lol at the polls it's not what a majority of mmorpg gamers want, just a small select elitist forum nostalgic fanbois want. Look at the mmorpg.com polls and PVP always wins out over PVE and thats because most people want to compete against eachother. So tbh like you said biased nonsense polls.
I almost didn't include the poll because of so few votes, but I still thought it might contribute something to convincing a developer. At the very least I don't see how it could hurt the case.
As for the bias, I tried to word it in the most unbiased fashion, and think I succeeded in that. MMORPG.com may not be the best place for a random sample, but it's the most populated so that's what I chose.
You never played Ryzom, now did you? The AI is amazing there.
Altough it's a good text, i would say it's totally "biased" from the EQ point of view... Most of what you said is what EQ has or you hope it would have...
Like some said before, what some people really want (to my understanding) is a sandbox game like UO (with current graphics) or SWG (from the pre-CU era).
Even semi-sandbox like Ryzom and EVE (yeah... that's my opinion. None of these are enough to be called "full" sandbox) fill the gap on the emptyness of sandbox type of MMORPGs nowadays.
Hopefully some of the sandbox titles to be released, are indeed released. Those will take a big "slice" of players who are currently waiting for such type of games.
Seriously though, I played stoned a lot. I played WoW for 3 years. Thats why it s so succesful. You can play totally trashed and still clear BT on a weekly basis.
Then I can waste flasks in battlegrounds and get my kills way up there, all white smoking some Cali Kush. Mhhm. Any game where you can do that, is a great game.
I didn't disagree with everthing you said but the raid-or-quit mentality from the devs was the reason I quit EQ. I didn't leave EQ because of hell levels, corpse runs, long down time, the idiotic inability of melees to bind themselves, death penalties, or the slow leveling. I quit because at the end the game I loved ceased to exist and the raiding game began. And that's the only reason I quit.
I never said that the end-game should be only raids. I hope there are other options and left it up to the developer to figure out the details specific to the type of game they want to create.
However, as far as raids in general, I do feel that there needs to be an emphasis on them throughout the game for the same reason that there is an emphasis on groups, and that's to take advantage of the first letter in MMORPG.
Originally posted by Ghazni For what it's worth, I'll give you my feedback, pointing out a few flaws in your logic. By “hardcore”, I don’t simply mean someone willing to play video games 8 hours/day. Instead, I’m referring to the gamer more willing to involve himself in the game and push himself to meet challenges that some other gamers would rather avoid. I’ll be honest…such a player does not make-up the largest MMO audience that there is (the casual gamer), but that audience is already claimed by Blizzard at the moment and is inferior to the hardcore gamer in a specific way that I’ll address shortly.
What MMO Style Best Suits You?
PvP-oriented 10.7%
PvE w/ casual gameplay. Most accomplishments can be done in a 1-2 hour session. Groups are very optional. Travel is safe. Death penalty is low. 14.3%
PvE w/ challenging environments. Travel is dangerous and long. Harsher death penalties. Most accomplishments take awhile. Groups are highly encouraged. 50.0%
Something in between. 14.3%
None of the above. 10.7%
Based on 28 votes.
Look at the results of your poll and then look at what you said above it. You state right off the bat that hardcore players are not as large of a group as casual gamers. Yet by your poll you see that hardcore players make up 50% of your poll. When a poll does not match up with what you have already stated as fact, you must begin to wonder if your poll is any good. How do you explain the fact that 50% of the votes indicated they wanted a hardcore game and yet even you don't believe that 50% of gamers want this?
One of the possibilities could be that your poll is flawed. But how might it be flawed? Well for one it was taken on this website. It's quite possible that this website is not very representative of the overall population of game players. It's quite possible that you targetted specific gameplayers with your poll by accident and you didn't even realize it. Isn't it possible that the people who took your poll tend to be more of the hardcore player that's disappointed with the current games on the market? Isn't it possible that those that are happy with the current games tended to ignore your poll? I think that's a very real possibility. I don't think your poll shows much at all. In all honesty you really don't have any facts to back up your theory about how many hard core gamers there are that want the type of game you are suggesting. I'm not saying your wrong, only that you don't have any empiricle evidence.
Now lets examine the points you made.
1) Be honest when you market the game. Brutally honest.
2) The game is Player vs Environment. Focus solely on that.
3) MMO games rely on word-of-mouth/discussion-board advertising. In-game and out-of-game customer service must be pristine.
4) Gathering 100 skeleton bones is not a quest. It’s sad.
5) The world is a living thing, not a wax museum.
6) Never catch yourself thinking about how to improve on someone else’s concept of anything.
7) Give players freedom and options, and they will come back for more.
8) Gameplay does not have to be difficult, but it must be challenging. There is a difference.
I think you have hit on some very good points, however I think most of the points are true regardless of the type of game being made and have very little to do with creating a hard core game. Maybe only 1, 2 and 8 are really any more valid for more of a hard core game than a casual game. All the rest apply equally as well to more of a casual game in my opinion. So while they are good points, they don't really support the main idea of your opinion piece.
You never played Ryzom, now did you? The AI is amazing there.
Altough it's a good text, i would say it's totally "biased" from the EQ point of view... Most of what you said is what EQ has or you hope it would have...
Like some said before, what some people really want (to my understanding) is a sandbox game like UO (with current graphics) or SWG (from the pre-CU era).
Even semi-sandbox like Ryzom and EVE (yeah... that's my opinion. None of these are enough to be called "full" sandbox) fill the gap on the emptyness of sandbox type of MMORPGs nowadays.
Hopefully some of the sandbox titles to be released, are indeed released. Those will take a big "slice" of players who are currently waiting for such type of games.
See my response to evacia, two posts up.
I've read it, and i agree that we shouldn't play all games to have an opinion.
But... You can't ever say that all MMOs don't have this or that, when you didn't play them all.
Saying something like "No MMO have given AI to their creatures" is totally wrong.
What you could say is something like this: "The majority of MMOs don't have any AI in their creatures"
And another thing is that even if you played all those MMOs, you make this text speaking mostly about EQ and yet you call it "What MMORPG gamers really want".
You can't put all gamers in 1 bag.
Sure i understand your point, but the way your text turned out, you better call it "What EQ-like games can do to improve" or something similar.
Btw... I hope you're not taking my posts in an harsh way, since it's not what i want it to sound like. :P
Heh I was going to post something similar today. I would have titled it differently more along the lines of what most new MMORPG's are lacking.
I played EQ1 for more than 5 years. WOW less than six months with multiple level 60' and or 70's as I went back for a brief period after BC. EQ2, SWG, guild wars, vanguard(which originally billed itself as what the OP is looking for ), AOC, LOTRO and well as several free to play .
All of the new games are lacking and it took me giving and old game ,Final fantasy XI, a try to show me for certain that what I always suspected to be true was true. Any game without a real death penalty (experience loss at a minimum, and preferably experience loss, level loss and corpse runs) is not worth playing. After 2 weeks of fairly constant play and finally being able to stay at level 4 I realized I had forgotten how nice it was to level up when leveling up actually meant something. It was also nice to not blink and be level 15. The third thing I am thoroughly enjoying is not being led around by a ring in my nose from quest to quest. You actually have to play and talk to NPC's to see if they actually have a quest for you.
Originally posted by Ghazni For what it's worth, I'll give you my feedback, pointing out a few flaws in your logic. By “hardcore”, I don’t simply mean someone willing to play video games 8 hours/day. Instead, I’m referring to the gamer more willing to involve himself in the game and push himself to meet challenges that some other gamers would rather avoid. I’ll be honest…such a player does not make-up the largest MMO audience that there is (the casual gamer), but that audience is already claimed by Blizzard at the moment and is inferior to the hardcore gamer in a specific way that I’ll address shortly.
What MMO Style Best Suits You?
PvP-oriented 10.7%
PvE w/ casual gameplay. Most accomplishments can be done in a 1-2 hour session. Groups are very optional. Travel is safe. Death penalty is low. 14.3%
PvE w/ challenging environments. Travel is dangerous and long. Harsher death penalties. Most accomplishments take awhile. Groups are highly encouraged. 50.0%
Something in between. 14.3%
None of the above. 10.7%
Based on 28 votes.
Look at the results of your poll and then look at what you said above it. You state right off the bat that hardcore players are not as large of a group as casual gamers. Yet by your poll you see that hardcore players make up 50% of your poll. When a poll does not match up with what you have already stated as fact, you must begin to wonder if your poll is any good. How do you explain the fact that 50% of the votes indicated they wanted a hardcore game and yet even you don't believe that 50% of gamers want this?
One of the possibilities could be that your poll is flawed. But how might it be flawed? Well for one it was taken on this website. It's quite possible that this website is not very representative of the overall population of game players. It's quite possible that you targetted specific gameplayers with your poll by accident and you didn't even realize it. Isn't it possible that the people who took your poll tend to be more of the hardcore player that's disappointed with the current games on the market? Isn't it possible that those that are happy with the current games tended to ignore your poll? I think that's a very real possibility. I don't think your poll shows much at all. In all honesty you really don't have any facts to back up your theory about how many hard core gamers there are that want the type of game you are suggesting. I'm not saying your wrong, only that you don't have any empiricle evidence.
Now lets examine the points you made.
1) Be honest when you market the game. Brutally honest.
2) The game is Player vs Environment. Focus solely on that.
3) MMO games rely on word-of-mouth/discussion-board advertising. In-game and out-of-game customer service must be pristine.
4) Gathering 100 skeleton bones is not a quest. It’s sad.
5) The world is a living thing, not a wax museum.
6) Never catch yourself thinking about how to improve on someone else’s concept of anything.
7) Give players freedom and options, and they will come back for more.
8) Gameplay does not have to be difficult, but it must be challenging. There is a difference.
I think you have hit on some very good points, however I think most of the points are true regardless of the type of game being made and have very little to do with creating a hard core game. Maybe only 1, 2 and 8 are really any more valid for more of a hard core game than a casual game. All the rest apply equally as well to more of a casual game in my opinion. So while they are good points, they don't really support the main idea of your opinion piece.
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Good response.
Like I pointed out to a previous poster, I agree with what you said about the poll. I felt that including it couldn't necessarily hurt my point and, while the polling audience was somewhat biased and based on an extremely small group, perhaps it could add a FRACTION to the thought of "hmm, maybe there is an audience out there" to the reader. I did the best I could with the resources I had, and just couldn't bring myself to leave it out. I'm relatively clear in stating all this in the paper, and didn't intend to make this poll to be anything it isn't.
As far as facts to backup my view, I feel the best I could do in that realm was pointing to EQ1's subscription numbers. Not necessarily fact, but it's really the only quantifiable figure I could come up with. If you have any suggestions I'd be glad to hear them.
Your last point makes sense, I suppose. Many of the features would indeed appeal to all players, but number 8 (the challenge aspect) is very important and was 2 pages long in my description of it. I feel that is vital to the game becoming appealing to players. Other things I named I do see as more following the lines of a hardcore player, such as better mob AI, more in-depth quests, player self-determination, which I feel have been things that hardcore players have been asking for more than casual players, but I may be wrong on that. I can see some appeal to both groups; however, I think it's the hardcore players who are willing to put forth a little more effort and time in accomplishing larger-scale and more complicated quests.
I've read it, and i agree that we shouldn't play all games to have an opinion.
But... You can't ever say that all MMOs don't have this or that, when you didn't play them all. Saying something like "No MMO have given AI to their creatures" is totally wrong. What you could say is something like this: "The majority of MMOs don't have any AI in their creatures"
And another thing is that even if you played all those MMOs, you make this text speaking mostly about EQ and yet you call it "What MMORPG gamers really want". You can't put all gamers in 1 bag. Sure i understand your point, but the way your text turned out, you better call it "What EQ-like games can do to improve" or something similar.
Btw... I hope you're not taking my posts in an harsh way, since it's not what i want it to sound like. :P I'm simply giving my opinion.
Cheers.
I was referring to major MMOs in the write-up. I haven't played them all, but I believe I've played enough to hvae a general understanding of what has yet to be accomplished in the industry. What MMO are you referring to that has AI? Keep in mind my paper is aimed at MMOs that undergo a major release. Games not aimed at mass audiences aren't something I was necessarily including in the topic, and took it for granted that the individual reading the paper was interested in designing a very massive game with a large release audience expected.
As for the title, I addressed that previously. I believe the paper speaks for a majority of the gamers out there right now who are looking for something not offered or on the horizon.
Again, I hope the game I'm describing would be the furthest from resembling EQ1 than any game currently out. I don't believe my descriptions were biased towards making a game similar to EQ1. While I stated that EQ1 is the most similar in the hardcore gaming that it offers, I made it clear that the game I describe is an EXTREMELY far cry from Everquest.
Ghazni, you've got some very good points, but as others have said, I feel that your position is formed by your personal MMO experiences. Now, I'm not going to presume to speak for the community, but I will tell you what I want in a MMO.
Skill-based sandbox game. Level systems and class skillsets are arbitrary and only lead to frustration, imbalance, and FOTM syndrome.
Multiple viable gameplay styles. Crafting, grouping, soloing, exploration, building, "collecting", and roleplay should all be rewarding pursuits in and of themselves.
Immersive, varied, and large environment with an absolute minimum of contrived movement limitations.
A dynamic game world, shaped by players, NPCs, and the developers.
PvP that is meaningful but optional, and designed in such a manner as to encourage participation.
PvE with substance. Your points on mob AI were spot-on. Mobs shouldn't just wander in circles, nor should they stand impassive as we butcher their allies. They should be more than XP and loot dispensers.
An economy that works, with player crafting as a central component. A crafting method which isn't just grinding.
Content which contains a challenge, not a time sink. Minimize repetition to avoid burnout.
A combat system with depth, flair, style, and variety. The difference between an axe and a brickbat shouldn't be the swing animation.
Gear that augments characters without overpowering them. Slightly varied gear of a similar power level should be obtainable by multiple means.
Grouping should be encouraged but never, never mandatory. "A bigger zerg" should be one of the least effective strategies.
A lot of this was tried before, in a little-known title called Wish. Wish died in beta, because a lot of the above ideas are disgustingly expensive to implement or lead to unintended results. If a game comes around that offers even a fraction of the above, it will capture and cement the hardcore MMO gamer market.
Ghazni, you've got some very good points, but as others have said, I feel that your position is formed by your personal MMO experiences. Now, I'm not going to presume to speak for the community, but I will tell you what I want in a MMO.
Skill-based sandbox game. Level systems and class skillsets are arbitrary and only lead to frustration, imbalance, and FOTM syndrome. Multiple viable gameplay styles. Crafting, grouping, soloing, exploration, building, "collecting", and roleplay should all be rewarding pursuits in and of themselves. Immersive, varied, and large environment with an absolute minimum of contrived movement limitations. A dynamic game world, shaped by players, NPCs, and the developers. PvP that is meaningful but optional, and designed in such a manner as to encourage participation. PvE with substance. Your points on mob AI were spot-on. Mobs shouldn't just wander in circles, nor should they stand impassive as we butcher their allies. They should be more than XP and loot dispensers. An economy that works, with player crafting as a central component. A crafting method which isn't just grinding. Content which contains a challenge, not a time sink. Minimize repetition to avoid burnout. A combat system with depth, flair, style, and variety. The difference between an axe and a brickbat shouldn't be the swing animation. Gear that augments characters without overpowering them. Slightly varied gear of a similar power level should be obtainable by multiple means. Grouping should be encouraged but never, never mandatory. "A bigger zerg" should be one of the least effective strategies.
A lot of this was tried before, in a little-known title called Wish. Wish died in beta, because a lot of the above ideas are disgustingly expensive to implement or lead to unintended results. If a game comes around that offers even a fraction of the above, it will capture and cement the hardcore MMO gamer market.
Originally posted by Ghazni By “hardcore”, I don’t simply mean someone willing to play video games 8 hours/day. Instead, I’m referring to the gamer more willing to involve himself in the game and push himself to meet challenges that some other gamers would rather avoid.
Best definition of hardcore ever.
BTW EQ stopped being hardcore when PoP. That was in 2002 I think.
Excuse me, but I think that the developers already know everything that is posted here. They probably have all the info and ideas noone here has ever dreamed of. The problem is that they are not allowed to use them. MMO projects are multi-million dollar ventures which require a huge team and years of work. Unluckily WoW has been VERY successful. It is hard enough to find investors for a modified WoW clone. It is even harder to find someone to finance your risky new MMO with new ideas. Try to explain to investors why you think a WoW clone will not work especially when the investors are not gamers.
The next problem is that new ideas are sometimes not feasable meaning that they might work in a single player game but definately not in a MMO. Innovations are expensive as well. Just to make your world dynamic (dynamic NPC empires) I bet you will nead an extra year of design & implementation resulting in an extra 15 million dollar expense on top of current numbers. Is a dynamic world really worth 15 mio and an extra year?
There are only two ways to get games with new ideas:
- slow innovation in the right direction. After a decade we might have something new.
- small dev companys that have a small budget who need to do something innovative as they cannot afford a good graphic engine or big infrastructure.
--- Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I didn't disagree with everthing you said but the raid-or-quit mentality from the devs was the reason I quit EQ. I didn't leave EQ because of hell levels, corpse runs, long down time, the idiotic inability of melees to bind themselves, death penalties, or the slow leveling. I quit because at the end the game I loved ceased to exist and the raiding game began. And that's the only reason I quit.
Which is the reason I'm quiting. Don't have time to waste on finding a group, or getting accepted for some 24 man raid (does EQII even have enough players online to 24 man anymore??). If I can't slay the dragon myself, I really have no business playing the game itself. No accomplishment, no epic finale.
Most of the OP has said I'd agree too. Some things I'd change around, but overall it's a good write up.
The point I hope MMOs go is not more grouping/raiding/pvping, but more personal achievements (and please, I don't want to look like everyone else. Can we at least on our own rigs make our own armor/weapon textures?). Why would I pay $15/mon to group/raid so someone else can get the glory of killing the waves, while I spam heals or what not on him? You know it's fine to be a little more greedy online in gaming, than playing (and paying) to be second fiddle? Don't know, maybe that's why folks leave EQII. If it's not waiting to group to get the good loot, it's that they're not satisfied in how they got the loot.
MMOs really need to break the tunnel vision, and see the whole market, not just what fans screams the loudest on their boards (and OP, you're spot on in trying to balance between PvP and PvE in class abilities -- EQII is tweaking some of the stats, and sure enough those who play PvP it's a major concern [where any advantage to a foe is a crisis]. Can't balance both worlds effectively in one game. One faction will be crying over it's perks over the other faction. Bad enough trying to get classes in raids where raid leaders are so damn picky to disqualify over half the classes in raids, as it is).
8) Gameplay does not have to be difficult, but it must be challenging. There is a difference.
Nothing about this you are able to prove.
Lots of activities that people find entertaining are not challenging at all, both in RL and virtual environments.
I don't agree with anything you wrote to be honest, it's obviously biased and is based on your preference of MMO which is highly EQ centric and has nothing to do with current trends that are far more succesfull like WoW.
Excuse me, but I think that the developers already know everything that is posted here. They probably have all the info and ideas noone here has ever dreamed of. The problem is that they are not allowed to use them. MMO projects are multi-million dollar ventures which require a huge team and years of work. Unluckily WoW has been VERY successful. It is hard enough to find investors for a modified WoW clone. It is even harder to find someone to finance your risky new MMO with new ideas. Try to explain to investors why you think a WoW clone will not work especially when the investors are not gamers.
Then this genre needs modders. They saved many a game from the grave, afterall. Deus Ex was released in 2000, folks are STILL modding the game today -- even in wake of the DX3 annoucement.
Gamers can and do mod for a love of the game. MMOs need that love too, even if it's a simple side-scroller or a 2D 1992 style dungeon game. But it can be developed, and from fans itself.
If you want the game it can be done for free. If you want Crysis graphical epic online, it ain't coming. Technology can't support it. Appears more want the latter, thus jumping on whatever MMO flashy trash that's released -- which further gives this genre even more bad PR when they were disappointed with the gameplay -- guess what happens when more is put in graphics than game mechanics and storyline????
I didn't disagree with everthing you said but the raid-or-quit mentality from the devs was the reason I quit EQ.
Which is the reason I'm quiting.
Which is one of the main reasons I quit EQ too.
I don't agree with the OP at all. He completely goes up against succesfull new age MMO that are FAR MORE succesfull than old school raid centric / timesink ones.
Originally posted by Waterlily I don't agree with anything you wrote to be honest, it's obviously biased and is based on your preference of MMO which is highly EQ centric and has nothing to do with current trends that are far more succesfull like WoW.
McDonald's is a successful company that servers billions of burgers a day. Would you prefer to eat Big Macs everyday because it's big and the company is successful?
No.
The same goes for folks tired of WoW and how it destroyed developing MMOs from the group/raid/pvp concept. Look at Morrowind and Oblivion. Ever wonder why they were so successful? It wasn't because it was a MMO; it's not because folks can't raid and group and chitchat; it's because it has the bulk of what folks want in a RPG style game -- without the mess of accounts; subscriptions and putting up with pricks you wouldn't give a second glance at in RL. Plus, what people don't like has been modded and changed to their liking -- download mod and play another 150hrs. Get another mod, play another 150hrs and on and on and on.
MMOs are one size fits all worlds with rules that SP games don't have. You can't get that total immersion from a MMO as a SP. What you get is a bit of RL work environment (complete with emails and a chat client); to the dramas you really don't need online what's offline at work. Then told by "the community" to take it or lump it.
MMOs can never be truly successful with such a mindset, as the best games are tailored to the individual. MP works fine in FPS games as it's instant on and instant off, no investment other than your rig to play it. RPGs, and especially MMORPGs, your characters are much more involved. Rules, and all the other junk in the way takes the pleasure of playing it.
Take that WoW concept and truly shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
Originally posted by Ghazni By “hardcore”, I don’t simply mean someone willing to play video games 8 hours/day. Instead, I’m referring to the gamer more willing to involve himself in the game and push himself to meet challenges that some other gamers would rather avoid.
Best definition of hardcore ever.
BTW EQ stopped being hardcore when PoP. That was in 2002 I think.
You don't have a clue how hardcore EQ is now. It's the most ridiculous grind you can ever do.
6 hour raids / 6 days a week, with one upgrade every month anyone?
I don't agree with anything you wrote to be honest, it's obviously biased and is based on your preference of MMO which is highly EQ centric and has nothing to do with current trends that are far more succesfull like WoW.
McDonald's is a successful company that servers billions of burgers a day. Would you prefer to eat Big Macs everyday because it's big and the company is successful?
Oh god, the people comparing MMO to Mcdonalds, please kill them.
WoW is succesfull cause it's a rock solid MMO, get over it.
I don't agree with anything you wrote to be honest, it's obviously biased and is based on your preference of MMO which is highly EQ centric and has nothing to do with current trends that are far more succesfull like WoW.
McDonald's is a successful company that servers billions of burgers a day. Would you prefer to eat Big Macs everyday because it's big and the company is successful?
Oh god, the people comparing MMO to Mcdonalds, please kill them.
WoW is succesfull cause it's a rock solid MMO, get over it.
WoW is successful because it's proven that crack is addictive.
Addictions are a b-a-d thing.
Now drop the crack pipe, and get some rehab. WoW is no more inspiring to MMOs than Quake is to FPS games (with the nail guns and flame throwers, blah, blah, blah).
Oh god, the people comparing MMO to Mcdonalds, please kill them.
WoW is succesfull cause it's a rock solid MMO, get over it.
WoW is successful because it's proven that crack is addictive.
Addictions are a b-a-d thing.
Now drop the crack pipe, and get some rehab. WoW is no more inspiring to MMOs than Quake is to FPS games (with the nail guns and flame throwers, blah, blah, blah).
No, I'll set you straight here.
WoW is successful because:
-It runs on almost any system
-It's has rock solid gameplay
-It caters to both raiding and single player gameplay
-They have decent customer support
-Their servers are stable
-Their quest system is great
-They have a great team of designers and great support and relationships with hardware and GPU companies
If you don't like WoW, that's aight, but WoW is successful because it did a lot of stuff right, SoE.........not so much.
I don't agree with you or the OP that makes WoW look like a mistake, it's an awesome game for the people that enjoy playing.
-It runs on almost any system -It's has rock solid gameplay -It caters to both raiding and single player gameplay -They have decent customer support -Their servers are stable -Their quest system is great -They have a great team of designers and great support and relationships with hardware and GPU companies
If you don't like WoW, that's aight, but WoW is successful because it did a lot of stuff right, SoE.........not so much. I don't agree with you or the OP that makes WoW look like a mistake, it's an awesome game for the people that enjoy playing.
1. BS. 2. BS. 3. BS. 4. N/A 5. N/A 6. DEFINITE REASON NOT TO PLAY. No more of this Made for Nvidia and more spam before a game -- where you have to find a way to get kill 3 minutes of ads. >:(
I hate WoW. Not only because of what it did to gaming itself, but it's graphics. Last time I played with dolls and "cute" play things was 30 years ago.
Blizzard do gaming a favor: roll over and play dead (I'm sure your team of designers can make it a fine funeral, too). Thank you!
Comments
I almost didn't include the poll because of so few votes, but I still thought it might contribute something to convincing a developer. At the very least I don't see how it could hurt the case.
As for the bias, I tried to word it in the most unbiased fashion, and think I succeeded in that. MMORPG.com may not be the best place for a random sample, but it's the most populated so that's what I chose.
See my response to evacia, two posts up.
We need love.
Seriously though, I played stoned a lot. I played WoW for 3 years. Thats why it s so succesful. You can play totally trashed and still clear BT on a weekly basis.
Then I can waste flasks in battlegrounds and get my kills way up there, all white smoking some Cali Kush. Mhhm. Any game where you can do that, is a great game.
I never said that the end-game should be only raids. I hope there are other options and left it up to the developer to figure out the details specific to the type of game they want to create.
However, as far as raids in general, I do feel that there needs to be an emphasis on them throughout the game for the same reason that there is an emphasis on groups, and that's to take advantage of the first letter in MMORPG.
See my response to evacia, two posts up.
I've read it, and i agree that we shouldn't play all games to have an opinion.
But... You can't ever say that all MMOs don't have this or that, when you didn't play them all.
Saying something like "No MMO have given AI to their creatures" is totally wrong.
What you could say is something like this: "The majority of MMOs don't have any AI in their creatures"
And another thing is that even if you played all those MMOs, you make this text speaking mostly about EQ and yet you call it "What MMORPG gamers really want".
You can't put all gamers in 1 bag.
Sure i understand your point, but the way your text turned out, you better call it "What EQ-like games can do to improve" or something similar.
Btw... I hope you're not taking my posts in an harsh way, since it's not what i want it to sound like. :P
I'm simply giving my opinion.
Cheers.
Heh I was going to post something similar today. I would have titled it differently more along the lines of what most new MMORPG's are lacking.
I played EQ1 for more than 5 years. WOW less than six months with multiple level 60' and or 70's as I went back for a brief period after BC. EQ2, SWG, guild wars, vanguard(which originally billed itself as what the OP is looking for ), AOC, LOTRO and well as several free to play .
All of the new games are lacking and it took me giving and old game ,Final fantasy XI, a try to show me for certain that what I always suspected to be true was true. Any game without a real death penalty (experience loss at a minimum, and preferably experience loss, level loss and corpse runs) is not worth playing. After 2 weeks of fairly constant play and finally being able to stay at level 4 I realized I had forgotten how nice it was to level up when leveling up actually meant something. It was also nice to not blink and be level 15. The third thing I am thoroughly enjoying is not being led around by a ring in my nose from quest to quest. You actually have to play and talk to NPC's to see if they actually have a quest for you.
Good response.
Like I pointed out to a previous poster, I agree with what you said about the poll. I felt that including it couldn't necessarily hurt my point and, while the polling audience was somewhat biased and based on an extremely small group, perhaps it could add a FRACTION to the thought of "hmm, maybe there is an audience out there" to the reader. I did the best I could with the resources I had, and just couldn't bring myself to leave it out. I'm relatively clear in stating all this in the paper, and didn't intend to make this poll to be anything it isn't.
As far as facts to backup my view, I feel the best I could do in that realm was pointing to EQ1's subscription numbers. Not necessarily fact, but it's really the only quantifiable figure I could come up with. If you have any suggestions I'd be glad to hear them.
Your last point makes sense, I suppose. Many of the features would indeed appeal to all players, but number 8 (the challenge aspect) is very important and was 2 pages long in my description of it. I feel that is vital to the game becoming appealing to players. Other things I named I do see as more following the lines of a hardcore player, such as better mob AI, more in-depth quests, player self-determination, which I feel have been things that hardcore players have been asking for more than casual players, but I may be wrong on that. I can see some appeal to both groups; however, I think it's the hardcore players who are willing to put forth a little more effort and time in accomplishing larger-scale and more complicated quests.
I was referring to major MMOs in the write-up. I haven't played them all, but I believe I've played enough to hvae a general understanding of what has yet to be accomplished in the industry. What MMO are you referring to that has AI? Keep in mind my paper is aimed at MMOs that undergo a major release. Games not aimed at mass audiences aren't something I was necessarily including in the topic, and took it for granted that the individual reading the paper was interested in designing a very massive game with a large release audience expected.
As for the title, I addressed that previously. I believe the paper speaks for a majority of the gamers out there right now who are looking for something not offered or on the horizon.
Again, I hope the game I'm describing would be the furthest from resembling EQ1 than any game currently out. I don't believe my descriptions were biased towards making a game similar to EQ1. While I stated that EQ1 is the most similar in the hardcore gaming that it offers, I made it clear that the game I describe is an EXTREMELY far cry from Everquest.
Ghazni, you've got some very good points, but as others have said, I feel that your position is formed by your personal MMO experiences. Now, I'm not going to presume to speak for the community, but I will tell you what I want in a MMO.
A lot of this was tried before, in a little-known title called Wish. Wish died in beta, because a lot of the above ideas are disgustingly expensive to implement or lead to unintended results. If a game comes around that offers even a fraction of the above, it will capture and cement the hardcore MMO gamer market.
I want a game that's true to the player.
In CS, you can shoot someone in the head and they don't die.
In WOW, you have to grind for ages before you 'matter'.
In Conan, players are assholes who kill you when you're trying to quest.
In EVE, bigger is better, if you don't have a capital ship you can't compete.
I'm hoping Jumpgate Evolution will be that game.
This would be my mmo wet dream.
Best definition of hardcore ever.
BTW EQ stopped being hardcore when PoP. That was in 2002 I think.
Excuse me, but I think that the developers already know everything that is posted here. They probably have all the info and ideas noone here has ever dreamed of. The problem is that they are not allowed to use them. MMO projects are multi-million dollar ventures which require a huge team and years of work. Unluckily WoW has been VERY successful. It is hard enough to find investors for a modified WoW clone. It is even harder to find someone to finance your risky new MMO with new ideas. Try to explain to investors why you think a WoW clone will not work especially when the investors are not gamers.
The next problem is that new ideas are sometimes not feasable meaning that they might work in a single player game but definately not in a MMO. Innovations are expensive as well. Just to make your world dynamic (dynamic NPC empires) I bet you will nead an extra year of design & implementation resulting in an extra 15 million dollar expense on top of current numbers. Is a dynamic world really worth 15 mio and an extra year?
There are only two ways to get games with new ideas:
- slow innovation in the right direction. After a decade we might have something new.
- small dev companys that have a small budget who need to do something innovative as they cannot afford a good graphic engine or big infrastructure.
---
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Which is the reason I'm quiting. Don't have time to waste on finding a group, or getting accepted for some 24 man raid (does EQII even have enough players online to 24 man anymore??). If I can't slay the dragon myself, I really have no business playing the game itself. No accomplishment, no epic finale.
Most of the OP has said I'd agree too. Some things I'd change around, but overall it's a good write up.
The point I hope MMOs go is not more grouping/raiding/pvping, but more personal achievements (and please, I don't want to look like everyone else. Can we at least on our own rigs make our own armor/weapon textures?). Why would I pay $15/mon to group/raid so someone else can get the glory of killing the waves, while I spam heals or what not on him? You know it's fine to be a little more greedy online in gaming, than playing (and paying) to be second fiddle? Don't know, maybe that's why folks leave EQII. If it's not waiting to group to get the good loot, it's that they're not satisfied in how they got the loot.
MMOs really need to break the tunnel vision, and see the whole market, not just what fans screams the loudest on their boards (and OP, you're spot on in trying to balance between PvP and PvE in class abilities -- EQII is tweaking some of the stats, and sure enough those who play PvP it's a major concern [where any advantage to a foe is a crisis]. Can't balance both worlds effectively in one game. One faction will be crying over it's perks over the other faction. Bad enough trying to get classes in raids where raid leaders are so damn picky to disqualify over half the classes in raids, as it is).
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Nothing about this you are able to prove.
Lots of activities that people find entertaining are not challenging at all, both in RL and virtual environments.
I don't agree with anything you wrote to be honest, it's obviously biased and is based on your preference of MMO which is highly EQ centric and has nothing to do with current trends that are far more succesfull like WoW.
Then this genre needs modders. They saved many a game from the grave, afterall. Deus Ex was released in 2000, folks are STILL modding the game today -- even in wake of the DX3 annoucement.
Gamers can and do mod for a love of the game. MMOs need that love too, even if it's a simple side-scroller or a 2D 1992 style dungeon game. But it can be developed, and from fans itself.
If you want the game it can be done for free. If you want Crysis graphical epic online, it ain't coming. Technology can't support it. Appears more want the latter, thus jumping on whatever MMO flashy trash that's released -- which further gives this genre even more bad PR when they were disappointed with the gameplay -- guess what happens when more is put in graphics than game mechanics and storyline????
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Which is the reason I'm quiting.
Which is one of the main reasons I quit EQ too.
I don't agree with the OP at all. He completely goes up against succesfull new age MMO that are FAR MORE succesfull than old school raid centric / timesink ones.
This is seriously wrong.
WoW is huge, how you can make such a statement and actually believe it is just stupidity.
You also write MANY, and then write NONE. What is it?
How do you even know that None of your target audience does? How many players did you actually ask this question to? I'm guessing........NONE.
Your whole post is just drivel.
McDonald's is a successful company that servers billions of burgers a day. Would you prefer to eat Big Macs everyday because it's big and the company is successful?
No.
The same goes for folks tired of WoW and how it destroyed developing MMOs from the group/raid/pvp concept. Look at Morrowind and Oblivion. Ever wonder why they were so successful? It wasn't because it was a MMO; it's not because folks can't raid and group and chitchat; it's because it has the bulk of what folks want in a RPG style game -- without the mess of accounts; subscriptions and putting up with pricks you wouldn't give a second glance at in RL. Plus, what people don't like has been modded and changed to their liking -- download mod and play another 150hrs. Get another mod, play another 150hrs and on and on and on.
MMOs are one size fits all worlds with rules that SP games don't have. You can't get that total immersion from a MMO as a SP. What you get is a bit of RL work environment (complete with emails and a chat client); to the dramas you really don't need online what's offline at work. Then told by "the community" to take it or lump it.
MMOs can never be truly successful with such a mindset, as the best games are tailored to the individual. MP works fine in FPS games as it's instant on and instant off, no investment other than your rig to play it. RPGs, and especially MMORPGs, your characters are much more involved. Rules, and all the other junk in the way takes the pleasure of playing it.
Take that WoW concept and truly shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Best definition of hardcore ever.
BTW EQ stopped being hardcore when PoP. That was in 2002 I think.
You don't have a clue how hardcore EQ is now. It's the most ridiculous grind you can ever do.
6 hour raids / 6 days a week, with one upgrade every month anyone?
EQ sucks now, it's right up the masochists alley.
McDonald's is a successful company that servers billions of burgers a day. Would you prefer to eat Big Macs everyday because it's big and the company is successful?
Oh god, the people comparing MMO to Mcdonalds, please kill them.
WoW is succesfull cause it's a rock solid MMO, get over it.
McDonald's is a successful company that servers billions of burgers a day. Would you prefer to eat Big Macs everyday because it's big and the company is successful?
Oh god, the people comparing MMO to Mcdonalds, please kill them.
WoW is succesfull cause it's a rock solid MMO, get over it.
WoW is successful because it's proven that crack is addictive.
Addictions are a b-a-d thing.
Now drop the crack pipe, and get some rehab. WoW is no more inspiring to MMOs than Quake is to FPS games (with the nail guns and flame throwers, blah, blah, blah).
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Oh god, the people comparing MMO to Mcdonalds, please kill them.
WoW is succesfull cause it's a rock solid MMO, get over it.
WoW is successful because it's proven that crack is addictive.
Addictions are a b-a-d thing.
Now drop the crack pipe, and get some rehab. WoW is no more inspiring to MMOs than Quake is to FPS games (with the nail guns and flame throwers, blah, blah, blah).
No, I'll set you straight here.
WoW is successful because:
-It runs on almost any system
-It's has rock solid gameplay
-It caters to both raiding and single player gameplay
-They have decent customer support
-Their servers are stable
-Their quest system is great
-They have a great team of designers and great support and relationships with hardware and GPU companies
If you don't like WoW, that's aight, but WoW is successful because it did a lot of stuff right, SoE.........not so much.
I don't agree with you or the OP that makes WoW look like a mistake, it's an awesome game for the people that enjoy playing.
1. BS.
2. BS.
3. BS.
4. N/A
5. N/A
6. DEFINITE REASON NOT TO PLAY. No more of this Made for Nvidia and more spam before a game -- where you have to find a way to get kill 3 minutes of ads. >:(
I hate WoW. Not only because of what it did to gaming itself, but it's graphics. Last time I played with dolls and "cute" play things was 30 years ago.
Blizzard do gaming a favor: roll over and play dead (I'm sure your team of designers can make it a fine funeral, too). Thank you!
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.