Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Are/Did Developers take MMORPG's in the wrong direction?

mikecacklemikecackle City, ILPosts: 151Member

Back in the day, the player(s) of a MMORPG were living their own experience, creating their own story as they played in a massive persistant online universe. Well, that persistant world doesnt seem to exist anymore. Sure, its somewhat alive and moving. But all in all, every player is walking down the same exact paths when they select the same race/character. The fix was to mix it up by adding new races, and a new storyline. Same game though...

I mean, we are in MMORPG land right? Don't you remember typing in a biography of what your youth was, that others could see. You use to roleplay that attitude in the game along with others in their own characters... I'm pretty sure thats where the  term role play came from right? What ever the hell happened to that?

Today now we have these cheesy storylines laid out for us in a boring path to unlock the mysteries of the writer, and when thats done... Well it seems game over, right?

Is this whats wrong with MMO's today? Did we as entertainment devouring humans finally find that this is a stale breed of development that we no longer wish to nibble on? Do you enjoy the experience of a tale already created for you layed out with everyone experiecing the same steps, in a linear boring grindy ass fashion? What I find amazing is this develpment style is just like most single player games are? Hey we are playing single player games online! And as Jenna Marbles would say.. WTF?!?!

Is this where the boredom starts coming from?

If everyone is experiencing the same thing, and we have been here before, is it losing its sustaining power of entertainment? I know a lot of developers cater to making the player feel like a superhero, so they can "fantasize" about being this amazing character. But if everyone is the same following the exact same path, aint that dream and feeling lost? Not too mention, the games themselves seem to cater to one on one combat with death.. That don't feel very superheroish to me, especially when im getting beat up by a angry wolfman or desert mesquito. Anyhoo...

While I believe this is all true of where boredome comes from, I don't believe at all that this is the only reason games today suck. What other reasons do you have on why games are becoming "unsubscribable" so quickly?

 

«13456

Comments

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member

    biggest problem, to detriment of mmos imo is INSTANCING

    instanced dungeons, tupperware pvp, solo story phases, multiple shards of the same world zone

    these things are killing MMOS, they stop them being massive and multiplayer

     

    im not against zoning for performance reasons, providing thoose zones are singular and persistent.  but i am against instancing.

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo LondonPosts: 3,221Member
    Maybe over-designed ? Freedom + interaction are the key things mmorpgs should cater to. But when you design a ton of content that "should" be interacted in a specific way, and when it comes down to it, players just take path of least resistance and cut through the immersion qualities to the mechanics to level up etc?
  • mikecacklemikecackle City, ILPosts: 151Member

    Good responses, but ShakyMo.. What is tupperware pvp? :D

     

  • VardahothVardahoth Temecula, CAPosts: 389Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by mikecackle

    Good responses, but ShakyMo.. What is tupperware pvp? :D

     

    I would use the term instanced pvp. I remember Lineage 2 (2003 - 2006) and being involved in clan wars. Deaths meant losing exp (and gear if you were red from pking an unflagged player) which gave the wars meaning. It forced you as a player to be a part of a group in order to survive in the world of players. There were no instances in this game and it was completely community driven. There were sieges, open raid bosses with 8hr - 1week respawn times (depending on the type of raid boss it was). openworld dungeons usually took a party to help the player get down to the spot to exp at and it took about 20-40 mins to get there. There was plenty of crafting, buying and selling from player shops, and other things to do. There was over 40 classes and you chose your roll in the game and the type of people you wanted to play with. It also wasn't faction based. Clans formed their own alliances to control exp spots and castles to put tax rates on npc's in towns. I really miss those times.

    I Quit.

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/436845/page/1

    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2316034
    .............
    Retired Gamer: all MMORPG's have been destroyed by big business, marketing of false promises, unprofessional game makers, and a generation of "I WIN and GIVE ME NOW".

  • SouldrainerSouldrainer Elmer, NJPosts: 1,857Member
    Originally posted by Vardahoth
    Originally posted by mikecackle

    Good responses, but ShakyMo.. What is tupperware pvp? :D

     

    I would use the term instanced pvp. I remember Lineage 2 (2003 - 2006) and being involved in clan wars. Deaths meant losing exp (and gear if you were red from pking an unflagged player) which gave the wars meaning. It forced you as a player to be a part of a group in order to survive in the world of players. There were no instances in this game and it was completely community driven. There were sieges, open raid bosses with 8hr - 1week respawn times (depending on the type of raid boss it was). openworld dungeons usually took a party to help the player get down to the spot to exp at and it took about 20-40 mins to get there. There was plenty of crafting, buying and selling from player shops, and other things to do. There was over 40 classes and you chose your roll in the game and the type of people you wanted to play with. It also wasn't faction based. Clans formed their own alliances to control exp spots and castles to put tax rates on npc's in towns. I really miss those times.

    The example you cite here is lame and unimaginative.  Negative reinforcement doesn't force people to group.  It forces people to not play the game, at all.

    Big companies aren't very imaginative though.  Therein lies the problem.  Most MMOs are huge, big-budget affairs.  When you have that, you lose innovation in lieu of sales and propaganda.  Team Meat, for example, was a team of two people.  They were quoted as saying that Call of Duty and Halo were shitty games.  Then, they came out with an action platformer which nailed one of the highest Metacritic scores in recent years and is one of the top selling indie games, ever.

    But to make the game, they had to sacrifice a lot.  It took them years, and they had to program and test day and night.  One guy's wife complained that she never saw anything but the back of his chair, even though he programmed the game with her in the same room.

    If you want a painting on your wall to just EXIST, buying one from Big Lots is fine, but if you need a painting to be AMAZING, you might want to start buying from actual artists.  If games are ever to become art, we need to stop supporting the large mass-producing companies as much, and start buying from smaller starving artists.

    Don't get me wrong.  Tastes will vary, but by and large, these mass-produced games are lacking in imagination.

    Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Yeah ghettoed off small team vs small team matches in a box.

    Doesnt belong in a mmo, what's the point you have moba for that.
  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Also didn't know team meat hated cod and halo, something else I agree with them on then, I hate consoley shooters.
  • SaintPhilipSaintPhilip Bree, MIPosts: 713Member
    Originally posted by Souldrainer
    Originally posted by Vardahoth
    Originally posted by mikecackle

    Good responses, but ShakyMo.. What is tupperware pvp? :D

     

    I would use the term instanced pvp. I remember Lineage 2 (2003 - 2006) and being involved in clan wars. Deaths meant losing exp (and gear if you were red from pking an unflagged player) which gave the wars meaning. It forced you as a player to be a part of a group in order to survive in the world of players. There were no instances in this game and it was completely community driven. There were sieges, open raid bosses with 8hr - 1week respawn times (depending on the type of raid boss it was). openworld dungeons usually took a party to help the player get down to the spot to exp at and it took about 20-40 mins to get there. There was plenty of crafting, buying and selling from player shops, and other things to do. There was over 40 classes and you chose your roll in the game and the type of people you wanted to play with. It also wasn't faction based. Clans formed their own alliances to control exp spots and castles to put tax rates on npc's in towns. I really miss those times.

    The example you cite here is lame and unimaginative.  Negative reinforcement doesn't force people to group.  It forces people to not play the game, at all.

    Big companies aren't very imaginative though.  Therein lies the problem.  Most MMOs are huge, big-budget affairs.  When you have that, you lose innovation in lieu of sales and propaganda.  Team Meat, for example, was a team of two people.  They were quoted as saying that Call of Duty and Halo were shitty games.  Then, they came out with an action platformer which nailed one of the highest Metacritic scores in recent years and is one of the top selling indie games, ever.

    But to make the game, they had to sacrifice a lot.  It took them years, and they had to program and test day and night.  One guy's wife complained that she never saw anything but the back of his chair, even though he programmed the game with her in the same room.

    If you want a painting on your wall to just EXIST, buying one from Big Lots is fine, but if you need a painting to be AMAZING, you might want to start buying from actual artists.  If games are ever to become art, we need to stop supporting the large mass-producing companies as much, and start buying from smaller starving artists.

    Don't get me wrong.  Tastes will vary, but by and large, these mass-produced games are lacking in imagination.

    Damn brother- very well said. Truley a superb reponse.

  • ZylaxxZylaxx Erlanger, KYPosts: 2,574Member
    Originally posted by SaintPhilip
    Originally posted by Souldrainer
    Originally posted by Vardahoth
    Originally posted by mikecackle

    Good responses, but ShakyMo.. What is tupperware pvp? :D

     

    I would use the term instanced pvp. I remember Lineage 2 (2003 - 2006) and being involved in clan wars. Deaths meant losing exp (and gear if you were red from pking an unflagged player) which gave the wars meaning. It forced you as a player to be a part of a group in order to survive in the world of players. There were no instances in this game and it was completely community driven. There were sieges, open raid bosses with 8hr - 1week respawn times (depending on the type of raid boss it was). openworld dungeons usually took a party to help the player get down to the spot to exp at and it took about 20-40 mins to get there. There was plenty of crafting, buying and selling from player shops, and other things to do. There was over 40 classes and you chose your roll in the game and the type of people you wanted to play with. It also wasn't faction based. Clans formed their own alliances to control exp spots and castles to put tax rates on npc's in towns. I really miss those times.

    The example you cite here is lame and unimaginative.  Negative reinforcement doesn't force people to group.  It forces people to not play the game, at all.

    Big companies aren't very imaginative though.  Therein lies the problem.  Most MMOs are huge, big-budget affairs.  When you have that, you lose innovation in lieu of sales and propaganda.  Team Meat, for example, was a team of two people.  They were quoted as saying that Call of Duty and Halo were shitty games.  Then, they came out with an action platformer which nailed one of the highest Metacritic scores in recent years and is one of the top selling indie games, ever.

    But to make the game, they had to sacrifice a lot.  It took them years, and they had to program and test day and night.  One guy's wife complained that she never saw anything but the back of his chair, even though he programmed the game with her in the same room.

    If you want a painting on your wall to just EXIST, buying one from Big Lots is fine, but if you need a painting to be AMAZING, you might want to start buying from actual artists.  If games are ever to become art, we need to stop supporting the large mass-producing companies as much, and start buying from smaller starving artists.

    Don't get me wrong.  Tastes will vary, but by and large, these mass-produced games are lacking in imagination.

    Damn brother- very well said. Truley a superb reponse.

    Disagree because 99% of all innovation come from the big boys and not from starving artists.

     

    Name me one successful indie MMO?  NONE, cause they are all F2P crap, only the good stuff comes from well named studios.

    Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online

    Playing: GW2
    Waiting on: TESO
    Next Flop: Planetside 2
    Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.

    image

  • SaintPhilipSaintPhilip Bree, MIPosts: 713Member
    Originally posted by Zylaxx
    Originally posted by SaintPhilip
    Originally posted by Souldrainer
    Originally posted by Vardahoth
    Originally posted by mikecackle

    Good responses, but ShakyMo.. What is tupperware pvp? :D

     

    I would use the term instanced pvp. I remember Lineage 2 (2003 - 2006) and being involved in clan wars. Deaths meant losing exp (and gear if you were red from pking an unflagged player) which gave the wars meaning. It forced you as a player to be a part of a group in order to survive in the world of players. There were no instances in this game and it was completely community driven. There were sieges, open raid bosses with 8hr - 1week respawn times (depending on the type of raid boss it was). openworld dungeons usually took a party to help the player get down to the spot to exp at and it took about 20-40 mins to get there. There was plenty of crafting, buying and selling from player shops, and other things to do. There was over 40 classes and you chose your roll in the game and the type of people you wanted to play with. It also wasn't faction based. Clans formed their own alliances to control exp spots and castles to put tax rates on npc's in towns. I really miss those times.

    The example you cite here is lame and unimaginative.  Negative reinforcement doesn't force people to group.  It forces people to not play the game, at all.

    Big companies aren't very imaginative though.  Therein lies the problem.  Most MMOs are huge, big-budget affairs.  When you have that, you lose innovation in lieu of sales and propaganda.  Team Meat, for example, was a team of two people.  They were quoted as saying that Call of Duty and Halo were shitty games.  Then, they came out with an action platformer which nailed one of the highest Metacritic scores in recent years and is one of the top selling indie games, ever.

    But to make the game, they had to sacrifice a lot.  It took them years, and they had to program and test day and night.  One guy's wife complained that she never saw anything but the back of his chair, even though he programmed the game with her in the same room.

    If you want a painting on your wall to just EXIST, buying one from Big Lots is fine, but if you need a painting to be AMAZING, you might want to start buying from actual artists.  If games are ever to become art, we need to stop supporting the large mass-producing companies as much, and start buying from smaller starving artists.

    Don't get me wrong.  Tastes will vary, but by and large, these mass-produced games are lacking in imagination.

    Damn brother- very well said. Truley a superb reponse.

    Disagree because 99% of all innovation come from the big boys and not from starving artists.

     

    Name me one successful indie MMO?  NONE, cause they are all F2P crap, only the good stuff comes from well named studios.

    -All the real innovation has totally been indie/garage based. I will provide a link to a book called the complete history of video games and also another book (have to look up the title)-  I will update this post later with links (have to actually move and fire up the Kindle to see the actual titles/authors)

    -Right now I would agree that most indie (MMORPGs) are terrible in terms od development, innovation and quality- But that is a direct effect of an oversaturated market and WILL likely change- Look at Minecraft for instance, not an MMO exactly but very much an innovative game.

    EDIT- We also cannot confuse success and innovation/quality. These are two seperate entities... For instance,look at the most succesful; "Artists" in Music Today...Nuff said =P

  • Ambros123Ambros123 Neverneverland, TNPosts: 877Member

    Developers did absolutely not take MMOs in the wrong direction, it's the trend in the populace that did, companies followed what they beleived the consumers wanted.  Companies follow what the trend is and what people want.  Those who bitch that MMOs are not what they used to be compared to the "good old days" are the minority.  And these minority are not what the direction MMOs will take, they might find their home in a nitche MMO but by no means the majority.  The demographics of the MMO consumer has changed dramatically compared to the "good old day" and more and more you have your avg consumer playing an MMO.

    Also all games makes the player a "superhero" as that goes hand in hand with an engaging story.  You will not find an engaging story with "average Joe."

    People always reminicent in the "good old days" which are always viewed in biased glasses and will "forget" all the negatives those days had.

     

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member

    Yes, Yes and Yes. MMORPGs were always created by dedicated developers who were fans of MMORPGs for fans of MMORPGs and back in those days MMORPGs was about virtual worlds.

    Then WoW came with its solo-questing leveling, general casual gameplay with no death penalties, instancing, PvP battlegrounds and what not and just ruined everything. WoW was altogether a bad thing for MMORPGs as it transformed it from virtual worlds to virtual themeparks.

    Now finally the market seem to be getting saturated with these throw-away ThemeParks, with GW 2 hopefully being the last, and maybe we can see some forward movement in this stale genre.

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by SaintPhilip
    Originally posted by Zylaxx
    Originally posted by SaintPhilip
    Originally posted by Souldrainer
    Originally posted by Vardahoth
    Originally posted by mikecackle

    Good responses, but ShakyMo.. What is tupperware pvp? :D

     

    I would use the term instanced pvp. I remember Lineage 2 (2003 - 2006) and being involved in clan wars. Deaths meant losing exp (and gear if you were red from pking an unflagged player) which gave the wars meaning. It forced you as a player to be a part of a group in order to survive in the world of players. There were no instances in this game and it was completely community driven. There were sieges, open raid bosses with 8hr - 1week respawn times (depending on the type of raid boss it was). openworld dungeons usually took a party to help the player get down to the spot to exp at and it took about 20-40 mins to get there. There was plenty of crafting, buying and selling from player shops, and other things to do. There was over 40 classes and you chose your roll in the game and the type of people you wanted to play with. It also wasn't faction based. Clans formed their own alliances to control exp spots and castles to put tax rates on npc's in towns. I really miss those times.

    The example you cite here is lame and unimaginative.  Negative reinforcement doesn't force people to group.  It forces people to not play the game, at all.

    Big companies aren't very imaginative though.  Therein lies the problem.  Most MMOs are huge, big-budget affairs.  When you have that, you lose innovation in lieu of sales and propaganda.  Team Meat, for example, was a team of two people.  They were quoted as saying that Call of Duty and Halo were shitty games.  Then, they came out with an action platformer which nailed one of the highest Metacritic scores in recent years and is one of the top selling indie games, ever.

    But to make the game, they had to sacrifice a lot.  It took them years, and they had to program and test day and night.  One guy's wife complained that she never saw anything but the back of his chair, even though he programmed the game with her in the same room.

    If you want a painting on your wall to just EXIST, buying one from Big Lots is fine, but if you need a painting to be AMAZING, you might want to start buying from actual artists.  If games are ever to become art, we need to stop supporting the large mass-producing companies as much, and start buying from smaller starving artists.

    Don't get me wrong.  Tastes will vary, but by and large, these mass-produced games are lacking in imagination.

    Damn brother- very well said. Truley a superb reponse.

    Disagree because 99% of all innovation come from the big boys and not from starving artists.

     

    Name me one successful indie MMO?  NONE, cause they are all F2P crap, only the good stuff comes from well named studios.

    -All the real innovation has totally been indie/garage based. I will provide a link to a book called the complete history of video games and also another book (have to look up the title)-  I will update this post later with links (have to actually move and fire up the Kindle to see the actual titles/authors)

    -Right now I would agree that most indie (MMORPGs) are terrible in terms od development, innovation and quality- But that is a direct effect of an oversaturated market and WILL likely change- Look at Minecraft for instance, not an MMO exactly but very much an innovative game.

    EDIT- We also cannot confuse success and innovation/quality. These are two seperate entities... For instance,look at the most succesful; "Artists" in Music Today...Nuff said =P

    Invalid comparison, games should be compared to movies rather than art because both movies and games require a lot of money to create and need skilled people. Art is something abstract and all you need it some paint and colors, rest comes from talent. Game development is not like that. You need artists yes but you also need UI experts, developers, testers, managers and producers to fund all that.

    The only indy MMO which is successful is Eve. All others are mediocre at best and if you compare a game like GW 2 to Darkfall you will see the huge difference in quality from everything ranging from UI to sound. You NEED money to develop a commercial MMO, it is not an option. It is not enough to have money, but that is another question entirely.

  • ThaneThane berlinPosts: 2,232Member Uncommon

    main problem, "modern day gamers" want the perfect game, giving everything from sandbox to guided questing, open world pvp and the abillity to quest in peace whenever they want.... and they want it for free.

    they want to be the cool minority not playing the "big games" (like wow, who actually offers quite the storry for your chars, if you cba to actually read), but on the other hand they want players online on every time with short queues and instant invites to their beloved dungeons.

     

     

    mmos entered the spotlight some time ago, obviously the devs go for the mechanics that are likely to make money. shocking news, people dont work for free.. including devs.

     

     

    imo there are alot of good mmos out there. you just need to know what you want. if you do not know what you want, you will keep posting about "good ol days", only remembering a half blurred version of the max 2k players online servers imo.

     

     

    just to mention a few examples

     

    you want pve? play wow, rift, gw2, tor, TSW, ...

    you want pvp? play planetside, gw2, APB, .... (or actually. just play shooters....)

    you want a cheater free world? play on deticated server. with 10 players online who can be controlled (yes, there will always be cheaters)

     

     

     

     

    YOUR perfect game, fitting YOU 120% will not be released, unless you develop it, but then again... it will only fit you 120% and not automatically the rest of the world :)

     

     

     

     

     

    for real, "back in the good old times", we actually just wanted to play games. we didnt care if they were perfect. that'S why we like em so much :)

    "I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Zylax
    Successful indie mmos.
    Uo - ea bought them later
    Daoc - ea bought them later
    EQ - Sony bought them later
    Eve - still is
    Wow - blizzard were independent at the time.
  • SomeOldBlokeSomeOldBloke Lancaster, UKPosts: 2,141Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Zylax
    Successful indie mmos.
    Uo - ea bought them later
    Daoc - ea bought them later
    EQ - Sony bought them later
    Eve - still is
    Wow - blizzard were independent at the time.

    These developers released MMOs when the the marketplace was different... where's yout list of inde mmo's released in the last 2 years.

    I agree with whoever said that inovation comes from inde developers but their lack of fund means a great idea goes nowhere. AAAs just look at $$$ in profit, which is reasonable as they are a business.

  • xAPOCxxAPOCx Vineland, NJPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Zylax
    Successful indie mmos.
    Uo - ea bought them later
    Daoc - ea bought them later
    EQ - Sony bought them later
    Eve - still is
    Wow - blizzard were independent at the time.


    image

  • VardahothVardahoth Temecula, CAPosts: 389Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Souldrainer
    Originally posted by Vardahoth
    Originally posted by mikecackle

    Good responses, but ShakyMo.. What is tupperware pvp? :D

     

    I would use the term instanced pvp. I remember Lineage 2 (2003 - 2006) and being involved in clan wars. Deaths meant losing exp (and gear if you were red from pking an unflagged player) which gave the wars meaning. It forced you as a player to be a part of a group in order to survive in the world of players. There were no instances in this game and it was completely community driven. There were sieges, open raid bosses with 8hr - 1week respawn times (depending on the type of raid boss it was). openworld dungeons usually took a party to help the player get down to the spot to exp at and it took about 20-40 mins to get there. There was plenty of crafting, buying and selling from player shops, and other things to do. There was over 40 classes and you chose your roll in the game and the type of people you wanted to play with. It also wasn't faction based. Clans formed their own alliances to control exp spots and castles to put tax rates on npc's in towns. I really miss those times.

    The example you cite here is lame and unimaginative.  Negative reinforcement doesn't force people to group.  It forces people to not play the game, at all.

    Big companies aren't very imaginative though.  Therein lies the problem.  Most MMOs are huge, big-budget affairs.  When you have that, you lose innovation in lieu of sales and propaganda.  Team Meat, for example, was a team of two people.  They were quoted as saying that Call of Duty and Halo were shitty games.  Then, they came out with an action platformer which nailed one of the highest Metacritic scores in recent years and is one of the top selling indie games, ever.

    But to make the game, they had to sacrifice a lot.  It took them years, and they had to program and test day and night.  One guy's wife complained that she never saw anything but the back of his chair, even though he programmed the game with her in the same room.

    If you want a painting on your wall to just EXIST, buying one from Big Lots is fine, but if you need a painting to be AMAZING, you might want to start buying from actual artists.  If games are ever to become art, we need to stop supporting the large mass-producing companies as much, and start buying from smaller starving artists.

    Don't get me wrong.  Tastes will vary, but by and large, these mass-produced games are lacking in imagination.

    Your 1st paragraph - This is not negative re-enforcement. Negative re-inforcement is something like darkfall where you pk someone and gain all their loot. Negative re-enforcement refers to being rewarded for doing something bad. In lineage 2 it had a flagging system. Allow me to explain:

    White - you are not flagged for pvp and if you get killed by a player, you loose exp (but not items/gear), but they turn red and gain karma. The only way for that player to work off the karma to become white again is:

             #1 You kill monsters for a long period of time to gain exp until you get enough to work your karma off to become white again

              #2 You die and loose a good chunk of karma. If you die while red you loose exp and have a chance to drop 1/5 gear/items.

    The flip side is if you hit or kill a red character, you do not flag for pvp at all. That player is red because they pk'd a white character and you are showing justice for it (not negative re-enforcement). Because of your justice you have a chance of getting a nice shiney.

    If however you died to a monster, you have a chance of dropping 1/5 items/gear and lose exp (This made players not rush and be stupid when going up against monsters).

     

    Purple - You are flagged for pvp. This is done because you either hit a white or purple character. If you kill a white character you go from purple to red (or if you 1shot a white character you skip purple and go straight to red). If you kill a purple character you stay purple instead of going red. In order to go back to white from purple you cannot hit/kill any white/purple players for 5 minutes. After 5 minutes your name would flash white/purple for 10 seconds and then go white.

     

    Red - You are red because you pk'd a white character. The more white characters you pk, the more karma you get and the longer it will take to work it off. You also get something called pk counts. The more pk counts you get, the higher chance you have of dropping gear and more 1-5 items/gear. The only way to reduce the pk count is by doing sin eater quests. This requires you gathering mats, leveling a pet (which takes all of your exp) 1 level up and turning it in. The pk counts it would take off after you turn it in would be between 1-10. If you tried to enter a town while red, the town guards would attack you.

    So as you can see this is not negative re-enforcement. During seiges (lasts 2 hours once every 2 weeks), the field surrounding the castle and the castle itself was a siege zone and you could pk anyone in there and not lose any exp/items/gear. There was also no flagging.

    Clan wars - If you pk'd a clan member that you are declared war against (and they have to be declaired back on you), you only go purple not red (and they only lose 1/4 exp, and lose no items/gear). If you pk a clan who you declaire on (and they wont declaire back), you go red and it acts like a regular pk, and it works vice versa. Clan wars existed as long as the clan leaders allowed them too.

     

    Your Second Paragraph - I agree with this. This goes along with a previous post I made about how companies need to focus on creating mmorpg's with diversity. Not 1 game will fill the wants of all the players (especially since the wants of these players cannot co-exist with eachother). For example:

              #1 Some players like to level by grinding (given a chance to party up with other players, get to know their characters, and hang out with other players), others like to level by questing.

              #2 Some players prefer completely open-world pvp game so people can be held accountable for their actions, other players want instances to hide in after being griefers.

    The list can go on and on, but you get the picture.

     

    Your Third Paragraph - All companies make sacrafices. Darkfall was working on their game for 10 years before they ran out of the budget and decided to release an unfinished game. I'm sure Gravity, EQ, NCSoft made their sacrifices too. As a gamer and a consumer I care about the quality of the game and not so much what the company/developers sacraficed to make it. If they did a good job they will be well-rewarded, if they did a poor job then they will not see the fruits of their labor. This has been the law of working for many years.

     

    Your Fourth Paragraph - Completely an ad-hominem arguement which makes it false. When I play a game I care about the mechanics of the game and not how much eye-candy it is (this is why I'm playing the new ffiv right now and ffx afterwords on the nintendo ds). For an mmorpg, I care about allowing myself to choose my friends/enemies and the type of player and character I want to be. I don't want to be stuck with 1 faction and be forced to be on the same side as a bunch of morons. This has nothing to do with paintings. Paintings and video games are completely different. one you stare at and go "ooooo awwww", the other you are actively interacting with and manipulating.

     

    I will agree with your last sentence that imagination is lacking. That is pretty much it.

    I Quit.

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/436845/page/1

    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2316034
    .............
    Retired Gamer: all MMORPG's have been destroyed by big business, marketing of false promises, unprofessional game makers, and a generation of "I WIN and GIVE ME NOW".

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,678Member Uncommon

    Developers listened to gamers and made the games based on their feedback. Whether they did that because they are diehard gamers making games for fellow gamers or they are lazy, greedy monsters is immaterial. They made games that most people want to play. How could that be the wrong direction?

    Few here would realize there have been many MMOs that have gone in the right direction because of their hypocritical stance of wanting innovation and fresh ideas but rejecting anything that falls outside of their personal definition of what an MMO 'should be'.

    • Lineage 2
    • Maple Story
    • Travian
    • Habbo Hotel
    • Club Penguin
    • DOFUS
    • Flyff
    • A Tale in the Desert
    • ACE Online
    • Wizard 101
    • Vindictus
    • Mabinogi
    • Free Realms
    • Ikariam/Evony/Grepolis/etc
    • Perfect World International
    • Atlantica Online
    • Clone Wars Adventures
    • Hello Kitty Online
    • Marvel Super Hero Squad
    • Eden Eternal
    • Dragonica

    How many of those are considered 'the right direction' by people here?

    • "that's just a korean grinder"
    • "those are kids games"
    • "that's not a real MMO"

    If anything, the right direction seems to be to designing an MMO for the people that don't have a preconcieved notion of what an MMO should be and are just looking for a massively multiplayer online game. Maybe that's why there are a lot of games there that cater to parents and kids. They judge the game on the entertainment and fun it delivers. They approach each game for what it is, not for what category it fits in.

    I don't think there will ever be an MMO in 'the right direction' for most of the gamers that would specifically identify with being an MMORPGer. In the past few years a lot of devs have realized that, which is why we don't have many traditional MMORPGs in development right now. There's simply too much baggage that goes with it.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • f0dell54f0dell54 Des Moines, IAPosts: 329Member Common
    Originally posted by Zylaxx
    Originally posted by SaintPhilip
    Originally posted by Souldrainer
    Originally posted by Vardahoth
    Originally posted by mikecackle

    Good responses, but ShakyMo.. What is tupperware pvp? :D

     

    I would use the term instanced pvp. I remember Lineage 2 (2003 - 2006) and being involved in clan wars. Deaths meant losing exp (and gear if you were red from pking an unflagged player) which gave the wars meaning. It forced you as a player to be a part of a group in order to survive in the world of players. There were no instances in this game and it was completely community driven. There were sieges, open raid bosses with 8hr - 1week respawn times (depending on the type of raid boss it was). openworld dungeons usually took a party to help the player get down to the spot to exp at and it took about 20-40 mins to get there. There was plenty of crafting, buying and selling from player shops, and other things to do. There was over 40 classes and you chose your roll in the game and the type of people you wanted to play with. It also wasn't faction based. Clans formed their own alliances to control exp spots and castles to put tax rates on npc's in towns. I really miss those times.

    The example you cite here is lame and unimaginative.  Negative reinforcement doesn't force people to group.  It forces people to not play the game, at all.

    Big companies aren't very imaginative though.  Therein lies the problem.  Most MMOs are huge, big-budget affairs.  When you have that, you lose innovation in lieu of sales and propaganda.  Team Meat, for example, was a team of two people.  They were quoted as saying that Call of Duty and Halo were shitty games.  Then, they came out with an action platformer which nailed one of the highest Metacritic scores in recent years and is one of the top selling indie games, ever.

    But to make the game, they had to sacrifice a lot.  It took them years, and they had to program and test day and night.  One guy's wife complained that she never saw anything but the back of his chair, even though he programmed the game with her in the same room.

    If you want a painting on your wall to just EXIST, buying one from Big Lots is fine, but if you need a painting to be AMAZING, you might want to start buying from actual artists.  If games are ever to become art, we need to stop supporting the large mass-producing companies as much, and start buying from smaller starving artists.

    Don't get me wrong.  Tastes will vary, but by and large, these mass-produced games are lacking in imagination.

    Damn brother- very well said. Truley a superb reponse.

    Disagree because 99% of all innovation come from the big boys and not from starving artists.

     

    Name me one successful indie MMO?  NONE, cause they are all F2P crap, only the good stuff comes from well named studios.

     

    Eve Online

     

    A indie company can make a good game just as good as any AAA company as long as they have a devoted player base.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,678Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by mbd1968

    I agree with whoever said that inovation comes from inde developers but their lack of fund means a great idea goes nowhere. AAAs just look at $$$ in profit, which is reasonable as they are a business.

    A great idea is often indistinguishable from a completely atrocious idea until it is actually functioning in its designated environment, surrounded by every other mechanic and ruleset that will affect it.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,678Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Zylaxx

    Name me one successful indie MMO?  NONE, cause they are all F2P crap, only the good stuff comes from well named studios.

    • Puzzle Pirates
    • EVE Online
    • Wizard 101
    • A Tale in the Desert
    • Saga

    Now, I am fully aware that you won't consider those successful, but that's fine. It's further reinforcement of my earlier post.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • negativf4kknegativf4kk WorthingPosts: 377Member Uncommon
    Its not devs it players who took mmo in a wrong direction. Look at old days, your charecter meant something to you. You cared about its reputation its development. You played by the rules of the game. Now most players dont gove a sh*t about their charecter, they use cheats, buy gold etc. Charecter means nothing in modern MMO u can always start from scrach and get to top end fairly quickly.

    <a href="http://www.danasoft.com"><img src="http://www.danasoft.com/sig/499105419258.jpg"; border="0"></a><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:11px;"><p>Sign by Danasoft - <a href="http://www.danasoft.com">For Backgrounds and Layouts</a></p></div>

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Austin, TXPosts: 1,419Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Zylax
    Successful indie mmos.
    Uo - ea bought them later
    Daoc - ea bought them later
    EQ - Sony bought them later
    Eve - still is
    Wow - blizzard were independent at the time.

    According to this list, 'Independant' seems to mean, 'Not the largest game company in existance at the time'.  

     

    Most of those games were developed by major gaming companies 'at the time'.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • PapadamPapadam Tampa bay, FLPosts: 2,102Member
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Zylax
    Successful indie mmos.
    Uo - ea bought them later
    Daoc - ea bought them later
    EQ - Sony bought them later
    Eve - still is
    Wow - blizzard were independent at the time.

    Blizzard wasnt independent at the time. Became a part of Vivendi in 1998.

    LotrO is a better example of an indie MMO :)

    If WoW = The Beatles
    and WAR = Led Zeppelin
    Then LotrO = Pink Floyd

«13456
Sign In or Register to comment.