Originally posted by ShakyMo But when they are lobby games
They aren't MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER online role playing games anymore.
They are ODGs. (online dungeon grinders)
That is just semantics. I don't really care what you call them.
This, and other gaming site (like massively) is calling WOW, DCUO, DDO, ... MMOs .. so i will use that label for convenience. When you convince the gaming public that TOR and WOW should be called ODGs, i will use that label.
Originally posted by Axxar I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.
Which, from my perspective, is 100x better than worldly at the expense of the game part.
Exactly so. These are games first, everything else, be it an MMO, FPS, RTS, platformer, etc. a distant second. If it's not fun, if it doesn't draw you in and make you want to play, then everything else is irrelevant.
Yeah ..
And no design feature should be sacred. Look at the big successes. In the past, Diablo became a big success because it did away with all the story in RPGs, and focus on combat.
Recently, LOL and WOT are successes because it focuses on instanced PvP combat, and don't even bother with a world.
For people who claim they want innovation, it is sad to see they are clinging to old ideas done back in UO, EQ and DAOC.
The problem is not with the phrase "they should be a game first", but with your understanding of the word game and fun, which seems to me quite narrow.
What you are essentially arguing is that the quality of the slot machine is the most important asset and things like actually winning money , the lights, free drinks and overall atmosphere of the casino are irrelevant.
Which they arent, otherwise most of us would have their slot machine at home (if you dont argue that i am writing this on one ) and casinos would run out of business.
The end result is always a combination of factors, even in diablo we have atmosphere, story (... vision milky then eyes rot ...), skill, stat and item metagames which complement and not disrupt each other, which in my opinion is the most important factor.
Originally posted by Axxar I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.
Which, from my perspective, is 100x better than worldly at the expense of the game part.
Exactly so. These are games first, everything else, be it an MMO, FPS, RTS, platformer, etc. a distant second. If it's not fun, if it doesn't draw you in and make you want to play, then everything else is irrelevant.
Yeah ..
And no design feature should be sacred. Look at the big successes. In the past, Diablo became a big success because it did away with all the story in RPGs, and focus on combat.
Recently, LOL and WOT are successes because it focuses on instanced PvP combat, and don't even bother with a world.
For people who claim they want innovation, it is sad to see they are clinging to old ideas done back in UO, EQ and DAOC.
The problem is not with the phrase "they should be a game first", but with your understanding of the word game and fun, which seems to me quite narrow.
What you are essentially arguing is that the quality of the slot machine is the most important asset and things like actually winning money , the lights, free drinks and overall atmosphere of the casino are irrelevant.
Which they arent, otherwise most of us would have their slot machine at home (if you dont argue that i am writing this on one ) and casinos would run out of business.
The end result is always a combination of factors, even in diablo we have atmosphere, story (... vision milky then eyes rot ...), skill, stat and item metagames which complement and not disrupt each other, which in my opinion is the most important factor.
Flame on!
What narrow? In fact, i think my view is more open .. nothing is sacred .. and all possibility (say without a world) should be considered.
What i am arguing is that if certain features (like i am forced to spend 20 min traveling before fighting in a dungeon) do not add fun to me, then i do not want it in my game. It is a feature by feature determination.
No one says atmosphere and story are not important. But i do enjoy the combat and progression first and foremost.
And why do you think i play MMOs and put up with some of the slower aspect of it? That is because i took the whole picture into account. I can't completely get rid of walking if i like the wow classes, right?
Originally posted by Axxar I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.
Which, from my perspective, is 100x better than worldly at the expense of the game part.
Exactly so. These are games first, everything else, be it an MMO, FPS, RTS, platformer, etc. a distant second. If it's not fun, if it doesn't draw you in and make you want to play, then everything else is irrelevant.
That is where some of us differs from the rest. There are tons of games out there and you, and I, can play those. MMORPGs were supposed to be beyond that so that they are no longer just games but virtual worlds first. And evolution of gaming so to speak.
But like I said, there is no reason why you cant have both games and virtual worlds. Me personally have been playing games for over 25 years and I want something different, as well. I want games to evolve.
GW2 is closer to the world feeling but i feel its not quite there. the capital cities are by far the best thing in the game to that extent. So full of life and flavor.
So full of life? Are you joking?
Give me a game like SWG where at least I could find other players in a tavern, where they had an actual reason for existing, instead of just wandering into one once to pick up the "point of interest" then never visit it again. Perhaps having a tavern as an actual gathering place for players. Instead of spamming zone chat in a city where everyone's standing on top of the bank or something.... That's not what I would consider full of life. Just useless clutter.
Originally posted by Axxar I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.
Which, from my perspective, is 100x better than worldly at the expense of the game part.
Exactly so. These are games first, everything else, be it an MMO, FPS, RTS, platformer, etc. a distant second. If it's not fun, if it doesn't draw you in and make you want to play, then everything else is irrelevant.
That is where some of us differs from the rest. There are tons of games out there and you, and I, can play those. MMORPGs were supposed to be beyond that so that they are no longer just games but virtual worlds first. And evolution of gaming so to speak.
But like I said, there is no reason why you cant have both games and virtual worlds. Me personally have been playing games for over 25 years and I want something different, as well. I want games to evolve.
Why should MMORPG to be "beyond" that .. just because they have worlds? Skyrim has a world too .. and it is jsut a RPG. MMORPGs are entertainment product. I judge them as such and compete with other forms of entertainment. No more and no less.
Originally posted by Axxar I do want a game. But for MMOs I also want a world. Too many MMOs are gamey at the expense of the world part.
Which, from my perspective, is 100x better than worldly at the expense of the game part.
Exactly so. These are games first, everything else, be it an MMO, FPS, RTS, platformer, etc. a distant second. If it's not fun, if it doesn't draw you in and make you want to play, then everything else is irrelevant.
That is where some of us differs from the rest. There are tons of games out there and you, and I, can play those. MMORPGs were supposed to be beyond that so that they are no longer just games but virtual worlds first. And evolution of gaming so to speak.
But like I said, there is no reason why you cant have both games and virtual worlds. Me personally have been playing games for over 25 years and I want something different, as well. I want games to evolve.
Why should MMORPG to be "beyond" that .. just because they have worlds? Skyrim has a world too .. and it is jsut a RPG. MMORPGs are entertainment product. I judge them as such and compete with other forms of entertainment. No more and no less.
No I am basing my view on UO and how Richard Garriot and his team tried to create a game where you was one in a persistant virtual world of thousands of others and not the central hero as in other games.
And yes they are still entertainment but taking it to the other level. Games where you are the central hero has existed for decades in a million of forms. MMORPGs, or rather UO and a handful of other MMORPGs, tried to take it to the next level.
Less or more entertaining? That is entirely subjective, some people simply dont want to live in a virtual world and be "just" uncle owen (or Luke if he is good enough) but some people do. Problem is that now the genre has been flooded with MMORPGS which play more or less like a single player game with the only difference being is that you play on a central server. That is not what MMORPGs were about. Not in my opinion anyway.
UO and a handful of other MMORPGs, tried to take it to the next level.
There is no "other level", "higher level", "next level" or anything like that. There is no spoon!
What a terribly limited understanding you have on how everything works. There's always the next level with anything. Just because you cannot see it or do not want to see it, doesn't change this reality.
You and Matt Firor should do tea sometime. Now that would be an exciting conversation
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
No I am basing my view on UO and how Richard Garriot and his team tried to create a game where you was one in a persistant virtual world of thousands of others and not the central hero as in other games.
And yes they are still entertainment but taking it to the other level. Games where you are the central hero has existed for decades in a million of forms. MMORPGs, or rather UO and a handful of other MMORPGs, tried to take it to the next level.
Less or more entertaining? That is entirely subjective, some people simply dont want to live in a virtual world and be "just" uncle owen (or Luke if he is good enough) but some people do. Problem is that now the genre has been flooded with MMORPGS which play more or less like a single player game with the only difference being is that you play on a central server. That is not what MMORPGs were about. Not in my opinion anyway.
You are totally right on that fact that entertaining is totally subjective. Dishonored .. a level base stealth game is 100x more fun to me than UO & EQ combined. I doubt i would ever choose a vritual world game over it, or diablo 3, or borderlands 2, or Deus Ex.
Now the phenomenon of MMO being flooded with lobby based games (like be fair, wow is not like a SP game, it is more like Diablo with slower but co-op combat) is totally driven by the market. What a genre is about often changes. This is one of those. If you want to call the new crop of MMOs a new name, that is ok too but i doubt if the old style one virtual world type MMO will ever be popular again.
That is where some of us differs from the rest. There are tons of games out there and you, and I, can play those. MMORPGs were supposed to be beyond that so that they are no longer just games but virtual worlds first. And evolution of gaming so to speak.
But like I said, there is no reason why you cant have both games and virtual worlds. Me personally have been playing games for over 25 years and I want something different, as well. I want games to evolve.
I don't buy for a second that MMOs were "supposed to be" anything. They're not magical. They're not special. They're just games. This whole thing reminds me of the geeks who wanted to put on VR goggles (or plug their brains into a computer) and never have to come out to deal with the real world again. That is beyond immature and ridiculous. Live in the real world.
And while no, there is no reason why you can't have both, a game exists, like any other product, based on it's ability to make money for the manufacturer. If you want there to be virtual worlds, you need to demonstrate that there is a significant market for such a product, who would pay for, not only the initial box sales but the long-term monthly fees. Developers, though, have not been convinced that such is the case or they'd already be making such things. Until they are convinced, and that takes hundreds of thousands of people demanding that kind of game specifically, you're just not going to see them, nor should you.
Games take money to make and must make money to continue to be made. That's how capitalism works.
You are totally right on that fact that entertaining is totally subjective. Dishonored .. a level base stealth game is 100x more fun to me than UO & EQ combined. I doubt i would ever choose a vritual world game over it, or diablo 3, or borderlands 2, or Deus Ex.
Now the phenomenon of MMO being flooded with lobby based games (like be fair, wow is not like a SP game, it is more like Diablo with slower but co-op combat) is totally driven by the market. What a genre is about often changes. This is one of those. If you want to call the new crop of MMOs a new name, that is ok too but i doubt if the old style one virtual world type MMO will ever be popular again.
I agree with you. To be honest, if there was a never-ending supply of high-end, long-lasting single-player games out there, games like Skyrim or Fallout 3, I'd probably never install an MMO again. However, good SP games, like good MMOs seem to be few and far between and most SP games just don't last that long. In the past month alone, I've gone through and replayed a lot of them end to end, including Crysis, Bulletstorm and Black Mesa. That's three complete games, played by someone who has very little time to play, finished in less than 30 days. It's no wonder some of us have to jump on the MMO bandwagon just to have something to do between worthwhile SP games.
Now I'm trying to decide if I want to play through the Serious Sam trilogy again or maybe the single-player missions on one of the CoDs. Decisions, decisions...
You are totally right on that fact that entertaining is totally subjective. Dishonored .. a level base stealth game is 100x more fun to me than UO & EQ combined. I doubt i would ever choose a vritual world game over it, or diablo 3, or borderlands 2, or Deus Ex.
Now the phenomenon of MMO being flooded with lobby based games (like be fair, wow is not like a SP game, it is more like Diablo with slower but co-op combat) is totally driven by the market. What a genre is about often changes. This is one of those. If you want to call the new crop of MMOs a new name, that is ok too but i doubt if the old style one virtual world type MMO will ever be popular again.
I agree with you. To be honest, if there was a never-ending supply of high-end, long-lasting single-player games out there, games like Skyrim or Fallout 3, I'd probably never install an MMO again. However, good SP games, like good MMOs seem to be few and far between and most SP games just don't last that long. In the past month alone, I've gone through and replayed a lot of them end to end, including Crysis, Bulletstorm and Black Mesa. That's three complete games, played by someone who has very little time to play, finished in less than 30 days. It's no wonder some of us have to jump on the MMO bandwagon just to have something to do between worthwhile SP games.
Now I'm trying to decide if I want to play through the Serious Sam trilogy again or maybe the single-player missions on one of the CoDs. Decisions, decisions...
I would disagree on one point though. Long-lasting is not necessarily better.
I like Dishonored MUCH better than Skyrim because it does not drone on and on, and you get to see the ending (which is great) and now i can play more games.
Skyrim just took too long. The only type of games that i can play for long term (>3 months) is those where combat itself is fun enough that i don't mind a lot of repetition, and there is enough progression (like Diablo 3 or Borderlands). Skyrim's combat is pretty meh compared to those. Skyrim combat is not even as interesting as WOW, from my point of view.
Actually i think there are many good SP games, and i never have enough time to play them all .. just a few series that i like:
- Diablo, of course.
- Borderland (haven't finished 2 yet)
- Dishonored (very good new entry)
- Deus Ex
- COD
- Dead Space (amazing series)
- Spec Ops (way under-rated game)
- Bioshock (of course)
- Red Faction
.... and i haven't even listed the smaller games like TL2 or infinity blade.
I really enjoyed Skyrim. I didn't think the story or combat system were particularly great, and the characters you meet are very shallow. But the world they've scupted is fantastic, with great attention to detail. It was a joy to explore and behold.
What we need are more games like Atlantica Online , but without the need of putting a few thousand dollars in a cash shop to be able to enjoy the game pass level 90. Besides Fairy Land and Atlantica Online , I don't know of any games with a turn based fighting system like old school Final Fantasy games.
Originally posted by Axxar I really enjoyed Skyrim. I didn't think the story or combat system were particularly great, and the characters you meet are very shallow. But the world they've scupted is fantastic, with great attention to detail. It was a joy to explore and behold.
It was fun for me for a while .. but it got too repetitive and traveling became a chore. Thus, i never finish it.
I prefer games like Deus Ex or Dishonored where the core gameplay is fun, and interesting things happen all the time.
I think there is a bigger majority who like "games" such as halo, mario, etc because they don't really need to think. The story is thought out for them so they just do as they are told. When people play games they want to relax and I think thats why people prefer these types of games instead of open world.
I would disagree on one point though. Long-lasting is not necessarily better.
I like Dishonored MUCH better than Skyrim because it does not drone on and on, and you get to see the ending (which is great) and now i can play more games.
Skyrim just took too long. The only type of games that i can play for long term (>3 months) is those where combat itself is fun enough that i don't mind a lot of repetition, and there is enough progression (like Diablo 3 or Borderlands). Skyrim's combat is pretty meh compared to those. Skyrim combat is not even as interesting as WOW, from my point of view.
Actually i think there are many good SP games, and i never have enough time to play them all .. just a few series that i like:
- Diablo, of course.
- Borderland (haven't finished 2 yet)
- Dishonored (very good new entry)
- Deus Ex
- COD
- Dead Space (amazing series)
- Spec Ops (way under-rated game)
- Bioshock (of course)
- Red Faction
.... and i haven't even listed the smaller games like TL2 or infinity blade.
Gaming is pretty good.
I meant long lasting in the sense that there is enough to do in a particular game to warrant you wanting to stick around for the long-term. Long before MMOs came along, we had MUDs and similar games and there were some of those games that I stuck with for over a decade each. The longest that I remember, I played for 16 years. They had huge expansive stories, the people were great (something entirely lacking in modern MMOs), the combat was entertaining but it wasn't all that you did. Modern games really are combat-heavy, often to the point of having little outside of it. Most modern games have a very limited number of things that you can do and seriously, there are only so many monsters I can swing a sword at or aliens I can shoot a ray gun at before I get bored with it. Some of those games above are excellent, I will agree, but when you get to the end and then what? Wait for the next one? Go get another game? Learn a new set of controls? Lather, rinse, repeat?
I'd much rather have a game that is constantly evolving, constantly changing, that has a huge group of people you actually care about and want to be around (doesn't happen in modern MMOs, biggest problem), where every day you log on, something new and different is happening, there's something new to see and someone new worth meeting. That kind of thing doesn't exist in an MMO today, nor do I think it's ever likely to. That's what keeps us consuming single player games at high speed, I've played through the majority of games you've listed, at least to the extent that I never have to play with a bunch of foul-mouthed 10-year olds who want to pwn your ass and laugh at you, I'm still hungry for more.
Where Skyrim and Fallout 3 excelled is that they weren't just about combat, there were tons of things you could do, there were tons of places you could explore, you determined how well your character did by what skills you chose to develop, etc. I probably played Skyrim for 4-5 months, I beat every questline, I explored every dungeon, I saw every inch of the map and I wanted more. I don't get that feeling in most games. For most, once they're over, I move on and may come back to replay a year or two down the road. For both Skyrim and Fallout 3, I didn't want it to end, I spent weeks after finishing wanting to load it back up and spend more time in that world.
But those games are very few and very, very far between.
Originally posted by Axxar I really enjoyed Skyrim. I didn't think the story or combat system were particularly great, and the characters you meet are very shallow. But the world they've scupted is fantastic, with great attention to detail. It was a joy to explore and behold.
It was fun for me for a while .. but it got too repetitive and traveling became a chore. Thus, i never finish it.
I prefer games like Deus Ex or Dishonored where the core gameplay is fun, and interesting things happen all the time.
Seriously, how can travel in Skyrim be a chore when you can fast-travel to anyplace you've ever been? You have to go somewhere else, look at the map, pick the closest place you've ever been, teleport there and run for a minute or two. Once I've done some basic exploring of the world, I can get to any point on the map in no more than 60 seconds.
Aye, you know, i leave World of Warcraft due to boredom (recently due to server emptiness) and blizzard wont do anything because they have a £15 per character cost to move, multiply that by 10 characters and thats £150 to change server, way too much of a cost.
Anyways what gets me is everytime i hope something new has come out it turns out to be an utter load of cr@p, in fact i would not even wipe my own ass with it, good for 1-2 mths and then you dont wanna touch it again and warcraft is there, calling you back everytime.
Have all the developers stopped thinking thesedays as i really would have thought that the mmorpg era would have improved and not declined over the years. Maybe the PC is not dead, maybe its the crap that is constantly comming out to blame. If something good finally comes out it will topple the leading games and you dont have to spend millions on the game either, especially voive acting.
You dont have to have 20+ differant class's either, just the basic's each with a choice iof 2 routes to go, eg
Warrior - DpS (2 handed weapon only users), Tank (1 handed+ shield)
Mage - (Fire or Water)
Wizard - (Earthen or Storm) elementalist
Priest - (Healing or Battle)
Rogue - (Ranger or Stalker)
Here are some other idea's of possibly making a new game.
Graphics to run smooth and look nice. Also must be able to be updated as most games comming out soon look dated and old after a year or 2. Offputting straight away and many tend to not stick around.
Have it so that the mouse buttons use the item in the relevant hand (e.g right mouse = right hand, left mouse = left hand) though users can set this out. FFA meaning players can kill dfeta other players, once defeated they have a choice to kill them or let them live) letting them live only allows them to take 10-20% of gold that they are carrying (most will have it banked) and a chance for items to drop from their bags (not person) but it would also not cost as must in infamy in that region (when it gets high it starts to affect surrounding area's to that zone and can quickly spread) killing a player will allow all gold carried and a chance of items to drop from their body as well as being able to loot whats in their bags too, howevere this would have severe repurcusions and a huge infamy increase in that zone and surrounding zones too. Players takign this route should be warned that it will be extreamly long and costly to lose any infamy gained. Maybe only allow 1 character per server to stop players from having a gankjing character on said server (unless they maintain more than 1 account).
Guilds can start their own village up and build it were ever they want (but not too close to other players or NPC cities, eventually having a circle form and grow bigger the bigger that guild/clan/allaince becomes). Buildings can be leveled up but would cost alot of resources (better the quality the fewer it will take). Cave/mine/dungeon/tower systems can go as far as 100-200 levels. Monsters respawn every 1-2 hours, boss's every 6-12hrs. Guilds can have their own instance worlds for these once they unlock them and every 25-30 levels then can gather resources and create an encampment that will allow portal to that level.
All can Harvest wood/ores/fish/stone etc. But one can only have 1 craft skill so a metalsmith would make metal items that a blacksmith would use and a woodsmith would make items that a carpenter would use etc.
Torch's to be used in caves/dungeons/mines etc (Priest and Mage probably be able to have a light spell), ores to be found in cave's and mine's. Not nodes scattered around teh gameworld. Have these also be found with quality so a quality 3 would not be as good a sa quality 7. Deeper you go the better the metals is found and the better chance for quality and minerals.
Lots of other things can be done too. If the game was done right i would have no problem paying a monthly subscription. Right now most out there are not worth that cost. Warcraft is now feeling old and dumbed down.
Originally posted by ForTheCity I think there is a bigger majority who like "games" such as halo, mario, etc because they don't really need to think. The story is thought out for them so they just do as they are told. When people play games they want to relax and I think thats why people prefer these types of games instead of open world.
Open world does not necessarily mean more thinking. EQ is open world but grinding for xp is boring. The same mobs again and again. Where is the thinking?
Originally posted by Axxar I really enjoyed Skyrim. I didn't think the story or combat system were particularly great, and the characters you meet are very shallow. But the world they've scupted is fantastic, with great attention to detail. It was a joy to explore and behold.
It was fun for me for a while .. but it got too repetitive and traveling became a chore. Thus, i never finish it.
I prefer games like Deus Ex or Dishonored where the core gameplay is fun, and interesting things happen all the time.
Seriously, how can travel in Skyrim be a chore when you can fast-travel to anyplace you've ever been? You have to go somewhere else, look at the map, pick the closest place you've ever been, teleport there and run for a minute or two. Once I've done some basic exploring of the world, I can get to any point on the map in no more than 60 seconds.
You have to be there first. Some of the travelling .. say to north (i remember going to the mage college or something) ... too much walking around the same kind of terrain.
I meant long lasting in the sense that there is enough to do in a particular game to warrant you wanting to stick around for the long-term. Long before MMOs came along, we had MUDs and similar games and there were some of those games that I stuck with for over a decade each. The longest that I remember, I played for 16 years. They had huge expansive stories, the people were great (something entirely lacking in modern MMOs), the combat was entertaining but it wasn't all that you did. Modern games really are combat-heavy, often to the point of having little outside of it. Most modern games have a very limited number of things that you can do and seriously, there are only so many monsters I can swing a sword at or aliens I can shoot a ray gun at before I get bored with it. Some of those games above are excellent, I will agree, but when you get to the end and then what? Wait for the next one? Go get another game? Learn a new set of controls? Lather, rinse, repeat?
I played MUDs too .. none held my interests for more than a few hours. When i "get to the end"? I move on to another. Just look at the list i posted ... last many many weeks particularly when i have a job and a family.
Learn new set of controls? Most games have similar controls. R-stick to look, L to move. X to interact/reload ... most modern games took 2 min to learn.
I'd much rather have a game that is constantly evolving, constantly changing, that has a huge group of people you actually care about and want to be around (doesn't happen in modern MMOs, biggest problem), where every day you log on, something new and different is happening, there's something new to see and someone new worth meeting. That kind of thing doesn't exist in an MMO today, nor do I think it's ever likely to. That's what keeps us consuming single player games at high speed, I've played through the majority of games you've listed, at least to the extent that I never have to play with a bunch of foul-mouthed 10-year olds who want to pwn your ass and laugh at you, I'm still hungry for more.
Then you play too fast. I found myself not enough time to get through the games i like to. Skyrim & ME are too long .. even Borderlands 2 i am not done yet.
Constantly changing? You can accomplish that simply by moving to new games (MMO or not).
Where Skyrim and Fallout 3 excelled is that they weren't just about combat, there were tons of things you could do, there were tons of places you could explore, you determined how well your character did by what skills you chose to develop, etc. I probably played Skyrim for 4-5 months, I beat every questline, I explored every dungeon, I saw every inch of the map and I wanted more. I don't get that feeling in most games. For most, once they're over, I move on and may come back to replay a year or two down the road. For both Skyrim and Fallout 3, I didn't want it to end, I spent weeks after finishing wanting to load it back up and spend more time in that world.
The problem with those games is that if combat is not compelling, it got boring for me. The only other type of gameplay i found compeling is stealth & hacking like in Deus Ex (but that is a kind of combat too). Crafting is boring to me. Exploring .. only if there are really interesting thing to see. Another mile of similar hills does not count.
But those games are very few and very, very far between.
I think because it is not efficient. Making a huge world size like SKYRIM is expensive, even with automation tools. And the pay off is not that great. If they make the towns 20% closer (so less wilderness), i doubt if 99% of the players will notice. I certainly won't care.
Comments
That is just semantics. I don't really care what you call them.
This, and other gaming site (like massively) is calling WOW, DCUO, DDO, ... MMOs .. so i will use that label for convenience. When you convince the gaming public that TOR and WOW should be called ODGs, i will use that label.
I like to talk about specific games, not labels.
The problem is not with the phrase "they should be a game first", but with your understanding of the word game and fun, which seems to me quite narrow.
What you are essentially arguing is that the quality of the slot machine is the most important asset and things like actually winning money , the lights, free drinks and overall atmosphere of the casino are irrelevant.
Which they arent, otherwise most of us would have their slot machine at home (if you dont argue that i am writing this on one
) and casinos would run out of business.
The end result is always a combination of factors, even in diablo we have atmosphere, story (... vision milky then eyes rot ...), skill, stat and item metagames which complement and not disrupt each other, which in my opinion is the most important factor.
Flame on!
What narrow? In fact, i think my view is more open .. nothing is sacred .. and all possibility (say without a world) should be considered.
What i am arguing is that if certain features (like i am forced to spend 20 min traveling before fighting in a dungeon) do not add fun to me, then i do not want it in my game. It is a feature by feature determination.
No one says atmosphere and story are not important. But i do enjoy the combat and progression first and foremost.
And why do you think i play MMOs and put up with some of the slower aspect of it? That is because i took the whole picture into account. I can't completely get rid of walking if i like the wow classes, right?
That is where some of us differs from the rest. There are tons of games out there and you, and I, can play those. MMORPGs were supposed to be beyond that so that they are no longer just games but virtual worlds first. And evolution of gaming so to speak.
But like I said, there is no reason why you cant have both games and virtual worlds. Me personally have been playing games for over 25 years and I want something different, as well. I want games to evolve.
My gaming blog
So full of life? Are you joking?
Give me a game like SWG where at least I could find other players in a tavern, where they had an actual reason for existing, instead of just wandering into one once to pick up the "point of interest" then never visit it again. Perhaps having a tavern as an actual gathering place for players. Instead of spamming zone chat in a city where everyone's standing on top of the bank or something.... That's not what I would consider full of life. Just useless clutter.
Why should MMORPG to be "beyond" that .. just because they have worlds? Skyrim has a world too .. and it is jsut a RPG. MMORPGs are entertainment product. I judge them as such and compete with other forms of entertainment. No more and no less.
No I am basing my view on UO and how Richard Garriot and his team tried to create a game where you was one in a persistant virtual world of thousands of others and not the central hero as in other games.
And yes they are still entertainment but taking it to the other level. Games where you are the central hero has existed for decades in a million of forms. MMORPGs, or rather UO and a handful of other MMORPGs, tried to take it to the next level.
Less or more entertaining? That is entirely subjective, some people simply dont want to live in a virtual world and be "just" uncle owen (or Luke if he is good enough) but some people do. Problem is that now the genre has been flooded with MMORPGS which play more or less like a single player game with the only difference being is that you play on a central server. That is not what MMORPGs were about. Not in my opinion anyway.
My gaming blog
There is no "other level", "higher level", "next level" or anything like that. There is no spoon!
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
What a terribly limited understanding you have on how everything works. There's always the next level with anything. Just because you cannot see it or do not want to see it, doesn't change this reality.
You and Matt Firor should do tea sometime. Now that would be an exciting conversation
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
You are totally right on that fact that entertaining is totally subjective. Dishonored .. a level base stealth game is 100x more fun to me than UO & EQ combined. I doubt i would ever choose a vritual world game over it, or diablo 3, or borderlands 2, or Deus Ex.
Now the phenomenon of MMO being flooded with lobby based games (like be fair, wow is not like a SP game, it is more like Diablo with slower but co-op combat) is totally driven by the market. What a genre is about often changes. This is one of those. If you want to call the new crop of MMOs a new name, that is ok too but i doubt if the old style one virtual world type MMO will ever be popular again.
I don't buy for a second that MMOs were "supposed to be" anything. They're not magical. They're not special. They're just games. This whole thing reminds me of the geeks who wanted to put on VR goggles (or plug their brains into a computer) and never have to come out to deal with the real world again. That is beyond immature and ridiculous. Live in the real world.
And while no, there is no reason why you can't have both, a game exists, like any other product, based on it's ability to make money for the manufacturer. If you want there to be virtual worlds, you need to demonstrate that there is a significant market for such a product, who would pay for, not only the initial box sales but the long-term monthly fees. Developers, though, have not been convinced that such is the case or they'd already be making such things. Until they are convinced, and that takes hundreds of thousands of people demanding that kind of game specifically, you're just not going to see them, nor should you.
Games take money to make and must make money to continue to be made. That's how capitalism works.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I agree with you. To be honest, if there was a never-ending supply of high-end, long-lasting single-player games out there, games like Skyrim or Fallout 3, I'd probably never install an MMO again. However, good SP games, like good MMOs seem to be few and far between and most SP games just don't last that long. In the past month alone, I've gone through and replayed a lot of them end to end, including Crysis, Bulletstorm and Black Mesa. That's three complete games, played by someone who has very little time to play, finished in less than 30 days. It's no wonder some of us have to jump on the MMO bandwagon just to have something to do between worthwhile SP games.
Now I'm trying to decide if I want to play through the Serious Sam trilogy again or maybe the single-player missions on one of the CoDs. Decisions, decisions...
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I would disagree on one point though. Long-lasting is not necessarily better.
I like Dishonored MUCH better than Skyrim because it does not drone on and on, and you get to see the ending (which is great) and now i can play more games.
Skyrim just took too long. The only type of games that i can play for long term (>3 months) is those where combat itself is fun enough that i don't mind a lot of repetition, and there is enough progression (like Diablo 3 or Borderlands). Skyrim's combat is pretty meh compared to those. Skyrim combat is not even as interesting as WOW, from my point of view.
Actually i think there are many good SP games, and i never have enough time to play them all .. just a few series that i like:
- Diablo, of course.
- Borderland (haven't finished 2 yet)
- Dishonored (very good new entry)
- Deus Ex
- COD
- Dead Space (amazing series)
- Spec Ops (way under-rated game)
- Bioshock (of course)
- Red Faction
.... and i haven't even listed the smaller games like TL2 or infinity blade.
Gaming is pretty good.
It was fun for me for a while .. but it got too repetitive and traveling became a chore. Thus, i never finish it.
I prefer games like Deus Ex or Dishonored where the core gameplay is fun, and interesting things happen all the time.
I meant long lasting in the sense that there is enough to do in a particular game to warrant you wanting to stick around for the long-term. Long before MMOs came along, we had MUDs and similar games and there were some of those games that I stuck with for over a decade each. The longest that I remember, I played for 16 years. They had huge expansive stories, the people were great (something entirely lacking in modern MMOs), the combat was entertaining but it wasn't all that you did. Modern games really are combat-heavy, often to the point of having little outside of it. Most modern games have a very limited number of things that you can do and seriously, there are only so many monsters I can swing a sword at or aliens I can shoot a ray gun at before I get bored with it. Some of those games above are excellent, I will agree, but when you get to the end and then what? Wait for the next one? Go get another game? Learn a new set of controls? Lather, rinse, repeat?
I'd much rather have a game that is constantly evolving, constantly changing, that has a huge group of people you actually care about and want to be around (doesn't happen in modern MMOs, biggest problem), where every day you log on, something new and different is happening, there's something new to see and someone new worth meeting. That kind of thing doesn't exist in an MMO today, nor do I think it's ever likely to. That's what keeps us consuming single player games at high speed, I've played through the majority of games you've listed, at least to the extent that I never have to play with a bunch of foul-mouthed 10-year olds who want to pwn your ass and laugh at you, I'm still hungry for more.
Where Skyrim and Fallout 3 excelled is that they weren't just about combat, there were tons of things you could do, there were tons of places you could explore, you determined how well your character did by what skills you chose to develop, etc. I probably played Skyrim for 4-5 months, I beat every questline, I explored every dungeon, I saw every inch of the map and I wanted more. I don't get that feeling in most games. For most, once they're over, I move on and may come back to replay a year or two down the road. For both Skyrim and Fallout 3, I didn't want it to end, I spent weeks after finishing wanting to load it back up and spend more time in that world.
But those games are very few and very, very far between.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Seriously, how can travel in Skyrim be a chore when you can fast-travel to anyplace you've ever been? You have to go somewhere else, look at the map, pick the closest place you've ever been, teleport there and run for a minute or two. Once I've done some basic exploring of the world, I can get to any point on the map in no more than 60 seconds.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Aye, you know, i leave World of Warcraft due to boredom (recently due to server emptiness) and blizzard wont do anything because they have a £15 per character cost to move, multiply that by 10 characters and thats £150 to change server, way too much of a cost.
Anyways what gets me is everytime i hope something new has come out it turns out to be an utter load of cr@p, in fact i would not even wipe my own ass with it, good for 1-2 mths and then you dont wanna touch it again and warcraft is there, calling you back everytime.
Have all the developers stopped thinking thesedays as i really would have thought that the mmorpg era would have improved and not declined over the years. Maybe the PC is not dead, maybe its the crap that is constantly comming out to blame. If something good finally comes out it will topple the leading games and you dont have to spend millions on the game either, especially voive acting.
You dont have to have 20+ differant class's either, just the basic's each with a choice iof 2 routes to go, eg
Warrior - DpS (2 handed weapon only users), Tank (1 handed+ shield)
Mage - (Fire or Water)
Wizard - (Earthen or Storm) elementalist
Priest - (Healing or Battle)
Rogue - (Ranger or Stalker)
Here are some other idea's of possibly making a new game.
Graphics to run smooth and look nice. Also must be able to be updated as most games comming out soon look dated and old after a year or 2. Offputting straight away and many tend to not stick around.
Have it so that the mouse buttons use the item in the relevant hand (e.g right mouse = right hand, left mouse = left hand) though users can set this out. FFA meaning players can kill dfeta other players, once defeated they have a choice to kill them or let them live) letting them live only allows them to take 10-20% of gold that they are carrying (most will have it banked) and a chance for items to drop from their bags (not person) but it would also not cost as must in infamy in that region (when it gets high it starts to affect surrounding area's to that zone and can quickly spread) killing a player will allow all gold carried and a chance of items to drop from their body as well as being able to loot whats in their bags too, howevere this would have severe repurcusions and a huge infamy increase in that zone and surrounding zones too. Players takign this route should be warned that it will be extreamly long and costly to lose any infamy gained. Maybe only allow 1 character per server to stop players from having a gankjing character on said server (unless they maintain more than 1 account).
Guilds can start their own village up and build it were ever they want (but not too close to other players or NPC cities, eventually having a circle form and grow bigger the bigger that guild/clan/allaince becomes). Buildings can be leveled up but would cost alot of resources (better the quality the fewer it will take). Cave/mine/dungeon/tower systems can go as far as 100-200 levels. Monsters respawn every 1-2 hours, boss's every 6-12hrs. Guilds can have their own instance worlds for these once they unlock them and every 25-30 levels then can gather resources and create an encampment that will allow portal to that level.
All can Harvest wood/ores/fish/stone etc. But one can only have 1 craft skill so a metalsmith would make metal items that a blacksmith would use and a woodsmith would make items that a carpenter would use etc.
Torch's to be used in caves/dungeons/mines etc (Priest and Mage probably be able to have a light spell), ores to be found in cave's and mine's. Not nodes scattered around teh gameworld. Have these also be found with quality so a quality 3 would not be as good a sa quality 7. Deeper you go the better the metals is found and the better chance for quality and minerals.
Lots of other things can be done too. If the game was done right i would have no problem paying a monthly subscription. Right now most out there are not worth that cost. Warcraft is now feeling old and dumbed down.
Open world does not necessarily mean more thinking. EQ is open world but grinding for xp is boring. The same mobs again and again. Where is the thinking?
You have to be there first. Some of the travelling .. say to north (i remember going to the mage college or something) ... too much walking around the same kind of terrain.