I remembered playing Counter Strike with my friends, that was fun. I remembered playing Warcraft three corridors with my friends, that was fun. Friends whom I know well in real life and personally.
I remembered playing Atlantica Online, with some random person online. It was so so, sure I met some good people, but most of the time those people whom I want to play with was never around. So most of the time, whenever I need to finish a quest/dungeon/raid/whatever things that I need/want to complete but could not, I would just hook up with some random people. Social interactions was kept to a minimum, with a 'thank you for the group' at the end.
To me, the fun part of playing an online games or mmo with my friends comes from the joy of talking and discussing about them with my friends.
But since most of the time I was not playing them with my friends, or soloing (quest, etc), I would want to have a good story/lore/humor/whatever that can keep me interested in playing the games while waiting for my friends to come online. Well if none of my friend was playing than the games would have to be very good.
Would I want to subscribe for a game which I would enjoy only during the weekends (with my friends)? Not unless I am rich.
So, why would I want to subscribe to a game or what are the things that would entice me to spend a portion of my hard earned money to some company? Entertainment of course.
Sure I do, although FFXIV takes up most of my allotment of 'care points' at the present time.
Honestly if you're not a bitter MMO veteran with unrealistic expectations, rose-tinted glasses, and a stick shoved up your behind, this is a great time for MMOs and the people who play them. Where before there were only a handful of choices, we now have hundreds of MMOs with a wide variety of themes, settings, playstyles, and payment models to choose from. Now granted 80% of them are pure crap (individual tastes will vary, of course) but that still leaves plenty of games to choose from.
If you can't find an MMO to suit your tastes these days, then quite frankly you're probably not looking hard enough. That, or you just don't realize that you shouldn't be playing MMOs in the first place.
TBH, if I end up playing a MMO and end up having no one to play it with/enjoy it with on a personal level, then I'd drop the MMO faster than a hot spike. (Potatoes are great.)
I honestly wouldn't waste my internet and my time on a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game if I end up in a game full of people who prefer to solo. Parties are my thing, and my gaming method is primarily group support. If I wanted to solo, I'd just play offline with a single-player game, made exclusively for solo players.
Originally posted by flguy147 People that say there is no need to group are wrong. Last time i checked, you cant solo raids and dungeons. So yes current MMOs REQUIRE you to group to complete all the content.
Because raids and dungeons are a requirement for MMOs. Like Deivos, you have confused "requirement" with "personal wishlist"
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
TBH, if I end up playing a MMO and end up having no one to play it with/enjoy it with on a personal level, then I'd drop the MMO faster than a hot spike. (Potatoes are great.)
I honestly wouldn't waste my internet and my time on a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game if I end up in a game full of people who prefer to solo. Parties are my thing, and my gaming method is primarily group support. If I wanted to solo, I'd just play offline with a single-player game, made exclusively for solo players.
Just my few cents.
We're stumbling on bifurcation, as always happens in the "solo play" sub-topic. Binary answers to a question that is not binary.
It's not yes or no. It's a lot of shades of grey. There is no either/or, we can (and do) have both.
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.
At the start the dream of many was of a persistent world that would live and change over time with the multitude of people playing in it together. However, as most know, for now that's not where the money is. Sure, there might still be enough people who believe in the dream, but overwhelming majority of mmorpg players most definitely are just in for the last letter, for games and the finite entertainment they provide knowing full well they won't last for long. Heck, I've played some that way myself.
I don't believe it has that much to do with monetization model of the game or sandbox vs. themepark, but the simple truth that the industry is bloated with competition and the huge upfront investment requires sacrifices. I believe for most of the devs too the dream is quite dead. Most of the players have no idea what it means. It is certainly debatable, if it is even possible to achieve in the long term. Many find their cliques or find other means to survive some games for years, but the average retention times are very very different.
I would guess the biggest question is whether enough players exist who want to make the mmorpg great. With each clear failure in the industry, it is quite possible that the number drops and the industry as a whole takes a hit and becomes more uncertain as a long time investment. Money talks and short term it is with all the hype they can possibly generate.
However, this is not to say that many aspects of the mmorpg's have not stagnated. They most certainly have, but I guess the one that hasn't seen any real change for the longest time is the one I just now attempted to feebly describe. Do forgive me, if you find the above incomprehensible drivel:P
To not sound too pessimistic, there are some tech and world attempts that should shine some light in the end of this long tunnel. I hope the source is strong enough, but the jaded part in me kinda guesses it will fade before the industry get's there.
TBH, if I end up playing a MMO and end up having no one to play it with/enjoy it with on a personal level, then I'd drop the MMO faster than a hot spike. (Potatoes are great.)
I honestly wouldn't waste my internet and my time on a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game if I end up in a game full of people who prefer to solo. Parties are my thing, and my gaming method is primarily group support. If I wanted to solo, I'd just play offline with a single-player game, made exclusively for solo players.
Just my few cents.
We're stumbling on bifurcation, as always happens in the "solo play" sub-topic. Binary answers to a question that is not binary.
It's not yes or no. It's a lot of shades of grey. There is no either/or, we can (and do) have both.
Retrospectively, those games (like EQ or DAoC) where you couldn't do anything significant without having to spend half an hour (or more) looking for a group first were terrible. Back then, people played them because there was no real alternative.
For instance, a game like DAoC released nowadays would tank so badly the whole industry and forums would laugh at it. But back then, the game filled a "niche" no other game was filling efficiently, the "PvP with a purpose" niche. The other games were just mindless gank fests (UO pre Trammel and AC1 Darktide), DAoC just brought a purpose to PvP in an otherwise very badly designed game with crappy PvE and a lot of unfinished content (class quests were non existing after level 30, many dungeons not even itemized, etc...).
Many of those "old school" games only survived because back then, there was no competition. People wanting to raid had no choice but to play Everquest, no matter how badly designed the game was. People wanting PvP with a purpose had to play DAoC, no matter how poorly designed that game was either.
Darkfall was my last hope followed it sinds 2003 still manage to keep playing for 2.5 years but what big dissapointment was that(mainly players with there cheating) aveturine making wrong discisions or not released a game they had promised.
Then friend of mine ask to come play GW2 played 5 months include beta's quit becouse of bitter dissapointment with many asspects of the game and its community.
Now im totally lost for mmo's and enjoy old school solo games and skyrim heavenly modded hardcore.
Not gonne let my game joy screwed up by cheaters(every goddamn mmo or semi mmo like DayZ have so many cheaters i hate them and spoonfed mmo's.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
It isn't about what we think of each others level of fun. It's about what makes a game money. When I have fun I spend money. When you have fun....you still don't.
At some point, something with a brain is going to see the problem designing games for people like you, and anyone that is only there as a tourist. The point you seem to be trying to make is because it's like this now it will always be like this. If you believe that cool. I believe games will always go after the money. most of these games are still fighting after the scraps wow tosses off. One day someone will figure out how to get it again and things will change. Not because it's what I think is fun, but because it's what people spend money on.
Who is designing games like me? Devs are designing games for the whales, who just happened to have the same preference as i do.
That works perfectly for the devs, the whales, and me.
At the start the dream of many was of a persistent world that would live and change over time with the multitude of people playing in it together. However, as most know, for now that's not where the money is. Sure, there might still be enough people who believe in the dream, but overwhelming majority of mmorpg players most definitely are just in for the last letter, for games and the finite entertainment they provide knowing full well they won't last for long. Heck, I've played some that way myself.
I would guess the biggest question is whether enough players exist who want to make the mmorpg great. With each clear failure in the industry, it is quite possible that the number drops and the industry as a whole takes a hit and becomes more uncertain as a long time investment. Money talks and short term it is with all the hype they can possibly generate.
"Great" is subjective.
I am definitely just in it "for the last letter" as you said, and there is no need for a persistent world to make a game great.
Single Player Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.
The fundamental contradiction and counter intuitive design in the above isn't half as mind blowing as the companies and people who embrace it.
nah ... it just says that "massive multiplayer" is way over-rated. I can pretty much ignore that and still have fun.
Do you see a problem at all with ignoring the core defining aspects of the genre?
It's just mind blowing to me. It's like having a remote control car and getting on your hands and knees to push it around and proclaiming how much fun you have with it. You just seem like your missing so much. I know you have a thread that even explains why you play MMOs because so many people have asked. It's like completely missing the point of the entire genre and it's not just you it's the companies who make these games as well. It's so sad to me.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Originally posted by nilden Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by nildenSingle Player Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.The fundamental contradiction and counter intuitive design in the above isn't half as mind blowing as the companies and people who embrace it.
nah ... it just says that "massive multiplayer" is way over-rated. I can pretty much ignore that and still have fun.Do you see a problem at all with ignoring the core defining aspects of the genre?
It's just mind blowing to me. It's like having a remote control car and getting on your hands and knees to push it around and proclaiming how much fun you have with it. You just seem like your missing so much. I know you have a thread that even explains why you play MMOs because so many people have asked. It's like completely missing the point of the entire genre and it's not just you it's the companies who make these games as well. It's so sad to me.
If there were clearly defined core aspects of the MMORPG genre, then the wiki page for "MMORPG" would have existed years ago, instead of a few months ago. If there were clearly defined core aspects of the MMORPG genre, when the games moved away from that definition, they would have been called something else.
There are no clearly defined "core aspects" of the MMORPG genre. It's a very loosely held concept, open to a lot of interpretation.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
TBH, if I end up playing a MMO and end up having no one to play it with/enjoy it with on a personal level, then I'd drop the MMO faster than a hot spike. (Potatoes are great.)
I honestly wouldn't waste my internet and my time on a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game if I end up in a game full of people who prefer to solo. Parties are my thing, and my gaming method is primarily group support. If I wanted to solo, I'd just play offline with a single-player game, made exclusively for solo players.
Just my few cents.
We're stumbling on bifurcation, as always happens in the "solo play" sub-topic. Binary answers to a question that is not binary.
It's not yes or no. It's a lot of shades of grey. There is no either/or, we can (and do) have both.
Retrospectively, those games (like EQ or DAoC) where you couldn't do anything significant without having to spend half an hour (or more) looking for a group first were terrible. Back then, people played them because there was no real alternative.
For instance, a game like DAoC released nowadays would tank so badly the whole industry and forums would laugh at it. But back then, the game filled a "niche" no other game was filling efficiently, the "PvP with a purpose" niche. The other games were just mindless gank fests (UO pre Trammel and AC1 Darktide), DAoC just brought a purpose to PvP in an otherwise very badly designed game with crappy PvE and a lot of unfinished content (class quests were non existing after level 30, many dungeons not even itemized, etc...).
Many of those "old school" games only survived because back then, there was no competition. People wanting to raid had no choice but to play Everquest, no matter how badly designed the game was. People wanting PvP with a purpose had to play DAoC, no matter how poorly designed that game was either.
People who wish to "PVP with a purpose" really don't have a lot of viable options today (EVE, DFO and a few others) and DAOC is still considered the best RVR model ever developed by many to this date.
And the PVE in DAOC, not nearly so bad as you make it out, nor was it as difficult to form groups as you say. I can say thisn because I'm still playing (on a shard it's true) and you'll only have issues finding a group if you chose one of the few classes that bring no group utility to the table. (mostly steathers)
As a Skald I can find a group for pretty much everything, leveling, battlegrounds, dragon/prince raids (yes, DAOC has raiding, who knew?) and open field RVR in emain.
You hold a lot of dislike for DAOC, yet you really don't know much about it. Your experiences seem largely based on the 1st 3 months post launch, because dungeons have been itemized ever since I first joined about 6 months post launch back in 2002 or whatever.
Was the game perfect? Hardly, but right now I've been playing a 2003 version of it for over 6 months with a bunch of like minded folks and we are finding it to be far superior to anything more modern currently out there today.
Do me and my friends not care about MMO's, not at all we love them and play them daily, but we're not interested in the currently offerings. (But CU is coming, just maybe.....just maybe)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
There are certainly generally accepted aspects though. If you ask for a suggestion on an MMORPG to play I certainly would never suggest LoL or D3 because those aren't MMORPG's according to the majority of gamers. Things like GW1 kind of blur the lines some at least so I can get people not being sure on that one.
Also you could get PvP with a purpose in every game designed back then. They all had PvP servers. In fact I think EQ PvP was better than DAOC. Large guild vs guild battles over the raid content was more interesting than over some silly keep that keeps changing hands. DAOC had PvP that had devs working on the balance for it and that was supposed to be 'fair' and allowed progression. None of that is about having a purpose though.
Originally posted by flguy147 People that say there is no need to group are wrong. Last time i checked, you cant solo raids and dungeons. So yes current MMOs REQUIRE you to group to complete all the content.
Because raids and dungeons are a requirement for MMOs. Like Deivos, you have confused "requirement" with "personal wishlist"
If that's what you think, you failed to read my post(s).
EDIT: To clarify, at no point did I list a requirement, I listed aspects that as I've had to restate multiple times are potential game elements that are unique to the genre of MMOs due to the infrastructure that's necessary to make an MMO.
My complaint lands squarely on the fact that the games for the most part do not capitalize on the potentials of the system, in favor of replicating the same experience you can get from games on a smaller multiplayer scale or even being functionally offline.
If you divided out these titles and placed the ones that play as a single player title back as a single player game and the one's that play as multiplayer titles on local hosts and small servers, there's very few that would see any significant impact to the experience you'd have.
The notion I laid out is that we can do that, letting the games that want to play as such, be such, and let the games that want to actually be built 'for' the infrastructure of a system be the focus of each one instead of simply games built over the infrastructure.
This does not preclude having a solo experience or having a strongly story driven game, but it's the realization that these elements can be developed in a much different manner than they generally are now as to provide an experience that caters to the strengths of the platform on which it's been built.
Your misrepresentation of that by saying I want a specific kind of game or game mechanics is flat out wrong, and not appreciated.
EDIT: Random factoid, Lizardbones.
The wiki page for MMORPG is ~12 years old.
You can check the history tab for the oldest recorded edit, it's from December 2001.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
People who wish to "PVP with a purpose" really don't have a lot of viable options today (EVE, DFO and a few others) and DAOC is still considered the best RVR model ever developed by many to this date.
Depends on the purpose.
If the purpose is to beat everyone and win a world championship, LoL is your game.
If there were clearly defined core aspects of the MMORPG genre, then the wiki page for "MMORPG" would have existed years ago, instead of a few months ago. If there were clearly defined core aspects of the MMORPG genre, when the games moved away from that definition, they would have been called something else.
There are no clearly defined "core aspects" of the MMORPG genre. It's a very loosely held concept, open to a lot of interpretation.
So "massivley multiplayer" isn't a core aspect of the genre?
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
If there were clearly defined core aspects of the MMORPG genre, then the wiki page for "MMORPG" would have existed years ago, instead of a few months ago. If there were clearly defined core aspects of the MMORPG genre, when the games moved away from that definition, they would have been called something else.
There are no clearly defined "core aspects" of the MMORPG genre. It's a very loosely held concept, open to a lot of interpretation.
So "massivley multiplayer" isn't a core aspect of the genre?
I would say it is a core aspect but until they actually define the massively part it remains open to interpretation. Having a game where you only group with 5 - 10 people (like almost all MMO groups) but have access to thousands becaus the game has the capability of having them online with you (in the same lobby room, waiting room, or party formation screen) ready to play at the same time as you arguably fits the definition.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
If there were clearly defined core aspects of the MMORPG genre, then the wiki page for "MMORPG" would have existed years ago, instead of a few months ago. If there were clearly defined core aspects of the MMORPG genre, when the games moved away from that definition, they would have been called something else.
There are no clearly defined "core aspects" of the MMORPG genre. It's a very loosely held concept, open to a lot of interpretation.
So "massivley multiplayer" isn't a core aspect of the genre?
If so, will Marvel Heroes, TSW, TOR, NWO counted as MMORPGs? If so, why is solo content so prevalent?
I would say devs are moving away from that "core aspect" to cater to solo players. Unless, of course you give the genre a new name to reflect this change.
Originally posted by nilden Originally posted by lizardbones
If there were clearly defined core aspects of the MMORPG genre, then the wiki page for "MMORPG" would have existed years ago, instead of a few months ago. If there were clearly defined core aspects of the MMORPG genre, when the games moved away from that definition, they would have been called something else. There are no clearly defined "core aspects" of the MMORPG genre. It's a very loosely held concept, open to a lot of interpretation. So "massivley multiplayer" isn't a core aspect of the genre?
As Loktfeit said, when "massively multiplayer" is actually defined, then yes. Right now there's not a whole lot to go on.
The bare minimum MMORPG would be a flat, featureless, colorless landscape, geometric shapes for player avatars, and a chat window. Eve has shown that you don't really need the landscape. Just a persistent, shared representation of three dimensional space will suffice. While this is definitive, it's not really very clear or useful outside of the specific conversations about D3, LoL or exploring the differences between a game being an MMO and being an MMORPG.
What some people really want to do is to create a definition where e.g. SWToR is not a 'true' MMORPG. Such a definition does not a exist. The amount or type of group content is not part of the definition of MMORPGs, outside of some peoples' minds. The amount or type of PvP is also not part of the definition of MMORPGs. Neither is the quality of the game, number or lack of classes, etc. "Many" people and a shared, persistent world (three dimensional, virtual space) is as close as the definition gets.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If so, will Marvel Heroes, TSW, TOR, NWO counted as MMORPGs? If so, why is solo content so prevalent?
I would say devs are moving away from that "core aspect" to cater to solo players. Unless, of course you give the genre a new name to reflect this change.
Depends on someones personal warped definition. I think you know exactly why single player content is so prevalent. You have explained it many times how you have fun playing the games. As far as a new name goes wtf do you think Single Player MMORPGs refers to? They do have a new name.
Massively Multiplayer is a core aspect of MMORPGs. It doesn't matter if you ignore it, are not sure how to interpret part of it, or can't accept it. It's fact. If you take the "Massively Multiplayer" out of MMORPG you remove a core aspect.
I really don't see how anyone could argue with that but by all means feel free to astound and amaze me.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
As Loktfeit said, when "massively multiplayer" is actually defined, then yes. Right now there's not a whole lot to go on.
The bare minimum MMORPG would be a flat, featureless, colorless landscape, geometric shapes for player avatars, and a chat window. Eve has shown that you don't really need the landscape. Just a persistent, shared representation of three dimensional space will suffice. While this is definitive, it's not really very clear or useful outside of the specific conversations about D3, LoL or exploring the differences between a game being an MMO and being an MMORPG.
What some people really want to do is to create a definition where e.g. SWToR is not a 'true' MMORPG. Such a definition does not a exist. The amount or type of group content is not part of the definition of MMORPGs, outside of some peoples' minds. The amount or type of PvP is also not part of the definition of MMORPGs. Neither is the quality of the game, number or lack of classes, etc. "Many" people and a shared, persistent world (three dimensional, virtual space) is as close as the definition gets.
It's not about defining massive. It's about "massively multiplayer" being a defining core aspect of MMORPGs. Could we agree that Single Player is the exact opposite of Massively Multiplayer? If so and your on board with that then does it make sense to focus your game on the exact opposite of it's most basic fundamental premise?
Not to me.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Comments
I remembered playing Counter Strike with my friends, that was fun. I remembered playing Warcraft three corridors with my friends, that was fun. Friends whom I know well in real life and personally.
I remembered playing Atlantica Online, with some random person online. It was so so, sure I met some good people, but most of the time those people whom I want to play with was never around. So most of the time, whenever I need to finish a quest/dungeon/raid/whatever things that I need/want to complete but could not, I would just hook up with some random people. Social interactions was kept to a minimum, with a 'thank you for the group' at the end.
To me, the fun part of playing an online games or mmo with my friends comes from the joy of talking and discussing about them with my friends.
But since most of the time I was not playing them with my friends, or soloing (quest, etc), I would want to have a good story/lore/humor/whatever that can keep me interested in playing the games while waiting for my friends to come online. Well if none of my friend was playing than the games would have to be very good.
Would I want to subscribe for a game which I would enjoy only during the weekends (with my friends)? Not unless I am rich.
So, why would I want to subscribe to a game or what are the things that would entice me to spend a portion of my hard earned money to some company? Entertainment of course.
Sure I do, although FFXIV takes up most of my allotment of 'care points' at the present time.
Honestly if you're not a bitter MMO veteran with unrealistic expectations, rose-tinted glasses, and a stick shoved up your behind, this is a great time for MMOs and the people who play them. Where before there were only a handful of choices, we now have hundreds of MMOs with a wide variety of themes, settings, playstyles, and payment models to choose from. Now granted 80% of them are pure crap (individual tastes will vary, of course) but that still leaves plenty of games to choose from.
If you can't find an MMO to suit your tastes these days, then quite frankly you're probably not looking hard enough. That, or you just don't realize that you shouldn't be playing MMOs in the first place.
TBH, if I end up playing a MMO and end up having no one to play it with/enjoy it with on a personal level, then I'd drop the MMO faster than a hot spike. (Potatoes are great.)
I honestly wouldn't waste my internet and my time on a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game if I end up in a game full of people who prefer to solo. Parties are my thing, and my gaming method is primarily group support. If I wanted to solo, I'd just play offline with a single-player game, made exclusively for solo players.
Just my few cents.
Because raids and dungeons are a requirement for MMOs. Like Deivos, you have confused "requirement" with "personal wishlist"
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
Single Player Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.
The fundamental contradiction and counter intuitive design in the above isn't half as mind blowing as the companies and people who embrace it.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/We're stumbling on bifurcation, as always happens in the "solo play" sub-topic. Binary answers to a question that is not binary.
Group? Hell yes, sometimes. Solo? Hell yes, sometimes.
Do either all the time, every waking moment? Naw.
It's not yes or no. It's a lot of shades of grey. There is no either/or, we can (and do) have both.
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.
At the start the dream of many was of a persistent world that would live and change over time with the multitude of people playing in it together. However, as most know, for now that's not where the money is. Sure, there might still be enough people who believe in the dream, but overwhelming majority of mmorpg players most definitely are just in for the last letter, for games and the finite entertainment they provide knowing full well they won't last for long. Heck, I've played some that way myself.
I don't believe it has that much to do with monetization model of the game or sandbox vs. themepark, but the simple truth that the industry is bloated with competition and the huge upfront investment requires sacrifices. I believe for most of the devs too the dream is quite dead. Most of the players have no idea what it means. It is certainly debatable, if it is even possible to achieve in the long term. Many find their cliques or find other means to survive some games for years, but the average retention times are very very different.
I would guess the biggest question is whether enough players exist who want to make the mmorpg great. With each clear failure in the industry, it is quite possible that the number drops and the industry as a whole takes a hit and becomes more uncertain as a long time investment. Money talks and short term it is with all the hype they can possibly generate.
However, this is not to say that many aspects of the mmorpg's have not stagnated. They most certainly have, but I guess the one that hasn't seen any real change for the longest time is the one I just now attempted to feebly describe. Do forgive me, if you find the above incomprehensible drivel:P
To not sound too pessimistic, there are some tech and world attempts that should shine some light in the end of this long tunnel. I hope the source is strong enough, but the jaded part in me kinda guesses it will fade before the industry get's there.
Retrospectively, those games (like EQ or DAoC) where you couldn't do anything significant without having to spend half an hour (or more) looking for a group first were terrible. Back then, people played them because there was no real alternative.
For instance, a game like DAoC released nowadays would tank so badly the whole industry and forums would laugh at it. But back then, the game filled a "niche" no other game was filling efficiently, the "PvP with a purpose" niche. The other games were just mindless gank fests (UO pre Trammel and AC1 Darktide), DAoC just brought a purpose to PvP in an otherwise very badly designed game with crappy PvE and a lot of unfinished content (class quests were non existing after level 30, many dungeons not even itemized, etc...).
Many of those "old school" games only survived because back then, there was no competition. People wanting to raid had no choice but to play Everquest, no matter how badly designed the game was. People wanting PvP with a purpose had to play DAoC, no matter how poorly designed that game was either.
My computer is better than yours.
Darkfall was my last hope followed it sinds 2003 still manage to keep playing for 2.5 years but what big dissapointment was that(mainly players with there cheating) aveturine making wrong discisions or not released a game they had promised.
Then friend of mine ask to come play GW2 played 5 months include beta's quit becouse of bitter dissapointment with many asspects of the game and its community.
Now im totally lost for mmo's and enjoy old school solo games and skyrim heavenly modded hardcore.
Not gonne let my game joy screwed up by cheaters(every goddamn mmo or semi mmo like DayZ have so many cheaters i hate them and spoonfed mmo's.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
Who is designing games like me? Devs are designing games for the whales, who just happened to have the same preference as i do.
That works perfectly for the devs, the whales, and me.
nah ... it just says that "massive multiplayer" is way over-rated. I can pretty much ignore that and still have fun.
"Great" is subjective.
I am definitely just in it "for the last letter" as you said, and there is no need for a persistent world to make a game great.
Do you see a problem at all with ignoring the core defining aspects of the genre?
It's just mind blowing to me. It's like having a remote control car and getting on your hands and knees to push it around and proclaiming how much fun you have with it. You just seem like your missing so much. I know you have a thread that even explains why you play MMOs because so many people have asked. It's like completely missing the point of the entire genre and it's not just you it's the companies who make these games as well. It's so sad to me.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Not really. I play games for fun, not to be mindful of "core defining" aspects of anything.
Plus, if devs are ignoring it by making possible to enjoy MMORPGs solo, i have no problem enjoying it.
Do you see a problem at all with ignoring the core defining aspects of the genre?
It's just mind blowing to me. It's like having a remote control car and getting on your hands and knees to push it around and proclaiming how much fun you have with it. You just seem like your missing so much. I know you have a thread that even explains why you play MMOs because so many people have asked. It's like completely missing the point of the entire genre and it's not just you it's the companies who make these games as well. It's so sad to me.
If there were clearly defined core aspects of the MMORPG genre, then the wiki page for "MMORPG" would have existed years ago, instead of a few months ago. If there were clearly defined core aspects of the MMORPG genre, when the games moved away from that definition, they would have been called something else.
There are no clearly defined "core aspects" of the MMORPG genre. It's a very loosely held concept, open to a lot of interpretation.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
People who wish to "PVP with a purpose" really don't have a lot of viable options today (EVE, DFO and a few others) and DAOC is still considered the best RVR model ever developed by many to this date.
And the PVE in DAOC, not nearly so bad as you make it out, nor was it as difficult to form groups as you say. I can say thisn because I'm still playing (on a shard it's true) and you'll only have issues finding a group if you chose one of the few classes that bring no group utility to the table. (mostly steathers)
As a Skald I can find a group for pretty much everything, leveling, battlegrounds, dragon/prince raids (yes, DAOC has raiding, who knew?) and open field RVR in emain.
You hold a lot of dislike for DAOC, yet you really don't know much about it. Your experiences seem largely based on the 1st 3 months post launch, because dungeons have been itemized ever since I first joined about 6 months post launch back in 2002 or whatever.
Was the game perfect? Hardly, but right now I've been playing a 2003 version of it for over 6 months with a bunch of like minded folks and we are finding it to be far superior to anything more modern currently out there today.
Do me and my friends not care about MMO's, not at all we love them and play them daily, but we're not interested in the currently offerings. (But CU is coming, just maybe.....just maybe)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
There are certainly generally accepted aspects though. If you ask for a suggestion on an MMORPG to play I certainly would never suggest LoL or D3 because those aren't MMORPG's according to the majority of gamers. Things like GW1 kind of blur the lines some at least so I can get people not being sure on that one.
Also you could get PvP with a purpose in every game designed back then. They all had PvP servers. In fact I think EQ PvP was better than DAOC. Large guild vs guild battles over the raid content was more interesting than over some silly keep that keeps changing hands. DAOC had PvP that had devs working on the balance for it and that was supposed to be 'fair' and allowed progression. None of that is about having a purpose though.
If that's what you think, you failed to read my post(s).
EDIT: To clarify, at no point did I list a requirement, I listed aspects that as I've had to restate multiple times are potential game elements that are unique to the genre of MMOs due to the infrastructure that's necessary to make an MMO.
My complaint lands squarely on the fact that the games for the most part do not capitalize on the potentials of the system, in favor of replicating the same experience you can get from games on a smaller multiplayer scale or even being functionally offline.
If you divided out these titles and placed the ones that play as a single player title back as a single player game and the one's that play as multiplayer titles on local hosts and small servers, there's very few that would see any significant impact to the experience you'd have.
The notion I laid out is that we can do that, letting the games that want to play as such, be such, and let the games that want to actually be built 'for' the infrastructure of a system be the focus of each one instead of simply games built over the infrastructure.
This does not preclude having a solo experience or having a strongly story driven game, but it's the realization that these elements can be developed in a much different manner than they generally are now as to provide an experience that caters to the strengths of the platform on which it's been built.
Your misrepresentation of that by saying I want a specific kind of game or game mechanics is flat out wrong, and not appreciated.
EDIT: Random factoid, Lizardbones.
The wiki page for MMORPG is ~12 years old.
You can check the history tab for the oldest recorded edit, it's from December 2001.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Depends on the purpose.
If the purpose is to beat everyone and win a world championship, LoL is your game.
So "massivley multiplayer" isn't a core aspect of the genre?
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/I would say it is a core aspect but until they actually define the massively part it remains open to interpretation. Having a game where you only group with 5 - 10 people (like almost all MMO groups) but have access to thousands becaus the game has the capability of having them online with you (in the same lobby room, waiting room, or party formation screen) ready to play at the same time as you arguably fits the definition.
If so, will Marvel Heroes, TSW, TOR, NWO counted as MMORPGs? If so, why is solo content so prevalent?
I would say devs are moving away from that "core aspect" to cater to solo players. Unless, of course you give the genre a new name to reflect this change.
So "massivley multiplayer" isn't a core aspect of the genre?
As Loktfeit said, when "massively multiplayer" is actually defined, then yes. Right now there's not a whole lot to go on.
The bare minimum MMORPG would be a flat, featureless, colorless landscape, geometric shapes for player avatars, and a chat window. Eve has shown that you don't really need the landscape. Just a persistent, shared representation of three dimensional space will suffice. While this is definitive, it's not really very clear or useful outside of the specific conversations about D3, LoL or exploring the differences between a game being an MMO and being an MMORPG.
What some people really want to do is to create a definition where e.g. SWToR is not a 'true' MMORPG. Such a definition does not a exist. The amount or type of group content is not part of the definition of MMORPGs, outside of some peoples' minds. The amount or type of PvP is also not part of the definition of MMORPGs. Neither is the quality of the game, number or lack of classes, etc. "Many" people and a shared, persistent world (three dimensional, virtual space) is as close as the definition gets.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Depends on someones personal warped definition. I think you know exactly why single player content is so prevalent. You have explained it many times how you have fun playing the games. As far as a new name goes wtf do you think Single Player MMORPGs refers to? They do have a new name.
Massively Multiplayer is a core aspect of MMORPGs. It doesn't matter if you ignore it, are not sure how to interpret part of it, or can't accept it. It's fact. If you take the "Massively Multiplayer" out of MMORPG you remove a core aspect.
I really don't see how anyone could argue with that but by all means feel free to astound and amaze me.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/It's not about defining massive. It's about "massively multiplayer" being a defining core aspect of MMORPGs. Could we agree that Single Player is the exact opposite of Massively Multiplayer? If so and your on board with that then does it make sense to focus your game on the exact opposite of it's most basic fundamental premise?
Not to me.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/