Well MOST people dont play mmos to begin with. Most innovative mmos that have failed didnt fail because people didnt like that they were different they failed because they were just not great games. There is plenty of room on the market for success with innovation.But for that to happen it has to be coupled with accesablilty, fun, lack of bugs and good word of mouth and marketing.
We all know people will put up with buggy pieces of shit, if its fun. So, that's not it.
The largest indicator of this, is the fact we get so many clones. Pure and simple.
God dam it MMORPG.com, fix your buggy ass forums please.
Still disagree. If that was the case Vanguard would be played more. Most people who play mmos have played mmo's for years. Or more like it have been playing the SAME mmo for years reskinned or not. I am one of those that would love to see some true innovation in the genre. I hope Bioware can deliver. I think they will. Alot of my guildies from both my current games talk about this all the time. Bioware has the track record to warrent the benefit of the doubt putting story before convention.
Games have EVOLVED since the games that vanguard tried to emulate, Vanguard, by choose, decided to not pay attention to the evolutions that have happened since the 10 years EQ came out.
Im not mistaken, your comparing Vanguard to modern MMO's, this is the incorrect part, Vanguard intentionally chose to emulate MMO's of 10 years past.
Skipping all the current evolutions, this is why its not played. No where did i say people want first gen games, i said they do not want innovation. Innovation usually comes in the form of "Drastically different than the current gen".
There IS innovation in the current gen, your (not you you, you as in, most people on this site) just not paying attention to it, because it doesn't come from the big 5 dev houses.
Actually, I'm pretty sure you are 100% wrong in your accessment of why Vanguard isn't being played. IMHO, if Vanguard didn't have the monstrous system requirements, I think it'd have more subscribers than LoTRO. Vanguard is hampered by the 'effort' you have to put in just to 'play the game'. I'm not talking about effort of leveling or crafting etc, I'm talking about the added effort of having to do anything in it. It's sluggish and frustrating, from the menus to crafting and the questing.
My cousin, who is your typical WoW/EQ/casual player. He played WoW for over 4 years and he told me that Vanguard would be better than WoW if it wasn't so sluggish and buggy. His opinions of a game, 90% of the time, reflect it's success/failure. I have no doubt that if VG wasn't so buggy and sluggish, it'd be more successful than LoTRO/Warhammer and AoC. It'd have probably gotten those 400 - 500 subs.
Vanguard's gameplay is superior to any of the new stuff today or old.
Note: I don't play VG now because I just cannot stand how 'slow' the game is, even on a dual core, 3gig ram computer with a 1gig video card.
lol, I have no issues running vanguard, i also was in beta. They refused to acknowledge that games had evolved since EQ. While system performance is a key factor for it, its simply bad design for this day and age that has relegated it to its current home of mediocre.
This is quite evident from launch to now, as they have since been adding evolutions (that have happened in the 10 years EQ came out) into the game where there had been none, and this has lead to its current rise in users.
Game play superior, is subjective.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Using Wurm Online as an example to you being right is laughable. Wurm Online, which has some great features, also has a very poor interface. You're using examples and getting opinions on examples where bugs/bad interfaces/sluggish performance were heavy. Your best argument comes with games like Ryzom or Seed and even then a lack of funds helped hasten/cause their demise, moreso than gameplay. Furthermore, with Ryzom you could also argue that it's 'presentation/interface' of it's game didn't help it much.
Let me be plain and clear: I recently wrote that LotR Online was the worst MMORPG I ever played. Edit: It is certainly the most boring and predictable.
It seems that the more popular, and highly rated the mass market ranks MMORPGs, the more I dislike them.
The tastes of the mass market are simply incompatible with mine as an "immersion gamer."
Edit 2: Let's face it: MMORPGs are, today, designed for dumb people. Hence, why the gameplay, worlds, content, and everything else is dumbed-down.
Ah, i understand what you are now.
This has become a worthless thread to discuss anything in now, you never wanted discussion.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Furthermore MrBloodworth, Using Wurm Online as an example to you being right is laughable. Wurm Online, which has some great features, also has a very poor interface. You're using examples and getting opinions on examples where bugs/bad interfaces/sluggish performance were heavy. Your best argument comes with games like Ryzom or Seed and even then a lack of funds helped hasten/cause their demise, moreso than gameplay. Furthermore, with Ryzom you could also argue that it's 'presentation/interface' of it's game didn't help it much.
They all had innovation, innovation is not what people want. Hence why i used them as examples. No where did i say that it was the only cause or reasons, for ANY of the games we have talked about.
There is no one reason, however, the topic of the thread is innovations, i listed games that had it, that were not accepted by mass market.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Well MOST people dont play mmos to begin with. Most innovative mmos that have failed didnt fail because people didnt like that they were different they failed because they were just not great games. There is plenty of room on the market for success with innovation.But for that to happen it has to be coupled with accesablilty, fun, lack of bugs and good word of mouth and marketing.
We all know people will put up with buggy pieces of shit, if its fun. So, that's not it.
The largest indicator of this, is the fact we get so many clones. Pure and simple.
God dam it MMORPG.com, fix your buggy ass forums please.
Still disagree. If that was the case Vanguard would be played more. Most people who play mmos have played mmo's for years. Or more like it have been playing the SAME mmo for years reskinned or not. I am one of those that would love to see some true innovation in the genre. I hope Bioware can deliver. I think they will. Alot of my guildies from both my current games talk about this all the time. Bioware has the track record to warrent the benefit of the doubt putting story before convention.
Games have EVOLVED since the games that vanguard tried to emulate, Vanguard, by choose, decided to not pay attention to the evolutions that have happened since the 10 years EQ came out.
Im not mistaken, your comparing Vanguard to modern MMO's, this is the incorrect part, Vanguard intentionally chose to emulate MMO's of 10 years past.
Skipping all the current evolutions, this is why its not played. No where did i say people want first gen games, i said they do not want innovation. Innovation usually comes in the form of "Drastically different than the current gen".
There IS innovation in the current gen, your (not you you, you as in, most people on this site) just not paying attention to it, because it doesn't come from the big 5 dev houses.
Actually, I'm pretty sure you are 100% wrong in your accessment of why Vanguard isn't being played. IMHO, if Vanguard didn't have the monstrous system requirements, I think it'd have more subscribers than LoTRO. Vanguard is hampered by the 'effort' you have to put in just to 'play the game'. I'm not talking about effort of leveling or crafting etc, I'm talking about the added effort of having to do anything in it. It's sluggish and frustrating, from the menus to crafting and the questing.
My cousin, who is your typical WoW/EQ/casual player. He played WoW for over 4 years and he told me that Vanguard would be better than WoW if it wasn't so sluggish and buggy. His opinions of a game, 90% of the time, reflect it's success/failure. I have no doubt that if VG wasn't so buggy and sluggish, it'd be more successful than LoTRO/Warhammer and AoC. It'd have probably gotten those 400 - 500 subs.
Vanguard's gameplay is superior to any of the new stuff today or old.
Note: I don't play VG now because I just cannot stand how 'slow' the game is, even on a dual core, 3gig ram computer with a 1gig video card.
lol, I have no issues running vanguard, i also was in beta. They refused to acknowledge that games had evolved since EQ. While system performance is a key factor for it, its simply bad design for this day and age that has relegated it to its current home of mediocre.
This is quite evident from launch to now, as they have since been adding evolutions (that have happened in the 10 years EQ came out) into the game where there had been none, and this has lead to its current rise in users.
Game play superior, is subjective.
LOL. Now, you are either lying to try and make yourself seem right or you're just plain ignorant of the whole thing regarding Vanguard. Most people left initially because of poor performance/bugs and the fact that Sigil wasn't releasing fixes fast enough. Furthermore, the game hasn't really had much of a population increase, and in fact, seemed to be alot less when I last played a couple months back.
When you get past the newbie island the rest of the world is practically dead, everywhere.
inovation cost money and bring risk, its a bad bussiness model.
Same old brings the same as always , money
It depents on the market how fast things move up.
Take the personal computer market. its a fast moving market but during a single year you see little to no chance at all.
Its the same old machines, In a new colour case whit maybe a litttle more memory or videocard.
The mmo market is a slow market, it takes about 5 to 10 years for it to chance, manny of use are the first generation mmo players, some are the second and the thirst only started resently.
We are on the brink of chance, but we will not see it, it moves to slow for us to see. each mmo brings us someting , its little but its someting. the following mmo brings us a little more, again a little but all those littles makes one huge chance.
A guy owning a 3 year old pc walks in a shop and says wauw .. thats a lot faster now.
A guy thinkt..hm I played UO some time ago, lets try a mmo for fun... Whoa! , look at this ............ <insert random current gen mmo>
Movies are the same, they all are alike , just have diferent content, untill some company uses the best and latest tech to evolve it.
Are we runnign behind on mmo tech possiblities .. hell yea, But taking things into perspective it aint that bad just need someone who got alot of money to take the risk to make a huge chance, As there aint people like that chance will come slowly..but it comes.
Well MOST people dont play mmos to begin with. Most innovative mmos that have failed didnt fail because people didnt like that they were different they failed because they were just not great games. There is plenty of room on the market for success with innovation.But for that to happen it has to be coupled with accesablilty, fun, lack of bugs and good word of mouth and marketing.
We all know people will put up with buggy pieces of shit, if its fun. So, that's not it.
The largest indicator of this, is the fact we get so many clones. Pure and simple.
God dam it MMORPG.com, fix your buggy ass forums please.
Still disagree. If that was the case Vanguard would be played more. Most people who play mmos have played mmo's for years. Or more like it have been playing the SAME mmo for years reskinned or not. I am one of those that would love to see some true innovation in the genre. I hope Bioware can deliver. I think they will. Alot of my guildies from both my current games talk about this all the time. Bioware has the track record to warrent the benefit of the doubt putting story before convention.
Games have EVOLVED since the games that vanguard tried to emulate, Vanguard, by choose, decided to not pay attention to the evolutions that have happened since the 10 years EQ came out.
Im not mistaken, your comparing Vanguard to modern MMO's, this is the incorrect part, Vanguard intentionally chose to emulate MMO's of 10 years past.
Skipping all the current evolutions, this is why its not played. No where did i say people want first gen games, i said they do not want innovation. Innovation usually comes in the form of "Drastically different than the current gen".
There IS innovation in the current gen, your (not you you, you as in, most people on this site) just not paying attention to it, because it doesn't come from the big 5 dev houses.
Actually, I'm pretty sure you are 100% wrong in your accessment of why Vanguard isn't being played. IMHO, if Vanguard didn't have the monstrous system requirements, I think it'd have more subscribers than LoTRO. Vanguard is hampered by the 'effort' you have to put in just to 'play the game'. I'm not talking about effort of leveling or crafting etc, I'm talking about the added effort of having to do anything in it. It's sluggish and frustrating, from the menus to crafting and the questing.
My cousin, who is your typical WoW/EQ/casual player. He played WoW for over 4 years and he told me that Vanguard would be better than WoW if it wasn't so sluggish and buggy. His opinions of a game, 90% of the time, reflect it's success/failure. I have no doubt that if VG wasn't so buggy and sluggish, it'd be more successful than LoTRO/Warhammer and AoC. It'd have probably gotten those 400 - 500 subs.
Vanguard's gameplay is superior to any of the new stuff today or old.
Note: I don't play VG now because I just cannot stand how 'slow' the game is, even on a dual core, 3gig ram computer with a 1gig video card.
lol, I have no issues running vanguard, i also was in beta. They refused to acknowledge that games had evolved since EQ. While system performance is a key factor for it, its simply bad design for this day and age that has relegated it to its current home of mediocre.
This is quite evident from launch to now, as they have since been adding evolutions (that have happened in the 10 years EQ came out) into the game where there had been none, and this has lead to its current rise in users.
Game play superior, is subjective.
LOL. Now, you are either lying to try and make yourself seem right or you're just plain ignorant of the whole thing regarding Vanguard. Most people left initially because of poor performance/bugs and the fact that Sigil wasn't releasing fixes fast enough. Furthermore, the game hasn't really had much of a population increase, and in fact, seemed to be alot less when I last played a couple months back.
When you get past the newbie island the rest of the world is practically dead, everywhere.
I'm not, not at all. You just seem to get hung up on a few points, and treat is as if there is no in between. I already explained this. I also, never said the increase was "OMFG HUGE", but there has been one.
Your personal perception, is irrelevant.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Originally posted by declaredemer The tastes of the mass market are simply incompatible with mine as an "immersion gamer."
Edit 2: Let's face it: MMORPGs are, today, designed for dumb people. Hence, why the gameplay, worlds, content, and everything else is dumbed-down.
You should have left it without the second edit. You were on target with the "immersion gamer" comment. The masses of people who play the mainstream MMORPG titles are not dumb. They simply don't care to invest of their energies in MMORPGs as much as you. You want immersion, difficulty, challenge and so forth. They want to bonk monsters on the head and see what pops out. They save their energies for the challenge and immersion of family, job or whatever other hobby that they're most enthusiastic about.
It works out that there are vastly more people who want to bonk monsters than want to be immersed in the sorts of virtual environments that MMORPGs present.
The tastes of the mass market are simply incompatible with mine as an "immersion gamer."
Edit 2: Let's face it: MMORPGs are, today, designed for dumb people.
Hence, why the gameplay, worlds, content, and everything else is dumbed-down.
You should have left it without the second edit. You were on target with the "immersion gamer" comment. The masses of people who play the mainstream MMORPG titles are not dumb. They simply don't care to invest of their energies in MMORPGs as much as you. You want immersion, difficulty, challenge and so forth. They want to bonk monsters on the head and see what pops out. They save their energies for the challenge and immersion of family, job or whatever other hobby that they're most enthusiastic about.
It works out that there are vastly more people who want to bonk monsters than want to be immersed in the sorts of virtual environments that MMORPGs present.
"Immersion gamer" is also, subjective. Untill he defines it, with out opinion, its irrelevent to keep saying it.
Having read his posts before, i think i can safely define it, this is also why its pointless to discuss with him.
Here is his deffinition:
Must take huge amounts of time
Must play like work
Accessibility is seen as "hand holding"
Amount of time = challenge.
Social aspects must be forced by intentionally creating/not including useful systems, such as auction houses or other systems that understand the current majority of MMO players do not have 8 hours a day to dedicate. (Originally, most the social interactions in games like EQ came about due to lack of features at the time, after all there was no prescient)
What we have, is a clear case of rose colored glasses.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
The tastes of the mass market are simply incompatible with mine as an "immersion gamer."
Edit 2: Let's face it: MMORPGs are, today, designed for dumb people.
Hence, why the gameplay, worlds, content, and everything else is dumbed-down.
You should have left it without the second edit. You were on target with the "immersion gamer" comment. The masses of people who play the mainstream MMORPG titles are not dumb. They simply don't care to invest of their energies in MMORPGs as much as you. You want immersion, difficulty, challenge and so forth. They want to bonk monsters on the head and see what pops out. They save their energies for the challenge and immersion of family, job or whatever other hobby that they're most enthusiastic about.
It works out that there are vastly more people who want to bonk monsters than want to be immersed in the sorts of virtual environments that MMORPGs present.
"Immersion gamer" is also, subjective. Untill he defines it, with out opinion, its irrelevent to keep saying it.
Having read his posts before, i think i can safely define it, this is also why its pointless to discuss with him.
Here is his deffinition:
Must take huge amounts of time
Must play like work
Accessibility is seen as "hand holding"
Amount of time = challenge.
Social aspects must be forced by intentionally creating/not including useful systems, such as auction houses or other systems that understand the current majority of MMO players do not have 8 hours a day to dedicate. (Originally, most the social interactions in games like EQ came about due to lack of features at the time, after all there was no prescient)
What we have, is a clear case of rose colored glasses.
First, I'm not "taking up" for the guy you are professing to know what exactly he wants. I don't know him. I'm just addressing your assumptions. I consider myself an immersion gamer if the alternative is what we've been getting lately (post 2004) with respect to large capital MMO developers.
1) Must take huge amounts of time: You can try to make this out in a negative manner if you like, but the non-immersion games (such as WoW for argument's sake) originally took some of the longest times for certain content. I don't think there was any content in UO or AC that took 4 hours of Texas two-stepping to do. I guess the raiding in EQ did, from what I've heard. I never got past level 30 in EQ.
What I, as an "immersion gamer" want to see are some aspects/content that take a dedicated sit-down of an hour or two. Notice I didn't say everything. Today, however, the vast majority of "content" (as there is hardly anything else to do but combat, combat, combat) is in 15-20 minutes spurts. Just a preference, sure. But having the option of both isn't really there these days.
2) Must play like work: Ok, this comment is about as bad as not having a point in a debate and applying Godwin's Law to the first aspect of your opponents view that you can. There is absolutly nothing, nothing wrong with wanting a game or some content that you have to actually sit down and focus attention to. If you had played UO or AC you'd know that.
3) Accessibility is hand holding in the method companies are applying it today. Players really don't have to think or analyze or otherwise mobilize the grey matter when playing. Quest givers have icons over their heads, quest locations are marked with big colorful icons on your game map and radar. You really don't have to put any effort in doing anything as you other than pointing your character in the "laser marked" direction and hitting numlock. Who cares if you die, you don't lose anything, not even time with the prevalence of spawn locations these days. Heck, dying may get you closer to your destination!
4) Amount of time = Challenge. No, not totally. But time does play an equal parts factor in overall challenge. Do deny that is, in my opinion, being unreasonable.
5) Social aspects must be forced by intentionally creating/not including useful systems, such as auction houses or other systems that understand the current majority of MMO players do not have 8 hours a day to dedicate.: Again, comments like this make me believe you never played UO or AC. It never, never took 8 hours to find what I needed in UO from a player vendor. Heck, the longest time I can remember off the top of my head was 2 1/2 hours, and it was because I was being miserly and wanted to comparison shop. And what most people so conveniently leave out of that discussion is that once you find a vendor who has the stuff you need at a price you're comfprtable paying, you're set.
It isn't "rose colored glasses". It's more I played the game and found out what I like. I'm sure you wouldn't like others making such comments about your likes based on your past experiences. It's a crass thing to do at best. Fast food, fast cars, fast gratification: It's no secret that the majority of the world loves "easy mode". There are, however, plenty of gamers out there who aren't adverse to and really enjoy a game that allows them meaningful opportunities to invest their hobby time.
Most people who enjoy such just want a top notch, top quality, top mmo developer to put something out there like they did in the first generation for us. Personally, I've never once wanted the "accessible game" to stop being made for you guys. I just don't enjoy it myself, and want "my kind" of game made too. Having viable choices is a good thing.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Originally posted by declaredemer The MMORPG industry needs to innovate and create new, and different, experiences in the MMORPG world
The MMORPG industry will always only do what is necessary to maximize income. They couldn't care less about innovation, virtual worlds, ground-breaking software design, your fun, your success, your health (except if it prevents you from paying your sub) or being called a saint. Its all about increasing their revenue and nothing else.
Unluckily most people do not want innovation (innovation = change = tiresome & unkown = bad) but an easy whack-a-mole game with no challenge and hidden traps (no challenge = no chance to lose = makes game more appealling to the masses). So if you want innovation to be a primary factor in game design then you will have to change human nature around the globe. Good luck with that.
--- Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
It is sad, but I suppose it is time for me to really just give-up MMORPGs completely.
It is really not even worth it for me to spend time hoping, eagerly following, and trying different MMORPGs.
It is too bad, really.
I feel your pain. I was just about to do the same until these companies started throwing around IPs that I enjoy. Star Trek, World of Darkness, Fallout. I imagine I'll give the first two a go but if they don't grab me (and Fallout never gets made) then it'll be cemented for me that this genre has turned into something very far away from the ideals upon which it was founded and ideals which drew me into it that'll I'll have to give it up.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
I see the innovation and evolution in the gaming industry to be random and sporadic. Totally spontaneous. You can tell something is about to happen when you start seeing the same stuff over and over and over again. When it finally happens tons of people stand back and say, "Wow! Where did this come from? Its refreshing and immersive!" And they just play it. They don't flood forums posting about how great it is they just play it.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
The tastes of the mass market are simply incompatible with mine as an "immersion gamer."
Edit 2: Let's face it: MMORPGs are, today, designed for dumb people.
Hence, why the gameplay, worlds, content, and everything else is dumbed-down.
You should have left it without the second edit. You were on target with the "immersion gamer" comment. The masses of people who play the mainstream MMORPG titles are not dumb. They simply don't care to invest of their energies in MMORPGs as much as you. You want immersion, difficulty, challenge and so forth. They want to bonk monsters on the head and see what pops out. They save their energies for the challenge and immersion of family, job or whatever other hobby that they're most enthusiastic about.
It works out that there are vastly more people who want to bonk monsters than want to be immersed in the sorts of virtual environments that MMORPGs present.
"Immersion gamer" is also, subjective. Untill he defines it, with out opinion, its irrelevent to keep saying it.
Having read his posts before, i think i can safely define it, this is also why its pointless to discuss with him.
Here is his deffinition:
Must take huge amounts of time
Must play like work
Accessibility is seen as "hand holding"
Amount of time = challenge.
Social aspects must be forced by intentionally creating/not including useful systems, such as auction houses or other systems that understand the current majority of MMO players do not have 8 hours a day to dedicate. (Originally, most the social interactions in games like EQ came about due to lack of features at the time, after all there was no prescient)
What we have, is a clear case of rose colored glasses.
First, I'm not "taking up" for the guy you are professing to know what exactly he wants. I don't know him. I'm just addressing your assumptions. I consider myself an immersion gamer if the alternative is what we've been getting lately (post 2004) with respect to large capital MMO developers.
1) Must take huge amounts of time: You can try to make this out in a negative manner if you like, but the non-immersion games (such as WoW for argument's sake) originally took some of the longest times for certain content. I don't think there was any content in UO or AC that took 4 hours of Texas two-stepping to do. I guess the raiding in EQ did, from what I've heard. I never got past level 30 in EQ.
What I, as an "immersion gamer" want to see are some aspects/content that take a dedicated sit-down of an hour or two. Notice I didn't say everything. Today, however, the vast majority of "content" (as there is hardly anything else to do but combat, combat, combat) is in 15-20 minutes spurts. Just a preference, sure. But having the option of both isn't really there these days.
2) Must play like work: Ok, this comment is about as bad as not having a point in a debate and applying Godwin's Law to the first aspect of your opponents view that you can. There is absolutly nothing, nothing wrong with wanting a game or some content that you have to actually sit down and focus attention to. If you had played UO or AC you'd know that.
3) Accessibility is hand holding in the method companies are applying it today. Players really don't have to think or analyze or otherwise mobilize the grey matter when playing. Quest givers have icons over their heads, quest locations are marked with big colorful icons on your game map and radar. You really don't have to put any effort in doing anything as you other than pointing your character in the "laser marked" direction and hitting numlock. Who cares if you die, you don't lose anything, not even time with the prevalence of spawn locations these days. Heck, dying may get you closer to your destination!
4) Amount of time = Challenge. No, not totally. But time does play an equal parts factor in overall challenge. Do deny that is, in my opinion, being unreasonable.
5) Social aspects must be forced by intentionally creating/not including useful systems, such as auction houses or other systems that understand the current majority of MMO players do not have 8 hours a day to dedicate.: Again, comments like this make me believe you never played UO or AC. It never, never took 8 hours to find what I needed in UO from a player vendor. Heck, the longest time I can remember off the top of my head was 2 1/2 hours, and it was because I was being miserly and wanted to comparison shop. And what most people so conveniently leave out of that discussion is that once you find a vendor who has the stuff you need at a price you're comfprtable paying, you're set.
It isn't "rose colored glasses". It's more I played the game and found out what I like. I'm sure you wouldn't like others making such comments about your likes based on your past experiences. It's a crass thing to do at best. Fast food, fast cars, fast gratification: It's no secret that the majority of the world loves "easy mode". There are, however, plenty of gamers out there who aren't adverse to and really enjoy a game that allows them meaningful opportunities to invest their hobby time.
Most people who enjoy such just want a top notch, top quality, top mmo developer to put something out there like they did in the first generation for us. Personally, I've never once wanted the "accessible game" to stop being made for you guys. I just don't enjoy it myself, and want "my kind" of game made too. Having viable choices is a good thing.
I wasn't going to make another post in this thread, but yours was well thought out enough to do so.
Sadly, my only response is, Modern MMO's already offer the things your looking for. As a majority of its content, no. But it is there, i hate to bring up LOTRO again, but they have everything your listing. Most of them do. You just keep the glasses on, and claim they do not.
I just did an instance the other night, took 2 hours with a full group.
Some of this, is also boiling down to "Get off my lawn".
I did play UO, and AC. UO was not a DIKU, AC was second gen, also, not pure DIKU. EQ was first (Pure DIKU). You didn't get past 30, in EQ. Its like, my point is being echoed.
I don't profess to know, i said i felt it was safe for me to define it, nothing you posted counted that, in fact, you solidified it with rationalization.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
I see the innovation and evolution in the gaming industry to be random and sporadic. Totally spontaneous. You can tell something is about to happen when you start seeing the same stuff over and over and over again. When it finally happens tons of people stand back and say, "Wow! Where did this come from? Its refreshing and immersive!" And they just play it. They don't flood forums posting about how great it is they just play it.
My point is that an augmentation of what has been copied such as an expansion of PvP is not innovative. PvP elements in an MMORPG, at one time, might have been innovative.
It is about new ways, means, and opportunities to experience an MMORPG. The tried-and-proven method is banal today, though I concede that many people who pay 15.00 a month (or their parents) are not "immersion gamers."
The features that are anti-immersion:
Instantaneous travel;
Non-critical thinking content;
Linearity;
Specialization;
Forced-raiding.
PvP-focus became a focus because it is easy: have YOU, as the customer, pay 15.00 a month to repeatedly do the same content over-and-over again and, over time, increase in rank.
Immersion gamers, however, want and expect a deeper gaming experience:
World exploration;
Challenging content;
Unpredictable gameplay;
Character customization;
Optional raid content.
As I said before, and I will say it again:
Commercialized Gamers v. Immersion Gamers
(We, the immersion gamers, are way out-numbered; but we are more than you think)
inovation cost money and bring risk, its a bad bussiness model.
You make a valid point, however, I believe that it is more risky to not innovate.
You have to deliver new concepts, new features, deeper Quests, more exploration, and so forth to not only draw the paying MMORPGer but also others.
Some one in this thread repeatedly has refered to LotR Online, and it is ironic how I recently said it was the worst MMORPG I ever played in my life for precisely these reasons:
LotR Online does not feel like LotR World;
Its features, as a veteran of this industry, are the same features I have experienced before;
Its lacking, or totally missing, immersion features:
Deep Questing
Customization
Exploration
Other
Edit: What are LotR Online's current subscriber numbers, and what would its numbers be like with immersion features? It is a matter of speculation, but the question illustrates my point; it is more risky, perhaps, to copy-and-paste than it is to roll up your sleeves to innovate and create.
Can Developers Afford to Not Innovate? MY theory: No.
There are only so many MMORPG addicts or those who have a tolerance for linearity, specialization, etc.
Can Developers Afford to Not Innovate? MY theory: No.
There are only so many MMORPG addicts or those who have a tolerance for linearity, specialization, etc.
And they play WoW (and they're addicts). (We veterans have had too much of the same)
It seems to me that you simply don't understand something very basic you don't just snap your fingers and a innovative idea pops up. Cars where an innovation and we used them for over 100 years now running on the same principles in different packages. TV, houses, books, movies everything is almost the same with some differences/additions that come once every 5-10 years. Those rare additions are the innovations. And there have been plenty of innovations in alot of places : server support(EVE online working on cluster servers to have 50k+ people in one world), graphics (new gen engines like
CryENGINE 2) new innovative payment methods(micro-transactions) the innovations are there you just don't like them or they weren't in places that you wished to be.
It seems to me that you simply don't understand something very basic you don't just snap your fingers and a innovative idea pops up. Cars where an innovation and we used them for over 100 years now running on the same principles in different packages. TV, houses, books, movies everything is almost the same with some differences/additions that come once every 5-10 years. Those rare additions are the innovations. And there have been plenty of innovations in alot of places : server support(EVE online working on cluster servers to have 50k+ people in one world), graphics (new gen engines like
CryENGINE 2) new innovative payment methods(micro-transactions) the innovations are there you just don't like them or they weren't in places that you wished to be.
I think that is precisely the problem, and I have long-ago conceded that the payment schemes are innovative - but they are not the kind of innovation we want.
You mentioned three innovations:
Server support;
Graphics;
Payment methods.
We want innovation in:
Worlds;
Content;
Customization;
Gameplay; and
Player tools.
We are not getting the innovations we want;
We are getting (1) larger servers; (2) prettier graphics; and (3) payment schemes.
Not everybody is looking for innovation. Just fresh new challenges that's entertaining. I could care less about seeing something completely new never seen in the genre before. I just want a fun well polished game. You wants and needs does not surpass anybody elses nor is it more important. Infact i hate the direction MMOs are taking and wish we could go backwards. Todays technology and graphics coupled with old school EQ UO style of gameplay.
To be honest i don't play MMOs to be drawn in to this huge imaginary world where i feel like one of the inhabitants. Single player games has and always will do it better. Once you start dealing with L33t $n1p3r d00d_001 then whatever immersion the game is trying to convey will be completely gone. Immersion will always belong to single player games.
Totally agree with this comment, that is exactly what I am looking for as well. No need to recreate the world.
Immersion always better in single player game, that is for sure.
Not everybody is looking for innovation. Just fresh new challenges that's entertaining. I could care less about seeing something completely new never seen in the genre before. I just want a fun well polished game. You wants and needs does not surpass anybody elses nor is it more important. Infact i hate the direction MMOs are taking and wish we could go backwards. Todays technology and graphics coupled with old school EQ UO style of gameplay.
To be honest i don't play MMOs to be drawn in to this huge imaginary world where i feel like one of the inhabitants. Single player games has and always will do it better. Once you start dealing with L33t $n1p3r d00d_001 then whatever immersion the game is trying to convey will be completely gone. Immersion will always belong to single player games.
Totally agree with this comment, that is exactly what I am looking for as well. No need to recreate the world.
Immersion always better in single player game, that is for sure.
yep so true , im kinda very tired of comments " why companies dont create anything new? why always human dwarf elves based games " so what you want then ? ant warrior fighting alongside with laser eyed deer mage and they both own a candy factory?
just polished fun and relaxation in game wich is alternative relaxation for reading books watching television or what else.
like posted ahead i also play mmos just by the feeling im one person there and i can see others running around so its alive world what you cannot have in single player game. so the idea what its based its not impirtant as its fun , no matter if its the middle age based sword and magic always has been and always can be its my opinion!
What don't you understand about my post where I provided specifics where we want and expect innovation (worlds, customization) as opposed to graphics, engines, etc.
The thing is that you seem to confuse "Innovation" with "What I like and want"... You want a certain kind of games and innovasion but the MMOs are moving in another direction but it still is evolving and brings lots of new features. I dont think you want innovasion, you just want things to be like they were 10 yeras ago and thats the opposit to innovasion.
LotrO for example did alot of innovasion when it comes to story, quest and world design, that you personally dont like how thoose things are doesnt meen that they arent innovative. Playing instruments, Player vs Monster player, Conjunctions are some of the innovasions LotrO launched with and have since then added alot more. Just pull your head out of that dark hole and realize that you opinoin isnt the most important in this world..
If WoW = The Beatles and WAR = Led Zeppelin Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Comments
Nope, studies have shown what i said to be true.
We all know people will put up with buggy pieces of shit, if its fun. So, that's not it.
The largest indicator of this, is the fact we get so many clones. Pure and simple.
God dam it MMORPG.com, fix your buggy ass forums please.
Still disagree. If that was the case Vanguard would be played more. Most people who play mmos have played mmo's for years. Or more like it have been playing the SAME mmo for years reskinned or not. I am one of those that would love to see some true innovation in the genre. I hope Bioware can deliver. I think they will. Alot of my guildies from both my current games talk about this all the time. Bioware has the track record to warrent the benefit of the doubt putting story before convention.
Games have EVOLVED since the games that vanguard tried to emulate, Vanguard, by choose, decided to not pay attention to the evolutions that have happened since the 10 years EQ came out.
Im not mistaken, your comparing Vanguard to modern MMO's, this is the incorrect part, Vanguard intentionally chose to emulate MMO's of 10 years past.
Skipping all the current evolutions, this is why its not played. No where did i say people want first gen games, i said they do not want innovation. Innovation usually comes in the form of "Drastically different than the current gen".
There IS innovation in the current gen, your (not you you, you as in, most people on this site) just not paying attention to it, because it doesn't come from the big 5 dev houses.
Case and point: http://www.wurmonline.com/
Why are you guys not playing that?
Actually, I'm pretty sure you are 100% wrong in your accessment of why Vanguard isn't being played. IMHO, if Vanguard didn't have the monstrous system requirements, I think it'd have more subscribers than LoTRO. Vanguard is hampered by the 'effort' you have to put in just to 'play the game'. I'm not talking about effort of leveling or crafting etc, I'm talking about the added effort of having to do anything in it. It's sluggish and frustrating, from the menus to crafting and the questing.
My cousin, who is your typical WoW/EQ/casual player. He played WoW for over 4 years and he told me that Vanguard would be better than WoW if it wasn't so sluggish and buggy. His opinions of a game, 90% of the time, reflect it's success/failure. I have no doubt that if VG wasn't so buggy and sluggish, it'd be more successful than LoTRO/Warhammer and AoC. It'd have probably gotten those 400 - 500 subs.
Vanguard's gameplay is superior to any of the new stuff today or old.
Note: I don't play VG now because I just cannot stand how 'slow' the game is, even on a dual core, 3gig ram computer with a 1gig video card.
lol, I have no issues running vanguard, i also was in beta. They refused to acknowledge that games had evolved since EQ. While system performance is a key factor for it, its simply bad design for this day and age that has relegated it to its current home of mediocre.
This is quite evident from launch to now, as they have since been adding evolutions (that have happened in the 10 years EQ came out) into the game where there had been none, and this has lead to its current rise in users.
Game play superior, is subjective.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Furthermore MrBloodworth,
Using Wurm Online as an example to you being right is laughable. Wurm Online, which has some great features, also has a very poor interface. You're using examples and getting opinions on examples where bugs/bad interfaces/sluggish performance were heavy. Your best argument comes with games like Ryzom or Seed and even then a lack of funds helped hasten/cause their demise, moreso than gameplay. Furthermore, with Ryzom you could also argue that it's 'presentation/interface' of it's game didn't help it much.
splat
Ah, i understand what you are now.
This has become a worthless thread to discuss anything in now, you never wanted discussion.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
They all had innovation, innovation is not what people want. Hence why i used them as examples. No where did i say that it was the only cause or reasons, for ANY of the games we have talked about.
There is no one reason, however, the topic of the thread is innovations, i listed games that had it, that were not accepted by mass market.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Nope, studies have shown what i said to be true.
We all know people will put up with buggy pieces of shit, if its fun. So, that's not it.
The largest indicator of this, is the fact we get so many clones. Pure and simple.
God dam it MMORPG.com, fix your buggy ass forums please.
Still disagree. If that was the case Vanguard would be played more. Most people who play mmos have played mmo's for years. Or more like it have been playing the SAME mmo for years reskinned or not. I am one of those that would love to see some true innovation in the genre. I hope Bioware can deliver. I think they will. Alot of my guildies from both my current games talk about this all the time. Bioware has the track record to warrent the benefit of the doubt putting story before convention.
Games have EVOLVED since the games that vanguard tried to emulate, Vanguard, by choose, decided to not pay attention to the evolutions that have happened since the 10 years EQ came out.
Im not mistaken, your comparing Vanguard to modern MMO's, this is the incorrect part, Vanguard intentionally chose to emulate MMO's of 10 years past.
Skipping all the current evolutions, this is why its not played. No where did i say people want first gen games, i said they do not want innovation. Innovation usually comes in the form of "Drastically different than the current gen".
There IS innovation in the current gen, your (not you you, you as in, most people on this site) just not paying attention to it, because it doesn't come from the big 5 dev houses.
Case and point: http://www.wurmonline.com/
Why are you guys not playing that?
Actually, I'm pretty sure you are 100% wrong in your accessment of why Vanguard isn't being played. IMHO, if Vanguard didn't have the monstrous system requirements, I think it'd have more subscribers than LoTRO. Vanguard is hampered by the 'effort' you have to put in just to 'play the game'. I'm not talking about effort of leveling or crafting etc, I'm talking about the added effort of having to do anything in it. It's sluggish and frustrating, from the menus to crafting and the questing.
My cousin, who is your typical WoW/EQ/casual player. He played WoW for over 4 years and he told me that Vanguard would be better than WoW if it wasn't so sluggish and buggy. His opinions of a game, 90% of the time, reflect it's success/failure. I have no doubt that if VG wasn't so buggy and sluggish, it'd be more successful than LoTRO/Warhammer and AoC. It'd have probably gotten those 400 - 500 subs.
Vanguard's gameplay is superior to any of the new stuff today or old.
Note: I don't play VG now because I just cannot stand how 'slow' the game is, even on a dual core, 3gig ram computer with a 1gig video card.
lol, I have no issues running vanguard, i also was in beta. They refused to acknowledge that games had evolved since EQ. While system performance is a key factor for it, its simply bad design for this day and age that has relegated it to its current home of mediocre.
This is quite evident from launch to now, as they have since been adding evolutions (that have happened in the 10 years EQ came out) into the game where there had been none, and this has lead to its current rise in users.
Game play superior, is subjective.
LOL. Now, you are either lying to try and make yourself seem right or you're just plain ignorant of the whole thing regarding Vanguard. Most people left initially because of poor performance/bugs and the fact that Sigil wasn't releasing fixes fast enough. Furthermore, the game hasn't really had much of a population increase, and in fact, seemed to be alot less when I last played a couple months back.
When you get past the newbie island the rest of the world is practically dead, everywhere.
splat
inovation cost money and bring risk, its a bad bussiness model.
Same old brings the same as always , money
It depents on the market how fast things move up.
Take the personal computer market. its a fast moving market but during a single year you see little to no chance at all.
Its the same old machines, In a new colour case whit maybe a litttle more memory or videocard.
The mmo market is a slow market, it takes about 5 to 10 years for it to chance, manny of use are the first generation mmo players, some are the second and the thirst only started resently.
We are on the brink of chance, but we will not see it, it moves to slow for us to see. each mmo brings us someting , its little but its someting. the following mmo brings us a little more, again a little but all those littles makes one huge chance.
A guy owning a 3 year old pc walks in a shop and says wauw .. thats a lot faster now.
A guy thinkt..hm I played UO some time ago, lets try a mmo for fun... Whoa! , look at this ............ <insert random current gen mmo>
Movies are the same, they all are alike , just have diferent content, untill some company uses the best and latest tech to evolve it.
Are we runnign behind on mmo tech possiblities .. hell yea, But taking things into perspective it aint that bad just need someone who got alot of money to take the risk to make a huge chance, As there aint people like that chance will come slowly..but it comes.
Nope, studies have shown what i said to be true.
We all know people will put up with buggy pieces of shit, if its fun. So, that's not it.
The largest indicator of this, is the fact we get so many clones. Pure and simple.
God dam it MMORPG.com, fix your buggy ass forums please.
Still disagree. If that was the case Vanguard would be played more. Most people who play mmos have played mmo's for years. Or more like it have been playing the SAME mmo for years reskinned or not. I am one of those that would love to see some true innovation in the genre. I hope Bioware can deliver. I think they will. Alot of my guildies from both my current games talk about this all the time. Bioware has the track record to warrent the benefit of the doubt putting story before convention.
Games have EVOLVED since the games that vanguard tried to emulate, Vanguard, by choose, decided to not pay attention to the evolutions that have happened since the 10 years EQ came out.
Im not mistaken, your comparing Vanguard to modern MMO's, this is the incorrect part, Vanguard intentionally chose to emulate MMO's of 10 years past.
Skipping all the current evolutions, this is why its not played. No where did i say people want first gen games, i said they do not want innovation. Innovation usually comes in the form of "Drastically different than the current gen".
There IS innovation in the current gen, your (not you you, you as in, most people on this site) just not paying attention to it, because it doesn't come from the big 5 dev houses.
Case and point: http://www.wurmonline.com/
Why are you guys not playing that?
Actually, I'm pretty sure you are 100% wrong in your accessment of why Vanguard isn't being played. IMHO, if Vanguard didn't have the monstrous system requirements, I think it'd have more subscribers than LoTRO. Vanguard is hampered by the 'effort' you have to put in just to 'play the game'. I'm not talking about effort of leveling or crafting etc, I'm talking about the added effort of having to do anything in it. It's sluggish and frustrating, from the menus to crafting and the questing.
My cousin, who is your typical WoW/EQ/casual player. He played WoW for over 4 years and he told me that Vanguard would be better than WoW if it wasn't so sluggish and buggy. His opinions of a game, 90% of the time, reflect it's success/failure. I have no doubt that if VG wasn't so buggy and sluggish, it'd be more successful than LoTRO/Warhammer and AoC. It'd have probably gotten those 400 - 500 subs.
Vanguard's gameplay is superior to any of the new stuff today or old.
Note: I don't play VG now because I just cannot stand how 'slow' the game is, even on a dual core, 3gig ram computer with a 1gig video card.
lol, I have no issues running vanguard, i also was in beta. They refused to acknowledge that games had evolved since EQ. While system performance is a key factor for it, its simply bad design for this day and age that has relegated it to its current home of mediocre.
This is quite evident from launch to now, as they have since been adding evolutions (that have happened in the 10 years EQ came out) into the game where there had been none, and this has lead to its current rise in users.
Game play superior, is subjective.
LOL. Now, you are either lying to try and make yourself seem right or you're just plain ignorant of the whole thing regarding Vanguard. Most people left initially because of poor performance/bugs and the fact that Sigil wasn't releasing fixes fast enough. Furthermore, the game hasn't really had much of a population increase, and in fact, seemed to be alot less when I last played a couple months back.
When you get past the newbie island the rest of the world is practically dead, everywhere.
I'm not, not at all. You just seem to get hung up on a few points, and treat is as if there is no in between. I already explained this. I also, never said the increase was "OMFG HUGE", but there has been one.
Your personal perception, is irrelevant.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
You should have left it without the second edit. You were on target with the "immersion gamer" comment. The masses of people who play the mainstream MMORPG titles are not dumb. They simply don't care to invest of their energies in MMORPGs as much as you. You want immersion, difficulty, challenge and so forth. They want to bonk monsters on the head and see what pops out. They save their energies for the challenge and immersion of family, job or whatever other hobby that they're most enthusiastic about.
It works out that there are vastly more people who want to bonk monsters than want to be immersed in the sorts of virtual environments that MMORPGs present.
You should have left it without the second edit. You were on target with the "immersion gamer" comment. The masses of people who play the mainstream MMORPG titles are not dumb. They simply don't care to invest of their energies in MMORPGs as much as you. You want immersion, difficulty, challenge and so forth. They want to bonk monsters on the head and see what pops out. They save their energies for the challenge and immersion of family, job or whatever other hobby that they're most enthusiastic about.
It works out that there are vastly more people who want to bonk monsters than want to be immersed in the sorts of virtual environments that MMORPGs present.
"Immersion gamer" is also, subjective. Untill he defines it, with out opinion, its irrelevent to keep saying it.
Having read his posts before, i think i can safely define it, this is also why its pointless to discuss with him.
Here is his deffinition:
What we have, is a clear case of rose colored glasses.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
You should have left it without the second edit. You were on target with the "immersion gamer" comment. The masses of people who play the mainstream MMORPG titles are not dumb. They simply don't care to invest of their energies in MMORPGs as much as you. You want immersion, difficulty, challenge and so forth. They want to bonk monsters on the head and see what pops out. They save their energies for the challenge and immersion of family, job or whatever other hobby that they're most enthusiastic about.
It works out that there are vastly more people who want to bonk monsters than want to be immersed in the sorts of virtual environments that MMORPGs present.
"Immersion gamer" is also, subjective. Untill he defines it, with out opinion, its irrelevent to keep saying it.
Having read his posts before, i think i can safely define it, this is also why its pointless to discuss with him.
Here is his deffinition:
What we have, is a clear case of rose colored glasses.
First, I'm not "taking up" for the guy you are professing to know what exactly he wants. I don't know him. I'm just addressing your assumptions. I consider myself an immersion gamer if the alternative is what we've been getting lately (post 2004) with respect to large capital MMO developers.
1) Must take huge amounts of time: You can try to make this out in a negative manner if you like, but the non-immersion games (such as WoW for argument's sake) originally took some of the longest times for certain content. I don't think there was any content in UO or AC that took 4 hours of Texas two-stepping to do. I guess the raiding in EQ did, from what I've heard. I never got past level 30 in EQ.
What I, as an "immersion gamer" want to see are some aspects/content that take a dedicated sit-down of an hour or two. Notice I didn't say everything. Today, however, the vast majority of "content" (as there is hardly anything else to do but combat, combat, combat) is in 15-20 minutes spurts. Just a preference, sure. But having the option of both isn't really there these days.
2) Must play like work: Ok, this comment is about as bad as not having a point in a debate and applying Godwin's Law to the first aspect of your opponents view that you can. There is absolutly nothing, nothing wrong with wanting a game or some content that you have to actually sit down and focus attention to. If you had played UO or AC you'd know that.
3) Accessibility is hand holding in the method companies are applying it today. Players really don't have to think or analyze or otherwise mobilize the grey matter when playing. Quest givers have icons over their heads, quest locations are marked with big colorful icons on your game map and radar. You really don't have to put any effort in doing anything as you other than pointing your character in the "laser marked" direction and hitting numlock. Who cares if you die, you don't lose anything, not even time with the prevalence of spawn locations these days. Heck, dying may get you closer to your destination!
4) Amount of time = Challenge. No, not totally. But time does play an equal parts factor in overall challenge. Do deny that is, in my opinion, being unreasonable.
5) Social aspects must be forced by intentionally creating/not including useful systems, such as auction houses or other systems that understand the current majority of MMO players do not have 8 hours a day to dedicate.: Again, comments like this make me believe you never played UO or AC. It never, never took 8 hours to find what I needed in UO from a player vendor. Heck, the longest time I can remember off the top of my head was 2 1/2 hours, and it was because I was being miserly and wanted to comparison shop. And what most people so conveniently leave out of that discussion is that once you find a vendor who has the stuff you need at a price you're comfprtable paying, you're set.
It isn't "rose colored glasses". It's more I played the game and found out what I like. I'm sure you wouldn't like others making such comments about your likes based on your past experiences. It's a crass thing to do at best. Fast food, fast cars, fast gratification: It's no secret that the majority of the world loves "easy mode". There are, however, plenty of gamers out there who aren't adverse to and really enjoy a game that allows them meaningful opportunities to invest their hobby time.
Most people who enjoy such just want a top notch, top quality, top mmo developer to put something out there like they did in the first generation for us. Personally, I've never once wanted the "accessible game" to stop being made for you guys. I just don't enjoy it myself, and want "my kind" of game made too. Having viable choices is a good thing.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
The MMORPG industry will always only do what is necessary to maximize income. They couldn't care less about innovation, virtual worlds, ground-breaking software design, your fun, your success, your health (except if it prevents you from paying your sub) or being called a saint. Its all about increasing their revenue and nothing else.
Unluckily most people do not want innovation (innovation = change = tiresome & unkown = bad) but an easy whack-a-mole game with no challenge and hidden traps (no challenge = no chance to lose = makes game more appealling to the masses). So if you want innovation to be a primary factor in game design then you will have to change human nature around the globe. Good luck with that.
---
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
It is sad, but I suppose it is time for me to really just give-up MMORPGs completely.
It is really not even worth it for me to spend time hoping, eagerly following, and trying different MMORPGs.
It is too bad, really.
I feel your pain. I was just about to do the same until these companies started throwing around IPs that I enjoy. Star Trek, World of Darkness, Fallout. I imagine I'll give the first two a go but if they don't grab me (and Fallout never gets made) then it'll be cemented for me that this genre has turned into something very far away from the ideals upon which it was founded and ideals which drew me into it that'll I'll have to give it up.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I see the innovation and evolution in the gaming industry to be random and sporadic. Totally spontaneous. You can tell something is about to happen when you start seeing the same stuff over and over and over again. When it finally happens tons of people stand back and say, "Wow! Where did this come from? Its refreshing and immersive!" And they just play it. They don't flood forums posting about how great it is they just play it.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
You should have left it without the second edit. You were on target with the "immersion gamer" comment. The masses of people who play the mainstream MMORPG titles are not dumb. They simply don't care to invest of their energies in MMORPGs as much as you. You want immersion, difficulty, challenge and so forth. They want to bonk monsters on the head and see what pops out. They save their energies for the challenge and immersion of family, job or whatever other hobby that they're most enthusiastic about.
It works out that there are vastly more people who want to bonk monsters than want to be immersed in the sorts of virtual environments that MMORPGs present.
"Immersion gamer" is also, subjective. Untill he defines it, with out opinion, its irrelevent to keep saying it.
Having read his posts before, i think i can safely define it, this is also why its pointless to discuss with him.
Here is his deffinition:
What we have, is a clear case of rose colored glasses.
First, I'm not "taking up" for the guy you are professing to know what exactly he wants. I don't know him. I'm just addressing your assumptions. I consider myself an immersion gamer if the alternative is what we've been getting lately (post 2004) with respect to large capital MMO developers.
1) Must take huge amounts of time: You can try to make this out in a negative manner if you like, but the non-immersion games (such as WoW for argument's sake) originally took some of the longest times for certain content. I don't think there was any content in UO or AC that took 4 hours of Texas two-stepping to do. I guess the raiding in EQ did, from what I've heard. I never got past level 30 in EQ.
What I, as an "immersion gamer" want to see are some aspects/content that take a dedicated sit-down of an hour or two. Notice I didn't say everything. Today, however, the vast majority of "content" (as there is hardly anything else to do but combat, combat, combat) is in 15-20 minutes spurts. Just a preference, sure. But having the option of both isn't really there these days.
2) Must play like work: Ok, this comment is about as bad as not having a point in a debate and applying Godwin's Law to the first aspect of your opponents view that you can. There is absolutly nothing, nothing wrong with wanting a game or some content that you have to actually sit down and focus attention to. If you had played UO or AC you'd know that.
3) Accessibility is hand holding in the method companies are applying it today. Players really don't have to think or analyze or otherwise mobilize the grey matter when playing. Quest givers have icons over their heads, quest locations are marked with big colorful icons on your game map and radar. You really don't have to put any effort in doing anything as you other than pointing your character in the "laser marked" direction and hitting numlock. Who cares if you die, you don't lose anything, not even time with the prevalence of spawn locations these days. Heck, dying may get you closer to your destination!
4) Amount of time = Challenge. No, not totally. But time does play an equal parts factor in overall challenge. Do deny that is, in my opinion, being unreasonable.
5) Social aspects must be forced by intentionally creating/not including useful systems, such as auction houses or other systems that understand the current majority of MMO players do not have 8 hours a day to dedicate.: Again, comments like this make me believe you never played UO or AC. It never, never took 8 hours to find what I needed in UO from a player vendor. Heck, the longest time I can remember off the top of my head was 2 1/2 hours, and it was because I was being miserly and wanted to comparison shop. And what most people so conveniently leave out of that discussion is that once you find a vendor who has the stuff you need at a price you're comfprtable paying, you're set.
It isn't "rose colored glasses". It's more I played the game and found out what I like. I'm sure you wouldn't like others making such comments about your likes based on your past experiences. It's a crass thing to do at best. Fast food, fast cars, fast gratification: It's no secret that the majority of the world loves "easy mode". There are, however, plenty of gamers out there who aren't adverse to and really enjoy a game that allows them meaningful opportunities to invest their hobby time.
Most people who enjoy such just want a top notch, top quality, top mmo developer to put something out there like they did in the first generation for us. Personally, I've never once wanted the "accessible game" to stop being made for you guys. I just don't enjoy it myself, and want "my kind" of game made too. Having viable choices is a good thing.
I wasn't going to make another post in this thread, but yours was well thought out enough to do so.
Sadly, my only response is, Modern MMO's already offer the things your looking for. As a majority of its content, no. But it is there, i hate to bring up LOTRO again, but they have everything your listing. Most of them do. You just keep the glasses on, and claim they do not.
I just did an instance the other night, took 2 hours with a full group.
Some of this, is also boiling down to "Get off my lawn".
I did play UO, and AC. UO was not a DIKU, AC was second gen, also, not pure DIKU. EQ was first (Pure DIKU). You didn't get past 30, in EQ. Its like, my point is being echoed.
I don't profess to know, i said i felt it was safe for me to define it, nothing you posted counted that, in fact, you solidified it with rationalization.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
My point is that an augmentation of what has been copied such as an expansion of PvP is not innovative. PvP elements in an MMORPG, at one time, might have been innovative.
It is about new ways, means, and opportunities to experience an MMORPG. The tried-and-proven method is banal today, though I concede that many people who pay 15.00 a month (or their parents) are not "immersion gamers."
The features that are anti-immersion:
PvP-focus became a focus because it is easy: have YOU, as the customer, pay 15.00 a month to repeatedly do the same content over-and-over again and, over time, increase in rank.
Immersion gamers, however, want and expect a deeper gaming experience:
As I said before, and I will say it again:
Commercialized Gamers v. Immersion Gamers
(We, the immersion gamers, are way out-numbered; but we are more than you think)
You make a valid point, however, I believe that it is more risky to not innovate.
You have to deliver new concepts, new features, deeper Quests, more exploration, and so forth to not only draw the paying MMORPGer but also others.
Some one in this thread repeatedly has refered to LotR Online, and it is ironic how I recently said it was the worst MMORPG I ever played in my life for precisely these reasons:
Edit: What are LotR Online's current subscriber numbers, and what would its numbers be like with immersion features? It is a matter of speculation, but the question illustrates my point; it is more risky, perhaps, to copy-and-paste than it is to roll up your sleeves to innovate and create.
Can Developers Afford to Not Innovate? MY theory: No.
There are only so many MMORPG addicts or those who have a tolerance for linearity, specialization, etc.
And they play WoW (and they're addicts).
(We veterans have had too much of the same)
It seems to me that you simply don't understand something very basic you don't just snap your fingers and a innovative idea pops up. Cars where an innovation and we used them for over 100 years now running on the same principles in different packages. TV, houses, books, movies everything is almost the same with some differences/additions that come once every 5-10 years. Those rare additions are the innovations. And there have been plenty of innovations in alot of places : server support(EVE online working on cluster servers to have 50k+ people in one world), graphics (new gen engines like
CryENGINE 2) new innovative payment methods(micro-transactions) the innovations are there you just don't like them or they weren't in places that you wished to be.
I think that is precisely the problem, and I have long-ago conceded that the payment schemes are innovative - but they are not the kind of innovation we want.
You mentioned three innovations:
We want innovation in:
We are not getting the innovations we want;
We are getting (1) larger servers; (2) prettier graphics; and (3) payment schemes.
We want new concepts and features.
Totally agree with this comment, that is exactly what I am looking for as well. No need to recreate the world.
Immersion always better in single player game, that is for sure.
SEED
Wakfu
Ryzom
EVE Online
And i'm sure there are more that fit those requirements.
Totally agree with this comment, that is exactly what I am looking for as well. No need to recreate the world.
Immersion always better in single player game, that is for sure.
yep so true , im kinda very tired of comments " why companies dont create anything new? why always human dwarf elves based games " so what you want then ? ant warrior fighting alongside with laser eyed deer mage and they both own a candy factory?
just polished fun and relaxation in game wich is alternative relaxation for reading books watching television or what else.
like posted ahead i also play mmos just by the feeling im one person there and i can see others running around so its alive world what you cannot have in single player game. so the idea what its based its not impirtant as its fun , no matter if its the middle age based sword and magic always has been and always can be its my opinion!
What don't you understand about my post where I provided specifics where we want and expect innovation (worlds, customization) as opposed to graphics, engines, etc.
I suppose it is finally time that I try Ryzom.
Believe it or not, never tried it.
The thing is that you seem to confuse "Innovation" with "What I like and want"... You want a certain kind of games and innovasion but the MMOs are moving in another direction but it still is evolving and brings lots of new features. I dont think you want innovasion, you just want things to be like they were 10 yeras ago and thats the opposit to innovasion.
LotrO for example did alot of innovasion when it comes to story, quest and world design, that you personally dont like how thoose things are doesnt meen that they arent innovative. Playing instruments, Player vs Monster player, Conjunctions are some of the innovasions LotrO launched with and have since then added alot more. Just pull your head out of that dark hole and realize that you opinoin isnt the most important in this world..
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd