The market is huge and may still be expanding. Going into a direction you do not like != dead.
In fact, i think it is becoming MORE ALIVE, solving all the old problems (like camping & finding groups with instances & LFD/LFR), while giving a large part of the games to the players for FREE.
It is getting BETTER.
the genre is dead. not the market. the business of taking old console game concepts into the mmo space is huge. the genre that attempted to make virtual worlds is dead.
Yeh. The genre of virtual world is dead. But MMOs are NOT virtual worlds anymore. They are lobby based co-op games .. and this genre is flourishing.
Then they should call them what they are with a different name or acronym for that new name and not MMORPG. Because they aren't. There is nothing "Massively Multiplayer" about them. It'll also make it easier to avoid them without having to wade through all the hype text to find out what kind of game it really is.
I would not since they do largely have a game world that is largely just one instance of the ggame that everyone plays on for that server, even if they do have some phasing in that world i see it as a method of showing change that would happen from both time an the effect the player/s had on that part of the world. The instances of content like dungeons are more personal experinces that would be slightly different for each player going thru them, but what happened or rather the outcome would still be largely the same regardless of which player did the instance. The world at large though can an normally does hold a massive number of players, even if that number is spread out only in certain area (in the real world massive numbers of people actually do congergate in cities, and many of those people only have a small effect on each other.), and also allows for players to enteract with any of those players in that game world as little or as much as they deem they need to. Also in what way do you have to enact with every ther player in the game for it to be a massive multi-player, when in truth just having the ability to interact with a massive number of player in a game world would be actually how most people see the meaning of "mmo" being.
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time understanding the point you are trying to make. So, I'll try to clarify what I posted instead.
I'm saying that MMORPG has become too all inclusive. Games like SWTOR that are single player games with co-op or games that are basically "lobby based games with co-op" should have their own name. They are not the same as what original MMORPGs are/were. Just because I don't like them does not mean you should not either. I am just saying they should have another name to identify them/catagorize them since they are not truly MMORPGs. We already use other names for things like MMOFPSs and such. Why not another one for this genre of game instead of trying to lump it into MMORPG where it does not by name belong.
Yet those other games like mmofps, mmorts, and such are actually not rpges at all, since they largely use a different ruleset from the common mmorpg stardard. Where as a single player rpg an a mmorpg basically play along the same lines as each other, execpt one gives no option to interact with other players that are playing the same game, and the other allows the player to interact with a massve number of players that are in the game. The fact is that swtor does fit as a mmorpg by the merts of what mmo, and what rpg stands for, yet the fact that the people that make up the playerbase use fuctions in the game that make it feel it is just a lobby game, an that players refuse to interact with others in the open world does not take away from the fact that you can still do both of those in the world. As i said prior it is not that you have to interact with every other player in the world that makes these games mmorpg, but that they give the players the ability to interact with massive numbers of players in the game setting.
Are you saying that travel must be interesting 100% of the time then? If so then thats just ridiculous. How interesting is your ride to work in the morning?
Of course travel must be interesting 100% of the time IN A GAME. If i can push a button and instantly teleport to work, don't you think i will do that and skip the commute?
Travel is travel is travel. Sometimes its interesting and sometimes its not. I dont get this travel HAS to be interesting all the time otherwise its worthless and we needz insta ports thinking.
If it is not interesting, or fun, why would i want to do it in a GAME? There should be an option to skip.
Travel is what you make of it. If you want to make it interesting then find ways to make it interesting.
No. Boring is boring. If i am walking in a desert seeing nothing but sand ... there is pretty much nothing i can do to make it interesting.
Plus, a game is an ENTERTAINMENT product. It is the dev's job to make it interesting for me, it is not my job to find ways to make it interesting.
Travel IS game play. Make it interesting yourself. Dont rely on the devs to make it interesting.
No. Bad gameplay is bad gameplay (for me). It is dev's job to entertain me. If i can do that (like sing a song when i walk), why do i have to play a GAME.
Your posts should be sent to game companys as prof of the reasons why games last for 1 month. Everything you spew Is evadence to it.
I will say it again. The type of game YOU want to play are not MMOs. There Single player lobby co-op games like D3 / black ops. The only reason your playing MMOs are because a horde of your kind crept into MMOs and started crying for features found in the games i pointed out.
Bad gameplay are features like insta porting. Why make a gameworld at all if you dont want to travel through it. Just stick to D3.
The other issue I see with being too nitpicky is that if you constently just split the genre down into sub-genres that devate from the normal standard of mmorpg by even a small degree you will have many of the genres (like virtual worlds, pvp-based, and such games) literally die off as the devs see where the vast amount of players go. I would only divide the genre into sub-groups if very spicific parts of the game do not match up, like with mmofps games being played in a different style that is much more inline with console fps games then with rpgs mmo or otherwise. Now a secondary labeling system that actually tags the game based on specific aspects of the game, like being lobby-based or virtual world, or hardcore pvp, and such would help alot as you are not actually dividing the mmorpg up, but just defining the actual game content that is present in the game or focused on.
I play these games because i love the communities and friendships that can be built. I want a presistent world to play in for years not these impersonal lobby games. You cant build friendships on these pos, wanna-be MMOS of today. There is no community.
Can't? I made friends in WOW, and D3. Surely they are disposable net friends, but still people to play with.
There's people like you who could give a rats ass about the person your standing next to. No time to waist getting in and out of your quick formed groups just to re que for your next intsta adventure.
No i don't give a damn .. a game needs to be fun. Friends .. i have enough in real world, and there are enough on the net to play with.
This is not the genre your looking for.
Yes, this is exactly the genre i am looking for. Are you saying i cannot just jump into a MMO like WOW or DCUO, do a random dungeon? In fact, i will do so RIGHT NOW.
LOL @ disposable friends. Thats statement is all i need to know the type of person you are irl. I hope those that are on your side of the fence with this topic find and read this post of yours. Will tell them much about the person their agreeing with.
Are you saying that travel must be interesting 100% of the time then? If so then thats just ridiculous. How interesting is your ride to work in the morning?
Travel is travel is travel. Sometimes its interesting and sometimes its not. I dont get this travel HAS to be interesting all the time otherwise its worthless and we needz insta ports thinking.
Travel is what you make of it. If you want to make it interesting then find ways to make it interesting.
Travel IS game play. Make it interesting yourself. Dont rely on the devs to make it interesting.
EDIT: I used the word INTERESTING 8 times in this post. Isent that interesting? Oh! make that 10 times.
Are you saying you drive to work for fun on your day off?
That's weird.
Once again you completely missed the point as i assumed you would.
We're not talking about methods for punishing terrorists or for keeping people bored. We're talking about games. The goal is fun. The goal isn't to reenact all of the least interesting aspects of mundane life.
Your kidding right? Who said anything about terrorists? Interesting aspects of mundane life? You just messing with me now right?
(Although since you asked, I actually do enjoy my subway+walk into work in the morning. Not having a car commute is the best part of living in this city. Reading, music, excercise, it's good times!)
Travel is gameplay, but it's incredibly poor gameplay. Since the goal of games is entertainment, implying that I have to find my own ways to make it interesting isn't going to fly. If you're in the business of entertaining people (and game developers are) you either entertain people or you're out of a job. You don't release a game with gaping holes in its gameplay and tell plaeyrs "make your own fun!"
Its poor gameplay to someone that needs others to give them something "fun" to do. Just lazy
Oh and as for you last comment...
" You don't reliease a game with gaping holes in its gameplay and tell players make yout own fun"
Those are called sandbox mmos.
If you want a fully scripted games to play, go back to your console games of Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid and Street Fighter vs Marvle.
MMOs were never ment to be fully scripted console games.
Bottom line. Genre is now cash shops, esports, all dev driven content, combat centric and auto socialized. Simply put, Id like to have more choices besides combat and afterthought mini games. And here we are hundreds of posts later still getting shouted down by people that like the way it is now. The funny thing is that I never said to get rid of these types of mmos. But the very thought that these new games are just not enough for some of us is too much to handle for others. Its kinda funny actually heh Nobody is threatening your "gamehood"
YOu can blame the game publishers for that but the reason is the players. They want different spending options. Back during the pay per hour days of aol and tsn, people cried for cheaper cost options. Then we got the monthly sub and people still cried out for other cheaper options. Cash shops are just another thing that is the results of the playerbase.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Originally posted by FoomerangBottom line. Genre is now cash shops, esports, all dev driven content, combat centric and auto socialized. Simply put, Id like to have more choices besides combat and afterthought mini games. And here we are hundreds of posts later still getting shouted down by people that like the way it is now. The funny thing is that I never said to get rid of these types of mmos. But the very thought that these new games are just not enough for some of us is too much to handle for others. Its kinda funny actually heh Nobody is threatening your "gamehood"
YOu can blame the game publishers for that but the reason is the players. They want different spending options. Back during the pay per hour days of aol and tsn, people cried for cheaper cost options. Then we got the monthly sub and people still cried out for other cheaper options. Cash shops are just another thing that is the results of the playerbase.
Yeah the biggest problem with cash shops is not pay to win items but the vanity and fluff items imo. They keep adding items that could have been integrated into a new crafting class or they could have taken those items and made a crafting class more interesting. Instead of outfits, hairdos, weapons and armor skins, pets for sale in a cash shop, they could implement these into actual player made content. This would result in a game that had more depth and player choice. It would lend itself to a better virtual world.
I would say that in less you are Role Playing in SAID Game then maybe u should stop arguing the fact that a mmorpg has so many type of diverse tittles under its grouping. Its a universe in which people were suppose to be able to be something they cant in Real life a escape a new universe full of possibilities. Yes your right mmo's are terribly recycled and for that reason the older mmo's seemed to draw out more in a person gaming soul. Newer games recycle and place u in a new universe and makes concepts easier or redefined but it doesnt make that simle concept of exploring a new world aka new game less appealing to another. The issue lies in the person not in the genre there is a issue with some gamers that they get stuck in the old and are un willing or there fire is not rekinkdled for some reason within this new games. So be it but it doesnt mean that the mmorpg universe is dead. Because if it was then all these new games wouldnt even launch you wouldnt have people that defend them and then hate them. Its an amusing situation were caught in on one side there is the individuals whos soul's are still being kept in a old game and some that never get attached at all But the fact remains with every new game it is a new (referbished) story line that draws in people to explore love hate and all the other sinsations that come with a human being who isnt creating but mearly playing and living in a world.
Massively Multiple Online Role Playing Game....i can find that in just about every game named that sucks or is great which means omg! there in the right category. just with different sub implimentations to make then different
I put 90% of the blame on players and 10 on developers. Let me explain before you all rage and tell me I'm an idiot.
People want to say MMO's today are on rails and there is no freedom. I wont argue that. But why should a developer do anything diffrent when the PLAYERS keep buying the same over and over again? People can claim the developers decieved them all they want but its not true. People are just to damn lazy to do any research before they buy the game.
People also want to believe that the game will change. Either they see stuff they dont like in beta and think some miricle patch will happen or the content they dont see will somehow be epic. The players are to stupid to this day to understand what you see IS what you get. GW2 for example. I still see people (and journalists) saying "well its just beta that lag will be gone when it goes live". Wake up people. There IS NO MIRICLE PATCH. It will get better sure but dont expect it on launch.
The truth is you can know exactly what the mmo is going to be before you buy it. You know what kind of support the game is going to have on alot of games. Only if its a new game by a new developer is "wel I didnt know they suck" is an excuse.
I'm so sick of MMO players saying "well the developers suck and are only doing this, this, and this." Well I'm sorry but untill the masses of you stop BUYING THE SAME SHITTY PRODUCT OVER AND OVER AGAIN the developers have NO reason to change. You have no one to blame but yourself.
I will give an absolute prime example. Mist of Pandaria. Go look at the beta forums. They are public. The expansion is unbalanced as hell, rampant with bugs and simply not ready. Will some of it get better before Blizzard launches it? Of course its not like they are going to sit on thier hands for the next 2 months. But is it going to be ready for live? Hell no it isnt. Seriously go look at the forums and sift through the stupid posts to the real feedback ones. The expansion is at least 6 months from being live ready. Hell they are still doing hotfixes 2-4 times a DAY trying to figure out balance. But why should they wait? Its costing them money to wait. Why? Because even though its obvious it wont be ready in 2 months they know they will selling millions and millions of copies and bring back hundreds of thousands of players.
TLDR: Stop blaming the developers and start blaming yourselves. Developers and publishers have NO reason to try anything diffrent untill the people stop buying the same crappy products over and over again like good little sheep.
Are you saying that travel must be interesting 100% of the time then? If so then thats just ridiculous. How interesting is your ride to work in the morning?
Of course travel must be interesting 100% of the time IN A GAME. If i can push a button and instantly teleport to work, don't you think i will do that and skip the commute?
Travel is travel is travel. Sometimes its interesting and sometimes its not. I dont get this travel HAS to be interesting all the time otherwise its worthless and we needz insta ports thinking.
If it is not interesting, or fun, why would i want to do it in a GAME? There should be an option to skip.
Travel is what you make of it. If you want to make it interesting then find ways to make it interesting.
No. Boring is boring. If i am walking in a desert seeing nothing but sand ... there is pretty much nothing i can do to make it interesting.
Plus, a game is an ENTERTAINMENT product. It is the dev's job to make it interesting for me, it is not my job to find ways to make it interesting.
Travel IS game play. Make it interesting yourself. Dont rely on the devs to make it interesting.
No. Bad gameplay is bad gameplay (for me). It is dev's job to entertain me. If i can do that (like sing a song when i walk), why do i have to play a GAME.
Your posts should be sent to game companys as prof of the reasons why games last for 1 month. Everything you spew Is evadence to it.
I will say it again. The type of game YOU want to play are not MMOs. There Single player lobby co-op games like D3 / black ops. The only reason your playing MMOs are because a horde of your kind crept into MMOs and started crying for features found in the games i pointed out.
Bad gameplay are features like insta porting. Why make a gameworld at all if you dont want to travel through it. Just stick to D3.
No more arguing about my points about travel?
Sure ... most games last less than a month. So what? I would MUCH rather play a very fun 4 week game, than a so-so 1 year one.
I play D3, Borderland, and probably torch light 2. But let me ask you this .. is there a reason for me NOT to play a fun MMO with lobby features?
Why should i stick to D3? Oh, i will play it .. but it will prob last only for a few month (which is a long time for a game). So if i want to play a super hero lobby game, is there a reason why i should not play DCUO? In fact, i did for some time and have fun .. i do see any reason to listen to your "advice".
The market is huge and may still be expanding. Going into a direction you do not like != dead.
In fact, i think it is becoming MORE ALIVE, solving all the old problems (like camping & finding groups with instances & LFD/LFR), while giving a large part of the games to the players for FREE.
It is getting BETTER.
the genre is dead. not the market. the business of taking old console game concepts into the mmo space is huge. the genre that attempted to make virtual worlds is dead.
Yeh. The genre of virtual world is dead. But MMOs are NOT virtual worlds anymore. They are lobby based co-op games .. and this genre is flourishing.
Then they should call them what they are with a different name or acronym for that new name and not MMORPG. Because they aren't. There is nothing "Massively Multiplayer" about them. It'll also make it easier to avoid them without having to wade through all the hype text to find out what kind of game it really is.
Semantics .. semantics ...
personally i do really care what they call them. However, the common usage today *is* MMORPG.
WOW is a MMORPG.
DCUO is a MMORPG.
DDO is a MMORPG.
I play these GAMES mostly like a lobby co-op game .. because they have features supporting this style of play. I will call them MMORPG, until the day that gamespot, gamasutra, IGN, and other gaming media starting to refer them as something else. .
Originally posted by nariusseldonNo more arguing about my points about travel?Sure ... most games last less than a month. So what? I would MUCH rather play a very fun 4 week game, than a so-so 1 year one.I play D3, Borderland, and probably torch light 2. But let me ask you this .. is there a reason for me NOT to play a fun MMO with lobby features?Why should i stick to D3? Oh, i will play it .. but it will prob last only for a few month (which is a long time for a game). So if i want to play a super hero lobby game, is there a reason why i should not play DCUO? In fact, i did for some time and have fun .. i do see any reason to listen to your "advice".
I haven't seen a travel arguement in a while. I tend not to debate these, since it's almost purely subjective. Using 'interesting' doesn't seem very descriptive, though. I'll assume that 'interesting' travel is how long a player will be traveling before he reaches content. I'm not going to throw my vote one way or the other, however I will say that there are certain game types that mesh with long travel times better than others. Games that have a lot of structured content and developer-set goals aren't very conducive (basically theme parks). It's more appropriate in a sandbox environment. Some people just like to see something off in the distance, and go there. That's the goal, not to get a piece of gear, or complete some quest, and the time it takes to get the is crucial to the experience. Sure, 'interesting' stuff can happen along the way, but it's not demanded.
I've played games where I really enjoyed having a long travel time, but I never really enjoyed the travel in WoW. If people said to get rid of travel all together in WoW, I'd probably agree. Don't get me wrong, Blizzard did a great job with the atmosphere, but the format doesn't really support it.
I think there is room in the market for both types of game. It seems silly to try and establish the perfect game for everyone, or some standard that needs to act as a template for future games. That would be boring.
Originally posted by nariusseldonNo more arguing about my points about travel?Sure ... most games last less than a month. So what? I would MUCH rather play a very fun 4 week game, than a so-so 1 year one.I play D3, Borderland, and probably torch light 2. But let me ask you this .. is there a reason for me NOT to play a fun MMO with lobby features?Why should i stick to D3? Oh, i will play it .. but it will prob last only for a few month (which is a long time for a game). So if i want to play a super hero lobby game, is there a reason why i should not play DCUO? In fact, i did for some time and have fun .. i do see any reason to listen to your "advice".
I haven't seen a travel arguement in a while. I tend not to debate these, since it's almost purely subjective. Using 'interesting' doesn't seem very descriptive, though. I'll assume that 'interesting' travel is how long a player will be traveling before he reaches content. I'm not going to throw my vote one way or the other, however I will say that there are certain game types that mesh with long travel times better than others. Games that have a lot of structured content and developer-set goals aren't very conducive (basically theme parks). It's more appropriate in a sandbox environment. Some people just like to see something off in the distance, and go there. That's the goal, not to get a piece of gear, or complete some quest, and the time it takes to get the is crucial to the experience. Sure, 'interesting' stuff can happen along the way, but it's not demanded.
I've played games where I really enjoyed having a long travel time, but I never really enjoyed the travel in WoW. If people said to get rid of travel all together in WoW, I'd probably agree. Don't get me wrong, Blizzard did a great job with the atmosphere, but the format doesn't really support it.
I think there is room in the market for both types of game. It seems silly to try and establish the perfect game for everyone, or some standard that needs to act as a template for future games. That would be boring.
Did you read all the arguments going back and forth in this thread?
It boils down to this. There are players who like a "commute" in their games ... but please count me out. First time, going from point A to B may be fun, but the 3rd time stops being fun for me, and i want a instance travel option.
Still calling these games MMORPG’s is to pretend they are of the same genre. They have changed their nature, they need a new name.
Game genres do change you know, adventures became point and click adventures to distinguish them from the new 3D ones. Gem collecting games were originally called puzzle games or even adventure games!
Also we used to call these games MMORPG’s right? Now it is MMO’s. That change was for abbreviation as much as anything, but it came into use as RPG became a small budget area of MMORPG’s.
ezMMO’s are what we have today, but any negative change of name would be fought against by an industry that wants to sell, sell, sell!
Eventually I think MMO’s will get a new name, but it will be a very positive mega hype one. How about Next Gen (NG)? that will make this easy MMO theme parks sound sexy.
Originally posted by nariusseldonNo more arguing about my points about travel?Sure ... most games last less than a month. So what? I would MUCH rather play a very fun 4 week game, than a so-so 1 year one.I play D3, Borderland, and probably torch light 2. But let me ask you this .. is there a reason for me NOT to play a fun MMO with lobby features?Why should i stick to D3? Oh, i will play it .. but it will prob last only for a few month (which is a long time for a game). So if i want to play a super hero lobby game, is there a reason why i should not play DCUO? In fact, i did for some time and have fun .. i do see any reason to listen to your "advice".
I haven't seen a travel arguement in a while. I tend not to debate these, since it's almost purely subjective. Using 'interesting' doesn't seem very descriptive, though. I'll assume that 'interesting' travel is how long a player will be traveling before he reaches content. I'm not going to throw my vote one way or the other, however I will say that there are certain game types that mesh with long travel times better than others. Games that have a lot of structured content and developer-set goals aren't very conducive (basically theme parks). It's more appropriate in a sandbox environment. Some people just like to see something off in the distance, and go there. That's the goal, not to get a piece of gear, or complete some quest, and the time it takes to get the is crucial to the experience. Sure, 'interesting' stuff can happen along the way, but it's not demanded.I've played games where I really enjoyed having a long travel time, but I never really enjoyed the travel in WoW. If people said to get rid of travel all together in WoW, I'd probably agree. Don't get me wrong, Blizzard did a great job with the atmosphere, but the format doesn't really support it.I think there is room in the market for both types of game. It seems silly to try and establish the perfect game for everyone, or some standard that needs to act as a template for future games. That would be boring.
Did you read all the arguments going back and forth in this thread?It boils down to this. There are players who like a "commute" in their games ... but please count me out. First time, going from point A to B may be fun, but the 3rd time stops being fun for me, and i want a instance travel option.
I did, and my point was that it can also have something to do with the game, itself. I'm not saying that should prefer one over the other; I was only adding that it depends on the game for me. If you want instant teleportation , then I can't say that I blame you if you don't like a game that neglects to have that feature.
I think something that could make travel more fun is something like random spawning loot bags, some of them have like mob ambushes attached to em though.
Traditional travelling is hella boring. Need something to spice it up.
I think something that could make travel more fun is something like random spawning loot bags, some of them have like mob ambushes attached to em though.
Traditional travelling is hella boring. Need something to spice it up.
ambushers reminds me of the Earth and Beyond. When you were doing the fast travel/auto travel there was a chance that space pirates would set up a gravity well which would disrupt the flight and ambush you. You either pay them the toll or they kill you. Other options if you were high enough level was kill them
Still calling these games MMORPG’s is to pretend they are of the same genre. They have changed their nature, they need a new name.
Game genres do change you know, adventures became point and click adventures to distinguish them from the new 3D ones. Gem collecting games were originally called puzzle games or even adventure games!
Also we used to call these games MMORPG’s right? Now it is MMO’s. That change was for abbreviation as much as anything, but it came into use as RPG became a small budget area of MMORPG’s.
ezMMO’s are what we have today, but any negative change of name would be fought against by an industry that wants to sell, sell, sell!
Eventually I think MMO’s will get a new name, but it will be a very positive mega hype one. How about Next Gen (NG)? that will make this easy MMO theme parks sound sexy.
In any case "easy MMO" or "ezMMO" is not a very good term since older games weren't exactly challenging, just more complicated, inaccessible and they required a lot more time. Thats pretty much it. Whats been said over and over is that having more options does not automatically increase depth and pressing 3 buttons instead of just one to achieve the same goal makes the game hard the wrong way.
You use the term ezMMO in a derogatory meaning and it gives you the same type of credibility as if you used terms such as "WoW-clone", "instant gratification" and "console-generation". If we'd be face to face I'd be rolling my eyes.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think something that could make travel more fun is something like random spawning loot bags, some of them have like mob ambushes attached to em though.
Traditional travelling is hella boring. Need something to spice it up.
One problem is to make such system invisible. For example, I picked up fairly quickly how the random encounters worked in Skyrim - and by quickly I mean about 1-2 hours into the game. I ended up anticipating when and where such encounters "emerged" and actually farmed them/abused them a little. Sure, if you are new to gaming such things may entertain you for a long time, but for me atleast, it would have to be quite elaborate to hide all the nuts and bolts.
I'm not saying I'm anythings special, I'm saying veteran players will learn all the mechanics quite quickly and, to some degree, ruin them for others - especially when we are talking about multiplayer games. There is no mystique about a dungeon or a boss monster's behavior if someone explains it to you.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Personally I couldn't give a toss if a game is called MMORPG/MMOFPS/MOBA whatever, it is what the game actually does that matters. The worry is that genres become homogenized and lose aspects that are unique to them in the process. Then apsects can certainly be seen to be "dead". Not whether or not a game is called an MMORPG or not.
As for travel, in the specific case of virtual world type mmos. It has already been pointed out that it can be improved upon and methods of this improvement (or at the very least the key aspects for this) have also been demonstated. Whether such things ever actually get done is another matter.
If a developer can spend less time and effort, whilst at the same time developing a game which will generate more profit from short term player churn. Then it is questionable as to whether or not they are going to bother building an intricate game world, regardless as to it's merits. Especially if it affords the company the luxury of then simply creating another game, with which to churn again, much like the sequel model seen in offline games.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Comments
Yet those other games like mmofps, mmorts, and such are actually not rpges at all, since they largely use a different ruleset from the common mmorpg stardard. Where as a single player rpg an a mmorpg basically play along the same lines as each other, execpt one gives no option to interact with other players that are playing the same game, and the other allows the player to interact with a massve number of players that are in the game. The fact is that swtor does fit as a mmorpg by the merts of what mmo, and what rpg stands for, yet the fact that the people that make up the playerbase use fuctions in the game that make it feel it is just a lobby game, an that players refuse to interact with others in the open world does not take away from the fact that you can still do both of those in the world. As i said prior it is not that you have to interact with every other player in the world that makes these games mmorpg, but that they give the players the ability to interact with massive numbers of players in the game setting.
Your posts should be sent to game companys as prof of the reasons why games last for 1 month. Everything you spew Is evadence to it.
I will say it again. The type of game YOU want to play are not MMOs. There Single player lobby co-op games like D3 / black ops. The only reason your playing MMOs are because a horde of your kind crept into MMOs and started crying for features found in the games i pointed out.
Bad gameplay are features like insta porting. Why make a gameworld at all if you dont want to travel through it. Just stick to D3.
The other issue I see with being too nitpicky is that if you constently just split the genre down into sub-genres that devate from the normal standard of mmorpg by even a small degree you will have many of the genres (like virtual worlds, pvp-based, and such games) literally die off as the devs see where the vast amount of players go. I would only divide the genre into sub-groups if very spicific parts of the game do not match up, like with mmofps games being played in a different style that is much more inline with console fps games then with rpgs mmo or otherwise. Now a secondary labeling system that actually tags the game based on specific aspects of the game, like being lobby-based or virtual world, or hardcore pvp, and such would help alot as you are not actually dividing the mmorpg up, but just defining the actual game content that is present in the game or focused on.
LOL @ disposable friends. Thats statement is all i need to know the type of person you are irl. I hope those that are on your side of the fence with this topic find and read this post of yours. Will tell them much about the person their agreeing with.
Once again you completely missed the point as i assumed you would.
Your kidding right? Who said anything about terrorists? Interesting aspects of mundane life? You just messing with me now right?
Its poor gameplay to someone that needs others to give them something "fun" to do. Just lazy
Oh and as for you last comment...
" You don't reliease a game with gaping holes in its gameplay and tell players make yout own fun"
Those are called sandbox mmos.
If you want a fully scripted games to play, go back to your console games of Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid and Street Fighter vs Marvle.
MMOs were never ment to be fully scripted console games.
No thats the Bizzaro Quirhids superpower. Yours is ventriloquy
YOu can blame the game publishers for that but the reason is the players. They want different spending options. Back during the pay per hour days of aol and tsn, people cried for cheaper cost options. Then we got the monthly sub and people still cried out for other cheaper options. Cash shops are just another thing that is the results of the playerbase.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I would say that in less you are Role Playing in SAID Game then maybe u should stop arguing the fact that a mmorpg has so many type of diverse tittles under its grouping. Its a universe in which people were suppose to be able to be something they cant in Real life a escape a new universe full of possibilities. Yes your right mmo's are terribly recycled and for that reason the older mmo's seemed to draw out more in a person gaming soul. Newer games recycle and place u in a new universe and makes concepts easier or redefined but it doesnt make that simle concept of exploring a new world aka new game less appealing to another. The issue lies in the person not in the genre there is a issue with some gamers that they get stuck in the old and are un willing or there fire is not rekinkdled for some reason within this new games. So be it but it doesnt mean that the mmorpg universe is dead. Because if it was then all these new games wouldnt even launch you wouldnt have people that defend them and then hate them. Its an amusing situation were caught in on one side there is the individuals whos soul's are still being kept in a old game and some that never get attached at all But the fact remains with every new game it is a new (referbished) story line that draws in people to explore love hate and all the other sinsations that come with a human being who isnt creating but mearly playing and living in a world.
Massively Multiple Online Role Playing Game....i can find that in just about every game named that sucks or is great which means omg! there in the right category. just with different sub implimentations to make then different
"Mutated Multiplayer Online" (the corporate crowd intentionally dropped the "RPG" years ago).
That sounds exactly right.
Once upon a time....
I put 90% of the blame on players and 10 on developers. Let me explain before you all rage and tell me I'm an idiot.
People want to say MMO's today are on rails and there is no freedom. I wont argue that. But why should a developer do anything diffrent when the PLAYERS keep buying the same over and over again? People can claim the developers decieved them all they want but its not true. People are just to damn lazy to do any research before they buy the game.
People also want to believe that the game will change. Either they see stuff they dont like in beta and think some miricle patch will happen or the content they dont see will somehow be epic. The players are to stupid to this day to understand what you see IS what you get. GW2 for example. I still see people (and journalists) saying "well its just beta that lag will be gone when it goes live". Wake up people. There IS NO MIRICLE PATCH. It will get better sure but dont expect it on launch.
The truth is you can know exactly what the mmo is going to be before you buy it. You know what kind of support the game is going to have on alot of games. Only if its a new game by a new developer is "wel I didnt know they suck" is an excuse.
I'm so sick of MMO players saying "well the developers suck and are only doing this, this, and this." Well I'm sorry but untill the masses of you stop BUYING THE SAME SHITTY PRODUCT OVER AND OVER AGAIN the developers have NO reason to change. You have no one to blame but yourself.
I will give an absolute prime example. Mist of Pandaria. Go look at the beta forums. They are public. The expansion is unbalanced as hell, rampant with bugs and simply not ready. Will some of it get better before Blizzard launches it? Of course its not like they are going to sit on thier hands for the next 2 months. But is it going to be ready for live? Hell no it isnt. Seriously go look at the forums and sift through the stupid posts to the real feedback ones. The expansion is at least 6 months from being live ready. Hell they are still doing hotfixes 2-4 times a DAY trying to figure out balance. But why should they wait? Its costing them money to wait. Why? Because even though its obvious it wont be ready in 2 months they know they will selling millions and millions of copies and bring back hundreds of thousands of players.
TLDR: Stop blaming the developers and start blaming yourselves. Developers and publishers have NO reason to try anything diffrent untill the people stop buying the same crappy products over and over again like good little sheep.
No more arguing about my points about travel?
Sure ... most games last less than a month. So what? I would MUCH rather play a very fun 4 week game, than a so-so 1 year one.
I play D3, Borderland, and probably torch light 2. But let me ask you this .. is there a reason for me NOT to play a fun MMO with lobby features?
Why should i stick to D3? Oh, i will play it .. but it will prob last only for a few month (which is a long time for a game). So if i want to play a super hero lobby game, is there a reason why i should not play DCUO? In fact, i did for some time and have fun .. i do see any reason to listen to your "advice".
Semantics .. semantics ...
personally i do really care what they call them. However, the common usage today *is* MMORPG.
WOW is a MMORPG.
DCUO is a MMORPG.
DDO is a MMORPG.
I play these GAMES mostly like a lobby co-op game .. because they have features supporting this style of play. I will call them MMORPG, until the day that gamespot, gamasutra, IGN, and other gaming media starting to refer them as something else. .
I haven't seen a travel arguement in a while. I tend not to debate these, since it's almost purely subjective. Using 'interesting' doesn't seem very descriptive, though. I'll assume that 'interesting' travel is how long a player will be traveling before he reaches content. I'm not going to throw my vote one way or the other, however I will say that there are certain game types that mesh with long travel times better than others. Games that have a lot of structured content and developer-set goals aren't very conducive (basically theme parks). It's more appropriate in a sandbox environment. Some people just like to see something off in the distance, and go there. That's the goal, not to get a piece of gear, or complete some quest, and the time it takes to get the is crucial to the experience. Sure, 'interesting' stuff can happen along the way, but it's not demanded.
I've played games where I really enjoyed having a long travel time, but I never really enjoyed the travel in WoW. If people said to get rid of travel all together in WoW, I'd probably agree. Don't get me wrong, Blizzard did a great job with the atmosphere, but the format doesn't really support it.
I think there is room in the market for both types of game. It seems silly to try and establish the perfect game for everyone, or some standard that needs to act as a template for future games. That would be boring.
Did you read all the arguments going back and forth in this thread?
It boils down to this. There are players who like a "commute" in their games ... but please count me out. First time, going from point A to B may be fun, but the 3rd time stops being fun for me, and i want a instance travel option.
Still calling these games MMORPG’s is to pretend they are of the same genre. They have changed their nature, they need a new name.
Game genres do change you know, adventures became point and click adventures to distinguish them from the new 3D ones. Gem collecting games were originally called puzzle games or even adventure games!
Also we used to call these games MMORPG’s right? Now it is MMO’s. That change was for abbreviation as much as anything, but it came into use as RPG became a small budget area of MMORPG’s.
ezMMO’s are what we have today, but any negative change of name would be fought against by an industry that wants to sell, sell, sell!
Eventually I think MMO’s will get a new name, but it will be a very positive mega hype one. How about Next Gen (NG)? that will make this easy MMO theme parks sound sexy.
I did, and my point was that it can also have something to do with the game, itself. I'm not saying that should prefer one over the other; I was only adding that it depends on the game for me. If you want instant teleportation , then I can't say that I blame you if you don't like a game that neglects to have that feature.
I think something that could make travel more fun is something like random spawning loot bags, some of them have like mob ambushes attached to em though.
Traditional travelling is hella boring. Need something to spice it up.
ambushers reminds me of the Earth and Beyond. When you were doing the fast travel/auto travel there was a chance that space pirates would set up a gravity well which would disrupt the flight and ambush you. You either pay them the toll or they kill you. Other options if you were high enough level was kill them
Gnomon Workshop Nov 2016, 3rd Place 3D Contest Winner
Gnomon Workshop April 2014, 1st Place 3D Contest Winner
Gnomon Workshop February 2013, 1st Place 3D Contest Winner
Gnomon Workshop December 2012, 3rd Place 3D Contest Winner
In any case "easy MMO" or "ezMMO" is not a very good term since older games weren't exactly challenging, just more complicated, inaccessible and they required a lot more time. Thats pretty much it. Whats been said over and over is that having more options does not automatically increase depth and pressing 3 buttons instead of just one to achieve the same goal makes the game hard the wrong way.
You use the term ezMMO in a derogatory meaning and it gives you the same type of credibility as if you used terms such as "WoW-clone", "instant gratification" and "console-generation". If we'd be face to face I'd be rolling my eyes.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
One problem is to make such system invisible. For example, I picked up fairly quickly how the random encounters worked in Skyrim - and by quickly I mean about 1-2 hours into the game. I ended up anticipating when and where such encounters "emerged" and actually farmed them/abused them a little. Sure, if you are new to gaming such things may entertain you for a long time, but for me atleast, it would have to be quite elaborate to hide all the nuts and bolts.
I'm not saying I'm anythings special, I'm saying veteran players will learn all the mechanics quite quickly and, to some degree, ruin them for others - especially when we are talking about multiplayer games. There is no mystique about a dungeon or a boss monster's behavior if someone explains it to you.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Well this thread is a clusterfuck.
Personally I couldn't give a toss if a game is called MMORPG/MMOFPS/MOBA whatever, it is what the game actually does that matters. The worry is that genres become homogenized and lose aspects that are unique to them in the process. Then apsects can certainly be seen to be "dead". Not whether or not a game is called an MMORPG or not.
As for travel, in the specific case of virtual world type mmos. It has already been pointed out that it can be improved upon and methods of this improvement (or at the very least the key aspects for this) have also been demonstated. Whether such things ever actually get done is another matter.
If a developer can spend less time and effort, whilst at the same time developing a game which will generate more profit from short term player churn. Then it is questionable as to whether or not they are going to bother building an intricate game world, regardless as to it's merits. Especially if it affords the company the luxury of then simply creating another game, with which to churn again, much like the sequel model seen in offline games.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."