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...
OP said mmorpgs
You are saying MMOs
2 different things
Planetside is a MMO, Defiance is a MMO but neither is a mmorpg,
WoW, Rift, Everquest are mmorpgs - a very specific genre
Weak sauce. People have been saying MMO to mean MMORPG forever. Just how many massively multiplayer games have there even been that weren't also RPGs anyway? 2? 3?
And no, I don't buy into the idea that online shooters with nothing even remotely close to being massively multiplayer qualify as MMOs. MMO means the same thing whether you append RPG or FPS to it.
Planetside is a MMOFPS, no idea if Defiance deserves that appellation; PS is a favourite of mine, I just don't play it think this is a MMO.
I played Defiance briefly when it launched and it seemed like one to me too. But after that and PS I can't think of any others.
destiny 1 / 2
Shared world shooter is what those are called. If you want handy dandy initials for that genre you'd have to invent one (SWS? just a thought...) not borrow something that means something else and mislabel it with it.
Saying those are massively multiplayer is the same as saying that every human male on the planet has a massive dick.
Graphics didn't kill off the genre, the players did. Peoples expectations are so high for what the games need to have upon launch that they aren't willing to give newer MMO's the time to develop into the state the first generation of them had built up to. People need insane amounts of content / things to do otherwise they will all rush to endgame, and get mad that there isn't 4000 things to do like all the other MMORPG's they play do. It's not an excuse for bugs or anything like that, I'm purely talking from a content standpoint.
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...
OP said mmorpgs
You are saying MMOs
2 different things
Planetside is a MMO, Defiance is a MMO but neither is a mmorpg,
WoW, Rift, Everquest are mmorpgs - a very specific genre
Weak sauce. People have been saying MMO to mean MMORPG forever. Just how many massively multiplayer games have there even been that weren't also RPGs anyway? 2? 3?
And no, I don't buy into the idea that online shooters with nothing even remotely close to being massively multiplayer qualify as MMOs. MMO means the same thing whether you append RPG or FPS to it.
Planetside is a MMOFPS, no idea if Defiance deserves that appellation; PS is a favourite of mine, I just don't play it think this is a MMO.
You say PS is a MMOFPS then say you don't see it as a MMO. Typo? Do you not see it as a RPG?
Regardless, what makes PS different from something you do consider a MMO(RPG)? I don't "role play" in any MMO, so I don't see any MMO(RPG) as an actual RPG. Yet, to try and separate one from the other due to my personal take on the genre, just to try and prove some ridiculous point, is silly.
There are some gaming genres which are subsets/bracnches of the MMO genre, MMOFPS is one of the easiest to identify. I see it more as trying to establish clarity, do you get more information from calling a game a MMO or a MMOFPS? The problem is that there are not that many appellations that gamers will immediately identify. The other side of this is we endlessly go on about such definitions, it is a staple of the forums, welcome to the party.
MMOFPS does not clarify anything other than, maybe, targeting. I never played PS so I don't know if its tab-targeting or retical targeting. I've played retical targeted MMOs that were labeled a MMORPG. I wouldn't think of changing the meaning of an MMO based on targeting... seems more like a feature than a separate distinction in terms of genre.
All that aside, the original post regarding the "difference" between the two was silly. Someone saying MMO or MMORPG in the context of this thread is probably talking about the same thing. Trying to look knowledgeable by fabricating a hard line distinction between the two is ridiculous.
The genre started dying off when PVE was mixed with PVP. Trying to cater to both sides will NEVER WORK. I have stated this from day1...you CANNOT have PVP with PVE ...simple as that!
So, it started dying off at the same moment the genre was born? If you say so....
On topic, improvements in graphics are indeed a contributary factor in the stagnation of the MMORPG genre.
Numerous game devs have come out and said exactly that. Many have told us that it is simply impossible to sell a game based on gameplay. It is pretty much only possible for a game to sell well if you are able to advertise good looking / pretty scenes. You can't put deep gameplay mechanics on a poster or in a 30second TV ad, but you can put some awesome graphics in there.
MMOs get hit with a double-whammy on the graphics front though. Not only is it expensive to develop awesome graphics which leaves less time/money for other things, but the technical difficulties of processing graphics increase with more and more players. In a massively multiplayer game, with the potential for 100s or 1000s of players to be in the same area, high graphics will make the game unplayable because the way we process graphics makes large numbers harder.
So, not only are we spending lots of money on graphics, those very same graphics mean that developers can't make use of the one unique selling point - being massively multiplayer. Just think about it: when was the last time you participated in content with more than 24 players?
What is the solution?
Surprisingly, gameplay mechanics are actually quite cheap to develop (according to devs). A single dev is able to create/code some pretty advanced mechanics in a relatively short period of time. What takes teh time/cost is everything that needs happen after the mechanics has been implemented - all the animations for new skills, for example, take at least 10x as long to implement than the actual code for what each skill does.
The issue with good gameplay is not that it is difficult to implement, it is that it is difficult to design. In my experience, most game designers at the big companies simply don't have the bredth of knowledge required to design awesome gameplay. They may know a few things and have clear ideas - typically story and world design - but everything else is outside of their main focus and so ends up being mediocre. Just think of the amount of games you've played which had features that felt "tacked-on".
I think MMO devs need to take a different approach to development.
Most other game genres need to generate most of their money at launch through initial sales. this is why graphics-as-a-sales-tool are so important.
MMOs are different, they can make their money over a very long time. The initial sales may well be low without good graphics, but if the gameplay is really good then word-of-mouth referrals will keep a steady stream of new players coming into the game, and the good gameplay should keep them there for a long time. MMOs have an opportunity to build their community over time, rather than requiring it all at once. Eventually, down the road, they can reinvest their money in better graphics.
Finally, not having cutting edge graphics doesn't mean the game has to look bad. It's very possible to have a great looking game with low graphics by going the stylised route. The tricky thing here is how to be stylised without looking childish, something a lot of artists seem to struggle with.
Very good points. I alpha tested an MMORPG that never got a drawing because it was UO in 3D, and the PvP aspect killed it. Plus, they just never had funding to move production along faster than a snail. The game had decent graphics that almost had a stylized look, just touching on it without jumping out at you. But the animation was way better then anything I've seen. Very realistic and in full motion, not the slightly chopped off motions most games have. Those animations more than made up for the loss in shine of the better graphics.
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...
OP said mmorpgs
You are saying MMOs
2 different things
Planetside is a MMO, Defiance is a MMO but neither is a mmorpg,
WoW, Rift, Everquest are mmorpgs - a very specific genre
Weak sauce. People have been saying MMO to mean MMORPG forever. Just how many massively multiplayer games have there even been that weren't also RPGs anyway? 2? 3?
And no, I don't buy into the idea that online shooters with nothing even remotely close to being massively multiplayer qualify as MMOs. MMO means the same thing whether you append RPG or FPS to it.
Planetside is a MMOFPS, no idea if Defiance deserves that appellation; PS is a favourite of mine, I just don't play it think this is a MMO.
You say PS is a MMOFPS then say you don't see it as a MMO. Typo? Do you not see it as a RPG?
Regardless, what makes PS different from something you do consider a MMO(RPG)? I don't "role play" in any MMO, so I don't see any MMO(RPG) as an actual RPG. Yet, to try and separate one from the other due to my personal take on the genre, just to try and prove some ridiculous point, is silly.
There are some gaming genres which are subsets/bracnches of the MMO genre, MMOFPS is one of the easiest to identify. I see it more as trying to establish clarity, do you get more information from calling a game a MMO or a MMOFPS? The problem is that there are not that many appellations that gamers will immediately identify. The other side of this is we endlessly go on about such definitions, it is a staple of the forums, welcome to the party.
MMOFPS does not clarify anything other than, maybe, targeting. I never played PS so I don't know if its tab-targeting or retical targeting. I've played retical targeted MMOs that were labeled a MMORPG. I wouldn't think of changing the meaning of an MMO based on targeting... seems more like a feature than a separate distinction in terms of genre.
All that aside, the original post regarding the "difference" between the two was silly. Someone saying MMO or MMORPG in the context of this thread is probably talking about the same thing. Trying to look knowledgeable by fabricating a hard line distinction between the two is ridiculous.
That's a good point, however when you start talking about specific games I think it is valid to make such distinctions. To me, you can go even farther. WoW is a RPG and an MMO, so an MMORPG. But they can be defined even farther. WoW is a Themepark MMORPG, and that's distinctly different than a Sandbox MMORPG.
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...
OP said mmorpgs
You are saying MMOs
2 different things
Planetside is a MMO, Defiance is a MMO but neither is a mmorpg,
WoW, Rift, Everquest are mmorpgs - a very specific genre
Weak sauce. People have been saying MMO to mean MMORPG forever. Just how many massively multiplayer games have there even been that weren't also RPGs anyway? 2? 3?
And no, I don't buy into the idea that online shooters with nothing even remotely close to being massively multiplayer qualify as MMOs. MMO means the same thing whether you append RPG or FPS to it.
Planetside is a MMOFPS, no idea if Defiance deserves that appellation; PS is a favourite of mine, I just don't play it think this is a MMO.
You say PS is a MMOFPS then say you don't see it as a MMO. Typo? Do you not see it as a RPG?
Regardless, what makes PS different from something you do consider a MMO(RPG)? I don't "role play" in any MMO, so I don't see any MMO(RPG) as an actual RPG. Yet, to try and separate one from the other due to my personal take on the genre, just to try and prove some ridiculous point, is silly.
There are some gaming genres which are subsets/bracnches of the MMO genre, MMOFPS is one of the easiest to identify. I see it more as trying to establish clarity, do you get more information from calling a game a MMO or a MMOFPS? The problem is that there are not that many appellations that gamers will immediately identify. The other side of this is we endlessly go on about such definitions, it is a staple of the forums, welcome to the party.
MMOFPS does not clarify anything other than, maybe, targeting. I never played PS so I don't know if its tab-targeting or retical targeting. I've played retical targeted MMOs that were labeled a MMORPG. I wouldn't think of changing the meaning of an MMO based on targeting... seems more like a feature than a separate distinction in terms of genre.
All that aside, the original post regarding the "difference" between the two was silly. Someone saying MMO or MMORPG in the context of this thread is probably talking about the same thing. Trying to look knowledgeable by fabricating a hard line distinction between the two is ridiculous.
That's a good point, however when you start talking about specific games I think it is valid to make such distinctions. To me, you can go even farther. WoW is a RPG and an MMO, so an MMORPG. But they can be defined even farther. WoW is a Themepark MMORPG, and that's distinctly different than a Sandbox MMORPG.
I would agree there is a difference if you were getting into specifics, but that difference can often be subjective. If someone was asking about different MMO(RPGs) and needed advice on say, gameplay, then a distinction can be made. If the OP asked if sandbox or tab targeting or the holy trinity, or theme park, etc. ruined the genre, it would be a valid distinction.
The OP asked about the MMO genre as a whole. Pretending there is a hard line distinction between MMO and MMORPG in this context is silly.
Just think about it: when was the last time you participated in content with more than 24 players?
Very good post
Just to reflect on that question in the middle of it: this summer, Weatherstock, 8 hours, don't remember the final and official count (but was well above 600 players)
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...
OP said mmorpgs
You are saying MMOs
2 different things
Planetside is a MMO, Defiance is a MMO but neither is a mmorpg,
WoW, Rift, Everquest are mmorpgs - a very specific genre
Weak sauce. People have been saying MMO to mean MMORPG forever. Just how many massively multiplayer games have there even been that weren't also RPGs anyway? 2? 3?
And no, I don't buy into the idea that online shooters with nothing even remotely close to being massively multiplayer qualify as MMOs. MMO means the same thing whether you append RPG or FPS to it.
Planetside is a MMOFPS, no idea if Defiance deserves that appellation; PS is a favourite of mine, I just don't play it think this is a MMO.
You say PS is a MMOFPS then say you don't see it as a MMO. Typo? Do you not see it as a RPG?
Regardless, what makes PS different from something you do consider a MMO(RPG)? I don't "role play" in any MMO, so I don't see any MMO(RPG) as an actual RPG. Yet, to try and separate one from the other due to my personal take on the genre, just to try and prove some ridiculous point, is silly.
There are some gaming genres which are subsets/bracnches of the MMO genre, MMOFPS is one of the easiest to identify. I see it more as trying to establish clarity, do you get more information from calling a game a MMO or a MMOFPS? The problem is that there are not that many appellations that gamers will immediately identify. The other side of this is we endlessly go on about such definitions, it is a staple of the forums, welcome to the party.
MMOFPS does not clarify anything other than, maybe, targeting. I never played PS so I don't know if its tab-targeting or retical targeting. I've played retical targeted MMOs that were labeled a MMORPG. I wouldn't think of changing the meaning of an MMO based on targeting... seems more like a feature than a separate distinction in terms of genre.
All that aside, the original post regarding the "difference" between the two was silly. Someone saying MMO or MMORPG in the context of this thread is probably talking about the same thing. Trying to look knowledgeable by fabricating a hard line distinction between the two is ridiculous.
That's a good point, however when you start talking about specific games I think it is valid to make such distinctions. To me, you can go even farther. WoW is a RPG and an MMO, so an MMORPG. But they can be defined even farther. WoW is a Themepark MMORPG, and that's distinctly different than a Sandbox MMORPG.
I would agree there is a difference if you were getting into specifics, but that difference can often be subjective. If someone was asking about different MMO(RPGs) and needed advice on say, gameplay, then a distinction can be made. If the OP asked if sandbox or tab targeting or the holy trinity, or theme park, etc. ruined the genre, it would be a valid distinction.
The OP asked about the MMO genre as a whole. Pretending there is a hard line distinction between MMO and MMORPG in this context is silly.
As you wish, Lord Don T'Roleplay. Just jokin', this isn't worth dragon on.
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...
OP said mmorpgs
You are saying MMOs
2 different things
Planetside is a MMO, Defiance is a MMO but neither is a mmorpg,
WoW, Rift, Everquest are mmorpgs - a very specific genre
Weak sauce. People have been saying MMO to mean MMORPG forever. Just how many massively multiplayer games have there even been that weren't also RPGs anyway? 2? 3?
And no, I don't buy into the idea that online shooters with nothing even remotely close to being massively multiplayer qualify as MMOs. MMO means the same thing whether you append RPG or FPS to it.
MMOs include mmorpgs - MMO term is a super set.
But mmorpgs do not include MMOs, mmorpgs are a subset of MMOs.
So yes you can say mmo to mean mmorpg, you cannot say a mmorpg to mean a mmo
Trucks are vehicles, but not all vehicles are trucks.
I hope that clears it up.
Again OP is specifically talking about MMORPGS a subset of MMOs
I'd say it's closer to calling all automobiles "cars" when some are trucks.
If someone is generalizing "cars on the road causing traffic" and some douchbag jumps in with "half of those cars are pick up trucks", that guy would be an idiot making a distinction that is irrelevant just to try and look smart. Some say an MMORPG is a MMO, some would say most MMOs are MMORPGs while others (like me) would say the distinction is personal perception. In the context of the OPs question, pushing a distinction really doesn't matter.
I have three cars in my garage, one is a Toyota Tacoma. If some dude chimed in with "you only have two cars and a truck", I would call him an idiot.
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.
You should stop posting discussion topics until you learn what logic and evidence are.
You are the perfect mind for some political candidates to take full advantage of.
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
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...
OP said mmorpgs
You are saying MMOs
2 different things
Planetside is a MMO, Defiance is a MMO but neither is a mmorpg,
WoW, Rift, Everquest are mmorpgs - a very specific genre
Weak sauce. People have been saying MMO to mean MMORPG forever. Just how many massively multiplayer games have there even been that weren't also RPGs anyway? 2? 3?
And no, I don't buy into the idea that online shooters with nothing even remotely close to being massively multiplayer qualify as MMOs. MMO means the same thing whether you append RPG or FPS to it.
MMOs include mmorpgs - MMO term is a super set.
But mmorpgs do not include MMOs, mmorpgs are a subset of MMOs.
So yes you can say mmo to mean mmorpg, you cannot say a mmorpg to mean a mmo
Trucks are vehicles, but not all vehicles are trucks.
I hope that clears it up.
Again OP is specifically talking about MMORPGS a subset of MMOs
MMO on it's own is not a thing it's just the descriptive first 3 initials of a thing. It's no more a super set than WYS is a super set of WYSIWYG. Colloquially it's just an abbreviation for MMORPG as you well know. The supper set of MMORPGs is RPGs.
It has been misused often to try to shoehorn multiplayer online games that are not MMOs into the genre. Most commonly people here and elsewhere misuse it to describe games like Destiny as MMOs but not MMORPGs as if by doing that you can ignore the first M.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
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...
OP said mmorpgs
You are saying MMOs
2 different things
Planetside is a MMO, Defiance is a MMO but neither is a mmorpg,
WoW, Rift, Everquest are mmorpgs - a very specific genre
Weak sauce. People have been saying MMO to mean MMORPG forever. Just how many massively multiplayer games have there even been that weren't also RPGs anyway? 2? 3?
And no, I don't buy into the idea that online shooters with nothing even remotely close to being massively multiplayer qualify as MMOs. MMO means the same thing whether you append RPG or FPS to it.
MMOs include mmorpgs - MMO term is a super set.
But mmorpgs do not include MMOs, mmorpgs are a subset of MMOs.
So yes you can say mmo to mean mmorpg, you cannot say a mmorpg to mean a mmo
Trucks are vehicles, but not all vehicles are trucks.
I hope that clears it up.
Again OP is specifically talking about MMORPGS a subset of MMOs
I agree. Iselin, yes people have been saying MMO to mean MMORPG for years, but that's changed due to the widespread development of variety in online games. I'm sure that some people still do say MMO to mean MMORPG, but that's a lacking term for definition these days.
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...
OP said mmorpgs
You are saying MMOs
2 different things
Planetside is a MMO, Defiance is a MMO but neither is a mmorpg,
WoW, Rift, Everquest are mmorpgs - a very specific genre
Weak sauce. People have been saying MMO to mean MMORPG forever. Just how many massively multiplayer games have there even been that weren't also RPGs anyway? 2? 3?
And no, I don't buy into the idea that online shooters with nothing even remotely close to being massively multiplayer qualify as MMOs. MMO means the same thing whether you append RPG or FPS to it.
MMOs include mmorpgs - MMO term is a super set.
But mmorpgs do not include MMOs, mmorpgs are a subset of MMOs.
So yes you can say mmo to mean mmorpg, you cannot say a mmorpg to mean a mmo
Trucks are vehicles, but not all vehicles are trucks.
I hope that clears it up.
Again OP is specifically talking about MMORPGS a subset of MMOs
I agree. Iselin, yes people have been saying MMO to mean MMORPG for years, but that's changed due to the widespread development of variety in online games. I'm sure that some people still do say MMO to mean MMORPG, but that's a lacking term for definition these days.
It's the same definition, some muppet just came in and tried to make a nonexistent distinction in an attempt to look smart.
I agree with the OP. Everything thing today is about graphics so people can justify the money they spend on PCs. I can't stand this trend with MMO's today. Most of these games have crappy content because all the money was spent on the graphics. And yes the PC gamer today is at fault of this too. Another reason why I will stick to playing old school games and not waste another dime on new PC games. The last time I upgraded my pc to play a game was for Skyrim and I swore that it was the last time I would do that and I stuck with it.
I agree with the OP. Everything thing today is about graphics so people can justify the money they spend on PCs. I can't stand this trend with MMO's today. Most of these games have crappy content because all the money was spent on the graphics. And yes the PC gamer today is at fault of this too. Another reason why I will stick to playing old school games and not waste another dime on new PC games. The last time I upgraded my pc to play a game was for Skyrim and I swore that it was the last time I would do that and I stuck with it.
The OP is incorrect. Focusing on graphics is the right thing to do. The reality is that you are a minority.
A business person in the gaming world, who you know actually adapts to the changing market and dynamic, will tell you that. Most people like better graphics.
Well gaming market has exploded every year since the inception. Graphics have gone along with it. In reference to MMO's and games in general, graphics are extremely important to a lot of people. If they weren't, they would have gone away from it . . .
You have 2 mmo's come out, one with shiny graphics or one with deep game play and crappy graphics? Guess what, we're humans, we're shallow, looks have always been more important than substance, that's human nature.
Most guys will be attracted to the pretty girl with no substance than the ugly girl with substance but there are others that are not, but we all know who the majority is. Graphics are the same.
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
WoW was one the weakest mmorpgs in terms of "enhanced graphics" when it was released. Blizzard was confidant in their design talent and vision and to this day they have a huge playerbase that just doesnt care that it looks like cardboard. The "enhanced graphics" push you speak of was entirely developer based. They marketed graphics because they had no amazing ideas for gameplay and making something prettier is a quick, shallow way to get attention in ANY market.
What mmorpg have better graphic than wow before 2004? At best the other mmorpg have only slightly better graphics.
WoW was one the weakest mmorpgs in terms of "enhanced graphics" when it was released. Blizzard was confidant in their design talent and vision and to this day they have a huge playerbase that just doesnt care that it looks like cardboard. The "enhanced graphics" push you speak of was entirely developer based. They marketed graphics because they had no amazing ideas for gameplay and making something prettier is a quick, shallow way to get attention in ANY market.
What mmorpg have better graphic than wow before 2004? At best the other mmorpg have only slightly better graphics.
everquest 2.....
Besides it coming out literally 2 weeks earlier, I think graphics fanatics would agree that EQ2 challenged the hardware TOO much. The graphics were demanding. I remember I had a pretty legit PC and in the dwarven district of Qeynos it would slideshow to abut 5-10 fps.
And in the end, the graphics looked plastic and uninteresting. Strangely, people are still accepting WoW graphics today, and look at EQ2 as worse graphics.
There is no doubt that EQ2 graphics were more demanding. But looking back, I think that WoW had a far better art direction.
Also, I still love EQ2. Fundamentally I love it. There is a magic there that is undisputable IMO.
WoW was one the weakest mmorpgs in terms of "enhanced graphics" when it was released. Blizzard was confidant in their design talent and vision and to this day they have a huge playerbase that just doesnt care that it looks like cardboard. The "enhanced graphics" push you speak of was entirely developer based. They marketed graphics because they had no amazing ideas for gameplay and making something prettier is a quick, shallow way to get attention in ANY market.
What mmorpg have better graphic than wow before 2004? At best the other mmorpg have only slightly better graphics.
everquest 2.....
and yet...one of them is a lot bigger than the other...
Blizzard reputation was insane.
Diablo 1, diablo 2, starcraft all top ten selling games every year for multiple years
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
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.
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?
i mean wolf of wallstreet was a fun movie, that wasnt thought prevoking or a work of art...
just a good fun over the top film to watch, maybe scorsese is making themepark too, but riding the coat tails of his earlier successes
or maybe he's just salty because Marvel is at the box office raking in billions and his latest movie the Irishman went 7 years getting knocked back for funding until netflix threw him a bone, pissing off cinemas in the process with a 4 week to release on digital instead of the standard 90 days.
What killed off mmorpgs was the gold rush the entire gaming industry had in response to the success of WoW. Instead of learning that you cant lift the whole design and systems, with cheap quick development and expect to match or surpass the profit of the most popular MMO the world had ever seen, developers took it as "mmorpgs are a worthless waste of time" and abandoned it for greener pastures like mxt mobile markets.
WoW was one the weakest mmorpgs in terms of "enhanced graphics" when it was released. Blizzard was confidant in their design talent and vision and to this day they have a huge playerbase that just doesnt care that it looks like cardboard. The "enhanced graphics" push you speak of was entirely developer based. They marketed graphics because they had no amazing ideas for gameplay and making something prettier is a quick, shallow way to get attention in ANY market.
Even Fortnite, that looks like a low poly playground, surpassed PUBG with its more realistic graphics. Epic did it thanks to having a design aesthetic that was more appealing to a wider audience and could be handled on a wider range of systems, like WoW.
1 - i mean Blizzard doesn't stop upgrading the visuals in WoW, new animations, new spell effects, new character models, better world design etc... they keep investing in making the game look better so that goes a long way with the players
2 - or it could be because pubg looked like trash.
What killed off mmorpgs was the gold rush the entire gaming industry had in response to the success of WoW. Instead of learning that you cant lift the whole design and systems, with cheap quick development and expect to match or surpass the profit of the most popular MMO the world had ever seen, developers took it as "mmorpgs are a worthless waste of time" and abandoned it for greener pastures like mxt mobile markets.
WoW was one the weakest mmorpgs in terms of "enhanced graphics" when it was released. Blizzard was confidant in their design talent and vision and to this day they have a huge playerbase that just doesnt care that it looks like cardboard. The "enhanced graphics" push you speak of was entirely developer based. They marketed graphics because they had no amazing ideas for gameplay and making something prettier is a quick, shallow way to get attention in ANY market.
Even Fortnite, that looks like a low poly playground, surpassed PUBG with its more realistic graphics. Epic did it thanks to having a design aesthetic that was more appealing to a wider audience and could be handled on a wider range of systems, like WoW.
1 - i mean Blizzard doesn't stop upgrading the visuals in WoW, new animations, new spell effects, new character models, better world design etc... they keep investing in making the game look better so that goes a long way with the players
2 - or it could be because pubg looked like trash.
Wow has upgraded it's graphics, but it's still crazy that people are so accepting of the 2004 version of graphics to this day. It does say something for the longevity of solid art design taking precidence over fidelity. Of course, often you can have both these days. 2004? It was an actual choice.
Hmm, I wouldn't say graphics. Maybe a small factor, but I wouldn't call it the defining factor to why MMO aren't doing well.
Also you have to remember the eastern market is still churning out MMOs.
I would say BDO is a good example of a game having good graphics, being an MMO and having lots of content, it's just a shame the rates are tuned so ridiculously low, MTX and not a traditional endgame. They game does well and could probably do even better if they fixed the 3 things i mentioned
Imho, the reason is companies just don't think there's money in it, and now that will live in a time where companies don't just want to make money, they want to make all the money in galaxy even if it means cutting staff, releasing half completed games or dropping their audience to chase the mobile market.
To counter the rising costs, he offers this: 1) Strong community drives retention 2) Designing for systemic content rather than static content 3) Focus more on multiplayer 4) Shift our F2P emphasis 5) Embrace users generating content 6) Algorithmic and procedural approaches 7) Optimize the server code (or code in general) 8) Raise prices 9) Make less games
He explains further in the link what those thigns are. He also adds the following:
To the players out there: I know none of the above is stuff you necessarily want to hear.Trust me, a lot of it is not stuff developers want to hear either.
If you want to preserve the games you love, you can help by not
pirating, by supporting developers, by not tearing them down on social
media and calling them inept greedy bastards, and most of all by just understanding the landscape.
Comments
Once upon a time....
I alpha tested an MMORPG that never got a drawing because it was UO in 3D, and the PvP aspect killed it. Plus, they just never had funding to move production along faster than a snail.
The game had decent graphics that almost had a stylized look, just touching on it without jumping out at you. But the animation was way better then anything I've seen. Very realistic and in full motion, not the slightly chopped off motions most games have.
Those animations more than made up for the loss in shine of the better graphics.
Once upon a time....
To me, you can go even farther.
WoW is a RPG and an MMO, so an MMORPG.
But they can be defined even farther.
WoW is a Themepark MMORPG, and that's distinctly different than a Sandbox MMORPG.
Once upon a time....
Just jokin', this isn't worth dragon on.
Once upon a time....
You are the perfect mind for some political candidates to take full advantage of.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
It has been misused often to try to shoehorn multiplayer online games that are not MMOs into the genre. Most commonly people here and elsewhere misuse it to describe games like Destiny as MMOs but not MMORPGs as if by doing that you can ignore the first M.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Iselin, yes people have been saying MMO to mean MMORPG for years, but that's changed due to the widespread development of variety in online games.
I'm sure that some people still do say MMO to mean MMORPG, but that's a lacking term for definition these days.
Once upon a time....
The OP is incorrect. Focusing on graphics is the right thing to do. The reality is that you are a minority.
A business person in the gaming world, who you know actually adapts to the changing market and dynamic, will tell you that. Most people like better graphics.
Well gaming market has exploded every year since the inception. Graphics have gone along with it. In reference to MMO's and games in general, graphics are extremely important to a lot of people. If they weren't, they would have gone away from it . . .
You have 2 mmo's come out, one with shiny graphics or one with deep game play and crappy graphics? Guess what, we're humans, we're shallow, looks have always been more important than substance, that's human nature.
Most guys will be attracted to the pretty girl with no substance than the ugly girl with substance but there are others that are not, but we all know who the majority is. Graphics are the same.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
And in the end, the graphics looked plastic and uninteresting. Strangely, people are still accepting WoW graphics today, and look at EQ2 as worse graphics.
There is no doubt that EQ2 graphics were more demanding. But looking back, I think that WoW had a far better art direction.
Also, I still love EQ2. Fundamentally I love it. There is a magic there that is undisputable IMO.
Diablo 1, diablo 2, starcraft all top ten selling games every year for multiple years
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
just a good fun over the top film to watch, maybe scorsese is making themepark too, but riding the coat tails of his earlier successes
or maybe he's just salty because Marvel is at the box office raking in billions and his latest movie the Irishman went 7 years getting knocked back for funding until netflix threw him a bone, pissing off cinemas in the process with a 4 week to release on digital instead of the standard 90 days.
you know what they say about glass houses.
2 - or it could be because pubg looked like trash.
Also you have to remember the eastern market is still churning out MMOs.
I would say BDO is a good example of a game having good graphics, being an MMO and having lots of content, it's just a shame the rates are tuned so ridiculously low, MTX and not a traditional endgame. They game does well and could probably do even better if they fixed the 3 things i mentioned
Imho, the reason is companies just don't think there's money in it, and now that will live in a time where companies don't just want to make money, they want to make all the money in galaxy even if it means cutting staff, releasing half completed games or dropping their audience to chase the mobile market.
The cost of games (by Raph Koster):
Link: https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaphKoster/20180117/313211/The_cost_of_games.php1) Strong community drives retention
2) Designing for systemic content rather than static content
3) Focus more on multiplayer
4) Shift our F2P emphasis
5) Embrace users generating content
6) Algorithmic and procedural approaches
7) Optimize the server code (or code in general)
8) Raise prices
9) Make less games