I want a co-op lobby game, not a boring VW game. That is why i don't "play" Second Life.
You are *officially* what is wrong with the genre.
Actually you would be what's wrong with the genre at large for the community. You want to dictate that we as a group have to all enjoy a certain type of game, when there is enouph room for both game, although sorry take it up with the devs an companies that see that the majority of players want a less V.R. style game, and more want a game set-up that allow them to play an enjoy their game time. It is this style of opinion of thinkng that only your opinion of the genre is valid, and anyone that likes somethign different is doing it wrong or ther opinion if not valid because of it.
I roleplay in every mmo I buy. Its half the fun! Whats the point of logging into a world if youre not gonna get into it all the way hehe. All the most memorable moments Ive had from mmorpgs have been through RP and player run events.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
I roleplay in every mmo I buy. Its half the fun! Whats the point of logging into a world if youre not gonna get into it all the way hehe. All the most memorable moments Ive had from mmorpgs have been through RP and player run events.
Fun is subjective. You like RP. I like optimizing my gear, planned my purchase, and exercise my power in running through dungeons efficiently.
Originally posted by DannyGlover I roleplay in every mmo I buy. Its half the fun! Whats the point of logging into a world if youre not gonna get into it all the way hehe. All the most memorable moments Ive had from mmorpgs have been through RP and player run events.
Fun is subjective. You like RP. I like optimizing my gear, planned my purchase, and exercise my power in running through dungeons efficiently.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by DannyGloverI roleplay in every mmo I buy. Its half the fun! Whats the point of logging into a world if youre not gonna get into it all the way hehe. All the most memorable moments Ive had from mmorpgs have been through RP and player run events.
Fun is subjective. You like RP. I like optimizing my gear, planned my purchase, and exercise my power in running through dungeons efficiently.
You play your way and i will play mine.
I play like that as well. I pretty much jump into everything I can in an mmo.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
lotro and wow are the only real MMORPGs left anymore that has a big community. The Landroval server always has something roleplay going on. If there isn't something going on, you can meet up with people at the pony in bree and do something about it hehe. The RP servers in WoW aren't as full as they used to be. There's only a couple that are worth playing now, and you still get the occasional non-roleplayer. I've always been a fan of roleplaying, and even LARP from time to time (I know I'm a nerd, and I'm proud). The greatest thing I like about roleplaying is it's almost always a mature community that wants to roleplay. You rarely see teenagers that roleplay. Roleplay guilds and servers usually have alot less drama as well.
I want a co-op lobby game, not a boring VW game. That is why i don't "play" Second Life.
You are *officially* what is wrong with the genre.
Actually you would be what's wrong with the genre at large for the community. You want to dictate that we as a group have to all enjoy a certain type of game, when there is enouph room for both game, although sorry take it up with the devs an companies that see that the majority of players want a less V.R. style game, and more want a game set-up that allow them to play an enjoy their game time. It is this style of opinion of thinkng that only your opinion of the genre is valid, and anyone that likes somethign different is doing it wrong or ther opinion if not valid because of it.
Yeah because these co-op fake MMOs are doing so well... Oh wait...
Oh and I have no problem with the action RPG genre, I loved d2, but devs should just stop pretending that their games are MMOs and admit that they are really just action rpgs.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
I want a co-op lobby game, not a boring VW game. That is why i don't "play" Second Life.
You are *officially* what is wrong with the genre.
Actually you would be what's wrong with the genre at large for the community. You want to dictate that we as a group have to all enjoy a certain type of game, when there is enouph room for both game, although sorry take it up with the devs an companies that see that the majority of players want a less V.R. style game, and more want a game set-up that allow them to play an enjoy their game time. It is this style of opinion of thinkng that only your opinion of the genre is valid, and anyone that likes somethign different is doing it wrong or ther opinion if not valid because of it.
Yeah because these co-op fake MMOs are doing so well... Oh wait...
Oh and I have no problem with the action RPG genre, I loved d2, but devs should just stop pretending that their games are MMOs and admit that they are really just action rpgs.
Well two of the highest sub themeparks stomp most of all of the sandox or V.R. world style games, and yet the playerbase at large is much more interested in releases of themepark mmos compared to other types. Most of the sandbox or V.R, worlds did not fare that well except for the fact of having such a small playerbase of like minded players playing at the time. What is not actually fitting into many games not filling up the needed requirements for being an mmo? The title literally means a game that allows for massive numbers of players to play alongside each other in a persistent world online, and largely every mmo out there does allow for massive numbers of players to play in a persistent world together. Even going into the fact of being a morpg the games fill the label well, as they are rpg games (in the spirit of console rpgs.) that allow massivce numbers of players to live or play in a persistent online world with massive numbers of other players.
Well two of the highest sub themeparks stomp most of all of the sandox or V.R. world style game and? FPS games sell a ton more copies then any other genre, should devs only make FPS games then?
, and yet the playerbase at large is much more interested in releases of themepark mmos compared to other types Uhh.. name a sandbox/VR mmo that has even a 10th of the hype of AoC, War, or SWTOR.
Most of the sandbox or V.R, worlds did not fare that well except for the fact of having such a small playerbase of like minded players playing at the time. Eve has done better then the majority of the themepark games and that with almost no hype at launch and being a very niche game type (ship combat).
What is not actually fitting into many games not filling up the needed requirements for being an mmo? The title literally means a game that allows for massive numbers of players to play alongside each other in a persistent world online, and largely every mmo out there does allow for massive numbers of players to play in a persistent world together. Even going into the fact of being a morpg the games fill the label well, as they are rpg games (in the spirit of console rpgs.) that allow massivce numbers of players to live or play in a persistent online world with massive numbers of other players.
IMO they don't fit as an mmo for a number of reasons. One you don't control anything. You just follow a rigid path. Two more and more it's not a persistent world as most of these "mmos" have shard instances of world or area. Also these games get more and more solo "friendly" people you see the game might as well as be npcs, you don't really interact with them, if anything they just get in your "way" as you speed grind to the endlevel because the games doesn't have anything else to do but pointless crafting that gives you equipment worst then you get as rewards for saving the cat from the tree.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
Well two of the highest sub themeparks stomp most of all of the sandox or V.R. world style game and? FPS games sell a ton more copies then any other genre, should devs only make FPS games then?
Well as you said failed co-up fake mmos, well the issues here is than you can say that vr/sandbox games are failures beyond even themepark games. By this easy fact you can tell that the playerbase at large (not just here) do enjoy these games (when done well, which is the issue with any game) over the sandbox/vr games. The issue with comparing what is a stand-alone genre of gaming to mmos is that one is a stand-alone genre that does not really effect the rest of the other genres really, where as in mmos your largest playerbase is the players that seek a hybrid of both themepark/sandox features or pvp/pve or other such hybrid along side drawing in the more hardcore players.
, and yet the playerbase at large is much more interested in releases of themepark mmos compared to other types Uhh.. name a sandbox/VR mmo that has even a 10th of the hype of AoC, War, or SWTOR.
That is kinda the point there is very little reasn to hype something that has a very small fallowing of players, over just using the money you would spend on hyping it for further developing the game for those players that will play it.
Most of the sandbox or V.R, worlds did not fare that well except for the fact of having such a small playerbase of like minded players playing at the time. Eve has done better then the majority of the themepark games and that with almost no hype at launch and being a very niche game type (ship combat).
Actually it grew into what it is now with a stable, and growing niche crowd, but it did not start out as more than a moderate seccuss (much like most of the older mmos they grew into thier playerbase.). Also most of the newer mmos (themepark or sandbox) were poorly made, looking like a peice of gold from the ooutside which was barely a thin covering over a pretty worthless interior. I was also meaning that most of the older mmos were build largely with a finite grooup of like-minded players in mind as such their success was pretty much automatic, compared to now where the playerbase is much more diverse an also vastly larger. From personal knowledge many of the players i meet after wow were heavily into rpg on their other gaming such as the ff series, which is basically what many mmos have become now, compared to prior mmoers that were largely from mubs or table top rpg games.
What is not actually fitting into many games not filling up the needed requirements for being an mmo? The title literally means a game that allows for massive numbers of players to play alongside each other in a persistent world online, and largely every mmo out there does allow for massive numbers of players to play in a persistent world together. Even going into the fact of being a morpg the games fill the label well, as they are rpg games (in the spirit of console rpgs.) that allow massivce numbers of players to live or play in a persistent online world with massive numbers of other players.
IMO they don't fit as an mmo for a number of reasons. One you don't control anything. You just follow a rigid path. Two more and more it's not a persistent world as most of these "mmos" have shard instances of world or area. Also these games get more and more solo "friendly" people you see the game might as well as be npcs, you don't really interact with them, if anything they just get in your "way" as you speed grind to the endlevel because the games doesn't have anything else to do but pointless crafting that gives you equipment worst then you get as rewards for saving the cat from the tree.
That is not part of the fact that in many console rpg games you do not control your character at large, but are a watcher of a interactive story, and so by that fact of being a exolution into a massive version of a console rpg they are fitting into being a rpg. Actually every game largely in mmos have a persistent world in them the fact is that the player like having more control of when they enjoy their content, hence instacing content to allow the players to experince or play on their time-table, but the world you level in that is where many players quest or such in is persistent with only really story parts fo the areas being instanced (a dungeon is at large a story progression really with loot to drive players to play it, but still progresses or finishs parts of the overall story of the place you are at.). How the players play the game is not the fault of the devs or the world as much as it is the player or trend of gaming in mmos. I hate the focus on end game content that has made the progression thru the game shorter an shorter, but yet a large vocal group of players desire just that game style of progresion saddly. Yet this does not change the fact that these games do have a persistent world where massive numbers of players can interact with each other, the fact that most players opt out of the fact by over playing the instancing an turning the game into a hub/co-up game does not change that. An where crafting r secondary aspect of mmos are concearned the larger part of mmo gamers do not like the timesink (really any timesinks other than ones that are fun ie pvp or rading.) of crafting, in wow whcih had a pretty terrible overall crafting system it was still torn down to make it largely a gimic over really being usefull overall, and alot of that was from whining of players that found it annoying to have to level a craft to be viable in many ways.
I would say that the playerbase at large outside of mmorpg.com wants a rpg game in the spirit of rpg games like the diablos, final fantasy series, or other such heavy story use, while also having a aqquisition or achievement side line, compared to a more table top rpg set up that would be how mmos were prior to the influx of players. That is how many players play mmos now as a competition or collection game that like console rpgs are largely. Compare story heavy an also rigid of progression console rpgs havve largely to mmorpgs now, and it really just looks like they dropped a console rpg into the older mmorpg model setup really an slowly removed what really to the playerbase playing was worthles filler.
It's arguments like these that make me think about past statements. One sticks out more than others right now.
"WoW's easy accessibility bringing in millions of new players to the genre is a good thing."
In ways it s a true as well as false statement, or rather a very subjective statement really. As it is a good thign for those that want the quality of the looks of games to go up, or who like games like wow, as well as want to see the genre become more than a mere niche within the gaming community (which is hwo mmos were prior to wow really.). Yet it is also a bad thing as more players come into the genre you will always get a larger disperity of opinion of or desire for very different styles of games in the genre (prime examples would be turn-based an real time stratagy rpgs, or even just sandbox an themeark mmos), which leads to a division of focus in the genre as each playerbase seek their desired style. Yet that statement rings truest when you think of how good it was for the companies that seek to make money and profit off creating mmos, as they can foreast much higher returns faster than they could prior to wow trully.
I most certainly still want MMORPG's.However i want a game that shows me the developer was making it because he has passion and not just to turn a profit.
You have giants like Blizzard/EA ect ect,they are in it strictly for the profit.They all have board members and stock holders that demand profits over anything else.
My favorite game has been FFXI,ONE guy designed the whole thing >>TANAKA.We just do not se that anymore ,one man with a vision and follows it through.They also had no plans to turn a profit for 5 years,so again this shows they were more concerned with delivering the game Tanaka envisioned than just whipping something out fast for proift.
The original Everquest as used in the OP's example was a game that Smedley had envisioned with a few friends.He was doing because of passion and even though SOE didn't like the idea,he wanted this game.
I no longer feel Smedley the family man has as much passion,i doubt he has much input at all anymore.
I think when the right developer and game comes along,i will see it,the passion and love for gaming.Yes they ALL need to make a profit,that is obvious,but i can spot the passion as well.
I am getting a good feeling about the Archeage guy,i feel he is under a lot of pressure trying to make a giant mmorpg that will compete against all the other giants.The game will encorporate manmy facets other games are leaving out,so again it shows me effort.This game has carried a MUCH longer beta than most,he is really trying to make sure it is accepted by at least their home market in Korea.Other develoeprs use Betas for nothign more than hype and pre order gimmicks.They also announce release dates way too early before making sure their game is ready,AA is not showing me this same profit over effort.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I would say that the playerbase at large outside of mmorpg.com wants a rpg game in the spirit of rpg games like the diablos, final fantasy series, or other such heavy story use, while also having a aqquisition or achievement side line, compared to a more table top rpg set up that would be how mmos were prior to the influx of players. That is how many players play mmos now as a competition or collection game that like console rpgs are largely. Compare story heavy an also rigid of progression console rpgs havve largely to mmorpgs now, and it really just looks like they dropped a console rpg into the older mmorpg model setup really an slowly removed what really to the playerbase playing was worthles filler.
Yeah basically. People want a game with gameplay, not an empty world they're tasked with filling.
Although your "console RPG" tangent seems wrong, considering PC RPGs over the years have been the exact same way. Games like Ultima, Eye of the Beholder, Gold Box AD&D, Sword of Fargoal, and many others didn't exactly involve non-rigid progression systems which required a lot of thought.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To be honest I just want Multiplayer Online Rpgs, but not like we have now.
More like GW1 or even the BioWare NeverWinter games. If ESO was skyrim, but coop I would be in heaven.
Hell, Games like DayZ are more interesting to me because they have low pop counts on servers. I want to play with a few other people, not 1000s. I guess I just want to feel isolated but have the chance of running into other humans or playing with friends.
If there were more games like that I would likely never play MMORPGs.
Personally I think there is room for everyone in the market. There are different kinds of people such as:
-People who like themeparks and do some RP
-People who like themeparks and dont play a role.
-People who like sandboxes and RP
-People who like sandboxes and dont play a role.
The only absurdity to this thread is the OP acting like he is speaking for everyone. But I do hold the opinion that themeparks have turned into something which isnt condusive to playing a role playing game (even though I have seen heavy roleplayers even in the biggest themeparks).
Originally posted by xDayx Personally I think there is room for everyone in the market. There are different kinds of people such as:-People who like themeparks and do some RP-People who like themeparks and dont play a role.-People who like sandboxes and RP-People who like sandboxes and dont play a role. The only absurdity to this thread is the OP acting like he is speaking for everyone. But I do hold the opinion that themeparks have turned into something which isn't conducive to playing a role playing game (even though I have seen heavy roleplayers even in the biggest themeparks).
There's totally room in the market, the problem is finding investors/publishers that are willing to produce for those that don't fit the metric of the largest group of MMO gamers.
Yeah because these co-op fake MMOs are doing so well... Oh wait...
Oh and I have no problem with the action RPG genre, I loved d2, but devs should just stop pretending that their games are MMOs and admit that they are really just action rpgs.
Label matters little. Many MMOs *are* online action RPG. The play style is so close .. you hop into the game, use a LFD tool/lobby tool to find a group, go kill some stuff ... that there is little difference from a player's point of view.
And what if we call action RPG with AH and crafting a MMO. It is just a label.
If I ask you what an MMORPG is? and you answer me by saying "A game like World of Warcraft or Star Wars: The Old Republic" I will tell you "Oh, Then I don't like MMORPGs."
Personally I think there is room for everyone in the market. There are different kinds of people such as:
-People who like themeparks and do some RP
-People who like themeparks and dont play a role.
-People who like sandboxes and RP
-People who like sandboxes and dont play a role.
The only absurdity to this thread is the OP acting like he is speaking for everyone. But I do hold the opinion that themeparks have turned into something which isnt condusive to playing a role playing game (even though I have seen heavy roleplayers even in the biggest themeparks).
Therempark... Sandbox.... This is STUPID.
I don't want a Themepark or a Sandbox. I want a decent game.
Themepark means restriction and Sandbox means complete freedom. These are very VAGUE and OPEN terms. While definetly don't want to play a "Themepark" I still am not sure if I want to play a Sandbox if the Sandbox game suck.
Forget about THEMEPARK and SANDBOX. ERASE it from your brain.
Create a WORLD with important elements, mechanics, feature that make the player feels they are in the world without it being TOO EMPTY (Too Sandboxy) or TOO restrictive (Quest Hubs, Themeparkish) and eliminate ANY retarded "Convenient" invention done by retarded game designers that when combined destroys what an MMROPG is all about (Auction Houses, Too Many Instances, Kill 10 Foozles, Items dropping like candy, and the list is just too long).
I don't give a damn if you say Sandbox or Themepark. The MMORPG has too many variables and if too many of them were what I think a retarded game design decision; then the game would suck (for me).
Comments
I want a co-op lobby game, not a boring VW game. That is why i don't "play" Second Life.
You are *officially* what is wrong with the genre.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
You call it "wrong". i call it "progress". Don't like it? Vote with your wallet. I will vote with mine.
Actually you would be what's wrong with the genre at large for the community. You want to dictate that we as a group have to all enjoy a certain type of game, when there is enouph room for both game, although sorry take it up with the devs an companies that see that the majority of players want a less V.R. style game, and more want a game set-up that allow them to play an enjoy their game time. It is this style of opinion of thinkng that only your opinion of the genre is valid, and anyone that likes somethign different is doing it wrong or ther opinion if not valid because of it.
I roleplay in every mmo I buy. Its half the fun! Whats the point of logging into a world if youre not gonna get into it all the way hehe. All the most memorable moments Ive had from mmorpgs have been through RP and player run events.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
Fun is subjective. You like RP. I like optimizing my gear, planned my purchase, and exercise my power in running through dungeons efficiently.
You play your way and i will play mine.
Fun is subjective. You like RP. I like optimizing my gear, planned my purchase, and exercise my power in running through dungeons efficiently.
You play your way and i will play mine.
It is possible to RP and minmax at the same time.You play your way and i will play mine.
I play like that as well. I pretty much jump into everything I can in an mmo.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
lotro and wow are the only real MMORPGs left anymore that has a big community. The Landroval server always has something roleplay going on. If there isn't something going on, you can meet up with people at the pony in bree and do something about it hehe. The RP servers in WoW aren't as full as they used to be. There's only a couple that are worth playing now, and you still get the occasional non-roleplayer. I've always been a fan of roleplaying, and even LARP from time to time (I know I'm a nerd, and I'm proud). The greatest thing I like about roleplaying is it's almost always a mature community that wants to roleplay. You rarely see teenagers that roleplay. Roleplay guilds and servers usually have alot less drama as well.
Yeah because these co-op fake MMOs are doing so well... Oh wait...
Oh and I have no problem with the action RPG genre, I loved d2, but devs should just stop pretending that their games are MMOs and admit that they are really just action rpgs.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
Well two of the highest sub themeparks stomp most of all of the sandox or V.R. world style games, and yet the playerbase at large is much more interested in releases of themepark mmos compared to other types. Most of the sandbox or V.R, worlds did not fare that well except for the fact of having such a small playerbase of like minded players playing at the time. What is not actually fitting into many games not filling up the needed requirements for being an mmo? The title literally means a game that allows for massive numbers of players to play alongside each other in a persistent world online, and largely every mmo out there does allow for massive numbers of players to play in a persistent world together. Even going into the fact of being a morpg the games fill the label well, as they are rpg games (in the spirit of console rpgs.) that allow massivce numbers of players to live or play in a persistent online world with massive numbers of other players.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
That is not part of the fact that in many console rpg games you do not control your character at large, but are a watcher of a interactive story, and so by that fact of being a exolution into a massive version of a console rpg they are fitting into being a rpg. Actually every game largely in mmos have a persistent world in them the fact is that the player like having more control of when they enjoy their content, hence instacing content to allow the players to experince or play on their time-table, but the world you level in that is where many players quest or such in is persistent with only really story parts fo the areas being instanced (a dungeon is at large a story progression really with loot to drive players to play it, but still progresses or finishs parts of the overall story of the place you are at.). How the players play the game is not the fault of the devs or the world as much as it is the player or trend of gaming in mmos. I hate the focus on end game content that has made the progression thru the game shorter an shorter, but yet a large vocal group of players desire just that game style of progresion saddly. Yet this does not change the fact that these games do have a persistent world where massive numbers of players can interact with each other, the fact that most players opt out of the fact by over playing the instancing an turning the game into a hub/co-up game does not change that. An where crafting r secondary aspect of mmos are concearned the larger part of mmo gamers do not like the timesink (really any timesinks other than ones that are fun ie pvp or rading.) of crafting, in wow whcih had a pretty terrible overall crafting system it was still torn down to make it largely a gimic over really being usefull overall, and alot of that was from whining of players that found it annoying to have to level a craft to be viable in many ways.
I would say that the playerbase at large outside of mmorpg.com wants a rpg game in the spirit of rpg games like the diablos, final fantasy series, or other such heavy story use, while also having a aqquisition or achievement side line, compared to a more table top rpg set up that would be how mmos were prior to the influx of players. That is how many players play mmos now as a competition or collection game that like console rpgs are largely. Compare story heavy an also rigid of progression console rpgs havve largely to mmorpgs now, and it really just looks like they dropped a console rpg into the older mmorpg model setup really an slowly removed what really to the playerbase playing was worthles filler.
It's arguments like these that make me think about past statements. One sticks out more than others right now.
"WoW's easy accessibility bringing in millions of new players to the genre is a good thing."
In ways it s a true as well as false statement, or rather a very subjective statement really. As it is a good thign for those that want the quality of the looks of games to go up, or who like games like wow, as well as want to see the genre become more than a mere niche within the gaming community (which is hwo mmos were prior to wow really.). Yet it is also a bad thing as more players come into the genre you will always get a larger disperity of opinion of or desire for very different styles of games in the genre (prime examples would be turn-based an real time stratagy rpgs, or even just sandbox an themeark mmos), which leads to a division of focus in the genre as each playerbase seek their desired style. Yet that statement rings truest when you think of how good it was for the companies that seek to make money and profit off creating mmos, as they can foreast much higher returns faster than they could prior to wow trully.
I most certainly still want MMORPG's.However i want a game that shows me the developer was making it because he has passion and not just to turn a profit.
You have giants like Blizzard/EA ect ect,they are in it strictly for the profit.They all have board members and stock holders that demand profits over anything else.
My favorite game has been FFXI,ONE guy designed the whole thing >>TANAKA.We just do not se that anymore ,one man with a vision and follows it through.They also had no plans to turn a profit for 5 years,so again this shows they were more concerned with delivering the game Tanaka envisioned than just whipping something out fast for proift.
The original Everquest as used in the OP's example was a game that Smedley had envisioned with a few friends.He was doing because of passion and even though SOE didn't like the idea,he wanted this game.
I no longer feel Smedley the family man has as much passion,i doubt he has much input at all anymore.
I think when the right developer and game comes along,i will see it,the passion and love for gaming.Yes they ALL need to make a profit,that is obvious,but i can spot the passion as well.
I am getting a good feeling about the Archeage guy,i feel he is under a lot of pressure trying to make a giant mmorpg that will compete against all the other giants.The game will encorporate manmy facets other games are leaving out,so again it shows me effort.This game has carried a MUCH longer beta than most,he is really trying to make sure it is accepted by at least their home market in Korea.Other develoeprs use Betas for nothign more than hype and pre order gimmicks.They also announce release dates way too early before making sure their game is ready,AA is not showing me this same profit over effort.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Yeah basically. People want a game with gameplay, not an empty world they're tasked with filling.
Although your "console RPG" tangent seems wrong, considering PC RPGs over the years have been the exact same way. Games like Ultima, Eye of the Beholder, Gold Box AD&D, Sword of Fargoal, and many others didn't exactly involve non-rigid progression systems which required a lot of thought.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The thread probably could have ended right here. Just becuase there are those that don't roleplay and don't want to, doesn't mean none of us do.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
To be honest I just want Multiplayer Online Rpgs, but not like we have now.
More like GW1 or even the BioWare NeverWinter games. If ESO was skyrim, but coop I would be in heaven.
Hell, Games like DayZ are more interesting to me because they have low pop counts on servers. I want to play with a few other people, not 1000s. I guess I just want to feel isolated but have the chance of running into other humans or playing with friends.
If there were more games like that I would likely never play MMORPGs.
Playing: Tera, BF3, ME3
Waiting on: Guild Wars 2
Personally I think there is room for everyone in the market. There are different kinds of people such as:
-People who like themeparks and do some RP
-People who like themeparks and dont play a role.
-People who like sandboxes and RP
-People who like sandboxes and dont play a role.
The only absurdity to this thread is the OP acting like he is speaking for everyone. But I do hold the opinion that themeparks have turned into something which isnt condusive to playing a role playing game (even though I have seen heavy roleplayers even in the biggest themeparks).
There's totally room in the market, the problem is finding investors/publishers that are willing to produce for those that don't fit the metric of the largest group of MMO gamers.
Label matters little. Many MMOs *are* online action RPG. The play style is so close .. you hop into the game, use a LFD tool/lobby tool to find a group, go kill some stuff ... that there is little difference from a player's point of view.
And what if we call action RPG with AH and crafting a MMO. It is just a label.
If I ask you what an MMORPG is? and you answer me by saying "A game like World of Warcraft or Star Wars: The Old Republic" I will tell you "Oh, Then I don't like MMORPGs."
Therempark... Sandbox.... This is STUPID.
I don't want a Themepark or a Sandbox. I want a decent game.
Themepark means restriction and Sandbox means complete freedom. These are very VAGUE and OPEN terms. While definetly don't want to play a "Themepark" I still am not sure if I want to play a Sandbox if the Sandbox game suck.
Forget about THEMEPARK and SANDBOX. ERASE it from your brain.
Create a WORLD with important elements, mechanics, feature that make the player feels they are in the world without it being TOO EMPTY (Too Sandboxy) or TOO restrictive (Quest Hubs, Themeparkish) and eliminate ANY retarded "Convenient" invention done by retarded game designers that when combined destroys what an MMROPG is all about (Auction Houses, Too Many Instances, Kill 10 Foozles, Items dropping like candy, and the list is just too long).
I don't give a damn if you say Sandbox or Themepark. The MMORPG has too many variables and if too many of them were what I think a retarded game design decision; then the game would suck (for me).