I have no probs with SPRPG's being covered here since I regularly see things being covered that are not MMORPG's. Often they only satisfy the MMO requirement. Since a lot of SPRPG's are using steam these days they're only a stones throw from being a proper MMO anyway. If I go off on skyrim and talk on steam or diablo 3 and talk on battle.net how is this more or less an mmo than if I load up wow or whatever and do single player quests on my own while using guild chat or battle.net? The lines on what defines MMO and SP are blurred these days.
Actually no decision has been made. We genuinely want to know. And if you read the last paragraph, these games probably won't be placed in the games list or even heavily covered. An occasional mention is what we're talking about, particularly with games that have co-op or multiplayer options or are tied into MMOs such as Kingdoms of Amalur.
I just wanna say that this works for me. Both MMORPG's and SPRPG's are of equal interest to me. Like a lot of others have said, just so long as you have the two genres segregated, to a degree, that's fine with me.
Well we seem to have them discussed anyways, I guess it makes no difference. The only problem I see is we have so many games discuessed now it is going to be an overload of info.
I don't see why they aren't. An RPG is an RPG no matter if its got a C or an MMO in front of it. MMO's and RPG's are blending into so many genre's now, even throw in an RTS or FPS here and there.
What's a MOBA? It seems like we have to brand something with an acronym and its set in stone. Gotta follow it TO THE LETTER!
Why does everything need a different website? I understand specialization, but I also enjoy having a one stop shop to go to. Not 12 sites. If I want to laugh and engage in conversation about games, I'd rather one community, not 5-6.
Let's talk Skyrim, Mass Effect, Diablo 3 and 2 and whatever gaming talk comes up. Its not like anyone here has to pay for it.
I have no issue with that. I like RPG games and tbh I dont care if they are single player, co-op or mmo - if I like them I play them. Sometimes the line what is mmo and what is not is blurred anyway.
Dividing the two lists would work perfectly swell imo. I mean the site is MMO-RPG though also looking at the logo the O is split and not exactly an O it can easily be seen as a site to have both gaming styles placed on it. SP RPG's in their own rights deserve the same publication and why not here? there'd be no reason to open another site for just SP RPGS like the MMOFPS wich was nice and needed the split as it does have alot more in common with FPS games though some have rpg elements.
How about creating a sort of separate section of this site, then, that caters specifically to RPGs that don't fit the "MMO" part.. Call it "Offline" or something (not a serious suggestion, just an example off the top of my head :-p).
Just keep it segregated from the main site, but put a blurb on the main news page stating there's an update. This way you have all the non-MMO info in one spot, so those interested in it can go directly to a single source. At the same time, those not really interested in sifting through non-MMO news don't have to.
No on to Devil's Advocate mode..
Reading the bit about covering "the BIG RPGs" just seems to give support to the suspicion that this entire move isn't merely about expanding into other areas. Rather it reeks of "we want to get more advertising $$$ and we know covering major-name RPGs a way to do it". It's a conclusion looking for a justification.
To give an idea of where I'm coming from with that, I have to wonder, again, why it is that so much fuss wasn't made over Dungeon Siege III? It's in the same category as Diablo III is it not? Yet, no mention of DSIII that I've seen, yet Diablo III is obviously "a big deal" for the MMORPG.com staff. The reasoning is pretty obvious to me: Diablo III = major game = more traffice = more advertising $$$. DSIII... not as much. I know I don't recall articles, polls and discussions opened about adding that game to the site's list. Yet, Diablo III brings about discussion about a complete revamp of the game list's categories, etc.
If you're going to argue for covering RPGs on this site alongside MMORPGs - for all the reasons the OP states - then why only cover "the big ones"? Why not help give exposure to lesser known ones, possible diamonds in the rough that people may not otherwise know about? Why place such restrictions on something you clearly feel very passionate about and have put thought into.
Again... my suspicion keeps coming back to simple math.
Big name RPG = more advertising $$$.
Lesser known RPGs = not so much.
I guess I'd just feel a bit more sincerity coming from y'all about your motives in this if all your assertions were more general and not so specifically settled on "only wanting to cover the big-name titles"; the ones which translate into more advertising money for the site.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
How about creating a sort of separate section of this site, then, that caters specifically to RPGs that don't fit the "MMO" part.. Call it "Offline" or something (not a serious suggestion, just an example off the top of my head :-p).
Just keep it segregated from the main site, but put a blurb on the main news page stating there's an update. This way you have all the non-MMO info in one spot, so those interested in it can go directly to a single source. At the same time, those not really interested in sifting through non-MMO news don't have to.
No on to Devil's Advocate mode..
Reading the bit about covering "the BIG RPGs" just seems to give support to the suspicion that this entire move isn't merely about expanding into other areas. Rather it reeks of "we want to get more advertising $$$ and we know covering major-name RPGs a way to do it". It's a conclusion looking for a justification.
To give an idea of where I'm coming from with that, I have to wonder, again, why it is that so much fuss wasn't made over Dungeon Siege III? It's in the same category as Diablo III is it not? Yet, no mention of DSIII that I've seen, yet Diablo III is obviously "a big deal" for the MMORPG.com staff. The reasoning is pretty obvious to me: Diablo III = major game = more traffice = more advertising $$$. DSIII... not as much. I know I don't recall articles, polls and discussions opened about adding that game to the site's list. Yet, Diablo III brings about discussion about a complete revamp of the game list's categories, etc.
If you're going to argue for covering RPGs on this site alongside MMORPGs - for all the reasons the OP states - then why only cover "the big ones"? Why not help give exposure to lesser known ones, possible diamonds in the rough that people may not otherwise know about? Why place such restrictions on something you clearly feel very passionate about and have put thought into.
Again... my suspicion keeps coming back to simple math.
Big name RPG = more advertising $$$.
Lesser known RPGs = not so much.
I guess I'd just feel a bit more sincerity coming from y'all about your motives in this if all your assertions were more general and not so specifically settled on "only wanting to cover the big-name titles"; the ones which translate into more advertising money for the site.
Why not just cover any game that pays you the most? Then add a cash shop so that we can buy filters to block all the genres and games we dont care about. Its basically where this site is heading anyway.
I say go for it with your news articles but please do not add any of them to the MMO A-Z, add a secondary one for that if need be.
This.
This is exactly what we're thinking. If they're added to the game list, and that's a big IF, they will have a secondary category. Users will be able to filter the Games List to reflect what they're interested in.
We ARE still MMORPG.com.
This is EXACTLY what I do not want to hear. I've been coming here ever since this website has been alive for ONE thing. News, any news, on ANYTHING "MMO" related, RPG or not.
By all means, the site is yours to do with as you please. However, the term "MMORPG" has been commonplace for anything "MMO" since I can remember (I've been playing MMO's since Ultima Online pre-EQ). The tag "RPG" has nothing to do with it being JUST a "Role Playing MMO". It was used "back in the day" as a term to express ANYTHING Massive Multiplayer Online.
Nowadays, the term "MMO" is abused to the point of nausium for marketing. However, the "General" MMO player that ACTUALLY "gets" what actually makes an MMO ignores them. Games with 2d, or 3d lobbies like Huxley Online or Global Agenda, are NOT MMO's. They're simply RPG(s) or FPS(s). Games like Everquest, Everquest 2, WoW (even though I despise it), Lineage II, Planetside, etc etc etc are Massive Multiplayer Online games.
I come here for ONE thing, and ONE thing only (as many other do I assume?), and that ONE thing is NEWS about Massive Multiplayer Online Games. If i continue to see random news about "Diablo 3" or "Star Craft" or "Gear of War" I'll find another MMO news site. That's just how it is, and I know SEVERAL people whom frequent this site on a regular basis who have agreed with me on TeamSpeak3 about this VERY subject.
If you want to start doing ANYTHING with non-MMO games by all means feel free. Just know you won't be considered a news site primarily focused on MMOs anymore, and I feel that may be detrimental to you as a whole.
ps: Please stop reporting on "So & So has announced 1,000,000 registered users!" or some such nonsense. Every sees right through it, and it's nothing to be proud of. 1,000,000 subscribers, or 1,000,000 PAYING registered users each paying $5 per purchase is worthy news. However, games like "Free Realms" getting X # of registered users is just pathetic, isn't news, and is annoying the crap out of everyone involved (i say this because ALL the comments on these articles are filled with "no one cares" posts).
-Faded
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity: Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
I like the idea, as long as you have a separating method in place so that we filter out mmo's or rpg specific games then there is no problem.
People that want to use the site purely for mmo games then can without muddying the water with rpg games.
I personal like the option of having rpg games included as your site is well managed with good news and intel, so this means I can now find out decent information on rpg games.
I do not understand why there is no RPGGuru. There should be a market for that I believe and seems to be better then have them on this site to me then again from a business point of view it would be better to place them here and keep the flow of users in one place for maximum reveneu.
What is the reason that your not going to create a RPGGuru? Where the other two site disapointing or simply a financial question (Maximizing profit)? Maybe a devils advacate column about this would be interesting so we can read about the other side of the coin from the staff, because currently reading the columns about this it does feel like the choice is made (I know not true, but it does feel that way to me).
Also would like to note that it was somewhat offencive to the 41% minority. Accusing the majority of about 560k users of being vocal and trowing hissy fits. Also calling the minority to be too narrow minded (by claiming the 59% is broad-minded enough) to see the connection is incorrect.
I am part of the 41% and I see and understand the connection, this however was not the question of the poll. This was the question "Should Diablo 3 be added to the MMORPG.com Game List?" not "Do you see the connection" or "Do you care if we add it", the question was should it be added and no I would not read it so no point in my opinion to add it. Do I believe the majority wants it? Yes. do I believe it would be better for the financial situation of this website? Yes, do I see the connection? Yes.
Would also like to note that it's a popular game. Would the poll results be like this as well when it is about some random small game or even to a game like RAGE or Dues Ex with have RPG elements or when the company is not a well know MMO company with a following of more then 10 million?
So in short, watch out what you do with that results. It simply to specific to really make any conclusion in peoples opinion about the broader subject and you can really only conclude people want Diablo 3 in the lists, not RPG in general. Do not get me wrong, people would prolly still want this even for smaller games, but as a company it seems risky to make conclusions from a poll that simply are not there.
Do the 41% really hate the idea or would they simply ignore the games articles then? Would they leave the site as a whole? Would the 41% still read the articles? How many of the 59% would read the articles or simply voted this way because they do not care about it and figured it would be good for others? A simple poll like that to me only raises more question then answers you get.
This is EXACTLY what I do not want to hear. I've been coming here ever since this website has been alive for ONE thing. News, any news, on ANYTHING "MMO" related, RPG or not.
By all means, the site is yours to do with as you please. However, the term "MMORPG" has been commonplace for anything "MMO" since I can remember (I've been playing MMO's since Ultima Online pre-EQ). The tag "RPG" has nothing to do with it being JUST a "Role Playing MMO". It was used "back in the day" as a term to express ANYTHING Massive Multiplayer Online.
Nowadays, the term "MMO" is abused to the point of nausium for marketing. However, the "General" MMO player that ACTUALLY "gets" what actually makes an MMO ignores them. Games with 2d, or 3d lobbies like Huxley Online or Global Agenda, are NOT MMO's. They're simply RPG(s) or FPS(s). Games like Everquest, Everquest 2, WoW (even though I despise it), Lineage II, Planetside, etc etc etc are Massive Multiplayer Online games.
I come here for ONE thing, and ONE thing only (as many other do I assume?), and that ONE thing is NEWS about Massive Multiplayer Online Games. If i continue to see random news about "Diablo 3" or "Star Craft" or "Gear of War" I'll find another MMO news site. That's just how it is, and I know SEVERAL people whom frequent this site on a regular basis who have agreed with me on TeamSpeak3 about this VERY subject.
If you want to start doing ANYTHING with non-MMO games by all means feel free. Just know you won't be considered a news site primarily focused on MMOs anymore, and I feel that may be detrimental to you as a whole.
While not as militantly, I agree with your overall opinion. I'd be "okay" with a compromise like non-MMO news being segregated to its own section so I don't have to sift through or skip over information I'm not interested in. In that category should go Diablo III, Dragon Age, etc. Because those games are most certainly not MMORPGs in any way, shape or form.
But the main focus of the site should be, absolutely and definitively MMORPGs. That's the name of the site. That's the focus it's always had.
If they wanted to come out real "clean" in the end... develop a new site for it, give it its own domain and keep the two separated entirely. I mean, didn't they do the same thing for RTSGuru and FPSGuru? Why not do the same for RPGs?
ps: Please stop reporting on "So & So has announced 1,000,000 registered users!" or some such nonsense. Every sees right through it, and it's nothing to be proud of. 1,000,000 subscribers, or 1,000,000 PAYING registered users each paying $5 per purchase is worthy news. However, games like "Free Realms" getting X # of registered users is just pathetic, isn't news, and is annoying the crap out of everyone involved (i say this because ALL the comments on these articles are filled with "no one cares" posts).
lol!
This bit I agree with on principle alone, because of how shady reporting "registered users" is.
People signing up for a trial account should never be considered in those numbers because they're not actually supporting the game or paying any money. They're being used, quite literally, as a number to help the developers make their game look better.
It's like F2P MMOs bragging about having millions of registered members. Okay, but how many of those registered members are actually actively playing the game? In a F2P MMO, where there is no subscription to "activate" or "cancel", "registered member" means nothing, because you're essentially always actively registered.
For example, I registered to Perfect World a couple years ago. I haven't played it since. I'd still be counted among their "registered members", however, because that registration never lapses.
What would be more meaningful would be to say "we have x-number of players logging in and playing at least 4 times a week", which is our measure of how active our game is.
Of course, you never see that. It's always "millions of registered members!"
It's all disingenuous twisting of numbers and PR spin. That drives me nuts as well.
P.S. MMORPG.com staff: Can you please fix your text editor? It adds extra carriage returns every time you edit, it will create separate quote boxes when you hit enter sometimes.. It's really annoying having to go back and clean up a post, removing extra carriage returns and trying to keep quotes together in a single box because the editor code is bugged. And it's been like this for a while now.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Actually no decision has been made. We genuinely want to know. And if you read the last paragraph, these games probably won't be placed in the games list or even heavily covered. An occasional mention is what we're talking about, particularly with games that have co-op or multiplayer options or are tied into MMOs such as Kingdoms of Amalur.
Lol, Skyrimm fits none of the above mentioned and you have mentioned that game more than once. What i find is mmorpg.com like to promote the American RPG but not the European unless put under pressure like their were for The Witcher 2.
And if we are talking RPG with co-op why haven't you mentioned WITN,it's been at all the gaming conventions for the last 3 years.
This game comes out a just over a week before Skyrimm but no mention of it?
Heh , there is no such thing as a mmo"RPG" anymore. It's all about getting to that famous "End Game" ASAP and grinding for gear. No one reads quests anymore , just click on NPC , accept and follow the map pointer , repeat.By doing so you end up with a dumb community that spams chat because they can't do anything or don't know where to go , ect. Devs have created a crappy MMO coomunity by creating "Easy Mode" games. There is no such thing as being "Heroic" since a rich punk can nowadays buy him/herself to fame thanks to cash shops. There is no sense of accomplishments. The only legit game still left out there that is worth playing and you feel like your making a difference is EVE-Online , but for how long with Nexon on the back burner in charge of their famous Cash Shop? It's only a matter of time before EVE-Online falls prey to the cash shop game play enhancements , and when that happens I'll be selling my account since it won't be worth playing anymore.
At least I got my "little" lego collection to keep me occupied )
Heh , there is no such thing as a mmo"RPG" anymore. It's all about getting to that famous "End Game" ASAP and grinding for gear. No one reads quests anymore , just click on NPC , accept and follow the map pointer , repeat.By doing so you end up with a dumb community that spams chat because they can't do anything or don't know where to go , ect. Devs have created a crappy MMO coomunity by creating "Easy Mode" games. There is no such thing as being "Heroic" since a rich punk can nowadays buy him/herself to fame thanks to cash shops. There is no sense of accomplishments. The only legit game still left out there that is worth playing and you feel like your making a difference is EVE-Online , but for how long with Nexon on the back burner in charge of their famous Cash Shop? It's only a matter of time before EVE-Online falls prey to the cash shop game play enhancements , and when that happens I'll be selling my account since it won't be worth playing anymore.
At least I got my "little" lego collection to keep me occupied )
I would add Vanguard to the EVE list. I can say that anyone new playing Vanguard would be lost and might very well give up or hope someone helps them through.
Actually no decision has been made. We genuinely want to know. And if you read the last paragraph, these games probably won't be placed in the games list or even heavily covered. An occasional mention is what we're talking about, particularly with games that have co-op or multiplayer options or are tied into MMOs such as Kingdoms of Amalur.
Lol, Skyrimm fits none of the above mentioned and you have mentioned that game more than once. What i find is mmorpg.com like to promote the American RPG but not the European unless put under pressure like their were for The Witcher 2.
And if we are talking RPG with co-op why haven't you mentioned WITN,it's been at all the gaming conventions for the last 3 years.
This game comes out a just over a week before Skyrimm but no mention of it?
I've been following LotR: WitN quietly since its gameplay footage at the last E3. It seems like a quasi-linear Coop Hack and Slash. It may do well, hopefully better than the last few LotR games. Personally, I'm not looking for a linear game, leave that to the Final Fantasies. I am more interested in open-ended sandboxes.
For this new LotR game to make anyone not play Skyrim, or even Witcher for that matter, it will have to be really, really good. For LotR fans, looks like a must own. For everyone else with a console, its a rental...or maybe it will be offered through Onliveif they can make the co-op combat interesting and keep the game off rails.
If we were going to talk about CRPG's, I'd like to look at some older stuff, like the Icewind Dales, Baldurs Gates and Neverwinter Nights. There are some great persistant worlds still offered in both NWN 1 and 2, and that would hit both barrels of the single player and MMO crowd.
I come here to read about MMO's, and the quality of that has been pretty poor lately since you mostly only focus on the biggest companys and smaller games get very little or no attention at all. Now you want to include rpg's.
If rpg coverage is done the same as mmo's have been done lately then i guess you'll just focus on the big company games. That seems very half-assed. If your going to do something then commit and do it the best you can. The mmo coverage is half-assed so why throw in more half-assed rpg coverage on top. You say you'll only report on the good games......thanks for taking on the responsibilty of deciding whats good and what isn't. (by the way, just because it's made by the biggest company doesn't mean it's the best, or even good.)
It's sad when mmo game companys think only of money and greed ruins their games. It's even sadder when mmo review-discussion websites do it.
ALso if you've already decided your going to do it then why ask? Really, why bother to ask???????????
I come here to read about MMO's, and the quality of that has been pretty poor lately since you mostly only focus on the biggest companys and smaller games get very little or no attention at all. Now you want to include rpg's.
Not there fault tbh. RIght now a lot of news from the bigger publishers. Beta dates, release dates, preorders, etc.
I come here to read about MMO's, and the quality of that has been pretty poor lately since you mostly only focus on the biggest companys and smaller games get very little or no attention at all. Now you want to include rpg's.
Not there fault tbh. RIght now a lot of news from the bigger publishers. Beta dates, release dates, preorders, etc.
I've been monitoring this thread, it intrigues me how resistant some people are to change.
Coman is right, many of the heavier hitting names make bigger and more frequent announcements. Let me ask, when was the last time you heard a big announcment about Istaria Online or Regnum Online? Quite frankly, if they did, not many people care. More of the same crowd comes here to read about more of the same games.
Rift, TSW, SWTOR and the acronyms go on and on...
In my opinion, I think it comes down to money. The driving force of this website I believe is advertising, they charge us for nothing. Thats a good and bad thing. Because we have nothing invested, we don't have much of a say in the matter. I think this is a great site, there are better ones and many worse. But this one always delivers.
One of the main things that I feel that this site doesn't really do as much as I would like would be to tap the community for content. It does, by all means, but really doesn't dig too deep or be consitant. We do have community spotlight once a week, some members are spokespersons for certain games and write articles, usually for the more popular ones. Not many really take on the many obscure games that are on the lists.
We have some community blogs that are posted towards the bottom of the site. Only six, with only 3 being active. The MMORPG.com Staff Blog, which is run by the staff. Teala's and Paragus keep their blogs active and always deliver with great content. And the others haven't been active since 2010 and beyond. I'm just being honest, not even MMO MONEY, has been active, I take up other writing responsibilites and neglect it.
I feel that if they are going to expand into a new realm, ( really not new, its what started MMORPG's in the first place) then they need to pick up some community members, assign some content, offer some type of retribution that doesn't always have to be cold hard cash, and let them go to work.
/raises hand
I would keep MMO MONEY current weekly with interesting good content if I knew that it wasn't sitting all the way at the bottom of the bottom of the website. Under the developer and member blogs that aren't kept current... All I'd ask for is contact with an editor, (positive) constructive criticism, assignments and some contacts, like a real journalism job would have.
The real driving force of MMORPG.com and MMO's in general are the communites that reside in them.
I come here to read about MMO's, and the quality of that has been pretty poor lately since you mostly only focus on the biggest companys and smaller games get very little or no attention at all. Now you want to include rpg's.
Not there fault tbh. RIght now a lot of news from the bigger publishers. Beta dates, release dates, preorders, etc.
If you really believe that you need to visit other sites.
Actually no decision has been made. We genuinely want to know. And if you read the last paragraph, these games probably won't be placed in the games list or even heavily covered. An occasional mention is what we're talking about, particularly with games that have co-op or multiplayer options or are tied into MMOs such as Kingdoms of Amalur.
Lol, Skyrimm fits none of the above mentioned and you have mentioned that game more than once. What i find is mmorpg.com like to promote the American RPG but not the European unless put under pressure like their were for The Witcher 2.
And if we are talking RPG with co-op why haven't you mentioned WITN,it's been at all the gaming conventions for the last 3 years.
This game comes out a just over a week before Skyrimm but no mention of it?
I've been following LotR: WitN quietly since its gameplay footage at the last E3. It seems like a quasi-linear Coop Hack and Slash. It may do well, hopefully better than the last few LotR games. Personally, I'm not looking for a linear game, leave that to the Final Fantasies. I am more interested in open-ended sandboxes.
For this new LotR game to make anyone not play Skyrim, or even Witcher for that matter, it will have to be really, really good. For LotR fans, looks like a must own. For everyone else with a console, its a rental...or maybe it will be offered through Onliveif they can make the co-op combat interesting and keep the game off rails.
If we were going to talk about CRPG's, I'd like to look at some older stuff, like the Icewind Dales, Baldurs Gates and Neverwinter Nights. There are some great persistant worlds still offered in both NWN 1 and 2, and that would hit both barrels of the single player and MMO crowd.
Who said anything about WITN not making anyone play Skyrimm lol.
As for the Witcher 1-2, well even though i love the games you can't get more hack and slash than that .
I played NWN 1-2 plus IWD for years,they are old and many people want new. That's not to say they are not good games NWN1 more so than NWN2.
I love sandbox open world games as well so games like Skyrimm are great.
Comments
Give us a better way to filter the site... segment it out better and it wouldn't be that bad of an idea.
Again, I already hate having to filter through all of the terrible F2P games. I don't want to have to filter through FPS, RPG, etc.,.. too.
I just wanna say that this works for me. Both MMORPG's and SPRPG's are of equal interest to me. Like a lot of others have said, just so long as you have the two genres segregated, to a degree, that's fine with me.
Well we seem to have them discussed anyways, I guess it makes no difference. The only problem I see is we have so many games discuessed now it is going to be an overload of info.
I don't see why they aren't. An RPG is an RPG no matter if its got a C or an MMO in front of it. MMO's and RPG's are blending into so many genre's now, even throw in an RTS or FPS here and there.
What's a MOBA? It seems like we have to brand something with an acronym and its set in stone. Gotta follow it TO THE LETTER!
Why does everything need a different website? I understand specialization, but I also enjoy having a one stop shop to go to. Not 12 sites. If I want to laugh and engage in conversation about games, I'd rather one community, not 5-6.
Let's talk Skyrim, Mass Effect, Diablo 3 and 2 and whatever gaming talk comes up. Its not like anyone here has to pay for it.
I'm cool with it.
I have no issue with that. I like RPG games and tbh I dont care if they are single player, co-op or mmo - if I like them I play them. Sometimes the line what is mmo and what is not is blurred anyway.
Dividing the two lists would work perfectly swell imo. I mean the site is MMO-RPG though also looking at the logo the O is split and not exactly an O it can easily be seen as a site to have both gaming styles placed on it. SP RPG's in their own rights deserve the same publication and why not here? there'd be no reason to open another site for just SP RPGS like the MMOFPS wich was nice and needed the split as it does have alot more in common with FPS games though some have rpg elements.
Because it's a site made for MMORPGs and it's named MMORPG.com? =/
How about creating a sort of separate section of this site, then, that caters specifically to RPGs that don't fit the "MMO" part.. Call it "Offline" or something (not a serious suggestion, just an example off the top of my head :-p).
Just keep it segregated from the main site, but put a blurb on the main news page stating there's an update. This way you have all the non-MMO info in one spot, so those interested in it can go directly to a single source. At the same time, those not really interested in sifting through non-MMO news don't have to.
No on to Devil's Advocate mode..
Reading the bit about covering "the BIG RPGs" just seems to give support to the suspicion that this entire move isn't merely about expanding into other areas. Rather it reeks of "we want to get more advertising $$$ and we know covering major-name RPGs a way to do it". It's a conclusion looking for a justification.
To give an idea of where I'm coming from with that, I have to wonder, again, why it is that so much fuss wasn't made over Dungeon Siege III? It's in the same category as Diablo III is it not? Yet, no mention of DSIII that I've seen, yet Diablo III is obviously "a big deal" for the MMORPG.com staff. The reasoning is pretty obvious to me: Diablo III = major game = more traffice = more advertising $$$. DSIII... not as much. I know I don't recall articles, polls and discussions opened about adding that game to the site's list. Yet, Diablo III brings about discussion about a complete revamp of the game list's categories, etc.
If you're going to argue for covering RPGs on this site alongside MMORPGs - for all the reasons the OP states - then why only cover "the big ones"? Why not help give exposure to lesser known ones, possible diamonds in the rough that people may not otherwise know about? Why place such restrictions on something you clearly feel very passionate about and have put thought into.
Again... my suspicion keeps coming back to simple math.
Big name RPG = more advertising $$$.
Lesser known RPGs = not so much.
I guess I'd just feel a bit more sincerity coming from y'all about your motives in this if all your assertions were more general and not so specifically settled on "only wanting to cover the big-name titles"; the ones which translate into more advertising money for the site.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Right on the head!
Why not just cover any game that pays you the most? Then add a cash shop so that we can buy filters to block all the genres and games we dont care about. Its basically where this site is heading anyway.
This is EXACTLY what I do not want to hear. I've been coming here ever since this website has been alive for ONE thing. News, any news, on ANYTHING "MMO" related, RPG or not.
By all means, the site is yours to do with as you please. However, the term "MMORPG" has been commonplace for anything "MMO" since I can remember (I've been playing MMO's since Ultima Online pre-EQ). The tag "RPG" has nothing to do with it being JUST a "Role Playing MMO". It was used "back in the day" as a term to express ANYTHING Massive Multiplayer Online.
Nowadays, the term "MMO" is abused to the point of nausium for marketing. However, the "General" MMO player that ACTUALLY "gets" what actually makes an MMO ignores them. Games with 2d, or 3d lobbies like Huxley Online or Global Agenda, are NOT MMO's. They're simply RPG(s) or FPS(s). Games like Everquest, Everquest 2, WoW (even though I despise it), Lineage II, Planetside, etc etc etc are Massive Multiplayer Online games.
I come here for ONE thing, and ONE thing only (as many other do I assume?), and that ONE thing is NEWS about Massive Multiplayer Online Games. If i continue to see random news about "Diablo 3" or "Star Craft" or "Gear of War" I'll find another MMO news site. That's just how it is, and I know SEVERAL people whom frequent this site on a regular basis who have agreed with me on TeamSpeak3 about this VERY subject.
If you want to start doing ANYTHING with non-MMO games by all means feel free. Just know you won't be considered a news site primarily focused on MMOs anymore, and I feel that may be detrimental to you as a whole.
ps: Please stop reporting on "So & So has announced 1,000,000 registered users!" or some such nonsense. Every sees right through it, and it's nothing to be proud of. 1,000,000 subscribers, or 1,000,000 PAYING registered users each paying $5 per purchase is worthy news. However, games like "Free Realms" getting X # of registered users is just pathetic, isn't news, and is annoying the crap out of everyone involved (i say this because ALL the comments on these articles are filled with "no one cares" posts).
-Faded
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
People that want to use the site purely for mmo games then can without muddying the water with rpg games.
I personal like the option of having rpg games included as your site is well managed with good news and intel, so this means I can now find out decent information on rpg games.
I do not understand why there is no RPGGuru. There should be a market for that I believe and seems to be better then have them on this site to me then again from a business point of view it would be better to place them here and keep the flow of users in one place for maximum reveneu.
What is the reason that your not going to create a RPGGuru? Where the other two site disapointing or simply a financial question (Maximizing profit)? Maybe a devils advacate column about this would be interesting so we can read about the other side of the coin from the staff, because currently reading the columns about this it does feel like the choice is made (I know not true, but it does feel that way to me).
Also would like to note that it was somewhat offencive to the 41% minority. Accusing the majority of about 560k users of being vocal and trowing hissy fits. Also calling the minority to be too narrow minded (by claiming the 59% is broad-minded enough) to see the connection is incorrect.
I am part of the 41% and I see and understand the connection, this however was not the question of the poll. This was the question "Should Diablo 3 be added to the MMORPG.com Game List?" not "Do you see the connection" or "Do you care if we add it", the question was should it be added and no I would not read it so no point in my opinion to add it. Do I believe the majority wants it? Yes. do I believe it would be better for the financial situation of this website? Yes, do I see the connection? Yes.
Would also like to note that it's a popular game. Would the poll results be like this as well when it is about some random small game or even to a game like RAGE or Dues Ex with have RPG elements or when the company is not a well know MMO company with a following of more then 10 million?
So in short, watch out what you do with that results. It simply to specific to really make any conclusion in peoples opinion about the broader subject and you can really only conclude people want Diablo 3 in the lists, not RPG in general. Do not get me wrong, people would prolly still want this even for smaller games, but as a company it seems risky to make conclusions from a poll that simply are not there.
Do the 41% really hate the idea or would they simply ignore the games articles then? Would they leave the site as a whole? Would the 41% still read the articles? How many of the 59% would read the articles or simply voted this way because they do not care about it and figured it would be good for others? A simple poll like that to me only raises more question then answers you get.
P.S. MMORPG.com staff: Can you please fix your text editor? It adds extra carriage returns every time you edit, it will create separate quote boxes when you hit enter sometimes.. It's really annoying having to go back and clean up a post, removing extra carriage returns and trying to keep quotes together in a single box because the editor code is bugged. And it's been like this for a while now.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Lol, Skyrimm fits none of the above mentioned and you have mentioned that game more than once. What i find is mmorpg.com like to promote the American RPG but not the European unless put under pressure like their were for The Witcher 2.
And if we are talking RPG with co-op why haven't you mentioned WITN,it's been at all the gaming conventions for the last 3 years.
This game comes out a just over a week before Skyrimm but no mention of it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ulmIcOx8Sk&feature=fvst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycDNUSGWrxM
http://www.warinthenorth.com/
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Jesus/Jesus.htm
Heh , there is no such thing as a mmo"RPG" anymore. It's all about getting to that famous "End Game" ASAP and grinding for gear. No one reads quests anymore , just click on NPC , accept and follow the map pointer , repeat.By doing so you end up with a dumb community that spams chat because they can't do anything or don't know where to go , ect. Devs have created a crappy MMO coomunity by creating "Easy Mode" games. There is no such thing as being "Heroic" since a rich punk can nowadays buy him/herself to fame thanks to cash shops. There is no sense of accomplishments. The only legit game still left out there that is worth playing and you feel like your making a difference is EVE-Online , but for how long with Nexon on the back burner in charge of their famous Cash Shop? It's only a matter of time before EVE-Online falls prey to the cash shop game play enhancements , and when that happens I'll be selling my account since it won't be worth playing anymore.
At least I got my "little" lego collection to keep me occupied
)
I would add Vanguard to the EVE list. I can say that anyone new playing Vanguard would be lost and might very well give up or hope someone helps them through.
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Jesus/Jesus.htm
I've been following LotR: WitN quietly since its gameplay footage at the last E3. It seems like a quasi-linear Coop Hack and Slash. It may do well, hopefully better than the last few LotR games. Personally, I'm not looking for a linear game, leave that to the Final Fantasies. I am more interested in open-ended sandboxes.
For this new LotR game to make anyone not play Skyrim, or even Witcher for that matter, it will have to be really, really good. For LotR fans, looks like a must own. For everyone else with a console, its a rental...or maybe it will be offered through Onliveif they can make the co-op combat interesting and keep the game off rails.
If we were going to talk about CRPG's, I'd like to look at some older stuff, like the Icewind Dales, Baldurs Gates and Neverwinter Nights. There are some great persistant worlds still offered in both NWN 1 and 2, and that would hit both barrels of the single player and MMO crowd.
I come here to read about MMO's, and the quality of that has been pretty poor lately since you mostly only focus on the biggest companys and smaller games get very little or no attention at all. Now you want to include rpg's.
If rpg coverage is done the same as mmo's have been done lately then i guess you'll just focus on the big company games. That seems very half-assed. If your going to do something then commit and do it the best you can. The mmo coverage is half-assed so why throw in more half-assed rpg coverage on top. You say you'll only report on the good games......thanks for taking on the responsibilty of deciding whats good and what isn't. (by the way, just because it's made by the biggest company doesn't mean it's the best, or even good.)
It's sad when mmo game companys think only of money and greed ruins their games. It's even sadder when mmo review-discussion websites do it.
ALso if you've already decided your going to do it then why ask? Really, why bother to ask???????????
Not there fault tbh. RIght now a lot of news from the bigger publishers. Beta dates, release dates, preorders, etc.
I've been monitoring this thread, it intrigues me how resistant some people are to change.
Coman is right, many of the heavier hitting names make bigger and more frequent announcements. Let me ask, when was the last time you heard a big announcment about Istaria Online or Regnum Online? Quite frankly, if they did, not many people care. More of the same crowd comes here to read about more of the same games.
Rift, TSW, SWTOR and the acronyms go on and on...
In my opinion, I think it comes down to money. The driving force of this website I believe is advertising, they charge us for nothing. Thats a good and bad thing. Because we have nothing invested, we don't have much of a say in the matter. I think this is a great site, there are better ones and many worse. But this one always delivers.
One of the main things that I feel that this site doesn't really do as much as I would like would be to tap the community for content. It does, by all means, but really doesn't dig too deep or be consitant. We do have community spotlight once a week, some members are spokespersons for certain games and write articles, usually for the more popular ones. Not many really take on the many obscure games that are on the lists.
We have some community blogs that are posted towards the bottom of the site. Only six, with only 3 being active. The MMORPG.com Staff Blog, which is run by the staff. Teala's and Paragus keep their blogs active and always deliver with great content. And the others haven't been active since 2010 and beyond. I'm just being honest, not even MMO MONEY, has been active, I take up other writing responsibilites and neglect it.
I feel that if they are going to expand into a new realm, ( really not new, its what started MMORPG's in the first place) then they need to pick up some community members, assign some content, offer some type of retribution that doesn't always have to be cold hard cash, and let them go to work.
/raises hand
I would keep MMO MONEY current weekly with interesting good content if I knew that it wasn't sitting all the way at the bottom of the bottom of the website. Under the developer and member blogs that aren't kept current... All I'd ask for is contact with an editor, (positive) constructive criticism, assignments and some contacts, like a real journalism job would have.
The real driving force of MMORPG.com and MMO's in general are the communites that reside in them.
If you really believe that you need to visit other sites.
Who said anything about WITN not making anyone play Skyrimm lol.
As for the Witcher 1-2, well even though i love the games you can't get more hack and slash than that .
I played NWN 1-2 plus IWD for years,they are old and many people want new. That's not to say they are not good games NWN1 more so than NWN2.
I love sandbox open world games as well so games like Skyrimm are great.
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Jesus/Jesus.htm
Why not Zoidberg?