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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
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.
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.
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
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.
I don't know if it will be a holy grail game exactly. I think at the very least it will raise the standard. I think once it comes out, and shortly before or after yogventures (which is basically modern graphics, with all the stuff you usually have to mod in already present in the mechanics). That the two will be popular enough that they may end up breaking this same-ole' trend.
a quick re-summarization of these two upcoming games for any who missed it:
- ArchAge will be coming out in late 2013-2014 and it's makers have been striving to include all the best features various MMO's have while droping the bad ones. They are doing nothing inovative, merely top quality with what exists already. Say you grabbed any MMO you have PLayed a long time and have an indepth list of things you would change, add, remove, leave the same, or other wise improve...you just thought up ArcheAge.
- Yogventures is basically made under the whim and direction of two guys who have played and reviewed a lot of games (due to their popularity they have gotten to play a lot of games we still haven't even seen previews for). They are basically paying people to make an MMO the way think it should be. This...could turn out disasterous. But what if you could sit down with a gaming buddy on a video confrence to a game studio and basically tell them what kind of MMO to make?
But, I compair all MMO's to Runescape. I won't get into why (unless prompted) because I have done that enough on these forums lol... It is simply my measuring stick (not just for it's positives but it's negatives as well).
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.
Instancing solved a lot of problems though, and opened up the idea of dungeons and raids beyond what could be done in the "open world." I think some games take instancing too far, such as GW2, but the basic principle behind an instance works pretty well from a performance and design perspective.
MMOs are expensive. Developers aren't going to make MMOs they aren't sure people will play. Would you? Frontlining some of these projects means putting your neck & credibility on the line for 10s or 100s of millions of dollars.
More importantly though, we as players are very fickle in what we play. We are very reluctant to try new types of MMOs. Many of us are constantly trying to 'rediscover' games we've already played. And many of us will easily abandon a developer who is trying new things, rather than to try and support those new ideas with feedback, money, or encouragement.
I can tell you unoquivacally that I have never bailed on an MMO because the developer was trying new things. I bailed on them because they were trying stupid and poorly conceived new things that cater to the least common denominator, which is the problem with pretty much all new MMO's that have come out in the last few years.
I don't blame any dev shop that is in it to make money. I would be too. However, just how many greatly hyped and near record-breaking launches followed by drastic drop-offs within the first six months does it take for them to figure out that all of these mewling mouth-breathers they're designing for aren't going to stick around playing for very long? It's the people arguing against the conventionally envisioned "accessibility" that are their bread and butter. It's like they'd rather have a million players for a year than 250k-500k for ten.
Also, I think it's no coincidence that the slide of the MMORPG genre has been proportional to the efforts to incorporate PvP in each and every title. There, I said it. Somebody had to.
Let's take the pre wow aaa mmos Uo pvp heavy Daoc pvp heavy Eve pvp heavy Planetside pvp heavy Ao balanced Ac balanced Swg balanced EQ pve heavy Coh pve heavy
Compare with post wow
Eq2 pve heavy Lotro pve heavy Aoc pve heavy Swtor pve heavy Rift pve heavy Tsw pve heavy Gw2 balanced War pvp heavy Aion pvp heavy
This is how mmos have gone in general post wow. More pve less pvp More instancing less open world More solo less massive More themepark less sandbox More gamey less immersive More pop culture less rpg
My UO and AC characters told me they want some of what your smoking.
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
they were.. but now mmo's shall be dragged, kicking and screaming out of the darkness that was the age of WOW and into the the shining light that is the Second Age of Everquest.
Comments
Is that Blade Runner in your avatar?
yep
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.
@ 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.
"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
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.
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.
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.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
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.
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.
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.
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
Regards,
Mike Cackle
My YouTube Channel
Ice- I 100% think you hit the nail on the head.
@Vardahoth
I don't know if it will be a holy grail game exactly. I think at the very least it will raise the standard. I think once it comes out, and shortly before or after yogventures (which is basically modern graphics, with all the stuff you usually have to mod in already present in the mechanics). That the two will be popular enough that they may end up breaking this same-ole' trend.
a quick re-summarization of these two upcoming games for any who missed it:
- ArchAge will be coming out in late 2013-2014 and it's makers have been striving to include all the best features various MMO's have while droping the bad ones. They are doing nothing inovative, merely top quality with what exists already. Say you grabbed any MMO you have PLayed a long time and have an indepth list of things you would change, add, remove, leave the same, or other wise improve...you just thought up ArcheAge.
- Yogventures is basically made under the whim and direction of two guys who have played and reviewed a lot of games (due to their popularity they have gotten to play a lot of games we still haven't even seen previews for). They are basically paying people to make an MMO the way think it should be. This...could turn out disasterous. But what if you could sit down with a gaming buddy on a video confrence to a game studio and basically tell them what kind of MMO to make?
But, I compair all MMO's to Runescape. I won't get into why (unless prompted) because I have done that enough on these forums lol... It is simply my measuring stick (not just for it's positives but it's negatives as well).
Instancing solved a lot of problems though, and opened up the idea of dungeons and raids beyond what could be done in the "open world." I think some games take instancing too far, such as GW2, but the basic principle behind an instance works pretty well from a performance and design perspective.
You make me like charity
I can tell you unoquivacally that I have never bailed on an MMO because the developer was trying new things. I bailed on them because they were trying stupid and poorly conceived new things that cater to the least common denominator, which is the problem with pretty much all new MMO's that have come out in the last few years.
I don't blame any dev shop that is in it to make money. I would be too. However, just how many greatly hyped and near record-breaking launches followed by drastic drop-offs within the first six months does it take for them to figure out that all of these mewling mouth-breathers they're designing for aren't going to stick around playing for very long? It's the people arguing against the conventionally envisioned "accessibility" that are their bread and butter. It's like they'd rather have a million players for a year than 250k-500k for ten.
Also, I think it's no coincidence that the slide of the MMORPG genre has been proportional to the efforts to incorporate PvP in each and every title. There, I said it. Somebody had to.
Mmos have moved in a MORE PVE direction.
Let's take the pre wow aaa mmos
Uo pvp heavy
Daoc pvp heavy
Eve pvp heavy
Planetside pvp heavy
Ao balanced
Ac balanced
Swg balanced
EQ pve heavy
Coh pve heavy
Compare with post wow
Eq2 pve heavy
Lotro pve heavy
Aoc pve heavy
Swtor pve heavy
Rift pve heavy
Tsw pve heavy
Gw2 balanced
War pvp heavy
Aion pvp heavy
This is how mmos have gone in general post wow.
More pve less pvp
More instancing less open world
More solo less massive
More themepark less sandbox
More gamey less immersive
More pop culture less rpg
My UO and AC characters told me they want some of what your smoking.
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
they were.. but now mmo's shall be dragged, kicking and screaming out of the darkness that was the age of WOW and into the the shining light that is the Second Age of Everquest.
Embrace the light, Embrace the light!