Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

I just realized, I don't like MMORPGs any more!

145679

Comments

  • BurntvetBurntvet Baltimore, MDPosts: 2,950Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Icewhite

    Originally posted by Psychow
    The Good Old Days:   Customers: $$$$$$ (The Vets)   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------   New MMOs:   New Customers: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   Ex-customers:  $$$$$$ (The Old Biter Vets)

    That actually deserves an infographic, sort of.

    Only 22 million vs about 4 million, though. If 4 million is 6$..."new" customers is 33.

    $$$$$$ vs $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    (Naturally all figures are wildly inaccurate estimates)

     

    The other thing is what is really counted in there. What is considered in "MMO" for that graph? Anything that can be played online and has a fee? And what do "active accts" signify? Not revenue if it is a F2P game. And for any F2P game, once an acct is created, do they keep counting that forever? If so, than I am counted about 14 times in there. The devil is not in the details, the devil IS the details.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Burntvet
     

     

    There is also such a thing as over-saturation in a given market segment. The themepark segment is overloaded. The casual, click and go, get right into the game with no thought has been done to death. If game makers want players to stay with a title for more than 1 month, there should be enough depth to ensure that, instead of instance grinds and gear grinds. Now, the market segment that wants a deeper, virtual world type of experience is almost unserved. Usually, the hardest thing in business is to identify the market segment in which you can be successful. In the MMO space, it seems to be the other way around: the market opportunity is there, but no one wants to take it.

    There is over-saturation .. that is why there are different games like LOL, and WOT .. and they are successful.

    Looking at just the "MMO" space is limiting. If a dev is good at doing online games, why not go in new directions? WOT is the opposite of traditional MMO. Ditch everything but instanced pvp batter. PS2 is teh same .. just do world pvp but nothing else. Also there are ARPG which essentially is doing nothing but instanced dungeons.

    All those things seem to be successful. May be the time of traditional pure MMO has passed .. and the time for adjacent, MMO-like games has arrived.

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    We're on MMORPG.com in the Pub section that is about MMOs, any conversation here by definition should be about MMOs and limited as such.

    The comparison to WoT and LoL is not applicable because they are top of their class and targeted at a diffrerent audience. If there were 10 more LoL/WoT type big name games you would see the same saturation problems plaguing the MMORPG scene.

    The "MMO-like" games have generally attracted an addition to the Internet gaming scene. The evidence of this is that the numbers WoT/LoL bring do not compare with the losses MMOs have. It's a seperate issue.
  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon

    That graph shows a decline since 2009. Sad considering many games have gone free to play, so not only do they have less customers compared to 2009, they also have a lot less paying customers.


    Regarding the bad economy comment, that should push people to the gaming market, especially FTP.


    Some are giving gaming companies too much credit. Rather than 'reading the market and designing an appropriate game' they are following the same bottom-feeder mentality of the last five years: copy WoW, hype the heck out of it, payoff game reviewers, and hope enough suckers buy in.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by Burntvet

     

    There is also such a thing as over-saturation in a given market segment. The themepark segment is overloaded. The casual, click and go, get right into the game with no thought has been done to death. If game makers want players to stay with a title for more than 1 month, there should be enough depth to ensure that, instead of instance grinds and gear grinds. Now, the market segment that wants a deeper, virtual world type of experience is almost unserved. Usually, the hardest thing in business is to identify the market segment in which you can be successful. In the MMO space, it seems to be the other way around: the market opportunity is there, but no one wants to take it.

    The whole MMO market is over-saturated, there are far more games coming out than there are people to fill them all.  It's not just themeparks, it's *ALL* MMOs!  Besides, most developers make back all of their money in the first month, anyone who stays on longer than a couple of months is just a bonus.  You seem to have this delusion that "serving a niche segment" is financially rewarding.  It's not.  It costs many tens of millions of dollars and many years to develop an MMO, nobody is going to make a game that only appeals to 50k people worldwide.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Aelious
    We're on MMORPG.com in the Pub section that is about MMOs, any conversation here by definition should be about MMOs and limited as such.

    The comparison to WoT and LoL is not applicable because they are top of their class and targeted at a diffrerent audience. If there were 10 more LoL/WoT type big name games you would see the same saturation problems plaguing the MMORPG scene.

    The "MMO-like" games have generally attracted an addition to the Internet gaming scene. The evidence of this is that the numbers WoT/LoL bring do not compare with the losses MMOs have. It's a seperate issue.

    What loss? The MMO market grew 14% in revenue from 2011 to 2012.

    http://www.newzoo.com/insights/the-global-mmo-market-sizing-and-seizing-opportunities-2/

     

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 20,008Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Burntvet
     

     

    There is also such a thing as over-saturation in a given market segment. The themepark segment is overloaded. The casual, click and go, get right into the game with no thought has been done to death. If game makers want players to stay with a title for more than 1 month, there should be enough depth to ensure that, instead of instance grinds and gear grinds. Now, the market segment that wants a deeper, virtual world type of experience is almost unserved. Usually, the hardest thing in business is to identify the market segment in which you can be successful. In the MMO space, it seems to be the other way around: the market opportunity is there, but no one wants to take it.

    There is over-saturation .. that is why there are different games like LOL, and WOT .. and they are successful.

    Looking at just the "MMO" space is limiting. If a dev is good at doing online games, why not go in new directions? WOT is the opposite of traditional MMO. Ditch everything but instanced pvp batter. PS2 is teh same .. just do world pvp but nothing else. Also there are ARPG which essentially is doing nothing but instanced dungeons.

    All those things seem to be successful. May be the time of traditional pure MMO has passed .. and the time for adjacent, MMO-like games has arrived.

    Naw, I think the time of the Mega MMORPG has passed, fewer AAA firms will try to appeal to a broad player base, and the genre will likely shrink down to some smaller firms catering to more niche markets while big boys go off and build whatever pleases the masses.

    Not every new store that opens intends to become WalMart

    image

     

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Aelious
    We're on MMORPG.com in the Pub section that is about MMOs, any conversation here by definition should be about MMOs and limited as such.

    The comparison to WoT and LoL is not applicable because they are top of their class and targeted at a diffrerent audience. If there were 10 more LoL/WoT type big name games you would see the same saturation problems plaguing the MMORPG scene.

    The "MMO-like" games have generally attracted an addition to the Internet gaming scene. The evidence of this is that the numbers WoT/LoL bring do not compare with the losses MMOs have. It's a seperate issue.

    What loss? The MMO market grew 14% in revenue from 2011 to 2012.

    http://www.newzoo.com/insights/the-global-mmo-market-sizing-and-seizing-opportunities-2/

     

     

    That's my point.  You said this:

     

    "All those things seem to be successful. May be the time of traditional pure MMO has passed .. and the time for adjacent, MMO-like games has arrived."

     

    Indicating that there has been a shift of what people want based upon the popularity of WoT/LoL.  My point is that the WoT/LoL numbers are an addition to those preferring a more "traditional MMO".  Additionally both of those games benefit from being top of the class and getting all the marbles.  If there was the same type of saturation, which I have no doubt is coming, numbers for both would see a drastic drop.

     

    Simpy put: MMO-like popularity =/= shift from MMOs.  In fact, whos to say that most of the MMO-like players don't also play MMOs? Who wouldn't want to play a free game that you're in and out within 20 minutes?

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Burntvet
     

     

    There is also such a thing as over-saturation in a given market segment. The themepark segment is overloaded. The casual, click and go, get right into the game with no thought has been done to death. If game makers want players to stay with a title for more than 1 month, there should be enough depth to ensure that, instead of instance grinds and gear grinds. Now, the market segment that wants a deeper, virtual world type of experience is almost unserved. Usually, the hardest thing in business is to identify the market segment in which you can be successful. In the MMO space, it seems to be the other way around: the market opportunity is there, but no one wants to take it.

    There is over-saturation .. that is why there are different games like LOL, and WOT .. and they are successful.

    Looking at just the "MMO" space is limiting. If a dev is good at doing online games, why not go in new directions? WOT is the opposite of traditional MMO. Ditch everything but instanced pvp batter. PS2 is teh same .. just do world pvp but nothing else. Also there are ARPG which essentially is doing nothing but instanced dungeons.

    All those things seem to be successful. May be the time of traditional pure MMO has passed .. and the time for adjacent, MMO-like games has arrived.

    Naw, I think the time of the Mega MMORPG has passed, fewer AAA firms will try to appeal to a broad player base, and the genre will likely shrink down to some smaller firms catering to more niche markets while big boys go off and build whatever pleases the masses.

    Not every new store that opens intends to become WalMart

    image

     

    Oh there is definitely some of that .. look at the indie gaming movement.

    However, there will still be AAA games, just not in the mold of the traditional MMOs. Look at Destiny .. new big game from Bungie with *some* MMO elements but strictly speaking not a MMO. That is the future.

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Burntvet
     

     

    There is also such a thing as over-saturation in a given market segment. The themepark segment is overloaded. The casual, click and go, get right into the game with no thought has been done to death. If game makers want players to stay with a title for more than 1 month, there should be enough depth to ensure that, instead of instance grinds and gear grinds. Now, the market segment that wants a deeper, virtual world type of experience is almost unserved. Usually, the hardest thing in business is to identify the market segment in which you can be successful. In the MMO space, it seems to be the other way around: the market opportunity is there, but no one wants to take it.

    There is over-saturation .. that is why there are different games like LOL, and WOT .. and they are successful.

    Looking at just the "MMO" space is limiting. If a dev is good at doing online games, why not go in new directions? WOT is the opposite of traditional MMO. Ditch everything but instanced pvp batter. PS2 is teh same .. just do world pvp but nothing else. Also there are ARPG which essentially is doing nothing but instanced dungeons.

    All those things seem to be successful. May be the time of traditional pure MMO has passed .. and the time for adjacent, MMO-like games has arrived.

    Naw, I think the time of the Mega MMORPG has passed, fewer AAA firms will try to appeal to a broad player base, and the genre will likely shrink down to some smaller firms catering to more niche markets while big boys go off and build whatever pleases the masses.

    Not every new store that opens intends to become WalMart

    image

    Oh there is definitely some of that .. look at the indie gaming movement.

    However, there will still be AAA games, just not in the mold of the traditional MMOs. Look at Destiny .. new big game from Bungie with *some* MMO elements but strictly speaking not a MMO. That is the future.

     

    You're right, traditional SPRPGs are taking on MMO features and that is the future due to PSN and Live.  Traditional MMOs? If they're going away were a long ways off IMO since none of us have a crystal ball.

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Aelious We're on MMORPG.com in the Pub section that is about MMOs, any conversation here by definition should be about MMOs and limited as such. The comparison to WoT and LoL is not applicable because they are top of their class and targeted at a diffrerent audience. If there were 10 more LoL/WoT type big name games you would see the same saturation problems plaguing the MMORPG scene. The "MMO-like" games have generally attracted an addition to the Internet gaming scene. The evidence of this is that the numbers WoT/LoL bring do not compare with the losses MMOs have. It's a seperate issue.
    What loss? The MMO market grew 14% in revenue from 2011 to 2012.

    http://www.newzoo.com/insights/the-global-mmo-market-sizing-and-seizing-opportunities-2/


    Interesting article. Yes, 'MMO' revenues are up 14% in the U.S. If costs went up by more than 14% that indicates decline. The article also says:


    there is another key reasons why some MMO companies are struggling to maintain healthy profitability and revenue growth. This is the extreme rise in cost of acquisition per registered player


    Furthermore, keep in mind that many players were 'fooled' into buying products they ultimately disliked. They will be much more hesitant to do so in the future.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Aelious

    You're right, traditional SPRPGs are taking on MMO features and that is the future due to PSN and Live.  Traditional MMOs? If they're going away were a long ways off IMO since none of us have a crystal ball.

    Of course no one can perfectly predict the future.

    But let me say this ... the new innovation and development in non-MMO online games excit me a lot more than traditional MMOs. There are where i see new exciting games.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Arclan


    Furthermore, keep in mind that many players were 'fooled' into buying products they ultimately disliked. They will be much more hesitant to do so in the future.

    Where do you get that? If you read the article, most players are doing F2P without paying a cent. That is the beauty of F2P. You will never be fooled into buying anything. You play the game for free first.

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    Nariusseldon

    I can see how those games would excite you since those seem to be the kind you like. We all tend to notice more of what we like and I hope you have many years of gaming enjoyment to come. I, on the opposite side of the yard, am more opt to pay more attention to the MMOs coming out.

    There are many titles to keep the genre going though luckily not as many per year as it has strangulated the market, the full effects we haven't seen yet.

    I think the biggest shift to MMOs may be platform and phasing. The PS4 for example boasts very nice numbers and would play an MMO great as far as I can see. Also, having "super servers" like TESO will probably see a lot more use from here on out. I love he fact that 100s or 1000s of people are "out there" playing with me in a big virtual world. That's why I'm not intereted in most SPRPGs or lobby games for very long. If you can trick me into thinking I'm playing with 1000s though only 100s are really there, I don't care.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Aelious
    Nariusseldon

    I can see how those games would excite you since those seem to be the kind you like. We all tend to notice more of what we like and I hope you have many years of gaming enjoyment to come. I, on the opposite side of the yard, am more opt to pay more attention to the MMOs coming out.
    No argument here.


    I think the biggest shift to MMOs may be platform and phasing. The PS4 for example boasts very nice numbers and would play an MMO great as far as I can see. Also, having "super servers" like TESO will probably see a lot more use from here on out. I love he fact that 100s or 1000s of people are "out there" playing with me in a big virtual world. That's why I'm not intereted in most SPRPGs or lobby games for very long. If you can trick me into thinking I'm playing with 1000s though only 100s are really there, I don't care.

    I wonder if what turn you off from lobby gaming is that the explicit nature of matching (you go in .. choose to be match in a game), and that is immersion breaking.

    I wonder if something like Destiny will suit you. It will implicitly match you with someone ... and from a gameplay perspective, you are in your world, and there are thousands potentially can appear .. and sometimes they do. If they don't tell you the underlying mechanism .. it would be as if you are in a big world, and sometimes other people appear .. and they will control it so that there is no crowding.

    If that is the case .. the experience .. then you don't need a MMO. Whether it is an instance, or persistent world, or shard .. won't matter a bit. You will just have a consistent experience in a world that can potentailly enconter thousand of people ..seamlesslly.

     

  • FromHellFromHell NY, NYPosts: 1,311Member
    Originally posted by Theocritus
    Originally posted by FromHell

    wait 1-2 years, real revolution is coming

     

    World of Darkness

    Star Citizen

    Elite Dangerous

    Black Desert

    Repopulation

    AND EVERQUEST NEXT

     

     

    the end of cartoony fantasy clones is nigh

     People always think great games are coming and when these great games finally launch we learn they aren't so great......

    not in my case. Haven't been excited about many releases in the last 5 years. Well except SWTOR because it was Star Wars, but.. you know. The other title I was hyped about was TSW, that one at least met my expectations and the above mentioned ones have a high chance to be worth the hype as well.

    not sure about Repopulation though, indie dev and small budget doesn't smell like AAA but who knows

    Secrets of Dragon?s Spine Trailer.. ! :D
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwT9cFVQCMw

    Best MMOs ever played: Ultima, EvE, SW Galaxies, Age of Conan, The Secret World
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2X_SbZCHpc&t=21s
    .


    .
    The Return of ELITE !
    image

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    To be honest I'll play anything if I think I'll enjoy it. I don't "need" MMOs but what I want to spend my time doing and playing can only be found there. For instance Skyrim looks like an incredible game but I'll likely never play it. I picked up Oblivion when it released and only played it for a week before going back to my MMO. SPRPGs to me are empty.

    I'll look more into Destiny though I'm mostly excited by EQN ATM. If it features an online feature where you are paired with random people in a virtual world that sounds more like an MMO to me than a SPRPG.
  • nate1980nate1980 Evans, GAPosts: 1,829Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by nate198

     

    True, the failure of SWTOR sent a larger message than any complaining on forums would. I'm not sure I'd still play a MMO made like the old school ones. I'm 10 years or more older now, and enjoy playing games in < 3 hour increments. However, there are some old ideas that just worked well in the MMORPG genre that I'd either like to see again, or like to improved upon.

    Like what?  I can't think of anything that actually worked well that has totally gone away, in fact, the ideas that have gone away have largely been the ones that MMO evolution has selected against, they died for a reason.

    Well, I guess I can list some features I enjoyed in my early days:

    1. DAoC's 40+ classes, which each had their own unique flavor. 

    2. DAoC's 10+ races, which mostly started in different areas of the map when the game first released.

    3. A wide variety of ways to build any particular class, all of which will play completely different and with different skills used. Unlike new MMORPG's where, for example, all warriors will have the same skills, but can spec in a talent tree to specialize in some of those skills, while maybe getting 1-2 special skills from their tree. With that kind of class flexibility comes a lot of fun, freedom of choice, and the ability to gimp yourself. In other words, smart people end up with a good character, while stupid or lazy people gimp themselves.

    4.Player made cities and housing. 

    5. Persistent battlegrounds like DAoC.

    6. Grouping being better xp than soloing.

    7. No quest grinding

    8. alternate level advancement (ie. Master Levels, Champion Levels, Realm Ranks, AA system from EQ2 etc)

    9. Classes filling a niche in the group, instead of being able to do everything. Group dependency and balance, not balance for 1v1 encounters.

    10. No items with stats on them. Items with special effects were rare. Weapons and armor could get stats on them if they went to a Master Crafter and had them spellchant them.

    11. Open world (ie. No instances, extremely limited loading screens, no copies of the same map [ie. Coruscant1, Coruscant2])

    12. Downtime between fights. This is minimized by grouping with people that cover your weaknesses.

    13. 1v1 fights with mobs of equal level were challenging and required the used of everything you had to win. Instead of today, where I can go into any MMORPG post-WoW and solo mobs anywhere 4-6 levels above me.

     

    Anyways, I really could think about this longer and come up with some more, but I'm threw. Basically, older games were more challenging, less forgiving, had more diversity, and more features other than combat. New games have homogenized all the classes, have taken any real choice out of advancement, have very little, if any, non-combat and crafting features, are solo centric, quest grinds, heavily instanced and zoned, combat centric, gear centric, and completely lack any sort of challenge outside of PvP and/or hardmode group content.

  • nate1980nate1980 Evans, GAPosts: 1,829Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by ignore_me
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by nate198

     

    True, the failure of SWTOR sent a larger message than any complaining on forums would. I'm not sure I'd still play a MMO made like the old school ones. I'm 10 years or more older now, and enjoy playing games in < 3 hour increments. However, there are some old ideas that just worked well in the MMORPG genre that I'd either like to see again, or like to improved upon.

    Like what?  I can't think of anything that actually worked well that has totally gone away, in fact, the ideas that have gone away have largely been the ones that MMO evolution has selected against, they died for a reason.

    There is some truth to what you are saying. But the reason for some of those features going away was sometimes a cost/benefit analysis based on dev time in building the game versus end product as received by users. A myopic approach has yielded results lately that are ungood for the same bean counters.

    I don't really buy that.  Developers take the most popular elements and spend the most time on them because they are popular and will draw in the most paying players.  That's how business works.  What you're really saying is that developers don't waste their time on unpopular ideas and I agree with you.  Why?  Because they're unpopular!

    Sounds to me that someone needs to take a marketing class at college. 

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by nate1980

    Sounds to me that someone needs to take a marketing class at college. 

    And that person would be you.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Aelious
    To be honest I'll play anything if I think I'll enjoy it. I don't "need" MMOs but what I want to spend my time doing and playing can only be found there. For instance Skyrim looks like an incredible game but I'll likely never play it. I picked up Oblivion when it released and only played it for a week before going back to my MMO. SPRPGs to me are empty.

    I'll look more into Destiny though I'm mostly excited by EQN ATM. If it features an online feature where you are paired with random people in a virtual world that sounds more like an MMO to me than a SPRPG.

    I bet there will be debate since the "world" is not persistent. But personally i don't care about the definition. If the gaming experience is good, i will play.

     

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    I don't care about the definition either but I do care about walking in a world from one end to the other without a loading screen. Preferably, there are game's like EQ2 and GW2 that are fine.

    I looked at Destiny and thought it was a fantasy game thought to be screens for EQN. Not really into FPS. PS2 is food now and then however.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Aelious
    I don't care about the definition either but I do care about walking in a world from one end to the other without a loading screen. Preferably, there are game's like EQ2 and GW2 that are fine.
     

    Then you are missing out. There are lots of great games that does not even have a world.

     

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    I'm not missing out, I've tried lots of games outside of my typical play style. Sorry, you don't know something I don't know :)

    You may have stumbled upon some epiphany from your years of online gaming but you need to accept people think differently than you and aren't "missing" anything because they don't agree.

    Different strokes
  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by Aelious
    I'm not missing out, I've tried lots of games outside of my typical play style. Sorry, you don't know something I don't know :)

    You may have stumbled upon some epiphany from your years of online gaming but you need to accept people think differently than you and aren't "missing" anything because they don't agree.

    Different strokes

    You need to accept that people have different tastes, that doesn't mean you have to cater to people who have different tastes.  There are lots of people out there who like PvP.  I don't.  I can't stand it.  I accept that they like it, they have plenty of games they can go play it in, I simply have no interest in playing those games.  Live and let live.  I don't try to force them to play games where there is no PvP and they shouldn't try to force me to play games where there is.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

Sign In or Register to comment.