the same tired and inaccurate information.
Copy and paste from post #1 would save you excessive carpel tunnel/arthritis FYI.
For this topic, i am using the classification used by this site, mmofront, many reviews, and the now defunct massively.com. And for that common use, there are plenty of MMOs which has no virtual world (e.g. warframe, world of tanks, LoL, marvel heroes ....).
The fact that sites like this are covering their asses due to a lack of development of MMOs in the forseeable future does not automatically transform TPSs and ARPGs into MMOs.
Use. Your. Head.
I hate to say it, but Nari is correct, they ARE MMO's (Massive Multi-player Online)...just not MMORPG's...which are different. Hence, different acronyms and play features, etc.
Although he has said MANY TIMES their is no difference.
For this topic, i am using the classification used by this site, mmofront, many reviews, and the now defunct massively.com. And for that common use, there are plenty of MMOs which has no virtual world (e.g. warframe, world of tanks, LoL, marvel heroes ....).
The fact that sites like this are covering their asses due to a lack of development of MMOs in the forseeable future does not automatically transform TPSs and ARPGs into MMOs.
Use. Your. Head.
I hate to say it, but Nari is correct, they ARE MMO's (Massive Multi-player Online)...just not MMORPG's...which are different. Hence, different acronyms and play features, etc.
Although he has said MANY TIMES their is no difference.
No, he is wrong and you are wrong. They are multiplayer, they are not massively multiplayer. The RPG part of the acronym just describes the progression and playstyle.
Actually the definition of an MMO is absolutely relevant to this topic. You again listed games that don't have open worlds like Wot and LoL, neither of which are MMO's, and yet you insist on calling them MMO's.
Only to you.
I don't insist .. i am just following suit from MMO websites and reviews. Don't like it .. go complain to them. And since i made this topic, and there is no consensus of what a MMO is, i am going to use whatever I feel like.
For this topic, i am using the classification used by this site, mmofront, many reviews, and the now defunct massively.com. And for that common use, there are plenty of MMOs which has no virtual world (e.g. warframe, world of tanks, LoL, marvel heroes ....).
The fact that sites like this are covering their asses due to a lack of development of MMOs in the forseeable future does not automatically transform TPSs and ARPGs into MMOs.
it is not "automatic" .. i would say actually it is quite intentional.
Originally posted by Bladestrom WOW is actually a perversion of the open world concept - Blizzards left hand creates a huge open world at huge expense (according to them...) and their right hand creates a progression model that encourages people to rush past it + overpower it in a matter of hours. This is where a lot of the confusion comes from, its an insanely stupid contradiction.
and yet wow is the most successful traditional MMOs (not counting MOBA).
In fact, it is pretty clear that they were just following suit (from EQ probably) in the open world design, and after a few years, discovered that the open world is not what it cracked up to be, and move most of the gameplay away from it.
Very much because of what I said in the first post .. most of the game modes they want to be WOW would be better without an open world.
And the fact that they are so successful pretty much shows that few insisted on an open world, unlike here.
For this topic, i am using the classification used by this site, mmofront, many reviews, and the now defunct massively.com. And for that common use, there are plenty of MMOs which has no virtual world (e.g. warframe, world of tanks, LoL, marvel heroes ....).
The fact that sites like this are covering their asses due to a lack of development of MMOs in the forseeable future does not automatically transform TPSs and ARPGs into MMOs.
it is not "automatic" .. i would say actually it is quite intentional.
And it has already been done.
Please explain how warframe, world of tanks, Lol, and marvel heroes are MMOs.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Comments
It's not an opinion. MMO has a definition and meaning. Massively Multiplayer Online.
Your misusing the term. Not that it's surprising since you have admitted it's just a marketing tactic in other posts and you try and put forth a common usage argument like it means something. SuperData is just as much at fault for listing Hearthstone and League of Legends as MMOs. There is nothing massive about 1v1 or 5v5. All it takes is common sense to see the term is being misused for marketing purposes.
I have however am 100% sure you will never grasp this and keep beating the same old dead horse because this very thing has been explained to you hundreds of times by dozens of people at the very least.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/I can't even take this guy seriously. He wanted to bet with me in two years that no sandbox game will have 5 million subs, since "WoW" did it. Keeping in mind it took a year for WoW to attain that number, meaning the game in question would need to release in the next year and exactly mirror WoW's success during that time frame to be a winning bet. And if that doesn't happen, open world games are trash.
That's sort of like making a bet with a 15 year old virgin in Arkansas if they don't bed a sports illustrated swimsuit model in the next 25 minutes, they have to murder their entire family. Ready, set, go!
I have no idea where the internet finds them, but thank you internet.
Why are you upset if someone thinks TPS and ARPGs are MMOs?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
This is the only problem with current open world MMO's, but it's not a problem with the open world, it's a problem with the design of the game. Themeparks seem to consist of happily running from one quest to the next without a care for the open world. It forces a form of tunnel vision on the player, where they're not even looking at the world around them, but looking at that little dot on the map so they can quickly get there and back again to do the next mindless task.
Quest chains need to go, not open worlds.
Exactly.
"Most quests are solo, and seeing 50 others competing for the quest mobs is not fun nor immersive." - This is the problem in game design. You shouldn't have to compete with other players for mobs or quest objectives in MMOs, you should be encouraged to co-op with them.
"It would be much better to put story quests into instances" - And this i would call 'playing a single player game'. SPGs are big instances for a one player, and no one would ever bother you or compete for resources or mobs.
These games needs to go back from this singe player game design and become MMOs once again. Massive number of players in most new MMOs is only a burden for the game, since the design doesn't support that at all. Even in WoW the number of multiplayer elements have decreased, and there are mobs barely for one player, yet they call it MMO.
If you take the open world away and put everything in instances, how can you call it an MMO anymore?
90% of the "problems" you mention aren't even located in the open world anymore. Raids, dungeons, arena's etc. have all been moved off to instances in most recent releases.
Open world also doesn't exclude any of the things you mentioned at all. You can have raids, dungeons, small group play and even arena's in the open world. If quests are to much solo-oriented, it's the developer who needs to design better quests and group goals. It's not like stuffing everyone in a corridor game will suddenly result in people playing together more.
Personally I will not even play a game that isn't open. I have no interest in lobby games and linear corridor designs like you see in Dragon's Prophet have me quit within the hour.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
How else would he talk about open world except in the context of the other ways of making a game?
While I'd personally stop short of calling open world bad for MMOs, there are some pretty clear disadvantages to creating content that way and a lot of examples of bad gameplay being created out of it. For example, the world PVP you're praising here is really just awful as PVP goes. It's not an interesting back-and-forth battle where skill decides the victors. It's one side tromping over another that was engaged in PVE. Now if you're the sort of player who lacks PVP skill, then sure that situation sounds like one of the few times you might win PVP, but generally people seem to strongly agree that sort of casual (world) PVP is bad compared with the pure PVP you can find in other genres.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Whether one style is more popular than the other has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
There is no definite definition of MMO and it has been evolving over the years.
ER, besides Massively, Multiplayer, Online? Seems pretty clear to me, but whatever.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
OK.
Actually the definition of an MMO is absolutely relevant to this topic. You again listed games that don't have open worlds like Wot and LoL, neither of which are MMO's, and yet you insist on calling them MMO's.
WoT is counterstrike in tanks, 15 v 15 battles. Now nobody I ever met or talked to would call CS an MMO. WoT is an online multiplayer tank arcade game. For one simple reason, 15v15 isn't MASSIVELY multiplayer, it's just plain old regular multiplayer. The kind that's been around for years in FPS games that have never once been referred to as MMO's. Wargaming tagged MMO onto WoT for one reason and one reason only, to legitimise the use of a cash shop. It's pure spin. Saying it's an MMO doesn't make it one, because it blatantly isn't. You can't put a pig in a stable and call it a horse.
LoL is a MOBA. MOBA is a genre all of it's own and once again we see small scale team battles, nothing MASSIVELY multiplayer going on there.
Now I agree that these online games don't need an open world but I disagree that open worlds are bad for MMO's and gave a few examples of things that an open world contributes to an MMO, but I see that you chose not to comment on that part of my post and instead tried to twist things to suit your argument based on the definition of MMO, rather than commenting on what the post was about, namely the pros and cons of an open world.
So let's get back on topic, forget about definitions and about this game or that game, and let's look at why an open world is good or bad for an MMO, however you want to define an MMO.
I gave two examples of what an open world can offer, other than PvP, which you say is all it's good for.
Player housing, non-instanced, leading to player run towns or cities, which in turn help to build the game community. That is a definite plus in my book.
The other example I gave was World Bosses, rather than the instanced 25 man raid variety. Bosses so big and mean that you might be glad of an open world and the massively multiplayer nature of the game which allows you to take 200 players along to bitch slap said boss. Again this is something that builds communtiy and teamwork in the playerbase. Another plus in my book.
Now let's just restate the discussion. This isn't about whether or not an "MMO" however you define it needs an open world. You stated that open worlds are BAD for MMO's. I think they are needed to be called MMO's but that's not the relevant argument as you so rightly pointed out, but I don't think they're bad for MMO's either as shown with the examples above.
Over to you.
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 seem to recall that WoWs open world wasn't all that bad when the game first came out. There were a lot of quests, but I don't remember as linear a path to follow. Also originally there were a lot of elite mobs in the open world. Many times they would have packs of normal mobs that aggroed with them. Those were some of my favorite parts of the game. The mobs were labeled as group, but the challenge was about where I would want all mobs to be in the world. I also don't recall there being GPS for quests when the game first came out. That made things more interesting for me as you had to read the quest more carefully and explore a bit to find what you were looking for.
I went back recently and the open world portion of the game is way to easy. You are show exactly where to go by the GPS. All the elite mobs have been removed. You are generally never attacked by more then 1 to 4 easy mobs. You only really need to use 2 or 3 skills when soloing. The quests now take you from quest hub to quest hub directly. There isn't really a reason to explore and find quests in another area. I also hate all the random battles going with the Cataclysm. It really bothers me when walking around outside to see all these things going on constantly. I much preferred the feeling of running around in a large forest or plains where things were fairly normal.
all i know is after playing 7days to die i can never go back to the hand holding again. there is just no way.
and the funny part was watching my friend who has never played a sandbox game in his life, just newer mmos.
when he logged in ( with a can of soup bottle of water and thats it ) he stood there lookinig around like wtf do i do?? i laughed, im like its a huge open world and you can do anything you want, go find stuff, or build something.
next day he had built a castle and couldnt wait to tell me about all the exploreing and looting/crafting he had done, once he got out of that mindset that this game isnt going to tell you what to do he was amazed.
and this isnt even some huge company built MMO, its just a small taste of what could really be made.
Wow. I've been on a hiatus from this site for quite awhile (because I am actually playing games) and came to see if their is any info on up and coming MMORPG's worth looking at (Haven't played one since disappointing ESO). I see the same select few belching out the same tired and inaccurate information.
Copy and paste from post #1 would save you excessive carpel tunnel/arthritis FYI.
I hate to say it, but Nari is correct, they ARE MMO's (Massive Multi-player Online)...just not MMORPG's...which are different. Hence, different acronyms and play features, etc.
Although he has said MANY TIMES their is no difference.
No, he is wrong and you are wrong. They are multiplayer, they are not massively multiplayer. The RPG part of the acronym just describes the progression and playstyle.
Only to you.
I don't insist .. i am just following suit from MMO websites and reviews. Don't like it .. go complain to them. And since i made this topic, and there is no consensus of what a MMO is, i am going to use whatever I feel like.
it is not "automatic" .. i would say actually it is quite intentional.
And it has already been done.
That is the biggest excuse.
Why bother? Just get rid of the open world in dungeons (like WoW, marvel heroes, WoT, NWN, and many many MMOs) and it is all good.
It is not like it is an old idea.
and yet wow is the most successful traditional MMOs (not counting MOBA).
In fact, it is pretty clear that they were just following suit (from EQ probably) in the open world design, and after a few years, discovered that the open world is not what it cracked up to be, and move most of the gameplay away from it.
Very much because of what I said in the first post .. most of the game modes they want to be WOW would be better without an open world.
And the fact that they are so successful pretty much shows that few insisted on an open world, unlike here.
Please explain how warframe, world of tanks, Lol, and marvel heroes are MMOs.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/