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!

Will MMORPGs ever return to the Everquest/UO Days?

13

Comments

  • PlasmicredxPlasmicredx Strogg CityPosts: 629Member
    Originally posted by FrostWyrm


    Originally posted by Lienhart

    I'll answer this in a very very simple way for everyone to understand:
    Not if the developers want to make a profitable game that doesn't consist of people who are jobless, uneducated, flipping burgers, or have way too much time on their hands.
    Hell, I'm not even sure if the failures of life could afford time to play MMOs, so what category were the old players, like myself back in high school when I had too much time, called? Kids? Basement dwellers?

    Baseless stereotypes don't make a very convincing argument.

    Just because the older games took more time doesn't mean you have to spend that much time playing. Ever since my first year of College I have limited my game time and balanced out my life. Which game I play makes no difference.

  • HalfmadHalfmad Mortal Online Correspondent GlasgowPosts: 83Member

    I'm torn between opening my AOC account back up (it's been a long time..) or waiting for something, but in truth it could be one heck of a wait unless I'm lucky enough to get into a beta or two :(

  • PlasmicredxPlasmicredx Strogg CityPosts: 629Member
    Originally posted by Vegetto

    Age of Conan: One i regreat i never tried. This was due to the Tortage issue. I'm an open world, freedom, 'take in the view' type person, so when i heard tortage was all closed in and you couldn't actually goto most of the areas you see, i didn't bother. However, i gather this was just for the first 20 levels. I am seriously thinking of trying this game. Although i understand it is a themepark, it does have the feel of a sandbox when you look at it. Worrying future though since F2P and Funcom have another favourite kid in the making.

    You should try the Age of Conan trial and at least see Tortage. It's pretty fun and nice graphics. I have a memory of swimming to the bottom of the ocean out of view from a rival in the beach zone of Tortage and swam up behind them and killed them. Before that they were ranging me from the rock. Never saw me coming from underwater though.

  • DoomsDay01DoomsDay01 Charlotte, NCPosts: 780Member Common

    Originally posted by jpnz

    Originally posted by FrostWyrm


    Originally posted by Mahlo



    leojmreimroc is correct in everything he says. The problem also is that things from the past are never remembered as they actually were. All the flaws are forgotten. The contemporary is always viewed critically, however. And it seems to be just human nature to think everything is going to pot. People have thought this way since they thought at all.

    I never claimed, nor have I implied, that the old MMOs were flawless. I only stated that I like them better. Don't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that "flaws are forgotten". Not everyone considers the same features "flaws" as others anyway. A lot of the "flaws" I find with, for example, WoW, might be exactly what someone else is looking for in an MMO, and that's alright. I'm not trying to deny anyone else their game style of choice, just saying that there's room for more than just one style of MMO in today's market.

    One thing that does get brought up a lot and is never actually answered by these so called 'there should be more than one style of MMO!' people is this; are you saying there are only one style of MMO right now?

    I'm looking at the side bar of this very site and I can factually say that you are lying.

    Show me 1 game on the side bar that can put fear into you for your character!

    People can deny it all they want but there are a few things that are so sorely lacking in todays mmo's that completely disconnect you from your character or the world you are in.

    Lets look at zones:

    Love em and hate em but seemless worlds  is not working at all. One of EQ's greatest assets and disappointments to some, was the constant loading, please wait... But at the same time, each zone had its own style and flare and really made each area feel unique. Todays seemless world is far from unique in my opinion. There is no real transition from one area to the next and in such, you dont get the feeling of how epic this next area is supposed to be. To me, that was one of EQ's greatest abilities, to make each zone unique and ominous. You dont get that from of todays games. Even vanguard, which I liked, still suffered this same problem. Todays games also has another issue and that is one of being to progressive. by the time you finish with the first area and are on to the next, you are of appropriate level to be there. They dont put level 20 zones near where level 5 zones are. You don't have to worry about how to get to the next town without being chewed to bits because there aren't creatures there that are so high level that they can see you coming from miles away. Where is the sense of adventure there? Where is the sense of danger?

    Lets look at fear:

    How can you really have a sense of accomplishment if you dont have any fear or loss. I hear todays crowd saying, oh I would never have played a game like eq because death penalties are stupid. yet these same people rush to level 50 and quit a game within a month because why? No challenge! There was nothing to slow them down. They rush mobs, die, rush em again, die, and keep doing it till the mob they wanted was defeated and the great item gotten. What did they lose in the process? Maybe, if they were lucky, at most, a little gold for repairing their equipment.

    Where is the fear of death? Where is the fear of, what is around that next corner? It is gone in todays games. Another of EQ's greatest ideas and also greatest hatred was the loss of levels. if you played stupid, you lost experience. If you were extremely stupid, you lost levels and even access to those powers you had gotten at those levels. This made people actually play cautiously. They didn't just go in guns blazing, they went in with a purpose of, we are going to wipe this area of monsters and everyone comes out alive! Todays folks go in guns blazing, we will rez whoever didnt make it afterwards. Nobody can tell me that challenging or exciting! I had a battle once in eq that lasted over 20 solid minutes and this was not fighting some epic mob, this was fighting trash mobs that kept jumping into our combat. After the first 5 minutes, it was touch and go as if we were going to make it or not and that went on for the next 15 minutes. Even the folks around us was cheering us on and would try to pull a mob off if they felt their group could handle it. 20 minutes later, we were victorious of defeating some pretty hard mobs with lots of lesser mobs involved and was applauded by everyone in the area for our abilities to survive through a fight that not only long, but that would have certainly killed everyone else around us. This was an epic fight of some hard stuff and lots of trash mobs. How many stories can todays folks recite of epic tales of fighting trash mobs?

     

    Lets look at graphics

    Games like EQ had one thing going for it and that was battles didn't take 5 seconds to kill. Even mobs 20 levels below you, could kill you if you were ill prepared or played stupidly. Some fights could take upwards of 2 or 3 minutes or more to kill a single mob. This gave you time to actually look at the character models, at all the details that went into creating that mob. More importantly though, this gave you and your group TIME to make a decision. In todays games, if the mob isn't dead in at most, 10 seconds, then you probably died. How is that fun? Oh thats right, no real death penalty, so who cares, right? Did you get to see the detail that went into the mob that killed you in 10 seconds? I doubt it. Even after you have killed 500 of those same creatures, you still only see the overall view of the creature. You don't really see the true artwork that went into why that creature is scary or why is it in this particular area. To me, that artform is lost in todays games. Even though todays games are graphically superior, they still lack in true artwork.

     

    Lets look at mobs:

    Todays mobs in mmo's all have short leashes attached around their necks. They either despawn and respawn back at where they were or they simply walk back ignoring everyone around them as they go. Again, another one of eqs greatest and hated things was the train to zone. Mobs did not quit chasing you simply because they got to the end of their leash. They chased you till you were completely out of the zone. Again, making for a more dangerous and thrilling environment. Train to zone was what caused our epic 20 minute battle in the first place. we had several of those trains go by us as we were fighting and on their way back to their area, they saw us and jumped into the fight. its yet another reason that mobs in todays games are just absilutely stupid.

    And lastly, lets look at community:

    EQ was a grouping game. sure certain classes could solo, but for the most part, you grouped and you got to learn a lot about the people that played this game with you. Back then, fighting something like the fire giants in sol b, and having the fire giants summon you and yell to the zone, YOU WILL NOT EVADE ME XXXXX! And seeing the people in the zone chat cheering you on and telling you to kick that giants ass is just not something you see in todays mmo's.

     

    Sadly that great sense of community, that great sense of pride in your character does not exist in todays mmo's. And lets face it, the people playing todays mmo's are not there for the journey, they are there to get to top level as fast as they can. Today is all about quick fights, PVP blowhards who want to tell the world about how big their e-peen is and there is no loyalty to the games they play. And all we always hear time and time again is how none of the games are really different then any of the other mainstream mmos and how getting to 50 takes 3 days instead of 3+ months, and then they say they could never play an mmo like eq because it wouldn't be fun. So whos fault is this really? Is it the game companys wanting to try and grab as much quick cash as they can before the next game comes out or is it the players fault for being so ADD that they can't see their need for speed is what is causing part of this problem in the first place?

     

    Now, I honestly dont mind them having these type of MMO's out there for the players that just want quick satisfaction and don't care if they will be playing it in 30 days time. the problem is that these games companies are now only wanting quick cash. They are not in anymore for the long haul. Look at eq. Its what, something like 15 years old and still going, albeit not in its same form as it once was but I saw an article that mentioned that they had made over half a billion dollars from that game alone. Did that make them super rich? well, probably somewhat rich but not 10 million a month rich like wow. But they still made good money. There are people new and old a like that could love games like eq and uo and others from the past, if game companies would put more effort into the long term and not the short term goals.

     

    I think one of my biggest gripes of the small developers that act like they have that vision is that they feel everyone from the past wants to have open world PVP. Which in my case and I am sure, many others, that PVP is not a concern and could easily live without but we are not offered that choice.  it is either open world pvp or you simply dont play the game. Where is the meaningful PVE centric gameplay?

  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko RotterdamPosts: 3,845Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by lizardbones

     




    Originally posted by FrostWyrm





    Originally posted by Lienhart

    I'll answer this in a very very simple way for everyone to understand:

    Not if the developers want to make a profitable game that doesn't consist of people who are jobless, uneducated, flipping burgers, or have way too much time on their hands.

    Hell, I'm not even sure if the failures of life could afford time to play MMOs, so what category were the old players, like myself back in high school when I had too much time, called? Kids? Basement dwellers?






    Baseless stereotypes don't make a very convincing argument.







    The general premise is sound though. AAA developers are not going to make games that require players to be tied to the game for many hours at a time. Not for a large scale audience. You will see this from smaller developers, but only because the 'casual' market is tied up by the AAA developers.



    So the general answer is, even if Theme Parks go out of style, there will not be a return to the UO/EQ1 days. The market will move on to something else.



    ** edit **

    Think of it like this. The entire market for UO/EQ was 750,000 people at their peak. The entire market for MMORPG was roughly a million people. That's how many people might play a UO/EQ game. The market for SWToR alone is 2 million people. Rift was over a million people by itself. There aren't enough people to sustain a AAA UO/EQ game. It will be smaller developers or nothing.

     

    If you accept that UO/EQ players were unique, and that all new players since that day prefer casual playstyles, then your absolute numbers hold true.

    If you accept that 100% of WoW's ~10 Million players are totally happy and wouldn't swap the game for anything else, then that statement holds true.

    If you accept that the ~10 million WoW players from 2006 have never left the game, then perhaps that statement holds true. (but then WoW couldn't have attracted any NEW players since 2006...)

     

    The MMO market has grown massively in the last 10 years since UO/EQ. Are we to accept that people only ever like ONE thing, and that that now excludes "sandbox"-type games ?

     

    I'm sure at least 25% of the UO/EQ playerbase actually didn't like the playstyle 100%. They played because their friends did, or because there was very little choice of alternatives at that time.

     

    Who's to say that 25% of WoW's players might not jump at the chance of playing a totally different game style, like a well-made sandbox, for instance ?

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by SpottyGekko

    Originally posted by lizardbones
     


    Originally posted by FrostWyrm



    Originally posted by Lienhart
    I'll answer this in a very very simple way for everyone to understand:
    Not if the developers want to make a profitable game that doesn't consist of people who are jobless, uneducated, flipping burgers, or have way too much time on their hands.
    Hell, I'm not even sure if the failures of life could afford time to play MMOs, so what category were the old players, like myself back in high school when I had too much time, called? Kids? Basement dwellers?


    Baseless stereotypes don't make a very convincing argument.





    The general premise is sound though. AAA developers are not going to make games that require players to be tied to the game for many hours at a time. Not for a large scale audience. You will see this from smaller developers, but only because the 'casual' market is tied up by the AAA developers.

    So the general answer is, even if Theme Parks go out of style, there will not be a return to the UO/EQ1 days. The market will move on to something else.

    ** edit **
    Think of it like this. The entire market for UO/EQ was 750,000 people at their peak. The entire market for MMORPG was roughly a million people. That's how many people might play a UO/EQ game. The market for SWToR alone is 2 million people. Rift was over a million people by itself. There aren't enough people to sustain a AAA UO/EQ game. It will be smaller developers or nothing.

     


    If you accept that UO/EQ players were unique, and that all new players since that day prefer casual playstyles, then your absolute numbers hold true.
    If you accept that 100% of WoW's ~10 Million players are totally happy and wouldn't swap the game for anything else, then that statement holds true.
    If you accept that the ~10 million WoW players from 2006 have never left the game, then perhaps that statement holds true. (but then WoW couldn't have attracted any NEW players since 2006...)
     
    The MMO market has grown massively in the last 10 years since UO/EQ. Are we to accept that people only ever like ONE thing, and that that now excludes "sandbox"-type games ?
     
    I'm sure at least 25% of the UO/EQ playerbase actually didn't like the playstyle 100%. They played because their friends did, or because there was very little choice of alternatives at that time.
     
    Who's to say that 25% of WoW's players might not jump at the chance of playing a totally different game style, like a well-made sandbox, for instance ?



    Yeah, I thought about that, but really what you're looking for are steady numbers. The peak numbers are the people who wanted to play the games, not people who were just trying the games out. For instance, right now the entire market for sandbox, harsh death penalty, etc. type games is the 300,000 people playing Eve. There are more people trying out Eve, but that 300,000 is the total number of people who want to play it. There are other sandbox games, but their numbers are so low as to be irrelevant.

    There aren't enough documented people who would play such a game to justify AAA development. There could be 1 Billion undocumented people who would play such a game...but they're undocumented and won't have any impact on such decisions.

    Such a game will come from a smaller (not AAA) developer, or not at all. Even then, such a game might be reminiscent of UO or EQ, but it's going to be something new. If for no other reason than developers (especially smaller developers) want to stamp their own sense of identity on their creations.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • BrenelaelBrenelael Warren, MEPosts: 3,996Member

    Originally posted by jpnz

    Yes, let us return to the dark days where having 300k subs was considered 'gigantic', where playing an MMO was not something you said socially. /sarcasm

    Last I checked, EQ/UO are still up and running so what's the problem?

     

    The problem is that they have been 'WoWified' and no longer play like the games we loved back in 1997-2003. UO has been turned into some bastard PvE hybrid game and EQ1 has been dumbed down in the extreme starting with the Luclin expansion and getting progressively worse with every expansion since. You can't just 'Go and still play them' becuase they don't exist anymore in the form that most of us used to play them. I will however concede that the 'WoWification' of both these games did start before WoW but in both cases WoW's success greatly sped up the process. I am so sick of seeing this lame excuse for a reply to this type of thread as it shows a real lack of understanding of the history of these games.

     

    Bren

    while(horse==dead)
    {
    beat();
    }

  • FrostWyrmFrostWyrm Tempe, AZPosts: 1,036Member

    Originally posted by lizardbones

     

    There aren't enough documented people who would play such a game to justify AAA development. There could be 1 Billion undocumented people who would play such a game...but they're undocumented and won't have any impact on such decisions.



    Such a game will come from a smaller (not AAA) developer, or not at all. Even then, such a game might be reminiscent of UO or EQ, but it's going to be something new. If for no other reason than developers (especially smaller developers) want to stamp their own sense of identity on their creations.

    Remembering back to when Vanguard first released, there was a HUGE following surrounding the buzz of that game, yet what the game delivered was not what was promised. Largely because Sigil decided to compromise at the last minute. The result was a game that was too hardcore for the casual audience, and too casual for the hardcore audience.

    Final Fantasy XI (which I mentioned before) is a good example that there is an untapped audience for such a game. Despite it showing its age, it still produces impressive subscription numbers. If a newer game of a similar difficulty and quality were to be released today, I have no doubt it would do well.

    The audience is out there.

  • StoneddragonStoneddragon GEORGETOWN, TXPosts: 1Member

    i have allso been lookin for that sandbox type aswell. since i left ff11 (7+ great years of gameing) and before that 10 years of uo. mortal almost had me but  just didnt have that "magic" my jadded hopes where lookin for (+ i didnt want to spend $14/mo on a beta) + the forum flames did a good job turnin me off after i spent 2 months swimming threw bugs/crashes on release. though i did find somethin its a little early to tell since they upgradeing the world map. Dawntide .

    it was in beta but they closed for a total world redesign to make everything look better (it was cool to look at before o.0). they said it whould take 2 months last month ago, and the gm feedback is active/friendly to the comunity. from what i seen in forums theres alot of uo fans/sandbox fans. and gms seam to miss the old uo/eq elements that made these games what we loved so much. (i mean hell what uo fan didnt dream of a 3d world player made/ran structures in that setting) XD. so im keepin an eye on that game hopefully by the end of feb. it will be reopened on time. 

    and sry for my gramical errors and spellin flaws i hope i didnt make your eyes bleed too much.

  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko RotterdamPosts: 3,845Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by lizardbones

     




    <snip>


    Yeah, I thought about that, but really what you're looking for are steady numbers. The peak numbers are the people who wanted to play the games, not people who were just trying the games out. For instance, right now the entire market for sandbox, harsh death penalty, etc. type games is the 300,000 people playing Eve. There are more people trying out Eve, but that 300,000 is the total number of people who want to play it. There are other sandbox games, but their numbers are so low as to be irrelevant.



    There aren't enough documented people who would play such a game to justify AAA development. There could be 1 Billion undocumented people who would play such a game...but they're undocumented and won't have any impact on such decisions.



    Such a game will come from a smaller (not AAA) developer, or not at all. Even then, such a game might be reminiscent of UO or EQ, but it's going to be something new. If for no other reason than developers (especially smaller developers) want to stamp their own sense of identity on their creations.

     

    I'm a great EVE fan, my sub to EVE has been continuous since early 2004. Missed maybe 3 months due to a slip-up at some point. BUT, I regularly take breaks to play other games. That "spaceship avatar" just gets to me from time to time. As I always say: "I like to feel the virtual grass beneath my virtual feet every now and then" :D

     

     

    I have seen countless posts on various forums over the years that all say basically the same thing regarding EVE: "It's an awesome game, I really like the concept, but I just can't play a game where my avatar is a space ship".


     


    So there are a lot of people who are attracted to the EVE game design, but they simply don't like the setting. Space and spaceships is not everyones cup of tea. Neither is the heavy PVP-slant of EVE.


     


     


    To say that EVE represents the total sum of people that like sandbox games is just simply wrong.

  • blognorgblognorg Roseburg, ORPosts: 643Member

    I've mentioned this before, but I think the success of a lot of the AAA game is the presentation and approachable beginning. If a game looks nice, feels nice and does a good job of teaching the game mechanics, then that right there is a solid recipee for sucess (initially). After that, many MMOs have qualities to addict the player, be it community, gear, or achievements/ranking.

     

    Look at many of the sandbox games that are out right now. They aren't very approchable, and the lack of budget is apparent in many of them. These factors detour people. I think it's entirely possible to have a AAA sandbox-type game, but some it will need some of those features that I described. The problem is that most complicated games are just that... too complicated at first, and it's overwhelming. I like complexity in a game, but I don't necessarily want to invest tons of hour right off the bat to learn a game that I'm not sure I'm even going to like. Even complex ideas can be accessible if the correct tools are used to teach them. 

     

    Most sand box games just plop you in with poor or little instruction. I'll be the first to say that In don't like linear MMOs, but there needs to be something in the beginning, at least, to get people involved in the game. This isn't a new concept for entertainment; "the hook" is an old-as-dirt methed for drawing people in. And video games, in my opinion, have the most potential to do so, because they have more aspects to enhance an experience. Granted, it also allows for more areas to fail, such as bad controls or something.

     

    Another thing is that I don't think that the genre needs to recede into an older style, but advance. I think the genre is starting to move along now, and hopefully games like GW2 can succeed and show the martket the people are ready for AAA games to start making changes and hedge the way for more creative ideas.

  • GothbagGothbag Woodstock, VTPosts: 8Member

    Will MMORPGs ever return to the EverQuest/UO days?

    No, fortunately, they won't. Most of the community actually likes morgs they way they are now. I've tried dozens of morgs and the ones that I've liked best are WoW, Rift, City of Heroes and SWTOR who happen not be grindfests and give you the option not to group if you don't feel like it.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by SpottyGekko


    Originally posted by lizardbones
     



    <snip>

    Yeah, I thought about that, but really what you're looking for are steady numbers. The peak numbers are the people who wanted to play the games, not people who were just trying the games out. For instance, right now the entire market for sandbox, harsh death penalty, etc. type games is the 300,000 people playing Eve. There are more people trying out Eve, but that 300,000 is the total number of people who want to play it. There are other sandbox games, but their numbers are so low as to be irrelevant.

    There aren't enough documented people who would play such a game to justify AAA development. There could be 1 Billion undocumented people who would play such a game...but they're undocumented and won't have any impact on such decisions.

    Such a game will come from a smaller (not AAA) developer, or not at all. Even then, such a game might be reminiscent of UO or EQ, but it's going to be something new. If for no other reason than developers (especially smaller developers) want to stamp their own sense of identity on their creations.
     

    I'm a great EVE fan, my sub to EVE has been continuous since early 2004. Missed maybe 3 months due to a slip-up at some point. BUT, I regularly take breaks to play other games. That "spaceship avatar" just gets to me from time to time. As I always say: "I like to feel the virtual grass beneath my virtual feet every now and then" :D
     
    I have seen countless posts on various forums over the years that all say basically the same thing regarding EVE: "It's an awesome game, I really like the concept, but I just can't play a game where my avatar is a space ship".

    So there are a lot of people who are attracted to the EVE game design, but they simply don't like the setting. Space and spaceships is not everyones cup of tea. Neither is the heavy PVP-slant of EVE.

    To say that EVE represents the total sum of people that like sandbox games is just simply wrong.



    Then the total sum of those people is undefined, and will not result in a AAA developer creating such a game. It's a no-win scenario. Either developers have a good idea of how many players there could be (not enough) or they have no idea at all. Neither is a good reason to make such a game. Especially compared to the easily definable numbers related to the number of people who will happily fork over money for the more casual mmorpg.

    ** edit **
    Keep in mind, I'm talking AAA, main stream development. That doesn't mean there won't be any development at all, or that no developer will take a chance on that undefined group of players.

    Also, Dawntide looks like it might have a chance at not being horrible.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • LienhartLienhart Markham, ONPosts: 635Member

    Originally posted by SpottyGekko

    Originally posted by lizardbones

     




    Originally posted by FrostWyrm






    Originally posted by Lienhart

    I'll answer this in a very very simple way for everyone to understand:

    Not if the developers want to make a profitable game that doesn't consist of people who are jobless, uneducated, flipping burgers, or have way too much time on their hands.

    Hell, I'm not even sure if the failures of life could afford time to play MMOs, so what category were the old players, like myself back in high school when I had too much time, called? Kids? Basement dwellers?







    Baseless stereotypes don't make a very convincing argument.








    The general premise is sound though. AAA developers are not going to make games that require players to be tied to the game for many hours at a time. Not for a large scale audience. You will see this from smaller developers, but only because the 'casual' market is tied up by the AAA developers.



    So the general answer is, even if Theme Parks go out of style, there will not be a return to the UO/EQ1 days. The market will move on to something else.



    ** edit **

    Think of it like this. The entire market for UO/EQ was 750,000 people at their peak. The entire market for MMORPG was roughly a million people. That's how many people might play a UO/EQ game. The market for SWToR alone is 2 million people. Rift was over a million people by itself. There aren't enough people to sustain a AAA UO/EQ game. It will be smaller developers or nothing.

     

    If you accept that UO/EQ players were unique, and that all new players since that day prefer casual playstyles, then your absolute numbers hold true.

    If you accept that 100% of WoW's ~10 Million players are totally happy and wouldn't swap the game for anything else, then that statement holds true.

    If you accept that the ~10 million WoW players from 2006 have never left the game, then perhaps that statement holds true. (but then WoW couldn't have attracted any NEW players since 2006...)

     

    The MMO market has grown massively in the last 10 years since UO/EQ. Are we to accept that people only ever like ONE thing, and that that now excludes "sandbox"-type games ?

     

    I'm sure at least 25% of the UO/EQ playerbase actually didn't like the playstyle 100%. They played because their friends did, or because there was very little choice of alternatives at that time.

     

    Who's to say that 25% of WoW's players might not jump at the chance of playing a totally different game style, like a well-made sandbox, for instance ?

    I am not going to waste my time explaining why but I will say this:

    This is why I know you do not have a business major and have no knowledge whatsoever of business, econ, or marketing.

  • VesaviusVesavius BristolPosts: 7,643Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Matt1128Y

    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    I mean this, but I am really curious why you aren't playing Darkfall and Vanguard. Damn even L2... so what's up?

    Vanguard is dead in terms of population, last I heard. If it wasn't, then I'd be playing. I'd definitely be playing it over games like WoW and SWTOR.

     

    Thats what everyone says, and so it's population stays on the floor.

    And all the while the devs look at it and say, 'See? No one wants this type of game... No one plays them. Lets make another WoW because they are obviously popular.'

    And all the while you continue to come to these boards and complain that no one is making what you want.

    Guess what though? Complaining isn't enough. You actually have to buy what the games you like are selling. No Dev will invest millions on your vague commitment to play the game if they do. They need to see the colour of your cash.

     

    The only way to tell the market to supply the kind of games you want is to actually play the ones out there, despite their imperfections.

    Now, go make a VG account and become part of the solution.

  • tank017tank017 Glendale, CAPosts: 2,192Member
    It's going to take an indie company to make an MMO that's anything like the old days.Maybe The Repopulation will bring back some of the old days,as they are drawing on those times for inspiration.Or maybe even Archeage though I don't know enough about it to comment much.
  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member

    As much as I dislike future warfare for MMOs for various reasons, like in the future we will do war from orbit, Repop is looking boss.

  • kitaradkitarad RomePosts: 1,744Member Uncommon

    I doubt it will ever go back the whole psychology of players that now play these games has radically changed .The few toothless veterans like us from Everquest are too few to be counted and too few to make any demands or be catered to.

    image

  • TorikTorik London, ONPosts: 2,343Member Uncommon

    I definitly expect a UO-like game in the future.  UO had a lot of great RP ideas that have not been seriously revisited in newer games.  Proper (ie not FFA PvP) sandbox MMORPGs have a lot of untapped potential that needs to become more mainstream.

    I do not really see a reason why themepark MMORPGs should go back to the way EQ was implemented.  The design had massive flaws and improving them will basicly get you another WoW.  The future is all about fixing the flaws WoW has and not reintroducing problems that were alredy solved.

  • RajCajRajCaj Lafayette, LAPosts: 706Member

    Originally posted by tank017

    It's going to take an indie company to make an MMO that's anything like the old days.Maybe The Repopulation will bring back some of the old days,as they are drawing on those times for inspiration.Or maybe even Archeage though I don't know enough about it to comment much.

    I'll add one to that....

     

    It's going to take an indie company that understands it's sandbox audience & tightens it's scope to make an MMO anything like the old days.

     

    The fact of the matter is, indie companies don't have the money to compete in the areas of asthetics, polish & complicated network technology that the AAA themepark games have.  Some may argue, but my contention is that the reason we haven't seen the big publishers bank roll any of the recent sandbox projects is because there aren't enough people in the sandbox MMORPG market to make it economic to spend the millions of dollars required to deliver a high level of polish & features.

     

    The problem I've seen from some of the more recent attempts by indie developers has much to do with them spending their money in areas of the game that aren't ranked that high among sandbox MMORPG gamers.

    Look at Adventurine and their Darkfall project.  Small dev house that took them 6+ years to get anything to market.  They spent that time having to rebuild their own 3D engine from ground up and halting or slowing down production because they couldn't get a single publisher to pick them up.  They finally launched 6+ years later with half the features they promised.

    What took so long?  And with that time, why couldn't they deliver on all the promises they made?

    Instead of spending all that time & money working on their custom 3D engine (which is probably a monster to support long term and really isn't all that impressive) they could have slapped their game's ruleset ontop of an isometric "Diablo / Battle of Immortals" like interface and could have saved enough money to purchase a proper market basket that didn't have to cap # number of purchases per day! LOL

    Mortal Online suffered from the same thing...

     

    If an indie developer wants to put out something that doesn't take alot of time and resources, lift the UO ruleset (plenty of UO private server devs are available), slap it ontop of a nice looking isometric 2.5D Engine like Battle of Immortals or Torch Light, and carve out a compelling world to explore & exploit with other players in the community.

    No complicated Cross Server LFD Tools....

    No server farms needed for running 100s of instances....

     

    There are plenty of things an indie developer can do to lower the cost of doing business AND deliver a game that hits on points that traditional MMORPG gamers find interesting.

     

  • BorzBorz Fort Smith, ARPosts: 2Member

    I think the "glory" days will come back to some extent, but in some modified form. The fact that this discussion gets played over and over again on every game forum suggests that there is a market for something different. We have all seen countless threads on this same topic.  See the other sandbox vs. themepark thread on this site. 


     


    If we look at WoW/Rift as a pendulum swing far to the right and EQ/UO as a pendulum swing far to the right, there is no reason we cannot land somewhere in the middle.  I agree that a lot of the love most of us have for EQ is nostalgia.  However, there is something to be said for being a little uneasy about going through a new zone.  It makes gameplay exciting.  My 30 days of free SWTOR expires today and I won't be renewing.  Why?  B/c I can run across the whole map w/o EVER having to worry about dying.  It's silly.  There is no reason to go over all the pros and cons of both styles again.  They are many and varied and we've all heard them countless times.  But eventually, a developer will figure out how to combine the best of both worlds and that will give us old timers something to play.

  • MMOExposedMMOExposed lalal land, DCPosts: 6,255Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Matt1128Y

    I recently bought and played Star Wars The Old Republic, leveled up a Bounty Hunter to 35, and then realized... this game is basically exactly the same thing as WoW. Their themes are different, and the quests and dialogue are voiced in SWTOR, but besides that, there is no difference between the two.
    What makes matters worse, WoW trumps SWTOR where they are similar (battlegrounds, dungeons, world pvp, etc.).
    That being said, I don't like either of these games.
    I just wonder if there will ever come a time when another well-done Ultima Online or Everquest will be released.
    My issues with these newer MMORPGs (older MMORPGs lacked in some of the following ways too though) are as follows:
    1. The leveling experience is unchallenging. Weak death penalties and easy leveling make for a boring game. It wouldn't be so bad if the death penalties were stricter, or if the leveling were more difficult, but neither is the case with these newer MMORPGs.
    2. Linear zone design. I didn't have this problem in WoW, but in SWTOR, the zone designs are terrible. It feels like you're stuck on a train of boredom going to hell.
    3. Focus on canned PVP. I enjoy community-driven spontaneous World PVP as opposed to being teleported to some arena and being told to capture a flag. Nuff said. By the way, there is practically no World PVP going on in SWTOR.
    4. Nothing to do but grind quests, level up your crafting, and grind "Battlegrounds" and "Dungeons." I can't believe there were MMORPGs released in 2011 where all you can do is the aforementioned.
    5. Lack of character customization. Not many choices for faces, hair, etc.; and few species/race options--or the differences between species/race options are purely aesthetic (like in SWTOR).
     
     
     
     
    Regardless, I'm done with these kinds of MMORPGs. Some call them theme park MMORPGs, but my problems with current MMORPGs are beyond that. For instance, a sandbox MMORPG could have weak death penalties too.
    Going back to my original question, do any of you know of any MMORPGs that will be released in the future that will coincide with my tastes? Thanks.

     

    Hey OP but Everquest and UO are so far ends from each other. What you describe doesn't make sence, because how can what you ask for apply to both EQ and UO?

    image

  • SuraknarSuraknar Montreal, QCPosts: 824Member

    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    Originally posted by Matt1128Y

    I recently bought and played Star Wars The Old Republic, leveled up a Bounty Hunter to 35, and then realized... this game is basically exactly the same thing as WoW. Their themes are different, and the quests and dialogue are voiced in SWTOR, but besides that, there is no difference between the two.

    What makes matters worse, WoW trumps SWTOR where they are similar (battlegrounds, dungeons, world pvp, etc.).

    That being said, I don't like either of these games.

    I just wonder if there will ever come a time when another well-done Ultima Online or Everquest will be released.

    My issues with these newer MMORPGs (older MMORPGs lacked in some of the following ways too though) are as follows:

    1. The leveling experience is unchallenging. Weak death penalties and easy leveling make for a boring game. It wouldn't be so bad if the death penalties were stricter, or if the leveling were more difficult, but neither is the case with these newer MMORPGs.

    2. Linear zone design. I didn't have this problem in WoW, but in SWTOR, the zone designs are terrible. It feels like you're stuck on a train of boredom going to hell.

    3. Focus on canned PVP. I enjoy community-driven spontaneous World PVP as opposed to being teleported to some arena and being told to capture a flag. Nuff said. By the way, there is practically no World PVP going on in SWTOR.

    4. Nothing to do but grind quests, level up your crafting, and grind "Battlegrounds" and "Dungeons." I can't believe there were MMORPGs released in 2011 where all you can do is the aforementioned.

    5. Lack of character customization. Not many choices for faces, hair, etc.; and few species/race options--or the differences between species/race options are purely aesthetic (like in SWTOR).

     

     

     

     

    Regardless, I'm done with these kinds of MMORPGs. Some call them theme park MMORPGs, but my problems with current MMORPGs are beyond that. For instance, a sandbox MMORPG could have weak death penalties too.

    Going back to my original question, do any of you know of any MMORPGs that will be released in the future that will coincide with my tastes? Thanks.

     

    Hey OP but Everquest and UO are so far ends from each other. What you describe doesn't make sence, because how can what you ask for apply to both EQ and UO?

    He simply wants a Challenging MMO where it is harder to evolve in as a character, in EQ this was accomplished by a host of intended Tediums...in Uo it was self accomplished based on the combination of the mechanics of the game and the behavior of people. But it still is a common point between the two, progression in both was harder than what it is today in most games. Other than that thought, EQ was a themepark, and UO was a Sandbox, both I would say the point of reference, the pioneers within their own approach.

    Having said this, i think what the OP wants may not be popular, one of the bigger issues a game such as this will have is also RMT that will jump in to the opportunity to offer all kinds of services to players so they can by-pass the challenging setup, so it would defy the purpose, cause many to quit and become an empty environment soon enough where even the most hardcore would be bored.

    Times have changed, and there are third party powers that influence greatly how games are designed.

    - Duke Suraknar -
    Order of the Silver Star, OSS

    image
    ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard

  • HodoHodo Raeford, NCPosts: 542Member

    To the OP, no its doubtful you will ever see a game like UO again.  Not by a major company anyway.   Most of the games that are on the BIG companies list are money makers, easy pickings.  Games that are themeparks, that only require the minimum amount of work of effort for the returns.   Lets take STO as a example.  Promised a huge expansive Star Trek universe, with Romulans, Klingons and Federation factions as playable.  It gave us 2 out of 3 and said make due.  It promised deep and action filled space combat like the TV shows and movies.   Instead we got WoW in space.  

     

    But I dont know if there will be any good UO sandbox games come out anytime in the next decade, but one can hope.  There are several not quite done, or not so good games out there to pass the time.  If only they would just go F2P so they would be worth the money.  

    So much crap, so little quality.

  • RajCajRajCaj Lafayette, LAPosts: 706Member

    Originally posted by Hodo

     

    But I dont know if there will be any good UO sandbox games come out anytime in the next decade, but one can hope.  There are several not quite done, or not so good games out there to pass the time.  If only they would just go F2P so they would be worth the money.  

    Richard Garriot (Lord British of Brittania & creator of Ultima Online) is working on a "spiritual successor" to UO.

    http://www.portalarium.com/index.php/products/ultimate-rpg

     

    He has some pretty "forward thinking" ideas about implementation.  But otherwise wants to create a game that trys to build off what UO was.  He gave a pretty interesting interview about how game development approached a fork in the road and decided to go down the themepark route.  The fact that he can recognize the distinction between the two paths is promising to me in that he understands what once made MMORPGs different than other generes, and that hopefully he can replicate it.

     

    He reported that he had some "casual" talks with EA to work with the UO IP on his new Ultimate RPG project....but EA denies any conversations have happend.  Even if EA doesn't let him use the UO IP, he will essentially create the same game but with different names for cities, etc.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.