Yet these "failed" games are earning several million(if not hundreds) $ every quarter, even a piss poor game like scarlet "boobs" earning around 24 million every quarter. some of these "failed" games even have over several hundred thousands subscribers(swtor comes to mind 1st and foremost). what i see here is that developers thought of a lousy system to develop less content(thus spend less time and money in development) by allowing players to do whatever they want and it died pretty fast. some still try to do those stuff and claim that their games are "strong' with player base but every quarter they only report with heavy losses. data shows which one is the failure here very clearly but apparently it seems there are people who are still living in previous century. well good luck to them.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
[mod edit] The MOBA fact means they are good where they are and if gamers have no control over what they play and it's advertising as you implied how has league of legends grown consistently over the years, your arguments are flawed you may believe something different but all of the numbers state otherwise. You can not like the facts but they are there
OP, if this is true, then how come during beta the games are always the greatest games ever? Why are they so full of optimistic fans and solid excitement? Every MMO succeeds in beta and THEN "fails" a month or two after launch..
Tbh, I don't think this has anything to do with freedom or impact.. Players already know what to expect before playing, yet they still get excited and play anyway.
You can just look up SWG sales and peak subs and the number of league and DOTA 2 players or the sales of any game that is not an MMORPG can't link them easily from the mobile phone. Most of these links have been posted here many times if I have to get them again I will or you can look it up easily.
Does... that means all the MMORPGs where you have freedom and impact have succeeded more than the ones you consider to have failed? I'd like to see the figures on that. :x
Thanks you just proved my point, 67 million active players more than all MMORPGs combined!!! Gamers and I am talking gamers as you stated earlier not MMORPG players only prefer league of legends an instanced lobby game to a virtual world! Gamers want to play good games not live in a virtual world. Thanks for proving that.
I don't need to know what the prefer the simple fact that these players aren't in a Virtual World game is a statement of what they play. Some of them may bit there are not 67 million Themepark or Sandbox players is a statement about the Market. Seriously go take a class about business models markets and advertising your insistence that numbers don't mean anything is proof that you don't understand a thing about the industry.
Originally posted by Fenrir767 I don't need to know what the prefer the simple fact that these players aren't in a Virtual World game is a statement of what they play. Some of them may bit there are not 67 million Themepark or Sandbox players is a statement about the Market. Seriously go take a class about business models markets and advertising your insistence that numbers don't mean anything is proof that you don't understand a thing about the industry.
Around 7 billion people are not in a Virtual World game, does it mean all of them don't like MMORPGs? I have a master degree of marketing, so maybe I know a little bit more than you
And I'm Albert Einstein / Joan of Arc / Captain Janeway of the USS Voyager. /Sarcasm
Apparently the past 10 years isn't evidence enough on what a successful product looks like for some people which is hilarious.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Originally posted by zwei2 Companies follow where the money goes. Want a change? Just invest 100% into a game and design it your way
I believe most new mmos have been monetary failures though. Either they damaged some popular brand or just didn't generate as much profit as expected. I think the reason it's like this is companies just don't get it... they just don't understand what gamers want.
Exactly, they don't know what the gamers want. Or rather, they want to suit the needs of the average gamer, that has no insight how the game's mechanics impact the individuals' play style behind the curtains; also has no insight in "What could be better.".
For example, I quit GW2 because my feel of progression was shattered to pieces by the idiotic, mandatory instant leveling / instant all-skill-available boost at structured pvp. I opened a forum thread, it seemed like no one realized the problem. But I think unconsciously all of them experience the damage of it through the progression of their character.
"If the gamers doesn't see a problem, there is no problem." Says whoever is responsible for quality or game-play management. Well that is flawed thinking right there, communicating a problem from the disappointed player's perspective is a very difficult, uncomfortable and demanding task for him to do, for plenty of reasons.
Also, realizing real problems, that are the derivatives of unavoidable mechanics due to the subject being a computer game (!), are generally too common. That's because this kind of thinking, as I said, requires deeper insight and higher level of sceptical and rational thinking; paired with a curious thrive directed at "How could the game be better?".
How long time did they need after WoW came out to understand how important really the feel of "Open World" is... They have no clue what they are doing. Being technically competent is the basis of the planning period. Delivering a social and physical layer upon which millions of player can live their new positive-experience-filtering mini-lives is what defines the whole structure. Still, they tend to be happy with the base alone with some copy of a previous structure's frame built upon, and not care about it more, probably because they have no insight into these systems in real.
Ignorance, the fear of uncontrollable attachment, and being the victim of social alienation are all reasons why certain people who play computer games otherwise tend to refuse the persistent online rpg experience. Believe me, a fantasy set PORPG can be done that draws the audience of nearly ALL genres. Why people dislike the fantasy set can be also cured by this kind of game. If someone doesn't like LOTR at all, then there is some problem with the individual and not LOTR.
Originally posted by zwei2 Companies follow where the money goes. Want a change? Just invest 100% into a game and design it your way
I believe most new mmos have been monetary failures though. Either they damaged some popular brand or just didn't generate as much profit as expected. I think the reason it's like this is companies just don't get it... they just don't understand what gamers want.
Exactly, they don't know what the gamers want. Or rather, they want to suit the needs of the average gamer, that has no insight how the game's mechanics impact the individuals' play style behind the curtains; also has no insight in "What could be better.".
For example, I quit GW2 because my feel of progression was shattered to pieces by the idiotic, mandatory instant leveling / instant all-skill-available boost at structured pvp. I opened a forum thread, it seemed like no one realized the problem. But I think unconsciously all of them experience the damage of it through the progression of their character.
"If the gamers doesn't see a problem, there is no problem." Says whoever is responsible for quality or game-play management. Well that is flawed thinking right there, communicating a problem from the disappointed player's perspective is a very difficult, uncomfortable and demanding task for him to do, for plenty of reasons.
Also, realizing real problems, that are not derivatives of unavoidable mechanics due to the subject being a computer game (!), are generally uncommon. That's because this kind of thinking, as I said, requires deeper insight and higher level of sceptical and rational thinking; paired with a curious thrive directed at "How could the game be better?".
How long time did they need after WoW came out to understand how important really the feel of "Open World" is... They have no clue what they are doing. Being technically competent is the basis of the planning period. Delivering a social and physical layer upon which millions of player can live their new positive-experience-filtering mini-lives is what defines the whole structure. Still, they tend to be happy with the base alone with some copy of a previous structure's frame built upon, and not care about it more, probably because they have no insight into these systems in real.
I love it how your immediate conclusion after realizing no one else thought of this as a problem was that you know something they don't know, and not "I might be wrong" or better yet: "It's just me".
However many problems you think these games might have, they certainly cannot be reduced to just single term (whatever that term might be). You are no better than any average forum-dweller trying to sell remedies to fix all our problems.
There is no silver bullet.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I love it how your immediate conclusion after realizing no one else thought of this as a problem was that you know something they don't know, and not "I might be wrong" or better yet: "It's just me".
However many problems you think these games might have, they certainly cannot be reduced to just single term (whatever that term might be). You are no better than any average forum-dweller trying to sell remedies to fix all our problems.
There is no silver bullet.
I love how you utilized the "No one should know something the rest doesn't know" card. The art of critiquing something without mentioning any points. The essence of ignorant posting.
ui: Obviously, I might be wrong, just like anything a human being ever says can be wrong.
I love it how your immediate conclusion after realizing no one else thought of this as a problem was that you know something they don't know, and not "I might be wrong" or better yet: "It's just me".
However many problems you think these games might have, they certainly cannot be reduced to just single term (whatever that term might be). You are no better than any average forum-dweller trying to sell remedies to fix all our problems.
There is no silver bullet.
I love how you utilized the "No one should know something the rest doesn't know" card. The art of critiquing something without mentioning any points. The essence of ignorant posting.
ui: Obviously, I might be wrong, just like anything a human being ever says can be wrong.
That's not the card I played. I was merely practicing healthy scepticism by pointing out the unlikeliness that you have had a revelation no one else hasn't. Not to mention the unlikeliness "open world" would solve many of the issues you think these games might have.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
That's not the card I played. I was merely practicing healthy scepticism by pointing out the unlikeliness that you have had a revelation no one else hasn't. Not to mention the unlikeliness "open world" would solve many of the issues you think these games might have.
Well, I'm studying to be a physicist for 2 years now at a university, so I can make next-next-gen virtual worlds. I believe I stated my points rationally, therefore your, indeed healthy, skepticism should have been satisfied on some level. Why would you think I'm the only one identifying himself with these concepts though? Or that it was such a revelation.. It's just common sense.
I mentioned the "open world" issue because it is a perfect example of how certain game mechanics can alter the gamer's experience in an utmost dramatic way, and how overlooked they were in the past and are still.
For example, I quit GW2 because my feel of progression was shattered to pieces by the idiotic, mandatory instant leveling / instant all-skill-available boost at structured pvp. I opened a forum thread, it seemed like no one realized the problem. But I think unconsciously all of them experience the damage of it through the progression of their character.
.. .ALL of them? That's awfully strong words.
People have different tastes, that's just a fact of life. I actually prefer that style of pvp for some things, and there's other people who do as well.
That doesn't mean that these people are =wrong=, just that they have different tastes from you.
I have certain things I like and certain things I dislike, but I wouldn't go so far as to project my likes and dislikes onto other people and assume that if they don't agree, they're unwittingly agreeing with me but just incapable of understanding their internal conflict.
I agree with OP and others. Virtual worlds are out. Fake and painfully transparent phasing is in. No wonder players don't want to stick around anymore.
You can argue that virtual worlds were never the in thing. They kept MMORPGS as a niche genre since the move away from them the genre has exploded. It doesn't mean that current gen games don't have issues but going back to the old style of virtual worlds will make the genre better. There needs to be more game types and more new ideas.
For example, I quit GW2 because my feel of progression was shattered to pieces by the idiotic, mandatory instant leveling / instant all-skill-available boost at structured pvp. I opened a forum thread, it seemed like no one realized the problem. But I think unconsciously all of them experience the damage of it through the progression of their character.
.. .ALL of them? That's awfully strong words.
People have different tastes, that's just a fact of life. I actually prefer that style of pvp for some things, and there's other people who do as well.
That doesn't mean that these people are =wrong=, just that they have different tastes from you.
I have certain things I like and certain things I dislike, but I wouldn't go so far as to project my likes and dislikes onto other people and assume that if they don't agree, they're unwittingly agreeing with me but just incapable of understanding their internal conflict.
Not all of them probably just 3 bunches of.. doesn't matter, it felt like cheating.
Different tastes are irrelevant here, because the "taste" I'm talking about is the most essential attribute of on online role-playing game: the progression of your character you have taken the role of. This is not an FPS where you just hop into a guy, buy weapons at start and you're good to go, or a similar game where your progression is not based on explorative experience, only some type of action-based.
The skills you possess have to be obtained through the adventure of your character, otherwise you are pretty much not playing him when the pvp event takes place. And I'm not talking about hard-core rp-ing or anything, these are just simple things that are required for that good feeling. What is that feeling? Well yeah.. If you can't compare it to that you can't relate..
The feeling of killing a mean player with your brand new sword which looks 2 times bigger than the previous one and you got so luckily after a long dungeon; or using your aoe spell for the first time in a team-fight that you have been waiting for 2 weeks to finally try. This, the famishing of players for traits and items by which you become stronger, in the right balance is the core of progression and euphoric virtual experience.
The application of the "respect different tastes" rule can have a huge drag on certain projects. In many cases the tastes are young or flawed, therefore not worthy of being mainstream target audience.
Hate to break it to you I have played games like that got bored and quit them so what you see as essential is something that myself and others don't therefore going back to different tastes for different people.
Originally posted by Fenrir767 Hate to break it to you I have played games like that got bored and quit them so what you see as essential is something that myself and others don't therefore going back to different tastes for different people.
I'd hate to break it to you too, but what you're talking about belongs to a different category then. If you dislike what I said, you don't like mmorpg's in the first place, as in the classical sense it is being referred to in this topic.
I don't like classic MMORPGs I find the design boring and have no interest in a virtual life like many players of current games. The current gen has had more success then old style games ever did. That doesn't mean they can't change or improve but the market a gamers have spoken and they are not looking for virtual worlds as much as games, some are but when compared to the market as a whole that's not the case. Sure some players want that but MMORPGs have grown beyond their classic definition an what the op calls failures are just as if not more successful than classic games.
Vets her talk regression the genre needs innovation to create better games.
Originally posted by Fenrir767 Hate to break it to you I have played games like that got bored and quit them so what you see as essential is something that myself and others don't therefore going back to different tastes for different people.
I'd hate to break it to you too, but what you're talking about belongs to a different category then. If you dislike what I said, you don't like mmorpg's in the first place, as in the classical sense it is being referred to in this topic.
You measure success based on how well a game fulfills your subjective definition of a MMORPG? You sound awfully familiar. This is not your first account, is it?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Great post, and you are spot on. Developers just do not get what players like me want. EQ1 was great. AO was pretty good, but not as good as EQ1. Sounds like early SWG and DAOC were good too, which I did not play because I was still so hooked on EQ1. Ever since WoW, it is has just been crap. I bought GW2 hoping it would buck the trend, I got to level 13 on one character (80 bucks down the drain). I bought ESO on the strength of the IP hoping against hope it would have some sandbox features. And indeed it does but the megaserver, lack of a real death penalty and the way the game coddles you along as you repeat mindless quest after quest does little for me. As you said, it is like an insult to me intelligence.
When will developers deliver a real virtual world where we have real freedom and we aren't being led around by the nose like we are reading a story (and not making one!)?
I keep buying this games and hoping they have finally figured it out. I'm losing hope they ever will. $140 dollars on ESO and GW2 and they just do very little for me.
Comments
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
OP, if this is true, then how come during beta the games are always the greatest games ever? Why are they so full of optimistic fans and solid excitement? Every MMO succeeds in beta and THEN "fails" a month or two after launch..
Tbh, I don't think this has anything to do with freedom or impact.. Players already know what to expect before playing, yet they still get excited and play anyway.
we all saw in that mmorpg panel the mmo geanre is moving away from theme parks.
we also see crowd funding for nice markets,they cant pump out fast enough content for a theme park so they must go sand box and I as a player want it.
like the one guy said WOW was and is the best and worst thing that happened to mmos.
And I'm Albert Einstein / Joan of Arc / Captain Janeway of the USS Voyager. /Sarcasm
Apparently the past 10 years isn't evidence enough on what a successful product looks like for some people which is hilarious.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Games like Mount & Blade laugh in the face of modern MMOs ...
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
Exactly, they don't know what the gamers want. Or rather, they want to suit the needs of the average gamer, that has no insight how the game's mechanics impact the individuals' play style behind the curtains; also has no insight in "What could be better.".
For example, I quit GW2 because my feel of progression was shattered to pieces by the idiotic, mandatory instant leveling / instant all-skill-available boost at structured pvp. I opened a forum thread, it seemed like no one realized the problem. But I think unconsciously all of them experience the damage of it through the progression of their character.
"If the gamers doesn't see a problem, there is no problem." Says whoever is responsible for quality or game-play management. Well that is flawed thinking right there, communicating a problem from the disappointed player's perspective is a very difficult, uncomfortable and demanding task for him to do, for plenty of reasons.
Also, realizing real problems, that are the derivatives of unavoidable mechanics due to the subject being a computer game (!), are generally too common. That's because this kind of thinking, as I said, requires deeper insight and higher level of sceptical and rational thinking; paired with a curious thrive directed at "How could the game be better?".
How long time did they need after WoW came out to understand how important really the feel of "Open World" is... They have no clue what they are doing. Being technically competent is the basis of the planning period. Delivering a social and physical layer upon which millions of player can live their new positive-experience-filtering mini-lives is what defines the whole structure. Still, they tend to be happy with the base alone with some copy of a previous structure's frame built upon, and not care about it more, probably because they have no insight into these systems in real.
Ignorance, the fear of uncontrollable attachment, and being the victim of social alienation are all reasons why certain people who play computer games otherwise tend to refuse the persistent online rpg experience. Believe me, a fantasy set PORPG can be done that draws the audience of nearly ALL genres. Why people dislike the fantasy set can be also cured by this kind of game. If someone doesn't like LOTR at all, then there is some problem with the individual and not LOTR.
I love it how your immediate conclusion after realizing no one else thought of this as a problem was that you know something they don't know, and not "I might be wrong" or better yet: "It's just me".
However many problems you think these games might have, they certainly cannot be reduced to just single term (whatever that term might be). You are no better than any average forum-dweller trying to sell remedies to fix all our problems.
There is no silver bullet.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I love how you utilized the "No one should know something the rest doesn't know" card. The art of critiquing something without mentioning any points. The essence of ignorant posting.
ui: Obviously, I might be wrong, just like anything a human being ever says can be wrong.
That's not the card I played. I was merely practicing healthy scepticism by pointing out the unlikeliness that you have had a revelation no one else hasn't. Not to mention the unlikeliness "open world" would solve many of the issues you think these games might have.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Well, I'm studying to be a physicist for 2 years now at a university, so I can make next-next-gen virtual worlds. I believe I stated my points rationally, therefore your, indeed healthy, skepticism should have been satisfied on some level. Why would you think I'm the only one identifying himself with these concepts though? Or that it was such a revelation.. It's just common sense.
I mentioned the "open world" issue because it is a perfect example of how certain game mechanics can alter the gamer's experience in an utmost dramatic way, and how overlooked they were in the past and are still.
.. .ALL of them? That's awfully strong words.
People have different tastes, that's just a fact of life. I actually prefer that style of pvp for some things, and there's other people who do as well.
That doesn't mean that these people are =wrong=, just that they have different tastes from you.
I have certain things I like and certain things I dislike, but I wouldn't go so far as to project my likes and dislikes onto other people and assume that if they don't agree, they're unwittingly agreeing with me but just incapable of understanding their internal conflict.
I agree with OP and others. Virtual worlds are out. Fake and painfully transparent phasing is in. No wonder players don't want to stick around anymore.
Not all of them probably just 3 bunches of.. doesn't matter, it felt like cheating.
Different tastes are irrelevant here, because the "taste" I'm talking about is the most essential attribute of on online role-playing game: the progression of your character you have taken the role of. This is not an FPS where you just hop into a guy, buy weapons at start and you're good to go, or a similar game where your progression is not based on explorative experience, only some type of action-based.
The skills you possess have to be obtained through the adventure of your character, otherwise you are pretty much not playing him when the pvp event takes place. And I'm not talking about hard-core rp-ing or anything, these are just simple things that are required for that good feeling. What is that feeling? Well yeah.. If you can't compare it to that you can't relate..
The feeling of killing a mean player with your brand new sword which looks 2 times bigger than the previous one and you got so luckily after a long dungeon; or using your aoe spell for the first time in a team-fight that you have been waiting for 2 weeks to finally try. This, the famishing of players for traits and items by which you become stronger, in the right balance is the core of progression and euphoric virtual experience.
The application of the "respect different tastes" rule can have a huge drag on certain projects. In many cases the tastes are young or flawed, therefore not worthy of being mainstream target audience.
I'd hate to break it to you too, but what you're talking about belongs to a different category then. If you dislike what I said, you don't like mmorpg's in the first place, as in the classical sense it is being referred to in this topic.
Vets her talk regression the genre needs innovation to create better games.
You measure success based on how well a game fulfills your subjective definition of a MMORPG? You sound awfully familiar. This is not your first account, is it?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
To the OP:
Great post, and you are spot on. Developers just do not get what players like me want. EQ1 was great. AO was pretty good, but not as good as EQ1. Sounds like early SWG and DAOC were good too, which I did not play because I was still so hooked on EQ1. Ever since WoW, it is has just been crap. I bought GW2 hoping it would buck the trend, I got to level 13 on one character (80 bucks down the drain). I bought ESO on the strength of the IP hoping against hope it would have some sandbox features. And indeed it does but the megaserver, lack of a real death penalty and the way the game coddles you along as you repeat mindless quest after quest does little for me. As you said, it is like an insult to me intelligence.
When will developers deliver a real virtual world where we have real freedom and we aren't being led around by the nose like we are reading a story (and not making one!)?
I keep buying this games and hoping they have finally figured it out. I'm losing hope they ever will. $140 dollars on ESO and GW2 and they just do very little for me.