Frankly some people need to hear that a certain game isn't for them. Instead of the common mentality that seems to pervade the market at the moment that every game should cater to every player. Instead of trying to force games to change your needs / wants, why not find games that already do?
People that get offended by this simple logic need a reality check, plain and simple.
I figured those terms are self explanatory, anyone who played back should/would know exactly what I am talking about. But if needed I will gladly explain, and I'll ignore your themepark nonsense you brought up.
A good RPG has many systems that tie together to create opportunity for strategy to flourish. which *Many* old games did have. That's what made them good. However, a good RPG aslo has interesting narrative, interesting character involvement, a good DM as an example can go a long way to making an adventure exciting. This is where they were lacking. Instead of interesting mechanics, they simply occupied your time with overly repetitive mechanics. It was understandable back then, it really isn't today.
Strange, I found my time in classic EQ to be exponentially more varied than what modern games have to offer. I don't remember feeling like it was grindy at all. Grindy is logging in to do dailies. I didn't have to do shit daily in EQ. There was always more than enough to explore and achieve to prevent it from ever feeling grindy to me. Sounds like its just "not for you."
Not that I don't enjoy interesting narrative and dynamic events, but the learning curve was so much steeper in EQ I never felt like I was just doing the same thing that I did the day before. Going back to play it again on an emulator I only became more aware of the fact that EQ was filled with emergent gameplay. What I recall being very hard originally, I found new and better ways to accomplish today. We've managed to conquer raids that took 40+ people on live with less than 20 just because we employed different strategies or made use of different items for certain encounters that we never previously considered.
Either way, different strokes for different folks.
(Orange) That's what I was referring to in regard to what they did have, they had many systems, and that's what kept them interesting at least to me. However game-play itself, was what lacked. Even the idea of challenge was generic (ie throw more hit-points into the equation) granted they did add nice mechanics like different types of damage/armor needed in different situations. Again it's the detailed features like that that kept it interesting... yet that was then.
(Grindy) I'm simply using that term for lack of a better one, it's less abrasive than generic. Generic is more what I am talking about. Now that doesn't mean I'm saying it needs to be a quest grinder and all about story. That's just as generic at this point. Nor do i think they should take the route of GW2 and go for generic dynamics either...
If anything I'd rather they look at games like Dark Souls, Crpgs, mob ecology like Ryzom..etc... That's where the real creative genius has been in the greater RPG genre IMO. As they use interesting game-play to tie their mechanics together.
As much as I loved games like DAOC, SWG etc.. back then, they lacked so much in presenting interesting content into their worlds, they were very static. EQ to a lesser extent I would assume due to their roaming MOB ecology. Yet still player vs MOB was about as interesting as it got . Where are the interesting mysteries to solve? Where were the worldly consequences etc? Things of that nature were sorely lacking, at least IMO.
My overall point was I simply hope they plan to offer a truly deep game, where the game-play fleshes out the mechanics much more profoundly than in the past. I would hope devs could answer that without resorting to "it's just not for you" as all that says is they have no plan to take what was great then and make it more interesting for today.
The game was initially designed and developed in 1999. Of course the gameplay lacked. However, back then, when not giving an opinion based on what we have learned in the 15+ years since it was released the gameplay did not lack at all. It was revolutionary back then, and it was the basis by which later games - like WoW, EQ2, Vanguard, etc. were built.
But no, most people who played EQ back then will tell you that when they were playing it "Grind" wasn't something they really felt. The only thing people really complained about were Time Sinks. As in Reputation Grinding and stuff like that to get keyed for a raid zone (which required nothing in terms of skill, but was just put there to artificially slow down your progression). Most people didn't mind grinding XP, because they did it in a way that made it entertaining... With other people and while having fun with those other people.
XP grinding in games today are more of an issue because they are so frequently tilted towards solo play. Of course you will hate the leveling process when you're standing in your own corner of a zone killing by yourself, or if the XP is designed in a way to force you to take as long as humanly possible to progress (as in games like Lineage II, and many Asian Grinders).
EQ wasn't like that. It didn't take a year to legitimately get to max level without spending hundreds if not thousands on cash shop items (XP Boosts, etc.).
In any case, the biggest issue in EQ wasn't the XP grind, or even the Time Sinks (as later games repeated both of those things), but the reliance on groups to do a lot in the game. Whether you like the shift away from that or not is a personal matter. Socially, it's bad. For the console/FPS/PvP generation of players that proliferate MMOs these days, it was a great change.
I don't think people around here have a problem proclaiming a game is not for them. It gets nasty though when they don't move on. They linger outside the building for months even years, yelling "scab!" at anyone who crosses the line.
I don't think people around here have a problem proclaiming a game is not for them. It gets nasty though when they don't move on. They linger outside the building for months even years, yelling "scab!" at anyone who crosses the line.
The question was not about people proclaiming the game is not for them.
The question was about people getting told a game is not for them simply because they dislike some aspect of the game.
Also, discussing a game and what you like or dislike about the game is not wrong or unethical, or bad etiquette.
Internet forums do not exist simply for the people who like the game/subject of conversation to have a circle jerk and fawn over how amazing it is. People who may show interest in knowing about a game *sometimes* want to hear both sides of the debate.
Censoring people (in any way, or attempting to do so) simply because their opinion of a game is not to your liking... doesn't do anyone (or even that game) any favors.
Also, the nature of MMORPGs dictates that some concessions have to be made because if the niche that is willing to accept the perceived (in the minds of others) faults of your games shrinks too small, then your game dies. These games need decent player populations to sustain them, whether they're amazing or amazingly bad.
I have less of an issue with your line of thinking *here* than I do on i.e. Official Gaming forums. If you go to the GW2 Forums, or TESO forums the attitude that the OP questions is rampant there. These people are extremely nasty and hold no punches when it comes to defending those games, because they know the power of words and the amount of hurt a game can suffer if negative opinions steer players away. So, in that vein I understand it.
But I find lopsided views being perpetuated by pushing that sort of agenda to be as harmful as people sticking around and trolling others on the forums because they felt "ripped."
Everyone paid or pays the same (generally speaking) for this game. Their views are as important as anyone else's whether they still play or not. It's not like most games fundamentally transform themselves after a bad launch. That has only happened like 2 or 3 times in the history of this genre (EQ2, FFXIV, and maybe one other game or which no relatively recent title can claim to be).
Frankly some people need to hear that a certain game isn't for them. Instead of the common mentality that seems to pervade the market at the moment that every game should cater to every player. Instead of trying to force games to change your needs / wants, why not find games that already do?
People that get offended by this simple logic need a reality check, plain and simple.
Even when people understand that a game is not for them they still bitch and complain about that game in every thread here. That is what 99% of the posts on this forum are about. If you take any thread from the CU page on this site, you can go down and see the same people complaining about the same thing in all of them. They know the game is not for them but still cannot resist the urge to repeat the same arguments over and over. It might be a defect in some humans were they can't put two and two together.
It happend to ESO also, they came out with a planned design and released what they were doing with in the game they were making and people went ape shit. They then revised it, it seemed that way from what they initially came out and said about the game, to what it was at launch. I don't know if this is a good example because there was nothing concrete about the game except some concepts of how it was going to be but it seemed like they changed it a bit after the initial backlash from some people.
Frankly some people need to hear that a certain game isn't for them. Instead of the common mentality that seems to pervade the market at the moment that every game should cater to every player. Instead of trying to force games to change your needs / wants, why not find games that already do?
People that get offended by this simple logic need a reality check, plain and simple.
Even when people understand that a game is not for them they still bitch and complain about that game in every thread here. That is what 99% of the posts on this forum are about. If you take any thread from the CU page on this site, you can go down and see the same people complaining about the same thing in all of them. They know the game is not for them but still cannot resist the urge to repeat the same arguments over and over. It might be a defect in some humans were they can't put two and two together.
Maybe we should shut down review sites like Yelp and review sections on Amazon, App Stores, etc.
Just have the site/app pop up a dialog that says "Sorry, maybe this app/game/product/restaurant/hotel just wasn't for you?" instead?
You bring up a really good point. There was a time when the MMORPG market was relatively small, and most of that community wanted the same thing.
Today the market is HUGE and DIVERSE. But some developers just see it as one big fat market to get rich on. And in order to grab as much of the pie as they can they have to be all things to all people.
Developers need to understand that its an impossible task.
And gamers need to understand that all MMO's are not made for them.
Developers trying to make a game that's for everyone will most likely tank.
And gamers that don't realize this tend to just post hate threads about every game that doesn't have what their looking for.
Originally posted by Darksworm Originally posted by FoomerangI don't think people around here have a problem proclaiming a game is not for them. It gets nasty though when they don't move on. They linger outside the building for months even years, yelling "scab!" at anyone who crosses the line.
The question was not about people proclaiming the game is not for them.
The question was about people getting told a game is not for them simply because they dislike some aspect of the game.
Also, discussing a game and what you like or dislike about the game is not wrong or unethical, or bad etiquette.
Internet forums do not exist simply for the people who like the game/subject of conversation to have a circle jerk and fawn over how amazing it is. People who may show interest in knowing about a game *sometimes* want to hear both sides of the debate.
Censoring people (in any way, or attempting to do so) simply because their opinion of a game is not to your liking... doesn't do anyone (or even that game) any favors.
Also, the nature of MMORPGs dictates that some concessions have to be made because if the niche that is willing to accept the perceived (in the minds of others) faults of your games shrinks too small, then your game dies. These games need decent player populations to sustain them, whether they're amazing or amazingly bad.
I have less of an issue with your line of thinking *here* than I do on i.e. Official Gaming forums. If you go to the GW2 Forums, or TESO forums the attitude that the OP questions is rampant there. These people are extremely nasty and hold no punches when it comes to defending those games, because they know the power of words and the amount of hurt a game can suffer if negative opinions steer players away. So, in that vein I understand it.
But I find lopsided views being perpetuated by pushing that sort of agenda to be as harmful as people sticking around and trolling others on the forums because they felt "ripped."
Everyone paid or pays the same (generally speaking) for this game. Their views are as important as anyone else's whether they still play or not. It's not like most games fundamentally transform themselves after a bad launch. That has only happened like 2 or 3 times in the history of this genre (EQ2, FFXIV, and maybe one other game or which no relatively recent title can claim to be).
I really wish it worked the way you think it does. Your are new here so I'll let you know now that as the years go by, and these games get updated, changed, overhauled, etc. People hang onto some first impression they had and will never let it go even if it's not in the game anymore
Originally posted by FoomerangI don't think people around here have a problem proclaiming a game is not for them. It gets nasty though when they don't move on. They linger outside the building for months even years, yelling "scab!" at anyone who crosses the line.
The question was not about people proclaiming the game is not for them.
The question was about people getting told a game is not for them simply because they dislike some aspect of the game.
Also, discussing a game and what you like or dislike about the game is not wrong or unethical, or bad etiquette.
Internet forums do not exist simply for the people who like the game/subject of conversation to have a circle jerk and fawn over how amazing it is. People who may show interest in knowing about a game *sometimes* want to hear both sides of the debate.
Censoring people (in any way, or attempting to do so) simply because their opinion of a game is not to your liking... doesn't do anyone (or even that game) any favors.
Also, the nature of MMORPGs dictates that some concessions have to be made because if the niche that is willing to accept the perceived (in the minds of others) faults of your games shrinks too small, then your game dies. These games need decent player populations to sustain them, whether they're amazing or amazingly bad.
I have less of an issue with your line of thinking *here* than I do on i.e. Official Gaming forums. If you go to the GW2 Forums, or TESO forums the attitude that the OP questions is rampant there. These people are extremely nasty and hold no punches when it comes to defending those games, because they know the power of words and the amount of hurt a game can suffer if negative opinions steer players away. So, in that vein I understand it.
But I find lopsided views being perpetuated by pushing that sort of agenda to be as harmful as people sticking around and trolling others on the forums because they felt "ripped."
Everyone paid or pays the same (generally speaking) for this game. Their views are as important as anyone else's whether they still play or not. It's not like most games fundamentally transform themselves after a bad launch. That has only happened like 2 or 3 times in the history of this genre (EQ2, FFXIV, and maybe one other game or which no relatively recent title can claim to be).
I really wish it worked the way you think it does. Your are new here so I'll let you know now that as the years go by, and these games get updated, changed, overhauled, etc. People hang onto some first impression they had and will never let it go even if it's not in the game anymore
I'm not new here at all. I'm as old as you are here ;-)
It works the way I say it does, when people are being defensive and using group think as a manner of censorship on the forums.
My user name is new because I routinely take breaks form certain forums and in doing so, often either delete the user name or have to create a new one because the email alias that I used to sign up for one has been discarded and I don't remember the password.
Sometimes it's better to lurk than to participate :-)
Frankly some people need to hear that a certain game isn't for them. Instead of the common mentality that seems to pervade the market at the moment that every game should cater to every player. Instead of trying to force games to change your needs / wants, why not find games that already do?
People that get offended by this simple logic need a reality check, plain and simple.
Even when people understand that a game is not for them they still bitch and complain about that game in every thread here. That is what 99% of the posts on this forum are about. If you take any thread from the CU page on this site, you can go down and see the same people complaining about the same thing in all of them. They know the game is not for them but still cannot resist the urge to repeat the same arguments over and over. It might be a defect in some humans were they can't put two and two together.
Maybe we should shut down review sites like Yelp and review sections on Amazon, App Stores, etc.
Just have the site/app pop up a dialog that says "Sorry, maybe this app/game/product/restaurant/hotel just wasn't for you?" instead?
If you read some of the negative comments on those sites you can see a lot of people are, kind of, mentally challenged. We aren't talking about reviewing a finished product here, we are talking about a design plan for a game, but if you want to use that as your example then so be it.
We aren't talking about some dip shit complaining about his vacuum cleaner shorting out because he sucked up water and it didn't say DO NOT SUCK UP WATER WITH THIS PRODUCT on the box thus him giving a bad review.
Then again maybe that is a good example of what we are talking about, people complaining that the product doesn't do something that it was not designed to do... Good call.
Remember how Wildstar just wasn't the game for you?
There's two sides to this:
1. Yes, not every game should have a desire for "mass mainstream appeal" I agree with that and I don't think developers should acquiesce to every little demand.
2. Fanboys. A single fanboy is more detrimental to any game they love, than a million haters combined. A fanboy is essentially a "yes man" and that only leads to an echo-chamber where no one questions anything and the end result is never good. Non-gaming example: New Start Wars movies. Everyone licked Lucas' shoes, nice pile of poop was the outcome. Gaming example: Wildstar, faboys fanboyed really hard, well . . .
Developers should be really judicious in who they listen to and they should really create a vision and work to make it the best it can be. Someone will always be pissed off and someone will always love everything you do even if you're kicking their dog. Ignore them both and critically evaluate your own game as you create it.
Frankly some people need to hear that a certain game isn't for them. Instead of the common mentality that seems to pervade the market at the moment that every game should cater to every player. Instead of trying to force games to change your needs / wants, why not find games that already do?
People that get offended by this simple logic need a reality check, plain and simple.
Even when people understand that a game is not for them they still bitch and complain about that game in every thread here. That is what 99% of the posts on this forum are about. If you take any thread from the CU page on this site, you can go down and see the same people complaining about the same thing in all of them. They know the game is not for them but still cannot resist the urge to repeat the same arguments over and over. It might be a defect in some humans were they can't put two and two together.
Maybe we should shut down review sites like Yelp and review sections on Amazon, App Stores, etc.
Just have the site/app pop up a dialog that says "Sorry, maybe this app/game/product/restaurant/hotel just wasn't for you?" instead?
If you read some of the negative comments on those sites you can see a lot of people are, kind of, mentally challenged. We aren't talking about reviewing a finished product here, we are talking about a design plan for a game, but if you want to use that as your example then so be it.
When you're taking people's money, you should be ready for their criticism.
If those weren't kickstarter games, I may have agreed with you. But, they're being funded by people like you and me as well, not just a publisher.
Also, I don't care about your opinion of someone's mental capacity so I don't know why you felt the need to "repeat" that to me. I avoided commenting on that nastiness for a reason.
I personally did feel ripped when I paid $60 for TESO, because the game is fundamentally flawed as an MMO (Phasing, High Emphasis on Solo Content, Mediocre End Game, etc.). Those are things the developers do need to hear, in one way or another for the game to improve. Otherwise, they do run the risk of alienating a huge number of potential customers.
The trend for people to gang up and run people away (which is what the OP is referring to, let's not lose track of that) is hurting these games more than the opinions of paying customers giving their honest opinions is.
Frankly some people need to hear that a certain game isn't for them. Instead of the common mentality that seems to pervade the market at the moment that every game should cater to every player. Instead of trying to force games to change your needs / wants, why not find games that already do?
People that get offended by this simple logic need a reality check, plain and simple.
Even when people understand that a game is not for them they still bitch and complain about that game in every thread here. That is what 99% of the posts on this forum are about. If you take any thread from the CU page on this site, you can go down and see the same people complaining about the same thing in all of them. They know the game is not for them but still cannot resist the urge to repeat the same arguments over and over. It might be a defect in some humans were they can't put two and two together.
Maybe we should shut down review sites like Yelp and review sections on Amazon, App Stores, etc.
Just have the site/app pop up a dialog that says "Sorry, maybe this app/game/product/restaurant/hotel just wasn't for you?" instead?
If you read some of the negative comments on those sites you can see a lot of people are, kind of, mentally challenged. We aren't talking about reviewing a finished product here, we are talking about a design plan for a game, but if you want to use that as your example then so be it.
When you're taking people's money, you should be ready for their criticism.
If those weren't kickstarter games, I may have agreed with you. But, they're being funded by people like you and me as well, not just a publisher.
Also, I don't care about your opinion of someone's mental capacity so I don't know why you felt the need to "repeat" that to me. I avoided commenting on that nastiness for a reason.
I personally did feel ripped when I paid $60 for TESO, because the game is fundamentally flawed as an MMO (Phasing, High Emphasis on Solo Content, Mediocre End Game, etc.). Those are things the developers do need to hear, in one way or another for the game to improve. Otherwise, they do run the risk of alienating a huge number of potential customers.
The trend for people to gang up and run people away (which is what the OP is referring to, let's not lose track of that) is hurting these games more than the opinions of paying customers giving their honest opinions is.
If you are giving your money to someone make sure you know that it is something you want before you give it to them. I know its a hard concept to do, but a little research goes a long way. There are many resources out there for people to look in to before buying anything, so the whole I got ripped off thing just makes those people crying about it look bad.
It is good game design to know your game and its basic principles. Games that are crowd funded have a target audience , so it's all about the context of the game how and who is funding it.
Not rude at all, just a reality check on the game in question.
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
Just wanted to add on after reading all these posts.
I fully agree with the statement that both positive and negative feedback is helpful to a game, as long as both are given in constructive manner.
Like everyone else I have an opinion on what I like and dislike and what I think is right. There is also someone else or many elses lol, who have a different opinion just as strong as mine and think they are right as well.
The hard part is communicate effectively as to what our opinions are without trying to force our opinion on another party. Then even harder is to sometimes accept that the other parties opinion may be the right way to go. I will admit that I can be just as stubborn as anyone else until I come to the conclusion myself, especially if I was wrong to begin with.
Heck, even if it becomes commonly accepted by most except for me, I still have a hard time accepting it since it wasn't my opinion, probably for tons of different reasons. I mean who doesn't want to be the person who is right, or the person who had a great idea lol? Anyway, the older I get, I realize it's not always who had the idea, though more about the brainstorming that happened to help the person come up with the idea in a lot of cases.
Anyway it's easy to get along and to agree with someone on that particular game's forums, however I believe it much much harder in a setting like this where it's open to people who don't even like MMO-RPGs or never even played games like EQ or earlier MUDs.
Though with that said, I again believe there are some really good debates that comes from the positive and the negatives in open forums like these. It goes even further if the debates can be had in a civil manner with both sides being somewhat open minded.
My wife and I are mostly won over by nostalgia, though I realize it takes more than that to win over others who are used to the social norm of today. Hopefully it's enough to get a few people to step out of their comfort zones and come adventuring with us, and also help us on our corpse runs lol!
Its good to remember we are talking about a game. I'm personally very passionate about this genre, as are many others, but folks have to remember its not really about "right or wrong." Just because a game chooses a certain convention doesn't make it right or wrong, its just in line with what they are looking to create. Like someone said earlier, it may seem like a finer point, but it works into the grand scheme of things.
Point is, the biggest cause of controversy comes from people pushing their opinion as fact simply because its more popular or something incorporated by a successful game. The bandwagon and appeal to authority are the fallacies commonly used to invalidate or "disprove" someones opinion on this forum. As long as people remember we are talking about a game and ultimately matters of preference, things can stay civil.
This is a great topic Niien and one that I have personally felt strongly about over a number of years, I am a pretty honest and upfront guy and I believe that Developers do not need to impress or cater to everyone, which is why we have picked our niche target audience and are creating our game for that specific target audience, if anyone else comes along and enjoys our game then great! but I do not have a problem politely telling someone that our game might not be for them, it is much better than lying to them and saying it is for them just to grab their money.
Pantheon is not being made for everyone and we are happy with this decision, we believe that a smaller more niche community is a stronger and more loyal one, so we are confident in our decision that our game will have a smaller more passionate community and not be for everyone and we have no problem saying exactly that.
People who make niche products don't usually seem to find themselves needing to tell people their product might not be for everyone. Tesla Motors does not seem to need to tell the public "hey guys our car might not be for everyone," thought admittedly it is partly because they cost more so they immediately turn off people who aren't going to pay for what they offer. Even so, you don't hear a lot of customers say "hey you should put a gas engine in that Tesla, it would have a broader appeal." Perhaps the better question is why do products in niche markets so rarely have to tell people their product is not for them.
Maybe it comes down to branding and marketing. If VRI does a good job of portraying their product and making it clear in their advertising and marketing who they are targeting then it will greatly cut down on the need to tell people "this game might not be for you." Remember EQ told players "your in our world now." That simple phrase painted a pretty good picture of what to expect, that phase was a challenge to players and a message that the road won't be easy. Simple things like that, how you portray the game, what message you send to players can go a long way toward letting people know this game may not be for them.
Has the market come to a point in time where we are too concerned with people's feelings to not tell them that a game might be for them? Have we lost the balls to say... "I'm sorry this game isn't for you". I know a lot of it has to due with mass appeal and money, though it seems like that's not even the entirety of the matter.
The very definition of a niche product is that that targets a well defined demographic, designs a product for them, and tell everyone else "This product is not designed for you."
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
I'm still not sold enough to buy what Brad is selling (side note: please Brad get someone with some serious business acumen into Visionary Realms)- but he certainly has my attention.
I am pessimistically hopeful,
Skeez
I have faith in Brad's creative vision.
I also have strong feelings on Brad's business acumen, or lack of.
Put the man in charge of game design and creative direction, but give someone more qualified control over day-to-day business decisions.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
Chris earned a degree in International Marketing from Santa Clara University, graduating cum laude in three years, then worked at an advertising agency in Paris. Next, in Tokyo, Chris completed graduate studies before joining the entertainment arm of Sony in Tokyo for 8 years where he started new businesses including the first online gaming site in Japan, and assisted the initial PlayStation efforts. He speaks, reads and writes Japanese fluently. In his free time, he coded and operated the first fantasy baseball game in Japan.
After Sony, he was an early employee of IRI, a company key in building the Japanese Internet and mobile internet infrastructure. He managed IRI’s successful IPO and the company reached a $10B market cap. His next role was to handle strategic venture investing for IRI which led to him establishing and leading IRI USA. He went on to co-manage AvTech Ventures, a $150M portfolio of venture investments which achieved top decile returns. After AvTech, Chris assisted several startups in various roles from Chairman to CEO including JP SCOPE, HydroLogic and Riava. He also assisted MMO developer Sigil with its sale to Sony Online Entertainment.
Happily married for twenty-one years, he’s the proud father of a daughter in college and a teenage son. He enjoys online gaming, new technology, travel, camping, is an avid runner, cyclist and open water swimmer, and escapes by taking family hikes with his dog.
Brad McQuaid has been active in game development for over 20 years. He was the original producer and co-designer of EverQuest, managing the development team from the project's inception until its launch. He then assumed the role of Executive Producer for the first few EverQuest expansions. He also was a founder of Verant Interactive and its Vice President. After Verant's acquisition by Sony Online Entertainment, Brad served there as Vice President of Premium Games, responsible for: EverQuest, EverQuest 2, EverQuest Online Adventures, PlanetSide, and Star Wars: Galaxies. In addition, Brad was the company's Chief Creative Officer.
After leaving SOE in October 2001, Brad took a short break before co-founding Sigil Games Online. There he took on the role of CEO and co-executive-producer. The company began development of the massively multiplayer game, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Sigil made a development deal first with Microsoft and then later with Sony Online Entertainment. Over the next five years, Sigil grew to over 100 employees and in January of 2007, Sigil and SOE launched Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Later that year, Sigil sold both the company and Vanguard to Sony Online Entertainment.
After the sale, Brad took a break from game development to pursue is his hobbies and to spend time with friends and family.
Next, Brad co-founded a new start-up in May 2010 in the San Diego area. The new game studio focused on next-generation, sophisticated casual and social games. Unable to find the right amount of funding, but learning much about free-to-play gaming, Brad left the start-up in January 2012.
In February of 2012, Brad received an offer from John Smedley, CEO, to return to SOE and work on a re-launch of Vanguard. Extremely excited that Vanguard was going to receive another chance at success, Brad accepted the offer and joined the team as a Senior Game Designer. After a year on the project, where he helped make the game free-to-play and revamped a number of regions, he was offered a position on EverQuest 1. Excited about the opportunity to return to another title he was involved with, he accepted the role as EQ Senior Game Designer in February 2012.
With many exciting game design ideas in his head, Brad left SOE in Auguest 2013 to launch a new company, Visionary Realms, which formed in September 2013. They immediately began development of a new, classic, challenging and group-focused MMO called Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen. Visionary Realms has launched a comprehensive web site that also supports crowd-funding. Brad has assumed the role of Chief Creative Officer & Producer at Visionary Realms and is also one of the Gameplay & Tools Programmers on Pantheon
Ignoring the rest of the topic because i STRONGLY agree with this statement.
Bring back grouping and interdependence.
Playing Warframe for some weeks now. I have to deal with people in order to do my trading. I hated every second of it. Give me my auction house and no enforced grouping and we're golden!
This game is not for you.
Yep. And the failed kickstarter of this game shows that there aren't many like you. Infact there are more like me.
I'm sorry but watching a Trade channel that gets updated every 3rd of a second waiting for the thing that i need half weekend is NOT fun
This is a great topic Niien and one that I have personally felt strongly about over a number of years, I am a pretty honest and upfront guy and I believe that Developers do not need to impress or cater to everyone, which is why we have picked our niche target audience and are creating our game for that specific target audience, if anyone else comes along and enjoys our game then great! but I do not have a problem politely telling someone that our game might not be for them, it is much better than lying to them and saying it is for them just to grab their money.
Pantheon is not being made for everyone and we are happy with this decision, we believe that a smaller more niche community is a stronger and more loyal one, so we are confident in our decision that our game will have a smaller more passionate community and not be for everyone and we have no problem saying exactly that.
Totally agree mate, fact is you can't please everyone but you can please those who are looking for the type of MMO you are making. Seems some people have a hard time accepting that their is still a large following for the mmo's of old all but with updated graphics and a few modern touches.
Comments
Frankly some people need to hear that a certain game isn't for them. Instead of the common mentality that seems to pervade the market at the moment that every game should cater to every player. Instead of trying to force games to change your needs / wants, why not find games that already do?
People that get offended by this simple logic need a reality check, plain and simple.
Read even these forums. It's the "Go To" for handling criticism against someone's preferred game as well.
Responses like "Maybe you should play Game_X/Y/Z" are basically equivalent to it.
I find it offensive.
The game was initially designed and developed in 1999. Of course the gameplay lacked. However, back then, when not giving an opinion based on what we have learned in the 15+ years since it was released the gameplay did not lack at all. It was revolutionary back then, and it was the basis by which later games - like WoW, EQ2, Vanguard, etc. were built.
But no, most people who played EQ back then will tell you that when they were playing it "Grind" wasn't something they really felt. The only thing people really complained about were Time Sinks. As in Reputation Grinding and stuff like that to get keyed for a raid zone (which required nothing in terms of skill, but was just put there to artificially slow down your progression). Most people didn't mind grinding XP, because they did it in a way that made it entertaining... With other people and while having fun with those other people.
XP grinding in games today are more of an issue because they are so frequently tilted towards solo play. Of course you will hate the leveling process when you're standing in your own corner of a zone killing by yourself, or if the XP is designed in a way to force you to take as long as humanly possible to progress (as in games like Lineage II, and many Asian Grinders).
EQ wasn't like that. It didn't take a year to legitimately get to max level without spending hundreds if not thousands on cash shop items (XP Boosts, etc.).
In any case, the biggest issue in EQ wasn't the XP grind, or even the Time Sinks (as later games repeated both of those things), but the reliance on groups to do a lot in the game. Whether you like the shift away from that or not is a personal matter. Socially, it's bad. For the console/FPS/PvP generation of players that proliferate MMOs these days, it was a great change.
I don't think people around here have a problem proclaiming a game is not for them. It gets nasty though when they don't move on. They linger outside the building for months even years, yelling "scab!" at anyone who crosses the line.
The question was not about people proclaiming the game is not for them.
The question was about people getting told a game is not for them simply because they dislike some aspect of the game.
Also, discussing a game and what you like or dislike about the game is not wrong or unethical, or bad etiquette.
Internet forums do not exist simply for the people who like the game/subject of conversation to have a circle jerk and fawn over how amazing it is. People who may show interest in knowing about a game *sometimes* want to hear both sides of the debate.
Censoring people (in any way, or attempting to do so) simply because their opinion of a game is not to your liking... doesn't do anyone (or even that game) any favors.
Also, the nature of MMORPGs dictates that some concessions have to be made because if the niche that is willing to accept the perceived (in the minds of others) faults of your games shrinks too small, then your game dies. These games need decent player populations to sustain them, whether they're amazing or amazingly bad.
I have less of an issue with your line of thinking *here* than I do on i.e. Official Gaming forums. If you go to the GW2 Forums, or TESO forums the attitude that the OP questions is rampant there. These people are extremely nasty and hold no punches when it comes to defending those games, because they know the power of words and the amount of hurt a game can suffer if negative opinions steer players away. So, in that vein I understand it.
But I find lopsided views being perpetuated by pushing that sort of agenda to be as harmful as people sticking around and trolling others on the forums because they felt "ripped."
Everyone paid or pays the same (generally speaking) for this game. Their views are as important as anyone else's whether they still play or not. It's not like most games fundamentally transform themselves after a bad launch. That has only happened like 2 or 3 times in the history of this genre (EQ2, FFXIV, and maybe one other game or which no relatively recent title can claim to be).
Even when people understand that a game is not for them they still bitch and complain about that game in every thread here. That is what 99% of the posts on this forum are about. If you take any thread from the CU page on this site, you can go down and see the same people complaining about the same thing in all of them. They know the game is not for them but still cannot resist the urge to repeat the same arguments over and over. It might be a defect in some humans were they can't put two and two together.
It happend to ESO also, they came out with a planned design and released what they were doing with in the game they were making and people went ape shit. They then revised it, it seemed that way from what they initially came out and said about the game, to what it was at launch. I don't know if this is a good example because there was nothing concrete about the game except some concepts of how it was going to be but it seemed like they changed it a bit after the initial backlash from some people.
Maybe we should shut down review sites like Yelp and review sections on Amazon, App Stores, etc.
Just have the site/app pop up a dialog that says "Sorry, maybe this app/game/product/restaurant/hotel just wasn't for you?" instead?
You bring up a really good point. There was a time when the MMORPG market was relatively small, and most of that community wanted the same thing.
Today the market is HUGE and DIVERSE. But some developers just see it as one big fat market to get rich on. And in order to grab as much of the pie as they can they have to be all things to all people.
Developers need to understand that its an impossible task.
And gamers need to understand that all MMO's are not made for them.
Developers trying to make a game that's for everyone will most likely tank.
And gamers that don't realize this tend to just post hate threads about every game that doesn't have what their looking for.
Odd times.
The question was about people getting told a game is not for them simply because they dislike some aspect of the game.
Also, discussing a game and what you like or dislike about the game is not wrong or unethical, or bad etiquette.
Internet forums do not exist simply for the people who like the game/subject of conversation to have a circle jerk and fawn over how amazing it is. People who may show interest in knowing about a game *sometimes* want to hear both sides of the debate.
Censoring people (in any way, or attempting to do so) simply because their opinion of a game is not to your liking... doesn't do anyone (or even that game) any favors.
Also, the nature of MMORPGs dictates that some concessions have to be made because if the niche that is willing to accept the perceived (in the minds of others) faults of your games shrinks too small, then your game dies. These games need decent player populations to sustain them, whether they're amazing or amazingly bad.
I have less of an issue with your line of thinking *here* than I do on i.e. Official Gaming forums. If you go to the GW2 Forums, or TESO forums the attitude that the OP questions is rampant there. These people are extremely nasty and hold no punches when it comes to defending those games, because they know the power of words and the amount of hurt a game can suffer if negative opinions steer players away. So, in that vein I understand it.
But I find lopsided views being perpetuated by pushing that sort of agenda to be as harmful as people sticking around and trolling others on the forums because they felt "ripped."
Everyone paid or pays the same (generally speaking) for this game. Their views are as important as anyone else's whether they still play or not. It's not like most games fundamentally transform themselves after a bad launch. That has only happened like 2 or 3 times in the history of this genre (EQ2, FFXIV, and maybe one other game or which no relatively recent title can claim to be).
I really wish it worked the way you think it does.
Your are new here so I'll let you know now that as the years go by, and these games get updated, changed, overhauled, etc. People hang onto some first impression they had and will never let it go even if it's not in the game anymore
I'm not new here at all. I'm as old as you are here ;-)
It works the way I say it does, when people are being defensive and using group think as a manner of censorship on the forums.
My user name is new because I routinely take breaks form certain forums and in doing so, often either delete the user name or have to create a new one because the email alias that I used to sign up for one has been discarded and I don't remember the password.
Sometimes it's better to lurk than to participate :-)
If you read some of the negative comments on those sites you can see a lot of people are, kind of, mentally challenged. We aren't talking about reviewing a finished product here, we are talking about a design plan for a game, but if you want to use that as your example then so be it.
We aren't talking about some dip shit complaining about his vacuum cleaner shorting out because he sucked up water and it didn't say DO NOT SUCK UP WATER WITH THIS PRODUCT on the box thus him giving a bad review.
Then again maybe that is a good example of what we are talking about, people complaining that the product doesn't do something that it was not designed to do... Good call.
Remember how Wildstar just wasn't the game for you?
There's two sides to this:
1. Yes, not every game should have a desire for "mass mainstream appeal" I agree with that and I don't think developers should acquiesce to every little demand.
2. Fanboys. A single fanboy is more detrimental to any game they love, than a million haters combined. A fanboy is essentially a "yes man" and that only leads to an echo-chamber where no one questions anything and the end result is never good. Non-gaming example: New Start Wars movies. Everyone licked Lucas' shoes, nice pile of poop was the outcome. Gaming example: Wildstar, faboys fanboyed really hard, well . . .
Developers should be really judicious in who they listen to and they should really create a vision and work to make it the best it can be. Someone will always be pissed off and someone will always love everything you do even if you're kicking their dog. Ignore them both and critically evaluate your own game as you create it.
When you're taking people's money, you should be ready for their criticism.
If those weren't kickstarter games, I may have agreed with you. But, they're being funded by people like you and me as well, not just a publisher.
Also, I don't care about your opinion of someone's mental capacity so I don't know why you felt the need to "repeat" that to me. I avoided commenting on that nastiness for a reason.
I personally did feel ripped when I paid $60 for TESO, because the game is fundamentally flawed as an MMO (Phasing, High Emphasis on Solo Content, Mediocre End Game, etc.). Those are things the developers do need to hear, in one way or another for the game to improve. Otherwise, they do run the risk of alienating a huge number of potential customers.
The trend for people to gang up and run people away (which is what the OP is referring to, let's not lose track of that) is hurting these games more than the opinions of paying customers giving their honest opinions is.
If you are giving your money to someone make sure you know that it is something you want before you give it to them. I know its a hard concept to do, but a little research goes a long way. There are many resources out there for people to look in to before buying anything, so the whole I got ripped off thing just makes those people crying about it look bad.
It is good game design to know your game and its basic principles. Games that are crowd funded have a target audience , so it's all about the context of the game how and who is funding it.
Not rude at all, just a reality check on the game in question.
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
Just wanted to add on after reading all these posts.
I fully agree with the statement that both positive and negative feedback is helpful to a game, as long as both are given in constructive manner.
Like everyone else I have an opinion on what I like and dislike and what I think is right. There is also someone else or many elses lol, who have a different opinion just as strong as mine and think they are right as well.
The hard part is communicate effectively as to what our opinions are without trying to force our opinion on another party. Then even harder is to sometimes accept that the other parties opinion may be the right way to go. I will admit that I can be just as stubborn as anyone else until I come to the conclusion myself, especially if I was wrong to begin with.
Heck, even if it becomes commonly accepted by most except for me, I still have a hard time accepting it since it wasn't my opinion, probably for tons of different reasons. I mean who doesn't want to be the person who is right, or the person who had a great idea lol? Anyway, the older I get, I realize it's not always who had the idea, though more about the brainstorming that happened to help the person come up with the idea in a lot of cases.
Anyway it's easy to get along and to agree with someone on that particular game's forums, however I believe it much much harder in a setting like this where it's open to people who don't even like MMO-RPGs or never even played games like EQ or earlier MUDs.
Though with that said, I again believe there are some really good debates that comes from the positive and the negatives in open forums like these. It goes even further if the debates can be had in a civil manner with both sides being somewhat open minded.
My wife and I are mostly won over by nostalgia, though I realize it takes more than that to win over others who are used to the social norm of today. Hopefully it's enough to get a few people to step out of their comfort zones and come adventuring with us, and also help us on our corpse runs lol!
Its good to remember we are talking about a game. I'm personally very passionate about this genre, as are many others, but folks have to remember its not really about "right or wrong." Just because a game chooses a certain convention doesn't make it right or wrong, its just in line with what they are looking to create. Like someone said earlier, it may seem like a finer point, but it works into the grand scheme of things.
Point is, the biggest cause of controversy comes from people pushing their opinion as fact simply because its more popular or something incorporated by a successful game. The bandwagon and appeal to authority are the fallacies commonly used to invalidate or "disprove" someones opinion on this forum. As long as people remember we are talking about a game and ultimately matters of preference, things can stay civil.
This is a great topic Niien and one that I have personally felt strongly about over a number of years, I am a pretty honest and upfront guy and I believe that Developers do not need to impress or cater to everyone, which is why we have picked our niche target audience and are creating our game for that specific target audience, if anyone else comes along and enjoys our game then great! but I do not have a problem politely telling someone that our game might not be for them, it is much better than lying to them and saying it is for them just to grab their money.
Pantheon is not being made for everyone and we are happy with this decision, we believe that a smaller more niche community is a stronger and more loyal one, so we are confident in our decision that our game will have a smaller more passionate community and not be for everyone and we have no problem saying exactly that.
People who make niche products don't usually seem to find themselves needing to tell people their product might not be for everyone. Tesla Motors does not seem to need to tell the public "hey guys our car might not be for everyone," thought admittedly it is partly because they cost more so they immediately turn off people who aren't going to pay for what they offer. Even so, you don't hear a lot of customers say "hey you should put a gas engine in that Tesla, it would have a broader appeal." Perhaps the better question is why do products in niche markets so rarely have to tell people their product is not for them.
Maybe it comes down to branding and marketing. If VRI does a good job of portraying their product and making it clear in their advertising and marketing who they are targeting then it will greatly cut down on the need to tell people "this game might not be for you." Remember EQ told players "your in our world now." That simple phrase painted a pretty good picture of what to expect, that phase was a challenge to players and a message that the road won't be easy. Simple things like that, how you portray the game, what message you send to players can go a long way toward letting people know this game may not be for them.
The very definition of a niche product is that that targets a well defined demographic, designs a product for them, and tell everyone else "This product is not designed for you."
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
I have faith in Brad's creative vision.
I also have strong feelings on Brad's business acumen, or lack of.
Put the man in charge of game design and creative direction, but give someone more qualified control over day-to-day business decisions.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
From Pantheon's About Us Wiki Page - so what you are hoping is already in place:
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Chris Rowan (Kuripan) - Chairman
Chris earned a degree in International Marketing from Santa Clara University, graduating cum laude in three years, then worked at an advertising agency in Paris. Next, in Tokyo, Chris completed graduate studies before joining the entertainment arm of Sony in Tokyo for 8 years where he started new businesses including the first online gaming site in Japan, and assisted the initial PlayStation efforts. He speaks, reads and writes Japanese fluently. In his free time, he coded and operated the first fantasy baseball game in Japan.
After Sony, he was an early employee of IRI, a company key in building the Japanese Internet and mobile internet infrastructure. He managed IRI’s successful IPO and the company reached a $10B market cap. His next role was to handle strategic venture investing for IRI which led to him establishing and leading IRI USA. He went on to co-manage AvTech Ventures, a $150M portfolio of venture investments which achieved top decile returns. After AvTech, Chris assisted several startups in various roles from Chairman to CEO including JP SCOPE, HydroLogic and Riava. He also assisted MMO developer Sigil with its sale to Sony Online Entertainment.
Happily married for twenty-one years, he’s the proud father of a daughter in college and a teenage son. He enjoys online gaming, new technology, travel, camping, is an avid runner, cyclist and open water swimmer, and escapes by taking family hikes with his dog.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Brad McQuaid (Aradune) - Chief Creative Officer, Producer, Gameplay & Tools Programmer
Brad McQuaid has been active in game development for over 20 years. He was the original producer and co-designer of EverQuest, managing the development team from the project's inception until its launch. He then assumed the role of Executive Producer for the first few EverQuest expansions. He also was a founder of Verant Interactive and its Vice President. After Verant's acquisition by Sony Online Entertainment, Brad served there as Vice President of Premium Games, responsible for: EverQuest, EverQuest 2, EverQuest Online Adventures, PlanetSide, and Star Wars: Galaxies. In addition, Brad was the company's Chief Creative Officer.
After leaving SOE in October 2001, Brad took a short break before co-founding Sigil Games Online. There he took on the role of CEO and co-executive-producer. The company began development of the massively multiplayer game, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Sigil made a development deal first with Microsoft and then later with Sony Online Entertainment. Over the next five years, Sigil grew to over 100 employees and in January of 2007, Sigil and SOE launched Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Later that year, Sigil sold both the company and Vanguard to Sony Online Entertainment.
After the sale, Brad took a break from game development to pursue is his hobbies and to spend time with friends and family.
Next, Brad co-founded a new start-up in May 2010 in the San Diego area. The new game studio focused on next-generation, sophisticated casual and social games. Unable to find the right amount of funding, but learning much about free-to-play gaming, Brad left the start-up in January 2012.
In February of 2012, Brad received an offer from John Smedley, CEO, to return to SOE and work on a re-launch of Vanguard. Extremely excited that Vanguard was going to receive another chance at success, Brad accepted the offer and joined the team as a Senior Game Designer. After a year on the project, where he helped make the game free-to-play and revamped a number of regions, he was offered a position on EverQuest 1. Excited about the opportunity to return to another title he was involved with, he accepted the role as EQ Senior Game Designer in February 2012.
With many exciting game design ideas in his head, Brad left SOE in Auguest 2013 to launch a new company, Visionary Realms, which formed in September 2013. They immediately began development of a new, classic, challenging and group-focused MMO called Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen. Visionary Realms has launched a comprehensive web site that also supports crowd-funding. Brad has assumed the role of Chief Creative Officer & Producer at Visionary Realms and is also one of the Gameplay & Tools Programmers on Pantheon
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Yep. And the failed kickstarter of this game shows that there aren't many like you. Infact there are more like me.
I'm sorry but watching a Trade channel that gets updated every 3rd of a second waiting for the thing that i need half weekend is NOT fun
Totally agree mate, fact is you can't please everyone but you can please those who are looking for the type of MMO you are making. Seems some people have a hard time accepting that their is still a large following for the mmo's of old all but with updated graphics and a few modern touches.
I'm loving the attitude of the devs.
Good to know, thank you.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin