Enhanced graphics killed off mmorpgs

delete5230

The modern era of graphics did us in.  Cost of everything had skyrocketed.

Who's at fault:
-The selfish population that insist on great visuals.
-Developers for degrading the experience of deep rich gaming for eye candy. 

mmorpg's are hard to make. WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL, mmorpgs feel the pain the most.  All Triple A gaming is feeling it too.


Were our worst enemy...... You can't pump out large content and make it look good, bottom line.  If you clam bullshit, I want a game that looks great, well you made your choice "nothing". 


Selfish and pleasing the selfish.


The answer could be simple !!!!
Triple A, should back indie developers. 

skeaser

How is wanting a good experience selfish? Do you often look to purchase things that are mediocre?

Po_gg

Where's the good old radical delete... you start to look soft, with not going straight to the roots.

"Enhanced" gfx killed it off? I say no, sir. No. Gfx did.

Let's get back to the MUD era, with easy development and the best gfx quality possible: your imagination.

 

Ok, while there might be a slight pinch of sarcasm present, in a way I agree. But the blame is not on the games, nor the developers, it's on the present day gamers.

I simply never could understand stupid arguments like "this game is shit, look at the combat animations, uggh" (which is an actual quote from a debate regarding TSW's beta), as if that would have any relevance to the game's quality and depth, the systems, or in TSW's case its core feature the writing.

It ain't even a very recent thing, just those gamers turned now into the majority. But the issue was present earlier too in isolated cases, I knew a guy who bashed Rift left and right any time he could, simply because "no matter how good you say this game is, I just hate to look at that washed-up bland world, it simply has a crap game look".

Devs can't go against the flow, if they see the majority of the audience only wants the looks (and in favor of it they don't really care even the watered down quality in actual game features), devs will focus on the looks, and make that as the priority.

I don't agree though the "mmorpgs feel the pain the most" part. They don't, simply because there are no MMORPGs in development anymore, be it a good thing or a bad thing  

(triple A, I mean. Indies can go with any graphics they like, and can play the "we're a small indie team" card)

vegetableoil

usually if it has "enhanced" graphic, you can still play in the old and crappy low settings, no one forces anyone to upgrade their hardware.

centkin

Well what it comes down to is a current project has to hire 5 graphics artists for every programmer.

Scot

MMO's did feel the graphics pinch big time, it was a race they could never keep up with. But the substitution of solid gameplay for great graphics has been with us since gaming began.

Gaming has evolved from a passion hobby of gaming fans to a entertainment pastime for those who like TV and films more. The demands of those players are for graphics over gameplay. We live in a gaming age that reflects that.

free2play

Saying graphics killed Video games is like saying CGI killed movies. Tell it to Marvel. They will laugh at you.

It's hard to be objective about this when I am looking at a page full of splash ads for BDO. A game put together on an Indi budget, sent everyone packing in graphics quality and made billions doing it.

Graphics improvements certainly changed the landscape but MMOs aren't dead.Just needs new blood.

SplitStream13

Honestly, triple As killed the MMOs. 

Every upcoming game has multiplayer baked in. 

Tell me, why would I grind my ass off in a MMO, when I can go blast some shit in Destiny or Anthem with friends? Or GTA V. Borderlands 3 seems marginally a lot more fun than WoW or whatever else the best MMORPG currently is. Overwatch, same thing. Group up with friends and play multiplayer all day and all night long. 

And the best part? You don't have to pay subscription in those games.

And when it's just me and my gf, we prefer to wreck shit up in Saints Row compared to mindless grinding in <insert any MMO here>. In this aspect, Diablo 3 beats just about any MMO out there. RPG? Check!, hoards of monster to kill? Check! Ability to play with friends? Damn right. From the looks of it Diablo 4 is going to be a soft-MMORPG. Just more fun than the status-quo.

MMORPGs have become bland and repetitive. It doesn't matter if I'm playing ESO or WoW or FFXIV. Underneath, they are the same game. Other MMOs reel you in with lower price of entry and then do everything in their power to hamper your progress until you hook yourself on microtransaction shenanigans. 

For me the genre is dead. I played Lineage 2 throughout my youth and honestly, I'm burned out on MMORPGs. 

Next-gen games are more interesting and have better multiplayer. 

What people want now is co-op. MMORPG failed. Turns out, waiting in queue and managing parties of people isn't fun but rather work. If you enjoy this, congratulations, you're workaholic. Personally I prefer to sit back and have some fun time after work. 

Wizardry

Well to the last poster....
You might be able to go blast stuff in those other games but at the same time your supporting shallow game design and very little effort by the developer.

Subscription games are also VERY few and of those you are likely to see a LOT more effort put into the game design.

I don't agree that MP is baked into most games,the premise is that it exists but not in fact.What we are actually seeing is ONLINE added into every game so that devs can force you to login and support their cash shop which is added into every game.

To me the latter makes me sick,adding in cash shops to shallow single player games.Even if you can join up with 1-2 other friends,we have always called that CO-OP and has existed already for years with NEVER the need for added cash shops.

Then to add a kicker to the argument,i can play the most skilled shooter on the planet "UT" "with friends"if so desired for FREE while your paying devs for Destiny or Anthem or GTA<<<cash shops love you.

That is all we have seen from GTA online here on this site is an advertisement supporting their cash shop,several of these articles...ahem adverts.Are we GAMING or is this the era of cash shops?

delete5230

Wizardry said:

Well to the last poster....
You might be able to go blast stuff in those other games but at the same time your supporting shallow game design and very little effort by the developer.

Subscription games are also VERY few and of those you are likely to see a LOT more effort put into the game design.

I don't agree that MP is baked into most games,the premise is that it exists but not in fact.What we are actually seeing is ONLINE added into every game so that devs can force you to login and support their cash shop which is added into every game.

To me the latter makes me sick,adding in cash shops to shallow single player games.Even if you can join up with 1-2 other friends,we have always called that CO-OP and has existed already for years with NEVER the need for added cash shops.

Then to add a kicker to the argument,i can play the most skilled shooter on the planet "UT" "with friends"if so desired for FREE while your paying devs for Destiny or Anthem or GTA<<<cash shops love you.

That is all we have seen from GTA online here on this site is an advertisement supporting their cash shop,several of these articles...ahem adverts.Are we GAMING or is this the era of cash shops?

That last poster seems to not like mmorpgs anyway...... That guy shouldn't count.

It's like going to a NASCAR race and saying you like horse racing better.

MMOExposed

delete5230 said:

The modern era of graphics did us in.  Cost of everything had skyrocketed.

Who's at fault:
-The selfish population that insist on great visuals.
-Developers for degrading the experience of deep rich gaming for eye candy. 

mmorpg's are hard to make. WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL, mmorpgs feel the pain the most.  All Triple A gaming is feeling it too.


Were our worst enemy...... You can't pump out large content and make it look good, bottom line.  If you clam bullshit, I want a game that looks great, well you made your choice "nothing". 


Selfish and pleasing the selfish.


The answer could be simple !!!!
Triple A, should back indie developers. 

People going to blame WoW for this.

For a long time when WoW was at the top, the only thing people could trash it on was its graphics. People called it Cartoonish. 

So the only real way MMO Developers could stand out against WoW was by having better graphics and flashier Animations, which tend to use Animation Locks like AION. Never works out.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Aeander

Stagnant game mechanics and high development cost killed off MMORPGs.

MaxBacon

MMOs are long dev timeframe games so by default they struggle to keep up with current standards.

Black Desert Online is one that escapes such because they put such a huge amount of resources on graphics.

But I do not think graphics took over mechanic or gameplay for MMO development, the mechanics and gameplay of the MMOs coming out got stagnated on its own due to much copy/pasting of the same formula.

Kyleran

Somehow it just seems like the perfect time for this.



I graduated from college the year this released. I looked a lot like the guy playing keyboards...hey maybe that was me, 40 years was so long ago, who can remember? 

Po_gg

Gorwe said:

Regardless, both sides are important to me. A boring, repetitive game might look as good and modern as anything, but it's still a dull, boring, repetitive game. Likewise, while aesthetics don't really make or break the game for me, good - aligned(with my preferences) aesthetics just help a ton. What can I say, I like nice looking stuff.

I like nice looking stuff too - but not in exchange of any other aspects. If a good game has awesome graphics, fine. If it has fugly graphics, just as fine. But if a bad game has the best... wait, let's stop there, doesn't even matter, if it's a bad game I'm out

Maybe it's just how one got into the scene the first place. I grew up alongside the computer gaming (not the consoles), how it evolved in every aspect (graphics too) and loved every step of it. Singleton's games on the ZX with its massive world and still images, Elite's wire-frame space exploration, the 3D steps of Carmack, etc. 

At that time graphics evolved alongside the games, as an important part of the whole. It isn't the case anymore (there's a debate on the switchover point, I used to use Doom3 / Tech4), and graphics consume more and more dev time, for minuscule advancements purely for the looks, without adding anything to the actual game.

It's just an opinion, and everyone has one. For me, looks aren't important anymore, I'm interested much more into the core game features.

free2play said:

Saying graphics killed Video games is like saying CGI killed movies. Tell it to Marvel. They will laugh at you.

Interesting, with a really fortunate timing. Scorsese (and Coppola) just said exactly that recently... 

Ok, not exactly, it wasn't specifically against CGI, more about the overall product vs. art approach, and how they don't consider Marvel flicks as movies, just consumable, perfectly marketed (and without a doubt very profitable) products.

Laugh at those old fools, they clearly know nothing about movies, right?

Kyleran

Po_gg said:

Gorwe said:

Regardless, both sides are important to me. A boring, repetitive game might look as good and modern as anything, but it's still a dull, boring, repetitive game. Likewise, while aesthetics don't really make or break the game for me, good - aligned(with my preferences) aesthetics just help a ton. What can I say, I like nice looking stuff.

I like nice looking stuff too - but not in exchange of any other aspects. If a good game has awesome graphics, fine. If it has fugly graphics, just as fine. But if a bad game has the best... wait, let's stop there, doesn't even matter, if it's a bad game I'm out

Maybe it's just how one got into the scene the first place. I grew up alongside the computer gaming (not the consoles), how it evolved in every aspect (graphics too) and loved every step of it. Singleton's games on the ZX with its massive world and still images, Elite's wire-frame space exploration, the 3D steps of Carmack, etc. 

At that time graphics evolved alongside the games, as an important part of the whole. It isn't the case anymore (there's a debate on the switchover point, I used to use Doom3 / Tech4), and graphics consume more and more dev time, for minuscule advancements purely for the looks, without adding anything to the actual game.

It's just an opinion, and everyone has one. For me, looks aren't important anymore, I'm interested much more into the core game features.

free2play said:

Saying graphics killed Video games is like saying CGI killed movies. Tell it to Marvel. They will laugh at you.

Interesting, with a really fortunate timing. Scorsese (and Coppola) just said exactly that recently... 

Ok, not exactly, it wasn't specifically against CGI, more about the overall product vs. art approach, and how they don't consider Marvel flicks as movies, just consumable, perfectly marketed (and without a doubt very profitable) products.

Laugh at those old fools, they clearly know nothing about movies, right?

Hey, Marvel flicks are great live action comic books, but great movies, not so much.

My first computers rocked games with four color CGI graphics and I played many a great game on them.

So for me almost any level of graphics is an acceptable improvement and I rarely think, looks like a great game, but what's up with those animations?

I kind of boggle at gamers who do care, but then there's a lot I can't grasp about those raised in a different era.

I'm sure my parents / grandparents felt much the same way.

Sovrath

Kyleran said:

I kind of boggle at gamers who do care, but then there's a lot I can't grasp about those raised in a different era.

I'm sure my parents / grandparents felt much the same way.

I'm only a little younger than you but I absolutely care about aesthetics. "Graphics?" Well, remember, we grew up on pong and it was extremely novel. So we can form a greater tolerance for going back to the old games.

But get someone whose first experience was far sleeker than pong or adventure or "gasp" that alien game on Commodore 64 (I swear it was an amazing visual experience at the time) and it could easily be a hard sell.

I also remember looking at Diablo 2 and marveling at how the armor "looked" like metal!

Po_gg

Kyleran said:

Hey, Marvel flicks are great live action comic books, but great movies, not so much.

My first computers rocked games with four color CGI graphics and I played many a great game on them.

So for me almost any level of graphics is an acceptable improvement and I rarely think, looks like a great game, but what's up with those animations?

I kind of boggle at gamers who do care, but then there's a lot I can't grasp about those raised in a different era.

I'm sure my parents / grandparents felt much the same way.

Couldn't agree more...  I failed to add, I'm a huge fan of MCU. Regardless of that, I think Scorsese's right.

My first was ZX, then Commodore, but I have personal experiences with the four colours (3 nice and one ugly pink-ish ). In '92 I still had my C-64 when I first saw Wolf3D at a friend, and was blown away by it, a few months later I had my first XT, with CGA - and turned out Wolf3D doesn't run on it haha. At least I could play Hovertank... and a lot of other amazing games of that era.

Yep, I'm in the very same shoes. I just don't understand when I hear those complains, it's kinda like the equivalent of:

"what a shit book, I can't bear to read it with this lame font type, and what's with this ugly paper? Pains to even touch it, yecch"

With the example above, I wonder if the combat animations are better, that suddenly makes TSW a good game to that complainer? How on earth could that be the "make or break" point to any sane player... hard to grasp indeed.

Gdemami

Po_gg said:

Laugh at those old fools, they clearly know nothing about movies, right?

...can't speak for what they know but can tell you certainly don't know what fallacious appeal to authority is.

What free2play said was spot on.

MMO market is currently bigger than "ever" - in revenue, titles, player counts.

Those who say 'MMO market is dead' need to get their heads out if their arses...

Po_gg

Gdemami said:

Those who say 'MMO market is dead' need to get their heads out if their arses...

I'm puzzled... Let me check

Po_gg said:

I don't agree though the "mmorpgs feel the pain the most" part. They don't, simply because there are no MMORPGs in development anymore, be it a good thing or a bad thing  

(triple A, I mean. Indies can go with any graphics they like, and can play the "we're a small indie team" card)

I don't see anywhere that line. Did I say the market is dead? I don't think so...

Maybe you can take your own advice and with the more lights reach the eyes you could read more clearly?

ET3D

While I agree that the cost of graphics has a real effect on development, I don't think that's the main issue. MMO development is in general harder than many other games. Large worlds with many players playing together, lots of game systems and content, this all makes MMOs a lot more challenging than pretty much every other genre.

That's on the dev side. On the player side, IMO the main reason is that the players and what they want out of the game are very varied. Some play for story, some for RPG min-maxing, some for exploration, some for roleplaying, some for PVP .... Some of these needs can be satisfied by other games, and as some other genres matured and got more content, some people moved to them to satisfy their needs.

Also, as more and more games and other content types started competing for people's time, many were less willing to put up with grinding or cumbersome systems. Devs started streamlining and simplifying, something that happened in all game genres. For some players, the simplicity made the games less appealing. For others, the complexity was still too high when they could just do a multitude of other things outside of MMOs.

In the end, I think that the main problem with MMOs is the player base problem. MMOs are a niche market whose success came because it encompassed a lot of gaming aspects. But when there are better alternatives to satisfy each type of player, MMOs naturally suffer.

OGDeathRow

delete5230 said:

The modern era of graphics did us in.  Cost of everything had skyrocketed.

Who's at fault:
-The selfish population that insist on great visuals.
-Developers for degrading the experience of deep rich gaming for eye candy. 

mmorpg's are hard to make. WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL, mmorpgs feel the pain the most.  All Triple A gaming is feeling it too.


Were our worst enemy...... You can't pump out large content and make it look good, bottom line.  If you clam bullshit, I want a game that looks great, well you made your choice "nothing". 


Selfish and pleasing the selfish.


The answer could be simple !!!!
Triple A, should back indie developers. 

Seeing how MMO's are more popular then ever, I cant see how graphics killed it. I would agree that higher detailed graphics can affect the amount of content a game has due to the time/effort/$$$ going into the graphics. But some people are into that, the visual stimulation out ranks. 

My brother spent a few thousand on his pc/monitor and he couldnt be happier with games like ESO/Anthem. WoW has more content thats playable them 99 pct of the mmo's (obviously not a real pct, but id say its close) and he wouldnt give it the time of day. He claims immersion is the key to his gaming choices, better graphics give that to him more then a few extra quests in a extra zone or 2. So thats a customer that values the looks over content for immersion, and hes not alone seeing how the industry is growing.

Aeander

The rest of the industry advanced and improved. The MMORPG genre did not. It's really that simple.

Scot

Gdemami said:

Po_gg said:

Laugh at those old fools, they clearly know nothing about movies, right?

...can't speak for what they know but can tell you certainly don't know what fallacious appeal to authority is.

What free2play said was spot on.

MMO market is currently bigger than "ever" - in revenue, titles, player counts.

Those who say 'MMO market is dead' need to get their heads out if their arses...

Good to see you back, the comments not so much.

Scot

Sovrath said:

Kyleran said:

I kind of boggle at gamers who do care, but then there's a lot I can't grasp about those raised in a different era.

I'm sure my parents / grandparents felt much the same way.

I'm only a little younger than you but I absolutely care about aesthetics. "Graphics?" Well, remember, we grew up on pong and it was extremely novel. So we can form a greater tolerance for going back to the old games.

But get someone whose first experience was far sleeker than pong or adventure or "gasp" that alien game on Commodore 64 (I swear it was an amazing visual experience at the time) and it could easily be a hard sell.

I also remember looking at Diablo 2 and marveling at how the armor "looked" like metal!

Most gamers I know have been fans of graphical improvement right from back in the day. But they expected the gameplay to remain solid too. Just taking MMOPRG's they are smaller, have less content and less variety of gameplay, but the graphics are better...whoopee!

I think this more marked in MMO's more than any genre in gaming, but you see it right across gaming, gameplay sacrificed on the altar of graphics.

Today we are expected to accept games that release and are not really finished games for a couple of years after early access and accept "casino play" in place of game play. But you know what, when they release the graphics look as good as they are ever going to get, content and gameplay are just secondary concerns.

Actually from your previous posts I am not sure how much Sovrath would disagree with all that, I am going to put it down to you being an "arty" type mate, so the graphics mean more to you.