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!

We dont want games - we want worlds.

145791030

Comments

  • Greymantle4Greymantle4 Posts: 802Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Baramos79
    Originally posted by Lobotomist

    We dont want games - we want worlds.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Thank you!

    Yes this pretty much sums it up. 

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Arcade games .. may be. Action RPG ... not so much. How many action RPGs (with online co-op) are released in 2012?

    I would also make a difference between what you call stealth and what i call steath. There is NO true steath class in MMOs before. Not one that focuses on getting from point A to B undetected, by the use of many abilities (like in Thief). Noise/visual detection is simply not modelled in old, nor new MMOs.

    I am not talking about sneak up with invis and nab one chest. I am talking about steath as a core gameplay element. To be fair, MMO is probably not the best setting to do stealth. It is probably better done in SP games.

    Well, aside from reacting with the right skill, you also have to consider the meta game that one has to have the "ASDF" skill before it will work. I think customizing what skill to bring is another interesting aspect of combat. Aside from that, there are lots of other progress, like the use of CDs and procs .. which were not there in the EQ/UO days. Managing those are fun.

    As for action rpgs, maybe good point, there are not THAT many of them coming out every year (and we could argue about whether or not they should, you know, replayability, longevity), however, 2012 is a bad year to make the point, d3 came out, tl2 came out, poe is in a playable state WITH a engame for hardcore people.

    As for stealth, we are once again at combat, in this sense that you seem to replace the challenge of beating a monster with the challenge to evade it, throwing in another well talked about foggy concept - "core gameplay". I simply look at it more strategically, if i can put it that way. What you can do with it >> how specifically you are doing it.

    As for the combat metagame, It is fun to a point, as everything, where grind is discouraging people with the number of monsters to kill and similar things, we are now dangerously close to discourage players by the sheer amount of decisions needed is a small timeframe, which is as dangerous, if not more, due to lag and other online limitations (and less and less posibilities to avoid the decisionmaking by putting in more "work" outside combat). Look at class composition, we fool ourselves in thinking that players go for fotm because of power and that they want to perform at "150%" due to being op, but in reality for most people it stops at 100% with just the advantage of being 50% less effort. That is why a hard to do fotm op thing never is as visible as one that is easy to pull off.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • maccarthur2004maccarthur2004 SPosts: 510Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by ezduzit

    We the consumers are to blame. Players like mmo's like WoW (a game) and companies ran with it. Forever changing the face of world gaming. 

    Thank God Sandbox MMO's are making a comback. 

    "Blame"? It is what it is.

    So what if people like WOW more than EQ and UO. The old days are not coming back. It is called progress. MMOs are much better games today.

    Better games, maybe. Better worlds...definitely no. 

    "What we are aiming in ArcheAge is to let the players feel the true fun of MMORPG by forming a community like real life by interacting with other players, whether it be conflict or cooperation." (Jake Song)

    image
  • SiugSiug TallinnPosts: 1,236Member Uncommon
    Personally I prefer good games because I have one world already where I live in. I don't need more worlds. Just a good game is all I want.
  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by Piiritus
    Personally I prefer good games because I have one world already where I live in. I don't need more worlds. Just a good game is all I want.

    There are already thousands upon thousands of games. Using your line of reasoning you shouldn't want another one of those either.

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    Originally posted by Piiritus
    Personally I prefer good games because I have one world already where I live in. I don't need more worlds. Just a good game is all I want.

    There are already thousands upon thousands of games. Using your line of reasoning you shouldn't want another one of those either.

     

    Want just a game, go play a console RPG game. Don't try turning mmorpg's into console games. Mmorpg are meant to be huge with lots of features, social aspects, and much more. Stop trying to reason for dumbing down mmorpg's.
  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by Onomas
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by Piiritus
    Personally I prefer good games because I have one world already where I live in. I don't need more worlds. Just a good game is all I want.

    There are already thousands upon thousands of games. Using your line of reasoning you shouldn't want another one of those either.

     

    Want just a game, go play a console RPG game. Don't try turning mmorpg's into console games. Mmorpg are meant to be huge with lots of features, social aspects, and much more. Stop trying to reason for dumbing down mmorpg's.

    Is that aimed at me?

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon
    No to the guy u quoted. Was agreeing with u in a way, just didn't tell u ;-)
  • maccarthur2004maccarthur2004 SPosts: 510Member
    Originally posted by Piiritus
    Personally I prefer good games because I have one world already where I live in. I don't need more worlds. Just a good game is all I want.

    But in our real world we can't much be a feudal lord, a pirate, a knight, a king, a hero, to participate in political intrigues, fight for conquer lands or defend ours, search treasures, etc etc etc with or againts characters controled by actual human brains.

     

     

     

     

    "What we are aiming in ArcheAge is to let the players feel the true fun of MMORPG by forming a community like real life by interacting with other players, whether it be conflict or cooperation." (Jake Song)

    image
  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by Onomas
    No to the guy u quoted. Was agreeing with u in a way, just didn't tell u ;-)

    Fair enough :p

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Piiritus
    Personally I prefer good games because I have one world already where I live in. I don't need more worlds. Just a good game is all I want.

    But in our real world we can't much be a feudal lord, a pirate, a knight, a king, a hero, to participate in political intrigues, fight for conquer lands or defend ours, search treasures, etc etc etc with or againts characters controled by actual human brains.

    You might want to look up LARP.

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

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Piiritus
    Personally I prefer good games because I have one world already where I live in. I don't need more worlds. Just a good game is all I want.

    But in our real world we can't much be a feudal lord, a pirate, a knight, a king, a hero, to participate in political intrigues, fight for conquer lands or defend ours, search treasures, etc etc etc with or againts characters controled by actual human brains.

    You might want to look up LARP.

    oh lulz

    "Come and have a look at what you could have won."

  • ReklawReklaw Am.Posts: 6,478Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Thane

    if it's soooo easy to "Just add multiplayer" to a game, tell me why there are like 4 or 5 coop shooters max?

    hmmm >  http://www.co-optimus.com/system/4/pc.html , seems there is ALLOT more co-op shooters then 4 or 5 co-op shooters you pretend excist.

    what people want is what they pay for. nowadays kids pay for everything enough of their "friends" are playing.

    you wanna know what the real prob is?

     

    having 3k facebook friends you gotta satisfie by playing some game you dont even like.

    back in the "good old days" we just hang out with people we actually knew and liked. THAT changed.

    Hmmm again, no it has not changed, perhaps you have changed, but I still rather hang out with people I know or am getting to know due to liking them.

    and to name some examples of the "good old days":

     

    * daoc having active game content (pvp) up to 12 or 1 am. after that, servers were empty (unless you had a ninja relic raid).

    * wow crashing on every 3rd mining try, resulting in you being stuck in that animation till logout or even longer.

    * pings of 500 being normal.

    * mmo servers with like 1 or 2k players MAX (not online at the same time, at all).

     Always funny to read what people asume we want back cause you already know that the things you listed as "good old day's" is NOT what the oldschool'r wants today. But then again you already figured that out when you actually took the time to read the OP.

     

    are you sure that's what you are looking for?? are you REALLY sure you remember that good old times propperly. and not like your first time sex ("damn that was soooooo goood.... and daahaaamn, I was good!")?

     Maybe you should re-read the topic to see what he is asking, kinda wierd that you  totally ignore that and just made up stuff.

     

    when i see posts like this one, i usualy just smile, and move on, but since you guys decided to post one of those every 4 days now.... comment be done.

    Shame your comment didn't even wrote one thing in reference to the OP.

    maybe people should just stop to claim to know what everyone ELSE wants ("WE WANT WORLD NOT GAMES!!!" << who'S that we? you and your mom?) and try to find out what YOU really want.

    I can count myself into the WE, that doesn't mean it truly means everyone, only those who actually are looking for gameworlds instead of game "games" understand that.

    I feel I am a true gamer, I play all sorts of game-genre's (RTS, Arcade RTS, FPS, God-games, Puzzle, Adventure, RPG's etc..etc...) So for me personaly I already play plenty of game "games" where I used the think that MMORPG was the closest I can get to a virtual world where the gameworld actually was a real world but in a fantasy or sci-fi setting. Everything was there from player housing, player run shops, non-combat professions, combat professions, crafters, traders, harvesters/collecters/scaveners. This all became awefull limited with this new themepark era. But don't get me wrong I am glad there are so many themepark MMO's out there as they seem to satisfied the wants and needs of a new majority of people into these games.

    But also understand there can be room for more, as topics like this suggest.

     

  • maccarthur2004maccarthur2004 SPosts: 510Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Piiritus
    Personally I prefer good games because I have one world already where I live in. I don't need more worlds. Just a good game is all I want.

    But in our real world we can't much be a feudal lord, a pirate, a knight, a king, a hero, to participate in political intrigues, fight for conquer lands or defend ours, search treasures, etc etc etc with or againts characters controled by actual human brains.

    You might want to look up LARP.

    LARP is a gay thing. And wear fantasy clothes don't represent 0,1% of the fantasy simulation allowed by a good mmo.

     

     

    "What we are aiming in ArcheAge is to let the players feel the true fun of MMORPG by forming a community like real life by interacting with other players, whether it be conflict or cooperation." (Jake Song)

    image
  • RohnRohn Saint Peters, MOPosts: 3,740Member Uncommon

    I agree with the OP.  Too many "games" - ones that fail to take advantage of the one major advantage MMOs bring to the table, a persistent world with a massive potential society.

    There are games, like Mortal Online, Xsyon, and Perpetuun, that provide a "world" instead of just a game.  They aren't perfect, either, but are a lot closer to the mark in what an MMORPG should be.

    Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Banaghran

    As for stealth, we are once again at combat, in this sense that you seem to replace the challenge of beating a monster with the challenge to evade it, throwing in another well talked about foggy concept - "core gameplay". I simply look at it more strategically, if i can put it that way. What you can do with it >> how specifically you are doing it.

    Yes, i am. I am talking about gameplay based on conflict (evade a monster, kill a monster, charm a monster so he will kill his partner ...), and abilities (power) that the player has.

    Things like creation (crafting), or social in nature (forming groups) interests me very little.

    As for the combat metagame, It is fun to a point, as everything, where grind is discouraging people with the number of monsters to kill and similar things, we are now dangerously close to discourage players by the sheer amount of decisions needed is a small timeframe, which is as dangerous, if not more, due to lag and other online limitations (and less and less posibilities to avoid the decisionmaking by putting in more "work" outside combat). Look at class composition, we fool ourselves in thinking that players go for fotm because of power and that they want to perform at "150%" due to being op, but in reality for most people it stops at 100% with just the advantage of being 50% less effort. That is why a hard to do fotm op thing never is as visible as one that is easy to pull off.

    Oh, i mean the meta game like creating builds, optimizing gear .. you can take hours to make those decisions. In combat, you only make a small number (but interesting) decisions. Do i use my potion now? Do i go this way or that? Do i use my cool-down skill or save it?

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Onomas
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by Piiritus
    Personally I prefer good games because I have one world already where I live in. I don't need more worlds. Just a good game is all I want.

    There are already thousands upon thousands of games. Using your line of reasoning you shouldn't want another one of those either.

     

    Want just a game, go play a console RPG game. Don't try turning mmorpg's into console games. Mmorpg are meant to be huge with lots of features, social aspects, and much more. Stop trying to reason for dumbing down mmorpg's.

    That is the most arrogant and condescending post. Who are you to dictate what players should do? If MMOs are being more game-like, why shouldn't i play it if i like games more than world?

    Dumbing down? Making players sit for 20 min boat ride is not dumbing now, it is smarting up. It is trivial to take a boad ride and there is no challenge. Worlds are full of dumb, slow, moment. Don't tell me the need to sit down and eat for 5 min (realistic .. but boring) is challening.

    MMORPS are not meant for anything. They are entertaining products and change according to players' need. If the old ideas (like big world and forced social) are not working, why shouldn't something else (lobby games!) be tried?

     

     

  • TokkenTokken Portland, ORPosts: 1,154Member Uncommon

    We want worlds.

    We want sandbox!!

    Brad McQuaid Quote:  So, God-willing, the Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen team and I will be able to make or allow that magic to happen a third time, and it too will be not just a great game, but also that catalyst again that brings people together, sometimes out of their comfort zone, learning how to work together not just tactically in a virtual world but also socially in the real world.
  • maccarthur2004maccarthur2004 SPosts: 510Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Onomas
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by Piiritus
    Personally I prefer good games because I have one world already where I live in. I don't need more worlds. Just a good game is all I want.

    There are already thousands upon thousands of games. Using your line of reasoning you shouldn't want another one of those either.

     

    Want just a game, go play a console RPG game. Don't try turning mmorpg's into console games. Mmorpg are meant to be huge with lots of features, social aspects, and much more. Stop trying to reason for dumbing down mmorpg's.

    That is the most arrogant and condescending post. Who are you to dictate what players should do? If MMOs are being more game-like, why shouldn't i play it if i like games more than world?

    Dumbing down? Making players sit for 20 min boat ride is not dumbing now, it is smarting up. It is trivial to take a boad ride and there is no challenge. Worlds are full of dumb, slow, moment. Don't tell me the need to sit down and eat for 5 min (realistic .. but boring) is challening.

    MMORPS are not meant for anything. They are entertaining products and change according to players' need. If the old ideas (like big world and forced social) are not working, why shouldn't something else (lobby games!) be tried?

     

    I disagree.

    Realistic rides boost strategies, since make the players plan better the position of your forces or a military operation considering the expected time to allys come in help of the enemys or theirs.

    I think that this struggle between mmo fans that want "true" mmorpgs and players that think that mmos are "just games" like any other will only ends when a AAA sandbox come and these 2 types of players become finaly separated, each one in your AAA mmo of your preference.

    At moment, the nearer of a AAA sandbox mmo to come is Archeage.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    "What we are aiming in ArcheAge is to let the players feel the true fun of MMORPG by forming a community like real life by interacting with other players, whether it be conflict or cooperation." (Jake Song)

    image
  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Onomas
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper
    Originally posted by Piiritus
    Personally I prefer good games because I have one world already where I live in. I don't need more worlds. Just a good game is all I want.

    There are already thousands upon thousands of games. Using your line of reasoning you shouldn't want another one of those either.

     

    Want just a game, go play a console RPG game. Don't try turning mmorpg's into console games. Mmorpg are meant to be huge with lots of features, social aspects, and much more. Stop trying to reason for dumbing down mmorpg's.
     

    That is the most arrogant and condescending post. Who are you to dictate what players should do? If MMOs are being more game-like, why shouldn't i play it if i like games more than world?

    Not arrogant at all. This is mmorpg, not single player, small world, no crafting, no exploration, no content, boring end game, and no social aspect of a console game. Whats arrogant is people that want kotor4 whinning and crying and we end up with SWTOR the most "epic" mmo ever that crashed and burned in a month. Or GW2 thats falling faster than a fat person being pushed out of a plane. Its simple the 2 must be seperated or you get failures. And there have been more than a handful of those lately. All trying to be like single player rpg's.

    Dumbing down? Making players sit for 20 min boat ride is not dumbing now, it is smarting up. It is trivial to take a boad ride and there is no challenge. Worlds are full of dumb, slow, moment. Don't tell me the need to sit down and eat for 5 min (realistic .. but boring) is challening.

    See you are a linear person. Thinking only of travel time compared to the other hundred mmo aspects of a true mmorpg. Most i have ever waited to travel was 10 minutes in SWG. But i took part of a true mmo and did some socialization and just talked to people at the starport. Something you dont see in todays mmo's.

    Crafting = dumbed down.

    Housing = dumbed down

    Social aspect = dumbed down- no one just chats with people any more. No one slows down and just has a good time. Its a race to max level and then a race to the forums to whine about how boring a game is.

    Exploration = dumbed down

    Combat = dumbed down

    Must i go on?

    You only can only think of travel time? LOL

    MMORPS are not meant for anything. They are entertaining products and change according to players' need. If the old ideas (like big world and forced social) are not working, why shouldn't something else (lobby games!) be tried?

    MMORPG's are mass world with lots of people. Its an escape to an alternate universe so to speak. To explore, to craft, to make things, to build, to journey out and see what each area has to offer, to chat with strangers, to make friends, to enjoy the game. Not rush thru on a set path, being led around on a leash, with no mmo features what so ever. Its nothing more than consile rpg you are forced to pay a monthly fee for.

     

    Yes mmo;s ahve been dumbed down and turned into games they think are worthy of a mmo.

    WARZ= mmo? lol

    FPS are being called mmo's now. lol

    So is BF3 a mmo because i can get 100+ people on one server? Give me a break.

     

    Its the old ideas that are not working? Yeah let me see................. 45 mmo's released in the past 2 years, and 44 fell on their butts in 3 months or less due to being the new way. I think your logic is flawed and that is why you are seeing a huge number of sandboxes coming out around the corner. The new way is broke and sucks.

    Forced social? Since when is enjoying your community brothers and making small talk forced or a bad thing?

    Big worlds?Bad? Are you kidding me. Small world with a path you have to follow...you like that? A leash around your neck?

     

    Why shouldnt lobby games be tried? They have been for 5+ years and all have failed. Only one to even come close to being successful is rift.

     

    Sorry but you dont want a mmo, you want a console game.

    And funny thing is console games are actualy starting to come out with more content and mmo features than a real mmo lol.

     

    No new way been beaten to death and nothing has come out of it. Time to renew the old ways.

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member
    Originally posted by Onomas


     

    /snip

    Not arrogant at all. This is mmorpg, not single player, small world, no crafting, no exploration, no content, boring end game, and no social aspect of a console game. Whats arrogant is people that want kotor4 whinning and crying and we end up with SWTOR the most "epic" mmo ever that crashed and burned in a month. Or GW2 thats falling faster than a fat person being pushed out of a plane. Its simple the 2 must be seperated or you get failures. And there have been more than a handful of those lately. All trying to be like single player rpg's.

     

    This giant post is basically saying 'This is what an MMO is and shall be!' to other people.

    If you can't see why that is arrogant, then you are beyond help.

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

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by Onomas


     

    /snip

    Not arrogant at all. This is mmorpg, not single player, small world, no crafting, no exploration, no content, boring end game, and no social aspect of a console game. Whats arrogant is people that want kotor4 whinning and crying and we end up with SWTOR the most "epic" mmo ever that crashed and burned in a month. Or GW2 thats falling faster than a fat person being pushed out of a plane. Its simple the 2 must be seperated or you get failures. And there have been more than a handful of those lately. All trying to be like single player rpg's.

     

    This giant post is basically saying 'This is what an MMO is and shall be!' to other people.

    If you can't see why that is arrogant, then you are beyond help.

     

    Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of role-playing video games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.

    As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a character (often in a fantasy world) and take control over many of that character's actions. MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world (usually hosted by the game's publisher), which continues to exist and evolve while the player is offline and away from the game.

     

    Although modern MMORPGs sometimes differ dramatically from their antecedents, many of them share some basic characteristics. These include several common features: persistent game environment, some form of progression, social interaction within the game, in-game culture, system architecture, membership in a group, and character customization.

    Also, traditional in the genre is the eventual demand on players to team up with others in order to progress at the optimal rate. This sometimes forces players to change their real-world schedules in order to "keep up" within the game-world. A good example of this is the need to trade items to achieve certain goals, or teaming up to kill a powerful enemy.

     

    MMORPGs almost always have tools to facilitate communication between players. Many MMORPGs offer support for in-game guilds or clans (though these will usually form whether the game supports them or not).

    In addition, most MMOs require some degree of teamwork for parts of the game. These tasks usually require players to take on roles in the group, such as those protecting other players from damage (called tanking), "healing" damage done to other players or damaging enemies.

     

    WELL im DONE quoting YOU can READ more ABOUT mmo's HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game

     

    I mean jesus, not like it isnt written out in black and white lol. Want me to make a mspaint picture for you, to dumb it down so you can get it?

     

     

  • zekeofevzekeofev Mesa, AZPosts: 233Member
    Originally posted by ForTheCity
    I think there is a bigger majority who like "games" such as halo, mario, etc because they don't really need to think. The story is thought out for them so they just do as they are told. When people play games they want to relax and I think thats why people prefer these types of games instead of open world.

    And no one is saying that those games are bad. On rails storyline is a thing, its appealing and is great for the market.

     

    The problem is that most MMOs have chased this type of gamer too and they play the MMOs just like they play single player games. These gamers treat them as an extended single player game. So while they might spend 2-4 weeks in a single player game they spend 4-8 weeks in an MMO and play "through the content" and bail.

     

    What this thread is saying is that MMOs if they want long term success need to give us a world and not a game designed to be played for a bit and passed for the next big thing. If MMOs like the current trend and profitability, feel free to keep doing the same thing.

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member
    Originally posted by zekeofev
     

    /snip

    What this thread is saying is that MMOs if they want long term success need to give us a world and not a game designed to be played for a bit and passed for the next big thing. If MMOs like the current trend and profitability, feel free to keep doing the same thing.

    A lot of companies are actually realizing that MMOs don't have to go long term to be profitable.

    Think of it as 'make slight profit on box sales and pure profit on the DLC (subs for MMOs)' model that a lot of games have right now.

    Whether this is good or bad is irrevelant as everyone will have their own opinion on things, it is just how the market is right now.

     

    I kinda expect a lot more MMOs to come out, do reasonably well (make profit for the company) and kinda go into maintanance mode / make expansion packs etc.

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

  • JimmyYOJimmyYO Columbus, OHPosts: 520Member
    Couldn't agree with this thread more. The few that try to make an actual world are so buggy and non-immersive it's embarrasing.
145791030
Sign In or Register to comment.