Originally posted by eyelolled Well I wouldn't say that it's dead, but the Sandbox genre is definately not healthy. Maybe some of the new sandboxes will breathe some life back into the whole sandbox genre.
I disagree.
Sandbox (with EVE Online leading the charge with 400k) are doing better than ever.
Are they on par (in terms of $$$ / sub number) with 'themeparks'?
No they are not, but there are more subs in sandbox mmos than ever before.
I've got to agree with eyelolled here. Eve is great at what it does, but it's not the complete Sandbox that so many want. There's no "Avatar on the ground", so to speak. There's no "world" in the sense of boots on the ground either. But it is very good at what it does do, and offers the prime example of a way to create the massive social structure that Sandbox games can offer players. Eve gives meaning and glue to the social sphere of a truly massive player environment.
That doesn't mean you have to have PvP. But you need some way to give that meaning for a cohesion so that players want to do that on large scales. Guilds in games are only the start.
But overall, Sandbox games are suffering from lack of content due to lack of funding. And in a pretty big way.
You have to be somewhat careful with the term "interesting" as some people find one thing interesting, whilst others may find it quite boring. The same goes for the term "shallow". For me you make the world more engaging, increase the interaction between the player, the game world and the agents within the game world. EVE has the model for the agent part, it has less engagment on the direct player to world part (which is primarily down to the scope/ship avatar model in fairness).
That direct engagement can indeed be improved upon in other games (as already demonstrated), whilst at the same time keeping the vital open, player agent interlinked systems and meta games in place.
That "engagement" with the entire rest of the game is what's missing. Interaction with the surroundings, with the other players, and with all that happens in the game world.
In today's games, you just aren't a part of anything more than your own character. The rest doesn't matter.
The seeker of wisdom climbs the mountain to it's peak to ask the venerable old sage at the summit a simple but deeply unsettling question. A question that many have asked themselves throughout history.
"Master, what is the meaning of life" he asked.
The old monk raised his aging bald head and looked upon the seeker. His reply would shake him to his core.
What you fail to understand is that the crap being made today ARENT MMOs. Ask those that love these types and they will tell you. There lobby based co-ops and nothing more. There are no more MMOs. Get over yourself and stop drinking the coolaid.
I love modern mmos (WoW, RIFT, SWTOR etc) and I will tell you 'yes they are MMOs.'
You don't think so?
That's fine but you shouting 'This is what an MMO IS!' is pointless.
WoW stoped being one with WotLK. RIFT stoped being one with 1.4 patch. SWTOR i dont believe ever was one.
The real question is: are these new MMOs really MMOs?
To me the answer is no. There's absolutely nothing "massively multiplayer" about them other than your standard "large" persistent PvP zone that all games seem to have now (usually just tossed in there as an after thought to quiet down the OWPvP fans).
So in a sense, yes massively multiplayer online role playing games are dead due to all the abusive instancing, sharding and other counter nature segregations.
Planetside 2, now THAT is an MMORPG. Large seamless persistent world with thousands of players in the same playing field.
edit: minus 10 internetz for not reading the posts just before mine...
Originally posted by eyelolled Well I wouldn't say that it's dead, but the Sandbox genre is definately not healthy. Maybe some of the new sandboxes will breathe some life back into the whole sandbox genre.
I disagree.
Sandbox (with EVE Online leading the charge with 400k) are doing better than ever.
Are they on par (in terms of $$$ / sub number) with 'themeparks'?
No they are not, but there are more subs in sandbox mmos than ever before.
Sure Eve is doing reasonably well, but you can't deny that there is a definate cry for more quality sandboxes.
More are on the horizon, like Archage / Repopulation etc
We have more people playing Sandbox MMOs and more actual Sandbox MMOs as well.
Same applies to themeparks.
That's why this thread's title is factually wrong.
Theamparks arent even Theamparks anymore. Dont even have to go to the park to ride the rides. They just strap you into a VR helm and whoosh. Off you go to the next VR ride.
And to say that sandboxs are doin well isent right. to menton AA and repop is to say the market itself is crying out for these sandboxs today because the market is saturated with these watered down Miller 64 verions of MMOs.
Thats why your seeing an influx of sanboxes being made. Not because the sandbox market is doin well. It because the genre as a whole is falling apart and needs to get back to its roots.
"EVE's virtual world is primarily considered interesting because of the large scale mechanics that it generates and the freedom it gives, specifically in terms of player~agent interactions. Not because it is supremely interesting to constantly interact with as a world space in and off itself."
I think we can agree I'm aware of this, given that EVE is one of the strongest examples of the exact type of shallow travel I'm criticizing. The state of travel in EVE is in part the basis of my critique on dull travel.
"You have to be somewhat careful with the term "interesting" as some people find one thing interesting, whilst others may find it quite boring. The same goes for the term "shallow". For me you make the world more engaging, increase the interaction between the player, the game world and the agents within the game world. EVE has the model for the agent part, it has less engagment on the direct player to world part (which is primarily down to the scope/ship avatar model in fairness)."
I hope we can also agree that EVE's travel can't really be considered "interesting" by any stretch, given that 99% of the time nothing eventful happens and you've only spent 5-15 minutes watching your ship jump.
The 1% of the time may be really interesting -- possibly even interesting enough for some to stick through potentially hours of uninteresting travel to experience, and still consider it worth it -- but travel itself definitely isn't.
"That direct engagement can indeed be improved upon in other games (as already demonstrated), whilst at the same time keeping the vital open, player agent interlinked systems and meta games in place."
Right, which is what I've been arguing in favor of the whole time. Deep+Deep is better than Deep+Shallow. (At least when it comes to mandatory game mechanics. With optional ones, shallow/zen activities can be fine.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"EVE's virtual world is primarily considered interesting because of the large scale mechanics that it generates and the freedom it gives, specifically in terms of player~agent interactions. Not because it is supremely interesting to constantly interact with as a world space in and off itself."
I think we can agree I'm aware of this, given that EVE is one of the strongest examples of the exact type of shallow travel I'm criticizing. The state of travel in EVE is in part the entire basis of my critique on dull travel.
"You have to be somewhat careful with the term "interesting" as some people find one thing interesting, whilst others may find it quite boring. The same goes for the term "shallow". For me you make the world more engaging, increase the interaction between the player, the game world and the agents within the game world. EVE has the model for the agent part, it has less engagment on the direct player to world part (which is primarily down to the scope/ship avatar model in fairness)."
I hope we can also agree that EVE's travel can't really be considered "interesting" by any stretch, given that 99% of the time nothing eventful happens and you've only spent 5-15 minutes watching your ship jump.
The 1% of the time may be really interesting -- possibly even interesting enough for some to stick through potentially hours of uninteresting travel to experience, and still consider it worth it -- but travel itself definitely isn't.
"That direct engagement can indeed be improved upon in other games (as already demonstrated), whilst at the same time keeping the vital open, player agent interlinked systems and meta games in place."
Right, which is what I've been arguing in favor of the whole time. Deep+Deep is better than Deep+Shallow. (At least when it comes to mandatory game mechanics. With optional ones, shallow/zen activities can be fine.)
You cited EVE's world as one which is considered interesting by some and then used this on order to make the case that therefore making a game world interesting does not make the travel interesting due to the fact quite a bit of EVE's travel is not that interesting on a direct basis. I merely pointed out the flaw in that reasoning by demonstrating that the EVE game world is engaging on a meta level and not massively on a direct level. So increasing engagement in that element would increase "interest".
The point I was making was that it would be far, far better to actually debate on purely the mechanical level and the ability to interact and engage with mechanics. As opposed to using such highly subjective terms like "interest" and "fun". But yes, as I have mentioned before, travel can be vastly improved via direct engagement with the game world (not just it's agents).
Which is clealy what I have been advocating, I feel the debate has arisen due to conflicting methods of adding that depth. I have strongly advocated generating it via interacting with the game world without needing to ram in extra buttons, skills, minigames etc. If you are not actually against that (which you seemed to be originally), then fair enough, there is nothing to debate really.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The real question is: are these new MMOs really MMOs?
To me the answer is no. There's absolutely nothing "massively multiplayer" about them other than your standard "large" persistent PvP zone that all games seem to have now (usually just tossed in there as an after thought to quiet down the OWPvP fans).
So in a sense, yes massively multiplayer online role playing games are dead due to all the abusive instancing, sharding and other counter nature segregations.
Planetside 2, now THAT is an MMORPG. Large seamless persistent world with thousands of players in the same playing field.
edit: minus 10 internetz for not reading the posts just before mine...
I regularly see 60+ player rift events in Rift. Every day.
You don't call Modern Warfare 2 an RPG just because it has RPG elements, do you? So then why would you call Planetside 2 a MMORPG when it's a MMOFPS?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by bunnyhopper At no point have I suggested that simply making it impossible to AFK is a good idea. I have posited dynamic, engaging and interesting worlds, where the player is actively invovled in interesting decision making whilst moving through said worlds on a number of levels. At the same time retaining all the benefits and interlinked systems an open, dynamic and engaging game world can have. All without the need for superfluous skills, minigames or instancing.
If someone wants to try and AFK that or numlock walk through that they are welcome to try it, if they are walking from their house to a shop 500m away in the same town they most likely will be able to AFK it. If they only want to move just outside of town, again they may well be able to try it. But further? Well they can try it, the option is there to give it a go, but it really wont end well.
I never implied you did.
But that's the reality of travel in these games. It's a shallow system but you can't fully AFK.
Because travel is shallow it'd be better if you could AFK, because then players would be free to ignore the shallow system. It still wouldn't be a good overall system, because you'd basically be saying "go do something else for a while, this part of the game isn't fun".
Hence the need for deep travel, so players aren't even considering AFKing. Instead they're actively traveling for travel's sake because travel is really fun to do. Just like Puzzle Pirates (where I seriously did nothing but travel and had no other goals for the game, yet completely enjoyed my time because travel was a fun game.)
I'd like ot see a "Faster" travel system implemented. Maybe make it a monthly perk you pay fo rin a cash shop that let's you take a train, boat, or airship to your destination. It should by no means be instant. Turning MMO's into Lobby based deathmatch games is NOT helping the genre.
In fact I am renaming the entire Genre.
Persistent Lobby RPG.
Cant be a RPG when no one role plays. I like the term i came up with. Its alittle wordy but i think it works.
CLFGwGC
C (co-op) L (Lobby) F (Faceroll) G (Game) with G (Group) C (Content)
The real question is: are these new MMOs really MMOs?
To me the answer is no. There's absolutely nothing "massively multiplayer" about them other than your standard "large" persistent PvP zone that all games seem to have now (usually just tossed in there as an after thought to quiet down the OWPvP fans).
So in a sense, yes massively multiplayer online role playing games are dead due to all the abusive instancing, sharding and other counter nature segregations.
Planetside 2, now THAT is an MMORPG. Large seamless persistent world with thousands of players in the same playing field.
edit: minus 10 internetz for not reading the posts just before mine...
Who ares about definitions? This site talks about D3, WOW, SD Gundam, and many online games that some may not think they are MMOs .. so refer to them by their title.
And you are also wrong. A world-wide AH is "massively multiplayer". No one says "massive" only refers to what you see on screen. In that regard, D3 is more massive than most MMOs, and definitely more massive than Eve and all the sandbox games added together. Let me ask you this .. how many people can you trade with in Eve .. at most 350k. How many i can trade with in D3 AH ... MILLIONS.
And i really don't care what you think are MMOs, or not. I will use the most common label on them .. hence MMOs, or by their title.
You cited EVE's world as one which is considered interesting by some and then used this on order to make the case that therefore making a game world interesting does not make the travel interesting due to the fact quite a bit of EVE's travel is not that interesting on a direct basis. I merely pointed out the flaw in that reasoning by demonstrating that the EVE game world is engaging on a meta level and not massively on a direct level. So increasing engagement in that element would increase "interest".
The point I was making was that it would be far, far better to actually debate on purely the mechanical level and the ability to interact and engage with mechanics. As opposed to using such highly subjective terms like "interest" and "fun". But yes, as I have mentioned before, travel can be vastly improved via direct engagement with the game world (not just it's agents).
Which is clealy what I have been advocating, I feel the debate has arisen due to conflicting methods of adding that depth. I have strongly advocated generating it via interacting with the game world without needing to ram in extra buttons, skills, minigames etc. If you are not actually against that (which you seemed to be originally), then fair enough, there is nothing to debate really.
Well EVE's travel isn't interesting despite its world being considered interesting, which is why an interesting world doesn't automatically make travel interesting.
As for "interesting" and "fun", perhaps we should turn to the objective measure of meaningful decisions per minute, and point out that a typical game involves many decisions/min when played normally but travel in these games usually involves about 1/min.
Well you weren't always advocating it -- for a while you were fixated on my calling it a "minigame" (which your suggested travel improvements still are, even though we're pretending they're not,) and took a steadfast stance against improving the depth of travel.
And for what it's worth "extra button" presses are going to be involved one way or another with deeper travel because having less than 1 button press a minute is actually not frequent enough for a deep enough system.
Suggesting this is probably more amusing to me than it should be, but this is honestly the first time in a gaming forum I've actually straight up suggested that more complexity is required to achieve the desired depth. Whereas there are tens or hundreds of "games should be complex for complexity's sake" threads out there where I've pointed out that that's the wrong goal and games should strive to be as simple as possible while achieving the desired game depth. And in this case, the complexity is insufficient to achieve that game depth, so more complexity is warranted.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you replace the word travel with exploration it gets much more interesting. ' but eventually' you will have explored everywhere' people say and then what? We still people enjoy travelling in games as part of role play - I often enjoy travelling through old zones in wow for example. Travel on it's own isn't up to much, but in a virtual world it is important to some, it gives context and depth to a world.
And again, I and many DO enjoy travelling, so it is what it is, you can say it is not enjoyed by the majority, but that is all you can say. Sometimes you have to make that empathic leap of faith and just accept there are things others enjoy that you will never enjoy.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Wow so I guess "The Belief in a just world" applys not only to female rape victims, but to MMO's as well! How fun!
So lets see, Themepark MMOs are good because the mainstream wants them. Old School (Sandbox or openworld) MMOs are bad because the mainstream doesnt want them.
THAT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE!! No I get it, if people wanted Old School MMO's we would have them! The only reason we dont have them is because the games they are making now fit the Wants and Needs of of MMO players.
I mean shit, look at the thousands of online posts asking for a game thats a linear, quest driven, class-based game....wait...what do you mean theres no posts like that??? But I thought everyone wanted Linear games?
Well wait, o no, I get it, we already have a bunch of linear-themepark games, thats why no one is posting on forums asking for new ones!
Wait. but what about all those MMO fans posting that say they want a Sandbox game?? So your telling me, all of them are wrong because they arent in favor of the majority? And that somehow determines why a game should be linear or sandbox?
Can no one see the flaw in this logic? What happened to making video games, O I dont know, because THATS YOUR PASSION!?
If people want a reason why the genre is dead its as simple as this,
Corporations make MMO's now, not people with Passion and Dreams. Sorry, hate to be the one to Lump EVERY developer over the past 5 years into a bubble, but its the truth guys.
A dev team should never have to "Format" their game to an audience. Youve heard so many of the same terms in MMO's for the past 5 years and its disgusting, what as Champions Online/STO developer JAck Emmert said "Were going by market trends..."
Sorry but if your MMO's main focus is on Market Trends, theres a reason it will fail. Start making the games you want, and if people like them so be it. But trying to force every game to be a hit, or even to cut even just to save your ass doesnt make youa good Dev or a good MMO fan, it makes you a follower.
The problem isn't just the games. It's the players.
If there's no global chat channels in the game, it's easy to go for over an hour without seeing others chat. Often times players will just ignore anything other than PMs. That makes MMOs a lot harder to enjoy.
And it's the "problems" that older games had that encouraged people to talk.
Waiting for a particular mob to pop? why not talk to the people around you?
Looking for a group? talk to people, maybe you'll find one.
Is crafting a little tedious? why not talk to the crafters around you to make it more enjoyable?
Don't know how something works, and there's no step by step guide? ask someone.
I can enjoy a buggy imbalanced game. I can't enjoy an MMORPG that feels like it's a single player game. That's why it seems like the first month after release is the most fun for me.
The market is huge and may still be expanding. Going into a direction you do not like != dead.
In fact, i think it is becoming MORE ALIVE, solving all the old problems (like camping & finding groups with instances & LFD/LFR), while giving a large part of the games to the players for FREE.
It is getting BETTER.
He means that the concept of the mmorpg is dead. What we have now is equivalent to McDonald's. There's a lot of money out there for facebook quality mmo's which is what is being mass-produced these days. The fact that cash shop games make money does not equivocate those games to a standard of quality which is what I believe the OP was trying to say.
So now we have a lot of fun video games for folks who love instant pvp buttons on their screen, limited to no socialization required for success, and a lot of shiny stuff going on to keep the masses entertained.
Can we please have an mmorpg sometime soon? You know, like with HOUSING, and GM sponsored RP as well as GM sponsored World events. For you folks who think that is silly, please indulge in the plethora of games available now. Smedly and a number of other industry heads are full throttle on the cash shop concept.
But should I blame them? Spend five minutes in any mmorpg and read the community chat and you will think the same thing:
i.e., that the player base is too undereducated or fickle to appreciate a real mmorpg (like one of those old school games from ten years ago with depth and complexity).
Originally posted by Bladestrom If you replace the word travel with exploration it gets much more interesting. ' but eventually' you will have explored everywhere' people say and then what? We still people enjoy travelling in games as part of role play - I often enjoy travelling through old zones in wow for example. Travel on it's own isn't up to much, but in a virtual world it is important to some, it gives context and depth to a world.
And again, I and many DO enjoy travelling, so it is what it is, you can say it is not enjoyed by the majority, but that is all you can say. Sometimes you have to make that empathic leap of faith and just accept there are things others enjoy that you will never enjoy.
Well, it has been said again and again. The first time going from A to B may be fun (seeing new stuff), by the 3rd time is a chore.
There is not enough resource in the world to make looking at scenary different & fun hours after hours.
Now, if you enjoy running the same route again and again, that is totally fine. You should have NOTHING to complain about. You still can do that in almost every MMO. Just don't expect me to do the same and give me the fast travel option.
The market is huge and may still be expanding. Going into a direction you do not like != dead.
In fact, i think it is becoming MORE ALIVE, solving all the old problems (like camping & finding groups with instances & LFD/LFR), while giving a large part of the games to the players for FREE.
It is getting BETTER.
He means that the concept of the mmorpg is dead. What we have now is equivalent to McDonald's. There's a lot of money out there for facebook quality mmo's which is what is being mass-produced these days. The fact that cash shop games make money does not equivocate those games to a standard of quality which is what I believe the OP was trying to say.
So now we have a lot of fun video games for folks who love instant pvp buttons on their screen, limited to no socialization required for success, and a lot of shiny stuff going on to keep the masses entertained.
Can we please have an mmorpg sometime soon? You know, like with HOUSING, and GM sponsored RP as well as GM sponsored World events. For you folks who think that is silly, please indulge in the plethora of games available now. Smedly and a number of other industry heads are full throttle on the cash shop concept.
If we are talking about the old concept .. well .. nothing last forever. And "dead" is just a word. To me, MMOs have changed for the best.
I don't care about housing, and I do indulge in all the games available now. Who says i am not? There are actually very many good games just for 2012 .. Diablo 3, Borderland 2, hopefully Torchlight 2.
And it is up to you to convince the devs there is a market for old MMOs. I vote with my wallet. You can do the same.
Wait. but what about all those MMO fans posting that say they want a Sandbox game?? So your telling me, all of them are wrong because they arent in favor of the majority? And that somehow determines why a game should be linear or sandbox?
Can no one see the flaw in this logic? What happened to making video games, O I dont know, because THATS YOUR PASSION!?
While your whole post is rather silly, these two stick out as the silliest bits.
1. Nobody's saying sandbox-lovers are wrong, only that they're a minority. You know that because you said it too.
2. Why is nobody making games for passion, or for the minority? Perhaps because MMORPGs are the most expensive genre on the market.
I mean a trickle of indie MMORPGs do happen, and do innovate. Stuff like Haven & Hearth and ATITD and Puzzle Pirates. But to enjoy those games you have to accept the fact that large budgets tend to mean light innovation, and that expecting games to have both a massive budget and massive innovation is rather silly. It's just not likely to happen. And since simply being an MMORPG raises the overall cost to make a game, it's already one step away from innovation before things even get started.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Wait. but what about all those MMO fans posting that say they want a Sandbox game?? So your telling me, all of them are wrong because they arent in favor of the majority? And that somehow determines why a game should be linear or sandbox?
Can no one see the flaw in this logic? What happened to making video games, O I dont know, because THATS YOUR PASSION!?
While your whole post is rather silly, these two stick out as the silliest bits.
1. Nobody's saying sandbox-lovers are wrong, only that they're a minority. You know that because you said it too.
2. Why is nobody making games for passion, or for the minority? Perhaps because MMORPGs are the most expensive genre on the market.
I mean a trickle of indie MMORPGs do happen, and do innovate. Stuff like Haven & Hearth and ATITD and Puzzle Pirates. But to enjoy those games you have to accept the fact that large budgets tend to mean light innovation, and that expecting games to have both a massive budget and massive innovation is rather silly. It's just not likely to happen. And since simply being an MMORPG raises the overall cost to make a game, it's already one step away from innovation before things even get started.
Your saying my post is "Silly" yet your telling me that a bigger budget Must lead to LESS innovation???
Think about that again and then come back to me. Your missing the point entirely and continuing to say what just about anyone does on this subject. "ITs the way it is because a companies greed is impassable" Lets just accept that people want mediocre games, lets also go ahead and ALLOW companies with bigger budgets to make shittier games. Yeah THATS NOT SILLY! That makes sense? Because things are this way and will continue to be this way right?
The people on this site make me sick sometimes, seriously see the bigger picture and stop defending the idea that we dont have a right to expect GOOD games from BIG NAME developers. The fact is they are run by corporations and they make the choice, they arent in tune with the player or fanbase, they are just greedy bastards getting more money out of apathetic people like yourself, and yes im getting personal and yes im sure ill get another three day ban, ill get it for being the only person who doesnt just accept that games are about fun (LOOK HOW MUCH WERE HAVING!!) and about the effort, not about the numbers and the suits.
Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis. Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis! Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.
The actual name of this fallacy gem is "No True Scotsman." And yeah, it's a classic.
Alice: Don't like these new MMOs. Bob: Why not? Cool new features, and variety in the market! Alice: They're not true MMOs.
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.
If we were all having so much fun in ezMMO's we would not be on here. I say that to the defenders of modern MMO's, if they are all so great what are you doing on MMORPG.com? Go and play your wonderful games.
The reality is that the short term quick fix an ezMMO gives soon leaves you bored and the real losers here are those who have never known anything better than what we have now.
Oh and there is no such thing as a "true MMO", MMO's just like anything else in the world can change. And they have for the worse, so I call them by a new name, but I don't think old MMO's were 'true'. Overall they were better, but had huge flaws themselves.
If we were all having so much fun in ezMMO's we would not be on here. I say that to the defenders of modern MMO's, if they are all so great what are you doing on MMORPG.com? Go and play your wonderful games.
The reality is that the short term quick fix an ezMMO gives soon leaves you bored and the real losers here are those who have never known anything better than what we have now.
Sold!
Er, wait, what's the ad hominem about? What's the reality behind that, do you suppose?
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.
Your saying my post is "Silly" yet your telling me that a bigger budget Must lead to LESS innovation???
Think about that again and then come back to me. Your missing the point entirely and continuing to say what just about anyone does on this subject. "ITs the way it is because a companies greed is impassable" Lets just accept that people want mediocre games, lets also go ahead and ALLOW companies with bigger budgets to make shittier games. Yeah THATS NOT SILLY! That makes sense? Because things are this way and will continue to be this way right?
The people on this site make me sick sometimes, seriously see the bigger picture and stop defending the idea that we dont have a right to expect GOOD games from BIG NAME developers. The fact is they are run by corporations and they make the choice, they arent in tune with the player or fanbase, they are just greedy bastards getting more money out of apathetic people like yourself, and yes im getting personal and yes im sure ill get another three day ban, ill get it for being the only person who doesnt just accept that games are about fun (LOOK HOW MUCH WERE HAVING!!) and about the effort, not about the numbers and the suits.
Not "must" lead to less innovation. "Tends to" be less innovative.
Just look at the MMORPGs of the last few years. Even though innovation is basically required to succeed in the market (selling the same game is intrinsically worse entertainment) because AAA MMORPGs are so expensive, companies allow risk-aversion to limit innovation.
As for customers "allowing" companies with bigger budgets to make shittier games, no that doesn't make any sense...but not quite in the way you intended. Customers don't "allow" or "disallow" products to get made. Companies just make what they feel is a desired product. Customers aren't the gatekeeper here, they can't prevent a product from happening. They can only vote with their wallets as to whether the product is actually desired.
Yes you absolutely can expect good games from big developers as long as your definition of "good" isn't both (a) a very expensive genre like AAA MMORPGs and (b) something only a niche wants.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
One thing that would be nice to see would be a game that incorporated slightly more realistic travel times, even if they meant dramatically expanding the world with a lot of open space.
As it happens, both the real-life world and that of most excellent fantasy (say: J.R.R. Tolkien) isn't filled to the brim so much with constant doodads and 'little places to discover' as it is with big, wide, open space. One needs only to open Google Earth and do a quick examination of the western United States to see more of what I am talking about -- there's a lot of mountains, rivers, lakes and forests, and while these are peppered through with your occasional abandoned mine or lonely railroad, there is, in fact, a lot of expansive land out there.
Now, I'm not advocating that MMOs should be any stretch of the imagination represent a real world on a 1:1 scale. However, wouldn't it be interesting if a game approached world design, not by attempting to stuff every available nook and cranny with eye candy, but instead seeded the land more naturally? With forests, snowy peaks, long mountain passes, expansive coastal wetlands, etc? As a bonus, all of this land could be used for numerous things, including (but not limited to), town building (and, to keep UO's famous housing congestion in check, the game developer could pre-designate 'settleable' areas, thus elminating the horrendous urban sprawl we saw in places like SWG).
However, for me, the greatest value in expanding the world would be to encourage realistic travel by players. A game-maker could introduce 'caravan' mounts -- where players needing to move goods or simply travel across these expanses could team up together in a wagon train, braving the hostile no-man's land in 3-or-so-hour-long trips. During these forrays, they'd be vulnerable not only to scripted monster attacks, but also to PvP initiated by players -- a sort of 'Native American raiders attack the settlers' kind of scenario, if you will.
I just think that, overall, the genre is really betraying its inherent promise. If stupid games like Farmville have proven anything, it's that there are a lot of players out there who are quite interested in participating in playstyles that others would find boring. IE, that same Farmville addict might just enjoy owning a farm in our theoretical MMO. That farm, as it turns out, is one of the most productive in the kingdom, and needs protecting. In exchange for protection from roving marauders, the farm feeds 1/8th of the total population, plus the army -- there's a reciprocal relationship going on that not only make's the famer's activities important, but also makes the rest of the kingdom reliant on them, and vice versa.
What theme park MMOs fail to do is encourage people to set up these kinds of societies, while simultaneously excluding many of the players who would enjoy more passive pursuits. Yes, all this comes at the expense of glorious 'scripted' moments such as the first time you see Nefarian land in WoW. However, from a personal standpoint, I know that my 'greatest memories' of MMOs all revolve around spontaneity rather than scripts. IE, I can clearly remember defending bases I worked so hard to build in SWG; fighting for Southshore and raiding X-roads in those beautiful, 'fresh' first couple of months of WoW, etc.
Theme park games do everything in their power to rob players of cohesion, unity, social bonding and, yes, spontaneity. They may be MMOs, but I'll be damned if they're very good.
Comments
I've got to agree with eyelolled here. Eve is great at what it does, but it's not the complete Sandbox that so many want. There's no "Avatar on the ground", so to speak. There's no "world" in the sense of boots on the ground either. But it is very good at what it does do, and offers the prime example of a way to create the massive social structure that Sandbox games can offer players. Eve gives meaning and glue to the social sphere of a truly massive player environment.
That doesn't mean you have to have PvP. But you need some way to give that meaning for a cohesion so that players want to do that on large scales. Guilds in games are only the start.
But overall, Sandbox games are suffering from lack of content due to lack of funding. And in a pretty big way.
Once upon a time....
That "engagement" with the entire rest of the game is what's missing. Interaction with the surroundings, with the other players, and with all that happens in the game world.
In today's games, you just aren't a part of anything more than your own character. The rest doesn't matter.
The seeker of wisdom climbs the mountain to it's peak to ask the venerable old sage at the summit a simple but deeply unsettling question. A question that many have asked themselves throughout history.
"Master, what is the meaning of life" he asked.
The old monk raised his aging bald head and looked upon the seeker. His reply would shake him to his core.
"Stop playing Themeparks and you might find out."
Once upon a time....
Maybe it will make the spotlight section on MMOWFT. Shed some light on the subject.
WoW stoped being one with WotLK. RIFT stoped being one with 1.4 patch. SWTOR i dont believe ever was one.
The real question is: are these new MMOs really MMOs?
To me the answer is no. There's absolutely nothing "massively multiplayer" about them other than your standard "large" persistent PvP zone that all games seem to have now (usually just tossed in there as an after thought to quiet down the OWPvP fans).
So in a sense, yes massively multiplayer online role playing games are dead due to all the abusive instancing, sharding and other counter nature segregations.
Planetside 2, now THAT is an MMORPG. Large seamless persistent world with thousands of players in the same playing field.
edit: minus 10 internetz for not reading the posts just before mine...
Theamparks arent even Theamparks anymore. Dont even have to go to the park to ride the rides. They just strap you into a VR helm and whoosh. Off you go to the next VR ride.
And to say that sandboxs are doin well isent right. to menton AA and repop is to say the market itself is crying out for these sandboxs today because the market is saturated with these watered down Miller 64 verions of MMOs.
Thats why your seeing an influx of sanboxes being made. Not because the sandbox market is doin well. It because the genre as a whole is falling apart and needs to get back to its roots.
"EVE's virtual world is primarily considered interesting because of the large scale mechanics that it generates and the freedom it gives, specifically in terms of player~agent interactions. Not because it is supremely interesting to constantly interact with as a world space in and off itself."
I think we can agree I'm aware of this, given that EVE is one of the strongest examples of the exact type of shallow travel I'm criticizing. The state of travel in EVE is in part the basis of my critique on dull travel.
"You have to be somewhat careful with the term "interesting" as some people find one thing interesting, whilst others may find it quite boring. The same goes for the term "shallow". For me you make the world more engaging, increase the interaction between the player, the game world and the agents within the game world. EVE has the model for the agent part, it has less engagment on the direct player to world part (which is primarily down to the scope/ship avatar model in fairness)."
I hope we can also agree that EVE's travel can't really be considered "interesting" by any stretch, given that 99% of the time nothing eventful happens and you've only spent 5-15 minutes watching your ship jump.
The 1% of the time may be really interesting -- possibly even interesting enough for some to stick through potentially hours of uninteresting travel to experience, and still consider it worth it -- but travel itself definitely isn't.
"That direct engagement can indeed be improved upon in other games (as already demonstrated), whilst at the same time keeping the vital open, player agent interlinked systems and meta games in place."
Right, which is what I've been arguing in favor of the whole time. Deep+Deep is better than Deep+Shallow. (At least when it comes to mandatory game mechanics. With optional ones, shallow/zen activities can be fine.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You cited EVE's world as one which is considered interesting by some and then used this on order to make the case that therefore making a game world interesting does not make the travel interesting due to the fact quite a bit of EVE's travel is not that interesting on a direct basis. I merely pointed out the flaw in that reasoning by demonstrating that the EVE game world is engaging on a meta level and not massively on a direct level. So increasing engagement in that element would increase "interest".
The point I was making was that it would be far, far better to actually debate on purely the mechanical level and the ability to interact and engage with mechanics. As opposed to using such highly subjective terms like "interest" and "fun". But yes, as I have mentioned before, travel can be vastly improved via direct engagement with the game world (not just it's agents).
Which is clealy what I have been advocating, I feel the debate has arisen due to conflicting methods of adding that depth. I have strongly advocated generating it via interacting with the game world without needing to ram in extra buttons, skills, minigames etc. If you are not actually against that (which you seemed to be originally), then fair enough, there is nothing to debate really.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I regularly see 60+ player rift events in Rift. Every day.
You don't call Modern Warfare 2 an RPG just because it has RPG elements, do you? So then why would you call Planetside 2 a MMORPG when it's a MMOFPS?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
ARPG means combat + progression these days.
Who ares about definitions? This site talks about D3, WOW, SD Gundam, and many online games that some may not think they are MMOs .. so refer to them by their title.
And you are also wrong. A world-wide AH is "massively multiplayer". No one says "massive" only refers to what you see on screen. In that regard, D3 is more massive than most MMOs, and definitely more massive than Eve and all the sandbox games added together. Let me ask you this .. how many people can you trade with in Eve .. at most 350k. How many i can trade with in D3 AH ... MILLIONS.
And i really don't care what you think are MMOs, or not. I will use the most common label on them .. hence MMOs, or by their title.
Well EVE's travel isn't interesting despite its world being considered interesting, which is why an interesting world doesn't automatically make travel interesting.
As for "interesting" and "fun", perhaps we should turn to the objective measure of meaningful decisions per minute, and point out that a typical game involves many decisions/min when played normally but travel in these games usually involves about 1/min.
Well you weren't always advocating it -- for a while you were fixated on my calling it a "minigame" (which your suggested travel improvements still are, even though we're pretending they're not,) and took a steadfast stance against improving the depth of travel.
And for what it's worth "extra button" presses are going to be involved one way or another with deeper travel because having less than 1 button press a minute is actually not frequent enough for a deep enough system.
Suggesting this is probably more amusing to me than it should be, but this is honestly the first time in a gaming forum I've actually straight up suggested that more complexity is required to achieve the desired depth. Whereas there are tens or hundreds of "games should be complex for complexity's sake" threads out there where I've pointed out that that's the wrong goal and games should strive to be as simple as possible while achieving the desired game depth. And in this case, the complexity is insufficient to achieve that game depth, so more complexity is warranted.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And again, I and many DO enjoy travelling, so it is what it is, you can say it is not enjoyed by the majority, but that is all you can say. Sometimes you have to make that empathic leap of faith and just accept there are things others enjoy that you will never enjoy.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Wow so I guess "The Belief in a just world" applys not only to female rape victims, but to MMO's as well! How fun!
So lets see, Themepark MMOs are good because the mainstream wants them. Old School (Sandbox or openworld) MMOs are bad because the mainstream doesnt want them.
THAT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE!! No I get it, if people wanted Old School MMO's we would have them! The only reason we dont have them is because the games they are making now fit the Wants and Needs of of MMO players.
I mean shit, look at the thousands of online posts asking for a game thats a linear, quest driven, class-based game....wait...what do you mean theres no posts like that??? But I thought everyone wanted Linear games?
Well wait, o no, I get it, we already have a bunch of linear-themepark games, thats why no one is posting on forums asking for new ones!
Wait. but what about all those MMO fans posting that say they want a Sandbox game?? So your telling me, all of them are wrong because they arent in favor of the majority? And that somehow determines why a game should be linear or sandbox?
Can no one see the flaw in this logic? What happened to making video games, O I dont know, because THATS YOUR PASSION!?
If people want a reason why the genre is dead its as simple as this,
Corporations make MMO's now, not people with Passion and Dreams. Sorry, hate to be the one to Lump EVERY developer over the past 5 years into a bubble, but its the truth guys.
A dev team should never have to "Format" their game to an audience. Youve heard so many of the same terms in MMO's for the past 5 years and its disgusting, what as Champions Online/STO developer JAck Emmert said "Were going by market trends..."
Sorry but if your MMO's main focus is on Market Trends, theres a reason it will fail. Start making the games you want, and if people like them so be it. But trying to force every game to be a hit, or even to cut even just to save your ass doesnt make youa good Dev or a good MMO fan, it makes you a follower.
The problem isn't just the games. It's the players.
If there's no global chat channels in the game, it's easy to go for over an hour without seeing others chat. Often times players will just ignore anything other than PMs. That makes MMOs a lot harder to enjoy.
And it's the "problems" that older games had that encouraged people to talk.
Waiting for a particular mob to pop? why not talk to the people around you?
Looking for a group? talk to people, maybe you'll find one.
Is crafting a little tedious? why not talk to the crafters around you to make it more enjoyable?
Don't know how something works, and there's no step by step guide? ask someone.
I can enjoy a buggy imbalanced game. I can't enjoy an MMORPG that feels like it's a single player game. That's why it seems like the first month after release is the most fun for me.
He means that the concept of the mmorpg is dead. What we have now is equivalent to McDonald's. There's a lot of money out there for facebook quality mmo's which is what is being mass-produced these days. The fact that cash shop games make money does not equivocate those games to a standard of quality which is what I believe the OP was trying to say.
So now we have a lot of fun video games for folks who love instant pvp buttons on their screen, limited to no socialization required for success, and a lot of shiny stuff going on to keep the masses entertained.
Can we please have an mmorpg sometime soon? You know, like with HOUSING, and GM sponsored RP as well as GM sponsored World events. For you folks who think that is silly, please indulge in the plethora of games available now. Smedly and a number of other industry heads are full throttle on the cash shop concept.
But should I blame them? Spend five minutes in any mmorpg and read the community chat and you will think the same thing:
i.e., that the player base is too undereducated or fickle to appreciate a real mmorpg (like one of those old school games from ten years ago with depth and complexity).
Well, it has been said again and again. The first time going from A to B may be fun (seeing new stuff), by the 3rd time is a chore.
There is not enough resource in the world to make looking at scenary different & fun hours after hours.
Now, if you enjoy running the same route again and again, that is totally fine. You should have NOTHING to complain about. You still can do that in almost every MMO. Just don't expect me to do the same and give me the fast travel option.
If we are talking about the old concept .. well .. nothing last forever. And "dead" is just a word. To me, MMOs have changed for the best.
I don't care about housing, and I do indulge in all the games available now. Who says i am not? There are actually very many good games just for 2012 .. Diablo 3, Borderland 2, hopefully Torchlight 2.
And it is up to you to convince the devs there is a market for old MMOs. I vote with my wallet. You can do the same.
While your whole post is rather silly, these two stick out as the silliest bits.
1. Nobody's saying sandbox-lovers are wrong, only that they're a minority. You know that because you said it too.
2. Why is nobody making games for passion, or for the minority? Perhaps because MMORPGs are the most expensive genre on the market.
I mean a trickle of indie MMORPGs do happen, and do innovate. Stuff like Haven & Hearth and ATITD and Puzzle Pirates. But to enjoy those games you have to accept the fact that large budgets tend to mean light innovation, and that expecting games to have both a massive budget and massive innovation is rather silly. It's just not likely to happen. And since simply being an MMORPG raises the overall cost to make a game, it's already one step away from innovation before things even get started.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your saying my post is "Silly" yet your telling me that a bigger budget Must lead to LESS innovation???
Think about that again and then come back to me. Your missing the point entirely and continuing to say what just about anyone does on this subject. "ITs the way it is because a companies greed is impassable" Lets just accept that people want mediocre games, lets also go ahead and ALLOW companies with bigger budgets to make shittier games. Yeah THATS NOT SILLY! That makes sense? Because things are this way and will continue to be this way right?
The people on this site make me sick sometimes, seriously see the bigger picture and stop defending the idea that we dont have a right to expect GOOD games from BIG NAME developers. The fact is they are run by corporations and they make the choice, they arent in tune with the player or fanbase, they are just greedy bastards getting more money out of apathetic people like yourself, and yes im getting personal and yes im sure ill get another three day ban, ill get it for being the only person who doesnt just accept that games are about fun (LOOK HOW MUCH WERE HAVING!!) and about the effort, not about the numbers and the suits.
Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.
The actual name of this fallacy gem is "No True Scotsman." And yeah, it's a classic.
Alice: Don't like these new MMOs.
Bob: Why not? Cool new features, and variety in the market!
Alice: They're not true MMOs.
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.
If we were all having so much fun in ezMMO's we would not be on here. I say that to the defenders of modern MMO's, if they are all so great what are you doing on MMORPG.com? Go and play your wonderful games.
The reality is that the short term quick fix an ezMMO gives soon leaves you bored and the real losers here are those who have never known anything better than what we have now.
Oh and there is no such thing as a "true MMO", MMO's just like anything else in the world can change. And they have for the worse, so I call them by a new name, but I don't think old MMO's were 'true'. Overall they were better, but had huge flaws themselves.
Sold!
Er, wait, what's the ad hominem about? What's the reality behind that, do you suppose?
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.
Not "must" lead to less innovation. "Tends to" be less innovative.
Just look at the MMORPGs of the last few years. Even though innovation is basically required to succeed in the market (selling the same game is intrinsically worse entertainment) because AAA MMORPGs are so expensive, companies allow risk-aversion to limit innovation.
As for customers "allowing" companies with bigger budgets to make shittier games, no that doesn't make any sense...but not quite in the way you intended. Customers don't "allow" or "disallow" products to get made. Companies just make what they feel is a desired product. Customers aren't the gatekeeper here, they can't prevent a product from happening. They can only vote with their wallets as to whether the product is actually desired.
Yes you absolutely can expect good games from big developers as long as your definition of "good" isn't both (a) a very expensive genre like AAA MMORPGs and (b) something only a niche wants.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
One thing that would be nice to see would be a game that incorporated slightly more realistic travel times, even if they meant dramatically expanding the world with a lot of open space.
As it happens, both the real-life world and that of most excellent fantasy (say: J.R.R. Tolkien) isn't filled to the brim so much with constant doodads and 'little places to discover' as it is with big, wide, open space. One needs only to open Google Earth and do a quick examination of the western United States to see more of what I am talking about -- there's a lot of mountains, rivers, lakes and forests, and while these are peppered through with your occasional abandoned mine or lonely railroad, there is, in fact, a lot of expansive land out there.
Now, I'm not advocating that MMOs should be any stretch of the imagination represent a real world on a 1:1 scale. However, wouldn't it be interesting if a game approached world design, not by attempting to stuff every available nook and cranny with eye candy, but instead seeded the land more naturally? With forests, snowy peaks, long mountain passes, expansive coastal wetlands, etc? As a bonus, all of this land could be used for numerous things, including (but not limited to), town building (and, to keep UO's famous housing congestion in check, the game developer could pre-designate 'settleable' areas, thus elminating the horrendous urban sprawl we saw in places like SWG).
However, for me, the greatest value in expanding the world would be to encourage realistic travel by players. A game-maker could introduce 'caravan' mounts -- where players needing to move goods or simply travel across these expanses could team up together in a wagon train, braving the hostile no-man's land in 3-or-so-hour-long trips. During these forrays, they'd be vulnerable not only to scripted monster attacks, but also to PvP initiated by players -- a sort of 'Native American raiders attack the settlers' kind of scenario, if you will.
I just think that, overall, the genre is really betraying its inherent promise. If stupid games like Farmville have proven anything, it's that there are a lot of players out there who are quite interested in participating in playstyles that others would find boring. IE, that same Farmville addict might just enjoy owning a farm in our theoretical MMO. That farm, as it turns out, is one of the most productive in the kingdom, and needs protecting. In exchange for protection from roving marauders, the farm feeds 1/8th of the total population, plus the army -- there's a reciprocal relationship going on that not only make's the famer's activities important, but also makes the rest of the kingdom reliant on them, and vice versa.
What theme park MMOs fail to do is encourage people to set up these kinds of societies, while simultaneously excluding many of the players who would enjoy more passive pursuits. Yes, all this comes at the expense of glorious 'scripted' moments such as the first time you see Nefarian land in WoW. However, from a personal standpoint, I know that my 'greatest memories' of MMOs all revolve around spontaneity rather than scripts. IE, I can clearly remember defending bases I worked so hard to build in SWG; fighting for Southshore and raiding X-roads in those beautiful, 'fresh' first couple of months of WoW, etc.
Theme park games do everything in their power to rob players of cohesion, unity, social bonding and, yes, spontaneity. They may be MMOs, but I'll be damned if they're very good.