If you think it sounds like an interesting MMOG, vote yes.
If this feature list isn't something that would intrigue you, vote no.
I already have my assumptions about how this poll will turn out (assuming proper sample size) based upon the general averages of opinions that I find prevelant on this site.
But it could be suprising.
Would a player be able to start a fire and burn a woods to the ground?
Would a player be able to start a fire and burn a woods to the ground?
Would you ACTUALLY want to play that MMO?
I mean seriously. You log on with the intent to chop some wood and build yourself a house. But every time you log in, some jack ass has already burned all the trees down while bunny-hopping around screaming about a roflcoptor and calling people noobs!
I said no because I do not want to play in an instanced world, unless I can log on for only 30 minutes a week and have fun with the PVP. I will only play MMORPG games for the FFA PVP . .. if there isn't FFA than I will not play, and if there are other servers besides FFA than it will probably suck for the FFA server because the balancing issues would be addressed slower (they'd have the needs of the non-PVPers to satisfy as well . ..).
If it was free and a game like Guildwars, where you can PVP immediately without a grind, than I would definitely get it.
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
As others have already said the feature list is from WoW. I don't know of any other games on the market that more closely matches the entire list of features specified.
I suspect the "experiment" here is to see if people want the features that WoW offers but no longer care about WoW. The hypothesis would be to prove whether or not the next big MMO would just need to be the same game with better graphics.
I literally only had to read the first handful of features to realize this was a WoW thread. Anyway, to answer the poll, no I don't want very many of these features. I want something new and different, whatever that may be.
Not at all - read above
Also - refer to the highlighted above-
"I want something new and different, whatever that may be."
How the heck are any developers suppose to give us new, interesting, and fun games when we can't even tell them what we want? When we ourselves don't even know what we want?
Just wanting "something different" isn't enough.
We HAVE to be more specific.
It's not my job to come up with game design concepts, nor do I want to play a game designed by players. I want to play games designed by talented, innovative game designers. Just coming up with a wish list of what EVERY mmo should have does not help any game designer because there is no way an entire community of gamers is going to agree on your list.
The future of MMO gaming is going to be niche based. WoW is a successful anomaly whose features should not be replicated in every new mmo to come.
As I've mentioned, I don't need or want most of what's on this list.
No. No to instanced content. No to splitting up the population and giving the carebears a place to hide on another server. Big no to instanced PvP which will ruin meaningful open field PvP. NO RAIDS.
Give me an open world, player driven economy, versatile crafting system ala SWG, and the possibility for PvP almost anywhere.
I said yes, because aren't these the basics we all want from an MMO? I know it's what I want. I can't see any negatives here. I'm sure someone has some, since you can't please everyone or there is always a rebellious person out there who HAS to go against the status quo.
Crap loads of negatives in that list and the first one that jumps out is the instanced dungeons and instanced pvp. So I would and did vote no. After palying WOW and seeing how that game turned out. I already gave my account to someone else.
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
No. No to instanced content. No to splitting up the population and giving the carebears a place to hide on another server. Big no to instanced PvP which will ruin meaningful open field PvP. NO RAIDS.
Give me an open world, player driven economy, versatile crafting system ala SWG, and the possibility for PvP almost anywhere.
agree
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
I said no for a few reasons. The first is a major one for me and thats the
"-Selectable Dungeon Difficulty Settings.
-In addition to dungeons, raids come in both smaller and larger group-size varieties, each offering independent challenges and rewards."
I hate this kind of mechanic. To me it is either dumbing down content for people who can't play or just reusing limited content over and over. Do an instance on easy with a small group, then keep doing it, now move on to same instance with more people, now on hard with a few people, now onto the same instance with more people! That is extremely boring to me. That would pretty much be a deal breaker for me.
Another thing is the faction pvp. If it is 2 factions, it just doesn't work well. You end of with population problems and most likely it is turned into arena type crap. I've played a few 2 faction based games, but it just didn't have any longevity.
Last reason, and a bit minor is the no mention of classes. Usually when something that major of a MMO is left out, its because their is something wrong. Usually a lack of classes. I play class or skill based, either fine with me, but I like a lot of choices. If the game says play 1 of 6 classes, I'm going to be hmm, and quite wary.
Now if feature list was like play 1 of 30 classes spanning over 3 factions as you battle for keeps and castles, key strategic points and enemy relics that boost your whole realm, I would be wow, that sounds great and would definitely give it a look.
There are features you listed that are quite nice, some that would prevent me from playing, and a few not mentioned that would give me pause.
Just for fun, if that whole mechanic for dungeons wasn't listed, I would give the game a try, and if I saw it was heavily quest based, I would drop it. I really hate progression through meaningless tasks. Go fetch some milk and skin 5 rabbits. ugh.
I rather do dungeon crawls and camps with people or solo and epic quests for a special item. Kind of like the epic quest in EQ or the epic line in daoc that was ever 5 levels and at the end did a long series of quests in an engaging story for a very nice suit of armor. Not saying their can't be quests, but when it is the main mechanic, alternative methods are usually inferior, thus less people doing them and it no longer feels like a MMO to me, just a solitary grind.
Yeah this thread turned out exactly like I predicted.
Thanks all. Goodnight, and good luck.
My apologizes if my responses were too direct. MMORPG.com forums are not the place to come with an all inclusive MMO feature list just to see what people say.
No one really agrees or even necessarily knows exactly what they want their perfect MMO to have. There is no such thing as a "basic features list."
If you could take some of those characteristics and apply it to a sci-fi game, I might give it a shot. But since it's clearly WoW and I hate WoW, the answer is no.
Originally posted by Bruise187 Originally posted by elocke I said yes, because aren't these the basics we all want from an MMO? I know it's what I want. I can't see any negatives here. I'm sure someone has some, since you can't please everyone or there is always a rebellious person out there who HAS to go against the status quo.
Crap loads of negatives in that list and the first one that jumps out is the instanced dungeons and instanced pvp. So I would and did vote no. After palying WOW and seeing how that game turned out. I already gave my account to someone else.
Interesting that you saw in the original post only what you wanted to see. If you notice it says open world pvp AS WELL AS instanced pvp, etc. that means, it fills what you want and it fills what I want and it fills the next joe schmoe's wants too.
From now on, anyone who "hates" WoW loses all credibility in my book and every post they make I will hitherto shun and happily point fingers at. You don't have to be a fan of WoW, but just screwing up a simple question on MMORPG mechanic ideas because of some irrational hatred towards one game is just pathetic. Funniest part is that WoW is NEVER mentioned in the OP. Every argument afterwords is based on assumptions. Incredible.
From now on, anyone who "hates" WoW loses all credibility in my book and every post they make I will hitherto shun and happily point fingers at. You don't have to be a fan of WoW, but just screwing up a simple question on MMORPG mechanic ideas because of some irrational hatred towards one game is just pathetic. Funniest part is that WoW is NEVER mentioned in the OP. Every argument afterwords is based on assumptions. Incredible.
I like WoW and appreciate it for the game it is. I don't go around fanboying/hating any mmo, including WoW. However, I can't read this list of basic features and not think of WoW game mechanics because if you combine the entirety of that list the game you come up with is WoW. No other game fits the bill.
So if you extrapolate on these "core basic features" of a successful mmo then what you are defining is either a WoW clone or at the very least a very similarly designed game. So, like many others in this thread I don't hate WoW but I'm going to call this just like I see it ... a passive attempt to see if everyone really just wants to play the exact same game they've already played.
I still think this is the theory being tested by the poll. Is there a large playerbase that really just wants to play a modernized version of WoW? The obvious answer is some do and some don't. There is no other valuable information that can be gleened from the data.
If the OP wanted to generate a real list of what ANY mmo needs to be successful then it should have been much, much more generic:
1) It needs to be a game
2) It needs to allow you to play this game with other real people
3) It needs to provide entertainment value
Honestly, beyond that I don't see how you can make a set of core features for all successful mmos to follow.
Frankly based solely on feature lists there isn't any MMORGP out there that I would not play. It is the stuff not listed in a feature list that makes me not consider a MMORPG. Heck, Darkfall sounded like a really cool game till I found that most of the staff listed on their website wasn't actually in the game.
Well, after watching the feature list about this hypothetical game, I think I'd play a trial if there was one. But I wouldn't expect much really.
Why? Because most of these features are a standard for MMOs nowadays, while others aren't very appealing per se.
"Adventure together with thousands of other players simultaneously." Well, it's a MMO, it's a given (Then again, devs really love heavy instancing these days, hope they learn not to overdo it)
"Explore an expansive, seemless world with miles of forests, deserts, snow-blown mountains, and other exotic lands." A big world is always a plus, so something interesting right here
"Choose from four server types and find the one best suited for your own playing style: Normal, Player versus Player, Role-playing, and Role-playing Player versus Player." I'm not sure about this one. Of course, it's a great idea since some people prefer PvP and others PvE, but I think the root of the problem is that MMOs try to balance both and end up screwing it. I'd rather see an MMO built around a feature, and go from there.
"Over ten playable races." Races = customization, which is great. But not enough (and if we see WoW, which is what this thread is based on, we can see that races /= customization)
"Encounter many familiar and new characters and monsters." I'd expect all of them being new, unless it's from an IP or something
"Learn the continuing story by completing a wide variety of challenging quests." Quests. Nothing new here
"Customize your characters to fit your style for solo play, party and large group play, and for both PvE and PvP." As I said, customization in a MMO is key, so this is another interesting one. But, it wouldn't be the first.
"Journey through an epic world filled with dungeons and raid encounters of different styles and depths.
-Selectable Dungeon Difficulty Settings.
-In addition to dungeons, raids come in both smaller and larger group-size varieties, each offering independent challenges and rewards." This one is interesting. I personally like group-centric MMOs. I mean, that's the whole point, to play with other people, isn't it? And yes, I was one of those that actually liked the 10 man/25 man change to raids in WoW
"Fight other players in factional open world playe versus player combat over strategic locations, as well as in instanced, balanced matches and in gladiatorial-style player versus player colliseums." The factional open world PvP is good, as long as it has a purpose and it's not the classic 2 faction PvP. The BG and arena style PvP is always nice, more variety is always good.
"Explore huge capital cities, which serve as major hubs for the races inhabiting them." Not unique or interesting
"Practice various professions to make and enhance custom items, locate and harvest reagents and raw materials, acquire wealth through trade with other players, and more." Player driven economy makes for a dynamic economy, gives a whole new layer to the game, so it does sound great. The crafting idea...well, it depends on how's implemented. I'm not really one of those people that think that crafting makes or breaks a game, but if it's going to be implemented, it should be a) interesting, b) worthwhile ,c) limited. So, having professions which are a grind to level up just to be able to make a few items that will soon become obsolete because of in-game items AND having every1 being a crafter...well, I'd rather not have it.
"Purchase tickets for travel along a number of air routes flown by creatures. For global transportation, travel by boat or airship." World transportation, nothing groundbreaking really
"Players can purchase permanent personal mounts, including personal flying mounts." I like the mount idea, especially if it supports mounted combat.
"Join a guild of like-minded players to adventure and conquer the game's many challenges together - or establish your own!
-Progress as a guild to earn guild levels and guild achievements." Guilds...nothing new. Guild levels, quite interesting: gives people a sense of pride for their guild, knowing they're working together for something they belong to, something greater than them.
"Mail gold, items, or messages to other players, or send them to your own characters for easy muling." A mail system, a nice feature but again, nothing groundbreaking
"Sell your items or search for items for sale via the automated auction house." From a point of view, an AH is nice, makes buying and selling a lot less of a chore. But, I have to admit it takes away player interaction. I've always liked more the idea of player owned shops.
"Locate and engage other players with easy-to-use features and tools, including chat channels, friends lists, and animated and audible character expressions." emotes, pms, same ol'
"Customize the game's interface via XML" A feature I used to like in WoW, but ended up hating. It's great being able to change your HUD and add functions to the game, but it makes people less interested in the game and more in the numbers. DPS meters, threat meters, e-peen meters...Fighting over numbers grows boring fast. I actually think that hiding all that behind the program and keeping a shroud of mystery brings people to experiment and teach others and makes it more about the game, rather than about the algorhytms used.
"Enjoy hundreds of hours of gameplay with new quests, items, and adventures every month." Updates every month? Now this is a good one. Too bad MMO devs don't always stick to it, or don't add enough content.
This was the feature list from WoW's website, cut and pasted and slightly altered to not give it away too easily. Guess that failed pretty quick.
I guess the point I was trying to prove is that anything can sound good on paper, it's all in the implementation and the details. Personally I am still a fan of WoW and look forward to Cataclysm, just am a bit worn out on it right now.
Far too often we are "sold" games based on feature lists and limited preview weekends and structured beta tests, but when the actual game hits the shelves what we get is often not what we were promised.
Is this our fault for buying into the hype?
Is it the developers for limited innovation and creativity?
Is it the publishers who value safety and "success" purely in monetary terms?
I like to take a look at the MMORPG genre from an outside perspective sometimes, approach it as if I was reviewing a single player game.
Often we are sold on offline/single player games or even multiplayer titles like a Mod Warfare or Halo etc. based on the features list, and because the developer or franchise has a strong name and/or history.
Why is this not true for many MMO players and titles?
I think we keep searching for the next big thing, the "holy grail" or our "ideal/perfect" MMO because these are games that are designed to pull you in and become an obsession.
I mean I was pretty obsessed with the Halo series and the gameplay of any shooter is relatively simple, Halo just brought a level of immersion, interaction, fun, and polish that had been lacking in the FPS market at the time, and it brought it at the perfect time - a new console generation...
I guess in the end I don't really know where I was going with this thread.
I'm one of the few who have never ever set foot in WoW, so I couldn't venture any opinion on that issue. But most of the stuff mentioned here, really shouldn't be all that contentious.
But it's a sad fact that many MMO's coming out lack them. You see games that are several months out of beta, and they're advertising that they're finally coming out with a mail system? And proud of it? No wonder we're so jaded these days. Incidentally, I can also say that the last F2P I spent some time in and actually enjoyed for some time, it actually filled 80% of this list. Perhaps not too surprising after all.
One thing - the XML issue isn't something I'm in favour of. A proper UI will have basic modifications already incorporated, and when you get into the issue of addons and similar, that doesn't do anything good for the game. People need to learn to play and react to thigs, not stare at a box telling them what going to happen next. Unpredictability is what makes things interesting and adds to long-term value.
That being said, this is stuff that shouldn't be particularly contentious. But this also doesn't begin to get into the stuff that ruins games, and even a game that hits all these points can still ruin itself beyond redemption elsewhere. Even hell comes with a free central heating and a dynamic active community, remember.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs: That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
From now on, anyone who "hates" WoW loses all credibility in my book and every post they make I will hitherto shun and happily point fingers at. You don't have to be a fan of WoW, but just screwing up a simple question on MMORPG mechanic ideas because of some irrational hatred towards one game is just pathetic. Funniest part is that WoW is NEVER mentioned in the OP. Every argument afterwords is based on assumptions. Incredible.
I read to where it said instanced pvp and dungeon settings. All Ineed to know what game he ment and that I would not like that crap game. As far as credibility being lost to a complete stranger...OHHHH NOOESSS. Some people lose all of it as soon as they post enough to be a fanboi and man is that somebody a big fanboi. Almost all the post are to defend it and praise it . Someone gets upset if they don't like their precious game lol.
Insanced anything with restrictions placed on me by the game makes it suck. Therefore with my expert opinion (and everyone thinks rthey are here) it would suck balls.
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
This was the feature list from WoW's website, cut and pasted and slightly altered to not give it away too easily. Guess that failed pretty quick.
I guess the point I was trying to prove is that anything can sound good on paper, it's all in the implementation and the details. Personally I am still a fan of WoW and look forward to Cataclysm, just am a bit worn out on it right now.
Far too often we are "sold" games based on feature lists and limited preview weekends and structured beta tests, but when the actual game hits the shelves what we get is often not what we were promised.
Is this our fault for buying into the hype?
Is it the developers for limited innovation and creativity?
Is it the publishers who value safety and "success" purely in monetary terms?
I like to take a look at the MMORPG genre from an outside perspective sometimes, approach it as if I was reviewing a single player game.
Often we are sold on offline/single player games or even multiplayer titles like a Mod Warfare or Halo etc. based on the features list, and because the developer or franchise has a strong name and/or history.
Why is this not true for many MMO players and titles?
I think we keep searching for the next big thing, the "holy grail" or our "ideal/perfect" MMO because these are games that are designed to pull you in and become an obsession.
I mean I was pretty obsessed with the Halo series and the gameplay of any shooter is relatively simple, Halo just brought a level of immersion, interaction, fun, and polish that had been lacking in the FPS market at the time, and it brought it at the perfect time - a new console generation...
I guess in the end I don't really know where I was going with this thread.
My appologies.
Actually, it was fairly interesting. Features list in general need to be taken with a grain of salt: is easy to take a korean grinder and make it sound appealing. But I think the real problem is the lack of content or, worse, promised features at release.
Why is that? Well, since MMOs are made to improve and have more and more content added to them, lots of developers try to just release short and grow from there. And people still spend their money on it. The MMO community don't find a problem into preordering games, buying subs, spending extra money on "cash malls" (and that's not only restricted to F2Ps *cough* WoW *cough*), and spending extra subscription money. People who have never played MMOs would think some of us are crazy, and developers are getting used to this, going with big promises and poor releases. I've personally learned to be more picky with the MMOs I buy, expecting no less than a trial nowadays.
And about WoW...I've played the game myself, gone back a couple of times, and every time I do, I stick around less time than before. I have my fun levelling to 80 and then the whole raiding and grinding comes to mind and gets boring all of a sudden.
WoW, like Halo, isn't so famous because "it's the best MMO out there" as some people claim. At least not in my opinion. It has some great, original ideas and a new, casual approach to the genre, but I see it more as a combination of good timing and great marketing (before WoW, it wasn't that common to see the massive amounts of ads for an MMO as we see today). Blizzard definitely did a good job, but the massive amount of players it has nowadays was more because it was a one-hit wonder. The new, non-announced MMO Blizz is developing, for example? Can't tell for sure, but I doubt it'll have the same success as its predecessor. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Comments
Would a player be able to start a fire and burn a woods to the ground?
Would you ACTUALLY want to play that MMO?
I mean seriously. You log on with the intent to chop some wood and build yourself a house. But every time you log in, some jack ass has already burned all the trees down while bunny-hopping around screaming about a roflcoptor and calling people noobs!
The basic's are what makes a game.
WarCraft had a playerbase before an MMO was created.
Defecting from the original platform is its downfall, The basic's still hold strong, Allbeit more modernisation is needed to bring it to par with...
Just another wow thred... what's the point.
I said no because I do not want to play in an instanced world, unless I can log on for only 30 minutes a week and have fun with the PVP. I will only play MMORPG games for the FFA PVP . .. if there isn't FFA than I will not play, and if there are other servers besides FFA than it will probably suck for the FFA server because the balancing issues would be addressed slower (they'd have the needs of the non-PVPers to satisfy as well . ..).
If it was free and a game like Guildwars, where you can PVP immediately without a grind, than I would definitely get it.
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
What ARE the basics that make a MMOG?
Things like classes versus skills or whatever are variable -
What things shouldn't be variable?
It's not my job to come up with game design concepts, nor do I want to play a game designed by players. I want to play games designed by talented, innovative game designers. Just coming up with a wish list of what EVERY mmo should have does not help any game designer because there is no way an entire community of gamers is going to agree on your list.
The future of MMO gaming is going to be niche based. WoW is a successful anomaly whose features should not be replicated in every new mmo to come.
As I've mentioned, I don't need or want most of what's on this list.
No. No to instanced content. No to splitting up the population and giving the carebears a place to hide on another server. Big no to instanced PvP which will ruin meaningful open field PvP. NO RAIDS.
Give me an open world, player driven economy, versatile crafting system ala SWG, and the possibility for PvP almost anywhere.
What ARE the basics that make a MMOG?
Things like classes versus skills or whatever are variable -
What things shouldn't be variable?
I'm talking things like...
1. Being Online
2. More then one player
You know, the basic basics.
Crap loads of negatives in that list and the first one that jumps out is the instanced dungeons and instanced pvp. So I would and did vote no. After palying WOW and seeing how that game turned out. I already gave my account to someone else.
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
What should or shouldn't be available is purely a matter of opinion.
agree
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
Yeah this thread turned out exactly like I predicted.
Thanks all. Goodnight, and good luck.
I said no for a few reasons. The first is a major one for me and thats the
"-Selectable Dungeon Difficulty Settings.
-In addition to dungeons, raids come in both smaller and larger group-size varieties, each offering independent challenges and rewards."
I hate this kind of mechanic. To me it is either dumbing down content for people who can't play or just reusing limited content over and over. Do an instance on easy with a small group, then keep doing it, now move on to same instance with more people, now on hard with a few people, now onto the same instance with more people! That is extremely boring to me. That would pretty much be a deal breaker for me.
Another thing is the faction pvp. If it is 2 factions, it just doesn't work well. You end of with population problems and most likely it is turned into arena type crap. I've played a few 2 faction based games, but it just didn't have any longevity.
Last reason, and a bit minor is the no mention of classes. Usually when something that major of a MMO is left out, its because their is something wrong. Usually a lack of classes. I play class or skill based, either fine with me, but I like a lot of choices. If the game says play 1 of 6 classes, I'm going to be hmm, and quite wary.
Now if feature list was like play 1 of 30 classes spanning over 3 factions as you battle for keeps and castles, key strategic points and enemy relics that boost your whole realm, I would be wow, that sounds great and would definitely give it a look.
There are features you listed that are quite nice, some that would prevent me from playing, and a few not mentioned that would give me pause.
Just for fun, if that whole mechanic for dungeons wasn't listed, I would give the game a try, and if I saw it was heavily quest based, I would drop it. I really hate progression through meaningless tasks. Go fetch some milk and skin 5 rabbits. ugh.
I rather do dungeon crawls and camps with people or solo and epic quests for a special item. Kind of like the epic quest in EQ or the epic line in daoc that was ever 5 levels and at the end did a long series of quests in an engaging story for a very nice suit of armor. Not saying their can't be quests, but when it is the main mechanic, alternative methods are usually inferior, thus less people doing them and it no longer feels like a MMO to me, just a solitary grind.
My apologizes if my responses were too direct. MMORPG.com forums are not the place to come with an all inclusive MMO feature list just to see what people say.
No one really agrees or even necessarily knows exactly what they want their perfect MMO to have. There is no such thing as a "basic features list."
Have faith.. only an hour long and giving the thread the boot.... ask Game Workshop where it all went wrong.
If you could take some of those characteristics and apply it to a sci-fi game, I might give it a shot. But since it's clearly WoW and I hate WoW, the answer is no.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Interesting that you saw in the original post only what you wanted to see. If you notice it says open world pvp AS WELL AS instanced pvp, etc. that means, it fills what you want and it fills what I want and it fills the next joe schmoe's wants too.
From now on, anyone who "hates" WoW loses all credibility in my book and every post they make I will hitherto shun and happily point fingers at. You don't have to be a fan of WoW, but just screwing up a simple question on MMORPG mechanic ideas because of some irrational hatred towards one game is just pathetic. Funniest part is that WoW is NEVER mentioned in the OP. Every argument afterwords is based on assumptions. Incredible.
I like WoW and appreciate it for the game it is. I don't go around fanboying/hating any mmo, including WoW. However, I can't read this list of basic features and not think of WoW game mechanics because if you combine the entirety of that list the game you come up with is WoW. No other game fits the bill.
So if you extrapolate on these "core basic features" of a successful mmo then what you are defining is either a WoW clone or at the very least a very similarly designed game. So, like many others in this thread I don't hate WoW but I'm going to call this just like I see it ... a passive attempt to see if everyone really just wants to play the exact same game they've already played.
I still think this is the theory being tested by the poll. Is there a large playerbase that really just wants to play a modernized version of WoW? The obvious answer is some do and some don't. There is no other valuable information that can be gleened from the data.
If the OP wanted to generate a real list of what ANY mmo needs to be successful then it should have been much, much more generic:
1) It needs to be a game
2) It needs to allow you to play this game with other real people
3) It needs to provide entertainment value
Honestly, beyond that I don't see how you can make a set of core features for all successful mmos to follow.
Frankly based solely on feature lists there isn't any MMORGP out there that I would not play. It is the stuff not listed in a feature list that makes me not consider a MMORPG. Heck, Darkfall sounded like a really cool game till I found that most of the staff listed on their website wasn't actually in the game.
Well, after watching the feature list about this hypothetical game, I think I'd play a trial if there was one. But I wouldn't expect much really.
Why? Because most of these features are a standard for MMOs nowadays, while others aren't very appealing per se.
"Adventure together with thousands of other players simultaneously." Well, it's a MMO, it's a given (Then again, devs really love heavy instancing these days, hope they learn not to overdo it)
"Explore an expansive, seemless world with miles of forests, deserts, snow-blown mountains, and other exotic lands." A big world is always a plus, so something interesting right here
"Choose from four server types and find the one best suited for your own playing style: Normal, Player versus Player, Role-playing, and Role-playing Player versus Player." I'm not sure about this one. Of course, it's a great idea since some people prefer PvP and others PvE, but I think the root of the problem is that MMOs try to balance both and end up screwing it. I'd rather see an MMO built around a feature, and go from there.
"Over ten playable races." Races = customization, which is great. But not enough (and if we see WoW, which is what this thread is based on, we can see that races /= customization)
"Encounter many familiar and new characters and monsters." I'd expect all of them being new, unless it's from an IP or something
"Learn the continuing story by completing a wide variety of challenging quests." Quests. Nothing new here
"Customize your characters to fit your style for solo play, party and large group play, and for both PvE and PvP." As I said, customization in a MMO is key, so this is another interesting one. But, it wouldn't be the first.
"Journey through an epic world filled with dungeons and raid encounters of different styles and depths.
-Selectable Dungeon Difficulty Settings.
-In addition to dungeons, raids come in both smaller and larger group-size varieties, each offering independent challenges and rewards." This one is interesting. I personally like group-centric MMOs. I mean, that's the whole point, to play with other people, isn't it? And yes, I was one of those that actually liked the 10 man/25 man change to raids in WoW
"Fight other players in factional open world playe versus player combat over strategic locations, as well as in instanced, balanced matches and in gladiatorial-style player versus player colliseums." The factional open world PvP is good, as long as it has a purpose and it's not the classic 2 faction PvP. The BG and arena style PvP is always nice, more variety is always good.
"Explore huge capital cities, which serve as major hubs for the races inhabiting them." Not unique or interesting
"Practice various professions to make and enhance custom items, locate and harvest reagents and raw materials, acquire wealth through trade with other players, and more." Player driven economy makes for a dynamic economy, gives a whole new layer to the game, so it does sound great. The crafting idea...well, it depends on how's implemented. I'm not really one of those people that think that crafting makes or breaks a game, but if it's going to be implemented, it should be a) interesting, b) worthwhile ,c) limited. So, having professions which are a grind to level up just to be able to make a few items that will soon become obsolete because of in-game items AND having every1 being a crafter...well, I'd rather not have it.
"Purchase tickets for travel along a number of air routes flown by creatures. For global transportation, travel by boat or airship." World transportation, nothing groundbreaking really
"Players can purchase permanent personal mounts, including personal flying mounts." I like the mount idea, especially if it supports mounted combat.
"Join a guild of like-minded players to adventure and conquer the game's many challenges together - or establish your own!
-Progress as a guild to earn guild levels and guild achievements." Guilds...nothing new. Guild levels, quite interesting: gives people a sense of pride for their guild, knowing they're working together for something they belong to, something greater than them.
"Mail gold, items, or messages to other players, or send them to your own characters for easy muling." A mail system, a nice feature but again, nothing groundbreaking
"Sell your items or search for items for sale via the automated auction house." From a point of view, an AH is nice, makes buying and selling a lot less of a chore. But, I have to admit it takes away player interaction. I've always liked more the idea of player owned shops.
"Locate and engage other players with easy-to-use features and tools, including chat channels, friends lists, and animated and audible character expressions." emotes, pms, same ol'
"Customize the game's interface via XML" A feature I used to like in WoW, but ended up hating. It's great being able to change your HUD and add functions to the game, but it makes people less interested in the game and more in the numbers. DPS meters, threat meters, e-peen meters...Fighting over numbers grows boring fast. I actually think that hiding all that behind the program and keeping a shroud of mystery brings people to experiment and teach others and makes it more about the game, rather than about the algorhytms used.
"Enjoy hundreds of hours of gameplay with new quests, items, and adventures every month." Updates every month? Now this is a good one. Too bad MMO devs don't always stick to it, or don't add enough content.
So, yeah, sorry for the wall of text :P
This was the feature list from WoW's website, cut and pasted and slightly altered to not give it away too easily. Guess that failed pretty quick.
I guess the point I was trying to prove is that anything can sound good on paper, it's all in the implementation and the details. Personally I am still a fan of WoW and look forward to Cataclysm, just am a bit worn out on it right now.
Far too often we are "sold" games based on feature lists and limited preview weekends and structured beta tests, but when the actual game hits the shelves what we get is often not what we were promised.
Is this our fault for buying into the hype?
Is it the developers for limited innovation and creativity?
Is it the publishers who value safety and "success" purely in monetary terms?
I like to take a look at the MMORPG genre from an outside perspective sometimes, approach it as if I was reviewing a single player game.
Often we are sold on offline/single player games or even multiplayer titles like a Mod Warfare or Halo etc. based on the features list, and because the developer or franchise has a strong name and/or history.
Why is this not true for many MMO players and titles?
I think we keep searching for the next big thing, the "holy grail" or our "ideal/perfect" MMO because these are games that are designed to pull you in and become an obsession.
I mean I was pretty obsessed with the Halo series and the gameplay of any shooter is relatively simple, Halo just brought a level of immersion, interaction, fun, and polish that had been lacking in the FPS market at the time, and it brought it at the perfect time - a new console generation...
I guess in the end I don't really know where I was going with this thread.
My appologies.
I'm one of the few who have never ever set foot in WoW, so I couldn't venture any opinion on that issue. But most of the stuff mentioned here, really shouldn't be all that contentious.
But it's a sad fact that many MMO's coming out lack them. You see games that are several months out of beta, and they're advertising that they're finally coming out with a mail system? And proud of it? No wonder we're so jaded these days. Incidentally, I can also say that the last F2P I spent some time in and actually enjoyed for some time, it actually filled 80% of this list. Perhaps not too surprising after all.
One thing - the XML issue isn't something I'm in favour of. A proper UI will have basic modifications already incorporated, and when you get into the issue of addons and similar, that doesn't do anything good for the game. People need to learn to play and react to thigs, not stare at a box telling them what going to happen next. Unpredictability is what makes things interesting and adds to long-term value.
That being said, this is stuff that shouldn't be particularly contentious. But this also doesn't begin to get into the stuff that ruins games, and even a game that hits all these points can still ruin itself beyond redemption elsewhere. Even hell comes with a free central heating and a dynamic active community, remember.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs:
That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
I read to where it said instanced pvp and dungeon settings. All Ineed to know what game he ment and that I would not like that crap game. As far as credibility being lost to a complete stranger...OHHHH NOOESSS. Some people lose all of it as soon as they post enough to be a fanboi and man is that somebody a big fanboi. Almost all the post are to defend it and praise it . Someone gets upset if they don't like their precious game lol.
Insanced anything with restrictions placed on me by the game makes it suck. Therefore with my expert opinion (and everyone thinks rthey are here) it would suck balls.
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
Actually, it was fairly interesting. Features list in general need to be taken with a grain of salt: is easy to take a korean grinder and make it sound appealing. But I think the real problem is the lack of content or, worse, promised features at release.
Why is that? Well, since MMOs are made to improve and have more and more content added to them, lots of developers try to just release short and grow from there. And people still spend their money on it. The MMO community don't find a problem into preordering games, buying subs, spending extra money on "cash malls" (and that's not only restricted to F2Ps *cough* WoW *cough*), and spending extra subscription money. People who have never played MMOs would think some of us are crazy, and developers are getting used to this, going with big promises and poor releases. I've personally learned to be more picky with the MMOs I buy, expecting no less than a trial nowadays.
And about WoW...I've played the game myself, gone back a couple of times, and every time I do, I stick around less time than before. I have my fun levelling to 80 and then the whole raiding and grinding comes to mind and gets boring all of a sudden.
WoW, like Halo, isn't so famous because "it's the best MMO out there" as some people claim. At least not in my opinion. It has some great, original ideas and a new, casual approach to the genre, but I see it more as a combination of good timing and great marketing (before WoW, it wasn't that common to see the massive amounts of ads for an MMO as we see today). Blizzard definitely did a good job, but the massive amount of players it has nowadays was more because it was a one-hit wonder. The new, non-announced MMO Blizz is developing, for example? Can't tell for sure, but I doubt it'll have the same success as its predecessor. I guess we'll have to wait and see.