It not wrong after all , just missed one word , "persistent". What make an MMO is the persistent world.
Without persistent world , one can't be called MMO.
And if fun in MMO mean to play alone then i better avoid MMO , i get tired of game publishers ruin the games for more money.
For example in games that allow player to mod , if i don't like something , i change it.
But in MMO , i have to accept what i don't like or quit the game , it isn't good for me.
All i want from an MMO is a good multiplayer game. Sadly , MOBA are better multiplayer game than MMO.
ya but, do you think company's really care they are lossing a player like you? You are not that important.
The reason why sandbox fail is all the whinny brat who complain about every single sandbox ever created.
Who really care if Blizzard or whatever company are making single player or whatever games. It's just games. It's not like single player games can't be successful.
The most successful fake mmorpg made is destiny. Which have more sales than any real mmorpg out there.
I didn't find those games to be bland and empty. Generally they were more alive because the world was one place (no instances) and everyone had to learn to live together in some form. This didn't mean you couldn't solo, but generally meaningful interactions were much more prevalent.
What gives an item value is nothing different then in real life. One is rarity and the other is it needs to give you something meaningful to do with said item. This might be twinking your alts, giving items to friends/low level characters, or in general being able to show off and impact those around you (not just those of equal level).
It's fairly obvious that items and characters in games have little value or impact. This is shown by the fact that they aren't really valued for real money in any form. In older games both items and characters were valued at very high prices in terms of real money. In today's games that is not really the case because it is more easily obtained and perhaps more importantly it doesn't gain you anything outside of being able to do another boring raid or group content where you are again grinding for more equipment.
You're focused on per-item value. I'm focused on fun gameplay.
A game doesn't magically become fun because it has one item that takes 20,000 hours to get and so it's worth $50,000 USD. A game is fun when you're actively engaging in a world with plenty of fun things to loot.
Most of the examples of item use you're giving are known bad designs:
Twinked alts marginalized challenge. What one character found difficult, another will find trivial due to their superior gear. Nowadays it's rare for games to repeat this mistake.
If a game has BoEs then giving items to friends/lowbies is great. It makes the item that much more meaningful (when my friend in WOW bought me an expensive BoE it wasn't simply a hand-me-down; it was only ever used by me and he spent his hard-earned gold on it.)
If a game has no-bind items then that results in a dangerous amount of inflation, and a dangerous amount of item devaluation. "You killed Ragnaros for Thunderfury? Why? There are at least a hundred of them on the AH." Suddenly items don't carry the same meaning they once did -- those shiny pauldrons don't mean that guy is a raider, they only mean he had a lot of gold to buy them because anything can be bought.
In today's games items aren't typically* valued for lots of real money because these problems are solved.
Also your closing comment that gear is only useful for playing the game is a bit strange. Between that and your fixation on per-item value it makes me wonder if you were just playing those early games to Ebay loot, and not because you actually cared about fun gameplay.
A lot of what you said is dependent on how you design the game.
If an item is rare then it's hard to have an influx of items throughout the game. That is what makes it valuable.
Twinking is a realistic thing that happens in real life all the time and is something that brings real impact to the game. It is a way to help those lower level then yourself or just make your own characters more powerful at lower levels. Generally this content is fairly difficult to get through hence the inflated value of the items.
The issues you are referring to as problems. They are just a different way of doing things that create a world with more impact. For some this is fun and for others it's not.
What I was trying to point out is you need some things that might anger or frustrate people to have a world where there is real impact.
Weather this is fun or not is another issue. Most people do not want a world with real impact and the prospect of having to deal with other real people in both good and bad situations. Most people do not want something where there can be potential unfairness based on how much some one has invested in a game.
I am not arguing what is better or worse. I am simple arguing what creates an environment with real impact in game and that is long term goals, rarity of items, contested content, the ability to impact others experiences in game, and punishing penalties for death that keep items and people getting to max level rare.
A lot of what you said is dependent on how you design the game.
If an item is rare then it's hard to have an influx of items throughout the game. That is what makes it valuable.
Twinking is a realistic thing that happens in real life all the time and is something that brings real impact to the game. It is a way to help those lower level then yourself or just make your own characters more powerful at lower levels. Generally this content is fairly difficult to get through hence the inflated value of the items.
The issues you are referring to as problems. They are just a different way of doing things that create a world with more impact. For some this is fun and for others it's not.
What I was trying to point out is you need some things that might anger or frustrate people to have a world where there is real impact.
Weather this is fun or not is another issue. Most people do not want a world with real impact and the prospect of having to deal with other real people in both good and bad situations. Most people do not want something where there can be potential unfairness based on how much some one has invested in a game.
I am not arguing what is better or worse. I am simple arguing what creates an environment with real impact in game and that is long term goals, rarity of items, contested content, the ability to impact others experiences in game, and punishing penalties for death that keep items and people getting to max level rare.
Right, we've already covered the rarity is what makes things valuable. But you can have 20,000 items and some of them will still be rare. You don't have all of WOW's legendaries or its current best-in-slot gear because those items are rare by virtue of being hard to get.
Twinking trivializes challenge. Calling a bad mechanic "realistic" doesn't change the fact that it's still a bad mechanic. It's fine to want mechanics which let you help other players, but the right direction to go is CoH style sidekicking. With twink items, you break the game's challenge-reward structure, but with sidekicking all players experience similar challenge and similar rewards.
We've covered repeatedly how both systems provide the exact same "impact" yet you continue to try to say there's a difference. So the main differences are all the gameplay problems I've mentioned that some of these ideas have. The other difference being that developers get to be lazy and not actually implement many items in their MMORPG. (Feels suspiciously like how players defend the excessive timesinks of early MMORPGs, even though that trait also wasn't in their best interests and was mostly a money play (just as a failure to implement enough items is about doing less work for the same amoutn of money.))
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A lot of what you said is dependent on how you design the game.
If an item is rare then it's hard to have an influx of items throughout the game. That is what makes it valuable.
Twinking is a realistic thing that happens in real life all the time and is something that brings real impact to the game. It is a way to help those lower level then yourself or just make your own characters more powerful at lower levels. Generally this content is fairly difficult to get through hence the inflated value of the items.
The issues you are referring to as problems. They are just a different way of doing things that create a world with more impact. For some this is fun and for others it's not.
What I was trying to point out is you need some things that might anger or frustrate people to have a world where there is real impact.
Weather this is fun or not is another issue. Most people do not want a world with real impact and the prospect of having to deal with other real people in both good and bad situations. Most people do not want something where there can be potential unfairness based on how much some one has invested in a game.
I am not arguing what is better or worse. I am simple arguing what creates an environment with real impact in game and that is long term goals, rarity of items, contested content, the ability to impact others experiences in game, and punishing penalties for death that keep items and people getting to max level rare.
Right, we've already covered the rarity is what makes things valuable. But you can have 20,000 items and some of them will still be rare. You don't have all of WOW's legendaries or its current best-in-slot gear because those items are rare by virtue of being hard to get.
Twinking trivializes challenge. Calling a bad mechanic "realistic" doesn't change the fact that it's still a bad mechanic. It's fine to want mechanics which let you help other players, but the right direction to go is CoH style sidekicking. With twink items, you break the game's challenge-reward structure, but with sidekicking all players experience similar challenge and similar rewards.
We've covered repeatedly how both systems provide the exact same "impact" yet you continue to try to say there's a difference. So the main differences are all the gameplay problems I've mentioned that some of these ideas have. The other difference being that developers get to be lazy and not actually implement many items in their MMORPG. (Feels suspiciously like how players defend the excessive timesinks of early MMORPGs, even though that trait also wasn't in their best interests and was mostly a money play (just as a failure to implement enough items is about doing less work for the same amoutn of money.))
As you have said we have covered the issues, but you continue to say they are bad mechanics. I disagree with your statement. I say they are simple different mechanics. Mechanics that worked fine and provided a lot of people with fun at one point in time.
I've covered why today's systems do not have impact already.
Having lots of items devalues items in general. This is something that happens in real life all the time.
Basically what we have here is developers insulating the population in their own little bubbles so that people can't cry over what is perceived as unfair.
Putting less items in your game is not lazy it is just a different strategy used in an attempt to make items more meaningful.
Allowing twinking is not better or worse then sidekicking. It just simple more impactful on the entire population playing the game.
The key here is that said items and levels have great impact on the game and everyone in it. That is not the case in most of the current games and it is done on purpose to provide a more relaxing atmosphere. This brings us back to that there is no right or wrong way. There are just different ways. Most people want the way that provides a relaxing environment that games are aimed at today. A smaller minority likes something with far more impact like the games of yesteryear.
I would refrain from reiterating that there is a right and wrong way which is clearly not the case.
Isn't that why this topic is created. Because for those certain "some people" those games dont' have a world.
If you haven't read enough. Those people are talking about "real" mmorpg with worlds and not some hub game.
This post make no sense.
You made a claim about Destiny. I showed how that claim is wrong.
Or are you trying to say worlds in games aren't needed because people build up a fantasy world for themselves in their head anyway? If so, well done. Subtle.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Kyleran Originally posted by DMKano World is just one aspect.What makes an MMO is all the aspects put together, like world, gameplay, exploration, community, progressing your character, etc...It's not just a singular aspect.
I totally agree, virtual world is only one key aspects, MMORPGs are a sum of their parts, and I think sometimes it's more a piece of luck rather than by design when one succeeds.
Obviously they have to get everything right, but the whole genre was made for the world... if that isn't there then it isn't an MMO.
While I won't disagree you need a world, I would argue that without a massive number of players inhabiting it you don't have an MMORPG either.
Others might argue that without combat, either pve or pvp you don't have a MMO either.
Same could be said for mechanics that encourage player interaction and socialization, be it in conflict or cooperation.
Personally, MMORPGs need strong progression mechanics, others would argue, vertical, horizontal, or a bit of both.
IMO these and others all contribute to a successful title, not just the world.
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
Isn't that why this topic is created. Because for those certain "some people" those games dont' have a world.
If you haven't read enough. Those people are talking about "real" mmorpg with worlds and not some hub game.
This post really make sense.
You made a claim about Destiny. I showed how that claim is wrong.
Or are you trying to say worlds in games aren't needed because people build up a fantasy world for themselves in their head anyway? If so, well done. Subtle.
I'm saying those people claim games like Destiny, WOW, or SWTOR really shallow. Because their world isn't immersive enough. To a point people deny to call these games MMO. And they are more like single player or hub game.
That's what people are trying to say.
I'm basically saying. It doesn't matter. Because people still play FPS, dungeons, raids, MOBA, single player games etc. Take for example very few people consider Destiny a mmorpg, but it still have a market just because people like FPS.
I'm just saying weather people claim this games to be mmorpg or not it doesn't matter. People play games because they like games. Just because this so called "online RPG" games don't have immersive worlds, dont' mean people dont' play them.
The most successful fake mmorpg made is destiny. Which have more sales than any real mmorpg out there.
We no longer live in a world where we can make random baseless statements. The internet exists.
Destiny has 16 million registered players. (source)
WOW peaked around 12 million monthly players. (source)
WOW has more than 100 million registered players. (source)
Destiny isn't an MMO, there is nothing massive about it, Destiny is a game similar to Guild Wars, Diablo or Phantasy Star Ohline.... they're online RPGs. Is COD an MMO? Lots of people play it online... no, there has to be a world and there has to be (in theory) the ability for it to have every single person in one area at the same time.
The most successful fake mmorpg made is destiny. Which have more sales than any real mmorpg out there.
We no longer live in a world where we can make random baseless statements. The internet exists.
Destiny has 16 million registered players. (source)
WOW peaked around 12 million monthly players. (source)
WOW has more than 100 million registered players. (source)
Destiny isn't an MMO, there is nothing massive about it, Destiny is a game similar to Guild Wars, Diablo or Phantasy Star Ohline.... they're online RPGs. Is COD an MMO? Lots of people play it online... no, there has to be a world and there has to be (in theory) the ability for it to have every single person in one area at the same time.
Which is basically what I'm trying to say. There are even people go as far as WoW or SWTOR to not be an mmorpg. Because even though they have a worlds, it isn't immersive enough.
Which is quite weird, because the OP claims Vanilla Wow to be very immersive. Because to me it's just player change their style of playing. Because once they reach end level, we know it's more about instance content.
Originally posted by immodium Compared to the old MMO's the new MMO worlds are far more interesting to explore than the old ones.
Pssh. Why because they're prettier? Theres nothing to explore. At least in EQ, when I went roaming I found interesting and unique things. Not just mobs, the environment actually told a story without having to lead me around by the nose. Wander out into the wilderness, mind the random dangerous monsters that actually roamed around. Look, a strange faction of halflings congregating around a monument or shrine of some sort... and they don't like me even though I'm a fellow hobbit? Why is that? Oh that worship a different god? Look, a mob that is different than the others, and whats this, it drops rare items or offers rare quests? That kind of thing has been completely lost. Modern games are so generic, they couldn't give you depth unless they created a 500 foot crater in the middle of a map.
I just got done playing FF14 for the first time, and every single area for the first 20-30 levels looked the same, every monster was just used and reused throughout every zone, and every last one of them was static, had no other purpose than to be slaughtered. Each area surgically sectioned off with mobs increasing gradually in level from one spot to the next. No danger, no roamers, oh no! cant have that!!! Can't have anyone dying now can we?! Sure, the graphics and scenery are beautiful, what little you can actually explore that isn't partitioned off by invisible walls.
Far more interesting my ass.
You should try ESO. Then you may realize how pathetic in comparison EQ world is.
And to OP. SWG worlds are up there as the most bland to explore within the genre.
I disagree 100%. Yes ESO is far graphically more sophisticated, but EQ1 world is far more interesting as there's real feeling of danger - you can't just run straight through the mobs without fear of dying. EQ1 might look like crap, but the world has a real sense of challenge and danger which ESO does not.
Mobs in ESO leash, in EQ1 they didn't, a single 35 giant could wtfpwn a raid geared level 50 warrior solo. In ESO you can waltz through open world mobs without a care.
I don't see how having mobs all over the place getting in your way is better. I prefer worlds where mobs have more "realistic" densities.
I always thought EQ has a pathetically bad world. Even back then AC1's world was much better and seamless over ground, and to me even good old UO has a better world.
Very few MMORPGs got the mob density right to make the world immersive and not just a playground to level. And EQ is definitely not one of them.
Originally posted by tixylix ...sadly they (all MMOs) all treat the world like it is getting in the way. They end up getting rid of it and before you know it you have something like SWTOR where you all stand in a hub and instantly travel everywhere.
Excellent and true post and I'm emphasizing this bit.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I'm saying those people claim games like Destiny, WOW, or SWTOR really shallow. Because their world isn't immersive enough. To a point people deny to call these games MMO. And they are more like single player or hub game.
That's what people are trying to say.
I'm basically saying. It doesn't matter. Because people still play FPS, dungeons, raids, MOBA, single player games etc. Take for example very few people consider Destiny a mmorpg, but it still have a market just because people like FPS.
I'm just saying weather people claim this games to be mmorpg or not it doesn't matter. People play games because they like games. Just because this so called "online RPG" games don't have immersive worlds, dont' mean people dont' play them.
Well people calling a game shallow because it's world isn't immersive enough are just wrong. A game's world is a big part of its immersion, but not its depth. Gameplay determines depth. Otherwise we'd make ridiculous statements like "chess is shallow because it has no world at all."
Being MMO is only about whether a game has a massive number of players compared to standard multiplayer. WOW undeniably qualifies. Destiny doesn't seem to (haven't played it, but I can't find any evidence that it has areas where 32+ players are all in the same area, which would be about where I'd draw the (arbitrary) line in terms of an MMO on console.)
Whether it's an RPG depends on whether the RPG or the shooter aspect are more important to gameplay. I felt like Mass Effect was an RPG because stats and dialog were prominent throughout gameplay, but a game like BF4 isn't an RPG because its shooter elements strongly outweigh the RPG elements.
It's true that whether a game is an MMORPG or not doesn't matter though. I was only originally disputing that you claimed Destiny sold more than MMORPGs, and it clearly hasn't.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Destiny isn't an MMO, there is nothing massive about it, Destiny is a game similar to Guild Wars, Diablo or Phantasy Star Ohline.... they're online RPGs. Is COD an MMO? Lots of people play it online... no, there has to be a world and there has to be (in theory) the ability for it to have every single person in one area at the same time.
Neither myself nor the other poster were claiming Destiny was an MMO.
I only pointed out that Destiny didn't "have more sales than any real MMORPG out there".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Being MMO is only about whether a game has a massive number of players compared to standard multiplayer. WOW undeniably qualifies. Destiny doesn't seem to (haven't played it, but I can't find any evidence that it has areas where 32+ players are all in the same area, which would be about where I'd draw the (arbitrary) line in terms of an MMO on console.)
The point here is not about the definition.
Imagine you are thrown in to a world, and you have no idea what adventure lies ahead of you. The environment is harsh, and it is hard to survive. And you meet people to form a bond and adventure with. There are probably enemy which you have to fend against, so you are forced to social and interact with other like you to help each other.
That's the experience people are looking for.
Unfortunately mmorpg todays have become all about game modes which divide into dungeons, raids, arena, or some form of realm vs realm.
Being MMO is only about whether a game has a massive number of players compared to standard multiplayer. WOW undeniably qualifies. Destiny doesn't seem to (haven't played it, but I can't find any evidence that it has areas where 32+ players are all in the same area, which would be about where I'd draw the (arbitrary) line in terms of an MMO on console.)
The point here is not about the definition.
Imagine you are thrown in to a world, and you have no idea what adventure lies ahead of you. The environment is harsh, and it is hard to survive. And you meet people to form a bond and adventure with. There are probably enemy which you have to fend against, so you are forced to social and interact with other like you to help each other.
That's the experience people are looking for.
Unfortunately mmorpg todays have become all about game modes which divide into dungeons, raids, arena, or some form of realm vs realm.
"Dungeons, raids, arena, or some form of realm vs realm" are okay if done like in GW2 where you can warp instance out of and away from the actual world to that stuff. In case I'm not in the mood to explore that day. But I agree the world cannot be neglected for these things.
The world should be an imaginative place of wonder and discovery. Large and not boring. And terribly unpredictable. That last part is where dev's usually fail. They find a pattern and stick to it. Patterns are boring.
12 millIon - fan 'look at the number of subs, game must be great!' blizzard : cash in boys!
10 million - "" 7 million - "" 5 million - "" 4 3 2 1 - year 2020 +
Those arguing blizzard are doing a great job are making it easy for blizzard to under invest and allow stagnation. Maybe it's a subconscious effort to make it east to break away:
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 Bladestrom 12 millIon - fan 'look at the number of subs, game must be great!' blizzard : cash in boys!
10 million - "" 7 million - "" 5 million - "" 4 3 2 1 - year 2020 +
Those arguing blizzard are doing a great job are making it easy for blizzard to under invest and allow stagnation. Maybe it's a subconscious effort to make it east to break away:
This is what just happened:
Poster 1: "Apples sell more than Papayas!"
Poster 2: "Here is the hard data showing that to be wrong."
Poster 3: "You people buying fruit based on its popularity are just making it easy for the apple industry to deliver lower quality products!"
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I remember a time when you could travel the world and have to really pay attention to where you step. Auto run would of surely meant death. Where as now auto run is commonplace, that is, until enough people demand instant travel.
I also remember a time that based on travel, you could stumble upon a quest or quests that actually took you across the world to complete, or to multiple locations around the world.. rather than 10 feet away from the quest giver nearly everytime.
Originally posted by Bladestrom 12 millIon - fan 'look at the number of subs, game must be great!' blizzard : cash in boys!
10 million - "" 7 million - "" 5 million - "" 4 3 2 1 - year 2020 +
Those arguing blizzard are doing a great job are making it easy for blizzard to under invest and allow stagnation. Maybe it's a subconscious effort to make it east to break away:
This is what just happened:
Poster 1: "Apples sell more than Papayas!"
Poster 2: "Here is the hard data showing that to be wrong."
Poster 3: "You people buying fruit based on its popularity are just making it easy for the apple industry to deliver lower quality products!"
Poster 4 - After 20 years, Apples still outsell Papayas by a factor of more than 2:1, Apples clearly fail.
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 observer It's all about immersion, and a lot of mmos fail at this. The size of the world doesn't matter much either. Seamless worlds, that need to be traveled in, are more immersive.
^ that.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Hmmm I think depth can be labeled in exploration how is that not depth? Take for example allot of older mmorpgs where you could go into a very high level and dangerous area and if you had the right skills you could possibly find some epic treasure that to me is a hidden depth with exploration, now mmos never really had this, I guess eq1 did in a way but it required allot of camping and grouping so it took way to long. But you cannot say gameplay is the only depth to games.
Originally posted by Kaledren I remember a time when you could travel the world and have to really pay attention to where you step. Auto run would of surely meant death. Where as now auto run is commonplace, that is, until enough people demand instant travel.
I also remember a time that based on travel, you could stumble upon a quest or quests that actually took you across the world to complete, or to multiple locations around the world.. rather than 10 feet away from the quest giver nearly everytime.
I agree with you here but its annoying with its just mobs all the time, more games need traps and other things that should be dangerous, being forced to fight allot is not very good or fun and way to time consuming, I think there are other ways you can make the world more dangerous here. I think the bigger issue there are no consequences for dying, whats the point in staying alive when all you have to do is repair? I literally feel no incentive to stay alive in mmorpgs anymore, hek I use it for travel sometimes lol.
Comments
ya but, do you think company's really care they are lossing a player like you? You are not that important.
The reason why sandbox fail is all the whinny brat who complain about every single sandbox ever created.
Who really care if Blizzard or whatever company are making single player or whatever games. It's just games. It's not like single player games can't be successful.
The most successful fake mmorpg made is destiny. Which have more sales than any real mmorpg out there.
We no longer live in a world where we can make random baseless statements. The internet exists.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A lot of what you said is dependent on how you design the game.
If an item is rare then it's hard to have an influx of items throughout the game. That is what makes it valuable.
Twinking is a realistic thing that happens in real life all the time and is something that brings real impact to the game. It is a way to help those lower level then yourself or just make your own characters more powerful at lower levels. Generally this content is fairly difficult to get through hence the inflated value of the items.
The issues you are referring to as problems. They are just a different way of doing things that create a world with more impact. For some this is fun and for others it's not.
What I was trying to point out is you need some things that might anger or frustrate people to have a world where there is real impact.
Weather this is fun or not is another issue. Most people do not want a world with real impact and the prospect of having to deal with other real people in both good and bad situations. Most people do not want something where there can be potential unfairness based on how much some one has invested in a game.
I am not arguing what is better or worse. I am simple arguing what creates an environment with real impact in game and that is long term goals, rarity of items, contested content, the ability to impact others experiences in game, and punishing penalties for death that keep items and people getting to max level rare.
Right, we've already covered the rarity is what makes things valuable. But you can have 20,000 items and some of them will still be rare. You don't have all of WOW's legendaries or its current best-in-slot gear because those items are rare by virtue of being hard to get.
Twinking trivializes challenge. Calling a bad mechanic "realistic" doesn't change the fact that it's still a bad mechanic. It's fine to want mechanics which let you help other players, but the right direction to go is CoH style sidekicking. With twink items, you break the game's challenge-reward structure, but with sidekicking all players experience similar challenge and similar rewards.
We've covered repeatedly how both systems provide the exact same "impact" yet you continue to try to say there's a difference. So the main differences are all the gameplay problems I've mentioned that some of these ideas have. The other difference being that developers get to be lazy and not actually implement many items in their MMORPG. (Feels suspiciously like how players defend the excessive timesinks of early MMORPGs, even though that trait also wasn't in their best interests and was mostly a money play (just as a failure to implement enough items is about doing less work for the same amoutn of money.))
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Isn't that why this topic is created. Because for those certain "some people" those games dont' have a world.
If you haven't read enough. Those people are talking about "real" mmorpg with worlds and not some hub game.
As you have said we have covered the issues, but you continue to say they are bad mechanics. I disagree with your statement. I say they are simple different mechanics. Mechanics that worked fine and provided a lot of people with fun at one point in time.
I've covered why today's systems do not have impact already.
Having lots of items devalues items in general. This is something that happens in real life all the time.
Basically what we have here is developers insulating the population in their own little bubbles so that people can't cry over what is perceived as unfair.
Putting less items in your game is not lazy it is just a different strategy used in an attempt to make items more meaningful.
Allowing twinking is not better or worse then sidekicking. It just simple more impactful on the entire population playing the game.
The key here is that said items and levels have great impact on the game and everyone in it. That is not the case in most of the current games and it is done on purpose to provide a more relaxing atmosphere. This brings us back to that there is no right or wrong way. There are just different ways. Most people want the way that provides a relaxing environment that games are aimed at today. A smaller minority likes something with far more impact like the games of yesteryear.
I would refrain from reiterating that there is a right and wrong way which is clearly not the case.
This post make no sense.
You made a claim about Destiny. I showed how that claim is wrong.
Or are you trying to say worlds in games aren't needed because people build up a fantasy world for themselves in their head anyway? If so, well done. Subtle.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I totally agree, virtual world is only one key aspects, MMORPGs are a sum of their parts, and I think sometimes it's more a piece of luck rather than by design when one succeeds.
Obviously they have to get everything right, but the whole genre was made for the world... if that isn't there then it isn't an MMO.
While I won't disagree you need a world, I would argue that without a massive number of players inhabiting it you don't have an MMORPG either.Others might argue that without combat, either pve or pvp you don't have a MMO either.
Same could be said for mechanics that encourage player interaction and socialization, be it in conflict or cooperation.
Personally, MMORPGs need strong progression mechanics, others would argue, vertical, horizontal, or a bit of both.
IMO these and others all contribute to a successful title, not just the world.
"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
I'm saying those people claim games like Destiny, WOW, or SWTOR really shallow. Because their world isn't immersive enough. To a point people deny to call these games MMO. And they are more like single player or hub game.
That's what people are trying to say.
I'm basically saying. It doesn't matter. Because people still play FPS, dungeons, raids, MOBA, single player games etc. Take for example very few people consider Destiny a mmorpg, but it still have a market just because people like FPS.
I'm just saying weather people claim this games to be mmorpg or not it doesn't matter. People play games because they like games. Just because this so called "online RPG" games don't have immersive worlds, dont' mean people dont' play them.
Destiny isn't an MMO, there is nothing massive about it, Destiny is a game similar to Guild Wars, Diablo or Phantasy Star Ohline.... they're online RPGs. Is COD an MMO? Lots of people play it online... no, there has to be a world and there has to be (in theory) the ability for it to have every single person in one area at the same time.
Which is basically what I'm trying to say. There are even people go as far as WoW or SWTOR to not be an mmorpg. Because even though they have a worlds, it isn't immersive enough.
Which is quite weird, because the OP claims Vanilla Wow to be very immersive. Because to me it's just player change their style of playing. Because once they reach end level, we know it's more about instance content.
Says you, but you're wrong.
Excellent and true post and I'm emphasizing this bit.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Well people calling a game shallow because it's world isn't immersive enough are just wrong. A game's world is a big part of its immersion, but not its depth. Gameplay determines depth. Otherwise we'd make ridiculous statements like "chess is shallow because it has no world at all."
Being MMO is only about whether a game has a massive number of players compared to standard multiplayer. WOW undeniably qualifies. Destiny doesn't seem to (haven't played it, but I can't find any evidence that it has areas where 32+ players are all in the same area, which would be about where I'd draw the (arbitrary) line in terms of an MMO on console.)
Whether it's an RPG depends on whether the RPG or the shooter aspect are more important to gameplay. I felt like Mass Effect was an RPG because stats and dialog were prominent throughout gameplay, but a game like BF4 isn't an RPG because its shooter elements strongly outweigh the RPG elements.
It's true that whether a game is an MMORPG or not doesn't matter though. I was only originally disputing that you claimed Destiny sold more than MMORPGs, and it clearly hasn't.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Neither myself nor the other poster were claiming Destiny was an MMO.
I only pointed out that Destiny didn't "have more sales than any real MMORPG out there".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The point here is not about the definition.
Imagine you are thrown in to a world, and you have no idea what adventure lies ahead of you. The environment is harsh, and it is hard to survive. And you meet people to form a bond and adventure with. There are probably enemy which you have to fend against, so you are forced to social and interact with other like you to help each other.
That's the experience people are looking for.
Unfortunately mmorpg todays have become all about game modes which divide into dungeons, raids, arena, or some form of realm vs realm.
The World is only part of an mmo, there is combat, harvesting, crafting, other players, the end game and so on
"Dungeons, raids, arena, or some form of realm vs realm" are okay if done like in GW2 where you can warp instance out of and away from the actual world to that stuff. In case I'm not in the mood to explore that day. But I agree the world cannot be neglected for these things.
The world should be an imaginative place of wonder and discovery. Large and not boring. And terribly unpredictable. That last part is where dev's usually fail. They find a pattern and stick to it. Patterns are boring.
10 million - ""
7 million - ""
5 million - ""
4 3 2 1 - year 2020 +
Those arguing blizzard are doing a great job are making it easy for blizzard to under invest and allow stagnation. Maybe it's a subconscious effort to make it east to break away:
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
This is what just happened:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I also remember a time that based on travel, you could stumble upon a quest or quests that actually took you across the world to complete, or to multiple locations around the world.. rather than 10 feet away from the quest giver nearly everytime.
Poster 4 - After 20 years, Apples still outsell Papayas by a factor of more than 2:1, Apples clearly fail.
"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
^ that.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
I agree with you here but its annoying with its just mobs all the time, more games need traps and other things that should be dangerous, being forced to fight allot is not very good or fun and way to time consuming, I think there are other ways you can make the world more dangerous here. I think the bigger issue there are no consequences for dying, whats the point in staying alive when all you have to do is repair? I literally feel no incentive to stay alive in mmorpgs anymore, hek I use it for travel sometimes lol.