Missing one feature is excusable...but SWTOR is missing quite a number of features.
So I guess you'll start saying the same thing about GW2,TSW and AA when they release for not having full VO and story choices?
While that's certainly a neat addition to the MMO genre, it's not anything that I would say is required in titles moving forward. Like other similar themeparks, they all release with a specific variety of gimmick to set themselves apart, when there really isn't much mechanically to distinguish one from another. For TOR, that's story and full VO: a fun gimmick, but ultimately unnecessary to make a good multiplayer game (IN MY OPINIONLOLOLOL).
I agree. I really see full VO as a nice high-budget feature. Kind of like "awesome graphics" or "great sound effects." It's nice, but it doesn't work as the defining feature of a game, and I can very easily live without it.
The same could be said of AA sea combat or GW2 dodging.
Seems at this point that people are perfectly able to live without custom UI and other "Important" things.
Well, I wouldn't specifically mention those things in the defense of my argument, mostly because they're just as gimmicky, but as IceWhite pointed out, probably weighed on varying scales of necessity depending upon your position.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Missing one feature is excusable...but SWTOR is missing quite a number of features.
So I guess you'll start saying the same thing about GW2,TSW and AA when they release for not having full VO and story choices?
While that's certainly a neat addition to the MMO genre, it's not anything that I would say is required in titles moving forward. Like other similar themeparks, they all release with a specific variety of gimmick to set themselves apart, when there really isn't much mechanically to distinguish one from another. For TOR, that's story and full VO: a fun gimmick, but ultimately unnecessary to make a good multiplayer game (IN MY OPINIONLOLOLOL).
I agree. I really see full VO as a nice high-budget feature. Kind of like "awesome graphics" or "great sound effects." It's nice, but it doesn't work as the defining feature of a game, and I can very easily live without it.
The same could be said of AA sea combat or GW2 dodging.
Seems at this point that people are perfectly able to live without custom UI and other "Important" things.
I would disagree...
Those features actually change the gameplay of the game. Without them, the game is fundamentally different.
Without VO, the only thing that changes is that you have to read the text. That's it. Everything will be identically the same except for that. You can make the exact same comparison with if you reduced the graphics quality. All the would change is the game would look worse...it would still play the same.
If you remove sea combat from AA then it would invalidate a large portion of the game. Namely, building and sailing ships.
If you remove dodging from GW2, it would drastically alter the combat dynamic, and may even destroy the balance of the game.
EDIT:
I also wanted to add, as Lawlmonster says above, sea combat and doding aren't what I would consider the "primary" features of AA and GW2. But that's what you put forth, and I think the argument still works .
With so many perspectives, you'd almost wonder why there aren't more MMO's catering to more preferences.
Market; if you can't sell it to anyone (except the lone wolf crying for it on the mountaintop), what's the point of making it?
Why isn't any game crafted to exactly my specs? Call it five million players in the West, shall we demand five million customized games?
I think that's a stretch, but I was merely commenting on the situation in the MMO genre. Perhaps actually expanding the sub-genre's would be worthwhile, as others have pointed out over the years? Games like EVE can survive and do well with an organized audience, and I think developers need to stop thinking as all encompassing as they are. That's all I was getting at, though.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Missing one feature is excusable...but SWTOR is missing quite a number of features.
So I guess you'll start saying the same thing about GW2,TSW and AA when they release for not having full VO and story choices?
While that's certainly a neat addition to the MMO genre, it's not anything that I would say is required in titles moving forward. Like other similar themeparks, they all release with a specific variety of gimmick to set themselves apart, when there really isn't much mechanically to distinguish one from another. For TOR, that's story and full VO: a fun gimmick, but ultimately unnecessary to make a good multiplayer game (IN MY OPINIONLOLOLOL).
I agree. I really see full VO as a nice high-budget feature. Kind of like "awesome graphics" or "great sound effects." It's nice, but it doesn't work as the defining feature of a game, and I can very easily live without it.
The same could be said of AA sea combat or GW2 dodging.
Seems at this point that people are perfectly able to live without custom UI and other "Important" things.
What are you talking about happy guy, please make sure they get the ability delay right, I honestly hope they do because apparently I wasn't the ony one who noticed it durring OB which turnt me off.
I didn't realise the issue I had with this game was a huge issue with many people until Creslin brought it up.
SWTOR has like a small tumor right now.
They it's a need not a want for retention, it hurt Warhammer. Same thing is in SWTOR.
And I'm pulling for Bioware to notice it as soo as the thread in the SWTOR forums. It's wishful thinking but yea better than saying SWTOR has no huge issue and let it bite our ass.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Missing one feature is excusable...but SWTOR is missing quite a number of features.
So I guess you'll start saying the same thing about GW2,TSW and AA when they release for not having full VO and story choices?
While that's certainly a neat addition to the MMO genre, it's not anything that I would say is required in titles moving forward. Like other similar themeparks, they all release with a specific variety of gimmick to set themselves apart, when there really isn't much mechanically to distinguish one from another. For TOR, that's story and full VO: a fun gimmick, but ultimately unnecessary to make a good multiplayer game (IN MY OPINIONLOLOLOL).
I agree. I really see full VO as a nice high-budget feature. Kind of like "awesome graphics" or "great sound effects." It's nice, but it doesn't work as the defining feature of a game, and I can very easily live without it.
The same could be said of AA sea combat or GW2 dodging.
Seems at this point that people are perfectly able to live without custom UI and other "Important" things.
I would disagree...
Those features actually change the gameplay of the game. Without them, the game is fundamentally different.
Without VO, the only thing that changes is that you have to read the text. That's it. Everything will be identically the same except for that. You can make the exact same comparison with if you reduced the graphics quality. All the would change is the game would look worse...it would still play the same.
If you remove sea combat from AA then it would invalidate a large portion of the game. Namely, building and sailing ships.
If you remove dodging from GW2, it would drastically alter the combat dynamic, and may even destroy the balance of the game.
EDIT:
I also wanted to add, as Lawlmonster says above, sea combat and doding aren't what I would consider the "primary" features of AA and GW2. But that's what you put forth, and I think the argument still works .
Hah! I was just about to comment on this, and say that I hadn't considered these features in the manner you've written about. They're valid points.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Its not bad, but not great either and yes I am playing it now. The real new king imo will either be EQ Next or Secert World not sure which. Lean slightly toward EQ Next.
Missing one feature is excusable...but SWTOR is missing quite a number of features.
So I guess you'll start saying the same thing about GW2,TSW and AA when they release for not having full VO and story choices?
While that's certainly a neat addition to the MMO genre, it's not anything that I would say is required in titles moving forward. Like other similar themeparks, they all release with a specific variety of gimmick to set themselves apart, when there really isn't much mechanically to distinguish one from another. For TOR, that's story and full VO: a fun gimmick, but ultimately unnecessary to make a good multiplayer game (IN MY OPINIONLOLOLOL).
I agree. I really see full VO as a nice high-budget feature. Kind of like "awesome graphics" or "great sound effects." It's nice, but it doesn't work as the defining feature of a game, and I can very easily live without it.
The same could be said of AA sea combat or GW2 dodging.
Seems at this point that people are perfectly able to live without custom UI and other "Important" things.
I also wanted to add, as Lawlmonster says above, sea combat and doding aren't what I would consider the "primary" features of AA and GW2. But that's what you put forth, and I think the argument still works .
As I said before there is more to innovation then being able to change your weapon mid combat or being able to move around while casting an AOE spell.
Until you relize this there is nothing more that I can say.
Edit: If game designers started thinking like you did then real RPGs are fucked.
With so many perspectives, you'd almost wonder why there aren't more MMO's catering to more preferences.
Market; if you can't sell it to anyone (except the lone wolf crying for it on the mountaintop), what's the point of making it?
Why isn't any game crafted to exactly my specs? Call it five million players in the West, shall we demand five million customized games?
I think that's a stretch, but I was merely commenting on the situation in the MMO genre. Perhaps actually expanding the sub-genre's would be worthwhile, as others have pointed out over the years? Games like EVE can survive and do well with an organized audience, and I think developers need to stop thinking as all encompassing as they are. That's all I was getting at, though.
You will notice that the more recent themepark games (WAR, AoC, and now even Rift) start high in subs and then rapidly shoot down. Aion fared better, but I think that's because its primary market is in Korea.
One of the only games that actually demonstrates steady growth is Eve. And Eve is an INCREDIBLY niche game. In fact, it's too niche for me, and I like sandboxes.
If someone released a more mainstream friendly game that is significantly differentiated from WoW...I think it could do well.
WAR and AoC were the king of MMO's for the first month or two...this game will follow in a similar tradition.
I think you thought your were being smart by making this comment . Tell you what go to google type in StarWars the Old Republic . Look under news and you'll see market analysts predicting it to be the fastest selling mmo of all time . Also you will +see there were around 1 -1.5 million players at launch and now theres predictions of sales of 3+ million units before March . All of which dwarf even WoW launch 7 years ago . Perhaps when you've read them you might want to come back and make a more informed comment . You dont want to look a fool now do you ?
WAR and AoC were the king of MMO's for the first month or two...this game will follow in a similar tradition.
This game does not have near the amount of issues either of those two had. Not a good comparison. Will there be a dropoff? Probably.
Will it be anything like those two games experienced? Highly doubtful.
That's very true.
People need to stop making this particularcomparison because it tends to insinuate that they never actually played those games. There were issues with both those games. Glaring ones.
On top of that, AoC had voice over bits for the main quest from 1-20 and it was so ham handedly done that at times, for me, it was uncomfortable to experience.
This is not to say that SWToR will retain all of their subs nor does it say that they won't have to consolidate some of their servers. But their player retention is clearly in the ballpark of "what can the roll out in the coming months".
For the power gamers I feel that this game will fall by the wayside. For everyone else who likes the game and who doesn't burn through content then it could have a chance if they can keep content of some sort coming.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think that's a stretch, but I was merely commenting on the situation in the MMO genre. Perhaps actually expanding the sub-genre's would be worthwhile, as others have pointed out over the years? Games like EVE can survive and do well with an organized audience, and I think developers need to stop thinking as all encompassing as they are. That's all I was getting at, though.
Assuming you can get those players to agree on a feature set?
You've seen them arguing about what a "real" sandbox is, and rejecting the games they don't think qualify, right?
New sandbox is in the same Expectation Box as every other new MMO. Especially from the sandbox fans.
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.
You will notice that the more recent themepark games (WAR, AoC, and now even Rift) start high in subs and then rapidly shoot down. Aion fared better, but I think that's because its primary market is in Korea.
One of the only games that actually demonstrates steady growth is Eve. And Eve is an INCREDIBLY niche game. In fact, it's too niche for me, and I like sandboxes.
If someone released a more mainstream friendly game that is significantly differentiated from WoW...I think it could do well.
RIFT still has over 40 servers open most of which are on medium during peak hours.
EvE is a stupid example as tons of people have more then one account ( I had 3 back when I seriously played it).
WoW still has 10 million people logging onto it and TOR has 1 million subs.
Missing one feature is excusable...but SWTOR is missing quite a number of features.
So I guess you'll start saying the same thing about GW2,TSW and AA when they release for not having full VO and story choices?
While that's certainly a neat addition to the MMO genre, it's not anything that I would say is required in titles moving forward. Like other similar themeparks, they all release with a specific variety of gimmick to set themselves apart, when there really isn't much mechanically to distinguish one from another. For TOR, that's story and full VO: a fun gimmick, but ultimately unnecessary to make a good multiplayer game (IN MY OPINIONLOLOLOL).
I agree. I really see full VO as a nice high-budget feature. Kind of like "awesome graphics" or "great sound effects." It's nice, but it doesn't work as the defining feature of a game, and I can very easily live without it.
The same could be said of AA sea combat or GW2 dodging.
Seems at this point that people are perfectly able to live without custom UI and other "Important" things.
I also wanted to add, as Lawlmonster says above, sea combat and doding aren't what I would consider the "primary" features of AA and GW2. But that's what you put forth, and I think the argument still works .
As I said before there is more to innovation then being able to change your weapon mid combat or being able to move around while casting an AOE spell.
Until you relize this there is nothing more that I can say.
Edit: If game designers started thinking like you did then real RPGs are fucked.
Why yes, I totally agree. There is more to innovation than that. Where did you ever get the idea that I said "all that is to innovation is moving around while you cast?" It's a nice straw man argument, but that's all it is.
GW2 isn't innovative because "you can move while you are casting." It's innovative for different reasons...namely:
It's completely replacing the open world quest system with dynamic events.
Its dungeons are built to be highly repeatable by having multiple paths you can go down after you complete it.
Classes are differentiated primarily by theme and gameplay and not role like healer or DPS. This goes with elminating the trinity.
The competitive PvP will be much more fair than any other MMORPG because it auto-levels you to max and makes ALL the skills available to you. Also, the PvP will use a server browser structure similar to FPS's with server options available.
That's just a few. Anyway, I know you really like SWTOR. And personally, I think it's a decent game and it DOES HAVE SOME INNOVATIONS. Like companions, crew skills, multiplayer dialog, joining dialog via holocron etc.
Why you insist to harp on acting like things that aren't innovation are, and randomly attacking GW2 as not being innovative, I have no idea. Just as I
You will notice that the more recent themepark games (WAR, AoC, and now even Rift) start high in subs and then rapidly shoot down. Aion fared better, but I think that's because its primary market is in Korea.
One of the only games that actually demonstrates steady growth is Eve. And Eve is an INCREDIBLY niche game. In fact, it's too niche for me, and I like sandboxes.
If someone released a more mainstream friendly game that is significantly differentiated from WoW...I think it could do well.
RIFT still has over 40 servers open most of which are on medium during peak hours.
EvE is a stupid example as tons of people have more then one account ( I had 3 back when I seriously played it).
WoW still has 10 million people logging onto it and TOR has 1 million subs.
If one person opens 500 accounts, or if 500 people open 1 account...it doesn't matter. It's just money to the publisher .
Rift is doing alright, but it's still relatively new. It's also still very much a "bit" player when compared to WoW. As for SWTOR...it came out last week. A little early to call it a massive success.
Why you insist to harp on acting like things that aren't innovation are, and randomly attacking GW2 as not being innovative, I have no idea.
Never said GW2 wasn't innovative.
Its you who says SWTOR isn't.
(Sigh)
I just said that VO wasn't innovative, but I'm sure you'll argue against that as well. I even specifically pointed out aspects of SWTOR that I feel are innovative in my post that you decided to quote just one sentence from.
I really think you just want to argue at this point.
With so many perspectives, you'd almost wonder why there aren't more MMO's catering to more preferences.
Market; if you can't sell it to anyone (except the lone wolf crying for it on the mountaintop), what's the point of making it?
Why isn't any game crafted to exactly my specs? Call it five million players in the West, shall we demand five million customized games?
I think that's a stretch, but I was merely commenting on the situation in the MMO genre. Perhaps actually expanding the sub-genre's would be worthwhile, as others have pointed out over the years? Games like EVE can survive and do well with an organized audience, and I think developers need to stop thinking as all encompassing as they are. That's all I was getting at, though.
You will notice that the more recent themepark games (WAR, AoC, and now even Rift) start high in subs and then rapidly shoot down. Aion fared better, but I think that's because its primary market is in Korea.
One of the only games that actually demonstrates steady growth is Eve. And Eve is an INCREDIBLY niche game. In fact, it's too niche for me, and I like sandboxes.
If someone released a more mainstream friendly game that is significantly differentiated from WoW...I think it could do well.
Ehh, not so much. I mean mainstream is only half the battle. DCUO was very mainstream, even had a console release which should have opened up the floodgates for hundreds of thousands of more players, but it fell very short.
The game itself was somewhat of a niche, but it was also very different then WoW, with a lot of more standard conventions, coupled with quite a few stark differences - most notably, aesthetics, voice over work, storylines, and the amazing combat system. But it was plagued by other issues.. such as gamebreaking bugs, poor balancing, and a staff that couldn't stick to promises.
Great game overall.. "innovative" to say the least, but didn't hit the mark.
Tabula Rasa is another good example, it had a lot of features, including dynamic content well before RIFT and GW2 were even on the horizon, before its time? Yeah I think it was, very different from WoW? Yes, down to the interesting wonky crosshair combat system, but it didn't hit the mark, and it was also a major triple A - mainstream title.
I don't think theres a silver bullet for longevity here anymore. I don't think we'll see a majority sticking with the same games for years on end anymore no matter how innovative they are.
I think that's a stretch, but I was merely commenting on the situation in the MMO genre. Perhaps actually expanding the sub-genre's would be worthwhile, as others have pointed out over the years? Games like EVE can survive and do well with an organized audience, and I think developers need to stop thinking as all encompassing as they are. That's all I was getting at, though.
Assuming you can get those players to agree on a feature set?
You've seen them arguing about what a "real" sandbox is, and rejecting the games they don't think qualify, right?
New sandbox is in the same expectation box as every other new MMO. Especially from the sandbox fans.
Yeah, I have the same worries when I consider recreating old design in new dressings. I'm not even speaking strictly of sandboxes, but more options between linear and open. I didn't enjoy playing APB, but I liked what it was trying to do, just as an example. The same can be said for Vindictus.
In the case of sandboxes, though, why can't we have five different models that give varying degrees of safety or mainstream features? Why can't we hybrid the shit out of these two genre's, and create several ranges of gameplay experience? We already have tons of variations upon the themepark model, and most of them are getting by alright, so why not try to do something creatively different? It's certainly not about finding the audiences, they're here and waiting, especially for games that are fresh and help recreate the reasons many of us came into MMO gaming to begin with: socializing with other gamers, and to experience other worlds (dreams, stories, whatever you want to call them).
Edit: Just as an aside, I didn't really want to take this in the direction of sandbox gaming, but apparently that's difficult for me to do. Be aware, though, that I really do mean "expand the genre" in all possible forms, and all that's possible mechanically.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
I just said that VO wasn't innovative, but I'm sure you'll argue against that as well. I even specifically pointed out aspects of SWTOR that I feel are innovative in my post that you decided to quote just one sentence from.
I really think you just want to argue at this point.
Just trying to see how you think GW2 combat (In a genre that has had FPS and hack n slash combat) is so innovative but full VO and Story choices is not (in a genre that has never had it).
I am just trying to get inside the MMORPG.com forum goer's mind.
In the case of sandboxes, though, why can't we have five different models that give varying degrees of safety or mainstream features?
Because the more your restrict your niche, the less likely you are to pass all of the Prophets of Doom inspections.
It's a bizarre catch-22, I know, but that's what happens when companies believe in income, and players believe in Custom Everything. Something's gotta give, because the two goals directly oppose each other.
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.
In the case of sandboxes, though, why can't we have five different models that give varying degrees of safety or mainstream features?
Because the more your restrict your niche, the less likely you are to pass all of the Prophets of Doom inspections.
It's a bizarre catch-22, I know, but that's what happens when companies believe in income, and players believe in Custom Everything. Something's gotta give, because the two goals directly oppose each other.
I agree, and you succesfully cornered the reason why I blame the genre on developers and funders, even if it's not entirely their fault. It's hard not to side with the money, though I can only imagine.
When it comes to splitting up the sandboxes, I've witnessed countless times on these boards that if a developer were to incorporate more mainstream, themepark design into a world that allowed sandbox activity or elements to persist, that people would be pleased. Granted, that's just discussion upon a premise more than it is detail, and I'm sure it would be possible for people to get hung up on details like what consitutes a PK system, or what PvP is specifically for that game.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
I just said that VO wasn't innovative, but I'm sure you'll argue against that as well. I even specifically pointed out aspects of SWTOR that I feel are innovative in my post that you decided to quote just one sentence from.
I really think you just want to argue at this point.
Just trying to see how you think GW2 combat (In a genre that has had FPS and hack n slash combat) is so innovative but full VO and Story choices is not (in a genre that has never had it).
I am just trying to get inside the MMORPG.com forum goer's mind.
Happy what would you do if you found a game that had both lol? Or hell managed to balance both our succesfully.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
I just said that VO wasn't innovative, but I'm sure you'll argue against that as well. I even specifically pointed out aspects of SWTOR that I feel are innovative in my post that you decided to quote just one sentence from.
I really think you just want to argue at this point.
Just trying to see how you think GW2 combat (In a genre that has had FPS and hack n slash combat) is so innovative but full VO and Story choices is not (in a genre that has never had it).
I am just trying to get inside the MMORPG.com forum goer's mind.
How about...
Instead of trying to get "in the mind" of your imagined forum goer, you try to get in the mind of an ACTUAL forum goer.
if you had even read my post, you would see that I pointed to the following about GW2 as being innovative...here is a direct quote from the post that you responded to, just so you don't miss it:
GW2 isn't innovative because "you can move while you are casting." It's innovative for different reasons...namely:
It's completely replacing the open world quest system with dynamic events.
Its dungeons are built to be highly repeatable by having multiple paths you can go down after you complete it.
Classes are differentiated primarily by theme and gameplay and not role like healer or DPS. This goes with elminating the trinity.
The competitive PvP will be much more fair than any other MMORPG because it auto-levels you to max and makes ALL the skills available to you. Also, the PvP will use a server browser structure similar to FPS's with server options available.
Where in there, do you see "GW2 is innovative because of its combat." I can help you. NOWHERE.
I really have no clue who you are arguing against, but it certainly isn't me.
With so many perspectives, you'd almost wonder why there aren't more MMO's catering to more preferences.
Market; if you can't sell it to anyone (except the lone wolf crying for it on the mountaintop), what's the point of making it?
Why isn't any game crafted to exactly my specs? Call it five million players in the West, shall we demand five million customized games?
I think that's a stretch, but I was merely commenting on the situation in the MMO genre. Perhaps actually expanding the sub-genre's would be worthwhile, as others have pointed out over the years? Games like EVE can survive and do well with an organized audience, and I think developers need to stop thinking as all encompassing as they are. That's all I was getting at, though.
You will notice that the more recent themepark games (WAR, AoC, and now even Rift) start high in subs and then rapidly shoot down. Aion fared better, but I think that's because its primary market is in Korea.
One of the only games that actually demonstrates steady growth is Eve. And Eve is an INCREDIBLY niche game. In fact, it's too niche for me, and I like sandboxes.
If someone released a more mainstream friendly game that is significantly differentiated from WoW...I think it could do well.
Ehh, not so much. I mean mainstream is only half the battle. DCUO was very mainstream, even had a console release which should have opened up the floodgates for hundreds of thousands of more players, but it fell very short.
The game itself was somewhat of a niche, but it was also very different then WoW, with a lot of more standard conventions, coupled with quite a few stark differences - most notably, aesthetics, voice over work, storylines, and the amazing combat system. But it was plagued by other issues.. such as gamebreaking bugs, poor balancing, and a staff that couldn't stick to promises.
Great game overall.. "innovative" to say the least, but didn't hit the mark.
Tabula Rasa is another good example, it had a lot of features, including dynamic content well before RIFT and GW2 were even on the horizon, before its time? Yeah I think it was, very different from WoW? Yes, down to the interesting wonky crosshair combat system, but it didn't hit the mark, and it was also a major triple A - mainstream title.
I don't think theres a silver bullet for longevity here anymore. I don't think we'll see a majority sticking with the same games for years on end anymore no matter how innovative they are.
I agree .
The factors that contribute to an MMORPGs success or failure are many and varied, and any attempt you or I make to crystallize it down to one thing will be woefully inadequate.
Comments
Well, I wouldn't specifically mention those things in the defense of my argument, mostly because they're just as gimmicky, but as IceWhite pointed out, probably weighed on varying scales of necessity depending upon your position.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
I would disagree...
Those features actually change the gameplay of the game. Without them, the game is fundamentally different.
Without VO, the only thing that changes is that you have to read the text. That's it. Everything will be identically the same except for that. You can make the exact same comparison with if you reduced the graphics quality. All the would change is the game would look worse...it would still play the same.
If you remove sea combat from AA then it would invalidate a large portion of the game. Namely, building and sailing ships.
If you remove dodging from GW2, it would drastically alter the combat dynamic, and may even destroy the balance of the game.
EDIT:
I also wanted to add, as Lawlmonster says above, sea combat and doding aren't what I would consider the "primary" features of AA and GW2. But that's what you put forth, and I think the argument still works
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I think that's a stretch, but I was merely commenting on the situation in the MMO genre. Perhaps actually expanding the sub-genre's would be worthwhile, as others have pointed out over the years? Games like EVE can survive and do well with an organized audience, and I think developers need to stop thinking as all encompassing as they are. That's all I was getting at, though.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
What are you talking about happy guy, please make sure they get the ability delay right, I honestly hope they do because apparently I wasn't the ony one who noticed it durring OB which turnt me off.
I didn't realise the issue I had with this game was a huge issue with many people until Creslin brought it up.
SWTOR has like a small tumor right now.
They it's a need not a want for retention, it hurt Warhammer. Same thing is in SWTOR.
And I'm pulling for Bioware to notice it as soo as the thread in the SWTOR forums. It's wishful thinking but yea better than saying SWTOR has no huge issue and let it bite our ass.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Hah! I was just about to comment on this, and say that I hadn't considered these features in the manner you've written about. They're valid points.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Its not bad, but not great either and yes I am playing it now. The real new king imo will either be EQ Next or Secert World not sure which. Lean slightly toward EQ Next.
As I said before there is more to innovation then being able to change your weapon mid combat or being able to move around while casting an AOE spell.
Until you relize this there is nothing more that I can say.
Edit: If game designers started thinking like you did then real RPGs are fucked.
I agree...
What's interesting is that if you look at the chart here: http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png.
You will notice that the more recent themepark games (WAR, AoC, and now even Rift) start high in subs and then rapidly shoot down. Aion fared better, but I think that's because its primary market is in Korea.
One of the only games that actually demonstrates steady growth is Eve. And Eve is an INCREDIBLY niche game. In fact, it's too niche for me, and I like sandboxes.
If someone released a more mainstream friendly game that is significantly differentiated from WoW...I think it could do well.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Are you not allowed to love both Star Wars and women?
When did this get amended into the constitution of life?
In all seriousness though, the OP was more than likely banned from League of Legends, due to his lack of proper capitalization of the letter "i".
The entire post was too informal for my tastes.
I think you thought your were being smart by making this comment . Tell you what go to google type in StarWars the Old Republic . Look under news and you'll see market analysts predicting it to be the fastest selling mmo of all time . Also you will +see there were around 1 -1.5 million players at launch and now theres predictions of sales of 3+ million units before March . All of which dwarf even WoW launch 7 years ago . Perhaps when you've read them you might want to come back and make a more informed comment . You dont want to look a fool now do you ?
That's very true.
People need to stop making this particularcomparison because it tends to insinuate that they never actually played those games. There were issues with both those games. Glaring ones.
On top of that, AoC had voice over bits for the main quest from 1-20 and it was so ham handedly done that at times, for me, it was uncomfortable to experience.
This is not to say that SWToR will retain all of their subs nor does it say that they won't have to consolidate some of their servers. But their player retention is clearly in the ballpark of "what can the roll out in the coming months".
For the power gamers I feel that this game will fall by the wayside. For everyone else who likes the game and who doesn't burn through content then it could have a chance if they can keep content of some sort coming.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Assuming you can get those players to agree on a feature set?
You've seen them arguing about what a "real" sandbox is, and rejecting the games they don't think qualify, right?
New sandbox is in the same Expectation Box as every other new MMO. Especially from the sandbox fans.
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.
RIFT still has over 40 servers open most of which are on medium during peak hours.
EvE is a stupid example as tons of people have more then one account ( I had 3 back when I seriously played it).
WoW still has 10 million people logging onto it and TOR has 1 million subs.
Why yes, I totally agree. There is more to innovation than that. Where did you ever get the idea that I said "all that is to innovation is moving around while you cast?" It's a nice straw man argument, but that's all it is.
GW2 isn't innovative because "you can move while you are casting." It's innovative for different reasons...namely:
It's completely replacing the open world quest system with dynamic events.
Its dungeons are built to be highly repeatable by having multiple paths you can go down after you complete it.
Classes are differentiated primarily by theme and gameplay and not role like healer or DPS. This goes with elminating the trinity.
The competitive PvP will be much more fair than any other MMORPG because it auto-levels you to max and makes ALL the skills available to you. Also, the PvP will use a server browser structure similar to FPS's with server options available.
That's just a few. Anyway, I know you really like SWTOR. And personally, I think it's a decent game and it DOES HAVE SOME INNOVATIONS. Like companions, crew skills, multiplayer dialog, joining dialog via holocron etc.
Why you insist to harp on acting like things that aren't innovation are, and randomly attacking GW2 as not being innovative, I have no idea. Just as I
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
If one person opens 500 accounts, or if 500 people open 1 account...it doesn't matter. It's just money to the publisher
.
Rift is doing alright, but it's still relatively new. It's also still very much a "bit" player when compared to WoW. As for SWTOR...it came out last week. A little early to call it a massive success.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Never said GW2 wasn't innovative.
Its you who says SWTOR isn't.
(Sigh)
I just said that VO wasn't innovative, but I'm sure you'll argue against that as well. I even specifically pointed out aspects of SWTOR that I feel are innovative in my post that you decided to quote just one sentence from.
I really think you just want to argue at this point.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Ehh, not so much. I mean mainstream is only half the battle. DCUO was very mainstream, even had a console release which should have opened up the floodgates for hundreds of thousands of more players, but it fell very short.
The game itself was somewhat of a niche, but it was also very different then WoW, with a lot of more standard conventions, coupled with quite a few stark differences - most notably, aesthetics, voice over work, storylines, and the amazing combat system. But it was plagued by other issues.. such as gamebreaking bugs, poor balancing, and a staff that couldn't stick to promises.
Great game overall.. "innovative" to say the least, but didn't hit the mark.
Tabula Rasa is another good example, it had a lot of features, including dynamic content well before RIFT and GW2 were even on the horizon, before its time? Yeah I think it was, very different from WoW? Yes, down to the interesting wonky crosshair combat system, but it didn't hit the mark, and it was also a major triple A - mainstream title.
I don't think theres a silver bullet for longevity here anymore. I don't think we'll see a majority sticking with the same games for years on end anymore no matter how innovative they are.
Yeah, I have the same worries when I consider recreating old design in new dressings. I'm not even speaking strictly of sandboxes, but more options between linear and open. I didn't enjoy playing APB, but I liked what it was trying to do, just as an example. The same can be said for Vindictus.
In the case of sandboxes, though, why can't we have five different models that give varying degrees of safety or mainstream features? Why can't we hybrid the shit out of these two genre's, and create several ranges of gameplay experience? We already have tons of variations upon the themepark model, and most of them are getting by alright, so why not try to do something creatively different? It's certainly not about finding the audiences, they're here and waiting, especially for games that are fresh and help recreate the reasons many of us came into MMO gaming to begin with: socializing with other gamers, and to experience other worlds (dreams, stories, whatever you want to call them).
Edit: Just as an aside, I didn't really want to take this in the direction of sandbox gaming, but apparently that's difficult for me to do. Be aware, though, that I really do mean "expand the genre" in all possible forms, and all that's possible mechanically.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Just trying to see how you think GW2 combat (In a genre that has had FPS and hack n slash combat) is so innovative but full VO and Story choices is not (in a genre that has never had it).
I am just trying to get inside the MMORPG.com forum goer's mind.
Because the more your restrict your niche, the less likely you are to pass all of the Prophets of Doom inspections.
It's a bizarre catch-22, I know, but that's what happens when companies believe in income, and players believe in Custom Everything. Something's gotta give, because the two goals directly oppose each other.
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 agree, and you succesfully cornered the reason why I blame the genre on developers and funders, even if it's not entirely their fault. It's hard not to side with the money, though I can only imagine.
When it comes to splitting up the sandboxes, I've witnessed countless times on these boards that if a developer were to incorporate more mainstream, themepark design into a world that allowed sandbox activity or elements to persist, that people would be pleased. Granted, that's just discussion upon a premise more than it is detail, and I'm sure it would be possible for people to get hung up on details like what consitutes a PK system, or what PvP is specifically for that game.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Happy what would you do if you found a game that had both lol? Or hell managed to balance both our succesfully.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
How about...
Instead of trying to get "in the mind" of your imagined forum goer, you try to get in the mind of an ACTUAL forum goer.
if you had even read my post, you would see that I pointed to the following about GW2 as being innovative...here is a direct quote from the post that you responded to, just so you don't miss it:
GW2 isn't innovative because "you can move while you are casting." It's innovative for different reasons...namely:
It's completely replacing the open world quest system with dynamic events.
Its dungeons are built to be highly repeatable by having multiple paths you can go down after you complete it.
Classes are differentiated primarily by theme and gameplay and not role like healer or DPS. This goes with elminating the trinity.
The competitive PvP will be much more fair than any other MMORPG because it auto-levels you to max and makes ALL the skills available to you. Also, the PvP will use a server browser structure similar to FPS's with server options available.
Where in there, do you see "GW2 is innovative because of its combat." I can help you. NOWHERE.
I really have no clue who you are arguing against, but it certainly isn't me.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I agree
.
The factors that contribute to an MMORPGs success or failure are many and varied, and any attempt you or I make to crystallize it down to one thing will be woefully inadequate.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?