People that want a well made, themepark, guided content, relatively time efficient game can have that. Such games tend to have less depth than older MMOs, but have nice graphics, a slick interface and very easy to do quests and game play. I could name half a dozen major titles released in the last six years to meet those criteria. And really, there is nothing wrong with that per se.
But what if you don't want that?
What if you want a deeper experience? Better, meaningful crafting? Compelling non-combat play? Social tools?
Then you get nothing (if you are not an EvE fan, at least).
If the market is so big, and expanding, why are there not not well made titles for people that do not want the "industry standard" MMO experience?
That is the problem.
That is why many gamers that enjoy deeper game play often complain about the shallow crap that keeps getting put out over and over.
Because there is no alternative. (That is not an underfunded, indie POS.)
Yes, but what gets me is when you ask for something deeper or to mix the two genres together you get flamed, baited, called an old bitter burnout. Seems like they dont want the change because it might take off and destroy their gamestyle? I dont see why having 2 different style games growing and pleasing multiple groups as a bad thing. If they have their gamestyle the like, why cant the other half get something they like also? Kind of self centered if you ask me. Because honestly the industry isnt doing so hot right now. Out of the 300+ mmorpg's released this psat 7 or so years how many actualy have been a success and havent gone f2p, sold their company, gone bankrupt, oe just ended their game? 4? 5?
Most of us burnt out bitter old people want more added to our games. Where as the newer generation seem to want less. Makes no sense to me.
"Depth" is just another buzzword in a long line of buzzwords on these forums. It has no specific meaning and it used to reference something that the poster likes in one game and doesn't like in another.
I played those old games. They have no more "depth" or "meaning" than new games.
edit- almost no one, from any generation, want less in their video game. Anyone saying so has no idea what they are talking about. However they disagree as to what constitutes better.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
"Depth" is just another buzzword in a long line of buzzwords on these forums. It has specific meaning and it used to reference something that the poster likes in one game and doesn't like in another.
I played those old games. They have no more "depth" or "meaning" than new games.
edit- almost no one, from any generation, want less in their video game. Anyone saying so has no idea what they are talking about. However they disagree as to what constitutes better.
Perhaps, but not always true in every sense.
Crafting in SWG had depth, complex to some. Crafting in TSW is nil. And i like both games.
Space flight in EVE has depth, but space flight in SWTOR is shallow. And i dont play either.
Game play can have depth as well. Immersion has depth in some game, and nonexistant in others. Exploration of Tatooine in SWG had depth, i could spend all day looking around and hunting for Krayts. While in SWTOR, it lasted a few hours and no replay value.
"Story" is another one of those buzz words that has little meaning. Its about worthless in a mmorpg. Once your story dries up in a few weeks you are left with nothing. Run dailies, warzones, and raids just so you can be content and get the best gear. This is more fun than a game with tools to allow you to adventure and make your own story?
Why do game developers listen to these punks who want everything served on a golden platter with little effort needed and in the same time these people will leave after the first month anyway to scourge the forums for the next big hit.
Since when did the lazy carrot on a stick kids and I got a job,a wife and 2 children gamers have more power than the average gamer?
I'm not that good with numbers but boxsales versus develop time don't always equal profit.
Profit with boxsales AND keep them subs for months are the real profit in both long term and short term.
Do studios enjoy losing money?, They must, due to how the games been doing for the past 7 years except GW2.
It's a really weird cycle that has evolved, and it looks like It won't stop anytime soon.
Hate to break it to you OP but the "average gamer" does have a job, and at least some form social responsibility ie family, girlfriend etc.
Sure there are gamers with no jobs, and no families or relationships but as they have no jobs they tend not to have much money to spend on games thus not exactly the target audiance of most game developers. The average gamer fortunately is not the anti-social nerd on welfare living in his parents basement. To be fair neither is it the ultra rich elite that can afford to do nothing but play games and ingore people as they know they will always be there when they need them as they have the money.
Kinda funny how eveyone in the world believe they are the majority when they have a opinion.
I'm a some-what of a casual gamer. I would prefer the older more difficult games
despite my times available to play. This never stopped people from playing games
before. Have many friends married and have full time jobs and children, yet they
played games like ff11 eq ultima online etc. To say that they are catering to the
casual crowd is kind of a insult, as a casual myself never wanted it to get easier.
Hell if not, harder.
I want to play a game for years, Not weeks.
O
Destiny has cheated me By forcing me to decide upon The woman that I idolise Or the hands of an automaton
Without these hands I can't complete The opera that was captivating her But if I keep them, and she marries him Then he probably won't want me dating her
You can't speak on behalf of gamers. You can only speak on behalf of yourself.
When more than a few people are wanting the same thing, experienced the same thing, and have the same opinions then yes you can speak on the behalf of the group. To obmit everyone from the group because you can only speak on behalf of yourself would kind of destroy basic communication Its why we have adverbs, pronouns, nouns, etc.. Just as someone can use me in their topic using the "us, we. our" pronouns when our common goals are the same. Standard use of the english language.
And since many here and myself have the same opinions and ideas then it is more than standard. Even people that dont agree or have smae logic you arent going to label them individualy, you normaly say them, ya'll, those, etc...
Just as if i was speaking to someone outside of the mmorpg community i would say we talk and discuss many things on the forums. I wouldnt say ezpz77, 50 other peoples names, and myself talk and discuss many things on the forums.
But you have no problem speaking on behalf of gamers when you call everyone burnt out bitter old people, but i cant? Atleast my words are standard english and not attacks on people that you dont agree with.
Sorry but your wrong even you admit you don't use the term "we" properly so how that be standard english? You set yourself up as all knowing at the grandios age of 38? Haha kid come back when your a bit older and a bit over your own self importance. You've seen somethingsnot everything, you know somethingsnot everthing, and you have a opinion which is red by some people, not in anyway proven a majority.
Is his statement about bitter old vets in end any worse then the OP's Placing the blame on todays games on people who OMG have jobs and families?
I remember when EQ started down that slippery slope of "Monty Hall" loot... It was unique to have a piece of magic gear on your toon, and often many of us tried to camp a location for our chance to get lucky in the drop.. Some of us loved that challenge, while others bitched and moan because they didn't get their shiny.. The MMO genre today is all about the shinies.. Why is that? Because the devs are targeting the human flaw of need and greed.. Gimmee Shiny!!!!..
I remember back in the day of playing AD&D and early EQ.. Character progression was all about levels and social gathering.. NOT about gear checks and shinies.. But all hope is lost.. What used to be the traditional RPG genre has been infested by locust that devour shinies like no tomorrow..
I remember when EQ started down that slippery slope of "Monty Hall" loot... It was unique to have a piece of magic gear on your toon, and often many of us tried to camp a location for our chance to get lucky in the drop.. Some of us loved that challenge, while others bitched and moan because they didn't get their shiny.. The MMO genre today is all about the shinies.. Why is that? Because the devs are targeting the human flaw of need and greed.. Gimmee Shiny!!!!..
I remember back in the day of playing AD&D and early EQ.. Character progression was all about levels and social gathering.. NOT about gear checks and shinies.. But all hope is lost.. What used to be the traditional RPG genre has been infested by locust that devour shinies like no tomorrow..
This sounds like Hypwrbole to me. All is not lost if so then games like Pathfinders kickstarter would not have made their funding.
There are casual players, and hardcore players and both can live together, its just each side tends to believe their playstyle is the only one. Yes currently it seems most Big name developers seek the ultra easy casual base but this is two fold, one is because there is a casual player base and 2 because its so much simpler (and thus cheaper) to program and balance a ultra easy casual game. Make it casual, reduce or take out all but one race, remove stats, decrease or limite classes.. see how much easier and less time consuming that makes things to program and balance?
In the end the real entitlement players are the ones that just come to these forums to birch and do nothing about the problem they are bitching about. They expect the big name developers in suites to cater to their sometimes niche playstayle while refusing to support indie titles that are sandboxes or are more complex because they don't have cutting edge graphics, or great sound tracks as well etc etc. They are the ones that will bitch and moan about how risky and unreliable kickstarting a game that has all the features they want is. In the end they are the real golden platter ones as they expect their game their way without any risk and with all the fluff and graphics of the games that spend almost their entire budget just on graphics and use what littles left to make a casual easy game.
You can't speak on behalf of gamers. You can only speak on behalf of yourself.
When more than a few people are wanting the same thing, experienced the same thing, and have the same opinions then yes you can speak on the behalf of the group. To obmit everyone from the group because you can only speak on behalf of yourself would kind of destroy basic communication Its why we have adverbs, pronouns, nouns, etc.. Just as someone can use me in their topic using the "us, we. our" pronouns when our common goals are the same. Standard use of the english language.
And since many here and myself have the same opinions and ideas then it is more than standard. Even people that dont agree or have smae logic you arent going to label them individualy, you normaly say them, ya'll, those, etc...
Just as if i was speaking to someone outside of the mmorpg community i would say we talk and discuss many things on the forums. I wouldnt say ezpz77, 50 other peoples names, and myself talk and discuss many things on the forums.
But you have no problem speaking on behalf of gamers when you call everyone burnt out bitter old people, but i cant? Atleast my words are standard english and not attacks on people that you dont agree with.
Sorry but your wrong even you admit you don't use the term "we" properly so how that be standard english? You set yourself up as all knowing at the grandios age of 38? Haha kid come back when your a bit older and a bit over your own self importance. You've seen somethingsnot everything, you know somethingsnot everthing, and you have a opinion which is red by some people, not in anyway proven a majority.
Is his statement about bitter old vets in end any worse then the OP's Placing the blame on todays games on people who OMG have jobs and families?
Hmm one of those people. Kid? Seriously? And you are the majority? Ah yes a bit older. Funny. Most unintellegent thing considering you dont know me personaly.
Do you realy think i was serious, that was more of a wise crack. Again another person who reads to far into things.
You are no majority, so how can you speak for the rest and tell me my opinions are a minority? Just a stupid ramble with no meaning.
Calling someone a kid is kind of childish. 8 years older than me, and act no more mature than a high school student. Ive probably done more in half my life than you have your entire life. Dont make personal attacks just because you are too uneducated to distinguish between joking and seriousness. And never judge someone you dont know, its just makes you look bad.
Its funny ther are 30 people in here agreeing and having the same opinions in a way, only 3 of you arent, yet we are the minority. Think my math is off.
Why do game developers listen to these punks who want everything served on a golden platter with little effort needed and in the same time these people will leave after the first month anyway to scourge the forums for the next big hit.
Since when did the lazy carrot on a stick kids and I got a job,a wife and 2 children gamers have more power than the average gamer?
I'm not that good with numbers but boxsales versus develop time don't always equal profit.
Profit with boxsales AND keep them subs for months are the real profit in both long term and short term.
Do studios enjoy losing money?, They must, due to how the games been doing for the past 7 years except GW2.
It's a really weird cycle that has evolved, and it looks like It won't stop anytime soon.
Well i guess you answered your own question there. That is exactly what GW2 is and that is why it sold million of boxes. Fast food MMO for casuals. Oh by the way i am casual too but that doesn't mean i don't enjoy something with more substance and depth.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
My personal thoughts to most of the previous comments except the OP:
Going by the idea that there are two sides, as opposed to a wide spectrum of gamers, the reason from my point of view is that both sides see each other as the enemy. Both sides COULD play side by side without too much of a fuss, but they are generally so suspicious and condescending towards one another that even the slightest spark turns into all out war, with everyone else in between getting caught in the crossfire. And in the end, this leads to nothing productive, and the whole thing resets back to square one until the next spark goes off.
On a spectrum? Each individual is full of themselves to a degree and refuses to compromise their ideal version of gaming, thus they claw at each others' throats, and leading to a lot of conflict with no real results.
"Depth" is just another buzzword in a long line of buzzwords on these forums. It has no specific meaning and it used to reference something that the poster likes in one game and doesn't like in another.
I played those old games. They have no more "depth" or "meaning" than new games.
edit- almost no one, from any generation, want less in their video game. Anyone saying so has no idea what they are talking about. However they disagree as to what constitutes better.
A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries.
--Sirlin, January 2002
Depth is not a buzzword. Only many posters who talk about depth don't know what it is. For example, often they confuse it with complexity. But otherwise I agree with you.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Crafting in SWG had depth, complex to some. Crafting in TSW is nil. And i like both games.
Space flight in EVE has depth, but space flight in SWTOR is shallow. And i dont play either.
Game play can have depth as well. Immersion has depth in some game, and nonexistant in others. Exploration of Tatooine in SWG had depth, i could spend all day looking around and hunting for Krayts. While in SWTOR, it lasted a few hours and no replay value.
"Story" is another one of those buzz words that has little meaning. Its about worthless in a mmorpg. Once your story dries up in a few weeks you are left with nothing. Run dailies, warzones, and raids just so you can be content and get the best gear. This is more fun than a game with tools to allow you to adventure and make your own story?
Haven't played SWG and had only a brief visit in TSW so I can't really comment on those. However, I have played Eve for a couple of years, and I'd love to show to you how Eve's combat is actually quite shallow. As an FC, it is mostly about avoiding checkmate situations (=tactical dead ends, if you will) and what usually brings you an advantage is a mistake by the other side. Other than that hitting the enemy is virtually diceroll combat and movement is awkwardly indirect. There are many space combat sims that have better and deeper combat than Eve has.
Again, depth is something that can almost be measured. For example, you can count the amount of "first tier" characters in a fighting game. In Eve you can count the number of "first tier ships" or "first tier fleet doctrines"(*). Although sometimes determining what is first tier can be somewhat subjective. Comparing those numbers is tricky, but one thing is for sure: you want that number to be as high as possible.
So depth in gameplay is the amount of good choices you can make in a game. It is a percentage of choices among all the choices in the game. It is impossible to make a complex game with all its options equally viable. That doesn't mean its not worth pursuing though. Improving balance increases the amount of good choices you can make.
(*) That is why CCP is removing tiers from, for instance, Battlecruisers: To bring more depth, more potential first tier ships, into the game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
"Depth" is just another buzzword in a long line of buzzwords on these forums. It has no specific meaning and it used to reference something that the poster likes in one game and doesn't like in another.
I played those old games. They have no more "depth" or "meaning" than new games.
edit- almost no one, from any generation, want less in their video game. Anyone saying so has no idea what they are talking about. However they disagree as to what constitutes better.
A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries.
--Sirlin, January 2002
Depth is not a buzzword. Only many posters who talk about depth don't know what it is. For example, often they confuse it with complexity. But otherwise I agree with you.
that explenation is wrong to a degree tbh.
The reason why ye Old MMO's are called to have so much depth is not because of the game itself. (they are infact really shallow if u look at our curent day mechanics)
1. It is the massive world wich felt as a world in wich u just had to return and continue your grand adventure.
2. Community, those games had a strong community because nothing would be acomplished alone. This created a very strong social platform wich like real life (there are real people playing those games) you created your own obligations.
All these new MMO's are so anti-social so driven to give intstant fun and rewards. And yeah we see where those are going right? our Latest fall is TERA like all the others before it not being able to retain enough players reverting to F2P.
"Depth" is just another buzzword in a long line of buzzwords on these forums. It has no specific meaning and it used to reference something that the poster likes in one game and doesn't like in another.
I played those old games. They have no more "depth" or "meaning" than new games.
edit- almost no one, from any generation, want less in their video game. Anyone saying so has no idea what they are talking about. However they disagree as to what constitutes better.
A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries.
--Sirlin, January 2002
Depth is not a buzzword. Only many posters who talk about depth don't know what it is. For example, often they confuse it with complexity. But otherwise I agree with you.
that explenation is wrong to a degree tbh.
The reason why ye Old MMO's are called to have so much depth is not because of the game itself. (they are infact really shallow if u look at our curent day mechanics)
1. It is the massive world wich felt as a world in wich u just had to return and continue your grand adventure.
2. Community, those games had a strong community because nothing would be acomplished alone. This created a very strong social platform wich like real life (there are real people playing those games) you created your own obligations.
All these new MMO's are so anti-social so driven to give intstant fun and rewards. And yeah we see where those are going right? our Latest fall is TERA like all the others before it not being able to retain enough players reverting to F2P.
I'd say the word you're looking for is perhaps "immersive" then - not depth.
And modern MMOs are not anti-social. Never we have had so many measures against griefing, never has finding a group been as easy as it is now... Instant fun is good. It gives a solid hook to the game. And rewards are aimed to make the game addictive.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Why do game developers listen to these punks who want everything served on a golden platter with little effort needed and in the same time these people will leave after the first month anyway to scourge the forums for the next big hit.
Since when did the lazy carrot on a stick kids and I got a job,a wife and 2 children gamers have more power than the average gamer?
I'm not that good with numbers but boxsales versus develop time don't always equal profit.
Profit with boxsales AND keep them subs for months are the real profit in both long term and short term.
Do studios enjoy losing money?, They must, due to how the games been doing for the past 7 years except GW2.
It's a really weird cycle that has evolved, and it looks like It won't stop anytime soon.
Your right on the money... but nost of the time they more then make their money back. and what people end up staying and buying stuff are the fuel that funds other big name titles for the industry. Basically our favorite hobby is nothing more then fundraising. =/
"Depth" is just another buzzword in a long line of buzzwords on these forums. It has no specific meaning and it used to reference something that the poster likes in one game and doesn't like in another.
I played those old games. They have no more "depth" or "meaning" than new games.
edit- almost no one, from any generation, want less in their video game. Anyone saying so has no idea what they are talking about. However they disagree as to what constitutes better.
A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries.
--Sirlin, January 2002
Depth is not a buzzword. Only many posters who talk about depth don't know what it is. For example, often they confuse it with complexity. But otherwise I agree with you.
that explenation is wrong to a degree tbh.
The reason why ye Old MMO's are called to have so much depth is not because of the game itself. (they are infact really shallow if u look at our curent day mechanics)
1. It is the massive world wich felt as a world in wich u just had to return and continue your grand adventure.
2. Community, those games had a strong community because nothing would be acomplished alone. This created a very strong social platform wich like real life (there are real people playing those games) you created your own obligations.
All these new MMO's are so anti-social so driven to give intstant fun and rewards. And yeah we see where those are going right? our Latest fall is TERA like all the others before it not being able to retain enough players reverting to F2P.
I'd say the word you're looking for is perhaps "immersive" then - not depth.
And modern MMOs are not anti-social. Never we have had so many measures against griefing, never has finding a group been as easy as it is now... Instant fun is good. It gives a solid hook to the game. And rewards are aimed to make the game addictive.
i agree what im talking about is immersion. i dont agree with the latter tho.
yes we have measure against ggriefing that is good. i dont like griefing.
a group is very easy to get yes also good. But here comes the bad part. what do you do in said group? Let me take WoW for example i have picked up the game again because basicly evrything else fails and i can atleast play with my friends in a stable game. so yeah i group with my friends and play the game with them but those social interactions if not playing the game would be made outside in a diffrent matter so im not talking about that.
I Want to talk about randoms. What do i do in a group with random people. i join a que for a dungeon from within a city. I am a tank so its instantque for me. so i get into this dungeon with 4 other random people (mostly clueless about how to play but thats a diffrent story) the only thing i do with those people is kill a couple mobs in about 20 mins the dungeon is cleared we have not said a word the entire time and when the dungeon is finished evryone just ports out and quees for a new one.
How can this be seen as Social? I could have been running the same thing with a bunch of NPC's wich actually would make my life easyer. This is not social this is anti-social, social = interactions with other players. What i explained above is interactions besides other playersapart from the healer keeping my alive there was 0 interactions in a group.
I also joined LookinForRaid yesterday so you get dropped in with 24 other players and do a raid. they are so simplistic tho my grandma could do it. i was reading up on tactics because i diddnt raid in awhile andi asked the other tank what i had to do. after abit i got an awnser a very short awnser, no need just zerg. So we trhew all tactics overboard and zerged. again in that raid wich lasted an hour. Nobody says a word apart from random bullshit wich nobody wants to hear.
There is no social no community no nothing. People come there to get their gear and be done with it. they dont even like doing it. that is whats wrong with current MMo´s and all these new MMO´s wich their so called diffrences compared to WoW are more of the same with all sort of mechanics wich makes grouping obsolete and destroys the Genre.
I don't think that is it. grouping isn't what is destroying MMOs it is these companies that refuse to make games exciting. Really what this genre needs a solid game that builds upon the foundations of MMOs as we know them and raise the bar making them more exciting.
yes we have measure against ggriefing that is good. i dont like griefing.
a group is very easy to get yes also good. But here comes the bad part. what do you do in said group? Let me take WoW for example i have picked up the game again because basicly evrything else fails and i can atleast play with my friends in a stable game. so yeah i group with my friends and play the game with them but those social interactions if not playing the game would be made outside in a diffrent matter so im not talking about that.
I Want to talk about randoms. What do i do in a group with random people. i join a que for a dungeon from within a city. I am a tank so its instantque for me. so i get into this dungeon with 4 other random people (mostly clueless about how to play but thats a diffrent story) the only thing i do with those people is kill a couple mobs in about 20 mins the dungeon is cleared we have not said a word the entire time and when the dungeon is finished evryone just ports out and quees for a new one.
How can this be seen as Social? I could have been running the same thing with a bunch of NPC's wich actually would make my life easyer. This is not social this is anti-social, social = interactions with other players. What i explained above is interactions besides other playersapart from the healer keeping my alive there was 0 interactions in a group.
I also joined LookinForRaid yesterday so you get dropped in with 24 other players and do a raid. they are so simplistic tho my grandma could do it. i was reading up on tactics because i diddnt raid in awhile andi asked the other tank what i had to do. after abit i got an awnser a very short awnser, no need just zerg. So we trhew all tactics overboard and zerged. again in that raid wich lasted an hour. Nobody says a word apart from random bullshit wich nobody wants to hear.
There is no social no community no nothing. People come there to get their gear and be done with it. they dont even like doing it. that is whats wrong with current MMo´s and all these new MMO´s wich their so called diffrences compared to WoW are more of the same with all sort of mechanics wich makes grouping obsolete and destroys the Genre.
Well, the combat is formulaic (fault of the trinity), perhaps the content is predicable and easy. All bad things imo.
A friend of mine didn't like GW1 because the combat was too unpredicable, too hard, because it doesn't have tanks. Similarly some thought GW2 was a "zergfest" because it had neither a dedicated tank or a healer. But all this makes combat interesting and hard. However there has been an outcry GW2's content is too hard, so I think Arenanet has had to tone down the difficulty... just like they had to do in GW1.
Too bad... Best played in release, eh?
I don't agree with many posters here who suggest that devs should add inconveniences and forced dependencies. I don't think it is the right way to make people socialize. Difficult content and unpredictability are few right ways to do it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by g4m3sh4rk I don't think that is it. grouping isn't what is destroying MMOs it is these companies that refuse to make games exciting. Really what this genre needs a solid game that builds upon the foundations of MMOs as we know them and raise the bar making them more exciting.
No im not saying that grouping destroys MMO´s
Im saying that grouping noadays holds no point. might aswell be soloing the thing.
No world immersion. no point in grouping, not being social, Al Core Foundations of what made MMO´s of the past All things we dont currently have in the new MMO´s
Originally posted by g4m3sh4rk I don't think that is it. grouping isn't what is destroying MMOs it is these companies that refuse to make games exciting. Really what this genre needs a solid game that builds upon the foundations of MMOs as we know them and raise the bar making them more exciting.
No im not saying that grouping destroys MMO´s
Im saying that grouping noadays holds no point. might aswell be soloing the thing.
No world immersion. no point in grouping, not being social, Al Core Foundations of what made MMO´s of the past All things we dont currently have in the new MMO´s
That.. That right there is what is wrong with games today. Someone needs to bring the drive back to games, not just MMOs in general. I remember spending weeeeeks trying to get good gear out of raids off boss fights as far back as eq1. GW2 doesn't have this, D3 HAAA yea right 3 months with out a single piece of viable gear and I play all day long. God knows how long it would take someone who doesn't play all that often. And there are so many games just like this.
Comments
Yes, but what gets me is when you ask for something deeper or to mix the two genres together you get flamed, baited, called an old bitter burnout. Seems like they dont want the change because it might take off and destroy their gamestyle? I dont see why having 2 different style games growing and pleasing multiple groups as a bad thing. If they have their gamestyle the like, why cant the other half get something they like also? Kind of self centered if you ask me. Because honestly the industry isnt doing so hot right now. Out of the 300+ mmorpg's released this psat 7 or so years how many actualy have been a success and havent gone f2p, sold their company, gone bankrupt, oe just ended their game? 4? 5?
Most of us burnt out bitter old people want more added to our games. Where as the newer generation seem to want less. Makes no sense to me.
"Depth" is just another buzzword in a long line of buzzwords on these forums. It has no specific meaning and it used to reference something that the poster likes in one game and doesn't like in another.
I played those old games. They have no more "depth" or "meaning" than new games.
edit- almost no one, from any generation, want less in their video game. Anyone saying so has no idea what they are talking about. However they disagree as to what constitutes better.
Playing: Smite, Marvel Heroes
Played: Nexus:Kingdom of the Winds, Everquest, DAoC, Everquest 2, WoW, Matrix Online, Vangaurd, SWG, DDO, EVE, Fallen Earth, LoTRo, CoX, Champions Online, WAR, Darkfall, Mortal Online, Guild Wars, Rift, Tera, Aion, AoC, Gods and Heroes, DCUO, FF14, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, Wildstar, ESO, ArcheAge
Waiting On: Nothing. Mmorpg's are dead.
Perhaps, but not always true in every sense.
Crafting in SWG had depth, complex to some. Crafting in TSW is nil. And i like both games.
Space flight in EVE has depth, but space flight in SWTOR is shallow. And i dont play either.
Game play can have depth as well. Immersion has depth in some game, and nonexistant in others. Exploration of Tatooine in SWG had depth, i could spend all day looking around and hunting for Krayts. While in SWTOR, it lasted a few hours and no replay value.
"Story" is another one of those buzz words that has little meaning. Its about worthless in a mmorpg. Once your story dries up in a few weeks you are left with nothing. Run dailies, warzones, and raids just so you can be content and get the best gear. This is more fun than a game with tools to allow you to adventure and make your own story?
Hate to break it to you OP but the "average gamer" does have a job, and at least some form social responsibility ie family, girlfriend etc.
Sure there are gamers with no jobs, and no families or relationships but as they have no jobs they tend not to have much money to spend on games thus not exactly the target audiance of most game developers. The average gamer fortunately is not the anti-social nerd on welfare living in his parents basement. To be fair neither is it the ultra rich elite that can afford to do nothing but play games and ingore people as they know they will always be there when they need them as they have the money.
Kinda funny how eveyone in the world believe they are the majority when they have a opinion.
I'm a some-what of a casual gamer. I would prefer the older more difficult games
despite my times available to play. This never stopped people from playing games
before. Have many friends married and have full time jobs and children, yet they
played games like ff11 eq ultima online etc. To say that they are catering to the
casual crowd is kind of a insult, as a casual myself never wanted it to get easier.
Hell if not, harder.
I want to play a game for years, Not weeks.
O
Destiny has cheated me
By forcing me to decide upon
The woman that I idolise
Or the hands of an automaton
Without these hands I can't complete
The opera that was captivating her
But if I keep them, and she marries him
Then he probably won't want me dating her
Sorry but your wrong even you admit you don't use the term "we" properly so how that be standard english? You set yourself up as all knowing at the grandios age of 38? Haha kid come back when your a bit older and a bit over your own self importance. You've seen somethingsnot everything, you know somethingsnot everthing, and you have a opinion which is red by some people, not in anyway proven a majority.
Is his statement about bitter old vets in end any worse then the OP's Placing the blame on todays games on people who OMG have jobs and families?
I remember when EQ started down that slippery slope of "Monty Hall" loot... It was unique to have a piece of magic gear on your toon, and often many of us tried to camp a location for our chance to get lucky in the drop.. Some of us loved that challenge, while others bitched and moan because they didn't get their shiny.. The MMO genre today is all about the shinies.. Why is that? Because the devs are targeting the human flaw of need and greed.. Gimmee Shiny!!!!..
I remember back in the day of playing AD&D and early EQ.. Character progression was all about levels and social gathering.. NOT about gear checks and shinies.. But all hope is lost.. What used to be the traditional RPG genre has been infested by locust that devour shinies like no tomorrow..
This sounds like Hypwrbole to me. All is not lost if so then games like Pathfinders kickstarter would not have made their funding.
There are casual players, and hardcore players and both can live together, its just each side tends to believe their playstyle is the only one. Yes currently it seems most Big name developers seek the ultra easy casual base but this is two fold, one is because there is a casual player base and 2 because its so much simpler (and thus cheaper) to program and balance a ultra easy casual game. Make it casual, reduce or take out all but one race, remove stats, decrease or limite classes.. see how much easier and less time consuming that makes things to program and balance?
In the end the real entitlement players are the ones that just come to these forums to birch and do nothing about the problem they are bitching about. They expect the big name developers in suites to cater to their sometimes niche playstayle while refusing to support indie titles that are sandboxes or are more complex because they don't have cutting edge graphics, or great sound tracks as well etc etc. They are the ones that will bitch and moan about how risky and unreliable kickstarting a game that has all the features they want is. In the end they are the real golden platter ones as they expect their game their way without any risk and with all the fluff and graphics of the games that spend almost their entire budget just on graphics and use what littles left to make a casual easy game.
Hmm one of those people. Kid? Seriously? And you are the majority? Ah yes a bit older. Funny. Most unintellegent thing considering you dont know me personaly.
Do you realy think i was serious, that was more of a wise crack. Again another person who reads to far into things.
You are no majority, so how can you speak for the rest and tell me my opinions are a minority? Just a stupid ramble with no meaning.
Calling someone a kid is kind of childish. 8 years older than me, and act no more mature than a high school student. Ive probably done more in half my life than you have your entire life. Dont make personal attacks just because you are too uneducated to distinguish between joking and seriousness. And never judge someone you dont know, its just makes you look bad.
Its funny ther are 30 people in here agreeing and having the same opinions in a way, only 3 of you arent, yet we are the minority. Think my math is off.
The Deep Web is sca-ry.
Well i guess you answered your own question there. That is exactly what GW2 is and that is why it sold million of boxes. Fast food MMO for casuals. Oh by the way i am casual too but that doesn't mean i don't enjoy something with more substance and depth.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
My personal thoughts to most of the previous comments except the OP:
Going by the idea that there are two sides, as opposed to a wide spectrum of gamers, the reason from my point of view is that both sides see each other as the enemy. Both sides COULD play side by side without too much of a fuss, but they are generally so suspicious and condescending towards one another that even the slightest spark turns into all out war, with everyone else in between getting caught in the crossfire. And in the end, this leads to nothing productive, and the whole thing resets back to square one until the next spark goes off.
On a spectrum? Each individual is full of themselves to a degree and refuses to compromise their ideal version of gaming, thus they claw at each others' throats, and leading to a lot of conflict with no real results.
Depth is not a buzzword. Only many posters who talk about depth don't know what it is. For example, often they confuse it with complexity. But otherwise I agree with you.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Haven't played SWG and had only a brief visit in TSW so I can't really comment on those. However, I have played Eve for a couple of years, and I'd love to show to you how Eve's combat is actually quite shallow. As an FC, it is mostly about avoiding checkmate situations (=tactical dead ends, if you will) and what usually brings you an advantage is a mistake by the other side. Other than that hitting the enemy is virtually diceroll combat and movement is awkwardly indirect. There are many space combat sims that have better and deeper combat than Eve has.
Again, depth is something that can almost be measured. For example, you can count the amount of "first tier" characters in a fighting game. In Eve you can count the number of "first tier ships" or "first tier fleet doctrines"(*). Although sometimes determining what is first tier can be somewhat subjective. Comparing those numbers is tricky, but one thing is for sure: you want that number to be as high as possible.
So depth in gameplay is the amount of good choices you can make in a game. It is a percentage of choices among all the choices in the game. It is impossible to make a complex game with all its options equally viable. That doesn't mean its not worth pursuing though. Improving balance increases the amount of good choices you can make.
(*) That is why CCP is removing tiers from, for instance, Battlecruisers: To bring more depth, more potential first tier ships, into the game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
that explenation is wrong to a degree tbh.
The reason why ye Old MMO's are called to have so much depth is not because of the game itself. (they are infact really shallow if u look at our curent day mechanics)
1. It is the massive world wich felt as a world in wich u just had to return and continue your grand adventure.
2. Community, those games had a strong community because nothing would be acomplished alone. This created a very strong social platform wich like real life (there are real people playing those games) you created your own obligations.
All these new MMO's are so anti-social so driven to give intstant fun and rewards. And yeah we see where those are going right? our Latest fall is TERA like all the others before it not being able to retain enough players reverting to F2P.
I'd say the word you're looking for is perhaps "immersive" then - not depth.
And modern MMOs are not anti-social. Never we have had so many measures against griefing, never has finding a group been as easy as it is now... Instant fun is good. It gives a solid hook to the game. And rewards are aimed to make the game addictive.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Your right on the money... but nost of the time they more then make their money back. and what people end up staying and buying stuff are the fuel that funds other big name titles for the industry. Basically our favorite hobby is nothing more then fundraising. =/
i agree what im talking about is immersion. i dont agree with the latter tho.
yes we have measure against ggriefing that is good. i dont like griefing.
a group is very easy to get yes also good. But here comes the bad part. what do you do in said group? Let me take WoW for example i have picked up the game again because basicly evrything else fails and i can atleast play with my friends in a stable game. so yeah i group with my friends and play the game with them but those social interactions if not playing the game would be made outside in a diffrent matter so im not talking about that.
I Want to talk about randoms. What do i do in a group with random people. i join a que for a dungeon from within a city. I am a tank so its instantque for me. so i get into this dungeon with 4 other random people (mostly clueless about how to play but thats a diffrent story) the only thing i do with those people is kill a couple mobs in about 20 mins the dungeon is cleared we have not said a word the entire time and when the dungeon is finished evryone just ports out and quees for a new one.
How can this be seen as Social? I could have been running the same thing with a bunch of NPC's wich actually would make my life easyer. This is not social this is anti-social, social = interactions with other players. What i explained above is interactions besides other playersapart from the healer keeping my alive there was 0 interactions in a group.
I also joined LookinForRaid yesterday so you get dropped in with 24 other players and do a raid. they are so simplistic tho my grandma could do it. i was reading up on tactics because i diddnt raid in awhile andi asked the other tank what i had to do. after abit i got an awnser a very short awnser, no need just zerg. So we trhew all tactics overboard and zerged. again in that raid wich lasted an hour. Nobody says a word apart from random bullshit wich nobody wants to hear.
There is no social no community no nothing. People come there to get their gear and be done with it. they dont even like doing it. that is whats wrong with current MMo´s and all these new MMO´s wich their so called diffrences compared to WoW are more of the same with all sort of mechanics wich makes grouping obsolete and destroys the Genre.
Well, the combat is formulaic (fault of the trinity), perhaps the content is predicable and easy. All bad things imo.
A friend of mine didn't like GW1 because the combat was too unpredicable, too hard, because it doesn't have tanks. Similarly some thought GW2 was a "zergfest" because it had neither a dedicated tank or a healer. But all this makes combat interesting and hard. However there has been an outcry GW2's content is too hard, so I think Arenanet has had to tone down the difficulty... just like they had to do in GW1.
Too bad... Best played in release, eh?
I don't agree with many posters here who suggest that devs should add inconveniences and forced dependencies. I don't think it is the right way to make people socialize. Difficult content and unpredictability are few right ways to do it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
No im not saying that grouping destroys MMO´s
Im saying that grouping noadays holds no point. might aswell be soloing the thing.
No world immersion. no point in grouping, not being social, Al Core Foundations of what made MMO´s of the past All things we dont currently have in the new MMO´s
That.. That right there is what is wrong with games today. Someone needs to bring the drive back to games, not just MMOs in general. I remember spending weeeeeks trying to get good gear out of raids off boss fights as far back as eq1. GW2 doesn't have this, D3 HAAA yea right 3 months with out a single piece of viable gear and I play all day long. God knows how long it would take someone who doesn't play all that often. And there are so many games just like this.