Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
[Column] General: The Truth is MMOs are Evolving
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
I think a change in acronyms is due to match the change. MMORPG has always been a mouthful and sort of sucked all of the immersive qualities out of the genre. MMORPG sounds like a scientific categorization. And, as this column hopefully shows, the semi- or pseudo-MMO market is alive and well within the blurry lines in between genres, so we need some new terms.
Read more of Beau Hindman's Not So MMO: The Truth is MMOs are Evolving.
)
Comments
WoW is making rather wild stabs in new directions in attempts to maintain, a bunch of their current decisions are complete reversals of decisions they made to grow WoW to its highest levels
The MMO's had to make stuff less grindy to grab a larger demograhic. Less grindy means tons of players go through the content hella fast so they want something new or they bail. It is a sad catch 22 because none of the developers can maintain content releases to compete with WoW.
FF14 is probably the best bang for your buck nowadays. Square is building a TON of real value in that game.
The plethora of MMO"s for the last decade has given most players exposure to MMO's. Most of them have burnt out at least once. The whole questing dynamic in ALL MMO's is so similar that it can be really hard to care about a story attached to these "samey" style quests.
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women...
MMO's represent a huge amount of money, how many billions of $ per year i have no idea, but that is what we're talking about, at the time of SWG, the market was relatively small, WoW changed things, it made MMO's popular, more mainstream instead of the province of what might be termed, 'gamer nerds' okay, it was a very niche market, SWG failed because instead of fixing what was broken, they tried to change things, badly, and by doing so they destroyed their own game, what might have been, really doesn't matter, but even so, SWG was not the pinnacle, it was just the beginning, if anything can be said, its that games are evolving faster, and the division between what is an MMO and what is just an Online game, is becoming 'blurred' its not just MMO's that are evolving, its games in general, of course in terms of evolution there will always be casualties, but the genre is definitely moving on regardless of them.
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.
Well.....i play much less MMO´s than i used and want to, i spend less money to the MMO industri than i used and am willing to.
Perhaps is different for the rest of you, if not, i dont see that the MMO industry is evolving, rather devolving.
MMORPGs are evolving? No kidding! Gamers are demanding things to be different all the time, so developers give them that. Although, gamers do not usually know what they want. To quote a former Carbine employee, "We gave gamers what they asked for, not what they wanted".
To those saying the MMORPG genre is dead....I don't know how you come to that conclusion at all. What makes the perfect MMORPG to you might be dead because your ideals are so niche that you would be one of very few to play that sort of game. But that does not mean the genre is dead. Get over yourself.
I can fly higher than an aeroplane.
And I have the voice of a thousand hurricanes.
Hurt - Wars
^I couldn't agree more.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
What does that have to do with anything?
Argument: Small Portion of potential customers must shut up so that Life can be good.
These two posters are a good example of the tyranny of the majority that pretty much defines the business that is MMORPGs. There is always the big re-statement about how the business has essentially allowed for natural selection amongst game designs, namely that those games that produce the most dollars from the most amount of people survive.
The thing is that at some point when people approach something for entertainment they are not playing a game because it is successful, they play it because they find it entertaining. When the things that you find entertaining in your hobby disappear, it's not going to breed satisfaction.
The MMORPGs are dead probably comes from the viewpoint of people who at one time played games called MMORPGs, had that experience, and now find that each new release is further and further away from the original conventions. With MOBA influence and broadening of the genre to include anything that allows more than one person to be in the game at once, the definition of the MMORPG has at that point drifted so far as to be near meaningless from the original MMORPG perspective.
New classifications of sub categories would help, and in most things it usually happens. The broadening of the term is making it less useful for description.
The genre that you once enjoyed is effectively dead, but you need to be happy about it because millions of WoW-bred users are happy.
Except that quote is just BS. No one asked for dull boring generic questing to level up or over the top disco-interface
People were asking for challenging PvE content, not stupid time sinks. And the market is still there for this type of content, no doubt about that.
Evolving they may be, but that doesn't say anything about the direction and speed. Games have become more and more streamlined over the last 10-20 years, with sequels/reboots getting rid of everything that was the core of the previous game(s). Thats evolution all right, but not what i want, and not what most people who write here on MMORPG.com want from what i've gathered.
The last few years, some games have *re*discovered some features, like multiple endings, dynamic story, weather.. but nothing truly new was introduced.
Also, the new classification is flawed.
Just take a quick look at the current Humble Weekly Bundle, the Coop Bundle 2. Six out of seven games feature local coop, with two not having any kind of online multiplayer vs. only one not having local at all.
Those are neither single player games, nor persistent, nor online. So they don't exist?
And most MOBAs have persistent features. Your account does level, and you may acquire new heroes or skins, or in LoL adjust your runes. Wouldn't wonder when soon we'll see one that allows people trade heroes in between them. You acquired a tank cheap, but you already got 20? Trade it for a assassin, who are always so pricy somehow..
Especially if there is some sort of currency, people could maybe sell event stuff they do not want, like themed skins from various holidays etc. Maybe even allow people to acquire one hero or skin several times, so you can sell it and still have it. Maybe even have a way to acquire them during a match. Like, suddenly you see a weird gift wrapped chest in the jungle, you walk over and it unlocks something. No different from what MMOs do during events.
A single player game can also be persistent, but is not necessarily. Beat 'em ups often are not, or bullet hells where you begin in the first level every time you start the game. And some single player games even feature persistent changes made by other players.
Sort of like Spore, or when other players citys are "NPC" cities in your game of Sim City. Persistent, online, but singleplayer.
And MOBAs are halfway between shooters like BF or CoD and full fledged RPGs. Classifying either of those three as the same game would be stupid, too.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
As long as there are games with enough content that'll allow my boyfriend and myself co-operatively play together for an hour or three each evening, then I'll be fine with whatever acronym these games evolve into.
I'm long past wanting to grind out raids with a dozen or more strangers or go into pvp gank-fests.
I think we'll start seeing more and more games that are MMO-like. Basically, experiences that are always online with the option to share those via co-op or pvp.
The core aspect of any MMO is some sort of persistent character building. Then there are the usual trappings of an economy, co-operative content and competitive content. Destiny is a perfect example of a game isn't a MMO... but then again, it is. It features much of the frills that keeps much of the MMO player-base happy. I believe the theme-park MMO is headed more towards this direction.
Even FF14 - for all that it is praised, becomes nothing more than a repetitive set of instances in the end-game. The open world, while pretty, is completely under utilized in favor of this endless list of instanced content. Destiny is essentially all that but with the fat trimmed.
I also hope we see more "artful" implementations of multiplayer. In some ways, Dark Souls 2 felt like a MMO. There was something very poetic in how it could throw you into either co-operative or player vs player experiences. The fact that a majority of your time is spent solo only highlights those moments. It is nothing like most games where you cue up in some finder gui and wait to be paired... instead, its very seamless and very immersive at times.
And then, there is of course the rise of the indie/early access/crowd funded MMO. Lots of things to look forward to. It will be interesting to see how the likes of Crowfall, Unchained, Shroud of the Avatar and the numerous others turn out. Each game seems to be catering to a specific experience.
I like this whole post, but I have never heard Bullet Hell before and I think that is an awesome term.
A Single Player game is NOT a MMORPG, A game with Co-op ability is NOT a MMORPG. A MOBA is NOT a MMORPG when its entire focus is bent on large scale PVP. Alot of the games listed on this site are not MMORPGs. In my opinion, a MMORPG is the online, PC version of a face to face table top RPG game. Solo quests, Group quests, enemies/monsters to fight, obstacles to overcome, loot, crafts to do, equipment to buy, abilities to improve, land to explore. In a face to face rpg, there are no cash shops. Everyone goes in with what they have after character creation and plays the game set before them. If items, potions and the like could be bought by the players in a Face to face rpg, would the adventure, achievements or loot matter as much? I think we can all agree with a resounding NO and due to greed and impatience this is where the industry has headed.
Now, also how we play has changed. I'll use SWTOR and LOTRO as examples. If we wanted to slow down and RP through each adventure, we could do that. If we wanted to click on the quest giver then cancel out of the cutscenes and rush through the quest, we could do that, especially when it is the second character through. We could do solo quests, small group quests, large group quest, multi-group quests/raids that really didn't take near as long to set up as say EQ1 raids did. An improvement here for sure. We do not have to hit the cash shops and still have alot of fun. But I also remember the games before the cash shops. I did have alot of fun and each thing I found while playing was doubly important just like what was on the AH. And the AHs were completely PACKED with stuff because that was how you got credits or gold or the items you needed. And Rare, really meant...Rare. The moment the game takes this away from the player base is the moment that Online face to face parallel is gone. (I know there is more to it then that)
PVP. Sure some face to face games I played had a little PVP backstabbing going on but it was not at all common. In most situations it took away from the adventure in some way. Including PVP as a staple in a MMORPG is nothing more (IMO) than an aspect designed to attract market share. Why am I pointing all this out? Because the industry is NOT evolving, it is devolving to appeal to more market share and those without the patience to play a face to face rpg.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
I'd say this is where fanboys really harm the development process.
Back in the day, developers locked themselves up in their dungeons and maybe had a limited closed beta. But as open betas became the norm and now alpha/early access you have people who willingly drop hundreds/thousands on an idea and then go into full fanboy mode.
It's happening with Crowfall already, you can't talk about any particular feature without the fanboys automatically assuming you:
A) Hate the game
It's ridiculous and severely damaging to creating some type of feedback for devs who might be looking for initial thoughts on their game. The fanboys are going to tell them one thing, "OMG I love it everything you're doing is everything I've ever wanted." Less because it's true and more because they've mentally invested themselves into this project as if they're part of it.
If you were in WS beta and you were on the forums, you know how the fanboys would jump on anyone who said anything "negative" - like about the boring generic questing. So of course it's way easier to stomach (esp when you're in mid-development of a game) the positive comments. So if you have 100 rapid fanboys yelling constantly on the forums about how great everything is, it becomes difficult to discern reality. Carbine made the game they kept hearing was so awesome. Turns out, even those fanboys lost interest when the game was finally out.
Yes, there are plenty of haters out there, but I say devs should ignore both outliers - fanboys and haters and just listen to everyone in the middle or . . . maybe just listen to themselves and create something they feel is excellent. If it's as excellent as they think it is, they have nothing to worry about. If it's not, then oh well.
The article is kind of pointless unless people are the type who hate change. Evolution is change. Sometimes it is better sometimes worse.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
So what if companies are trying to appeal to "more market share"?
Do you really think AAA companies can put millions of $ in your favourite niche type of game to end up selling to the few players of a niche? This is what smaller companies are here for, which I hope you support financially.
Why do you use the term "devolving"? Surely designers aren't taking away features, rather changing those features for new or different features that appeal to a majority of other players ("more market share" to quote you).
I can safely say that a 100 millions $ MMORPG of today has more features than a 10 millions $ MMORPG of the past.
"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