I'd agree with the comments MMO's are a long term investment, players are more likely to already be talking on forums and I'd also add the concurrent nature of multiple games add a barracking mentality. That is to say, games like skyrim etc are played sequentially and each game of the genre improves and you move on. MMO's over 5 years old are still being played in competition with others. Humans like to barrack for things like football teams.
By the time people realize a single player game sucks, everyone who wanted to play it has ordered it. There's no continuing subscription fee, so the rant is moot.
By the time people realize an MMO sucks, those who really wanted to play it are still playing it, and those who hate it want other people to know - rather emphatically - that they hate the game. And keep letting them know. And then, once they figure people know, they keep letting people know that "Hey - I hate this game!".
In short, it's the fact that people subscribe to a game that keeps people ranting about MMOs - it's the long-term vs. short-term game "commitment".
Its kinda like when you are out partying and you meet someone.
Your adrenalin is pumping, you are slightly buzzed, you are excited and infatuated about this new person. They look awesome. You are Hyped
Then you wake up with them next to you in the morning and realize they are really a shallow, broken, hideous troll
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT Playing: Skyrim Following: The Repopulation I want a Virtual World, not just a Game. ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
Here is what I percieve, though some have already stated some of these points:
Social – MMO players are social by the nature of the genera. They want to be online talking to people, be it in a game or on a forum.
Economic – $60 is a one-time thing on a single player game. With most MMO’s its $60 for the box, plus sub fees (GW2 aside), plus $60 expansions. They demand more value for the premium they are paying.
Expectations - People’s expectations of a single player game and MMORPG differ. Single Player games have a tangible end, with an expectation of little replayability. MMORPGs are (supposed to be) persistent worlds, without an end, but with a social and engaging world that will last years, not 4 weeks. IMO this is the major problem of modern themepark games. Yes, they are casual friendly, but for more hardcore (which I would consider most on this forum to be), an ‘end game’ that is just a repetitive gear treadmill is offensive. Once you have killed that big bad boss 20 times and can’t get any more shiny, it makes people mad that they have nothing left but to wait 6 months to pay another $60 for an expansion. SOME love this or do not mind it.
Everyone gets upset if you critizise something to which they've commited. Look at console fanbois, you will defend your brand if you've bought it for 500€ and then pay 10€ a month for gold membership or alternatively buy another console for 800€ (when it first came out) and have to buy overpriced games to do something with it.
Some people have spent years to these games - hundreds of dollars, euros and pounds. Peoples lives have been severely affected. Think of the work, homework, spouses and children that have been neglected. You can't just say that MMOs are shit and get away with it, oh no sir. They must be something amazing for all that, and you are dead wrong if you do not agree. And they never let you forget.
I'm only joking here ofcourse. ...well mostly.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Indie MMO that sucks because 90% of the features aren't in or are a buggy mess, and the MMO itself is a buggy unfinished mess
Only very few MMOs are actually good that are modern (or relatively modern)
MMOs that copy WoW, are like call of duty.
At least singleplayer games, you have tons of choices and while some may copy each other, there is a lot that are actually different. Even indie singleplayer games are really good.
single player games are for fun, mmo is a way of life ;D
Lol. Awesome oneliner ^_^
Kinda true too. The level and depth of emotional investment that (some) MMO gamers have to MMO's is comparable to lifestyle choices and other hobbies meant to be someone's main entertainment/interest option in life for years. Hence the intensity of passion and emotion - and often emotional coloring and subjective bias - with MMO's that's almost comparable to politics, religion or popular sports.
Mostly due to the fact that most MMORPG players want a game they can enjoy for longer periods of time and right now even the newer casual crowds are asking for more depth and complexity as it prelongs the gametime by alot.
I think personally that the Themepark crap has gone too far and people are starting to open their eyes to the old school and sandbox alternatives.
[...] If players buy a game (Dragon Age 2) and it blows, players don't spend weeks on forums complaining about the game incessantly. If they happen to like the game, they don't spend weeks on forums declaring the virtues of the games either.
[...]
First, thats wrong. People do that all the time. The amount of wasted time I spent on bashing Gothic ...
Also, MMORPGs are played much longer and much more intensively than singleplayer offline games. Even really enchanting titles like Baldurs Gate 2 do not make you keep playing for years. MMOs do so on a regular basis.
Thus its no surprise that MMORPGs, on average, do yield more emotional responses than singleplayer offliners.
Trying to pick the responses that do not depend specifically on someone being dissatisfied with a game, I've seen the following responses that make a lot of sense to me: * MMORPG, in general and by default have more playable hours than almost every other type of game, especially console titles. There is a higher level of commitment from the player who purchases an MMORPG. This extends to the financial aspects of the games as well. Players often commit to spending $15 a month, every month to play. * MMORPG are by nature social games. The players who would purchase an MMORPG are probably more social in nature, and therefore are more likely to talk about the games, whether they are actively playing them or not. * MMORPG are already online and the default location for seeking help when you're stuck or are wondering something is the forums. The forums for an MMORPG is a location players are more likely to visit compared to the forums for a other types of games.
These are enough reasons (to me) to make the more intense and more vocal (on forums) behavior of MMORPG players make sense.
Some other random observations: * It's nice to wake up in the morning and see your thread still there. * Not many people question the validity of the idea that MMORPG players are (in general) more 'bananas' than people who follow other types of games. * I'm really glad I used 'bananas' and not '@pesh!t', because that one post with the picture of the banana would have been really horrible.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm not sure what forums the OP visits, but people gripe about single-player offline games in forums all the time too. It may or may not happen more often in MMOs. If it does, I would say it's because MMOs are constantly evolving, meaning their opinion, if shared by enough people, has a posibility of being implemented. Offline games, once released, are pretty much done. There are often add-ons, but existing content tends not to change.
There's also the matter of subscription fees. Many MMOs want you to continue paying to continue playing. If a player is gonna fork over cash every month for a game, there's no reason they shouldn't let devs and the community know if they're unhappy with it.
Also, an MMO cant be traded in toward another game if it turns out to be bad. Once you pay that $60, you're stuck with it. You can either keep playing a game you dont enjoy, or stop playing altogether and be out $60. Trade-ins are more widely accepted among console games, but even offline PC games can be traded in to some independent stores.
Look at how hard so many people work to get that shiny, whizbang weapon, or have the most player kills, or be the first to take out XYZ monster so they have the bragging rights, or be first to take down the boss in a new dungeon.
Threaten their ability to stroke their own ego, and watch out. You nerfed me! You messed up my gear, it sux! The opponent is OP! Hey, it's way too hard to do that dungeon, you guys are stooopid!
The devs must have nightmares, trying to balance challenging content with ease of use for masses of people from all walks of life, who have no way in their real lives to feel special, or achieve great things, who turn to mmo's to fulfill that need in an ordinary life.
Real life can be a real drag, with jobs, bills to pay, stress, and boring. Games are an escape. MMO's offer more than an escape, it can become an alternate life that is real for the dedicated player. There is a huge sense of pride in being the most knowledgeable, in excelling at whatever aspect of a game someone is able to achieve. The emotional investment is every bit as real as something in the real world, and if such a player feels it is threatened. they will react every bit with as much venom as being threatened in the real world.
Might sound over the top, but I've known too many gamers who unknowingly have done exactly this, made the gaming world more real and valuable to themselves than the real world. Lots of divorces and lost jobs,etc., that prove it true.
While gaming itself is a hobby, MMOs certainly can stand on their own as a very popular hobby within that hobby.
Naturally people are passionate about games they were either planning on spending an extended period of time in or already have invested a hefty period of time in. With single player games, people generally aren't expecting something that will keep them entertained for, potentially, years.
MMOs have much longer development cycles than the buy and forget one offs on the shelves as well. If the outline of the design document coupled with developer feedback presents something that piques someones interest, it's likely they will follow said game closely for 4 to 5 years through development. If the end result is far from what was promised, or simply fails to function well, it's again natural that people will be disappointed as they were more invested in the title than they probably would have been in a single player game they were expecting to get 2-3 weeks out of.
As for the whole 'Only one game can be good and that's the one I'm backing!' mentality, I think it's some kind of base instinct to justify their preference to the tribe as a result of insecurity. Clearly, if someone mentions that another game might also be good, it reflects poorly on their choice according to their flawed logic, which forces them into a frenzied and terrified state as they're not mentally equipped to deal with a situation as complex as two things being good at the same time. So we find the slack-jawed cro-magnons bashing anything that moves with their clubs out of fear and confusion.
While I agree that people generally go more bananas over MMO's, people go bananas over singleplayer games aswell. Go to diablo.incgamers.com and read some comments in the news about Diablo 3 and you'll see alot of passion and heated discussion there about a singleplayer game that hasn't got a release date yet.
The internet is a place where people tell you how they really feel, unlike real life
A friend and I were discussing this earlier. With most games, if you spent $60 on the game, and then played the game for three hours a day, five days a week for a month, it would be a ridiculously good deal regarding money spent and time spent playing. If players buy a game (Dragon Age 2) and it blows, players don't spend weeks on forums complaining about the game incessantly. If they happen to like the game, they don't spend weeks on forums declaring the virtues of the games either.
All of this changes with MMORPG. If you spend $60 (or a lot less in some cases) and spend three hours a day, five days a week playing the game and are done a month later, it's horrible. The game lacks content and the developers are obviously lazy morons. Forum ranting ensues. It's even worse if the player just doesn't like the game. For weeks players will rant about the game. If the player likes the game it's often just as bad in the opposite direction. The game can do no wrong and the people ranting against it are 'haters'. The forum ranting and proselytizing can happen even with players who haven't purchased the game. Would anyone on these forums fanboi or hate on a game like Alice: Madness Returns when they haven't purchased it?
Why is this? It's not people who have been playing MMORPG since UO either. New MMORPG players seem to exhibit a lot of this behavior too. Why?
I think this is actually fairly easy to answer.
It's a sunk cost problem, where the cost isn't the money but the time. Most people I know that play console games will decide within a few hours whether or not it sucks. If it does suck, they stop playing it then, and they've only lost a few hours.
In an MMORPG, developers have attempted to train us to believe that everything we "accomplish" should require an enormous amount of time in the game (compared to the experiences in console games). Because of this, many of us are willing to overlook tell-tale signs and flaws on our road to investing 100-200 hours in a game, at which point the fallacy of sunk cost keeps us hanging on hoping something will improve and that investment won't be lost. During that period, we're complaining the whole time in hopes that someone hears our case and makes what we believe to be the necessary changes.
If developers would make MMORPGs where the players' participation in the "end game" closely resembled their participation in the beginning of the game, players could decide far easier whether or not a particular game environment fit their needs. While the current MMORPG development model is in fashion, we're always going to have this problem. That's because you can't evaluate the quality of the end game activities (such as Is the PVP in this game balanced? Am I going to be able to find 10-20 other equally competent people to raid with when I'm done leveling? etc.) based on the first 50-100 hours of involvement in the game when the standard course of play is to take on easy solo quests to level up.
Good example for myself? Hyperdimension Neptunia. I love almost all the Atlus single-player RPGs, but this game is so full of fail it's not even funny. I put maybe 8 hours in it before I got disgusted and gave up, and the only complaining I do about that one is regarding the fact that I was a dolt for pre-ordering it and paying full price.
Rift, however? I'll always hold a streak of spite for this game in spite of the fact that I think Trion is a good company, because I came for the PVP, and they're just NOW this past week making the improvements to the game that should've come 6-8 months ago. I complained about their botched handling of PVP then, and if I'm honest with myself I'll admit that I'll get a good Rift bashing in every opportunity I can bring it up because I had a couple hundred hours invested in that game that I felt cheated out of when I finally decided I had to leave before I strangled someone.
Some people play MMORPG's as "games'" so it's understandable if they don't get all the invested in them.
Other folks treat them as virtual worlds that they inhabit, and the stakes are much higher.
Especially true if they buy and then subscribe for long time periods, it set up a sense of entitlement between the user and the vendor, and outrage if they perceive the covenent has been broken.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm still waiting for the fun mmo gameplay to happen. The only reason I play mmos is for the social interaction (whether it be in groups, out in the open, perhaps some trash talking pvp, you get the idea). From a pure gameplay perspective, mmos are really poor games.
I'm still waiting for the fun mmo gameplay to happen. The only reason I play mmos is for the social interaction (whether it be in groups, out in the open, perhaps some trash talking pvp, you get the idea). From a pure gameplay perspective, mmos are really poor games.
Pure games are antithetical to stories. You will always have to trade. More story and less game or more game and less story.
A friend and I were discussing this earlier. With most games, if you spent $60 on the game, and then played the game for three hours a day, five days a week for a month, it would be a ridiculously good deal regarding money spent and time spent playing. If players buy a game (Dragon Age 2) and it blows, players don't spend weeks on forums complaining about the game incessantly. If they happen to like the game, they don't spend weeks on forums declaring the virtues of the games either.
All of this changes with MMORPG. If you spend $60 (or a lot less in some cases) and spend three hours a day, five days a week playing the game and are done a month later, it's horrible. The game lacks content and the developers are obviously lazy morons. Forum ranting ensues. It's even worse if the player just doesn't like the game. For weeks players will rant about the game. If the player likes the game it's often just as bad in the opposite direction. The game can do no wrong and the people ranting against it are 'haters'. The forum ranting and proselytizing can happen even with players who haven't purchased the game. Would anyone on these forums fanboi or hate on a game like Alice: Madness Returns when they haven't purchased it?
Why is this? It's not people who have been playing MMORPG since UO either. New MMORPG players seem to exhibit a lot of this behavior too. Why?
Wouldn't it be easier for Devellppers if we just kept bying MMORPG's played them for a few hours and then went on our marry way without saying nothing like we do with many Solo Games? Yes it would be a Financier's Dream..more money for them and no bad press, no accountability required.
But it will never happen, the MMORPG is simply a different medium. As some have metnioned, an MMORPG is not perceived as just a game, it is perceived as a world which we join and become part of, yes it is virtual but the same Group dynamics apply, when you join a group youfeel that you have a say about it you want to contribute to its evolution but most importantly like any other grouping it has certain rules which affect your experience in it and if you are not in agreement with the rules one does want to voice their discontent. or if they do agree with their rules become a defender of them.
It is only normal human behavior, we re not Consuming Automatons.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Originally posted by Suraknar Originally posted by lizardbones A friend and I were discussing this earlier. With most games, if you spent $60 on the game, and then played the game for three hours a day, five days a week for a month, it would be a ridiculously good deal regarding money spent and time spent playing. If players buy a game (Dragon Age 2) and it blows, players don't spend weeks on forums complaining about the game incessantly. If they happen to like the game, they don't spend weeks on forums declaring the virtues of the games either.
All of this changes with MMORPG. If you spend $60 (or a lot less in some cases) and spend three hours a day, five days a week playing the game and are done a month later, it's horrible. The game lacks content and the developers are obviously lazy morons. Forum ranting ensues. It's even worse if the player just doesn't like the game. For weeks players will rant about the game. If the player likes the game it's often just as bad in the opposite direction. The game can do no wrong and the people ranting against it are 'haters'. The forum ranting and proselytizing can happen even with players who haven't purchased the game. Would anyone on these forums fanboi or hate on a game like Alice: Madness Returns when they haven't purchased it?
Why is this? It's not people who have been playing MMORPG since UO either. New MMORPG players seem to exhibit a lot of this behavior too. Why?
Wouldn't it be easier for Devellppers if we just kept bying MMORPG's played them for a few hours and then went on our marry way without saying nothing like we do with many Solo Games? Yes it would be a Financier's Dream..more money for them and no bad press, no accountability required. But it will never happen, the MMORPG is simply a different medium. As some have metnioned, an MMORPG is not perceived as just a game, it is perceived as a world which we join and become part of, yes it is virtual but the same Group dynamics apply, when you join a group youfeel that you have a say about it you want to contribute to its evolution but most importantly like any other grouping it has certain rules which affect your experience in it and if you are not in agreement with the rules one does want to voice their discontent. or if they do agree with their rules become a defender of them. It is only normal human behavior, we re not Consuming Automatons.
Many people seem to be taking this as wondering why people complain so much. That's not it at all. People do complain a lot, but there are just as many people on the opposite side of the fence, happy with whatever game they're playing. They know everything they need to know about the game, but there they are, on the forums chatting it up, or arguing with the people who are complaining.
MMORPG players seem to be very passionate about MMORPG, more so than people who play single player or multi player rpg/fps/rts. For all the reasons you mentioned, and probably more.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
I'd agree with the comments MMO's are a long term investment, players are more likely to already be talking on forums and I'd also add the concurrent nature of multiple games add a barracking mentality. That is to say, games like skyrim etc are played sequentially and each game of the genre improves and you move on. MMO's over 5 years old are still being played in competition with others. Humans like to barrack for things like football teams.
This discussion made me hungry....
Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent
By the time people realize a single player game sucks, everyone who wanted to play it has ordered it. There's no continuing subscription fee, so the rant is moot.
By the time people realize an MMO sucks, those who really wanted to play it are still playing it, and those who hate it want other people to know - rather emphatically - that they hate the game. And keep letting them know. And then, once they figure people know, they keep letting people know that "Hey - I hate this game!".
In short, it's the fact that people subscribe to a game that keeps people ranting about MMOs - it's the long-term vs. short-term game "commitment".
Its kinda like when you are out partying and you meet someone.
Your adrenalin is pumping, you are slightly buzzed, you are excited and infatuated about this new person. They look awesome. You are Hyped
Then you wake up with them next to you in the morning and realize they are really a shallow, broken, hideous troll
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR
Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT
Playing: Skyrim
Following: The Repopulation
I want a Virtual World, not just a Game.
ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
Here is what I percieve, though some have already stated some of these points:
Social – MMO players are social by the nature of the genera. They want to be online talking to people, be it in a game or on a forum.
Economic – $60 is a one-time thing on a single player game. With most MMO’s its $60 for the box, plus sub fees (GW2 aside), plus $60 expansions. They demand more value for the premium they are paying.
Expectations - People’s expectations of a single player game and MMORPG differ. Single Player games have a tangible end, with an expectation of little replayability. MMORPGs are (supposed to be) persistent worlds, without an end, but with a social and engaging world that will last years, not 4 weeks. IMO this is the major problem of modern themepark games. Yes, they are casual friendly, but for more hardcore (which I would consider most on this forum to be), an ‘end game’ that is just a repetitive gear treadmill is offensive. Once you have killed that big bad boss 20 times and can’t get any more shiny, it makes people mad that they have nothing left but to wait 6 months to pay another $60 for an expansion. SOME love this or do not mind it.
Often lurking, rarely posting
Because they are beautiful
Everyone gets upset if you critizise something to which they've commited. Look at console fanbois, you will defend your brand if you've bought it for 500€ and then pay 10€ a month for gold membership or alternatively buy another console for 800€ (when it first came out) and have to buy overpriced games to do something with it.
Some people have spent years to these games - hundreds of dollars, euros and pounds. Peoples lives have been severely affected. Think of the work, homework, spouses and children that have been neglected. You can't just say that MMOs are shit and get away with it, oh no sir. They must be something amazing for all that, and you are dead wrong if you do not agree. And they never let you forget.
I'm only joking here ofcourse. ...well mostly.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Because in MMOs you have
WoW
WoW with a lightsaber
WoW with cheap random events thrown in
WoW, but better graphics
WoW, but with more PvE
WoW, but with more PvP
MMO that was different, but changes to WoW
Indie MMO that sucks because 90% of the features aren't in or are a buggy mess, and the MMO itself is a buggy unfinished mess
Only very few MMOs are actually good that are modern (or relatively modern)
MMOs that copy WoW, are like call of duty.
At least singleplayer games, you have tons of choices and while some may copy each other, there is a lot that are actually different. Even indie singleplayer games are really good.
Lol. Awesome oneliner ^_^Kinda true too. The level and depth of emotional investment that (some) MMO gamers have to MMO's is comparable to lifestyle choices and other hobbies meant to be someone's main entertainment/interest option in life for years. Hence the intensity of passion and emotion - and often emotional coloring and subjective bias - with MMO's that's almost comparable to politics, religion or popular sports.
Because people love to follow what everyone else is doing...
Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!
http://www.grimdawn.com/
Mostly due to the fact that most MMORPG players want a game they can enjoy for longer periods of time and right now even the newer casual crowds are asking for more depth and complexity as it prelongs the gametime by alot.
I think personally that the Themepark crap has gone too far and people are starting to open their eyes to the old school and sandbox alternatives.
For starters. No one visit the dragon age forum so no point complaining there...
First, thats wrong. People do that all the time. The amount of wasted time I spent on bashing Gothic ...
Also, MMORPGs are played much longer and much more intensively than singleplayer offline games. Even really enchanting titles like Baldurs Gate 2 do not make you keep playing for years. MMOs do so on a regular basis.
Thus its no surprise that MMORPGs, on average, do yield more emotional responses than singleplayer offliners.
Trying to pick the responses that do not depend specifically on someone being dissatisfied with a game, I've seen the following responses that make a lot of sense to me:
* MMORPG, in general and by default have more playable hours than almost every other type of game, especially console titles. There is a higher level of commitment from the player who purchases an MMORPG. This extends to the financial aspects of the games as well. Players often commit to spending $15 a month, every month to play.
* MMORPG are by nature social games. The players who would purchase an MMORPG are probably more social in nature, and therefore are more likely to talk about the games, whether they are actively playing them or not.
* MMORPG are already online and the default location for seeking help when you're stuck or are wondering something is the forums. The forums for an MMORPG is a location players are more likely to visit compared to the forums for a other types of games.
These are enough reasons (to me) to make the more intense and more vocal (on forums) behavior of MMORPG players make sense.
Some other random observations:
* It's nice to wake up in the morning and see your thread still there.
* Not many people question the validity of the idea that MMORPG players are (in general) more 'bananas' than people who follow other types of games.
* I'm really glad I used 'bananas' and not '@pesh!t', because that one post with the picture of the banana would have been really horrible.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm not sure what forums the OP visits, but people gripe about single-player offline games in forums all the time too. It may or may not happen more often in MMOs. If it does, I would say it's because MMOs are constantly evolving, meaning their opinion, if shared by enough people, has a posibility of being implemented. Offline games, once released, are pretty much done. There are often add-ons, but existing content tends not to change.
There's also the matter of subscription fees. Many MMOs want you to continue paying to continue playing. If a player is gonna fork over cash every month for a game, there's no reason they shouldn't let devs and the community know if they're unhappy with it.
Also, an MMO cant be traded in toward another game if it turns out to be bad. Once you pay that $60, you're stuck with it. You can either keep playing a game you dont enjoy, or stop playing altogether and be out $60. Trade-ins are more widely accepted among console games, but even offline PC games can be traded in to some independent stores.
Let's not forget....human ego.
Look at how hard so many people work to get that shiny, whizbang weapon, or have the most player kills, or be the first to take out XYZ monster so they have the bragging rights, or be first to take down the boss in a new dungeon.
Threaten their ability to stroke their own ego, and watch out. You nerfed me! You messed up my gear, it sux! The opponent is OP! Hey, it's way too hard to do that dungeon, you guys are stooopid!
The devs must have nightmares, trying to balance challenging content with ease of use for masses of people from all walks of life, who have no way in their real lives to feel special, or achieve great things, who turn to mmo's to fulfill that need in an ordinary life.
Real life can be a real drag, with jobs, bills to pay, stress, and boring. Games are an escape. MMO's offer more than an escape, it can become an alternate life that is real for the dedicated player. There is a huge sense of pride in being the most knowledgeable, in excelling at whatever aspect of a game someone is able to achieve. The emotional investment is every bit as real as something in the real world, and if such a player feels it is threatened. they will react every bit with as much venom as being threatened in the real world.
Might sound over the top, but I've known too many gamers who unknowingly have done exactly this, made the gaming world more real and valuable to themselves than the real world. Lots of divorces and lost jobs,etc., that prove it true.
While gaming itself is a hobby, MMOs certainly can stand on their own as a very popular hobby within that hobby.
Naturally people are passionate about games they were either planning on spending an extended period of time in or already have invested a hefty period of time in. With single player games, people generally aren't expecting something that will keep them entertained for, potentially, years.
MMOs have much longer development cycles than the buy and forget one offs on the shelves as well. If the outline of the design document coupled with developer feedback presents something that piques someones interest, it's likely they will follow said game closely for 4 to 5 years through development. If the end result is far from what was promised, or simply fails to function well, it's again natural that people will be disappointed as they were more invested in the title than they probably would have been in a single player game they were expecting to get 2-3 weeks out of.
As for the whole 'Only one game can be good and that's the one I'm backing!' mentality, I think it's some kind of base instinct to justify their preference to the tribe as a result of insecurity. Clearly, if someone mentions that another game might also be good, it reflects poorly on their choice according to their flawed logic, which forces them into a frenzied and terrified state as they're not mentally equipped to deal with a situation as complex as two things being good at the same time. So we find the slack-jawed cro-magnons bashing anything that moves with their clubs out of fear and confusion.
While I agree that people generally go more bananas over MMO's, people go bananas over singleplayer games aswell. Go to diablo.incgamers.com and read some comments in the news about Diablo 3 and you'll see alot of passion and heated discussion there about a singleplayer game that hasn't got a release date yet.
The internet is a place where people tell you how they really feel, unlike real life
I think this is actually fairly easy to answer.
It's a sunk cost problem, where the cost isn't the money but the time. Most people I know that play console games will decide within a few hours whether or not it sucks. If it does suck, they stop playing it then, and they've only lost a few hours.
In an MMORPG, developers have attempted to train us to believe that everything we "accomplish" should require an enormous amount of time in the game (compared to the experiences in console games). Because of this, many of us are willing to overlook tell-tale signs and flaws on our road to investing 100-200 hours in a game, at which point the fallacy of sunk cost keeps us hanging on hoping something will improve and that investment won't be lost. During that period, we're complaining the whole time in hopes that someone hears our case and makes what we believe to be the necessary changes.
If developers would make MMORPGs where the players' participation in the "end game" closely resembled their participation in the beginning of the game, players could decide far easier whether or not a particular game environment fit their needs. While the current MMORPG development model is in fashion, we're always going to have this problem. That's because you can't evaluate the quality of the end game activities (such as Is the PVP in this game balanced? Am I going to be able to find 10-20 other equally competent people to raid with when I'm done leveling? etc.) based on the first 50-100 hours of involvement in the game when the standard course of play is to take on easy solo quests to level up.
Good example for myself? Hyperdimension Neptunia. I love almost all the Atlus single-player RPGs, but this game is so full of fail it's not even funny. I put maybe 8 hours in it before I got disgusted and gave up, and the only complaining I do about that one is regarding the fact that I was a dolt for pre-ordering it and paying full price.
Rift, however? I'll always hold a streak of spite for this game in spite of the fact that I think Trion is a good company, because I came for the PVP, and they're just NOW this past week making the improvements to the game that should've come 6-8 months ago. I complained about their botched handling of PVP then, and if I'm honest with myself I'll admit that I'll get a good Rift bashing in every opportunity I can bring it up because I had a couple hundred hours invested in that game that I felt cheated out of when I finally decided I had to leave before I strangled someone.
So true.
Some people play MMORPG's as "games'" so it's understandable if they don't get all the invested in them.
Other folks treat them as virtual worlds that they inhabit, and the stakes are much higher.
Especially true if they buy and then subscribe for long time periods, it set up a sense of entitlement between the user and the vendor, and outrage if they perceive the covenent has been broken.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm still waiting for the fun mmo gameplay to happen. The only reason I play mmos is for the social interaction (whether it be in groups, out in the open, perhaps some trash talking pvp, you get the idea). From a pure gameplay perspective, mmos are really poor games.
Pure games are antithetical to stories. You will always have to trade. More story and less game or more game and less story.
Wouldn't it be easier for Devellppers if we just kept bying MMORPG's played them for a few hours and then went on our marry way without saying nothing like we do with many Solo Games? Yes it would be a Financier's Dream..more money for them and no bad press, no accountability required.
But it will never happen, the MMORPG is simply a different medium. As some have metnioned, an MMORPG is not perceived as just a game, it is perceived as a world which we join and become part of, yes it is virtual but the same Group dynamics apply, when you join a group youfeel that you have a say about it you want to contribute to its evolution but most importantly like any other grouping it has certain rules which affect your experience in it and if you are not in agreement with the rules one does want to voice their discontent. or if they do agree with their rules become a defender of them.
It is only normal human behavior, we re not Consuming Automatons.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
But it will never happen, the MMORPG is simply a different medium. As some have metnioned, an MMORPG is not perceived as just a game, it is perceived as a world which we join and become part of, yes it is virtual but the same Group dynamics apply, when you join a group youfeel that you have a say about it you want to contribute to its evolution but most importantly like any other grouping it has certain rules which affect your experience in it and if you are not in agreement with the rules one does want to voice their discontent. or if they do agree with their rules become a defender of them.
It is only normal human behavior, we re not Consuming Automatons.
Many people seem to be taking this as wondering why people complain so much. That's not it at all. People do complain a lot, but there are just as many people on the opposite side of the fence, happy with whatever game they're playing. They know everything they need to know about the game, but there they are, on the forums chatting it up, or arguing with the people who are complaining.
MMORPG players seem to be very passionate about MMORPG, more so than people who play single player or multi player rpg/fps/rts. For all the reasons you mentioned, and probably more.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.