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.

12425262729

Comments

  • itchmonitchmon west islip, NYPosts: 1,714Member Uncommon

    I dont think a game has to be an eve-like sandbox to be a world rather than a game.  but i admit it helps. (eve player since 07)

     

    FFXI and Eq1 also had the world > game vibe for me.  L2 as well.  I think a lot of the problem with this topic is that people are trying to quantify something that cannot be expressed in numbers or short sentences. 

     

    it's a feel.

     

    any game that delivers this feel has a damn good chance of getting my money.  that's all i can really say.

    RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.

    Currently Playing EVE, DFUW

    Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.

    Dwight D Eisenhower

    My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.

    Henry Rollins

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Banaghran

    Originally posted by lizardbones   I suppose I should have asked why a developer would try to create another Eve (long term game with a more in depth world), when it would be easier and more profitable to create a bunch of "cheap thrills games" for Eve players. ** edit ** I can think of some reasons why, I just wonder if other people actually think of real reasons why, or if they just assume it's a good idea.  
    I doubt anyone here has not read his "Disgruntled consumerists handbook" :)

     

    And you are still asking the wrong questions, imo, why does it have to be eve, why not vanilla wow, tbc, lineage 2, a bugfree version of runescape (ha ha ha) for the hardcore types.

    So far what we mostly have are story driven single player mmorpgs or the wotlk balance skill wash and endgame grind.

    But i havent played GW2 yet :)

    Flame on!

    :)



    It doesn't have to be Eve. It could be any of those games. During the three and a half years I spent playing WoW, I would not have bothered looking for another MMORPG. Any developer writing a game expecting to get a piece of that audience, of which I was a part, was wasting their time.

    The point of writing a game that lasts years is to capture players for years. Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is thinking that a developer would capture many players from games where people are already playing for years. Those people want to play a game long term, so they're not going to leave the game they're playing. It makes more sense to write a bunch of short term games that might appeal to those players.

     

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5442413#5442413

    The audience is not a scarce resource.

    Flame on!

    :)

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

     

    Now if you want to talk real reasons people leave or stop playing, like boredom, nothing to look forward, lack of excitement, im all game. It is easy to say, "people leave because they leave, lets not put any effort in , they will leave anyways".

    And what is so new about boredom? All entertainment became boring after a while.

    Had it occur to you that a game can be fun for 3 month, then boring? And that is perfectly fine and nothing wrong with that. The whole notion that games needed to be played for year, or otherwise they are not good, or fun ... is just wrong.

    I doubt i ever put it that way, the question is not if they need to be played, but if they could be played by anyone who is not a complete fanboy and enthusiast for a year.

    And if devs should shrug off the possibility of the game having longevity or not.

    In other words if they should or should not be trying, because imo they arent, and you are saying that it is good, which i disagree with.

    Flame on!

    :)

    You sound like devs are not doing anything else. Well, if they are not trying for longevity, but put the effort into making combat fun, or a thousand other things, that is fine with me.

    The notion that MMO needs to have longevity is old. So if a devs make a super fun MMO that will last for 3 month, you will not play just because it does not take a year to reach level cap? That .. IMHO .. is narrow minded-ness.

    BTW, don't be confused .. i don't hate long games. If a game is naturally fun (like WOW .. before the fun-ness wear off .. that took 3-4 years for me), i will play it for long. But it is not a requirement. I like fun games .. BOTH long and short. But being long is not required, and it has to be fun .. not long for the sake for "longevity". If you have to play for weeks before a little xp needle moves, and there is no new ability, it is not fun for me.

     

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    You sound like devs are not doing anything else. Well, if they are not trying for longevity, but put the effort into making combat fun, or a thousand other things, that is fine with me.

    The notion that MMO needs to have longevity is old. So if a devs make a super fun MMO that will last for 3 month, you will not play just because it does not take a year to reach level cap? That .. IMHO .. is narrow minded-ness.

    BTW, don't be confused .. i don't hate long games. If a game is naturally fun (like WOW .. before the fun-ness wear off .. that took 3-4 years for me), i will play it for long. But it is not a requirement. I like fun games .. BOTH long and short. But being long is not required, and it has to be fun .. not long for the sake for "longevity". If you have to play for weeks before a little xp needle moves, and there is no new ability, it is not fun for me.

     

    Well, i could successfully challenge the "effort into making combat fun" by mentioning a pure combat mmo dev brainchild, d3, should i go there? :)

    I have never mentioned that i will not play any 3 month mmo, i did play many of them, what i am saying that at the end of the 3 months i will be slightly less happy, maybe quit, the devs will be loosing a customer, and i will be having more material to argue here about. Where do you see the silver lining in that? That the game cost 20% less to produce? Because, lets be realistic, longevity is not some kind of concrete thing, it is simply a sum of factors that make (not force, keep in mind) people play the game, they are not graphical and sound resources, server infrastructure or marketing materails and campaign that constitute the bulk of the cost of a game. This is not the 90's.

    As for the BTW, its a subjective and tricky thing, let us use D3 again, do you feel happier just for getting rares left and right, while knowing that 99% if them is useless, or do you think you would maybe more enjoy getting a rare every hour, that is actually useful?

    Flame on!

    :)

     

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

    Well, i could successfully challenge the "effort into making combat fun" by mentioning a pure combat mmo dev brainchild, d3, should i go there? :)

    Sure. Judging by its sales, and xfire numbers, i would say lots of people still like and play the game. But we digress. The discussion is about longevity, or the lack of need for.

    I have never mentioned that i will not play any 3 month mmo, i did play many of them, what i am saying that at the end of the 3 months i will be slightly less happy, maybe quit, the devs will be loosing a customer, and i will be having more material to argue here about. Where do you see the silver lining in that? That the game cost 20% less to produce? Because, lets be realistic, longevity is not some kind of concrete thing, it is simply a sum of factors that make (not force, keep in mind) people play the game, they are not graphical and sound resources, server infrastructure or marketing materails and campaign that constitute the bulk of the cost of a game. This is not the 90's.

    And i dont' see anything wrong with the scenario you paint, as long as after that 3 month, there is another game (or MMO) to play. So you have fun for 3 month. Then you have fun for 3 more month in another game. Your "fun" is never interrupted. What is the problem? This is from the player's point of view.

    From the devs point of view, it boils down to if it takes more resources to keep the customer, vs use the resource for something else (including getting new customers, or making new games). You know, from a financial perspective, having 1 customer for 1 year is less money than having TWO customer for 6 months, one after another (becuase you sell 2 boxes, instead of 1).

    As for the BTW, its a subjective and tricky thing, let us use D3 again, do you feel happier just for getting rares left and right, while knowing that 99% if them is useless, or do you think you would maybe more enjoy getting a rare every hour, that is actually useful?

    To be honest, the main core important part of D3, for me, is the combat and skills. They nailed that (since i find that very fun). In terms of rare, i found little difference if i found a useful rare every hour, whether that is the only one drop, or there are another 100 useless one in between.

    Right now, it is more like 1 sellable rare every hour, and may be a good legendary every day (or few days depending on how much i play). That is pretty reasonable.

    Flame on!

    :)

     

     

  • TerranahTerranah Stockton, CAPosts: 3,605Member

    I want a world too.  I long for it.  For me it was Precu SWG.  It wasn't exactly a simulated world but it offered some compromises that accomodated for fun.  There will never be another game like that one, probably.

     

    I loved the open worlds, the exploration, the organic way social structures and relationships like towns and shopping malls formed.  But it's over.  Might as well put a quarter slot in my desktop because todays games are about as shallow as old school arcade. And make no mistake, if you are one of those outside the box people you are crap out of luck because the mass of humanity likes walls and little confined spaces with lots of rules telling you all the shit you can't do for some stupid reason. 

     

    I think part of the problem is that outside the box, creative thinker types  have too many hurdles to overcome climinb the corporate ladder to implement their vision.  It's a left brained world, much to my despair.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Banaghran
     

    Well, i could successfully challenge the "effort into making combat fun" by mentioning a pure combat mmo dev brainchild, d3, should i go there? :)

    Sure. Judging by its sales, and xfire numbers, i would say lots of people still like and play the game. But we digress. The discussion is about longevity, or the lack of need for.

    I have never mentioned that i will not play any 3 month mmo, i did play many of them, what i am saying that at the end of the 3 months i will be slightly less happy, maybe quit, the devs will be loosing a customer, and i will be having more material to argue here about. Where do you see the silver lining in that? That the game cost 20% less to produce? Because, lets be realistic, longevity is not some kind of concrete thing, it is simply a sum of factors that make (not force, keep in mind) people play the game, they are not graphical and sound resources, server infrastructure or marketing materails and campaign that constitute the bulk of the cost of a game. This is not the 90's.

    And i dont' see anything wrong with the scenario you paint, as long as after that 3 month, there is another game (or MMO) to play. So you have fun for 3 month. Then you have fun for 3 more month in another game. Your "fun" is never interrupted. What is the problem? This is from the player's point of view.

    From the devs point of view, it boils down to if it takes more resources to keep the customer, vs use the resource for something else (including getting new customers, or making new games). You know, from a financial perspective, having 1 customer for 1 year is less money than having TWO customer for 6 months, one after another (becuase you sell 2 boxes, instead of 1).

    As for the BTW, its a subjective and tricky thing, let us use D3 again, do you feel happier just for getting rares left and right, while knowing that 99% if them is useless, or do you think you would maybe more enjoy getting a rare every hour, that is actually useful?

    To be honest, the main core important part of D3, for me, is the combat and skills. They nailed that (since i find that very fun). In terms of rare, i found little difference if i found a useful rare every hour, whether that is the only one drop, or there are another 100 useless one in between.

    Right now, it is more like 1 sellable rare every hour, and may be a good legendary every day (or few days depending on how much i play). That is pretty reasonable.

    Flame on!

    :)

     

     

    1) Your point was "if they dont work on longevity, they work on improving other things, like combat", my point was that this is a extremely optimistic view, a 1.5s buff on a 1s cooldown when you have to assume a large part of playerbase will play the game with 100-300ms ping is NOT a improvement, d3 is actually a easy target for this, but a good example for me.

    2) from the player point of view: i just cought up another 60 bucks

    For the rest, its splitting hairs, we started to talk about players quitting very fast, now we are at 6 months vs a year, if i by chance argue against this, will we end up 1 year vs a decade?

    3) If finding 100 rares in a small time frame does not desensitivize (or with slighly changed letters) you to the act of finding rares, then you are a statistical anomaly, which can be applied to your example about skills. Sure it is fun to see "new skill!!" every level, but how many levels does it take you to start to ignore it, especially if the new skill is meaningless? Im just saying it is not that simple.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • JemcrystalJemcrystal Champaign, ILPosts: 1,552Member Uncommon

    Lobotomist is saying to hisself, "I had no idea I would make the hit thread of the year!"


  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common

    Still a long way to go, son. image

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/352748

    1066 posts.

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

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

    1) Your point was "if they dont work on longevity, they work on improving other things, like combat", my point was that this is a extremely optimistic view, a 1.5s buff on a 1s cooldown when you have to assume a large part of playerbase will play the game with 100-300ms ping is NOT a improvement, d3 is actually a easy target for this, but a good example for me.

    D3 is a great example. They have no virtual world. What do they work on? New legendaries, paragon levels, monster power, inferno machine .. all great addition, and makes the game more popular (if you check xfire, D3 pop goes up after 1.05).

    In fact, it has more new stuff in less than a year of release than many MMOs.

    2) from the player point of view: i just cought up another 60 bucks

    $60 for a new game, with new experineces .. yeah .. bring it on.

    For the rest, its splitting hairs, we started to talk about players quitting very fast, now we are at 6 months vs a year, if i by chance argue against this, will we end up 1 year vs a decade?

    Longevity is always a matter of degree. If you talk about something like COD, 3 month is quite long. 2 weeks is short. So it is always a matter of perspective.

    3) If finding 100 rares in a small time frame does not desensitivize (or with slighly changed letters) you to the act of finding rares, then you are a statistical anomaly, which can be applied to your example about skills. Sure it is fun to see "new skill!!" every level, but how many levels does it take you to start to ignore it, especially if the new skill is meaningless? Im just saying it is not that simple.

    Not when most rares you get is of random stats, and suddenly you saw a almost perfect trecfecta roll. Humans focus on things that jump out. A perfectly roll rare can easily viewed as a "rare" amongst no longer rare "rare"s. In fact, this is quite common in D3 chat .. "oh wow ..look at this, a perfectly rolled xyz".
    If this "new skill" does something different .. then yeah .. you can keep it up. D3 is good example. For 60 levels, you get something new every level, and many are different enough to enable a new playstyle, or "heck, that is a new cool effect". Surely not all companies have enough resources to do that (like most are like .. oh another 2% damage on my fire spell, as oppose to .. oh my arcane orb can do something else), but if they focus their resources from other distraction (like world building), they can do better.

     

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Terranah
    I want a world too.  I long for it.  For me it was Precu SWG.  It wasn't exactly a simulated world but it offered some compromises that accomodated for fun.  There will never be another game like that one, probably. I loved the open worlds, the exploration, the organic way social structures and relationships like towns and shopping malls formed.  But it's over.  Might as well put a quarter slot in my desktop because todays games are about as shallow as old school arcade. And make no mistake, if you are one of those outside the box people you are crap out of luck because the mass of humanity likes walls and little confined spaces with lots of rules telling you all the shit you can't do for some stupid reason.  I think part of the problem is that outside the box, creative thinker types  have too many hurdles to overcome climinb the corporate ladder to implement their vision.  It's a left brained world, much to my despair.

    Brilliantly said and I agree. My Gawd this editor is the worst on the planet. I'm forced to type out my reply in notepad and then copy/paste here. WTF don't they have 2 mil members. Get a working forum editor!~!

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by qwave
    Check out our upcoming sandbox MMORPG, www.topiaonline.com

     

    It is a truly persistent world like everyone here is asking for.

    Here is our Kickstarter video:


    My first reaction was old school. But it caught my interest. Interesting to see how unlimited pvp + permadeath will play out.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • sethbzorzsethbzorz sumter, SCPosts: 5Member
    Idk about you guys, but id like to see mythic's pvp perspective come back into play with something like blizzards pve. i believe if they can put those 2 ideas together and make it larger and more exciting a new game filled with purpose will be born. mythic's pvp in Dark Age of Camelot was the first and most ultimate pvp ive ever played. Blizzards dungeons and instances for pve seem like the best thing for doing raiding and groups for pve people, this way your bringing pvp and pve people together in 1 game. Now stay with me in this, if they make a battleground that has a pve side to it like castle vs castle vs castle (3 sides in this game) and those castles and heavily guards by guard npcs and players can also guard them (alot like the pvp in DAoC) that would bring a pvp and pve aspect in 1 too the game. Those npcs that you kill can drop loot, like pve and/or pvp items. its kind of like the frontier back in DAoC pve instances like blizzard. lets say bgs start at lvl 10-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 ect... for the pve side i like what blizzard did with instances and the grouping system, it makes it to where you dont have to wait for a place to respawna nd other people cant be in there killing things you need, if i remember right DAoC had dungeons where you could see others and the dugeons respawn time was quick but with alot of people in it you couldnt kill what you wanted without waiting in line. also, the leveling system in pvp would be a nice touch for those of us that just love to pvp. i myself love to pvp and would enjoy lvling in bgs or say the frontier raiding castles for loot. Another thing for the frontier that i believe mythic did an outstanding job with was zone controls. In the frontier you had 3  places: Midgard, Hibernia, and Albion. Each one had its frontier where they had castles out to where other sides could capture them. Now have this 3 sides all have a frontier and then in the middle of this triangle have a zone where there are castles that are controlled by npcs of neither side, lets say like bandits or rebels of certains sides. those would be the castles anyone could capture without worrying about another side being warned that a one of their castles are undersiege. once they fight over this middle zone they can extend to someones frontier, like mid goes towards the albs while the hibs go to the mids and the albs are at the hibs or something along the lines or when the mids go to the alb frontier the hibs go to the middle zone to take thos castles to have a better chance of controlling someone elses frontier. These are my pvp ideas on mass pvp where anyone can fight anyone and there is no cap limit to how many people could be there and then some on bgs where depending on what map you join for that lvl could be a 10v10 15v15 or 20v20 or they could do what mythic did and make the bgs for those lvls like the frontier where there is 1 castle in the middle of the triangle that the 3 sides fight for. i also believe they could put the blizzard pvp types in too if you dont want to fight for the castle but do capture the flag. but i prefer the castles in all honesty for pvp. any suggestions on a pve side or pvp side or does anyone think differently of this idea? 
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Terranah

    I loved the open worlds, the exploration, the organic way social structures and relationships like towns and shopping malls formed.  But it's over.  Might as well put a quarter slot in my desktop because todays games are about as shallow as old school arcade. And make no mistake, if you are one of those outside the box people you are crap out of luck because the mass of humanity likes walls and little confined spaces with lots of rules telling you all the shit you can't do for some stupid reason. 

    Funny how you define "out of the box". Going back to a try and fail, old world idea done in 1995 (UO) is outside of the box? LOL is outside of the box. WOT is outside of the box.

    UO is no longer outside of the box.

    I think you are holding onto old ideas of the need for a big world to have fun. The new thinking is focus. Do pvp very well .. and only do that in an instanced (WOT/LOL). Or separate out pvp and pve (WOW) so players get better experiences.

    And freedom does not mean a chaotic world. Do you know how many options do you have as playstyle in WOW? (quest, lfd, lfr, bg, arena, collecting pets ....). Freedom does not mean a world that is not conducive, nor convenient for different playstyle. Freedom means many portals or buttons to push that takes you to a different play-style.

    And socialize means friend list, x-server functionalities .. now that is progress.

  • InterestingInteresting Porto AlegrePosts: 950Member

    Our genre got hijacked a long time ago.

    Someone decided that what it originally provided was against their interests.

  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Interesting

    Our genre got hijacked a long time ago.

    Someone decided that what it originally provided was against their interests.

    Heaven forbid they just play one of the other genres which already has entirely has what they want... no no, lets turn MMO's into those genres too. 

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

    Our genre got hijacked a long time ago.

    Someone decided that what it originally provided was against their interests.

    Heaven forbid they just play one of the other genres which already has entirely has what they want... no no, lets turn MMO's into those genres too. 

    Now you are attributing intention to the wrong party. You sound as if people are out to get you.

    It is very natural, devs put in different features in MMOs .. like a lobby .. and they found that they can attract more players .. so they continue to do so. And at the same time, you can't blame a player to play a MMO if a part of it is fun to him, can you?

    No everyone cares about the "genre lines". If i find a game fun, i probably don't care much if it is a MMO, a online ARPG, or whatever way you want to classify.

    And can you blame devs trying to find a bigger audience?

  • InterestingInteresting Porto AlegrePosts: 950Member

    I love the thread title and the general message it conveys.

    So lets discuss anything meaningless and keep this bumped guys. Work for us against the industry!

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by madazz

    Originally posted by Interesting Our genre got hijacked a long time ago. Someone decided that what it originally provided was against their interests.
    Heaven forbid they just play one of the other genres which already has entirely has what they want... no no, lets turn MMO's into those genres too. 
    Now you are attributing intention to the wrong party. You sound as if people are out to get you.

    It is very natural, devs put in different features in MMOs .. like a lobby .. and they found that they can attract more players .. so they continue to do so. And at the same time, you can't blame a player to play a MMO if a part of it is fun to him, can you?

    No everyone cares about the "genre lines". If i find a game fun, i probably don't care much if it is a MMO, a online ARPG, or whatever way you want to classify.

    And can you blame devs trying to find a bigger audience?



    Outside of this forum, and threads like this, I can honestly say that I could not care less about whether a game is an MMO or not. I really could not care less if that game has a world or not.

    ** edit **
    How developed the world is takes a back seat to whether or not I'm having fun in the game. Half Life 2's world is little more than a back drop to the action taking place. HL2 would easily be in my top 10 fun games to play.

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

  • InterestingInteresting Porto AlegrePosts: 950Member

    Its all about the principles of morals and ethics.

     

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

     


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by madazz

    Originally posted by Interesting Our genre got hijacked a long time ago. Someone decided that what it originally provided was against their interests.
    Heaven forbid they just play one of the other genres which already has entirely has what they want... no no, lets turn MMO's into those genres too. 
    Now you are attributing intention to the wrong party. You sound as if people are out to get you.

     

    It is very natural, devs put in different features in MMOs .. like a lobby .. and they found that they can attract more players .. so they continue to do so. And at the same time, you can't blame a player to play a MMO if a part of it is fun to him, can you?

    No everyone cares about the "genre lines". If i find a game fun, i probably don't care much if it is a MMO, a online ARPG, or whatever way you want to classify.

    And can you blame devs trying to find a bigger audience?



    Outside of this forum, and threads like this, I can honestly say that I could not care less about whether a game is an MMO or not. I really could not care less if that game has a world or not.

    ** edit **
    How developed the world is takes a back seat to whether or not I'm having fun in the game. Half Life 2's world is little more than a back drop to the action taking place. HL2 would easily be in my top 10 fun games to play.

     

    This. Some people here are too obsessed and sound like if he/she won't touch anything unless it is a virtual world with featuer a,b, c and d.

    Really? Do people really think most gamers are that inflexible about their entertainment?

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    You're posting in a thread on a site specific to MMOs not one about general gaming. Expect the reponses to reflect this.

    MMOs are much more fun for me than single player games. Single player games just seem empty and devoid of life because they are other than you. Sure they are fun to a point but I'd rather play MMOs and socialize with others.
  • JemcrystalJemcrystal Champaign, ILPosts: 1,552Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aelious
    You're posting in a thread on a site specific to MMOs not one about general gaming. Expect the reponses to reflect this.

    MMOs are much more fun for me than single player games. Single player games just seem empty and devoid of life because they are other than you. Sure they are fun to a point but I'd rather play MMOs and socialize with others.

    Yep.  Why buy the blow up doll when you can get the real thing?


  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Aelious
    You're posting in a thread on a site specific to MMOs not one about general gaming. Expect the reponses to reflect this.

    MMOs are much more fun for me than single player games. Single player games just seem empty and devoid of life because they are other than you. Sure they are fun to a point but I'd rather play MMOs and socialize with others.

    You sounds like you can't socialize other than in MMOs. Obviously not true. I can socialize in LOL. I can socialize in D3. I can socialize in MWO. None of them are MMOs.

    And obvioulsy fun is subjective. I don't find MMOs, in general, more fun. Some MMOs are fun games .. just like some FPS are fun games. All genre (no matter how you define them) have good and bad games.

  • PsalmsPsalms Townsend, MAPosts: 137Member

    I wish i had been around when Ultima Online was THE game to play. I missed that era and hear so often about the experience that set the bar for so many people.

     

    My first MMO experience was Shadowbane and, to me, that was certainly a world, rather than just a game. This is the type of experience that I look for as well. I can play all types of games, but I always look for games that will pull me in and make me feel a part of something bigger than just hitting the next level or killing another monster.

     

    Hopefully some company will make a game like this again, because i agree, it seems that most companies are just grinding out games with no concept of an immersive world.

Sign In or Register to comment.