Combat gets boring. It cannot help but get boring, and spending a lot of time to make it more 'exciting' isn't going to make a difference in the end. Once players develop a pattern of what the combat is like, the first steps towards boredom take root.
Where do you get that? Combat is the core of gaming. How many hours do people play COD .. nothing but shooting.
How many hours do people play D3? 99% is mowing down monsters.
Take any popular game .. how many is nothing but non-stop combat (plus some stories)? Halo, GoW, .....
Take the successful online games in the last 2 years .. LOL, WOT ... what is the gameplay in them? You guess it .. combat.
Don't think that if it is boring to you, it is boring to everyone.
I would like to know the % of game time people play per session. 10 mins? 20 min? 30 mins? an hour? and how often do these people log in per day? 2 times? 4 times? Or perhaps log in in a week. 10 times? 15 times?
When combat is the only thing that drives a game, how long can one play before they feel like logging out?
Would be something to look into to. the avarage play time per session of a combat orented player to a non combat orented player.
That study has already happened. You will just discount it because its from 2007 I believe (Eq2 was its focus group) and its finding were pretty clear that those who focus on "immersion" play less, and do not play as long as those who focus on goal orientated gameplay. Which one can only assume is part of the reason why many mmo's and game companies in general have moved in that direction. They do tend to listen to science when it tells them it makes them more money.
I am not surprised. For a game that costs 10s of $M to make, it make sense to spend a little on science. The fact that a) most games are combat oriented, and b) the combat centric games that i have listed are successful. Some of them has very little fluff, compared to old MMOs .. pretty much tell you how important combat gameplay is.
Ok, I think this may be my last post on this thread because it's becoming very obvious that the differences between a combat oriented game as opposed to a combat oriented mmorpg are escaping some people. If you just want to play a game(ie. and win it probably too) then mmorpgs are really not the right genre for you.
But, if you want to live in a virtual world and be able to create a whole character that not only has to fight enemies when in danger or to try and capture new territories, but also is able to eck out a living for themselves by hunting, fishing, cooking, crafting furniture/tools, crafting armour and weapons for those who prefer to make their living by providing for and protecting those who would prefer to tend the homefires so to speak, making potions for both good and ill and maybe even for fun, building your own home/village, raising crops/animals, taming, then a mmorpg is what you should be looking for and if it doesn't have the simple qualifier of having a persistant virtual world that you can "live" in, then it really isn't a mmorpg in my opinion, mmo something, but not mmorpg.
Combat gets boring. It cannot help but get boring, and spending a lot of time to make it more 'exciting' isn't going to make a difference in the end. Once players develop a pattern of what the combat is like, the first steps towards boredom take root.
Where do you get that? Combat is the core of gaming. How many hours do people play COD .. nothing but shooting.
How many hours do people play D3? 99% is mowing down monsters.
Take any popular game .. how many is nothing but non-stop combat (plus some stories)? Halo, GoW, .....
Take the successful online games in the last 2 years .. LOL, WOT ... what is the gameplay in them? You guess it .. combat.
Don't think that if it is boring to you, it is boring to everyone.
I would like to know the % of game time people play per session. 10 mins? 20 min? 30 mins? an hour? and how often do these people log in per day? 2 times? 4 times? Or perhaps log in in a week. 10 times? 15 times?
When combat is the only thing that drives a game, how long can one play before they feel like logging out?
Would be something to look into to. the avarage play time per session of a combat orented player to a non combat orented player.
That study has already happened. You will just discount it because its from 2007 I believe (Eq2 was its focus group) and its finding were pretty clear that those who focus on "immersion" play less, and do not play as long as those who focus on goal orientated gameplay. Which one can only assume is part of the reason why many mmo's and game companies in general have moved in that direction. They do tend to listen to science when it tells them it makes them more money.
I am not surprised. For a game that costs 10s of $M to make, it make sense to spend a little on science. The fact that a) most games are combat oriented, and b) the combat centric games that i have listed are successful. Some of them has very little fluff, compared to old MMOs .. pretty much tell you how important combat gameplay is.
Please also look up the studies.
Nice list of mostly non-mmos, and how everything is so successful, that they can't get people to stay in the game most of the time. Maybe the generic tone of combat above all else, and why spend money on alternative play is the reason for the massive failures, not the proof of it being done correctly.
Most multiple choice questionaires are crap, they are usually worded badly, or in a way to get a response. It would be far better if people could list things in a order of importance, or weight them.
Whatever the data is people have been using the last 6-8 years, they should sue the people for their lost development money back.
Combat gets boring. It cannot help but get boring, and spending a lot of time to make it more 'exciting' isn't going to make a difference in the end. Once players develop a pattern of what the combat is like, the first steps towards boredom take root.
Where do you get that? Combat is the core of gaming. How many hours do people play COD .. nothing but shooting.
How many hours do people play D3? 99% is mowing down monsters.
Take any popular game .. how many is nothing but non-stop combat (plus some stories)? Halo, GoW, .....
Take the successful online games in the last 2 years .. LOL, WOT ... what is the gameplay in them? You guess it .. combat.
Don't think that if it is boring to you, it is boring to everyone.
I would like to know the % of game time people play per session. 10 mins? 20 min? 30 mins? an hour? and how often do these people log in per day? 2 times? 4 times? Or perhaps log in in a week. 10 times? 15 times?
When combat is the only thing that drives a game, how long can one play before they feel like logging out?
Would be something to look into to. the avarage play time per session of a combat orented player to a non combat orented player.
That study has already happened. You will just discount it because its from 2007 I believe (Eq2 was its focus group) and its finding were pretty clear that those who focus on "immersion" play less, and do not play as long as those who focus on goal orientated gameplay. Which one can only assume is part of the reason why many mmo's and game companies in general have moved in that direction. They do tend to listen to science when it tells them it makes them more money.
I am not surprised. For a game that costs 10s of $M to make, it make sense to spend a little on science. The fact that a) most games are combat oriented, and b) the combat centric games that i have listed are successful. Some of them has very little fluff, compared to old MMOs .. pretty much tell you how important combat gameplay is.
Please also look up the studies.
"The studies" you refer to don't exist. But I did find this one:
"What’s interesting about Achievement as a play motivation is that it may directly lead a player to the Burn Out stage (thus both a good and bad thing at the same time). As the chart also shows, players who make it to the Casual stage have let go of their strong Achievement drives. Or in other words, strong Achievement players in Burn Out stages tend to quit instead of stay, and thus the ones who remain in the game (in Casual stage) score lower on Achievement on average."
Here's Smed recently, the one who once said "sandbox can't work":
"Our opinion is that today's MMOs, and I'd include ours in that mix, are stagnant and stuck in this model that we frankly helped create with EverQuest, where we put new content in the game, and they go through it at an incredibly fast rate because of sites like Thottbot and that kind of stuff."
"In my opinion, the days when companies can make content [generation] the number one strategy, in the kinds of games we make, are over, because we can't win the war. Star Wars:The Old Republic proved that. Players bought it, loved it, and they played the game. Then they left."
Frankly, all this adds up to the same thing: the kind of streamlined, action/adventure-esque, fluffless combat MMO we've been accustomed to for the last decade is coming to a close. It is, because the combat/achievement crowd costs more to appease than they grant in return.
Meanwhile, you have housewives, teenage girls, men who aren't manchildren and business professionals dropping $50 on lot space for 2D flash programs on Facebook. The industry is betting that these folks want high quality, 3D environments where they'll do the same things they are doing now...the things they used to do back in the early MMO days. That's the future we're going to see.
We're going to see it because their development dollar goes farther. For the price of one coder, one mesh, and one texture, they can get more from the "fluff lovers" via the item store than they can with the combat folk, who require legions of coders, testers, and capital outlay to appease (and they are never appeased for long).
Now tell me. Please do. If it's so unecessary to do this kind of "fluff" stuff, how come every single game on the ropes (and even a lot not on the ropes) these days have offered up fluff items? Because combat alone ain't cuttin' it anymore.
I mean, we have DCUO coming out with housing, so late in its post-launch cycle. They do it becaause they really don't have anywhere else to go. Combat content is pointless, because the manchildren park out for 72 hours straight to finish a year's worth of expansion, and thousands--if not millions of dollars in capital expenditure--in a few days.
The counterstrike crowd has outlived its usefulness to this genre. Now it's time to take our worlds back, one lot purchase at a time.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I am not surprised. For a game that costs 10s of $M to make, it make sense to spend a little on science. The fact that a) most games are combat oriented, and b) the combat centric games that i have listed are successful. Some of them has very little fluff, compared to old MMOs .. pretty much tell you how important combat gameplay is.
Please also look up the studies.
"The studies" you refer to don't exist. But I did find this one:
"What’s interesting about Achievement as a play motivation is that it may directly lead a player to the Burn Out stage (thus both a good and bad thing at the same time). As the chart also shows, players who make it to the Casual stage have let go of their strong Achievement drives. Or in other words, strong Achievement players in Burn Out stages tend to quit instead of stay, and thus the ones who remain in the game (in Casual stage) score lower on Achievement on average."
Here's Smed recently, the one who once said "sandbox can't work":
"Our opinion is that today's MMOs, and I'd include ours in that mix, are stagnant and stuck in this model that we frankly helped create with EverQuest, where we put new content in the game, and they go through it at an incredibly fast rate because of sites like Thottbot and that kind of stuff."
"In my opinion, the days when companies can make content [generation] the number one strategy, in the kinds of games we make, are over, because we can't win the war. Star Wars:The Old Republic proved that. Players bought it, loved it, and they played the game. Then they left."
Frankly, all this adds up to the same thing: the kind of streamlined, action/adventure-esque, fluffless combat MMO we've been accustomed to for the last decade is coming to a close. It is, because the combat/achievement crowd costs more to appease than they grant in return.
Meanwhile, you have housewives, teenage girls, men who aren't manchildren and business professionals dropping $50 on lot space for 2D flash programs on Facebook. The industry is betting that these folks want high quality, 3D environments where they'll do the same things they are doing now...the things they used to do back in the early MMO days. That's the future we're going to see.
We're going to see it because their development dollar goes farther. For the price of one coder, one mesh, and one texture, they can get more from the "fluff lovers" via the item store than they can with the combat folk, who require legions of coders, testers, and capital outlay to appease (and they are never appeased for long).
Now tell me. Please do. If it's so unecessary to do this kind of "fluff" stuff, how come every single game on the ropes (and even a lot not on the ropes) these days have offered up fluff items? Because combat alone ain't cuttin' it anymore.
I mean, we have DCUO coming out with housing, so late in its post-launch cycle. They do it becaause they really don't have anywhere else to go. Combat content is pointless, because the manchildren park out for 72 hours straight to finish a year's worth of expansion, and thousands--if not millions of dollars in capital expenditure--in a few days.
The counterstrike crowd has outlived its usefulness to this genre. Now it's time to take our worlds back, one lot purchase at a time.
You believe a man in John Smedley who hasn't released a fully featured and working game at release ever? When the new "saviours" of the MMO world like Archeage, Age Of Wushu, Black Desert or indie titles like Star Citizen, Greed Monger (god thats a rubbish name) go down the same route as every other MMO from the past few years will you come back and correct your gung ho elitist attitude of taking back "our worlds"? diversity is great within any scene and I welcome it but to dismiss the whole scene because you cannot play dolls house or pick flowers 24/7 is ridiculous. I always thought RPG's were about epic adventurers and winning out against all odds not playing average joe from nowhere. I can sense your frustration in your post and I'm afraid thats a problem only you can deal with but lashing out at the so called "service hazard" players who put your little scene on the map is taking it too far.
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.
Frankly, all this adds up to the same thing: the kind of streamlined, action/adventure-esque, fluffless combat MMO we've been accustomed to for the last decade is coming to a close. It is, because the combat/achievement crowd costs more to appease than they grant in return.
Meanwhile, you have housewives, teenage girls, men who aren't manchildren and business professionals dropping $50 on lot space for 2D flash programs on Facebook. The industry is betting that these folks want high quality, 3D environments where they'll do the same things they are doing now...the things they used to do back in the early MMO days. That's the future we're going to see.
Really? If you look at big sellers of games in 2012 .. most are combat oriented.
Surely there is farmville, and stuff like that for housewives and teenage girls. Do you think that is the future of gaming? Farmville is not doing as well as it once was ... right?
Frankly, all this adds up to the same thing: the kind of streamlined, action/adventure-esque, fluffless combat MMO we've been accustomed to for the last decade is coming to a close. It is, because the combat/achievement crowd costs more to appease than they grant in return.
Meanwhile, you have housewives, teenage girls, men who aren't manchildren and business professionals dropping $50 on lot space for 2D flash programs on Facebook. The industry is betting that these folks want high quality, 3D environments where they'll do the same things they are doing now...the things they used to do back in the early MMO days. That's the future we're going to see.
Really? If you look at big sellers of games in 2012 .. most are combat oriented.
Surely there is farmville, and stuff like that for housewives and teenage girls. Do you think that is the future of gaming? Farmville is not doing as well as it once was ... right?
Perhaps the future of online gaming is to actually institutionalize the schism we're seeing right now in threads like this one.
1) You'll have the publishing houses design new games, stripping out the MMORPGs of the last remaining RPG elements that WoW didn't already strip out--the stuff the combat twinks say they hate (customization, fluff, reading, etc.)--until they aren't even RPGs anymore. We see this in games like League of Legends (the real WoW killer, in my estimation). Those people will leave the MMORPG scene and spin off into their own sub-genre of grind/button mash/PvP/loot/Rankings splendor.
2) You'll also find publishers (probably the same publishers) will keep on adding things into other new MMORPGs, things that they used to have, that a more diverse clientele would find appealing. Those people will form the kind of cosmopolitan MMORPG clientele that the games used to attract. Combat will be there, but it won't be the focus. Immersion will be the focus.
In short, I think this whole affair with "making MMORPGs an alternative to Diablo and Counterstrike" is coming to a close. You'll have MMORPGs, and you'll have online combat games like League of Legends.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Frankly, all this adds up to the same thing: the kind of streamlined, action/adventure-esque, fluffless combat MMO we've been accustomed to for the last decade is coming to a close. It is, because the combat/achievement crowd costs more to appease than they grant in return.
Meanwhile, you have housewives, teenage girls, men who aren't manchildren and business professionals dropping $50 on lot space for 2D flash programs on Facebook. The industry is betting that these folks want high quality, 3D environments where they'll do the same things they are doing now...the things they used to do back in the early MMO days. That's the future we're going to see.
Really? If you look at big sellers of games in 2012 .. most are combat oriented.
Surely there is farmville, and stuff like that for housewives and teenage girls. Do you think that is the future of gaming? Farmville is not doing as well as it once was ... right?
Perhaps the future of online gaming is to actually institutionalize the schism we're seeing right now in threads like this one.
1) You'll have the publishing houses design new games, stripping out the MMORPGs of the last remaining RPG elements that WoW didn't already strip out--the stuff the combat twinks say they hate (customization, fluff, reading, etc.)--until they aren't even RPGs anymore. We see this in games like League of Legends (the real WoW killer, in my estimation). Those people will leave the MMORPG scene and spin off into their own sub-genre of grind/button mash/PvP/loot/Rankings splendor.
2) You'll also find publishers (probably the same publishers) will keep on adding things into other new MMORPGs, things that they used to have, that a more diverse clientele would find appealing. Those people will form the kind of cosmopolitan MMORPG clientele that the games used to attract. Combat will be there, but it won't be the focus. Immersion will be the focus.
In short, I think this whole affair with "making MMORPGs an alternative to Diablo and Counterstrike" is coming to a close. You'll have MMORPGs, and you'll have online combat games like League of Legends.
How do you come up with this stuff its priceless, cosmopolitan really? cRPG geeks and D 'n' D geeks is cosmopolitan these days is it? I bet you there is a more diverse clientelle in todays MMO's than there ever was in the past.
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.
Perhaps the future of online gaming is to actually institutionalize the schism we're seeing right now in threads like this one.
1) You'll have the publishing houses design new games, stripping out the MMORPGs of the last remaining RPG elements that WoW didn't already strip out--the stuff the combat twinks say they hate (customization, fluff, reading, etc.)--until they aren't even RPGs anymore. We see this in games like League of Legends (the real WoW killer, in my estimation). Those people will leave the MMORPG scene and spin off into their own sub-genre of grind/button mash/PvP/loot/Rankings splendor.
2) You'll also find publishers (probably the same publishers) will keep on adding things into other new MMORPGs, things that they used to have, that a more diverse clientele would find appealing. Those people will form the kind of cosmopolitan MMORPG clientele that the games used to attract. Combat will be there, but it won't be the focus. Immersion will be the focus.
In short, I think this whole affair with "making MMORPGs an alternative to Diablo and Counterstrike" is coming to a close. You'll have MMORPGs, and you'll have online combat games like League of Legends.
Nothing but speculation.
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.
The "fluff" is much of what made MMOs of the past feel like actual worlds. The complete focus on killing stuff is one of the main reasons most current games feel so limited - our characters are not denizens of a world, they are troop types and the only activity is slaughter. When games offer nothing other than killing, they can get boring fast.
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.
The "fluff" is much of what made MMOs of the past feel like actual worlds. The complete focus on killing stuff is one of the main reasons most current games feel so limited - our characters are not denizens of a world, they are troop types and the only activity is slaughter. When games offer nothing other than killing, they can get boring fast.
What fluff was there in EQ, AC, DAOC, FFIX?
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.
Perhaps the future of online gaming is to actually institutionalize the schism we're seeing right now in threads like this one.
Sure. It is happening already. And when you say schism ... it basically means more game types and choices. It is GOOD to have MOBAs like LOL so players don't have to deal with the additional fluff stuff if all they want is arena pvp.
Ditto for games like D3, and PoE. Why deal with travel when some player only wants to kill & upgrade their character?
There are more examples .. and essentially the market is fragmenting into different types of games for different preferences. But note that more games have MMO elements (like AH & crafting). I think if you look at MMO-like games .. there are a lot exciting development.
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.
The "fluff" is much of what made MMOs of the past feel like actual worlds. The complete focus on killing stuff is one of the main reasons most current games feel so limited - our characters are not denizens of a world, they are troop types and the only activity is slaughter. When games offer nothing other than killing, they can get boring fast.
What fluff was there in EQ, AC, DAOC, FFIX?
I'll take AC:
- fishing
- chess
- housing
- titles
- cow tipping
- costumes
- gambling
- wedding trials and seasonal quests
- pack doll collection
I haven't played much in the past few years, so there may be more.
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
i hope this topic keeps on goin. i love reading the combat crowds responces. it cracks me up. I know Bill touched on this subject like a month ago but i would like this to be another topic for FTW.
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..
You know as well as I do that claiming mutual exclusivity where it actually doesn't exist is the way to emphasise what 'we' want using the 'playground logic' school of thought...
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.
I have to agree with you, fluff adds a lot of fun for many players.
However is this secondary stuff that should be added in the first expansion or so, a vanilla games really should focus in making a fun and well running game, when you have that you can add in the fluff.
Those games might very well add it later and I think we should lobby for that but at launch I rather have a good running game instead of a laggy buggfeast with fluff.
First get the basic right then add the fun extra stuff.
Well, my most important gripe with SW ToR is the lack of fluff and fun, but its also missing lack of content... I love the game and I love the IP, I want the story, but it isn't an mmo...
I Love Everquest 2, Everquest, and Vanguard for they all having housing and Vanguard even has boats!! Whatever happened to fluff? SWToR was a huge disappointment with crafting and now you have to grind credits and spend for cool stuff off the Cartel Shop if you don't want to outright buy it for dollars, because it isn't available in game... Now all this fun stuff they should have had on launch costs more money?
Not to mention the gambling randomized packs that you have to buy, and your inability to directly buy what you specifically want, so you really do have to grind credits, since dollars gives you no guarentee that you will actually recieve what you want to buy.
Back when Everquest 2 began there were "fun" spells for up to level 50, those were awesome... Now we get awesome prestige houses like Thurgadin's Hall, Lavastorm and Everfrost, even Tenebrous Tangle's floating Island is now a housing zone!! Awesome housing areas, that make the game shine!!
What does SWToR have? Tiny cramped spaces, when it should have been wide open and huge housing plots like Star Wars Galaxies was. Linear quests, and no other leveling path, grrr...
Inability to fly where I want to and having to take taxi cabs?? Meh...
Shouldn't it be a huge seamless world like WoW? How do you copy WoW and go so horribly wrong with current tech?
The Flight mechanics should have been present, the huge expansive world of SWG, the housing of SWG, and most of all the previous skill trees ><.
Sad thing is, I love the cinematics in WoW, and I love Voice Overs, but we can't have them in games anymore, since they just come out linear and boring, lacking all the fun "fluff" variety features I want in housing and crafting...
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..
You know as well as I do that claiming mutual exclusivity where it actually doesn't exist is the way to emphasise what 'we' want using the 'playground logic' school of thought...
In a world where games are made with unlimited resources the two wouldn't be mutually exclusive. But alas...
I agree with Loke, I'd rather see a developer make sure the game is fun and works before adding fluff.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I completely agree that fluff (a better term would be complementary and social features) is quite crucial for a game to last and a possible way to attract more players to the genre. I would further argue that the benefits to already having fluff in the game in the beginning vs. adding in the next big patch or something like that, can be substantial.
As mentioned in the thread before, a huge amount of players leaves within 1-3 months as in that time they've figured out the combat and begun to feel disappointed about the rest and either take it to the forums with how bad the combat is (as that's all they see and it's never perfect, not these days, not for today's mmo-players) or quietly leave. Either way, adding fluff at that point would be like adding salt to an open wound as they are already disappointed. No amount of fluff is going to change anyone's opinion of a game.
Conversely, already having fluff in the game, can profoundly complement the gamers' experience and reinforce their opinion of it. It is true, that the amount does not need to be that much in the beginning, but.. having none is a bad choice in priorities.
I for one won't be sad when more social functions get into mmorpg's. Eventually they might be the solution as to how mmorpg's can return to actually retaining people. TBH it might also do wonders to the playerbase in general... wishful thinking tho, but teenage boys do not often make a fun community. The 90% of the chat in many (most?) games these days...
this is oen fo the reasons why people leave MMo's so fast. All teh devs think abotu it combat and crafting content. they leave out fluff for an afetr thought and peopel get tired of only doing combat abd crafting. Since the game doesnt provide anything else, they turn it off. if teh game did provide something else, they would be more likely to do those other things. Its pretty silly really, i cant for the life of me understand why they put so little faith in it.
The problem is most games nowadays are spending too much money on graphics, voice overs, and "new" features that aren't really worth it. Generally, the developer needs to make a choice: ignore the fluff/and try to make a game that will keep people in it, or add the fluff and have a game with little substance.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the housing from UO or SWG again. THAT was enjoyeable. However, keep in mind one thing: Both of those games were Sandbox. Short of having a zone where you can place your houses (like DAoC), I don't see how a developer can do real housing in these crappy themepark games they keep releasing.
Personally, I'm tired of "apartments" (like EQ2). Give me a plot of land, give me the ability to bulid a real house.
While they're at it, give me a game that isn't WoW, has great customization and replayability, has more substance than a game with nothing but voice overs, and a game that has more to do than level to 80, grind gear that isn't that much better, and PvP.
Raquelis in various games Played: Everything Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6 Wants: The World Anticipating:Everquest NextCrowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
- titles (unrelated to any achievements, altho achievement titles exist too)
- illusions that players can wear
- housing was added in 2010 in House of Thule expansion
OK the AC list is good but were they all in at launch? the EQ list not so much especially housing 2010.
Right modern MMO's
Guild Wars 2
Titles
Dyes (literally hundreds of colours to collect)
Exploration (loads of hidden stuff not on map)
Vistas
Keg Brawl
Town Clothing
Mini Pets
Achievements (loads of non combat ones)
Jumping Puzzles
Map Completion
Mystic Toil.. sorry Forge
Lots of potions that turn you into mobs.
RIFT
Housing
Collections
Titles
Achievements
Fishing
Marriage
SW:TOR
Data Crons
Achievements
Pets
Codex
Companion Stories
Gift affection system
Titles
There were rumours of the Ship system being expanding in Fluff terms, decorations and having more ship types.
These games are in their infancy but its not a bad start really is it? EQ took 11 years to add housing.
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.
Nice list of mostly non-mmos, and how everything is so successful, that they can't get people to stay in the game most of the time. Maybe the generic tone of combat above all else, and why spend money on alternative play is the reason for the massive failures, not the proof of it being done correctly.
Most multiple choice questionaires are crap, they are usually worded badly, or in a way to get a response. It would be far better if people could list things in a order of importance, or weight them.
Whatever the data is people have been using the last 6-8 years, they should sue the people for their lost development money back.
Uh? LOL has more active players than all MMOs.
D3 is still top 10 after so many months, and only behind two MMOs (WOW & GW2) on xifre. Where do you get the "can't get people stay in the game"?
Comments
I am not surprised. For a game that costs 10s of $M to make, it make sense to spend a little on science. The fact that a) most games are combat oriented, and b) the combat centric games that i have listed are successful. Some of them has very little fluff, compared to old MMOs .. pretty much tell you how important combat gameplay is.
Please also look up the studies.
Ok, I think this may be my last post on this thread because it's becoming very obvious that the differences between a combat oriented game as opposed to a combat oriented mmorpg are escaping some people. If you just want to play a game(ie. and win it probably too) then mmorpgs are really not the right genre for you.
But, if you want to live in a virtual world and be able to create a whole character that not only has to fight enemies when in danger or to try and capture new territories, but also is able to eck out a living for themselves by hunting, fishing, cooking, crafting furniture/tools, crafting armour and weapons for those who prefer to make their living by providing for and protecting those who would prefer to tend the homefires so to speak, making potions for both good and ill and maybe even for fun, building your own home/village, raising crops/animals, taming, then a mmorpg is what you should be looking for and if it doesn't have the simple qualifier of having a persistant virtual world that you can "live" in, then it really isn't a mmorpg in my opinion, mmo something, but not mmorpg.
Nice list of mostly non-mmos, and how everything is so successful, that they can't get people to stay in the game most of the time. Maybe the generic tone of combat above all else, and why spend money on alternative play is the reason for the massive failures, not the proof of it being done correctly.
Most multiple choice questionaires are crap, they are usually worded badly, or in a way to get a response. It would be far better if people could list things in a order of importance, or weight them.
Whatever the data is people have been using the last 6-8 years, they should sue the people for their lost development money back.
"The studies" you refer to don't exist. But I did find this one:
"What’s interesting about Achievement as a play motivation is that it may directly lead a player to the Burn Out stage (thus both a good and bad thing at the same time). As the chart also shows, players who make it to the Casual stage have let go of their strong Achievement drives. Or in other words, strong Achievement players in Burn Out stages tend to quit instead of stay, and thus the ones who remain in the game (in Casual stage) score lower on Achievement on average."
Nick Yee, 2007.
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001646.php?page=5
Here's Smed recently, the one who once said "sandbox can't work":
"Our opinion is that today's MMOs, and I'd include ours in that mix, are stagnant and stuck in this model that we frankly helped create with EverQuest, where we put new content in the game, and they go through it at an incredibly fast rate because of sites like Thottbot and that kind of stuff."
http://www.polygon.com/2012/12/18/3777814/planetside-2-is-just-the-start-of-sony-online-entertainments-free
Here's him again:
"In my opinion, the days when companies can make content [generation] the number one strategy, in the kinds of games we make, are over, because we can't win the war. Star Wars:The Old Republic proved that. Players bought it, loved it, and they played the game. Then they left."
http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/01/24/smedley-talks-players-as-content-hints-at-eqnext-actual-releas/
Frankly, all this adds up to the same thing: the kind of streamlined, action/adventure-esque, fluffless combat MMO we've been accustomed to for the last decade is coming to a close. It is, because the combat/achievement crowd costs more to appease than they grant in return.
Meanwhile, you have housewives, teenage girls, men who aren't manchildren and business professionals dropping $50 on lot space for 2D flash programs on Facebook. The industry is betting that these folks want high quality, 3D environments where they'll do the same things they are doing now...the things they used to do back in the early MMO days. That's the future we're going to see.
We're going to see it because their development dollar goes farther. For the price of one coder, one mesh, and one texture, they can get more from the "fluff lovers" via the item store than they can with the combat folk, who require legions of coders, testers, and capital outlay to appease (and they are never appeased for long).
Combat-centric players also are a service hazard. Combat games create a culture of harassment, abusiveness and cheating (http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2012/08/hell-is-other-games-and-some-games.html). They scare away the lucrative people the industry wants to attract (mature players, women, children).
Now tell me. Please do. If it's so unecessary to do this kind of "fluff" stuff, how come every single game on the ropes (and even a lot not on the ropes) these days have offered up fluff items? Because combat alone ain't cuttin' it anymore.
I mean, we have DCUO coming out with housing, so late in its post-launch cycle. They do it becaause they really don't have anywhere else to go. Combat content is pointless, because the manchildren park out for 72 hours straight to finish a year's worth of expansion, and thousands--if not millions of dollars in capital expenditure--in a few days.
The counterstrike crowd has outlived its usefulness to this genre. Now it's time to take our worlds back, one lot purchase at a time.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
You believe a man in John Smedley who hasn't released a fully featured and working game at release ever? When the new "saviours" of the MMO world like Archeage, Age Of Wushu, Black Desert or indie titles like Star Citizen, Greed Monger (god thats a rubbish name) go down the same route as every other MMO from the past few years will you come back and correct your gung ho elitist attitude of taking back "our worlds"? diversity is great within any scene and I welcome it but to dismiss the whole scene because you cannot play dolls house or pick flowers 24/7 is ridiculous. I always thought RPG's were about epic adventurers and winning out against all odds not playing average joe from nowhere. I can sense your frustration in your post and I'm afraid thats a problem only you can deal with but lashing out at the so called "service hazard" players who put your little scene on the map is taking it too far.
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.
Really? If you look at big sellers of games in 2012 .. most are combat oriented.
Surely there is farmville, and stuff like that for housewives and teenage girls. Do you think that is the future of gaming? Farmville is not doing as well as it once was ... right?
Perhaps the future of online gaming is to actually institutionalize the schism we're seeing right now in threads like this one.
1) You'll have the publishing houses design new games, stripping out the MMORPGs of the last remaining RPG elements that WoW didn't already strip out--the stuff the combat twinks say they hate (customization, fluff, reading, etc.)--until they aren't even RPGs anymore. We see this in games like League of Legends (the real WoW killer, in my estimation). Those people will leave the MMORPG scene and spin off into their own sub-genre of grind/button mash/PvP/loot/Rankings splendor.
2) You'll also find publishers (probably the same publishers) will keep on adding things into other new MMORPGs, things that they used to have, that a more diverse clientele would find appealing. Those people will form the kind of cosmopolitan MMORPG clientele that the games used to attract. Combat will be there, but it won't be the focus. Immersion will be the focus.
In short, I think this whole affair with "making MMORPGs an alternative to Diablo and Counterstrike" is coming to a close. You'll have MMORPGs, and you'll have online combat games like League of Legends.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
How do you come up with this stuff its priceless, cosmopolitan really? cRPG geeks and D 'n' D geeks is cosmopolitan these days is it? I bet you there is a more diverse clientelle in todays MMO's than there ever was in the past.
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.
Nothing but speculation.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The "fluff" is much of what made MMOs of the past feel like actual worlds. The complete focus on killing stuff is one of the main reasons most current games feel so limited - our characters are not denizens of a world, they are troop types and the only activity is slaughter. When games offer nothing other than killing, they can get boring fast.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
What fluff was there in EQ, AC, DAOC, FFIX?
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.
Sure. It is happening already. And when you say schism ... it basically means more game types and choices. It is GOOD to have MOBAs like LOL so players don't have to deal with the additional fluff stuff if all they want is arena pvp.
Ditto for games like D3, and PoE. Why deal with travel when some player only wants to kill & upgrade their character?
There are more examples .. and essentially the market is fragmenting into different types of games for different preferences. But note that more games have MMO elements (like AH & crafting). I think if you look at MMO-like games .. there are a lot exciting development.
I'll take AC:
I haven't played much in the past few years, so there may be more.
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
ill take Everquest
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/history/patches.html
- fishing
- weddings w the assist of GM
- casino
- dyed armor
- titles (unrelated to any achievements, altho achievement titles exist too)
- illusions that players can wear
- housing was added in 2010 in House of Thule expansion
EQ2 fan sites
bump!
LOL keep this shiz going!!
You know as well as I do that claiming mutual exclusivity where it actually doesn't exist is the way to emphasise what 'we' want using the 'playground logic' school of thought...
I have to agree with you, fluff adds a lot of fun for many players.
However is this secondary stuff that should be added in the first expansion or so, a vanilla games really should focus in making a fun and well running game, when you have that you can add in the fluff.
Those games might very well add it later and I think we should lobby for that but at launch I rather have a good running game instead of a laggy buggfeast with fluff.
First get the basic right then add the fun extra stuff.
Well, my most important gripe with SW ToR is the lack of fluff and fun, but its also missing lack of content... I love the game and I love the IP, I want the story, but it isn't an mmo...
I Love Everquest 2, Everquest, and Vanguard for they all having housing and Vanguard even has boats!! Whatever happened to fluff? SWToR was a huge disappointment with crafting and now you have to grind credits and spend for cool stuff off the Cartel Shop if you don't want to outright buy it for dollars, because it isn't available in game... Now all this fun stuff they should have had on launch costs more money?
Not to mention the gambling randomized packs that you have to buy, and your inability to directly buy what you specifically want, so you really do have to grind credits, since dollars gives you no guarentee that you will actually recieve what you want to buy.
Back when Everquest 2 began there were "fun" spells for up to level 50, those were awesome... Now we get awesome prestige houses like Thurgadin's Hall, Lavastorm and Everfrost, even Tenebrous Tangle's floating Island is now a housing zone!! Awesome housing areas, that make the game shine!!
What does SWToR have? Tiny cramped spaces, when it should have been wide open and huge housing plots like Star Wars Galaxies was. Linear quests, and no other leveling path, grrr...
Inability to fly where I want to and having to take taxi cabs?? Meh...
Shouldn't it be a huge seamless world like WoW? How do you copy WoW and go so horribly wrong with current tech?
The Flight mechanics should have been present, the huge expansive world of SWG, the housing of SWG, and most of all the previous skill trees ><.
Sad thing is, I love the cinematics in WoW, and I love Voice Overs, but we can't have them in games anymore, since they just come out linear and boring, lacking all the fun "fluff" variety features I want in housing and crafting...
In a world where games are made with unlimited resources the two wouldn't be mutually exclusive. But alas...
I agree with Loke, I'd rather see a developer make sure the game is fun and works before adding fluff.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Great thread and a bit of an eye-opener for me:)
I completely agree that fluff (a better term would be complementary and social features) is quite crucial for a game to last and a possible way to attract more players to the genre. I would further argue that the benefits to already having fluff in the game in the beginning vs. adding in the next big patch or something like that, can be substantial.
As mentioned in the thread before, a huge amount of players leaves within 1-3 months as in that time they've figured out the combat and begun to feel disappointed about the rest and either take it to the forums with how bad the combat is (as that's all they see and it's never perfect, not these days, not for today's mmo-players) or quietly leave. Either way, adding fluff at that point would be like adding salt to an open wound as they are already disappointed. No amount of fluff is going to change anyone's opinion of a game.
Conversely, already having fluff in the game, can profoundly complement the gamers' experience and reinforce their opinion of it. It is true, that the amount does not need to be that much in the beginning, but.. having none is a bad choice in priorities.
I for one won't be sad when more social functions get into mmorpg's. Eventually they might be the solution as to how mmorpg's can return to actually retaining people. TBH it might also do wonders to the playerbase in general... wishful thinking tho, but teenage boys do not often make a fun community. The 90% of the chat in many (most?) games these days...
The problem is most games nowadays are spending too much money on graphics, voice overs, and "new" features that aren't really worth it. Generally, the developer needs to make a choice: ignore the fluff/and try to make a game that will keep people in it, or add the fluff and have a game with little substance.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the housing from UO or SWG again. THAT was enjoyeable. However, keep in mind one thing: Both of those games were Sandbox. Short of having a zone where you can place your houses (like DAoC), I don't see how a developer can do real housing in these crappy themepark games they keep releasing.
Personally, I'm tired of "apartments" (like EQ2). Give me a plot of land, give me the ability to bulid a real house.
While they're at it, give me a game that isn't WoW, has great customization and replayability, has more substance than a game with nothing but voice overs, and a game that has more to do than level to 80, grind gear that isn't that much better, and PvP.
Raquelis in various games
Played: Everything
Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6
Wants: The World
Anticipating: Everquest Next Crowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
OK the AC list is good but were they all in at launch? the EQ list not so much especially housing 2010.
Right modern MMO's
Guild Wars 2
Titles
Dyes (literally hundreds of colours to collect)
Exploration (loads of hidden stuff not on map)
Vistas
Keg Brawl
Town Clothing
Mini Pets
Achievements (loads of non combat ones)
Jumping Puzzles
Map Completion
Mystic Toil.. sorry Forge
Lots of potions that turn you into mobs.
RIFT
Housing
Collections
Titles
Achievements
Fishing
Marriage
SW:TOR
Data Crons
Achievements
Pets
Codex
Companion Stories
Gift affection system
Titles
There were rumours of the Ship system being expanding in Fluff terms, decorations and having more ship types.
These games are in their infancy but its not a bad start really is it? EQ took 11 years to add housing.
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.
Uh? LOL has more active players than all MMOs.
D3 is still top 10 after so many months, and only behind two MMOs (WOW & GW2) on xifre. Where do you get the "can't get people stay in the game"?