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!

Is it possible that MMO now days are "TOO Good "

13»

Comments

  • DrunkWolfDrunkWolf Posts: 1,180Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    As strange as it sound, but is it possible that MMO are too good now days?

    back in the day the standards weren't as high as today. People expect way more than they did pre-WoW. MMO  now days have many new features like that seen in GW2 and Rift. But people seem to quickly get bored of these features.

     

    if games like Rift and GW2 came out in 2002 in the same quality, would they be more successful or less successful than they are now? I feel these games are boring now because they simply too good. Indy games are more fun like Darkfall, because it lacks quality and not trying to be perfect or too good.

     

    the only thing better about todays MMOs are the graphics. thats it.

    i find more features and more to do in MMOs pre wow.

    every new MMO gets easyer, more liniear, less social, and more boring.

  • TorgrimTorgrim GothenburgPosts: 2,088Member

    Yet another not so thought out thread from OP.

    Look at all the older Singlerplayer games like Daggerfall,Ultima series,D&D Forgottem Realms RPG games ect.

    Then look at MMO games such as UO,EQ,SWG.

    Then you compare those to modern day games and the anwser is quite clear, today games sucks compare the the old ones feature wise and depth wise, only thing modern games have to show for is graphics.

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

  • ZaraathZaraath Clovis, CAPosts: 17Member

    IF they were so good, they would be beloved like the old games.  The truth is, the old games were innovators, because there made leaps and bounds above their predecessors.  Look at UO vs Meridian 59.  Now look at TERA vs WoW. The gaps are MUCH smaller. The games now, for the most part, are afraid to innovate TOO much.  They would rather stick to a formula that was successful for someone else. UO and WoW never planned to have the success they experienced, but new games unrealistically plan for WoW's final success.

    When new titles do innovate, they listen to too many critics who wants a clone, and the net result is that people leave WoW or others to find something new.  When they don't, they return because of time invested and ties still playing the old games.

    Old games such as UO or EQ were unlike anything before them.  The features introduced far exceeded new features available in the games today. So while a new game today may boast 5 new features, which wow us initially, in the end the 80 shared features a month down the road bring us back home.

  • TheocritusTheocritus Gary, INPosts: 3,750Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    If Rift or GW2 had launched in 2002, no one would have had hardware capable of running the game.

           Also they didnt have other games to ripoff to make their own game......Rift wouldn't exist if it wasn't for WoW and WAR.

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon
    Find me a real mmorpg and i will tell you. But none have come out "now days" so i cant judge.
  • VincerKadenVincerKaden Edison, NJPosts: 457Member

    OP makes an interesting point. For example EA/Bioware spent a small fortune on a game that really just gave us the illusion of free choice along a linear storyline via multiple dialogue options that were played out via voiceovers. Other games like Secret World, Tera and GW2 look absolutely amazing. But all of them have deficiencies in some of the sub-systems, be that social tools, guild management, PvP, commerce, etc.

    It's my view that game companies now are hanging their hat on one or two of their new games "innovation" and pushing that via advertising to the moon to get people hyped. Neverwinter's got their custom content tool. Wildstar is hyping up some sandbox playability. Elder Scroll's got... I'm not sure what's different really.

    Game companies need to focus on all aspects of their virtual world, then build the adventures on top of that.

    image

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Scot
    I see nothing wrong with region chat, but world chat does turn the game into a lobby.

    I see nothing wrong with turning the game into a lobby. Many are already like that.

  • evilastroevilastro EdinburghPosts: 4,270Member

    They are packed with features, but the missing component in a lot of new games is 'fun'. I can still go back and play 2D games and have fun, but a lot of new visually impressive games are lacking that. Its why 'Angry Birds' does so well, its a simple concept, but it is done very well.

    More effort needs to go into the experience, rather than filling out a checklist.

  • GishgeronGishgeron Princeton, KYPosts: 1,287Member

      I always get a sick feeling when folks talk about the "good old days".  Look, I've been around, okay?  I remember all of my MMO experiences.  Here is what Pre-WoW felt like:  "LFG LFG LFG" for 3 hours a day.  I can already hear someone say, "But Gish...thats what GUILDS are for".  Look, I don't have a set playtime.  Guilds back then used to be terrible things anyway.  Half of them wanted you to fill out an application, and then play at certain times.  Thats not a game, thats a job.  You apply for JOBS.  Having the entire game cockblocked to you unless you magically found a party, (and not just ANY party...but one with proper class composition) was a downer.  It meant that, for me, I spent more time BEGGING to play than playing.

      Now that isn't to say all games were like this.  Thats just what themeparks were like to me.  You also had sandboxes like UO.  Lemme explain how UO went for me.  Make character.  Spawn.  Walk to leave town.  Die at gate.  Respawn.  Die.  Respawn, try to go punch training dummies, DIE.  Oh, yes...what a lovely game.  You couldn't even walk out the gates of the first town you spawned in.  Until SWG...sandboxes were, give or take, pretty horrid.  SWG did everything right for me.  I could do tons of crap alone, but I always needed the other people in the world.  I needed their weapons, their vehicles, their cities.  I needed them to heal me, to restore my stamina.  But I did not get shut out of the game without them around.  My experience was simply broadened and enhanced by them in every way I interacted with the world.  I could do things in a small amount of time, or a large amount of time.  Grinding did not feel like grinding.

      So, until WoW...there wasn't really much good I felt I could say for the genre.  I wish I COULD say SWG...but we all know THAT story and I don't feel up for beating a horse that has already long since turned to ash and been pounded into the soil.  Some games were pretty fun, but I did not get to spend time in them.  AO, for example.  Pretty fun stuff, but I didn't get to play it much.  Also, bugs.  I can forgive those.

      I guess my point is that games ARE too good now.  But not in the right way.  They are themeparks that are very well made.  But the draw of this genre, to me, was the fact it was a living world.  So, even a good themepark is still a bad MMO.  Its like shooting an arrow and hitting the bullseye on the next target down.  Yay, bullseye!  You still missed and suck at shooting a bow.  The issue is not that games are too good, its that they are too good at being a game that has nothing to do with what makes the genre better than playing Skyrim.

    image

  • eye_meye_m Notta Chance, ABPosts: 3,133Member Uncommon

    The biggest part of games is the friends.  If you're playing pacman with a buddy it can be fun, playing pacman alone is boring. Same thing with most anything. Having friends that play the game will keep a person playing, but if all your friends leave, then a game can get stale.  So I don't think that MMO's these days are too good, rather there are too many MMO's that are good. 

    Each MMO might have a particular feature that attracts a person, hopefully what attracts you to a game is attracting your friends too.

    All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.

    I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.

    I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.

  • NeVeRLiFtNeVeRLiFt Cleveland, TNPosts: 377Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Onigod
    Yes  they are all too good! thats why i am still playing league of legends while im dieing to actually pay money for a good mmo.

    QFT

    I hope that ArcheAge, Everquest 3 or World of Darkness are the MMO's that give us an online world to play in again.

    Not some instanced online game with nothing to do but grind gear on the carrot on a stick treadmill or pvp in the same small boring maps.

     

    Give us back our online worlds to explore and reward us for exploring and give us risk vs reward.

    Played: MCO - EQ/EQ2 - WoW - VG - WAR - AoC - LoTRO - DDO - GW - Eve - Rift - FE - TSW - TSO - WS
    Playing: Sims 4, Diablo3, TSW & LoTRO
    Waiting on: Everquest Next, BlackDesert, Camelot Unchained & Pathfinder Online!
    Who's going to make a Cyberpunk MMO?

  • PaladrinkPaladrink SantiagoPosts: 47Member
    Originally posted by Kaneth
    Originally posted by ForumPvP

    http://www.boardgamebeast.com/hero-quest-board-game.html#axzz2CJa6dabu

    too good MMO

    bad mmo

    History is repeating itself now on computer world.

    He nails it pretty nicely "At a glance this game is fun: however, the gameplay is very stagnant. As a veteran roleplayer of twenty plus years, this game offers little in the way of fun and excitement. "

     

     

    Oh man, I remember playing Hero Quest on the weekends. Since each of us had our own game, we'd wind up playing these sprawling adventures that would cross six boards. We also made our own tiles, added more spells, potions, items, etc. Our group wound up playing this way more than D&D since it was a more visual experience, and we were able to easily expand the game for our own purposes.

    Back to the OP:

    I don't think the question is whether or not that today's mmos are too good, instead we should be asking were in the hell did depth go? Take a game like Asheron's Call, which is the first mmo I played. Even for then the engine wasn't great and the game looked blocky as hell, but holy crap was it fun. You could truly build your own character and your own experiences. With proper builds, you could take on content that you probably had no business in at your level, but you could just as easily gimp yourself too. The world was big, open and immersive. You could easily get lost in the lore and many did. You could also just as easily solo many things as well as group up for it. It truly was a mmo for the masses that never was really supported properly via advertisements.

    Additionally, the original fans of mmos were your pen and paper rpg "nerds" and MUD players. It wasn't until WoW came out that a different group of gamers entered the mmo space. WoW became popular because of WarCraft and Blizzard names attached, which also attracted Diablo and StarCraft fans as well, two groups of folks who might not have ever played mmos before. However, with that change it also brought in the "cool" kids. So instead of mmo characters being about spreadsheets, they became about maximum efficiency.

    Take a look at most of the forums for any mmo. You will see threads like, "How to increase DPS", "Best Build for X", etc. It's not about the experience of the game anymore, it's about individual encounters and how to dominate them. There's no more world building, just more achievements to get.

    Today's mmos aren't worlds, they are play spaces, and the leveling process isn't considered the journey, but treated as an inconvienience to tolerate until you hit the "real" game.

    As another thread stated, "We need Worlds, not games". We truly do.

    Sir, you hit the nail right there.

    What we do in life, echoes in eternity.

  • keotsukeotsu citrus heights, CAPosts: 12Member

    everquest though now dated had some mechanics that made the game fantastic. you had to sit with a book covering your field of view while you med (regen spell power to cast more spells) you could see chat and talk to guildies or people in the zone while you waited. but while you sat you had to find some safe place to rest, and randomly a mob might find you that wandered to close.

    siting in middle of the plains of karana, i was letting my dots on a griffin tick its health down, it was dying slowly, i had it snared and rooted since i was a druid i needed more mana, i would med while it died with my book closed, in early game play you had no idea your root wore off except watching chat. you didn't have voice chat so you had to watch guildchat to know what was going on. this forced you to watch chat. in GW2 in last month i looked at guildchat 5 times or less ever.

    these mechanics, like standing at the docks in butcherblock in EQ, waiting for the boat to take you to freeport made you have time to chat. and socialize. and that made it fun to know people in guild and in game.

    now games have maps and quest indicators and everything is given to you on a silver platter and there is no danger or accomplishment anymore.

    DayZ is scary, its hard, its thrilling and i think thats why people are flooding to it, you have to work together or struggle alone. but its not an MMO yet. i myself find the graphics and game mechanics lacking a bit. but i can see the thrill in trying to survive with not much to your name.

    the thrill is gone with games today i spend less than a month in each new mmo...my guardian in GW2 is 74, and i am draggin ass to 80 cuase i know i dont like any other classes and when i hit 80 i will be done with the game.

    new games coming out have to have the graphics of today's games, but they need to start moving more towards the mechanics and danger and thrill of older games.

  • CalmOceansCalmOceans BergenPosts: 2,273Member
    Originally posted by Gishgeron

     

     I always get a sick feeling when folks talk about the "good old days".  Look, I've been around, okay?  I remember all of my MMO experiences.  Here is what Pre-WoW felt like:  "LFG LFG LFG" for 3 hours a day.

    Half of them wanted you to fill out an application.

     It meant that, for me, I spent more time BEGGING to play than playing.

    Come on now, as if there weren't social guilds back then that didn't require you to fill in an application, there were thousands of guilds in Everquest that never asked you to fill in an application.

    There was like 1% of Everquest who never understood that having regular groups meant you had to make a friends list or make the group yourself. Those people could not be helped, they never took the initiative to make groups o took the initiative to make a guild.

    I remember those people well, they went into every single zone shouting "LFG LFG LFG", they were the first people who went on my ignore list, because I knew they were people who would never take initiatives and would just wait all day for something to fall into their lap and they were also the first to whine and bail our groups if something went wrong.

    Groups don't make themselves.

    It is those things that made EQ a social game, the fact that YOU HAD TO approach other people to make a group instead of shouting LFG, those people shouting LFG were ignored by the community and many quickly realised that making a group required social interaction beyond "LFG", which is the very reason EQ had such a lively community because everyone ended up knowing each other.

    As mentioned by many people in the past, the difficulty of EQ was not just within the gameplay, to thrive in EQ you had to make connections and get to know people, you had to build relationships.

     

    I always though it was hilarious when people used to say that MMO limit social abilities of people, it's games like EQ that taught people social behavior in a few weeks that would take years to learn in RL, because the barrier to communication is lifted and those people who would have never learnt how people act and think, learned those things in EQ.

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

    I always though it was hilarious when people used to say that MMO limit social abilities of people, it's games like EQ that taught people social behavior in a few weeks that would take years to learn in RL, because the barrier to communication is lifted and those people who would have never learnt how people act and think, learned those things in EQ.

    *chuckle*

    Those same "social types" are now refusing to join voice chats and find it hard to make contacts and socialize in modern games. Yet I've made dozens of lasting friends in games some of which are entirely instanced, rely on match making etc.

    They need to turn to themselves for reasons why they don't socialize and make friends anymore. They tried hard then, why can't they try hard now? Bunch of whiny hypocrites...

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

  • DKLondDKLond AlbertslundPosts: 579Member Uncommon

    Too good? No.

    Too similar? Yes.

    Ultimately, you can create a masterful themepark or a masterful sandbox - but if you don't evolve the genre, you'll end up offering exactly the same thing in a new dressing. WoW introduced the "modern" themepark to millions of people - but the genre has started to stagnate in terms of popularity. It's no longer bringing in new people - and the millions that have joined in recent years are either tired of the WoW formula or they're still playing it or whatever variant.

    Now, as for sandboxes - they're generally underfunded and underdeveloped. I'm seeing some innovative ideas and genuine creativity - but they just can't pull it off with the limited resources.

    The solution? Well, I can think of two potential solutions.

    1. Merge the two genres. As in, create a game with the appeal of BOTH the themepark and sandbox genres - thereby justifying a big budget. One upcoming game that does exactly that is ArcheAge - but we can only guess as to its success. But it can't treat any of those two aspects in a half-assed manner.

    2. Create an entirely new genre. Not really sure if that's even possible. I have a hard time imagining an MMO that's not one or the other - or a combination. But it could happen, I suppose.

  • AdamantineAdamantine NowherePosts: 3,514Member Common

    Of course people get bored of pointless featured just added because they are the newest fashion.

    Its not a sign that "games are too good". Its a sign of poor game design.

    Think about it. Think about, for example, how simple a game like chess or go actually is. Yet people have dedicated their lives to it. These games are just that deep and complex. And yet they are actually so simple. Thats a sign of great game design.

    Games today are certainly not too good. On the contrary, they are poor in respect to actually being fun to play. They lack depth and challenge. Because basically everyone is now just trying to copy WoW, without understanding that gaming is a very complex issue and you cant copy WoW's success by recreating WoW.

     

    By the way, I think of Vanguard as "good enough". It might not be the best possible game. One can improve every game. But its been fun to play, always, and it offers depth in everything you can do in the game - be it actual adventuring, be it crafting, or be it diplomacy.

     

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,762Member Uncommon

    Vanguards crafting and diplomacy stand as my all time best way of integrating a mini game into the MMO as a whole. Space missions in SWTOR is exactly how not to do it, making a mini game that has no bearing on the MMO itself. In fact I do Vanguard an injustice by calling them a mini game, they were separate was to advance your character.

  • HarafnirHarafnir VikingvillePosts: 1,324Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    As strange as it sound, but is it possible that MMO are too good now days?

     

    Aaahahahahahahahahaaaaa.... Aaaaaaah... sorry, need to compose myself... Ok, answer to... Aaaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa,,,, Aaaaaah *sigh* Yes... yes... Hihihihi.... Ok. What was the question again?

    "This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly.
    It should be thrown with great force"

  • GishgeronGishgeron Princeton, KYPosts: 1,287Member
    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    Come on now, as if there weren't social guilds back then that didn't require you to fill in an application, there were thousands of guilds in Everquest that never asked you to fill in an application.

    its true, those Guilds exist.  My playtime is erratic, however, and theirs was simply not. 

    There was like 1% of Everquest who never understood that having regular groups meant you had to make a friends list or make the group yourself. Those people could not be helped, they never took the initiative to make groups o took the initiative to make a guild.

    Oh I made plenty of friends.  The issue returns to playtimes.  You see, simply being good at the game and friendly is useless when the group you played with yesterday is either not on or already playing with someone else.  Making a guild was also not really all that possible unless you entered one of those games early.  You COULD, but then you're back to having to regulate your game time in order to keep the guild together.  See, if people do not see you online for a day or two they start to think.  When another guild offer comes, they take it.  Guilds, in the casual sense, form and die constantly.  High end guilds are, typically, the only ones which really remained and remained healthy enough to support multiple playtimes.  They also, as a result of being end game and needing to do very hard content, have to filter out anyone that isn't of the exact makeup they need to progress.

    I remember those people well, they went into every single zone shouting "LFG LFG LFG", they were the first people who went on my ignore list, because I knew they were people who would never take initiatives and would just wait all day for something to fall into their lap and they were also the first to whine and bail our groups if something went wrong.

    While I never had that kind of experience, (I am lucky enough to say the average player I met was good enough to get by without much in the way of wipes), I can see WHY they would bail.  You've already spent a good portion of your game time preparing.  You do not gain levels or loot for dying all the time.  It seems a waste of that prep time to stay with a sinking ship.  The alternative is to stay with a bad group and simply waste an afternoon.  The matter is complicated further with the days long grind a person might need to simply gain one level.

    Groups don't make themselves.

    It is those things that made EQ a social game, the fact that YOU HAD TO approach other people to make a group instead of shouting LFG, those people shouting LFG were ignored by the community and many quickly realised that making a group required social interaction beyond "LFG", which is the very reason EQ had such a lively community because everyone ended up knowing each other.

    You, my friend, must be very lucky.  The average old school MMo player I met, (EQ being one), tended to always be doing something.   As a new player, there weren't exactly a ton of tools to encourage that interaction.  You either talked to someone who wasn't already busy and didn't want to be bothered, or you didn't.  Stuff like the WoW dungeon finder was infinitely better for meeting people, in my experience.  I added a great deal more friends thanks to it than any other game, and also had a much tighter and better playgroup.  The overall speed of the game meant that failures, or weak members, did not ruin a whole afternoon...and as such, made it easier to deal with until people you liked came along.

    As mentioned by many people in the past, the difficulty of EQ was not just within the gameplay, to thrive in EQ you had to make connections and get to know people, you had to build relationships.

      I believe what you mean is that to play EQ at all you had to know people.  It was very literally a game that, in the event no one was on at that time, you might as well turn off if things went south.  The very basics of game design, here, left to wither and die.  Always have something for the player to do.  This is the true issue with themeparks, they are just multiplayer games.  Slow, druging, hack and slash games.  In SWG making connections did so much more.  You COULD do things alone, but those connections could build your houses, create your pets, invite you into their cities, and heal your wounds.  They enchanced the game world, but did not shut it off when they weren't around.

     

    I always though it was hilarious when people used to say that MMO limit social abilities of people, it's games like EQ that taught people social behavior in a few weeks that would take years to learn in RL, because the barrier to communication is lifted and those people who would have never learnt how people act and think, learned those things in EQ.

      I found that they also learned how to behave far worse.  Once you realize that you can control the joy of others...many people found they enjoyed abusing it.  THAT problem, however, extends to more than EQ.  But the one thing that WoW, and its successors, have done is to give the players that simply do not fit in to the large group situation well something to do.  Perhaps they had to work 12's all week and just want to play an hour at 1 AM.  Even if no one else is on, WoW gave that player SOMETHING he could do.  EQ simply laughed and said, "please try again later scrub"  Its the founding design issue with MMO gaming.  How do you make a massive multiplayers game, for lots of people playing together, and still make it fun when you CANT play together?

      I would say you design something larger in scope than just a multiplayer game, you design a world that massive amounts of players can inhabit and play together.

     

    image

13»
Sign In or Register to comment.