Persistent universes, are they a good thing, really?

[MadMummy76]

I've seen it many times game devs. boasting about their games, that it will have a persistent universe.

But why saying "persistent universe" has appeal? It seems to me, it's something that everyone just assumes is a good thing without ever stopping to think about what it really means.

I'd argue that that's not really a good thing, in fact it is a con not a pro for me.

The biggest issue with games that have this "feature" is that by design any effect you can have on the game world must be insignificant.
What it basically comes down to is that players can't really affect the game world, as it would affect other players as well. which of course nobody would want. In a sense every classic multiplayer game had a persistent universe as it never changed, everything was set in stone, and the same every time you played.

Current multiplayer games are like giant virtual vivariums. You put the low level life forms in it, and watch them as they chase their tails. You might even add toys to make them more entertaining.
The only difference is that my pet hamster doesn't pay for the privilege, or for a new skin for the ratwheel.

Some gamers might be OK with this, they may even want this experience. But I want games where the game world reacts to my presence, and where I can make a difference. Where I can accomplish something. You can't have that in a persistent universe.

The point of a game to me is to play the role of a hero character. But if you share a game world with thousands or even just dozens of players, you're a nobody, just one of many insignificant dwellers.

You might think this also could be an argument against multiplayer games in general, and that would be correct for many games. But you can make a multiplayer game where the world is not shared.
The only example I can come up with is: Mass Effect 3. If that's how you do a multiplayer experience, then you can make it affect the individual personalised universes of the players instead of one big shared universe.

For those that never played ME3: It's multiplayer portion was a tie in game to the single player part. Where you accomplished certain mission types, and your results added to your war effort's strength in the single player play trough you were in. It had an automatic matchmaking system, and basically zero chat. I loved it, because players were just there to play, not socialize, you were paired with random players who were also there to enjoy the game and to win.

So what do you think about persistent universes, is it a selling point, or is it a negative, or you don't care either way?

[isturbo1984]

I know I am right. So why are you talking to me about it? Why don't you chill the fuck out?

[Courtneylius]

You're right, it doesn't look good. Cool it.

[Courtneylius]

Better comparisons can be made here. Keep that in mind. Thank you.

[isturbo1984]

Originally posted by isturbo1984 View Post

Bad implementation does not mean a system is bad, it just means lazy devs botched the job. MMORPGs, usually, do a good job at having persistent worlds and events, with your more single-player questing or personalized story-based gameplay being quarantined off in "instances." Honestly, I don't see how a person can learn one way or the other here, when it is obvious that it is just another mechanic that falls prey to bad game design.

Edit: I didn't vote. I would have chosen the "neither" option, but pretending my reasoning is simply because I didn't care would be false. It's not my fault the op can't see any possible reason.

Yet you couldn't cite a single good implementation of it. It's a little hard to argue for something if there are no good examples of it. It's like marxism at that point, it looked good on paper, but we ended up with millions starving and 100 million dead when we tried it.

The fuck you talkin about? I said MMOs, lol. I did you one better, I said "usually" MMOs, meaning most of them. So take your pick. If you want a specific game, then you'll have to ask nicely. Being a cunt doesn't look good on paper either, hun.

[ciderPunk1877]

Everybody (not technically everybody, of course) wants the next big thing. People like to get in on the ground floor of the next WoW/Destiny/Ark/whatever.

When developers talk about that stuff, it's a sales tactic to attract those people.

In other words... it's a good thing to people who want it, and irrelevant to people who don't.

[Garrett]

EVE Online has a persistent galaxy. The vast majority of things that happen are because of the players' influence. There are disputes, cold wars, and huge conflicts that all impact everyone's game in some way. There's your example.

[MadMummy76]

Bad implementation does not mean a system is bad, it just means lazy devs botched the job. MMORPGs, usually, do a good job at having persistent worlds and events, with your more single-player questing or personalized story-based gameplay being quarantined off in "instances." Honestly, I don't see how a person can learn one way or the other here, when it is obvious that it is just another mechanic that falls prey to bad game design.

Edit: I didn't vote. I would have chosen the "neither" option, but pretending my reasoning is simply because I didn't care would be false. It's not my fault the op can't see any possible reason.

Yet you couldn't cite a single good implementation of it. It's a little hard to argue for something if there are no good examples of it. It's like marxism at that point, it looked good on paper, but we ended up with millions starving and 100 million dead when we tried it.

[PriestTroit]

I've never seen it done well in a single-player game that isn't a mobile game. I doubt it could work, but they said that for lots of things.

Actually, come to think about it, games like For Honor or Planet Side 2 which have a faction war feature are examples of good persistent worlds in multi-player games. Most MMOs do it well, but that pretty much goes without saying. There are some outliers.

[Animusisters]

Not always necessary, yet they are good in many interesting ways.

[isturbo1984]

Bad implementation does not mean a system is bad, it just means lazy devs botched the job. MMORPGs, usually, do a good job at having persistent worlds and events, with your more single-player questing or personalized story-based gameplay being quarantined off in "instances." Honestly, I don't see how a person can learn one way or the other here, when it is obvious that it is just another mechanic that falls prey to bad game design.

Edit: I didn't vote. I would have chosen the "neither" option, but pretending my reasoning is simply because I didn't care would be false. It's not my fault the op can't see any possible reason.

[MadMummy76]

When something like that is a problem, you know what kind of multiplayer game that is called? It's called a badly designed multiplayer game. If the game world can't change based on the "hero" player's input, then there shouldn't be a hero player. Everyone can't be the hero so nobody should be. And the reason why I call it badly designed is that there are games that have managed it. For example Path of Exile superficially changes the hub areas to reflect the apocalyptic circumstances. But those changes are only visible to a player who has gotten that far in the campaign. They can still see the other players in the town wandering around, but those players might see a blue sky and fresh river water, whereas you see only acid rain and deadly slime. The shape of these areas remains identical so nobody can see players walking into passages that don't exist. New NPCs spawn in locations that earlier NPCs were not occupying, or replace them entirely. So when you go talk to someone, other players might just see you standing around looking into the distance, or talking to an entirely different person earlier in the campaign. That's how you can have a world that changes based on "the hero's" input and have everyone be the hero. From everyone's perspective, everyone else is just some random nobody. They're special. It's pretty much exactly like how I proposed that the customization in Battlefield V should have worked. From the perspective of the player playing a ginger cyber commando lady with blue face paint, everyone else in the battle is just a regular soldier. They're the only special one.

And what's the point of even having a shared world at that point? If everyone is just seeing the world differently, I might as well be playing offline without having to deal with random dudes looking into the distance, or bunny hopping in the background. Or trying to chat to me because I happen to use a female avatar.

My conclusion is that MMO multiplayer is nothing but a compromised experience for the sake of what? To have random people around you in the game.

[Garrett]

The point of a game to me is to play the role of a hero character. But if you share a game world with thousands or even just dozens of players, you're a nobody, just one of many insignificant dwellers.

When something like that is a problem, you know what kind of multiplayer game that is called? It's called a badly designed multiplayer game. If the game world can't change based on the "hero" player's input, then there shouldn't be a hero player. Everyone can't be the hero so nobody should be. And the reason why I call it badly designed is that there are games that have managed it. For example Path of Exile superficially changes the hub areas to reflect the apocalyptic circumstances. But those changes are only visible to a player who has gotten that far in the campaign. They can still see the other players in the town wandering around, but those players might see a blue sky and fresh river water, whereas you see only acid rain and deadly slime. The shape of these areas remains identical so nobody can see players walking into passages that don't exist. New NPCs spawn in locations that earlier NPCs were not occupying, or replace them entirely. So when you go talk to someone, other players might just see you standing around looking into the distance, or talking to an entirely different person earlier in the campaign. That's how you can have a world that changes based on "the hero's" input and have everyone be the hero. From everyone's perspective, everyone else is just some random nobody. They're special. It's pretty much exactly like how I proposed that the customization in Battlefield V should have worked. From the perspective of the player playing a ginger cyber commando lady with blue face paint, everyone else in the battle is just a regular soldier. They're the only special one.

[MadMummy76]

I put neither but what I really meant was it depends. Am I playing that game to enter a virtual world as a virtual me? Then yes because persistence makes it more realistic. Am I just playing a game as a contest or challenge of skill, like chess, then no I'm just there for the"game" of it.

The point of the virtual world should be that it only moves forward while you're in it. If it moves forward even when you're not in it then it's like being in a coma, and waking up for a few hours every week. And that's exactly how mmo's feel like to me. As I don't spend 12 hours with games every day, only 2-3 at a time most, and only a few times a week, it feels like i'm completely out of the loop. The more you play the bigger advantage you have. But if the universe is not persistent you can have a level playing field whether you play 100 hours a week, or 3 hours a week.

[MadMummy76]

All of those things could happen in a persistent universe and without one they'd be a lot less meaningful. Persistent world is necessary for whatever you accomplished to continue to affect things even after you've stopped playing, just because most games fail to live up to that potential doesn't mean that I'd rather not have one considering it's a requirement for a game to be something that really matters. Mostly I think that thanks to having played Haven & Hearth.

The only way it could live up to its potential is if your actions affected every other player in there. But that would be a negative for everyone but you. It's a no-win situation it seems to me.