"Should be" and "should not be" is a pointless discussion. People like what they like and do the activities which they enjoy the most.
If you can. I've quit games very quickly if the outlook is single player generic questing. There's no point in repeating what I have done for 12 years. The generic quest simply are not fun. Certainly if they're solo.
MMOs have lost a lot of that RPG flair, where you could build a unique character.
Hell, even RPG's have lost that ability to make unique characters.
Hmm the last single player RPG where I could build a character that truly played and approached the world the way I wanted them to. Skyrim maybe?
I don't know, I think WoW did so many damn things right when it first came out, that over the years really went away and that is very sad.
Things like:
1. Unique buffs - sure there were balance problems where people would only bring a class for their unique buff, and only 1 of that class because they only needed one of the buff, but instead of fixing the class, they just gave the buff to more classes, and then fixed the class. Would have been better to keep buffs unique to classes, keep the utility and unique flair, but fixed and balanced the output for the role.
2. Unique utility - things like mage portals and food, warlock health stones and summons, rogue lock picking, druid sleep & combat rez, warrior anti-fear mechanics.. cool stuff that made each party unique and each class have a role that could be played. Like I remember in Vanilla WoW you actually had to look at the composition of your party, plan for what CC you had and other unique abilities to tackle the encounters.
3. Class/race combos & customization- such a little thing, but adds (in my opinion) so much character and that unique RPG flair when you have limited race & class combination choices. Like, in WoW it makes no sense why Gnomes can be Warriors. So stupid. All those kind of combinations does is allow people to make LOL characters that break immersion and cheapen the experience. Player choice is great and all, but restrictions are needed to keep the integrity of the game intact. This is something games like BDO do TERRIBLY in that their character creators give way TOO much choice, allow people (morons) to create such hideous characters, it totally ruins immersion and adds a level of ridiculousness that really, really cheapens the game.
3. Class/race combos & customization- such a little thing, but adds (in my opinion) so much character and that unique RPG flair when you have limited race & class combination choices. Like, in WoW it makes no sense why Gnomes can be Warriors. So stupid. All those kind of combinations does is allow people to make LOL characters that break immersion and cheapen the experience. Player choice is great and all, but restrictions are needed to keep the integrity of the game intact. This is something games like BDO do TERRIBLY in that their character creators give way TOO much choice, allow people (morons) to create such hideous characters, it totally ruins immersion and adds a level of ridiculousness that really, really cheapens the game.
Forced restrictions in game to me are not necessary. Also, having certain forced limitations based on race is unimaginative and unrealistic.
If you need to put these forced limitations in place, it's because the game was not developed well enough to simply organically create these limitations.
Let's say I create a race that is small and they tend to be weak. They generally do not make great warriors. Why would you need to force players not to make warriors out of them? How is it breaking immersion? Do you really think no one in that entire race wouldn't try to be a warrior?
Also, this statement contradicts the above.
Hell, even RPG's have lost that ability to make unique characters.
Forcing limitations does that.
Every race should obviously have their own limitations based on their physiology. However, these should never be forced. A certain race may never be as strong as another, but that doesn't mean they should be incapable of becoming warriors if they so choose. They may have a harder time, but it is the path they chose to take.
In my game, I am making certain to not place any forced limitations like that. If someone is weak, I want them to still have the capability to wear heavy armor as an example. Even if it negatively effects them, I think being able to do it anyway, is what makes a game more interesting.
3. Class/race combos & customization- such a little thing, but adds (in my opinion) so much character and that unique RPG flair when you have limited race & class combination choices. Like, in WoW it makes no sense why Gnomes can be Warriors. So stupid. All those kind of combinations does is allow people to make LOL characters that break immersion and cheapen the experience. Player choice is great and all, but restrictions are needed to keep the integrity of the game intact. This is something games like BDO do TERRIBLY in that their character creators give way TOO much choice, allow people (morons) to create such hideous characters, it totally ruins immersion and adds a level of ridiculousness that really, really cheapens the game.
Forced restrictions in game to me are not necessary. Also, having certain forced limitations based on race is unimaginative and unrealistic.
If you need to put these forced limitations in place, it's because the game was not developed well enough to simply organically create these limitations.
Let's say I create a race that is small and they tend to be weak. They generally do not make great warriors. Why would you need to force players not to make warriors out of them? How is it breaking immersion? Do you really think no one in that entire race wouldn't try to be a warrior?
Also, this statement contradicts the above.
Hell, even RPG's have lost that ability to make unique characters.
Forcing limitations does that.
Every race should obviously have their own limitations based on their physiology. However, these should never be forced. A certain race may never be as strong as another, but that doesn't mean they should be incapable of becoming warriors if they so choose. They may have a harder time, but it is the path they chose to take.
In my game, I am making certain to not place any forced limitations like that. If someone is weak, I want them to still have the capability to wear heavy armor as an example. Even if it negatively effects them, I think being able to do it anyway, is what makes a game more interesting.
I think a lot of this is to do with lore and immersion. A smaller race would work towards it's strengths and the culture may not have warriors or spell casters, etc. So not only do you have it making little sense from a standpoint of someone small trying to beat up someone much larger, but you also have a culture that doesn't get involved with training a certain type of class. A lot of these cultural differences are what makes them unique from other cultures and gives them personality. EQ did let you choose to become a gnome warrior, Dark Elf Warrior, Halfling warrior, or Wood Elf warrior, but doing so put you at a large disadvantage to larger races whose culture was fighting in this manner. I personally like the idea of having mysterious and unique cultures that are fairly segregated from each other. I really dislike the modern concept of having races/cultures as only superficial differences. For me it makes the cultures so much less mysterious and immersing. For instance I like that Wood Elves in EQ are mostly Rangers and Druids. It fits them really well. It would be difficult for them to go against their culture and join the evil Dark Elves. Its the same with Dark Elves. I like that they are primarily necromancers and shadow knights because of their culture. They could earn the trust of good aligned cultures, but it's not an easy task.
I think a lot of this is to do with lore and immersion. A smaller race would work towards it's strengths and the culture may not have warriors or spell casters, etc. So not only do you have it making little sense from a standpoint of someone small trying to beat up someone much larger, but you also have a culture that doesn't get involved with training a certain type of class. A lot of these cultural differences are what makes them unique from other cultures and gives them personality. EQ did let you choose to become a gnome warrior, Dark Elf Warrior, Halfling warrior, or Wood Elf warrior, but doing so put you at a large disadvantage to larger races whose culture was fighting in this manner. I personally like the idea of having mysterious and unique cultures that are fairly segregated from each other. I really dislike the modern concept of having races/cultures as only superficial differences. For me it makes the cultures so much less mysterious and immersing. For instance I like that Wood Elves in EQ are mostly Rangers and Druids. It fits them really well. It would be difficult for them to go against their culture and join the evil Dark Elves. Its the same with Dark Elves. I like that they are primarily necromancers and shadow knights because of their culture. They could earn the trust of good aligned cultures, but it's not an easy task.
Even when it comes to lore and immersion you can easily make it work if done correctly. Even if a race typically doesn't train warriors doesn't mean it's impossible or that no one in that race would ever try. I am not saying to make it an easy task, all I am saying is the possibility should always be allowed. Of course it makes little sense if you want to be the strongest warrior ever, but that is besides the point lol.
Generally speaking, people will follow the flow since it's better that way, but some people like to play very unique characters that are outside of the norm. I think that should be allowed because you would expect that sort of variation in any believable world.
I think a lot of this is to do with lore and immersion. A smaller race would work towards it's strengths and the culture may not have warriors or spell casters, etc. So not only do you have it making little sense from a standpoint of someone small trying to beat up someone much larger, but you also have a culture that doesn't get involved with training a certain type of class. A lot of these cultural differences are what makes them unique from other cultures and gives them personality. EQ did let you choose to become a gnome warrior, Dark Elf Warrior, Halfling warrior, or Wood Elf warrior, but doing so put you at a large disadvantage to larger races whose culture was fighting in this manner. I personally like the idea of having mysterious and unique cultures that are fairly segregated from each other. I really dislike the modern concept of having races/cultures as only superficial differences. For me it makes the cultures so much less mysterious and immersing. For instance I like that Wood Elves in EQ are mostly Rangers and Druids. It fits them really well. It would be difficult for them to go against their culture and join the evil Dark Elves. Its the same with Dark Elves. I like that they are primarily necromancers and shadow knights because of their culture. They could earn the trust of good aligned cultures, but it's not an easy task.
Even when it comes to lore and immersion you can easily make it work if done correctly. Even if a race typically doesn't train warriors doesn't mean it's impossible or that no one in that race would ever try. I am not saying to make it an easy task, all I am saying is the possibility should always be allowed. Of course it makes little sense if you want to be the strongest warrior ever, but that is besides the point lol.
Generally speaking, people will follow the flow since it's better that way, but some people like to play very unique characters that are outside of the norm. I think that should be allowed because you would expect that sort of variation in any believable world.
I'm not against that concept, but I feel that it would need to have the proper repercussions for doing so. This would probably cause a lot of moaning that x race isn't good enough as a warrior (balance wise) and it's to much work to play as it.
If you have to put in a lot of time and effort to get a gnome warrior and it had penalties for choosing that combo then I would be OK with that. I'd still have the fear that too many people would choose that race/class combo and completely destroy the cultures in the game. That is always the issue with MMOs.
Racial limitations seemed to work decently in EQ as most people wanted the most powerful combo or in the case of switching factions didn't want to put in the time to grind from one faction to another.
I think a lot of this is to do with lore and immersion. A smaller race would work towards it's strengths and the culture may not have warriors or spell casters, etc. So not only do you have it making little sense from a standpoint of someone small trying to beat up someone much larger, but you also have a culture that doesn't get involved with training a certain type of class. A lot of these cultural differences are what makes them unique from other cultures and gives them personality. EQ did let you choose to become a gnome warrior, Dark Elf Warrior, Halfling warrior, or Wood Elf warrior, but doing so put you at a large disadvantage to larger races whose culture was fighting in this manner. I personally like the idea of having mysterious and unique cultures that are fairly segregated from each other. I really dislike the modern concept of having races/cultures as only superficial differences. For me it makes the cultures so much less mysterious and immersing. For instance I like that Wood Elves in EQ are mostly Rangers and Druids. It fits them really well. It would be difficult for them to go against their culture and join the evil Dark Elves. Its the same with Dark Elves. I like that they are primarily necromancers and shadow knights because of their culture. They could earn the trust of good aligned cultures, but it's not an easy task.
Even when it comes to lore and immersion you can easily make it work if done correctly. Even if a race typically doesn't train warriors doesn't mean it's impossible or that no one in that race would ever try. I am not saying to make it an easy task, all I am saying is the possibility should always be allowed. Of course it makes little sense if you want to be the strongest warrior ever, but that is besides the point lol.
Generally speaking, people will follow the flow since it's better that way, but some people like to play very unique characters that are outside of the norm. I think that should be allowed because you would expect that sort of variation in any believable world.
I'm not against that concept, but I feel that it would need to have the proper repercussions for doing so. This would probably cause a lot of moaning that x race isn't good enough as a warrior (balance wise) and it's to much work to play as it.
If you have to put in a lot of time and effort to get a gnome warrior and it had penalties for choosing that combo then I would be OK with that. I'd still have the fear that too many people would choose that race/class combo and completely destroy the cultures in the game. That is always the issue with MMOs.
Racial limitations seemed to work decently in EQ as most people wanted the most powerful combo or in the case of switching factions didn't want to put in the time to grind from one faction to another.
Well, everyone's experience is different, I suppose. If that was your experience in EQ, then I'm sorry you missed a lot of great things about the game.
Nah .. there wasn't that many great things in EQ anyway. I wouldn't called taking a number lining up camping to kill a boss, great. Loot drama, and queue drama .. certainly. If i want human interaction, a tabletop RPG is better.
If i want combat and progression, something like Diablo is much better. EQ is neither here or there. I couldn't figure out why i even bothered in the first place.
Well, if you've never had a DM over turn the table and storm out of the venue, then you haven't played a Dragon Con weekend.
lol .. nope. My DM is my son. He has no option to storm out of the house :P
"Should be" and "should not be" is a pointless discussion. People like what they like and do the activities which they enjoy the most.
If you can. I've quit games very quickly if the outlook is single player generic questing. There's no point in repeating what I have done for 12 years. The generic quest simply are not fun. Certainly if they're solo.
That's why the genre is in trouble as is.
That is just you. Devs can cater to any audience they want.
The genre is in trouble because the original premise (virtual persistent world) is just not that fun. It cannot reproduce the flexible creative fun in tabletop RPGs, and it is not as good in gameplay as combat centric online games.
Well, everyone's experience is different, I suppose. If that was your experience in EQ, then I'm sorry you missed a lot of great things about the game.
Nah .. there wasn't that many great things in EQ anyway. I wouldn't called taking a number lining up camping to kill a boss, great. Loot drama, and queue drama .. certainly. If i want human interaction, a tabletop RPG is better.
If i want combat and progression, something like Diablo is much better. EQ is neither here or there. I couldn't figure out why i even bothered in the first place.
Well, if you've never had a DM over turn the table and storm out of the venue, then you haven't played a Dragon Con weekend.
lol .. nope. My DM is my son. He has no option to storm out of the house :P
At Dragon Con.....the clue was right there if you had read the post.
Well, everyone's experience is different, I suppose. If that was your experience in EQ, then I'm sorry you missed a lot of great things about the game.
Nah .. there wasn't that many great things in EQ anyway. I wouldn't called taking a number lining up camping to kill a boss, great. Loot drama, and queue drama .. certainly. If i want human interaction, a tabletop RPG is better.
If i want combat and progression, something like Diablo is much better. EQ is neither here or there. I couldn't figure out why i even bothered in the first place.
Well, if you've never had a DM over turn the table and storm out of the venue, then you haven't played a Dragon Con weekend.
lol .. nope. My DM is my son. He has no option to storm out of the house :P
At Dragon Con.....the clue was right there if you had read the post.
I saw that .. so what? It is not like all tabletop RPG experiences is like dragon con. In fact, I don't play with strangers.
@ OP: Do you believe that the modern / new player generation is really interested in the "RPG" aspect of MMO's ?
I think not.
heck .. I am of the old generation, and I am not interested in the RPG aspects of MMOs. MMOs can be good hack-n-slash games, or pvp games. But if i want real RPG, i go with tabletop RPG with friends & family.
"Should be" and "should not be" is a pointless discussion. People like what they like and do the activities which they enjoy the most.
If you can. I've quit games very quickly if the outlook is single player generic questing. There's no point in repeating what I have done for 12 years. The generic quest simply are not fun. Certainly if they're solo.
That's why the genre is in trouble as is.
That is just you. Devs can cater to any audience they want.
The genre is in trouble because the original premise (virtual persistent world) is just not that fun. It cannot reproduce the flexible creative fun in tabletop RPGs, and it is not as good in gameplay as combat centric online games.
That is why modern MMOs have less MMO elements.
Right... what MMORPG are in development catering to this?
@ OP: Do you believe that the modern / new player generation is really interested in the "RPG" aspect of MMO's ?
I think not.
It hasn't changed.
It was always a small number playing RPG's. We were the 'geeks', the 'nerds', the guys who didn't conform with the establishment.
When computers first started it was the same guys using computers, playing computer games.
Marketing and advertising sold it to the general public (the WOW era) and there was a big influx of people who didn't really 'get' it but knew that it was 'cool'. It must be cool because the guy on the telly said so right?
What is happening now is the fad is wearing thin.
All the 'cool' kids are spending money on crap games or complaining that games are not F2P while all the geeks and nerds are still playing the same games, still enjoying RP in these games and still looking forward to the next batch of them.
The niche is just returning to it's normal levels and shaking free of all the crap that has accumulated over the last decade or so...F2P, cash shops, lack of community, lack of inter-dependency, lack of depth...
The mindless sheep will keep playing their F2P, cash shop heavy, shallow, temporary and ultimately pointless games while anyone who was a 'geek' or 'nerd' will be able to get back to playing the games we enjoy again.
"Should be" and "should not be" is a pointless discussion. People like what they like and do the activities which they enjoy the most.
If you can. I've quit games very quickly if the outlook is single player generic questing. There's no point in repeating what I have done for 12 years. The generic quest simply are not fun. Certainly if they're solo.
That's why the genre is in trouble as is.
That is just you. Devs can cater to any audience they want.
The genre is in trouble because the original premise (virtual persistent world) is just not that fun. It cannot reproduce the flexible creative fun in tabletop RPGs, and it is not as good in gameplay as combat centric online games.
That is why modern MMOs have less MMO elements.
Right... what MMORPG are in development catering to this?
MMORPGs are not being developed ... and new MMO hybrids like The Division is made to catered to this.
That is just you. Devs can cater to any audience they want.
The genre is in trouble because the original premise (virtual persistent world) is just not that fun. It cannot reproduce the flexible creative fun in tabletop RPGs, and it is not as good in gameplay as combat centric online games.
That is why modern MMOs have less MMO elements.
They could at least try reproducing it. And no-one said that the games shouln't be combat centered, but they can be more then just combat.
The thing is that the only motivation you have nowadays is XP and more gear, and the XP usually gets useless once you hit max level. So people tire, they don't really have much motivation and the combat is rarely fun enough to keep players occupied for months and years.
They do have tried with achivements, but they are just a washed down systen of EQ 1 & 2s AA system.
The idea with games like UO and M59 was basically to take the P&P experience and put it in a persistant world with many groups of players and that idea is still solid but now the games only have the gear hamsterwheel to keep players interested and it isn't really enough.
That said, those old games surely got a lot of things wrong but they tried and they were fun at the time. They were also a different experience from eachothers, now most games just feel like more of the same.
The reason most modern MMOs have so few MMORPG elements is that it is way easier to make another gear grinding game then trying something new.
I think EQ was the last MMO where I actually played a role.....LoTRO and WoW both had Role playing elements but the player base wasnt very good at playing those roles.....THey treated everything like a zerg and there was no role to play or strategy involved in either game really, at least not any of the content I ever saw.
@ OP: Do you believe that the modern / new player generation is really interested in the "RPG" aspect of MMO's ?
I think not.
Well, no. But I think I said this in my video. Let the MMO-brawlers do their thing, but every MMORPG doesn't have to be the next "WOW-killer". There are niche MMOs being created that are appealing to specific gameplay priorities.
I'm suggesting that developers have stripped out SO many RPG elements for the sake of balance and simplicity (and sometimes laziness), but they have only begun to experiment with mechanics to replace them.
Why must all characters run the same speed? Why can't weather effects impact visibility? Why doesn't weapon reach matter? Why can't smaller characters have a bonus to some stealth skills? Why can't larger characters have a bonus when smashing destructible objects?
These questions and many more like them are rhetorical, but they're questions that developers haven't even begun to ask themselves.
Animations: animation sets are somewhat of a bottleneck, as you only have so many artist-hours to create them. Personally I feel like it's just better not to have so many weapon choices that you have to gender/race-lock anything, since it's 2016 now and we're past the point where we should be implying these things fundamentally limit people and it doesn't create great gameplay in the first place (since these choices are decisions made at character creation, when the player hast the least information about a game and therefore is not well-equipped to make these important choices.)
Balance: having the same primary capability (DPS, HPS, etc) doesn't mean every class is the same. If a class plays different (different rotation) and looks different, it is different. It sort of discredits your own point to later recommend going back to 'one-shot rogue backstabs' along with 'face-melting caster spells', since that's a literal example of exactly what you're complaining about (in both cases they put out crazy DPS -- ie similar primary capability -- but they do it in their own distinct way.)
I agree with your main point that progression (you call it character development) is one of the main draws of the genre and should be enjoyable and interesting to keep players playing. It's helpful for RPGs to do it really well, but the bigger factor is still the moment to moment gameplay and whether it offers a consistent flow of interesting decisions (which is where MMORPGs more commonly fail.) But certainly progression is more important than whether MMORPGs are "MMO" enough, as being MMOs only ever provided a small benefit.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I watched the video. It was okay, but not really what I would like to see.
I want to build a character from the behavior he exhibits, building the character's story dynamically within the game. I want to walk a character into a tavern in game and be recognized. I want the NPC tavern keeper to remember that Mendel is a phenomenal tipper (he may not know the exact value that he tips -- golds when everyone else tips coppers), but is always cold, and will ask for the seat near the hearth. The tavern staff should be aware he isn't shy about tossing a bit of fuel on the fire, if he feels too cold or is distracted by tasty food or interesting conversation. Mendel's propensity to burning any unoccupied furniture, even the good chairs, should keep the staff motivated to keep the fires stoked, with ample supplies of firewood on hand to prevent another 'Queen Sofie's Parlor Chair' level incident.
I want my actions to build my character, not just some numbers on items of clothing I happen to be wearing. (And can I see a game where my outfit matters outside of combat -- social, political, and religious interactions.)
That's the level of RPG that I would love to see. I don't expect the technology to support this will be available in my lifetime, though.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Balance: having the same primary capability (DPS, HPS, etc) doesn't mean every class is the same. If a class plays different (different rotation) and looks different, it is different. It sort of discredits your own point to later recommend going back to 'one-shot rogue backstabs' along with 'face-melting caster spells', since that's a literal example of exactly what you're complaining about (in both cases they put out crazy DPS -- ie similar primary capability -- but they do it in their own distinct way.)
I think my point stands here. It's not a matter of all characters having the same abilities. It's the equalization of abilities that makes characters feel very same-ish.
Yes, rogues and mages have DPS skills, and if you hit the right sequence of buttons in the right order; both will do the same DPS. I'm saying that's terrible.
I was a Midgard Healer in DAoC, and consciously specialized in Stun and CC in general. This left me helpless as a babe if I got caught in a one-vs-one situation. But they nerfed the stun anyway because someone got killed while they were stunned. So, one of the defining specializations of my race and class was 'equalized' for the sake of balance.
That's what I'm talking about when I mention the Rogue's backstab or the Wizard's "Power Word: Kill" or the Shadowknights Harm Touch or the Paladin's Lay on Hands... and the list goes on.
That is just you. Devs can cater to any audience they want.
The genre is in trouble because the original premise (virtual persistent world) is just not that fun. It cannot reproduce the flexible creative fun in tabletop RPGs, and it is not as good in gameplay as combat centric online games.
That is why modern MMOs have less MMO elements.
They could at least try reproducing it. And no-one said that the games shouln't be combat centered, but they can be more then just combat.
The reason most modern MMOs have so few MMORPG elements is that it is way easier to make another gear grinding game then trying something new.
why should they try? They don't even have to make mmorpgs. In fact, western AAA dev no longer make mmorpgs.
And what do you mean? They try plenty new. MOBAs, FPS MOBAs, MMO hybrids, card games ... they just don't go back to old MMORPG ideas. They have no reason to. Single player games have better story telling. MOBAs have better pvp. ARPGs have better hack-n-slash action.
nariusseldon said: why should they try? They don't even have to make mmorpgs. In fact, western AAA dev no longer make mmorpgs.
Part of what makes me smirk when players demand AAA producers.
"You mean the biggest companies, with the very least feasible connection to individual players? The ones with rotten service and ridiculous response times to any customer issue??"
"Yeah man, massively, whoooooo! Totally the bestest!"
Comments
That's why the genre is in trouble as is.
Hell, even RPG's have lost that ability to make unique characters.
Hmm the last single player RPG where I could build a character that truly played and approached the world the way I wanted them to. Skyrim maybe?
I don't know, I think WoW did so many damn things right when it first came out, that over the years really went away and that is very sad.
Things like:
1. Unique buffs - sure there were balance problems where people would only bring a class for their unique buff, and only 1 of that class because they only needed one of the buff, but instead of fixing the class, they just gave the buff to more classes, and then fixed the class. Would have been better to keep buffs unique to classes, keep the utility and unique flair, but fixed and balanced the output for the role.
2. Unique utility - things like mage portals and food, warlock health stones and summons, rogue lock picking, druid sleep & combat rez, warrior anti-fear mechanics.. cool stuff that made each party unique and each class have a role that could be played. Like I remember in Vanilla WoW you actually had to look at the composition of your party, plan for what CC you had and other unique abilities to tackle the encounters.
3. Class/race combos & customization- such a little thing, but adds (in my opinion) so much character and that unique RPG flair when you have limited race & class combination choices. Like, in WoW it makes no sense why Gnomes can be Warriors. So stupid. All those kind of combinations does is allow people to make LOL characters that break immersion and cheapen the experience. Player choice is great and all, but restrictions are needed to keep the integrity of the game intact. This is something games like BDO do TERRIBLY in that their character creators give way TOO much choice, allow people (morons) to create such hideous characters, it totally ruins immersion and adds a level of ridiculousness that really, really cheapens the game.
If you need to put these forced limitations in place, it's because the game was not developed well enough to simply organically create these limitations.
Let's say I create a race that is small and they tend to be weak. They generally do not make great warriors. Why would you need to force players not to make warriors out of them? How is it breaking immersion? Do you really think no one in that entire race wouldn't try to be a warrior?
Also, this statement contradicts the above.
Forcing limitations does that.
Every race should obviously have their own limitations based on their physiology. However, these should never be forced. A certain race may never be as strong as another, but that doesn't mean they should be incapable of becoming warriors if they so choose. They may have a harder time, but it is the path they chose to take.
In my game, I am making certain to not place any forced limitations like that. If someone is weak, I want them to still have the capability to wear heavy armor as an example. Even if it negatively effects them, I think being able to do it anyway, is what makes a game more interesting.
Generally speaking, people will follow the flow since it's better that way, but some people like to play very unique characters that are outside of the norm. I think that should be allowed because you would expect that sort of variation in any believable world.
If you have to put in a lot of time and effort to get a gnome warrior and it had penalties for choosing that combo then I would be OK with that. I'd still have the fear that too many people would choose that race/class combo and completely destroy the cultures in the game. That is always the issue with MMOs.
Racial limitations seemed to work decently in EQ as most people wanted the most powerful combo or in the case of switching factions didn't want to put in the time to grind from one faction to another.
The genre is in trouble because the original premise (virtual persistent world) is just not that fun. It cannot reproduce the flexible creative fun in tabletop RPGs, and it is not as good in gameplay as combat centric online games.
That is why modern MMOs have less MMO elements.
I think not.
It was always a small number playing RPG's. We were the 'geeks', the 'nerds', the guys who didn't conform with the establishment.
When computers first started it was the same guys using computers, playing computer games.
Marketing and advertising sold it to the general public (the WOW era) and there was a big influx of people who didn't really 'get' it but knew that it was 'cool'. It must be cool because the guy on the telly said so right?
What is happening now is the fad is wearing thin.
All the 'cool' kids are spending money on crap games or complaining that games are not F2P while all the geeks and nerds are still playing the same games, still enjoying RP in these games and still looking forward to the next batch of them.
The niche is just returning to it's normal levels and shaking free of all the crap that has accumulated over the last decade or so...F2P, cash shops, lack of community, lack of inter-dependency, lack of depth...
The mindless sheep will keep playing their F2P, cash shop heavy, shallow, temporary and ultimately pointless games while anyone who was a 'geek' or 'nerd' will be able to get back to playing the games we enjoy again.
The thing is that the only motivation you have nowadays is XP and more gear, and the XP usually gets useless once you hit max level. So people tire, they don't really have much motivation and the combat is rarely fun enough to keep players occupied for months and years.
They do have tried with achivements, but they are just a washed down systen of EQ 1 & 2s AA system.
The idea with games like UO and M59 was basically to take the P&P experience and put it in a persistant world with many groups of players and that idea is still solid but now the games only have the gear hamsterwheel to keep players interested and it isn't really enough.
That said, those old games surely got a lot of things wrong but they tried and they were fun at the time. They were also a different experience from eachothers, now most games just feel like more of the same.
The reason most modern MMOs have so few MMORPG elements is that it is way easier to make another gear grinding game then trying something new.
Well, no. But I think I said this in my video. Let the MMO-brawlers do their thing, but every MMORPG doesn't have to be the next "WOW-killer". There are niche MMOs being created that are appealing to specific gameplay priorities.
I'm suggesting that developers have stripped out SO many RPG elements for the sake of balance and simplicity (and sometimes laziness), but they have only begun to experiment with mechanics to replace them.
Why must all characters run the same speed?
Why can't weather effects impact visibility?
Why doesn't weapon reach matter?
Why can't smaller characters have a bonus to some stealth skills?
Why can't larger characters have a bonus when smashing destructible objects?
These questions and many more like them are rhetorical, but they're questions that developers haven't even begun to ask themselves.
Balance: having the same primary capability (DPS, HPS, etc) doesn't mean every class is the same. If a class plays different (different rotation) and looks different, it is different. It sort of discredits your own point to later recommend going back to 'one-shot rogue backstabs' along with 'face-melting caster spells', since that's a literal example of exactly what you're complaining about (in both cases they put out crazy DPS -- ie similar primary capability -- but they do it in their own distinct way.)
I agree with your main point that progression (you call it character development) is one of the main draws of the genre and should be enjoyable and interesting to keep players playing. It's helpful for RPGs to do it really well, but the bigger factor is still the moment to moment gameplay and whether it offers a consistent flow of interesting decisions (which is where MMORPGs more commonly fail.) But certainly progression is more important than whether MMORPGs are "MMO" enough, as being MMOs only ever provided a small benefit.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I want to build a character from the behavior he exhibits, building the character's story dynamically within the game. I want to walk a character into a tavern in game and be recognized. I want the NPC tavern keeper to remember that Mendel is a phenomenal tipper (he may not know the exact value that he tips -- golds when everyone else tips coppers), but is always cold, and will ask for the seat near the hearth. The tavern staff should be aware he isn't shy about tossing a bit of fuel on the fire, if he feels too cold or is distracted by tasty food or interesting conversation. Mendel's propensity to burning any unoccupied furniture, even the good chairs, should keep the staff motivated to keep the fires stoked, with ample supplies of firewood on hand to prevent another 'Queen Sofie's Parlor Chair' level incident.
I want my actions to build my character, not just some numbers on items of clothing I happen to be wearing. (And can I see a game where my outfit matters outside of combat -- social, political, and religious interactions.)
That's the level of RPG that I would love to see. I don't expect the technology to support this will be available in my lifetime, though.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Yes, rogues and mages have DPS skills, and if you hit the right sequence of buttons in the right order; both will do the same DPS. I'm saying that's terrible.
I was a Midgard Healer in DAoC, and consciously specialized in Stun and CC in general. This left me helpless as a babe if I got caught in a one-vs-one situation. But they nerfed the stun anyway because someone got killed while they were stunned. So, one of the defining specializations of my race and class was 'equalized' for the sake of balance.
That's what I'm talking about when I mention the Rogue's backstab or the Wizard's "Power Word: Kill" or the Shadowknights Harm Touch or the Paladin's Lay on Hands... and the list goes on.
And what do you mean? They try plenty new. MOBAs, FPS MOBAs, MMO hybrids, card games ... they just don't go back to old MMORPG ideas. They have no reason to. Single player games have better story telling. MOBAs have better pvp. ARPGs have better hack-n-slash action.
"You mean the biggest companies, with the very least feasible connection to individual players? The ones with rotten service and ridiculous response times to any customer issue??"
"Yeah man, massively, whoooooo! Totally the bestest!"
"Best at what?"