I agree. It seems to me that MMOs over the last ten years, through their near-fanatical obsession with refining the combat experience has pretty much examined everything that there is to know about how to make the combat work. You'd think they'd know by now what works, how difficult it should be and so on.
Now that they know what to do with combat, they ought to put back a lot of the nuance they took away. Character customization would be nice. Avatar functionality would be nice. Architecture and building tools would be nice. Crafting would be nice.
To me it seems there are two main failures:
Few games ever replicated WOW's "simple to learn, lifetime to master" approach to class design (especially given that WOW kept pushing this further over the course of the game's life.) While WOW never took a lifetime to master, it remains one of the most rewarding MMORPGs in terms of player skill development over time and that's important to retaining players in the extreme long-term.
Almost no games came close to replicating City of Heroes' difficulty slider. Even WOW failed to do this, strangely. Basically it let every single player experience exactly the challenge they were interested in, and be rewarded accordingly, and it was a great system that mysteriously never caught on.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The genre suffers from being largely one big continuation. Most sequels or continuations suffer how to make a game better and more refined. Problem is you usually refine the soul of the game right out of it.
You can see this in Bioware trilogies like Dragon Age or Mass Effect. The first one while tactical is less refined and harder to plan your character. The second one comes in and tries to fix things by simplifying and refining things. The game loses its soul.
The MMORPG genre has largely been a continuation of WoW. Made more simple to refine it and get to the point. It just has gotten done more and stripping away at even what WoW was orginally.
Completely and 100% disagree with this...
The only thing that made it appear ME and DA lost their "soul" is sites like this and Reddit that cater to the negative people. These games continue to sell well but facts like that are not fair game to you guys.
As for newer mmos not refining? Haha many newer mmos have refined, improved on areas like combat, housing, outfits, pvp, graphics, story, and pretty much every aspect of the game. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have more mmos then ever before and we wouldn't have more people playing mmos then ever before...but again you don't want to talk facts do you...
I think you're confusing things. You do know that your talking about opinion. But of course it's cool these days to go again popular opinion.
Let's take Dragon Age: Origins vs. Dragon Age 2. What people are talking about losing its soul is that DA2 is a largely vastly different game. It was simplified and it was more action combat to the point that it lost what DA:O was.
You can say better or worst but it certainly lost what DA:O was in the pursuit of refinement and simplicity. That's what I mean by soul. It dropped racial/class orgins for human only racial streamlined choice and story. It lost strategic but slow and clunky combat while gaining action combat. Classes lost experimentation and failure to a more streamed lined choice. Sounds a lot MMORPGs IMO.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The genre suffers from being largely one big continuation. Most sequels or continuations suffer how to make a game better and more refined. Problem is you usually refine the soul of the game right out of it.
You can see this in Bioware trilogies like Dragon Age or Mass Effect. The first one while tactical is less refined and harder to plan your character. The second one comes in and tries to fix things by simplifying and refining things. The game loses its soul.
The MMORPG genre has largely been a continuation of WoW. Made more simple to refine it and get to the point. It just has gotten done more and stripping away at even what WoW was orginally.
Completely and 100% disagree with this...
The only thing that made it appear ME and DA lost their "soul" is sites like this and Reddit that cater to the negative people. These games continue to sell well but facts like that are not fair game to you guys.
As for newer mmos not refining? Haha many newer mmos have refined, improved on areas like combat, housing, outfits, pvp, graphics, story, and pretty much every aspect of the game. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have more mmos then ever before and we wouldn't have more people playing mmos then ever before...but again you don't want to talk facts do you...
I think you're confusing things. You do know that your talking about opinion. But of course it's cool these days to go again popular opinion.
Let's take Dragon Age: Origins vs. Dragon Age 2. What people are talking about losing its soul is that DA2 is a largely vastly different game. It was simplified and it was more action combat to the point that it lost what DA:O was.
You can say better or worst but it certainly lost what DA:O was in the pursuit of refinement and simplicity. That's what I mean by soul. It dropped racial/class orgins for human only racial streamlined choice and story. It lost strategic but slow and clunky combat while gaining action combat. Classes lost experimentation and failure to a more streamed lined choice. Sounds a lot MMORPGs IMO.
A few people on sites like this is "popular beliief". Haha ok
And between us who is gong against "popular belief"?
Dragon Age II received generally favorable reviews among professional critics, with a metascore of 82 for the PC version of the game. David Radd from Industrygamers noted that "Dragon Age II has had the most mixed critical reception for a full-retail BioWareproduct perhaps ever (assuming Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood is not counted)."[47]
Seems like the popular belief was it was a pretty good game...
Almost no games came close to replicating City of Heroes' difficulty slider. Even WOW failed to do this, strangely. Basically it let every single player experience exactly the challenge they were interested in, and be rewarded accordingly, and it was a great system that mysteriously never caught on.
The genre suffers from being largely one big continuation. Most sequels or continuations suffer how to make a game better and more refined. Problem is you usually refine the soul of the game right out of it.
You can see this in Bioware trilogies like Dragon Age or Mass Effect. The first one while tactical is less refined and harder to plan your character. The second one comes in and tries to fix things by simplifying and refining things. The game loses its soul.
The MMORPG genre has largely been a continuation of WoW. Made more simple to refine it and get to the point. It just has gotten done more and stripping away at even what WoW was orginally.
Completely and 100% disagree with this...
The only thing that made it appear ME and DA lost their "soul" is sites like this and Reddit that cater to the negative people. These games continue to sell well but facts like that are not fair game to you guys.
As for newer mmos not refining? Haha many newer mmos have refined, improved on areas like combat, housing, outfits, pvp, graphics, story, and pretty much every aspect of the game. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have more mmos then ever before and we wouldn't have more people playing mmos then ever before...but again you don't want to talk facts do you...
I think you're confusing things. You do know that your talking about opinion. But of course it's cool these days to go again popular opinion.
Let's take Dragon Age: Origins vs. Dragon Age 2. What people are talking about losing its soul is that DA2 is a largely vastly different game. It was simplified and it was more action combat to the point that it lost what DA:O was.
You can say better or worst but it certainly lost what DA:O was in the pursuit of refinement and simplicity. That's what I mean by soul. It dropped racial/class orgins for human only racial streamlined choice and story. It lost strategic but slow and clunky combat while gaining action combat. Classes lost experimentation and failure to a more streamed lined choice. Sounds a lot MMORPGs IMO.
Are you implying action combat is soulless? Do I need to whip out some DMC4 footage?
If you as a dev think easy game brings more players then at least give us 2 serversets, a hard and an easy mode with decreased loot. That can't cost that much to offer after all and would increase the target audience.
Well GGG does this with Path of Exile, however servers are still rather expensive. Each blade for an mmo could easily run up to 100,000 USD each, and you definitely need more than one blade for an actual server. I still feel as if Original Mabinogi had one of the best difficulty curves of any MMO, that actually did its job in making players better in general at video games.
Wow keep a whole bunch of servers running just because they don't want to merge them so it can't be very expensive. You can start with a single hard server and then add more as you need them.
The players still will have to play on one server, I am not suggesting that you should have a zillion different servers.
Also, you will get more players this way, there are people quitting games because they difficulty bore them (and it isn't just me and OP). Exactly how many players is anybodies guess but I would guess it is at least 10%. And I am rather certain that people will play longer on harder servers.
So, I don't think you have very much to loose.
Never played Mabinogi, but you might very well be right there.
Dragon Age II received generally favorable reviews among professional critics, with a metascore of 82 for the PC version of the game. David Radd from Industrygamers noted that "Dragon Age II has had the most mixed critical reception for a full-retail BioWareproduct perhaps ever (assuming Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood is not counted)."[47]
Seems like the popular belief was it was a pretty good game...
So you're basically saying that a few critics that are potentially paid off in this industry determine popular opinion? Are those critics basing the reviews on how much they liked the game or how much the game changed from DA:O? I never debated if the game was "good" which is an opinion.
My point was that DA2 a lot like MMORPG's had been refined and simplified. Combat mechanics improved but with less strategy. Too much hack and slash for the typical audience which is a legacy of infiinity engine/NWN/DA:O players. Not much different than the typical MMORPG leaving behind the original audience of players.
There is certainly something lost in the MMORPG genre with improvements in playability and conveniences. The experience is perfected in what you generally expect... almost standardized and very streamlined. That being good or bad is opinion.
Dragon Age II received generally favorable reviews among professional critics, with a metascore of 82 for the PC version of the game. David Radd from Industrygamers noted that "Dragon Age II has had the most mixed critical reception for a full-retail BioWareproduct perhaps ever (assuming Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood is not counted)."[47]
Seems like the popular belief was it was a pretty good game...
So you're basically saying that a few critics that are potentially paid off in this industry determine popular opinion? Are those critics basing the reviews on how much they liked the game or how much the game changed from DA:O? I never debated if the game was "good" which is an opinion.
My point was that DA2 a lot like MMORPG's had been refined and simplified. Combat mechanics improved but with less strategy. Too much hack and slash for the typical audience which is a legacy of infiinity engine/NWN/DA:O players. Not much different than the typical MMORPG leaving behind the original audience of players.
There is certainly something lost in the MMORPG genre with improvements in playability and conveniences. The experience is perfected in what you generally expect... almost standardized and very streamlined. That being good or bad is opinion.
Haha yes if a reviewer gives a good score on a game you don't like they are paid off..ok...
And my point has been yes they have been refined because their audience is on longer just a bunch of elitist. Again MMORPGS have difficulty it's just not required. In almost every mmo I play there are areas you can go to be challenged there are items that are hidden.
My other point is multiple reviews would be a far more supporting source then some random poster stating "popular belief" is what he believes.
I'd have to agree with the too simple argument....For the most part MMOs are just going through the motions for most of us now.....They try too hard to entertain and too much emphasis on story and quests.
So you're basically saying that a few critics that are potentially paid off in this industry determine popular opinion? Are those critics basing the reviews on how much they liked the game or how much the game changed from DA:O? I never debated if the game was "good" which is an opinion.
What few critics?
DAO has a USER score of 8.6 .. comes from 3189 ratings.
Dragon Age II received generally favorable reviews among professional critics, with a metascore of 82 for the PC version of the game. David Radd from Industrygamers noted that "Dragon Age II has had the most mixed critical reception for a full-retail BioWareproduct perhaps ever (assuming Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood is not counted)."[47]
Seems like the popular belief was it was a pretty good game...
So you're basically saying that a few critics that are potentially paid off in this industry determine popular opinion? Are those critics basing the reviews on how much they liked the game or how much the game changed from DA:O? I never debated if the game was "good" which is an opinion.
My point was that DA2 a lot like MMORPG's had been refined and simplified. Combat mechanics improved but with less strategy. Too much hack and slash for the typical audience which is a legacy of infiinity engine/NWN/DA:O players. Not much different than the typical MMORPG leaving behind the original audience of players.
There is certainly something lost in the MMORPG genre with improvements in playability and conveniences. The experience is perfected in what you generally expect... almost standardized and very streamlined. That being good or bad is opinion.
Haha yes if a reviewer gives a good score on a game you don't like they are paid off..ok...
And my point has been yes they have been refined because their audience is on longer just a bunch of elitist. Again MMORPGS have difficulty it's just not required. In almost every mmo I play there are areas you can go to be challenged there are items that are hidden.
My other point is multiple reviews would be a far more supporting source then some random poster stating "popular belief" is what he believes.
Lol, ok.
1. Yes, the gaming media has a reputation for being bribed and influenced. You can look it up if you like but its not something I invented. EA also has a reputation as score manipulator. Its besides the point because popularity or good or bad of DA2 or MMORPGs was not in question. Its more the simplifying of the genre.
2. You're going to tell me elitism in MMORPGs died a long time ago? I would say the genre is more elitist than it ever was lol. I don't think difficulty has much to do with refinement and simplification. It can but to me its clear that the genre is just the questing part of WoW with different skins and combat wrinkles. Its refined down to you just leveling/questing, grouping, raiding at optimal pace without consideration to the side effects.
3. Again, for me a handful of reviewers don't take precidence over hundreds/thousands of people on the net, gaming associates, friends and even a barely gaming ex-girlfriend. Especially with reviewers reputation of being bribed or influenced. But its just not a discussion that can be won because its opinion.
3. Again, for me a handful of reviewers don't take precidence over hundreds/thousands of people on the net, gaming associates, friends and even a barely gaming ex-girlfriend. Especially with reviewers reputation of being bribed or influenced. But its just not a discussion that can be won because its opinion.
Thousands of players rated DAO highly (8.1) on metacritics.
So you're basically saying that a few critics that are potentially paid off in this industry determine popular opinion? Are those critics basing the reviews on how much they liked the game or how much the game changed from DA:O? I never debated if the game was "good" which is an opinion.
While I personally think DA2 was much better than DAO (snore-fest), you're absolutely right that a handful of reviewers don't determine popular opinion. As evidenced by the user scores (DAO 8.6 vs. DA2 4.4)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The Dragon Age games have never appealed to me, but that is more an issue of story. I do think that the Baldur's Gate games and even new games like Pillars of Eternity are better suited to the type of game they were trying to create. My favorite Bioware games are Baldur's Gate 2, KOTOR, and Mass Effect 1/2. I completed Dragon Age 1/2 and tried inquisition, but none of them are enjoyable to me. The Dragon Age games do seem to have a mish mash of controls. One for classical style Baldur's Gate and one for a more FPS feel like Mass Effect. It doesn't seem to achieve either well IMO. I also find Dark Spawn to be very boring. Most of the Dragon Age series is overly dramatic. Morrigan might be the exception to that.
That too... but most people play them because many of them are challenging, no easy mode available... Nonhandholding what so ever...
Interesting to hear someone call them challenging. Literally every one I've watched a Twitch stream of has been 95% roaming around the landscape looting from buildings (until eventually either the streamer or his adversary came by and easily slaughtered one another, and it started over again.)
Doesn't seem particularly characterized by difficult challenges; it mostly seems characterized by casual container-searching.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
well the investor and dev probably think mmorpg players are stupid and need the hand holding,
hell who pay 900$ for a pixel castle ? or 3000$ real money for a ''ship pixel ingame'' or pay for help test alpha game or beta game version not even out ?
mmorpg players are to blame for that, i would do the same if i was a dev, someone who do stuft like that clearly need hand holding and i would not create my game to hard !!
I have enough challenge in my life. I create enough in my life. There's no need for more of that in my free time.
Maybe, just maybe, it's not the game, but everything around the game.
Just a thought.
That might be the crux of the problem. I have more than enough challenge in my life what I don't have is enough time and money. Also, I don't get bored as there is something to do that is interesting somewhere.
If you have ten major things in your life, work, love family, a few hobbies/pastimes and you lose one of them, well, it make suck badly for a while. However, if you have two major things in your life and you lose one of them, you have lost half of everything. And if gaming is your only major thing and you can't find something "good enough" to play, you have nothing.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I think the simple answer is that we live in a society where people want to be rewarded just for showing up.
In most MMOs, if you think about it, is there any way you can actually lose at anything? Can you even lose anything of significant game value?
No. You just get to keep trying, over and over again until you win (usually on the second or third try if it's "really hard".)
I was discussing perma-death with a friend once. He said, "If I spent years building up a character, and they were suddenly killed, I'd be pretty pissed." I replied, "Good."
Now, I don't think you have to be brutal and sadistic with your players, but this hand-holding and coddling really has gotten out of control. So much pleasure of gaming comes from a sense of accomplishment and I personally can't see how you can feel accomplished with the superficial tasks of most MMOs. That's typically why I end up quitting them. I've literally invested nothing emotional in the game.
But, as others have said, that's not the mass market. Most players want a pat on the back and a cookie. "Good job, Timmy! You clicked that ogre the perfect number of times."
That being said, with the cost of MMO development dropping drastically and the sheer number of players out there, the not-so-mass market is surely enough to sustain an MMO with truly satisfied players.
Well, simplicity isn't the same as being easy of course but you are correct, the general difficulty is far to easy for the game to be entertaining long term, and a few hard raids that takes at least a month to reach really doesn't help there.
If you as a dev think easy game brings more players then at least give us 2 serversets, a hard and an easy mode with decreased loot. That can't cost that much to offer after all and would increase the target audience.
And stop nerfing the difficulty when a few bad players complain, that happens to every new game in beta or just after release nowadays. If the game is too hard you need to train so you become better, not write angry complains to the devs.
I have been saying this about mmorpgs for a long time but never seen so many agree, I always got attacked or watch others get attacked for even speaking about it, what is going on here?
Well, simplicity isn't the same as being easy of course but you are correct, the general difficulty is far to easy for the game to be entertaining long term, and a few hard raids that takes at least a month to reach really doesn't help there.
If you as a dev think easy game brings more players then at least give us 2 serversets, a hard and an easy mode with decreased loot. That can't cost that much to offer after all and would increase the target audience.
And stop nerfing the difficulty when a few bad players complain, that happens to every new game in beta or just after release nowadays. If the game is too hard you need to train so you become better, not write angry complains to the devs.
I have been saying this about mmorpgs for a long time but never seen so many agree, I always got attacked or watch others get attacked for even speaking about it, what is going on here?
Comments
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Let's take Dragon Age: Origins vs. Dragon Age 2. What people are talking about losing its soul is that DA2 is a largely vastly different game. It was simplified and it was more action combat to the point that it lost what DA:O was.
You can say better or worst but it certainly lost what DA:O was in the pursuit of refinement and simplicity. That's what I mean by soul. It dropped racial/class orgins for human only racial streamlined choice and story. It lost strategic but slow and clunky combat while gaining action combat. Classes lost experimentation and failure to a more streamed lined choice. Sounds a lot MMORPGs IMO.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
And between us who is gong against "popular belief"?
Dragon Age II received generally favorable reviews among professional critics, with a metascore of 82 for the PC version of the game. David Radd from Industrygamers noted that "Dragon Age II has had the most mixed critical reception for a full-retail BioWareproduct perhaps ever (assuming Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood is not counted)."[47]
Seems like the popular belief was it was a pretty good game...
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
The players still will have to play on one server, I am not suggesting that you should have a zillion different servers.
Also, you will get more players this way, there are people quitting games because they difficulty bore them (and it isn't just me and OP). Exactly how many players is anybodies guess but I would guess it is at least 10%. And I am rather certain that people will play longer on harder servers.
So, I don't think you have very much to loose.
Never played Mabinogi, but you might very well be right there.
My point was that DA2 a lot like MMORPG's had been refined and simplified. Combat mechanics improved but with less strategy. Too much hack and slash for the typical audience which is a legacy of infiinity engine/NWN/DA:O players. Not much different than the typical MMORPG leaving behind the original audience of players.
There is certainly something lost in the MMORPG genre with improvements in playability and conveniences. The experience is perfected in what you generally expect... almost standardized and very streamlined. That being good or bad is opinion.
I don't think most players can handle a more serious death penalty and forced grouping like EQ.
Vanguard was a heavily watered down version of EQ, and WoW players were demanding fast transportation from day 1, until developers caved.
And my point has been yes they have been refined because their audience is on longer just a bunch of elitist. Again MMORPGS have difficulty it's just not required. In almost every mmo I play there are areas you can go to be challenged there are items that are hidden.
My other point is multiple reviews would be a far more supporting source then some random poster stating "popular belief" is what he believes.
DAO has a USER score of 8.6 .. comes from 3189 ratings.
You are confused between whether "they can" or "they want to".
I played the original EQ, with harsh dp and forced grouping ... if someone is pointing a gun at my head, I *can* play it.
But i won't play such a game in a million years if not forced. That is just no fun .... to me, of course.
1. Yes, the gaming media has a reputation for being bribed and influenced. You can look it up if you like but its not something I invented. EA also has a reputation as score manipulator. Its besides the point because popularity or good or bad of DA2 or MMORPGs was not in question. Its more the simplifying of the genre.
2. You're going to tell me elitism in MMORPGs died a long time ago? I would say the genre is more elitist than it ever was lol. I don't think difficulty has much to do with refinement and simplification. It can but to me its clear that the genre is just the questing part of WoW with different skins and combat wrinkles. Its refined down to you just leveling/questing, grouping, raiding at optimal pace without consideration to the side effects.
3. Again, for me a handful of reviewers don't take precidence over hundreds/thousands of people on the net, gaming associates, friends and even a barely gaming ex-girlfriend. Especially with reviewers reputation of being bribed or influenced. But its just not a discussion that can be won because its opinion.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
but most people play them because many of them are challenging, no easy mode available... Nonhandholding what so ever...
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Doesn't seem particularly characterized by difficult challenges; it mostly seems characterized by casual container-searching.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
hell who pay 900$ for a pixel castle ? or 3000$ real money for a ''ship pixel ingame'' or pay for help test alpha game or beta game version not even out ?
mmorpg players are to blame for that, i would do the same if i was a dev, someone who do stuft like that clearly need hand holding and i would not create my game to hard !!
If you have ten major things in your life, work, love family, a few hobbies/pastimes and you lose one of them, well, it make suck badly for a while. However, if you have two major things in your life and you lose one of them, you have lost half of everything. And if gaming is your only major thing and you can't find something "good enough" to play, you have nothing.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
In most MMOs, if you think about it, is there any way you can actually lose at anything? Can you even lose anything of significant game value?
No. You just get to keep trying, over and over again until you win (usually on the second or third try if it's "really hard".)
I was discussing perma-death with a friend once. He said, "If I spent years building up a character, and they were suddenly killed, I'd be pretty pissed." I replied, "Good."
Now, I don't think you have to be brutal and sadistic with your players, but this hand-holding and coddling really has gotten out of control. So much pleasure of gaming comes from a sense of accomplishment and I personally can't see how you can feel accomplished with the superficial tasks of most MMOs. That's typically why I end up quitting them. I've literally invested nothing emotional in the game.
But, as others have said, that's not the mass market. Most players want a pat on the back and a cookie. "Good job, Timmy! You clicked that ogre the perfect number of times."
That being said, with the cost of MMO development dropping drastically and the sheer number of players out there, the not-so-mass market is surely enough to sustain an MMO with truly satisfied players.