Originally posted by CobraMKIII I agree that the MMO(RPG) genre is in a dismal state...
... with more players than it ever had. Yep, dismal seems to be the proper word to describe it.(/sarcasm)
With many companies failing to please their audiences I wonder how long it will last. How many companies/studious have shut their doors to their games due to this "more popular than ever" statistics?
I often find myself wondering... How many of these new, pleased players actually desire RPG in their games. If I look at the impressive numbers, I seem to conclude, not many.
Well you could also assume they like more than just RPG's, or like a different style of RPG, as there's more than one popular form of roleplaying game.
I could, but that does not jive with what I read on forums from many of today's happy players.
"I don't want a virtual world." "I don't play to make friends." "I want a lobby and instant transport to 'the good stuff'." "I want FPS-like twitch combat." "Downtime is a waste of my time."
No, I think my take on it is more accurate. There is not a lot of RPG elements in those kinds of statements.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Originally posted by Distopia Originally posted by AlBQuirky Originally posted by Mtibbs1989 Originally posted by Neo_Viper Originally posted by CobraMKIII I agree that the MMO(RPG) genre is in a dismal state...
... with more players than it ever had. Yep, dismal seems to be the proper word to describe it.
(/sarcasm)
With many companies failing to please their audiences I wonder how long it will last. How many companies/studious have shut their doors to their games due to this "more popular than ever" statistics? I often find myself wondering... How many of these new, pleased players actually desire RPG in their games. If I look at the impressive numbers, I seem to conclude, not many. Well you could also assume they like more than just RPG's, or like a different style of RPG, as there's more than one popular form of roleplaying game. I could, but that does not jive with what I read on forums from many of today's happy players.
"I don't want a virtual world." "I don't play to make friends." "I want a lobby and instant transport to 'the good stuff'." "I want FPS-like twitch combat." "Downtime is a waste of my time."
No, I think my take on it is more accurate. There is not a lot of RPG elements in those kinds of statements.
RPG do not need virtual worlds, they only need settings in which to play. Even so, every RPG exists within a virtual world, even if that world isn't very dynamic.
Single player RPGs exist just fine without other people, so other people are not a requirement for RPGs either.
Ditto for instant transport, FPS combat and an anti-downtime sentiment.
You are equating "RPG" with a very nebulous "old school" or "sandbox" play style.
That doesn't mean those players don't enjoy RPGs or MMORPGs. It just means they aren't particularly fond of a particular style of RPG or MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Distopia Originally posted by ScotOriginally posted by VengeSunsoarOriginally posted by TibernicuspaOriginally posted by salaciouscrumbsEasy fast travel with no restrictions (revealed today)TLDR: Don't count on EQnext but don't lose hope
Jesus christ. Fuck this game it just keeps getting worse and worse. I see this as a good thing. I don't want restrictions on my travel. I want the choice to get there fast or to take my time depending on my mood.No one is ever in the mood to take their time, that's one lesson past MMOs must teach us. If you allow an easier path it will always be followed.More often than not when I watch someone play Skyrim it's far more normal to see them running around the world, than it is to see them porting all over it.
That's been my experience with Fallout too. It's entirely possible to teleport, but the game play is such that running around is enjoyable, so why not run around?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Look, here is the thing: according to a 2011 report released by the Entertainment Software Association, the average gamer age was 37, with only 18% of gamers being teenagers. These numbers dropped dramatically in 2013 when the data included what is being called the "Angry Birds Effect," but for MMORPG players, the numbers probably still hold. You can read about it here. Even according to the most recent report, gamers over 36 still make up the largest age demographic, even when you include gamers from non-traditional platforms. My suspicion is that these numbers are even older when you remove mobile platforms and other less intensive game genres from the equation.
What this essentially means is that MOST mmorpg players ARE OLDER. So this idea that the players posting in these forums somehow represent a bunch of old farts while the latest games are actually being populated by a very young, cutting-edge crowed is just not in touch with reality. The age group represented in these forums is roughly the same as the those who actually play mmorpgs.
If the film industry made nothing but kids movies and the adults complained, it wouldn't be appropriate to come and say, "shut up, you are just a bunch of old farts who have become jaded." Well, yeah, I suppose that is true. I'm adult now, I no longer enjoy kids movies the way I used to. But that doesn't mean you can't make rated-R movies . . .
Originally posted by CobraMKIII I agree that the MMO(RPG) genre is in a dismal state...
... with more players than it ever had. Yep, dismal seems to be the proper word to describe it.
(/sarcasm)
With many companies failing to please their audiences I wonder how long it will last. How many companies/studious have shut their doors to their games due to this "more popular than ever" statistics?
I often find myself wondering... How many of these new, pleased players actually desire RPG in their games. If I look at the impressive numbers, I seem to conclude, not many.
Well you could also assume they like more than just RPG's, or like a different style of RPG, as there's more than one popular form of roleplaying game.
I could, but that does not jive with what I read on forums from many of today's happy players.
"I don't want a virtual world." "I don't play to make friends." "I want a lobby and instant transport to 'the good stuff'." "I want FPS-like twitch combat." "Downtime is a waste of my time."
No, I think my take on it is more accurate. There is not a lot of RPG elements in those kinds of statements.
RPG do not need virtual worlds, they only need settings in which to play. Even so, every RPG exists within a virtual world, even if that world isn't very dynamic.
Single player RPGs exist just fine without other people, so other people are not a requirement for RPGs either.
Ditto for instant transport, FPS combat and an anti-downtime sentiment.
You are equating "RPG" with a very nebulous "old school" or "sandbox" play style.
That doesn't mean those players don't enjoy RPGs or MMORPGs. It just means they aren't particularly fond of a particular style of RPG or MMORPG.
So an RPG needs a certain type of combat and can not have instant travel?
WTF, in this case the problem is not the games, nor the people who like different forms MMORPGs with new or different elements, it's the people who believe an MMORPG and RPG itself should only be done to their liking only.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
By the way, how do you newschool mmorpg die hard fans like the next step of casual mmo's that followed WoW? I am talking about games like FarmVille where the game has been made even easier so no casual will be overwhelmed with anything. Every single bit is optimized for easy access and cash flow - and other humans only annoy you with spam on your facebook profile if you don't block them. Direct communication is usually not possible anymore in the latest mmo development. They are perfect single player mmos.
The farmeville type of MMO also got far more players then WoW and Co. So they must be the superior MMO type according to many posters here. Because many automagically means good. And people who don't like the Farmeville type of MMO must be grumpy old guys that can't adapt to current times. Right?
Originally posted by CobraMKIII I agree that the MMO(RPG) genre is in a dismal state...
... with more players than it ever had. Yep, dismal seems to be the proper word to describe it.(/sarcasm)
With many companies failing to please their audiences I wonder how long it will last. How many companies/studious have shut their doors to their games due to this "more popular than ever" statistics?
I often find myself wondering... How many of these new, pleased players actually desire RPG in their games. If I look at the impressive numbers, I seem to conclude, not many.
Well you could also assume they like more than just RPG's, or like a different style of RPG, as there's more than one popular form of roleplaying game.
I could, but that does not jive with what I read on forums from many of today's happy players."I don't want a virtual world." "I don't play to make friends." "I want a lobby and instant transport to 'the good stuff'." "I want FPS-like twitch combat." "Downtime is a waste of my time."No, I think my take on it is more accurate. There is not a lot of RPG elements in those kinds of statements.
RPG do not need virtual worlds, they only need settings in which to play. Even so, every RPG exists within a virtual world, even if that world isn't very dynamic.
Single player RPGs exist just fine without other people, so other people are not a requirement for RPGs either.
Ditto for instant transport, FPS combat and an anti-downtime sentiment.
You are equating "RPG" with a very nebulous "old school" or "sandbox" play style.
That doesn't mean those players don't enjoy RPGs or MMORPGs. It just means they aren't particularly fond of a particular style of RPG or MMORPG.
I respectfully disagree
Yes, there are as many ways to define "role playing" as there are people who do so, but some common ground needs to be found in a massively multiplayer online roleplaying game, don't you think? Some common elements?
Otherwise, Doom, Quake, and Tetris could be called role playing games.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I'm not getting old, I am old. I fully agree with you there hasn't been great mmorpg's since U.O. and Everquest. Even though these games are still running they are obsolete now. The only other mmorpg that came out after these that I really liked was 'Star Wars Galaxies' but only when it was in beta and first two to four months after it's first retail release. Since then nothing has compared.
Now I find myself constantly trying all mmorpg's since those days with the same ending. Only good for about a month maybe two and that's pushing it. The new fad nowadays, actually since 'Left 4 Dead 1 & 2' and games like 'Borderlands 1 & 2' that focus on co-op is the best way to go since mmorpg's of today really suck.
More gaming companies are focusing more on co-op games than mmorpg's now more than ever. This is why you see more craptastic F2P games popping up all over the place. I never could figure out how 'WoW' has one of the largest subscriber base. I remember beta testing that game before it released and I said to myself "HELL NO"!. It felt like I was playing a cartoon and just running from one quest to another non-stop. Now most mmorpg's have gone the route of trying to cookie cut 'WoW' either in game mechanics or cartoonish graphics.
This is my opinion and I'm stating this for myself no one else. No one needs to bother arguing with me because there's nothing anyone can say to change my view.
I remember when i started out wow, couldn't wait to continue my journey. Leveling up, it was REALLY exciting for me.
However now, 4 years later it just feels like a drag when leveling. Even on New MMO's that i try out, it feels like.... Been there done that. No excitement and no surprises, not really anything to look forward to.
Only looking forward to hearthstone atm but that's a different topic ^^
Tired of lazy and/or scamming developers. (usually both)
Maybe im just getting old. What happened to the addictiveness, the spark, the magic, the difficulty and the competition. Every single game is the exact same bullshit. They are all one month wonders with zero longevity designed for someone with the intelligence of a gnat overpopulated with people that think they are genious. What the hell happened? I remember 10-12 years ago just day dreaming on what was ahead and what this genre would become. I remember wondering how amazed we would all be. I remember wondering about how amazing the virtual worlds would be that we would all explore. I remember real difficulty and the penalties if you died or failed. The comraderie and teamwork. I remember real communities. Real friendships and relationships that carried over off the screen. Now its just a huge cesspool no matter what game you enter its total rudeness and hate.
We should be treated with more respect. We spend thousands and thousands of dollars on games and keeping our systems up to spec to stay on top and its all just full of regret now. Total waste of time and money. Tell me a game thats worth the time and i will explain how ive played it and the problems it has.
I work 40-60 hours per week, i take very, very good care of my family but i still have the night. I mostly drink beer, read forums and wonder what the fuck happened.
Sorry for the rant.
15y of mmos
wife
kid
business (small)
friends
gym
.and its still not enough for me...
found a place i can call home in: FFXIV:ARR.
1 Character that can turn whatever the #$%^ i want in 1 click. Miner, Fisher, Warrior, Bard, Mage, Warlock, Paladin....same name, same char....i can be who i want
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by AlBQuirky Originally posted by Distopia Originally posted by AlBQuirky Originally posted by Mtibbs1989 Originally posted by Neo_Viper Originally posted by CobraMKIII I agree that the MMO(RPG) genre is in a dismal state...
... with more players than it ever had. Yep, dismal seems to be the proper word to describe it.
(/sarcasm)
With many companies failing to please their audiences I wonder how long it will last. How many companies/studious have shut their doors to their games due to this "more popular than ever" statistics? I often find myself wondering... How many of these new, pleased players actually desire RPG in their games. If I look at the impressive numbers, I seem to conclude, not many. Well you could also assume they like more than just RPG's, or like a different style of RPG, as there's more than one popular form of roleplaying game. I could, but that does not jive with what I read on forums from many of today's happy players.
"I don't want a virtual world." "I don't play to make friends." "I want a lobby and instant transport to 'the good stuff'." "I want FPS-like twitch combat." "Downtime is a waste of my time."
No, I think my take on it is more accurate. There is not a lot of RPG elements in those kinds of statements.
RPG do not need virtual worlds, they only need settings in which to play. Even so, every RPG exists within a virtual world, even if that world isn't very dynamic.
Single player RPGs exist just fine without other people, so other people are not a requirement for RPGs either.
Ditto for instant transport, FPS combat and an anti-downtime sentiment.
You are equating "RPG" with a very nebulous "old school" or "sandbox" play style.
That doesn't mean those players don't enjoy RPGs or MMORPGs. It just means they aren't particularly fond of a particular style of RPG or MMORPG. I respectfully disagree
Yes, there are as many ways to define "role playing" as there are people who do so, but some common ground needs to be found in a massively multiplayer online roleplaying game, don't you think? Some common elements?
Otherwise, Doom, Quake, and Tetris could be called role playing games.
The minimal definition of RPG is a game where players assume the role of characters in a fictional setting. Doom and Quake are RPGs in the minimal sense.
However, a more commonly held idea is that RPGs include character development, and the option to act through the character in an ongoing narrative, usually with other people. This only requires a setting, it doesn't require a virtual world. It doesn't require making friends either, since single player games can be RPGs. Even preferring a lobby over a persistent, shared environment doesn't preclude a game from being an RPG. D3 is an RPG, but it doesn't have a persistent, shared environment.
I hear what you're saying, but these are just not things that decide whether or not games are RPGs or not. They could certainly be things that divide players into "RPG Players" or not.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Easy fast travel with no restrictions (revealed today)
TLDR: Don't count on EQnext but don't lose hope
Jesus christ. Fuck this game it just keeps getting worse and worse.
I see this as a good thing. I don't want restrictions on my travel. I want the choice to get there fast or to take my time depending on my mood.
No one is ever in the mood to take their time, that's one lesson past MMOs must teach us. If you allow an easier path it will always be followed.
For some reason when i read that i immediately thought of WoW...Sadly i totally agree with you, are players lazy, or just jaded?
I think its human nature, the only to stop it is not to have an easy path.
Unless paths are identical there is ALWAYS an easier path. I challenge you to define a system with non-identical paths where one cannot be made easier given the environment. The problem I see is that we're looking at the path designs in a vacuum. I think often game designers intend for paths to have a more equivalent difficulty, at least for a given reward, but when placed in the player environment one shows to have a substantial advantage over the other.
Perhaps its not so much about the path being easy or hard, but making it entertaining in and of itself. Travel time is treated as an inconvenience because there is no content in it. Sort of like how leveling up is treated these days. There are a lot of people who care very little about questing and just use it to get to the raids. There are others that enjoy questing and could care less about raids. These are two different demographics and one is forced through gated content (questing) in order to get to the stuff they like.
The same can be said for travelling. Right now, most mmos give you the option of bypassing travelling to get to where you want to go easier. That would be the equivalent of letting raiders bypass leveling content so they can get to the raids asap.
SO instead of making travelling mandatory or difficult, what about making it optional but enjoyable? Then you would reach an additional demographic who enjoys exploring and seeing the world. I think vistas, day night cycles, and weather are a good start. But I also think things like seasons, migratory animals, and treacherous terrain could go a long way to making travel a pillar in mmo design.
Easy fast travel with no restrictions (revealed today)
TLDR: Don't count on EQnext but don't lose hope
Jesus christ. Fuck this game it just keeps getting worse and worse.
I see this as a good thing. I don't want restrictions on my travel. I want the choice to get there fast or to take my time depending on my mood.
No one is ever in the mood to take their time, that's one lesson past MMOs must teach us. If you allow an easier path it will always be followed.
For some reason when i read that i immediately thought of WoW...
Sadly i totally agree with you, are players lazy, or just jaded?
I think its human nature, the only to stop it is not to have an easy path.
This is truth. If you give people the options, they go where things are more profitable and easier. That means they use the teleports, they go to the instance dungeons, they grind the quests.
If I wanted to level via grinding mobs in LotRO, I technically could. But the exp is about 50x slower that way and I was never going to get anyone to group with me to do it.
No one is ever in the mood to take their time, that's one lesson past MMOs must teach us. If you allow an easier path it will always be followed.
More often than not when I watch someone play Skyrim it's far more normal to see them running around the world, than it is to see them porting all over it.
Players run around in Skyrim because they know that there are caves and dungeons hidden away off the main path. But even in Skyrim, once you've discovered a place you can subsequently quick travel to it. From what I understand, EQN is going for a similar approach. I think it's an acceptable compromise. It would be nice though if quick travel could at least be accompanied by some sort of graphic showing the character's progress across the map, if only to maintain the illusion of a large game world. DAO did this and was no less an RPG because of it.
Originally posted by tristanryan I mostly drink beer, read forums and wonder what the f*** happened.
Sorry for the rant.
Great great post, OP. Same here, lol; minus the beer.
Originally posted by vort3x I am curious about Elder Scrolls online, but i think that's just because I wanna see just how much they can f*** the Elder Scrolls PI up by making it even more shallow and straight forward, just to make sure any f***ing ape out there that could buy the game will understand it and know how to play it.After all we wouldn't want stupid illiterate people to feel inferior, now would we? :S
Nice. New slogan for the industry: "We make you feel like a winner; even when you're not."
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I think its human nature, the only to stop it is not to have an easy path.
I don't really agree with this when it comes to games. In games with difficulty levels, certainly not everybody plays on easy even though you would finish the game fastest and with the least stress on easy. Games like Dark Souls are quite popular. I think it shows that a lot of people want to be challenged by their games.
Problem with MMOs is because a few people want to play on easy mode that's what they have to default to because they haven't figured out a way to give different levels of challenge to different players (at least in the single player experience of MMOs).
Indeed difficulty has defaulted to the lowest common denominator, easy as possible. I am not sure what the other poster meant about challenging me to make two paths, one not easier than the other. What I am saying is lets just have one path. This principle works well right across MMO design. One way to get the best PvP gear, one way to get the best PvE gear and so on.
I liked the idea of Foomerang who said they could try to make travel into something players would enjoy, to give travel content. How about a mini game? You travel across continents by playing a mini game which racks up travel points and achievements.
I think its human nature, the only to stop it is not to have an easy path.
I don't really agree with this when it comes to games. In games with difficulty levels, certainly not everybody plays on easy even though you would finish the game fastest and with the least stress on easy. Games like Dark Souls are quite popular. I think it shows that a lot of people want to be challenged by their games.
Problem with MMOs is because a few people want to play on easy mode that's what they have to default to because they haven't figured out a way to give different levels of challenge to different players (at least in the single player experience of MMOs).
Games like Dark Souls are fun to be sure; but, there is the "right kind of difficulty" and the "wrong kind of difficulty". Many posters here want the wrong kind of difficulty. Games that have less than ideal UIs, limited or no documentation, no tutorial and filled with trivial inconveniences which the player is required to pay attention to.
It is the easiest way to make a game "hard", but it is also the worst way to do it.
The right way to make the game hard, is to make the content hard - challenge the player. Players should be provided with a good UI, well made tutorials and documentation. Make their tools the best they can be to tackle the content, but make that content challenging. Force the players to apply their knowledge and abilities and raise the bar ever so slightly when they advance. Give them new tools and teach them new tricks along the way to keep them interested.
The classic way of making a game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by lizardbones The minimal definition of RPG is a game where players assume the role of characters in a fictional setting. Doom and Quake are RPGs in the minimal sense.However, a more commonly held idea is that RPGs include character development, and the option to act through the character in an ongoing narrative, usually with other people. This only requires a setting, it doesn't require a virtual world. It doesn't require making friends either, since single player games can be RPGs. Even preferring a lobby over a persistent, shared environment doesn't preclude a game from being an RPG. D3 is an RPG, but it doesn't have a persistent, shared environment.I hear what you're saying, but these are just not things that decide whether or not games are RPGs or not. They could certainly be things that divide players into "RPG Players" or not.
I agree with your concept of RPG. I always thought of Doom and Hexxen as RPGs in the minimal sense. The same with the early SSI games and it would be hard to argue that the character progression there was anything but one-dimensional.It would be better to try and define different sorts of RPG experiences rather than shoehorn everything into the same box. I think of RPG as the neighborhood with different houses representing the different styles and approaches.
That is a good basis with which to start, bones. Call it "BRPG" - Basic Role Playing Game?
It would be interesting to see what kinds of subsets of RPG the industry could come up with, Torvaldr. We do kind of have "ARPG" for Action Role Playing Games, very similar to "AAG" - Action Adventure Games.
I would appreciate knowing beforehand what kind of RPG a game is before taking a look at it, just like I would appreciate knowing what kind of MMO a game is.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Comments
Where is Black Desert..
"I don't want a virtual world."
"I don't play to make friends."
"I want a lobby and instant transport to 'the good stuff'."
"I want FPS-like twitch combat."
"Downtime is a waste of my time."
No, I think my take on it is more accurate. There is not a lot of RPG elements in those kinds of statements.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
(/sarcasm)
With many companies failing to please their audiences I wonder how long it will last. How many companies/studious have shut their doors to their games due to this "more popular than ever" statistics?
I often find myself wondering... How many of these new, pleased players actually desire RPG in their games. If I look at the impressive numbers, I seem to conclude, not many.
Well you could also assume they like more than just RPG's, or like a different style of RPG, as there's more than one popular form of roleplaying game.
I could, but that does not jive with what I read on forums from many of today's happy players.
"I don't want a virtual world."
"I don't play to make friends."
"I want a lobby and instant transport to 'the good stuff'."
"I want FPS-like twitch combat."
"Downtime is a waste of my time."
No, I think my take on it is more accurate. There is not a lot of RPG elements in those kinds of statements.
RPG do not need virtual worlds, they only need settings in which to play. Even so, every RPG exists within a virtual world, even if that world isn't very dynamic.
Single player RPGs exist just fine without other people, so other people are not a requirement for RPGs either.
Ditto for instant transport, FPS combat and an anti-downtime sentiment.
You are equating "RPG" with a very nebulous "old school" or "sandbox" play style.
That doesn't mean those players don't enjoy RPGs or MMORPGs. It just means they aren't particularly fond of a particular style of RPG or MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I see this as a good thing. I don't want restrictions on my travel. I want the choice to get there fast or to take my time depending on my mood.
No one is ever in the mood to take their time, that's one lesson past MMOs must teach us. If you allow an easier path it will always be followed.
More often than not when I watch someone play Skyrim it's far more normal to see them running around the world, than it is to see them porting all over it.
That's been my experience with Fallout too. It's entirely possible to teleport, but the game play is such that running around is enjoyable, so why not run around?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Look, here is the thing: according to a 2011 report released by the Entertainment Software Association, the average gamer age was 37, with only 18% of gamers being teenagers. These numbers dropped dramatically in 2013 when the data included what is being called the "Angry Birds Effect," but for MMORPG players, the numbers probably still hold. You can read about it here. Even according to the most recent report, gamers over 36 still make up the largest age demographic, even when you include gamers from non-traditional platforms. My suspicion is that these numbers are even older when you remove mobile platforms and other less intensive game genres from the equation.
What this essentially means is that MOST mmorpg players ARE OLDER. So this idea that the players posting in these forums somehow represent a bunch of old farts while the latest games are actually being populated by a very young, cutting-edge crowed is just not in touch with reality. The age group represented in these forums is roughly the same as the those who actually play mmorpgs.
If the film industry made nothing but kids movies and the adults complained, it wouldn't be appropriate to come and say, "shut up, you are just a bunch of old farts who have become jaded." Well, yeah, I suppose that is true. I'm adult now, I no longer enjoy kids movies the way I used to. But that doesn't mean you can't make rated-R movies . . .
So an RPG needs a certain type of combat and can not have instant travel?
WTF, in this case the problem is not the games, nor the people who like different forms MMORPGs with new or different elements, it's the people who believe an MMORPG and RPG itself should only be done to their liking only.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
By the way, how do you newschool mmorpg die hard fans like the next step of casual mmo's that followed WoW? I am talking about games like FarmVille where the game has been made even easier so no casual will be overwhelmed with anything. Every single bit is optimized for easy access and cash flow - and other humans only annoy you with spam on your facebook profile if you don't block them. Direct communication is usually not possible anymore in the latest mmo development. They are perfect single player mmos.
The farmeville type of MMO also got far more players then WoW and Co. So they must be the superior MMO type according to many posters here. Because many automagically means good. And people who don't like the Farmeville type of MMO must be grumpy old guys that can't adapt to current times. Right?
Yes, there are as many ways to define "role playing" as there are people who do so, but some common ground needs to be found in a massively multiplayer online roleplaying game, don't you think? Some common elements?
Otherwise, Doom, Quake, and Tetris could be called role playing games.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Reply to OP,
I'm not getting old, I am old. I fully agree with you there hasn't been great mmorpg's since U.O. and Everquest. Even though these games are still running they are obsolete now. The only other mmorpg that came out after these that I really liked was 'Star Wars Galaxies' but only when it was in beta and first two to four months after it's first retail release. Since then nothing has compared.
Now I find myself constantly trying all mmorpg's since those days with the same ending. Only good for about a month maybe two and that's pushing it. The new fad nowadays, actually since 'Left 4 Dead 1 & 2' and games like 'Borderlands 1 & 2' that focus on co-op is the best way to go since mmorpg's of today really suck.
More gaming companies are focusing more on co-op games than mmorpg's now more than ever. This is why you see more craptastic F2P games popping up all over the place. I never could figure out how 'WoW' has one of the largest subscriber base. I remember beta testing that game before it released and I said to myself "HELL NO"!. It felt like I was playing a cartoon and just running from one quest to another non-stop. Now most mmorpg's have gone the route of trying to cookie cut 'WoW' either in game mechanics or cartoonish graphics.
This is my opinion and I'm stating this for myself no one else. No one needs to bother arguing with me because there's nothing anyone can say to change my view.
Nostalgia i'd say..
I remember when i started out wow, couldn't wait to continue my journey. Leveling up, it was REALLY exciting for me.
However now, 4 years later it just feels like a drag when leveling. Even on New MMO's that i try out, it feels like.... Been there done that. No excitement and no surprises, not really anything to look forward to.
Only looking forward to hearthstone atm but that's a different topic ^^
15y of mmos
wife
kid
business (small)
friends
gym
.and its still not enough for me...
found a place i can call home in: FFXIV:ARR.
1 Character that can turn whatever the #$%^ i want in 1 click. Miner, Fisher, Warrior, Bard, Mage, Warlock, Paladin....same name, same char....i can be who i want
I wanted to put it there, somehow i forgot to write down.
Thereisnospoon.
I think its human nature, the only way to stop it is not to have an easy path.
(/sarcasm)
With many companies failing to please their audiences I wonder how long it will last. How many companies/studious have shut their doors to their games due to this "more popular than ever" statistics?
I often find myself wondering... How many of these new, pleased players actually desire RPG in their games. If I look at the impressive numbers, I seem to conclude, not many.
Well you could also assume they like more than just RPG's, or like a different style of RPG, as there's more than one popular form of roleplaying game.
I could, but that does not jive with what I read on forums from many of today's happy players.
"I don't want a virtual world."
"I don't play to make friends."
"I want a lobby and instant transport to 'the good stuff'."
"I want FPS-like twitch combat."
"Downtime is a waste of my time."
No, I think my take on it is more accurate. There is not a lot of RPG elements in those kinds of statements.
RPG do not need virtual worlds, they only need settings in which to play. Even so, every RPG exists within a virtual world, even if that world isn't very dynamic.
Single player RPGs exist just fine without other people, so other people are not a requirement for RPGs either.
Ditto for instant transport, FPS combat and an anti-downtime sentiment.
You are equating "RPG" with a very nebulous "old school" or "sandbox" play style.
That doesn't mean those players don't enjoy RPGs or MMORPGs. It just means they aren't particularly fond of a particular style of RPG or MMORPG.
I respectfully disagree
Yes, there are as many ways to define "role playing" as there are people who do so, but some common ground needs to be found in a massively multiplayer online roleplaying game, don't you think? Some common elements?
Otherwise, Doom, Quake, and Tetris could be called role playing games.
The minimal definition of RPG is a game where players assume the role of characters in a fictional setting. Doom and Quake are RPGs in the minimal sense.
However, a more commonly held idea is that RPGs include character development, and the option to act through the character in an ongoing narrative, usually with other people. This only requires a setting, it doesn't require a virtual world. It doesn't require making friends either, since single player games can be RPGs. Even preferring a lobby over a persistent, shared environment doesn't preclude a game from being an RPG. D3 is an RPG, but it doesn't have a persistent, shared environment.
I hear what you're saying, but these are just not things that decide whether or not games are RPGs or not. They could certainly be things that divide players into "RPG Players" or not.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
^This. As long as we still have decent and ambicious single players the world isn't quite lost. Just for me and the MMO market.
Perhaps its not so much about the path being easy or hard, but making it entertaining in and of itself. Travel time is treated as an inconvenience because there is no content in it. Sort of like how leveling up is treated these days. There are a lot of people who care very little about questing and just use it to get to the raids. There are others that enjoy questing and could care less about raids. These are two different demographics and one is forced through gated content (questing) in order to get to the stuff they like.
The same can be said for travelling. Right now, most mmos give you the option of bypassing travelling to get to where you want to go easier. That would be the equivalent of letting raiders bypass leveling content so they can get to the raids asap.
SO instead of making travelling mandatory or difficult, what about making it optional but enjoyable? Then you would reach an additional demographic who enjoys exploring and seeing the world. I think vistas, day night cycles, and weather are a good start. But I also think things like seasons, migratory animals, and treacherous terrain could go a long way to making travel a pillar in mmo design.
This is truth. If you give people the options, they go where things are more profitable and easier. That means they use the teleports, they go to the instance dungeons, they grind the quests.
If I wanted to level via grinding mobs in LotRO, I technically could. But the exp is about 50x slower that way and I was never going to get anyone to group with me to do it.
Players run around in Skyrim because they know that there are caves and dungeons hidden away off the main path. But even in Skyrim, once you've discovered a place you can subsequently quick travel to it. From what I understand, EQN is going for a similar approach. I think it's an acceptable compromise. It would be nice though if quick travel could at least be accompanied by some sort of graphic showing the character's progress across the map, if only to maintain the illusion of a large game world. DAO did this and was no less an RPG because of it.
Great great post, OP. Same here, lol; minus the beer.
Nice. New slogan for the industry: "We make you feel like a winner; even when you're not."
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I don't really agree with this when it comes to games. In games with difficulty levels, certainly not everybody plays on easy even though you would finish the game fastest and with the least stress on easy. Games like Dark Souls are quite popular. I think it shows that a lot of people want to be challenged by their games.
Problem with MMOs is because a few people want to play on easy mode that's what they have to default to because they haven't figured out a way to give different levels of challenge to different players (at least in the single player experience of MMOs).
Indeed difficulty has defaulted to the lowest common denominator, easy as possible. I am not sure what the other poster meant about challenging me to make two paths, one not easier than the other. What I am saying is lets just have one path. This principle works well right across MMO design. One way to get the best PvP gear, one way to get the best PvE gear and so on.
I liked the idea of Foomerang who said they could try to make travel into something players would enjoy, to give travel content. How about a mini game? You travel across continents by playing a mini game which racks up travel points and achievements.
Games like Dark Souls are fun to be sure; but, there is the "right kind of difficulty" and the "wrong kind of difficulty". Many posters here want the wrong kind of difficulty. Games that have less than ideal UIs, limited or no documentation, no tutorial and filled with trivial inconveniences which the player is required to pay attention to.
It is the easiest way to make a game "hard", but it is also the worst way to do it.
The right way to make the game hard, is to make the content hard - challenge the player. Players should be provided with a good UI, well made tutorials and documentation. Make their tools the best they can be to tackle the content, but make that content challenging. Force the players to apply their knowledge and abilities and raise the bar ever so slightly when they advance. Give them new tools and teach them new tricks along the way to keep them interested.
The classic way of making a game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It would be interesting to see what kinds of subsets of RPG the industry could come up with, Torvaldr. We do kind of have "ARPG" for Action Role Playing Games, very similar to "AAG" - Action Adventure Games.
I would appreciate knowing beforehand what kind of RPG a game is before taking a look at it, just like I would appreciate knowing what kind of MMO a game is.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Most will go back to WoW.
The rest will never touch a MMORPG again.