All those companies that wanted to cash in on WoW's success lost a ton of money. Some games that were able to make good use of their cash shops turned a profit but to me weren't really "successful" MMOs because they had to resort to desperate measures to stay afloat.
This is an interesting time because we get to see what comes when the big $$$ carrot is no longer dangling like a ding-a-ling in front of developer's faces.
MMO's are evolving into nikkel and dime progression systems where your wallet determines how powerfull or how fast you progress.
In my vieuw mmo's are dead and the only mmo worth to play is Eve Online.
After All the mmo's that came out post World of Warcraft not one hold my attention longer then a few weeks or months compared to years of EQ / WoW / Eve Online.
And look at the hype meter....all those semi moba action packed mmo's.....
I find it utterly disgusting that this is the path of mmo's.
No depth or exciting lore, rushed out wow clones that failed to grasp mmo players by their throat to keep them loged in for years.
EQN was the second comming while most of us already said it was vaporware and SoE coulnt deliver their promise.
Same with GW2 and Elder's Scroll Online....
yeah the mmo market is evolving....into mmo's like Archeage / Black Desert were your wallet needs to be pulled to be on par with the wallet warriors who pay the bills and ferrari's of the CEO's and arm chair delegations.
The love for true mmorpg's is gone.
A standard subscription isnt cutting it anymore as the industry took notice how crazy the big whales are who can spend up to 5000 euro a month.
Remember the good old times folks and cherish it...those days are long gone.
I don not see the market as evolving i see it aiming for cheaper ways to make a game ,then find a niche marketing campaign that makes it popular.Look at that super simple browser game,we have seen a ton of them and nobody cares abou them,yet some dev spent 40 million on an actress to help promote it.
...
So how can you design a triple A game with a budget you don't know??Answer is you cannot,so you start with a budget build and market that with promises of great things to come.
MMOS are aiming for the simplest of design approaches now,like instances,and flagging pvp,nothing that takes any effort to design or has any place in an open world,more like min i games with no purpose.
The problems started when developers/publishers tried to sell their MMORPG's to players who didn't actually like MMORPG's. There's a vast amount of "gamer's" in the world, but the majority of them don't have the patience, attention span or interest to enjoy the "classic virtual world" design of MMORPG's that were essentially based on pen-and-paper D&D games.
The emphasis has shifted away from the MMORPG to the generic MMO, which is simply a game that is played online by large amounts of people. And "large" is whatever you decide it is.
I don't understand this fixation with broadening the term. If your MPGs were all that people were making, okay you'd have a point. In our world though, you've got Wild* and ESO released last year, Camelot Unchained, Repop et. al. in the pipe. These are all MMOs in the strict sense of the term. These games are what MMOs are evolving into. Trying to force the idea that MMOs are evolving into MOBAS or lobby grinders like World of planes or War thunder is silly. Hell, Air Warrior was 10 times the MMO either of those two games are in every category back in the freaking nineties. Evolution does not go complex->simple. That's not how it works.
thats all nice and dandy. But from most posts you will deduce that most posters have many many additional conditions.
because once you GOT real MMO (GW2, some encounters require minimum of 80 people 115+ preffered) where lot of stuff revolves around massive you get this:
- it doesnt have trinity
- it doesnt have skill bloat
- it doesnt have "progression"
- it doesnt have quest hubs
- it does have quest hubs
- crafting is irrelevant
- OMG you have to craft to get best stuff
So yeah, its really NOT problem with massive or multiplayer or online. because you have game that fits that perfectly.
They can argue those things are necessary for a good MMORPG - per their own tastes/preferences. But it would be wrong to argue that any of those things are necessary for a game to be a MMORPG at all.
Those are specific variations players like, or don't like in their MMOs. It's a matter of preference. None of those things define what MMORPG is. They can just as well exist in small scale Multiplayer RPGs, or even single player games.
Whether it has quest hubs or not is just a variation on a questing system; not a defining attribute of what a MMORPG is. Single player games can have Quest Hubs, yet we don't call those MMORPGs.... because they aren't. And so on for crafting, or progression, etc. etc. Further, MMORPGs don't even require questing at all to be a MMORPG. Content can be presented in other ways.
The problem with the OP, which is the core point here, is that they basically attempt to simply dismiss the 'Massively' from the genre's name, for the convenience of then saying "See? Anything can be a MMO!". It's completely dishonest. You don't get to just toss away terms when they aren't convenient to your "opinion". Doing so makes your opinion dishonest.
Words have meanings for a reason. They convey specific ideas and meanings. A "Multiplayer Online RPG" is not the same as a "Massively Multiplayer Online RPG". That word, "Massively" exists on for a reason. It describes something that sets MMORPGs apart from regular MORPGs and, of course, other genres. It's not just there 'cause someone fancied alliteration, and thought it sounded neat.
If the meaning of words can be so easily altered or ignored or invented as "convenient", then meaningful discussion becomes impossible, because there's no common ground to communicate on. If there's one trend among people these days that really bothers me, especially around here, it's this penchant for thinking the meaning of words is somehow fluid or negligible, and can be dismissed, or redefined at will, to their own convenience. That's basically what is going on in this article.
thats all nice and dandy. But from most posts you will deduce that most posters have many many additional conditions.
because once you GOT real MMO (GW2, some encounters require minimum of 80 people 115+ preffered) where lot of stuff revolves around massive you get this:
- it doesnt have trinity
- it doesnt have skill bloat
- it doesnt have "progression"
- it doesnt have quest hubs
- it does have quest hubs
- crafting is irrelevant
- OMG you have to craft to get best stuff
So yeah, its really NOT problem with massive or multiplayer or online. because you have game that fits that perfectly.
They can argue those things are necessary for a good MMORPG - per their own tastes/preferences. But it would be wrong to argue that any of those things are necessary for a game to be a MMORPG at all.
Those are specific variations players like, or don't like in their MMOs. It's a matter of preference. None of those things define what MMORPG is. They can just as well exist in small scale Multiplayer RPGs, or even single player games.
Whether it has quest hubs or not is just a variation on a questing system; not a defining attribute of what a MMORPG is. Single player games can have Quest Hubs, yet we don't call those MMORPGs.... because they aren't. And so on for crafting, or progression, etc. etc. Further, MMORPGs don't even require questing at all to be a MMORPG. Content can be presented in other ways.
The problem with the OP, which is the core point here, is that they basically attempt to simply dismiss the 'Massively' from the genre's name, for the convenience of then saying "See? Anything can be a MMO!". It's completely dishonest. You don't get to just toss away terms when they aren't convenient to your "opinion". Doing so makes your opinion dishonest.
Words have meanings for a reason. They convey specific ideas and meanings. A "Multiplayer Online RPG" is not the same as a "Massively Multiplayer Online RPG". That word, "Massively" exists on for a reason. It describes something that sets MMORPGs apart from regular MORPGs and, of course, other genres. It's not just there 'cause someone fancied alliteration, and thought it sounded neat.
If the meaning of words can be so easily altered or ignored or invented as "convenient", then meaningful discussion becomes impossible, because there's no common ground to communicate on. If there's one trend among people these days that really bothers me, especially around here, it's this penchant for thinking the meaning of words is somehow fluid or negligible, and can be dismissed, or redefined at will, to their own convenience. That's basically what is going on in this article.
Just as theres a problem with OP theres a problem with majority of posts, some even demanding to regress 15 years to REAL MMOs. they are throwing "requirements" for MMO to be MMO that have absolutely no relevance to term "MMO"
So on one side you have you have bunch of posts that narrow the term to absurdity, on the other that broaden the term to absurdity.
the truth is in the middle, and there ARE actual *gasp* evolved MMOs on the market.
So the title of article IS truth, but arguments are not very good.
I love how the old school model of MMORPGs is still being hailed as "the way it should be".
The term "evolving" is incredibly appropriate. Each new game has changed something, either major or minor. This would be called a mutation. And if that mutation does not fit the environment, it dies. Down the line, you get games that are in the same genre, but FAR from that original game the player initially fell in love with.
There was something that new games brought that people wanted and were not getting in their old game. If enough players do that, the ancestor model dies. And evolution only ever looks forward. How widely accepted do you think EQ1 would be received if it released right now?
Look, I get that everybody here wants that perfect game that they will toss every waking hour at. But the reality is, with the number of games that are out, and how much the genre has grown, there really is no basis for the idea that the genre is dying, they have evolved into something that is not what got you into the genre in the first place. But those old models do not support enough players for companies to sustain them.
I would contend that games like WoW have only survived because they were agile enough to change with the times and continue to update and mutate their own features.
I can fly higher than an aeroplane. And I have the voice of a thousand hurricanes. Hurt - Wars
Originally posted by vidiotking MMOs are dead, they are not evolving at all. SWG was the pinnacle. It's been down hill ever since.
Good. MMORPGs need to die.
And hopefully what rises from the ashes of the old MMORPG will be of no interest to the bitter vets that desperately cling to the corpses of SWG and EQ1.
Maybe then, the genre can finally move forward.
That's kind of a selfish way of looking at it.
I just imagine you aren't aware that there is more variety out there than what you can see through that lens you are using to view life.
There's a lot of amazing stuff and I would daresay far more complex, full of depth content out there that is just older (or if one wanted to look at it a different way "younger iterations") and not as popular as what is happening currently.
If everyone were to eschew those things then it would be a pretty flat dull world.
there is nothing wrong with people wanting different types of content. No matter whether it is currently popular or not.
My thought is that your preferences/likes have yet to be marginalized and you aren't aware what happens when eventually they are.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Seems more like the ''MMO'' of today is shoveling mud on the genre of old to become relevant. It's almost to the point of 10 - 20 minute gameplay today, because they're catering to the mass market instant gratification players. That's not to mention catering to players with little interest in the genre to begin with. The Western market typically can't even reach the visual quality of the Eastern market, while Gameplay is hit and miss from both. Most of the time it offers little for long term interest.
Either way, it'll be great once the suits with little care for the genre has left.
It's almost to the point of 10 - 20 minute gameplay today, because they're catering to the mass market instant gratification players. That's not to mention catering to players with little interest in the genre to begin with. The Western market typically can't even reach the visual quality of the Eastern market, while Gameplay is hit and miss from both. Most of the time it offers little for long term interest.
I think that's partially true.
You have to remember, those early adopters of UO, Everquest, Meridian 59, Lineage, etc were people with different interests. Heck, they were using the web and probably more than just for e-mail. They were reaching out to other people, being social and just looking for fantastical places where they could park a virtual avatar and live adventures.
Heck, I didn't use the web until late 1997 and never heard of everquest (let alone had the desire to play such a game at that time) until it was launched and started gaining lots of players.
And they spent a LOT of time in these games. I remember speaking to people who spent extreme amount of hours in everqust and one later on who said he played final fantasy 11 "all the time, every moment he wasn't working".
These games have a certain fascination/draw for people who were never a part of that nor would probably ever want to spend the amount time that those early adopters did.
So it's not just game companies catering to the "instant gratification crowd" (and yes, of course they exist) but catering to people who want to have a reasonably meaningful game play experience without spending 6 hours per night.
In some (many?) of these games that has had rather horrible results such as opening up your map and seeing the exact glowing spot you need to run toward, but in the end, players want to experience "worlds" of a sort in bite size segments.
I don't think that's instant gratification so much as "I am only willing to spend x amount of time (or have x amount of time) to do any playing at all.
Interesting enough, I came across a question on an online dating site that was "would you ever consider dating someone who played video games 2 hours per night" (which some would think of as a lot, others, not so much) and have seen many women give a resounding "NO". One, even wrote a comment "real men don't play video games".
So there is still a stigma to the hobby without even bringing in the amount of time these games require to play.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Bladestrom And wha do you do in wvw moira and guild activities?
I got bored quick. I don't play it. If the only way to get anything resembling a complete game is wvw and guild, then its not a complete game and isn't worth playing.
Just as theres a problem with OP theres a problem with majority of posts, some even demanding to regress 15 years to REAL MMOs. they are throwing "requirements" for MMO to be MMO that have absolutely no relevance to term "MMO"
So on one side you have you have bunch of posts that narrow the term to absurdity, on the other that broaden the term to absurdity.
the truth is in the middle, and there ARE actual *gasp* evolved MMOs on the market.
So the title of article IS truth, but arguments are not very good.
You talk about regression but we are already regressing. That's the whole problem. We are regressing to the point that 15 year old MMO's had more to offer on release than current games do years after release. Can you honestly tell me that there is a single game out there right now that contains ALL that EQ2, WoW, and others had on release?
Just as theres a problem with OP theres a problem with majority of posts, some even demanding to regress 15 years to REAL MMOs. they are throwing "requirements" for MMO to be MMO that have absolutely no relevance to term "MMO"
So on one side you have you have bunch of posts that narrow the term to absurdity, on the other that broaden the term to absurdity.
the truth is in the middle, and there ARE actual *gasp* evolved MMOs on the market.
So the title of article IS truth, but arguments are not very good.
You talk about regression but we are already regressing. That's the whole problem. We are regressing to the point that 15 year old MMO's had more to offer on release than current games do years after release. Can you honestly tell me that there is a single game out there right now that contains ALL that EQ2, WoW, and others had on release?
ESO, Archeage, Wildstar, Crowfall (looks like). There's a few off the top of my head. Or did you forget what few features EQ2 and WoW had on release?
I can fly higher than an aeroplane. And I have the voice of a thousand hurricanes. Hurt - Wars
Just as theres a problem with OP theres a problem with majority of posts, some even demanding to regress 15 years to REAL MMOs. they are throwing "requirements" for MMO to be MMO that have absolutely no relevance to term "MMO"So on one side you have you have bunch of posts that narrow the term to absurdity, on the other that broaden the term to absurdity.the truth is in the middle, and there ARE actual *gasp* evolved MMOs on the market.So the title of article IS truth, but arguments are not very good.
You talk about regression but we are already regressing. That's the whole problem. We are regressing to the point that 15 year old MMO's had more to offer on release than current games do years after release. Can you honestly tell me that there is a single game out there right now that contains ALL that EQ2, WoW, and others had on release?
Swtor launched with more content than wow did. Wildstar launched with more content than swg did.
Just as theres a problem with OP theres a problem with majority of posts, some even demanding to regress 15 years to REAL MMOs. they are throwing "requirements" for MMO to be MMO that have absolutely no relevance to term "MMO"So on one side you have you have bunch of posts that narrow the term to absurdity, on the other that broaden the term to absurdity.the truth is in the middle, and there ARE actual *gasp* evolved MMOs on the market.So the title of article IS truth, but arguments are not very good.
You talk about regression but we are already regressing. That's the whole problem. We are regressing to the point that 15 year old MMO's had more to offer on release than current games do years after release. Can you honestly tell me that there is a single game out there right now that contains ALL that EQ2, WoW, and others had on release?
Swtor launched with more content than wow did. Wildstar launched with more content than swg did.
He is referring to the mechanics of the game...but I actually think you knew that.
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 Kyleran Originally posted by FoomerangOriginally posted by MoiraeOriginally posted by Malabooga*snip*
Just as theres a problem with OP theres a problem with majority of posts, some even demanding to regress 15 years to REAL MMOs. they are throwing "requirements" for MMO to be MMO that have absolutely no relevance to term "MMO"So on one side you have you have bunch of posts that narrow the term to absurdity, on the other that broaden the term to absurdity.the truth is in the middle, and there ARE actual *gasp* evolved MMOs on the market.So the title of article IS truth, but arguments are not very good.You talk about regression but we are already regressing. That's the whole problem. We are regressing to the point that 15 year old MMO's had more to offer on release than current games do years after release. Can you honestly tell me that there is a single game out there right now that contains ALL that EQ2, WoW, and others had on release? Swtor launched with more content than wow did. Wildstar launched with more content than swg did. He is referring to the mechanics of the game...but I actually think you knew that.
Just as theres a problem with OP theres a problem with majority of posts, some even demanding to regress 15 years to REAL MMOs. they are throwing "requirements" for MMO to be MMO that have absolutely no relevance to term "MMO"
So on one side you have you have bunch of posts that narrow the term to absurdity, on the other that broaden the term to absurdity.
the truth is in the middle, and there ARE actual *gasp* evolved MMOs on the market.
So the title of article IS truth, but arguments are not very good.
You talk about regression but we are already regressing. That's the whole problem. We are regressing to the point that 15 year old MMO's had more to offer on release than current games do years after release. Can you honestly tell me that there is a single game out there right now that contains ALL that EQ2, WoW, and others had on release?
ESO, Archeage, Wildstar, Crowfall (looks like). There's a few off the top of my head. Or did you forget what few features EQ2 and WoW had on release?
1. ESO doesn't have housing. It doesn't have a broker. EQ2 had both on release or within a month (I think housing was delayed a short time). And that's just to start and doesn't include any of the other 15 year old games. Next!!!
2. Archeage once again doesn't have housing and you can only get to top level by sub. I say it doesn't have housing because it has limited available plots and according to all reports, those plots were all taken within hours of release meaning not everyone can take part in it while no one has ever not been able to get a house in EQ2 so long as they could pay for it with in game currency. EQ was a sub game on release so getting to top level wasn't an issue. The game is also HIGHLY vulnerable to hacking on release. You cannot say the same about EQ2. And that's just to start and doesn't include any of the other 15 year old games. NEXT!!!
3, Wildstar is apparently boredom rife. Plus claims of it being a copy of wow. Bug ridden mess is another claim. While EQ2 had its issues, at least you couldn't say it was boring, or a copy of wow. I admit, EQ2 had bug problems on release but those bugs didn't make it crash to desktop every 5 minutes. And that's just to start and doesn't include any of the other 15 year old games. NEXT!!!
4. Don't even try to claim that a game that's not released can remotely compare to these old games. Games that aren't released make alot of claims, then once they are released you find that they can't live up to a single one of the claims.
Just as theres a problem with OP theres a problem with majority of posts, some even demanding to regress 15 years to REAL MMOs. they are throwing "requirements" for MMO to be MMO that have absolutely no relevance to term "MMO"
So on one side you have you have bunch of posts that narrow the term to absurdity, on the other that broaden the term to absurdity.
the truth is in the middle, and there ARE actual *gasp* evolved MMOs on the market.
So the title of article IS truth, but arguments are not very good.
You talk about regression but we are already regressing. That's the whole problem. We are regressing to the point that 15 year old MMO's had more to offer on release than current games do years after release. Can you honestly tell me that there is a single game out there right now that contains ALL that EQ2, WoW, and others had on release?
And what did EQ2 and WoW had that was so special on release? Wow was pretty simple and basic game, thats why it got where it is. EQ2....failed on release and never recovered.
And do remember that both EQ2 and WoW were spit on hard by same 'ol EQists on release
And on the topic of housing (sinc eit seems its your only point really) it turned up its pretty inconsequential feature, wow didnt have it until recently and WS and EQ2 bit had it....and well....
Just as theres a problem with OP theres a problem with majority of posts, some even demanding to regress 15 years to REAL MMOs. they are throwing "requirements" for MMO to be MMO that have absolutely no relevance to term "MMO"
So on one side you have you have bunch of posts that narrow the term to absurdity, on the other that broaden the term to absurdity.
the truth is in the middle, and there ARE actual *gasp* evolved MMOs on the market.
So the title of article IS truth, but arguments are not very good.
You talk about regression but we are already regressing. That's the whole problem. We are regressing to the point that 15 year old MMO's had more to offer on release than current games do years after release. Can you honestly tell me that there is a single game out there right now that contains ALL that EQ2, WoW, and others had on release?
And what did EQ2 and WoW had that was so special on release? Wow was pretty simple and basic game, thats why it got where it is. EQ2....failed on release and never recovered.
And do remember that both EQ2 and WoW were spit on hard by same 'ol EQists on release
And on the topic of housing (sinc eit seems its your only point really) it turned up its pretty inconsequential feature, wow didnt have it until recently and WS and EQ2 bit had it....and well....
Well, wow had a crap ton of content at release, and just the right mix of difficulty, and adventure for the time period it was released. Yes there were some leveling gaps, but it was still a crap ton of content. And it also had a great community at release. The world required people to work together to accomplish certain things, and alot of it required work so your relationships weren't disposable, you made relationships that lasted. When the world started devolving, getting dumbed down and sped up, the community also started to devolve.(and never stopped) . As far as housing goes, WoW doesn't have housing, garrisons are not housing, not by a long shot.
Comments
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
All those companies that wanted to cash in on WoW's success lost a ton of money. Some games that were able to make good use of their cash shops turned a profit but to me weren't really "successful" MMOs because they had to resort to desperate measures to stay afloat.
This is an interesting time because we get to see what comes when the big $$$ carrot is no longer dangling like a ding-a-ling in front of developer's faces.
MMO's are evolving into nikkel and dime progression systems where your wallet determines how powerfull or how fast you progress.
In my vieuw mmo's are dead and the only mmo worth to play is Eve Online.
After All the mmo's that came out post World of Warcraft not one hold my attention longer then a few weeks or months compared to years of EQ / WoW / Eve Online.
And look at the hype meter....all those semi moba action packed mmo's.....
I find it utterly disgusting that this is the path of mmo's.
No depth or exciting lore, rushed out wow clones that failed to grasp mmo players by their throat to keep them loged in for years.
EQN was the second comming while most of us already said it was vaporware and SoE coulnt deliver their promise.
Same with GW2 and Elder's Scroll Online....
yeah the mmo market is evolving....into mmo's like Archeage / Black Desert were your wallet needs to be pulled to be on par with the wallet warriors who pay the bills and ferrari's of the CEO's and arm chair delegations.
The love for true mmorpg's is gone.
A standard subscription isnt cutting it anymore as the industry took notice how crazy the big whales are who can spend up to 5000 euro a month.
Remember the good old times folks and cherish it...those days are long gone.
The problems started when developers/publishers tried to sell their MMORPG's to players who didn't actually like MMORPG's. There's a vast amount of "gamer's" in the world, but the majority of them don't have the patience, attention span or interest to enjoy the "classic virtual world" design of MMORPG's that were essentially based on pen-and-paper D&D games.
The emphasis has shifted away from the MMORPG to the generic MMO, which is simply a game that is played online by large amounts of people. And "large" is whatever you decide it is.
They can argue those things are necessary for a good MMORPG - per their own tastes/preferences. But it would be wrong to argue that any of those things are necessary for a game to be a MMORPG at all.
Those are specific variations players like, or don't like in their MMOs. It's a matter of preference. None of those things define what MMORPG is. They can just as well exist in small scale Multiplayer RPGs, or even single player games.
Whether it has quest hubs or not is just a variation on a questing system; not a defining attribute of what a MMORPG is. Single player games can have Quest Hubs, yet we don't call those MMORPGs.... because they aren't. And so on for crafting, or progression, etc. etc. Further, MMORPGs don't even require questing at all to be a MMORPG. Content can be presented in other ways.
The problem with the OP, which is the core point here, is that they basically attempt to simply dismiss the 'Massively' from the genre's name, for the convenience of then saying "See? Anything can be a MMO!". It's completely dishonest. You don't get to just toss away terms when they aren't convenient to your "opinion". Doing so makes your opinion dishonest.
Words have meanings for a reason. They convey specific ideas and meanings. A "Multiplayer Online RPG" is not the same as a "Massively Multiplayer Online RPG". That word, "Massively" exists on for a reason. It describes something that sets MMORPGs apart from regular MORPGs and, of course, other genres. It's not just there 'cause someone fancied alliteration, and thought it sounded neat.
If the meaning of words can be so easily altered or ignored or invented as "convenient", then meaningful discussion becomes impossible, because there's no common ground to communicate on. If there's one trend among people these days that really bothers me, especially around here, it's this penchant for thinking the meaning of words is somehow fluid or negligible, and can be dismissed, or redefined at will, to their own convenience. That's basically what is going on in this article.
Just as theres a problem with OP theres a problem with majority of posts, some even demanding to regress 15 years to REAL MMOs. they are throwing "requirements" for MMO to be MMO that have absolutely no relevance to term "MMO"
So on one side you have you have bunch of posts that narrow the term to absurdity, on the other that broaden the term to absurdity.
the truth is in the middle, and there ARE actual *gasp* evolved MMOs on the market.
So the title of article IS truth, but arguments are not very good.
I love how the old school model of MMORPGs is still being hailed as "the way it should be".
The term "evolving" is incredibly appropriate. Each new game has changed something, either major or minor. This would be called a mutation. And if that mutation does not fit the environment, it dies. Down the line, you get games that are in the same genre, but FAR from that original game the player initially fell in love with.
There was something that new games brought that people wanted and were not getting in their old game. If enough players do that, the ancestor model dies. And evolution only ever looks forward. How widely accepted do you think EQ1 would be received if it released right now?
Look, I get that everybody here wants that perfect game that they will toss every waking hour at. But the reality is, with the number of games that are out, and how much the genre has grown, there really is no basis for the idea that the genre is dying, they have evolved into something that is not what got you into the genre in the first place. But those old models do not support enough players for companies to sustain them.
I would contend that games like WoW have only survived because they were agile enough to change with the times and continue to update and mutate their own features.
I can fly higher than an aeroplane.
And I have the voice of a thousand hurricanes.
Hurt - Wars
That is what would be called devolving a.k.a.changing for the worst.
It takes one to know one.
That's kind of a selfish way of looking at it.
I just imagine you aren't aware that there is more variety out there than what you can see through that lens you are using to view life.
There's a lot of amazing stuff and I would daresay far more complex, full of depth content out there that is just older (or if one wanted to look at it a different way "younger iterations") and not as popular as what is happening currently.
If everyone were to eschew those things then it would be a pretty flat dull world.
there is nothing wrong with people wanting different types of content. No matter whether it is currently popular or not.
My thought is that your preferences/likes have yet to be marginalized and you aren't aware what happens when eventually they are.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Seems more like the ''MMO'' of today is shoveling mud on the genre of old to become relevant. It's almost to the point of 10 - 20 minute gameplay today, because they're catering to the mass market instant gratification players. That's not to mention catering to players with little interest in the genre to begin with. The Western market typically can't even reach the visual quality of the Eastern market, while Gameplay is hit and miss from both. Most of the time it offers little for long term interest.
Either way, it'll be great once the suits with little care for the genre has left.
I think that's partially true.
You have to remember, those early adopters of UO, Everquest, Meridian 59, Lineage, etc were people with different interests. Heck, they were using the web and probably more than just for e-mail. They were reaching out to other people, being social and just looking for fantastical places where they could park a virtual avatar and live adventures.
Heck, I didn't use the web until late 1997 and never heard of everquest (let alone had the desire to play such a game at that time) until it was launched and started gaining lots of players.
And they spent a LOT of time in these games. I remember speaking to people who spent extreme amount of hours in everqust and one later on who said he played final fantasy 11 "all the time, every moment he wasn't working".
These games have a certain fascination/draw for people who were never a part of that nor would probably ever want to spend the amount time that those early adopters did.
So it's not just game companies catering to the "instant gratification crowd" (and yes, of course they exist) but catering to people who want to have a reasonably meaningful game play experience without spending 6 hours per night.
In some (many?) of these games that has had rather horrible results such as opening up your map and seeing the exact glowing spot you need to run toward, but in the end, players want to experience "worlds" of a sort in bite size segments.
I don't think that's instant gratification so much as "I am only willing to spend x amount of time (or have x amount of time) to do any playing at all.
Interesting enough, I came across a question on an online dating site that was "would you ever consider dating someone who played video games 2 hours per night" (which some would think of as a lot, others, not so much) and have seen many women give a resounding "NO". One, even wrote a comment "real men don't play video games".
So there is still a stigma to the hobby without even bringing in the amount of time these games require to play.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
The only thing that has evolved in the gaming world is marketing. That goes for all games, FPS, MMO, MMORPG, RTS, MOBA, etc.
I remember when the only marketing needed was an innovative idea and great game play.
I got bored quick. I don't play it. If the only way to get anything resembling a complete game is wvw and guild, then its not a complete game and isn't worth playing.
You talk about regression but we are already regressing. That's the whole problem. We are regressing to the point that 15 year old MMO's had more to offer on release than current games do years after release. Can you honestly tell me that there is a single game out there right now that contains ALL that EQ2, WoW, and others had on release?
ESO, Archeage, Wildstar, Crowfall (looks like). There's a few off the top of my head. Or did you forget what few features EQ2 and WoW had on release?
I can fly higher than an aeroplane.
And I have the voice of a thousand hurricanes.
Hurt - Wars
Wildstar launched with more content than swg did.
He is referring to the mechanics of the game...but I actually think you knew that.
"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
You talk about regression but we are already regressing. That's the whole problem. We are regressing to the point that 15 year old MMO's had more to offer on release than current games do years after release. Can you honestly tell me that there is a single game out there right now that contains ALL that EQ2, WoW, and others had on release?
Swtor launched with more content than wow did. Wildstar launched with more content than swg did.
He is referring to the mechanics of the game...but I actually think you knew that.
Yer the boss
1. ESO doesn't have housing. It doesn't have a broker. EQ2 had both on release or within a month (I think housing was delayed a short time). And that's just to start and doesn't include any of the other 15 year old games. Next!!!
2. Archeage once again doesn't have housing and you can only get to top level by sub. I say it doesn't have housing because it has limited available plots and according to all reports, those plots were all taken within hours of release meaning not everyone can take part in it while no one has ever not been able to get a house in EQ2 so long as they could pay for it with in game currency. EQ was a sub game on release so getting to top level wasn't an issue. The game is also HIGHLY vulnerable to hacking on release. You cannot say the same about EQ2. And that's just to start and doesn't include any of the other 15 year old games. NEXT!!!
3, Wildstar is apparently boredom rife. Plus claims of it being a copy of wow. Bug ridden mess is another claim. While EQ2 had its issues, at least you couldn't say it was boring, or a copy of wow. I admit, EQ2 had bug problems on release but those bugs didn't make it crash to desktop every 5 minutes. And that's just to start and doesn't include any of the other 15 year old games. NEXT!!!
4. Don't even try to claim that a game that's not released can remotely compare to these old games. Games that aren't released make alot of claims, then once they are released you find that they can't live up to a single one of the claims.
So try again.
And what did EQ2 and WoW had that was so special on release? Wow was pretty simple and basic game, thats why it got where it is. EQ2....failed on release and never recovered.
And do remember that both EQ2 and WoW were spit on hard by same 'ol EQists on release
And on the topic of housing (sinc eit seems its your only point really) it turned up its pretty inconsequential feature, wow didnt have it until recently and WS and EQ2 bit had it....and well....
>>Even FF14 - for all that it is praised, becomes nothing more than a repetitive set of instances in the end-game.
You mean after Level 15?
Well, wow had a crap ton of content at release, and just the right mix of difficulty, and adventure for the time period it was released. Yes there were some leveling gaps, but it was still a crap ton of content. And it also had a great community at release. The world required people to work together to accomplish certain things, and alot of it required work so your relationships weren't disposable, you made relationships that lasted. When the world started devolving, getting dumbed down and sped up, the community also started to devolve.(and never stopped) . As far as housing goes, WoW doesn't have housing, garrisons are not housing, not by a long shot.