There is an infamous quote by Sunsword, a producer of Ultima Online, that "Trammel will not be a mirror." And then later, when Trammel actually was copied as a mirror of existing lands, here tries to cover his tracks:http://update.uo.com/cgi-bin/comments.pl?id=87
It may have seemed like Trammel was a brilliant idea, but even completely putting the rulesets aside, merely doubling the housing land mass overnight and splitting and spreading the existing community in two was a terrible mistake for the long-term. Overnight the game became half as populated, with twice as many towns. For a game like the previous Ultima Online where community was one of it's strongest features, that was deadly blow. Further, by doubling the housing overnight, the developers halved the value and preceived achievement in obtaining a house, one of the greatest accomplishments in the game, and they did this to their entire playerbase overnight. Suddenly all the homes and the acheivement that players had accomplished in earning them were half as meaningful.
But of course the worst disaster of all is still the moronic idea that two sets of rules can co-exist for the exact same game when one of the sets of rules is easier, with no consequence.
We get that you don't like the current offerings , i imgine lots of us were or are watching certain betas. While to each there own on what they choose to spend money and time with i find myself playing more console games then looking at any new mmorpgs.
While obviously some folks still enjoying whatever it is they are still subscribed to I have no current subscriptions at this time nor do i see that changing in the near future.
I think you may have some points in the type of game you want I just do not see it happening for a while. While the big pink elephant is still proftiable and lions share of the market more clones to come to be continued for a long while......
Those of you who say WOW is simple lack the capacity to understand that the complexity of a mechanism is not the absolute value or sum of all it's parts but rather it's effect on the cosmos. WOW is more complex then 99 percent of mmorpgs released.
Those of you who say WOW is simple lack the capacity to understand that the complexity of a mechanism is not the absolute value or sum of all it's parts but rather it's effect on the cosmos. WOW is more complex then 99 percent of mmorpgs released.
WoW is simple, and that has been the argument here Roadwarriors. It is a "Simple, plain and easy to play game", and that is also the argument. I've played WoW for two years, it is a simple game, and it gets boring on End-Game. Once you do get your epics, all you do is run around in circles in big citys and wait for BGs, so you can hear more people complain.
And so WoW is more complex than EVE? Ha. EVE is to complex sometimes, exspecially for newbies, i know that quit just because of the complexity in the game, it takes alot of time to learn.
Next up, the widely spoken about, Ultima Online, or UO. Ultima Online far surpasses the complexity of that game, where you get actual houses, the PvP. Ha, i remember being in houses and throwing explosion potions out my balcony. Even today UO, it's more complex than WoW, the graphics may not be as good, but you still do the same thing, it's a race to get the best gear, in trammel, and then what? You sit around in your big house, with your Nightmare, maybe a dragon if your a tamer. Oh yeah, and Tamers get dragons.
Let's talk about SWG, even with this recent addition, it is more complex than WoW. The game is way more indepth than, "Grind", "Quests", "Run around in circles", "Duel random people", "Grind some more", and repeat.
AC, DAoC, EQ, PotBS, Astonia 3 even.
So no, you're wrong. And people here that even still love and play WoW, admit, it is a simple, yet fun and stressfree game. If you're going to be a WoW Fanboy at least be truthful about things.
If we actually look at the facts, we see that it wasn't a "deadly blow" in any way or form.. that so called moronic idea seems to worked just fine.
Six months after the release of Trammel UO had only grown by 15,000 subscriptions from the 185,000 gained in the pre-Trammel era. Within a year after the release of Trammel UO did suffer a deadly blow to growth, when it stopped and UO began losing subscriptions for the first time ever, even though the market was growing exponentially.
If we actually look at the facts, we see that it wasn't a "deadly blow" in any way or form.. that so called moronic idea seems to worked just fine.
Six months after the release of Trammel UO had only grown by 15,000 subscriptions from the 185,000 gained in the pre-Trammel era. Within a year after the release of Trammel UO did suffer a deadly blow to growth, when it stopped and UO began losing subscriptions for the first time ever, even though the market was growing exponentially.
Stats don't tell everything semp, remember Asheron's Call had just been released 3 months before in nov of 1999 and Everquest had JUST released Kurark that march of 2000. I bleieve both of those had more to do with the loss of subscribers then the introduction of Trammel.
--D^t
Currently Playing: GW2 Retired: Shadowbane, DAoC, WoW, FFXI, Eve Online, SWToR
If we actually look at the facts, we see that it wasn't a "deadly blow" in any way or form.. that so called moronic idea seems to worked just fine.
Six months after the release of Trammel UO had only grown by 15,000 subscriptions from the 185,000 gained in the pre-Trammel era. Within a year after the release of Trammel UO did suffer a deadly blow to growth, when it stopped and UO began losing subscriptions for the first time ever, even though the market was growing exponentially. I started to lose GROWING speed, but it didn't lose PLAYERS, and thats a diffrence.
Honnestly, I don't understand why you expect a game to grow just as much after 3 years as it did when it was first released. Close to every ga,e subscribtion number stopped rising & dropped after a certain amount of time. Did Dark Age of camelot released a "killing expansion" in 2002 july, when its numbers dropped? Ofcourse not.
Did Asherons Call released a "klling" expansion around january 2001? No it didn't.
Did Everquest did at around july 2003? Nope.
Final Fantasy XI between January 2005 and January 2006? Nope.
Uo was a great game, a great game that I quit shortly after the release of trammel.
I demand no one talks crap to me about this post, because I am simply stating a fact, that I quit after trammel. I am in no way saying that uo got incredibly lame, retarded, and a crap fest for scared lil newbs who didnt want to have any fun kinda game, game. Thxs in advance.
P.S. If you do happen for some wierd reason, have a problem with my post. And decide to tell me, dont be surprised if I dont answer. Ok hope everyone finds a game they like and after playing it for a long time complain that the devs ruined it with one way or another. Thxs have a good day
BTW what do you mean by non-challenging? Because I am playing MMORPG since 1998 and I never found any "Challenging" MMORPG.
So if by challenging you mean High Grinding experience like in EQ I think that it s a good point that devs try to find some other way to get customers.
Originally posted by Hakiko Originally posted by zaxtor99 Seriously. It's now 2007 and look at the most popular all the mmos that we as gamers have so graciously accepted as our mmorpg of the year 2007 are aparently still playing. Shallow and non-challenging Old UIs, ancient graphics, and low populations. Now before all you WOW UO fans try and flame me and tell me that WOW UO is challenging still fun, I really want you to "stop" first and ask yourself if grinding out those top levels are really leveling all those skills is and gathering resources challenging or if its just boring. There IS a big difference you know! Isn't it sad when Ultima Online, even with all of its trammel "protect the weak at heart" nonsense attempt to protect paying customers from griefers, is still one of the deepest and most challenging mmos out there trying to convince me that its ok to have samuri? And what we have accepted as a replacement is pretty eye-candy graphics you can see, that is nothing but a seriously long grind-fest a game which doesn't attempt to drive away its consumers in the first hour and is quite honestly only a challenge to a retarded and blind monkey user friendly version of an MMO that sold more than my favorite one! Anyone's great grandmother or very young child can play and excel at a game like World of Warcraft, you don't have to be a member of the superior basement dwelling homo nojobicus species. Hell, my 5 year old daughter plays it for crying out loud, and everyone knows about her! She also plays "Barbie Horse Adventures" on my PS2. So perhaps 7.5 million should jump on Barbie's latest PS2 adventure because it too is simple and easy and mindless to play if you are over the age of say 8 years old, for Gods sake you don't even have to click on 2D icons!!!11one1!. Some of you may call me hardcore I hope this rant will make me considered more hardcore than your grandmother and my 5 year old. And that I am the exception rather the rule of what mmo fans love today, and if MMO companies catered to me there would be no more MMOs due to lack of money. But that's exactly my point! Shouldn't more of us desire more challenge in our mmos?I don't want casual players to be able to play MMOs, they made fun of me in high school and here I feel superior. Shouldn't we want SOME kind of consequence of dying in the game?for being griefed by a botter, a 13 your old, or lag death? I'm certainly not saying we should love a game where griefing is rewarded, but for crying out loud,we should like a game where there is big rewards for big risks low skilled workers spending large amounts of time and the simple fact is most of todays mmos have very little if no "risk" pointless punishments that ruin your evening what-so-ever! You never lose a damn thing if you mindlessly can tell you are about to run your level 6 avatar into a red level 50 mob due to the realism of my character knowing something about the world he lives in. The higher the risk longer the time sink, the higher the reward greater the loot drama! But if there is no risk less pointless frustrations (as in no death penalties) then the game is basically "no risk, all reward" has more people that can challenge my sad feeling of superiority. And we wonder why so many (more than even played Generation 1)get so bored of todays mmos after just a short period of time, instead of just leaving them all together like in UO. Compare that to the avid (and numerous, God there are like thousands!!11one!! of us) fans of older slower mmos like the original Everquest, Asheron's Call (1), and the old school Ultima Online (Pre-Trammel). In those classics where there is a huge risk vs reward challenge timesink, the a small percentage of the fans of the late 90's when those games blossomed STILL play their games almost a decade later! We really should be ashamed for supporting such mindless, un-challenging, all-reward, no risk eye candy today blasting people who enjoy something different that us, obviously they are idiots. Go ahead and flame away WoW fans. but atleast provide some kind of thought process in your flames mindless insulting rant like I did, please. - Zaxx
Look, I love the old MMO style. I love that great virtual world feel, however I do not feel threatened in any way by the fact that some people prefer other things. In fact I can even enjoy BOTH! I know crazyness! The world has shades of grey and no one is out to get me. The fact is that those old style MMOs were fun. There was alot of great exploring and experimenting. However most of the experimenting was more along the lines of this: Hakiko: what goblins? Hakiko: I want to know more about goblins Hakiko: can you tell me about goblins Hakiko: I can fight the goblins Hakiko: I am curious about goblins Your skill in User Interface has improved!(1) A main focus on the cheat sites was dealing with the user interface, not the game content itself. There were score of "How do I switch to run?" threads, and people (some of them Devs!) had to look things up to answer. But this was cool, we were the early adopters, we expect these kinds of things. We enjoyed video games so much that we were willing to put up with this to be on the bleeding edge. I don't blame people who prefer a more polished product. Much of the "exploration" went like this: You have entered The Dark Forest A snake attacks! A snake kicks you for 44569523 HP! Thou art dead Returning to bind site 2.5 hours from here. Again we were fine with these balance issues because of the early adopter thing. However it is completely unreasonable to assume that a trained priest or wizard would not know what creatures can cream him 4 miles from home. With that many dangerous creatures right outside the city gates this would be a large part of any childhood education. So the new generation of MMOs is a little easier to play, they take a little(not much) less time, and have less unexplainable sudden deaths. They are aimed at the more casual player who can't afford to loose half a nights work every time they die. They are also aimed at those of us hardcore players who just don'e have as much time as we like anymore. We need those players. I want to see a new crop of virtual world type MMOs, I really do. These people provide the player base that will allow for true diversity in out genre. Remember when all video games were basically a spaceship flying through a side scrolling level. Those twitch shooters were hardcore!! No way my grandmother and sister could play those! But they could play Mario brothers, and Pac Man. They drove up the amount of money being pumped into video games and some of them were looking for more after they ate enough power pellets. The development money and increase in customer base allowed us to have Zelda and yes Ultima IV. As this new influx of players starts looking for something new, and they will, we will see that the third generation can be about diversity and hopefully get that magical virtual world.
This post is the work of a mmorpg.com TROLL. Taking the time to complete tear apart a post with ones valid posts and opinions and completely turning it upside down for the only reason of mockery and sarcasm is troll work. Nice flame work, troll.
Stats don't tell everything semp, remember Asheron's Call had just been released 3 months before in nov of 1999 and Everquest had JUST released Kurark that march of 2000. I bleieve both of those had more to do with the loss of subscribers then the introduction of Trammel.
No stats don't tell everything, but it's much better to focus on stats and facts than mere opinions and speculations of forum posters.
Missed the rest of the thread? The release and growth of EQ and AC to over 300,000 had no significant effect on the growth of pre-Trammel UO (see graph below). Why? How could this be possible? Because the market was growing exponentially, just as it has been since the beginning and still is now. And, UO was offering the market something unique. It was not until after UO became a consensual game also, competing directly with these newer prettier consensual games, that UO lost.
Trammel was definately a cause. Why? Even the UO producer, Sunsword, admitted that the Trammel split drastically changed the game. It is never acceptable to change the rules in the middle of any game without getting the majority to approve of it, and even when you do, those that are not happy with the rule changes will very likely quit. Is it only coincidence that UO stopped growing after two and a half years of steady growth, in an exponentially expanding market, after a drastic change to the game? Is that what you would believe? Or, is it more likely that the drastic change had something to do with the change in growth which followed? In a market growing exponentially, as long as you are offering something competitive and unique, then there is a good opportunity for attracting some of the growing market and continuing to grow. But, change what you are offering into something competitors are offering, and offering better, and you have slit your own throat.
Trammel essentially changed the rules of the game overnight, dispersed the population, split the community in half and put the old 2d game in direct competition with Everquest.
Trammel was definately a cause. Why? Even the UO producer, Sunsword, admitted that the Trammel split drastically changed the game. Is it only coincidence that UO stopped growing after two and a half years of steady growth, in an exponentially expanding market, after a drastic change to the game? Is that what you would believe? Or, is it more likely that the drastic change had something to do with the change in growth which followed? In a market growing exponentially, as long as you are offering something competitive and unique, then there is a good opportunity for attracting some of the growing market and continuing to grow. But, change what you are offering into something competitors are offering, and offering better, and you have slit your own throat. Trammel essentially changed the rules of the game overnight, dispersed the population and split the community in half. It is never acceptable to change the rules in the middle of any game without getting the majority to approve of it, and even when you do, those that are not happy with the rule changes will very likely quit.
Problem is your narrow viewpoint. Trammel made the game a success not a failure. Before trammel UO was losing customers hand over fist. After trammel UO had its highest rate of growth at any time in its 10yrs of existance. This was even with strong competiton from EQ, AC, DAOC and even with the game being 3yrs old at the time. FFA PVP failed in UO and has failed in MMO's since. Only people that like griefing are griefers and they cant even play together and they represent a very small group of antisocial kids. There are games including UO that have FFA PVP servers and every one of them has failed. UO cant even fill one single FFA server out of 20. DAOC has had to shut down one of two FFA pvp servers and is probably gonna shut down the other one soon because its dead. They cant combine it with any other servers because nobody wants the FFA PVP kids on thier server.
I personally think if the dev's had a choice to either one get another 2k subs from FFA pvper community or somehow ban all 2k FFA PVPers they would rather just ban them. FFA pvpers ruin communities they are in. Just a few can cause so much "grief" for an entire server its really not even worth thier money. They also tend to be the hacker crowd, exploiter crowd, flamer crowd and generally they complain the most on forums of any group there is. Why would a game even want to appeal to any of this group. Now you understand why no popular game will even touch this group.
UO was completely successful without Trammel, growing to 185,000 subscriptions, earning the game over 90% of it's professional awards and recognition and 74% of the game's peak subscription numbers. By comparison, Trammel was not much of a success.
As far as players leaving the game before Trammel, explain where this happened. Show us on the below graph the point where UO lost all these subscribers. The point where, in your words, UO was "losing subscribers hand over fist." All I see is solid growth.
Problem is your narrow viewpoint. Trammel made the game a success not a failure. Before trammel UO was losing customers hand over fist. After trammel UO had its highest rate of growth at any time in its 10yrs of existance. This was even with strong competiton from EQ, AC, DAOC and even with the game being 3yrs old at the time. FFA PVP failed in UO and has failed in MMO's since. Only people that like griefing are griefers and they cant even play together and they represent a very small group of antisocial kids. There are games including UO that have FFA PVP servers and every one of them has failed. UO cant even fill one single FFA server out of 20. DAOC has had to shut down one of two FFA pvp servers and is probably gonna shut down the other one soon because its dead. They cant combine it with any other servers because nobody wants the FFA PVP kids on thier server. I personally think if the dev's had a choice to either one get another 2k subs from FFA pvper community or somehow ban all 2k FFA PVPers they would rather just ban them. FFA pvpers ruin communities they are in. Just a few can cause so much "grief" for an entire server its really not even worth thier money. They also tend to be the hacker crowd, exploiter crowd, flamer crowd and generally they complain the most on forums of any group there is. Why would a game even want to appeal to any of this group. Now you understand why no popular game will even touch this group.
Narrow viewpoint? lol
That's funny considering you think that everyone who likes FFA PVP is automatically a 'griefer' and 'anti-social'.
Is Eve dead? What about all those unoffical pre tram UO servers? Checked out the following for darkfall lately -even though it's been in production for nearly as long as duke nukem forever? How about the AOC forums and the amount of requests for a FFA server?
And as for your last paragraph...man, that's one of the most moronic statements I have ever read. Why do you think companies make dedicated PVP servers in the first place? And wouldn't it be a better idea NOT to invest in these servers to begin with if the target audience the are aiming for is the target audience they wish to ban??? LMAO
As for the 'poor' communities in PVP games, I again have to disagree. AC1 Darktide, DAOC, Eve...all have MUCH better communities than what I have experienced in WOW.
Man, please stick to PVE games and leave your misguided PVP views at the door - at least until you have experienced PVP outside of WOW / EQ.
Well I played 6 years of UO from it's release and that game went downhill fast after Age of Shadows expansion. As it presently stands it is pretty much a dead game. UO is rather like Star Wars, it had a lot of good things about it until the devs decided to make alot of changes.
I do agree the present spate of MMO offerings offer little individuallity. The problem is convincing a dev team to take a chance and break from the norm. All I see right now is a bunch of Wow clones trying to differentiate their meager differences.
So, to answer the original question posed, "shouldn’t mmo gamers in 2007 be ASHAMED of the shallow, non-challenging mmo that we have embraced;"
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am definitely dissatisfied with the majority of MMO games available now. In a sense most MMOs have de-evolved into challenge-less time wasters with no meaningful struggle or competition.
Ashamed? Well that depends... I like you am not satisfied or fooled by MMO's 'pretty flashy' things. I'm a storyteller/writer/actor and I LOVE depth, purpose, meaning and most of all, immersion. I can honestly say no MMO has immersed me or enchanted me yet. It's a tricky thing, but it is possible. People just have to put effort into it. Without passion, there is no revolution.
I understand that MMORPG's are an ever growing state of technological wonder - but if you want my MONTHLY payment, you'd better be able to make me love the story, my character and the reality you build. Otherwise, I'll just buy the single player rpg's like Knights of the Old Republic.
I'm not saying it's easy... I'm just saying that instead of 200 bland MMO's, I'd rather see 20 incredible ones. If anyone knows of an MMO that completely enchanted them, please let me know... I'm still in search of the MMO for me.
Why do I write, create, fantasize, dream and daydream about other worlds? Because I hate what humanity does with this one.
Stats don't tell everything semp, remember Asheron's Call had just been released 3 months before in nov of 1999 and Everquest had JUST released Kurark that march of 2000. I bleieve both of those had more to do with the loss of subscribers then the introduction of Trammel.
No stats don't tell everything, but it's much better to focus on stats and facts than mere opinions and speculations of forum posters.
Missed the rest of the thread? The release and growth of EQ and AC to over 300,000 had no significant effect on the growth of pre-Trammel UO (see graph below). Why? How could this be possible? Because the market was growing exponentially, just as it has been since the beginning and still is now. And, UO was offering the market something unique. It was not until after UO became a consensual game also, competing directly with these newer prettier consensual games, that UO lost.
Trammel was definately a cause. Why? Even the UO producer, Sunsword, admitted that the Trammel split drastically changed the game. It is never acceptable to change the rules in the middle of any game without getting the majority to approve of it, and even when you do, those that are not happy with the rule changes will very likely quit. Is it only coincidence that UO stopped growing after two and a half years of steady growth, in an exponentially expanding market, after a drastic change to the game? Is that what you would believe? Or, is it more likely that the drastic change had something to do with the change in growth which followed? In a market growing exponentially, as long as you are offering something competitive and unique, then there is a good opportunity for attracting some of the growing market and continuing to grow. But, change what you are offering into something competitors are offering, and offering better, and you have slit your own throat.
Trammel essentially changed the rules of the game overnight, dispersed the population, split the community in half and put the old 2d game in direct competition with Everquest.
Oh the irony. Your whole arguement is PURE speculation, According to you, people after 8 months left because of Trammel. this is speculation, you have nothing to back it up.You say "But hey look, it stopped growing! If you actually open your eyes and look at that same chart you keep refering to, then you see that EVERY mmorpg at some point stopped growing after a certain amount of time, WITHOUT an expansion killing it.
Did Asherons Call released a "klling" expansion around january 2001? No it didn't.
Did Everquest did at around july 2003? Nope.
Final Fantasy XI between January 2005 and January 2006? Nope.
Everquest 2 at January 2005? Nope.
If the gamer shortly after trammel started to LOSE players, then you would at least have a tiny arguement to stand it on. but it didn't, UO's subscriber base kept growing. Not as fast, which is natural, since the game AGED. it was OLD.
Ashamed? Well that depends... I like you am not satisfied or fooled by MMO's 'pretty flashy' things. I'm a storyteller/writer/actor and I LOVE depth, purpose, meaning and most of all, immersion. I can honestly say no MMO has immersed me or enchanted me yet. It's a tricky thing, but it is possible. People just have to put effort into it. Without passion, there is no revolution. I understand that MMORPG's are an ever growing state of technological wonder - but if you want my MONTHLY payment, you'd better be able to make me love the story, my character and the reality you build. Otherwise, I'll just buy the single player rpg's like Knights of the Old Republic. I'm not saying it's easy... I'm just saying that instead of 200 bland MMO's, I'd rather see 20 incredible ones. If anyone knows of an MMO that completely enchanted them, please let me know... I'm still in search of the MMO for me.
The original Ultima Online enchanted many, including me, but it only lasted for 2.5 years until 2000, when corporate giant Electronic Arts got rid of the designer of the Ultima series, a computer gaming industry legend, Richard Garriott and crew and turned Ultima Online into a video game. I'm not "enchanted" by Roma Victor yet, but what other choice is there?
I unfortunately never had the chance to play UO. Something I wish would happen would be an MMO akin to Fable but much more advanced. Where you besically make your own adventures, choose your path through the decisions you make and your actions... even the words you choose to say to NPC's. I had very high hopes for Vanguard because of the incredible amount of customizaton options but I'm no longer so sure on what to think about it. I'll decide after trying it.
Either way, to get back to the topic I don't think we should really be ashamed... we're all just hoping to play a great game and the developers work hard, they're trying. MMO's are not easy and it's hard not to lose perspective... I just wish more attention was paid to the fundamentals of RPG's. STORY FIRST. Everything else after. I've played many a game with bad game play just because the story interested me... and gameplay mechanics can always be tweaked. But if there's an obvious lack of effort on immersion, you're not going to win anyone's heart/mind.
Why do I write, create, fantasize, dream and daydream about other worlds? Because I hate what humanity does with this one.
Comments
There is an infamous quote by Sunsword, a producer of Ultima Online, that "Trammel will not be a mirror." And then later, when Trammel actually was copied as a mirror of existing lands, here tries to cover his tracks: http://update.uo.com/cgi-bin/comments.pl?id=87
It may have seemed like Trammel was a brilliant idea, but even completely putting the rulesets aside, merely doubling the housing land mass overnight and splitting and spreading the existing community in two was a terrible mistake for the long-term. Overnight the game became half as populated, with twice as many towns. For a game like the previous Ultima Online where community was one of it's strongest features, that was deadly blow. Further, by doubling the housing overnight, the developers halved the value and preceived achievement in obtaining a house, one of the greatest accomplishments in the game, and they did this to their entire playerbase overnight. Suddenly all the homes and the acheivement that players had accomplished in earning them were half as meaningful.
But of course the worst disaster of all is still the moronic idea that two sets of rules can co-exist for the exact same game when one of the sets of rules is easier, with no consequence.
While obviously some folks still enjoying whatever it is they are still subscribed to I have no current subscriptions at this time nor do i see that changing in the near future.
I think you may have some points in the type of game you want I just do not see it happening for a while. While the big pink elephant is still proftiable and lions share of the market more clones to come to be continued for a long while......
And so WoW is more complex than EVE? Ha. EVE is to complex sometimes, exspecially for newbies, i know that quit just because of the complexity in the game, it takes alot of time to learn.
Next up, the widely spoken about, Ultima Online, or UO. Ultima Online far surpasses the complexity of that game, where you get actual houses, the PvP. Ha, i remember being in houses and throwing explosion potions out my balcony. Even today UO, it's more complex than WoW, the graphics may not be as good, but you still do the same thing, it's a race to get the best gear, in trammel, and then what? You sit around in your big house, with your Nightmare, maybe a dragon if your a tamer. Oh yeah, and Tamers get dragons.
Let's talk about SWG, even with this recent addition, it is more complex than WoW. The game is way more indepth than, "Grind", "Quests", "Run around in circles", "Duel random people", "Grind some more", and repeat.
AC, DAoC, EQ, PotBS, Astonia 3 even.
So no, you're wrong. And people here that even still love and play WoW, admit, it is a simple, yet fun and stressfree game. If you're going to be a WoW Fanboy at least be truthful about things.
"Peace is in the eye of the beholder"
Six months after the release of Trammel UO had only grown by 15,000 subscriptions from the 185,000 gained in the pre-Trammel era. Within a year after the release of Trammel UO did suffer a deadly blow to growth, when it stopped and UO began losing subscriptions for the first time ever, even though the market was growing exponentially.Stats don't tell everything semp, remember Asheron's Call had just been released 3 months before in nov of 1999 and Everquest had JUST released Kurark that march of 2000. I bleieve both of those had more to do with the loss of subscribers then the introduction of Trammel.
--D^t
Currently Playing: GW2
Retired: Shadowbane, DAoC, WoW, FFXI, Eve Online, SWToR
The Aphelion MMO Blog - GW2 Initial Impressions
To level and get good armor.
2. Once you have obtained max level, what is the point?
To get uber armor.
3. Once you have obtained uber armor, what is the point?
To PvP.
4. What is the point of PvP?
To get uber armor, and make videos.
5. Once you've reached max level, with good armor, and made epeen flexing videos, what do you do?
I don't know.
6. Can you change the world? If no, why not?
No. The developers don't want to you.
7. So, why do you play?
Social interaction.
8. Don't you think there's a game that allows you social interaction without repetetiveness?
I don't know any.
Refer to sig. That is all...
www.darkfallonline.com
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Honnestly, I don't understand why you expect a game to grow just as much after 3 years as it did when it was first released. Close to every ga,e subscribtion number stopped rising & dropped after a certain amount of time. Did Dark Age of camelot released a "killing expansion" in 2002 july, when its numbers dropped? Ofcourse not.
Did Asherons Call released a "klling" expansion around january 2001? No it didn't.
Did Everquest did at around july 2003? Nope.
Final Fantasy XI between January 2005 and January 2006? Nope.
Everquest 2 at January 2005? Nope.
Quote: We really should be ashamed for supporting such mindless, un-challenging, all-reward, no risk eye candy today.
Ah! The beauty of choices.
I want to log on - play for 30 minutes a day - have fun - and accomplish something with my character.
I'm not some nerdy teen with all the time in the world. I have a family, job and other personal activities to attend to.
Am I ashamed? Most certainly not. In fact, I will never play a "level grind" game again.
Uo was a great game, a great game that I quit shortly after the release of trammel.
I demand no one talks crap to me about this post, because I am simply stating a fact, that I quit after trammel. I am in no way saying that uo got incredibly lame, retarded, and a crap fest for scared lil newbs who didnt want to have any fun kinda game, game. Thxs in advance.
P.S. If you do happen for some wierd reason, have a problem with my post. And decide to tell me, dont be surprised if I dont answer. Ok hope everyone finds a game they like and after playing it for a long time complain that the devs ruined it with one way or another. Thxs have a good day
BTW what do you mean by non-challenging? Because I am playing MMORPG since 1998 and I never found any "Challenging" MMORPG.
So if by challenging you mean High Grinding experience like in EQ I think that it s a good point that devs try to find some other way to get customers.
Always fun to watch trolls go around in circles with the same boring attitude..
-Semper ubi sub ubi!
always wear underwear
The fact is that those old style MMOs were fun. There was alot of great exploring and experimenting. However most of the experimenting was more along the lines of this:
Hakiko: what goblins?
Hakiko: I want to know more about goblins
Hakiko: can you tell me about goblins
Hakiko: I can fight the goblins
Hakiko: I am curious about goblins
Your skill in User Interface has improved!(1)
A main focus on the cheat sites was dealing with the user interface, not the game content itself. There were score of "How do I switch to run?" threads, and people (some of them Devs!) had to look things up to answer. But this was cool, we were the early adopters, we expect these kinds of things. We enjoyed video games so much that we were willing to put up with this to be on the bleeding edge. I don't blame people who prefer a more polished product.
Much of the "exploration" went like this:
You have entered The Dark Forest
A snake attacks!
A snake kicks you for 44569523 HP!
Thou art dead
Returning to bind site 2.5 hours from here.
Again we were fine with these balance issues because of the early adopter thing. However it is completely unreasonable to assume that a trained priest or wizard would not know what creatures can cream him 4 miles from home. With that many dangerous creatures right outside the city gates this would be a large part of any childhood education.
So the new generation of MMOs is a little easier to play, they take a little(not much) less time, and have less unexplainable sudden deaths. They are aimed at the more casual player who can't afford to loose half a nights work every time they die. They are also aimed at those of us hardcore players who just don'e have as much time as we like anymore.
We need those players. I want to see a new crop of virtual world type MMOs, I really do. These people provide the player base that will allow for true diversity in out genre. Remember when all video games were basically a spaceship flying through a side scrolling level. Those twitch shooters were hardcore!! No way my grandmother and sister could play those! But they could play Mario brothers, and Pac Man. They drove up the amount of money being pumped into video games and some of them were looking for more after they ate enough power pellets. The development money and increase in customer base allowed us to have Zelda and yes Ultima IV.
As this new influx of players starts looking for something new, and they will, we will see that the third generation can be about diversity and hopefully get that magical virtual world.
This post is the work of a mmorpg.com TROLL. Taking the time to complete tear apart a post with ones valid posts and opinions and completely turning it upside down for the only reason of mockery and sarcasm is troll work. Nice flame work, troll.
- Zaxx
No stats don't tell everything, but it's much better to focus on stats and facts than mere opinions and speculations of forum posters.
Missed the rest of the thread? The release and growth of EQ and AC to over 300,000 had no significant effect on the growth of pre-Trammel UO (see graph below). Why? How could this be possible? Because the market was growing exponentially, just as it has been since the beginning and still is now. And, UO was offering the market something unique. It was not until after UO became a consensual game also, competing directly with these newer prettier consensual games, that UO lost.
Trammel was definately a cause. Why? Even the UO producer, Sunsword, admitted that the Trammel split drastically changed the game. It is never acceptable to change the rules in the middle of any game without getting the majority to approve of it, and even when you do, those that are not happy with the rule changes will very likely quit. Is it only coincidence that UO stopped growing after two and a half years of steady growth, in an exponentially expanding market, after a drastic change to the game? Is that what you would believe? Or, is it more likely that the drastic change had something to do with the change in growth which followed? In a market growing exponentially, as long as you are offering something competitive and unique, then there is a good opportunity for attracting some of the growing market and continuing to grow. But, change what you are offering into something competitors are offering, and offering better, and you have slit your own throat.
Trammel essentially changed the rules of the game overnight, dispersed the population, split the community in half and put the old 2d game in direct competition with Everquest.
Problem is your narrow viewpoint. Trammel made the game a success not a failure. Before trammel UO was losing customers hand over fist. After trammel UO had its highest rate of growth at any time in its 10yrs of existance. This was even with strong competiton from EQ, AC, DAOC and even with the game being 3yrs old at the time. FFA PVP failed in UO and has failed in MMO's since. Only people that like griefing are griefers and they cant even play together and they represent a very small group of antisocial kids. There are games including UO that have FFA PVP servers and every one of them has failed. UO cant even fill one single FFA server out of 20. DAOC has had to shut down one of two FFA pvp servers and is probably gonna shut down the other one soon because its dead. They cant combine it with any other servers because nobody wants the FFA PVP kids on thier server.
I personally think if the dev's had a choice to either one get another 2k subs from FFA pvper community or somehow ban all 2k FFA PVPers they would rather just ban them. FFA pvpers ruin communities they are in. Just a few can cause so much "grief" for an entire server its really not even worth thier money. They also tend to be the hacker crowd, exploiter crowd, flamer crowd and generally they complain the most on forums of any group there is. Why would a game even want to appeal to any of this group. Now you understand why no popular game will even touch this group.
UO was completely successful without Trammel, growing to 185,000 subscriptions, earning the game over 90% of it's professional awards and recognition and 74% of the game's peak subscription numbers. By comparison, Trammel was not much of a success.
As far as players leaving the game before Trammel, explain where this happened. Show us on the below graph the point where UO lost all these subscribers. The point where, in your words, UO was "losing subscribers hand over fist." All I see is solid growth.
That's funny considering you think that everyone who likes FFA PVP is automatically a 'griefer' and 'anti-social'.
Is Eve dead? What about all those unoffical pre tram UO servers? Checked out the following for darkfall lately -even though it's been in production for nearly as long as duke nukem forever? How about the AOC forums and the amount of requests for a FFA server?
And as for your last paragraph...man, that's one of the most moronic statements I have ever read. Why do you think companies make dedicated PVP servers in the first place? And wouldn't it be a better idea NOT to invest in these servers to begin with if the target audience the are aiming for is the target audience they wish to ban??? LMAO
As for the 'poor' communities in PVP games, I again have to disagree. AC1 Darktide, DAOC, Eve...all have MUCH better communities than what I have experienced in WOW.
Man, please stick to PVE games and leave your misguided PVP views at the door - at least until you have experienced PVP outside of WOW / EQ.
Well I played 6 years of UO from it's release and that game went downhill fast after Age of Shadows expansion. As it presently stands it is pretty much a dead game. UO is rather like Star Wars, it had a lot of good things about it until the devs decided to make alot of changes.
I do agree the present spate of MMO offerings offer little individuallity. The problem is convincing a dev team to take a chance and break from the norm. All I see right now is a bunch of Wow clones trying to differentiate their meager differences.
So, to answer the original question posed, "shouldn’t mmo gamers in 2007 be ASHAMED of the shallow, non-challenging mmo that we have embraced;"
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am definitely dissatisfied with the majority of MMO games available now. In a sense most MMOs have de-evolved into challenge-less time wasters with no meaningful struggle or competition.
Ashamed? Well that depends... I like you am not satisfied or fooled by MMO's 'pretty flashy' things. I'm a storyteller/writer/actor and I LOVE depth, purpose, meaning and most of all, immersion. I can honestly say no MMO has immersed me or enchanted me yet. It's a tricky thing, but it is possible. People just have to put effort into it. Without passion, there is no revolution.
I understand that MMORPG's are an ever growing state of technological wonder - but if you want my MONTHLY payment, you'd better be able to make me love the story, my character and the reality you build. Otherwise, I'll just buy the single player rpg's like Knights of the Old Republic.
I'm not saying it's easy... I'm just saying that instead of 200 bland MMO's, I'd rather see 20 incredible ones. If anyone knows of an MMO that completely enchanted them, please let me know... I'm still in search of the MMO for me.
BOYCOTTING EA / ORIGIN going forward.
No stats don't tell everything, but it's much better to focus on stats and facts than mere opinions and speculations of forum posters.
Missed the rest of the thread? The release and growth of EQ and AC to over 300,000 had no significant effect on the growth of pre-Trammel UO (see graph below). Why? How could this be possible? Because the market was growing exponentially, just as it has been since the beginning and still is now. And, UO was offering the market something unique. It was not until after UO became a consensual game also, competing directly with these newer prettier consensual games, that UO lost.
Trammel was definately a cause. Why? Even the UO producer, Sunsword, admitted that the Trammel split drastically changed the game. It is never acceptable to change the rules in the middle of any game without getting the majority to approve of it, and even when you do, those that are not happy with the rule changes will very likely quit. Is it only coincidence that UO stopped growing after two and a half years of steady growth, in an exponentially expanding market, after a drastic change to the game? Is that what you would believe? Or, is it more likely that the drastic change had something to do with the change in growth which followed? In a market growing exponentially, as long as you are offering something competitive and unique, then there is a good opportunity for attracting some of the growing market and continuing to grow. But, change what you are offering into something competitors are offering, and offering better, and you have slit your own throat.
Trammel essentially changed the rules of the game overnight, dispersed the population, split the community in half and put the old 2d game in direct competition with Everquest.
Oh the irony. Your whole arguement is PURE speculation, According to you, people after 8 months left because of Trammel. this is speculation, you have nothing to back it up.You say "But hey look, it stopped growing! If you actually open your eyes and look at that same chart you keep refering to, then you see that EVERY mmorpg at some point stopped growing after a certain amount of time, WITHOUT an expansion killing it.Did Asherons Call released a "klling" expansion around january 2001? No it didn't.
Did Everquest did at around july 2003? Nope.
Final Fantasy XI between January 2005 and January 2006? Nope.
Everquest 2 at January 2005? Nope.
If the gamer shortly after trammel started to LOSE players, then you would at least have a tiny arguement to stand it on. but it didn't, UO's subscriber base kept growing. Not as fast, which is natural, since the game AGED. it was OLD.
I unfortunately never had the chance to play UO. Something I wish would happen would be an MMO akin to Fable but much more advanced. Where you besically make your own adventures, choose your path through the decisions you make and your actions... even the words you choose to say to NPC's. I had very high hopes for Vanguard because of the incredible amount of customizaton options but I'm no longer so sure on what to think about it. I'll decide after trying it.
Either way, to get back to the topic I don't think we should really be ashamed... we're all just hoping to play a great game and the developers work hard, they're trying. MMO's are not easy and it's hard not to lose perspective... I just wish more attention was paid to the fundamentals of RPG's. STORY FIRST. Everything else after. I've played many a game with bad game play just because the story interested me... and gameplay mechanics can always be tweaked. But if there's an obvious lack of effort on immersion, you're not going to win anyone's heart/mind.
BOYCOTTING EA / ORIGIN going forward.