This guy has made generalized arguments with no proof whatsoever to back up his statements. His entire argument is based upon the idea that FFA games attract a certain kind of audience and couldn't possibly serve another purpose than becoming a cesspool for l33t dewds. The people who subscribe to such lackluster ideologies and shun PvP simply because it isn't their way are the type of carebears that the stereotypes were made for TO BEGIN WITH. What we are talking about isn't hypocrisy it's the truth. Read anything I've ever written anywhere and you'll find I'm not the standard griefer.......look at this guy's argument and it deviates very little from every other anti PvP "activist" you'll find around here or anywhere else. I hope this explanation sufficiently stomps your appraisal of this situation into the ground.
I find it comical though how you come here to call me out about fingerpointing even though the fingerpointing started with the guy you are defending. So it seems not even you can walk in here without a chip on your shoulder. This is the exact problem anyone like me has with trying to break into thick skulls. You are all shut off to the concept before the conversation even begins.
I do not fall into a stereotype and you or anyone else is ill-suited to prove that I do. However, a majority of the people who criticize my beliefs about gaming without even considering the validity of my arguments and the extensive experience on which they are based generally DO fall into a stereotype of their own. I can't stand the losers on either side of the fence....and the fact that there is a fence to begin with is the fault of people like that.
First off, I am not defending anyone especially this guy. Try to read what I said before you put words into my mouth please.
Second, you continue to call this guy a carebear and then go on to deny it is stereotyping because you have deemed it to be the truth. Just because you consider yourself to somehow not fall into any stereotype, doesn't give you the right to stereotype others. I know you consider your OPINION to be the truth, but that doesn't give you the license to stereotype people and complain about being stereotyped in kind. Realize that this guy considers his OPINION to be the truth also. I suggest if you don't want to be stereotyped, then don't go calling other people stereotypes, even though you somehow have convicved yourself that you are justified in doing so, ok?
Third, what concept do I have a preconceived notion about that makes me thick skulled? Just because I pointed out your flaw doesn't mean I take this other guys side against yours.
Please note I am not taking a side on either of your stances or viewpoints in the matter. I don't care about either of your long winded posting histories or thesis essays on the definition of arguing over the internet. I simply pointed out that you criticize someone for stereotyping you and then you turned around and did the same thing to him.
That is another problem is that anyone who doesn't enjoy 24/7 gank or be ganked pvp is a "carebear". On the other hand someone who does enjoy FFA PvP is a "ganker/griefer".
Both of which are incorrect.
As to what will kill WoW it won't be one game, more likely a series of games that will chip away at WoW's subscription base. Whatever game it is may have pvp, but wouldn't be required to have pvp to be successful. PvP really depends on the type of game and the setting it is played in.
I've been arguing about the FFA PVP thing since I first signed up on this site. Unfortunately, the article in question isn't really about FFA PVP.
Risk vs. Reward can mean a lot of different things. It can mean individual gain, like in poker. It can mean team gain, like in spades. It can also mean individual sustainment, as is the case in a permadeath game. Risk vs. Reward can be against game mechanics, like dealing with disasters in Sim City. Risk vs. Reward can also mean a fight over resources, such as tiberium in Command and Conquer. The problem with this thread is that we've all been traumatized, to one degree or another, by the FFA PVP argument and therefore remain completely fixated on it.
PvP, consensual or otherwise, is simply more popular than PvE in online gaming. MMOs are NOT the largest section of the gaming industry, and those online games outside of the MMO box are almost universally PvP oriented. FPS, RTS, racing, fighting, sports, ect., all of these games feature competition prominently in their online elements. Even RPGs like Diablo and NWN2 have strong PvP elements. The question isn't whether PvP is feasible in an MMO. The question is, what form of PvP would be the most popular in an MMO? Personally, I think that RvR is the way to go here. You see this reflected in the evolution of other multiplayer games.
FPS deathmatching was pretty stale before someone made the CTF mod for Doom. CTF got old, so we made Team Fortress which featured character classes with unique abilities. That wasn't enough, so somebody made Counter-Strike where you had specific objectives and varying weapon load outs bought with money you earned based on in-game performance. This too got stale and Battlefield 1942 reinvented the capture and hold game.
RTS games have moved from the "build huge amounts of the strongest unit and level everything that isn't you" model to a more tactical "paper, scissors, rock" play balance that's focused on combined arms, "hard-counters," and capture and hold style gameplay. Given Supreme Commander and C&C 3 are both still based on totally annihilating your enemy, they both barrowed a few things from Age of Empires 2 and Dawn of War. Namely, the use of "hard-counters" and the production of squads rather than individual infantry units.
Fighting games came into their own with Street Fighter's one on one, three round format. We've moved on to tag team games like Tekken Tag, and King of Fighters. Fighting games have also seen evolution in the form of "platform fighters" like Smash Brothers. Don't be surprised if you see something like a combination of Soldat and Smash Brothers in the near future.
To make a comparison: UO is basically the same as deathmatching in an FPS, chaotic and ultimately unrewarding after a while. Warhammer Online seems to be more like Battlefield 2, still chaotic but offering rewards to those that take the time to explore the depth concealed within.
This brings me to another, related, issue. Just what is depth? MMOs have a tendency to confuse content with depth. Yeah, it sounds impressive to see 15 playable races with 12 character classes and 400 skills, but that's content. Depth arises out of how the elements of the game interact with one another. Chess only has six different pieces, but the depth provided by the interaction of those pieces has kept people playing for CENTURIES.
Some quick examples. I recently downloaded the C&C 3 demo because my friends were telling me how great the game was. I've been playing skirmishes on the same map for a couple of days now. There aren't more than 20 structures and 30 different units per faction, but the way that you can use those structures and units keeps me coming back and experimenting. Even when I'm not playing the game, I'll think up some new way to do something and then try it out when I play again. The only MMO that had the promise of that kind of depth was Eve and I decided not to subscribe to it due to the scandal.
Another example is Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. There are only a handful of maps and five character classes. Not only that, but there are some outright broken maps where cheap tactics reign supreme. Why do I keep playing? Because I'm constantly thinking of new ways to counter those cheap tactics. I'm constantly finding new things about the maps and the weapons that I can experiment with. Most importantly, and this applies to the C&C 3 example as well, others are either finding, or have found, similar things out about the game and constantly surprise and educate me.
MMOs sacrifice depth for content and that's a major reason why most of us that cut teeth on Quake and Dune 2 just don't take them seriously as PvP games. There are exceptions. Eve being one. Guild Wars is another, but it's not an MMO and it was based more on the CCG (collectable card game) model than the RPG model. I also find that Guild Wars isn't as easy to watch as your average FPS, RTS, or fighting game. Trying to link all the effects going on to their abilities tends to make the battles look more like interpretive dance than violence. That may not seem like a big issue to you, but consider the fact that these are video games and players are attracted to the games based on the visual experience.
The simple truth is pvp is not the overwhelming popular choice or "preferred" online gaming type.
The majority of WoW servers are NOT pvp servers. If you don't believe me go count em yourself.
EQ1 had pvp servers yet when subs started to decline the first servers to be merged were the pvp servers. If they were the "popular style players wanted" surely that wouldn't of happened then right?
EQ2 has pvp yet it is only a small part of the overall game. The pvp is not the FFA kind but more consentual arena style. Again the majority of servers are non-pvp.
City of Heroes/Villains has only a few pvp zones that you don't even have to actually DO any pvp to partake of the content there.
DAoC, best known for its take on pvp called Realm vs Realm (RvR), added 2 FFA pvp servers yet due to low population they were merged. In fact, the non-pvp coop server would typically have the same population as the FFA server.
Those are just the MMOG examples. If you look at non-mmog style games many of them either are single player or have limited multiplayer options. Games like Morrowind, Knights of the Old Republic, Resident Evil, and God of War are certainately popular and successful games but not exactly what I would call "pvp oriented".
If anything what I think is that people want pvp, when they want TO pvp.
Well I am sorry Keith, but I will have to disagree with the concept of your article.
Reading it we are supposed to assume that their are a lot of players out there looking for risk/reward pvp type games because they have whetted their tastes in Wow, DAoC, etc.
Well I don't think this is the case at all. True their is room for a niche MMO that offers this with decent gameplay. You have two types of players that play that game, the aggressive ones whose sole desire is to make the game miserable for others and those that play to have fun. Those that play to have fun soon learn that the fun factor is not there because of the first group and leave the game.
The only game that has succeeded so far in the genre is Eve. Not everyone is into Sci-Fi so they really have a niche market.
Everyone wants an open sandbox type game, but unless you put some controls on that first group, the 2nd group will leave and they are the bigger majority by a large margin. So far no one has learned this. None of the upcoming risk/reward pvp games have this either.
Don't get me wrong, I like the risk/reward pvp challenge. For me the most fun time I have had in a MMO was UO when it was only Felucca. I play Eve now, as it comes close to what UO had, but Eve has a large population of non pvpers and an excellent trade system to keep them occupied.
I don't criticize UO for changing, they were losing people faster than they were gaining them and EQ was attracting the pve crowd.
The big problem is that the money is not there for a risk/reward game unless you have ways to control that first group of players and right now the money supporting the development of these MMO's knows that.
I look at games like Fury and Darkfall and laugh, quite evident they don't have a clue to what it takes to make this genre successful. Unfortunately few do. I don't have all the answers either, I am waiting for someone to come along and make a decent playable game that is not dominated by the griefers.
That is another point Ciredric is the risk of "the griefer" really puts off many people. Now I know that not everyone who enjoys FFA pvp is going to run out and mass-slaughter newbies in Starter Town. The problem is it only takes a few jackholes to do that before it will really spoil the gameplay.
Example is in EVE you could get "podded" by another player, thus losing some skill progress. Does it happen in EVE? Sure does. Does it happen often? Probably not, in the 14 days I played during the trial I never even got attacked once by another player. However since it may happen, that is sometimes enough to turn players away.
Comments
Second, you continue to call this guy a carebear and then go on to deny it is stereotyping because you have deemed it to be the truth. Just because you consider yourself to somehow not fall into any stereotype, doesn't give you the right to stereotype others. I know you consider your OPINION to be the truth, but that doesn't give you the license to stereotype people and complain about being stereotyped in kind. Realize that this guy considers his OPINION to be the truth also. I suggest if you don't want to be stereotyped, then don't go calling other people stereotypes, even though you somehow have convicved yourself that you are justified in doing so, ok?
Third, what concept do I have a preconceived notion about that makes me thick skulled? Just because I pointed out your flaw doesn't mean I take this other guys side against yours.
Please note I am not taking a side on either of your stances or viewpoints in the matter. I don't care about either of your long winded posting histories or thesis essays on the definition of arguing over the internet. I simply pointed out that you criticize someone for stereotyping you and then you turned around and did the same thing to him.
That is another problem is that anyone who doesn't enjoy 24/7 gank or be ganked pvp is a "carebear". On the other hand someone who does enjoy FFA PvP is a "ganker/griefer".
Both of which are incorrect.
As to what will kill WoW it won't be one game, more likely a series of games that will chip away at WoW's subscription base. Whatever game it is may have pvp, but wouldn't be required to have pvp to be successful. PvP really depends on the type of game and the setting it is played in.
Risk vs. Reward can mean a lot of different things. It can mean individual gain, like in poker. It can mean team gain, like in spades. It can also mean individual sustainment, as is the case in a permadeath game. Risk vs. Reward can be against game mechanics, like dealing with disasters in Sim City. Risk vs. Reward can also mean a fight over resources, such as tiberium in Command and Conquer. The problem with this thread is that we've all been traumatized, to one degree or another, by the FFA PVP argument and therefore remain completely fixated on it.
PvP, consensual or otherwise, is simply more popular than PvE in online gaming. MMOs are NOT the largest section of the gaming industry, and those online games outside of the MMO box are almost universally PvP oriented. FPS, RTS, racing, fighting, sports, ect., all of these games feature competition prominently in their online elements. Even RPGs like Diablo and NWN2 have strong PvP elements. The question isn't whether PvP is feasible in an MMO. The question is, what form of PvP would be the most popular in an MMO? Personally, I think that RvR is the way to go here. You see this reflected in the evolution of other multiplayer games.
FPS deathmatching was pretty stale before someone made the CTF mod for Doom. CTF got old, so we made Team Fortress which featured character classes with unique abilities. That wasn't enough, so somebody made Counter-Strike where you had specific objectives and varying weapon load outs bought with money you earned based on in-game performance. This too got stale and Battlefield 1942 reinvented the capture and hold game.
RTS games have moved from the "build huge amounts of the strongest unit and level everything that isn't you" model to a more tactical "paper, scissors, rock" play balance that's focused on combined arms, "hard-counters," and capture and hold style gameplay. Given Supreme Commander and C&C 3 are both still based on totally annihilating your enemy, they both barrowed a few things from Age of Empires 2 and Dawn of War. Namely, the use of "hard-counters" and the production of squads rather than individual infantry units.
Fighting games came into their own with Street Fighter's one on one, three round format. We've moved on to tag team games like Tekken Tag, and King of Fighters. Fighting games have also seen evolution in the form of "platform fighters" like Smash Brothers. Don't be surprised if you see something like a combination of Soldat and Smash Brothers in the near future.
To make a comparison: UO is basically the same as deathmatching in an FPS, chaotic and ultimately unrewarding after a while. Warhammer Online seems to be more like Battlefield 2, still chaotic but offering rewards to those that take the time to explore the depth concealed within.
This brings me to another, related, issue. Just what is depth? MMOs have a tendency to confuse content with depth. Yeah, it sounds impressive to see 15 playable races with 12 character classes and 400 skills, but that's content. Depth arises out of how the elements of the game interact with one another. Chess only has six different pieces, but the depth provided by the interaction of those pieces has kept people playing for CENTURIES.
Some quick examples. I recently downloaded the C&C 3 demo because my friends were telling me how great the game was. I've been playing skirmishes on the same map for a couple of days now. There aren't more than 20 structures and 30 different units per faction, but the way that you can use those structures and units keeps me coming back and experimenting. Even when I'm not playing the game, I'll think up some new way to do something and then try it out when I play again. The only MMO that had the promise of that kind of depth was Eve and I decided not to subscribe to it due to the scandal.
Another example is Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. There are only a handful of maps and five character classes. Not only that, but there are some outright broken maps where cheap tactics reign supreme. Why do I keep playing? Because I'm constantly thinking of new ways to counter those cheap tactics. I'm constantly finding new things about the maps and the weapons that I can experiment with. Most importantly, and this applies to the C&C 3 example as well, others are either finding, or have found, similar things out about the game and constantly surprise and educate me.
MMOs sacrifice depth for content and that's a major reason why most of us that cut teeth on Quake and Dune 2 just don't take them seriously as PvP games. There are exceptions. Eve being one. Guild Wars is another, but it's not an MMO and it was based more on the CCG (collectable card game) model than the RPG model. I also find that Guild Wars isn't as easy to watch as your average FPS, RTS, or fighting game. Trying to link all the effects going on to their abilities tends to make the battles look more like interpretive dance than violence. That may not seem like a big issue to you, but consider the fact that these are video games and players are attracted to the games based on the visual experience.
Would you rather play this?
Or this?
One more time:
Would you rather player this one?
Or this one?
Maybe MMOs should concentrate on how to improve their basic gameplay before they begin to consider the "PvP or not PvP" question.
The simple truth is pvp is not the overwhelming popular choice or "preferred" online gaming type.
The majority of WoW servers are NOT pvp servers. If you don't believe me go count em yourself.
EQ1 had pvp servers yet when subs started to decline the first servers to be merged were the pvp servers. If they were the "popular style players wanted" surely that wouldn't of happened then right?
EQ2 has pvp yet it is only a small part of the overall game. The pvp is not the FFA kind but more consentual arena style. Again the majority of servers are non-pvp.
City of Heroes/Villains has only a few pvp zones that you don't even have to actually DO any pvp to partake of the content there.
DAoC, best known for its take on pvp called Realm vs Realm (RvR), added 2 FFA pvp servers yet due to low population they were merged. In fact, the non-pvp coop server would typically have the same population as the FFA server.
Those are just the MMOG examples. If you look at non-mmog style games many of them either are single player or have limited multiplayer options. Games like Morrowind, Knights of the Old Republic, Resident Evil, and God of War are certainately popular and successful games but not exactly what I would call "pvp oriented".
If anything what I think is that people want pvp, when they want TO pvp.
Well I am sorry Keith, but I will have to disagree with the concept of your article.
Reading it we are supposed to assume that their are a lot of players out there looking for risk/reward pvp type games because they have whetted their tastes in Wow, DAoC, etc.
Well I don't think this is the case at all. True their is room for a niche MMO that offers this with decent gameplay. You have two types of players that play that game, the aggressive ones whose sole desire is to make the game miserable for others and those that play to have fun. Those that play to have fun soon learn that the fun factor is not there because of the first group and leave the game.
The only game that has succeeded so far in the genre is Eve. Not everyone is into Sci-Fi so they really have a niche market.
Everyone wants an open sandbox type game, but unless you put some controls on that first group, the 2nd group will leave and they are the bigger majority by a large margin. So far no one has learned this. None of the upcoming risk/reward pvp games have this either.
Don't get me wrong, I like the risk/reward pvp challenge. For me the most fun time I have had in a MMO was UO when it was only Felucca. I play Eve now, as it comes close to what UO had, but Eve has a large population of non pvpers and an excellent trade system to keep them occupied.
I don't criticize UO for changing, they were losing people faster than they were gaining them and EQ was attracting the pve crowd.
The big problem is that the money is not there for a risk/reward game unless you have ways to control that first group of players and right now the money supporting the development of these MMO's knows that.
I look at games like Fury and Darkfall and laugh, quite evident they don't have a clue to what it takes to make this genre successful. Unfortunately few do. I don't have all the answers either, I am waiting for someone to come along and make a decent playable game that is not dominated by the griefers.
That is another point Ciredric is the risk of "the griefer" really puts off many people. Now I know that not everyone who enjoys FFA pvp is going to run out and mass-slaughter newbies in Starter Town. The problem is it only takes a few jackholes to do that before it will really spoil the gameplay.
Example is in EVE you could get "podded" by another player, thus losing some skill progress. Does it happen in EVE? Sure does. Does it happen often? Probably not, in the 14 days I played during the trial I never even got attacked once by another player. However since it may happen, that is sometimes enough to turn players away.
I'm still confused why developers thought that PvP was a niche market.
Sports are PvP.
Debates are PvP.
Boardgames are PvP.
FPS games are PvP.
RTS games are PvP.
Promotions at work are often times PvP.
Winning awards is like PvP.
Relationships are PvP.
War is the ultimate PvP, and look how much of it we do.
Why shouldn't MMO's be about PvP?
Even PvEers participate in there own brand of PvP when they stand around comparing who has the uberest gear.
It's not hard to see that we, as a species, very much enjoy direct competition with each other.
Blizzard should have known this from the get go. How many people here played warcraft cooperatively with thier friends?
yeah, exactly.
Wish Darkfall would release.