It is actually quite easy to play your character optimally. Everyone manages to do this. The game is all about collecting items so that you can perform well on the next difficulty level. Player skill is not a factor thus the game cannot be called challenging.
Really? Show me how you go through T6 HC doing rifts.
Really? Show me how you go through T6 HC doing rifts with no gear.
that is the challenge .. you can't ... you just make my point.
So basically the game is all about collecting items so that you can perform well on the next difficulty level and player skill is not really the factor as much as getting the items you need to drop?
Personally I think it has nothing to do with any of this.
I think what MMO's have been missing is a believable world you can actually get attached to. One that is massive and just seems to make "sense". I think this is why WoW did so well is because of this, they nailed the feeling of a believable fantasy world. One that feels like a world rather than a linear area that just has a list of tasks for you to do.
I think Wildstar is the newest MMO at the moment to try and get back to this feeling of a large world. Granted its not on the "WoW" scale but it is closer than many other MMO's.
So basically the game is all about collecting items so that you can perform well on the next difficulty level and player skill is not really the factor as much as getting the items you need to drop?
If you want to have higher drop, you have to use your skills .. in fact, unless you have super gear (which 99.99% of the pop don't have), you have to use skills at high T levels.
Player skill is the factor of how fast you can level up and get good drops. If you have bad skills, with the same gear, you can only do T1 vs high skills will allow you to do T3 or T4.
That is the beauty of a difficulty slider. You can face roll the content at normal, no challenge at all, or with the same gear, do T6 and you will die in seconds.
I think what MMO's have been missing is a believable world you can actually get attached to.
I don't think MMOs need a believable world you can get attached to. Or at least I don't need that in a MMO.
What I want is fun content to do ... and more scripting and design, the content is more fun. In fact, i don't want to get attached .. i prefer to play more than one game.
If VR takes off and MMO devs decide to opt in to making a VR MMO ... the genre will change again. What do you do when standing face to face with an actual player like you would in real life? Will we be more prone to saying "Hi?" Maybe we will nod our heads when we pass each other. Maybe we will smile (If the game has such a feature).
Chances are, if this happens, MMOs will begin shifting back to the way they where originally designed. Some people will remain being anti-social but I imagine it will play out exactly how it does in real life. They end up being alone while everyone else is socializing in their groups.
But ... that is only if VR becomes popular .. and that is really a stretch, though not impossible.
That's the great thing about the game industry though, you never know when a whole genre will change, for the better or worse.
If there are enough of them, the dev will make the game so that social is an option, or even eliminated. Whether it is VR or not is irrelevant.
You can put in a LFD in a VR game too.
Oh I agree, but I am saying is that the people themselves are likely to interact more when face to face just like in real life. VR is very relevant when it comes to interaction.
However, you are right that if enough of them are anti-social then the devs would make it optional or do away with it. However, I some how doubt that would happen with VR. Mainly because if VR even gets to that point it would bring in a much broader audience. Those who where not gamers before, might start playing games simply because ... well it's VR lol.
MMOs will likely become even more popular then they already are today because one of VRs main benefits is some of it's social aspects. Since socializing will be one of the main contributor to VR taking off, mmos seem like a logical choice in order to strengthen that area.
Of course we could argue about how it will all turn out ... but truth is it's all just speculation. *shrugs*
If you forced your friends to hang out with you and socialize would they be your friends.....would they even like you ? Or would they resent the fact that they had to do this just to get what they really want.
Why do you think forcing people to do it in a game would turn out better ?
Ohhhhh! They may not like me at first, but after my treatment plan Muahahahaha they would LOVE me! "Reek you love me right?" SAY YOU LOVE ME REEK! "Oh yes, I love you so much Redbug!"
Oh I agree, but I am saying is that the people themselves are likely to interact more when face to face just like in real life. VR is very relevant when it comes to interaction.
Face to face in RL is different. Some meetings are face-to-face so that you can read the facial expression of the other person ... and you lose all that in VR, unless you have mo-cap facial technology, where there is none right now.
Oh I agree, but I am saying is that the people themselves are likely to interact more when face to face just like in real life. VR is very relevant when it comes to interaction.
Face to face in RL is different. Some meetings are face-to-face so that you can read the facial expression of the other person ... and you lose all that in VR, unless you have mo-cap facial technology, where there is none right now.
It sure is different, but it's still similar. Facial expressions may lower the immersion a bit, but it's still worlds apart from a character just being on a screen. Face to face still will work .. just not as well as in real life.
There is no silver bullet aspect to fail, any more than there is a silver bullet, win sauce ingredient to making an MMO long lasting and a great success.
- You put a player in a small, non-immersive world, have them 'level' for a few weeks, then stuff them in instanced dungeons until they get bored out of their skull and leave.
- An alternative, you make the game immersive, you provide a journey that could in theory never end and never conclude at end game and create a game that requires people to play from day one or be forever behind the 'Vet' and you create a class based system that can never be balanced. Any attempt to balance will piss the 'Vet' community off, any steps to not balance will deter new players after the first 6 months, the game gets stale and dies.
The biggest detriment to MMO's is the illusion that they are immune to shelf life. They aren't. That may one day change but in order for that to happen, how we see them needs to change in a big way. Changing a game is far easier than changing the people that play them. We suck at adaptation.
Oh I agree, but I am saying is that the people themselves are likely to interact more when face to face just like in real life. VR is very relevant when it comes to interaction.
Face to face in RL is different. Some meetings are face-to-face so that you can read the facial expression of the other person ... and you lose all that in VR, unless you have mo-cap facial technology, where there is none right now.
It sure is different, but it's still similar. Facial expressions may lower the immersion a bit, but it's still worlds apart from a character just being on a screen. Face to face still will work .. just not as well as in real life.
I doubt it .. there is no real benefits if not for facial expression. But i suppose we have to see it (not anytime soon) before people can figure it out.
MMO's are failing today, because they are solo games with too smaller groups. Sure you are generally herded to END Game, but to many just lose interest getting there because things like combat and crafting etc aren't that great.
We need a return to group based games were you needed to grp all the time to do anything, there by building skills and friendships as you level. Also and very important, 6man grps were you could start incorporating some more diverse skills and abilities rather than just tank, healer and a couple of dps.
MMO's are failing today, because they are solo games with too smaller groups. Sure you are generally herded to END Game, but to many just lose interest getting there because things like combat and crafting etc aren't that great.
We need a return to group based games were you needed to grp all the time to do anything, there by building skills and friendships as you level. Also and very important, 6man grps were you could start incorporating some more diverse skills and abilities rather than just tank, healer and a couple of dps.
Why would we need that? ONe of the most social based games I"ve seen was SWG, there was no forced grouping in that game.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Imo one of the greatest potential the MMO genre has, is to create a game with real emergent gameplay. I understand why no one would invest in that kind of idea since it hasnt been proven as profitable (god damn these recent years in which game devs can't let their ideas flow unto their games unless it's an already proven concept).
But basically an MMO should give us the tools to play in their world, yeah Sandbox style, and it should be broad enough that players can come up or create situations no one thought of doing.
That will happen when we get a game that has no class (unless done very differently, classes narrow down the ranged of abilities you can usually do to interact with the world) but a set of skills that people either specialize in that synergize with other skills that other players can get.
Guild wars had some of it right, some guy mage set an area in flame, people shoot arrow through the curtain of flame, arrow catches fire, does fire damage yada yada. But it was much too simple and badly implemented. Ended up being just something more of the same old stuff.
Now everyone bring something that another player can bring to your raid just a little differently and the trinity is tighter than ever into the healer/tank/damage group.
It would also align with the OP's train of thoughts ultimately, if you can't do everything in your own, you will need to find others who can complete the part of the job that you can't.
Originally posted by RobokappTurf Battles.Family Guy Online. Basically no-name MMO because who'd give them a name, being short-lived?
Ah, so your reference is a low budget asian game released in 2002, closed down in 2008. That is 6 years of running the show. Not to say that it was apparently interesting financially enough for 2 companies to pick the game up since.
Family Guy Online did not make it into release so you can count that one out.
I think it is very safe to assume your claim has no ground whatsoever...
And by Turnips, I mean farming turnips if I so desire. In whatever new and neat outfit I may so desire, with the tools I desire, earned by the quests and tasks I desire, to be spent on whatever I desire, or even cooked or otherwise crafted with the other materials I desire.
In other words, the most important part is what happens outside of combat. Combat is all nice (and bad combat can, but not necessarily will, ruin a game), but in the end you have to make me want to come back. I don't come back to kill more mobs. The Timeless Isle in WoW, mob-killing extroardinaire, is some of the worst content I've ever laid eyes on. I come back for the fashions. The pets. The mounts. The furniture. The housing. The gardening. The crafting (ESPECIALLY the crafting!). Leave all of that out and you have a lobby combat game even if all you can do is walk from place to place, and you'll have no staying power whatsoever.
Raids get cleared, dungeons get farmed, and quests get completed. Fashions, pets, housing, and the hallmarks of a virtual life stand the test of time. And combat trophies are just one of those little hallmarks.
Forced social interaction? No thanks. I like player-owned shops, and I'm happy to deal with players there. Selling things? Sure! General chat? Yah, sometimes it's good. Forced dungeon/raid grouping as the be-all end-all of content? No, there's no reason for it. It's nothing more than an appeal to tradition. I'll take hireling AI's thankyouverymuch. At least they won't ninja my nice dress that ought to drop from a tough boss.
MMO's are failing today, because they are solo games with too smaller groups. Sure you are generally herded to END Game, but to many just lose interest getting there because things like combat and crafting etc aren't that great.
We need a return to group based games were you needed to grp all the time to do anything, there by building skills and friendships as you level. Also and very important, 6man grps were you could start incorporating some more diverse skills and abilities rather than just tank, healer and a couple of dps.
Why would we need that? ONe of the most social based games I"ve seen was SWG, there was no forced grouping in that game.
There was no forced grouping that is true, but in order to go to some of the planets you needed to be in one, and with group sizes of 20, that made for a lot of fun, sure it was easy to die in the game particularly if something big and nasty decided to eat you, and Krayt Dragons definitely were in that category, at least before the 'mega nerf' that hit SWG, but the main thing was, although there was no forced grouping, there was a lot of reasons for wanting to be in a group with others, even for the social classes like dancers and musicians.
Basically no-name MMO because who'd give them a name, being short-lived?
Ah, so your reference is a low budget asian game released in 2002, closed down in 2008. That is 6 years of running the show. Not to say that it was apparently interesting financially enough for 2 companies to pick the game up since.
Family Guy Online did not make it into release so you can count that one out.
I think it is very safe to assume your claim has no ground whatsoever...
I don't know about Turf Battles, but Family Guy Online was definitely an MMORPG. It was also F2P with popups that told you to buy stuff and a system that limited basic activities unless you spent money in their cash shop. It did not last long.
MMORPGs certainly do fail and low budget or poorly written MMORPGs will fail, just as poorly written or low budget video games will fail in general.
I haven't back tracked through the rest of this, but if the point was that MMORPGs sometimes do fail, well duh. It would be weird if they didn't fail. Warhammer Online failed too, but it wasn't for a lack of group content.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Robokappyou asked for examples not for limit samples. I wonder why it didn't make it to release...knowing what we know about infinite open betas a fully active cash shops in betas and selling alphas nowadays.
I did not ask for limit samples, I just asked for samples to be able to determine the meaning of your very vague claims.
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by GdemamiOriginally posted by RobokappTurf Battles.Family Guy Online.Basically no-name MMO because who'd give them a name, being short-lived?
Ah, so your reference is a low budget asian game released in 2002, closed down in 2008. That is 6 years of running the show. Not to say that it was apparently interesting financially enough for 2 companies to pick the game up since.Family Guy Online did not make it into release so you can count that one out.I think it is very safe to assume your claim has no ground whatsoever...
I don't know about Turf Battles, but Family Guy Online was definitely an MMORPG. It was also F2P with popups that told you to buy stuff and a system that limited basic activities unless you spent money in their cash shop. It did not last long.
MMORPGs certainly do fail and low budget or poorly written MMORPGs will fail, just as poorly written or low budget video games will fail in general.
I haven't back tracked through the rest of this, but if the point was that MMORPGs sometimes do fail, well duh. It would be weird if they didn't fail. Warhammer Online failed too, but it wasn't for a lack of group content.
Indeed, he would have very, very difficult time to prove either:
1) Being short-term goal 2) Failing due 1)
There is plenty of short-term goal games and they do not fail, simple as that.
Randomly Grouping with someone on another server for Raids or Dungeons is not what I view as "social interaction". Grouping with a bunch of people for the purpose of killing a big bad boss with some simplistic mechanic is not "social interaction" WOW improved things? No, it didn't. It made matters worse. I'm not saying Random Finders are a bad thing. They do have some positive points, mainly; allowing those that don't have a lot of time to play to find something to do relatively quickly. For what random raiding I did in WOW, I rarely had to speak with anyone in the raid, and didn't interact with them afterwards.
The developer must of avenues for people to interact, but it is up to the player to use those avenues. I will agree that social interaction KEEPS players playing, but to say it causes games to fail is a little shortsighted. What causes games to fail is:
- Released to early (bugs, missing features)
- No real "new features"
- boring gameplay
- slow development cycle
No amount of social interaction can keep a player in game if they don't enjoy the game itself.
Raquelis in various games Played: Everything Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6 Wants: The World Anticipating:Everquest NextCrowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
Basically no-name MMO because who'd give them a name, being short-lived?
Ah, so your reference is a low budget asian game released in 2002, closed down in 2008. That is 6 years of running the show. Not to say that it was apparently interesting financially enough for 2 companies to pick the game up since.
Family Guy Online did not make it into release so you can count that one out.
I think it is very safe to assume your claim has no ground whatsoever...
you asked for examples not for limit samples.
I wonder why it didn't make it to release...knowing what we know about infinite open betas a fully active cash shops in betas and selling alphas nowadays.
Again, no idea about Turf Battles, but Family Guy was a poorly thought out, poorly constructed game that looked more like a commentary on the nature of MMORPGs than anything else. We don't really know what their goals were. I'm sure they would have preferred the game run for years, collecting money that entire time rather than never making it to release. On the other hand, maybe the game really was a commentary on what people will put up with in MMORPGs and it was never intended to make it to release. Or the people who designed it and wrote it were terrible at what they did. It's hard to say. It was a bad game though. That's why it failed.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The main reason for an MMO is not even on that list.
corporative play which is DIFFERENT from 'social'.
A guy can be all alone and yet contribute to the greater whole. Why people do not see the obvious correlations between group gaming and group real life projects, its f8cking obvious!
Its a project not a bar!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
MMO's are failing today, because they are solo games with too smaller groups. Sure you are generally herded to END Game, but to many just lose interest getting there because things like combat and crafting etc aren't that great.
We need a return to group based games were you needed to grp all the time to do anything, there by building skills and friendships as you level. Also and very important, 6man grps were you could start incorporating some more diverse skills and abilities rather than just tank, healer and a couple of dps.
Why would we need that? ONe of the most social based games I"ve seen was SWG, there was no forced grouping in that game.
There was no forced grouping that is true, but in order to go to some of the planets you needed to be in one, and with group sizes of 20, that made for a lot of fun, sure it was easy to die in the game particularly if something big and nasty decided to eat you, and Krayt Dragons definitely were in that category, at least before the 'mega nerf' that hit SWG, but the main thing was, although there was no forced grouping, there was a lot of reasons for wanting to be in a group with others, even for the social classes like dancers and musicians.
Krayt's were one of the few truly challenging foes to face in SWG aside from dark side force masters. Even Dathomir could be soloed ( The Night sister enclave was a popular solo spot, the imperial prison was fun as well.) There were a few spots and dungeons you needed a group for (death watch bunker and the corvette) but that didn't account for a whole lot of the game,
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Too all the people who vote "Combat", why note play LoL or some online FPS then ?
Because, as OP said, the main difference between an MMORPG and other kind of PvP game is the socialisation.
because I am a fantasy D&D fan and can really give a rats ass about FPS style games? For me the gameplay is the deciding factor.
While socialization can enhance the game it is hardly the deciding factor. But really all these features facture into a game. MMORPGs are very complex in that there are so many factors involved into its design. Solo content, socialization, combat, progress, crafting are just a few that all impact the game and go hand in hand.
Comments
So basically the game is all about collecting items so that you can perform well on the next difficulty level and player skill is not really the factor as much as getting the items you need to drop?
Personally I think it has nothing to do with any of this.
I think what MMO's have been missing is a believable world you can actually get attached to. One that is massive and just seems to make "sense". I think this is why WoW did so well is because of this, they nailed the feeling of a believable fantasy world. One that feels like a world rather than a linear area that just has a list of tasks for you to do.
I think Wildstar is the newest MMO at the moment to try and get back to this feeling of a large world. Granted its not on the "WoW" scale but it is closer than many other MMO's.
If you want to have higher drop, you have to use your skills .. in fact, unless you have super gear (which 99.99% of the pop don't have), you have to use skills at high T levels.
Player skill is the factor of how fast you can level up and get good drops. If you have bad skills, with the same gear, you can only do T1 vs high skills will allow you to do T3 or T4.
That is the beauty of a difficulty slider. You can face roll the content at normal, no challenge at all, or with the same gear, do T6 and you will die in seconds.
I don't think MMOs need a believable world you can get attached to. Or at least I don't need that in a MMO.
What I want is fun content to do ... and more scripting and design, the content is more fun. In fact, i don't want to get attached .. i prefer to play more than one game.
Oh I agree, but I am saying is that the people themselves are likely to interact more when face to face just like in real life. VR is very relevant when it comes to interaction.
However, you are right that if enough of them are anti-social then the devs would make it optional or do away with it. However, I some how doubt that would happen with VR. Mainly because if VR even gets to that point it would bring in a much broader audience. Those who where not gamers before, might start playing games simply because ... well it's VR lol.
MMOs will likely become even more popular then they already are today because one of VRs main benefits is some of it's social aspects. Since socializing will be one of the main contributor to VR taking off, mmos seem like a logical choice in order to strengthen that area.
Of course we could argue about how it will all turn out ... but truth is it's all just speculation. *shrugs*
Ohhhhh! They may not like me at first, but after my treatment plan Muahahahaha they would LOVE me! "Reek you love me right?" SAY YOU LOVE ME REEK! "Oh yes, I love you so much Redbug!"
Face to face in RL is different. Some meetings are face-to-face so that you can read the facial expression of the other person ... and you lose all that in VR, unless you have mo-cap facial technology, where there is none right now.
It sure is different, but it's still similar. Facial expressions may lower the immersion a bit, but it's still worlds apart from a character just being on a screen. Face to face still will work .. just not as well as in real life.
There is no silver bullet aspect to fail, any more than there is a silver bullet, win sauce ingredient to making an MMO long lasting and a great success.
- You put a player in a small, non-immersive world, have them 'level' for a few weeks, then stuff them in instanced dungeons until they get bored out of their skull and leave.
- An alternative, you make the game immersive, you provide a journey that could in theory never end and never conclude at end game and create a game that requires people to play from day one or be forever behind the 'Vet' and you create a class based system that can never be balanced. Any attempt to balance will piss the 'Vet' community off, any steps to not balance will deter new players after the first 6 months, the game gets stale and dies.
The biggest detriment to MMO's is the illusion that they are immune to shelf life. They aren't. That may one day change but in order for that to happen, how we see them needs to change in a big way. Changing a game is far easier than changing the people that play them. We suck at adaptation.
I doubt it .. there is no real benefits if not for facial expression. But i suppose we have to see it (not anytime soon) before people can figure it out.
MMO's are failing today, because they are solo games with too smaller groups. Sure you are generally herded to END Game, but to many just lose interest getting there because things like combat and crafting etc aren't that great.
We need a return to group based games were you needed to grp all the time to do anything, there by building skills and friendships as you level. Also and very important, 6man grps were you could start incorporating some more diverse skills and abilities rather than just tank, healer and a couple of dps.
Why would we need that? ONe of the most social based games I"ve seen was SWG, there was no forced grouping in that game.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Imo one of the greatest potential the MMO genre has, is to create a game with real emergent gameplay. I understand why no one would invest in that kind of idea since it hasnt been proven as profitable (god damn these recent years in which game devs can't let their ideas flow unto their games unless it's an already proven concept).
But basically an MMO should give us the tools to play in their world, yeah Sandbox style, and it should be broad enough that players can come up or create situations no one thought of doing.
That will happen when we get a game that has no class (unless done very differently, classes narrow down the ranged of abilities you can usually do to interact with the world) but a set of skills that people either specialize in that synergize with other skills that other players can get.
Guild wars had some of it right, some guy mage set an area in flame, people shoot arrow through the curtain of flame, arrow catches fire, does fire damage yada yada. But it was much too simple and badly implemented. Ended up being just something more of the same old stuff.
Now everyone bring something that another player can bring to your raid just a little differently and the trinity is tighter than ever into the healer/tank/damage group.
It would also align with the OP's train of thoughts ultimately, if you can't do everything in your own, you will need to find others who can complete the part of the job that you can't.
Ah, so your reference is a low budget asian game released in 2002, closed down in 2008. That is 6 years of running the show. Not to say that it was apparently interesting financially enough for 2 companies to pick the game up since.
Family Guy Online did not make it into release so you can count that one out.
I think it is very safe to assume your claim has no ground whatsoever...
I voted Turnips.
And by Turnips, I mean farming turnips if I so desire. In whatever new and neat outfit I may so desire, with the tools I desire, earned by the quests and tasks I desire, to be spent on whatever I desire, or even cooked or otherwise crafted with the other materials I desire.
In other words, the most important part is what happens outside of combat. Combat is all nice (and bad combat can, but not necessarily will, ruin a game), but in the end you have to make me want to come back. I don't come back to kill more mobs. The Timeless Isle in WoW, mob-killing extroardinaire, is some of the worst content I've ever laid eyes on. I come back for the fashions. The pets. The mounts. The furniture. The housing. The gardening. The crafting (ESPECIALLY the crafting!). Leave all of that out and you have a lobby combat game even if all you can do is walk from place to place, and you'll have no staying power whatsoever.
Raids get cleared, dungeons get farmed, and quests get completed. Fashions, pets, housing, and the hallmarks of a virtual life stand the test of time. And combat trophies are just one of those little hallmarks.
Forced social interaction? No thanks. I like player-owned shops, and I'm happy to deal with players there. Selling things? Sure! General chat? Yah, sometimes it's good. Forced dungeon/raid grouping as the be-all end-all of content? No, there's no reason for it. It's nothing more than an appeal to tradition. I'll take hireling AI's thankyouverymuch. At least they won't ninja my nice dress that ought to drop from a tough boss.
There was no forced grouping that is true, but in order to go to some of the planets you needed to be in one, and with group sizes of 20, that made for a lot of fun, sure it was easy to die in the game particularly if something big and nasty decided to eat you, and Krayt Dragons definitely were in that category, at least before the 'mega nerf' that hit SWG, but the main thing was, although there was no forced grouping, there was a lot of reasons for wanting to be in a group with others, even for the social classes like dancers and musicians.
I don't know about Turf Battles, but Family Guy Online was definitely an MMORPG. It was also F2P with popups that told you to buy stuff and a system that limited basic activities unless you spent money in their cash shop. It did not last long.
MMORPGs certainly do fail and low budget or poorly written MMORPGs will fail, just as poorly written or low budget video games will fail in general.
I haven't back tracked through the rest of this, but if the point was that MMORPGs sometimes do fail, well duh. It would be weird if they didn't fail. Warhammer Online failed too, but it wasn't for a lack of group content.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I did not ask for limit samples, I just asked for samples to be able to determine the meaning of your very vague claims.
Now it is clear why, they are baseless...
I don't know about Turf Battles, but Family Guy Online was definitely an MMORPG. It was also F2P with popups that told you to buy stuff and a system that limited basic activities unless you spent money in their cash shop. It did not last long.
MMORPGs certainly do fail and low budget or poorly written MMORPGs will fail, just as poorly written or low budget video games will fail in general.
I haven't back tracked through the rest of this, but if the point was that MMORPGs sometimes do fail, well duh. It would be weird if they didn't fail. Warhammer Online failed too, but it wasn't for a lack of group content.
Indeed, he would have very, very difficult time to prove either:
1) Being short-term goal
2) Failing due 1)
There is plenty of short-term goal games and they do not fail, simple as that.
The most important point in this topic is what kind of "failed" OP mean. Without this important points , everything is pointless.
Total failed = the game fail to release and dead in beta .
Failed to make money. Closed after short release.
Or Failed to keep the P2P subs model.
ect ...
There are many kind of "failed" .
Most topic about MMORPG "failed" always turn bad when the OP don't point out what kind of "fail" .
Randomly Grouping with someone on another server for Raids or Dungeons is not what I view as "social interaction". Grouping with a bunch of people for the purpose of killing a big bad boss with some simplistic mechanic is not "social interaction" WOW improved things? No, it didn't. It made matters worse. I'm not saying Random Finders are a bad thing. They do have some positive points, mainly; allowing those that don't have a lot of time to play to find something to do relatively quickly. For what random raiding I did in WOW, I rarely had to speak with anyone in the raid, and didn't interact with them afterwards.
The developer must of avenues for people to interact, but it is up to the player to use those avenues. I will agree that social interaction KEEPS players playing, but to say it causes games to fail is a little shortsighted. What causes games to fail is:
- Released to early (bugs, missing features)
- No real "new features"
- boring gameplay
- slow development cycle
No amount of social interaction can keep a player in game if they don't enjoy the game itself.
Raquelis in various games
Played: Everything
Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6
Wants: The World
Anticipating: Everquest Next Crowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
Again, no idea about Turf Battles, but Family Guy was a poorly thought out, poorly constructed game that looked more like a commentary on the nature of MMORPGs than anything else. We don't really know what their goals were. I'm sure they would have preferred the game run for years, collecting money that entire time rather than never making it to release. On the other hand, maybe the game really was a commentary on what people will put up with in MMORPGs and it was never intended to make it to release. Or the people who designed it and wrote it were terrible at what they did. It's hard to say. It was a bad game though. That's why it failed.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The main reason for an MMO is not even on that list.
corporative play which is DIFFERENT from 'social'.
A guy can be all alone and yet contribute to the greater whole. Why people do not see the obvious correlations between group gaming and group real life projects, its f8cking obvious!
Its a project not a bar!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Krayt's were one of the few truly challenging foes to face in SWG aside from dark side force masters. Even Dathomir could be soloed ( The Night sister enclave was a popular solo spot, the imperial prison was fun as well.) There were a few spots and dungeons you needed a group for (death watch bunker and the corvette) but that didn't account for a whole lot of the game,
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
because I am a fantasy D&D fan and can really give a rats ass about FPS style games? For me the gameplay is the deciding factor.
While socialization can enhance the game it is hardly the deciding factor. But really all these features facture into a game. MMORPGs are very complex in that there are so many factors involved into its design. Solo content, socialization, combat, progress, crafting are just a few that all impact the game and go hand in hand.