Nope. Can't go back. It's like point and click adventure games. They were massively popular, died, and came back in a new evolution.
I'm pretty sure there's not going to be another mmo with a wow-like scope and gameplay loop that will ever work out in the long term. I believe the future of mmos are smaller scale mmos that can support small niche communities, not mega mmos. Sorry ashes of creation.
Interesting point and I agree. I have to say, at this point, I'm more interested in continuing my play with Fallout 76, than I am looking forward to the launch of Ashes. I could see myself playing another game with the scope and scale of FO76 before playing another conventional "MMORPG".
The thing about niche titles is that they feel more detailed and rich in what they're doing. Generic MMORPGs like WoW, Ashes, EQ, all feel so watered down and homogenized to me. They try and be the everything to everyone which makes sense as they're trying to appeal to the masses.
Massively Multiplayer has become a much less appealing feature to me. MMO-alikes with smaller server sizes and more focused worlds and game play pique my interest. I still get the MMO feeling of a persistent type of world too.
Funny you say that about EQ and Ashes. EQ cut the cloth before there was a pattern. Ashes is playing with tech that is unique and not making the standard solo play MMO. Its going old school with class interdependence. With a node system thats never been done before. A world that content changes by players actions. One you can walk away from for a few months and come back to a different world. I dont know a single cookie cutter MMO that does anything like that ;-)
How does an empty server on Ashes of Creation play, though? Can you achieve the full experience if the game only has tens of thousands of players? I really don't think any mechanics can overcome the fact that the genre is oversaturated and suffering from a lack of new players. As a live service game, you can design the best systems ever, but most systems break down due to lack of population...This happens faster when you tighten the leash as far as leaning into the forced grouping aspect.
Not enough games are setting their scope low enough. You end up with "The largest game world in history blah blah blah" and you can play for hours and never seen another player outside the main city hub.
Smaller, denser worlds for a few hundred people is the way to go right now, imo.
I dont agree. Go back to 1999 and we had 500'000 people playing MMOs. 2020 and there are 10's of millions playing MMOs. Sure there is a large number of transient but MMOs have adapted to make that part of their model. GW2 calls them selves the MMO you play between other MMOs expansions. There are persistent worlds like Fallout 76 that dont call themselves an MMO but sure take allot from the MMO genera. So much so MMOers love games like that. That much like racing games and shooter games taking things from hit RPG titles to expand their generas.
Online gaming is only growing. MMOs have about 30 new titles that could be launching over the next 6-24 months. IMO, some MMOers are becoming cynical over not seeing MMOs progress the way they want. I see many on this forum that used to be a positive voice become that way. Trashing games before they launch, when they used to speek up when people did just that.
As for shrinking population. WoW's new expansion was the fasting selling PC game, breaking record sales. This genera is not dead. Its far from it and as new tech comes out, it will only have new options and expand into new things.
This kind of speaks to my point, I think. Your first paragraph hits on the point I made a while back about the genre not going back to 2004, but rather evolving into something new.
I 100% agree that online gaming is growing. I was speaking to the point of the OP in suggesting that classic-style MMORPGs will not obtain their former glory. The population is dwindling as other types of online 'games as a service' games chip away at the market.
When the first MMORPGs started popping up, they were limited. Now there's hundreds of MMOs all vying for your time. This isn't a normal game genre as it asks much, much more in the way of a time commitment. It's easy to ask someone to put down a single player or online competitive game when the new hotness comes along. The opposite holds true for persistent online games. The largest hurdle that every developer seemed to have when creating a 'WoW killer' was trying to convince people to give up years of achievements and start over. Combine the fact that MMOs don't shut down at nearly the same rate as they are being created. There just aren't enough gamers in existence that enjoy the playing like it's your job lifestyle that MMOs want from you.
I never said the classic MMORPG genre was dead. It has contracted significantly, though. That much is undeniable. All the population metrics for MMORPG games and online resources pertaining to the genre have fallen in the past decade. Given this fact, I still feel my argument holds true that smaller, more focused games are the way forward for MMORPGs.
Nope. Can't go back. It's like point and click adventure games. They were massively popular, died, and came back in a new evolution.
I'm pretty sure there's not going to be another mmo with a wow-like scope and gameplay loop that will ever work out in the long term. I believe the future of mmos are smaller scale mmos that can support small niche communities, not mega mmos. Sorry ashes of creation.
Interesting point and I agree. I have to say, at this point, I'm more interested in continuing my play with Fallout 76, than I am looking forward to the launch of Ashes. I could see myself playing another game with the scope and scale of FO76 before playing another conventional "MMORPG".
The thing about niche titles is that they feel more detailed and rich in what they're doing. Generic MMORPGs like WoW, Ashes, EQ, all feel so watered down and homogenized to me. They try and be the everything to everyone which makes sense as they're trying to appeal to the masses.
Massively Multiplayer has become a much less appealing feature to me. MMO-alikes with smaller server sizes and more focused worlds and game play pique my interest. I still get the MMO feeling of a persistent type of world too.
Funny you say that about EQ and Ashes. EQ cut the cloth before there was a pattern. Ashes is playing with tech that is unique and not making the standard solo play MMO. Its going old school with class interdependence. With a node system thats never been done before. A world that content changes by players actions. One you can walk away from for a few months and come back to a different world. I dont know a single cookie cutter MMO that does anything like that ;-)
How does an empty server on Ashes of Creation play, though? Can you achieve the full experience if the game only has tens of thousands of players? I really don't think any mechanics can overcome the fact that the genre is oversaturated and suffering from a lack of new players. As a live service game, you can design the best systems ever, but most systems break down due to lack of population...This happens faster when you tighten the leash as far as leaning into the forced grouping aspect.
Not enough games are setting their scope low enough. You end up with "The largest game world in history blah blah blah" and you can play for hours and never seen another player outside the main city hub.
Smaller, denser worlds for a few hundred people is the way to go right now, imo.
I dont agree. Go back to 1999 and we had 500'000 people playing MMOs. 2020 and there are 10's of millions playing MMOs. Sure there is a large number of transient but MMOs have adapted to make that part of their model. GW2 calls them selves the MMO you play between other MMOs expansions. There are persistent worlds like Fallout 76 that dont call themselves an MMO but sure take allot from the MMO genera. So much so MMOers love games like that. That much like racing games and shooter games taking things from hit RPG titles to expand their generas.
Online gaming is only growing. MMOs have about 30 new titles that could be launching over the next 6-24 months. IMO, some MMOers are becoming cynical over not seeing MMOs progress the way they want. I see many on this forum that used to be a positive voice become that way. Trashing games before they launch, when they used to speek up when people did just that.
As for shrinking population. WoW's new expansion was the fasting selling PC game, breaking record sales. This genera is not dead. Its far from it and as new tech comes out, it will only have new options and expand into new things.
This kind of speaks to my point, I think. Your first paragraph hits on the point I made a while back about the genre not going back to 2004, but rather evolving into something new.
I 100% agree that online gaming is growing. I was speaking to the point of the OP in suggesting that classic-style MMORPGs will not obtain their former glory. The population is dwindling as other types of online 'games as a service' games chip away at the market.
When the first MMORPGs started popping up, they were limited. Now there's hundreds of MMOs all vying for your time. This isn't a normal game genre as it asks much, much more in the way of a time commitment. It's easy to ask someone to put down a single player or online competitive game when the new hotness comes along. The opposite holds true for persistent online games. The largest hurdle that every developer seemed to have when creating a 'WoW killer' was trying to convince people to give up years of achievements and start over. Combine the fact that MMOs don't shut down at nearly the same rate as they are being created. There just aren't enough gamers in existence that enjoy the playing like it's your job lifestyle that MMOs want from you.
I never said the classic MMORPG genre was dead. It has contracted significantly, though. That much is undeniable. All the population metrics for MMORPG games and online resources pertaining to the genre have fallen in the past decade. Given this fact, I still feel my argument holds true that smaller, more focused games are the way forward for MMORPGs.
Good points but there are still 30+ MMORPGs set to release in the next 6-24 months. How dead can the classic MMORPG space be if companies see so much value in it? trying to be that WoW killer has been a goal since 2004.
Nope. Can't go back. It's like point and click adventure games. They were massively popular, died, and came back in a new evolution.
I'm pretty sure there's not going to be another mmo with a wow-like scope and gameplay loop that will ever work out in the long term. I believe the future of mmos are smaller scale mmos that can support small niche communities, not mega mmos. Sorry ashes of creation.
Interesting point and I agree. I have to say, at this point, I'm more interested in continuing my play with Fallout 76, than I am looking forward to the launch of Ashes. I could see myself playing another game with the scope and scale of FO76 before playing another conventional "MMORPG".
The thing about niche titles is that they feel more detailed and rich in what they're doing. Generic MMORPGs like WoW, Ashes, EQ, all feel so watered down and homogenized to me. They try and be the everything to everyone which makes sense as they're trying to appeal to the masses.
Massively Multiplayer has become a much less appealing feature to me. MMO-alikes with smaller server sizes and more focused worlds and game play pique my interest. I still get the MMO feeling of a persistent type of world too.
Funny you say that about EQ and Ashes. EQ cut the cloth before there was a pattern. Ashes is playing with tech that is unique and not making the standard solo play MMO. Its going old school with class interdependence. With a node system thats never been done before. A world that content changes by players actions. One you can walk away from for a few months and come back to a different world. I dont know a single cookie cutter MMO that does anything like that ;-)
How does an empty server on Ashes of Creation play, though? Can you achieve the full experience if the game only has tens of thousands of players? I really don't think any mechanics can overcome the fact that the genre is oversaturated and suffering from a lack of new players. As a live service game, you can design the best systems ever, but most systems break down due to lack of population...This happens faster when you tighten the leash as far as leaning into the forced grouping aspect.
Not enough games are setting their scope low enough. You end up with "The largest game world in history blah blah blah" and you can play for hours and never seen another player outside the main city hub.
Smaller, denser worlds for a few hundred people is the way to go right now, imo.
I dont agree. Go back to 1999 and we had 500'000 people playing MMOs. 2020 and there are 10's of millions playing MMOs. Sure there is a large number of transient but MMOs have adapted to make that part of their model. GW2 calls them selves the MMO you play between other MMOs expansions. There are persistent worlds like Fallout 76 that dont call themselves an MMO but sure take allot from the MMO genera. So much so MMOers love games like that. That much like racing games and shooter games taking things from hit RPG titles to expand their generas.
Online gaming is only growing. MMOs have about 30 new titles that could be launching over the next 6-24 months. IMO, some MMOers are becoming cynical over not seeing MMOs progress the way they want. I see many on this forum that used to be a positive voice become that way. Trashing games before they launch, when they used to speek up when people did just that.
As for shrinking population. WoW's new expansion was the fasting selling PC game, breaking record sales. This genera is not dead. Its far from it and as new tech comes out, it will only have new options and expand into new things.
This kind of speaks to my point, I think. Your first paragraph hits on the point I made a while back about the genre not going back to 2004, but rather evolving into something new.
I 100% agree that online gaming is growing. I was speaking to the point of the OP in suggesting that classic-style MMORPGs will not obtain their former glory. The population is dwindling as other types of online 'games as a service' games chip away at the market.
When the first MMORPGs started popping up, they were limited. Now there's hundreds of MMOs all vying for your time. This isn't a normal game genre as it asks much, much more in the way of a time commitment. It's easy to ask someone to put down a single player or online competitive game when the new hotness comes along. The opposite holds true for persistent online games. The largest hurdle that every developer seemed to have when creating a 'WoW killer' was trying to convince people to give up years of achievements and start over. Combine the fact that MMOs don't shut down at nearly the same rate as they are being created. There just aren't enough gamers in existence that enjoy the playing like it's your job lifestyle that MMOs want from you.
I never said the classic MMORPG genre was dead. It has contracted significantly, though. That much is undeniable. All the population metrics for MMORPG games and online resources pertaining to the genre have fallen in the past decade. Given this fact, I still feel my argument holds true that smaller, more focused games are the way forward for MMORPGs.
Good points but there are still 30+ MMORPGs set to release in the next 6-24 months. How dead can the classic MMORPG space be if companies see so much value in it? trying to be that WoW killer has been a goal since 2004.
If I had to guess, I'd say the reason for so many MMOs is different depending on where the MMO is being developed.
In the east, I think it's a risk/reward kind of thing. You can dump shovelware MMOs on the market and if one hits slightly in China, you're in the green. There's a lot of MMOs in the east because they are more like app games in the west. They are made to trigger impulsive microtransaction purchases, rather than to create a long-term service. These don't really play like anything that existed in 2004 with the exception of the heavily monetized Lineage and MU clones.
In the west, most MMOs seem to be mostly crowd funded. As long as people throw money as Crowd funded games that they never play(see Legends of Aria, Crowfall, Shroud of the Avatar, ect.), people are going to keep e-begging. Amazon has New World coming out(although it kind of leans heavily into more modern, 'survival' design than the pre-WoW era). We'll see how that does, but I don't have the highest of hopes. I don't think it's because I'm being cynical, but rather because Amazon has had massive development woes on all their games thus far.
Nope. Can't go back. It's like point and click adventure games. They were massively popular, died, and came back in a new evolution.
I'm pretty sure there's not going to be another mmo with a wow-like scope and gameplay loop that will ever work out in the long term. I believe the future of mmos are smaller scale mmos that can support small niche communities, not mega mmos. Sorry ashes of creation.
Interesting point and I agree. I have to say, at this point, I'm more interested in continuing my play with Fallout 76, than I am looking forward to the launch of Ashes. I could see myself playing another game with the scope and scale of FO76 before playing another conventional "MMORPG".
The thing about niche titles is that they feel more detailed and rich in what they're doing. Generic MMORPGs like WoW, Ashes, EQ, all feel so watered down and homogenized to me. They try and be the everything to everyone which makes sense as they're trying to appeal to the masses.
Massively Multiplayer has become a much less appealing feature to me. MMO-alikes with smaller server sizes and more focused worlds and game play pique my interest. I still get the MMO feeling of a persistent type of world too.
Funny you say that about EQ and Ashes. EQ cut the cloth before there was a pattern. Ashes is playing with tech that is unique and not making the standard solo play MMO. Its going old school with class interdependence. With a node system thats never been done before. A world that content changes by players actions. One you can walk away from for a few months and come back to a different world. I dont know a single cookie cutter MMO that does anything like that ;-)
How does an empty server on Ashes of Creation play, though? Can you achieve the full experience if the game only has tens of thousands of players? I really don't think any mechanics can overcome the fact that the genre is oversaturated and suffering from a lack of new players. As a live service game, you can design the best systems ever, but most systems break down due to lack of population...This happens faster when you tighten the leash as far as leaning into the forced grouping aspect.
Not enough games are setting their scope low enough. You end up with "The largest game world in history blah blah blah" and you can play for hours and never seen another player outside the main city hub.
Smaller, denser worlds for a few hundred people is the way to go right now, imo.
I dont agree. Go back to 1999 and we had 500'000 people playing MMOs. 2020 and there are 10's of millions playing MMOs. Sure there is a large number of transient but MMOs have adapted to make that part of their model. GW2 calls them selves the MMO you play between other MMOs expansions. There are persistent worlds like Fallout 76 that dont call themselves an MMO but sure take allot from the MMO genera. So much so MMOers love games like that. That much like racing games and shooter games taking things from hit RPG titles to expand their generas.
Online gaming is only growing. MMOs have about 30 new titles that could be launching over the next 6-24 months. IMO, some MMOers are becoming cynical over not seeing MMOs progress the way they want. I see many on this forum that used to be a positive voice become that way. Trashing games before they launch, when they used to speek up when people did just that.
As for shrinking population. WoW's new expansion was the fasting selling PC game, breaking record sales. This genera is not dead. Its far from it and as new tech comes out, it will only have new options and expand into new things.
Solid point, but keep in mind, of those 10's of millions of gamers, the VAST majority of those gamers are playing older games, a prime example of this, WoW alone claims 6 million subs, and an unknown number of F2P/Unlimited Time Trail players.
And as you said yourself, WoW's latest expansion was the #1 PC game seller, this means, that if MMO's plan to thrive, not simply survive feeding off the crumbs of falling WoW players, but thrive and grow, they need to something that isn't WoW.
WoW is a Juggernaut, and it is so refined that trying to copy it will just get you labeled as a knock off, your game is equal of the Great Value™ Brand of the MMO world.
The way to Thrive is to NOT be like WoW, to find a isolated demographic, to start small, and focus. Find out what makes your demographic tick, or better yet, hire people that are among that demographic and build a game that scratches their itch perfectly, not just 2 inches off to the side and eh.. close enough for now.
When this is done, this is not to kill WoW, but to find all the people that looking for what you have.
Like imagine.. you are selling Bread.
Ok.. well.. You're not going to really make a break out, if you make the same thing everyone else makes, you will inch by, you will do well enough, because what you offer is known, people can relate to it, and it's a proven sale item. This is what the money backers want, they want you to make sandwich bread, but somehow, also make the next great thing. This cannot happen.
The way a baker launches to greatness is by doing something amazing, like the baker that made Watermelon bread and charged $100 a slice. Yah, it was a craze for a bit, and of course, in short order there were a million and one clones made and all that, guides on how to make it yourself blah, blah.. but.. that was innovation ! Some loved it, some hated it, life is what it is.
And lets be honest, you are not going to make Watermelon bread when you are stuck trying to compete against other production bread makers trying to make the most mass appealing generic loaf of bread.
Which is why if an MMO has 100K players, that is not a bad thing, keep in mind that EQ had 500K players across a dozen servers, so no more than around 50K to 70K players ever were on a single server, and were all stepping on each others heads.. yah.. I am looking at you Lake of Ill Skilled Loot Whores Lake of Ill Omen.
Keep in mind population is in perception not raw numbers, you can have a game with a million players and feel alone, you can have a game with a thousand players and feel like you belong.
Which is why again.. Dev need to find their demographic and target the hell out of them, sure, they might only get 50K players in their game, but those players will be playing with their Tribe, their People, and thus will stay around and support their little playpen.
Just make sure your demographic is not freeloaders LOL.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
This kind of speaks to my point, I think. Your first paragraph hits on the point I made a while back about the genre not going back to 2004, but rather evolving into something new.
I 100% agree that online gaming is growing. I was speaking to the point of the OP in suggesting that classic-style MMORPGs will not obtain their former glory. The population is dwindling as other types of online 'games as a service' games chip away at the market.
When the first MMORPGs started popping up, they were limited. Now there's hundreds of MMOs all vying for your time. This isn't a normal game genre as it asks much, much more in the way of a time commitment. It's easy to ask someone to put down a single player or online competitive game when the new hotness comes along. The opposite holds true for persistent online games. The largest hurdle that every developer seemed to have when creating a 'WoW killer' was trying to convince people to give up years of achievements and start over. Combine the fact that MMOs don't shut down at nearly the same rate as they are being created. There just aren't enough gamers in existence that enjoy the playing like it's your job lifestyle that MMOs want from you.
I never said the classic MMORPG genre was dead. It has contracted significantly, though. That much is undeniable. All the population metrics for MMORPG games and online resources pertaining to the genre have fallen in the past decade. Given this fact, I still feel my argument holds true that smaller, more focused games are the way forward for MMORPGs.
Given that the majority of companies that are attempting to make MMORPGs rely heavily on crowdfunding, and the rather abysmal record of crowdfunding titles, especially in the MMORPG area, it is probably best if the MMORPG genre gravitates to smaller, more confined worlds. So, it loses the Massively Multiplayer part, what does that really hurt? The genre hasn't really done much with the massively aspect. Why not drop back to just a multiplayer game?
There are advantages. The biggest, and probably most important, is that this smaller world will be more in line with the abilities (and budgets) of those attempting to create these type games. A large part of the failure of the crowdfunded efforts seems to be putting reasonable constraints on the scope of the game, in my opinion. They promise too much and are unable to deliver. Aim to develop a game with the capabilities of the development team in mind, and we're likely to see more games.
Use these smaller scope games to develop and perfect the individual systems. Once these cornerstones are in place, then attempt to scale back to the massively aspect. Start with a 32-player game featuring the basic elements, make some money, make a second 32-player game with different systems, maybe a third incorporating new ideas/technology, then worry about combining these games to a larger format.
Creating an MMORPG can be done, only not the way it is being attempted currently. The developers need to step back and perfect the individual game systems without the overwhelming need to be a breakout success. Build incrementally to get to an all encompassing world, don't try to make the ultimate game first thing out of the door.
/end diatribe/manifesto (for now)
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Given that the majority of companies that are attempting to make MMORPGs rely heavily on crowdfunding, and the rather abysmal record of crowdfunding titles, especially in the MMORPG area, it is probably best if the MMORPG genre gravitates to smaller, more confined worlds. So, it loses the Massively Multiplayer part, what does that really hurt? The genre hasn't really done much with the massively aspect. Why not drop back to just a multiplayer game?
This is a good point, creating a "true" MMORPG does require a lot of money and skill, it's really difficult so it doesn't seem suited to the crowdfunding model.
Personally, I would say that dropping the massively multiplayer part means losing the unique selling point. Whilst there is clearly a market for normal multiplayer online rpgs (as seen over the last 5+ years) and so it can clearly be worth developing games for that market, I lament the loss of actual mmorpgs.
I do agree that very few devs ever actually made use of being massively multiplayer. For the most part, PvP was the only area where large scale events happened. However, I would also argue that being massively multiplayer and seeing hundreds of people running around in a non-instanced world is what helps to create communities. You may not ever actually play with 100s of people at the same time, but at least seeing them running about in the background helps you to remember them, you'll end up bumping into them more often and that helps form social bonds.
For me personally (and this is pure personal preference), I will only play single player games or massively multiplayer games. I dont do regular multiplayer anymore (though i did when i was younger). I love large scale events, whether that be PvP, or community events like Weatherstock. I also play MMORPGs for the community, I like getting to know others on the server, forming guilds, creating alliances and rivalries. That sort of thing just doesnt happen in regular multiplayer games.
I would also argue that massively multiplayer is where the potential of the genre lies, it's just almost completely untapped potential right now. That is why, despite all it's problems, I am still excited by Camelot Unchained as it seems to be the only MMO in development that is focused on that potential. Whether it works out or not remains to be seen......
There are advantages. The biggest, and probably most important, is that this smaller world will be more in line with the abilities (and budgets) of those attempting to create these type games. A large part of the failure of the crowdfunded efforts seems to be putting reasonable constraints on the scope of the game, in my opinion. They promise too much and are unable to deliver. Aim to develop a game with the capabilities of the development team in mind, and we're likely to see more games.
Use these smaller scope games to develop and perfect the individual systems. Once these cornerstones are in place, then attempt to scale back to the massively aspect. Start with a 32-player game featuring the basic elements, make some money, make a second 32-player game with different systems, maybe a third incorporating new ideas/technology, then worry about combining these games to a larger format.
In my armchair-developer / dreamer mindset, I have a slightly alternative route (though I like and agree with your proposal too).
Step 1: Online PvP Game
This would allow me to design the combat mechanics and make sure they work correctly in a multiplayer environment. It would allow me to design progression mechanics (horizontal progression!) and make sure it that it remains engaging without unbalancing the game. It allows me to dip my toes into the IP and create some excitement about the setting, without getting bogged down in story, quests, extensive lore. Think WAR's scenarios, or SWTORs battlegrounds. Basically, a fantasy version of CoD or Battlefront's multiplayer modes.
Step 2: Single Player PvE Game
Take the combat, progression and general setting from my PvP game, and put it into a large single player game. This allows me to primarily focus on the PvE side of things, developing a living world without having to worry too much about how other players affect things. I can focus on AI / scripting, spawn rates, size of the world, travel options, maybe crafting. Basically, a single-player version of the eventual mmorpg I want to make.
Step 3: MMORPG
By this point, I should have combat, progression, IP, PvE, questing, basically most of the game already sorted out and tested. With two games under my belt, I will have hopefully generated a decent fanbase to help launch the mmo. So, now it's time to scale everything up, create a bigger world and add the features that are exclusive to being an mmo.
No Idea if such an approach would work of course. I think the main concern I would have is the game engine. Ideally I'd want to use the same game engine across all three games so that my team's skills would be transferable, but finding a suitable engine would be next to impossible.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
So, it loses the Massively Multiplayer part, what does that really hurt? T
That's another thing that seems to be a point of contention. What exactly quantifies a multiplayer game as 'massively' multiplayer is so subjective. BR and small-server survival games are in the MMO category on Steam. A 50-100 person rpg with a persistent progression and game world would fit my requirements for an MMORPG, but others' definitions may vary.
In many cases, two of the factors (I am not saying these are the only two) that made that possible were both internal and external. The internal factors were things like a lack of a minimap or limited fast travel. The external factors were not only the limited number of sites with game guides/info/walkthrus but that people were at the time still divided on the use of those sites.
Neither of those can be undone. The former, because those genies are out of the bottle for good. The latter because... internet.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
So, it loses the Massively Multiplayer part, what does that really hurt? T
That's another thing that seems to be a point of contention. What exactly quantifies a multiplayer game as 'massively' multiplayer is so subjective. BR and small-server survival games are in the MMO category on Steam. A 50-100 person rpg with a persistent progression and game world would fit my requirements for an MMORPG, but others' definitions may vary.
Whilst the specific number can be argued and is subjective, to be "massively" multiplayer I would say you need to support larger numbers than games considered to be regular multiplayer.
The upper limit for regular multiplayer games seems to be 128. We've seen 128 players in the larger online shooters for many years now and they've never been called massively multiplayer, so I figure as long as you can support more than 128 players within the same virtual environment (be that a map, race, instance, layer or whatever) then you can be considered an mmo.
Richard Garriott and Raph Koster both defined it as 250+ players back in the day if that helps.
Steam is a terrible guage of genres, everything can and does get labeled as everything. It's a huge mess, acknowledged as a mess by just about everyone, including valve themselves.
Also, being massively multiplayer is a specific feature, but doesnt necessarily mean it is a feature you want. The RPG features typically found in an MMORPG tend to be what most players are after, they don't often actually care about whether it is massively multiplayer or not, which is why you would be happy with a 50-100 player game that included the same RPG features as an MMORPG.
However, there is a subset of gamers (i am one of them) who do value massively multiplayer as a feature and would not play an online RPG without it. I've no idea how big that subset is, given the direction of the industry over the last decade, im guessing it's not that big.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
This kind of speaks to my point, I think. Your first paragraph hits on the point I made a while back about the genre not going back to 2004, but rather evolving into something new.
I 100% agree that online gaming is growing. I was speaking to the point of the OP in suggesting that classic-style MMORPGs will not obtain their former glory. The population is dwindling as other types of online 'games as a service' games chip away at the market.
When the first MMORPGs started popping up, they were limited. Now there's hundreds of MMOs all vying for your time. This isn't a normal game genre as it asks much, much more in the way of a time commitment. It's easy to ask someone to put down a single player or online competitive game when the new hotness comes along. The opposite holds true for persistent online games. The largest hurdle that every developer seemed to have when creating a 'WoW killer' was trying to convince people to give up years of achievements and start over. Combine the fact that MMOs don't shut down at nearly the same rate as they are being created. There just aren't enough gamers in existence that enjoy the playing like it's your job lifestyle that MMOs want from you.
I never said the classic MMORPG genre was dead. It has contracted significantly, though. That much is undeniable. All the population metrics for MMORPG games and online resources pertaining to the genre have fallen in the past decade. Given this fact, I still feel my argument holds true that smaller, more focused games are the way forward for MMORPGs.
Given that the majority of companies that are attempting to make MMORPGs rely heavily on crowdfunding, and the rather abysmal record of crowdfunding titles, especially in the MMORPG area, it is probably best if the MMORPG genre gravitates to smaller, more confined worlds. So, it loses the Massively Multiplayer part, what does that really hurt? The genre hasn't really done much with the massively aspect. Why not drop back to just a multiplayer game?
There are advantages. The biggest, and probably most important, is that this smaller world will be more in line with the abilities (and budgets) of those attempting to create these type games. A large part of the failure of the crowdfunded efforts seems to be putting reasonable constraints on the scope of the game, in my opinion. They promise too much and are unable to deliver. Aim to develop a game with the capabilities of the development team in mind, and we're likely to see more games.
Use these smaller scope games to develop and perfect the individual systems. Once these cornerstones are in place, then attempt to scale back to the massively aspect. Start with a 32-player game featuring the basic elements, make some money, make a second 32-player game with different systems, maybe a third incorporating new ideas/technology, then worry about combining these games to a larger format.
Creating an MMORPG can be done, only not the way it is being attempted currently. The developers need to step back and perfect the individual game systems without the overwhelming need to be a breakout success. Build incrementally to get to an all encompassing world, don't try to make the ultimate game first thing out of the door.
/end diatribe/manifesto (for now)
Sure but breadcrumbs add up. EQ1 did well when it hit its peek and broke the record for number of players online with 500'000 at that time. Great WoW has 10+ mill players but not there are a few hundred MMOs with 40-500k players. Many of these games are chugging along with these low numbers very happily. Take an average say of 100'000 (not says that number is fact) players at 200 games thats 20'000'000 gamers.
Crumbs add up to allot of money when you look at the market and thats before you get to mobile MMOs (makes an odd face). Pantheon it self is looking for a player base of 40-100k. To look at it from a positive perspective, server farms are letting more people MMO that could not before and more areas are getting high speed around that world. Markets are opening up. I get this is for all gaming but MMOs are part of that and will earn new players.
Classic style MMOing is not dead but yes things are also evolving. Does not mean that both wont keep going forward. Companies still investing is modern MMOs and classic style play. Both game styles are making money. If you think classic MMOing is dead, look at how munch money steam makes selling retro games. I have lots of friends in their 20s playing games I grew up on. The market is not stagnant.
I doubt anyone will ever see another MMO that captures the old school design unless it is community driven because the money is not there in terms of profit. Building a large scale world is expensive because of the number of people needed. A small world the size of say Skyrim took some 5 years to make and over 100 developers. If you took that world and expanded it 20 fold you can now see the challenge and cost.
There is several ways to overcome the cost but the quality will suffer so anyone believing a small team can produce anything of significance is going to be sorely disappointed in the end. EQ was different in terms of design so it had a novel feature. As more demand for easy mode came WoW and it had a cult following of the thing to play since others were playing it.
Personally I see it as an endless hamster wheel of rinse and repeat to get the next level with no accomplishment. I rather spend time doing interactive games which truly have different outcomes by my choices.
I would rather see a world that lets the user be the developer by giving them tools and rules build into the mechanics.
If VR is a scam, why am I having so much fun with my Pimax 8K headset playing games like Elite Dangerous, Assetto Corsa or Dirt Rally II ?
VR in simulation games is just amazing.
Oh, and I don't even own an Occulus... could I be so wrong there too ?
But it all must be my imagination...
... or it's just that every time I give that guy another chance and look one of his posts despite him being one of the rare on my ignore list, I immediately remember why he is there
I had to stop trying to make sense of what tin foil hat has to say. Generally...or should I say at best is rambling conspiracy theories are based on ignorance of how the world actually works, at worst he is tousers on head mental case.
Anyway, I like VR, I just cannot participate as much as I would like. My actual point, how do you like the Pimax? do you get headaches with it at all?
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
In my armchair-developer / dreamer mindset, I have a slightly alternative route (though I like and agree with your proposal too).
Step 1: Online PvP Game
This would allow me to design the combat mechanics and make sure they work correctly in a multiplayer environment. It would allow me to design progression mechanics (horizontal progression!) and make sure it that it remains engaging without unbalancing the game. It allows me to dip my toes into the IP and create some excitement about the setting, without getting bogged down in story, quests, extensive lore. Think WAR's scenarios, or SWTORs battlegrounds. Basically, a fantasy version of CoD or Battlefront's multiplayer modes.
Step 2: Single Player PvE Game
Take the combat, progression and general setting from my PvP game, and put it into a large single player game. This allows me to primarily focus on the PvE side of things, developing a living world without having to worry too much about how other players affect things. I can focus on AI / scripting, spawn rates, size of the world, travel options, maybe crafting. Basically, a single-player version of the eventual mmorpg I want to make.
Step 3: MMORPG
By this point, I should have combat, progression, IP, PvE, questing, basically most of the game already sorted out and tested. With two games under my belt, I will have hopefully generated a decent fanbase to help launch the mmo. So, now it's time to scale everything up, create a bigger world and add the features that are exclusive to being an mmo.
No Idea if such an approach would work of course. I think the main concern I would have is the game engine. Ideally I'd want to use the same game engine across all three games so that my team's skills would be transferable, but finding a suitable engine would be next to impossible.
Brilliant!
However, if you have the funds available, you could just skip the first two games and just go straight to the big gun.
Do the individual (first two games) in separate testing, to show what each has to offer to the different types of players. Each can be limited in scope (world size, peripheral assets, etc., but not quality.
Then the big test, where you combine them to show how they fit together and mesh in a way that keeps both sorts of players happy.
And for the love of all that is holy, show some of the "worldliness" as you go along, so that people can start to drool of the possibilities of such a game.
Also, being massively multiplayer is a specific feature, but doesnt necessarily mean it is a feature you want. The RPG features typically found in an MMORPG tend to be what most players are after, they don't often actually care about whether it is massively multiplayer or not, which is why you would be happy with a 50-100 player game that included the same RPG features as an MMORPG.
However, there is a subset of gamers (i am one of them) who do value massively multiplayer as a feature and would not play an online RPG without it. I've no idea how big that subset is, given the direction of the industry over the last decade, im guessing it's not that big.
I think that "massively multiplayer", as a concept, is one of the biggest draws to online gaming. It's been advertised for games that aren't, and twisted even more, just because gamers really want that. Even without quite understanding what it is, or how it affects them as an individual among many.
The only reason that gamers started to draw back from true "massively multiplayer" is because of the social negatives. That's all formed from game design that ignored what negative people can and will do inside of a game.
I'm watching the development of SEED MMO Simulation. If it delivers even a small bit of what is in the vision of the creators, it should present a lot of opportunities for some different styles of MMO gaming. A exo-planet colonization theme heavy on p2p interaction/collaboration to determine and push the narrative forward. Organizations, politics, groups and how they form and interact in a 24/7 persistent simulation seems to be a big part of it. I think it has promise for people that are missing the old mmo days.
Also, being massively multiplayer is a specific feature, but doesnt necessarily mean it is a feature you want. The RPG features typically found in an MMORPG tend to be what most players are after, they don't often actually care about whether it is massively multiplayer or not, which is why you would be happy with a 50-100 player game that included the same RPG features as an MMORPG.
However, there is a subset of gamers (i am one of them) who do value massively multiplayer as a feature and would not play an online RPG without it. I've no idea how big that subset is, given the direction of the industry over the last decade, im guessing it's not that big.
I think that "massively multiplayer", as a concept, is one of the biggest draws to online gaming. It's been advertised for games that aren't, and twisted even more, just because gamers really want that. Even without quite understanding what it is, or how it affects them as an individual among many.
The only reason that gamers started to draw back from true "massively multiplayer" is because of the social negatives. That's all formed from game design that ignored what negative people can and will do inside of a game.
That subset if HUGE, IMO. A "sleeping giant."
I hope the subset is huge, but I've truely no idea. Even on these forums, I remember starting a thread earlier in the year about what massively multiplayer features people would like to see, and the response was basically "we dont want to see any". So, even here, on a diehard MMO forum, the appetite for massively mutliplayer is small.
So, I really think that the majority of players dont care, they just want to play an RPG for a long time and have the options to play it with their mates, and the market has responded accordingly.
I do hope that some studio will come along and make use of massively multiplayer in a positive way that will re-ignite interest in the feature.
One of my hopes, even though i don't really enjoy FPSes, is that something like Battlefield will release a mode with massively multiplayer numbers. I'd love to see a map with 250 v 250 players or more, designed in such a way that it isn't just a big zergy mess but is genuinely fun having that many players involved. Being massively multiplayer doesn't mean you have to have a persistent world, or long term progression or anything else, so i'd love to see the feature being put to other uses.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I'm watching the development of SEED MMO Simulation. If it delivers even a small bit of what is in the vision of the creators, it should present a lot of opportunities for some different styles of MMO gaming. A exo-planet colonization theme heavy on p2p interaction/collaboration to determine and push the narrative forward. Organizations, politics, groups and how they form and interact in a 24/7 persistent simulation seems to be a big part of it. I think it has promise for people that are missing the old mmo days.
Its a unique take on a MMO. Will be interesting to see if it gets any traction.
I think a huge thing is the terms changed to fit marketing ploys. When EQ was the new thing around, when you said MMO it was because there was A LOT of people in each area, the game was designed and played coop, back then when you played a multiplayer game it was for more than one person. On top of that the world was massive for its time.
I think if we had a dev team that kept the old values in mind but made it for todays environment it could work but devs these days are very poor followers with bad imaginations. They do not want to do the thinking themselves, they want to find the trend and reskin it. Like Metallica said, you know its sad but truuuee.
(could have sworn ive said this before.. probably another thread)
Also, being massively multiplayer is a specific feature, but doesnt necessarily mean it is a feature you want. The RPG features typically found in an MMORPG tend to be what most players are after, they don't often actually care about whether it is massively multiplayer or not, which is why you would be happy with a 50-100 player game that included the same RPG features as an MMORPG.
However, there is a subset of gamers (i am one of them) who do value massively multiplayer as a feature and would not play an online RPG without it. I've no idea how big that subset is, given the direction of the industry over the last decade, im guessing it's not that big.
I think that "massively multiplayer", as a concept, is one of the biggest draws to online gaming. It's been advertised for games that aren't, and twisted even more, just because gamers really want that. Even without quite understanding what it is, or how it affects them as an individual among many.
The only reason that gamers started to draw back from true "massively multiplayer" is because of the social negatives. That's all formed from game design that ignored what negative people can and will do inside of a game.
That subset if HUGE, IMO. A "sleeping giant."
I hope the subset is huge, but I've truely no idea. Even on these forums, I remember starting a thread earlier in the year about what massively multiplayer features people would like to see, and the response was basically "we dont want to see any". So, even here, on a diehard MMO forum, the appetite for massively mutliplayer is small.
So, I really think that the majority of players dont care, they just want to play an RPG for a long time and have the options to play it with their mates, and the market has responded accordingly.
I do hope that some studio will come along and make use of massively multiplayer in a positive way that will re-ignite interest in the feature.
One of my hopes, even though i don't really enjoy FPSes, is that something like Battlefield will release a mode with massively multiplayer numbers. I'd love to see a map with 250 v 250 players or more, designed in such a way that it isn't just a big zergy mess but is genuinely fun having that many players involved. Being massively multiplayer doesn't mean you have to have a persistent world, or long term progression or anything else, so i'd love to see the feature being put to other uses.
I think blocking would make a big difference in large scale battles. I honestly don't know if blocking is in play these days, to be honest.
With blocking you can have lines that are effective for strategy. I loved it in UO, in both PvP and PvE.
Once you have that, you can add all sorts of strategies for breaking lines, surrounding, cutting off, etc. Good commanders (minor officers of squad level groups) would be in their element and able to make a name for themselves. As with players who can follow them properly. Heck, I could see mercenary groups/guilds making a name for themselves in ways other games don't offer.
Just to add, I think you only need blocking lit up on characters that aren't moving, or are only trotting. I may not be necessary for characters in full running mode (on themselves, but they could still run into a blocker). While in combat mode, too.
Also, being massively multiplayer is a specific feature, but doesnt necessarily mean it is a feature you want. The RPG features typically found in an MMORPG tend to be what most players are after, they don't often actually care about whether it is massively multiplayer or not, which is why you would be happy with a 50-100 player game that included the same RPG features as an MMORPG.
However, there is a subset of gamers (i am one of them) who do value massively multiplayer as a feature and would not play an online RPG without it. I've no idea how big that subset is, given the direction of the industry over the last decade, im guessing it's not that big.
I think that "massively multiplayer", as a concept, is one of the biggest draws to online gaming. It's been advertised for games that aren't, and twisted even more, just because gamers really want that. Even without quite understanding what it is, or how it affects them as an individual among many.
The only reason that gamers started to draw back from true "massively multiplayer" is because of the social negatives. That's all formed from game design that ignored what negative people can and will do inside of a game.
That subset if HUGE, IMO. A "sleeping giant."
I hope the subset is huge, but I've truely no idea. Even on these forums, I remember starting a thread earlier in the year about what massively multiplayer features people would like to see, and the response was basically "we dont want to see any". So, even here, on a diehard MMO forum, the appetite for massively mutliplayer is small.
So, I really think that the majority of players dont care, they just want to play an RPG for a long time and have the options to play it with their mates, and the market has responded accordingly.
I do hope that some studio will come along and make use of massively multiplayer in a positive way that will re-ignite interest in the feature.
One of my hopes, even though i don't really enjoy FPSes, is that something like Battlefield will release a mode with massively multiplayer numbers. I'd love to see a map with 250 v 250 players or more, designed in such a way that it isn't just a big zergy mess but is genuinely fun having that many players involved. Being massively multiplayer doesn't mean you have to have a persistent world, or long term progression or anything else, so i'd love to see the feature being put to other uses.
I think blocking would make a big difference in large scale battles. I honestly don't know if blocking is in play these days, to be honest.
With blocking you can have lines that are effective for strategy. I loved it in UO, in both PvP and PvE.
Once you have that, you can add all sorts of strategies for breaking lines, surrounding, cutting off, etc. Good commanders (minor officers of squad level groups) would be in their element and able to make a name for themselves. As with players who can follow them properly. Heck, I could see mercenary groups/guilds making a name for themselves in ways other games don't offer.
Just to add, I think you only need blocking lit up on characters that aren't moving, or are only trotting. I may not be necessary for characters in full running mode (on themselves, but they could still run into a blocker). While in combat mode, too.
Eternal Crusade has Shield Blocking. It works pretty simple, if you opt to equip a shield, you can use it to block with, shields can withstand a limited amount of damage before they break and you need to wait for them to recover, this.. however.. does not work against things like LasCannons and other Anti-Tank ordinance weapons, that instantly obliterates personal.. But... Yah.. Shield Walls are a thing.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Also, being massively multiplayer is a specific feature, but doesnt necessarily mean it is a feature you want. The RPG features typically found in an MMORPG tend to be what most players are after, they don't often actually care about whether it is massively multiplayer or not, which is why you would be happy with a 50-100 player game that included the same RPG features as an MMORPG.
However, there is a subset of gamers (i am one of them) who do value massively multiplayer as a feature and would not play an online RPG without it. I've no idea how big that subset is, given the direction of the industry over the last decade, im guessing it's not that big.
I think that "massively multiplayer", as a concept, is one of the biggest draws to online gaming. It's been advertised for games that aren't, and twisted even more, just because gamers really want that. Even without quite understanding what it is, or how it affects them as an individual among many.
The only reason that gamers started to draw back from true "massively multiplayer" is because of the social negatives. That's all formed from game design that ignored what negative people can and will do inside of a game.
That subset if HUGE, IMO. A "sleeping giant."
I hope the subset is huge, but I've truely no idea. Even on these forums, I remember starting a thread earlier in the year about what massively multiplayer features people would like to see, and the response was basically "we dont want to see any". So, even here, on a diehard MMO forum, the appetite for massively mutliplayer is small.
So, I really think that the majority of players dont care, they just want to play an RPG for a long time and have the options to play it with their mates, and the market has responded accordingly.
I do hope that some studio will come along and make use of massively multiplayer in a positive way that will re-ignite interest in the feature.
One of my hopes, even though i don't really enjoy FPSes, is that something like Battlefield will release a mode with massively multiplayer numbers. I'd love to see a map with 250 v 250 players or more, designed in such a way that it isn't just a big zergy mess but is genuinely fun having that many players involved. Being massively multiplayer doesn't mean you have to have a persistent world, or long term progression or anything else, so i'd love to see the feature being put to other uses.
I think blocking would make a big difference in large scale battles. I honestly don't know if blocking is in play these days, to be honest.
With blocking you can have lines that are effective for strategy. I loved it in UO, in both PvP and PvE.
Once you have that, you can add all sorts of strategies for breaking lines, surrounding, cutting off, etc. Good commanders (minor officers of squad level groups) would be in their element and able to make a name for themselves. As with players who can follow them properly. Heck, I could see mercenary groups/guilds making a name for themselves in ways other games don't offer.
Just to add, I think you only need blocking lit up on characters that aren't moving, or are only trotting. I may not be necessary for characters in full running mode (on themselves, but they could still run into a blocker). While in combat mode, too.
A good shield wall was pretty valuable in ancient battles, which most MMORPG combat seem to want to emulate. Just stopping the silly "run-thru my character" tactic (in both PvP and PvE) would be a great help.
Now, if a game wants to really take on a realistic feel, work on adding "dress left" and "dress front" commands to make coordinated formations more possible. That, coupled with positional blocking, fatigue-based combat (eventually a lot of ancient combat ground to a standstill), grappling, a natural healing system, with *minimal* in-combat magical healing, would allow a developer to build a great MMORPG around actual ancient combat. At least, that was what I was going to attempt, anyway.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Also, being massively multiplayer is a specific feature, but doesnt necessarily mean it is a feature you want. The RPG features typically found in an MMORPG tend to be what most players are after, they don't often actually care about whether it is massively multiplayer or not, which is why you would be happy with a 50-100 player game that included the same RPG features as an MMORPG.
However, there is a subset of gamers (i am one of them) who do value massively multiplayer as a feature and would not play an online RPG without it. I've no idea how big that subset is, given the direction of the industry over the last decade, im guessing it's not that big.
I think that "massively multiplayer", as a concept, is one of the biggest draws to online gaming. It's been advertised for games that aren't, and twisted even more, just because gamers really want that. Even without quite understanding what it is, or how it affects them as an individual among many.
The only reason that gamers started to draw back from true "massively multiplayer" is because of the social negatives. That's all formed from game design that ignored what negative people can and will do inside of a game.
That subset if HUGE, IMO. A "sleeping giant."
I hope the subset is huge, but I've truely no idea. Even on these forums, I remember starting a thread earlier in the year about what massively multiplayer features people would like to see, and the response was basically "we dont want to see any". So, even here, on a diehard MMO forum, the appetite for massively mutliplayer is small.
So, I really think that the majority of players dont care, they just want to play an RPG for a long time and have the options to play it with their mates, and the market has responded accordingly.
I do hope that some studio will come along and make use of massively multiplayer in a positive way that will re-ignite interest in the feature.
One of my hopes, even though i don't really enjoy FPSes, is that something like Battlefield will release a mode with massively multiplayer numbers. I'd love to see a map with 250 v 250 players or more, designed in such a way that it isn't just a big zergy mess but is genuinely fun having that many players involved. Being massively multiplayer doesn't mean you have to have a persistent world, or long term progression or anything else, so i'd love to see the feature being put to other uses.
I think blocking would make a big difference in large scale battles. I honestly don't know if blocking is in play these days, to be honest.
With blocking you can have lines that are effective for strategy. I loved it in UO, in both PvP and PvE.
Once you have that, you can add all sorts of strategies for breaking lines, surrounding, cutting off, etc. Good commanders (minor officers of squad level groups) would be in their element and able to make a name for themselves. As with players who can follow them properly. Heck, I could see mercenary groups/guilds making a name for themselves in ways other games don't offer.
Just to add, I think you only need blocking lit up on characters that aren't moving, or are only trotting. I may not be necessary for characters in full running mode (on themselves, but they could still run into a blocker). While in combat mode, too.
A good shield wall was pretty valuable in ancient battles, which most MMORPG combat seem to want to emulate. Just stopping the silly "run-thru my character" tactic (in both PvP and PvE) would be a great help.
Now, if a game wants to really take on a realistic feel, work on adding "dress left" and "dress front" commands to make coordinated formations more possible. That, coupled with positional blocking, fatigue-based combat (eventually a lot of ancient combat ground to a standstill), grappling, a natural healing system, with *minimal* in-combat magical healing, would allow a developer to build a great MMORPG around actual ancient combat. At least, that was what I was going to attempt, anyway.
I like these ideas :-)
I have long dreamed of a "formations" system to help organise large scale combat. Group leader sets a formation like "line", "wedge" or "square" and players can enter / leave.
Once in a formation, your movement abilities (and maybe some AoE) would be restricted, but you'd gain other bonuses, like extra defences, knockback immunity etc. Wedges would have ability to move quicker and break defensive formations.
Basically, in any real world large scale combat, organisation and training play huge parts. But, it's unreasonable to expect gamers to go through all of that, so it would be great if the devs provided us with tools that made up the differences. Player collisions is part of that, formations would take it a step further. I'd also love to see some sort of weight system, so that if I sprint at someone who is standing still, my momentum has a chance to knock them back/down. Or in a fantasy game, a huge orc should be able to push past a tiny halfling in a game with player collision, but not the reverse.
Likewise, in a large scale modern/future FPS, I'd love there to be a commander role, someone who can enter commands / directions into the map for the others to follow. Direct groups 1-3 to one objective, 4-5 to another, direct the tanks to the heaviest fighting, bikers in a pincer movement etc. It would still be up to individuals as to whether they follow those orders or not, but would be good to have someone with an overview directing people to the right place.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Also, being massively multiplayer is a specific feature, but doesnt necessarily mean it is a feature you want. The RPG features typically found in an MMORPG tend to be what most players are after, they don't often actually care about whether it is massively multiplayer or not, which is why you would be happy with a 50-100 player game that included the same RPG features as an MMORPG.
However, there is a subset of gamers (i am one of them) who do value massively multiplayer as a feature and would not play an online RPG without it. I've no idea how big that subset is, given the direction of the industry over the last decade, im guessing it's not that big.
I think that "massively multiplayer", as a concept, is one of the biggest draws to online gaming. It's been advertised for games that aren't, and twisted even more, just because gamers really want that. Even without quite understanding what it is, or how it affects them as an individual among many.
The only reason that gamers started to draw back from true "massively multiplayer" is because of the social negatives. That's all formed from game design that ignored what negative people can and will do inside of a game.
That subset if HUGE, IMO. A "sleeping giant."
I hope the subset is huge, but I've truely no idea. Even on these forums, I remember starting a thread earlier in the year about what massively multiplayer features people would like to see, and the response was basically "we dont want to see any". So, even here, on a diehard MMO forum, the appetite for massively mutliplayer is small.
So, I really think that the majority of players dont care, they just want to play an RPG for a long time and have the options to play it with their mates, and the market has responded accordingly.
I do hope that some studio will come along and make use of massively multiplayer in a positive way that will re-ignite interest in the feature.
One of my hopes, even though i don't really enjoy FPSes, is that something like Battlefield will release a mode with massively multiplayer numbers. I'd love to see a map with 250 v 250 players or more, designed in such a way that it isn't just a big zergy mess but is genuinely fun having that many players involved. Being massively multiplayer doesn't mean you have to have a persistent world, or long term progression or anything else, so i'd love to see the feature being put to other uses.
I think blocking would make a big difference in large scale battles. I honestly don't know if blocking is in play these days, to be honest.
With blocking you can have lines that are effective for strategy. I loved it in UO, in both PvP and PvE.
Once you have that, you can add all sorts of strategies for breaking lines, surrounding, cutting off, etc. Good commanders (minor officers of squad level groups) would be in their element and able to make a name for themselves. As with players who can follow them properly. Heck, I could see mercenary groups/guilds making a name for themselves in ways other games don't offer.
Just to add, I think you only need blocking lit up on characters that aren't moving, or are only trotting. I may not be necessary for characters in full running mode (on themselves, but they could still run into a blocker). While in combat mode, too.
A good shield wall was pretty valuable in ancient battles, which most MMORPG combat seem to want to emulate. Just stopping the silly "run-thru my character" tactic (in both PvP and PvE) would be a great help.
Now, if a game wants to really take on a realistic feel, work on adding "dress left" and "dress front" commands to make coordinated formations more possible. That, coupled with positional blocking, fatigue-based combat (eventually a lot of ancient combat ground to a standstill), grappling, a natural healing system, with *minimal* in-combat magical healing, would allow a developer to build a great MMORPG around actual ancient combat. At least, that was what I was going to attempt, anyway.
I like these ideas :-)
I have long dreamed of a "formations" system to help organise large scale combat. Group leader sets a formation like "line", "wedge" or "square" and players can enter / leave.
Once in a formation, your movement abilities (and maybe some AoE) would be restricted, but you'd gain other bonuses, like extra defences, knockback immunity etc. Wedges would have ability to move quicker and break defensive formations.
Basically, in any real world large scale combat, organisation and training play huge parts. But, it's unreasonable to expect gamers to go through all of that, so it would be great if the devs provided us with tools that made up the differences. Player collisions is part of that, formations would take it a step further. I'd also love to see some sort of weight system, so that if I sprint at someone who is standing still, my momentum has a chance to knock them back/down. Or in a fantasy game, a huge orc should be able to push past a tiny halfling in a game with player collision, but not the reverse.
Likewise, in a large scale modern/future FPS, I'd love there to be a commander role, someone who can enter commands / directions into the map for the others to follow. Direct groups 1-3 to one objective, 4-5 to another, direct the tanks to the heaviest fighting, bikers in a pincer movement etc. It would still be up to individuals as to whether they follow those orders or not, but would be good to have someone with an overview directing people to the right place.
I remember a long time ago, there was a game called something like Rome: Gods and heroes? You would have soldiers and i think you could collect more like archers, healers and mythical creatures if i remember. You could get your squad in formations and such, had such great ideas then fell apart. Animations for the mobs was pretty cool too, remember even low level snakes would wrap around your character and they would fall to the ground.
Would be really cool to have a game where a group of 5 people looked more like a small guild rolling through something, flanking and using choke points all played a roll. Tactics as opposed to swarming.
I have long dreamed of a "formations" system to help organise large scale combat. Group leader sets a formation like "line", "wedge" or "square" and players can enter / leave.
Once in a formation, your movement abilities (and maybe some AoE) would be restricted, but you'd gain other bonuses, like extra defences, knockback immunity etc. Wedges would have ability to move quicker and break defensive formations.
Basically, in any real world large scale combat, organisation and training play huge parts. But, it's unreasonable to expect gamers to go through all of that, so it would be great if the devs provided us with tools that made up the differences. Player collisions is part of that, formations would take it a step further. I'd also love to see some sort of weight system, so that if I sprint at someone who is standing still, my momentum has a chance to knock them back/down. Or in a fantasy game, a huge orc should be able to push past a tiny halfling in a game with player collision, but not the reverse.
Likewise, in a large scale modern/future FPS, I'd love there to be a commander role, someone who can enter commands / directions into the map for the others to follow. Direct groups 1-3 to one objective, 4-5 to another, direct the tanks to the heaviest fighting, bikers in a pincer movement etc. It would still be up to individuals as to whether they follow those orders or not, but would be good to have someone with an overview directing people to the right place.
So basically you want to play a game like Dawn of War, but as opposed to just NPC troops, you command players, who may or may not obey your commands?
Well, I am going to admit, that would be a great Competitive PvP style game, to test the limits of cooperative play among e-sport players and teams.. truly something next gen for the e-sports evolution, but it would suck major balls in any kind of Open Game setting where the troops are made up of Randos and Pugs.
The reality of that kind of game would be that the Pugs would at worst flat out not listen and argue with the commander over the directions given, at best they would respond way too slow and nowhere near in unison enough to be effective, and then curse out whoever was in command as being a total fucking waste of life the reason for their failure.
I am not sure the demographic that would go for it tho, I see a lot of Guilds that want to get into World vs World games that are more high skill bracket, so maybe those guilds would find your game idea appealing enough to get involved, and could make it somewhat popular, but it would not be for the Fairweather or casual crowed, that is for sure.
But again.. as I said.. Know your Demographic and target the hell out of them, just because a game might not be my flavor, does not mean there is not a whole demographic of players would flock to that and love the hell out of it, because it scratched that perfect itch for them.
But.. As far as Shields Go.
I tend to agree in a lot of games like GW2 for example, a Shield is not really a shield, it is just another weapon, that looks like a shield, but you can't use it as an actual shield.
Eternal Crusade has shields that you can block with, and while blocking you can walk slowly towards an Objective or Target, often using your shield to soak up bolter fire till you can get close enough to put your chainsword up their azz.
Another game that also has useable shields is DDO, and they function rather differently, where you get an AC bonus for having a shield, and it gives you whatever other benefits it has when you equip it, like say Deathblock for example, you can also directly block with it, where it will now also offer advantages like Damage Reduction, and if you are in blocking stance and attack, you Shield Bash instead of using your main hand weapon.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I don't think that players in an MMORPG woud like giving full control over to their commander. However, movement commands might be acceptable on a short term basis. Such as - "form up here", which then releases them, so they can have control again. They should stay in place, but they don't have to. (Enemies would love it if they didn't, hehe.) - "Form into a wedge, wait for the wedge to then move them into the attack", from where they can do anything and break said control, such as attacking an enemy, shield bashing to knock back, etc.
This allows players to screw up, maybe charging into a gap (on their own) where the enemies can swarm them and cut them down. But a knowing player doesn't do that.
Comments
This kind of speaks to my point, I think. Your first paragraph hits on the point I made a while back about the genre not going back to 2004, but rather evolving into something new.
I 100% agree that online gaming is growing. I was speaking to the point of the OP in suggesting that classic-style MMORPGs will not obtain their former glory. The population is dwindling as other types of online 'games as a service' games chip away at the market.
When the first MMORPGs started popping up, they were limited. Now there's hundreds of MMOs all vying for your time. This isn't a normal game genre as it asks much, much more in the way of a time commitment. It's easy to ask someone to put down a single player or online competitive game when the new hotness comes along. The opposite holds true for persistent online games. The largest hurdle that every developer seemed to have when creating a 'WoW killer' was trying to convince people to give up years of achievements and start over. Combine the fact that MMOs don't shut down at nearly the same rate as they are being created. There just aren't enough gamers in existence that enjoy the playing like it's your job lifestyle that MMOs want from you.
I never said the classic MMORPG genre was dead. It has contracted significantly, though. That much is undeniable. All the population metrics for MMORPG games and online resources pertaining to the genre have fallen in the past decade. Given this fact, I still feel my argument holds true that smaller, more focused games are the way forward for MMORPGs.
In the east, I think it's a risk/reward kind of thing. You can dump shovelware MMOs on the market and if one hits slightly in China, you're in the green. There's a lot of MMOs in the east because they are more like app games in the west. They are made to trigger impulsive microtransaction purchases, rather than to create a long-term service. These don't really play like anything that existed in 2004 with the exception of the heavily monetized Lineage and MU clones.
In the west, most MMOs seem to be mostly crowd funded. As long as people throw money as Crowd funded games that they never play(see Legends of Aria, Crowfall, Shroud of the Avatar, ect.), people are going to keep e-begging. Amazon has New World coming out(although it kind of leans heavily into more modern, 'survival' design than the pre-WoW era). We'll see how that does, but I don't have the highest of hopes. I don't think it's because I'm being cynical, but rather because Amazon has had massive development woes on all their games thus far.
And as you said yourself, WoW's latest expansion was the #1 PC game seller, this means, that if MMO's plan to thrive, not simply survive feeding off the crumbs of falling WoW players, but thrive and grow, they need to something that isn't WoW.
WoW is a Juggernaut, and it is so refined that trying to copy it will just get you labeled as a knock off, your game is equal of the Great Value™ Brand of the MMO world.
The way to Thrive is to NOT be like WoW, to find a isolated demographic, to start small, and focus. Find out what makes your demographic tick, or better yet, hire people that are among that demographic and build a game that scratches their itch perfectly, not just 2 inches off to the side and eh.. close enough for now.
When this is done, this is not to kill WoW, but to find all the people that looking for what you have.
Like imagine.. you are selling Bread.
Ok.. well.. You're not going to really make a break out, if you make the same thing everyone else makes, you will inch by, you will do well enough, because what you offer is known, people can relate to it, and it's a proven sale item. This is what the money backers want, they want you to make sandwich bread, but somehow, also make the next great thing. This cannot happen.
The way a baker launches to greatness is by doing something amazing, like the baker that made Watermelon bread and charged $100 a slice. Yah, it was a craze for a bit, and of course, in short order there were a million and one clones made and all that, guides on how to make it yourself blah, blah.. but.. that was innovation ! Some loved it, some hated it, life is what it is.
And lets be honest, you are not going to make Watermelon bread when you are stuck trying to compete against other production bread makers trying to make the most mass appealing generic loaf of bread.
Which is why if an MMO has 100K players, that is not a bad thing, keep in mind that EQ had 500K players across a dozen servers, so no more than around 50K to 70K players ever were on a single server, and were all stepping on each others heads.. yah.. I am looking at you Lake of Ill Skilled Loot Whores Lake of Ill Omen.
Keep in mind population is in perception not raw numbers, you can have a game with a million players and feel alone, you can have a game with a thousand players and feel like you belong.
Which is why again.. Dev need to find their demographic and target the hell out of them, sure, they might only get 50K players in their game, but those players will be playing with their Tribe, their People, and thus will stay around and support their little playpen.
Just make sure your demographic is not freeloaders LOL.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Neither of those can be undone. The former, because those genies are out of the bottle for good. The latter because... internet.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Crumbs add up to allot of money when you look at the market and thats before you get to mobile MMOs (makes an odd face). Pantheon it self is looking for a player base of 40-100k. To look at it from a positive perspective, server farms are letting more people MMO that could not before and more areas are getting high speed around that world. Markets are opening up. I get this is for all gaming but MMOs are part of that and will earn new players.
Classic style MMOing is not dead but yes things are also evolving. Does not mean that both wont keep going forward. Companies still investing is modern MMOs and classic style play. Both game styles are making money. If you think classic MMOing is dead, look at how munch money steam makes selling retro games. I have lots of friends in their 20s playing games I grew up on. The market is not stagnant.
There is several ways to overcome the cost but the quality will suffer so anyone believing a small team can produce anything of significance is going to be sorely disappointed in the end. EQ was different in terms of design so it had a novel feature. As more demand for easy mode came WoW and it had a cult following of the thing to play since others were playing it.
Personally I see it as an endless hamster wheel of rinse and repeat to get the next level with no accomplishment. I rather spend time doing interactive games which truly have different outcomes by my choices.
I would rather see a world that lets the user be the developer by giving them tools and rules build into the mechanics.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
Anyway, I like VR, I just cannot participate as much as I would like. My actual point, how do you like the Pimax? do you get headaches with it at all?
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
However, if you have the funds available, you could just skip the first two games and just go straight to the big gun.
Do the individual (first two games) in separate testing, to show what each has to offer to the different types of players. Each can be limited in scope (world size, peripheral assets, etc., but not quality.
Then the big test, where you combine them to show how they fit together and mesh in a way that keeps both sorts of players happy.
And for the love of all that is holy, show some of the "worldliness" as you go along, so that people can start to drool of the possibilities of such a game.
Once upon a time....
The only reason that gamers started to draw back from true "massively multiplayer" is because of the social negatives. That's all formed from game design that ignored what negative people can and will do inside of a game.
That subset if HUGE, IMO. A "sleeping giant."
Once upon a time....
If it delivers even a small bit of what is in the vision of the creators, it should present a lot of opportunities for some different styles of MMO gaming. A exo-planet colonization theme heavy on p2p interaction/collaboration to determine and push the narrative forward. Organizations, politics, groups and how they form and interact in a 24/7 persistent simulation seems to be a big part of it. I think it has promise for people that are missing the old mmo days.
I think if we had a dev team that kept the old values in mind but made it for todays environment it could work but devs these days are very poor followers with bad imaginations. They do not want to do the thinking themselves, they want to find the trend and reskin it. Like Metallica said, you know its sad but truuuee.
(could have sworn ive said this before.. probably another thread)
I honestly don't know if blocking is in play these days, to be honest.
With blocking you can have lines that are effective for strategy. I loved it in UO, in both PvP and PvE.
Once you have that, you can add all sorts of strategies for breaking lines, surrounding, cutting off, etc.
Good commanders (minor officers of squad level groups) would be in their element and able to make a name for themselves. As with players who can follow them properly.
Heck, I could see mercenary groups/guilds making a name for themselves in ways other games don't offer.
Just to add, I think you only need blocking lit up on characters that aren't moving, or are only trotting. I may not be necessary for characters in full running mode (on themselves, but they could still run into a blocker).
While in combat mode, too.
Once upon a time....
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Would be really cool to have a game where a group of 5 people looked more like a small guild rolling through something, flanking and using choke points all played a roll. Tactics as opposed to swarming.
Well, I am going to admit, that would be a great Competitive PvP style game, to test the limits of cooperative play among e-sport players and teams.. truly something next gen for the e-sports evolution, but it would suck major balls in any kind of Open Game setting where the troops are made up of Randos and Pugs.
The reality of that kind of game would be that the Pugs would at worst flat out not listen and argue with the commander over the directions given, at best they would respond way too slow and nowhere near in unison enough to be effective, and then curse out whoever was in command as being a total fucking waste of life the reason for their failure.
I am not sure the demographic that would go for it tho, I see a lot of Guilds that want to get into World vs World games that are more high skill bracket, so maybe those guilds would find your game idea appealing enough to get involved, and could make it somewhat popular, but it would not be for the Fairweather or casual crowed, that is for sure.
But again.. as I said.. Know your Demographic and target the hell out of them, just because a game might not be my flavor, does not mean there is not a whole demographic of players would flock to that and love the hell out of it, because it scratched that perfect itch for them.
But.. As far as Shields Go.
I tend to agree in a lot of games like GW2 for example, a Shield is not really a shield, it is just another weapon, that looks like a shield, but you can't use it as an actual shield.
Eternal Crusade has shields that you can block with, and while blocking you can walk slowly towards an Objective or Target, often using your shield to soak up bolter fire till you can get close enough to put your chainsword up their azz.
Another game that also has useable shields is DDO, and they function rather differently, where you get an AC bonus for having a shield, and it gives you whatever other benefits it has when you equip it, like say Deathblock for example, you can also directly block with it, where it will now also offer advantages like Damage Reduction, and if you are in blocking stance and attack, you Shield Bash instead of using your main hand weapon.
However, movement commands might be acceptable on a short term basis.
Such as
- "form up here", which then releases them, so they can have control again. They should stay in place, but they don't have to. (Enemies would love it if they didn't, hehe.)
- "Form into a wedge, wait for the wedge to then move them into the attack", from where they can do anything and break said control, such as attacking an enemy, shield bashing to knock back, etc.
This allows players to screw up, maybe charging into a gap (on their own) where the enemies can swarm them and cut them down. But a knowing player doesn't do that.
Once upon a time....