And just do the same thing over and over with no sense of accomplishment.
I think you are misunderstanding the returns of horizontal progression. It is about expanding gameplay, not increasing numbers.
There is always progression in both directions in an RPG. The difference is in the amount. For example, WOW is predominantly linear progression. Its horizontal progression is in the achievement systems, adding skills or crafting - upgrading them is vertical . A game like Puzzle Pirates is almost exclusively horizontal progression, as the vertical path flows up and down with a player's (not character's) skills, victories, and defeats.
In an MMO, vertical progression is often used for working toward the game's measurable goals. Horizontal progression is often used as a tool distribution system to allow the players to work toward their goals. This is why MMORPGs tend to lean more toward a cattle chute in design for the former and an open range or the Wild West for the latter.
Player skill/experience is often a big part of horizontal progression. Sometimes its just specialized or situational skills that allow you to do something you couldn't do before but you're not more powerful. For example you get fire resistance cape to defeat fire dragon. This allows you defeat the fire dragon where you would melt before. But you're not suddenly way more powerful with numbers or in other situations that don't revolve around fire. You could just have a grappling hook that unlocks parts of the game.
Vertical progression and quest hubs allows the developers to ensure the players see all their content and control the content. Players are also conditioned to it.
You're talking about linear and scripted game game design, both of which can be independent of vertical progression and are another topic entirely.
I was talking more action adventure or just adventure. To me horizontal progression means your character is become more rounded instead of progressively more powerful.
Vertical progression goes 10 hp, 100 hp, 100 hp. You then get power A, B, C D, A2, A3, A4 and etc. Horizontal games do include some shallow vertical progression but you 50 hp the whole game. You get power A, B, C, D. Your powers usually are added to solve the game and difficulty is based on player skill and enemy toughness.
The most ironic thing about vertical progression is that a lot of times the difficulty is horizontal. You are always fighting the same level stuff as you.
What you just did is beautiful.Straight to the point with a beautiful fish.
Its not a pillar its a tool. Its tiresome that we have to do this, RPG can function flawlessly without any vertical progression.
NONE of those games had endless vertical progression, and they had VERY definite end and each new instalmnet started from lvl1. So is that what you propose? that with each new expansion/content patch everyone reverts to lvl1 and start over?
People do old stuff in WOW all the time in relation to how vertical progression makes things casual:
Joe's guild is 4/8 progression of some raid.
They spent all of last month wiping to the 5th boss.
Each week their raid got additional gear from the prior 4 bosses.
This month Joe's guild beat the boss, not because their group played any differently but because their gear finally allowed them to coast through the fight.
The early 4 bosses are effectively old content.
Older content than that still exists, and would be easier than ever if the guild decided to go back and do it (or if individuals went back to solo it). Which while rare is still an example of how vertical progression makes things more casual than lateral progression.
Who cares if the vertical progression was endless? It was vertical progression. It was a core pillar of each game.
I'm not proposing anything. I'm trying to educate you on how RPGs work. The core pillars of RPGs are vertical progression, story, and combat*. Each time WOW releases an xpack they add a boatload of content based on those core pillars. That's why each xpack results in a huge burst of players again. And the specific form vertical progression takes is to provide gear right out of the gate which is on par with mid-tier raiding, and to provide gear slightly later which is better than the best-tier raiding of the prior expansion. So I'm not proposing what you've described, that's actually how games work. Just because you aren't literally reset to level 1 doesn't mean that isn't what's happening.
(*Combat can be replaced with other core activities, so long as it relates strongly to progression. But it's just the simplest and by far most common example.)
The only who is lacking education is you. What you are lackign even more is practical experience. Im sure your texbooks where you read that were used to design every failed MMO since WoW (in fact it was cited in exact same way). It would be hilarious to ask devs who religiously cited those things during development how they feel now, when they were laid off.
WoW is beyond consideration, as its anomaly not the rule. The rule so far has been that WoW clones fail (since every one failed - had to lay off >1/2 core staff and change business model and drastically change every plan you can think of)
Oh yes, insta lvl90 thingy is "reset". So you have 90 levels (lets round it to 90%) of DEAD CONTENT. WoW can afford it, it can afford pretty much anything (as again, its anomaly). Other games are prety much "hanging in there", plodding along underperforming every expactation.
Oh yes, its funny how you mention everyone is funneled to the latest raid. EXACTLY my point.
WoW itself is a monster , each expansion like a new game and cost to make like a new game too.
As for myself , i prefer more freedom in progress . Vertical , horizontal or not.
Something like Skyrim collect shouts , magic tomes and items . Something i don't need to level up to do.
Something like i can travel to level 40 place , get level 40+ quest at level 10 and do it with other player .
The idea is group of difference level players can do something together.
I like to play a MMORPG that when i log in , i can say to my friends "you doing something at **** ? let do it together" though i only level 20 and he is 30.
I sure vertical progression concept of me is same with other.
But my horizontal progression concept is something like i don't need to level X to do Y and use Z .
MMORPG Horizontal progression for me is i can use whatever , do whatever at whatever level with other players without have to get blocked by levels.
I pretty tired of the design where i have to do level 10 contents while my friend do level 20 contents. This is reason why a lots other players try to get max ASAP but when they get max , there aren't many things to do because they ready search the end of vertical progress .
The only who is lacking education is you. What you are lackign even more is practical experience. Im sure your texbooks where you read that were used to design every failed MMO since WoW (in fact it was cited in exact same way). It would be hilarious to ask devs who religiously cited those things during development how they feel now, when they were laid off.
WoW is beyond consideration, as its anomaly not the rule. The rule so far has been that WoW clones fail (since every one failed - had to lay off >1/2 core staff and change business model and drastically change every plan you can think of)
Oh yes, insta lvl90 thingy is "reset". So you have 90 levels (lets round it to 90%) of DEAD CONTENT. WoW can afford it, it can afford pretty much anything (as again, its anomaly). Other games are prety much "hanging in there", plodding along underperforming every expactation.
Oh yes, its funny how you mention everyone is funneled to the latest raid. EXACTLY my point.
What on earth are you talking about? Textbooks? Experience?
I never went to school for game design. I have 15 years in the game industry and ~29 playing games as experience. Back when I started there was really only one school doing game design stuff anyway that I knew of (Digipen) and I worked across the street from it at both Nintendo and Microsoft. I've read a few design books, but only a couple really rang true and the others were rather shaky.
WOW's approach to design is what developers need to copy, not its skin-deep featureset. Painting a cardboard box to resemble WOW won't reproduce WOW's success. You need the internal organs to reproduce their success (at which point it doesn't matter what the outside of the clone looks like; the game could be an entirely different genre, but if it's working off the same approach to design, it's going to be successful -- much like Blizzard's other games which were all resounding successes.)
Getting people into the current raid tier quickly doesn't seem to prove any of your points. The points I've seen you make have been proven false if they had any basis in the first place (your claim that vertical progression isn't a core pillar of RPGs was proven false with a list of RPGs all being vertical progression-focused. Your claim that vertical progression having an end somehow matters is proven false because it's a baseless statement to begin with -- are you suggesting you don't exist because you're going to die eventually? No, things don't need to last forever to be. Vertical progression is still vertical progression even if it ends. Lateral progression also ends, yet it's still lateral progression.)
The implication that "90 levels of dead content" somehow matters is similarly baseless. You don't seem to understand how unwise it would be to have mid-level raiding matter. We're talking about (a) levels where few players exist and (b) content which requires lots of players. Hopefully it should be really obvious why (a) and (b) are incompatible.
The underlying logic behind all of these design decisions aren't some one-off anomaly of Blizzard. They're logic which can be applied to most game design, even games wholly outside the MMORPG genre.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The only who is lacking education is you. What you are lackign even more is practical experience. Im sure your texbooks where you read that were used to design every failed MMO since WoW (in fact it was cited in exact same way). It would be hilarious to ask devs who religiously cited those things during development how they feel now, when they were laid off.
WoW is beyond consideration, as its anomaly not the rule. The rule so far has been that WoW clones fail (since every one failed - had to lay off >1/2 core staff and change business model and drastically change every plan you can think of)
Oh yes, insta lvl90 thingy is "reset". So you have 90 levels (lets round it to 90%) of DEAD CONTENT. WoW can afford it, it can afford pretty much anything (as again, its anomaly). Other games are prety much "hanging in there", plodding along underperforming every expactation.
Oh yes, its funny how you mention everyone is funneled to the latest raid. EXACTLY my point.
What on earth are you talking about? Textbooks? Experience?
I never went to school for game design. I have 15 years in the game industry and ~29 playing games as experience. Back when I started there was really only one school doing game design stuff anyway that I knew of (Digipen) and I worked across the street from it at both Nintendo and Microsoft. I've read a few design books, but only a couple really rang true and the others were rather shaky.
WOW's approach to design is what developers need to copy, not its skin-deep featureset. Painting a cardboard box to resemble WOW won't reproduce WOW's success. You need the internal organs to reproduce their success (at which point it doesn't matter what the outside of the clone looks like; the game could be an entirely different genre, but if it's working off the same approach to design, it's going to be successful -- much like Blizzard's other games which were all resounding successes.)
Getting people into the current raid tier quickly doesn't seem to prove any of your points. The points I've seen you make have been proven false if they had any basis in the first place (your claim that vertical progression isn't a core pillar of RPGs was proven false with a list of RPGs all being vertical progression-focused. Your claim that vertical progression having an end somehow matters is proven false because it's a baseless statement to begin with -- are you suggesting you don't exist because you're going to die eventually? No, things don't need to last forever to be. Vertical progression is still vertical progression even if it ends. Lateral progression also ends, yet it's still lateral progression.)
The implication that "90 levels of dead content" somehow matters is similarly baseless. You don't seem to understand how unwise it would be to have mid-level raiding matter. We're talking about (a) levels where few players exist and (b) content which requires lots of players. Hopefully it should be really obvious why (a) and (b) are incompatible.
The underlying logic behind all of these design decisions aren't some one-off anomaly of Blizzard. They're logic which can be applied to most game design, even games wholly outside the MMORPG genre.
Yeah sure, more WoW clones is just what market needs....
And its funny, in same posts you say that nothing is proven and then procede to prove it.
Thank you, i guess you feel better if you feel you proved it somehow
And Blizzard didnt drop Titan out of whim. And they already spent a fortune on that one.
Yeah sure, more WoW clones is just what market needs....
And its funny, in same posts you say that nothing is proven and then procede to prove it.
Thank you, i guess you feel better if you feel you proved it somehow
And Blizzard didnt drop Titan out of whim. And they already spent a fortune on that one.
Yes, the market will continue to purchase well-made content-driven PVE games as they have always done. So creating games the same way as Blizzard's design process creates games is what the market demands.
No, what I've said here hasn't proven your points. We literally just walked through why each of your points was disproven -- remember?
Titan wasn't dropped on a whim, it was dropped because it wasn't fun enough. Which is part of Blizzard's design process -- the idea that "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it." The safest assumption is they were working on a PVE MMOFPS but decided against it because of how difficult it is to do that genre (Global Agenda, Firefall, and several other PVE FPSes have released in the last few years, and their ability to design interesting PVE puzzles always fell far short of what existed in MMORPG combat.) which they then turned into Overwatch.
But content-driven PVE games continue to be made and continue to be fun for players. That's just a constant of the game industry.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Blizzard dropped Titan because there is no market for another wow like MMO, wildstar proved this beyond doubt. Blizzards next game is indeed a mmofps (over watch). All the major aaa mmorpg releases in ths last couple years have been horizontal/sandbox with a splash of raids, this is what the market is buying. The trend is pretty clear.
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 Bladestrom Blizzard dropped Titan because there is no market for another wow like MMO, wildstar proved this beyond doubt. Blizzards next game is indeed a mmofps (over watch). All the major aaa mmorpg releases in ths last couple years have been horizontal/sandbox with a splash of raids, this is what the market is buying. The trend is pretty clear.
Overwatch is not a MMOFPS. It's a FPS. In fact it's likely that it's a FPS specifically because Titan as an engine wasn't going to work technically as a MMOFPS so they made a regular FPS instead.
A bit strange that you consider FFXIV and ESO sandboxes when they're hardly any different from WOW's core gameplay. Also strange that you call any major MMORPG horizontal after we just covered that the most horizontal MMORPG on the market is still quite vertical.
"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 Blizzard dropped Titan because there is no market for another wow like MMO, wildstar proved this beyond doubt. Blizzards next game is indeed a mmofps (over watch). All the major aaa mmorpg releases in ths last couple years have been horizontal/sandbox with a splash of raids, this is what the market is buying. The trend is pretty clear.
I think the trend is pretty clear that traditional MMOs have smaller and smaller market. e-sports, MOBAs, CCGs (note that Blizz is getting into all these areas), and action online games are the trend.
That is also the reason why the industry, website, writers are including more of these into the broad label "MMO".
Originally posted by Bladestrom Blizzard dropped Titan because there is no market for another wow like MMO, wildstar proved this beyond doubt. Blizzards next game is indeed a mmofps (over watch). All the major aaa mmorpg releases in ths last couple years have been horizontal/sandbox with a splash of raids, this is what the market is buying. The trend is pretty clear.
I think the trend is pretty clear that traditional MMOs have smaller and smaller market. e-sports, MOBAs, CCGs (note that Blizz is getting into all these areas), and action online games are the trend.
That is also the reason why the industry, website, writers are including more of these into the broad label "MMO".
If those types of games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merit and not be labelled MMOs? Because they are not that good, and like all trends, they will quickly fade and the kiddies will move on to some other genre.
Know who isn't going to chase trends? The traditional MMORPG players who have been sitting on the sidelines for years, just waiting.
Calling every game that requires internet connectivity a "MMO" is just as misleading as EA slapping the Bioware label on SWTOR.
So again, if these trendy games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merits?
Originally posted by Bladestrom Blizzard dropped Titan because there is no market for another wow like MMO, wildstar proved this beyond doubt. Blizzards next game is indeed a mmofps (over watch). All the major aaa mmorpg releases in ths last couple years have been horizontal/sandbox with a splash of raids, this is what the market is buying. The trend is pretty clear.
I think the trend is pretty clear that traditional MMOs have smaller and smaller market. e-sports, MOBAs, CCGs (note that Blizz is getting into all these areas), and action online games are the trend.
That is also the reason why the industry, website, writers are including more of these into the broad label "MMO".
If those types of games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merit and not be labelled MMOs? Because they are not that good, and like all trends, they will quickly fade and the kiddies will move on to some other genre.
Know who isn't going to chase trends? The traditional MMORPG players who have been sitting on the sidelines for years, just waiting.
Calling every game that requires internet connectivity a "MMO" is just as misleading as EA slapping the Bioware label on SWTOR.
So again, if these trendy games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merits?
Uh...I'm pretty sure they're all standing on their own merits and making millions. Is it misleading or you're just mad because they stepped on your lawn? Who said MMO's can only be one way? You? The guy next to you? The industry have never solidified what an MMO is. They surely solidified what an MMORPG is. That it's part of the MMO genre. Who says other types can't be branched from MMO's like MMORPGs did?
Originally posted by Bladestrom Blizzard dropped Titan because there is no market for another wow like MMO, wildstar proved this beyond doubt. Blizzards next game is indeed a mmofps (over watch). All the major aaa mmorpg releases in ths last couple years have been horizontal/sandbox with a splash of raids, this is what the market is buying. The trend is pretty clear.
I think the trend is pretty clear that traditional MMOs have smaller and smaller market. e-sports, MOBAs, CCGs (note that Blizz is getting into all these areas), and action online games are the trend.
That is also the reason why the industry, website, writers are including more of these into the broad label "MMO".
If those types of games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merit and not be labelled MMOs? Because they are not that good, and like all trends, they will quickly fade and the kiddies will move on to some other genre.
Know who isn't going to chase trends? The traditional MMORPG players who have been sitting on the sidelines for years, just waiting.
Calling every game that requires internet connectivity a "MMO" is just as misleading as EA slapping the Bioware label on SWTOR.
So again, if these trendy games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merits?
Hmm .. they do. You are confused ... the label that cannot be stand on its own merits is "MMO" .. which is borrowing from these games to make it more popular.
LoL itself never use the MMO label .. it is the MMO sites who did.
Misleading .. of what ... if MMO changes its definition .. and everyone knows what it is .. where is the confusion?
Originally posted by Bladestrom Blizzard dropped Titan because there is no market for another wow like MMO, wildstar proved this beyond doubt. Blizzards next game is indeed a mmofps (over watch). All the major aaa mmorpg releases in ths last couple years have been horizontal/sandbox with a splash of raids, this is what the market is buying. The trend is pretty clear.
I think the trend is pretty clear that traditional MMOs have smaller and smaller market. e-sports, MOBAs, CCGs (note that Blizz is getting into all these areas), and action online games are the trend.
That is also the reason why the industry, website, writers are including more of these into the broad label "MMO".
If those types of games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merit and not be labelled MMOs? Because they are not that good, and like all trends, they will quickly fade and the kiddies will move on to some other genre.
Know who isn't going to chase trends? The traditional MMORPG players who have been sitting on the sidelines for years, just waiting.
Calling every game that requires internet connectivity a "MMO" is just as misleading as EA slapping the Bioware label on SWTOR.
So again, if these trendy games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merits?
Hmm .. they do. You are confused ... the label that cannot be stand on its own merits is "MMO" .. which is borrowing from these games to make it more popular.
LoL itself never use the MMO label .. it is the MMO sites who did.
Misleading .. of what ... if MMO changes its definition .. and everyone knows what it is .. where is the confusion?
definition
[def-uh-nish-uh n]
noun
1.
the defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear:
better responsibilities.
You cannot change a definition. They are either definite or they are not. If not, then they are something else.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Blizzard dropped Titan because there is no market for another wow like MMO, wildstar proved this beyond doubt. Blizzards next game is indeed a mmofps (over watch). All the major aaa mmorpg releases in ths last couple years have been horizontal/sandbox with a splash of raids, this is what the market is buying. The trend is pretty clear.
I think the trend is pretty clear that traditional MMOs have smaller and smaller market. e-sports, MOBAs, CCGs (note that Blizz is getting into all these areas), and action online games are the trend.
That is also the reason why the industry, website, writers are including more of these into the broad label "MMO".
If those types of games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merit and not be labelled MMOs? Because they are not that good, and like all trends, they will quickly fade and the kiddies will move on to some other genre.
Know who isn't going to chase trends? The traditional MMORPG players who have been sitting on the sidelines for years, just waiting.
Calling every game that requires internet connectivity a "MMO" is just as misleading as EA slapping the Bioware label on SWTOR.
So again, if these trendy games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merits?
Hmm .. they do. You are confused ... the label that cannot be stand on its own merits is "MMO" .. which is borrowing from these games to make it more popular.
LoL itself never use the MMO label .. it is the MMO sites who did.
Misleading .. of what ... if MMO changes its definition .. and everyone knows what it is .. where is the confusion?
definition
[def-uh-nish-uh n]
noun
1.
the defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear:
better responsibilities.
You cannot change a definition. They are either definite or they are not. If not, then they are something else.
Why not? MMO's definition has been changed, isn't it? If not, how are reviewers calling WoT a MMO?
Plus, since you do not respond to the point, i assume you agree that MMO is the label that cannot stands on its own merits, and not these games (MOBAs, action RPG, CCG ...).
If those types of games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merit and not be labelled MMOs? Because they are not that good, and like all trends, they will quickly fade and the kiddies will move on to some other genre.
Know who isn't going to chase trends? The traditional MMORPG players who have been sitting on the sidelines for years, just waiting.
Calling every game that requires internet connectivity a "MMO" is just as misleading as EA slapping the Bioware label on SWTOR.
So again, if these trendy games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merits?
Uh...I'm pretty sure they're all standing on their own merits and making millions. Is it misleading or you're just mad because they stepped on your lawn? Who said MMO's can only be one way? You? The guy next to you? The industry have never solidified what an MMO is. They surely solidified what an MMORPG is. That it's part of the MMO genre. Who says other types can't be branched from MMO's like MMORPGs did?
Who said MMOs can be applied to anything? You? The guy next to you?
See your hypocrisy? If you say there is no definition, then how can you tell other people that they are wrong?
Originally posted by Bladestrom Blizzard dropped Titan because there is no market for another wow like MMO, wildstar proved this beyond doubt. Blizzards next game is indeed a mmofps (over watch). All the major aaa mmorpg releases in ths last couple years have been horizontal/sandbox with a splash of raids, this is what the market is buying. The trend is pretty clear.
I think the trend is pretty clear that traditional MMOs have smaller and smaller market. e-sports, MOBAs, CCGs (note that Blizz is getting into all these areas), and action online games are the trend.
That is also the reason why the industry, website, writers are including more of these into the broad label "MMO".
If those types of games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merit and not be labelled MMOs? Because they are not that good, and like all trends, they will quickly fade and the kiddies will move on to some other genre.
Know who isn't going to chase trends? The traditional MMORPG players who have been sitting on the sidelines for years, just waiting.
Calling every game that requires internet connectivity a "MMO" is just as misleading as EA slapping the Bioware label on SWTOR.
So again, if these trendy games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merits?
Hmm .. they do. You are confused ... the label that cannot be stand on its own merits is "MMO" .. which is borrowing from these games to make it more popular.
LoL itself never use the MMO label .. it is the MMO sites who did.
Misleading .. of what ... if MMO changes its definition .. and everyone knows what it is .. where is the confusion?
definition
[def-uh-nish-uh n]
noun
1.
the defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear:
better responsibilities.
You cannot change a definition. They are either definite or they are not. If not, then they are something else.
Why not? MMO's definition has been changed, isn't it? If not, how are reviewers calling WoT a MMO?
Plus, since you do not respond to the point, i assume you agree that MMO is the label that cannot stands on its own merits, and not these games (MOBAs, action RPG, CCG ...).
You assumed wrong.
Nobody can argue what is right or wrong when the terms are not even defined.
In the meantime, I'll keep checking the mailbox for my first issues of MOBA magazine and CCG magazine. You know, because they are so successful.
If those types of games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merit and not be labelled MMOs? Because they are not that good, and like all trends, they will quickly fade and the kiddies will move on to some other genre.
Know who isn't going to chase trends? The traditional MMORPG players who have been sitting on the sidelines for years, just waiting.
Calling every game that requires internet connectivity a "MMO" is just as misleading as EA slapping the Bioware label on SWTOR.
So again, if these trendy games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merits?
Uh...I'm pretty sure they're all standing on their own merits and making millions. Is it misleading or you're just mad because they stepped on your lawn? Who said MMO's can only be one way? You? The guy next to you? The industry have never solidified what an MMO is. They surely solidified what an MMORPG is. That it's part of the MMO genre. Who says other types can't be branched from MMO's like MMORPGs did?
Who said MMOs can be applied to anything? You? The guy next to you?
See your hypocrisy? If you say there is no definition, then how can you tell other people that they are wrong?
Did I say MMO's can be applied to anything? Only you because everything I say clearly goes over your head. MMORPG's are not the only type of MMO. A genre that includes MMOFPS, MOBAs, etc and I can go on. Stop being so narrow minded.
[mod edit]
It's true, I'm a fan of MMORPGs. It's a hobby for me. That is why I'm am here on www.mmorpg.com, for info about MMORPGs.
However, when "MMO" is broken down, how does every game that requires internet connectivity, apply to "Massive" and "Multiplayer" within MMO?
Online poker is online. Massive is now suggestive. Millions play. There are instances, lobbies, and group finders. Are online poker games MMOs, too?
Bottom line, where is the line drawn and who is going to be the one drawling that line? Industry professionals or the fractured player community, made up of people with high and low standards/expectations? That's all I want to know.
If those types of games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merit and not be labelled MMOs? Because they are not that good, and like all trends, they will quickly fade and the kiddies will move on to some other genre.
Know who isn't going to chase trends? The traditional MMORPG players who have been sitting on the sidelines for years, just waiting.
Calling every game that requires internet connectivity a "MMO" is just as misleading as EA slapping the Bioware label on SWTOR.
So again, if these trendy games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merits?
Uh...I'm pretty sure they're all standing on their own merits and making millions. Is it misleading or you're just mad because they stepped on your lawn? Who said MMO's can only be one way? You? The guy next to you? The industry have never solidified what an MMO is. They surely solidified what an MMORPG is. That it's part of the MMO genre. Who says other types can't be branched from MMO's like MMORPGs did?
Who said MMOs can be applied to anything? You? The guy next to you?
See your hypocrisy? If you say there is no definition, then how can you tell other people that they are wrong?
Did I say MMO's can be applied to anything? Only you because everything I say clearly goes over your head. MMORPG's are not the only type of MMO. A genre that includes MMOFPS, MOBAs, etc and I can go on. Stop being so narrow minded.
I understand you. Just because I'm more intelligent; doesn't mean I can't process the rudimentary ideas of others.
It's true, I'm a fan of MMORPGs. It's a hobby for me. That is why I'm am here on www.mmorpg.com, for info about MMORPGs.
However, when "MMO" is broken down, how does every game that requires internet connectivity, apply to "Massive" and "Multiplayer" within MMO?
Online poker is online. Massive is now suggestive. Millions play. There are instances, lobbies, and group finders. Are online poker games MMOs, too?
Bottom line, where is the line drawn and who is going to be the one drawling that line? Industry professionals or the fractured player community, made up of people with high and low standards/expectations? That's all I want to know.
LMFAO more intelligent. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
It surely started as an MMORPG website but it sure has involved into something more and the site admins have even said it. Again, narrowminded. Things change.
You're the one that think that people believe every game that requires an internet connectivity applys noone else. You like to make assumptions so assume away.
Not a bad idea, MMOPOKER. Definitely massive. Definitely multiplayer. Definitely online. Why not? What's the problem? It's not an MMORPG?
Who cares? Things change all the time. If the professionals or the player community wants to call something an MMO and it fits, who the hell cares. What does having high or low standards or expectations have to do with any of that? You like to call yourself intelligent but you can't seem to grasp the most basic context. An intelligent would know what they believe have changed, maybe not to their liking, but change is inevitable. Not be stuck in their ways forever.
I understand you. Just because I'm more intelligent; doesn't mean I can't process the rudimentary ideas of others.
It's true, I'm a fan of MMORPGs. It's a hobby for me. That is why I'm am here on www.mmorpg.com, for info about MMORPGs.
However, when "MMO" is broken down, how does every game that requires internet connectivity, apply to "Massive" and "Multiplayer" within MMO?
Online poker is online. Massive is now suggestive. Millions play. There are instances, lobbies, and group finders. Are online poker games MMOs, too?
Bottom line, where is the line drawn and who is going to be the one drawling that line? Industry professionals or the fractured player community, made up of people with high and low standards/expectations? That's all I want to know.
LMFAO more intelligent. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
It surely started as an MMORPG website but it sure has involved into something more and the site admins have even said it. Again, narrowminded. Things change.
You're the one that think that people believe every game that requires an internet connectivity applys noone else. You like to make assumptions so assume away.
Not a bad idea, MMOPOKER. Definitely massive. Definitely multiplayer. Definitely online. Why not? What's the problem? It's not an MMORPG?
Who cares? Things change all the time. If the professionals or the player community wants to call something an MMO and it fits, who the hell cares. What does having high or low standards or expectations have to do with any of that? You like to call yourself intelligent but you can't seem to grasp the most basic context. An intelligent would know what they believe have changed, maybe not to their liking, but change is inevitable. Not be stuck in their ways forever.
Except, mmorpg.com isn't adding other types of games because they are some kind of authority on what constitutes a MMORPG or MMO.
It has to do with website traffic and advertising revenue. Not because you're right about the matter. Because of web traffic. Web. Traffic.
Not some noble, glamorous cause to evolve or change uncertain definitions to allow inclusiveness to other random online games.
I understand you. Just because I'm more intelligent; doesn't mean I can't process the rudimentary ideas of others.
It's true, I'm a fan of MMORPGs. It's a hobby for me. That is why I'm am here on www.mmorpg.com, for info about MMORPGs.
However, when "MMO" is broken down, how does every game that requires internet connectivity, apply to "Massive" and "Multiplayer" within MMO?
Online poker is online. Massive is now suggestive. Millions play. There are instances, lobbies, and group finders. Are online poker games MMOs, too?
Bottom line, where is the line drawn and who is going to be the one drawling that line? Industry professionals or the fractured player community, made up of people with high and low standards/expectations? That's all I want to know.
LMFAO more intelligent. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
It surely started as an MMORPG website but it sure has involved into something more and the site admins have even said it. Again, narrowminded. Things change.
You're the one that think that people believe every game that requires an internet connectivity applys noone else. You like to make assumptions so assume away.
Not a bad idea, MMOPOKER. Definitely massive. Definitely multiplayer. Definitely online. Why not? What's the problem? It's not an MMORPG?
Who cares? Things change all the time. If the professionals or the player community wants to call something an MMO and it fits, who the hell cares. What does having high or low standards or expectations have to do with any of that? You like to call yourself intelligent but you can't seem to grasp the most basic context. An intelligent would know what they believe have changed, maybe not to their liking, but change is inevitable. Not be stuck in their ways forever.
Except, mmorpg.com isn't adding other types of games because they are some kind of authority on what constitutes a MMORPG or MMO.
It has to do with website traffic and advertising revenue. Not because you're right about the matter. Because of web traffic. Web. Traffic.
Not some noble, glamorous cause to evolve or change uncertain definitions to allow inclusiveness to other random online games.
So who cares? It's their website. They can do whatever the hell they want. I hear they are even changing the entire website soon. These guys are a business after all. They have to make money. So they don't want to just MMORPG's anymore. They want to expand to other MMO types. What's the problem with that? I wouldn't be surprised if they change it from www.mmorpg.com to www.mmo.com or something similar to fit their new direction. Instead of sticking to one type, they can broaden it and like you said, GET WEB TRAFFIC, because after all, they are a BUSINESS.
I understand you. Just because I'm more intelligent; doesn't mean I can't process the rudimentary ideas of others.
It's true, I'm a fan of MMORPGs. It's a hobby for me. That is why I'm am here on www.mmorpg.com, for info about MMORPGs.
However, when "MMO" is broken down, how does every game that requires internet connectivity, apply to "Massive" and "Multiplayer" within MMO?
Online poker is online. Massive is now suggestive. Millions play. There are instances, lobbies, and group finders. Are online poker games MMOs, too?
Bottom line, where is the line drawn and who is going to be the one drawling that line? Industry professionals or the fractured player community, made up of people with high and low standards/expectations? That's all I want to know.
LMFAO more intelligent. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
It surely started as an MMORPG website but it sure has involved into something more and the site admins have even said it. Again, narrowminded. Things change.
You're the one that think that people believe every game that requires an internet connectivity applys noone else. You like to make assumptions so assume away.
Not a bad idea, MMOPOKER. Definitely massive. Definitely multiplayer. Definitely online. Why not? What's the problem? It's not an MMORPG?
Who cares? Things change all the time. If the professionals or the player community wants to call something an MMO and it fits, who the hell cares. What does having high or low standards or expectations have to do with any of that? You like to call yourself intelligent but you can't seem to grasp the most basic context. An intelligent would know what they believe have changed, maybe not to their liking, but change is inevitable. Not be stuck in their ways forever.
Except, mmorpg.com isn't adding other types of games because they are some kind of authority on what constitutes a MMORPG or MMO.
It has to do with website traffic and advertising revenue. Not because you're right about the matter. Because of web traffic. Web. Traffic.
Not some noble, glamorous cause to evolve or change uncertain definitions to allow inclusiveness to other random online games.
So who cares? It's their website. They can do whatever the hell they want. I hear they are even changing the entire website soon. These guys are a business after all. They have to make money. So they don't want to just MMORPG's anymore. They want to expand to other MMO types. What's the problem with that? I wouldn't be surprised if they change it from www.mmorpg.com to www.mmo.com or something similar to fit their new direction. Instead of sticking to one type, they can broaden it and like you said, GET WEB TRAFFIC, because after all, they are a BUSINESS.
Nothing wrong with that. And wasn't even my point.
Except, mmorpg.com isn't adding other types of games because they are some kind of authority on what constitutes a MMORPG or MMO.
It has to do with website traffic and advertising revenue. Not because you're right about the matter. Because of web traffic. Web. Traffic.
Not some noble, glamorous cause to evolve or change uncertain definitions to allow inclusiveness to other random online games.
So who cares? It's their website. They can do whatever the hell they want. I hear they are even changing the entire website soon. These guys are a business after all. They have to make money. So they don't want to just MMORPG's anymore. They want to expand to other MMO types. What's the problem with that? I wouldn't be surprised if they change it from www.mmorpg.com to www.mmo.com or something similar to fit their new direction. Instead of sticking to one type, they can broaden it and like you said, GET WEB TRAFFIC, because after all, they are a BUSINESS.
Nothing wrong with that. And wasn't even my point.
Sir your point was answered clearly. Now I'm wondering if you ever understood your point or had a point at all.
Comments
What you just did is beautiful.Straight to the point with a beautiful fish.
The only who is lacking education is you. What you are lackign even more is practical experience. Im sure your texbooks where you read that were used to design every failed MMO since WoW (in fact it was cited in exact same way). It would be hilarious to ask devs who religiously cited those things during development how they feel now, when they were laid off.
WoW is beyond consideration, as its anomaly not the rule. The rule so far has been that WoW clones fail (since every one failed - had to lay off >1/2 core staff and change business model and drastically change every plan you can think of)
Oh yes, insta lvl90 thingy is "reset". So you have 90 levels (lets round it to 90%) of DEAD CONTENT. WoW can afford it, it can afford pretty much anything (as again, its anomaly). Other games are prety much "hanging in there", plodding along underperforming every expactation.
Oh yes, its funny how you mention everyone is funneled to the latest raid. EXACTLY my point.
Do we have any shield other than WoW ?
WoW itself is a monster , each expansion like a new game and cost to make like a new game too.
As for myself , i prefer more freedom in progress . Vertical , horizontal or not.
Something like Skyrim collect shouts , magic tomes and items . Something i don't need to level up to do.
Something like i can travel to level 40 place , get level 40+ quest at level 10 and do it with other player .
The idea is group of difference level players can do something together.
I like to play a MMORPG that when i log in , i can say to my friends "you doing something at **** ? let do it together" though i only level 20 and he is 30.
I sure vertical progression concept of me is same with other.
But my horizontal progression concept is something like i don't need to level X to do Y and use Z .
MMORPG Horizontal progression for me is i can use whatever , do whatever at whatever level with other players without have to get blocked by levels.
I pretty tired of the design where i have to do level 10 contents while my friend do level 20 contents. This is reason why a lots other players try to get max ASAP but when they get max , there aren't many things to do because they ready search the end of vertical progress .
What on earth are you talking about? Textbooks? Experience?
I never went to school for game design. I have 15 years in the game industry and ~29 playing games as experience. Back when I started there was really only one school doing game design stuff anyway that I knew of (Digipen) and I worked across the street from it at both Nintendo and Microsoft. I've read a few design books, but only a couple really rang true and the others were rather shaky.
WOW's approach to design is what developers need to copy, not its skin-deep featureset. Painting a cardboard box to resemble WOW won't reproduce WOW's success. You need the internal organs to reproduce their success (at which point it doesn't matter what the outside of the clone looks like; the game could be an entirely different genre, but if it's working off the same approach to design, it's going to be successful -- much like Blizzard's other games which were all resounding successes.)
Getting people into the current raid tier quickly doesn't seem to prove any of your points. The points I've seen you make have been proven false if they had any basis in the first place (your claim that vertical progression isn't a core pillar of RPGs was proven false with a list of RPGs all being vertical progression-focused. Your claim that vertical progression having an end somehow matters is proven false because it's a baseless statement to begin with -- are you suggesting you don't exist because you're going to die eventually? No, things don't need to last forever to be. Vertical progression is still vertical progression even if it ends. Lateral progression also ends, yet it's still lateral progression.)
The implication that "90 levels of dead content" somehow matters is similarly baseless. You don't seem to understand how unwise it would be to have mid-level raiding matter. We're talking about (a) levels where few players exist and (b) content which requires lots of players. Hopefully it should be really obvious why (a) and (b) are incompatible.
The underlying logic behind all of these design decisions aren't some one-off anomaly of Blizzard. They're logic which can be applied to most game design, even games wholly outside the MMORPG genre.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yeah sure, more WoW clones is just what market needs....
And its funny, in same posts you say that nothing is proven and then procede to prove it.
Thank you, i guess you feel better if you feel you proved it somehow
And Blizzard didnt drop Titan out of whim. And they already spent a fortune on that one.
Yes, the market will continue to purchase well-made content-driven PVE games as they have always done. So creating games the same way as Blizzard's design process creates games is what the market demands.
No, what I've said here hasn't proven your points. We literally just walked through why each of your points was disproven -- remember?
Titan wasn't dropped on a whim, it was dropped because it wasn't fun enough. Which is part of Blizzard's design process -- the idea that "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it." The safest assumption is they were working on a PVE MMOFPS but decided against it because of how difficult it is to do that genre (Global Agenda, Firefall, and several other PVE FPSes have released in the last few years, and their ability to design interesting PVE puzzles always fell far short of what existed in MMORPG combat.) which they then turned into Overwatch.
But content-driven PVE games continue to be made and continue to be fun for players. That's just a constant of the game industry.
"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
Overwatch is not a MMOFPS. It's a FPS. In fact it's likely that it's a FPS specifically because Titan as an engine wasn't going to work technically as a MMOFPS so they made a regular FPS instead.
A bit strange that you consider FFXIV and ESO sandboxes when they're hardly any different from WOW's core gameplay. Also strange that you call any major MMORPG horizontal after we just covered that the most horizontal MMORPG on the market is still quite vertical.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think the trend is pretty clear that traditional MMOs have smaller and smaller market. e-sports, MOBAs, CCGs (note that Blizz is getting into all these areas), and action online games are the trend.
That is also the reason why the industry, website, writers are including more of these into the broad label "MMO".
If those types of games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merit and not be labelled MMOs? Because they are not that good, and like all trends, they will quickly fade and the kiddies will move on to some other genre.
Know who isn't going to chase trends? The traditional MMORPG players who have been sitting on the sidelines for years, just waiting.
Calling every game that requires internet connectivity a "MMO" is just as misleading as EA slapping the Bioware label on SWTOR.
So again, if these trendy games are so good, then why can't they stand on their own merits?
Uh...I'm pretty sure they're all standing on their own merits and making millions. Is it misleading or you're just mad because they stepped on your lawn? Who said MMO's can only be one way? You? The guy next to you? The industry have never solidified what an MMO is. They surely solidified what an MMORPG is. That it's part of the MMO genre. Who says other types can't be branched from MMO's like MMORPGs did?
Many of you forget that for a progression to be called one it mast progress in some way both for player and obstacles.
Vertical is about efficiency.
The Faster You Make Cookies,The More And Better Cooke Makers You Can Buy.
Horizontal is about utility.
The More Elements You Have The More Combos You Can Make,Does Getting More And Different Elements In Result.
The can both exist simultaneously in games,but one will lower the effectiveness of the other the more relevant it is in the game.
In hybrid games between those two one in core that defies what the type of progression the game is and the other is added as a simplified version.
Hmm .. they do. You are confused ... the label that cannot be stand on its own merits is "MMO" .. which is borrowing from these games to make it more popular.
LoL itself never use the MMO label .. it is the MMO sites who did.
Misleading .. of what ... if MMO changes its definition .. and everyone knows what it is .. where is the confusion?
definition
[def-uh-nish-uh n]
Why not? MMO's definition has been changed, isn't it? If not, how are reviewers calling WoT a MMO?
Plus, since you do not respond to the point, i assume you agree that MMO is the label that cannot stands on its own merits, and not these games (MOBAs, action RPG, CCG ...).
Played-Everything
Playing-LoL
Who said MMOs can be applied to anything? You? The guy next to you?
See your hypocrisy? If you say there is no definition, then how can you tell other people that they are wrong?
www.mmorpg.com ... or at least until they revamp their listings.
mmofront.com
used to be massively.com
many reviewers
some posters on these forums
......
You assumed wrong.
Nobody can argue what is right or wrong when the terms are not even defined.
In the meantime, I'll keep checking the mailbox for my first issues of MOBA magazine and CCG magazine. You know, because they are so successful.
[mod edit]
It's true, I'm a fan of MMORPGs. It's a hobby for me. That is why I'm am here on www.mmorpg.com, for info about MMORPGs.
However, when "MMO" is broken down, how does every game that requires internet connectivity, apply to "Massive" and "Multiplayer" within MMO?
Online poker is online. Massive is now suggestive. Millions play. There are instances, lobbies, and group finders. Are online poker games MMOs, too?
Bottom line, where is the line drawn and who is going to be the one drawling that line? Industry professionals or the fractured player community, made up of people with high and low standards/expectations? That's all I want to know.
LMFAO more intelligent. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
It surely started as an MMORPG website but it sure has involved into something more and the site admins have even said it. Again, narrowminded. Things change.
You're the one that think that people believe every game that requires an internet connectivity applys noone else. You like to make assumptions so assume away.
Not a bad idea, MMOPOKER. Definitely massive. Definitely multiplayer. Definitely online. Why not? What's the problem? It's not an MMORPG?
Who cares? Things change all the time. If the professionals or the player community wants to call something an MMO and it fits, who the hell cares. What does having high or low standards or expectations have to do with any of that? You like to call yourself intelligent but you can't seem to grasp the most basic context. An intelligent would know what they believe have changed, maybe not to their liking, but change is inevitable. Not be stuck in their ways forever.
Except, mmorpg.com isn't adding other types of games because they are some kind of authority on what constitutes a MMORPG or MMO.
It has to do with website traffic and advertising revenue. Not because you're right about the matter. Because of web traffic. Web. Traffic.
Not some noble, glamorous cause to evolve or change uncertain definitions to allow inclusiveness to other random online games.
So who cares? It's their website. They can do whatever the hell they want. I hear they are even changing the entire website soon. These guys are a business after all. They have to make money. So they don't want to just MMORPG's anymore. They want to expand to other MMO types. What's the problem with that? I wouldn't be surprised if they change it from www.mmorpg.com to www.mmo.com or something similar to fit their new direction. Instead of sticking to one type, they can broaden it and like you said, GET WEB TRAFFIC, because after all, they are a BUSINESS.
Nothing wrong with that. And wasn't even my point.
Sir your point was answered clearly. Now I'm wondering if you ever understood your point or had a point at all.