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!

MMO's are no longer "Worlds"

123468

Comments

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,849Member Uncommon
    Iselin

    It's not about romanticizing the past. The common design for MMOs is indeed different now and some people don't like it, myself included. The gameplay is form fit and premade like Spam and though some people like it I find it a slap in the face from what I considered an extension of the fantasy genre.

    Whether people like having a set story put out in front of them to play with others is none of my concern. I don't think they are any more or less than me. The spirit of the MMORPG did change though and even if the change suits more players now than before it still, to me, is far to fake.

    Luckily there are others in the right places that seem to agree. There's a certain person by the name of John Smedley that is supposedly releasing "the biggest sandbox style MMO ever made". We'll have to see about that but if you look at the comments he is making right now about EQN and the current state of MMOs it's more than just a small minority that thinks we've strayed too far.

    Let's also not forget how stellar sales have been for the recent crop of MMOs :)
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,451Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by xeniar

    Loktofeit. i tought you where on the same page. regardless of how they are sounding.

    I'm a massive fan of community-driven sandbox-focused MMOs, but I'm not about to deem my preference correct or better than someone else's, let alone deride them for their entertainment preference.

     

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,606Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aelious
    Iselin

    It's not about romanticizing the past. The common design for MMOs is indeed different now and some people don't like it, myself included. The gameplay is form fit and premade like Spam and though some people like it I find it a slap in the face from what I considered an extension of the fantasy genre.

    Whether people like having a set story put out in front of them to play with others is none of my concern. I don't think they are any more or less than me. The spirit of the MMORPG did change though and even if the change suits more players now than before it still, to me, is far to fake.

    Luckily there are others in the right places that seem to agree. There's a certain person by the name of John Smedley that is supposedly releasing "the biggest sandbox style MMO ever made". We'll have to see about that but if you look at the comments he is making right now about EQN and the current state of MMOs it's more than just a small minority that thinks we've strayed too far.

    Let's also not forget how stellar sales have been for the recent crop of MMOs :)

    Don't get me wrong: I'm not giving the unimaginative garbage that some big studios release to try to cash in on the "WOW phenomenom" a free pass. I think it's rather sad that the bulk of the MMO-gaming money these days is still going to the same place it went 7 years ago--Blizzard.

    But I also refuse to go backwards and call painful, repetitive harsh grinds innovative games "in the true spirit of real MMOs." You see, I remember lengthy corpse runs in Asheron's Call and losing items because I died repeatedly trying to recover that first corpse--that was just a colossal time sink and not fun at all. Nor do I yearn for a pre-Auction House world where scammers ruled the roost preying on the unsuspecting or trusting--young kids most of them when you think it through. Trading back then was almost literally taking the kid's lunch money.

    Nor do I buy the "there's only sandbox OR themepark" simplistic garbage often spouted here. There are many good elements in both types that should be carefully blended and incorporated in future MMOs...MMOs that will hopefully knock our socks off by bringing things to the genre we haven't even considered.

    And btw, I would take what Smedley is saying with a grain of salt. "Sandbox" is becoming a marketing term used these days to try to separate you from your money with vague promises of "better." I'll beleive him when he delivers and not a minute before then.

  • pmilespmiles Federal Way, WAPosts: 383Member

    MMOs are worlds... they just are shrinking worlds... ever ever shrinking worlds.  Take WoW for example... shipped with two continents... large continents that you had to traverse by foot or use flight paths that took about as long as traversing it by foot until you earned enough rep and gold to buy a mount that moved just a little faster than on foot.  To do dungeons or raids or anything required players traversing the world to get there.  Sure there were summoning stones, but you still had to get people there first to use them.  Waiting around the summoning stone was a place of great fun if you were on a PVP server, in a contested zone, or just flagged yourself to start up some action.  The world stayed alive throughout vanilla.

    Then came TBC, that teleported players to a new world... outland... about the size of one content.  Everyone left vanilla behind... new players and old, because that's were everyone was.  New playes bought vanilla but were polevaulted through it by developers to catch them up to those in TBC.  Vanilla gets neutered in the process to speed things up.  Group quests become soloable.  Elites become normal mobs.  The mobs begin to thin out.  The price and effort to get their first mount is dropped dramatically.  40-man raids are brushed aside for the new smaller 25-man raids.  Everything revolves around TBC.  Vanilla is a ghost town.

    Poof, WotLK comes out and we are all sent to yet another new continent... Northrend... about the same size as outland.  Everyone leaves TBC behind.  Flying mounts are the norm now.  No one walks to anything or even rides, they fly.  Everything is instanced now.  Don't need to leave the city.  Queue up and poof you're in the instance.  Vanilla and TBC are neutered further to make way for alts and new players than need to be able to traverse 70 levels in one week.  What once took months to hit 60 has been turned into a short week of effort, if that much.  10-man raids are introduced and players start to ween themselves off of the 25-man raid size.  It has already become a postage stamp of a game... 

    Then, Cataclysm comes along and tries to entice us back into the old world again.  They remake the old world but fail to realize that no one really wants to level up to 85 anymore... no matter how pretty you make it or howmany carrots you stick before us.  We all know that the leveling process is redundant and any content that isn't end game is redundant.  25-man raids are literally replaced by 10-man raids.  The world even though larger than it was in TBC and WotLK is now smaller than it's ever been.

    MoP comes out and sends us off to an even smaller world... one of endless dailies to hide the fact that it is indeed microscopic in size.  They try to do everything they can to entertain us but the reality is, they've killed the whole concept of an MMORPG now.  So much so, anyone who has ever played an MMORPG before loaths any notion of leveling now.  Preprogrammed into thinking the game is about end game alone, that the world doesn't matter (it doesn't), that standing around in a city waiting for queues is what MMORPGs are all about.

    Yes the world is small and it's getting smaller.  What killed the game was end game.  End game took us away from the world.  You might as well just log directly in to the instance of your choice... that's about all you are really doing nowadays anyways.

     

  • WayshubaWayshuba Ada, MIPosts: 71Member
    Originally posted by XAPGames

    I call it "Lowest Common Denominator Game Design".  Maximize profits by reaching the largest number of people by providing a gameplay experience based on the desire of that group.

     

    To my understanding, these players don't want worlds.  They want interactive entertainment.  That's how they see gaming.

     

    Evolution or decay?  That depends on if you like the direction taken, or not.

     

    I'm just glad the financial performance of the industry is proving otherwise. The number of failing, or barely surviving titles, should be a wake up call that indeed the majority of players are not going for it.

     

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,606Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Wayshuba
    Originally posted by XAPGames

    I call it "Lowest Common Denominator Game Design".  Maximize profits by reaching the largest number of people by providing a gameplay experience based on the desire of that group.

     

    To my understanding, these players don't want worlds.  They want interactive entertainment.  That's how they see gaming.

     

    Evolution or decay?  That depends on if you like the direction taken, or not.

     

    I'm just glad the financial performance of the industry is proving otherwise. The number of failing, or barely surviving titles, should be a wake up call that indeed the majority of players are not going for it.

     

    Give you head a shake. The bulk of the mmo market money is still going to WOW. Your statement only makes sense if you ignore that one rather large fact. 

  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    I think its funny that a few people still haven't realized they are the minority. Just look at all the threads about people not liking what's out there in the mmo world right now. People are starting to notice that everything is the same but just painted a different colour. I can't seem to figure out why they are afraid of open games that dont adhere to the formula that is obviously not working.

    Current MMOs kill community. In UO a new player could join anytime and always see people as the areas were not reserved for specific levels. Now someone joins a game and is forced to solo to catch up to the end game crowd... Then these same people who want this type of game also complain about soloing....it makes no sense. How do I catch up and play the repetitive end game if there is no one to group with in forced group quests? That's why their games aren't doing so hot.

    Also, what's wrong with a new mmo that has its core based off an old one? The apologists aren't even moving forward, their stagnant. Their MMOs are devolving into regular multiplayer games that require soloing just to reach repetition...

    By their logic, one Mario, one Zelda, one doom, one Mariokart, one of anything is enough. Heaven forbid we get an improved or innovative version of something old... We should all just be driving old model t still as they do what we need... Yeah....
  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Chicago, ILPosts: 2,224Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin

     

    Then there is the "MUDD begot MMO" falacy stated as gospel truth. MUDDs were extremely niche text-based RPGs from a time where that was all that the technology could handle. But at the same time there was this other thing happening. You know? Those progressively more sophisticated and graphical single player RPGs happening on your PC. And someone said "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if we could link up a few computers so we could play together?" And that, was the real beginning of MMOs: not a child of MUDDs but of single player CRPGs.

     

    Then I guess that all the Diku-based interface command language that MMOs use is akin to those scientists who plant dinosaur bones deep in the earth's crust.  It's to throw us all off from the 'true' history that malevolent forces don't want us to see.

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,606Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Beatnik59
    Originally posted by Iselin

     

    Then there is the "MUDD begot MMO" falacy stated as gospel truth. MUDDs were extremely niche text-based RPGs from a time where that was all that the technology could handle. But at the same time there was this other thing happening. You know? Those progressively more sophisticated and graphical single player RPGs happening on your PC. And someone said "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if we could link up a few computers so we could play together?" And that, was the real beginning of MMOs: not a child of MUDDs but of single player CRPGs.

     

    Then I guess that all the Diku-based interface command language that MMOs use is akin to those scientists who plant dinosaur bones deep in the earth's crust.  It's to throw us all off from the 'true' history that malevolent forces don't want us to see.

    Oooh! I love esoteric tangential arguments!

    I'd be willing to bet you any large amount of money that even back in the haydays of the most infamous (alledgedly) Diku-derived grandaddy of modern MMOs, Everquest, 90% of that player base had never played a MUDD. I would also bet you that at least 95% of the same player base had played one or more CRPGs. I'd say today both of those numbers would be closer to 99.9%.

    MUDDs were niche playthings for those who could get unlimited free bandwidth in those days (i.e. academia) or the wealthy home hobbyist who could afford the rather hefty connect charges in those days before wide accesibility of the internet.

    No, MMOs are CRPGs that many players can play together not MUDDs redux.

  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Chicago, ILPosts: 2,224Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Beatnik59
    Originally posted by Iselin

     

    Then there is the "MUDD begot MMO" falacy stated as gospel truth. MUDDs were extremely niche text-based RPGs from a time where that was all that the technology could handle. But at the same time there was this other thing happening. You know? Those progressively more sophisticated and graphical single player RPGs happening on your PC. And someone said "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if we could link up a few computers so we could play together?" And that, was the real beginning of MMOs: not a child of MUDDs but of single player CRPGs.

     

    Then I guess that all the Diku-based interface command language that MMOs use is akin to those scientists who plant dinosaur bones deep in the earth's crust.  It's to throw us all off from the 'true' history that malevolent forces don't want us to see.

    Oooh! I love esoteric tangential arguments!

    I'd be willing to bet you any large amount of money that even back in the haydays of the most infamous (alledgedly) Diku-derived grandaddy of modern MMOs, Everquest, 90% of that player base had never played a MUDD. I would also bet you that at least 95% of the same player base had played one or more CRPGs. I'd say today both of those numbers would be closer to 99.9%.

    MUDDs were niche playthings for those who could get unlimited free bandwidth in those days (i.e. academia) or the wealthy home hobbyist who could afford the rather hefty connect charges in those days before wide accesibility of the internet.

    No, MMOs are CRPGs that many players can play together not MUDDs redux.

    Alright, if your history is so much better than the history we've all established (that MUDs turned into graphic MUDs, and these Graphic MUDs turned into 2D Isometric environments, which turned into 3D environments), who was this "guy" who said:

     "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if we could link up a few computers so we could play together?"

    I don't think he exists.  Or, if he does exist, he certainly isn't an MMO man.  He might be a peer-to-peer gameplay pioneer, but not an MMO guy.

    I mean, you can see the history of this genre develop from the early 1990s through the early 21st Century.  You have the players in this industry who were there at the transition: Garriott, Koster, Bartle, etc.  And not one--not a one--will go along with your crazy theory that this genre has no relation to MUDs.  Now, it may have became that over the years, but that's a whole different story than the one you are spinning here. 

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

  • Dantae87Dantae87 Camloops, ABPosts: 166Member

    this hit me the moment WoW introduced the raid/groupe finder...compleatly destroyed the need for a world....ppl can now just sit in the city and spamm the grp finder button not needing to actualyl go out and get into the world...why even make worlds these days? MMORPG players are lazy now, they want convinece. They want things hand fed to them...

     

    What do the mmo players say to the intoruction of the grp raid finder?

    "OH its the BEST! i can now clicka button and get into a raid in a snap! Its great for ppl who play for 1 hr a day and dont have to waist time looking...."

    this ^^ to me isnt a MMO player its a lazy offic eboy who plays at work...a MMO player is sumoen who shud be willing to dedicate TIME into there game...not join,click a button and go to a raid....that is just stupid.

    image

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,606Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Beatnik59
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Beatnik59
    Originally posted by Iselin

     

    Then there is the "MUDD begot MMO" falacy stated as gospel truth. MUDDs were extremely niche text-based RPGs from a time where that was all that the technology could handle. But at the same time there was this other thing happening. You know? Those progressively more sophisticated and graphical single player RPGs happening on your PC. And someone said "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if we could link up a few computers so we could play together?" And that, was the real beginning of MMOs: not a child of MUDDs but of single player CRPGs.

     

    Then I guess that all the Diku-based interface command language that MMOs use is akin to those scientists who plant dinosaur bones deep in the earth's crust.  It's to throw us all off from the 'true' history that malevolent forces don't want us to see.

    Oooh! I love esoteric tangential arguments!

    I'd be willing to bet you any large amount of money that even back in the haydays of the most infamous (alledgedly) Diku-derived grandaddy of modern MMOs, Everquest, 90% of that player base had never played a MUDD. I would also bet you that at least 95% of the same player base had played one or more CRPGs. I'd say today both of those numbers would be closer to 99.9%.

    MUDDs were niche playthings for those who could get unlimited free bandwidth in those days (i.e. academia) or the wealthy home hobbyist who could afford the rather hefty connect charges in those days before wide accesibility of the internet.

    No, MMOs are CRPGs that many players can play together not MUDDs redux.

    Alright, if your history is so much better than the history we've all established (that MUDs turned into graphic MUDs, and these Graphic MUDs turned into 2D Isometric environments, which turned into 3D environments), who was this "guy" who said:

     "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if we could link up a few computers so we could play together?"

    I don't think he exists.  Or, if he does exist, he certainly isn't an MMO man.  He might be a peer-to-peer gameplay pioneer, but not an MMO guy.

    I mean, you can see the history of this genre develop from the early 1990s through the early 21st Century.  You have the players in this industry who were there at the transition: Garriott, Koster, Bartle, etc.  And not one--not a one--will go along with your crazy theory that this genre has no relation to MUDs.  Now, it may have became that over the years, but that's a whole different story than the one you are spinning here. 

    So... Ultima Online. Was there an Ultima MUDD that escapes my memory? I mean remeber playing Ultima one through one-too-many on Atari, Comodore and PC computers in the 80's.

    But whatever... if you MUDers want to get credit for having been there first, so be it. You were there first. Happy? Now tell me again why anyone should give a shit in 2012?

  • laokokolaokoko TaipeiPosts: 2,003Member

    ya I mean GW2 don't have lfg finder.  What do people do?  They go to website with lfg finder?

    That is insane, I mean if people want to do dungeon they should spend 10 hours a day searching for friend to play with, instead of actually playing the game!  That will make the game more social. 

    That looking for group website for GW2 totally destroyed the community.  MMORPG is about social and making friend and not actually about playing and doing dungeons.

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,606Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dantae87

    this hit me the moment WoW introduced the raid/groupe finder...compleatly destroyed the need for a world....ppl can now just sit in the city and spamm the grp finder button not needing to actualyl go out and get into the world...why even make worlds these days? MMORPG players are lazy now, they want convinece. They want things hand fed to them...

     

    What do the mmo players say to the intoruction of the grp raid finder?

    "OH its the BEST! i can now clicka button and get into a raid in a snap! Its great for ppl who play for 1 hr a day and dont have to waist time looking...."

    this ^^ to me isnt a MMO player its a lazy offic eboy who plays at work...a MMO player is sumoen who shud be willing to dedicate TIME into there game...not join,click a button and go to a raid....that is just stupid.

    I actually I tend to agree with you. This one convenience feature not only created the Stormwind lobby game formerly know as WOW, it also ultimately led to the asshatery found in most WOW pugs where the name of the game is skip all the content that you can so you can do the run in 3 minutes.

    Not all convenience features improved on what existed before although many did. This is an example of one that didn't.

  • IndolIndol O''Fallon, MOPosts: 189Member

    The debate boils down to this: limitation vs. freedom.

     

    Some people enjoy limitations more than others. Conditioning has tilted the ratio in favor of those who prefer limitation.

     

    The terms 'freedom' and 'creativity' have been so badly bastardized throughout time that we no longer understand their true value or meaning.

     

    It's a much larger topic than mmorpg's, but I think it's relevant to the discussion nonetheless.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Iselin

    So... Ultima Online. Was there an Ultima MUDD that escapes my memory? I mean remeber playing Ultima one through one-too-many on Atari, Comodore and PC computers in the 80's.

    But whatever... if you MUDers want to get credit for having been there first, so be it. You were there first. Happy? Now tell me again why anyone should give a shit in 2012?

    If you are so hell bent into pushing this into the area of the absurd, where is the WoW cooprpg?

    If the claim of Raph Koster that ultima has been heavily influenced with dartmud is not enough for you, then i dont know.

    And it only shows the shallowness of the discussion, we should be talking abount nvn, if something.

    But in the end you are as boned as everyone else, the devs that share your vision, that mmorpgs are just small scale cooprgs are firmly in their seats happy with lobby gameplay as the  "logical" improvement over small scale cooprpg.

    Flame on!

    :)

     

  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Chicago, ILPosts: 2,224Member Uncommon

    It makes you wonder whether we need the "massive" part at all to experience the kind of gameplay we have in MMORPGs now.

    I always said that the game that would "take down" WoW wouldn't even be an MMO.  That's because the only way to make the games more streamlined and efficient than they already are is to get rid of all the remaining MMO aspects: the persistant world, the guilds, the zones, etc.

    If you think about it, the MMO format's greatest competition was from peer-to-peer or "lobby" games, and lobby games have some advantages over MMOs: you get to screen your community, you can get right into the action, play time can be more easily structured, etc.  This is coupled with some significant advantages on the developer/business side as well.

    If the combat, quests, loot and teamwork is all a player is looking for they, quite frankly, don't need an MMO.  So if this massive multiplayer format is going to survive, the player has got to like the "massive" format for other reasons.

    Here is the problem though.  Every single time people bring up the "other reasons," they get slammed as 'niche' (like roleplay and open world PvP) or 'too expensive' (player housing and customization) or 'not viable for the business model' (crafting important things as opposed to getting them at an item mall).

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Wayshuba
    Originally posted by XAPGames

    I call it "Lowest Common Denominator Game Design".  Maximize profits by reaching the largest number of people by providing a gameplay experience based on the desire of that group.

     

    To my understanding, these players don't want worlds.  They want interactive entertainment.  That's how they see gaming.

     

    Evolution or decay?  That depends on if you like the direction taken, or not.

     

    I'm just glad the financial performance of the industry is proving otherwise. The number of failing, or barely surviving titles, should be a wake up call that indeed the majority of players are not going for it.

     

    Give you head a shake. The bulk of the mmo market money is still going to WOW. Your statement only makes sense if you ignore that one rather large fact. 

    WoW is an outlier that people need to stop taking into account. The last 8 years of failed WoW clones should show how futile it is to keep thinking WoW style MMOs are viable to anyone other than WoW.

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon

    Heres a thought............

     Isnt it kind of hard to take out wow when every game since wow has been wow? Perhaps stop copying and chasing their success and have dev teams set out to make a good freaking game for a change with all the features and long term survivability and you might just be able to do so. But kind of hard to beat wow when your game only last 2-3 months and sucks worse than wow ;)

    Glad some sandboxes are coming because i dont even touch these newer themepark games at all. Even older themeparks had so much to offer.

     

    Lobby games? That is your only hope?

    Which you actualy already have in mmorpgs...... its called instancing ;) 3-10 players doing a mission or pvp together you normaly group up before hand. Same thing.

  • FelixMajorFelixMajor London, ONPosts: 576Member

    Gaming is a tough industry for those who develope.  It costs millions of dollars now a days to develope a game to the standards of todays mmo qualities.  

     

    It's tough for developers to make everyone happy and we all know that.  There are different types of games for different types of people, but what they are really failing at is remembering that they are artists and what they do is art.  Yes at the end of the day they have to make enough money to pay all those involved, and feed their families, and that is a concern of everyone.

     

    They need to stop looking at games in forms of business models and they need to just be creative.

    Originally posted by Arskaaa
    "when players learned tacticks in dungeon/raids, its bread".

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,606Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Wayshuba
    Originally posted by XAPGames

    I call it "Lowest Common Denominator Game Design".  Maximize profits by reaching the largest number of people by providing a gameplay experience based on the desire of that group.

     

    To my understanding, these players don't want worlds.  They want interactive entertainment.  That's how they see gaming.

     

    Evolution or decay?  That depends on if you like the direction taken, or not.

     

    I'm just glad the financial performance of the industry is proving otherwise. The number of failing, or barely surviving titles, should be a wake up call that indeed the majority of players are not going for it.

     

    Give you head a shake. The bulk of the mmo market money is still going to WOW. Your statement only makes sense if you ignore that one rather large fact. 

    WoW is an outlier that people need to stop taking into account. The last 8 years of failed WoW clones should show how futile it is to keep thinking WoW style MMOs are viable to anyone other than WoW.

    Like it or not WOW exists and it's an MMORPG. Denial won't make it go away just like none of the clones did. Personally I don't particualrly like it and would love to see some new creative MMO take its place. But any conversation about people's taste in MMORPG has to include the fact that it probably has more players than all the others combined.

    You can slam developers (I certainly do occasionally) for trying to cash in on the WOW formula by making yet one more clone all you want. But it's no wonder they do since people's wallets say that's what they like to play.

    There are a lot of people in this forum that come accross as elitist nincompoops with all their contempt for players who like that type of game--that's their prerogative and I seldom bother to respond. But when people start talking about how the MMORPG posting, WOW-hating, sandbox advocates are the majority of MMORPGers I just have to call bullshit. 

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,849Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Aelious
    Iselin

    It's not about romanticizing the past. The common design for MMOs is indeed different now and some people don't like it, myself included. The gameplay is form fit and premade like Spam and though some people like it I find it a slap in the face from what I considered an extension of the fantasy genre.

    Whether people like having a set story put out in front of them to play with others is none of my concern. I don't think they are any more or less than me. The spirit of the MMORPG did change though and even if the change suits more players now than before it still, to me, is far to fake.

    Luckily there are others in the right places that seem to agree. There's a certain person by the name of John Smedley that is supposedly releasing "the biggest sandbox style MMO ever made". We'll have to see about that but if you look at the comments he is making right now about EQN and the current state of MMOs it's more than just a small minority that thinks we've strayed too far.

    Let's also not forget how stellar sales have been for the recent crop of MMOs :)

    Don't get me wrong: I'm not giving the unimaginative garbage that some big studios release to try to cash in on the "WOW phenomenom" a free pass. I think it's rather sad that the bulk of the MMO-gaming money these days is still going to the same place it went 7 years ago--Blizzard.

    But I also refuse to go backwards and call painful, repetitive harsh grinds innovative games "in the true spirit of real MMOs." You see, I remember lengthy corpse runs in Asheron's Call and losing items because I died repeatedly trying to recover that first corpse--that was just a colossal time sink and not fun at all. Nor do I yearn for a pre-Auction House world where scammers ruled the roost preying on the unsuspecting or trusting--young kids most of them when you think it through. Trading back then was almost literally taking the kid's lunch money.

    Nor do I buy the "there's only sandbox OR themepark" simplistic garbage often spouted here. There are many good elements in both types that should be carefully blended and incorporated in future MMOs...MMOs that will hopefully knock our socks off by bringing things to the genre we haven't even considered.

    And btw, I would take what Smedley is saying with a grain of salt. "Sandbox" is becoming a marketing term used these days to try to separate you from your money with vague promises of "better." I'll beleive him when he delivers and not a minute before then.

     

    Neither do I and I think the two are melding together to form something that fits the spirit of "MMORPG" very well.  I do not wish for the timesinks either but what is missing from the newer games IMO is what older games had: a bigger world that went on if you were there or not.  You had to insert yourself in that world, not be programmed in from the beginning.  That's why this OP is pretty relavent, it's starts with the world around you.

     

    As far as Smed and EQN I think it will be more upfront than you may think.  EQN will be a "play for fee, buy what you want" type of game so other than preorders, which wouldn't come close to covering costs, there really isn't a cash grab to be had.  He was careful to say that it will be the biggest "sandbox style..." so it's not going to be 100% sandbox.  Taking into account PS2's open world and the tools EQ2 has I think it will go a long way in putting the RPG back into MMORPG.  I'll know for sure when more info is released oif course as all we have gotten thus far is hints.  The term "sandbox" is becomming a buzz word but adding real sandbox elements to almost any game IMO would make it better.

     

    On the WoW topic I think WoW is a great game and shouldn't be bashed as much as it is.  It's the cheap, shallow copies that have come after that are the problem.  WoW itself, though not giving much into being an individual, is a pretty open on where you want to adventure (see level).  There are many other titles for a better RPG experience such as Vanguard and EQ2 but WoW has it's own charm that is hard to resist sometimes.

  • HedeonHedeon GraestedPosts: 954Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Beatnik59

    It makes you wonder whether we need the "massive" part at all to experience the kind of gameplay we have in MMORPGs now.

    I always said that the game that would "take down" WoW wouldn't even be an MMO.  That's because the only way to make the games more streamlined and efficient than they already are is to get rid of all the remaining MMO aspects: the persistant world, the guilds, the zones, etc.

    If you think about it, the MMO format's greatest competition was from peer-to-peer or "lobby" games, and lobby games have some advantages over MMOs: you get to screen your community, you can get right into the action, play time can be more easily structured, etc.  This is coupled with some significant advantages on the developer/business side as well.

    If the combat, quests, loot and teamwork is all a player is looking for they, quite frankly, don't need an MMO.  So if this massive multiplayer format is going to survive, the player has got to like the "massive" format for other reasons.

    Here is the problem though.  Every single time people bring up the "other reasons," they get slammed as 'niche' (like roleplay and open world PvP) or 'too expensive' (player housing and customization) or 'not viable for the business model' (crafting important things as opposed to getting them at an item mall).

    well have said it before, Diablo 3 and the sort of game, is the kind of "MMO" most people seem to want, it have the 100% solo, 100% group, it have the auction house, the group play let you flash your uberness....ofc the individual person can point out things they do not like, but that happen no matter what game you talk about...

    not to claim this is all that I would want...

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,849Member Uncommon
    D3 doesn't have a "world" though and no matter how many people like the game and it's features that doesn't make it more of an MMO. This has nothing to do with the quality of game itself, I think it's pretty fun, but that doesn't change what it is and isn't.
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Aelious
    D3 doesn't have a "world" though and no matter how many people like the game and it's features that doesn't make it more of an MMO. This has nothing to do with the quality of game itself, I think it's pretty fun, but that doesn't change what it is and isn't.

    To be clear, D3 most definitely has a virtual world and players have avatars in that virtual world. The sharing of that world is limited, and the world is not persistent, but it does have a virtual world.

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

Sign In or Register to comment.