So mmorpgs are packaged goods or mere products instead of entertainment. I can understand the business approach then, and also the lack of gameplay.
Being packaged goods, or a product is not mutually exclusive to being entertainment.
MMORPGs are entertainment product, and often packaged goods at the same time. You can picked up a copy of WOW at a local gamestop (so package good) and when you go home and play, it entertains you.
Don't tell me you never heard of the term "entertainment product".
Most MMO devs view an MMO as a service, not a product.
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
So mmorpgs are packaged goods or mere products instead of entertainment. I can understand the business approach then, and also the lack of gameplay.
Being packaged goods, or a product is not mutually exclusive to being entertainment.
MMORPGs are entertainment product, and often packaged goods at the same time. You can picked up a copy of WOW at a local gamestop (so package good) and when you go home and play, it entertains you.
Don't tell me you never heard of the term "entertainment product".
Those are called drugs.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
So mmorpgs are packaged goods or mere products instead of entertainment. I can understand the business approach then, and also the lack of gameplay.
Being packaged goods, or a product is not mutually exclusive to being entertainment.
MMORPGs are entertainment product, and often packaged goods at the same time. You can picked up a copy of WOW at a local gamestop (so package good) and when you go home and play, it entertains you.
Don't tell me you never heard of the term "entertainment product".
Most MMO devs view an MMO as a service, not a product.
Their masters don't it seems. Judging from the business approach, we cannot either.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
So mmorpgs are packaged goods or mere products instead of entertainment. I can understand the business approach then, and also the lack of gameplay.
Being packaged goods, or a product is not mutually exclusive to being entertainment.
MMORPGs are entertainment product, and often packaged goods at the same time. You can picked up a copy of WOW at a local gamestop (so package good) and when you go home and play, it entertains you.
Don't tell me you never heard of the term "entertainment product".
Most MMO devs view an MMO as a service, not a product.
Their masters don't it seems. Judging from the business approach, we cannot either.
The good news is that i can treat them whatever way i want .. and they are entertainment products to me.
So mmorpgs are packaged goods or mere products instead of entertainment. I can understand the business approach then, and also the lack of gameplay.
Being packaged goods, or a product is not mutually exclusive to being entertainment.
MMORPGs are entertainment product, and often packaged goods at the same time. You can picked up a copy of WOW at a local gamestop (so package good) and when you go home and play, it entertains you.
Don't tell me you never heard of the term "entertainment product".
Most MMO devs view an MMO as a service, not a product.
Their masters don't it seems. Judging from the business approach, we cannot either.
The good news is that i can treat them whatever way i want .. and they are entertainment products to me.
I know.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
It is certainly true that neither old school nor sandbox has had a big budget modern title to test if they are viable today. If one were released and it failed (bearing in mind how we don't even all agree on what that means) I would not take that as deciding the issue. It could be evidence of problems with game as much as the gaming template. We have had a lot of modern themeparks fail and many on here still think that genre is doing fabulously.
I could not see a full set of old school rules working, it would have to be a rebalancing rather than a reversion of gameplay. The fuss EQNext posters are putting up about restricting classes to certain races shows you how ingrained the 'anything goes' easyMMO mentality has become in players.
But equally such a MMO would not be for everyone, that being that sort of design that got us here in the first place.
It is certainly true that neither old school nor sandbox has had a big budget modern title to test if they are viable today. If one were released and it failed (bearing in mind how we don't even all agree on what that means) I would not take that as deciding the issue. It could be evidence of problems with game as much as the gaming template. We have had a lot of modern themeparks fail and many on here still think that genre is doing fabulously.
I could not see a full set of old school rules working, it would have to be a rebalancing rather than a reversion of gameplay. The fuss EQNext posters are putting up about restricting classes to certain races shows you how ingrained the 'anything goes' easyMMO mentality has become in players.
But equally such a MMO would not be for everyone, that being that sort of design that got us here in the first place.
How do you know if those themeparks failed because specifically because they were themeparks or simply because they weren't all that great anyway?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
It is certainly true that neither old school nor sandbox has had a big budget modern title to test if they are viable today. If one were released and it failed (bearing in mind how we don't even all agree on what that means) I would not take that as deciding the issue. It could be evidence of problems with game as much as the gaming template. We have had a lot of modern themeparks fail and many on here still think that genre is doing fabulously.
I could not see a full set of old school rules working, it would have to be a rebalancing rather than a reversion of gameplay. The fuss EQNext posters are putting up about restricting classes to certain races shows you how ingrained the 'anything goes' easyMMO mentality has become in players.
But equally such a MMO would not be for everyone, that being that sort of design that got us here in the first place.
And these days I don't believe much into accepted theories on untested human behavior or untried activities. As I said before its all assumptions until tried both ways. Majority of MMORPG players have only had one type of MMORPGs because they can post WoW. To say they would never play another type is unproven. That's my point.
But even if an old-school game came out and nobody played it and it failed, you'd still find some way to argue that didn't count. There have been old-school-eque games like MO and Darkfall that have come out and failed. Old-school fans keep making excuses for why they're not "old-school enough". The fact remains, these game play options have been available and they have been overwhelmingly rejected by the mainstream MMO audience.
Lol, again those are just bad games no excuse needed. Its like saying that if a type of game has a bad release I must play it because I like that type of game. Do you play horrible games because its the genre you like? Those games are not even main stream. They're indie games.
Indie games can and often do appeal to the mainstream, they're just put out by independent developers. There is nothing inherent in the term "indie" that means it has to be a niche game. Secondly, you're playing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, any game you don't like, you play off as a bad game until something that comes along and is successful, at which point you can claim victory. These games have existed. These games have failed. You don't get to just ignore any failed game because it didn't produce the results you like.
They're bad games. They are mechanically bad, no polish, bug ridden and in someways not really as sandbox as they should be. I consider UO and SWG to a degree well made games. I played UO beta, UO final, UO private servers back to classic. So no I have played a good sandbox MMO.
But to you if I find a bad its automatically I'm searching for the holy grail of impossible expectations. And of course your opinion that Darkfall and Mortal Online are as good as it gets is right?
I am very realistic to the point of being a cynic towards MMORPGs. But I would play a modernized and polished UO/SWG type game quickly.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Vermillion_RaventhalOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by FinalFikuslets forget about old school and talk about the new school.Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse.Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old schoolDDO- failLORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolWAR-deadAOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolTabla rasa-deadVangaurd-failFinal fantasy- looks like it will join the old schoolRift-joins the old schoolStar trek-join the old schoolCOH-deadAion- joins the old school at least hereFallen earth-old schoolGuild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxesGuild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxesStar wars old republic- lol unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone).Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers. Plus all the new tech.Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them.Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.
Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money. The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story. Again that's an assumption and not really true. The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish. Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games. The market is larger, but the history is still there. By late 2003 the MMORPG market had stopped growing. The only thing that was bringing new players in was steps towards styles of play that would be considered Not Old School. UO added a continent that allowed for primarily PvE play and Feluca emptied out. EQ released EQ2, the first of the "new school" games and SOE had more people paying them money. The writing, as they say, was on the wall. WoW just confirmed what was already becoming obvious with the largest pile of money gaming had ever seen. So, keep telling yourself that "old school" games never had a chance, that there's no evidence that they failed or that they could make a come back. Until there is some indication that it could actually happen, or until development costs drop to the point that it's worthwhile, it will not happen.
Ok, we've gotten into circular argument going on here. You're comparing older games directly to newer games and not older style games to newer styled games. There are no modern older styled games at all except WoW clones. There is no direct comparison until one is made. But no other western subscription game outside WoW has maintained a substationally higher player base than older games. Not talking about release peaks.
I mean, UO's spiritual successor SWG also sold more. Each new GTA has sold more than the last. I am sure a "brand new" 1995 Honda Accord is not going to sell as well as 2013 version even if it was more mechanically sound.
I'm comparing the old games to the old games. EQ outperformed UO, EQ2, SWG and DAoC. As each new "old school" game released with newer graphics and newer "old school" mechanics, fewer and fewer people played the games. It wasn't until 2006 that EQ2 had more players than EQ. "Old school" games were not growing the market and they were not showing greater and greater returns. They were basically just failing very slowly.
What reason would there be for "old school" games to perform better now? We already know that most players don't want mob grinds, open world pvp with full loot or sitting around in the world waiting for bosses to spawn. So what is it? What is the indicator that says, "Players want 'old school' games again"?
I'm not saying that players don't want something new. Players are human, they always want something new. I'm saying that there are indicators that whatever they want to spend their money on, it isn't 'old school' games.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by FinalFikuslets forget about old school and talk about the new school.Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse.Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old schoolDDO- failLORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolWAR-deadAOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolTabla rasa-deadVangaurd-failFinal fantasy- looks like it will join the old schoolRift-joins the old schoolStar trek-join the old schoolCOH-deadAion- joins the old school at least hereFallen earth-old schoolGuild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxesGuild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxesStar wars old republic- lol unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone).Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers. Plus all the new tech.Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them.Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.
Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money. The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.
Again that's an assumption and not really true. The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish. Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.
The market is larger, but the history is still there. By late 2003 the MMORPG market had stopped growing. The only thing that was bringing new players in was steps towards styles of play that would be considered Not Old School. UO added a continent that allowed for primarily PvE play and Feluca emptied out. EQ released EQ2, the first of the "new school" games and SOE had more people paying them money. The writing, as they say, was on the wall. WoW just confirmed what was already becoming obvious with the largest pile of money gaming had ever seen. So, keep telling yourself that "old school" games never had a chance, that there's no evidence that they failed or that they could make a come back. Until there is some indication that it could actually happen, or until development costs drop to the point that it's worthwhile, it will not happen.
Ok, we've gotten into circular argument going on here. You're comparing older games directly to newer games and not older style games to newer styled games. There are no modern older styled games at all except WoW clones. There is no direct comparison until one is made. But no other western subscription game outside WoW has maintained a substationally higher player base than older games. Not talking about release peaks.
I mean, UO's spiritual successor SWG also sold more. Each new GTA has sold more than the last. I am sure a "brand new" 1995 Honda Accord is not going to sell as well as 2013 version even if it was more mechanically sound.
I'm comparing the old games to the old games. EQ outperformed UO, EQ2, SWG and DAoC. As each new "old school" game released with newer graphics and newer "old school" mechanics, fewer and fewer people played the games. It wasn't until 2006 that EQ2 had more players than EQ. "Old school" games were not growing the market and they were not showing greater and greater returns. They were basically just failing very slowly.
What reason would there be for "old school" games to perform better now? We already know that most players don't want mob grinds, open world pvp with full loot or sitting around in the world waiting for bosses to spawn. So what is it? What is the indicator that says, "Players want 'old school' games again"?
I'm not saying that players don't want something new. Players are human, they always want something new. I'm saying that there are indicators that whatever they want to spend their money on, it isn't 'old school' games.
This is your discussion so I'm not gonna claim to know the the full history (though I have been following it a bit), but it seems to me that you guys should decide on what exactly each person is claiming. I know I personally don't think that "oldschool" games will outperform themeparks or that they'll ever be the "norm" when it comes to the MMO genre. But I do however think they can survive and I also think that the "oldschool" or sandbox market isn't currently being served as much as it should be. I think there are a lot of people who want a certain type of game and nobody has stepped up to really fill that role yet. I think that's because WoW was so incredibly successful and I also think that it's slowly starting to change.
I'm not trying to put words in Vermillion's mouth though.
Originally posted by FinalFikuslets forget about old school and talk about the new school.Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse.Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old schoolDDO- failLORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolWAR-deadAOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolTabla rasa-deadVangaurd-failFinal fantasy- looks like it will join the old schoolRift-joins the old schoolStar trek-join the old schoolCOH-deadAion- joins the old school at least hereFallen earth-old schoolGuild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxesGuild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxesStar wars old republic- lol unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone).Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers. Plus all the new tech.Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them.Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.
Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money. The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.
Again that's an assumption and not really true. The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish. Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.
The market is larger, but the history is still there. By late 2003 the MMORPG market had stopped growing. The only thing that was bringing new players in was steps towards styles of play that would be considered Not Old School. UO added a continent that allowed for primarily PvE play and Feluca emptied out. EQ released EQ2, the first of the "new school" games and SOE had more people paying them money. The writing, as they say, was on the wall. WoW just confirmed what was already becoming obvious with the largest pile of money gaming had ever seen. So, keep telling yourself that "old school" games never had a chance, that there's no evidence that they failed or that they could make a come back. Until there is some indication that it could actually happen, or until development costs drop to the point that it's worthwhile, it will not happen.
Ok, we've gotten into circular argument going on here. You're comparing older games directly to newer games and not older style games to newer styled games. There are no modern older styled games at all except WoW clones. There is no direct comparison until one is made. But no other western subscription game outside WoW has maintained a substationally higher player base than older games. Not talking about release peaks.
I mean, UO's spiritual successor SWG also sold more. Each new GTA has sold more than the last. I am sure a "brand new" 1995 Honda Accord is not going to sell as well as 2013 version even if it was more mechanically sound.
I'm comparing the old games to the old games. EQ outperformed UO, EQ2, SWG and DAoC. As each new "old school" game released with newer graphics and newer "old school" mechanics, fewer and fewer people played the games. It wasn't until 2006 that EQ2 had more players than EQ. "Old school" games were not growing the market and they were not showing greater and greater returns. They were basically just failing very slowly.
What reason would there be for "old school" games to perform better now? We already know that most players don't want mob grinds, open world pvp with full loot or sitting around in the world waiting for bosses to spawn. So what is it? What is the indicator that says, "Players want 'old school' games again"?
I'm not saying that players don't want something new. Players are human, they always want something new. I'm saying that there are indicators that whatever they want to spend their money on, it isn't 'old school' games.
There were no new old school type games essentially. EQ2 was far more on the WoW spectrum.
And this is where the breakdown always begins. Most people talking about modern old school are not wanting remakes. They want games that have old school principles and options in a modern engine, UI and thinking. A modern game that took a different path then just emulating the same game. A games where the worlds that promote exploration, interdepency that promotes community and socialization. Games focused on being an MMO and not a single player game. Games with sandbox elements that let players have more freedoms and make their own stories. A game where there is more danger and challenges outside elite raids.
I don't think many are promoting a mob grinder with updated graphics.
Frankly, let's forget about the mechanics of things like corpse runs, PK for profit, and losing levels. Anyone can introduce these elements to a game and it is not going to improve the experience, only make it more frustrating. Why? because in today's gaming environment you are basically ON YOUR OWN.
The days of people actually inviting you into their guild and teaming with you are done. People team with you to complete a single objective, then they break the party before you even have the chance to think them for teaming or ask them if they had any more missions they want to accomplish. They don't even stick with you to report back to the quest giver. I noticed that starting as far back as City of Heroes while it was still costing a subscription. In, out, done. There is no opportunity to bond, to form a team, or a guild. Guilds are just lists of names banded together for the bonuses you can incur.
In the "good old days" that the OP is referring to, many players came from paper 'n dice games and brought their sense of having to have a group to achieve anything from missions to immersions. Now, the gamer base is built from console kiddies who need nothing more than a controller to play.
I find that my best team mates are the ones that the game presents to me in the form of NPC companions. At least they stay in character and don't bolt as soon as the mission is complete. The genie has most definitely left the bottle.
I couldn't agree more.. well put. Old school style has to be brought back,, although i am happy mmos are going more into sandbox type gameplay , which is a huge improvement. WOW style games are finally stopping. I believe the new era of sandbox gaming will bring a oldschool feel to it, well thats what im hoping for atleast. With EQ Next, The Repopulation, Star Citizen, Black Desert and Camelot Unchained. These 5 games are what i am most looking forward to , all being sandbox style they should pick up the MMORPG gaming industry because IMO its been EXTREMELY dull and lame last few years, and im sure many will agree.
"The MMOrpg genre is designed for the patient, curious, adventurous, ambitious gamers. The type of players who like to socialize, explore, and achieve self-set goals. It is factually not designed to be hopped-between and played solo. MMORPG's are the outlet for exploration and adventure not churning through quest after quest, and that is ultimately what these modern MMORPG's are designed for, all in the name of greed and money, not ambition."
I fully agree and IMO. This is what MMORPGs are about. This is how the genre started. This defined the great games that are still great.
I am perpetually baffled by why game developers ever shifted from what was working towards more casual and solo gameplay. I can see bean counters and corporate slime wanting huge numbers of players but it's not like the developers/designers themselves gain all that much of the extra profits from larger number of sales. So why create lame single player games full of ez-mode that have crappy players and communities. Why CONTINUE to do this when such games are considered failures as MMORPGs (they make money but they fail to retain subs, fail to remain sub-based, and never live up to what they should be).
I especially don't see why MMORPG devs keep up this trend given that the competition for online gamer time is much higher now than it was in the early days of MMORPGs. Everything is online now. It would seem that designing a lasting game for a smaller number willing to pay a sub would be a better model than designing for fast food players who have zero loyalty to anything except flitting around randomly.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
Originally posted by FinalFikuslets forget about old school and talk about the new school.Tell us of your successes. There is WOW of coarse.Eq2- no one plays anymore either- join the old schoolDDO- failLORTO- no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolWAR-deadAOC-no one plays anymore either-join the old schoolTabla rasa-deadVangaurd-failFinal fantasy- looks like it will join the old schoolRift-joins the old schoolStar trek-join the old schoolCOH-deadAion- joins the old school at least hereFallen earth-old schoolGuild wars 1- not an mmorpg but sold a lot of boxesGuild wars 2 -sold a lot of boxesStar wars old republic- lol unless you count box sales then you could only make a comparison if old school games were marketed at all let alone evenly. And at a time when more than nerds played games on the PC over dial up connections (wanna use the phone).Plus the old school games need all the knowledge and trial and error of previous mmorpg makers. Plus all the new tech.Basically you cant know unless a new refined and polished game with old school features (freedom and open world) were made today. World sims with games built around them.Im sure Im wrong about all the newer games. They make more in a week than UO ever did right? It didn't make any money for EA over its 15+ year life span. EQ definitely didn't make sony any money.
Everything is relative. You can't look at the newer games without looking at the older games. Compared to the older games the newer games are more successful. They attracted more players and bring more money into the genre for new development. They also allowed developers to spend more money. The point has already been proven. The "old school" games already lost out to the "new school" games. The "new school" games are going to lose out to something else that pulls together elements of games that are happening right now. It won't be "old school" games. My guess would be something from GTA V. Maybe what we'll get will be ultra violent, open world games with a personal story.
Again that's an assumption and not really true. The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish. Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.
The market is larger, but the history is still there. By late 2003 the MMORPG market had stopped growing. The only thing that was bringing new players in was steps towards styles of play that would be considered Not Old School. UO added a continent that allowed for primarily PvE play and Feluca emptied out. EQ released EQ2, the first of the "new school" games and SOE had more people paying them money. The writing, as they say, was on the wall. WoW just confirmed what was already becoming obvious with the largest pile of money gaming had ever seen. So, keep telling yourself that "old school" games never had a chance, that there's no evidence that they failed or that they could make a come back. Until there is some indication that it could actually happen, or until development costs drop to the point that it's worthwhile, it will not happen.
Ok, we've gotten into circular argument going on here. You're comparing older games directly to newer games and not older style games to newer styled games. There are no modern older styled games at all except WoW clones. There is no direct comparison until one is made. But no other western subscription game outside WoW has maintained a substationally higher player base than older games. Not talking about release peaks.
I mean, UO's spiritual successor SWG also sold more. Each new GTA has sold more than the last. I am sure a "brand new" 1995 Honda Accord is not going to sell as well as 2013 version even if it was more mechanically sound.
I'm comparing the old games to the old games. EQ outperformed UO, EQ2, SWG and DAoC. As each new "old school" game released with newer graphics and newer "old school" mechanics, fewer and fewer people played the games. It wasn't until 2006 that EQ2 had more players than EQ. "Old school" games were not growing the market and they were not showing greater and greater returns. They were basically just failing very slowly.
What reason would there be for "old school" games to perform better now? We already know that most players don't want mob grinds, open world pvp with full loot or sitting around in the world waiting for bosses to spawn. So what is it? What is the indicator that says, "Players want 'old school' games again"?
I'm not saying that players don't want something new. Players are human, they always want something new. I'm saying that there are indicators that whatever they want to spend their money on, it isn't 'old school' games.
This is your discussion so I'm not gonna claim to know the the full history (though I have been following it a bit), but it seems to me that you guys should decide on what exactly each person is claiming. I know I personally don't think that "oldschool" games will outperform themeparks or that they'll ever be the "norm" when it comes to the MMO genre. But I do however think they can survive and I also think that the "oldschool" or sandbox market isn't currently being served as much as it should be. I think there are a lot of people who want a certain type of game and nobody has stepped up to really fill that role yet. I think that's because WoW was so incredibly successful and I also think that it's slowly starting to change.
I'm not trying to put words in Vermillion's mouth though.
Well, you can because I agree. And not every person is wanting the same thing. I was not an EQ person at all. But there are things I can appreciate from it that don't revolve around corpse runs and mob grinding.
Its like if soft drink makers at one point just stopped making all other sodas outside cola variations because Coke and Pepsi were the top sellers. And the only alternatives are made by people with inadequete funds and caused alergies to a lot of people. Then the guys who support cola says "Everyone buys cola and it's supported by stats" of course of mostly of people who have only had cola ever with no alternatives, " And there is nobody who wants other drinks look at those indie makers. That's as good as it gets. Look at the old drinks like that they caused indigestion and gas." That totally ignores that people want the different flavor not so much the outdated issues that new soda no longer has.
"The MMOrpg genre is designed for the patient, curious, adventurous, ambitious gamers. The type of players who like to socialize, explore, and achieve self-set goals. It is factually not designed to be hopped-between and played solo. MMORPG's are the outlet for exploration and adventure not churning through quest after quest, and that is ultimately what these modern MMORPG's are designed for, all in the name of greed and money, not ambition."
I fully agree and IMO. This is what MMORPGs are about. This is how the genre started. This defined the great games that are still great.
I am perpetually baffled by why game developers ever shifted from what was working towards more casual and solo gameplay. I can see bean counters and corporate slime wanting huge numbers of players but it's not like the developers/designers themselves gain all that much of the extra profits from larger number of sales. So why create lame single player games full of ez-mode that have crappy players and communities. Why CONTINUE to do this when such games are considered failures as MMORPGs (they make money but they fail to retain subs, fail to remain sub-based, and never live up to what they should be).
I especially don't see why MMORPG devs keep up this trend given that the competition for online gamer time is much higher now than it was in the early days of MMORPGs. Everything is online now. It would seem that designing a lasting game for a smaller number willing to pay a sub would be a better model than designing for fast food players who have zero loyalty to anything except flitting around randomly.
I agree with much of your post until the term "sub" comes up. I personally think it is a fallacy to believe that a subscription leads to loyalty in a game. I just don't understand where this thinking comes from.
IMO a subscription simply raises a players expectations. I am paying X dollars per month, this game better be pretty damn good or I will stop playing. So in other words, the money you are paying is meaningless, it is the content or quality of the game that keeps you playing. Add in the the box cost, plus subscription and many people are hesitant to even try the game much less subscribe.
Still don't get the thinking that a sub means a loyal player base. I think it is only in the minds of the so called "hardcores" that this is true.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal There were no new old school type games essentially. EQ2 was far more on the WoW spectrum.And this is where the breakdown always begins. Most people talking about modern old school are not wanting remakes. They want games that have old school principles and options in a modern engine, UI and thinking. A modern game that took a different path then just emulating the same game. A games where the worlds that promote exploration, interdepency that promotes community and socialization. Games focused on being an MMO and not a single player game. Games with sandbox elements that let players have more freedoms and make their own stories. A game where there is more danger and challenges outside elite raids.I don't think many are promoting a mob grinder with updated graphics.
Having games that are worlds, and that promote community and socialization would be good. People would probably enjoy that. Giving players choices and a feeling of freedom in those worlds would be great. It's the methods that the "old school" games used to get there that's the problem with current gamers. The devil is in the details.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I am perpetually baffled by why game developers ever shifted from what was working towards more casual and solo gameplay. I can see bean counters and corporate slime wanting huge numbers of players but it's not like the developers/designers themselves gain all that much of the extra profits from larger number of sales. So why create lame single player games full of ez-mode that have crappy players and communities. Why CONTINUE to do this when such games are considered failures as MMORPGs (they make money but they fail to retain subs, fail to remain sub-based, and never live up to what they should be).
Because:
1) devs want bigger, than smaller audience even if we are not talking about money. If you write a book, do you want 100 people reading it, or a million? Isn't more people enjoying your product better?
2) Because they are not considered failure .. may be only some die-hard hard core old timers . but obviously dev don' t need to care about them. You really think most in the industry would consider GW2 a failure when it is "the fastest selling MMO"? Your opinion (of that it fails) matter little to them, and you can easily find someone who think it is great.
3) Don't sound like your preference is the only "right" one. It is a free world. Devs can (and should) cater to whoever they want.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Well, you can because I agree. And not every person is wanting the same thing. I was not an EQ person at all. But there are things I can appreciate from it that don't revolve around corpse runs and mob grinding. Its like if soft drink makers at one point just stopped making all other sodas outside cola variations because Coke and Pepsi were the top sellers. And the only alternatives are made by people with inadequete funds and caused alergies to a lot of people. Then the guys who support cola says "Everyone buys cola and it's supported by stats" of course of mostly of people who have only had cola ever with no alternatives, " And there is nobody who wants other drinks look at those indie makers. That's as good as it gets. Look at the old drinks like that they caused indigestion and gas." That totally ignores that people want the different flavor not so much the outdated issues that new soda no longer has.
This scenario would be comparable to the MMORPG market is the other soft drinks' market share started to shrink before Coke & Pepsi were released. It would also be comparable if other soft drink manufacturers tried to deliver those other drinks on a small scale, and people just weren't interested in their products.
Other people in this thread have listed out the games that have been attempted in recent history to appeal to the "old school" gamers. None of those games really took off, even when the development quality was good. There just aren't that many MMORPG players interested in those games. Certainly not enough to make someone think that a AAA version of an "old school" game would be a worthwhile endeavor.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It wasn't going anywhere. You were simply repeating how it "made sense" that WoW was watered-down, even after I had explained repeatedly why your logic is wrong. You just clung on to your conclusion nevertheless.
The logic regarding what? There were 2 issues: what does watered down mean? and is wow watered down compared to other games like SWG? Because like I said at the time (which you ignored) you seemed to be merging the 2 conversations. There's nothing wrong with my logic about how to define what watered down means. The only thing you can take issue with is whether or not WoW is watered down. I made my case for why it is, you've made no case for why it isn't... just that I can't prove that it is. Here's the super short version to keep it simple: if you admit that WoW is more casual friendly, that's an indication that it's less targeted and thus watered down.
I never questioned your definition of watered down, it is your definition, I was questioning your logic regarding how you called WoW watered down. I pointed out how your "case" is flawed. Being casual friendly has nothing to do with being less targeted or more targeted. Casual friendliness means you can log in, do something worthwhile within 20 minutes and log out. The opposite is a game where doing anything takes an uninterrupted long play session. It has no relation to depth, difficulty or how well it is targeted.
I've explained how it makes sense that developers would go for the easy buck instead of making an innovative game. Why wouldn't they? They saw WoW's success so they try to emulate it. I've said over and over that I understand this is how the market works... the other side of the market is consumers voicing their opinions about what they want. I'm not sure how it's wrong for me to do so. This phenomenon is commonplace. Nothing to get giddy over. No, you all but outright blamed the companies for making profit. I have a strong suspicion that this part of the argument only stems from the fact that you are displeased by the fact how companies are not catering to you. You're just venting. I forgive you.
So let me get this straight... you argue against it happening and then say it's commonplace? If it's commonplace then how am I wrong? My point is that WoW introduced an unnatural distortion in the market which lead companies to focus more on themeparks and specifically them stealing features from WoW.
And what do you mean outright blame them for making a profit? I've said over and over that I don't blame companies for wanting to make money, but part of a free market is consumers voicing their opinions. Part of the problem is people enabling companies to get away with rehashing the same formula over and over with a new skin over top.
The fact that you think it is unnatural proves to me you don't understand business. It is entirely natural. I've tried to explain this numerous times, but apparently in vain. I don't have the fortitude to explain it again. I have my limits.
Trust me when I say that you guys really need to stop with these jabs about me not understand business, economics, or the market. I can guarantee you that I have a deeper understanding of all of them than you do. WoW's success which was a complete ANOMALY, influenced other companies to try and recreate that formula, often to the point of failure. If you want to mince words and say that "unnatural" isn't appropriate, I'm not gonna waste time arguing it. The point is it made companies do things they wouldn't have done otherwise, to an extreme degree. Why was it an extreme degree? Because it had ENORMOUS success. It was an outlier. That's why I'm calling it unnatural.
WoW was a hit profuct. An anomaly in MMORPG circles, but not too uncommon in business. Companies do the exact same thing in any market regarding hit products. It is not unnatural.
Everyone adopted touchscreen technology soon after iPhones success even though the technology was originally developed by Nokia almost 15 years ago.
Remember Tamagochis? A hit product copied by many. Leatherman? Sony Walkman?
That's a rational argument to make about why games are made the way they are, and why I don't think the market NEEDS to be exactly how it is right now. I think it stands to reason that WoW's abnormally large amount of success (which other games haven't even touched, though not for lack of trying) caused companies to focus LESS on the types of games that I enjoy. And I believe that the market will eventually fix this problem. I don't expect sandboxes to ever be the majority, but I do expect some decent and acceptable sandboxes to be made in the near future. Is this another of my whacky theories? Or does it sound pretty rational?
I have no issue with this although your comment about where market "needs to be" is rather odd.
What I specifically mean by my comment is that,you think just because there was market for old school games 10 years ago there would be market for those games today. You do understand many of those values are in direct competition with the values that are popular right now, don't you. Cephus404 already explained, some of those people don't play MMOs anymore, preferences have changed etc. And so far every attempt to revitalize old school has enjoyed marginal success at best. Not something that can be credited to being old school.
You can't even be sure that old school should be credited by the success of early MMOs. It could simply be a matter of "being the first" as far as we know. Novelty. And once alternatives started emerging, people gladly migrated toward those titles instead. People who didn't find MMOs fun in the old school days, found the new ones much more appealing, and only now started playing MMORPGs.
lizardbones smartly pointed out, the developers have a lot more information available to them compared to us, so it is reasonable to assume they know what they are talking about when they say its not worth it. It is safe to assume they have done their research. It would be quite remarkable if they all turned out to be wrong. I am not saying it is impossible. I am saying it is highly unlikely.
I'm not basing my belief that there's a market for sandbox games on the fact that sandbox games used to exist. I'm basing it on my opinion of what makes a good game and my interacting with people in the community for the majority of my life. I think a virtual world with consequences to your actions and the ability to truly play how you want is good game design. I think a lot of people will play a game like that. And I think a lot of people HAVE played games like that, and a lot of people still do play games like that (EvE). And I also think that's why there are several games in production that are promising to fill that role.
What do you have that says otherwise? That the market isn't making them yet? Well that's where WoW comes into play. I know in the past you've denied that WoW had an effect on the market, but it actually did. It had a huge effect on the market. I mean... do you understand how silly your argument is? You basically are saying that no sandbox game can exist. Are you going to take ALL of this back when one does come out and is successful enough to stay alive? What about EvE? As I've pointed out, that games has more than enough sandbox elements to appease most of us (including me), I just happen to not be into the space combat. But the level of sandbox in that game SHOULD deter people from playing, if what you're claiming is true.
I am saying there is nothing inherently better or worse in sandbox design although their execution has always been subpar to a point where the word "sandbox MMO" is synonomous with poor quality. Usually I'd say the case is developers have been overreached.
And you can't know whether Eve is a similar anomaly among sandboxes as WoW is among themeparks. It is impossible to know since Eve doesn't have and hasn't had much competition. Every other sci-fi game has been lacking severely. Every other sandbox has lacked severely. With competition like that, you don't need to be "good", you only need to be better than the alternatives.
Yes, Eve is a perfect game for some, but you don't really know to how many people it is their "fallback MMO".
Did I say "my forums"? I said the forums I read. And the tactic you are now using is called "poisoning the well". You would be fool to think I would respond to that.
If you admit that they're not your forums, then how do you think it's ok to criticize people for voicing their opinion on them? What's the point of you saying nothing will come of our "whining" on the forums?
I don't mind people voicing their opinion. I mind it when they do it in a rude and antagonizing manner. I mind when people make a weekly thread about how things were better "back in the day" and how current MMOs suck. It is so common MMORPG.com should reserve a separate section or a sticky for it. Or delete it as spam.
They very rarely lead to a constructive conversation. Most often they are simply threads for bashing and flaming - ideal breeding grounds for trolls. It is not only the most common topic on these forums but also the least productive.
Do I need to explain again the nature of forums?
No, you've never needed to explain it. You've never needed to explain anything to me. What you need to do is start responding to points consistently. I asked you a question. Do you think it's a coincidence that there are so many people complaining on the forums about a lack of sandbox games and now there are a decent amount of sandbox titles in production? Do you think the two are completely unrelated?
Yes I think they are unrelated. To my knowledge, the complaining has been fairly constant the time I've been following these forums. If there was any significant change you could have a point, but even then you could not be sure: it could still be a coincidence.
Everything you have is speculation and conjecture. You make assumptions and assertions which cannot be proven to be valid. You completely missed my point when I tried to explain to you a fault in your logic with the watered down theory. I explained it twice if not thrice, but it didn't sink in. You were so adamant that "WoW is watered down" that you didn't care if your rationale was faulty.
First of all... I'll ask again: What are my wild theories?
Second, what actually happened in that conversation is you were asking what "watered down" means. I explained what it means, and then you shifted the conversation to "how do you know WoW is watered down?" To which I immediately replied that it was with judgement. Then I went on to make the case for WoW being watered down and you just stopped replying.
"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."
But as usual you just kind of... stopped responding and now are trying to rewrite history to make a point about me that isn't valid.
First, why should I respond to your explanation of what you mean by watered down? It doesn't matter how I would use the term, it matter how you understand it. When we speak the same language its easier to get the message across. This is basics in scientific writing: In the beginning you establish the terminology and what you mean by them.
You don't need to respond to that. Are you following along here? There were two parts to that discussion:
1. What does watered down mean?
2. Why do I believe WoW is more watered down than SWG etc?
It was already established what watered down means and how I'm using it. Then I went on to address the second point. That's what you ignored, not the explanation of what watered down means. Are you just not reading this? I don't understand.
I already explained above, I did not direct my criticism toward your definition but to your statement about how WoW is more watered down than SWG or UO.
Second, if all you say is simply based on your judgement. Why are you defending it like its the truth? A sensible person would not cling to his arguments like so when they are that weak.
Would you stop acting like if it's not provable, it's not worth arguing? That's literally the ONLY time you would argue. If it was provable and not based on judgement or reason, then there'd be no point in arguing. And what's weak about it? You haven't even answered it.
I have. Many times already.
And third, you completely missed my point. And I mean completely. I stated multiple times why your logic was wrong and in the point marked in red, you went with your original conclusion anyway. I will explain this to you again: Based on its size, you cannot conclude that WoW is watered down. You cannot do that. It is fine to say "I think WoW is watered-down" but you should have never said to the effect of "because WoW is large, it must be watered down". The former is just an opinion. The latter is faulty logic, because you cannot show a connection between the two.
Don't put quotes around things that I didn't say. What I may have said was "holding all things constant, in order to increase your playerbase you have to water down your game." As in, yes you can increase your playerbase by having better aesthetics and things like that, but assuming an equal playing field, in order to get more people involved, you generally have to appeal less deeply to those people.
Not only that, the point you ignored wasn't even about the size of the playerbase... so why are we even talking about it? The point that I made was about casual players. If a game has a relatively large amount of casual players, that seems to me to be an indication that it's more watered down, aka less targeted.
I wasn't quoting you. Clearly you can read from the context those were examples. And I already said, that is one way to further increase your playerbase but not the only one. And nothing says that WoW has had to rely on it any more than Eve, UO or SWG has. I feel like I am repeating myself.
You cannot make a judgement based on the size how watered down the game is. It is no way reasonable or intuitive to make that connection. You don't know how many of those players are precisely the target audience.
Loktofeit's comment was a sensible assumption which you warped into something you can better attack. And how are we supposed to provide facts when you keep finding excuses to dismiss them. And what should we do if the world doesn't share your definition of an MMO? Are you going to wait for that evidence forever?
LOL what fact have I ever dismissed? In fact, I actually blindly accepted the "fact" that the MMO playerbase was increasing every year. Again, you're just plainly making things up. I absolutely did NOT ignore it. In fact, I didn't even ask him to back it up at the time. I eventually became curious about his source when somebody else mentioned that it may include MOBAs.
And what he said was not sensible and I warped nothing. I said that a lot of people seem to be disappointed with modern MMOs when they come out. He said that people are probably pretty satisfied because the genre continues to grow. I pointed out that you cannot assume that a person paying for a game is satisfied. Satisfied in this context has to mean satisfied to the point of not being disappointed, but then you guys tried to turn it into "satisfied enough to keep playing" which would be a completely redundant and pointless thing to say. This lack of context is something you still refuse to acknowledge.
All I see is you making a strawman. And I wasn't the only poster to point it out.
Also, I can't find anything in that report that indicates what games it's counting. The whole reason I was asking for a source was because somebody pointed out that these numbers may include MOBAs. Then when Narius provided a link, his did include MOBAs. That would completely invalidate those numbers if that were the case.
Completely invalidates, huh?
If they don't think its a WoW clone, its not a WoW clone. They may not share your view on what constitutes a "clone". Hardly a world shattering revelation.
This is just completely nonsensical. What does their biased opinion of their own game have to do with how much of a WoW clone it is? So if I make a game that rips off the structure of the game, UI design, etc of WoW but I somehow make myself believe that it's not a WoW clone, that's supposed to mean something?
In fact, I can't believe you're even trying to make this claim right now. Do you want to take it back or something because this seems too easy....
Your opinion is as biased as theirs. Don't you think that maybe because they play a lot of those games they might be proficient identifying a "WoW clone"?
Copying UI design is normal practice when designing games. You'll notice a "copied UI"I, coming from a similar game it feels intuitive, benefiting the you, the player. In UI design, it is foolish to be different for the sake of being different.
But if you want to see a proper clone, you should check out Perpetuum or Heroes of Newerth. Perpetuum being a clone of Eve Online and HoN being a clone of the original Defense of the Ancients. You would be hard-pressed to find a themepark copying WoW to the same extent as those two games have copied their respective role models.
It doesn't matter whether it turned out to be right or wrong, the fact that you assume your opinion is better is arrogant. How do you know sandbox players know more about themepark games? In my 2,5 years of playing Eve, I ran into numerous players who bashed themeparks, WoW in particular, and it turned out, most of them hadn't even played WoW (!). Most of them played sandboxes almost exclusively and to an alarmingly high number Eve was one of only a 1-3 MMORPGs they have ever tried.
Classic Quirhid. Deny something that would be completely intuitive to anybody willing to think about it for more than a moment, but you won't take a stand one way or the other. If you had to guess, which do you think is true? Would you say that themepark players know more about sandboxes, or sandbox players know more about themeparks?
I'm already a classic? I'm touched.
Because here's a pretty basic way of looking at it: A lot more people play themeparks. It's possible that the few players playing sandbox games just haven't played themeparks, but let's just think about this logically. Considering there are tens of millions of people playing themeparks, and probably only like a million total playing sandboxes (rought estimates... half a million playing eve, let's just call it half a million playing whatever other sandboxes there are), it's far more likely that a random person has played a themepark game. Not only that, themepark games are just naturally more accessible. Sandbox games are known for being more complex and "hardcore" so it stands to reason that more "hardcore" gamers play them, gamers who have a deeper knowledge of the mmo industry. Sandbox players are known for their dislike of themepark games. Themepark players aren't particularly KNOWN for their dislike of sandbox games. You could claim that sandbox players are just generally more likely to dislike something they haven't played, but I'd like to hear why.
I'll ask again, if you had to guess... which would you say is more likely?
It is far more complicated than that. The term hardcore does not only apply to players who play "hardcore games" it also applies to hardcore players who spend much of their time mastering and playing all games. In fact, I would say most of the players playing "hardcore games" are casuals, just like most of the players playing "casual games" are casuals.
Sandboxes are also known for their poor quality. Does that also mean people who like sandboxes like the poor quality? Themepark players are known for disliking bad games. Sandboxes are generally bad games. ... Really you could go anywhere with that logic.
Do you know who has a deeper knowledge of the industry? -The people who work in the industry. And some have been posting here opposing you.
My own encounters speak against your assertion. I think very few people actually know both sides of the genre. And I would much rather hear from the powergamers, or game hoppers as you like to call them, what they think. They've seen a lot more games than your average gamer.
They have indeed! And if I ever want an opinion on a game that is likely to appeal to a "game hopper", then I'll ask them.
But you would trust sandbox players talking about themeparks? How peculiar.
And I would say that a game being good or bad is no way tied to being sandbox or themepark, but so far, sandboxes have usually reached too far and fell too short, making the term sandbox a lost synonomous with "poor quality". I haven't played an MMO sandbox yet, I could say "this is a good game". I haven't. Yet I don't think either one of the genres are better.
Gameplay in MMORPGs is worse than it is in regular multiplayer and single player games. And they nearly always fail to justify that shortcoming with the MMO part.
I also think if you want "freedom" and "roleplaying" you are better served by playing pen & paper roleplaying games than by playing MMORPGs. In comparison they have always fallen short in those aspects and they likely always will.
People like to talk about ideal sandboxes but the reality is, an ideal sandbox is a pipe dream.
To keep it as succinct as possible, I'll just respond with this: You're probably going to end up being wrong. I think it's extremely likely that as technology progresses and making "acceptable" levels of aesthetics becomes cheaper for smaller developers, and as the effect of WoW becomes less and less important, it seems totally reasonable that there will be a number of sandbox games that I will enjoy far longer than the average themepark player enjoys their game of choice. I think your position is just completely untenable and all I can say is: we'll see. If The Repopulation comes out and has enough players to keep it alive, and I enjoy it immensely, will you admit that you're wrong? Or if EQN comes out and ends up being as much a sandbox as it's claiming to be, will you then admit that you're wrong? Because you know how stubborn I am, you know I will absolutely PM you when that day comes to demand a response.
I am not only talking about aesthetics when I talk about quality. I am talking about everything in the game. What it tries to do and how well it achieves it, depth, amount of bugs, performance... everything.
And we've been over this already: Time spent playing is a poor measure of quality. I can play a game for a day and have more fun than playing something else for a year. As it has been pointed out, GTA V has less that 48 hours worth of content, yet it is undoubtedly one of the best games of the decade so far. I had more fun playing Nexus: Jupiter Incident and Freelancer (each of which took me a couple of afternoons to finish) than I've had playing Eve Online for well over 2 years.
Regarding PvP, I had more "good fights" in one weekend playing Guild Wars 1 than in all the engagements combined from open world PvP games I've tried. And the time spent in GW1 is less than playing all those open world PvP games. It is all relative. All subjective.
How does Repopulation keeping itself alive makes my position wrong in any way? Or EQN being a sandbox or not? And making EQN a sandbox would be rather odd considering neither of the previous games in the series were strictly sandbox. What is your point?
The vague statement was you calling a design "good" which sparked my interest that's all.
But it is somebody who is responsible for that design, and work in that company. A company is not a separate entity. It cannot be lazy or greedy. You are unavoidably talking about the people working in that company.
Yes, but which people? If I'm talking about bad decisions, then obviously I'm talking about the people making those decisions. And by the way, companies have mission statements and goals. Companies ABSOLUTELY can be more or less greedy than other companies.
You can't possibly claim to know their motives. And I think it is juvenile to call them greedy or lazy solely on the basis that they don't serve or share your preferences.
Well since you made this elaborate explanation instead of saying "in my opinion..." I thought you were ready to defend your position somehow. You can still keep your opinion, but the rationale you've presented is not convincing.
And you are right, I've made statements which I have not provided evidence for, but until you showed up, I haven't had the need to do so, because generally what I am talking about could be construed as common knowledge. Like the statement about how MMORPGs have so far seen only growth. Or how companies trying to emulate the market leader is normal in business.
No, I'm saying you make claims that are your opinion, but you don't precede it with "In my opinion...." That's not an insult, I'm pointing out that's how people talk.
But, again, I'd really like to know what's wrong with saying "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true"
As I pointed out, you could say it about the vast majority of statements uttered by human beings. I have no idea what's wrong with it.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Well, you can because I agree. And not every person is wanting the same thing. I was not an EQ person at all. But there are things I can appreciate from it that don't revolve around corpse runs and mob grinding.
Its like if soft drink makers at one point just stopped making all other sodas outside cola variations because Coke and Pepsi were the top sellers. And the only alternatives are made by people with inadequete funds and caused alergies to a lot of people. Then the guys who support cola says "Everyone buys cola and it's supported by stats" of course of mostly of people who have only had cola ever with no alternatives, " And there is nobody who wants other drinks look at those indie makers. That's as good as it gets. Look at the old drinks like that they caused indigestion and gas." That totally ignores that people want the different flavor not so much the outdated issues that new soda no longer has.
This scenario would be comparable to the MMORPG market is the other soft drinks' market share started to shrink before Coke & Pepsi were released. It would also be comparable if other soft drink manufacturers tried to deliver those other drinks on a small scale, and people just weren't interested in their products.
Other people in this thread have listed out the games that have been attempted in recent history to appeal to the "old school" gamers. None of those games really took off, even when the development quality was good. There just aren't that many MMORPG players interested in those games. Certainly not enough to make someone think that a AAA version of an "old school" game would be a worthwhile endeavor.
It wasn't going anywhere. You were simply repeating how it "made sense" that WoW was watered-down, even after I had explained repeatedly why your logic is wrong. You just clung on to your conclusion nevertheless.
The logic regarding what? There were 2 issues: what does watered down mean? and is wow watered down compared to other games like SWG? Because like I said at the time (which you ignored) you seemed to be merging the 2 conversations. There's nothing wrong with my logic about how to define what watered down means. The only thing you can take issue with is whether or not WoW is watered down. I made my case for why it is, you've made no case for why it isn't... just that I can't prove that it is. Here's the super short version to keep it simple: if you admit that WoW is more casual friendly, that's an indication that it's less targeted and thus watered down.
I never questioned your definition of watered down, it is your definition, I was questioning your logic regarding how you called WoW watered down. I pointed out how your "case" is flawed. Being casual friendly has nothing to do with being less targeted or more targeted. Casual friendliness means you can log in, do something worthwhile within 20 minutes and log out. The opposite is a game where doing anything takes an uninterrupted long play session. It has no relation to depth, difficulty or how well it is targeted.
1. You absolutely did question what I meant by watered down. I think you said something about me using platitudes and then demanded I explain what I mean when I say watered down. That started a discussion that lead to using venn diagrams as an example and then eventually you changed the subject from what watered down means, to how I know that WoW is an example of watering down.
2. This is the first time you've responded to the connection between casual friendly and watered down. Casual friendliness doesn't just mean you can log in and do something in a short amount of time. That's one thing that casual people look for, I'm sure. But casual friendly games are in general not going to be as deep. Casual friendliness is kind of the antithesis of depth in a game. Depth means there's a lot to explore and a lot to consider and think about. Casual gameplay means you can kind of coast without having to take it too seriously. I'm not sure how you can claim that there's no connection between casual gameplay and watered down gameplay. Casual players pretty much by definition are going to care less about their game than a hardcore gamer.
I've explained how it makes sense that developers would go for the easy buck instead of making an innovative game. Why wouldn't they? They saw WoW's success so they try to emulate it. I've said over and over that I understand this is how the market works... the other side of the market is consumers voicing their opinions about what they want. I'm not sure how it's wrong for me to do so. This phenomenon is commonplace. Nothing to get giddy over. No, you all but outright blamed the companies for making profit. I have a strong suspicion that this part of the argument only stems from the fact that you are displeased by the fact how companies are not catering to you. You're just venting. I forgive you.
So let me get this straight... you argue against it happening and then say it's commonplace? If it's commonplace then how am I wrong? My point is that WoW introduced an unnatural distortion in the market which lead companies to focus more on themeparks and specifically them stealing features from WoW.
And what do you mean outright blame them for making a profit? I've said over and over that I don't blame companies for wanting to make money, but part of a free market is consumers voicing their opinions. Part of the problem is people enabling companies to get away with rehashing the same formula over and over with a new skin over top.
The fact that you think it is unnatural proves to me you don't understand business. It is entirely natural. I've tried to explain this numerous times, but apparently in vain. I don't have the fortitude to explain it again. I have my limits.
Trust me when I say that you guys really need to stop with these jabs about me not understand business, economics, or the market. I can guarantee you that I have a deeper understanding of all of them than you do. WoW's success which was a complete ANOMALY, influenced other companies to try and recreate that formula, often to the point of failure. If you want to mince words and say that "unnatural" isn't appropriate, I'm not gonna waste time arguing it. The point is it made companies do things they wouldn't have done otherwise, to an extreme degree. Why was it an extreme degree? Because it had ENORMOUS success. It was an outlier. That's why I'm calling it unnatural.
WoW was a hit profuct. An anomaly in MMORPG circles, but not too uncommon in business. Companies do the exact same thing in any market regarding hit products. It is not unnatural.
Everyone adopted touchscreen technology soon after iPhones success even though the technology was originally developed by Nokia almost 15 years ago.
Remember Tamagochis? A hit product copied by many. Leatherman? Sony Walkman?
I never said that taking proven methods or ideas from other companies is unnatural. I'm saying WoW's success was unnaturally, or abnormally, or unusually, substantial and so it lead to the market unnaturally favoring themeparks. The market has been in an unnatural state because of WoW's unusual success. I doubt 5 years from now the market will have as much of an focus on WoW-clones as it does now. If that ends up being the case (and I think it 's already happening), then that means we were right.
That's a rational argument to make about why games are made the way they are, and why I don't think the market NEEDS to be exactly how it is right now. I think it stands to reason that WoW's abnormally large amount of success (which other games haven't even touched, though not for lack of trying) caused companies to focus LESS on the types of games that I enjoy. And I believe that the market will eventually fix this problem. I don't expect sandboxes to ever be the majority, but I do expect some decent and acceptable sandboxes to be made in the near future. Is this another of my whacky theories? Or does it sound pretty rational?
I have no issue with this although your comment about where market "needs to be" is rather odd.
When I say the market doesn't need to be where it is right now, I'm saying the MMO genre hasn't been figured out. It's still in a state of flux so you guys making the case that sandboxes won't exist simply because they don't already exist isn't accurate. Lizardbones in particular seems to like to talk about how the market knows best and the fact that developers aren't making them proves (or strongly suggests) that they're not viable. I'm saying I don't think that's true, I think developers are still figuring out what's doable and what isn't.
What I specifically mean by my comment is that,you think just because there was market for old school games 10 years ago there would be market for those games today. You do understand many of those values are in direct competition with the values that are popular right now, don't you. Cephus404 already explained, some of those people don't play MMOs anymore, preferences have changed etc. And so far every attempt to revitalize old school has enjoyed marginal success at best. Not something that can be credited to being old school.
You can't even be sure that old school should be credited by the success of early MMOs. It could simply be a matter of "being the first" as far as we know. Novelty. And once alternatives started emerging, people gladly migrated toward those titles instead. People who didn't find MMOs fun in the old school days, found the new ones much more appealing, and only now started playing MMORPGs.
lizardbones smartly pointed out, the developers have a lot more information available to them compared to us, so it is reasonable to assume they know what they are talking about when they say its not worth it. It is safe to assume they have done their research. It would be quite remarkable if they all turned out to be wrong. I am not saying it is impossible. I am saying it is highly unlikely.
I'm not basing my belief that there's a market for sandbox games on the fact that sandbox games used to exist. I'm basing it on my opinion of what makes a good game and my interacting with people in the community for the majority of my life. I think a virtual world with consequences to your actions and the ability to truly play how you want is good game design. I think a lot of people will play a game like that. And I think a lot of people HAVE played games like that, and a lot of people still do play games like that (EvE). And I also think that's why there are several games in production that are promising to fill that role.
What do you have that says otherwise? That the market isn't making them yet? Well that's where WoW comes into play. I know in the past you've denied that WoW had an effect on the market, but it actually did. It had a huge effect on the market. I mean... do you understand how silly your argument is? You basically are saying that no sandbox game can exist. Are you going to take ALL of this back when one does come out and is successful enough to stay alive? What about EvE? As I've pointed out, that games has more than enough sandbox elements to appease most of us (including me), I just happen to not be into the space combat. But the level of sandbox in that game SHOULD deter people from playing, if what you're claiming is true.
I am saying there is nothing inherently better or worse in sandbox design although their execution has always been subpar to a point where the word "sandbox MMO" is synonomous with poor quality. Usually I'd say the case is developers have been overreached.
And you can't know whether Eve is a similar anomaly among sandboxes as WoW is among themeparks. It is impossible to know since Eve doesn't have and hasn't had much competition. Every other sci-fi game has been lacking severely. Every other sandbox has lacked severely. With competition like that, you don't need to be "good", you only need to be better than the alternatives.
Yes, Eve is a perfect game for some, but you don't really know to how many people it is their "fallback MMO".
I don't think you understand my point about EvE. You guys are basically saying that sandboxes won't work. I'm saying they already do. EvE is a sandbox. The only reason I'm not playing it is because I'm not into the space combat. If you took the level of depth/complexity/consequence/sandbox-ness of EvE and made a fantasy game, that's a game I would be totally happy with.
Did I say "my forums"? I said the forums I read. And the tactic you are now using is called "poisoning the well". You would be fool to think I would respond to that.
If you admit that they're not your forums, then how do you think it's ok to criticize people for voicing their opinion on them? What's the point of you saying nothing will come of our "whining" on the forums?
I don't mind people voicing their opinion. I mind it when they do it in a rude and antagonizing manner. I mind when people make a weekly thread about how things were better "back in the day" and how current MMOs suck. It is so common MMORPG.com should reserve a separate section or a sticky for it. Or delete it as spam.
They very rarely lead to a constructive conversation. Most often they are simply threads for bashing and flaming - ideal breeding grounds for trolls. It is not only the most common topic on these forums but also the least productive.
The point of a forum is for people to talk about what they want to talk about. If there are SOOO many of these threads (and there probably are), then it's probably because there are a lot of people who want to talk about it. This kind of makes me consider just how much you guys rely on this "vocal minority" argument. I agree that forums in particular disproportionately represent the people with a grievance, but there are a LOT of us on these forums. It seems like these discussions are split pretty much right down the middle between pro sandbox and anti sandbox. I don't often make predictions, but I think in the coming years, all of this sandbox naysaying is going to look absolutely ridiculous. I think sandbox games are going to be a really big splash. I doubt they'll ever beat themeparks, but considering you guys are basically saying we shouldn't even expect one or two good sandboxes, I think that's WAY off.
Do I need to explain again the nature of forums?
No, you've never needed to explain it. You've never needed to explain anything to me. What you need to do is start responding to points consistently. I asked you a question. Do you think it's a coincidence that there are so many people complaining on the forums about a lack of sandbox games and now there are a decent amount of sandbox titles in production? Do you think the two are completely unrelated?
Yes I think they are unrelated. To my knowledge, the complaining has been fairly constant the time I've been following these forums. If there was any significant change you could have a point, but even then you could not be sure: it could still be a coincidence.
Got it. A lot of people complaining about a lack of sandbox games, companies start to make sandbox games to sell to these (and other) people, and there's no connection.
Second, if all you say is simply based on your judgement. Why are you defending it like its the truth? A sensible person would not cling to his arguments like so when they are that weak.
Would you stop acting like if it's not provable, it's not worth arguing? That's literally the ONLY time you would argue. If it was provable and not based on judgement or reason, then there'd be no point in arguing. And what's weak about it? You haven't even answered it.
I have. Many times already.
I think you need to look at this last exchange and ask if this is a reasonable position to take.
And third, you completely missed my point. And I mean completely. I stated multiple times why your logic was wrong and in the point marked in red, you went with your original conclusion anyway. I will explain this to you again: Based on its size, you cannot conclude that WoW is watered down. You cannot do that. It is fine to say "I think WoW is watered-down" but you should have never said to the effect of "because WoW is large, it must be watered down". The former is just an opinion. The latter is faulty logic, because you cannot show a connection between the two.
Don't put quotes around things that I didn't say. What I may have said was "holding all things constant, in order to increase your playerbase you have to water down your game." As in, yes you can increase your playerbase by having better aesthetics and things like that, but assuming an equal playing field, in order to get more people involved, you generally have to appeal less deeply to those people.
Not only that, the point you ignored wasn't even about the size of the playerbase... so why are we even talking about it? The point that I made was about casual players. If a game has a relatively large amount of casual players, that seems to me to be an indication that it's more watered down, aka less targeted.
I wasn't quoting you. Clearly you can read from the context those were examples. And I already said, that is one way to further increase your playerbase but not the only one. And nothing says that WoW has had to rely on it any more than Eve, UO or SWG has. I feel like I am repeating myself.
You cannot make a judgement based on the size how watered down the game is. It is no way reasonable or intuitive to make that connection. You don't know how many of those players are precisely the target audience.
Again, you can make that connection based on size. We were given the gift of reason, after all. You do realize that your position is that the MMO that has BY FAR the most subscribers hasn't had to water down their gameplay? Technically is it possible that they just happen to find this HUGE niche of players that all share as many common preferences as the much smaller audience of SWG? I guess. Do you really think that's a defensible position though?
Loktofeit's comment was a sensible assumption which you warped into something you can better attack. And how are we supposed to provide facts when you keep finding excuses to dismiss them. And what should we do if the world doesn't share your definition of an MMO? Are you going to wait for that evidence forever?
LOL what fact have I ever dismissed? In fact, I actually blindly accepted the "fact" that the MMO playerbase was increasing every year. Again, you're just plainly making things up. I absolutely did NOT ignore it. In fact, I didn't even ask him to back it up at the time. I eventually became curious about his source when somebody else mentioned that it may include MOBAs.
And what he said was not sensible and I warped nothing. I said that a lot of people seem to be disappointed with modern MMOs when they come out. He said that people are probably pretty satisfied because the genre continues to grow. I pointed out that you cannot assume that a person paying for a game is satisfied. Satisfied in this context has to mean satisfied to the point of not being disappointed, but then you guys tried to turn it into "satisfied enough to keep playing" which would be a completely redundant and pointless thing to say. This lack of context is something you still refuse to acknowledge.
All I see is you making a strawman. And I wasn't the only poster to point it out.
So you're saying that you're right because other people agreed with you? Seems more than a little bit fallacious to me. Also, I don't remember people agreeing with you that it was a strawman aside from Loktofeit. But you and he both really don't have much credibility when it comes to this kind of thing. He is totally incapable of having a conversation, and you continuously ignore the most important stuff. You're still not even acknowledging the point about your lack of knowledge of the context in which is was using the word "satisfied." That's the WHOLE thing and over and over again you ignore it, choosing to pick out little bits here and there that you can argue with.
Also, I can't find anything in that report that indicates what games it's counting. The whole reason I was asking for a source was because somebody pointed out that these numbers may include MOBAs. Then when Narius provided a link, his did include MOBAs. That would completely invalidate those numbers if that were the case.
Completely invalidates, huh?
Yes! MOBAs aren't MMOs. Not only that, MOBAs are HUGE. LoL is the single most played game ever. I don't know if the MMO genre is growing or not, but using a number that includes MOBAs is utterly and absolutely pointless.
If they don't think its a WoW clone, its not a WoW clone. They may not share your view on what constitutes a "clone". Hardly a world shattering revelation.
This is just completely nonsensical. What does their biased opinion of their own game have to do with how much of a WoW clone it is? So if I make a game that rips off the structure of the game, UI design, etc of WoW but I somehow make myself believe that it's not a WoW clone, that's supposed to mean something?
In fact, I can't believe you're even trying to make this claim right now. Do you want to take it back or something because this seems too easy....
Your opinion is as biased as theirs. Don't you think that maybe because they play a lot of those games they might be proficient identifying a "WoW clone"?
Copying UI design is normal practice when designing games. You'll notice a "copied UI"I, coming from a similar game it feels intuitive, benefiting the you, the player. In UI design, it is foolish to be different for the sake of being different.
But if you want to see a proper clone, you should check out Perpetuum or Heroes of Newerth. Perpetuum being a clone of Eve Online and HoN being a clone of the original Defense of the Ancients. You would be hard-pressed to find a themepark copying WoW to the same extent as those two games have copied their respective role models.
Of course my opinion is biased! I'm not nor have I ever claimed to be the overseer of what games are or aren't WoW clones. But how does that excuse you saying "If they don't think its a WoW clone, its not a WoW clone." ?? It seems like in any of these discussions whenever you hit a dead end, you just find some way to bring it back to me.
I highly doubt that MMORPG UIs have been figured out to the point of perfection. So anytime a company copies something from another game, that's a missed opportunity to discover more efficient or interesting ways of designing the UI. I fully expect companies to do that from time to time, obviously when I say a game is a WoW clone, I'm saying it relies more heavily on stealing ideas than they should.
Also, I'm sure certain UI choices are tied to how the game is made. So if a game is taking other ideas from a game like WoW, their UI is more likely to emulate WoW's UI. But also I don't care that much about what they take from the UI. I care way more about copying things like quest hubs, instancing, character progression, etc. Game structure stuff.
Because here's a pretty basic way of looking at it: A lot more people play themeparks. It's possible that the few players playing sandbox games just haven't played themeparks, but let's just think about this logically. Considering there are tens of millions of people playing themeparks, and probably only like a million total playing sandboxes (rought estimates... half a million playing eve, let's just call it half a million playing whatever other sandboxes there are), it's far more likely that a random person has played a themepark game. Not only that, themepark games are just naturally more accessible. Sandbox games are known for being more complex and "hardcore" so it stands to reason that more "hardcore" gamers play them, gamers who have a deeper knowledge of the mmo industry. Sandbox players are known for their dislike of themepark games. Themepark players aren't particularly KNOWN for their dislike of sandbox games. You could claim that sandbox players are just generally more likely to dislike something they haven't played, but I'd like to hear why.
I'll ask again, if you had to guess... which would you say is more likely?
It is far more complicated than that. The term hardcore does not only apply to players who play "hardcore games" it also applies to hardcore players who spend much of their time mastering and playing all games. In fact, I would say most of the players playing "hardcore games" are casuals, just like most of the players playing "casual games" are casuals.
Sandboxes are also known for their poor quality. Does that also mean people who like sandboxes like the poor quality? Themepark players are known for disliking bad games. Sandboxes are generally bad games. ... Really you could go anywhere with that logic.
Do you know who has a deeper knowledge of the industry? -The people who work in the industry. And some have been posting here opposing you.
Since you're having such a hard time answering the question, let's just make it more specific. Do you think the % of SWG's playerbase who have also played WoW is higher than the % of WoW's playerbase who have also played SWG?
My own encounters speak against your assertion. I think very few people actually know both sides of the genre. And I would much rather hear from the powergamers, or game hoppers as you like to call them, what they think. They've seen a lot more games than your average gamer.
They have indeed! And if I ever want an opinion on a game that is likely to appeal to a "game hopper", then I'll ask them.
But you would trust sandbox players talking about themeparks? How peculiar.
Who said anything about trusting sandbox players talking about themeparks? You're saying those powergamers play a lot of "games", so you'd trust their opinion about "games" more than the average gamer. I'm saying the games they're playing seem to be games that people are prone to jump around to and from. The themepark circuit. Oh I like that.
Also, I may trust that person's opinion over the "average game" but I absolutely would not trust that person's opinion over somebody who grew up playing Shadowbane or UO or SWG.
And I would say that a game being good or bad is no way tied to being sandbox or themepark, but so far, sandboxes have usually reached too far and fell too short, making the term sandbox a lost synonomous with "poor quality". I haven't played an MMO sandbox yet, I could say "this is a good game". I haven't. Yet I don't think either one of the genres are better.
Gameplay in MMORPGs is worse than it is in regular multiplayer and single player games. And they nearly always fail to justify that shortcoming with the MMO part.
I also think if you want "freedom" and "roleplaying" you are better served by playing pen & paper roleplaying games than by playing MMORPGs. In comparison they have always fallen short in those aspects and they likely always will.
People like to talk about ideal sandboxes but the reality is, an ideal sandbox is a pipe dream.
To keep it as succinct as possible, I'll just respond with this: You're probably going to end up being wrong. I think it's extremely likely that as technology progresses and making "acceptable" levels of aesthetics becomes cheaper for smaller developers, and as the effect of WoW becomes less and less important, it seems totally reasonable that there will be a number of sandbox games that I will enjoy far longer than the average themepark player enjoys their game of choice. I think your position is just completely untenable and all I can say is: we'll see. If The Repopulation comes out and has enough players to keep it alive, and I enjoy it immensely, will you admit that you're wrong? Or if EQN comes out and ends up being as much a sandbox as it's claiming to be, will you then admit that you're wrong? Because you know how stubborn I am, you know I will absolutely PM you when that day comes to demand a response.
I am not only talking about aesthetics when I talk about quality. I am talking about everything in the game. What it tries to do and how well it achieves it, depth, amount of bugs, performance... everything.
And we've been over this already: Time spent playing is a poor measure of quality. I can play a game for a day and have more fun than playing something else for a year. As it has been pointed out, GTA V has less that 48 hours worth of content, yet it is undoubtedly one of the best games of the decade so far. I had more fun playing Nexus: Jupiter Incident and Freelancer (each of which took me a couple of afternoons to finish) than I've had playing Eve Online for well over 2 years.
Regarding PvP, I had more "good fights" in one weekend playing Guild Wars 1 than in all the engagements combined from open world PvP games I've tried. And the time spent in GW1 is less than playing all those open world PvP games. It is all relative. All subjective.
Time spent is a fine measure of quality in an industry that basically across the board is looking to keep people around. Portal is one of my favorite games of all time and it only lasts a couple of hours. But that's how it's designed. MMOs are always looking and trying to keep people around. If you don't think that MMOs care about their own longevity, than I'm not sure what to tell you. If they do care about their longevity, then time spent playing is definitely a good measure of quality.
How does Repopulation keeping itself alive makes my position wrong in any way? Or EQN being a sandbox or not? And making EQN a sandbox would be rather odd considering neither of the previous games in the series were strictly sandbox. What is your point?
I guess it depends on your position. Your position seems to be that I'm wrong. And my position is that there should be more sandboxes. So if a sandbox comes out and is alive enough for me to play it......?
The vague statement was you calling a design "good" which sparked my interest that's all.
But it is somebody who is responsible for that design, and work in that company. A company is not a separate entity. It cannot be lazy or greedy. You are unavoidably talking about the people working in that company.
Yes, but which people? If I'm talking about bad decisions, then obviously I'm talking about the people making those decisions. And by the way, companies have mission statements and goals. Companies ABSOLUTELY can be more or less greedy than other companies.
You can't possibly claim to know their motives. And I think it is juvenile to call them greedy or lazy solely on the basis that they don't serve or share your preferences.
What the hell dude. Are you serious right now? You think I'm calling them greedy or lazy based on the fact that they don't serve my preferences? This is one of the first times I've actually been PISSED in any of these discussions. This is a downright ridiculous thing to say.
I'm calling them greedy/lazy (though again, I try to say things like "lazy game design") because they're making games that are clearly blatant ripoffs of other games just with a new skin in order to make money. Not only that, a lot of them claim to be things they're not. How often do developers shy away from questions about PvP because they don't want to scare anybody away from their game? Instead of just being honest so people don't buy your game and then end up disappointed.
Well since you made this elaborate explanation instead of saying "in my opinion..." I thought you were ready to defend your position somehow. You can still keep your opinion, but the rationale you've presented is not convincing.
And you are right, I've made statements which I have not provided evidence for, but until you showed up, I haven't had the need to do so, because generally what I am talking about could be construed as common knowledge. Like the statement about how MMORPGs have so far seen only growth. Or how companies trying to emulate the market leader is normal in business.
No, I'm saying you make claims that are your opinion, but you don't precede it with "In my opinion...." That's not an insult, I'm pointing out that's how people talk.
But, again, I'd really like to know what's wrong with saying "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true"
As I pointed out, you could say it about the vast majority of statements uttered by human beings. I have no idea what's wrong with it.
Did you really just link me to a video discussing one of the most basic and obvious concepts in philosophy? What does this have to do with anything? I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Imagine how much time would be saved if you just took a second and thought about what I'm asking and what your response is.
How is this statement nonsensical? "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true"
That's not asking you to prove a negative. All that is doing is pointing out that we're talking about something that may be true, even if I can't prove it. Again, this describes almost every discussion people have ever participated in. When I said it, I believe it was pointing out that this is a discussion. I'm not trying to PROVE something. I'm making claims, and you're supposed to argue against those claims if you don't agree with them.
Comments
Most MMO devs view an MMO as a service, not a product.
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
Reality cuts both ways. We don't make our living off mmorpgs.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Those are called drugs.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Their masters don't it seems. Judging from the business approach, we cannot either.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
The good news is that i can treat them whatever way i want .. and they are entertainment products to me.
I know.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
It is certainly true that neither old school nor sandbox has had a big budget modern title to test if they are viable today. If one were released and it failed (bearing in mind how we don't even all agree on what that means) I would not take that as deciding the issue. It could be evidence of problems with game as much as the gaming template. We have had a lot of modern themeparks fail and many on here still think that genre is doing fabulously.
I could not see a full set of old school rules working, it would have to be a rebalancing rather than a reversion of gameplay. The fuss EQNext posters are putting up about restricting classes to certain races shows you how ingrained the 'anything goes' easyMMO mentality has become in players.
But equally such a MMO would not be for everyone, that being that sort of design that got us here in the first place.
How do you know if those themeparks failed because specifically because they were themeparks or simply because they weren't all that great anyway?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
GW2? Fastest selling MMO (they claim) in history.
ESO will be a test too.
Any MMO company that doesn't make a living off the MMOs it produces is a failed company.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
They're bad games. They are mechanically bad, no polish, bug ridden and in someways not really as sandbox as they should be. I consider UO and SWG to a degree well made games. I played UO beta, UO final, UO private servers back to classic. So no I have played a good sandbox MMO.
But to you if I find a bad its automatically I'm searching for the holy grail of impossible expectations. And of course your opinion that Darkfall and Mortal Online are as good as it gets is right?
I am very realistic to the point of being a cynic towards MMORPGs. But I would play a modernized and polished UO/SWG type game quickly.
Again that's an assumption and not really true. The market is way larger now and older games have not had modern polish. Essentially you're comparing a smaller market and games that are like 4 or 5 iterations down the line to first generation games.
The market is larger, but the history is still there. By late 2003 the MMORPG market had stopped growing. The only thing that was bringing new players in was steps towards styles of play that would be considered Not Old School. UO added a continent that allowed for primarily PvE play and Feluca emptied out. EQ released EQ2, the first of the "new school" games and SOE had more people paying them money. The writing, as they say, was on the wall. WoW just confirmed what was already becoming obvious with the largest pile of money gaming had ever seen. So, keep telling yourself that "old school" games never had a chance, that there's no evidence that they failed or that they could make a come back. Until there is some indication that it could actually happen, or until development costs drop to the point that it's worthwhile, it will not happen.
Ok, we've gotten into circular argument going on here. You're comparing older games directly to newer games and not older style games to newer styled games. There are no modern older styled games at all except WoW clones. There is no direct comparison until one is made. But no other western subscription game outside WoW has maintained a substationally higher player base than older games. Not talking about release peaks.
I mean, UO's spiritual successor SWG also sold more. Each new GTA has sold more than the last. I am sure a "brand new" 1995 Honda Accord is not going to sell as well as 2013 version even if it was more mechanically sound.
I'm comparing the old games to the old games. EQ outperformed UO, EQ2, SWG and DAoC. As each new "old school" game released with newer graphics and newer "old school" mechanics, fewer and fewer people played the games. It wasn't until 2006 that EQ2 had more players than EQ. "Old school" games were not growing the market and they were not showing greater and greater returns. They were basically just failing very slowly.
What reason would there be for "old school" games to perform better now? We already know that most players don't want mob grinds, open world pvp with full loot or sitting around in the world waiting for bosses to spawn. So what is it? What is the indicator that says, "Players want 'old school' games again"?
I'm not saying that players don't want something new. Players are human, they always want something new. I'm saying that there are indicators that whatever they want to spend their money on, it isn't 'old school' games.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This is your discussion so I'm not gonna claim to know the the full history (though I have been following it a bit), but it seems to me that you guys should decide on what exactly each person is claiming. I know I personally don't think that "oldschool" games will outperform themeparks or that they'll ever be the "norm" when it comes to the MMO genre. But I do however think they can survive and I also think that the "oldschool" or sandbox market isn't currently being served as much as it should be. I think there are a lot of people who want a certain type of game and nobody has stepped up to really fill that role yet. I think that's because WoW was so incredibly successful and I also think that it's slowly starting to change.
I'm not trying to put words in Vermillion's mouth though.
There were no new old school type games essentially. EQ2 was far more on the WoW spectrum.
And this is where the breakdown always begins. Most people talking about modern old school are not wanting remakes. They want games that have old school principles and options in a modern engine, UI and thinking. A modern game that took a different path then just emulating the same game. A games where the worlds that promote exploration, interdepency that promotes community and socialization. Games focused on being an MMO and not a single player game. Games with sandbox elements that let players have more freedoms and make their own stories. A game where there is more danger and challenges outside elite raids.
I don't think many are promoting a mob grinder with updated graphics.
The problem is not the games, it is the gamers.
Frankly, let's forget about the mechanics of things like corpse runs, PK for profit, and losing levels. Anyone can introduce these elements to a game and it is not going to improve the experience, only make it more frustrating. Why? because in today's gaming environment you are basically ON YOUR OWN.
The days of people actually inviting you into their guild and teaming with you are done. People team with you to complete a single objective, then they break the party before you even have the chance to think them for teaming or ask them if they had any more missions they want to accomplish. They don't even stick with you to report back to the quest giver. I noticed that starting as far back as City of Heroes while it was still costing a subscription. In, out, done. There is no opportunity to bond, to form a team, or a guild. Guilds are just lists of names banded together for the bonuses you can incur.
In the "good old days" that the OP is referring to, many players came from paper 'n dice games and brought their sense of having to have a group to achieve anything from missions to immersions. Now, the gamer base is built from console kiddies who need nothing more than a controller to play.
I find that my best team mates are the ones that the game presents to me in the form of NPC companions. At least they stay in character and don't bolt as soon as the mission is complete. The genie has most definitely left the bottle.
"The MMOrpg genre is designed for the patient, curious, adventurous, ambitious gamers. The type of players who like to socialize, explore, and achieve self-set goals. It is factually not designed to be hopped-between and played solo. MMORPG's are the outlet for exploration and adventure not churning through quest after quest, and that is ultimately what these modern MMORPG's are designed for, all in the name of greed and money, not ambition."
I fully agree and IMO. This is what MMORPGs are about. This is how the genre started. This defined the great games that are still great.
I am perpetually baffled by why game developers ever shifted from what was working towards more casual and solo gameplay. I can see bean counters and corporate slime wanting huge numbers of players but it's not like the developers/designers themselves gain all that much of the extra profits from larger number of sales. So why create lame single player games full of ez-mode that have crappy players and communities. Why CONTINUE to do this when such games are considered failures as MMORPGs (they make money but they fail to retain subs, fail to remain sub-based, and never live up to what they should be).
I especially don't see why MMORPG devs keep up this trend given that the competition for online gamer time is much higher now than it was in the early days of MMORPGs. Everything is online now. It would seem that designing a lasting game for a smaller number willing to pay a sub would be a better model than designing for fast food players who have zero loyalty to anything except flitting around randomly.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
Well, you can because I agree. And not every person is wanting the same thing. I was not an EQ person at all. But there are things I can appreciate from it that don't revolve around corpse runs and mob grinding.
Its like if soft drink makers at one point just stopped making all other sodas outside cola variations because Coke and Pepsi were the top sellers. And the only alternatives are made by people with inadequete funds and caused alergies to a lot of people. Then the guys who support cola says "Everyone buys cola and it's supported by stats" of course of mostly of people who have only had cola ever with no alternatives, " And there is nobody who wants other drinks look at those indie makers. That's as good as it gets. Look at the old drinks like that they caused indigestion and gas." That totally ignores that people want the different flavor not so much the outdated issues that new soda no longer has.
I agree with much of your post until the term "sub" comes up. I personally think it is a fallacy to believe that a subscription leads to loyalty in a game. I just don't understand where this thinking comes from.
IMO a subscription simply raises a players expectations. I am paying X dollars per month, this game better be pretty damn good or I will stop playing. So in other words, the money you are paying is meaningless, it is the content or quality of the game that keeps you playing. Add in the the box cost, plus subscription and many people are hesitant to even try the game much less subscribe.
Still don't get the thinking that a sub means a loyal player base. I think it is only in the minds of the so called "hardcores" that this is true.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Having games that are worlds, and that promote community and socialization would be good. People would probably enjoy that. Giving players choices and a feeling of freedom in those worlds would be great. It's the methods that the "old school" games used to get there that's the problem with current gamers. The devil is in the details.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Because:
1) devs want bigger, than smaller audience even if we are not talking about money. If you write a book, do you want 100 people reading it, or a million? Isn't more people enjoying your product better?
2) Because they are not considered failure .. may be only some die-hard hard core old timers . but obviously dev don' t need to care about them. You really think most in the industry would consider GW2 a failure when it is "the fastest selling MMO"? Your opinion (of that it fails) matter little to them, and you can easily find someone who think it is great.
3) Don't sound like your preference is the only "right" one. It is a free world. Devs can (and should) cater to whoever they want.
This scenario would be comparable to the MMORPG market is the other soft drinks' market share started to shrink before Coke & Pepsi were released. It would also be comparable if other soft drink manufacturers tried to deliver those other drinks on a small scale, and people just weren't interested in their products.
Other people in this thread have listed out the games that have been attempted in recent history to appeal to the "old school" gamers. None of those games really took off, even when the development quality was good. There just aren't that many MMORPG players interested in those games. Certainly not enough to make someone think that a AAA version of an "old school" game would be a worthwhile endeavor.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
WoW was a hit profuct. An anomaly in MMORPG circles, but not too uncommon in business. Companies do the exact same thing in any market regarding hit products. It is not unnatural.
Remember Tamagochis? A hit product copied by many. Leatherman? Sony Walkman?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
What games are these I am curious.
2. This is the first time you've responded to the connection between casual friendly and watered down. Casual friendliness doesn't just mean you can log in and do something in a short amount of time. That's one thing that casual people look for, I'm sure. But casual friendly games are in general not going to be as deep. Casual friendliness is kind of the antithesis of depth in a game. Depth means there's a lot to explore and a lot to consider and think about. Casual gameplay means you can kind of coast without having to take it too seriously. I'm not sure how you can claim that there's no connection between casual gameplay and watered down gameplay. Casual players pretty much by definition are going to care less about their game than a hardcore gamer.
I never said that taking proven methods or ideas from other companies is unnatural. I'm saying WoW's success was unnaturally, or abnormally, or unusually, substantial and so it lead to the market unnaturally favoring themeparks. The market has been in an unnatural state because of WoW's unusual success. I doubt 5 years from now the market will have as much of an focus on WoW-clones as it does now. If that ends up being the case (and I think it 's already happening), then that means we were right.
Did you really just link me to a video discussing one of the most basic and obvious concepts in philosophy? What does this have to do with anything? I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Imagine how much time would be saved if you just took a second and thought about what I'm asking and what your response is.
How is this statement nonsensical? "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true"
That's not asking you to prove a negative. All that is doing is pointing out that we're talking about something that may be true, even if I can't prove it. Again, this describes almost every discussion people have ever participated in. When I said it, I believe it was pointing out that this is a discussion. I'm not trying to PROVE something. I'm making claims, and you're supposed to argue against those claims if you don't agree with them.