Pretty much what you said in your article is instant gratification. Borderlands is a game that can be brought up quite quickly, played with a close multiplayer group.When you start you are in the local area of each other. Plus what ever happened is logged in your computer when you leave. In a MMO Nine Toes is still hanging around waiting for someone else to kill him. You might be miles from each other and it might take 30 minutes to get your crap together to play. MMO have a large grind to them also. In a mission to kill Nine-toes, you have to kill x amount of mobs to get to nine-toes, that is part of the mission. You can go through them quite quickly with a group that knows how to play. In a MMO to go through the amount of mobs in the same way would take hours. In a sense MMOs are very time consuming with little results. Games like Mass Effect 2 (awesome game BTW) Borderlands, Left 4 Deads, lets players break loose in a small amount of time, enjoy ourselves and we make a difference each time we log on.
The "features" that you're implying MMO's have by definition are false assumptions based on your previous experience with MMO's. Borderlands could be an MMO simply by adding a persistent space that can serve as a lobby for players to meet up, trade, form parties, show off their gear and gather quests, and it would have no impact how long it would take to kill the mobs leading up to Nine Toes.
This is the problem with people's apprehension to the MMO moniker, they assume that in order to be an MMO they have to have some of these terrible qualities that some bad games set the precedent for.
All MMO refers to is the number of players, and some degree of a persistent online infrastructure.
I respectfully disagree.
In your words a MMO is the number of players and persistence. Ok Borderlands has 4, max. DnD, Champions online has 100 per shard. Everquest 2 has 2000 per shard and Eve Online had 26000 plus on at one time. I agree that Borderlands could be a MMO by the Guild Wars setup. But Guild Wars was not a true MMO. That was an instanced game aka Borderlands. If it would be a true MMO, you would have a lot of people in the same zone competing for the same resources (or random encounters with real people). In Guild Wars, you would never see anyone outside your group in combat zones.
And when the MMO title pops up we are really talking about MMOgames or MMORPG. Because a MMO could be Second Life. But since this is MMORPG.com, I assumed everyone would go with it, my fault.
I only brought up the imaginary guild wars/borderlands mashup mmo to refute your assumption that making borderlands some sort of MMO would not somehow arbitrarily make it "more grindy", or make it take longer to get to nine-toes. If you took Borderlands, and instead of having a multiplayer server browser made New Haven a persistent space to chat, form parties and gather quests, and kept the rest of the game instanced, the gameplay and "grind" would remain unaffected. In your post you mentioned in an MMO borderlands it would take "hours", simply because you added the MMO.
Now, if you take issue with calling the persistent town/instanced world setup type of game an MMO (even though thats apparently the direction the genre is headed, and more and more developer's are considering games with any degree of persistence an MMO [see DDO, STO]), that's another argument entirely
I can agree with you.
I guess my point in my first post, was to say that when there are more people the less persistent the game. Because of server resources needed for the higher population, can’t be used to have every player the ability to change the landscape. And that is my problem right now in my own little world. I find my self gravitating toward single player games or small co-op games than ever before. And I blame that on the Mass Effects/Dragon Age/Borderlands and Left 4 Dead series more than anything. Because in those games I am having fun and the game changes due to either myself or the small group I am in.
And that is likely the reason I brought up the negative items in MMOs right now. What I can do in those games I can’t do in MMOs currently. I am hoping Biowares Star Wars game changes that…………….
I didn't care to read this whole discussion because it is moot.
A more relevant question would be, "How soon until everything is a standalone console game?"
In the first week after its release, Grand Theft Auto 4 sold half a BILLION dollars worth of game discs. The game didn't have nearly as large of a landscape or as much to do as its predecessor, GTA 3, but it was still more popular. This means they put in LESS content, but still just enough to get people to buy it and tell their friends to buy it. Like myself, others I knew spent about a week playing the game before they got bored and looked for other games to play. Sure, some people spent more time on it than others, but the game was not designed to be played for a month, unlike GTA 3.
Game developers know how profitable this is. More and more of them are pushing out one-week games to try to hit the big blockbuster, just like movies have been doing over the past 20+ years. MMORPGs require a lot more time invested to make a quality product and require constant work after the product is launched. With the bigger risk being a MMO, investors are more likely to fund a console game.
Between time spent, risk, and money earned, I think we will see MMOs only take up a small portion of the video game market as they have been doing for the past ten years.
I think both role playing mmos and console games will have their place in the future.
I see where the OP was going though; in terms of simple economics game makers are already vying for more of your cash by adding (in some cases) day 1 DLC. It's just a matter of time before they try to tack on a sub and call it an mmo.
I have no problems with DLC if it's moderately priced and offers multiple hours of enjoyment. I paid 7 bucks for a piece of DLC for Dragon Age that has more entertainment hours in it than any of the 10 dollar DLC's I bought for Fallout 3, but I enjoyed both sets of DLC so I can't complain.
Anyway, I think we'll see an increase in mmo projects but I wouldn't be surprised if more western studios started releasing f2p mmos with optional cash shops in the next few years.
What I see as the biggest driver behind the whole decline of the actual MMO aspect of MMORPGs is the fact that many game developers (like all software developers) like to utilize tried and true idioms or patterns. As such, certain idioms get over used like instancing (as it has the paired effects of giving players more 'space' without adding more actual content or real game space and providing a means to balance server loads (in this case, instancing is a way to couple game spaces to threads without having to conceptualize the problem in another way)) or raids (where dungeons of old time MUDs have replaced the original aspect of open domains and landscapes of the first two waves of MMOs, all for the fact that dungeons are easier to design (due to level designers largely coming from FPS development backgrounds)). And many other examples are out there, which I can imagine other folks can list and explain on their own.
What bugs me is that this behavior among developers is hard to avoid, not because investors think they're the best, but rather that investors haven't a clue about game/software development, thus will believe any line of bunk fed to them by developers and their handlers. In short, the abuse of software patterns/idioms in game development are solely due to laziness of developers and not investors or players as many wish to imagine it to be. Most developers get frustrated easily when a novel problem or alternate solution is found since it often has side-effects not yet discovered (or can't be puzzled out deductively or by mathematical induction of edge cases). So, they stick to their guns, screaming that it is the only way it can be done and the technology cannot handle anything else. Of course, this is right up until a bored developer (or even a pissed off one) shows them either in tech demos or a final product that their claims had no deductive proof, and that it just been falsified (much to their chagrin).
Excellent viewpoint and I'm finding it quite ironic that you chose these 2 games as your reasoning. First up I'm so bored of the lack of choices in MMO's out there that I am on my 3 romp through Borderlands in LAN play with a friend and we're alternating each class.
Basiocally we've played it almost to death and wishing it were an MMO to some degree and since we're from the same field, he a 3D Modeler/Concepter and myself as an Animator student, we have found alot of for & against just about any game out there.
I personally have given up on shooters because they've become "HEADSHOT" console orientated instead of twitch based skills to obtain one. I like a challenge and want to have most games made harder just so I can learn to adapt my strategies for reaching a goal.
I usually only play RPG style games, Mass Effect was a choose your ADVENTURE styled game and I do not cosider it an RPG. RPG is more atkin to Random Played Game than ROLE Playing Game. I think you get my point.
Now this is not to say that each game I've played is terriable, I think they just should have been better planned or have various ways of achieving something instead of feeling like each AAA title on the market is trying to be a Movie. In that case I simply turn the computer off and go watch a DVD.
To finish off my response to your article, I think it strengthens the need for more of Less (the really really good bits) fields and less of the More (oh the grind and repeat syndrome) "Must have that because Game X had it and why people wanted to pay $. Devs, use your brain instead of trying to make a bigger skyscraper than the rival company across the street.
Originally posted by maddbomber83
I'm suprised you didn't mention Global Agenda in your discussion. I've been playing this game for the past week and the Woman and I love it. They market it as an RPG / Shooter / MMO Hybrid. They don't claim to be fully any of the three but taking what they think are the better parts of each.
In the RPG aspect there are classes and skill trees that you get points to spend as you level.
Missing is the ROLE aspect. It's not intended for your race to hate other races or prefer this or that.
The shooter portion has plenty of weapons, fast action, aiming, almost everything you would expect.
Missing are things that would push combat into the twitch zone, such as head shots and critical hits.
The MMO portion is a bit thin. There is a lobby, bank, mail, market, crafting. Everything you do is WITH other people (pve is a 4 man team vs computer, pvp is a 10 man team vs another 10 man team). Persistant world, kinda (you control teritories and can build things kinda like a watered down Shadowbane but when that spot is contested it is an instanced combat that decides its fate).
Missing is the non instanced anything. The lobby is instanced (it is small, maybe 100 players, I was in instance 33); the pve and pvp is instanced. There is no "real" persistant world (with the minor exception of the control teritories, the fact that you control them is persistant, they are not).
I think the important thing to take away is that when you see a game that is a shooter, its a shooter. If its an RPG, its an RPG. If its a hybrid; you can't expect it to fully be either one but simply shares some characteristics of both.
I think you pretty much have summed up why I've "almost" given up on wanting to play an MMO's right there.
R (Roll/Random/Rubbish) P (Playing/Point/Ponder) G (Game/Gore/Gay) has almost as many meanings as acronyms. Bring it back to the 'ol RPG and what it's know as, Role, in other words what you want to do, let it be. Or god forbid take out the Gazillions of items, locations, quests, and so on to allow us to decide the shifting worlds' atmosphere.
Now that brings up the old cliche term that has not standard meaning in the Industry cycles atm. I am talking about Persistant, which if my memory serves correct to mean everchanging landscapes of thought put into action.
We all can agree that the "Closed/Open/Retail Alpha" Phases (multiplied and stretched out into Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Digamma, and just before preorders we add ZETA) <---------} CUT IT OUT for pity sake!!!!!
If my friends and collegues are giving up on MMO's then just maybe because of all this BS, pussy footing around, trying to have ex Devs pass themselves off as secondhand car salespeople so that they can make more MULA. Just like with the issues and "some" decisions regarding DRM, wake up because it doesn't fix the problem, bloat your boat or anything more than turning more droves away.
Unless you happen to be Ubisoft and make DRM look good, you need to take heed of those famous words, "Create a place to which one can be inspired to dream and bathe in the fields of serene pleasure" (translated by a misploken Lucas spokesperson, "We are here to tell a story, not sell a movie tenfold"
I'm sure this was mentioned (I haven't read all 80+ replies), but I think the major difference is in the keyword "Massive".
Personally, I don't think any MMO has yet to achieve the full potential of that concept. I've been playing MAG on PS3 lately, and I probably interact more with those 256 player maps than I ever have in an MMO.
There are a few reasons, I suppose. Such as, "why should I?" But, I think the idea of playing with thousands of other people around the world all at once has huge potential. It just seems though, that the developers have given up on trying.
I think MMO's need to push that aspect a bit further to keep themselves regarded as something special. Give me a huge, fully populated world and give me a reason to interact with them. Give me a world in which I can make a long term difference.
If not, then just make a pile of more MAG and Borderland games; but I fear we'd be losing out on the real potential of MMOs.
This has proberly been posted before i dont have time to read every page but a clear example of FPS and MMO merge is Fallen Earth, fallen earth may not be the best FPS ever (that would be cod6) and it may not be the best MMO ever , but put the two together and boom you make a good game.
i thought age of conan was ment to be new and exciting...
Sadly, MMORPGs as the original term was intended do not really exist anymore. Most releases at the moment are lite versions of what an MMORPG should be.
With the addition of systems which means you no longer have to play the games anymore the MMORPG genre is pretty much dead, or what is being dished out these days does not meet the original definition.
Anything after: UO/ EQ/ EQII/ AC pretty much has been tames to the point where the concepts of longevity and gameplay and even a little roleplay and fun do not exist anymore.
Features which have detracted from the original concept which meant you had a game are:
Global mail / Auction Houses / Quest markers and paint by numbers gameplay
Laming down of the playerbase due to people of lesser intelligence playing who do not care about developing charachters just completing them as fast as possible !!!!
Guilds instead of communities
Instancing
MUDs with online concurrency of 20-100 players are more representative of what a MMORPG should be apart from the fact they are text based and have no graphics they are more playable have gameplay a community and are fun.
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
There are a lot of people who don't want the multiplayer aspect of a MMO, hence single player games will continue to be quite popular. So no, you will not find everything becoming a MMO.
My marriage has recently become an MMORPG. Not sure I like it. Different guys dressed as elves keep showing up at my front door every nite to explore my wife. Now granted she is an epic encounter....but sheesh...is everything becoming an MMORPG?
Sorry, but I can't agree to the rather jumpy conclusion. Some RPGs become a BIT more shooterish. Still, every shooter fan I know groaned about ME2 that it was NOTHING like a real shooter. It was simplification, and a big gripe for many RPG fans, and I don't think it will become trend. BUT, how does one conclude from that to the idea that everything becomes an MMO someday?
On the contrary I know a lot of gamers are still single player gamers and never like MMOs. They want to be THE hero not hero number 435345. And that includes myself when I play a single player game, especially Mass Effect. I want to be Shepard. Period. I don't want to be one of tens of thousands heroes! I want a story with a great beginning and a story-wise definite ending. And a MMO as a persistent world can not be that, even if SWTOR is bringing story to MMOs.
I just don't see that everything will become MMOs. On the contrary I rather see MMOs are an endangered species if the trend of sucky MMOs continues.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Sadly, MMORPGs as the original term was intended do not really exist anymore. Most releases at the moment are lite versions of what an MMORPG should be. With the addition of systems which means you no longer have to play the games anymore the MMORPG genre is pretty much dead, or what is being dished out these days does not meet the original definition.
Anything after: UO/ EQ/ EQII/ AC pretty much has been tames to the point where the concepts of longevity and gameplay and even a little roleplay and fun do not exist anymore. Features which have detracted from the original concept which meant you had a game are: Global mail / Auction Houses / Quest markers and paint by numbers gameplay Laming down of the playerbase due to people of lesser intelligence playing who do not care about developing charachters just completing them as fast as possible !!!! Guilds instead of communities Instancing
MUDs with online concurrency of 20-100 players are more representative of what a MMORPG should be apart from the fact they are text based and have no graphics they are more playable have gameplay a community and are fun.
I can't disagree with you. This pretty much is the defining points of what makes a MMORPG different from just a MMOG. Thats how I label them.
MMOs are no longer what they used to be that's a given, but the genre is still young compared to FPSs and normal RPGs, so all three genres are in this weird state of flux, bouncing ideas off each other. People like grouping, and people are naturally goal oriented so why not combine those two and create Borderlands. Next step is simple, why not let MORE PEOPLE interact across the PS3, PC, and XB360 like FFXI managed to do, and create an MMO version and try to break into that 11+ million player market WoW managed to tap into.
Games like Borderlands, Bioshock, Even System Shock from the day are making great strides towards balancing the actions and RPG elements. We are already seeing games like Torchlight release a single player version with full intentions of releasing an MMO soon after. This same thing could easily be done with Borderlands for example. Yes, the current Borderlands is limited to only 4 players, but the world is now already laid out with respectable lore, the numerous weapon bits are already skinned, would only really need more character models and then suddenly you have an MMO with instanced dungeons to go after Nine Toes or any of the other bosses ala WoW, WAR, EQ2, ect.
This is a dangerous trend going on in the mmo industry where soon you will be paying a monthly fee to play a single player rpg with a chatbox. What happened to the "massive" part of mmorpg? When did we settle for this instanced nonsense with limited social interaction? Some of my best mmo friends were made just wandering around an open gaming world and lending them a hand with a rather difficult mob, or hanging around someone camping a mob in eq1 and talking about similar interests, good times.
or just as bad or even worse paying a monthly fee to play a shooter with so called mmo aspects I am looking at you global agenda
This has proberly been posted before i dont have time to read every page but a clear example of FPS and MMO merge is Fallen Earth, fallen earth may not be the best FPS ever (that would be cod6) and it may not be the best MMO ever , but put the two together and boom you make a good game.
Me thinks BFBC2 is going to take that title from cod6
Comments
The "features" that you're implying MMO's have by definition are false assumptions based on your previous experience with MMO's. Borderlands could be an MMO simply by adding a persistent space that can serve as a lobby for players to meet up, trade, form parties, show off their gear and gather quests, and it would have no impact how long it would take to kill the mobs leading up to Nine Toes.
This is the problem with people's apprehension to the MMO moniker, they assume that in order to be an MMO they have to have some of these terrible qualities that some bad games set the precedent for.
All MMO refers to is the number of players, and some degree of a persistent online infrastructure.
I respectfully disagree.
In your words a MMO is the number of players and persistence. Ok Borderlands has 4, max. DnD, Champions online has 100 per shard. Everquest 2 has 2000 per shard and Eve Online had 26000 plus on at one time. I agree that Borderlands could be a MMO by the Guild Wars setup. But Guild Wars was not a true MMO. That was an instanced game aka Borderlands. If it would be a true MMO, you would have a lot of people in the same zone competing for the same resources (or random encounters with real people). In Guild Wars, you would never see anyone outside your group in combat zones.
And when the MMO title pops up we are really talking about MMOgames or MMORPG. Because a MMO could be Second Life. But since this is MMORPG.com, I assumed everyone would go with it, my fault.
I only brought up the imaginary guild wars/borderlands mashup mmo to refute your assumption that making borderlands some sort of MMO would not somehow arbitrarily make it "more grindy", or make it take longer to get to nine-toes. If you took Borderlands, and instead of having a multiplayer server browser made New Haven a persistent space to chat, form parties and gather quests, and kept the rest of the game instanced, the gameplay and "grind" would remain unaffected. In your post you mentioned in an MMO borderlands it would take "hours", simply because you added the MMO.
Now, if you take issue with calling the persistent town/instanced world setup type of game an MMO (even though thats apparently the direction the genre is headed, and more and more developer's are considering games with any degree of persistence an MMO [see DDO, STO]), that's another argument entirely
I can agree with you.
I guess my point in my first post, was to say that when there are more people the less persistent the game. Because of server resources needed for the higher population, can’t be used to have every player the ability to change the landscape. And that is my problem right now in my own little world. I find my self gravitating toward single player games or small co-op games than ever before. And I blame that on the Mass Effects/Dragon Age/Borderlands and Left 4 Dead series more than anything. Because in those games I am having fun and the game changes due to either myself or the small group I am in.
And that is likely the reason I brought up the negative items in MMOs right now. What I can do in those games I can’t do in MMOs currently. I am hoping Biowares Star Wars game changes that…………….
I didn't care to read this whole discussion because it is moot.
A more relevant question would be, "How soon until everything is a standalone console game?"
In the first week after its release, Grand Theft Auto 4 sold half a BILLION dollars worth of game discs. The game didn't have nearly as large of a landscape or as much to do as its predecessor, GTA 3, but it was still more popular. This means they put in LESS content, but still just enough to get people to buy it and tell their friends to buy it. Like myself, others I knew spent about a week playing the game before they got bored and looked for other games to play. Sure, some people spent more time on it than others, but the game was not designed to be played for a month, unlike GTA 3.
Game developers know how profitable this is. More and more of them are pushing out one-week games to try to hit the big blockbuster, just like movies have been doing over the past 20+ years. MMORPGs require a lot more time invested to make a quality product and require constant work after the product is launched. With the bigger risk being a MMO, investors are more likely to fund a console game.
Between time spent, risk, and money earned, I think we will see MMOs only take up a small portion of the video game market as they have been doing for the past ten years.
I think both role playing mmos and console games will have their place in the future.
I see where the OP was going though; in terms of simple economics game makers are already vying for more of your cash by adding (in some cases) day 1 DLC. It's just a matter of time before they try to tack on a sub and call it an mmo.
I have no problems with DLC if it's moderately priced and offers multiple hours of enjoyment. I paid 7 bucks for a piece of DLC for Dragon Age that has more entertainment hours in it than any of the 10 dollar DLC's I bought for Fallout 3, but I enjoyed both sets of DLC so I can't complain.
Anyway, I think we'll see an increase in mmo projects but I wouldn't be surprised if more western studios started releasing f2p mmos with optional cash shops in the next few years.
What I see as the biggest driver behind the whole decline of the actual MMO aspect of MMORPGs is the fact that many game developers (like all software developers) like to utilize tried and true idioms or patterns. As such, certain idioms get over used like instancing (as it has the paired effects of giving players more 'space' without adding more actual content or real game space and providing a means to balance server loads (in this case, instancing is a way to couple game spaces to threads without having to conceptualize the problem in another way)) or raids (where dungeons of old time MUDs have replaced the original aspect of open domains and landscapes of the first two waves of MMOs, all for the fact that dungeons are easier to design (due to level designers largely coming from FPS development backgrounds)). And many other examples are out there, which I can imagine other folks can list and explain on their own.
What bugs me is that this behavior among developers is hard to avoid, not because investors think they're the best, but rather that investors haven't a clue about game/software development, thus will believe any line of bunk fed to them by developers and their handlers. In short, the abuse of software patterns/idioms in game development are solely due to laziness of developers and not investors or players as many wish to imagine it to be. Most developers get frustrated easily when a novel problem or alternate solution is found since it often has side-effects not yet discovered (or can't be puzzled out deductively or by mathematical induction of edge cases). So, they stick to their guns, screaming that it is the only way it can be done and the technology cannot handle anything else. Of course, this is right up until a bored developer (or even a pissed off one) shows them either in tech demos or a final product that their claims had no deductive proof, and that it just been falsified (much to their chagrin).
Excellent viewpoint and I'm finding it quite ironic that you chose these 2 games as your reasoning. First up I'm so bored of the lack of choices in MMO's out there that I am on my 3 romp through Borderlands in LAN play with a friend and we're alternating each class.
Basiocally we've played it almost to death and wishing it were an MMO to some degree and since we're from the same field, he a 3D Modeler/Concepter and myself as an Animator student, we have found alot of for & against just about any game out there.
I personally have given up on shooters because they've become "HEADSHOT" console orientated instead of twitch based skills to obtain one. I like a challenge and want to have most games made harder just so I can learn to adapt my strategies for reaching a goal.
I usually only play RPG style games, Mass Effect was a choose your ADVENTURE styled game and I do not cosider it an RPG. RPG is more atkin to Random Played Game than ROLE Playing Game. I think you get my point.
Now this is not to say that each game I've played is terriable, I think they just should have been better planned or have various ways of achieving something instead of feeling like each AAA title on the market is trying to be a Movie. In that case I simply turn the computer off and go watch a DVD.
To finish off my response to your article, I think it strengthens the need for more of Less (the really really good bits) fields and less of the More (oh the grind and repeat syndrome) "Must have that because Game X had it and why people wanted to pay $. Devs, use your brain instead of trying to make a bigger skyscraper than the rival company across the street.
I think you pretty much have summed up why I've "almost" given up on wanting to play an MMO's right there.
R (Roll/Random/Rubbish) P (Playing/Point/Ponder) G (Game/Gore/Gay) has almost as many meanings as acronyms. Bring it back to the 'ol RPG and what it's know as, Role, in other words what you want to do, let it be. Or god forbid take out the Gazillions of items, locations, quests, and so on to allow us to decide the shifting worlds' atmosphere.
Now that brings up the old cliche term that has not standard meaning in the Industry cycles atm. I am talking about Persistant, which if my memory serves correct to mean everchanging landscapes of thought put into action.
We all can agree that the "Closed/Open/Retail Alpha" Phases (multiplied and stretched out into Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Digamma, and just before preorders we add ZETA) <---------} CUT IT OUT for pity sake!!!!!
If my friends and collegues are giving up on MMO's then just maybe because of all this BS, pussy footing around, trying to have ex Devs pass themselves off as secondhand car salespeople so that they can make more MULA. Just like with the issues and "some" decisions regarding DRM, wake up because it doesn't fix the problem, bloat your boat or anything more than turning more droves away.
Unless you happen to be Ubisoft and make DRM look good, you need to take heed of those famous words, "Create a place to which one can be inspired to dream and bathe in the fields of serene pleasure" (translated by a misploken Lucas spokesperson, "We are here to tell a story, not sell a movie tenfold"
I'm sure this was mentioned (I haven't read all 80+ replies), but I think the major difference is in the keyword "Massive".
Personally, I don't think any MMO has yet to achieve the full potential of that concept. I've been playing MAG on PS3 lately, and I probably interact more with those 256 player maps than I ever have in an MMO.
There are a few reasons, I suppose. Such as, "why should I?" But, I think the idea of playing with thousands of other people around the world all at once has huge potential. It just seems though, that the developers have given up on trying.
I think MMO's need to push that aspect a bit further to keep themselves regarded as something special. Give me a huge, fully populated world and give me a reason to interact with them. Give me a world in which I can make a long term difference.
If not, then just make a pile of more MAG and Borderland games; but I fear we'd be losing out on the real potential of MMOs.
My marriage has recently become an MMORPG.
Not sure I like it.
Different guys dressed as elves keep showing up at my front door every nite to explore my wife.
Now granted she is an epic encounter....but sheesh...is everything becoming an MMORPG?
It's better to lurk in forums and be thought a fool...than to endlessly "Quote" and remove all doubts.
This has proberly been posted before i dont have time to read every page but a clear example of FPS and MMO merge is Fallen Earth, fallen earth may not be the best FPS ever (that would be cod6) and it may not be the best MMO ever , but put the two together and boom you make a good game.
i thought age of conan was ment to be new and exciting...
Sadly, MMORPGs as the original term was intended do not really exist anymore. Most releases at the moment are lite versions of what an MMORPG should be.
With the addition of systems which means you no longer have to play the games anymore the MMORPG genre is pretty much dead, or what is being dished out these days does not meet the original definition.
MUDs with online concurrency of 20-100 players are more representative of what a MMORPG should be apart from the fact they are text based and have no graphics they are more playable have gameplay a community and are fun.
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
There are a lot of people who don't want the multiplayer aspect of a MMO, hence single player games will continue to be quite popular. So no, you will not find everything becoming a MMO.
I literally laughed out loud when I read this
hahaha
Sorry, but I can't agree to the rather jumpy conclusion. Some RPGs become a BIT more shooterish. Still, every shooter fan I know groaned about ME2 that it was NOTHING like a real shooter. It was simplification, and a big gripe for many RPG fans, and I don't think it will become trend. BUT, how does one conclude from that to the idea that everything becomes an MMO someday?
On the contrary I know a lot of gamers are still single player gamers and never like MMOs. They want to be THE hero not hero number 435345. And that includes myself when I play a single player game, especially Mass Effect. I want to be Shepard. Period. I don't want to be one of tens of thousands heroes! I want a story with a great beginning and a story-wise definite ending. And a MMO as a persistent world can not be that, even if SWTOR is bringing story to MMOs.
I just don't see that everything will become MMOs. On the contrary I rather see MMOs are an endangered species if the trend of sucky MMOs continues.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I can't disagree with you. This pretty much is the defining points of what makes a MMORPG different from just a MMOG. Thats how I label them.
MMOs are no longer what they used to be that's a given, but the genre is still young compared to FPSs and normal RPGs, so all three genres are in this weird state of flux, bouncing ideas off each other. People like grouping, and people are naturally goal oriented so why not combine those two and create Borderlands. Next step is simple, why not let MORE PEOPLE interact across the PS3, PC, and XB360 like FFXI managed to do, and create an MMO version and try to break into that 11+ million player market WoW managed to tap into.
Games like Borderlands, Bioshock, Even System Shock from the day are making great strides towards balancing the actions and RPG elements. We are already seeing games like Torchlight release a single player version with full intentions of releasing an MMO soon after. This same thing could easily be done with Borderlands for example. Yes, the current Borderlands is limited to only 4 players, but the world is now already laid out with respectable lore, the numerous weapon bits are already skinned, would only really need more character models and then suddenly you have an MMO with instanced dungeons to go after Nine Toes or any of the other bosses ala WoW, WAR, EQ2, ect.
or just as bad or even worse paying a monthly fee to play a shooter with so called mmo aspects I am looking at you global agenda
Me thinks BFBC2 is going to take that title from cod6
Not soon enough. With the right business model, yeah.
Godspeed my fellow gamer