Why can't developers make the perfect game I want? And then I'll pretend my opinion matches everyone else whom plays games and call it the collective 'we.'
Originally posted by DamonVile They do conform to what "we" like, you're just the wrong "we"
+1
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 would have to agree that a lot of what is pushed out into the market is 'good' but not 'great'.
I haven't seen a 'great' game in quite a while.
I've seen plenty of 'good' games that flopped, though.
Part of me wishes that companies would take the 'best of breed' aspects and features from each MMO, bring it all together in some MMORPG melting pot and produce one hell of a great game.
That's not perceived to be innovation though.
It is my personal expectation that each MMO that I play should be 'better' than the last. I expect the new one to avoid the same pitfalls and mistakes the game made. In the end, I'm typically left disappointed when an older game had a similar key feature, but had better execution and delivery than the new game. If that makes sense?
I expect to see improvement year over year, with each new game. Is that wrong? Maybe.
....
This thread really has had some gems in it. Some great thoughts and posts. Some of what has been said here should be printed and/or plastered on game dev walls.
The MMO community doesn't know what it wants. I understand everyone has a different flavor, but the desires of the MMO community shift like a huge pendulum with every passing fad. It's a total waste of time to listen to someone who will latch onto the next "revolutionary" idea before their hot pocket turns room temperature.
Your entire post is very good and I recommend everyone read it carefully.
To me the question is more "Why do MMOs keep trying to cater to everyone?" Well actually I know the obvious answer (money) but I think one size fits all MMOs are doomed to failure and your post clearly lays out why. People like different things and many of the things people like conflict with things which other people like. We don't get other industries saying "Well most people like Justin Bieber or vanilla ice cream so you should just buy that and learn to like it or do without!" but that's pretty much what MMOs have been doing (outside of EVE) for the last few years
Just because WoW was successful doing a lot of things reasonably well and people put up with all the little things they didn't like about that game to get to the things they did like in 2004 when fewer options existed doesn't mean a new game will ever replicate that success yet they all keep trying. Meanwhile games like DOTA 2/League of Legends have exploded in popularity by taking one small part of the MMO formula which you would think would only appeal to a niche market and perfecting it to a point where millions want to play it.
Originally posted by DamonVile They do conform to what "we" like, you're just the wrong "we"
^
The we that's purchasing products is driving development in directions what "we" don't much like. This causes much bellyaching and sour grapes, and always has.
Why didn't "we" pick the right man for President (every election, all the way back to 1792)?
OP, I am fairly certain you will not like what I do as far as gaming goes. The audacity here is amazing. I for one would like the exact opposite. For devs to make the game they want to, and let it fly on its merits, at least to start.
Because "we" are crazy? Because "we" have the attention span of two year olds? Because "we" are attracted to the next best thing and have no loyalty to game developers? Because as soon as "we" get what we want, we want something new?
Quite simply, the MMO community doesn't really understand what it wants. They think they do, but all they really know is to ask for is faster horses. This comes in the form of:
[...]
I respectfully disagree *. The MMO community doesn't exist as a whole outside of a vague construct. Pockets of the community do know what they want. The confusion lies in that the multiple pockets disagree in what they want.
There is no 'One Voice' with any coherent message. Therefore no game will ever please the full market. This isn't consumer confusion. It is consumer fragmentation.
In answer to the OP's question as to why game companies don't just conform to what "we" like:
They cannot. There are innate contradictions in design objectives. These are not resolvable. In the end, they are forced to cater to one specific pocket of the community **, and ignore the others.
...
* although the description of the contradictions seems quite accurate
** presumably the largest spending group
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
We're consumers. Is "loyalty" required? (It's encouraged, no doubt--that's just good marketing--brand loyalty is a huge component of driving future sales).
But is "loyalty" a good thing, or just another blinder?
How many game producers have not had a sophomore slump? Or at least one serious Dog title?
I think they do make games people want and they do listen. That's part of why we end up with these very easy games that are single player experiences filled with generic easy quests. It's why there is no reward for interacting with other people. I still don't understand why people would want to play a "massively" "multiplayer" game, but want to experience it in instances with no interaction with other players.
I did point out in an earlier post that the first few big name MMOs Ultima Online, Everquest, DAOC, etc. were developed without any user input. IMO they were probably the best MMOs ever designed. People interacted a lot more and that made the experience better. Things were harder and that made things more rewarding when you succeeded. You often traded with people via barter systems similar to ancient times (where most of these games take place) instead of amazon.com type of stores.
I'm also not certain why games cost so much to produce now. Is it the large amount of mindless quests? Is it the advanced graphics. Is it the GPS system? Is it the more advanced animations? Is it the voice chat integration systems? Is it the trading hubs (Amazon.com). The old MMOs seemed to do fine without a lot of this stuff. I think most of it actually detracts from the gaming experience and it costs more money.
Are there perfect cars? Perfect smart phones? Perfect movies? As a customer we only get to choose from what's out there. You want a custom made MMO? Well you'll have to make it yourself.
We're consumers. Is "loyalty" required? (It's encouraged, no doubt--that's just good marketing--brand loyalty is a huge component of driving future sales).
But is "loyalty" a good thing, or just another blinder?
How many game producers have not had a sophomore slump? Or at least one serious Dog title?
I think most gamers are loyal to the point of trying a game because their last one was good, but we don't need to get married to them. If they get fat and ugly.....
I think most of it actually detracts from the gaming experience and it costs more money.
We used to say the same thing about the pretty graphics (detracting from immersion).
Turns out it was just multi-player onlines evolving.
Ever notice that every generation of video games, from Pong forward, has had it's share of users dragging their feet, insisting that "these are the games we enjoy, stop here". "No, you've gone too far, go back, games were better when..."
Every one.
Every auto model year. Every music genre. Every movie audience.
Originally posted by Scorchien lol the irony , actually MMos were much better before devs started listening to all the fuggin Gimme Bears and giving them what they want and ruining there own games in the process....
Exactly lol.
To the OP, the reason why some mmo's are in this mess is because they did listen to all the rants.
I was quite happy paying a sub and having access to everything the game offered but that's just me.
I think most of it actually detracts from the gaming experience and it costs more money.
We used to say the same thing about the pretty graphics (detracting from immersion).
Turns out it was just multi-player onlines evolving.
Ever notice that every generation of video games, from Pong forward, has had it's share of users dragging their feet, insisting that "these are the games we enjoy, stop here". "No, you've gone too far, go back, games were better when..."
Every one.
Every auto model year. Every music genre. Every movie audience.
Reactionaries are an omnipresent force.
I notice that a lot of people are playing 2D games (indies) right now. Graphics/Animation are nice, but there is a point where it's not worth it. I think we are already way beyond that point. There is to much money spent on the graphical/animation end of things. You hardly notice the difference and if the game is not fun it's not going to make any difference. It also wastes more power. There is not as much power to go around as there once was. You can't always look at things from a point of we need to advance further. Some times it's better to stop or go backwards and realize some things actually were better. I know there are a lot of things when I was a kid that older people did that I thought was nonsense. It turned out what they were doing was actually really good for you and made a lot of sense.
I notice that a lot of people are playing 2D games (indies) right now. Graphics/Animation are nice, but there is a point where it's not worth it. I think we are already way beyond that point. There is to much money spent on the graphical/animation end of things. You hardly notice the difference and if the game is not fun it's not going to make any difference. It also wastes more power. There is not as much power to go around as there once was. You can't always look at things from a point of we need to advance further. Some times it's better to stop or go backwards and realize some things actually were better. I know there are a lot of things when I was a kid that older people did that I thought was nonsense. It turned out what they were doing was actually really good for you and made a lot of sense.
I think most of it actually detracts from the gaming experience and it costs more money.
We used to say the same thing about the pretty graphics (detracting from immersion).
Turns out it was just multi-player onlines evolving.
Ever notice that every generation of video games, from Pong forward, has had it's share of users dragging their feet, insisting that "these are the games we enjoy, stop here". "No, you've gone too far, go back, games were better when..."
Every one.
Every auto model year. Every music genre. Every movie audience.
Reactionaries are an omnipresent force.
I notice that a lot of people are playing 2D games (indies) right now. Graphics/Animation are nice, but there is a point where it's not worth it. I think we are already way beyond that point. There is to much money spent on the graphical/animation end of things. You hardly notice the difference and if the game is not fun it's not going to make any difference. It also wastes more power. There is not as much power to go around as there once was. You can't always look at things from a point of we need to advance further. Some times it's better to stop or go backwards and realize some things actually were better. I know there are a lot of things when I was a kid that older people did that I thought was nonsense. It turned out what they were doing was actually really good for you and made a lot of sense.
I notice this too, my friends keep trying to get me to play Terraria and Starbound but unfortunately I've never liked Side Scrollers and never will. Too me GFX are not as important but that doesn't mean I don't favor a certain style or art direction of a game. I don't think I'll ever play a game like Wildstar because of its graphics but EQN is ok for me. Different art style. Many here bash Neverwinter but I love their art.
At the end of the day there are differences people either like or dislike and there's nothing wrong with that.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
from their standpoint, there is a "we". developers don't target their product to individual consumers.
it's win-win for them to create an MMO many people like, and they're trying. they're just not 'getting' what we...WE...like.
You confuse between "many people like", and "you like".
Given there are many successful money making MMO like GW2, i would say the devs found an audience .. just that they don't include you (unless you are one of those who like these games).
I think most of it actually detracts from the gaming experience and it costs more money.
We used to say the same thing about the pretty graphics (detracting from immersion).
Turns out it was just multi-player onlines evolving.
Ever notice that every generation of video games, from Pong forward, has had it's share of users dragging their feet, insisting that "these are the games we enjoy, stop here". "No, you've gone too far, go back, games were better when..."
Every one.
Every auto model year. Every music genre. Every movie audience.
Reactionaries are an omnipresent force.
I notice that a lot of people are playing 2D games (indies) right now. Graphics/Animation are nice, but there is a point where it's not worth it. I think we are already way beyond that point. There is to much money spent on the graphical/animation end of things. You hardly notice the difference and if the game is not fun it's not going to make any difference. It also wastes more power. There is not as much power to go around as there once was. You can't always look at things from a point of we need to advance further. Some times it's better to stop or go backwards and realize some things actually were better. I know there are a lot of things when I was a kid that older people did that I thought was nonsense. It turned out what they were doing was actually really good for you and made a lot of sense.
I notice this too, my friends keep trying to get me to play Terraria and Starbound but unfortunately I've never liked Side Scrollers and never will. Too me GFX are not as important but that doesn't mean I don't favor a certain style or art direction of a game. I don't think I'll ever play a game like Wildstar because of its graphics but EQN is ok for me. Different art style. Many here bash Neverwinter but I love their art.
At the end of the day there are differences people either like or dislike and there's nothing wrong with that.
I'm not a huge fan of side scrollers either, but I did enjoy some old Nintendo/Super Nintendo ones like Gradious (Space ship), Metro, Mario, etc. RPGs tend to work well with overhead 2D maps in many cases. Ultima Online was a good example of that. I'd imagine some people still play text based games that are even more complex(I never did). I guess the point is you don't need the latest graphics/animation//voice chat/gps/voice dialogue/etc to have a fun game. On the flip side having those things doesn't mean the game with be fun to play.
I'm not a huge fan of side scrollers either, but I did enjoy some old Nintendo/Super Nintendo ones like Gradious (Space ship), Metro, Mario, etc. RPGs tend to work well with overhead 2D maps in many cases. Ultima Online was a good example of that. I'd imagine some people still play text based games that are even more complex(I never did). I guess the point is you don't need the latest graphics/animation//voice chat/gps/voice dialogue/etc to have a fun game. On the flip side having those things doesn't mean the game with be fun to play.
Given there are so many games out there, there is no reason to sacrifice gameplay or graphics.
Now i am not talking about realistic graphics .. good design can also be good. For example, i am playing a game called zombieville 2 on my ipad. The graphics is 2D sprite .. but the art is very charming and action well animated.
There are also a lot of indie game with great graphics (Rupublique and The Room 2 are two great example) and great gameplay.
What i don't do is to play games with unclean, unappealing graphics.
Originally posted by Rockniss i was brownsing the swtor site just now. (Keep in mind I have had about a twelve pack of sam adams winter lager since 630 and its 930) at any rate, when i went to the website, its highlighted in cartel coin pricing tiers, it made me think why don't these publishers, devs, companies... yada yada yada just conform to the pricing models we enjoy, that being buy to play and sub? i went to the site and even half in the bag, it was a total turn off.
What "we"? I'm a really casual gamer and I must admit... this companies are catering to me pretty damn well lately. It seems it's most of the "hardcore" 8 hour a day gamers getting the shaft. I'm not part of that "we".
Comments
+1
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 would have to agree that a lot of what is pushed out into the market is 'good' but not 'great'.
I haven't seen a 'great' game in quite a while.
I've seen plenty of 'good' games that flopped, though.
Part of me wishes that companies would take the 'best of breed' aspects and features from each MMO, bring it all together in some MMORPG melting pot and produce one hell of a great game.
That's not perceived to be innovation though.
It is my personal expectation that each MMO that I play should be 'better' than the last. I expect the new one to avoid the same pitfalls and mistakes the game made. In the end, I'm typically left disappointed when an older game had a similar key feature, but had better execution and delivery than the new game. If that makes sense?
I expect to see improvement year over year, with each new game. Is that wrong? Maybe.
....
This thread really has had some gems in it. Some great thoughts and posts. Some of what has been said here should be printed and/or plastered on game dev walls.
Your entire post is very good and I recommend everyone read it carefully.
To me the question is more "Why do MMOs keep trying to cater to everyone?" Well actually I know the obvious answer (money) but I think one size fits all MMOs are doomed to failure and your post clearly lays out why. People like different things and many of the things people like conflict with things which other people like. We don't get other industries saying "Well most people like Justin Bieber or vanilla ice cream so you should just buy that and learn to like it or do without!" but that's pretty much what MMOs have been doing (outside of EVE) for the last few years
Just because WoW was successful doing a lot of things reasonably well and people put up with all the little things they didn't like about that game to get to the things they did like in 2004 when fewer options existed doesn't mean a new game will ever replicate that success yet they all keep trying. Meanwhile games like DOTA 2/League of Legends have exploded in popularity by taking one small part of the MMO formula which you would think would only appeal to a niche market and perfecting it to a point where millions want to play it.
^
The we that's purchasing products is driving development in directions what "we" don't much like. This causes much bellyaching and sour grapes, and always has.
Why didn't "we" pick the right man for President (every election, all the way back to 1792)?
OP, I am fairly certain you will not like what I do as far as gaming goes. The audacity here is amazing. I for one would like the exact opposite. For devs to make the game they want to, and let it fly on its merits, at least to start.
over 20 years of mmorpg's and counting...
Because "we" are crazy? Because "we" have the attention span of two year olds? Because "we" are attracted to the next best thing and have no loyalty to game developers? Because as soon as "we" get what we want, we want something new?
:P
I respectfully disagree *. The MMO community doesn't exist as a whole outside of a vague construct. Pockets of the community do know what they want. The confusion lies in that the multiple pockets disagree in what they want.
There is no 'One Voice' with any coherent message. Therefore no game will ever please the full market. This isn't consumer confusion. It is consumer fragmentation.
In answer to the OP's question as to why game companies don't just conform to what "we" like:
They cannot. There are innate contradictions in design objectives. These are not resolvable. In the end, they are forced to cater to one specific pocket of the community **, and ignore the others.
...
* although the description of the contradictions seems quite accurate
** presumably the largest spending group
I think they always have been the savior and the ones with the innovation
Remember "back in the day", AAA Game Companies didnt make MMORPGs. They made FPSs, RTSs, RPGs, etc.
MMORPGs were started by Indy companies. Origin, 989 Studios, Turbine, all started as Indy Developers.
Bringer of Eternal Darkness and Despair, but also a Nutritious way to start your Morning.
Games Played: Too Many
Should we?
We're consumers. Is "loyalty" required? (It's encouraged, no doubt--that's just good marketing--brand loyalty is a huge component of driving future sales).
But is "loyalty" a good thing, or just another blinder?
How many game producers have not had a sophomore slump? Or at least one serious Dog title?
I think they do make games people want and they do listen. That's part of why we end up with these very easy games that are single player experiences filled with generic easy quests. It's why there is no reward for interacting with other people. I still don't understand why people would want to play a "massively" "multiplayer" game, but want to experience it in instances with no interaction with other players.
I did point out in an earlier post that the first few big name MMOs Ultima Online, Everquest, DAOC, etc. were developed without any user input. IMO they were probably the best MMOs ever designed. People interacted a lot more and that made the experience better. Things were harder and that made things more rewarding when you succeeded. You often traded with people via barter systems similar to ancient times (where most of these games take place) instead of amazon.com type of stores.
I'm also not certain why games cost so much to produce now. Is it the large amount of mindless quests? Is it the advanced graphics. Is it the GPS system? Is it the more advanced animations? Is it the voice chat integration systems? Is it the trading hubs (Amazon.com). The old MMOs seemed to do fine without a lot of this stuff. I think most of it actually detracts from the gaming experience and it costs more money.
I think most gamers are loyal to the point of trying a game because their last one was good, but we don't need to get married to them. If they get fat and ugly.....
We used to say the same thing about the pretty graphics (detracting from immersion).
Turns out it was just multi-player onlines evolving.
Ever notice that every generation of video games, from Pong forward, has had it's share of users dragging their feet, insisting that "these are the games we enjoy, stop here". "No, you've gone too far, go back, games were better when..."
Every one.
Every auto model year. Every music genre. Every movie audience.
Reactionaries are an omnipresent force.
Exactly lol.
To the OP, the reason why some mmo's are in this mess is because they did listen to all the rants.
I was quite happy paying a sub and having access to everything the game offered but that's just me.
1) Different people want different and contradictory things.
2) A lot of people want the company to give away everything for free and therefore not generate any revenue.
3) Many people want things that are difficult or impossible and so the company couldn't deliver it even if they wanted to.
I notice that a lot of people are playing 2D games (indies) right now. Graphics/Animation are nice, but there is a point where it's not worth it. I think we are already way beyond that point. There is to much money spent on the graphical/animation end of things. You hardly notice the difference and if the game is not fun it's not going to make any difference. It also wastes more power. There is not as much power to go around as there once was. You can't always look at things from a point of we need to advance further. Some times it's better to stop or go backwards and realize some things actually were better. I know there are a lot of things when I was a kid that older people did that I thought was nonsense. It turned out what they were doing was actually really good for you and made a lot of sense.
Status quo ante.
Humpty doesn't usually go back in his shell, no matter how hard we wish for it.
I notice this too, my friends keep trying to get me to play Terraria and Starbound but unfortunately I've never liked Side Scrollers and never will. Too me GFX are not as important but that doesn't mean I don't favor a certain style or art direction of a game. I don't think I'll ever play a game like Wildstar because of its graphics but EQN is ok for me. Different art style. Many here bash Neverwinter but I love their art.
At the end of the day there are differences people either like or dislike and there's nothing wrong with that.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
You confuse between "many people like", and "you like".
Given there are many successful money making MMO like GW2, i would say the devs found an audience .. just that they don't include you (unless you are one of those who like these games).
I was quite happy not paying a sub and having access to the free fun the game offered but that's just me.
I'm not a huge fan of side scrollers either, but I did enjoy some old Nintendo/Super Nintendo ones like Gradious (Space ship), Metro, Mario, etc. RPGs tend to work well with overhead 2D maps in many cases. Ultima Online was a good example of that. I'd imagine some people still play text based games that are even more complex(I never did). I guess the point is you don't need the latest graphics/animation//voice chat/gps/voice dialogue/etc to have a fun game. On the flip side having those things doesn't mean the game with be fun to play.
Their you go.
Given there are so many games out there, there is no reason to sacrifice gameplay or graphics.
Now i am not talking about realistic graphics .. good design can also be good. For example, i am playing a game called zombieville 2 on my ipad. The graphics is 2D sprite .. but the art is very charming and action well animated.
There are also a lot of indie game with great graphics (Rupublique and The Room 2 are two great example) and great gameplay.
What i don't do is to play games with unclean, unappealing graphics.
What "we"? I'm a really casual gamer and I must admit... this companies are catering to me pretty damn well lately. It seems it's most of the "hardcore" 8 hour a day gamers getting the shaft. I'm not part of that "we".