Exactly, they don't know what the gamers want. Or rather, they want to suit the needs of the average gamer, that has no insight how the game's mechanics impact the individuals' play style behind the curtains; also has no insight in "What could be better.".
I think you are right, because there is no such a think like average gamer. So the devs want to sell their games to larger auditory but the result is mish-mash like GW2 or... WildStar - game with robots, automatic weapons, aliens, medieval knights, magicians, cowboys, ancient greek myths, all in one. It is like Nike to make one shoe for all sizes It is ridiculous. And in fact publisher can sell such a game to millions of players with good advertisement, but for a short time. And yes, nor dev, neither publisher or provider think how to make game better, they think how to sell more copies. In my work I faced with this antinomy every day - quality vs quantity. And I learned one important lesson - quality is better in the long-term.
You'll see he is talking about a very similar thing we are when he gets to the influence of Hollywood on the series; the presence of focus groups that represent the "average watcher".
Originally posted by Fenrir767 Hate to break it to you I have played games like that got bored and quit them so what you see as essential is something that myself and others don't therefore going back to different tastes for different people.
I'd hate to break it to you too, but what you're talking about belongs to a different category then. If you dislike what I said, you don't like mmorpg's in the first place, as in the classical sense it is being referred to in this topic.
You measure success based on how well a game fulfills your subjective definition of a MMORPG? You sound awfully familiar. This is not your first account, is it?
"..as it is being referred to in this topic. " Does that seem like a personal description to you? I'm not sure now what kind of "mmorpg's" we are talking about, but I believe it is the type that was founded by games like WoW and EQ... ( Fantasy set, character based, persistent world, theme park / sandbox )
It's definitely a personal definition MMORPG means massive multiplayer online role playing game which is a fairly easy criteria to meet, yes there are more players but devs have yet to release a successful Sandbox in the West SWG launched a year before WoW and did not succeed.
When have I ever said that AAA MMORPGs were being progressive never did. What most vets ask for is open works sandbox and if you look at the most popular game types, such as FPS or MOBA they have more players than all of this genre.
The way forward should be looking at what succeeded in the past and what's great today. Just because I don't like what you think an MMORPG should be doesn't mean I don't like these games. WoW was made for people like me that hated EQ and other MMORPGs and it took off.
The title of this thread calls all current gen games failures they aren't, just because they don't meet a certain set if the markets expectations doesn't meant that. Sandbox or theme park doesn't matter make a good game and I will check it out. Make a virtual works where I have a second life online sorry I like to disconnect and enjoy real life.
I agree with OP and others. Virtual worlds are out. Fake and painfully transparent phasing is in. No wonder players don't want to stick around anymore.
There were never any virtual worlds.. accounts of what those games actually were if accurate are proof of that. All that made those games worlds were the "vets" imaginations at the time they first started playing.. now that games have gotten more visual and flashy and the need to rely on "imagination" had decreased ppl are finally seeing these games for what they are.
In addition if these games are virtual worlds... then the present incarnation of these games are as well.. because there is nothing stopping ppl from ignoring quests and doing their own thing....(that is.. nothing but themselves).. ppl say well i don't want to gimp myself.... well in the real world no one is equal and ppl become successful or not successful at all at differing rates.... so you guys want a real world...... you have it.. play the games as such and stop worrying about what everyone else has accomplished and worry about your own accomplishments.
So in fact you don't like MMORPGs. And again we talk about much larger market cause spread of the internet. I doubt the current generation of games is more successful on a market adjusted basis. In 2000 the number of internet users worldwide was 361 mln, /InternetWorldStats data/ and most of them have low speed connection. In 2014 the number of internet users is probably closer to 3 bln and most of them have broadband connection. The market of MMORPGs is more than 20 times larger now. So, at market adjusted basis, game like Everquest, which had more than 250 000 subs at the end of 2000, now should be played from 50 mln of players!
I think too the new AAA games show regression, and not innovation.
The spread of the mmo market isn't just because of the spread of the internet.. its because of the cycle of life.. players got older and kept playing.. and new players hit the scene as they were born and others got old enough to make choices for themselves.. These ppl may or may not have the same tastes as the older generation.. and that is not a good or a bad thing.. it is just different.. and you should either accept it... do something about it... or move on.
mmos haven't really regressed... they just haven't innovated.. lack of innovation doesn't = regression.. If ppl were to say that mmos have gotten stale.. I couldn't really disagree.... very little has changed... some games have changed minor points and tried to make a diffrence.. but as much as ppl clamor for change.. they are at the same time still resistant to it.
I agree with OP and others. Virtual worlds are out. Fake and painfully transparent phasing is in. No wonder players don't want to stick around anymore.
There were never any virtual worlds.. accounts of what those games actually were if accurate are proof of that. All that made those games worlds were the "vets" imaginations at the time they first started playing.. now that games have gotten more visual and flashy and the need to rely on "imagination" had decreased ppl are finally seeing these games for what they are.
In addition if these games are virtual worlds... then the present incarnation of these games are as well.. because there is nothing stopping ppl from ignoring quests and doing their own thing....(that is.. nothing but themselves).. ppl say well i don't want to gimp myself.... well in the real world no one is equal and ppl become successful or not successful at all at differing rates.... so you guys want a real world...... you have it.. play the games as such and stop worrying about what everyone else has accomplished and worry about your own accomplishments.
thats really ignorant... "What are you whining about?? just play those themeparks games as a sandbox!!! the real world is like a wow clone!! derp!!!"
theres alot of gamers that want virtual worlds and not just mere "games". I dont care if theres a thousand themeparks already, I want a game that caters to MY playstyle, thats why I spend money on indie games that are 100x more fun than any wow clone, for me. If I just wanted "gameplay" I would play Diablo 3, Counter-Strike or Chivalry and be done with it, but the thrill of open world pvp is way more exciting than doing some lame quest.
I wouldn't say MMORPG's have failed. I think they have failed a lot of MMORPG's initial audience. I don't think they're tapping the potential the genre can have in what makes it unique. Right now a lot of MMORPG's could be done better as a multiplayer games. I never got into MMORPG's to essentially run the gauntlet of quest.
The gist of what the OP is saying is true IMO. You're not placed into a world to forge your own destiny. Your destiny and game play is already chosen. You just go through the motions of competing the task and quest. You don't have any purpose in the world. Its all just a stage to funnel you from one level to the next. This type of gameplay can be accomplished and generally better in smaller player hosted servers with 1-16 players.
I am not going to argue which game play style is better open or closed. I just don't see the purpose in having a game that lacks lots of cooperation, interdependency, personal conflict, etc in a MMORPG format outside of copyright. Even in copyright issues you can do always online method.
After playing Archeage my disappointment with the genre has multiplied. Not to say that Archeage is the best thing ever because its largely an Asian themepark quality game. The unrefined sandbox elements which in no way effects the ability to run the gauntlet of quest. I think the sandbox could be much more but its very much 1997 sandbox with lack of real detailed community tools. The point is no reason why we have to be locked into worlds that are just quest gauntlets when both can coexist easily.
If you want to see games that are pro freedom and allow players to impact the gameworld and those around them simply do not spend $ on the opposite type of games lol. I know I haven't except WOW, which again deserved it for being a great themepark in its early years.
I know I would never play WOW in its best stage if there was a sandbox MMO, but that was also WOW's big success. Not having competition, just copycats with poor designs.
I wouldn't say MMORPG's have failed. I think they have failed a lot of MMORPG's initial audience. I don't think they're tapping the potential the genre can have in what makes it unique. Right now a lot of MMORPG's could be done better as a multiplayer games. I never got into MMORPG's to essentially run the gauntlet of quest.
The gist of what the OP is saying is true IMO. You're not placed into a world to forge your own destiny. Your destiny and game play is already chosen. You just go through the motions of competing the task and quest. You don't have any purpose in the world. Its all just a stage to funnel you from one level to the next. This type of gameplay can be accomplished and generally better in smaller player hosted servers with 1-16 players.
I am not going to argue which game play style is better open or closed. I just don't see the purpose in having a game that lacks lots of cooperation, interdependency, personal conflict, etc in a MMORPG format outside of copyright. Even in copyright issues you can do always online method.
After playing Archeage my disappointment with the genre has multiplied. Not to say that Archeage is the best thing ever because its largely an Asian themepark quality game. The unrefined sandbox elements which in no way effects the ability to run the gauntlet of quest. I think the sandbox could be much more but its very much 1997 sandbox with lack of real detailed community tools. The point is no reason why we have to be locked into worlds that are just quest gauntlets when both can coexist easily.
You say you're not arguing which one is better, but you kinda are.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
If you want to see games that are pro freedom and allow players to impact the gameworld and those around them simply do not spend $ on the opposite type of games lol. I know I haven't except WOW, which again deserved it for being a great themepark in its early years.
I know I would never play WOW in its best stage if there was a sandbox MMO, but that was also WOW's big success. Not having competition, just copycats with poor designs.
You talk about a group of players who are "pro freedom" like there's a group who are "anti-freedom".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I disagree. I think video gaming is really simple to deliver to an audience, but the problem is when one game has to be so large to engage that audience.
If MMOs were a lot shorter as in the length it takes to play a singe player game, with 30 hours tops in one faction. The story was alright, not the best but good... then developers can focus on so much more.
Focus for a fun game;
1. Combat - Player classes differentiation
2. NPC fights- are interesting and challenging when appropriate. If NPCs are trash then they should be easy to wipe with trash loot as well. Boss fights are fun and interesting.
3. Player created content - dungeon creators/traps, player housing
4. Environments and atomshpere - day / night cycles. weather effects
5. Pvp - is fun and feels action packed
6. Mounted combat
7. Crafting - mini game
8. Social activities - sport pvp game, gambling, card games
9. raids - dynamic raids
10. Dynmaic world - with npc movement in open world affects areas (similar to what EQN sounds like)
Really the story is only a small part of the mmo. It should not be necesasry to have 100s of hours of quests. Only 30 hours. Then developers can focus on repeatable content such pvp, a living world and continued developed of raids for example and dynamic events which feel more dynamic than public events or GW2.
For example lets say a game went with a different approach to lvling in that pvp was part of the questing and that certain activities needed to be completed in a certain zone before progressing to the next story/quest. That way those 30 hours of questing can be stretched a bit more.
But personally I would never sacrifice end game for long winded story telling. Yes, it can be nice, but its never great... and really I would rather read a book. If the devs like writing so much, then they can write a book that goes with their MMO... just my personal preference on getting the most of an MMO.
For that reason when I hear that WS is not as VO heavy as swtor or ESO I know it will be better for it in my personal tastes of prioritizing gameplay and the game over story.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
I wouldn't say MMORPG's have failed. I think they have failed a lot of MMORPG's initial audience. I don't think they're tapping the potential the genre can have in what makes it unique. Right now a lot of MMORPG's could be done better as a multiplayer games. I never got into MMORPG's to essentially run the gauntlet of quest.
The gist of what the OP is saying is true IMO. You're not placed into a world to forge your own destiny. Your destiny and game play is already chosen. You just go through the motions of competing the task and quest. You don't have any purpose in the world. Its all just a stage to funnel you from one level to the next. This type of gameplay can be accomplished and generally better in smaller player hosted servers with 1-16 players.
I am not going to argue which game play style is better open or closed. I just don't see the purpose in having a game that lacks lots of cooperation, interdependency, personal conflict, etc in a MMORPG format outside of copyright. Even in copyright issues you can do always online method.
After playing Archeage my disappointment with the genre has multiplied. Not to say that Archeage is the best thing ever because its largely an Asian themepark quality game. The unrefined sandbox elements which in no way effects the ability to run the gauntlet of quest. I think the sandbox could be much more but its very much 1997 sandbox with lack of real detailed community tools. The point is no reason why we have to be locked into worlds that are just quest gauntlets when both can coexist easily.
You say you're not arguing which one is better, but you kinda are.
I am biased of course lol. The thing is that you can easily have both a game with quest line and freedom to do what you want outside of this quest line and even have sandbox options. ESO for example could take out some of the questing to make the world feel more like ES offline games. So even despite their IMO wonderfully crafted quest there is a certain amount of fatigue to doing a gauntlet of quest. Even worst if you're leveling an alt in the same alliance.
I disagree. I think video gaming is really simple to deliver to an audience, but the problem is when one game has to be so large to engage that audience.
If MMOs were ...
Yes, you are right about a lot of things. Happy to see other creative minds ^^
Originally posted by Fenrir767 Hate to break it to you I have played games like that got bored and quit them so what you see as essential is something that myself and others don't therefore going back to different tastes for different people.
I'd hate to break it to you too, but what you're talking about belongs to a different category then. If you dislike what I said, you don't like mmorpg's in the first place, as in the classical sense it is being referred to in this topic.
I don't like MMORPG .. defined by you .. so? Devs make them. Not you. Plus, i don't have to like all MMOs, do I?
I agree with OP and others. Virtual worlds are out. Fake and painfully transparent phasing is in. No wonder players don't want to stick around anymore.
There were never any virtual worlds.. accounts of what those games actually were if accurate are proof of that. All that made those games worlds were the "vets" imaginations at the time they first started playing.. now that games have gotten more visual and flashy and the need to rely on "imagination" had decreased ppl are finally seeing these games for what they are.
In addition if these games are virtual worlds... then the present incarnation of these games are as well.. because there is nothing stopping ppl from ignoring quests and doing their own thing....(that is.. nothing but themselves).. ppl say well i don't want to gimp myself.... well in the real world no one is equal and ppl become successful or not successful at all at differing rates.... so you guys want a real world...... you have it.. play the games as such and stop worrying about what everyone else has accomplished and worry about your own accomplishments.
Though I would be one of the first people who would say that players have the ability to ignore the quests and go their own way in order to try to make a unique meaningful pve experience (something I do in Lord of the Rings Online quite a lot) I have to completely disagree with your assertion that there were never any virtual worlds.
The greatest and boldest example from personal experience was early in Lord of the Rings Online's launch where I had played for quite some time only having to log out because there was an extremely important (and the most epic I ever experienced) siege happening that night in Lineage 2.
Logging into Lineage 2 and appearing in the City of Aden (where the siege was taking place and where I had previously logged out) was like a slap in the face as far as whoa, you are not in kansas any more.
Never have I experienced such a game "culture shock" when comparing experiences going from one game (theme park) to another (open world ffa pvp game).
When I logged into Lineage 2 and saw all the preparations, players running around trying to get potions, last minute enchanting or upgrading gear, chat buzzing by quickly with nervous excitement it was extremely apparent that what was about to happen was all about player interaction, player politics, and something that would affect the world as far as how players sided with other players, and showing who had the real power.
But the game was always like that, everything you did was your choice based upon your goals. It was always about player interaction and the world where the players played.
My Lord of the Rings experience was always about me. How my "character" made its way through the pre-made content or how I ignored quests and just went exploring, picking up quests along the way. But in Lineage 2 the game was always about me AND everyone else. There was no way you could escape player interaction on some level, politics, pk'ers, dealing with player commerce, etc.
It truly was its own world and one where players had to band together or be clever and resourceful in order to go their own way always keeping in mind that player interaction was always a hair's breadth away.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The application of the "respect different tastes" rule can have a huge drag on certain projects. In many cases the tastes are young or flawed, therefore not worthy of being mainstream target audience.
That's ridiculous. Game companies can choose to target whoever they want to, or have whatever personal vision they feel like.
If it fails on the market, so be it, but just because somebody likes different things from you doesn't make them 'young or flawed'. There's no proof that companies following YOUR personal tastes are going to do any better.
Originally posted by Fenrir767 That's the issue with most vets they want it their way or no way!
You know... this logic actually explains the 'bitter-vets' and their behaviour.
The vets can't understand why the market isn't catering to them (hint: you are a niche) and thus become 'bitter'.
Since they refuse the acknowledge what 'market forces / free market / capitalism' means, they can't explain why the MMO they want isn't happening and thus it must be the 'evil Mass Market get off my lawn types!'
Yeah.. I'm bored. :P
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Originally posted by Fenrir767 That's the issue with most vets they want it their way or no way!
You know... this logic actually explains the 'bitter-vets' and their behaviour.
The vets can't understand why the market isn't catering to them (hint: you are a niche) and thus become 'bitter'.
Since they refuse the acknowledge what 'market forces / free market / capitalism' means, they can't explain why the MMO they want isn't happening and thus it must be the 'evil Mass Market get off my lawn types!'
Yeah.. I'm bored. :P
That's really exactly the problem. There was a time when these old MMO warriors were the ones the companies catered to but that went away more than a decade ago and they need to wake up, smell the roses and deal with the new reality.
Originally posted by Fenrir767 The funny thing about the people that prefer old MMOs here seem to want the past I have yet to see someone that enjoys themeparks state they are the best games ever and don't need improvement, we seen to crave an innovation to the genre.
I like new MMOs because they don't require a time commitment I can play casually or hardcore and be relevant in the game and I can log in for an hour or two and accomplish something and most importantly no designated downtime or ridiculous death penalties.
There are things I really like about new MMOs... What I find missing is in the game mechanics. There were games which I played and loved simply because of the mechanics(i.e. DAOC).
The application of the "respect different tastes" rule can have a huge drag on certain projects. In many cases the tastes are young or flawed, therefore not worthy of being mainstream target audience.
That's ridiculous. Game companies can choose to target whoever they want to, or have whatever personal vision they feel like.
If it fails on the market, so be it, but just because somebody likes different things from you doesn't make them 'young or flawed'. There's no proof that companies following YOUR personal tastes are going to do any better.
There is, actually, because WoW was a gigantic success, there is proof right there.
If game companies want to target the "Justin Bieber audience" of mmo's, instead of the Elvis Presley one, then so be it. Just don't say Justin Bieber is better than Elvis Presley because that's the moment every being who has INSIGHT into the quality and innovation of content they produce climb up the wall.
And once again, this is not just my taste. It is just a standard that has been put down, there is just no one who's technically competent and knows what to make out of it or how to improve it.
The application of the "respect different tastes" rule can have a huge drag on certain projects. In many cases the tastes are young or flawed, therefore not worthy of being mainstream target audience.
That's ridiculous. Game companies can choose to target whoever they want to, or have whatever personal vision they feel like.
If it fails on the market, so be it, but just because somebody likes different things from you doesn't make them 'young or flawed'. There's no proof that companies following YOUR personal tastes are going to do any better.
There is, actually, because WoW was a gigantic success, there is proof right there.
If game companies want to target the "Justin Bieber audience" of mmo's, instead of the Elvis Presley one, then so be it. Just don't say Justin Bieber is better than Elvis Presley because that's the moment every being who has INSIGHT into the quality and innovation of content they produce climb up the wall.
And once again, this is not just my taste. It is just a standard that has been put down, there is just no one who's technically competent and knows what to make out of it or how to improve it.
"Justin Bieber audience"? Now that's a bait if I ever saw one.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
"Justin Bieber audience" "No One who technically understands" Get off your arrogant high horse. You may think old school games were the Elvis Priestley of music.
IMO a more apt analogy would be Punk Rock or an indie band, something that was cool and Niche with some good stuff that become popular and had some even more good stuff happen. Now it's gotten a little tired and needs a breath of fresh air!
The people that don't like virtual worlds and old school games never did, they wanted something to fit in their schedule not plan around and that's what devs have been making since WoW
Lol yeah because there are a ton of Wow clones on the horizon like this the mid 00's. Have you guys actually smelled the roses lately? The scent has changed from years past. Not many are going to have the money to spend on tons of crafted quest that many players just want to skip past anyway. SOE is going sandbox. Blizzard shut their game down. Almost every small and mid budget MMORPG is player based content. There are no notable them themeparks coming down the line. With many themeparks failing to reach even 5% of a declining WoW I am sure even developers can see that it's not worth the money into unless you have STWOR/ESO budgets.
The silent majority largely have not experienced anything but WoW clones to know if thats all they want. I think you're going to see themeparks transition into more open ended games, sandbox hybrids and backgrounds and player created.
Comments
You'll see he is talking about a very similar thing we are when he gets to the influence of Hollywood on the series; the presence of focus groups that represent the "average watcher".
http://youtu.be/WbaslypgyWk?t=16m19s
"..as it is being referred to in this topic. " Does that seem like a personal description to you? I'm not sure now what kind of "mmorpg's" we are talking about, but I believe it is the type that was founded by games like WoW and EQ... ( Fantasy set, character based, persistent world, theme park / sandbox )
Wanted to reply pretty much the same but didn't really think it's worth it ^^
When have I ever said that AAA MMORPGs were being progressive never did. What most vets ask for is open works sandbox and if you look at the most popular game types, such as FPS or MOBA they have more players than all of this genre.
The way forward should be looking at what succeeded in the past and what's great today. Just because I don't like what you think an MMORPG should be doesn't mean I don't like these games. WoW was made for people like me that hated EQ and other MMORPGs and it took off.
The title of this thread calls all current gen games failures they aren't, just because they don't meet a certain set if the markets expectations doesn't meant that. Sandbox or theme park doesn't matter make a good game and I will check it out. Make a virtual works where I have a second life online sorry I like to disconnect and enjoy real life.
There were never any virtual worlds.. accounts of what those games actually were if accurate are proof of that. All that made those games worlds were the "vets" imaginations at the time they first started playing.. now that games have gotten more visual and flashy and the need to rely on "imagination" had decreased ppl are finally seeing these games for what they are.
In addition if these games are virtual worlds... then the present incarnation of these games are as well.. because there is nothing stopping ppl from ignoring quests and doing their own thing....(that is.. nothing but themselves).. ppl say well i don't want to gimp myself.... well in the real world no one is equal and ppl become successful or not successful at all at differing rates.... so you guys want a real world...... you have it.. play the games as such and stop worrying about what everyone else has accomplished and worry about your own accomplishments.
The spread of the mmo market isn't just because of the spread of the internet.. its because of the cycle of life.. players got older and kept playing.. and new players hit the scene as they were born and others got old enough to make choices for themselves.. These ppl may or may not have the same tastes as the older generation.. and that is not a good or a bad thing.. it is just different.. and you should either accept it... do something about it... or move on.
mmos haven't really regressed... they just haven't innovated.. lack of innovation doesn't = regression.. If ppl were to say that mmos have gotten stale.. I couldn't really disagree.... very little has changed... some games have changed minor points and tried to make a diffrence.. but as much as ppl clamor for change.. they are at the same time still resistant to it.
thats really ignorant... "What are you whining about?? just play those themeparks games as a sandbox!!! the real world is like a wow clone!! derp!!!"
theres alot of gamers that want virtual worlds and not just mere "games". I dont care if theres a thousand themeparks already, I want a game that caters to MY playstyle, thats why I spend money on indie games that are 100x more fun than any wow clone, for me. If I just wanted "gameplay" I would play Diablo 3, Counter-Strike or Chivalry and be done with it, but the thrill of open world pvp is way more exciting than doing some lame quest.
I wouldn't say MMORPG's have failed. I think they have failed a lot of MMORPG's initial audience. I don't think they're tapping the potential the genre can have in what makes it unique. Right now a lot of MMORPG's could be done better as a multiplayer games. I never got into MMORPG's to essentially run the gauntlet of quest.
The gist of what the OP is saying is true IMO. You're not placed into a world to forge your own destiny. Your destiny and game play is already chosen. You just go through the motions of competing the task and quest. You don't have any purpose in the world. Its all just a stage to funnel you from one level to the next. This type of gameplay can be accomplished and generally better in smaller player hosted servers with 1-16 players.
I am not going to argue which game play style is better open or closed. I just don't see the purpose in having a game that lacks lots of cooperation, interdependency, personal conflict, etc in a MMORPG format outside of copyright. Even in copyright issues you can do always online method.
After playing Archeage my disappointment with the genre has multiplied. Not to say that Archeage is the best thing ever because its largely an Asian themepark quality game. The unrefined sandbox elements which in no way effects the ability to run the gauntlet of quest. I think the sandbox could be much more but its very much 1997 sandbox with lack of real detailed community tools. The point is no reason why we have to be locked into worlds that are just quest gauntlets when both can coexist easily.
If you want to see games that are pro freedom and allow players to impact the gameworld and those around them simply do not spend $ on the opposite type of games lol. I know I haven't except WOW, which again deserved it for being a great themepark in its early years.
I know I would never play WOW in its best stage if there was a sandbox MMO, but that was also WOW's big success. Not having competition, just copycats with poor designs.
You say you're not arguing which one is better, but you kinda are.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
You talk about a group of players who are "pro freedom" like there's a group who are "anti-freedom".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I disagree. I think video gaming is really simple to deliver to an audience, but the problem is when one game has to be so large to engage that audience.
If MMOs were a lot shorter as in the length it takes to play a singe player game, with 30 hours tops in one faction. The story was alright, not the best but good... then developers can focus on so much more.
Focus for a fun game;
1. Combat - Player classes differentiation
2. NPC fights- are interesting and challenging when appropriate. If NPCs are trash then they should be easy to wipe with trash loot as well. Boss fights are fun and interesting.
3. Player created content - dungeon creators/traps, player housing
4. Environments and atomshpere - day / night cycles. weather effects
5. Pvp - is fun and feels action packed
6. Mounted combat
7. Crafting - mini game
8. Social activities - sport pvp game, gambling, card games
9. raids - dynamic raids
10. Dynmaic world - with npc movement in open world affects areas (similar to what EQN sounds like)
Really the story is only a small part of the mmo. It should not be necesasry to have 100s of hours of quests. Only 30 hours. Then developers can focus on repeatable content such pvp, a living world and continued developed of raids for example and dynamic events which feel more dynamic than public events or GW2.
For example lets say a game went with a different approach to lvling in that pvp was part of the questing and that certain activities needed to be completed in a certain zone before progressing to the next story/quest. That way those 30 hours of questing can be stretched a bit more.
But personally I would never sacrifice end game for long winded story telling. Yes, it can be nice, but its never great... and really I would rather read a book. If the devs like writing so much, then they can write a book that goes with their MMO... just my personal preference on getting the most of an MMO.
For that reason when I hear that WS is not as VO heavy as swtor or ESO I know it will be better for it in my personal tastes of prioritizing gameplay and the game over story.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
I am biased of course lol. The thing is that you can easily have both a game with quest line and freedom to do what you want outside of this quest line and even have sandbox options. ESO for example could take out some of the questing to make the world feel more like ES offline games. So even despite their IMO wonderfully crafted quest there is a certain amount of fatigue to doing a gauntlet of quest. Even worst if you're leveling an alt in the same alliance.
Yes, you are right about a lot of things. Happy to see other creative minds ^^
I don't like MMORPG .. defined by you .. so? Devs make them. Not you. Plus, i don't have to like all MMOs, do I?
Though I would be one of the first people who would say that players have the ability to ignore the quests and go their own way in order to try to make a unique meaningful pve experience (something I do in Lord of the Rings Online quite a lot) I have to completely disagree with your assertion that there were never any virtual worlds.
The greatest and boldest example from personal experience was early in Lord of the Rings Online's launch where I had played for quite some time only having to log out because there was an extremely important (and the most epic I ever experienced) siege happening that night in Lineage 2.
Logging into Lineage 2 and appearing in the City of Aden (where the siege was taking place and where I had previously logged out) was like a slap in the face as far as whoa, you are not in kansas any more.
Never have I experienced such a game "culture shock" when comparing experiences going from one game (theme park) to another (open world ffa pvp game).
When I logged into Lineage 2 and saw all the preparations, players running around trying to get potions, last minute enchanting or upgrading gear, chat buzzing by quickly with nervous excitement it was extremely apparent that what was about to happen was all about player interaction, player politics, and something that would affect the world as far as how players sided with other players, and showing who had the real power.
But the game was always like that, everything you did was your choice based upon your goals. It was always about player interaction and the world where the players played.
My Lord of the Rings experience was always about me. How my "character" made its way through the pre-made content or how I ignored quests and just went exploring, picking up quests along the way. But in Lineage 2 the game was always about me AND everyone else. There was no way you could escape player interaction on some level, politics, pk'ers, dealing with player commerce, etc.
It truly was its own world and one where players had to band together or be clever and resourceful in order to go their own way always keeping in mind that player interaction was always a hair's breadth away.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
That's ridiculous. Game companies can choose to target whoever they want to, or have whatever personal vision they feel like.
If it fails on the market, so be it, but just because somebody likes different things from you doesn't make them 'young or flawed'. There's no proof that companies following YOUR personal tastes are going to do any better.
You know... this logic actually explains the 'bitter-vets' and their behaviour.
The vets can't understand why the market isn't catering to them (hint: you are a niche) and thus become 'bitter'.
Since they refuse the acknowledge what 'market forces / free market / capitalism' means, they can't explain why the MMO they want isn't happening and thus it must be the 'evil Mass Market get off my lawn types!'
Yeah.. I'm bored. :P
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
That's really exactly the problem. There was a time when these old MMO warriors were the ones the companies catered to but that went away more than a decade ago and they need to wake up, smell the roses and deal with the new reality.
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
There are things I really like about new MMOs... What I find missing is in the game mechanics. There were games which I played and loved simply because of the mechanics(i.e. DAOC).
There is, actually, because WoW was a gigantic success, there is proof right there.
If game companies want to target the "Justin Bieber audience" of mmo's, instead of the Elvis Presley one, then so be it. Just don't say Justin Bieber is better than Elvis Presley because that's the moment every being who has INSIGHT into the quality and innovation of content they produce climb up the wall.
And once again, this is not just my taste. It is just a standard that has been put down, there is just no one who's technically competent and knows what to make out of it or how to improve it.
"Justin Bieber audience"? Now that's a bait if I ever saw one.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
IMO a more apt analogy would be Punk Rock or an indie band, something that was cool and Niche with some good stuff that become popular and had some even more good stuff happen. Now it's gotten a little tired and needs a breath of fresh air!
The people that don't like virtual worlds and old school games never did, they wanted something to fit in their schedule not plan around and that's what devs have been making since WoW
Lol yeah because there are a ton of Wow clones on the horizon like this the mid 00's. Have you guys actually smelled the roses lately? The scent has changed from years past. Not many are going to have the money to spend on tons of crafted quest that many players just want to skip past anyway. SOE is going sandbox. Blizzard shut their game down. Almost every small and mid budget MMORPG is player based content. There are no notable them themeparks coming down the line. With many themeparks failing to reach even 5% of a declining WoW I am sure even developers can see that it's not worth the money into unless you have STWOR/ESO budgets.
The silent majority largely have not experienced anything but WoW clones to know if thats all they want. I think you're going to see themeparks transition into more open ended games, sandbox hybrids and backgrounds and player created.