I live in an expansive non-virtual world. I cut firewood weekly through the spring and fall (winter sometimes too). I build fences and barns. I raise goats and horses (and a llama even). I have a garden larger than the typical suburban housing lot. I also have a 40hr job in a factory.
I don't want to do these things in a virtual world. I want to play games. Sometimes, I want to play them with other people.
I understand why some people want sandbox games because I enjoy all of the items I listed above and I'm sure some people can't experience them in the real world. But to say that only sandboxes are true MMOs and everyone else is destroying your sandcastle with their desire for fun gameplay that isn't what you call fun? Grow up.
I have to agree with this.
Does he even know what a sandbox is? Because i dont think he realy does. A sandbox offers you choice on what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. He doesnt have to do any of that, or he can.
Thats the problem. Themeparks lead you in one direction forcing you to do this. The story line is all these games are about, after many rush to max level, they have nothing to do.
Anyone one not wanting more out of playing a game and spending money to have limits, lack of features, the inability to get more for your moeny just doesnt seem like they understand. Sandboxes are made for casual players that spend a lot of time in the real world and can dabble here and there.
I guess people dont like choices, being able to carve out their own game experience, like to be the exact same as every other player, and do boring dailies, warzones, and raids non-stop for content. I personaly dont like being led around like a dog on a leash and pay for it.
I feel no matter how brilliant a game is made, how "perfect" a new MMO is
I feel that the game will be ruined by the majority of players.
(and I'm not saying TOR is perfect by any means)
The instant gratification generation really has completely ruined just about everything.
Gaming, society, politics, the economy, fast food....
But it's also their yuppy parents that raised them to be "special and unique snow flakes" and turned them into the self centered little shits they are today.
They couldn't handle the fact that OH MY GOD LITTLE KIDS HAVE ENERGY AND ARE BOUNCY so they put them on ADD drugs and look what we've got now!
Parenting failed an entire generation, which is now failing at life.
They want to play something like Guild Wars or Diablo where you have social hubs and instanced questing areas. They want an experience that is quick to get into and rewards them constantly for doing nothing like all the ribbons you get in BF3. They don't want to explore vast worlds, have a challenge or do any world content. They certainlly are not interested in the idea of a virtual seamless world like what MMOs tried to offer in the past.
For me an MMO has to have a persistent world that can have a MASSIVE amount of players in any one area. That is the basis of the gameplay because if Planetside 2 only offered 64 player fights and then a social hub to visit it wouldn't be an MMO. Yet we have games these days calling themselves MMOs and they lack any of this.
Every MMO I've ever loved playing has been ruined by all the whiners on the forums. The problem is the developers listen to them, give them what they want and patch by patch we slowly lose the MMO and are just left with a multiplayer game.
It's happening and happened to SWTOR already...
People are already asking for fast travel every, the ability to just warp to any planet from your location. They're already asking for faster vehicles because they hate the travel times which in SWTOR are so small as it is. In beta they added the fleets which basically took everyone out of the worlds and put them in a social hub where they just stay there. Most people now just sit there get groups for flashpoints and battlegrounds and level up on that stuff like what happened to WoW. The worlds have no one in them because these people playing do not want to play an MMO, they just want to play Guild Wars.
We have these amazing cities in SWTOR with no one in them because of that fleet station and it has ruined the MMO in that game. I at least want people to be in those cities and not the fleet station which shouldn't even be in the game in the first place.
What is happening to world PVP now? Well it barely exists outside of the PVP planets and oh look the population cap on them is getting shrunk already. There is even talk about just turning them into bigger battlegrounds like AV. The players on Ilum don't want a world PVP experience, they just want to exploit and farm the game until they ruin it and the developers take out world PVP altogether like what happened in WoW.
Every MMO this has happened to and the last one I truely loved to play (SWG) it happened to that too. Forums whiners slowly got that game dumbed down over time to the point it was ruined well before the CU or the NGE. The CU was the straw and the NGE was just he final Nail, but the truth is that game was well and truely going down the shitter by early 2004.
SWTOR has made me realise that no one wants to play MMOs anymore and I have no interest in carrying on with the genre that clearly died out many years ago. What it has turned into today is all thanx to the casual crowd that WoW brought it and they moaned until they killed that game off too. Mythic had the right idea in not having any forums and the only dveeloper that has managed to keep their MMO true to their vision is CCP, so credit to them for that. I'd watch out though it probably wont be too long before it becomes class and loot based lol.
If you had stated "many" or "Most" then you would be correct. I play MMo's and what you stated is not true.. for me. Since you included all people who play MMO's I prove you wrong. As far as whiners on the forums.. how is your post not whining?
I live in an expansive non-virtual world. I cut firewood weekly through the spring and fall (winter sometimes too). I build fences and barns. I raise goats and horses (and a llama even). I have a garden larger than the typical suburban housing lot. I also have a 40hr job in a factory.
I don't want to do these things in a virtual world. I want to play games. Sometimes, I want to play them with other people.
I understand why some people want sandbox games because I enjoy all of the items I listed above and I'm sure some people can't experience them in the real world. But to say that only sandboxes are true MMOs and everyone else is destroying your sandcastle with their desire for fun gameplay that isn't what you call fun? Grow up.
I have to agree with this.
Does he even know what a sandbox is? Because i dont think he realy does. A sandbox offers you choice on what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. He doesnt have to do any of that, or he can.
Thats the problem. Themeparks lead you in one direction forcing you to do this. The story line is all these games are about, after many rush to max level, they have nothing to do.
Anyone one not wanting more out of playing a game and spending money to have limits, lack of features, the inability to get more for your moeny just doesnt seem like they understand. Sandboxes are made for casual players that spend a lot of time in the real world and can dabble here and there.
I guess people dont like choices, being able to carve out their own game experience, like to be the exact same as every other player, and do boring dailies, warzones, and raids non-stop for content. I personaly dont like being led around like a dog on a leash and pay for it.
They need to have a "like" tab somewere on the forums lol.
I live in an expansive non-virtual world. I cut firewood weekly through the spring and fall (winter sometimes too). I build fences and barns. I raise goats and horses (and a llama even). I have a garden larger than the typical suburban housing lot. I also have a 40hr job in a factory.
I don't want to do these things in a virtual world. I want to play games. Sometimes, I want to play them with other people.
I understand why some people want sandbox games because I enjoy all of the items I listed above and I'm sure some people can't experience them in the real world. But to say that only sandboxes are true MMOs and everyone else is destroying your sandcastle with their desire for fun gameplay that isn't what you call fun? Grow up.
I have to agree with this.
Does he even know what a sandbox is? Because i dont think he realy does. A sandbox offers you choice on what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. He doesnt have to do any of that, or he can.
Thats the problem. Themeparks lead you in one direction forcing you to do this. The story line is all these games are about, after many rush to max level, they have nothing to do.
Anyone one not wanting more out of playing a game and spending money to have limits, lack of features, the inability to get more for your moeny just doesnt seem like they understand. Sandboxes are made for casual players that spend a lot of time in the real world and can dabble here and there.
I guess people dont like choices, being able to carve out their own game experience, like to be the exact same as every other player, and do boring dailies, warzones, and raids non-stop for content. I personaly dont like being led around like a dog on a leash and pay for it.
They need to have a "like" tab somewere on the forums lol.
" I PAY 15 A MOUTH! I SHOULDENT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO GO IN HERE! CHANGE IT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!"
You do know the word is "month?" It wouldn't bother me if it was a simple typo but reading it for the third time is no longer funny.
Is that what you do? Go around searching posts and correcting peoples spelling? If you have nothing to add to this dissusion then take the fuck off ass. i hate people like you.
Most implementations, and generally the most interesting ones. Defending from dynamic attacks, long quests, and no killing 10 rats is never going to be a real quest, raids.
If it were possible to have casual play why do all the games create LF, aka matchmaking, and instancing and phasing tools, which are all essentially attempts to render mmos into coops? You say that they are not mutually exclusive but provide no examples.
It is possible. It's just not desired.
The benefits of many forms of persistence are rather nonexistant to most players.
I definitely don't care if someone else comes and does an identical quest to save a village right after me.
I definitely do care that the quest to save the village is interesting and involves important choices in the context of my character's persistence in the world (the shallow light/dark choices of ToR fail to hit the meaningful conversation choices that seemed more prevalent in the original KoToR, where choices impacted your story.)
But if I save the village and it leaves the quest in a different state for the player behind me, that's only icing on the cake and entirely secondary to whether the village quest itself was interesting. And since games are struggling to even make that much interesting, that's where they should continue to focus (get that right first, then consider world persistence.)
This definitely isn't a casual vs. hardcore vs. "grandpa" issue.
It's gamers seeking gameplay vs. sim-lovers seeking simulation (or massiveness to the muliplayer.)
As an older gamer who played tons of games prior to the virtual world MMORPGs, and intentionally skimmed over those lackluster offerings, I have always sought gameplay first and simulation second. The early MMORPGs I tried sacrificed a lot of gameplay to offer massive multiplayer and simulation, and suffered greatly for it (and dramatically reduced their potential audience for it.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Most implementations, and generally the most interesting ones. Defending from dynamic attacks, long quests, and no killing 10 rats is never going to be a real quest, raids.
If it were possible to have casual play why do all the games create LF, aka matchmaking, and instancing and phasing tools, which are all essentially attempts to render mmos into coops? You say that they are not mutually exclusive but provide no examples.
It is possible. It's just not desired.
The benefits of many forms of persistence are rather nonexistant to most players.
I definitely don't care if someone else comes and does an identical quest to save a village right after me.
I definitely do care that the quest to save the village is interesting and involves important choices in the context of my character's persistence in the world (the shallow light/dark choices of ToR fail to hit the meaningful conversation choices that seemed more prevalent in the original KoToR, where choices impacted your story.)
But if I save the village and it leaves the quest in a different state for the player behind me, that's only icing on the cake and entirely secondary to whether the village quest itself was interesting. And since games are struggling to even make that much interesting, that's where they should continue to focus (get that right first, then consider world persistence.)
This definitely isn't a casual vs. hardcore vs. "grandpa" issue.
It's gamers seeking gameplay vs. sim-lovers seeking simulation (or massiveness to the muliplayer.)
As an older gamer who played tons of games prior to the virtual world MMORPGs, and intentionally skimmed over those lackluster offerings, I have always sought gameplay first and simulation second. The early MMORPGs I tried sacrificed a lot of gameplay to offer massive multiplayer and simulation, and suffered greatly for it (and dramatically reduced their potential audience for it.)
So basically you agree with the OP that many people who play MMORPGs don't actually want to play MMORPGs. Wouldn't have been simpler to quote the OP and say "I agree" instead of writing out that whole big post?
So basically you agree with the OP that many people who play MMORPGs don't actually want to play MMORPGs. Wouldn't have been simpler to quote the OP and say "I agree" instead of writing out that whole big post?
And skip a oppotunity to tell us which gameplay is good and which one is bad in his opinion?
So basically you agree with the OP that many people who play MMORPGs don't actually want to play MMORPGs. Wouldn't have been simpler to quote the OP and say "I agree" instead of writing out that whole big post?
I already posted my agreement earlier in the thread.
But when I see someone struggling against reality, sometimes I like to lend a hand and help them understand things. Particularly when they seem confused and label the demographic "casuals" when they're really just gamers (the same sort of gamers who existed pre-MMORPGs.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So basically you agree with the OP that many people who play MMORPGs don't actually want to play MMORPGs. Wouldn't have been simpler to quote the OP and say "I agree" instead of writing out that whole big post?
I already posted my agreement earlier in the thread.
But when I see someone struggling against reality, sometimes I like to lend a hand and help them understand things. Particularly when they seem confused and label the demographic "casuals" when they're really just gamers (the same sort of gamers who existed pre-MMORPGs.)
I read your first post. You did not agree, or if you did it was in a disingenuous way. You also said that no one wanted to play what MMOs are supposed to be, and yes I know you used quotes for supposed. But then you were like but lets keep in the MMO genre and change it till its not the mmo genre but still call the coop and lobby games we MMOs even though they clealry arent.
I read your first post. You did not agree, or if you did it was in a disingenuous way. You also said that no one wanted to play what MMOs are supposed to be, and yes I know you used quotes for supposed. But then you were like but lets keep in the MMO genre and change it till its not the mmo genre but still call the coop and lobby games we MMOs even though they clealry arent.
Yeah that's basically the way things are, and should be. Devs making what players want, and both parties experiencing a win/win situation.
And a tiny niche group being sad in the corner going on about "the one true MMORPG", and nobody listening to that group (despite their loud yelling.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I read your first post. You did not agree, or if you did it was in a disingenuous way. You also said that no one wanted to play what MMOs are supposed to be, and yes I know you used quotes for supposed. But then you were like but lets keep in the MMO genre and change it till its not the mmo genre but still call the coop and lobby games we MMOs even though they clealry arent.
Yeah that's basically the way things are, and should be. Devs making what players want, and both parties experiencing a win/win situation.
And a tiny niche group being sad in the corner going on about "the one true MMORPG", and nobody listening to that group (despite their loud yelling.)
If descriptive names are no big deal, why do casuals insist on calling coop rpgs mmos? Just so they can feel good and pretend like they are playing MMOs? Casuals are just wannabe elitists, just like all those middle class people that go to the opera to be like rich people. "Look at us we play MMOs in persistent worlds!" At least for once in their useless lazy lives they can make the claim to using their imagination...
The whole problem is that everyone, players and devs as well, seem to presume "one really right way" how MMOs have to be and should have played. As not only this thread clearly shows there are basically 2 different types of players who *never* should actually play in the same game to prevent frustration for at least one part of them. Also both fractions tend to treat the other side as a minority (and usually as hopeless morons), almost like in typical RL war situations which is somewhat funny but doesn't make the situation any better. My advice would be to have clear terms that apart these 2 player types from each other and devs *never* should try to cater both types in one and the same game.
If descriptive names are no big deal, why do casuals insist on calling coop rpgs mmos? Just so they can feel good and pretend like they are playing MMOs? Casuals are just wannabe elitists, just like all those middle class people that go to the opera to be like rich people. "Look at us we play MMOs in persistent worlds!" At least for once in their useless lazy lives they can make the claim to using their imagination...
Attacking the "casuals" leads to nowhere. You can't win that war (not this way at least). It's like striking at gnats...
Just want to say that I agree with the OP. Also, I think it is a good way to describe the situation. "People who are playing MMOs do not actually want to play MMOs" <-
Today, I posted something that touched a lot on this subject, and not surprisingly, I got 0 responses.
This shows me that atleast here on this site, there's way too many people that are in this genre that are simply not helpful, not friendly, and don't really want to enjoy a virtual world together. I even titled it "looking for friendly advice" and it's almost like that was a poisonous gas the warded off any potential responses. This current crowd only seems to want to have people to boast to and make fun of and steer in the wrong directions in hopes to get a childish fit of laughter. Prime example:
1.[General]: <friendlyplayer> Hey can anyone tell me how to change my key binds?
1.[General]: <typicalplayer> .. hit alt+F4
This is a very clear representation of the level of disruptiveness and general vibe amongst players that exists in online gaming communities now. Honestly, is that helpful, friendly, useful, productive, or even amusing?
I'm very computer savvy as it's my chosen career path, but when I see people say stuff like that it really pisses me off because I know how many other people don't know all the general windows shortcut keys and alt codes. It's a terrible time and place to find good times and new friends. This genre is a radioactive mutated repulsive hyperactive version of itself.
It's a terrible time and place to find good times and new friends. This genre is a radioactive mutated repulsive hyperactive version of itself.
I'm afraid it's just human nature, unnaturally boosted in an anonymous virtual environment where no one has to fear being slapped right into their face.
Themepark game nowadays can be described as alot of mini games. Dungeon, raids, battleground, warzone, arena, daily repeatable quest. And the truth is those mini games do kep many games running for a long time.
If descriptive names are no big deal, why do casuals insist on calling coop rpgs mmos? Just so they can feel good and pretend like they are playing MMOs? Casuals are just wannabe elitists, just like all those middle class people that go to the opera to be like rich people. "Look at us we play MMOs in persistent worlds!" At least for once in their useless lazy lives they can make the claim to using their imagination...
Attacking the "casuals" leads to nowhere. You can't win that war (not this way at least). It's like striking at gnats...
If you aren't a casual you can't win at all. You can only play EvE. Those are your options. UWO and ATITD offer different play styles but not in the sense of a fantasy EvE and a few other fun things.
If descriptive names are no big deal, why do casuals insist on calling coop rpgs mmos? Just so they can feel good and pretend like they are playing MMOs? Casuals are just wannabe elitists, just like all those middle class people that go to the opera to be like rich people. "Look at us we play MMOs in persistent worlds!" At least for once in their useless lazy lives they can make the claim to using their imagination...
Except they still are MMOs, taking place in a persistent world.
Just because they optimize for the interesting parts of MMO gameplay and shave off the undesirable doesn't make them magically not have massive player counts in persistent worlds.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you aren't a casual you can't win at all. You can only play EvE. Those are your options. UWO and ATITD offer different play styles but not in the sense of a fantasy EvE and a few other fun things.
If you're a gamer, the market makes games for you. Calling them "casuals" when they are in fact gamers is laughable.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I live in an expansive non-virtual world. I cut firewood weekly through the spring and fall (winter sometimes too). I build fences and barns. I raise goats and horses (and a llama even). I have a garden larger than the typical suburban housing lot. I also have a 40hr job in a factory.
I don't want to do these things in a virtual world. I want to play games. Sometimes, I want to play them with other people.
I understand why some people want sandbox games because I enjoy all of the items I listed above and I'm sure some people can't experience them in the real world. But to say that only sandboxes are true MMOs and everyone else is destroying your sandcastle with their desire for fun gameplay that isn't what you call fun? Grow up.
I have to agree with this.
Does he even know what a sandbox is? Because i dont think he realy does. A sandbox offers you choice on what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. He doesnt have to do any of that, or he can.
Thats the problem. Themeparks lead you in one direction forcing you to do this. The story line is all these games are about, after many rush to max level, they have nothing to do.
Anyone one not wanting more out of playing a game and spending money to have limits, lack of features, the inability to get more for your moeny just doesnt seem like they understand. Sandboxes are made for casual players that spend a lot of time in the real world and can dabble here and there.
I guess people dont like choices, being able to carve out their own game experience, like to be the exact same as every other player, and do boring dailies, warzones, and raids non-stop for content. I personaly dont like being led around like a dog on a leash and pay for it.
He didn't say that HE didn't like sandboxes, he said he didn't want those specific things in a game and furthermore....I like sandboxes and themeparks too. What he said was that not EVERYONE likes them and with reason. We're all entitled to an opinion, after all.
Comments
Does he even know what a sandbox is? Because i dont think he realy does. A sandbox offers you choice on what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. He doesnt have to do any of that, or he can.
Thats the problem. Themeparks lead you in one direction forcing you to do this. The story line is all these games are about, after many rush to max level, they have nothing to do.
Anyone one not wanting more out of playing a game and spending money to have limits, lack of features, the inability to get more for your moeny just doesnt seem like they understand. Sandboxes are made for casual players that spend a lot of time in the real world and can dabble here and there.
I guess people dont like choices, being able to carve out their own game experience, like to be the exact same as every other player, and do boring dailies, warzones, and raids non-stop for content. I personaly dont like being led around like a dog on a leash and pay for it.
You do know the word is "month?" It wouldn't bother me if it was a simple typo but reading it for the third time is no longer funny.
I am requesting a transfer to your Command Sir.
If you had stated "many" or "Most" then you would be correct. I play MMo's and what you stated is not true.. for me. Since you included all people who play MMO's I prove you wrong. As far as whiners on the forums.. how is your post not whining?
Currently bored with MMO's.
Whining on this forum apparently means any opinion which disagrees with the poster saying something is whining.
They need to have a "like" tab somewere on the forums lol.
inorite?
Is that what you do? Go around searching posts and correcting peoples spelling? If you have nothing to add to this dissusion then take the fuck off ass. i hate people like you.
It is possible. It's just not desired.
The benefits of many forms of persistence are rather nonexistant to most players.
I definitely don't care if someone else comes and does an identical quest to save a village right after me.
I definitely do care that the quest to save the village is interesting and involves important choices in the context of my character's persistence in the world (the shallow light/dark choices of ToR fail to hit the meaningful conversation choices that seemed more prevalent in the original KoToR, where choices impacted your story.)
But if I save the village and it leaves the quest in a different state for the player behind me, that's only icing on the cake and entirely secondary to whether the village quest itself was interesting. And since games are struggling to even make that much interesting, that's where they should continue to focus (get that right first, then consider world persistence.)
This definitely isn't a casual vs. hardcore vs. "grandpa" issue.
It's gamers seeking gameplay vs. sim-lovers seeking simulation (or massiveness to the muliplayer.)
As an older gamer who played tons of games prior to the virtual world MMORPGs, and intentionally skimmed over those lackluster offerings, I have always sought gameplay first and simulation second. The early MMORPGs I tried sacrificed a lot of gameplay to offer massive multiplayer and simulation, and suffered greatly for it (and dramatically reduced their potential audience for it.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So basically you agree with the OP that many people who play MMORPGs don't actually want to play MMORPGs. Wouldn't have been simpler to quote the OP and say "I agree" instead of writing out that whole big post?
And skip a oppotunity to tell us which gameplay is good and which one is bad in his opinion?
I already posted my agreement earlier in the thread.
But when I see someone struggling against reality, sometimes I like to lend a hand and help them understand things. Particularly when they seem confused and label the demographic "casuals" when they're really just gamers (the same sort of gamers who existed pre-MMORPGs.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I read your first post. You did not agree, or if you did it was in a disingenuous way. You also said that no one wanted to play what MMOs are supposed to be, and yes I know you used quotes for supposed. But then you were like but lets keep in the MMO genre and change it till its not the mmo genre but still call the coop and lobby games we MMOs even though they clealry arent.
Yeah that's basically the way things are, and should be. Devs making what players want, and both parties experiencing a win/win situation.
And a tiny niche group being sad in the corner going on about "the one true MMORPG", and nobody listening to that group (despite their loud yelling.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If descriptive names are no big deal, why do casuals insist on calling coop rpgs mmos? Just so they can feel good and pretend like they are playing MMOs? Casuals are just wannabe elitists, just like all those middle class people that go to the opera to be like rich people. "Look at us we play MMOs in persistent worlds!" At least for once in their useless lazy lives they can make the claim to using their imagination...
The whole problem is that everyone, players and devs as well, seem to presume "one really right way" how MMOs have to be and should have played. As not only this thread clearly shows there are basically 2 different types of players who *never* should actually play in the same game to prevent frustration for at least one part of them. Also both fractions tend to treat the other side as a minority (and usually as hopeless morons), almost like in typical RL war situations which is somewhat funny but doesn't make the situation any better. My advice would be to have clear terms that apart these 2 player types from each other and devs *never* should try to cater both types in one and the same game.
Attacking the "casuals" leads to nowhere. You can't win that war (not this way at least). It's like striking at gnats...
Just want to say that I agree with the OP. Also, I think it is a good way to describe the situation. "People who are playing MMOs do not actually want to play MMOs" <-
Today, I posted something that touched a lot on this subject, and not surprisingly, I got 0 responses.
[ http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/339429 ]
This shows me that atleast here on this site, there's way too many people that are in this genre that are simply not helpful, not friendly, and don't really want to enjoy a virtual world together. I even titled it "looking for friendly advice" and it's almost like that was a poisonous gas the warded off any potential responses. This current crowd only seems to want to have people to boast to and make fun of and steer in the wrong directions in hopes to get a childish fit of laughter. Prime example:
1.[General]: <friendlyplayer> Hey can anyone tell me how to change my key binds?
1.[General]: <typicalplayer> .. hit alt+F4
This is a very clear representation of the level of disruptiveness and general vibe amongst players that exists in online gaming communities now. Honestly, is that helpful, friendly, useful, productive, or even amusing?
I'm very computer savvy as it's my chosen career path, but when I see people say stuff like that it really pisses me off because I know how many other people don't know all the general windows shortcut keys and alt codes. It's a terrible time and place to find good times and new friends. This genre is a radioactive mutated repulsive hyperactive version of itself.
What I have realized is that people who are playing MMO's, don't want to play MMOs that are all more of the same, only done worse.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/I'm afraid it's just human nature, unnaturally boosted in an anonymous virtual environment where no one has to fear being slapped right into their face.
Themepark game nowadays can be described as alot of mini games. Dungeon, raids, battleground, warzone, arena, daily repeatable quest. And the truth is those mini games do kep many games running for a long time.
If you aren't a casual you can't win at all. You can only play EvE. Those are your options. UWO and ATITD offer different play styles but not in the sense of a fantasy EvE and a few other fun things.
Except they still are MMOs, taking place in a persistent world.
Just because they optimize for the interesting parts of MMO gameplay and shave off the undesirable doesn't make them magically not have massive player counts in persistent worlds.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you're a gamer, the market makes games for you. Calling them "casuals" when they are in fact gamers is laughable.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
He didn't say that HE didn't like sandboxes, he said he didn't want those specific things in a game and furthermore....I like sandboxes and themeparks too. What he said was that not EVERYONE likes them and with reason. We're all entitled to an opinion, after all.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club