problem with this thread is that, this genre is not failing, it's thriving.
Dont get me wrong i hate the fact that it is thriving as i prefer games with so much more depth and they are getting simpler and simpler.
But even i can't deny that the genre is going from strengh to strengh.
While it's almost certainly true that there are more people playing MMOs now than there ever has been before, the average MMORPG currently is not thriving.
Right now in the US you basically have one enormous game (WoW), one game that is pretty large (SW:TOR), and a bunch of games that nobody plays. I'd think that having 5-10 games each with about 500k subscribers would be more of a sign of a thriving genre than one game with millions of subscribers, another game with maybe 1-2 million, and a bunch of games that nobody plays, even if there was the same amount of people playing the games.
I think the culprit is that developers no longer develop games expecting people to play a long time, and people no longer buy MMOs expecting to play them more than a few months. When I was playing RIFT I remember seeing something like this a lot:
"I'm playing RIFT until TOR comes out, then playing that until TERA comes out, then playing that until GW2 comes out".
Conversely, I never remember seeing:
"I'm playing Everquest until Asheron's Call comes out, then that until Dark Age of Camelot comes out, etc.". MMOs a decade ago were designed for people who wanted a game that didn't end. Nowadays MMOs are designed to give you a quick dose of enjoyment and then you move on to the next big thing.
Just a different opinion friend but in my eyes the fact that you are seeing many conversatiosn talking about " i am just playing x game until y game comes out" shows that it is thriving. the problem is because the genre is thriving, there are so many games out or coming out now.
I totaly agree with you that developers are producing short term games for a quick dollar! i just wish someone would come out and make a game through the love of seeing it come to fruition and not just to make cash. Of course cash should be a big part of it, but not at the expense of doing something you love and enjoy. It's a sad world we live in these days
I held out high hopes for studio 38 and Salvatore ect producing an MMO that i would fall in love with, then i played a demo on xbox of the rpg they are developing and it was all blown away, another same old same old.
If only i could win the euro millions i would try something different haha!
Player interaction? Really? Just how antisocial has this generation become when "player interaction" is being considered a fault?
Seeing this made me sad
Nothing wrong with being anti-social. It just is.
MMOs are entertainment. Whatever floats a player's boat is fine.
People can be as anti-social as they like, but MMORPGs are a social medium. If people find fault with player interaction, they really should try games that are more suited to them.
Its like claiming the chocolate is a fault with a Hershey bar with Almonds. You dont have to like chocolate, but why not just eat almonds then? (...cant wait for my lunch break)
Player interaction? Really? Just how antisocial has this generation become when "player interaction" is being considered a fault?
Seeing this made me sad
Nothing wrong with being anti-social. It just is.
MMOs are entertainment. Whatever floats a player's boat is fine.
People can be as anti-social as they like, but MMORPGs are a social medium. If people find fault with player interaction, they really should try games that are more suited to them.
Its like claiming the chocolate is a fault with a Hershey bar with Almonds. You dont have to like chocolate, but why not just eat almonds then? (...cant wait for my lunch break)
MMORPGs are NOT a social medium.
MMORPGs are GAMES that lots of people can play in the same world (and often segregated by instances, and other means now). There is a BIG difference. For example, a player can play the auction house and still be completely anti-social. Or a player can show off his gear in a city, and still be completely anti-social. These actions are certainly possible in a MMORPG.
It is a fallacy to think that there is a "correct" way to play it. Whatever the player likes to do .. is what drives the genre.
MMORPGs are GAMES that lots of people can play in the same world (and often segregated by instances, and other means now). There is a BIG difference. For example, a player can play the auction house and still be completely anti-social. Or a player can show off his gear in a city, and still be completely anti-social. These actions are certainly possible in a MMORPG.
It is a fallacy to think that there is a "correct" way to play it. Whatever the player likes to do .. is what drives the genre.
Keep telling yourself that buddy.
MMORPGs are both. To add some perspective look at facebook. You can certaintly have a FB account, and just post picures, or look at other people's FB, without being social. However, I don't think anyone would try to argue that FB isn't a social medium. Just because you can choose to disregard a key aspect of a system, does not mean the system isn't designed / doesn't cater towards that aspects.
Believe it or not, there may not be a 'correct' way to play a game, but there are certaintly 'better' and 'worse'. MMOs, by their very nature are social mediums. Just because the latest trend of games try to ignore this doesn't change that fact. Nearly all online multiplayer games are social mediums of a sort. You may not need to treat them this way, but there's a reason that more and more online games are encorperating more than just basic chat functions.
MMORPGs are GAMES that lots of people can play in the same world (and often segregated by instances, and other means now). There is a BIG difference. For example, a player can play the auction house and still be completely anti-social. Or a player can show off his gear in a city, and still be completely anti-social. These actions are certainly possible in a MMORPG.
It is a fallacy to think that there is a "correct" way to play it. Whatever the player likes to do .. is what drives the genre.
Keep telling yourself that buddy.
MMORPGs are both. To add some perspective look at facebook. You can certaintly have a FB account, and just post picures, or look at other people's FB, without being social. However, I don't think anyone would try to argue that FB isn't a social medium. Just because you can choose to disregard a key aspect of a system, does not mean the system isn't designed / doesn't cater towards that aspects.
Believe it or not, there may not be a 'correct' way to play a game, but there are certaintly 'better' and 'worse'. MMOs, by their very nature are social mediums. Just because the latest trend of games try to ignore this doesn't change that fact. Nearly all online multiplayer games are social mediums of a sort. You may not need to treat them this way, but there's a reason that more and more online games are encorperating more than just basic chat functions.
Just witness how WOW is turning into more like a lobby game and how those lobby features are immensely popular.
*IF* MMOs are really social medium, primarily, then why are people complaining here about communities? The reason is precisely because they are GAME first. People play it as such whether you like it or not.
MMORPGs are GAMES that lots of people can play in the same world (and often segregated by instances, and other means now). There is a BIG difference. For example, a player can play the auction house and still be completely anti-social. Or a player can show off his gear in a city, and still be completely anti-social. These actions are certainly possible in a MMORPG.
It is a fallacy to think that there is a "correct" way to play it. Whatever the player likes to do .. is what drives the genre.
Actually "Richard Garriot" (Lord British) aka creator of the Ultima Universe and the one who coined the term MMORPG disagrees with you. If you read his "Ultimate RPG" facebook post you will see that he views MMORPG's as a social medium and that he basically says that most MMOs they have devolved into level grinds in beautiful but generic fantasy or sci-fi settings.
So who am i going to beleive. the person who created the term or someone who says they know what the term means.
MMORPGs are GAMES that lots of people can play in the same world (and often segregated by instances, and other means now). There is a BIG difference. For example, a player can play the auction house and still be completely anti-social. Or a player can show off his gear in a city, and still be completely anti-social. These actions are certainly possible in a MMORPG.
It is a fallacy to think that there is a "correct" way to play it. Whatever the player likes to do .. is what drives the genre.
Actually "Richard Garriot" (Lord British) aka creator of the Ultima Universe and the one who coined the term MMORPG disagrees with you. If you read his "Ultimate RPG" facebook post you will see that he views MMORPG's as a social medium and that he basically says that most MMOs they have devolved into level grinds in beautiful but generic fantasy or sci-fi settings.
So who am i going to beleive. the person who created the term or someone who says they know what the term means.
All the original MUDs were social games. RPGs come from MUDs and MOOs and whatnot. Just because some console morons have colonized the genre doesn't mean that its about their dumb crap.
Narius is completely incapable of understanding the concept of cultural colonization.
Actually "Richard Garriot" (Lord British) aka creator of the Ultima Universe and the one who coined the term MMORPG disagrees with you. If you read his "Ultimate RPG" facebook post you will see that he views MMORPG's as a social medium and that he basically says that most MMOs they have devolved into level grinds in beautiful but generic fantasy or sci-fi settings.
So who am i going to beleive. the person who created the term or someone who says they know what the term means.
Let him. UO is a very old game that few plays. And Lord British has no successful game for ages. The last one, Tabula Rasa, is a themepark and it flopped badly.
The MMORPG genre has moved on.
And there is nothing to "believe". People play the game as they wish. If people do not want to socialize, are you going to force them? I play a game as i please. Don't u?
All the original MUDs were social games. RPGs come from MUDs and MOOs and whatnot. Just because some console morons have colonized the genre doesn't mean that its about their dumb crap.
Narius is completely incapable of understanding the concept of cultural colonization.
So? Genre moves on.
And RPG did NOT come from MUDs & MOOs. RPGs comes from table top games.
You don't like it .. so ... the market moves on. You can get out of it and don't play.
Let him. UO is a very old game that few plays. And Lord British has no successful game for ages. The last one, Tabula Rasa, is a themepark and it flopped badly.
The MMORPG genre has moved on.
And there is nothing to "believe". People play the game as they wish. If people do not want to socialize, are you going to force them? I play a game as i please. Don't u?
Actually no the genre hasn't moved on. Its just a different console hybrid mmo genre is trying to usurp its name..
At its core , which comes from pnp rpg games (that means "pen and paper role playing game" for the young). you need other people to truely role play in addition to an open choice in what your character can do or become.
In my opinion Skyrim (a single player game) is more of a MMORPG than some of the current games labeled as such because it at least tries to stay true to part of its history (albeit not the multiplayer part). And I am in no way implying Skyrim is one, just it ranks higher on sticking to what is a true MMORPG than some of the other games that claim to be in that genre.
A lobby based, heavily instanced game where your characters is railroaded through a storyline talking about how epic and how they alone will save everything (while at the same time everyone else around them) is not a MMORPG. There is no immersion.
EQ was a themepark/sandbox hybrid game. A great deal of it revolved around combat but it also had so many non combat things you could do, explore, hang out, socialize. And your character wasn't put on the pedastle of being the "unique" savior of the world.
Let him. UO is a very old game that few plays. And Lord British has no successful game for ages. The last one, Tabula Rasa, is a themepark and it flopped badly.
The MMORPG genre has moved on.
And there is nothing to "believe". People play the game as they wish. If people do not want to socialize, are you going to force them? I play a game as i please. Don't u?
Actually no the genre hasn't moved on. Its just a different console hybrid mmo genre is trying to usurp its name..
At its core , which comes from pnp rpg games (that means "pen and paper role playing game" for the young). you need other people to truely role play in addition to an open choice in what your character can do or become.
In my opinion Skyrim (a single player game) is more of a MMORPG than some of the current games labeled as such because it at least tries to stay true to part of its history (albeit not the multiplayer part). And I am in no way implying Skyrim is one, just it ranks higher on sticking to what is a true MMORPG than some of the other games that claim to be in that genre.
A lobby based, heavily instanced game where your characters is railroaded through a storyline talking about how epic and how they alone will save everything (while at the same time everyone else around them) is not a MMORPG. There is no immersion.
EQ was a themepark/sandbox hybrid game. A great deal of it revolved around combat but it also had so many non combat things you could do, explore, hang out, socialize. And your character wasn't put on the pedastle of being the "unique" savior of the world.
For reasons I totally understand Skyrim gets used as a good example of how to do things on this board more so than even UO.
From a framework standpoint I think Skyrim has gotten everything right.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
By the way, many moorpgs are addictive. It's their nature. And eventually people get burned. And they essentially search for the next addiction, and that is not good, because companies make money from that but for the players it's bad. Games like daoc were not that addictive, at least for me not, but they were good nevertheless exazctly because of that, because you would login, play for a while, do some pvp, maybe a dungeon, and then logout and you had a good time and fun, it wasn't a big mindless grind to get the X weapon or armor, which while it's mindless can also be addictive for many., because the famous pvp of daoc was also more about tactics and not gear. So, all things in good measure, that is the key to success.
DAoC's strat was about abusing class mechanics and grinding RR.
Not saying it wasn't fun, but really if you were competitive or trying to do something it still took a lot of time... unless you were a stealther with a box buffer .. or you played in the lowbie battlegrounds.
All the original MUDs were social games. RPGs come from MUDs and MOOs and whatnot. Just because some console morons have colonized the genre doesn't mean that its about their dumb crap.
Narius is completely incapable of understanding the concept of cultural colonization.
So? Genre moves on.
And RPG did NOT come from MUDs & MOOs. RPGs comes from table top games.
You don't like it .. so ... the market moves on. You can get out of it and don't play.
Pretty disagreable lad aren't you?
You need an infusion of information to shake up your perceptions a bit. Please do some reading of viewing in to the subject before you start jumping down the throats of people.
So as a precondition of arguing any point on anything....you must be a licesed professional in said field?
If you want to make the claim that said developers are "idiots that don't know how to make a good game", and that "I or my ideas would be better", then you had better have a project or idea in the works that you're willing to AT LEAST discuss. Or at least be able to intelligently argue your case. Have something to say other than, "X game sucks and so do the people that play it"(ie 90% of the discussion that occurs on these forums).
Yes and no. A layman can have some basic understanding of how something should work even if they don't understand the details. For instance, I'm not a doctor but I know if a patient dies while having their tonsils removed then something very seriously went wrong.
But if somebody wants to make the claim they can do better then I say, put up or shut up.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Comments
Nothing wrong with being anti-social. It just is.
MMOs are entertainment. Whatever floats a player's boat is fine.
Just a different opinion friend but in my eyes the fact that you are seeing many conversatiosn talking about " i am just playing x game until y game comes out" shows that it is thriving. the problem is because the genre is thriving, there are so many games out or coming out now.
I totaly agree with you that developers are producing short term games for a quick dollar! i just wish someone would come out and make a game through the love of seeing it come to fruition and not just to make cash. Of course cash should be a big part of it, but not at the expense of doing something you love and enjoy. It's a sad world we live in these days
I held out high hopes for studio 38 and Salvatore ect producing an MMO that i would fall in love with, then i played a demo on xbox of the rpg they are developing and it was all blown away, another same old same old.
If only i could win the euro millions i would try something different haha!
Sorry friend i joined this conversation late and dint read through it all.
No disrespect meant
People can be as anti-social as they like, but MMORPGs are a social medium. If people find fault with player interaction, they really should try games that are more suited to them.
Its like claiming the chocolate is a fault with a Hershey bar with Almonds. You dont have to like chocolate, but why not just eat almonds then? (...cant wait for my lunch break)
MMORPGs are NOT a social medium.
MMORPGs are GAMES that lots of people can play in the same world (and often segregated by instances, and other means now). There is a BIG difference. For example, a player can play the auction house and still be completely anti-social. Or a player can show off his gear in a city, and still be completely anti-social. These actions are certainly possible in a MMORPG.
It is a fallacy to think that there is a "correct" way to play it. Whatever the player likes to do .. is what drives the genre.
Keep telling yourself that buddy.
MMORPGs are both. To add some perspective look at facebook. You can certaintly have a FB account, and just post picures, or look at other people's FB, without being social. However, I don't think anyone would try to argue that FB isn't a social medium. Just because you can choose to disregard a key aspect of a system, does not mean the system isn't designed / doesn't cater towards that aspects.
Believe it or not, there may not be a 'correct' way to play a game, but there are certaintly 'better' and 'worse'. MMOs, by their very nature are social mediums. Just because the latest trend of games try to ignore this doesn't change that fact. Nearly all online multiplayer games are social mediums of a sort. You may not need to treat them this way, but there's a reason that more and more online games are encorperating more than just basic chat functions.
Just witness how WOW is turning into more like a lobby game and how those lobby features are immensely popular.
*IF* MMOs are really social medium, primarily, then why are people complaining here about communities? The reason is precisely because they are GAME first. People play it as such whether you like it or not.
Actually "Richard Garriot" (Lord British) aka creator of the Ultima Universe and the one who coined the term MMORPG disagrees with you. If you read his "Ultimate RPG" facebook post you will see that he views MMORPG's as a social medium and that he basically says that most MMOs they have devolved into level grinds in beautiful but generic fantasy or sci-fi settings.
So who am i going to beleive. the person who created the term or someone who says they know what the term means.
All the original MUDs were social games. RPGs come from MUDs and MOOs and whatnot. Just because some console morons have colonized the genre doesn't mean that its about their dumb crap.
Narius is completely incapable of understanding the concept of cultural colonization.
Let him. UO is a very old game that few plays. And Lord British has no successful game for ages. The last one, Tabula Rasa, is a themepark and it flopped badly.
The MMORPG genre has moved on.
And there is nothing to "believe". People play the game as they wish. If people do not want to socialize, are you going to force them? I play a game as i please. Don't u?
So? Genre moves on.
And RPG did NOT come from MUDs & MOOs. RPGs comes from table top games.
You don't like it .. so ... the market moves on. You can get out of it and don't play.
Actually no the genre hasn't moved on. Its just a different console hybrid mmo genre is trying to usurp its name..
At its core , which comes from pnp rpg games (that means "pen and paper role playing game" for the young). you need other people to truely role play in addition to an open choice in what your character can do or become.
In my opinion Skyrim (a single player game) is more of a MMORPG than some of the current games labeled as such because it at least tries to stay true to part of its history (albeit not the multiplayer part). And I am in no way implying Skyrim is one, just it ranks higher on sticking to what is a true MMORPG than some of the other games that claim to be in that genre.
A lobby based, heavily instanced game where your characters is railroaded through a storyline talking about how epic and how they alone will save everything (while at the same time everyone else around them) is not a MMORPG. There is no immersion.
EQ was a themepark/sandbox hybrid game. A great deal of it revolved around combat but it also had so many non combat things you could do, explore, hang out, socialize. And your character wasn't put on the pedastle of being the "unique" savior of the world.
For reasons I totally understand Skyrim gets used as a good example of how to do things on this board more so than even UO.
From a framework standpoint I think Skyrim has gotten everything right.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
DAoC's strat was about abusing class mechanics and grinding RR.
Not saying it wasn't fun, but really if you were competitive or trying to do something it still took a lot of time... unless you were a stealther with a box buffer .. or you played in the lowbie battlegrounds.
Pretty disagreable lad aren't you?
You need an infusion of information to shake up your perceptions a bit. Please do some reading of viewing in to the subject before you start jumping down the throats of people.
You can start your education on the subject here:
http://www.raphkoster.com/2011/11/30/3-part-video-history-of-mmos/
Cheers!
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Yes and no. A layman can have some basic understanding of how something should work even if they don't understand the details. For instance, I'm not a doctor but I know if a patient dies while having their tonsils removed then something very seriously went wrong.
But if somebody wants to make the claim they can do better then I say, put up or shut up.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville