It's completely their choice to call non-MMORPG MMORPG. If it's a solo action fest with artificial grouping, don't call it an MMORPG and you won't get complaints.
Why are you so hung up on a label?
Personally i wouldn't care less if a game is a MMO or not. The question is whether it is fun (for me).
No major company is going to develop for it because it would cost just as much to make as something which could target the mass audience. One of those becomes a clear business choice when you as a company want to make a profit.
Well, if it's a clear business choice they should be honest about it.
When EQNext says that EQ fans are going to love it and then they remove trinity and add-in Disney graphics, do you expect people to be excited?
When MMO keep calling their artificial grouping mechanics another thing, Fates, Public quests, Dynamic Quests, Rallying Calls, Rifts...when they're all the same thing...you're deceiving people into believing it's something it's not.
Don't blame us when the industry calls every single player action fest an MMORPG.
It's completely their choice to call non-MMORPG MMORPG. If it's a solo action fest with artificial grouping, don't call it an MMORPG and you won't get complaints.
Why is clicking someone to be in the same group natural but two people standing together fighting the same mob is artificial grouping?
How is something where you have dozens of players doing the same activity not massive multiplayer?
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
No major company is going to develop for it because it would cost just as much to make as something which could target the mass audience. One of those becomes a clear business choice when you as a company want to make a profit.
Well, if it's a clear business choice they should be honest about it.
When EQNext says that EQ fans are going to love it and then they remove trinity and add-in Disney graphics, do you expect people to be excited?
When MMO keep calling their artificial grouping mechanics another thing, Fates, Public quests, Dynamic Quests, Rallying Calls, Rifts...when they're all the same thing...you're deceiving people into believing it's something it's not.
Don't blame us when the industry calls every single player action fest an MMORPG.
It's completely their choice to call non-MMORPG MMORPG. If it's a solo action fest with artificial grouping, don't call it an MMORPG and you won't get complaints.
Why is clicking someone to be in the same group natural but two people standing together fighting the same mob is artificial grouping?
Because it requires social interaction, artificial grouping does not.
And let's be honest here, most of those mechanics don't even employ grouping, Fates, Rifts, you name it, you're often not even grouped in them. How can you possibly call this grouping.
You can call it massive if that makes you feel better, just like standing in a crowd on your own must feel massive to to you, or standing in a shopping mall, or wherever. For me grouping means social interaction.
Personally i wouldn't care less if a game is a MMO or not. The question is whether it is fun (for me).
Well you just need to look around the world - some people just have to have a say in what you can do or not do in your bed, how can you or not pray, what you can or not ingest, etc.
Seems to be similar here - some people can be having great time playing with their group but if they know that you as a solo player are leveling as fast or acquiring gear as fast as them, they stop having fun or something.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Instead of making threads every day (and for every new game that gets announced) asking why they aren't doing trinity, why they have instances, why they have action combat, etc etc. can't we all accept that is where the genre is going? Instead people should be discussing the other parts of the game and ways those could be improved instead of beating the dead horse while being resistant to where the genre and market are going.
Nice post. I agree with you. I also find the obsessive posting by the same people with the same issues in all the active forums just boring noise. Interesting new features in upcoming MMOs can't be discussed without the constant derailing of those threads by those wanting to once again tell us why the fact that the game retains "bad feature X" invalidates the developer's attempt to do one or two things differently.
Apparently, incremental progress just doesn't cut it: you either tick every box that a particular poster thinks is vital or you can forget about it--never mind the fact that they won't agree on the full list of "must" features: No FFA OWPVP? it sucks... instancing? it sucks... has levels? it sucks... it's not a universally acknowledge, certified sandbox? it sucks... so much repetitive noise.
But don't be surprised if this thread turns into a showcase for exactly those types of posts... you're throwing down the gauntlet and it will get picked up by all the cool MMO hipsters well known to all of us.
ya this shit is really wearing me out. i don't even bother anymore with them. it just doesn't serve any purpose to carry on with people who just cannot accept reality. im not saying they have to like it, im not saying its the best thing that could happen, but it is happening. none of this is life threatening either. i feel like posting one of those First World Problems memes in every one of their threads anymore.
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
No major company is going to develop for it because it would cost just as much to make as something which could target the mass audience. One of those becomes a clear business choice when you as a company want to make a profit.
Well, if it's a clear business choice they should be honest about it.
When EQNext says that EQ fans are going to love it and then they remove trinity, add-in Disney graphics and turn it into GW2, do you expect people to be excited?
When MMO keep calling their artificial grouping mechanics another thing, Fates, Public quests, Dynamic Quests, Rallying Calls, Rifts...when they're all the same thing...you're deceiving people into believing it's something it's not.
Don't blame us when the industry calls every single player action fest an MMORPG.
It's completely their choice to call non-MMORPG MMORPG. If it's a solo action fest with artificial grouping, don't call it an MMORPG and you won't get complaints.
There are two different things here:
One is the term MMORPG
One if the hype that companies try to produce
MMORPG is a broad term and I suspect many of the games you find to be in fault of it are using it correctly. The MMO part in my opinion can be used if in theory 50-100+ people could be in the same area at the same time and 1000+ people can be running around the same world at the same time. Thus MOBAs are in no way shape or form an MMO. RPGs come in a wide variety, but at they're core they are really just about controlling a character in an adventure. So an action combat game can still be an RPG. A game where you can do everything solo does not mean it isn't an MMO. I think the problem is that too many gamers have come up with MMORPG definitions that include a ton of specific details that may make a great MMO for them, but are not actually in the typical definition of an MMORPG.
Now as for the hype, I think people need to learn to see through it better. When you see an infomercial about how this product can repair your car's paint to factory new with a quick wipe on and wipe off and if you order now you can double it for $19.95; do you not look at those claims skeptically? How come when it comes to MMO companies most people seem to buy directly into all of that hype instead of still looking at it critically and seeing that some of it will certainly turn out to be an exaggeration? Do I think it is a little sleazy of companies to stretch the truth so far in advertising? Sure, but at the same time should people be a lot more knowledgeable of this and know to look at it carefully before jumping on the hype train? Definitely.
Because it requires social interaction, artificial grouping does not.
And let's be honest here, most of those mechanics don't even employ grouping, Fates, Rifts, you name it, you're often not even grouped in them. How can you possibly call this grouping.
You can call it massive if that makes you feel better, just like standing in a crowd on your own must feel massive to to you, or standing in a shopping mall, or wherever. For me grouping means social interaction.
Clicking a button to invite someone to a party is social interaction now?
And there are examples of social interaction where you are surrounded by strangers: sport events, religious events, natural or man made phenomenons that bond people, etc.
This is a game, so people interact with each other by playing it.
Otherwise it could just be a chat room.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Because it requires social interaction, artificial grouping does not.
And let's be honest here, most of those mechanics don't even employ grouping, Fates, Rifts, you name it, you're often not even grouped in them. How can you possibly call this grouping.
You can call it massive if that makes you feel better, just like standing in a crowd on your own must feel massive to to you, or standing in a shopping mall, or wherever. For me grouping means social interaction.
Clicking a button to invite someone to a party is social interaction now?
No, making friends and talking to people about grouping instead of queueing up for a "dynamic event" or "dungeon finder" is the social part.
Am I this abstruse? Doesn't sound like a hard concept to understand.
Normal grouping requires you to interact, it requires you to open your mouth, to engage with another player, automated systems do not. Seem pretty damn crystal clear to me.
Because it requires social interaction, artificial grouping does not.
And let's be honest here, most of those mechanics don't even employ grouping, Fates, Rifts, you name it, you're often not even grouped in them. How can you possibly call this grouping.
You can call it massive if that makes you feel better, just like standing in a crowd on your own must feel massive to to you, or standing in a shopping mall, or wherever. For me grouping means social interaction.
Clicking a button to invite someone to a party is social interaction now?
No, making friends and talking to people about grouping instead of queueing up for a "dynamic event" or "dungeon finder" is the social part.
Am I this abstruse? Doesn't sound like a hard concept to understand.
Normal grouping requires you to interact, it requires you to open your mouth, to engage with another player, automated systems do not. Seem pretty damn crystal clear to me.
"LF1M need x or y to do Z".
And how is the automatic grouping in open world any worse than soloing quests or camping/killing mobs for yourself?
In my opinion it is much better.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Well, those are the people that are better off with MMO that give you automated grouping, since those people tend to be put either on ignore in most games or leave the game on their own.
Shouting "LFG" non-stop is a good clue you're not engaging with other players, or unwilling to do so.
I recognise some players do need help, and for those there are games with Fates, Dynamic events, Public Events, Rallying calls, Dunegon Finders....but I don't want every game to be like that. Not every game has to be a watered down solo game with artificial grouping.
I think the OP couldn't be more wrong. Companies understand they will not make any money making WOW clones anymore. MMO's will have a lot more sandbox elements moving forward and it is something you should accept. Don't take my word for it take a look at the top 10 games in development rite now on the home page and read what the developers are saying. I mean you are right many of us have been crying on the forums for a long time but when we stopped buying the horrible games that were coming out companies listened. I don't blame them for not wanting to make a sandbox as it is extremely hard to develop because it is not controlled but moving forward you will see a lot of sandbox elements at the very least in the new generation of games.
People simply get indoctrinated with particular aspects of gameplay. I'm not sure why, but I suspect it has far more to do with age, emotional state, and relative gaming options than with any actual coherent virtue. It makes sense that those on the J side of the judging-perceiving spectrum (and to a lesser extent the F side of the thinking-feeling spectrum) would follow this train of thought: I enjoy this game, therefore it is great and Anything different is bad.
Such people will never accept anything, because their opinions were formed and crystalized long ago, most likely when they were in their late teens to early twenties, when they still had room to try new things without influence from tainted experiences. There is very little room for self analysis and so very little room to improve there tastes.
The best we can hope for is that they can accept that their opinion is only useful if they can identify the few lost gems of the past generation that can still be of value today. Otherwise they are just old men yelling "Rock and roll music is the devil stealing your soul!"
Because it requires social interaction, artificial grouping does not.
And let's be honest here, most of those mechanics don't even employ grouping, Fates, Rifts, you name it, you're often not even grouped in them. How can you possibly call this grouping.
You can call it massive if that makes you feel better, just like standing in a crowd on your own must feel massive to to you, or standing in a shopping mall, or wherever. For me grouping means social interaction.
Clicking a button to invite someone to a party is social interaction now?
No, making friends and talking to people about grouping instead of queueing up for a "dynamic event" or "dungeon finder" is the social part.
Am I this abstruse? Doesn't sound like a hard concept to understand.
Normal grouping requires you to interact, it requires you to open your mouth, to engage with another player, automated systems do not. Seem pretty damn crystal clear to me.
Ok, so now a group has been formed, either by LFD or actually inviting other random people vis LFG chat channel. On to step 2.
Now that you are in a group, however it was formed, is there anything stopping you from talking to people in your group? No. Therefore, automated systems don't affect your interactions, the player does. In either case, you have strangers in your group. It's up to you to socialize, or not. It's not the game's fault.
Because it requires social interaction, artificial grouping does not.
And let's be honest here, most of those mechanics don't even employ grouping, Fates, Rifts, you name it, you're often not even grouped in them. How can you possibly call this grouping.
You can call it massive if that makes you feel better, just like standing in a crowd on your own must feel massive to to you, or standing in a shopping mall, or wherever. For me grouping means social interaction.
Clicking a button to invite someone to a party is social interaction now?
No, making friends and talking to people about grouping instead of queueing up for a "dynamic event" or "dungeon finder" is the social part.
Am I this abstruse? Doesn't sound like a hard concept to understand.
Normal grouping requires you to interact, it requires you to open your mouth, to engage with another player, automated systems do not. Seem pretty damn crystal clear to me.
Ok, so now a group has been formed, either by LFD or actually inviting other random people vis LFG chat channel. On to step 2.
Now that you are in a group, however it was formed, is there anything stopping you from talking to people in your group? No. Therefore, automated systems don't affect your interactions, the player does. In either case, you have strangers in your group. It's up to you to socialize, or not. It's not the game's fault.
Making friends is a side effect of playing MMORPGs, it isn't the main mechanic.
We all made friends and joined guilds in MMORPGs. In many cases guilds move together for new games.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
The MMORPG genre is evolving in order to stay relevant as well as to attract some gamers who used to avoid the genre.
Solo play will be king. Grouping will not be required to get the things you need or to level.
Leveling will continue to get faster until eventually companies start experimenting with no levels at all. The endgame is the focus that isn't going away.
Forced Open World PvP is simply not going to be the way major titles are developed. It chases away too much of the market. A PvP server or a small indie game are what you will have.
Instanced dungeons are not going away.
The trinity is going away. People want to have fun with their class and play with who they want to.
30 skills in multiple skill bars is going away. Action combat with a few skills will be the focus from now on.
Auto grouping public quests are going to become more and more common.
Quick travel/little to no down time will be the norm.
Quick changing of class (or multiple trees that can be swapped between) will stay as people want to do different things without rolling up all new characters.
Etc. etc. etc.
Instead of making threads every day (and for every new game that gets announced) asking why they aren't doing trinity, why they have instances, why they have action combat, etc etc. can't we all accept that is where the genre is going? Instead people should be discussing the other parts of the game and ways those could be improved instead of beating the dead horse while being resistant to where the genre and market are going.
I started off with The Realm, then UO, then EQ, then AC, then DAoC, WoW, and on and on. I played almost all of the early titles and many more in the years that followed. There are things I like that aren't coming back either because they simply aren't mainstream enough to be profitable. But you can't sit there and demand they go back to the old school. You can't demand they make yet another WoW clone that will fail instantly simply because you like that style of game (yet refuse to play the game that is exactly like WoW, it is called WoW).
It would be like stomping your feet when Duke Nukem 3D and other shooters allowed the camera to move up and down because you liked Doom so much. Or complaining that Mario switched from a side scroller to 3D worlds. Genres advance, adapt, and change to keep up with both technology and the shifting consumers. You can't unwind that so let's just move forward and actually talk about new things once in a while instead of having the 100th thread on the trinity or the 300th thread on how EQNext is doing it wrong because you want EQ1 with a better graphics engine. Time to move forward and adapt with the genre.
You attitude has allowed MTV to single handedly ruin "popular" music. It used to be that even the "pop" music was quality, take for example the Beatles. Now "pop" music is all Justin Bieber and 1 Direction. Why? Cuz we sat down, and accepted it. We turned on MTV and said" Holy crap that is horrible, but since it gets play time, I will go buy it."
Yea I think F2P models are going to be a thing of the past, at least for MMOs. With MOBAs it's not that big of a deal as long as it doesn't correlate to P2W.
Seriously? What makes you say that? I am just asking because almost every game I know of is either F2P now or B2P, there are a few indie games and one major game FFreborn that will have a sub but I don't see much on the radar that is going back to the Subscription Model.
I have seen really bad F2P models, and really lackluster games that couldn't justify the sub fee but it seems, looking at the landscape F2P is the thing of the future or possibly B2P.
The MMORPG genre is evolving in order to stay relevant as well as to attract some gamers who used to avoid the genre.
Solo play will be king. Grouping will not be required to get the things you need or to level.
Leveling will continue to get faster until eventually companies start experimenting with no levels at all. The endgame is the focus that isn't going away.
Forced Open World PvP is simply not going to be the way major titles are developed. It chases away too much of the market. A PvP server or a small indie game are what you will have.
Instanced dungeons are not going away.
The trinity is going away. People want to have fun with their class and play with who they want to.
30 skills in multiple skill bars is going away. Action combat with a few skills will be the focus from now on.
Auto grouping public quests are going to become more and more common.
Quick travel/little to no down time will be the norm.
Quick changing of class (or multiple trees that can be swapped between) will stay as people want to do different things without rolling up all new characters.
Etc. etc. etc.
Instead of making threads every day (and for every new game that gets announced) asking why they aren't doing trinity, why they have instances, why they have action combat, etc etc. can't we all accept that is where the genre is going? Instead people should be discussing the other parts of the game and ways those could be improved instead of beating the dead horse while being resistant to where the genre and market are going.
I started off with The Realm, then UO, then EQ, then AC, then DAoC, WoW, and on and on. I played almost all of the early titles and many more in the years that followed. There are things I like that aren't coming back either because they simply aren't mainstream enough to be profitable. But you can't sit there and demand they go back to the old school. You can't demand they make yet another WoW clone that will fail instantly simply because you like that style of game (yet refuse to play the game that is exactly like WoW, it is called WoW).
It would be like stomping your feet when Duke Nukem 3D and other shooters allowed the camera to move up and down because you liked Doom so much. Or complaining that Mario switched from a side scroller to 3D worlds. Genres advance, adapt, and change to keep up with both technology and the shifting consumers. You can't unwind that so let's just move forward and actually talk about new things once in a while instead of having the 100th thread on the trinity or the 300th thread on how EQNext is doing it wrong because you want EQ1 with a better graphics engine. Time to move forward and adapt with the genre.
You say the genre is evolving to stay relevant which I can agree with, but games are currently struggling even harder now to stay relevant. So what came 1st. Irrelevance or evolution? Did they start evolving 1st and thus started losing relevance and are now struggling to "evolve" back into relevance, or did they just start losing relevance due to stagnation and are now responding? The heart of my question is....Are the changes heading in the right direction for the genre?
Ok, so now a group has been formed, either by LFD or actually inviting other random people vis LFG chat channel. On to step 2.
Now that you are in a group, however it was formed, is there anything stopping you from talking to people in your group? No. Therefore, automated systems don't affect your interactions, the player does. In either case, you have strangers in your group. It's up to you to socialize, or not. It's not the game's fault.
Of course it affects your ability to interact. You're now not only in combat but these game also often use action combat which leaves very little time for interactions.
Someone said the other day "Making groups is part of the challenge of EQ, and one of the reasons I like it".
Making groups in EQ could take a while if we needed a very specific group make-up, well, what did we do in the meantime....sit down next to each other and socialise.
EQ is 50% gameplay and 50% chatbox, and that's why people who are unable or unwilling to socialise and are of the NOW NOW NOW ideology, don't prosper in it.
You attitude has allowed MTV to single handedly ruin "popular" music. It used to be that even the "pop" music was quality, take for example the Beatles. Now "pop" music is all Justin Bieber and 1 Direction. Why? Cuz we sat down, and accepted it. We turned on MTV and said" Holy crap that is horrible, but since it gets play time, I will go buy it."
So, no I wont just accept it and move on.
You can try to look at it that way, but clearly that has no effect. Since surely you find all modern music to be crap, you aren't buying that crap music yet not only are they still making it, top singers/musicians are richer than ever before because so many others are. So your hatred and refusal to accept the music has changed nothing.
I find that most of the movies that get released (and most of the TV shows) now a days are crap in my opinion. However, I accept that this is my opinion because movies like Twilight rake in a ton of money from a large number of people who clearly like that movie style.
I accept that my views are not in line with the majority. It doesn't mean that I just say "Oh I'll like Twilight then", it simply means I accept that there is a mass market who likes things that I do not. The one thing that has never changed anything in the business world is someone stomping their feet saying "No, you can not make this!!!" when the majority likes what is being made. Money speaks.
Not accepting it results in sitting on internet forums complaining about how the whole industry is wrong. Yet no matter how much you do that, nothing changes because enough other are speaking loudly with their wallets. Sometimes instead of bashing your head against a brick wall it is better to just accept that the brick wall wins.
For someone who can't find anything good in the modern MMOs (or in modern music) I would simply suggest looking at the indie scene. Indies are usually willing to make something that mainstream won't because profits aren't their main concern. Granted you'll usually have to sacrifice on the quality level you want, but the trade off could be the game style you're looking for.
Or even better yet is to play the dozens of older MMOs which are still running and have the rule sets that you want. There are so many times someone says they "Wish someone would make a new EQ/AC/DAoC" yet all of those games are running and they reply to that with "Well the graphics are old". Well..... your tastes are old enough that you just might need to accept old graphics with the mindset of substance over style and be happy that they still keep those old school things running while the industry evolves into the new style being released now.
The MMORPG genre is evolving in order to stay relevant as well as to attract some gamers who used to avoid the genre.
Solo play will be king. Grouping will not be required to get the things you need or to level.
Leveling will continue to get faster until eventually companies start experimenting with no levels at all. The endgame is the focus that isn't going away.
Forced Open World PvP is simply not going to be the way major titles are developed. It chases away too much of the market. A PvP server or a small indie game are what you will have.
Instanced dungeons are not going away.
The trinity is going away. People want to have fun with their class and play with who they want to.
30 skills in multiple skill bars is going away. Action combat with a few skills will be the focus from now on.
Auto grouping public quests are going to become more and more common.
Quick travel/little to no down time will be the norm.
Quick changing of class (or multiple trees that can be swapped between) will stay as people want to do different things without rolling up all new characters.
Etc. etc. etc.
Instead of making threads every day (and for every new game that gets announced) asking why they aren't doing trinity, why they have instances, why they have action combat, etc etc. can't we all accept that is where the genre is going? Instead people should be discussing the other parts of the game and ways those could be improved instead of beating the dead horse while being resistant to where the genre and market are going.
I started off with The Realm, then UO, then EQ, then AC, then DAoC, WoW, and on and on. I played almost all of the early titles and many more in the years that followed. There are things I like that aren't coming back either because they simply aren't mainstream enough to be profitable. But you can't sit there and demand they go back to the old school. You can't demand they make yet another WoW clone that will fail instantly simply because you like that style of game (yet refuse to play the game that is exactly like WoW, it is called WoW).
It would be like stomping your feet when Duke Nukem 3D and other shooters allowed the camera to move up and down because you liked Doom so much. Or complaining that Mario switched from a side scroller to 3D worlds. Genres advance, adapt, and change to keep up with both technology and the shifting consumers. You can't unwind that so let's just move forward and actually talk about new things once in a while instead of having the 100th thread on the trinity or the 300th thread on how EQNext is doing it wrong because you want EQ1 with a better graphics engine. Time to move forward and adapt with the genre.
You attitude has allowed MTV to single handedly ruin "popular" music. It used to be that even the "pop" music was quality, take for example the Beatles. Now "pop" music is all Justin Bieber and 1 Direction. Why? Cuz we sat down, and accepted it. We turned on MTV and said" Holy crap that is horrible, but since it gets play time, I will go buy it."
So, no I wont just accept it and move on.
MTV what?
I guess it is more those that still watch MTV and go buy it that cause the damage.
If people don't like the game, don't buy them - EQ is still running and you can still listen to the Beatles.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
I recognise some players do need help, and for those there are games with Fates, Dynamic events, Public Events, Rallying calls, Dunegon Finders....but I don't want every game to be like that. Not every game has to be a watered down solo game with artificial grouping.
I would say some don't need help, but they prefer NOT to socialize. I have been in guilds before. I have done the finding group thing via talking before. It is just not fun for me.
I don't need a LFD, but i prefer one. You have to consider that possibility.
And while not every game needs to have LFD, game development respond to the market, and demand. If most people prefer LFD (or need help, as you say), then most games are going to cater to that.
Or even better yet is to play the dozens of older MMOs which are still running and have the rule sets that you want. There are so many times someone says they "Wish someone would make a new EQ/AC/DAoC" yet all of those games are running and they reply to that with "Well the graphics are old". Well..... your tastes are old enough that you just might need to accept old graphics with the mindset of substance over style and be happy that they still keep those old school things running while the industry evolves into the new style being released now.
Actually anyone can play good old games regardless of graphics - if someone give graphics as a reason to not play a game it is because the game itself sucks.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Solo play will be king. Grouping will not be required to get the things you need or to level.
Leveling will continue to get faster until eventually companies start experimenting with no levels at all. The endgame is the focus that isn't going away.
Forced Open World PvP is simply not going to be the way major titles are developed. It chases away too much of the market. A PvP server or a small indie game are what you will have.
Instanced dungeons are not going away.
The trinity is going away. People want to have fun with their class and play with who they want to.
30 skills in multiple skill bars is going away. Action combat with a few skills will be the focus from now on.
Auto grouping public quests are going to become more and more common.
Quick travel/little to no down time will be the norm.
Quick changing of class (or multiple trees that can be swapped between) will stay as people want to do different things without rolling up all new characters.
Etc. etc. etc.
No thanks, I won't accept it.
I don't agree with your list either, it's too big a mix of things that could and could not be.
For ex, FFA PvP is niche, very few people want it, very few games that have had it have been successful, and even when games have it on servers it's usually small in scale. It's not something that should be equated with trinity, grouping, or other basic elements.
I also disagree that the genre is chaning for good away from real MMORPG gameplay. Things move slowly in the MMORPG genre due to the huge time and money investments in games.
I think as games like GW2/TESO and others are around for a while and prove to be shallow and lacking, fewer companies will go that route. Dumbing down games to try to lure players hasn't worked out so well for the many clones that have tried it. The best games in the genre are still the oldest games with the original style. Eventually developers will return to the roots of the genre and stop screwing around.
Or new genres will spin off and be called something else. For ex, I don't consider GW2 to be a MMORPG. It's a massively single player online game. TESO will be the same. Some people like this style and don't really like real MMORPG gameplay, and that's fine. IMO companies need to pick an audience and please and audience - trying to be everything for everybody and designing for people who don't even like your genre hasn't been working.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
You say the genre is evolving to stay relevant which I can agree with, but games are currently struggling even harder now to stay relevant. So what came 1st. Irrelevance or evolution? Did they start evolving 1st and thus started losing relevance and are now struggling to "evolve" back into relevance, or did they just start losing relevance due to stagnation and are now responding? The heart of my question is....Are the changes heading in the right direction for the genre?
Certainly a solid question. I would argue that they are evolving to now stay relevant. For the past several years MMOs tried to release with the same old school formula simply in a new world. That evidently didn't work leading to quick shut downs or fast changes into other business models simply to try to stay afloat.
I think now companies are trying to look at ways to evolve to both bring in existing players as well as all new ones. That's why the new batch don't play like vanilla WoW or original EQ (I use these two as they seem to be the most referenced on here even though I would tend to use AC1 as an example of the good old days myself). That, however, is the same reason so many on these forums revolt. A forum such as MMORPG.com tends to be full of people (like me) who have been with MMOs since MMOs first started. They are used to a certain style and to have that start completely changing (even if the trinity didn't exist in the first couple of MMOs) they get a bit freaked out as if something is being taken away from them.
That leaves the last question. Are the changes heading the genre in the right direction? Well I guess only time can tell right? But as I said what we've seen from the last few years is NOT making these changes certainly didn't do anything for the genre and caused companies to lose money so trying these changes seems like the logical new approach. Will every single change that is being tried stick for the long run? Probably not, you always have some bad attempts to get a right one, but I do believe many of these changes are here to stay and will themselves be adjusted and evolved in the future to continue adapting.
Comments
Why are you so hung up on a label?
Personally i wouldn't care less if a game is a MMO or not. The question is whether it is fun (for me).
Why is clicking someone to be in the same group natural but two people standing together fighting the same mob is artificial grouping?
How is something where you have dozens of players doing the same activity not massive multiplayer?
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Because it requires social interaction, artificial grouping does not.
And let's be honest here, most of those mechanics don't even employ grouping, Fates, Rifts, you name it, you're often not even grouped in them. How can you possibly call this grouping.
You can call it massive if that makes you feel better, just like standing in a crowd on your own must feel massive to to you, or standing in a shopping mall, or wherever. For me grouping means social interaction.
Well you just need to look around the world - some people just have to have a say in what you can do or not do in your bed, how can you or not pray, what you can or not ingest, etc.
Seems to be similar here - some people can be having great time playing with their group but if they know that you as a solo player are leveling as fast or acquiring gear as fast as them, they stop having fun or something.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
ya this shit is really wearing me out. i don't even bother anymore with them. it just doesn't serve any purpose to carry on with people who just cannot accept reality. im not saying they have to like it, im not saying its the best thing that could happen, but it is happening. none of this is life threatening either. i feel like posting one of those First World Problems memes in every one of their threads anymore.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
There are two different things here:
One is the term MMORPG
One if the hype that companies try to produce
MMORPG is a broad term and I suspect many of the games you find to be in fault of it are using it correctly. The MMO part in my opinion can be used if in theory 50-100+ people could be in the same area at the same time and 1000+ people can be running around the same world at the same time. Thus MOBAs are in no way shape or form an MMO. RPGs come in a wide variety, but at they're core they are really just about controlling a character in an adventure. So an action combat game can still be an RPG. A game where you can do everything solo does not mean it isn't an MMO. I think the problem is that too many gamers have come up with MMORPG definitions that include a ton of specific details that may make a great MMO for them, but are not actually in the typical definition of an MMORPG.
Now as for the hype, I think people need to learn to see through it better. When you see an infomercial about how this product can repair your car's paint to factory new with a quick wipe on and wipe off and if you order now you can double it for $19.95; do you not look at those claims skeptically? How come when it comes to MMO companies most people seem to buy directly into all of that hype instead of still looking at it critically and seeing that some of it will certainly turn out to be an exaggeration? Do I think it is a little sleazy of companies to stretch the truth so far in advertising? Sure, but at the same time should people be a lot more knowledgeable of this and know to look at it carefully before jumping on the hype train? Definitely.
Clicking a button to invite someone to a party is social interaction now?
And there are examples of social interaction where you are surrounded by strangers: sport events, religious events, natural or man made phenomenons that bond people, etc.
This is a game, so people interact with each other by playing it.
Otherwise it could just be a chat room.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
No, making friends and talking to people about grouping instead of queueing up for a "dynamic event" or "dungeon finder" is the social part.
Am I this abstruse? Doesn't sound like a hard concept to understand.
Normal grouping requires you to interact, it requires you to open your mouth, to engage with another player, automated systems do not. Seem pretty damn crystal clear to me.
"LF1M need x or y to do Z".
And how is the automatic grouping in open world any worse than soloing quests or camping/killing mobs for yourself?
In my opinion it is much better.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Well, those are the people that are better off with MMO that give you automated grouping, since those people tend to be put either on ignore in most games or leave the game on their own.
Shouting "LFG" non-stop is a good clue you're not engaging with other players, or unwilling to do so.
I recognise some players do need help, and for those there are games with Fates, Dynamic events, Public Events, Rallying calls, Dunegon Finders....but I don't want every game to be like that. Not every game has to be a watered down solo game with artificial grouping.
People simply get indoctrinated with particular aspects of gameplay. I'm not sure why, but I suspect it has far more to do with age, emotional state, and relative gaming options than with any actual coherent virtue. It makes sense that those on the J side of the judging-perceiving spectrum (and to a lesser extent the F side of the thinking-feeling spectrum) would follow this train of thought: I enjoy this game, therefore it is great and Anything different is bad.
Such people will never accept anything, because their opinions were formed and crystalized long ago, most likely when they were in their late teens to early twenties, when they still had room to try new things without influence from tainted experiences. There is very little room for self analysis and so very little room to improve there tastes.
The best we can hope for is that they can accept that their opinion is only useful if they can identify the few lost gems of the past generation that can still be of value today. Otherwise they are just old men yelling "Rock and roll music is the devil stealing your soul!"
Ok, so now a group has been formed, either by LFD or actually inviting other random people vis LFG chat channel. On to step 2.
Now that you are in a group, however it was formed, is there anything stopping you from talking to people in your group? No. Therefore, automated systems don't affect your interactions, the player does. In either case, you have strangers in your group. It's up to you to socialize, or not. It's not the game's fault.
Making friends is a side effect of playing MMORPGs, it isn't the main mechanic.
We all made friends and joined guilds in MMORPGs. In many cases guilds move together for new games.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
You attitude has allowed MTV to single handedly ruin "popular" music. It used to be that even the "pop" music was quality, take for example the Beatles. Now "pop" music is all Justin Bieber and 1 Direction. Why? Cuz we sat down, and accepted it. We turned on MTV and said" Holy crap that is horrible, but since it gets play time, I will go buy it."
So, no I wont just accept it and move on.
Seriously? What makes you say that? I am just asking because almost every game I know of is either F2P now or B2P, there are a few indie games and one major game FFreborn that will have a sub but I don't see much on the radar that is going back to the Subscription Model.
I have seen really bad F2P models, and really lackluster games that couldn't justify the sub fee but it seems, looking at the landscape F2P is the thing of the future or possibly B2P.
You say the genre is evolving to stay relevant which I can agree with, but games are currently struggling even harder now to stay relevant. So what came 1st. Irrelevance or evolution? Did they start evolving 1st and thus started losing relevance and are now struggling to "evolve" back into relevance, or did they just start losing relevance due to stagnation and are now responding? The heart of my question is....Are the changes heading in the right direction for the genre?
Of course it affects your ability to interact. You're now not only in combat but these game also often use action combat which leaves very little time for interactions.
Someone said the other day "Making groups is part of the challenge of EQ, and one of the reasons I like it".
Making groups in EQ could take a while if we needed a very specific group make-up, well, what did we do in the meantime....sit down next to each other and socialise.
EQ is 50% gameplay and 50% chatbox, and that's why people who are unable or unwilling to socialise and are of the NOW NOW NOW ideology, don't prosper in it.
Tech from then is not what it is now.
Sherman's Gaming
Youtube Content creator for The Elder Scrolls Online
Channel:http://https//www.youtube.com/channel/UCrgYNgpFTRAl4XWz31o2emw
You can try to look at it that way, but clearly that has no effect. Since surely you find all modern music to be crap, you aren't buying that crap music yet not only are they still making it, top singers/musicians are richer than ever before because so many others are. So your hatred and refusal to accept the music has changed nothing.
I find that most of the movies that get released (and most of the TV shows) now a days are crap in my opinion. However, I accept that this is my opinion because movies like Twilight rake in a ton of money from a large number of people who clearly like that movie style.
I accept that my views are not in line with the majority. It doesn't mean that I just say "Oh I'll like Twilight then", it simply means I accept that there is a mass market who likes things that I do not. The one thing that has never changed anything in the business world is someone stomping their feet saying "No, you can not make this!!!" when the majority likes what is being made. Money speaks.
Not accepting it results in sitting on internet forums complaining about how the whole industry is wrong. Yet no matter how much you do that, nothing changes because enough other are speaking loudly with their wallets. Sometimes instead of bashing your head against a brick wall it is better to just accept that the brick wall wins.
For someone who can't find anything good in the modern MMOs (or in modern music) I would simply suggest looking at the indie scene. Indies are usually willing to make something that mainstream won't because profits aren't their main concern. Granted you'll usually have to sacrifice on the quality level you want, but the trade off could be the game style you're looking for.
Or even better yet is to play the dozens of older MMOs which are still running and have the rule sets that you want. There are so many times someone says they "Wish someone would make a new EQ/AC/DAoC" yet all of those games are running and they reply to that with "Well the graphics are old". Well..... your tastes are old enough that you just might need to accept old graphics with the mindset of substance over style and be happy that they still keep those old school things running while the industry evolves into the new style being released now.
MTV what?
I guess it is more those that still watch MTV and go buy it that cause the damage.
If people don't like the game, don't buy them - EQ is still running and you can still listen to the Beatles.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
I would say some don't need help, but they prefer NOT to socialize. I have been in guilds before. I have done the finding group thing via talking before. It is just not fun for me.
I don't need a LFD, but i prefer one. You have to consider that possibility.
And while not every game needs to have LFD, game development respond to the market, and demand. If most people prefer LFD (or need help, as you say), then most games are going to cater to that.
Actually anyone can play good old games regardless of graphics - if someone give graphics as a reason to not play a game it is because the game itself sucks.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
Certainly a solid question. I would argue that they are evolving to now stay relevant. For the past several years MMOs tried to release with the same old school formula simply in a new world. That evidently didn't work leading to quick shut downs or fast changes into other business models simply to try to stay afloat.
I think now companies are trying to look at ways to evolve to both bring in existing players as well as all new ones. That's why the new batch don't play like vanilla WoW or original EQ (I use these two as they seem to be the most referenced on here even though I would tend to use AC1 as an example of the good old days myself). That, however, is the same reason so many on these forums revolt. A forum such as MMORPG.com tends to be full of people (like me) who have been with MMOs since MMOs first started. They are used to a certain style and to have that start completely changing (even if the trinity didn't exist in the first couple of MMOs) they get a bit freaked out as if something is being taken away from them.
That leaves the last question. Are the changes heading the genre in the right direction? Well I guess only time can tell right? But as I said what we've seen from the last few years is NOT making these changes certainly didn't do anything for the genre and caused companies to lose money so trying these changes seems like the logical new approach. Will every single change that is being tried stick for the long run? Probably not, you always have some bad attempts to get a right one, but I do believe many of these changes are here to stay and will themselves be adjusted and evolved in the future to continue adapting.