Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

When will we see a REAL change in MMO's?

1246

Comments

  • StealthSLIStealthSLI Dodge, CAPosts: 14Member

    Originally posted by Loke666

    Originally posted by Icewhite


    Originally posted by Loke666

    Eve is very different from the games before it and is still counted as a MMORPG.

    But the MMOFPS aren't, or the CORPs, or the MOBAs?

    The point is, if you're really dreaming of something markedly different from "standard" MMO game play, you're going to earn yourself a new acronym.  :shrug:

    Yes and no. The term MMO was really coined by Lord British for UO, it wasn't exactly the first MMO, Meridian 59 and the Realm are a year older but since they also are counted as MMOs the term is rather broad.

    CORPGs and MOBAs (the last term is really new BTW) are not MMOs since they don't have an open world. You can't randomly run into other players. So no real Massive in them.

    MMOFPS on the other hand is not RPGs. They are just FPS games in a open world and belong to the FPS genre.

    Single player RPGs are pretty wide in mechanics, compare Bethesdas Elder scrolls serie to Biowares Baldurs gate games. Take any kind of RPG game and add an open world and more than 128 players on a persistant server and you get a MMORPG.

    MMORPGs don't need stuff like levels since not all RPGs have them. They don't need the holy triad either. You can innovate a lot, or transfer pen and paper RPg mechanics that never been in a computer game before and it still will be a MMORPG.

    I agree with loki as well. RPG is an RPG. There are many different types with different combat styles and storytelling, linear and non linear, free roam or not, class system or not, even Borderlands which is a strange mash up of rpg/fps. You can take ANY rpg and throw in thousands of people online play and suddenly BAM you have a MMORPG. RPG allows for so much variation that I am just truly suprised we dont see more unique titles. Borderlands was by no mean traditional but beyond a doubt was an RPG with guns. It was a great game because it did something different and did it rather well all the while remaining an RPG. IMHO as always.

    I do however believe that there will be an acronym change down the road simply because there will be much debate on (given some company makes some drastically DIFFERENT game while WoW and its dopplegangers still reign supreme) wether or not said title is an MMORPG or something different. Borderlands for example was the first FPRPS or First Person Role Playing Shooter. In my mind it was just an RPG but with guns but it actually got its own acronym :)

     

    Edit: The debate thing is actually unlikely lol us as players may debate it but I coubt corperations would, and in all actuality I thinkg Gearbox gave Borderlands that acronym, so then maybe a dev may make a game that is pretty much an MMO but that they clasify it with a new acronym to set themselves apart from the rest. That seems more logical.............i think :P

  • WarmakerWarmaker San Diego, CAPosts: 2,231Member

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    All the "real change" gets ignored because people say "but that's not an MMORPG" to anything that's different.

    (Disregarding the hardcore minority who says that even the MMORPGs aren't MMORPGs.)

    Heh, if an "MMORPG" has mechanics in place that you can solo until level cap, not have to conduct any sort of interaction with other players (buying potions on the AH doesn't count), then it's a good claim that "MMORPG" isn't one after all.

    It's a SPRPG requiring an internet connection.  Nothing more.

    "I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)

  • grawssgrawss None, CAPosts: 419Member


    Originally posted by Loke666

    I agree that the combat mechanics needs to be improved, but I fear that your player created attacks just wont work. I hate to balance something like that.


    What would be so hard to balance about it? I can think of a very easy way:

    Columns: Friend, Foe, Environment, Self, AoE (for a few examples)
    Rows: Stun, Avoid, Speed, Status, Elevation, etc.

    Balance the columns and rows, and everything that fits inside of them would be automatically balanced except in odd circumstances.

    -. "Friend" might add 8% to mana cost
    -. "Foe" might add 25% to mana cost
    -. "Self" would add nothing to mana cost
    -. "AoE" might add 5%(5%n) to mana cost, where "n" is the number of players (1.05(1.05n))
    -. Being in a climate of ~80F degrees would add/subtract nothing to mana cost
    -. Being in a climate of ~32F degrees would subtract 20% from cold spells, add 25% to fire spells

    And with so many possibilities, it would rely almost entirely on the players' balancing act rather than the developers. Cookie cutter builds would be pretty much non-existent because people will immediately build their character to make them irrelevant.

    I have no delusions of grandeur for this system and am just thinking this shit up off the top of my head. The point is, the only limit to an MMOG is the risk the people with money are willing to take. Would the majority of people love a system like the one I've given in the thread? Not if it came out tomorrow, but after GW2, The Secret World, and other MMOGs that are moving away from "set skills," I imagine people will warm up to the idea.

    Sarcasm is not a crime!

  • grawssgrawss None, CAPosts: 419Member

    Originally posted by Warmaker

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    All the "real change" gets ignored because people say "but that's not an MMORPG" to anything that's different.

    (Disregarding the hardcore minority who says that even the MMORPGs aren't MMORPGs.)

    Heh, if an "MMORPG" has mechanics in place that you can solo until level cap, not have to conduct any sort of interaction with other players (buying potions on the AH doesn't count), then it's a good claim that "MMORPG" isn't one after all.

    It's a SPRPG requiring an internet connection.  Nothing more.



    Does that not make it an MMORPG for the people who choose to level with others? That's like saying TOR doesn't have a story because people have the option to avoid it. :/

    Sarcasm is not a crime!

  • laseritlaserit Vancouver, BCPosts: 1,937Member Uncommon

    When will we see a real change in MMO's?

     

    Who can say.... but one thing I believe is that it will come as a complete surprise.

    "If you make an ass out of yourself, there will always be someone to ride you." - Bruce Lee

  • TorikTorik London, ONPosts: 2,343Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Warmaker

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    All the "real change" gets ignored because people say "but that's not an MMORPG" to anything that's different.

    (Disregarding the hardcore minority who says that even the MMORPGs aren't MMORPGs.)

    Heh, if an "MMORPG" has mechanics in place that you can solo until level cap, not have to conduct any sort of interaction with other players (buying potions on the AH doesn't count), then it's a good claim that "MMORPG" isn't one after all.

    It's a SPRPG requiring an internet connection.  Nothing more.

    Under that definition, WoW, EQ, UO, SWG and EVE are not MMORPGs.

  • ClassicstarClassicstar rotjeknorPosts: 2,690Member

    Originally posted by odinsrath

    a REAL change in mmorpg's..

    never

    its a booming cash cow of theamparks and cash shops...devs and companys know this..they wont change untill the gamer dose or untill they think they are loseing money

    image

    Im affraid this....

    For me reason that i almost abandon mmorpgs but as odinsrath say millions like it and companys making alot of money so change we won't see any time soon.

    MB:MSI Z97XPOWER AC
    CPU:Intell Icore7 4790k
    GPU:MSI 2x AMD 290X
    MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
    PSU:Corsair AX1200i
    OS:Windows 8.1 64bit)not yet sure i upgrade to windows 10 need to know alot more with integrated cloud and other maybe spy stuff)

  • WarmakerWarmaker San Diego, CAPosts: 2,231Member

    Originally posted by grawss

    Originally posted by Warmaker


    Originally posted by Axehilt

    All the "real change" gets ignored because people say "but that's not an MMORPG" to anything that's different.

    (Disregarding the hardcore minority who says that even the MMORPGs aren't MMORPGs.)

    Heh, if an "MMORPG" has mechanics in place that you can solo until level cap, not have to conduct any sort of interaction with other players (buying potions on the AH doesn't count), then it's a good claim that "MMORPG" isn't one after all.

    It's a SPRPG requiring an internet connection.  Nothing more.



    Does that not make it an MMORPG for the people who choose to level with others? That's like saying TOR doesn't have a story because people have the option to avoid it. :/

    It's the game mechanics, man.  What exactly does it encourage?  That's the key thing.  I've seen MMORPGs that, despite seeing a bunch of people running around, nobody works with each other.  Nobody says anything.  The incentives are there for excessive solo-friendliness.  In an MMORPG of all places.

    I'm one of the harcore minority Axehilt speaks of:  If it's better to solo, then it's not deserving of being an MMORPG.  I'm better off playing Oblivion, Witcher 2 or some other fabulous, regular RPG that doesn't try to shake money out of my account regularly (F2P or P2P).

    "I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)

  • grawssgrawss None, CAPosts: 419Member

    Originally posted by Warmaker

    Originally posted by grawss


    Originally posted by Warmaker


    Originally posted by Axehilt

    All the "real change" gets ignored because people say "but that's not an MMORPG" to anything that's different.

    (Disregarding the hardcore minority who says that even the MMORPGs aren't MMORPGs.)

    Heh, if an "MMORPG" has mechanics in place that you can solo until level cap, not have to conduct any sort of interaction with other players (buying potions on the AH doesn't count), then it's a good claim that "MMORPG" isn't one after all.

    It's a SPRPG requiring an internet connection.  Nothing more.



    Does that not make it an MMORPG for the people who choose to level with others? That's like saying TOR doesn't have a story because people have the option to avoid it. :/

    It's the game mechanics, man.  What exactly does it encourage?  That's the key thing.  I've seen MMORPGs that, despite seeing a bunch of people running around, nobody works with each other.  Nobody says anything.  The incentives are there for excessive solo-friendliness.  In an MMORPG of all places.

    I'm one of the harcore minority Axehilt speaks of:  If it's better to solo, then it's not deserving of being an MMORPG.  I'm better off playing Oblivion, Witcher 2 or some other fabulous, regular RPG that doesn't try to shake money out of my account regularly (F2P or P2P).

     

    Well now you're switching from the post I quoted. If there is too much incentive to solo, then it moves away from being an RPG. But on the other hand, if there is too much incentive to group, then it also moves away from being an RPG because you suddenly have less choice in the matter.

    The incentive to group should be the social aspects rather than mechanics that attempt to force people together. Remove all barriers to keep people from grouping, make the game group friendly, but don't make it better or worse than soloing just because there are other people around. I probably don't like those people anyway. :P

    Sarcasm is not a crime!

  • WarmakerWarmaker San Diego, CAPosts: 2,231Member

    Originally posted by Torik

    Originally posted by Warmaker


    Originally posted by Axehilt

    All the "real change" gets ignored because people say "but that's not an MMORPG" to anything that's different.

    (Disregarding the hardcore minority who says that even the MMORPGs aren't MMORPGs.)

    Heh, if an "MMORPG" has mechanics in place that you can solo until level cap, not have to conduct any sort of interaction with other players (buying potions on the AH doesn't count), then it's a good claim that "MMORPG" isn't one after all.

    It's a SPRPG requiring an internet connection.  Nothing more.

    Under that definition, WoW, EQ, UO, SWG and EVE are not MMORPGs.

    LOL, last I remember of EQ, UO, SWG (in its classic days, not the NGE sh*t), and EVE, you need players out there to do your thing.  EQ, UO, SWG, were done when group play was very much an established norm in the MMORPG genre.  UO, EVE, and SWG as a matter of fact had active, player driven economies, though I do think SWG's was superior (everything broke eventually).  EVE?  Classic EVE is driven by player politics and server drama.  There's a natural inclination towards the player-made corporations.  You can get into the business side as well as the big space fights.  Then there's the guys looking for sniping an easy kill or simply looking for a fight, so you have to be wary at times.

    Now, these titles, pretty much all MMORPGs have a degree of solo-friendliness.  But the major key is what exactly is encouraged more by game mechanics.  There's titles that penalize you while in groups now.  If everyone is off by themselves instead of working together, because it's probably easier and more beneficial that way, then no, it's just an SPRPG requiring an internet connection.

    Edit to add:  WoW?  Never played it, never will.

    "I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)

  • WarmakerWarmaker San Diego, CAPosts: 2,231Member

    Originally posted by grawss

    Originally posted by Warmaker


    Originally posted by grawss


    Originally posted by Warmaker


    Originally posted by Axehilt

    All the "real change" gets ignored because people say "but that's not an MMORPG" to anything that's different.

    (Disregarding the hardcore minority who says that even the MMORPGs aren't MMORPGs.)

    Heh, if an "MMORPG" has mechanics in place that you can solo until level cap, not have to conduct any sort of interaction with other players (buying potions on the AH doesn't count), then it's a good claim that "MMORPG" isn't one after all.

    It's a SPRPG requiring an internet connection.  Nothing more.



    Does that not make it an MMORPG for the people who choose to level with others? That's like saying TOR doesn't have a story because people have the option to avoid it. :/

    It's the game mechanics, man.  What exactly does it encourage?  That's the key thing.  I've seen MMORPGs that, despite seeing a bunch of people running around, nobody works with each other.  Nobody says anything.  The incentives are there for excessive solo-friendliness.  In an MMORPG of all places.

    I'm one of the harcore minority Axehilt speaks of:  If it's better to solo, then it's not deserving of being an MMORPG.  I'm better off playing Oblivion, Witcher 2 or some other fabulous, regular RPG that doesn't try to shake money out of my account regularly (F2P or P2P).

     

    Well now you're switching from the post I quoted. If there is too much incentive to solo, then it moves away from being an RPG. But on the other hand, if there is too much incentive to group, then it also moves away from being an RPG because you suddenly have less choice in the matter.

    The incentive to group should be the social aspects rather than mechanics that attempt to force people together. Remove all barriers to keep people from grouping, make the game group friendly, but don't make it better or worse than soloing just because there are other people around. I probably don't like those people anyway. :P

    Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.

    Not, Massive Single Player Online Role Playing Game.

    Massive - Hey, you do see other people out there.

    Single Player - Game mechanics ease you into SP mode more; some have group penalty mechanics.

    Online - Have to be online to play.

    RPG - Self explanatory.

    "I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)

  • grawssgrawss None, CAPosts: 419Member

    Originally posted by Warmaker

    Originally posted by grawss


    Originally posted by Warmaker


    Originally posted by grawss


    Originally posted by Warmaker


    Originally posted by Axehilt

    All the "real change" gets ignored because people say "but that's not an MMORPG" to anything that's different.

    (Disregarding the hardcore minority who says that even the MMORPGs aren't MMORPGs.)

    Heh, if an "MMORPG" has mechanics in place that you can solo until level cap, not have to conduct any sort of interaction with other players (buying potions on the AH doesn't count), then it's a good claim that "MMORPG" isn't one after all.

    It's a SPRPG requiring an internet connection.  Nothing more.



    Does that not make it an MMORPG for the people who choose to level with others? That's like saying TOR doesn't have a story because people have the option to avoid it. :/

    It's the game mechanics, man.  What exactly does it encourage?  That's the key thing.  I've seen MMORPGs that, despite seeing a bunch of people running around, nobody works with each other.  Nobody says anything.  The incentives are there for excessive solo-friendliness.  In an MMORPG of all places.

    I'm one of the harcore minority Axehilt speaks of:  If it's better to solo, then it's not deserving of being an MMORPG.  I'm better off playing Oblivion, Witcher 2 or some other fabulous, regular RPG that doesn't try to shake money out of my account regularly (F2P or P2P).

     

    Well now you're switching from the post I quoted. If there is too much incentive to solo, then it moves away from being an RPG. But on the other hand, if there is too much incentive to group, then it also moves away from being an RPG because you suddenly have less choice in the matter.

    The incentive to group should be the social aspects rather than mechanics that attempt to force people together. Remove all barriers to keep people from grouping, make the game group friendly, but don't make it better or worse than soloing just because there are other people around. I probably don't like those people anyway. :P

    Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.

    Not, Massive Single Player Online Role Playing Game.

     

     

    Force me out of my role, and it's no longer an RPG. Force me to play with people I don't like, and the "massive" world becomes linear.

    Take a look at the dungeon finder for WoW. It'll find you a group from a few thousand players, and once you get into to that group, you'll realize that nobody speaks to each other, there is no conversation, nothing. Why? Because it wasn't a choice to group with those people. They are there to finish the task and then leave.

    By forcing people to group like you're trying to do, you'll have less of a social atmosphere than if they had the option.

     

    Sarcasm is not a crime!

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,853Member Uncommon

    When the game changes around you.  As you level or gain a higher amount of skill points the mobs around you tailor to that.  The difference in difficulty (named, heroic, etc.) would then be the amount of attacks the mob has and how intelligent it is rather than strictly scaling it's stats.  Stats would still scale but to the highest person attacking it.  Scale dungeons the same way and also randomized instanced zones.

    Seems odd you can't go anywhere you want in a game world to adventure.  I understand the programming limitations before but I wonder if it would be that hard with our current technology? If you made a scaling system work you would never be locked out of content due to your level and could go where you please with whomever you please.

    To me this is the next step in MMOs.

  • StealthSLIStealthSLI Dodge, CAPosts: 14Member

    I think the whole argument of single player MMO or true multiplayer MMO is completely redundant. No intent to be rude here, but your both kicking a dead horse lol. Its massivley multiplayer, meaning there are thousands of players online at any givven time, its online meaning internet connection requierd, its also soloable if you choose.

    You can play solo for 6 levels, hop into a guild and be social, grab a group and play a dungeon or 3, go solo some more, reach lvl 100 and group up to do epic raids and crap, and anywhere in between any of those things you can PVP. Its doesnt matter regardless because you the player have the choice to do whatever you want when you want regardless of anything or anyone. Play WoW and never talk to another player or join a group EVER, or play WoW and be social with everyone all the time a group for quests and raids and junk, sweet this MMO has a Burger King and you can have it your way!

  • grawssgrawss None, CAPosts: 419Member


    Originally posted by Aelious

    When the game changes around you.  As you level or gain a higher amount of skill points the mobs around you tailor to that.  The difference in difficulty (named, heroic, etc.) would then be the amount of attacks the mob has and how intelligent it is rather than strictly scaling it's stats.  Stats would still scale but to the highest person attacking it.  Scale dungeons the same way and also randomized instanced zones.
    Seems odd you can't go anywhere you want in a game world to adventure.  I understand the programming limitations before but I wonder if it would be that hard with our current technology? If you made a scaling system work you would never be locked out of content due to your level and could go where you please with whomever you please.
    To me this is the next step in MMOs.



    +1
    That's a great next step. :D


    Originally posted by StealthSLI
    I think the whole argument of single player MMO or true multiplayer MMO is completely redundant. No intent to be rude here, but your both kicking a dead horse lol. Its massivley multiplayer, meaning there are thousands of players online at any givven time, its online meaning internet connection requierd, its also soloable if you choose.
    You can play solo for 6 levels, hop into a guild and be social, grab a group and play a dungeon or 3, go solo some more, reach lvl 100 and group up to do epic raids and crap, and anywhere in between any of those things you can PVP. Its doesnt matter regardless because you the player have the choice to do whatever you want when you want regardless of anything or anyone. Play WoW and never talk to another player or join a group EVER, or play WoW and be social with everyone all the time a group for quests and raids and junk, sweet this MMO has a Burger King and you can have it your way!

     
    The argument is more along the lines of how much incentive to group there should be. I want there to be equal incentive to group and solo, while he wants more incentive to group.

    Sarcasm is not a crime!

  • OzivoisOzivois Phoenix, AZPosts: 598Member

    One day an eccentric billionaire will create a company to develop the most fantastic, dynamic 3D virtual world.  Because of the unlimited funding the world will be very dynamic and have that sand-box element we are all looking for. 

     

    Unfortunately, the virtual world will be so realistic that there will eventually be a small percentage of uber characters that control most of the important content while the bottom 90% struggle in anonymity and find the game to be a second job. 

  • TorikTorik London, ONPosts: 2,343Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Warmaker

    Originally posted by Torik


    Originally posted by Warmaker

    Heh, if an "MMORPG" has mechanics in place that you can solo until level cap, not have to conduct any sort of interaction with other players (buying potions on the AH doesn't count), then it's a good claim that "MMORPG" isn't one after all.

    It's a SPRPG requiring an internet connection.  Nothing more.

    Under that definition, WoW, EQ, UO, SWG and EVE are not MMORPGs.

    LOL, last I remember of EQ, UO, SWG (in its classic days, not the NGE sh*t), and EVE, you need players out there to do your thing.  EQ, UO, SWG, were done when group play was very much an established norm in the MMORPG genre.  UO, EVE, and SWG as a matter of fact had active, player driven economies, though I do think SWG's was superior (everything broke eventually).  EVE?  Classic EVE is driven by player politics and server drama.  There's a natural inclination towards the player-made corporations.  You can get into the business side as well as the big space fights.  Then there's the guys looking for sniping an easy kill or simply looking for a fight, so you have to be wary at times.

    Now, these titles, pretty much all MMORPGs have a degree of solo-friendliness.  But the major key is what exactly is encouraged more by game mechanics.  There's titles that penalize you while in groups now.  If everyone is off by themselves instead of working together, because it's probably easier and more beneficial that way, then no, it's just an SPRPG requiring an internet connection.

    Edit to add:  WoW?  Never played it, never will.

    Under this NEW definition WoW, EQ, UO, SWG and EVE would most certainly be classified as MMORPGs.  This just proves that 'level of interaction' is purely dependant on the player.  One can easily play any of these games solo and simply not interact with other players more than one would with NPCs. 

    If one tries to disqualify a game as a MMORPG only because solo play is possible in the game than any MMORPG out there would be disqualified.  Even EVE can be played solo though it makes the game much harder. 

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,701Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Warmaker

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    All the "real change" gets ignored because people say "but that's not an MMORPG" to anything that's different.

    (Disregarding the hardcore minority who says that even the MMORPGs aren't MMORPGs.)

    Heh, if an "MMORPG" has mechanics in place that you can solo until level cap, not have to conduct any sort of interaction with other players (buying potions on the AH doesn't count), then it's a good claim that "MMORPG" isn't one after all.

    It's a SPRPG requiring an internet connection.  Nothing more.

    Grats, you're the minority!

    It's pretty ridiculous to call them SPRPGs when grouping is clearly a playstyle offered while leveling (let alone endgame, where grouping is almost all there is.)  Way to be melodramatic and illogical.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,853Member Uncommon

    In an online enviroment where more people is better there is no reason to exclude anyone whether it's soloers or group players.  I do think that an MMO should have non-instanced group areas in each level tier.  It adds a fun dynamic and would round out the existing solo questline and dungeon running modes.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,701Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by grawss

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    All the "real change" gets ignored because people say "but that's not an MMORPG" to anything that's different.

    (Disregarding the hardcore minority who says that even the MMORPGs aren't MMORPGs.)



    Examples? I'm not interrogating you; just curious.

    A lot of the time I find that "real change" is done in the wrong way, and though it's a good direction to head in, people jump in and say it's awful despite how awesome it would be if it were done correctly.

    Planetside, Shattered Galaxy, Travian-like strategy games; there's a *lot* of MMO variety out there, but if someone refuses to play varied games then (SURPRISE!) they don't experience varied gameplay.

    The more restrictive someone's genre preferences, the less they should expect variety.  Me?  I play a pretty large variety of games, so I see variety all the time.

    Certainly, "real change" is often bad change.  That's the simple fact of innovating: most ideas end up being bad.  (And bad ideas end up being unsuccessful, they die out, and so a narrow group of strong ideas are always the most visible.)

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • Squal'ZellSqual'Zell Montreal, QCPosts: 1,803Member

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by Warmaker


    Originally posted by Axehilt

    All the "real change" gets ignored because people say "but that's not an MMORPG" to anything that's different.

    (Disregarding the hardcore minority who says that even the MMORPGs aren't MMORPGs.)

    Heh, if an "MMORPG" has mechanics in place that you can solo until level cap, not have to conduct any sort of interaction with other players (buying potions on the AH doesn't count), then it's a good claim that "MMORPG" isn't one after all.

    It's a SPRPG requiring an internet connection.  Nothing more.

    Grats, you're the minority!

    It's pretty ridiculous to call them SPRPGs when grouping is clearly a playstyle offered while leveling (let alone endgame, where grouping is almost all there is.)  Way to be melodramatic and illogical.

    offered yet penalized...

    endgame is running the same dungeon 1 billion times...like a dance routine

    real endgame is player made. territory control, where people talk to eachother while in a group. great wars against other player factions, owning part of the land and fighting to keep it be it PVE (invasions) or PvP (conquer)

    image
    image

  • sonoggisonoggi tdot, ONPosts: 1,119Member

    you'll see a real change when GW2 comes out.

  • Nerf09Nerf09 Phoenix, AZPosts: 2,953Member

    Originally posted by BadSpock

    How long since we've seen "real change" in FPS games? In RTS? In RPGs?

    I mean, there are only so many "real changes" to make.

    How do you even DEFINE real change?

     

    I could tell you "FPS games haven't changed at all since Quake" and I'd be right. 100% right...

    IF you didn't qualify what constitutes a change.

    Hence, 99% of the BULLSHIT posting people do on this website.

     

    Last improvement to FPS was around 2002 with wwiionline/planetside/Battlefield1942

    RTS hasn't changed one bit, they clone themselves better than Arnold Swartzenegger   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVIZx3Cl78k

    Last improvement to RPG was 2004 with SWG.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,701Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Squal'Zell

    Originally posted by Axehilt


    Originally posted by Warmaker


    Originally posted by Axehilt

    All the "real change" gets ignored because people say "but that's not an MMORPG" to anything that's different.

    (Disregarding the hardcore minority who says that even the MMORPGs aren't MMORPGs.)

    Heh, if an "MMORPG" has mechanics in place that you can solo until level cap, not have to conduct any sort of interaction with other players (buying potions on the AH doesn't count), then it's a good claim that "MMORPG" isn't one after all.

    It's a SPRPG requiring an internet connection.  Nothing more.

    Grats, you're the minority!

    It's pretty ridiculous to call them SPRPGs when grouping is clearly a playstyle offered while leveling (let alone endgame, where grouping is almost all there is.)  Way to be melodramatic and illogical.

    offered yet penalized...

    endgame is running the same dungeon 1 billion times...like a dance routine

    real endgame is player made. territory control, where people talk to eachother while in a group. great wars against other player factions, owning part of the land and fighting to keep it be it PVE (invasions) or PvP (conquer)

    Penalized?  My fastest WOW characters to 85 grouped for 95% of their playtime.  Grouping is the fastest way to level.  All while leveling in RIFT I would frequently have rift pickup groups which were well rewarded (although after a nerf to that, it felt like they might've been a little lacking.)

    It's just complete nonsense to try to claim modern MMORPGs are SPRPGs.

    Your other opinions are a bit offtopic, but given how they match up with Sandbox vs. Themepark games*, they seem to be minority opinions too.  (*minus the PVE invasions bit...RIFT had invasions, but not anything close to what I think you're proposing.) 

    Which is fine.  Someone's always in the minority, and games keep getting made for those people -- just with smaller playerbases and budgets.

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • OlgarkOlgark BostonPosts: 319Member Uncommon

    I think they are changing much like pop culture does. Ultima Online was the first true MMO, it was a sandbox open world type it had great play ability and the community was really good.

    Then EQ came and started the WoW trend with classes levels instanced dungeons etc. WoW came and beat EQ and the others into the ground because it was easy to play and get into.

    I like the sandbox type of game like Ultima Online and Eve Online, the idea of a themepark / guildwars type of game play I find dull and boring. I like the idea of being able to scam people out of ingame cash/items. Or if I kill them in a game I can loot their equipment and sell it.

    The industry is starting to see a return to some of the old ways in that some MMO's that are being released or coming out are letting you customize your character more, no levels needed within the game system and harsh penalties for death.

    You wish to see a huge change in the way MMO's are made look towards The Secret World, Tera, and CCP's new mmo World of Darkness. Yes they have elements of other MMO's in them but the game play and mechanics are very different.

     

    But most of the younger players have ADHD and find these games to be tedious.

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.