Originally posted by Scrogdog Id like to address this market share issue. Kind of interesting, actually, as this describes the EXACT problem even though this was likely not the posters intent. Market share. Thats what it is about. NOT good games. Sometimes I wonder if these folks believe that every writer should attempt to write the next Harry Potter rather than crafting their own imaginative story. Certainly such an effort would have quite the potential to reach an already existing market. Then the writer could analyze and copy the style and plot elements, switch a few things around, and then make a great profit off the mindless masses. Soon, every book, every movie, every work of "art", would be simply attempts to follow the mold. No creativity, no imagination whatsoever. Cardboard cutout books and movies! Can you imagine the market share!! But wait, you say, the people would never accept the same regurgitated trash over and over again. Youre nuts Scrog!!! Oh, we wouldnt? *cough* Game devs who are in it for market share are akin to Picasso being in it for the money. And you see the result. Once devs want to make great games again, let me know. Until then, we get "the mold" and money grubbing sellout devs driving the bus. But wait Scrog you heartless bastid, what about them trying to make a living? Oh, cry me a river. Do you think that people stop writing songs or playing an instrument and plying thier craft any way that they can EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE TO WORK A REGULAR JOB TO EAT? People who have passion for thier craft find a way. Simple as that. I think it's pretty obvious where dev passions lie. Greenbacks.
Most books and movies do retell the same basic stories over and over again. It's the presentation that changes. That's one of the reasons Harry Potter was so popular, it used some existing mythology (find the Holy Grail, defeat Mordred, the boy king, stop the invading army, etc.), but it was set in a new setting with characters that many people could relate to.
A lot of our entertainment works this way. Thousands of years ago, cultures that had no contact with each other told a lot of the same stories. It's not really all that surprising that our games would continue this trend.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Kind of interesting, actually, as this describes the EXACT problem even though this was likely not the poster’s intent.
Market share. That’s what it is about. NOT good games.
Sometimes I wonder if these folks believe that every writer should attempt to write the next Harry Potter rather than crafting their own imaginative story. Certainly such an effort would have quite the potential to reach an already existing market.
Then the writer could analyze and copy the style and plot elements, switch a few things around, and then make a great profit off the mindless masses.
Soon, every book, every movie, every work of "art", would be simply attempts to follow the mold. No creativity, no imagination whatsoever. Cardboard cutout books and movies!
Can you imagine the market share!!
But wait, you say, the people would never accept the same regurgitated trash over and over again. You’re nuts Scrog!!!
Oh, we wouldn’t? *cough*
Game devs who are in it for “market share” are akin to Picasso being in it for the money.
And you see the result.
Once devs want to make great games again, let me know. Until then, we get "the mold" and money grubbing sellout devs driving the bus.
But wait Scrog you heartless bastid, what about them trying to make a living?
Oh, cry me a river. Do you think that people stop writing songs or playing an instrument and plying thier craft any way that they can EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE TO WORK A REGULAR JOB TO EAT?
People who have passion for thier craft find a way. Simple as that.
I think it's pretty obvious where dev passions lie. Greenbacks.
Most books and movies do retell the same basic stories over and over again. It's the presentation that changes. That's one of the reasons Harry Potter was so popular, it used some existing mythology (find the Holy Grail, defeat Mordred, the boy king, stop the invading army, etc.), but it was set in a new setting with characters that many people could relate to.
A lot of our entertainment works this way. Thousands of years ago, cultures that had no contact with each other told a lot of the same stories. It's not really all that surprising that our games would continue this trend.
Somewhat a myth as the concept is WAY overstated.
I play guitar and try to write songs.
Your comment would be akin to saying "why bother, all of the good ones have already been written".
Sure, songs can contain the same elements such as hooks and so forth, but that doesn't mean that they are anything at all alike.
For example, let's take a famous book (or trilogy). The Lord of the Rings.
Sure, it has a bad guy, an item, a journey, just like many other books.
Would you say then, the Dragonlance is a copy? Not even close.
Tolkien is WAY to verbose for my taste. I don't need to read a two-page description of a meadow. Get on with it man!!!
On the other hand, I consider the character development in Dragonlance to be unparalled.
Those last two things that I mention have NOTHING to do with common plot elements.
There have been many failed attempts to use this same mold as well. Just as we see in the world of games, sure, you can use a basic template, BUT if that's ALL that your game or book is, you will FAIL.
Kind of interesting, actually, as this describes the EXACT problem even though this was likely not the poster’s intent.
Market share. That’s what it is about. NOT good games.
And why market share? The bottom line is corporate profits.
Stockholders own the company.
They are represented by the board of directors
The actual operations is headed by the CEO, hired by the board.
CEO says "we want the market share (corporate profits) and that becomes the focus of the development.
Everyone else down the line is a peon.
Artists, creative writers, programmers, network administrators... even the managers that oversee them. Peons.
Yes maybe some shops strive for excellence and won't cave in. But that only happens a few times until they get the reputation as being "uncooperative" and then they can't get work.
Some will argue that games have always been about money. I beg to differ. One of the reasons we used to have GOOD games is that small publishers took pride in their reputation with gamers. But no longer, there are very few small publishers left.
The problem today, and especially on something as large and complex as an MMORPG, is that it takes HUGE bags of money to fund a project to release. That means Mister CEO calls all the shots.
Maybe there have been a few examples where this didn't happen (GuildWars' ArenaNet cooperative agreement with NCSoft perhaps) but on a big budget MMO, the bottom line is return on investment (your market share) and nothing else matters. Make it as commercially viable as possible, and ship it.
Sad huh? BTW: OP and Scrogg, great posts!
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.
Correct, Action. We must now consider the fact that we are more or less trapped in some sort of harmonic feedback design cycle. It may not be possible to extricate ourselves at this point.
It is because of the idea that expensive means good. You must be kidding.
Another thing I do is to play board wargames. I just found this place where you can actually download wargames for a couple of bucks, print them out on a few sheets of paper and play.
Surely, historical wargames (sorry, this ain't call of duty folks) are a niche market in itself, but again, what matters is a GOOD game! Not even necessarily quality components! I mean, I've played a great game that cost $4, and nine sheets of paper and a bit of printer ink.
It could also have been released with a nice mounted and laminated board and counters! Full color rule book! And if you act now, a GI Joe figurine ready to be painted!
Of course, the game now costs $25. How much was gameplay affected?
Kind of interesting, actually, as this describes the EXACT problem even though this was likely not the posters intent. Market share. Thats what it is about. NOT good games. Sometimes I wonder if these folks believe that every writer should attempt to write the next Harry Potter rather than crafting their own imaginative story. Certainly such an effort would have quite the potential to reach an already existing market. Then the writer could analyze and copy the style and plot elements, switch a few things around, and then make a great profit off the mindless masses. Soon, every book, every movie, every work of "art", would be simply attempts to follow the mold. No creativity, no imagination whatsoever. Cardboard cutout books and movies! Can you imagine the market share!! But wait, you say, the people would never accept the same regurgitated trash over and over again. Youre nuts Scrog!!! Oh, we wouldnt? *cough* Game devs who are in it for market share are akin to Picasso being in it for the money. And you see the result. Once devs want to make great games again, let me know. Until then, we get "the mold" and money grubbing sellout devs driving the bus. But wait Scrog you heartless bastid, what about them trying to make a living? Oh, cry me a river. Do you think that people stop writing songs or playing an instrument and plying thier craft any way that they can EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE TO WORK A REGULAR JOB TO EAT? People who have passion for thier craft find a way. Simple as that. I think it's pretty obvious where dev passions lie. Greenbacks.
Most books and movies do retell the same basic stories over and over again. It's the presentation that changes. That's one of the reasons Harry Potter was so popular, it used some existing mythology (find the Holy Grail, defeat Mordred, the boy king, stop the invading army, etc.), but it was set in a new setting with characters that many people could relate to.
A lot of our entertainment works this way. Thousands of years ago, cultures that had no contact with each other told a lot of the same stories. It's not really all that surprising that our games would continue this trend.
Somewhat a myth as the concept is WAY overstated. I play guitar and try to write songs. Your comment would be akin to saying "why bother, all of the good ones have already been written". Sure, songs can contain the same elements such as hooks and so forth, but that doesn't mean that they are anything at all alike. For example, let's take a famous book (or trilogy). The Lord of the Rings. Sure, it has a bad guy, an item, a journey, just like many other books. Would you say then, the Dragonlance is a copy? Not even close. Tolkien is WAY to verbose for my taste. I don't need to read a two-page description of a meadow. Get on with it man!!! On the other hand, I consider the character development in Dragonlance to be unparalled. Those last two things that I mention have NOTHING to do with common plot elements. There have been many failed attempts to use this same mold as well. Just as we see in the world of games, sure, you can use a basic template, BUT if that's ALL that your game or book is, you will FAIL.
Recurring themes isn't the same thing as copying. Most stories are a recombination of elements that people have already seen. That doesn't mean something new can't be made, just that something totally new and never seen before is pretty rare. You're more likely to have a recombination of existing ideas in a new way than a totally new thing.
Even with music, whatever you're creating is based off of everything you've heard before...it all mixes together in your brain and you're going to recombine it into something new. It will still be music, it will still have a certain beats per minute (even if the beats per minute changes throughout the song) and you'll still use musical notes and certain chains of musical notes to get a certain effect that you want. The song will be new and never heard before, but the elements of the song have been used before by somebody else.
Games work the same way. Most elements of video games have been used before. Video games have only been around since the 70's, so there are probably new elements that can be created that we've never seen before, but for the most part, a game may be new, but the elements that make up the game have been used before.
** edit ** I think ActionMMORPG hit on something with mmorpg. They are expensive to produce. We've all seen what happens when a small studio tries to do an mmorpg. Mostly they're pretty cr@ppy. That doesn't mean a big studio will automatically make a good game either, but it just takes a lot of resources to make an mmorpg compared to a good FPS or single player RPG game. The more resources it takes, the more likely your end result is going to shoot for mass market appeal.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point, Lizard.
Tony Iommi INVENTED heavy metal (in my opinion). People who innovate do just that. Sure, you could say that he used a D sus 7 chord just like a lot of others, but really, that observation is irrelevent.
I could point to a million games that innovate and have never seen before systems.
I saw a review on youtube recently for a game called Coral Sea (carrier battles - WWII - pacific theatre). Check this out; you don't even know who will play first or IF you will even get to take actions at all when planning your turn! Each player has a counter. On one side there is a picture of cards, on another a picture of a map. Both players choose a side secretly and then simultaneously reveal them. If both players play the card side, then both players play cards (to refit and buy new units and such). If one plays cards and another map, then one player plays cards and one takes actions on the map. If both play the map side, however, a die is rolled and potentially the person who does not have the initiative can do nothing in thier turn!
That's innovation, my friend. Sure, one could say "does it use cards? Does it use counters? Are there supply rules?". Of course, but what point are you trying to make with that observation?
I agree with Coyote on every point but one - the corpse run. My experience with the corpse run is that i die over and over just trying to retrieve my stuff, usually losing most of it in the process and setting my development back to a point where I feel like I am eating my own puke to survive.
Other than that, spot on. MMORPG est mortis. Long live the MMOG! Bleh.
Originally posted by Scrogdog Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point, Lizard. Tony Iommi INVENTED heavy metal (in my opinion). People who innovate do just that. Sure, you could say that he used a D sus 7 chord just like a lot of others, but really, that observation is irrelevent. I could point to a million games that innovate and have never seen before systems. I saw a review on youtube recently for a game called Coral Sea (carrier battles - WWII - pacific theatre). Check this out; you don't even know who will play first or IF you will even get to take actions at all when planning your turn! Each player has a counter. On one side there is a picture of cards, on another a picture of a map. Both players choose a side secretly and then simultaneously reveal them. If both players play the card side, then both players play cards (to refit and buy new units and such). If one plays cards and another map, then one player plays cards and one takes actions on the map. If both play the map side, however, a die is rolled and potentially the person who does not have the initiative can do nothing in thier turn! That's innovation, my friend. Sure, one could say "does it use cards? Does it use counters? Are there supply rules?". Of course, but what point are you trying to make with that observation? *shrug* I'm definitely buying Coral Sea.
Agreeing to disagree is a time honored tradition.
Your description of the game sounds to me like the game is new, even if it is composed of familiar elements. That's the real challenge though. You have all these things that people know about and you have to create something new out of them.
You can still make a new component (like adding an element of random chance at the start of your turn), but most of what you work with is going to be familiar components.
I would go so far as to say that creating something totally new and never seen before would be bad when you're trying to sell a game. Something can be so new that people can't even see it, much less know if they want to buy it. Especially when it's something as expensive as an mmorpg.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Like when a scientist says "I stand on the shoulders of giants".
Building upon previous work, and using that work as a template are two totally different things. In fact, continuing along the same path as the previous person may be exactly the wrong thing to do.
It is precisely BECAUSE a given scientist might "break the mold" that he or she is considered great.
Originally posted by Scrogdog Yes Lizard, I know what you are saying. Like when a scientist says "I stand on the shoulers of giants". Building upon previous work, and using that work as a template are two totally different things. In fact, continuing along the same path as the previous person may be exactly the wrong thing to do. It is precisely BECAUSE a given scientist might "break the mold" that he or she is considered great.
Stop being so reasonable. It is very hard to have a volatile discussion with a reasonable person. :-)
Actually, I agree. You look at around at everything that's come before, and decide to do something new. I think scientists get a little bit of a pass though, since they can come up with something totally new that nobody has never, ever heard of, things so incomprehensible that people just don't understand it, and it's OK. They're supposed to do that.
Oops. I sat here for like a half hour discussing the impossibility of faster than light travel with a coworker and did not post this message.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Props to the OP...I've been trying to articulate this for a while now. Very well put.
I don't think anyone would disagree with the point that modern MMORPGs have become more focused on the actual action based game play than it has been about the evironment & community in a virtual world.
The point where I see people have it mixed up is that they think the MMORPG players today are the same as the MMORPG players of old. And that the MMORPG audience has spoken with their dollars and said that "theme park" styled MMORPGs are the model of choice.
I disagree.
I contend that the current MMORPG playerbase has been co-opted by former casual gamers that previously prefered short cycled casual game experiences like RPGs, FPS, Social Media Games, and other console games.
Where these players would have quit EQ or UO and gone back to playing Madden 98'.....they now continue to play MMOs because the developers have removed all those barriers to entry. They have lowered the learning curve to the point where a competent 5 year old can effectively play World of Warcraft (thats no exageration).
Why you ask?
Look at the pricing structure of MMORPGs & look at the pricing structure of single player RPGs & FPS games. You can't justify charging a gamer playing Dragon Age a monthly fee. BUT you can charge them monthly if they are playing a MMO. not only do you get the Box Sale (as you would for any other casual game), you also get to charge a followup $15 a month for setting up a "persistant" world for them to chat with their buddies in.
So now you have a situation where WOW holds around 60% of the MMORPG marketshare....of which the majority are probably hack n' slash fans, and have little interest in woodworking, cartogrophy, or player housing.
In the not so much words of Ronald Regan......I didn't leave traditional MMORPG gaming, traditional MMORPG gaming left me.
1) Market forces will drive the design. Game companies are just that... companies. They will create whatever makes them more profit. It's the curse/blessing of capatilism. Innovation is driven by the all-mighty dollar. Unfortunately the 'masses' seem to be brainless, selfish twits and thus if you aren't a brainless, selfish twit then you are a niche market. We all know how much funding niche markets are likely to bring in....
2) MMORPGs are what they are. If you don't like any of the new ones (read... MMOs since WoW), then quit paying for them. As long as they are still making a buck they will produce the same crap.
Personally, I quit paying for these games a long while ago. And until someone strives to bring most of what you talked about back into a game i won't be giving any of them my money. What I'd REALLY like to see is an updated version of UO (before EA got their stinking hands on it)
Originally posted by RajCaj Props to the OP...I've been trying to articulate this for a while now. Very well put. I don't think anyone would disagree with the point that modern MMORPGs have become more focused on the actual action based game play than it has been about the evironment & community in a virtual world.
The point where I see people have it mixed up is that they think the MMORPG players today are the same as the MMORPG players of old. And that the MMORPG audience has spoken with their dollars and said that "theme park" styled MMORPGs are the model of choice.
I disagree.
I contend that the current MMORPG playerbase has been co-opted by former casual gamers that previously prefered short cycled casual game experiences like RPGs, FPS, Social Media Games, and other console games. Where these players would have quit EQ or UO and gone back to playing Madden 98'.....they now continue to play MMOs because the developers have removed all those barriers to entry. They have lowered the learning curve to the point where a competent 5 year old can effectively play World of Warcraft (thats no exageration). Why you ask? Look at the pricing structure of MMORPGs & look at the pricing structure of single player RPGs & FPS games. You can't justify charging a gamer playing Dragon Age a monthly fee. BUT you can charge them monthly if they are playing a MMO. not only do you get the Box Sale (as you would for any other casual game), you also get to charge a followup $15 a month for setting up a "persistant" world for them to chat with their buddies in. So now you have a situation where WOW holds around 60% of the MMORPG marketshare....of which the majority are probably hack n' slash fans, and have little interest in woodworking, cartogrophy, or player housing. In the not so much words of Ronald Regan......I didn't leave traditional MMORPG gaming, traditional MMORPG gaming left me.
I don't think anyone would argue that MMORPG have become more approachable, but they haven't gotten any easier. They haven't gotten any harder either. They've never been that hard. There are stories of 4 and 5 year old Everquest 1 players. Ditto for Ultima Online. The game mechanics for most MMORPG are not really all that difficult to grasp and not all that hard to execute. The difference would be the patience required to play (imo).
Everything else is pretty much true. The games are more approachable and players that would not have played UO or EQ in the past are now playing MMORPG and driving the market. It's not just the games themselves that are more approachable, it's the image of the games as well. They appear more mainstream and socially 'OK'.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't think anyone would argue that MMORPG have become more approachable, but they haven't gotten any easier. They haven't gotten any harder either. They've never been that hard. There are stories of 4 and 5 year old Everquest 1 players. Ditto for Ultima Online. The game mechanics for most MMORPG are not really all that difficult to grasp and not all that hard to execute. The difference would be the patience required to play (imo).
Everything else is pretty much true. The games are more approachable and players that would not have played UO or EQ in the past are now playing MMORPG and driving the market. It's not just the games themselves that are more approachable, it's the image of the games as well. They appear more mainstream and socially 'OK'.
I'd be really curious to see a 4 - 5 year old play original EQ without outside influence and see how far they get compared to WoW or some other newer game. In fact, take the same child and have him play different games and maybe we might get a clearer picture. With any game you can sit a kid in your lap and guide them through the mouse clicks and paths that need to be taken for success. Likewise any child could simply be given the controls and set free to wander aimlessly through virtual space. Can they really play the game and grasp some of the more difficult concepts without over bearing hand holding though?
1) Market forces will drive the design. Game companies are just that... companies. They will create whatever makes them more profit. It's the curse/blessing of capatilism. Innovation is driven by the all-mighty dollar. Unfortunately the 'masses' seem to be brainless, selfish twits and thus if you aren't a brainless, selfish twit then you are a niche market. We all know how much funding niche markets are likely to bring in....
2) MMORPGs are what they are. If you don't like any of the new ones (read... MMOs since WoW), then quit paying for them. As long as they are still making a buck they will produce the same crap.
Personally, I quit paying for these games a long while ago. And until someone strives to bring most of what you talked about back into a game i won't be giving any of them my money. What I'd REALLY like to see is an updated version of UO (before EA got their stinking hands on it)
All good points, and I cannot agree more.
Unfortunately, many displaced UO / EQ / SWG Pre-CU fans ARE paying for that WOW sub because it's been the only game in town (generally speaking). But your right, the only language companies speak is currency. It would be easier, however, if there were some other game to put those dollars.
To your point about niche markets and funding....MO & DF are prime examples of this. DF couldn't pick up a publisher for years & years...and finally went it alone. The end result was 6+ years in development, a completely reworked custom 3D Engine, a terrible launch, and still haven't put in all features they advertised.
The problem, I think, is that the independent developers are trying to "keep up with the Jones'" in terms of polish, animations, features. I feel like this is a mistake, given what the traditional MMORPG audience is looking for.
Indie developers could do themselves a HUGE favor and forget about competeting with the likes of Blizzard & Bioware in animations & score. You don't have the money to hire a world renown orchestra & composer to lay your sound track down. You don't have the resources to put out something using the Cry3 Engine, so don't go budget by using the Unreal Engine just so you can say you have a 3D 360 degree game. You just end up with a crappy 3D game.
Instead....understand your audience. As the OP pointed out, the old school MMORPG fans (and other like minded gamers) want something more of a virtual life, with a player driven economy, meaningful open world PvP, and plenty of non-combat oriented things to do. Notice I didn't mention anywhere in there that we want award winning musical scores, over sized pauldrons of epeen, or sweet cinimatic cut scenes. MOST of which attribute to MUCH of a AAA MMORPG price tag.
Instead, focuse on the mechanics of the game. Take a Battle of Immortals (or Diablo III / Torch Light II) 2.5D graphical approach. Put some decent music....and just drop the old UO ruleset on top......BAM, you got a sandbox game I'd spend money on.
And then if it catches steam and it looks like more players are open to that kind of MMORPG game experience, THEN come in with the 3D graphics, magestic music, etc., etc.
The reason Mortal Online & Dark Fall struggled wasn't because their idea on paper sucked.....they struggled because the game didn't deliver on half the features they set out for.
I don't think anyone would argue that MMORPG have become more approachable, but they haven't gotten any easier. They haven't gotten any harder either. They've never been that hard. There are stories of 4 and 5 year old Everquest 1 players. Ditto for Ultima Online. The game mechanics for most MMORPG are not really all that difficult to grasp and not all that hard to execute. The difference would be the patience required to play (imo).
Everything else is pretty much true. The games are more approachable and players that would not have played UO or EQ in the past are now playing MMORPG and driving the market. It's not just the games themselves that are more approachable, it's the image of the games as well. They appear more mainstream and socially 'OK'.
I'd be really curious to see a 4 - 5 year old play original EQ without outside influence and see how far they get compared to WoW or some other newer game. In fact, take the same child and have him play different games and maybe we might get a clearer picture. With any game you can sit a kid in your lap and guide them through the mouse clicks and paths that need to be taken for success. Likewise any child could simply be given the controls and set free to wander aimlessly through virtual space. Can they really play the game and grasp some of the more difficult concepts without over bearing hand holding though?
You'd get pretty much the same result with WoW. You will not have a 5 year old raider or 5 year old battleground hero. You wouldn't get a 5 year old completing quests or quest chains unless they were reading at a bit higher level than their classmates. The basic game mechanics though? Pretty much anyone could pick them up whether they started with UO or with Rift.
Using five year old players to gauge the toughness of game play is just a silly thing to do. Though I do remember helping a level 23 warlock run through Nagrand (a level 60+ zone) in WoW because his son had somehow made it to the next zone on the map without him. His son was young enough that he couldn't read so he was pretty much just mob grinding. That was one of the better stories I heard from people. :-)
I don't think the market has gone from harder to easier, it's gone from a pretty specific audience of computer people who played D&D to people who just play computer games. The basic mechanics haven't changed that much. The experience is streamlined and more inline with what you'd expect from a first person RPG, which is probably where a lot of your players are now coming from.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Hey, how does it feel up there on that pedestal? What is it like to feel so 'special' that you look down your nose at all those millions of 'dunb' players. You demand 'new, innovatinve' gameplay but don't know what the heck that might be since you didn't suggest anything positive. You just pine nostalgically for the 'good ole days'.
Then, of course, you decide on your own that the mmo is 'dying' from us dumb down players. How many insults to individuals, including myself, can you include in one set of statements? In the words of the immortal commedian Bill Cosby, "who made you the cool alid sheriff of the house?". You must feel bad for those investors in Blizzard who went so drastically wrong with their stupid decision to invest. You seemingly will be horrified at the money (80-100 million) put into SWTOR and more millions poured into GW2 and TSW and lord knows how many other games, for such a dying industry. However, I realize you hold yourself above such things, what with your self proclaimed higher level of intelligence and perception. I wish you good luck in the future, surrounded by us millions of 'dumb' players spoiling your game time. You wil;l need it. BTW you would find a good home in the Flat Earth Society as they are the self proclaimed 'elite' who understand the 'real' nature of our world.
Believe (I doubt that) that I am not bitter, just very tired of people making statements about their opinions (free country - free speech) that devolve into insults and degrading comments about everybody else but the 'few' on their perch above the masses. The fact is I don't agree with you but won't bother telling you why, it would be a simple waste of time as I can't shout loud enough to reach that high above me.
I don't think anyone would argue that MMORPG have become more approachable, but they haven't gotten any easier. They haven't gotten any harder either. They've never been that hard. There are stories of 4 and 5 year old Everquest 1 players. Ditto for Ultima Online. The game mechanics for most MMORPG are not really all that difficult to grasp and not all that hard to execute. The difference would be the patience required to play (imo).
Everything else is pretty much true. The games are more approachable and players that would not have played UO or EQ in the past are now playing MMORPG and driving the market. It's not just the games themselves that are more approachable, it's the image of the games as well. They appear more mainstream and socially 'OK'.
I'd be really curious to see a 4 - 5 year old play original EQ without outside influence and see how far they get compared to WoW or some other newer game. In fact, take the same child and have him play different games and maybe we might get a clearer picture. With any game you can sit a kid in your lap and guide them through the mouse clicks and paths that need to be taken for success. Likewise any child could simply be given the controls and set free to wander aimlessly through virtual space. Can they really play the game and grasp some of the more difficult concepts without over bearing hand holding though?
You'd get pretty much the same result with WoW. You will not have a 5 year old raider or 5 year old battleground hero. You wouldn't get a 5 year old completing quests or quest chains unless they were reading at a bit higher level than their classmates. The basic game mechanics though? Pretty much anyone could pick them up whether they started with UO or with Rift.
Using five year old players to gauge the toughness of game play is just a silly thing to do. Though I do remember helping a level 23 warlock run through Nagrand (a level 60+ zone) in WoW because his son had somehow made it to the next zone on the map without him. His son was young enough that he couldn't read so he was pretty much just mob grinding. That was one of the better stories I heard from people. :-)
I don't think the market has gone from harder to easier, it's gone from a pretty specific audience of computer people who played D&D to people who just play computer games. The basic mechanics haven't changed that much. The experience is streamlined and more inline with what you'd expect from a first person RPG, which is probably where a lot of your players are now coming from.
I've got to disagree on the point of difficulty....
Anyone thats played UO & WOW understands that a 5 year old would not have the same experience in the first 40-80 hours of game play between the two.
Where in WOW, they would have aimlessly wandered around killing monsters that might rought you up a little bit (but never really pose a real threat of killing you)....they would have been PK'd or very likely killed by an equal level NPC if they didn't kite or use some sort of tactics in their approach.
Where as in WOW they would just have to do a short 1-2 minute corpse run to get back to their bodies....and in full health seconds later.......they would have likely lost all their items (still on the dead body) and only get rezed with a robe & a fresh hair cut (oh and a few HP to get ya going)
I'll agree with you on the point that you shouldn't really use a 5 year old to gauge the difficultly level of a game....but when one could effectively play WOW, and would have probably died & quit in under 30 minutes in UO....its something to talk about.
Also, your dead on in your last paragraph. Only that I contend that those changes they made to "stream line" things HAVE infact changed the basic fundamental difference between the MMORPG & Casual Gaming generes.
Things like consequence, player skill vs item level, sociability, competition, and breath & depth of game play are all now different than they were when things were "less stream lined"
I don't think anyone would argue that MMORPG have become more approachable, but they haven't gotten any easier. They haven't gotten any harder either. They've never been that hard. There are stories of 4 and 5 year old Everquest 1 players. Ditto for Ultima Online. The game mechanics for most MMORPG are not really all that difficult to grasp and not all that hard to execute. The difference would be the patience required to play (imo).
Everything else is pretty much true. The games are more approachable and players that would not have played UO or EQ in the past are now playing MMORPG and driving the market. It's not just the games themselves that are more approachable, it's the image of the games as well. They appear more mainstream and socially 'OK'.
I'd be really curious to see a 4 - 5 year old play original EQ without outside influence and see how far they get compared to WoW or some other newer game. In fact, take the same child and have him play different games and maybe we might get a clearer picture. With any game you can sit a kid in your lap and guide them through the mouse clicks and paths that need to be taken for success. Likewise any child could simply be given the controls and set free to wander aimlessly through virtual space. Can they really play the game and grasp some of the more difficult concepts without over bearing hand holding though?
You'd get pretty much the same result with WoW. You will not have a 5 year old raider or 5 year old battleground hero. You wouldn't get a 5 year old completing quests or quest chains unless they were reading at a bit higher level than their classmates. The basic game mechanics though? Pretty much anyone could pick them up whether they started with UO or with Rift.
Using five year old players to gauge the toughness of game play is just a silly thing to do. Though I do remember helping a level 23 warlock run through Nagrand (a level 60+ zone) in WoW because his son had somehow made it to the next zone on the map without him. His son was young enough that he couldn't read so he was pretty much just mob grinding. That was one of the better stories I heard from people. :-)
I don't think the market has gone from harder to easier, it's gone from a pretty specific audience of computer people who played D&D to people who just play computer games. The basic mechanics haven't changed that much. The experience is streamlined and more inline with what you'd expect from a first person RPG, which is probably where a lot of your players are now coming from.
I've got to disagree on the point of difficulty.... Anyone thats played UO & WOW understands that a 5 year old would not have the same experience in the first 40-80 hours of game play between the two. Where in WOW, they would have aimlessly wandered around killing monsters that might rought you up a little bit (but never really pose a real threat of killing you)....they would have been PK'd or very likely killed by an equal level NPC if they didn't kite or use some sort of tactics in their approach. Where as in WOW they would just have to do a short 1-2 minute corpse run to get back to their bodies....and in full health seconds later.......they would have likely lost all their items (still on the dead body) and only get rezed with a robe & a fresh hair cut (oh and a few HP to get ya going) I'll agree with you on the point that you shouldn't really use a 5 year old to gauge the difficultly level of a game....but when one could effectively play WOW, and would have probably died & quit in under 30 minutes in UO....its something to talk about. Also, your dead on in your last paragraph. Only that I contend that those changes they made to "stream line" things HAVE infact changed the basic fundamental difference between the MMORPG & Casual Gaming generes. Things like consequence, player skill vs item level, sociability, competition, and breath & depth of game play are all now different than they were when things were "less stream lined"
It doesn't take any more skill to play EQ than it takes to play WoW. Any reasonably competent human, capable of reading is capable of playing both games equally well. You could say the same thing, but using EQ1 and EQ2. I have yet to see an MMORPG that was actually hard to play. Incomprehensible rules? Sure. Game mechanics that aren't explained? Oh yeah. But actually hard to play once you read enough information about the game? No, never.
Once you have the game mechanics down, it comes down to how much you like them. Liking the harsher death penalties or having to run out of a newbie zone at night does not make a game harder. It could make the game more fun, but not harder.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell though. There are not enough people who want to have to run back to their body to get their stuff back or who want to run from the zone at night that they were happily killing their way through during the day to make writing a whole game based around those types of things profitable. Writing MMORPG are just really expensive in cash and resources. You could write a game that's profitable five years after release, but that's ten or twelve years after you started collecting money for the game's development. Investors will not wait that long to recoup their investment.
** edit ** Final note - it's not impossible to make such a game profitable. It's just unlikely. I plan on playing Prime, which is going to be closer to EQ1 than EQ2 in game mechanics. My experience with such games so far has been that they are like undercooked food. Once a game proves it can be done (hopefully Prime will do it) then others will follow.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
EQ was just a gear/level grind that was nothing more then a 3D D&D MUD. You can blame EVERYTHING that is currently wrong with the MMO genre on EQ.
Gear grinds, level grinds, raiding grinds, dungeon grinds, lack of meaningful PvP, the Holy Trinity mechanics...
Just imagine how much better games would have been if the genre had followed the UO model over the EQ model.
But what happened?
The more popular, less sophisticated of the two, which was EQ, won out not because it was better but because it was more popular and thusly made more money.
Now?
Sandboxes are dead, any new sandbox fails to learn the lessons UO learned 10+ years ago when the game was in its prime.
Everything follows the EQ formula of grind grind grind levels levels levels gear gear gear just like EQ did and EQ's real successor, World of Warcraft, popularized and monetized.
We all know the arguments, and we've seen messages similar to this one fiercely defended by cocky forum experts who can cite every stat and spec from memory, but couldn't point to a vagina if they had a map.
Hur hur. If you disagree with me, you've never seen a vagina. Hur hur.
Get over yourself, and go play Project 1999. Delete your character every time you die.
Hur hur. If you disagree with me, you've never seen a vagina. Hur hur.
Sad isn't it? This is what the OP needs to realize -
EQ was garbage.
UO was the true MMO RPG of that day/age.
EQ was just a gear/level grind that was nothing more then a 3D D&D MUD. You can blame EVERYTHING that is currently wrong with the MMO genre on EQ.
Gear grinds, level grinds, raiding grinds, dungeon grinds, lack of meaningful PvP, the Holy Trinity mechanics...
Just imagine how much better games would have been if the genre had followed the UO model over the EQ model.
But what happened?
The more popular, less sophisticated of the two, which was EQ, won out not because it was better but because it was more popular and thusly made more money.
Now?
Sandboxes are dead, any new sandbox fails to learn the lessons UO learned 10+ years ago when the game was in its prime.
Everything follows the EQ formula of grind grind grind levels levels levels gear gear gear just like EQ did and EQ's real successor, World of Warcraft, popularized and monetized.
God, it's columns like this that give me that nastolgic feeling. That chest heavy feeling of being in a group down in some caverns never knowing when some lame arse would train the zone. Or having to creep through high lvl zones JUST to meet with a party half way across the world. I miss the days when your on a rp server and people actually role played. Is it wrong to dream that a game should conger along to break through the mindless repetitive hack n slash routine we have been forced to endure for so long? If SWTOR Or TSW don't deliver I know a game that will, but it exists in my wildest gamer dream.
"Do you know what corpse runs taught you? Not to f**king die, that's what."
Nah, I learned that playing Space Invaders and Defender where the length of your gaming adventure was restricted to how far you can stretch your quarter. I get down on myself enough if I screw up without the help of an overbearing DP to put an exclamation mark on it.
I feel sorry for people who need an artificial mechanic to induce them to play smart and not merely settle for success by using a shotgun blast of half-assed attempts, hoping that one of them will crit.
Excellent post! Coyote, you have just shot up to Number 1 in my books. I don't often praise writers on this site but, really, every word of this article needed to be said.
Comments
Most books and movies do retell the same basic stories over and over again. It's the presentation that changes. That's one of the reasons Harry Potter was so popular, it used some existing mythology (find the Holy Grail, defeat Mordred, the boy king, stop the invading army, etc.), but it was set in a new setting with characters that many people could relate to.
A lot of our entertainment works this way. Thousands of years ago, cultures that had no contact with each other told a lot of the same stories. It's not really all that surprising that our games would continue this trend.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Somewhat a myth as the concept is WAY overstated.
I play guitar and try to write songs.
Your comment would be akin to saying "why bother, all of the good ones have already been written".
Sure, songs can contain the same elements such as hooks and so forth, but that doesn't mean that they are anything at all alike.
For example, let's take a famous book (or trilogy). The Lord of the Rings.
Sure, it has a bad guy, an item, a journey, just like many other books.
Would you say then, the Dragonlance is a copy? Not even close.
Tolkien is WAY to verbose for my taste. I don't need to read a two-page description of a meadow. Get on with it man!!!
On the other hand, I consider the character development in Dragonlance to be unparalled.
Those last two things that I mention have NOTHING to do with common plot elements.
There have been many failed attempts to use this same mold as well. Just as we see in the world of games, sure, you can use a basic template, BUT if that's ALL that your game or book is, you will FAIL.
And why market share? The bottom line is corporate profits.
Stockholders own the company.
They are represented by the board of directors
The actual operations is headed by the CEO, hired by the board.
CEO says "we want the market share (corporate profits) and that becomes the focus of the development.
Everyone else down the line is a peon.
Artists, creative writers, programmers, network administrators... even the managers that oversee them. Peons.
Yes maybe some shops strive for excellence and won't cave in. But that only happens a few times until they get the reputation as being "uncooperative" and then they can't get work.
Some will argue that games have always been about money. I beg to differ. One of the reasons we used to have GOOD games is that small publishers took pride in their reputation with gamers. But no longer, there are very few small publishers left.
The problem today, and especially on something as large and complex as an MMORPG, is that it takes HUGE bags of money to fund a project to release. That means Mister CEO calls all the shots.
Maybe there have been a few examples where this didn't happen (GuildWars' ArenaNet cooperative agreement with NCSoft perhaps) but on a big budget MMO, the bottom line is return on investment (your market share) and nothing else matters. Make it as commercially viable as possible, and ship it.
Sad huh? BTW: OP and Scrogg, great posts!
Correct, Action. We must now consider the fact that we are more or less trapped in some sort of harmonic feedback design cycle. It may not be possible to extricate ourselves at this point.
It is because of the idea that expensive means good. You must be kidding.
Another thing I do is to play board wargames. I just found this place where you can actually download wargames for a couple of bucks, print them out on a few sheets of paper and play.
Surely, historical wargames (sorry, this ain't call of duty folks) are a niche market in itself, but again, what matters is a GOOD game! Not even necessarily quality components! I mean, I've played a great game that cost $4, and nine sheets of paper and a bit of printer ink.
It could also have been released with a nice mounted and laminated board and counters! Full color rule book! And if you act now, a GI Joe figurine ready to be painted!
Of course, the game now costs $25. How much was gameplay affected?
Zero.
Glitz and glamour do not make a game good.
Recurring themes isn't the same thing as copying. Most stories are a recombination of elements that people have already seen. That doesn't mean something new can't be made, just that something totally new and never seen before is pretty rare. You're more likely to have a recombination of existing ideas in a new way than a totally new thing.
Even with music, whatever you're creating is based off of everything you've heard before...it all mixes together in your brain and you're going to recombine it into something new. It will still be music, it will still have a certain beats per minute (even if the beats per minute changes throughout the song) and you'll still use musical notes and certain chains of musical notes to get a certain effect that you want. The song will be new and never heard before, but the elements of the song have been used before by somebody else.
Games work the same way. Most elements of video games have been used before. Video games have only been around since the 70's, so there are probably new elements that can be created that we've never seen before, but for the most part, a game may be new, but the elements that make up the game have been used before.
** edit **
I think ActionMMORPG hit on something with mmorpg. They are expensive to produce. We've all seen what happens when a small studio tries to do an mmorpg. Mostly they're pretty cr@ppy. That doesn't mean a big studio will automatically make a good game either, but it just takes a lot of resources to make an mmorpg compared to a good FPS or single player RPG game. The more resources it takes, the more likely your end result is going to shoot for mass market appeal.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point, Lizard.
Tony Iommi INVENTED heavy metal (in my opinion). People who innovate do just that. Sure, you could say that he used a D sus 7 chord just like a lot of others, but really, that observation is irrelevent.
I could point to a million games that innovate and have never seen before systems.
I saw a review on youtube recently for a game called Coral Sea (carrier battles - WWII - pacific theatre). Check this out; you don't even know who will play first or IF you will even get to take actions at all when planning your turn! Each player has a counter. On one side there is a picture of cards, on another a picture of a map. Both players choose a side secretly and then simultaneously reveal them. If both players play the card side, then both players play cards (to refit and buy new units and such). If one plays cards and another map, then one player plays cards and one takes actions on the map. If both play the map side, however, a die is rolled and potentially the person who does not have the initiative can do nothing in thier turn!
That's innovation, my friend. Sure, one could say "does it use cards? Does it use counters? Are there supply rules?". Of course, but what point are you trying to make with that observation?
*shrug*
I'm definitely buying Coral Sea.
I agree with Coyote on every point but one - the corpse run. My experience with the corpse run is that i die over and over just trying to retrieve my stuff, usually losing most of it in the process and setting my development back to a point where I feel like I am eating my own puke to survive.
Other than that, spot on. MMORPG est mortis. Long live the MMOG! Bleh.
Agreeing to disagree is a time honored tradition.
Your description of the game sounds to me like the game is new, even if it is composed of familiar elements. That's the real challenge though. You have all these things that people know about and you have to create something new out of them.
You can still make a new component (like adding an element of random chance at the start of your turn), but most of what you work with is going to be familiar components.
I would go so far as to say that creating something totally new and never seen before would be bad when you're trying to sell a game. Something can be so new that people can't even see it, much less know if they want to buy it. Especially when it's something as expensive as an mmorpg.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Yes Lizard, I know what you are saying.
Like when a scientist says "I stand on the shoulders of giants".
Building upon previous work, and using that work as a template are two totally different things. In fact, continuing along the same path as the previous person may be exactly the wrong thing to do.
It is precisely BECAUSE a given scientist might "break the mold" that he or she is considered great.
Stop being so reasonable. It is very hard to have a volatile discussion with a reasonable person. :-)
Actually, I agree. You look at around at everything that's come before, and decide to do something new. I think scientists get a little bit of a pass though, since they can come up with something totally new that nobody has never, ever heard of, things so incomprehensible that people just don't understand it, and it's OK. They're supposed to do that.
Oops. I sat here for like a half hour discussing the impossibility of faster than light travel with a coworker and did not post this message.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Props to the OP...I've been trying to articulate this for a while now. Very well put.
I don't think anyone would disagree with the point that modern MMORPGs have become more focused on the actual action based game play than it has been about the evironment & community in a virtual world.
The point where I see people have it mixed up is that they think the MMORPG players today are the same as the MMORPG players of old. And that the MMORPG audience has spoken with their dollars and said that "theme park" styled MMORPGs are the model of choice.
I disagree.
I contend that the current MMORPG playerbase has been co-opted by former casual gamers that previously prefered short cycled casual game experiences like RPGs, FPS, Social Media Games, and other console games.
Where these players would have quit EQ or UO and gone back to playing Madden 98'.....they now continue to play MMOs because the developers have removed all those barriers to entry. They have lowered the learning curve to the point where a competent 5 year old can effectively play World of Warcraft (thats no exageration).
Why you ask?
Look at the pricing structure of MMORPGs & look at the pricing structure of single player RPGs & FPS games. You can't justify charging a gamer playing Dragon Age a monthly fee. BUT you can charge them monthly if they are playing a MMO. not only do you get the Box Sale (as you would for any other casual game), you also get to charge a followup $15 a month for setting up a "persistant" world for them to chat with their buddies in.
So now you have a situation where WOW holds around 60% of the MMORPG marketshare....of which the majority are probably hack n' slash fans, and have little interest in woodworking, cartogrophy, or player housing.
In the not so much words of Ronald Regan......I didn't leave traditional MMORPG gaming, traditional MMORPG gaming left me.
2 things
1) Market forces will drive the design. Game companies are just that... companies. They will create whatever makes them more profit. It's the curse/blessing of capatilism. Innovation is driven by the all-mighty dollar. Unfortunately the 'masses' seem to be brainless, selfish twits and thus if you aren't a brainless, selfish twit then you are a niche market. We all know how much funding niche markets are likely to bring in....
2) MMORPGs are what they are. If you don't like any of the new ones (read... MMOs since WoW), then quit paying for them. As long as they are still making a buck they will produce the same crap.
Personally, I quit paying for these games a long while ago. And until someone strives to bring most of what you talked about back into a game i won't be giving any of them my money. What I'd REALLY like to see is an updated version of UO (before EA got their stinking hands on it)
I don't think anyone would argue that MMORPG have become more approachable, but they haven't gotten any easier. They haven't gotten any harder either. They've never been that hard. There are stories of 4 and 5 year old Everquest 1 players. Ditto for Ultima Online. The game mechanics for most MMORPG are not really all that difficult to grasp and not all that hard to execute. The difference would be the patience required to play (imo).
Everything else is pretty much true. The games are more approachable and players that would not have played UO or EQ in the past are now playing MMORPG and driving the market. It's not just the games themselves that are more approachable, it's the image of the games as well. They appear more mainstream and socially 'OK'.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'd be really curious to see a 4 - 5 year old play original EQ without outside influence and see how far they get compared to WoW or some other newer game. In fact, take the same child and have him play different games and maybe we might get a clearer picture. With any game you can sit a kid in your lap and guide them through the mouse clicks and paths that need to be taken for success. Likewise any child could simply be given the controls and set free to wander aimlessly through virtual space. Can they really play the game and grasp some of the more difficult concepts without over bearing hand holding though?
All good points, and I cannot agree more.
Unfortunately, many displaced UO / EQ / SWG Pre-CU fans ARE paying for that WOW sub because it's been the only game in town (generally speaking). But your right, the only language companies speak is currency. It would be easier, however, if there were some other game to put those dollars.
To your point about niche markets and funding....MO & DF are prime examples of this. DF couldn't pick up a publisher for years & years...and finally went it alone. The end result was 6+ years in development, a completely reworked custom 3D Engine, a terrible launch, and still haven't put in all features they advertised.
The problem, I think, is that the independent developers are trying to "keep up with the Jones'" in terms of polish, animations, features. I feel like this is a mistake, given what the traditional MMORPG audience is looking for.
Indie developers could do themselves a HUGE favor and forget about competeting with the likes of Blizzard & Bioware in animations & score. You don't have the money to hire a world renown orchestra & composer to lay your sound track down. You don't have the resources to put out something using the Cry3 Engine, so don't go budget by using the Unreal Engine just so you can say you have a 3D 360 degree game. You just end up with a crappy 3D game.
Instead....understand your audience. As the OP pointed out, the old school MMORPG fans (and other like minded gamers) want something more of a virtual life, with a player driven economy, meaningful open world PvP, and plenty of non-combat oriented things to do. Notice I didn't mention anywhere in there that we want award winning musical scores, over sized pauldrons of epeen, or sweet cinimatic cut scenes. MOST of which attribute to MUCH of a AAA MMORPG price tag.
Instead, focuse on the mechanics of the game. Take a Battle of Immortals (or Diablo III / Torch Light II) 2.5D graphical approach. Put some decent music....and just drop the old UO ruleset on top......BAM, you got a sandbox game I'd spend money on.
And then if it catches steam and it looks like more players are open to that kind of MMORPG game experience, THEN come in with the 3D graphics, magestic music, etc., etc.
The reason Mortal Online & Dark Fall struggled wasn't because their idea on paper sucked.....they struggled because the game didn't deliver on half the features they set out for.
You'd get pretty much the same result with WoW. You will not have a 5 year old raider or 5 year old battleground hero. You wouldn't get a 5 year old completing quests or quest chains unless they were reading at a bit higher level than their classmates. The basic game mechanics though? Pretty much anyone could pick them up whether they started with UO or with Rift.
Using five year old players to gauge the toughness of game play is just a silly thing to do. Though I do remember helping a level 23 warlock run through Nagrand (a level 60+ zone) in WoW because his son had somehow made it to the next zone on the map without him. His son was young enough that he couldn't read so he was pretty much just mob grinding. That was one of the better stories I heard from people. :-)
I don't think the market has gone from harder to easier, it's gone from a pretty specific audience of computer people who played D&D to people who just play computer games. The basic mechanics haven't changed that much. The experience is streamlined and more inline with what you'd expect from a first person RPG, which is probably where a lot of your players are now coming from.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Hey, how does it feel up there on that pedestal? What is it like to feel so 'special' that you look down your nose at all those millions of 'dunb' players. You demand 'new, innovatinve' gameplay but don't know what the heck that might be since you didn't suggest anything positive. You just pine nostalgically for the 'good ole days'.
Then, of course, you decide on your own that the mmo is 'dying' from us dumb down players. How many insults to individuals, including myself, can you include in one set of statements? In the words of the immortal commedian Bill Cosby, "who made you the cool alid sheriff of the house?". You must feel bad for those investors in Blizzard who went so drastically wrong with their stupid decision to invest. You seemingly will be horrified at the money (80-100 million) put into SWTOR and more millions poured into GW2 and TSW and lord knows how many other games, for such a dying industry. However, I realize you hold yourself above such things, what with your self proclaimed higher level of intelligence and perception. I wish you good luck in the future, surrounded by us millions of 'dumb' players spoiling your game time. You wil;l need it. BTW you would find a good home in the Flat Earth Society as they are the self proclaimed 'elite' who understand the 'real' nature of our world.
Believe (I doubt that) that I am not bitter, just very tired of people making statements about their opinions (free country - free speech) that devolve into insults and degrading comments about everybody else but the 'few' on their perch above the masses. The fact is I don't agree with you but won't bother telling you why, it would be a simple waste of time as I can't shout loud enough to reach that high above me.
I've got to disagree on the point of difficulty....
Anyone thats played UO & WOW understands that a 5 year old would not have the same experience in the first 40-80 hours of game play between the two.
Where in WOW, they would have aimlessly wandered around killing monsters that might rought you up a little bit (but never really pose a real threat of killing you)....they would have been PK'd or very likely killed by an equal level NPC if they didn't kite or use some sort of tactics in their approach.
Where as in WOW they would just have to do a short 1-2 minute corpse run to get back to their bodies....and in full health seconds later.......they would have likely lost all their items (still on the dead body) and only get rezed with a robe & a fresh hair cut (oh and a few HP to get ya going)
I'll agree with you on the point that you shouldn't really use a 5 year old to gauge the difficultly level of a game....but when one could effectively play WOW, and would have probably died & quit in under 30 minutes in UO....its something to talk about.
Also, your dead on in your last paragraph. Only that I contend that those changes they made to "stream line" things HAVE infact changed the basic fundamental difference between the MMORPG & Casual Gaming generes.
Things like consequence, player skill vs item level, sociability, competition, and breath & depth of game play are all now different than they were when things were "less stream lined"
It doesn't take any more skill to play EQ than it takes to play WoW. Any reasonably competent human, capable of reading is capable of playing both games equally well. You could say the same thing, but using EQ1 and EQ2. I have yet to see an MMORPG that was actually hard to play. Incomprehensible rules? Sure. Game mechanics that aren't explained? Oh yeah. But actually hard to play once you read enough information about the game? No, never.
Once you have the game mechanics down, it comes down to how much you like them. Liking the harsher death penalties or having to run out of a newbie zone at night does not make a game harder. It could make the game more fun, but not harder.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell though. There are not enough people who want to have to run back to their body to get their stuff back or who want to run from the zone at night that they were happily killing their way through during the day to make writing a whole game based around those types of things profitable. Writing MMORPG are just really expensive in cash and resources. You could write a game that's profitable five years after release, but that's ten or twelve years after you started collecting money for the game's development. Investors will not wait that long to recoup their investment.
** edit **
Final note - it's not impossible to make such a game profitable. It's just unlikely. I plan on playing Prime, which is going to be closer to EQ1 than EQ2 in game mechanics. My experience with such games so far has been that they are like undercooked food. Once a game proves it can be done (hopefully Prime will do it) then others will follow.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
EQ was garbage.
UO was the true MMO RPG of that day/age.
EQ was just a gear/level grind that was nothing more then a 3D D&D MUD. You can blame EVERYTHING that is currently wrong with the MMO genre on EQ.
Gear grinds, level grinds, raiding grinds, dungeon grinds, lack of meaningful PvP, the Holy Trinity mechanics...
Just imagine how much better games would have been if the genre had followed the UO model over the EQ model.
But what happened?
The more popular, less sophisticated of the two, which was EQ, won out not because it was better but because it was more popular and thusly made more money.
Now?
Sandboxes are dead, any new sandbox fails to learn the lessons UO learned 10+ years ago when the game was in its prime.
Everything follows the EQ formula of grind grind grind levels levels levels gear gear gear just like EQ did and EQ's real successor, World of Warcraft, popularized and monetized.
Hur hur. If you disagree with me, you've never seen a vagina. Hur hur.
Get over yourself, and go play Project 1999. Delete your character every time you die.
Sad isn't it? This is what the OP needs to realize -
EQ was garbage.
UO was the true MMO RPG of that day/age.
EQ was just a gear/level grind that was nothing more then a 3D D&D MUD. You can blame EVERYTHING that is currently wrong with the MMO genre on EQ.
Gear grinds, level grinds, raiding grinds, dungeon grinds, lack of meaningful PvP, the Holy Trinity mechanics...
Just imagine how much better games would have been if the genre had followed the UO model over the EQ model.
But what happened?
The more popular, less sophisticated of the two, which was EQ, won out not because it was better but because it was more popular and thusly made more money.
Now?
Sandboxes are dead, any new sandbox fails to learn the lessons UO learned 10+ years ago when the game was in its prime.
Everything follows the EQ formula of grind grind grind levels levels levels gear gear gear just like EQ did and EQ's real successor, World of Warcraft, popularized and monetized.
"Do you know what corpse runs taught you? Not to f**king die, that's what."
Nah, I learned that playing Space Invaders and Defender where the length of your gaming adventure was restricted to how far you can stretch your quarter. I get down on myself enough if I screw up without the help of an overbearing DP to put an exclamation mark on it.
I feel sorry for people who need an artificial mechanic to induce them to play smart and not merely settle for success by using a shotgun blast of half-assed attempts, hoping that one of them will crit.
Excellent post! Coyote, you have just shot up to Number 1 in my books. I don't often praise writers on this site but, really, every word of this article needed to be said.