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!

Is the MMO genre being blended into others, like what happened to RPGs?

1356

Comments

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,668Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Cuathon



    That doesn't work Narius. You cannot have fast travel while maintaining the experience of a world. Why would the devs spend money on the world when the majority only cares about the instances? You cannot give disparate groups optimal gameplay in the same game.

    Fast travel and immersive world feel worked for UO. One is not mutually exclusive of the other. Even EVE Online has forms of limited fast travel.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Chicago, ILPosts: 2,235Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by Beatnik59



    Fair point, and this is the reason why I expect this genre is going to move ever further away from the "massive multiplayer" aspect of MMOs.  Diablo 3 is a perfect example of games that have an "MMO-like" flavor, without being an MMO.

    The only direction publishers can go to make the games more accessable at this point is to take out or water down all the remaining MMO elements: the persistant world, the guilds, the multiple users: make it a chatroom/lobby and put all the content in our own user created instances.  Because what Satre said is true: "Hell is other people," and the only way we can take away the remaining "Hell" is to take away the "other people": the ones we don't know, the ones we don't care to know, and the ones we don't like.

    That way, nobody has to tolerate anything.

    Because I agree that, as an entertainment product, nobody has to tolerate anything.  Unfortunately, however, we do need tolerance when playing with other people, because all people are different and they all have slightly different conceptions of what fun is.  What one person finds fun is not something another person finds fun.

     

    Couple of points.

    I think in terms of dealing players interaction, controlled lobby matching is the way to go, in terms of assessibiliy. More lobbies, more instances, more battlegrounds. Diablo 3, and MMOs are certainly going down this direction. The issue is to make playing with others painless including a) no need to spend time to find group, b) no need to stay around for people you do not like, and c) less need to constrain our own behavior (like the new loot system in WOW take away the ability to ninja).

    However, i think it is DIFFERENT in terms of interaction with the enviroment. There is no need to take away the open world. Devs only need to add a choice to SKIP long travel time (like what Blizz did). In this case, people who like to explore and walk around in the world still can, but those who hated the incovenient do not have to tolerate it.

    More choices is good. The key is not to impose one's choice on another. The key is to control the interaction between players so that one does not have to tolerate much. Consensual pvp is the best example.

     

    This is the route that games have been taking for the better part of a decade, but I don't think that these "choices" make the games richer.

    It seems to me that giving individuals, individually, the choice to omit certain things they don't like creates a game that has, collectively, less choices.

    There's no way to play a villain if you can't rob and kill innocents.  Conversely, there's no way to play a hero if you can't save the innocents from the villain.  That's what we lose when we put PvP on reservations for the exclusive use of the twinked out and über.

    And there's no way to be a sojourner on a long and dangerous journey, if there is no dangerous journey.  Just like there's no way to create a trading outpost in the middle of point A and point B, if there's an insta travel superhighway from A to B.

    The reason we have such a hard time finding groups is that, simply, there are too many people clustered around hubs, group size is limited because of balance issues, and no good solo options like crafting or foraging.  That's what we get when we stress "convenience" and "choice" over authenticity.  Because if there's a choice to get goodies from the loot generator (and the loot generator is the only thing that provides any value besides the cash store), and everything else is optional, there's no reason to do anything but stand in line LFGing to get your loots from the loot generator.

    As a result, everything becomes a stat-mash, because it's the only thing that players don't have the capacity to ignore.  At that point, one player is just as good as any other, and there's no reason why anyone ought to tolerate you over the two tanks just like you spamming LFG.

    And really, the only point of today's MMO is to stand in lines LFGing, because everything else that players used to do (like roleplay, ganking, crafting, and travelling) have been made "optional," and therefore, unused, unsupported, and unappreciated.

    Seriously, there's no point in developing large worlds, when even 50% of players just teleport from instance to instance (and the number is probably far higher).

    Back in the early days, you could say that we had little choice on whether we could PvP or not.  But I see things differently.  In those days, I had the choice to be a villain, a hero, or an innocent bystandard.  I don't have that choice anymore.

     

     

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

  • MephsterMephster Tyria, NJPosts: 1,188Member

    I would rather play a great multiplayer rpg than a mediocre mmo any day of the week. I wish someone would bring back the greatness of multiplayer rpgs because the mmo genre is mostly full of hype and nothing else.

    Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!

    http://www.grimdawn.com/

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member

    Originally posted by Cuathon

     



    That doesn't work Narius. You cannot have fast travel while maintaining the experience of a world. Why would the devs spend money on the world when the majority only cares about the instances? You cannot give disparate groups optimal gameplay in the same game.

    Why not?

    WOW has it. You *can* fast travel. You can roam the world. Choices are good. Ditto for LOTRO.

    Now the second argument (why dev should spend money on the world) has a good point. Thus, we have Diablo 3 which focuses on instanced dungeon crawl and do away with the world.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member

    Originally posted by Mephster

    I would rather play a great multiplayer rpg than a mediocre mmo any day of the week. I wish someone would bring back the greatness of multiplayer rpgs because the mmo genre is mostly full of hype and nothing else.

     

    There are FEW good multiplayer RPGs. Thank god we are going to have Diablo 3 soon.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member

    Originally posted by Beatnik59

    And really, the only point of today's MMO is to stand in lines LFGing, because everything else that players used to do (like roleplay, ganking, crafting, and travelling) have been made "optional," and therefore, unused, unsupported, and unappreciated.

    Seriously, there's no point in developing large worlds, when even 50% of players just teleport from instance to instance (and the number is probably far higher).

    Back in the early days, you could say that we had little choice on whether we could PvP or not.  But I see things differently.  In those days, I had the choice to be a villain, a hero, or an innocent bystandard.  I don't have that choice anymore.

     

    You talk as if there is only ONE playstyle in each game.

    That is obviously false. In WOW, lots do LFD .. no deny about it. But plenty do mount runs, pet collection and world achievement.

    Optioins, even those that are not very popular, are good.

    Personally, i don't mind the large worlds go away. But there are those who do explorer achievements in WOW too. Are you saying because they are minority, they should be ignored?

  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by Cuathon

     



    That doesn't work Narius. You cannot have fast travel while maintaining the experience of a world. Why would the devs spend money on the world when the majority only cares about the instances? You cannot give disparate groups optimal gameplay in the same game.

    Why not?

    WOW has it. You *can* fast travel. You can roam the world. Choices are good. Ditto for LOTRO.

    Now the second argument (why dev should spend money on the world) has a good point. Thus, we have Diablo 3 which focuses on instanced dungeon crawl and do away with the world.

     

    Dude. No. The arguments are not separate. Fast travel means focus on destinations means no world content.

    You can have a world with fast travel, but if you do you are a moron wasting dev time and money because no one will use it.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member

    Originally posted by Cuathon

     

    Dude. No. The arguments are not separate. Fast travel means focus on destinations means no world content.

    You can have a world with fast travel, but if you do you are a moron wasting dev time and money because no one will use it.

    You are obviously wrong.

    1) The most SUCCESSFUL dev is doing it.

    2) Check the "explorer" achievement, there are people using it .. not a majority, but some.

    You seems to argue that if a dev is catering to the needs of a minority of players, he is a "moron". Then i have to ask what YOU are wasting your life on, making a game few will play?

  • CecropiaCecropia Posts: 3,472Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by Cuathon

     



    That doesn't work Narius. You cannot have fast travel while maintaining the experience of a world. Why would the devs spend money on the world when the majority only cares about the instances? You cannot give disparate groups optimal gameplay in the same game.

    Why not?

    WOW has it. You *can* fast travel. You can roam the world. Choices are good. Ditto for LOTRO.

    Now the second argument (why dev should spend money on the world) has a good point. Thus, we have Diablo 3 which focuses on instanced dungeon crawl and do away with the world.

     

    No.

    The "world" of Warcraft has long been dead. If you cannot see that, then you must be blind. Having the luxury of choice can a good thing, but in the case of WOW and fast travel, having the option has been devastating to the "world" aspect of the game.

    Instances and worlds do not go hand in hand. Instances are like "The Nothing", they simply wipe out the world.

    "Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb

  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by Cuathon

     

    Dude. No. The arguments are not separate. Fast travel means focus on destinations means no world content.

    You can have a world with fast travel, but if you do you are a moron wasting dev time and money because no one will use it.

    You are obviously wrong.

    1) The most SUCCESSFUL dev is doing it.

    2) Check the "explorer" achievement, there are people using it .. not a majority, but some.

    You seems to argue that if a dev is catering to the needs of a minority of players, he is a "moron". Then i have to ask what YOU are wasting your life on, making a game few will play?

    I am making a game which focuses on the world aspect of mmorpgs. Not shoving a half done shit fest implementation into a game which doesn't give a fuck abour mmoness but only chases monies.

  • RoyalkinRoyalkin Abilene, TXPosts: 273Member

    Originally posted by Cuathon

    I am making a game which focuses on the world aspect of mmorpgs. Not shoving a half done shit fest implementation into a game which doesn't give a fuck abour mmoness but only chases monies.

     

    Yes, and bless you for at least trying to create something that has a soul, and not merely a treadmill for profit.

    image
    image
    image

  • FrostWyrmFrostWyrm Tempe, AZPosts: 1,036Member

    Originally posted by Beatnik59

     

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

     

    Fair point, and this is the reason why I expect this genre is going to move ever further away from the "massive multiplayer" aspect of MMOs.  Diablo 3 is a perfect example of games that have an "MMO-like" flavor, without being an MMO.

    The only direction publishers can go to make the games more accessable at this point is to take out or water down all the remaining MMO elements: the persistant world, the guilds, the multiple users: make it a chatroom/lobby and put all the content in our own user created instances.  Because what Satre said is true: "Hell is other people," and the only way we can take away the remaining "Hell" is to take away the "other people": the ones we don't know, the ones we don't care to know, and the ones we don't like.

    This is what I dont get. Massively multiplayer is part of the genre. Why are people entering this genre if this is not what they want in a game? Why, when genres that already satisfy their wants exist, do people insist on coming into this one and mutating it to fit their own desires?

    If you don't like crafting, socializing, traveling, exploration, or what have you, why not play a genre that doesn't have these things rather than complain about one that does?

     


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by Beatnik59

     

    Apt observations.

    From a player's point of view, there is really no reason to tolerate anything in an entertainment product.

    This is the heart of the entire problem. You don't need to be playing a game that involves other people when you believe everything should be all about you. This is something you need to come to grips with.

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member

    Originally posted by FrostWyrm

    This is what I dont get. Massively multiplayer is part of the genre. Why are people entering this genre if this is not what they want in a game? Why, when genres that already satisfy their wants exist, do people insist on coming into this one and mutating it to fit their own desires?

    Didn't we already have this argument with the arrival of soloers and pvp players from other genres?  I'm sure we did.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • FrostWyrmFrostWyrm Tempe, AZPosts: 1,036Member

    Originally posted by Icewhite

    Originally posted by FrostWyrm

    This is what I dont get. Massively multiplayer is part of the genre. Why are people entering this genre if this is not what they want in a game? Why, when genres that already satisfy their wants exist, do people insist on coming into this one and mutating it to fit their own desires?

    Didn't we already have this argument with the arrival of soloers and pvp players from other genres?  I'm sure we did.

    Sounds familiar. Was that in a different thread, though? Eh, probably both. I still stand by it though.

  • CallidorCallidor Colorado Springs, COPosts: 371Member

    Originally posted by FrostWyrm

    Originally posted by Icewhite


    Originally posted by FrostWyrm

    This is what I dont get. Massively multiplayer is part of the genre. Why are people entering this genre if this is not what they want in a game? Why, when genres that already satisfy their wants exist, do people insist on coming into this one and mutating it to fit their own desires?

    Didn't we already have this argument with the arrival of soloers and pvp players from other genres?  I'm sure we did.

    Sounds familiar. Was that in a different thread, though? Eh, probably both. I still stand by it though.

    Its the difference between the original MMOrs and new school players. New schoolers grew up in a time where they didnt have to learn teamwork, or even how to function civilly around people you may not like. They lack certain social skills, and now that theres a lot more new school than old school players they cater to them.

    image
  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member

    Originally posted by FrostWyrm

    Sounds familiar. Was that in a different thread, though? Eh, probably both. I still stand by it though.

    All you need is a first set of players willing to claim prior ownership of the genre, and a set of game owner willing to open their games to possible new markets, and you get the same argument all over again, yas?

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • XAPKenXAPKen Northwest, INPosts: 4,919Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Nevulus

    Welcome to the new age of MMOs, where they are nothing but lobby games.

    No more exploration, no more vast open worlds, no more actual character progression. Like I called it years ago, we will one day be paying cash shops and subs for simple FPS games and single player RPGs

     

    I saw a post that described the position of a player who left WAR.  (paraphrased) "... and then I realized I was paying fifteen dollars a month to play capture the flag, so I left."

     

    I think your prediction is already happening.


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now turned Amateur Game Developer.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  Realm Lords 2 on MMORPG.com
  • SaintPhilipSaintPhilip Bree, MIPosts: 713Member

    Originally posted by Callidor

    Originally posted by FrostWyrm


    Originally posted by Icewhite


    Originally posted by FrostWyrm

    This is what I dont get. Massively multiplayer is part of the genre. Why are people entering this genre if this is not what they want in a game? Why, when genres that already satisfy their wants exist, do people insist on coming into this one and mutating it to fit their own desires?

    Didn't we already have this argument with the arrival of soloers and pvp players from other genres?  I'm sure we did.

    Sounds familiar. Was that in a different thread, though? Eh, probably both. I still stand by it though.

    Its the difference between the original MMOrs and new school players. New schoolers grew up in a time where they didnt have to learn teamwork, or even how to function civilly around people you may not like. They lack certain social skills, and now that theres a lot more new school than old school players they cater to them.

    Simply put. Yes.

    BUt it has more to do with accesibility than "generation". When I started in the 1990s it was a select few, elite nerds playing thse games. It was the D&D players. Now its EVERYONE . When computers got cheap and internet commonplace, the influx of people (who soon outnumbered us) was where the BIG $$$ was. Catering to the masses.

     

     

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member

    Originally posted by SaintPhilip

    Catering to the masses.

     

     

    Generally more sensible than ignoring the markets changing.

    We could still be playing Ultima I, but honestly, we'd be a little sick of it by now.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • CallidorCallidor Colorado Springs, COPosts: 371Member

    Originally posted by SaintPhilip

    Originally posted by Callidor


    Originally posted by FrostWyrm


    Originally posted by Icewhite


    Originally posted by FrostWyrm

    This is what I dont get. Massively multiplayer is part of the genre. Why are people entering this genre if this is not what they want in a game? Why, when genres that already satisfy their wants exist, do people insist on coming into this one and mutating it to fit their own desires?

    Didn't we already have this argument with the arrival of soloers and pvp players from other genres?  I'm sure we did.

    Sounds familiar. Was that in a different thread, though? Eh, probably both. I still stand by it though.

    Its the difference between the original MMOrs and new school players. New schoolers grew up in a time where they didnt have to learn teamwork, or even how to function civilly around people you may not like. They lack certain social skills, and now that theres a lot more new school than old school players they cater to them.

    Simply put. Yes.

    BUt it has more to do with accesibility than "generation". When I started in the 1990s it was a select few, elite nerds playing thse games. It was the D&D players. Now its EVERYONE . When computers got cheap and internet commonplace, the influx of people (who soon outnumbered us) was where the BIG $$$ was. Catering to the masses.

     

     

    You make a good point. I was just pointing out that kids dont even have to go to P.E. these days. Where are they going to learn to function within setting that requires teamwork? I think my days on sports teams taught me a lot about tolerating other peoples foibles and issues. Good sportsmanship and compassion have gotten so rare these days im pretty sure you could categorize them as superpowers.

    image
  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member

    Originally posted by Callidor

    You make a good point. I was just pointing out that kids dont even have to go to P.E. these days. Where are they going to learn to function within setting that requires teamwork? I think my days on sports teams taught me a lot about tolerating other peoples foibles and issues. Good sportsmanship and compassion have gotten so rare these days im pretty sure you could categorize them as superpowers.

    You should be stading on your lawn and threatening with a cane for this speech.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • CallidorCallidor Colorado Springs, COPosts: 371Member

    Originally posted by Icewhite

    Originally posted by Callidor

    You make a good point. I was just pointing out that kids dont even have to go to P.E. these days. Where are they going to learn to function within setting that requires teamwork? I think my days on sports teams taught me a lot about tolerating other peoples foibles and issues. Good sportsmanship and compassion have gotten so rare these days im pretty sure you could categorize them as superpowers.

    You should be stading on your lawn and threatening with a cane for this speech.

    It sure beats dropping test scores, raising rates of obesity, juvenile diabetes and unprecedented acts of violence from said age group. Truly I feel bad for the entire generation, no role models, no cause to believe in. Just keep buying the merchandise like the marketing departments tell you to.

    image
  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member

    Originally posted by Callidor

    It sure beats dropping test scores, raising rates of obesity, juvenile diabetes and unprecedented acts of violence from said age group. Truly I feel bad for the entire generation, no role models, no cause to believe in. Just keep buying the merchandise like the marketing departments tell you to.

    Oh dear, a real reactionary. 

    All right, carry on, this argument is has been ongoing since at least Plato.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • aesperusaesperus Hamshire, NVPosts: 5,128Member Uncommon

    Simple answer. Yes.

    Anyone with a functional eyeball should be able to see this. It's already happened. The extent to which this will continue is another matter entirely. And since I left my magic 8 ball @ home... well, I'll leave it at that.

  • FrostWyrmFrostWyrm Tempe, AZPosts: 1,036Member

    Originally posted by Icewhite

    Originally posted by Callidor

    You make a good point. I was just pointing out that kids dont even have to go to P.E. these days. Where are they going to learn to function within setting that requires teamwork? I think my days on sports teams taught me a lot about tolerating other peoples foibles and issues. Good sportsmanship and compassion have gotten so rare these days im pretty sure you could categorize them as superpowers.

    You should be stading on your lawn and threatening with a cane for this speech.

    I love that he used the word "foibles". People should start using that more often. image

     

    But I think he's totally correct. This seems to be a very "me" oriented generation. Thinking about it logically, it probably does have a lot to do with the death of social play as children. Technology has removed kids from the playground and put them in a position where their primary source of social interaction is with avatars on a video screen from behind a shield of anonymity. I'm almost certain half the people in these forums wouldn't say half the things they do if they were face-to-face with the person they were speaking to.

    *Grab's cane*

    Back when I was a youngster, the internet was a supplement to face-to-face interaction, not a replacement for it. We learned to respect other people and not dehumanize those we didn't have direct contact with because of it.

    Now get off my lawn!!

Sign In or Register to comment.