Question of the Day, May 7, 2010

[The Escapist Staff]

Question of the Day, May 7, 2010



The new screenshots for World of Warcraft:Cataclysm shows drastic changes to some well-known areas. Should MMOGs remain persistent, or do you welcome world-changing facelifts?

Permalink

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

Yeah I think they should stay the same forever, obviously MMOGs should retain the same basic world and never make any changes.

 

[Jared]

I like how FFXI have done it...introduce a new aspect of the world, but, alongside the current one too...that way, you dont lose that constant

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Bah. If you are playing an MMO for the lore and world, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Simalacrum]

I think it really depends on the MMOG, really... some games make more sense to change on a frequent basis, while others might be more suitable to a static environment.

 

[Nivag the Owl]

Variation in long-term MMOs is a good idea, but wandering too far from the setting and history of the story should be avoided. I used to play WoW pre-TBC and even I was pissed off that it had guns and robots in the same story as dinosaurs. As soon as space was added to it I just had to leave. Point is, new areas are a good idea as long as it doesn't piss all over the main concept.

 

[Hicerion]

Change, if done correctly, can be a good thing. One of the big killers of a playerbase in games is boredom. By not just tweaking, but retooling entire huge areas and zones, Blizzard is breathing a bit of fresh air into their game.

While yes, there will be things missed by the people who have played all along. As I would be sad in the Scarlet Crusade completely dropped off the map... But these old timers can revel in the fact that they have been places, seen things, and fought creatures that the newer players will only ever experience in videos and screenshots.

Overall change in an mmo, if implemented correctly and with the player's enjoyment in mind, can be a good thing that can rejuvenate an IP that feels like it's going stale. And as those of us whom play WoW know, the excitement of a new dungeon/raid only lasts so long, but I feel a whole universe retool will last quite a bit longer.

(Also we won't have to hear people spamming 'Lol i made it on top of Ironforge lol' anymore.)

 

[Mr. Grey]

Hmm... looking back I should have selected "a little", but sometimes that's not enough. So I guess I'm in it with "No" for now, but not entirely... it's just the closest to what I had in mind.

Anyways, if the story is important enough, I think there should be changes to match it. Perhaps not entirely, but enough to give a real sense of it.

 

[tehroc]

I think the Poll question should be better rephrased, all MMOs are persistent. Persistent game world (one which is available when you want to log in) is one of the defining attributes of what makes a game a MMO.

A better question would be "Should MMOGs remain static, or do you welcome world-changing facelifts?"

 

[uppitycracker]

The world should be constantly evolving, not just based on expansion packs. The best MMO's are the ones where the world changes based on player interaction, and an above average MMO developer should constantly introduce elements into the game to allow this to happen. What Cataclysm is doing is spectacular, it actually gives people a reason to level up a new character again, for the sake of seeing the old world in all its new glory.

 

[Dzil]

I always figured the subscription model was to provide the income necessary for constant development, so that the game world could constantly evolve.

Thus far, I'd say I'm largely disappointed in the MMOs out there. They created the financial model to support a persistent and dynamic game world, but then never actually delivered it. We either get do-it-yourself persistence: like EVE online, or if the PVE does come adapt the world from time to time it's watered down like the Balaur sieges in Aion (which can only assault nine locations in the game).

 

[Kaymish]

i like a bit of both im more of a ongoing story girl but i dont mind some of the more static MMOG's

 

[epikAXE]

I think minor changes to certain areas, whether it be for aethtetic reasons or balance issues, over a long period of time is good.

But if you drasticly change the game world your fans are playing in, then they loose the sence of familiarity they have developed thusfar...and dont feel as if they are in control of thier own actions...

 

[Keava]

I think we are still too far from the technology allowing for real changes in the game world in MMOs. WoW changes in WotLK were pretty much instance-specific (like in DK starting area where it was same instance copied several times with changes), in Cata they just revmap all the starting zones.

Personally id love to see a MMO where world changes realtime based on actual decisions made by players, not developers, where progress and balance of opinions changes behaviors, looks etc of cities and landscape.

But as i said. We dont have the technology able to pull it out properly still, so we have to rley on those pseudo-changes offered by expansions/patches.

 

[Jaebird]

I for one think that an MMO should change when it's necessary, because otherwise I would have no real reason to keep playing. I've become bored with nearly everything in World of Warcraft, and I just can't wait for everything to be changed.

 

[UnravThreads]

I voted for "No, MMOGs should reflect an ongoing storyline" for a few reasons.

1. I'm a roleplayer, and MMOs are not famed for their ability to reflect the story.
2. It increases immersion and allows them to do more with the game.

With point 1, a common problem with roleplaying is that the storylines, over time, get jumbled up and confused. What's the current point in the story? Which bad guys are dead? Do you do it based on level or the current patch? Questions like this are common and do lead to disagreements. If the developer every 2-3 expansions (such as Blizzard are doing with Cataclysm) drops a world change, it refreshes the game for veterans and can sort out a few lore/story inconsistencies.

As for point 2, I'm going to use Blizzard again and point to their phasing technique. The world will change in Cataclysm depending on what point you are at in the story, and I think that's a quick fix for certain areas. It gives you the sense of progression as you can 'feel' things changing over time. Bring back some materials, go off on another quest, and when you come back a tower has been built. That doesn't often happen in MMOs as you tend to have to wait for the next patch/expansion for the result to be seen. And with phasing, they can add more quests and different ones. So you might have to go kill 10 goblins and their leader, but when you go for the next one to get (say) some boar meat, the goblins are gone and you don't have to worry about them. It makes it look like they've truly gone.

Yeah, I've no problem with it.

 

[Hicerion]

I think minor changes to certain areas, whether it be for aethtetic reasons or balance issues, over a long period of time is good.

But if you drasticly change the game world your fans are playing in, then they loose the sence of familiarity they have developed thusfar...and dont feel as if they are in control of thier own actions...

But if that's what the developer is hoping for then it can be a good thing. In the case of Cataclysm, Azeroth is supposed to be, as a whole, caught off guard by the sudden and violent return of Deathwing. In this situation the broad, sweeping and sudden changes would go with that motif.

 

[Proteus214]

It only makes sense to have them change. Although I think the community of players should be the determinant of when and how it changes.

 

[Abedeus]

I believe Ragnarok Online "catastrophized" some maps before. Mainly, they trashed one major city and changed most of the areas within 2-3 maps of it to reflect the coming of a new chapter (and an uber-powerful monster).

And I'm all for it.

 

[Acidwell]

The main problem with mmos in my opinion is not enough story and the changing world helps evolve the story in a great way so it's a brilliant idea.