Its not that. No one makes anything "just in case". When you have a limited budget and time, you do what you can and hope all of it shows in the final product. Today's games actually have budget to do market research, but like always, customers have trouble expressing exactly what they want. Past games had the advantage of being the first, or if they didn't have that, they were stabs in the dark. Quite a few of developers turned out to be one-hit-wonders. It rises a question: Did they know what they were doing back then?
Going won't certainly help. Coming up with something completely new is the key, I think.
Well, my point was that they did not know it, expected the house to last for much longer, thus they made the foundation stronger and deeper.
To put it into context, if the wow dev team would create a new wow, in my opinion they would go just with the outland and northrend formula, similar to rift, not a huge world.
And ofcourse now we may argue about the impact that would have
edit: what I'm trying to say is I don't see how a sandbox MMORPG can be done without a persistant world.
Sure. But sandbox MMORPGs are not the only MMORPGs, aren't they?
In fact, GW1 is classified as a MMORPG but it has no persistent world. DDO is mostly dungeon adventure and the persistent world may as well not be there.
And you don't need a sandbox to have crafting either. Heck, many non-MMO has crafting (SKYRIM, Diablo 3...). Granted that those are not very deep system, probably because the core audience of those games don't really care.
Why dont u face the music and stop meandering around & take people head on. Why dont u rebuttal my comments instead of plowing threw this thread with newb-speak..?
Admit it, you only know WoW and anything other/older was just too hard for you.
Or... fend urself and rebuttal my previous comments instead of hiding behind a mod.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
edit: what I'm trying to say is I don't see how a sandbox MMORPG can be done without a persistant world.
Sure. But sandbox MMORPGs are not the only MMORPGs, aren't they?
In fact, GW1 is classified as a MMORPG but it has no persistent world. DDO is mostly dungeon adventure and the persistent world may as well not be there.
And you don't need a sandbox to have crafting either. Heck, many non-MMO has crafting (SKYRIM, Diablo 3...). Granted that those are not very deep system, probably because the core audience of those games don't really care.
what I was getting at is could the swg model or the eve model work without a persistent world. let alone could a sandbox mmorpg work without a persistent world for that matter? I think what i'm trying to say is if non-persistent world mmorpgs are not possible outside of themeparks than maybe it non-persistent worlds are only another option for game developers to use and not necessarly the best way to develop mmo-rpgs in the future.
Virtual world isnt the past, the future is making it better not getting rid of it lol. You cant have a mmorpg without a world. Whats wrong with you? You cant even tell the difference between lobby game, mmo, mmorpg, and single player with mp support games. You try so hard to get people to buy into what you are saying, but your logic is severely flawed. The future is better games not your f2p lobby junk games. Just because you like to bounce around from free game to free game doesnt mean everyone does. We want better for our mmorpgs, even if you dont. Every post you write is always negative towards games 95% of us like here and want to get better, perhaps you should be more open minded.
hahahah .. who is close minded when you are holding onto old ideas. In fact, it is open minded to see all the lobby-based games, MMOs, MOBA, and all the variations.
I don't limit myself to virtual world games, not that i won't play one. I do play PS2. But why should every MMO has a virtual world? More variations and more innovation is good for gaming.
Ok so basicaly you dont know what a mmorpg is and you have no clue what a virtual world is.
Clears up your comments a lot.
BTW a MOBA, lobby game, and other style mmo's are virtual worlds. Just saying. You should spend more time reading and less time trying to convince people educated in the subject they are wrong.
Thank you for pointing out where I am wrong. Now with my limited time playing MMORPGs I've seen quite a bit of RPers in the open world but that may because I try to introduce my self to them in an RP way. Now If I may ask how would games without a persistant world handle crafting that is say as in depth as swg where players can be full time crafters and not need to do combat? I think at there is some forms of MMOs that don't need persistant worlds while others still need them.
What does crafting has to do with persistent world? You can put the same crafting system in a SP player game, and it plays the same.
In fact, Minecraft is the most complex "crafting" game and it is not even a MMO.
We all have different definitions of what a MMO is. But removal of features is rarely advancement in gaming. This has been the story for years, features and game play getting removed, hardly anything back in return. So it is not about what makes a MMO, it is about streamlining MMO's down to levelling to top level.
Give us something else as good as meaningful crafting and you would not see so many complaints. But making MMO’s solo games online, solo games which do not have the elements many solo RPG’s have (like meaningful crafting), is poorer game design.
I will point out what Colin Johanson said recently, "In the amount of time we could make one quest on GW1 we do 10% of a quest in GW2." Modern MMO's have made a choice, the graphics has been put before all other gameplay features and systems. That means less time for developing anything else, GW2 has the advantage of great funding, most MMO's don't even have that.
I get the Op's post, despite it was worded horribly and the approach wasnt well thought out.
This really is a "golden era" if your belief is that developers should work for free. So many games going free, an army of forum posters and people demanding that they not be asked to pay a sub. Same army of people hoping and praying that any p2p game fails so they might have the oppertunity to play for nothing, often times egging on the negatives in the hopes they can nudge the game towards p2p failure.
But then for every F2P fanatic theres a cash shop complainer built in..the mindset really is "why cant you guys work for free?"
And again, really the only P2P game that has actually gone F2P has been Aion and L2...the rest have subs and heavy content and playability restrictions for free playes...as well as all having the sub option. The wool has been pulled over your eyes. Most are free trials that extend for a majority of the game...only now theyve duped people into paying both for a sub and cash shop...far beyond the more normal deco pet cash shop.
Doesnt matter if P2P is theoretically better for the game, given the developers must work on retaining players for a long time, which is what gamers want...but the stigma the army of free games has put on p2p means that a good chunk of developers need to work on milking the community with crap from the CS rather than making the game better to retain players. With F2P its always "get them for as much as you can as fast as you can" with the only worse option for development is the B2P (or in GW2 B2P with cash shop, the double whammy) We see it with D3. Who cares about the game, sell the box, then well get them again when we fix the game in the expansion. Imbetween it doesnt matter.
But yeah, i think people who enjoy P2P lost the battle, and now game with programmed in fustrations the cash shop can remove (once called flaws)..and the ability to be the best will always rest on how much you spend...even in the good cash shops...it all ends up costing the gamer who wants the whole game more with a f2p...to subsidize the poor gamers of course, who demand free.
But without a persistant world you do lose some of the RPG aspect of an MMORPG. I'm not saying that without persistant world you don't have a MMORPG. But more that without a world for players to interact with you limit the RP aspect of RPG and focus more so on making it gamey(?).
I mean without a presistent world you really just have players, soloing or grouping up to play levels, with no other purpose but to get gear and move to the next set of content.
All those are wrong assumptions.
First, with a lobby, you can group up with millions of players. In that regard, using LFD in WOW has little difference than Diablo 3 dungeon runs. What is the difference? I click a button, and match with 4 or 5 other players in a pool of millions.
cannot speak for other mmos but WOW lobby dungeons - its get the loot and get out mentality -- gogogo
often no one will talk w each other
thats not my idea of player interaction
Sure .. you don't like it .. but millions of playres do this kind of dungeon every day .. must be fun to them. It is fun to me.
Millions upon millions of people eat Mcdonalds everyday, does this make it the greatest eatery in the history of the world?
Fools misinterpret accessibility for success and it's hilarious, like the 2nd poster and several others have elaborated mmo's are horrible shape which is obvious with all the new f2p models because devs have incredibly low player retention rates.
MMO's have become more accessible so several of your typical non-gamers and Call of Duty mindseted consumers are now entering the market increasing overrall numbers but allowing for the acceptance of these low-quality products because the genre and again, level of accessibility is "new".
The previous golden age weeded out many of these types because not only were games mostly following a subscription model preventing several of the posters we see now from entering the market, but the pc hardware requirements for the time were typically higher and less common, thus leaving many to stick with their consoles.
Like many have posted already ~2004 was the golden age of mmo's and those of us who are "bitter" aren't washed up gamers we just have been around long enough to be apart of projects that weren't focused soley on a quick $, but long-term player engagement/retention.
Like many have posted already ~2004 was the golden age of mmo's and those of us who are "bitter" aren't washed up gamers we just have been around long enough to be apart of projects that weren't focused soley on a quick $, but long-term player engagement/retention.
If you think 2004 was the golden age of MMO's, you are most likely one of the people who contributed to the downfall of the genre to the largest degree.
Powergaming is by it's very nature a nonsustainable activity. You'll eventually grow up and need to get a job, or you'll get tired of the carrot-on-the-stick design that the developers have to maintain to keep a powergamer going, or you'll eventually realize that no matter how much grinding YOU do, some basement-dweller somewhere has twice the time and double the motivation/playskill to grind power out.
If there was a golden age of MMO's, it was most likely pre-2000.
For game makers it is a golden age. They are able to slap together a turd of a game and make a pile of money. It is a dark age for the MMO consumer. The Market is driven by unethical companies that have no qualms about selling a sub-standard product. They are more interested in the "quick buck" than long term profits and readily destroy any good reputation they once had to acheive this. They are supported by legions of online shills who are payed to lie about..i mean hype these games. How does this story end? The consumer smartens the heck up and spends their entertainment dollars else where. I have accepted that the industry is incapable of putting out anything of value and moved onto FTP games and offline activities..
No .. all they are guilty of is not to make the game YOU like. You are just bitter because they progress without you.
If they make a pile of money, enough people like it. That is the principle of supply and demand.
It is a good time ... just not for you.
This was directed towards another person but your wrong just read the forums and watch how all the new AAA tanked besides GW2.
Comments
Well, my point was that they did not know it, expected the house to last for much longer, thus they made the foundation stronger and deeper.
To put it into context, if the wow dev team would create a new wow, in my opinion they would go just with the outland and northrend formula, similar to rift, not a huge world.
And ofcourse now we may argue about the impact that would have
Flame on!
Sure. But sandbox MMORPGs are not the only MMORPGs, aren't they?
In fact, GW1 is classified as a MMORPG but it has no persistent world. DDO is mostly dungeon adventure and the persistent world may as well not be there.
And you don't need a sandbox to have crafting either. Heck, many non-MMO has crafting (SKYRIM, Diablo 3...). Granted that those are not very deep system, probably because the core audience of those games don't really care.
Why dont u face the music and stop meandering around & take people head on. Why dont u rebuttal my comments instead of plowing threw this thread with newb-speak..?Admit it, you only know WoW and anything other/older was just too hard for you.
Or... fend urself and rebuttal my previous comments instead of hiding behind a mod.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
what I was getting at is could the swg model or the eve model work without a persistent world. let alone could a sandbox mmorpg work without a persistent world for that matter? I think what i'm trying to say is if non-persistent world mmorpgs are not possible outside of themeparks than maybe it non-persistent worlds are only another option for game developers to use and not necessarly the best way to develop mmo-rpgs in the future.
Ok so basicaly you dont know what a mmorpg is and you have no clue what a virtual world is.
Clears up your comments a lot.
BTW a MOBA, lobby game, and other style mmo's are virtual worlds. Just saying. You should spend more time reading and less time trying to convince people educated in the subject they are wrong.
We all have different definitions of what a MMO is. But removal of features is rarely advancement in gaming. This has been the story for years, features and game play getting removed, hardly anything back in return. So it is not about what makes a MMO, it is about streamlining MMO's down to levelling to top level.
Give us something else as good as meaningful crafting and you would not see so many complaints. But making MMO’s solo games online, solo games which do not have the elements many solo RPG’s have (like meaningful crafting), is poorer game design.
I will point out what Colin Johanson said recently, "In the amount of time we could make one quest on GW1 we do 10% of a quest in GW2." Modern MMO's have made a choice, the graphics has been put before all other gameplay features and systems. That means less time for developing anything else, GW2 has the advantage of great funding, most MMO's don't even have that.
I get the Op's post, despite it was worded horribly and the approach wasnt well thought out.
This really is a "golden era" if your belief is that developers should work for free. So many games going free, an army of forum posters and people demanding that they not be asked to pay a sub. Same army of people hoping and praying that any p2p game fails so they might have the oppertunity to play for nothing, often times egging on the negatives in the hopes they can nudge the game towards p2p failure.
But then for every F2P fanatic theres a cash shop complainer built in..the mindset really is "why cant you guys work for free?"
And again, really the only P2P game that has actually gone F2P has been Aion and L2...the rest have subs and heavy content and playability restrictions for free playes...as well as all having the sub option. The wool has been pulled over your eyes. Most are free trials that extend for a majority of the game...only now theyve duped people into paying both for a sub and cash shop...far beyond the more normal deco pet cash shop.
Doesnt matter if P2P is theoretically better for the game, given the developers must work on retaining players for a long time, which is what gamers want...but the stigma the army of free games has put on p2p means that a good chunk of developers need to work on milking the community with crap from the CS rather than making the game better to retain players. With F2P its always "get them for as much as you can as fast as you can" with the only worse option for development is the B2P (or in GW2 B2P with cash shop, the double whammy) We see it with D3. Who cares about the game, sell the box, then well get them again when we fix the game in the expansion. Imbetween it doesnt matter.
But yeah, i think people who enjoy P2P lost the battle, and now game with programmed in fustrations the cash shop can remove (once called flaws)..and the ability to be the best will always rest on how much you spend...even in the good cash shops...it all ends up costing the gamer who wants the whole game more with a f2p...to subsidize the poor gamers of course, who demand free.
Millions upon millions of people eat Mcdonalds everyday, does this make it the greatest eatery in the history of the world?
Fools misinterpret accessibility for success and it's hilarious, like the 2nd poster and several others have elaborated mmo's are horrible shape which is obvious with all the new f2p models because devs have incredibly low player retention rates.
MMO's have become more accessible so several of your typical non-gamers and Call of Duty mindseted consumers are now entering the market increasing overrall numbers but allowing for the acceptance of these low-quality products because the genre and again, level of accessibility is "new".
The previous golden age weeded out many of these types because not only were games mostly following a subscription model preventing several of the posters we see now from entering the market, but the pc hardware requirements for the time were typically higher and less common, thus leaving many to stick with their consoles.
Like many have posted already ~2004 was the golden age of mmo's and those of us who are "bitter" aren't washed up gamers we just have been around long enough to be apart of projects that weren't focused soley on a quick $, but long-term player engagement/retention.
If you think 2004 was the golden age of MMO's, you are most likely one of the people who contributed to the downfall of the genre to the largest degree.
Powergaming is by it's very nature a nonsustainable activity. You'll eventually grow up and need to get a job, or you'll get tired of the carrot-on-the-stick design that the developers have to maintain to keep a powergamer going, or you'll eventually realize that no matter how much grinding YOU do, some basement-dweller somewhere has twice the time and double the motivation/playskill to grind power out.
If there was a golden age of MMO's, it was most likely pre-2000.
This was directed towards another person but your wrong just read the forums and watch how all the new AAA tanked besides GW2.