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!

I am so tired of questing

17891012

Comments

  • prowessprowess st louis, MOPosts: 164Member

    image
    I chose the Xfinity speed test because it does not reveal my ISP.

  • TheQuietGamerTheQuietGamer brightonPosts: 317Member
    Originally posted by Bladestrom
    No stories don't evolve to be bigger and better (e.g quests). They are either good writing or bad writing, interesting or dull. Bigger and betterment nothing in this context - its not a pixel count. quests is a core element of the genre, there are genre without quests. If you don't like quests don't play games that have quests, it's a simple fix.

    I played Lifeless Planet and I signed up to beta.  As part of the beta the first few levels were offered and they were intriguing.  You were an astronaut stranded on a 'lifeless planet' which inexplicably had been settled by Russians, who had since died out.  Great plot.  

    I then got the entire game and it fell apart in weak story-telling and an inability to deliver pay-offs on the quite brilliant set up.  

    It turned into a grind to get through the game, because frankly the hook had dislodged.

    I think the art of story-telling is lost in many games.  Shame.  Dunno my point, but quests need to be more than an instruction to grind mobs or move from point A to point B.   

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXPosts: 5,348Member

    I see a lot of people talking about stories.

    I think story in games is an interesting experiment but hardly a requirement.

    Stories in games is a new innovation that didnt exist before the computer really in any form other than perhaps role playing games however role playing games were not all about story and it wasnt a core requirement in such games either.

    Keep in mind that games are a platform more then they are a story telling device.

    Correlation does not imply causation

  • ThornrageThornrage Eastern North CarolinaPosts: 592Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Boneserino
    Originally posted by Thornrage

    The Repopulation does not have quest hubs in the WoW or Lotro sense. You are mailed your quests and you can turn them down. Also you can pick which type of quests will be mailed to you.

    There are crafting stations (the crafting in this game is insane) and vendors will buy what you harvest off the local wildlife.

    You can virtually be any kind of person you want to be in the game. Even non-combat characters such as an entertainer or an engineer.

    You can mix DNA of different wild life and create something new.

    There are no levels. It is a skill-based game. The more you do it, the better you get.

    A lot of potential with The Repopulation

    https://www.therepopulation.com/

    Tell us about it when there is an actual game.

    There is an actual game and I have 2 characters in it.

    "I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    I could make a game with more complexity and debth then most MMO quest games and do it without any quests at all, prettty much blindfolded.

    Many games are already what I just described above, now be careful in your response. Its is baited


    Agreed, many of us could. Sign me up; I think it'd be quite successful.


    Originally posted by MurlockDance
    there are a lot of features in newer MMOs I have grown used to and actually prefer over EQ and the other oldschool MMOs.


    I played some modern day EQ a few years ago. The lack of stress was nice, but I also lost interest and didn't feel much sense of achievement. It felt like 'busy work' rather than compelling gameplay.


    Originally posted by Cephus404
    But the majority of people who play MMOs WANT TO BE IN A PERSONAL STORYLINE WITH TRAINING WHEELS!You do not represent a sizeable percentage of overall players. Therefore you lose. Figure it out.


    Most polls I've seen here disagree with you. But, if you're so confident you speak for the majority then why don't you start a poll, yourself.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Eglin AFB, FLPosts: 653Member Uncommon

    The swing towards solo play and leading a player down a very well-lit, obvious path came about due to a large influx of casual gamers, not an aversion to multiplayer or challenge in gamers who bought massively multiplayer games.

     

    Casual gamers do not want to spend 30 minutes figuring out where that damned troll under the bridge has wandered off to (no doubt hunting himself some wild game for supper!).  They do not want to spend time looking for companions to tackle content because it is too difficult for them to accomplish by themselves.

     

    It's all about time.  About seeing the experience bar cross from left to right and filling the backpack with loot and gold in the most efficient way possible.  Developers just decided that homogenization and easy-to-access, incredibly efficient solo gameplay was the easiest answer to keep that gold flowing and the experience moving for players that weren't logging in to play 3 hours at once.  It provides an easy to see progress that keeps them from feeling as if they just wasted 20 minutes.

     

    And I'll grant you:  I'm not sure how developers revitalize that multiplayer and challenge in a way that casual gamers will enjoy it and stick around.  Then again, that's why I pay developers for making games, instead of getting paid to make one.

    image
  • VelocinoxVelocinox Old Folks Home, CAPosts: 810Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    I could make a game with more complexity and debth then most MMO quest games and do it without any quests at all, prettty much blindfolded.

     

     

    Many games are already what I just described above, now be careful in your response. Its is baited


    Agreed, many of us could. Sign me up; I think it'd be quite successful.

     

     


    Originally posted by MurlockDance
    there are a lot of features in newer MMOs I have grown used to and actually prefer over EQ and the other oldschool MMOs.


     

    I played some modern day EQ a few years ago. The lack of stress was nice, but I also lost interest and didn't feel much sense of achievement. It felt like 'busy work' rather than compelling gameplay.

     

     


    Originally posted by Cephus404
    But the majority of people who play MMOs WANT TO BE IN A PERSONAL STORYLINE WITH TRAINING WHEELS!

     

    You do not represent a sizeable percentage of overall players. Therefore you lose. Figure it out.


     


    Most polls I've seen here disagree with you. But, if you're so confident you speak for the majority then why don't you start a poll, yourself.

     

    Polls... pfft. Ask a bunch of fat people if they eat healthy and you'll get a majority of lies about healthy eating.

     

    It's a well known phenomena. We don't tell the truth in polls, we tend to try to manipulate them.

     

    'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.


    When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.


    No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.


    How to become a millionaire:
    Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.

  • tommygunzIItommygunzII Roanoke, VAPosts: 321Member
    This is one of the things I miss about FFXI. The quests were very few and far between, your fame in that particular city limited which quests you could do and some quests were the only way to get certain items (Scroll of Warp II for example).  No markers directing you, no experience received and the money was terrible but they were still full of more adventure than what we have lately.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Velocinox

    It's a well known phenomena. We don't tell the truth in polls, we tend to try to manipulate them.

     

    Yes. The only way to tell what people want is look at what the market produces, and what consumer pay for.

    If people don't want stories, TOR would not have made $200M+ in 2013.

     

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXPosts: 5,348Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Velocinox

    It's a well known phenomena. We don't tell the truth in polls, we tend to try to manipulate them.

     

    Yes. The only way to tell what people want is look at what the market produces, and what consumer pay for.

    If people don't want stories, TOR would not have made $200M+ in 2013.

     

    Years ago I bought EQ2. I didn't really like the game all that much but I played it for about 6 months because I didn't know of any other MMO I would like. Plus at the time I didn't like the idea of Indies. My thought was that if a game was good it would have to have made it up the food chain.

    Well once I found finally decided to try some indie games out of boredom I was surprised and haven't gone back to EQ2 since.,

     

    But because I bought EQ2 does that mean I like it? no, it meant (for me) a lack of options for a proper vote.

    Correlation does not imply causation

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

    It's a well known phenomena. We don't tell the truth in polls, we tend to try to manipulate them.

     

    Yes. The only way to tell what people want is look at what the market produces, and what consumer pay for.

    If people don't want stories, TOR would not have made $200M+ in 2013.

     

    Years ago I bought EQ2. I didn't really like the game all that much but I played it for about 6 months because I didn't know of any other MMO I would like. Plus at the time I didn't like the idea of Indies. My thought was that if a game was good it would have to have made it up the food chain.

    Well once I found finally decided to try some indie games out of boredom I was surprised and haven't gone back to EQ2 since.,

     

    But because I bought EQ2 does that mean I like it? no, it meant (for me) a lack of options for a proper vote.

    Sure .. within the choices you had then, you like it enough. But the point is .. we are talking about the whole market here. There are obviously individuals who don't always make consistent decisions.

    But from a market point of view, you can't get $200M+ unless someone is entertained. Marketing & hype only goes so far (look at Lone Ranger, and all the high profile flops).

     

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXPosts: 5,348Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Velocinox

    It's a well known phenomena. We don't tell the truth in polls, we tend to try to manipulate them.

     

    Yes. The only way to tell what people want is look at what the market produces, and what consumer pay for.

    If people don't want stories, TOR would not have made $200M+ in 2013.

     

    Years ago I bought EQ2. I didn't really like the game all that much but I played it for about 6 months because I didn't know of any other MMO I would like. Plus at the time I didn't like the idea of Indies. My thought was that if a game was good it would have to have made it up the food chain.

    Well once I found finally decided to try some indie games out of boredom I was surprised and haven't gone back to EQ2 since.,

     

    But because I bought EQ2 does that mean I like it? no, it meant (for me) a lack of options for a proper vote.

    Sure .. within the choices you had then, you like it enough. But the point is .. we are talking about the whole market here. There are obviously individuals who don't always make consistent decisions.

    But from a market point of view, you can't get $200M+ unless someone is entertained. Marketing & hype only goes so far (look at Lone Ranger, and all the high profile flops).

     

    the point I am making is the same as the phrase I have been using

    'what meals we prefer is restricted to whats on the table'

    Here is another example, Documentary films used to not be all that popular. Not many around.

    Then the cost of film making dropped, distribution dropped and then documentaries became very popular.

    Large companies do market research, that is true, but market research can not 100% determine all possible markets. At the end of the day someone has to put the meal on the table to find out if people want it and they have to put it on the table with EQUAL amount of advertising.

    Correlation does not imply causation

  • ElandrialElandrial atlanta, GAPosts: 162Member
    Originally posted by emperorwings

    Grind mobs or grind skills. Would be fun. Think of the days of early WoW and we had all the tradeskills, weapon skills, open class system. Take out all the quests, make the land terraformable, divide it up in plots. Use monsters and resource nodes as a means to get materials.

     

    Can make your own goals like build a house or get fully decked out in the latest tier armor through crafting. You still can run dungeons or build your own dungeons. Still can PvP, make your own factions etc. Learn all the languages like speaking common and orcish. etc etc etc. 

     

    No quests required.

    and you cannot do that without quest because?grind mobs is easy go kill mobs.what i suspect is you want quest exp from killing mobs.so it is not about grinding but about getting exp with no work at all.there is NOTHING that forces you to quest.not a single thing.

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

    Large companies do market research, that is true, but market research can not 100% determine all possible markets. At the end of the day someone has to put the meal on the table to find out if people want it and they have to put it on the table with EQUAL amount of advertising.

    Not the new ones .. but it works on old known ideas like sandbox.

    Plus, the proof of burden is on the side of those who ask people to invest. Do you want to mortgage your house to find out if people like a new gaming idea? I don't.

     

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD

    the point I am making is the same as the phrase I have been using

    'what meals we prefer is restricted to whats on the table'

    Which only works if people don't have the ability to get up from the table and go somewhere else.  Consumers do have that ability.  In food, they can go to a different restaurant, at home, they can simply buy different food.  They are not forced to eat food just because it's in front of them. 

    The same is true of games.  They can go somewhere else for their entertainment.  They don't have to play games at all. There is so much else available to do that developers have to appeal to the interests of the majority of gamers in order to make money.  It's only the losers who refuse to do anything else but play games, who keep buying games they know they'll hate because they can't imagine what else to do, that have problems.

    Here is another example, Documentary films used to not be all that popular. Not many around.

    Then the cost of film making dropped, distribution dropped and then documentaries became very popular.

    Not so much.  Very few documentaries make it to actual movie theaters where the majority of money is made.  The only thing that made documentaries "popular" was the wide variety of television outlets who needed a ton of documentaries to fill their programming space.  Documentaries, like reality TV shows, are cheap and easy to make and therefore, there are tons of them to choose from.  However, the majority of entertainment dollars don't  go to documentaries or the basic cable stations that show them, they go to high-budget theatrical movies.

    Large companies do market research, that is true, but market research can not 100% determine all possible markets. At the end of the day someone has to put the meal on the table to find out if people want it and they have to put it on the table with EQUAL amount of advertising.

    No, but they can determine what the majority of players want and are willing to pay for.  Just because you can find ten people who want a feature doesn't mean that those ten people can fund an MMO.  MMO developers exist to make money, whether you like that or not.  You haven't demonstrated that there are enough people out there who want an old school game, that's not what any developer has discovered through their market research or they'd b e making those games.

    Just because you want it doesn't mean you deserve it.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Large companies do market research, that is true, but market research can not 100% determine all possible markets. At the end of the day someone has to put the meal on the table to find out if people want it and they have to put it on the table with EQUAL amount of advertising.

    No, but they can determine what the majority of players want and are willing to pay for.  Just because you can find ten people who want a feature doesn't mean that those ten people can fund an MMO.  MMO developers exist to make money, whether you like that or not.  You haven't demonstrated that there are enough people out there who want an old school game, that's not what any developer has discovered through their market research or they'd b e making those games.

    Just because you want it doesn't mean you deserve it.

    In fact, the old school games have been tried, and the results are not that great. Even TOR, a game very hated here, sold like 4 times the peak of EQ sub (and 8x UO) in its first month.

    GW2 sold even more.

    There is a reason why old school games are "old" ... as opposed to being continuously updated (like FPS).

     

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Eglin AFB, FLPosts: 653Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Velocinox

    It's a well known phenomena. We don't tell the truth in polls, we tend to try to manipulate them.

     

    Yes. The only way to tell what people want is look at what the market produces, and what consumer pay for.

    If people don't want stories, TOR would not have made $200M+ in 2013.

     

    I'd bet more of that $200M probably came from fans of one of the largest IPs in the world, rather than those who simply fell in love with playing the stories.

     

    And Transformers 4 hit $575M in the box office as of 2 days ago.  Funny how that works.

     

    EDIT- Also nariusseldon, are you really comparing EQ numbers to a Star Wars MMO post-WoW era?  That proves or illustrates precisely, and excuse my french: dick.

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

    I'd bet more of that $200M probably came from fans of one of the largest IPs in the world, rather than those who simply fell in love with playing the stories.

     

    And Transformers 4 hit $575M in the box office as of 2 days ago.  Funny how that works.

     

    You can bet anything .. numbers are number. And how about GW2? You can't claim a large IP there, can you?

    In fact, Transformer made my point precisely. The critics can rant about how incoherent the plot is, or how shallow the characters are ... but people are just entertained by Michael Bay having robots smashing one another amidst huge explosions. And that is why he is going to make more transformer movies.  A perfect case illustrating supply and demand, which does not care about what people post on forums.

     

     

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Eglin AFB, FLPosts: 653Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
     

    I'd bet more of that $200M probably came from fans of one of the largest IPs in the world, rather than those who simply fell in love with playing the stories.

     

    And Transformers 4 hit $575M in the box office as of 2 days ago.  Funny how that works.

     

    You can bet anything .. numbers are number. And how about GW2? You can't claim a large IP there, can you?

    In fact, Transformer made my point precisely. The critics can rant about how incoherent the plot is, or how shallow the characters are ... but people are just entertained by Michael Bay having robots smashing one another amidst huge explosions. And that is why he is going to make more transformer movies.  A perfect case illustrating supply and demand, which does not care about what people post on forums.

     

     

    Michael Bay also does not come close to illustrating the potential of the medium, unless the medium's main potential is blistering CGI effects for damn near 3 hours with no real story or emotional experience with which to connect.

     

    Madden's Ultimate Team system made more than GW2 and TOR combined last year.  And it's literally virtual trading cards within a sports game that gets re-released as a completely new $60 box price every year with tiny improvements.  Not even a standalone game, just an optional mini-game attached.

     

    You seem to think that those numbers are impressive, when in fact, they're merely profitable by the technical definition of the word.  And not even immensely so.  But you seem to point to them as evidence the genre is getting fat off of old and repetitious ideas that really never defined or signified the genre traditionally.  All I see are averagely successful games that become even less than average when compared to "averagely" successful games in other genres.  Not seeing where this makes the case that making more titles similar to those two games is the best direction for the genre to steer.

    image
  • ReallyNow10ReallyNow10 Pile It High Town, LAPosts: 2,010Member Common
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Large companies do market research, that is true, but market research can not 100% determine all possible markets. At the end of the day someone has to put the meal on the table to find out if people want it and they have to put it on the table with EQUAL amount of advertising.

    No, but they can determine what the majority of players want and are willing to pay for.  Just because you can find ten people who want a feature doesn't mean that those ten people can fund an MMO.  MMO developers exist to make money, whether you like that or not.  You haven't demonstrated that there are enough people out there who want an old school game, that's not what any developer has discovered through their market research or they'd b e making those games.

    Just because you want it doesn't mean you deserve it.

    In fact, the old school games have been tried, and the results are not that great. Even TOR, a game very hated here, sold like 4 times the peak of EQ sub (and 8x UO) in its first month.

    GW2 sold even more.

    There is a reason why old school games are "old" ... as opposed to being continuously updated (like FPS).

     

    Apples and oranges here.  When you compare a later game to games of the EQ era, you are leaving out the impact of broadband, which pretty much exploded big onto the scene around the time WOW launched.  EQ was a modem game and was tired and had ancient graphics by the time WOW rolled around.

    Your comparisons are kind of like comparing today's Ford vehicles purchases to the era of Ford Model T purchases, when the latter period has very few people driving.

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

    Michael Bay also does not come close to illustrating the potential of the medium, unless the medium's main potential is blistering CGI effects for damn near 3 hours with no real story or emotional experience with which to connect.

     

    so? Stil made $400M in a week. In fact, it shows that you don't need to take the full potential of the medium to make shit loads of money.

    3 hours of CGI robot mayham sells, and people enjoy that. Why is it a problem if people enjoy some dumb explosive fun?

    No one argues that other film makers should not make artsy dramas for a few souls ... but do you seriously think that Michael Bay is not entertaining people?

    In fact, i would say it is more so because the reviews are so bad, and people are still flocking to see his stuff.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by ReallyNow10
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Large companies do market research, that is true, but market research can not 100% determine all possible markets. At the end of the day someone has to put the meal on the table to find out if people want it and they have to put it on the table with EQUAL amount of advertising.

    No, but they can determine what the majority of players want and are willing to pay for.  Just because you can find ten people who want a feature doesn't mean that those ten people can fund an MMO.  MMO developers exist to make money, whether you like that or not.  You haven't demonstrated that there are enough people out there who want an old school game, that's not what any developer has discovered through their market research or they'd b e making those games.

    Just because you want it doesn't mean you deserve it.

    In fact, the old school games have been tried, and the results are not that great. Even TOR, a game very hated here, sold like 4 times the peak of EQ sub (and 8x UO) in its first month.

    GW2 sold even more.

    There is a reason why old school games are "old" ... as opposed to being continuously updated (like FPS).

     

    Apples and oranges here.  When you compare a later game to games of the EQ era, you are leaving out the impact of broadband, which pretty much exploded big onto the scene around the time WOW launched.  EQ was a modem game and was tired and had ancient graphics by the time WOW rolled around.

    Your comparisons are kind of like comparing today's Ford vehicles purchases to the era of Ford Model T purchases, when the latter period has very few people driving.

    Eve is still around with upgraded graphics ... and it was launched around same time as WoW. It is not doing so hot compared to newer games either.

    And how about Earthrise, Darkfall ... and so on and so forth.

    Devs are learning through all the years. And again, old ideas are just old ... excuses won't bring them back.

     

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Eglin AFB, FLPosts: 653Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
     

    Michael Bay also does not come close to illustrating the potential of the medium, unless the medium's main potential is blistering CGI effects for damn near 3 hours with no real story or emotional experience with which to connect.

     

    so? Stil made $400M in a week. In fact, it shows that you don't need to take the full potential of the medium to make shit loads of money.

    3 hours of CGI robot mayham sells, and people enjoy that. Why is it a problem if people enjoy some dumb explosive fun?

    No one argues that other film makers should not make artsy dramas for a few souls ... but do you seriously think that Michael Bay is not entertaining people?

    In fact, i would say it is more so because the reviews are so bad, and people are still flocking to see his stuff.

    Yep, they are, and the IP plays no small role in it.  Superhero/Comic movies are big business right now, and are generally too big to fail (unless based on more minor comics/heroes and are spectacularly bad).  Doesn't mean the stuff coming out is quality work.  The titles also made roughly half of what titles such as The Avengers and the Dark Knight made here in the US.  Y'know, titles that are not only based on awesomely popular IPs, but are actually good movies.  Making a profit in these industries isn't really that hard for the guys who make a living doing it.  Making a huge profit, changing the game; that takes actual talent.

     

    Funny you should mention EVE isn't doing so well..  It had over 500k subscribers in 2013, which (unless those numbers immediately dropped drastically) means: an over 10 year old game, released around the same time WoW was, in a setting that was totally new to players (sci-fi wasn't big in MMOs back then, at all), by a developer that was pretty much unheard of before its release, without a major IP backing to drive its initial sales, and a higher barrier to entry than mmany of your "modern" MMOs to this day...  Still made about 100,000,000 bones in 2013.

     

    That sounds like an abysmal failure.  There's just no market there, it seems.  I guess there hasn't been for a while (even though EVE's playerbase has been growing consistently over the past 10 years).

     

    Market's talking, loud and clear.  Just don't think its saying what you claim it is.  At the very least, it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

    image
  • SoandsosoSoandsoso Richmond Hill, ONPosts: 533Member

    Hello Dev#1...whats the feedback from the player's?

     

    Well Dev#2, I summed up all the forum posts.

     

    Group A doesn't like questing but likes to repeatedly do the same task over and over. They call it grinding.

    Group B doesn't like to grind or quest but likes to pvp.

    Group C doesn't like PvP but likes to quest.

    Group D likes to quest but no go kill monster x amount of times quests. And no reading or cut scenes.

    Group E likes to pvp but only open world pvp, none of that instanced care bear pvp as they call it.

    Group F doesn't like people...or what they call noobs. Everything has to be able to be done solo.

    Group G has limited time to play so everything has to be able to be accomplished in 1 hour.

    Group H likes cut-scenes..but not too long....just long enough.

    Group I only likes instanced pvp, but no leveling required, they want to be competitive from day 1.

    Group J likes to what they call raiding with their guild.

    Group K doesn't like raids.

    Group L likes raids but not big raids.

    Group M likes raids but only big raids

    Group N doesn't like the game enough to support it but if it was free then its a good game.

    Groups A thru N all think their likes should be the one that gets the most time and resources allotted to it.

     

    Dev#1 - In order to do this properly will take time to implement properly.

     

    Dev#2 - Oh ya, Groups A thru N expect their wants met within the first day the game launches and they aren't willing to grow with the game. They want it all now.

  • JoeyjojoshabaduJoeyjojoshabadu BuderimPosts: 161Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Soandsoso

    Hello Dev#1...whats the feedback from the player's?

     

    Well Dev#2, I summed up all the forum posts.

     

    Group A doesn't like questing but likes to repeatedly do the same task over and over. They call it grinding.

    Group B doesn't like to grind or quest but likes to pvp.

    Group C doesn't like PvP but likes to quest.

    Group D likes to quest but no go kill monster x amount of times quests. And no reading or cut scenes.

    Group E likes to pvp but only open world pvp, none of that instanced care bear pvp as they call it.

    Group F doesn't like people...or what they call noobs. Everything has to be able to be done solo.

    Group G has limited time to play so everything has to be able to be accomplished in 1 hour.

    Group H likes cut-scenes..but not too long....just long enough.

    Group I only likes instanced pvp, but no leveling required, they want to be competitive from day 1.

    Group J likes to what they call raiding with their guild.

    Group K doesn't like raids.

    Group L likes raids but not big raids.

    Group M likes raids but only big raids

    Group N doesn't like the game enough to support it but if it was free then its a good game.

    Groups A thru N all think their likes should be the one that gets the most time and resources allotted to it.

     

    Dev#1 - In order to do this properly will take time to implement properly.

     

    Dev#2 - Oh ya, Groups A thru N expect their wants met within the first day the game launches and they aren't willing to grow with the game. They want it all now.

     

    Suit#1 - We'll launch a huge advertising campaign. Billboards! Prime time ads! Forehead tattoos! We'll hire celebrity voice actors, make full CGI hollywood-style promo vids. We'll promise a bug-free, lag-free game that you will abandon your family for. We'll promise the world!

    Dev#1 and Dev#2 - we can't possibly launch a game that will live up to that kind of hype! People will naturally be disappointed.

    Suit#1 - Doesn't matter, we'll sell a ton of boxes.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.