Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

This genre is dead

1282930313234»

Comments

  • paroxysmparoxysm Member Posts: 437
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by paroxysm

     

    The short life span and fleeing subs says that it is not a success.  It hasn't made what they spent on it.

    SWTOR is already a co-op lobby game.  That's all there is for end game.  And the leveling experience is a story on rails game that is mostly single player.  You get companions to fill the gaps in your character's role.  You can solo a lot of group missions.   Everything is so separate and load screen loaded.  Even the very build of fleet seemed like it was built to avoid people loitering except the bar in the middle.  Which no one used.  Fleet was also population instanced to keep the number of people in an area down.  SWTOR is definitely not a virtual world.

    No, TOR is not a success ... but it is certainly NOT a co-op lobby game. For example, when it was released, it does NOT even had a LFG function, which many asked for. Secondly, it does not change the "world" when one progresses in quests, like in D3.

    It will  be a much better game, and a success if they do a proper ARPG instead. Why? a) they won't be wasting a ton of work making the world, and b) It would be a better gaming experience. These "story only" instances is jarring. There are too much backtracking. A proper SP RPG (i.e. you can port the person into a next chapter starting point without running back & forth, and you can change his "personal" world around) with multiplayer support (like D3, inviting others into your game) will be better.

    Lastly, it sold 2M boxes in the first month. The only reason it is not a financial success is because of the huge investment to make it a MMO. If they do a proper RPG with a smaller scale, they would be a big success.

    Even without LFG, it's still a co-op lobby game to me in that people at end game sit around to get in groups to do raids/dungeons/whatever or sit in a queue to play in instanced pvp battlegrounds.  Not much else to do really.  Dailies, but those get old real quick.  And, they don't even have the draw of dailies that some other games have.  As little as that is and as much of a grind as it usually is.

    I would agree the style of game they built would have been better sold as an ARPG instead of an MMO.  It would have made a better single player game than an MMO.  But, they wanted and tried to make an MMO.  They sold it as an MMO.  It's a sad excuse for an MMO.  You see SWTOR as a trend of the way things are going.  I say it's a good example of what happens when you sell something as something that it is not.  SWTOR is in the news a lot.  The current financial condition is being watched by a lot of people.  People that are asking "what went wrong".  So, do you think it reinforces the direction or throws up a red flag?.  Depends on who you ask.  Some still say the whole thing was just a subscription problem. 

    There was and still is a lot wrong with SWTOR.   I just hope when the dust finally settles some good lessons are learned and not just blamed on something superficial.

  • zxcvbnm1234zxcvbnm1234 Member Posts: 92
    OP is right to the fullest.
  • JjixJjix Member UncommonPosts: 142

    You are essentially arguing that classical music shouldn't exist because most people prefer rock . . . and that the classical music that does exist should be made to sound more like rock.

    No. I am arguing the industry should invest LESS on classical music than rock, which is exactly what happened today.  I never said virtual world game should disappear. In fact, didn't i say "there is a small minority of players who would like to live a second life"?

    The world doesn't have to be ubiquitous and everything the same, there can be variety and genres. That is why those of us that love this genre -- that aren't interested in seeing it simply disappear or morph into something that its not -- want to discuss how best approach to making great MMOs for MMO lovers, not for the masses. Pop music is for the masses, we aren't talking about Pop music, we are talking about classical music.

    No. It does not have to be .. and it is not. But at the same time, expected AAA dev for a very minority customer segment is wishful thinking. In fact, graphical adventure is making a comeback in indie games. However, you wouldn't not expected graphical point & click adventure to be AAA again like back in the King Quest days, do you?

    In many ways the primary characteristic of the last decade was this standard "how can we make one game that will appeal to everyone" . . . one game to rule them all, a MMO that will appeal to the masses. And you are right, if you want a MMO to appeal to the lowest common denominator it needs to be dumbed down. But what seems to be happening now days is that there are so many games they can't even give them away for free, players just don't have time to play all of the choices out there. Which means, I think, that increasingly this idea of one game to appeal to everyone is giving way to more niche games.

    "dumb down" how elitist? Don't think making a map on a graphical paper is a big deal. I did that back in the might & magic days just because the technology was not there. It is a trivial and boring exercise. Long travel and boat rides are not more "intelligence". People here confuse assessible with dumbing down.

     

    Once you get into niche, then the focus over how to make a good game leans away from this "universal standard" of what the masses want, toward a standard that focuses on what players of a certain demographic want. What classical music lovers want is not to listen to stuff that sounds like rock.

     Well the kind of investment you can make depends on how big the niche is, right? What is a realistic investment for your niche? Is it enough to make a virtual world? Being indie & niche is not the solution for everything. Music is dirt cheap to produce. That is why you have so many variations. Anyone with a band and a garage can produce for his/her niche.

    Can you do it for MMO games when you need programmers, art, music, servers and so on ...

    I am not arguing that there should be none, i am just laying out reality.

     

     

     In other words, you are saying there really isn't a mass market for MMOs and that AAA devs should focus their efforts elsewhere. But doesn't that put us in essential agreement? The period we are nostalgic about was before MMOs were trying to be mass marketed, many have argued that the decline was a result of mass marketing efforts. So how is it bad for MMOs if these massive companies move their efforts back to what they do best and leave MMOs to be MMOs.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by paroxysm
     

    Even without LFG, it's still a co-op lobby game to me in that people at end game sit around to get in groups to do raids/dungeons/whatever or sit in a queue to play in instanced pvp battlegrounds.  Not much else to do really.  Dailies, but those get old real quick.  And, they don't even have the draw of dailies that some other games have.  As little as that is and as much of a grind as it usually is.

    In that case, not a very good one. How can a co-op lobby game without LFG tool? It will grind to a halt.

    I would agree the style of game they built would have been better sold as an ARPG instead of an MMO.  It would have made a better single player game than an MMO.  But, they wanted and tried to make an MMO.  They sold it as an MMO.  It's a sad excuse for an MMO.  You see SWTOR as a trend of the way things are going.  I say it's a good example of what happens when you sell something as something that it is not.  SWTOR is in the news a lot.  The current financial condition is being watched by a lot of people.  People that are asking "what went wrong".  So, do you think it reinforces the direction or throws up a red flag?.  Depends on who you ask.  Some still say the whole thing was just a subscription problem. 

    It *is* a sub problem. The only reason why they try for a MMO is because of the sub. If the world is F2P, they probably will just make it into a ARPG. The F2P trend is only going to help in this direction. I am hoping TL is stopping to become a MMO, and just focus on TL2 and TL3. Now there are *some* MMO features that will be good for ARPG, like a AH, or some crafting, but there is no reason for a full MMO is the core gameplay is co-op small group.

    There was and still is a lot wrong with SWTOR.   I just hope when the dust finally settles some good lessons are learned and not just blamed on something superficial.

    From what i saw, the worse is the combat, it is just not heroic and fun enough. They rely too much on the existing MMO combat. If i am a Jedi, i want to fight 10 or 20 enemies, not 3 .. and not taking them out one by one slowly. They should take a page from D3 combat .. yes there are "bosses" (champ pack & elite) that you will have to fight slowly, but you can mow through normal mobs. And even in the champ pack/elite fights, there are a lot of "minions" that you can mow through.

    They also need a little more actiony combat. I am not saying go all the way to stringing combos, but at least action abilities with synergies.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Jjix

     

     In other words, you are saying there really isn't a mass market for MMOs and that AAA devs should focus their efforts elsewhere. But doesn't that put us in essential agreement? The period we are nostalgic about was before MMOs were trying to be mass marketed, many have argued that the decline was a result of mass marketing efforts. So how is it bad for MMOs if these massive companies move their efforts back to what they do best and leave MMOs to be MMOs.

    Because there are the audience of the modern MMOs (pretty much online APRGs) would be left hanging?

    Secondly, MMOs are expensive to make. So if massive companies left it alone, you will only have un-polished indie effort left.

    Lastly, my post is not talking as much about good or bad, but the state of the world. AAA devs are going to focus their effort on assessible, co-op small group F2P MMOs. It is a prediction, not a call to action.

  • JjixJjix Member UncommonPosts: 142
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Jjix

     

     In other words, you are saying there really isn't a mass market for MMOs and that AAA devs should focus their efforts elsewhere. But doesn't that put us in essential agreement? The period we are nostalgic about was before MMOs were trying to be mass marketed, many have argued that the decline was a result of mass marketing efforts. So how is it bad for MMOs if these massive companies move their efforts back to what they do best and leave MMOs to be MMOs.

    Because there are the audience of the modern MMOs (pretty much online APRGs) would be left hanging?

     

    An ARPG isn't a MMO . . . so if these AAA companies are not making, or going to make, MMOs anyway . . . how is this bad for MMOs again? And if companies stop calling their ARPGs "MMOs", that is just a change in labels, so ARPGs aren't going to disappear and therefore I doubt that particular audience would be left hanging. Most true ARPGs do just fine without calling themselves MMOs.

  • paroxysmparoxysm Member Posts: 437
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by paroxysm
     

    Even without LFG, it's still a co-op lobby game to me in that people at end game sit around to get in groups to do raids/dungeons/whatever or sit in a queue to play in instanced pvp battlegrounds.  Not much else to do really.  Dailies, but those get old real quick.  And, they don't even have the draw of dailies that some other games have.  As little as that is and as much of a grind as it usually is.

    In that case, not a very good one. How can a co-op lobby game without LFG tool? It will grind to a halt.

    I would agree the style of game they built would have been better sold as an ARPG instead of an MMO.  It would have made a better single player game than an MMO.  But, they wanted and tried to make an MMO.  They sold it as an MMO.  It's a sad excuse for an MMO.  You see SWTOR as a trend of the way things are going.  I say it's a good example of what happens when you sell something as something that it is not.  SWTOR is in the news a lot.  The current financial condition is being watched by a lot of people.  People that are asking "what went wrong".  So, do you think it reinforces the direction or throws up a red flag?.  Depends on who you ask.  Some still say the whole thing was just a subscription problem. 

    It *is* a sub problem. The only reason why they try for a MMO is because of the sub. If the world is F2P, they probably will just make it into a ARPG. The F2P trend is only going to help in this direction. I am hoping TL is stopping to become a MMO, and just focus on TL2 and TL3. Now there are *some* MMO features that will be good for ARPG, like a AH, or some crafting, but there is no reason for a full MMO is the core gameplay is co-op small group.

    There was and still is a lot wrong with SWTOR.   I just hope when the dust finally settles some good lessons are learned and not just blamed on something superficial.

    From what i saw, the worse is the combat, it is just not heroic and fun enough. They rely too much on the existing MMO combat. If i am a Jedi, i want to fight 10 or 20 enemies, not 3 .. and not taking them out one by one slowly. They should take a page from D3 combat .. yes there are "bosses" (champ pack & elite) that you will have to fight slowly, but you can mow through normal mobs. And even in the champ pack/elite fights, there are a lot of "minions" that you can mow through.

    They also need a little more actiony combat. I am not saying go all the way to stringing combos, but at least action abilities with synergies.

     

    Because LFG doesn't make it a co-op lobby by itself?  Sitting in a chat channel or using LFG, it's still the same.  LFG is a tool of convenience.  It just automates the making of teams/groups/raids.  Co-op lobby game says more about the amount of things to do in the game.  It did grind to a halt, but not solely because of the lack of an automated LFG.

    If you really think the sub cost was what drove people away, I question if you played the game.  There is a difference in having a sub and justifying the cost of the sub.  It's not that the sub was out of line in cost either.  It's that what they provided was not enough to justify paying a sub.  Big difference.

    Again, games like Torchlight and D3 are not MMORPGs.  You keep comparing MMORPGs to them. 

    As for the last part, I don't think it's MMORPGs that you are interested in at all.  And no, ARPGs and Co-op lobby games dressed up as MMORPGs are not MMORPGs. 

    I will, however, give you the synergy part.  There was not a lot of synergy in how the skills/attacks you had interacted with each other. 

    I think it's time to just let our discussion end.  It's going no where again.  Nothing but circles, randomness, and repetition.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by paroxysm
     

    Because LFG doesn't make it a co-op lobby by itself?  Sitting in a chat channel or using LFG, it's still the same.  LFG is a tool of convenience.  It just automates the making of teams/groups/raids.  Co-op lobby game says more about the amount of things to do in the game.  It did grind to a halt, but not solely because of the lack of an automated LFG.

    Well, there are standard features. It is like saying having a FPS without the ability to look up and down. I guess technically you can call it a FPS, but it will be very much gimped.

    If you really think the sub cost was what drove people away, I question if you played the game.  There is a difference in having a sub and justifying the cost of the sub.  It's not that the sub was out of line in cost either.  It's that what they provided was not enough to justify paying a sub.  Big difference.

    Yeah i bought the game and played less than a month. It certainly does NOT warrant a sub from me. However, i will play a bit when it goes F2P. So yeah, in my case, the game is not fun enough for a sub .. but fun enough for a few hours of F2P play.

    Again, games like Torchlight and D3 are not MMORPGs.  You keep comparing MMORPGs to them. 

    Because a) D3 has its own board on this MMORPG site, so i figure it is fair game, and b) the play style is close enough to MANY games listed as MMOs. There is VERY little difference between the playstyle when i play WOW, DCUO, and D3.

    As for the last part, I don't think it's MMORPGs that you are interested in at all.  And no, ARPGs and Co-op lobby games dressed up as MMORPGs are not MMORPGs. 

    Not the virtual world MMO. I am pretty clear on that. However, games such as Marvel Heroes, WOW, DCUO, DDO .. which are listed as MMO here and everywhere else, interests me. I also call them MMOs, just like everyone else

    I think it's time to just let our discussion end.  It's going no where again.  Nothing but circles, randomness, and repetition.

    Feel free :)

     

  • tixylixtixylix Member UncommonPosts: 1,288
    Originally posted by paroxysm
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by paroxysm

     

    The short life span and fleeing subs says that it is not a success.  It hasn't made what they spent on it.

    SWTOR is already a co-op lobby game.  That's all there is for end game.  And the leveling experience is a story on rails game that is mostly single player.  You get companions to fill the gaps in your character's role.  You can solo a lot of group missions.   Everything is so separate and load screen loaded.  Even the very build of fleet seemed like it was built to avoid people loitering except the bar in the middle.  Which no one used.  Fleet was also population instanced to keep the number of people in an area down.  SWTOR is definitely not a virtual world.

    No, TOR is not a success ... but it is certainly NOT a co-op lobby game. For example, when it was released, it does NOT even had a LFG function, which many asked for. Secondly, it does not change the "world" when one progresses in quests, like in D3.

    It will  be a much better game, and a success if they do a proper ARPG instead. Why? a) they won't be wasting a ton of work making the world, and b) It would be a better gaming experience. These "story only" instances is jarring. There are too much backtracking. A proper SP RPG (i.e. you can port the person into a next chapter starting point without running back & forth, and you can change his "personal" world around) with multiplayer support (like D3, inviting others into your game) will be better.

    Lastly, it sold 2M boxes in the first month. The only reason it is not a financial success is because of the huge investment to make it a MMO. If they do a proper RPG with a smaller scale, they would be a big success.

    Even without LFG, it's still a co-op lobby game to me in that people at end game sit around to get in groups to do raids/dungeons/whatever or sit in a queue to play in instanced pvp battlegrounds.  Not much else to do really.  Dailies, but those get old real quick.  And, they don't even have the draw of dailies that some other games have.  As little as that is and as much of a grind as it usually is.

    I would agree the style of game they built would have been better sold as an ARPG instead of an MMO.  It would have made a better single player game than an MMO.  But, they wanted and tried to make an MMO.  They sold it as an MMO.  It's a sad excuse for an MMO.  You see SWTOR as a trend of the way things are going.  I say it's a good example of what happens when you sell something as something that it is not.  SWTOR is in the news a lot.  The current financial condition is being watched by a lot of people.  People that are asking "what went wrong".  So, do you think it reinforces the direction or throws up a red flag?.  Depends on who you ask.  Some still say the whole thing was just a subscription problem. 

    There was and still is a lot wrong with SWTOR.   I just hope when the dust finally settles some good lessons are learned and not just blamed on something superficial.

     

    I agree SWTOR doesn't feel like an MMO and to be it doesn't even feel like it has a world. It's so split up between loading screens and instances that to me it feels more like PSO or something lol. People don't bother leaving the Fleet Station, just sit in there and grind instances and battlegrounds and you can purely make money in the game so easily from the AH. As you can send your companions out to do everything all you have to do is send them out and sell mats for a high price which some one always buys. 

     

    I don't get why fleets are in there, to me we have these massive cities which some of them are amazing to look at and yet they sit empty.... why were fleets there when we could be in them?

Sign In or Register to comment.