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!

What MMOs are missing to stay compelling for years of play

2

Comments

  • ivanj99ivanj99 Kal, ALPosts: 19Member

    Community,

    some games implement this in a great, great way, for me Asheron's Call.

    some games you play for the community even without a great system, for me WoW.

     

     

    Ps, the only community aspect of WoW that really draws me in is the fact that many of my relatives play it, and it's fairly simple to teach time constrained newbie, unlike AC/EVE/DAOC/SWG, ect.

  • BurntvetBurntvet Baltimore, MDPosts: 2,951Member Uncommon

    In a word: Everything.

    Or at least everything the original games brought to the table and new games don't or can't.

     

  • CaldicotCaldicot StockholmPosts: 432Member Uncommon
    So you are basically describing EVE online and I completely agree with you. It's simply the best mmo out there and will be for a very long time.

    If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. - Carl Sagan

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

     

    So, here are some things that I would like in a hypothetical MMO that would remain my "go-to videogame" for 3 or 4 years:

    3-4 years? Thanks but no thanks.

     

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member

    I think one of the things missing are enough players that want to play the same game for three or four years. Unless the game was somehow geared to provide new game play experiences every six months or so, players are eventually going to move on because their expectation is that they get something new, beyond additional content, every so often.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

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

    I think one of the things missing are enough players that want to play the same game for three or four years. Unless the game was somehow geared to provide new game play experiences every six months or so, players are eventually going to move on because their expectation is that they get something new, beyond additional content, every so often.

    Even if the game is providing new content, much of the mechanics, and art will stay the same. Even WOW, which blizz spent an arm and a leg to update, gets old eventually.

    I am more for playing a game, finish it, move onto to the next one.

  • rutaqrutaq somerville, MAPosts: 428Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Decent communities.  That's what it would take for me.  Otherwise, I just consume the content and move on.  I want nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of people who play these games today.

     

    Sadly, I have to agree.  

     

    I have always been a die hard MMO player for almost 20 years and still hold out hope that a niche MMO will come along to support the type of grouping, player interdependence and community  that the genre started with.

     

  • Mr.KujoMr.Kujo SwinoujsciePosts: 383Member
    Originally posted by iridescence

     

    A lot of newer MMOs seem to be designed to be short term experiences.

     

    I understand you are suggesting that older MMO's were designed to be long term experience. Is that so? I never played a single MMO longer than 4 months, be it UO, WoW or any other of the "champions of the forums". I got bored and had to move on every few months and never came back, NOW....

    What if I told you, that for majority of players MMO's were always a short term experience, and the 100k of people currently playing UO are not the same 100k people that were playing 5 years ago. Maybe you belong to a small group that got addicted to one or two games, and kept playing it for many years, but that had nothing to do with game's life span, and that group of people is smaller than you think.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by rutaq
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Decent communities.  That's what it would take for me.  Otherwise, I just consume the content and move on.  I want nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of people who play these games today.

     

    Sadly, I have to agree.  

     

    I have always been a die hard MMO player for almost 20 years and still hold out hope that a niche MMO will come along to support the type of grouping, player interdependence and community  that the genre started with.

     

    To start with does not mean to end with. Every genre evolves and progress.

    Personally i don't want to depend on others for my fun, and i don't care about in-game community.

  • rutaqrutaq somerville, MAPosts: 428Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by rutaq
    ...

    I have always been a die hard MMO player for almost 20 years and still hold out hope that a niche MMO will come along to support the type of grouping, player interdependence and community  that the genre started with.

     

    To start with does not mean to end with. Every genre evolves and progress.

    Personally i don't want to depend on others for my fun, and i don't care about in-game community.

     

          Then it sounds like you are a prefect customer for the newest evolution of "Mass marketed", "streamlined", "casual focused","risk averse","instant gratification"," Everyone wins"  MMOs, we have seen released over the last 5 years.

     

    Evolution means change and who knows where things will go, but as tech becomes easier and cheaper I bet you will see the indie market explode to fill the niches in the genre.  Games can be designed for some players but not others, focus on core elements and don't worry about making something that fits everyone's play style.

      

     

  • iixviiiixiixviiiix GSPosts: 836Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by rutaq
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Decent communities.  That's what it would take for me.  Otherwise, I just consume the content and move on.  I want nothing to do with the overwhelming majority of people who play these games today.

     

    Sadly, I have to agree.  

     

    I have always been a die hard MMO player for almost 20 years and still hold out hope that a niche MMO will come along to support the type of grouping, player interdependence and community  that the genre started with.

     

    To start with does not mean to end with. Every genre evolves and progress.

    Personally i don't want to depend on others for my fun, and i don't care about in-game community.

    I know you have your own point of view and short term gaming jump habit

    but what do those words (that you always copy and paste in all topic about long term MMO) have any work in topic about what long term MMO need to life longer ?

    If you think good community don't make a MMO worth to play for long term then show your point why it not.

     

    Oh wait , don't tell that reason why community don't need for long term MMOs because you don't need it and everyone think the same as you ?

     

    I agree with Rutag that good community keep game worth to player longer because most of long life MMOs all have good community player base back up for them.

    So what's your point when you tell that community are no need for LONG TERM MMOs (we discuss about long term MMOs in this topic , not short term one)

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    Originally posted by dave6660
    Does it really matter at this point?  They're not going back to that.  The mmorpg genre makes more money by catering to people with the attention span of a goldfish.
    I'm surprised it is that long :)

    - 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 iixviiiix

    So what's your point when you tell that community are no need for LONG TERM MMOs (we discuss about long term MMOs in this topic , not short term one)

    nah .. you miss my point. My point is not that community is no need for long term MMOs. My point is that I do not need long term MMO at all. In fact, i prefer short term games.

    And my point of why i don't need a community?

    - so i don't have to depend on others for my fun

    - dealing with others takes too much time, and adds little to my fun

     

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

     


    Originally posted by dave6660
    Does it really matter at this point?  They're not going back to that.  The mmorpg genre makes more money by catering to people with the attention span of a goldfish.

    I'm surprised it is that long :)

     

    Don't sound as if people with longer attention span for nothing but entertainment is superior.

    It is just a preference.

     

  • MendelMendel Marietta, GAPosts: 931Member Uncommon

    I've thought about this particular question and the answer that keeps coming up is:  Nothing.

    In and of themselves, MMORPG games aren't really missing anything that should keep flocks of players entertained for years.  There's not really any appreciable differences from the newest MMORPG to the oldest, most venerable MMORPG.  All the games have basically the same basic features, intriguing mechanics, similar types of captivating lore and piles of beautiful graphics at every corner (some of the earliest are showing some age now).  Everything is there in the marketplace for a game to capture an audience and keep it entertained for a decade.  So, why hasn't it?

    I'm beginning to think that the problem is actually the number of choices that gamers have today.  In 2000, there were essentially four choices for your MMORPG fix -- Meridian, UO, AC and EQ1.   Today, there are individual game providers with more offering than that (look at PWE, for instance).  New games are appearing every few months making the field more even more muddled.  Even the industry giant WoW is beginning to see a decline in the player base.  What is happening?

    Gamers want more.  More PvP, more lore, more graphics, more RP, more whatever.  We see each new title as a chance that maybe this new game has what each individual is looking for.  Long time customers are jumping ship to inspect the new guy, maybe the grass really is greener in this new game.  New games get a burst of activity, then when the players decide this incarnation doesn't have anything that they really want, the game becomes a desolate wasteland populated by those few that actually found this game to be what they really want.  The rest migrate to the Next Great Thing, hoping they will find their gaming nirvana.

    Because of the glut of games competing for a relatively static player population, we don't see a new World of Warcraft coming into the market with its built-in, mass-market appeal and dominating the industry.  Even IPs with existing worldwide appeal, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc., haven't had the mass of players following the IP from one genre (RTS with Blizzard's Warcraft series) and converted them into MMORPG players.

    So, the games seem to be doing everything right.  There's no gigantic game market for a Tolkien FPS or Star Wars RTS  or other IP, ready to pull a hoard of new people into the MMORPG genre and captivate them for a decade like WoW has done.  And the developers and publishers keep putting new material in front of us.   We players are gluttons, and we want what we want.  So we look, and that encourages the developers, and we look again.

    It's a vicious cycle, and we're in it.

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • aesperusaesperus Hamshire, NVPosts: 5,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mendel

    I've thought about this particular question and the answer that keeps coming up is:  Nothing.

    In and of themselves, MMORPG games aren't really missing anything that should keep flocks of players entertained for years.  There's not really any appreciable differences from the newest MMORPG to the oldest, most venerable MMORPG.  All the games have basically the same basic features, intriguing mechanics, similar types of captivating lore and piles of beautiful graphics at every corner (some of the earliest are showing some age now).  Everything is there in the marketplace for a game to capture an audience and keep it entertained for a decade.  So, why hasn't it?

    I'm beginning to think that the problem is actually the number of choices that gamers have today.  In 2000, there were essentially four choices for your MMORPG fix -- Meridian, UO, AC and EQ1.   Today, there are individual game providers with more offering than that (look at PWE, for instance).  New games are appearing every few months making the field more even more muddled.  Even the industry giant WoW is beginning to see a decline in the player base.  What is happening?

    Gamers want more.  More PvP, more lore, more graphics, more RP, more whatever.  We see each new title as a chance that maybe this new game has what each individual is looking for.  Long time customers are jumping ship to inspect the new guy, maybe the grass really is greener in this new game.  New games get a burst of activity, then when the players decide this incarnation doesn't have anything that they really want, the game becomes a desolate wasteland populated by those few that actually found this game to be what they really want.  The rest migrate to the Next Great Thing, hoping they will find their gaming nirvana.

    Because of the glut of games competing for a relatively static player population, we don't see a new World of Warcraft coming into the market with its built-in, mass-market appeal and dominating the industry.  Even IPs with existing worldwide appeal, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc., haven't had the mass of players following the IP from one genre (RTS with Blizzard's Warcraft series) and converted them into MMORPG players.

    So, the games seem to be doing everything right.  There's no gigantic game market for a Tolkien FPS or Star Wars RTS  or other IP, ready to pull a hoard of new people into the MMORPG genre and captivate them for a decade like WoW has done.  And the developers and publishers keep putting new material in front of us.   We players are gluttons, and we want what we want.  So we look, and that encourages the developers, and we look again.

    It's a vicious cycle, and we're in it.

    Very well said, but I'd edit it by saying "the players decide this incarnation doesn't have everything that they really want". And that's a big problem. So many gamers expect every game to have everything cater specifically to them. Obviously, that just isn't possible, but our demands don't entertain that reality. So, developers are making lots of games, hoping to cater to different crowds as best as they can, in a way that will attract more than 8 people who all like the exact same thing.

    You've also accurately illustrated a reality I see more than 90% of MMO gamers ignore / overlook when it comes to this genre & WoW. WoW's success is primarily attributed to it's timing & ability to take what was previously an outside market (non-MMO gamers) and introduce them to this new form of gaming (MMOs). No other game has been able to do that, because there isn't really a giant outside market to attract anymore. The MMO genre is huge now, and everyone knows what types of games these are.

    Many of the excuses people point to, from game mechanics, to story, to PvP, to hardcore vs. casual, to graphics; These all already exist in various incarnations across multiple games. However, none of these games have the appeal WoW has. And they never will. Furthermore, as much as it sucks, gamers have shown that they aren't willing to stick w/ new MMOs anymore. At least not nearly in the same capacity as those earlier games.

    People have grown to expect the universe from these games, and very few people are willing to stick games out long enough to let them grow. The expect a fully developed community, bundled with a game built on decades of content & lore, to be instantly available. AND that's not even enough. GW2's a good example of a game that's spitting out content at a sprinter's pace, and yet it's still not fast enough for people. No other company has come close to pumping out content as fast, and yet it's still not 'enough.

    Like you stated, it's a vicious cycle, and we're in it. It's not sustainable, and the sooner the majority of gamers come to realize this, the sooner we can start enjoying games that ARE sustainable and can be enjoyed for years.

  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member
    Originally posted by iridescence

    -There needs to be some form of actual struggle between players. I'm not talking about FFA noob-ganking open world PVP but I don't think PVP should be instanced and segmented off from the rest of the game either. Encourage large scale wars and alliances between players and give new players a large safe zone to PVE in until they are ready to join in the alliance system.

    I'm on the complete opposite side of the fence on this one.  Being drawn into conflict between players is the fastest way to drive me way from a game.

  • Ender4Ender4 milwaukee, WIPosts: 2,253Member

    PvP should probably be a choice at server select and it should be a choice not made easily. Get rid of the silly battlegrounds and instanced junk and have real PvP and for those that don't want it they just don't have it on their servers. Build the game with PvP in mind and then take it away on servers that don't want it.

    As for what is missing, variety is missing. We quite literally have 20 WoW clones on the market and then a few lower quality fringe games.

    WoW with wings. WoW in space. WoW with Rifts. WoW with heart quests. WoW with BAMs. WoW with a Tolkien setting. WoW with a D&D setting, etc. These games are all WoW clones at the core. Star Citizen, EQ Next etc are breaking this mold and that is what is really needed.

    The other big issue is that devs have given into the sense of entitlement that the players have. You no longer can ever really earn anything because they make everything obtainable by every player and they have bent over backwards to make it easier to get. Getting your epic in EQ was a big deal, new games just don't have things like that anymore. If I can't get something in a bad group with 5 hours of play then something is broken according to the player base.

  • DalanonDalanon Warren, OHPosts: 124Member
    I dont understand why there isnt more server diversity. Why not have full pvp, easy leveling content, hard/group leveling content, rp, permadeath? I know u cant please everyone but most players fall into a handfull of catagories, why not make more than one or two server types? And then if you really want to make it nice have it so characters can transfer back and forth across those servers. It would solve a lot of problems.

    Not all who wander are lost...

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORPosts: 5,565Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Dalanon
    I dont understand why there isnt more server diversity. Why not have full pvp, easy leveling content, hard/group leveling content, rp, permadeath? I know u cant please everyone but most players fall into a handfull of catagories, why not make more than one or two server types? And then if you really want to make it nice have it so characters can transfer back and forth across those servers. It would solve a lot of problems.
    You have to make your mmo one dimensional in order for that to work. You cant have interdependent game systems if one or more rulesets are vastly different on a server. For example, if your game economy relies heavily on slow leveling for crafters to make useful gear, then if you make a fast leveling server, it kills the crafting which kills the economy.

    Or if you make an open pvp server in an mmo that has mixed level node farming, then you stunt that gameplay experience. You would have to change other core aspects of your game in order to accomodate one preference. In essence, you are making multiple games. Or you can just make your game 100% combat/gear treadmill and you can afterthought the rest of the systems so that different types of servers can exist.

  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Chicago, ILPosts: 2,238Member Uncommon
    The character generator in CoH was the single, greatest thing it did to enhance its replayability.  Millions of costume combinations, combined with the ability to seamlessly generate a functional persona from beginning to end turned an otherwise average, linear experience into something that could be played over and over again.

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Ender4

    PvP should probably be a choice at server select and it should be a choice not made easily. Get rid of the silly battlegrounds and instanced junk and have real PvP and for those that don't want it they just don't have it on their servers. Build the game with PvP in mind and then take it away on servers that don't want it.

    What about those who want e-sports? LoL and WoT shows that there is a large market for that. And, some may want to do e-sport with characters they already have, instead of playing a different game.

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,284Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by iridescence
    Originally posted by bcbully
    This is Wushu minus the gold spam :p

     

    Didn't really see much point to the PvP system in Wushu in my short time playing it. Are there ever benefits and penalties to PvP in that game? When I got killed by a player I just respawned while losing nothing or very little. Doesn't really seem to lend itself to massive meaningful  alliance vs. alliance battles.  The skill and crafting system in Wushu are good though. Far from perfect, but they have potential.

     

     

    This is where Wushu shines most in today's market. I'll name a few,

     

    - there is a player driven bounty (criminal)/bounty hunter (constable) system. A bountied player can sent to prison for up to 5 hours. The bounty hunter will be paid the amount of the bounty. 

     

    -Players gain infamy for murder. Murder is what some would consider ganking. When infamy reaches a certain point anyone can kill you and send you to jail until the infamy wares off, which can be hours more than 5 I believe. If infamy reach an even higher point, when captured that person will be beheaded. Not perma death, but a nasty -20% dmg. for 24 hours. 

     

    -You make money from pvp. Cart robbing, script stealing, all the way to guild wars in a more indirect way. 

     

    -Rankings and titles. Wushu has a top 100 for everything. I mean everything, from fishing to kidnapping (kidnapping being another way of making money) .

     

    -Minor equipment damage and silver loss on death. Cost silver to res on site. Can only be done some many times per day.

     

    -Alignment system - I think there are 5 alignments. Ranging from  a guy who does no wrong, to the guy that does no good. These alignments in sometimes mysterious effect the npcs around you, put you in competition against other alignments for the Mount Hua competition.

     

    I tried to make it short... Honest image But yeah, the skill system is pretty damn awesome 11 months in, and there is still more to do. Big battles? Guild wars, school wars, and script stealing, mmo pvp doesn't get much larger or meaningful. But yeah the gold spam is pretty damn bad image

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Austin, TXPosts: 1,419Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Foomerang

     


    Originally posted by Dalanon
    I dont understand why there isnt more server diversity. Why not have full pvp, easy leveling content, hard/group leveling content, rp, permadeath? I know u cant please everyone but most players fall into a handfull of catagories, why not make more than one or two server types? And then if you really want to make it nice have it so characters can transfer back and forth across those servers. It would solve a lot of problems.

    You have to make your mmo one dimensional in order for that to work. You cant have interdependent game systems if one or more rulesets are vastly different on a server. For example, if your game economy relies heavily on slow leveling for crafters to make useful gear, then if you make a fast leveling server, it kills the crafting which kills the economy.

     

    Or if you make an open pvp server in an mmo that has mixed level node farming, then you stunt that gameplay experience. You would have to change other core aspects of your game in order to accomodate one preference. In essence, you are making multiple games. Or you can just make your game 100% combat/gear treadmill and you can afterthought the rest of the systems so that different types of servers can exist.

    Not to mention version control could be a nightmare.   Patch wrong, and the results could be disastrous, if occaisonally comical.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

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

    Not to mention version control could be a nightmare.   Patch wrong, and the results could be disastrous, if occaisonally comical.

    That is why most MMOs may have two versions, but no more. Managing the code-base is just too much work, and chance of failure.

2
Sign In or Register to comment.