While I agree with the ideal of "great moment to moment game play", I don't think it's required to be in the form of instant ready quests all the time. I'm just sayin', I don't know exactly how you mean that.
And I wanted to throw in also that player decisions might be better put as player self direction. Choice to play what you want, to set your own goals, as in "self directed".
Who said anything about quests? Great moment to moment gameplay can be had with a sandbox, you just have to have the right game mechanics in place.
There weren't quests in SMNC, LoL, Legend of Grimrock, or countless other games I've enjoyed. Quests are by no means a requirement, as long as the core gameplay is inherently enjoyable and varied.
I disagree that you could necessarily say player decisions are better as self-directed things, because in many cases that's objectively false. Unless we're expanding 'self-directed play' to include things like "I can choose to PVP, craft, explore, respec, PVE, Raid, or Dungeon in WOW." (Which is self direction, but I sort of thing you're referring to a more brutally open-ended form of self direction than that.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
While I agree with the ideal of "great moment to moment game play", I don't think it's required to be in the form of instant ready quests all the time. I'm just sayin', I don't know exactly how you mean that.
And I wanted to throw in also that player decisions might be better put as player self direction. Choice to play what you want, to set your own goals, as in "self directed".
Who said anything about quests? Great moment to moment gameplay can be had with a sandbox, you just have to have the right game mechanics in place.
There weren't quests in SMNC, LoL, Legend of Grimrock, or countless other games I've enjoyed. Quests are by no means a requirement, as long as the core gameplay is inherently enjoyable and varied.
I disagree that you could necessarily say player decisions are better as self-directed things, because in many cases that's objectively false. Unless we're expanding 'self-directed play' to include things like "I can choose to PVP, craft, explore, respec, PVE, Raid, or Dungeon in WOW." (Which is self direction, but I sort of thing you're referring to a more brutally open-ended form of self direction than that.)
As to that first part, it's a welcome sight to see you coming around.
On that second part, "I can choose to PVP, craft, explore, respec, PVE, Raid, or Dungeon in WOW." sounds exactly like "decisions" as opposed to "self directed play". You can "decide" to do any of those things in a Themepark. What I'm getting at is that you can make your overall experience what you want instead of a few selections of those "decisions" (edit to add: based on your level) offered in a Themepark.
As to that first part, it's a welcome sight to see you coming around.
On that second part, "I can choose to PVP, craft, explore, respec, PVE, Raid, or Dungeon in WOW." sounds exactly like "decisions" as opposed to "self directed play". You can "decide" to do any of those things in a Themepark. What I'm getting at is that you can make your overall experience what you want instead of a few selections of those "decisions" (edit to add: based on your level) offered in a Themepark.
Coming around? I've never suggested quests are an absolute mandate. The nearest I may have ever come to anything close to that is pointing out that quests clearly improved the MMORPG tremendously by enforcing gameplay variety where there used to be endless repetitive mob grinding.
Self directed play is decisions. Choosing what game mechanic(s) to engage with (PVP, PVE, etc) shapes the overall experience. So you're going to have to get a little more detailed than that definition. But as soon as you lock down a tighter definition you invalidate your original statement of suggesting player decisions are automatically going to be better when they're "self direction". If we leave the definition open to accept themepark style "I choose what ride to ride" self-direction, then your original statement is fine.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As to that first part, it's a welcome sight to see you coming around.
On that second part, "I can choose to PVP, craft, explore, respec, PVE, Raid, or Dungeon in WOW." sounds exactly like "decisions" as opposed to "self directed play". You can "decide" to do any of those things in a Themepark. What I'm getting at is that you can make your overall experience what you want instead of a few selections of those "decisions" (edit to add: based on your level) offered in a Themepark.
Coming around? I've never suggested quests are an absolute mandate. The nearest I may have ever come to anything close to that is pointing out that quests clearly improved the MMORPG tremendously by enforcing gameplay variety where there used to be endless repetitive mob grinding.
Self directed play is decisions. Choosing what game mechanic(s) to engage with (PVP, PVE, etc) shapes the overall experience. So you're going to have to get a little more detailed than that definition. But as soon as you lock down a tighter definition you invalidate your original statement of suggesting player decisions are automatically going to be better when they're "self direction". If we leave the definition open to accept themepark style "I choose what ride to ride" self-direction, then your original statement is fine.
There is no self direction in a Themepark. The player is directed through the game.
Themepark Game: "You can go here to play, but not there. These choices are dictated to you to enforce game play variety."
There is no self direction in a Themepark. The player is directed through the game.
Themepark Game: "You can go here to play, but not there. These choices are dictated to you to enforce game play variety."
There's plenty of self-direction. I listed why 2 posts back.
Players want self-direction in terms of "Here's 7 games; choose which one(s) you want to play!"
Players don't want "Here's an empty world. Uh, I guess you could create your own games so we don't have to."
Basically players want games. A sandbox which is a game first would do well, but the sandboxes we've seen that try to be worlds instead of games have fallen flat on their faces (or inched along with a mediocre existence.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There is nothing basically wrong with sandboxes. The core problem is that these games tend to be extremist. No story content at all, add a shallow skillbased rulesystem thats boring to play, has full loot so items are worthless, and then they expect that all that to be "fun". Umm ... nope ?
I want:
- A game that has a challenge and can be played for years.
- A huge seamless world full of quests and stories.
- In general: no treadmil gaming. I always want to progress, never work on staying at the same spot.
- Deep and complex classes that are ideally easy to start, hard to master. But the hard to master part is more important, I want combat to be a challenge, not just pressing the same button routine over and over and over and over.
- An item focussed game where I can quest for items for long times. For example I needed a full year to finally complete my Palladium Armor for my Death Cleric in Vanguard. I had to raid for a longer time to finish the Ancient Port Warehouse armor for him.
- An economy would be ideally based on overenchanting (you can keep enchanting an item, but every time you do there is a chance it breaks). Definitely no permanent item decay. I also really hate WoW's concept of soulbound (but have to tolerate it in Vanguard, since it fulfills so many of my other requirements).
- A complex and powerful crafting system that allows me to build individual items.
- A sportive and meaningful PvP system that allows me to join whatever player alliance I like, doesnt force me into specific races, and certainly doesnt have full loot.
There is no self direction in a Themepark. The player is directed through the game.
Themepark Game: "You can go here to play, but not there. These choices are dictated to you to enforce game play variety."
There's plenty of self-direction. I listed why 2 posts back.
Players want self-direction in terms of "Here's 7 games; choose which one(s) you want to play!"
Players don't want "Here's an empty world. Uh, I guess you could create your own games so we don't have to."
Basically players want games. A sandbox which is a game first would do well, but the sandboxes we've seen that try to be worlds instead of games have fallen flat on their faces (or inched along with a mediocre existence.)
Who says Sandbox gamers want an empty world? Themepark faithful like yourself, that's who.
And no, players do not want just games. If they did, all your recent Themepark games would be doing great instead of treading water with talk of going FTP within 6 months of release. Players do want worlds. They have been saying so, but Themeparkers like you just will not listen, will not hear them. They have been leaving the genre and you still won't hear them. The only way Themepark games can stay around is to give it away and sucker a few into spending big $'s and a few more in little bites.
The belief that players want a game and don't care about "worlds" is killing the entire genre. You are watching it happen. Go play TOR, and then the next few, watch it happen first hand.
You know Axehilt, I think you're pretty smart, I don't think you're a dumbass. But you sure as hell have a consistent way of acting like one. That's more persistence than we find in your Themepark gamey games these days.
You guys are not disagreeing with each other, just failing to acknowledge each others points.
Exteme make-your own-game sandbox is not going to work, but a Sandbox with some solid gameplay likely will because there is demand for worlds, just not enough to overcome horrible gameplay.
Also, don't assume that because MMORPGs go FTP that they are doing poorly. Considering the saturation of the market, it makes sense that people either stick to what they are already playing or do the Grand Sampler (as I do). Also consider that even games with fleeing customers receive a large amount of money from box sales, similar to single player rpg.
Did Richard Garriot (and associate Devs) browse MMORPG forums to find out what the players wanted when he made UO?
No, he browsed through the existing MUDs. Result ended up approximately the same.
The players splitting hairs over "true" sandboxes comes after the game release.
Devs have to decide what kind of game they want to make before that.
The fight generally starts about the time you bring up death penalties.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
You guys are not disagreeing with each other, just failing to acknowledge each others points.
Exteme make-your own-game sandbox is not going to work, but a Sandbox with some solid gameplay likely will because there is demand for worlds, just not enough to overcome horrible gameplay.
Also, don't assume that because MMORPGs go FTP that they are doing poorly. Considering the saturation of the market, it makes sense that people either stick to what they are already playing or do the Grand Sampler (as I do). Also consider that even games with fleeing customers receive a large amount of money from box sales, similar to single player rpg.
On us disagreeing or not, I think you're mostly right. But it's agravating as hell that everytime I post something Axehilt has to twist what I said around with some bogus arguement.
Your comment on "extreme make-your own-game sandbox" is exactly what I'm talking about here. This is a twisting of goals brought about by Axehilt and a few others who want to kill any idea of this genre going that route. While many Sandboxers have said they want a world where players can change the world, cause things to happen, create "story", they never said they only want that and don't want other game play. Yet that's what's been promoted by these few Themepark love children so as to cut down the idea.
Screw them, many of us are wonderting if they get paid to promote Themeparks. That's how freaking bad it is.
Games do go FTP exactly because they are doing poorly. Why would they change if they were doing well? Do you expect Starbucks to stop selling coppuccino and give it away while offering high priced stir sticks?
And I'll tell you something more. Axehilt works in the industry. He says he's been a game developer for something like 8-10 years. He has a financial interest in promoting what this industry has obviously decided that we are going to get, regardless of what we want. He's here to do exactly that.
I wanted to take two choices. Lack of quality and many having Full PVP loot. This is why I'm not playing a sandbox MMO atm. Sandbox gameplay is my favourite type of gameplay (on paper) though. I love Minecraft and Skyrim for example and SWG when it still existed.
I really enjoy all types of sandbox MMOs but its a pretty simple answer for me. I don't play sandbox MMOs because none out currently are worth my time.
Im not trying to be cute here but ask out of curiosity as I had the same experience with EVE Axehilt had.
What do I need to do in EVE for it to be fun?
Also, why is it not made clear that what I'm experiencing is only 10% and where I get the other 90% of the game?
Is there some tutorial I'm missing?
It depends on what you want to do. Check out this link for an idea of some of the things that you can do in EVE.
There are ingame tutorials and out-of-game tutorials that can help you get started, depending on what you want to do. Here are just a couple of the oof game tutorials, and there are many, many others that are available:
Contact me ingame I can help you get going with ISK and whatever else that you need.
I might have given the wrong impression, I've played EVE on and off since 2007, I'm well familiar with all the -aspects- of the game in the sense of what kind of "jobs" I can do.
Over the years of my sporadic engagement I have joined different corps and tried different jobs, I mined, I hauled, I joined PVP corps and I played wing-commander.
I never managed to stay with the game longer than a month, even though I love the setting and aesthetics.
The problem with this huge chart of yours is, that I don't know what I would consider fun to do, unless I try it. Yet to try any of the jobs (pvp/ratting/mining excluded) it involves -massive- timesinks to get anything of value going.
This is essentially hiding/obscuring 90% of the game from the players, because I just get bored way before I can experience any of the "fun".
Who says Sandbox gamers want an empty world? Themepark faithful like yourself, that's who.
And no, players do not want just games. If they did, all your recent Themepark games would be doing great instead of treading water with talk of going FTP within 6 months of release. Players do want worlds. They have been saying so, but Themeparkers like you just will not listen, will not hear them. They have been leaving the genre and you still won't hear them. The only way Themepark games can stay around is to give it away and sucker a few into spending big $'s and a few more in little bites.
The belief that players want a game and don't care about "worlds" is killing the entire genre. You are watching it happen. Go play TOR, and then the next few, watch it happen first hand.
You know Axehilt, I think you're pretty smart, I don't think you're a dumbass. But you sure as hell have a consistent way of acting like one. That's more persistence than we find in your Themepark gamey games these days.
Sandbox players settle for empty worlds. Empty worlds aren't the desire, and they (and everyone else who hates sandboxes because they're empty and boring) would like a gameplay-focused sandbox much more than the crap they're settling for currently. Sandboxes have potential, but most existing sandboxes are empty, boring crap.
All "my" recent themeparks have been inferiorgames compared to WOW. Inferior in part because they copied WOW, so they provide few (if any) new gameplay patterns. New gameplay patterns are what make games compelling.
I claim no "ownership" of games which mindlessly copy a proven model without knowing what made the model successful. I mean it's better than mindlessly copying a formula which has proven to be un-successful (empty worlds), but in either case the developer is failing to provide a compelling new game. But that's what players want: a compelling new game.
The themepark model as a framework is the best way to provide that new game. Copying every detail of a themepark is the way to provide an old-feeling game where the player feels they've mastered it before they leave the newbie area.
As for Free to Play, that's just outright the superior game model. Any money the player gives prior to playing a game is gained purely through hype and marketing, not gameplay. Meanwhile in a free to play game you're not getting money til the player has fun -- so you better damn well make it fun!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Wow, apparently I am part of the tiny, tiny minority who voted "I like game-generated content, quests etc"! The thought of having to rely on interaction with other players as 100% of the game's content just does not appeal to me. It's the difference between watching a movie or staring our your window. While something entertaining might rarely happen as some girl is walking down the street, movies are made to be entertaining. Same deal. I want to be entertained, and I'm unwilling to play a game where something entertaining might happen once in a while based on what other people are doing.
And I'll tell you something more. Axehilt works in the industry. He says he's been a game developer for something like 8-10 years. He has a financial interest in promoting what this industry has obviously decided that we are going to get, regardless of what we want. He's here to do exactly that.
I have no stake in MMORPGs as a genre.
I merely observe which MMORPGs do well. And they're the same types of gameplay-focused games that do well in any genre. They're not the world- or simulation-focused games that sandboxes try to be.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And I'll tell you something more. Axehilt works in the industry. He says he's been a game developer for something like 8-10 years. He has a financial interest in promoting what this industry has obviously decided that we are going to get, regardless of what we want. He's here to do exactly that.
But do you read Axehilt's posts in a Zealot voice?
And I'll tell you something more. Axehilt works in the industry. He says he's been a game developer for something like 8-10 years. He has a financial interest in promoting what this industry has obviously decided that we are going to get, regardless of what we want. He's here to do exactly that.
I have no stake in MMORPGs as a genre.
I merely observe which MMORPGs do well. And they're the same types of gameplay-focused games that do well in any genre. They're not the world- or simulation-focused games that sandboxes try to be.
Thank goodness there's still some folks who try to make things that are different, regardless of how well other titles sell or the MMO space would become a pretty stale space.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I may be in the minority here but, unless you are a player at or near release, it is not a sandbox FOR YOU. You have entered into a world already created by other players. Essentially, the other players have fashioned a world, economy, politics, etc. which you now participate in. I do not find MUCH of a difference between a world created by other players and one created by a developer.
Hedonismbot: Your latest performance was as delectable as dipping my bottom over and over into a bath of the silkiest oils and creams.
Wow, apparently I am part of the tiny, tiny minority who voted "I like game-generated content, quests etc"! The thought of having to rely on interaction with other players as 100% of the game's content just does not appeal to me. It's the difference between watching a movie or staring our your window. While something entertaining might rarely happen as some girl is walking down the street, movies are made to be entertaining. Same deal. I want to be entertained, and I'm unwilling to play a game where something entertaining might happen once in a while based on what other people are doing.
Agreed, especially since most players in these games are so awful anyhow, I don't want much, if anything to do with them. I have nothing in common with the majority of MMO players, the communities are horrible, why would I want to interact with these asshats in the first place?
Come up with better communities or a better, more intelligent, rational and mature class of player and we'll talk.
Comments
Who said anything about quests? Great moment to moment gameplay can be had with a sandbox, you just have to have the right game mechanics in place.
There weren't quests in SMNC, LoL, Legend of Grimrock, or countless other games I've enjoyed. Quests are by no means a requirement, as long as the core gameplay is inherently enjoyable and varied.
I disagree that you could necessarily say player decisions are better as self-directed things, because in many cases that's objectively false. Unless we're expanding 'self-directed play' to include things like "I can choose to PVP, craft, explore, respec, PVE, Raid, or Dungeon in WOW." (Which is self direction, but I sort of thing you're referring to a more brutally open-ended form of self direction than that.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As to that first part, it's a welcome sight to see you coming around.
On that second part, "I can choose to PVP, craft, explore, respec, PVE, Raid, or Dungeon in WOW." sounds exactly like "decisions" as opposed to "self directed play". You can "decide" to do any of those things in a Themepark. What I'm getting at is that you can make your overall experience what you want instead of a few selections of those "decisions" (edit to add: based on your level) offered in a Themepark.
Once upon a time....
Coming around? I've never suggested quests are an absolute mandate. The nearest I may have ever come to anything close to that is pointing out that quests clearly improved the MMORPG tremendously by enforcing gameplay variety where there used to be endless repetitive mob grinding.
Self directed play is decisions. Choosing what game mechanic(s) to engage with (PVP, PVE, etc) shapes the overall experience. So you're going to have to get a little more detailed than that definition. But as soon as you lock down a tighter definition you invalidate your original statement of suggesting player decisions are automatically going to be better when they're "self direction". If we leave the definition open to accept themepark style "I choose what ride to ride" self-direction, then your original statement is fine.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There is no self direction in a Themepark. The player is directed through the game.
Themepark Game: "You can go here to play, but not there. These choices are dictated to you to enforce game play variety."
Once upon a time....
There's plenty of self-direction. I listed why 2 posts back.
Players want self-direction in terms of "Here's 7 games; choose which one(s) you want to play!"
Players don't want "Here's an empty world. Uh, I guess you could create your own games so we don't have to."
Basically players want games. A sandbox which is a game first would do well, but the sandboxes we've seen that try to be worlds instead of games have fallen flat on their faces (or inched along with a mediocre existence.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There is nothing basically wrong with sandboxes. The core problem is that these games tend to be extremist. No story content at all, add a shallow skillbased rulesystem thats boring to play, has full loot so items are worthless, and then they expect that all that to be "fun". Umm ... nope ?
I want:
- A game that has a challenge and can be played for years.
- A huge seamless world full of quests and stories.
- In general: no treadmil gaming. I always want to progress, never work on staying at the same spot.
- Deep and complex classes that are ideally easy to start, hard to master. But the hard to master part is more important, I want combat to be a challenge, not just pressing the same button routine over and over and over and over.
- An item focussed game where I can quest for items for long times. For example I needed a full year to finally complete my Palladium Armor for my Death Cleric in Vanguard. I had to raid for a longer time to finish the Ancient Port Warehouse armor for him.
- An economy would be ideally based on overenchanting (you can keep enchanting an item, but every time you do there is a chance it breaks). Definitely no permanent item decay. I also really hate WoW's concept of soulbound (but have to tolerate it in Vanguard, since it fulfills so many of my other requirements).
- A complex and powerful crafting system that allows me to build individual items.
- A sportive and meaningful PvP system that allows me to join whatever player alliance I like, doesnt force me into specific races, and certainly doesnt have full loot.
Who says Sandbox gamers want an empty world? Themepark faithful like yourself, that's who.
And no, players do not want just games. If they did, all your recent Themepark games would be doing great instead of treading water with talk of going FTP within 6 months of release. Players do want worlds. They have been saying so, but Themeparkers like you just will not listen, will not hear them. They have been leaving the genre and you still won't hear them. The only way Themepark games can stay around is to give it away and sucker a few into spending big $'s and a few more in little bites.
The belief that players want a game and don't care about "worlds" is killing the entire genre. You are watching it happen. Go play TOR, and then the next few, watch it happen first hand.
You know Axehilt, I think you're pretty smart, I don't think you're a dumbass. But you sure as hell have a consistent way of acting like one. That's more persistence than we find in your Themepark gamey games these days.
Once upon a time....
You guys are not disagreeing with each other, just failing to acknowledge each others points.
Exteme make-your own-game sandbox is not going to work, but a Sandbox with some solid gameplay likely will because there is demand for worlds, just not enough to overcome horrible gameplay.
Also, don't assume that because MMORPGs go FTP that they are doing poorly. Considering the saturation of the market, it makes sense that people either stick to what they are already playing or do the Grand Sampler (as I do). Also consider that even games with fleeing customers receive a large amount of money from box sales, similar to single player rpg.
Indie and lack of quality is my main reason why i don't play them currently (i've played DF for quite some time)
Hopefully ArcheAge will change the quality part of them and i'll finally be able to call a sandbox my home!
No, he browsed through the existing MUDs. Result ended up approximately the same.
The players splitting hairs over "true" sandboxes comes after the game release.
Devs have to decide what kind of game they want to make before that.
The fight generally starts about the time you bring up death penalties.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I'd argue that EQ was more of the evolution of MUDs, but maybe that's just the ones I played.
On us disagreeing or not, I think you're mostly right. But it's agravating as hell that everytime I post something Axehilt has to twist what I said around with some bogus arguement.
Your comment on "extreme make-your own-game sandbox" is exactly what I'm talking about here. This is a twisting of goals brought about by Axehilt and a few others who want to kill any idea of this genre going that route. While many Sandboxers have said they want a world where players can change the world, cause things to happen, create "story", they never said they only want that and don't want other game play. Yet that's what's been promoted by these few Themepark love children so as to cut down the idea.
Screw them, many of us are wonderting if they get paid to promote Themeparks. That's how freaking bad it is.
Games do go FTP exactly because they are doing poorly. Why would they change if they were doing well? Do you expect Starbucks to stop selling coppuccino and give it away while offering high priced stir sticks?
Once upon a time....
Once upon a time....
"I play Tera for the gameplay"
I might have given the wrong impression, I've played EVE on and off since 2007, I'm well familiar with all the -aspects- of the game in the sense of what kind of "jobs" I can do.
Over the years of my sporadic engagement I have joined different corps and tried different jobs, I mined, I hauled, I joined PVP corps and I played wing-commander.
I never managed to stay with the game longer than a month, even though I love the setting and aesthetics.
The problem with this huge chart of yours is, that I don't know what I would consider fun to do, unless I try it. Yet to try any of the jobs (pvp/ratting/mining excluded) it involves -massive- timesinks to get anything of value going.
This is essentially hiding/obscuring 90% of the game from the players, because I just get bored way before I can experience any of the "fun".
Sandboxes are eiher :
a) underfinanced, understaffed and unfinished indie game
b) old
c) a + b
d) EvE Online
Don't really like either of those options so that's why I don't play them atm and at last few years.
Sandbox players settle for empty worlds. Empty worlds aren't the desire, and they (and everyone else who hates sandboxes because they're empty and boring) would like a gameplay-focused sandbox much more than the crap they're settling for currently. Sandboxes have potential, but most existing sandboxes are empty, boring crap.
All "my" recent themeparks have been inferior games compared to WOW. Inferior in part because they copied WOW, so they provide few (if any) new gameplay patterns. New gameplay patterns are what make games compelling.
I claim no "ownership" of games which mindlessly copy a proven model without knowing what made the model successful. I mean it's better than mindlessly copying a formula which has proven to be un-successful (empty worlds), but in either case the developer is failing to provide a compelling new game. But that's what players want: a compelling new game.
The themepark model as a framework is the best way to provide that new game. Copying every detail of a themepark is the way to provide an old-feeling game where the player feels they've mastered it before they leave the newbie area.
As for Free to Play, that's just outright the superior game model. Any money the player gives prior to playing a game is gained purely through hype and marketing, not gameplay. Meanwhile in a free to play game you're not getting money til the player has fun -- so you better damn well make it fun!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I have no stake in MMORPGs as a genre.
I merely observe which MMORPGs do well. And they're the same types of gameplay-focused games that do well in any genre. They're not the world- or simulation-focused games that sandboxes try to be.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But do you read Axehilt's posts in a Zealot voice?
Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent
Thank goodness there's still some folks who try to make things that are different, regardless of how well other titles sell or the MMO space would become a pretty stale space.
Oh wait... we're already there... nevermind.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Hedonismbot: Your latest performance was as delectable as dipping my bottom over and over into a bath of the silkiest oils and creams.
Agreed, especially since most players in these games are so awful anyhow, I don't want much, if anything to do with them. I have nothing in common with the majority of MMO players, the communities are horrible, why would I want to interact with these asshats in the first place?
Come up with better communities or a better, more intelligent, rational and mature class of player and we'll talk.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None