Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Five Things MMO Fans Need to Get Over - The List at MMORPG.com
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
Five Things MMO Fans Need to Get Over - The List at MMORPG.com
I’ll start right off - this list is going to ruffle feathers. But also, if you actually read this far before getting angry with me, note - I am guilty of each of these five things myself. The MMO Genre is in the middle of the awkward teenage years (even if it’s closer to drinking age). At this time in our favorite pastime’s life, it’s natural to be brazen d*ckheads bicking with anyone and everyone about every little thing we think is important or righteous.
Comments
#1. Loads and loads of PvE (EverQuest / World of Warcraft).
#2. Deep and complex crafting (Star Wars Galaxies).
#3. Gigantic and seamless world (Vanguard / ArcheAge).
#4. Optional World PvP Server (EverQuest 2)
#5. Endless amounts of armor and clothing (Star Wars Galaxies).
#6. Loads of social features, e.g., incentives to hang out in Taverns, unique professions such as clothing designers, mechanics, shop owners, the ability to play musical instruments, etc (Star Wars Galaxies, Lord of the Rings Online).
#7. Action-packed combat (The Force Unleashed / Black Desert / Chivalry).
#8. World Housing (Star Wars Galaxies).
#9. Deep character customization experience (APB).
I agree with this list whole heartedly, but its just the consumer side.. what about the folks actually making the games? Surely there is a list for them? :P
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Their is simple. Follow the money.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
That's the thing about f2p vs sub the issue is game quality more so than payment model. If I enjoy the game, the payment model means very little to me as I tend to spend just as much money in both.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I couldn't agree more though
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
Weird
"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
5. Stop trying to blackwhite easily definable terms such a "massively multiplayer" and the battle ends, otherwise the resistance continues.
4, 3, 2. Sure, plenty of room for all types of playstyles, game mechanics and preferences.
The issue is the money chases what is popular so some niches are underserved or ignored entirely, at least until the recent crowdfunding trend. (assuming a few MMORPGs succeed)
1. Have to disagree, cash shop gaming is a scourge that should be resisted at most every opportunity. I want a one reasonable price buys all model and don't care if someone else has no issue dropping $20K, I'm still going to call them out as being detrimental to the genre as a whole.
"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
If any game you are playing supports 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 players in the same "instance" then it's not Massively Multiplayer.
Therefore, Destiny - Not an MMO!
Them are fighting words Bill
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The Acronym - discussing the meaning is pretty fundamental to the genre. I firmly believe it means massively-multiplayer online, so an online multiplayer game which has massively more players playing together than an average multiplayer online game (so, massively more than 128 players in the same world / instances / map). The definition doesn't extend to actual game features, simply the number of players who can interact with each other in game at the same time.
So, you can argue over the finer points of the definition, but for the good of the genre, developers should be aiming to bring back the "massively" part of MMOs. It is the one and only unique selling point of the genre, yet it has been mostly lost or forgotten about.
PvP vs PvE - you're right, we shouldn't be arguing over which is the best as there is room for both. But, we should readily acknowledge the problems with having both and openly discuss solutions for getting both into a game (flagging systems, balance issues, open world vs battleground etc).
Sandbox vs Themepark - again, why do you want us to get over it? It is a discussion about the fundamental design philosophy of an MMO, something that affects the whole game and thus whether it is good or not. So, whenever we discuss it, we are ultimately discussing how to make games better than they are. I agree that both philosophies have merits, and I'm in favour of hybrids.
Group vs Solo - again, this is a fundamental discussion about how to make MMOs better. How is that not good for the genre and the community? Again, sure, we have players from both camps who are too closed minded to acknowledge the other side, but the majority of us enjoy discussing the merits of one over the other, and how to have both communities satisfied in a game.
Payment Models - again, this is another fundamental discussion about how to make MMOs better. Each payment model leads developers down specific routes when designing content. I don't care about the labels or even what payment model an MMO uses - as long as it doesn't affect content - but the payment model always affects content! So, I now no longer ever touch a F2P MMO - I've yet to play a good one, and each sub game that got converted was worse off after becoming f2p (from a gameplay and content point of view)
In my opinion, the 5 things the fans need to get over in order for the genre to progress is the following:
1) Graphics Quality - Building an MMO that supports 500+ people playing together means making sacrifices in graphics quality. Yet, we keep asking for the best graphics ever, resulting in instanced games with small groups.
2) Vertical Progression - ever increasing stats, resulting in power gaps, fragments the community and kills balance. MMOs are about playing together, so any segregation in the community will result in reduced enjoyment and thus reduced retention. We need to embrace other forms of progression, rather than getting hung up on a feature that only single player and coop games can really use.
3) Developer Led Stories - The better the storyline, the more restrictive the gameplay needs to be and the more disjointed the game world feels once you leave the story and rejoin the community. Developers have to spend so much time writing stories, followed by devs creating small instances, custom animations, voice overs etc.....story costs a lot of money. I'd rather than money was invested in gameplay.
4) Holy Trinity - This is a bad way to design classes and balance content. It is far too limiting in terms of group composition, playstyles and content design. It results in very predictable combat and prevents a lot of depth. More roles are what is needed, combined with content that actually makes use of those roles. You can also go classless if you want, so long as the content is still designed with roles in mind, otherwise it becomes a zergfest.
5) Access to Everything - There is an assumption that because I've paid for a product / service, I should have access to absolutely everything, regardless of time spent or skill required. This has resulted in a lot of dumbing down of content, because as soon as you lock content behind a skill barrier or a long time barrier, the complaints start rolling in. We need to get rid of this mentality, because it prevents devs from creating specialist content or long term goals.
Re: 5, I think there is a massive gap between "easily definable" and "actually definable". I mean we've got titles like Spiral Knights, POE, GW, Dragon's Nest, Vindictus, and many more which are listed as MMOs, but they are really games where the people within "the game" is actually limited to a small party who never sees anyone else and the only "real" MMO part is that there is some sort of hub where you see people.
So, while I do think it's easily defined, I think it's much more difficult to ACTUALLY define it. Effectively it would mean redefining the genre as a whole because there isn't just confusion at the community level, the confusion filters all the way down to developers and publishers. And by confusion I obviously mean misuse, since I'm sure every dev and publisher who has defined their game that way has already heard about how it's not an MMO.
On number 1, I think he was agreeing with you that he doesn't like the cash shops. I don't think they're detrimental to the genre, I think that they've probably saved the genre in many ways. Subscriptions are simply not sustainable these days. Neither is B2P. That is, unless the solution is to create shallow B2P experiences with quarterly paid content updates. I think that would be sustainable, I just don't know if it would be viable. I don't see any saving subscriptions, though. People say they'll pay for something better, but time after time Maury has proven "That's a lie." That being said, I don't know whether F2P is sustainable either. Conversions are just too small and the whale bubble must burst at some point. I don't know what the solution is, TBH. I'm thinking some sort of B2P with quarterly paid updates might be best.
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
----------------
The list really isn't something that matters, the concept of lets stop tearing down other peoples houses just cos we don't like our own, now that is something I can get behind.
Gotta agree with @cameltosis on this one.
The problem here is the reluctance to adopt a more inclusive label that includes those as well as the other online games with massive communities but much lower concurrence caps. I guess "Multiplayer Online" is not sexy enough?
Cash shops change both the game design and the game play in subtle and not so subtle ways. A recent example of that in my experience, is the contrast between the accessible materials for all the crafting in ESO that was designed when the game was sub-based, and the obnoxious grind for furniture crafting material requirements that was designed with the cash shop in mind.
And that's in one of the better cash shop games. Many others are far worse.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED