Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

Do We Need An "MMO By Commitee"?

13

Comments

  • NaughtyPNaughtyP Edmonton, ABPosts: 793Member

    I have a million times more respect for a company that makes the game they want to make than the company that wants to pander to "everyone".

    I have no interest in a hardcore spaceship MMO like EVE. None at all. But I respect what CCP has done probably more than any other MMO developer out there. They made the game they wanted, they grew it and as far as I know people that play it really enjoy it for what it is.

    If more companies made games that do a few things very well instead of doing many things half-assed, the MMORPG genre would (at the very least) be far more interesting than it is right now.

    Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.

  • usuckmmorpgcomusuckmmorpgcom c, KYPosts: 1,348Member
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by Amaranthar
    Originally posted by grimgryphon

    I'm quite the opposite. I think game developers should stop listening to the community and build the damn game they originally envisioned. Some people will like it and some won't. You can't make everyone happy.

    The trouble comes when they start listening to the "community", which only wants a game custom-made to their personal tastes.  Problem is, everyone's tastes are different. You try to be all things to everyone and you wind up appealing to no one.

     

    I agree with that. In games, you need a consistent vision. Everything affects the game as a whole, and it all has to come together. And players very often want things that hurt the overall vision.

    Developers should focus on what they are doing, on their vision, and make it the best they can according to that. While not all players are going to like any game, you stand a better chance of success with your game if you "make some people happy all of the time".

    This is exactly what I was trying to get at with my post about the use of focus groups. We all know how dodgy listening to official forums can be for a game. By using focus groups you bring in that blinkered rule of the majority when the game is still in the design stage.

    Not even then. The minute you ask consumers what they want in a product it suddenly becomes an expectation. If you don't have the talent or technology to support building it and you release without it, they will turn on you because in their minds, you broke a promise whether you made a promise or not.

    Consumers don't know what they want until you give it to them. IMO, it's better for dev teams to look at the technology they do have and are capable of successfully using and then work at creating something new and interesting without all the noise.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by NaughtyP

    I have a million times more respect for a company that makes the game they want to make than the company that wants to pander to "everyone".

    I have no interest in a hardcore spaceship MMO like EVE. None at all. But I respect what CCP has done probably more than any other MMO developer out there. They made the game they wanted, they grew it and as far as I know people that play it really enjoy it for what it is.

    If more companies made games that do a few things very well instead of doing many things half-assed, the MMORPG genre would (at the very least) be far more interesting than it is right now.

    If you played Eve you'd know how much irony is in that statement. image

    No. All companies have made that same mistake, I'm afraid. Only, some more than others.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • TyranusPrimeTyranusPrime Sea of JapanPosts: 101Member Uncommon

     Speaking only for myself, as a would-be developer and consistent poll-poster here, I'd have to say no.. Developers have to listen to their potential player-base of course, but essentially have to have their own vision for their game.. The old adage, "too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth", is applicable here..

     Even going by all the polls I have posted, I always keep in mind that MMORPG.com is a minute cross-section of the gaming populace.. Too many variables to accurately give correct data.. Trying to build a game of off the most vocal posters here would be a disaster.. Not that the opinions are wrong whatsoever.. Every single one contains great information.. But for every player who wants one thing, there is another who hates that thing..

    You have your fear, which might become reality; and you have Godzilla, which IS reality. - Ogata

  • GuyClinchGuyClinch Sunnyvale, CAPosts: 485Member

    Echoing what others have said..

    Popular sentiment is not a useful way to design games. One thing you have to understand is that the human mind has individual parts which actually disagree. Your coherent psyche is an illusion. You should think of yourself like a small corporation. Your CEO is the head of corporation - and what you feel is 'you.' But the rest of your mind has various workers..

    One of them is Bob in accounting. He doesn't really like ANY MMO - and when you play he feels its a 'waste of time' and is ALWAYS looking for the fastest and easiest way to win. Thus he always wants things like porting to dungeons, group finders, easy to get loot, etc.

    But another part of your brain is like Jace in marketing. This guy drives a muscle car - he loves to party - he loves adrenalin sports. He doesn't look for the fastest easiest stuff and in fact he loves a good horror movie. But he is the guy that keeps you playing MMOs..

    In short what you FEEL you want isn't really going to make you keep playing. Much like dating people don't actually know what they really want. They know what part of the brain wants..some of the time.

    People ask for tons of 'quality of life' improvements but if they actually get them they tend to quit the game. Being a game designer is like being a magician - you throw all this PITA time wasting stuff in your game and if you do it right its seen as fun. If you do it wrong it seen as a 'grind' or "too hard."

    Blizzard is a great case study in the folly that comes from listening to the crowds on the matter of design.. They were dominating the industry until they changed courses and started worrying about stuff like OMG not everyone sees Sunwell "that's not fair." Booh hoo..

     

     

     

     

  • KilrainKilrain Prineville, ORPosts: 684Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

    Seeing some recent posts about certain MMOs and sometimes the general attitude of some players, it seems that an MMO should be made by the players, instead of developers with an idea and a direction.

    Are some players expecting too much from a developer? Should developers listen to the players and their hundreds of polls?

    To make it more fair, the polls should be simple 2 choice (either "A" or "B") questions, so a majority is reached without a huge division of the voters. A question like "What kind of PvP do you like best?" would be all over the place to reach a good majority vote. It would have to be asked in multiple steps to get an accurate count, I think.

    How do you think an MMO like this would fair? Would an MMO by the popular numbers interest you?

    What are your thoughts?

    In my opinion the single best way to make an MMORPG is to have an individual or group of like minded individuals who come up with a set idea of what THEY want and without taking game changing ideas from outside sources. The MMO's that are created this way are typically niche and provide a higher % of what the players that like it, want. The games that attempt to create an all purpose MMO fail, or don't succeed the way they want and are always screwing things up for player x when trying to appease player y.

    Bottom line: when making a game, make the game that YOU want. Don't try to make the game that everyone wants.

    professional web programming and design.

  • KilrainKilrain Prineville, ORPosts: 684Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    If you played Eve you'd know how much irony is in that statement. image

    No. All companies have made that same mistake, I'm afraid. Only, some more than others.

    This is a perfect example of my post above. CCP created EVE in their vision and it was awesome. Then in recent times they've tried catering to what the crowd thought they wanted and it started going to crap. They've recently reversed their thinking and have been getting on track again but again, the bottom line is build what YOU want.

    professional web programming and design.

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

    Blizzard is a great case study in the folly that comes from listening to the crowds on the matter of design.. They were dominating the industry until they changed courses and started worrying about stuff like OMG not everyone sees Sunwell "that's not fair." Booh hoo..

     

     

    Folly? WOW grew tremendously after Sunwell. It did not decline until CATA. In fact, if it does not make dungeons & raiding more assessible, wow would not have grown to 12M.

     

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,469Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by GuyClinch

    Blizzard is a great case study in the folly that comes from listening to the crowds on the matter of design.. They were dominating the industry until they changed courses and started worrying about stuff like OMG not everyone sees Sunwell "that's not fair." Booh hoo..

     

     

    Folly? WOW grew tremendously after Sunwell. It did not decline until CATA. In fact, if it does not make dungeons & raiding more assessible, wow would not have grown to 12M.

     

    Is that the direct cause and effect?  Making raiding more assessible?  Could there not be any other factors?

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by waynejr2
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by GuyClinch

    Blizzard is a great case study in the folly that comes from listening to the crowds on the matter of design.. They were dominating the industry until they changed courses and started worrying about stuff like OMG not everyone sees Sunwell "that's not fair." Booh hoo..

     

     

    Folly? WOW grew tremendously after Sunwell. It did not decline until CATA. In fact, if it does not make dungeons & raiding more assessible, wow would not have grown to 12M.

     

    Is that the direct cause and effect?  Making raiding more assessible?  Could there not be any other factors?

    There are probably other factors like LFD and taking out world pvp.

    But think of it this way ... blizz has full knowledge of what players did inside wow, and know what is popular. They are not making dungeons & raiding doable for the masses for no reason.

    In fact, i doubt any devs want to waste expensive content on just 2% of the players.

     

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,754Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by waynejr2
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by GuyClinch

    Blizzard is a great case study in the folly that comes from listening to the crowds on the matter of design.. They were dominating the industry until they changed courses and started worrying about stuff like OMG not everyone sees Sunwell "that's not fair." Booh hoo..

    Folly? WOW grew tremendously after Sunwell. It did not decline until CATA. In fact, if it does not make dungeons & raiding more assessible, wow would not have grown to 12M.

    Is that the direct cause and effect?  Making raiding more assessible?  Could there not be any other factors?

    There are probably other factors like LFD and taking out world pvp.

    But think of it this way ... blizz has full knowledge of what players did inside wow, and know what is popular. They are not making dungeons & raiding doable for the masses for no reason.

    In fact, i doubt any devs want to waste expensive content on just 2% of the players.

     

    Blizzard is a great case study, but it is only one game. The fact it spawned so many clones is often mistakenly used to think it can speak for the whole genre. In many was it was a special case.

    WoW went easy MMOde in its later years, and reaped the benefits and issues in doing so. If all content is open to everyone, where is the sense of achievement? Or do they just ding you a new achievement as you walk through the entrance hall these days? While I am a fan of variable difficulty in dungeons, there should be content only you get to see because your team worked hard enough to see it. If the last dungeon only gets seen by 2% of the players that gives the player base something to work towards. That beats handing out "been there done that t-shirts" as you cakewalk the dungeon.

     

  • GuyClinchGuyClinch Sunnyvale, CAPosts: 485Member

     

     

    "Blizzard is a great case study, but it is only one game. The fact it spawned so many clones is often mistakenly used to think it can speak for the whole genre. In many was it was a special case.

    WoW went easy MMOde in its later years, and reaped the benefits and issues in doing so. If all content is open to everyone, where is the sense of achievement? Or do they just ding you a new achievement as you walk through the entrance hall these days? While I am a fan of variable difficulty in dungeons, there should be content only you get to see because your team worked hard enough to see it. If the last dungeon only gets seen by 2% of the players that gives the player base something to work towards. That beats handing out "been there done that t-shirts" as you cakewalk the dungeon."

     

    Good point. Okay here is the interesting thing about World of Warcraft..at least my view. Both Vanilla and BC for the most part was the completion of a vision. The developers essentially played EQ and some other mmos and then constructed the MMO they wanted to play with Warcraft lore.

    Later in its development they started to get concerned with metrics and elitiism and accessibility and fairness - and you ended up with the Warcraft you see today.  World of Warcraft lost that vision and started to rely on 'focus groups.' But the problem with focus groups is that it assumes that people have a good handle on why they love or hate a game. i just don't believe this is the case.

    This is the problem with the 'perfect actor' theory I see posted about WoW. Oh if Blizzard is doing it - it must be for good reason. You can't assume the information Blizzard gets is accurate. People might not understand that the feeling of accomplishment they get from the game is dependent on the difficulty or its dependent on accomplishing it with acquaintences. They might vote for easier loot - and then paradoxically (from Blizzards point of view) quit.

    What I saw out of Blizzard is the developers running around saying - I gave you just what you said you wanted and you quit! Whether it was responding ot the 'hardcores' with the single lockouts or the casuals with LFR - this kind of reactionary game design seems to be a failure.

    Make the game that YOU (being the developer)  would want to play and you seem to end up with a very good game for the most part. LIstening to players is useful to discover if something in your vision is going wrong.. But I don't think design by committee is a useful idea at all. Blizzard tried that from about the middle of WOTLK onward and its been a failure..

     

    SIdenote: For the love of god - content is NOT WASTED if people do not see it. The goal is to get people to subscribe. If sunwell style progression results in 2% seeing the content and growth every quarter - then that's a great design.

    IF everyone sees the content but decides its crap and unsubscribes you didn't 'save' any money. You blew it. I don't know why people buy into the blizzard developer spin so entirely. Its a fact that most people don't finish most games. Likewise most people don't finish the game on the other difficulty levels.  No one cares - as long as they get their money..

     

  • TheHavokTheHavok San Jose, CAPosts: 2,398Member Uncommon
    The interwebz is a vast, open place. This website only amounts to a small percentage of MMO players. Bad idea.
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    Originally posted by NaughtyP
    I have a million times more respect for a company that makes the game they want to make than the company that wants to pander to "everyone".I have no interest in a hardcore spaceship MMO like EVE. None at all. But I respect what CCP has done probably more than any other MMO developer out there. They made the game they wanted, they grew it and as far as I know people that play it really enjoy it for what it is.If more companies made games that do a few things very well instead of doing many things half-assed, the MMORPG genre would (at the very least) be far more interesting than it is right now.
    I do, too. It is quite alright to "listen" to the players. It is another to think that a few loud ones talk for "the majority", especially when "the majority" do not even visit message boards. If the suggestions fit with the devs vision, by all means seriously consider them.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

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

    WoW went easy MMOde in its later years, and reaped the benefits and issues in doing so. If all content is open to everyone, where is the sense of achievement?

     

    Achievement is an illusion in games anyway. You can invoke that simply by giving out stuff, or just flag an "achievement". It works pretty well.

    Sure it does not work on 100% of the players since everyone's psychology is probably a bit different. But if it works on a large enough majority of your players, it is good enough. I think Blizz knows this much better than you do.

    Plus, you can always recast the content as "hard mode" to make a small % of the player base feel "special".

     

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,754Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot

    WoW went easy MMOde in its later years, and reaped the benefits and issues in doing so. If all content is open to everyone, where is the sense of achievement?

     

    Achievement is an illusion in games anyway. You can invoke that simply by giving out stuff, or just flag an "achievement". It works pretty well.

    Sure it does not work on 100% of the players since everyone's psychology is probably a bit different. But if it works on a large enough majority of your players, it is good enough. I think Blizz knows this much better than you do.

    Plus, you can always recast the content as "hard mode" to make a small % of the player base feel "special".

     

    Contrary to what you seem to be saying, I do think what Blizzard is doing works for most players, the games population is all we need to be sure of that. "Giving out stuff" is a debasement of the concept of achievement we used to have. The coinage got devalued along the way but so far the gaming public is lapping it up in WoW. Outside of WOW though there is often problems with lack of end game content, WoW have had years to add layers on, every new MMO launched does not have that luxury.

    That lack of end game content ties into the issues with "achievements" that exists today. If the end game content is too easy, you complete it too quickly and have nothing else to do. Rolling out the dailies is a poor solution to this. It is about making players feel "special" but every game has that as an aim. We are arguing for a design that can last long term, that's why I don't think you quite get this.

  • GuyClinchGuyClinch Sunnyvale, CAPosts: 485Member

     

    Contrary to what you seem to be saying, I do think what Blizzard is doing works for most players, the games population is all we need to be sure of that.

       It's not working. They are hemmoraging subscribers. What kind of business loses nearly 50% of their business and thinks what they are doing is working?  Do you think if Apple's revenue went down 50% people would be like - Bang up job,  Cook! And no tons of no life geeks didn't wake up one morning and go 'Jesus WoW is old."

    I think you can make a good case they are doing alot wrong. And in fact I think Blizzard is slowly figuring it out. Flex is one of the first real positive steps I have seen out of them. Its too little too late now - especially with the lack of investment back into the game engine. But at least they had an inkling.

    Also I remember Ghostcrawler commenting on how players always want "Quality of Life' changes - but they don't really seem to play more after they make them.. So I think some of the crew are learning. But its a lost cause now I think. Not only are the clones out - but they have better graphics and combat. Even if you don't particulary love GW2 - its hard for alot of people to go back to WoW. Its like a retro game in comparison..

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

    That lack of end game content ties into the issues with "achievements" that exists today. If the end game content is too easy, you complete it too quickly and have nothing else to do. Rolling out the dailies is a poor solution to this. It is about making players feel "special" but every game has that as an aim. We are arguing for a design that can last long term, that's why I don't think you quite get this.

    The point is that it is a fool's errand for a real long term design. Everything gets boring and people need fresh content.

    The solution is simple. Don't design for long term. Design for a few month content, with a hiatus in between, and players coming back when there is more.

    It worked for WOW for quite a few years.

     

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,754Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by GuyClinch


     

    Contrary to what you seem to be saying, I do think what Blizzard is doing works for most players, the games population is all we need to be sure of that.

       It's not working. They are hemmoraging subscribers. What kind of business loses nearly 50% of their business and thinks what they are doing is working?  Do you think if Apple's revenue went down 50% people would be like - Bang up job,  Cook! And no tons of no life geeks didn't wake up one morning and go 'Jesus WoW is old."

    I think you can make a good case they are doing alot wrong. And in fact I think Blizzard is slowly figuring it out. Flex is one of the first real positive steps I have seen out of them. Its too little too late now - especially with the lack of investment back into the game engine. But at least they had an inkling.

    Also I remember Ghostcrawler commenting on how players always want "Quality of Life' changes - but they don't really seem to play more after they make them.. So I think some of the crew are learning. But its a lost cause now I think. Not only are the clones out - but they have better graphics and combat. Even if you don't particulary love GW2 - its hard for alot of people to go back to WoW. Its like a retro game in comparison..

     

    I was only talking about the general direction WoW went in after it had been out a few years. I am not up to date on what has gone down over the past five years or so. The snippets I have seen suggest it is going too easymode.

     


     

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by Scot

    That lack of end game content ties into the issues with "achievements" that exists today. If the end game content is too easy, you complete it too quickly and have nothing else to do. Rolling out the dailies is a poor solution to this. It is about making players feel "special" but every game has that as an aim. We are arguing for a design that can last long term, that's why I don't think you quite get this.

    The point is that it is a fool's errand for a real long term design. Everything gets boring and people need fresh content.

    The solution is simple. Don't design for long term. Design for a few month content, with a hiatus in between, and players coming back when there is more.

    It worked for WOW for quite a few years.

     

    It might have worked but it is not the best solution. I think it is Disney(?) that has come up with the idea of having a online "universe" with games from their different IP's all connected to each other. In MMO land the only MMO I know that did something like this was CoH/CoV. You are playing in the same MMO world, but its too big to be called a new content chapter, it was near enough a new MMO.

    This may be a possible solution along with modding to end game content. I am sure that as long as there is genuinely new stuff coming along even the most hungry content locust will be sated.

     

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

    The point is that it is a fool's errand for a real long term design. Everything gets boring and people need fresh content.

    The solution is simple. Don't design for long term. Design for a few month content, with a hiatus in between, and players coming back when there is more.

    It worked for WOW for quite a few years.

     

    It might have worked but it is not the best solution. I think it is Disney(?) that has come up with the idea of having a online "universe" with games from their different IP's all connected to each other. In MMO land the only MMO I know that did something like this was CoH/CoV. You are playing in the same MMO world, but its too big to be called a new content chapter, it was near enough a new MMO.

    This may be a possible solution along with modding to end game content. I am sure that as long as there is genuinely new stuff coming along even the most hungry content locust will be sated.

     

    Not the best solution for whom?

    Personally i would much rather play new games from time to time. There is no point, for me, to play only one game. In fact, i don't.

    Shorter games are not worse games. Case in point, I played D3 for about a year (on hiatus now until the expansion) and WoW for 3+ before i quit. I enjoyed D3 much more than WOW.

     

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,754Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     
     

    Not the best solution for whom?

    Personally i would much rather play new games from time to time. There is no point, for me, to play only one game. In fact, i don't.

    Shorter games are not worse games. Case in point, I played D3 for about a year (on hiatus now until the expansion) and WoW for 3+ before i quit. I enjoyed D3 much more than WOW.

     

    I only ever play one MMO at a time, but that does not mean I only ever play one game at a time. You were getting a different type of "fun" from D3 than WoW. Even though you say D3 was better, WoW lasted for 2 extra years. Do you see yourself playing any game like D3 for three years?

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

    Not the best solution for whom?

    Personally i would much rather play new games from time to time. There is no point, for me, to play only one game. In fact, i don't.

    Shorter games are not worse games. Case in point, I played D3 for about a year (on hiatus now until the expansion) and WoW for 3+ before i quit. I enjoyed D3 much more than WOW.

     

    I only ever play one MMO at a time, but that does not mean I only ever play one game at a time. You were getting a different type of "fun" from D3 than WoW. Even though you say D3 was better, WoW lasted for 2 extra years. Do you see yourself playing any game like D3 for three years?

    No, but longer does not equate better.

    For example, i also have way more fun in DIshonored than WOW .. and Dishonored did not last even one month.

    Heck, the first person drama game "Gone Home" lasted one evening, and it was a better experience than many FPS that last for weeks. Another example of longer does not equate better.

     

  • Ender4Ender4 milwaukee, WIPosts: 2,253Member

    The players don't really understand what they want, so this would be an awful idea. WoW is an example of what happens to a game if you just cave to the players and let them dictate things. It just gets easier and easier and streamlined and boring. Early WoW was about the devs making a game, late WoW has been about giving the players what they ask for and the game is a joke now.

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by Scot

    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Not the best solution for whom?Personally i would much rather play new games from time to time. There is no point, for me, to play only one game. In fact, i don't.Shorter games are not worse games. Case in point, I played D3 for about a year (on hiatus now until the expansion) and WoW for 3+ before i quit. I enjoyed D3 much more than WOW.
    I only ever play one MMO at a time, but that does not mean I only ever play one game at a time. You were getting a different type of "fun" from D3 than WoW. Even though you say D3 was better, WoW lasted for 2 extra years. Do you see yourself playing any game like D3 for three years?
    No, but longer does not equate better.For example, i also have way more fun in DIshonored than WOW .. and Dishonored did not last even one month.Heck, the first person drama game "Gone Home" lasted one evening, and it was a better experience than many FPS that last for weeks. Another example of longer does not equate better.
    I actually agree with nariusseldon, here. (I think I have a fever!) Longer can oft times turn into dragging out, especially with MMOs.

    That being said, if a player is looking for longevity in a game, one where they can settle in and put down roots, then longer does meet their needs.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    Originally posted by Ender4
    The players don't really understand what they want, so this would be an awful idea. WoW is an example of what happens to a game if you just cave to the players and let them dictate things. It just gets easier and easier and streamlined and boring. Early WoW was about the devs making a game, late WoW has been about giving the players what they ask for and the game is a joke now.
    I would agree but for the situation where the game has a basis. Hopefully ONLY players interested in that basis would participate.

    Unfortunately, we all know this would not happen. Players who want the MMO, no matter the premise, to be "their perfect game" would chime in. Loudly.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

Sign In or Register to comment.