You have to make life work for you. If mmorpgs are getting you that next higher high, then you might have to quit them.
Nah, the first people were mocking me.
On MMORPG.com anything less than a brutal attack on your character or person, almost qualifies as friendly
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
With the success of WOW, there has been a huge rush to the market, and quantity definitely seems to be winning out over quality at the moment.
I bought WAR at release and actually enjoyed it, but I don't see it recovering to a decent player base (R.I.P)
Only other MMO's that I've bought recently were CO and STO, both of which were fun for a short time, but NCSOFT seems to be going for the quick wins rather than developing games which are going to last for years.
It has been a barren year or two, but looking on the bright side, couple new games coming out end of this year, beginning of next. I'm playing Global Agenda at the moment, which is fun (although arguably not an MMO). I never bothered with FFXI, but FFXIV is looking beautiful. DCUO will probably keep me busy for a couple of months. Hopefully there is a bit more PVE in GW2 than GW, and then there is SWTOR.
Is it me, or are there a lot of old school people?
I was told that MMOs cater ot the masses, I'm starting to see more and more people who want innovation, I'm surprised the suits haven't realized that yet...
Heck, I could make an innovative game and charge 20 bucks monthly and everyone would spare the extra cash just to play an innovative and decent game.
I feel with you, OP. Trust me, you are not alone. Many people here and otherwise feel that way.
The point is, the past MMOs of the 1st generation were great for their time. But the taste evolved; what most people like changed. Now we have three sort of MMO players.
1st Old School gamers, who more or less cling to hardships of the old days and usually play their niche game. For them, anything not like UO/EQ is a "WOW clone". You absolutely can not argue with them at all.
2nd VERY casual gamers with very low expectations. That is the WOW playing crowd. By and large. They seek an easygoing fun time to "kill stuff" and a chatroom, and thats it.
Finally there is that 3rd group. We. Those who don't want to suffer UO/EQ era hardships NOR are we satisfied with too shallow and simple MMOs. I can't say how big of a group we are. But for us who seek a balance between those extremes, most MMO developers have nothing to offer. They either tend towards one of the above groups and leave it with that. They take the easy way to aim for one simple target audience.
LOTRO is of the newer games the most close to a balance, as I see it. But after playing it for a long time, I just had seen it enough, and it developed too much to a way too casual type of game in the long run to really keep me. So for the hardcore I am too carebear/casual and for the casual I am too demanding. There is little present for a balanced expectation. At least that is IMO one of the central issues.
Don't let some fools annoy you. It is just people who are mindless and have nothing to say. *comfort*
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I feel with you, OP. Trust me, you are not alone. Many people here and otherwise feel that way.
The point is, the past MMOs of the 1st generation were great for their time. But the taste evolved; what most people like changed. Now we have three sort of MMO players.
1st Old School gamers, who more or less cling to hardships of the old days and usually play their niche game. For them, anything not like UO/EQ is a "WOW clone". You absolutely can not argue with them at all.
2nd VERY casual gamers with very low expectations. That is the WOW playing crowd. By and large. They seek an easygoing fun time to "kill stuff" and a chatroom, and thats it.
Finally there is that 3rd group. We. Those who don't want to suffer UO/EQ era hardships NOR are we satisfied with too shallow and simple MMOs. I can't say how big of a group we are. But for us who seek a balance between those extremes, most MMO developers have nothing to offer. They either tend towards one of the above groups and leave it with that. They take the easy way to aim for one simple target audience.
LOTRO is of the newer games the most close to a balance, as I see it. But after playing it for a long time, I just had seen it enough, and it developed too much to a way too casual type of game in the long run to really keep me. So for the hardcore I am too carebear/casual and for the casual I am too demanding. There is little present for a balanced expectation. At least that is IMO one of the central issues.
Don't let some fools annoy you. It is just people who are mindless and have nothing to say. *comfort*
I think most gamers fall into your grouping, Elikal. Even the new, casual gamers that like WoW, at some point, start to feel that way too. They didn't know any better at the start, but the lack of "something more" of WoW starts to reveal itself after a while. You can see this in posts all over the place, as they ask that question in various ways, "isn't there something more?"
More often that question comes in the form of "shouldn't there be more of this?" Not realizing quite yet that more of the same doesn't change anything, but eventually they start to grasp that idea. And that too you can see, when they ask questions like "isn't there something different?"
Is it me, or are there a lot of old school people?
I was told that MMOs cater ot the masses, I'm starting to see more and more people who want innovation, I'm surprised the suits haven't realized that yet...
Heck, I could make an innovative game and charge 20 bucks monthly and everyone would spare the extra cash just to play an innovative and decent game.
I get the sense that the suits are starting to realize that, but don't comprehend what "innovation" is exactly. Look at the newer games and the lack of in depth information on their sites. I think things are up in the air on what to do, so they don't want to commit. In the end though, at this point, I think they still fall back to the "tried but true" that players don't want anymore.
In a sense, I think maybe we players had to go through this phase of level grind games. Even old schoolers, by and large, played them. They are the ones who have seen other things, all the things we've been saying for years "they're giving us less and less with each new game". So they are the ones who know what kinds of things are missing, and blazing the trail when all the new players ask, "isn't there something more?"
Once upon a time....
FC-FamineFuncom Community ManagerMemberUncommonPosts: 278
Originally posted by Athcear
MMOs have suffered the same fate as other video games, and other similar passtimes. Nerds come up with something cool, and they work at it to make it awesome. Then the rest of the world realizes that this new idea is profitable, and then begins to alter it and market it to everyone else. That is, to non-nerds. MMOs are lame because they're not being designed for smart people. They're being designed for people who are "too cool" for video games, who don't want to make them a serious hobby, and who just plain aren't as smart. That's why MMOs are getting lamer every year.
No one has mentioned the cost of today's MMO? No one has mentioned the difference between familiar versus totally new? Those are some good leads too!
Glen ''Famine'' Swan Senior Assistant Community Manager - Funcom
Not sure really that they've BECOME so lame. Used to be that there were a handful of MMO's AT ALL; good or bad. Used to be you'd play them even if they sucked because they were the first games where you could play in a graphic virtual world with tons of others.
Now there are a handful of MMO's that are good fun, at least for some people, and a truckload of others that are a crap sammich without the bread.
Just like in any other market, you have a company or two that makes a game changing widget. Other companies see how much money that widget brings in and hurries to create their own crap version of that widget, often trying to make it cheaper. Meanwhile, the originals figure out what worked and didn't work and create later gen widgets that are a bit better. OR they rest on the profits of the first, and some other company comes along with a revolutionary new widget that does X 40% more/faster/better.
The same phenomenon is happening, here. There have been significant improvements, but it's been some time since a true game-changer has come along; Eve, IMO, is the last MMO to try to do something significantly different that is having a considerable amount of success. Not that no one else has tried. APB is an entirely different type of MMO. CO tried to be a fast paced, action oriented MMO. APB is getting miserable reviews, and CO is a miserable failure on almost all levels.
MMOs have suffered the same fate as other video games, and other similar passtimes. Nerds come up with something cool, and they work at it to make it awesome. Then the rest of the world realizes that this new idea is profitable, and then begins to alter it and market it to everyone else. That is, to non-nerds. MMOs are lame because they're not being designed for smart people. They're being designed for people who are "too cool" for video games, who don't want to make them a serious hobby, and who just plain aren't as smart. That's why MMOs are getting lamer every year.
No one has mentioned the cost of today's MMO? No one has mentioned the difference between familiar versus totally new? Those are some good leads too!
Cost and risk has a lot to do with it. See, it takes someone who's innovative and capable to lead into "new" territory. But the money people aren't the same people. They are good at money, not making innovative simulations of game worlds. So to them, the risk seems much higher than to the innovator who can clearly see. Add in all the non-innovators seeking money from those investors, and telling them "no, that won't work", and you can see why it's so difficult.
In any field, you have this. That's why almost all innovators who succeed are also very good at organizing and leading and all the political things involved in moving things along to overcome the objections. That cuts down an already very small field considerably.
Not sure really that they've BECOME so lame. Used to be that there were a handful of MMO's AT ALL; good or bad. Used to be you'd play them even if they sucked because they were the first games where you could play in a graphic virtual world with tons of others.
Now there are a handful of MMO's that are good fun, at least for some people, and a truckload of others that are a crap sammich without the bread.
Just like in any other market, you have a company or two that makes a game changing widget. Other companies see how much money that widget brings in and hurries to create their own crap version of that widget, often trying to make it cheaper. Meanwhile, the originals figure out what worked and didn't work and create later gen widgets that are a bit better. OR they rest on the profits of the first, and some other company comes along with a revolutionary new widget that does X 40% more/faster/better.
The same phenomenon is happening, here. There have been significant improvements, but it's been some time since a true game-changer has come along; Eve, IMO, is the last MMO to try to do something significantly different that is having a considerable amount of success. Not that no one else has tried. APB is an entirely different type of MMO. CO tried to be a fast paced, action oriented MMO. APB is getting miserable reviews, and CO is a miserable failure on almost all levels.
Hey Rob I been saying this myself. Too many companies are watching each other and saying. "Gee compan-x has that y-widget" we can make our x-widget better and sell it. Thats been the problem for the past 5 years now.
There has hardly been any new inovation. I played eve but quit oh 2 or 3 years back. I just cant go back to that game evything looks the same, all the repeatable missions are the same. Unless you got a great corp to back you up in 0.4 space and lower then the game just totaly blows. However I have to say some of the new stuff they done looks might attrictive.
Meanwhile we still get company-x who wants to steal company-y customers and tries to create teh same product over again except with a new wrapper. I guess that is why we see so many folks going omg copy of wow, because thats all the know, and even wow was a nockoff from eq1 except better graphics.
It just comes down to the lowes comon denominator, and how these companies continue to push out the same old ****-sandwich, and the fact that most folks go ummmm I like that ****-sandwitch I guess I will have to settle for it.
FC-FamineFuncom Community ManagerMemberUncommonPosts: 278
Originally posted by Amaranthar
Originally posted by FC-Famine
Originally posted by Athcear
MMOs have suffered the same fate as other video games, and other similar passtimes. Nerds come up with something cool, and they work at it to make it awesome. Then the rest of the world realizes that this new idea is profitable, and then begins to alter it and market it to everyone else. That is, to non-nerds. MMOs are lame because they're not being designed for smart people. They're being designed for people who are "too cool" for video games, who don't want to make them a serious hobby, and who just plain aren't as smart. That's why MMOs are getting lamer every year.
No one has mentioned the cost of today's MMO? No one has mentioned the difference between familiar versus totally new? Those are some good leads too!
Cost and risk has a lot to do with it. See, it takes someone who's innovative and capable to lead into "new" territory. But the money people aren't the same people. They are good at money, not making innovative simulations of game worlds. So to them, the risk seems much higher than to the innovator who can clearly see. Add in all the non-innovators seeking money from those investors, and telling them "no, that won't work", and you can see why it's so difficult.
In any field, you have this. That's why almost all innovators who succeed are also very good at organizing and leading and all the political things involved in moving things along to overcome the objections. That cuts down an already very small field considerably.
What can the innovator clearly see? Clarify!
You also forget that majority of success is not an exact science. You can even get away by saying it happens by accident. Then when it comes to innovation, nothing is easily done the first time around. I mentioned a quote in a similar thread awhile back and I will say it here too:
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas A. Edison
With the amount of games and potential innovators in the industry that may not have been as successful, do you think the market (meaning you the players) can accept failure until success as one of the greatest innovators of all time expressed in that quote? Maybe in that lies the answer you seek?
Glen ''Famine'' Swan Senior Assistant Community Manager - Funcom
MMOs have suffered the same fate as other video games, and other similar passtimes. Nerds come up with something cool, and they work at it to make it awesome. Then the rest of the world realizes that this new idea is profitable, and then begins to alter it and market it to everyone else. That is, to non-nerds. MMOs are lame because they're not being designed for smart people. They're being designed for people who are "too cool" for video games, who don't want to make them a serious hobby, and who just plain aren't as smart. That's why MMOs are getting lamer every year.
No one has mentioned the cost of today's MMO? No one has mentioned the difference between familiar versus totally new? Those are some good leads too!
Cost and risk has a lot to do with it. See, it takes someone who's innovative and capable to lead into "new" territory. But the money people aren't the same people. They are good at money, not making innovative simulations of game worlds. So to them, the risk seems much higher than to the innovator who can clearly see. Add in all the non-innovators seeking money from those investors, and telling them "no, that won't work", and you can see why it's so difficult.
In any field, you have this. That's why almost all innovators who succeed are also very good at organizing and leading and all the political things involved in moving things along to overcome the objections. That cuts down an already very small field considerably.
What can the innovator clearly see? Clarify!
You also forget that majority of success is not an exact science. You can even get away by saying it happens by accident. Then when it comes to innovation, nothing is easily done the first time around. I mentioned a quote in a similar thread awhile back and I will say it here too:
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas A. Edison
With the amount of games and potential innovators in the industry that have not been as successful, do you think the market (meaning you the players) can accept failure until success as one of the greatest innovators of all time expressed in that quote? Maybe in that lies the answer you seek?
You see, Edison was after an end result. He strived and failed so many times along the way until he found what worked to achieve that end result.
But because he failed along the way doesn't change that he could clearly see what that end result meant, how it would change things, what it's benefits are and how the management of it would work.
Once upon a time....
FC-FamineFuncom Community ManagerMemberUncommonPosts: 278
Originally posted by Amaranthar
Originally posted by FC-Famine
Originally posted by Amaranthar
Originally posted by FC-Famine
Originally posted by Athcear
What can the innovator clearly see? Clarify!
You also forget that majority of success is not an exact science. You can even get away by saying it happens by accident. Then when it comes to innovation, nothing is easily done the first time around. I mentioned a quote in a similar thread awhile back and I will say it here too:
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas A. Edison
With the amount of games and potential innovators in the industry that have not been as successful, do you think the market (meaning you the players) can accept failure until success as one of the greatest innovators of all time expressed in that quote? Maybe in that lies the answer you seek?
You see, Edison was after an end result. He strived and failed so many times along the way until he found what worked to achieve that end result.
But because he failed along the way doesn't change that he could clearly see what that end result meant, how it would change things, what it's benefits are and how the management of it would work.
Sure, I can agree with that. We follow the same suite in our industry too. But the point was on the market accepting 10,000 failures from one person trying to reach that end result or not. If you know anything about the MMO scene is that it's hard to have a second chance let alone 10,000 chances to reach that end result of success (in most players opinions).
There is innovation in the industry of course. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but you have to understand that innovation while being successful is very hard. That's why I asked for you to clarify what the innovator clearly see's as the end result. If it's that his innovative product is successful then that's not clearly. If it's that his product is launched then that's everyone.
Glen ''Famine'' Swan Senior Assistant Community Manager - Funcom
You also forget that majority of success is not an exact science. You can even get away by saying it happens by accident. Then when it comes to innovation, nothing is easily done the first time around. I mentioned a quote in a similar thread awhile back and I will say it here too:
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas A. Edison
With the amount of games and potential innovators in the industry that have not been as successful, do you think the market (meaning you the players) can accept failure until success as one of the greatest innovators of all time expressed in that quote? Maybe in that lies the answer you seek?
You see, Edison was after an end result. He strived and failed so many times along the way until he found what worked to achieve that end result.
But because he failed along the way doesn't change that he could clearly see what that end result meant, how it would change things, what it's benefits are and how the management of it would work.
Sure, I can agree with that. We follow the same suite in our industry too. But the point was on the market accepting 10,000 failures from one person trying to reach that end result or not. If you know anything about the MMO scene is that it's hard to have a second chance let alone 10,000 chances to reach that end result of success (in most players opinions).
There is innovation in the industry of course. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but you have to understand that innovation while being successful is very hard. That's why I asked for you to clarify what the innovator clearly see's as the end result. If it's that his innovative product is successful then that's not clearly. If it's that his product is launched then that's everyone.
There is NO innovation in the industry that I have seen.
Who said the failures have to be all made from one man, who said you can only learn from your own failures?
I think we already reached 20,000 failures, its about time someone capable got in and did something.
I wonder why the companies consider making the same thing that will horribly fail to be a safe bet, if anything it is a dead end or intentional loss of money, the people want innovation, the mindless drones will realize they needed innovation, and everyone will pour money your way.
But nooooo, they had to focus on graphics and stick with the target clicky spammy routine and static world, the industry has had no visible innovation as of yet. I don't really think it is that hard to remake the broken genre.
You also forget that majority of success is not an exact science. You can even get away by saying it happens by accident. Then when it comes to innovation, nothing is easily done the first time around. I mentioned a quote in a similar thread awhile back and I will say it here too:
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas A. Edison
With the amount of games and potential innovators in the industry that have not been as successful, do you think the market (meaning you the players) can accept failure until success as one of the greatest innovators of all time expressed in that quote? Maybe in that lies the answer you seek?
You see, Edison was after an end result. He strived and failed so many times along the way until he found what worked to achieve that end result.
But because he failed along the way doesn't change that he could clearly see what that end result meant, how it would change things, what it's benefits are and how the management of it would work.
Sure, I can agree with that. We follow the same suite in our industry too. But the point was on the market accepting 10,000 failures from one person trying to reach that end result or not. If you know anything about the MMO scene is that it's hard to have a second chance let alone 10,000 chances to reach that end result of success (in most players opinions).
There is innovation in the industry of course. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but you have to understand that innovation while being successful is very hard. That's why I asked for you to clarify what the innovator clearly see's as the end result. If it's that his innovative product is successful then that's not clearly. If it's that his product is launched then that's everyone.
There is NO innovation in the industry that I have seen.
Who said the failures have to be all made from one man, who said you can only learn from your own failures?
I think we already reached 20,000 failures, its about time someone capable got in and did something.
I wonder why the companies consider making the same thing that will horribly fail to be a safe bet, if anything it is a dead end or intentional loss of money, the people want innovation, the mindless drones will realize they needed innovation, and everyone will pour money your way.
But nooooo, they had to focus on graphics and stick with the target clicky spammy routine and static world, the industry has had no visible innovation as of yet. I don't really think it is that hard to remake the broken genre.
There's different kinds of Innovations. We players talk about game play innovations. Certainly developers have to also think about technical innovations.
Lame? I would say its likely you whos played way too many MMOs so nothing will keep you happy anymore. Take a brake or better yet stop playing them all together lol
MMOs are lame because its no longer about making a good game, its about using a formula to make money off of people who become addicted to these types of games.
True, I understand the small and slight changes which are pretty good, but in no way should those be refferred to as an innovation or revolutionary.
In the end all MMOs are static playgrounds of getting to the max level, I insist roleplaying and player driven story to be put as a focus, as well as equal strenght among players (Lvl 80s are basically indestructable gods to a lvl 1).
I really hope to get to a position to be able to change this as soon as possible.
FC-FamineFuncom Community ManagerMemberUncommonPosts: 278
Originally posted by colutr
MMOs are lame because its no longer about making a good game, its about using a formula to make money off of people who become addicted to these types of games.
Wouldn't that be a good game though? I mean that logic doesn't work. If a game is making money and has good numbers then some consumers like the game. It may not be your cup of tea, but no game will ever appeal to the entire market over X amount of time?
Games in our genre do have to make money to sustain the fun.
This is always an interesting debate hehe.
Glen ''Famine'' Swan Senior Assistant Community Manager - Funcom
Why oh why does it have to be like this, WoW is heaven for Internet Trollers and jerks yet it's hell for me, Aion is turned down by people because of it's "Eastern Style" that's the same area where the free to plays come from, Warhammer is a game on life support, Everquest 2 can't run the graphics correctly even if you do have a high powered graphics card and Codemasters got rid of my Lord of the Rings online account, I don't want to buy the game again. =p
Also played DDO and it sucks everything isn't more open worlded and Runes of Magic is a cheap knock off game.
Shame there's no other good games, there's far too many cheap free mmo's that look and play bad, and they want more money then pay to plays. =p
DDO isn't an open world, I don't think it really claims to be either. Surprsingly the Dungeons and Dragons MMO is made up mostly of Dungeons.
Just wait for LotRO to go F2P so you don't have to buy it again.
As for the title question, companies are catering to the lowest common denominator. That means people who take a serious interest in gaming, or like a good challenge, will never be fullfilled by the games aimed at the masses. Since MMOs are complicated we do not yet have a lot of solid indie titles yet. One day we will.
It's like modern movies. Most don't challenge your mind or effect your emotions, most are sex violence and explosion to give a simple easy rush for the largest number of viewers. Video games have done the same hollywood approach and made it all pretty but with a lot less substance.
It is unfortunatly just the way the world works. Companies naturally target the biggest source of revenue they can find, which means simplifying and dumbing down games.
MMOs are lame because its no longer about making a good game, its about using a formula to make money off of people who become addicted to these types of games.
Wouldn't that be a good game though? I mean that logic doesn't work. If a game is making money and has good numbers then some consumers like the game. It may not be your cup of tea, but no game will ever appeal to the entire market over X amount of time?
Games in our genre do have to make money to sustain the fun.
This is always an interesting debate hehe.
I think he meant to say MMOs are lame because of the lack of actual fun, these only make illusions of it through obscure mechanics to make money.
A game designed to be genuinely fun can also make money sicne people are willing to pay for entertainment, people right now think they are entertained when they are actually being tricked to grind.
MMOs started with pen and paper mechanics, it is lame that people still make them when we now have new options thanks to our advanced technology. We basically use this new tools in the most brainwashing moneymaking way as possible (The industry, not us the people).
MMOs are lame because its no longer about making a good game, its about using a formula to make money off of people who become addicted to these types of games.
Wouldn't that be a good game though? I mean that logic doesn't work. If a game is making money and has good numbers then some consumers like the game. It may not be your cup of tea, but no game will ever appeal to the entire market over X amount of time?
Games in our genre do have to make money to sustain the fun.
This is always an interesting debate hehe.
This is what some people can't wrap their heads around. Some seem to think that MMO companies are just in business for the fun of it and everything is free. Everything costs money, including heating, lighting, salaries, licencing and all the other "outgoings" for a normal company.
But money doesn't just grow on trees, you need a product that sells. And whilst it may not appeal to each and every individual, the product still needs to be attractive to a sizeable majority. So whilst an individual may think that an MMO "is lame", that's irrelevant if a large enough customerbase disagrees.
True, I understand the small and slight changes which are pretty good, but in no way should those be refferred to as an innovation or revolutionary.
In the end all MMOs are static playgrounds of getting to the max level, I insist roleplaying and player driven story to be put as a focus, as well as equal strenght among players (Lvl 80s are basically indestructable gods to a lvl 1).
I really hope to get to a position to be able to change this as soon as possible.
Wisesquirrel, I wish you success. But the hurddle is tremendous.
to a blog by someone who has some excellent information on what you face. On the first page you'll see a post titled "EPI, Venture Capital and Ages of Athiria", where he explains his reasons for giving up after years of pursuing this dream. On the second page you'll find a series of 4 short posts on how he went about trying to get venture capital, titled "Let’s Dispel the Myth that Indie Game Development is Cheap (Parts 1-4)"
These are excellent and informative articles and very much worth the read. I'm not trying to dissuade you. Just thought you'd like to get this information.
Comments
You have to make life work for you. If mmorpgs are getting you that next higher high, then you might have to quit them.
Nah, the first people were mocking me.
On MMORPG.com anything less than a brutal attack on your character or person, almost qualifies as friendly
With the success of WOW, there has been a huge rush to the market, and quantity definitely seems to be winning out over quality at the moment.
I bought WAR at release and actually enjoyed it, but I don't see it recovering to a decent player base (R.I.P)
Only other MMO's that I've bought recently were CO and STO, both of which were fun for a short time, but NCSOFT seems to be going for the quick wins rather than developing games which are going to last for years.
It has been a barren year or two, but looking on the bright side, couple new games coming out end of this year, beginning of next. I'm playing Global Agenda at the moment, which is fun (although arguably not an MMO). I never bothered with FFXI, but FFXIV is looking beautiful. DCUO will probably keep me busy for a couple of months. Hopefully there is a bit more PVE in GW2 than GW, and then there is SWTOR.
Is it me, or are there a lot of old school people?
I was told that MMOs cater ot the masses, I'm starting to see more and more people who want innovation, I'm surprised the suits haven't realized that yet...
Heck, I could make an innovative game and charge 20 bucks monthly and everyone would spare the extra cash just to play an innovative and decent game.
I feel with you, OP. Trust me, you are not alone. Many people here and otherwise feel that way.
The point is, the past MMOs of the 1st generation were great for their time. But the taste evolved; what most people like changed. Now we have three sort of MMO players.
1st Old School gamers, who more or less cling to hardships of the old days and usually play their niche game. For them, anything not like UO/EQ is a "WOW clone". You absolutely can not argue with them at all.
2nd VERY casual gamers with very low expectations. That is the WOW playing crowd. By and large. They seek an easygoing fun time to "kill stuff" and a chatroom, and thats it.
Finally there is that 3rd group. We. Those who don't want to suffer UO/EQ era hardships NOR are we satisfied with too shallow and simple MMOs. I can't say how big of a group we are. But for us who seek a balance between those extremes, most MMO developers have nothing to offer. They either tend towards one of the above groups and leave it with that. They take the easy way to aim for one simple target audience.
LOTRO is of the newer games the most close to a balance, as I see it. But after playing it for a long time, I just had seen it enough, and it developed too much to a way too casual type of game in the long run to really keep me. So for the hardcore I am too carebear/casual and for the casual I am too demanding. There is little present for a balanced expectation. At least that is IMO one of the central issues.
Don't let some fools annoy you. It is just people who are mindless and have nothing to say. *comfort*
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I think most gamers fall into your grouping, Elikal. Even the new, casual gamers that like WoW, at some point, start to feel that way too. They didn't know any better at the start, but the lack of "something more" of WoW starts to reveal itself after a while. You can see this in posts all over the place, as they ask that question in various ways, "isn't there something more?"
More often that question comes in the form of "shouldn't there be more of this?" Not realizing quite yet that more of the same doesn't change anything, but eventually they start to grasp that idea. And that too you can see, when they ask questions like "isn't there something different?"
Once upon a time....
I get the sense that the suits are starting to realize that, but don't comprehend what "innovation" is exactly. Look at the newer games and the lack of in depth information on their sites. I think things are up in the air on what to do, so they don't want to commit. In the end though, at this point, I think they still fall back to the "tried but true" that players don't want anymore.
In a sense, I think maybe we players had to go through this phase of level grind games. Even old schoolers, by and large, played them. They are the ones who have seen other things, all the things we've been saying for years "they're giving us less and less with each new game". So they are the ones who know what kinds of things are missing, and blazing the trail when all the new players ask, "isn't there something more?"
Once upon a time....
No one has mentioned the cost of today's MMO? No one has mentioned the difference between familiar versus totally new? Those are some good leads too!
Glen ''Famine'' Swan
Senior Assistant Community Manager - Funcom
Not sure really that they've BECOME so lame. Used to be that there were a handful of MMO's AT ALL; good or bad. Used to be you'd play them even if they sucked because they were the first games where you could play in a graphic virtual world with tons of others.
Now there are a handful of MMO's that are good fun, at least for some people, and a truckload of others that are a crap sammich without the bread.
Just like in any other market, you have a company or two that makes a game changing widget. Other companies see how much money that widget brings in and hurries to create their own crap version of that widget, often trying to make it cheaper. Meanwhile, the originals figure out what worked and didn't work and create later gen widgets that are a bit better. OR they rest on the profits of the first, and some other company comes along with a revolutionary new widget that does X 40% more/faster/better.
The same phenomenon is happening, here. There have been significant improvements, but it's been some time since a true game-changer has come along; Eve, IMO, is the last MMO to try to do something significantly different that is having a considerable amount of success. Not that no one else has tried. APB is an entirely different type of MMO. CO tried to be a fast paced, action oriented MMO. APB is getting miserable reviews, and CO is a miserable failure on almost all levels.
Cost and risk has a lot to do with it. See, it takes someone who's innovative and capable to lead into "new" territory. But the money people aren't the same people. They are good at money, not making innovative simulations of game worlds. So to them, the risk seems much higher than to the innovator who can clearly see. Add in all the non-innovators seeking money from those investors, and telling them "no, that won't work", and you can see why it's so difficult.
In any field, you have this. That's why almost all innovators who succeed are also very good at organizing and leading and all the political things involved in moving things along to overcome the objections. That cuts down an already very small field considerably.
Once upon a time....
Hey Rob I been saying this myself. Too many companies are watching each other and saying. "Gee compan-x has that y-widget" we can make our x-widget better and sell it. Thats been the problem for the past 5 years now.
There has hardly been any new inovation. I played eve but quit oh 2 or 3 years back. I just cant go back to that game evything looks the same, all the repeatable missions are the same. Unless you got a great corp to back you up in 0.4 space and lower then the game just totaly blows. However I have to say some of the new stuff they done looks might attrictive.
Meanwhile we still get company-x who wants to steal company-y customers and tries to create teh same product over again except with a new wrapper. I guess that is why we see so many folks going omg copy of wow, because thats all the know, and even wow was a nockoff from eq1 except better graphics.
It just comes down to the lowes comon denominator, and how these companies continue to push out the same old ****-sandwich, and the fact that most folks go ummmm I like that ****-sandwitch I guess I will have to settle for it.
What can the innovator clearly see? Clarify!
You also forget that majority of success is not an exact science. You can even get away by saying it happens by accident. Then when it comes to innovation, nothing is easily done the first time around. I mentioned a quote in a similar thread awhile back and I will say it here too:
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas A. Edison
With the amount of games and potential innovators in the industry that may not have been as successful, do you think the market (meaning you the players) can accept failure until success as one of the greatest innovators of all time expressed in that quote? Maybe in that lies the answer you seek?
Glen ''Famine'' Swan
Senior Assistant Community Manager - Funcom
You see, Edison was after an end result. He strived and failed so many times along the way until he found what worked to achieve that end result.
But because he failed along the way doesn't change that he could clearly see what that end result meant, how it would change things, what it's benefits are and how the management of it would work.
Once upon a time....
Sure, I can agree with that. We follow the same suite in our industry too. But the point was on the market accepting 10,000 failures from one person trying to reach that end result or not. If you know anything about the MMO scene is that it's hard to have a second chance let alone 10,000 chances to reach that end result of success (in most players opinions).
There is innovation in the industry of course. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but you have to understand that innovation while being successful is very hard. That's why I asked for you to clarify what the innovator clearly see's as the end result. If it's that his innovative product is successful then that's not clearly. If it's that his product is launched then that's everyone.
Glen ''Famine'' Swan
Senior Assistant Community Manager - Funcom
There is NO innovation in the industry that I have seen.
Who said the failures have to be all made from one man, who said you can only learn from your own failures?
I think we already reached 20,000 failures, its about time someone capable got in and did something.
I wonder why the companies consider making the same thing that will horribly fail to be a safe bet, if anything it is a dead end or intentional loss of money, the people want innovation, the mindless drones will realize they needed innovation, and everyone will pour money your way.
But nooooo, they had to focus on graphics and stick with the target clicky spammy routine and static world, the industry has had no visible innovation as of yet. I don't really think it is that hard to remake the broken genre.
There's different kinds of Innovations. We players talk about game play innovations. Certainly developers have to also think about technical innovations.
Once upon a time....
Lame? I would say its likely you whos played way too many MMOs so nothing will keep you happy anymore. Take a brake or better yet stop playing them all together lol
"I play Tera for the gameplay"
MMOs are lame because its no longer about making a good game, its about using a formula to make money off of people who become addicted to these types of games.
My sig is just as logical as your posts are
True, I understand the small and slight changes which are pretty good, but in no way should those be refferred to as an innovation or revolutionary.
In the end all MMOs are static playgrounds of getting to the max level, I insist roleplaying and player driven story to be put as a focus, as well as equal strenght among players (Lvl 80s are basically indestructable gods to a lvl 1).
I really hope to get to a position to be able to change this as soon as possible.
Wouldn't that be a good game though? I mean that logic doesn't work. If a game is making money and has good numbers then some consumers like the game. It may not be your cup of tea, but no game will ever appeal to the entire market over X amount of time?
Games in our genre do have to make money to sustain the fun.
This is always an interesting debate hehe.
Glen ''Famine'' Swan
Senior Assistant Community Manager - Funcom
DDO isn't an open world, I don't think it really claims to be either. Surprsingly the Dungeons and Dragons MMO is made up mostly of Dungeons.
Just wait for LotRO to go F2P so you don't have to buy it again.
As for the title question, companies are catering to the lowest common denominator. That means people who take a serious interest in gaming, or like a good challenge, will never be fullfilled by the games aimed at the masses. Since MMOs are complicated we do not yet have a lot of solid indie titles yet. One day we will.
It's like modern movies. Most don't challenge your mind or effect your emotions, most are sex violence and explosion to give a simple easy rush for the largest number of viewers. Video games have done the same hollywood approach and made it all pretty but with a lot less substance.
It is unfortunatly just the way the world works. Companies naturally target the biggest source of revenue they can find, which means simplifying and dumbing down games.
I think he meant to say MMOs are lame because of the lack of actual fun, these only make illusions of it through obscure mechanics to make money.
A game designed to be genuinely fun can also make money sicne people are willing to pay for entertainment, people right now think they are entertained when they are actually being tricked to grind.
MMOs started with pen and paper mechanics, it is lame that people still make them when we now have new options thanks to our advanced technology. We basically use this new tools in the most brainwashing moneymaking way as possible (The industry, not us the people).
This is what some people can't wrap their heads around. Some seem to think that MMO companies are just in business for the fun of it and everything is free. Everything costs money, including heating, lighting, salaries, licencing and all the other "outgoings" for a normal company.
But money doesn't just grow on trees, you need a product that sells. And whilst it may not appeal to each and every individual, the product still needs to be attractive to a sizeable majority. So whilst an individual may think that an MMO "is lame", that's irrelevant if a large enough customerbase disagrees.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
Wisesquirrel, I wish you success. But the hurddle is tremendous.
Here's a link
to a blog by someone who has some excellent information on what you face. On the first page you'll see a post titled "EPI, Venture Capital and Ages of Athiria", where he explains his reasons for giving up after years of pursuing this dream. On the second page you'll find a series of 4 short posts on how he went about trying to get venture capital, titled "Let’s Dispel the Myth that Indie Game Development is Cheap (Parts 1-4)"
These are excellent and informative articles and very much worth the read. I'm not trying to dissuade you. Just thought you'd like to get this information.
Once upon a time....