Creslin, while his argument sucks, SC2 is not comparable. A single game of SC2 can take just a single session of mmorpg playing to "win".
SC2 also does not have persistence. So while 4.5mil people may be down for SC2 which CAN be but unless you are in a top tier league ISNT more difficult that is still not a viable comparison to MMOs.
You're right that is doesn't apply to a "make an MMORPG like this" argument.
I was just using it as an example to show that a large amount of people do like difficult games, and games with sparse but high quality content can last a very long time.
Also...if you ever played PvP in SC2...it's always difficult no matter what league you're in . The system will automatch you with players around your skill level, so you'll always be challenged.
The only part of SC2 that could be "easy" would be the campaign if you played every mission on the easiest difficulty.
You are missing the point, which is context. Players like difficult RTS games. Or rather, they like playing other people.
But they do NOT like hard AI. The Civ designers talked about this. Players will often accuse the AI of cheating if it is too clever. Even though the AI doesn't cheat and if they were playing another player they would not necessarily make the same claim.
There are SOME players who enjoy hard mmorpgs. But there is not a 4.5million person market.
You, my friend, have not played much Civ . The AI in Civ is NOTORIOUSLY stupid, and the only way it can offer a challenge to anyone but an absolute neophyte is to EGREGIOUSLY cheat. Like I mean it cheats BAD. And no, I'm not "accusing" it of cheating, this is a known fact.
In fact, the poor AI of Civ is a MAJOR gripe of players. Because when the AI cheats so extremely, it alters the dynamic of the game. You can't play defensively because losing 500 troops to your one is no matter to the AI that has like a 400% resource bonus. You have to play in a very specific way to beat the cheesy AI.
If you want to check this out yourself...just visit the Civ 5 boards, there is bound to be a thread on there whining about the crappy AI .
What is over emphasized is mechanics to keep people doing the same tired content over and over again.
I did a T2 dungeon in Rift not to long ago. There was a guy in the support slot that wanted to play bard. Two of the group members got snotty because he wouldnt switch to a dps role. "But it will go faster f you go dps". Yes, like 5 minutes faster for the whole run, if that. And this sort of thing isnt uncommon (well support usually loves switching to dps...but people generally dont want support). Because people dont sgn up to run a dungeon because its fun to run the dungeon, they sign up to get their currency after its over. The dungeon is treated as an inconvenience to rush through rather than a fun experience. And this is what MMORPGs have become today.
Yep I agree with this...for many people the content just becomes a "chore" to get some kind of carrot.
Of course...I always quit MMORPGs far before I would get to that point .
I could care less about the content in an mmorpg. I play mmorpg's for the setting and a true mmorpg gives players the means to make their own content. Just give us some quality tools in future games like in EVE. Until then, I will play EVE.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
Dunno what you're talking about, the Brutal campaign on SC2 makes just about any MMO look like a walk in the park. MMO combat generally has next to no replay value and very little of the nuances that competitive multiplayer games do. Hence the focus on quantity over quality.
That being said, tons of quantity isn't always bad for RPGs. In fact, I can't think of a single AAA western RPG that didn't use this as a selling point- think Skyrim, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Fallout New Vegas, etc. These games all have a degree of replay value, though, that MMOs generally lack. I'd like to have a totally different experience playing through an RPG as a different class, not simply have to take up a different slot in a triad-based raiding group.
Exactly, well said.
MMORPGs need replay value, and I really think that replay value can be obtained by having very high QUALITY (gameplay-wise) content. If you want to make a game that has a HUGE world that is really fun to explore, then go for it. But make it an AMAZING world instead of trying to add 25 other features "just because."
For example, I would much rather play a game with a fantasticly implemented open world that is tons of fun to explore, than one that sacrificed the quality of its world to add BGs, instanced dungeons, tons of quest nodes and crappy stories, raids, etc...
Basically what I'm saying is that if an MMORPG wants to implement a specific feature...then they should try to be the BEST in the market at that feature.
Creslin, while his argument sucks, SC2 is not comparable. A single game of SC2 can take just a single session of mmorpg playing to "win".
SC2 also does not have persistence. So while 4.5mil people may be down for SC2 which CAN be but unless you are in a top tier league ISNT more difficult that is still not a viable comparison to MMOs.
You're right that is doesn't apply to a "make an MMORPG like this" argument.
I was just using it as an example to show that a large amount of people do like difficult games, and games with sparse but high quality content can last a very long time.
Also...if you ever played PvP in SC2...it's always difficult no matter what league you're in . The system will automatch you with players around your skill level, so you'll always be challenged.
The only part of SC2 that could be "easy" would be the campaign if you played every mission on the easiest difficulty.
You are missing the point, which is context. Players like difficult RTS games. Or rather, they like playing other people.
But they do NOT like hard AI. The Civ designers talked about this. Players will often accuse the AI of cheating if it is too clever. Even though the AI doesn't cheat and if they were playing another player they would not necessarily make the same claim.
There are SOME players who enjoy hard mmorpgs. But there is not a 4.5million person market.
You, my friend, have not played much Civ . The AI in Civ is NOTORIOUSLY stupid, and the only way it can offer a challenge to anyone but an absolute neophyte is to EGREGIOUSLY cheat. Like I mean it cheats BAD. And no, I'm not "accusing" it of cheating, this is a known fact.
In fact, the poor AI of Civ is a MAJOR gripe of players. Because when the AI cheats so extremely, it alters the dynamic of the game. You can't play defensively because losing 500 troops to your one is no matter to the AI that has like a 400% resource bonus. You have to play in a very specific way to beat the cheesy AI.
If you want to check this out yourself...just visit the Civ 5 boards, there is bound to be a thread on there whining about the crappy AI .
I agree. Civ players want MORE clever and better AI, not an easy AI. After all, there is a Deity level that many strive to beat. But AI programming isn't good enough to make a clever AI in a game with as many variables as Civ. So they just crank up the bonuses for the AI which is pretty lame.
I think the poster who referred to the AI discussion that the Civ developers had missed a few nuances (I saw that presentation and remember the powerpoint deck they pulled together around it). The discussion was about different types of AI's for different types of games as follows:
1) In some games, you for the most part want the best AI (like chess or starcraft). Of course, with ability to adjust this level for weaker players but the point is you just want the AI to try to win.
2) In some other games, you want a realistic and more immersive AI (like Civ. And what is meant by this is you want it to be smart and clever but somewhat predictable in behavior. For instance not unprovoked DOW - except for Montezuma of course;).
3) In other games you want the AI to follow very specific rules for gameplays sake. Such as the tank aggro ability in MMO PVE. In games like this it was hypothetized that players did not want it hard but merely with a set of rules that a group could get together and solve.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
The mmorpg genre keeps getting watered down yr after yr. Dev companies will continue to slash and cut on systems that they think players won't miss and then sell the game hoping that they can make as much profit upfront, in case they have to add it in at a later date,( Looking at you TOR).
There is a definite blurring of the lines being made between a mmorpg and a SP RPG, which i think is the wrong path to take. These mmorpg devs are trying to tap into the SPG playerbase and i think that leads to games, not real mmorpg's, that is having a horrible affect on the genre.
SPG players, expect alot of directed on rails content, with a level base system that once reached, the game is over, move on to the next one. Of course, mmorpg players want to live and be part of that virtual world, on a daily basis forever. Another issue is the WOW effect. Dev comapnies are designing games to compete with WOW, but is going off the current WOW model, which is night and day different than how WOW was in the beggining, a watered down version of it's former self.
Let's look at a few up and coming mmo's. GW2, while changing how we do combat, will the game world be inviting and really explorable. Will you actually be able to get the feeling of living in a open world. TSW, could this be a real mmorpg or will it be just another on rails mmo/SPG hybrid that confines the playersbase into shoebox instanced zones ala TOR. How about Archeage. Could this really bring back open world virtual sanbox mmorpg's with a touch of thempark, I guess time will tell.
There needs to be a balance brought back into the mmo genre. From my point of view, it's tilting to much to one side and it seems like that tilt is not to the mmo side.
Creslin, while his argument sucks, SC2 is not comparable. A single game of SC2 can take just a single session of mmorpg playing to "win".
SC2 also does not have persistence. So while 4.5mil people may be down for SC2 which CAN be but unless you are in a top tier league ISNT more difficult that is still not a viable comparison to MMOs.
You're right that is doesn't apply to a "make an MMORPG like this" argument.
I was just using it as an example to show that a large amount of people do like difficult games, and games with sparse but high quality content can last a very long time.
Also...if you ever played PvP in SC2...it's always difficult no matter what league you're in . The system will automatch you with players around your skill level, so you'll always be challenged.
The only part of SC2 that could be "easy" would be the campaign if you played every mission on the easiest difficulty.
You are missing the point, which is context. Players like difficult RTS games. Or rather, they like playing other people.
But they do NOT like hard AI. The Civ designers talked about this. Players will often accuse the AI of cheating if it is too clever. Even though the AI doesn't cheat and if they were playing another player they would not necessarily make the same claim.
There are SOME players who enjoy hard mmorpgs. But there is not a 4.5million person market.
You, my friend, have not played much Civ . The AI in Civ is NOTORIOUSLY stupid, and the only way it can offer a challenge to anyone but an absolute neophyte is to EGREGIOUSLY cheat. Like I mean it cheats BAD. And no, I'm not "accusing" it of cheating, this is a known fact.
In fact, the poor AI of Civ is a MAJOR gripe of players. Because when the AI cheats so extremely, it alters the dynamic of the game. You can't play defensively because losing 500 troops to your one is no matter to the AI that has like a 400% resource bonus. You have to play in a very specific way to beat the cheesy AI.
If you want to check this out yourself...just visit the Civ 5 boards, there is bound to be a thread on there whining about the crappy AI .
I am not sure we are using the same definition of cheat. People accuse the AI of knowing more than the player, not just having a resource bonus. I know perfectly well how the resource bonus works.
The talk I heard discussed things like not allowing to do many of the things the player can do because otherwise players would believe that it cheated. This relates to tech trades and other diplomatic stuff primarily but also other things.
A resource bonus would only be cheating if you didn't know that that was how it works. Thats how ALL AI IN EVERY GAME works.
Dunno what you're talking about, the Brutal campaign on SC2 makes just about any MMO look like a walk in the park. MMO combat generally has next to no replay value and very little of the nuances that competitive multiplayer games do. Hence the focus on quantity over quality.
That being said, tons of quantity isn't always bad for RPGs. In fact, I can't think of a single AAA western RPG that didn't use this as a selling point- think Skyrim, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Fallout New Vegas, etc. These games all have a degree of replay value, though, that MMOs generally lack. I'd like to have a totally different experience playing through an RPG as a different class, not simply have to take up a different slot in a triad-based raiding group.
Exactly, well said.
MMORPGs need replay value, and I really think that replay value can be obtained by having very high QUALITY (gameplay-wise) content. If you want to make a game that has a HUGE world that is really fun to explore, then go for it. But make it an AMAZING world instead of trying to add 25 other features "just because."
For example, I would much rather play a game with a fantasticly implemented open world that is tons of fun to explore, than one that sacrificed the quality of its world to add BGs, instanced dungeons, tons of quest nodes and crappy stories, raids, etc...
Basically what I'm saying is that if an MMORPG wants to implement a specific feature...then they should try to be the BEST in the market at that feature.
Dunno that RPGs necessarily have replay value. Apart from replaying FF games religiously as a kid when I had free time to spare, I have a hard time replaying RPGs that I absolutely love (Deus Ex, Mass Effect) whereas I will fairly frequently re-roll a second character to max level in a MMORPG.
It's the dungeon gameplay specifically which makes me replay MMORPGs, because not only will I be in a new role but my teammates will be completely new people who I have to adapt to their strengths/weaknesses in order to maximize the run.
I think the latest singleplayer RPG I beat multiple times was FF3 actually. Diablo 2 too, but that was multilpayer.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
SWTOR is a perfect example - 8 stories is months of content, but tons of people burn out after 1 because repeating the same grindy mechanics becomes boring.
The thing about chess, starcraft, CoD, LoL etc.. is that they start everyone off at a level playing field and it becomes a battle of minds and reflexes to determine the victor within a limited timespan.
Games that rely on repeating raids over and over, or farming gear for unfair advantages lack 'competiton' and instead involve simply going through the motions. Once you compete everything you become extremely bored.
Easily accessable quick bursts of intense competition that is determined by ability rather than /time played are what games need to ensure a healthy playerbase.
Do what and not repeating the same damn map over and over again is not repetitive. Look I loved games like Halo, but god damn if some of those maps did not get old. All the games you listed are FREE TO PLAY and appeal to a extremelyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy specific e-peen waving audience.
The problem with MMO's right now is there is Trion and maybe Bioware putting out content every month. We have this severe issue that it is taking a year or two to take the WoW folks who have run the genre off the Blizzard nipple. Who here will argue that WoW has not stagnated the genre? God one year of Rift and a few months of TOR obviously prove this.
How do you make a balanced patch? I mean look what Trion did early on. They dropped raids and that was too raid centric and people quit, then they drop casual content and people quit. Now they are expected to drop raids and casual content + RP specific content.
You have one game called WoW where all they did for seven years was drop a new pointless zone with a raid stuff in it and the next raid utterly outdated all previous content and everyone was just cool with this. The genre needs stuff like GW2, Archage, Tera, Secret World to come at it from different approaches.
We make it sound like it is easy to redefine end game in mmorpg's when for the past 10+ years it has been raiding. The next step is what your seeing in Archage and it is stupid simple and throwbacks to Warcrafts where you mine tree's and build houses. Player created content is where this is all headed.
SWTOR is a perfect example - 8 stories is months of content, but tons of people burn out after 1 because repeating the same grindy mechanics becomes boring.
The thing about chess, starcraft, CoD, LoL etc.. is that they start everyone off at a level playing field and it becomes a battle of minds and reflexes to determine the victor within a limited timespan.
Games that rely on repeating raids over and over, or farming gear for unfair advantages lack 'competiton' and instead involve simply going through the motions. Once you compete everything you become extremely bored.
Easily accessable quick bursts of intense competition that is determined by ability rather than /time played are what games need to ensure a healthy playerbase.
Do what and not repeating the same damn map over and over again is not repetitive. Look I loved games like Halo, but god damn if some of those maps did not get old. All the games you listed are FREE TO PLAY and appeal to a extremelyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy specific e-peen waving audience.
The problem with MMO's right now is there is Trion and maybe Bioware putting out content every month. We have this severe issue that it is taking a year or two to take the WoW folks who have run the genre off the Blizzard nipple. Who here will argue that WoW has not stagnated the genre? God one year of Rift and a few months of TOR obviously prove this.
How do you make a balanced patch? I mean look what Trion did early on. They dropped raids and that was too raid centric and people quit, then they drop casual content and people quit. Now they are expected to drop raids and casual content + RP specific content.
You have one game called WoW where all they did for seven years was drop a new pointless zone with a raid stuff in it and the next raid utterly outdated all previous content and everyone was just cool with this. The genre needs stuff like GW2, Archage, Tera, Secret World to come at it from different approaches.
We make it sound like it is easy to redefine end game in mmorpg's when for the past 10+ years it has been raiding. The next step is what your seeing in Archage and it is stupid simple and throwbacks to Warcrafts where you mine tree's and build houses. Player created content is where this is all headed.
The games listed were:
chess, starcraft, CoD, LoL
Only LoL out of them is free to play. Starcraft and CoD are both B2P...and Chess, well you have to buy a board, although I guess you could play free online...but W/E.
Also...I can see the e-peen thing with regards to LoL and maybe CoD...but Chess, really? Do you often see Chess players jump up after a game and scream:
The reason why people beg for content in an already massive game world like WoW is because games like WoW are built around and encourage progression. Once you've hit the end, or hit a wall that you can't scale over(due to a lack of time on your hands or whatever), there's no more progression and consequently there's nothing to do anymore.
I think the huge misnomer here is that people expect to play 1 game for ever and ever until the end of time. Yeah, there's a lack of things to do in WoW. Yeah, I've had a lack of things to do in WoW before. That doesn't discredit the fact that I've spent over 6,000 hours playing it. No game even comes close to that, so yeah people beg for content but I don't think people realize just how much time they've gotten out of an MMO in comparison to other games. Mass Effect is my favorite game series of all time, and across the 3 games and all DLC released so far I've had between 200-250 hours of gameplay between all of that. That's three separate releases versus one(with expansion packs mind you but it's still one game), 250 hours generously vs 6,000+ hours.
Games like the Street Fighter series aren't built around progression. You could argue that the conquest to unlock everything is progression and once you're done you can stop, but people play Street Fighter because it's a very deep and rewarding game. There's not much content in it but learning combos, learning how to counter things, developing strategies, watching tournament matches, all of that stuff keeps enthusiasts busy. There was something to be said for the arcade era too and playing right next to your opponent, forming rivalries/friendships with people, having new people to play with and all of that that's largely lost now.
Now Playing: Mission Against Terror, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Dark Souls, League of Legends, Minecraft, and the piano. =3
The reason why people beg for content in an already massive game world like WoW is because games like WoW are built around and encourage progression. Once you've hit the end, or hit a wall that you can't scale over(due to a lack of time on your hands or whatever), there's no more progression and consequently there's nothing to do anymore.
I think the huge misnomer here is that people expect to play 1 game for ever and ever until the end of time. Yeah, there's a lack of things to do in WoW. Yeah, I've had a lack of things to do in WoW before. That doesn't discredit the fact that I've spent over 6,000 hours playing it. No game even comes close to that, so yeah people beg for content but I don't think people realize just how much time they've gotten out of an MMO in comparison to other games. Mass Effect is my favorite game series of all time, and across the 3 games and all DLC released so far I've had between 200-250 hours of gameplay between all of that. That's three separate releases versus one(with expansion packs mind you but it's still one game), 250 hours generously vs 6,000+ hours.
Games like the Street Fighter series aren't built around progression. You could argue that the conquest to unlock everything is progression and once you're done you can stop, but people play Street Fighter because it's a very deep and rewarding game. There's not much content in it but learning combos, learning how to counter things, developing strategies, watching tournament matches, all of that stuff keeps enthusiasts busy. There was something to be said for the arcade era too and playing right next to your opponent, forming rivalries/friendships with people, having new people to play with and all of that that's largely lost now.
Yeah that pretty much nails it.
Right down to the "This game doesn't have enough content." "But you've played it 6,000+ hours!"
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What is over emphasized is mechanics to keep people doing the same tired content over and over again.
I did a T2 dungeon in Rift not to long ago. There was a guy in the support slot that wanted to play bard. Two of the group members got snotty because he wouldnt switch to a dps role. "But it will go faster f you go dps". Yes, like 5 minutes faster for the whole run, if that. And this sort of thing isnt uncommon (well support usually loves switching to dps...but people generally dont want support). Because people dont sgn up to run a dungeon because its fun to run the dungeon, they sign up to get their currency after its over. The dungeon is treated as an inconvenience to rush through rather than a fun experience. And this is what MMORPGs have become today.
This is exactly it. This sort of insanity is the result of MMORPG's becoming almost entirely focused on the acquisition of levels and items rather than exploring and existing in a virtual world where there are a million different things to do. Instead all there is is: 'questing', instanced pvp/dungeons/raids, shallow crafting and whatever consolation prize a particular game affords (rifts/artifact hunting in Rift etc).
The games suffer from developers not treating them like virtual worlds; that's what the entire genre is supposed to be based on after all. Once they veer off the path of the virtual world they quickly find themselves with a game that has no more replay value than any standard single-player game.
The easiest way to prolong the game's longevity at this point is to keep stacking the same kind of shallow content on top and hope for the best. It's certainly easier than completely reworking a game from the ground up. Of course, they wouldn't have to maintain this charade if they had just made an actual mmorpg in the first place. People are perfectly capable of generating their own content if you give them the freedom.
The reason why people beg for content in an already massive game world like WoW is because games like WoW are built around and encourage progression. Once you've hit the end, or hit a wall that you can't scale over(due to a lack of time on your hands or whatever), there's no more progression and consequently there's nothing to do anymore.
I think the huge misnomer here is that people expect to play 1 game for ever and ever until the end of time. Yeah, there's a lack of things to do in WoW. Yeah, I've had a lack of things to do in WoW before. That doesn't discredit the fact that I've spent over 6,000 hours playing it. No game even comes close to that, so yeah people beg for content but I don't think people realize just how much time they've gotten out of an MMO in comparison to other games. Mass Effect is my favorite game series of all time, and across the 3 games and all DLC released so far I've had between 200-250 hours of gameplay between all of that. That's three separate releases versus one(with expansion packs mind you but it's still one game), 250 hours generously vs 6,000+ hours.
Games like the Street Fighter series aren't built around progression. You could argue that the conquest to unlock everything is progression and once you're done you can stop, but people play Street Fighter because it's a very deep and rewarding game. There's not much content in it but learning combos, learning how to counter things, developing strategies, watching tournament matches, all of that stuff keeps enthusiasts busy. There was something to be said for the arcade era too and playing right next to your opponent, forming rivalries/friendships with people, having new people to play with and all of that that's largely lost now.
This ^^^^
Even Street Fighter get old fast. In today's world, there is no reason to have only ONE entertainment product. While it is true that content in a game like WOW can be consumed quite fast (a teir of content can be done in 2-3 months?), one can always stop for a whle and play something ELSE.
The real question is whether the content is fun. If one likes the content, finish it .. and then wait for new ones.
This is particularly easy for F2P games where there is no cost in waiting. Even WOW, you can unsub and resub later.
I agree entirely. SWTOR is a perfect example - 8 stories is months of content, but tons of people burn out after 1 because repeating the same grindy mechanics becomes boring. The thing about chess, starcraft, CoD, LoL etc.. is that they start everyone off at a level playing field and it becomes a battle of minds and reflexes to determine the victor within a limited timespan. Games that rely on repeating raids over and over, or farming gear for unfair advantages lack 'competiton' and instead involve simply going through the motions. Once you compete everything you become extremely bored. Easily accessable quick bursts of intense competition that is determined by ability rather than /time played are what games need to ensure a healthy playerbase.
Do what and not repeating the same damn map over and over again is not repetitive. Look I loved games like Halo, but god damn if some of those maps did not get old. All the games you listed are FREE TO PLAY and appeal to a extremelyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy specific e-peen waving audience.
The problem with MMO's right now is there is Trion and maybe Bioware putting out content every month. We have this severe issue that it is taking a year or two to take the WoW folks who have run the genre off the Blizzard nipple. Who here will argue that WoW has not stagnated the genre? God one year of Rift and a few months of TOR obviously prove this.
How do you make a balanced patch? I mean look what Trion did early on. They dropped raids and that was too raid centric and people quit, then they drop casual content and people quit. Now they are expected to drop raids and casual content + RP specific content.
You have one game called WoW where all they did for seven years was drop a new pointless zone with a raid stuff in it and the next raid utterly outdated all previous content and everyone was just cool with this. The genre needs stuff like GW2, Archage, Tera, Secret World to come at it from different approaches.
We make it sound like it is easy to redefine end game in mmorpg's when for the past 10+ years it has been raiding. The next step is what your seeing in Archage and it is stupid simple and throwbacks to Warcrafts where you mine tree's and build houses. Player created content is where this is all headed.
The games listed were:
chess, starcraft, CoD, LoL
Only LoL out of them is free to play. Starcraft and CoD are both B2P...and Chess, well you have to buy a board, although I guess you could play free online...but W/E.
Also...I can see the e-peen thing with regards to LoL and maybe CoD...but Chess, really? Do you often see Chess players jump up after a game and scream:
This is one of the best, and relevant threads i've read in my entire time on this site. The OP's original point is exactly what i've tried to express for years now. Also a lot of the other contributions were bang on the money. I am extremly frustrated with mmorpg's. They should be the future of gaming. However, a lack of innovation had stagnated the genre a long time ago. I blame this on greedy companies, who think that WoW's success meant that they did not need to change the 'formula'. Yes, we've had variations on the general theme, but where are the true pioneers? After wow, it was generally accepted that this would be the model of mmo's. The OP is right. There is too much content forfeiting quality. After you've done all of the standard things, seen all there is to see, grinded your way through to achieve gear or other stuff, like end game content, if you've managed to do all this without becoming bored stiff, then you must be easily pleased. There'so much more an mmorpg could offer. Someone mentioned that the games are not single player, short lifed games, because they are meant to be worlds, where you live. Well, i've never had a feeling of verismilitude where i feel i am in a dynamic world. We pay subs for most of the triple a games, so the devs should have a responsibility to provide us with a living, breathing world. If it means cutting out some of the grind, good. That is just a cheap way of creating a timesink anyway, so that you will play, therefore pay, month after month. Instead of expansions which are glorified more of the same, or patches with crap content, especially when the inevitable, seasonsble content gets added. Be it halloween, christmas, etc. Who truly likes all that stuff anyway? What about a truly dynamic world? Where there is intrigue at court, catasphroe's, events that cause players to think. If it is too hard to code, then why don't they employ gm's to become characters, say like actors. Rather than stock npc's, have major npc's played by employee's. Their roles could be minor, to a king. They could trigger dynamic events, just as in a real world. They could be infamous villians, known through out the land. I'm not talking about turning your game into a series of rp events. But it would be cool to be passing through a forest and come across a well known bandit. Would you take him out, and the rep that went with killing him and his crew? Or perhaps join him. How much more exciting would a quest be if it involved that character allocating it to you? Remember this is not some stock npc who would respawn. A long time player could boast that he once took out the king's champion. More player interaction as well, let them effect the world. Don't worry, the essential game, with it's grind would still be there. All of what makes people like an mmorpg would still be there. Your fetch and kill x and y quests. But making the world alive, what would be so wrong with that? As for difficulty, i would have servers. I don't like not getting penalised for dying. I would allow characters of a certain level to get looted. I would allow player housing to mean something, for example, if i hire myself as a guide, or herald, or bodyguard to prevent looting, even perhaps an assasain, to take out your enemy, but you'd need to know how to find me, because there would be a law. This would make my gold count for something. As it is, in wow, i have thousands of gold, and it is nothing to me really. In short, i think that there are categorises of player, the grinder, rp'er, etc. It is not hard or should not be with our sub money to make a game that caters for everyone. I mean, imagine having your own shop, and it specialised in you and your guildies being hired guides, rather than a dot on a map telling you where to go?
Comments
You, my friend, have not played much Civ
. The AI in Civ is NOTORIOUSLY stupid, and the only way it can offer a challenge to anyone but an absolute neophyte is to EGREGIOUSLY cheat. Like I mean it cheats BAD. And no, I'm not "accusing" it of cheating, this is a known fact.
In fact, the poor AI of Civ is a MAJOR gripe of players. Because when the AI cheats so extremely, it alters the dynamic of the game. You can't play defensively because losing 500 troops to your one is no matter to the AI that has like a 400% resource bonus. You have to play in a very specific way to beat the cheesy AI.
If you want to check this out yourself...just visit the Civ 5 boards, there is bound to be a thread on there whining about the crappy AI
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Yep I agree with this...for many people the content just becomes a "chore" to get some kind of carrot.
Of course...I always quit MMORPGs far before I would get to that point
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I could care less about the content in an mmorpg. I play mmorpg's for the setting and a true mmorpg gives players the means to make their own content. Just give us some quality tools in future games like in EVE. Until then, I will play EVE.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
Exactly, well said.
MMORPGs need replay value, and I really think that replay value can be obtained by having very high QUALITY (gameplay-wise) content. If you want to make a game that has a HUGE world that is really fun to explore, then go for it. But make it an AMAZING world instead of trying to add 25 other features "just because."
For example, I would much rather play a game with a fantasticly implemented open world that is tons of fun to explore, than one that sacrificed the quality of its world to add BGs, instanced dungeons, tons of quest nodes and crappy stories, raids, etc...
Basically what I'm saying is that if an MMORPG wants to implement a specific feature...then they should try to be the BEST in the market at that feature.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I agree. Civ players want MORE clever and better AI, not an easy AI. After all, there is a Deity level that many strive to beat. But AI programming isn't good enough to make a clever AI in a game with as many variables as Civ. So they just crank up the bonuses for the AI which is pretty lame.
I think the poster who referred to the AI discussion that the Civ developers had missed a few nuances (I saw that presentation and remember the powerpoint deck they pulled together around it). The discussion was about different types of AI's for different types of games as follows:
1) In some games, you for the most part want the best AI (like chess or starcraft). Of course, with ability to adjust this level for weaker players but the point is you just want the AI to try to win.
2) In some other games, you want a realistic and more immersive AI (like Civ. And what is meant by this is you want it to be smart and clever but somewhat predictable in behavior. For instance not unprovoked DOW - except for Montezuma of course;).
3) In other games you want the AI to follow very specific rules for gameplays sake. Such as the tank aggro ability in MMO PVE. In games like this it was hypothetized that players did not want it hard but merely with a set of rules that a group could get together and solve.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
The mmorpg genre keeps getting watered down yr after yr. Dev companies will continue to slash and cut on systems that they think players won't miss and then sell the game hoping that they can make as much profit upfront, in case they have to add it in at a later date,( Looking at you TOR).
There is a definite blurring of the lines being made between a mmorpg and a SP RPG, which i think is the wrong path to take. These mmorpg devs are trying to tap into the SPG playerbase and i think that leads to games, not real mmorpg's, that is having a horrible affect on the genre.
SPG players, expect alot of directed on rails content, with a level base system that once reached, the game is over, move on to the next one. Of course, mmorpg players want to live and be part of that virtual world, on a daily basis forever. Another issue is the WOW effect. Dev comapnies are designing games to compete with WOW, but is going off the current WOW model, which is night and day different than how WOW was in the beggining, a watered down version of it's former self.
Let's look at a few up and coming mmo's. GW2, while changing how we do combat, will the game world be inviting and really explorable. Will you actually be able to get the feeling of living in a open world. TSW, could this be a real mmorpg or will it be just another on rails mmo/SPG hybrid that confines the playersbase into shoebox instanced zones ala TOR. How about Archeage. Could this really bring back open world virtual sanbox mmorpg's with a touch of thempark, I guess time will tell.
There needs to be a balance brought back into the mmo genre. From my point of view, it's tilting to much to one side and it seems like that tilt is not to the mmo side.
I am not sure we are using the same definition of cheat. People accuse the AI of knowing more than the player, not just having a resource bonus. I know perfectly well how the resource bonus works.
The talk I heard discussed things like not allowing to do many of the things the player can do because otherwise players would believe that it cheated. This relates to tech trades and other diplomatic stuff primarily but also other things.
A resource bonus would only be cheating if you didn't know that that was how it works. Thats how ALL AI IN EVERY GAME works.
Dunno that RPGs necessarily have replay value. Apart from replaying FF games religiously as a kid when I had free time to spare, I have a hard time replaying RPGs that I absolutely love (Deus Ex, Mass Effect) whereas I will fairly frequently re-roll a second character to max level in a MMORPG.
It's the dungeon gameplay specifically which makes me replay MMORPGs, because not only will I be in a new role but my teammates will be completely new people who I have to adapt to their strengths/weaknesses in order to maximize the run.
I think the latest singleplayer RPG I beat multiple times was FF3 actually. Diablo 2 too, but that was multilpayer.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Do what and not repeating the same damn map over and over again is not repetitive. Look I loved games like Halo, but god damn if some of those maps did not get old. All the games you listed are FREE TO PLAY and appeal to a extremelyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy specific e-peen waving audience.
The problem with MMO's right now is there is Trion and maybe Bioware putting out content every month. We have this severe issue that it is taking a year or two to take the WoW folks who have run the genre off the Blizzard nipple. Who here will argue that WoW has not stagnated the genre? God one year of Rift and a few months of TOR obviously prove this.
How do you make a balanced patch? I mean look what Trion did early on. They dropped raids and that was too raid centric and people quit, then they drop casual content and people quit. Now they are expected to drop raids and casual content + RP specific content.
You have one game called WoW where all they did for seven years was drop a new pointless zone with a raid stuff in it and the next raid utterly outdated all previous content and everyone was just cool with this. The genre needs stuff like GW2, Archage, Tera, Secret World to come at it from different approaches.
We make it sound like it is easy to redefine end game in mmorpg's when for the past 10+ years it has been raiding. The next step is what your seeing in Archage and it is stupid simple and throwbacks to Warcrafts where you mine tree's and build houses. Player created content is where this is all headed.
The games listed were:
chess, starcraft, CoD, LoL
Only LoL out of them is free to play. Starcraft and CoD are both B2P...and Chess, well you have to buy a board, although I guess you could play free online...but W/E.
Also...I can see the e-peen thing with regards to LoL and maybe CoD...but Chess, really? Do you often see Chess players jump up after a game and scream:
"OMFG pwned! Fools mate b1tch!"
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
The reason why people beg for content in an already massive game world like WoW is because games like WoW are built around and encourage progression. Once you've hit the end, or hit a wall that you can't scale over(due to a lack of time on your hands or whatever), there's no more progression and consequently there's nothing to do anymore.
I think the huge misnomer here is that people expect to play 1 game for ever and ever until the end of time. Yeah, there's a lack of things to do in WoW. Yeah, I've had a lack of things to do in WoW before. That doesn't discredit the fact that I've spent over 6,000 hours playing it. No game even comes close to that, so yeah people beg for content but I don't think people realize just how much time they've gotten out of an MMO in comparison to other games. Mass Effect is my favorite game series of all time, and across the 3 games and all DLC released so far I've had between 200-250 hours of gameplay between all of that. That's three separate releases versus one(with expansion packs mind you but it's still one game), 250 hours generously vs 6,000+ hours.
Games like the Street Fighter series aren't built around progression. You could argue that the conquest to unlock everything is progression and once you're done you can stop, but people play Street Fighter because it's a very deep and rewarding game. There's not much content in it but learning combos, learning how to counter things, developing strategies, watching tournament matches, all of that stuff keeps enthusiasts busy. There was something to be said for the arcade era too and playing right next to your opponent, forming rivalries/friendships with people, having new people to play with and all of that that's largely lost now.
Now Playing: Mission Against Terror, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Dark Souls, League of Legends, Minecraft, and the piano. =3
Visit my fail Youtube channel(don't leave me nasty messages!): http://www.youtube.com/user/Mirii471
Yeah that pretty much nails it.
Right down to the "This game doesn't have enough content." "But you've played it 6,000+ hours!"
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is exactly it. This sort of insanity is the result of MMORPG's becoming almost entirely focused on the acquisition of levels and items rather than exploring and existing in a virtual world where there are a million different things to do. Instead all there is is: 'questing', instanced pvp/dungeons/raids, shallow crafting and whatever consolation prize a particular game affords (rifts/artifact hunting in Rift etc).
The games suffer from developers not treating them like virtual worlds; that's what the entire genre is supposed to be based on after all. Once they veer off the path of the virtual world they quickly find themselves with a game that has no more replay value than any standard single-player game.
The easiest way to prolong the game's longevity at this point is to keep stacking the same kind of shallow content on top and hope for the best. It's certainly easier than completely reworking a game from the ground up. Of course, they wouldn't have to maintain this charade if they had just made an actual mmorpg in the first place. People are perfectly capable of generating their own content if you give them the freedom.
This ^^^^
Even Street Fighter get old fast. In today's world, there is no reason to have only ONE entertainment product. While it is true that content in a game like WOW can be consumed quite fast (a teir of content can be done in 2-3 months?), one can always stop for a whle and play something ELSE.
The real question is whether the content is fun. If one likes the content, finish it .. and then wait for new ones.
This is particularly easy for F2P games where there is no cost in waiting. Even WOW, you can unsub and resub later.
Do what and not repeating the same damn map over and over again is not repetitive. Look I loved games like Halo, but god damn if some of those maps did not get old. All the games you listed are FREE TO PLAY and appeal to a extremelyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy specific e-peen waving audience.
The problem with MMO's right now is there is Trion and maybe Bioware putting out content every month. We have this severe issue that it is taking a year or two to take the WoW folks who have run the genre off the Blizzard nipple. Who here will argue that WoW has not stagnated the genre? God one year of Rift and a few months of TOR obviously prove this.
How do you make a balanced patch? I mean look what Trion did early on. They dropped raids and that was too raid centric and people quit, then they drop casual content and people quit. Now they are expected to drop raids and casual content + RP specific content.
You have one game called WoW where all they did for seven years was drop a new pointless zone with a raid stuff in it and the next raid utterly outdated all previous content and everyone was just cool with this. The genre needs stuff like GW2, Archage, Tera, Secret World to come at it from different approaches.
We make it sound like it is easy to redefine end game in mmorpg's when for the past 10+ years it has been raiding. The next step is what your seeing in Archage and it is stupid simple and throwbacks to Warcrafts where you mine tree's and build houses. Player created content is where this is all headed.
The games listed were:
chess, starcraft, CoD, LoL
Only LoL out of them is free to play. Starcraft and CoD are both B2P...and Chess, well you have to buy a board, although I guess you could play free online...but W/E.
Also...I can see the e-peen thing with regards to LoL and maybe CoD...but Chess, really? Do you often see Chess players jump up after a game and scream:
"OMFG pwned! Fools mate b1tch!"
You have obviously never played Yahoo chess.