It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by coretex666 I think that the MMO community is evolving, while the games arent which is the problem here.
If that was true, there would be no players spending money on these games, which isn't the case as it is proven by rapidly growing MMO market in past years.
What changes? The change from "hardcore" to casual. People indeed want games, not worlds.
Originally posted by coretex666 I disagree with what you say as I tend to believe that people are calling for evolution of MMOs which somehow stopped in 2004.
This pretty much proves my point and demonstrates how some people are unable to accept changes... MMOs did evolve, just not in your desired direction, it is still evolution tho.
I would take the liberty to disagree again.
I insist that MMOs have not evolved since 2004. Or perhaps in areas which do not enhance gaming experience, such as business models. Yes, there are now more F2P titles than in the past, but that is not evolution which I am talking about. There has been zero evolution in terms of game mechanisms, principles on which the MMOs are built.
Trying to put me in a position that I am just disgruntled because MMOs are evolving in a different way than I desire is kind of low, imo.
Maybe we are just looking at evolution as such from different perspectives which means we will unlikely find some consensus.
SPs evolved right way. They are both themepark and sandbox. You can follow your primary quest from A to B and enjoy your ride or you can take longer road, the game doesn't care when or how you get to next part.
While quest in MANY MMOs become way too linear from A to B and there nothing in between but farm/grind. Not to mention how brainless quests has become, not only they tell what to do, they show where and even walk you in to that spot.
I bet many saw something similar too often:
"Hey HERO! Kill 10 rabbits for me and I give you this amazing sword! They are right behind my back!"
"Oh thanks you HERO! Now gather 10 apples from that tree 2 meters away form me and I give you this amazing armor!"
"Amazing HERO!I knew you could do it! Now go kill that annoying pumpkin monster in my garden and you will be rewarded!"
"Oh HERO! I can't thank you enough! Take this gold and this scroll, use it to get to my brother in next village so you can do same S****T OVER AGAIN!
There some MMOS started some changes: TSW,GW2,MO,DF,TERA,Rappelz, Wizardry, Dragon Nest,Wurm etc which involved combat,questing,crafting etc etc. It might be as perfect as it is for some,could be flawed for others,but imo it is good changes which might inspire more dev to make a better version.
There are over one hundred of themepark MMOs out there from niche-indie to big AAA. And how many sandboxes? Can we gather 20? And biggest and actually oldest of them probably EVE?
"Don't argue with dick-heads, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"
Originally posted by ShakyMo Wow was a crappy launch. They even had Unable to login Loot stuck bug Missing warlock talents Missing hunter talents Charge through microscopic crack in the floor and end up in space bug Server crash with too many people in same area When they launched in the eu 6 months later, lord only knows how bad the usa launch was. P.s. they still had loot stuck, charge into space and server crash with crowding bugs AFTER burning crusade when I quit. The blizzard make polished games with very little bugs Is a huge myth, supported by their Apple like fanatical fan base.
The "polished" term became popular because WoW was so polished at release. Stability and content-wise, it was one of the best releases in MMO history. Its major problem was hundreds of thousands of players (soon to be millions of players) flocking to the game. Their biggest error was under-estimating the quality and broad appeal of what they had created.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The reason why Single Player games can do so much better, is that they don't really need new games. Almost every single game on G4TV and E3 coverage, and any other gaming magazine (who still reads those? lol) is a sequel or the third, fourth, fifth, etc. game of a series. In MMOs they don't have sequels (well some have tried, but they never pan out, haven't seen one yet that's done well), they have content patches.
I think it was the golden joystick awards last year that had almost every single non-MMO game was a sequel, etc. The only "new" game on the list that I remember was Journey.
Originally posted by Sidraket Originally posted by Boardwalker Originally posted by Wickedjelly Originally posted by Boardwalker Nope, they aren't. Well, not entirely. The "bitter vets" on this site who post their myopic views of the MMORPG industry tend to answer "yes" to the OP's question. However, I imagine for most non-jaded gamers (which is the majority of gamers), MMOs are doing just fine. Personally, I've been playing computer games since the early 80s, but I haven't touched a single-player game since I logged into my first MMO over a decade ago. Playing single-player games is like masturbation: playing by yourself can be ok, but once you play with others, there is no going back. (Well, unless you have don't have internet access, that is.)
Don't agree at all. While I don't think mmos are failing by any means not everyone that has left is bitter or somehow jaded as you seem to think.
Many of them still do multiplayer in their game of choice just in a different genre.
Perhaps I was a little harsh. But it often seems that most of the people who post on this site have a very narrow, and jaded, view of MMORPGs and their current state. I think that 2012 was a banner year for MMORPGs, so I guess I'll have to agree to disagree with many of the people here.
I agree - which is why I went back to EVE - on a 14 day trial right now. I have accounts with a lot of skills but I wanted to try starting off new with nothing. Recently played in a great guild in EQ2 and ended up bored, before that a great kin in LOTRO.. and ended up bored - even with a new "expansion". Hoping EVE wil wake me up or it is back to Two Worlds 2, Skyrim and a couple of others.
Currently bored with MMO's.
Also P2P model is also problem. There just too many MMO's now. Many of us can't have subscription for all of them. Imagine having subscription for Skyrim,Fallout,Dragon Age etc O_O
B2P ,imo, is way to go! Just like GW2 did.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Lok No it wasn't it was buggy as hell. The only mmos I've played at launch that were more buggy than wow launch were Aoc and dcuo - and bear in mind I got it 6 months later in the eu, must have been worse in north America. Even warhammer was in a better launch state than wow! If you want to talk good launches, city of heroes and rift are the benchmarks.
Rift had issues also - mostly with shadowstep skills that made you fall through the map. That took a good 3 months to fix.
"In 50 years, when I talk to my grandchildren about these days, I'll make sure to mention what an accomplished MMO player I was. They are going to be so proud ..."by Naqaj - 7/17/2013 MMORPG.com forum
Yes, Launches like LOTRO and RIFT were very good. Some would say that LOTRO set the standard for solid launches.
Single player games have always had the advantage that the game is tailored to the person playing it and that there is no concern for fairness or complaints about being OP. Take a game like Skyrim and put 1000 people in the same world and you'll quickly find that what was once a fun game with tons of exploration will be boiled down to 2 or 3 of the most lucractive dungeons followed by people farming the crap out of them. 27 runs of the same dungeon later you'll be asking why it's so boring.
The beauty of single player games is that you only do the content you feel like, at the pace you enjoy, for the reasons chosen by you. Does it feel epic to hunt down that evil wizard? Do that. Do you prefer to weild sub-optimal, but totally awesome weapons? Do that.
But other people are what ruin it. X is better than Y. You're not geared enough to run this dungeon 10 times a day, come back when you are. Sorry, this mount requires you to grind gold for the next 6 months to buy it. MMO's are designed to limit accessibility and freedom so that people can earn rewards based on effort and time spent.
Single player games are free to reward players with all sorts of stuff and freedom because you're not competing against anyone. Even sandbox mmo's fall prey to the human need to be the best, to limit and restrict, to determine the most effecient methods without concern for fun.
And there's balance. PvP has always and will continue to ruin fun and freedom in game worlds. Once pvp is introduced, balance becomes a thing and holy moly is it hotly contested. It never ends, even in game which were held up for their relatively fair pvp (like gw1) have people foaming at the mouth about some class or skill that's woefully OP.
That's why we can't have nice things. Because of people.
Originally posted by chryses 9 years ago when I found MMO's I thought single player games were dead and gone and I would never look back. I really feel that the single player games being released to date (on all platforms) are really pushing boundaries and from my own personal experience, nearly all my hard core MMO gamer mates have migrated back to the single player market. Main reasons: - MMO's are just not evolving fast enough. Too many cookie cutters - Hype versus payoff. Unfortunately for the past 5 years not one game has lived up to their hype WAR, SWTOR, Vanguard, AoC list goes on... - Dumbing down of genre from the true RPG throw back to the D&D paper based gaming etc. Crafting is watered down alongside exploration etc. Single Player Games - Have gone through several evolution steps for all platforms, graphics and sound. - Story lines have been developed and supported by in-depth extensive worlds - online capabilities that still allow for co-op, multi player, score boards etc. - Immersion is incredible. I would consider myself a hardcore MMO lover but for the past year I have only played MMO games in between single player titles e.g. Modern Warfare 4, Red Dead Remption, Far Cry 3 now (incredible game), XCOM, Skyrim, Civ 5. Maybe its a time/age thing but it seems myself and ALL my friends are returning back to single player games, table top and board games for the interaction. We all play MMO's still but we are all really in a holding pattern waiting to see when they will evolve past their current form and most of us are losing interest fast. Either way I feel single player games are leading the way in development and MMO's are just not keeping up.
I agree MMOs are not evolving fast enough, but feel there may be hope in 2013 (ESO, FF XIV RR, ArcheAge, and others). I disagree on the single player games. Coming from the console side of the house from over 20 years, it was the stagnation there that moved me to MMOs to begin with.
Consoles will always be more immersive simply because the content only has one character to focus on (as opposed to millions of characters of who play differently). But from an RPG perspective consoles have lost that hardcore stat/asset management replaced with simple interfaces to give the illusion of an RPG. For example, a console game may allow you to recieve XP which allows you to level and place skill points in certain trees. While those are RPG elements, to me they dont go far enough to develop a true RPG experience. Consoles also cater to the faster/twitch style of combat which doesnt fit within the RPG genre for me. RPGs aren't about action, but about stats, resource management, and progression.
MMOs to me are best suited for RPGs, but the mechanics to deliver that gameplay could use a serious injection of innovation, of which I believe is coming sooner rather than later.
Personally I am just worried about the genre as its been a big part of my gaming life and I can only see a decline in innovation as companies continue to follow a 'fast food' type of culture. Simple, easy to digest and instant gratification.
Don't forget when MMO's were first released, consoles, hand held devices, smart phones and facebook etc, didn't even exist or were so basic. So of course MMO's were seen as revolutionary.
The world has moved on and now I can play games:
- anywhere on my smart phone against friends or strangers.
- facebook online games like war commander to give me a pvp strategy fix
- numerous FTP games (age of empires etc)
- Wii, PS3, Xbox (numerous online options albiet not as huge as an MMO)
so on and so on. Its quite easy now to find a community and companies are making it so very easy to connect instantly and have that buzz of beating another person or playing in a world together. People don't need to play MMO's anymore to engage with a community.
Maybe the market has changed direction and is now targeting 15-25 year olds. Maybe the 'old school' board, paper based gamer which was my generation is not being considered as the most lucrative market.
Whatever happens it will be a huge shame if MMO's don't start truly evolving because what was once one of the most exciting concepts for gaming just feels like a run down take away industry that is still trying to hang on to the early years.
IMO of course
I think online gaming its is going down the Minecraft route, single player game with well thought out, well designed & implemented multiplayer & Co-op modes for example DayZ has something like a 800k strong players which is more than the player base of 2 to 3 "mumorpuger's" and is only an Arma 2 mod Minecraft have more players and turn out to be really fun in there own right. Star Citizen & Elite Dangerous are also following the Minecraft both have single player modes with incredibly fleshed out and designed multiplayer modes. Well we could all keep blaming the down fall of "mumorpuger's" on WoW's mega success, the culture and publishers greed to emulate WoW's success bit for bit instead of making new fresh innovative "mumorpuger's", that is all old harp & hat.
Originally posted by chryses Maybe the market has changed direction(?) and is now(???) targeting 15-25 year olds. Maybe the 'old school' board, paper based gamer which was my generation is not being considered as the most lucrative market.
Target isn't different. That's always been, always will be MMO's primary target.
We, on the other hand (general we) have aged a bit. Resulting, as you can see, in all of this grumping and dooooom.
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.
Vanguard is a world to exist in, Age Of Wushu is a world you can exist in, DFUW will be world to exist in, ArcheAge will be a world you can exist in.
If mmo's gamers chose to play the linear mmo's they have no one but themselves to blame.
The trend has been for MMOs to emulate single-player RPGs. There was a time, not so long ago, when industry watchers were predicting the death of the single-player RPG. Everything was going to be online and subscription-based -- even other types of games like shooters and strategy. It's a seductive idea for game publishers: not only could they sell you the box, they could also charge you rent.
Titles like Dragon Age and Skyrim proved that single-player RPGs weren't going away, but MMO development is a slow moving beast. The publishers couldn't change direction fast enough to keep up. So what we have are a lot of second-rate single-player RPGs with optional multiplayer, cash-shops, and subscription fees. And in the process, we sacrificed the persistence that made MMOs so addictive in the first place.
Compare Mass Effect 3 to Star Wars The Old Republic: both games were developed by the same company and feature fully voice-acted, single-player stories and character progression. Both have online multi-player unrelated to the story. One could be had for the price of the box, and the other required ongoing payments.
Most consumers will eventually figure out when they're not getting their money's worth.
I'm optimistic though. There are a pile of indie sandboxes now in development -- some of them might even be good. SOE, the mother of the themepark game, recently scrapped their future flagship title in favor of a sandbox design. Unless Zenimax has their head totally up their ass, they're probably scrambling to add more persistent-world features to ESO ahead of launch. I could be setting myself up for disappointment, but I'm actually looking forward to the next generation of MMOs.
Originally posted by Rimmersman Originally posted by Sidraket Originally posted by Boardwalker Originally posted by Wickedjelly Originally posted by Boardwalker Nope, they aren't. Well, not entirely. The "bitter vets" on this site who post their myopic views of the MMORPG industry tend to answer "yes" to the OP's question. However, I imagine for most non-jaded gamers (which is the majority of gamers), MMOs are doing just fine. Personally, I've been playing computer games since the early 80s, but I haven't touched a single-player game since I logged into my first MMO over a decade ago. Playing single-player games is like masturbation: playing by yourself can be ok, but once you play with others, there is no going back. (Well, unless you have don't have internet access, that is.)
Having a world to exist in does not equate to a quality title to sink time in. I play Vanguard and while it has the features I enjoy its age, and lack of improvement, hold it back from being truly enjoyable. Its sad that in order to play what I like I have to play something old, or sub par.
I have tried Age of Wushu and I dont have an opinion yet. I cant determine if my fustration stems from the system being totally different than what Im used to or if its the horrible translation. Either way, right now I feel the game is not exposing enough about its systems for me to use them in a way I enjoy. Perhaps its a time thing.
Completely on board with ArcheAge. I actually believe this will be the game I stick with. I already know its going to have its set of problems/flaws/limitations, but if it can deliver on the simple aspects I have seen I'll be a happy camper.
Originally posted by Rusque Single player games have always had the advantage that the game is tailored to the person playing it and that there is no concern for fairness or complaints about being OP. Take a game like Skyrim and put 1000 people in the same world and you'll quickly find that what was once a fun game with tons of exploration will be boiled down to 2 or 3 of the most lucractive dungeons followed by people farming the crap out of them. 27 runs of the same dungeon later you'll be asking why it's so boring. The beauty of single player games is that you only do the content you feel like, at the pace you enjoy, for the reasons chosen by you. Does it feel epic to hunt down that evil wizard? Do that. Do you prefer to weild sub-optimal, but totally awesome weapons? Do that. But other people are what ruin it. X is better than Y. You're not geared enough to run this dungeon 10 times a day, come back when you are. Sorry, this mount requires you to grind gold for the next 6 months to buy it. MMO's are designed to limit accessibility and freedom so that people can earn rewards based on effort and time spent. Single player games are free to reward players with all sorts of stuff and freedom because you're not competing against anyone. Even sandbox mmo's fall prey to the human need to be the best, to limit and restrict, to determine the most effecient methods without concern for fun. And there's balance. PvP has always and will continue to ruin fun and freedom in game worlds. Once pvp is introduced, balance becomes a thing and holy moly is it hotly contested. It never ends, even in game which were held up for their relatively fair pvp (like gw1) have people foaming at the mouth about some class or skill that's woefully OP. That's why we can't have nice things. Because of people.
I think someone else mentioned it. I think its an age thing. I've been playing games since I was 5 and I'm 40 now. Console games just dont do it for me anymore. It could be because I grew up on the 'hardcore' titles like mega man and contra where when your lives were over so was the game. I liked the idea of checkpoints, but feel consoles have been simplified to accomodate a younger (and somewhat entitled?) audience? When I played Developers were challenging our skills. They tried to kill us. Today they want you to play through the whole thing and if you cant they add things to help you. But what they dont do is add a feature to turn that stuff OFF.
In terms of single player RPGs I'm just different. I loved Oblivion but was luke warm to Skyrim even though it blew the other games out of the stratosphere. They simplified it (and for the that was good), not so much for me. Being older I want my RPG challenge to come from attribute management. The story will progress based on how well I manage the challenge. But as the challenge increases (i.e. - making me die over and over) there needs to be OTHER things to do to consume my time.
Thats what I look for in an MMO that I don't find often in single player RPGs. There just isnt enough customization. Now I'm noticing MMOs are following the console route which is disappointing. But I believe as MMOs (MMORPGs specifically) become more mainstream it will open up the door for niche markets, same as what happened in consoles. At one time you could only buy full games. As consoles became mainstream so did its options with downloadable titles and DLC. And to mention that some of the downloadables were throwbacks to earlier games which was a request from the older gamers.
Saturation gives way to innovation as a portion of the (paying) population will easily support something smaller, different, and catering to their wants.
Give it time...