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!

Why no themepark and sandbox can ever succeed after WoW and EVE

13

Comments

  • PrenhoPrenho AracajuPosts: 298Member
    Originally posted by Onomas

    Thats not a very good thread, considering all game companies started out as indie lol.

    The fact that blizzards first attempt at a mmo came at the perfect time when more kids were getting online and exploring the web. When mmo's first came out not many had internet access ;)

    MMO's were also designed for adults, and blizzard went after the kiddies and it killed mmo's. Newage gamers wanted mmo's to be easy, non-complex, no features, just rush to the end and whine on the forums. That is what the genre has ammounted to.

    Blizzard did have a name and strong experience in game making, but for single rts and single player games.

     

    There are a few sandboxes coming that are very good looking and have many aspects of a true mmo and will do well. Asians are starting to swing to sandboxes because themepark market has been beaten to death multiple times. THats why no game is doing well, they are all the same, lack 75% of features a mmo should have, and are boring. THey are no more than console rpg's and its sickening.

     

    I do think The repopulation, greed monger, the black desert, and of course archeage will do well. But doesnt ahve to beat WOW, wouldnt want the bad community to ruin any new games anyways. The kiddies can stay there ;)

    Originally posted by Onomas
    Originally posted by Pivotelite

     

    MMOs are in trouble because this is the "I want it now generation".

    God i miss the older days when you actualy had to earn something and it felt so damn good. Now everything is thrown at you and the hardest thing in a mmo is waiting til level 20 to ride a mount ;) These new aged gamers ruined the mmo genre then whine about all the console style rpgs............. errr themeparks all suck and no content lol. Funny they havent figures out that player generated content owns everything. THey lost their creativity and it has hurt our community.

    It's sad to see what western players have become.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Icewhite

    We routinely ignore games that maintained 200k subs as irrelevant...when discussing anything except EQ.

    Yet 500k is a roaring success (before 2004) or an old timey classic (after).  Let's just say fan assessments of game's profitability is often skewed by what we played and liked.  There no denying that EQ enjoys a rosey pink glow far in excess of its actual enjoyability, simply by being one of the first.  In an era of minimal competition.

    But Ky didn't ask for promotion of old-style games.  He asked, instead, for modern games to cut their existing player bases in half, by shifting into reverse.

    No one, to date, has ever profited by rewinding the clock.  Not even DAoC and EQ, who have both experimented with 'turn back the clock' previously.  At best, it makes a handful of bitter vets smile and feel important; it doesn't save games or create profit monsters.

    It's certainly never going to create a game that replicates WoW's level of success; or even EQ's.  Not everyone wants mmos to regress.

    Well, problem is, you would have to prove that the current state actually is a "progression", what people (or at least me :) ) argue is that we are past the "sweet point"  of grind and longevity vs "simple" fun.

    We also routinely ignore other games than the most famous ones (like a broken record, eq, daoc, wow, aoc, eq, daoc, wow, eve, eq) and define the themepark experience as "what happens in wow", both things skew the argument, similarly to the perception of devs and designers, that think a game MUST incorporate all the pitfalls of wow.

    Flame on!

    :)

     

  • bigronbigron Brooklyn, NYPosts: 42Member
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Let's have a look at pre wow days

    Hardcore pve themepark - eq
    Casual pve themepark - coh
    Pvp orientated themepark - daoc
    Fantasy sandbox - uo
    Sci-fi sandbox - swg
    Hybrid - ac

    All coexisting quite nicely

    So there is room for other games
    Let's face it wow has bad pvp, so there's room for a themepark with strong pvp
    Gw2 has come along and done well taking a more casual approach than wow, there is also probably room for a new EQ type game taking a more hardcore approach.
    There is probably room for a sandbox that isn't sci-fi.
    Also eve is very hardcore, I think there is room for a more casual friendly sandbox with a more standard mmo UI.
    Finally we haven't had a proper hybrid since ac / swg so there is definetly room for a hybrid game.

    CoH came out the same year as WoW. DCUO is basically an updated version of CoH.  But, Vindictus, GW2 and the F2P KRPG of the week occupy similar territory.

    The hardcore pve progression game is RIFT. EQ was generally considered a "sandbox" game though it was the favorite of progression raiders. Ditto EQ2.

    Fallen Earth is a sandbox game. Personally I hate it, but I don't like that subgenre. Vanguard is in the same ballpark. Personally I don't think "sandbox" games ever really existed apart from Second Life.

    Big budget PVP MMOs are dead outside Korea w/WAR.

    No game is a giantkiller. Giants just die. Because they're old, because they get too big for their own good, etc. The reason people play WoW is because lots of people play WoW. When that stops, it stops. I can't speak to EVE, since it's privately held, but AFAIK, while it's a popular game, the company that makes it is not exactly Activision Blizzard (their stock's P/E is fabulous, btw)

  • RefMinorRefMinor MyTownPosts: 3,452Member
    Originally posted by bigron
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Let's have a look at pre wow days

    Hardcore pve themepark - eq
    Casual pve themepark - coh
    Pvp orientated themepark - daoc
    Fantasy sandbox - uo
    Sci-fi sandbox - swg
    Hybrid - ac

    All coexisting quite nicely

    So there is room for other games
    Let's face it wow has bad pvp, so there's room for a themepark with strong pvp
    Gw2 has come along and done well taking a more casual approach than wow, there is also probably room for a new EQ type game taking a more hardcore approach.
    There is probably room for a sandbox that isn't sci-fi.
    Also eve is very hardcore, I think there is room for a more casual friendly sandbox with a more standard mmo UI.
    Finally we haven't had a proper hybrid since ac / swg so there is definetly room for a hybrid game.

    CoH came out the same year as WoW. DCUO is basically an updated version of CoH.  But, Vindictus, GW2 and the F2P KRPG of the week occupy similar territory.

    The hardcore pve progression game is RIFT. EQ was generally considered a "sandbox" game though it was the favorite of progression raiders. Ditto EQ2.

    Fallen Earth is a sandbox game. Personally I hate it, but I don't like that subgenre. Vanguard is in the same ballpark. Personally I don't think "sandbox" games ever really existed apart from Second Life.

    Big budget PVP MMOs are dead outside Korea w/WAR.

    No game is a giantkiller. Giants just die. Because they're old, because they get too big for their own good, etc. The reason people play WoW is because lots of people play WoW. When that stops, it stops. I can't speak to EVE, since it's privately held, but AFAIK, while it's a popular game, the company that makes it is not exactly Activision Blizzard (their stock's P/E is fabulous, btw)

    Everquest is only a "sandbox" game if the inverted commas mean "themepark"

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by Icewhite

    We routinely ignore games that maintained 200k subs as irrelevant...when discussing anything except EQ.

    Yet 500k is a roaring success (before 2004) or an old timey classic (after).  Let's just say fan assessments of game's profitability is often skewed by what we played and liked.  There no denying that EQ enjoys a rosey pink glow far in excess of its actual enjoyability, simply by being one of the first.  In an era of minimal competition.

    But Ky didn't ask for promotion of old-style games.  He asked, instead, for modern games to cut their existing player bases in half, by shifting into reverse.

    No one, to date, has ever profited by rewinding the clock.  Not even DAoC and EQ, who have both experimented with 'turn back the clock' previously.  At best, it makes a handful of bitter vets smile and feel important; it doesn't save games or create profit monsters.

    It's certainly never going to create a game that replicates WoW's level of success; or even EQ's.  Not everyone wants mmos to regress.

    Well, problem is, you would have to prove that the current state actually is a "progression", what people (or at least me :) ) argue is that we are past the "sweet point"  of grind and longevity vs "simple" fun.

    We also routinely ignore other games than the most famous ones (like a broken record, eq, daoc, wow, aoc, eq, daoc, wow, eve, eq) and define the themepark experience as "what happens in wow", both things skew the argument, similarly to the perception of devs and designers, that think a game MUST incorporate all the pitfalls of wow.

    Flame on!

    :)

    Old MMOs were not that popular when comparing to the traditional games of the time - never as popular as they are now.

    The "why MMOs became popular" was because they started to be half decent games. There is really no excuse for bug, poor UI graphics and gameplay. No excuse. Modern MMOs, even if you don't like them, have raised the bar up to the level of rest of video games. Unlike in the past, players have raised standards, and because there are so many titles out there, they don't have to settle with less.

    The moment to moment fun simply wasn't there until it was streamlined, and the actual fun bits were identified and pronounced. The features you se now on the background, such as housing and crafting, are not game makers in the same scale as simple well-designed and well-made combat is. Adventuring is a lot more popular than medieval fantasy make-believe.

    Meanwhile the niche audience thinks they are entitled to have an AAA MMORPG made just for them. Even more sad is that they can't agree on what should be in that game. What they list as a "must have features" I couldn't care less about. And they love to use buzz-words like "dynamic", "deep", "complex", "emergent content" and "meaningful" like they have any specific meaning at all. Without going into details, which they never give, those words mean very little.

    It is like while those features are veiled behind those magic words, they can't be ripped apart. Which I and many others would do admittedly if they would publish their ideas. But hell, I've thrown my ideas to the wolves and see what survives. That should be the process, shouldn't it? I have no rose-tinted goggles when I look back to my favorite games. Conversely some people here think their game should be handled with silk gloves or else they will break.

    The good then can be shit now. These games don't exist in a vacuum. All this talk of remakes and bringing back arcaic features makes me sad. Like Icewhite hinted, there's no profit in going back. It is very unlikely those titles and features in them would be accepted in the market today.

    The only direction has always been forward; make new games, invent new features - don't bring back the old.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • YakkinYakkin irvine, CAPosts: 919Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    And they love to use buzz-words like "dynamic", "deep", "complex", "emergent content" and "meaningful" like they have any specific meaning at all. Without going into details, which they never give, those words mean very little.

    While I'm not sure what I make of the rest of your comment, I kinda have to agree with this little tidbit. I've always constantly wondered what the hell people mean when they use these words, and because they never bother to give a definition, or just ignore my question or give REALLY vague answers, I'm completely left in the dark.

    Newsflash: If you don't tell me what the hell something means to you based on your definition, I'm not going to have a clue about what you are talking about.

  • ozmonoozmono Not tellingPosts: 1,211Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid 

     No excuse. Modern MMOs, even if you don't like them, have raised the bar up to the level of rest of video games. Unlike in the past, players have raised standards, and because there are so many titles out there, they don't have to settle with less.

    I agree with the sentiment and I hate to pick out a little thing I disagree with but MMOs still have catch up to play if they want to be on equal footing with gameplay mechanics from single player games. That said I do agree that they have gotten better and that they are closing the gap.

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member

    I always laugh when I see people like the OP try to speak in absolutes about anything having to do with tech or human nature.

    For starters, the whole design and setting of EVE only attracts certain people. Many sandbox lovers, like myself, dig EVE in concept, but don't like how the space game plays.  CCP themselves know they are missing a lot of market share for this reason, and they have plans to eventually expand into it if they can.

    I'm sure no one thought Facebook would kill MySpace virtually overnight as well.  Never say never, unless you are hell-bent on being proven wrong.

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • ApraxisApraxis RegensburgPosts: 1,515Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Enigmatus
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    And they love to use buzz-words like "dynamic", "deep", "complex", "emergent content" and "meaningful" like they have any specific meaning at all. Without going into details, which they never give, those words mean very little.

    While I'm not sure what I make of the rest of your comment, I kinda have to agree with this little tidbit. I've always constantly wondered what the hell people mean when they use these words, and because they never bother to give a definition, or just ignore my question or give REALLY vague answers, I'm completely left in the dark.

    Newsflash: If you don't tell me what the hell something means to you based on your definition, I'm not going to have a clue about what you are talking about.

    Ok.. maybe i write tomorrow a 2 page long post do break down those words, and what i mean when i use them. But at the moment i dont have the time to write 2 hours for such a post. I hope you will really read it. then. Its Midnight here. ;)

  • dimnikardimnikar ZanistanvillePosts: 271Member

    OP is right, no game can match WoWs ten years of content.

    People who expect as much will get perpetually disappointed.

    It is hard to invest yourself long-term in a game *hoping* it'll "get there" with content, however...

    My answer to people facing this dillema is to quit MMOs. At least for a couple of years (if not forever).

  • dimnikardimnikar ZanistanvillePosts: 271Member
    Originally posted by ShakyMo

    Let's face it wow has bad pvp, so there's room for a themepark with strong pvp

    It's so weird still reading comments like that.

    WoW's PVP hasn't been matched yet. I know it's hard to swallow, but there you go. It just hasn't.

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member
    Originally posted by dimnikar

    OP is right, no game can match WoWs ten years of content.

    People who expect as much will get perpetually disappointed.

    It is hard to invest yourself long-term in a game *hoping* it'll "get there" with content, however...

    My answer to people facing this dillema is to quit MMOs. At least for a couple of years (if not forever).

    What a ludicrous comment.

    The fact is, it doesn't matter if a game like WoW has ten years of depth built into it.  It still gets old and stale, and people aren't going to play WoW forever.

    Also, WoW had a long discovery and R&D process because they were doing a lot of new things.  It only takes new game developers a fraction of the time to implement the same features WoW took ten years to build in.

    The issue now is, everyone is sick and tired of WoW gameplay and carbon copy games.  Devs are going to have to start coming up with original ideas, and yes, they will take time to develop. Still, three plus years of development should be plenty to allow for a nice and robust initial game, including some thing that took WoW a very long time to implement.

    This is what is known as "standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before us".  We are learning from the lessons learned by our predecessors.  Tech in general is on an exponential growth curve because of this.  Games are no different.  In fact, more time is likely being spent on art assets, story and voice acting than on programming these MMOs.

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • Mike-McQueenMike-McQueen Enfield, CTPosts: 243Member
    Originally posted by Enigmatus
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    And they love to use buzz-words like "dynamic", "deep", "complex", "emergent content" and "meaningful" like they have any specific meaning at all. Without going into details, which they never give, those words mean very little.

    While I'm not sure what I make of the rest of your comment, I kinda have to agree with this little tidbit. I've always constantly wondered what the hell people mean when they use these words, and because they never bother to give a definition, or just ignore my question or give REALLY vague answers, I'm completely left in the dark.

    Newsflash: If you don't tell me what the hell something means to you based on your definition, I'm not going to have a clue about what you are talking about.

    Quirhid's post seems pretty jaded and heavily opinionated as he trounces on the opinions and dreams of others, probably because he's just sick of hearing all the wishful thinking going on from players who are realizing how shitty all these games really are. Anyways do you really need to be told what these words mean and how they relate to mmos? Come on. People want dynamic content so that they don't end up with the same outcome everytime they do something. They want those something's to be deep and complex and seriously what gamer wouldn't?! And emergent content is content created on the fly through players actions in game. Neverwinters foundry is a good example but better would probably be Planetside 2. Players choose when and where and how to fight so every situation is different. And you're kidding yourself if you don't want what you do with your character in game to be meaningful to the world and people around you.

    I'm a unique and beautiful snowflake.

  • ozmonoozmono Not tellingPosts: 1,211Member
    Originally posted by Mike-McQueen
    Originally posted by Enigmatus
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    And they love to use buzz-words like "dynamic", "deep", "complex", "emergent content" and "meaningful" like they have any specific meaning at all. Without going into details, which they never give, those words mean very little.

    While I'm not sure what I make of the rest of your comment, I kinda have to agree with this little tidbit. I've always constantly wondered what the hell people mean when they use these words, and because they never bother to give a definition, or just ignore my question or give REALLY vague answers, I'm completely left in the dark.

    Newsflash: If you don't tell me what the hell something means to you based on your definition, I'm not going to have a clue about what you are talking about.

    Quirhid's post seems pretty jaded and heavily opinionated as he trounces on the opinions and dreams of others, probably because he's just sick of hearing all the wishful thinking going on from players who are realizing how shitty all these games really are. Anyways do you really need to be told what these words mean and how they relate to mmos? Come on. People want dynamic content so that they don't end up with the same outcome everytime they do something. They want those something's to be deep and complex and seriously what gamer wouldn't?! And emergent content is content created on the fly through players actions in game. Neverwinters foundry is a good example but better would probably be Planetside 2. Players choose when and where and how to fight so every situation is different. And you're kidding yourself if you don't want what you do with your character in game to be meaningful to the world and people around you.

    I think it's worth mentioning that if you ask someone or challenge ;) someone to describe those buzzwords they will do so quite easily. I think a problem sometimes arises when companies will take the easiest way to be able to describe their game as one of these buzzwords so they can sucker people into buying them. In the companies defence on the other hand people won't always  give the same answer as to what these buzzwords mean, sandbox is a great example of that. Now my post is “heavily opinionated and jaded” too but I don't think that is grounds for dismissal well atleast not entirely.


     


     

  • YakkinYakkin irvine, CAPosts: 919Member
    Originally posted by Mike-McQueen

    Anyways do you really need to be told what these words mean and how they relate to mmos? Come on. People want dynamic content so that they don't end up with the same outcome everytime they do something. They want those something's to be deep and complex and seriously what gamer wouldn't?! And emergent content is content created on the fly through players actions in game. Neverwinters foundry is a good example but better would probably be Planetside 2. Players choose when and where and how to fight so every situation is different. And you're kidding yourself if you don't want what you do with your character in game to be meaningful to the world and people around you.

    Considering that each individual person on this forum alone has a slightly different -> very different interpretation of the same word, I'd say yes. Also I never said anything about the last sentence.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Old MMOs were not that popular when comparing to the traditional games of the time - never as popular as they are now.

    The "why MMOs became popular" was because they started to be half decent games. There is really no excuse for bug, poor UI graphics and gameplay. No excuse. Modern MMOs, even if you don't like them, have raised the bar up to the level of rest of video games. Unlike in the past, players have raised standards, and because there are so many titles out there, they don't have to settle with less.

    The moment to moment fun simply wasn't there until it was streamlined, and the actual fun bits were identified and pronounced. The features you se now on the background, such as housing and crafting, are not game makers in the same scale as simple well-designed and well-made combat is. Adventuring is a lot more popular than medieval fantasy make-believe.

    Well, the burden is one again on you to prove, that mmos are nowaday vastly more popular in comparison with traditional games, just because they are in our face with ads and almost everyone knows what wow is does not mean that more people play mmos as a percentage of the gaming population.

    Meanwhile the niche audience thinks they are entitled to have an AAA MMORPG made just for them. Even more sad is that they can't agree on what should be in that game. What they list as a "must have features" I couldn't care less about. And they love to use buzz-words like "dynamic", "deep", "complex", "emergent content" and "meaningful" like they have any specific meaning at all. Without going into details, which they never give, those words mean very little.

    It is like while those features are veiled behind those magic words, they can't be ripped apart. Which I and many others would do admittedly if they would publish their ideas. But hell, I've thrown my ideas to the wolves and see what survives. That should be the process, shouldn't it? I have no rose-tinted goggles when I look back to my favorite games. Conversely some people here think their game should be handled with silk gloves or else they will break.

    The good then can be shit now. These games don't exist in a vacuum. All this talk of remakes and bringing back arcaic features makes me sad. Like Icewhite hinted, there's no profit in going back. It is very unlikely those titles and features in them would be accepted in the market today.

    The only direction has always been forward; make new games, invent new features - don't bring back the old.

     

    What is the alternative then ? Having a deity-like impression of having it all figured out and revel in the successess and achievments of modern AAA mmos while all the numbers around are just going down and down and hailing the return to arcade gameplay as progress and forward direction while badmouthing other people that they look back too much? :)

    Flame on!

    :)

     

  • MagiknightMagiknight McKinleyville, CAPosts: 782Member
    The OP assumes that a themepark can only succeed if it has as much endgame as WoW. Why does an MMO have to be focused on the endgame? If it was an MMO it would have content during the journey also.
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Matrix, NYPosts: 911Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Magiknight
    The OP assumes that a themepark can only succeed if it has as much endgame as WoW. Why does an MMO have to be focused on the endgame? If it was an MMO it would have content during the journey also.

    Guild Wars 2 has tons of gameplay during the journey. People are mass leaving due to lack of endgame content and things to do. And outside of WoW, has the most content I've seen from a themepark MMO...that has been released after WoW. And that is still not enough, as people end up going to WoW (half the guild of 200 or so, went back to WoW) or game x y or z.

     

    But like said earlier in the thread. Content just goes by so fast...so that is a problem with the game design. So it is partly lack of content (in this case), but also because content goes far too fast. I think SWTOR ran into this problem big time...but SWTOR just ended up forgetting the story at endgame and became another raid MMO...so that was also a problem.

     

    image
  • asmkm22asmkm22 Anchorage, AKPosts: 1,788Member
    Originally posted by TheScavenger
    Originally posted by Magiknight
    The OP assumes that a themepark can only succeed if it has as much endgame as WoW. Why does an MMO have to be focused on the endgame? If it was an MMO it would have content during the journey also.

    Guild Wars 2 has tons of gameplay during the journey. People are mass leaving due to lack of endgame content and things to do. And outside of WoW, has the most content I've seen from a themepark MMO...that has been released after WoW. And that is still not enough, as people end up going to WoW (half the guild of 200 or so, went back to WoW) or game x y or z.

     

    But like said earlier in the thread. Content just goes by so fast...so that is a problem with the game design. So it is partly lack of content (in this case), but also because content goes far too fast. I think SWTOR ran into this problem big time...but SWTOR just ended up forgetting the story at endgame and became another raid MMO...so that was also a problem.

     

    I think the problem with GW2, in relation to this topic, is that the content is just as repetative as any other MMO.  Plus, your character progression more or less tops out after about 30, which means the majority of your gameplay has very little change at all.  Ideally, you want to give players some new tools throughout the entire leveling process, to build them up for whatever endgame you have designed.  GW2 seems to have just added 50 levels for no reason other than to add 50 levels.  

    You make me like charity

  • BadaboomBadaboom Moose Jaw, SKPosts: 2,380Member
    Originally posted by asmkm22
    Originally posted by TheScavenger
    Originally posted by Magiknight
    The OP assumes that a themepark can only succeed if it has as much endgame as WoW. Why does an MMO have to be focused on the endgame? If it was an MMO it would have content during the journey also.

    Guild Wars 2 has tons of gameplay during the journey. People are mass leaving due to lack of endgame content and things to do. And outside of WoW, has the most content I've seen from a themepark MMO...that has been released after WoW. And that is still not enough, as people end up going to WoW (half the guild of 200 or so, went back to WoW) or game x y or z.

     

    But like said earlier in the thread. Content just goes by so fast...so that is a problem with the game design. So it is partly lack of content (in this case), but also because content goes far too fast. I think SWTOR ran into this problem big time...but SWTOR just ended up forgetting the story at endgame and became another raid MMO...so that was also a problem.

     

    I think the problem with GW2, in relation to this topic, is that the content is just as repetative as any other MMO.  Plus, your character progression more or less tops out after about 30, which means the majority of your gameplay has very little change at all.  Ideally, you want to give players some new tools throughout the entire leveling process, to build them up for whatever endgame you have designed.  GW2 seems to have just added 50 levels for no reason other than to add 50 levels.  

    Don't you think the traits vary the gameplay?  I do.  Don't get me wrong though, as I know what you are saying and could definitely use additional elements.  I find myself only utilizing the same weapons all the time so I could probably switch that up.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Originally posted by dimnikar
    Originally posted by ShakyMo

    Let's face it wow has bad pvp, so there's room for a themepark with strong pvp

    It's so weird still reading comments like that.

    WoW's PVP hasn't been matched yet. I know it's hard to swallow, but there you go. It just hasn't.

    games ive played with worse pvp than wow - swtor, rift, coh, co, eq

    games ive played with equally bad pvp as wow - tsw, aoc (as now), dcuo, lotro

    games ive played with better pvp than wow - gw, gw2, war, aion, perpetuum, aoc at launch

    games ive played that rip off wows scabby pvp arm then beat it absoloutley senseless with it - eve, daoc, planetside

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Austin, TXPosts: 1,415Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Prenho
    Originally posted by Onomas

    God i miss the older days when you actualy had to earn something and it felt so damn good. Now everything is thrown at you and the hardest thing in a mmo is waiting til level 20 to ride a mount ;) These new aged gamers ruined the mmo genre then whine about all the console style rpgs............. errr themeparks all suck and no content lol. Funny they havent figures out that player generated content owns everything. THey lost their creativity and it has hurt our community.

    It's sad to see what western players have become.

    Whiny complainers pining for the nostalgia of youth?

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Austin, TXPosts: 1,415Member Uncommon
    Really, any game could be successful, if the developers accurately judge the number of players who want to support their game, and budget accordingly. Of course, they may not be the world beaters that so many want their prefered idiom to be.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • WhiteLanternWhiteLantern Nevada, MOPosts: 2,732Member
    I'm late to the party and there are far too many posts to sift through at this late hour, so I'll ask: has anyone defined "success" yet?

    I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil

  • AdamaiAdamai derbyPosts: 469Member
    Eve simulates realism which intern dictates the need for diplomacy and polotics as it would in real life. Diplomacy is not an eve game mechanic!! Its something only the players can bring to the game.

    Sandbox basically means no game rules or boundries like you find in themeparks.

    No game rules or boundries such as no classes or level restrictions puts all players on a level playing field. Sure one player could have 50 mill sp but 4 new players can easily beat him with tactics game knowledge.
Sign In or Register to comment.