I dont want rushed ugly mmorpgs with no subtsance that last only 6 months, would be the end of mmorpgs as we know it.
Thats all we have been getting the past 5+/- years lol. But getting worse with each new release. SWTOR was to be the new age of mmo's lol.
But thankfuly the eastern dev's are doing something the westerners couldnt do........ grow a set of ba**s and stop copying WOW. With the new string of sandboxes coming from the east, westerners starting to look into it and make some also. So i hope no more konsole kiddie mmorpg's once these hit the market.
Its pretty damn bad that single player rpg's released now have more content than the mmorpg's lol.
Over the past few months, the advice / things I've seen are that more businesses accept that most players will leave their MMO wihtin 6 months after launch.
Make the investment back on box sales and any subs after that is mostly profit. If the game has staying power, great! Expansion packs for more $$$.
People are treating MMOs like what they are, an entertainment product.
Players certainly do so why can't game makers?
My question is, why is this a 'bad' thing?
Game makers make more MMOs, more players play them and after awhile players / game makers move on to their next game.
I bought every Civilization / SimCity game that came out. I don't play the previous ones once I buy the current one though. Why can't MMOs be treated this way?
As long as the game makers make smart business decisions, I don't see a down side.
More MMOs for players to play and more game makers make money.
Someone may want an MMO that they'll play for years, but they are the minority.
Wow...this post is like a nightmare, it feels like if the OP came out of a Brainwashing Conditioning... being convinced that an MMO is the new Singleplayer game mode...and trying to convince us...
Hello, wake up!! Singleplayer games exist still you know, you play them for a month or two and you hop to the next, like you did with CIV. Some have multiplayer mode too you can share with your friends. Some devellop Modding communities which keep people together having fun with the same game for much longer too.
Please go and learn what the MMO experience is before you make more posts like this...the OP clearly has no understanding of what the MMO experience is. And if the claims are supported by Said Devs, then that is one of the factors as to why the Genre is full of dissapointing games...because apparently there are lots of DEVS out there who do not understand what the MMO experience is about either, like the OP.
*shakes head*
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
If you give disgruntled users a reason to leave, they will.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift. I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough. I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
Please go and learn what the MMO experience is before you make more posts like this...the OP clearly has no understanding of what the MMO experience is. And if the claims are supported by Said Devs, then that is one of the factors as to why the Genre is full of dissapointing games...because apparently there are lots of DEVS out there who do not understand what the MMO experience is about either, like the OP.
*shakes head*
MMO experience changed. Back in EQ days, the experience is grind the same mob for hours, and camp the same dungeons for days. Now you can hit a button, queue up for a dungeon with no camping. It is not hard to see why the modern way is preferred by many.
And why anyone need to have an "understanding" of the old MMO experience? MMOs are games ... entertainment products. People should use them in anyway they like. So what if i enjoy the new experience opposed to the past ones?
Originally posted by jpnz Over the past few months, the advice / things I've seen are that more businesses accept that most players will leave their MMO wihtin 6 months after launch.Make the investment back on box sales and any subs after that is mostly profit. If the game has staying power, great! Expansion packs for more $$$. People are treating MMOs like what they are, an entertainment product.Players certainly do so why can't game makers?My question is, why is this a 'bad' thing?Game makers make more MMOs, more players play them and after awhile players / game makers move on to their next game.I bought every Civilization / SimCity game that came out. I don't play the previous ones once I buy the current one though. Why can't MMOs be treated this way?As long as the game makers make smart business decisions, I don't see a down side.More MMOs for players to play and more game makers make money.Someone may want an MMO that they'll play for years, but they are the minority.
This makes a certain kind of sense. Most people who play games view them as a temporary thing. They play "Today's Game", and move on. I don't think you can just take this approach with MMORPG though.
Once you decide to shut the servers down, you can no longer sell the game. I just bought a game written in 2006. If the game required servers to run, and the servers were shut down because 99.9% of the people who were going to play the game played it in 2006, that company would derive no residual income from the game.
Running servers requires a minimum number of players to be viable. That number could be pretty low, but if your player population is only playing for 3 months at a time, you have to figure out how to constantly get new players to maintain that minimum number.
The game experience may require a minimum number of players. There are a couple ways to do this (Champions Online just had one big server with "channels", and it worked), but the best is to just have more players.
So I don't disagree with the idea. I've actually thought the same thing myself. The mechanics of making it work might be harder than the usual approach of trying to get people to just stick around for a long time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Please go and learn what the MMO experience is before you make more posts like this...the OP clearly has no understanding of what the MMO experience is. And if the claims are supported by Said Devs, then that is one of the factors as to why the Genre is full of dissapointing games...because apparently there are lots of DEVS out there who do not understand what the MMO experience is about either, like the OP.
*shakes head*
I can say with full confidence that neither do you.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Please go and learn what the MMO experience is before you make more posts like this...the OP clearly has no understanding of what the MMO experience is. And if the claims are supported by Said Devs, then that is one of the factors as to why the Genre is full of dissapointing games...because apparently there are lots of DEVS out there who do not understand what the MMO experience is about either, like the OP.
*shakes head*
MMO experience changed. Back in EQ days, the experience is grind the same mob for hours, and camp the same dungeons for days. Now you can hit a button, queue up for a dungeon with no camping. It is not hard to see why the modern way is preferred by many.
And why anyone need to have an "understanding" of the old MMO experience? MMOs are games ... entertainment products. People should use them in anyway they like. So what if i enjoy the new experience opposed to the past ones?
Actually I never liked EQ, I never got it, never played it (I was happy in UO when it came out), and I did not have to play it to know that I would not like it either, my friends description was sufficient at the time.
I did play many others which followed on its footsteps, from Lineage II to WoW, to SWTOR to Rift, etc etc etc..we all know them today as Themeparks.
At the base, WoW's gameplay is the same as EQ's, the mechanics might be different and the approach to the Progression Curve is different, yes, like the point you make about Grind vs No grind, but the scope is the same. EQ was designed to be a Game not a World, and WoW too, and all the Clones of it. But I do not want to mix topics here.
So while there has been "evolution" of the Design Philosophy of MMO's from then till now, I feel that it is not going towards the good direction, it is how I feel about it, I get no entertainment and pleasure from the games today, I buy them and play for a couple of weeks and get bored.
The OP is trying to imply that this is normal, that this is how it should be. And I disagree with that implication. That is not what an MMO experience should be in my view.
Now I am not saying do not use what has been learned, or do not be addaptable to the present reality. Today's players have been educated and have different expacatations, Long grinds are not to their taste. So fine, make games without Long grinds.
But to come and tell us now that we should simply expect a Single Player games that is only an MMO in name and that it is ok to play it for 1-3 months and move on is, trying to redifine the genre n an attempt to make a profit from it, or, the OP simply does not have a full perspective of the genre.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
At the base, WoW's gameplay is the same as EQ's, the mechanics might be different and the approach to the Progression Curve is different, yes, like the point you make about Grind vs No grind, but the scope is the same. EQ was designed to be a Game not a World, and WoW too, and all the Clones of it. But I do not want to mix topics here.
no disagreement here.
So while there has been "evolution" of the Design Philosophy of MMO's from then till now, I feel that it is not going towards the good direction, it is how I feel about it, I get no entertainment and pleasure from the games today, I buy them and play for a couple of weeks and get bored.
I want to make 3 points here.
1) You should state up front that it is your preference. It is totally legit to feel MMOs are changing not in the direction you like. However, you realize that for others, this may be the right direction. I, for one, like MMOs to be more game like, and they are.
2) I think you are mxing up quality and duration. I play lots of games that last less than a couple of weeks, and they are entertaining and i take lots of pleasure. Good games don't have to last long.
3) Do you read reviews and play trial? If you don't like to get bored, why play in the first place? Personally i prefer a short 3 week fun game, than a much longer grindy one. That is not to say i won't play a game for long (i did play WOW a long time, and D3 for 8 month and counting), but it is not a pre-requsite for a good game. For example, Deus Ex only last for a few weeks and it was awesome.
The OP is trying to imply that this is normal, that this is how it should be. And I disagree with that implication. That is not what an MMO experience should be in my view.
Is it normal? If most MMOs give you short experiences, then by definition it is normal. It may not be the old normal, but it is certainly the new normal. You also confuse between what is "normal", and what you want. They may not be the same.
Now I am not saying do not use what has been learned, or do not be addaptable to the present reality. Today's players have been educated and have different expacatations, Long grinds are not to their taste. So fine, make games without Long grinds.
I think it goes deeper than that. Today's player expect games to be accessible, less grind, and they don't just play one game only. You can decry that is bad, and you disagree. But it is what it is.
But to come and tell us now that we should simply expect a Single Player games that is only an MMO in name and that it is ok to play it for 1-3 months and move on is, trying to redifine the genre n an attempt to make a profit from it, or, the OP simply does not have a full perspective of the genre.
He is not redefining the genre. You are not either. The genre has changed, whether you like it or not. It is certainly incorporate a lot of SP game feature (like story and cut scenes), and online MP features (like lobby match-making). Don't tell me you don't know that is going on.
I doubt anyone not knowing UO is much more a virtual world game than WOW. And i doubt that you don't know where the trend is going.
At the base, WoW's gameplay is the same as EQ's, the mechanics might be different and the approach to the Progression Curve is different, yes, like the point you make about Grind vs No grind, but the scope is the same. EQ was designed to be a Game not a World, and WoW too, and all the Clones of it. But I do not want to mix topics here.
no disagreement here.
So while there has been "evolution" of the Design Philosophy of MMO's from then till now, I feel that it is not going towards the good direction, it is how I feel about it, I get no entertainment and pleasure from the games today, I buy them and play for a couple of weeks and get bored.
I want to make 3 points here.
1) You should state up front that it is your preference. It is totally legit to feel MMOs are changing not in the direction you like. However, you realize that for others, this may be the right direction. I, for one, like MMOs to be more game like, and they are.
2) I think you are mxing up quality and duration. I play lots of games that last less than a couple of weeks, and they are entertaining and i take lots of pleasure. Good games don't have to last long.
3) Do you read reviews and play trial? If you don't like to get bored, why play in the first place? Personally i prefer a short 3 week fun game, than a much longer grindy one. That is not to say i won't play a game for long (i did play WOW a long time, and D3 for 8 month and counting), but it is not a pre-requsite for a good game. For example, Deus Ex only last for a few weeks and it was awesome.
The OP is trying to imply that this is normal, that this is how it should be. And I disagree with that implication. That is not what an MMO experience should be in my view.
Is it normal? If most MMOs give you short experiences, then by definition it is normal. It may not be the old normal, but it is certainly the new normal. You also confuse between what is "normal", and what you want. They may not be the same.
Now I am not saying do not use what has been learned, or do not be addaptable to the present reality. Today's players have been educated and have different expacatations, Long grinds are not to their taste. So fine, make games without Long grinds.
I think it goes deeper than that. Today's player expect games to be accessible, less grind, and they don't just play one game only. You can decry that is bad, and you disagree. But it is what it is.
But to come and tell us now that we should simply expect a Single Player games that is only an MMO in name and that it is ok to play it for 1-3 months and move on is, trying to redifine the genre n an attempt to make a profit from it, or, the OP simply does not have a full perspective of the genre.
He is not redefining the genre. You are not either. The genre has changed, whether you like it or not. It is certainly incorporate a lot of SP game feature (like story and cut scenes), and online MP features (like lobby match-making). Don't tell me you don't know that is going on.
I doubt anyone not knowing UO is much more a virtual world game than WOW. And i doubt that you don't know where the trend is going.
Thanks for the nice analytical reply.
I am not going to make a point by point retort.
But suffice it to say that, 99% of what we the players express in these forums about MMO's is personal preference, so I see no need having to be that specific in relation to that part.
The OP as well as you, have own preference too. You like to Play Single Player Games with a fee or a Sub or F2P as and for a few Weeks. It is your preference.
But is it your preference because it is really what you like and how you like to play MMO's or because you have not experienced any differently? You know, most of the people around here that do not like the current direction of the genre, have had the opportunity to experience differently.
It is not a question of Older or Newer for me, i could not care less if it is old or new. It is a question of Fun.
The Themeparks fail to provide me with fun as much as the Sandboxes.
Also it is important to specify that in reality a Game MMO and World MMO, are both games, there to provide fun and entertainment. If I wanted a simulation of reality Virtyually I could be living in Second Life, there are millions of people there.
We are talking about Games, and the Design Philosophy behind them. I think and feel, that MMO's designed as Games, are shallow, short sighted, and simply aim to return a profit in the short term, which is a valuable Business Endeavor, but me as the Customer/Consumer/Player of them, is left unsatisfied, and disappointed, empty...
I think like the OP that there is a market for World MMO's. And if you prefer the Gamey ones, by all means stay playing the Gamey ones that you like they are not going away, but why not have something that I can like allong with those who feel the same?
No one can deny that there is need for it. As for the Direction of the Genre, the direction evolves how people in the Industry Decide it should go, this is why some of us who have been there since the early days know better than to beleive that it is something which evolves on its own.
In reality Companies steer the players where they want them to. Sometimes it is gamble, and we have seen how players react to them. But most of the time it works...
We began from the Idea that an MMO is a Social Experience shared by the players through their dealings and Interactions within the virtual World of the chosen Setting. To the idea that an MMO is just another single player game but that you play allong side other people so you can both compete/compere your rpogress live in real time.
The players did not choose this transformation...the people influential in the Industry did...
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I cannot believe that posters need evidence that something from the past can be as good as or better than the present. Those stories you see in old MMO’s? All done before but now with a with a spin here and there and a tweak or two. That pretty graphics you love so much? The clothing and armour designs, the architecture, all done before in old MMO’s or lifted from history. The basics of chat and guilds, hardly any change from the old until now.
The systems of gameplay we would want to be brought back and those of today we would keep are the crux of the matter and worth another thread of their own.
The easyMMO apologists once again try to make out that we want an old game like UO brought back with just better graphics and we would be happy and think the game would be amazingly successful. I do not and I don't see anyone else on this site saying they do. We keep saying this but you won’t take the fingers out of your ears.
Of course we need to look forward as well, there are many things in new MMO’s that I applaud. We had no class driven questing like you see in SWTOR, you could not play music like you see in Lotro, we did not have the dynamic events which we see in many MMO’s now. For that matter I first saw a buddy system for questing in CoH. I am a big fan of PS2 (Ok it is not a MMO) purely because it is trying to do something different (once again!) in gaming. That is what we need, more new ideas and the best of the old.
I cannot believe that posters need evidence that something from the past can be as good as or better than the present. Those stories you see in old MMO’s? All done before but now with a with a spin here and there and a tweak or two. That pretty graphics you love so much? The clothing and armour designs, the architecture, all done before in old MMO’s or lifted from history. The basics of chat and guilds, hardly any change from the old until now.
The systems of gameplay we would want to be brought back and those of today we would keep are the crux of the matter and worth another thread of their own.
The easyMMO apologists once again try to make out that we want an old game like UO brought back with just better graphics and we would be happy and think the game would be amazingly successful. I do not and I don't see anyone else on this site saying they do. We keep saying this but you won’t take the fingers out of your ears.
Of course we need to look forward as well, there are many things in new MMO’s that I applaud. We had no class driven questing like you see in SWTOR, you could not play music like you see in Lotro, we did not have the dynamic events which we see in many MMO’s now. For that matter I first saw a buddy system for questing in CoH. I am a big fan of PS2 (Ok it is not a MMO) purely because it is trying to do something different (once again!) in gaming. That is what we need, more new ideas and the best of the old.
I dont' think anyone doubts the possibility that something from the past could be better, but we aren't talking about possibilties we are talking specifics.
I believe aliens could exist and could visit earth, I want to see evidence about a particular instance. I know bears have been in my back yard in the past, I want to see evidence that they were there at such and such specific time. Something from the past could be better, I would like more justification than simply someone thinks it is better for this particular issues.
Unfortunately a great many people are saying just that, "Bring back EQ/UO/SWG" and just update the graphics". A thread with that as the theme at least once a week.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Unfortunately a great many people are saying just that, "Bring back EQ/UO/SWG" and just update the graphics". A thread with that as the theme at least once a week.
Much more frequently than that.
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.
(Yep Uo had classes from the beginning or did people forget those options on the
player creation screen "blacksmith" etc that set your armslore mining and BS up?)
Im sorry but i just dont see what makes eve and any other game more sandboxy than the
others. Truth is a good game is never linear, Rather their themepark or sandbox or flight
games. I honestly think people just lable thngs so they can disagree with others about it
for amusement.
O
Destiny has cheated me By forcing me to decide upon The woman that I idolise Or the hands of an automaton
Without these hands I can't complete The opera that was captivating her But if I keep them, and she marries him Then he probably won't want me dating her
But suffice it to say that, 99% of what we the players express in these forums about MMO's is personal preference, so I see no need having to be that specific in relation to that part.
True. I am just miffed that often other here accused me of wanting to dictate my taste when i was just stating my preference, just like you.
The OP as well as you, have own preference too. You like to Play Single Player Games with a fee or a Sub or F2P as and for a few Weeks. It is your preference.
But is it your preference because it is really what you like and how you like to play MMO's or because you have not experienced any differently? You know, most of the people around here that do not like the current direction of the genre, have had the opportunity to experience differently.
That is a good question. Since i started MMOs before UO (in a precursor called Kingdom of Drakkar), and have played UO beta, EQ, try Eve, .. and many other MMOs, i would say my choices are informed decisions. WOW is much more a fun game for me than UO and EQ combined. STO is more fun than Eve. In fact, i would much rather play Deus Ex single player than UO (in any incarnation).
It is not a question of Older or Newer for me, i could not care less if it is old or new. It is a question of Fun.
The Themeparks fail to provide me with fun as much as the Sandboxes.
And most sandbox i played provides me with less fun than Diablo. The exception may be Planetside 2, which is a world game. However, i wouldn't call it a sandbox. It is pretty much a combat centric open world game (and the important part for me is combat centric).
Also it is important to specify that in reality a Game MMO and World MMO, are both games, there to provide fun and entertainment. If I wanted a simulation of reality Virtyually I could be living in Second Life, there are millions of people there.
We are talking about Games, and the Design Philosophy behind them. I think and feel, that MMO's designed as Games, are shallow, short sighted, and simply aim to return a profit in the short term, which is a valuable Business Endeavor, but me as the Customer/Consumer/Player of them, is left unsatisfied, and disappointed, empty...
I think like the OP that there is a market for World MMO's. And if you prefer the Gamey ones, by all means stay playing the Gamey ones that you like they are not going away, but why not have something that I can like allong with those who feel the same?
We have stated our prefernces often. And i doubt anyone would care if the other side has some games to play. However, a lot of the discussion is about the size of the market, and whether certain game is likely to be developed. So when i say "i don't think there is a large market for world MMO", it is a discussion of the state of the industry, and not i want to stamp out all world games.
Personally from what i have seen to be successful in online games, i don't see a huge market for sandbox. If you look at what have been tried in the last 2-3 years. the successes are: WOT, LOL, Minecraft (which is more about building than a sandbox pve/pvp game). And games like Darkfall is no where close to the sucess like WOT or LOL. Even TOR is gathering more players than most sandbox games.
No one can deny that there is need for it. As for the Direction of the Genre, the direction evolves how people in the Industry Decide it should go, this is why some of us who have been there since the early days know better than to beleive that it is something which evolves on its own.
In reality Companies steer the players where they want them to. Sometimes it is gamble, and we have seen how players react to them. But most of the time it works...
I question that. Companies try all sort of games, and the market decide. Blizz is successful because they figure out what is fun for players, instead of dictating what is fun.
We began from the Idea that an MMO is a Social Experience shared by the players through their dealings and Interactions within the virtual World of the chosen Setting. To the idea that an MMO is just another single player game but that you play allong side other people so you can both compete/compere your rpogress live in real time.
The players did not choose this transformation...the people influential in the Industry did...
I disagree. Players chose this with vote of their wallet. At least i do. There are sandbox games i can play if i choose to. I chose not to.
Devs have tried sandboxes ... they do not gather the same level of success compared to WOW, LOL, Maple Story ....
I know often there are excuses like the sandbox have low budget and what-not .. note that Maple story, LOL, WOT are not high budget AAA games. Even torchlight is a good success as a low-budget indie game.
I think the market is very revealing of what players like.
The Themeparks fail to provide me with fun as much as the Sandboxes.
And most sandbox i played provides me with less fun than Diablo.
Are you ever reminded of Twilight fans? Edward! Jacob!
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 played diablo 3 have fun, move on to guild war2, have fun, still looking for more game to play.
The thing about those 2 game is I probably play those game on and off for the next 10 years. Good thing there is no sub.
There is also less of a "gear tredemill in those 2 game". So I dont' need to play every day to keep up.
Do you like FPS? I would recommend Planetside 2. Very fun game if you can live with low framerate (they really need to optimize the graphical engine better).
I played diablo 3 have fun, move on to guild war2, have fun, still looking for more game to play.
The thing about those 2 game is I probably play those game on and off for the next 10 years. Good thing there is no sub.
There is also less of a "gear tredemill in those 2 game". So I dont' need to play every day to keep up.
Me too. D3 is sort of a perfect game for me.
If i want challenge, i will up the MP, tweak my build and be very cautious. If i want to just feel the power, i go a lower MP, put on a "laser beam" build, and melt everything.
If i want to play with others, i go with uber runs. If i don't to just kill, i play the AH.
Have all the options i want .. challenge, power, solo, MP, a little of trading.
Originally posted by dalewj I have played 2 games in last 9 years for the most part. Entropian Universe for 8 years and 11 months. Afterworld.ru for 5 years 3 months. I am hardly a locust, but I also haven;t run out of content playingthese games between 20 and 30 hours a week.... Call me wierd, but i met my end games a long long time ago.
Weirdo.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Scot 1 specific: Lets make it take longer to get to top level, design MMO's so the average person takes three months to get a character to top level.
Good idea.. I've always thought that leveling is way to fast for my liking since 2004.. The journey needs to take longer.. I personally want to see a leveling curve around the one year mark..
Originally posted by funyahns They won't make games this way for long. Why bother spending all that money on building the game and systems just to be abandoned. Pretty soon you will just get a room where you can purchase crafts and wait in que for a dungeon without anything else to do. because the design of empty space is a waste
We have these sorts of MMOs already, they are called MOBAs and appeal to a large population players. (not that I understand the appeal)
Here is a question for you.... we have had defined genres for so many years now.
Multiplayer pretty much covered 8+ players, maybe ended around 64, perhaps a bit higher (all at the same time)
Co-op, that is 2-4 players (all at the same time).
Massive, which used to mean hundreds of characters (all at the same time).
But now massive means 10 players?
So what do I use to describe hundreds of players now that MMO stands for 2 to infinity?
Comments
Thats all we have been getting the past 5+/- years lol. But getting worse with each new release. SWTOR was to be the new age of mmo's lol.
But thankfuly the eastern dev's are doing something the westerners couldnt do........ grow a set of ba**s and stop copying WOW. With the new string of sandboxes coming from the east, westerners starting to look into it and make some also. So i hope no more konsole kiddie mmorpg's once these hit the market.
Its pretty damn bad that single player rpg's released now have more content than the mmorpg's lol.
Wow...this post is like a nightmare, it feels like if the OP came out of a Brainwashing Conditioning... being convinced that an MMO is the new Singleplayer game mode...and trying to convince us...
Hello, wake up!! Singleplayer games exist still you know, you play them for a month or two and you hop to the next, like you did with CIV. Some have multiplayer mode too you can share with your friends. Some devellop Modding communities which keep people together having fun with the same game for much longer too.
Please go and learn what the MMO experience is before you make more posts like this...the OP clearly has no understanding of what the MMO experience is. And if the claims are supported by Said Devs, then that is one of the factors as to why the Genre is full of dissapointing games...because apparently there are lots of DEVS out there who do not understand what the MMO experience is about either, like the OP.
*shakes head*
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
MMO experience changed. Back in EQ days, the experience is grind the same mob for hours, and camp the same dungeons for days. Now you can hit a button, queue up for a dungeon with no camping. It is not hard to see why the modern way is preferred by many.
And why anyone need to have an "understanding" of the old MMO experience? MMOs are games ... entertainment products. People should use them in anyway they like. So what if i enjoy the new experience opposed to the past ones?
This makes a certain kind of sense. Most people who play games view them as a temporary thing. They play "Today's Game", and move on. I don't think you can just take this approach with MMORPG though.
Once you decide to shut the servers down, you can no longer sell the game. I just bought a game written in 2006. If the game required servers to run, and the servers were shut down because 99.9% of the people who were going to play the game played it in 2006, that company would derive no residual income from the game.
Running servers requires a minimum number of players to be viable. That number could be pretty low, but if your player population is only playing for 3 months at a time, you have to figure out how to constantly get new players to maintain that minimum number.
The game experience may require a minimum number of players. There are a couple ways to do this (Champions Online just had one big server with "channels", and it worked), but the best is to just have more players.
So I don't disagree with the idea. I've actually thought the same thing myself. The mechanics of making it work might be harder than the usual approach of trying to get people to just stick around for a long time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I can say with full confidence that neither do you.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Actually I never liked EQ, I never got it, never played it (I was happy in UO when it came out), and I did not have to play it to know that I would not like it either, my friends description was sufficient at the time.
I did play many others which followed on its footsteps, from Lineage II to WoW, to SWTOR to Rift, etc etc etc..we all know them today as Themeparks.
At the base, WoW's gameplay is the same as EQ's, the mechanics might be different and the approach to the Progression Curve is different, yes, like the point you make about Grind vs No grind, but the scope is the same. EQ was designed to be a Game not a World, and WoW too, and all the Clones of it. But I do not want to mix topics here.
So while there has been "evolution" of the Design Philosophy of MMO's from then till now, I feel that it is not going towards the good direction, it is how I feel about it, I get no entertainment and pleasure from the games today, I buy them and play for a couple of weeks and get bored.
The OP is trying to imply that this is normal, that this is how it should be. And I disagree with that implication. That is not what an MMO experience should be in my view.
Now I am not saying do not use what has been learned, or do not be addaptable to the present reality. Today's players have been educated and have different expacatations, Long grinds are not to their taste. So fine, make games without Long grinds.
But to come and tell us now that we should simply expect a Single Player games that is only an MMO in name and that it is ok to play it for 1-3 months and move on is, trying to redifine the genre n an attempt to make a profit from it, or, the OP simply does not have a full perspective of the genre.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Thanks for the nice analytical reply.
I am not going to make a point by point retort.
But suffice it to say that, 99% of what we the players express in these forums about MMO's is personal preference, so I see no need having to be that specific in relation to that part.
The OP as well as you, have own preference too. You like to Play Single Player Games with a fee or a Sub or F2P as and for a few Weeks. It is your preference.
But is it your preference because it is really what you like and how you like to play MMO's or because you have not experienced any differently? You know, most of the people around here that do not like the current direction of the genre, have had the opportunity to experience differently.
It is not a question of Older or Newer for me, i could not care less if it is old or new. It is a question of Fun.
The Themeparks fail to provide me with fun as much as the Sandboxes.
Also it is important to specify that in reality a Game MMO and World MMO, are both games, there to provide fun and entertainment. If I wanted a simulation of reality Virtyually I could be living in Second Life, there are millions of people there.
We are talking about Games, and the Design Philosophy behind them. I think and feel, that MMO's designed as Games, are shallow, short sighted, and simply aim to return a profit in the short term, which is a valuable Business Endeavor, but me as the Customer/Consumer/Player of them, is left unsatisfied, and disappointed, empty...
I think like the OP that there is a market for World MMO's. And if you prefer the Gamey ones, by all means stay playing the Gamey ones that you like they are not going away, but why not have something that I can like allong with those who feel the same?
No one can deny that there is need for it. As for the Direction of the Genre, the direction evolves how people in the Industry Decide it should go, this is why some of us who have been there since the early days know better than to beleive that it is something which evolves on its own.
In reality Companies steer the players where they want them to. Sometimes it is gamble, and we have seen how players react to them. But most of the time it works...
We began from the Idea that an MMO is a Social Experience shared by the players through their dealings and Interactions within the virtual World of the chosen Setting. To the idea that an MMO is just another single player game but that you play allong side other people so you can both compete/compere your rpogress live in real time.
The players did not choose this transformation...the people influential in the Industry did...
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I cannot believe that posters need evidence that something from the past can be as good as or better than the present. Those stories you see in old MMO’s? All done before but now with a with a spin here and there and a tweak or two. That pretty graphics you love so much? The clothing and armour designs, the architecture, all done before in old MMO’s or lifted from history. The basics of chat and guilds, hardly any change from the old until now.
The systems of gameplay we would want to be brought back and those of today we would keep are the crux of the matter and worth another thread of their own.
The easyMMO apologists once again try to make out that we want an old game like UO brought back with just better graphics and we would be happy and think the game would be amazingly successful. I do not and I don't see anyone else on this site saying they do. We keep saying this but you won’t take the fingers out of your ears.
Of course we need to look forward as well, there are many things in new MMO’s that I applaud. We had no class driven questing like you see in SWTOR, you could not play music like you see in Lotro, we did not have the dynamic events which we see in many MMO’s now. For that matter I first saw a buddy system for questing in CoH. I am a big fan of PS2 (Ok it is not a MMO) purely because it is trying to do something different (once again!) in gaming. That is what we need, more new ideas and the best of the old.
I dont' think anyone doubts the possibility that something from the past could be better, but we aren't talking about possibilties we are talking specifics.
I believe aliens could exist and could visit earth, I want to see evidence about a particular instance. I know bears have been in my back yard in the past, I want to see evidence that they were there at such and such specific time. Something from the past could be better, I would like more justification than simply someone thinks it is better for this particular issues.
Unfortunately a great many people are saying just that, "Bring back EQ/UO/SWG" and just update the graphics". A thread with that as the theme at least once a week.
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.
Too bad the game companies are copying everything from the successful MMORPGS,
But the one thing that made these game popular, Innovation!! We dont need wows instance, or
UO sandboxxiness, FF class system or eves auction house. What we need is companies to
copy that innovation, not the game itself.
Why do all these game get boring? simple answer! you have played them all before in some
manner. When I played ragnarok online i loved it, couldnt get enough. Even though i had
played many of mmo's before that, something unique about RO was evident. After RO was
popular people tried to emulate the game. Next thing u know there are a ton of games like
RO but none of them with the same feel. Probally because people who tried it allready played RO
and decided that a clone is never better than the real deal. Hell people scream that here.
My dream game would have almost nothing from another game in it.
And for sandbox fanboi's.. You will never have a game thats as sandbox as you really want, you
have to pick and choose which part of LIFE you want to be emulated in a game. You cant really
have a full sandbox like people dream of. I love sandboxes too, But the idea of everything in game
being sandbox is absurd.
People say eve is a sandbox, I dont see how its more sandbox than any other game i have
played recently.
EVE FF UO
Auction house Auction house Player Vender
Astroids deplete Mines run out of ore Mines run out of Ore
Player Owned Satelites Mog housing Housing Can be designed
Space theme Fantasy theme Midevil theme
Fleet raids Dunegon raids Dunegon Raids
PVP/PVE PVP/PVE PVP/PVE
Skills that level by time Skills that train on action Skills train on action
Resawns everyday Respawns daily / hourly Respawns daily / hourly
Open World PVP No open PVP Open World PVP
GM assisted auction Game assisted Auction NONE
Races/Factions Races/Classes Races/Classes
(Yep Uo had classes from the beginning or did people forget those options on the
player creation screen "blacksmith" etc that set your armslore mining and BS up?)
Im sorry but i just dont see what makes eve and any other game more sandboxy than the
others. Truth is a good game is never linear, Rather their themepark or sandbox or flight
games. I honestly think people just lable thngs so they can disagree with others about it
for amusement.
O
Destiny has cheated me
By forcing me to decide upon
The woman that I idolise
Or the hands of an automaton
Without these hands I can't complete
The opera that was captivating her
But if I keep them, and she marries him
Then he probably won't want me dating her
Are you ever reminded of Twilight fans? Edward! Jacob!
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.
No. Why? I am an Avenger fan though, if you are getting at i like pop culture stuff. I enjoy what i enjoy. No apologies.
I played diablo 3 have fun, move on to guild war2, have fun, still looking for more game to play.
The thing about those 2 game is I probably play those game on and off for the next 10 years. Good thing there is no sub.
There is also less of a "gear tredemill in those 2 game". So I dont' need to play every day to keep up.
I have played 2 games in last 9 years for the most part.
HomePage/Gaming Blog - http://dalewj.com . MMORPGer - Current game: http://AfterWorld.ru .
Author of Diaries of Afterworld- http://www.jconsult.com/afterworld and the Outside Sci-Fi series- http://www.jconsult.com/outside
Do you like FPS? I would recommend Planetside 2. Very fun game if you can live with low framerate (they really need to optimize the graphical engine better).
Me too. D3 is sort of a perfect game for me.
If i want challenge, i will up the MP, tweak my build and be very cautious. If i want to just feel the power, i go a lower MP, put on a "laser beam" build, and melt everything.
If i want to play with others, i go with uber runs. If i don't to just kill, i play the AH.
Have all the options i want .. challenge, power, solo, MP, a little of trading.
Wish the expansion will come out sooner.
Weirdo.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Good idea.. I've always thought that leveling is way to fast for my liking since 2004.. The journey needs to take longer.. I personally want to see a leveling curve around the one year mark..
Becuase it leads game companies to do this
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/369311/page/1
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
EVE
Give me liberty or give me lasers