Well if it works for you, it sounds like you are lost in gaming white noise to me. It is easy to see why gaming designers switched to a 'polished launch, worry about the end game latter' design. One of the reasons I don't play at launch, it can take even a AAA a year after launch to sort their end game out.
Of course it works for me. Otherwise, i would not be doing it.
What do you mean by "lost"? It is not like i play everything every day. Are you confuse between playing a multitude of games versus a random assortment of games?
And yes, the current designs are compatible with my taste. I don't care about the end game much because i would very seldom engage in that.
The last two games that i actually spend a big amount of time in "end game" is D3, and WOW (2 years ago?) ... and D3 is not even a MMO.
I am not sure what you are going on about, are you saying MMOs of 15 years ago had a polished launch and by the time you got to end game they had fixed it? You seem to also be referring to solo games, you are way of bat there, I will post again if you are saying that's what happened to solo games.
As I am unsure what you were getting at I will stick with how has the content locusts play style effected the genre. They come in swarms for launch so that has to be polished to the nth degree. The leave after a couple of months so end game is right down the developers must do list. Now we had a developer on here before who told us about five years ago that end game only takes up about 10% of the games development cycle. I would suggest it is less now and anything above mid level is getting less attention too.
Of course we are only looking at one factor here, there are others that baked our MMO cake to be the way it is today.
I am talking about games in general. "Content locusts" have had no effect on it and even if the game had end game at a level you would be satisfied with, it wouldn't change a thing.
And 10% of what? Content design? How much would you want it to be and why?
Quality at launch has in the solo market most directly been affected by advent of the internet. What we thought would be a godsend turned in to an excuse to release games too early. You had good QA throughout when they had to get it right first time, there were no updates so it was swim or die. There has been a shift towards poor endings in the last few years, not sure that is even a trend, but big companies seem to be just slamming the gate once they deem the budget used up.
In MMO's the change to solo orientation went hand in hand with QA focusing on launch. MMOs had a bad name in QA over all, but if most of your players will only play short term, you design short term. That's how the contest locust mentality shifted the design strategy, you make your games for your market and the market became short term.
I am very puzzled by "even if the game had end game at a level you would be satisfied with, it wouldn't change a thing." Apart from the fact that MMO had found the holy grail that has eluded MMOs since they started, that's the only thing it would change!
End game is 10% of the overall content design/time developers put into a MMO. What level would I be happy with? One which made it a must for players to keep playing at top level, which could make it a content hog. But you only get back what you put in, so less time spent on end game is going to just make players move on.
So what do you think gives his comment validity, then? He thinks we've seen a rise in fanboyism in the past 5 years. Why is that?
Well, there has not been any direct research done but two likely culprits are the massive increases in marketing spending and the plummeting of STEM scores which help drastically when it comes to critical thinking.
End game is 10% of the overall content design/time developers put into a MMO. What level would I be happy with? One which made it a must for players to keep playing at top level, which could make it a content hog. But you only get back what you put in, so less time spent on end game is going to just make players move on.
Where do you the 10% figure? I think you are making that up, and i don't buy it at all. Show me a budget document, or a project document saying so.
And why you need other players to keep playing at top level? yeah .. players move on .. so? It happens to games sooner or later.
So what do you think gives his comment validity, then? He thinks we've seen a rise in fanboyism in the past 5 years. Why is that?
Well, there has not been any direct research done but two likely culprits are the massive increases in marketing spending and the plummeting of STEM scores which help drastically when it comes to critical thinking.
A veiled "kids these days"-comment. Great.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Comments
Of course it works for me. Otherwise, i would not be doing it.
What do you mean by "lost"? It is not like i play everything every day. Are you confuse between playing a multitude of games versus a random assortment of games?
And yes, the current designs are compatible with my taste. I don't care about the end game much because i would very seldom engage in that.
The last two games that i actually spend a big amount of time in "end game" is D3, and WOW (2 years ago?) ... and D3 is not even a MMO.
Quality at launch has in the solo market most directly been affected by advent of the internet. What we thought would be a godsend turned in to an excuse to release games too early. You had good QA throughout when they had to get it right first time, there were no updates so it was swim or die. There has been a shift towards poor endings in the last few years, not sure that is even a trend, but big companies seem to be just slamming the gate once they deem the budget used up.
In MMO's the change to solo orientation went hand in hand with QA focusing on launch. MMOs had a bad name in QA over all, but if most of your players will only play short term, you design short term. That's how the contest locust mentality shifted the design strategy, you make your games for your market and the market became short term.
I am very puzzled by "even if the game had end game at a level you would be satisfied with, it wouldn't change a thing." Apart from the fact that MMO had found the holy grail that has eluded MMOs since they started, that's the only thing it would change!
End game is 10% of the overall content design/time developers put into a MMO. What level would I be happy with? One which made it a must for players to keep playing at top level, which could make it a content hog. But you only get back what you put in, so less time spent on end game is going to just make players move on.
Well, there has not been any direct research done but two likely culprits are the massive increases in marketing spending and the plummeting of STEM scores which help drastically when it comes to critical thinking.
http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/
Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!
Where do you the 10% figure? I think you are making that up, and i don't buy it at all. Show me a budget document, or a project document saying so.
And why you need other players to keep playing at top level? yeah .. players move on .. so? It happens to games sooner or later.
A veiled "kids these days"-comment. Great.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky