The fact there are literally thousands and thousands of these games,what does that tell you about the QUALITY?
it tells me there are a lot of low risk low budget attempts at a game which of course floods the market full of low quality games.There is no way the market can support thousands of high priced high quality games,no way what so ever,so ya a lot of trash on the market.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The OVERWHELMINGLY vast majority of gamers ARE satisfied with one or several current MMOs. The perception you get from forums like these is in no way reflective of reality.
Many players come to forums only when they're disgruntled or pissed off. They're looking to vent, seek commiseration, or just generally find an outlet for their emotion. These are passionate people, after all. The most passionate and the most pissed off players are the loudest. Thus, they're who you can expect to hear from the most and the most frequently here and elsewhere. But don't be fooled for a second that those voices reflect the opinions of the majority of MMO gamers.
That path being easier, more streamlined, more efficient, and much less involving games. I wonder when "puzzle games" will incorporate combat of some kind. (Maybe they have already? I am not a puzzle gamer.) It seems to be the activity that "the masses" desire most.
"Give me voice overs!" - because I am too lazy to read or imagine it myself. "Give me less downtime!" - because I do not have time to waste. "Give me quest markers!" - because I can not figure out where to go. "Give me action combat!" - because *I* want to be the character in the game, just like my soldier in CoD. "Give me cut scenes!" - because I want an interactive movie experience. "Make ME the hero!" - because anything less is drab.
Yea, way back when, I never saw this coming.
Is there room for games like this? Of course there is! I do not want to see these kinds of games disappear because many players enjoy them. However, please try to bring back the choice and especially the RPG in RPG gaming.
1) Yes, you haven't played Puzzle Quests?
2)
"Give me voice overs!" - because I am too lazy to read or imagine it myself.
- i read novels. I do not want to read in games. VIDEO games .. please use "video" to tell the story.
"Give me less downtime!" - because I do not have time to waste.
- preciesly
"Give me quest markers!" - because I can not figure out where to go.
- I can .. but search for stuff is no fun. I don't play games to follow a map.
"Give me action combat!" - because *I* want to be the character in the game, just like my soldier in CoD.
Yeh .. action combat is more fun for me.
"Give me cut scenes!" - because I want an interactive movie experience.
nah .. i prefer in-game scripts to tell the story, but cut scenes are fine.
"Make ME the hero!" - because anything less is drab.
Good professionally written characters will work, but hero is fine. Just don't have me do mundane task (like be a blacksmith or a sentry). I expect games to entertain me, not to bore me.
3) Sure .. choice is good. Isn't Divinity Origin Sin a pretty good RPG? Or the Witcher series. Or Dark Soul. There are plenty of good RPGs.
That's fine, everyone should play what they prefer to.
And i can see this becoming a trend lately as well, though, most of the games are still having tab targeting system.
And i don't think this trend will last long.
As there is a lot of player like you, who dislikes action combat.
Then there are those, who just simply can't adapt to it.
So i don't think the future holds too many games for players like me, but rather for your type.
Action combat tends to be frustrating, especially when playing with a large group. When you have PCs milling around and you have to click on an enemy, you spend a lot of time clicking on PCs instead. It slows the combat down because you have to find something you can kill. It is much easier, more efficient and frankly, less frustrating to just tab between targets.
It's a classic case of 'things were better when...." If you talk to any generation they will say that things were better back when I was a kid. Whether it's the music, food, crime, etc. Things usually seem simpler when you were younger. The same holds for MMOs. It's a natural thing, and current generations will be talking about todays MMOs with rose colored glasses and the cycle will continue.
I admit to having particular tastes, a fine balance between good non instanced pve, good AI, pvp theorycraft and lots of community driven events and fluff, good environmentals. Basically Fable as an MMO, that being said, if they had not cancelled Chronicles of Spellborn I would still be playing it.
The OVERWHELMINGLY vast majority of gamers ARE satisfied with one or several current MMOs. The perception you get from forums like these is in no way reflective of reality.
Many players come to forums only when they're disgruntled or pissed off. They're looking to vent, seek commiseration, or just generally find an outlet for their emotion. These are passionate people, after all. The most passionate and the most pissed off players are the loudest. Thus, they're who you can expect to hear from the most and the most frequently here and elsewhere. But don't be fooled for a second that those voices reflect the opinions of the majority of MMO gamers.
There are a lot of players who still play MMOs. But how do you know the overwhelmingly vast majority are truly satisfied? How do you know there isn't a silent majority who have just come to accept what has been handed down and haven't just picked up the brightest shiney in the land fill?
If the overwhelmingly vast majority are so satisfied, why do we see the same pattern of rapid decline in player populations with each new launch? Clearly those millions who flock to each new game are looking for something they aren't currently satisfied with. And when they don't find it, they go back to their old shiney. How many times have we seen posts like: "Well, back to WoW" or some other game? That's not what I'd call satisfied. There are numbers and there are motives. They are different.
And furthermore, I see lots of posts who say that these forums are not representative of the player base at large. How do we know that too? I think forums do represent the general feelings of more players than those people want to admit. Especially since even here, we can't agree an anything. If you claim these forums are not representative, where does that data come from if not an assumption?
The OVERWHELMINGLY vast majority of gamers ARE satisfied with one or several current MMOs. The perception you get from forums like these is in no way reflective of reality.
Many players come to forums only when they're disgruntled or pissed off. They're looking to vent, seek commiseration, or just generally find an outlet for their emotion. These are passionate people, after all. The most passionate and the most pissed off players are the loudest. Thus, they're who you can expect to hear from the most and the most frequently here and elsewhere. But don't be fooled for a second that those voices reflect the opinions of the majority of MMO gamers.
If the overwhelmingly vast majority are so satisfied, why do we see the same pattern of rapid decline in player populations with each new launch? Clearly those millions who flock to each new game are looking for something they aren't currently satisfied with.
How do you know they're not finding what they're looking for ? Just because it's an mmo doesn't mean everyone wants to find one to play forever. Maybe they play through the content then move on to the next game without shedding tears or bringing up the good old days while mopping about on a forum looking for a support group.
People flock to every new big game but I never see anyone talking about why so many people stopped playing skyrim or titanfall etc.. If mmos have become single player games, maybe the people playing them treat them like single player games and are happy with what they are getting. It would make a hell of a lot more sense than millions of people are unhappy but keep buying it hoping it's going to be like it was, or put up with them because they've got nothing else.
The OVERWHELMINGLY vast majority of gamers ARE satisfied with one or several current MMOs. The perception you get from forums like these is in no way reflective of reality.
Many players come to forums only when they're disgruntled or pissed off. They're looking to vent, seek commiseration, or just generally find an outlet for their emotion. These are passionate people, after all. The most passionate and the most pissed off players are the loudest. Thus, they're who you can expect to hear from the most and the most frequently here and elsewhere. But don't be fooled for a second that those voices reflect the opinions of the majority of MMO gamers.
If the overwhelmingly vast majority are so satisfied, why do we see the same pattern of rapid decline in player populations with each new launch? Clearly those millions who flock to each new game are looking for something they aren't currently satisfied with.
How do you know they're not finding what they're looking for ? Just because it's an mmo doesn't mean everyone wants to find one to play forever. Maybe they play through the content then move on to the next game without shedding tears or bringing up the good old days while mopping about on a forum looking for a support group.
People flock to every new big game but I never see anyone talking about why so many people stopped playing skyrim or titanfall etc.. If mmos have become single player games, maybe the people playing them treat them like single player games and are happy with what they are getting. It would make a hell of a lot more sense than millions of people are unhappy but keep buying it hoping it's going to be like it was, or put up with them because they've got nothing else.
I think thats fundamentally true, but what is also true is if MMORPGS were cable networks there would be 3 channels and a bunch of sitcoms on every one of them.
The OVERWHELMINGLY vast majority of gamers ARE satisfied with one or several current MMOs. The perception you get from forums like these is in no way reflective of reality.
Many players come to forums only when they're disgruntled or pissed off. They're looking to vent, seek commiseration, or just generally find an outlet for their emotion. These are passionate people, after all. The most passionate and the most pissed off players are the loudest. Thus, they're who you can expect to hear from the most and the most frequently here and elsewhere. But don't be fooled for a second that those voices reflect the opinions of the majority of MMO gamers.
If the overwhelmingly vast majority are so satisfied, why do we see the same pattern of rapid decline in player populations with each new launch? Clearly those millions who flock to each new game are looking for something they aren't currently satisfied with.
How do you know they're not finding what they're looking for ? Just because it's an mmo doesn't mean everyone wants to find one to play forever. Maybe they play through the content then move on to the next game without shedding tears or bringing up the good old days while mopping about on a forum looking for a support group.
People flock to every new big game but I never see anyone talking about why so many people stopped playing skyrim or titanfall etc.. If mmos have become single player games, maybe the people playing them treat them like single player games and are happy with what they are getting. It would make a hell of a lot more sense than millions of people are unhappy but keep buying it hoping it's going to be like it was, or put up with them because they've got nothing else.
Maybe, maybe not. This is the exact point I am making.......You don't know any of that for certain. You can assume. I'm not suggesting there is no merit to any of that, but it's still a guess no matter how educated it is. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but that too is just a guess.
EDIT: Just to throw this out there, after re reading your post, I honestly think we are closer in thinking than it appears. But if I look at what you are saying it is to look at other possibilities. I know you are disagreeing with me, but I think it has to do more with looking at the other side of the same coin. As I am certain there are people who fit your groups, I am also certain there are people who fit the ones I posted. What is uncertain, are the numbers beween them....as well as others who fit in neither of the above. I do not want to suggest that there are any absolutes though.
WoW is a good example to answer this question @ OP.
When I started with WoW we had a busy server community, people looking for contacts and friends, every guild had at least some bare minimum purpose, there was a lot of communication and a ton of names on both factions you remembered, people had a name for them on the realm and it all felt like this big world where I belong somewhere in.
Now in WoW, everyone is a stranger, you push a button to teleport into dungeons with random people and complete them without a word being said, most guilds you join are perk guilds with silent chat since you can do everything in game by pressing a button, no need to communicate, no need for friends, everything is crossrealm, people you see are strangers, no one has a name for themself on a given realm expect few loudmouths and attentionseekers.
Fucking magic button, crossrealms/megaservers, and the fastfood generation of gamers. I'm willing to bet my ass that WoW would not lose subs as fast as it does now if the game would not be 100% "soloing in a group - no friends and no words required" whatever content you do.
The OVERWHELMINGLY vast majority of gamers ARE satisfied with one or several current MMOs. The perception you get from forums like these is in no way reflective of reality.
Many players come to forums only when they're disgruntled or pissed off. They're looking to vent, seek commiseration, or just generally find an outlet for their emotion. These are passionate people, after all. The most passionate and the most pissed off players are the loudest. Thus, they're who you can expect to hear from the most and the most frequently here and elsewhere. But don't be fooled for a second that those voices reflect the opinions of the majority of MMO gamers.
If the overwhelmingly vast majority are so satisfied, why do we see the same pattern of rapid decline in player populations with each new launch? Clearly those millions who flock to each new game are looking for something they aren't currently satisfied with.
How do you know they're not finding what they're looking for ? Just because it's an mmo doesn't mean everyone wants to find one to play forever. Maybe they play through the content then move on to the next game without shedding tears or bringing up the good old days while mopping about on a forum looking for a support group.
People flock to every new big game but I never see anyone talking about why so many people stopped playing skyrim or titanfall etc.. If mmos have become single player games, maybe the people playing them treat them like single player games and are happy with what they are getting. It would make a hell of a lot more sense than millions of people are unhappy but keep buying it hoping it's going to be like it was, or put up with them because they've got nothing else.
Maybe, maybe not. This is the exact point I am making.......You don't know any of that for certain. You can assume. I'm not suggesting there is no merit to any of that, but it's still a guess no matter how educated it is. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but that too is just a guess.
EDIT: Just to throw this out there, after re reading your post, I honestly think we are closer in thinking than it appears. But if I look at what you are saying it is to look at other possibilities. I know you are disagreeing with me, but I think it has to do more with looking at the other side of the same coin. As I am certain there are people who fit your groups, I am also certain there are people who fit the ones I posted. What is uncertain, are the numbers beween them....as well as others who fit in neither of the above. I do not want to suggest that there are any absolutes though.
I'm sure there will be people in just about any group we could come up with. The problem is the groups who think they are the only important ones are the loudest on forums but apparently represent a much smaller monetary value when it comes to these games. That I know isn't a guess or developers would be going after them and what they want.
The " true mmo gamer" couldn't support the $50+ million games and no matter how loud or how much they want these games to be made for them building it and not attracting the real spenders would be an even bigger disaster than what they say the games are now. You only have to look at kickstarter to see how little interest there is spending wise.
So what do they do now, people expect AAA quality games but these same people who are unhappy don't make up enough numbers ( yet ) to support them but refuse to lower their expectations and turn a low budget indie into another minecraft that would get developers interested in them again.
The OVERWHELMINGLY vast majority of gamers ARE satisfied with one or several current MMOs. The perception you get from forums like these is in no way reflective of reality.
Many players come to forums only when they're disgruntled or pissed off. They're looking to vent, seek commiseration, or just generally find an outlet for their emotion. These are passionate people, after all. The most passionate and the most pissed off players are the loudest. Thus, they're who you can expect to hear from the most and the most frequently here and elsewhere. But don't be fooled for a second that those voices reflect the opinions of the majority of MMO gamers.
If the overwhelmingly vast majority are so satisfied, why do we see the same pattern of rapid decline in player populations with each new launch? Clearly those millions who flock to each new game are looking for something they aren't currently satisfied with.
How do you know they're not finding what they're looking for ? Just because it's an mmo doesn't mean everyone wants to find one to play forever. Maybe they play through the content then move on to the next game without shedding tears or bringing up the good old days while mopping about on a forum looking for a support group.
People flock to every new big game but I never see anyone talking about why so many people stopped playing skyrim or titanfall etc.. If mmos have become single player games, maybe the people playing them treat them like single player games and are happy with what they are getting. It would make a hell of a lot more sense than millions of people are unhappy but keep buying it hoping it's going to be like it was, or put up with them because they've got nothing else.
Maybe, maybe not. This is the exact point I am making.......You don't know any of that for certain. You can assume. I'm not suggesting there is no merit to any of that, but it's still a guess no matter how educated it is. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but that too is just a guess.
EDIT: Just to throw this out there, after re reading your post, I honestly think we are closer in thinking than it appears. But if I look at what you are saying it is to look at other possibilities. I know you are disagreeing with me, but I think it has to do more with looking at the other side of the same coin. As I am certain there are people who fit your groups, I am also certain there are people who fit the ones I posted. What is uncertain, are the numbers beween them....as well as others who fit in neither of the above. I do not want to suggest that there are any absolutes though.
I'm sure there will be people in just about any group we could come up with. The problem is the groups who think they are the only important ones are the loudest on forums but apparently represent a much smaller monetary value when it comes to these games. That I know isn't a guess or developers would be going after them and what they want.
The " true mmo gamer" couldn't support the $50+ million games and no matter how loud or how much they want these games to be made for them building it and not attracting the real spenders would be an even bigger disaster than what they say the games are now. You only have to look at kickstarter to see how little interest there is spending wise.
So what do they do now, people expect AAA quality games but these same people who are unhappy don't make up enough numbers ( yet ) to support them but refuse to lower their expectations and turn a low budget indie into another minecraft that would get developers interested in them again.
While I agree with what you just said, It wasn't my initial point.
All I was trying to say is that we don't know to what extent players who are playing their MMO are truly satisfied with it. And to say that the overwhelmingly vast majority are satisfied is an assumption. It may be true........it may not be true. Most likely, it's both.
While I agree with what you just said, It wasn't my initial point.
All I was trying to say is that we don't know to what extent players who are playing their MMO are truly satisfied with it. And to say that the overwhelmingly vast majority are satisfied is an assumption. It may be true........it may not be true. Most likely, it's both.
Ok I wandered way off topic:P But ... year after year seeing growth in both player numbers and total money spent it's hard for me to believe the majority isn't at least satisfied with what they're getting. Happy would probably be going to far :P
While I agree with what you just said, It wasn't my initial point.
All I was trying to say is that we don't know to what extent players who are playing their MMO are truly satisfied with it. And to say that the overwhelmingly vast majority are satisfied is an assumption. It may be true........it may not be true. Most likely, it's both.
Ok I wandered way off topic:P But ... year after year seeing growth in both player numbers and total money spent it's hard for me to believe the majority isn't at least satisfied with what they're getting. Happy would probably be going to far :P
Well, if what you are saying is that it must be good enough to keep them coming back for more, I won't argue. Maybe I have a somewhat different understanding of "satisfied" from the 1st poster I quoted.
Edit:
As a side note, I think it's a very intersting point here. Just between you and I, we have a slightly different context for "satisfied" Based on your post, I gather that you see the term more closely aligned with what would be acceptable. Where I see it more closely aligned with what you called "happy with". I wonder how many arguments on these (or any) forums happen due to the subtleties of these types of misunderstanding.
Originally posted by Drunk-fu That's fine, everyone should play what they prefer to.And i can see this becoming a trend lately as well, though, most of the games are still having tab targeting system.And i don't think this trend will last long.As there is a lot of player like you, who dislikes action combat.Then there are those, who just simply can't adapt to it.So i don't think the future holds too many games for players like me, but rather for your type.
Action combat tends to be frustrating, especially when playing with a large group. When you have PCs milling around and you have to click on an enemy, you spend a lot of time clicking on PCs instead. It slows the combat down because you have to find something you can kill. It is much easier, more efficient and frankly, less frustrating to just tab between targets.
That is possibly my biggest gripe about action combat. When you have melee AND ranged characters in a fight, the "melee pile" gets untenable, at times.
- 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
Action combat tends to be frustrating, especially when playing with a large group. When you have PCs milling around and you have to click on an enemy, you spend a lot of time clicking on PCs instead. It slows the combat down because you have to find something you can kill. It is much easier, more efficient and frankly, less frustrating to just tab between targets.
To be honest, i don't exactly know what you mean by clicking. Because you are using your mouse to aim and keyboard/mouse buttons to use skills. Sure the skill can be blocked by other players, npc's, unless it's a line of sight or aoe. But that just adds to the realism. I mean, if you were on a battlefield with a bow in your hand, you wouldn't hit the person you want if someone else would jump between you and your target.
So yes, it can be frustrating if you cant hit your opponent. But i also believe, it's a lot more fun than just using tab to select your target.
And as i've said it earlyer, we are all different. While something might be fun for me, it can be frustrating for you.
And that is fine, as long as we have the option to play the way we like.
quest hub leveling rapid leveling action combat full loot pvp games rampant with hackers. F2P / cash grabs
Don't think even one game excludes all the above. In fact I think there are only three types of MMOs to play today:
1. quest hub games 2. monetized gameplay (cash shops / f2p) 3. full loot pvp
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
We have all seen the threads on how this game sucks or this game are the best since UO, and everything in the between.
We who have played MMOs for 10-15 years always have fond memories when we played in the "old" days and we are all looking for the next big thing that will take us back to that forgotten era, but when a new MMO comes along, we find faults in it.
So my question is this why are we and you never content with the MMOs that comes along every year? I mean for all you old farts next gen game should be in the holodeck but even then I doubt you would find rest and a home, you will find something to complain about.
So why has it come to this?
For me I liked the way the old MMOs were designed, I mean I actually liked having to run from Camelot (DAoC) to the far end of Albion to do content... with no horses or mounts. I like Frontiers. I loved the fact that there was a separation between the real world and ingame and that if you wanted something in a MMO you had to do what everyone else had to do, that you could not "buy your way" anywhere or into any achievement or buy anything with real life cash in a virtual store for our characters. If I wanted the good gear I had to play, and hunt, and gather, and Raid, as it should be in a MMO... and I agreed with many old Players and the old Devs that it should be that way in a MMO and I still DO. I like much of how things were done years ago.
Then MMOs changed, and the opinions of many Players and Devs changed as to how MMOs should be designed. Fast travel. Easier Leveling. Cash Shops. Convenience. I don't agree with modern MMO design, I don't agree with modern MMO features. Yes MMOs have changed that much, and many of the Players now like them that way. I don't.
I still play MMOs. Old ones with old designs and old features. MMOs I agree with.
It's not Nostalgia... it's Customer Preference. The "product" has changed too much. There is a limit to what I am willing to ignore.
Do I come here day after day whining and complaining about it? Not anymore.
Originally posted by Arclan In terms of MMORPGs, I don't like: quest hub leveling rapid leveling action combat full loot pvp games rampant with hackers. F2P / cash grabs Don't think even one game excludes all the above. In fact I think there are only three types of MMOs to play today: 1. quest hub games 2. monetized gameplay (cash shops / f2p) 3. full loot pvp
Actually there are a lot of games that don't have any of those, they just aren't mainstream and quality is usually not as good. Istaria is one of them, while you can play free as a human there is no cash shop. There are quests but no quest hub outside the beginner island of New Trismus. No rapid levelling, no action combat, no pvp at all. Game isn't big enough for hackers to bother with.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
We have all seen the threads on how this game sucks or this game are the best since UO, and everything in the between.
We who have played MMOs for 10-15 years always have fond memories when we played in the "old" days and we are all looking for the next big thing that will take us back to that forgotten era, but when a new MMO comes along, we find faults in it.
So my question is this why are we and you never content with the MMOs that comes along every year? I mean for all you old farts next gen game should be in the holodeck but even then I doubt you would find rest and a home, you will find something to complain about.
So why has it come to this?
I can't speak for other people, but I'm not looking for a game to take me back to how things were 12 years ago when I first started playing MMORPG's. Once upon a time, I did want that, but nowadays I don't have time for that. So what I'm looking for now in a MMORPG is casual friendliness while still offering depth in character customization, challenging group content, and a high level of polish.
Games aren't releasing that way. They're either restrictive in some ways, is mostly a solo quest grind, or are a buggy mess.
I'll point to COH on what I'm looking for. COH had great customization, was well polished, and you could jump in and find a group to tackle some challenging content within minutes of logging in. DDO was the same way.
It think what you said about ESO can be said about every post-WoW themepark mmo. This storyline where everybody saves the world exists is pretty much all recent titles.
We were talking specifically about Elder Scrolls though so I'm going to limit myself to just that. I do agree with you, but a lot of that is just being stolen wholesale from SP games that are much, much more successful than MMOs across the board. Skyrim sold 3.5 million copies in the first 48 hours, MMOs would kill for anything remotely close to that. With total sales of over 20 million units to date, we shouldn't be surprised that the online version is trying to use all of the things that make the SP game successful.
Why weren't they doing that then? If you look at it the storyline is not what sets Skyrim apart from its competitors. Other games have great storylines too. What made the Elder Scrolls games special where the sandbox aspects. Maybe they where concentrating on the wrong aspects of the game. I think it wouldn't have been too bad if this time the player wouldn't have been the Dragonborn but just some guy. He could still become the emperor but that's up to him.
Of course you can't compare the sales of mmos and sp rpgs. These are two very different animals.
Well it hasn't been tried so nobody can be sure, but I think there are good arguments that a sandbox that has more mass appeal (EQN) could be a hit. The central selling point of the Elder Scrolls games always was that they are sandboxes. Thus everybody assumed that ESO would have the same sandboxy feel to it. I think that the game would have been more successful with more sandbox features. Well, and the payment model is another problem of couse. P2P apparently still works for WoW but not for newcomer titles.
EQN will never be able to compete with Skyrim in terms of sales. While Elder Scrolls SP games have been relatively open-world sandboxes, those just are not the norm for MMOs. I understand why they're not, Skyrim, for instance, would never work as a sandbox MMO. Skyrim isn't really a pure sandbox anyhow, you still have to do the quests, you still have to follow the storyline, you can't just opt out of it all and go off and farm beets and leave all the Dragonborn stuff to someone else, that's not how the game is written. You're not as much on rails as other SP games but you're still on rails, even if they aren't that visible. With the cost of ESO, I'm sure Zenimax was hoping to bring over current MMO players to play their game instead of trying to convert SP players to the MMO model. And honestly, with WoW losing tons of players, I don't think they're going to last as a primarily P2P game for much longer. They already made it F2P up to level 20.
That something is not the norm doesn't mean It's a bad idea. It's hindering the mmo-genre that all the major titles are so samey.
I think that is what ESO should have gone for too, some sort of hybrid. I think what is missing in ESO is that the player (or his guild) can really influence the game world. A sandbox mmo has to be different from a sp sandbox. I'm not sure what would have been the right mix, but it would certainly have been better then what we got.
That is true. I don't think that these people really want a one-to-one recreation of those old titles. Those early games of course had their flaws. People sometimes put them on a pedestrial and forget that despite they good features they could be quite clunky.
There are a lot of people who say that's what they want, with the possible exception of graphics which I'm sure they want updated, although there are people out there who want a 2.5D format back too. I don't get that, but to each their own. You might as well be playing old arcade games where you're a blue dot running away from a red dot. Unfortunately, I think we've learned a lot from the old games and made vastly superior games thereafter. Lots of people have rose-colored nostalgia glasses, they remember how great it was, back when these were the only games that there were and it was fun and new and exciting, they don't remember how much of a time-sink these games were, how frustrating they were, etc. I think some people are just being stubborn, they want the good old days to come back and will simply refuse to admit just how bad they really were.
I agree, I think these people don't know what they whish for. But that doesn't mean that those older games didn't have fun features that are missing in newer games. I think it would be worth it to see how they hold up in a new game. And it doesn't mean either that features that exist is themepark mmos have to be thrown overboard. Just look at EQN, they are definitely not recreating SWG. I'm still not sure what kind of game they are making, but it seems that they are targeting the moba crowd.
I assume that a modern sandbox would be just as polished as other recent games. What we need is a game that relates to UO and SWG like GW2 relates to classic Everquest.
But I really don't see those being good sellers. Before GW2 came out, everyone was running around like it was the WoW killer, it was going to be the best game ever and would save the MMO world. It wasn't. As soon as it came out, lots of people hated it and moved on. That's the MMO cycle, people carry future games around like the second coming and then when they come out, because they're not exactly like EQ or UO, they say they suck and start looking toward the next game coming down the pike. That's happening right now with EQN and ArcheAge and Star Citizen and The Repopulation. When they actually come out, when they go live for people to play, everyone will hate them and start looking at something coming out years down the road. Dealing with the reality of actual games is much more difficult than dealing with the fantasy people have in their heads of upcoming games.
Yes, but sooner or later there has to be a game that brings something new to the table. Without innovation the mmo-genre won't get anywhere.
I think that many people where not turned off by GW2 not because they wanted it to be a recreation of some old game but because it didn't deliver what they promised in their manifesto video. Especially their dynamic content fell flat. The way it was applied it was rather gimmicky.
It seems to me the direction the mmo genre is going right now is not forward either. I see switching to a sandbox approach not as going backwards but as changing lanes.
I agree, it isn't moving forward, it is stagnant, but going backwards is never the answer and old-school fans don't want it to move forward, they want to go back and live in 1999. That's gone and it's never coming back. People need to figure that out and deal with it. The MMO genre isn't going to change to a sandbox approach until it's proven that sandboxes make as much, if not more money than theme parks. So far, the data doesn't support that.
Why not go both ways? One way for the mmo genre to grow is to branch out, it certainly needs more diversity. If sandbox games are reasonable profitable, why not make them?
Originally posted by mgilbrtsn It's a classic case of 'things were better when...." If you talk to any generation they will say that things were better back when I was a kid. Whether it's the music, food, crime, etc. Things usually seem simpler when you were younger. The same holds for MMOs. It's a natural thing, and current generations will be talking about todays MMOs with rose colored glasses and the cycle will continue.
Hey look another shrink. Whether and food certainly was not better when I was a kid, and crime .. well I have no idea, I don't think there was less, I certainly did my share of stupid things.
Were games better ? No they were not, the Elder scroll serie is better than the king quest serie.
Pretty much any shooter these days be it CoD or BF are better than Doom or Quake.
Racing games of today are much better than Indycar Racing of 94.
Pretty much every game in genre other than MMORPG are better than what we had before.
The only genre that I think went backwards is MMORPG. The concepts behind EQ and UO made really solid game.
With years we didn't get that plus extra features, we only got diluted product.
You are free to think that people are just retard that cannot see that they are playing awesome games, but to me vanilla EQ is better than any games that came after it.
Why not go both ways? One way for the mmo genre to grow is to branch out, it certainly needs more diversity. If sandbox games are reasonable profitable, why not make them?
Because devs don't believe they are reasonably profitable? Because the devs don't believe the risks is reasonable given the lack of upside?
And yes, MMO needs diversity, and it has. Now it includes MOBA, instanced games, ARPGs with public zones, and so on .. i would say it is much more diverse than the days with only UO & EQ.
Comments
The fact there are literally thousands and thousands of these games,what does that tell you about the QUALITY?
it tells me there are a lot of low risk low budget attempts at a game which of course floods the market full of low quality games.There is no way the market can support thousands of high priced high quality games,no way what so ever,so ya a lot of trash on the market.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The OVERWHELMINGLY vast majority of gamers ARE satisfied with one or several current MMOs. The perception you get from forums like these is in no way reflective of reality.
Many players come to forums only when they're disgruntled or pissed off. They're looking to vent, seek commiseration, or just generally find an outlet for their emotion. These are passionate people, after all. The most passionate and the most pissed off players are the loudest. Thus, they're who you can expect to hear from the most and the most frequently here and elsewhere. But don't be fooled for a second that those voices reflect the opinions of the majority of MMO gamers.
1) Yes, you haven't played Puzzle Quests?
2)
"Give me voice overs!" - because I am too lazy to read or imagine it myself.
- i read novels. I do not want to read in games. VIDEO games .. please use "video" to tell the story.
"Give me less downtime!" - because I do not have time to waste.
- preciesly
"Give me quest markers!" - because I can not figure out where to go.
- I can .. but search for stuff is no fun. I don't play games to follow a map.
"Give me action combat!" - because *I* want to be the character in the game, just like my soldier in CoD.
Yeh .. action combat is more fun for me.
"Give me cut scenes!" - because I want an interactive movie experience.
nah .. i prefer in-game scripts to tell the story, but cut scenes are fine.
"Make ME the hero!" - because anything less is drab.
Good professionally written characters will work, but hero is fine. Just don't have me do mundane task (like be a blacksmith or a sentry). I expect games to entertain me, not to bore me.
3) Sure .. choice is good. Isn't Divinity Origin Sin a pretty good RPG? Or the Witcher series. Or Dark Soul. There are plenty of good RPGs.
Action combat tends to be frustrating, especially when playing with a large group. When you have PCs milling around and you have to click on an enemy, you spend a lot of time clicking on PCs instead. It slows the combat down because you have to find something you can kill. It is much easier, more efficient and frankly, less frustrating to just tab between targets.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I self identify as a monkey.
There are a lot of players who still play MMOs. But how do you know the overwhelmingly vast majority are truly satisfied? How do you know there isn't a silent majority who have just come to accept what has been handed down and haven't just picked up the brightest shiney in the land fill?
If the overwhelmingly vast majority are so satisfied, why do we see the same pattern of rapid decline in player populations with each new launch? Clearly those millions who flock to each new game are looking for something they aren't currently satisfied with. And when they don't find it, they go back to their old shiney. How many times have we seen posts like: "Well, back to WoW" or some other game? That's not what I'd call satisfied. There are numbers and there are motives. They are different.
And furthermore, I see lots of posts who say that these forums are not representative of the player base at large. How do we know that too? I think forums do represent the general feelings of more players than those people want to admit. Especially since even here, we can't agree an anything. If you claim these forums are not representative, where does that data come from if not an assumption?
How do you know they're not finding what they're looking for ? Just because it's an mmo doesn't mean everyone wants to find one to play forever. Maybe they play through the content then move on to the next game without shedding tears or bringing up the good old days while mopping about on a forum looking for a support group.
People flock to every new big game but I never see anyone talking about why so many people stopped playing skyrim or titanfall etc.. If mmos have become single player games, maybe the people playing them treat them like single player games and are happy with what they are getting. It would make a hell of a lot more sense than millions of people are unhappy but keep buying it hoping it's going to be like it was, or put up with them because they've got nothing else.
I think thats fundamentally true, but what is also true is if MMORPGS were cable networks there would be 3 channels and a bunch of sitcoms on every one of them.
Maybe, maybe not. This is the exact point I am making.......You don't know any of that for certain. You can assume. I'm not suggesting there is no merit to any of that, but it's still a guess no matter how educated it is. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but that too is just a guess.
EDIT: Just to throw this out there, after re reading your post, I honestly think we are closer in thinking than it appears. But if I look at what you are saying it is to look at other possibilities. I know you are disagreeing with me, but I think it has to do more with looking at the other side of the same coin. As I am certain there are people who fit your groups, I am also certain there are people who fit the ones I posted. What is uncertain, are the numbers beween them....as well as others who fit in neither of the above. I do not want to suggest that there are any absolutes though.
WoW is a good example to answer this question @ OP.
When I started with WoW we had a busy server community, people looking for contacts and friends, every guild had at least some bare minimum purpose, there was a lot of communication and a ton of names on both factions you remembered, people had a name for them on the realm and it all felt like this big world where I belong somewhere in.
Now in WoW, everyone is a stranger, you push a button to teleport into dungeons with random people and complete them without a word being said, most guilds you join are perk guilds with silent chat since you can do everything in game by pressing a button, no need to communicate, no need for friends, everything is crossrealm, people you see are strangers, no one has a name for themself on a given realm expect few loudmouths and attentionseekers.
Fucking magic button, crossrealms/megaservers, and the fastfood generation of gamers. I'm willing to bet my ass that WoW would not lose subs as fast as it does now if the game would not be 100% "soloing in a group - no friends and no words required" whatever content you do.
I'm sure there will be people in just about any group we could come up with. The problem is the groups who think they are the only important ones are the loudest on forums but apparently represent a much smaller monetary value when it comes to these games. That I know isn't a guess or developers would be going after them and what they want.
The " true mmo gamer" couldn't support the $50+ million games and no matter how loud or how much they want these games to be made for them building it and not attracting the real spenders would be an even bigger disaster than what they say the games are now. You only have to look at kickstarter to see how little interest there is spending wise.
So what do they do now, people expect AAA quality games but these same people who are unhappy don't make up enough numbers ( yet ) to support them but refuse to lower their expectations and turn a low budget indie into another minecraft that would get developers interested in them again.
While I agree with what you just said, It wasn't my initial point.
All I was trying to say is that we don't know to what extent players who are playing their MMO are truly satisfied with it. And to say that the overwhelmingly vast majority are satisfied is an assumption. It may be true........it may not be true. Most likely, it's both.
Ok I wandered way off topic:P But ... year after year seeing growth in both player numbers and total money spent it's hard for me to believe the majority isn't at least satisfied with what they're getting. Happy would probably be going to far :P
Well, if what you are saying is that it must be good enough to keep them coming back for more, I won't argue. Maybe I have a somewhat different understanding of "satisfied" from the 1st poster I quoted.
Edit:
As a side note, I think it's a very intersting point here. Just between you and I, we have a slightly different context for "satisfied" Based on your post, I gather that you see the term more closely aligned with what would be acceptable. Where I see it more closely aligned with what you called "happy with". I wonder how many arguments on these (or any) forums happen due to the subtleties of these types of misunderstanding.
- 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
To be honest, i don't exactly know what you mean by clicking. Because you are using your mouse to aim and keyboard/mouse buttons to use skills. Sure the skill can be blocked by other players, npc's, unless it's a line of sight or aoe. But that just adds to the realism. I mean, if you were on a battlefield with a bow in your hand, you wouldn't hit the person you want if someone else would jump between you and your target.
So yes, it can be frustrating if you cant hit your opponent. But i also believe, it's a lot more fun than just using tab to select your target.
And as i've said it earlyer, we are all different. While something might be fun for me, it can be frustrating for you.
And that is fine, as long as we have the option to play the way we like.
In terms of MMORPGs, I don't like:
quest hub leveling
rapid leveling
action combat
full loot pvp
games rampant with hackers.
F2P / cash grabs
Don't think even one game excludes all the above. In fact I think there are only three types of MMOs to play today:
1. quest hub games
2. monetized gameplay (cash shops / f2p)
3. full loot pvp
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
For me I liked the way the old MMOs were designed, I mean I actually liked having to run from Camelot (DAoC) to the far end of Albion to do content... with no horses or mounts. I like Frontiers. I loved the fact that there was a separation between the real world and ingame and that if you wanted something in a MMO you had to do what everyone else had to do, that you could not "buy your way" anywhere or into any achievement or buy anything with real life cash in a virtual store for our characters. If I wanted the good gear I had to play, and hunt, and gather, and Raid, as it should be in a MMO... and I agreed with many old Players and the old Devs that it should be that way in a MMO and I still DO. I like much of how things were done years ago.
Then MMOs changed, and the opinions of many Players and Devs changed as to how MMOs should be designed. Fast travel. Easier Leveling. Cash Shops. Convenience. I don't agree with modern MMO design, I don't agree with modern MMO features. Yes MMOs have changed that much, and many of the Players now like them that way. I don't.
I still play MMOs. Old ones with old designs and old features. MMOs I agree with.
It's not Nostalgia... it's Customer Preference. The "product" has changed too much. There is a limit to what I am willing to ignore.
Do I come here day after day whining and complaining about it? Not anymore.
nah .. you miss MOBA, instanced pvp games, open world pvp games (like PS2), MMO ARPG like Marvel Heroes, and so on ....
Actually there are a lot of games that don't have any of those, they just aren't mainstream and quality is usually not as good. Istaria is one of them, while you can play free as a human there is no cash shop. There are quests but no quest hub outside the beginner island of New Trismus. No rapid levelling, no action combat, no pvp at all. Game isn't big enough for hackers to bother with.
I can't speak for other people, but I'm not looking for a game to take me back to how things were 12 years ago when I first started playing MMORPG's. Once upon a time, I did want that, but nowadays I don't have time for that. So what I'm looking for now in a MMORPG is casual friendliness while still offering depth in character customization, challenging group content, and a high level of polish.
Games aren't releasing that way. They're either restrictive in some ways, is mostly a solo quest grind, or are a buggy mess.
I'll point to COH on what I'm looking for. COH had great customization, was well polished, and you could jump in and find a group to tackle some challenging content within minutes of logging in. DDO was the same way.
Why weren't they doing that then? If you look at it the storyline is not what sets Skyrim apart from its competitors. Other games have great storylines too. What made the Elder Scrolls games special where the sandbox aspects. Maybe they where concentrating on the wrong aspects of the game. I think it wouldn't have been too bad if this time the player wouldn't have been the Dragonborn but just some guy. He could still become the emperor but that's up to him.
Of course you can't compare the sales of mmos and sp rpgs. These are two very different animals.
That something is not the norm doesn't mean It's a bad idea. It's hindering the mmo-genre that all the major titles are so samey.
I think that is what ESO should have gone for too, some sort of hybrid. I think what is missing in ESO is that the player (or his guild) can really influence the game world. A sandbox mmo has to be different from a sp sandbox. I'm not sure what would have been the right mix, but it would certainly have been better then what we got.
I agree, I think these people don't know what they whish for. But that doesn't mean that those older games didn't have fun features that are missing in newer games. I think it would be worth it to see how they hold up in a new game. And it doesn't mean either that features that exist is themepark mmos have to be thrown overboard. Just look at EQN, they are definitely not recreating SWG. I'm still not sure what kind of game they are making, but it seems that they are targeting the moba crowd.
Yes, but sooner or later there has to be a game that brings something new to the table. Without innovation the mmo-genre won't get anywhere.
I think that many people where not turned off by GW2 not because they wanted it to be a recreation of some old game but because it didn't deliver what they promised in their manifesto video. Especially their dynamic content fell flat. The way it was applied it was rather gimmicky.
Why not go both ways? One way for the mmo genre to grow is to branch out, it certainly needs more diversity. If sandbox games are reasonable profitable, why not make them?
Hey look another shrink. Whether and food certainly was not better when I was a kid, and crime .. well I have no idea, I don't think there was less, I certainly did my share of stupid things.
Were games better ? No they were not, the Elder scroll serie is better than the king quest serie.
Pretty much any shooter these days be it CoD or BF are better than Doom or Quake.
Racing games of today are much better than Indycar Racing of 94.
Pretty much every game in genre other than MMORPG are better than what we had before.
The only genre that I think went backwards is MMORPG. The concepts behind EQ and UO made really solid game.
With years we didn't get that plus extra features, we only got diluted product.
You are free to think that people are just retard that cannot see that they are playing awesome games, but to me vanilla EQ is better than any games that came after it.
Because devs don't believe they are reasonably profitable? Because the devs don't believe the risks is reasonable given the lack of upside?
And yes, MMO needs diversity, and it has. Now it includes MOBA, instanced games, ARPGs with public zones, and so on .. i would say it is much more diverse than the days with only UO & EQ.