Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What do people want from a game?
Grindalyx
Member UncommonPosts: 657
People complain and bash a game when it is not inovative enough. When it doesn't have any new aspect to it. When it isn't a large world to play in. Then they turn around and complain when the world is to large and empty. When the game play is to new and nothing like the other games. I have come to the relization that people just can't be satisfied. They will never be happy with anything any game company puts out cause they will always want the game to be differant.
I am not speaking only about LOTRO. I am speaking about every game. People hate WOW cause of the cartoony graphics. They hate vangaurd cause it is large and empty. Now not everyone hates these games that is evident in the fact that they have paying comstumers who want and do play these games. But still i have played games were people compain about the game they are playing. I have been guilty of that my self.
It is amazing to me that someone will go to a forum of a game they hate or have no intention of playing and try to convince others to not play that game. Or will go there to stir up and cause problems on the boards. I personally do not go to forums of games i don't like or won't even think of playing.
This is my rant for the day.
Comments
a fun challenge to escape from reality.
This it what all gamers want in the end http://www.darkfallonline.com/
All MMO leads to this game, when you read about it..all bets are off.
WARNING Dont read if you not want the darkfall curse on you....
Fun.
That sounds more stupid then it really is.Space invaders was fun...maniac mansion was fun...dune was fun...phantasmagoria was realistic.....and then things gotten out of hand.
Iam not saying it started with phantasmagoria , could be myst or any other game from that time.The fun things where left out more and more and realism took over.We got flight sims that approached the reality better each year.Soccer games needed to have the characters more and more like the reall players in the top teams.WE wanted the namesused in F1games and sport games to be the onesof the real world too.The mmorpgs then came...in the beginning just fun but then someone thought :mmm let's add some more realism to the game.So you got the quests where you needed to kill x amount of this and that.Everything is about realism these days even in fantasy worlds.Graphix play a BIG part.....And i amthinking damn where is my fun.Where is my hour a day of relaxation.No grinding in an mmorpg is not relaxation...it is putting "effort" into a game as if it was reall life.Again the realism bit.
Think of this : the WII sold more examples then the newest xbox and playstation3.Now PS3 just launched in europa so ok they r a bit behind on schedule i give you that.But what is the BIG difference between WII and xbox+PS3? WII provides pure and plain fun...Xbox and PS3 provide realism/awsome graphix.
Somewhere we forgot the fun.....please bring me back my maniac mansion and pacman ...
Flakes you sir, are a genious and I agree with most of your post. The only problem is that people will always counter argue a post like that with well I find X game fun, or some people to claim grinding is fun and refuse to call it grinding.
I agree with you, and feel your post is spot on.
When you don't have a lot of money, you borrow money. When you're borrowing money you want to make something that you know will make that money back and then some.
Take a look in the past; if you will. A long time ago, back when Age of Empires and Starcraft were supreme, people felt threatened by Blizzard because they simply couldn't make anything they felt would be revolutionary compared to Starcraft. Everything they produced was compared to Starcraft. People picked it apart. Fans of Blizzard spit on the dying carcasses and all the competition died out fast.
However, all good things come to an end and its true even for a silver-back like WoW. Eventually things will just get "too old" and it will stop attracting the player-base it has. The same was said for Starcraft. Now if you were to bring up Starcraft people would make fun of you, simply because it is old. Starcraft was great. Maybe not a great game, but it did something people dared to do. Create something different and revolutionary. It helped create a market for RTS. Just like World of Warcraft helped create a Market for MMORPGs.
Well your first state is that nintendo as a company has more cash then most mmorpg producers so they can risk it.While in fact SONY and Microsoft have loads of more cash then nintendo , yet they try to lure the people in who go for the reality and those mostly are the hardcore gamers between 15 and 35 or so.Nintendo does not aim at the gamingcommunity..instead it put's the focus on actually gettting people to play no matter what age.It appealsto a wider public BUT takes a bigger risk since it needs to get it's customers to play while SOE and microsoft only try to get the best "visual" portable out.
I say try and stand out of the box and try to do what was done in the start of the gaming industrie.Make games that are fun to play...realism doesn't appeal me for a longer time , fun does.And that is why i have tried so many mmorpg's and yet have not found many that "satisfied"me.
Some folks want large, expansive sandbox type worlds to explore and adventure in....
Others prefer lots of instance combat and epic style end game raiding.
Others want the freedom to kill anyone they come across, at any time, for any reason, and really make it hurt.
Others prefer a more controlled Pvp that occurs on their terms.
Some folks love the economic side of the game, and making money is their prime objective.....
and others want an intricate crafting system (go figure)
Others want every drop to be a lottery, with a chance to win a magic sword of supreme whooparse at every kill...
Since game developers can't possibly incorporate all of these elements into one game (some actually are contradictory to others) they make choices aimed at satisfying a particular target market.
What ever choices they make...some folks will love it, others will hate it.... no way around it that I can see.
Which is why we get so many games to choose from...which isn't a bad thing actually... would hate it if there was only "one game" and everyone had to play it....
"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
You're assuming that the broad market of players are " too much time on their hands; teens, masturbating to Final Fantasy Yuna Cos-play".
At least that's the jist of what I got from your comment. The reality is Nintendo is trying to cater to all forms of players. Which is why they are trying to hard get Grand Theft Auto on the Wii.
The problem with the Wii and PS3 is you literally have to create 2 seperate graphics engines because of the processors in the PS3 and the limitations of the Wii.
But this is a forum about MMORPGs, NOT consoles. I suggest we stick to the topic at hand here. As far as fun is concerned, its what you make of it.
You didn't really "grasp" what i wanted to say , WII tries to attrackt people who normally don't game..microsoft and sony go for the excisting gaming community , but i agree wth you that we should not hijack this thread for our personal "discussion"
So fun it is.
What's yours btw...you didn't state that if i am right?
But I would add "... and doesn't feel like work.".
playing eq2 and two worlds
I loved Loderunner and the Scott Adams adventures on the Atari 800 and the best games ever on the PC had to have been Wingman and Privateer ~sigh~
All I want out of LoTRO is a couple of hours a night of plain old adventuring with decent graphics and as few bugs as possible.
I miss DAoC
I like pie !
I loved Loderunner and the Scott Adams adventures on the Atari 800 and the best games ever on the PC had to have been Wingman and Privateer ~sigh~
All I want out of LoTRO is a couple of hours a night of plain old adventuring with decent graphics and as few bugs as possible.
Ahh wing commander and privateer
And xwing and tie fighter....good times. We need another good space combat sim to come out. Anyone heard of any?
it's not always 100% the companys fault. Sometimes it's the players (fanbase). Sometimes they think it's just "cool" to have awesome graphics over game play. Sometimes they think it's more cool to own a PS3 than a Wii. Basically I'm saying companys follow the money trail.
If people buy sugar coated crappy games instead of boycott (I use this term loosely) than companys will continue to churn them out.
Actually DF almost sounds too good to be true. I'll be keeping a close eye on it when it releases to see if it lives up to it's own grandiose expectations.
www.youtube.com/watch
Two big things.
1) Basically what LOTRO is. Very obvious feeling correlation between doing something and getting something out of it. As in, all those jobs/mini-quests scattered around plus the main quest arc and some of the side arcs. I go and do something and I get something out of it above dinging or watching the XP bar advance. Simply killing mobs for good XP/hour no longer appeals to me. Up to a point I don't mind doing something to advance a counter but beyond that point I'll abruptly quit from burning out. I find it much more fun to do a small task of a discrete size and get a little reward all at once, in terms of character advancement. As a model of character advancement, I vastly prefer that structure.
2) Complex systems, which LOTRO really isn't.
Anarchy Online attracted me with its broad itemization and complex trickle down, IP spending, and twinking but drove me away with the seemingly infinite grind for money, items, levels, and token boards. I spent a lot of time meta-gaming up characters and looking at items and wondering how to keep my main and all my little alts from being gimps (though I wouldn't mind it if systems were flexible enough to recover from gimping relatively easily). That was a lot of fun.
Hopefully there will eventually be a game that marries the advancement I like to a nice complex rule set. For now I usually end up playing one or the other. Since I've done the latter, I'm now doing the former. Besides, its Lord of the Rings. Thats an enjoyment multiplier bonus as far as I'm concerned.
EDIT: And no, I'm not looking for Darkfall. I'm not looking for any RPG with twitchy targeting really. I plan on trying one to get a feel for it but I don't like the idea.
Ultimate game -
Take all the things that the top games have that make them interesting and unique and combine them into one decently bug free system.
Make a game that has 10,000 odd quests of varrying scale.
Small scale quests that begin and end a story that has nothing to do with the main story. Like save a cat or kill a wolf that is killing someones sheep.
Medium sized quests that effect your standing with a faction/ village/ zone etc...
Long quests that build up the story.
Life quests that you never finish - like mastering a trade or craft.
Players are highly customizable, change over time - battle scars, longer beards, skin colour, longer ears etc...
What really would be interesting is if your players grew old and died. But have no fear, your charcter belongs to a family.
You also customize your family traits. When you grow to old to fight, your nephew or son or daughter or cousin takes your place. You would of course have to option of naming your new character.
If people hate that idea, then have it as an option to turn on and off. A Benefit could be that your "replacement" would already be level 10 and comes with his/her own gear. Also, they would get bonuses to your former crafts or skills as it is a "family talent".
This could lead to generations of charcters that would have higher then normal stats in everything if you branched out.
Create a story line that has an enemy of unmerciful brutality and is lead by an "evil god"(or what ever works best) as well as two or 3 opposing factions made up of various races.
The varying races all are some how caught in the middle of this crisis. - Their gods oppose the evil god.
They now must fight to win the war.
Quests are done to uncover why this evil has decided to wage war.
THIS is important, you see - by not questing to eventually defeate the god you can come up with different senarios.
Many zones have contested area and will auto pvp your status. These Zones can be captured for periods of time until the opposing side npc force take it back and the zone is reset. NPC force levels are variable by population of the players currently in the zone - so if everyone averages lvl 10 in that zone the NPCs are going to be from lvl 5-13. This makes people interested in holding the zone. IF human players want to retake a zone they can retake it at any time.
now,
SUch as...
Randomly, say once a month or every couple of weaks.
The evil god launches an offensive. All players are given the chance to fight in this event regardless of level.
Enemies of varying lvls would come at the human players in waves.
Incentive to play in this battle is improved item drops, boosted exp and other player improvements.
How ever, this battle is not instanced.
Think of the Darkmoon Faire in WOW, one day NPC troops arrive at a random zone. The zone is converted over a week to a battle ground.
I know, your thinking about lag issues.
SOlution. The environment is changed. Trees are cut down for defensive structures untill eventually there is nothing but a defended village and an enemy camp. Zones become scorched plaines. Limit human attack force to managable number. If it would make things less laggy, have attacks occure on 2 different fronts.
"ahh yes but Juggy, what about after the battle? what about the trees"
Simple. its a magic world. Druids or what ever, come and bring life back to the battle field.(this could even be a druid life quest)
Now if you wanted to have an oppsing group to your standard good guy elves and humans etc... you still could under this system.
They're Gods also feel threatend by this evil god. When the great battle commence, they put asside differnces and help in the fight.
Of course in this game, you could have dragons to fight in instanced areas or even public quests to take one down.
Monsters would appear every once and a while and attack villages. Institute a witching hour where this becomes an attraction in various zones.
Take the Age of conan Combat system and get some arcade action in on melee combat.
To suck more money from our pockets -
Once the expansion is ready. A massive battle will unfold in every zone. the server population must try to win back every zone once doing so, you defeate the god's elite force and then the god who takes on a collosal form.
Bang! expansion comes out and a new threat does the same thing. we continue to subscribe.
why do i like my idea?
I think it eliminates any need for grinding. Questing in a rich and compelling environment is what RPG is all about.
I would rather quest and complete objectives then do more then 3 kill "13 vultures" type quests.
It has open pvp systems but doesn't force people to pvp. It does however entice people to take part in pvping, since they will most likely be fighting people of similar levels, especially if there are no seperation between rival factions, like, these are the orc lands and these are the human lands, where they meet are contested zones. Everyone basically lives on top of each other. To deter people from killing people who are lower levels, their gods punish them with hexes or long lasting buffs or even docking levels or skill points, yet for self preservation purposes, if they are attacked first then they can retaliate.
It has epic battles that people will remember rather then raiding some dungeon for the x time.
It has enough customization that people will carve out thier own unique path.
It offers an end of sorts and a final goal. But with new content will keep people coming back to do it all over again.
An improved combat system would make melee fighting more interesting, especially if you could chop of people arms or heads. being able to target attacks to certain areas would be interesting and not as boring as targeting and rapidly clicking.
Questing and leveling can be done anyway people see fit. Public quets and zone defence. Captureing ZOnes and pvping. Questing. Dungeons and raids, epic battlefields.
Companies ARE afraid to think outside the box and make and offering (after spending countless amounts of manpower, money, time) only to have the fickle gameplayers decide they want something else.
Then those companies have to either justify the losses to their investors or even worse. They tank.
It costs a lot of money to make a game. No one really knows what will "hit". And there are a lot of people who want to work in the game industry for a living.
Not many people are willing to make huge decisions on their products only to then put themselves out of work.
The problem here is that gameplayers (for some reason) have this feeling that game companies are there to make "their" perfect game. Only to then have the players move on to the next best thing.
These game companies are businesses with employees. These employees have salaries, health insurance, maybe mortgages and families.
How many businesses are going to be "experimental", even if they put great thought into it, and risk going under. Or even just getting fired.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think games have gone downhill over the last while. People played diablo 2 for at least 5 years. People still play starcraft. How many people play The Sims and subsequent addons? THE SIMS came out in 2000. Its basically the same game with addons and its still going strong. SimCity just got better graphics over the years. Fundamentally its still the same game.
I believe developers are afraid to pull out all the stops on a game. They give you half a game and complete it through patches over the next 6 months.
This practice, I believe, has impacted negatively on the industry. Everyone needs to pump the game out as fast as possible and quality suffers.
Make the game as great as it can be, release it. Add additional content every so often that it keeps people interested.
or
make the game so addicting people can't stop.
The great games were great because of thier longevity. People remember them.
Companies ARE afraid to think outside the box and make and offering (after spending countless amounts of manpower, money, time) only to have the fickle gameplayers decide they want something else.
Then those companies have to either justify the losses to their investors or even worse. They tank.
It costs a lot of money to make a game. No one really knows what will "hit". And there are a lot of people who want to work in the game industry for a living.
Not many people are willing to make huge decisions on their products only to then put themselves out of work.
The problem here is that gameplayers (for some reason) have this feeling that game companies are there to make "their" perfect game. Only to then have the players move on to the next best thing.
These game companies are businesses with employees. These employees have salaries, health insurance, maybe mortgages and families.
How many businesses are going to be "experimental", even if they put great thought into it, and risk going under. Or even just getting fired.
Very well stated. A huge problem with many gamers who make that "innovation" complaint is that they see game companies as "things" and don't consider that the game companies are in it to make money first. If they don't make money, then they cease to make games.
Then again, in the amount of gamers out there I don't believe you have you have many folks who are at decision making levels where they work, if they work, so that mentality isn't something that comes automatically. Honestly, I can't think of too many fields that require the radical change approach. I mean, look at movies. We get the same, constant rehash of titles we've seen in the past. Clones, as some people here like to say.
Most people here that have seen the movie 300 would probably say it was awesome. I could just as easily cry "Sparticus Clone" with better graphics. No, the trend today, as I see it, is not leaning toward innovation as it is more toward refinement. Companies are looking to take existing successful models and improve upon them, knowing that the public already likes the base concept and hoping that their "twist" will allows equal or greater success than the predecessor.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
give me a game that is based on hybrids and not your typical warrior mage priest class's. pvp that is long and drawn out and skillful, not dice rolls and based on system generated procs. stratedgy is always nice. pvp is in open world, not based in instance's. options to join FFA servers. gear is not a grind.
pretty much not LOTR=) g'luck with your game. hope it fits all of you.