Permanence is not going to happen, what with new developments in game programming, and the fickleness of the gmaing population. Long-term staying power ought to be achieveable, but most of the newer MMO's have lacked such. Even my most played game did not hold me more than 3 years, but to be fair, the company stopped development for it. I keep hoping. However, when most new games are disappointing, it is not hard to understand why people don't stick around.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Permanence need not be interpreted as forever, just a good MMORPG maybe ought to have a steady, profitable 6 to 8 year run. The length of time makes players' investments into their characters worthwhile. Perhaps this is how MMORPG's are so different than single player or coop games.
I wonder, maybe, if MMORPG's are not for the game-hopping folks. Maybe single player or coop is more down their alley.
As a game-hopper, I can definitely state that I love MMOs. It's not necessarily something a 1-game-every-8-years player could be expected to understand, but you can be assured that it's true.
I'd also argue that if the average gamer basically played one game per decade, the industry would probably implode. Who would invest in a new MMO when you have to wait for the last one to die of old age? How would a new indie game get any subscribers when people were still on year 4 of 8?
If GW2 comes out this year, should the industry sort of hold off on MMOs until 2020?
I'd also argue that if the average gamer basically played one game per decade, the industry would probably implode. Who would invest in a new MMO when you have to wait for the last one to die of old age? How would a new indie game get any subscribers when people were still on year 4 of 8?
Probably the best argument I've ever heard, but if it meant they would stop flooding the market with the same shit, over and over again, I would rather see another crash ala Atari circa 1983.
It paved the way for the NES, with arguably one of the best game lineups aside from the PS2.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Ok, so EQ and UO have communities. What about DAOC? City of Heroes? LOTRO? DDO? Champions Online? GW1? All of those games have people who still love them and play them. With the possible exception of DDO, all of them have significant long-term, end-game play. I've heard of people who spend 9000 hours in GW1, that is clearly a long-term commitment.
Let's look at the recent and upcoming crop of MMOs, the ones supposedly designed with the casual player in mind. Rift - arguably more raid-centric than EQ. TERA - a political structure that lets players actually compete to see who runs the world. GW2 - designed from the ground up to make content viable, challenging and replayable from low-level to cap.
These aren't throwaway games any more than the elder crop is. No one can seriously believe the creators of these games expect people to play for 4 months and bail. I see much lamenting over the transitory nature of MMO games, but I'm hard-pressed to find any games that actually are transitory.
If a game is designed as a linear single player or coop adventure, then replay is severely limited. If a game is designed as an environment, where players create their own adventures by their choices in deciding where to explore, what dungeons to go to, etc... then replay is enhanced.
Linear design KILLS an MMORPG. Yet the big dev houses keep churning these disasters out, one after another.
I'll assume that you're excluding GW1 (coop adventure), since it has been going strong for 6 years. City of Heroes (8 years old), is just ridiculously themepark (in a good way).
In any case, perhaps an example would help. Which of the games I mentioned were killed by their linear design? Or pick one I didn't mention. If the devs are churning them out, there should be many examples.
edit: No fair picking SWTOR, I'll fully grant it was a travesty of linear, derivative design. A great story stuck on tiny rails.
I'd also argue that if the average gamer basically played one game per decade, the industry would probably implode. Who would invest in a new MMO when you have to wait for the last one to die of old age? How would a new indie game get any subscribers when people were still on year 4 of 8?
Probably the best argument I've ever heard, but if it meant they would stop flooding the market with the same shit, over and over again, I would rather see another crash ala Atari circa 1983.
It paved the way for the NES, with arguably one of the best game lineups aside from the PS2.
I hear you, but I'd worry that it wouldn't recover. I used to love good simulation games, and for a while we were getting some classics. Jane's Longbow, Sonanalyst's 688(i), iL Sturmovik, and the flawed masterpiece, Falcon 4. Much like the MMO space, the success of those games spawned a lot of crappy imitators (looking at you Combat Flight Simulator and OMFG Novalogic anything).
Unfortunately, now that the genre is dead, I realize that crappy imitations only happen when the space is vibrant and flourishing. There was money to be made, and some developers went for the quick buck. In retrospect, I would fly every sh*tty, arcadey sim on the market, if I could have one more Janes.
Pardon me for a second, I'm going to dig out my 400-page Falcon manual and weep. ^_^
It ain't the same. Now, if short term casual gaming is your thing, fine. No one is keeping you from that, and in fact most games cater to players like yourself.
But, for folks who want a deeper, more immersive experience, with longer term social bonding, the MMORPG as a world setting is the way to go. This sort of game is needed... again.
Longer != deeper
Longer != more immersive.
SKYRIM is pretty immersive .. no one is going to play it for years.
In fact, i would play MANY MMOs on the market today. However, none of which i will play for more than a few month (may be at most a year), except WOW. WOW is phenomenal holding my attention for more a few years. I don't expect to play it much more though.
Did you ever play early Everquest? There was a first person view, which after awhile was like seeing through your own eyes (more immersive, even though I prefer 3rd person now so I can see the bling on my character).
The sting of dying made traveling through dangerous zones sort of a rush. Again, very immersive.
And the time building your character and playing long-term, this drew you in as well, especially the in-game friends and allies.
I think, just like with the AOL chatrooms of old, playing a MMORPG long-term makes you log in, not just to complete a quest, but to see what's new going on and what everyone is up to. ("GM event going on in RO, you say? Let's get everyone and head over there.")
Yes, I played EQ since beta for more than 1 year. Very boring game compared to modern MMOs, and actionRPGs. And dying is not immersive .. just plain frustrating. Camping is worse though.
Community is not a reason (for me) to hold onto a boring game. Plus, community is not game dependent. Most of my WOW friends are playing Diablo 3 now. No one says you can't play with the same people in more than 1 game.
Which is a good example of the changes in community type. Community isn't just who you know, its who you don't know. For those who remember say...Vanilla WoW, the difference is night and day. When WoW was new, the same people were around. You knew who the top guilds were, top raid leaders, other players you could either mentor or protege. You heard of people by word of mouth, not from reading leaders boards or forum posts.
Its not so different from living in the real world, if, for example, you lived in the same community for many years. You end up knowing something about the guy at the end of the street, or maybe even meeting and becoming friends.
I'm not suggesting anybody play a game that is boring, far from it. I'm merely suggesting that moving on from game to game does not foster online communities, unless we consider (as you have mentioned) services that pull communites together in different ways, ala facebook, battlenet, steam, etc.
Maybe that is the future of online games: whatever developer can successfully foster a community around a variety of games, creating a higher form of permanence than mere "tracks in the sand" within a virtual world?
Community is not that special. Facebook has one. Any social network has one. So what if there is some word of mouth. If the end result is that i have someone good to play with, do i care if i heard of him from a guildie? Or because i bumped into him before in another game? I think not.
The idea that a game has to have a virtual world of permance is flawed. Just that our world is like that .. does not mean that a game needs to be like that.
You can have many independent type of permance. Diablo 3 has permance in characters & items. Battlenet has permance in friend list. If the goal is to have friends (online & offline) to adventure with, permanence in a virtual world is not necessary. Heck, WOW is implementing cross-realm LFD/raid now .. a good example of you can have a social network extend beyond a single world.
I'd also argue that if the average gamer basically played one game per decade, the industry would probably implode. Who would invest in a new MMO when you have to wait for the last one to die of old age? How would a new indie game get any subscribers when people were still on year 4 of 8?
Probably the best argument I've ever heard, but if it meant they would stop flooding the market with the same shit, over and over again, I would rather see another crash ala Atari circa 1983.
It paved the way for the NES, with arguably one of the best game lineups aside from the PS2.
I agree. The industry going under to make way for something better... I would not be opposed to that, but there is no guarantee what follows is better or worse lol. You can almost see it coming though. With the flood of F2P titles, subscriptions going out of style, cash shops, big companies like EA cutting staff, Nexon buying everything they can get their hands on, indie games gaining ground... it's getting to look real interesting (in a strange way) anyways.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
The idea that a game has to have a virtual world of permance is flawed.
You are drawing a false dichotomy here.
Can a game with no social bonds and no saved games possibly be fun? Yes.
Do social bonds improve the experience for some people? Yes.
Can the accumulated history of a world in its databases be leveraged to improve the overall experience? Yes (I assert).
Now, if you want to argue that it's not a priority for you, then fine. If you want to argue that it is impractical to leverage (cost, difficulty, etc), then we're in the grey area that this thread as asking about. But if you are arguing that permanence is never a desirable quality then, well ... I want it therefore you are wrong. Q.E.D.
The idea that a game has to have a virtual world of permance is flawed.
You are drawing a false dichotomy here.
Can a game with no social bonds and no saved games possibly be fun? Yes.
Do social bonds improve the experience for some people? Yes.
Can the accumulated history of a world in its databases be leveraged to improve the overall experience? Yes.
Now, if you want to argue that it's not a priority for you, then fine. If you want to argue that it is impractical to leverage (cost, difficulty, etc), then we're in a grey area. But if you are arguing that permanence is never a desirable quality then, well ... I want it therefore you are wrong. Q.E.D.
Read my statement very careful. ".. has to have .. is flawed". Thus, a vritual world is NOT requierd to have some permanence and to fulfill the purpose of a game .. to be good entertainment.
There are plenty of examples of non virtual world games that have some permanence & social network.
I never said no one desires a virtual world. Some obviously do. Some obviously don't.
I'd also argue that if the average gamer basically played one game per decade, the industry would probably implode. Who would invest in a new MMO when you have to wait for the last one to die of old age? How would a new indie game get any subscribers when people were still on year 4 of 8?
Probably the best argument I've ever heard, but if it meant they would stop flooding the market with the same shit, over and over again, I would rather see another crash ala Atari circa 1983.
It paved the way for the NES, with arguably one of the best game lineups aside from the PS2.
I agree. The industry going under to make way for something better... I would not be opposed to that, but there is no guarantee what follows is better or worse lol. You can almost see it coming though. With the flood of F2P titles, subscriptions going out of style, cash shops, big companies like EA cutting staff, Nexon buying everything they can get their hands on, indie games gaining ground... it's getting to look real interesting (in a strange way) anyways.
So what if the market is flooded with the same shit? You are not required to play. You can always ignore the stuff you do not like.
If there are 1000 WOW clones with minor variations, who says it is not a good idea for a player to be able to choose the variation of WOW clone he like the most. Who says we cannot simply ignore the other 999?
I'd also argue that if the average gamer basically played one game per decade, the industry would probably implode. Who would invest in a new MMO when you have to wait for the last one to die of old age? How would a new indie game get any subscribers when people were still on year 4 of 8?
Probably the best argument I've ever heard, but if it meant they would stop flooding the market with the same shit, over and over again, I would rather see another crash ala Atari circa 1983.
It paved the way for the NES, with arguably one of the best game lineups aside from the PS2.
I agree. The industry going under to make way for something better... I would not be opposed to that, but there is no guarantee what follows is better or worse lol. You can almost see it coming though. With the flood of F2P titles, subscriptions going out of style, cash shops, big companies like EA cutting staff, Nexon buying everything they can get their hands on, indie games gaining ground... it's getting to look real interesting (in a strange way) anyways.
So what if the market is flooded with the same shit? You are not required to play. You can always ignore the stuff you do not like.
If there are 1000 WOW clones with minor variations, who says it is not a good idea for a player to be able to choose the variation of WOW clone he like the most. Who says we cannot simply ignore the other 999?
I already do that now lol. But my personal preference alone will not change the current trends. Not really a problem for me really though, or my point. I'm just saying things are heating up and I believe there is A LOT of change still to come. It's interesting. I don't know for sure if anything big will come out of all these stories, but it is really fun to talk about!
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
I'd also argue that if the average gamer basically played one game per decade, the industry would probably implode. Who would invest in a new MMO when you have to wait for the last one to die of old age? How would a new indie game get any subscribers when people were still on year 4 of 8?
Probably the best argument I've ever heard, but if it meant they would stop flooding the market with the same shit, over and over again, I would rather see another crash ala Atari circa 1983.
It paved the way for the NES, with arguably one of the best game lineups aside from the PS2.
I agree. The industry going under to make way for something better... I would not be opposed to that, but there is no guarantee what follows is better or worse lol. You can almost see it coming though. With the flood of F2P titles, subscriptions going out of style, cash shops, big companies like EA cutting staff, Nexon buying everything they can get their hands on, indie games gaining ground... it's getting to look real interesting (in a strange way) anyways.
So what if the market is flooded with the same shit? You are not required to play. You can always ignore the stuff you do not like.
If there are 1000 WOW clones with minor variations, who says it is not a good idea for a player to be able to choose the variation of WOW clone he like the most. Who says we cannot simply ignore the other 999?
Funny post, reminds me of the model T
"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."
lol
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
I was recently struck by a comment in another thread that players should, when they reach the "end" of an MMO, simply move on to another game. "Follow the fun" is normally a rather straight-forward and obvious suggestion (I may have even tossed it out myself once or twice), but this time I had a strong visceral reaction to the idea - it seemed horribly, horribly wrong as a suggestion for an MMO. Although I don't always come out and say it, in the back of my mind, I feel that MMOs should aspire the hold their players for a lifetime, that they should aspire to still be online a hundred years from now, although they might not bare much resemblence to their 1.0 state.
I am not still playing the first MMO I ever played. Or the second. But the first game I ever played is still online, still running and in the back of my mind, I keep expecting that someday I'll revisit it and look for old footprints of the past. And even as I wander, I still keep expecting that I will find a game that I will play for the rest of my life. You see, to me, what really differentiates an MMO from an ordinary video game is not massively, it's not even the multiplayer - it's the permanence. It's the database I care about in the end, that sense that my gameplay is a part of contributing data to something that will last forever.
In terms of moment-to-moment fun, suitability to my playstyle interests or even graphics quality, there are probably better games out there than the ones I'm currently playing. But what these new ambitious games pouring out often lack is that sense that their world is sustainable - that the game will still be online and actively evolving in a year, in five years, in ten years.
So ... Is the sense of permanence an important consideration in your choice of MMOs? Or am I just being a little eccentric?
Permanence is the most important reason why Diablo2 is much better than D3. It means your character is special. Not generic and like all other characters. You created him and that makes a difference... Stats, skills, gear and the combination of it all is You. That feeling makes you want to continue playing.
In a good MMORPG you will feel the same way. Your character is special and perhaps your role in the persistant world is also unique. This makes the game feel like a virtual home. That is the difference between what I think deserves to be called a real MMORPG and the typical quest hubs on rails lobby game. To feel that you are special and part of a virtual world... The modern action games are shallow. Finish the content and find the next game...
But perhaps someone will release a good game that is worth playing for more than 2 weeks...One can hope...
Read my statement very careful. ".. has to have .. is flawed". Thus, a vritual world is NOT requierd to have some permanence and to fulfill the purpose of a game .. to be good entertainment.
So ... you believe we have been asserting that *all* games have to have permanence?
Read my statement very careful. ".. has to have .. is flawed". Thus, a vritual world is NOT requierd to have some permanence and to fulfill the purpose of a game .. to be good entertainment.
So ... you believe we have been asserting that *all* games have to have permanence?
No .. i believe you have been asserting that all MMOs have to have permanence .. or at least world permanence is important (i.e. read the title of this thread).
And i don't think so. MMORPGs are GAMES. They don't have to have a single world permanence to be good. Hence cross-realm stuff is ok. Hence phasing is ok. Hence instances are ok.
I'd also argue that if the average gamer basically played one game per decade, the industry would probably implode. Who would invest in a new MMO when you have to wait for the last one to die of old age? How would a new indie game get any subscribers when people were still on year 4 of 8?
Probably the best argument I've ever heard, but if it meant they would stop flooding the market with the same shit, over and over again, I would rather see another crash ala Atari circa 1983.
It paved the way for the NES, with arguably one of the best game lineups aside from the PS2.
I agree. The industry going under to make way for something better... I would not be opposed to that, but there is no guarantee what follows is better or worse lol. You can almost see it coming though. With the flood of F2P titles, subscriptions going out of style, cash shops, big companies like EA cutting staff, Nexon buying everything they can get their hands on, indie games gaining ground... it's getting to look real interesting (in a strange way) anyways.
So what if the market is flooded with the same shit? You are not required to play. You can always ignore the stuff you do not like.
If there are 1000 WOW clones with minor variations, who says it is not a good idea for a player to be able to choose the variation of WOW clone he like the most. Who says we cannot simply ignore the other 999?
I already do that now lol. But my personal preference alone will not change the current trends. Not really a problem for me really though, or my point. I'm just saying things are heating up and I believe there is A LOT of change still to come. It's interesting. I don't know for sure if anything big will come out of all these stories, but it is really fun to talk about!
No. None of us will change trends. More importantly, the trend is not bad for individual consumers. So what if there are a lot of clone-shit. There are enough indie & non-clone stuff to choose from, if you so desire.
It is a large world. There is no end to the amount of games & entertaniment. Just like the iOS app store. 99% of the stuff on it are prob crap. However, there are like 600k apps on there. Even 1% (6000!!!) of good stuff is more than i can consume.
I'd also argue that if the average gamer basically played one game per decade, the industry would probably implode. Who would invest in a new MMO when you have to wait for the last one to die of old age? How would a new indie game get any subscribers when people were still on year 4 of 8?
Probably the best argument I've ever heard, but if it meant they would stop flooding the market with the same shit, over and over again, I would rather see another crash ala Atari circa 1983.
It paved the way for the NES, with arguably one of the best game lineups aside from the PS2.
I agree. The industry going under to make way for something better... I would not be opposed to that, but there is no guarantee what follows is better or worse lol. You can almost see it coming though. With the flood of F2P titles, subscriptions going out of style, cash shops, big companies like EA cutting staff, Nexon buying everything they can get their hands on, indie games gaining ground... it's getting to look real interesting (in a strange way) anyways.
So what if the market is flooded with the same shit? You are not required to play. You can always ignore the stuff you do not like.
If there are 1000 WOW clones with minor variations, who says it is not a good idea for a player to be able to choose the variation of WOW clone he like the most. Who says we cannot simply ignore the other 999?
I already do that now lol. But my personal preference alone will not change the current trends. Not really a problem for me really though, or my point. I'm just saying things are heating up and I believe there is A LOT of change still to come. It's interesting. I don't know for sure if anything big will come out of all these stories, but it is really fun to talk about!
No. None of us will change trends. More importantly, the trend is not bad for individual consumers. So what if there are a lot of clone-shit. There are enough indie & non-clone stuff to choose from, if you so desire.
It is a large world. There is no end to the amount of games & entertaniment. Just like the iOS app store. 99% of the stuff on it are prob crap. However, there are like 600k apps on there. Even 1% (6000!!!) of good stuff is more than i can consume.
Perhaps there are no AAA games that are intended to be virtual worlds and a virtual home. Why should people that prefer that have to play games that are unfinished, low quality, buggy and without polish?
There are a lot of games. But how many are high quality?
I want to have fun and play the type of game I like. I dont want to play something that is broken and a work in progress that will probably never work as intended. Some of those indie companies have good intentions and a great vision. But that will not help if the game is terrible anyway.
No .. i believe you have been asserting that all MMOs have to have permanence .. or at least world permanence is important (i.e. read the title of this thread).
And i don't think so. MMORPGs are GAMES. They don't have to have a single world permanence to be good. Hence cross-realm stuff is ok. Hence phasing is ok. Hence instances are ok.
Whoa, whoa, whoa ... cross-realm, phasing and instances? Where did these come from? Ah, the side discussion of community ...oh, you think this is about *that* old flamewar when I mention permanence. ug. Ok no, our thoughts are apparently off in completely different conversations.
No .. i believe you have been asserting that all MMOs have to have permanence .. or at least world permanence is important (i.e. read the title of this thread).
And i don't think so. MMORPGs are GAMES. They don't have to have a single world permanence to be good. Hence cross-realm stuff is ok. Hence phasing is ok. Hence instances are ok.
Whoa, whoa, whoa ... cross-realm, phasing and instances? Where did these come from? Ah, the side discussion of community ...oh, you think this is about *that* old flamewar when I mention permanence. ug. Ok no, our thoughts are apparently off in completely different conversations.
I already do that now lol. But my personal preference alone will not change the current trends. Not really a problem for me really though, or my point. I'm just saying things are heating up and I believe there is A LOT of change still to come. It's interesting. I don't know for sure if anything big will come out of all these stories, but it is really fun to talk about!
No. None of us will change trends. More importantly, the trend is not bad for individual consumers. So what if there are a lot of clone-shit. There are enough indie & non-clone stuff to choose from, if you so desire.
It is a large world. There is no end to the amount of games & entertaniment. Just like the iOS app store. 99% of the stuff on it are prob crap. However, there are like 600k apps on there. Even 1% (6000!!!) of good stuff is more than i can consume.
"Enough" is very debatable. That being said, I can always look outside the MMO genre if I can't get my fix from within it, which I have been happily doing for a while now.
I can't argue with the quantity and even quality of certain app games. Some are indeed great. But they aren't typically MMOs and rarely (if ever) provide a lengthy experience. If I'm looking for a 10-minute time waster, that's where I turn. If I'm looking for a lengthy play period, I'm most likely looking at a platform other than a mobile device.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
I already do that now lol. But my personal preference alone will not change the current trends. Not really a problem for me really though, or my point. I'm just saying things are heating up and I believe there is A LOT of change still to come. It's interesting. I don't know for sure if anything big will come out of all these stories, but it is really fun to talk about!
No. None of us will change trends. More importantly, the trend is not bad for individual consumers. So what if there are a lot of clone-shit. There are enough indie & non-clone stuff to choose from, if you so desire.
It is a large world. There is no end to the amount of games & entertaniment. Just like the iOS app store. 99% of the stuff on it are prob crap. However, there are like 600k apps on there. Even 1% (6000!!!) of good stuff is more than i can consume.
"Enough" is very debatable. That being said, I can always look outside the MMO genre if I can't get my fix from within it, which I have been happily doing for a while now.
I can't argue with the quantity and even quality of certain app games. Some are indeed great. But they aren't typically MMOs and rarely (if ever) provide a lengthy experience. If I'm looking for a 10-minute time waster, that's where I turn. If I'm looking for a lengthy play period, I'm most likely looking at a platform other than a mobile device.
"Enough" for ME .. that is not debatable. If we *just* talk about MMOs (or games close enough to be listed on this site), i won't even have enough time to play Diablo 3, WOW, DCUO and SD Gundam Capsule fighter.
I probably will give up on WOW after my annual pass is up (because i have played it for so long .. every game ends).
If you add up app store, single player games, MMOs (and i am not even counting my other hobbies like sci-fi novels & anime), there are MORE than enough stuff to keep me occupied. Often i have to choose.
BTW, tons of APP store games are pretty long. Do you know that Bard's Tale (the action RPG) is on the iOS? Just Infinitely Blade 1 & 2 are a huge time waster.
Comments
Permanence is not going to happen, what with new developments in game programming, and the fickleness of the gmaing population. Long-term staying power ought to be achieveable, but most of the newer MMO's have lacked such. Even my most played game did not hold me more than 3 years, but to be fair, the company stopped development for it. I keep hoping. However, when most new games are disappointing, it is not hard to understand why people don't stick around.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
As a game-hopper, I can definitely state that I love MMOs. It's not necessarily something a 1-game-every-8-years player could be expected to understand, but you can be assured that it's true.
I'd also argue that if the average gamer basically played one game per decade, the industry would probably implode. Who would invest in a new MMO when you have to wait for the last one to die of old age? How would a new indie game get any subscribers when people were still on year 4 of 8?
If GW2 comes out this year, should the industry sort of hold off on MMOs until 2020?
Probably the best argument I've ever heard, but if it meant they would stop flooding the market with the same shit, over and over again, I would rather see another crash ala Atari circa 1983.
It paved the way for the NES, with arguably one of the best game lineups aside from the PS2.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
I'll assume that you're excluding GW1 (coop adventure), since it has been going strong for 6 years. City of Heroes (8 years old), is just ridiculously themepark (in a good way).
In any case, perhaps an example would help. Which of the games I mentioned were killed by their linear design? Or pick one I didn't mention. If the devs are churning them out, there should be many examples.
edit: No fair picking SWTOR, I'll fully grant it was a travesty of linear, derivative design. A great story stuck on tiny rails.
I hear you, but I'd worry that it wouldn't recover. I used to love good simulation games, and for a while we were getting some classics. Jane's Longbow, Sonanalyst's 688(i), iL Sturmovik, and the flawed masterpiece, Falcon 4. Much like the MMO space, the success of those games spawned a lot of crappy imitators (looking at you Combat Flight Simulator and OMFG Novalogic anything).
Unfortunately, now that the genre is dead, I realize that crappy imitations only happen when the space is vibrant and flourishing. There was money to be made, and some developers went for the quick buck. In retrospect, I would fly every sh*tty, arcadey sim on the market, if I could have one more Janes.
Pardon me for a second, I'm going to dig out my 400-page Falcon manual and weep. ^_^
Yes, I played EQ since beta for more than 1 year. Very boring game compared to modern MMOs, and actionRPGs. And dying is not immersive .. just plain frustrating. Camping is worse though.
Community is not that special. Facebook has one. Any social network has one. So what if there is some word of mouth. If the end result is that i have someone good to play with, do i care if i heard of him from a guildie? Or because i bumped into him before in another game? I think not.
The idea that a game has to have a virtual world of permance is flawed. Just that our world is like that .. does not mean that a game needs to be like that.
You can have many independent type of permance. Diablo 3 has permance in characters & items. Battlenet has permance in friend list. If the goal is to have friends (online & offline) to adventure with, permanence in a virtual world is not necessary. Heck, WOW is implementing cross-realm LFD/raid now .. a good example of you can have a social network extend beyond a single world.
I agree. The industry going under to make way for something better... I would not be opposed to that, but there is no guarantee what follows is better or worse lol. You can almost see it coming though. With the flood of F2P titles, subscriptions going out of style, cash shops, big companies like EA cutting staff, Nexon buying everything they can get their hands on, indie games gaining ground... it's getting to look real interesting (in a strange way) anyways.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
You are drawing a false dichotomy here.
Can a game with no social bonds and no saved games possibly be fun? Yes.
Do social bonds improve the experience for some people? Yes.
Can the accumulated history of a world in its databases be leveraged to improve the overall experience? Yes (I assert).
Now, if you want to argue that it's not a priority for you, then fine. If you want to argue that it is impractical to leverage (cost, difficulty, etc), then we're in the grey area that this thread as asking about. But if you are arguing that permanence is never a desirable quality then, well ... I want it therefore you are wrong. Q.E.D.
Read my statement very careful. ".. has to have .. is flawed". Thus, a vritual world is NOT requierd to have some permanence and to fulfill the purpose of a game .. to be good entertainment.
There are plenty of examples of non virtual world games that have some permanence & social network.
I never said no one desires a virtual world. Some obviously do. Some obviously don't.
So what if the market is flooded with the same shit? You are not required to play. You can always ignore the stuff you do not like.
If there are 1000 WOW clones with minor variations, who says it is not a good idea for a player to be able to choose the variation of WOW clone he like the most. Who says we cannot simply ignore the other 999?
I already do that now lol. But my personal preference alone will not change the current trends. Not really a problem for me really though, or my point. I'm just saying things are heating up and I believe there is A LOT of change still to come. It's interesting. I don't know for sure if anything big will come out of all these stories, but it is really fun to talk about!
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Funny post, reminds me of the model T
"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."
lol
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
-The MMO Forum Community
Permanence is the most important reason why Diablo2 is much better than D3. It means your character is special. Not generic and like all other characters. You created him and that makes a difference... Stats, skills, gear and the combination of it all is You. That feeling makes you want to continue playing.
In a good MMORPG you will feel the same way. Your character is special and perhaps your role in the persistant world is also unique. This makes the game feel like a virtual home. That is the difference between what I think deserves to be called a real MMORPG and the typical quest hubs on rails lobby game. To feel that you are special and part of a virtual world... The modern action games are shallow. Finish the content and find the next game...
But perhaps someone will release a good game that is worth playing for more than 2 weeks...One can hope...
So ... you believe we have been asserting that *all* games have to have permanence?
No .. i believe you have been asserting that all MMOs have to have permanence .. or at least world permanence is important (i.e. read the title of this thread).
And i don't think so. MMORPGs are GAMES. They don't have to have a single world permanence to be good. Hence cross-realm stuff is ok. Hence phasing is ok. Hence instances are ok.
No. None of us will change trends. More importantly, the trend is not bad for individual consumers. So what if there are a lot of clone-shit. There are enough indie & non-clone stuff to choose from, if you so desire.
It is a large world. There is no end to the amount of games & entertaniment. Just like the iOS app store. 99% of the stuff on it are prob crap. However, there are like 600k apps on there. Even 1% (6000!!!) of good stuff is more than i can consume.
Perhaps there are no AAA games that are intended to be virtual worlds and a virtual home. Why should people that prefer that have to play games that are unfinished, low quality, buggy and without polish?
There are a lot of games. But how many are high quality?
I want to have fun and play the type of game I like. I dont want to play something that is broken and a work in progress that will probably never work as intended. Some of those indie companies have good intentions and a great vision. But that will not help if the game is terrible anyway.
Whoa, whoa, whoa ... cross-realm, phasing and instances? Where did these come from? Ah, the side discussion of community ...oh, you think this is about *that* old flamewar when I mention permanence. ug. Ok no, our thoughts are apparently off in completely different conversations.
Enough to keep me entertained for a long time?
Arkam City, Spec Ops, COD, Diablo 3, SKYRIM, DCUO... there are more games than i have time to play now.
"Enough" is very debatable. That being said, I can always look outside the MMO genre if I can't get my fix from within it, which I have been happily doing for a while now.
I can't argue with the quantity and even quality of certain app games. Some are indeed great. But they aren't typically MMOs and rarely (if ever) provide a lengthy experience. If I'm looking for a 10-minute time waster, that's where I turn. If I'm looking for a lengthy play period, I'm most likely looking at a platform other than a mobile device.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
"Enough" for ME .. that is not debatable. If we *just* talk about MMOs (or games close enough to be listed on this site), i won't even have enough time to play Diablo 3, WOW, DCUO and SD Gundam Capsule fighter.
I probably will give up on WOW after my annual pass is up (because i have played it for so long .. every game ends).
If you add up app store, single player games, MMOs (and i am not even counting my other hobbies like sci-fi novels & anime), there are MORE than enough stuff to keep me occupied. Often i have to choose.
BTW, tons of APP store games are pretty long. Do you know that Bard's Tale (the action RPG) is on the iOS? Just Infinitely Blade 1 & 2 are a huge time waster.
Developers have lately been misrepresenting their titles as MMOs. It's pretty much as simple as that.
That is just semantics. Most MMOs are going F2P anyway, and there is not much point pretending to be a MMO.