I would say MMOs have changed alot, but it has NOT been evolved much. I am not saying it has not evolved at all, but it is very...... little.
New games may have more features, it may show you more info of the quest and tells you where to go in the map where other MMOs don't, but in the end it is same old same to go where and do what.
New ones may have more skills in skill tree, but at the end, you just have to spend more time grind your skills level ( or character level ).
These way of game playing style has been there even since RPG.
I believe whoever has been playing RPG / MMORPG knows MMORPG comes from RPG.
I agree MMORPG evolve from RPG because many features in RPG are not in consideration list of developer, like party.
Since UO, there has been few skill based games, and even most MMO that have high number of subscriber are like EQ, but the MMOs in the last decade has not evolve much.
I can see the difference between different MMO in gameplay, feature, graphic, and etc...., but as I play longer in those games, I just end up with same conclusion ( just like my friend said ) " same shit, different smell ". You know they are different in small detail, but the genre is the same, the way of gameplay is still the same.
Game dev these days only copy most of stuff and make some changes, then they say, "we can better job that those guys".
Just look at Age of Conan and Warhammer, how much better are they compare to WoW ? They are little better than WoW IMO, but they are the same kind of games because they come from the same place. The game design is from exact same way of game style and gameplay, so many people got bored with them very quicky.
WoW still has highest subscription, but it is a bad game to me, so I quit. To me, Blizzard is very good at marketing and getting players into the game. They put so many awesome items to make people feel items matter, and this only spoil young players.
Little envolutioin occured when Neocron 2 combine MMORPG with FPS, and recently Darkfall and Mortal Online follows (may be some games did that long ago, but at least I can't find it).
Nowadays, game dev think graphics and features improvement is criticial. To me, being able to have a commuity and able communicate with them quickly and easily ( especailly when we are playing hardcore ) is very important.
Also, games that make common sense is also very important, e.g in WoW that you can get hit through the walls and etc.... which sucks.
Certainly, technicial issue liks lags and cheats matter also. Lag was the main reason that I quit UO.
IMO, game dev is unable to get players into the game and keep them in the game because they don't realize MMO is not only a game, it is about community in the game (at least I think so). Givinig players faster and easier way to find a group of players or guide is one way to improve players chance to be in community and play together with other players (Warhammer has done slight improvement, but it's only one so far I have seen).
Also, I have not see many game dev improve communication in game. i mean where is the VoIP chat ? Come on guys, typing in the chat windows is so out-dated way of communication, WTF do you have time to type when you are facing enenmy right in front of you, really I have not seen anyone can fight and type at the same time, clicking the screen then switch back to chat window.
PLEASE implement in-game voice chat as default communication, at least in small groups of party ( I know Tabula Rasa and EVE online has done this, but they are only 2 so far I have seen). And yeah I know TS and Vent works, but they only work for a group of people that play together often, and you don't have this luxury if you only find random people to group together temperarily.
Evolution will not happen in days, but with the way that game dev copying and improving little by little instead of finding innovative ideas, evolution will only have little bit result at least in terms of decades.
Firstly this statement “World of Warcraft, the recognized pinnacle of the current species of MMO” what is it based on? Number of sales, or perhaps subsciptions? On this basis the political party in your country that got the most votes is the best, the candy bar that sells more than any other is the best too. Is a modern artwork that sells more than a old master better than the old master? Is the best selling PDA the one with the best features? WoW is a good MMO, but only at the pinnacle in terms of sales.
#5 Number of games being released: The explosion in MMO releases was a reaction to WoW’s suceess and the companies of these new games have all to often striclty followed the WoW formula, no evolution there.
#4 Moving beyond just RPG mechanics: I agree there has been some expansion here, but as with TR it often fails, I am hopeful of more diversity in this area for the future though. Any new mechanic in MMO’s is to the good, if it does not work it won’t get used in the future, survival of the fittest in action.
#3 Moving beyond fantasy: I think it is a given this is happening, not sure if we will see non fantasy get an even larger market share, but diversity of MMO story background strenghens the industry and gives players more unique games to play, we are all winners here.
#2 Experimentation with alternate business plans: Yes experimentation with revenue models is happening and I ask you, has that ever truly benifited the consumer? When a company realises it cannot hold on to a draconian pricing structure (like paying a hourly rate for internet use) that benifts us. But when companies are looking around at alternative revenue models (like a cash shop) that is never going to be to the players benefit, it is done for the purpose of maximising revenue, simple as that.
#1 Gameplay innovation: We have seen many threads on this site about what we would like to see in new MMO’s from the great features in current MMO’s. But so few do get implemented in the next generation and some never see light again. Here survival of the fittest is not working, it is more ‘survival of the tried and trusted’. In fact many new MMO’s particularly F2P show devolution clearly at work.
I think a large number of the people posting here really, really need to go look up the word "evolve". I am quite amazed by the number of people here who seemingly do not understand it.
It's the many incremental, baby steps of change that have evolved the genre, and don't forget that alot of the older titles are not set in stone, and so often assimilate innovations from newer titles, just like WoW has done.
For those complaining that change isn't quick enough, you must stop to consider that it does indeed take time to evaluate what, why and when. It takes an unearthly amount of time to pad out a good quality MMO, and it takes time for the industry to figure out why a game fails. Until the lessons have been learnt you can expect to see some of the same ground covered by other "explorers".
Great things don't come from organic evolution. You get diferent flavours of the same thing with perhaps some marginally 'better'. Evolution is as much about loosing redundant stuff as gaining new stuff)
What is required is radical new ideas and change to advance the genre. The reason UO did well is because it added massive to relatively small scale MUDs (for the time) oh and a graphical interface. EQ's greatest contribution was the 3D environment. It also introduced a lot of BS and lost a lot of the complexity that was in the more sophisticated MUDs in efforts to streamline. Wow contined in that tradition it applied polish but dumbed down, though at least talents provided some degree of customisation to characters.
So yes there has been evolution but I look forward to some real radical inovation rather than small incremental changes.
Apart from No. 1 and 4, the arguments have nothing to do with MMO per se, but rather some technical factor.
5) The author states that WOW is the pinnacle? Why? Because of numbers? If you take quantitiy as No 1 factor to judge whether something is the pinnacle then rats, cockroaches and even plancton is further up the evolutionary ladder than humanity.
3) Steering away from the Fantasy genre is not evolution in itself. It is change, for sure, but just imagine a Mod of Everquest 2 where all textures and Skins have a Sci-Fi background. All the Mobs have cyborg or android textures. Is this already evolution? The game is still the same, just the graphics have changed.
2) Declaring payment methods as evolution of the genre is flawed. Payment methods will have an effect on MMOs for sure, one can see it already today, where MMOs more and more are not immersive worlds, but real world influences become more and more dominant.
In the past MMO players nobility followed the rule "the more you play". In the future it will be "the more you pay". We play MMOs to have adventures in fantastic worlds, but the real world is pushing itself more and more into it through payment methods.
The author points out that with payment methods MMOs take the opposite development that Internet payment methods and cell phone payment took. The reason the payment methods for the latter two changed was customer friendliness. It is cheaper for the customer to pay just a monthly fee. This customer friendliness, however, attracts at the same time more customers which makes it more profitable for the company.
MMOs take a reverse development with item shops and micro-payment because that is the way the companies will make more profit. For most gamers customer service and friendliness is not an issue as long as it is not too obtrusive and aggressive. We love our characters and the world that they adventure in. We want them to succeed in that world, whatever it takes. The company changes it terms of use? or payment methods? we don't care as long as they don't change the world, game balance etc etc.
No other industry has the luxury to do that. Imagine your ISP decides to go back to pay per minute or even pay per hour? Who would even bother to think about all the lovely hours you spent in the Internet with that ISP and hesitate?
Let's make a simple hypothetical game. Imagine a MMO with the same exact game mechanics as UO. However with an up-to-date top-notch 3-D graphic engine, the best textures, skins and animations seen in an MMO so far. That game would rock. And it would be as much evolution as there has been between a human from 2000 BC and 2000 AD.
5. Quest driven MMORPGS - I have nothing against quests per se but the way quests are done in current MMORPGs are counter intuitive to how MMORPGs are done. Some times it is fetch X items or kill Y mobs and that is, altough boring, fine. However many quests have storylines where you rescue someone or kill some evil boss, however since this is an MMORPG the same storyline is done in identical parrarell realities in the same world. Totally contradtictive to having a persistant world.
4. Themeparks - I dont know how came up with this idea but MMORPGs are supposed to create virtual worlds, NOT themeparks. The influx of themepark MMORPGs where you "ride" certaint events is again contradictive to a persistant WORLD. Just look at games like AoC and WAR, the world looks like a playground with teleporters zip zapping you across the so called world (read themepark).
3. Instancing - Yet another completelty contradictive feature in an MMORPG. How can you explain having identical areas in the same world? You cannot and is a cheap way for the devs to make the world appear bigger because they cant be bothered to just have a random generator to atleast make the instances look different. And when you start making instances of towns then it is gone to far.
2. Casual play - This concept has more or less destroyed the original idea of having a peristant virtual world to evolve in because now everything has to be easy and casual. No death penalties - making death seem meaningless, instant travelling - decreasing the already small world, P2P - instead of advancing your character by playing then you can BUY yourself to get to higher levels much quicker, heavility restricted PvP - taking away any possibilities for guild politics.
1. WoW - This MMORPG is the best proof anyone needs for how MMORPGs has devolved. It has all of the elements mentioned above and with its enormous popularity has made tons of developers trying to create the next "WoW killer" which means they will try and make a copy of WoW but with some features that WoW does not have. Newsflash for you devs, there is no such thing as a better copy. Innovation is what will create the "WoW killer". Not plagiarism.
The reason WoW is the number one reason of MMORPG devolution is that it has no persistant world where you actions affect same world. PvP is meaningless, PvE is meaningless they are all for getting more items actually achieving, even partial victories, in the world of WARcraft, is not possibly as the war is an illusion. Beside being static it is also very linear. The game is basically the Volvo of MMORPGs, it works and is safe but does it have any innovative features? No.
First, there seems to be some confussion about what the word "evolution" actually means. I used this amazing device called a computer to interact with the internet to pull up the websters definition of the word.
e·volve audio (-vlv) KEY
VERB:
e·volved , e·volv·ing , e·volves
VERB:
tr.
1. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
2. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
VERB:
intr.
1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.
I would think the definition of "evolve" fits pretty well in the case of all 5 of those points in the article. Yes, even payment methods as that has a profound impact on whether people even want to play the game to begin with. In the larger arena of "video gaming" MMO's are fairly unpopular because of the recurring subscription based business model. WoW is pretty much the only game to overcome that barrier long term. 5 years after it's launch, WoW still has millions of subscriptions while 5 years after the launch of DAoC, the game was dead and forgotten.
Next - MMORPG's will continue to evolve over time and will probably never stop like any other industry.
I've seen a lot of critism about where MMO's have gone but very little in terms of offerings to where MMO's could be going aside from "they should be more like my old game".
Many of you are clearly looking through "rose colored glasses" in regards to the older generation of games. The "good old days" syndrome is well at work here. If they were so great...why aren't you still playing them? If you are unhappy with "Age of Conan" or "Warhammer", why haven't AC or DAoC experience a resurgance? Money talks, without an influx of subs / profit, you can not substantiate a claim of "the old games were better". No company in any industry is going to go back in a old model and say "gee maybe we should reintroduce the betamax video cassette player...it was a pretty good system"... yeah maybe it was...30 years ago. Vanguard is a classic example of "you can't go back to yesterday". The game works fairly well now...so why doesn't anyone play it? It fits the old model of play pretty well....because no one (the market at large) wants play that style anymore.
Lastly...
Ask yourself "I'm I unhappy with the way the evolution of the genre is going OR has my playstyle / taste NOT evolved with the genre?"
Evolution isn't about what you want individually, we all would like wings to fly, but its about adapting to changing environments and MMO's are driven by money / demand. If Asherons Call suddenly had an influx or 200,000 new subs, you can bet your sweet arse the genre would rethink itself...but that hasn't happened yet so we move forward and not back.
Evolve means E-Volve it's the internet program that allows you to buy a volvo online. That was lame but I had to post it. I do agree with you about the games of old. I think what many people are saying about the games of old is that.
I want to experience the fun i had in "insert old game here". I for sure want that, but it's like a first love or first car, the first time you experience it is the best most likely.
Is it just me or does SWG have a crapload of bugs or is it just laggy or my comp sucks?
Cryomatrix
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
5) The author states that WOW is the pinnacle? Why? Because of numbers? If you take quantitiy as No 1 factor to judge whether something is the pinnacle then rats, cockroaches and even plancton is further up the evolutionary ladder than humanity.
I find it very strange. If whether a certain item is successful of not is not base on the numbrs of the product sold, than what should it base on?
Say A-phone only sold 300k, B-phone 3 million. Which project is successful?
There will never be an item that will be able to cater/ to be like by all kinds of buyers, but as long as ALOT of consumers buy it, than it is sucessful, whether you like it or not...
The genre doesn't need slow, evolutionary changes, it needs fresh, revolutionary changes.
No, you want this, the industry does not "Need" it.
You confuse your personal wants, with, well, reality.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Evolution? No. Devolution. Five proofs of MMO Devolution 5. Quest driven MMORPGS - I have nothing against quests per se but the way quests are done in current MMORPGs are counter intuitive to how MMORPGs are done. Some times it is fetch X items or kill Y mobs and that is, altough boring, fine. However many quests have storylines where you rescue someone or kill some evil boss, however since this is an MMORPG the same storyline is done in identical parrarell realities in the same world. Totally contradtictive to having a persistant world. 4. Themeparks - I dont know how came up with this idea but MMORPGs are supposed to create virtual worlds, NOT themeparks. The influx of themepark MMORPGs where you "ride" certaint events is again contradictive to a persistant WORLD. Just look at games like AoC and WAR, the world looks like a playground with teleporters zip zapping you across the so called world (read themepark). 3. Instancing - Yet another completelty contradictive feature in an MMORPG. How can you explain having identical areas in the same world? You cannot and is a cheap way for the devs to make the world appear bigger because they cant be bothered to just have a random generator to atleast make the instances look different. And when you start making instances of towns then it is gone to far. 2. Casual play - This concept has more or less destroyed the original idea of having a peristant virtual world to evolve in because now everything has to be easy and casual. No death penalties - making death seem meaningless, instant travelling - decreasing the already small world, P2P - instead of advancing your character by playing then you can BUY yourself to get to higher levels much quicker, heavility restricted PvP - taking away any possibilities for guild politics. 1. WoW - This MMORPG is the best proof anyone needs for how MMORPGs has devolved. It has all of the elements mentioned above and with its enormous popularity has made tons of developers trying to create the next "WoW killer" which means they will try and make a copy of WoW but with some features that WoW does not have. Newsflash for you devs, there is no such thing as a better copy. Innovation is what will create the "WoW killer". Not plagiarism. The reason WoW is the number one reason of MMORPG devolution is that it has no persistant world where you actions affect same world. PvP is meaningless, PvE is meaningless they are all for getting more items actually achieving, even partial victories, in the world of WARcraft, is not possibly as the war is an illusion. Beside being static it is also very linear. The game is basically the Volvo of MMORPGs, it works and is safe but does it have any innovative features? No.
This is all subjective. And, the past/current rise in players playing MMO's as a whole, disagree with you.
Fact of the matter is, all of that has lead to growth, and more money to develop titles. Your personal views, are in conflict with reality. Sorry.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
The only evolution in MMOs is stearing away from innovation and honest creativity and into big buisness models of dumbed down safe formulas run by white collar dirtbags. MMOs have DEvolved into cash crops for big buisness.
Completely agree!
We have gone from games such as UO. Skill system, housing, crafting that mattered to the community, and the ability to THINK about what to do with yourself in game. To level up, loot, and dumb it down, and being told what to do and how to play. How is that evolution?
Actually, I think MMO's are deevolutionizing. I think the original UO and Asheron's Call games were better than anything we have today, including Wow. There is no freedom to choose in the current crop of MMO's. I believe this is driven by the "instant gratification crowd", everyone wants to get to end game immediately, instead of enjoying the experience of getting there.
What?!!! My MMOs don't come decended from no Monkey's Island. Is that your culture and heritage?!! That's not my culture and heritage!!
I think I'm starting to see why so many rubes don't believe in evolution insofar as our species is concerned. I don't think they understand the concept, as represented by some of your posts.
I'm not gonna try to define it again or explain it because I don't think it will help.
As far as the article is concerned, wether you agree or not, the genre has changed, substantially. All the changes can be subjectively defined as good or bad, for whatever reasons. The point is that those changes occured and, in turn, evolved the genre.
Ok... so maybe I will try to explain, but that doesn't mean my MMOs come decended from no Monkey Island.
When comparing the current "crop" of MMOs to Ultima Online and Asheron's Call, I don't know that "evolution" is the term I'd use as evolution has a particularly positive connotation. The current crop...the current design "handbook" is so far away from that of UO and AC that they are, away from basics like "graphical, character, items, etc", a different beast. For the worse in my estimation. Would be nice to see more "AAA" companies do updates of those games' systems/mechanics as opposed to the hyper-infatuation they seem to have with the mechanics prevalent in WoW. Everyone's making vanilla icecream these days while chocolate and strawberry are sorely missed.
Where you fail is realizing that it's not the WoW formula they are copying, it's the Everquest formula.
Beyond that, I agree that I'd love to see AAA quality new MMO that follows more of the Ultima Online or Asheron's Call formula instead.
But would players respond? Would the mob be happy with a build your own adventure game versus a content oriented theme park?
So far, the answer has been no.
No I'm just hoping for a content rich theme park MMO that allows for a great deal of the freedom, exploration, customization, and world building mechanics in addition to the heavily story based content and them parks.
CrimeCraft, should have left that one off the list and the game should have been called CrimeStrike since its more like counterstrike. Some like Champions and DC are filling a void since only COH/V wich is 5 years old and still kicking strong are available, perfect opportunity to apply now. Companys that put out MMO's that play the way "they" think mmo's should be done probably wont work, ie: CrimeCraft and I hope im wrong about that. Hopefully, he meant "they" reasearched the hell out of players opinions, experiences with the most popular mmo's to decide how they should work. Well thats the business decision and its not going to be popular with a lot.
This post is intentionally written as to not make any sense what so ever. Thank You Very Much.
anyone seen a "missing link" mmorpg around here anywhere?
IMO, almost all of these modern "MMOs" lack the genetic material to be classified properly as MMOs. I doubt they could be called "missing links," however, as the genre is not going through evolution but rather parasitical infection.
For those insisting they think they know what evolution is about, a game genre is simply a classification: ludus onlinus populus maximus for massively multiplayer online games. In this particular case it describes a set of game species that for some reason needs a large population of players within a single game context.
Game genres don't evolve with the individual species.
Don't mean to be a grammar nazi but you need to change the end of your article to read "Wrap Up" instead of "Warp Up" unless I missed something. I agree that things are changing in the MMO industry and some of the things that are changing I don't like. I definitely hate the idea of RMT but that's a side issue. I have a hard time remembering just how new the video game industry is, and its evolution is going to follow similar patterns to other types of industry as they developed. I think the biggest issue is going to be how much and how well the leaders in the industry listen to their consumers. Ultimately the business is driven by money but to what extent that is the driving force may shape how things evolve over time.
Sorry Dana I comletely disagree. MMO's are not evolving the way players want them too - they are evolving the way publishers want them too. Maybe good for you or them, but hardly good for us.
Agree. Dana's post sounds like a load of crap. Yeah there evolving. Evolving into mainly casual games and lackluster gameplay. casual games are ok but please give us some depth!
Lol I have that Innovation inspirational picture sitting beside me. The picture never quite worked as well as some of the others but I always thought it was cool
Judging by the responses, its the players that are the missing link, they are the ones refusing to evolve, to the point of completely ignoring it right in front of the face as if critical thinking and rational thinking has been sucked from skulls.. I hear the echo now.
Nope, they just keep talking abut "The good old days" that most were not even around for or have a severe set of rose colored glasses about, and keep spouting the talking points that have been drilled into them by other players like its a fox news broadcast.
Meanwhile taking the entire set of innovation that has come over the years for granted. As if it has always been there.
This community delivers.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Judging by the responses, its the players that are the missing link, they are the ones refusing to evolve, to the point of completely ignoring it right in front of the face as if critical thinking and rational thinking has been sucked from skulls.. I hear the echo now.
Well hello there Mr. Bloodworth. Let me rephrase:
Game genres do not, and I repeat DO NOT, evolve along with individual games. If I create a game called "Risk Online" that has nothing to do with the board game "Risk," I don't get to market my product to board game enthusiasts as if it were the same thing. A genre is simply a classification, it's not an actual construct that is capable of adaptation and evolution.
I would guess that most of the people on this web site are actually interested in a Massively Multiplayer Online RolePlaying Game as defined by history. Dressing up a first person shooter with some gear grinding and calling it an MMO is not going to make most of them happy - even if it's all done in the sacred name of "evolution."
Comments
I would say MMOs have changed alot, but it has NOT been evolved much. I am not saying it has not evolved at all, but it is very...... little.
New games may have more features, it may show you more info of the quest and tells you where to go in the map where other MMOs don't, but in the end it is same old same to go where and do what.
New ones may have more skills in skill tree, but at the end, you just have to spend more time grind your skills level ( or character level ).
These way of game playing style has been there even since RPG.
I believe whoever has been playing RPG / MMORPG knows MMORPG comes from RPG.
I agree MMORPG evolve from RPG because many features in RPG are not in consideration list of developer, like party.
Since UO, there has been few skill based games, and even most MMO that have high number of subscriber are like EQ, but the MMOs in the last decade has not evolve much.
I can see the difference between different MMO in gameplay, feature, graphic, and etc...., but as I play longer in those games, I just end up with same conclusion ( just like my friend said ) " same shit, different smell ". You know they are different in small detail, but the genre is the same, the way of gameplay is still the same.
Game dev these days only copy most of stuff and make some changes, then they say, "we can better job that those guys".
Just look at Age of Conan and Warhammer, how much better are they compare to WoW ? They are little better than WoW IMO, but they are the same kind of games because they come from the same place. The game design is from exact same way of game style and gameplay, so many people got bored with them very quicky.
WoW still has highest subscription, but it is a bad game to me, so I quit. To me, Blizzard is very good at marketing and getting players into the game. They put so many awesome items to make people feel items matter, and this only spoil young players.
Little envolutioin occured when Neocron 2 combine MMORPG with FPS, and recently Darkfall and Mortal Online follows (may be some games did that long ago, but at least I can't find it).
Nowadays, game dev think graphics and features improvement is criticial. To me, being able to have a commuity and able communicate with them quickly and easily ( especailly when we are playing hardcore ) is very important.
Also, games that make common sense is also very important, e.g in WoW that you can get hit through the walls and etc.... which sucks.
Certainly, technicial issue liks lags and cheats matter also. Lag was the main reason that I quit UO.
IMO, game dev is unable to get players into the game and keep them in the game because they don't realize MMO is not only a game, it is about community in the game (at least I think so). Givinig players faster and easier way to find a group of players or guide is one way to improve players chance to be in community and play together with other players (Warhammer has done slight improvement, but it's only one so far I have seen).
Also, I have not see many game dev improve communication in game. i mean where is the VoIP chat ? Come on guys, typing in the chat windows is so out-dated way of communication, WTF do you have time to type when you are facing enenmy right in front of you, really I have not seen anyone can fight and type at the same time, clicking the screen then switch back to chat window.
PLEASE implement in-game voice chat as default communication, at least in small groups of party ( I know Tabula Rasa and EVE online has done this, but they are only 2 so far I have seen). And yeah I know TS and Vent works, but they only work for a group of people that play together often, and you don't have this luxury if you only find random people to group together temperarily.
Evolution will not happen in days, but with the way that game dev copying and improving little by little instead of finding innovative ideas, evolution will only have little bit result at least in terms of decades.
Firstly this statement “World of Warcraft, the recognized pinnacle of the current species of MMO” what is it based on? Number of sales, or perhaps subsciptions? On this basis the political party in your country that got the most votes is the best, the candy bar that sells more than any other is the best too. Is a modern artwork that sells more than a old master better than the old master? Is the best selling PDA the one with the best features? WoW is a good MMO, but only at the pinnacle in terms of sales.
#5 Number of games being released: The explosion in MMO releases was a reaction to WoW’s suceess and the companies of these new games have all to often striclty followed the WoW formula, no evolution there.
#4 Moving beyond just RPG mechanics: I agree there has been some expansion here, but as with TR it often fails, I am hopeful of more diversity in this area for the future though. Any new mechanic in MMO’s is to the good, if it does not work it won’t get used in the future, survival of the fittest in action.
#3 Moving beyond fantasy: I think it is a given this is happening, not sure if we will see non fantasy get an even larger market share, but diversity of MMO story background strenghens the industry and gives players more unique games to play, we are all winners here.
#2 Experimentation with alternate business plans: Yes experimentation with revenue models is happening and I ask you, has that ever truly benifited the consumer? When a company realises it cannot hold on to a draconian pricing structure (like paying a hourly rate for internet use) that benifts us. But when companies are looking around at alternative revenue models (like a cash shop) that is never going to be to the players benefit, it is done for the purpose of maximising revenue, simple as that.
#1 Gameplay innovation: We have seen many threads on this site about what we would like to see in new MMO’s from the great features in current MMO’s. But so few do get implemented in the next generation and some never see light again. Here survival of the fittest is not working, it is more ‘survival of the tried and trusted’. In fact many new MMO’s particularly F2P show devolution clearly at work.
I think a large number of the people posting here really, really need to go look up the word "evolve". I am quite amazed by the number of people here who seemingly do not understand it.
It's the many incremental, baby steps of change that have evolved the genre, and don't forget that alot of the older titles are not set in stone, and so often assimilate innovations from newer titles, just like WoW has done.
For those complaining that change isn't quick enough, you must stop to consider that it does indeed take time to evaluate what, why and when. It takes an unearthly amount of time to pad out a good quality MMO, and it takes time for the industry to figure out why a game fails. Until the lessons have been learnt you can expect to see some of the same ground covered by other "explorers".
Great things don't come from organic evolution. You get diferent flavours of the same thing with perhaps some marginally 'better'. Evolution is as much about loosing redundant stuff as gaining new stuff)
What is required is radical new ideas and change to advance the genre. The reason UO did well is because it added massive to relatively small scale MUDs (for the time) oh and a graphical interface. EQ's greatest contribution was the 3D environment. It also introduced a lot of BS and lost a lot of the complexity that was in the more sophisticated MUDs in efforts to streamline. Wow contined in that tradition it applied polish but dumbed down, though at least talents provided some degree of customisation to characters.
So yes there has been evolution but I look forward to some real radical inovation rather than small incremental changes.
I could not disagree more with the article.
Apart from No. 1 and 4, the arguments have nothing to do with MMO per se, but rather some technical factor.
5) The author states that WOW is the pinnacle? Why? Because of numbers? If you take quantitiy as No 1 factor to judge whether something is the pinnacle then rats, cockroaches and even plancton is further up the evolutionary ladder than humanity.
3) Steering away from the Fantasy genre is not evolution in itself. It is change, for sure, but just imagine a Mod of Everquest 2 where all textures and Skins have a Sci-Fi background. All the Mobs have cyborg or android textures. Is this already evolution? The game is still the same, just the graphics have changed.
2) Declaring payment methods as evolution of the genre is flawed. Payment methods will have an effect on MMOs for sure, one can see it already today, where MMOs more and more are not immersive worlds, but real world influences become more and more dominant.
In the past MMO players nobility followed the rule "the more you play". In the future it will be "the more you pay". We play MMOs to have adventures in fantastic worlds, but the real world is pushing itself more and more into it through payment methods.
The author points out that with payment methods MMOs take the opposite development that Internet payment methods and cell phone payment took. The reason the payment methods for the latter two changed was customer friendliness. It is cheaper for the customer to pay just a monthly fee. This customer friendliness, however, attracts at the same time more customers which makes it more profitable for the company.
MMOs take a reverse development with item shops and micro-payment because that is the way the companies will make more profit. For most gamers customer service and friendliness is not an issue as long as it is not too obtrusive and aggressive. We love our characters and the world that they adventure in. We want them to succeed in that world, whatever it takes. The company changes it terms of use? or payment methods? we don't care as long as they don't change the world, game balance etc etc.
No other industry has the luxury to do that. Imagine your ISP decides to go back to pay per minute or even pay per hour? Who would even bother to think about all the lovely hours you spent in the Internet with that ISP and hesitate?
Let's make a simple hypothetical game. Imagine a MMO with the same exact game mechanics as UO. However with an up-to-date top-notch 3-D graphic engine, the best textures, skins and animations seen in an MMO so far. That game would rock. And it would be as much evolution as there has been between a human from 2000 BC and 2000 AD.
Evolution? No. Devolution.
Five proofs of MMO Devolution
5. Quest driven MMORPGS - I have nothing against quests per se but the way quests are done in current MMORPGs are counter intuitive to how MMORPGs are done. Some times it is fetch X items or kill Y mobs and that is, altough boring, fine. However many quests have storylines where you rescue someone or kill some evil boss, however since this is an MMORPG the same storyline is done in identical parrarell realities in the same world. Totally contradtictive to having a persistant world.
4. Themeparks - I dont know how came up with this idea but MMORPGs are supposed to create virtual worlds, NOT themeparks. The influx of themepark MMORPGs where you "ride" certaint events is again contradictive to a persistant WORLD. Just look at games like AoC and WAR, the world looks like a playground with teleporters zip zapping you across the so called world (read themepark).
3. Instancing - Yet another completelty contradictive feature in an MMORPG. How can you explain having identical areas in the same world? You cannot and is a cheap way for the devs to make the world appear bigger because they cant be bothered to just have a random generator to atleast make the instances look different. And when you start making instances of towns then it is gone to far.
2. Casual play - This concept has more or less destroyed the original idea of having a peristant virtual world to evolve in because now everything has to be easy and casual. No death penalties - making death seem meaningless, instant travelling - decreasing the already small world, P2P - instead of advancing your character by playing then you can BUY yourself to get to higher levels much quicker, heavility restricted PvP - taking away any possibilities for guild politics.
1. WoW - This MMORPG is the best proof anyone needs for how MMORPGs has devolved. It has all of the elements mentioned above and with its enormous popularity has made tons of developers trying to create the next "WoW killer" which means they will try and make a copy of WoW but with some features that WoW does not have. Newsflash for you devs, there is no such thing as a better copy. Innovation is what will create the "WoW killer". Not plagiarism.
The reason WoW is the number one reason of MMORPG devolution is that it has no persistant world where you actions affect same world. PvP is meaningless, PvE is meaningless they are all for getting more items actually achieving, even partial victories, in the world of WARcraft, is not possibly as the war is an illusion. Beside being static it is also very linear. The game is basically the Volvo of MMORPGs, it works and is safe but does it have any innovative features? No.
My gaming blog
First, there seems to be some confussion about what the word "evolution" actually means. I used this amazing device called a computer to interact with the internet to pull up the websters definition of the word.
e·volve audio (-vlv) KEY
VERB:
e·volved , e·volv·ing , e·volves
VERB:
tr.
1. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
2. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
VERB:
intr.
1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.
I would think the definition of "evolve" fits pretty well in the case of all 5 of those points in the article. Yes, even payment methods as that has a profound impact on whether people even want to play the game to begin with. In the larger arena of "video gaming" MMO's are fairly unpopular because of the recurring subscription based business model. WoW is pretty much the only game to overcome that barrier long term. 5 years after it's launch, WoW still has millions of subscriptions while 5 years after the launch of DAoC, the game was dead and forgotten.
Next - MMORPG's will continue to evolve over time and will probably never stop like any other industry.
I've seen a lot of critism about where MMO's have gone but very little in terms of offerings to where MMO's could be going aside from "they should be more like my old game".
Many of you are clearly looking through "rose colored glasses" in regards to the older generation of games. The "good old days" syndrome is well at work here. If they were so great...why aren't you still playing them? If you are unhappy with "Age of Conan" or "Warhammer", why haven't AC or DAoC experience a resurgance? Money talks, without an influx of subs / profit, you can not substantiate a claim of "the old games were better". No company in any industry is going to go back in a old model and say "gee maybe we should reintroduce the betamax video cassette player...it was a pretty good system"... yeah maybe it was...30 years ago. Vanguard is a classic example of "you can't go back to yesterday". The game works fairly well now...so why doesn't anyone play it? It fits the old model of play pretty well....because no one (the market at large) wants play that style anymore.
Lastly...
Ask yourself "I'm I unhappy with the way the evolution of the genre is going OR has my playstyle / taste NOT evolved with the genre?"
Evolution isn't about what you want individually, we all would like wings to fly, but its about adapting to changing environments and MMO's are driven by money / demand. If Asherons Call suddenly had an influx or 200,000 new subs, you can bet your sweet arse the genre would rethink itself...but that hasn't happened yet so we move forward and not back.
What are you talking about Torak.
Evolve means E-Volve it's the internet program that allows you to buy a volvo online. That was lame but I had to post it. I do agree with you about the games of old. I think what many people are saying about the games of old is that.
I want to experience the fun i had in "insert old game here". I for sure want that, but it's like a first love or first car, the first time you experience it is the best most likely.
Is it just me or does SWG have a crapload of bugs or is it just laggy or my comp sucks?
Cryomatrix
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
I find it very strange. If whether a certain item is successful of not is not base on the numbrs of the product sold, than what should it base on?
Say A-phone only sold 300k, B-phone 3 million. Which project is successful?
There will never be an item that will be able to cater/ to be like by all kinds of buyers, but as long as ALOT of consumers buy it, than it is sucessful, whether you like it or not...
RIP Orc Choppa
Another word someone on staff at this site might want to look into is "stagnate". Pretty sure you either wanted "stagnant" or "stagnating".
So um... yeah.
[end of pointless post]
|The problem with the youth of today is that one is no longer part of it. -Salvador Dali|
No, you want this, the industry does not "Need" it.
You confuse your personal wants, with, well, reality.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
This is all subjective. And, the past/current rise in players playing MMO's as a whole, disagree with you.
Fact of the matter is, all of that has lead to growth, and more money to develop titles. Your personal views, are in conflict with reality. Sorry.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Completely agree!
We have gone from games such as UO. Skill system, housing, crafting that mattered to the community, and the ability to THINK about what to do with yourself in game. To level up, loot, and dumb it down, and being told what to do and how to play. How is that evolution?
Actually, I think MMO's are deevolutionizing. I think the original UO and Asheron's Call games were better than anything we have today, including Wow. There is no freedom to choose in the current crop of MMO's. I believe this is driven by the "instant gratification crowd", everyone wants to get to end game immediately, instead of enjoying the experience of getting there.
What?!!! My MMOs don't come decended from no Monkey's Island. Is that your culture and heritage?!! That's not my culture and heritage!!
I think I'm starting to see why so many rubes don't believe in evolution insofar as our species is concerned. I don't think they understand the concept, as represented by some of your posts.
I'm not gonna try to define it again or explain it because I don't think it will help.
As far as the article is concerned, wether you agree or not, the genre has changed, substantially. All the changes can be subjectively defined as good or bad, for whatever reasons. The point is that those changes occured and, in turn, evolved the genre.
Ok... so maybe I will try to explain, but that doesn't mean my MMOs come decended from no Monkey Island.
Where you fail is realizing that it's not the WoW formula they are copying, it's the Everquest formula.
Beyond that, I agree that I'd love to see AAA quality new MMO that follows more of the Ultima Online or Asheron's Call formula instead.
But would players respond? Would the mob be happy with a build your own adventure game versus a content oriented theme park?
So far, the answer has been no.
No I'm just hoping for a content rich theme park MMO that allows for a great deal of the freedom, exploration, customization, and world building mechanics in addition to the heavily story based content and them parks.
anyone seen a "missing link" mmorpg around here anywhere?
http://www.forceofarms.com/index.php
CrimeCraft, should have left that one off the list and the game should have been called CrimeStrike since its more like counterstrike. Some like Champions and DC are filling a void since only COH/V wich is 5 years old and still kicking strong are available, perfect opportunity to apply now. Companys that put out MMO's that play the way "they" think mmo's should be done probably wont work, ie: CrimeCraft and I hope im wrong about that. Hopefully, he meant "they" reasearched the hell out of players opinions, experiences with the most popular mmo's to decide how they should work. Well thats the business decision and its not going to be popular with a lot.
This post is intentionally written as to not make any sense what so ever. Thank You Very Much.
IMO, almost all of these modern "MMOs" lack the genetic material to be classified properly as MMOs. I doubt they could be called "missing links," however, as the genre is not going through evolution but rather parasitical infection.
For those insisting they think they know what evolution is about, a game genre is simply a classification: ludus onlinus populus maximus for massively multiplayer online games. In this particular case it describes a set of game species that for some reason needs a large population of players within a single game context.
Game genres don't evolve with the individual species.
Hey Jon,
Don't mean to be a grammar nazi but you need to change the end of your article to read "Wrap Up" instead of "Warp Up" unless I missed something. I agree that things are changing in the MMO industry and some of the things that are changing I don't like. I definitely hate the idea of RMT but that's a side issue. I have a hard time remembering just how new the video game industry is, and its evolution is going to follow similar patterns to other types of industry as they developed. I think the biggest issue is going to be how much and how well the leaders in the industry listen to their consumers. Ultimately the business is driven by money but to what extent that is the driving force may shape how things evolve over time.
Agree. Dana's post sounds like a load of crap. Yeah there evolving. Evolving into mainly casual games and lackluster gameplay. casual games are ok but please give us some depth!
Lol I have that Innovation inspirational picture sitting beside me. The picture never quite worked as well as some of the others but I always thought it was cool
Judging by the responses, its the players that are the missing link, they are the ones refusing to evolve, to the point of completely ignoring it right in front of the face as if critical thinking and rational thinking has been sucked from skulls.. I hear the echo now.
Nope, they just keep talking abut "The good old days" that most were not even around for or have a severe set of rose colored glasses about, and keep spouting the talking points that have been drilled into them by other players like its a fox news broadcast.
Meanwhile taking the entire set of innovation that has come over the years for granted. As if it has always been there.
This community delivers.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
can't agree with the article. at all.
evolution is not innovation.
innovation means revolution, and it's not happening.
Hype train -> Reality
Well hello there Mr. Bloodworth. Let me rephrase:
Game genres do not, and I repeat DO NOT, evolve along with individual games. If I create a game called "Risk Online" that has nothing to do with the board game "Risk," I don't get to market my product to board game enthusiasts as if it were the same thing. A genre is simply a classification, it's not an actual construct that is capable of adaptation and evolution.
I would guess that most of the people on this web site are actually interested in a Massively Multiplayer Online RolePlaying Game as defined by history. Dressing up a first person shooter with some gear grinding and calling it an MMO is not going to make most of them happy - even if it's all done in the sacred name of "evolution."