we are having this conversation because of the lack of quality sandboxes. Although there are some on the horizon. I would uderstand why some people devoted to the current status quo would worry what will happen if one of these sandboxes does well long term....
Fear not though you will still be drowning in throwaway 1 month themeparks even if the sandboxers get a game.
we are having this conversation because of the lack of quality sandboxes. Although there are some on the horizon. I would uderstand why some people devoted to the current status quo would worry what will happen if one of these sandboxes does well long term....
Fear not though you will still be drowning in throwaway 1 month themeparks even if the sandboxers get a game.
All it will take is one, and you will see a huge shift. Think thats why the eastern devs are heading towards sandboxes now. Themeparks have been beaten to death and not much you can do and majority of them are not long term. Archeage, black desert, greed monger, eqnext, the repopulation...........damn never seen so many sandboxes being released like this in all the the past 5 years It feels good, just horrible i have to wait lol.
Never say never. I have not seen one and it depends on the game. I do like PS2.
Why is it always one thing and only one thing only? Can't we have good lobby games, good themeparks and good virtual worlds?
Yes, you can. The question is whether that is likely based on the market. Right now, multiple game types are succesful (good themepark .. wow, good online APRG .. diablo, good MOBA .. LOL, good instanced pvp ... WOT). So it is not one thing only already.
The question, of course, is whether a sandbox can achieve the same level of success and so far the answer is no. It is not with lack of trying though. I would say the sandbox playstyle does not resonate as well as ARPG, MOBA, themepark and so on...
Am I the only person who likes different types of game structures?
Probably not. I like ARPG, MMOFPS, and many different type of SP games. Who say i only like one type?
The thing is; we have good lobby games. We have good themeparks. But as far as virtual worlds, not many and not many that are good.
Ask yourself why. Is it because the whole idea of a shared virtual world is no appealing anymore? Note taht it is very different from the SKYRIM type SP virtual world. In SKYRIM, i can "fast forward time", which is difficult to do in a real shared VW.
OP is right with one correction, imo:
We don't need anymore 'games', we need some more virtual worlds.
Who are "we"? Don't count me in. I have enough differnet type of gaming entertainment. I certainly do no need more virtual worlds.
They are no keeping the people, if they would, we would be having much less of these conversations, wow stagnated and even lost players since it became all about raiding back in the end of 2008, that is what we usually forget, that whether we like it or not, the majority of people got lost in the rest of the game, not raiding, it went so far that gc and friends actually started talking about players which "like to prepare", meaning tradeskills and other stuff.
Of course they are. WOW is still consistently at the top with 10M (which increased back from 9M) players. LOL is big. WOT is successful. Even D3 is pretty higher on xfire.
And we are having this conversation because a small bunch of old timers are ranting the lack of virtual worlds while millions are just playing games.
In general, as a game concept thing, personally i think taking a mmorpg and trying to perfect a facet too much at the expense of the rest of the game is a recipe for disaster, you know, suddenly being in competition with mobas, fps and arcade games, which are completely the facet, and thus much better at it?
Flame on!
That is the point. Not compete with MOBA and ARPGs .. BECOME MOBA and ARPGs. I totally will play a good instanced dungeon game with no world and a lobby.
Didnt you, a few pages ago, claim that you are not advocating the conversion to mobas, just expressing your liking of the concept?
There is still much weight to be shed before they become mobas.
As for the 10 million, we shall see, there was even a increase around cata launch, and you see how it turned out.
It is still les than the ~11.5 million BC peak, BEFORE the streamlining that was destinned to make the game better and more popular, give me a break...
Never say never. I have not seen one and it depends on the game. I do like PS2.
Why is it always one thing and only one thing only? Can't we have good lobby games, good themeparks and good virtual worlds?
Yes, you can. The question is whether that is likely based on the market. Right now, multiple game types are succesful (good themepark .. wow, good online APRG .. diablo, good MOBA .. LOL, good instanced pvp ... WOT). So it is not one thing only already.
The question, of course, is whether a sandbox can achieve the same level of success and so far the answer is no. It is not with lack of trying though. I would say the sandbox playstyle does not resonate as well as ARPG, MOBA, themepark and so on...
Am I the only person who likes different types of game structures?
Probably not. I like ARPG, MMOFPS, and many different type of SP games. Who say i only like one type?
The thing is; we have good lobby games. We have good themeparks. But as far as virtual worlds, not many and not many that are good.
Ask yourself why. Is it because the whole idea of a shared virtual world is no appealing anymore? Note taht it is very different from the SKYRIM type SP virtual world. In SKYRIM, i can "fast forward time", which is difficult to do in a real shared VW.
OP is right with one correction, imo:
We don't need anymore 'games', we need some more virtual worlds.
Who are "we"? Don't count me in. I have enough differnet type of gaming entertainment. I certainly do no need more virtual worlds.
Then why bicker with people wanting more out of their mmorpg's if you have enough already? Just like to cause issues? And you said it yourself, you are a sp guy. So your words are already favored to those types of games.
They are no keeping the people, if they would, we would be having much less of these conversations, wow stagnated and even lost players since it became all about raiding back in the end of 2008, that is what we usually forget, that whether we like it or not, the majority of people got lost in the rest of the game, not raiding, it went so far that gc and friends actually started talking about players which "like to prepare", meaning tradeskills and other stuff.
Of course they are. WOW is still consistently at the top with 10M (which increased back from 9M) players. LOL is big. WOT is successful. Even D3 is pretty higher on xfire.
And we are having this conversation because a small bunch of old timers are ranting the lack of virtual worlds while millions are just playing games.
In general, as a game concept thing, personally i think taking a mmorpg and trying to perfect a facet too much at the expense of the rest of the game is a recipe for disaster, you know, suddenly being in competition with mobas, fps and arcade games, which are completely the facet, and thus much better at it?
Flame on!
That is the point. Not compete with MOBA and ARPGs .. BECOME MOBA and ARPGs. I totally will play a good instanced dungeon game with no world and a lobby.
Didnt you, a few pages ago, claim that you are not advocating the conversion to mobas, just expressing your liking of the concept?
There is still much weight to be shed before they become mobas.
As for the 10 million, we shall see, there was even a increase around cata launch, and you see how it turned out.
It is still les than the ~11.5 million BC peak, BEFORE the streamlining that was destinned to make the game better and more popular, give me a break...
Flame on!
Not exactly. I am advocating making good games by better focus. MOBA is just one kind of games. To be fair, i like PS2 much more than true MOBA games. And i like ARPG much more than MOBA games. I am just citing them because a) LOL is hugely successful, and b) it is a good example of focus.
True, but i can argue that finding what is popular is not alway easy, and now Blizz found it again in MOP. The peak is 12M, i beleive in WOTLK. And you can't argue that gaining back 1M players, of a 8 year old game, is diong something right.
Tell me which other already out game (out for more than 1 year) gain 1M players in a few month time.
Then why bicker with people wanting more out of their mmorpg's if you have enough already? Just like to cause issues? And you said it yourself, you are a sp guy. So your words are already favored to those types of games.
Because it is fun to discuss MMOs, a genre which i play in?
And of course i favor the kind of games i like. So do you, and everyone posting here.
He would also tend to call what the developers call hybrids sanboxes, like EQNext and AA. It would appear he has no clear definition of the genre he wishes to play in either, which is endemic to this forum.
Not exactly. I am advocating making good games by better focus. MOBA is just one kind of games. To be fair, i like PS2 much more than true MOBA games. And i like ARPG much more than MOBA games. I am just citing them because a) LOL is hugely successful, and b) it is a good example of focus.
True, but i can argue that finding what is popular is not alway easy, and now Blizz found it again in MOP. The peak is 12M, i beleive in WOTLK. And you can't argue that gaining back 1M players, of a 8 year old game, is diong something right.
Tell me which other already out game (out for more than 1 year) gain 1M players in a few month time.
Problem is we already have "better focus", but unfortunately it is at the expense of the rest of the game.
As for the wotlk peak, i intentionally did not mention it, because it was the cata launch (or wotlk launch) with a 2 year stagnation if 11.5m during wotlk between them.
The MoP launch is quite tempting, in that "worlds" players could reasonably appropriate it as their victory, with all the talks to make the game more fun for crafters and whatnot. I think after someone here mentioned that "mmos went arcade because they were loosing players 02-06" which is akin to "fpss went multiplayer because they were loosing players in the 90's", anything is allowed.
And ofcourse you may throw in "the game is getting old", its used for 4 years now despite several overhauls to make the game more accessible to the point that a vanilla player will not recognize anything, why stop ?
Heh, here we are again. The same baseless argument that Sandbox games made horribly because they didn't have funding means that a good Sandbox game can't be made with proper funding, so they'll never get that sort of funding.
Yeah, that makes sense.
And you are assuming that Sandbox games should be made with nothing interesting and fun in them.
But I'm not going to argue with you guys, you and narriuseldon and whoever else might be waging this little war of yours against any posts about Sandbox designs. You guys are always there, in force, with multiple and constant posts, aren't you? By the way, what ever happened to Axehilt? He was another one who seems to have just dissappeared lately.
Ya see, I don't care. It's your industry, it's failing. No skin off my back. I've found other things to do, and I can live without an MMO to play. It's just sort of a shame that the business is out there waiting, but you all simply won't open your eyes and see it. I don't know why, but I'm beyond caring about it.
You're stance is childish. Like the industry is failing because you aren't playing - or because you say so. Even if it was failing it wouldn't be skin off my back either. You have to hit a peak at some point, because you can't grow forever. You talk like any plateau is the end of the world, when it was bound to happen at some point.
Axehilt was one of the few sane posters here, and he actually works in the game industry so he knows what he's talking about. His words should carry some weight. I don't know why he hasn't posted in a while though. He may have just gotten fed up arguing with the ignorant, the fools, the fanatics and the armchair generals.
You spend way too much effort to arguing what should and shouldn't be. Narius and I just tell how things are. It is useless to try and uphold what MMOs should be about when what almost everyone ever cares about is: Are they having fun or not? They couldn't give a fuck how well this and that fulfils your arbitrary criteria for a "true MMO". The whole notion is laughable.
There is no "true MMO". Things change constantly. The market is not the same as it was ten years ago. We are not the same as ten years ago. You either accept it or you can whine about it in the forums. Either way its not my problem. The genre is not going to die when you stop playing.
I don't get it. You seem to be a bitter person, and agressive towards people's posts and ideas. What is your angle really? What interests do you represent?
Are you just posting to burst people's bubbles and take pleasure at it or do you actually have something interesting to say that contributes to the topic?
if you do not like sandboxes, fine, I can respect your preference of game, but activelly being militant against the idea of Sandbox MMO's...why? Do you have to lose anything?
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I have wondered myself why some posters on here are so militantly in favour of today’s easyMMO’s. If people want to play theme parks that’s fine, I have played some and had a bash but they were short lived and I was left wanting much more.
But as soon as you mention sandbox or anything that is not a core value of the solo/casual MMO model they post endlessly against it. We are asking for choice, the chance to try something different. Do they also think EvE or PS2 should not exist because they are not easyMMO’s?
This does make you wonder if they have a vested interest. It could be as simple as liking easyMMO’s and wanting to make sure their casual gameplay prevails in the MMO market. Also we must have posters here who work in the gaming industry and like anyone from any sector of life you will defend it.
The easyMMO apologists talk a lot about fun. In fact they talk about little else. And it has to be immediate fun, all the time fun for the crack whore generation of gamers who must have their next fix.
Do people have fun playing the Civ series? Do they have fun all the time, every second? I don't think so, but they still love the game. Do they need to know more about their game than how to pick a class and what gender they are? Yes they do. The Civ series along with EvE and others shows that games do not need to give you an instant fix to be great games. They do not need to be “fun” every second you play them. But the whole industry is moving towards an ever quicker fix and is dragging the MMO genre with it.
The bottom line is we want MMO’s to be from more than one mould. Even bloody FPS are made from more than one mould, so why are you so against choice in the MMO market?
Originally posted by Scot I have wondered myself why some posters on here are so militantly in favour of todays easyMMOs. If people want to play theme parks thats fine, I have played some and had a bash but they were short lived and I was left wanting much more.But as soon as you mention sandbox or anything that is not a core value of the solo/casual MMO model they post endlessly against it. We are asking for choice, the chance to try something different. Do they also think EvE or PS2 should not exist because they are not easyMMOs?This does make you wonder if they have a vested interest. It could be as simple as liking easyMMOs and wanting to make sure their casual gameplay prevails in the MMO market. Also we must have posters here who work in the gaming industry and like anyone from any sector of life you will defend it.The easyMMO apologists talk a lot about fun. In fact they talk about little else. And it has to be immediate fun, all the time fun for the crack whore generation of gamers who must have their next fix.Do people have fun playing the Civ series? Do they have fun all the time, every second? I don't think so, but they still love the game. Do they need to know more about their game than how to pick a class and what gender they are? Yes they do. The Civ series along with EvE and others shows that games do not need to give you an instant fix to be great games. They do not need to be fun every second you play them. But the whole industry is moving towards an ever quicker fix and is dragging the MMO genre with it.The bottom line is we want MMOs to be from more than one mould. Even bloody FPS are made from more than one mould, so why are you so against choice in the MMO market?
You're missing at least half the posts if you think people are just posting for a choice. There are some people who are posting for there being more choice in the genre...and why not? It would be really cool if there were more choice. However, what most of the arguments tend to circle around is the sandbox players saying theme parks are cr@p, and that they shouldn't exist and that the fact that they exist is some sort of conspiracy, not a choice on the part of players. The theme park crowd will then respond with the reasons that they don't like sandboxes, why they are cr@p and shouldn't exist, etc. Then you have a few people who would like to see some sandboxes get developed, a few people who point out the reasons it's not happening, and a few people just posting random things.
The more reasonable posts are largely ignored because you can't really argue with them. "I'd like to see a sandbox get developed". Well...how can you argue with that? "I like open world, free for all PvP in a sandbox setting". That's not very arguable either. "Open world, free for all PvP in a sandbox setting is much more satisfying to players than instanced PvP in a theme park setting". Now that is a statement that people can argue about.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Never say never. I have not seen one and it depends on the game. I do like PS2.
Why is it always one thing and only one thing only? Can't we have good lobby games, good themeparks and good virtual worlds?
Yes, you can. The question is whether that is likely based on the market. Right now, multiple game types are succesful (good themepark .. wow, good online APRG .. diablo, good MOBA .. LOL, good instanced pvp ... WOT). So it is not one thing only already.
The question, of course, is whether a sandbox can achieve the same level of success and so far the answer is no. It is not with lack of trying though. I would say the sandbox playstyle does not resonate as well as ARPG, MOBA, themepark and so on...
Am I the only person who likes different types of game structures?
Probably not. I like ARPG, MMOFPS, and many different type of SP games. Who say i only like one type?
The thing is; we have good lobby games. We have good themeparks. But as far as virtual worlds, not many and not many that are good.
Ask yourself why. Is it because the whole idea of a shared virtual world is no appealing anymore? Note taht it is very different from the SKYRIM type SP virtual world. In SKYRIM, i can "fast forward time", which is difficult to do in a real shared VW.
OP is right with one correction, imo:
We don't need anymore 'games', we need some more virtual worlds.
Who are "we"? Don't count me in. I have enough differnet type of gaming entertainment. I certainly do no need more virtual worlds.
We are those that want a good virtual world.....I thought that would be pretty clear.
We are those that want a good virtual world.....I thought that would be pretty clear.
And it's cool to want something, it's another matter entirely to expect that someone has to cater to your desires. I want a flying car, doesn't mean I'm going to get one. The problem comes when the people who want something think that somehow, game developers owe it to them. There are business realities out there thath ave to be taken into account. Games are expensive to make and take a lot of time, therefore only the game concepts most likely to succeed are going to be made. That means that unless there are a huge number of people who want virtual worlds, and apparently, studies by developers do not show this to be true, nobody is going to make a virtual world game.
Nothing wrong with wanting something, so long as you realize that you don't always get what you want.
Originally posted by Scot I have wondered myself why some posters on here are so militantly in favour of today’s easyMMO’s. If people want to play theme parks that’s fine, I have played some and had a bash but they were short lived and I was left wanting much more.
But as soon as you mention sandbox or anything that is not a core value of the solo/casual MMO model they post endlessly against it. We are asking for choice, the chance to try something different. Do they also think EvE or PS2 should not exist because they are not easyMMO’s?
This does make you wonder if they have a vested interest. It could be as simple as liking easyMMO’s and wanting to make sure their casual gameplay prevails in the MMO market. Also we must have posters here who work in the gaming industry and like anyone from any sector of life you will defend it.
The easyMMO apologists talk a lot about fun. In fact they talk about little else. And it has to be immediate fun, all the time fun for the crack whore generation of gamers who must have their next fix.
Do people have fun playing the Civ series? Do they have fun all the time, every second? I don't think so, but they still love the game. Do they need to know more about their game than how to pick a class and what gender they are? Yes they do. The Civ series along with EvE and others shows that games do not need to give you an instant fix to be great games. They do not need to be “fun” every second you play them. But the whole industry is moving towards an ever quicker fix and is dragging the MMO genre with it.
The bottom line is we want MMO’s to be from more than one mould. Even bloody FPS are made from more than one mould, so why are you so against choice in the MMO market?
You're missing at least half the posts if you think people are just posting for a choice. There are some people who are posting for there being more choice in the genre...and why not? It would be really cool if there were more choice. However, what most of the arguments tend to circle around is the sandbox players saying theme parks are cr@p, and that they shouldn't exist and that the fact that they exist is some sort of conspiracy, not a choice on the part of players. The theme park crowd will then respond with the reasons that they don't like sandboxes, why they are cr@p and shouldn't exist, etc. Then you have a few people who would like to see some sandboxes get developed, a few people who point out the reasons it's not happening, and a few people just posting random things.
The more reasonable posts are largely ignored because you can't really argue with them. "I'd like to see a sandbox get developed". Well...how can you argue with that? "I like open world, free for all PvP in a sandbox setting". That's not very arguable either. "Open world, free for all PvP in a sandbox setting is much more satisfying to players than instanced PvP in a theme park setting". Now that is a statement that people can argue about.
After following this pretty good, i havent seen anyone saying themeparks are crap. Just that they are all alike and missing standard mmorpg features. There are 1000 themeparks and they all amount ot the exact same thing. Linear, small maps, being led around on a leash, being told what to do, no crafting, no player housing, no social aspect, no grouping, less content than your newer console rpg, short lived (no content), forced to raid and do dailies for end content, and its just getting tiresome.
If they would make a themepark but open it up and actualy make a true mmorpg then it would be good. Almost all the past 10-15 AAA themepark releases most have bottomed out and went f2p because they think it will save their game.
Many of us here want sandbox so we can have a choice, set our own path, have options even if we dont need or want to use them. TO actualy have a world to explore and find our way. Not have everything handed to us.
I play some themeparks, and enjoy them. But majority of them just do not live up to what they should be. Many of the people here dont know the difference, and some have not tried one, just listened to wild misconceptions of a sandbox.
Who in their right mind wouldnt want a mmo with all the features to try and pick which ones they want to take part in? No their main arguements are travel time (not all sandboxes have long travel times), full loot pvp (more than half of snadboxes dont have full loot and some dont even have pvp at all), or they want a good story (why not make your own? who said anything about a sandbox not having a story line?), or they want things ast and in a hurry (no one likes to earn things or use their brain to solve things anymore).
Tell me a reason not to have it all in a mmo? No most the themepark gamers here whine about insignificant things. While sandboxers just want a real game that will provide content and longjevity for years to come. Think if you go back and read from the begining its actualy the themepark guys attacking sandboxes saying they are crap, because not one post from here pertaining to themeparks tries to promote a better game just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again.
Originally posted by Onomas Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by ScotI have wondered myself why some posters on here are so militantly in favour of todays easyMMOs. If people want to play theme parks thats fine, I have played some and had a bash but they were short lived and I was left wanting much more.But as soon as you mention sandbox or anything that is not a core value of the solo/casual MMO model they post endlessly against it. We are asking for choice, the chance to try something different. Do they also think EvE or PS2 should not exist because they are not easyMMOs?This does make you wonder if they have a vested interest. It could be as simple as liking easyMMOs and wanting to make sure their casual gameplay prevails in the MMO market. Also we must have posters here who work in the gaming industry and like anyone from any sector of life you will defend it.The easyMMO apologists talk a lot about fun. In fact they talk about little else. And it has to be immediate fun, all the time fun for the crack whore generation of gamers who must have their next fix.Do people have fun playing the Civ series? Do they have fun all the time, every second? I don't think so, but they still love the game. Do they need to know more about their game than how to pick a class and what gender they are? Yes they do. The Civ series along with EvE and others shows that games do not need to give you an instant fix to be great games. They do not need to be fun every second you play them. But the whole industry is moving towards an ever quicker fix and is dragging the MMO genre with it.The bottom line is we want MMOs to be from more than one mould. Even bloody FPS are made from more than one mould, so why are you so against choice in the MMO market?
You're missing at least half the posts if you think people are just posting for a choice. There are some people who are posting for there being more choice in the genre...and why not? It would be really cool if there were more choice. However, what most of the arguments tend to circle around is the sandbox players saying theme parks are cr@p, and that they shouldn't exist and that the fact that they exist is some sort of conspiracy, not a choice on the part of players. The theme park crowd will then respond with the reasons that they don't like sandboxes, why they are cr@p and shouldn't exist, etc. Then you have a few people who would like to see some sandboxes get developed, a few people who point out the reasons it's not happening, and a few people just posting random things. The more reasonable posts are largely ignored because you can't really argue with them. "I'd like to see a sandbox get developed". Well...how can you argue with that? "I like open world, free for all PvP in a sandbox setting". That's not very arguable either. "Open world, free for all PvP in a sandbox setting is much more satisfying to players than instanced PvP in a theme park setting". Now that is a statement that people can argue about. After following this pretty good, i havent seen anyone saying themeparks are crap. Just that they are all alike and missing standard mmorpg features. There are 1000 themeparks and they all amount ot the exact same thing. Linear, small maps, being led around on a leash, being told what to do, no crafting, no player housing, no social aspect, no grouping, less content than your newer console rpg, short lived (no content), forced to raid and do dailies for end content, and its just getting tiresome.
If they would make a themepark but open it up and actualy make a true mmorpg then it would be good. Almost all the past 10-15 AAA themepark releases most have bottomed out and went f2p because they think it will save their game.
Many of us here want sandbox so we can have a choice, set our own path, have options even if we dont need or want to use them. TO actualy have a world to explore and find our way. Not have everything handed to us.
I play some themeparks, and enjoy them. But majority of them just do not live up to what they should be. Many of the people here dont know the difference, and some have not tried one, just listened to wild misconceptions of a sandbox.
Who in their right mind wouldnt want a mmo with all the features to try and pick which ones they want to take part in? No their main arguements are travel time (not all sandboxes have long travel times), full loot pvp (more than half of snadboxes dont have full loot and some dont even have pvp at all), or they want a good story (why not make your own? who said anything about a sandbox not having a story line?), or they want things ast and in a hurry (no one likes to earn things or use their brain to solve things anymore).
Tell me a reason not to have it all in a mmo? No most the themepark gamers here whine about insignificant things. While sandboxers just want a real game that will provide content and longjevity for years to come. Think if you go back and read from the begining its actualy the themepark guys attacking sandboxes saying they are crap, because not one post from here pertaining to themeparks tries to promote a better game just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again.
Well, obviously I'm paraphrasing, condensing a lot of posts and a lot of statements down to a few words. The games you're calling garbage (cr@p could be in garbage, yes?) are keeping a few million people happy. The games you consider 'good' are keeping less than a million people happy. Guess which of these is going to attract more developers?
The reasons games get made the way they are made is simple. It's all about money. Games sell accounts, worlds don't. Obviously the best case scenario is selling a lot of accounts, and then keeping them for years. The reality is that developers can choose between selling a lot of boxes and keeping a low percentage of accounts, or selling fewer boxes and keeping a higher percentage of those accounts. So far, selling a lot of accounts and keeping a low percentage of them makes more money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by ScotI have wondered myself why some posters on here are so militantly in favour of today’s easyMMO’s. If people want to play theme parks that’s fine, I have played some and had a bash but they were short lived and I was left wanting much more.But as soon as you mention sandbox or anything that is not a core value of the solo/casual MMO model they post endlessly against it. We are asking for choice, the chance to try something different. Do they also think EvE or PS2 should not exist because they are not easyMMO’s?This does make you wonder if they have a vested interest. It could be as simple as liking easyMMO’s and wanting to make sure their casual gameplay prevails in the MMO market. Also we must have posters here who work in the gaming industry and like anyone from any sector of life you will defend it.The easyMMO apologists talk a lot about fun. In fact they talk about little else. And it has to be immediate fun, all the time fun for the crack whore generation of gamers who must have their next fix.Do people have fun playing the Civ series? Do they have fun all the time, every second? I don't think so, but they still love the game. Do they need to know more about their game than how to pick a class and what gender they are? Yes they do. The Civ series along with EvE and others shows that games do not need to give you an instant fix to be great games. They do not need to be “fun” every second you play them. But the whole industry is moving towards an ever quicker fix and is dragging the MMO genre with it.The bottom line is we want MMO’s to be from more than one mould. Even bloody FPS are made from more than one mould, so why are you so against choice in the MMO market?
You're missing at least half the posts if you think people are just posting for a choice. There are some people who are posting for there being more choice in the genre...and why not? It would be really cool if there were more choice. However, what most of the arguments tend to circle around is the sandbox players saying theme parks are cr@p, and that they shouldn't exist and that the fact that they exist is some sort of conspiracy, not a choice on the part of players. The theme park crowd will then respond with the reasons that they don't like sandboxes, why they are cr@p and shouldn't exist, etc. Then you have a few people who would like to see some sandboxes get developed, a few people who point out the reasons it's not happening, and a few people just posting random things. The more reasonable posts are largely ignored because you can't really argue with them. "I'd like to see a sandbox get developed". Well...how can you argue with that? "I like open world, free for all PvP in a sandbox setting". That's not very arguable either. "Open world, free for all PvP in a sandbox setting is much more satisfying to players than instanced PvP in a theme park setting". Now that is a statement that people can argue about.
After following this pretty good, i havent seen anyone saying themeparks are crap. Just that they are all alike and missing standard mmorpg features. There are 1000 themeparks and they all amount ot the exact same thing. Linear, small maps, being led around on a leash, being told what to do, no crafting, no player housing, no social aspect, no grouping, less content than your newer console rpg, short lived (no content), forced to raid and do dailies for end content, and its just getting tiresome.
If they would make a themepark but open it up and actualy make a true mmorpg then it would be good. Almost all the past 10-15 AAA themepark releases most have bottomed out and went f2p because they think it will save their game.
Many of us here want sandbox so we can have a choice, set our own path, have options even if we dont need or want to use them. TO actualy have a world to explore and find our way. Not have everything handed to us.
I play some themeparks, and enjoy them. But majority of them just do not live up to what they should be. Many of the people here dont know the difference, and some have not tried one, just listened to wild misconceptions of a sandbox.
Who in their right mind wouldnt want a mmo with all the features to try and pick which ones they want to take part in? No their main arguements are travel time (not all sandboxes have long travel times), full loot pvp (more than half of snadboxes dont have full loot and some dont even have pvp at all), or they want a good story (why not make your own? who said anything about a sandbox not having a story line?), or they want things ast and in a hurry (no one likes to earn things or use their brain to solve things anymore).
Tell me a reason not to have it all in a mmo? No most the themepark gamers here whine about insignificant things. While sandboxers just want a real game that will provide content and longjevity for years to come. Think if you go back and read from the begining its actualy the themepark guys attacking sandboxes saying they are crap, because not one post from here pertaining to themeparks tries to promote a better game just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again.
Well, obviously I'm paraphrasing, condensing a lot of posts and a lot of statements down to a few words. The games you're calling garbage (cr@p could be in garbage, yes?) are keeping a few million people happy. The games you consider 'good' are keeping less than a million people happy. Guess which of these is going to attract more developers?
The reasons games get made the way they are made is simple. It's all about money. Games sell accounts, worlds don't. Obviously the best case scenario is selling a lot of accounts, and then keeping them for years. The reality is that developers can choose between selling a lot of boxes and keeping a low percentage of accounts, or selling fewer boxes and keeping a higher percentage of those accounts. So far, selling a lot of accounts and keeping a low percentage of them makes more money.
You styill didnt answer my question. ANd developers money isnt my concern. The reason they make money is because there is no competition. And the reason this is all they pump out is because its all they know. Thats is soon changing
And another question for you.... why is it newer single player console rpg games offer more features than your standard new aged mmorpg? Funny isnt it?
Originally posted by Onomas You styill didnt answer my question. ANd developers money isnt my concern. The reason they make money is because there is no competition. And the reason this is all they pump out is because its all they know. Thats is soon changing ;)And another question for you.... why is it newer single player console rpg games offer more features than your standard new aged mmorpg? Funny isnt it?
Ir probably missed the question in the large number of words. You might want to ask it again, in the form of a question.
There is plenty of competition. MMORPG don't operate in a vacuum. They compete against all the other games that are available to play. Even limiting the choice of games to the MMORPG space, there is still competition. For there to be no competition, there would have to be one game, and nothing else. There are many games, and the most popular ones are the short content theme parks.
Single player console games do not cost fifty million dollars to produce, and single player console games do not have to worry about game mechanics in regards to multiplayer scenarios. So long as a game mechanic works for one player, it's good. For instance, in Fable, you could buy a building from somebody, and then rent an apartment to someone. Once that building was purchased, it would be unavailable to anyone else. On a server with 2,000 people, that's a problem. In a game with one player, it's a feature.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Tell me a reason not to have it all in a mmo? No most the themepark gamers here whine about insignificant things. While sandboxers just want a real game that will provide content and longjevity for years to come. Think if you go back and read from the begining its actualy the themepark guys attacking sandboxes saying they are crap, because not one post from here pertaining to themeparks tries to promote a better game just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again.
Cost?
Sandbox/world games have been tried. They are old ideas. I thought people here like innvoation .. new direction of MMOs. MMOFPS, MOBA are newer, and successful ideas.
There is plenty of competition. MMORPG don't operate in a vacuum. They compete against all the other games that are available to play. Even limiting the choice of games to the MMORPG space, there is still competition. For there to be no competition, there would have to be one game, and nothing else. There are many games, and the most popular ones are the short content theme parks.
This is a very good point. MMO is competing with MOBA, FPS, ARPG for my time. It is only wise for devs to a) focus, and b) adapt and take good features from other genre.
Look at Borderlands .. combine FPS and RPG, with an online MP mode (sort of like Diablo) and huge success. I can see the RPG purist now .. "what .. add FPS to RPG? It is blasphemy. The devs don't understand the original intent of RPG" ... LOL
Tell me a reason not to have it all in a mmo? No most the themepark gamers here whine about insignificant things. While sandboxers just want a real game that will provide content and longjevity for years to come. Think if you go back and read from the begining its actualy the themepark guys attacking sandboxes saying they are crap, because not one post from here pertaining to themeparks tries to promote a better game just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again.
Cost?
Sandbox/world games have been tried. They are old ideas. I thought people here like innvoation .. new direction of MMOs. MMOFPS, MOBA are newer, and successful ideas.
Nope right from the beginning, first post was was attacking themeparks, basically saying they are crap. "And we have what we have today. Shallow abominations. Most laughable of which would be MMOs that came 2012."
You should re-read the thread, there are dozens of posts attacking themeparks. Including yours, "just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again."
Lots have included ideas of better games, however they like the games currently. You don't, simple.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
There is plenty of competition. MMORPG don't operate in a vacuum. They compete against all the other games that are available to play. Even limiting the choice of games to the MMORPG space, there is still competition. For there to be no competition, there would have to be one game, and nothing else. There are many games, and the most popular ones are the short content theme parks.
This is a very good point. MMO is competing with MOBA, FPS, ARPG for my time. It is only wise for devs to a) focus, and b) adapt and take good features from other genre.
Look at Borderlands .. combine FPS and RPG, with an online MP mode (sort of like Diablo) and huge success. I can see the RPG purist now .. "what .. add FPS to RPG? It is blasphemy. The devs don't understand the original intent of RPG" ... LOL
they arent competing, they Unfortunaly are merging to be the same thing.
There is plenty of competition. MMORPG don't operate in a vacuum. They compete against all the other games that are available to play. Even limiting the choice of games to the MMORPG space, there is still competition. For there to be no competition, there would have to be one game, and nothing else. There are many games, and the most popular ones are the short content theme parks.
This is a very good point. MMO is competing with MOBA, FPS, ARPG for my time. It is only wise for devs to a) focus, and b) adapt and take good features from other genre.
Look at Borderlands .. combine FPS and RPG, with an online MP mode (sort of like Diablo) and huge success. I can see the RPG purist now .. "what .. add FPS to RPG? It is blasphemy. The devs don't understand the original intent of RPG" ... LOL
they arent competing, they Unfortunaly are merging to be the same thing.
Of course they are. Did you read the whole sentence? I have limited time to play. If i am playing a MOBA, i won't be playing a MMO.
And they merge precisely because they are competing. MMO devs are trying to get players who like MOBA, and lobby style dungeon runs.
Comments
Anyone of you heard about Darkfall Online Unholy Wars ?
-1 huge world
-full loot
-no faction restriction, who you like and who you hate is up to you, so it is mostly guild vs guild
-player owned cities
-limited housing connected to the cities
-first person mouse aim based controls like a shooter
we are having this conversation because of the lack of quality sandboxes. Although there are some on the horizon. I would uderstand why some people devoted to the current status quo would worry what will happen if one of these sandboxes does well long term....
Fear not though you will still be drowning in throwaway 1 month themeparks even if the sandboxers get a game.
All it will take is one, and you will see a huge shift. Think thats why the eastern devs are heading towards sandboxes now. Themeparks have been beaten to death and not much you can do and majority of them are not long term. Archeage, black desert, greed monger, eqnext, the repopulation...........damn never seen so many sandboxes being released like this in all the the past 5 years
It feels good, just horrible i have to wait lol.
Didnt you, a few pages ago, claim that you are not advocating the conversion to mobas, just expressing your liking of the concept?
There is still much weight to be shed before they become mobas.
As for the 10 million, we shall see, there was even a increase around cata launch, and you see how it turned out.
It is still les than the ~11.5 million BC peak, BEFORE the streamlining that was destinned to make the game better and more popular, give me a break...
Flame on!
Then why bicker with people wanting more out of their mmorpg's if you have enough already? Just like to cause issues? And you said it yourself, you are a sp guy. So your words are already favored to those types of games.
Not exactly. I am advocating making good games by better focus. MOBA is just one kind of games. To be fair, i like PS2 much more than true MOBA games. And i like ARPG much more than MOBA games. I am just citing them because a) LOL is hugely successful, and b) it is a good example of focus.
True, but i can argue that finding what is popular is not alway easy, and now Blizz found it again in MOP. The peak is 12M, i beleive in WOTLK. And you can't argue that gaining back 1M players, of a 8 year old game, is diong something right.
Tell me which other already out game (out for more than 1 year) gain 1M players in a few month time.
Because it is fun to discuss MMOs, a genre which i play in?
And of course i favor the kind of games i like. So do you, and everyone posting here.
Problem is we already have "better focus", but unfortunately it is at the expense of the rest of the game.
As for the wotlk peak, i intentionally did not mention it, because it was the cata launch (or wotlk launch) with a 2 year stagnation if 11.5m during wotlk between them.
The MoP launch is quite tempting, in that "worlds" players could reasonably appropriate it as their victory, with all the talks to make the game more fun for crafters and whatnot. I think after someone here mentioned that "mmos went arcade because they were loosing players 02-06" which is akin to "fpss went multiplayer because they were loosing players in the 90's", anything is allowed.
And ofcourse you may throw in "the game is getting old", its used for 4 years now despite several overhauls to make the game more accessible to the point that a vanilla player will not recognize anything, why stop ?
Lineage 2, Aion , Swtor
, stupid question, stupid answer 
Flame on!
I don't get it. You seem to be a bitter person, and agressive towards people's posts and ideas. What is your angle really? What interests do you represent?
Are you just posting to burst people's bubbles and take pleasure at it or do you actually have something interesting to say that contributes to the topic?
if you do not like sandboxes, fine, I can respect your preference of game, but activelly being militant against the idea of Sandbox MMO's...why? Do you have to lose anything?
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I have wondered myself why some posters on here are so militantly in favour of today’s easyMMO’s. If people want to play theme parks that’s fine, I have played some and had a bash but they were short lived and I was left wanting much more.
But as soon as you mention sandbox or anything that is not a core value of the solo/casual MMO model they post endlessly against it. We are asking for choice, the chance to try something different. Do they also think EvE or PS2 should not exist because they are not easyMMO’s?
This does make you wonder if they have a vested interest. It could be as simple as liking easyMMO’s and wanting to make sure their casual gameplay prevails in the MMO market. Also we must have posters here who work in the gaming industry and like anyone from any sector of life you will defend it.
The easyMMO apologists talk a lot about fun. In fact they talk about little else. And it has to be immediate fun, all the time fun for the crack whore generation of gamers who must have their next fix.
Do people have fun playing the Civ series? Do they have fun all the time, every second? I don't think so, but they still love the game. Do they need to know more about their game than how to pick a class and what gender they are? Yes they do. The Civ series along with EvE and others shows that games do not need to give you an instant fix to be great games. They do not need to be “fun” every second you play them. But the whole industry is moving towards an ever quicker fix and is dragging the MMO genre with it.
The bottom line is we want MMO’s to be from more than one mould. Even bloody FPS are made from more than one mould, so why are you so against choice in the MMO market?
You're missing at least half the posts if you think people are just posting for a choice. There are some people who are posting for there being more choice in the genre...and why not? It would be really cool if there were more choice. However, what most of the arguments tend to circle around is the sandbox players saying theme parks are cr@p, and that they shouldn't exist and that the fact that they exist is some sort of conspiracy, not a choice on the part of players. The theme park crowd will then respond with the reasons that they don't like sandboxes, why they are cr@p and shouldn't exist, etc. Then you have a few people who would like to see some sandboxes get developed, a few people who point out the reasons it's not happening, and a few people just posting random things.
The more reasonable posts are largely ignored because you can't really argue with them. "I'd like to see a sandbox get developed". Well...how can you argue with that? "I like open world, free for all PvP in a sandbox setting". That's not very arguable either. "Open world, free for all PvP in a sandbox setting is much more satisfying to players than instanced PvP in a theme park setting". Now that is a statement that people can argue about.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think it's true! I agree!
We are those that want a good virtual world.....I thought that would be pretty clear.
And it's cool to want something, it's another matter entirely to expect that someone has to cater to your desires. I want a flying car, doesn't mean I'm going to get one. The problem comes when the people who want something think that somehow, game developers owe it to them. There are business realities out there thath ave to be taken into account. Games are expensive to make and take a lot of time, therefore only the game concepts most likely to succeed are going to be made. That means that unless there are a huge number of people who want virtual worlds, and apparently, studies by developers do not show this to be true, nobody is going to make a virtual world game.
Nothing wrong with wanting something, so long as you realize that you don't always get what you want.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
After following this pretty good, i havent seen anyone saying themeparks are crap. Just that they are all alike and missing standard mmorpg features. There are 1000 themeparks and they all amount ot the exact same thing. Linear, small maps, being led around on a leash, being told what to do, no crafting, no player housing, no social aspect, no grouping, less content than your newer console rpg, short lived (no content), forced to raid and do dailies for end content, and its just getting tiresome.
If they would make a themepark but open it up and actualy make a true mmorpg then it would be good. Almost all the past 10-15 AAA themepark releases most have bottomed out and went f2p because they think it will save their game.
Many of us here want sandbox so we can have a choice, set our own path, have options even if we dont need or want to use them. TO actualy have a world to explore and find our way. Not have everything handed to us.
I play some themeparks, and enjoy them. But majority of them just do not live up to what they should be. Many of the people here dont know the difference, and some have not tried one, just listened to wild misconceptions of a sandbox.
Who in their right mind wouldnt want a mmo with all the features to try and pick which ones they want to take part in? No their main arguements are travel time (not all sandboxes have long travel times), full loot pvp (more than half of snadboxes dont have full loot and some dont even have pvp at all), or they want a good story (why not make your own? who said anything about a sandbox not having a story line?), or they want things ast and in a hurry (no one likes to earn things or use their brain to solve things anymore).
Tell me a reason not to have it all in a mmo? No most the themepark gamers here whine about insignificant things. While sandboxers just want a real game that will provide content and longjevity for years to come. Think if you go back and read from the begining its actualy the themepark guys attacking sandboxes saying they are crap, because not one post from here pertaining to themeparks tries to promote a better game just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again.
After following this pretty good, i havent seen anyone saying themeparks are crap. Just that they are all alike and missing standard mmorpg features. There are 1000 themeparks and they all amount ot the exact same thing. Linear, small maps, being led around on a leash, being told what to do, no crafting, no player housing, no social aspect, no grouping, less content than your newer console rpg, short lived (no content), forced to raid and do dailies for end content, and its just getting tiresome.
If they would make a themepark but open it up and actualy make a true mmorpg then it would be good. Almost all the past 10-15 AAA themepark releases most have bottomed out and went f2p because they think it will save their game.
Many of us here want sandbox so we can have a choice, set our own path, have options even if we dont need or want to use them. TO actualy have a world to explore and find our way. Not have everything handed to us.
I play some themeparks, and enjoy them. But majority of them just do not live up to what they should be. Many of the people here dont know the difference, and some have not tried one, just listened to wild misconceptions of a sandbox.
Who in their right mind wouldnt want a mmo with all the features to try and pick which ones they want to take part in? No their main arguements are travel time (not all sandboxes have long travel times), full loot pvp (more than half of snadboxes dont have full loot and some dont even have pvp at all), or they want a good story (why not make your own? who said anything about a sandbox not having a story line?), or they want things ast and in a hurry (no one likes to earn things or use their brain to solve things anymore).
Tell me a reason not to have it all in a mmo? No most the themepark gamers here whine about insignificant things. While sandboxers just want a real game that will provide content and longjevity for years to come. Think if you go back and read from the begining its actualy the themepark guys attacking sandboxes saying they are crap, because not one post from here pertaining to themeparks tries to promote a better game just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again.
Well, obviously I'm paraphrasing, condensing a lot of posts and a lot of statements down to a few words. The games you're calling garbage (cr@p could be in garbage, yes?) are keeping a few million people happy. The games you consider 'good' are keeping less than a million people happy. Guess which of these is going to attract more developers?
The reasons games get made the way they are made is simple. It's all about money. Games sell accounts, worlds don't. Obviously the best case scenario is selling a lot of accounts, and then keeping them for years. The reality is that developers can choose between selling a lot of boxes and keeping a low percentage of accounts, or selling fewer boxes and keeping a higher percentage of those accounts. So far, selling a lot of accounts and keeping a low percentage of them makes more money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You styill didnt answer my question. ANd developers money isnt my concern. The reason they make money is because there is no competition. And the reason this is all they pump out is because its all they know. Thats is soon changing
And another question for you.... why is it newer single player console rpg games offer more features than your standard new aged mmorpg? Funny isnt it?
Ir probably missed the question in the large number of words. You might want to ask it again, in the form of a question.
There is plenty of competition. MMORPG don't operate in a vacuum. They compete against all the other games that are available to play. Even limiting the choice of games to the MMORPG space, there is still competition. For there to be no competition, there would have to be one game, and nothing else. There are many games, and the most popular ones are the short content theme parks.
Single player console games do not cost fifty million dollars to produce, and single player console games do not have to worry about game mechanics in regards to multiplayer scenarios. So long as a game mechanic works for one player, it's good. For instance, in Fable, you could buy a building from somebody, and then rent an apartment to someone. Once that building was purchased, it would be unavailable to anyone else. On a server with 2,000 people, that's a problem. In a game with one player, it's a feature.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Cost?
Sandbox/world games have been tried. They are old ideas. I thought people here like innvoation .. new direction of MMOs. MMOFPS, MOBA are newer, and successful ideas.
This is a very good point. MMO is competing with MOBA, FPS, ARPG for my time. It is only wise for devs to a) focus, and b) adapt and take good features from other genre.
Look at Borderlands .. combine FPS and RPG, with an online MP mode (sort of like Diablo) and huge success. I can see the RPG purist now .. "what .. add FPS to RPG? It is blasphemy. The devs don't understand the original intent of RPG" ... LOL
@Onomas,
Nope right from the beginning, first post was was attacking themeparks, basically saying they are crap. "And we have what we have today. Shallow abominations. Most laughable of which would be MMOs that came 2012."
You should re-read the thread, there are dozens of posts attacking themeparks. Including yours, "just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again."
Lots have included ideas of better games, however they like the games currently. You don't, simple.
they arent competing, they Unfortunaly are merging to be the same thing.
Of course they are. Did you read the whole sentence? I have limited time to play. If i am playing a MOBA, i won't be playing a MMO.
And they merge precisely because they are competing. MMO devs are trying to get players who like MOBA, and lobby style dungeon runs.