It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
The gaming companies shaped that demand as much as adapted to it. Just in the same way as a fashion houses shape demand but also responds to what their customers want.
That comparison doesn't make any sense.
Fashion houses actually change the "trends" so that fashion addicted people buy a new wardtrobe every year. For instance, if one winter, the trend for women is to higher heeled boots, you can be sure that the next winter it will be either wedged or low heeled boots. And the lobotomized fashionistas buy, buy and buy more just to be in the mood.
That's definitely not what MMORPG developers do, proof being the massive amount of similar WoW clones we got the last 9 years.
I think by continuing to make themeparks they do shape the demands of people to favor themeparks because people favor what they are used to and that's especially true if they've never even experienced an alternative.
We haven't seen a well polished non-themepark MMO in many years. I don't believe it's because there is no way such a game could make money but instead that it's a complete unknown. Big companies don't like risk. They'd rather churn out a clone game that will probably do OK even if not great than take a chance on something that will either be the next big thing or a huge bomb.
It'll probably take one of the indie MMOs being a smash hit to prove that another formula works to move the genre forward from the same old reguritated formula (and then they will just be probably cloning that game instead of cloning WoW unfortunately.)
Originally posted by Yamota Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by Boneserino Yup todays games have all of these problems.
Those are not game problems, those are player problems. Players that either cannot adapt to changes or simple prefer something else then there is.
Why should customers "adapt" to anything? Corporations need to meet the demand, not dictate to customers what they want.
Here's a crazy thought. Maybe they DO meet the demands of their customers. That's why games are the way they are.
Games aren't just created in a vacuum.
Originally posted by observer Socializing was never ruined. It's always been there (guild chat & websites, world channels, friends list, vent, etc.). The only reason people socialized in one spot was because back in EQ1 (and others), people literally had to wait in one spot for a mob to spawn. They had to literally wait for 12+ hours, in fear of some other guild stealing it. I'm sorry, but i'm going to be blunt, and say that is just wasting one's life away. MMO design has changed for the better in this aspect.
THIS. SO MUCH.
I started with EQ at launch and played through Ykesha. I'd never, ever want to go back to that sort of game design again. Sitting in one spot for hours and hours and hours for that one mob to spawn camping your life away was terrible. It's nothing but wasted time that doesn't add any depth or challenge. It's the MMO equivalent of Hands On A Hardbody. The person who wins the truck is the one who has nothing better to do than stand there with their hand on the truck. They're not necessarily the best player. They just have more time to waste.
To my mind, things like forced spawn camping were nothing but deliberate stalling tactics from the developers to keep players paying and playing longer and longer and longer in the game world. Dangle the carrot of that one piece of uber gear in front of the players then throw in arbitrary time blocks to keep players in the game. Pfft. I'm glad things have changed for the better too.
You certainly don't have to adapt to anything, the only reason you would "have" to is if you want to play what's available today, Devs do not dictate what you want, they offer something that you may or may not want and that's it. You, me and the rest dictate what we want, by participating or not.
As for corporations having to meet the demand, no they don't, they need only do what keeps them afloat. If that doesn't involve creating what you want, it really makes no difference to them as long as someone does want it, and obviously people do, otherwise things might have changed by now.
The bottom-line is that this simply isn't the "vets" genre any longer, hasn't been since around 2004-05.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Lidane Originally posted by Yamota Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by Boneserino Yup todays games have all of these problems.
But see, that's the problem, these people can't imagine that anyone wouldn't love the exact same thing they love so if any game is made for any gameplay that's different from what they want, then it's suddenly the big, evil corporations, not the fact that their preferred style of gameplay is not represented by the majority of players. They are so utterly blinded by their own desires that they can't come to grips with actual reality.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots moreRelatively 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 moreNow Playing: NoneHope: None
Originally posted by Cephus404 Originally posted by Lidane Originally posted by Yamota Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by Boneserino Yup todays games have all of these problems.
I guess we're no better. I can't understand how people can be so blind to something so obvious but no matter how many times you point out that type of thinking, you still see them right back at it in another thread. So obviously they don't see it that way and it's not just a matter of pointing it out.
So no matter what goes on I'll never see the world through their eyes and they'll never see it through mine.
Originally posted by Distopia Devs do not dictate what you want, they offer something that you may or may not want and that's it. You, me and the rest dictate what we want, by participating or not.
Or, in some very rare cases, companies offer something the public didn't realize they wanted and it turns out to be a game changer. Case in point -- the iPod. Who knew they wanted to carry around their entire music collection in their pocket before it came out? Another example -- the smartphone. People already had cell phones. Why did they need a device that had applications and games and a camera and touchscreen features? Weren't phones enough?
It's an idea called market disruption. And it's a goal for any business worth their salt these days.
For all the grief they get around here, Blizzard disrupted the MMO market. They gave consumers an MMO they didn't know they wanted. Before WoW, MMOs were a small, weird niche. Sure, there were dedicated players, but it really hadn't taken off as a genre. All the mainstream stories at the time were about people who lost jobs, lost marriages and families, or dropped out of school, etc. because of the time they spent playing EQ. MMOs were treated like gateways to addiction and to people throwing their lives away. Or they were treated like weird sideshows where things like the fallout from the NGE or debates about the sale of virtual items in games like EQ for real money were subjects that nerds like the Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons would care about, but to the rest of the world, they were odd.
Along comes Blizzard with a game world that's familiar to the average, non-MMO gamer, due to the popularity of their other games. It's engaging, and it's built with an engine that runs on damn near any computer, creating a very low barrier for entry. And Blizzard provided questing and gameplay that allowed the average person to play an MMO without a time commitment that required completely destroying your real world relationships in the process.
The problem with MMOs now isn't in terms of casual vs. hardcore, or sandbox vs. themepark or whatever. The problem is that the games that have come after WoW have only really innovated in incremental ways, like public quests, or full voiceovers, or adjustable difficulty sliders, or player created content, or whatever. They haven't gone far enough in providing something that disrupts the market again. There have been some great ideas that have come out of various games over ther years, but what will advance the MMO genre is a game that takes all those ideas and presents them in a new way that people don't yet realize they want. Once that happens, we'll see the genre change from top to bottom.
Originally posted by Lidane Originally posted by Distopia Devs do not dictate what you want, they offer something that you may or may not want and that's it. You, me and the rest dictate what we want, by participating or not.
Or, in some very rare cases, companies offer something the public didn't realize they wanted and it turns out to be a game changer
It also depends on the cost of making the product though with a cheaply produced product the customer does usually get what they want . Like if you think you can't find any music you like chances are you haven't looked hard enough.
MMOs on the other hand are very expensive to produce so the few companies that can actually afford to make one are reluctant to risk a ton of money on something that's new and untested even if there is a definite segment of the market clamoring for it. The real disruptor will be when small companies with limited budgets (other than EVE) can make MMOs that don't suck and finally give the big guys some competition. Hopefully that time is upon us.
Originally posted by iridescence Originally posted by Lidane Originally posted by Distopia Devs do not dictate what you want, they offer something that you may or may not want and that's it. You, me and the rest dictate what we want, by participating or not.
Sure, but the point is that the problem in the MMO genre isn't in any of the terms people use around here to debate MMOs. It's not about casual vs. hardcore or sandbox vs. themepark or whatever. It's that nobody has come up with that one game that consumers don't realize they need to play. The inevitable MMO disruption (and it WILL happen at some point) will come when someone finally comes up with that game.
Ideally, it will be someone new. A smaller studio with limited funds offering a new game that we haven't seen yet with a whole new take on MMOs that moves things forward. Or, more likely, Blizzard could pull an Apple and disrupt themselves. We'll see.
Originally posted by Lidane Originally posted by iridescence Originally posted by Lidane Originally posted by Distopia Devs do not dictate what you want, they offer something that you may or may not want and that's it. You, me and the rest dictate what we want, by participating or not.
I think star citizen just did it. The game could totally suck, but they've shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a massive following in that style of game waiting for it to be made. Unlike so many of these indi games building ( for example ) open world ffa pvp that only really succeed in showing just how small that market really is, SC and it's kickstarter have shown there is money to be made in something other than fantasy.
Even if the game fails ( and I'm not saying it will ) The money people poured into it will leave a lasting impression on game designers.
Originally posted by DamonVile Originally posted by Lidane Sure, but the point is that the problem in the MMO genre isn't in any of the terms people use around here to debate MMOs. It's not about casual vs. hardcore or sandbox vs. themepark or whatever. It's that nobody has come up with that one game that consumers don't realize they need to play. The inevitable MMO disruption (and it WILL happen at some point) will come when someone finally comes up with that game. Ideally, it will be someone new. A smaller studio with limited funds offering a new game that we haven't seen yet with a whole new take on MMOs that moves things forward. Or, more likely, Blizzard could pull an Apple and disrupt themselves. We'll see.
Star Citizen hasn't done it yet. It has proven that there is an existing market for that type of game and that that market segment has been under-served in recent years. That's great, but it isn't the same as creating an experience that lures in millions of players who don't already know that they want it. That was what made WoW a game-changer. It made MMO players of gamers who never previously considered themselves to be such. I think Kickstarter itself is the disruptor in this scenario. It has made financial backers out of thousands of gamers who previously thought of themselves simply as consumers and end users.
Originally posted by DamonVile Originally posted by Lidane Originally posted by iridescence Originally posted by Lidane Originally posted by Distopia Devs do not dictate what you want, they offer something that you may or may not want and that's it. You, me and the rest dictate what we want, by participating or not.
It could be FFA PVP games are not wanted or that they've been so horrible that even fans have no faith they'll be more than unplayable bug ridden hack fest.
Originally posted by crazzyjake I'll get straight to the point, and this is only from my point of view and personal experience in many games old and new. I know we all have varying opinions about where our beloved genre goes from here and I am only expressing what I think is missing in the games of today and those on the horizon. First and foremost in my mind is the complete shift from social to solo content. I understand that creating a game with a large amount of soloable content brings in another audience for the devs and thus a large market and more money. But it completely detracts from the ONE aspect that is supposed to be at the heart of these games. Should there be soloable content? absolutely. Should you be able to accomplish the majority of a games content solo, as well as progress just as fast or FASTER by doing only soloable content? Absolutely freaking not! These games used to be designed with the thought that grouping was not only faster for progression but MANDATORY for it. I have read in other places that there is actually debate about if a game should force grouping on players, in my mind it should be built into the framework for all but the most mundane hunting and questing. And I am not referring to the kind of grouping where 10 players come upon a mob, with no need to group or communicate and take down said mob and magically everyone gets exp (zerging is killing our games people). Grouping means organization and for gods sakes SOCIAL INTERACTION! In my opinion this is one of the main reasons why population numbers flame out so soon after release for these new games. Content brings people to a game but the relationships you develop and the time you invest in those relationships is what keeps a community going. Another huge issue I have with todays direction of MMO's is the move towards vast amounts of instancing. It used to be the goal of devs was to make a "world" not a game. I know there are technology issues with this and I don't mind a minimal amount of zoning for a world for stabilization reasons, but the zones need to be LARGE, not tiny as many games have them now. And dungeon finders that magically pair you up with others and whisk you away to a dungeon located nowhere near your character is ridiculous and promotes the kind of competitive gameplay that eats away at a games community instead of promoting challenging cooperative gameplay as I believe is intended by places like dungeons. I understand the potential problems with getting rid of all dungeon instancing, mob camping and such, so as with overland zones I am not completely opposed to instancing certain parts of these places, maybe boss mobs should be instanced and on a timer. I don't know the best answer that will satisfy everyone but I do know the current state of queueing for a dungeon finder to pair me with other players whom I don't even need to speak with is plain awful, it may be more instant gratification but if you are going to be running a dungeon or camping in one it should take time and organization. Lastly, it seems to me that the newer games are severally lacking in variety in terms of character customization. I am not talking purely aesthetically but gameplay. The new breed of games where one character can be all the classes and switch between them all? how am I supposed to feel unique like that. Or games where there may be a handful of classes, many of which serve the same purpose with similar mechanics but just with different weapons? I know people will complain about being pigeon holed into one role and that may get "boring" but I disagree. Having many classes and roles, some not even combat related, that only one character can focus on makes you a specialist. It gives you pride in how well you can play your class. Having one spell caster that can do single target dmg, group dmg, dot dmg, and can crowd control means that you have effectively made everyone who would pick to specialize in one of those diciplines into the same class. I would also like to know what happened to non combat utility? movement buffs, travel buffs ect, or just skills and spells that made you look or sound different for a while, fun things that DIFFERENTIATE you from everyone else. The move towards the middle where everyone can do everything makes it so the only way to seem different at all is to grind away at a gear treadmill that all leads to the same place for everyone. I also take minor issue with the prevalence of "fast travel", you should have to work a bit harder to be magically teleported around the world. Little to no death penalty irks me also but I can't figure out a good way to fix that besides a massive gold or time sink, which I am sure doesn't appeal to most. And for final thought, I hate how ungodly fast progression is in games today, things I have mentioned already like solo content rewarding as well as group content, and fast travel are certainly direct causes of this but all of these changes to make our games casual is, in my opinion, killing our genre. Just my opinion folks, sorry for the long post, thanks for reading. Unfortunately, I don't see any of these tendencies changing for the better anytime soon, in fact I am not even aware of any game on the horizon that addresses them.
I read your post, but if you want to reach a larger audience with your point of view, use bulletin points and then expand on them. It makes ti easier to follow, and read through what you want, by actually making skimming easier.
Anyhow, I would say I only agree with grouping needed to be more integral to an mmo experience. You make a valid argument that it also benefits the longevity of the MMO.
Also I agree that MMO need large spaces. However, these large spaces needed to be filled, and thus lies the problem, and not just in 'content' filler and long exp grinds per area, but how to create an area that does not fell hollow and thus have unique quest mechanics, and actuall different systems for pve/pvp/mini games and even raids/dungeons.
I disagree about making the game longer, other than necessary. What is the point of not reaching end game? Maybe the problem is in the design to begin with. The fact that you want leveling to be longer suggests that you do not like end game and avoid gear grinds. Which is why you find pigeon holing not to be a problem.
Your play style is the on going saga of you character, which is great... however, why does that on going sage have to be done with repitive content which becomes memory work?
So, if an MMO has great end game with challenging content, dynamic systems that shaped the world with events completed for pve and pvp, then does the lvling experience have to be that much longer? Since it is not possible to create enough content that is challenging to make the jounrey that much longer without making it really monotonous.
Also, if an MMO did have a gear grind for end game, and the journey was short to an end game, that we can say was great... do you want to be pigeon holed to one class with a gear grind even with a great end game?
There are trade-offs to the limitations of the devs and the mmo system as a whole. The first thing you have to consider however, is that by making the MMO longer to lvl, you are just wasting peoples time by adding filler content which will most likely not be challenging. And, how is that different from other MMOs with the 'asian' gear grind/progression? Those kind of games exist and exclusive to an asian audience, which also seem to have a very addictive personality that reports of people becoming sick from over playing is a problem... to the point in places like South Korea they have laws on how long a person can play video games.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Originally posted by crazzyjake I'll get straight to the point, and this is only from my point of view and personal experience in many games old and new....
The year 2000 rang and wants their thread back. Mind you, you're not wrong, but for a "vet" you seem to have had a rather late epiphany.
I think you are all kinda right but i think you are mistaken in how we think of this.
To me it looks like the OP wants a RPG something that is closer to old school pen & paper RPG's. but what is currently being made are MMO's. Sounds the same to some but really very different.
An mmo is really just any game that you play with ass tons of people. Can be anything really , just needs to function in a way where a bunch of people "play" with one another. Guilds, insta que's, area events, it's all the same. Just a place for you to get some xp on your way to the never ending gear grind. No point to it at all, just the same shit.
An RPG is a world that you played a role in the out come of its events. To tell you the truth i have never seen an RPG done in multiplayer form. I have seen 1 player RPG's forever (Zelda FFS) but i have not played a game online that the world changed or was permanently effected by what i did yet. You might have some temporary effect on the world, but that"s it.
The first gaming company that makes a world that true Role Playing can take place is the first one that will win back every single person that shares the point of view as the OP. In that world relationships , choices and the actions players make will matter. With out that, its just a big circle jerk for the next set of "leet"gear.
I agree with two things; The social aspects and the worldbuilding.
A lot of MMO's don't even seem to try to promote new types of social interaction. We're getting less emotes, less places to gather, less housing, less grouping etc... Eventually MMO's are going to devolve into a game lobby where you queue up for raids at this pace
As for the worldbuilding, a lot of modern MMO's don't feel like a "world" at all but rather just a bunch of random areas losely strung together - usually packed with braindead cannonfodder mobs for no apparent reason. I can't remember the last time I felt immersed in a modern MMO
People have unrealistic expectations.
What they want is a niche game tailored to their taste, but with full modern AAA quality.
Obviously, that isn't going to work.
Today's games aren't so shallow because devs enjoy making shallow stuff. (devs don't even call the shots anymore)
They are shallow because they have to aim at the lowest common denominator or they won't even make their dev costs back. Budgets have been exploding for many years, we are in crazytown territory since quite a while. Go big or go home. Target everyone and their cat or fail.
If you truly want a niche game, there are many indies out there trying to make them. Just accept that they usually won't have 30mil+ budget. Join their communities, give feedback, help them.