I can't help thinking that MMO games are going as instanced as possible, BF.
Which is because the biggest flaw in MMOs has always been, basically, the other people.
Compare WoW to, say, the original Ultima Online. You can see that two of the recipes for WoWs success are:
1. You can barely change the game world
2. The scope for interaction with other people has been greatly reduced
Instanced dungeons and a game world that persists despite what some other idiots may do with it, or those without a conscience might want to inflict on others, have helped make WoW the success it is.
Look at the new D&D game- it is barely an MMO at all. Gather together five friends and go dungeon bashing. It may as well be hosted locally. This is the model people are looking at now. It probably works to Guild Wars' favour that you can't meet people out in the game world. A lot of the time, they just get in the way. Now there is a dedicated PvP solution for people who like that kind of thing (I don't), that hammers in GW even more.
Blizzard are better games makers. But I am knackered if I am paying monthly for WoW, really. Guild Wars is setting the pace for the market model. Expansion sets don't force commitment, they feel like more of an effort is being made, and the other MMOs all get (albeit less regular) expansion packs anyway that you have to pay for on top of subscriptions, so that is a cost which is avoided.
Mind you, in all honesty... I wouldn't really play any game like that at all. I like multiplay, but I am after a game that has an ending, which is why Baldur's Gate was my God (not the console version, before people wonder why I am touting a Gauntlet clone). The prospect of getting to a high level or getting a new Opulent Tunic of the Whale is something that I am fine with in single (or even multi) player Diablo, but it's not what I want from a community experience, complete with hyper-competitive Koreans and many, many people whose idea of success in life isn't the gaming experience but having a shinier suit of armour than the person next to them.
Which is why I play Uru, but I'm pretty lonely there.
What I like about RO is that the only thing you pay for -- assuming you don't hunt down a private server -- is the per month fee, you don't pay for the actual game or anything, or any updates or expansions...that's all free. Which is neat. The one thing I don't like about private servers with that game is that there are storylines and quests and such -- but usually they get stripped out for sake of ease in the private servers. Which kinda sucks.
And hey, I'm playing Uru now! AND am starting to get the hang of it!
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I can't help thinking that MMO games are going as instanced as possible, BF.Which is because the biggest flaw in MMOs has always been, basically, the other people.
Compare WoW to, say, the original Ultima Online. You can see that two of the recipes for WoWs success are:
1. You can barely change the game world
2. The scope for interaction with other people has been greatly reducedInstanced dungeons and a game world that persists despite what some other idiots may do with it, or those without a conscience might want to inflict on others, have helped make WoW the success it is.
Look at the new D&D game- it is barely an MMO at all. Gather together five friends and go dungeon bashing. It may as well be hosted locally. This is the model people are looking at now. It probably works to Guild Wars' favour that you can't meet people out in the game world. A lot of the time, they just get in the way. Now there is a dedicated PvP solution for people who like that kind of thing (I don't), that hammers in GW even more.
Blizzard are better games makers. But I am knackered if I am paying monthly for WoW, really. Guild Wars is setting the pace for the market model. Expansion sets don't force commitment, they feel like more of an effort is being made, and the other MMOs all get (albeit less regular) expansion packs anyway that you have to pay for on top of subscriptions, so that is a cost which is avoided.
Mind you, in all honesty... I wouldn't really play any game like that at all. I like multiplay, but I am after a game that has an ending, which is why Baldur's Gate was my God (not the console version, before people wonder why I am touting a Gauntlet clone). The prospect of getting to a high level or getting a new Opulent Tunic of the Whale is something that I am fine with in single (or even multi) player Diablo, but it's not what I want from a community experience, complete with hyper-competitive Koreans and many, many people whose idea of success in life isn't the gaming experience but having a shinier suit of armour than the person next to them.
Which is why I play Uru, but I'm pretty lonely there.
Sure, probably all MMOG that come out from here on out will have some instanced areas, but I don't think very many will go the route of GW and have a fully instanced world, if that happens, MMOG's will no longer exist, only quasi-MMOG, which is what Guild Wars is. They will no longer be massive, and they won't even necessarily be multiplayer anymore.
Oddly enough, one of the recipes you mention for WoW's success are also one of the biggest complaints long time players have. The fact that the world can't be changed, no matter what, makes everything you do feel trivial. You go kill the king of Ironforge, he respawns an hour later. You go take control of an alliance town when you're horde, after a while a million guards spawn that can't be killed and drive you out. It hurts the immersive part of the game, which is what games like this are supposed to rely on. Also it being more difficult to interact with people, I don't really see how that is. The only parts of the game that's instanced is dungeons, it's still very very easy to meet people anywhere else in the world. And knowing where the entrance to an instanced dungeon is makes it easier to interact with people, go stand outside of the shimmering doorway that is the entrance and you'll be able to find a group pretty easily, probably.
I'd say the recipes for Wow's success are it being by far the most approachable, 'noob' friendly, and accecable MMO game available. Also the quest system and the huge and incredibly detailed world help as well.
The new D&D game hasn't done particularly well, at least here in the states. I don't think people are too keen on paying a monthly fee for a completely instanced world. If you're going to have a game who's world is entirely instanced, it needs to be free of monthly payments, like GW. The thing that made Guild Wars so popular was simply that it allowed people who always complained about the monthly fee aspect of MMOG's, but wanted to play one, to play a fun, but somewhat watered down Multiplayer RPG. With some aspects of MMOG.
I really hope that not all MMOG's have a full instanced world in the future, I like having a seamless constant world that feels alive, and I don't mind paying a a few bucks a week for it. It makes for a better experience overall, I think, and is one of the most important aspects of the MMOG. Yeah, you'll run into assholes, but that's unavoidable. In Guildwars it's just as big a problem. In fact, I've run into more dipshits in Guild Wars and been forced to play with them during my fairly short amount of play time with that game, than I have in my 2 years of playing WoW.
The big problem with Guild Wars is that later on everything requires a group, there is no solo play. All PVP requires a group, and if you don't have a static group, you're put into one randomly, and you can imagine how often some dumbass gets into your group who's there to just annoy his teammates for his own amusement. WoW avoids this by allowing complete solo play during almost any portion of the game. You can level to the level cap without every grouping once if you want to.
While you'll run into some dipshits in WoW, the world is so huge that they're very easy to avoid. There are a lot of areas of the world that are more or less empty, so if you want to go adventure by yourself, you can, and still be perfectly efficient and not get bothered. It's easy to avoid the Korean farmers, and you don't have to participate in the grind to get better gear if you don't want. There are other aspects of the game that don't require that.
I absolutely agree that the trivial nature of WoW is a criticism. It does make it feel very lightweight. But it is part of what has made it successful, because having a world the players can affect means that players can dominate, and that can be harsh, and it was in the removal of all such harshness that the game is so noob-friendly.
That's why, even if they aren't much good, games like D&D are following that idea more and more. But yes, it IS a problem. There are no heroes in WoW. Just tons of identikit players who have all done exactly the same stuff. Not really my idea of a believable persistent world either.
The huge and detailed world is always going to count in Blizzard's favour. Quality stuff like that is what they do. I am sure it is the better game, generally. But the market model is not for me (nor, really, is that sort of gaming anyway).
The reduced scope for interaction, btw, is in adversly affecting other characters.
I can agree.. having rolled a paladin in wow and not really having much to do besides either waiting for a real paladin review or my friends to actually log on once in a blue moon.. all I do is pvp.. it gets boring with companies abusing the 'formula of success'... so I seriously hope arena.net succeeds.. because at least they give you your moneys worth
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, only relatively lonely. Now the funding has returned there are hundreds playing at any one time, which is more than enough to do the community bits, it's just not millions, is all.It is MEANT to be confusing, of course; that's the plot...