I think since WoW came out, developers became jaded with how financially successful it was and tried to mimic its model, only to fall flat in most cases. If developers and publishers could see past the huge dollar signs, they could actually make a game that suits a specific audience and will retain players for a long time, but it seems like they're trying to chase a quick buck over a long term strategy.
I really don't have time for old schools MMOs anymore (unless I get laid off from work of course, that is always a not so nice possibility and the work market here suck). And the endgame part really more or less comes from Wow, EQ did invent raiding but it was nothing like Wow and later games "endgame".
I frankly would be happy with a hard game, for me the right difficulty matters way more than time consuming. And hard all the way, not just a few endgame raids and dungeons. I personally think that GW2s epic difficulty nerf during the beta is the most tragic thing the last few years, possibly besides CCP canceling WoDO.
Many of your features do sound nice though so I am not sure what you are aiming for here, a new EQ or something else.
People tend to sort PvE games in 2 categories. casual which is easy and fast and hardcore which is hard and time consuming but there really should be 4. I can play 2-3 hours a day and more on weekends but that would have gotten me zero in M59 and EQ.
Originally posted by nbtscan I think since WoW came out, developers became jaded with how financially successful it was and tried to mimic its model, only to fall flat in most cases. If developers and publishers could see past the huge dollar signs, they could actually make a game that suits a specific audience and will retain players for a long time, but it seems like they're trying to chase a quick buck over a long term strategy.
chasing a quick buck again, again, and again .. is a long term strategy.
I voted no, never was into the EQ model, and even though I do enjoy some of the features you included, I want the core game play to be driven by and catering to a strong PVP, territory control model.
Games I've favored in the past include Lineage 1/2, DAOC, EVE and now Archeage.
I'm a early backer of Camelot Unchained and looking forward more towards Black Desert than EQ Next.
Pure PVE games hold little interest to me regardless what design models they chose to employ.
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
Sorry, I think it's been proven more than it's been disproven that the "old school" formula doesn't work anymore.
It does work. There is a market for it for sure. How big? Yet to be determined. What I have described is the soul of the old school mmoprg era. The difference is the things we want to have in an mmo we can finally program. EQN is leading us into a mix of new and old school mmo model. So yes, it will work if it's a quality game.
Agreed re: EQN, I'm anxiously anticipating this one.
ESO is another great example, though. It tried to take a lot of old school elements and merge them with newer concept ideas. I'm loving it, but there's still a lot of hate surrounding the game (and these old school elements too). Plus, again, it's buggy and there is tons of hate in general at this point.
Shards Online is another example. It has a LOT of old schoolish elements, but mixes in some innovative features as well. They can't even get a thousand people to back them. Granted it's Kickstarter, but come on!
Even look at Camelot Unchained. You could make the argument that it was wildly successful because it raised $2 million, but that was from only 14,000 backers compared to other game projects raising similar amounts. That's an average pledge of $150 and a big part of that was that they were giving away 3 year subscriptions.
I won't deny that there's a niche market for old school games, I am just saying that I doubt there would be a large enough paying audience to actually sustain the game long-term.
I won't deny that there's a niche market for old school games, I am just saying that I doubt there would be a large enough paying audience to actually sustain the game long-term.
I doubt it. Your KS example is good indirect evidence. Even Camelot unchain get only $2M, which is a pittance in this kind of business.
And with some many games out there, i high doubt you can get a large enough audience dedicating to one game ... which is what old school games are asking for.
I read the description and I thought a lot of the features were cool, but not enough of them to get me fully into the "Yes" bracket. If my feeling for a game is not fully across the "Yes" line, then it's "No".
However, I'd probably keep following the game for awhile to see how it develops, just in case.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This thread is solely about niche market gaming. What I mean is that mmorpgs pre-wow were made for niche market gamers. The MMO's didn't cater to everyone but a niche market of gamers who enjoyed a particular style of gameplay.
I have to say that I feel today's MMORPG are far more targetted towards a certain type of player. In the old I feel we had allot of different playstyle all coming together in some way or form.
I also do not feel that a MMORPG shouln't allow solo play or be as limited as mentioned in OP with 30% solo and 70% group.
I would switch the 2 because of it's more virtual feel to it. Keep in mind solo does NOT mean singleplayer experiance, it just means lots of things can be done solo. For example I had more solo experiance in SWG yet was incredible social with the community but had very limited group experiance, apart from the mission terminals with pugs and guildmember and some epic missions. But still most of my time was spend solo.
Again to me there is a difference in playing solo which still can be social. And of course it depends on the type of MMORPG. But as said if it's a more virtual world I don't see why people need to be forced into group activities, just make sure the game hold plenty of social feature's and community's will be created, groups will be formed naturally and not because you are forced.
So to me a more virtual world is what's niche gaming is about because I know the majority wants more GAME and nothing wrong with that as I do enjoy them aswell because I find my own niche within them. But those "virtual world" games take time to play, take patience and that's something not very common among today's gamers even seen it with certain vet. gamers.
Originally posted by iixviiiix I like to add horizon design instead of railed base on level.I mean i want to wear any gears i able to find and learn any spells that i manage to unlock.Contents like quests not gated by level.I want to see level as one way to raise character stats and make it stronger, but not key unlock major contents,That's most thing i want to see in multiplayers game , since it make people easier to join the game with other without too much difference because of play time .
the tired old class/level system is waaaaaay past it's prime, it need to die now.
Originally posted by Eronakis I say I have ideas and then everyone is like you're going to fail and you don't know what your doing. I never said I was going to attempt it anytime soon. We all have ideas. I have some experience in designing games. I've built mods back in the day with the TES Construction Set with Oblivion. I am fully aware of what it takes, the sacrifice, the time and energy, the capital, everything. You're preaching to the choir here.
I could cut off both of my hands and count on my remaining fingers the number of times someone popped up on a forum someplace, said, "I have an idea" and actually turned it into a game. Doubly so, if that's possible, for MMORPGs. It happens more often than you might think.
The really dedicated people do something like this:
or more likely this:
Except they don't announce they're going to do it. They just show up one day after they've done it with the game they made using the Eclipse Engine or something.
It's just a pattern I've noticed. Show up on forums, announce game idea, argue about it, look for help, then disappear. You might do something different. Who knows. I do know that if you are a person who has what it takes to make a game, anything I say is irrelevant. You'll make that game no matter what.
**
Here's a link to the EclipseOrigins website for the curious. It's a 2D engine, but it has many features and it should be possible to make a fully functional, fleshed out MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
[quote]ESO is another great example, though. It tried to take a lot of old school elements and merge them with newer concept ideas. I'm loving it, but there's still a lot of hate surrounding the game (and these old school elements too). Plus, again, it's buggy and there is tons of hate in general at this point. [/quote]
The problem is the more old school features you implement - the flatter you seem to fall on your face. I like ESO - but my g/f is less keen on it. It has great voice acting - cool quests - its not that easy even at the start. But man the inventory stuff is a pain if you want to craft. And there is no global AH.
I look for WIldstar to be the most succesfull of the big 3 releases - and that's because shock - they concentrate the most on gameplay and the least on creating a convincing 'virtual' world. The trend in successful MMOs has been gameplay first - other stuff second..
WoW said hey lets stop pretending we are creating a virtual world and concentrate on lag free combat and quick action - much like a console game. That paid off.
[quote]ESO is another great example, though. It tried to take a lot of old school elements and merge them with newer concept ideas. I'm loving it, but there's still a lot of hate surrounding the game (and these old school elements too). Plus, again, it's buggy and there is tons of hate in general at this point. [/quote]
The problem is the more old school features you implement - the flatter you seem to fall on your face. I like ESO - but my g/f is less keen on it. It has great voice acting - cool quests - its not that easy even at the start. But man the inventory stuff is a pain if you want to craft. And there is no global AH.
I look for WIldstar to be the most succesfull of the big 3 releases - and that's because shock - they concentrate the most on gameplay and the least on creating a convincing 'virtual' world. The trend in successful MMOs has been gameplay first - other stuff second..
WoW said hey lets stop pretending we are creating a virtual world and concentrate on lag free combat and quick action - much like a console game. That paid off.
I would argue WoW was much more a virtual world and much less an action-packed, lag-free action RPG at its release. It had downtime (albeit cut shorter with food/drink), it had lag briefly at launch, and many of the "perks" that take away from the original, massive continent just weren't there at release.
I agree it has become much, much less of a virtual world and much, much more of an action RPG recently, however. And while I enjoyed vanilla/TBC WoW, I tried going back not too long ago and found it particularly boring. EVE has turned out to be a much better fit.
I agree with all your points, with exception of PVE focus.
There can be perfectly fine community focused games with PVP as focus (politics, sieges, territory control). It doesnt have to be monotonous EQ pve grind and nothing else. I dont mind some pve grind here and there, but no PVP = no longevity for me.
I agree it has become much, much less of a virtual world and much, much more of an action RPG recently, however.
That is where the market is going, and where most of the players are.
In fact, if you look at Destiny, it is going to more like a seamless FPS with some other people occasionally in your game, then a persistent virtual world with lots of real players. Watch Dogs is the same deal.
I'm still waiting for a cut-throat political sandbox with perma-death built from the ground up ... I'm thinking Game of Thrones or Salem (with better graphics).
I agree it has become much, much less of a virtual world and much, much more of an action RPG recently, however.
That is where the market is going, and where most of the players are.
In fact, if you look at Destiny, it is going to more like a seamless FPS with some other people occasionally in your game, then a persistent virtual world with lots of real players. Watch Dogs is the same deal.
Where the market is going? Seems like it arrived at this destination quite some time ago.
Only question left is can we wrestle some of it back?
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
Originally posted by General-Zod I'm still waiting for a cut-throat political sandbox with perma-death built from the ground up ... I'm thinking Game of Thrones or Salem (with better graphics).
Don't hold your breath.
Plus, i doubt GoT will be a good online game. It is all about stories and twists, and i doubt that kind of fun translate well to a video game. I am more than content to enjoy GoT as a TV series.
I agree it has become much, much less of a virtual world and much, much more of an action RPG recently, however.
That is where the market is going, and where most of the players are.
In fact, if you look at Destiny, it is going to more like a seamless FPS with some other people occasionally in your game, then a persistent virtual world with lots of real players. Watch Dogs is the same deal.
Where the market is going? Seems like it arrived at this destination quite some time ago.
Only question left is can we wrestle some of it back?
More streamlined, convenient, and focused online games? And more game types ... Example ...
D3 - focus on combat & loot, trading is gone ... and pvp is never even mentioned again
HearthStone - fun CCG
Destiny - make the online part almost invisible, and no persistent world
Watch Dogs - again, make the online part almost invisible, and no persistent world
World of Tanks/Planes/Whatever - focused on instanced pvp, and get rid of everything else
MOBAs - focused on instanced pvp, e-sport, and get rid of everything else
So i think traditional MMOs are just not going to do very well in all these competition. Personally i like streamlined focused games more ....
I'm on my phone so I can't quote but what makes it boring is that you've basically described eq with updated graphics and I already played that game and got my fill. Imo your idea sounds exactly like Brad Mc quads pantheon and even without Brad involved it just sounds like a game for bitter old mmo vets and I have no interest in that. I actually have enjoyed many of the present day MMos despite their imperfections. Much of what those games have improved on imo u would like to roll back the clock on. Old games were good but only nostalgia taints one into thinking they were any better than what's available now whether what's on offer is to your liking or not. I don't bitch about every single single player game coming out not being something I'm interested in but for some reason every MMO player feels the need to think that every MMO should be designed for them personally.
I want convenient games with minimal socialization, and challenging combat. D3 is a good example. I don't mind a virtual world, but don't make me walk around for ages, or have to talk for 15 min before getting into a group. Convenient features like fast travel, instances, LFDs are a must.
In fact, think of a lobby instanced game .. the closes to that, the better I like it.
We know, we know, we know, we know. lol. seriously we know. I knew what you'd say before you posted it.
so? You don't think i should express myself (or vote in the poll) just because you know?
Lots of people are consistent here. I already know who is going to ask for a virtual world, PD, sandbox .....
You don't see me ranting about people repeating themselves.
Express yourself sure, but maybe attempt to not repeat the same 3 posts over and over. Do you not notice that so many members on this site continue to post what Eronakis just posted your way? Think common denominator
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I will instead state that i have no idea what market developers are aiming for.The reason is because once gamer's have a fun game they like to call home why would you make an identical type game to compete with a market already flooded with identical games,it makes no sense.
It is VERY easy to sum up these games without using fake titles like Sandbox or whatever else,these games are nothing more than quest hub games,they do not even deserve to be called MMORPG's.
Sure we once accepted these quest hub games because online gaming was rather new back in the era of 2003 and prior to that there was really no competition in the market and a VERY small market at that.
When that huge influx of new online gamer's came about ,the same time Wow was released the ONLY thing they understood was quest hub gaming.So now we have literally thousands of these games.It does not take a mathematical wiz to understand this market is massively flooded with competition.These are just games full of a mish mash of content that is unrelated to a RPG just content for the sake of saying "we have content".
When these developers truly understand what the term Role playing means,they might begin to target a market,as is they are just targeting online gamer's with no real meaningful design.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Comments
Steam: Neph
What makes it boring? And how would you improve it?
add instances, fast travel, convenient features ....
I really don't have time for old schools MMOs anymore (unless I get laid off from work of course, that is always a not so nice possibility and the work market here suck). And the endgame part really more or less comes from Wow, EQ did invent raiding but it was nothing like Wow and later games "endgame".
I frankly would be happy with a hard game, for me the right difficulty matters way more than time consuming. And hard all the way, not just a few endgame raids and dungeons. I personally think that GW2s epic difficulty nerf during the beta is the most tragic thing the last few years, possibly besides CCP canceling WoDO.
Many of your features do sound nice though so I am not sure what you are aiming for here, a new EQ or something else.
People tend to sort PvE games in 2 categories. casual which is easy and fast and hardcore which is hard and time consuming but there really should be 4. I can play 2-3 hours a day and more on weekends but that would have gotten me zero in M59 and EQ.
chasing a quick buck again, again, and again .. is a long term strategy.
I voted no, never was into the EQ model, and even though I do enjoy some of the features you included, I want the core game play to be driven by and catering to a strong PVP, territory control model.
Games I've favored in the past include Lineage 1/2, DAOC, EVE and now Archeage.
I'm a early backer of Camelot Unchained and looking forward more towards Black Desert than EQ Next.
Pure PVE games hold little interest to me regardless what design models they chose to employ.
"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
Agreed re: EQN, I'm anxiously anticipating this one.
ESO is another great example, though. It tried to take a lot of old school elements and merge them with newer concept ideas. I'm loving it, but there's still a lot of hate surrounding the game (and these old school elements too). Plus, again, it's buggy and there is tons of hate in general at this point.
Shards Online is another example. It has a LOT of old schoolish elements, but mixes in some innovative features as well. They can't even get a thousand people to back them. Granted it's Kickstarter, but come on!
Even look at Camelot Unchained. You could make the argument that it was wildly successful because it raised $2 million, but that was from only 14,000 backers compared to other game projects raising similar amounts. That's an average pledge of $150 and a big part of that was that they were giving away 3 year subscriptions.
I won't deny that there's a niche market for old school games, I am just saying that I doubt there would be a large enough paying audience to actually sustain the game long-term.
EQN can prove me wrong though, anytime.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I doubt it. Your KS example is good indirect evidence. Even Camelot unchain get only $2M, which is a pittance in this kind of business.
And with some many games out there, i high doubt you can get a large enough audience dedicating to one game ... which is what old school games are asking for.
Learn to program if you have to, just make the demo.
Do whatever it takes, just make the demo.
I read the description and I thought a lot of the features were cool, but not enough of them to get me fully into the "Yes" bracket. If my feeling for a game is not fully across the "Yes" line, then it's "No".
However, I'd probably keep following the game for awhile to see how it develops, just in case.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Eronakis
This thread is solely about niche market gaming. What I mean is that mmorpgs pre-wow were made for niche market gamers. The MMO's didn't cater to everyone but a niche market of gamers who enjoyed a particular style of gameplay.
I have to say that I feel today's MMORPG are far more targetted towards a certain type of player. In the old I feel we had allot of different playstyle all coming together in some way or form.
I also do not feel that a MMORPG shouln't allow solo play or be as limited as mentioned in OP with 30% solo and 70% group.
I would switch the 2 because of it's more virtual feel to it. Keep in mind solo does NOT mean singleplayer experiance, it just means lots of things can be done solo. For example I had more solo experiance in SWG yet was incredible social with the community but had very limited group experiance, apart from the mission terminals with pugs and guildmember and some epic missions. But still most of my time was spend solo.
Again to me there is a difference in playing solo which still can be social. And of course it depends on the type of MMORPG. But as said if it's a more virtual world I don't see why people need to be forced into group activities, just make sure the game hold plenty of social feature's and community's will be created, groups will be formed naturally and not because you are forced.
So to me a more virtual world is what's niche gaming is about because I know the majority wants more GAME and nothing wrong with that as I do enjoy them aswell because I find my own niche within them. But those "virtual world" games take time to play, take patience and that's something not very common among today's gamers even seen it with certain vet. gamers.
the tired old class/level system is waaaaaay past it's prime, it need to die now.
I could cut off both of my hands and count on my remaining fingers the number of times someone popped up on a forum someplace, said, "I have an idea" and actually turned it into a game. Doubly so, if that's possible, for MMORPGs. It happens more often than you might think.
The really dedicated people do something like this:
or more likely this:
Except they don't announce they're going to do it. They just show up one day after they've done it with the game they made using the Eclipse Engine or something.
It's just a pattern I've noticed. Show up on forums, announce game idea, argue about it, look for help, then disappear. You might do something different. Who knows. I do know that if you are a person who has what it takes to make a game, anything I say is irrelevant. You'll make that game no matter what.
**
Here's a link to the EclipseOrigins website for the curious. It's a 2D engine, but it has many features and it should be possible to make a fully functional, fleshed out MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
[quote]ESO is another great example, though. It tried to take a lot of old school elements and merge them with newer concept ideas. I'm loving it, but there's still a lot of hate surrounding the game (and these old school elements too). Plus, again, it's buggy and there is tons of hate in general at this point. [/quote]
The problem is the more old school features you implement - the flatter you seem to fall on your face. I like ESO - but my g/f is less keen on it. It has great voice acting - cool quests - its not that easy even at the start. But man the inventory stuff is a pain if you want to craft. And there is no global AH.
I look for WIldstar to be the most succesfull of the big 3 releases - and that's because shock - they concentrate the most on gameplay and the least on creating a convincing 'virtual' world. The trend in successful MMOs has been gameplay first - other stuff second..
WoW said hey lets stop pretending we are creating a virtual world and concentrate on lag free combat and quick action - much like a console game. That paid off.
I would argue WoW was much more a virtual world and much less an action-packed, lag-free action RPG at its release. It had downtime (albeit cut shorter with food/drink), it had lag briefly at launch, and many of the "perks" that take away from the original, massive continent just weren't there at release.
I agree it has become much, much less of a virtual world and much, much more of an action RPG recently, however. And while I enjoyed vanilla/TBC WoW, I tried going back not too long ago and found it particularly boring. EVE has turned out to be a much better fit.
I agree with all your points, with exception of PVE focus.
There can be perfectly fine community focused games with PVP as focus (politics, sieges, territory control). It doesnt have to be monotonous EQ pve grind and nothing else. I dont mind some pve grind here and there, but no PVP = no longevity for me.
Where the market is going? Seems like it arrived at this destination quite some time ago.
Only question left is can we wrestle some of it back?
"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
Don't hold your breath.
Plus, i doubt GoT will be a good online game. It is all about stories and twists, and i doubt that kind of fun translate well to a video game. I am more than content to enjoy GoT as a TV series.
More streamlined, convenient, and focused online games? And more game types ... Example ...
D3 - focus on combat & loot, trading is gone ... and pvp is never even mentioned again
HearthStone - fun CCG
Destiny - make the online part almost invisible, and no persistent world
Watch Dogs - again, make the online part almost invisible, and no persistent world
World of Tanks/Planes/Whatever - focused on instanced pvp, and get rid of everything else
MOBAs - focused on instanced pvp, e-sport, and get rid of everything else
So i think traditional MMOs are just not going to do very well in all these competition. Personally i like streamlined focused games more ....
Steam: Neph
Express yourself sure, but maybe attempt to not repeat the same 3 posts over and over. Do you not notice that so many members on this site continue to post what Eronakis just posted your way? Think common denominator
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I will instead state that i have no idea what market developers are aiming for.The reason is because once gamer's have a fun game they like to call home why would you make an identical type game to compete with a market already flooded with identical games,it makes no sense.
It is VERY easy to sum up these games without using fake titles like Sandbox or whatever else,these games are nothing more than quest hub games,they do not even deserve to be called MMORPG's.
Sure we once accepted these quest hub games because online gaming was rather new back in the era of 2003 and prior to that there was really no competition in the market and a VERY small market at that.
When that huge influx of new online gamer's came about ,the same time Wow was released the ONLY thing they understood was quest hub gaming.So now we have literally thousands of these games.It does not take a mathematical wiz to understand this market is massively flooded with competition.These are just games full of a mish mash of content that is unrelated to a RPG just content for the sake of saying "we have content".
When these developers truly understand what the term Role playing means,they might begin to target a market,as is they are just targeting online gamer's with no real meaningful design.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.