I wasted my time reading that article. Reading it seems to me things have advanced. Besides graphics, the amount of content and quality of the games has gone up. What is he expecting? It's not just MMORPG's, it's all games. How much have FPS's, RTS's, etc. changed since they were introduced? Not much because the basic concepts are still the same and the basic concepts are what make a genre.
Graphics engines, physics engines, new lighting engines, server technology...all these things are nice and hopefully they help to foster GAMEPLAY innovation.
I think Guild Wars perhaps meets both criteria of being innovative from a gameplay standpoint as well as technologically. Here is a game that utilizes streaming technology to fascillitate the inclusion of 56k modem people. The game is beautiful, detailed, realistic and I have every setting maxed to the hilt....and the game runs nice and smooth...that would be a good example of technological innovation alright. Ofcourse, some would say it is not a legit mmog because of its extensive use of instanced environments.
The technology makes gameplay innovation possible.
I think being able to mine resources, build a house and place it in a small community of homes, build your own furniture, run for mayor, establish a militia...all these things in SWG were innovative. I think SWG had so many wonderfully innovative ideas, or at the least took ideas from others and really fleshed them out. Now they have a space component in addition to the ground component where you can engauge in dogfights, lead escort patrol, mine for minerals, and explore the depths of space. Now I realize there is a space mmog out there...but SWG integrates there space mmog with the ground game. That is innovative I think. If the gameplay improves then maybe I'll start playing again.
Originally posted by Terranah Personally, I don't want a lot of innovation...and I don't see that much innovation really in other genres either. For example, fps and third person shooters seem to be improving graphics and AI, but the core game is the same. Strategic games also seem the same to me....manage resources, build an empire, wage a war, etc. Really, instead of being innovative, maybe just improving on some ideas would be nice. I think this is why WOW is so successful...I read they have 2 million subscribers world wide now. They really took many things already out there in the mmog genre and improved upon it. And people liked it.
YES that is what I thought when I read the article, ofc innovation is good, but as many have said before me. FPS, RTS, RPG they have followed the tecnology and thats what made them interesting, they dont look the same, they dont sound the same, but and RPG is a RPG the same ideas coz thats whats make it a RPG. Some have tried to mix the genres and in some cases that have worked fairly well.
But essence is IMO what makes a good mmo is tecnology and the feel of the gameplay, like Terranah said about wow, they took something that worked well and remade it with their own touch/improved.
I'd like to begin by saying thank you again to all of you who have read and supported/criticized my article, as everyone made great points. I would like to address, one last time, that if I left out one of your favorite games or a game you consider innovative, I apologize, but I did not have the time nor space to include every one. Again, as stated before, I chose the games I felt all would have a basic knowledge of, from the casual gamer, to the hardcore MMORPG player.
I will concede to the point that there have been some innovative features included in games, and as several have mentioned, a perfect example of this is SWG (Star Wars Galaxies). One of the features I had been looking forward to was bounty hunting. The game was supposed to allow a player bounty hunter to select jobs that included not only hunting down NPC's, but other players as well. Unfortunately, this was poorly implemented and was still bugged a few months after launch, when I left. I'm sure I will be flamed for complaining a feature was still bugged 'only' after a few months, but it was a major gripe I had. Additionally, I did not feel combat was all that engaging, and the grind for certain skills was unbearable.
In regards to me limiting myself to a certain style of MMORPGs, I will agree, the editorial was perhaps slightly skewed. One problem I have, though, is I do not see how games such as Shot Online or Planetside can be considered MMORPGs. They seem to be either an online golf sim, or a MMOFPS, and while I have not played Shot Online, I did beta-test and play Planetside. While it did allow you to 'level up' and customize the avatar you played as, it seemed to be lacking RPG elements. That brings up a good point: what makes a game a MMORPG and not just another MMOG? Forgive me for using Halo 2 as an example for a moment, but it allows you to customize the look of your avatar (not the skills you can use, like Planetside however), has a ranking system, and has a very, very small social aspect. Is it the persistent world, or maybe the absence of a limit to the number of players able to play at once that makes Planetside the MMORPG?
Finally, I would like to apologize to Torgin. The way your initial message was written, I think if you take a step back and look at it honestly in another perspective, you may understand where I got that impression. I suppose I was a bit hasty, and since you claim that was never your intention, I believe you and I do sincerely apologize for my accusation. I can admit when I am wrong, and have no problem doing so. I would love to talk with you in the future about other parts of your last post, regarding WoW and other topics if I could, but not on the boards as this is not the place. Feel free to message me at condar@mmorpg.com. I sincerely hope you will continue to come back to the site, and even read my articles, but if you choose not to, I wish you well nonetheless.
In conclusion, I would like to thank each and every one of you, including Torgin , as this experience has taught me to be much more critical of my work. I hope next time, I can write a piece you all approve of. This will be my last post regarding this topic, so if you wish to discuss anything further with me, feel free to message me at the address above. I was hoping more ideas would be forthcoming, such as more interactive environments (they all seem fairly static to me), new combat systems, and more, so I hope to see more ideas next time I check back! Thank you again,
"I think being able to mine resources, build a house and place it in a small community of homes, build your own furniture, run for mayor, establish a militia...all these things in SWG were innovative."
Well... I think SWG presented these elements in a single package better than previous games, but it didn't innovate these features. In Shadowbane, for instance, you and your guild could build your own cities - long before SWG hit the market. Shadowbane also allowed you to build your own militias, but you weren't limited to "Rebel" and "Empire." Etc, etc, etc...
"I think SWG had so many wonderfully innovative ideas, or at the least took ideas from others and really fleshed them out."
I can agree with that last part. However, there is one thing I'd like to point out - the original ideas presented by the devs in SWG were a lot better than the release version of the game. Most of this had to do with time and staff changes - the game was released much too soon and some personalities on the dev team apparently... got out of hand. The first part I know is true, the second is just rumor.
"Now they have a space component in addition to the ground component where you can engauge in dogfights, lead escort patrol, mine for minerals, and explore the depths of space."
The problem is, the implementation of the space expansion STILL doesn't feel right (which you actually note a bit later in your post). It is sad when I'd rather load up my years-old version of Tie Fighter and play it than the state of the art space expansion for a Star Wars MMORPG. Sony continues to drop the ball in regards to this game, which is why subscriptions are low.
From a different post: "In regards to me limiting myself to a certain style of MMORPGs, I will agree, the editorial was perhaps slightly skewed. One problem I have, though, is I do not see how games such as Shot Online or Planetside can be considered MMORPGs. They seem to be either an online golf sim, or a MMOFPS, and while I have not played Shot Online, I did beta-test and play Planetside. While it did allow you to 'level up' and customize the avatar you played as, it seemed to be lacking RPG elements."
I find it amazing how the term "RPG Elements" has been re-defined over the years. Using the definition from long ago, I don't think any current MMORPG really fits the definition of roleplaying game - Action Game, yes; roleplaying game, no. I once read a post that described WoW and most other MMORPGs as "Amusement Park Rides" that, while they may seem to allow choices in the beginning, ultimately force players to follow an extremely narrow path that has marginal or no lasting impact on the game world.
I think the break-through will be in creating a dynamic world. I feel Horizons was on the right track with creating a dynamic environment (blight, IIRC, it was called and it was meant to change the landscape if the players didn't keep it in check). There are two things that would need to be incorporated: player-influenced politics and changing game environment.
I would love to see a structure where players could influence control by helping an organization (be it the warriors guild, rogues guild, corporation X, what have you). As players help their organization, it gives them more influence in the politics of the world. Competing organizations could allow for PvP while an over-arching organization could make sure it doesn't get out of hand (make sure PvP remains underground or else the 'law' would take care of the instigators and lose that organization some influence). Exactly how it is implemented depends on the world environment (feudal fantasy society, futuristic war-torn civilization, whatever).
Kind of in hand with the above would be a changing environment: weather effects, annihilation of a location or organization, depletion of resources in an area, expanding civilizations, etc.
Both rely on the world being less static. That, to me, would be the next generation of MMORPG.
Originally posted by -Jaguar- I wasted my time reading that article. Reading it seems to me things have advanced. Besides graphics, the amount of content and quality of the games has gone up. What is he expecting? It's not just MMORPG's, it's all games. How much have FPS's, RTS's, etc. changed since they were introduced? Not much because the basic concepts are still the same and the basic concepts are what make a genre.
Very well said.
The reason FPS, RTS, and MMORPG games are all essentially the same, with only slight deviations on their root genres is that a software company's prime goal is always to sell as many units as possible.
In Hollywood when they bring out yet another cliche'd movie where the protagonist saves the world and gets the girl, they know they're using a winning formula. They know they have more chance of making a lot of money than if they do a remake of Eraserhead. The same applies to the gaming industry.
In short, developers can't afford to risk being original. They have to go with what sells.
Originally posted by Condar Greetings all,In regards to me limiting myself to a certain style of MMORPGs, I will agree, the editorial was perhaps slightly skewed. One problem I have, though, is I do not see how games such as Shot Online or Planetside can be considered MMORPGs. They seem to be either an online golf sim, or a MMOFPS, and while I have not played Shot Online, I did beta-test and play Planetside. While it did allow you to 'level up' and customize the avatar you played as, it seemed to be lacking RPG elements. That brings up a good point: what makes a game a MMORPG and not just another MMOG? Forgive me for using Halo 2 as an example for a moment, but it allows you to customize the look of your avatar (not the skills you can use, like Planetside however), has a ranking system, and has a very, very small social aspect. Is it the persistent world, or maybe the absence of a limit to the number of players able to play at once that makes Planetside the MMORPG?
This coment made me wonder if you are really looking for innovation in the genre. You make the coment that you don't consider Shot Online or Planetside MMORPG's because they lack rpg features. Well could it be that the lack of innovation is becuase the games you are talking about all have the same basic structure and goals?
When I read your article a few games came to mind. Shot Online, A Tale in the Desert, Puzzle Pirates, and The Sims Online, Maple Story. Shot Online does indeed have RPG elements. You don't simply log into a course and start playing. There are actual quests, NPC's to talk to, stats to be built. You also have to build up your character to be able to play the good courses.
Upcomming games that are different include Auto Assault and Seed.
So the real question to ask is if you are looking for new innovative ideas? Or are you really looking for the same things that are out now, just with face lifts?
The first graphical MMO was neither The Realm nor M59 as was suggested.
The very first was a game that ran on AOL called Neverwinter Nights, later shut down with the rights being sold to Bioware.
Then a year after NWN opened on AOL another graphical game came out. Shadows of Yserbius which was found on The Sierra Network, later bought by AT&T and renamed Imagination, where it was then sold to AOL to be apart of their games channel and just got shut down entirely along with NWN and all the other games that were there. Multi-Player Battletech and Air Warrior anyone?
As to the state of the industry, I think it's just deplorable at best. The industry is boring and hum drum right now. It's the same old same old, or you have people that claim to strive for more like Mourning, but act downright unprofessional and flounder on their feet.
What a pity.
The best MMO's I've played were the originals. It's too bad that big business swallowed them whole. Had they come out at a different time, these games would likely still be around now and thriving. Such a shame.
Banegrivm Leader of the 1st Fist of Light www.1stfistoflight.com
I agree that lack of innovation is a bit of a moot point. True MMORPGs all have the same basic concepts, which makes them MMORPGs, making them arguably uninnovative. It is also true that all MMORPGs have their unique hooks, arguably claims to innovation.
I also fail to see why a game has to be drastically different to be seen as innovative. Whenever I start playing a new MMORPG there has always been something that made me stop and say wow, that's cool. The problem I see in MMORPGs is that after a time the wow factor starts wearing off and the things about the game that are not very fun at all start to come out of hiding. MMORPGs are PLAGUED with time-sinks, limited content, level caps, constricting playstyles, griefing, boredom... is their nature.
Where most MMORPGs have been extreme on both sides, it's good to see some game developers finally working on keeping everything that's good and making it work with the bad instead of focusing all their effort on coming up with the next big thing. First do it right, then improve upon that. Innovation!
But then, when moving on from game to game to game maybe "better" doesn't matter quite as much as "different".
Slapping SOE with a codfish! IF DC comics were not afraid of losing their image , they have chosen the right MMORPG company to develop their new titles. I have to say that I lost interest in the Matrix after the second movie and a free copy of the third movie is still on my shelf with the seal still entacted.
But the carnage to the classic super heros of DC by SOE down right scary. Is everyone going to be Superman , Batman, Aquaman, Green Lantern or Wonder Woman on their New MMORPG or are those classic heros going to stand around in static locations handing out quest ( like in SWG) and all of the Jr heros are goin to lamely run around like wannabes that they are . City of Heros was first and my betting window is open to say that SOEs DC heros will not make a dent in that membership base ( most of them came from SWG pissed off anyway).
The biggest flaw in MMORPGs currently is the inability of players to actually make a difference in the world. Things don't stay dead.
I'll use WoW as my example, since I'm most familiar with it and I think a lot of players here are as well.
Imagine a game where players actually made a difference. I've just received a series of quests to help cleanse Gnomeregan and make it safe for gnome residency again. Over the course of the adventure, I kill Thermaplugg and the other bosses in there. Eventually, through my efforts, Gnomeregan can again become a thriving city. Can't happen, because I would have just taken away a whole series of quests from another player.
Same with killing Onyxia - no big deal - she'll be back later for another party to kill her. Save the Stonewrought dam? It'll be in danger again in 10 minutes. Kill VanCleef? Sure! Then I can kill him again in another 2 hours.
If a game company could work out some way for players to actually make a difference in the world, that would be the innovation I'm looking for. Horizon's tried it, but it wasn't as dynamic as people hoped. Wish was planning it as well.
I would love to go and cleanse all of the bad guys out of the area, and then be able to stay there safely. As it currently is in most games, however, is once the whole area is cleaned, new bad guys just start appearing from nowhere.
Players are not open to change. Games that come out that have unique features usually have unintended consequences. SWG ditched the level system and went to a skill based system - worked great until we had the template artists and min/maxers that would just find the absolute strongest template. This led them to a level system like every other game. Horizons made a bunch of promises that were above today's level of technology. Planetside tried an online FPS, but it didn't go anywhere.
Personally, I think incremental steps are the way to go, at least in the short term. Take what already works and refine it. WoW did, and it's doing quite well. A few brave games will come out with truely innovative ideas - let the market determine if these are good ideas or not.
As much as we want to deny it, we're still early in the advancement of computers. Networks don't have 99.99% uptime. Power isn't always on. Patches don't always go smooth. Lag and latency still exist. When these problems are minimized, the technology will be there to allow the next round of innovations.
I hear what you are saying but in the world of hit the Knewphie Doll and win a prize , in this world of all MMORPGs has nothing on the RL.
Yes , you can conquere a level that will reset in about an hour or two. So what will that get you , are you going to put that on your resume or brag about it to yout RL friends, Muhahahaha. I hope not.
They don't care and in retrospect nor will the On-line host taking you for 14 to 15 dollars a month. Your mission (if you decide to accept it) is to find the best of the bunch by your personal standards and always remind yourself - its only a game.
I think the number of cookie-cutter games out there is just getting ridiculous. You can take a character from just about any 3D game right now and place it in any world out there and you couldn't tell the difference. Names change, features change, combat style changes, but in the true essence of the game, they never change.
Comments
I wasted my time reading that article. Reading it seems to me things have advanced. Besides graphics, the amount of content and quality of the games has gone up. What is he expecting? It's not just MMORPG's, it's all games. How much have FPS's, RTS's, etc. changed since they were introduced? Not much because the basic concepts are still the same and the basic concepts are what make a genre.
Graphics engines, physics engines, new lighting engines, server technology...all these things are nice and hopefully they help to foster GAMEPLAY innovation.
I think Guild Wars perhaps meets both criteria of being innovative from a gameplay standpoint as well as technologically. Here is a game that utilizes streaming technology to fascillitate the inclusion of 56k modem people. The game is beautiful, detailed, realistic and I have every setting maxed to the hilt....and the game runs nice and smooth...that would be a good example of technological innovation alright. Ofcourse, some would say it is not a legit mmog because of its extensive use of instanced environments.
The technology makes gameplay innovation possible.
I think being able to mine resources, build a house and place it in a small community of homes, build your own furniture, run for mayor, establish a militia...all these things in SWG were innovative. I think SWG had so many wonderfully innovative ideas, or at the least took ideas from others and really fleshed them out. Now they have a space component in addition to the ground component where you can engauge in dogfights, lead escort patrol, mine for minerals, and explore the depths of space. Now I realize there is a space mmog out there...but SWG integrates there space mmog with the ground game. That is innovative I think. If the gameplay improves then maybe I'll start playing again.
YES that is what I thought when I read the article, ofc innovation is good, but as many have said before me. FPS, RTS, RPG they have followed the tecnology and thats what made them interesting, they dont look the same, they dont sound the same, but and RPG is a RPG the same ideas coz thats whats make it a RPG. Some have tried to mix the genres and in some cases that have worked fairly well.
But essence is IMO what makes a good mmo is tecnology and the feel of the gameplay, like Terranah said about wow, they took something that worked well and remade it with their own touch/improved.
Greetings all,
I'd like to begin by saying thank you again to all of you who have read and supported/criticized my article, as everyone made great points. I would like to address, one last time, that if I left out one of your favorite games or a game you consider innovative, I apologize, but I did not have the time nor space to include every one. Again, as stated before, I chose the games I felt all would have a basic knowledge of, from the casual gamer, to the hardcore MMORPG player.
I will concede to the point that there have been some innovative features included in games, and as several have mentioned, a perfect example of this is SWG (Star Wars Galaxies). One of the features I had been looking forward to was bounty hunting. The game was supposed to allow a player bounty hunter to select jobs that included not only hunting down NPC's, but other players as well. Unfortunately, this was poorly implemented and was still bugged a few months after launch, when I left. I'm sure I will be flamed for complaining a feature was still bugged 'only' after a few months, but it was a major gripe I had. Additionally, I did not feel combat was all that engaging, and the grind for certain skills was unbearable.
In regards to me limiting myself to a certain style of MMORPGs, I will agree, the editorial was perhaps slightly skewed. One problem I have, though, is I do not see how games such as Shot Online or Planetside can be considered MMORPGs. They seem to be either an online golf sim, or a MMOFPS, and while I have not played Shot Online, I did beta-test and play Planetside. While it did allow you to 'level up' and customize the avatar you played as, it seemed to be lacking RPG elements. That brings up a good point: what makes a game a MMORPG and not just another MMOG? Forgive me for using Halo 2 as an example for a moment, but it allows you to customize the look of your avatar (not the skills you can use, like Planetside however), has a ranking system, and has a very, very small social aspect. Is it the persistent world, or maybe the absence of a limit to the number of players able to play at once that makes Planetside the MMORPG?
Finally, I would like to apologize to Torgin. The way your initial message was written, I think if you take a step back and look at it honestly in another perspective, you may understand where I got that impression. I suppose I was a bit hasty, and since you claim that was never your intention, I believe you and I do sincerely apologize for my accusation. I can admit when I am wrong, and have no problem doing so. I would love to talk with you in the future about other parts of your last post, regarding WoW and other topics if I could, but not on the boards as this is not the place. Feel free to message me at condar@mmorpg.com. I sincerely hope you will continue to come back to the site, and even read my articles, but if you choose not to, I wish you well nonetheless.
In conclusion, I would like to thank each and every one of you, including Torgin
, as this experience has taught me to be much more critical of my work. I hope next time, I can write a piece you all approve of. This will be my last post regarding this topic, so if you wish to discuss anything further with me, feel free to message me at the address above. I was hoping more ideas would be forthcoming, such as more interactive environments (they all seem fairly static to me), new combat systems, and more, so I hope to see more ideas next time I check back! Thank you again,
-James 'Condar' Pittiglio
"I think being able to mine resources, build a house and place it in a small community of homes, build your own furniture, run for mayor, establish a militia...all these things in SWG were innovative."
Well... I think SWG presented these elements in a single package better than previous games, but it didn't innovate these features. In Shadowbane, for instance, you and your guild could build your own cities - long before SWG hit the market. Shadowbane also allowed you to build your own militias, but you weren't limited to "Rebel" and "Empire." Etc, etc, etc...
"I think SWG had so many wonderfully innovative ideas, or at the least took ideas from others and really fleshed them out."
I can agree with that last part.
However, there is one thing I'd like to point out - the original ideas presented by the devs in SWG were a lot better than the release version of the game. Most of this had to do with time and staff changes - the game was released much too soon and some personalities on the dev team apparently... got out of hand. The first part I know is true, the second is just rumor. 
"Now they have a space component in addition to the ground component where you can engauge in dogfights, lead escort patrol, mine for minerals, and explore the depths of space."
The problem is, the implementation of the space expansion STILL doesn't feel right (which you actually note a bit later in your post). It is sad when I'd rather load up my years-old version of Tie Fighter and play it than the state of the art space expansion for a Star Wars MMORPG. Sony continues to drop the ball in regards to this game, which is why subscriptions are low.
From a different post:
"In regards to me limiting myself to a certain style of MMORPGs, I will agree, the editorial was perhaps slightly skewed. One problem I have, though, is I do not see how games such as Shot Online or Planetside can be considered MMORPGs. They seem to be either an online golf sim, or a MMOFPS, and while I have not played Shot Online, I did beta-test and play Planetside. While it did allow you to 'level up' and customize the avatar you played as, it seemed to be lacking RPG elements."
I find it amazing how the term "RPG Elements" has been re-defined over the years. Using the definition from long ago, I don't think any current MMORPG really fits the definition of roleplaying game - Action Game, yes; roleplaying game, no. I once read a post that described WoW and most other MMORPGs as "Amusement Park Rides" that, while they may seem to allow choices in the beginning, ultimately force players to follow an extremely narrow path that has marginal or no lasting impact on the game world.
I think the break-through will be in creating a dynamic world. I feel Horizons was on the right track with creating a dynamic environment (blight, IIRC, it was called and it was meant to change the landscape if the players didn't keep it in check). There are two things that would need to be incorporated: player-influenced politics and changing game environment.
I would love to see a structure where players could influence control by helping an organization (be it the warriors guild, rogues guild, corporation X, what have you). As players help their organization, it gives them more influence in the politics of the world. Competing organizations could allow for PvP while an over-arching organization could make sure it doesn't get out of hand (make sure PvP remains underground or else the 'law' would take care of the instigators and lose that organization some influence). Exactly how it is implemented depends on the world environment (feudal fantasy society, futuristic war-torn civilization, whatever).
Kind of in hand with the above would be a changing environment: weather effects, annihilation of a location or organization, depletion of resources in an area, expanding civilizations, etc.
Both rely on the world being less static. That, to me, would be the next generation of MMORPG.
Very well said.
The reason FPS, RTS, and MMORPG games are all essentially the same, with only slight deviations on their root genres is that a software company's prime goal is always to sell as many units as possible.
In Hollywood when they bring out yet another cliche'd movie where the protagonist saves the world and gets the girl, they know they're using a winning formula. They know they have more chance of making a lot of money than if they do a remake of Eraserhead. The same applies to the gaming industry.
In short, developers can't afford to risk being original. They have to go with what sells.
This coment made me wonder if you are really looking for innovation in the genre. You make the coment that you don't consider Shot Online or Planetside MMORPG's because they lack rpg features. Well could it be that the lack of innovation is becuase the games you are talking about all have the same basic structure and goals?
When I read your article a few games came to mind. Shot Online, A Tale in the Desert, Puzzle Pirates, and The Sims Online, Maple Story. Shot Online does indeed have RPG elements. You don't simply log into a course and start playing. There are actual quests, NPC's to talk to, stats to be built. You also have to build up your character to be able to play the good courses.
Upcomming games that are different include Auto Assault and Seed.
So the real question to ask is if you are looking for new innovative ideas? Or are you really looking for the same things that are out now, just with face lifts?
The first graphical MMO was neither The Realm nor M59 as was suggested.
The very first was a game that ran on AOL called Neverwinter Nights, later shut down with the rights being sold to Bioware.
Then a year after NWN opened on AOL another graphical game came out. Shadows of Yserbius which was found on The Sierra Network, later bought by AT&T and renamed Imagination, where it was then sold to AOL to be apart of their games channel and just got shut down entirely along with NWN and all the other games that were there. Multi-Player Battletech and Air Warrior anyone?
As to the state of the industry, I think it's just deplorable at best. The industry is boring and hum drum right now. It's the same old same old, or you have people that claim to strive for more like Mourning, but act downright unprofessional and flounder on their feet.
What a pity.
The best MMO's I've played were the originals. It's too bad that big business swallowed them whole. Had they come out at a different time, these games would likely still be around now and thriving. Such a shame.
Banegrivm
Leader of the 1st Fist of Light
www.1stfistoflight.com
I agree that lack of innovation is a bit of a moot point. True MMORPGs all have the same basic concepts, which makes them MMORPGs, making them arguably uninnovative. It is also true that all MMORPGs have their unique hooks, arguably claims to innovation.
I also fail to see why a game has to be drastically different to be seen as innovative. Whenever I start playing a new MMORPG there has always been something that made me stop and say wow, that's cool. The problem I see in MMORPGs is that after a time the wow factor starts wearing off and the things about the game that are not very fun at all start to come out of hiding. MMORPGs are PLAGUED with time-sinks, limited content, level caps, constricting playstyles, griefing, boredom... is their nature.
Where most MMORPGs have been extreme on both sides, it's good to see some game developers finally working on keeping everything that's good and making it work with the bad instead of focusing all their effort on coming up with the next big thing. First do it right, then improve upon that. Innovation!
But then, when moving on from game to game to game maybe "better" doesn't matter quite as much as "different".
~It's taffy.
Slapping SOE with a codfish! IF DC comics were not afraid of losing their image , they have chosen the right MMORPG company to develop their new titles. I have to say that I lost interest in the Matrix after the second movie and a free copy of the third movie is still on my shelf with the seal still entacted.
But the carnage to the classic super heros of DC by SOE down right scary. Is everyone going to be Superman , Batman, Aquaman, Green Lantern or Wonder Woman on their New MMORPG or are those classic heros going to stand around in static locations handing out quest ( like in SWG) and all of the Jr heros are goin to lamely run around like wannabes that they are . City of Heros was first and my betting window is open to say that SOEs DC heros will not make a dent in that membership base ( most of them came from SWG pissed off anyway).
Unaware of the Jestor?
http://about.me/JestorRodo/
Friends enjoy his classic Vblog - https://www.facebook.com/GoodOldReliableNathan
The biggest flaw in MMORPGs currently is the inability of players to actually make a difference in the world. Things don't stay dead.
I'll use WoW as my example, since I'm most familiar with it and I think a lot of players here are as well.
Imagine a game where players actually made a difference. I've just received a series of quests to help cleanse Gnomeregan and make it safe for gnome residency again. Over the course of the adventure, I kill Thermaplugg and the other bosses in there. Eventually, through my efforts, Gnomeregan can again become a thriving city. Can't happen, because I would have just taken away a whole series of quests from another player.
Same with killing Onyxia - no big deal - she'll be back later for another party to kill her. Save the Stonewrought dam? It'll be in danger again in 10 minutes. Kill VanCleef? Sure! Then I can kill him again in another 2 hours.
If a game company could work out some way for players to actually make a difference in the world, that would be the innovation I'm looking for. Horizon's tried it, but it wasn't as dynamic as people hoped. Wish was planning it as well.
I would love to go and cleanse all of the bad guys out of the area, and then be able to stay there safely. As it currently is in most games, however, is once the whole area is cleaned, new bad guys just start appearing from nowhere.
Players are not open to change. Games that come out that have unique features usually have unintended consequences. SWG ditched the level system and went to a skill based system - worked great until we had the template artists and min/maxers that would just find the absolute strongest template. This led them to a level system like every other game. Horizons made a bunch of promises that were above today's level of technology. Planetside tried an online FPS, but it didn't go anywhere.
Personally, I think incremental steps are the way to go, at least in the short term. Take what already works and refine it. WoW did, and it's doing quite well. A few brave games will come out with truely innovative ideas - let the market determine if these are good ideas or not.
As much as we want to deny it, we're still early in the advancement of computers. Networks don't have 99.99% uptime. Power isn't always on. Patches don't always go smooth. Lag and latency still exist. When these problems are minimized, the technology will be there to allow the next round of innovations.
I hear what you are saying but in the world of hit the Knewphie Doll and win a prize , in this world of all MMORPGs has nothing on the RL.
Yes , you can conquere a level that will reset in about an hour or two. So what will that get you , are you going to put that on your resume or brag about it to yout RL friends, Muhahahaha. I hope not.
They don't care and in retrospect nor will the On-line host taking you for 14 to 15 dollars a month. Your mission (if you decide to accept it) is to find the best of the bunch by your personal standards and always remind yourself - its only a game.
Unaware of the Jestor?
http://about.me/JestorRodo/
Friends enjoy his classic Vblog - https://www.facebook.com/GoodOldReliableNathan
I think the number of cookie-cutter games out there is just getting ridiculous. You can take a character from just about any 3D game right now and place it in any world out there and you couldn't tell the difference. Names change, features change, combat style changes, but in the true essence of the game, they never change.