consumers and developers alike need to stop trying to assess the mmo market

supertouchme · February 2013

you frequently hear people claim that certain game designs might be esoteric and unsuccesful as a result but it's the wrong position to take. where do you think the gaming industry would be if developers were only interested in remaking super mario world? the mmo genre is in a state of flux and developers certainly aren't helping themselves by copying old-hat models, especially when these models lack long-term appeal. it's counterproductive and even counterintuitive.

abandon the "story as the 4th pillar." give us creative minds who understand pacing, the value of death penalties and exploration, and the nuances of player interplay. you'd be surprised how many people enjoy that sense of dread and the frustration that makes overcoming obstacles much more satisfying (see: dark souls). these behaviors would only be enhanced in an mmo because if there's one fundamental difference between the single-player game and the mmo it's that the mmo has the potential to realize people's fantasies in a living, breathing world -- you know, the reason this genre exists.

if you build it they will come (assuming it's not an amateur hackjob).

Beatnik59 · February 2013

Games are made from two types: wireheads and the bourgeois. Both of these types see human beings as machines that consume something: content, loot, characters, plot lines, etc.

What we need is somebody who understands human beings at the aesthetic level, someone who understands how to sustain a person's interest and imagination. We need someone who views human beings as creatures that build: build content, build loot, build characters, build plot lines.

supertouchme · February 2013

it sounds like eq next might offer some of that

Rayshe · February 2013

Just sounds like another repeat of a "we want Sandbox" Thread. I like sandbox games aswell however this is probubly the 100th thread ive seen about it. maybe if you went to the companies websites and flooded their forums something might get done but Dev's don't come here often, i think ive seen a grand total of 2 One from Joel Byos from Funcom and the other im unsure his company. Simple put Whining here wont help.

DamonVile · February 2013

Originally posted by Rayshe
Just sounds like another repeat of a "we want Sandbox" Thread. I like sandbox games aswell however this is probubly the 100th thread ive seen about it. maybe if you went to the companies websites and flooded their forums something might get done but Dev's don't come here often, i think ive seen a grand total of 2 One from Joel Byos from Funcom and the other im unsure his company. Simple put Whining here wont help.

I don't see him asking for a sandbox ? It's more asking for a wolrd that feels alive. So many of these games do feel like you're in a picture not a "real" world.

That is among other things in the post.

Rayshe · February 2013

Originally posted by DamonVile
Originally posted by Rayshe
Just sounds like another repeat of a "we want Sandbox" Thread. I like sandbox games aswell however this is probubly the 100th thread ive seen about it. maybe if you went to the companies websites and flooded their forums something might get done but Dev's don't come here often, i think ive seen a grand total of 2 One from Joel Byos from Funcom and the other im unsure his company. Simple put Whining here wont help.

I don't see him asking for a sandbox ? It's more asking for a wolrd that feels alive. So many of these games do feel like you're in a picture not a "real" world.

That is among other things in the post.

Well for a living work the closest ive seen is TSW given that hte characters breathe life into the world With the level of style and writing the game has. Since with Themepark thats kinda the only way you can do it. The idea of making a world truely live and breathe lands clearly in Sandbox, Exacmple: In themepark your on a rollercoaster ride that everyone else is on. no matter what happeneds every twist and turn will be the same. This is the real problem with themepark once this setlles in people realize the world is just a picture.

Now with sandbox on the other hand the world Lives and breathes simply because when you leave it doesnt pause, it continues and progresses. The world in itself exists as a different entittly and is actually alive given that what players do can and will have a Effect in the game world. Thus what hes asking for (even if he doesnt realize it yet) is part of the Sandbox Genre.

Also my point still stands that saying things about it here is meaningless, Since the Dev's done come here overly often unless they really need to defend something.

supertouchme · February 2013

i liked the secret world for what it was. it was definitely worth a playthrough, but let's be honest here. a story isn't going to sustain an mmo.

Dauzqul · February 2013

Deep World PvP. Screw all this instanced crap. I don't care if these instanced hosted 50v50... I've exerpienced that back in BF1942.

I play MMOs because of the "MASSIVE" part. That is nothing "MASSIVE" about all this post-WoW bullcrap.

nariusseldon · February 2013

Originally posted by supertouchme
i liked the secret world for what it was. it was definitely worth a playthrough, but let's be honest here. a story isn't going to sustain an mmo.

Then may be it should be not a MMO. Or that MMOs should not expect sustained playing.

jpnz · February 2013

Story is actually what holds an RPG together.

WIthout a story, it is a bunch of systems that doesn't mean anything to the player.

Here's a question, would WoW be the most financially successful MMORPG if it wasn't set in the Warcraft universe?

tawess · February 2013

What i got from the OP

Stop making games the smart way and start doing games the way i want, because i am the most important.

Trust me if you start any form of venture that cost money without assessing the market first you will fail, and fail hard. Those are the chops. If you do not like it feel free to try doing it in some other way but as the world spins today people who invest money tend to want them back in one way or the other. Either as a positive cash flow or a positivte flow of social capital. Neither of these will happen by blindly launching in to a market with hair-brain ideas.

Change happen in small steps and over a realitivly long time, if it happens at all. And the MMO market have been in constant evolution since the days of the MUD.

jtcgs · February 2013

Why the heck should a consumer stop trying to assess the industry they are CONSUMING?

Should I not investigate the auto industry if im going to buy a car? Should I be silent and just accept everything? I have no right to say, blah blah is not my type because of ____? By not saying, that maker will never know why I am not his customer. More over, why NOT point out why this or that is popular? Or how you would like to see more of ___?

To just accept is THE reason why the current MMO market is full of bland games that dont hold people for long...because people are buying them and feeding the companies just enough money to make the next game being made into the same old crap we are continually seeing...just look at TESO. instead of making it closer to the IP with a more sandbox feel, we are getting DaoC2, more of the same limitations many are just plain sick of.

FromHell · February 2013

With todays content locusts who swarm to a title, consume it in a month with daily 12 hour sessions and move on afterwards, no investor will ever take the risk for another SWTOR type fiasco. Next MMOs will be cheaper, probably with a lot of player generated content.

Let the players write their stories and quests, then let them complain about "not enough content", so they can blame each other

maplestone · February 2013

Originally posted by supertouchme

if you build it they will come (assuming it's not an amateur hackjob).

Then build it.

In the end, we can only spend our own money.

Loktofeit · February 2013

Originally posted by supertouchme

if you build it they will come (assuming it's not an amateur hackjob).

Now quantify what is to be built and the size of the audience that will come for it.

Arglebargle · February 2013

The proposition is a lot different when it is your 25 million dollars on the line.

VengeSunsoar · February 2013

Originally posted by supertouchme
you frequently hear people claim that certain game designs might be esoteric and unsuccesful as a result but it's the wrong position to take. where do you think the gaming industry would be if developers were only interested in remaking super mario world? the mmo genre is in a state of flux and developers certainly aren't helping themselves by copying old-hat models, especially when these models lack long-term appeal. it's counterproductive and even counterintuitive.

abandon the "story as the 4th pillar." give us creative minds who understand pacing, the value of death penalties and exploration, and the nuances of player interplay. you'd be surprised how many people enjoy that sense of dread and the frustration that makes overcoming obstacles much more satisfying (see: dark souls). these behaviors would only be enhanced in an mmo because if there's one fundamental difference between the single-player game and the mmo it's that the mmo has the potential to realize people's fantasies in a living, breathing world -- you know, the reason this genre exists.

if you build it they will come (assuming it's not an amateur hackjob).

Yes. Any and all developers, indy or otherwise, should stop trying to objectively assess the market to determine what needs are not being met and how best to meet them.

Foolish developers.

Aelious · February 2013

I hear what you're saying OP and you're going to see the reaction to the "WoW model" saturation by the end of the year.

Developers do have to forecast and look for trends, not only that they have to do it far ahead of time. The average time to make an MMO is roughly 4-7 years right? More than that each dev is keeping their own project under wraps so they didn't realize, until it was too late, that other companies were making the same type of game they were.

Turns out WoW IS the market for "WoW type" games lol. This isn't a bad thing IMO because WoW is a good game. The problem is that afters years of the same mold a change of pace is nice.

waynejr2 · February 2013

Originally posted by Beatnik59
Games are made from two types: wireheads and the bourgeois. Both of these types see human beings as machines that consume something: content, loot, characters, plot lines, etc.

What we need is somebody who understands human beings at the aesthetic level, someone who understands how to sustain a person's interest and imagination. We need someone who views human beings as creatures that build: build content, build loot, build characters, build plot lines.

Instead of magical thinking post, let's hear your concrete game ideas that will support your statements. Provide specific details

firefly2003 · February 2013

Wonder what kind of Star Trek MMO I can make with 100 million... one that has more things to do than what The Old Republic did with their money :P

Beatnik59 · February 2013

Originally posted by waynejr2
Originally posted by Beatnik59
Games are made from two types: wireheads and the bourgeois. Both of these types see human beings as machines that consume something: content, loot, characters, plot lines, etc.

What we need is somebody who understands human beings at the aesthetic level, someone who understands how to sustain a person's interest and imagination. We need someone who views human beings as creatures that build: build content, build loot, build characters, build plot lines.

Instead of magical thinking post, let's hear your concrete game ideas that will support your statements. Provide specific details

Well, why is it that developers feel that any activity not gaining xp/loot/gold is "wasted time" and "down time?"

That's akin to saying that any scene in a film that isn't tied to fighting/explosions/struggle is a "wasted scene."

Good dramatists understand, in order to sustain interest, a story ought to oscillate between periods of high tension and low tension. The "slow scenes" in films are the times when the "high points" are placed in perspective. Eliminating the slow scenes doesn't make the film more exciting. All it does is make the "high points" seem pointless.

Which is exactly why a lot of us are sick of these games after a couple months. There is simply nothing else other than "combat" after "combat," with nothing in between. Why? Because this industry is now filled with people like the SWG devs who say, "you sat in camps and it was fun for you?" and "Kill/treasure/repeat."

They are under the impression that by taking out the "boring stuff," they make their games "exciting." But all they really do is make the things that ought to be "exciting" (combat) into things that are "boring," and give the players no option but to log off if they want to experience something with less tension.

The good single player games, games like Oblivion and Fallout, do a good job with the "low drama" points of a game. In fact, in films, the low drama scenes are some of the most memorable. And, yet, why is it that nobody from this genre, arguably the one that is most in need of discovering ways to maintain interest, are some of the worst when it comes to dramatic pacing?

Non-combat. The MMO that does it well will be far better off than the MMO which does combat well.

waynejr2 · February 2013

Originally posted by Beatnik59
Originally posted by waynejr2
Originally posted by Beatnik59
Games are made from two types: wireheads and the bourgeois. Both of these types see human beings as machines that consume something: content, loot, characters, plot lines, etc.

What we need is somebody who understands human beings at the aesthetic level, someone who understands how to sustain a person's interest and imagination. We need someone who views human beings as creatures that build: build content, build loot, build characters, build plot lines.

Instead of magical thinking post, let's hear your concrete game ideas that will support your statements. Provide specific details

Well, why is it that developers feel that any activity not gaining xp/loot/gold is "wasted time" and "down time?"

That's akin to saying that any scene in a film that isn't tied to fighting/explosions/struggle is a "wasted scene."

Good dramatists understand, in order to sustain interest, a story ought to oscillate between periods of high tension and low tension. The "slow scenes" in films are the times when the "high points" are placed in perspective. Eliminating the slow scenes doesn't make the film more exciting. All it does is make the "high points" seem pointless.

Which is exactly why a lot of us are sick of these games after a couple months. There is simply nothing else other than "combat" after "combat," with nothing in between. Why? Because this industry is now filled with people like the SWG devs who say, "you sat in camps and it was fun for you?" and "Kill/treasure/repeat."

They are under the impression that by taking out the "boring stuff," they make their games "exciting." But all they really do is make the things that ought to be "exciting" (combat) into things that are "boring," and give the players no option but to log off if they want to experience something with less tension.

The good single player games, games like Oblivion and Fallout, do a good job with the "low drama" points of a game. In fact, in films, the low drama scenes are some of the most memorable. And, yet, why is it that nobody from this genre, arguably the one that is most in need of discovering ways to maintain interest, are some of the worst when it comes to dramatic pacing?

Non-combat. The MMO that does it well will be far better off than the MMO which does combat well.

Well, I seem to recall players complaining about down time.

Beatnik59 · February 2013

Originally posted by waynejr2
Originally posted by Beatnik59
Originally posted by waynejr2
Originally posted by Beatnik59
Games are made from two types: wireheads and the bourgeois. Both of these types see human beings as machines that consume something: content, loot, characters, plot lines, etc.

What we need is somebody who understands human beings at the aesthetic level, someone who understands how to sustain a person's interest and imagination. We need someone who views human beings as creatures that build: build content, build loot, build characters, build plot lines.

Instead of magical thinking post, let's hear your concrete game ideas that will support your statements. Provide specific details

Well, why is it that developers feel that any activity not gaining xp/loot/gold is "wasted time" and "down time?"

That's akin to saying that any scene in a film that isn't tied to fighting/explosions/struggle is a "wasted scene."

Good dramatists understand, in order to sustain interest, a story ought to oscillate between periods of high tension and low tension. The "slow scenes" in films are the times when the "high points" are placed in perspective. Eliminating the slow scenes doesn't make the film more exciting. All it does is make the "high points" seem pointless.

Which is exactly why a lot of us are sick of these games after a couple months. There is simply nothing else other than "combat" after "combat," with nothing in between. Why? Because this industry is now filled with people like the SWG devs who say, "you sat in camps and it was fun for you?" and "Kill/treasure/repeat."

They are under the impression that by taking out the "boring stuff," they make their games "exciting." But all they really do is make the things that ought to be "exciting" (combat) into things that are "boring," and give the players no option but to log off if they want to experience something with less tension.

The good single player games, games like Oblivion and Fallout, do a good job with the "low drama" points of a game. In fact, in films, the low drama scenes are some of the most memorable. And, yet, why is it that nobody from this genre, arguably the one that is most in need of discovering ways to maintain interest, are some of the worst when it comes to dramatic pacing?

Non-combat. The MMO that does it well will be far better off than the MMO which does combat well.

Well, I seem to recall players complaining about down time.

Yes...until they actually get rid of it. Then they complain that their games are too "grindy" and "shallow" and don't know why.

Yakkin · February 2013

You know, now that I really think about it, MMOs are very much the embodiment of "wanting is better than having." We bemoan the lack of an end, but when we get it, we find out it's not as great as we thought it would be, and we now feel like we have no purpose.

troublmaker · February 2013

Originally posted by supertouchme
you frequently hear people claim that certain game designs might be esoteric and unsuccesful as a result but it's the wrong position to take. where do you think the gaming industry would be if developers were only interested in remaking super mario world? the mmo genre is in a state of flux and developers certainly aren't helping themselves by copying old-hat models, especially when these models lack long-term appeal. it's counterproductive and even counterintuitive.

abandon the "story as the 4th pillar." give us creative minds who understand pacing, the value of death penalties and exploration, and the nuances of player interplay. you'd be surprised how many people enjoy that sense of dread and the frustration that makes overcoming obstacles much more satisfying (see: dark souls). these behaviors would only be enhanced in an mmo because if there's one fundamental difference between the single-player game and the mmo it's that the mmo has the potential to realize people's fantasies in a living, breathing world -- you know, the reason this genre exists.

if you build it they will come (assuming it's not an amateur hackjob).

It's funny you bring up Dark Souls as a great game that is breaking barriers. It was published by THQ and they are now bankrupt. In fact THQ has been making a tonne of unsafe games hat they hoped people would like.

Warhammer 40K: Space Marine was a multiplayer (with a large campaign) third person shooter without cover based combat with melee components to it. It was a very well balanced fun multiplayer experience and is exactly what every single asshole out there was asking for... and no one bought it.

Nor did anyone buy Red Faction Armageddon with it's insanely powerful use of physics that everyone was presumably asking for... and when it came out... no one bought it.

Nor did anyone buy Homeland that was supposed to be a fun run and gun shooter featuring an occupied America.

THQ made tones of risky box breaking decisions that resulted in them getting their whole corporation shot down.

Their only successful franchise in fact was Saints Row, which followed a standard format and was less risky.

Who would listen to a person demanding innovation in this market?

nariusseldon · February 2013

Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by supertouchme

if you build it they will come (assuming it's not an amateur hackjob).

Now quantify what is to be built and the size of the audience that will come for it.

Isnt it insane to take business advice from a line in a movie?

Howdy, Stranger!

consumers and developers alike need to stop trying to assess the mmo market

Comments

This have been a good conversation

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

consumers and developers alike need to stop trying to assess the mmo market

Comments

This have been a good conversation