And that's where bad companies fundementally go wrong, great companies aim for a demographic and do the best thru possibly can to produce the product that is the best that mOnet can buy - they don't worry about profit, they know it will come.
Bad companies let profits drive quality - greater profits wins over superb value for money. Greed wins and the indicator is a proft margin that is gross and a poor delivery rate.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by MadFrenchie Well then we aren't arguing over the same thing. My statements have all been simply to show that WoW isn't groundbreaking or incomparable in its depth. It was never my argument that it wasn't deep at all. I'm not a WoW hater, I just like to keep things in perspective. If the contention isn't that WoW has the deepest gameplay in the genre, that it's the golden fleece of MMORPG combat.. Then it isn't a statement I disagree with. But that didn't seem to be the original message of your posts. WoW has always had solid gameplay. It has always had enough depth to keep it interesting (at least late-game). It isn't the summit of MMORPG complexity.
Well yes, the rest of the genre is what I'm comparing it to and asking if any MMORPGs are deeper than it. I don't feel it's a golden fleece if that implies it's some unbeatable high point. I only feel like it definitely is a high-point when you dissect the game, and that I'd love to find a MMORPG deeper than it because I don't care about popularity in my games I only care about the quality of actual gameplay. Depth is a big component of that, to me.
Then I don't disagree with your opinion on WoW. I feel EVE is comparable (and, in many ways, deeper), Wildstar is a more interactively engaging experience (such as the easy X-89 20-man boss), and that games like Planetside 2 would have a more intense PvP experience. Though, even with superior numbers, I feel that PvP experience pales in comparison to 64-man Conquest in BF4. But alas, BF4 doesn't really fall into the same specific genre.
As I said before, WoW is a well-polished game with great brand recognition and a great developer reputation for quality assurance. That's a winning combination. Shadows of Mordor is a great game, too. But, other than the boss system, it doesn't do anything groundbreaking. It's combat system is built off of the Arkham series. It's not a slight to the game to say it isn't groundbreaking when the game does the things it's borrowed from other games really well. It just isn't something I want all developers in the genre looking to for inspiration in the future.
Eve is Deeper than any MMO created to date (and in not a pvp fan do I don't okay it much now)
The telling question us the answer to ths following question - what is you long term goal in a game.
In wow and Others the answer is gear up, get achieves, this is the primary paths thea games lay out, and thru apply mechanisms to makes sure everyone follows the same path with regular 'catch-up' checkpoints.
In Eve the answer is that the game offers so much freedom and depth that most people follow oaths to suit themeselves - a sandbox in effect.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Then I don't disagree with your opinion on WoW. I feel EVE is comparable (and, in many ways, deeper), Wildstar is a more interactively engaging experience (such as the easy X-89 20-man boss), and that games like Planetside 2 would have a more intense PvP experience. Though, even with superior numbers, I feel that PvP experience pales in comparison to 64-man Conquest in BF4. But alas, BF4 doesn't really fall into the same specific genre.
Definitely some solid mechanics on that boss. Maybe it's time to go back and give Wildstar some more time...
As for PVP, yeah I would agree that just about any serious (pure) PVP game is going to be superior to any casual (MMORPG) PVP. While I personally preferred PS2, I'm also the first one to point out that being an MMO doesn't really provide any significant advantages to a game (and often provides significant negatives) so really what's being compared isn't the "superior numbers" but the gameplay of each game. And BF4 is plenty of fun so I can easily see some players preferring it over PS2.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Then I don't disagree with your opinion on WoW. I feel EVE is comparable (and, in many ways, deeper), Wildstar is a more interactively engaging experience (such as the easy X-89 20-man boss), and that games like Planetside 2 would have a more intense PvP experience. Though, even with superior numbers, I feel that PvP experience pales in comparison to 64-man Conquest in BF4. But alas, BF4 doesn't really fall into the same specific genre.
Definitely some solid mechanics on that boss. Maybe it's time to go back and give Wildstar some more time...
As for PVP, yeah I would agree that just about any serious (pure) PVP game is going to be superior to any casual (MMORPG) PVP. While I personally preferred PS2, I'm also the first one to point out that being an MMO doesn't really provide any significant advantages to a game (and often provides significant negatives) so really what's being compared isn't the "superior numbers" but the gameplay of each game. And BF4 is plenty of fun so I can easily see some players preferring it over PS2.
The PvP part is definitely true. Really the only advantage (when we're talking general PvP games) MMORPGs can truly offer is the massive scale of battles, what with MOBAs melding the RPG portion with small-scale PvP so well. However, population imbalances are always a problem.
I hope MMORPG developers don't abandon the attempt to perfect a massive-scale siege warfare PvP system, however.. But, the more variables (specifically, people) you place into the equation.. The harder it gets. Not to even speak of the technological limitations. It's a uphill battle for now.
We had our day when it was nerd-edgy to play online games. Those days are over. Time to move on.
THIS...sort of.
We're dealing with the maturation of a previously niche medium.
Back in the day, the nerds WERE the ones who played the AAA titles.
But now, the AAA titles require an investment whose return can only be matched by popularity with a mainstream audience.
Look at films. Who loves the "art" films that do well at academy awards?
Film "nerds"
Give the indie groups time and game quality in niche areas will rise, "nerds" will be attracted and we'll see an inversion where the highest "game academy" ratings go not to the AAA games, but to a realm of quality content indie games while AAA games get high payouts from mainstream crowds but fail to make the critics' rating.
we're in a transition phase right now where its easy to gripe about everything.
I haven't seen a AAA MMO I liked since pre-Cata WOW. Have I whined about it? No. I've kept my eye open on the independent developer horizon and been increasingly pleased with what I've found.
I have faith someone out there will make something I like and I'll find it. I accept that my tastes are not mainstream and that the product that meets my tastes won't have a mainstream budget.
On my good days, I share your optimism.
Notice how much of this thread talks about "companies" and "markets" whereas in the past people may have instead talked about designers and game concepts. This is just a microcosm of what's happening to society at large. For me, I think this is the only reason this game genre is still relevant -- as an interesting microcosm.
We now talk more and more about money, monetization, and markets instead of pure gaming.
I think the discussion we have in this thread, and increasingly on this site, is addressed in the following books:
Yeah, just like the music and film industry where the terms "Block Buster" and "Double Platinum" define a film or albums quality and success to the majority of the music or movie audience. The nature of art aside, music, films, and video games are at their heart a commercial venture, and are being marketed to the public accordingly. Its not surprising that due to this commercialism most people have begun to measure a piece of artistry primarily in dollar signs.
Very true. It would perhaps be wiser, if fans didn't try to assess financial prospectives without much to back it up, but I guess that's what many find entertaining:) Too bad, as at least in my opinion it tends to skew the overall development towards not what's wanted but towards what people think the majority wants. This might be compounded by adults often projecting what they believe their kids might enjoy. Funny thought, but I guess it might be true in many cases. With the overemphasizing of fun and all..
It is my hope technological advances and reaching the point, where further graphical gains become more or less inconsequential, will drive the development costs down somewhat. I believe, it's also a fact that a major aspect has been the number of capable people involved in the industry. Naturally, that has also been rising. One could argue that when the available tech and know how become more easily accessed, the market becomes more free. Slow process (and theoretically leads to lowering and varying prices with increased and varied supply - something that did not happen with p2p, which perhaps to some extent caused the explosion of f2p?) Perhaps crowd funding is also part of it as it somewhat frees the development from some of the capital constraints.
I feel like I'm rambling:P Oh well, if the market becomes more free, the idea is we'll see more new ideas reaching the customers.
Edit. I guess, the majority perspective is something that took over American politics a long time ago so it's kinda natural it has invaded gaming industry too. More rambling:)
Originally posted by Loktofeit That's not what I asked. You wrote that some devs refer to open world PVP as casual PVP and you said it was because of the reasons you cited. I'm inclined to assume at this point either they were referring to a specific game when stating that and giving those reasons or you misunderstood what you were reading. I say that because I can't see any MMO developer making such an odd, broad statement like that, at least not without being under the influence of The Good Stuff.
Well you understand the logic right? The difference between pure/hardcore PVP (where only skill matters) and casual/world PVP (where non-skill factors are present, diluting the importance of skill.) Non-skill factors are things like gear/level (progression; advantages of playtime) and bringing more players (population).So you're just asking to know which company peeled back the curtain and admitted world PVP was casual, right? Because the entire point of world PVP is to trick casual PVPers into thinking their form of PVP is hardcore and gritty, and admitting it's casual directly works against that fantasy.
Maybe I am too far out of the loop to see, but in my mind, MMOs are not the best medium to test real PvP "skills." "Hardcore" is not synonymous with MMO PvP, in my mind.
I say this because MMOs are all about differences, not sameness. Without sameness, you can not have true PvP "Skills" being tested.
Take any war-themed PvP game (Call of Duty and the like). Everyone is a "generic solder." There are no medics, marines, infantry, or artillery, I think. Everyone starts out exactly the same and any changes (armor/weapons) are available to everyone equally, no class/race restrictions.
So, my question is: Why would a player seeking "Hardcore PvP skill testing" look to MMOs? It just makes no sense to me.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
While true in a general sense, as a gameplay-centric player I'm still waiting for the MMORPG which surpasses WOW's combat and class design, including its crisp controls, responsive animations, rotation design, and mob design.
Some games come close, and those games still manage to be fun, but so far none have managed to be more fun.
Spot on,Wow's gameplay has always been fluid. Something other mmo companies just seem to ignore.
Huh? WoW's class design is just EQ's class design but simpler. It's NOT one of the game's strong points.
And there have been tons of MMOs with fluid animations and crisp controls. Let's not pretend that's what made WoW what it is.
Being the first MMO with a blockbuster budget, year long ad campaign, and a famous IP by a famous company is the bulk of why WoW is the way it is.
If that's all it took wouldn't something like TOR have been an even greater success than WOW?
No, because TOR wasn't THE FIRST. That counts for a shit load. That's the most important part. All the WoW clones we've had over the years have been just as good if not better than WoW, but they didn't take off, because they weren't first.
Originally posted by Loktofeit That's not what I asked. You wrote that some devs refer to open world PVP as casual PVP and you said it was because of the reasons you cited. I'm inclined to assume at this point either they were referring to a specific game when stating that and giving those reasons or you misunderstood what you were reading. I say that because I can't see any MMO developer making such an odd, broad statement like that, at least not without being under the influence of The Good Stuff.
Well you understand the logic right? The difference between pure/hardcore PVP (where only skill matters) and casual/world PVP (where non-skill factors are present, diluting the importance of skill.) Non-skill factors are things like gear/level (progression; advantages of playtime) and bringing more players (population).
So you're just asking to know which company peeled back the curtain and admitted world PVP was casual, right? Because the entire point of world PVP is to trick casual PVPers into thinking their form of PVP is hardcore and gritty, and admitting it's casual directly works against that fantasy.
Maybe I am too far out of the loop to see, but in my mind, MMOs are not the best medium to test real PvP "skills." "Hardcore" is not synonymous with MMO PvP, in my mind.
I say this because MMOs are all about differences, not sameness. Without sameness, you can not have true PvP "Skills" being tested.
Take any war-themed PvP game (Call of Duty and the like). Everyone is a "generic solder." There are no medics, marines, infantry, or artillery, I think. Everyone starts out exactly the same and any changes (armor/weapons) are available to everyone equally, no class/race restrictions.
So, my question is: Why would a player seeking "Hardcore PvP skill testing" look to MMOs? It just makes no sense to me.
You are locked in this thought that symmetrical balance ("sameness") is a requirement for e-sports PvP. Its not. LoL, DotA and Starcraft for example all have asymmetric balance. And those three are probably the most popular e-sports at the moment.
Classes in FPSes are quite common too. Battlefield series, Team Fortress and the upcoming Overwatch come to mind.
WoW, GW1 and GW2 have showed how to make e-sport PvP in a MMO. Even Eve has an e-sports tournament once a year.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
While true in a general sense, as a gameplay-centric player I'm still waiting for the MMORPG which surpasses WOW's combat and class design, including its crisp controls, responsive animations, rotation design, and mob design.
Some games come close, and those games still manage to be fun, but so far none have managed to be more fun.
Spot on,Wow's gameplay has always been fluid. Something other mmo companies just seem to ignore.
Huh? WoW's class design is just EQ's class design but simpler. It's NOT one of the game's strong points.
And there have been tons of MMOs with fluid animations and crisp controls. Let's not pretend that's what made WoW what it is.
Being the first MMO with a blockbuster budget, year long ad campaign, and a famous IP by a famous company is the bulk of why WoW is the way it is.
If that's all it took wouldn't something like TOR have been an even greater success than WOW?
No, because TOR wasn't THE FIRST. That counts for a shit load. That's the most important part. All the WoW clones we've had over the years have been just as good if not better than WoW, but they didn't take off, because they weren't first.
Star Wars Galaxies didn't have a big budget or a famous IP?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
When will YOU figure it out, as many of us already have?
When will the Devs?
Why do people even make movies that aren't aimed at being the highest grossing film? The answer is YOU WOULDN'T, but I would.
You like McDonalds, I don't.
Your in the wrong genre, I AM NOT!
apples to oranges ... good is individually subjective .. top grossing in this case is sampling of the individually subjective among the population ...
as you put it: You like McDonalds, I don't.
EVE Online is the perfect example :-))) It's good for me, but not the most profitable out there. However since we are talking about commercial projects, the profit is the first and main goal ...
Best is opinion, someone might like tuna ice cream and argue that it's the single best flavour of ice cream ever created. Doesn't change the fact that the majority still prefer chocolate, so since it's just opinion you have to say that the majority opinion = best.
Lineage 1 and WoW are the best mmorpg games on the market right now, since there are more people playing those 2 games than all the rest combined.
When you say hardcore PvP to me I think open world, probably XP loss or item loss on death. The hardcore almost always is describing PvP with risk.
Casual PvP is things that are generally considered 'fair pvp'. Throw a bunch of people into an instance and let them go at it with no risk involved.
I've never seen hardcore used to describe how much skill PvP takes, it is all about how much risk is involved. If a dev used it that way they are not the norm.
While true in a general sense, as a gameplay-centric player I'm still waiting for the MMORPG which surpasses WOW's combat and class design, including its crisp controls, responsive animations, rotation design, and mob design.
Some games come close, and those games still manage to be fun, but so far none have managed to be more fun.
Spot on,Wow's gameplay has always been fluid. Something other mmo companies just seem to ignore.
Huh? WoW's class design is just EQ's class design but simpler. It's NOT one of the game's strong points.
And there have been tons of MMOs with fluid animations and crisp controls. Let's not pretend that's what made WoW what it is.
Being the first MMO with a blockbuster budget, year long ad campaign, and a famous IP by a famous company is the bulk of why WoW is the way it is.
If that's all it took wouldn't something like TOR have been an even greater success than WOW?
No, because TOR wasn't THE FIRST. That counts for a shit load. That's the most important part. All the WoW clones we've had over the years have been just as good if not better than WoW, but they didn't take off, because they weren't first.
Star Wars Galaxies didn't have a big budget or a famous IP?
Not really, no. It was made by a small company no name company with one game under their belt, rushed out early by their new parent company, was not in every magazine, website, and arenanet for a good year before release, did not have giant cinematic trailers and tv advertisements, and was released at a time when most people were still on dial up and didn't know what an MMO was.
Not really, no. It was made by a small company no name company with one game under their belt, rushed out early by their new parent company, was not in every magazine, website, and arenanet for a good year before release, did not have giant cinematic trailers and tv advertisements, and was released at a time when most people were still on dial up and didn't know what an MMO was.
Next?
SWG released literally 4 months before WOW. The time of release was not a factor.
As for "next?", why not get back to the beginning of the sub-thread? It's been established that many of WOW's class rotations are quite deep actually (warlock rotation guide and video being cited as evidence) and thus far there has been no evidence of any game having deeper class rotations. These deep rotations combine with deep monster design, which force interruptions to the typical class rotation.
That was a big part of why TOR felt flatter than it could have. They had reasonably solid class rotations (though still not quite as interesting as WOW's) but then nearly every mobs was exactly the same. This meant there was no variance to the standard rotation, which makes things especially repetitive.
But TOR's failing helps illustrate why WOW succeeded; WOW thought of all of these types of things a long while back, whereas even a lot of games which are called WOW "clones" tend to completely miss these critical little traits that make WOW work. (WAR was another game where there was a horrendous lack of mob variety in PVE.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not really, no. It was made by a small company no name company with one game under their belt, rushed out early by their new parent company, was not in every magazine, website, and arenanet for a good year before release, did not have giant cinematic trailers and tv advertisements, and was released at a time when most people were still on dial up and didn't know what an MMO was.
Next?
It's been established that many of WOW's class rotations are quite deep actually (warlock rotation guide and video being cited as evidence) and thus far there has been no evidence of any game having deeper class rotations.
Is your plan to simply ignore evidence which disputes your world view?
This Warlock rotation guide serves as the evidence of WOW's class design having a lot of nuance. That evidence is the bar to beat.
You may feel WOW's class design isn't the best. If so, present some evidence of something better.
You seem to feel WOW's class design not only isn't the best, but is outright shallow. If so, present evidence of many better games.
You'll need more than "LOLZ stopped reading" to prove what you're saying. The warlock guide details a lot of nuances in the rotation, and that nuance becomes even trickier when it hits WOW's boss designs, which deliberately interrupt the typical rotations and change up the actual optimal rotation.
If you can find a game that's doing it better, then by all means post some evidence because it's probably a game I want to play. Otherwise, you'll have to face the fact that you had a strong opinion that turned out to be dead wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Bladestrom It's shallow because everything is about rotations and how to optimise them. Other More modern mmorpg have moved well away from this and the balance/épeen meter/spell rotation cycle and making sure you spam spam spam skills smoothly hour after hour after hour to get high percent uptime.
When claiming that modern MMOs have moved away from rotations, I find it only polite to at least mention 1 of them.
Originally posted by Bladestrom It's shallow because everything is about rotations and how to optimise them. Other More modern mmorpg have moved well away from this and the balance/épeen meter/spell rotation cycle and making sure you spam spam spam skills smoothly hour after hour after hour to get high percent uptime.
This is a generic, baseless criticism though. You're not saying anything tangible.
First, complicated decision-making is game depth. So when the rotation is a complicated decision structure all by itself, that's depth.
Second, it's not just about the rotation.
Mob dynamic: Mobs you fight frequently disrupt the base rotation in WOW. For some classes interrupting a mob's spell requires you to stop spell-casting. For most classes you have a DPS ramp against a single target but then adds will appear which disrupt that DPS ramp and change up the ideal use of DPS cooldowns.
Environment dynamic: I really just consider this an extension of mob dynamic, but sometimes you also have environmental threats that shape the way you have to fight.
Teammate dynamic: Sometimes the two tanks don't pull the mobs together rapidly. Sometimes the healers are behind on healing and you have to self-heal (at the cost of DPS). Sometimes DPS players get themselves hurt by making mistakes about the environment side of things, and as healer you have to heal them.
All of these dynamic factors cause "perfect play" to be a very difficult thing to achieve, because the perfect use of abilities and movement is always being disrupted and varied by these dynamic factors.
WOW has all of these things. That's the evidence on the table. I welcome evidence of any other game doing it better. A game which requires similar practice and mastery to achieve "high percent uptime".
Unless you provide evidence to the contrary, you're going to have to accept the fact of WOW's combat depth and you'll have to direct your criticism to other parts of the game ("I admit WOW is a deep game -- in fact I don't have the evidence of a single MMORPG deeper than it -- but I don't like it because...")
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
Bad companies let profits drive quality - greater profits wins over superb value for money. Greed wins and the indicator is a proft margin that is gross and a poor delivery rate.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Then I don't disagree with your opinion on WoW. I feel EVE is comparable (and, in many ways, deeper), Wildstar is a more interactively engaging experience (such as the easy X-89 20-man boss), and that games like Planetside 2 would have a more intense PvP experience. Though, even with superior numbers, I feel that PvP experience pales in comparison to 64-man Conquest in BF4. But alas, BF4 doesn't really fall into the same specific genre.
As I said before, WoW is a well-polished game with great brand recognition and a great developer reputation for quality assurance. That's a winning combination. Shadows of Mordor is a great game, too. But, other than the boss system, it doesn't do anything groundbreaking. It's combat system is built off of the Arkham series. It's not a slight to the game to say it isn't groundbreaking when the game does the things it's borrowed from other games really well. It just isn't something I want all developers in the genre looking to for inspiration in the future.
The telling question us the answer to ths following question - what is you long term goal in a game.
In wow and Others the answer is gear up, get achieves, this is the primary paths thea games lay out, and thru apply mechanisms to makes sure everyone follows the same path with regular 'catch-up' checkpoints.
In Eve the answer is that the game offers so much freedom and depth that most people follow oaths to suit themeselves - a sandbox in effect.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Definitely some solid mechanics on that boss. Maybe it's time to go back and give Wildstar some more time...
As for PVP, yeah I would agree that just about any serious (pure) PVP game is going to be superior to any casual (MMORPG) PVP. While I personally preferred PS2, I'm also the first one to point out that being an MMO doesn't really provide any significant advantages to a game (and often provides significant negatives) so really what's being compared isn't the "superior numbers" but the gameplay of each game. And BF4 is plenty of fun so I can easily see some players preferring it over PS2.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The PvP part is definitely true. Really the only advantage (when we're talking general PvP games) MMORPGs can truly offer is the massive scale of battles, what with MOBAs melding the RPG portion with small-scale PvP so well. However, population imbalances are always a problem.
I hope MMORPG developers don't abandon the attempt to perfect a massive-scale siege warfare PvP system, however.. But, the more variables (specifically, people) you place into the equation.. The harder it gets. Not to even speak of the technological limitations. It's a uphill battle for now.
On my good days, I share your optimism.
Notice how much of this thread talks about "companies" and "markets" whereas in the past people may have instead talked about designers and game concepts. This is just a microcosm of what's happening to society at large. For me, I think this is the only reason this game genre is still relevant -- as an interesting microcosm.
We now talk more and more about money, monetization, and markets instead of pure gaming.
I think the discussion we have in this thread, and increasingly on this site, is addressed in the following books:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/25/money-cant-buy-sandel-review
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/dec/13/value-nothing-raj-patel
Very true. It would perhaps be wiser, if fans didn't try to assess financial prospectives without much to back it up, but I guess that's what many find entertaining:) Too bad, as at least in my opinion it tends to skew the overall development towards not what's wanted but towards what people think the majority wants. This might be compounded by adults often projecting what they believe their kids might enjoy. Funny thought, but I guess it might be true in many cases. With the overemphasizing of fun and all..
It is my hope technological advances and reaching the point, where further graphical gains become more or less inconsequential, will drive the development costs down somewhat. I believe, it's also a fact that a major aspect has been the number of capable people involved in the industry. Naturally, that has also been rising. One could argue that when the available tech and know how become more easily accessed, the market becomes more free. Slow process (and theoretically leads to lowering and varying prices with increased and varied supply - something that did not happen with p2p, which perhaps to some extent caused the explosion of f2p?) Perhaps crowd funding is also part of it as it somewhat frees the development from some of the capital constraints.
I feel like I'm rambling:P Oh well, if the market becomes more free, the idea is we'll see more new ideas reaching the customers.
Edit. I guess, the majority perspective is something that took over American politics a long time ago so it's kinda natural it has invaded gaming industry too. More rambling:)
I say this because MMOs are all about differences, not sameness. Without sameness, you can not have true PvP "Skills" being tested.
Take any war-themed PvP game (Call of Duty and the like). Everyone is a "generic solder." There are no medics, marines, infantry, or artillery, I think. Everyone starts out exactly the same and any changes (armor/weapons) are available to everyone equally, no class/race restrictions.
So, my question is: Why would a player seeking "Hardcore PvP skill testing" look to MMOs? It just makes no sense to me.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
No, because TOR wasn't THE FIRST. That counts for a shit load. That's the most important part. All the WoW clones we've had over the years have been just as good if not better than WoW, but they didn't take off, because they weren't first.
You are locked in this thought that symmetrical balance ("sameness") is a requirement for e-sports PvP. Its not. LoL, DotA and Starcraft for example all have asymmetric balance. And those three are probably the most popular e-sports at the moment.
Classes in FPSes are quite common too. Battlefield series, Team Fortress and the upcoming Overwatch come to mind.
WoW, GW1 and GW2 have showed how to make e-sport PvP in a MMO. Even Eve has an e-sports tournament once a year.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Star Wars Galaxies didn't have a big budget or a famous IP?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
apples to oranges ... good is individually subjective .. top grossing in this case is sampling of the individually subjective among the population ...
as you put it: You like McDonalds, I don't.
EVE Online is the perfect example :-))) It's good for me, but not the most profitable out there. However since we are talking about commercial projects, the profit is the first and main goal ...
Best is opinion, someone might like tuna ice cream and argue that it's the single best flavour of ice cream ever created. Doesn't change the fact that the majority still prefer chocolate, so since it's just opinion you have to say that the majority opinion = best.
Lineage 1 and WoW are the best mmorpg games on the market right now, since there are more people playing those 2 games than all the rest combined.
well, if you don't like mcdonald's, maybe you should stop posting and reading magazines about fast food?
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
When you say hardcore PvP to me I think open world, probably XP loss or item loss on death. The hardcore almost always is describing PvP with risk.
Casual PvP is things that are generally considered 'fair pvp'. Throw a bunch of people into an instance and let them go at it with no risk involved.
I've never seen hardcore used to describe how much skill PvP takes, it is all about how much risk is involved. If a dev used it that way they are not the norm.
Not really, no. It was made by a small company no name company with one game under their belt, rushed out early by their new parent company, was not in every magazine, website, and arenanet for a good year before release, did not have giant cinematic trailers and tv advertisements, and was released at a time when most people were still on dial up and didn't know what an MMO was.
Next?
SWG released literally 4 months before WOW. The time of release was not a factor.
As for "next?", why not get back to the beginning of the sub-thread? It's been established that many of WOW's class rotations are quite deep actually (warlock rotation guide and video being cited as evidence) and thus far there has been no evidence of any game having deeper class rotations. These deep rotations combine with deep monster design, which force interruptions to the typical class rotation.
That was a big part of why TOR felt flatter than it could have. They had reasonably solid class rotations (though still not quite as interesting as WOW's) but then nearly every mobs was exactly the same. This meant there was no variance to the standard rotation, which makes things especially repetitive.
But TOR's failing helps illustrate why WOW succeeded; WOW thought of all of these types of things a long while back, whereas even a lot of games which are called WOW "clones" tend to completely miss these critical little traits that make WOW work. (WAR was another game where there was a horrendous lack of mob variety in PVE.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Everquest is celebrating it's 16th anniversary.
How many PvP focused MMO's can make that claim?
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
UO, Lineage, DAOC
And yes, Lineage was ALWAYS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> than EQ. "In November 2013 NC Soft announced that the game has made USD $1.8 billion."
Lineage 2 and EvE are not far behind also
And that's where I stopped reading.
Is your plan to simply ignore evidence which disputes your world view?
This Warlock rotation guide serves as the evidence of WOW's class design having a lot of nuance. That evidence is the bar to beat.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
When claiming that modern MMOs have moved away from rotations, I find it only polite to at least mention 1 of them.
This is a generic, baseless criticism though. You're not saying anything tangible.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The MacDonald Analogy is just silly.
There is no fine steak mmorpg, because no game studio charge you 300$ per month.