Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Flaws in MMORPGs
phunkymunkey
Member Posts: 83
I'm new to the sight so hello to all! I love the potential of the MMORPG revolution, but right now I fear for it.
I thought this would make an interesting topic. Here's my 2 cents:
1. Game Design
Ok so the "more-more-is-better, leveling treadmill, gambling addiction" type of design is a big turn-off. I don't want to have to sacrifice my real-world life and spend 20 hours a week to enjoy the upper levels of a game. 100 levels of difference between characters is a bit ridiculous and is merely a vehicle for prolonging subscriptions. We know its about the money-wrong approach. Make it about the experience and the money will come.
2. Graphics and 3D engines
Redundantly redundant. . .enough EQ clones. I don't like viewing the world through a fishbowl, no matter how detailed my character or the environment. Also, everything is cookie cutter.
3. Accountability and Fairness
Make twinking, cheating, and hacking nearly impossible. When the nearly impossible happens, solve it quick, not 6 months from now. Especially in any PVP, hardcore games involving risk.
4. Originality needed
Think outside the box. No need to always reinvent the wheel, just remember that you can only dress a wheel so many ways and functionally its still just a wheel. A better wheel is great. Something BETTER than the wheel, ah now you are talking.
If I have an original idea and system/design for an mmorpg and can back it up with artwork, how would i go about breaking in>?
Permadeath and environmental challenges are the next great step in the evolution of MMORPGs. Only through true adversity will one feel accomplished. Only in truly knowing you can die will true adversity present itself.
Comments
Excellent points. As to point 1, this is a big problem and I'm not sure if a good solution exists. On one hand, you have people who have the necessities of real life tugging at them, ergo they cannot spend 40 hours a week running on a treadmill. On the other, there are the hardcore gamers who are investing a considerable amount of time in their characters and demand a return on their investment. Who wins? Also, the casual gamer may not like the idea of having to put in a lot of time to get to the higher levels, but if he does get there eventually, he is going to want to take advantage of his advanced character.
Point 2 is well taken. Many games have proven the old adage, "good graphics do not equal good gameplay" from both sides. I think that newer MMOGs are focusing too much on a beautiful world and too little on an interesting world. As far as the 1st person perspective, most games give you an option of 3rd person views as well (EQ included). I'm not sure what you would prefer, but I can name several games (UO, Ragnarok Online, Dransik) that do not allow for 1st person views.
Point 3 is one with which I generally agree, but have a different slant. I hate cheaters as much as the next guy, but some things that may be considered exploits are just clever players working within the rules of the game. For example, Verant once introduced a breastplate for high level clerics in EQ that had an unlimited, instant full heal. Players lucky enough to obtain this item started teaming up with tanks and killing high level mobs. The tank would whack away and the cleric would constantly heal him, so, ostensibly, a level 50 tank could solo almost anything in the game with the cleric's help. Verant "fixed" the item where it took 10 seconds to recast, but I don't consider this cheating or even exploiting. Blatant cheating should be squashed, but it seems that companies (Verant in particular) are all too eager to nerf characters who have learned the game's rules and are using the strengths of their characters to level (or whatever) quickly.
Amen to point 4! The vast majority of MMOGs are fantasy settings with Sci-Fi coming in a distant second (go look at the Genre column of the mmorpg.com gamelist to prove my point). I think City of Heroes is doing something original, but most are just D&D with different trappings. Why has no one done any of the following:
- MM sports games (Ultimate Baseball Online is all I know)
- MM business/market simulations (these could be huge)
- MM strategy games (Sovereign got whacked. Are any others coming out?)
NC > DAoC > EQ > UO > fecal matter > leper's oily rags > SW:G
-----
Old timer.
I've posted this many times two major flaws I see...
1) The same game with a different front.
MMORPGS seem to be kill/loot just with different faces.
2) Lack of originality.
How many times can I take being a warrior, knight, or mage? Yes this is a popular format... but so was Space Invaders and Asteroids when video games were first becomming popular. The MMORPG genre seems to be pulling an Atari. Atari's downfall was that it insisted that the only games people would want to play were Asteroid and Space Invader types. The only type of controller people wanted to use was a joystick. They refused to come up with new ideas and when new ones were presented they rejected them (who would ever want to play a game with a controller with no joystick?). MMORPGS have to start exploring new ideas.
________________________________________________________________
The only game I have really enjoyed is Earth and Beyond. A tale in the Desert was a close second (lack of players caused me to quit). Tried Rubies of Evertide, Linage, Dark age of Camelot, and Anarchy Online. Liked none of them.
Actually, Atari's downfall is much more complex. It makes for an interesting read. There is an old book called Zap! which chronicles Atari's rise under Nolan Bushnell and its fall under Ray Kassar and Time Warner.
Atari Games was actually responsible for some of the most innovative games in the early days of video games. Asteroids was innovative as were Battlezone, Tempest, Missile Command and Centipede (none of which used a joystick, btw). The problem came when Atari refused to allow the programmers to get any credit or share in the profits of the games (this led to defections of the most talented programmers who founded their own companies like Activision). Then Atari decided to turn its back on the arcades and make video games of movies. This resulted in the notorious E.T. video game that was so terrible it nearly destroyed the U.S. video game industry. (A great writeup can be found here: http://www.snopes.com/business/market/atari.asp)
However, I agree completely that the fantasy setting for MMOGs has been done to death. One reason I can't get all fired up for Horizons it that it appears to be more of the same. I imagine most people here can't remember when Pac-Man first came out, but it was huge, bigger than any arcade before or since, and one reason is that it was different.
Man, I really miss those days.
NC > DAoC > EQ > UO > fecal matter > leper's oily rags > SW:G
-----
Old timer.
And actually concerning ET, the reason they pushed it out is becuase they had an agreement with Speilberg to get the cart out by Christmas (this was in July).
Another reason Atari died was because it kept orphaning its systems, especially the computer-type systems. So, what happened was all its software (good or bad) was cracked and bootlegged. Nobody wanted to spend money building a game library when they knew Atari would come out with a new system in a few months that would not be backward compatible.
Making games is a very difficult process, you should 1st make it work on paper. It's really easy as a RPG to do, and you don't need to know assember to make history and lore.
You can read these links to learn more about making games. After you get a game, mostly completed you can start to look for publishers. But you can't "beak in" until you have something to show.
http://www.makegames.com/newbiefaq.html
http://www.lupinegames.com/articles/path_to_dev.html
http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~amitp/gameprog.html
-=-=-=-=-
A game is only late untill it's released, but it's bad forever.
A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
-=-=-=-=-
Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
Apple followed the same path, almost to its doom. Apple II, Apple III, Apple Lisa, and finally the Apple Macintosh were all different systems requiring different software. Apple III and Lisa buyers were completely shafted. This strategy, along with Apple's refusal to license its proprietary hardware and software, is the reason 11 out of 12 personal computers are not Apple systems.
Atari did the same on their consoles. The 2600, 5200, 7800 and the Atari 400/800 series computers each took a different type of cart (I think the 7800 would play 2600 carts, but by then who wanted to?). I'm sure this was considered a brilliant marketing move by some, thinking that consumers would buy multiple versions of the same software, but it really looks dumb in hindsight.
Do you remember the Atari 400 with the blister keyboard? Was it miserable to type on that thing or what? Still, it'd be cool to dig one up on eBay or something. I may have to go hook up my old Apple II with 48K memory (yes, you youngsters, that's K, not Meg) so I can play Castle Wolfenstein. Please don't make me give you a history lesson on THAT title!
NC > DAoC > EQ > UO > fecal matter > leper's oily rags > SW:G
-----
Old timer.