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!

Are/Did Developers take MMORPG's in the wrong direction?

1235

Comments

  • VardahothVardahoth Temecula, CAPosts: 389Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Helleri

    Wow...that was a lot to read through...couldn't even really dent it lol.

    I have to say one thing before I get off my usual soapbox when reading things like this....Runescape = Nothing like the Wow-esc over done MMO's your used to playing...There, sorry, had to say that first so it's out of the way.

    Now...

    I have to say that while by-and-large I can agree that the genre has lost it's way, there are some really promising things on the horizon. In an answer to repairing the MMO genre gaming companies are turning to the idea of a sandbox MMO environment. I really feel we won't have to suffer these repetative crank outs for much longer.

    I can name 2 games on the horizon that IMO, promise to go a long way towards setting an example of how to fix this genre.

    The first and likely most important is ArcheAge

    Yes we will have to wait at least 2 years until everyone can access open betas and possibly 3 for full release worldwide. But, go youtube this up-comming game. It's really amazing. Look at how one thing common in most game works alone in archeage. 

    That ebing mounts. Your mount in ArcheAge will have will wander up to you from some bushes or something (as if it's been tailing you waiting to be used) when summmoned. You can dismount it and have it go somewhere, or have it follow you. It acts as not just transportation for you, but giving people who aren't even level enough to have a mount them selves a ride some where. You can fuight from atop it, and it has it's own combat skills that grow with you. When you hit water it doesn't diapear in a poff but swims under you 9or behind you if you are dismounted).

    If you have ever thought mounts leave a lot to be desired in most MMo's and are largely only a status symbol this alone shoud show you how arche age will be different in every respect.

    The approach with arhceage is not to do anything revolutionary by it's own right, but to combine all the very best most desired features of  MMo's at large into one seamless blend. To do everything you thought was wrong with MMo's you played...the right way.

    I seriously suggest looking into this future MMO and seing all it has to offer to restore your hope in the genre.

    The second is Yogventures

    I think this game will be really fun to play because of the way it is being made. Basically if your not in the know two guys have chucked money at a company that knows what they are doing and told them what they wanted. this money comes from fans on kickstarter who have supported their ideas about what an MMO should be.

    So I believe this will be a rather unique and truly fun and engaging MMO experience when it releases. And it's worth taking a look at on the yogascast channel on youtube.

    I remember looking at archage, when a friend showed it to me a few years back. My friend (of course being from L2) said it had the same makers from L2 and it was going to be just like it. That shows promise, but there are two things that worry me. Will cappiing top level take a week vs years like all these other games out now? And do they promise not to make it a cash shop pay 2 win game?

    Those are my only questions. All the other characteristics looked good to me.

    I Quit.

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/436845/page/1

    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2316034
    .............
    Retired Gamer: all MMORPG's have been destroyed by big business, marketing of false promises, unprofessional game makers, and a generation of "I WIN and GIVE ME NOW".

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,462Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vardahoth
     

    I remember looking at archage, when a friend showed it to me a few years back. My friend (of course being from L2) said it had the same makers from L2 and it was going to be just like it. That shows promise, but there are two things that worry me. Will cappiing top level take a week vs years like all these other games out now? And do they promise not to make it a cash shop pay 2 win game?

    Those are my only questions. All the other characteristics looked good to me.

    I'd be very interested to see if any new game has the same "it takes a year+ to level" idea.

    I suspect that those days are (sadly) over.

  • TheCrow2kTheCrow2k Adelaide, AKPosts: 953Member
    The heavy focus on Solo/Single player that followed the sudden major shift to themepark model MMO's is where things have gone horribly wrong. That said more of the new MMO's want to basically kill any semblance of holy trinity & thus the one remaining cooperative aspect of MMO's dies.

    End of the day it seems more & more like there are less MMO'S Coming out but a lot more crappy single player games with optional multiplayer. Which is exactly what they are designing.

    Lets hope Indie devs can somehow refresh or re-invent the genre !
  • mmoguy43mmoguy43 , CAPosts: 2,447Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by Vardahoth
     

    I remember looking at archage, when a friend showed it to me a few years back. My friend (of course being from L2) said it had the same makers from L2 and it was going to be just like it. That shows promise, but there are two things that worry me. Will cappiing top level take a week vs years like all these other games out now? And do they promise not to make it a cash shop pay 2 win game?

    Those are my only questions. All the other characteristics looked good to me.

    I'd be very interested to see if any new game has the same "it takes a year+ to level" idea.

    I suspect that those days are (sadly) over.

    Planetside 2 is said to take a year minumum but it is looking more like 4+ years to max out every certification. image

  • niceguy3978niceguy3978 Gainesville, FLPosts: 2,000Member
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Niceguy

    Oh fair dos with EQ and uo then.

    Still stand by daoc, ac and eve as successful Indies though.

    Also coh, was that owned by ncsoft from the start? Don't remember to be honest.

    CoH was a mix of indie and NCSOFT  (Paragon Studioes) I believe it was called.  Over time the NCSOFT bought out paragon and many of those devs left for cryptic to work on champions .

  • niceguy3978niceguy3978 Gainesville, FLPosts: 2,000Member
    Originally posted by niceguy3978
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Niceguy

    Oh fair dos with EQ and uo then.

    Still stand by daoc, ac and eve as successful Indies though.

    Also coh, was that owned by ncsoft from the start? Don't remember to be honest.

    CoH was a mix of indie and NCSOFT  (Paragon Studioes) I believe it was called.  Over time the NCSOFT bought out paragon and many of those devs left for cryptic to work on champions .

    There seems to be the thought process that by som people that their early bleoved games were above the whol corprotist mindset, but the 3 most popular pre-wow mmmo's were by greedy corporations.

  • Pratt2112Pratt2112 Posts: 1,538Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Zylaxx
     

    Disagree because 99% of all innovation come from the big boys and not from starving artists.

     

    Name me one successful indie MMO?  NONE, cause they are all F2P crap, only the good stuff comes from well named studios.

    Indie MMOs are all F2P crap?

    Umm..

    Turbine,owned by Warner Brothers, has made their games F2P. SOE has made all their MMOs F2P. NCSoft has made their major MMOs F2P. EA is changing TOR to F2P. And so on, and so on.

    Last I checked, none of those companies are all "well named studios" and not "indie"

    Eastern MMOs based on the F2P model are all backed by major publishers, not "small indie companies".

    Here's some innovation from small indie companies for you... Small company named Id Software innovated by being the first people to successfully create a smooth-scrolling 2D side-scroller on the PC, something which had previously been thought impossible. Id Software went on to create the FPS genre, and coined the term "Deathmatch" (John Romero to be exact). Another indie guy who goes by the name "Notch" created an innovative, sandboxy type game with blocky graphics that went on to become a phenomenon. You may have heard of it, it's called Minecraft. And the list could go on.

    Do some research and learn your history before posting, will ya?
  • HelleriHelleri Felton, CAPosts: 927Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by Helleri

    Trying not to be mean about it... But, more bluntly and directly, companies made it easy for stupid people to play, because stupid people are easier to get more money out of for less effort. And, all i think we really want with reform to the Genre is a ban on stupid people.

    Yeah, I tend not to find a lot of credence in any group that sets itself up as "the intelligentsia" because another group doesn't embrace their ideals. I say this a lot but it comes down to plato's philosopher kings or essentially "only those who are philosphers should be kings because they are the only people who know better.

    back in the original EQ days, at its height, there were plenty of of people who played who weren't the brightest bulbs in the sky. They were probably a bit nerdy or a bit misanthropic but fell into the original mmo vanguard.

    there are a lot of very smart people who play modern mmo's simply because they offer a diversion or are "fun".

    Heck, a friend of mine is extremely smart, PhD, can speak intelligently on many topics but her tastes in T.V. make me squint my eyes in disbelief.

    I tend not to judge people on the content they take part in because time and time again that doens't really offer the full picture.

    And again, there are still people who view gamers as people who are wasting their time when they can be doing somethng, anyting, that actually matters. I'm sure they might think that gamers are stupid for being gamers.

    All this does is create a lot of misinformation and a lot of hate where there doesn't need to be any.

     

      And Forest Gump said "Stupid is as stupid does."....

      Almost invariably I see the same people that are rallying for new, unique and at the very least not tired out direction to be taken with MMO's; are also the people complaining about scammers, beggars, lazy new players complaining it's hard. And people who couldn't  do a quest even with a guide and someone helping them.

     

      There is a such a thing as a stupid person. And, when I say stupid, I as do most people I know rl use it as a header term for:  Those acting foolishly, those who are that stubborn sort of ignorant, those who have a sense of self entitlement that is undeserved, and people who generally want everything handed to them instead of working for it. Most of the reasons someone can be stupid in a gamr are more of a personality defect than anything else...but there are still quite a few who are simply far less intelligent then the average player, and they make the measure of their intelligence quickly apparent.

     

      And ok, some of them are simply to young to understand things as well as older people do, some are old enough to, but can't because, they think under a constant barrage of radical chemical changes leading their rationale.

     

      Point is stupid people exist, and they like to play games not for challenge and healthy competition, but, for almost seemingly the sole impression that it isn't real so they can act however they like. And these people are more atracted to games that let them do that more easily (as in WoW-escs, games with little sense of good storyline or real direction, mindless rapetative kill and collect questing, and strait foward fixed path leveling, that are only unforgiving to any one who is not a good sheep).

     

      And of course there are people who play easy games because they offer stress relief, I agree... i am one of them.

     

      As for things like the view that gamers can be people wasting time spinning their wheels in a road of life rutt...

      It is not nescessarily wrong. I have seen plenty of frineds go that way. Gaming can act as an addictive, and it can cause a person to waste there life away. My use of it is as an escape. I don't even really get much actually done in games unless it involves the lore of the game. I spend more time helping people get started on games and idley chatting then anything else.

     

      But hey, I got stuff to do. Fitting in gaming is actually sometimes an issue, like between my last post and this one I went to a memorial service for a close friend and my landlord, then out to dinner with his family. Then talked to my woman for an hour on the phone to say goodnight. So when I get back, from life. going online and gaming in general is my stress relief.

     

      And, any one I know who does things relatively the same way, is very lazy in their gaming. I talk to any person at length who is truly epic in a game and I find out they don't really go out much, they don't have a social life, the don't have any real prospects on the horizon, and they are usually heavily emotionally damaged in some way. Not saying this is 'wrong' exactly. It's a way of coping. but, it is not a good long term solution. And the stigma around gaming is not entirely undeserved.

     

      Like I said I help a lot of people in the games and am helping most of the ones I meet...

    And I can say that in games that offer real challenge and competativness, that do something unique, and have good storyline and questing. Most people are what i would term as sharp tacks

    In games that don't require little to any actual paying attention to get anything done, most the people I meet are dumb, flighty and other wise hard to help with anything.

    I am not judging them on their choice of content. But, i am judging them based on how they act, and how easily they are able to grasp concepts (and every one makes judgments everyday about all aspects of their lives, it's a buig part of how we live so all that matters is that i am correctly judging them).

    So, I stand by what I said

    That being the rally for a change in direction is in my view really a rally for a ban on stupid people (what eevr kind of stupid you want to call it, for what ever reasons they may be that way...and not just people acting stupid occaisionally, people who are like that all the time). And it is a cry made by a small majority (I can't really even see you defending the idea that intelligent people occupy anything less then a small majority of society).

    image

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by ShakyMo

    biggest problem, to detriment of mmos imo is INSTANCING

    instanced dungeons, tupperware pvp, solo story phases, multiple shards of the same world zone

    these things are killing MMOS, they stop them being massive and multiplayer

     

    im not against zoning for performance reasons, providing thoose zones are singular and persistent.  but i am against instancing.

    Agreed. Quest based leveling is pretty bad too.

    Instancing is never done for performance reasons, games have been made with great performance without a stitch of instancing.

     

    In any case. Its not the devs so much as the publishers. Once they became involved it all went to hell. Look what EA did to mythic?

  • Paradigm68Paradigm68 New York, NYPosts: 884Member Uncommon
    Yes. The understandable desire of the investors/publishers to make more money has led the genre to become more like fast food rather than gourmet cuisine, sacrficing the singular underlying dynamic that made the MMORPG genre a distinct thing: community.
  • YakkinYakkin irvine, CAPosts: 919Member
    Originally posted by Paradigm68
    Yes. The understandable desire of the investors/publishers to make more money has led the genre to become more like fast food rather than gourmet cuisine, sacrficing the singular underlying dynamic that made the MMORPG genre a distinct thing: community.

    Is that Blade Runner in your avatar?

  • Paradigm68Paradigm68 New York, NYPosts: 884Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Enigmatus
    Originally posted by Paradigm68
    Yes. The understandable desire of the investors/publishers to make more money has led the genre to become more like fast food rather than gourmet cuisine, sacrficing the singular underlying dynamic that made the MMORPG genre a distinct thing: community.

    Is that Blade Runner in your avatar?

    yep

  • PurutzilPurutzil East Stroudsburg, PAPosts: 2,925Member Uncommon

    Its less about them taking MMORPGS in the wrong direction as much as it is they are taking it only in ONE direction. Rather then being willing to change the formula, they follow the same exactly stuff hoping to use familiarity to attract players to games. They are staying mostly in one direction and just continueing that way not willing to change. Look at GW2 which is practicaly a copy paste of the same standerd formula, just changing a few things so they look a bit different though play identicle to stuff we seen in the past, yet its viewed as some revolutionary change.

     

    What we need to see is the formula gone off in a different way. Look at SWTOR for example. If it wasn't for EA I'd almost suspect they might of tried something more daring (hey, I can be hopefuly) instead of that generic class system it would of followed more in line with Kotor possibly focusing on a more free system that really helps define the character in more unique ways (which in the end does form its own 'classes' of sort but with far more choice). Rather then having 2 'sides' it could of had the ability for players to pick who they do side with and advance in that format.  Jedi and Sith could be merely based off the player's choice and in some ways could reflect a character that walks a fine line between both.

     

    There wass just so much potential if they followed Kotor but its to far stretched from the normal and would involve more work getting it to actually function in an MMO to make it worth wild of the risk and possibility it might not attract as many players. Even then I'm sure they would of still kept to standard MMos to much. Its that risk taking that really needs to be enforced and rather then focusing on going one direction, games need to split off and just go ways you wouldn't expect. The trick is finding one taht can be different and yet still attract players to it.

  • HelleriHelleri Felton, CAPosts: 927Member Uncommon

    @ Vardahoth (I believe it is) regarding ArcheAge

    I was on their forums for a bit until I realized that all they did was discuss well established things, and relive beta in their minds (there was only so much info to gather that way). I do know that it will be a flat subscription based game that will be about 15 a month per account after initial purchase (guestimated at around 70).

     

    As far as I can tell any time the cash shop is brought up or the idea of their being an f2p model as well... players fly into rage (actually they glide into rage as they are very poinient about they have gliders in ArcheAge but no true fliers due to how it would upset game balance).

     

    as for leveling. I sure don't know about that. I saw some pretty dynamic stuff though which implies that tasks take long enough  that leveling moves at a fair pace for the work. like in one vid a guy climbed a tree to escape something, another player killed that something, then guy climbed down and they cut down the tree...which actually felled, and needed to be moved to a wooden prop to be worked on in order to gather wood.

     

    which in later videos players turned resources into boats, houses and villiages. In one instance a couple pirate ships were built by two apposing teams, seemed the lead of each party steered and individual players manned the guns for the ship battle...until a cracken showed up and they kinda had to join forces. in another instance some women with a breath bladder of some kind was farming in an under water garden. she had to go back to the surface as some douche with a bigger boat was destroying her ship.

    image

  • ZekiahZekiah Aurora, COPosts: 2,499Member
    Yes. Yes they did/are.

    "Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky

  • BurntvetBurntvet Baltimore, MDPosts: 2,950Member Uncommon

    Considering the repeated crashing of newly released MMOs, I think the market has spoken.

    TOR: most expensive computer game of any type, down at least 90% subs and F2P inside of a year.

    TSW: Did so poorly out of the gate, that FC is not going to make any more MMOs, and may go out of business.

    GW2: Did enough well, I suppose, but their business model had something to do with that...

     

    The original video game market of the early 80s crashed, because so many poor quality, similar products were put out.

    Maybe what is needed is for a lot of these companies to go under, and let the "game guys" get involved with the industry again.

    It was "game guys" that brought the great MMOs of the old days into being, but now, it the "suits" are more interested in business models and how to squeeze the customer than in making good games (because they don't even know what a good game is, beyond one that makes money).

    So, it is entirely possible that some of the companies in the MMO space might need to go away, before the genre improves again.

     

  • ApraxisApraxis RegensburgPosts: 1,515Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by SaintPhilip

    Even Atari got huge through very deceptive practices and...Piracy.

    Please name a corporation you do not hate.

    I didnt hate Bullfrog, i didnt hate Origin, i didnt hate Firaxis(and they even exist nowadays, and i dont hate them ).

    Point is, it is some truth to it. Game Companies are good and nice as long as they are rather small, and as long as the creative people have the saying.(and creative people can just have the saying, when it is small) If that is not the case you get EA.. and i hate EA.

    But, especially in MMOs, it is really hard to do a indy mmo nowadays. There is a reason why successful indy games are not mmos, like minecraft, mount&blade, dayz.. because you cant do a mmo with a few ppl in a few years. Or it looks like crap and almost noone will play it.

    But i personally think anyway, that we should just scrap the Massive part of MMOs, because i dont see a huge advantage in it.. Worlds/Servers with just a few hundred ppl are absolutely fine, and you will then have some sort of community, and you can do it a lot easier.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,462Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Helleri
     

      And Forest Gump said "Stupid is as stupid does."....

      Almost invariably I see the same people that are rallying for new, unique and at the very least not tired out direction to be taken with MMO's; are also the people complaining about scammers, beggars, lazy new players complaining it's hard. And people who couldn't  do a quest even with a guide and someone helping them.

     

      There is a such a thing as a stupid person. And, when I say stupid, I as do most people I know rl use it as a header term for:  Those acting foolishly, those who are that stubborn sort of ignorant, those who have a sense of self entitlement that is undeserved, and people who generally want everything handed to them instead of working for it. Most of the reasons someone can be stupid in a gamr are more of a personality defect than anything else...but there are still quite a few who are simply far less intelligent then the average player, and they make the measure of their intelligence quickly apparent.

     

      Point is stupid people exist, and they like to play games not for challenge and healthy competition, but, for almost seemingly the sole impression that it isn't real so they can act however they like.

    I would agree with your first quote and the post's general thrust but I think it's important to note that people who are less intelligent sometimes do want a challenge or to be engaged.

    heck, I have a pretty high IQ (whatever that means - I tend to go with Howard Gardener's idea of multiple intelligences, but I digress...) and I know a few people who are not (seemingly) as intelligent as I am, in some cases noticeably so, but they do things that have far more real challenge and take far more effort than many things that I do or intend to do.

    I mean, have you climbed an ice wall or done an Iron Man? Have you built your own house?

    The "dumbing down" of games has not been because of people who are less intelligent but I will agree that it's because of people who are partly lazy and partly feel like they are entitled.

    There are also people who are looking for a quick diversion so their intelligence doesn't really figure into it. They arent' looking for anyting but "fluff" for a short good time.

    The problem with saying people are "stupid" means that you lump together people who just aren't as bright as the average person with people who act like entitled brats who think they are owed something.

    because there are smart people who are "lazy,  entitled, abusive to their fellow man, expect everyting to be handed to them and are abrasive. And then "stupid" becomes more about people acting or doing things that others don't agree with (understandably so) as opposed to intelligence or any sense of wisdom or street smarts.

     

     

     

  • VardahothVardahoth Temecula, CAPosts: 389Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Helleri

    @ Vardahoth (I believe it is) regarding ArcheAge

    I was on their forums for a bit until I realized that all they did was discuss well established things, and relive beta in their minds (there was only so much info to gather that way). I do know that it will be a flat subscription based game that will be about 15 a month per account after initial purchase (guestimated at around 70).

     

    As far as I can tell any time the cash shop is brought up or the idea of their being an f2p model as well... players fly into rage (actually they glide into rage as they are very poinient about they have gliders in ArcheAge but no true fliers due to how it would upset game balance).

     

    as for leveling. I sure don't know about that. I saw some pretty dynamic stuff though which implies that tasks take long enough  that leveling moves at a fair pace for the work. like in one vid a guy climbed a tree to escape something, another player killed that something, then guy climbed down and they cut down the tree...which actually felled, and needed to be moved to a wooden prop to be worked on in order to gather wood.

     

    which in later videos players turned resources into boats, houses and villiages. In one instance a couple pirate ships were built by two apposing teams, seemed the lead of each party steered and individual players manned the guns for the ship battle...until a cracken showed up and they kinda had to join forces. in another instance some women with a breath bladder of some kind was farming in an under water garden. she had to go back to the surface as some douche with a bigger boat was destroying her ship.

    That sounds pretty cool. I'm more of a player that would spend most of his time on land, but I have to say the times I remember being the best were where you hated the people you were fighting and all of a sudden a change in events occur forcing you to temporarely join forces to take down a bigger threat.

    If this game is as good as it looks than maybe after 6 years of waiting I can finally say I have found my holy grail. It's just waiting till like 2013/2014 for it to be released that sucks lol. And you know most mmorpg companies are always a few years late on when they say the release date for it will be.

    If I have found this holy grail game, then the toughest challange is going to be finding the right clan to join.

    I Quit.

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/436845/page/1

    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2316034
    .............
    Retired Gamer: all MMORPG's have been destroyed by big business, marketing of false promises, unprofessional game makers, and a generation of "I WIN and GIVE ME NOW".

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Zylax
    Successful indie mmos.
    Uo - ea bought them later
    Daoc - ea bought them later
    EQ - Sony bought them later
    Eve - still is
    Wow - blizzard were independent at the time.

     

    UO was bought by EA in 1992, UO was released in 1997.

    EQ - was first planned and developed by 989 studios, then verant left, then came back to Sony.  So Sony had a hand in EQ from the very start.

    I guess it depends on what you consider Indy.

    If you consider it a small company than no UO, EQ, WoW were not Indy.

    If you consider them just as a company developing and publishing on their own than EA, SOE and Blizzard are Indy as well.

    NCSoft publishes and developes it's own games, they are just as indy as blizzard in that sense, and SOE

    At what point do we not consider CCP indy, when they get to a certain size?  I mean after all they develop and publish their own games just like SOE does for it's games. 

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by Apraxis
    But i personally think anyway, that we should just scrap the Massive part of MMOs, because i dont see a huge advantage in it.. Worlds/Servers with just a few hundred ppl are absolutely fine, and you will then have some sort of community, and you can do it a lot easier.

    I'm sympathetic to the idea.  We lost a lot as the game grew too large.

    Otoh, I really doubt you can run a game on the mud model any more, either.

    Obviously, we'd need a small game that attracts big attention for Quality, yet doesn't open its doors to unlimited growth.  Good luck getting a corporate bean-counter to vote for game integrity over profit.

    May not even be possible.  Budget vs expectations again.

    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.

  • OzmodanOzmodan Hilliard, OHPosts: 7,191Member Uncommon

    The best example of the horrible state MMO's are in is SWTOR.  The Bioware team set out to create a completely guided tour of Star Wars, with voice overs and cut scenes galore.  It was a huge and expensive effort and they made the exact game they set out to make.  Except they forgot what happens when people are done with the tour, they move on.  Taking the tour more than a couple times gets boring.  There was nothing else to do, but take the tour.  

    That is exactly why SWTOR will also fail as a f2p.  After people take the tour, they will leave.  Probably the best example of how not to make a MMO.

    I would be willing to bet that the Bioware team set out to show how they could make a much better game than SWG without having a clue what made SWG the game it was.  The open world, detailed crafting, non linear play, ability to define what skills your character had, even to change them if you so desired.

    UO, EQ, DAoC and even Wow somewhat were made by small independent developers, none of the shops were very big, even Blizzard was not that big when Wow came out.  So the guy is right above.  Even SWG was somewhat indie as it was a small shop and even SOE and LA did not really understand what they were doing with it.

  • mikecacklemikecackle City, ILPosts: 151Member
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by Apraxis
    But i personally think anyway, that we should just scrap the Massive part of MMOs, because i dont see a huge advantage in it.. Worlds/Servers with just a few hundred ppl are absolutely fine, and you will then have some sort of community, and you can do it a lot easier.

    I'm sympathetic to the idea.  We lost a lot as the game grew too large.

    Otoh, I really doubt you can run a game on the mud model any more, either.

    Obviously, we'd need a small game that attracts big attention for Quality, yet doesn't open its doors to unlimited growth.  Good luck getting a corporate bean-counter to vote for game integrity over profit.

    May not even be possible.  Budget vs expectations again.

    What I found amazing no one has tried to make a RPG game run like a classic multiplayer FPS game on its own dedicated server with its owners playing with their friends and controlling it.. (aside from NW2) i guess thats close, but not a dedicated server. and of course those WoW emulators, thought that would spark the idea... Guess it comes down to controlling the IP and the $ncome... heh.. greed greed greed

  • SaintPhilipSaintPhilip Bree, MIPosts: 713Member
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by Apraxis
    But i personally think anyway, that we should just scrap the Massive part of MMOs, because i dont see a huge advantage in it.. Worlds/Servers with just a few hundred ppl are absolutely fine, and you will then have some sort of community, and you can do it a lot easier.

    I'm sympathetic to the idea.  We lost a lot as the game grew too large.

    Otoh, I really doubt you can run a game on the mud model any more, either.

    Obviously, we'd need a small game that attracts big attention for Quality, yet doesn't open its doors to unlimited growth.  Good luck getting a corporate bean-counter to vote for game integrity over profit.

    May not even be possible.  Budget vs expectations again.

    Ice- I 100% think you hit the nail on the head.

     

  • VardahothVardahoth Temecula, CAPosts: 389Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by mikecackle
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by Apraxis
    But i personally think anyway, that we should just scrap the Massive part of MMOs, because i dont see a huge advantage in it.. Worlds/Servers with just a few hundred ppl are absolutely fine, and you will then have some sort of community, and you can do it a lot easier.

    I'm sympathetic to the idea.  We lost a lot as the game grew too large.

    Otoh, I really doubt you can run a game on the mud model any more, either.

    Obviously, we'd need a small game that attracts big attention for Quality, yet doesn't open its doors to unlimited growth.  Good luck getting a corporate bean-counter to vote for game integrity over profit.

    May not even be possible.  Budget vs expectations again.

    What I found amazing no one has tried to make a RPG game run like a classic multiplayer FPS game on its own dedicated server with its owners playing with their friends and controlling it.. (aside from NW2) i guess thats close, but not a dedicated server. and of course those WoW emulators, thought that would spark the idea... Guess it comes down to controlling the IP and the $ncome... heh.. greed greed greed

    Diablo 2 and 3.

    I Quit.

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/436845/page/1

    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2316034
    .............
    Retired Gamer: all MMORPG's have been destroyed by big business, marketing of false promises, unprofessional game makers, and a generation of "I WIN and GIVE ME NOW".

Sign In or Register to comment.