Companies do what makes them money, when you are spending 50 milllion to make a new mmo you aren't going to aim at a niche audience. When the title fails to achieve what you want then you claim you're ok with it being a niche title (even though you aren't really) but nobody aims for that. FFXIV is a prime example of this, it was always intended to be a huge MMO to compete with WoW. They didn't get anywhere near the numbers they wanted so now they say it's ok to have very small niche player numbers.
People are greedy, they want their niche but they also want a triple A budget. You can't have that by design.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"The tall poppy syndrome is a pejorative term primarily used in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and other Anglosphere nations to describe a social phenomenon in which people of genuine merit are resented, attacked, cut down, or criticised because their talents or achievements elevate them above or distinguish them from their peers."
Replace "people" with "games" and explains a lot of the WoW (and other big names) hate. Common phenomenon also with coffee, music, wine, food, etc snobs. Anything hugely popular, successful, "mainstream" = bad because reasons. Usual rationalisations are something about "sheeple" or the inevitable and absurdly trite McDonalds analogy (which in itself is a clear association fallacy).
Originally posted by Kyleran Pfft, best is so subjective. Top grossing is so much more quantifiable, and in 2014 Guardians crushes Birdman in almost every way.
Good comparison. I watched both not knowing what either was about going in (not my #1 choice either time.) I walked out of Birdman with 3 thoughts: Michael Keaton is a better actor than I thought. Ed Norton was great, as usual. South American Magic Realism in small doses apparently works with NA audiences... and then I quickly forgot it.
I walked out of Guardians with my teenage daughter, both of us with big smiles on our faces saying "That was a hell of a lot better than I expected... it was really fun! And then we both said "sequel!"
And then there is this: Rotten Tomatoes has Birdman at 93% and Guardians at 91% - virtually identical.
Guardians didn't get nominations and wasn't anointed "best picture" for the impressionable to fawn over simply because "low-brow" adventure films seldom are - not "serious" enough. But for me, it was the one I enjoyed the most last year by far.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Huh? WoW's class design is just EQ's class design but simpler. It's NOT one of the game's strong points.
And there have been tons of MMOs with fluid animations and crisp controls. Let's not pretend that's what made WoW what it is.
Being the first MMO with a blockbuster budget, year long ad campaign, and a famous IP by a famous company is the bulk of why WoW is the way it is.
Have any video or guide that would illustrate that?
All the videos I find for EQ make the rotations look ultra simple, but I assume there has to be something out there that shows how it's not as shallow as it looks.
I guess I'm looking for the EQ equivalent of this warlock rotation guide. One could read through that guide and get a sense that the simple act of maximizing your rotation is a game unto itself (and then on top of that, bosses are deliberately designed to not make it easy to just slam your rotation against them nonstop.) If EQ's class design is better, then presumably there's an even more nuanced version of this somewhere that you could link me to.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This seems like an argument worth having. Let's define the word "best" on a scale of 1-10. I'd say it's a clear 8. Anyone who thinks it's a 9 is a terrible person who's overly attached to their mother. Anyone who thinks it's only a 7 is clearly blind, ignorant, an incredibly sub-par in their entertainment tastes.
Huh? WoW's class design is just EQ's class design but simpler. It's NOT one of the game's strong points.
And there have been tons of MMOs with fluid animations and crisp controls. Let's not pretend that's what made WoW what it is.
Being the first MMO with a blockbuster budget, year long ad campaign, and a famous IP by a famous company is the bulk of why WoW is the way it is.
Have any video or guide that would illustrate that?
All the videos I find for EQ make the rotations look ultra simple, but I assume there has to be something out there that shows how it's not as shallow as it looks.
I guess I'm looking for the EQ equivalent of this warlock rotation guide. One could read through that guide and get a sense that the simple act of maximizing your rotation is a game unto itself (and then on top of that, bosses are deliberately designed to not make it easy to just slam your rotation against them nonstop.) If EQ's class design is better, then presumably there's an even more nuanced version of this somewhere that you could link me to.
That's just the most recent iteration. Back when I played, during vanilla and bc, warlock was ridiculously simple and op. I'd solo the tower/bunker lieuts in alterac. It's good they've changed it years later. It took 4 people to pvp me if I had a void out to sac shield myself.
Guardians didn't get nominations and wasn't anointed "best picture" for the impressionable to fawn over simply because "low-brow" adventure films seldom are - not "serious" enough. But for me, it was the one I enjoyed the most last year by far.
True, but there is still a market for more complex, more artistic movies and sometimes those too become popular. I've enjoyed many movies that have done well in Cannes. Not sure, if that's what you and Kyleran had in mind, but...
though it's obvious games aren't the established business that movies are,
I wonder, how many decades it'll take before the more general public is capable of looking at gaming as both entertainment and art. I'd guess it's very slowly getting there. Gaming is diversifying and occasionally there have been games that have made me feel they are truly art (exceptions, certainly).
Then again, gaming is a damn expensive and difficult way to make art. Would be nice to see before I kick the bucket, though; the experiences and worlds the biggest games provide critiqued as art and the best also widely valued as such.
Too bad the industry has so far been very much dependent on the money, which creates constraints for the freedom required for any art. Certainly technological difficulties have also been major constraints, but I'd still consider money to be the most important reason.
The realization I've had is that time's up for the old-timers.
Games have changed and they are not going back to 1998.
It's like saying music today sucks and Justin Bieber is a crime against music. Why back when I first got into music I listened to Led Zeppelin and that's before the Rolling Stones sold out, etc.
It's like thinking you can make a difference by voting with your wallet. You won't, because you're not the target audience.
If you stop buying new music and concert tickets, guess what? No one cares. There will be tens of thousands of people lining up to buy Bieber tickets or whatever. It's just that way.
And guess what people thought about Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix? Why back in the day we had Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby. And you could actually understand the words of the song.
It's just the cycle of life.
We had our day when it was nerd-edgy to play online games. Those days are over. Time to move on.
I find it interesting that you use movies as a similarity to games. And you know what? You are correct. Games like movies now have to do big in their initial release. They start big (box price, sub or cash shop or hybrid) then begin to fizzle out go through a rapid modification (convenience mods or additional cash shop items) then add content . (DLC or expansion) Alot of this is hype, wow factor and attention to the hit points that producers are trying to get game makers to include so their initial release is big. Right now consoles are big money and the longer game makers can keep a console gamer online, the more money XboX and PS users will doll out for their consoles online connection. Co-op FPSs are big money and now they are stepping over into the MMORPG arena and doing a pretty good job of attracting that console MMORPG dollar.
Now I am not attracted to an MMORPG designed for a console in almost every case. I do not prefer open world PVP or even PVP battles all that much. (they can be fun at times but its not my focus for sure) I play MMORPGs on a PC and tend more toward PVE content. I prefer a sub and limited or no cash shop. But if I am not the minority, game producers are either ignoring me or see big dollar potential from a certain kind of player base. The kind that will jump on their console, continue to pay their boxes online fee, jump into a F2P game and hit up the cash shops like crazy. For 3-6 months and sometimes alot longer someone is making ALOT of money. Gamers run around, do their quests, max toons and jump into PVP combat either open world, in battles or both. Buying cash shop items in the process. Similarly like...a co-op FPS. The game does not need to be large because they are not going for multi-year patronage. Though some games are better than others and people have stuck around in them. Most however are not all that good and though alot of PC gamers as well are playing these games when something new comes out ALOT of people jump ship because they are looking for something better. Unfortunately though, money is spent in these festering turds that are being produced so we can look forward to more of the same. Just to reiterate, this is just my opinion and if people are at least having fun it is time well spent. I just do not like being disappointed and I am always looking for a good game. I do not see one coming out in the near future but it doesn't stop me from trying some and looking for greatness.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
That's just the most recent iteration. Back when I played, during vanilla and bc, warlock was ridiculously simple and op. I'd solo the tower/bunker lieuts in alterac. It's good they've changed it years later. It took 4 people to pvp me if I had a void out to sac shield myself.
Well it's good to know that players are capable of admitting WOW has become deeper over the years. Some days "dumbed-down" is the only phrase you hear out of these forums and you'd think they measured depth by skill count (which has dropped slightly.)
Still that doesn't help us in our search to find out whether EQ has better class design. The current depth of WOW is the bar to beat, not the depth it had at release.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The realization I've had is that time's up for the old-timers.
Games have changed and they are not going back to 1998.
It's like saying music today sucks and Justin Bieber is a crime against music. Why back when I first got into music I listened to Led Zeppelin and that's before the Rolling Stones sold out, etc.
It's like thinking you can make a difference by voting with your wallet. You won't, because you're not the target audience.
If you stop buying new music and concert tickets, guess what? No one cares. There will be tens of thousands of people lining up to buy Bieber tickets or whatever. It's just that way.
And guess what people thought about Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix? Why back in the day we had Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby. And you could actually understand the words of the song.
It's just the cycle of life.
We had our day when it was nerd-edgy to play online games. Those days are over. Time to move on.
I do agree with this somewhat. Or I should say, from big producers, this is the case. Unfortunately or not so unfortunately, greatness for people like me is much more likely to occur in an indie or crowd funded game that is more interested in producing their vision. Retaining a certain kind of audience for years and years instead of regurgitating over and over what gets people to buy in, play for 3-6months and visit the cash shops.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
Co-op FPSs are big money and now they are stepping over into the MMORPG arena and doing a pretty good job of attracting that console MMORPG dollar.
Do you have any examples that prove coop FPSes "are big money"? For that matter, what MMORPG even remotely resembles a coop FPS? This entire tangent of yours lacks visible evidence.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yes, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that critics are just being edgy and fresh. Give me a break, the Best Film category is almost universally littered with horrible art films that no real person actually gives a crap about. Feel free to turn your nose up at me and tell me I'm wrong, I'm sure it's what every movie critic would do anyway.
The realization I've had is that time's up for the old-timers.
Games have changed and they are not going back to 1998.
It's like saying music today sucks and Justin Bieber is a crime against music. Why back when I first got into music I listened to Led Zeppelin and that's before the Rolling Stones sold out, etc.
It's like thinking you can make a difference by voting with your wallet. You won't, because you're not the target audience.
If you stop buying new music and concert tickets, guess what? No one cares. There will be tens of thousands of people lining up to buy Bieber tickets or whatever. It's just that way.
And guess what people thought about Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix? Why back in the day we had Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby. And you could actually understand the words of the song.
It's just the cycle of life.
We had our day when it was nerd-edgy to play online games. Those days are over. Time to move on.
The realization I've had is that time's up for the old-timers.
Games have changed and they are not going back to 1998.
It's like saying music today sucks and Justin Bieber is a crime against music. Why back when I first got into music I listened to Led Zeppelin and that's before the Rolling Stones sold out, etc.
It's like thinking you can make a difference by voting with your wallet. You won't, because you're not the target audience.
If you stop buying new music and concert tickets, guess what? No one cares. There will be tens of thousands of people lining up to buy Bieber tickets or whatever. It's just that way.
And guess what people thought about Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix? Why back in the day we had Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby. And you could actually understand the words of the song.
It's just the cycle of life.
We had our day when it was nerd-edgy to play online games. Those days are over. Time to move on.
Who is the "target audience"? If there is a discrepancy between older and younger gamers, there may be more gamers in the younger bracket, but the older has the money. I and my peers (AFIK) are making more money now than at any other time in our lives and companies out there want it. I don't think it's so cut and dry. I think they want a balance, I just don't think developers have been able to find it.
I think the real problem is that the overall conceptual design of what was an MMORPG appeals to a smaller audience overall (always did and probably always will) It's not that gamers have changed, it's that one game in particular introduced an anomaly into the mix...Yes it's WoW. And pulled in 10 times more players than what the original genre attracted. But many of those gamers wouldn't otherwise have been interested in any other MMORPGs. Back in my TBC days, I was in a medium sized casual raiding guild. I had decided to take a little break from WoW for a few months and go back to playing Anarchy Online. One night in Vent, I told them I was taking a hiatus, not one person in my guild had ever heard of that game.
Within the genre pre-WoW, a successful MMORPG was measured with 6 figure populations. Throwing WoW out of the picture, that number really hasn't changed in spite of the idea that MMORPGs should pull in millions. It's never going to happen.
A well run establishment, be it restaurant or game, that targets a specific audience and does a magnificent job serving it will thrive.
McDonald's / WoW remains cheap crap regardless of sales numbers.
So then... McDonalds and WoW are not crap because they are both doing a magnificent job and thriving? Your comparison and opinion are all jumbled up. The strange irony about calling WoW cheap is that it is a P2P game and has, by far, the most content out of any MMORPG on the market. They also charge for expansions and have a little cash shop. If anything, it's more like an expensive restaurant that blew up to the size of McDonalds. That should be the shocking thing about it. Even though it remains expensive in a world where F2P has become common, WoW still garners mass appeal. The McDonalds analogy is always really, really bad.
Either way, the OP is a strawman of epic proportions. I don't think I've seen anyone in the last few years claim that WoW is the best because it grosses the most. Everyone has already addressed it, but the "best" is completely subjective regardless of revenue and pretty much everyone knows that. I think EVE is the best. Whoopdie doo for me! But I will never just put on blinders and start belittling people because they enjoy WoW (or any other game). That's what people with low self esteem do to feel better about their own choices and therefor themselves.
It is not a contradiction: McDonald's / Wow have their target audiences and serve them well. . Both are very good at targeting the Quick / Easy / Inexpensive market. Both serve a very generic product that appeals to the largest possible number of people. People that are unwilling or unable to obtain better.
Just as Joe's Burger Shack will never dethrone McDonald's by imitating McDonalds, other MMO's will never dethrone WoW by imitating WoW. That does not prevent Joe's Burger Shack from being a good, successful family restaurant, it will just be smaller.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
It is not a contradiction: McDonald's / Wow have their target audiences and serve them well. . Both are very good at targeting the Quick / Easy / Inexpensive market. Both serve a very generic product that appeals to the largest possible number of people. People that are unwilling or unable to obtain better.
Fox news brags it has a commanding share of the news network viewership. Now, many individuals, bars and doctors' offices have news networks on the TV habitually, but most of the demographic is older people. A greater percentage of older people who sit around watching news networks are right-leaning republicans. So, if you make a channel with aspects and opinions targeting these folks, you'll get the statistical results you want for advertisements and bragging rights.
If you carry that demographic-targeting over to games, add a self-perpetuating ad campaign of popularity and clever marketing to international markets of cyber cafes, pokemon, lobby game aspects, soloable content, easy to learn/difficult to master gameplay and suitably consistent reward-center-triggering, you create the perfect storm. Sure, WoW is "good" and it's always been "good", but it's never been "omg roflstomp 100x more good", some amount of that is science and effective marketing. Saying otherwise is, well, not right.
It is not a contradiction: McDonald's / Wow have their target audiences and serve them well. . Both are very good at targeting the Quick / Easy / Inexpensive market. Both serve a very generic product that appeals to the largest possible number of people. People that are unwilling or unable to obtain better.
Just as Joe's Burger Shack will never dethrone McDonald's by imitating McDonalds, other MMO's will never dethrone WoW by imitating WoW. That does not prevent Joe's Burger Shack from being a good, successful family restaurant, it will just be smaller.
McDonalds is cheaper than other food options.
WOW is not cheaper than other MMORPG options.
Despite that it's still affordable, so when you combine it with the fact that people like myself are willing and able to look for better products and can't find any, we all end up back in WOW.
Sometimes things are popular because they're widely accessible and cheap. Sometimes things are popular because they're the highest quality product at an affordable (but not cheap) price.
In another thread I asked for the EQ equivalent of this Demonology Warlock Guide. He claimed EQ had stronger class design. I pointed out WOW's rotations are really deep nowadays. I'm waiting for the reply. I'd open up the challenge to you -- in any game, provide similar evidence (a guide or video) indicating there are games with higher quality (deeper) combat out there. If WOW was truly low quality, you'll be able to find lots of games like this. But I think you'll find it difficult to even find one MMORPG like this.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Except the genre only exist in the minds of those who still understand what it is..was. The 95% which makes up the rest truly believe they are playing mmorpg, and obviously you can not tell them otherwise. They ARE playing mmorpg based on their definition of it. The genre name got hijacked or bought out and changed, and there is nothing you can do except waiting for it to redefine itself under a new name.
Comments
Companies do what makes them money, when you are spending 50 milllion to make a new mmo you aren't going to aim at a niche audience. When the title fails to achieve what you want then you claim you're ok with it being a niche title (even though you aren't really) but nobody aims for that. FFXIV is a prime example of this, it was always intended to be a huge MMO to compete with WoW. They didn't get anywhere near the numbers they wanted so now they say it's ok to have very small niche player numbers.
People are greedy, they want their niche but they also want a triple A budget. You can't have that by design.
Except maybe in winning silly golden statues.
Guess which movie will have a sequel
But on that note, EVE is clearly the BEST MMORPG ever made, even if the unwashed masses fail to acknowledge it.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
This subject just gets so old. Real simple solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
"The tall poppy syndrome is a pejorative term primarily used in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and other Anglosphere nations to describe a social phenomenon in which people of genuine merit are resented, attacked, cut down, or criticised because their talents or achievements elevate them above or distinguish them from their peers."
Replace "people" with "games" and explains a lot of the WoW (and other big names) hate. Common phenomenon also with coffee, music, wine, food, etc snobs. Anything hugely popular, successful, "mainstream" = bad because reasons. Usual rationalisations are something about "sheeple" or the inevitable and absurdly trite McDonalds analogy (which in itself is a clear association fallacy).
Good comparison. I watched both not knowing what either was about going in (not my #1 choice either time.) I walked out of Birdman with 3 thoughts: Michael Keaton is a better actor than I thought. Ed Norton was great, as usual. South American Magic Realism in small doses apparently works with NA audiences... and then I quickly forgot it.
I walked out of Guardians with my teenage daughter, both of us with big smiles on our faces saying "That was a hell of a lot better than I expected... it was really fun! And then we both said "sequel!"
And then there is this: Rotten Tomatoes has Birdman at 93% and Guardians at 91% - virtually identical.
Guardians didn't get nominations and wasn't anointed "best picture" for the impressionable to fawn over simply because "low-brow" adventure films seldom are - not "serious" enough. But for me, it was the one I enjoyed the most last year by far.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Top grossing isn't the problem. Most won't play games that are dead and they stay dead because nobody will play them.
There are good games out there, they just aren't popular enough to be cool so they never grow.
Have any video or guide that would illustrate that?
All the videos I find for EQ make the rotations look ultra simple, but I assume there has to be something out there that shows how it's not as shallow as it looks.
I guess I'm looking for the EQ equivalent of this warlock rotation guide. One could read through that guide and get a sense that the simple act of maximizing your rotation is a game unto itself (and then on top of that, bosses are deliberately designed to not make it easy to just slam your rotation against them nonstop.) If EQ's class design is better, then presumably there's an even more nuanced version of this somewhere that you could link me to.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This seems like an argument worth having. Let's define the word "best" on a scale of 1-10. I'd say it's a clear 8. Anyone who thinks it's a 9 is a terrible person who's overly attached to their mother. Anyone who thinks it's only a 7 is clearly blind, ignorant, an incredibly sub-par in their entertainment tastes.
Don't get me started on 7.5!
That's just the most recent iteration. Back when I played, during vanilla and bc, warlock was ridiculously simple and op. I'd solo the tower/bunker lieuts in alterac. It's good they've changed it years later. It took 4 people to pvp me if I had a void out to sac shield myself.
True, but there is still a market for more complex, more artistic movies and sometimes those too become popular. I've enjoyed many movies that have done well in Cannes. Not sure, if that's what you and Kyleran had in mind, but...
though it's obvious games aren't the established business that movies are,
I wonder, how many decades it'll take before the more general public is capable of looking at gaming as both entertainment and art. I'd guess it's very slowly getting there. Gaming is diversifying and occasionally there have been games that have made me feel they are truly art (exceptions, certainly).
Then again, gaming is a damn expensive and difficult way to make art. Would be nice to see before I kick the bucket, though; the experiences and worlds the biggest games provide critiqued as art and the best also widely valued as such.
Too bad the industry has so far been very much dependent on the money, which creates constraints for the freedom required for any art. Certainly technological difficulties have also been major constraints, but I'd still consider money to be the most important reason.
The realization I've had is that time's up for the old-timers.
Games have changed and they are not going back to 1998.
It's like saying music today sucks and Justin Bieber is a crime against music. Why back when I first got into music I listened to Led Zeppelin and that's before the Rolling Stones sold out, etc.
It's like thinking you can make a difference by voting with your wallet. You won't, because you're not the target audience.
If you stop buying new music and concert tickets, guess what? No one cares. There will be tens of thousands of people lining up to buy Bieber tickets or whatever. It's just that way.
And guess what people thought about Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix? Why back in the day we had Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby. And you could actually understand the words of the song.
It's just the cycle of life.
We had our day when it was nerd-edgy to play online games. Those days are over. Time to move on.
I find it interesting that you use movies as a similarity to games. And you know what? You are correct. Games like movies now have to do big in their initial release. They start big (box price, sub or cash shop or hybrid) then begin to fizzle out go through a rapid modification (convenience mods or additional cash shop items) then add content . (DLC or expansion) Alot of this is hype, wow factor and attention to the hit points that producers are trying to get game makers to include so their initial release is big. Right now consoles are big money and the longer game makers can keep a console gamer online, the more money XboX and PS users will doll out for their consoles online connection. Co-op FPSs are big money and now they are stepping over into the MMORPG arena and doing a pretty good job of attracting that console MMORPG dollar.
Now I am not attracted to an MMORPG designed for a console in almost every case. I do not prefer open world PVP or even PVP battles all that much. (they can be fun at times but its not my focus for sure) I play MMORPGs on a PC and tend more toward PVE content. I prefer a sub and limited or no cash shop. But if I am not the minority, game producers are either ignoring me or see big dollar potential from a certain kind of player base. The kind that will jump on their console, continue to pay their boxes online fee, jump into a F2P game and hit up the cash shops like crazy. For 3-6 months and sometimes alot longer someone is making ALOT of money. Gamers run around, do their quests, max toons and jump into PVP combat either open world, in battles or both. Buying cash shop items in the process. Similarly like...a co-op FPS. The game does not need to be large because they are not going for multi-year patronage. Though some games are better than others and people have stuck around in them. Most however are not all that good and though alot of PC gamers as well are playing these games when something new comes out ALOT of people jump ship because they are looking for something better. Unfortunately though, money is spent in these festering turds that are being produced so we can look forward to more of the same. Just to reiterate, this is just my opinion and if people are at least having fun it is time well spent. I just do not like being disappointed and I am always looking for a good game. I do not see one coming out in the near future but it doesn't stop me from trying some and looking for greatness.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
Well it's good to know that players are capable of admitting WOW has become deeper over the years. Some days "dumbed-down" is the only phrase you hear out of these forums and you'd think they measured depth by skill count (which has dropped slightly.)
Still that doesn't help us in our search to find out whether EQ has better class design. The current depth of WOW is the bar to beat, not the depth it had at release.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I do agree with this somewhat. Or I should say, from big producers, this is the case. Unfortunately or not so unfortunately, greatness for people like me is much more likely to occur in an indie or crowd funded game that is more interested in producing their vision. Retaining a certain kind of audience for years and years instead of regurgitating over and over what gets people to buy in, play for 3-6months and visit the cash shops.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
Do you have any examples that prove coop FPSes "are big money"? For that matter, what MMORPG even remotely resembles a coop FPS? This entire tangent of yours lacks visible evidence.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I agree 100% with this ^^
Who is the "target audience"? If there is a discrepancy between older and younger gamers, there may be more gamers in the younger bracket, but the older has the money. I and my peers (AFIK) are making more money now than at any other time in our lives and companies out there want it. I don't think it's so cut and dry. I think they want a balance, I just don't think developers have been able to find it.
I think the real problem is that the overall conceptual design of what was an MMORPG appeals to a smaller audience overall (always did and probably always will) It's not that gamers have changed, it's that one game in particular introduced an anomaly into the mix...Yes it's WoW. And pulled in 10 times more players than what the original genre attracted. But many of those gamers wouldn't otherwise have been interested in any other MMORPGs. Back in my TBC days, I was in a medium sized casual raiding guild. I had decided to take a little break from WoW for a few months and go back to playing Anarchy Online. One night in Vent, I told them I was taking a hiatus, not one person in my guild had ever heard of that game.
Within the genre pre-WoW, a successful MMORPG was measured with 6 figure populations. Throwing WoW out of the picture, that number really hasn't changed in spite of the idea that MMORPGs should pull in millions. It's never going to happen.
This isn't a race
It's not a football game
It's not an MMA match
Nope not even a celebrity death match
They're games. The best is whichever one you will pick up and play until your eyes melt, and your finger tips bleed.
Maybe the one that made your thumbs fall off on NES.
That's your best game.... WIthin your own mind is the only place that title will ever truly exist. Your favorite game.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It is not a contradiction: McDonald's / Wow have their target audiences and serve them well. . Both are very good at targeting the Quick / Easy / Inexpensive market. Both serve a very generic product that appeals to the largest possible number of people. People that are unwilling or unable to obtain better.
Just as Joe's Burger Shack will never dethrone McDonald's by imitating McDonalds, other MMO's will never dethrone WoW by imitating WoW. That does not prevent Joe's Burger Shack from being a good, successful family restaurant, it will just be smaller.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Fox news brags it has a commanding share of the news network viewership. Now, many individuals, bars and doctors' offices have news networks on the TV habitually, but most of the demographic is older people. A greater percentage of older people who sit around watching news networks are right-leaning republicans. So, if you make a channel with aspects and opinions targeting these folks, you'll get the statistical results you want for advertisements and bragging rights.
If you carry that demographic-targeting over to games, add a self-perpetuating ad campaign of popularity and clever marketing to international markets of cyber cafes, pokemon, lobby game aspects, soloable content, easy to learn/difficult to master gameplay and suitably consistent reward-center-triggering, you create the perfect storm. Sure, WoW is "good" and it's always been "good", but it's never been "omg roflstomp 100x more good", some amount of that is science and effective marketing. Saying otherwise is, well, not right.
McDonalds is cheaper than other food options.
WOW is not cheaper than other MMORPG options.
Despite that it's still affordable, so when you combine it with the fact that people like myself are willing and able to look for better products and can't find any, we all end up back in WOW.
Sometimes things are popular because they're widely accessible and cheap. Sometimes things are popular because they're the highest quality product at an affordable (but not cheap) price.
In another thread I asked for the EQ equivalent of this Demonology Warlock Guide. He claimed EQ had stronger class design. I pointed out WOW's rotations are really deep nowadays. I'm waiting for the reply. I'd open up the challenge to you -- in any game, provide similar evidence (a guide or video) indicating there are games with higher quality (deeper) combat out there. If WOW was truly low quality, you'll be able to find lots of games like this. But I think you'll find it difficult to even find one MMORPG like this.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
^
Except the genre only exist in the minds of those who still understand what it is..was. The 95% which makes up the rest truly believe they are playing mmorpg, and obviously you can not tell them otherwise. They ARE playing mmorpg based on their definition of it. The genre name got hijacked or bought out and changed, and there is nothing you can do except waiting for it to redefine itself under a new name.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
WoW is far cheaper than the MMO's that preceded it, in terms of personal investment and skill needed to advance.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin