I think games these days are too easy, too. However, an MMO that is very hard to solo, has harsh death penalties and features lengthy travel times just isn't going to make enough money to interest a game company or its shareholders. Not in today's economic climate. Sad, but true. Wishing it wasn't so is pointless.
"Walking up into the Dark Elf realm as a human and starting up a conversation with them was unthinkable." There was nothing out of the ordinary in doing that. The Dark Elf Guards might kill you on sight, but there was nothing stopping a Human character walking up to a Dark Elf character and interacting socially or forming a party. I don't know where you got that idea. Characters in EQ could group with any other player race whatsoever and did so as a matter of course.
Levelling in EQ wasn't hard, either, not when you knew the ropes. I got several characters to 70+ before I moved on, and because my guild was mainly American and I was in Europe, I soloed a heck of a lot out of sheer necessity.
I don't believe that. In fact, a lot of recent games had legendary, and I mean LEGENDARY, IP's behind them, yet failed because gameplay was too easy, too on rails, and too unrewarding.
When the next AAA quality MMO comes out that fits the OP's design, watch out. That will be a real hit, wills top WOW into the ground.
Vanguard and Dark & Light failed.
The next big thing, will truly be a new thing. The OP's games exists all over, but we've played them all to death.
They failed because of lack of polish, really crappy implementation, not because they were open worlds. Those were NOT AAA games. But if EQ Next comes out and is anything like EQ1, but with advanced graphics, smooth UI, smooth movement, I would think folks would flock to it.
My advice: Give up MMOs or be satisfied with what's out there. You can play an old one for the gratification of overcoming a large obstacle or a new one for instant gratification.
I can find little to disagree with in your response to the OP, but the advice you give isn't helpful. To argue that players, in general, should give up if they find the current MMORPGs unsatisfactory is a good point and I've argued amongst folks I know that the determining factor for why a game will tank or do well is an individual's personality. This, of course, is coupled with the community they are in (the game as a whole, or as small as their guild) as well as the gameply (from controls to customer support, and this last because support genuinely effects gameplay). However, to argue that if one isn't going to give up playing MMORPGs they should simply be satisfied with what is out there is more of a red herring than a question-begging fallacy. I don't think that you intend to contribute to the problem but this mindset is a very large part of the problem and you should be aware of that. The mindset is, specifically, leave or learn to accept it.
In life there are plenty of things that we are forced to merely accept, even though there are a surprising number of things that we could do as people if we simply pulled our heads from our asses and banded together. This manifests in the MMORPG community as a whole when people refuse to 'vote' with their wallets and stop paying for games that are below either their personal expectations or are simply bad games. If they aren't voting with their wallets and are, instead, playing a free-to-play game then they can simply not play it and 'vote' that way. We need not kid ourselves and think that these companies that publish games are interested in doing much more than making money and, no matter what the developers want to do (or can do), they simply will not listen to anything else.
The best advice really is to stop playing MMORPGs altogether if they are unsatisfying, however before anyone gives up they should try to do something to get involved with the community and see if they can do their part to help foster change. So many people forget about community and the role it plays when talking about these games, drawing these arbitrary lines in the sand instead of actually talking amongst each other. No matter how good or bad a game may be for someone -and no matter how bad a game may really be, period- we don't ultimately play these games to do anything but interact with one another while doing something we like, viz. build a particular community of appreciably similar minded people.
Why don't we get back to community and interact with developers and publishers as a community, instead of a bunch of individuals who've been taught by the gaming version of Pavlov to accept it or shut up? Hell, while we're at it, let's interact with each other like it matters.
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain. (2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
They failed because of lack of polish, really crappy implementation, not because they were open worlds. Those were NOT AAA games. But if EQ Next comes out and is anything like EQ1, but with advanced graphics, smooth UI, smooth movement, I would think folks would flock to it.
Well the difference between the launch of Vanguard and SWG was that SWG was a big IP, though both had very miserable launches. It only goes to show that if it's not a big IP, don't launch unpolished/buggy. I guess some LIKE bugs though *shrugs*.
As for EQ Next... ugh... maybe like EQ2 Next most likely. After all, lets not forget it's SOE So... cant say I can muster any hope... though I really would like to.
You know what I liked about SB mostly is it gave me a real reason to join a guild. I didn't join to just level faster, but to build a city together in order to build better gear. To unit and fight against those who tried to take our city away and to punish those who attacked us. There was solo content, group content, group effort to grow as a collective so we could beat other player characters. There was a cause and a reason you came back. Now there is just a grind for the next shiney and you may have a guild for raids but for really what? The next trinket that no one can take away from you? If you lost a city in SB that meant a lot of work lost and hard to get the gear you wanted. Plus there was real politics in this game and it was great.
Now the games are just I don't know, lame. Sure if I played SB too much I got bored, but isn't that the case with everything? You take a break and come back. I still can't get over Raiding so you can sit in a city and look cool, feeling secure that you can't lose your pixels. Looking back SB was apparently very complex on many levels that other producers haven't caught on to yet.
Here's to you SB, I miss you.
Oh yeah I know what you mean. In about 2 years time I probably only really put a good 9 to 10 months in to Shadowbane. But I can tell stories about the Brotherhood, Blood Axe Clan, raiding this town that one. Going all pirate, playing a spy. At the time I thought I wanted more gear, more items to tinker around with this and that, but man when it was gone. I missed the fact that I didn't find a bunch of widgets to hit a button and make a waggit to sell to a vender for some coins. 30+ other players and I killed things, claimed territory, fought off invaders, lost everything, built back everything, made the other guys LOSE everything and it was a struggle. Frustrating at times, but in hindsight it was worth it.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
How many games do you know of that take the testers feedback so seriously that they actually delay thier version of the game to implement these ideas into the game. Most of the time it will be only fluff from the testers that gets the green light and the rest they ignore because that would mean delays "and we can't have that now can we". Until the day comes when the forums explode with rage over the flaws (the same flaws that the testers pointed out). Now days the only reason a game gets delayed is because it has critical bugs makeing the game unplayable.
I know of one game that has been delayed because of testers feedback and the funny thing is it's an eastern game company.
And who were these testers that gave the feedback ? They came from the western community !! Imagine that o_O
Games are in a rut now days because companies don't listen to the community, they just give lip service then shovel crap on our doorstep.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
How many games do you know of that take the testers feedback so seriously that they actually delay thier version of the game to implement these ideas into the game. [...]
Games are in a rut now days because companies don't listen to the community, they just give lip service then shovel crap on our doorstep.
This is exactly why people need to vote with their wallets and stop putting out non-sensical ideas that amount to no more than 'deal with it or leave'. It takes the community for any given game to decide whether or not they want to be hosed by the company they are giving money to and, unfortunately, people seem to be ok with it -after all, if they weren't ok with it they'd leave.
Here's a thought: niche-games have a smaller budget to work with but, all things considered, have the option to be closer to their customer base, viz. the community. What if these particular companies dug deeper into their niche in response to the players' feedback, giving the players more of what they want? This may draw in newer players as folks might say, 'hey, this company over here is actually listening to the suggestions from the community that make sense and the commnity is responding well. I want to check that out!' Folks say you have to spend a dollar to make a dollar, so why not apply that to MMORPGs and say that companies need to be a bit less financially ambitious to draw in more players? Then again, this actually depends on the community responding positively instead of like greedy trolls and a company having the will to do this.
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain. (2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
How many games do you know of that take the testers feedback so seriously that they actually delay thier version of the game to implement these ideas into the game. [...]
Games are in a rut now days because companies don't listen to the community, they just give lip service then shovel crap on our doorstep.
This is exactly why people need to vote with their wallets and stop putting out non-sensical ideas that amount to no more than 'deal with it or leave'. It takes the community for any given game to decide whether or not they want to be hosed by the company they are giving money to and, unfortunately, people seem to be ok with it -after all, if they weren't ok with it they'd leave.
I don't think even then they get it though. Worse case example, SWG-NGE and SOE/LA. Even after loosing 100k subs at launch, they still testify that it was the right thing to do. They never asked for input on such a drastic change, never a hint, just thumbed their nose at their existing subscribers. 100k subs lost and never stopped declining, yet it was the right thing to do. It's now almost at the sub level that Matrix Online was when they pulled the plug. I guess they got their money out of it, so F the community. Now anything with SOE or LA I take a back seat and watch from the safe distance. Popcorn anyone? I have not seen SOE do anything right since.
Of course there's no hope. Don't fool yourself. No game will ever give you that feeling.
Todays games are made so it shouldn't give you any negative emotions. Because they think if it does, you'll quit. So everyone is playing in this boring, unimaginative world, where nothing matters.
Death penalty causes negative emotions? We will remove it. Now nothing you do actually matters, seeee? No stress for you.
Long travel causes negative emotions? We will eliminate it. Now there's no big world left. No stress for you.
Some mobs turned out to be stronger than others? We will put some mark by it's name, saying how strong it is.
These roaming mobs suddenly attack you? We will remove them. Now every monster will only move in their 10x10 meters square for your convenience.
These mobs are too hard to fight? You have to think when fighting? Not any more, now they are dumber and you just press 1,2,3. And again, 1,2,3. See, that's easy.
You will make no mistakes in this game any more! Nothing you do will make impact on your gameplay! You don't have to think any more! There's no danger left for you, dear player. No challenges in a game. See how FUN it is now? No stress whatsoever.
I'm not your typical MMORPG player. I'm an amateur bodybuilder, I'm a firefighter in the military, and I have a hot, tall, blonde hair, blue eyed wife. I do however have a demon in the closet... I'm a sucker for MMORPG's. I love them... However, in recent years my hopes and expectations have been let down considerably, so again, is there hope?
Why is it people feel they need to convince us that they are not 40 yr olds living in a basement ?
How many games do you know of that take the testers feedback so seriously that they actually delay thier version of the game to implement these ideas into the game. [...]
Games are in a rut now days because companies don't listen to the community, they just give lip service then shovel crap on our doorstep.
This is exactly why people need to vote with their wallets and stop putting out non-sensical ideas that amount to no more than 'deal with it or leave'. It takes the community for any given game to decide whether or not they want to be hosed by the company they are giving money to and, unfortunately, people seem to be ok with it -after all, if they weren't ok with it they'd leave.
I don't think even then they get it though. Worse case example, SWG-NGE and SOE/LA. Even after loosing 100k subs at launch, they still testify that it was the right thing to do. They never asked for input on such a drastic change, never a hint, just thumbed their nose at their existing subscribers. 100k subs lost and never stopped declining, yet it was the right thing to do. It's now almost at the sub level that Matrix Online was when they pulled the plug. I guess they got their money out of it, so F the community. Now anything with SOE or LA I take a back seat and watch from the safe distance. Popcorn anyone? I have not seen SOE do anything right since.
When I playing Everquest II I was very surprised to see company-sanctioned RMT, or what we can call micro-transactions on specific servers. This was something that caused a 'wtf moment' and, while I can see how it makes sense from SOE's standpoint, it seems to me a dangerous precident (or slippery slope if they aren't the first major publisher to do it) that may actually encourage illegal RMT. (I say 'illegal RMT' here to distinguish between micro-transactions, which is RMT but not against the ToS/EULA.)
Yes, I can definitely see SOE not getting it and that is the point that I believe you are making, that companies have the strong tendency to merely look after their bottom line without appreciably listening to community feedback. If they didn't, as I think you rightly generalise it, have an 'eff 'em, we have our money, so let's ride this till the wheels fall off' mentality we'd see some really amazing stuff. At least I think we would.
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain. (2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
How many games do you know of that take the testers feedback so seriously that they actually delay thier version of the game to implement these ideas into the game. [...]
Games are in a rut now days because companies don't listen to the community, they just give lip service then shovel crap on our doorstep.
This is exactly why people need to vote with their wallets and stop putting out non-sensical ideas that amount to no more than 'deal with it or leave'. It takes the community for any given game to decide whether or not they want to be hosed by the company they are giving money to and, unfortunately, people seem to be ok with it -after all, if they weren't ok with it they'd leave.
Here's a thought: niche-games have a smaller budget to work with but, all things considered, have the option to be closer to their customer base, viz. the community. What if these particular companies dug deeper into their niche in response to the players' feedback, giving the players more of what they want? This may draw in newer players as folks might say, 'hey, this company over here is actually listening to the suggestions from the community that make sense and the commnity is responding well. I want to check that out!' Folks say you have to spend a dollar to make a dollar, so why not apply that to MMORPGs and say that companies need to be a bit less financially ambitious to draw in more players? Then again, this actually depends on the community responding positively instead of like greedy trolls and a company having the will to do this.
The problem is that niche market developers are more sensitive to changes in playerbase size and don't have. They have more to lose than a larger developer and because of this, and along with the restrictions in their budgets, they are reluctant to take chances for fear of losing what little they already have.
Whereas larger developer companies have a mindset that THEY know best and therefore often (like others said) just pay lip service to the feedback given by their community. Responding with such BS as "We feel we're heading in the right direction" regardless of the feedback.
I think you overestimate the number of people that are against RMT and cash shops.
I doubt that highly, but it may be helpful for someone to put up a poll here so we can get a feel for what the people that frequent this site think. Something a bit more nuanced then simply whether or not they like it, though. What do you think?
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain. (2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
How many games do you know of that take the testers feedback so seriously that they actually delay thier version of the game to implement these ideas into the game. [...]
Games are in a rut now days because companies don't listen to the community, they just give lip service then shovel crap on our doorstep.
This is exactly why people need to vote with their wallets and stop putting out non-sensical ideas that amount to no more than 'deal with it or leave'. It takes the community for any given game to decide whether or not they want to be hosed by the company they are giving money to and, unfortunately, people seem to be ok with it -after all, if they weren't ok with it they'd leave.
Here's a thought: niche-games have a smaller budget to work with but, all things considered, have the option to be closer to their customer base, viz. the community. What if these particular companies dug deeper into their niche in response to the players' feedback, giving the players more of what they want? This may draw in newer players as folks might say, 'hey, this company over here is actually listening to the suggestions from the community that make sense and the commnity is responding well. I want to check that out!' Folks say you have to spend a dollar to make a dollar, so why not apply that to MMORPGs and say that companies need to be a bit less financially ambitious to draw in more players? Then again, this actually depends on the community responding positively instead of like greedy trolls and a company having the will to do this.
The problem is that niche market developers are more sensitive to changes in playerbase size and don't have. They have more to lose than a larger developer and because of this, and along with the restrictions in their budgets, they are reluctant to take chances for fear of losing what little they already have.
Whereas larger developer companies have a mindset that THEY know best and therefore often (like others said) just pay lip service to the feedback given by their community. Responding with such BS as "We feel we're heading in the right direction" regardless of the feedback.
All of this is a very good and I am inclined to agree with you. But, following the question of the OP, 'is there hope?,' what do you think can be done to get the MMORPG genre as a whole out of this funk?
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain. (2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
I think you overestimate the number of people that are against RMT and cash shops.
I doubt that highly, but it may be helpful for someone to put up a poll here so we can get a feel for what the people that frequent this site think. Something a bit more nuanced then simply whether or not they like it, though. What do you think?
I just look at the numbers buying items from these stores and buying gold from gold sellers. If these were not super profitable from large numbers of people using them then they would not exist in the numbers that they do. Look a the pony from WoW...all those people. DDO must be doing good with their store. Almost every game sells stuff now and it must be good business because others would not copy if the profit was not worth the time.
I think you overestimate the number of people that are against RMT and cash shops.
I doubt that highly, but it may be helpful for someone to put up a poll here so we can get a feel for what the people that frequent this site think. Something a bit more nuanced then simply whether or not they like it, though. What do you think?
I just look at the numbers buying items from these stores and buying gold from gold sellers. If these were not super profitable from large numbers of people using them then they would not exist in the numbers that they do. Look a the pony from WoW...all those people. DDO must be doing good with their store. Almost every game sells stuff now and it must be good business because others would not copy if the profit was not worth the time.
You have a point here and, I think you'd agree, that if someone is going to sell a company's intellectual property it may as well be the company itself. That said, there is a concern with players potentially buying their way into end-game and that, I believe, is the concern of most people who take issue with RMT/microtransactions. As long as companies do not allow this to happen then it seems to me that we, the MMORPG community as a whole, will be ok. On the other hand, if people turn out to be able to buy their way into end-game the level of play and morale in our games will understandably sink and that isn't something we want.
Everything hinges on how far these companies will go with what they allow players to buy and, while we should be wary, I don't think that we should get up in arms over RMT/microtransactions: there's simply no proof that it will destroy a game or a community, players don't need an excuse to do that. I don't agree with what SOE did with allowing RMT, but at least they were smart and picked specific servers where you can use Station Cash. When I played I simply chose a server that didn't have it and everything was ok for me.
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain. (2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
Well let's not mix apples and oranges here... it's not all doom and gloom since the good old EQ/UO days. There's been quite a lot of improvements in the genre but imo in some areas mmos did stagnate and even devolve. For example, I don't think WoW did so well because of its leveling treadmill or raid or die philosophy but in spite of it. Let's call a spade a spade and admit that the only thing WoW really did bring to the table is the fact that it was the first MMO with decent UI and sane gameplay - if DAoC delivered this, for example, they would have 10 mil more subscribers they have now.
IMO, pros and cons in the past 10 years:
EVOLUTION
- a quality standard for UI and graphics. Gone are the days of clunky UIs and funky control schemes. Thank god.
- budgets. After WoW mmos in general have higher production budgets which shows in polish (or at least should show)
- death of death penalty. Sorry but positive motivation is much more effective than negative one, especially in situations in which you are not forced to participate. Sorry but punishing players for something you actually want them to do is dumb. From my experience, if you want to kill PvP in a game just introduce death penalties. Imo the lack of reward (positive motivation) is punishment enough... and even then there are games which had to introduce conciliatory rewards for loosing in order to keep the players participating.
DEVOLUTION
- tank spank heal - it's almost like a holy cow now, it seems no dev is able to envision any other way of archetyping characters
- instancing. Bleh. It might be cool in minigames (PvP or PvE) but that's about it. Instancing (yes and phasing) is simply a foreign body in the medium that is all about persistent shared world.
- combat oriented - again a holy cow. There is no reason mmos should be 99% about kicking the crap out of something or somebody. There are other game genres to look for inspiration. IMO this is the biggest current obstacles to MMOs becomein even more popular in larger gaming population. Farmville anyone? Is there a reason why there shouldn't be a Sim City mmo? Or gardening mmo? Facebook games, however awful they are are at least breaking this dumb cliche.
- the class/leveling paradigm which creates immense gaps in power between characters of different levels. This is completely unnecessary.. It worked for single player RPGs where you wouldn't meet other players who could point out that it's insane that you have 100x times more hp than they do... IMO a much much shallower power curve would be more appropriate for MMO environments with majority of advancement taking place laterally and socially. In fact class+level isn't the problem in itself - it is the insane power curve that creates a total mess in both PvE (no you can't play with your friends) and PvP (for reasons that do not need explaining)
- static "glass" worlds. It's just plain dumb that you can't interact with your environment except taking quests and bashing people. I want a gardern to grow. I want to be able to pick up this chair and put it there. I want to be able to leave stuff on the ground.. what happened to that btw?
- housing. Where is housing? Farmville anyone? Cafe City? How many people are playing these games which have nothing except housing? And yet the devs still think that their major target audience is people who like to hit things on the PC screen and wtfpwn.. whatever. Again, I want a garden to grow.
All of this is a very good and I am inclined to agree with you. But, following the question of the OP, 'is there hope?,' what do you think can be done to get the MMORPG genre as a whole out of this funk?
The MMO industry needs a mindset change. To stop looking upon MMO's as niche market products and to stop over-reaching when they can't even get the basics right.
Many peoples opinions differ in regards to the details of what makes a good MMO, however the broader concepts are often shared by many. Blizzard showed how you can refine those concepts to appeal to a large audience and many different playstyles. Yes, WoW doesn't appeal to everyone but you cannot ignore the size of the population which it DOES appeal to.
I'm not talking about making a "WoW Clone" (god I hate that term), however in the same light the basic concepts that WoW took from its predecessors shouldn't be ignored either.
It basically boils down to good project management and the ability to recognise what concepts have been proven to work and what don't. And don't be afraid to refine previous concepts to a new level of quality.
Just look at the MMO's over the last 10 years. The earlier MMO's focused on the basics because of restrictions in budgets etc. But nowadays, budgets are larger the expectations have risen too. Unfortunately though, many later MMOs ignored refining the basics and tried to cover up their games flaws with flashy stuff and "new innovative features" (another word I hate). They took too many chances with a product that has a poor foundation on which to build. Consequently, their product launched in a poor state, lost a large portion of its subscription base after a couple of months and then spends the next year or so playing "catch up". And by that time, its too late. The playerbase has moved away from the product (either to return to a previous one or to try out others).
In short, get the basics right FIRST and make sure the product can appeal to a good size audience that covers multiple playstyles. Basic elements such as:
Well rounded and typical PVE combat system for different playstyles.
PVP combat.
Enough content to cover all the available "levels" and playstyles which encourages the player to continue subscribing after the first month.
Variety in mission / quest types and itemisation.
Long term and short term goals for players of all playstyles.
Rich background story to the world environment.
An ongoing and dynamic world saga, etc.
A good basic crafting / harvesting / economic synergy which promotes "supply and demand" situations.
Yes this may mean that in some respects the game initially has traits shown in other games,but the goal here is to get a solid foundation in place that works, and THEN implement features that set it apart from the rest.
Sure, design "innovative features" and tell your playerbase what you are designing, but primarily focus on the foundation and refine it, making sure you can actually implement the "innovations" later when the basics are completed to the playerbases satisfaction. Once the basics reach that level of quality which the majority accept, THEN shift focus into creating more depth by adding more gameplay elements and innovations:
More in-depth combat system.
AA and other character progression systems.
Greater depth to crafting / harvesting / economic synergy resulting in player made items of worth e.g. Player housing.
The point is, that many later MMO's attempted to "jump the gun" by implementing the "innovations" without getting the basics right first. And many don't communicate their full intensions to their players. They keep their long term goals so close to their chests that the playerbase basically loses faith. Foresaking the basics is suicidal because the customer isn't stupid. They aren't fooled by gimmicks that attempt to cover over major gameplay flaws.
The MMO industry needs a mindset change. To stop looking upon MMO's as niche market products and to stop over-reaching when they can't even get the basics right.
Many peoples opinions differ in regards to the details of what makes a good MMO, however the broader concepts are often shared by many. Blizzard showed how you can refine those concepts to appeal to a large audience and many different playstyles. Yes, WoW doesn't appeal to everyone but you cannot ignore the size of the population which it DOES appeal to.
I'm not talking about making a "WoW Clone" (god I hate that term), however in the same light the basic concepts that WoW took from its predecessors shouldn't be ignored either.
It basically boils down to good project management and the ability to recognise what concepts have been proven to work and what don't. And don't be afraid to refine previous concepts to a new level of quality.
Just look at the MMO's over the last 10 years. The earlier MMO's focused on the basics because of restrictions in budgets etc. But nowadays, budgets are larger the expectations have risen too. Unfortunately though, many later MMOs ignored refining the basics and tried to cover up their games flaws with flashy stuff and "new innovative features" (another word I hate). They took too many chances with a product that has a poor foundation on which to build. Consequently, their product launched in a poor state, lost a large portion of its subscription base after a couple of months and then spends the next year or so playing "catch up". And by that time, its too late. The playerbase has moved away from the product (either to return to a previous one or to try out others).
In short, get the basics right FIRST and make sure the product can appeal to a good size audience that covers multiple playstyles. Basic elements such as PVE combat for different playstyles, PVP combat, enough content to cover all the available "levels" and playstyles, variety in items, a good basic crafting / harvesting / economic synergy, long term and short term goals, variety in mission / quest types, rich background story to the world environment, an ongoing world saga, etc.
Sure, design "innovative features" and tell your playerbase what you are designing, but primarily focus on the foundation and refine it, making sure you can actually implement the "innovations" later when the basics are completed to the playerbases satisfaction. Hopefully, by the time that any modifications are complete on the basics, the next level of content is ready (e.g. housing which depends on the crafting / harvesting / economy synergy , combat combo system, AA and other character progression systems).
Once the basics reach that level of quality which the majority accept, THEN shift focus into creating more depth by adding more gameplay elements and innovations.
The point is, that many later MMO's attempted to "jump the gun" by implementing the "innovations" without getting the basics right first. Foresaking the basics is suicidal because the customer isn't stupid. They aren't fooled by gimmicks that attempt to cover over major gameplay flaws.
I agree with your overreaching point. I wholeheartedly agree that one of ths biggest failures of most companies coming out with games these days are trying to overreach, take too many shortcuts, and releasing products well before they are ready to be released. Some great examples of this done in some recent mmorpgs are Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, Aion, Champions Online, and Star Trek Online.
One thing I do disagree on is the niche market comment. I think there is a market out there for this and in fact I would argue that not enough companies are trying to compete for these types of players personally.
However, I cannot stress enough how correct I believe you are in your observation that companies in general are overreaching and taking things for granted that they shouldn't in this day and age. A lot of them certainly would have been better off if they would have concentrated more on the basics than thei supposed "innovations". Their products and the retention rate to their products would have fared a hell of a lot better if they would have too.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Yep, people want something different, but they still would like to see the kind of features that they have been used to (user friendly UI, full and complete quest system, PVP, etc).
Lets face facts, at launch WoW wasn't exactly "innovative". But it didn't need to be. Instead they focused on refining the MMO concepts that people sought in an MMO, and then add their own story and quest system on top. And because of that, the devs could focus on polishing these refined elements before they moved onto implementing others. And because of that, the game launched in a much better state than many others do lately. Yes WoW had the usual server issues, balance issues, etc but so do all the others. However, the difference between WoW and others is that WoW didn't have to contend with extra work brought in by "innovative features" on top of the mountain of usual issues that plague MMO launches.
In contrast to this, you have AOC which launched with such issues as quest-less gaps in its progression system, no PVP system, poor itemisation, poor crafting / economy synergy and a host of balancing issues specifically tied to their "combo" system. Don't get me wrong, the melee combo system was a very nice touch. But it should not have been implemented if that meant foresaking the very basic elements that people have come to expect in a polished MMO title. Refinement of basics should always take presendence over innovations. Get the foundation right before you build a house.
It comes down to a lack of foresight and planning. If you want to launch sooner, then put innovations on the "back burner" not the basic elements.
Now, lets look at SWTOR. Personally, I'd prefer to have a complete PVE system, PVP system, crafting and all the other typical elements in it, if it meant that the whole "Companion" system had to be put on the back burner.
Now, lets look at SWTOR. Personally, I'd prefer to have a complete PVE system, PVP system, crafting and all the other typical elements in it, if it meant that the whole "Companion" system had to be put on the back burner.
I'm with you there.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Death penalty: Yeah, respawning 100 yards away without losing anything significant isn't a death penalty it's a do-over.
Travel: The more they take traveling out of a virtual world the less world there is. Eliminating boring downtime in traveling shouldn't mean eliminating the traveling itself, it should mean they made the traveling more interesting and challenging.
Language and factions: Languages are not all that important in my opinion but they don't hurt. Factions are good because they help to make the world a little more interesting.
Leveling: It is waaayyyy too fast now. And I don't understand the point of making it so fast. Why does everybody want to rush through games at warp speed now? Maybe it's just because the games now suck so bad nobody really enjoys them anyway so the only thing which keeps them hooked is if the carrots are fed to them quickly enough.
Soloing: I don't completely agree on this one. I want grouping to be a big thing again but soloing should be possible. Even in EQ I spent a lot of time soloing. But grouping should be the path of least resistance rather than being more of a chore than soloing as it always is in games now.
Death penalty: Yeah, respawning 100 yards away without losing anything significant isn't a death penalty it's a do-over.
Travel: The more they take traveling out of a virtual world the less world there is. Eliminating boring downtime in traveling shouldn't mean eliminating the traveling itself, it should mean they made the traveling more interesting and challenging.
Leveling: It is waaayyyy too fast now. And I don't understand the point of making it so fast. Why does everybody want to rush through games at warp speed now? Maybe it's just because the games now suck so bad nobody really enjoys them anyway so the only thing which keeps them hooked is if the carrots are fed to them quickly enough.
Soloing: I don't completely agree on this one. I want grouping to be a big thing again but soloing should be possible. Even in EQ I spent a lot of time soloing. But grouping should be the path of least resistance rather than being more of a chore than soloing as it always is in games now.
These are the ones I agree with. Especially about the death penalty and leveling in general. It has gotten simply ridiculous in those two areas. I don't necessarily want days of my time erased upon one mistake but when you consider how little, if any, penalty exists in games any more it has gotten silly. Takes away any challenge or thrill when you know it doesn't really matter at all if you die.
Leveling is way too fast as well. Even some of the "older games" revamped their leveling curves. Last time I resubbed to WoW and LotR it was ridiculous how fast you leveled. You level so goddamn fast you outlevel a large portion of the content now before you even encounter it any more.
...and in newer games it is amazing how fast you can reach their "end game" which considering they are new isn't even in their best interest because most times it is severely underdeveloped.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
How many games do you know of that take the testers feedback so seriously that they actually delay thier version of the game to implement these ideas into the game. [...]
Games are in a rut now days because companies don't listen to the community, they just give lip service then shovel crap on our doorstep.
This is exactly why people need to vote with their wallets and stop putting out non-sensical ideas that amount to no more than 'deal with it or leave'. It takes the community for any given game to decide whether or not they want to be hosed by the company they are giving money to and, unfortunately, people seem to be ok with it -after all, if they weren't ok with it they'd leave.
I don't think even then they get it though. Worse case example, SWG-NGE and SOE/LA. Even after loosing 100k subs at launch, they still testify that it was the right thing to do. They never asked for input on such a drastic change, never a hint, just thumbed their nose at their existing subscribers. 100k subs lost and never stopped declining, yet it was the right thing to do. It's now almost at the sub level that Matrix Online was when they pulled the plug. I guess they got their money out of it, so F the community. Now anything with SOE or LA I take a back seat and watch from the safe distance. Popcorn anyone? I have not seen SOE do anything right since.
When I playing Everquest II I was very surprised to see company-sanctioned RMT, or what we can call micro-transactions on specific servers. This was something that caused a 'wtf moment' and, while I can see how it makes sense from SOE's standpoint, it seems to me a dangerous precident (or slippery slope if they aren't the first major publisher to do it) that may actually encourage illegal RMT. (I say 'illegal RMT' here to distinguish between micro-transactions, which is RMT but not against the ToS/EULA.)
Yes, I can definitely see SOE not getting it and that is the point that I believe you are making, that companies have the strong tendency to merely look after their bottom line without appreciably listening to community feedback. If they didn't, as I think you rightly generalise it, have an 'eff 'em, we have our money, so let's ride this till the wheels fall off' mentality we'd see some really amazing stuff. At least I think we would.
And you know what the real selling point of an existing game is? Community feedback and support. Everyone knows the SWG debacle, it's really bad press. If you treat your customers simply as a statistic, then your statistic drops as those players caution anyone from playing the game. Sure always someone, but when you turn a large portion of your subscribers against you, it only results in strong blow back.
So their reason in that case was to pull in new subscribers as they claimed (they told us in forums), but alienated the true lure to the game in the end, the existing community of subscribers. A game company has only one chance to pull in subs at any given point, and that is at launch. After that it’s the subscribers that are going to keep the new players coming in. NGE was an attempt to have a second launch in a sense, but that never works, especially after CU in this case. EVE is the opposite example, continued growth over years as the community actively tries to bring in new subs. SOE needs to learn that lesson before they can move forward once again. And other companies need to heed that example.
Comments
Whatever you say, rick. Whatever you say.
I can find little to disagree with in your response to the OP, but the advice you give isn't helpful. To argue that players, in general, should give up if they find the current MMORPGs unsatisfactory is a good point and I've argued amongst folks I know that the determining factor for why a game will tank or do well is an individual's personality. This, of course, is coupled with the community they are in (the game as a whole, or as small as their guild) as well as the gameply (from controls to customer support, and this last because support genuinely effects gameplay). However, to argue that if one isn't going to give up playing MMORPGs they should simply be satisfied with what is out there is more of a red herring than a question-begging fallacy. I don't think that you intend to contribute to the problem but this mindset is a very large part of the problem and you should be aware of that. The mindset is, specifically, leave or learn to accept it.
In life there are plenty of things that we are forced to merely accept, even though there are a surprising number of things that we could do as people if we simply pulled our heads from our asses and banded together. This manifests in the MMORPG community as a whole when people refuse to 'vote' with their wallets and stop paying for games that are below either their personal expectations or are simply bad games. If they aren't voting with their wallets and are, instead, playing a free-to-play game then they can simply not play it and 'vote' that way. We need not kid ourselves and think that these companies that publish games are interested in doing much more than making money and, no matter what the developers want to do (or can do), they simply will not listen to anything else.
The best advice really is to stop playing MMORPGs altogether if they are unsatisfying, however before anyone gives up they should try to do something to get involved with the community and see if they can do their part to help foster change. So many people forget about community and the role it plays when talking about these games, drawing these arbitrary lines in the sand instead of actually talking amongst each other. No matter how good or bad a game may be for someone -and no matter how bad a game may really be, period- we don't ultimately play these games to do anything but interact with one another while doing something we like, viz. build a particular community of appreciably similar minded people.
Why don't we get back to community and interact with developers and publishers as a community, instead of a bunch of individuals who've been taught by the gaming version of Pavlov to accept it or shut up? Hell, while we're at it, let's interact with each other like it matters.
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain.
(2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
Well the difference between the launch of Vanguard and SWG was that SWG was a big IP, though both had very miserable launches. It only goes to show that if it's not a big IP, don't launch unpolished/buggy. I guess some LIKE bugs though *shrugs*.
So... cant say I can muster any hope... though I really would like to.
As for EQ Next... ugh... maybe like EQ2 Next most likely. After all, lets not forget it's SOE
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
Oh yeah I know what you mean. In about 2 years time I probably only really put a good 9 to 10 months in to Shadowbane. But I can tell stories about the Brotherhood, Blood Axe Clan, raiding this town that one. Going all pirate, playing a spy. At the time I thought I wanted more gear, more items to tinker around with this and that, but man when it was gone. I missed the fact that I didn't find a bunch of widgets to hit a button and make a waggit to sell to a vender for some coins. 30+ other players and I killed things, claimed territory, fought off invaders, lost everything, built back everything, made the other guys LOSE everything and it was a struggle. Frustrating at times, but in hindsight it was worth it.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
How many games do you know of that take the testers feedback so seriously that they actually delay thier version of the game to implement these ideas into the game. Most of the time it will be only fluff from the testers that gets the green light and the rest they ignore because that would mean delays "and we can't have that now can we". Until the day comes when the forums explode with rage over the flaws (the same flaws that the testers pointed out). Now days the only reason a game gets delayed is because it has critical bugs makeing the game unplayable.
I know of one game that has been delayed because of testers feedback and the funny thing is it's an eastern game company.
And who were these testers that gave the feedback ? They came from the western community !! Imagine that o_O
Games are in a rut now days because companies don't listen to the community, they just give lip service then shovel crap on our doorstep.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
This is exactly why people need to vote with their wallets and stop putting out non-sensical ideas that amount to no more than 'deal with it or leave'. It takes the community for any given game to decide whether or not they want to be hosed by the company they are giving money to and, unfortunately, people seem to be ok with it -after all, if they weren't ok with it they'd leave.
Here's a thought: niche-games have a smaller budget to work with but, all things considered, have the option to be closer to their customer base, viz. the community. What if these particular companies dug deeper into their niche in response to the players' feedback, giving the players more of what they want? This may draw in newer players as folks might say, 'hey, this company over here is actually listening to the suggestions from the community that make sense and the commnity is responding well. I want to check that out!' Folks say you have to spend a dollar to make a dollar, so why not apply that to MMORPGs and say that companies need to be a bit less financially ambitious to draw in more players? Then again, this actually depends on the community responding positively instead of like greedy trolls and a company having the will to do this.
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain.
(2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
I don't think even then they get it though. Worse case example, SWG-NGE and SOE/LA. Even after loosing 100k subs at launch, they still testify that it was the right thing to do. They never asked for input on such a drastic change, never a hint, just thumbed their nose at their existing subscribers. 100k subs lost and never stopped declining, yet it was the right thing to do. It's now almost at the sub level that Matrix Online was when they pulled the plug. I guess they got their money out of it, so F the community. Now anything with SOE or LA I take a back seat and watch from the safe distance. Popcorn anyone? I have not seen SOE do anything right since.
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
Of course there's no hope. Don't fool yourself. No game will ever give you that feeling.
Todays games are made so it shouldn't give you any negative emotions. Because they think if it does, you'll quit. So everyone is playing in this boring, unimaginative world, where nothing matters.
Death penalty causes negative emotions? We will remove it. Now nothing you do actually matters, seeee? No stress for you.
Long travel causes negative emotions? We will eliminate it. Now there's no big world left. No stress for you.
Some mobs turned out to be stronger than others? We will put some mark by it's name, saying how strong it is.
These roaming mobs suddenly attack you? We will remove them. Now every monster will only move in their 10x10 meters square for your convenience.
These mobs are too hard to fight? You have to think when fighting? Not any more, now they are dumber and you just press 1,2,3. And again, 1,2,3. See, that's easy.
You will make no mistakes in this game any more! Nothing you do will make impact on your gameplay! You don't have to think any more! There's no danger left for you, dear player. No challenges in a game. See how FUN it is now? No stress whatsoever.
Why is it people feel they need to convince us that they are not 40 yr olds living in a basement ?
When I playing Everquest II I was very surprised to see company-sanctioned RMT, or what we can call micro-transactions on specific servers. This was something that caused a 'wtf moment' and, while I can see how it makes sense from SOE's standpoint, it seems to me a dangerous precident (or slippery slope if they aren't the first major publisher to do it) that may actually encourage illegal RMT. (I say 'illegal RMT' here to distinguish between micro-transactions, which is RMT but not against the ToS/EULA.)
Yes, I can definitely see SOE not getting it and that is the point that I believe you are making, that companies have the strong tendency to merely look after their bottom line without appreciably listening to community feedback. If they didn't, as I think you rightly generalise it, have an 'eff 'em, we have our money, so let's ride this till the wheels fall off' mentality we'd see some really amazing stuff. At least I think we would.
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain.
(2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
I think you overestimate the number of people that are against RMT and cash shops.
The problem is that niche market developers are more sensitive to changes in playerbase size and don't have. They have more to lose than a larger developer and because of this, and along with the restrictions in their budgets, they are reluctant to take chances for fear of losing what little they already have.
Whereas larger developer companies have a mindset that THEY know best and therefore often (like others said) just pay lip service to the feedback given by their community. Responding with such BS as "We feel we're heading in the right direction" regardless of the feedback.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
I doubt that highly, but it may be helpful for someone to put up a poll here so we can get a feel for what the people that frequent this site think. Something a bit more nuanced then simply whether or not they like it, though. What do you think?
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain.
(2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
All of this is a very good and I am inclined to agree with you. But, following the question of the OP, 'is there hope?,' what do you think can be done to get the MMORPG genre as a whole out of this funk?
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain.
(2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
I just look at the numbers buying items from these stores and buying gold from gold sellers. If these were not super profitable from large numbers of people using them then they would not exist in the numbers that they do. Look a the pony from WoW...all those people. DDO must be doing good with their store. Almost every game sells stuff now and it must be good business because others would not copy if the profit was not worth the time.
You have a point here and, I think you'd agree, that if someone is going to sell a company's intellectual property it may as well be the company itself. That said, there is a concern with players potentially buying their way into end-game and that, I believe, is the concern of most people who take issue with RMT/microtransactions. As long as companies do not allow this to happen then it seems to me that we, the MMORPG community as a whole, will be ok. On the other hand, if people turn out to be able to buy their way into end-game the level of play and morale in our games will understandably sink and that isn't something we want.
Everything hinges on how far these companies will go with what they allow players to buy and, while we should be wary, I don't think that we should get up in arms over RMT/microtransactions: there's simply no proof that it will destroy a game or a community, players don't need an excuse to do that. I don't agree with what SOE did with allowing RMT, but at least they were smart and picked specific servers where you can use Station Cash. When I played I simply chose a server that didn't have it and everything was ok for me.
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain.
(2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
Well let's not mix apples and oranges here... it's not all doom and gloom since the good old EQ/UO days. There's been quite a lot of improvements in the genre but imo in some areas mmos did stagnate and even devolve. For example, I don't think WoW did so well because of its leveling treadmill or raid or die philosophy but in spite of it. Let's call a spade a spade and admit that the only thing WoW really did bring to the table is the fact that it was the first MMO with decent UI and sane gameplay - if DAoC delivered this, for example, they would have 10 mil more subscribers they have now.
IMO, pros and cons in the past 10 years:
EVOLUTION
- a quality standard for UI and graphics. Gone are the days of clunky UIs and funky control schemes. Thank god.
- budgets. After WoW mmos in general have higher production budgets which shows in polish (or at least should show)
- death of death penalty. Sorry but positive motivation is much more effective than negative one, especially in situations in which you are not forced to participate. Sorry but punishing players for something you actually want them to do is dumb. From my experience, if you want to kill PvP in a game just introduce death penalties. Imo the lack of reward (positive motivation) is punishment enough... and even then there are games which had to introduce conciliatory rewards for loosing in order to keep the players participating.
DEVOLUTION
- tank spank heal - it's almost like a holy cow now, it seems no dev is able to envision any other way of archetyping characters
- instancing. Bleh. It might be cool in minigames (PvP or PvE) but that's about it. Instancing (yes and phasing) is simply a foreign body in the medium that is all about persistent shared world.
- combat oriented - again a holy cow. There is no reason mmos should be 99% about kicking the crap out of something or somebody. There are other game genres to look for inspiration. IMO this is the biggest current obstacles to MMOs becomein even more popular in larger gaming population. Farmville anyone? Is there a reason why there shouldn't be a Sim City mmo? Or gardening mmo? Facebook games, however awful they are are at least breaking this dumb cliche.
- the class/leveling paradigm which creates immense gaps in power between characters of different levels. This is completely unnecessary.. It worked for single player RPGs where you wouldn't meet other players who could point out that it's insane that you have 100x times more hp than they do... IMO a much much shallower power curve would be more appropriate for MMO environments with majority of advancement taking place laterally and socially. In fact class+level isn't the problem in itself - it is the insane power curve that creates a total mess in both PvE (no you can't play with your friends) and PvP (for reasons that do not need explaining)
- static "glass" worlds. It's just plain dumb that you can't interact with your environment except taking quests and bashing people. I want a gardern to grow. I want to be able to pick up this chair and put it there. I want to be able to leave stuff on the ground.. what happened to that btw?
- housing. Where is housing? Farmville anyone? Cafe City? How many people are playing these games which have nothing except housing? And yet the devs still think that their major target audience is people who like to hit things on the PC screen and wtfpwn.. whatever. Again, I want a garden to grow.
The MMO industry needs a mindset change. To stop looking upon MMO's as niche market products and to stop over-reaching when they can't even get the basics right.
Many peoples opinions differ in regards to the details of what makes a good MMO, however the broader concepts are often shared by many. Blizzard showed how you can refine those concepts to appeal to a large audience and many different playstyles. Yes, WoW doesn't appeal to everyone but you cannot ignore the size of the population which it DOES appeal to.
I'm not talking about making a "WoW Clone" (god I hate that term), however in the same light the basic concepts that WoW took from its predecessors shouldn't be ignored either.
It basically boils down to good project management and the ability to recognise what concepts have been proven to work and what don't. And don't be afraid to refine previous concepts to a new level of quality.
Just look at the MMO's over the last 10 years. The earlier MMO's focused on the basics because of restrictions in budgets etc. But nowadays, budgets are larger the expectations have risen too. Unfortunately though, many later MMOs ignored refining the basics and tried to cover up their games flaws with flashy stuff and "new innovative features" (another word I hate). They took too many chances with a product that has a poor foundation on which to build. Consequently, their product launched in a poor state, lost a large portion of its subscription base after a couple of months and then spends the next year or so playing "catch up". And by that time, its too late. The playerbase has moved away from the product (either to return to a previous one or to try out others).
In short, get the basics right FIRST and make sure the product can appeal to a good size audience that covers multiple playstyles. Basic elements such as:
Well rounded and typical PVE combat system for different playstyles.
PVP combat.
Enough content to cover all the available "levels" and playstyles which encourages the player to continue subscribing after the first month.
Variety in mission / quest types and itemisation.
Long term and short term goals for players of all playstyles.
Rich background story to the world environment.
An ongoing and dynamic world saga, etc.
A good basic crafting / harvesting / economic synergy which promotes "supply and demand" situations.
Yes this may mean that in some respects the game initially has traits shown in other games,but the goal here is to get a solid foundation in place that works, and THEN implement features that set it apart from the rest.
Sure, design "innovative features" and tell your playerbase what you are designing, but primarily focus on the foundation and refine it, making sure you can actually implement the "innovations" later when the basics are completed to the playerbases satisfaction. Once the basics reach that level of quality which the majority accept, THEN shift focus into creating more depth by adding more gameplay elements and innovations:
More in-depth combat system.
AA and other character progression systems.
Greater depth to crafting / harvesting / economic synergy resulting in player made items of worth e.g. Player housing.
The point is, that many later MMO's attempted to "jump the gun" by implementing the "innovations" without getting the basics right first. And many don't communicate their full intensions to their players. They keep their long term goals so close to their chests that the playerbase basically loses faith. Foresaking the basics is suicidal because the customer isn't stupid. They aren't fooled by gimmicks that attempt to cover over major gameplay flaws.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
I agree with your overreaching point. I wholeheartedly agree that one of ths biggest failures of most companies coming out with games these days are trying to overreach, take too many shortcuts, and releasing products well before they are ready to be released. Some great examples of this done in some recent mmorpgs are Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, Aion, Champions Online, and Star Trek Online.
One thing I do disagree on is the niche market comment. I think there is a market out there for this and in fact I would argue that not enough companies are trying to compete for these types of players personally.
However, I cannot stress enough how correct I believe you are in your observation that companies in general are overreaching and taking things for granted that they shouldn't in this day and age. A lot of them certainly would have been better off if they would have concentrated more on the basics than thei supposed "innovations". Their products and the retention rate to their products would have fared a hell of a lot better if they would have too.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Yep, people want something different, but they still would like to see the kind of features that they have been used to (user friendly UI, full and complete quest system, PVP, etc).
Lets face facts, at launch WoW wasn't exactly "innovative". But it didn't need to be. Instead they focused on refining the MMO concepts that people sought in an MMO, and then add their own story and quest system on top. And because of that, the devs could focus on polishing these refined elements before they moved onto implementing others. And because of that, the game launched in a much better state than many others do lately. Yes WoW had the usual server issues, balance issues, etc but so do all the others. However, the difference between WoW and others is that WoW didn't have to contend with extra work brought in by "innovative features" on top of the mountain of usual issues that plague MMO launches.
In contrast to this, you have AOC which launched with such issues as quest-less gaps in its progression system, no PVP system, poor itemisation, poor crafting / economy synergy and a host of balancing issues specifically tied to their "combo" system. Don't get me wrong, the melee combo system was a very nice touch. But it should not have been implemented if that meant foresaking the very basic elements that people have come to expect in a polished MMO title. Refinement of basics should always take presendence over innovations. Get the foundation right before you build a house.
It comes down to a lack of foresight and planning. If you want to launch sooner, then put innovations on the "back burner" not the basic elements.
Now, lets look at SWTOR. Personally, I'd prefer to have a complete PVE system, PVP system, crafting and all the other typical elements in it, if it meant that the whole "Companion" system had to be put on the back burner.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
I'm with you there.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
I mostly agree with the original poster.
Death penalty: Yeah, respawning 100 yards away without losing anything significant isn't a death penalty it's a do-over.
Travel: The more they take traveling out of a virtual world the less world there is. Eliminating boring downtime in traveling shouldn't mean eliminating the traveling itself, it should mean they made the traveling more interesting and challenging.
Language and factions: Languages are not all that important in my opinion but they don't hurt. Factions are good because they help to make the world a little more interesting.
Leveling: It is waaayyyy too fast now. And I don't understand the point of making it so fast. Why does everybody want to rush through games at warp speed now? Maybe it's just because the games now suck so bad nobody really enjoys them anyway so the only thing which keeps them hooked is if the carrots are fed to them quickly enough.
Soloing: I don't completely agree on this one. I want grouping to be a big thing again but soloing should be possible. Even in EQ I spent a lot of time soloing. But grouping should be the path of least resistance rather than being more of a chore than soloing as it always is in games now.
These are the ones I agree with. Especially about the death penalty and leveling in general. It has gotten simply ridiculous in those two areas. I don't necessarily want days of my time erased upon one mistake but when you consider how little, if any, penalty exists in games any more it has gotten silly. Takes away any challenge or thrill when you know it doesn't really matter at all if you die.
Leveling is way too fast as well. Even some of the "older games" revamped their leveling curves. Last time I resubbed to WoW and LotR it was ridiculous how fast you leveled. You level so goddamn fast you outlevel a large portion of the content now before you even encounter it any more.
...and in newer games it is amazing how fast you can reach their "end game" which considering they are new isn't even in their best interest because most times it is severely underdeveloped.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
And you know what the real selling point of an existing game is? Community feedback and support. Everyone knows the SWG debacle, it's really bad press. If you treat your customers simply as a statistic, then your statistic drops as those players caution anyone from playing the game. Sure always someone, but when you turn a large portion of your subscribers against you, it only results in strong blow back.
So their reason in that case was to pull in new subscribers as they claimed (they told us in forums), but alienated the true lure to the game in the end, the existing community of subscribers. A game company has only one chance to pull in subs at any given point, and that is at launch. After that it’s the subscribers that are going to keep the new players coming in. NGE was an attempt to have a second launch in a sense, but that never works, especially after CU in this case. EVE is the opposite example, continued growth over years as the community actively tries to bring in new subs. SOE needs to learn that lesson before they can move forward once again. And other companies need to heed that example.
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
I wrote a similar thread on the subject not too long ago and here is the link. It is mostly my thoughts on the subject.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/280342/The-Bastardization-of-MMORPGs-and-future-games.html