No offense to the OP, but as long winded as he is; the bashing of EQ as "just one big boring grind" suggests a lack of social skills. Now, unless you started playing EQ after 2004, EQ was a very social game. Players interacted, hung out, formed groups for expeditions, or just went to an interesting dungeon and joined other players.
I suppose if you didn't make lasting friends or never joined a guild; and saw the goal of EQ to get max level; then you might see EQ, or any game, frankly, as a grind. I had so much fun from the day I rolled my character; until I retired. Even if that fun some times meant I was just wandering around and not doing much. For 99.9% of my playtime, I was not stressing over my xp bar.
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
I think the it is more idiotic (not to mention illogical) to ask for innovation and change on one hand, and ask for going back to old, tried and failed ideas on another.
And if the games evolves to serve the market better, of course it is better for many ... may not be an particular individual, but the gaming business is seldom about that anyway.
Yeah which is why I'd never just ask for "change" without qualification. if you can't actually *improve* something you should leave it alone. Like you and pretty much pretty much anyone else here I can only speak about games based on what I like and my preferences not some amorphous "market majority".
So, why is i that your personal preference has any bearing on what developers should do when making games? This would be like saying that since you like anchovies on your pizza, pizza makers should not allow this to be an optional topping.
Stop making straw man arguments. I come here to express my opinions about games the same way you do. I praise some and complain about others. At no point have I ever demanded anyone custom-make a game for me. I understand how basic market economics works but if you never express your opinion about what you want that's just guaranteeing that it'll be ignored. Besides I find discussing game design interesting. I wouldn't do this if my main goal was to influence devs to make games I want.
But why are we comparing Shooters and MMORPGs? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare RPGs to MMORPGs? Would someone playing Pools of Radiance recognize the elements there that have made it into World of Warcraft? PoR was release in 1988. Ultima Online was released in 1997, so from 1997 to now we have 17 years. Would someone playing an RPG in 2005 recognize that game as a descendant of a game like Pools of Radiance, written in 1998? It would certainly be much easier to play and would take a lot less time, not to mention having 3D graphics.
OK I think the difference is Single player RPGs got way deeper and more complex. Neverwinter Nights 2 (2006) is on a whole different magnitude of depth compared to Pool of Radiance despite both being RPGs based on (different editions of) D&D. This is what usually happens with games. As the computer hardware can handle more we get more complexity, more choice and a deeper experience.
MMOs are weird though in this way. Sure, Ultima Online is way more complex than some MUD you would have played in 1988 but in the last few years they've gone in the other direction, now they have less depth, less classes and less mechanics than MMOs released 10 or 15 years ago. That's why you have some people at least feeling the genre is going backwards.
You are cherry picking examples to illustrate your point. At the same time there are games that showed more complexity, there are games that got simpler in terms of game play. Fallout 3 uses far more resources than either Pools of Radiance or Neverwinter Nights, but it's not an especially deep game. It has tons and tons of content, but that doesn't make the content especially complex.
If games in general got more complex, it would seem like the general trend of that would continue in all genres, but it doesn't. If that were true, our current crop of RPGs would all be very complex, very deep experiences, and they're not. Same thing for FPS games, RTS games and even MOBAs, but that isn't happening.
What actually happens seems to be more like games in general streamline as developers figure out what most people actually want and then they push the features, like graphics, that people really want to push. A small number of developers are games push into the more complex territory, while the majority of games push into the mainstream territory. Sometimes one of those games in the outlying territories finds something interesting and it gets pushed into the mainstream territory.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You are actually exactly right. Not only MMO's but nearly all games. Even console games. All you see is FPS' that are exactly the same as Call of Duty because developers are scared that they won't sell. Take Halo 4 for instance it was ruined basically because of the fact they made it so much like CoD. But we aren't talking about these games we are talking about MMO's so. I do agree that all MMO's are kind of the same shitty game except for this one I have found recently and I have been hooked on. I personally get bored of MMO's really quickly because it's all the same. Tutorials take ages and are extremely boring while you sit there doing the same quest with a different mob over and over hoping to level. It just bores me instantly. But the one I have found you have basically defined in what you said you wanted in an MMO. The name of this game is Archeage. I got on this game pretty excited about it but not too excited because I felt a let down coming on. I logged on and I was hooked instantly. It's in beta right now and I've been playing every beta event since. Every time the beta's start up again I basically stop everything I'm doing and play. I get my computer ready brush my teeth load up Archeage and will not stop unless I need to eat or shit. I get very little sleep, Even if I want to. The game is simply amazing and I strongly recommend you try it. It is a F2P game and it is very addictive. If you wish to keep your life do not play it.
In the terms of MMO gaming, I agree that's generally true. The general difference is in nature, the wolf doesn't kill the sheep for personal satisfaction. It's for survival. Thus, the wolf doesn't move from one kill immediately to the next.
I like the system EVE implements, though I know it's not built for absolute popularity. I like the idea of enforcing a serious risk for griefing players that scales (generally) towards an unavoidable punishment the further you travel towards "safer" (lowbie) zones. I don't feel there's a need for limiting player freedom of choice when you can implement consequences they discourage those choices. Incentivizing, in my opinion, is always preferable to controlling.
I think the it is more idiotic (not to mention illogical) to ask for innovation and change on one hand, and ask for going back to old, tried and failed ideas on another.
And if the games evolves to serve the market better, of course it is better for many ... may not be an particular individual, but the gaming business is seldom about that anyway.
Yeah which is why I'd never just ask for "change" without qualification. if you can't actually *improve* something you should leave it alone. Like you and pretty much pretty much anyone else here I can only speak about games based on what I like and my preferences not some amorphous "market majority".
So, why is i that your personal preference has any bearing on what developers should do when making games? This would be like saying that since you like anchovies on your pizza, pizza makers should not allow this to be an optional topping.
Stop making straw man arguments. I come here to express my opinions about games the same way you do. I praise some and complain about others. At no point have I ever demanded anyone custom-make a game for me. I understand how basic market economics works but if you never express your opinion about what you want that's just guaranteeing that it'll be ignored. Besides I find discussing game design interesting. I wouldn't do this if my main goal was to influence devs to make games I want.
Debating the likes/dislikes of games is what these forums are for. However, once you start thinking that you are entitled to have others act on your likes/dislikes expressed here (to the general public, and not to a specific individual), you are the one that has made the mistake... not I.
I, personally, have expressed my opinion to developers, and had a direct impact on the game that they were making. I have also had a personal effect on publishing. I have even analyzed 'the market' to determine what was in demand at the time. I have been reading these forums for years, and quite often I see some very insightful feedback/comments. I, personally, am not seeing this in your comments, which is why I called you on personal preference vs the market demand.
Debating the likes/dislikes of games is what these forums are for. However, once you start thinking that you are entitled to have others act on your likes/dislikes expressed here (to the general public, and not to a specific individual), you are the one that has made the mistake... not I.
Again, please tell me where I am implying any entitlement to have anyone act on my preferences? Clearly if I'm the only one who wants the things I want no one is going to act on them. If devs happen to be reading this forum and find what I have to say interesting to them that's great but I'd never expect that or structure my comments on that basis. If you want to influence devs directly I think it is far better to get involved in crowdfunding and/or alpha testing which I have done in the past.
Market research is very complicated. I don't know how rigorous you've been in "researching the market" or what your background is in that sort of thing but I do suspect that many people on here who use that sort of argument are just speaking of what they and perhaps their friends want so I tend to disregard people who just assume that the "silent majority" must want what they want. (Again, you may actually be qualified to do market research for all I know so that's not directed at you personally).
You are actually exactly right. Not only MMO's but nearly all games. Even console games. All you see is FPS' that are exactly the same as Call of Duty because developers are scared that they won't sell. Take Halo 4 for instance it was ruined basically because of the fact they made it so much like CoD. But we aren't talking about these games we are talking about MMO's so. I do agree that all MMO's are kind of the same shitty game except for this one I have found recently and I have been hooked on. I personally get bored of MMO's really quickly because it's all the same. Tutorials take ages and are extremely boring while you sit there doing the same quest with a different mob over and over hoping to level. It just bores me instantly. But the one I have found you have basically defined in what you said you wanted in an MMO. The name of this game is Archeage. I got on this game pretty excited about it but not too excited because I felt a let down coming on. I logged on and I was hooked instantly. It's in beta right now and I've been playing every beta event since. Every time the beta's start up again I basically stop everything I'm doing and play. I get my computer ready brush my teeth load up Archeage and will not stop unless I need to eat or shit. I get very little sleep, Even if I want to. The game is simply amazing and I strongly recommend you try it. It is a F2P game and it is very addictive. If you wish to keep your life do not play it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
No offense to the OP, but as long winded as he is; the bashing of EQ as "just one big boring grind" suggests a lack of social skills. Now, unless you started playing EQ after 2004, EQ was a very social game. Players interacted, hung out, formed groups for expeditions, or just went to an interesting dungeon and joined other players.
Or social is just boring to him. Are you confused between inability and undesirable?
Case in point, I am in a couple of guilds (including a progressive guild) before, and it is just not fun for me. So i don't social ... does that mean that I cannot? I don't think so.
And yes, EQ is just a big boring grind (worse, a big boring grind with camp drama), and the "social" makes it worse?
No offense to the OP, but as long winded as he is; the bashing of EQ as "just one big boring grind" suggests a lack of social skills. Now, unless you started playing EQ after 2004, EQ was a very social game. Players interacted, hung out, formed groups for expeditions, or just went to an interesting dungeon and joined other players.
Or social is just boring to him. Are you confused between inability and undesirable?
Case in point, I am in a couple of guilds (including a progressive guild) before, and it is just not fun for me. So i don't social ... does that mean that I cannot? I don't think so.
And yes, EQ is just a big boring grind (worse, a big boring grind with camp drama), and the "social" makes it worse?
What on earth is a progressive guild? Do they talk about where we should be going in politics or something?
You are not a social animal Nari, that is abundantly clear, it amazes me that you find the time and interest to communicate with us on here. Don't think about that too much or we might never see you again.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
But why are we comparing Shooters and MMORPGs? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare RPGs to MMORPGs? Would someone playing Pools of Radiance recognize the elements there that have made it into World of Warcraft? PoR was release in 1988. Ultima Online was released in 1997, so from 1997 to now we have 17 years. Would someone playing an RPG in 2005 recognize that game as a descendant of a game like Pools of Radiance, written in 1998? It would certainly be much easier to play and would take a lot less time, not to mention having 3D graphics.
OK I think the difference is Single player RPGs got way deeper and more complex. Neverwinter Nights 2 (2006) is on a whole different magnitude of depth compared to Pool of Radiance despite both being RPGs based on (different editions of) D&D. This is what usually happens with games. As the computer hardware can handle more we get more complexity, more choice and a deeper experience.
MMOs are weird though in this way. Sure, Ultima Online is way more complex than some MUD you would have played in 1988 but in the last few years they've gone in the other direction, now they have less depth, less classes and less mechanics than MMOs released 10 or 15 years ago. That's why you have some people at least feeling the genre is going backwards.
You are cherry picking examples to illustrate your point. At the same time there are games that showed more complexity, there are games that got simpler in terms of game play. Fallout 3 uses far more resources than either Pools of Radiance or Neverwinter Nights, but it's not an especially deep game. It has tons and tons of content, but that doesn't make the content especially complex.
If games in general got more complex, it would seem like the general trend of that would continue in all genres, but it doesn't. If that were true, our current crop of RPGs would all be very complex, very deep experiences, and they're not. Same thing for FPS games, RTS games and even MOBAs, but that isn't happening.
What actually happens seems to be more like games in general streamline as developers figure out what most people actually want and then they push the features, like graphics, that people really want to push. A small number of developers are games push into the more complex territory, while the majority of games push into the mainstream territory. Sometimes one of those games in the outlying territories finds something interesting and it gets pushed into the mainstream territory.
Taking shooters as an example was just an example, but a perfectly valid one. MMOs have developed differently to the way the rest of gaming has, but in many ways it has followed the path all gaming has, those two points do not negate each other.
The use of the word 'streamlining' is weighted with a positive opinion about where gaming is now. It assumes gaming houses have made the right decisions, are picking the right elements out of games and taking them forward. But as we know the reasons why certain elements in gaming are taken forward is not always to make the best game.
'Streamlining' in particular gets used to advocate that less is in fact more. They take away elements and say "This is better." It is an excuse we have seen used time and time again.
When gaming companies decided to go for solo RPG players and make MMOs solo, that was not done with making a better game in mind, it was to expand the market. When they decided that MMOS should go for console gamers to expand the market that was not to make MMOs better games. When they decided to tailor MMOs to tempt in social media users who played the likes of Farmville, once again it was not done to make a better game.
Back to 'streamlining', is it innovation when everything gets smaller? Another poster mentioned LoL (not even a MMO), innovation yes, but its only one way; smaller world, cheaper graphics, dumbed down combat. This is in fact reflected in wider gaming, with the reuse of previous content in a series, which if done well is fine, if done poorly looks cheap arse. But overall the AAA titles outside of MMOs get bigger, at least in size, while AAA MMOs are getting smaller.
Simplicity is best when you want everyone and their mum to play (to paraphrase EA's ex CEO), but we are not all six years old or middle aged and have never played a game before. That's the design principle for 'better' games that now rules.
In spite of all this we still get some great games, but could they be better if not designed by marketing and accounts? Most certainly.
I think a steady decline is only natural.. Computer gaming is no different then any other product or service.. When it's new, it's very attractive, just like SUV's, Minivans. or even chatrooms.. But eventually the flood of people will settle down, and the natural flow will reside and decline.. MMO's player saturation has reached it's peak, so it's expected that people will not devote the time into playing MMO games as much.. Hence the decline..
This is why companies are always trying to find a new market of players to bring in.. They know they are in an industry that is very fragile and short lived.. I"m sure 10 years from now, the MMO industry will be look much different then it is today.. It will be interesting to see what direction they try to take to keep their jobs..
But why are we comparing Shooters and MMORPGs? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare RPGs to MMORPGs? Would someone playing Pools of Radiance recognize the elements there that have made it into World of Warcraft? PoR was release in 1988. Ultima Online was released in 1997, so from 1997 to now we have 17 years. Would someone playing an RPG in 2005 recognize that game as a descendant of a game like Pools of Radiance, written in 1998? It would certainly be much easier to play and would take a lot less time, not to mention having 3D graphics.
OK I think the difference is Single player RPGs got way deeper and more complex. Neverwinter Nights 2 (2006) is on a whole different magnitude of depth compared to Pool of Radiance despite both being RPGs based on (different editions of) D&D. This is what usually happens with games. As the computer hardware can handle more we get more complexity, more choice and a deeper experience.
MMOs are weird though in this way. Sure, Ultima Online is way more complex than some MUD you would have played in 1988 but in the last few years they've gone in the other direction, now they have less depth, less classes and less mechanics than MMOs released 10 or 15 years ago. That's why you have some people at least feeling the genre is going backwards.
You are cherry picking examples to illustrate your point. At the same time there are games that showed more complexity, there are games that got simpler in terms of game play. Fallout 3 uses far more resources than either Pools of Radiance or Neverwinter Nights, but it's not an especially deep game. It has tons and tons of content, but that doesn't make the content especially complex.
If games in general got more complex, it would seem like the general trend of that would continue in all genres, but it doesn't. If that were true, our current crop of RPGs would all be very complex, very deep experiences, and they're not. Same thing for FPS games, RTS games and even MOBAs, but that isn't happening.
What actually happens seems to be more like games in general streamline as developers figure out what most people actually want and then they push the features, like graphics, that people really want to push. A small number of developers are games push into the more complex territory, while the majority of games push into the mainstream territory. Sometimes one of those games in the outlying territories finds something interesting and it gets pushed into the mainstream territory.
Taking shooters as an example was just an example, but a perfectly valid one. MMOs have developed differently to the way the rest of gaming has, but in many ways it has followed the path all gaming has, those two points do not negate each other.
The use of the word 'streamlining' is weighted with a positive opinion about where gaming is now. It assumes gaming houses have made the right decisions, are picking the right elements out of games and taking them forward. But as we know the reasons why certain elements in gaming are taken forward is not always to make the best game.
'Streamlining' in particular gets used to advocate that less is in fact more. They take away elements and say "This is better." It is an excuse we have seen used time and time again.
When gaming companies decided to go for solo RPG players and make MMOs solo, that was not done with making a better game in mind, it was to expand the market. When they decided that MMOS should go for console gamers to expand the market that was not to make MMOs better games. When they decided to tailor MMOs to tempt in social media users who played the likes of Farmville, once again it was not done to make a better game.
Back to 'streamlining', is it innovation when everything gets smaller? Another poster mentioned LoL (not even a MMO), innovation yes, but its only one way; smaller world, cheaper graphics, dumbed down combat. This is in fact reflected in wider gaming, with the reuse of previous content in a series, which if done well is fine, if done poorly looks cheap arse. But overall the AAA titles outside of MMOs get bigger, at least in size, while AAA MMOs are getting smaller.
Simplicity is best when you want everyone and their mum to play (to paraphrase EA's ex CEO), but we are not all six years old or middle aged and have never played a game before. That's the design principle for 'better' games that now rules.
In spite of all this we still get some great games, but could they be better if not designed by marketing and accounts? Most certainly.
What are you using as a frame of reference for comparison? Because there's an interview with Richard Garriott on how he had to talk to the people with money and convince them that UO would make money. He didn't just run out in his garage and cr@p out UO. He went to the accounting people, and talked to marketing people after the game was done (there's a UO commercial of all things on Youtube) to get the game sold.
Sure, if money didn't matter there might be great things out there, but there would also be piles and piles of cr@p too. That's what happens when you let just anyone make things. Luckily we don't have to depend on opinions from "experts" on what makes a good game. We can use the metric that has been used since video games first sold. The number of people who buy them.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
As somebody that's been on the MMO scene since UO first launched, then followed down the route of theme park MMO's like everybody else, and gave up on the whole theme park MMO scene towards the end of the 00's, and ignored every MMORPG released since, I can see where you're coming from.
Darkfall 1 came close to the old gritty ways, but needed a lot of time investment that was easily lost. I think the issue today though with 'full loot' that is holding it back, is gritty MMO's should allow what's in a person back to be looted, but their crafted or loot dropped armor & weapons should remain with them upon death, but receive wear and tear damage.
Time investment is a huge deal for many, loosing all of it in seconds draws people away. Taking ages to gear up only to really never gain the experience to properly get into things is the issue with full loot pvp MMORPG. SWG pre NGE PVP allowed your armor and weapon to remain, but they wore down over time, and it was a great system. A few very good players ,or groups can really lay waste to a community of new players by looting people dry of their weapons and armor in seconds, which took many hours of in game time for the currency to get.
Originally posted by waynejr2 I haven't seen any numbers that support the idea that there are less people playing mmos. There are a ton of game people are playing. I guess what you are saying is YOU can't find a game you like (how sad) therefore the industry is in a steady decline. (OMG the end of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Exactly. Actually never so many played games as nowadays and never have been so many MMO out there.
Originally posted by waynejr2 I haven't seen any numbers that support the idea that there are less people playing mmos. There are a ton of game people are playing. I guess what you are saying is YOU can't find a game you like (how sad) therefore the industry is in a steady decline. (OMG the end of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Exactly. Actually never so many played games as nowadays and never have been so many MMO out there.
Mhmm.
Each time I see one of these threads I'm reminded of the dinosaurs and what happens to species that can't adapt to changes in their environment.
I guess in this case the T-Rex gets behind a keyboard and starts reminiscing about the good old days when he got to gank noobs over and over again until they cancelled their subscription.
And people wonder why developers don't see any profit in pleasing these dinos...
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
I remember playing EQ1 back in the day and they broke the world record of having 500'000 people logged into one online game. Was announced with a game wide message. Now we have single games that have millions logging in just to one game. We dont have a few MMOs to pick from, we now have a few hundred and many of them have hundreds of thousands subbing or logging into them regularly. We have new styles of MMOs like Destiny they broke the record of number of people signing up for beta, something like 5'000'000 people. MMOs are here to stay and are still gaining speed.
Originally posted by waynejr2 I haven't seen any numbers that support the idea that there are less people playing mmos. There are a ton of game people are playing. I guess what you are saying is YOU can't find a game you like (how sad) therefore the industry is in a steady decline. (OMG the end of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Exactly. Actually never so many played games as nowadays and never have been so many MMO out there.
Mhmm.
Each time I see one of these threads I'm reminded of the dinosaurs and what happens to species that can't adapt to changes in their environment.
I guess in this case the T-Rex gets behind a keyboard and starts reminiscing about the good old days when he got to gank noobs over and over again until they cancelled their subscription.
And people wonder why developers don't see any profit in pleasing these dinos...
If a T-Rex can't pass the salt, then how do they type? That's just beyond ridiculous.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbonesSure, if money didn't matter there might be great things out there, but there would also be piles and piles of cr@p too. That's what happens when you let just anyone make things. Luckily we don't have to depend on opinions from "experts" on what makes a good game. We can use the metric that has been used since video games first sold. The number of people who buy them.
I am not saying there is no place for business in gaming, it is essential. But the priority of business thinking has gone too far, we had John Riccitello crowing about how he had made his designers at EA think like accountents. That's what you have budget guys for, the creative team should not be worrying about cost. If they need to be pulled in someone else in the company should do that. He narrowed EA's vision by making creatives think like bean counters.
But I was also talking about the direction of design, which has been driven by marketing, this fly's directly against the concept of us getting better games over time. Gaming houses have successfully brought far more potential players into gaming with a Model T Ford, that's who they have been designing for. They have not been trying to design an ever better Rolls Royce, uniquely tailored to the customers choice.
You are cherry picking examples to illustrate your point. At the same time there are games that showed more complexity, there are games that got simpler in terms of game play. Fallout 3 uses far more resources than either Pools of Radiance or Neverwinter Nights, but it's not an especially deep game. It has tons and tons of content, but that doesn't make the content especially complex.
If games in general got more complex, it would seem like the general trend of that would continue in all genres, but it doesn't. If that were true, our current crop of RPGs would all be very complex, very deep experiences, and they're not. Same thing for FPS games, RTS games and even MOBAs, but that isn't happening.
What actually happens seems to be more like games in general streamline as developers figure out what most people actually want and then they push the features, like graphics, that people really want to push. A small number of developers are games push into the more complex territory, while the majority of games push into the mainstream territory. Sometimes one of those games in the outlying territories finds something interesting and it gets pushed into the mainstream territory.
I don't disagree with what you are saying here (although even if you want to use Fallout 3 as the example the gameplay is still way deeper than Pool of Radiance). But yes streamlining is an issue (or a good thing if you want to look at it that way) in most genres lately. I do think it effect MMOs even more than other genres I've seen though.
Often the business side gets it wrong though. As we have seen with the recent crowdfunding boom there is actually quite a bit of demand for genres and game mechanics which marketing types tried to tell us we didn't want anymore.
Originally posted by lizardbonesSure, if money didn't matter there might be great things out there, but there would also be piles and piles of cr@p too. That's what happens when you let just anyone make things. Luckily we don't have to depend on opinions from "experts" on what makes a good game. We can use the metric that has been used since video games first sold. The number of people who buy them.
I am not saying there is no place for business in gaming, it is essential. But the priority of business thinking has gone too far, we had John Riccitello crowing about how he had made his designers at EA think like accountents. That's what you have budget guys for, the creative team should not be worrying about cost. If they need to be pulled in someone else in the company should do that. He narrowed EA's vision by making creatives think like bean counters.
But I was also talking about the direction of design, which has been driven by marketing, this fly's directly against the concept of us getting better games over time. Gaming houses have successfully brought far more potential players into gaming with a Model T Ford, that's who they have been designing for. They have not been trying to design an ever better Rolls Royce, uniquely tailored to the customers choice.
Gaming has never been about business for gamers. Gaming has always been about business for developers. The business side is a fundamental aspect of gaming that allows it to continue to exist. Can a company take that too far? Why yes, they can. But "too far" is the point past which people aren't going to pay for the games. Things like Age of Empires Online are examples of "too far". People just refused to buy the product, and now the product is going away.
There is a reason why we aren't getting expensive, hand crafted vehicles (for entertainment) instead of the commodity vehicles (for entertainment) and it's not because there are greedy developers. If someone hand builds a really nice car, they can sell that car for an exorbitant amount of money to rich individuals and only produce a few of those cars a year. There are many indie developers doing just that. They are hand crafting games, tailored for a fairly specific audience. Nobody is going to pay them what it costs to produce those games just to play the games. In fact, nobody is going to pay them the same amount of money they would pay for the commodity games that EA produces. This is why video games, while they can be artistic, are products, not art.
Keeping in mind that video games are temporary entertainment products, "quality" is what people are willing to buy. If what people are willing to buy is SWTOR, then SWTOR is a quality product. I may not like that product*, and I may have a long list of things that are wrong with that product**, but that doesn't mean SWTOR is a low quality product. That's really what it comes down to. "Good" is that which many people like and few people dislike. "Bad" is that which few people like and many people dislike.
There can be distinctions made within what people like or dislike though. For instance, there are people who like and dislike Darkfall. But why do they like or dislike it? Is it the philosophy behind the game, or the game itself? What I'm getting at here is that there are people who don't like Darkfall because it is a FFA + Open World PvP game, not because of the job Aventurine did building the game. The reverse is probably also true. To me, the likes and dislikes because of the job a developer did building the game are the ones that matter. The people who like Darkfall because of the type of game it is, but who don't play it don't matter. Ditto for people who dislike it because of the philosophy behind the game rather than the job done building it. They don't matter. If the people who like Darkfall because of how well it's been put together significantly outnumber the people who dislike the game because of how it's put together, then Darkfall is a good game. Apply these same arguments to SWTOR and people liking or disliking it because of the F2P system and maybe you can see where I'm going with this. SWTOR is a good game because the people who like the product without regard to the philosophy behind it significantly outnumber the people who dislike the product without regard for the philosophy behind it.
~~~~
* I don't.
** I do.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
No offense to the OP, but as long winded as he is; the bashing of EQ as "just one big boring grind" suggests a lack of social skills. Now, unless you started playing EQ after 2004, EQ was a very social game. Players interacted, hung out, formed groups for expeditions, or just went to an interesting dungeon and joined other players.
I suppose if you didn't make lasting friends or never joined a guild; and saw the goal of EQ to get max level; then you might see EQ, or any game, frankly, as a grind. I had so much fun from the day I rolled my character; until I retired. Even if that fun some times meant I was just wandering around and not doing much. For 99.9% of my playtime, I was not stressing over my xp bar.
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
Stop making straw man arguments. I come here to express my opinions about games the same way you do. I praise some and complain about others. At no point have I ever demanded anyone custom-make a game for me. I understand how basic market economics works but if you never express your opinion about what you want that's just guaranteeing that it'll be ignored. Besides I find discussing game design interesting. I wouldn't do this if my main goal was to influence devs to make games I want.
You are cherry picking examples to illustrate your point. At the same time there are games that showed more complexity, there are games that got simpler in terms of game play. Fallout 3 uses far more resources than either Pools of Radiance or Neverwinter Nights, but it's not an especially deep game. It has tons and tons of content, but that doesn't make the content especially complex.
If games in general got more complex, it would seem like the general trend of that would continue in all genres, but it doesn't. If that were true, our current crop of RPGs would all be very complex, very deep experiences, and they're not. Same thing for FPS games, RTS games and even MOBAs, but that isn't happening.
What actually happens seems to be more like games in general streamline as developers figure out what most people actually want and then they push the features, like graphics, that people really want to push. A small number of developers are games push into the more complex territory, while the majority of games push into the mainstream territory. Sometimes one of those games in the outlying territories finds something interesting and it gets pushed into the mainstream territory.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You are actually exactly right. Not only MMO's but nearly all games. Even console games. All you see is FPS' that are exactly the same as Call of Duty because developers are scared that they won't sell. Take Halo 4 for instance it was ruined basically because of the fact they made it so much like CoD. But we aren't talking about these games we are talking about MMO's so. I do agree that all MMO's are kind of the same shitty game except for this one I have found recently and I have been hooked on. I personally get bored of MMO's really quickly because it's all the same. Tutorials take ages and are extremely boring while you sit there doing the same quest with a different mob over and over hoping to level. It just bores me instantly. But the one I have found you have basically defined in what you said you wanted in an MMO. The name of this game is Archeage. I got on this game pretty excited about it but not too excited because I felt a let down coming on. I logged on and I was hooked instantly. It's in beta right now and I've been playing every beta event since. Every time the beta's start up again I basically stop everything I'm doing and play. I get my computer ready brush my teeth load up Archeage and will not stop unless I need to eat or shit. I get very little sleep, Even if I want to. The game is simply amazing and I strongly recommend you try it. It is a F2P game and it is very addictive. If you wish to keep your life do not play it.
Beta keys for beta event 4: (If they have any) http://www.mmogames.com/giveaways/
Website for info: http://archeage.xlgames.com/en
Give it a shot and you will not be disappointed.
I like the system EVE implements, though I know it's not built for absolute popularity. I like the idea of enforcing a serious risk for griefing players that scales (generally) towards an unavoidable punishment the further you travel towards "safer" (lowbie) zones. I don't feel there's a need for limiting player freedom of choice when you can implement consequences they discourage those choices. Incentivizing, in my opinion, is always preferable to controlling.
Debating the likes/dislikes of games is what these forums are for. However, once you start thinking that you are entitled to have others act on your likes/dislikes expressed here (to the general public, and not to a specific individual), you are the one that has made the mistake... not I.
I, personally, have expressed my opinion to developers, and had a direct impact on the game that they were making. I have also had a personal effect on publishing. I have even analyzed 'the market' to determine what was in demand at the time. I have been reading these forums for years, and quite often I see some very insightful feedback/comments. I, personally, am not seeing this in your comments, which is why I called you on personal preference vs the market demand.
Again, please tell me where I am implying any entitlement to have anyone act on my preferences? Clearly if I'm the only one who wants the things I want no one is going to act on them. If devs happen to be reading this forum and find what I have to say interesting to them that's great but I'd never expect that or structure my comments on that basis. If you want to influence devs directly I think it is far better to get involved in crowdfunding and/or alpha testing which I have done in the past.
Market research is very complicated. I don't know how rigorous you've been in "researching the market" or what your background is in that sort of thing but I do suspect that many people on here who use that sort of argument are just speaking of what they and perhaps their friends want so I tend to disregard people who just assume that the "silent majority" must want what they want. (Again, you may actually be qualified to do market research for all I know so that's not directed at you personally).
I actually just got an invite so I will be trying out Archage this weekend.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Or social is just boring to him. Are you confused between inability and undesirable?
Case in point, I am in a couple of guilds (including a progressive guild) before, and it is just not fun for me. So i don't social ... does that mean that I cannot? I don't think so.
And yes, EQ is just a big boring grind (worse, a big boring grind with camp drama), and the "social" makes it worse?
What on earth is a progressive guild? Do they talk about where we should be going in politics or something?
You are not a social animal Nari, that is abundantly clear, it amazes me that you find the time and interest to communicate with us on here. Don't think about that too much or we might never see you again.
I think this wolf didn't get the memo...
Warning adult content due to excessive violence.
Arabian Wolf Killing Sheep
<span long-title="" "="" dir="ltr" title="Arabian Wolf Killing Sheeps and then Attacked by Dogs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCJXr9URaP8
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Taking shooters as an example was just an example, but a perfectly valid one. MMOs have developed differently to the way the rest of gaming has, but in many ways it has followed the path all gaming has, those two points do not negate each other.
The use of the word 'streamlining' is weighted with a positive opinion about where gaming is now. It assumes gaming houses have made the right decisions, are picking the right elements out of games and taking them forward. But as we know the reasons why certain elements in gaming are taken forward is not always to make the best game.
'Streamlining' in particular gets used to advocate that less is in fact more. They take away elements and say "This is better." It is an excuse we have seen used time and time again.
When gaming companies decided to go for solo RPG players and make MMOs solo, that was not done with making a better game in mind, it was to expand the market. When they decided that MMOS should go for console gamers to expand the market that was not to make MMOs better games. When they decided to tailor MMOs to tempt in social media users who played the likes of Farmville, once again it was not done to make a better game.
Back to 'streamlining', is it innovation when everything gets smaller? Another poster mentioned LoL (not even a MMO), innovation yes, but its only one way; smaller world, cheaper graphics, dumbed down combat. This is in fact reflected in wider gaming, with the reuse of previous content in a series, which if done well is fine, if done poorly looks cheap arse. But overall the AAA titles outside of MMOs get bigger, at least in size, while AAA MMOs are getting smaller.
Simplicity is best when you want everyone and their mum to play (to paraphrase EA's ex CEO), but we are not all six years old or middle aged and have never played a game before. That's the design principle for 'better' games that now rules.
In spite of all this we still get some great games, but could they be better if not designed by marketing and accounts? Most certainly.
I think a steady decline is only natural.. Computer gaming is no different then any other product or service.. When it's new, it's very attractive, just like SUV's, Minivans. or even chatrooms.. But eventually the flood of people will settle down, and the natural flow will reside and decline.. MMO's player saturation has reached it's peak, so it's expected that people will not devote the time into playing MMO games as much.. Hence the decline..
This is why companies are always trying to find a new market of players to bring in.. They know they are in an industry that is very fragile and short lived.. I"m sure 10 years from now, the MMO industry will be look much different then it is today.. It will be interesting to see what direction they try to take to keep their jobs..
What are you using as a frame of reference for comparison? Because there's an interview with Richard Garriott on how he had to talk to the people with money and convince them that UO would make money. He didn't just run out in his garage and cr@p out UO. He went to the accounting people, and talked to marketing people after the game was done (there's a UO commercial of all things on Youtube) to get the game sold.Sure, if money didn't matter there might be great things out there, but there would also be piles and piles of cr@p too. That's what happens when you let just anyone make things. Luckily we don't have to depend on opinions from "experts" on what makes a good game. We can use the metric that has been used since video games first sold. The number of people who buy them.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
As somebody that's been on the MMO scene since UO first launched, then followed down the route of theme park MMO's like everybody else, and gave up on the whole theme park MMO scene towards the end of the 00's, and ignored every MMORPG released since, I can see where you're coming from.
Darkfall 1 came close to the old gritty ways, but needed a lot of time investment that was easily lost. I think the issue today though with 'full loot' that is holding it back, is gritty MMO's should allow what's in a person back to be looted, but their crafted or loot dropped armor & weapons should remain with them upon death, but receive wear and tear damage.
Time investment is a huge deal for many, loosing all of it in seconds draws people away. Taking ages to gear up only to really never gain the experience to properly get into things is the issue with full loot pvp MMORPG. SWG pre NGE PVP allowed your armor and weapon to remain, but they wore down over time, and it was a great system. A few very good players ,or groups can really lay waste to a community of new players by looting people dry of their weapons and armor in seconds, which took many hours of in game time for the currency to get.
Exactly. Actually never so many played games as nowadays and never have been so many MMO out there.
Mhmm.
Each time I see one of these threads I'm reminded of the dinosaurs and what happens to species that can't adapt to changes in their environment.
I guess in this case the T-Rex gets behind a keyboard and starts reminiscing about the good old days when he got to gank noobs over and over again until they cancelled their subscription.
And people wonder why developers don't see any profit in pleasing these dinos...
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
If a T-Rex can't pass the salt, then how do they type? That's just beyond ridiculous.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I am not saying there is no place for business in gaming, it is essential. But the priority of business thinking has gone too far, we had John Riccitello crowing about how he had made his designers at EA think like accountents. That's what you have budget guys for, the creative team should not be worrying about cost. If they need to be pulled in someone else in the company should do that. He narrowed EA's vision by making creatives think like bean counters.
But I was also talking about the direction of design, which has been driven by marketing, this fly's directly against the concept of us getting better games over time. Gaming houses have successfully brought far more potential players into gaming with a Model T Ford, that's who they have been designing for. They have not been trying to design an ever better Rolls Royce, uniquely tailored to the customers choice.
I don't disagree with what you are saying here (although even if you want to use Fallout 3 as the example the gameplay is still way deeper than Pool of Radiance). But yes streamlining is an issue (or a good thing if you want to look at it that way) in most genres lately. I do think it effect MMOs even more than other genres I've seen though.
Often the business side gets it wrong though. As we have seen with the recent crowdfunding boom there is actually quite a bit of demand for genres and game mechanics which marketing types tried to tell us we didn't want anymore.
Gaming has never been about business for gamers. Gaming has always been about business for developers. The business side is a fundamental aspect of gaming that allows it to continue to exist. Can a company take that too far? Why yes, they can. But "too far" is the point past which people aren't going to pay for the games. Things like Age of Empires Online are examples of "too far". People just refused to buy the product, and now the product is going away.
There is a reason why we aren't getting expensive, hand crafted vehicles (for entertainment) instead of the commodity vehicles (for entertainment) and it's not because there are greedy developers. If someone hand builds a really nice car, they can sell that car for an exorbitant amount of money to rich individuals and only produce a few of those cars a year. There are many indie developers doing just that. They are hand crafting games, tailored for a fairly specific audience. Nobody is going to pay them what it costs to produce those games just to play the games. In fact, nobody is going to pay them the same amount of money they would pay for the commodity games that EA produces. This is why video games, while they can be artistic, are products, not art.
Keeping in mind that video games are temporary entertainment products, "quality" is what people are willing to buy. If what people are willing to buy is SWTOR, then SWTOR is a quality product. I may not like that product*, and I may have a long list of things that are wrong with that product**, but that doesn't mean SWTOR is a low quality product. That's really what it comes down to. "Good" is that which many people like and few people dislike. "Bad" is that which few people like and many people dislike.
There can be distinctions made within what people like or dislike though. For instance, there are people who like and dislike Darkfall. But why do they like or dislike it? Is it the philosophy behind the game, or the game itself? What I'm getting at here is that there are people who don't like Darkfall because it is a FFA + Open World PvP game, not because of the job Aventurine did building the game. The reverse is probably also true. To me, the likes and dislikes because of the job a developer did building the game are the ones that matter. The people who like Darkfall because of the type of game it is, but who don't play it don't matter. Ditto for people who dislike it because of the philosophy behind the game rather than the job done building it. They don't matter. If the people who like Darkfall because of how well it's been put together significantly outnumber the people who dislike the game because of how it's put together, then Darkfall is a good game. Apply these same arguments to SWTOR and people liking or disliking it because of the F2P system and maybe you can see where I'm going with this. SWTOR is a good game because the people who like the product without regard to the philosophy behind it significantly outnumber the people who dislike the product without regard for the philosophy behind it.
~~~~
* I don't.
** I do.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
MMOs started out with the proper scope.
Let's build a fictional world and fill it with stuff for people to find and a few things to do.
Well people wanted more things to do and they brought in the scope for a 'full personal experience'.
Console games, single player games, smaller scoped games do this better.
MMOs can raise again if they focused on the people who want to work together and take on something larger than they've ever seen before.
a yo ho ho