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!

Why games live EVE and Minecraft are successful...

2»

Comments

  • LeGrosGamerLeGrosGamer Canada, QCPosts: 210Member
     If you're a huge fan of PvP and got friends to play with, then you really need to head to EVE-Online. The PvP is the best out there. Thank God for it's PvP otherwise the game would of been dead years ago. I've enjoyed EVE for 8 years but now moving on to other games, since EVE can be very time consuming and isolating at times, to the point where it felt like a 2nd RL job.    I suggest becoming a pirate with some friends and just wreck havoc for profit and kill mails!! Way more fun!! image
  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,675Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by FinalFikus

    Well, WoW's success was directly lifted from emergent gameplay from eq that was born from freedom. The most success ever right? Sure they did enough to take all the credit, but it was eq's emergent gameplay that inspired it.

    It means our experts were wrong again. That's all. You would think emergent gameplay would pretty fairly important to have around considering. All the kids are flocking to minecraft, Not mmorpgs. Wonder why? Just dismiss it, means nothing.

    Freedom is found in games like Skyrim and gta as well. More games that should fail according to our experts.

    I believe what is being implied is there is more than one way to make an mmorpg and be very successful.

    Well certainly I'd agree that the gameplay in WOW involves a moderate amount of player freedom, but to me it's Blizzard's understanding of pre-MMORPG gaming (not MMORPGs, but other games) that made the biggest difference.

    It's always felt clear that gameplay quality was the reason for WOW's success.  Specifically it was many factors, many of which came from pre-MMORPGs.  I didn't play EQ1 or UO at the time, so this list is mostly in comparison with the ~10 early MMORPGs I did play (which by comparison had really lousy gameplay.)  WOW's gameplay strengths were:

    • Controls.  Tight, crisp controls set WOW apart from early MMORPGs.
    • Player Abilitty Design.  In many early MMORPGs you'd do little more than auto-attack and wait, with the only decision being "Is my health falling faster than the mobs?  I'd better run." Whereas WOW involved a lot more direct decision-making each combat (frost bolt to snare, fireballs/fireblasts to damage, frost nova to root it when it's close, so you can blink to distance yourself and start the frostbolt/fireball sequence over.)
    • Mob Ability Design.  The mobs themselves frequently had unique abilities to learn to deal with too, so if a mob roots itself to do a final high-damage poison attack right as it nears death you have to judge whether you think you can finish it off just in time or whether you should back off to avoid the attack -- and it actually factors in to your overall grinding efficiency.  This type of optimization gameplay was much rarer in earlier MMORPGs (and sadly is still rare nowadays, with games like SWTOR releasing with virtually no mob variety to speak of.)
    • Strong Teamplay, courtesy of the Trinity.  This is the element which seems most clearly pulled from EQ1 and was really the final glue that kept me playing WOW longterm once I started grouping.
    All of which is sort of a flimsy overview of the core reasons WOW's gameplay set it so far ahead of earlier MMORPGs.
     
    Point being that while player freedom is sort of an element in some of those things (you're free to play around with different skill rotations due to the ability design elements) it's not really the driving element behind WOW's success by any stretch.

    On the Player Ability Design part, isn't it really the other way around?

    Prior to WOW, there seems to be a lot more decision making both before and during battle. Here are a few examples:

    • Auto-attack and wait was more of a WOW thing, as most previous MMOs didn't have the class restrictions that prevented health management or - almost completely foreign to today's MMOs - mana and spell resource management. When was the last time you ran out of mana during a single battle with a mob?
    • WOW is actually one of the last MMOs to require combat consumables, as spell components and projectiles became a thing of the past after it.
    • The frost/slow, fire/damage thing was the result of the removal of different elements and attack types having different effects. In previous MMOs you really wouldn't cast fire spells on a magma golem, but you wouldn't think twice about it in WOW and later MMOs. Since elements and damage type had lost their meaning, they were replaced with a new set so that players no longer had to prepare or decide - all tools were with them and all spells were viable.
    A lot of the management, movement and variables of combat, for better or for worse, began disappearing with AC2 and started to become extinct immediately following WOW.
     
    It seems like part of WOW's success is because combat was reduced to auto-attack and wait, not the other way around.

     

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • TorikTorik London, ONPosts: 2,343Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ReallyNow10

    And I say these games are successful in spite of either clunky graphics or brutal PVP.

    The reason?

    Player freedom

    The devs have created the environment and turned the players loose to do what they will, within the parameters of their characters' abilities.  The players are not railroaded, boxed in by some "story", or forced down paths they wish not to follow; the players are free-willed in a free-range world (or universe).

    And this speaks volumes.  And the players have responded with their wallets, in many cases.  And this is why these games can beat out the WOW clones, despite the polish and graphical advantages of the latter.

     

    I agree with this conclusion but probably not for the exact reasons you envisioned. 

    EVE most certainly gives a lot of freedom to certain playstyles and is thus popular among the players who like those playstyles.  however, I quit EVE precisely because it did not give me the freedom to play the game teh way I waned and instead tried to force me down paths I did not want to follow.  Instead I went on to play WoW which gave me exactly the freedom I was looking for.  When WoW started to limit that freedom due to its overemphasis on raiding I moved on.

    Games that give its intended audience the freedom to play the way those players want to play will retain those players as customers.

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,759Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    On the Player Ability Design part, isn't it really the other way around?

    Prior to WOW, there seems to be a lot more decision making both before and during battle. Here are a few examples:

    • Auto-attack and wait was more of a WOW thing, as most previous MMOs didn't have the class restrictions that prevented health management or - almost completely foreign to today's MMOs - mana and spell resource management. When was the last time you ran out of mana during a single battle with a mob?
    • WOW is actually one of the last MMOs to require combat consumables, as spell components and projectiles became a thing of the past after it.
    • The frost/slow, fire/damage thing was the result of the removal of different elements and attack types having different effects. In previous MMOs you really wouldn't cast fire spells on a magma golem, but you wouldn't think twice about it in WOW and later MMOs. Since elements and damage type had lost their meaning, they were replaced with a new set so that players no longer had to prepare or decide - all tools were with them and all spells were viable.
    A lot of the management, movement and variables of combat, for better or for worse, began disappearing with AC2 and started to become extinct immediately following WOW.
     
    It seems like part of WOW's success is because combat was reduced to auto-attack and wait, not the other way around.  

    Well like I said, I don't know if things were different in EQ1 and UO (the two big ones I missed) but certainly games like AC1, AO, and DAOC made me feel a lot less like an active participant in combat, and were a lot more autoattack-and-wait with weaker ability rotations (even considering WOW's launch rotations were pretty damn weak compared with nowadays.)  A big part was spell interrupts too, which was a natural dynamic element that I never saw in earlier MMORPGs (either because it was impossible, or because while you were able to interrupt (usually by CCing) the mobs you fought almost never required it or used spells/abilities in a way you could react to.)

    Not sure what you're implying with the combat consumables comment.  While true, I don't think that those consumables were net-positive overall.  It was seldom a choice, and usually just an upkeep chore.

    Upkeep chore was also a lot of the problem behind the 'buffbot' nature of earlier MMORPGs where you stacked buffs to become a complete killing machine -- the result being that content can never be balanced at a pleasant challenge, and that instead it's always going to be too easy while buffed or too hard while unbuffed.  The happy medium is achieved when there are tighter constraints on which buffs exist.

    Early WOW had fire-immune mobs, but that basically sucked.  Some classes had workarounds which merely made them feel gimped (and limited playstyle flexibility by forcing you to be a Frost Mage in Molten Core.)  Other classes were almost entirely screwed (warlocks vs. shadow-immune mobs; they had really crappy non-shadow damage spells.)

    So in actual practice, gathering fire-resist gear and only choosing non-fire spec when you wanted to run Molten Core wasn't a particularly deep experience.  

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORPosts: 5,565Member Uncommon

    I guess if you're one of those people who actually believe a half million people are playing EvE right now....then you'd make threads like this.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon

    Player freedom and top notch graphics do not go together. I was watching an interview with Team 17 the other day. They were talking about how in the old days they did many games, now their success rides on far fewer titles. Production costs have forced them to concentrate on a few titles. That means they don't want to take risks and player freedom is risky.

    I certainly favour more sandbox elements in MMO's but that is because the genre is so themepark now. I am not sure a fully fledged sandbox MMO would work as well as some posters think. And these days gaming companies do not get a second chance, so I don't expect us to have that many of these to try out.

    Hopefully though we will move to MMOs with at least some extra freedom as the genre has been in straight-jacket for years.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,675Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    On the Player Ability Design part, isn't it really the other way around?

    Prior to WOW, there seems to be a lot more decision making both before and during battle. Here are a few examples:

    • Auto-attack and wait was more of a WOW thing, as most previous MMOs didn't have the class restrictions that prevented health management or - almost completely foreign to today's MMOs - mana and spell resource management. When was the last time you ran out of mana during a single battle with a mob?
    • WOW is actually one of the last MMOs to require combat consumables, as spell components and projectiles became a thing of the past after it.
    • The frost/slow, fire/damage thing was the result of the removal of different elements and attack types having different effects. In previous MMOs you really wouldn't cast fire spells on a magma golem, but you wouldn't think twice about it in WOW and later MMOs. Since elements and damage type had lost their meaning, they were replaced with a new set so that players no longer had to prepare or decide - all tools were with them and all spells were viable.
    A lot of the management, movement and variables of combat, for better or for worse, began disappearing with AC2 and started to become extinct immediately following WOW.
     
    It seems like part of WOW's success is because combat was reduced to auto-attack and wait, not the other way around.  

    Well like I said, I don't know if things were different in EQ1 and UO (the two big ones I missed) but certainly games like AC1, AO, and DAOC made me feel a lot less like an active participant in combat, and were a lot more autoattack-and-wait with weaker ability rotations (even considering WOW's launch rotations were pretty damn weak compared with nowadays.)  A big part was spell interrupts too, which was a natural dynamic element that I never saw in earlier MMORPGs (either because it was impossible, or because while you were able to interrupt (usually by CCing) the mobs you fought almost never required it or used spells/abilities in a way you could react to.)

    Not sure what you're implying with the combat consumables comment.  While true, I don't think that those consumables were net-positive overall.  It was seldom a choice, and usually just an upkeep chore.

    Upkeep chore was also a lot of the problem behind the 'buffbot' nature of earlier MMORPGs where you stacked buffs to become a complete killing machine -- the result being that content can never be balanced at a pleasant challenge, and that instead it's always going to be too easy while buffed or too hard while unbuffed.  The happy medium is achieved when there are tighter constraints on which buffs exist.

    Early WOW had fire-immune mobs, but that basically sucked.  Some classes had workarounds which merely made them feel gimped (and limited playstyle flexibility by forcing you to be a Frost Mage in Molten Core.)  Other classes were almost entirely screwed (warlocks vs. shadow-immune mobs; they had really crappy non-shadow damage spells.)

    So in actual practice, gathering fire-resist gear and only choosing non-fire spec when you wanted to run Molten Core wasn't a particularly deep experience.  

    AC, DAoC and UO all had spell interrupts. AC and UO even had fizzling. You also had to choose your spells wisely because you were burning up components and could easily run out of one. On the combat consumables, that was addressing your statement that the only decision was watching health. In AC, for example, a player was regularly changing arrows based on the enemy I was facing, as AC and other early MMOs had mixed types of mobs and not "the bear area" or "the brigand area". Also, earlier MMOs had encumbrance as a concern, so that figured into what you could carry before and during battle. The flood rooms and high density mobs of most earlier MMOs, coupled with the lack of a "home" spot in some meant more active combat overall.  In WOW and most later MMOs, you can pick and choose the mobs you want to fight with little regard for any other creatures around you in most situations.

    Your point about the buff bots, a major part of both AC and DAoC is a good one, as that did offset the challenge level a lot. AC only developed that issue later on when buffs were increased from a few minutes in duration to something like an hour or so.

    I don't remember the fire-immune mobs in WoW. Not to say they weren't there, but that kind of mechanic was so far and few between that one wouldn't notice. WOW, however, was one of the first to make attack type (crushing, piercing, slashing) almost pointless, primarily because of class-based weapons restrictions, which further reduces what the player is doing during combat as they have their best-for-level weapon and no need for anything else. I remember putting together my fire set for MC as it was a unique experience in that game, whereas in most of the other MMOs I played prior (AC, UO, Puzzle Pirates, EVE) having different gear for different situations was the norm.

    Whether the old systems were better than today's or not is debatable, but today's seem like they are little more than auto-attack and wait in comparison.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,759Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    AC, DAoC and UO all had spell interrupts. AC and UO even had fizzling. You also had to choose your spells wisely because you were burning up components and could easily run out of one. On the combat consumables, that was addressing your statement that the only decision was watching health. In AC, for example, a player was regularly changing arrows based on the enemy I was facing, as AC and other early MMOs had mixed types of mobs and not "the bear area" or "the brigand area". Also, earlier MMOs had encumbrance as a concern, so that figured into what you could carry before and during battle. The flood rooms and high density mobs of most earlier MMOs, coupled with the lack of a "home" spot in some meant more active combat overall.  In WOW and most later MMOs, you can pick and choose the mobs you want to fight with little regard for any other creatures around you in most situations.

    Your point about the buff bots, a major part of both AC and DAoC is a good one, as that did offset the challenge level a lot. AC only developed that issue later on when buffs were increased from a few minutes in duration to something like an hour or so.

    I don't remember the fire-immune mobs in WoW. Not to say they weren't there, but that kind of mechanic was so far and few between that one wouldn't notice. WOW, however, was one of the first to make attack type (crushing, piercing, slashing) almost pointless, primarily because of class-based weapons restrictions, which further reduces what the player is doing during combat as they have their best-for-level weapon and no need for anything else. I remember putting together my fire set for MC as it was a unique experience in that game, whereas in most of the other MMOs I played prior (AC, UO, Puzzle Pirates, EVE) having different gear for different situations was the norm.

    Whether the old systems were better than today's or not is debatable, but today's seem like they are little more than auto-attack and wait in comparison.

    Well few enough classes had spell interrupts in those games that I never had one once.  And even if I had, the amount of mobs who both (a) used spells and (b) used spells worth interrupting was almost nonexistent, which renders spell interrupts pretty low on value.

    Fizzling was flat-out terrible game design. Abilities which fail completely due to randomness (and not due to player-controllable factors) adds nothing and significantly takes away from the fun of a game.

    In early WOW Molten Core had a large amount of fire-immune mobs (including quite a few bosses) and basically every single pure-element elemental in the game was immune to its damage type.  It's pretty easy to have missed this, since they only accounted for 2-5% of the total mobs, and you'd only have experienced it if you played early WOW (this article says the removal happened at the end of BC, which sounds about right.)

    I'm just a bit surprised anyone would feel WOW was auto-attack intensive compared to older MMORPGs.  WOW and COH and maybe 1-2 others are basically the only games where there feels like a reasonable amount of meaty decision-making is made during a fight, instead of just going through an endlessly repetitive rotation (if you got a rotation at all.)

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • uplink4242uplink4242 fx, MTPosts: 246Member
    Originally posted by Rhoklaw
    An example to compliment your theory is that Everquest Next will prove once again, that if you try to please EVERYONE, your game is crap. So like Eve Online, gaming companies are better off trying to please only a portion of the playerbase really well, rather than trying to please everyone, half-ass.

    I share a similar view to this.

    Also, the reason why games like eve are popular is because its mechanics fully support and encourage creating a vast, persistent community. And this is one of the reasons that gets a lot of people to play long term.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,675Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    AC, DAoC and UO all had spell interrupts. AC and UO even had fizzling. You also had to choose your spells wisely because you were burning up components and could easily run out of one. On the combat consumables, that was addressing your statement that the only decision was watching health. In AC, for example, a player was regularly changing arrows based on the enemy I was facing, as AC and other early MMOs had mixed types of mobs and not "the bear area" or "the brigand area". Also, earlier MMOs had encumbrance as a concern, so that figured into what you could carry before and during battle. The flood rooms and high density mobs of most earlier MMOs, coupled with the lack of a "home" spot in some meant more active combat overall.  In WOW and most later MMOs, you can pick and choose the mobs you want to fight with little regard for any other creatures around you in most situations.

    Your point about the buff bots, a major part of both AC and DAoC is a good one, as that did offset the challenge level a lot. AC only developed that issue later on when buffs were increased from a few minutes in duration to something like an hour or so.

    I don't remember the fire-immune mobs in WoW. Not to say they weren't there, but that kind of mechanic was so far and few between that one wouldn't notice. WOW, however, was one of the first to make attack type (crushing, piercing, slashing) almost pointless, primarily because of class-based weapons restrictions, which further reduces what the player is doing during combat as they have their best-for-level weapon and no need for anything else. I remember putting together my fire set for MC as it was a unique experience in that game, whereas in most of the other MMOs I played prior (AC, UO, Puzzle Pirates, EVE) having different gear for different situations was the norm.

    Whether the old systems were better than today's or not is debatable, but today's seem like they are little more than auto-attack and wait in comparison.

    Well few enough classes had spell interrupts in those games that I never had one once.  And even if I had, the amount of mobs who both (a) used spells and (b) used spells worth interrupting was almost nonexistent, which renders spell interrupts pretty low on value.

    Fizzling was flat-out terrible game design. Abilities which fail completely due to randomness (and not due to player-controllable factors) adds nothing and significantly takes away from the fun of a game.

    In early WOW Molten Core had a large amount of fire-immune mobs (including quite a few bosses) and basically every single pure-element elemental in the game was immune to its damage type.  It's pretty easy to have missed this, since they only accounted for 2-5% of the total mobs, and you'd only have experienced it if you played early WOW (this article says the removal happened at the end of BC, which sounds about right.)

    I'm just a bit surprised anyone would feel WOW was auto-attack intensive compared to older MMORPGs.  WOW and COH and maybe 1-2 others are basically the only games where there feels like a reasonable amount of meaty decision-making is made during a fight, instead of just going through an endlessly repetitive rotation (if you got a rotation at all.)

    It's entirely possible that my perception is skewed by the fact that in most previous MMOs I mostly PvP'd but when I played WOW, I was PVE straight through. And, yes, fizzling was terrible design. :)

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Chicago, ILPosts: 906Member
    Originally posted by Scot

    Player freedom and top notch graphics do not go together. I was watching an interview with Team 17 the other day. They were talking about how in the old days they did many games, now their success rides on far fewer titles. Production costs have forced them to concentrate on a few titles. That means they don't want to take risks and player freedom is risky.

    I certainly favour more sandbox elements in MMO's but that is because the genre is so themepark now. I am not sure a fully fledged sandbox MMO would work as well as some posters think. And these days gaming companies do not get a second chance, so I don't expect us to have that many of these to try out.

    Hopefully though we will move to MMOs with at least some extra freedom as the genre has been in straight-jacket for years.

    They will be as long as they're slaves to progression.

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • TheocritusTheocritus Gary, INPosts: 3,758Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by LeGrosGamer
     If you're a huge fan of PvP and got friends to play with, then you really need to head to EVE-Online. The PvP is the best out there. Thank God for it's PvP otherwise the game would of been dead years ago. I've enjoyed EVE for 8 years but now moving on to other games, since EVE can be very time consuming and isolating at times, to the point where it felt like a 2nd RL job.    I suggest becoming a pirate with some friends and just wreck havoc for profit and kill mails!! Way more fun!! image

     Ruining other players fun....Always a great recipe for success......

  • BrianshoBriansho Woodbridge, VAPosts: 4,779Member Uncommon

    Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!

  • uidCausticuidCaustic acworth, GAPosts: 128Member
    So can you explain why both games are so incredibly boring?
  • worldalphaworldalpha Milton, ONPosts: 403Member
    Player Freedom is something that I really tried to make available in the game I developed.  Other social strategy MMOs are quite limited in what a player can do, and I opened it up to make a lot more options available.

    Thanks,
    Mike
    Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,675Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by uidCaustic
    So can you explain why both games are so incredibly boring?

    Your friends must love going to Baskin Robbins with you.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • uidCausticuidCaustic acworth, GAPosts: 128Member
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by uidCaustic
    So can you explain why both games are so incredibly boring?

    Your friends must love going to Baskin Robbins with you.

     

    That doesn't explain why both EVE and Minecraft are incredibly boring, though.

  • DeivosDeivos Mountain View, CAPosts: 1,813Member Uncommon
    [mod edit]

    Because both are heavily dependent on free form play. It's less direct than being a strictly action driven game and the bulk of the obstacles in the game isn't in the form of things to rank up and destroy, but rather to build and achieve.

     

    Not only this, but both games have some slant towards long term play as well. When one wants to play an action driven game, then the slower pace can easily throw players off and make them lose interest.

     

    The people that enjoy these kind of games more are generally of a different mindset in the first place. They're in the game to see the impact of their actions build up. Be it on the end of creation or destruction, it's more about putting in the effort to lead up to a bigger payoff.

     

    For EVE it's in the form of building corporations, sabotaging corporations, capitol ships, etc.

     

    For Minecraft it's the towns, cities, machinery, crater fields, etc.

     

    Even the griefers have some kind of entertainment value they can derive form this long form play as you watch someone's grand efforts put to pyre by something as simple as a small suicide ship or flint and tinder.

     

    So the short answer is that the notion of whether or not they are boring is subjective to the person playing them.

    So to ask why a game is boring is meaningless as you are only asking others why you don't like the game and not actually asking about the game itself.

     

    EDIT: On a side note, I find EVE to be boring as all hell. :p

    Can understand why people enjoy playing it though.

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners."
    - Thomas B. Macaulay

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by Rhoklaw
    An example to compliment your theory is that Everquest Next will prove once again, that if you try to please EVERYONE, your game is crap. So like Eve Online, gaming companies are better off trying to please only a portion of the playerbase really well, rather than trying to please everyone, half-ass.

    Why? Most companies would rather have a half-ass shot at an enormous market, than a tiny and rabidly faithful one.

    I mean, we prefer the idealistic and focused approach, but there's no evidence that it's inherently better or more profitable. EVE is arguably the largest audience any such game has ever reached...and it's a tiny sliver of the total market.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by Rhoklaw
    An example to compliment your theory is that Everquest Next will prove once again, that if you try to please EVERYONE, your game is crap. So like Eve Online, gaming companies are better off trying to please only a portion of the playerbase really well, rather than trying to please everyone, half-ass.

    Why? Most companies would rather have a half-ass shot at an enormous market, than a tiny and rabidly faithful one.

    I mean, we prefer the idealistic and focused approach, but there's no evidence that it's inherently better or more profitable. EVE is arguably the largest audience any such game has ever reached...and it's a tiny sliver of the total market.

    This is why we have reached the point where we are today. The next big market is mobile devices, I leave you to contemplate the effect incorporating touch screen and a midget screen will have on your UI. Oh and the effect of bringing into gaming mainstream people who are totally used to the concept of paying for apps.

  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Boca Raton, FLPosts: 867Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by Rhoklaw
    An example to compliment your theory is that Everquest Next will prove once again, that if you try to please EVERYONE, your game is crap. So like Eve Online, gaming companies are better off trying to please only a portion of the playerbase really well, rather than trying to please everyone, half-ass.

    Why? Most companies would rather have a half-ass shot at an enormous market, than a tiny and rabidly faithful one.

    I mean, we prefer the idealistic and focused approach, but there's no evidence that it's inherently better or more profitable. EVE is arguably the largest audience any such game has ever reached...and it's a tiny sliver of the total market.

    This is why we have reached the point where we are today. The next big market is mobile devices, I leave you to contemplate the effect incorporating touch screen and a midget screen will have on your UI. Oh and the effect of bringing into gaming mainstream people who are totally used to the concept of paying for apps.

    If you'd like a good case study have a look at Vendetta Online; it was out on PC for almost 9 years before being ported to mobile.

    "To be what you are not, experience what you are not." -Saint John of the Cross
    Authored 110 missions in Vendetta Online
    Check it out on Steam

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

    This is why we have reached the point where we are today. The next big market is mobile devices, I leave you to contemplate the effect incorporating touch screen and a midget screen will have on your UI. Oh and the effect of bringing into gaming mainstream people who are totally used to the concept of paying for apps.

    I play lots of touch screen and mobile games. I think it will be great. They now really have to compete with f2p, and they have to make gaming even more convenient.

    I don't play all my games on mobile, but i don't see anything wrong if some MMO devs want to expand into mobile. In fact, some already do. There is already a wow clone on the iOS.

     

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
     

    This is why we have reached the point where we are today. The next big market is mobile devices, I leave you to contemplate the effect incorporating touch screen and a midget screen will have on your UI. Oh and the effect of bringing into gaming mainstream people who are totally used to the concept of paying for apps.

    I play lots of touch screen and mobile games. I think it will be great. They now really have to compete with f2p, and they have to make gaming even more convenient.

    I don't play all my games on mobile, but i don't see anything wrong if some MMO devs want to expand into mobile. In fact, some already do. There is already a wow clone on the iOS.

     

    You do know the issues that occurred when we started to get console ports and the like? When PC games had their UI's dumbed down and clunky, this is still an issue. The development of games on separate platforms starts to cause cross over problems. Initially console games had no design effect on PC games and people were talking like you are now, down the line the problems hit the fan. This time round the issues could effect console players as much as PC ones.

    We have different operating systems like Android, clunky interfaces like touchscreen and midget screens in mobiles/cellphones. While all the development is separate it works fine, but as gaming history shows us it will not stay that way.

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo LondonPosts: 3,221Member
  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Hephzibah, GAPosts: 1,946Member
    Originally posted by thinktank001
    Originally posted by ReallyNow10

    And I say these games are successful in spite of either clunky graphics or brutal PVP.

    The reason?

    Player freedom

    The devs have created the environment and turned the players loose to do what they will, within the parameters of their characters' abilities.  The players are not railroaded, boxed in by some "story", or forced down paths they wish not to follow; the players are free-willed in a free-range world (or universe).

    And this speaks volumes.  And the players have responded with their wallets, in many cases.  And this is why these games can beat out the WOW clones, despite the polish and graphical advantages of the latter.

     

     

    I feel more that EVE and MInecraft are successful because they have created virtual communities.   The developers have done a good job creating a games reward players for participation. 

    Well, the reason why Minecraft is successful is because those doing gatecamps in EvE have to do something or be bored to death -- yes, they play Minecraft while playing EvE in this way (it's not a twitch game).

     

    Thought I'd never have a chance to comment on that irony, but there it is!

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.