Good thing is all the older games are going free. So when you need a nostalgia kick, jump back into one of the older ones.
I just started playing Vanguard. Having fun with it. Old school system like you are reminiscing about with better graphics than EQ. Playing old games reminds me what I liked about them, and reminds me what I did not like about them.
The reality, if you miss the old EQ, DAOC tyoe days, you really need to look backwards instead of forward. Any game now that comes out will never be exactly like that. Its just good business to accomodate a broad audience, and there is alot more pressure to do so from big name companies funding the devs. I think the old schoolers have an easier time finding a comfortable home in an older game after the dust settles than they do the new rage. With that come the nerd raging, QQ, I want it now kids and the insta-rage when their impossible expectations are not met.
Best thing about the older games was the community. Great thing is, most of the older games, and indie games still have it if you are willing to sacrfifice graphics and alot of times polish.
Of course, but the point is that you can still buy just about any available genre.
I don't think classical music is the highest selling nor any where near it. Yet I can still obtain a copy of Gustav Holst's The Planets if I want.
And you can still play the old games. Last time I checked EQ is still running.
Heck, you can still play the old text based adventure games too. So what is the problem?
The problem is that we need NEW games of many different flavors!
As I can also get NEW musical classical works if I want.
The problem is, most games with the polish people expect as standard now are backed by a big money company for its funding. So when a dev pitches " Hey, I would like to create a game based on concepts from a decade ago that will target a minority of the playerbase" what do you think the response is?
The biggest problem I have with sandboxes is also their biggest strength: a world that relies on players for content. Do you want to know why were are here talking about games instead of designing them? Because we aren't any good at designing games. Nor are most gamers. Yet sandboxes leave the generation of content in these games to us. That's why I don't bother with them. Most gamers are not entertaining, which inevitably creates a listless, souless game. To me, being able to whack another player over the head when they least expect it is NOT enough to qualify as engaging content.
When sandboxes are created with a detailed world that can tick along on it's own without player input, I'll be interested. When it can do that and incorporate player interference without breaking, I'll try it. When it can do all of that and allow the developers to maintain a complex metastory without inpinging on player freedom, I'll have its babies.
Yes, I want a hybrid game. I want the developers to continue to do what the are supposed to be good at and let me carve out my own, personal niche in it.
I see myself as a casual hardcore player. I can only play for about 2 hours at night but enjoy punishing gameplay. Over time I have seen a lot of games come out that aren't so punishing. In addition these less-punishing games get nerfed and easier overtime post-release. You'd think that the mmo'ers overtime would rebuke the trend that devs are pushing. They have own agenda which is the complete opposite of mine. And it seems like mmo'ers are accepting it save a handful of them like myself. Thus my original post.
Of course, but the point is that you can still buy just about any available genre.
I don't think classical music is the highest selling nor any where near it. Yet I can still obtain a copy of Gustav Holst's The Planets if I want.
And you can still play the old games. Last time I checked EQ is still running.
Heck, you can still play the old text based adventure games too. So what is the problem?
The problem is that we need NEW games of many different flavors!
As I can also get NEW musical classical works if I want.
The problem is, most games with the polish people expect as standard now are backed by a big money company for its funding. So when a dev pitches " Hey, I would like to create a game based on concepts from a decade ago that will target a minority of the playerbase" what do you think the response is?
Sure. I recognize this as a limitation. Nonetheless, the fact that most other forms of entertainment do not suffer the same fate is a slight against the industry in my opinion.
You don't need investors to write a book. With today's technology one can make reasonably good musical recording in a home studio. And some guy with a hand-held and using non-pros is going to get a mention at some artsy film festival.
To me that makes the current state of video games soulless. To others it doesn't. Which of course makes sense if one is going for mass market appeal. Mass markets are BIG.
So, I'll keep an eye on things just in case. But I'm back to boardgames now as they still offer marvelous diversity. The way it works on that side is that people come up with a design, let others see and perhaps test it, then the game players themselves are asked to fund it. If the goal is made, the game is printed and off we go!
Not a perfect system to be sure, but the bottom line is that board gaming, and to be sure most other forms of entertainment, offer the diversity that video games now lack for the most part.
There is a market for you and you deserve to have games that cater to yoru wishes, but you are not who gets to determine where this genre goes.
Yep, the "Ax/Syth/Kyl/you" thread said everything that needs to be said. Until someone waves a magic wand and makes those old features appealing to the masses, your best bet is to find the game closest to what you like, and live with it; or move on.
Anybody remember Motor City Online? You could customize your car to insane level. The engine itself had several parts, and each part wasn't just some "good/better/best" system; you had to know what parts complemented others.
For example: Do you know what an Edelbrock Tunnel Ram intake manifold is? What it does and what benefits it provides? Neither does about 99% of the population. In other words, MCO was almost deliberately limiting their potential subscriber base to 1% of the population.
It's really an extreme (but real) metaphor for what alot of those old games were, and why they either no longer exist or have comparably tiny player bases, today. I loved MCO, but I have no doubts as to why it failed, and despite the build complexity being one of the things I liked best about it, I know better than to think someone will bring back a design philosophy that costs a game subs.
To be fair, Kyleran fabricated that "quote" of mine.
I don't agree with the idea that all niche players "deserve" to have games which cater to their wishes, as it's that very sense of entitlement which creates threads like these.
Where there's enough heat, there's fire.
If your interests lie somewhere where there's little heat, don't be surprised if there's no fire.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Of course, but the point is that you can still buy just about any available genre.
I don't think classical music is the highest selling nor any where near it. Yet I can still obtain a copy of Gustav Holst's The Planets if I want.
And you can still play the old games. Last time I checked EQ is still running.
Heck, you can still play the old text based adventure games too. So what is the problem?
The problem is that we need NEW games of many different flavors!
As I can also get NEW musical classical works if I want.
We *do* have new games of many different flavors. There are more settings, more gameplay style (from MMORPG, to MMOFPS to MMORTS) than in the UO/EQ days.
Originally posted by Unlight Yes, I want a hybrid game. I want the developers to continue to do what the are supposed to be good at and let me carve out my own, personal niche in it.
I agree. I think that's why I liked SWG so much.
It was a hybrid in my opinion. It was a sandbox that contained themeparks.
Of course, but the point is that you can still buy just about any available genre.
I don't think classical music is the highest selling nor any where near it. Yet I can still obtain a copy of Gustav Holst's The Planets if I want.
And you can still play the old games. Last time I checked EQ is still running.
Heck, you can still play the old text based adventure games too. So what is the problem?
The problem is that we need NEW games of many different flavors!
As I can also get NEW musical classical works if I want.
We *do* have new games of many different flavors. There are more settings, more gameplay style (from MMORPG, to MMOFPS to MMORTS) than in the UO/EQ days.
I think there is less gameplay styles as everything needs to be designed as a cross-platform product.
I'll hold up the Elder Scrolls as a perfect example. It became less interesting and diverse as game play was modified for consoles. Now in the latest version, some abilites simply no longer exist. Everything is simplified.
To me, less choice does most certainly not mean more fun. Exactly the opposite in fact.
Anyone mention ArcheAge yet? Just kidding, just kidding...
I would say since SWG went down in flames I've been chasing a game like the OP describes. I realize now there isn't much point dreaming about that.
I've gone back to single player/co-op games. They just outshine MMOs the last several years. I'll give an MMO a try from time to time, but usually I end up sticking to a short beta or trial periods and that's about it. I'm clearly not the target demographic anymore. If noone will cater to my likes, then my money will be spent elsewhere. That's all the impact I can make on the MMO genre... not spending my money on things I don't enjoy!
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
I agree with you on all these points, and have started to feel this way for a while now, I just keep trying to hold hope that soon someone with change, or else I will eventually be done with the genre itself
Of course, but the point is that you can still buy just about any available genre.
I don't think classical music is the highest selling nor any where near it. Yet I can still obtain a copy of Gustav Holst's The Planets if I want.
And you can still play the old games. Last time I checked EQ is still running.
Heck, you can still play the old text based adventure games too. So what is the problem?
The problem is that we need NEW games of many different flavors!
As I can also get NEW musical classical works if I want.
We *do* have new games of many different flavors. There are more settings, more gameplay style (from MMORPG, to MMOFPS to MMORTS) than in the UO/EQ days.
I think there is less gameplay styles as everything needs to be designed as a cross-platform product.
I'll hold up the Elder Scrolls as a perfect example. It became less interesting and diverse as game play was modified for consoles. Now in the latest version, some abilites simply no longer exist. Everything is simplified.
To me, less choice does most certainly not mean more fun. Exactly the opposite in fact.
1) You are talking about ONE game. If you look at all the games, there are certainly more gameplay style & settings. Take FPS. In the time of DOOM, there is only run & gun. Now you have realistic ones, run & game, cover mechanics, RPG FPS (like borderlands) ... sci-fi themes, western themes, modern themes, war themes .. If that is not variety, i don't know what is.
2) Less choice SOMETIMES mean more fun. 10 duplicated abilities do not make a game more fun. Take COD as an example .. you just shoot .. no abilties whatsoever, and it is still fun. Look at Bioshock .. it has several abilities. Will it be more than if you have 10 different ways of throwing a fireball? Not necessarily.
Plus, you are confusing complexity and variety in gameplay. 10 very simple game can have very different styles of gameplay (heck take tetris, mahjong, tower defense, and scrabble) .. and 10 very complex games can have very similar style of gameplay.
In realty, the people who do not continue to play and.or subscribe are the ones rebuking them.
I think an additional fact is that although many people talk about how much we liked the older concepts in games, the fact is that there is still an appeal, albeit a different appeal to the new model being developed as well. If not for what it is now, but where it is going.
There is alot of crying about where the genre is, where it is going etc. etc. The biggest issue is that there have been bits and pieces of really different and interesting concepts in gaming from multiple sources. Big name and Indie alike. Most of us have noticed those glimpses of potential. However, alot of people have different opinions of what they like. Now they want one MMO that has all those pieces of what THEY liked all wrapped up into one game.
For every gamer that likes a vast world they have to run in with no fast travel, there is a gamer that will cry about it and threaten to quit. For every gamer that likes a death penalty there is a gamer who will cry about it and threaten to quit. And on and on.
How could you really ever please this genre in this day and age? It would be great if games focused on a market inside the genre (i.e. punishing/challenging mmorpgs) but the fact is that whenever these concepts are implemented into games these days the QQ flag raises so high that they eventually ease up on it.
I could be wrong and maybe someone will hold the line and stick to a challlenging concept, but I doubt it. They would more likely release it and then relent at the backlash in fear of a dying playerbase like most of the rest.
In realty, the people who do not continue to play and.or subscribe are the ones rebuking them.
I think an additional fact is that although many people talk about how much we liked the older concepts in games, the fact is that there is still an appeal, albeit a different appeal to the new model being developed as well. If not for what it is now, but where it is going.
There is alot of crying about where the genre is, where it is going etc. etc. The biggest issue is that there have been bits and pieces of really different and interesting concepts in gaming from multiple sources. Big name and Indie alike. Most of us have noticed those glimpses of potential. However, alot of people have different opinions of what they like. Now they want one MMO that has all those pieces of what THEY liked all wrapped up into one game.
For every gamer that likes a vast world they have to run in with no fast travel, there is a gamer that will cry about it and threaten to quit. For every gamer that likes a death penalty there is a gamer who will cry about it and threaten to quit. And on and on.
How could you really ever please this genre in this day and age? It would be great if games focused on a market inside the genre (i.e. punishing/challenging mmorpgs) but the fact is that whenever these concepts are implemented into games these days the QQ flag raises so high that they eventually ease up on it.
I could be wrong and maybe someone will hold the line and stick to a challlenging concept, but I doubt it. They would more likely release it and then relent at the backlash in fear of a dying playerbase like most of the rest.
As long as the 'minority' prove themselves to be a 'minority' by not supporting games that has mechanics that they want, this will continue to happen.
Why should any game developer cater to this tiny market when it has proven itself to be the minority for the past 7 years?
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
In realty, the people who do not continue to play and.or subscribe are the ones rebuking them.
I think an additional fact is that although many people talk about how much we liked the older concepts in games, the fact is that there is still an appeal, albeit a different appeal to the new model being developed as well. If not for what it is now, but where it is going.
There is alot of crying about where the genre is, where it is going etc. etc. The biggest issue is that there have been bits and pieces of really different and interesting concepts in gaming from multiple sources. Big name and Indie alike. Most of us have noticed those glimpses of potential. However, alot of people have different opinions of what they like. Now they want one MMO that has all those pieces of what THEY liked all wrapped up into one game.
For every gamer that likes a vast world they have to run in with no fast travel, there is a gamer that will cry about it and threaten to quit. For every gamer that likes a death penalty there is a gamer who will cry about it and threaten to quit. And on and on.
How could you really ever please this genre in this day and age? It would be great if games focused on a market inside the genre (i.e. punishing/challenging mmorpgs) but the fact is that whenever these concepts are implemented into games these days the QQ flag raises so high that they eventually ease up on it.
I could be wrong and maybe someone will hold the line and stick to a challlenging concept, but I doubt it. They would more likely release it and then relent at the backlash in fear of a dying playerbase like most of the rest.
You really can't fault devs for listening to their player base.
Think about it. Games are entertainment. In this day and age, no one has the time to live a game. Thus, if you want to entertain more people, be assessible. Don't requirement high time commitment.
People have so many entertainment options, they don't have to play your game. Heck, even the no-lifers who spend all their time in games do NOT have to spend all their time in a single game. There are many to choose from.
In realty, the people who do not continue to play and.or subscribe are the ones rebuking them. I think an additional fact is that although many people talk about how much we liked the older concepts in games, the fact is that there is still an appeal, albeit a different appeal to the new model being developed as well. If not for what it is now, but where it is going. There is alot of crying about where the genre is, where it is going etc. etc. The biggest issue is that there have been bits and pieces of really different and interesting concepts in gaming from multiple sources. Big name and Indie alike. Most of us have noticed those glimpses of potential. However, alot of people have different opinions of what they like. Now they want one MMO that has all those pieces of what THEY liked all wrapped up into one game. For every gamer that likes a vast world they have to run in with no fast travel, there is a gamer that will cry about it and threaten to quit. For every gamer that likes a death penalty there is a gamer who will cry about it and threaten to quit. And on and on. How could you really ever please this genre in this day and age? It would be great if games focused on a market inside the genre (i.e. punishing/challenging mmorpgs) but the fact is that whenever these concepts are implemented into games these days the QQ flag raises so high that they eventually ease up on it. I could be wrong and maybe someone will hold the line and stick to a challlenging concept, but I doubt it. They would more likely release it and then relent at the backlash in fear of a dying playerbase like most of the rest.
As long as the 'minority' prove themselves to be a 'minority' by not supporting games that has mechanics that they want, this will continue to happen.
Why should any game developer cater to this tiny market when it has proven itself to be the minority for the past 7 years?
Actually, I really agree with this. If the old school concept is not the minority when it comes to MMO concept, we should see a rise of players returning to games that do have that template. If the industry sees a steady and reliable playerbase for that aspect of the genre, they will most likely try to make money off of it. However, the fact is that the majority are chasing and playing the games built from the template we see so many complaints about, thus they focus on that model.
In realty, the people who do not continue to play and.or subscribe are the ones rebuking them. I think an additional fact is that although many people talk about how much we liked the older concepts in games, the fact is that there is still an appeal, albeit a different appeal to the new model being developed as well. If not for what it is now, but where it is going. There is alot of crying about where the genre is, where it is going etc. etc. The biggest issue is that there have been bits and pieces of really different and interesting concepts in gaming from multiple sources. Big name and Indie alike. Most of us have noticed those glimpses of potential. However, alot of people have different opinions of what they like. Now they want one MMO that has all those pieces of what THEY liked all wrapped up into one game. For every gamer that likes a vast world they have to run in with no fast travel, there is a gamer that will cry about it and threaten to quit. For every gamer that likes a death penalty there is a gamer who will cry about it and threaten to quit. And on and on. How could you really ever please this genre in this day and age? It would be great if games focused on a market inside the genre (i.e. punishing/challenging mmorpgs) but the fact is that whenever these concepts are implemented into games these days the QQ flag raises so high that they eventually ease up on it. I could be wrong and maybe someone will hold the line and stick to a challlenging concept, but I doubt it. They would more likely release it and then relent at the backlash in fear of a dying playerbase like most of the rest.
You really can't fault devs for listening to their player base.
Think about it. Games are entertainment. In this day and age, no one has the time to live a game. Thus, if you want to entertain more people, be assessible. Don't requirement high time commitment.
People have so many entertainment options, they don't have to play your game. Heck, even the no-lifers who spend all their time in games do NOT have to spend all their time in a single game. There are many to choose from.
Agree. The MMO today is focused on players who want to jump right in and make progress. The older template was focused on the idea that progress will take time. Due to the focus on accomodating a playerbase that doesnt want to dick around, but wants to jump in and bang it out, we have seen a much greater increase in the MMO playerbase in general. As much as I like a slow, grindy game as well that is just not where the market is right now. The playerbase has expanded to meet more than just the hardcore gamer. With that MMOs reach a bigger audience and earn more revenue. Why would a company want to build a game for an isolated part of the market when the template we now is aimed at accomodating all audiences and getting everyones money. I cant blame them at all.
I don't think anyone blames them; as I said, it is simply a natural limitation with regards to this particular form of entertainment.
As far as I am concerned, when the driving force and inspiration behind a game is what a marketing spreadsheet tells you it is, we've more or less lost our collective way.
In realty, the people who do not continue to play and.or subscribe are the ones rebuking them.
I think an additional fact is that although many people talk about how much we liked the older concepts in games, the fact is that there is still an appeal, albeit a different appeal to the new model being developed as well. If not for what it is now, but where it is going.
There is alot of crying about where the genre is, where it is going etc. etc. The biggest issue is that there have been bits and pieces of really different and interesting concepts in gaming from multiple sources. Big name and Indie alike. Most of us have noticed those glimpses of potential. However, alot of people have different opinions of what they like. Now they want one MMO that has all those pieces of what THEY liked all wrapped up into one game.
For every gamer that likes a vast world they have to run in with no fast travel, there is a gamer that will cry about it and threaten to quit. For every gamer that likes a death penalty there is a gamer who will cry about it and threaten to quit. And on and on.
How could you really ever please this genre in this day and age? It would be great if games focused on a market inside the genre (i.e. punishing/challenging mmorpgs) but the fact is that whenever these concepts are implemented into games these days the QQ flag raises so high that they eventually ease up on it.
I could be wrong and maybe someone will hold the line and stick to a challlenging concept, but I doubt it. They would more likely release it and then relent at the backlash in fear of a dying playerbase like most of the rest.
its actually alot more simple than you might think for a single game to cater to those different groups of people. You see, it really comes down to the fact that there's 2 major different groups of mmo players, carebears and hardcores. The hardcores want the end game raids to stay hard, not nerfed just cause only 1 guild has beaten it so far, they want to try and try and feel that rush of accomplishment when they finally beat it. The carebears want to kill the final boss the first night the raid is released.
The simple way to cater to both is to have carebear servers, and hardcore servers. The hardcore servers will be what the game was meant to be, the carebear servers would have nerfs to dungeon/raid bosses, increased exp, items given to them for absolutely no reason like using the dungeon finder tool and killing the boss(as if you wouldn't have done so already). If dev's would only follow that approach, both sides would be happy, sure there'll still be a few issues that others will have complaint, like the combat mechanics but you'll always have haters no matter what you do, but this way will at least minimize the haters.
Comments
Good thing is all the older games are going free. So when you need a nostalgia kick, jump back into one of the older ones.
I just started playing Vanguard. Having fun with it. Old school system like you are reminiscing about with better graphics than EQ. Playing old games reminds me what I liked about them, and reminds me what I did not like about them.
The reality, if you miss the old EQ, DAOC tyoe days, you really need to look backwards instead of forward. Any game now that comes out will never be exactly like that. Its just good business to accomodate a broad audience, and there is alot more pressure to do so from big name companies funding the devs. I think the old schoolers have an easier time finding a comfortable home in an older game after the dust settles than they do the new rage. With that come the nerd raging, QQ, I want it now kids and the insta-rage when their impossible expectations are not met.
Best thing about the older games was the community. Great thing is, most of the older games, and indie games still have it if you are willing to sacrfifice graphics and alot of times polish.
for the last time, the EQ that exists now is not the game that existed 5 years ago. or 10 years ago. or longer. current EQ is basically a shitty WoW.
The problem is that we need NEW games of many different flavors!
As I can also get NEW musical classical works if I want.
Of course, but the point is that you can still buy just about any available genre.
I don't think classical music is the highest selling nor any where near it. Yet I can still obtain a copy of Gustav Holst's The Planets if I want.
And you can still play the old games. Last time I checked EQ is still running.
Heck, you can still play the old text based adventure games too. So what is the problem?
The problem is that we need NEW games of many different flavors!
As I can also get NEW musical classical works if I want.
The problem is, most games with the polish people expect as standard now are backed by a big money company for its funding. So when a dev pitches " Hey, I would like to create a game based on concepts from a decade ago that will target a minority of the playerbase" what do you think the response is?The biggest problem I have with sandboxes is also their biggest strength: a world that relies on players for content. Do you want to know why were are here talking about games instead of designing them? Because we aren't any good at designing games. Nor are most gamers. Yet sandboxes leave the generation of content in these games to us. That's why I don't bother with them. Most gamers are not entertaining, which inevitably creates a listless, souless game. To me, being able to whack another player over the head when they least expect it is NOT enough to qualify as engaging content.
When sandboxes are created with a detailed world that can tick along on it's own without player input, I'll be interested. When it can do that and incorporate player interference without breaking, I'll try it. When it can do all of that and allow the developers to maintain a complex metastory without inpinging on player freedom, I'll have its babies.
Yes, I want a hybrid game. I want the developers to continue to do what the are supposed to be good at and let me carve out my own, personal niche in it.
Sure. I recognize this as a limitation. Nonetheless, the fact that most other forms of entertainment do not suffer the same fate is a slight against the industry in my opinion.
You don't need investors to write a book. With today's technology one can make reasonably good musical recording in a home studio. And some guy with a hand-held and using non-pros is going to get a mention at some artsy film festival.
To me that makes the current state of video games soulless. To others it doesn't. Which of course makes sense if one is going for mass market appeal. Mass markets are BIG.
So, I'll keep an eye on things just in case. But I'm back to boardgames now as they still offer marvelous diversity. The way it works on that side is that people come up with a design, let others see and perhaps test it, then the game players themselves are asked to fund it. If the goal is made, the game is printed and off we go!
Not a perfect system to be sure, but the bottom line is that board gaming, and to be sure most other forms of entertainment, offer the diversity that video games now lack for the most part.
Which is fine if you like the mainstream.
To be fair, Kyleran fabricated that "quote" of mine.
I don't agree with the idea that all niche players "deserve" to have games which cater to their wishes, as it's that very sense of entitlement which creates threads like these.
Where there's enough heat, there's fire.
If your interests lie somewhere where there's little heat, don't be surprised if there's no fire.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
We *do* have new games of many different flavors. There are more settings, more gameplay style (from MMORPG, to MMOFPS to MMORTS) than in the UO/EQ days.
I agree. I think that's why I liked SWG so much.
It was a hybrid in my opinion. It was a sandbox that contained themeparks.
Darkfall and Mortal ONline are that way ------------->
I think there is less gameplay styles as everything needs to be designed as a cross-platform product.
I'll hold up the Elder Scrolls as a perfect example. It became less interesting and diverse as game play was modified for consoles. Now in the latest version, some abilites simply no longer exist. Everything is simplified.
To me, less choice does most certainly not mean more fun. Exactly the opposite in fact.
Anyone mention ArcheAge yet? Just kidding, just kidding...
I would say since SWG went down in flames I've been chasing a game like the OP describes. I realize now there isn't much point dreaming about that.
I've gone back to single player/co-op games. They just outshine MMOs the last several years. I'll give an MMO a try from time to time, but usually I end up sticking to a short beta or trial periods and that's about it. I'm clearly not the target demographic anymore. If noone will cater to my likes, then my money will be spent elsewhere. That's all the impact I can make on the MMO genre... not spending my money on things I don't enjoy!
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
I agree with you on all these points, and have started to feel this way for a while now, I just keep trying to hold hope that soon someone with change, or else I will eventually be done with the genre itself
Mess with the best, Die like the rest
Yep, been chasing MMOs since vanilla WOW launch. Still waiting for that game that stands out as a MMORPG again.
1) You are talking about ONE game. If you look at all the games, there are certainly more gameplay style & settings. Take FPS. In the time of DOOM, there is only run & gun. Now you have realistic ones, run & game, cover mechanics, RPG FPS (like borderlands) ... sci-fi themes, western themes, modern themes, war themes .. If that is not variety, i don't know what is.
2) Less choice SOMETIMES mean more fun. 10 duplicated abilities do not make a game more fun. Take COD as an example .. you just shoot .. no abilties whatsoever, and it is still fun. Look at Bioshock .. it has several abilities. Will it be more than if you have 10 different ways of throwing a fireball? Not necessarily.
Plus, you are confusing complexity and variety in gameplay. 10 very simple game can have very different styles of gameplay (heck take tetris, mahjong, tower defense, and scrabble) .. and 10 very complex games can have very similar style of gameplay.
Don't bother. Better to waiting for a GOOD combat focus RPG where i can group. Diablo 3 is probably that game.
In realty, the people who do not continue to play and.or subscribe are the ones rebuking them.
I think an additional fact is that although many people talk about how much we liked the older concepts in games, the fact is that there is still an appeal, albeit a different appeal to the new model being developed as well. If not for what it is now, but where it is going.
There is alot of crying about where the genre is, where it is going etc. etc. The biggest issue is that there have been bits and pieces of really different and interesting concepts in gaming from multiple sources. Big name and Indie alike. Most of us have noticed those glimpses of potential. However, alot of people have different opinions of what they like. Now they want one MMO that has all those pieces of what THEY liked all wrapped up into one game.
For every gamer that likes a vast world they have to run in with no fast travel, there is a gamer that will cry about it and threaten to quit. For every gamer that likes a death penalty there is a gamer who will cry about it and threaten to quit. And on and on.
How could you really ever please this genre in this day and age? It would be great if games focused on a market inside the genre (i.e. punishing/challenging mmorpgs) but the fact is that whenever these concepts are implemented into games these days the QQ flag raises so high that they eventually ease up on it.
I could be wrong and maybe someone will hold the line and stick to a challlenging concept, but I doubt it. They would more likely release it and then relent at the backlash in fear of a dying playerbase like most of the rest.
As long as the 'minority' prove themselves to be a 'minority' by not supporting games that has mechanics that they want, this will continue to happen.
Why should any game developer cater to this tiny market when it has proven itself to be the minority for the past 7 years?
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
You really can't fault devs for listening to their player base.
Think about it. Games are entertainment. In this day and age, no one has the time to live a game. Thus, if you want to entertain more people, be assessible. Don't requirement high time commitment.
People have so many entertainment options, they don't have to play your game. Heck, even the no-lifers who spend all their time in games do NOT have to spend all their time in a single game. There are many to choose from.
As long as the 'minority' prove themselves to be a 'minority' by not supporting games that has mechanics that they want, this will continue to happen.
Why should any game developer cater to this tiny market when it has proven itself to be the minority for the past 7 years?
Actually, I really agree with this. If the old school concept is not the minority when it comes to MMO concept, we should see a rise of players returning to games that do have that template. If the industry sees a steady and reliable playerbase for that aspect of the genre, they will most likely try to make money off of it. However, the fact is that the majority are chasing and playing the games built from the template we see so many complaints about, thus they focus on that model.You're right. I probably should have said less gameplay complexity.
Not everyone likes chess, but it is still a good thing that the game is around.
You really can't fault devs for listening to their player base.
Think about it. Games are entertainment. In this day and age, no one has the time to live a game. Thus, if you want to entertain more people, be assessible. Don't requirement high time commitment.
People have so many entertainment options, they don't have to play your game. Heck, even the no-lifers who spend all their time in games do NOT have to spend all their time in a single game. There are many to choose from.
Agree. The MMO today is focused on players who want to jump right in and make progress. The older template was focused on the idea that progress will take time. Due to the focus on accomodating a playerbase that doesnt want to dick around, but wants to jump in and bang it out, we have seen a much greater increase in the MMO playerbase in general. As much as I like a slow, grindy game as well that is just not where the market is right now. The playerbase has expanded to meet more than just the hardcore gamer. With that MMOs reach a bigger audience and earn more revenue. Why would a company want to build a game for an isolated part of the market when the template we now is aimed at accomodating all audiences and getting everyones money. I cant blame them at all.I don't think anyone blames them; as I said, it is simply a natural limitation with regards to this particular form of entertainment.
As far as I am concerned, when the driving force and inspiration behind a game is what a marketing spreadsheet tells you it is, we've more or less lost our collective way.
its actually alot more simple than you might think for a single game to cater to those different groups of people. You see, it really comes down to the fact that there's 2 major different groups of mmo players, carebears and hardcores. The hardcores want the end game raids to stay hard, not nerfed just cause only 1 guild has beaten it so far, they want to try and try and feel that rush of accomplishment when they finally beat it. The carebears want to kill the final boss the first night the raid is released.
The simple way to cater to both is to have carebear servers, and hardcore servers. The hardcore servers will be what the game was meant to be, the carebear servers would have nerfs to dungeon/raid bosses, increased exp, items given to them for absolutely no reason like using the dungeon finder tool and killing the boss(as if you wouldn't have done so already). If dev's would only follow that approach, both sides would be happy, sure there'll still be a few issues that others will have complaint, like the combat mechanics but you'll always have haters no matter what you do, but this way will at least minimize the haters.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!