Most older MMOs had pretty much fluff and pretty advance form of housing such as UO, SWG and alike.
How come these things are not important anymore as it used to be?
Endgame for some are raids for pretty snowflakes while others treasure a nice looking home decorated from floor to sealing with a nice looking garden with trophies collected during your travels.
I am talking about games that is new not old ones like Vanguard,EQ2 and alike and yes I know about RIFT effort in doing it and I do find that fun that some tries to breath some light to this forgotten aspect in a game.
Look at NWN,TESO,GW2,TOR(yes tor has some of it not all)
We need more fluff, housing,cloathing,games, fishing, hunting, anything that will not include killing mobs.
Agreed. I would go so far as to say we need more social elements. Put the Multiplayer back into Massive Multiplayer Online.
Originally posted by Alders
I don't get it myself. I used to spend hours decorating and rearranging furniture in my mog house in FFXI.
We need more non-combat content and housing seems to me the easiest way to achieve that.
Aww, i love my moghouse. I agree, especially since the combat content is usually mind numbingly boring and repetitive.
Originally posted by Quirhid No, we don't need fluff, housing or other stuff not involving killing. Devoting as much time to them as "the killing part" is mad, because those features are nowhere near as popular. The killing stuff sells - fluff & housing does not.
Again you and your generalizations and made up facts. If all this killing stuff sells so good then why have so many of the games failed in the last 5+ years? Why is there not one single game that could hold on to it's player base?
Name me just ONE game from the last 5 years that contained mostly "killing stuff" that is not F2P or has lost most of it's player base. Come on, i dare you.
I think you are just making shiz up again.
PS: Don't say GW2 because that has a huge amount of fluff.
"Give players systems and tools instead of rails and rules"
Well fortunately it isn't lost as many have said there are games coming for us who want depth and fluff. I can guarantee Archeage will exceed everyone's expectations assuming they approch the game from that standpoint. Housing in Archeage IMHO is by far the best example of how powerful and engaging housing can be not to mention there is so much other fluff in the game, you could choose to focus on it entirely if you'd like and I am not just talking housing.
Also a note on Rift housing is that it is pure fluff. While having a house is nice, it must also serve function (crafting tables, binding, storage, etc). To the best of my knowledge, Rift was just for fun without the function.
Well fortunately it isn't lost as many have said there are games coming for us who want depth and fluff. I can guarantee Archeage will exceed everyone's expectations assuming they approch the game from that standpoint. Housing in Archeage IMHO is by far the best example of how powerful and engaging housing can be not to mention there is so much other fluff in the game, you could choose to focus on it entirely if you'd like and I am not just talking housing.
Also a note on Rift housing is that it is pure fluff. While having a house is nice, it must also serve function (crafting tables, binding, storage, etc). To the best of my knowledge, Rift was just for fun without the function.
Er, depth and fluff go in two completely separate directions. You either want systems which are deeper (you can spend more time in them before mastering them) which implies fewer, higher-quality systems, or you want systems which are fluffier, which implies plentiful, shallow systems.
Sure, nothing stops you from wanting both. (Just like we might want a high-end sports card to be fast, sexy, and really cheap.) But realistically few games get enough resources to provide both (and the games in best position to do that tend to be the ones that focus on their core systems first, so they can be successful enough to afford fluff, like WOW. Although as I mentioned in my earlier post it's certainly possible (elder scrolls) to be successful by spamming enough low-quality systems at a game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Quirhid No, we don't need fluff, housing or other stuff not involving killing. Devoting as much time to them as "the killing part" is mad, because those features are nowhere near as popular. The killing stuff sells - fluff & housing does not.
I use to think this until my kid started playing Free Realms. I played that with her one night and all the people do is stand around and do 'fluff stuff'.
Originally posted by BitterClinger Well, I think they are important, but they are helluva a lot harder to do in 3D than they were in 2D (or 2.5D).
why?
They tend to consume a lot more resources. A model and textures, especially with today's multilayer stuff, take up a lot more memory and processing than a flat sprite.
Starwars Galaxies had No problem with that and they did a outstanding housing system.
Most older MMOs had pretty much fluff and pretty advance form of housing such as UO, SWG and alike.
How come these things are not important anymore as it used to be?
Endgame for some are raids for pretty snowflakes while others treasure a nice looking home decorated from floor to sealing with a nice looking garden with trophies collected during your travels.
I am talking about games that is new not old ones like Vanguard,EQ2 and alike and yes I know about RIFT effort in doing it and I do find that fun that some tries to breath some light to this forgotten aspect in a game.
Look at NWN,TESO,GW2,TOR(yes tor has some of it not all)
We need more fluff, housing,cloathing,games, fishing, hunting, anything that will not include killing mobs.
Agreed. I would go so far as to say we need more social elements. Put the Multiplayer back into Massive Multiplayer Online.
Originally posted by Alders
I don't get it myself. I used to spend hours decorating and rearranging furniture in my mog house in FFXI.
We need more non-combat content and housing seems to me the easiest way to achieve that.
Aww, i love my moghouse. I agree, especially since the combat content is usually mind numbingly boring and repetitive.
Originally posted by Quirhid No, we don't need fluff, housing or other stuff not involving killing. Devoting as much time to them as "the killing part" is mad, because those features are nowhere near as popular. The killing stuff sells - fluff & housing does not.
Again you and your generalizations and made up facts. If all this killing stuff sells so good then why have so many of the games failed in the last 5+ years? Why is there not one single game that could hold on to it's player base?
Name me just ONE game from the last 5 years that contained mostly "killing stuff" that is not F2P or has lost most of it's player base. Come on, i dare you.
I think you are just making shiz up again.
PS: Don't say GW2 because that has a huge amount of fluff.
I would argue the reason most games have reduced the playerbase after the initial launch has absolutely nothing at all to do with fluff, either it's presence or absence.
It is just no realistic to expect a game to hold onto millions of players. Nothing to do with fluff.
I would also submit that regardless of how much fluff there was, if the combat system was crap the game would lose even more people and faster, or just never have them in the first place.
edit - I like housing, that was the best part and only reason for me going back to EQ2 a year or so ago, and then leaving when I couldn't go further with it. However while I do believe it is nice and can help, I also am convinced that most don't give a rat's behind about it as something more than a mild diversion from their main gaming activity, thus it rarely justifies putting in.
put it this way. IF you have a game that is doing poorly or doing great (doesn't matter which) without a housing system, adding a housing system will not make the game fundamentally better, it will still lose people if doing poorly, and if it was allready doing good it will not attract significantly more people to justify the cost. So where is the incentive to spend the money to do it?
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Personally i play games for good deep combat, and not fluff or housing.
Now I know we're all supposed to compete for dev attention, but these aren't mutually exclusive.
I know, cue the seagulls: mine mine mine mine mine..
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.
Most older MMOs had pretty much fluff and pretty advance form of housing such as UO, SWG and alike.
How come these things are not important anymore as it used to be?
Because they are not valued by many players.
That's probably the case. Even the OP, someone who wants this stuff, doesn't consider it primary or even secondary gameplay. It's "fluff."
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Personally i play games for good deep combat, and not fluff or housing.
Now I know we're all supposed to compete for dev attention, but these aren't mutually exclusive.
I know, cue the seagulls: mine mine mine mine mine..
of course they are not mutually exclusive. However, one dollar spending on housing is a dollar not spending on tuning combat, or add combat feature.
So given a budget constraints, devs have to pick and choose what to go into the game.
And of course it is "mine mine mine" ... just like everyone else. Do you tout others' pref? You only care about yours and i only care about mine. And that is how the world should be.
Most older MMOs had pretty much fluff and pretty advance form of housing such as UO, SWG and alike.
How come these things are not important anymore as it used to be?
Endgame for some are raids for pretty snowflakes while others treasure a nice looking home decorated from floor to sealing with a nice looking garden with trophies collected during your travels.
I am talking about games that is new not old ones like Vanguard,EQ2 and alike and yes I know about RIFT effort in doing it and I do find that fun that some tries to breath some light to this forgotten aspect in a game.
Look at NWN,TESO,GW2,TOR(yes tor has some of it not all)
We need more fluff, housing,cloathing,games, fishing, hunting, anything that will not include killing mobs.
Most older MMO's did not have housing. Housing has always been rare.
They all have fluff, old and new.
But yes we could always use more.
Honestly, why? What is the purpose of playing a game only so you can spend a huge amount of your time not actually playing the game? I don't mind some fluff if it is related to the game I'm playing, but going to watch a show in a game or raising pets that are useless in a game or constantly redesigning a house that nobody else can ever see in a game... none of that makes any sense to me. It's all just a distraction to keep players from realizing that they developers don't have enough meaningful content to keep them busy.
Most older MMOs had pretty much fluff and pretty advance form of housing such as UO, SWG and alike.
How come these things are not important anymore as it used to be?
Endgame for some are raids for pretty snowflakes while others treasure a nice looking home decorated from floor to sealing with a nice looking garden with trophies collected during your travels.
I am talking about games that is new not old ones like Vanguard,EQ2 and alike and yes I know about RIFT effort in doing it and I do find that fun that some tries to breath some light to this forgotten aspect in a game.
Look at NWN,TESO,GW2,TOR(yes tor has some of it not all)
We need more fluff, housing,cloathing,games, fishing, hunting, anything that will not include killing mobs.
Most older MMO's did not have housing. Housing has always been rare.
They all have fluff, old and new.
But yes we could always use more.
Honestly, why? What is the purpose of playing a game only so you can spend a huge amount of your time not actually playing the game? I don't mind some fluff if it is related to the game I'm playing, but going to watch a show in a game or raising pets that are useless in a game or constantly redesigning a house that nobody else can ever see in a game... none of that makes any sense to me. It's all just a distraction to keep players from realizing that they developers don't have enough meaningful content to keep them busy.
See the word 'meaningful' here is entirely subjective. Just because you don't like something does not make it any less meaningful to those that do. MMOs used to be world sims, combat was not the sole progression system, tertiary systems like housing and in-depth crafting were there to flesh out your character's role in the world. Who dictates that combat and only combat is 'playing the game'?
I assume you would also argue that crafting is a waste of resources? Because crafting doesn't involve combat either... Those crafted goods could easily just be sold by NPC merchants.
A lot of people always rally against housing yet they have no problem with crafting which is equally unrelated to combat when you get down to it. That makes no sense to me...
Originally posted by Quirhid No, we don't need fluff, housing or other stuff not involving killing. Devoting as much time to them as "the killing part" is mad, because those features are nowhere near as popular. The killing stuff sells - fluff & housing does not.
Combat might sell boxes but alone it's clearly done an abysmal job of retaining players. Giving players alternatives to constantly fighting makes them much less likely to burn out on the game, and systems like housing are open ended meaning that once they're in it takes very few developer resources to keep it fresh (just need to add a few new housing objects every now and then).
Your post sounds more like an 'I don't like it so no one else can have it' attitude. Judging by the slew of games on the way featuring housing I think it could be argued that devs actually think it will sell now.
Combat does not retain players? Ok, now you're talking out of your arse.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Quirhid No, we don't need fluff, housing or other stuff not involving killing. Devoting as much time to them as "the killing part" is mad, because those features are nowhere near as popular. The killing stuff sells - fluff & housing does not.
Yea you're right. Because the Sims wasn't one of the best selling games of all time. A game that was nearly entirely nothing but fluff, housing, etc. Woops.
Your point is now dead. You're welcome.
Sims is essentially a virtual dollhouse. It tapped a previously untapped market. It was greatly popular especially among female players. Now there's a lot of generalization behind this thought, but it is more or less true.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Personally i play games for good deep combat, and not fluff or housing.
Now I know we're all supposed to compete for dev attention, but these aren't mutually exclusive.
I know, cue the seagulls: mine mine mine mine mine..
of course they are not mutually exclusive. However, one dollar spending on housing is a dollar not spending on tuning combat, or add combat feature.
So given a budget constraints, devs have to pick and choose what to go into the game.
And of course it is "mine mine mine" ... just like everyone else. Do you tout others' pref? You only care about yours and i only care about mine. And that is how the world should be.
The thing is people do respond to things other than combat and if those non-combat things can be done within a reasonable budget they get done, so you have pet systems, collection systems, archeology, puzzles etc... and they should be added. Its only when something that takes a whole dev team to create and is touted as the saviour of the so called dying/failing modern MMO themepark, this is when you have to bring up the fact that the vast majority of players do not salivate at the though of owning your own virtual dolls house, but it still doesn't negate the fact that MMO's should have more than just combat, its just the type of non combat endeavors will have to be easy to implement and be low cost.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Originally posted by Quirhid No, we don't need fluff, housing or other stuff not involving killing. Devoting as much time to them as "the killing part" is mad, because those features are nowhere near as popular. The killing stuff sells - fluff & housing does not.
Yea you're right. Because the Sims wasn't one of the best selling games of all time. A game that was nearly entirely nothing but fluff, housing, etc. Woops.
Your point is now dead. You're welcome.
Sims is essentially a virtual dollhouse. It tapped a previously untapped market. It was greatly popular especially among female players. Now there's a lot of generalization behind this thought, but it is more or less true.
Add to that, it makes for a great, modded, single-player experience. As an MMO it failed.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Quirhid No, we don't need fluff, housing or other stuff not involving killing. Devoting as much time to them as "the killing part" is mad, because those features are nowhere near as popular. The killing stuff sells - fluff & housing does not.
Combat might sell boxes but alone it's clearly done an abysmal job of retaining players. Giving players alternatives to constantly fighting makes them much less likely to burn out on the game, and systems like housing are open ended meaning that once they're in it takes very few developer resources to keep it fresh (just need to add a few new housing objects every now and then).
Your post sounds more like an 'I don't like it so no one else can have it' attitude. Judging by the slew of games on the way featuring housing I think it could be argued that devs actually think it will sell now.
Combat does not retain players? Ok, now you're talking out of your arse.
You're aware that one of the biggest problems with the genre at the moment is that most players typically leave after 1-3 months right? Since MMOs went entirely combat-centric they have struggled to retain players at all. Older MMOs held players for years at a time, and guess what, they all had heavy amounts of fluff content.
Personally i play games for good deep combat, and not fluff or housing.
Now I know we're all supposed to compete for dev attention, but these aren't mutually exclusive.
I know, cue the seagulls: mine mine mine mine mine..
of course they are not mutually exclusive. However, one dollar spending on housing is a dollar not spending on tuning combat, or add combat feature.
So given a budget constraints, devs have to pick and choose what to go into the game.
And of course it is "mine mine mine" ... just like everyone else. Do you tout others' pref? You only care about yours and i only care about mine. And that is how the world should be.
The thing is people do respond to things other than combat and if those non-combat things can be done within a reasonable budget they get done, so you have pet systems, collection systems, archeology, puzzles etc... and they should be added. Its only when something that takes a whole dev team to create and is touted as the saviour of the so called dying/failing modern MMO themepark, this is when you have to bring up the fact that the vast majority of players do not salivate at the though of owning your own virtual dolls house, but it still doesn't negate the fact that MMO's should have more than just combat, its just the type of non combat endeavors will have to be easy to implement and be low cost.
No argument here. That is not inconsistent with the budget constraint issue i have pointed out.
Let me put it this way. There is a priority list for every feature. Fluff stuff & housing is just not that high on the list. Some will get done .. sure ... but no game is going to sacrifice core gameplay like combat because of fluff.
Plus, even the pet system in WOW has become combat oriented. I wonder why.
Originally posted by Quirhid No, we don't need fluff, housing or other stuff not involving killing. Devoting as much time to them as "the killing part" is mad, because those features are nowhere near as popular. The killing stuff sells - fluff & housing does not.
Combat might sell boxes but alone it's clearly done an abysmal job of retaining players. Giving players alternatives to constantly fighting makes them much less likely to burn out on the game, and systems like housing are open ended meaning that once they're in it takes very few developer resources to keep it fresh (just need to add a few new housing objects every now and then).
Your post sounds more like an 'I don't like it so no one else can have it' attitude. Judging by the slew of games on the way featuring housing I think it could be argued that devs actually think it will sell now.
Combat does not retain players? Ok, now you're talking out of your arse.
You're aware that one of the biggest problems with the genre at the moment is that most players typically leave after 1-3 months right? Since MMOs went entirely combat-centric they have struggled to retain players at all. Older MMOs held players for years at a time, and guess what, they all had heavy amounts of fluff content.
How about this... The older MMO's held players attention because 1: there were only a few that existed 2: the playerbase did not know any better 3: It was new shiny shiny and thats now wore off. I used to go out to House and Techno clubs through the 80's and 90's I stayed out all weekend and went out alllnight during the week, you could call me a hardcore clubber/raver in today's venacular but I've changed and my values have changed and I'd never do those things now. Maybe the same thing has happened to many an MMO gamer and thats why games do not retain players. Or like I've said in another thread players do still stay longterm with one game they are just spread thinner than they were because of there being more MMO's around. There could be many reasons for the things you say happening.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
You're aware that one of the biggest problems with the genre at the moment is that most players typically leave after 1-3 months right? Since MMOs went entirely combat-centric they have struggled to retain players at all. Older MMOs held players for years at a time, and guess what, they all had heavy amounts of fluff content.
Why look at that as a problem? Devs should adjust their investment to this new reality as opposed trying to "solve" it.
There are so many games, and so many new experiences that i see having huge number of players playing just one game day-in and day-out to be less and less likely.
I don't know about you .. but i would much prefer to play a new game, then stay in an old one because of fluff.
Personally i play games for good deep combat, and not fluff or housing.
Now I know we're all supposed to compete for dev attention, but these aren't mutually exclusive.
I know, cue the seagulls: mine mine mine mine mine..
of course they are not mutually exclusive. However, one dollar spending on housing is a dollar not spending on tuning combat, or add combat feature.
So given a budget constraints, devs have to pick and choose what to go into the game.
And of course it is "mine mine mine" ... just like everyone else. Do you tout others' pref? You only care about yours and i only care about mine. And that is how the world should be.
The thing is people do respond to things other than combat and if those non-combat things can be done within a reasonable budget they get done, so you have pet systems, collection systems, archeology, puzzles etc... and they should be added. Its only when something that takes a whole dev team to create and is touted as the saviour of the so called dying/failing modern MMO themepark, this is when you have to bring up the fact that the vast majority of players do not salivate at the though of owning your own virtual dolls house, but it still doesn't negate the fact that MMO's should have more than just combat, its just the type of non combat endeavors will have to be easy to implement and be low cost.
No argument here. That is not inconsistent with the budget constraint issue i have pointed out.
Let me put it this way. There is a priority list for every feature. Fluff stuff & housing is just not that high on the list. Some will get done .. sure ... but no game is going to sacrifice core gameplay like combat because of fluff.
Plus, even the pet system in WOW has become combat oriented. I wonder why.
I said that because to me it just comes across in your posts that its combat, combat, combat and there's no room for fluff.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
I said that because to me it just comes across in your posts that its combat, combat, combat and there's no room for fluff.
I don't hide the fact that i think combat gameplay (or more precisely conflict resolutoin gameplay which includes combat & stealth, hacking and other forms of "warfare") is core of most games i play (hence i am not into SIMS), and that i think these kind of gameplay are core to many games.
However, i am not opposed to have *some* fluff to add flavor. After all, the look of your character, terrain, ... all adds to atmostphere and presentation.
But the point is that i probably would not play a game just to craft, or to collect pets. So i want to point out combat is a high priority in many games, since most games are built to satisfy the primal need of power & violence.
I said that because to me it just comes across in your posts that its combat, combat, combat and there's no room for fluff.
I don't hide the fact that i think combat gameplay (or more precisely conflict resolutoin gameplay which includes combat & stealth, hacking and other forms of "warfare") is core of most games i play (hence i am not into SIMS), and that i think these kind of gameplay are core to many games.
However, i am not opposed to have *some* fluff to add flavor. After all, the look of your character, terrain, ... all adds to atmostphere and presentation.
But the point is that i probably would not play a game just to craft, or to collect pets. So i want to point out combat is a high priority in many games, since most games are built to satisfy the primal need of power & violence.
Cool I get where you are coming from now.
For me the orange part is the core to the argument, players that want that type of gameplay to be the dominant aspect have to really lower their expectations as games like that are not going to be immediately popular, they could grow to be but at the moment there is no real evidence that a MMO heavy on the simualtion with rake in the money, so no self respecting investor is going to throw AAA budgets at such a game. But players around here seem to thing that is what the genre needs and site it as reason why it is failing but its far from failing there are more tha 20X the MMO's around today and the playerbases are spread much thinner. So until a small indie virtual world game becomes the next big thing don't expect AAA money to be thrown at a virtual world game.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
You're aware that one of the biggest problems with the genre at the moment is that most players typically leave after 1-3 months right? Since MMOs went entirely combat-centric they have struggled to retain players at all. Older MMOs held players for years at a time, and guess what, they all had heavy amounts of fluff content.
Why look at that as a problem? Devs should adjust their investment to this new reality as opposed trying to "solve" it.
There are so many games, and so many new experiences that i see having huge number of players playing just one game day-in and day-out to be less and less likely.
I don't know about you .. but i would much prefer to play a new game, then stay in an old one because of fluff.
Well the fact is almost every MMO ever has focused almost all its efforts on implementing new carrots to chase to keep people playing. Even GW2 has shifted towards that model now despite its B2P nature. It's clear that devs think player retention is one of the most important things as it's how they make their money. Even a cash-shop based game like GW2 needs to retain players to increase spenders in the shop.
You seem to treat MMOs like console games that you 'finish' before moving on and that is neither what the genre was ever about, nor what the devs intend. It's a recent trend given rise by the console gamers starting to mix into the MMO playerbase. The genre should not be expected to change to suit them and given dev attempts to retain players I think they agree too.
My point was, no matter what they add content-wise, combat has proven not to be enough to retain players. Just look at any game since WoW for examples... When players do just one thing in-game all the time (kill stuff) they get bored quickly. Alternate systems give them variety which keeps things fresh and stops the game from getting boring. My point is and always will be: non-combat content (alongside a solid core of combat based content) is the key to retaining players.
In response to your last sentence though: I would much rather play the game that was most fun than chase the 'newest shiny' like you. From my experience those games I happen to find most fun just happen to also be the heaviest in 'fluff' content. I really wish people would stop using fluff as such a dismissive term though: it is not meaningless gameplay, in fact housing can be an integral gameplay element in some games (see SWG).
Comments
Well fortunately it isn't lost as many have said there are games coming for us who want depth and fluff. I can guarantee Archeage will exceed everyone's expectations assuming they approch the game from that standpoint. Housing in Archeage IMHO is by far the best example of how powerful and engaging housing can be not to mention there is so much other fluff in the game, you could choose to focus on it entirely if you'd like and I am not just talking housing.
Also a note on Rift housing is that it is pure fluff. While having a house is nice, it must also serve function (crafting tables, binding, storage, etc). To the best of my knowledge, Rift was just for fun without the function.
Er, depth and fluff go in two completely separate directions. You either want systems which are deeper (you can spend more time in them before mastering them) which implies fewer, higher-quality systems, or you want systems which are fluffier, which implies plentiful, shallow systems.
Sure, nothing stops you from wanting both. (Just like we might want a high-end sports card to be fast, sexy, and really cheap.) But realistically few games get enough resources to provide both (and the games in best position to do that tend to be the ones that focus on their core systems first, so they can be successful enough to afford fluff, like WOW. Although as I mentioned in my earlier post it's certainly possible (elder scrolls) to be successful by spamming enough low-quality systems at a game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I use to think this until my kid started playing Free Realms. I played that with her one night and all the people do is stand around and do 'fluff stuff'.
Starwars Galaxies had No problem with that and they did a outstanding housing system.
Because they are not valued by many players.
Personally i play games for good deep combat, and not fluff or housing.
I would argue the reason most games have reduced the playerbase after the initial launch has absolutely nothing at all to do with fluff, either it's presence or absence.
It is just no realistic to expect a game to hold onto millions of players. Nothing to do with fluff.
I would also submit that regardless of how much fluff there was, if the combat system was crap the game would lose even more people and faster, or just never have them in the first place.
edit - I like housing, that was the best part and only reason for me going back to EQ2 a year or so ago, and then leaving when I couldn't go further with it. However while I do believe it is nice and can help, I also am convinced that most don't give a rat's behind about it as something more than a mild diversion from their main gaming activity, thus it rarely justifies putting in.
put it this way. IF you have a game that is doing poorly or doing great (doesn't matter which) without a housing system, adding a housing system will not make the game fundamentally better, it will still lose people if doing poorly, and if it was allready doing good it will not attract significantly more people to justify the cost. So where is the incentive to spend the money to do it?
Now I know we're all supposed to compete for dev attention, but these aren't mutually exclusive.
I know, cue the seagulls: mine mine mine mine mine..
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.
That's probably the case. Even the OP, someone who wants this stuff, doesn't consider it primary or even secondary gameplay. It's "fluff."
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
of course they are not mutually exclusive. However, one dollar spending on housing is a dollar not spending on tuning combat, or add combat feature.
So given a budget constraints, devs have to pick and choose what to go into the game.
And of course it is "mine mine mine" ... just like everyone else. Do you tout others' pref? You only care about yours and i only care about mine. And that is how the world should be.
Honestly, why? What is the purpose of playing a game only so you can spend a huge amount of your time not actually playing the game? I don't mind some fluff if it is related to the game I'm playing, but going to watch a show in a game or raising pets that are useless in a game or constantly redesigning a house that nobody else can ever see in a game... none of that makes any sense to me. It's all just a distraction to keep players from realizing that they developers don't have enough meaningful content to keep them busy.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
See the word 'meaningful' here is entirely subjective. Just because you don't like something does not make it any less meaningful to those that do. MMOs used to be world sims, combat was not the sole progression system, tertiary systems like housing and in-depth crafting were there to flesh out your character's role in the world. Who dictates that combat and only combat is 'playing the game'?
I assume you would also argue that crafting is a waste of resources? Because crafting doesn't involve combat either... Those crafted goods could easily just be sold by NPC merchants.
A lot of people always rally against housing yet they have no problem with crafting which is equally unrelated to combat when you get down to it. That makes no sense to me...
Combat does not retain players? Ok, now you're talking out of your arse.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Sims is essentially a virtual dollhouse. It tapped a previously untapped market. It was greatly popular especially among female players. Now there's a lot of generalization behind this thought, but it is more or less true.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The thing is people do respond to things other than combat and if those non-combat things can be done within a reasonable budget they get done, so you have pet systems, collection systems, archeology, puzzles etc... and they should be added. Its only when something that takes a whole dev team to create and is touted as the saviour of the so called dying/failing modern MMO themepark, this is when you have to bring up the fact that the vast majority of players do not salivate at the though of owning your own virtual dolls house, but it still doesn't negate the fact that MMO's should have more than just combat, its just the type of non combat endeavors will have to be easy to implement and be low cost.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Add to that, it makes for a great, modded, single-player experience. As an MMO it failed.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You're aware that one of the biggest problems with the genre at the moment is that most players typically leave after 1-3 months right? Since MMOs went entirely combat-centric they have struggled to retain players at all. Older MMOs held players for years at a time, and guess what, they all had heavy amounts of fluff content.
No argument here. That is not inconsistent with the budget constraint issue i have pointed out.
Let me put it this way. There is a priority list for every feature. Fluff stuff & housing is just not that high on the list. Some will get done .. sure ... but no game is going to sacrifice core gameplay like combat because of fluff.
Plus, even the pet system in WOW has become combat oriented. I wonder why.
How about this... The older MMO's held players attention because 1: there were only a few that existed 2: the playerbase did not know any better 3: It was new shiny shiny and thats now wore off. I used to go out to House and Techno clubs through the 80's and 90's I stayed out all weekend and went out alllnight during the week, you could call me a hardcore clubber/raver in today's venacular but I've changed and my values have changed and I'd never do those things now. Maybe the same thing has happened to many an MMO gamer and thats why games do not retain players. Or like I've said in another thread players do still stay longterm with one game they are just spread thinner than they were because of there being more MMO's around. There could be many reasons for the things you say happening.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Why look at that as a problem? Devs should adjust their investment to this new reality as opposed trying to "solve" it.
There are so many games, and so many new experiences that i see having huge number of players playing just one game day-in and day-out to be less and less likely.
I don't know about you .. but i would much prefer to play a new game, then stay in an old one because of fluff.
I said that because to me it just comes across in your posts that its combat, combat, combat and there's no room for fluff.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
I don't hide the fact that i think combat gameplay (or more precisely conflict resolutoin gameplay which includes combat & stealth, hacking and other forms of "warfare") is core of most games i play (hence i am not into SIMS), and that i think these kind of gameplay are core to many games.
However, i am not opposed to have *some* fluff to add flavor. After all, the look of your character, terrain, ... all adds to atmostphere and presentation.
But the point is that i probably would not play a game just to craft, or to collect pets. So i want to point out combat is a high priority in many games, since most games are built to satisfy the primal need of power & violence.
Cool I get where you are coming from now.
For me the orange part is the core to the argument, players that want that type of gameplay to be the dominant aspect have to really lower their expectations as games like that are not going to be immediately popular, they could grow to be but at the moment there is no real evidence that a MMO heavy on the simualtion with rake in the money, so no self respecting investor is going to throw AAA budgets at such a game. But players around here seem to thing that is what the genre needs and site it as reason why it is failing but its far from failing there are more tha 20X the MMO's around today and the playerbases are spread much thinner. So until a small indie virtual world game becomes the next big thing don't expect AAA money to be thrown at a virtual world game.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Well the fact is almost every MMO ever has focused almost all its efforts on implementing new carrots to chase to keep people playing. Even GW2 has shifted towards that model now despite its B2P nature. It's clear that devs think player retention is one of the most important things as it's how they make their money. Even a cash-shop based game like GW2 needs to retain players to increase spenders in the shop.
You seem to treat MMOs like console games that you 'finish' before moving on and that is neither what the genre was ever about, nor what the devs intend. It's a recent trend given rise by the console gamers starting to mix into the MMO playerbase. The genre should not be expected to change to suit them and given dev attempts to retain players I think they agree too.
My point was, no matter what they add content-wise, combat has proven not to be enough to retain players. Just look at any game since WoW for examples... When players do just one thing in-game all the time (kill stuff) they get bored quickly. Alternate systems give them variety which keeps things fresh and stops the game from getting boring. My point is and always will be: non-combat content (alongside a solid core of combat based content) is the key to retaining players.
In response to your last sentence though: I would much rather play the game that was most fun than chase the 'newest shiny' like you. From my experience those games I happen to find most fun just happen to also be the heaviest in 'fluff' content. I really wish people would stop using fluff as such a dismissive term though: it is not meaningless gameplay, in fact housing can be an integral gameplay element in some games (see SWG).