I think you could literally replicate the old format with modern graphics and snag up most of us old schoolers.
Why do you need modern graphics?
That's the worst kind of gamers dealing from the bottom of the deck (imo), because you know EQ in 2013 is significantly different than in 2000 (see: the WoW boys pining for Vanilla), and you know the magic won't really be coming back, even if you do. And why did you leave in the first place? Purely graphic gripes?
The 2000 game probably isn't recoverable, even from backup tapes (depending on storage). Devs wouldn't be eager to get old code back, I imagine. But assume that it was possible.
Like the WoW Vanilla fans (or DAoC Classic or whoever), what you really want is updated graphics, a completely fixed bug list, and pick-and-choose which game updates to keep and which to discard. Uhoh, what if the "true" fans don't all agree? And all of your buds to come back, of course. Game just wouldn't be the same without em. Might want to pick and choose modern hardware too, and veto choice over the other gamers allowed in.
And of course the you of 13 years ago...uh oh, that one might be a bit harder to wish back.
I don't need modern graphics and I'm with you 100 percent, I just understand that most gamers do, and that's what it will take for a game to be successful. They don't have to be top of the line.
Heh. The only reason I quit EQ is because my mom cut my off. Years ago. Same with UO. That was pretty much her "go to" for severe punishments. lol. Bout the time I got a bank account DAoC came out. I'll admit I gave in to the newer is better trends of that era. Course, at that time a lot of us saw an extremely bright future for MMOs. I always figured they take the same route other games had, you know, expanding on gameplay and graphics every other release. I see how stupid that is now and I understand why things haven't gone that way, especially post-WoW. I guess it never really dawned on me, being that the original greats could be played for years on end, that future releases wouldn't follow the same path (aside from a select few, and that's being kind to them.)
I ended up taking a break from MMOs after highschool to slum it up as an artist. It wasn't until I settled down, say, 2008 that I really started playing again.
To clarify, when I say bring back an old format I'm not really being specific, say Kunark EQ or Pre-Trammel UO (As if there aren't a bunch of good UO servers out there.) I just mean gameplay inspired by that era with some decent eye candy for the younger players. I have younger friends/guildmates that won't even try a game if the graphics/art style don't appeal to them. I think it's silly, but I'm in the minority and I realize this. Let the dev choose their favorite era, patch version, expansion whatever of whatever game was their favorite and give it a shot. We don't know if they can deliver it, or if people would play it, until someone actually tries.
Edit:
Going back over your post, Ice, wow...you're pretty hostile. I kinda feel like I wasted my time with this response.
I don't think anyone is saying that players aren't partially to blame, but to say that developers aren't at least partly to blame, or to deny that any media industry doesn't engineer their own trends, or that they can't in fact decide to a certain level what is "popular" is ignorant beyond description. Honestly, it makes me sad that people are so self loathing now a days that they will buy excuses like, "It was bad spending habits, not the banks." & "It's not the developers, it's us."
It's equally ignorant to put most of the blame on developers, and next to none on the players. How many people here have consistantly complained about games they've pre-ordered? Or how many times have we seen people complain that 'all MMOs are like WoW' followed by complaints that 'current MMOs don't have enough raiding or loot progression'. The irony is palpable. Sure developers can engineer their own trends, so can publishers. So can any creative business, but it's always a risk. It's up to us (the consumers) to buy into that trend and make it real. Most trends work because people are largely predictable and unwilling to enact significant change. Sure some companies exploit this, but the blame goes both ways. Who's at fault? The wolf for eating the deer? Or the deer for not checking it's surroundings?
And hearing these cop-outs from supposed "industry insiders" all the time (in the hypothetical chance they're not completely full of crap) makes me think that these people just don't understand a MMO. They might understand the small piece they were given to develop, but it's obvious that whoever is calling the shots is asleep at the wheel, at least as far as creativity goes. They are making more money than we can imagine though, so good for them.
I'd be careful about painting people with such a broad stroke. While there are definitely 'insiders' who are full of crap (often times due to not doing any real follow-ups or research), there are pleanty that actually do understand how MMOs work; probably a hell of a lot more than you do. Unless you've worked on an MMO, had to deal w/ publishers & public reactions, it's very hard to fully understand what really goes on. For example, for each situation where a lead designer makes a bad call, there's another of a producer making one, or forcing a designer to implement a stupid decision, or a forced statement to ease PR, etc.
One of the most obvious cases of a publisher making stupid decisions is EA. However, there are a lot more games where there's a lot of grey area. It's often not easy to tell who really made the call. Only who's in the public view for the blame.
Games didn't used to have end game.
"Oh, but nobody wants that EQ style level grind."
How the hell would we know, it's been 10 years since someone has made a game comparable to EQ. (DAoC)
I think you could literally replicate the old format with modern graphics and snag up most of us old schoolers.
Problem with this assumption is the following:
1) EQ2 / Vanguard actually came out less than 10 years ago. There's also been other games since then that have a mix between quests & mob spawn camping (one example being TERA). Each game has been less popular than the one before it. WoW killed most of the market for that type of MMO. Not only do most people not have enough time for it anymore, but many gamers don't have the patience either.
2) Even if you are right, and it manages to snag up most of the old schoolers, that's still only a few 100,000 people. Even if a company did literally nothing but take EQ1, all the same content, and reskin it to have modern graphics; it would still be extremely expensive. It would require updates to the game engine, an art team, a publisher, etc. It's not cheap. Any sane company would want a bigger guaruntee than 'maybe 2-300,000 people'.
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that most of the MMOs out today, were started ~6-7 years ago (some even longer). That's close to a decade in the making, and we're complaining that today's games aren't enough like games 10 years ago. Do the math. Any of these developers making a new MMO have to make a pretty risky prediction of where the market will be 5-7 years from now. If they get it wrong (which is insanely easy to do), they get ridiculed for it. How many predicitions 10 years into the future have you gotten correct?
EQ2 was far more like WoW than EQ1. That's why it wasn't very successful. Also, everyone and their mom heard about the issues Vanguard faced. I played TERA as well. It wasn't mob camping, it was kill this many of this mob quests...and that has been old for years now. Though the mob camping days might be memorable, that's hardly the only feature a game needs to be EQ-like. I don't want a reskin. I want a new game inspired by the ones I used to play. As if there aren't tons of people complaining about "games these days." I can understand if it's not your preference, but you're daft if you don't think there is a market.
To reiterate:
"I don't think anyone is saying that players aren't partially to blame, but to say that developers aren't at least partly to blame..." is ignorant.
(LOL. You followed that up by accusing me of putting most of the blame on developers. Derp much?)
Not saying consumers aren't to blame, that's obvious. I just get tired of people defending developers, as if they know them personally or something. As if those guys bought them a yacht or something.
You need to understand something first. When you make an MMO a DEVELOPER almost ALWAYS working under a PUBLISHER. Now publishers don't like to lose 60-100 millions dollars just because you have a great new idea. So developers try to fit as many of their new ideas into the game while still retaining something that will make the suits in the company not scared of losing all their money.
Imagine your friend walked upto you told you "I have a great game idea and I will need 80 million to make it"
What would be your first questions? Are you sure people will play it? Are you sure you've got enough idea of what will happen?
I would say that if you were a publisher you'd be doing the exact same thing that ours are doing. Trying not to lose millions of dollars on a project which will fail because there was no clarity.
This ^
Sadly a lot of the problems people attribute to DEVELOPERS actually comes from the PUBLISHER. The larger ones tend to pull the most strings, and have the most interest in maintaining their status quo. There's also problems that come from things like metrics, in which player statistics conflict w/ the statistics the publisher wants to see. It can be a pretty frustrating mess once you get down to it.
Originally posted by ThaddeusPL There is only ONE rule for developers - $ over story - nothing more, so we get a lot of lowlevel MMO.
What gets me is how people justify this as, "Welp, that's just the way it is. Sheeux." Then go right back to saying the consumer is somehow responsible for deciding the level of profits these guys deem "good enough." Maybe if I bought 10 copies of season 3 of Arrested Development (no pun intended) it wouldn't have taken 7 years for them to make another season. I would have sent the message with my money right?
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that most of the MMOs out today, were started ~6-7 years ago (some even longer). That's close to a decade in the making, and we're complaining that today's games aren't enough like games 10 years ago. Do the math. Any of these developers making a new MMO have to make a pretty risky prediction of where the market will be 5-7 years from now. If they get it wrong (which is insanely easy to do), they get ridiculed for it. How many predicitions 10 years into the future have you gotten correct?
EQ2 was far more like WoW than EQ1. That's why it wasn't very successful. Also, everyone and their mom heard about the issues Vanguard faced. I played TERA as well. It wasn't mob camping, it was kill this many of this mob quests...and that has been old for years now. I don't want a reskin. I want a new game inspired by the ones I used to play. As if there aren't tons of people complaining about "games these days." I can understand if it's not your preference, but you're daft if you don't think there is a market.
It really depends on how you look at it. EQ2 did have more quests than EQ1. If you think a game has to have zero quests to be like EQ1, then I guess you're right. However, EQ2 was a very different game than WoW. It had quite a lot of mob grinding once you got passed the starter areas. If anything the beginner lvls of EQ2 were like WoW, but the later lvls were more like EQ1. That may have changed w/ the latest expansions (I haven't honestly played them). FFXI was kind of the same way. Parts of it were very quest oriented, while a large chunk of the lvling was done via mob camping.
TERA had both, which was kind of my point. It had quest grinding, and it had BAM groups. Guess which one was more popular? And guess what TERAs biggest criticism was? People thought lvling / questing in PvE was by far the worst thing about the game, and what set it back from other games.
- In your own words you stated "I think you could literally replicate the old format with modern graphics and snag up most of us old schoolers." I was merely responding to that when talking about a reskin. I also didn't say there wasn't a market. I said that the market was too small (I believe the number I gave was ~200-300,000 players). MMOs don't get made for that kind of population. It's often not worth the developers time and they'd be much better off making a single player, or multiplayer co-op game.
I absolutely know if UO, or EQ, or AC was remade w/ modern graphics people would play it. However I also have a strong suspicion it wouldn't be as popular as most people seem to want to believe. It would be a much more niche following. Many of the gamers (especially on these forums) look back at those games with rose-colored glasses. I'd also be willing to bet that a good number of people would find some reason to not like a reskin of an old game, even if it was literally identical to a game they claimed to love (but with newer graphics). The majority of the market (who aren't on these forums), would probably never touch such games.
The thing to keep in mind is that the landscape for MMOs today is significantly different than the MMOs of back then. When those games were out, you had maybe 2 or 3 good choices to pick from at most. You picked your game and you stuck with it. Now? There's a new MMO coming out every year, often multiple new ones a year. There is no longer a default. There is no sense of 'this is THE game, so I better stick with it'. It's much more of a buffet line now. Consume as many games as you like and try not to get sick.
Originally posted by ThaddeusPL There is only ONE rule for developers - $ over story - nothing more, so we get a lot of lowlevel MMO.
What gets me is how people justify this as, "Welp, that's just the way it is. Sheeux." Then go right back to saying the consumer is somehow responsible for deciding the level of profits these guys deem "good enough." Maybe if I bought 10 copies of season 3 of Arrested Development (no pun intended) it wouldn't have taken 7 years for them to make another season. I would have sent the message with my money right?
Not sure if I buy that tbh.
There are plenty examples of games with phenominal stories. The reality of the situation is that developers HAVE to choose what game they wanna make. Do I want to make an interactive movie? Or do I want to make a game? The 2 don't tend to play well together. Why?
Stories are told, and as such they lead you through a series of events. Even if it's not linear, it's still the developer leading the player. This doesn't tend to work as well in MMOs (and is one of the main issues with current MMOs imho. Too much focus on developer-driven storytelling. Not enough on game mechanics and having an environment that allows players to create their own stories).
There are still some MMOs with storylines that work pretty well, but things get sacrificed to much it work.
One thing I think a lot of people forget is that most of the MMOs out today, were started ~6-7 years ago (some even longer). That's close to a decade in the making, and we're complaining that today's games aren't enough like games 10 years ago. Do the math. Any of these developers making a new MMO have to make a pretty risky prediction of where the market will be 5-7 years from now. If they get it wrong (which is insanely easy to do), they get ridiculed for it. How many predicitions 10 years into the future have you gotten correct?
EQ2 was far more like WoW than EQ1. That's why it wasn't very successful. Also, everyone and their mom heard about the issues Vanguard faced. I played TERA as well. It wasn't mob camping, it was kill this many of this mob quests...and that has been old for years now. I don't want a reskin. I want a new game inspired by the ones I used to play. As if there aren't tons of people complaining about "games these days." I can understand if it's not your preference, but you're daft if you don't think there is a market.
It really depends on how you look at it. EQ2 did have more quests than EQ1. If you think a game has to have zero quests to be like EQ1, then I guess you're right. However, EQ2 was a very different game than WoW. It had quite a lot of mob grinding once you got passed the starter areas. If anything the beginner lvls of EQ2 were like WoW, but the later lvls were more like EQ1. That may have changed w/ the latest expansions (I haven't honestly played them). FFXI was kind of the same way. Parts of it were very quest oriented, while a large chunk of the lvling was done via mob camping.
TERA had both, which was kind of my point. It had quest grinding, and it had BAM groups. Guess which one was more popular? And guess what TERAs biggest criticism was? People thought lvling / questing in PvE was by far the worst thing about the game, and what set it back from other games.
- In your own words you stated "I think you could literally replicate the old format with modern graphics and snag up most of us old schoolers." I was merely responding to that when talking about a reskin. I also didn't say there wasn't a market. I said that the market was too small (I believe the number I gave was ~200-300,000 players). MMOs don't get made for that kind of population. It's often not worth the developers time and they'd be much better off making a single player, or multiplayer co-op game.
I absolutely know if UO, or EQ, or AC was remade w/ modern graphics people would play it. However I also have a strong suspicion it wouldn't be as popular as most people seem to want to believe. It would be a much more niche following. Many of the gamers (especially on these forums) look back at those games with rose-colored glasses. I'd also be willing to bet that a good number of people would find some reason to not like a reskin of an old game, even if it was literally identical to a game they claimed to love (but with newer graphics). The majority of the market (who aren't on these forums), would probably never touch such games.
The thing to keep in mind is that the landscape for MMOs today is significantly different than the MMOs of back then. When those games were out, you had maybe 2 or 3 good choices to pick from at most. You picked your game and you stuck with it. Now? There's a new MMO coming out every year, often multiple new ones a year. There is no longer a default. There is no sense of 'this is THE game, so I better stick with it'. It's much more of a buffet line now. Consume as many games as you like and try not to get sick.
No doubt. It wouldn't be a WoW killer, but it would make money.
Originally posted by ThaddeusPL There is only ONE rule for developers - $ over story - nothing more, so we get a lot of lowlevel MMO.
What gets me is how people justify this as, "Welp, that's just the way it is. Sheeux." Then go right back to saying the consumer is somehow responsible for deciding the level of profits these guys deem "good enough." Maybe if I bought 10 copies of season 3 of Arrested Development (no pun intended) it wouldn't have taken 7 years for them to make another season. I would have sent the message with my money right?
Not sure if I buy that tbh.
There are plenty examples of games with phenominal stories. The reality of the situation is that developers HAVE to choose what game they wanna make. Do I want to make an interactive movie? Or do I want to make a game? The 2 don't tend to play well together. Why?
Stories are told, and as such they lead you through a series of events. Even if it's not linear, it's still the developer leading the player. This doesn't tend to work as well in MMOs (and is one of the main issues with current MMOs imho. Too much focus on developer-driven storytelling. Not enough on game mechanics and having an environment that allows players to create their own stories).
There are still some MMOs with storylines that work pretty well, but things get sacrificed to much it work.
I was replacing "story" with "quality" in my mind when I responded.
In my opinion, the sooner developers start realizing that they can never create static content as fast as players can consume it, and turn to generation the better the genre will be in the long run. MMO players consume content quickly, and game studios approach to that problem is to throw more people at it. Where it should be let's build a system that can produce content for us with less effort.
I've... Kind of just been under the assumption that the MMO audience has changed drastically from where it started.
Look at the upcoming consoles; They're shooting at TV as much as they are at gaming. This leads me to believing that the console crowd has been making a slow but rather steady move towards the PC. And most console gamers tend to be the gamers that want quick action, with the ability to jump in and jump out. Lo and behold, this seems to be the crowd that MMOs are catering towards now.
So, in reality, the fault can be laid equally all around. Older gamers leave the scene, only to be replaced by their children. The target audience evolves (Or devolves) to those children. It's just a big cycle that doesn't appear to have any end in sight.
Originally posted by Joejc7135 From my view it's quite simple...If gamers don't want mediocre mmos they need to stop buying them. That will rectify the problem.
Players are doing that; WOW is declining and most WOW clones are DOA. Just the devs or marketing folks are slow on the uptake.
Which MMOs are you referring to? Most of the pre-order and release sales for MMOs do extremely well, the two most recent being that SWTOR heap of crap and GW2.
ALL OF THEM. And I'm not talking orders, any hyped game can "splash and crash", I'm talking longevity; holding a solid sizable player base for several years. Recent WOW-clone MMO's spike and fall off within months. MONTHS.
But the players are still buying them. Devs know they can get 700k-1,000k box sales at or before release. If the players stopped buying them, devs would change what they build and how they build it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
What do you think? Are developers and publishers the reason why the last major MMO releases were not accepted by many players, or do certain players due to their way of life cause a lot of rant that leads to public rejection of a game?
Nine consecutive years of failures, across a dozen (more) publishers?
The failure lies in gamer subculture, I'm afraid. The only consistent factor that all of those "failed" titles have in common.
Lots of varieties of denial, of course. Expectation of a replacement life. Expectation of recapturing the happy joys of my youth or that ultimate game that never was. Superstitious belief in Magic Sandboxes or Perfect PvP or the One True Publisher that will save us. Adoption of whatever hype magic's being peddled next week.
But what can you do, people are gonna be people. Either review your expectations or blame EvilCorp for everything, as suits your temperment.
/This. The fault lies with the gamers. However, I believe what has happened since WOW is that there are so many MMOs that the gamers have split into smaller groups. The "mass market" that WOW captured is gone. Now you have the pvp-centric group, the sandbox only group, the hard-core pve group, etc. This site provides ample evidence that no new MMO can satisfy everyone.
The result of this fragmentation, the emphasis on f2p, and the rise of mobile games means that the numbers of MMOs is going to drop (except in Asia where they are still popular) and I expect to drop rapidly. When even Blizzard has to scale back then you know that there is trouble in paradise.
Yup the gaming industry is getting incredibly mixed signals.
Always have, every moment it's existed.
Because the "market" isn't a single group, "gamers" are not a single group, "developers" are not a single group, "producers...."
And dagnabbit, I just can't get everyone to listen to meh and buy only the titles I Approve Of™, or even just my Party's approved candidates. Damn them all. That really makes me cross.
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.
Game devs should just drop info on their mmos a month before launch. But they don't they have this 2 year or so long hype train, which gives everyone a chance to bitch and whine, which leads to the mmos being a homogonised mess.
Stop the hype, keep the players out of the design, we will get more varied and original mmos.
Game devs should just drop info on their mmos a month before launch. But they don't they have this 2 year or so long hype train, which gives everyone a chance to bitch and whine, which leads to the mmos being a homogonised mess.
Stop the hype, keep the players out of the design, we will get more varied and original mmos.
Uh oh, don't go there. Really really don't.
Again, half of gamerdom seems to believe their developers are polling-driven robots , the other half believes devs just never listen. Sometimes you can find both POVs in the same post, even.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I think some of the marketing teams and executives are "poll driven" robots, and many a poor dev who actually has "the vision" is forced to go down a design path he or she disagrees with. (Just like regular work. In my job, upper managment flip-flops and does a reorg, it seems, every 3 to 6 months, and does not get the point that uncertainty might be playing a factor in morale and missing the numbers.)
Recall, if you saw that article a few months back, that when Smedley pulled in his team and announced that EQ Next was going to redesign itself as a sandbox, people stood up and clapped and cheered. I think some of those devs are finally being let out of their cages. We can only hope this turns out well.
I bet you also tell people to "stop buying into the hype", don't you?
Highlighted sentence is partially true. The problem lies ( in these over-general statements ) that they are only partially true - I've certainly made some ugly-ass commercial art because a buyer who believed himself qualified art director called for "ugly it up" revisions. "Yes sir, pink's a great idea!""I love comic sans, too!" That's ok, those aren't the pieces that make the portfolio, or pay the bills when raise time rolls around. But this vision of marketing-driven dev teams doesn't exactly exist, either.
The partial truths are be conveniently abbreviated into gamerslang popular bullet points, and get soaked up into the pit of ad nauseam truths (small "t"). Repeat it often enough...until 'most everyone agrees it must be Truth (capital "T").
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.
A really big part of the problem is there are just too many games....A couple of people hit on this already, but pre 2005 we only had a handful of MMOs to choose from.......Now this site alone lists 592 and there are many more than that if you count browser games and some other lesser MMOs that don't make the cut here......Im really surprised that so many games last as long as they do...I've played several that literally had no money coming in yet several are still in existance.
Originally posted by Theocritus A really big part of the problem is there are just too many games....A couple of people hit on this already, but pre 2005 we only had a handful of MMOs to choose from.......Now this site alone lists 592 and there are many more than that if you count browser games and some other lesser MMOs that don't make the cut here......Im really surprised that so many games last as long as they do...I've played several that literally had no money coming in yet several are still in existance.
That's really interesting, because the usual approach (last decade or so) included a request for more variety.
It's only recently I've seen this "too many titles" op begin to appear. Wonder what started it. F2P exploding all over the 'games list', I 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.
What do you think? Are developers and publishers the reason why the last major MMO releases were not accepted by many players, or do certain players due to their way of life cause a lot of rant that leads to public rejection of a game?
Nine consecutive years of failures, across a dozen (more) publishers?
The failure lies in gamer subculture, I'm afraid. The only consistent factor that all of those "failed" titles have in common.
Lots of varieties of denial, of course. Expectation of a replacement life. Expectation of recapturing the happy joys of my youth or that ultimate game that never was. Superstitious belief in Magic Sandboxes or Perfect PvP or the One True Publisher that will save us. Adoption of whatever hype magic's being peddled next week.
But what can you do, people are gonna be people. Either review your expectations or blame EvilCorp for everything, as suits your temperment.
This, pretty much.
I truly feel that people are not looking for a game; they are looking for an escape from reality. People WANT to be addicted...people play for 1000+ hours and are disappointed that they are essentially developing a "drug-resistance" to their fix.
There are just way too many people who WANT something to bring back the feelings of their childhood permanently...or at least distract them from the real world so that they do not have to deal with life.
Simply, there are those who don't want games to be a hobby...they want it to be an escape. Essentially, a drug without the price tag and shady corner dealers.
And that's not even mentioning that there are thousands of different ideas of what the "perfect" MMO should be.
"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days those are now the only two states youll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2
I tend to feel that 'mediocre' games come from numerous sources.
A lack of budget. A lack of experience. And even luck of the draw. Brilliant concepts and ideas can very often fall flat in execution. By the time you realize that X or Y is just not going to work...it's a major unremovable feature and you're 4 years down the pipe.
I think the largest contribution to 'mediocre' MMO's is that this massive, lumbering genre is still gaining it's feet. Still learning to walk.. In the early days we saw games that typically had some kind of notable distinction. These were new games wtith only a few floating around at the time. Following that, we've seen many titles attempt to replicate earlier successes. Right now we're in a period where there is still great deals of replication, (This will always occur when games are this risky to create) but we're also seeing a fragmentation of the genre into smaller sub genres. It's interesting to see.
While people worry about the MMO scene as becoming a sea of mediocre games...we must remember: In the seas of mediocrity, the brilliant will shine like a beacon.
Example if game community of some game complains on gameforum this sucks and thats sucks they leave and servers are empty devs change game next time others devs see what happen to that game and try implement what those players want over past 10years this has happen and now we have mediocre dumbdown games .
For most part gamers are the decline of mmo's thus there FAULT.
Comments
I don't need modern graphics and I'm with you 100 percent, I just understand that most gamers do, and that's what it will take for a game to be successful. They don't have to be top of the line.
Heh. The only reason I quit EQ is because my mom cut my off. Years ago. Same with UO. That was pretty much her "go to" for severe punishments. lol. Bout the time I got a bank account DAoC came out.
I'll admit I gave in to the newer is better trends of that era. Course, at that time a lot of us saw an extremely bright future for MMOs. I always figured they take the same route other games had, you know, expanding on gameplay and graphics every other release. I see how stupid that is now and I understand why things haven't gone that way, especially post-WoW. I guess it never really dawned on me, being that the original greats could be played for years on end, that future releases wouldn't follow the same path (aside from a select few, and that's being kind to them.)
I ended up taking a break from MMOs after highschool to slum it up as an artist. It wasn't until I settled down, say, 2008 that I really started playing again.
To clarify, when I say bring back an old format I'm not really being specific, say Kunark EQ or Pre-Trammel UO (As if there aren't a bunch of good UO servers out there.) I just mean gameplay inspired by that era with some decent eye candy for the younger players. I have younger friends/guildmates that won't even try a game if the graphics/art style don't appeal to them. I think it's silly, but I'm in the minority and I realize this. Let the dev choose their favorite era, patch version, expansion whatever of whatever game was their favorite and give it a shot. We don't know if they can deliver it, or if people would play it, until someone actually tries.
Edit:
Going back over your post, Ice, wow...you're pretty hostile. I kinda feel like I wasted my time with this response.
http://thewordiz.wordpress.com/
EQ2 was far more like WoW than EQ1. That's why it wasn't very successful. Also, everyone and their mom heard about the issues Vanguard faced. I played TERA as well. It wasn't mob camping, it was kill this many of this mob quests...and that has been old for years now. Though the mob camping days might be memorable, that's hardly the only feature a game needs to be EQ-like. I don't want a reskin. I want a new game inspired by the ones I used to play. As if there aren't tons of people complaining about "games these days." I can understand if it's not your preference, but you're daft if you don't think there is a market.
To reiterate:
"I don't think anyone is saying that players aren't partially to blame, but to say that developers aren't at least partly to blame..." is ignorant.
(LOL. You followed that up by accusing me of putting most of the blame on developers. Derp much?)
Not saying consumers aren't to blame, that's obvious. I just get tired of people defending developers, as if they know them personally or something. As if those guys bought them a yacht or something.
http://thewordiz.wordpress.com/
This ^
Sadly a lot of the problems people attribute to DEVELOPERS actually comes from the PUBLISHER. The larger ones tend to pull the most strings, and have the most interest in maintaining their status quo. There's also problems that come from things like metrics, in which player statistics conflict w/ the statistics the publisher wants to see. It can be a pretty frustrating mess once you get down to it.
What gets me is how people justify this as, "Welp, that's just the way it is. Sheeux." Then go right back to saying the consumer is somehow responsible for deciding the level of profits these guys deem "good enough." Maybe if I bought 10 copies of season 3 of Arrested Development (no pun intended) it wouldn't have taken 7 years for them to make another season. I would have sent the message with my money right?
http://thewordiz.wordpress.com/
It really depends on how you look at it. EQ2 did have more quests than EQ1. If you think a game has to have zero quests to be like EQ1, then I guess you're right. However, EQ2 was a very different game than WoW. It had quite a lot of mob grinding once you got passed the starter areas. If anything the beginner lvls of EQ2 were like WoW, but the later lvls were more like EQ1. That may have changed w/ the latest expansions (I haven't honestly played them). FFXI was kind of the same way. Parts of it were very quest oriented, while a large chunk of the lvling was done via mob camping.
TERA had both, which was kind of my point. It had quest grinding, and it had BAM groups. Guess which one was more popular? And guess what TERAs biggest criticism was? People thought lvling / questing in PvE was by far the worst thing about the game, and what set it back from other games.
- In your own words you stated "I think you could literally replicate the old format with modern graphics and snag up most of us old schoolers." I was merely responding to that when talking about a reskin. I also didn't say there wasn't a market. I said that the market was too small (I believe the number I gave was ~200-300,000 players). MMOs don't get made for that kind of population. It's often not worth the developers time and they'd be much better off making a single player, or multiplayer co-op game.
I absolutely know if UO, or EQ, or AC was remade w/ modern graphics people would play it. However I also have a strong suspicion it wouldn't be as popular as most people seem to want to believe. It would be a much more niche following. Many of the gamers (especially on these forums) look back at those games with rose-colored glasses. I'd also be willing to bet that a good number of people would find some reason to not like a reskin of an old game, even if it was literally identical to a game they claimed to love (but with newer graphics). The majority of the market (who aren't on these forums), would probably never touch such games.
The thing to keep in mind is that the landscape for MMOs today is significantly different than the MMOs of back then. When those games were out, you had maybe 2 or 3 good choices to pick from at most. You picked your game and you stuck with it. Now? There's a new MMO coming out every year, often multiple new ones a year. There is no longer a default. There is no sense of 'this is THE game, so I better stick with it'. It's much more of a buffet line now. Consume as many games as you like and try not to get sick.
Not sure if I buy that tbh.
There are plenty examples of games with phenominal stories. The reality of the situation is that developers HAVE to choose what game they wanna make. Do I want to make an interactive movie? Or do I want to make a game? The 2 don't tend to play well together. Why?
Stories are told, and as such they lead you through a series of events. Even if it's not linear, it's still the developer leading the player. This doesn't tend to work as well in MMOs (and is one of the main issues with current MMOs imho. Too much focus on developer-driven storytelling. Not enough on game mechanics and having an environment that allows players to create their own stories).
There are still some MMOs with storylines that work pretty well, but things get sacrificed to much it work.
No doubt. It wouldn't be a WoW killer, but it would make money.
http://thewordiz.wordpress.com/
I was replacing "story" with "quality" in my mind when I responded.
http://thewordiz.wordpress.com/
https://www.therepopulation.com - Sci Fi Sandbox.
I've... Kind of just been under the assumption that the MMO audience has changed drastically from where it started.
Look at the upcoming consoles; They're shooting at TV as much as they are at gaming. This leads me to believing that the console crowd has been making a slow but rather steady move towards the PC. And most console gamers tend to be the gamers that want quick action, with the ability to jump in and jump out. Lo and behold, this seems to be the crowd that MMOs are catering towards now.
So, in reality, the fault can be laid equally all around. Older gamers leave the scene, only to be replaced by their children. The target audience evolves (Or devolves) to those children. It's just a big cycle that doesn't appear to have any end in sight.
But the players are still buying them. Devs know they can get 700k-1,000k box sales at or before release. If the players stopped buying them, devs would change what they build and how they build it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
/This. The fault lies with the gamers. However, I believe what has happened since WOW is that there are so many MMOs that the gamers have split into smaller groups. The "mass market" that WOW captured is gone. Now you have the pvp-centric group, the sandbox only group, the hard-core pve group, etc. This site provides ample evidence that no new MMO can satisfy everyone.
The result of this fragmentation, the emphasis on f2p, and the rise of mobile games means that the numbers of MMOs is going to drop (except in Asia where they are still popular) and I expect to drop rapidly. When even Blizzard has to scale back then you know that there is trouble in paradise.
Always have, every moment it's existed.
Because the "market" isn't a single group, "gamers" are not a single group, "developers" are not a single group, "producers...."
And dagnabbit, I just can't get everyone to listen to meh and buy only the titles I Approve Of™, or even just my Party's approved candidates. Damn them all. That really makes me cross.
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.
Game devs should just drop info on their mmos a month before launch. But they don't they have this 2 year or so long hype train, which gives everyone a chance to bitch and whine, which leads to the mmos being a homogonised mess.
Stop the hype, keep the players out of the design, we will get more varied and original mmos.
Uh oh, don't go there. Really really don't.
Again, half of gamerdom seems to believe their developers are polling-driven robots , the other half believes devs just never listen. Sometimes you can find both POVs in the same post, even.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I bet you also tell people to "stop buying into the hype", don't you?
Highlighted sentence is partially true. The problem lies ( in these over-general statements ) that they are only partially true - I've certainly made some ugly-ass commercial art because a buyer who believed himself qualified art director called for "ugly it up" revisions. "Yes sir, pink's a great idea!""I love comic sans, too!" That's ok, those aren't the pieces that make the portfolio, or pay the bills when raise time rolls around. But this vision of marketing-driven dev teams doesn't exactly exist, either.
The partial truths are be conveniently abbreviated into gamerslang popular bullet points, and get soaked up into the pit of ad nauseam truths (small "t"). Repeat it often enough...until 'most everyone agrees it must be Truth (capital "T").
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.
That's really interesting, because the usual approach (last decade or so) included a request for more variety.
It's only recently I've seen this "too many titles" op begin to appear. Wonder what started it. F2P exploding all over the 'games list', I 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.
This, pretty much.
I truly feel that people are not looking for a game; they are looking for an escape from reality. People WANT to be addicted...people play for 1000+ hours and are disappointed that they are essentially developing a "drug-resistance" to their fix.
There are just way too many people who WANT something to bring back the feelings of their childhood permanently...or at least distract them from the real world so that they do not have to deal with life.
Simply, there are those who don't want games to be a hobby...they want it to be an escape. Essentially, a drug without the price tag and shady corner dealers.
And that's not even mentioning that there are thousands of different ideas of what the "perfect" MMO should be.
"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days those are now the only two states youll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2
A lack of budget. A lack of experience. And even luck of the draw. Brilliant concepts and ideas can very often fall flat in execution. By the time you realize that X or Y is just not going to work...it's a major unremovable feature and you're 4 years down the pipe.
I think the largest contribution to 'mediocre' MMO's is that this massive, lumbering genre is still gaining it's feet. Still learning to walk.. In the early days we saw games that typically had some kind of notable distinction. These were new games wtith only a few floating around at the time. Following that, we've seen many titles attempt to replicate earlier successes. Right now we're in a period where there is still great deals of replication, (This will always occur when games are this risky to create) but we're also seeing a fragmentation of the genre into smaller sub genres. It's interesting to see.
While people worry about the MMO scene as becoming a sea of mediocre games...we must remember: In the seas of mediocrity, the brilliant will shine like a beacon.
Example if game community of some game complains on gameforum this sucks and thats sucks they leave and servers are empty devs change game next time others devs see what happen to that game and try implement what those players want over past 10years this has happen and now we have mediocre dumbdown games .
For most part gamers are the decline of mmo's thus there FAULT.