It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Rollgunner I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes from the movie Avalon, in which a Game Controller confronts one of the players in the game : Which is the greater challenge? Which is the better game? Which would you choose, given the choice? The sort of game that you think you can win, but cannot, Or, alternatively, one that seems to be impossible, but isn’t? Maintaining a precise, delicate balance somewhere in between, throughout every level of the game – That’s what keeps it going. And it is all up to us. - Game Controller “Avalon” (2001)
I used to think this was true. Difficulty in games where you could barely beat it when you got enough combined skills/farm/reactions/luck/memory/timing done.
Now though, gamers just quit if the difficulty is too high. Even free to play games need those free players to keep the population up. The result?
You have walked around the corner! 50 XP!
You have opened up your inventory! 100 XP!
You have used a skill! 200 XP!
You died and found the graveyard where we instantly return you to the boss fight and don't regen its hp! 500 XP!
Do MMOs need to be entirely hard? no. But I miss chalenges with a point to them. WoW used to be like that with the design of its hard mode BC dungeons when they were first introduced. Seriously to clear some of thoses bosses it took really strong 5 man coordination. Few of the trash was tankable and had to be kited around by the dps. Double healer was mandatory on the bosses. Etc.
Now dungeons are measured by TIME and not DIFFICULTY. I want content that prioritizes the 2nd and not the 1st (and not the 3rd option, cash shop money spent, either)
In today's technical business world for several decades, cooperation within boundaries (limited *technical* anarchy) is the way successful organizations compete. (http://www.swlearning.com/management/hitt/sm6e/isc/focus/sf11_01.html) -- which is why game guilds can be such good preparation for modern business administration sometimes
That is all.
If you can't distinguish these modes in life you will become very unhappy.
If it's a flatland about WIN WIN WIN, you still have a lot to learn, and are being run by your endocrine system, not your brain. If you want the people around you to trust you with the fun toys and big resources, use your brains, not just your glands.
Of course, there is a perennial need for cannon fodder... *ducks*
Even there, since the invention of ballistics, we've been teaching military from the joint staff to grunts to be increasingly savvy and ever better integrated and self-organizing in fog-of-war.
The educational requirements for mercenaries in Prussia gave rise to the first free, public, universal (for boys) public education system in the western world starting at seven years old, shortly after Napoleon started obsoleting the formerly dominant position of the King of Prussia's elite forces (and income). It also led to those boys going back to the King two decades later and demanding a peaceful transition to consitutional monarchy, so they could have a little say as to where they got thrown into conflicts.
The US educational system spun off from this system when Boston educator Horace Mann convinced his rich bride that Prussia was lovely in the spring -- but the US after the revolution had no federal budget so he had to settle for local school board funding, and his only control was insisting that the teachers had a standard preparation (what was then called "Normal School" if you ever see those in New England) so that a standard curriculum could be presented to the kids. He had aims to shape a new yeoman citizenry for the new Republic, but after the civil war there was a movement by business to take over the curriculum to prepare workers through the curriculum for factory work, and nothing in the school board structure protected the schools from that.
An educator named John Dewey effected some compromises that saved shreds of the original system, but most of the conflicts in the modern education system you see today in the US (and often mistakenly propagated elsewhere) come from this period.
Good soldiers, good factory drones -- and now we need good creative independent thinkers and yeoman citizens of the new global reality and we barely remember how to make them. Honestly the gaming community and the tech community -- the geek community -- might be better prepared than the rest of society to provide this, although they keep telling *us* that *we* are misfits.
First, we need to reteach ourselves things like this: it's not about winning, it's about playing the game damn well.
I completly agree with the Advocate on this one. In Ulima Online, I was a tailor. I spent most of my days in the tailor shop, making clothes for people in different styles and colors, taking them to lunch at the local tavern, talking to people in town. It was an amazing game to play it exactly how you wanted it.
In SWG I wanted to be a barkeep, but that idea did nto work as well as I hoped, I became an engineer and built... everything. Started a shop, got my materials and focused on the business side of the game. And so on and so forth. In every game I have tried to find a place in the world, live a life.
Then developers who joined the MMO craze not for their love of good games, but for the love of easy money. came out and said that "people do not want to play some average Joe, they only want to be the great heroes" bringing the whole MMMO concept back into the old 90s action games, and away from the evolution of all of computer gaming... Then they said I and those I like to play with, do not exist. Or at least, have no value. We, who ONLY had MMOs to turn to, all other games are about being the big hero doing something really stupid, we suddenly lost our whole genre, our only place to be.
Games still cater to "Roleplayers" or people who wants to cybersex alot. I AM a roleplayer, playing a character in a real life.. and I do not have an existensial value, not like the cybersexers, the PvPers, the scammers and all other groups that has to be recognized and respected...
So... Did MMOs lose or gain somehting by this shift? Did they become better when they turned into the same as all other games, or did they become a little less? You know where I stand by now. And I feel very alone over on this side. Glad to see at least Devils advocate is here as well.
"This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force"
I too don't want to win in mmo but that can happen you hit level cap you do your deal of raiding and / or pvp you get a feeling of I've seen it all and that's a deal breaker for me. Furthermore most theme park MMO are feeling to me like this same game over and over again just in little bit different clothes.
@Harafnir So you are a crafter at heart and you love it quite like me I was Black Smith / miner in UO searching for good ore with my trusty prospector tools mining it and marking quality and location on my own bitmap mine map Avoiding dangers of nature and greedy players than finally smelting and hammering to make those sought for exceptional armors.When I joined WoW I wanted to do this same only to hit a brick wall... of theme park game design that makes everyone a crafter of some minimal importance. Zero endgame value of most crafting professions make it laughable effort being able to sell only 2-3 items from your list that by system design to bind all crafting professions together.It was a disappointment... UO allowed us to make game world what we wanted it to be it was ultimate sandobox because it was providing a lot of systems that just were there and you can never even dream of having them in multi million dollar games of today.GM were crafting their own quests however they liked them and it was far superior experience than scripted dungeons.The world seemed big and scary which is unknown value to the WoW and clones where player cannot meet foe he can't beat unless it's clearly stated in quest description X-players or more. I loved introduction of burning crusade and roaming elite foes and hc dungeons that was golden time for WoW in my book. In uo you new made character felt just like regular guy... even cows could kick your ass ;-)I think we lost quite a lot because developers denied that large part of mmo history that is UO.
Originally posted by NorseGod We need a MMORPG gamer to develope an old school MMORPG with the acknowledgement that, that said game will not have millions of players, but will be badass for the tens of thousands that are waiting for such game.
You have got to read this very insightful interview: An Interview With 'Pathfinder Online' Developer Ryan Dancey
Which is partly related to "open-ended game" systems.
Originally posted by Victor Barreiro Jr. One thing I've realized from the games I've played, especially from Japanese single-player console RPGs, is that I feel bad when a game actually ends.
Originally posted by Victor Barreiro Jr.
So true, (cue compulsive vomiting scene in Team America): Finishing Ocarina of Time for eg. That was it. I think open-ended games can be infinitely replayable if they have those emergent patterns that come out of them.
Originally posted by gaeanprayer Opposite end for me. I don't want to be going constantly and never getting anywhere. I actually enjoy feeling like I "beat" a game....for now. Then I put it down and go do something else, usually something more productive, until an expansion comes out. I can understand how some people want to make a game feel almost like a home where they're simply always in it, doing something, but I can't empathize with that. I've been gaming for almost 25 years now, and even to me that seems like a gigantic waste of time and life.
All gaming is a gigantic waste of time and life, whatever your choice of game or play style you are sitting staring at flashing lights and pressing buttons in order.
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
Originally posted by ObiClownobi All gaming is a gigantic waste of time and life, whatever your choice of game or play style you are sitting staring at flashing lights and pressing buttons in order.
LOL, isn't that the truth...
Want better games? Get the developers out of the forums. Games aren't better because you think they have your ear. In fact, I think they are far worse because of it. We don't know what we want. We think we know. The reason the games fall flat is because they keep trying to give us what we ask for... and quite frankly, we're the worst litmus ever to go by.
How about designers designing games that they like and if we don't like it, we won't play them? No more of this beotching to the masses about how this or that can be improved to make the game better. They'll get the message if we don't play it. No need to text them or put a dissertation on the web about it. Money talks louder than people do.
Will never happen though, because as much as we've all turned into locusts... they've also turned into facebook, twitter, and blog junkies. They need to replace us and them... then innovation will return... we're both the cogs in the system... we're the ones perpetuating the same old same old.
You don't want to win, you just want to waste time. That's all any of us want to do... waste time.
Originally posted by Nephaerius I play games to win. It's all about competition for me. If there's no challenge or competition to be had I'm moving on. Reaching cap or the end of progression if you will in an MMO is hardly winning the game IMO as a competitive PvP player.
Seems like you're better off playing an online FPS to get your PvP fix. MMOs (or should I say, MMORPGs) in general should offer more than just competitive gameplay.
Originally posted by pmiles Originally posted by ObiClownobi All gaming is a gigantic waste of time and life, whatever your choice of game or play style you are sitting staring at flashing lights and pressing buttons in order.
To be fair, some of the original concepts from developers I've seen or heard are ridiculous. Take TESO for example. Watered down visuals from Skyrim? A lock-on combat system instead of non-target (as it should be like in the original, single-player games)? And what's this crap I hear about some social networking features embedded in-game? Yeah, I don't think anyone called for these, yet the developers are planning to implement them regardless.
I do agree that the gaming community bitches and whines a lot and those who bark the loudest are the ones that the developers tend to listen to the most, and sadly, those certain individuals tend to have the worst ideas ironically enough. It's the same reason why I think TERA didn't quite live up to how it should've, as an example.
I guess in the end, no one really knows what they want. Players think they do, but they don't. Developers think they know what players want, but they don't (to an extent). And I say that because it seems like most online games coming out nowadays are just rehashes of what's already been done, and developers are just trying to one-up each other in hopes to get a piece of pie, so to speak, or earn that quick cash grab before moving onto a different project.
Originally posted by Kuppa I think I understand what you mean. Do you have an example of a sucessfull system that is not somehow related to pvp? Besides stuff like mods and pure content creation by players(which can be fun, but it's not for everyone and the level of entartainment from them can vary greatly), I can't think of a single system that could be player driven and at the same time be only pve.
A very extensive crafting system could become such a system, or a character progression system similar to PoEs could become endless. Coincidentally, a dungeon system similar to PoEs maps could also become infinite.
Wasn't the game Fate designed around an endless dungeon?
Worlds don't end - stories do. MMO's, even SWTOR are worlds. You may kill the final boss or complete your personal story but the world does not stop. The reality is that there is no final quest - until the next patch or upgrade. I too rarely finish games (lol - FFVII was one of the few that I did complete) but it is not due to lack of interest - it is because I am a solo player.
Why is there such a letdown when you kill the final boss? Because you have focused so much energy in doing so. When you spend hours and hours of time gathering the gear and building the skills necessary to kill the boss you have purpose. Psychologically people with a purpose are happier than those aimless miscreants like me. However, when you fulfil your purpose you are left with nothing (except pleasant memories).
Maybe that is the tragedy of today's mmo players. They work like beavers to build their skills and fight like Hades to kill the final boss and then feel empty. No wonder they go on to the next mmo. How can you blame them?
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Originally posted by tordurbar Worlds don't end - stories do. MMO's, even SWTOR are worlds. You may kill the final boss or complete your personal story but the world does not stop. The reality is that there is no final quest - until the next patch or upgrade. I too rarely finish games (lol - FFVII was one of the few that I did complete) but it is not due to lack of interest - it is because I am a solo player. Why is there such a letdown when you kill the final boss? Because you have focused so much energy in doing so. When you spend hours and hours of time gathering the gear and building the skills necessary to kill the boss you have purpose. Psychologically people with a purpose are happier than those aimless miscreants like me. However, when you fulfil your purpose you are left with nothing (except pleasant memories). Maybe that is the tragedy of today's mmo players. They work like beavers to build their skills and fight like Hades to kill the final boss and then feel empty. No wonder they go on to the next mmo. How can you blame them?
You are a solo player in a massive multi player game... I can see how you feel rather strange in this enviroment
More horisontel game play. Its a good solution with the current game set, that is to rush to end game.
Corsair 700D, EVGA X58 3x SLI classified, i7 950@4,2ghz,12gb ram@2ghz, 680@1255mhz/6625mhz, Xonar essence, 2x80gb intel g2, 1x120gb intel g2, 5tb Western Digital black, Seasonic 1k platinum, EK-CoolStream (140), EK-CoolStream (360), EK Waterblocks EVGA X58 Classified Acetal, EK Water Blocks EK-RAM Dominator X6, Aquastream XT ultra,Aquacomputre Aquadrive x4, 3xNexus Real Silent 120mm, SyncMaster 305Tplus
Scoobin it up on the daily.
Originally posted by Ridan477 I tend to agree with almost everything said above. To me the only content that can truelly be dynamic and "never end" is player driven PvP content. PvE comes straight from what the developers creat for us and there for has an end. GW2 for however dynamic those events are really only remains so for the first go around. PvP endgame remains in my opinion the only viable option for an mmo to have a living "endless" world. Dark fall UO has an amazing concept and if a bigger developer with more money could attempt something like that I think it could be special. Risky, but special.
I think this is the reason I have gotten so hooked on Planetside 2. It's so dynamic and social because of the open, player-driven PvP, and you can just drop in, play a couple of raids on bases and log off for a while. People actually work together and their isn't really a way to "win" except to have a good time shooting some guys. It takes the social aspects of an MMO and sticks them with the simple, team-based fun of a good FPS like Battlefield 3 into something really addicting, without needing a way to "win".
Originally posted by zekeofev Originally posted by Rollgunner I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes from the movie Avalon, in which a Game Controller confronts one of the players in the game : Which is the greater challenge? Which is the better game? Which would you choose, given the choice? The sort of game that you think you can win, but cannot, Or, alternatively, one that seems to be impossible, but isn’t? Maintaining a precise, delicate balance somewhere in between, throughout every level of the game – That’s what keeps it going. And it is all up to us. - Game Controller “Avalon” (2001)
I really know what you mean, but given the demographic changes we've seen, and the profit focus, it can't be any other way.
Even the general gaming audience has changed, as we've all grown older. Couple that with the general population, that we are seeing more of in games, and if the bar isn't lowered (way down...) they will just go do something else.
I was very competitive game wise, when I was younger. But these days, I just don't have the focus, or the energy for that any more. Thats why I've moved from PvP to PvE. People change, if the games being offered don't, they aren't going to remain profitable.
This opinon piece squarely delineates why MMOs are failing right and left. For the past ten years, almost every designer has caved to consumer pressure to make all content attainable quite quickly after release. There's an truism these whiney gamers need to learn, "Protect me from what I want."
Today while i was playing Aion, we talked in our legion chat just about the same.
That how we hate the fact that there is an endgame and at the same time there is none.
Because for example, in Aion, (but im prety sure 99% of the title's on the market) endgame means endless grind in endgame instances in order to prepare for the upcoming content just to repeat the sequence again when the lvl cap is raised.
Many of us agreed in that, we would be so happy to play a game, that doesn't have any leveling system at all nor would be mindless gear grind. Because every instance is fun even at the 10th time but when you entered it more then a hundred times and you still doesn't have the desired item, it's just gets boring, and when you acquire it, you loose interest in the place.
I hope i live long enough to see an mmorpg that doesn't implement these kind of things. That is a huge world to explore and fight monsters, but the items you can acquire doesn't make you invincible compared to beginners. Is something like second life, but slightly different set up in a fantasy world. Sorry for my English. (i blame the ones i learned from while playing mmorpg's). ^^
Said that about 10 years ago just not in those words.
What you are now experiencing is the age change where you crave a deeper immersion value than just killing monsters. You now want to become part of a virtual reality that you feel like you REALLY are a part of it. You really want the Virtual World that you can't find becasue it does not exist.
Building a MMO GAME and building a VIRTUAL WORLD are not the same thing and the risks of failure is far to high for investors so this is a catch 22
Good luck on your search and if you find one let me know,
Ever since i play mmorpg games i felt this way, do not ask why am i keep on going.
Now and then there is a few great idea (atleast i love them) but they are sentenced to death.
As the "casual" (not sure if it's the right word) player is not interested in them.
For example there was a game where you had to say out the spells you wanted to cast.
The game used voice regognition and it sounded prety muyh like fun, but somehow i never get to play it. Probably because even tho the idea sounded great, i couldn't tell the same about other aspects of the game. As you say new ideas are always risky. And this is why i see a few great ideas in many games but they somehow just isn't enough to sell them to me. Because everything else in the game is the same as in every other title. It just feels sad and it seems like developers running out of ideas meanwhile this isn't true. we, the players aren't open to them.
Escapist here...don't care about the End Game arguments. Not a completionist either... My main character in LOTRO is only level 66 and I've been playing since release of Shadow of Angmar! -)
Originally posted by NorseGod Originally posted by Freezzo Originally posted by NorseGod *snip*
I think it's more that the whole gaming market and the MMO market has been opened up to wider audiences, who have the time nor the interest to invest into the world and their characters. I know plenty of people that play MMORPGs casually and like the rewarding systems and what's not, but fear a more complex game takes too much of their time or doesn't lead to fast fun. Most of these people are working/parents/whatever and not the generation of 20-year olds (I'm 21 FYI) that you claim them to be. As far as I know most of them play LoL and CoD. I'm sure it's spread over the whole spectrum, because I'm sure I just haven't met those of my age yet that only do stuff for rewards. And for the last statement I do agree and that's why it's probably best for an indie dev to pull something like that off.
So basically, because people decide to have a kid, my gaming experience has to be dumbed down? Don't you think that you have enough MMOs to choose from already, that you allow one good MMORPG? We're not playing your games anyways, so it's not like you're forcing us to migrate to yours or that you'll lose population.
You are correct though. I can't argue with your points made.
I'm just asking for someone that loves MMORPGs to make a good one for the few that have been waiting years. Not by a gaming company that only makes MMOs for the money.
I'd rather host a game that has 450K dedicated MMORPG gamers (which was the norm back then), than host a WoW clone, hoping to make WoW income but only have 50K players at best and on the edge of shutting down or going F2P every single quarter (which is what is going on today).
Yes, in reality, you are correct. But, let me tell you my opinion in regards to what you are describing.
Ever seen the movie Casino?
Remember when they started out in Vegas? There was a niche group of people that went to Vegas. They wore expensive suits, drove expensive cars. They ate gourmet foods. The management demanded high quality and the customers just assumed to get high quality.
At the end of the movie, the hotels were demolished and turn into themepark hotel casinos for the masses. Remember the scene when the huge gaggle of fat people, wearing Wal-mart clothes, kids, picking their noses walking through the doors? The quality went to crap, all-you-can-eat buffets in every casino, etc etc. I actually felt a sense of death in that scene.
That's what I think about when I read the "progress" of MMORPGs turning into MMOs to become more accessible for the lowest common denominator. Which by the way, when you cater to the lowest common denominator, you have to lower the bar.
Post of the month as far as i'm concerned. He basically said what i've been trying to say for months but in a far better way. I always tried to use the example of a race car being eventually turned into a minivan because people complained about this or that aspect, and slowly it got changed into something it wasn't, yet the people driving the minivans on the racetrack still think they're racers. Anyways, read his post, excellent and 100% to the point.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I feel it somehow different.
Many of the games that became free to play eventually turned into pay to win.
Giving the advantage over everyone else to those who can afford it.
Turning the masses into cannon fodder in the hands of "rich kids".
The problem is that 99% of the games on the market are like this.
Many of the games are designed to be easy but time consuming.
You don't have to face big obstacles nor you have to solve mysteries in order to progress in the story (if it even has). You just login every day repeat the same sequence over and over and you reach the endgame eventually. Every time i read news about an upcoming title it isfilled with promises. That this game has many new ideas and it is sooooo original, but in the end is like any other with different graphics.
Originally posted by iddqdnoclip I feel it somehow different. Many of the games that became free to play eventually turned into pay to win. Giving the advantage over everyone else to those who can afford it. Turning the masses into cannon fodder in the hands of "rich kids". The problem is that 99% of the games on the market are like this. Many of the games are designed to be easy but time consuming. You don't have to face big obstacles nor you have to solve mysteries in order to progress in the story (if it even has). You just login every day repeat the same sequence over and over and you reach the endgame eventually. Every time i read news about an upcoming title it isfilled with promises. That this game has many new ideas and it is sooooo original, but in the end is like any other with different graphics.
Your above, just about described how real life is organized... Games replicating real life? Perhaps that is what all too many people have been conditioned to want/expect? Most people default to the familiar in just about everything, and that includes their choices for entertainment.
The games we've spoken of in the past, require a mind set that is becoming more and more rare, these days. It requires even more of that mind set (and technical knowledge/experience) to create those types of games. Given what these games cost to create, its no wonder that they are pointed at the largest demographic possible. With the results we've all seen.
I wish I could say that it will get better eventually, but its not looking that way at this point. Perhaps once these games don't cost many, many millions to create, there will be room for such games again. " Its a fools hope, but its the only hope we have..."