Not even a mention of SWG that came out in 2003. Probably the most diverse open world game of its time. Player housing, a manageable PVP system, huge crafting, a great IP.Then when Jump to lightspeed came out it went to whole new level of space sim with the varying ship parts you could use.
I would still be playing it and paying, if lucas arts had not pulled the license. Ahh well have to settle for the emu.
Played:SWG(pre NGE/CU sucked)Yep its true, anyone who quit SWG because of the NGE/CU missed out on a much better combat system. DCUO, Fallen Earth, STO, The Secret World. Battlefield series. Planetside 2. Still playing SWG.
"Lately, gaming companies seem to be very cautious about shelling out the millions it costs to develop a AAA MMO and risk losing it all. They all seem to be going a more conservative route. Even Blizzard themselves dumped the MMO 'Titan' and are now creating a FPS team based multiplayer game, Overwatch."
Pretty much this. Traditional MMOs are no longer in fashion. Devs have innovated and turning to other online game types.
"Lately, gaming companies seem to be very cautious about shelling out the millions it costs to develop a AAA MMO and risk losing it all. They all seem to be going a more conservative route. Even Blizzard themselves dumped the MMO 'Titan' and are now creating a FPS team based multiplayer game, Overwatch."
Pretty much this. Traditional MMOs are no longer in fashion. Devs have innovated and turning to other online game types.
The article doesn't say "Innovated".
It says
-cautious about investing
-more conservative route
Which aprt of that did you read as "Innovation" ?
The part about MOBA, card games, shared world shooters .... and other types of online games that the article did not mention.
Don't tell me devs are no longer making games ... it is just that they are turning their attention to something else, like Blizz.
That article was pretty much exactly what I went through, except for a stormy, three-year on-again-off-again relationship with Darkfall and Mortal Online.
I've been playing a lot of the single-player games I picked up cheap on Steam over the past couple of years and doing stuff with guildies in ESO, while waiting for the ESO Jesus Patch.
Not even a mention of SWG that came out in 2003. Probably the most diverse open world game of its time. Player housing, a manageable PVP system, huge crafting, a great IP.Then when Jump to lightspeed came out it went to whole new level of space sim with the varying ship parts you could use.
I would still be playing it and paying, if lucas arts had not pulled the license. Ahh well have to settle for the emu.
I will admit i was not an original SWG player but when i tried it looked sooooooooo bad i could not fathom playing it at all,i quit the game in the first week.It is the same reason i don't like Wow,when i saw how bad Tree and Rock textures looked i thought wtf did Blizzard use 15+ year old assets on the game?In comparison i enjoyed a VERY old FFXI but the textures although low end were very nicely done not cheap like Wow's.
The article imo was tainted when the author says something like "Improved on everything EQ did not have"you can't improve on an idea that does not exist,a dumb statement.Also 2000 was too early for the internet to run amok,far too many households were still waiting for high speed internet,i was on the last street in my city to get it and took until about 2002-3.Also when Cable /DSL came out it was new ,people still considered it a ridiculous high cost idea to add to their home as PC's were still trying to become popular.
IMO all Blizzard id was cash in on the massive amount of NEW players that did get DSL,there game id nothing that EQ2 was not already doing and even LESS so it had nothing to do with the game being good.The ONLY bad talk i heard early on was the Ghost runs in EQ2 but guess what Wow still has them and EQ2 does not so again not a valid reason to play an inferior Wow over a better looking EQ2.
What Blizzard did do is open the eyes of MANY a new wanna be developers looking to cash in on even a 1% piece of this new huge pie of gamer's.Then of course nobody wants to wait several years so tons of these games are RUSHED to get them to market before it becomes flooded with choice.
That worked for about 3-4 years but then it became flooded so devs took a new approach,aka the beginning of the FREE gimmick.That gimmick imo is the biggest joke the genre has ever seen,let's stop using quality games to attract players but reel them in with the FAKE FREE idea.
So what has the entire industry shown us over the last 15 years?Gimmicks,either using tons of marketing,videos that do not show realistic game play,FREE to play,so lots of trying to mislead gamer's.What else have we seen a LOT of, "play our game we have Raiding" "play our game game,we have millions of players" again nothing concrete centered around QUALITY just more gimmicks to reel in naive gamer's and it has all worked.
One more thing we have seen,tons and tons of games get tons of players on release then quickly die off within only 1-3 months after release,all in all it does NOT say a lot about the choices gamer's have been making,but it does make a lot of developers rich.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
What Blizzard did do is open the eyes of MANY a new wanna be developers looking to cash in on even a 1% piece of this new huge pie of gamer's.Then of course nobody wants to wait several years so tons of these games are RUSHED to get them to market before it becomes flooded with choice.
That worked for about 3-4 years but then it became flooded so devs took a new approach,aka the beginning of the FREE gimmick.That gimmick imo is the biggest joke the genre has ever seen,let's stop using quality games to attract players but reel them in with the FAKE FREE idea.
So what has the entire industry shown us over the last 15 years?Gimmicks,either using tons of marketing,videos that do not show realistic game play,FREE to play,so lots of trying to mislead gamer's.What else have we seen a LOT of, "play our game we have Raiding" "play our game game,we have millions of players" again nothing concrete centered around QUALITY just more gimmicks to reel in naive gamer's and it has all worked.
One more thing we have seen,tons and tons of games get tons of players on release then quickly die off within only 1-3 months after release,all in all it does NOT say a lot about the choices gamer's have been making,but it does make a lot of developers rich.
All MMos since EQ left the path of creating a virtuall world experience, and trying to create a game again.... I think the first game leaning more to a virtuall world experience again is ESO, but not half as much as required to give the whole genre new breath..
i think if you want to revolutionise the genre again, you need to do the same as BLizzard and look back at the mother of all MMOs, and not try to make the next EQ a better game, but try to make it a better virtuall world... No this does not mean moving in the opposite direction of what WoW did, but moving i. A different direction...
just ask yourself, what did you like in EQ ( pretty much the article hit the nail on the head) and how could you improve on that feeling?
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
MMO have become so easy that the experience has become meaningless. Strategy has been replaced with button mashing. Games like Archeage and GW2 aren't MMO, they could just as well be a Playstation game.
Currently I don't want to pay sub for new MMORPG because it feel like i get punish for not play it fast.
Back to the age before 2008 , i pay sub because the game feel more like social hub where you met and play with other using game's tool. And it feel right to pay to keep the membership.
But now , MMORPG turned to pure gaming and i feel like punished , have to pay more to play the game if i not finish the game after first month .
Then as a game , i expect i buy the game and only pay one or latter for DLC . Not punished (pay) because i playing slow .
Before , i sub because i want to keep the membership of "social hub" ,
but now , it not a hubs anymore , why i have to pay extra subs?
More than that , i have to pay more for the game i ready Own . Ready ?
All MMos since EQ left the path of creating a virtuall world experience, and trying to create a game again.... I think the first game leaning more to a virtuall world experience again is ESO, but not half as much as required to give the whole genre new breath..
If players are looking for a game instead of a world, i don't see what is the problem going down that path? Note that a "world" in a single player game is very different than a virtual world. Since it is not shared, you can script anything and have the world changes according to what the player has done.
i think if you want to revolutionise the genre again, you need to do the same as BLizzard and look back at the mother of all MMOs, and not try to make the next EQ a better game, but try to make it a better virtuall world... No this does not mean moving in the opposite direction of what WoW did, but moving i. A different direction...
nah ... "better virtual world" is not the only direction. In fact, the market is going the other way ... get rid of the virtual world. World of Tank is highly successful doing that. Now they are coming out with more. MOBA is another answer. There are also instanced based pve games ... no world at all.
just ask yourself, what did you like in EQ ( pretty much the article hit the nail on the head) and how could you improve on that feeling?
I don't like EQ. Making MMOs more "game-like" is exactly the improvement i am looking for.
Originally posted by Waterlily MMO have become so easy that the experience has become meaningless. Strategy has been replaced with button mashing. Games like Archeage and GW2 aren't MMO, they could just as well be a Playstation game.
In whatever private-language definition of MMO you are using, maybe. And anyway there are MMO games on the Playstation and have been for over a decade: the two categories are not mutually exclusive.
Thats just another EQ and WoW fanboy - who really has absolutely nothing to say at all. Nothing I did not already knew since half a decade, at least, anyway.
Not even a mention of SWG that came out in 2003. Probably the most diverse open world game of its time. Player housing, a manageable PVP system, huge crafting, a great IP.Then when Jump to lightspeed came out it went to whole new level of space sim with the varying ship parts you could use.
I would still be playing it and paying, if lucas arts had not pulled the license. Ahh well have to settle for the emu.
In the comments the OP mentions SWG should have had a mention. I think it gets over sighted as it was released pre-wow and during EQs peak, so its often left out in conversations. Mostly due to the results that followed with the changes. Had SWG stayed on track, who knows..
All MMos since EQ left the path of creating a virtuall world experience, and trying to create a game again.... I think the first game leaning more to a virtuall world experience again is ESO, but not half as much as required to give the whole genre new breath..
If players are looking for a game instead of a world, i don't see what is the problem going down that path? Note that a "world" in a single player game is very different than a virtual world. Since it is not shared, you can script anything and have the world changes according to what the player has done.
i think if you want to revolutionise the genre again, you need to do the same as BLizzard and look back at the mother of all MMOs, and not try to make the next EQ a better game, but try to make it a better virtuall world... No this does not mean moving in the opposite direction of what WoW did, but moving i. A different direction...
nah ... "better virtual world" is not the only direction. In fact, the market is going the other way ... get rid of the virtual world. World of Tank is highly successful doing that. Now they are coming out with more. MOBA is another answer. There are also instanced based pve games ... no world at all.
just ask yourself, what did you like in EQ ( pretty much the article hit the nail on the head) and how could you improve on that feeling?
I don't like EQ. Making MMOs more "game-like" is exactly the improvement i am looking for.
So basically you are telling me every one should like the same games you do?
well, just believe me, there are millions of gamers, you excluded, that are looking for a virtuall world experience.. And there are but a few games that went that direction, Uo, EQ, AC, SWG and Vanguard tried to do it, but was never finished..
All other games ever since went for a more game like feeling, i think its about time there was a virtuall world experience for the online roleplaying community
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
All MMos since EQ left the path of creating a virtuall world experience, and trying to create a game again.... I think the first game leaning more to a virtuall world experience again is ESO, but not half as much as required to give the whole genre new breath..
If players are looking for a game instead of a world, i don't see what is the problem going down that path? Note that a "world" in a single player game is very different than a virtual world. Since it is not shared, you can script anything and have the world changes according to what the player has done.
i think if you want to revolutionise the genre again, you need to do the same as BLizzard and look back at the mother of all MMOs, and not try to make the next EQ a better game, but try to make it a better virtuall world... No this does not mean moving in the opposite direction of what WoW did, but moving i. A different direction...
nah ... "better virtual world" is not the only direction. In fact, the market is going the other way ... get rid of the virtual world. World of Tank is highly successful doing that. Now they are coming out with more. MOBA is another answer. There are also instanced based pve games ... no world at all.
just ask yourself, what did you like in EQ ( pretty much the article hit the nail on the head) and how could you improve on that feeling?
I don't like EQ. Making MMOs more "game-like" is exactly the improvement i am looking for.
So basically you are telling me every one should like the same games you do?
Where did i say that? Basically, if someone can say what they like on the forum, I don't see why i should not say what I like.
And i am clearly stating my preferences, and also where i see the market is going. You, of course, are free to like whatever type of games, and that does not concern me.
I think the MMO wheel is just getting old and stale. Someone needs to bling it up completely. the improvin upon the eq model and then the improving upon the WoW model just isn't working.
Gaming took over MMOs. Gaming isn't about socia or virtual world or any of that but just gaming. This was inevitable once MMO type products became mainstream games for mainstream gamers.
All MMos since EQ left the path of creating a virtuall world experience, and trying to create a game again.... I think the first game leaning more to a virtuall world experience again is ESO, but not half as much as required to give the whole genre new breath..
If players are looking for a game instead of a world, i don't see what is the problem going down that path? Note that a "world" in a single player game is very different than a virtual world. Since it is not shared, you can script anything and have the world changes according to what the player has done.
i think if you want to revolutionise the genre again, you need to do the same as BLizzard and look back at the mother of all MMOs, and not try to make the next EQ a better game, but try to make it a better virtuall world... No this does not mean moving in the opposite direction of what WoW did, but moving i. A different direction...
nah ... "better virtual world" is not the only direction. In fact, the market is going the other way ... get rid of the virtual world. World of Tank is highly successful doing that. Now they are coming out with more. MOBA is another answer. There are also instanced based pve games ... no world at all.
just ask yourself, what did you like in EQ ( pretty much the article hit the nail on the head) and how could you improve on that feeling?
I don't like EQ. Making MMOs more "game-like" is exactly the improvement i am looking for.
So basically you are telling me every one should like the same games you do?
well, just believe me, there are millions of gamers, you excluded, that are looking for a virtuall world experience.. And there are but a few games that went that direction, Uo, EQ, AC, SWG and Vanguard tried to do it, but was never finished..
All other games ever since went for a more game like feeling, i think its about time there was a virtuall world experience for the online roleplaying community
He did not say that. Nobody but the old-school/sandbox proselytizers want others to like what they like. Force people to play how they want to play games.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Waterlily MMO have become so easy that the experience has become meaningless. Strategy has been replaced with button mashing. Games like Archeage and GW2 aren't MMO, they could just as well be a Playstation game.
This right here, MMOs are supposed to be played over a long period of time, but every one that has come out in recent years is a rush to max level (which can take anywhere between a few days to a month depending on how hardcore the player is) and then playing a small amount of "endgame" content.
The big problem is that MMOs today are games you play through, rather than game worlds you live in for a few hours a day.
Originally posted by Waterlily MMO have become so easy that the experience has become meaningless. Strategy has been replaced with button mashing. Games like Archeage and GW2 aren't MMO, they could just as well be a Playstation game.
In whatever private-language definition of MMO you are using, maybe. And anyway there are MMO games on the Playstation and have been for over a decade: the two categories are not mutually exclusive.
Beat me to it. Plus, mmorps could learn a lot of good things from games like Dark Souls and Dragons Dogma
The big problem is that MMOs today are games you play through, rather than game worlds you live in for a few hours a day.
Because not that many are interested in living in game worlds for hours every day.
Either MMOs tries to worlds, and remain niche, or fail.
Or they can become more like games (many do), and compete with games in other genre.
It's fine to have other MMOs, but he's talking about MMORPGS I think and lumping that single category with "MMO". MMORPGS need to come back to the virtual world type of gameplay and development. The "raid style" MMOs like Vindictus and pretend like you made a WoW that only had dungeon fighter in a lobby are fine MMOGs for the MMO genre as well. It's the MMORPGs that need to diversifiy themselves instead of becoming just another game in the store. There's so much potential for a virtual world nowadays that has not even been attempted properly. Once it does get a proper attempt, things will be different. There are some decent contenders at the moment, but unless your game is bug-free at launch and looks as gorgeous as a next gen console game you won't be getting an 80 on metacritic.
It's simply easier to make the other types of MMOGs with a huge monetary turn around. But eventually this turn around is going to be so spread out by so many different MMOGs that those who don't care at all about card games or MOBAs will just be free cash for the dev that creates a very good virtual world. The market is always in flux.
It's fine to have other MMOs, but he's talking about MMORPGS I think and lumping that single category with "MMO". MMORPGS need to come back to the virtual world type of gameplay and development. The "raid style" MMOs like Vindictus and pretend like you made a WoW that only had dungeon fighter in a lobby are fine MMOGs for the MMO genre as well. It's the MMORPGs that need to diversifiy themselves instead of becoming just another game in the store. There's so much potential for a virtual world nowadays that has not even been attempted properly. Once it does get a proper attempt, things will be different. There are some decent contenders at the moment, but unless your game is bug-free at launch and looks as gorgeous as a next gen console game you won't be getting an 80 on metacritic.
Why do MMORPGs need to do anything if the audience is not there? May be devs should just make other types of MMOs and not MMORPGs.
In fact, didn't Blizz just cancelled their new MMORPG and decided to make other types of online games?
"All MMos since EQ left the path of creating a virtuall world experience, and trying to create a game again.... I think the first game leaning more to a virtuall world experience again is ESO, but not half as much as required to give the whole genre new breath..
i think if you want to revolutionise the genre again, you need to do the same as BLizzard and look back at the mother of all MMOs, and not try to make the next EQ a better game, but try to make it a better virtuall world... No this does not mean moving in the opposite direction of what WoW did, but moving i. A different direction...
just ask yourself, what did you like in EQ ( pretty much the article hit the nail on the head) and how could you improve on that feeling?"
Lord.Bachus is on to something here. When the author of the said article talks about the missing " 'it' factor" which was not passed down to the younger MMORPGs, I think that, despite disclaiming that he doesn't know what it is, he does name it. Vxed says about his time in Everquest:
"From my early noob days training half of Crushbone to the zone line to battling all the major gods in Planes of Power years later, Everquest held you on for the ride of a life time. The thing about EQ is the zones were so massive you truly felt part of this massive world that felt so real and so alive. Whether it was travelling across half of Norrath just to meet up with someone to trade for a Blackened Alloy Bastard Sword or simply meeting up with some buddies for a small raid. Everything in EQ took time and effort. And during those days, it was half of the fun.
It wasn't about world firsts or being elite. It wasn't about the gear or being rewarded instantly for your time. It was about how you spent your time, the journey itself. Travelling across the oasis to reach a friend to kill some snakes felt rewarding in it self. And it was down right fun! Ask any EQ vet out there what some of their most memorable moments in Everquest are and while some might tell you a story of how their guild took down a raid boss in epic fashion or how they dumped in years of game time to max their AA's. (Alternate Advancements) Most will probably tell you stories of travelling through hell and high water with nothing more than a rusty longsword and a Shiny Brass Shield to reach other friends or just out adventuring on their own, seeing the different zones, not knowing whats around the next corner like the Hill Giant about to stomp you down sending you back to your bind point 4 zones ago. It was never about not enough content or what is there to do? It was always about how am I going to see all of this? How will I get there? And how am I going to possibly find enough time to do it?"
Clearly, he highlights the fact that, for him, the in-game world of Everquest was "bigger than him" in the right ways. For him, it used the unknown--with respect to size, unpredictability, challenging content (including survivability), and so on--to make itself feel immersive, attention grabbing, and rewarding for him. Hence, he highlights his journey through this game as one of its strengths for him.
And, clearly, this contrasts greatly with the in-game worlds of today's younger MMORPGs in a general sense. That is, in today's younger MMORPGs in general, everything has a specific, to-the-point purpose and nothing more. For example, in WoW-like games, if there's an open area somewhere, then it's probably a neatly defined, easily navigated area which is meant for a quest from a quest hub. If there's an NPC standing around, then he's probably an obvious kill which is meant for a quest from a quest hub. And so on. That's it. Plus, guides and info on everything--where it is, what it is for, etc.--are freely available to all.
Now, how can we restore what this article's author misses? By adding the said unknowns back into MMORPGs. Only this time, it has to be done with more dynamic content which defies predictability and a formulaic approach (i.e. adding more dynamic landscapes, more dynamic AIs, etc.).
Waiting for:Citadel of Sorcery. Along the way, The Elder Scrolls Online (when it is F2P).
Keeping an eye on:www.play2crush.com (whatever is going on here).
Comments
Not even a mention of SWG that came out in 2003. Probably the most diverse open world game of its time. Player housing, a manageable PVP system, huge crafting, a great IP.Then when Jump to lightspeed came out it went to whole new level of space sim with the varying ship parts you could use.
I would still be playing it and paying, if lucas arts had not pulled the license. Ahh well have to settle for the emu.
Played:SWG(pre NGE/CU sucked)Yep its true, anyone who quit SWG because of the NGE/CU missed out on a much better combat system. DCUO, Fallen Earth, STO, The Secret World. Battlefield series. Planetside 2. Still playing SWG.
quote ..
"Lately, gaming companies seem to be very cautious about shelling out the millions it costs to develop a AAA MMO and risk losing it all. They all seem to be going a more conservative route. Even Blizzard themselves dumped the MMO 'Titan' and are now creating a FPS team based multiplayer game, Overwatch."
Pretty much this. Traditional MMOs are no longer in fashion. Devs have innovated and turning to other online game types.
The part about MOBA, card games, shared world shooters .... and other types of online games that the article did not mention.
Don't tell me devs are no longer making games ... it is just that they are turning their attention to something else, like Blizz.
That article was pretty much exactly what I went through, except for a stormy, three-year on-again-off-again relationship with Darkfall and Mortal Online.
I've been playing a lot of the single-player games I picked up cheap on Steam over the past couple of years and doing stuff with guildies in ESO, while waiting for the ESO Jesus Patch.
I will admit i was not an original SWG player but when i tried it looked sooooooooo bad i could not fathom playing it at all,i quit the game in the first week.It is the same reason i don't like Wow,when i saw how bad Tree and Rock textures looked i thought wtf did Blizzard use 15+ year old assets on the game?In comparison i enjoyed a VERY old FFXI but the textures although low end were very nicely done not cheap like Wow's.
The article imo was tainted when the author says something like "Improved on everything EQ did not have"you can't improve on an idea that does not exist,a dumb statement.Also 2000 was too early for the internet to run amok,far too many households were still waiting for high speed internet,i was on the last street in my city to get it and took until about 2002-3.Also when Cable /DSL came out it was new ,people still considered it a ridiculous high cost idea to add to their home as PC's were still trying to become popular.
IMO all Blizzard id was cash in on the massive amount of NEW players that did get DSL,there game id nothing that EQ2 was not already doing and even LESS so it had nothing to do with the game being good.The ONLY bad talk i heard early on was the Ghost runs in EQ2 but guess what Wow still has them and EQ2 does not so again not a valid reason to play an inferior Wow over a better looking EQ2.
What Blizzard did do is open the eyes of MANY a new wanna be developers looking to cash in on even a 1% piece of this new huge pie of gamer's.Then of course nobody wants to wait several years so tons of these games are RUSHED to get them to market before it becomes flooded with choice.
That worked for about 3-4 years but then it became flooded so devs took a new approach,aka the beginning of the FREE gimmick.That gimmick imo is the biggest joke the genre has ever seen,let's stop using quality games to attract players but reel them in with the FAKE FREE idea.
So what has the entire industry shown us over the last 15 years?Gimmicks,either using tons of marketing,videos that do not show realistic game play,FREE to play,so lots of trying to mislead gamer's.What else have we seen a LOT of, "play our game we have Raiding" "play our game game,we have millions of players" again nothing concrete centered around QUALITY just more gimmicks to reel in naive gamer's and it has all worked.
One more thing we have seen,tons and tons of games get tons of players on release then quickly die off within only 1-3 months after release,all in all it does NOT say a lot about the choices gamer's have been making,but it does make a lot of developers rich.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Sadly, I have to agree with this.
All MMos since EQ left the path of creating a virtuall world experience, and trying to create a game again.... I think the first game leaning more to a virtuall world experience again is ESO, but not half as much as required to give the whole genre new breath..
i think if you want to revolutionise the genre again, you need to do the same as BLizzard and look back at the mother of all MMOs, and not try to make the next EQ a better game, but try to make it a better virtuall world... No this does not mean moving in the opposite direction of what WoW did, but moving i. A different direction...
just ask yourself, what did you like in EQ ( pretty much the article hit the nail on the head) and how could you improve on that feeling?
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Currently I don't want to pay sub for new MMORPG because it feel like i get punish for not play it fast.
Back to the age before 2008 , i pay sub because the game feel more like social hub where you met and play with other using game's tool. And it feel right to pay to keep the membership.
But now , MMORPG turned to pure gaming and i feel like punished , have to pay more to play the game if i not finish the game after first month .
Then as a game , i expect i buy the game and only pay one or latter for DLC . Not punished (pay) because i playing slow .
Before , i sub because i want to keep the membership of "social hub" ,
but now , it not a hubs anymore , why i have to pay extra subs?
More than that , i have to pay more for the game i ready Own . Ready ?
things have limits . I ready search it.
In whatever private-language definition of MMO you are using, maybe. And anyway there are MMO games on the Playstation and have been for over a decade: the two categories are not mutually exclusive.
What. The. Frak ???
"Interesting read" ???
SERIOUSLY ???
Thats just another EQ and WoW fanboy - who really has absolutely nothing to say at all. Nothing I did not already knew since half a decade, at least, anyway.
Meh.
In the comments the OP mentions SWG should have had a mention. I think it gets over sighted as it was released pre-wow and during EQs peak, so its often left out in conversations. Mostly due to the results that followed with the changes. Had SWG stayed on track, who knows..
So basically you are telling me every one should like the same games you do?
well, just believe me, there are millions of gamers, you excluded, that are looking for a virtuall world experience.. And there are but a few games that went that direction, Uo, EQ, AC, SWG and Vanguard tried to do it, but was never finished..
All other games ever since went for a more game like feeling, i think its about time there was a virtuall world experience for the online roleplaying community
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Where did i say that? Basically, if someone can say what they like on the forum, I don't see why i should not say what I like.
And i am clearly stating my preferences, and also where i see the market is going. You, of course, are free to like whatever type of games, and that does not concern me.
He did not say that. Nobody but the old-school/sandbox proselytizers want others to like what they like. Force people to play how they want to play games.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
This right here, MMOs are supposed to be played over a long period of time, but every one that has come out in recent years is a rush to max level (which can take anywhere between a few days to a month depending on how hardcore the player is) and then playing a small amount of "endgame" content.
The big problem is that MMOs today are games you play through, rather than game worlds you live in for a few hours a day.
Because not that many are interested in living in game worlds for hours every day.
Either MMOs tries to worlds, and remain niche, or fail.
Or they can become more like games (many do), and compete with games in other genre.
Beat me to it. Plus, mmorps could learn a lot of good things from games like Dark Souls and Dragons Dogma
It's fine to have other MMOs, but he's talking about MMORPGS I think and lumping that single category with "MMO". MMORPGS need to come back to the virtual world type of gameplay and development. The "raid style" MMOs like Vindictus and pretend like you made a WoW that only had dungeon fighter in a lobby are fine MMOGs for the MMO genre as well. It's the MMORPGs that need to diversifiy themselves instead of becoming just another game in the store. There's so much potential for a virtual world nowadays that has not even been attempted properly. Once it does get a proper attempt, things will be different. There are some decent contenders at the moment, but unless your game is bug-free at launch and looks as gorgeous as a next gen console game you won't be getting an 80 on metacritic.
It's simply easier to make the other types of MMOGs with a huge monetary turn around. But eventually this turn around is going to be so spread out by so many different MMOGs that those who don't care at all about card games or MOBAs will just be free cash for the dev that creates a very good virtual world. The market is always in flux.
Why do MMORPGs need to do anything if the audience is not there? May be devs should just make other types of MMOs and not MMORPGs.
In fact, didn't Blizz just cancelled their new MMORPG and decided to make other types of online games?
Lord.Bachus is on to something here. When the author of the said article talks about the missing " 'it' factor" which was not passed down to the younger MMORPGs, I think that, despite disclaiming that he doesn't know what it is, he does name it. Vxed says about his time in Everquest:
"From my early noob days training half of Crushbone to the zone line to battling all the major gods in Planes of Power years later, Everquest held you on for the ride of a life time. The thing about EQ is the zones were so massive you truly felt part of this massive world that felt so real and so alive. Whether it was travelling across half of Norrath just to meet up with someone to trade for a Blackened Alloy Bastard Sword or simply meeting up with some buddies for a small raid. Everything in EQ took time and effort. And during those days, it was half of the fun.
It wasn't about world firsts or being elite. It wasn't about the gear or being rewarded instantly for your time. It was about how you spent your time, the journey itself. Travelling across the oasis to reach a friend to kill some snakes felt rewarding in it self. And it was down right fun! Ask any EQ vet out there what some of their most memorable moments in Everquest are and while some might tell you a story of how their guild took down a raid boss in epic fashion or how they dumped in years of game time to max their AA's. (Alternate Advancements) Most will probably tell you stories of travelling through hell and high water with nothing more than a rusty longsword and a Shiny Brass Shield to reach other friends or just out adventuring on their own, seeing the different zones, not knowing whats around the next corner like the Hill Giant about to stomp you down sending you back to your bind point 4 zones ago. It was never about not enough content or what is there to do? It was always about how am I going to see all of this? How will I get there? And how am I going to possibly find enough time to do it?"
Clearly, he highlights the fact that, for him, the in-game world of Everquest was "bigger than him" in the right ways. For him, it used the unknown--with respect to size, unpredictability, challenging content (including survivability), and so on--to make itself feel immersive, attention grabbing, and rewarding for him. Hence, he highlights his journey through this game as one of its strengths for him.
And, clearly, this contrasts greatly with the in-game worlds of today's younger MMORPGs in a general sense. That is, in today's younger MMORPGs in general, everything has a specific, to-the-point purpose and nothing more. For example, in WoW-like games, if there's an open area somewhere, then it's probably a neatly defined, easily navigated area which is meant for a quest from a quest hub. If there's an NPC standing around, then he's probably an obvious kill which is meant for a quest from a quest hub. And so on. That's it. Plus, guides and info on everything--where it is, what it is for, etc.--are freely available to all.
Now, how can we restore what this article's author misses? By adding the said unknowns back into MMORPGs. Only this time, it has to be done with more dynamic content which defies predictability and a formulaic approach (i.e. adding more dynamic landscapes, more dynamic AIs, etc.).
Waiting for: Citadel of Sorcery. Along the way, The Elder Scrolls Online (when it is F2P).
Keeping an eye on: www.play2crush.com (whatever is going on here).
Even if MMOs are evolving, they are not evolving into something I want to play.