Mighty Hyanmen speaking for all WoW players everywhere. Nice. There's some retention for other games when WoW players quit WoW, you know. Hell, I've seen WoW players come to EVE and enjoy it. Guess they didn't go back to WoW, right? Your argument is flawed and you just made it worse when you tried to play the majority card. New does not equal fun. Fun is subjective, right? You could easily get tired of something new and still have fun with something old. And the new thing doesn't have to be "half assed" for that to happen, either.
Oh, I'm only speaking for "many of them", like you.
EVE has "new" things. No wonder WoW players stay there, they might find it "fun". Makes sense to me, thanks for proving my point.
All you're saying is different things are refreshing. Fine; that equals fun in the short term. Do you really think it's worth building a game based on that short term feeling? Charge ahead with your risky, revolutionary, innovative gameplay, or stick with what works while adding a different spin and some different ideas? One of them may feel like you're playing the same old game, one may not. Or, they may both feel like you're playing the same old game, or both may feel like you're playing a different one. For me, strong storytelling in an MMO makes me feel like it's new and different. Does that equal fun? I don't know yet. I might get sick of the story right away and, thus, sick of TOR. Which is why it's ridiculous to automatically claim that "non-half ass" new stuff is, by default, fun.
There's rarely any "new" left in the genre, because ideas fall into either themepark or sandbox categories. People may say new sandboxes like Darkfall are fun, but Darkfall isn't new or innovative. It simply draws on founding roots of the genre. Why do people say it's fun? Because it's different than WoW, it's not a themepark.
The opposite would be true if sandboxes ruled and themeparks were the minority.
Wow... thats a pretty sad state of affairs for the MMORPG genre' then.. Being as it is still so young...
So you're saying we basically don't have a lot more room to grow in the genre'?
Glad your not a game developer..
Not what he said. He is saying the same thing I have been saying, new even when not halfassed can be boring to some, fun is subjective. Take the old and expand it, slowly, and ease into newer features expanding them.
And in my opinion, thats why a lot of the games today aren't living up to expectaions.. Essentially I could play an MMO, take 5-8 years off before playing another, in hopes the genre' has slowly expanded...
I understand its a slow process.. But when your game is flat out billed as "nothing innovative".. why would i even consider shelling out money for it? Why do you think the author of the article states LucasArts would throttle him?
Because in the mind of more than a few people... I already played this game, I would think.
And in the mind of more then a few people, it's a matter of personal enjoyment, new or not. Sometimes just a change in setting and pace can make a huge difference. Innovation is not bad, but it's not always good either. ToR is already dodging the trinity, this is not new, but to many it may be a different experience due to it being in a themepark game. For better or worse, that is yet to be seen. I think ToR will have some minor innovations, hell it may have some major ones. But this is not my concern. And if they do decide to go with new things, I hope it's of high quality and enjoyable.
i dont care what type of game its going to be. its star wars. im going to play this game so damn hard my computer is going to melt. im saving up all of my vacation time from work and burning it all up when this game releases. all im going to do for nearly 24/7 for 3 weeks is play this game. i cant wait for it to come out.
You don't always have to say the exact words for everyone to know what you're thinking about. You must be new to this board as I have said BioWare can fumble on this, and just might. With me predicting maybe a stable 500k-1m players, it could be less. As I've told you, they don't know what they want. They say they want "fun", but they don't know what is fun. That's why they're confused. Here is what what I want, a MMO to keep me around long term, and for that to happen it has to be enjoyable. I'm not going to question why. And it's a matter of how successful the game is for the majority. If it is, then it is also fun for the majority (well, at least I don't see any other reason for the game to be successful). This falls in the Financial success area. It does matter if we want good games. If we don't know why they're having fun we're a) getting shitty games that don't cater to our interests, and b) the players are confused about what is fun or not, resulting in them playing games they don't like. Good game is a matter of Personal success, which is judged by the amount of fun you have.
Let's clear some things up, because I agree with your first paragraph. The only thing I disagree with is your assumption that "new" automatically equals "fun" if it's not half assed. No, that's not true. New invokes a honeymoon period which may or may not last, and I personally don't think it's wise for a company to risk their entire game design on that. Some companies will, though, and I suppose that's better for the genre overall. Everyone needs gamblers, right? I'm saying that ex-WoW players are tired of WoW. Note, however, that they may not be tired of the WoW model. If I quit WoW because I'm sick of Alliance, but go play, say, Aion, and enjoy it, it's because I was sick of WoW, not the "same old, same old" (since Aion, obviously, is similar to WoW gameplay-wise). For those ex-WoWers who go to EVE, they're most likely both sick of WoW and WoW-type gameplay, so they find EVE refreshing. To them. If you want to talk about things being personally new to people, that's fine. I thought you were talking about new and innovative from a developer's standpoint, which would imply what is new and innovative for the genre. You seem to have shifted your argument and so have I, so it's been a good debate. SW: TOR may not deliver to you, but like I said earlier, I think the story-focused aspect makes it new. To me. That does not guarantee it'll be fun. Also, TOR may have other things up their sleeves that they haven't revealed yet, though I think realistically, we have to expect that the other aspects of this game will be similar to the established model. Which brings us back to the core question and my opinion on it; even if it's similar, if it's polished, I think it's good.
Well, it pretty much comes down to the specifics of what is "halfassed". I think that halfassed means a gameplay feature that is thought in enough detail and executed so well that it will last through that "honeymoon" period. It's true that some features get older sooner than others, but imo it's still better to have a shorter timeframe new feature around than an old one that gets boring right at the start. I don't know if I can argue that this is the best way to go at it though, but I think so.
Even though you're tired of the WoW model, and go visit some other MMO with similar gameplay, I think the result will still you going back to WoW because let's face it, which game is more polished and rich content wise than that game? It would ,at least for me, be silly to go play an inferior version of the game instead just because I'm tired of the Alliance.
I did shift my argument as it progressed, since I've learned a lot from this discussion and was able to widen my thoughts on the subject. I only hope that this was the reason for the discussion for you two as well, and not just "winning". We know that can't happen in the interwebs anyway.
Hopefully the story based gameplay will be enough to make the game new and fun for the players. Not for me, yeah, since it's not really new feature to myself at all. But to the majority it is.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
i dont care what type of game its going to be. its star wars. im going to play this game so damn hard my computer is going to melt. im saving up all of my vacation time from work and burning it all up when this game releases. all im going to do for nearly 24/7 for 3 weeks is play this game. i cant wait for it to come out.
That's not really rational thinking, but to some people playing in a star wars universe is enough in itself. Hopefully that's the case for you too.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Mighty Hyanmen speaking for all WoW players everywhere. Nice. There's some retention for other games when WoW players quit WoW, you know. Hell, I've seen WoW players come to EVE and enjoy it. Guess they didn't go back to WoW, right? Your argument is flawed and you just made it worse when you tried to play the majority card. New does not equal fun. Fun is subjective, right? You could easily get tired of something new and still have fun with something old. And the new thing doesn't have to be "half assed" for that to happen, either.
Oh, I'm only speaking for "many of them", like you.
EVE has "new" things. No wonder WoW players stay there, they might find it "fun". Makes sense to me, thanks for proving my point.
All you're saying is different things are refreshing. Fine; that equals fun in the short term. Do you really think it's worth building a game based on that short term feeling? Charge ahead with your risky, revolutionary, innovative gameplay, or stick with what works while adding a different spin and some different ideas? One of them may feel like you're playing the same old game, one may not. Or, they may both feel like you're playing the same old game, or both may feel like you're playing a different one. For me, strong storytelling in an MMO makes me feel like it's new and different. Does that equal fun? I don't know yet. I might get sick of the story right away and, thus, sick of TOR. Which is why it's ridiculous to automatically claim that "non-half ass" new stuff is, by default, fun.
There's rarely any "new" left in the genre, because ideas fall into either themepark or sandbox categories. People may say new sandboxes like Darkfall are fun, but Darkfall isn't new or innovative. It simply draws on founding roots of the genre. Why do people say it's fun? Because it's different than WoW, it's not a themepark.
The opposite would be true if sandboxes ruled and themeparks were the minority.
Wow... thats a pretty sad state of affairs for the MMORPG genre' then.. Being as it is still so young...
So you're saying we basically don't have a lot more room to grow in the genre'?
Glad your not a game developer..
Not what he said. He is saying the same thing I have been saying, new even when not halfassed can be boring to some, fun is subjective. Take the old and expand it, slowly, and ease into newer features expanding them.
And in my opinion, thats why a lot of the games today aren't living up to expectaions.. Essentially I could play an MMO, take 5-8 years off before playing another, in hopes the genre' has slowly expanded...
I understand its a slow process.. But when your game is flat out billed as "nothing innovative".. why would i even consider shelling out money for it? Why do you think the author of the article states LucasArts would throttle him?
Because in the mind of more than a few people... I already played this game, I would think.
In my opinion, that's when you have to quit or take a break. If you can't judge a game based on it's own merits, then don't play at all. Yes, when making a new game, you have to offer something new, some incentive to quit your old game - Bioware has done that by focusing on story. Is it enough for some people? Obviously not (even though they haven't played the game yet, of course). This is all speculation and no one will know how they really feel until they play it... if they go in with an open mind.
Perhaps they don't need to take a break or quit, perhaps they just need to stay with the game they are playing? And thats the rub for Bioware.. For me these days, you need to convince me to buy your game. In this economy, coupled with the way newer MMOs have been falling by the wayside, and the amount of new drink coasters i have here on my desk.. pffft
For me personally, story isn't going to keep me subscribed to a MMO, for the only reason, I don't think you can produce it as fast as i go through it, once i hit endgame., maybe i'm wrong there... Convince me otherwise (not you, them)
Hey, I wish Bioware luck, I hope they make a great game that I play for years to come, but i'm just not seeing it, not even close.
i dont care what type of game its going to be. its star wars. im going to play this game so damn hard my computer is going to melt. im saving up all of my vacation time from work and burning it all up when this game releases. all im going to do for nearly 24/7 for 3 weeks is play this game. i cant wait for it to come out.
That's not really rational thinking, but to some people playing in a star wars universe is enough in itself. Hopefully that's the case for you too.
just as rational as any of the other posts on here.
You must be new to this board as I have said BioWare can fumble on this, and just might. With me predicting maybe a stable 500k-1m players, it could be less. Well that is good to know. Those are my expectations, as well. Here is what what I want, a MMO to keep me around long term, and for that to happen it has to be enjoyable. I'm not going to question why. Surely that is what all the players wish for, but if you won't question why you won't ever find out what kind of game you really want to play. This falls in the Financial success area. Financial success is also the individual's success. For the majority of those individuals, anyway. For the minority, not so much. Good game is a matter of Personal success, which is judged by the amount of fun you have. But without financial success there can be no personal success. No players, no profit, no game.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Let's clear some things up, because I agree with your first paragraph. The only thing I disagree with is your assumption that "new" automatically equals "fun" if it's not half assed. No, that's not true. New invokes a honeymoon period which may or may not last, and I personally don't think it's wise for a company to risk their entire game design on that. Some companies will, though, and I suppose that's better for the genre overall. Everyone needs gamblers, right? I'm saying that ex-WoW players are tired of WoW. Note, however, that they may not be tired of the WoW model. If I quit WoW because I'm sick of Alliance, but go play, say, Aion, and enjoy it, it's because I was sick of WoW, not the "same old, same old" (since Aion, obviously, is similar to WoW gameplay-wise). For those ex-WoWers who go to EVE, they're most likely both sick of WoW and WoW-type gameplay, so they find EVE refreshing. To them. If you want to talk about things being personally new to people, that's fine. I thought you were talking about new and innovative from a developer's standpoint, which would imply what is new and innovative for the genre. You seem to have shifted your argument and so have I, so it's been a good debate. SW: TOR may not deliver to you, but like I said earlier, I think the story-focused aspect makes it new. To me. That does not guarantee it'll be fun. Also, TOR may have other things up their sleeves that they haven't revealed yet, though I think realistically, we have to expect that the other aspects of this game will be similar to the established model. Which brings us back to the core question and my opinion on it; even if it's similar, if it's polished, I think it's good.
Well, it pretty much comes down to the specifics of what is "halfassed". I think that (not)halfassed means a gameplay feature that is thought in enough detail and executed so well that it will last through that "honeymoon" period. It's true that some features get older sooner than others, but imo it's still better to have a shorter timeframe new feature around than an old one that gets boring right at the start. I don't know if I can argue that this is the best way to go at it though, but I think so.
Even though you're tired of the WoW model, and go visit some other MMO with similar gameplay, I think the result will still you going back to WoW because let's face it, which game is more polished and rich content wise than that game? It would ,at least for me, be silly to go play an inferior version of the game instead just because I'm tired of the Alliance.
I did shift my argument as it progressed, since I've learned a lot from this discussion and was able to widen my thoughts on the subject. I only hope that this was the reason for the discussion for you two as well, and not just "winning". We know that can't happen in the interwebs anyway.
Hopefully the story based gameplay will be enough to make the game new and fun for the players. Not for me, yeah, since it's not really new feature to myself at all. But to the majority it is.
Agree with the red. I think every game needs some new features, half assed or not, if they want to attract players. However, I was arguing whether or not it was better for a game company to base their design around new features (in order to be called innovative). I don't think it is; I think it's risky and it could easily backfire.
Let's take Warhammer's PQs. I think they were an innovative feature and they've even been picked up by other games (Champions Online). While the quality of implementation can be argued, the feature itself has a lot of potential. Did I have fun while doing PQs? Yes. I like the idea of "massive" PvE encounters that aren't raids. Was it enough to keep me subbed? Unfortunately, no. In another world, if WAR had solved its other problems and the PQs were the main lackluster feature, then I would definitely keep playing. What if a game had based its entire design philosophy around PQs in order to be called innovative? If they implemented it well, it just might work (at best, becoming a stable niche game). If it turned out like WAR, then the gamble would've failed and there goes their game. That's why I think it's risky and you should build on what works, adding your own twist and spin to it in order to make it attractive. Usually that means new features, yes, but in Bioware's case, they're just shifting soloing focus to a strong storytelling aspect.
If I'm tired of the WoW model, I won't stay in any game that feels like WoW. I certainly wouldn't go back to WoW! If I'm just tired of WoW itself, then a change of scenery and some features in a game that is similar to WoW (in our example, Aion) might just be enough to get my sub. It depends how well-done the other game is. It may be an "inferior version" when compared to WoW because WoW does have 5 years of polish and content, but that won't matter to me if I'm having fun.
Hehe, you certainly can't win on the interwebs, but I like debating and understanding what the other person thinks so I can learn from their viewpoints. Too bad we can't do that with politics, eh?
Surely that is what all the players wish for, but if you won't question why you won't ever find out what kind of game you really want to play. Don't care, just care if it's fun.
But without financial success there can be no personal success. No players, no profit, no game. True, but I shared what I think ToR will reach and may stay at, with that I'll be happy.
Agree with the red. I think every game needs some new features, half assed or not, if they want to attract players. However, I was arguing whether or not it was better for a game company to base their design around new features (in order to be called innovative). I don't think it is; I think it's risky and it could easily backfire. Let's take Warhammer's PQs. I think they were an innovative feature and they've even been picked up by other games (Champions Online). While the quality of implementation can be argued, the feature itself has a lot of potential. Did I have fun while doing PQs? Yes. I like the idea of "massive" PvE encounters that aren't raids. Was it enough to keep me subbed? Unfortunately, no. In another world, if WAR had solved its other problems and the PQs were the main lackluster feature, then I would definitely keep playing. What if a game had based its entire design philosophy around PQs in order to be called innovative? If they implemented it well, it just might work (at best, becoming a stable niche game). If it turned out like WAR, then the gamble would've failed and there goes their game. That's why I think it's risky and you should build on what works, adding your own twist and spin to it in order to make it attractive. Usually that means new features, yes, but in Bioware's case, they're just shifting soloing focus to a strong storytelling aspect. If I'm tired of the WoW model, I won't stay in any game that feels like WoW. I certainly wouldn't go back to WoW! If I'm just tired of WoW itself, then a change of scenery and some features in a game that is similar to WoW (in our example, Aion) might just be enough to get my sub. It depends how well-done the other game is. It may be an "inferior version" when compared to WoW because WoW does have 5 years of polish and content, but that won't matter to me if I'm having fun. Hehe, you certainly can't win on the interwebs, but I like debating and understanding what the other person thinks so I can learn from their viewpoints. Too bad we can't do that with politics, eh?
Well yes, I do agree that completely reworking the whole genre in one game would be way too risky. Especially in the case of MMO's. So the change must happen in a longer timeframe.
However, what is a balanced ratio then? I don't think that the developers are doing enough. In Aion you can fly, or in TOR you can take cover behind objects, but to me these sound like gimmicks and nothing really new.
They could make new battle systems or give crafting a better role, or change the way the character progresses. Nothing too revolutionary, but something to make things, if not really genre-changing features, at least feel like it.
I don't know enough about PQ's to really comment on that, but in the case of TOR, I hope that shifting the focus to storytelling will make it feel like a new feature, and not just a gimmick. I do think that gameplay has the most important role (if you want to make game feel refreshing), but yeah I'll remain skeptical but hopeful. I do like story, too.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I really like Bioware games, but this game is going to crash and burn into a pile of (fill in the blank here) simply because it is just a single player game with MMO aspects tacked on. It has some seriously flawed game play aspects and I still cannot get over the lame arse green figures showing certain classes where to go for cover. Then you have all this jedi sith stuff and they are going to tell you that sich and jedi are no more powerful than say your standard smuggler for PvP purposes. LMAO.... This whole game reminds me of a rehashed version of what Sony did with the NGE and all the iconic crap they tried to shove down our throats - only this time it is from Bioware and it will just be the same game with less MMO and mostly single player game. No thank you.
I get your point, however have you tried giving it thought from a different angle? I think they're going for simplicity in their approach, for a reason. It boils down a simple thought process, simple = fun. Think of it this way, if you're a fan of shooters is the fun in them not expanded when you add in other players? Pick a game like golden eye for example, one of the smoothest shooters ever produced IMO. How did they add even more addictiveness to it, they allowed you to shoot each other. Was this groundbreaking really? Not so much it was just pure fun and nothing more.
Take one of the most successful rpg formulas and add in massively multiplayer functions, you just may get the same result. That's my take on it anyway.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
Oh, I'm only speaking for "many of them", like you.
EVE has "new" things. No wonder WoW players stay there, they might find it "fun". Makes sense to me, thanks for proving my point.
All you're saying is different things are refreshing. Fine; that equals fun in the short term. Do you really think it's worth building a game based on that short term feeling? Charge ahead with your risky, revolutionary, innovative gameplay, or stick with what works while adding a different spin and some different ideas? One of them may feel like you're playing the same old game, one may not. Or, they may both feel like you're playing the same old game, or both may feel like you're playing a different one. For me, strong storytelling in an MMO makes me feel like it's new and different. Does that equal fun? I don't know yet. I might get sick of the story right away and, thus, sick of TOR. Which is why it's ridiculous to automatically claim that "non-half ass" new stuff is, by default, fun.
There's rarely any "new" left in the genre, because ideas fall into either themepark or sandbox categories. People may say new sandboxes like Darkfall are fun, but Darkfall isn't new or innovative. It simply draws on founding roots of the genre. Why do people say it's fun? Because it's different than WoW, it's not a themepark.
The opposite would be true if sandboxes ruled and themeparks were the minority.
Wow... thats a pretty sad state of affairs for the MMORPG genre' then.. Being as it is still so young...
So you're saying we basically don't have a lot more room to grow in the genre'?
Glad your not a game developer..
Not what he said. He is saying the same thing I have been saying, new even when not halfassed can be boring to some, fun is subjective. Take the old and expand it, slowly, and ease into newer features expanding them.
And in my opinion, thats why a lot of the games today aren't living up to expectaions.. Essentially I could play an MMO, take 5-8 years off before playing another, in hopes the genre' has slowly expanded...
I understand its a slow process.. But when your game is flat out billed as "nothing innovative".. why would i even consider shelling out money for it? Why do you think the author of the article states LucasArts would throttle him?
Because in the mind of more than a few people... I already played this game, I would think.
And in the mind of more then a few people, it's a matter of personal enjoyment, new or not. Sometimes just a change in setting and pace can make a huge difference. Innovation is not bad, but it's not always good either. ToR is already dodging the trinity, this is not new, but to many it may be a different experience due to it being in a themepark game. For better or worse, that is yet to be seen. I think ToR will have some minor innovations, hell it may have some major ones. But this is not my concern. And if they do decide to go with new things, I hope it's of high quality and enjoyable.
i dont care what type of game its going to be. its star wars. im going to play this game so damn hard my computer is going to melt. im saving up all of my vacation time from work and burning it all up when this game releases. all im going to do for nearly 24/7 for 3 weeks is play this game. i cant wait for it to come out.
Well, it pretty much comes down to the specifics of what is "halfassed". I think that halfassed means a gameplay feature that is thought in enough detail and executed so well that it will last through that "honeymoon" period. It's true that some features get older sooner than others, but imo it's still better to have a shorter timeframe new feature around than an old one that gets boring right at the start. I don't know if I can argue that this is the best way to go at it though, but I think so.
Even though you're tired of the WoW model, and go visit some other MMO with similar gameplay, I think the result will still you going back to WoW because let's face it, which game is more polished and rich content wise than that game? It would ,at least for me, be silly to go play an inferior version of the game instead just because I'm tired of the Alliance.
I did shift my argument as it progressed, since I've learned a lot from this discussion and was able to widen my thoughts on the subject. I only hope that this was the reason for the discussion for you two as well, and not just "winning". We know that can't happen in the interwebs anyway.
Hopefully the story based gameplay will be enough to make the game new and fun for the players. Not for me, yeah, since it's not really new feature to myself at all. But to the majority it is.
That's not really rational thinking, but to some people playing in a star wars universe is enough in itself. Hopefully that's the case for you too.
Oh, I'm only speaking for "many of them", like you.
EVE has "new" things. No wonder WoW players stay there, they might find it "fun". Makes sense to me, thanks for proving my point.
All you're saying is different things are refreshing. Fine; that equals fun in the short term. Do you really think it's worth building a game based on that short term feeling? Charge ahead with your risky, revolutionary, innovative gameplay, or stick with what works while adding a different spin and some different ideas? One of them may feel like you're playing the same old game, one may not. Or, they may both feel like you're playing the same old game, or both may feel like you're playing a different one. For me, strong storytelling in an MMO makes me feel like it's new and different. Does that equal fun? I don't know yet. I might get sick of the story right away and, thus, sick of TOR. Which is why it's ridiculous to automatically claim that "non-half ass" new stuff is, by default, fun.
There's rarely any "new" left in the genre, because ideas fall into either themepark or sandbox categories. People may say new sandboxes like Darkfall are fun, but Darkfall isn't new or innovative. It simply draws on founding roots of the genre. Why do people say it's fun? Because it's different than WoW, it's not a themepark.
The opposite would be true if sandboxes ruled and themeparks were the minority.
Wow... thats a pretty sad state of affairs for the MMORPG genre' then.. Being as it is still so young...
So you're saying we basically don't have a lot more room to grow in the genre'?
Glad your not a game developer..
Not what he said. He is saying the same thing I have been saying, new even when not halfassed can be boring to some, fun is subjective. Take the old and expand it, slowly, and ease into newer features expanding them.
And in my opinion, thats why a lot of the games today aren't living up to expectaions.. Essentially I could play an MMO, take 5-8 years off before playing another, in hopes the genre' has slowly expanded...
I understand its a slow process.. But when your game is flat out billed as "nothing innovative".. why would i even consider shelling out money for it? Why do you think the author of the article states LucasArts would throttle him?
Because in the mind of more than a few people... I already played this game, I would think.
In my opinion, that's when you have to quit or take a break. If you can't judge a game based on it's own merits, then don't play at all. Yes, when making a new game, you have to offer something new, some incentive to quit your old game - Bioware has done that by focusing on story. Is it enough for some people? Obviously not (even though they haven't played the game yet, of course). This is all speculation and no one will know how they really feel until they play it... if they go in with an open mind.
Perhaps they don't need to take a break or quit, perhaps they just need to stay with the game they are playing? And thats the rub for Bioware.. For me these days, you need to convince me to buy your game. In this economy, coupled with the way newer MMOs have been falling by the wayside, and the amount of new drink coasters i have here on my desk.. pffft
For me personally, story isn't going to keep me subscribed to a MMO, for the only reason, I don't think you can produce it as fast as i go through it, once i hit endgame., maybe i'm wrong there... Convince me otherwise (not you, them)
Hey, I wish Bioware luck, I hope they make a great game that I play for years to come, but i'm just not seeing it, not even close.
That's not really rational thinking, but to some people playing in a star wars universe is enough in itself. Hopefully that's the case for you too.
just as rational as any of the other posts on here.
I find it hard to disagree wit hthat, considering the amount of hype and what I'm seeing so far lot of people might be just like you.
Well, it pretty much comes down to the specifics of what is "halfassed". I think that (not)halfassed means a gameplay feature that is thought in enough detail and executed so well that it will last through that "honeymoon" period. It's true that some features get older sooner than others, but imo it's still better to have a shorter timeframe new feature around than an old one that gets boring right at the start. I don't know if I can argue that this is the best way to go at it though, but I think so.
Even though you're tired of the WoW model, and go visit some other MMO with similar gameplay, I think the result will still you going back to WoW because let's face it, which game is more polished and rich content wise than that game? It would ,at least for me, be silly to go play an inferior version of the game instead just because I'm tired of the Alliance.
I did shift my argument as it progressed, since I've learned a lot from this discussion and was able to widen my thoughts on the subject. I only hope that this was the reason for the discussion for you two as well, and not just "winning". We know that can't happen in the interwebs anyway.
Hopefully the story based gameplay will be enough to make the game new and fun for the players. Not for me, yeah, since it's not really new feature to myself at all. But to the majority it is.
Agree with the red. I think every game needs some new features, half assed or not, if they want to attract players. However, I was arguing whether or not it was better for a game company to base their design around new features (in order to be called innovative). I don't think it is; I think it's risky and it could easily backfire.
Let's take Warhammer's PQs. I think they were an innovative feature and they've even been picked up by other games (Champions Online). While the quality of implementation can be argued, the feature itself has a lot of potential. Did I have fun while doing PQs? Yes. I like the idea of "massive" PvE encounters that aren't raids. Was it enough to keep me subbed? Unfortunately, no. In another world, if WAR had solved its other problems and the PQs were the main lackluster feature, then I would definitely keep playing. What if a game had based its entire design philosophy around PQs in order to be called innovative? If they implemented it well, it just might work (at best, becoming a stable niche game). If it turned out like WAR, then the gamble would've failed and there goes their game. That's why I think it's risky and you should build on what works, adding your own twist and spin to it in order to make it attractive. Usually that means new features, yes, but in Bioware's case, they're just shifting soloing focus to a strong storytelling aspect.
If I'm tired of the WoW model, I won't stay in any game that feels like WoW. I certainly wouldn't go back to WoW! If I'm just tired of WoW itself, then a change of scenery and some features in a game that is similar to WoW (in our example, Aion) might just be enough to get my sub. It depends how well-done the other game is. It may be an "inferior version" when compared to WoW because WoW does have 5 years of polish and content, but that won't matter to me if I'm having fun.
Hehe, you certainly can't win on the interwebs, but I like debating and understanding what the other person thinks so I can learn from their viewpoints. Too bad we can't do that with politics, eh?
Well yes, I do agree that completely reworking the whole genre in one game would be way too risky. Especially in the case of MMO's. So the change must happen in a longer timeframe.
However, what is a balanced ratio then? I don't think that the developers are doing enough. In Aion you can fly, or in TOR you can take cover behind objects, but to me these sound like gimmicks and nothing really new.
They could make new battle systems or give crafting a better role, or change the way the character progresses. Nothing too revolutionary, but something to make things, if not really genre-changing features, at least feel like it.
I don't know enough about PQ's to really comment on that, but in the case of TOR, I hope that shifting the focus to storytelling will make it feel like a new feature, and not just a gimmick. I do think that gameplay has the most important role (if you want to make game feel refreshing), but yeah I'll remain skeptical but hopeful. I do like story, too.
I get your point, however have you tried giving it thought from a different angle? I think they're going for simplicity in their approach, for a reason. It boils down a simple thought process, simple = fun. Think of it this way, if you're a fan of shooters is the fun in them not expanded when you add in other players? Pick a game like golden eye for example, one of the smoothest shooters ever produced IMO. How did they add even more addictiveness to it, they allowed you to shoot each other. Was this groundbreaking really? Not so much it was just pure fun and nothing more.
Take one of the most successful rpg formulas and add in massively multiplayer functions, you just may get the same result. That's my take on it anyway.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson