It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
What has been lost is the group play where you as an individual are valuable. New MMORPG's are so dumbed down that any 12 year old can pick it up, cheap shot you, and scream L2PNOOB. People are asses because they can just use a different server, Or because grouping is cross server, or because the game is free and they just don't care.
Where is the difficulty? Where is the need for dedication to a class when all the classes are faceroll equivalents?
WoW used to have some pretty high skill level dungeons when it was released. Now it is all faceroll, and all the companies are following suit.
The companies that make MMO's are only interested in the bottom line whatever the cost. There is very few developers that will take less to give more. They get their money and go on vacation till the next MMO needs to be made. The era of decade lasting MMO's I fear is lost forever.
Not enough people are interested in the social aspect of grouping with friends anymore, at least in the percentages that will influence a developer to gamble on it. With the casual crowd the true gamers are doomed.
Originally posted by QuirhidI also see that most of the references in the article come from himself which is rather awkward, I think.
Overall, I pretty much agreed with his views. There were some that had me raising an eyebrow, like the quote nariusseldon pulled from it, but overall, I think it was a good review of where MMORPGs started and where MMOs are today.
Many of his points were spot on, in my opinion.
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
Some of it I agree with, most of it I don't and certainly, Bartle isn't talking about me, I don't meet any of his ideas about players. I don't give a damn about immersion, I don't care about achievement, I couldn't care less about socializing, I want a game that is fun to play, full stop. I think that's true of the majority of players, they want to have a good time in whatever game they're playing. People who want something else, largely, have something wrong going on in their heads, people who want to live vicariously through a game because their own lives suck need to stop playing the game and fix their own lives.
MMOs aren't anything special, any more than strategy games or FPS games are special. They're all just different kinds of games and all of them can be fun. People need to stop having unrealistic expectations and developers need to focus on making their games enjoyable to play. The rest of it is all mental masturbation.
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 Flyte27 Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Flyte27 I don't agree with his idea to split people up into segments of 250 players. I would like to see everyone in the same world. I don't think 250 is enough to make it feel like a real/busy world.
You won't be able to tell the difference between 250 players in a small zone or a big world with more players.
You can tell the difference. If there were 250 people spread across a big world you wouldn't see hardly anyone when traveling around it. If everyone was in the same world you would constantly be encountering other people. It's a huge difference. I use to see what seemed like more than 250 people in one zone in Everquest.
Don't spread them around .. i said "250 players in a SMALL zone" or "a big world with MORE players".
Originally posted by Kyleran
This site can start calling cats dogs, won't change the fact dogs are not cats. It is definitely more than just a label, it represents the idea of a certain style game, let those others keep to theirs such as MOBA, or ARPG.
If everyone is using the label MMOs to include D3 (which a lot on this site is doing so ... not just me) .. then nothing you can do to change the common usage.
MMO no longer represent any idea .. when the industry, this site, and many players are including D3, LoL, DDO, or what-not into the categories.
Or .. people are using ARPGs and MOBAs .... not that they separate them from MMO in a very clear fashion.
Originally posted by Gorwe I know when the MMOs will drop dead: When one will be able to play Skyrim, Witcher etc while chatting with other in Real time AND perhaps craft fluff items for masses(or get them and trade them-Steam style). If such a tech existed, tell me one, just one reason to play MMOs.
The tech already exists. You can chat with anyone playing any blizz games. I can text chat with my kids when i am playing D3 and they are playing hearthstone.
The only reason why it is not spread out to more games is because of business reasons.
Originally posted by Gorwe Yeah, even Bartle agrees with me. Eliminate the endgame. Let the game END. You can replay it or whatever(I have watched "Rambo", "Commando" or "Star Wars" over a dozen times now and they're still as fun as ever). There is no reason to turn games into undead abominations. Also, let us see the consequences of our actions. TOR began this rather nicely. It's time that someone finished it. In short: endgame makes no sense.
Single Player games have an end, MMORPGs should never end.
But I do agree with something, the End Game is way overated in MMOs.
The Leveling (the Journey) should be the main focus of a MMO.
If you can level cap in 1 month, not amount of End Game could make up for breezing through the levels
Leveling should be veeeeeeeery slow, like in EQ.
I never reached the End Game in EQ, but I had lots of fun in trying to reach it
THE REPOPULATIONPATHFINDERSTAR CITIZENSHROUD OF THE AVATAREVERQUEST NEXT
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Kyleran
You are correct.
language is dynamic and words and meanings morph and change (much faster thanks to the internet)
MMORPG no longer means what it once did- Even 8 years ago.
I dont like it- But its the truth. Common understanding is what dictates meaning- if 90% of the people start calling the color "red" , "Blue"- Red is now blue by common definition and in a generation it will look as if its always been that way =/
Originally posted by nariusseldon There is a decline, but it is not clear to me that there is any fix. May be it will go like the point-n-click adventure and the whole industry become smaller. But this is interesting: and quote ... "However, most of those players will be spending their time in 4-6 person instances – it’s irrelevant to them how many other players there are in the wider game. There’s no need for an MMO to be able to support 10,000 simultaneous players per shard" May be the solution is to make other types of online games, and forget about "proper" MMOs. Just call other games MMOs .. it is not like this has never happen before.
the thing about this though is that the New York Times is not going to write an article about your 6 man battle. But like Eve Online they will write about your large server wide battle.
Having said that, getting articles in the paper and making a profit are two different subjects.
Do NOT respond to this reply if you think the contents of the reply is unwarranted in this discussion.
On replying to the content of this reply you are participating in the discussion of its contents
I guess some you missed the thread where we were advised that there are big changes incoming with respect to what gets called an MMO on this site. MOBAs/ARPGs etc. are no longer going to slapped onto the same Games List that you'll find MMOs on.
Of course language changes over time, but let's not kid ourselves here; the reason all of these online multiplayer games are suddenly being called MMOs by everyone and their dog is to cash in on the genre name. It's obvious BS marketing, and man, are the blind masses ever falling for it. "MMO" was just a shortened abbreviation that up to not too long ago was commonly used because it was simply easier to say. Something that happens all the time; it used to be Kentucky Fried Chicken, what do we call that now?
Anywho, thanks for sharing, AlBQuirky. I agree with pretty much everything brought up in the article, and it's amazing how much it echoes the concerns often found on these forums. As I was reading through, I was having fun predicting who would be found in this thread and what they would they would inevitably have to say
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
from pricing, attempting to draw in a wide audience of less-engaged players rather
than a narrow audience of enthusiasts. In so doing, they have collectively lost their
hard-core players to single-player RPGs and have slash-and-burned their way
through almost all the casual players they could reach. What’s left to them is an army
of butterfly players, flitting from new MMO to new MMO: engaged enough to try the
out, but not sufficiently so that any particular one will win their loyalties. "
I have seen very few people calling Diablo and LoL, MMORPGs.
Originally posted by Yamota Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Kyleran
A MOBA with elements derived from MMOs is still a MOBA with MMO elements.
I can progress my character in Combat Arms, but it's still an FPS.
What we have here is a group of unfortunate people who were just completely manipulated and confused by basic marketing hype. It's fascinating in a very simple way.
Originally posted by Cecropia Originally posted by Yamota Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Kyleran
or they bring it up because defining what really is or isn't an MMORPG is an inexhaustible topic for trolling
or C) they just don't give a rats ass what you think a "real MMORPG" should be like.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Endgame makes sense, from a certain point of view. 1) Revenue stream point of view. 2) Addicted player. Both those point of views are people who want the game to continue. Ending the game is ok though.
Originally posted by Jacxolope Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Kyleran
Ah, but you are missing point. Even if everyone starts calling the color formerly known as red, blue, doesn't change the fact that color occupies a specific place on the visible light spectrum regardless what people chose to label it.
Same with virtual world MMORPG's, they too occupy a specific place in the overall gaming "spectrum", and even if people start calling other game types the same name doesn't make those games the same, they still remain mobas, shooters etc by design.
The author of this article was really referring to the Decline of virtual world MMORPG's, which he doesn't really seem to be aware of.
It's one specific design that is not favored by the masses, or the casual game market , but that's OK, they can move on to other types of games and we'll likely be left with a small handful of titles that we can focus on while the rest of the community goes off chasing rainbows.
As for the term MMO, yea, that's pretty much a generic title that applies to most anything with more than one player in it, so might as well include the next Madden NFL in with it.
"Winning" at EVE Online since May, 2007!
In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™ "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
There should be a big section in the article to talk about the negative gaming community that hinders companies from doing anthing innovative, punishing them for every mistake, hating them in every way possible.
Innovation was never meant to be towards the positive, while it is great, it is all about experimenting and observing the result to improve wether the improvment is done by the same game or another. So far, our lovely MMO community love to hate on every mistake, really punishing the companies for trying new things as they want something else, deep in their minds. If you can't accept mistakes, there will be no innovation and the community never does.
The number one thing holding that back isn't developers though. It's the people with the money and where they spend...or more importantly don't spend it.
To us when an indi game fails we just shrug and keep looking at the AAA titles wonder why they're not what we want them to be. To a game developer ( or investor ) when they see an indi die they say "see there's no market for that type of game"
Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by Cecropia Originally posted by Yamota Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Kyleran
There's not a damn thing that's exhausting about what an MMO is; if you find yourself breathing heavily with this topic, that's something you're going to have to deal with.
You don't even have to give a shrew's ass, those of us who spend so much time on a site like this should fucking know better!
Originally posted by SwashBuccaneer This article makes me weep for the genre that I used to love so much 10+ years ago.
Don't love genres, love individual games. If it's fun to play, play it. If it's not, don't. People who love genres and can't imagine not playing games within those genres are fanatics and fanaticism is not something to be proud of.
Originally posted by Nitth Originally posted by nariusseldon There is a decline, but it is not clear to me that there is any fix. May be it will go like the point-n-click adventure and the whole industry become smaller. But this is interesting: and quote ..."However, most of those players will be spending their time in 4-6 person instances – it’s irrelevant to them how many other players there are in the wider game. There’s no need for an MMO to be able to support 10,000 simultaneous players per shard"May be the solution is to make other types of online games, and forget about "proper" MMOs. Just call other games MMOs .. it is not like this has never happen before.
This stuff makes my head hurt...we already had games like neverwinter nights that supported up to 99 players, Then we transitioned to mmorpgs which support thousands..
Seems like were going back in time...
Neverwinter Nights was awesome. It was the first online game I ever played. The best part about that game was the private servers, some of which are still online today. They allowed players to define how they wanted to play.
Originally posted by Cephus404 Originally posted by SwashBuccaneer This article makes me weep for the genre that I used to love so much 10+ years ago.
I think the majority of people that enjoy MMOs are also gamers that indulge in other genres. We're all gamers, man.
There's nothing wrong with someone who is aware of the uniqueness and incredible mostly unrealized potential of MMO's. And there's nothing wrong with someone such as yourself who cannot see what many see as clear as day.
Sorry I love the genre and enjoy the games within it. I love the games of other genres I enjoy though. That's what makes me a mmorpg enthusiast. I monitor, analyze, contemplate, discuss and experience games within this genre. I do not do that with sports games, action games, FPS games, racing games nor dating sims (hmmmmm). And it's the primary reason you can name a half dozen sites dedicated to this genre. But I'm not the type of mmorpg enthusiast insisting on a homogenized genre free from diversity. I'm actually looking for more diversity in the hopes of finding another version of UO one day.
The only way to do that is to expand the genre even further, forcing the emergence of sub genres within it. The MMO umbrella is the first step.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."