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!

Five Assumptions that are Killing the MMO

245678

Comments

  • GreyfaceGreyface Detroit, MIPosts: 390Member
    Originally posted by jpnz

    This is a list that while I can see where the OP is coming from, I disagree with.

    The over-arching theme of this post is that MMOs are being 'killed'. The problem with this is that it is factually false. MMOs are more successful than ever before and is continually expanding as more and more players get into the genre.

    Everything I've been seeing in the financial and gaming press indicates that the numbers have leveled off or declined since 2010.  Are you including MOBAs?

     

    1. Disagree. Out of how many risks taken by devs, how many were successful? Lotro, DDO, Aion etc countless 'WoW-clones' were financially profitable for a lot of companies. Why take risks when the chances of success are small?

    You're right.   Avoiding risk reduces the change of catastrophic failure.  On the other hand, it also reduces the chance of success.  I'm not advocating reckless experimentation, but the bar for success needs to be set a little higher than just generating enough revenue to stay alive.  By that measure, Kmart is a success.  Business, at its best, is about taking smart risks.  Industries that ignore this fact stagnate, which is what's happening in MMOs.

    And, as consumers, we have the right to expect more than just 'good enough.'

     

    2. Video games are an entertainment product. Some like the 'grouping / community' side and some don't, vast majority do not.

    Understood.  I play plenty of single-player games.  Grouping and community, however, are genre-defining features of Massively Multiplayer games.  If they aren't, then why are we even bothering with them?  There's nothing wrong with solo-friendly games, but "solo-friendly" doesn't mean players need to be in bubbles.

     

    3. Both have fairly different game design and start from a different point of view. A themepark that transforms into 'sandbox' might appeal to some but there are evidence that it won't have mass appeal; EVE Online's New Player Experience is essentially that as the tutorial is all 'quests / instances'.

    I envision something a little more extensive than EVE's tutorial missions.  It's a tricky balance though, and I'm not pretending to have all the answers.  All I know is that neither pure sandboxes or pure themeparks are working.  As a gamer, I want something different.

     

    4. Story is what holds the RPG together. Normally an RPG is 'Talk to NPC X -> Go to Location Y -> Do XYZ'. The 'story' makes the player want to do those 3 actions. Not sure how SWTOR can be a failure when it is still running and has a fairly decent sub. Did it achieve its lofty targets? No, but it'll make back the money invested (remember the 500k sub break even quote?) and profit afterwards.

    EA/Bioware says a lot of things, but the fact is that you don't change business models in your first 12 months if you're doing well.  SWTOR's conversion to F2P was not motivated by strong subscription numbers.

    But your comment only reinforces what I was saying: why does it have to be 'Talk to NPC X -> Go to Location Y -> Do XYZ'?  Yes, it worked for a long time, but it's tired.  The genre didn't have this in the beginning, and it can survive without it.   And, more importantly, single-player games do it better, and for less money.   Who would play WoW (or any of its clones) for the single-player story when you could be playing Skyrim, Mass Effect 3, The Witcher 2 or any of a thousand other single-player RPGs?  The one thing that MMOs have that those games lack (besides subscription fees and/or cash shops) are communities.  If you don't leverage that, then I have to ask again: what's the point? 

     

    5. EVE essentially does this with the whole 'skills' thing and I don't think its a good template. It creates a fairly large level gap between the new players and veterans but now the new players can never 'catch up' with the veterans.

    Agreed.  But if option B isn't better, it doesn't follow that Option A is acceptable.  There are an infinite number of possible advancement systems.  All I'm proposing is that developers stop rehashing the 20 year-old designs, and for players to stop letting them get away with it.

  • LoLifeLoLife LA, CAPosts: 174Member
    +1 good argument well presented & very well said  image
  • AdamantineAdamantine NowherePosts: 3,514Member

    About #1: You should listen to your players, just not in the very naive way described in the article.

    Your players are actually playing the game. They can tell you what they enjoy and what they hate about the game. That doesnt mean you should just blindly implement whatever they demand, but it means you get an idea what you could do to improve the game even more.

    Bug reports are a prime example of when you should listen to your players.

     

    About #2: Sorry, but thats just "oooh past games have been better" jibber. AFAIK Ultima Online still is running, so if you like that experience, just play it. If you however want more contemporary graphics, well: newer graphics is much more development intensive, thus nobody builds an Ultima Online with upgraded graphics. It just wont yield any profit. Sorry, but you'll have to directly oppose capitalism to get such a game.

     

    About #3: Um, not sure whats the argument here ... have no fear to mix sandbox and themepark elements ? Well, I would agree to that one.

     

    About #4: A request for sandboxes. Honestly ? After he just established that sandbox are a niche ?

     

    About #5: A complaint about endgame. This is a question about your game concept.

  • ereyethirnereyethirn KaiapoiPosts: 79Member
    I incredibley agree with your post except for the wording of 'story is important' bit. Story is incredibly important in mmorpgs but just not nessisarily in the 200million dollar scripted voice over swtor way. I find story is the greatest thing about sandboxes, players end up forming a story around what's happening. I'm assuming the point you made about story was based around scripted story rather than story in general but I thought I'd just comment on the way you worded that as I find story is incredibly important to me ( whether its scripted or not)
  • YakkinYakkin irvine, CAPosts: 919Member
    Originally posted by ereyethirn
    I incredibley agree with your post except for the wording of 'story is important' bit. Story is incredibly important in mmorpgs but just not nessisarily in the 200million dollar scripted voice over swtor way. I find story is the greatest thing about sandboxes, players end up forming a story around what's happening. I'm assuming the point you made about story was based around scripted story rather than story in general but I thought I'd just comment on the way you worded that as I find story is incredibly important to me ( whether its scripted or not)

    Honestly, I'd still personally prefer to have scripted stories in MMOs, but they don't necessarily have to be the main focus of the game, like in SWTOR or TSW. Maybe off to the side, like some kind of really hard to reach, epic questline or something along that line. You don't have to do it, but it's there if you feel like it.

  • XAPKenXAPKen Northwest, INPosts: 4,896Member Uncommon


    Assumption #1 Developers should listen to the players

    Mixed.  Developers should understand the market, understand their target demographic, and clearly shoot for a win in that demographic.

     

    Assumption #2 Players are the problem

    Agreed, this is a false assumption.


    Assumption #3 Sandboxes are sandboxes, theme parks are theme parks

    Mixed.  There are hybrids.  There are old school themeparks that are very different from modern ones.  On the other side, dropping a person into a game and the person expects a themepark but gets a sandbox is not going to find that the game meets their expectations... and vice versa.


    Assumption #4 Story is important

    Mixed.  Story and lore contribute to world definition.  Without any story or lore, it would just be a simulation.  On the other side, story is not so important that other parts of the game suffer because story took so much time to build and/or when storytelling interferes with gameplay.


    Assumption #5 The Endgame is all that matters

    I'm of the opinion that endgame is a MYTH.  It's simply a change in the form of progression.  What I do find funny is that the rush to endgame crowd are also the same people who complain about dailies and raiding.  That part I can't figure out.

     

    Adding my own #6...  Players understand the concept of "The Cake is a Lie".

    As I see it, the only lasting achievement is the fun had in the progress of playing.  There is no cake.

     


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now turned Amateur Game Developer.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  Realm Lords 2 on MMORPG.com
  • haplo602haplo602 Posts: 212Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Greyface
    Originally posted by jpnz

    This is a list that while I can see where the OP is coming from, I disagree with.

    The over-arching theme of this post is that MMOs are being 'killed'. The problem with this is that it is factually false. MMOs are more successful than ever before and is continually expanding as more and more players get into the genre.

    Everything I've been seeing in the financial and gaming press indicates that the numbers have leveled off or declined since 2010.  Are you including MOBAs?

     

    1. Disagree. Out of how many risks taken by devs, how many were successful? Lotro, DDO, Aion etc countless 'WoW-clones' were financially profitable for a lot of companies. Why take risks when the chances of success are small?

    You're right.   Avoiding risk reduces the change of catastrophic failure.  On the other hand, it also reduces the chance of success.  I'm not advocating reckless experimentation, but the bar for success needs to be set a little higher than just generating enough revenue to stay alive.  By that measure, Kmart is a success.  Business, at its best, is about taking smart risks.  Industries that ignore this fact stagnate, which is what's happening in MMOs.

    And, as consumers, we have the right to expect more than just 'good enough.'

     

    2. Video games are an entertainment product. Some like the 'grouping / community' side and some don't, vast majority do not.

    Understood.  I play plenty of single-player games.  Grouping and community, however, are genre-defining features of Massively Multiplayer games.  If they aren't, then why are we even bothering with them?  There's nothing wrong with solo-friendly games, but "solo-friendly" doesn't mean players need to be in bubbles.

     

    3. Both have fairly different game design and start from a different point of view. A themepark that transforms into 'sandbox' might appeal to some but there are evidence that it won't have mass appeal; EVE Online's New Player Experience is essentially that as the tutorial is all 'quests / instances'.

    I envision something a little more extensive than EVE's tutorial missions.  It's a tricky balance though, and I'm not pretending to have all the answers.  All I know is that neither pure sandboxes or pure themeparks are working.  As a gamer, I want something different.

     

    4. Story is what holds the RPG together. Normally an RPG is 'Talk to NPC X -> Go to Location Y -> Do XYZ'. The 'story' makes the player want to do those 3 actions. Not sure how SWTOR can be a failure when it is still running and has a fairly decent sub. Did it achieve its lofty targets? No, but it'll make back the money invested (remember the 500k sub break even quote?) and profit afterwards.

    EA/Bioware says a lot of things, but the fact is that you don't change business models in your first 12 months if you're doing well.  SWTOR's conversion to F2P was not motivated by strong subscription numbers.

    But your comment only reinforces what I was saying: why does it have to be 'Talk to NPC X -> Go to Location Y -> Do XYZ'?  Yes, it worked for a long time, but it's tired.  The genre didn't have this in the beginning, and it can survive without it.   And, more importantly, single-player games do it better, and for less money.   Who would play WoW (or any of its clones) for the single-player story when you could be playing Skyrim, Mass Effect 3, The Witcher 2 or any of a thousand other single-player RPGs?  The one thing that MMOs have that those games lack (besides subscription fees and/or cash shops) are communities.  If you don't leverage that, then I have to ask again: what's the point? 

     

    5. EVE essentially does this with the whole 'skills' thing and I don't think its a good template. It creates a fairly large level gap between the new players and veterans but now the new players can never 'catch up' with the veterans.

    Agreed.  But if option B isn't better, it doesn't follow that Option A is acceptable.  There are an infinite number of possible advancement systems.  All I'm proposing is that developers stop rehashing the 20 year-old designs, and for players to stop letting them get away with it.

    One of the best posts so far Greyface, I agree with your views here. However mine do not match, so some corrections from my side:

     

    1. Listening to players is one side, picking the right ides is the tricky part. The main problem in most of the MMOs is lack of a public test server. EVE does this the right way, there's a public test server you can join and comment on the features before they hit production. However it is also a prime example of developers not listening to feedback.

     

    2. 3. and 4. are describing a single problem: What's the main selling point of MMOs. As you pointed out, there are plenty of single player games that do the quest/story parts much much better. There's also a noticable lack of MMOs that feature rich community mechanics. The themepark vs sandbox issue is a simple manifestation of the problem. Themepark is the more single player perspective while sandbox is the multi player perspective. A good MMO needs a proper mix of both.

     

    5. This is a funny one. The idea of end game in an MMORPG is against the core principle of the game genre (a living and evolving world). This is more a player perception problem that has turned into a game design issue. It's the prime flaw of themepark design (quest driven personal story instead of event world driven story).

  • ScarfeScarfe londonPosts: 281Member

    1) Agree.  I don't want 'Snakes on a Plane' to be the standard bearer for movies, just as I do not want committee design on my games.  I think a prime example is GW2 removing the trinity and quest hubs due to player demand but failing to have the initial vision to provide a working alternative; this is the tail wagging the dog and results in poor game design.

    2) Agree.  One of my greatest game experiences was spontaneous world pvp in vanilla wow, but this all became sanatised into instanced pvp areas.  MMO's are becoming single player games with the option to join groups via a dungeon finder in a hub city, which to me doesn't vary wildly from the multiplayer mode you get on most console games. 

    3) I don't think these are mutually exclusive.  The problem for me is that in concentrating on story and the requisite linear progression, and by acheiving balance by homogenising classes or tradeskills, recent MMO's have eroded the freedom you find in a more sandbox orientated game.  I hope this will be addressed by future releases. 

    4) Every individual player as the hero is absurd in an MMO.  There can be a general theme and progression of events of which the player is part, and which is communicated by a number of disparate quests, without the awful linear 'single player mode' storyline found in games like SWTOR.

    5) Again I agree, higher levels, particularly in pvp should provide ever diminishing returns, a small advantage for those who want it, but not a game breaker for those who don't. 

    All in all, good post.    

     

    currently playing: DDO, AOC, WoT, P101

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member

    Nothing to add here, you win 3 intertubes and 2 cookies, OP :)

    And i am also enjoying the people coming here with the usual ideas of "good enough is the new perfect" , "200k is the new million" and "lore == you HAVE to be the personal savior of the world".

    Flame on!

    :)

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

    [...]

    Everything I've been seeing in the financial and gaming press indicates that the numbers have leveled off or declined since 2010.  Are you including MOBAs?

    It was still growing in 2011. At most, and I'm not confirming this, it has levelled. Far, far from being killed or dead though. I don't understand this fixation with growth, it has to stop at some point. Why do people have to rush to make conclusions when it does?

    [...]

    2. Video games are an entertainment product. Some like the 'grouping / community' side and some don't, vast majority do not.

    Understood.  I play plenty of single-player games.  Grouping and community, however, are genre-defining features of Massively Multiplayer games.  If they aren't, then why are we even bothering with them?  There's nothing wrong with solo-friendly games, but "solo-friendly" doesn't mean players need to be in bubbles.

    But they're just that: solo friendly. No one is in a bubble.

    3. Both have fairly different game design and start from a different point of view. A themepark that transforms into 'sandbox' might appeal to some but there are evidence that it won't have mass appeal; EVE Online's New Player Experience is essentially that as the tutorial is all 'quests / instances'.

    I envision something a little more extensive than EVE's tutorial missions.  It's a tricky balance though, and I'm not pretending to have all the answers.  All I know is that neither pure sandboxes or pure themeparks are working.  As a gamer, I want something different.

    Eve's tutorial missions are not enough. They need extensive improvements on documentation and UI before they reach a comfortable level of user friendliness. And before anyone can reply; user friendliness should be something every game should strive for.

    4. Story is what holds the RPG together. Normally an RPG is 'Talk to NPC X -> Go to Location Y -> Do XYZ'. The 'story' makes the player want to do those 3 actions. Not sure how SWTOR can be a failure when it is still running and has a fairly decent sub. Did it achieve its lofty targets? No, but it'll make back the money invested (remember the 500k sub break even quote?) and profit afterwards.

    EA/Bioware says a lot of things, but the fact is that you don't change business models in your first 12 months if you're doing well.  SWTOR's conversion to F2P was not motivated by strong subscription numbers.

    But your comment only reinforces what I was saying: why does it have to be 'Talk to NPC X -> Go to Location Y -> Do XYZ'?  Yes, it worked for a long time, but it's tired.  The genre didn't have this in the beginning, and it can survive without it.   And, more importantly, single-player games do it better, and for less money.   Who would play WoW (or any of its clones) for the single-player story when you could be playing Skyrim, Mass Effect 3, The Witcher 2 or any of a thousand other single-player RPGs?  The one thing that MMOs have that those games lack (besides subscription fees and/or cash shops) are communities.  If you don't leverage that, then I have to ask again: what's the point? 

    If we don't have emotional attachment, we will let go of it more easily. It is also a way to mask somewhat repetitive or otherwise unengaging content. Its a good thing if we want to look what happens next. SP RPGs don't have a monopoply on story.

    5. EVE essentially does this with the whole 'skills' thing and I don't think its a good template. It creates a fairly large level gap between the new players and veterans but now the new players can never 'catch up' with the veterans

    Agreed.  But if option B isn't better, it doesn't follow that Option A is acceptable.  There are an infinite number of possible advancement systems.  All I'm proposing is that developers stop rehashing the 20 year-old designs, and for players to stop letting them get away with it.

    Amen.

     

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

  • zekeofevzekeofev Mesa, AZPosts: 233Member

    1 I really wish developers listened to the players less. The last cycle of MMOS have been mostly whitewashed copies of something else that was successful. Its sad when development wants to not tick off any group of players and thus tries to offer everything in a medicoere kind of way and fails to strongly please any group. Creative design does not function well like this and as such no MMO has been creative in the last 5 years.

    2: I love trying to break the box. I like being given tools to use with other players, the more powerful the better. I do understand that severe negative tools (spawn camps, griefing, tagging, denial of a resource) are a huge turnoff to a large amount of the playerbase. If we have to get rid of the negative tools fine but can we PLEASE bring back some of the awesome positive player interaction tools? (like AC1 allegiance system/loyalty, Server events/world events, the enviroment being threatening enough that the players must band together to progress in at least some aspect, interdependant crafting/gathering). I am sad that my MMOs feel like a single player game by design.

     

    3 I would argue that while there could be a blend of features a game will be sandbox or themepark at the end. The crux of this for me is whether my average session has me on rails or if there is reason to react to something in the game that changes my gameplay. In the end it will be one or the other predominantly.

     

    4 I disagree with you, story is important. I do not need to be the hero but I do want to care about the enviroment and without story I will have little to care about except other players....which is a lot don't get me wrong, but not enough for most people. Without story you will have more of the 2 month power leveler and quit kind of gamer.

     

    5 Endgame is a player term for the end of scripted content. Create a game that has a system of content like EvE and then there really is no endgame. I wish a system like EvE that had world events like Matrix Online did back in the day would be mixed.

     

    All in all I loved your post. Thanks.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    I would add

    6 you need to teach players how to do everything

    Part of the fun with older mmos was working stuff out for yourself.
  • rounnerrounner CanberraPosts: 602Member Uncommon

    Nothing new we havent discussed a million times before.

    I am not trying to insult but rather prove the point of point number one. Some players are highly educated and know what they want and what is likely to be well received by others. We've already debated the definition of sandbox, the merits of story, the need for 'end game' and why mmos arent more like fps's a million times over.

    We are not swayed by salesmanship (for example, recent marketing of new games as having sandbox elements when the practical difference is just window dressing). We see the attraction to terra style twitch combat but recognise the downsides (like bad ping is unfair). We understand adding many sandbox elements, or minigames, or whatever buzz word that soe guy invented a few months ago used does give long term playability but isnt a magical bullet. We get not everyone has time to play a lot but others want to be rewarded for spending more time. We understand many players suspend enjoyment (ie they grind) for a long term goal such as faction rep. We understand there is an expectation to balance classes for one v one combat but this interferes with other aspects such as pve roles and play style varitey. We understand trinity doesnt have to be the way but recognise with no set roles a game can feel like a zerg. We understand dynamic events are exciting and give good variety but if you are not riding the population wave (eg you started playing the game late) there needs to be a mechanism for you to enjoy the content. We enjoyed the swtor cut scense but cant beleive they blew their budget on it. I could go on believe me.

    My point being some player opinions should be treated like gold. In other industries this is the case and having strategies for identifying educated consumers and tapping their opinions is a science.

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by jpnz

     

    This is a list that while I can see where the OP is coming from, I disagree with.

    The over-arching theme of this post is that MMOs are being 'killed'. The problem with this is that it is factually false. MMOs are more successful than ever before and is continually expanding as more and more players get into the genre. 

    That's a bit like saying art is better now than it ever was because more people are making it.

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

    That's a bit like saying art is better now than it ever was because more people are making it.

    This is not art. This is entertainment.

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

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    It's like saying tv is better now there are more channels then.

    Doesn't matter if half those channels are full of "the only way is Essex" or "jersey shore" style shitefests?
  • maddog15amaddog15a Independence, MOPosts: 83Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Greyface

    Assumption #1 Developers should listen to the players:  Henry Ford once said "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."  Developers who design based on player feedback get a lot of praise.  They really shouldn't.  What do players ask for?  More of the same: more raids, more gear, more levels, more buffs, more nerfs, more convenience.

    The truth is that the players don't know what they want, because they've never seen it before.  Verant (now SOE) took a lot of crap back in the day for talking about their "Vision."  Sure, they sounded like jerks, but they also built a landmark game in Everquest.  Back in 2004, no one was demanding more quests.  Blizzard did it anyway, and you got the runaway success of WoW.  When was the last time a game feature came out of left field like that?  The reason why there's never been a WoW-killer is that the AAA developers can't move past the WoW-clone.  Players aren't game designers -- they're going to ask for a slightly different version of what they know.  Innovation comes when a developer takes risks.

    I'm not saying there should be no communication between the people who make games and the people who play them.  But the industry has gotten into the habit of trying to please everyone, and the players have gotten into the habit of expecting it.

       

     Left field huh well funny thing alot of left field plays have been made by mmos lately

    swtor's compainion system actual got quiet alot of people attached to their compainions , even though the games other short coming pushed people away many people will still say they miss their compainion.

    TSW's investigation quest, finding clues ingame and on the internet the game for quest was a nice change of pace for lot of mmo gamers who have seen every incarnation gather this/kill this many quest. However, the games less than staler combat has alot of player going else where

    GW2's dynamic event/quest system was very promising in changing up the flow of questing and to some extent did.  Strange thing was it also made forming parties/groups nearly pointless out side of dungeons.  This has made a huge social wedge in the game.

    Then theres the action mmo movement Vindictus, Tera, RaiderZ, and I think Blade & Souls aswell have all tried to push the mmo world away from tab targeting and to a more hack and slash combo like combat systems. 

    So there has been alot of left field moves but often those weren't enough.  Alot of the reason has to do with the fact the gaming industry it self has changed since the days when WoW was released. Because of this its become alot like the movie industry taking very few risk and only making small changes to stale formulas.

  • BigbadwlfBigbadwlf Philadelphia, PAPosts: 116Member

    It sounds like the OP wants to play an open world themepark / hybrid MMO that rewards player interaction instead of gear grind.

    Why doesn't he go play Vanguard then?  It's F2P now.

     

    /endthread

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by Greyface

    LJust spitballing here, but imagine a game without a level cap.  As you progress, the cost to level up increases and the benefits shrink.   Eventually, players would hit a de facto cap, but it would take a long time, even for the worst content locusts.  How would players respond to that?   In practice, there wouldn't be much difference from the current status quo: slow advancement coming in tiny steps.

    No one (amongst the vets) advocates for the New Player.

    It's typical, really, for us to see Newbs as a Problem That Intrudes On OUR World, rather than something to be nurtured.  So we don't tend to have an issue with putting them out of touch with ever reaching the Lofty Heights our veteran toons have been hanging out at for years.

    But the level cap keeps being raised.  Or your proposed alternative, the gap just allowed to continually widen.

    The propietary feelings that "I've paid this company for a long time, so they must listen to my aged vetness" is just one of the biggest issues that companies face from players.  Presumed ownership of the title is really one of the most common bad attitudes.

    But in case you haven't noticed, Blizzard isn't giving you any special treatment.  If the world changes to be more accomodating to New People (against your wishes), well, it's just is.  And it's player's insistence upon continually raising the level cap (just propose not doing it, some expansion, sometime) that's resulting in the destruction-via-fast-forward of the early game.

     

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • NavekNavek glasgowPosts: 71Member
    This whole thread is an interesting read, I agree with nearly all that the OP says,  but even in a perefect gaming world, which fills all his ( our ) dreams, i fear the content locusts would be the loudest voices on this and other forums.
  • elockeelocke Manassas, VAPosts: 4,205Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by apocoluster
       Disagree with #4...I do want to be the special little pony.  

    Same here.

    image
  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by Navek
    This whole thread is an interesting read, I agree with nearly all that the OP says,  but even in a perefect gaming world, which fills all his ( our ) dreams, i fear the content locusts would be the loudest voices on this and other forums.

    Well, no.  If you want to market a new game with a decade average time-to-cap, I'm up for it.  I have already played that game, and for more than ten years.

    I think your bean-counters will have to be forgiven when they (inevitably, correctly) point out that your small player base will only get smaller in the long term.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 17,935Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Greyface

    ...  

    Assumption #4 Story is important:  After the failure of Star Wars: the Old Republic and The Secret World, I'm amazed that the takeaway seems to be that the subscription model is the problem.  Subscriptions are fine -- players will pony up for a game if they think it's worth the money.  The problem with both games is the notion that voice-acted cut scenes are the magic bullet for a smash hit MMO.  If we, as gamers, want this sort of thing we'll play single-player games.  They still make those. 

    Being the Chosen One in an MMO is just dumb, because there are 500 other Chosen Ones pouring out of the same instance right behind you.  Context, not story, is what we need.  Make the world and its back-story live, and give the players the tools and freedom to create their own story. 

    ...

    The story is important, TORs problem is that it focused the story on the single player instead of the guild, the town or the world.

    A game with no story is just a bunch of pointless randomencounters unless you have a Minecraft sandbox where nothing is prebuilt.

    A great story can save an average game, but the story needs to be about the entire world. Players should add their own touch to the story in games with sandbox elements of course but MMOs is a group thing, not a single player experience.

    Still, story is important and games like UO actually had a rich story. 

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,451Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by jpnz

    That's a bit like saying art is better now than it ever was because more people are making it.

    This is not art. This is entertainment.

    And sometimes they both converge.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by Greyface
     

    The story is important, TORs problem is that it focused the story on the single player instead of the guild, the town or the world.

    Not really. Just that the combat was boring and the story couldn't carry the straightforward and repetitive quests. The "next KOTOR" was practically shat on by the basic MMORPG design.

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

Sign In or Register to comment.