Er.. WoW was an EQ clone. The only difference is, WoW took what EQ had and made it simpler, smaller, and generally removed features. Rift, is a WoW clone, not an EQ clone, keeping with the same quest based leveling as WoW.
Rift brought NOTHING new to the table, I'm sorry. Neither did WoW. Rift does have mechanics that generally arent in EVERY MMO (Rifts) but they are by no means new or unique. Tabula Rasa, Warhammer, UO, AC, Darkfall, not new.
And no, people aren't burned out of MMOs and blaming Rift for being too much of an MMO. They're burned out of woW and blaming Rift for BEING A WOW CLONE. It's very simple. Rift could have tried to be unique, but it didn't.
To those saying innovation doesn't sell, then how did EQ become a success? DAoC? AC? SWG? UO? By innovating. How did LotRO, AoC, Aion, (list goes on) fail? By cloning WoW.
No where in it did RIFT say they were going to bring something innovative to the table. This is seems to be where your problems stem from...because it isn't innovative. Hate to tell you but those games that tried to innovate basically failed. Of the games you list (Darkfall, AC, Tabula Rasa, etc) they are either dead games (TR especially) or poorly made games with a very low pop.
EQ and UO succeded because they were the first of their kind. UO being sandbox and EQ being the first raid game. But look at their populations today. UO has 1 high server, 4 med, and all the rest are low. DAoC and SWG were made good until the companies shot themselves in the foot by changing the core mechanics (SWG especially).
Sorry to break it to you but at this time in the online video game industry innovatioon doesn't sell. Most people are just happy with a well made copy game.
Er.. WoW was an EQ clone. The only difference is, WoW took what EQ had and made it simpler, smaller, and generally removed features. Rift, is a WoW clone, not an EQ clone, keeping with the same quest based leveling as WoW.
Rift brought NOTHING new to the table, I'm sorry. Neither did WoW. Rift does have mechanics that generally arent in EVERY MMO (Rifts) but they are by no means new or unique. Tabula Rasa, Warhammer, UO, AC, Darkfall, not new.
And no, people aren't burned out of MMOs and blaming Rift for being too much of an MMO. They're burned out of woW and blaming Rift for BEING A WOW CLONE. It's very simple. Rift could have tried to be unique, but it didn't.
To those saying innovation doesn't sell, then how did EQ become a success? DAoC? AC? SWG? UO? By innovating. How did LotRO, AoC, Aion, (list goes on) fail? By cloning WoW.
No where in it did RIFT say they were going to bring something innovative to the table. This is seems to be where your problems stem from...because it isn't innovative. Hate to tell you but those games that tried to innovate basically failed. Of the games you list (Darkfall, AC, Tabula Rasa, etc) they are either dead games (TR especially) or poorly made games with a very low pop.
EQ and UO succeded because they were the first of their kind. UO being sandbox and EQ being the first raid game. But look at their populations today. UO has 1 high server, 4 med, and all the rest are low. DAoC and SWG were made good until the companies shot themselves in the foot by changing the core mechanics (SWG especially).
Sorry to break it to you but at this time in the online video game industry innovatioon doesn't sell. Most people are just happy with a well made copy game.
I think you have a very skewed sense of the MMORPG market. First off, the games that have the Rift stuff in them that I listed was merely to point out that its not a new idea, don't know why you (incorrectly) pointed out that they're all doing badly. AC is still releasing monthly updates, and Darkfall is steadily growing, unlike almost every other AAA MMO out there. AC and DF are poorly made? News to me.
EQ and UO succeeded by being the first of their kind? Ok, then why did DAoC succeed? Or AC? Or SWG? Why is Darkfall succeeding?
Know why the pop us low today? Because the game is 13 freaking years old! EQ is still very popular and being developed for, but come on, its an old game, not the primary focus of the company anymore, of course the pop is going to be lower than the fotm game.
And, as I've said, clones don't sell, innovation does.
And why, oh why, does Rift exist if it has no unique features of its own? Why would I play it over anything else if it is the exact same game. "Well they never promised to bring anything new" that's kind of implied when you MAKE A NEW GAME.
Er.. WoW was an EQ clone. The only difference is, WoW took what EQ had and made it simpler, smaller, and generally removed features. Rift, is a WoW clone, not an EQ clone, keeping with the same quest based leveling as WoW.
Rift brought NOTHING new to the table, I'm sorry. Neither did WoW. Rift does have mechanics that generally arent in EVERY MMO (Rifts) but they are by no means new or unique. Tabula Rasa, Warhammer, UO, AC, Darkfall, not new.
And no, people aren't burned out of MMOs and blaming Rift for being too much of an MMO. They're burned out of woW and blaming Rift for BEING A WOW CLONE. It's very simple. Rift could have tried to be unique, but it didn't.
To those saying innovation doesn't sell, then how did EQ become a success? DAoC? AC? SWG? UO? By innovating. How did LotRO, AoC, Aion, (list goes on) fail? By cloning WoW.
No where in it did RIFT say they were going to bring something innovative to the table. This is seems to be where your problems stem from...because it isn't innovative. Hate to tell you but those games that tried to innovate basically failed. Of the games you list (Darkfall, AC, Tabula Rasa, etc) they are either dead games (TR especially) or poorly made games with a very low pop.
EQ and UO succeded because they were the first of their kind. UO being sandbox and EQ being the first raid game. But look at their populations today. UO has 1 high server, 4 med, and all the rest are low. DAoC and SWG were made good until the companies shot themselves in the foot by changing the core mechanics (SWG especially).
Sorry to break it to you but at this time in the online video game industry innovatioon doesn't sell. Most people are just happy with a well made copy game.
It was Trion themselves that were touting Rift as next gen. Here's a quote by Lars Buttler CEO of Trion: "We believe living worlds, powered by dynamically refreshed content represent the next generation, and Rift will be there on release." Link.
Also, EVE was an innovative game when it was released. You do realize how high the sub numbers are for that game, eh? Gamers want and like innovation, that much is clear.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I have played many MMORPGs and I must say that everything from user interface to class-based roles (healer, DPS, Tank) this game has, has been done by other MMORPGs so there is almost nothing new here.
Only things worth mentioning is the flexible soul system which does not able you to mix any classes (a tank is still a tank and cannot be a tank/mage) which is fun for maybe a couple of hours before you realise it is simply the same standard tank, dps, healing abilities spread out on several sub-classes with alot of redundancy.
Rifts is also a novelty but one that also wears out quickly. Basically all of them are random mob spawns that grow in dificulty depending on several factors. But from what I have experienced, they always despawn, no matter what. Seems there is a timer of sort.
Other than that this game is simply a equivalent of another generic Cola, except Coca Cola (=WoW) is the one that most people will buy and most people will go back to once the novelty of a new fresh drink has worn of.
PS: Yes this is a counter to the other post here. {mod edit}
Even the Rift system and the Souls aren't new. Rifts have been in Ultima Online, Darkfall, Asheron's Call, Warhammer, AND Tabula Rasa. The class system is like a dummied down version of old MMO class systems (which is still a step up over other MMOs)
Don't call this MMO generic, call it what it is... a WoW clone with no features to call its own.
Sorry but...
if you're using that logic, then WoW is an EQ clone, and Rift is just another EQ clone.
Rift brings more "new" to the table over WoW than WoW did over EQ. Some people are burnt out on MMOs because of WoW and are blaming Rift for being too much of an MMO.
Er.. WoW was an EQ clone. The only difference is, WoW took what EQ had and made it simpler, smaller, and generally removed features. Rift, is a WoW clone, not an EQ clone, keeping with the same quest based leveling as WoW.
Rift brought NOTHING new to the table, I'm sorry. Neither did WoW. Rift does have mechanics that generally arent in EVERY MMO (Rifts) but they are by no means new or unique. Tabula Rasa, Warhammer, UO, AC, Darkfall, not new.
And no, people aren't burned out of MMOs and blaming Rift for being too much of an MMO. They're burned out of woW and blaming Rift for BEING A WOW CLONE. It's very simple. Rift could have tried to be unique, but it didn't.
To those saying innovation doesn't sell, then how did EQ become a success? DAoC? AC? SWG? UO? By innovating. How did LotRO, AoC, Aion, (list goes on) fail? By cloning WoW.
So it's a clone of WoW... except that it does some things differently than WoW. What? A clone means a carbon copy. Being a clone doesn't mean having taken 'what works' and adding to it, which is exactly what Rift did. Sure Rift doesn't have mechanics that are uniquely innovative, but it still draws from a lot of game mechanics from other MMOs and does them a hell of a lot better.
You claim that people are bitching about Rift because it's too much like WoW. Please enlighten all of us, what could Trion have done with Rift to make people stop pitching a fit that it was too much like WoW? Keep in mind, it would have to result in a game that was generally enjoyed by people. I'd love to know, and I'm sure it's the multi-million dollar question for developers. Everyone talks about how they're sick of "WoW clones", yet they have absolutely no idea themselves of how to make a decent game that doesn't draw on general MMO gaming principles that WoW just also happens to use -- maybe because they seem to 'work'.
Also your assumption that newer games "failed" where the older games were successful is extremely skewed. As much as I love several of the older games, the newer "failed" games still grabbed the attention of more players, made a lot more money than the older games, and despite having "failed" still have more players now than the older games do.
Er.. WoW was an EQ clone. The only difference is, WoW took what EQ had and made it simpler, smaller, and generally removed features. Rift, is a WoW clone, not an EQ clone, keeping with the same quest based leveling as WoW.
Rift brought NOTHING new to the table, I'm sorry. Neither did WoW. Rift does have mechanics that generally arent in EVERY MMO (Rifts) but they are by no means new or unique. Tabula Rasa, Warhammer, UO, AC, Darkfall, not new.
And no, people aren't burned out of MMOs and blaming Rift for being too much of an MMO. They're burned out of woW and blaming Rift for BEING A WOW CLONE. It's very simple. Rift could have tried to be unique, but it didn't.
To those saying innovation doesn't sell, then how did EQ become a success? DAoC? AC? SWG? UO? By innovating. How did LotRO, AoC, Aion, (list goes on) fail? By cloning WoW.
No where in it did RIFT say they were going to bring something innovative to the table. This is seems to be where your problems stem from...because it isn't innovative. Hate to tell you but those games that tried to innovate basically failed. Of the games you list (Darkfall, AC, Tabula Rasa, etc) they are either dead games (TR especially) or poorly made games with a very low pop.
EQ and UO succeded because they were the first of their kind. UO being sandbox and EQ being the first raid game. But look at their populations today. UO has 1 high server, 4 med, and all the rest are low. DAoC and SWG were made good until the companies shot themselves in the foot by changing the core mechanics (SWG especially).
Sorry to break it to you but at this time in the online video game industry innovatioon doesn't sell. Most people are just happy with a well made copy game.
It was Trion themselves that were touting Rift as next gen. Here's a quote by Lars Buttler CEO of Trion: "We believe living worlds, powered by dynamically refreshed content represent the next generation, and Rift will be there on release." Link.
Also, EVE was an innovative game when it was released. You do realize how high the sub numbers are for that game, eh? Gamers want and like innovation, that much is clear.
Gamers want innovation...You do realise that if any other mmo had EVE numbers it would be considerd a complete failure and a dieing game, right? Gamers want innovation...stupidest thing Ive read in this thread. Is that why WoW has millions of players paying the sub fee? Maybe to you those arent gamers? Gamers dont give a fuck about innovation or about anything that does something differently or shows a bit of ambition. If they did, they would have stuck with Vanguard, if the did Mortal Online would have enough subs for the dev to hire actual programmers, if they did WoW, a game that caters to the majority, would be a completely different game.
I have played many MMORPGs and I must say that everything from user interface to class-based roles (healer, DPS, Tank) this game has, has been done by other MMORPGs so there is almost nothing new here.
Only things worth mentioning is the flexible soul system which does not able you to mix any classes (a tank is still a tank and cannot be a tank/mage) which is fun for maybe a couple of hours before you realise it is simply the same standard tank, dps, healing abilities spread out on several sub-classes with alot of redundancy.
Rifts is also a novelty but one that also wears out quickly. Basically all of them are random mob spawns that grow in dificulty depending on several factors. But from what I have experienced, they always despawn, no matter what. Seems there is a timer of sort.
Other than that this game is simply a equivalent of another generic Cola, except Coca Cola (=WoW) is the one that most people will buy and most people will go back to once the novelty of a new fresh drink has worn of.
PS: Yes this is a counter to the other post here. {mod edit}
I was waiting for something inflamatory, something juicy, something argumentative, maybe even an actual argument.
You didnt deliver.
You didnt even tell me why RIFT is VERY bad. Its an mmo, we get it--classes, similar UI, quests---yep MMO, CHECK!
I know everything you stated, and I am still enjoying the game. And the mmo I quit (long before RIFT) I have no plans to return to.
Gamers want innovation...You do realise that if any other mmo had EVE numbers it would be considerd a complete failure and a dieing game, right? Gamers want innovation...stupidest thing Ive read in this thread. Is that why WoW has millions of players paying the sub fee? Maybe to you those arent gamers? Gamers dont give a fuck about innovation or about anything that does something differently or shows a bit of ambition. If they did, they would have stuck with Vanguard, if the did Mortal Online would have enough subs for the dev to hire actual programmers, if they did WoW, a game that caters to the majority, would be a completely different game.
EVE has one of the highest number of subs for any P2P mmorpg in the West. I don't think CCP considers their game "a complete failure" or "a dying game". Most studios would be lucky to achieve what CCP has.
I think your perspective on what constitutes a successful mmo is a little off to say the least.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Gamers want innovation...You do realise that if any other mmo had EVE numbers it would be considerd a complete failure and a dieing game, right? Gamers want innovation...stupidest thing Ive read in this thread. Is that why WoW has millions of players paying the sub fee? Maybe to you those arent gamers? Gamers dont give a fuck about innovation or about anything that does something differently or shows a bit of ambition. If they did, they would have stuck with Vanguard, if the did Mortal Online would have enough subs for the dev to hire actual programmers, if they did WoW, a game that caters to the majority, would be a completely different game.
It's interesting because take WoW out of the equation and perhaps some Asian games and not many games have "millions of subs".
Yet for some reason some people think that this is the norm for a successful game.
And like you I'm not convinced that "gamers" want innovation so much as their favorite game before "the expansion that ruined it" updated to 2011 technology.
Still, with more dynamic content or content that hints at a certain level of dynamism and what seems a call for "less grind' it is possible that some level of innovation is desired.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I have played many MMORPGs and I must say that everything from user interface to class-based roles (healer, DPS, Tank) this game has, has been done by other MMORPGs so there is almost nothing new here.
Only things worth mentioning is the flexible soul system which does not able you to mix any classes (a tank is still a tank and cannot be a tank/mage) which is fun for maybe a couple of hours before you realise it is simply the same standard tank, dps, healing abilities spread out on several sub-classes with alot of redundancy.
Rifts is also a novelty but one that also wears out quickly. Basically all of them are random mob spawns that grow in dificulty depending on several factors. But from what I have experienced, they always despawn, no matter what. Seems there is a timer of sort.
Other than that this game is simply a equivalent of another generic Cola, except Coca Cola (=WoW) is the one that most people will buy and most people will go back to once the novelty of a new fresh drink has worn of.
PS: Yes this is a counter to the other post here. {mod edit}
Even the Rift system and the Souls aren't new. Rifts have been in Ultima Online, Darkfall, Asheron's Call, Warhammer, AND Tabula Rasa. The class system is like a dummied down version of old MMO class systems (which is still a step up over other MMOs)
Don't call this MMO generic, call it what it is... a WoW clone with no features to call its own.
Sorry but...
if you're using that logic, then WoW is an EQ clone, and Rift is just another EQ clone.
Rift brings more "new" to the table over WoW than WoW did over EQ. Some people are burnt out on MMOs because of WoW and are blaming Rift for being too much of an MMO.
Er.. WoW was an EQ clone. The only difference is, WoW took what EQ had and made it simpler, smaller, and generally removed features. Rift, is a WoW clone, not an EQ clone, keeping with the same quest based leveling as WoW.
Rift brought NOTHING new to the table, I'm sorry. Neither did WoW. Rift does have mechanics that generally arent in EVERY MMO (Rifts) but they are by no means new or unique. Tabula Rasa, Warhammer, UO, AC, Darkfall, not new.
And no, people aren't burned out of MMOs and blaming Rift for being too much of an MMO. They're burned out of woW and blaming Rift for BEING A WOW CLONE. It's very simple. Rift could have tried to be unique, but it didn't.
To those saying innovation doesn't sell, then how did EQ become a success? DAoC? AC? SWG? UO? By innovating. How did LotRO, AoC, Aion, (list goes on) fail? By cloning WoW.
So it's a clone of WoW... except that it does some things differently than WoW. What? A clone means a carbon copy.
Also your assumption that newer games "failed" where the older games were successful is extremely skewed. As much as I love several of the older games, the newer "failed" games still grabbed the attention of more players, made a lot more money than the older games, and despite having "failed" still have more players now than the older games do.
Judging a game based upon its population is a flawed FLAWED way of tracking success. Age of Conan was a failure because they got back less money than they spent. Most of the teams associated with Age of Conan closed down and went bankrupt. Does it have more subs than Darkfall? Yup. Difference is, Darkfall is growing and turning a profit. Age of Conan is not.
And no, a WoW clone, by general concenus, has always described games that are almost identical to WoW in terms of overarching gameplay mechanics, simplicity, over use of instances, quest based leveling, all that jazz. Rift even has the WoW UI (now thats just sad). WoW clones, almost as a rule, usually have 1 or 2 mechanics for "flavor" that they can call their own, but they're surface features that just try to hide the clone within. Age of Conan had its graphics and "combo" combat system. Aion had wings. LotRO had cut scenes. Rift has rifts. It does almost nothing substatially different. It is a WoW clone.
Gamers want innovation...You do realise that if any other mmo had EVE numbers it would be considerd a complete failure and a dieing game, right? Gamers want innovation...stupidest thing Ive read in this thread. Is that why WoW has millions of players paying the sub fee? Maybe to you those arent gamers? Gamers dont give a fuck about innovation or about anything that does something differently or shows a bit of ambition. If they did, they would have stuck with Vanguard, if the did Mortal Online would have enough subs for the dev to hire actual programmers, if they did WoW, a game that caters to the majority, would be a completely different game.
EVE has one of the highest number of subs for any P2P mmorpg in the West. I don't think CCP considers their game "a complete failure" or "a dying game". Most studios would be lucky to achieve what CCP has.
I think your perspective on what constitutes a successful mmo is a little off to say the least.
You misunderstand me. I am not saying EVE is a failure, becouse I dont think that an mmo needs a million people to be a success. If it makes money its a success. But when you compare sub numbers of EVE vs WoW you see what attracts the bigger audiance and its not innovation. That is all I am saying.
Gamers want innovation...You do realise that if any other mmo had EVE numbers it would be considerd a complete failure and a dieing game, right? Gamers want innovation...stupidest thing Ive read in this thread. Is that why WoW has millions of players paying the sub fee? Maybe to you those arent gamers? Gamers dont give a fuck about innovation or about anything that does something differently or shows a bit of ambition. If they did, they would have stuck with Vanguard, if the did Mortal Online would have enough subs for the dev to hire actual programmers, if they did WoW, a game that caters to the majority, would be a completely different game.
And like you I'm not convinced that "gamers" want innovation so much as their favorite game before "the expansion that ruined it" updated to 2011 technology.
Considering that most of the favorite MMOs were decades ahead of their time in terms of ideas, design, depth, and features, yes many people want this. Remaking EQ or DAoC would result in an MMO that stands miles above what we currently have. Same for UO.
And why do people keep saying "Rift isn't a WoW clone, it's an MMO! Quest based leveling, UI, raiding, that's MMO, not WoW!"
Um.. people, NO! That is WoW. It literally SICKENS me that WoW clones have become so frequent that people look at them as "normal" and think, that's how all MMOs were. It's not a WoW clone, it's just a normal MMO! No, normal MMOs do not copy WoW design flaw for design flaw. Ugh.
What the OP should be saying is it's a straight gear grind. Even though Expert dungeons have some fun boss moments, it wears thin after you have to do each of them a dozen times or more. The purpose? To get geared for the next set of Expert dungeons that you'll run a dozen times or more each. Why? To be able to run GSB as often as possible.
PvP is the same model except you replace "dungeons" with "warfronts" and "bosses" with "no-lifers in very tall hats".
To counter this all- it's an MMO. This is what MMOs do. Isn't that sad? Shouldn't we demand more than a gear grind? Hell when a game starts to feel like work you should just stop playing. Which is what I've done. I really wish I could say differently.
Teala posted a blog about this not that long ago. Funny more and more are finally figuring out exactly what they want "more of" out of a MMO.
While I agree with the sentiment, it's something I've reiterated for years now. Yes, I am glad people are finally realizing it, but I've felt this way since I tried to play Everquest over a MUD.
I have played many MMORPGs and I must say that everything from user interface to class-based roles (healer, DPS, Tank) this game has, has been done by other MMORPGs so there is almost nothing new here.
Only things worth mentioning is the flexible soul system which does not able you to mix any classes (a tank is still a tank and cannot be a tank/mage) which is fun for maybe a couple of hours before you realise it is simply the same standard tank, dps, healing abilities spread out on several sub-classes with alot of redundancy.
Rifts is also a novelty but one that also wears out quickly. Basically all of them are random mob spawns that grow in dificulty depending on several factors. But from what I have experienced, they always despawn, no matter what. Seems there is a timer of sort.
Other than that this game is simply a equivalent of another generic Cola, except Coca Cola (=WoW) is the one that most people will buy and most people will go back to once the novelty of a new fresh drink has worn of.
PS: Yes this is a counter to the other post here. {mod edit}
Even the Rift system and the Souls aren't new. Rifts have been in Ultima Online, Darkfall, Asheron's Call, Warhammer, AND Tabula Rasa. The class system is like a dummied down version of old MMO class systems (which is still a step up over other MMOs)
Don't call this MMO generic, call it what it is... a WoW clone with no features to call its own.
Sorry but...
if you're using that logic, then WoW is an EQ clone, and Rift is just another EQ clone.
Rift brings more "new" to the table over WoW than WoW did over EQ. Some people are burnt out on MMOs because of WoW and are blaming Rift for being too much of an MMO.
Er.. WoW was an EQ clone. The only difference is, WoW took what EQ had and made it simpler, smaller, and generally removed features. Rift, is a WoW clone, not an EQ clone, keeping with the same quest based leveling as WoW.
Rift brought NOTHING new to the table, I'm sorry. Neither did WoW. Rift does have mechanics that generally arent in EVERY MMO (Rifts) but they are by no means new or unique. Tabula Rasa, Warhammer, UO, AC, Darkfall, not new.
And no, people aren't burned out of MMOs and blaming Rift for being too much of an MMO. They're burned out of woW and blaming Rift for BEING A WOW CLONE. It's very simple. Rift could have tried to be unique, but it didn't.
To those saying innovation doesn't sell, then how did EQ become a success? DAoC? AC? SWG? UO? By innovating. How did LotRO, AoC, Aion, (list goes on) fail? By cloning WoW.
So it's a clone of WoW... except that it does some things differently than WoW. What? A clone means a carbon copy.
Also your assumption that newer games "failed" where the older games were successful is extremely skewed. As much as I love several of the older games, the newer "failed" games still grabbed the attention of more players, made a lot more money than the older games, and despite having "failed" still have more players now than the older games do.
Judging a game based upon its population is a flawed FLAWED way of tracking success. Age of Conan was a failure because they got back less money than they spent. Most of the teams associated with Age of Conan closed down and went bankrupt. Does it have more subs than Darkfall? Yup. Difference is, Darkfall is growing and turning a profit. Age of Conan is not.
And no, a WoW clone, by general concenus, has always described games that are almost identical to WoW in terms of overarching gameplay mechanics, simplicity, over use of instances, quest based leveling, all that jazz. Rift even has the WoW UI (now thats just sad). WoW clones, almost as a rule, usually have 1 or 2 mechanics for "flavor" that they can call their own, but they're surface features that just try to hide the clone within. Age of Conan had its graphics and "combo" combat system. Aion had wings. LotRO had cut scenes. Rift has rifts. It does almost nothing substatially different. It is a WoW clone.
You've still not answered the multi-million dollar question.
What could Trion have done or not done with Rift so it would not have been branded a WoW clone by yourself and others, yet still remained a generally enjoyable MMO to play?
Still waiting on an answer, but honestly I don't think I'll ever get one. So many people are extremely quick to bitch and moan about an MMO, yet have absolutely nothing constructive to contribute.
As much as they don't have a clue how to make things any better, the developers are in the same boat. They see 'what works' in existing MMOs and go with that. They try to do a few new things, or improve on existing mechanics, but in general there's no consensus as to how to make an MMO that's decent, generally fun, but that doesn't feel like "the same old" to many people.
So unless you have some grand epiphany as to a completely new game design philosophy that would revolutionalize the way MMOs played, stop whining, because the only way to apparently appease people like you is if MMOs were completely re-invented.
Gamers want innovation...You do realise that if any other mmo had EVE numbers it would be considerd a complete failure and a dieing game, right? Gamers want innovation...stupidest thing Ive read in this thread. Is that why WoW has millions of players paying the sub fee? Maybe to you those arent gamers? Gamers dont give a fuck about innovation or about anything that does something differently or shows a bit of ambition. If they did, they would have stuck with Vanguard, if the did Mortal Online would have enough subs for the dev to hire actual programmers, if they did WoW, a game that caters to the majority, would be a completely different game.
And like you I'm not convinced that "gamers" want innovation so much as their favorite game before "the expansion that ruined it" updated to 2011 technology.
Considering that most of the favorite MMOs were decades ahead of their time in terms of ideas, design, depth, and features, yes many people want this. Remaking EQ or DAoC would result in an MMO that stands miles above what we currently have. Same for UO.
And why do people keep saying "Rift isn't a WoW clone, it's an MMO! Quest based leveling, UI, raiding, that's MMO, not WoW!"
Um.. people, NO! That is WoW. It literally SICKENS me that WoW clones have become so frequent that people look at them as "normal" and think, that's how all MMOs were. It's not a WoW clone, it's just a normal MMO! No, normal MMOs do not copy WoW design flaw for design flaw. Ugh.
They weren't decades ahead of their time at all.
They were trying to make good games and had no blueprint to go from so they just included things that they thought were fun. I would say they were of their time. I would also say that their player demographic was made up of a different sort of person.
Not everyone was internet savvy back then. There was a different sort of person who was just willing to dive into these games, maybe even "no questions asked" as there weren't a lot of them. They were just having fun exploring and figuring things out.
But as the years go by it becomes more expensive to make these things and large companies aren't interested in "small games". Indies have a huge problem with lack of funds and inexperienced Devs.
It's hard to tell if the older gamers have any influence at all and if they are just a speck in the pot of gamer demographics.
How many times do i see players complaning of travel times, wanting to have quest trackers with "x marks the spot", easy/fast leveling, doing things solely for rewards, etc.
I don't tink a DAoC 2 or UO 2 is going to catch these new players. If the games are changed too much then you lose the vets who loved them. I mean, each of the aformentioned games had some sort of expansion that "ruined it" and made players leave. So even the very Devs who made these games needed to change them.
This is not a hard thing. But for some reason "gamers" have a difficult time seeing this. Games have moved into the mainstream. And what happens when anything is moved into the mainstream? They become more accessible and take less risks. Happened with movies, music etc.
There is nothing new here. Players who loved old UO or DAoC might just have to relegate themselves to the "we're Jazz" bin and just accept it. Perhaps at some point some developer will try to make some sort of old school/new school hybrid.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Christ. A lot of people here who've burnt out on themepark MMORPG's (or 'WoW clones' as they like to call it) and for some reason feel the need to justify their narrow taste by convincing other people that their disliking certain MMORPG's is the way to go.
Just accept that other MMO gamers can like MMORPG's that you don't, is that so hard? The world won't be destroyed if an MMORPG that you don't like is popular for a time. Just wait for an MMORPG that you will like to arrive or try broadening your horizon by looking at the number of different MMORPG's around that you haven't given a try yet.
As for what I think, I still find it one of the oddest things, that desire of some people to see an MMORPG fail, or think that by shouting hard and frequent enough they can make their fervent wish become real so that it will fail. We'll see automatically what Rift will mean to people as the free month runs out, personally I think that a dose of healthy competition in MMO's is a good thing, and that the more MMORPG's that are very successful, the better. But then again, I'm for a wider selection of all kinds of high quality MMO's in the first place.
Apparently, others are not, unless it fits their limited taste range in MMO's.
Originally posted by Sovrath
They were trying to make good games and had no blueprint to go from so they just included things that they thought were fun. I would say they were of their time. I would also say that their player demographic was made up of a different sort of person.
Not everyone was internet savvy back then. There was a different sort of person who was just willing to dive into these games, maybe even "no questions asked" as there weren't a lot of them. They were just having fun exploring and figuring things out.
This is not a hard thing. But for some reason "gamers" have a difficult time seeing this. Games have moved into the mainstream. And what happens when anything is moved into the mainstream? They become more accessible and take less risks. Happened with movies, music etc.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Er.. WoW was an EQ clone. The only difference is, WoW took what EQ had and made it simpler, smaller, and generally removed features. Rift, is a WoW clone, not an EQ clone, keeping with the same quest based leveling as WoW.
Rift brought NOTHING new to the table, I'm sorry. Neither did WoW. Rift does have mechanics that generally arent in EVERY MMO (Rifts) but they are by no means new or unique. Tabula Rasa, Warhammer, UO, AC, Darkfall, not new.
And no, people aren't burned out of MMOs and blaming Rift for being too much of an MMO. They're burned out of woW and blaming Rift for BEING A WOW CLONE. It's very simple. Rift could have tried to be unique, but it didn't.
To those saying innovation doesn't sell, then how did EQ become a success? DAoC? AC? SWG? UO? By innovating. How did LotRO, AoC, Aion, (list goes on) fail? By cloning WoW.
No where in it did RIFT say they were going to bring something innovative to the table. This is seems to be where your problems stem from...because it isn't innovative. Hate to tell you but those games that tried to innovate basically failed. Of the games you list (Darkfall, AC, Tabula Rasa, etc) they are either dead games (TR especially) or poorly made games with a very low pop.
EQ and UO succeded because they were the first of their kind. UO being sandbox and EQ being the first raid game. But look at their populations today. UO has 1 high server, 4 med, and all the rest are low. DAoC and SWG were made good until the companies shot themselves in the foot by changing the core mechanics (SWG especially).
Sorry to break it to you but at this time in the online video game industry innovatioon doesn't sell. Most people are just happy with a well made copy game.
I think you have a very skewed sense of the MMORPG market. First off, the games that have the Rift stuff in them that I listed was merely to point out that its not a new idea, don't know why you (incorrectly) pointed out that they're all doing badly. AC is still releasing monthly updates, and Darkfall is steadily growing, unlike almost every other AAA MMO out there. AC and DF are poorly made? News to me.
My sense is fine thanks, The idea of rifts isn't new. The implementation of constant ones is. None of the games you listed do these consistently. Every game you mentioned I play (UO) or have played at one time (AC, DF, SWG, DAoC) and they are niche games with a dwindling subscriber base
EQ and UO succeeded by being the first of their kind? Ok, then why did DAoC succeed? Or AC? Or SWG? Why is Darkfall succeeding?
DAoC at the time offered 3 realms and good PvP...until ToA broke it and it really never recovered from that. SWG because of the Star Wars IP along with the sandbox feel, until CU and NGE came in. AC cause it was another sandbox and the 3rd after UO and Everquest that was more positioned around story arcs than anything, except for it's pitiful release state much like AC2. Darkfall has not succeded and is in all honesty remaining stagnent from what I've been able to tell. For years people thought it was Vaporware and all of a sudden came out with very little of what was promised, but did at least manage to release. PLayed it and while it is ok it's not near the quality it was promised to be upon release.
Know why the pop us low today? Because the game is 13 freaking years old! EQ is still very popular and being developed for, but come on, its an old game, not the primary focus of the company anymore, of course the pop is going to be lower than the fotm game.
I know it's 13 years old. Been playing it for about half of that on and off. It's my favorite game but the cheaters, scammers and scripters ruined it (along with EA's Age of Shadows) years ago. SA brought it back to a good place but it will never recover.
And, as I've said, clones don't sell, innovation does.
WoW and RIFT are selling very well so this theory goes straight out the window. I believe you yourself said Rift is a WoW clone and WoW is an EQ clone. Both seem to be doing well.
And why, oh why, does Rift exist if it has no unique features of its own? Why would I play it over anything else if it is the exact same game. "Well they never promised to bring anything new" that's kind of implied when you MAKE A NEW GAME.
They made a game that has the same feel as WoW did upon it's release and lost since it's homoginization of classes within the last year. And just because a new game is made does not mean they are going to try to do something new and innovative. All it means is they want a piece of the market share...they took a formula and added their own little things to it.
As for what I think, I still find it one of the oddest things, that desire of some people to see an MMORPG fail, or think that by shouting hard and frequent enough they can make their fervent wish become real so that it will fail. We'll see automatically what Rift will mean to people as the free month runs out, personally I think that a dose of healthy competition in MMO's is a good thing, and that the more MMORPG's that are very successful, the better. But then again, I'm for a wider selection of all kinds of high quality MMO's in the first place.
I can somewhat see the logic behind wanting certain MMORPGs to fail, and it goes hand in hand with wanting more MMOs to be competitive. If themepark MMORPGs keep failing, hopefully companies will stop trying to make them to mimic WoW's success and 80% of the new AAA titles won't be primarily based upon WoW, and thus dubbed WoW Clones.
That's the only logical reason I can see behind wanting any MMORPG to fail.
Then again for every person with this thought process, there are probably ten more wanting it to fail out of some misplaced sense of spite.
As for what I think, I still find it one of the oddest things, that desire of some people to see an MMORPG fail, or think that by shouting hard and frequent enough they can make their fervent wish become real so that it will fail. We'll see automatically what Rift will mean to people as the free month runs out, personally I think that a dose of healthy competition in MMO's is a good thing, and that the more MMORPG's that are very successful, the better. But then again, I'm for a wider selection of all kinds of high quality MMO's in the first place.
I can somewhat see the logic behind wanting certain MMORPGs to fail, and it goes hand in hand with wanting more MMOs to be competitive. If themepark MMORPGs keep failing, hopefully companies will stop trying to make them to mimic WoW's success and 80% of the new AAA titles won't be primarily based upon WoW, and thus dubbed WoW Clones.
That's the only logical reason I can see behind wanting any MMORPG to fail.
Then again for every person with this thought process, there are probably ten more wanting it to fail out of some misplaced sense of spite.
If that is the logic then it can also bring developers to the idea that "hey, maybe mmo's aren't a good investment at all and we should bet out of them."
Or "Most people want themepark mmo's but companies can't make them happen therefore mmo's are a bad investment".
Other than that, I don't want any game to fail. Too many people put their hard work into these games and want to feel like they have done something worthwhile. It must be horrible for any developer to put in all that work and money and then fail. Very disheartening.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
If that is the logic then it can also bring developers to the idea that "hey, maybe mmo's aren't a good investment at all and we should bet out of them."
Or "Most people want themepark mmo's but companies can't make them happen therefore mmo's are a bad investment".
I see the first statement mainly applying to big name developers, and if they backed out, I'm not sure how many people would mind.
I don't know what investors truely think, but right now it seems to look like that, in their opinion or in the evidence they are shown, the big money is in themeparks or catering to the masses and trying to mimic WoW. It's pretty hard to argue with those numbers though.
My favorite themepark to fail? Tabula Rasa. A themepark with a shooting system and a pretty damn intriguing story. NCSoft can go diaf though.
OP do us the MMO comunity a HUGE favor and make us a game that isn't the same as the other game'. You obviously have an idea so get some capital and get it started. The in 5 years after its out lets watch the forums here at MMORPG.com LOVE your game and not have a post that is as thoughtful as "rift is not very good"
As for what I think, I still find it one of the oddest things, that desire of some people to see an MMORPG fail, or think that by shouting hard and frequent enough they can make their fervent wish become real so that it will fail. We'll see automatically what Rift will mean to people as the free month runs out, personally I think that a dose of healthy competition in MMO's is a good thing, and that the more MMORPG's that are very successful, the better. But then again, I'm for a wider selection of all kinds of high quality MMO's in the first place.
I can somewhat see the logic behind wanting certain MMORPGs to fail, and it goes hand in hand with wanting more MMOs to be competitive. If themepark MMORPGs keep failing, hopefully companies will stop trying to make them to mimic WoW's success and 80% of the new AAA titles won't be primarily based upon WoW, and thus dubbed WoW Clones.
That's the only logical reason I can see behind wanting any MMORPG to fail.
Then again for every person with this thought process, there are probably ten more wanting it to fail out of some misplaced sense of spite.
If that is the logic then it can also bring developers to the idea that "hey, maybe mmo's aren't a good investment at all and we should bet out of them."
Or "Most people want themepark mmo's but companies can't make them happen therefore mmo's are a bad investment".
Other than that, I don't want any game to fail. Too many people put their hard work into these games and want to feel like they have done something worthwhile. It must be horrible for any developer to put in all that work and money and then fail. Very disheartening.
You really have to learn one thing about life: NOBODY is buying your products for mercy.
I live from drawing and writing. So I know firsthand. If what I draw or write is sub par, people don't buy it. End of story. Nobody ever bought my paintings for mercy just because I put so much heart and work into it. And BOY I DID! But is that enough for a customer to give me his hard earned money? No.
So I don't get mercy and I have none to spare in turn. End of story.
I don't want to see Rift fail, because they did good groundwork. But I definitely DO want to see SOME MMos fail! What is bad needs to fail to make an example. Without failed games, without us gamers stop buying trash, the industry will never move forward. Example: Star Trek Online. Cryptic made these games and ESPECIALLY STO just to make quick bucks with cheap development and the IP lure. STO has to die, for no other reason as to show that some sorts of scams don't work. Alas they do work and so companies continue to spill cheap trash on the market, knowing full well enough people will buy it for the hype or the brand or both. Like Dragon Age 2.
If I were immortal and money endless I'd be more generous. But simply said, life is way too short to waste it with BAD GAMES!
EDIT: Don't get me wrong. I have all sympathy for people whose idea failed. It's horrible and I wish that to nobody. But that doesn't mean I have to buy their crap just to comfort some game developing millionaires.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I think Trion did two good things with Rift. First being that they're invested into the live/world event concept that's coming up for the 30th of March. Not since Matrix Online or other titles before MxO has there been a single MMO company willing to put the effort into world and live events. I hope Trion keeps this going because having just a theme park with no real narrative or progression seems pointless. The second thing they done good is the soul system even if it has its flaws. Anything that allows for customization of game play is always good.
Now for the two 'bad' things or rather what I would like to call the tired and boring. First, they kept with the whole idea of theme parks being linear. There's no way to actually fail or take an alternate route in the game. In fact, if you don't complete a certain quest chain you can *never* go to another area along the quest chain to go and explore and do the quests related to that area. This idea has to go, I'm sorry, but in a real life theme park I don't have to ride the roller coaster since I can take the other rides and amusements that happen to be at one. MMOs that are labeled theme parks should adhere to this same reasoning. Second, there's little in the way of alternate game play. Crafting in this game isn't what I call a minigame, nor war fronts or the collections/artifacts systems. They really need to consider a genuine set of alternate advancement and game play methods (RvR comes to mind since the Defiant and Guardians are at war). I doubt any of this will ever happen, but wth why not voice my opinion anyway since everyone else has. *shrug*
what do you play then?? What else is there to play until SW:TOR or GW2, MMORPG wise, and this is excluding Pay to win, which are pointless games in the first place. (that includes LOTRO)
Christ. A lot of people here who've burnt out on themepark MMORPG's (or 'WoW clones' as they like to call it) and for some reason feel the need to justify their narrow taste by convincing other people that their disliking certain MMORPG's is the way to go.
Just accept that other MMO gamers can like MMORPG's that you don't, is that so hard? The world won't be destroyed if an MMORPG that you don't like is popular for a time. Just wait for an MMORPG that you will like to arrive or try broadening your horizon by looking at the number of different MMORPG's around that you haven't given a try yet.
As for what I think, I still find it one of the oddest things, that desire of some people to see an MMORPG fail, or think that by shouting hard and frequent enough they can make their fervent wish become real so that it will fail. We'll see automatically what Rift will mean to people as the free month runs out, personally I think that a dose of healthy competition in MMO's is a good thing, and that the more MMORPG's that are very successful, the better. But then again, I'm for a wider selection of all kinds of high quality MMO's in the first place.
Apparently, others are not, unless it fits their limited taste range in MMO's.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I really do like Themepark MMOs. I just dont like bad ones. I thought that Rift was not done very well. In fact I think Warhammer had a better PVE... let alone PVP or RVR.
To Rift's credit they did have a very stable launch, which is huge. I just felt so mehhh about the whole game.
The rifts were bad versions of Warhammer's public quests.
The PVE quests were worse than Warhammer, which is really saying something...
The warfront/scenario/battlegrounds were absolutely atrocious compared to every game that has ever had them. Add in terrible class balance and the pvp is just an absolute fail.
It was just bad content from what I saw.
I'm really looking forward to the Star Wars Old Republic now.
Comments
No where in it did RIFT say they were going to bring something innovative to the table. This is seems to be where your problems stem from...because it isn't innovative. Hate to tell you but those games that tried to innovate basically failed. Of the games you list (Darkfall, AC, Tabula Rasa, etc) they are either dead games (TR especially) or poorly made games with a very low pop.
EQ and UO succeded because they were the first of their kind. UO being sandbox and EQ being the first raid game. But look at their populations today. UO has 1 high server, 4 med, and all the rest are low. DAoC and SWG were made good until the companies shot themselves in the foot by changing the core mechanics (SWG especially).
Sorry to break it to you but at this time in the online video game industry innovatioon doesn't sell. Most people are just happy with a well made copy game.
I think you have a very skewed sense of the MMORPG market. First off, the games that have the Rift stuff in them that I listed was merely to point out that its not a new idea, don't know why you (incorrectly) pointed out that they're all doing badly. AC is still releasing monthly updates, and Darkfall is steadily growing, unlike almost every other AAA MMO out there. AC and DF are poorly made? News to me.
EQ and UO succeeded by being the first of their kind? Ok, then why did DAoC succeed? Or AC? Or SWG? Why is Darkfall succeeding?
Know why the pop us low today? Because the game is 13 freaking years old! EQ is still very popular and being developed for, but come on, its an old game, not the primary focus of the company anymore, of course the pop is going to be lower than the fotm game.
And, as I've said, clones don't sell, innovation does.
And why, oh why, does Rift exist if it has no unique features of its own? Why would I play it over anything else if it is the exact same game. "Well they never promised to bring anything new" that's kind of implied when you MAKE A NEW GAME.
It was Trion themselves that were touting Rift as next gen. Here's a quote by Lars Buttler CEO of Trion: "We believe living worlds, powered by dynamically refreshed content represent the next generation, and Rift will be there on release." Link.
Also, EVE was an innovative game when it was released. You do realize how high the sub numbers are for that game, eh? Gamers want and like innovation, that much is clear.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
So it's a clone of WoW... except that it does some things differently than WoW. What? A clone means a carbon copy. Being a clone doesn't mean having taken 'what works' and adding to it, which is exactly what Rift did. Sure Rift doesn't have mechanics that are uniquely innovative, but it still draws from a lot of game mechanics from other MMOs and does them a hell of a lot better.
You claim that people are bitching about Rift because it's too much like WoW. Please enlighten all of us, what could Trion have done with Rift to make people stop pitching a fit that it was too much like WoW? Keep in mind, it would have to result in a game that was generally enjoyed by people. I'd love to know, and I'm sure it's the multi-million dollar question for developers. Everyone talks about how they're sick of "WoW clones", yet they have absolutely no idea themselves of how to make a decent game that doesn't draw on general MMO gaming principles that WoW just also happens to use -- maybe because they seem to 'work'.
Also your assumption that newer games "failed" where the older games were successful is extremely skewed. As much as I love several of the older games, the newer "failed" games still grabbed the attention of more players, made a lot more money than the older games, and despite having "failed" still have more players now than the older games do.
Gamers want innovation...You do realise that if any other mmo had EVE numbers it would be considerd a complete failure and a dieing game, right? Gamers want innovation...stupidest thing Ive read in this thread. Is that why WoW has millions of players paying the sub fee? Maybe to you those arent gamers? Gamers dont give a fuck about innovation or about anything that does something differently or shows a bit of ambition. If they did, they would have stuck with Vanguard, if the did Mortal Online would have enough subs for the dev to hire actual programmers, if they did WoW, a game that caters to the majority, would be a completely different game.
I was waiting for something inflamatory, something juicy, something argumentative, maybe even an actual argument.
You didnt deliver.
You didnt even tell me why RIFT is VERY bad. Its an mmo, we get it--classes, similar UI, quests---yep MMO, CHECK!
I know everything you stated, and I am still enjoying the game. And the mmo I quit (long before RIFT) I have no plans to return to.
EVE has one of the highest number of subs for any P2P mmorpg in the West. I don't think CCP considers their game "a complete failure" or "a dying game". Most studios would be lucky to achieve what CCP has.
I think your perspective on what constitutes a successful mmo is a little off to say the least.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
It's interesting because take WoW out of the equation and perhaps some Asian games and not many games have "millions of subs".
Yet for some reason some people think that this is the norm for a successful game.
And like you I'm not convinced that "gamers" want innovation so much as their favorite game before "the expansion that ruined it" updated to 2011 technology.
Still, with more dynamic content or content that hints at a certain level of dynamism and what seems a call for "less grind' it is possible that some level of innovation is desired.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Judging a game based upon its population is a flawed FLAWED way of tracking success. Age of Conan was a failure because they got back less money than they spent. Most of the teams associated with Age of Conan closed down and went bankrupt. Does it have more subs than Darkfall? Yup. Difference is, Darkfall is growing and turning a profit. Age of Conan is not.
And no, a WoW clone, by general concenus, has always described games that are almost identical to WoW in terms of overarching gameplay mechanics, simplicity, over use of instances, quest based leveling, all that jazz. Rift even has the WoW UI (now thats just sad). WoW clones, almost as a rule, usually have 1 or 2 mechanics for "flavor" that they can call their own, but they're surface features that just try to hide the clone within. Age of Conan had its graphics and "combo" combat system. Aion had wings. LotRO had cut scenes. Rift has rifts. It does almost nothing substatially different. It is a WoW clone.
You misunderstand me. I am not saying EVE is a failure, becouse I dont think that an mmo needs a million people to be a success. If it makes money its a success. But when you compare sub numbers of EVE vs WoW you see what attracts the bigger audiance and its not innovation. That is all I am saying.
Considering that most of the favorite MMOs were decades ahead of their time in terms of ideas, design, depth, and features, yes many people want this. Remaking EQ or DAoC would result in an MMO that stands miles above what we currently have. Same for UO.
And why do people keep saying "Rift isn't a WoW clone, it's an MMO! Quest based leveling, UI, raiding, that's MMO, not WoW!"
Um.. people, NO! That is WoW. It literally SICKENS me that WoW clones have become so frequent that people look at them as "normal" and think, that's how all MMOs were. It's not a WoW clone, it's just a normal MMO! No, normal MMOs do not copy WoW design flaw for design flaw. Ugh.
While I agree with the sentiment, it's something I've reiterated for years now. Yes, I am glad people are finally realizing it, but I've felt this way since I tried to play Everquest over a MUD.
You've still not answered the multi-million dollar question.
What could Trion have done or not done with Rift so it would not have been branded a WoW clone by yourself and others, yet still remained a generally enjoyable MMO to play?
Still waiting on an answer, but honestly I don't think I'll ever get one. So many people are extremely quick to bitch and moan about an MMO, yet have absolutely nothing constructive to contribute.
As much as they don't have a clue how to make things any better, the developers are in the same boat. They see 'what works' in existing MMOs and go with that. They try to do a few new things, or improve on existing mechanics, but in general there's no consensus as to how to make an MMO that's decent, generally fun, but that doesn't feel like "the same old" to many people.
So unless you have some grand epiphany as to a completely new game design philosophy that would revolutionalize the way MMOs played, stop whining, because the only way to apparently appease people like you is if MMOs were completely re-invented.
They weren't decades ahead of their time at all.
They were trying to make good games and had no blueprint to go from so they just included things that they thought were fun. I would say they were of their time. I would also say that their player demographic was made up of a different sort of person.
Not everyone was internet savvy back then. There was a different sort of person who was just willing to dive into these games, maybe even "no questions asked" as there weren't a lot of them. They were just having fun exploring and figuring things out.
But as the years go by it becomes more expensive to make these things and large companies aren't interested in "small games". Indies have a huge problem with lack of funds and inexperienced Devs.
It's hard to tell if the older gamers have any influence at all and if they are just a speck in the pot of gamer demographics.
How many times do i see players complaning of travel times, wanting to have quest trackers with "x marks the spot", easy/fast leveling, doing things solely for rewards, etc.
I don't tink a DAoC 2 or UO 2 is going to catch these new players. If the games are changed too much then you lose the vets who loved them. I mean, each of the aformentioned games had some sort of expansion that "ruined it" and made players leave. So even the very Devs who made these games needed to change them.
This is not a hard thing. But for some reason "gamers" have a difficult time seeing this. Games have moved into the mainstream. And what happens when anything is moved into the mainstream? They become more accessible and take less risks. Happened with movies, music etc.
There is nothing new here. Players who loved old UO or DAoC might just have to relegate themselves to the "we're Jazz" bin and just accept it. Perhaps at some point some developer will try to make some sort of old school/new school hybrid.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Christ. A lot of people here who've burnt out on themepark MMORPG's (or 'WoW clones' as they like to call it) and for some reason feel the need to justify their narrow taste by convincing other people that their disliking certain MMORPG's is the way to go.
Just accept that other MMO gamers can like MMORPG's that you don't, is that so hard? The world won't be destroyed if an MMORPG that you don't like is popular for a time. Just wait for an MMORPG that you will like to arrive or try broadening your horizon by looking at the number of different MMORPG's around that you haven't given a try yet.
As for what I think, I still find it one of the oddest things, that desire of some people to see an MMORPG fail, or think that by shouting hard and frequent enough they can make their fervent wish become real so that it will fail. We'll see automatically what Rift will mean to people as the free month runs out, personally I think that a dose of healthy competition in MMO's is a good thing, and that the more MMORPG's that are very successful, the better. But then again, I'm for a wider selection of all kinds of high quality MMO's in the first place.
Apparently, others are not, unless it fits their limited taste range in MMO's.
And this.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I can somewhat see the logic behind wanting certain MMORPGs to fail, and it goes hand in hand with wanting more MMOs to be competitive. If themepark MMORPGs keep failing, hopefully companies will stop trying to make them to mimic WoW's success and 80% of the new AAA titles won't be primarily based upon WoW, and thus dubbed WoW Clones.
That's the only logical reason I can see behind wanting any MMORPG to fail.
Then again for every person with this thought process, there are probably ten more wanting it to fail out of some misplaced sense of spite.
.. But in a good way.
If that is the logic then it can also bring developers to the idea that "hey, maybe mmo's aren't a good investment at all and we should bet out of them."
Or "Most people want themepark mmo's but companies can't make them happen therefore mmo's are a bad investment".
Other than that, I don't want any game to fail. Too many people put their hard work into these games and want to feel like they have done something worthwhile. It must be horrible for any developer to put in all that work and money and then fail. Very disheartening.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I see the first statement mainly applying to big name developers, and if they backed out, I'm not sure how many people would mind.
I don't know what investors truely think, but right now it seems to look like that, in their opinion or in the evidence they are shown, the big money is in themeparks or catering to the masses and trying to mimic WoW. It's pretty hard to argue with those numbers though.
My favorite themepark to fail? Tabula Rasa. A themepark with a shooting system and a pretty damn intriguing story. NCSoft can go diaf though.
.. But in a good way.
" rift is very bad"
Nice intro.
OP do us the MMO comunity a HUGE favor and make us a game that isn't the same as the other game'. You obviously have an idea so get some capital and get it started. The in 5 years after its out lets watch the forums here at MMORPG.com LOVE your game and not have a post that is as thoughtful as "rift is not very good"
We shall be waiting.
You really have to learn one thing about life: NOBODY is buying your products for mercy.
I live from drawing and writing. So I know firsthand. If what I draw or write is sub par, people don't buy it. End of story. Nobody ever bought my paintings for mercy just because I put so much heart and work into it. And BOY I DID! But is that enough for a customer to give me his hard earned money? No.
So I don't get mercy and I have none to spare in turn. End of story.
I don't want to see Rift fail, because they did good groundwork. But I definitely DO want to see SOME MMos fail! What is bad needs to fail to make an example. Without failed games, without us gamers stop buying trash, the industry will never move forward. Example: Star Trek Online. Cryptic made these games and ESPECIALLY STO just to make quick bucks with cheap development and the IP lure. STO has to die, for no other reason as to show that some sorts of scams don't work. Alas they do work and so companies continue to spill cheap trash on the market, knowing full well enough people will buy it for the hype or the brand or both. Like Dragon Age 2.
If I were immortal and money endless I'd be more generous. But simply said, life is way too short to waste it with BAD GAMES!
EDIT: Don't get me wrong. I have all sympathy for people whose idea failed. It's horrible and I wish that to nobody. But that doesn't mean I have to buy their crap just to comfort some game developing millionaires.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I think Trion did two good things with Rift. First being that they're invested into the live/world event concept that's coming up for the 30th of March. Not since Matrix Online or other titles before MxO has there been a single MMO company willing to put the effort into world and live events. I hope Trion keeps this going because having just a theme park with no real narrative or progression seems pointless. The second thing they done good is the soul system even if it has its flaws. Anything that allows for customization of game play is always good.
Now for the two 'bad' things or rather what I would like to call the tired and boring. First, they kept with the whole idea of theme parks being linear. There's no way to actually fail or take an alternate route in the game. In fact, if you don't complete a certain quest chain you can *never* go to another area along the quest chain to go and explore and do the quests related to that area. This idea has to go, I'm sorry, but in a real life theme park I don't have to ride the roller coaster since I can take the other rides and amusements that happen to be at one. MMOs that are labeled theme parks should adhere to this same reasoning. Second, there's little in the way of alternate game play. Crafting in this game isn't what I call a minigame, nor war fronts or the collections/artifacts systems. They really need to consider a genuine set of alternate advancement and game play methods (RvR comes to mind since the Defiant and Guardians are at war). I doubt any of this will ever happen, but wth why not voice my opinion anyway since everyone else has. *shrug*
what do you play then?? What else is there to play until SW:TOR or GW2, MMORPG wise, and this is excluding Pay to win, which are pointless games in the first place. (that includes LOTRO)
(-_-)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I really do like Themepark MMOs. I just dont like bad ones. I thought that Rift was not done very well. In fact I think Warhammer had a better PVE... let alone PVP or RVR.
To Rift's credit they did have a very stable launch, which is huge. I just felt so mehhh about the whole game.
The rifts were bad versions of Warhammer's public quests.
The PVE quests were worse than Warhammer, which is really saying something...
The warfront/scenario/battlegrounds were absolutely atrocious compared to every game that has ever had them. Add in terrible class balance and the pvp is just an absolute fail.
It was just bad content from what I saw.
I'm really looking forward to the Star Wars Old Republic now.
actually you can play a tank mage if you want, you just have to be creative.
Term Tank means holding aggro, Term mage means using spells at range, you can do it, just mix things up
I play a Tank Mage in pvp