I agree that WoW is forgiving because of its lack of penalties. Some games has harsh penalties when you die/fail at something, and that can be very frustrating.
Originally posted by yunaislove12 I agree that WoW is forgiving because of its lack of penalties. Some games has harsh penalties when you die/fail at something, and that can be very frustrating.
Indeed it can. I find Demon Souls and Dark Souls to be two of the most frustrating but also most rewarding games I've ever played. For a lot of us, games that are too easy aren't rewarding. Why should I care about my character progression if I faced no adversity to achieve it?
You may have a point but your choice of games as examples of failure invalidate your whole post.
AoC or TsW has a good launch? No FC game has a good launch ever. Lotro was gone in 3 to 6 months?! Maybe so if you were born a year ago. I did not played many other games but I personally know ppl who still enjoy Aion or GW2 and they say those games are far from "having no staying power".
Please take some time and read about the games you are calling before some one start making jokes of you.
P.S. If it is just another attempt to say "Vanila WoW or bust" - thats a real fail.
i agree with this post.
I fail to see how an mmorpg that still have healthy population on most servers and still make money (some of the aformentioned games) is a miserable failure. I also fail to see how a game that gets updated every two weaks and keep heavy pop on most servers (GW2) is a miserable failure.
He is just burned out of themepark mmorpgs.
I do agree with the thread Title about devs steering too far into casual.
I am a casual player but i hate hand holding and faceroll easy games. I wish Developers take a risk and grab ideas from Dark SOuls when it comes to difficulty and risks. Wizardry Online had good and similar ideas but failed to execute them while at the same time mixed them with horrible generic gameplay.
Probably one of the biggest reason why mmos fail so hard these days. There is no challenge, everything can be bought from a cash shop nowadays and everything is so simplified so everyone's grandmother can understand how to play. It really is quite laughable what developers think of us as gamers. They think we are so stupid that every time they make a game they need to re-teach us how to play. Really ? Listen up devs, we aren't stupid, we been playing mmos probably a lot longer than most of you out there. You guys lack so much vision on what mmos should be and you only worry about your quarterly earnings.
Since vanilla WoW there hasn't been a mmo that has captured the hearts of gamers. Lotro, Aion, Age of Conan, The Secret World, Warhammer Online, Defiance, Rift, Free Realms, GW2, The Old Republic , Tera and I'm probably missing a few but feel free to add on to some more mmo failures. Guess what all these have in common, they had all had good launches but long term they have failed so miserably. Within 3-6 months just about every mmo I mentioned has had no staying power whatsoever.
Think about that. Developers spend 5-7 years making a theme park mmos just so it can fail 6 months down the road. That is a whole lot of wasted time and 75% of the time these mmos haven't even made a profit within a 6 month period. Sad isn't it ?
I think for me personally I am almost done with mmos. I'm waiting for Destiny and The Division to come to console. I'm not sure I want to waste more money on games that have no longevity to them. Quality > quantity.
So i decided to look at all the responses and find it interesting the level of ignorance and fanboism most of the responders are. Simple fact folks, WoW is still the number one game in the world whether you like it or not, me, im not a fan of it since Wrath of the Lich King. Fact of the matter is I believe that Blizzard screwed up its development team, lost several of them and hired others that were looking at the whole market and realized that the industry was changing so screw the players.
That being said... Its true that 90% of the games developed in the last ten years were crap. Players and sites like MMORPG.com over hype the games and then turn a blind eye when the games go to the crapper... example: Warhammer online... theres a winner for you. Or better yet lets loo at a headliner.. Final Fantasy XIV 1.0... that was a catastrophic screw up. The Devs are disconnected when it comes to the player base.. I would guess many of the publishers told their board members "screw the players, it doesnt matter what they want. If we feed them a line of shit and they pay for it well too bad for them"
As far as difficulty in the MMORPG field.. its true that the games have gotten dumber over time... its no secret that the American publishers looked at the asian market and too the same stance: "Target the 12 year olds, the parents will pay for them to shut them up."
I find it interesting that the one game in development you hear almost nothing about that has an unprecedented difficulty level, unique play system, and is far the most ambitious game in the history of MMORPGs is Citadel of Sorcery.
All the idiots during its kickstarter claimed "the graphics suck" well news flash it was clearly stated Pre- Alpha footage and you fools couldnt figure that out. Its ok though, Websites like MMORPG.com and others are just as negligent, but its all good. When the Alpha starts and those who didnt pay attention are left feeling stupid, I for one will be laughing for ten years or more.
I dont care about opinions of most gamers as they typically dont have a clue what they are talking about. Most hold the publishers up on a pedestal.. laughable at best, other just play a game because their friends do.. and theres no problem with that, until they knock another game down a peg out of ignorance.
The games for the last ten years have sucked, plain and simple. WoW only has a huge population because of the mad Marketing campaign during Wrath and the celebrities lie Ozzy and Mr. T who supported it. Its last three crappy expansions sure havent won any awards other than Blizzard being the biggest Bullsh*tter in town.
My main complaint in terms of MMO Developers steering games too far toward "casual freindly" (I'm sympathetic with the OP in that regard) is not that I want them to slow down gameplay and add a bazillion hours to achieving anything but that I want them to make the actual game-play more challenging, more involved and more complex. More thought and strategy required.
You are right. You don't need to slow down gameplay or make the game tedious to have challenging combat.
And this is already done with difficulty sliders in instances. May be it should be more popular and more MMOs should adopt it, but you can't claim that it is not done.
Example. LFR, normal & hard mode raid in WOW. hard mode is hard.
Dungeon difficulties in DDO. Try to go solo with the highest one when you are starting. That is difficult.
Admitedly, I haven't tried DDO but my general experience with difficulty sliders or diifferent "modes" in MMO's is that they don't tend to change or add much in terms of the depth of thought or strategy the player is involved with in playing the game. It just adds more mobs or more hit points to mobs, etc but you are still doing the same thing as you do playing on "easy mode" and still considering the same factors . You just have less tolerance for mis-placed key strokes or have to bring more raw firepower to the situation, etc. That may be more challenging in a way but it's not really more interesting or requiring more in depth thought from the player in general.
Maybe if they actualy changed the sophistication of the A.I. or changed the rule-sets in interesting ways. For example, "easy mode" you had unlimited ammo. Hard mode you had limited ammo and reload times, weapon jam's, etc. Those sort of things would actualy change what the player has to consider strategy-wise when playing. Instead of shooting as often as you could whenever a shot was available.....you'd have to take into consideration how many shots you were expending on bringing something down and what was a wothwhile shot compared to a poor one, etc. It adds a new dimension of gameplay that the player really didn't have to take into consideration before.
Those are the sort of elements I'd like to see Developers look to more in making games. It's not that the downtime of having to go back to town (for example) is neccesarly the fun element..... it's having to actualy think before clicking the mouse to fire the weapon whether it was the right opportunity to do it, that makes the game more interesting and engaging.
IMO doing the "hardest" dungeon when you start out doesn't really make it "difficult." With any game, there are of course things you can't do until you progress in the game, otherwise why would you make the effort. So being unable to do something because you're a newbie doesn't really mean it's difficult in the way that this topic refers to.
Admitedly, I haven't tried DDO but my general experience with difficulty sliders or diifferent "modes" in MMO's is that they don't tend to change or add much in terms of the depth of thought or strategy the player is involved with in playing the game. It just adds more mobs or more hit points to mobs, etc but you are still doing the same thing as you do playing on "easy mode" and still considering the same factors . You just have less tolerance for mis-placed key strokes or have to bring more raw firepower to the situation, etc. That may be more challenging in a way but it's not really more interesting or requiring more in depth thought from the player in general.
In that case, you have not played WOW.
WOW hard mode and LFR requires very different tactics. It is also a mistake to assume the strategy and tactics remains the same if only the numbers change.
For example, if fire can kill you in 2 second, moving around avoiding it .. is a must. However, if it only takes off 2 hp and you can last 10 min in it, people can ignore it for a while, and use different tactics. The change in relations of numbers can change tactics completely. For example, you are killing the boss faster than he can kill you with fire, you stand and optimize DPS. If it is the other way around, you run around, and optimize survivability. Same mechanics, different numbers, two style of play.
Admitedly, I haven't tried DDO but my general experience with difficulty sliders or diifferent "modes" in MMO's is that they don't tend to change or add much in terms of the depth of thought or strategy the player is involved with in playing the game. It just adds more mobs or more hit points to mobs, etc but you are still doing the same thing as you do playing on "easy mode" and still considering the same factors . You just have less tolerance for mis-placed key strokes or have to bring more raw firepower to the situation, etc. That may be more challenging in a way but it's not really more interesting or requiring more in depth thought from the player in general.
In that case, you have not played WOW.
WOW hard mode and LFR requires very different tactics. It is also a mistake to assume the strategy and tactics remains the same if only the numbers change.
For example, if fire can kill you in 2 second, moving around avoiding it .. is a must. However, if it only takes off 2 hp and you can last 10 min in it, people can ignore it for a while, and use different tactics. The change in relations of numbers can change tactics completely. For example, you are killing the boss faster than he can kill you with fire, you stand and optimize DPS. If it is the other way around, you run around, and optimize survivability. Same mechanics, different numbers, two style of play.
What he's talking about is the fact that a sliding scale for difficulty means that the game wasn't designed around one or all of the difficulty modes. That means it's going to lack of a sense of authenticity compared to a game that WAS designed around a specific difficulty level.
Entering into the fray here..... I think people, especialy in the MMO context (where there is a good ring of truth to it), conflate the idea of "casual"/"easy" with time investment required or how quick it is to advance, etc. Possibly that's due to most people measuring thier performance or success in the game with level/gear advancement.
I can understand where this idea comes from in terms of the MMO genre. However, how easy a game is to play is really an entirely distinct and seperate factor from how quickly it plays or how much time investment is involved or what level/rate of "advancement" exists.
There's truth to that but then in that case "no mmo ever is hard".
I think when people are talking about difficulty they are talking about the ease in which they can progress, not the skill or "know how" that is required.
for instance, hiking up a mountain such as Mt. Washington is "not hard". It takes no skill to put one foot in front of the other, no knowledge other than what you had once you mastered your first steps.
but not everyone can do it.
So is it "easy" or not?
Well, it's not easy because it requires patience, stamina, strength, perseverance, etc.
I think that is what players are point toward when they say "x game is hard".
Having a game that clearly points the way, where gear is easily obtainable, where the death penalty is practically nothing, where one can accomplish everything solo is different than a game where one has to spend a lot of time gathering mats yet crafting has a chance to fail, where it's not clear what you are doign and where you are going, it takes a long time to get xp and if you die you lose a chunk of it, Where certain milestones require a large group otherwise it's not going to happen, etc.
If arduous is the better word then I'm fine with that.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Admitedly, I haven't tried DDO but my general experience with difficulty sliders or diifferent "modes" in MMO's is that they don't tend to change or add much in terms of the depth of thought or strategy the player is involved with in playing the game. It just adds more mobs or more hit points to mobs, etc but you are still doing the same thing as you do playing on "easy mode" and still considering the same factors . You just have less tolerance for mis-placed key strokes or have to bring more raw firepower to the situation, etc. That may be more challenging in a way but it's not really more interesting or requiring more in depth thought from the player in general.
In that case, you have not played WOW.
WOW hard mode and LFR requires very different tactics. It is also a mistake to assume the strategy and tactics remains the same if only the numbers change.
For example, if fire can kill you in 2 second, moving around avoiding it .. is a must. However, if it only takes off 2 hp and you can last 10 min in it, people can ignore it for a while, and use different tactics. The change in relations of numbers can change tactics completely. For example, you are killing the boss faster than he can kill you with fire, you stand and optimize DPS. If it is the other way around, you run around, and optimize survivability. Same mechanics, different numbers, two style of play.
What he's talking about is the fact that a sliding scale for difficulty means that the game wasn't designed around one or all of the difficulty modes. That means it's going to lack of a sense of authenticity compared to a game that WAS designed around a specific difficulty level.
It really depends how those modes are implemented. And if its just two - it is pretty safe to assume both are well done.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Since vanilla WoW there hasn't been a mmo that has captured the hearts of gamers.
I wouldn't say WoW captured the heart of core gamers. It captured the heart of the casual audience, and that's about it. WoW was the game that started the whole casual trend.
Admitedly, I haven't tried DDO but my general experience with difficulty sliders or diifferent "modes" in MMO's is that they don't tend to change or add much in terms of the depth of thought or strategy the player is involved with in playing the game. It just adds more mobs or more hit points to mobs, etc but you are still doing the same thing as you do playing on "easy mode" and still considering the same factors . You just have less tolerance for mis-placed key strokes or have to bring more raw firepower to the situation, etc. That may be more challenging in a way but it's not really more interesting or requiring more in depth thought from the player in general.
In that case, you have not played WOW.
WOW hard mode and LFR requires very different tactics. It is also a mistake to assume the strategy and tactics remains the same if only the numbers change.
For example, if fire can kill you in 2 second, moving around avoiding it .. is a must. However, if it only takes off 2 hp and you can last 10 min in it, people can ignore it for a while, and use different tactics. The change in relations of numbers can change tactics completely. For example, you are killing the boss faster than he can kill you with fire, you stand and optimize DPS. If it is the other way around, you run around, and optimize survivability. Same mechanics, different numbers, two style of play.
What he's talking about is the fact that a sliding scale for difficulty means that the game wasn't designed around one or all of the difficulty modes. That means it's going to lack of a sense of authenticity compared to a game that WAS designed around a specific difficulty level.
It really depends how those modes are implemented. And if its just two - it is pretty safe to assume both are well done.
There's a tradeoff between amount of difficulty levels and depth/quality/whatever to those difficulty levels. Basically I'm saying that it's wrong to claim the answer to the problem of games being "too easy" is to just have difficulty levels. It feels similar to having separate pvp/pve servers. Also not a great solution.
First of all, you seem to be getting hung up on the false premise that I think the idea of "watered down" is some absolute, binary state. Every game is to some degree watered down or not watered down. So I'm simply saying that because WoW is "huge" that it technically makes it watered down. I'm saying aside from things like polish, fixing bugs, etc, the way to increase your base is to water down your game.
Second, it's nothing short of ABSURD to think that WoW is perfectly targeted towards an audience. No game is. You really think that each of the 8 million players shares the exact same set of preferences? You don't think that adding features that some people would like NECESSARILY make the game less attractive for others? Are you seriously trying to make the case that WoW targets a certain group perfectly?
What exactly do you mean UO and SWG aren't more targeted, but the amount of people who are interested in them are few? That's what I'm saying. They're going after fewer people, so it's easier to serve those people more deeply. That doesn't mean every small game is better than any game that is larger, but that's why I said "holding most things constant" at the very beginning of this discussion.
No, I didn't expect being watered down is a binary state. No, I am not proposing WoW is perfectly targeted. However, I used an exaggeration because it seems to be really hard to get my message through to you. See if I can explain this a third way:
WoW can be as targeted as UO or SWG. You cannot make assumptions whether a game is less targeted or more targeted based on size. WoW's niche is larger, that is why it is bigger. They have more people under their crosshair (see the picture above). And no, unlike what you propose, that doesn't necessarily mean they have a bigger crosshair.
That is my point.
I get your point, I just don't think it has any relevance in reality especially when you're dealing with such large data sets.
Yes, I see your picture of people in a crosshair... I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove exactly. Because in the real world that's not how it works. Those people each have countless individual preferences and just because they're in that crosshair doesn't mean that crosshair is suiting them perfectly. They're not just static groups that have perfectly overlapping desires. That's why I say holding other things constant, to increase your playerbase you have to find less extreme versions of features so as not to piss anybody off. You have to ride the line between two opposing design decisions so as to try to include as many people as possible.
Of course the market is a lot more complicated than that. I have a book on my shelf about marketing so big, you could kill a man if you swung it around. But simplified examples help explain how things work.
Yes, what you say is one way to expand your audience, but not the only way. And nothing says WoW has had to rely on it any more than UO or SWG have. I see an error in your reasoning, so I cannot agree with your conclusion.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
First of all, you seem to be getting hung up on the false premise that I think the idea of "watered down" is some absolute, binary state. Every game is to some degree watered down or not watered down. So I'm simply saying that because WoW is "huge" that it technically makes it watered down. I'm saying aside from things like polish, fixing bugs, etc, the way to increase your base is to water down your game.
Second, it's nothing short of ABSURD to think that WoW is perfectly targeted towards an audience. No game is. You really think that each of the 8 million players shares the exact same set of preferences? You don't think that adding features that some people would like NECESSARILY make the game less attractive for others? Are you seriously trying to make the case that WoW targets a certain group perfectly?
What exactly do you mean UO and SWG aren't more targeted, but the amount of people who are interested in them are few? That's what I'm saying. They're going after fewer people, so it's easier to serve those people more deeply. That doesn't mean every small game is better than any game that is larger, but that's why I said "holding most things constant" at the very beginning of this discussion.
No, I didn't expect being watered down is a binary state. No, I am not proposing WoW is perfectly targeted. However, I used an exaggeration because it seems to be really hard to get my message through to you. See if I can explain this a third way:
WoW can be as targeted as UO or SWG. You cannot make assumptions whether a game is less targeted or more targeted based on size. WoW's niche is larger, that is why it is bigger. They have more people under their crosshair (see the picture above). And no, unlike what you propose, that doesn't necessarily mean they have a bigger crosshair.
That is my point.
I get your point, I just don't think it has any relevance in reality especially when you're dealing with such large data sets.
Yes, I see your picture of people in a crosshair... I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove exactly. Because in the real world that's not how it works. Those people each have countless individual preferences and just because they're in that crosshair doesn't mean that crosshair is suiting them perfectly. They're not just static groups that have perfectly overlapping desires. That's why I say holding other things constant, to increase your playerbase you have to find less extreme versions of features so as not to piss anybody off. You have to ride the line between two opposing design decisions so as to try to include as many people as possible.
Of course the market is a lot more complicated than that. I have a book on my shelf about marketing so big, you could kill a man if you swung it around. But simplified examples help explain how things work.
Yes, what you say is one way to expand your audience, but not the only way. And nothing says WoW has had to rely on it any more than UO or SWG have. I see an error in your reasoning, so I cannot agree with your conclusion.
There's no error in my reasoning because you're merging two claims here. The past few posts back and forth have been about explaining what watered down gameplay means. Do you find an error in that explanation?
I assume you mean you find an error in my claim that WoW is watered down compared to UO and SWG. Well, as I've already said a number of times, it comes down to judgement. So I'm not sure what the error in my reasoning is. But as I've said before, if you're going to claim that WoW was as targeted as those games, and thus the average player's involvement and enjoyment was as high or higher, I don't think that's an easily defensible position for you. One of the hardest things for you to contend with is WoW's obvious tendency towards catering to casual players. It seems to me that there's a somewhat direct contradiction between a game being "targeted" in the sense that it's the opposite of watering down, in other words, appeals as deeply as possible, and a game being designed largely around inviting casual players.
everything is so simplified so everyone's grandmother can understand how to play.
Well, us grandmas have been playing video games since 1976, which is even before some of these "know it all" "elite" gamers parents' were born.
Pick better scapegoats, like the elitist buttholes who like to talk the talk, but can't walk the walk.
Today on WoW I was using oQueue (how bad is it in WoW these days subscription wise? Using oQueue or Openraid to do group content -- we're playing solo because there's not enough players to actually do the content. oQueue or Openraid is cross-realming other players to do group content. That all became possible because the Cata guild system destroyed PuGs and PuRs that was so essential to dungeon and raid in WoW). Got into an 3s arena group first thing the dude asked was, "are u geared?" His friend said, "no" and they kicked me from the group. Checked the inviter's Armory, dude is showing he never seen a gem or enchant before...but sure would like someone to carry him, though.
There's much more to "end game" than just throwing on the gear. Biggest challenge in these MMOs these days? Players not taking cheap shortcuts and being carried to even get there -- and that happened long before the "casuals" came a long.
Well, it's not easy because it requires patience, stamina, strength, perseverance, etc.
I think that is what players are point toward when they say "x game is hard".
Having a game that clearly points the way, where gear is easily obtainable, where the death penalty is practically nothing, where one can accomplish everything solo is different than a game where one has to spend a lot of time gathering mats yet crafting has a chance to fail, where it's not clear what you are doign and where you are going, it takes a long time to get xp and if you die you lose a chunk of it, Where certain milestones require a large group otherwise it's not going to happen, etc.
If arduous is the better word then I'm fine with that.
In that case, i would like a challenging but NOT arduous game. I don't have time, or the desire to play a game that requires me to do chores. Games are entertainment to me, not tests of perseverance, and patience. I reserve those to work, career, family and raising kids.
I've played ALOT of games and WoW was not among them. EQ, AC, Vanguard, AC2 all had WoW beat but that is just my own opinion. Lots of people liked WoW but it never enticed me to play it. Using it to judge other games might have some merit for certain things but mostly for how people 'don't' want new games to be like. I certainly don't.
With Console sales being high, games are made from the ground up for them. Not all but many now and though people who play consoles do not want to admit it, some level of complexity is sacrificed for the console. Not only that, graphics and other things as well. Now I'm not talking about fun factor. Some console games look hella fun but I can not justify setting aside my PC to play them, not when I am having fun doing what I do. (for now playing AC2/EQ2)
When the game is designed that if you have the time, you get it, everyone at the end game tends to look very similar. The 40 hour gamers just get it quicker. In games like EQ, the 40 hour gamer can get more faster but the variance at the endgame is significantly different. There is enough gear for each slot and the game so large and broad that end game characters look and are different. That said it didn't start out that way. A good game needs a good following so it can be expanded into the MMO that all games want to be. Both contested and Instanced content, deep crafting and travel times need to exist for me or I'll do little else but dabble. Tedious grinding, slow leveling and difficult encounters also must be present or boredom sets in pretty quickly. Keep your houses and cash shops and features that do not matter to a game's release and put in more content to bridge the time people spend in game to the moment more content is added. This way it's player base remains and it's player core remains.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
Admitedly, I haven't tried DDO but my general experience with difficulty sliders or diifferent "modes" in MMO's is that they don't tend to change or add much in terms of the depth of thought or strategy the player is involved with in playing the game. It just adds more mobs or more hit points to mobs, etc but you are still doing the same thing as you do playing on "easy mode" and still considering the same factors . You just have less tolerance for mis-placed key strokes or have to bring more raw firepower to the situation, etc. That may be more challenging in a way but it's not really more interesting or requiring more in depth thought from the player in general.
In that case, you have not played WOW.
WOW hard mode and LFR requires very different tactics. It is also a mistake to assume the strategy and tactics remains the same if only the numbers change.
For example, if fire can kill you in 2 second, moving around avoiding it .. is a must. However, if it only takes off 2 hp and you can last 10 min in it, people can ignore it for a while, and use different tactics. The change in relations of numbers can change tactics completely. For example, you are killing the boss faster than he can kill you with fire, you stand and optimize DPS. If it is the other way around, you run around, and optimize survivability. Same mechanics, different numbers, two style of play.
I haven't played WoW since vanilla. Although I had fun while I played it, it wasn't a particularly interesting or difficult game to play in terms of gameplay. Mostly I enjoyed it for the satire injected into the game and some nice visuals. It didn't engage on any sort of level of depth in terms of strategy or thought. Admitedly some of the boss fights were technicaly difficult in terms of pure choreography. There was no challenge in terms of deciding what to do but a fair bit of challenge in terms of executing the proper keystrokes and mouse clicks to do it. Step here, jump over there, waggle your butt 3 times, etc. It felt a bit like playing Dance, Dance Revolution.
An MMO that I played that felt enjoyable in terms of the strategy involved was WWII Online. Admitedly, that was entirely PvP based and played more like a giant FPS then a typical MMO. It also was ancient and had a very small player base by the time I played it, but it was very satisfying in terms of the intellectual challenge demanded from the player.
Perhaps the more accurate term for what I'm looking for and really finding lacking in most MMO's is DEPTH of gameplay. Something that requires the player to actualy think rather then click.
Don't get me wrong....sometimes it can be fun to play something where you can just turn your mind off and enjoy the carnage or the visuals.....but I don't want EVERY game available to boil down to just that.
Originally posted by ThomasN7 There is no challenge, everything can be bought from a cash shop nowadays and everything is so simplified so everyone's grandmother can understand how to play.
"Challenge" is a subjective thing. What might be challenging for me might be trivial to you and vice versa. So at most you can say "there is no challgenge there for ME".
Cash shops are a sad development indeed, but apprently well visited, so managers/investors seem to insist they be implemented. The real regrettable develpment here is that accounting/controlling has far too much influence on MMO development, at the cost of creativity and "uniqueness".
Simplification: What else do you expect? Console-Controllers become more popular, kids these days can hardly write let alone read correctly or do simple math; if a UI/controlling mechanism isn't "intuitive", many are simply overwhelmed and whine about the "steep learning curve". As was said above: instant gratification is what they seek these days, and they get it. At the same time, the "mature" players are, well, mature and "time-challgended" due to job and family. And last but not least, management WANTS to target as borad an audience as possible and so many steps are taken to reduce "barriers".
Originally posted by ThomasN7 It really is quite laughable what developers think of us as gamers. They think we are so stupid that every time they make a game they need to re-teach us how to play. Really ? Listen up devs, we aren't stupid, we been playing mmos probably a lot longer than most of you out there. You guys lack so much vision on what mmos should be and you only worry about your quarterly earnings.
Too much generalization imo. You speak of "us gamers", as if "the gamers" were a homogenous lot. The truth is though that "the gamers" are diversified. Also, you spek to "the devs" there, when it has over the years become quite apparent that it's not the devs but the accountants/controllers who're calling the shots. And the more money's involved, the less likely it is that this will ever be reveresed.
Originally posted by ThomasN7 Since vanilla WoW there hasn't been a mmo that has captured the hearts of gamers. [...] Within 3-6 months just about every mmo I mentioned has had no staying power whatsoever.
If you speak of major titles, then you're probably correct, i don't recall a "true success" recently either. There have been MMO's that "captured the hearts of gamers", but too few of them. That didn't attract many players in the first place and/or their development has been slowed down/ceased for a number of reasons. For the major titles though, these have to deal with huge expectations (which were poorly managed) and failed to deliver.
Perhaps the more accurate term for what I'm looking for and really finding lacking in most MMO's is DEPTH of gameplay. Something that requires the player to actualy think rather then click.
Don't get me wrong....sometimes it can be fun to play something where you can just turn your mind off and enjoy the carnage or the visuals.....but I don't want EVERY game available to boil down to just that.
No, that is why i play puzzle games, and point and click adventures.
MMORPGs are mostly just online ARPGs to me, with a city as a lobby instead.
"Challenge" is a subjective thing. What might be challenging for me might be trivial to you and vice versa. So at most you can say "there is no challgenge there for ME".
Yeh. That is why a difficulty slider will be the best solution ... everyone gets a challenge level of their liking.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Yeh. That is why a difficulty slider will be the best solution ... everyone gets a challenge level of their liking.
Actually i don't think a "difficulty slider/setting" would do us or the game any good. After all, we're talking MMO's here, not single player games.
Something like this was done by EQ in LDoN, where you (on a group level) could choose to enter the dungoens on "normal" or "hard" setting (lvl63-65 mobs on normal vs. lvl68 mobs when the cap was lvl65). But as Mel has said, that only changed the mob density and hitpoints. It worked, and was fun, but only until new gear trivialized it, of course. But something like that can only be done on a per-instance level, not for the whole world, unless you create different worlds/servers for each "difficulty setting".
The desciption you gave of WoW and the two "totally different playstyles" aren't so different after all. It's just two different methods for defeating said encounter. But optimizing for DPS or surviveability hardly equals "different playstyle" - it's just adopting to the situation, as is the case in ANY raid, which is (should be, at least) composed of different encounters.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Yeh. That is why a difficulty slider will be the best solution ... everyone gets a challenge level of their liking.
Actually i don't think a "difficulty slider/setting" would do us or the game any good. After all, we're talking MMO's here, not single player games.
Something like this was done by EQ in LDoN, where you (on a group level) could choose to enter the dungoens on "normal" or "hard" setting (lvl63-65 mobs on normal vs. lvl68 mobs when the cap was lvl65). But as Mel has said, that only changed the mob density and hitpoints. It worked, and was fun, but only until new gear trivialized it, of course. But something like that can only be done on a per-instance level, not for the whole world, unless you create different worlds/servers for each "difficulty setting".
The desciption you gave of WoW and the two "totally different playstyles" aren't so different after all. It's just two different methods for defeating said encounter. But optimizing for DPS or surviveability hardly equals "different playstyle" - it's just adopting to the situation, as is the case in ANY raid, which is (should be, at least) composed of different encounters.
MMOs are more or less online single player games when you go into an instance. And in many MMO, instances are where most of the gameplay occurs.
Well, if you don't think rush in and DPS, and survive and kite are two different playstyle and tactics, then we disagree. By definition, you are doing different things, and one for the higher difficulty, and one for the lower.
And yes, adopting to the situation (different difficulty) by using different tactics. That is why games are fun to me.
Comments
Indeed it can. I find Demon Souls and Dark Souls to be two of the most frustrating but also most rewarding games I've ever played. For a lot of us, games that are too easy aren't rewarding. Why should I care about my character progression if I faced no adversity to achieve it?
i agree with this post.
I fail to see how an mmorpg that still have healthy population on most servers and still make money (some of the aformentioned games) is a miserable failure. I also fail to see how a game that gets updated every two weaks and keep heavy pop on most servers (GW2) is a miserable failure.
He is just burned out of themepark mmorpgs.
I do agree with the thread Title about devs steering too far into casual.
I am a casual player but i hate hand holding and faceroll easy games. I wish Developers take a risk and grab ideas from Dark SOuls when it comes to difficulty and risks. Wizardry Online had good and similar ideas but failed to execute them while at the same time mixed them with horrible generic gameplay.
So i decided to look at all the responses and find it interesting the level of ignorance and fanboism most of the responders are. Simple fact folks, WoW is still the number one game in the world whether you like it or not, me, im not a fan of it since Wrath of the Lich King. Fact of the matter is I believe that Blizzard screwed up its development team, lost several of them and hired others that were looking at the whole market and realized that the industry was changing so screw the players.
That being said... Its true that 90% of the games developed in the last ten years were crap. Players and sites like MMORPG.com over hype the games and then turn a blind eye when the games go to the crapper... example: Warhammer online... theres a winner for you. Or better yet lets loo at a headliner.. Final Fantasy XIV 1.0... that was a catastrophic screw up. The Devs are disconnected when it comes to the player base.. I would guess many of the publishers told their board members "screw the players, it doesnt matter what they want. If we feed them a line of shit and they pay for it well too bad for them"
As far as difficulty in the MMORPG field.. its true that the games have gotten dumber over time... its no secret that the American publishers looked at the asian market and too the same stance: "Target the 12 year olds, the parents will pay for them to shut them up."
I find it interesting that the one game in development you hear almost nothing about that has an unprecedented difficulty level, unique play system, and is far the most ambitious game in the history of MMORPGs is Citadel of Sorcery.
All the idiots during its kickstarter claimed "the graphics suck" well news flash it was clearly stated Pre- Alpha footage and you fools couldnt figure that out. Its ok though, Websites like MMORPG.com and others are just as negligent, but its all good. When the Alpha starts and those who didnt pay attention are left feeling stupid, I for one will be laughing for ten years or more.
I dont care about opinions of most gamers as they typically dont have a clue what they are talking about. Most hold the publishers up on a pedestal.. laughable at best, other just play a game because their friends do.. and theres no problem with that, until they knock another game down a peg out of ignorance.
The games for the last ten years have sucked, plain and simple. WoW only has a huge population because of the mad Marketing campaign during Wrath and the celebrities lie Ozzy and Mr. T who supported it. Its last three crappy expansions sure havent won any awards other than Blizzard being the biggest Bullsh*tter in town.
Played: UO, LotR, WoW, SWG, DDO, AoC, EVE, Warhammer, TF2, EQ2, SWTOR, TSW, CSS, KF, L4D, AoW, WoT
Playing: The Secret World until Citadel of Sorcery goes into Alpha testing.
Tired of: Linear quest games, dailies, and dumbed down games
Anticipating:Citadel of Sorcery
Admitedly, I haven't tried DDO but my general experience with difficulty sliders or diifferent "modes" in MMO's is that they don't tend to change or add much in terms of the depth of thought or strategy the player is involved with in playing the game. It just adds more mobs or more hit points to mobs, etc but you are still doing the same thing as you do playing on "easy mode" and still considering the same factors . You just have less tolerance for mis-placed key strokes or have to bring more raw firepower to the situation, etc. That may be more challenging in a way but it's not really more interesting or requiring more in depth thought from the player in general.
Maybe if they actualy changed the sophistication of the A.I. or changed the rule-sets in interesting ways. For example, "easy mode" you had unlimited ammo. Hard mode you had limited ammo and reload times, weapon jam's, etc. Those sort of things would actualy change what the player has to consider strategy-wise when playing. Instead of shooting as often as you could whenever a shot was available.....you'd have to take into consideration how many shots you were expending on bringing something down and what was a wothwhile shot compared to a poor one, etc. It adds a new dimension of gameplay that the player really didn't have to take into consideration before.
Those are the sort of elements I'd like to see Developers look to more in making games. It's not that the downtime of having to go back to town (for example) is neccesarly the fun element..... it's having to actualy think before clicking the mouse to fire the weapon whether it was the right opportunity to do it, that makes the game more interesting and engaging.
In that case, you have not played WOW.
WOW hard mode and LFR requires very different tactics. It is also a mistake to assume the strategy and tactics remains the same if only the numbers change.
For example, if fire can kill you in 2 second, moving around avoiding it .. is a must. However, if it only takes off 2 hp and you can last 10 min in it, people can ignore it for a while, and use different tactics. The change in relations of numbers can change tactics completely. For example, you are killing the boss faster than he can kill you with fire, you stand and optimize DPS. If it is the other way around, you run around, and optimize survivability. Same mechanics, different numbers, two style of play.
What he's talking about is the fact that a sliding scale for difficulty means that the game wasn't designed around one or all of the difficulty modes. That means it's going to lack of a sense of authenticity compared to a game that WAS designed around a specific difficulty level.
There's truth to that but then in that case "no mmo ever is hard".
I think when people are talking about difficulty they are talking about the ease in which they can progress, not the skill or "know how" that is required.
for instance, hiking up a mountain such as Mt. Washington is "not hard". It takes no skill to put one foot in front of the other, no knowledge other than what you had once you mastered your first steps.
but not everyone can do it.
So is it "easy" or not?
Well, it's not easy because it requires patience, stamina, strength, perseverance, etc.
I think that is what players are point toward when they say "x game is hard".
Having a game that clearly points the way, where gear is easily obtainable, where the death penalty is practically nothing, where one can accomplish everything solo is different than a game where one has to spend a lot of time gathering mats yet crafting has a chance to fail, where it's not clear what you are doign and where you are going, it takes a long time to get xp and if you die you lose a chunk of it, Where certain milestones require a large group otherwise it's not going to happen, etc.
If arduous is the better word then I'm fine with that.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
It really depends how those modes are implemented. And if its just two - it is pretty safe to assume both are well done.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I wouldn't say WoW captured the heart of core gamers. It captured the heart of the casual audience, and that's about it. WoW was the game that started the whole casual trend.
There's a tradeoff between amount of difficulty levels and depth/quality/whatever to those difficulty levels. Basically I'm saying that it's wrong to claim the answer to the problem of games being "too easy" is to just have difficulty levels. It feels similar to having separate pvp/pve servers. Also not a great solution.
Of course the market is a lot more complicated than that. I have a book on my shelf about marketing so big, you could kill a man if you swung it around. But simplified examples help explain how things work.
Yes, what you say is one way to expand your audience, but not the only way. And nothing says WoW has had to rely on it any more than UO or SWG have. I see an error in your reasoning, so I cannot agree with your conclusion.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
There's no error in my reasoning because you're merging two claims here. The past few posts back and forth have been about explaining what watered down gameplay means. Do you find an error in that explanation?
I assume you mean you find an error in my claim that WoW is watered down compared to UO and SWG. Well, as I've already said a number of times, it comes down to judgement. So I'm not sure what the error in my reasoning is. But as I've said before, if you're going to claim that WoW was as targeted as those games, and thus the average player's involvement and enjoyment was as high or higher, I don't think that's an easily defensible position for you. One of the hardest things for you to contend with is WoW's obvious tendency towards catering to casual players. It seems to me that there's a somewhat direct contradiction between a game being "targeted" in the sense that it's the opposite of watering down, in other words, appeals as deeply as possible, and a game being designed largely around inviting casual players.
Well, us grandmas have been playing video games since 1976, which is even before some of these "know it all" "elite" gamers parents' were born.
Pick better scapegoats, like the elitist buttholes who like to talk the talk, but can't walk the walk.
Today on WoW I was using oQueue (how bad is it in WoW these days subscription wise? Using oQueue or Openraid to do group content -- we're playing solo because there's not enough players to actually do the content. oQueue or Openraid is cross-realming other players to do group content. That all became possible because the Cata guild system destroyed PuGs and PuRs that was so essential to dungeon and raid in WoW). Got into an 3s arena group first thing the dude asked was, "are u geared?" His friend said, "no" and they kicked me from the group. Checked the inviter's Armory, dude is showing he never seen a gem or enchant before...but sure would like someone to carry him, though.
There's much more to "end game" than just throwing on the gear. Biggest challenge in these MMOs these days? Players not taking cheap shortcuts and being carried to even get there -- and that happened long before the "casuals" came a long.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Right. It had nothing to do with creating a boring game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In that case, i would like a challenging but NOT arduous game. I don't have time, or the desire to play a game that requires me to do chores. Games are entertainment to me, not tests of perseverance, and patience. I reserve those to work, career, family and raising kids.
I've played ALOT of games and WoW was not among them. EQ, AC, Vanguard, AC2 all had WoW beat but that is just my own opinion. Lots of people liked WoW but it never enticed me to play it. Using it to judge other games might have some merit for certain things but mostly for how people 'don't' want new games to be like. I certainly don't.
With Console sales being high, games are made from the ground up for them. Not all but many now and though people who play consoles do not want to admit it, some level of complexity is sacrificed for the console. Not only that, graphics and other things as well. Now I'm not talking about fun factor. Some console games look hella fun but I can not justify setting aside my PC to play them, not when I am having fun doing what I do. (for now playing AC2/EQ2)
When the game is designed that if you have the time, you get it, everyone at the end game tends to look very similar. The 40 hour gamers just get it quicker. In games like EQ, the 40 hour gamer can get more faster but the variance at the endgame is significantly different. There is enough gear for each slot and the game so large and broad that end game characters look and are different. That said it didn't start out that way. A good game needs a good following so it can be expanded into the MMO that all games want to be. Both contested and Instanced content, deep crafting and travel times need to exist for me or I'll do little else but dabble. Tedious grinding, slow leveling and difficult encounters also must be present or boredom sets in pretty quickly. Keep your houses and cash shops and features that do not matter to a game's release and put in more content to bridge the time people spend in game to the moment more content is added. This way it's player base remains and it's player core remains.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
I haven't played WoW since vanilla. Although I had fun while I played it, it wasn't a particularly interesting or difficult game to play in terms of gameplay. Mostly I enjoyed it for the satire injected into the game and some nice visuals. It didn't engage on any sort of level of depth in terms of strategy or thought. Admitedly some of the boss fights were technicaly difficult in terms of pure choreography. There was no challenge in terms of deciding what to do but a fair bit of challenge in terms of executing the proper keystrokes and mouse clicks to do it. Step here, jump over there, waggle your butt 3 times, etc. It felt a bit like playing Dance, Dance Revolution.
An MMO that I played that felt enjoyable in terms of the strategy involved was WWII Online. Admitedly, that was entirely PvP based and played more like a giant FPS then a typical MMO. It also was ancient and had a very small player base by the time I played it, but it was very satisfying in terms of the intellectual challenge demanded from the player.
Perhaps the more accurate term for what I'm looking for and really finding lacking in most MMO's is DEPTH of gameplay. Something that requires the player to actualy think rather then click.
Don't get me wrong....sometimes it can be fun to play something where you can just turn your mind off and enjoy the carnage or the visuals.....but I don't want EVERY game available to boil down to just that.
Cash shops are a sad development indeed, but apprently well visited, so managers/investors seem to insist they be implemented.
The real regrettable develpment here is that accounting/controlling has far too much influence on MMO development, at the cost of creativity and "uniqueness".
Simplification:
What else do you expect?
Console-Controllers become more popular, kids these days can hardly write let alone read correctly or do simple math; if a UI/controlling mechanism isn't "intuitive", many are simply overwhelmed and whine about the "steep learning curve".
As was said above: instant gratification is what they seek these days, and they get it.
At the same time, the "mature" players are, well, mature and "time-challgended" due to job and family.
And last but not least, management WANTS to target as borad an audience as possible and so many steps are taken to reduce "barriers".
Too much generalization imo.You speak of "us gamers", as if "the gamers" were a homogenous lot.
The truth is though that "the gamers" are diversified.
Also, you spek to "the devs" there, when it has over the years become quite apparent that it's not the devs but the accountants/controllers who're calling the shots.
And the more money's involved, the less likely it is that this will ever be reveresed.
If you speak of major titles, then you're probably correct, i don't recall a "true success" recently either.There have been MMO's that "captured the hearts of gamers", but too few of them.
That didn't attract many players in the first place and/or their development has been slowed down/ceased for a number of reasons.
For the major titles though, these have to deal with huge expectations (which were poorly managed) and failed to deliver.
No, that is why i play puzzle games, and point and click adventures.
MMORPGs are mostly just online ARPGs to me, with a city as a lobby instead.
After all, we're talking MMO's here, not single player games.
Something like this was done by EQ in LDoN, where you (on a group level) could choose to enter the dungoens on "normal" or "hard" setting (lvl63-65 mobs on normal vs. lvl68 mobs when the cap was lvl65).
But as Mel has said, that only changed the mob density and hitpoints.
It worked, and was fun, but only until new gear trivialized it, of course.
But something like that can only be done on a per-instance level, not for the whole world, unless you create different worlds/servers for each "difficulty setting".
The desciption you gave of WoW and the two "totally different playstyles" aren't so different after all.
It's just two different methods for defeating said encounter.
But optimizing for DPS or surviveability hardly equals "different playstyle" - it's just adopting to the situation, as is the case in ANY raid, which is (should be, at least) composed of different encounters.
MMOs are more or less online single player games when you go into an instance. And in many MMO, instances are where most of the gameplay occurs.
Well, if you don't think rush in and DPS, and survive and kite are two different playstyle and tactics, then we disagree. By definition, you are doing different things, and one for the higher difficulty, and one for the lower.
And yes, adopting to the situation (different difficulty) by using different tactics. That is why games are fun to me.