1 - Battle Royale already replaced the need of empty open world full loot pvp MMO. Bring on a full loot pvp only MMO and chances are the crowds will just stick to their BRs and let the MMO burn.
2 - Western AAA MMO development is mostly dead. I still believe New World will be a vaporware, will come and go like a fart.
It's not my "tank not always required" policy to impose or prevent. Rather, it is a recognition on the part of the players that the system as is imposes an arbitrary party structure that is sometimes not needed and then finding a way around it.
What did you expect would happen? That people would just deal with the inadequacies of the system in place and trot along in formation like good little soldiers? Some would, the honourable ones I suppose, but those more concerned with pragmatism won't.
Perhaps it would be best if the system itself was redesigned such that players wouldn't have to work around the absence of a tank when one isn't needed. Then everyone could join in completely honestly and honourably and get on with playing.
I'm putting the functionality of the system over the abidance of the flaws of it.
I am going to say, I don't play ESO, so I have no idea how their system works.
But, in DDO, we as the players can write in what we are looking for, IE: Tank, Healer, etc. We can even select what classes we will and will not accept.
Going to be honest, if we put up an LFM for a Tank, we wanted a Tank, not another DPS. Joining and then telling us that we don't need a tank is a great way to get kicked.
Again, not sure how ESO or some other games work, so it might be a whole different system in there.
The next point I would like to bring up is, if you wanted to proxy fill tank roles.. why not just make a tank and go about it correctly?
Games and content vary as to how strictly one must abide to certain party compositions, and to how restrictive character classes and roles are.
ESO classes are quite fluid. Each can play any role, and all can hybridize if the player doesn't mind being suboptimal. Unless one wishes to play at the cutting edge of content classes have wide latitude in making functional characters.
A good deal of ESO content doesn't require the optimal. Sometimes a survivable character that isn't an all out tank is good enough to get the job done, which is why groups can succeed when such characters take a spot that needn't be reserved for a tank to begin with.
Some content does require the optimal. In such cases tanks are needed, which if not known will be learned quite quickly by anyone else trying to fill those shoes. I expect most of that is done by members of guilds created for that purpose who are well versed in what must be brought to any particular table in terms of party composition, abilities that need to be slotted, best gear to equip, and so forth.
Why not make a full tank instead of a proxy one and go about it correctly?
A full tank isn't always correct.
If a proxy tank will do the only thing a full tank contributes in their place is slowing the group down, both in waiting for that full tank to be available due to rarity and playing through the content once things are underway.
Also, in solo play the proxy tank will do more damage than a full tank and be more survivable than a DPS. This allows them to tackle content a character fully devoted to one or the other may have trouble with, making them popular to players that don't feel the need to be optimal in group play.
A full tank is only always correct in content that requires a full tank.
It's not my "tank not always required" policy to impose or prevent. Rather, it is a recognition on the part of the players that the system as is imposes an arbitrary party structure that is sometimes not needed and then finding a way around it.
What did you expect would happen? That people would just deal with the inadequacies of the system in place and trot along in formation like good little soldiers? Some would, the honourable ones I suppose, but those more concerned with pragmatism won't.
Perhaps it would be best if the system itself was redesigned such that players wouldn't have to work around the absence of a tank when one isn't needed. Then everyone could join in completely honestly and honourably and get on with playing.
I'm putting the functionality of the system over the abidance of the flaws of it.
I am going to say, I don't play ESO, so I have no idea how their system works.
But, in DDO, we as the players can write in what we are looking for, IE: Tank, Healer, etc. We can even select what classes we will and will not accept.
Going to be honest, if we put up an LFM for a Tank, we wanted a Tank, not another DPS. Joining and then telling us that we don't need a tank is a great way to get kicked.
Again, not sure how ESO or some other games work, so it might be a whole different system in there.
The next point I would like to bring up is, if you wanted to proxy fill tank roles.. why not just make a tank and go about it correctly?
Games and content vary as to how strictly one must abide to certain party compositions, and to how restrictive character classes and roles are.
ESO classes are quite fluid. Each can play any role, and all can hybridize if the player doesn't mind being suboptimal. Unless one wishes to play at the cutting edge of content classes have wide latitude in making functional characters.
A good deal of ESO content doesn't require the optimal. Sometimes a survivable character that isn't an all out tank is good enough to get the job done, which is why groups can succeed when such characters take a spot that needn't be reserved for a tank to begin with.
Some content does require the optimal. In such cases tanks are needed, which if not known will be learned quite quickly by anyone else trying to fill those shoes. I expect most of that is done by members of guilds created for that purpose who are well versed in what must be brought to any particular table in terms of party composition, abilities that need to be slotted, best gear to equip, and so forth.
Why not make a full tank instead of a proxy one and go about it correctly?
A full tank isn't always correct.
If a proxy tank will do the only thing a full tank contributes in their place is slowing the group down, both in waiting for that full tank to be available due to rarity and playing through the content once things are underway.
Also, in solo play the proxy tank will do more damage than a full tank and be more survivable than a DPS. This allows them to tackle content a character fully devoted to one or the other may have trouble with, making them popular to players that don't feel the need to be optimal in group play.
A full tank is only always correct in content that requires a full tank.
That was very insightful.
Not being rude with this at all, but, that would not fly in a game like DDO. If a raid leader asks for a tank, we want a raid tank, someone that s built to hold agro and not die in the process of getting it. We don't want lip by someone that is going to tell us we don't need one.
DPS is stupid easy to come by in every game I have played, to the point that there is never a shortage of players that go Full Min-Max DPS. If they can't rip the mobs apart, they have failed in their job, we have DPS positions just so that the Healer does not feel the need to jump into the fight and try to kick ass, because the DPS is lacking.
If and when that happens, No Joke, raid leaders disband the raid on the spot, and try again, often times you can see when this one happens, there will be something like "DPS, and by DPS, I do not mean, Dead Pansy Sh!t"
But really DDO has a great community like that.
Again, not sure about ESO, but in DDO being as old and having such a core base of players, chances are we have done this Dungeon/Raid, a few dozen times if not a few hundred, already, and thanks to a 1% drop rate on some stupid effing shield, 2 years later I still don't have it.. No.. I am not going to listen to you tell me your whatever the hell build is good enough, if some slap-happy build would have done it, we would not have been waiting for a specific role to be filled to start with, we would have had an LFM that said "First 12 and Go!" or something like "Don't suck" and just made it happen.
But again, each game and community is different. There could be a huge disparity in builds in ESP as well, like in GW2, there is a legit a 10x power disparity between sub optimal builds and what meta can put out, so, group dynamic is not so much about specific classes or even roles, but about playing Optimal Builds and playing them well.
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.
Except for niche players, I doubt it. The industry and their players have moved on. I don't think there is any significant desire to turn back time.
The industry, maybe. The players? I don't think so. WoW Classic proves that. The amount of people playing DDO, LotRO, Anarchy Online (still), AoC, EQ 1 and 2, etc, all disagree with you.
We are just waiting for something worth playing, and cycling through the old games that are.
Except for niche players, I doubt it. The industry and their players have moved on. I don't think there is any significant desire to turn back time.
The industry, maybe. The players? I don't think so. WoW Classic proves that. The amount of people playing DDO, LotRO, Anarchy Online (still), AoC, EQ 1 and 2, etc, all disagree with you.
We are just waiting for something worth playing, and cycling through the old games that are.
I thought EQ1 and 2 would be done in 2005 after WoW established itself as king....Somehow they have both hung on 15 years later. EQ1 will turn 22 years old in March. Even so, after playing it hardcore for 4-5 years, I have no desire to do that again.
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.
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've wanted to see stats take on new roles for quite a while. One stat that would be new, as far as I know, would be "Size." Add Size, Strength, and Constitution for a defensive rating against a charging "Knock Back". Offensively, it might be Size + Strength + Agility to bash a hole in a defensive line. Make an average for a group in formation vs. opponent. Weapons/gear could modify the die roll.
While mechanically and world-building basis of the old games was amazing I prefer an advancement of the genre; with fps/ action combat instead of standing still smashing tab 1-10. New mmorpgs are dumbed down so much and while most of the old school mmorpgs had way too much of a grind the newer ones typically don't have any besides maybe gear grinding, so you are bored along the way, id like to see a game that makes it fun throughout the whole journey. I pray that profane actually has their shit together and delivers. We'll see.
But you'll find it quite a bit easier to locate a fun new game to play if you do this first.
I havent been here for like 2 years or some shit, and i see you're still playing the same old card Kyleran :-)
Kyleran... Kyleran never changes...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Except for niche players, I doubt it. The industry and their players have moved on. I don't think there is any significant desire to turn back time.
The industry, maybe. The players? I don't think so. WoW Classic proves that. The amount of people playing DDO, LotRO, Anarchy Online (still), AoC, EQ 1 and 2, etc, all disagree with you.
We are just waiting for something worth playing, and cycling through the old games that are.
He's right, as painful as it sounds (and I play two from your list regularly).
There's the Kyleran thread about the most played MMORPGs, and while some argued those are inflated numbers, let's inflate them some more, and assume there's 20-25 million players spread over on the existing MMORPGs.
For the industry, even if they could pile up all that hypothetical crowd onto one new game, that's pocket change compared to the vast masses of non-gamers (the "gamers" arrived to the market in the last 1-2 decades, but especially after the late 2000s, Farmville used to be considered as a big milestone in this).
Not to mention those 20+ million (largely exaggerated) guesstimate of MMORPG players keep dwindling as years pass by, via real life issues, game closures, etc., and the "new gamers" aren't after long-term involvements.
The industry won't care about us anymore, when they can reach a much wider audience, for cheaper.
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.
On paper it sounds like PS2, and at the first few months it was like that in practice as well. Not sure about its current state though, wasn't in it since more than a year now... (I believe it has 2k v 2k v 2k player cap? ed. yep, checked and 2000 is the continent cap)
Developers don't have to perform with high standards if everyone just floods the market with mediocrity they all look the same. Not sure why anyone would want a shooter ,unless you haven't noticed the massive cheating that goes on since ohhh about 2000,so 20+ years. If i thought a fps game would be clean free of cheating,i would be all in myself,i love to play shooters.However last time i played a shooter was COD and saw so much cheating and the reaction the kids had to cheating "they endorsed it" told me to just quit hoping and leave the genre altogether.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
There is likely casino games making more money than Wow the biggest draw mmorpog out there.We know FN and GTA is making a helluva lot more money and neither game needs much overhead,definitely not the same overhead Wow needs.
Then you look at the success of Dota and LOL,that is a lot of profit from two very low budget games. So there is no incentive to go big and robust,there is way more incentive to find that niche market and or just hop on successful bandwagons.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Most MMO's coming out have little-no RPG in them, and that's not going to change. They're glorified gank boxes or cash grabs.
Until we see burnout from that (another 10 years or so), don't count on any new innovations in MMO's that bring back the "RPG" element. As for going -backward-? Won't happen. Frankly we need to move -forward- (and no, PVP "sandbox" gank games aren't "foward" either).
The new kids joining won't burnout though, that's the problem as some do more keep coming. If you can make a more profitable game for pre-teens to early twenties players why make a less profitable one for guys like us? That's why I had great hopes for Indie as AAA even AA were not going to make a game for us, but as yet no such has had a decent launch.
There is likely casino games making more money than Wow the biggest draw mmorpog out there.We know FN and GTA is making a helluva lot more money and neither game needs much overhead,definitely not the same overhead Wow needs.
Developers don't have to perform with high standards if everyone just floods the market with mediocrity they all look the same. Not sure why anyone would want a shooter ,unless you haven't noticed the massive cheating that goes on since ohhh about 2000,so 20+ years. If i thought a fps game would be clean free of cheating,i would be all in myself,i love to play shooters.However last time i played a shooter was COD and saw so much cheating and the reaction the kids had to cheating "they endorsed it" told me to just quit hoping and leave the genre altogether.
If COD was your last shooter, you've missed a lot. There are a lot of cheat free servers monitored by admins and anti-cheat software.
Once in a blue moon someone tries to log in and they get booted fast (typically automatically and it states why, and banned).
I recommend trying again and avoiding private shady servers.
Developers don't have to perform with high standards if everyone just floods the market with mediocrity they all look the same. Not sure why anyone would want a shooter ,unless you haven't noticed the massive cheating that goes on since ohhh about 2000,so 20+ years. If i thought a fps game would be clean free of cheating,i would be all in myself,i love to play shooters.However last time i played a shooter was COD and saw so much cheating and the reaction the kids had to cheating "they endorsed it" told me to just quit hoping and leave the genre altogether.
If COD was your last shooter, you've missed a lot. There are a lot of cheat free servers monitored by admins and anti-cheat software.
Once in a blue moon someone tries to log in and they get booted fast (typically automatically and it states why, and banned).
I recommend trying again and avoiding private shady servers.
Pick a big name FPS game and you will find cheating is rare, but it never totally goes away. So remember when a team mate gets a kill to mention on Discord "skills" in some way, when you get killed remember to say they were a cheating ####.
Most MMO's coming out have little-no RPG in them, and that's not going to change. They're glorified gank boxes or cash grabs.
Until we see burnout from that (another 10 years or so), don't count on any new innovations in MMO's that bring back the "RPG" element. As for going -backward-? Won't happen. Frankly we need to move -forward- (and no, PVP "sandbox" gank games aren't "foward" either).
The new kids joining won't burnout though, that's the problem as some do more keep coming. If you can make a more profitable game for pre-teens to early twenties players why make a less profitable one for guys like us? That's why I had great hopes for Indie as AAA even AA were not going to make a game for us, but as yet no such has had a decent launch.
Oh, it'll happen. Just like it happened with us. We burned out on the old systems and moved on or are sitting around waiting for a multi-player that doesn't suck. It'll happen to the Zoomer generation as well, and in 10 years it'll be them sitting here whining.
That said, there is some hope as at least a handful of single player RPGs that have shown innovation, passion, and utilizing new ideas/technology -have- come out and scored big, especially among the "over 20 and not ADHD-prone" crowd (aka old farts in the gaming world-- at 40 I feel like the oldest lady on the block in gaming).
It'll just take one decent company to step back and realize there's a market to tap into that isn't PVP gank kiddos. How long that actually takes to happen is anyone's guess, but again-- my own personal observation in trends makes me think "at least a decade out", unfortunately.
I agree with your comments, but it could happen at any time (development time excluded). Companies have been trying for years to address the issues related to this, while at the same time trying to keep the D&D level system in play, and it just isn't working very well. I think there has to be a growing crowd of insiders who see that the only course is to go all in on "worldly" and adventure in a world that reacts and changes to what players do to simulate something that feels like a "real" world. One with mysteries and discoveries, interesting plot lines, plenty of player creation/change through game play, socially positive interactions, etc.
One thing about those people with coding skills is that not all of them have that rare quality of "good judgement", just like any other field on human interests. But the kinds that "have what it takes" are out there, and in just as good of numbers as in any other field. And they may be working on games right now, that we simply don't know about yet.
I think it will happen sporadically, maybe a couple per decade. I look at the MMO industry much like the film industry.
I remember for years they said fantasy movies were a loss. Then they made the LOTR movies. I thought for sure after the huge success of 3 films on a relatively low budget that there would be a bunch more medieval fantasy movie franchises. But why didn't another studio make one?
There was Harry potter series, like 10 movies and still no other franchises come out with another magic franchise? No dragonlance franchise? Nothing?
Avatar was highest grossing movie of all time, and how long did it even take to make a sequel Avatar 2? How can you be that successful and not release a sequel? Also where are the big budget copycats?
Yet I roll through Netflix and set SOO many of the same crime dramas, drug addiction dramas, mafia type movies over and over and over. Some succeed, most fail, but they get made at least.
It cant be just about money, because even movies geared to kids like Narnia and Disney all seem to do great at the box office.
Basically, I am coming to the realization that fantasy entertainment requires creativity that is extremely rare, and the people with the big money just don't want to invest in fantasy.
Tying it back to MMO's, unfortunately I dont think MMO's have a name like Steven Spielberg/James Cameron that people can follow and know there's at least a 50% chance it will be good. Blizzard back in the day was the closest thing but they have since ruined that rep.
Then they made the LOTR movies. I thought for sure after the huge success of 3 films on a relatively low budget
come again? At that time it was one of the largest projects ever (300 million, compared to Titanic's 200 million before that), and the only reason it wasn't even higher is because PJ made them together, which reduced the costs by a lot... relatively low budget, he says
And it just got worse over the years, not only due to inflation but also the tech costs.
You mentioned Avatar, a decade later, 240 million.
A few years later, PJ and the Hobbits, even with the same cost-saving shared shooting, took more than 700 million...
Tying it back to MMO's, unfortunately I dont think MMO's have a name like Steven Spielberg/James Cameron that people can follow and know there's at least a 50% chance it will be good.
How about Ragnar Tornquist? Way higher than 50%, imo... He made one of the best MMORPGs out there (TSW, rest in piece), written an another great and unique MMORPG before that (AO), and on the singleplayer side he made the TLJ/Dreamfall games.
Then they made the LOTR movies. I thought for sure after the huge success of 3 films on a relatively low budget
come again? At that time it was one of the largest projects ever (300 million, compared to Titanic's 200 million before that), and the only reason it wasn't even higher is because PJ made them together, which reduced the costs by a lot... relatively low budget, he says
And it just got worse over the years, not only due to inflation but also the tech costs.
You mentioned Avatar, a decade later, 240 million.
A few years later, PJ and the Hobbits, even with the same cost-saving shared shooting, took more than 700 million...
Tying it back to MMO's, unfortunately I dont think MMO's have a name like Steven Spielberg/James Cameron that people can follow and know there's at least a 50% chance it will be good.
How about Ragnar Tornquist? Way higher than 50%, imo... He made one of the best MMORPGs out there (TSW, rest in piece), written an another great and unique MMORPG before that (AO), and on the singleplayer side he made the TLJ/Dreamfall games.
LOTR was a huge project (understatement), but financially... for 3 films... good value. Bean counters were pleased. 300mil for a 3billion gross.
Back then the average big flick was 100mil + to produce with no guarantees.
Then they made the LOTR movies. I thought for sure after the huge success of 3 films on a relatively low budget
come again? At that time it was one of the largest projects ever (300 million, compared to Titanic's 200 million before that), and the only reason it wasn't even higher is because PJ made them together, which reduced the costs by a lot... relatively low budget, he says
And it just got worse over the years, not only due to inflation but also the tech costs.
You mentioned Avatar, a decade later, 240 million.
A few years later, PJ and the Hobbits, even with the same cost-saving shared shooting, took more than 700 million...
Actually 297 mil was for all 3 LOTR Movies combined. that's less than $100 mil per movie, hardly the most expensive at the time.
Hobbit budget you quoted was the trilogy. Obviously its gonna cost more as you go longer on a successful franchise, you have to pay returning actors more.
Plus I am not talking indie budget movie, I'm talking top franchise, LOTR was a huge book franchise, so its budget was low considering. Maybe better to say Return on Investment (ROI).
Probably one of the highest profits series ever, yet no copycats in the genre?
So why no other starter franchises, with low budget like LOTR?
Back then the average big flick was 100mil + to produce with no guarantees.
Nope, back then the average was around 40-60 million, and 100 million was at the top...
actually there were only two movies crossed that ceiling in the year PJ started shooting LotR, one of them was Bond (World is not enough - more like the studio's money is not enough ), and the other was SW: Phantom Menace. Pretty big IPs, with lots of studio funding.
(and it wasn't even a slow year, might I add... Sixth sense, Matrix, etc. had a lot of great movies, in the 40-60 million range)
Also, since the shooting was in one go, it's more "fair" to use the 300/740 million for their budgets instead of the 3x94 for example (and for the Hobbit they didn't even divided it back down), simply because if those were individual movies on individual budgets, they'd have been much more expensive than that.
Also, since the production was "at once" (over two years though), funding was like that as well, it costed NLC 300 million, up front, not 94 million each year, labeled each wad of cash according to which movie it belongs...
ed: to put that 300 in perspective, the most expensive movie ever made was the last PotC movie (after which the franchise sunk like a pirate ship, for 6 years ), which costed 380 million, a decade later. 300 million for LotR in the late '90s was not low budget...
Most MMO's coming out have little-no RPG in them, and that's not going to change. They're glorified gank boxes or cash grabs.
Until we see burnout from that (another 10 years or so), don't count on any new innovations in MMO's that bring back the "RPG" element. As for going -backward-? Won't happen. Frankly we need to move -forward- (and no, PVP "sandbox" gank games aren't "foward" either).
The new kids joining won't burnout though, that's the problem as some do more keep coming. If you can make a more profitable game for pre-teens to early twenties players why make a less profitable one for guys like us? That's why I had great hopes for Indie as AAA even AA were not going to make a game for us, but as yet no such has had a decent launch.
Oh, it'll happen. Just like it happened with us. We burned out on the old systems and moved on or are sitting around waiting for a multi-player that doesn't suck. It'll happen to the Zoomer generation as well, and in 10 years it'll be them sitting here whining.
That said, there is some hope as at least a handful of single player RPGs that have shown innovation, passion, and utilizing new ideas/technology -have- come out and scored big, especially among the "over 20 and not ADHD-prone" crowd (aka old farts in the gaming world-- at 40 I feel like the oldest lady on the block in gaming).
It'll just take one decent company to step back and realize there's a market to tap into that isn't PVP gank kiddos. How long that actually takes to happen is anyone's guess, but again-- my own personal observation in trends makes me think "at least a decade out", unfortunately.
I agree with your comments, but it could happen at any time (development time excluded). Companies have been trying for years to address the issues related to this, while at the same time trying to keep the D&D level system in play, and it just isn't working very well. I think there has to be a growing crowd of insiders who see that the only course is to go all in on "worldly" and adventure in a world that reacts and changes to what players do to simulate something that feels like a "real" world. One with mysteries and discoveries, interesting plot lines, plenty of player creation/change through game play, socially positive interactions, etc.
One thing about those people with coding skills is that not all of them have that rare quality of "good judgement", just like any other field on human interests. But the kinds that "have what it takes" are out there, and in just as good of numbers as in any other field. And they may be working on games right now, that we simply don't know about yet.
For me, I want a character that I can help grow and learn. I matters NOT what "system" is used. If a system as basic skills and abilities, I'm in
D&D is one system, not end all, be all for systems. Many RPGs have used vary differing and varied systems. When looking at MMORPGs, however, the very nature of so many players in the game make system design a nightmare.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Comments
2 - Western AAA MMO development is mostly dead. I still believe New World will be a vaporware, will come and go like a fart.
Games and content vary as to how strictly one must abide to certain party compositions, and to how restrictive character classes and roles are.
ESO classes are quite fluid. Each can play any role, and all can hybridize if the player doesn't mind being suboptimal. Unless one wishes to play at the cutting edge of content classes have wide latitude in making functional characters.
A good deal of ESO content doesn't require the optimal. Sometimes a survivable character that isn't an all out tank is good enough to get the job done, which is why groups can succeed when such characters take a spot that needn't be reserved for a tank to begin with.
Some content does require the optimal. In such cases tanks are needed, which if not known will be learned quite quickly by anyone else trying to fill those shoes. I expect most of that is done by members of guilds created for that purpose who are well versed in what must be brought to any particular table in terms of party composition, abilities that need to be slotted, best gear to equip, and so forth.
Why not make a full tank instead of a proxy one and go about it correctly?
A full tank isn't always correct.
If a proxy tank will do the only thing a full tank contributes in their place is slowing the group down, both in waiting for that full tank to be available due to rarity and playing through the content once things are underway.
Also, in solo play the proxy tank will do more damage than a full tank and be more survivable than a DPS. This allows them to tackle content a character fully devoted to one or the other may have trouble with, making them popular to players that don't feel the need to be optimal in group play.
A full tank is only always correct in content that requires a full tank.
Not being rude with this at all, but, that would not fly in a game like DDO. If a raid leader asks for a tank, we want a raid tank, someone that s built to hold agro and not die in the process of getting it. We don't want lip by someone that is going to tell us we don't need one.
DPS is stupid easy to come by in every game I have played, to the point that there is never a shortage of players that go Full Min-Max DPS. If they can't rip the mobs apart, they have failed in their job, we have DPS positions just so that the Healer does not feel the need to jump into the fight and try to kick ass, because the DPS is lacking.
If and when that happens, No Joke, raid leaders disband the raid on the spot, and try again, often times you can see when this one happens, there will be something like "DPS, and by DPS, I do not mean, Dead Pansy Sh!t"
But really DDO has a great community like that.
Again, not sure about ESO, but in DDO being as old and having such a core base of players, chances are we have done this Dungeon/Raid, a few dozen times if not a few hundred, already, and thanks to a 1% drop rate on some stupid effing shield, 2 years later I still don't have it.. No.. I am not going to listen to you tell me your whatever the hell build is good enough, if some slap-happy build would have done it, we would not have been waiting for a specific role to be filled to start with, we would have had an LFM that said "First 12 and Go!" or something like "Don't suck" and just made it happen.
But again, each game and community is different. There could be a huge disparity in builds in ESP as well, like in GW2, there is a legit a 10x power disparity between sub optimal builds and what meta can put out, so, group dynamic is not so much about specific classes or even roles, but about playing Optimal Builds and playing them well.
I self identify as a monkey.
We are just waiting for something worth playing, and cycling through the old games that are.
I thought EQ1 and 2 would be done in 2005 after WoW established itself as king....Somehow they have both hung on 15 years later. EQ1 will turn 22 years old in March. Even so, after playing it hardcore for 4-5 years, I have no desire to do that again.
One stat that would be new, as far as I know, would be "Size."
Add Size, Strength, and Constitution for a defensive rating against a charging "Knock Back".
Offensively, it might be Size + Strength + Agility to bash a hole in a defensive line.
Make an average for a group in formation vs. opponent.
Weapons/gear could modify the die roll.
(Archers need not apply.)
Once upon a time....
MurderHerd
I havent been here for like 2 years or some shit, and i see you're still playing the same old card Kyleran :-)
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Kyleran never changes...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Not sure why anyone would want a shooter ,unless you haven't noticed the massive cheating that goes on since ohhh about 2000,so 20+ years.
If i thought a fps game would be clean free of cheating,i would be all in myself,i love to play shooters.However last time i played a shooter was COD and saw so much cheating and the reaction the kids had to cheating "they endorsed it" told me to just quit hoping and leave the genre altogether.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Then you look at the success of Dota and LOL,that is a lot of profit from two very low budget games.
So there is no incentive to go big and robust,there is way more incentive to find that niche market and or just hop on successful bandwagons.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Once in a blue moon someone tries to log in and they get booted fast (typically automatically and it states why, and banned).
I recommend trying again and avoiding private shady servers.
I think there has to be a growing crowd of insiders who see that the only course is to go all in on "worldly" and adventure in a world that reacts and changes to what players do to simulate something that feels like a "real" world. One with mysteries and discoveries, interesting plot lines, plenty of player creation/change through game play, socially positive interactions, etc.
One thing about those people with coding skills is that not all of them have that rare quality of "good judgement", just like any other field on human interests.
But the kinds that "have what it takes" are out there, and in just as good of numbers as in any other field. And they may be working on games right now, that we simply don't know about yet.
Once upon a time....
I remember for years they said fantasy movies were a loss. Then they made the LOTR movies. I thought for sure after the huge success of 3 films on a relatively low budget that there would be a bunch more medieval fantasy movie franchises. But why didn't another studio make one?
There was Harry potter series, like 10 movies and still no other franchises come out with another magic franchise? No dragonlance franchise? Nothing?
Avatar was highest grossing movie of all time, and how long did it even take to make a sequel Avatar 2? How can you be that successful and not release a sequel? Also where are the big budget copycats?
Yet I roll through Netflix and set SOO many of the same crime dramas, drug addiction dramas, mafia type movies over and over and over. Some succeed, most fail, but they get made at least.
It cant be just about money, because even movies geared to kids like Narnia and Disney all seem to do great at the box office.
Basically, I am coming to the realization that fantasy entertainment requires creativity that is extremely rare, and the people with the big money just don't want to invest in fantasy.
Tying it back to MMO's, unfortunately I dont think MMO's have a name like Steven Spielberg/James Cameron that people can follow and know there's at least a 50% chance it will be good. Blizzard back in the day was the closest thing but they have since ruined that rep.
Back then the average big flick was 100mil + to produce with no guarantees.
Actually 297 mil was for all 3 LOTR Movies combined. that's less than $100 mil per movie, hardly the most expensive at the time.
Hobbit budget you quoted was the trilogy. Obviously its gonna cost more as you go longer on a successful franchise, you have to pay returning actors more.
Plus I am not talking indie budget movie, I'm talking top franchise, LOTR was a huge book franchise, so its budget was low considering. Maybe better to say Return on Investment (ROI).
Probably one of the highest profits series ever, yet no copycats in the genre?
So why no other starter franchises, with low budget like LOTR?
D&D is one system, not end all, be all for systems. Many RPGs have used vary differing and varied systems. When looking at MMORPGs, however, the very nature of so many players in the game make system design a nightmare.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR