Have you taken the Bartle gamer psychology test? As a KEAS 86% Killer, I disagree with your view of PVP. PVP is always the deepest and most immersive part of an MMO to me, because you are guaranteed to at least get partially dynamic content due to the unpredictable nature of human opponents. Obviously, Bartle would show your interest in killing to be low, but this does not necessarily translate into a problem. PVP does have huge problems in the genre though. The basic problem is that games like WOW almost never balance classes in 1 V 1 PVP. This means that the killer population finds itself divided. There are members of the killer pop who reroll when they find they rolled a weak PVP class, and members of the killer pop who just consider the game to be broken and quit outright.
Finally, mention that this post is a mere opinion. I have not played all the mmo made, so maybe there is a title that can surprise me (please say it!) . I played a lot... AoC
You played a lot of Age of Conan? The tech beta started a couple of weeks ago. Explain.
I think I explained the PVP thing bad, or at least confusing. I totally agree with you. I love PvP, more for the challenge than for the reward of victory. Humans, as you said, are less predictable.
and AoC.... damn capitals . I meant Dark Age of Camelot, DAoC... LOL! This is one of the effects of those bad mental hangovers...
I personally think "innovation" is a tad overrated. I group it along with the overrated "sandbox" ideas. I would rather have a fun game that is well polished then an innovatative sandbox game that has problems. But maybe I just don't have the patience for a game with major issues. I just want something I can log into and enjoy.
Also on LOTRO, I actually do feel like part of the world and feel that Turbine did a pretty good job providing that experience. The epic storyline quests really provide that feeling for me. The game isn't for everyone, but imo it will continue to be a successful game.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Here's what I believe it's going to take to make the next ground breaking MMORPG. One person (perhaps more than one, but one is all you need) with a vision for a game that does things that for the most part haven't been done yet. A team of developers who are willing to fulfill that vision and haven't been tainted by the business yet. And someone (wealthy individual or company) willing to bankroll the project without regard to the cost involved. Darkfall has been mentioned several times in this thread. From what I've read about the game, it seems to contain these ingredients, but the amount of time it has taken to build does make me wonder about its legitimacy.
I think the market will end up moving more to niches. Each specific niche will be met by a different game. I think Darkfall is going to fail in a lot of people's eyes basically due to the enormous hype it has received.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Quake 1 is for me still the best game I have ever played. First I had upgrade my p1-100 from 8mb ram to 16 get sound and that was incredible ( I didnt dare play this game alone in the dark with headphones all those zombies jumping from my behind) then I got 3dfx voodoo one and that was like going from lada to aston martin in visual. Then all the mods for it CT and TF. Quake had it all for me and that tons of fun now days game are as you say remake of the remake.
The stagnation of the MMORPG market is a combination of present game successes (EQ, WOW, etc...) and the fear of uncertainty for investors/developers in moving in a new direction. I think there are plenty of great ideas out there, but feasibility due to technological/programming limits and monetary concerns are making it hard for these ideas to actually make it into a game. For example:
1. World/Community NPC/PC motivational structure based on actual needs/wants - In most MMORPG's to date the NPCs and their communities are static and are not based on any type of growth/existance/motivation structure based on needs/wants. NPC communities simply exist for the sake of PC interaction (either quests/trade/experience/etc). PC motivations are relegated to the obtainment of experience, loot, some adventure/exploration, and usually ending in some form of higher level raid structure or pvp system with no real effect to the game world beyond bragging rights (although games continually try to mask this through different means).
What if these NPC/PC communities were given needs/wants that had to be met in order for them to survive/grow (basic needs - food, clothing, shelter, etc... basic wants - power, land, wealth, peace/agression, cultural/technological improvements, world domination/destruction ?,etc...) and a Goal oriented A.I. system that allowed them to pursue these goals? In other words adding some complex RTS elements (think Total War, etc...) into the MMORPG structure.
What if PC motivations were centered more on survival of themselves, their communities, and the game world itself? IMO allowing NPC/PC communities and individuals to actually affect the existance and makeup of the game world would provide the ultimate motivation to play an MMORPG(It goes without saying that this amount of freedom must be countered by a world A.I. system that would try to keep as much balance as possible through various instruments. e.g. a complex justice system, powerful deities, dynamic spawning of communities/resources, etc...).
Technological limits, programming complexity, huge balancing issues, and fear of gamers with any ounce of real control over a game world is what has kept these types of ideas from appearing yet (and I say again very hopefully, YET).
2. Goal oriented A.I. - Giving NPC's dynamic short term goals that lead to completion of long term goals for themselves or their community allows for dynamic questing based on actual changing needs, evolving NPC's and NPC communities, an actual "living, breathing, world", and a realism as yet unseen in the MMORPG genre. This would allow for NPC/Player communties the ability to change parameters that most MMORPGs to date hold as static including - religions, locations, leadership, laws, trade/war alliances, short/long term goals, etc...
This idea is of course being held back by the technological demands for the depth of A.I. needed to regulate NPC day to day actions and the complexity associated with allowing NPCs/PCs to change themselves and their surroundings.
3. World-wide consistent physics system - Basic physical "laws" concerning the interactions between all physical objects in the game world. This would allow for more realistic combat, tactics, deformation of terrain, and a heck of a lot more. This one is definately waiting on the technological side of the house to push forward.
These are just a couple of ideas that I would love to see in the future of MMORPGs. I have a lot more (perma-death system, ascension, world restart system, true pvp, etc...and a lot more specifics for the ones listed) but I think I made my point concerning the existance of new ideas for developers.
They have tons of awesome ideas! The question is are you willing to pay for them?!
What the genre desperately needs is a few high quality MMOGs - the kind that require a godly rig or a PS3 to run.
Note to any developer that might be reading this (lol): There are many of us who would be more than willing to give you $100.+ per month for the privilege of playing a true masterpiece! I, personally, would go as high as $300. per month to sub your masterpiece. SO FUCKIN' DO IT ALREADY!! Purdy please...
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
I personally think that the "static" game world is the one thing that developers can work with given the current technology.
Like it or not, graphics now a days is kind of a given, a game that looked made 5-8 years ago won't be picked up by today's gamers nor would you settle for "bloops and bleeps" for sound or pure dumbed down AI that takes out the " I " in AI .
What they can do though is bring back developer involvement and creation in the games. As I have posted in another thread, some of the most memorable events while playing MMOs wasn't that I got uber loot, wasn't that we killed some uber boss mob but when we became part of the game world's lore via events that effect and change the game world as we played. MMOs need more of that and less of "end game raids" because ultimately , repeatable "events" are just that...repeatable ...and after doing such so many times, its not fun anymore.
server side they can do dynamic content they doing this in starport (player owned, can impact the game world,etc). client side they now have methods to do dynamic lighting in 3d enviroments (for instance gears of war all dynamic lighting, neverwinter nights2,etc). age of conan might also be all dynamic lighting. so they have tech for dyanmic content. they always had it server side. but now client side has advance nicely to where we dont need static lightmaps for lighting. so now easier to have buildings anywhere. many engines has this and many MMOs at least give character shadows clientside
They have tons of awesome ideas! The question is are you willing to pay for them?!
What the genre desperately needs is a few high quality MMOGs - the kind that require a godly rig or a PS3 to run.
Note to any developer that might be reading this (lol): There are many of us who would be more than willing to give you $100.+ per month for the privilege of playing a true masterpiece! I, personally, would go as high as $300. per month to sub your masterpiece. SO FUCKIN' DO IT ALREADY!! Purdy please...
You know you're an MMO geek when... hehe, jk, but $300/month is pretty high for me. For that kind of green I'll go out buy a sword, a bulletproof vest and a motorcycle helmet and hire some homeless folks to dress up as goblins.
A lot of good posts on this discussion, but I think it's running a risk of becoming one of those "philosophical to be or not to be" kinds of discussions, which will prevent further dissemenation of the ideas mentioned (to reading devs for example - yeah right). IMO a perfect MMO would simply be 60%-90% player controlled and have a world that makes players want to participate in it instead of just one that is made for their convenience (i.e. click, get quest, click, instant transfer, click, quest completed). By player controlled of course I mean the development of the world and things like technology (inventions in crafting), political/social systems, etc. The role of the devs is to create the perfect environment for it and do their best to keep it balanced.
I think most of the posters here agreed with me on that topic - player control/dynamic, evovling universe.
But then I always ask myself how much of freedom is enough before the game becomes reality? Hehe, another philosophical question.
I don't think the problem is developers are out of ideas. I feel it is more that they are limited to what they can put on paper vs what is actually put into the game. As a designer myself I find that most of my ideas are incredible on paper, however, actually implementing those hashed out ideas into the game and particular engine can be a troubling task. Yeah, I have ideas... but like I stated they are limited by technology ( which is sad).
I think this is the primary reason why you see so many developers go along with the cookie-cutter route, because well, it works!. It has been tried and tested.
I think this is the primary reason why you see so many developers go along with the cookie-cutter route, because well, it works!. It has been tried and tested.
It does? How would we know if there isn't any other options?
They have tons of awesome ideas! The question is are you willing to pay for them?!
Yeah, hard to pay if there isn't anything what I could pay for? So, classic what comes first, chicken or the egg?
Or is often the case in the consumer world, people say they can't make a certain product until there is a demand for it, yet people won't demand something unless its been already created.
So what usually happens is someone has to take a risk and develop a product that's outside the known, accepted norms, and hope and pray it sells. Since the odds are against them (most new ventures fail) the likely hood of risk taking decreases as the cost increases.
Since MMORPG's are taking 30, 40 or 75 million dollars to create these days, few people will take a chance on creating a game that doesn't follow the 'proven' formula for success.
WOW is the first game to successfully appeal to a mass western market so its natural that its become the poster child for success.
But I predict what will probably happen is most of the clones will not reach anywhere near the success that WOW did (i.e. LoTRO) and some developer will convince some investors to take a bigger chance on some new ideas in the hopes of a better than average payout.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The stagnation of the MMORPG market is a combination of present game successes (EQ, WOW, etc...) and the fear of uncertainty for investors/developers in moving in a new direction. I think there are plenty of great ideas out there, but feasibility due to technological/programming limits and monetary concerns are making it hard for these ideas to actually make it into a game. For example: 1. World/Community NPC/PC motivational structure based on actual needs/wants - In most MMORPG's to date the NPCs and their communities are static and are not based on any type of growth/existance/motivation structure based on needs/wants. NPC communities simply exist for the sake of PC interaction (either quests/trade/experience/etc). PC motivations are relegated to the obtainment of experience, loot, some adventure/exploration, and usually ending in some form of higher level raid structure or pvp system with no real effect to the game world beyond bragging rights (although games continually try to mask this through different means). What if these NPC/PC communities were given needs/wants that had to be met in order for them to survive/grow (basic needs - food, clothing, shelter, etc... basic wants - power, land, wealth, peace/agression, cultural/technological improvements, world domination/destruction ?,etc...) and a Goal oriented A.I. system that allowed them to pursue these goals? In other words adding some complex RTS elements (think Total War, etc...) into the MMORPG structure. What if PC motivations were centered more on survival of themselves, their communities, and the game world itself? IMO allowing NPC/PC communities and individuals to actually affect the existance and makeup of the game world would provide the ultimate motivation to play an MMORPG(It goes without saying that this amount of freedom must be countered by a world A.I. system that would try to keep as much balance as possible through various instruments. e.g. a complex justice system, powerful deities, dynamic spawning of communities/resources, etc...). Technological limits, programming complexity, huge balancing issues, and fear of gamers with any ounce of real control over a game world is what has kept these types of ideas from appearing yet (and I say again very hopefully, YET). 2. Goal oriented A.I. - Giving NPC's dynamic short term goals that lead to completion of long term goals for themselves or their community allows for dynamic questing based on actual changing needs, evolving NPC's and NPC communities, an actual "living, breathing, world", and a realism as yet unseen in the MMORPG genre. This would allow for NPC/Player communties the ability to change parameters that most MMORPGs to date hold as static including - religions, locations, leadership, laws, trade/war alliances, short/long term goals, etc... This idea is of course being held back by the technological demands for the depth of A.I. needed to regulate NPC day to day actions and the complexity associated with allowing NPCs/PCs to change themselves and their surroundings. 3. World-wide consistent physics system - Basic physical "laws" concerning the interactions between all physical objects in the game world. This would allow for more realistic combat, tactics, deformation of terrain, and a heck of a lot more. This one is definately waiting on the technological side of the house to push forward. These are just a couple of ideas that I would love to see in the future of MMORPGs. I have a lot more (perma-death system, ascension, world restart system, true pvp, etc...and a lot more specifics for the ones listed) but I think I made my point concerning the existance of new ideas for developers.
Not interested in NPC"s having goals as suggested in your point #2. IMO, that's a wasted bunch of coding. If you want to give NPC's the appearance of having goals, that accomplishes the same thing as far as the player is concerned without lots of wasted code and computation. Why do I care if an NPC "needs" something? That doesn't add to my gameplay at all. You can make dynamic quests without this feature. Just program them in.
Not interestedin #3. Works great for FPS games, but I don't see it being necessary in an MMORPG.
In addition there is no such accepted term as "true PvP". There are many forms of PvP, which includes any situation where one player is engaged in combat with another player (player versus player). That could be anything from a duel, where neither player loses items, or xp, and there is no death penalty, to FFA PvP where any player can kill any other player, anywhere, any time, and fully loot their dead body. BOTH are PvP, and neither one is "true" PvP.
OP is probably right when you think about the developed in MMOs over the last few years - its all about polishing whats already there, and appealing to the mass market, rather than trying anything new. Raph Koster seems to be the real innovative force in MMOs (just take a look at the original SWG - that game had more innovative ideas that the rest of the entire industry since then). Take a look at this website - some really interesting presentations and articles on there. Someone mentioned on another thread that he's developing another game.
Raph is developing another game. It's called Aeon or something like that. There's some links on the rlmmo site to his and forums.
As for the out of idea statement from the OP, I would have to say NO we're not out of ideas. We have plenty of them, everyone has ideas about their ideal game they'd like to make. Many of those will be impposible or will never see the light of day however. Especially if they are with a large company like SOE or Bliz, they have great games but lots of rehashed ideas (even polished ones). The innovative ideas will always come from the indie teams like Wardog, or Darkhorizons etc...not from the big guys. They can't afford to do it and the publishers won't let them as they all live by the golden rule. He who hath the gold maketh the rules!
North America/Europe mmorpg market is so small compared to Asia.(WoW helped but)
Asia is where the money is at and it seems like Asia pumps out a new mmorpgs every week..
We get table scraps and maybe one good mmorpg every few years;and all "they" want is us to buy gold from farmers ,when they port over one of their "new"titles..
Investors are hesitant to back a new mmorpg for North America 'cause they don't want to compete against Microsoft and the 360.
I think the market will end up moving more to niches. Each specific niche will be met by a different game. I think Darkfall is going to fail in a lot of people's eyes basically due to the enormous hype it has received.
I believe this will happen as well (as far as a niche is concerned), as we can see not all of us agree to any one particular design. Thankfully we can discuss this in a civil, constructive and rational manner. Vanguard essentially was suppose to be the next game that would have all these particular features that are being mentioned here. Samael raises some good points and others have made some really great contributions, though I don't agree with a lot of what Samael had to offer either.
As the old saying goes, a camel is a horse put together by committee and a committee of players with varying ideas and varying game styles would be a daunting if not impossible challenge for any game developer to meet. I do like some of the solutions that have been presented.
My personal ideologies in an MMO do revolve around a strong player community, we saw this in the EC tunnels in EQ and for the most part the communal cities. I can remember people commenting on how amazing it felt to be back in the old EC tunnel hawking wares and wheeling & dealing with people when the Combine Server was released this time last year. EQ is a great model from which we can see what works and what doesn't work. Once the Bazaar was introduced the social element of the corner market/street vendor changed into the mega-lo-mart one stop shopping and lead to offlline selling as we saw with WoW.
What also happened in EQ was the dawn of idiot proofing the game. It started by disabling sewing kits from combining without the proper materials or ingredients, then it snowed balled from there, the death penalty which was the staple of the risk/reward feature that gave EQ a backbone was changed, NPC binding bots were introduced, then PoK came along and suddenly you could be a click away from where ever you wanted to be virtually shutting down the Wizard and Druid social network of porting (yet another social element killer). The boat rides were classic and allowed people a little down time, which now leads me to down time.
Meditation was an interesting element in EQ, which will tie in with the ideology that the game was becoming work and tedium. Meditation allowed for the group to take a momentary break and engage in conversation, yet another social element, but that too was going to be changed. Sadly people just became impatient, they felt inconvenienced by the subtleties that made the game feel real. People's excuse was that they wanted to have fun and not feel they were 'working' in their game.
So game designers have to be cognizant not to fatigue the players with what would other wise be a sense of real time nuances. Something that I rarely see mentioned in these discussion is a crafting system, I really enjoy crafting in a game, its a great diversion from hacking and slashing. I would agree that crafting in EQ was a great way to develop carpal tunnel syndrome, however it was rewarding making things. SOE did a fairly good job with crafting in EQII, but with a little more tweaking it would have been the envy of any MMO.
Another thing game designers should be taking notice of is how smoothly LOTRO launched and how stable the game runs, I was impressed. Granted LOTRO has its limitations, but the launch and stability was huge, not to mention the game is infused with lore, another element that is important to me. For a game to feel right it has to give the player a sense of belonging, it has to be meaningful and provide some sense of purpose. Vanguard was so completely void of belongingness I could barely play the Beta, I didn't have any problems 'beta testing' it, but all I felt I was doing was making sure the game functioned. Outside of that the game was soul-less.
I really hope some day a game designer can some how pull it off where everyone gets a little piece of the pie and we can feel good about a compelling, challenging and all around fun game.
The Old Timers Guild Laid back, not so serious, no drama. All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
Comments
You played a lot of Age of Conan? The tech beta started a couple of weeks ago. Explain.I think I explained the PVP thing bad, or at least confusing. I totally agree with you. I love PvP, more for the challenge than for the reward of victory. Humans, as you said, are less predictable.
and AoC.... damn capitals
I personally think "innovation" is a tad overrated. I group it along with the overrated "sandbox" ideas. I would rather have a fun game that is well polished then an innovatative sandbox game that has problems. But maybe I just don't have the patience for a game with major issues. I just want something I can log into and enjoy.
Also on LOTRO, I actually do feel like part of the world and feel that Turbine did a pretty good job providing that experience. The epic storyline quests really provide that feeling for me. The game isn't for everyone, but imo it will continue to be a successful game.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Sorry for all spelling errors and grammar
The stagnation of the MMORPG market is a combination of present game successes (EQ, WOW, etc...) and the fear of uncertainty for investors/developers in moving in a new direction. I think there are plenty of great ideas out there, but feasibility due to technological/programming limits and monetary concerns are making it hard for these ideas to actually make it into a game. For example:
1. World/Community NPC/PC motivational structure based on actual needs/wants - In most MMORPG's to date the NPCs and their communities are static and are not based on any type of growth/existance/motivation structure based on needs/wants. NPC communities simply exist for the sake of PC interaction (either quests/trade/experience/etc). PC motivations are relegated to the obtainment of experience, loot, some adventure/exploration, and usually ending in some form of higher level raid structure or pvp system with no real effect to the game world beyond bragging rights (although games continually try to mask this through different means).
What if these NPC/PC communities were given needs/wants that had to be met in order for them to survive/grow (basic needs - food, clothing, shelter, etc... basic wants - power, land, wealth, peace/agression, cultural/technological improvements, world domination/destruction ?,etc...) and a Goal oriented A.I. system that allowed them to pursue these goals? In other words adding some complex RTS elements (think Total War, etc...) into the MMORPG structure.
What if PC motivations were centered more on survival of themselves, their communities, and the game world itself? IMO allowing NPC/PC communities and individuals to actually affect the existance and makeup of the game world would provide the ultimate motivation to play an MMORPG(It goes without saying that this amount of freedom must be countered by a world A.I. system that would try to keep as much balance as possible through various instruments. e.g. a complex justice system, powerful deities, dynamic spawning of communities/resources, etc...).
Technological limits, programming complexity, huge balancing issues, and fear of gamers with any ounce of real control over a game world is what has kept these types of ideas from appearing yet (and I say again very hopefully, YET).
2. Goal oriented A.I. - Giving NPC's dynamic short term goals that lead to completion of long term goals for themselves or their community allows for dynamic questing based on actual changing needs, evolving NPC's and NPC communities, an actual "living, breathing, world", and a realism as yet unseen in the MMORPG genre. This would allow for NPC/Player communties the ability to change parameters that most MMORPGs to date hold as static including - religions, locations, leadership, laws, trade/war alliances, short/long term goals, etc...
This idea is of course being held back by the technological demands for the depth of A.I. needed to regulate NPC day to day actions and the complexity associated with allowing NPCs/PCs to change themselves and their surroundings.
3. World-wide consistent physics system - Basic physical "laws" concerning the interactions between all physical objects in the game world. This would allow for more realistic combat, tactics, deformation of terrain, and a heck of a lot more. This one is definately waiting on the technological side of the house to push forward.
These are just a couple of ideas that I would love to see in the future of MMORPGs. I have a lot more (perma-death system, ascension, world restart system, true pvp, etc...and a lot more specifics for the ones listed) but I think I made my point concerning the existance of new ideas for developers.
They have tons of awesome ideas! The question is are you willing to pay for them?!
What the genre desperately needs is a few high quality MMOGs - the kind that require a godly rig or a PS3 to run.
Note to any developer that might be reading this (lol): There are many of us who would be more than willing to give you $100.+ per month for the privilege of playing a true masterpiece! I, personally, would go as high as $300. per month to sub your masterpiece. SO FUCKIN' DO IT ALREADY!! Purdy please...
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
server side they can do dynamic content they doing this in starport (player owned, can impact the game world,etc). client side they now have methods to do dynamic lighting in 3d enviroments (for instance gears of war all dynamic lighting, neverwinter nights2,etc). age of conan might also be all dynamic lighting. so they have tech for dyanmic content. they always had it server side. but now client side has advance nicely to where we dont need static lightmaps for lighting. so now easier to have buildings anywhere. many engines has this and many MMOs at least give character shadows clientside
good post btw!
You know you're an MMO geek when... hehe, jk, but $300/month is pretty high for me. For that kind of green I'll go out buy a sword, a bulletproof vest and a motorcycle helmet and hire some homeless folks to dress up as goblins.
A lot of good posts on this discussion, but I think it's running a risk of becoming one of those "philosophical to be or not to be" kinds of discussions, which will prevent further dissemenation of the ideas mentioned (to reading devs for example - yeah right). IMO a perfect MMO would simply be 60%-90% player controlled and have a world that makes players want to participate in it instead of just one that is made for their convenience (i.e. click, get quest, click, instant transfer, click, quest completed). By player controlled of course I mean the development of the world and things like technology (inventions in crafting), political/social systems, etc. The role of the devs is to create the perfect environment for it and do their best to keep it balanced.
I think most of the posters here agreed with me on that topic - player control/dynamic, evovling universe.
But then I always ask myself how much of freedom is enough before the game becomes reality? Hehe, another philosophical question.
____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
------------ Blazeard----------
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ / \____________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
I think this is the primary reason why you see so many developers go along with the cookie-cutter route, because well, it works!. It has been tried and tested.
MMORPG.COM has worst forum editor ever exists
MMORPG.COM has worst forum editor ever exists
Or is often the case in the consumer world, people say they can't make a certain product until there is a demand for it, yet people won't demand something unless its been already created.
So what usually happens is someone has to take a risk and develop a product that's outside the known, accepted norms, and hope and pray it sells. Since the odds are against them (most new ventures fail) the likely hood of risk taking decreases as the cost increases.
Since MMORPG's are taking 30, 40 or 75 million dollars to create these days, few people will take a chance on creating a game that doesn't follow the 'proven' formula for success.
WOW is the first game to successfully appeal to a mass western market so its natural that its become the poster child for success.
But I predict what will probably happen is most of the clones will not reach anywhere near the success that WOW did (i.e. LoTRO) and some developer will convince some investors to take a bigger chance on some new ideas in the hopes of a better than average payout.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Not interestedin #3. Works great for FPS games, but I don't see it being necessary in an MMORPG.
In addition there is no such accepted term as "true PvP". There are many forms of PvP, which includes any situation where one player is engaged in combat with another player (player versus player). That could be anything from a duel, where neither player loses items, or xp, and there is no death penalty, to FFA PvP where any player can kill any other player, anywhere, any time, and fully loot their dead body. BOTH are PvP, and neither one is "true" PvP.
OP is probably right when you think about the developed in MMOs over the last few years - its all about polishing whats already there, and appealing to the mass market, rather than trying anything new. Raph Koster seems to be the real innovative force in MMOs (just take a look at the original SWG - that game had more innovative ideas that the rest of the entire industry since then). Take a look at this website - some really interesting presentations and articles on there. Someone mentioned on another thread that he's developing another game.
Raph is developing another game. It's called Aeon or something like that. There's some links on the rlmmo site to his and forums.
As for the out of idea statement from the OP, I would have to say NO we're not out of ideas. We have plenty of them, everyone has ideas about their ideal game they'd like to make. Many of those will be impposible or will never see the light of day however. Especially if they are with a large company like SOE or Bliz, they have great games but lots of rehashed ideas (even polished ones). The innovative ideas will always come from the indie teams like Wardog, or Darkhorizons etc...not from the big guys. They can't afford to do it and the publishers won't let them as they all live by the golden rule. He who hath the gold maketh the rules!
http://www.forceofarms.com/index.php
North America/Europe mmorpg market is so small compared to Asia.(WoW helped but)
Asia is where the money is at and it seems like Asia pumps out a new mmorpgs every week..
We get table scraps and maybe one good mmorpg every few years;and all "they" want is us to buy gold from farmers ,when they port over one of their "new"titles..
Investors are hesitant to back a new mmorpg for North America 'cause they don't want to compete against Microsoft and the 360.
it's all a conspiracy.
Microsoft would bury them like they did to Sigil.
Microsoft runs the world.
As the old saying goes, a camel is a horse put together by committee and a committee of players with varying ideas and varying game styles would be a daunting if not impossible challenge for any game developer to meet. I do like some of the solutions that have been presented.
My personal ideologies in an MMO do revolve around a strong player community, we saw this in the EC tunnels in EQ and for the most part the communal cities. I can remember people commenting on how amazing it felt to be back in the old EC tunnel hawking wares and wheeling & dealing with people when the Combine Server was released this time last year. EQ is a great model from which we can see what works and what doesn't work. Once the Bazaar was introduced the social element of the corner market/street vendor changed into the mega-lo-mart one stop shopping and lead to offlline selling as we saw with WoW.
What also happened in EQ was the dawn of idiot proofing the game. It started by disabling sewing kits from combining without the proper materials or ingredients, then it snowed balled from there, the death penalty which was the staple of the risk/reward feature that gave EQ a backbone was changed, NPC binding bots were introduced, then PoK came along and suddenly you could be a click away from where ever you wanted to be virtually shutting down the Wizard and Druid social network of porting (yet another social element killer). The boat rides were classic and allowed people a little down time, which now leads me to down time.
Meditation was an interesting element in EQ, which will tie in with the ideology that the game was becoming work and tedium. Meditation allowed for the group to take a momentary break and engage in conversation, yet another social element, but that too was going to be changed. Sadly people just became impatient, they felt inconvenienced by the subtleties that made the game feel real. People's excuse was that they wanted to have fun and not feel they were 'working' in their game.
So game designers have to be cognizant not to fatigue the players with what would other wise be a sense of real time nuances. Something that I rarely see mentioned in these discussion is a crafting system, I really enjoy crafting in a game, its a great diversion from hacking and slashing. I would agree that crafting in EQ was a great way to develop carpal tunnel syndrome, however it was rewarding making things. SOE did a fairly good job with crafting in EQII, but with a little more tweaking it would have been the envy of any MMO.
Another thing game designers should be taking notice of is how smoothly LOTRO launched and how stable the game runs, I was impressed. Granted LOTRO has its limitations, but the launch and stability was huge, not to mention the game is infused with lore, another element that is important to me. For a game to feel right it has to give the player a sense of belonging, it has to be meaningful and provide some sense of purpose. Vanguard was so completely void of belongingness I could barely play the Beta, I didn't have any problems 'beta testing' it, but all I felt I was doing was making sure the game functioned. Outside of that the game was soul-less.
I really hope some day a game designer can some how pull it off where everyone gets a little piece of the pie and we can feel good about a compelling, challenging and all around fun game.
The Old Timers Guild
Laid back, not so serious, no drama.
All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com
An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett