As a single player game GTA is functionally closer to a heavy instance MMORPG like WoW than an open world MMORPG. It's one big instance where other players cannot interfere with what your doing and the decisions you make do not affect other players' instances of the game.
Yeah ... that is a big part. No one can interfere with my game, and I don't depends on other for my fun. So yeah ... MMOs are becoming more like GTA in that regard.
Where is the artistry and human interface in all of that garbage? For shit's sakes I wish they would just make things that are good.
"good" is subjective.
D3 is good (to me).
Marvel Heroes is good (to me).
... there are plenty of good (to me) games. May be you should find some other entertainment if you do not like them.
I will just comment on just one of your three in a row posts. I like MH, good game, but it is not the only type of gaming entertainment I want. Considering the views of our posters and the player base of MMOs that are far more complex than MH, I would suggest that players want more complex games. I am quite happy games like MH exist, but I want games with more quality, more depth and more gameplay as well. You seem to think the reverse is what we need.
But I know you like WoW, or did. That's a far more complex game than MH. Are you going to say a game like that does not need to be made? And if you accept that WoW was and is needed, does that not show that even more complex MMOs are both needed and viable in the gaming market?
Would say MMO's are not dead, they have lost their way.
You can see as new generations cycle into the game and old ones leave the games have lost what made them special.
WoW was the game that changed everything. It brought the business model that was followed by games for awhile. Everything about the MMO world became different after WoW entered, for better or worse (mostly worse to some).
Archeage is not a bad game, it just showed us what I imagine is rampant across the seas or has been brewing in other F2P games. It was more noticeable (bots/hacks) with how popular Archeage was and figured it'd be over here as well.
I won't call Archeage a WoW clone, the only thing I can relate to WoW are the quests and levels, but since WoW didn't invent those (just the numerous amounts of them) and other games actually did so can't say WoW clone.
Where is the artistry and human interface in all of that garbage? For shit's sakes I wish they would just make things that are good.
"good" is subjective.
D3 is good (to me).
Marvel Heroes is good (to me).
... there are plenty of good (to me) games. May be you should find some other entertainment if you do not like them.
I will just comment on just one of your three in a row posts. I like MH, good game, but it is not the only type of gaming entertainment I want. Considering the views of our posters and the player base of MMOs that are far more complex than MH, I would suggest that players want more complex games. I am quite happy games like MH exist, but I want games with more quality, more depth and more gameplay as well. You seem to think the reverse is what we need.
But I know you like WoW, or did. That's a far more complex game than MH. Are you going to say a game like that does not need to be made? And if you accept that WoW was and is needed, does that not show that even more complex MMOs are both needed and viable in the gaming market?
Viability is dependent upon the number of people willing to buy into a game, and the amount of money that can be raised based on the perception of the number of people willing to buy into a game. That WoW is a more complex game than Marvel Heroes seems to be true, but it does not automatically follow that a more complex game than WoW is needed and viable. It could be that WoW represents the peak of the complexity curve, and shows that most games should fall within a certain range of WoW's complexity to be "viable".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Where is the artistry and human interface in all of that garbage? For shit's sakes I wish they would just make things that are good.
"good" is subjective.
D3 is good (to me).
Marvel Heroes is good (to me).
... there are plenty of good (to me) games. May be you should find some other entertainment if you do not like them.
I will just comment on just one of your three in a row posts. I like MH, good game, but it is not the only type of gaming entertainment I want. Considering the views of our posters and the player base of MMOs that are far more complex than MH, I would suggest that players want more complex games. I am quite happy games like MH exist, but I want games with more quality, more depth and more gameplay as well. You seem to think the reverse is what we need.
But I know you like WoW, or did. That's a far more complex game than MH. Are you going to say a game like that does not need to be made? And if you accept that WoW was and is needed, does that not show that even more complex MMOs are both needed and viable in the gaming market?
Viability is dependent upon the number of people willing to buy into a game, and the amount of money that can be raised based on the perception of the number of people willing to buy into a game. That WoW is a more complex game than Marvel Heroes seems to be true, but it does not automatically follow that a more complex game than WoW is needed and viable. It could be that WoW represents the peak of the complexity curve, and shows that most games should fall within a certain range of WoW's complexity to be "viable".
Only WoW is less complex (in its PvP) than are MOBAs. The different heroes/gods, the builds, and the counter builds make MOBAs much more complex to play than any MMO arenas or open-world PvP. So maybe the complexity curve doesn't end with WoW.
Path of Exile's currency system is more complex than is WoW's. There isn't any gold, only orbs and shards of those orbs that do different things to items. Items that drop roll random resist percentages and stats (within a range), and so the same "named item" may be useful or useless, depending upon that roll. Items sell to vendors for different shards or orbs depending upon that items stats, which are randomly generated for many items. That is certainly more complex than WoW's currency system.
Viability has as wide a range as there are genres of games. Sometimes, viability comes more from the timing of a release than its innovation or unique features (vanilla WoW). As none of us are market experts or even experts in marketing and sales, I don't think talking about viability is a very fruitful discussion.
Path of Exile's currency system is more complex than is WoW's. There isn't any gold, only orbs and shards of those orbs that do different things to items. Items that drop roll random resist percentages and stats (within a range), and so the same "named item" may be useful or useless, depending upon that roll. Items sell to vendors for different shards or orbs depending upon that items stats, which are randomly generated for many items. That is certainly more complex than WoW's currency system.
Ugh, that took some time to figure out. I also play on the temporary leagues (i.e. Nemesis, and now Rampage) and the currency changes as the league gets closer and closer to the end. I use poe.xyz to sell things, but its sometimes a pain. I like putting items up and let the AH or what-have-you deal with the rest. Trade channel is impossible too.
PoE does have the skill system nicely done though. I love the possibilities of all the different builds. Fun game. I've spent about $40 on new tabs.
________________________ Two atoms walk out of a bar. The first exclaims, "Damn, I forgot my electrons." The other replies, "You sure?". The first explains, "Yea, I'm positive."
Archeage was the nail in the coffin for me. SWG was the pinnacle.
P2W options, advanced bots/hacks, small & instanced worlds, easy/everyone can win gameplay and cash shops are just some of the reasons this genre is over.
I know you can never "go back". But EQ and SWG were magical, and had it right. EQ was actually dangerous, and SWG was a living breathing, player built world.
Where are these types of games today?
I've been playing single player rts.....
I agree 100%. The golden era of MMORPGs were EQ, Asheron's Call, SWG and even games like Shadowbane which allowed you to create destructible towns.
Unfourtunately once WoW turned the genre into a mass market one, all the innovation and creativity died. Replaced with whatever draws the most crowds and the most $$. Basically the bean counters and the Suits took over the MMORPG genre and turned it into the cesspool of cash shops and RMTs that it currently is.
As none of us are market experts or even experts in marketing and sales, I don't think talking about viability is a very fruitful discussion.
Yes, except, some of us are. Some of us do that for a living. Although, that doesn't mean a marketing professional is automatically correct about any particular thing, just that they have some amount of experience in understanding how the sausage is made.
As none of us are market experts or even experts in marketing and sales, I don't think talking about viability is a very fruitful discussion.
Yes, except, some of us are. Some of us do that for a living. Although, that doesn't mean a marketing professional is automatically correct about any particular thing, just that they have some amount of experience in understanding how the sausage is made.
More to the point, they have experience in hiding how the sausage is made from consumers
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Archeage was the nail in the coffin for me. SWG was the pinnacle.
P2W options, advanced bots/hacks, small & instanced worlds, easy/everyone can win gameplay and cash shops are just some of the reasons this genre is over.
I know you can never "go back". But EQ and SWG were magical, and had it right. EQ was actually dangerous, and SWG was a living breathing, player built world.
Where are these types of games today?
I've been playing single player rts.....
I agree 100%. The golden era of MMORPGs were EQ, Asheron's Call, SWG and even games like Shadowbane which allowed you to create destructible towns.
Unfourtunately once WoW turned the genre into a mass market one, all the innovation and creativity died. Replaced with whatever draws the most crowds and the most $$. Basically the bean counters and the Suits took over the MMORPG genre and turned it into the cesspool of cash shops and RMTs that it currently is.
This isn't exclusive to the genre, or even gaming. The movie industry has done the same. Pirating sparked that flame. I think maybe the F2P move sparked this one.
When more and more creative content is made available for free, in the end it hurts the innovative thinkers and shakers. Investors won't hire those guys, they'll only fund the safe bets. They only back that which is tailored to be easily marketed (familiar). That is, if what's happened to two other major entertainment industries is any indication. This may, if you're someone who likes these safe bets, be a great thing for you. But considering Star Wars, for example, would never have been created had it not been for those fringe thinkers, in the long run I'd say it's not healthy for the industry.
Where is the artistry and human interface in all of that garbage? For shit's sakes I wish they would just make things that are good.
"good" is subjective.
D3 is good (to me).
Marvel Heroes is good (to me).
... there are plenty of good (to me) games. May be you should find some other entertainment if you do not like them.
I will just comment on just one of your three in a row posts. I like MH, good game, but it is not the only type of gaming entertainment I want. Considering the views of our posters and the player base of MMOs that are far more complex than MH, I would suggest that players want more complex games. I am quite happy games like MH exist, but I want games with more quality, more depth and more gameplay as well. You seem to think the reverse is what we need.
But I know you like WoW, or did. That's a far more complex game than MH. Are you going to say a game like that does not need to be made? And if you accept that WoW was and is needed, does that not show that even more complex MMOs are both needed and viable in the gaming market?
No. My post has no view of what should be done. It is merely pointing out that previous claim that "Where is the artistry and human interface in all of that garbage? For shit's sakes I wish they would just make things that are good" is wrong.
All i am saying is that there are "good" (to many players) games. And if one cannot find a "good" game for himself (or herself), it is a case of his/her preference not being served for whatever reasons.
When more and more creative content is made available for free, in the end it hurts the innovative thinkers and shakers.
But no content is made totally free. Content is made free for most, and expensive for whales ... that is not totally free.
And i see F2P to have exactly the opposite effect. MOBA, WoT, instanced games ... are all "new" and creative at one point. Free does not prevent them from happening, and in fact, reward them with huge success (like LoL).
When more and more creative content is made available for free, in the end it hurts the innovative thinkers and shakers.
But no content is made totally free. Content is made free for most, and expensive for whales ... that is not totally free.
And i see F2P to have exactly the opposite effect. MOBA, WoT, instanced games ... are all "new" and creative at one point. Free does not prevent them from happening, and in fact, reward them with huge success (like LoL).
Only it doesn't. WoT, LoL, the heralds of the genre came less than 5 years ago. And here we are, seeing MOBA after MOBA being released with very little innovation in either gameplay or monetization (Mechwarrior Online? Heroes of the Storm? Demigod? Deadbreed?). In fact, LoL itself wasn't even innovative: the award for the MOBA innovation goes to DotA. LoL just made it avaiable to a much larger audience by releasing for mobile devices. Subsequent releases have either followed that title or chosen to go a more WoT route (i.e. Mechwarrior Online).
Can you name the major differences between DotA, LoL, Deadbreed, Demigod, and Heroes of the Storm? Besides art style and developer? Can you describe how each game would attract the tastes of different players? Or do they all seem to base their gameplay around an identical theme, with slight variations that do not significantly alter the experience? Do you consider that innovation?
At least Smite opted to take a chance on pure skillshots from the 3rd person and (virtually) no "targetting" to speak of. Coincidentally, that's why I play that MOBA and have no interest in any others.
Only it doesn't. WoT, LoL, the heralds of the genre came less than 5 years ago. And here we are, seeing MOBA after MOBA being released with very little innovation in either gameplay or monetization (Mechwarrior Online? Heroes of the Storm? Demigod? Deadbreed?). In fact, LoL itself wasn't even innovative: the award for the MOBA innovation goes to DotA. LoL just made it avaiable to a much larger audience by releasing for mobile devices. Subsequent releases have either followed that title or chosen to go a more WoT route (i.e. Mechwarrior Online).
Can you name the major differences between DotA, LoL, Deadbreed, Demigod, and Heroes of the Storm? Besides art style and developer? Can you describe how each game would attract the tastes of different players? Or do they all seem to base their gameplay around an identical theme, with slight variations that do not significantly alter the experience? Do you consider that innovation?
At least Smite opted to take a chance on pure skillshots from the 3rd person and (virtually) no "targetting" to speak of. Coincidentally, that's why I play that MOBA and have no interest in any others.
"...slight variations that do not significantly alter the experience?" -How much have you played those games really? Because what you are saying is akin to saying that games like Call of Duty, Battlefield and Medal of Honor have not significantly different from one another. Or that Project Gotham Racing, Forza, Flat Out and Need for Speed are all the same. Or Star Craft, Command & Conquer and Supreme Commander? Or Dragon Age, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Witcher, Vampire Masquerade etc.?
And then of all the games among MOBAs you pick Smite with its gimmicky 3rd person view as something that is somehow significantly different from the rest? Are you for real?
What is significant to you anyway? From your view point, aside from shifting focus from grinding to questing, has there been any "significant" change in MMORPGs in the past 20 years?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Smite's "gimmick" serves a very real gameplay purpose. It enables a target reticule, which is why every attack, even basic ones, are skillshots. That is significantly different from other MOBAs that use "click on enemy" targetting. So actually, the 3rd person view is less a gimmick than a significant gameplay development decision. But if you think clicking on enemy to move to and attack ala PoE is the same as skillshot aiming.. Sure.
And do you really need me to point out what makes the major differences between CoD multiplayer and Battlefield multiplayer? Where do I start? Medal of Honor is a bad example because the recent releases have been bad games. I won't argue that.
And there hasn't been a lot of creative innovation n in the industry in a while.. That was kinda my point.
Originally posted by MadFrenchie Smite's "gimmick" serves a very real gameplay purpose. It enables a target reticule, which is why every attack, even basic ones, are skillshots. That is significantly different from other MOBAs that use "click on enemy" targetting. So actually, the 3rd person view is less a gimmick than a significant gameplay development decision. But if you think clicking on enemy to move to and attack ala PoE is the same as skillshot aiming.. Sure.
And do you really need me to point out what makes the major differences between CoD multiplayer and Battlefield multiplayer? Where do I start? Medal of Honor is a bad example because the recent releases have been bad games. I won't argue that.
And there hasn't been a lot of creative innovation n in the industry in a while.. That was kinda my point.
And my point is that because people prefer one over the other, there clearly are differences. Afterall if there weren't any significant differences people wouldn't care what they play. But they do.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Where is the artistry and human interface in all of that garbage? For shit's sakes I wish they would just make things that are good.
"good" is subjective.
D3 is good (to me).
Marvel Heroes is good (to me).
... there are plenty of good (to me) games. May be you should find some other entertainment if you do not like them.
I will just comment on just one of your three in a row posts. I like MH, good game, but it is not the only type of gaming entertainment I want. Considering the views of our posters and the player base of MMOs that are far more complex than MH, I would suggest that players want more complex games. I am quite happy games like MH exist, but I want games with more quality, more depth and more gameplay as well. You seem to think the reverse is what we need.
But I know you like WoW, or did. That's a far more complex game than MH. Are you going to say a game like that does not need to be made? And if you accept that WoW was and is needed, does that not show that even more complex MMOs are both needed and viable in the gaming market?
Viability is dependent upon the number of people willing to buy into a game, and the amount of money that can be raised based on the perception of the number of people willing to buy into a game. That WoW is a more complex game than Marvel Heroes seems to be true, but it does not automatically follow that a more complex game than WoW is needed and viable. It could be that WoW represents the peak of the complexity curve, and shows that most games should fall within a certain range of WoW's complexity to be "viable".
Only WoW is less complex (in its PvP) than are MOBAs. The different heroes/gods, the builds, and the counter builds make MOBAs much more complex to play than any MMO arenas or open-world PvP. So maybe the complexity curve doesn't end with WoW.
Path of Exile's currency system is more complex than is WoW's. There isn't any gold, only orbs and shards of those orbs that do different things to items. Items that drop roll random resist percentages and stats (within a range), and so the same "named item" may be useful or useless, depending upon that roll. Items sell to vendors for different shards or orbs depending upon that items stats, which are randomly generated for many items. That is certainly more complex than WoW's currency system.
Viability has as wide a range as there are genres of games. Sometimes, viability comes more from the timing of a release than its innovation or unique features (vanilla WoW). As none of us are market experts or even experts in marketing and sales, I don't think talking about viability is a very fruitful discussion.
I should have been more clear about which peak I was speaking of. I was thinking more of a bell curve, where WoW is in the middle, representing the majority. It's "peak" is the "most common", not "most complex".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
. And here we are, seeing MOBA after MOBA being released with very little innovation in either gameplay or monetization (Mechwarrior Online? Heroes of the Storm? Demigod? Deadbreed?). In fact, LoL itself wasn't even innovative: the award for the MOBA innovation goes to DotA.
The first one is innovative (whether you count DOTA which is not really a product, or LoL). How about WoT? Taking tank battle into an instanced pvp game.
And these were only a few years ago.
How about Destiny? ... the game isn't that good .. but at least they try a new way to match up people.
How about warframe?
Obviously each successful game (like LoL) will have a bunch of followers .. but we are not talking about that .. we are talking abotu the first in the sub-genre.
It occurred to me that perhaps the many developers simply chose to make linear and simplistic games because they wanted to, with no real influence from market data in some instances. If that were the case, the real culprit is simply poor quality and the readiness of consumers to partake in those vapid games.
The availability is the availability, and as people want games, they will reinforce bad dev behavior simply because they need to consume.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
-the F2P playerbase tends to be extremely casual, not in playtime, but they're extremely unwilling to commit to a game, most F2P gamers are game jumpers
-the model of attracting whales only works when those whales feel superior over others, a king is only a king when everyone else is a peasant, when the game jumpers leave the game, the whales do too, which collapses the MMO, so a new MMO is made...and you get a never ending cycle of average quality games
FFXIV is one of the few real P2P games left, and you can immediately tell the difference, expansions are more polished, developers take the time to develop their game,, it's not a race against the clock. FFXIV will probably be around for a while. Archeage probably will not, other markets show it doesn't last.
Square operates 2 MMO afaik, F2P companies like SoE / Nexon / Trion, have multiple MMO because F2P caters to game hoppers.
-the F2P playerbase tends to be extremely casual, not in playtime, but they're extremely unwilling to commit to a game, most F2P gamers are game jumpers
-the model of attracting whales only works when those whales feel superior over others, a king is only a king when everyone else is a peasant, when the game jumpers leave the game, the whales do too, which collapses the MMO, so a new MMO is made...and you get a never ending cycle of average quality games
FFXIV is one of the few real P2P games left, and you can immediately tell the difference, expansions are more polished, developers take the time to develop their game,, it's not a race against the clock. FFXIV will probably be around for a while. Archeage probably will not, other markets show it doesn't last.
Square operates 2 MMO afaik, F2P companies like SoE / Nexon / Trion, have multiple MMO because F2P caters to game hoppers.
Someone on another post was saying FF has just got a cash shop. ESO is not F2P, but it is one of the very few left. I agree that F2P encourages the game hopping locusts, we always said it would and look where we are now.
As to your bell curve Lizardbones, that means there is a viable part of the playerbase that would support more complex MMOs. But when executives get their hands on a MMO all they are interested in is the low end to fat middle, which is why MMO's for that matter gaming has become the repetitive genre it now is. And that bell curve represents complexity as much as anything else.
MH would be on the left side of the bell curve, WoW in the middle and EVE on the right. There should be room for all and more on all sides. But gaming companies are leading players to the left in the world of MMOs, they are nearly always producing simplistic games. That has been the trend in gaming for about ten years or more. As the ex CEO of EA said "we will make games easy enough for your mom to play them".
Comments
Yeah ... that is a big part. No one can interfere with my game, and I don't depends on other for my fun. So yeah ... MMOs are becoming more like GTA in that regard.
"good" is subjective.
D3 is good (to me).
Marvel Heroes is good (to me).
... there are plenty of good (to me) games. May be you should find some other entertainment if you do not like them.
I will just comment on just one of your three in a row posts. I like MH, good game, but it is not the only type of gaming entertainment I want. Considering the views of our posters and the player base of MMOs that are far more complex than MH, I would suggest that players want more complex games. I am quite happy games like MH exist, but I want games with more quality, more depth and more gameplay as well. You seem to think the reverse is what we need.
But I know you like WoW, or did. That's a far more complex game than MH. Are you going to say a game like that does not need to be made? And if you accept that WoW was and is needed, does that not show that even more complex MMOs are both needed and viable in the gaming market?
Would say MMO's are not dead, they have lost their way.
You can see as new generations cycle into the game and old ones leave the games have lost what made them special.
WoW was the game that changed everything. It brought the business model that was followed by games for awhile. Everything about the MMO world became different after WoW entered, for better or worse (mostly worse to some).
Archeage is not a bad game, it just showed us what I imagine is rampant across the seas or has been brewing in other F2P games. It was more noticeable (bots/hacks) with how popular Archeage was and figured it'd be over here as well.
I won't call Archeage a WoW clone, the only thing I can relate to WoW are the quests and levels, but since WoW didn't invent those (just the numerous amounts of them) and other games actually did so can't say WoW clone.
Time to work, can't continue.
Viability is dependent upon the number of people willing to buy into a game, and the amount of money that can be raised based on the perception of the number of people willing to buy into a game. That WoW is a more complex game than Marvel Heroes seems to be true, but it does not automatically follow that a more complex game than WoW is needed and viable. It could be that WoW represents the peak of the complexity curve, and shows that most games should fall within a certain range of WoW's complexity to be "viable".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Only WoW is less complex (in its PvP) than are MOBAs. The different heroes/gods, the builds, and the counter builds make MOBAs much more complex to play than any MMO arenas or open-world PvP. So maybe the complexity curve doesn't end with WoW.
Path of Exile's currency system is more complex than is WoW's. There isn't any gold, only orbs and shards of those orbs that do different things to items. Items that drop roll random resist percentages and stats (within a range), and so the same "named item" may be useful or useless, depending upon that roll. Items sell to vendors for different shards or orbs depending upon that items stats, which are randomly generated for many items. That is certainly more complex than WoW's currency system.
Viability has as wide a range as there are genres of games. Sometimes, viability comes more from the timing of a release than its innovation or unique features (vanilla WoW). As none of us are market experts or even experts in marketing and sales, I don't think talking about viability is a very fruitful discussion.
Ugh, that took some time to figure out. I also play on the temporary leagues (i.e. Nemesis, and now Rampage) and the currency changes as the league gets closer and closer to the end. I use poe.xyz to sell things, but its sometimes a pain. I like putting items up and let the AH or what-have-you deal with the rest. Trade channel is impossible too.
PoE does have the skill system nicely done though. I love the possibilities of all the different builds. Fun game. I've spent about $40 on new tabs.
________________________
Two atoms walk out of a bar. The first exclaims, "Damn, I forgot my electrons." The other replies, "You sure?". The first explains, "Yea, I'm positive."
I agree 100%. The golden era of MMORPGs were EQ, Asheron's Call, SWG and even games like Shadowbane which allowed you to create destructible towns.
Unfourtunately once WoW turned the genre into a mass market one, all the innovation and creativity died. Replaced with whatever draws the most crowds and the most $$. Basically the bean counters and the Suits took over the MMORPG genre and turned it into the cesspool of cash shops and RMTs that it currently is.
My gaming blog
Yes, except, some of us are. Some of us do that for a living. Although, that doesn't mean a marketing professional is automatically correct about any particular thing, just that they have some amount of experience in understanding how the sausage is made.
More to the point, they have experience in hiding how the sausage is made from consumers
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
This isn't exclusive to the genre, or even gaming. The movie industry has done the same. Pirating sparked that flame. I think maybe the F2P move sparked this one.
When more and more creative content is made available for free, in the end it hurts the innovative thinkers and shakers. Investors won't hire those guys, they'll only fund the safe bets. They only back that which is tailored to be easily marketed (familiar). That is, if what's happened to two other major entertainment industries is any indication. This may, if you're someone who likes these safe bets, be a great thing for you. But considering Star Wars, for example, would never have been created had it not been for those fringe thinkers, in the long run I'd say it's not healthy for the industry.
No. My post has no view of what should be done. It is merely pointing out that previous claim that "Where is the artistry and human interface in all of that garbage? For shit's sakes I wish they would just make things that are good" is wrong.
All i am saying is that there are "good" (to many players) games. And if one cannot find a "good" game for himself (or herself), it is a case of his/her preference not being served for whatever reasons.
But no content is made totally free. Content is made free for most, and expensive for whales ... that is not totally free.
And i see F2P to have exactly the opposite effect. MOBA, WoT, instanced games ... are all "new" and creative at one point. Free does not prevent them from happening, and in fact, reward them with huge success (like LoL).
Only it doesn't. WoT, LoL, the heralds of the genre came less than 5 years ago. And here we are, seeing MOBA after MOBA being released with very little innovation in either gameplay or monetization (Mechwarrior Online? Heroes of the Storm? Demigod? Deadbreed?). In fact, LoL itself wasn't even innovative: the award for the MOBA innovation goes to DotA. LoL just made it avaiable to a much larger audience by releasing for mobile devices. Subsequent releases have either followed that title or chosen to go a more WoT route (i.e. Mechwarrior Online).
Can you name the major differences between DotA, LoL, Deadbreed, Demigod, and Heroes of the Storm? Besides art style and developer? Can you describe how each game would attract the tastes of different players? Or do they all seem to base their gameplay around an identical theme, with slight variations that do not significantly alter the experience? Do you consider that innovation?
At least Smite opted to take a chance on pure skillshots from the 3rd person and (virtually) no "targetting" to speak of. Coincidentally, that's why I play that MOBA and have no interest in any others.
"...slight variations that do not significantly alter the experience?" -How much have you played those games really? Because what you are saying is akin to saying that games like Call of Duty, Battlefield and Medal of Honor have not significantly different from one another. Or that Project Gotham Racing, Forza, Flat Out and Need for Speed are all the same. Or Star Craft, Command & Conquer and Supreme Commander? Or Dragon Age, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Witcher, Vampire Masquerade etc.?
And then of all the games among MOBAs you pick Smite with its gimmicky 3rd person view as something that is somehow significantly different from the rest? Are you for real?
What is significant to you anyway? From your view point, aside from shifting focus from grinding to questing, has there been any "significant" change in MMORPGs in the past 20 years?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And do you really need me to point out what makes the major differences between CoD multiplayer and Battlefield multiplayer? Where do I start? Medal of Honor is a bad example because the recent releases have been bad games. I won't argue that.
And there hasn't been a lot of creative innovation n in the industry in a while.. That was kinda my point.
And my point is that because people prefer one over the other, there clearly are differences. Afterall if there weren't any significant differences people wouldn't care what they play. But they do.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I should have been more clear about which peak I was speaking of. I was thinking more of a bell curve, where WoW is in the middle, representing the majority. It's "peak" is the "most common", not "most complex".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The first one is innovative (whether you count DOTA which is not really a product, or LoL). How about WoT? Taking tank battle into an instanced pvp game.
And these were only a few years ago.
How about Destiny? ... the game isn't that good .. but at least they try a new way to match up people.
How about warframe?
Obviously each successful game (like LoL) will have a bunch of followers .. but we are not talking about that .. we are talking abotu the first in the sub-genre.
It occurred to me that perhaps the many developers simply chose to make linear and simplistic games because they wanted to, with no real influence from market data in some instances. If that were the case, the real culprit is simply poor quality and the readiness of consumers to partake in those vapid games.
The availability is the availability, and as people want games, they will reinforce bad dev behavior simply because they need to consume.
I think the MMO is alive and well.
No MMO ever made is completely perfect, however.
F2P model promotes MMO that don't last.
-the F2P playerbase tends to be extremely casual, not in playtime, but they're extremely unwilling to commit to a game, most F2P gamers are game jumpers
-the model of attracting whales only works when those whales feel superior over others, a king is only a king when everyone else is a peasant, when the game jumpers leave the game, the whales do too, which collapses the MMO, so a new MMO is made...and you get a never ending cycle of average quality games
FFXIV is one of the few real P2P games left, and you can immediately tell the difference, expansions are more polished, developers take the time to develop their game,, it's not a race against the clock. FFXIV will probably be around for a while. Archeage probably will not, other markets show it doesn't last.
Square operates 2 MMO afaik, F2P companies like SoE / Nexon / Trion, have multiple MMO because F2P caters to game hoppers.
Someone on another post was saying FF has just got a cash shop. ESO is not F2P, but it is one of the very few left. I agree that F2P encourages the game hopping locusts, we always said it would and look where we are now.
As to your bell curve Lizardbones, that means there is a viable part of the playerbase that would support more complex MMOs. But when executives get their hands on a MMO all they are interested in is the low end to fat middle, which is why MMO's for that matter gaming has become the repetitive genre it now is. And that bell curve represents complexity as much as anything else.
MH would be on the left side of the bell curve, WoW in the middle and EVE on the right. There should be room for all and more on all sides. But gaming companies are leading players to the left in the world of MMOs, they are nearly always producing simplistic games. That has been the trend in gaming for about ten years or more. As the ex CEO of EA said "we will make games easy enough for your mom to play them".
Wow...
As to hyperbole, yea, my intention was to create a discussion, so that worked out.