I beg to differ, GW2 is the most promising in being one that break the mold in several way, but some of the others have interesting innovative features too.
But about GW2: Dynamic Events, team combat in which spells influence eachother (shoot an arrow through a fire wall someone else from your team created, and you have a fire arrow, etc), world vs world PvP, sounds all pretty different to me.
Really? That sounds fun. Damn, someone finally one up'd me. Is everything still instanced in gw2?
I beg to differ, GW2 is the most promising in being one that break the mold in several way, but some of the others have interesting innovative features too.
But about GW2: Dynamic Events, team combat in which spells influence eachother (shoot an arrow through a fire wall someone else from your team created, and you have a fire arrow, etc), world vs world PvP, sounds all pretty different to me.
Really? That sounds fun. Damn, someone finally one up'd me. Is everything still instanced in gw2?
Nope mostly persistant apart from the personal story (which as the name infers allows you to hand craft your own story based on about 10 questions) and the usual dungeons. Everything else which is mostly the dynamic events etc is persistant. There's really a load and I mean a LOAD more aspects different to most normal mmo's than the one he's described. Check out the main site, the blog and the links to interviiews at gw2g to find out more about the game. I must warn you there's a lot to digest.
I beg to differ, GW2 is the most promising in being one that break the mold in several way, but some of the others have interesting innovative features too.
But about GW2: Dynamic Events, team combat in which spells influence eachother (shoot an arrow through a fire wall someone else from your team created, and you have a fire arrow, etc), world vs world PvP, sounds all pretty different to me.
Really? That sounds fun. Damn, someone finally one up'd me. Is everything still instanced in gw2?
Nope mostly persistant apart from the personal story (which as the name infers allows you to hand craft your own story based on about 10 questions) and the usual dungeons. Everything else which is mostly the dynamic events etc is persistant. There's really a load and I mean a LOAD more aspects different to most normal mmo's than the one he's described. Check out the main site, the blog and the links to interviiews at gw2g to find out more about the game. I must warn you there's a lot to digest.
Damn, that sounds pretty neat. I didn't realize GW2 had so much going on.
I beg to differ, GW2 is the most promising in being one that break the mold in several way, but some of the others have interesting innovative features too.
But about GW2: Dynamic Events, team combat in which spells influence eachother (shoot an arrow through a fire wall someone else from your team created, and you have a fire arrow, etc), world vs world PvP, sounds all pretty different to me.
Really? That sounds fun. Damn, someone finally one up'd me. Is everything still instanced in gw2?
Nope mostly persistant apart from the personal story (which as the name infers allows you to hand craft your own story based on about 10 questions) and the usual dungeons. Everything else which is mostly the dynamic events etc is persistant. There's really a load and I mean a LOAD more aspects different to most normal mmo's than the one he's described. Check out the main site, the blog and the links to interviiews at gw2g to find out more about the game. I must warn you there's a lot to digest.
Damn, that sounds pretty neat. I didn't realize GW2 had so much going on.
TBF differences to standard mmo's is where gw2 thrives since it is pretty much a conglomeration of A-net's ideas of where the mmo industry should be going. To them this means it should be far closer to the type of game an average person would imagine when seeing the words "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game" than what is currently on the market.
Of course the difference between what the name mmorpg implies and what is currently on the market is like the difference between night and day. A-net simply wishes to bridge this gap with gw2.
I can understand the craving for an MMO revolution, but I don't think that MMORPGs are going to be revolutionary in so far as totally new and different. The genre has been defined. Mechanics can be played around with, but if it's an RPG and an MMO, it's going to fluctuate between the sandbox side and theme park side. You'll see differences, but most of the major concepts have been decided already. It's level grind or skill based. There are lots of sub variants, but they'll always be reinventions of what already exists.
If people want truly original and revolutionary they need to expand what MMO means. MMORPGs are RPGs. But all MMOs don't need to be RPGs. Why can't people look into that possibility. Honestly, the RPG piece does nothing for me. I like PVE, I like PVP, I like RVR, I like MMO, I don't particularly care for RPG. Do I think there are elements of RPG that are good? Yes. Call of Duty has RPG elements. So when do we get our true blooded MMOFPS?
Why can't we see more games like World War II Online? I haven't played it, but that seems like a better path to travel in the future of the MMO genre.
Let's be honest, there's a good chunk of people who think MMORPGs are nerdy and antisocial, and these same people will spend six hours a day playing Call of Duty or Halo. If you want untapped revolutionary market share, obviously it's a major fps console/computer mmo. If you want the future, it will be COD:Modern Warfare level graphics on a PS3 or PC linked to the internet with a game played on a foreign online linked super server. I'm talking about a war game played almost on the scale of the actual war. A game so massive you'll spend your time shooting the bull with your platoon (guild) mates while you get driven around by NPC or Player controlled vehicles and stay on your toes for random ambushes, air strikes, ieds, what have you.
The scope of possibility with the MMO format is epic. You can sandbox a war like a PC Source Engine shoot 'em up or you can theme park it like most story driven fps console games, but I'm pretty sure that an Massive Multiplayer Online War Simulation is going to be the thing to revolutionize the market.A "Resistance Fall of Man Online" would be a perfect example. the game includes a mix of historical themes, alternate history, retro science fiction themes, a rather brilliant plot line (their website timeline thing shows how capable these guys are of fleshing out a world if they needed to.) several factions, and lots of room for M rated carnage that isn't dependent on (but I'm by no means saying they shouldn't have) frontal nudity. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure that Insomniac has the backing of Sony, and you don't get much bigger then that.
If people want to see a game that will outshine WOW as an MMO, they need not look further then the stuff I'm expecting to see on the 8th (next) generation consoles. 7th already delved into online game play and cutting edge graphics as well as sensor based systems which I'm sure could be very very cool.
I'm sure the conservative MMO players will hang their heads and cry their little lament, but that's what it's going to take to make a role playing (remember it's role playing, not roll playing, dungeons and dragons dice throwing is not what it's about, it's about simulating the life of a fictional character) game that qualifies as Revolutionary.
“I'm pretty sure that an Massive Multiplayer Online War Simulation is going to be the thing to revolutionize the market.”
I game should be a game: entertain and in the best case scenario teach something useful. MMO games have a unique feature: possibility to interact with other people and this interaction should be human. Join the army, feel how cold sweat is running on you back when real bullets are flying above your helmet, loose a friend, feel the pain of your wounds and smell of burning human flesh… A game avatar always reminds me the distant targets in the panoramic sight of my mortar. I have seen the results of our actions closer. Believe me after that you would never request any “realism” and such sort of “revolutions” in games. I wish you not to have this real life experience.
I can understand the craving for an MMO revolution, but I don't think that MMORPGs are going to be revolutionary in so far as totally new and different. The genre has been defined. Mechanics can be played around with, but if it's an RPG and an MMO, it's going to fluctuate between the sandbox side and theme park side. You'll see differences, but most of the major concepts have been decided already. It's level grind or skill based. There are lots of sub variants, but they'll always be reinventions of what already exists.
If people want truly original and revolutionary they need to expand what MMO means. MMORPGs are RPGs. But all MMOs don't need to be RPGs. Why can't people look into that possibility. Honestly, the RPG piece does nothing for me. I like PVE, I like PVP, I like RVR, I like MMO, I don't particularly care for RPG. Do I think there are elements of RPG that are good? Yes. Call of Duty has RPG elements. So when do we get our true blooded MMOFPS?
Why can't we see more games like World War II Online? I haven't played it, but that seems like a better path to travel in the future of the MMO genre.
Let's be honest, there's a good chunk of people who think MMORPGs are nerdy and antisocial, and these same people will spend six hours a day playing Call of Duty or Halo. If you want untapped revolutionary market share, obviously it's a major fps console/computer mmo. If you want the future, it will be COD:Modern Warfare level graphics on a PS3 or PC linked to the internet with a game played on a foreign online linked super server. I'm talking about a war game played almost on the scale of the actual war. A game so massive you'll spend your time shooting the bull with your platoon (guild) mates while you get driven around by NPC or Player controlled vehicles and stay on your toes for random ambushes, air strikes, ieds, what have you.
The scope of possibility with the MMO format is epic. You can sandbox a war like a PC Source Engine shoot 'em up or you can theme park it like most story driven fps console games, but I'm pretty sure that an Massive Multiplayer Online War Simulation is going to be the thing to revolutionize the market.A "Resistance Fall of Man Online" would be a perfect example. the game includes a mix of historical themes, alternate history, retro science fiction themes, a rather brilliant plot line (their website timeline thing shows how capable these guys are of fleshing out a world if they needed to.) several factions, and lots of room for M rated carnage that isn't dependent on (but I'm by no means saying they shouldn't have) frontal nudity. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure that Insomniac has the backing of Sony, and you don't get much bigger then that.
If people want to see a game that will outshine WOW as an MMO, they need not look further then the stuff I'm expecting to see on the 8th (next) generation consoles. 7th already delved into online game play and cutting edge graphics as well as sensor based systems which I'm sure could be very very cool.
I'm sure the conservative MMO players will hang their heads and cry their little lament, but that's what it's going to take to make a role playing (remember it's role playing, not roll playing, dungeons and dragons dice throwing is not what it's about, it's about simulating the life of a fictional character) game that qualifies as Revolutionary.
Thats a pretty good point, and developers are definitely experimenting with MMOFPS games but not at the scale i would liek them to. Also for your COD example, they're are a lot of rumours going on that they will indeed make a MMO out of it and if its actually good enough we will see a huge increase in the MMO population as a whole. As more and more of the console players shift to MMOs, more ideas and types of gameplay will also shift so its a win win situation. But I believe it will take awhile and it's going to be a slow process.
“I'm pretty sure that an Massive Multiplayer Online War Simulation is going to be the thing to revolutionize the market.”
I game should be a game: entertain and in the best case scenario teach something useful. MMO games have a unique feature: possibility to interact with other people and this interaction should be human. Join the army, feel how cold sweat is running on you back when real bullets are flying above your helmet, loose a friend, feel the pain of your wounds and smell of burning human flesh… A game avatar always reminds me the distant targets in the panoramic sight of my mortar. I have seen the results of our actions closer. Believe me after that you would never request any “realism” and such sort of “revolutions” in games. I wish you not to have this real life experience.
If the game were truly graphic enough would it desensitize people or give perspective into the dangers of needless war?
I think that the problem with FPS as it is, is that it focuses solely on the few moments of firefight and totally abandons the human element that makes the story. I'm not saying that war is a positive action, but it's the major force in the world through history. As you've served, I imagine you would think that the only thing that kept you going were the people in your life and the people you served with. That's where the MMO element shines. I think maybe taking the glory out of the shoot everything that moves and the whole easy re-spawn would give a better perspective. Violence is pretty screwed up, it would be refreshing to see something that doesn't glorify or demonize, but instead portrays it the way it is. I'm not saying that dead children should be lining every street corner, but there's a hellish aspect that's lost when you're playing capture the flag with an assault rifle. You'll never be there from a video game, or even close to being there, but if you make a game that can show people what the costs of war are, that might be an important tool. I think too many people forget our soldiers are overseas taking fire, or perhaps even worse, waiting for the fire to come.
It might be wise to have deaths re-spawn you in an instanced hospital miles away from the front. You wake up from black screen surrounded by the wounded and then you're expected to find your way back to your unit. I mean that's not taking a bullet, or even perma-death but that's a pretty severe consequence for death.
Regardless, I thank you for doing what others would not do. That means a lot.
Well, please understand me correctly: players, people, and soldiers are different. Some are “fine” (e.g. Paul Tibbets), some have PTSD (my close friend who served in a cruise missiles brigade). Kids are playing war with plastic rifles, paintball is a great game. But I cannot play MMOFPS games, I am playing fantasy RPGs in PvE mode (group and solo). I have played only once in massive PvP: was killed numerous times and “killed” myself only once, then I quit the game. Thereafter I was not able to sleep, my nightmares returned in a full scale and I was thinking for a very long period of time what was happening in the brain of the player of that elf I have “killed”, how he/she felt at that moment (actually after many years I am still thinking about this player). I am normal, probably, just a “special” player case.
What I want to say: MMO game should be somewhat symbolic, some sides of RL should be not “naturalized” in games via detailed graphics and realistic game play. I am far from believes that “aggressive” computer games directly enhance RL violence and criminal activity. However, reading forums (gankers’/griefers’ confessions) and in-game chat I have serious doubts that these kids are kind and generous in their RL, just normal youngsters. That’s what game developers should consider, are their games making us better as human beings, community members, citizens. Again MMOs are special type of entertainment because of interactivity: YOU are acting, not a vampire on a movie screen and YOU are “killing” another human, not an AI monster. Moreover, in RL game (paintball or plastic rifle “war”) you have an opportunity to talk thereafter with a “killed” person, see how he reacts, etc, you simply know him. In MMO you often have no chance for that. So, I cannot agree with all your suggestions, but have no ambitions to be able to know the truth in the last instance.
In action you often have no time to think and feel but you are totally right (you got it) that thoughts about “people in my life and the people I served with” forced me to act appropriately.
I can see that. I'm not saying that a War MMO is necessarily the only way forward for everyone. You certainly wouldn't enjoy it, because it's just going to remind you of things you would rather forget. I was more suggesting that console MMOs are. People will not spend the money so they can get a mmo that can run better the Age of Conan graphics at mmo sizes. There are plenty of 3rd person adventure type games too. Like I said, for example a Resistance or Halo type game would probably involve numerous human factions working together against aliens/mutants etc. There'd be some degree of internecine conflicts but it could still focus on people helping people against a common evil.
But then you could have a Zelda mmo and it could be just as fantasy oriented as any computer game.
This is what I see happening. They are just going to add a cash shop like every other MMORPG.
They already have cash features in Modern Warfare II on X-box 360. Who says they won't add a cash shop as well?
What's wrong with cash shops? Alts are bad enough having priority over players. Cash shops makes it worse.
Player leaving Tree
I see this pattern in ALL Cash shop MMORPG's.
(unfortunately it's also a flaw in non cash shop MMORPG's as well with alts being in place of cash users)
Cashshop = less new non cash shop users accepted to parties.
Less new non cash shop user acceptance to parties = leaving of less accepted new non cash shop players.
leaving of less accepted new non cash shop players = less parties for accepted new cash shop players
less parties for accepted new cash shop players = leaving of accepted new cash shop players
(Irony. They start leaving even though they are the most accepted, yet there isn't many parties. Oh by the way, it gets worse.)
(This is where you wonder where everyones logic went.)
(Continuing)
Cash shop = less new cash and non cash players.
less new cash and non cash players = less accepted mid level non cash shop users to parties (What the #@$%)
less accepted mid level non cash shop users to parties = leaving of less accepted mid level non cash shop users.
leaving of less accepted mid level non cash shop users = less mid level parties for cash shop users
less mid level parties for mid level cash shop users = leaving of mid level cash shop users
leaving of mid level cash shop users = ... You get the point.
(Oh and you think it ends there? WRONG. Alts go through the same thing eventually, starting with non cash alts.)
What I find Ironic in MMORPG's is most people party cash users or people with better equipment over new players. Later, they get into higher levels and find less parties because there arn't many high level people in the game. Then they start complaining about how many people are not around their level range. Then they either stay and help people level, leave, or make an alt. When they make an alt, they take the cash shop player's place in the Player leaving Tree.
An example of this problem would be Rappelz. People rather have players with high level equipment or high level pets versus new players. They are just screwing themselves over in low, mid, and high levels and the screwing with the rest of the communities level ranges. Eventually the company loses so many people that it can't keep the game up anymore.
(I guess I'm saying this. Unless it's cosmetics, the game is destined to failure faster, which might mean F2P wasn't mean't to exist in the first place because I'm not entirely sure they can keep servers up just selling cosmetics.
P2P however seems to last longer. Why? People have less of a choice. New players are more accepted in P2P parties because everyone is pretty much wearing the same gear.
(This post is messy compared to my last one. I have my reasons though.)
F2P has alot of other problems, but P2P has it's own problems too.
I beg to differ, GW2 is the most promising in being one that break the mold in several way, but some of the others have interesting innovative features too.
But about GW2: Dynamic Events, team combat in which spells influence eachother (shoot an arrow through a fire wall someone else from your team created, and you have a fire arrow, etc), world vs world PvP, sounds all pretty different to me.
Really? That sounds fun. Damn, someone finally one up'd me. Is everything still instanced in gw2?
No, it will have instanced areas, but will be an open MMO for the most part. Check out http://www.guildwars2.com for updated information on gameplay etc.
I just read the impressions of E3 on a blog for a game in development called Citadel of sorcery, and this particularly part stood out to me
"No fantasy MMORPG we could find was taking on the challenge of a non-static world with deep and involved storyline quests. They seemed happy to continue making the same thing over again, and in three cases when asked what their quests were like they actually stated: Just like WoW. Others touted that they had timed dungeons as their big game play (kill everything before the timer runs out). Some claimed great adventures in that you had to obtain an item to slow a monster before you could kill it, but the quest was simply the same old, Kill the Monster. Most fantasy MMOs were hack and slash affairs or grinds. There is nothing actually wrong with any of these types of game play, we only ask, why not give the players that and much, much, much more?"
Now this made me think a little, are these new breed of MMO's which are suppose to bring MMO's back to life really that different? My conclusion no.
Swtor sure as hell is taking story to the next level, or Tera taking combat out of its usualy boring state but in the end isn't the gameplay pretty much like every other game? do quests and lvl till your at end game and do that content, none of these upcoming games seem to be breaking the mold here. In my opinion a game that revolutionizes would be EVE but then again im comparing a sandbox to themeparks but thier just isnt anything else to comapre to. For a different point of view, look at what games like half-life and Deus ex did to the shooter genre. To make MMOs good again we need a different approach, we need a new formula not a new twist on a old story. I suggest you read up on COS to see what revolution they plan to do in terms of MMOs and you'll see what im talking about.
What are your thoughts on this? Is it "if it works why change it" or would you like a new approach on things?
For the most part, WoW has been the blinders that folks on both sides of the argument (corporate and consumer) have preventing them from seeing a bigger picture. It worked and they won't change it, but it worked because Blizzard was the prepared mind that Chance favoured. In much the same way that not every band can be Metallica, The Beatles or other acts of their stature, so too not every MMORPG can achieve that level of success. Bands that try to aim at that kind of recognition set themselves more of a challenge than they can handle, likely even overestimating what they can do and rejecting the possibility of being incredibly successful but not that successful. MMORPGs that aim at WoW's sucess suffer the same problem, albeit with differences peculiar to the genre.
All of the buzzwords don't really help either because people end up appropriating them and tweaking the definitions or simply grounding an argument based merely on the buzzword while missing the the focus of the genre. EVE, while I won't play it because it simply isn't my thing, looks like a damn good game and deserves to be called a MMORPG. It was and is innovative without needing to be called a sandbox. The same follows for WoW, a damn good game (that suffers from Blizzard's pregnant greed) that was innovative in its own right without needing to be called a themepark. But you don't mean to look at things with buzzwords, at least I don't get that impression from your post.
What you're looking at is whether or not games should embrace change and/or dare to try something different to enrich the MMORPG genre. Pointing out what games like Half-Life and Deus Ex: The Conspiracy did for the FPS is an excellent example. I've played and throgouhly enjoyed both and, perhaps you'll agree, we wouldn't have quite a few of the FPS games that came out in their wake if they didn't break that ground. The MMORPG market, though, is fairly saturated and it seems like innovation is going to come in small doses while retaining the things that work, both for the company in question and within the genre. At this point innovation can be something as simple as the setting (sci-fi instead of fantasy, for example) and we as players need to embrace those small steps. If we don't embrace the small steps we're not likely to see grander innovation down the line.
A parting thought: take a look at Guild Wars 2, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain. (2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
First, I'm not sure if I agree with the topic of this post. ;-) A users revolt against MMO's or an evolution to the next higher level of game design? However, I get your point. My main issue with most PC games (even the consoles) has been the past 10-20 years has been trying to make things that are cool (visual eye candy effects, 3d sound, etc.) rather than find better ways to handle problems that are inherent to most MMO's today.
First define the issues of games that people are hating and then designers, please program to fix them. Poor player interactions (Griefing, immaturity, etc.), grinding, repetitive quest chains, non-changing bosses (You kill ogre A, then can kill again for loot drop. Unless the boss is required, change them up, or leave them off, or unavailable for a few days, something different any way), queuing for quests, exorbitant subscriptions (a magazine sub, paper in hand is only $25/year), non-random encounters in maps, botting (cheating in any form, particularly anything affecting the economy), to name a few.
Unfortuantely, there are no games I can see coming out that fix or attempt to deal with all these issues. Are these repairable? Some I can see being difficult to deal with. How do you moderate player issues inside a game, it's not like it's a forum. However, with screenshots, and a proper procedure button it should be easier to send complaints to the devs to let them decide on bans, punsihment, etc.
As far as game mechanics, I hope with the increasing evolution in computing power, the programmers start paying more attention to things under the hood rather than is this orc's green wart better than this brown one. Art is important, but the evolution to interesting mechanics, encounters, and storytelling are things that we are dieing for.
What are your thoughts on this? Is it "if it works why change it" or would you like a new approach on things?
Yes. The Old Republic looks like fun. I'm really not looking for a massive first person shooter. I will play a first person shooter once in a while, but makign them massive doesn't really make them more fun, IMO.
What are your thoughts on this? Is it "if it works why change it" or would you like a new approach on things?
Yes. The Old Republic looks like fun. I'm really not looking for a massive first person shooter. I will play a first person shooter once in a while, but makign them massive doesn't really make them more fun, IMO.
Yeah I'd have to agree. I loved everything about Call of Duty Modern Warfare with a small or large team versus team. I think more than 64 people though is just overdoing it a little bit... (Which would probally be a Massive first shooter game.)
I didn't like Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, and when I start to think about it, the only thing I think of is lack of realism.
Edit: Lack of realism was when you shot people in the head and they didn't die. For any first person shooter, that should be the first area that should be a one hit kill.
The TED Talk describes the discovery of previously-untapped market segments who wanted chunky spaghetti sauce (and many other types), back when only one type was being offered on the market.
In MMO terms there are plenty of flavors of MMO and some of them are yet to be discovered. If you cannot offer the best WOW-style MMORPG, for example, you can't expect to do very well because people want to spend their time in the best game on the market (of the particular flavor they're after.)
So if you're a company which can't commit to making the absolute best WOW-style MMO, you'd better make a non-WOW-style MMO. You'd better discover a previously-untapped style of spaghetti sauce.
So we need revolution and evolution.
That's a great point, and I think you're right. WoW, at least for the foreseeable future, has its niche locked down. There's not going to be a WoW killer. Instead, what we should be looking for is a WoW complement, a game that occupies the same genre as WoW (MMOs) but not the same niche within that genre. Developers need to stop trying to carve customers away from WoW and instead try to create new customers. That is, after all, exactly what WoW did.
By the way, bonus points for mentioning Malcolm Gladwell on an MMO forum and actually having it make sense =P
We had many of them.
Just look at
AoC
Warhammer
Darkfall
MO
so on,,,,,,
and they failed like many others. The people on this site whine about WoW clone, yet they never support the big names that go outside the box.
Lets go into detail.
AoC == New Attack System
Warhammer == PvP Focused Theme Park
Darkfall == Sandbox and FPS gameplay
MO==Sandbox and FPS gameplay
but what have these games brought positive to the genre? Nothing...
The TED Talk describes the discovery of previously-untapped market segments who wanted chunky spaghetti sauce (and many other types), back when only one type was being offered on the market.
In MMO terms there are plenty of flavors of MMO and some of them are yet to be discovered. If you cannot offer the best WOW-style MMORPG, for example, you can't expect to do very well because people want to spend their time in the best game on the market (of the particular flavor they're after.)
So if you're a company which can't commit to making the absolute best WOW-style MMO, you'd better make a non-WOW-style MMO. You'd better discover a previously-untapped style of spaghetti sauce.
So we need revolution and evolution.
That's a great point, and I think you're right. WoW, at least for the foreseeable future, has its niche locked down. There's not going to be a WoW killer. Instead, what we should be looking for is a WoW complement, a game that occupies the same genre as WoW (MMOs) but not the same niche within that genre. Developers need to stop trying to carve customers away from WoW and instead try to create new customers. That is, after all, exactly what WoW did.
By the way, bonus points for mentioning Malcolm Gladwell on an MMO forum and actually having it make sense =P
We had many of them.
Just look at
AoC
Warhammer
Darkfall
MO
so on,,,,,,
and they failed like many others. The people on this site whine about WoW clone, yet they never support the big names that go outside the box.
Lets go into detail.
AoC == New Attack System
Warhammer == PvP Focused Theme Park
Darkfall == Sandbox and FPS gameplay
MO==Sandbox and FPS gameplay
but what have these games brought positive to the genre? Nothing...
I remember when my friend said that if you died in darkfall, your hard earned items got dropped and taken from you. (I think even if it was equipped? I could be wrong) Dropping + me = displeased already. I'm a casual player so I really don't like the idea of items dropping. Everything else? It's only cause I only have a laptop at the moment. ._.
The only 3 things come out in this thread is better storytelling, non static world, better combat.
No what came out of this thread is that some of the developers need create new styles of MMO's and to stop trying to one up the current trend. We need to stop thinking of the MMO as X, when all it is, is a situation with a persistent world filled with lots of players. There are so many possibilities not explored because people look at UO/EQ/WoW to base their MMO's on.
then explain,,
what can be done thats so different? (Other then Theme [fantasy/Sci/Real] )
We have Aim combat. Thats been done.
Story telling? Really. how does a cut scene work in a persistent world? Or should we join the movement for less Persistent worlds while calling it a MMO? (Guild Wars?)
really, what new can be done, that isnt a major turn off?
I made a thread talking about the niche groups of this genre. What I have notice, was that most MMO follow these niche groups, rather then avoiding them like WoW does. (This suprisingly includes the so called "WoW Clones")
The link to all these failed MMO, is these Niche groups they strive for.
WoW does that, even if people fail to realize this since its not FPS sim like CoD.
Making a FPS gimps your player base population into a niche group. Most people cant handle FPS controls, and intantly get turned off by the controls alone.
Then add the Strong Graphics and Sstem requirements for FPS MMO, and you looking at a even smaller niche group.
WoW does that, even if people fail to realize this since its not FPS sim like CoD.
Making a FPS gimps your player base population into a niche group. Most people cant handle FPS controls, and intantly get turned off by the controls alone.
Then add the Strong Graphics and Sstem requirements for FPS MMO, and you looking at a even smaller niche group.
This is where DF and MO failed.
Trust me controls weren't the thing that made darkfall and MO fail and FPS games don't have to have the best graphics ever, they could be on scale with the rest of the games so thats a flawed argument.
Comments
Really? That sounds fun. Damn, someone finally one up'd me. Is everything still instanced in gw2?
Nope mostly persistant apart from the personal story (which as the name infers allows you to hand craft your own story based on about 10 questions) and the usual dungeons. Everything else which is mostly the dynamic events etc is persistant. There's really a load and I mean a LOAD more aspects different to most normal mmo's than the one he's described. Check out the main site, the blog and the links to interviiews at gw2g to find out more about the game. I must warn you there's a lot to digest.
Damn, that sounds pretty neat. I didn't realize GW2 had so much going on.
Virtual Reality
TBF differences to standard mmo's is where gw2 thrives since it is pretty much a conglomeration of A-net's ideas of where the mmo industry should be going. To them this means it should be far closer to the type of game an average person would imagine when seeing the words "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game" than what is currently on the market.
Of course the difference between what the name mmorpg implies and what is currently on the market is like the difference between night and day. A-net simply wishes to bridge this gap with gw2.
I can understand the craving for an MMO revolution, but I don't think that MMORPGs are going to be revolutionary in so far as totally new and different. The genre has been defined. Mechanics can be played around with, but if it's an RPG and an MMO, it's going to fluctuate between the sandbox side and theme park side. You'll see differences, but most of the major concepts have been decided already. It's level grind or skill based. There are lots of sub variants, but they'll always be reinventions of what already exists.
If people want truly original and revolutionary they need to expand what MMO means. MMORPGs are RPGs. But all MMOs don't need to be RPGs. Why can't people look into that possibility. Honestly, the RPG piece does nothing for me. I like PVE, I like PVP, I like RVR, I like MMO, I don't particularly care for RPG. Do I think there are elements of RPG that are good? Yes. Call of Duty has RPG elements. So when do we get our true blooded MMOFPS?
Why can't we see more games like World War II Online? I haven't played it, but that seems like a better path to travel in the future of the MMO genre.
Let's be honest, there's a good chunk of people who think MMORPGs are nerdy and antisocial, and these same people will spend six hours a day playing Call of Duty or Halo. If you want untapped revolutionary market share, obviously it's a major fps console/computer mmo. If you want the future, it will be COD:Modern Warfare level graphics on a PS3 or PC linked to the internet with a game played on a foreign online linked super server. I'm talking about a war game played almost on the scale of the actual war. A game so massive you'll spend your time shooting the bull with your platoon (guild) mates while you get driven around by NPC or Player controlled vehicles and stay on your toes for random ambushes, air strikes, ieds, what have you.
The scope of possibility with the MMO format is epic. You can sandbox a war like a PC Source Engine shoot 'em up or you can theme park it like most story driven fps console games, but I'm pretty sure that an Massive Multiplayer Online War Simulation is going to be the thing to revolutionize the market.A "Resistance Fall of Man Online" would be a perfect example. the game includes a mix of historical themes, alternate history, retro science fiction themes, a rather brilliant plot line (their website timeline thing shows how capable these guys are of fleshing out a world if they needed to.) several factions, and lots of room for M rated carnage that isn't dependent on (but I'm by no means saying they shouldn't have) frontal nudity. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure that Insomniac has the backing of Sony, and you don't get much bigger then that.
If people want to see a game that will outshine WOW as an MMO, they need not look further then the stuff I'm expecting to see on the 8th (next) generation consoles. 7th already delved into online game play and cutting edge graphics as well as sensor based systems which I'm sure could be very very cool.
I'm sure the conservative MMO players will hang their heads and cry their little lament, but that's what it's going to take to make a role playing (remember it's role playing, not roll playing, dungeons and dragons dice throwing is not what it's about, it's about simulating the life of a fictional character) game that qualifies as Revolutionary.
“So when do we get our true blooded MMOFPS?”
“I'm pretty sure that an Massive Multiplayer Online War Simulation is going to be the thing to revolutionize the market.”
I game should be a game: entertain and in the best case scenario teach something useful. MMO games have a unique feature: possibility to interact with other people and this interaction should be human. Join the army, feel how cold sweat is running on you back when real bullets are flying above your helmet, loose a friend, feel the pain of your wounds and smell of burning human flesh… A game avatar always reminds me the distant targets in the panoramic sight of my mortar. I have seen the results of our actions closer. Believe me after that you would never request any “realism” and such sort of “revolutions” in games. I wish you not to have this real life experience.
Thats a pretty good point, and developers are definitely experimenting with MMOFPS games but not at the scale i would liek them to. Also for your COD example, they're are a lot of rumours going on that they will indeed make a MMO out of it and if its actually good enough we will see a huge increase in the MMO population as a whole. As more and more of the console players shift to MMOs, more ideas and types of gameplay will also shift so its a win win situation. But I believe it will take awhile and it's going to be a slow process.
Originally posted by A1x2e3l
“So when do we get our true blooded MMOFPS?”
“I'm pretty sure that an Massive Multiplayer Online War Simulation is going to be the thing to revolutionize the market.”
I game should be a game: entertain and in the best case scenario teach something useful. MMO games have a unique feature: possibility to interact with other people and this interaction should be human. Join the army, feel how cold sweat is running on you back when real bullets are flying above your helmet, loose a friend, feel the pain of your wounds and smell of burning human flesh… A game avatar always reminds me the distant targets in the panoramic sight of my mortar. I have seen the results of our actions closer. Believe me after that you would never request any “realism” and such sort of “revolutions” in games. I wish you not to have this real life experience.
If the game were truly graphic enough would it desensitize people or give perspective into the dangers of needless war?
I think that the problem with FPS as it is, is that it focuses solely on the few moments of firefight and totally abandons the human element that makes the story. I'm not saying that war is a positive action, but it's the major force in the world through history. As you've served, I imagine you would think that the only thing that kept you going were the people in your life and the people you served with. That's where the MMO element shines. I think maybe taking the glory out of the shoot everything that moves and the whole easy re-spawn would give a better perspective. Violence is pretty screwed up, it would be refreshing to see something that doesn't glorify or demonize, but instead portrays it the way it is. I'm not saying that dead children should be lining every street corner, but there's a hellish aspect that's lost when you're playing capture the flag with an assault rifle. You'll never be there from a video game, or even close to being there, but if you make a game that can show people what the costs of war are, that might be an important tool. I think too many people forget our soldiers are overseas taking fire, or perhaps even worse, waiting for the fire to come.
It might be wise to have deaths re-spawn you in an instanced hospital miles away from the front. You wake up from black screen surrounded by the wounded and then you're expected to find your way back to your unit. I mean that's not taking a bullet, or even perma-death but that's a pretty severe consequence for death.
Regardless, I thank you for doing what others would not do. That means a lot.
Well, please understand me correctly: players, people, and soldiers are different. Some are “fine” (e.g. Paul Tibbets), some have PTSD (my close friend who served in a cruise missiles brigade). Kids are playing war with plastic rifles, paintball is a great game. But I cannot play MMOFPS games, I am playing fantasy RPGs in PvE mode (group and solo). I have played only once in massive PvP: was killed numerous times and “killed” myself only once, then I quit the game. Thereafter I was not able to sleep, my nightmares returned in a full scale and I was thinking for a very long period of time what was happening in the brain of the player of that elf I have “killed”, how he/she felt at that moment (actually after many years I am still thinking about this player). I am normal, probably, just a “special” player case.
What I want to say: MMO game should be somewhat symbolic, some sides of RL should be not “naturalized” in games via detailed graphics and realistic game play. I am far from believes that “aggressive” computer games directly enhance RL violence and criminal activity. However, reading forums (gankers’/griefers’ confessions) and in-game chat I have serious doubts that these kids are kind and generous in their RL, just normal youngsters. That’s what game developers should consider, are their games making us better as human beings, community members, citizens. Again MMOs are special type of entertainment because of interactivity: YOU are acting, not a vampire on a movie screen and YOU are “killing” another human, not an AI monster. Moreover, in RL game (paintball or plastic rifle “war”) you have an opportunity to talk thereafter with a “killed” person, see how he reacts, etc, you simply know him. In MMO you often have no chance for that. So, I cannot agree with all your suggestions, but have no ambitions to be able to know the truth in the last instance.
In action you often have no time to think and feel but you are totally right (you got it) that thoughts about “people in my life and the people I served with” forced me to act appropriately.
I can see that. I'm not saying that a War MMO is necessarily the only way forward for everyone. You certainly wouldn't enjoy it, because it's just going to remind you of things you would rather forget. I was more suggesting that console MMOs are. People will not spend the money so they can get a mmo that can run better the Age of Conan graphics at mmo sizes. There are plenty of 3rd person adventure type games too. Like I said, for example a Resistance or Halo type game would probably involve numerous human factions working together against aliens/mutants etc. There'd be some degree of internecine conflicts but it could still focus on people helping people against a common evil.
But then you could have a Zelda mmo and it could be just as fantasy oriented as any computer game.
CoD MMORPG? Doesn't sound good to me.
This is what I see happening. They are just going to add a cash shop like every other MMORPG.
They already have cash features in Modern Warfare II on X-box 360. Who says they won't add a cash shop as well?
What's wrong with cash shops? Alts are bad enough having priority over players. Cash shops makes it worse.
Player leaving Tree
I see this pattern in ALL Cash shop MMORPG's.
(unfortunately it's also a flaw in non cash shop MMORPG's as well with alts being in place of cash users)
Cashshop = less new non cash shop users accepted to parties.
Less new non cash shop user acceptance to parties = leaving of less accepted new non cash shop players.
leaving of less accepted new non cash shop players = less parties for accepted new cash shop players
less parties for accepted new cash shop players = leaving of accepted new cash shop players
(Irony. They start leaving even though they are the most accepted, yet there isn't many parties. Oh by the way, it gets worse.)
(This is where you wonder where everyones logic went.)
(Continuing)
Cash shop = less new cash and non cash players.
less new cash and non cash players = less accepted mid level non cash shop users to parties (What the #@$%)
less accepted mid level non cash shop users to parties = leaving of less accepted mid level non cash shop users.
leaving of less accepted mid level non cash shop users = less mid level parties for cash shop users
less mid level parties for mid level cash shop users = leaving of mid level cash shop users
leaving of mid level cash shop users = ... You get the point.
(Oh and you think it ends there? WRONG. Alts go through the same thing eventually, starting with non cash alts.)
What I find Ironic in MMORPG's is most people party cash users or people with better equipment over new players. Later, they get into higher levels and find less parties because there arn't many high level people in the game. Then they start complaining about how many people are not around their level range. Then they either stay and help people level, leave, or make an alt. When they make an alt, they take the cash shop player's place in the Player leaving Tree.
An example of this problem would be Rappelz. People rather have players with high level equipment or high level pets versus new players. They are just screwing themselves over in low, mid, and high levels and the screwing with the rest of the communities level ranges. Eventually the company loses so many people that it can't keep the game up anymore.
(I guess I'm saying this. Unless it's cosmetics, the game is destined to failure faster, which might mean F2P wasn't mean't to exist in the first place because I'm not entirely sure they can keep servers up just selling cosmetics.
P2P however seems to last longer. Why? People have less of a choice. New players are more accepted in P2P parties because everyone is pretty much wearing the same gear.
(This post is messy compared to my last one. I have my reasons though.)
F2P has alot of other problems, but P2P has it's own problems too.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/281241/page/9
No, it will have instanced areas, but will be an open MMO for the most part. Check out http://www.guildwars2.com for updated information on gameplay etc.
For the most part, WoW has been the blinders that folks on both sides of the argument (corporate and consumer) have preventing them from seeing a bigger picture. It worked and they won't change it, but it worked because Blizzard was the prepared mind that Chance favoured. In much the same way that not every band can be Metallica, The Beatles or other acts of their stature, so too not every MMORPG can achieve that level of success. Bands that try to aim at that kind of recognition set themselves more of a challenge than they can handle, likely even overestimating what they can do and rejecting the possibility of being incredibly successful but not that successful. MMORPGs that aim at WoW's sucess suffer the same problem, albeit with differences peculiar to the genre.
All of the buzzwords don't really help either because people end up appropriating them and tweaking the definitions or simply grounding an argument based merely on the buzzword while missing the the focus of the genre. EVE, while I won't play it because it simply isn't my thing, looks like a damn good game and deserves to be called a MMORPG. It was and is innovative without needing to be called a sandbox. The same follows for WoW, a damn good game (that suffers from Blizzard's pregnant greed) that was innovative in its own right without needing to be called a themepark. But you don't mean to look at things with buzzwords, at least I don't get that impression from your post.
What you're looking at is whether or not games should embrace change and/or dare to try something different to enrich the MMORPG genre. Pointing out what games like Half-Life and Deus Ex: The Conspiracy did for the FPS is an excellent example. I've played and throgouhly enjoyed both and, perhaps you'll agree, we wouldn't have quite a few of the FPS games that came out in their wake if they didn't break that ground. The MMORPG market, though, is fairly saturated and it seems like innovation is going to come in small doses while retaining the things that work, both for the company in question and within the genre. At this point innovation can be something as simple as the setting (sci-fi instead of fantasy, for example) and we as players need to embrace those small steps. If we don't embrace the small steps we're not likely to see grander innovation down the line.
A parting thought: take a look at Guild Wars 2, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain.
(2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
First, I'm not sure if I agree with the topic of this post. ;-) A users revolt against MMO's or an evolution to the next higher level of game design? However, I get your point. My main issue with most PC games (even the consoles) has been the past 10-20 years has been trying to make things that are cool (visual eye candy effects, 3d sound, etc.) rather than find better ways to handle problems that are inherent to most MMO's today.
First define the issues of games that people are hating and then designers, please program to fix them. Poor player interactions (Griefing, immaturity, etc.), grinding, repetitive quest chains, non-changing bosses (You kill ogre A, then can kill again for loot drop. Unless the boss is required, change them up, or leave them off, or unavailable for a few days, something different any way), queuing for quests, exorbitant subscriptions (a magazine sub, paper in hand is only $25/year), non-random encounters in maps, botting (cheating in any form, particularly anything affecting the economy), to name a few.
Unfortuantely, there are no games I can see coming out that fix or attempt to deal with all these issues. Are these repairable? Some I can see being difficult to deal with. How do you moderate player issues inside a game, it's not like it's a forum. However, with screenshots, and a proper procedure button it should be easier to send complaints to the devs to let them decide on bans, punsihment, etc.
As far as game mechanics, I hope with the increasing evolution in computing power, the programmers start paying more attention to things under the hood rather than is this orc's green wart better than this brown one. Art is important, but the evolution to interesting mechanics, encounters, and storytelling are things that we are dieing for.
Yes. The Old Republic looks like fun. I'm really not looking for a massive first person shooter. I will play a first person shooter once in a while, but makign them massive doesn't really make them more fun, IMO.
Yeah I'd have to agree. I loved everything about Call of Duty Modern Warfare with a small or large team versus team. I think more than 64 people though is just overdoing it a little bit... (Which would probally be a Massive first shooter game.)
I didn't like Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, and when I start to think about it, the only thing I think of is lack of realism.
Edit: Lack of realism was when you shot people in the head and they didn't die. For any first person shooter, that should be the first area that should be a one hit kill.
We had many of them.
Just look at
AoC
Warhammer
Darkfall
MO
so on,,,,,,
and they failed like many others. The people on this site whine about WoW clone, yet they never support the big names that go outside the box.
Lets go into detail.
AoC == New Attack System
Warhammer == PvP Focused Theme Park
Darkfall == Sandbox and FPS gameplay
MO==Sandbox and FPS gameplay
but what have these games brought positive to the genre? Nothing...
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
I remember when my friend said that if you died in darkfall, your hard earned items got dropped and taken from you. (I think even if it was equipped? I could be wrong) Dropping + me = displeased already. I'm a casual player so I really don't like the idea of items dropping. Everything else? It's only cause I only have a laptop at the moment. ._.
then explain,,
what can be done thats so different? (Other then Theme [fantasy/Sci/Real] )
We have Aim combat. Thats been done.
Story telling? Really. how does a cut scene work in a persistent world? Or should we join the movement for less Persistent worlds while calling it a MMO? (Guild Wars?)
really, what new can be done, that isnt a major turn off?
I made a thread talking about the niche groups of this genre. What I have notice, was that most MMO follow these niche groups, rather then avoiding them like WoW does. (This suprisingly includes the so called "WoW Clones")
The link to all these failed MMO, is these Niche groups they strive for.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Many MMO give you that War feeling.
Thats called Faction vs Faction or RvR.
WoW does that, even if people fail to realize this since its not FPS sim like CoD.
Making a FPS gimps your player base population into a niche group. Most people cant handle FPS controls, and intantly get turned off by the controls alone.
Then add the Strong Graphics and Sstem requirements for FPS MMO, and you looking at a even smaller niche group.
This is where DF and MO failed.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Go to citadel of sorcery's website and read up on the game.
Trust me controls weren't the thing that made darkfall and MO fail and FPS games don't have to have the best graphics ever, they could be on scale with the rest of the games so thats a flawed argument.
Great example. :]