So everything that's made has to cater to lowest common denominator?
What a horrid world.
No, what they need to do is make the game they want, try to do a great job, and budget accordingly. That might mean lesser graphics, or fewer components but components done well enough to keep players.
Now, the more extreme one is the more difficult selling a project will be. But "ugh" just making things that cater to the masses? That's not a bad thing, and certainly not a bad thing if you want to make a lot of money, but it does mean that NOTHING unique will ever be considered.
And sometimes Unique can lead to success.
No I think you confuse masses with success.
I think you can make a niche game and still be very popular. Lets do a bit of ez math here. Say there is 100mil gamers, and 10 MMO's lauch appealing to 90mil each all equally as good, they end up divding the base to 9mil each game.
Then another game launches that 90mil hate, but the remaining 10mil people like. This game will technically have more players (10mil) because its the only one in the niche.
This is a simplistic view but I think you can understand the point. Niche games can be successful, but its all about supply and demand.
Making a game that fails to even attract a decent enough playerbase to survive is pointless.
So I am not saying a game has to be made to appeal to everyone, but it does need to appeal to enough to be successful. Appealing to people that like failed games is a recipe for disaster.
Dark Age of Camelot was successful for its time, I dare say Lineage and Lineage 2 were successful for their time.
I agree that there is a domination problem. Aion tried to make it so there was a pve faction but it really didn't seem implemented well.
In Lineage 2 it would sometimes work as there was always a group that wanted to take some other group down. On Hindemith if there was a dominating alliance abusing the server, the server would rise up and take their castles away. But that required server cooperation and it was my understanding that all servers weren't that way.
Interesting you say DAOC, but DAOC completely separated its PVE and PVP zones. People could PVE without ever PVPing in that game if they wanted to, therefore PVP was totally optional. General chat was dominated by PVE. Additionally DAOC had PVE servers.
The most popular PVP zone in DAOC was this little Arena called Thidranke which was only level 24. It was wildly popular because everyone had the same gear, same skills, noboby outclassed anyone. It put all the players into 1 tiny little zone, so it was easy to get PVP.
In the RVR zone, I was on a decently popular server, and I was in a PVP group that roamed Emain (main rvr zone) 8+ hours a day looking for anyone to kill. We could easily go a 1+ hours with Skald speed, without finding another group. Very occassionally like a few times a month there would be huge RVR battles for keeps.
I think DAOC had the best PVP, but it also had popular PVE that supported it.
I sometimes get people wondering why I draw a direct link from MMORPGs to the MOBA's that partially replaced them, that arena is part of the reason why. In the same vein the scenarios in Warhammer Online and the similar activity (can't remember what they called it) in AC. Elements of MMORPG gameplay were so good at what they did they sowed the seeds for their own downfall.
I am going to agree to differ on what we talked about before, no point in going over it again and again.
Yea the scenarios played a substantial part in Wars downfall , you do not develop an entire RvR lake system. Then insert another system to remove players from the Main feature of your game.
Now I agree with the small scale practice area , but it should not yield xp and gear on the same level as your actual RvR .
War made alot of mistakes , but I still loved it , got RR 90 on live and currently at 83 on the Emu. I'll add I did this without doing any Scenarios.The current version of the Emu is actually much better than the version. EA shut down ..
Not trying to be offensive here, but honestly the fact you like games that flop, if I was a dev I would not build a game towards your playstyle. Obviously your playstyle is not mainstream enough.
I believe this is the main problem with Dev Teams currently. They listen to extreme voices from both sides that are not in touch with the larger player base.
If I was going to setup a Feedback AI for a dev team, I would ask players to rank their top 10 games. Anyone that likes games that flop or were superlow pop, I would just ghost their feedback. I think this would solve much of the problem with the MMO genre in general.
So everything that's made has to cater to lowest common denominator?
What a horrid world.
No, what they need to do is make the game they want, try to do a great job, and budget accordingly. That might mean lesser graphics, or fewer components but components done well enough to keep players.
Now, the more extreme one is the more difficult selling a project will be. But "ugh" just making things that cater to the masses? That's not a bad thing, and certainly not a bad thing if you want to make a lot of money, but it does mean that NOTHING unique will ever be considered.
And sometimes Unique can lead to success.
I fear we've long since been in the situation where developers are doing exactly what @Brainy suggests, hence why very few new MMORPGS have been made in the past 5 years or more (in the west at least) yet new games in other genres burst on the scene regularly.
What we do get are fairly generic attempts to build MMOs for the masses using designs proven to generate big revenues at minimal costs.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I fear we've long since been in the situation where developers are doing exactly what @Brainy suggests, hence why very few new MMORPGS have been made in the past 5 years or more (in the west at least) yet new games in other genres burst on the scene regularly.
What we do get are fairly generic attempts to build MMOs for the masses using designs proven to generate big revenues at minimal costs.
No you are completely wrong, if they made a game that appealed to a large audience, then it would have a large audience. The fact that these games are all small and failing is exactly the point I am making. They appeal to the extremes, which is either full EZ mode, or super hardcore.
Your example makes zero sense at all. How can you build a game that appeals to the masses and at the same time doesnt appeal to the masses. Contradictory statement. Your suggestion makes no sense due to the contradiction.
If all the games were super successful and highly rated, and had huge customer bases, then maybe your point would be valid. Instead we are seeing exactly opposite of that, which proves they are not appealling to the masses at all.
I fear we've long since been in the situation where developers are doing exactly what @Brainy suggests, hence why very few new MMORPGS have been made in the past 5 years or more (in the west at least) yet new games in other genres burst on the scene regularly.
What we do get are fairly generic attempts to build MMOs for the masses using designs proven to generate big revenues at minimal costs.
No you are completely wrong, if they made a game that appealed to a large audience, then it would have a large audience. The fact that these games are all small and failing is exactly the point I am making. They appeal to the extremes, which is either full EZ mode, or super hardcore.
Your example makes zero sense at all. How can you build a game that appeals to the masses and at the same time doesnt appeal to the masses. Contradictory statement. Your suggestion makes no sense due to the contradiction.
If all the games were super successful and highly rated, and had huge customer bases, then maybe your point would be valid. Instead we are seeing exactly opposite of that, which proves they are not appealling to the masses at all.
You stated: "How can you build a game that appeals to the masses and at the same time doesnt appeal to the masses"<----Call of Duty and GTA 5 both capitalized on the casual gamer. So....those 2 games appeal to the middle class of gamers or as you stated, that appeals to the masses and at the same time doesn't appeal to the masses.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
I fear we've long since been in the situation where developers are doing exactly what @Brainy suggests, hence why very few new MMORPGS have been made in the past 5 years or more (in the west at least) yet new games in other genres burst on the scene regularly.
What we do get are fairly generic attempts to build MMOs for the masses using designs proven to generate big revenues at minimal costs.
No you are completely wrong, if they made a game that appealed to a large audience, then it would have a large audience. The fact that these games are all small and failing is exactly the point I am making. They appeal to the extremes, which is either full EZ mode, or super hardcore.
Your example makes zero sense at all. How can you build a game that appeals to the masses and at the same time doesnt appeal to the masses. Contradictory statement. Your suggestion makes no sense due to the contradiction.
If all the games were super successful and highly rated, and had huge customer bases, then maybe your point would be valid. Instead we are seeing exactly opposite of that, which proves they are not appealling to the masses at all.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Lets go back to the real immersive style of RPG. Lets make a deep dark LOTR/D&D style RPG. Something the opposite of the current games. Even D&D online was kind of cartoony, but it did have a bit of atmosphere in the dungeons.
You're free to go where you want, like everybody else. The vast majority have chosen FFXIV and WoW so that is apparently what most want.
Lets go back to the real immersive style of RPG. Lets make a deep dark LOTR/D&D style RPG. Something the opposite of the current games. Even D&D online was kind of cartoony, but it did have a bit of atmosphere in the dungeons.
You're free to go where you want, like everybody else. The vast majority have chosen FFXIV and WoW so that is apparently what most want.
What most want...
Or just the best ones that happen to be around at the moment?
Or just because they have invested so much into them already because these are old MMORPG's that have been around for many years?
It doesn't seem to me that these are MMORPG's that many people actually want. It seems to me, they are just the best we have.
Post edited by Graveblade on
Started playing mmorpg's in 1996 and have been hooked ever since. It began with Kingdom of Drakkar, Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, WoW...
What foolish and broad sweeping assumption to make . If it helps you , I play/played near every single mainstream mmo and some indies to end game. Actively playing 4 atm .. I imagine all flops by your logic
Yeah I get it you want to be heard. Its logicial to focus on success and not failure. The statement you play all the mainstream MMO's means that if this game makes a mainstream MMO means you will play it regardless. Add this to the fact you like MMO's that fail, pretty much invalidates your opinion IMO. How is a dev to know the mechanic you like is not a flop mechanic, compared to a well liked mechanic when admit you like games that flop?
So the reality is, your opinion is not one they need to listen too. They need to listen to players that have a good track record of liking games that are successful, players that are part of their base, but are more picky in their tastes. They need to understand customers that want a certain qaulity that appeals to people outside their extremely niche core.
Dev's have a limited amount of time to read feedback, they need to be hearing the voices that matter to make the game successful and not listen to players that push their game mechanics down a death spiral. If its just reporting a bug or something, fine that thread can get pushed through, but any "ideas" they need to really discern which is the best veiwpoints to be focusing on.
Explain why they should listen to people that like games that flop? Why does that opinion deserve to be heard over people that like successful games?
I realize this may be a mundane question but, "What constitutes a failure?"
Your definition?
Some statistical numbers?
Not making enough money?
Actual shut down?
Not every business is run the exact same way. Boutiques/Specialty Shops are quite lucrative, in some cases. Businesses can look at quantity sold or price per purchase as good indicators. It "used to be" easily calculable when when everyone paid a monthly sub. Now, a game the 30 whales spending LOTS of money will float a BAD MMO. Does that it make a "success?" How about the MMO that has thousands of happy, contented players spending very little? Is that a success?
I don't intent to sound "mean", but your responses seem to be quite arbitrary
- 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
Lets go back to the real immersive style of RPG. Lets make a deep dark LOTR/D&D style RPG. Something the opposite of the current games. Even D&D online was kind of cartoony, but it did have a bit of atmosphere in the dungeons.
You're free to go where you want, like everybody else. The vast majority have chosen FFXIV and WoW so that is apparently what most want.
I'm still looking for "the one." I don't feel very "free."
- 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
Lets go back to the real immersive style of RPG. Lets make a deep dark LOTR/D&D style RPG. Something the opposite of the current games. Even D&D online was kind of cartoony, but it did have a bit of atmosphere in the dungeons.
You're free to go where you want, like everybody else. The vast majority have chosen FFXIV and WoW so that is apparently what most want.
What most want...
Or just the best ones that happen to be around at the moment?
Or just because they have invested so much into them already because these are old MMORPG's that have been around for many years?
It doesn't seem to me that these are MMORPG's that many people actually want. It seems to me, they are just the best we have.
Nobody is holding a gun to their heads. That already invested provided the entertainment it brought at the time whether one stays with the same game or moves to another, so nothing is truly lost by switching. Those that are there want to be, especially now when there is an abundance of online gaming choices otherwise.
Lets go back to the real immersive style of RPG. Lets make a deep dark LOTR/D&D style RPG. Something the opposite of the current games. Even D&D online was kind of cartoony, but it did have a bit of atmosphere in the dungeons.
You're free to go where you want, like everybody else. The vast majority have chosen FFXIV and WoW so that is apparently what most want.
I'm still looking for "the one." I don't feel very "free."
You are freely choosing to look for "the one" regardless of how it makes you feel. If you want to feel differently you are free to make other choices.
I think you can make a niche game and still be very popular. Lets do a bit of ez math here. Say there is 100mil gamers, and 10 MMO's lauch appealing to 90mil each all equally as good, they end up divding the base to 9mil each game.
Then another game launches that 90mil hate, but the remaining 10mil people like. This game will technically have more players (10mil) because its the only one in the niche.
This is a simplistic view but I think you can understand the point. Niche games can be successful, but its all about supply and demand.
Making a game that fails to even attract a decent enough playerbase to survive is pointless.
So I am not saying a game has to be made to appeal to everyone, but it does need to appeal to enough to be successful. Appealing to people that like failed games is a recipe for disaster.
No confusion at all because if you read what I wrote we are pretty much saying the same thing.
we're just quibbling on the numbers of people for "masses" and niche.
Post edited by Sovrath on
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Lets go back to the real immersive style of RPG. Lets make a deep dark LOTR/D&D style RPG. Something the opposite of the current games. Even D&D online was kind of cartoony, but it did have a bit of atmosphere in the dungeons.
You're free to go where you want, like everybody else. The vast majority have chosen FFXIV and WoW so that is apparently what most want.
What most want...
Or just the best ones that happen to be around at the moment?
Or just because they have invested so much into them already because these are old MMORPG's that have been around for many years?
It doesn't seem to me that these are MMORPG's that many people actually want. It seems to me, they are just the best we have.
Nobody is holding a gun to their heads. That already invested provided the entertainment it brought at the time whether one stays with the same game or moves to another, so nothing is truly lost by switching. Those that are there want to be, especially now when there is an abundance of online gaming choices otherwise.
It is not about holding a gun to anyones head. I think you missed the point.
It is about the existing games available and how unfortunately there is not an abundance of good modern MMORPG's, and particularly ones that don't just follow the generic formula. The current ones are all old and tired, or just not actually that good. Some used to be good of course too, but are now dumbed down, and received many changes over time, but not in a positive way.
I'm advocating for a different take on MMORPG's, a different perspective, and explained why many of the more oldschool systems were succesful. So I explained a bunch of elements I think are missing, and why a lot of the more oldschool systems could actually potentially create 'better' games than what we currently have in the genre. So again it is not so much about people playing these current MMORPG's, it is about making NEW games that could be even more fun than those using what we have learned.
I'd rather play new fresh takes that improve and have more fun experiences, than be playing the same game for over 15 years that got dumbed down over time.
You seem to think that the current large MMORPG's are what everyone wants... The vast majority of players don't actually know what they want, and you can bet their ass if a more fun game comes along they will play it. And so what I'm arguing for is that they might be surprised by an MMORPG's with a more oldschool take.
I explained why I think this is the fact, and how you can see it happening in other genre's a lot.
Started playing mmorpg's in 1996 and have been hooked ever since. It began with Kingdom of Drakkar, Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, WoW...
I don't want arcade action where everyone runs at 50 miles an hour,
where everyone is a God hero, and where there are unicorns farting out
rainbows everywhere....
What's the old saying? "If isn't hard or you don't have to work for it. It usually isn't worth getting."
I would consider it well worth it if some kind, rich forum member found it in their heart to buy me a 2023 mid engine Corvette.
Blue is my preferred color, but other colors would be considered.
Well if you can whittle it down to $15 a month payments you can probably convince one of the pro-sub people to get it for you.......
What foolish and broad sweeping assumption to make . If it helps you , I play/played near every single mainstream mmo and some indies to end game. Actively playing 4 atm .. I imagine all flops by your logic
Yeah I get it you want to be heard. Its logicial to focus on success and not failure. The statement you play all the mainstream MMO's means that if this game makes a mainstream MMO means you will play it regardless. Add this to the fact you like MMO's that fail, pretty much invalidates your opinion IMO. How is a dev to know the mechanic you like is not a flop mechanic, compared to a well liked mechanic when admit you like games that flop?
So the reality is, your opinion is not one they need to listen too. They need to listen to players that have a good track record of liking games that are successful, players that are part of their base, but are more picky in their tastes. They need to understand customers that want a certain qaulity that appeals to people outside their extremely niche core.
Dev's have a limited amount of time to read feedback, they need to be hearing the voices that matter to make the game successful and not listen to players that push their game mechanics down a death spiral. If its just reporting a bug or something, fine that thread can get pushed through, but any "ideas" they need to really discern which is the best veiwpoints to be focusing on.
Explain why they should listen to people that like games that flop? Why does that opinion deserve to be heard over people that like successful games?
I realize this may be a mundane question but, "What constitutes a failure?"
Your definition?
Some statistical numbers?
Not making enough money?
Actual shut down?
Not every business is run the exact same way. Boutiques/Specialty Shops are quite lucrative, in some cases. Businesses can look at quantity sold or price per purchase as good indicators. It "used to be" easily calculable when when everyone paid a monthly sub. Now, a game the 30 whales spending LOTS of money will float a BAD MMO. Does that it make a "success?" How about the MMO that has thousands of happy, contented players spending very little? Is that a success?
I don't intent to sound "mean", but your responses seem to be quite arbitrary
People can have different definitions of what constitutes success around the edges.
What is pretty much universally accepted is when an MMO game dramatically has less players than was expected AND shuts down shortly after release, that would easily be considered a flop.
I dont like P2W games, but if they are making profit then that business modal is fine. I dont want to play those MMO's, but businesses are there to make money. So obviously there is supply and demand.
When businesses do not profit and have to shut down due to their style it really doesnt matter if 1 person likes it or not.
Any game company that seriously listens to the advice of people who's favorite games are those that get shut down due to lack of customers, are just asking for the same for there game. Logically you should listen to people with a higher success rate. This is just common sense.
I fear we've long since been in the situation where developers are doing exactly what @Brainy suggests, hence why very few new MMORPGS have been made in the past 5 years or more (in the west at least) yet new games in other genres burst on the scene regularly.
What we do get are fairly generic attempts to build MMOs for the masses using designs proven to generate big revenues at minimal costs.
No you are completely wrong, if they made a game that appealed to a large audience, then it would have a large audience. The fact that these games are all small and failing is exactly the point I am making. They appeal to the extremes, which is either full EZ mode, or super hardcore.
Your example makes zero sense at all. How can you build a game that appeals to the masses and at the same time doesnt appeal to the masses. Contradictory statement. Your suggestion makes no sense due to the contradiction.
If all the games were super successful and highly rated, and had huge customer bases, then maybe your point would be valid. Instead we are seeing exactly opposite of that, which proves they are not appealling to the masses at all.
I am simply saying no the studios are not doing what I said. They are not appealing to the masses. New MMO's have very negative reviews and most have low player counts. If they were doing what I said, which was building good games for large audiences, it would be reflected with high ratings, high player counts, and money.
You cant say games like Elyon are appealing to the masses, if the game is shutting down due to lack of customers. Obviously they didnt appeal the masses or they wouldnt be shutting down.
So your theory that devs are building MMORPGS that appeal to the masses is incorrect. They might be trying, but clearly they are failing in that endeavor.
So when you examine Warhammer Online, why did it fail? Once you figure this out you will see why PVP MMO games fail or are very niche in MMO space.
Personally from my perspective me and most of my close friends around me didnt even play Warhammer, I should have been a prime customer as I was an avid DAOC fan.
My thoughts just based on the messaging at the time, was that I remember the creators saying Warhammer was going to put more focus on PVP and less on PVE than DAOC. People at release were telling me this also, I immediately knew it would flop so I didnt want to waste my time in a game I thought would flop.
What it eventually turned out to be I dont know, but you cant take back a first impression. I remember having many discussions with people about whether we should bother with Warhammer or not.
Interestingly if it would have come out now, I probably would play since I am so starved for anything decent.
I think Warhammer Online failed because it was basically a copy of WoW and the other generic MMORPG's at its core. I enjoyed it for a while, and I know a lot of other people who enjoyed it too... But it didn't really do anything that special. Even though it was marketed to be PvP centric, it copied many systems and styles from other MMORPG's that actually had PvE at their core, not PvP.
I think there needed to be a much different 'vision'
for their PvP. Much more incentive to engage in it, and a
different combat system that didn't make it just feel like WoW. It basically needed to not feel like other MMORPG's, it needed to be its own PvP centric thing.
I think to make a good PvP centric MMORPG, you need a good tactile combat system that feels like it has weight to it, and have some really solid risk vs reward mechanics in there too to keep it fresh for long.
Part of the reason I think many PvP MMORPG's fail is because they copy these systems that originated from PvE MMORPG's, and they expect that to be enough to entice players, but it really isn't.
PvP also has more technical challenges though, and building it based on these older PvE combat systems (tab targetting for example) makes things a bit easier. It was tried and tested and worked. But I'd argue is definitely not preffered for a PvP centric MMORPG.
Unfortunately, there are not many actual purely PvP centric MMORPG games out there. It does make sense because there are harder technical challenges regarding combat and networking. These days though, tech has got quite a bit better so maybe over the years to come there will be some good PvP centric MMORRPG's coming out that will break the mold. People obviously like PvP because there are tons of PvP games in other genre's, but it has not yet translated over to MMORPG's. People still often make PvP MMORPG's with a mindset that came from PvE MMORPG's.
Also note in this article everything he talks about is RVR not PVE at all.
MJ said:
In terms of RvR, the game's motto has always been "war is everywhere," so this game has always been focused on that aspect of gaming.
Even when the interviewer brings up Player Versus Environment,
MJ pivots and says:
In our case, our focus, again, is RvR. It's the hobby of Warhammer. What we're trying to do is deliver a really great game focused heavily on RvR. That's going to be one of our "hooks." If the RvR in our game isn't great, everything we hope it will be, then it isn't going to be a great game. So, are we trying to put in absolutely everything that Blizzard has, especially now with Burning Crusade on the market? No, I think that would be a mistake. Are we looking to focus on the things we know we can do well, and throw in some new innovations and twists that we hope players will enjoy? Absolutely.
So its weird to me you say this game failed because it had too much PVE, when the game clearly flopped at launch. The entire advertising run-up for this game was PVP focused, he even said many times that Warhammer would be more PVP focused than DAOC.
I didnt play the game, so I dont know what they actually put in the game. But when you make your motto "war is everywhere" you are pretty much telling PVE'ers to stay away. This is clearly a case of them focusing too much on PVP and alienating the DAOC base other than some hardcore pvpers.
Brainy stated, "So, it's weird to me you say this game failed because it had too much PVE, when the game clearly flopped at launch. The entire advertising run-up for this game was PVP focused, he even said many times that Warhammer would be more PVP focused than DAOC."<----This game seriously did have too much PvE. It was supposed to be open world PvP inside an open PvE world. The designs, weapons, class balance, and population were just all around bad. People were also burned out and didn't want to level anymore. All this combined, killed the game.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
I think the PvE in Warhammer sucked and it would have turned off the people who enjoyed that and the scenarios killed the RvR. If you want to have PvE do it well but the game had awful PvE, much like DAoC PvE was which was truly boring , lacking interesting lore which for me is essential in a PvE game.
Warhammer Online was supposed to be an RvR game and they introduced the scenarios which I loved but I am sure the PvP enthusiasts hated. They wanted to do open world stuff which when I participated in the lakes was fun. That was the fun bit but by introducing the scenarios it gave people the lazy PvP and slowly people just left because when you focus on something make sure you do it well. If your PvE sucked make sure you make the RvR work. By introducing the scenarios they diluted the participation in open world RvR. Everyone saw it coming.
I don't want arcade action where everyone runs at 50 miles an hour,
where everyone is a God hero, and where there are unicorns farting out
rainbows everywhere....
What's the old saying? "If isn't hard or you don't have to work for it. It usually isn't worth getting."
I would consider it well worth it if some kind, rich forum member found it in their heart to buy me a 2023 mid engine Corvette.
Blue is my preferred color, but other colors would be considered.
I had a '76 with T tops. Besides the beauty of it (I think this one gets a bit gaudy, looks like a Transformer), I was struck by the quality. What a machine. Handling, even touching it just screamed quality. Even looking at your reflection in the paintjob, with its depth in the visage, spelled quality.
Too bad no one makes a Sandbox MMORPG with that kind of quality. (be wasted on a Themepark, lol.)
I fear we've long since been in the situation where developers are doing exactly what @Brainy suggests, hence why very few new MMORPGS have been made in the past 5 years or more (in the west at least) yet new games in other genres burst on the scene regularly.
What we do get are fairly generic attempts to build MMOs for the masses using designs proven to generate big revenues at minimal costs.
No you are completely wrong, if they made a game that appealed to a large audience, then it would have a large audience. The fact that these games are all small and failing is exactly the point I am making. They appeal to the extremes, which is either full EZ mode, or super hardcore.
Your example makes zero sense at all. How can you build a game that appeals to the masses and at the same time doesnt appeal to the masses. Contradictory statement. Your suggestion makes no sense due to the contradiction.
If all the games were super successful and highly rated, and had huge customer bases, then maybe your point would be valid. Instead we are seeing exactly opposite of that, which proves they are not appealling to the masses at all.
I am simply saying no the studios are not doing what I said. They are not appealing to the masses. New MMO's have very negative reviews and most have low player counts. If they were doing what I said, which was building good games for large audiences, it would be reflected with high ratings, high player counts, and money.
You cant say games like Elyon are appealing to the masses, if the game is shutting down due to lack of customers. Obviously they didnt appeal the masses or they wouldnt be shutting down.
So your theory that devs are building MMORPGS that appeal to the masses is incorrect. They might be trying, but clearly they are failing in that endeavor.
What I bolded caught my eye. Why do they "have to appeal to the masses?" I mean, I see where you're coming from and this is how businesses (NOT art) operate. MMORPGs NEVER appealed "the masses."
Just look at the myriad of activities available in many MMOs. Each activity attracts or repels any number of players. How can a genre like this appeal "to everyone?" I realize people want "masses" of people in a "MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER" game. I just ask if this is a valid want/dream? I don't ever see another WoW coming around again in my lifetime. Luckily, I only have a couple of decades of life left
I guess my rambling mumblings are just seeing if it is even feasible? The makers of MMOs have to try to balance quick and fast game play with trying to keep players playing month after month, year after year. I think most game companies would rather just have players buying a new game every month, or at least a couple each year.
I don't know. I'm just a basement dwelling gamer
- 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
What I bolded caught my eye. Why do they "have to appeal to the masses?" I mean, I see where you're coming from and this is how businesses (NOT art) operate. MMORPGs NEVER appealed "the masses."
Just look at the myriad of activities available in many MMOs. Each activity attracts or repels any number of players. How can a genre like this appeal "to everyone?" I realize people want "masses" of people in a "MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER" game. I just ask if this is a valid want/dream? I don't ever see another WoW coming around again in my lifetime. Luckily, I only have a couple of decades of life left
I guess my rambling mumblings are just seeing if it is even feasible? The makers of MMOs have to try to balance quick and fast game play with trying to keep players playing month after month, year after year. I think most game companies would rather just have players buying a new game every month, or at least a couple each year.
I don't know. I'm just a basement dwelling gamer
Yeah you are focusing on this masses word to mean 100% of the population in existence. Yet massively is part of the definition of MMO. Nobody expects an MMO to appeal to 100%.
If a game was to have 1 million concurrent players, this represents probably .01% of the entire gaming population and probably less than 1% of the MMO population. Yet 1 million players concurrent would be a massive amount of players. .01% of the gaming population could also be a very niche part also.
I am just sick of these games that cant even retain 500 people or games like embers that has around 50 players concurrent 2 months after launch or Elyon that shuts down 1 year after launch. Your game needs to be better than that. There is no reason that a half way decent MMO should not be able to get 5-10 mil copies sold minimum in todays world. Even an extremely niche game that was "GOOD" would do that.
So the reason they are failing is their mechanics are either so extremely unpopular or the game is just plain garbage. Anyone that likes this garbage needs to have their voice removed from the devs ears through AI IMO.
I fear we've long since been in the situation where developers are doing exactly what @Brainy suggests, hence why very few new MMORPGS have been made in the past 5 years or more (in the west at least) yet new games in other genres burst on the scene regularly.
What we do get are fairly generic attempts to build MMOs for the masses using designs proven to generate big revenues at minimal costs.
No you are completely wrong, if they made a game that appealed to a large audience, then it would have a large audience. The fact that these games are all small and failing is exactly the point I am making. They appeal to the extremes, which is either full EZ mode, or super hardcore.
Your example makes zero sense at all. How can you build a game that appeals to the masses and at the same time doesnt appeal to the masses. Contradictory statement. Your suggestion makes no sense due to the contradiction.
If all the games were super successful and highly rated, and had huge customer bases, then maybe your point would be valid. Instead we are seeing exactly opposite of that, which proves they are not appealling to the masses at all.
I am simply saying no the studios are not doing what I said. They are not appealing to the masses. New MMO's have very negative reviews and most have low player counts. If they were doing what I said, which was building good games for large audiences, it would be reflected with high ratings, high player counts, and money.
You cant say games like Elyon are appealing to the masses, if the game is shutting down due to lack of customers. Obviously they didnt appeal the masses or they wouldnt be shutting down.
So your theory that devs are building MMORPGS that appeal to the masses is incorrect. They might be trying, but clearly they are failing in that endeavor.
You misunderstood, they are building games for the masses, just not MMORPG's which apparently the average gamer isn't interested on playing based on all tangible evidence to date.
"Overall" gaming revenues are climbing or holding steady, some sorts of games are appealing to a huge number of players, just not MMORPGs.
Wait, make MMORPGS different, better even and they will come you say?
It already happened, hence the "evolution" of online games away from the MMORPG and into newer sub genres like BRs, MOBAs, Arena Shooters, even smaller scale survival games.
All took elements from earlier online games including MMORPGs to develop more focused styles which appealed greatly to very broad customer bases.
For an MMORPG to ever see WOW type success now would require such a radical design shift it would no longer be recognized as such, resulting yet another new sub genre in its own right.
It's been said before, remake UO into a modern new game, without substantial changes to it's original designs and it's going nowhere beyond a very small, aging niche market.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I fear we've long since been in the situation where developers are doing exactly what @Brainy suggests, hence why very few new MMORPGS have been made in the past 5 years or more (in the west at least) yet new games in other genres burst on the scene regularly.
What we do get are fairly generic attempts to build MMOs for the masses using designs proven to generate big revenues at minimal costs.
No you are completely wrong, if they made a game that appealed to a large audience, then it would have a large audience. The fact that these games are all small and failing is exactly the point I am making. They appeal to the extremes, which is either full EZ mode, or super hardcore.
Your example makes zero sense at all. How can you build a game that appeals to the masses and at the same time doesnt appeal to the masses. Contradictory statement. Your suggestion makes no sense due to the contradiction.
If all the games were super successful and highly rated, and had huge customer bases, then maybe your point would be valid. Instead we are seeing exactly opposite of that, which proves they are not appealling to the masses at all.
I am simply saying no the studios are not doing what I said. They are not appealing to the masses. New MMO's have very negative reviews and most have low player counts. If they were doing what I said, which was building good games for large audiences, it would be reflected with high ratings, high player counts, and money.
You cant say games like Elyon are appealing to the masses, if the game is shutting down due to lack of customers. Obviously they didnt appeal the masses or they wouldnt be shutting down.
So your theory that devs are building MMORPGS that appeal to the masses is incorrect. They might be trying, but clearly they are failing in that endeavor.
You misunderstood, they are building games for the masses, just not MMORPG's which apparently the average gamer isn't interested on playing based on all tangible evidence to date.
"Overall" gaming revenues are climbing or holding steady, some sorts of games are appealing to a huge number of players, just not MMORPGs.
Wait, make MMORPGS different, better even and they will come you say?
It already happened, hence the "evolution" of online games away from the MMORPG and into newer sub genres like BRs, MOBAs, Arena Shooters, even smaller scale survival games.
All took elements from earlier online games including MMORPGs to develop more focused styles which appealed greatly to very broad customer bases.
For an MMORPG to ever see WOW type success now would require such a radical design shift it would no longer be recognized as such, resulting yet another new sub genre in its own right.
It's been said before, remake UO into a modern new game, without substantial changes to it's original designs and it's going nowhere beyond a very small, aging niche market.
I couldn't disagree more with your take on MMORPGs. There are some major things that players want that has not been advanced, but could be. Evolving worlds and AI, for starters.
Sandbox has never been advanced. That would be a huge plus. I think most gamers don't even realize this yet because they've never seen it even in basic UO terms.
Exploration hasn't been advanced much, as far as I know. I mean, is finding a cave behind a water falls, is that a discovery of any meaning? Vistas are nice, but that's just not a "discovery." Finding a MOB nest is, but that's not new. There is huge room for meaningful advancement here.
Economics!
Trade and caravans/shipping can be greatly advanced and combined in the economic game play.
And remember, if anything a game can do that advances an aspect can be exciting to even 5% of the Player base, and if a game can do that with 5 different things, that is a huge plus to the game overall. And there is nothing that can't be advanced, outside of the core game play of Themeparks which actually hinders all other playable things.
Advanced UO, without the Player Abuse, would be a huge thing.
I fear we've long since been in the situation where developers are doing exactly what @Brainy suggests, hence why very few new MMORPGS have been made in the past 5 years or more (in the west at least) yet new games in other genres burst on the scene regularly.
What we do get are fairly generic attempts to build MMOs for the masses using designs proven to generate big revenues at minimal costs.
No you are completely wrong, if they made a game that appealed to a large audience, then it would have a large audience. The fact that these games are all small and failing is exactly the point I am making. They appeal to the extremes, which is either full EZ mode, or super hardcore.
Your example makes zero sense at all. How can you build a game that appeals to the masses and at the same time doesnt appeal to the masses. Contradictory statement. Your suggestion makes no sense due to the contradiction.
If all the games were super successful and highly rated, and had huge customer bases, then maybe your point would be valid. Instead we are seeing exactly opposite of that, which proves they are not appealling to the masses at all.
I am simply saying no the studios are not doing what I said. They are not appealing to the masses. New MMO's have very negative reviews and most have low player counts. If they were doing what I said, which was building good games for large audiences, it would be reflected with high ratings, high player counts, and money.
You cant say games like Elyon are appealing to the masses, if the game is shutting down due to lack of customers. Obviously they didnt appeal the masses or they wouldnt be shutting down.
So your theory that devs are building MMORPGS that appeal to the masses is incorrect. They might be trying, but clearly they are failing in that endeavor.
You misunderstood, they are building games for the masses, just not MMORPG's which apparently the average gamer isn't interested on playing based on all tangible evidence to date.
"Overall" gaming revenues are climbing or holding steady, some sorts of games are appealing to a huge number of players, just not MMORPGs.
Wait, make MMORPGS different, better even and they will come you say?
It already happened, hence the "evolution" of online games away from the MMORPG and into newer sub genres like BRs, MOBAs, Arena Shooters, even smaller scale survival games.
All took elements from earlier online games including MMORPGs to develop more focused styles which appealed greatly to very broad customer bases.
For an MMORPG to ever see WOW type success now would require such a radical design shift it would no longer be recognized as such, resulting yet another new sub genre in its own right.
It's been said before, remake UO into a modern new game, without substantial changes to it's original designs and it's going nowhere beyond a very small, aging niche market.
Ok I see what you were saying now, I agree they have done this to some degree outside the MMORPG space. I agree with the overall theme of your post here.
One thing I dont agree is that another MMO cant get WoW success without radical change. First just looking at WoW, we have yet to see another game that is actually better than or equal to WoW, release. Without seeing this, how can you know a better WoW type game would not bring in the exact same masses as WoW. So until I see this, I wont agree with you.
In regards to a UO replica, yeah I agree you cant replicate that and expect a successful game. You will need to update the raw concepts and remove the forced PVP.
I do think the concept of a UO openworld with skills, crafting, economy merged with some WoW PVE instances, bosses, pve raiding mechanics, and of course separate pve servers from PvP servers would be ultra successful. UO post trammel, DAOC expansions, WoW vanilla were all dancing around the edges of this model. Time will tell if anyone figures this out and puts the money and talent into a game to become the next billion dollar studio.
Comments
No I think you confuse masses with success.
I think you can make a niche game and still be very popular. Lets do a bit of ez math here. Say there is 100mil gamers, and 10 MMO's lauch appealing to 90mil each all equally as good, they end up divding the base to 9mil each game.
Then another game launches that 90mil hate, but the remaining 10mil people like. This game will technically have more players (10mil) because its the only one in the niche.
This is a simplistic view but I think you can understand the point. Niche games can be successful, but its all about supply and demand.
Making a game that fails to even attract a decent enough playerbase to survive is pointless.
So I am not saying a game has to be made to appeal to everyone, but it does need to appeal to enough to be successful. Appealing to people that like failed games is a recipe for disaster.
What we do get are fairly generic attempts to build MMOs for the masses using designs proven to generate big revenues at minimal costs.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Your example makes zero sense at all. How can you build a game that appeals to the masses and at the same time doesnt appeal to the masses. Contradictory statement. Your suggestion makes no sense due to the contradiction.
If all the games were super successful and highly rated, and had huge customer bases, then maybe your point would be valid. Instead we are seeing exactly opposite of that, which proves they are not appealling to the masses at all.
"How can you build a game that appeals to the masses and at the same time doesnt appeal to the masses"<----Call of Duty and GTA 5 both capitalized on the casual gamer. So....those 2 games appeal to the middle class of gamers or as you stated, that appeals to the masses and at the same time doesn't appeal to the masses.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You're free to go where you want, like everybody else. The vast majority have chosen FFXIV and WoW so that is apparently what most want.
- 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
- 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
Nobody is holding a gun to their heads. That already invested provided the entertainment it brought at the time whether one stays with the same game or moves to another, so nothing is truly lost by switching. Those that are there want to be, especially now when there is an abundance of online gaming choices otherwise.
we're just quibbling on the numbers of people for "masses" and niche.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
You seem to think that the current large MMORPG's are what everyone wants... The vast majority of players don't actually know what they want, and you can bet their ass if a more fun game comes along they will play it. And so what I'm arguing for is that they might be surprised by an MMORPG's with a more oldschool take.
Well if you can whittle it down to $15 a month payments you can probably convince one of the pro-sub people to get it for you.......
What is pretty much universally accepted is when an MMO game dramatically has less players than was expected AND shuts down shortly after release, that would easily be considered a flop.
I dont like P2W games, but if they are making profit then that business modal is fine. I dont want to play those MMO's, but businesses are there to make money. So obviously there is supply and demand.
When businesses do not profit and have to shut down due to their style it really doesnt matter if 1 person likes it or not.
Any game company that seriously listens to the advice of people who's favorite games are those that get shut down due to lack of customers, are just asking for the same for there game. Logically you should listen to people with a higher success rate. This is just common sense.
You cant say games like Elyon are appealing to the masses, if the game is shutting down due to lack of customers. Obviously they didnt appeal the masses or they wouldnt be shutting down.
So your theory that devs are building MMORPGS that appeal to the masses is incorrect. They might be trying, but clearly they are failing in that endeavor.
Here is an interview with Mark Jacobs prior to release of Warhammer.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/qanda-ea-mythic-chief-demystifies-warhammer-online-delay/1100-6182177/
Also note in this article everything he talks about is RVR not PVE at all.
MJ said:
Even when the interviewer brings up Player Versus Environment,
MJ pivots and says:
So its weird to me you say this game failed because it had too much PVE, when the game clearly flopped at launch. The entire advertising run-up for this game was PVP focused, he even said many times that Warhammer would be more PVP focused than DAOC.
I didnt play the game, so I dont know what they actually put in the game. But when you make your motto "war is everywhere" you are pretty much telling PVE'ers to stay away. This is clearly a case of them focusing too much on PVP and alienating the DAOC base other than some hardcore pvpers.
"So, it's weird to me you say this game failed because it had too much PVE, when the game clearly flopped at launch. The entire advertising run-up for this game was PVP focused, he even said many times that Warhammer would be more PVP focused than DAOC."<----This game seriously did have too much PvE. It was supposed to be open world PvP inside an open PvE world. The designs, weapons, class balance, and population were just all around bad. People were also burned out and didn't want to level anymore. All this combined, killed the game.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Warhammer Online was supposed to be an RvR game and they introduced the scenarios which I loved but I am sure the PvP enthusiasts hated. They wanted to do open world stuff which when I participated in the lakes was fun. That was the fun bit but by introducing the scenarios it gave people the lazy PvP and slowly people just left because when you focus on something make sure you do it well. If your PvE sucked make sure you make the RvR work. By introducing the scenarios they diluted the participation in open world RvR. Everyone saw it coming.
Too bad no one makes a Sandbox MMORPG with that kind of quality. (be wasted on a Themepark, lol.)
Once upon a time....
- 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
If a game was to have 1 million concurrent players, this represents probably .01% of the entire gaming population and probably less than 1% of the MMO population. Yet 1 million players concurrent would be a massive amount of players. .01% of the gaming population could also be a very niche part also.
I am just sick of these games that cant even retain 500 people or games like embers that has around 50 players concurrent 2 months after launch or Elyon that shuts down 1 year after launch. Your game needs to be better than that. There is no reason that a half way decent MMO should not be able to get 5-10 mil copies sold minimum in todays world. Even an extremely niche game that was "GOOD" would do that.
So the reason they are failing is their mechanics are either so extremely unpopular or the game is just plain garbage. Anyone that likes this garbage needs to have their voice removed from the devs ears through AI IMO.
"Overall" gaming revenues are climbing or holding steady, some sorts of games are appealing to a huge number of players, just not MMORPGs.
Wait, make MMORPGS different, better even and they will come you say?
It already happened, hence the "evolution" of online games away from the MMORPG and into newer sub genres like BRs, MOBAs, Arena Shooters, even smaller scale survival games.
All took elements from earlier online games including MMORPGs to develop more focused styles which appealed greatly to very broad customer bases.
For an MMORPG to ever see WOW type success now would require such a radical design shift it would no longer be recognized as such, resulting yet another new sub genre in its own right.
It's been said before, remake UO into a modern new game, without substantial changes to it's original designs and it's going nowhere beyond a very small, aging niche market.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
There are some major things that players want that has not been advanced, but could be.
Evolving worlds and AI, for starters.
Sandbox has never been advanced. That would be a huge plus. I think most gamers don't even realize this yet because they've never seen it even in basic UO terms.
Exploration hasn't been advanced much, as far as I know. I mean, is finding a cave behind a water falls, is that a discovery of any meaning? Vistas are nice, but that's just not a "discovery." Finding a MOB nest is, but that's not new. There is huge room for meaningful advancement here.
Economics!
Trade and caravans/shipping can be greatly advanced and combined in the economic game play.
And remember, if anything a game can do that advances an aspect can be exciting to even 5% of the Player base, and if a game can do that with 5 different things, that is a huge plus to the game overall.
And there is nothing that can't be advanced, outside of the core game play of Themeparks which actually hinders all other playable things.
Advanced UO, without the Player Abuse, would be a huge thing.
Once upon a time....
One thing I dont agree is that another MMO cant get WoW success without radical change. First just looking at WoW, we have yet to see another game that is actually better than or equal to WoW, release. Without seeing this, how can you know a better WoW type game would not bring in the exact same masses as WoW. So until I see this, I wont agree with you.
In regards to a UO replica, yeah I agree you cant replicate that and expect a successful game. You will need to update the raw concepts and remove the forced PVP.
I do think the concept of a UO openworld with skills, crafting, economy merged with some WoW PVE instances, bosses, pve raiding mechanics, and of course separate pve servers from PvP servers would be ultra successful. UO post trammel, DAOC expansions, WoW vanilla were all dancing around the edges of this model. Time will tell if anyone figures this out and puts the money and talent into a game to become the next billion dollar studio.