Me & a dozen lifers I know are not... (& three of us bought the GW2 Collector's Editions), so no.. at the moment when looking back at this moment it really isn't a success, now is it? Yes.. It had great sales, but over 90% of the people who purchased the game, don't play daily.. or even weekly.
So? I don't play Dishonored weekly or daily .. it is a great game. I don't play LOL daily or weekly, don't tell me it is not a great success.
You have no data. The 90% number is just bogus. It boils down to "you don't like it".
You cannot take what I say as opinion.. just because it protects ur ego. You have to have facts to rebuttal facts. It is a widely knowb facts, that GW2 daily log in have dopped enormously.
But disregarding my entire previous post, u will disregard any correction u receive. Ive already told you i read ur post history. Ur trolling is done, i can use your own posts against you, because you mix-match talking points.
Ie: have no definable point, u stand for marketing.
"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."
hi hi just checking in on the run away troll thread
no one killing anyone yet right . . .good
any name calling . . . . . oh well cant win them all
There are always trolls that try to disrupt .. but there are enough objective people who have fun discussions.
So what do you call telling someone who wants a virtual world because they live in a place with next to no nature that they should just go camping? You were literally arguing with the OP of that thread, telling him why he didn't really need a virtual world even though that's what he liked. I'd call that pretty disruptive, know what I mean?
If you want to dish it out, you better be ready to take it.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
hi hi just checking in on the run away troll thread
no one killing anyone yet right . . .good
any name calling . . . . . oh well cant win them all
There are always trolls that try to disrupt .. but there are enough objective people who have fun discussions.
I believe Squeak69 was referring to your OP.
Awesome haha
Yeah, that kid is so lost... *laugh
Anyone else notice how Narius is just going to ignore my wall of truth (post #195) and pretend logic didn't really just smack him across the face..? But, notice how he will keep thread-crapping & going off-topic and taking about non-mmos.
"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."
I have been careful, quite deliberately, to point out that many people right now would still notice a change in form. However, the shift has already started in a major segment of the MMOs being released, and while I don't think we are to the point where devs could get away with the changing the form that drastically, in function, it has already largely occurred. The world matters all of once as you level, and once you hit max level, it's dungeons and repeating the same dailies over and over; the only other option is to move on to the next game. In that time frame, nothing in the world changes, you're doing the exact same thing that thousands of people did before you, and thousands of people will do after you, and your impact on the world is zero. You can run around in it all you want, but in the end, that great open world tends to be either a hallway or a lobby itself; almost never is it designed to be a proper room that serves as an end destination itself. There are exceptions to this, to be certain, but not as many as there used to be, and most the time someone tries anything new and different, it's get shot down as not good enough, reducing the chances of devs and publishers in the future being willing to buck the greater trend.
Guild Wars has already proven that while people will scream and shout about having their world taken away, they will still play the game, and give that game their money, if it is well executed. All it would take to really push the trend is for one or two well executed game to copy that specific aspect, ignoring the initial angst about losing the world, and you'll find a lot of devs trying to jump on the band wagon of getting rid ot the open world. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, or something that is likely to happen immediately, but the fact is, we are a lot closer to it being a reality than many people here really want to admit. Functionally, a lot of games are designed in a way that an persistant open world really isn't a requirement except to appease expectations of the players; as soon as those expectations change, and that kind of change has happened before, often with startling speed, the devs aren't going to be nearly as nostalgic as the few remaining players who actually care about the world.
Again, I would like to point out that I do not agree with the trend, nor do I believe that all games are following it blindly, nor am I trying to push the OP's conclusions, but the unwillingness to acknowledge that his arguments are not as farfetched as many here are comfortable with simply speeds up the process as people avoid having the conversation when there is still time to have it.
As for your last point, that is entirely a different conversation, and I am inclined to agree with it, but that doesn't change the fact that the definition of MMO has already changed on a major scale at least half a dozen times since it was first coined, and it will most certainly change again. Trying to say that gamers will never accept a truly lobby based game just because they don't right now is very dangerous. We are already to the point where changing the definition would not be all that hard if attempted by someone with sufficient clout and gamer cred, as the underlying structure already supports that particular change. If Blizzard, for example, were to implement something like that, I could safely bet that a large portion of the community would follow right along without even blinking.
You are still not showing me proof of anything, so all you are doing is speculating.
By Guild Wars, I take it you mean GW1 because GW2 went in the opposite direction and put in a vibrant world that many players can interact in.
At the heart of this discussion is the definition of what an MMORPG is. The OP is claiming that a lobby game can fill the place of MMORPGs, but what is an MMORPG ? It has to be a game that is a persistant virtual world that a player can make a character for and the player adopts that role. That means it has to have the possiblity of players being able to roleplay with each other and be immersed in that world.
To me, lobby games, even those shown here on this site, are not real MMORPGs no matter how you hack it. How can you pick up a role and be immersed in the world if all you do is sit in a lobby waiting for something to happen otherwise ?
Anyway, this discussion is not evolving so I am done with it.
Yeah, they would notice. Just look at all the threads of people complaining about empty overland zones indicating that a game is dead.
It's a paradox. They might not want to play with others, but they like having them around.
This. If the world seems empty, it doesn't seem like a world anymore to most.
yep idd, player needs to see lots of people running around him / her otherwise its just single player game.
and it dont mean you HAVE TO party and group with people cause it is mmo.
A city suffice. You don't need a whole virtual world for that. In fact, isn't that how it is in WOW. You see lots of people in the city, and if you want to group, you click the LFD button.
At the heart of this discussion is the definition of what an MMORPG is. The OP is claiming that a lobby game can fill the place of MMORPGs, but what is an MMORPG ? It has to be a game that is a persistant virtual world that a player can make a character for and the player adopts that role. That means it has to have the possiblity of players being able to roleplay with each other and be immersed in that world.
To me, lobby games, even those shown here on this site, are not real MMORPGs no matter how you hack it. How can you pick up a role and be immersed in the world if all you do is sit in a lobby waiting for something to happen otherwise ?
Anyway, this discussion is not evolving so I am done with it.
So how about not use any definition.
Let's use examples.
WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in WOW?
WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in DCUO?
WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in DDO?
....
Now there is no confusion. And you ask "How can you pick up a role and be immersed in the world if all you do is sit in a lobby waiting for something to happen otherwise ?" ... it is not like "immersed in the world" is the only reason to play a game, is it?
At the heart of this discussion is the definition of what an MMORPG is. The OP is claiming that a lobby game can fill the place of MMORPGs, but what is an MMORPG ? It has to be a game that is a persistant virtual world that a player can make a character for and the player adopts that role. That means it has to have the possiblity of players being able to roleplay with each other and be immersed in that world.
To me, lobby games, even those shown here on this site, are not real MMORPGs no matter how you hack it. How can you pick up a role and be immersed in the world if all you do is sit in a lobby waiting for something to happen otherwise ?
Anyway, this discussion is not evolving so I am done with it.
So how about not use any definition.
Let's use examples.
WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in WOW?
WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in DCUO?
WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in DDO?
....
Now there is no confusion. And you ask "How can you pick up a role and be immersed in the world if all you do is sit in a lobby waiting for something to happen otherwise ?" ... it is not like "immersed in the world" is the only reason to play a game, is it?
Not in, for example, a football management game, no, that's a different genre. Unlike MMORPGs where the world is a major part of the genre. You should try a different genre, maybe a CORPG would suit you.
Not in, for example, a football management game, no, that's a different genre. Unlike MMORPGs where the world is a major part of the genre. You should try a different genre, maybe a CORPG would suit you.
Many MMORPGs are already like CORPG .. why do you think i am sticking around here?
And tell me, in WOW, is the world a major part of the game play, in end game where most spend their time? How about DDO?
Not in, for example, a football management game, no, that's a different genre. Unlike MMORPGs where the world is a major part of the genre. You should try a different genre, maybe a CORPG would suit you.
Many MMORPGs are already like CORPG .. why do you think i am sticking around here?
And tell me, in WOW, is the world a major part of the game play, in end game where most spend their time? How about DDO?
I thought you stuck around due to your hatred of MMORPGs determined to cheerleader their destruction.
At the heart of this discussion is the definition of what an MMORPG is. The OP is claiming that a lobby game can fill the place of MMORPGs, but what is an MMORPG ? It has to be a game that is a persistant virtual world that a player can make a character for and the player adopts that role. That means it has to have the possiblity of players being able to roleplay with each other and be immersed in that world.
To me, lobby games, even those shown here on this site, are not real MMORPGs no matter how you hack it. How can you pick up a role and be immersed in the world if all you do is sit in a lobby waiting for something to happen otherwise ?
Anyway, this discussion is not evolving so I am done with it.
I think that for some, though, there is a place for such MMOs. It's not the entire genre, to be sure, and it's not a part of the genre I would care to play, but there are those who would and denying them that kind of game is as stupid as them denying those who want open worlds the opportunity to have those kinds of games. In the end, I will be happy when WoW finally dies so we can get back to having a variety of games rather than all of these cookie cutter copycats.
Not in, for example, a football management game, no, that's a different genre. Unlike MMORPGs where the world is a major part of the genre. You should try a different genre, maybe a CORPG would suit you.
Many MMORPGs are already like CORPG .. why do you think i am sticking around here?
And tell me, in WOW, is the world a major part of the game play, in end game where most spend their time? How about DDO?
I thought you stuck around due to your hatred of MMORPGs determined to cheerleader their destruction.
Hatred? Why would i hate nice fun games like PS2 and STO? Hating a genre is just illogical. Or don't get me wrong .. if MMORPGs are destroyed .. it probably would be amusing to discuss. However, given the trend of F2P, and MMOs are more like games than worlds, i doubt that is going to happen.
At the heart of this discussion is the definition of what an MMORPG is. The OP is claiming that a lobby game can fill the place of MMORPGs, but what is an MMORPG ? It has to be a game that is a persistant virtual world that a player can make a character for and the player adopts that role. That means it has to have the possiblity of players being able to roleplay with each other and be immersed in that world.
To me, lobby games, even those shown here on this site, are not real MMORPGs no matter how you hack it. How can you pick up a role and be immersed in the world if all you do is sit in a lobby waiting for something to happen otherwise ?
Anyway, this discussion is not evolving so I am done with it.
I think that for some, though, there is a place for such MMOs. It's not the entire genre, to be sure, and it's not a part of the genre I would care to play, but there are those who would and denying them that kind of game is as stupid as them denying those who want open worlds the opportunity to have those kinds of games. In the end, I will be happy when WoW finally dies so we can get back to having a variety of games rather than all of these cookie cutter copycats.
There is certainly a market for such MMOs. Otherwise, why would GW1 be so successful?
And what cookie cutter copycats? Last time i look, we have a star trek MMO, a DC universe MMO, an upcoming Marvel MMO, a open world pvp MMO (PS2), a WW2 tank battle MMO (WOT), .....
Many MMORPGs are already like CORPG .. why do you think i am sticking around here?
And tell me, in WOW, is the world a major part of the game play, in end game where most spend their time? How about DDO?
When DDO first launched, one of the major complaints were due to the fact that it felt trapped and that there was no expansive persistent world. It failed to become more than it is now.
As for WoW, I do think the world is still a major part. Sure there are lots who avoid it completely by just running dungeons, battlegrounds and raids but there's also lots who enjoy questing from zone to zone, exploring and randomly meeting others.
I do agree that right now, MMOs seem like lobby games. But I see this genre go in cycles. Perhaps that's what people want now but eventually you'll hit critical mass and people will start demanding something different. And then the cycle repeats and we'll have more open worlds. The same goes for theme parks and sandboxes. Right now we are in the age of lobby/theme park MMOs but I suspect gamers will grow weary of it and will want something different.
Many MMORPGs are already like CORPG .. why do you think i am sticking around here?
And tell me, in WOW, is the world a major part of the game play, in end game where most spend their time? How about DDO?
When DDO first launched, one of the major complaints were due to the fact that it felt trapped and that there was no expansive persistent world. It failed to become more than it is now.
As for WoW, I do think the world is still a major part. Sure there are lots who avoid it completely by just running dungeons, battlegrounds and raids but there's also lots who enjoy questing from zone to zone, exploring and randomly meeting others.
I do agree that right now, MMOs seem like lobby games. But I see this genre go in cycles. Perhaps that's what people want now but eventually you'll hit critical mass and people will start demanding something different. And then the cycle repeats and we'll have more open worlds. The same goes for theme parks and sandboxes. Right now we are in the age of lobby/theme park MMOs but I suspect gamers will grow weary of it and will want something different.
Sure ... but no one says the "different" thing has to be virtual world games. It can be different settings. Different gameplay (how about putting stealth in MMOs?).
And not everything is in cycle. Do you see text adventure making a come-back?
Sure ... but no one says the "different" thing has to be virtual world games. It can be different settings. Different gameplay (how about putting stealth in MMOs?).
And not everything is in cycle. Do you see text adventure making a come-back?
Sure different can be something else but I find it interesting that you feel the need to exclude virtual worlds from "different". Theme park settings will change, heck we see it now. We once only had fantasy settings but now we have all sorts of settings but gamers are becoming more experienced and in the end they will be able to identify the system behind the setting. You can put a fantasy, sci-fi or horror skin on a theme park but they will generally play the same and gamers will recognize it. That's why I believe the game design will change.
Text adventure? Really? Apples and oranges. You're talking about text vs. graphics which are technologically different.
There is certainly a market for such MMOs. Otherwise, why would GW1 be so successful?
And what cookie cutter copycats? Last time i look, we have a star trek MMO, a DC universe MMO, an upcoming Marvel MMO, a open world pvp MMO (PS2), a WW2 tank battle MMO (WOT), .....
SO variety is alive and well.
In settings, there is, and always has been a wide variety; in mechancs, not so much. The biggest difference from when EQ was king and the time since WoW has taken the throne is that back then, each game was genuinely different from each other. There may have been some common mechanics and social systems, but there was no default must haves. Now, amongst the big names at least, that vareity is all but gone, with very few ouliers managing to gain much success. It's only been in the last month or so that I've seen significant talk and coverage about a lot of games and mechanics that don't easily fit the WoW mold (there's always been one or two, but rarely enough to spark general conversations).
Originally posted by nariusseldonthe game play, in end game where most spend their time? How about DDO?
Sure ... but no one says the "different" thing has to be virtual world games. It can be different settings. Different gameplay (how about putting stealth in MMOs?).
And not everything is in cycle. Do you see text adventure making a come-back?
Text adventuring won't make a comeback..ever...for many reasons. But I bet the main reason is no one would take the time to actually read.
WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in WOW?
WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in DCUO?
WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in DDO?
....
Now there is no confusion. And you ask "How can you pick up a role and be immersed in the world if all you do is sit in a lobby waiting for something to happen otherwise ?" ... it is not like "immersed in the world" is the only reason to play a game, is it?
How about you play your lobby games since you like them and I play my open world MMORPGs since I like them ? Lets not change one genre into something else.
You are strange, you want less choice for everyone. I want more choice.
When DDO first launched, one of the major complaints were due to the fact that it felt trapped and that there was no expansive persistent world. It failed to become more than it is now.
I think it's important to understand that while DDO, and most games people have put with it, have had that major complaint, that by itself did not sink the game; there were a lot of other equally large or more important complaints that have doomed most such efforts. I tried DDO, and frankly found the lack of an open world the least of it's problems; it was noticeable, but hardly the final straw that made me not want to play it.
I think that if someone were to execute the rest of the game well enough, and I do appreciate that is a very big if, even if the open world would be missed, the game would still likely be a success. Whether you could call such a game an MMO is another question entirely, but we've already seen one major example where it worked, GW, and a fair number of people are obviously willing to classify that game as an MMO of sorts. It's not a game that I would play, but if it would help loosen up the definition sufficiently to convince publishers and developers that being different is not a financial kiss of death, I'd be wishing all the luck I could throw at it.
Comments
So? I don't play Dishonored weekly or daily .. it is a great game. I don't play LOL daily or weekly, don't tell me it is not a great success.
You have no data. The 90% number is just bogus. It boils down to "you don't like it".
You cannot take what I say as opinion.. just because it protects ur ego. You have to have facts to rebuttal facts. It is a widely knowb facts, that GW2 daily log in have dopped enormously.But disregarding my entire previous post, u will disregard any correction u receive. Ive already told you i read ur post history. Ur trolling is done, i can use your own posts against you, because you mix-match talking points.
Ie: have no definable point, u stand for marketing.
"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
hi hi just checking in on the run away troll thread
no one killing anyone yet right . . .good
any name calling . . . . . oh well cant win them all
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to
Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
There are always trolls that try to disrupt .. but there are enough objective people who have fun discussions.
I believe Squeak69 was referring to your OP.
Awesome haha
So what do you call telling someone who wants a virtual world because they live in a place with next to no nature that they should just go camping? You were literally arguing with the OP of that thread, telling him why he didn't really need a virtual world even though that's what he liked. I'd call that pretty disruptive, know what I mean?
If you want to dish it out, you better be ready to take it.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Yeah, that kid is so lost... *laugh
Anyone else notice how Narius is just going to ignore my wall of truth (post #195) and pretend logic didn't really just smack him across the face..? But, notice how he will keep thread-crapping & going off-topic and taking about non-mmos.
"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
You are still not showing me proof of anything, so all you are doing is speculating.
By Guild Wars, I take it you mean GW1 because GW2 went in the opposite direction and put in a vibrant world that many players can interact in.
At the heart of this discussion is the definition of what an MMORPG is. The OP is claiming that a lobby game can fill the place of MMORPGs, but what is an MMORPG ? It has to be a game that is a persistant virtual world that a player can make a character for and the player adopts that role. That means it has to have the possiblity of players being able to roleplay with each other and be immersed in that world.
To me, lobby games, even those shown here on this site, are not real MMORPGs no matter how you hack it. How can you pick up a role and be immersed in the world if all you do is sit in a lobby waiting for something to happen otherwise ?
Anyway, this discussion is not evolving so I am done with it.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
yep idd, player needs to see lots of people running around him / her otherwise its just single player game.
and it dont mean you HAVE TO party and group with people cause it is mmo.
A city suffice. You don't need a whole virtual world for that. In fact, isn't that how it is in WOW. You see lots of people in the city, and if you want to group, you click the LFD button.
So how about not use any definition.
Let's use examples.
WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in WOW?
WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in DCUO?
WIll most players even notice/care if the virtual world is taken way in DDO?
....
Now there is no confusion. And you ask "How can you pick up a role and be immersed in the world if all you do is sit in a lobby waiting for something to happen otherwise ?" ... it is not like "immersed in the world" is the only reason to play a game, is it?
Not in, for example, a football management game, no, that's a different genre. Unlike MMORPGs where the world is a major part of the genre. You should try a different genre, maybe a CORPG would suit you.
Many MMORPGs are already like CORPG .. why do you think i am sticking around here?
And tell me, in WOW, is the world a major part of the game play, in end game where most spend their time? How about DDO?
I thought you stuck around due to your hatred of MMORPGs determined to cheerleader their destruction.
I think that for some, though, there is a place for such MMOs. It's not the entire genre, to be sure, and it's not a part of the genre I would care to play, but there are those who would and denying them that kind of game is as stupid as them denying those who want open worlds the opportunity to have those kinds of games. In the end, I will be happy when WoW finally dies so we can get back to having a variety of games rather than all of these cookie cutter copycats.
Hatred? Why would i hate nice fun games like PS2 and STO? Hating a genre is just illogical. Or don't get me wrong .. if MMORPGs are destroyed .. it probably would be amusing to discuss. However, given the trend of F2P, and MMOs are more like games than worlds, i doubt that is going to happen.
There is certainly a market for such MMOs. Otherwise, why would GW1 be so successful?
And what cookie cutter copycats? Last time i look, we have a star trek MMO, a DC universe MMO, an upcoming Marvel MMO, a open world pvp MMO (PS2), a WW2 tank battle MMO (WOT), .....
SO variety is alive and well.
When DDO first launched, one of the major complaints were due to the fact that it felt trapped and that there was no expansive persistent world. It failed to become more than it is now.
As for WoW, I do think the world is still a major part. Sure there are lots who avoid it completely by just running dungeons, battlegrounds and raids but there's also lots who enjoy questing from zone to zone, exploring and randomly meeting others.
I do agree that right now, MMOs seem like lobby games. But I see this genre go in cycles. Perhaps that's what people want now but eventually you'll hit critical mass and people will start demanding something different. And then the cycle repeats and we'll have more open worlds. The same goes for theme parks and sandboxes. Right now we are in the age of lobby/theme park MMOs but I suspect gamers will grow weary of it and will want something different.
Sure ... but no one says the "different" thing has to be virtual world games. It can be different settings. Different gameplay (how about putting stealth in MMOs?).
And not everything is in cycle. Do you see text adventure making a come-back?
Sure different can be something else but I find it interesting that you feel the need to exclude virtual worlds from "different". Theme park settings will change, heck we see it now. We once only had fantasy settings but now we have all sorts of settings but gamers are becoming more experienced and in the end they will be able to identify the system behind the setting. You can put a fantasy, sci-fi or horror skin on a theme park but they will generally play the same and gamers will recognize it. That's why I believe the game design will change.
Text adventure? Really? Apples and oranges. You're talking about text vs. graphics which are technologically different.
In settings, there is, and always has been a wide variety; in mechancs, not so much. The biggest difference from when EQ was king and the time since WoW has taken the throne is that back then, each game was genuinely different from each other. There may have been some common mechanics and social systems, but there was no default must haves. Now, amongst the big names at least, that vareity is all but gone, with very few ouliers managing to gain much success. It's only been in the last month or so that I've seen significant talk and coverage about a lot of games and mechanics that don't easily fit the WoW mold (there's always been one or two, but rarely enough to spark general conversations).
Text adventuring won't make a comeback..ever...for many reasons. But I bet the main reason is no one would take the time to actually read.
How about you play your lobby games since you like them and I play my open world MMORPGs since I like them ? Lets not change one genre into something else.
You are strange, you want less choice for everyone. I want more choice.
You are making a red herring argument anyway.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
I think it's important to understand that while DDO, and most games people have put with it, have had that major complaint, that by itself did not sink the game; there were a lot of other equally large or more important complaints that have doomed most such efforts. I tried DDO, and frankly found the lack of an open world the least of it's problems; it was noticeable, but hardly the final straw that made me not want to play it.
I think that if someone were to execute the rest of the game well enough, and I do appreciate that is a very big if, even if the open world would be missed, the game would still likely be a success. Whether you could call such a game an MMO is another question entirely, but we've already seen one major example where it worked, GW, and a fair number of people are obviously willing to classify that game as an MMO of sorts. It's not a game that I would play, but if it would help loosen up the definition sufficiently to convince publishers and developers that being different is not a financial kiss of death, I'd be wishing all the luck I could throw at it.