The quest I mentioned wasn't even saving a lousy farm. It was saving some old lady's pan. Just a pan. (You know, the kind you cook with?)
RPGs and MMORPGs are games about rich worlds with rich stories. That means not every single quest is going to be part of the main story. That means many quests are filler. If you want a game where you're only playing the main story, you're in the wrong genre.
Yes, but while not everything in the Lord of the rings trilogy is about throwing the one ring in mount Doom they never went out and saved kitchen supplies or hunter rats. Some quests should surely be more important than others but saving a frying pan could hardly be called a "quest" by anyone.
Instead of spawning 10 000 hopeless quests I rather have 500 larger well written quests that isn't just about delivering a letter to a guy 5 yards away.
Think "would Conan do this"? when you see a quest. If he wouldn't bother then just skip it and let us do something at least somewhat worthwhile. And some MMOs actually do that like TSW so there certainly are games in the genre doing this already.
The real problem with MMO's is that companies are more worried about cranking out a product instead of being passionate about their product and their players. When these games are released, the cash shop is the first thing that is being pushed...not content. My email inbox is constantly full of cash shop discounts and sales.
When I beta tested SWTOR and I saw that EA/Bioware had zero interest in the player's ideas and concerns for the game, I knew we were looking at a major shift toward gaming capitalism.
a) Every large AAA MMO in the past decade uses a very similar formula to WoW with their own twist through art style or tweaks to the side activities.
b) The customer isn't always right, if you're a soccer coach, you don't let the players tell you when they've had enough drilling and conditioning, you push them so that the achieve victory and feel good about it. If you handed someone a trophy instead of them winning a championship, how would you value that trophy?
a) what? World of Tanks, Marvel Heroes, warframe .... are all very different from WOW.
b) Lol .. we are not playing sports here (at least most of us). We are talking about entertainment here. Of course the customer is right.
c) and they don't have to use those tool. If they choose to, obviously they are anti-social. Choices are great.
a) those are not AAA titles. You might be able to pass off Marvel Heros as an MMORPG but WoT and Warframe are essentially lobby games. b) analogies are over your head, I'll note that for our next conversation c) missing the point for 1000, Johnny.
It's like you didn't read or comprehend anything that was said.
The thing is honestly that devs are catering more and more to the wrong crowd.
Who are you to determine what is a "wrong" crowd? It is a free market. Devs can cater to any crowd they want to.
They can. And I'm someone that has been in MMORPG's since their inception. When I say they are targeting the wrong crowd with their products I am speaking of trying to garner the attention of the World Of Warcraft player base. The player base that for the majority of them are not fans of MMORPGs in general and only really prefer world of warcraft. You may get some of them to try something new, but most of them scurry back to WoW soon after.
From a development standpoint they are far too concerned with pulling in that particular crowd on the mainstream which creates a sort of silly scenario. Trying to court a WoW player without a game being based off of Warcraft's lore is pretty much a no go and won't ultimately happen. The reason they target it is because they see the large player base of WoW and they want that for themselves. The problem arises though from not having a realistic outlook on MMORPG growth/retention and the like over the years and basing your opinion of what the market wants based off a singular game just because it is outwardly popular.
WoW gained initial popularity because it was a game based off Warcraft which already had a large following from Warcraft 3 and The Frozen Throne expansion pack. Blizzard had this warchest budget wise to advertise heavily, push it out to people and had the good fortune to hit at a time when gaming was basically becoming a more "normal" part of our society and not just something geeks did. This lead to WoW being many people's first experience in the MMORPG genre.
Also, while Wow is an MMORPG it is also an MMORPG that is based around constantly target the lowest common denominator as far as demographics go. They continually simplify the game and it is almost to the point where you need to do almost nothing for yourself. I wouldn't be surprised to see them automatically make your crafting/gathering choices level up as you do at some future date.
I'm a person that actually gives a hoot about this genre and don't want to see the entirety of it based around a single games mechanics and the like simply because that is "easy" and the devs hope they can somehow make some quick cash with lazy game design ques.
If you are targeting a demographic that is otherwise disinterested in your product you are by definition targeting the wrong sort of crowd/demographic.
linadragon said: Also, while Wow is an MMORPG it is also an MMORPG that is based around constantly target the lowest common denominator as far as demographics go.
What is "lowest" supposed to mean? I think there's a "damned kids" hovering nearby.
linadragon said: I'm a person that actually gives a hoot about this genre and don't want to see the entirety of it based around a single games mechanics and the like simply because that is "easy" and the devs hope they can somehow make some quick cash with lazy game design ques.
"I'm entitled to judge" "we don't want their kind" "'lazy"
Not only are you assigning a huge load of motivation to the developers that was never there, you're clearly prejudicial regarding the consumers (who can't be at fault for design decisions.)
So, which is it, which one do you hate the most; the developers or the consumers?
They hate questing because it's not like quests are a staple of RPGs or anything. They despise raiding, gear progression, grinding and all things associated with theme parks. Oh and don't even think about making a "MMO" that you can't play solo from beginning to end, because that is just silly talk! In addition, It better also be polished, balanced, free to play with no bugs and constant content releases.
My point is I think the real problem is that a lot of people that play MMOs don't really like MMOs anymore or have never really liked them.
When developers created games like EQ, UO, Shadowbane, Vanilla WoW, etc they weren't trying to please everyone they were just trying to please a small percentage of people that were into fantasy and video games. They basically started with a fantasy based environment, added some cool elements like crafting, building, etc, sold it in a box and charged a monthly fee to play it to support continued development and server costs, and we were all fine with it. There were only a few to chose from so us gamers picked our poison, created our guilds, hopped in voice comms with our guildies, quested until we reached a level previously thought unreachable and neglected our families and friends for months and years.
I feel that most of the original MMO players have either become jaded or have moved on and we are left with a bunch of people that discovered MMOs at a time when developers were chasing the WoW white rabbit and either doing everything the same but not as good as WoW or everything completely different than it, neither methodology has really progressed the genre.
I say it's time for MMOs to get back to their roots! Forget trying to be everything to everyone and just please the people that really love the genre. Charge us to buy the game and to play, make things not so easily accessible, make grouping mandatory for at least 50% of the game, make it hard to really advance if you don't have tons of time to play! This is what we fell in love with all those years ago and I honestly believe that returning to our roots is the only thing that will make it feel right again!
Whats obvious to me is that you just don't get it and you obviously haven't been listening. The modern MMO has removed approximately half of what made us addicted to the MMO world in the first place. The problem with the MMO's is that they have stopped offering what they promised to offer in exchange for prettier graphics. People want more, not less. EQ2 has some of the best housing ever created, but now, if we get it at all, we get lazy housing with "hooks" because they don't want to spend the time to allow you to put things on the x,y,z axis, turn it and put in upside down, partially into the walls, roofs, and floors, with breakout points. It's not just housing that we want, it's GOOD housing. It should be expanded. Instead, what we are usually getting is none at all. And the same can be said for every other aspect of these games. We are getting worlds built on rails, with automatic grouping (GW2), and either massive pvp or limited raiding when we reach level cap.
This genre holds so much promise, but the devs have even started complaining about how hard it has become trying to wow people with amazing graphics. They are neglecting game play to give us amazing graphics. The graphics don't NEED to be top notch. They can be EQ2 level just fine (hopefully the faces done better), but give us better game play for gods sakes. Stop taking things away.
We all keep going back to the games we loved because they offer MORE than any of the games out there right now. There is something seriously wrong when 10 year old games offer more than games released last year.
We want the old games. But we want them done better. This isn't a hard concept.
Since the early days of MMOs and MUDs there are now millions upon millions of users with very different tastes, ability and time available. None of these players is more or less valuable in my estimation than another. So what you get now are MMOs that try to give everyone something to enjoy. That open world content one person may find easy may just be the right difficulty for others. Some people may enjoy group instances where others don't and some may not mind pugging whilst some hate it. Some folks like story some want total freedom to do as they wish and make their own story. Even the graphics are important to some people for a level of immersion and others even don't mind them looking like Zelda 1986.
The list goes on and on and on and......on. That obviously needs emphasis. For some reason and I'm still not sure why (are not games more about people time than rare expensive resources) making games is expensive. To make a triple AAA game that will last it obviously needs to generate as much revenue as possible.
I fell in LOVE with MMORPGs because it felt like another world, huge and full of wonders. Grinding and forced grouping were the price one paid to see that world.
Small worlds on rails is why I have stopped playing the genre.
I agree and feel the same way. Even back in the early days those single player games on rails,i was not interested in ,i enjoyed the games that had replayability and allowed me to forge my own game play.
Even if a game was very shallow in it's design,i likely played it for the FUN value,even if just some goofy shootem up fun like Serious Sam or better named not so Serious Sam.
The atmosphere of the DOOM/Quake series was unparalleled for a shooter.The nice graphics and face of the MMORPG Industry EQ2 was a site and a vision to behold for mmorpg's.FFXI that one mmorpg that was not about raiding or l33tism nor about Ilevels or the best gear,it was about grouping and forming friends and just playing the game for the game.
Now it is like ,what rank can i get,how much money can i make streaming or selling my wares,what Raid guild can i join,who has the best gear the best weapon,what game can offer me the easiest way to solo in a mmo,what game allows me to level the fastest,what game has the best cash shop it is all a nightmare to see,please wake me up when the nightmare is over.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The thing is honestly that devs are catering more and more to the wrong crowd.
Who are you to determine what is a "wrong" crowd? It is a free market. Devs can cater to any crowd they want to.
They can. And I'm someone that has been in MMORPG's since their inception. When I say they are targeting the wrong crowd with their products I am speaking of trying to garner the attention of the World Of Warcraft player base. The player base that for the majority of them are not fans of MMORPGs in general and only really prefer world of warcraft. You may get some of them to try something new, but most of them scurry back to WoW soon after.
That is clearly not true. Look at the successes of LoL, WoT and many other online games. Sure, i agree that most are not fans of MMORPGs in general.
But why would that be the "wrong crowd"? Is there a bible dictating that devs have to cater to MMORPG fans? In fact, many devs, even Blizz, are not making new mmorpgs anymore. No dev is obligated to make new mmorpgs, is there?
You're comparing a single player game mission with some sort of plot to MMORPG oh great savior free my farm of never ending wolves along with ever other player. Those quest just exist as filler to the grand progression ladder. We are talking about filler quest not substance quest that actually mean more than exp.
Vast progression always leads to vast filler. No vast progression = no vast quest tied to progression = no need for forced filler task. The group play is one added bonus. You also have freelance adventuring vs. linear questing. For developers you also don't have players burning through your content never to be used again.
Did you even read my post?
The quest I mentioned wasn't even saving a lousy farm. It was saving some old lady's pan. Just a pan. (You know, the kind you cook with?)
RPGs and MMORPGs are games about rich worlds with rich stories. That means not every single quest is going to be part of the main story. That means many quests are filler. If you want a game where you're only playing the main story, you're in the wrong genre.
Yes, and the way you are laying out the quest is not quite it. A strange happenings with the man was the quest. The woman's pot was more for humor. It's not like she asked you to get a pot out of a tree. She was describing strange things while asking you to get her pot out of a locked house the person inside wasn't reaponsive in days. It was the last thing I did in W3.
And my point still stands that less filler quest/task are better. It's makes the genre worst for making quest grinds than something to enjoy.
Since the early days of MMOs and MUDs there are now millions upon millions of users with very different tastes, ability and time available. None of these players is more or less valuable in my estimation than another. So what you get now are MMOs that try to give everyone something to enjoy. That open world content one person may find easy may just be the right difficulty for others. Some people may enjoy group instances where others don't and some may not mind pugging whilst some hate it. Some folks like story some want total freedom to do as they wish and make their own story. Even the graphics are important to some people for a level of immersion and others even don't mind them looking like Zelda 1986.
The list goes on and on and on and......on. That obviously needs emphasis. For some reason and I'm still not sure why (are not games more about people time than rare expensive resources) making games is expensive. To make a triple AAA game that will last it obviously needs to generate as much revenue as possible.
That's exactly what is wrong in modern MMOs. There's only a tiny fraction of a game a player is interested in, the rest of the game is worthless or even insulting to that player. It's like we're paying full price for a collection of mini-games so we can play the one we want.
Having games for different people and different tastes is good. Making them all play same games is not.
Yes, and the way you are laying out the quest is not quite it. A strange happenings with the man was the quest. The woman's pot was more for humor. It's not like she asked you to get a pot out of a tree. She was describing strange things while asking you to get her pot out of a locked house the person inside wasn't reaponsive in days. It was the last thing I did in W3.
And my point still stands that less filler quest/task are better. It's makes the genre worst for making quest grinds than something to enjoy.
Again, if you think Main-Quests-Only is how games should be made, then RPGs simply aren't your genre. This genre is about world-building and the best way to build a world is to have the player interact with it in a large variety of meaningful ways, which is what the filler quests accomplish. Not every RPG does world-building equally well, but all of the best RPGs do it well. (And these statements have all been true across MMORPGs and RPGs, since really they're the same genre...just with massive multiplayer in one.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
World building is much more interesting when you can just go out and build things IMO. Not following a path of quests that everyone else is doing. Quests really aren't needed in a virtual world. They are only needed in a game where you aren't interacting with other people and are following a linear path from start to finish.
Well the reality is that world building has nothing to do with quests.
It's the lore, the world, the set pieces, the dialogue, the characters and personalities, the events, etc that builds the world into an experience.
Quests are little more than a shell motivating and directing players towards this content, more often than not through a rather finite set of tasks. In many cases they really are superfluous to the task of building a deep user experience save for when the users lack the reasoning to go out and see what a game has to offer of their own accord.
This for example is the difference between a player that plays through a Bethesda game in a few hours versus someone that spends a few hundred hours. One simply follows point to point tasks as they are given them, they rely on quests to shape their experience by forcing the content upon them. Others that are self motivated will wander and explore and find tons of hidden and seeded lore that builds a much deeper world.
Where quests have their benefit is when it comes to the fact that a lot of people don't care about the world and world building. RPGs frequently end up relying on quests in that context to drive the narrative and remind the players of the things they could and should do to fulfill the narrative and find the content that has been built for the game. It's not done because it aids in world building, it's done because otherwise many players won't know what they're doing or where they're going.
For example, the fact that many particularly outstanding features of user experiences and classical RPG play is derived from unscripted events. Players finding personal and novel solutions to problems. Clever and odd ways of beating bosses. Utilizing the world and it's rules in unexpected or emergent manners that adds personality and flair for an exciting or unique experience to talk about, share, and remember. People don't talk about queuing up to defeat the same boss over and over, they talk about how they found out they could cast mind control on a target through far sight to make someone halfway across the continent jump in a lake and drown. When it comes to roleplay it comes down to building characters, stories, experiences, and worlds in which players can find a way to make themselves a part of it.
Quests are still handy in the context of predefined narratives and major story arcs, as they can provide the backbone for leading players though a wide range of content to the objectives, but they are not at all necessary for every mundane task an RPG might offer. In fact they may very well be counter-intuitive to the task when it comes to an mmorpg.
Singe player RPGs get away with quite a lot because the experience and world can move and change as you progress the game.
When playing a single player game you aren't butted against a swathe of people doing the same things as you. There may be millions of people having similar if not the same experience, but they aren't all sharing the same screen space while doing so. Canned quest experiences suffer in this context from stagnating the game world. There is ultimately the understanding that a year from now or even ten years from now that same npc is going to be asking people to save his farm from the same monsters he always has. It's a problem that remains consistent from the lowliest task up to the biggest bosses.
Some solutions have begun to develop in the form of things like phasing, but it invites it's own set of issues, most notably it's fragmentation and isolation of the userbase. When the game is supposed to have the ability to interact with others as a core feature, taking it away is nonsensical.
RPGs still need to evolve more if they want to comfortably play in the MMO space without butting up against hard barriers in the user experience. Things like emergent game play as well as a different approach to guiding and constructing user advancement in narratives is necessary if the goal is to provide an environment in which players can not only look at a world with some depth, but have stronger investment into it.
EDIT: If we are to relate it to books and such, it would be the case that there don't tend to be many "quests", but there are plenty of events. Different things, activities, and experiences that happen during the pursuit of a greater quest arc. A quest isn't necessary for each and every one of these experiences, and it should not be mistaken that these elements of the game and world exist because of quests. They can and would be there regardless of if there was a hand-holding mechanic.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Yes, and the way you are laying out the quest is not quite it. A strange happenings with the man was the quest. The woman's pot was more for humor. It's not like she asked you to get a pot out of a tree. She was describing strange things while asking you to get her pot out of a locked house the person inside wasn't reaponsive in days. It was the last thing I did in W3.
And my point still stands that less filler quest/task are better. It's makes the genre worst for making quest grinds than something to enjoy.
Again, if you think Main-Quests-Only is how games should be made, then RPGs simply aren't your genre. This genre is about world-building and the best way to build a world is to have the player interact with it in a large variety of meaningful ways, which is what the filler quests accomplish. Not every RPG does world-building equally well, but all of the best RPGs do it well. (And these statements have all been true across MMORPGs and RPGs, since really they're the same genre...just with massive multiplayer in one.)
Quest are different than stupid task. Killing 10 wolves and getting 5 paws in a field is not a real quest.
The first MMORPG had little to no quest. So no its not a staple or requirement for the genre. MMORPG are different from single player or at least should be because you can't simulate the world more with other players. If anything people who want to play single player MMORPG are probably playing the wrong genre.
Singe player RPGs get away with quite a lot because the experience and world can move and change as you progress the game.
Some solutions have begun to develop in the form of things like phasing, but it invites it's own set of issues, most notably it's fragmentation and isolation of the userbase. When the game is supposed to have the ability to interact with others as a core feature, taking it away is nonsensical.
Why is it nonsensical? Just do not make interact with others a core feature. Limit it.
It is easy to make the "MMO" part of the game detached from the quest part. Put all quests (and stories) in instances, allow for small group co-op play, and then put in a public zone if players like to see a lot of toons around.
The "problem" with mmorpgs is they are stuck to old classical design.
Why is it nonsensical? Just do not make interact with others a core feature. Limit it.
It is easy to make the "MMO" part of the game detached from the quest part. Put all quests (and stories) in instances, allow for small group co-op play, and then put in a public zone if players like to see a lot of toons around.
The "problem" with mmorpgs is they are stuck to old classical design.
Your "solution" is to make a massively multiplayer game not massively multiplayer. That is not a solution.
If you want a different kind of game, play that other kind of game. Don't change a genre to play like an entirely different genre of games.
It is not an insult to say the idea of deleting MMOs from existence is somehow a solution to anything is properly inane.
EDIT: Phrasing.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Quest are different than stupid task. Killing 10 wolves and getting 5 paws in a field is not a real quest.
The first MMORPG had little to no quest. So no its not a staple or requirement for the genre. MMORPG are different from single player or at least should be because you can't simulate the world more with other players. If anything people who want to play single player MMORPG are probably playing the wrong genre.
There were no quests to start with, just a world to explore.
These worlds were made by and for, for the most part, Roleplayers.
Roleplayers saw these worlds and started to explore.
Then people got into playing games on computers and suddenly people who didn't have a clue about roleplaying were saying things like "what the fuck do I do?".
So quests were introduced to lend a helping hand.
And these clueless people kept clicking through quest text and then asking "what the fuck do I do?".
So the quests got helpful arrows to point people in the right direction as given in the quest text.
Then these clueless people starting getting into fights and because they didn't read the quest text kept dying and so had the game difficulty reduced.
The roleplayers were making friends and interacting to win these fights and so the clueless people demanded tools to force other clueless people to help with the fights.
And now we have virtual worlds where you are alone because no one knows how to interact anymore or work out how to overcome a challenge or how to work things out without looking for the answer on the Internet.
Why is it nonsensical? Just do not make interact with others a core feature. Limit it.
It is easy to make the "MMO" part of the game detached from the quest part. Put all quests (and stories) in instances, allow for small group co-op play, and then put in a public zone if players like to see a lot of toons around.
The "problem" with mmorpgs is they are stuck to old classical design.
Your "solution" is to make a massively multiplayer game not massively multiplayer. That is not a solution.
If you want a different kind of game, play that other kind of game. Don't change a genre to play like an entirely different genre of games.
It is not an insult to say the idea of deleting MMOs from existence is somehow a solution to anything is properly inane.
EDIT: Phrasing.
My "solution" is to limit the parts of the massively multiplayer part (e.g. just have a city as a lobby) because that is not conducive to good quest gameplay.
The genre is changing anyway. If the core tenet of a genre is no longer "good" (deemed by the devs or the target audience they are shooting for), why not change it?
BTW, i can certainly play other types of games, and I do. But the point is .. if devs want to have good quests content, just learn from single player games, and change the genre. They don't have to do it, it is up to them.
"Deleting MMOs from existence" is clearly a solution if no one likes them anymore. Plenty of genre has suffered declines, MMOs will not be the first.
My "solution" is to limit the parts of the massively multiplayer part (e.g. just have a city as a lobby) because that is not conducive to good quest gameplay.
The genre is changing anyway. If the core tenet of a genre is no longer "good" (deemed by the devs or the target audience they are shooting for), why not change it?
BTW, i can certainly play other types of games, and I do. But the point is .. if devs want to have good quests content, just learn from single player games, and change the genre. They don't have to do it, it is up to them.
"Deleting MMOs from existence" is clearly a solution if no one likes them anymore. Plenty of genre has suffered declines, MMOs will not be the first.
Again, a solution in which you destroy the thing you're trying to fix is not a solution.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Yes it is. Finally mmorpgs are more like games than virtual worlds. You can't say that the genre has not changed.
The fact you didn't realise that was irony and actually think that MMORPGS becoming more like arcade games is good progrgess just shows your ignorance.
Yes it is. Finally mmorpgs are more like games than virtual worlds. You can't say that the genre has not changed.
The fact you didn't realise that was irony and actually think that MMORPGS becoming more like arcade games is good progrgess just shows your ignorance.
Actually you're the ignorant one to believe your opinion is any more valid than his.
Comments
Instead of spawning 10 000 hopeless quests I rather have 500 larger well written quests that isn't just about delivering a letter to a guy 5 yards away.
Think "would Conan do this"? when you see a quest. If he wouldn't bother then just skip it and let us do something at least somewhat worthwhile. And some MMOs actually do that like TSW so there certainly are games in the genre doing this already.
When I beta tested SWTOR and I saw that EA/Bioware had zero interest in the player's ideas and concerns for the game, I knew we were looking at a major shift toward gaming capitalism.
b) analogies are over your head, I'll note that for our next conversation
c) missing the point for 1000, Johnny.
It's like you didn't read or comprehend anything that was said.
From a development standpoint they are far too concerned with pulling in that particular crowd on the mainstream which creates a sort of silly scenario. Trying to court a WoW player without a game being based off of Warcraft's lore is pretty much a no go and won't ultimately happen. The reason they target it is because they see the large player base of WoW and they want that for themselves. The problem arises though from not having a realistic outlook on MMORPG growth/retention and the like over the years and basing your opinion of what the market wants based off a singular game just because it is outwardly popular.
WoW gained initial popularity because it was a game based off Warcraft which already had a large following from Warcraft 3 and The Frozen Throne expansion pack. Blizzard had this warchest budget wise to advertise heavily, push it out to people and had the good fortune to hit at a time when gaming was basically becoming a more "normal" part of our society and not just something geeks did. This lead to WoW being many people's first experience in the MMORPG genre.
Also, while Wow is an MMORPG it is also an MMORPG that is based around constantly target the lowest common denominator as far as demographics go. They continually simplify the game and it is almost to the point where you need to do almost nothing for yourself. I wouldn't be surprised to see them automatically make your crafting/gathering choices level up as you do at some future date.
I'm a person that actually gives a hoot about this genre and don't want to see the entirety of it based around a single games mechanics and the like simply because that is "easy" and the devs hope they can somehow make some quick cash with lazy game design ques.
If you are targeting a demographic that is otherwise disinterested in your product you are by definition targeting the wrong sort of crowd/demographic.
"I'm entitled to judge" "we don't want their kind" "'lazy"
Not only are you assigning a huge load of motivation to the developers that was never there, you're clearly prejudicial regarding the consumers (who can't be at fault for design decisions.)
So, which is it, which one do you hate the most; the developers or the consumers?
The list goes on and on and on and......on. That obviously needs emphasis. For some reason and I'm still not sure why (are not games more about people time than rare expensive resources) making games is expensive. To make a triple AAA game that will last it obviously needs to generate as much revenue as possible.
Therefor (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) these events must be causally related. <--this is a fallacy, but also a summary of the entire thread?
P.S. Why isn't it the Subway metaphor? There are more Subway franchises than McDonald's.
Even back in the early days those single player games on rails,i was not interested in ,i enjoyed the games that had replayability and allowed me to forge my own game play.
Even if a game was very shallow in it's design,i likely played it for the FUN value,even if just some goofy shootem up fun like Serious Sam or better named not so Serious Sam.
The atmosphere of the DOOM/Quake series was unparalleled for a shooter.The nice graphics and face of the MMORPG Industry EQ2 was a site and a vision to behold for mmorpg's.FFXI that one mmorpg that was not about raiding or l33tism nor about Ilevels or the best gear,it was about grouping and forming friends and just playing the game for the game.
Now it is like ,what rank can i get,how much money can i make streaming or selling my wares,what Raid guild can i join,who has the best gear the best weapon,what game can offer me the easiest way to solo in a mmo,what game allows me to level the fastest,what game has the best cash shop it is all a nightmare to see,please wake me up when the nightmare is over.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
But why would that be the "wrong crowd"? Is there a bible dictating that devs have to cater to MMORPG fans? In fact, many devs, even Blizz, are not making new mmorpgs anymore. No dev is obligated to make new mmorpgs, is there?
And my point still stands that less filler quest/task are better. It's makes the genre worst for making quest grinds than something to enjoy.
Having games for different people and different tastes is good. Making them all play same games is not.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It's the lore, the world, the set pieces, the dialogue, the characters and personalities, the events, etc that builds the world into an experience.
Quests are little more than a shell motivating and directing players towards this content, more often than not through a rather finite set of tasks. In many cases they really are superfluous to the task of building a deep user experience save for when the users lack the reasoning to go out and see what a game has to offer of their own accord.
This for example is the difference between a player that plays through a Bethesda game in a few hours versus someone that spends a few hundred hours. One simply follows point to point tasks as they are given them, they rely on quests to shape their experience by forcing the content upon them. Others that are self motivated will wander and explore and find tons of hidden and seeded lore that builds a much deeper world.
Where quests have their benefit is when it comes to the fact that a lot of people don't care about the world and world building. RPGs frequently end up relying on quests in that context to drive the narrative and remind the players of the things they could and should do to fulfill the narrative and find the content that has been built for the game. It's not done because it aids in world building, it's done because otherwise many players won't know what they're doing or where they're going.
For example, the fact that many particularly outstanding features of user experiences and classical RPG play is derived from unscripted events. Players finding personal and novel solutions to problems. Clever and odd ways of beating bosses. Utilizing the world and it's rules in unexpected or emergent manners that adds personality and flair for an exciting or unique experience to talk about, share, and remember. People don't talk about queuing up to defeat the same boss over and over, they talk about how they found out they could cast mind control on a target through far sight to make someone halfway across the continent jump in a lake and drown. When it comes to roleplay it comes down to building characters, stories, experiences, and worlds in which players can find a way to make themselves a part of it.
Quests are still handy in the context of predefined narratives and major story arcs, as they can provide the backbone for leading players though a wide range of content to the objectives, but they are not at all necessary for every mundane task an RPG might offer. In fact they may very well be counter-intuitive to the task when it comes to an mmorpg.
Singe player RPGs get away with quite a lot because the experience and world can move and change as you progress the game.
When playing a single player game you aren't butted against a swathe of people doing the same things as you. There may be millions of people having similar if not the same experience, but they aren't all sharing the same screen space while doing so. Canned quest experiences suffer in this context from stagnating the game world. There is ultimately the understanding that a year from now or even ten years from now that same npc is going to be asking people to save his farm from the same monsters he always has. It's a problem that remains consistent from the lowliest task up to the biggest bosses.
Some solutions have begun to develop in the form of things like phasing, but it invites it's own set of issues, most notably it's fragmentation and isolation of the userbase. When the game is supposed to have the ability to interact with others as a core feature, taking it away is nonsensical.
RPGs still need to evolve more if they want to comfortably play in the MMO space without butting up against hard barriers in the user experience. Things like emergent game play as well as a different approach to guiding and constructing user advancement in narratives is necessary if the goal is to provide an environment in which players can not only look at a world with some depth, but have stronger investment into it.
EDIT: If we are to relate it to books and such, it would be the case that there don't tend to be many "quests", but there are plenty of events. Different things, activities, and experiences that happen during the pursuit of a greater quest arc. A quest isn't necessary for each and every one of these experiences, and it should not be mistaken that these elements of the game and world exist because of quests. They can and would be there regardless of if there was a hand-holding mechanic.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The first MMORPG had little to no quest. So no its not a staple or requirement for the genre. MMORPG are different from single player or at least should be because you can't simulate the world more with other players. If anything people who want to play single player MMORPG are probably playing the wrong genre.
It is easy to make the "MMO" part of the game detached from the quest part. Put all quests (and stories) in instances, allow for small group co-op play, and then put in a public zone if players like to see a lot of toons around.
The "problem" with mmorpgs is they are stuck to old classical design.
If you want a different kind of game, play that other kind of game. Don't change a genre to play like an entirely different genre of games.
It is not an insult to say the idea of deleting MMOs from existence is somehow a solution to anything is properly inane.
EDIT: Phrasing.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
These worlds were made by and for, for the most part, Roleplayers.
Roleplayers saw these worlds and started to explore.
Then people got into playing games on computers and suddenly people who didn't have a clue about roleplaying were saying things like "what the fuck do I do?".
So quests were introduced to lend a helping hand.
And these clueless people kept clicking through quest text and then asking "what the fuck do I do?".
So the quests got helpful arrows to point people in the right direction as given in the quest text.
Then these clueless people starting getting into fights and because they didn't read the quest text kept dying and so had the game difficulty reduced.
The roleplayers were making friends and interacting to win these fights and so the clueless people demanded tools to force other clueless people to help with the fights.
And now we have virtual worlds where you are alone because no one knows how to interact anymore or work out how to overcome a challenge or how to work things out without looking for the answer on the Internet.
Isn't progress wonderful.
True story.
Those who do still have that enjoy the sh!t out of today's MMOs, doing PvP or Raiding or crafting or roleplay etc.
So what are they doing differently that you aren't?
I think that's pretty obvious.
The genre is changing anyway. If the core tenet of a genre is no longer "good" (deemed by the devs or the target audience they are shooting for), why not change it?
BTW, i can certainly play other types of games, and I do. But the point is .. if devs want to have good quests content, just learn from single player games, and change the genre. They don't have to do it, it is up to them.
"Deleting MMOs from existence" is clearly a solution if no one likes them anymore. Plenty of genre has suffered declines, MMOs will not be the first.
Yes it is. Finally mmorpgs are more like games than virtual worlds. You can't say that the genre has not changed.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin