Never had that many times where people would just repeatedly zerg in wow or others after dieing. I have had numerous times when i had players complaining to the healer or tank to play better and keep them alive by doing their job, but not just drink to full and zerg again. In most of my group as the tank with my gf as the healer we would tell them a stratagy for the fight, make sure they know what is happening, and if we died look for a new one people want to not waste time in games now. As such if you fail too much or you are not listening many leave, since you are wasting their time in a game they want to enjoy (dieing is not fun unless you have a griefer in group then he is enjoying it, and that is where many zerg deaths come from is that person who wants to piss people off.). Also there are still many skill and difficult games out there from ff to l2, and others it is just what you want to play and enjoy (those may not be some people's cup of tea.).
The thing all best-selling Mario games have in common is being extremely casual friendly, to the point not only is the penalty for losing almost non-existent - lives in most Mario games are almost a non-issue, "losing" in Smash Bros just means you respawn in the same round, etc -
Way to not see the big picture.
When you start talking about other games from RPGs, you have to realize that dying equates to different things. For example, losing your big or your fireball/iceball powers in a Mario-world game basically cuts your effectiveness and longevity in half. How's that for a stiff "death" penalty? In the Wii game with which I'm most familiar, if everyone dies at the same time you have to start the level over from the beginning. Most MMO quests are not that severe - a wipe doesn't mean you start the quest over from the very beginning, and in many cases it's just a matter of restarting the fight you were on when you wiped.
A complete lack of death simulation makes for very superficial gameplay, and while that may be what you and many others are expecting and appreciating, it could be argued that such games do not need a massively multiplayer system. The whole point of massively multiplayer is to create complex systems that require a good deal of thought and strategy. I don't think Mario World is a good contender for having thousands of people running around at the same time in the same instance.
When you start talking about other games from RPGs, you have to realize that dying equates to different things. For example, losing your big or your fireball/iceball powers in a Mario-world game basically cuts your effectiveness and longevity in half. How's that for a stiff "death" penalty? In the Wii game with which I'm most familiar, if everyone dies at the same time you have to start the level over from the beginning. Most MMO quests are not that severe - a wipe doesn't mean you start the quest over from the very beginning, and in many cases it's just a matter of restarting the fight you were on when you wiped.
A complete lack of death simulation makes for very superficial gameplay, and while that may be what you and many others are expecting and appreciating, it could be argued that such games do not need a massively multiplayer system. The whole point of massively multiplayer is to create complex systems that require a good deal of thought and strategy. I don't think Mario World is a good contender for having thousands of people running around at the same time in the same instance.
Let's see:
- Having to beat a level in one go is as much a matter of difficulty as it's a matter of death penalties. Even then, most Mario games have save points in the middle of the level.
- Restarting a Mario level is, at most, a whooping loss of 5 minutes of gameplay. Even if you don't consider other death penalties, it's still quite lighter than most MMOs, even the ones on the easy side.
- Power-ups are akin to the concept of HP for the game - so, losing a power-up is not really akin to dying, but to losing half one's HP. Besides, a player can just go to a easy early level and in 5 minutes come back with almost any powerup he wants, if desired.
- Restarting a level is the penalty for a whole group wipe (or a death in a solo game). The penalty for a single player death in the multiplayer game is just that you float in a bubble until someone pops it. This is also something I love about that game - it's way easier in multiplater than in single player. I like being challenged when I play solo, but I often just want to have fun when I play with other persons, so I prefer when group play is actually easier than solo.
- I sincerely don't see the focus of MMOs as being complexity, thought, strategy, or anything like that. For me, the whole point of MMOs is having fun with other players. And I will continue voting with my wallet by only spending money on games, including MMOs, where I actually agree with the amount of death penalty - which is to say, almost no death penalty. I don't really care to try games that attempt to punish me.
In the end, unless the player preference shifts away from casual-friendly games, most mainstream games - including MMOs - will continue to feature almost no death penalty. It's what most players seem to prefer, so it's what most game companies will pursue - particularly those working on large budget, AAA games that require a big player base to see profits.
Playing online games since Meridian and no i don't want death penalities. The real challenge should be in the activity itself and not the death penalities. But then again i don't use video games to measure my ego or e-peen.
Yes and everyone is entertained by different things. Some people may not like to be "challenged" by a game, others do. Some like the adrenaline kick for being in a situation where he can lose a lot in a game some won't. Wanting something to be hard and harsh =/= not realizing it's just entertainment. Your entertainment is not my entertainment and claiming those who like different things have some issues grasping the whole entertainment concept is arrogant at best.
I always advocated for fun and challenging content over tedious game design as a indication of difficulty. Often times developers design content to keep you paying with entertainment as an after thought.
- I sincerely don't see the focus of MMOs as being complexity, thought, strategy, or anything like that. For me, the whole point of MMOs is having fun with other players. And I will continue voting with my wallet by only spending money on games, including MMOs, where I actually agree with the amount of death penalty - which is to say, almost no death penalty. I don't really care to try games that attempt to punish me.
You don't see the focus of a massively multiplayer game as complexity and strategy? You are lost, then, trying to find entertainment in entirely the wrong avenues. I wasn't stating a personal preference when I said that was the point of massively multiplayer. It's simple logical deduction. The original purpose for including hundreds to thousands of people in a game instance was to create a roleplaying simulation that was complex and immersive. That reason hasn't been usurped. If you just want to have fun with other players, then a standard lobby game with 2 to 8 player instances is extremely accessible and common.
It grows extremely tiring trying to defend an entire genre from people perverting it to their desires for games in general. The silly thing is, the genre doesn't change just because people decide they want certain types of games. There is room for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, as well as massively multiplayer roleplaying simulations. I actually like both types of games, it's just that when I feel like an MMO, I'd prefer to be actually capable of finding one with a decent population of people playing that type of game.
Instead, I find lost and deluded people like FabioCapela and metagamers who are playing their own style of game that has nothing to do with the MMO they are polluting. One word... exhausting...
I actually like Mario games, for the most part, too. Diversity is a good thing, and recognizing when you don't belong in a genre can do wonders for your wallet, your frustration, and everyone else's as well.
The death penalty that happens after you fail has a psychological effect on the player affecting the upcoming battle. Should I or shouldn't I?, Is it worth it?. It's also a motivational factor of building a sound strategy before the battle, instead of just rushing in and see what happens rinse repeat. The penalty doesn't give you any enjoyment but the threat of it does.
Also on the matter of the reset. If there's no penalty after a loss. A player can simply just keep rushing in, hoping to get some lucky critical hits or procs from his weapons, even hoping the attacks miss or is resisted just enough to come out on top. While watching TV.
Luck? Luck is a non-factor.
If you really don't believe me, go try beating a difficult raid boss by wiping a hundred times hoping for "lucky criticals". (Remember not to change your playstyle, or let your teammtes change theirs; you're testing for "lucky criticals".)
Even in a 30 second fight, the variance in damage (both incoming and outgoing) due to crits is almost completely factored out. When we're talking about a 3+ minute boss fight, luck is virtually nonexistent.
You will never beat a difficult boss with "lucky criticals". Your group either exhibits skill, or it dies.
As for WSIMike's comments, the penalty at stake here is almost all of what you feel motivates players: time and loot are huge factors, even with an instant reset. If you die at 4:30 of a 5:00 boss fight, you've lost 4:30 and the potential loot you would have gotten.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
- I sincerely don't see the focus of MMOs as being complexity, thought, strategy, or anything like that. For me, the whole point of MMOs is having fun with other players. And I will continue voting with my wallet by only spending money on games, including MMOs, where I actually agree with the amount of death penalty - which is to say, almost no death penalty. I don't really care to try games that attempt to punish me.
You don't see the focus of a massively multiplayer game as complexity and strategy? You are lost, then, trying to find entertainment in entirely the wrong avenues. I wasn't stating a personal preference when I said that was the point of massively multiplayer. It's simple logical deduction. The original purpose for including hundreds to thousands of people in a game instance was to create a roleplaying simulation that was complex and immersive. That reason hasn't been usurped. If you just want to have fun with other players, then a standard lobby game with 2 to 8 player instances is extremely accessible and common.
You're confusing what was, for what must be forever, which is nothing, ever in all of games.. The MMORPG genre has nothing more sacred than the FPS genre, action games, platformers, or even other types of games entirely. It's like your stating every tabletop RPG should be a D&D clone based off of 1st edition Basic or the Red Book, when the sole success of tabletop games not dying completely in the 90s was a game that was nothing like D&D, and competely shattered RPG communities in two. That game is on life support courtesy of CCP, and while I personally greatly dislike the World of Darknerss, it deserves to exist just like RIFTS, 4th edition D&D, 3rd edition, Dresden FATE, and so many others. It wasn't about making a roleplaying simulation. it was about making a FUN AND ENTERTAINING GAMEWORLD. They did that. The qualities contained within the shell can be as mutable as any designer wants.
It grows extremely tiring trying to defend an entire genre from people perverting it to their desires for games in general. The silly thing is, the genre doesn't change just because people decide they want certain types of games. There is room for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, as well as massively multiplayer roleplaying simulations. I actually like both types of games, it's just that when I feel like an MMO, I'd prefer to be actually capable of finding one with a decent population of people playing that type of game.
Instead, I find lost and deluded people like FabioCapela and metagamers who are playing their own style of game that has nothing to do with the MMO they are polluting. One word... exhausting...
I actually like Mario games, for the most part, too. Diversity is a good thing, and recognizing when you don't belong in a genre can do wonders for your wallet, your frustration, and everyone else's as well.
You don't own the genre, Richard garriot doesn't own the genre. SoE does not, Blizzard, Trion, NCsoft, Turbine, and so many others do not own it anymore than the game designers of tomorrow. You speak of diversity yet you want Gaming ideas destroyed or censored from "your genre" like it's so special. Get over yourself you choad, You speak for nobody but yourself. You have no power, you defend NOTHING other than your own ignorant statements on the most dead end MMO discussion forum around.Fabio, metagamers, non-rpers in your precious immersive fantasy worlds are like boogeymen to you, but they're your own fears. You're old, and afraid of change and concepts itself because you want your own little heaven to standstill against the flow of time for your own amusement. Get out of the genre before it just grows into something that will make you hate your own games you love, because it will.
You're confusing what was, for what must be forever, which is nothing, ever in all of games.. The MMORPG genre has nothing more sacred than the FPS genre, action games, platformers, or even other types of games entirely. It's like your stating every tabletop RPG should be a D&D clone based off of 1st edition Basic or the Red Book, when the sole success of tabletop games not dying completely in the 90s was a game that was nothing like D&D, and competely shattered RPG communities in two. That game is on life support courtesy of CCP, and while I personally greatly dislike the World of Darknerss, it deserves to exist just like RIFTS, 4th edition D&D, 3rd edition, Dresden FATE, and so many others. It wasn't about making a roleplaying simulation. it was about making a FUN AND ENTERTAINING GAMEWORLD. They did that. The qualities contained within the shell can be as mutable as any designer wants.
You are way off base, "friend." Specific, individual games can always be classified in any genre they fit into. Individual games evolve with both public demand and developer preference, and can even fit into multiple genres and appeal to multiple types of players.
Genres, however, do not change with the design of individual games. If I want an MMO similar to the one that I played 5 years ago or 10, then there should be a classification system that would allow me to find it (the same game) or perhaps a newer game that utilized similar game constructs for the same reason. MMO means massively multiplayer. I'm not making that up because of my own preference. Massively multiplayer means that there is a reason you need hundreds of players in the same instance. I'm stating that deductive reasoning makes it clear that this type of game will be complex, and should therefore be immersive to allow for complex analysis.
You don't own the genre, Richard garriot doesn't own the genre. SoE does not, Blizzard, Trion, NCsoft, Turbine, and so many others do not own it anymore than the game designers of tomorrow. You speak of diversity yet you want Gaming ideas destroyed or censored from "your genre" like it's so special. Get over yourself you choad, You speak for nobody but yourself. You have no power, you defend NOTHING other than your own ignorant statements on the most dead end MMO discussion forum around.Fabio, metagamers, non-rpers in your precious immersive fantasy worlds are like boogeymen to you, but they're your own fears. You're old, and afraid of change and concepts itself because you want your own little heaven to standstill against the flow of time for your own amusement. Get out of the genre before it just grows into something that will make you hate your own games you love, because it will.
You are a fool, and a tool. I own my own classification system. You can argue that MY definition of the MMO genre is not yours, but you can't say that I don't own it. I DO own it, it's the type of game I want to play. It may be the game that I want to develop, as well. You and others don't have a say what I like or what I choose to develop.
In a forum, we obviously have to agree on definitions or the whole mess boils down to an argument over semantics. Again, you are way off base. Your definitions of MMO are new, untested, and ambiguous. I can't even determine what you are really talking about in most situations, and when your demands mimic the features of an entirely different genre definition of which I'm aware, I'm going to point it out and let you know that you've come down with a mild to severe case of confusion.
That said, I'll agree that the term MMORPG has long been semi-useless for the sake of discussion. If you reviewed my post history, you'll find that I've made this exact point before you even posted here. I wasn't using the parts of the definition that are meaningless, however, and it is simply the massively multiplayer aspect, taken literally, that I was employing in this thread.
I'll add an additional note concerning the reason you and I are sitting here posting on the same thread. I happen to know why, while I doubt that you do. There is a demand for my type of game. People actually want to play mmorpgs, as they were years ago and have been sporadically ever since. Not just a small number of people, either. Millions of them. The problem is that they (and I) have a parasitical playerbase attached to them that feeds whenever they get what they want. Anytime their mmorpg's achieve success (basically launch), the parasites show up and ruin the fun.
I don't take exception to the parasites finding and developing their own games to play and designing their own classifications. That doesn't work for them, though. They NEED to make it seem like their game is our game, and that is how we've arrived at the ambiguity of it all.
Raithe, now that I've gotten you to clarify what you actually meant outside of all that nonsense posted by both of us before, I have a few more questions.
What you're saying is you cling to an antiquitated meaning of an MMO as your sole hope to preserve some notion that games with that specific name type, the case being MMO or Massive Multiplayer Online, must contain a set of exact qualities? The nature of one particular game, its theme, its style, is not owned by any subset of mechanics. We have only ourselves to blame for using the poor descriptive qualities we already have to lump together games as "MMO", "WoW-Clone", "Sandbox", "themepark". You, I and everyone just as guilty as them on that account, but being unable to communicate without brevity takes up a lot of space, and THAT's why we use those terms. They are not ever meant to be perfect descriptors. Mislabeling, and extension and evolution of the meaning of a phrase or word happens constantly.That is a problem you'll have to deal with on your own.
I want to develop an MMO too, one day. I have a large amount of programming experience, but personal problems hold me back at the moment. But I have played over a dozen MMORPGs, from everquest to WoW, Eve online, City of Heroes/villains, and many more. Massive Multiplayer Online describes it perfectly. They're certainly al Massive in size, and gameplay. Multiplayer? I've raided in World of Warcraft and sat in Goonswarm's ranks at our biggest battle in EVE at the time against Band of brothers. Both of those, if 40 or 1400, is both equally massive, and multiplayer.Cetrainly online, Do You really think the acryonym determines the phrase, or the other way around? Or even further, when already applied to multiple games with many different playstyles long before you even had a vested interest in it, before World of Warcraft and other games 'threatened' this genre so;
Everuqest was no world, although it had community, Ultima online was very much an excellent first try at a decent virtual world. But neither of these share a tremndous amount of alike qualities. combat systems were very different, one you needed an external chat program for. One allowed PvP freely as the default rules while the other had sectioned servers from the get go.One had progression that ended much sooner, in terms of gear, experience and skills.. while death was both equally costly, you could usually always make it to your corpse for items in Everquest.But these differences are FINE. Neither one is the true vision of the perfect MMO, or the rightful meaning. People bicker about what qualities and names make up all kinds of games all the time. We shouldn't do that, but you're sure as hell seeming to continue it.
Or are you against persistent Online games Like World of Warcraft, where they have dungeons, raids, and while they consider their "massive" only 25 now, dungeon finders, auction houses; That sepcific type of package being presented at all because it shares similarity in the mechanics and nature of the game, name of genre it's in aside?
When you start talking about other games from RPGs, you have to realize that dying equates to different things. For example, losing your big or your fireball/iceball powers in a Mario-world game basically cuts your effectiveness and longevity in half. How's that for a stiff "death" penalty? In the Wii game with which I'm most familiar, if everyone dies at the same time you have to start the level over from the beginning. Most MMO quests are not that severe - a wipe doesn't mean you start the quest over from the very beginning, and in many cases it's just a matter of restarting the fight you were on when you wiped.
A complete lack of death simulation makes for very superficial gameplay, and while that may be what you and many others are expecting and appreciating, it could be argued that such games do not need a massively multiplayer system. The whole point of massively multiplayer is to create complex systems that require a good deal of thought and strategy. I don't think Mario World is a good contender for having thousands of people running around at the same time in the same instance.
Let's see:
- Having to beat a level in one go is as much a matter of difficulty as it's a matter of death penalties. Even then, most Mario games have save points in the middle of the level.
- Restarting a Mario level is, at most, a whooping loss of 5 minutes of gameplay. Even if you don't consider other death penalties, it's still quite lighter than most MMOs, even the ones on the easy side.
- Power-ups are akin to the concept of HP for the game - so, losing a power-up is not really akin to dying, but to losing half one's HP. Besides, a player can just go to a easy early level and in 5 minutes come back with almost any powerup he wants, if desired.
- Restarting a level is the penalty for a whole group wipe (or a death in a solo game). The penalty for a single player death in the multiplayer game is just that you float in a bubble until someone pops it. This is also something I love about that game - it's way easier in multiplater than in single player. I like being challenged when I play solo, but I often just want to have fun when I play with other persons, so I prefer when group play is actually easier than solo.
- I sincerely don't see the focus of MMOs as being complexity, thought, strategy, or anything like that. For me, the whole point of MMOs is having fun with other players. And I will continue voting with my wallet by only spending money on games, including MMOs, where I actually agree with the amount of death penalty - which is to say, almost no death penalty. I don't really care to try games that attempt to punish me.
In the end, unless the player preference shifts away from casual-friendly games, most mainstream games - including MMOs - will continue to feature almost no death penalty. It's what most players seem to prefer, so it's what most game companies will pursue - particularly those working on large budget, AAA games that require a big player base to see profits.
The way I read that then is you get enjoyment from loseing a lot. I personally find it more fun to win or at least try to. Your not going to win every game or match but, much like a statement I made in a earlier post "what is the point if you know you will win ?" It swings the other way as well, "what is the point if you know your going to lose and never see that bit of gear because others feel that thinking is a waste of time ?"
I agree that a game should be fun and I have had a great deal of fun getting killed with friends and having a good laugh but, I have seen over and over again that if a certain team ALWAYS loses pretty soon they have no one on that team.
There are plenty of ways to get your self killed over and over if you enjoy that in your mmo's. I think that most of the frustration about death penalty stems more from the fact that they don't want to spend hours on a raid for 1 or 2 people that think dieing repeatedly and getting your group killed repeatedly is a good time. Yet MMO company's keep dumbing down the raids, largly due to complaints from the people who don't want to think, so the "lets die over and over cause it's fun" crowd can get the good gear. Why do they need it ? by the very idea that dieing over and over = a good time they don't need the gear that will prevent it so leave the raids alone and go do something else and let the people that want to have raids that are worth something do raids that require thinking.
Comments
Never had that many times where people would just repeatedly zerg in wow or others after dieing. I have had numerous times when i had players complaining to the healer or tank to play better and keep them alive by doing their job, but not just drink to full and zerg again. In most of my group as the tank with my gf as the healer we would tell them a stratagy for the fight, make sure they know what is happening, and if we died look for a new one people want to not waste time in games now. As such if you fail too much or you are not listening many leave, since you are wasting their time in a game they want to enjoy (dieing is not fun unless you have a griefer in group then he is enjoying it, and that is where many zerg deaths come from is that person who wants to piss people off.). Also there are still many skill and difficult games out there from ff to l2, and others it is just what you want to play and enjoy (those may not be some people's cup of tea.).
Way to not see the big picture.
When you start talking about other games from RPGs, you have to realize that dying equates to different things. For example, losing your big or your fireball/iceball powers in a Mario-world game basically cuts your effectiveness and longevity in half. How's that for a stiff "death" penalty? In the Wii game with which I'm most familiar, if everyone dies at the same time you have to start the level over from the beginning. Most MMO quests are not that severe - a wipe doesn't mean you start the quest over from the very beginning, and in many cases it's just a matter of restarting the fight you were on when you wiped.
A complete lack of death simulation makes for very superficial gameplay, and while that may be what you and many others are expecting and appreciating, it could be argued that such games do not need a massively multiplayer system. The whole point of massively multiplayer is to create complex systems that require a good deal of thought and strategy. I don't think Mario World is a good contender for having thousands of people running around at the same time in the same instance.
Let's see:
- Having to beat a level in one go is as much a matter of difficulty as it's a matter of death penalties. Even then, most Mario games have save points in the middle of the level.
- Restarting a Mario level is, at most, a whooping loss of 5 minutes of gameplay. Even if you don't consider other death penalties, it's still quite lighter than most MMOs, even the ones on the easy side.
- Power-ups are akin to the concept of HP for the game - so, losing a power-up is not really akin to dying, but to losing half one's HP. Besides, a player can just go to a easy early level and in 5 minutes come back with almost any powerup he wants, if desired.
- Restarting a level is the penalty for a whole group wipe (or a death in a solo game). The penalty for a single player death in the multiplayer game is just that you float in a bubble until someone pops it. This is also something I love about that game - it's way easier in multiplater than in single player. I like being challenged when I play solo, but I often just want to have fun when I play with other persons, so I prefer when group play is actually easier than solo.
- I sincerely don't see the focus of MMOs as being complexity, thought, strategy, or anything like that. For me, the whole point of MMOs is having fun with other players. And I will continue voting with my wallet by only spending money on games, including MMOs, where I actually agree with the amount of death penalty - which is to say, almost no death penalty. I don't really care to try games that attempt to punish me.
In the end, unless the player preference shifts away from casual-friendly games, most mainstream games - including MMOs - will continue to feature almost no death penalty. It's what most players seem to prefer, so it's what most game companies will pursue - particularly those working on large budget, AAA games that require a big player base to see profits.
Playing online games since Meridian and no i don't want death penalities. The real challenge should be in the activity itself and not the death penalities. But then again i don't use video games to measure my ego or e-peen.
/thread
I always advocated for fun and challenging content over tedious game design as a indication of difficulty. Often times developers design content to keep you paying with entertainment as an after thought.
You don't see the focus of a massively multiplayer game as complexity and strategy? You are lost, then, trying to find entertainment in entirely the wrong avenues. I wasn't stating a personal preference when I said that was the point of massively multiplayer. It's simple logical deduction. The original purpose for including hundreds to thousands of people in a game instance was to create a roleplaying simulation that was complex and immersive. That reason hasn't been usurped. If you just want to have fun with other players, then a standard lobby game with 2 to 8 player instances is extremely accessible and common.
It grows extremely tiring trying to defend an entire genre from people perverting it to their desires for games in general. The silly thing is, the genre doesn't change just because people decide they want certain types of games. There is room for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, as well as massively multiplayer roleplaying simulations. I actually like both types of games, it's just that when I feel like an MMO, I'd prefer to be actually capable of finding one with a decent population of people playing that type of game.
Instead, I find lost and deluded people like FabioCapela and metagamers who are playing their own style of game that has nothing to do with the MMO they are polluting. One word... exhausting...
I actually like Mario games, for the most part, too. Diversity is a good thing, and recognizing when you don't belong in a genre can do wonders for your wallet, your frustration, and everyone else's as well.
Luck? Luck is a non-factor.
If you really don't believe me, go try beating a difficult raid boss by wiping a hundred times hoping for "lucky criticals". (Remember not to change your playstyle, or let your teammtes change theirs; you're testing for "lucky criticals".)
Even in a 30 second fight, the variance in damage (both incoming and outgoing) due to crits is almost completely factored out. When we're talking about a 3+ minute boss fight, luck is virtually nonexistent.
You will never beat a difficult boss with "lucky criticals". Your group either exhibits skill, or it dies.
As for WSIMike's comments, the penalty at stake here is almost all of what you feel motivates players: time and loot are huge factors, even with an instant reset. If you die at 4:30 of a 5:00 boss fight, you've lost 4:30 and the potential loot you would have gotten.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Raithe, now that I've gotten you to clarify what you actually meant outside of all that nonsense posted by both of us before, I have a few more questions.
What you're saying is you cling to an antiquitated meaning of an MMO as your sole hope to preserve some notion that games with that specific name type, the case being MMO or Massive Multiplayer Online, must contain a set of exact qualities? The nature of one particular game, its theme, its style, is not owned by any subset of mechanics. We have only ourselves to blame for using the poor descriptive qualities we already have to lump together games as "MMO", "WoW-Clone", "Sandbox", "themepark". You, I and everyone just as guilty as them on that account, but being unable to communicate without brevity takes up a lot of space, and THAT's why we use those terms. They are not ever meant to be perfect descriptors. Mislabeling, and extension and evolution of the meaning of a phrase or word happens constantly.That is a problem you'll have to deal with on your own.
I want to develop an MMO too, one day. I have a large amount of programming experience, but personal problems hold me back at the moment. But I have played over a dozen MMORPGs, from everquest to WoW, Eve online, City of Heroes/villains, and many more. Massive Multiplayer Online describes it perfectly. They're certainly al Massive in size, and gameplay. Multiplayer? I've raided in World of Warcraft and sat in Goonswarm's ranks at our biggest battle in EVE at the time against Band of brothers. Both of those, if 40 or 1400, is both equally massive, and multiplayer.Cetrainly online, Do You really think the acryonym determines the phrase, or the other way around? Or even further, when already applied to multiple games with many different playstyles long before you even had a vested interest in it, before World of Warcraft and other games 'threatened' this genre so;
Everuqest was no world, although it had community, Ultima online was very much an excellent first try at a decent virtual world. But neither of these share a tremndous amount of alike qualities. combat systems were very different, one you needed an external chat program for. One allowed PvP freely as the default rules while the other had sectioned servers from the get go.One had progression that ended much sooner, in terms of gear, experience and skills.. while death was both equally costly, you could usually always make it to your corpse for items in Everquest.But these differences are FINE. Neither one is the true vision of the perfect MMO, or the rightful meaning. People bicker about what qualities and names make up all kinds of games all the time. We shouldn't do that, but you're sure as hell seeming to continue it.
Or are you against persistent Online games Like World of Warcraft, where they have dungeons, raids, and while they consider their "massive" only 25 now, dungeon finders, auction houses; That sepcific type of package being presented at all because it shares similarity in the mechanics and nature of the game, name of genre it's in aside?
The way I read that then is you get enjoyment from loseing a lot. I personally find it more fun to win or at least try to. Your not going to win every game or match but, much like a statement I made in a earlier post "what is the point if you know you will win ?" It swings the other way as well, "what is the point if you know your going to lose and never see that bit of gear because others feel that thinking is a waste of time ?"
I agree that a game should be fun and I have had a great deal of fun getting killed with friends and having a good laugh but, I have seen over and over again that if a certain team ALWAYS loses pretty soon they have no one on that team.
There are plenty of ways to get your self killed over and over if you enjoy that in your mmo's. I think that most of the frustration about death penalty stems more from the fact that they don't want to spend hours on a raid for 1 or 2 people that think dieing repeatedly and getting your group killed repeatedly is a good time. Yet MMO company's keep dumbing down the raids, largly due to complaints from the people who don't want to think, so the "lets die over and over cause it's fun" crowd can get the good gear. Why do they need it ? by the very idea that dieing over and over = a good time they don't need the gear that will prevent it so leave the raids alone and go do something else and let the people that want to have raids that are worth something do raids that require thinking.