Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

MMORPG.com you are slowly losing your focus

2

Comments

  • VolgoreVolgore Member EpicPosts: 3,872

    "1. MMORPG.com buying into PR hype"

    This site is not buying into, but a tool of PR hype.

    They sold out to companies like Funcom, Trion or the F2P department aka "the allmighty dollar" times ago. Totally biased coverage on their respective products incl. free highscore ratings in "reviews" reflects this. There are about two decent writers left, most of the articles slap the propanganda right into your face. Also reviews, re-reviews done by people appearing out of nowhere and from which i haven't read anything else before. Ok, got it...pulling the "guest writer" card resp."content of the article is the writer's personal impression blabla"

    Barely any decent writers and those who are rather don't dare to call things by it's name, as of course mmorpg.com rather like to make friends in the industry than upsetting someone with a big add-budget. Expanding to RTS and FPS add up on this.

    They are not losing their focus, it just shifted towards pleasing the big dogs.

     

    F2P: Guess every adult reader is by now disgusted with the moe-adds on the mainpage.

    And btw: the attempt to relativize Aihoshi's F2P brainwash with some "sharptongue" side-blows failed to an extend, as it can rather be resumed as some sort of sarcasm instead of a serious counterattack.

     

    "2. Games that shouldn't be here"

    As to the coverage of Skyrim: No problem with that, as it is more RPG than many other game on this page will ever be. But i still wonder how Diablo 3 found it's way in while Torchlight II did not. Yes, the ominous poll...so they an say that "people wanted that".  Why no poll for torchlight 2?

    Also, looking through the games forums is rather amusing...quantity over quality all the way. I can't do a mouseclick anywhere without hitting a gameforum with 0 to 15 postings in there.

     

    image
  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo Member UncommonPosts: 3,219

    mmorpg.com is a news, community and discussion site, evidently. Discussion will invariably topple into related arenas and that's a good thing to include when it's fitting to do so eg Skyrim, LoL, especially when "pure" mmorpg news  is less than exciting concurrently. Afterall if the site has some dependable news and interesting comments & discussion, then why not imo?

    As for info, metascores usually contribute to my - FINAL SCORE - where unless >90% rating, game price = "should be ranged from 0 min - 20 max €/$/£" and preferably be "my kind of game". Written reviews on sites such as mmorpg provide interesting details, entertaining discussion and qualitive judgement of how well the writer has argued the game's case. As long as the argument put forward is strong I don't mind if the writer is only helping the ad revenue or really is pleading a case for a game from their heart of hearts! ;)

  • CalmOceansCalmOceans Member UncommonPosts: 2,437

    I like info about Diablo III and online Hack & Slash, it's close enough to multiplayer play for me to be interested in it, sue me.

    The new Lineage eternal is also Hack & Slash MMO btw, should we not look at that either, even though it looks amazing??

    No blinders for me please, keep showing Hack & Slash.

     

    It's also THANKS to people posting Skyrim stuff in this MMO forum that I'm interested in it, it might not be MMO, but it's close enough, so why not!

  • fenistilfenistil Member Posts: 3,005

    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    I like info about Diablo III, it's close enough to multiplayer play for me to be interested in it, sue me.

    Huh? Diablo3 is not "close enough". It IS also multiplayer game. Like Call of Duty is f.e. It is not MMO though.

    Multiplayer =/= MMO.

    If it is fine for you then good well for you.

    I am for some time already looking casually for some other mmorpg site. When I will find some other more fitting my tastes site, I will leave, since I don't really looking for 'genral gaming' or 'multiplayer gaming' site which mmorpg.com apparently starting to become.

  • CalmOceansCalmOceans Member UncommonPosts: 2,437

    Originally posted by fenistil

    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    I like info about Diablo III, it's close enough to multiplayer play for me to be interested in it, sue me.

    Huh? Diablo3 is not "close enough".

    That is just your opinion, for me it is.

    If we go by what MMO traditionally were, we should only post, P2P games.

    No skyrim, no Diablo III, no lineage eternal, no F2P, no Guild Wars.

    I can tell you one thing, that would be a pretty damn boring site.

  • WSIMikeWSIMike Member Posts: 5,564

    Originally posted by quentin405

    Originally posted by I_Return

    after spending 1000's of dollars playing mmorpgs. F2p is a welcomed sight. The fact that someone fro Biware would make a discussion like this is pretty funny to say the least.

    If a new mmorpg comes out with any type of monethly fee, it better deviler, who think about a different payment model.

     

    A game like SwtOR is pretty much dead with a monthly paynment model. Specifically if players rip through the content like it is mass effect 2.

     

    I LOL'd.

      Yeah all subscription based games are sure to die because you don't like the sub model..

     Better write some CEOs and let them know what a huge mistake they are making!!

    Especially those who've been around for up to a decade or more with successful MMOs maintaining hundreds of thousands of players. They're in the most trouble, clearly.

    Heh.

    (that was sarcasm for any who might have missed it)

    The thing about quentin's post is that he makes an assertion that I see made a lot about subs as though it's some kind of damning thing for the subscription model. The whole "it better deliver". Well, yeah. That's the whole point, with any kind of product or service that we pay for. That's what makes business challening... creating a product that people will feel is worth their money, and time of course. Companies who do it well are rewarded with success in terms of many people buying and using their product, over a number of years in many cases. Those who do it poorly face having to stop the service, pull the product and possibly even go out of business.... or find a way to improve the product and turn it around before having to deal with any of those options.

    You notice this whole campaign Domino's Pizza's been on for the past many months? They were putting out these rather self-effacing commercials, basically coming out and saying "Yeah, we know our product has been crap, tasted like cardboard, etc... and we've decided to listen by improving the quality". You know why they did that? It's not because they had a sudden change of heart and decided "Gee, maybe we should start listening to our customers' concerns". No, it's very likely because they started to see their bottom line shrinking due to putting out a product considered crappy to a lot of people, and realized they had to either clean up their act, change their reputation by improving their quality... or go out of business.

    And please, no one go "hur dee dur, did you just compare a pizzeria to MMOs?" No. I'm not. I'm using a pizza chain to illustrate how business works. You create a consistently good product that enough people find desirable, and you do well. You fail to do that, and you lose.

    Sub-based MMOs are held to the same exact requirement. They either produce a game that is good enough to earn ("earn" is a very important term here)  the business of enough people to continue supporting and developing the game. Or, they fail and the game ends up on the chopping block, potentially along with the company behind it.

    So, no... that some MMOs with subs fail has nothing to do with "subscriptions being fail".  It has everything to do with the game itself being inferior to too many people to make it and/or keep it successful.

    "If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road,
    and the cash shop selling asphalt..."
    - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops

    image

  • KalferKalfer Member Posts: 779

    Well it's a known fact that lots of people who express an unpopular opinion, gets to lose their "credibility" in the face of what the majority says.

    If a guy reviews Skyrim, and it's his opinion that it's not a good game, then he will be considered dumb, ignorant and wrong. The metacritic score proves it. It shows the truth. The individualistic opinion of the person reviewing is undermined by the truth. If more people says one thing, it must be right. And thus we transcend into a way were few really say what they think, and most games get a "safe-zone" score that is not to controverial within the realms of 7-9 on average. 

     

     

     

    It's my opinion that MMORPG.com which has a lot of it's traffic due to it's name, should completely change focus on their site. I disagree with the OP about the games complained about in question. 

    There are many people here who don't see anything massively about World of Warcraft, SWTOR and other themepark games, because they are also not true MMORPGs and not virtual worlds. 

     

    I believe it's an fools argument to denie access to something because it blends genres. Burnout is not game with the same objectives and focus as Gran Turismo, but it's still a racing game. It's also other things, but you're still driving cars at high altitudes, for whatever reason.

     

     

    Like wise games like Guild Wars(GW has been on this site since 2003.. I believe that if they are slowely losing focus, it has been a long time for them to do it then, yes?), LoL, Hellgate, APB, Dungeons and Dragons Online, all have contraptions and concept from MMOs. It's a blurry line for were it becomes a MMO, because there is no definition of that.

     

    Would you remove World of Warcraft from this site because it's entire end game and vast amounts of it's content is set in much smaller instanced worlds? How is the overworld not just a quest lobbdy for the true end game? Who are you - Or anyone else, to say that, WoW has a higher regard for the true concepts of what MMOs are all about than Guild Wars, if we go back to the origins of MUDs with Dragons Gate and Gemstone, later M59 and UO?

     

     

    This is a longer discussion, I won't continue here because it would go off track. Suffice to say though, what games are featured is something that should be debated in the community, because ultimately this is what it's all about.

     

    I believe that MMORPG.com misses a lot of it's potential, and that they are trying to be like other gaming sites, just seen through a MMO filter. It's almost like the site itself is like a themepark. Superficial news, anecdote on patches and expansions and previews, the occasional review or re-review.

    Instead what it should be about is empower the actual players, and not focus on a hype meter that just dumbs intellect and community to a set of numbers, when the front page should be covered with what goes on in these virtual worlds. This site inherently is set up to provoke hysterical fanboys. 

     

    You see it all over. A new WoW expansion gets announced, and the outcry on the forums turns out to be the ramblings of very few posters who simply played one game too much, and decided to put silly reasons to blame for their own lack of selfunderstanding. Before that it was something about TOR. Before that something else. And in actuality, we get to see little insight on the front page from the players who spend many hours dwelved into a game. 

     

     

    MMMORPG.com's staff can not be in a position were they can be expert on all the games, as that is too broad an undertaking. Most people who deem themselves expert on even a single game will be called a hack, and will most likely be immediately renounced by the other half of the games population who disagree with everything that person stands for, as it often is on this site, and with MMOs in general.

     

     

    I hope that makes sense. lots of love.

     

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo Member UncommonPosts: 3,219

    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    Originally posted by fenistil


    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    I like info about Diablo III, it's close enough to multiplayer play for me to be interested in it, sue me.

    Huh? Diablo3 is not "close enough".

    That is just your opinion, for me it is.

    If we go by what MMO traditionally were, we should only post, P2P games.

    No skyrim, no Diablo III, no lineage eternal, no F2P, no Guild Wars.

    I can tell you one thing, that would be a pretty damn boring site.

    Agree^. Massively in mmorpg is more prevalent these days even in iOS and other games. Looking at each letter in isolation as it were on this site seems remarkably fine and an extension of "mmorpg" discussion anyway and entertaining between the few mmorpgs that really rock the scene (GW2?) from time to time (8 yrs!). ;)

  • timtracktimtrack Member UncommonPosts: 541

    Originally posted by DarkPony

    WTB Skyrim sub-forum.

    "MM( )RPG.COM" should be "(MMO)RPG.COM", seriously.

    There's a huge overlap in mmorpg players and sp rpg players anyway.

    Also F2P advertising pays their bills. Fine with me. I'll never touch them with a 10 foot pole anyway.

    Actually, it should be "(MMO)(RP)G.COM". But it's not their fault. Wait, what's the issue again?

  • CalmOceansCalmOceans Member UncommonPosts: 2,437

    Originally posted by timtrack

    Originally posted by DarkPony

    WTB Skyrim sub-forum.

    "MM( )RPG.COM" should be "(MMO)RPG.COM", seriously.

    There's a huge overlap in mmorpg players and sp rpg players anyway.

    Also F2P advertising pays their bills. Fine with me. I'll never touch them with a 10 foot pole anyway.

    Actually, it should be "(MMO)(RP)G.COM". But it's not their fault. Wait, what's the issue again?

    The issue is that there are too many racist chickens.

  • timtracktimtrack Member UncommonPosts: 541

    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    Originally posted by timtrack


    Originally posted by DarkPony

    WTB Skyrim sub-forum.

    "MM( )RPG.COM" should be "(MMO)RPG.COM", seriously.

    There's a huge overlap in mmorpg players and sp rpg players anyway.

    Also F2P advertising pays their bills. Fine with me. I'll never touch them with a 10 foot pole anyway.

    Actually, it should be "(MMO)(RP)G.COM". But it's not their fault. Wait, what's the issue again?

    The issue is that there are too many racist chickens.

    Not again :(

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FftZt-Dw_hQ

  • fenistilfenistil Member Posts: 3,005

    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    Originally posted by fenistil


    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    I like info about Diablo III, it's close enough to multiplayer play for me to be interested in it, sue me.

    Huh? Diablo3 is not "close enough".

    That is just your opinion, for me it is.

    If we go by what MMO traditionally were, we should only post, P2P games.

    No skyrim, no Diablo III, no lineage eternal, no F2P, no Guild Wars.

    I can tell you one thing, that would be a pretty damn boring site.

    Uh what does F2P or P2P or B2P have anything to do if game is MMO or not? Nothing.

    Guild Wars? Which one? GW1 like Arena.net said themselves is not an mmorpg, GW2 will be.

     

    Lineage: Eternal ?  Is there info atm if this game will have persistant world?

    Having 'actiony' or even hack& slashy feel does not matter if game is MMO or not.

    Actually what type of combat or even if game have combat at all does not matter if game is MMO or not.

    D3 and Skyrim - well D3 is multiplayer and Skyrim is single player game, how do you want fit single player in MMO I have no idea lol

     

    You're true about one thing. This is your opinion.

     

    Boring site? Well opinion ;p

     

    Well I do hope I find myself site that is focused on mmorpg solely, I would want this kind of "boring".

  • DewmDewm Member UncommonPosts: 1,337

    Originally posted by bartoni33

    I stopped reading and dismissed everything you wrote at "Guild Wars".

    You are one of "Those". Therefore your perceptions on what MMO's are cannot be valid.

    Good effort though.

    ...Not like I want to derail this entire thread, but I have to respond to this..

     

    While GuildWars is a solid game...it is NOT a MMORPG, "MMO stands for Massivly Multiplayer Online" Guild wars didn't get the memo about massivly.

     

    And yes I have played it..to quite an extent, but a lobby that holds 50-100 people and then a "world" that you play in with 4-7 people is not "massivly"

     

    If Guild wars is a MMO, then so is BF3 and halo..

    Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
    https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Member Posts: 6,403

    Originally posted by Dewm

    While GuildWars is a solid game...it is NOT a MMORPG, "MMO stands for Massivly Multiplayer Online" Guild wars didn't get the memo about massivly.

    Neither did Mortal or Darkfall or a host of others, despite GW outselling all of them combined?  What's your point?

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • Laughing-manLaughing-man Member RarePosts: 3,648

    Originally posted by DerWotan

    2. Games that shouldn't be here

    It all started with non MMOGs like League of Legends, Guild Wars went through Diablo III so whats next? You guys don't have unlimited personal so why not focus on the real MMORPGS instead of some DoTa and solo Actiongames?

    Focusing on this part.

    So you are suggesting that there are so many quality MMOs coming out they should focus all their efforts on covering those?

    What?

    What MMOs are not being covered?

    What MMOs should be that aren't being covered?

    How  much covereage can an MMO in development GET?

    I think you'll find they cover all the MMOs and have time and effort left over for other things too.  The mmo deveopment community is rather slow, and honestly a lot of games that come out are just not worth hearing about.   Yeah I really wish I knew about the latest Perfect World Pay to win game, or how did I ever live without info on every new Nexon or NCsoft game being shoved in my face every 5 seconds. 

    Again even the games that seem like repetative illthought out clones get covereage here.

  • marinridermarinrider Member UncommonPosts: 1,556

    Originally posted by Icewhite

    Originally posted by Dewm

    While GuildWars is a solid game...it is NOT a MMORPG, "MMO stands for Massivly Multiplayer Online" Guild wars didn't get the memo about massivly.

    Neither did Mortal or Darkfall or a host of others, despite GW outselling all of them combined?  What's your point?

    Your taking "massivly" in the wrong direction.

    Its about the possibility, not whether or not it actually is doing it.

    I do think GW should be on this website, I dont think GW is an MMO.  DFO and Mortal have the ability to have tons of people in one spot.  (Go look at sieges in DFO).  And DFO is an open world.  As is MO from what I understand.

  • RobsolfRobsolf Member RarePosts: 4,597

    Originally posted by Xasapis

    Do you honestly think that it's mmorpg.com fault that the biggest news in the MMORPG world these days is Skyrim (for example).

    As far as what's been released recently, it's the elephant in the room.  MMO or not.

  • RohnRohn Member UncommonPosts: 3,730

    Originally posted by marinrider

    Originally posted by Icewhite


    Originally posted by Dewm

    While GuildWars is a solid game...it is NOT a MMORPG, "MMO stands for Massivly Multiplayer Online" Guild wars didn't get the memo about massivly.

    Neither did Mortal or Darkfall or a host of others, despite GW outselling all of them combined?  What's your point?

    Your taking "massivly" in the wrong direction.

    Its about the possibility, not whether or not it actually is doing it.

    I do think GW should be on this website, I dont think GW is an MMO.  DFO and Mortal have the ability to have tons of people in one spot.  (Go look at sieges in DFO).  And DFO is an open world.  As is MO from what I understand.

     

    MO is also an open world game with no instancing, thus can also satisfy the "massively" part of MMO in that there's no limit to the number of characters that can be in any part of the world at any time.

    GW is a great game for what it does, but it's not an MMO.  ANet doesn't even call it an MMO.

    Having said that, I think the overall definition of what constitutes an MMO appears to be changing.  While games like GW or Vindictus can fit this broader definition, a game like Skyrim clearly does not.

    Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.

  • Laughing-manLaughing-man Member RarePosts: 3,648

    Originally posted by Rohn

    Originally posted by marinrider


    Originally posted by Icewhite


    Originally posted by Dewm

    While GuildWars is a solid game...it is NOT a MMORPG, "MMO stands for Massivly Multiplayer Online" Guild wars didn't get the memo about massivly.

    Neither did Mortal or Darkfall or a host of others, despite GW outselling all of them combined?  What's your point?

    Your taking "massivly" in the wrong direction.

    Its about the possibility, not whether or not it actually is doing it.

    I do think GW should be on this website, I dont think GW is an MMO.  DFO and Mortal have the ability to have tons of people in one spot.  (Go look at sieges in DFO).  And DFO is an open world.  As is MO from what I understand.

     

    MO is also an open world game with no instancing, thus can also satisfy the "massively" part of MMO in that there's no limit to the number of characters that can be in any part of the world at any time.

    GW is a great game for what it does, but it's not an MMO.  ANet doesn't even call it an MMO.

    Having said that, I think the overall definition of what constitutes an MMO appears to be changing.  While games like GW or Vindictus can fit this broader definition, a game like Skyrim clearly does not.

    Its not massively by itself...

    its Massively referring to the multiplayer aspect of the game.

    Massively MULTIPLAYER. 

  • TerranahTerranah Member UncommonPosts: 3,575

    When there were better mmo's and the genre was moving forward, focusing on mmo exclusively was fine.  But let's face the sad state of our beloved genre.  Instead of getting better it has devolved and stagnated.  If not consciously, mmorpg.com is just doing what the rest of us are doing, which is letting our minds wander to other possibilites.

     

    Skyrim is better than any mmo out right now.  It is one of THE great games in this gamers opinion, and more compelling than any mmo out there.  So what if it's single player.  Many mmo's sadly are moving that way anyway.  Too often interaction we do get in mmo's is not satisfying and recent mmos do nothing to advance socialization and community with any meaningful success that I have seen.  The days of EQ and SWG and DAOC are behind us now.  

     

    If mmorpg focuses only on mmo, well interest has waned for the older titles.  I have no interest in the new titles no matter how many times they flash irritatingly on my screen.  If anything the cheap flash adds piss me off.  Stop showing me tits and ass and give me a feature list I can get excited about.

     

    But anyway, bottom line there is little excitement in mmo land except for the die hards, who are ever dwindling and becoming jaded themselves.  

     

    And you can only talk about SWTOR so much because there is only so much to talk about.  

     

  • czekoskwigelczekoskwigel Member Posts: 458

    Adding Diablo 3 was/is a huge mistake as far as I'm concerned... and the feature they've got on Arctic Combat... come on guys!  Just make a new site like you've done before.  Make a generic online game site and leave this one to MMORPG's.

  • fenistilfenistil Member Posts: 3,005

    Originally posted by Icewhite

    Originally posted by Dewm

    While GuildWars is a solid game...it is NOT a MMORPG, "MMO stands for Massivly Multiplayer Online" Guild wars didn't get the memo about massivly.

    Neither did Mortal or Darkfall or a host of others, despite GW outselling all of them combined?  What's your point?

    Is BF3, CoD or Starcraft an MMO?

  • Laughing-manLaughing-man Member RarePosts: 3,648

    Originally posted by fenistil

    Originally posted by Icewhite


    Originally posted by Dewm

    While GuildWars is a solid game...it is NOT a MMORPG, "MMO stands for Massivly Multiplayer Online" Guild wars didn't get the memo about massivly.

    Neither did Mortal or Darkfall or a host of others, despite GW outselling all of them combined?  What's your point?

    Is BF3, CoD or Starcraft an MMO?

    FPS FPS and RTS.

    no, they aren't RPGs

    Maybe if they were RPGs we'd reconsider.

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Member Posts: 6,403

    Originally posted by marinrider

    Your taking "massivly" in the wrong direction.

    Its about the possibility, not whether or not it actually is doing it.

    I do think GW should be on this website, I dont think GW is an MMO.  DFO and Mortal have the ability to have tons of people in one spot.  (Go look at sieges in DFO).  And DFO is an open world.  As is MO from what I understand.

    So it doesn't matter that despite the potential, there's only 150 people online?  On the same night that GW's running tens of thousands?

    Clearly instances mean that all of those people aren't really playing.

    Yep, GW's a CORPG, and they've never had any qualms about saying so.  But in terms of player activity, a far more successful game than any of the tiny sandbox fails--and a lot of moderately successful "true" MMOs, too.

    I think you're the one taking "massively" in the wrong direction, particularly as a silly pseudo-definition of what this site should or should not be covering.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • Hopscotch73Hopscotch73 Member UncommonPosts: 971

    Really? The site had polls and dicsussion threads aplenty asking how the community would feel about the inclusion of coverage on the "bigger" SPRPGs months ago.

    It would seem the majority had no problem with it. Been around here a couple of years now, and I 'm pretty familiar with the tastes of the reviewers and the community - and I (for one) am interested in seeing how people here feel about Skyrim / Diablo 3 / Kingdoms of Amalur (etc.), posts about SPGs always existed as long as I've been coming here, they just got moved to the "general gaming" forum.

    How many of ourselves limit ourselves to soley MMOs, in terms of both interest and playtime? I'd bet there are very few who could say they do on both counts. Gamers are gamers. There's a big overlap between MMORPG players and RPG players - let's face it, the former wouldn't exist without the latter.

    Whatever "loss of focus" you see OP is more than likely temporary, with Skyrim out for less than a week, it's a hot topic, give it a week or so, and all will be back to focusing on MMOs again (with SWTOR looming on the horizon).

    I know a lot of people dislike change, but sometimes, change is a good thing. Personally, (in my opinion - standard disclaimers - all that stuff), I think this is a great change.

Sign In or Register to comment.