I think it's kind of fun what we observe in this thread--the expectation for one game to entertain one player on one toon forever.
No wonder people are dissatisfied with MMOs, MMOs fail utterly to do the impossible.
More people should try MUDs. People will never get the sandbox gameplay they want in an MMO, not for another few years atleast. MUDs still fill that niche for people who want a deep immersive MMO experience
Like some have mentioned in prior responses, My idea of endgame is not to have an 'end' game... i would have the entire game experience built around the notion that a player will be in the world for years, and that every minute spent in the world could offer enjoyment.
This is not to say that 'my dream mmo' would be catered to instant gratification players at all, but instead have options for instant gratification for those who don't have time to invest in a videogame, yet, not break any aspect of the game that the more indepth/free-time having players would experience. So, instead of focusing on "what is the game like at the end" I am more inclined to focus on "what is the game like. Period."
*************
-- EvE's skill system instead of having "the top level" (with some modification)
: This is a time based system in which individual skills are trained/learned in real time, whether the character is online or offline. Actions taken during gameplay such as combat, crafting, travel, etc do not effect the training, so it can be done in the background as a sort of CONSTANT progression.
: There would also be optional activities/challenges available to those who don't want to be stuck waiting for skills that would reduce training times or give instant skill levels as a reward (this is something that would require much planning on the development end and should NOT be an easy task for the players so as to ward off possible exploitation. Can't have super OP players just because they completed a daily quest and such...)
: Skills being more important than or replacing levels all together make it to where all players have access to content without actually having to nerf the content itself to be "more accessible" - EVE is a fine example of this. It actually adds a sense or organic formality to player roles, letting the players decide who does what based on what skills a player has chosen/increased instead of the developer having to force the roles on the players by having predetermined class/ability molds and level restrictions to content.
-- Backwards compatibility with content
: Not another game where after you 'level up passed' a certain zone/map, you never have a reason to go back there again besides the bored ganker looking for 1shot kills. With current technology, it would be rather simple to have content available to any player regardless of level/rank/etc... which brings me to my next point; Levelcaps ala FFXI
: Levelcaps. FFXI implimented a fantastic feature to keep players from feeling left out based on level gaps. When a high level player joins a party with low level players, the leader of the group has the option to levelcap everyone to the same level, making it so that XP is not nerfed by the high level, and so that the highlevel character is not completely obliterating everything while the lowbies 'sit and watch' -- Higher level characters are also able to gain xp/skills/'rewards' from these groups regardless of the level of difficulty because they are level capped down to the proper standard for the situation. This whole dynamic brought more people together, able to share the content with eachother without having to play "catchup"
-- Player driven Economy
: No more magic gear drops from creatures. All items crafted and supplied by other players. Materials gathered from the world or from creature drops. Unlimited crafting and itemization potential.
: Some sort of loss and gain. This fuels the production of items when EVERYONE eventually loses something...
-- Player housing (customizable)
: Nuff said. Everyone should know player housing adds replayability to MMORPGs.
-- Territory
: Control or Ownership of in game territory, with subsiquent benefits and penalties so that any one party/person/guild/faction/etc that holds territory for a long period of time gets worthwhile benefits as well as substantial penalties. For example: Guild X holds map X, and as long as they hold it, all characters in Guild X get powerful boosts to skills,stats,training time, and/or crafting results, while at the same time, all characters linked to Guild X player accounts are forced to stay in map X otherwise they lose the ability to hold the territory. (dunno, just threw that together on the fly. I'm sure some of you intelligent readers can see where I'm going with it without being too critical)
-- Active GM Events (like the old days, before GMs were just a name in your chatbox)
: GMs that take the form of bosses or other creatures, creating unexpected world events. This could be regulated per server per day giving each server it's own truely TRUELY dynamic Events, providing for virtually never ending epic content.
***************
So those are a few ideas I've always had about what could be involved in an MMORPG to make the concept of 'end game' fade away and simply offer a game that can last as long as the player decides to be a part of it.
As many have said the problem isn't really the end game, it's how quickly one can get to max level. Conversely you have the grind.
The real issue is how to avoid either one of these and find a happy medium. IMNSHO, The biggest thing you can do to remove the grind is to remove progress bars. Back in time of EQ1 and DAoC, I found that if I ignored the progress bar or covered it up with other windows, I felt little to no grind. And it was always a pleasant surprise when I leveled.
I would also remove all stat/damage numbers. When you replace a piece of gear that has a dex bonus with a piece that has a strength bonus you would get a message to the effect of:
You feel barely/slightly/moderately/significantly/vastly less dexterous
You feel barely/slightly/moderately/significantly/vastly more dexterous
Min/Maxing accentuates the grind. I don't say this because lack the ability to min/max, because I don't. I'm a math geek, but that just means I understand it's impact on gaming.
In strategy games there is this concept of fog of war and I think it needs to be re-incorporated into MMORPGs
Provide evidence that it can be done, and then we'll talk some more.
The nature of hobbies and ennui with them is reasonably well established. How many people here are still playing their first MMO, do you suppose? Or still playing ANY game on a nightly basis after ten+ years?
I warn you, this website itself provides enormous empirical evidence against the one-game-forever scenario.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Provide evidence that it can be done, and then we'll talk some more.
The nature of hobbies and ennui with them is reasonably well established. How many people here are still playing their first MMO, do you suppose? Or still playing ANY game on a nightly basis after ten+ years?
I warn you, this website itself provides enormous empirical evidence against the one-game-forever scenario.
Oh. You're using "forever" literally? I didn't know people could live that long.
Oh. You're using "forever" literally? I didn't know people could live that long.
Slick dodge.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I think it would be interesting to research how frequently forum posters used the word "dynamic" to explicate MMO ideologies (about games other than GW2) prior to the GW2 media hype, and compare that to how frequently it is used today.
About as slick as your accusation, when "forever" isn't on the table.
Forever is the expectation of gamers. It's my contention that no game played as regularly as an MMO can (or could) entertain one person indefinitely. I offer evidence of human nature, and lots of empirical confirmation drawn from this board.
You've offered nothing except one-liners.
Do you like "indefinitely" instead of "forever", or is it time to toss another red herring out?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Provide evidence that it can be done, and then we'll talk some more.
The nature of hobbies and ennui with them is reasonably well established. How many people here are still playing their first MMO, do you suppose? Or still playing ANY game on a nightly basis after ten+ years?
I warn you, this website itself provides enormous empirical evidence against the one-game-forever scenario.
Provide evidence. Provide evidence. Provide evidence. Provide evidence. Provide evidence. Provide evidence. Provide evidence
How about you provide evidence that it can't be done.
How about you provide evidence that providing evidence is required to speak in a forum.
How about you provide evidence that everyone should care whether you're convinced of anything they say or not?
Because, last I checked, this thread, and many others I've seen you pull this attitude on, are posted by someone asking for other people's opinion, feeling, thoughts, suggestions, criticisms... no where in that list does it say "don't submit a reply unless you can supply evidence that you understand programming language, graphic design, algorhythms, fail safes, parity checks, and development theory."
Really... what on earth makes people feel like they deserve such consideration??
End game is an illusion and did not exist before 2004. Not to say that level caps didn't exist, but the concept of "reaching a new play experience at the *end* of progression" is not part of the original plan for an ongoing virtual world/game.
About as slick as your accusation, when "forever" isn't on the table.
Forever is the expectation of gamers. It's my contention that no game played as regularly as an MMO can (or could) entertain one person indefinitely. I offer evidence of human nature, and lots of empirical confirmation drawn from this board.
You've offered nothing except one-liners.
Do you like "indefinitely" instead of "forever", or is it time to toss another red herring out?
As a matter of fact, I do like "indefinitely" better. Now, as to that, what evidence do you have to show?
End game is an illusion and did not exist before 2004. Not to say that level caps didn't exist, but the concept of "reaching a new play experience at the *end* of progression" is not part of the original plan for an ongoing virtual world/game.
"End Game" existed when EQ came out. It's a natural part of any level grind game, unless said game decides not to have "the ultimate" experience at the end of their level based game design.
PS: For all those who didn't play MMORPGs before WoW - Raiding existed before WoW, and was not used as "the only thing to do", therefore, did not create the End Game mindset by force. Was an option, as it should be.
Also... Why are the moderators not banning certain people that offer nothing to the subject matter in response to the OP and instead poke at people who say things they don't agree with and try to insult their intelligence?
Originally posted by AmarantharAs a matter of fact, I do like "indefinitely" better. Now, as to that, what evidence do you have to show?
It's all around you.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
End game is an illusion and did not exist before 2004. Not to say that level caps didn't exist, but the concept of "reaching a new play experience at the *end* of progression" is not part of the original plan for an ongoing virtual world/game.
"End Game" existed when EQ came out. It's a natural part of any level grind game, unless said game decides not to have "the ultimate" experience at the end of their level based game design.
Original EQ didn't have raids, those came later. End game consisted of high level dungeons and quests. Asheron's Call and Dark Age of Camelot and Anarchy Online didn't have any raiding at all even later on in their life cycles, with the exception of DAoC, which experimented with Trials of Atlantis and the blowback from the players was phenomenal. It's quite easy to make a game without "End Game" raiding. End game is the perfect place to implement nice mini-games, a greater array of roleplay options, more quests, more dungeons, focus on world story, character story, character backgrounds, social events, alternate advancement, badges and achievements social or special occasion outfits, PvP, dynamic events, scripted events, game master run events....etc. Raiding is a modern day pacifier for workaholics, keeping up with the Jonses and holier than thou hardcores. It's easy to program and the hamster wheel repetitiveness is perfect for developers who are too lazy to actually earn their paychecks.
Today's idea of endgame is a joke in my book and it needs to go and go fast.
IceWhite, that poll will only show the current retention rates. Not anything to do with what's possible or not. Not anything to do even with what players want, since they are stuck with the current choices. And there is not one quality, modernSandbox game available in many years.
Maybe when we one day finally getting a real dynamic world en deformation of the ground we have endless changing world to play.
Storm's, tornado's, earthquake's, tsunami's or vulcano's changing world completely and we have constantly new challenge in end game citys destroys hunting grounds changed.
Also roaming mobs and i mean they can live in large area not like now on small spot and never leave that small area. Npc or humanoid mobs who also can build or ocupied lands spaces like caves.
For example you clear out a dungeon and some humanoid tribe see cave is empty and deside to live in that dungeon you cleared a few hours ago.
A real dynamic world would be one of means to constantly change end game.
Make mmo's a real adventure again instead of the hold hand follow game guidance we have now in most mmo's.
^ This
It would be tough using current technology, but I'd love to see a fully dynamic world.
Luckily, a lot of the work can be done with an algorithm invented ages ago. It takes a few small pieces of land/trees/bushes/grass/etc and creates huge landscapes or even worlds. Take it further and it shouldn't be too difficult to represent the destructive path of a tornado properly.
Take "crafting" to the next level as well. I want to head into the frozen north and build myself a fortress in the side of a mountain, only to turn into a pale, frigid version of my former self due to the harsh atmosphere. I want to see a bunch of NPCs create a temple for a false god and stage a war on civilization using their endless horde of religious fanatics.
"Diplomacy" sucks in games. I want to befriend a tribe of warriors, then challenge their leader for control of the tribe and use my new army to fight a rival player-controlled faction. Or tame a giant cat beast and ride it into battle.
"Skills" are awful. Give me an endlessly customizable skill set, and let NPCs use it too. Piss off a five year old girl? "Suzy kicks you in the shin. You take 2 damage." I want my frost and ice skills to be more powerful in my frozen fortress of the north. I want enemy fire skills to be less powerful.
I could go on and on, but the point is, so much more can be done with games. Corporate greed needs to die.
Hehehe, I think the game you're looking for is "He-man Online"
** Raiding is a modern day pacifier for workaholics, keeping up with the Jonses and holier than thou hardcores. It's easy to program and the hamster wheel repetitiveness is perfect for developers who are too lazy to actually earn their paychecks.
***Today's idea of endgame is a joke in my book and it needs to go and go fast.
** Well put.
*** It very much does need to go. Atleast away from being standardized as being a necessary part of every upcoming title.
End game is an illusion and did not exist before 2004. Not to say that level caps didn't exist, but the concept of "reaching a new play experience at the *end* of progression" is not part of the original plan for an ongoing virtual world/game.
"End Game" existed when EQ came out. It's a natural part of any level grind game, unless said game decides not to have "the ultimate" experience at the end of their level based game design.
Original EQ didn't have raids, those came later. End game consisted of high level dungeons and quests. Asheron's Call and Dark Age of Camelot and Anarchy Online didn't have any raiding at all even later on in their life cycles, with the exception of DAoC, which experimented with Trials of Atlantis and the blowback from the players was phenomenal. It's quite easy to make a game without "End Game" raiding. End game is the perfect place to implement nice mini-games, a greater array of roleplay options, more quests, more dungeons, focus on world story, character story, character backgrounds, social events, alternate advancement, badges and achievements social or special occasion outfits, PvP, dynamic events, scripted events, game master run events....etc. Raiding is a modern day pacifier for workaholics, keeping up with the Jonses and holier than thou hardcores. It's easy to program and the hamster wheel repetitiveness is perfect for developers who are too lazy to actually earn their paychecks.
Today's idea of endgame is a joke in my book and it needs to go and go fast.
The point was that "End Game" didn't start in 2004. EQ had End Game, Raids, it just didn't come out with release (as I seem to remember). But it followed pretty quickly (again, as I remember). But surely, since EQ was released in 1999, it didn't take them 5 years to add their Raid content for the top levels, which I consider "End Game". The very term was coined with EQ, not with WoW.
I agree that AC didn't have End Game, I'm not sure about DAoC but will take your word for it.
IceWhite, that poll will only show the current retention rates. Not anything to do with what's possible or not. Not anything to do even with what players want, since they are stuck with the current choices. And there is not one quality, modernSandbox game available in many years.
EXACTLY.... but, see, he doesn't need to provide REAL proof (even though, apparently, everyone else does). Just something flashy and attention worthy.
Another thing, I may have just missed it somewhere in this thread, and I apologize if that's the case, but ... where did anyone say that a game should be created to last forever? Why is that the one thing he is stuck arguing about? I thought this was about getting everyone's input on what they would do with End Game if they had the choice?
And yet another thing. @IceWhite -- Why don't you wait until 2014 to post your little 10-year Poll. And post it somewhere available for the entire world's gaming community to have access to, not just one random website like this. At least, if you expect to gain any usable data that could pass for "evidence" I'm sure at that point once WoW has hit 10 years, you'd see plenty of people claiming they've played one....single....game... for 10+ years.
I personally, am not one of them, and moreover, agree with your stance on general human behavior. It blows my mind that people that have been playing WoW since "vanilla" days still play it now, let alone for another 2+ years... But the fact remains that it is POSSIBLE. Evidence of such a thing is irrelivant. Everything is possible until proven impossible, not the other way around.
IceWhite, that poll will only show the current retention rates. Not anything to do with what's possible or not. Not anything to do even with what players want, since they are stuck with the current choices. And there is not one quality, modernSandbox game available in many years.
Agreed, and it's stashed away in the middle of a thread (not exactly high traffic).
What's the point? Well, it's an unpopular one, obviously. But given fifteen years of message boards, the question about endgame always produces a cycle of "blame the lazy devs". No acknowledgement that the players are also (at least partially) responsible for their own ennui, when they feel it. No one ever seems to like admitting burnout--"it's never my fault I played a game until I couldn't stand looking at it any more, it's those lazy devs, fix it!".
Or that player's (particularly bitter players) expectations just might, maybe, be a little bit out of whack.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Agreed, and it's stashed away in the middle of a thread (not exactly high traffic).
What's the point? Well, it's an unpopular one, obviously. But given fifteen years of message boards, the question about endgame always produces a cycle of "blame the lazy devs". No acknowledgement that the players are also (at least partially) responsible for their own dissatisfaction. No one ever seems to like admitting burnout--it's never my fault I played a game until I couldn't stand looking at it any more, it's those lazy devs.
Or that player's expectations just might, maybe, be a little bit out of whack with what a box purchase can be expected to pay for. We want it all, but not for more than fifty bucks.
Ok, I have to at least somewhat agree with you here. I am guilty of not having put this into consideration before, and many others I know are guilty of it as well.
On another point in regards to this 'burn-out' mention, (and not to try and sound like "that guy" who always brings up a rare exception to a subject to try and derail the topic and invalidate someone's point as if the one exception being brought to the table somehow proves that everything else mentioned holds no importance) ; -- What about the issue of new MMOs (aka MOBAs) being DEVELOPED to speed the players through the leveling process and get them to the end where the CONTENT actually is? And how about when said content at the end is a REPITITIOUS and mind-numbing and requires nothing more than to memorize a spell/ability rotation? And how about when said repititious end-game content is deemed 'completed' by either the community or development team, and then a patch/expansion is released that offers nothing more but the same repititious mind-numbing encounters that require nothing more than to memorize spell/ability rotations and where to stand when X happens?
.... my point simply being that when the development of a game is geared to bring about burn-out, and even depends on it, I think it's fair to consider in that case that it's the dev's "laziness" or even "incompetence" to blame and not the players'
Yes, and thanks for dialing the hostility back a notch.
" .... my point simply being that when the development of a game is geared to bring about burn-out, and even depends on it, I think it's fair to consider in that case that it's the dev's "laziness" or even "incompetence" to blame and not the players'"
Don't need to remind you of earlier games that burned you out with their own version of grind? Short of the cap?
If anything, I'd say that if players are willing to stick with a game until they begin to feel burned out, the devs have been doing a pretty good job of providing low-cost entertainment.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Comments
Background music for this post.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
More people should try MUDs. People will never get the sandbox gameplay they want in an MMO, not for another few years atleast. MUDs still fill that niche for people who want a deep immersive MMO experience
Like some have mentioned in prior responses, My idea of endgame is not to have an 'end' game... i would have the entire game experience built around the notion that a player will be in the world for years, and that every minute spent in the world could offer enjoyment.
This is not to say that 'my dream mmo' would be catered to instant gratification players at all, but instead have options for instant gratification for those who don't have time to invest in a videogame, yet, not break any aspect of the game that the more indepth/free-time having players would experience. So, instead of focusing on "what is the game like at the end" I am more inclined to focus on "what is the game like. Period."
*************
-- EvE's skill system instead of having "the top level" (with some modification)
: This is a time based system in which individual skills are trained/learned in real time, whether the character is online or offline. Actions taken during gameplay such as combat, crafting, travel, etc do not effect the training, so it can be done in the background as a sort of CONSTANT progression.
: There would also be optional activities/challenges available to those who don't want to be stuck waiting for skills that would reduce training times or give instant skill levels as a reward (this is something that would require much planning on the development end and should NOT be an easy task for the players so as to ward off possible exploitation. Can't have super OP players just because they completed a daily quest and such...)
: Skills being more important than or replacing levels all together make it to where all players have access to content without actually having to nerf the content itself to be "more accessible" - EVE is a fine example of this. It actually adds a sense or organic formality to player roles, letting the players decide who does what based on what skills a player has chosen/increased instead of the developer having to force the roles on the players by having predetermined class/ability molds and level restrictions to content.
-- Backwards compatibility with content
: Not another game where after you 'level up passed' a certain zone/map, you never have a reason to go back there again besides the bored ganker looking for 1shot kills. With current technology, it would be rather simple to have content available to any player regardless of level/rank/etc... which brings me to my next point; Levelcaps ala FFXI
: Levelcaps. FFXI implimented a fantastic feature to keep players from feeling left out based on level gaps. When a high level player joins a party with low level players, the leader of the group has the option to levelcap everyone to the same level, making it so that XP is not nerfed by the high level, and so that the highlevel character is not completely obliterating everything while the lowbies 'sit and watch' -- Higher level characters are also able to gain xp/skills/'rewards' from these groups regardless of the level of difficulty because they are level capped down to the proper standard for the situation. This whole dynamic brought more people together, able to share the content with eachother without having to play "catchup"
-- Player driven Economy
: No more magic gear drops from creatures. All items crafted and supplied by other players. Materials gathered from the world or from creature drops. Unlimited crafting and itemization potential.
: Some sort of loss and gain. This fuels the production of items when EVERYONE eventually loses something...
-- Player housing (customizable)
: Nuff said. Everyone should know player housing adds replayability to MMORPGs.
-- Territory
: Control or Ownership of in game territory, with subsiquent benefits and penalties so that any one party/person/guild/faction/etc that holds territory for a long period of time gets worthwhile benefits as well as substantial penalties. For example: Guild X holds map X, and as long as they hold it, all characters in Guild X get powerful boosts to skills,stats,training time, and/or crafting results, while at the same time, all characters linked to Guild X player accounts are forced to stay in map X otherwise they lose the ability to hold the territory. (dunno, just threw that together on the fly. I'm sure some of you intelligent readers can see where I'm going with it without being too critical)
-- Active GM Events (like the old days, before GMs were just a name in your chatbox)
: GMs that take the form of bosses or other creatures, creating unexpected world events. This could be regulated per server per day giving each server it's own truely TRUELY dynamic Events, providing for virtually never ending epic content.
***************
So those are a few ideas I've always had about what could be involved in an MMORPG to make the concept of 'end game' fade away and simply offer a game that can last as long as the player decides to be a part of it.
As many have said the problem isn't really the end game, it's how quickly one can get to max level. Conversely you have the grind.
The real issue is how to avoid either one of these and find a happy medium. IMNSHO, The biggest thing you can do to remove the grind is to remove progress bars. Back in time of EQ1 and DAoC, I found that if I ignored the progress bar or covered it up with other windows, I felt little to no grind. And it was always a pleasant surprise when I leveled.
I would also remove all stat/damage numbers. When you replace a piece of gear that has a dex bonus with a piece that has a strength bonus you would get a message to the effect of:
You feel barely/slightly/moderately/significantly/vastly less dexterous
You feel barely/slightly/moderately/significantly/vastly more dexterous
Min/Maxing accentuates the grind. I don't say this because lack the ability to min/max, because I don't. I'm a math geek, but that just means I understand it's impact on gaming.
In strategy games there is this concept of fog of war and I think it needs to be re-incorporated into MMORPGs
Well, at least what they consider the impossible.
Love that "it can't be done" attitude.
Once upon a time....
Provide evidence that it can be done, and then we'll talk some more.
The nature of hobbies and ennui with them is reasonably well established. How many people here are still playing their first MMO, do you suppose? Or still playing ANY game on a nightly basis after ten+ years?
I warn you, this website itself provides enormous empirical evidence against the one-game-forever scenario.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Oh. You're using "forever" literally? I didn't know people could live that long.
Once upon a time....
Slick dodge.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I think it would be interesting to research how frequently forum posters used the word "dynamic" to explicate MMO ideologies (about games other than GW2) prior to the GW2 media hype, and compare that to how frequently it is used today.
About as slick as your accusation, when "forever" isn't on the table.
Once upon a time....
Forever is the expectation of gamers. It's my contention that no game played as regularly as an MMO can (or could) entertain one person indefinitely. I offer evidence of human nature, and lots of empirical confirmation drawn from this board.
You've offered nothing except one-liners.
Do you like "indefinitely" instead of "forever", or is it time to toss another red herring out?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Provide evidence. Provide evidence. Provide evidence. Provide evidence. Provide evidence. Provide evidence. Provide evidence
How about you provide evidence that it can't be done.
How about you provide evidence that providing evidence is required to speak in a forum.
How about you provide evidence that everyone should care whether you're convinced of anything they say or not?
Because, last I checked, this thread, and many others I've seen you pull this attitude on, are posted by someone asking for other people's opinion, feeling, thoughts, suggestions, criticisms... no where in that list does it say "don't submit a reply unless you can supply evidence that you understand programming language, graphic design, algorhythms, fail safes, parity checks, and development theory."
Really... what on earth makes people feel like they deserve such consideration??
End game is an illusion and did not exist before 2004. Not to say that level caps didn't exist, but the concept of "reaching a new play experience at the *end* of progression" is not part of the original plan for an ongoing virtual world/game.
As a matter of fact, I do like "indefinitely" better. Now, as to that, what evidence do you have to show?
Once upon a time....
"End Game" existed when EQ came out. It's a natural part of any level grind game, unless said game decides not to have "the ultimate" experience at the end of their level based game design.
Once upon a time....
PS: For all those who didn't play MMORPGs before WoW - Raiding existed before WoW, and was not used as "the only thing to do", therefore, did not create the End Game mindset by force. Was an option, as it should be.
Also... Why are the moderators not banning certain people that offer nothing to the subject matter in response to the OP and instead poke at people who say things they don't agree with and try to insult their intelligence?
That's not very productive...
It's all around you.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Original EQ didn't have raids, those came later. End game consisted of high level dungeons and quests. Asheron's Call and Dark Age of Camelot and Anarchy Online didn't have any raiding at all even later on in their life cycles, with the exception of DAoC, which experimented with Trials of Atlantis and the blowback from the players was phenomenal. It's quite easy to make a game without "End Game" raiding. End game is the perfect place to implement nice mini-games, a greater array of roleplay options, more quests, more dungeons, focus on world story, character story, character backgrounds, social events, alternate advancement, badges and achievements social or special occasion outfits, PvP, dynamic events, scripted events, game master run events....etc. Raiding is a modern day pacifier for workaholics, keeping up with the Jonses and holier than thou hardcores. It's easy to program and the hamster wheel repetitiveness is perfect for developers who are too lazy to actually earn their paychecks.
Today's idea of endgame is a joke in my book and it needs to go and go fast.
IceWhite, that poll will only show the current retention rates. Not anything to do with what's possible or not. Not anything to do even with what players want, since they are stuck with the current choices. And there is not one quality, modern Sandbox game available in many years.
Once upon a time....
Hehehe, I think the game you're looking for is "He-man Online"
Warhammer fanatic since '85.
** Well put.
*** It very much does need to go. Atleast away from being standardized as being a necessary part of every upcoming title.
The point was that "End Game" didn't start in 2004. EQ had End Game, Raids, it just didn't come out with release (as I seem to remember). But it followed pretty quickly (again, as I remember). But surely, since EQ was released in 1999, it didn't take them 5 years to add their Raid content for the top levels, which I consider "End Game". The very term was coined with EQ, not with WoW.
I agree that AC didn't have End Game, I'm not sure about DAoC but will take your word for it.
Once upon a time....
EXACTLY.... but, see, he doesn't need to provide REAL proof (even though, apparently, everyone else does). Just something flashy and attention worthy.
Another thing, I may have just missed it somewhere in this thread, and I apologize if that's the case, but ... where did anyone say that a game should be created to last forever? Why is that the one thing he is stuck arguing about? I thought this was about getting everyone's input on what they would do with End Game if they had the choice?
And yet another thing. @IceWhite -- Why don't you wait until 2014 to post your little 10-year Poll. And post it somewhere available for the entire world's gaming community to have access to, not just one random website like this. At least, if you expect to gain any usable data that could pass for "evidence" I'm sure at that point once WoW has hit 10 years, you'd see plenty of people claiming they've played one....single....game... for 10+ years.
I personally, am not one of them, and moreover, agree with your stance on general human behavior. It blows my mind that people that have been playing WoW since "vanilla" days still play it now, let alone for another 2+ years... But the fact remains that it is POSSIBLE. Evidence of such a thing is irrelivant. Everything is possible until proven impossible, not the other way around.
Agreed, and it's stashed away in the middle of a thread (not exactly high traffic).
What's the point? Well, it's an unpopular one, obviously. But given fifteen years of message boards, the question about endgame always produces a cycle of "blame the lazy devs". No acknowledgement that the players are also (at least partially) responsible for their own ennui, when they feel it. No one ever seems to like admitting burnout--"it's never my fault I played a game until I couldn't stand looking at it any more, it's those lazy devs, fix it!".
Or that player's (particularly bitter players) expectations just might, maybe, be a little bit out of whack.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Ok, I have to at least somewhat agree with you here. I am guilty of not having put this into consideration before, and many others I know are guilty of it as well.
On another point in regards to this 'burn-out' mention, (and not to try and sound like "that guy" who always brings up a rare exception to a subject to try and derail the topic and invalidate someone's point as if the one exception being brought to the table somehow proves that everything else mentioned holds no importance) ; -- What about the issue of new MMOs (aka MOBAs) being DEVELOPED to speed the players through the leveling process and get them to the end where the CONTENT actually is? And how about when said content at the end is a REPITITIOUS and mind-numbing and requires nothing more than to memorize a spell/ability rotation? And how about when said repititious end-game content is deemed 'completed' by either the community or development team, and then a patch/expansion is released that offers nothing more but the same repititious mind-numbing encounters that require nothing more than to memorize spell/ability rotations and where to stand when X happens?
.... my point simply being that when the development of a game is geared to bring about burn-out, and even depends on it, I think it's fair to consider in that case that it's the dev's "laziness" or even "incompetence" to blame and not the players'
Can you see what I mean?
Yes, and thanks for dialing the hostility back a notch.
" .... my point simply being that when the development of a game is geared to bring about burn-out, and even depends on it, I think it's fair to consider in that case that it's the dev's "laziness" or even "incompetence" to blame and not the players'"
Don't need to remind you of earlier games that burned you out with their own version of grind? Short of the cap?
If anything, I'd say that if players are willing to stick with a game until they begin to feel burned out, the devs have been doing a pretty good job of providing low-cost entertainment.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.