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!

Sick and tired of solo-centric rubbish, where have all the REAL MMOs gone?

12357

Comments

  • Po_ggPo_gg Twigwarren, WestfarthingPosts: 2,722Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by fenistil
    Originally posted by Po_gg

    I think LotRO chose the optimal way with Inspired Greatness, one can decide to go solo or go grouped. And those few instas which were left for forced grouping shows clearly, that nowadays people like options better than forcing. Even in a great community like LotRO's.

    ...

    So, while I don't like a lot of changes in mmo's in the last few years, the extinction of forced grouping is one I can fully support. Make it optional, but not forced.

    Well actually Inspired Greatness make it solo not optional. There is no 'optional' thing. There is either soloable or not soloable. There is very few places in any game that force solo like solo instances in which you cannot bring anyone else.

    Changes in Lotro were done and 'necessary' cause Turbine decided to end with 'balancing solo & group' in order to fully go with 'fast ride to end-game' to attract new audiences to game.  

    Partially it is also because of themepark design - each expansion add further vertical linear 'requirements' which make it hard to not modify previous parts of game expecially if game is about running instances in end-game and previous content is made to be quickly blast through.

    Sorry, I don't want to derail the thread, but IG is fully optional. When you take the quest, there's the choice to take it solo with IG, or take it as a regular grouped one. I levelled a few alts since Turbine switched to f2p and started putting IG in instances, and I'm still saying, a lot of changes were bad, but switching forced grouping to optional was a good decision.

    (can't say actual numbers, but I think I played instances about 40% solo and 60% grouped since IG exists. IG is good when I have only a short time to play, and nobody is online at the moment :) )

  • tordurbartordurbar Alexandria, VAPosts: 429Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Nope, those days are pretty much gone, doubtful we'll ever see a title with forced grouping at it's core again.

    and good riddance!!!

  • fenistilfenistil GliwicePosts: 3,005Member
    Originally posted by Po_gg
    Originally posted by fenistil
    Originally posted by Po_gg

    I think LotRO chose the optimal way with Inspired Greatness, one can decide to go solo or go grouped. And those few instas which were left for forced grouping shows clearly, that nowadays people like options better than forcing. Even in a great community like LotRO's.

    ...

    So, while I don't like a lot of changes in mmo's in the last few years, the extinction of forced grouping is one I can fully support. Make it optional, but not forced.

    Well actually Inspired Greatness make it solo not optional. There is no 'optional' thing. There is either soloable or not soloable. There is very few places in any game that force solo like solo instances in which you cannot bring anyone else.

    Changes in Lotro were done and 'necessary' cause Turbine decided to end with 'balancing solo & group' in order to fully go with 'fast ride to end-game' to attract new audiences to game.  

    Partially it is also because of themepark design - each expansion add further vertical linear 'requirements' which make it hard to not modify previous parts of game expecially if game is about running instances in end-game and previous content is made to be quickly blast through.

    Sorry, I don't want to derail the thread, but IG is fully optional. When you take the quest, there's the choice to take it solo with IG, or take it as a regular grouped one. I levelled a few alts since Turbine switched to f2p and started putting IG in instances, and I'm still saying, a lot of changes were bad, but switching forced grouping to optional was a good decision.

    (can't say actual numbers, but I think I played instances about 40% solo and 60% grouped since IG exists. IG is good when I have only a short time to play, and nobody is online at the moment :) )

    I am not saying that you cannot do it with a group.  I am saying content is either soloable (ie you can do it alone) or it is not soloable (you cannot do it alone).

    Instances with IG are soloable. Simple as that.   That does not matter it cannot be done with a group. Every soloable content can be done with a group. (with very minor amount of forced solo content).

  • SiveriaSiveria Saint John, New BrunswickPosts: 1,200Member Uncommon

    Pretty much have gone the way of the dinosaur since world of warcraft brought mmorpg's to the casual smacktards. The olkd style of mmo's like FFXI pre-abbysea, and the old mmo's casuals cant get into since everything takes time and isin't handed to them, Devolopers see this and relize there is more profit just making a biliant wow-clone/wannabe that is solo centric till endgame. Its compounted by the fact that grouping in most of these newer mmo's have really bad exp splits as well, so much that it'd be 2-3x faster just to solo. In FFXI I don't like how in Abbysea you can go from 30 to 99 in a day, some people can take a new job and get it from 1 to 99 in a day or so, Which ruins how the game was more about the journey. There also si the fact that wow has caused the average MMO gamer to just wanna rush till level cap for so called endgame. Sorry but I don't call pve raiding with 0 purpose endgame, I prefer pvp endgame with pve raiding for gear like daoc was before you could craft your own magical items.

    Overall WoW has killed the mmorpg market considerably, nothing comes out anymore that doesn't just feel like its trying to clone wow. Personally? I wish someone would bomb all the wow server's and shut the game down. Preferably late at night so as to prevent casualties. Not going to happen, but the mmorpg genre needs WoW to die in order for it to start to recover itself.

    Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:

    A. Proven right (if something bad happens)

    or

    B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)

    Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!

  • Po_ggPo_gg Twigwarren, WestfarthingPosts: 2,722Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by fenistil

    I am not saying that you cannot do it with a group.  I am saying content is either soloable (ie you can do it alone) or it is not soloable (you cannot do it alone).

    Instances with IG are soloable. Simple as that.   That does not matter it cannot be done with a group. Every soloable content can be done with a group. (with very minor amount of forced solo content).

    We're talking the same thing, only I adding option in it as well :)

    I am saying content is either soloable (ie you can do it alone) if you take the quest with IG  or it is not soloable (you cannot do it alone). if you take the quest as the regular group version.

    It's your choice. They didn't modified the original content, only gave an option to go in with a buff, which can help you if you're not in a group. Heck, sometimes it isn't soloable even with IG, since it's a default buff, and every insta / every class is different :)

    (Based on forum posts hunters have some problems soloing a few instances, on the other hand captains or minis are literally switching into godmode with IG and ripping through every instance... again, only if they choose so)

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Siveria
    Pretty much have gone the way of the dinosaur since world of warcraft brought mmorpg's to the casual smacktards. The olkd style of mmo's like FFXI pre-abbysea, and the old mmo's casuals cant get into since everything takes time and isin't handed to them, Devolopers see this and relize there is more profit just making a biliant wow-clone/wannabe that is solo centric till endgame. Its compounted by the fact that grouping in most of these newer mmo's have really bad exp splits as well, so much that it'd be 2-3x faster just to solo. In FFXI I don't like how in Abbysea you can go from 30 to 99 in a day, some people can take a new job and get it from 1 to 99 in a day or so, Which ruins how the game was more about the journey. There also si the fact that wow has caused the average MMO gamer to just wanna rush till level cap for so called endgame. Sorry but I don't call pve raiding with 0 purpose endgame, I prefer pvp endgame with pve raiding for gear like daoc was before you could craft your own magical items.Overall WoW has killed the mmorpg market considerably, nothing comes out anymore that doesn't just feel like its trying to clone wow. Personally? I wish someone would bomb all the wow server's and shut the game down. Preferably late at night so as to prevent casualties. Not going to happen, but the mmorpg genre needs WoW to die in order for it to start to recover itself.

    This post illustrates part of the reason that solo content is so successful. Starting way back in the day, when content required groups, you had people who divided players into "The Elite" (themselves) and "The Rabble" (everyone else). When content requires groups, but most of your players are "The Rabble", they quit playing. When the content allows everyone to play, not the "The Elites", the games make more money.

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

  • RimmersmanRimmersman MonacoPosts: 885Member
    Originally posted by Siveria

    Pretty much have gone the way of the dinosaur since world of warcraft brought mmorpg's to the casual smacktards. The olkd style of mmo's like FFXI pre-abbysea, and the old mmo's casuals cant get into since everything takes time and isin't handed to them, Devolopers see this and relize there is more profit just making a biliant wow-clone/wannabe that is solo centric till endgame. Its compounted by the fact that grouping in most of these newer mmo's have really bad exp splits as well, so much that it'd be 2-3x faster just to solo. In FFXI I don't like how in Abbysea you can go from 30 to 99 in a day, some people can take a new job and get it from 1 to 99 in a day or so, Which ruins how the game was more about the journey. There also si the fact that wow has caused the average MMO gamer to just wanna rush till level cap for so called endgame. Sorry but I don't call pve raiding with 0 purpose endgame, I prefer pvp endgame with pve raiding for gear like daoc was before you could craft your own magical items.

    Overall WoW has killed the mmorpg market considerably, nothing comes out anymore that doesn't just feel like its trying to clone wow. Personally? I wish someone would bomb all the wow server's and shut the game down. Preferably late at night so as to prevent casualties. Not going to happen, but the mmorpg genre needs WoW to die in order for it to start to recover itself.

    Vanguard was after WOW so it hasn't all gone the way of the dinosaur, you just choose to play these casual games.

    image
  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    This post illustrates part of the reason that solo content is so successful. Starting way back in the day, when content required groups, you had people who divided players into "The Elite" (themselves) and "The Rabble" (everyone else). When content requires groups, but most of your players are "The Rabble", they quit playing. When the content allows everyone to play, not the "The Elites", the games make more money.
     

    Well, come on, we're in a thread with REAL MMOZ in the title, what else were you expecting?

    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.

  • Po_ggPo_gg Twigwarren, WestfarthingPosts: 2,722Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     

    This post illustrates part of the reason that solo content is so successful. Starting way back in the day, when content required groups, you had people who divided players into "The Elite" (themselves) and "The Rabble" (everyone else). When content requires groups, but most of your players are "The Rabble", they quit playing. When the content allows everyone to play, not the "The Elites", the games make more money.
     

    This. You should post it in every thread about f2p, or sandbox, or solofication :)

    Let's face it, we (people on gaming forums) are only the tip of the iceberg, there are a sh*tload of gamers who never looks into a forum or community page, only plays. A lot of them also like their games easy, solo-oriented, carebear-ed, and (horribile dictu) f2p. Since the game development turned into an industry, it's a pretty easy choice to them, which playergroup should they target.... They can make a lot more money with less effort from the "rabble" (if we stick to your terms, although I never considered myself among those stuck-up elites :) )

  • worldalphaworldalpha Milton, ONPosts: 403Member
    They are out there, you just have to find them!

    Thanks,
    Mike
    Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com

  • fenistilfenistil GliwicePosts: 3,005Member
    Originally posted by Po_gg
    Originally posted by fenistil

    I am not saying that you cannot do it with a group.  I am saying content is either soloable (ie you can do it alone) or it is not soloable (you cannot do it alone).

    Instances with IG are soloable. Simple as that.   That does not matter it cannot be done with a group. Every soloable content can be done with a group. (with very minor amount of forced solo content).

    We're talking the same thing, only I adding option in it as well :)

    I am saying content is either soloable (ie you can do it alone) if you take the quest with IG  or it is not soloable (you cannot do it alone). if you take the quest as the regular group version.

    It's your choice. They didn't modified the original content, only gave an option to go in with a buff, which can help you if you're not in a group. Heck, sometimes it isn't soloable even with IG, since it's a default buff, and every insta / every class is different :)

    (Based on forum posts hunters have some problems soloing a few instances, on the other hand captains or minis are literally switching into godmode with IG and ripping through every instance... again, only if they choose so)

    It is same dunegon / quest  regardless of small diffrences in mobs sometimes+huge buff you get if you choose solo version.  It is soloable.  Just because you can choose to do it with a group it does not mean it is not soloable.   It is zero-sum game.  Either you can do it solo or you cannot. 

  • TorgrimTorgrim GothenburgPosts: 2,088Member
    Originally posted by Po_gg
    Originally posted by fenistil
    Originally posted by Po_gg

    I think LotRO chose the optimal way with Inspired Greatness, one can decide to go solo or go grouped. And those few instas which were left for forced grouping shows clearly, that nowadays people like options better than forcing. Even in a great community like LotRO's.

    ...

    So, while I don't like a lot of changes in mmo's in the last few years, the extinction of forced grouping is one I can fully support. Make it optional, but not forced.

    Well actually Inspired Greatness make it solo not optional. There is no 'optional' thing. There is either soloable or not soloable. There is very few places in any game that force solo like solo instances in which you cannot bring anyone else.

    Changes in Lotro were done and 'necessary' cause Turbine decided to end with 'balancing solo & group' in order to fully go with 'fast ride to end-game' to attract new audiences to game.  

    Partially it is also because of themepark design - each expansion add further vertical linear 'requirements' which make it hard to not modify previous parts of game expecially if game is about running instances in end-game and previous content is made to be quickly blast through.

    Sorry, I don't want to derail the thread, but IG is fully optional. When you take the quest, there's the choice to take it solo with IG, or take it as a regular grouped one. I levelled a few alts since Turbine switched to f2p and started putting IG in instances, and I'm still saying, a lot of changes were bad, but switching forced grouping to optional was a good decision.

    (can't say actual numbers, but I think I played instances about 40% solo and 60% grouped since IG exists. IG is good when I have only a short time to play, and nobody is online at the moment :) )

     

    Turbine put in IG for book chapter quests so people could complete the books due to lack of grouping for newcommers when most LOTRO players were max leveled.

    I haven't played LOTRO for some time now, are there IG on all group quests nowdays or still only the book chapter quests?

    If it's not broken, you are not innovating.

  • Po_ggPo_gg Twigwarren, WestfarthingPosts: 2,722Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torgrim

    Turbine put in IG for book chapter quests so people could complete the books due to lack of grouping for newcommers when most LOTRO players were max leveled.

    I haven't played LOTRO for some time now, are there IG on all group quests nowdays or still only the book chapter quests?

    Still only for book quests, and as you say, that was the whole purpose of it.

    When a mandatory quest forcing you to group (and you can't find a group to help), you are stucked. Of course you can do something else, while waiting for some willing help, but it still sucks. That's why IG is a good solution, if you have a group, you have a nice group experience, if you don't, you can try it solo. Not as much fun, but at least you won't be stuck with the book.

  • VardahothVardahoth Temecula, CAPosts: 386Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by syntax42

    Too many people want one extreme or the other.  I get frustrated when I see people claim MMOs should be a certain way because that is what that person enjoys.  You are not the only person playing the game.  Get over yourself and realize not everyone likes everything the same way you do.

     

    MMOs so far have catered to a crowd and that ends up being their target market.  If the target market is too narrow, the MMO will fail.  I believe The Secret World fell victim to this.  Leveling was a decent solo experience but end-game was sudden forced grouping.  Not everyone wanted that kind of transition, and many people didn't like the solo leveling.  Thus, players could either put up with the part of the game they didn't enjoy as much, or simply quit.

     

    The biggest challenge in a MMO is to figure out how to make the player (you) feel important.  If you only feel like another person in an army of clones, will you really keep playing?  The next big MMO (WoW big) won't deliver a strict solo or group experience.  Somehow, it will find a way to cater to both groups of players.

    Hence my arguement companies need to make different flavors instead of one generic one. The biggest problem is all mmorpg's have been changed/created to be pretty much the same (quest to level, solo to top level within a week, run instances to rng for gear, and do instanced pvp at the end).

    Again, you can't have everything rolled into 1.

    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".

  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    MMO's are trying to hard to make you do one thing or another. In UO, I soloed a ton. You could solo nearly everything if you worked at it. Yet, for some reason I grouped up and met more people in that game than any other. 
  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Siveria
    Pretty much have gone the way of the dinosaur since world of warcraft brought mmorpg's to the casual smacktards. The olkd style of mmo's like FFXI pre-abbysea, and the old mmo's casuals cant get into since everything takes time and isin't handed to them, Devolopers see this and relize there is more profit just making a biliant wow-clone/wannabe that is solo centric till endgame. Its compounted by the fact that grouping in most of these newer mmo's have really bad exp splits as well, so much that it'd be 2-3x faster just to solo. In FFXI I don't like how in Abbysea you can go from 30 to 99 in a day, some people can take a new job and get it from 1 to 99 in a day or so, Which ruins how the game was more about the journey. There also si the fact that wow has caused the average MMO gamer to just wanna rush till level cap for so called endgame. Sorry but I don't call pve raiding with 0 purpose endgame, I prefer pvp endgame with pve raiding for gear like daoc was before you could craft your own magical items.

     

    Overall WoW has killed the mmorpg market considerably, nothing comes out anymore that doesn't just feel like its trying to clone wow. Personally? I wish someone would bomb all the wow server's and shut the game down. Preferably late at night so as to prevent casualties. Not going to happen, but the mmorpg genre needs WoW to die in order for it to start to recover itself.



    This post illustrates part of the reason that solo content is so successful. Starting way back in the day, when content required groups, you had people who divided players into "The Elite" (themselves) and "The Rabble" (everyone else). When content requires groups, but most of your players are "The Rabble", they quit playing. When the content allows everyone to play, not the "The Elites", the games make more money.

     

    Good in theory bad in practice, because due to cutting corners and laziness we arrived at the state that instead of having 500 hours (random number) of solo content and 500 hours of group content now soloable, we have just 500 hours of some kind of content that is too simple or pointless for both groups.

    So in reality the players still quit playing, arguably in larger numbers, but nowadays not because they simply cannot do something, but because there is nothing left to do instead of the things they are either unable or unwilling to do.

    Flame on!

    :)

     

  • NeherunNeherun St. MichelPosts: 278Member
    Originally posted by madazz
    MMO's are trying to hard to make you do one thing or another. In UO, I soloed a ton. You could solo nearly everything if you worked at it. Yet, for some reason I grouped up and met more people in that game than any other. 

     

    Nope, its only logical. In MMO's where grouping is forced, people do not do it of their own free will, which may give them a negative mindset. In UO however, people grouped up of their own free will, and there were no "artificial incentives" to force you into groups, due to this, you grouped with likeminded people. Thus the community was much more healthy.

    image

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by madazz
    MMO's are trying to hard to make you do one thing or another. In UO, I soloed a ton. You could solo nearly everything if you worked at it. Yet, for some reason I grouped up and met more people in that game than any other. 

    UO was about tools and mechanics to allow people to break into groups they chose to be in with people they chose to be with. Outside of the guild unit, few other MMOs support that.

    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

  • fenistilfenistil GliwicePosts: 3,005Member
    Originally posted by Neherun
    Originally posted by madazz
    MMO's are trying to hard to make you do one thing or another. In UO, I soloed a ton. You could solo nearly everything if you worked at it. Yet, for some reason I grouped up and met more people in that game than any other. 

     

    Nope, its only logical. In MMO's where grouping is forced, people do not do it of their own free will, which may give them a negative mindset. In UO however, people grouped up of their own free will, and there were no "artificial incentives" to force you into groups, due to this, you grouped with likeminded people. Thus the community was much more healthy.

    It's not only or even mainly this.   In most modern mmorpg's until you also don't have to group and almost all people don't group doing all non-group dungeon content alone.  

    In UO and SWG this was due to game design in broader sense and due to tools those games give.  Like Loktofeit said. 

    It was NOT solo centric game BUT it allowed to solo ~95% of it if you really did want to and put some effort into it.

    It is contrary to modern themepark design where design IS solo centric.

     

    Thing is many of design choices in games like UO would not be welcomed by alot of folks playing other types of mmoprg's.

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member

    Did UO / DF / EVE suddenly shutdown or something?

    I can't recall these 'REAL MMOs' shutting down so they are still there right?

    Why not play them?

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • fenistilfenistil GliwicePosts: 3,005Member

    UO is totally diffrent game than it was + it does have sort of  cash shop which I don't accept.+ it is 15 year old. + it did depend heavy on macroing for many things also non-combat ones (mining, crafting, training, etc) which I did barely accept in nineties times and I could not play game designed like that now.

    Darffall was never my type of game as it revolve mainly about beign one giant deatchmatch. + is FPP arcade combat which is fine for FPS shooters I also play sometimes but it is not what I am looking for in an mmorpg.

    EVE is about "being"(methaphorical) spaceship which is not my game + it does have currency selling which I don't accept.

    Next question.

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member

    Uhh... FFXI?

    Fallen Earth?

    If 'forced groups' are more of your thing, Lineage2?

     

    Ultimately it comes down to numbers, if your tastes are too niche, you won't get many companies appealing to your taste; if at all.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • kostantiskostantis ThessalonikiPosts: 29Member

    Well, I will agree very much with the OP, although "forced" carries a negative context, mainly because off the simple fact that we are talking about M-M-Os.

    Many other people defending solo play have said things that I agree with (like the argument about not having too much time to find groups etc)

    However, I do believe most of us have noticed that people are indeed playing alone nowdays and I believe that has nore to do with the crowds that are swarming MMOs, because they are no longer niche-games.

     

    Also, I have noticed, on some recent games, that some people are trying to group-up and do stuff together, but those people are usually RPers (strange how those have turned out to be the weirdos in an mmoRPG!) or guilds from other games (at least they have a chance to keep it social, a bit)

     

    What would be interesting is to be able to have an MMO-like game, where all other "players" are bots. Superb AI and all, to help in instances and raids, and e.g. a market like the privateer games - no matter wether the seller in the auction house is a real person or the system, you still can play the market game.

     

    I would really like to see if that game would be popular. And if you miss the chat-window, say we integrate messenger, facebook chat, tweeter and whatever, so you see some "real text".

     

    What I am pointing at is that despite all the valid arguments on both sides, the fact is that we are discusing about group play on a game based on group play and socialization. It is an MMO, not a single-player game with multiplayer capabilities.

    I also cannot understand why you have to play an MMO if you prefer to solo? aren't there any good single player games out there? Do you have to play the MMO? (and treat it like a one-player game?)

    There are multiplayer shooters, arena based games, co-op games, on-line strategy games and so many more, why do you have to bring your soloness on an MMO, ruin the genre and at the same time complain about everything? Is it maybe because although you play alone you do want to have your voice heard once and a while when you type some "epiphany" on chat? hmmm.... maybe you do like a bit of socializing, but don't know it yet.

    Anyway that was my take....

    P.S. Well executed player interdependancy is the best system IMO (thats why we played SWG despite the bugs)

     

  • fenistilfenistil GliwicePosts: 3,005Member
    Originally posted by jpnz

    Uhh... FFXI?

    Fallen Earth?

    If 'forced groups' are more of your thing, Lineage2?

     

    Ultimately it comes down to numbers, if your tastes are too niche, you won't get many companies appealing to your taste; if at all.

    Forced grouping only themeparks were not my thing.  Never cared about EQ1 and about FFXI even when they were new games.

    FE and L2 is f2p so nope.

    Besides L2 & FFXI will turn 10 years old soon. While I do enjoy some old single player games from time to time (Panzer General, Fallout 2, Arcanum, Baldur's Gate 2, etc) I just cannnot immerse myself and commit long-term for 10 year old mmorpg's. 

     

    Think you're generalizing too much. 

    Wanting difftent design than new mainstream mmorpg's and more interdependability and occasional group only challanges does mean desiring forced group only themeparks.

     

    I do know that my tastes are tastes of miniority and if I don't get product made for my tastes. Then well... I don't.  I won't play and industry won't get my money. Nothing catastrophical will happen. It is only a game.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon

    Welcome to the Land of the Disillusioned, a new themepark MMO where we keep writing the same threads and posting just to get some shiny gold starts next to our name. :)

    Sometimes it can feel like that, but it is not all doom and gloom. I see nothing on the horizon but the ever greater simplification and streamlining of gaming is creating an ever larger backlash.

    As long as new teens keep coming on board the gaming companies can avoid ever really taking notice though. They will just incorporate words and phrases like sandbox, old school, hardcore and so on into their hype releases and it is business as usual.

    To effect any real change we would have to firstly stop pre-ordering and secondly be prepared to pay for long term quality content. I don not see that happening any time soon.

Sign In or Register to comment.