Originally posted by ShakyMo No doubt with maple story
Lol isn't a mmo so doesn't count, you might as well say the sims beats wow.
And LOL also beat WOW.
In fact, if you look at xfire data, open type game is not that popular. The only one on top is minecraft .. which is more a building game. Eve is at 21, below TOR.
MMOs need to stack up to other online games too. WOT is doing quite well, and it is all instanced battles.
Anyway xfire, its like some new sort of godwins law around here. I still don't even know what xfire is, and I've been gaming for 25+ years and once worked in the industry.
Anyway xfire, its like some new sort of godwins law around here. I still don't even know what xfire is, and I've been gaming for 25+ years and once worked in the industry.
WOT = world of tanks
#10 on xfire. Just go to xfire.com. Obviously only a subset of the players use xfire to play online games, but within that population, you can see the ranking of games.
Currently LOL is #1, and it is almost 4x more hours played than WOW.
It is a good way to see how online games stacked up against each other.
Taking a UI isn't really the same as using AC gameplay. WOW definitely stole from lots of properties, including their own D2.
Which successful MMO is basically an improved DAoC or AC? Vanilla WOW had a lot more in common with EQ than it does with AC. It kept some world bosses but moved the raiding into instances and made questing more fun.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Well gw2 is kinda a very casual, easier daoc. But I wouldn't call it an improvement.
I agree on d2. Wow is essentially diablo in "mmo" form, especially how it is now with dungeon finder and what have you.
Improvement is in the eye of the beholder. Casual is good from my point of view. Anything that lower the time commitment, making it easy to jump in and play is good for me.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Nari if you want to just jump in and play.
Why are you such an Instance lover?
With open dungeons you just rock up and play, if there's others there you join them, if not you yo in solo. With outdoor pvp you just go and do it.
Need to queue. Less time wasted.
Because i need to travel to the dungeon and find a group?
Plus, i can queue up a dungeon and have a snack, or watch tv, or read a novel. I can't do that if i have to walk to a dungeon.
Now, if all dungeons have instance portal, and there is no wait for a group, and that there will be no one kill stealing us, i wouldn't mind an open dungeon. But that game does not exist, or does it?
To be accurate, i am not oppose to open dungeon. I am oppose to waiting, to having to yell in chat to get a group, and walk to the dungeon.
Dungeon finders generally only find their way into certain types of MMORPGs. World of Warcraft released in 2004 and took out 95% of the motivation people had for grouping up and socializing. Most MMORPGs released since then have followed in their footsteps. For those MMOs, dungeon finders are absolutely essential in 2012. Without them, the average player isn't likely to so much as breathe on another player until he or she reaches the level cap.
I think a dungeon finder would be less appealing in a game like Guild Wars 2 simply because the game is designed around players working together outside in the wilds. If you introduce a dungeon finder into a game like that, you're going to kill the game's dynamic event system. I'd say that's a huge reason why Rift implemented instant adventure. They straddle the fence between WoW and GW2. They have a dungeon finder, and people sit in their faction hubs all day without closing any rifts. Instant adventure let people queue up for Rift raids like they queue for dungeons. Pretty smart move.
I can't talk for these other guys here (I didnt play EQ, UO etc.), but the reason why i don't like dungeon finders, is that it teleports you right into an instance, making the game a lobby game, and that destroys immersion. And when i play mmorpgs immersion is important to me. I enjoy lobby games (I have way too many hours in Dota 2 for example), but they are different games.
Yes an mmorpg should be like a secondary world, thats the reason they should be made in the first place. Call it whatever you want, but this is how a mmorpg should work IMO. Lobby games are a different genre. Too bad these two different genres keep on merging with every new mmorpg that launches. Not surprised tho with the success of games like LoL.
I still remember the first day WoW went live w/ LFG and everyone had their world turned upside down. It was addicting as hell... at first =/
meh... I'd be against it in games w/ open world pvp/siege-type objectives. Otherwise, why the hell would I want to walk all the way over there XD ...And no SoW buff either ;P
I can't talk for these other guys here (I didnt play EQ, UO etc.), but the reason why i don't like dungeon finders, is that it teleports you right into an instance, making the game a lobby game, and that destroys immersion. And when i play mmorpgs immersion is important to me. I enjoy lobby games (I have way too many hours in Dota 2 for example), but they are different games.
Yes an mmorpg should be like a secondary world, thats the reason they should be made in the first place. Call it whatever you want, but this is how a mmorpg should work IMO. Lobby games are a different genre. Too bad these two different genres keep on merging with every new mmorpg that launches. Not surprised tho with the success of games like LoL.
That is your issue. You have this strange idea that this label of games have to be different.
To me, games are just games. Some SP games have open world, and many MMOs have lobbies. So what if lobby games should be another genre. Just relabel all the MMOs that have lobbies.
They don't magically becomes better games with a re-labeling, nor they becomes worse games. They are the same. It is funny to see people choose their entertainment based on labels, rather than whether they like the product.
That is your issue. You have this strange idea that this label of games have to be different.
To me, games are just games. Some SP games have open world, and many MMOs have lobbies. So what if lobby games should be another genre. Just relabel all the MMOs that have lobbies.
They don't magically becomes better games with a re-labeling, nor they becomes worse games. They are the same. It is funny to see people choose their entertainment based on labels, rather than whether they like the product.
As i said i enjoy both real mmorpgs and lobby games.
I don't enjoy them because i call them seperate things tho, but because they offer different experiences. They fullfill different needs. I would like to enjoy those different experiences in the future aswell. I don't want mmorpgs to become lobby games, because there are other games that offer that fast in fast out experience already (and imo do it much better).
And what's so good about long term? GEE I DON'T KNOW, why the hell would a company want a stable increasing income over time?
What is so bad if they can make the same amount of money by making many short term games?
And from a player perspective, isn't more games, more variety better?
Except we don't have more variety. There's been less variety than ever in the last 8 years of the MMO genre. We had variety in 2002, we don't have variety now.
And a growing company with a strong core is much better as a business plan than one that just shits out a quick game and then implodes on itself.
DAoC is revered for its entire game, as it was very well developed. It had some of the hardest, and best raids, in MMO history. Its day to day PvE was average/slightly above average (mostly just copy paste from EQ PvE, with better combat feel) but the raids were unmatched.
Don't go assuming you knew what all the several dozen pre WoW MMOs were like because you peeked over a buddy's shoulder while he was playing EQ, which we've already agreed was flawed in design and in need of instances.
But thanks for helping me prove my point that WoW fans will ignore facts to help defend their point.
Well made MMOs do not need instances. Good developers compensate with good game design: see DAoC.
Bad developers compensate with instancing, sacrifice the Massively Multiplayer for a bit more convenience, because it takes a lot more talent and understanding to make an instanceless MMO, something the companies churning out WOW clones do not have.
Games like Asherons Call and DAoC are revered by a small group of people. There's a reason why no successful game has cropped up by using them as a foundation like EQ was.
Er, that's because no game has TRIED to. The closest anyone has come is Planetside 2 and GW2, both copied their RvR from DAoC, and both are doing better than most other games.
Games that have used EQ as a base? Implode almost right after launch, or are forced to use instances.
Comments
Lol isn't a mmo so doesn't count, you might as well say the sims beats wow.
And LOL also beat WOW.
In fact, if you look at xfire data, open type game is not that popular. The only one on top is minecraft .. which is more a building game. Eve is at 21, below TOR.
MMOs need to stack up to other online games too. WOT is doing quite well, and it is all instanced battles.
Anyway xfire, its like some new sort of godwins law around here. I still don't even know what xfire is, and I've been gaming for 25+ years and once worked in the industry.
WOT = world of tanks
#10 on xfire. Just go to xfire.com. Obviously only a subset of the players use xfire to play online games, but within that population, you can see the ranking of games.
Currently LOL is #1, and it is almost 4x more hours played than WOW.
It is a good way to see how online games stacked up against each other.
Sure .. not everyone is interested in every game. Just like i won't touch Eve after i tried it.
Err.. elder scrolls series, terraria, grand theft auto
Taking a UI isn't really the same as using AC gameplay. WOW definitely stole from lots of properties, including their own D2.
Which successful MMO is basically an improved DAoC or AC? Vanilla WOW had a lot more in common with EQ than it does with AC. It kept some world bosses but moved the raiding into instances and made questing more fun.
I agree on d2. Wow is essentially diablo in "mmo" form, especially how it is now with dungeon finder and what have you.
Not online games on xfire. Skyrim is also successful .. also not online.
Single player open world games is different .. in fact, there is instant teleport in Skyrim.
Weird argument that.
Gw2 has teleporting, its still way more outdoorsy than wow or swtor that don't.
Improvement is in the eye of the beholder. Casual is good from my point of view. Anything that lower the time commitment, making it easy to jump in and play is good for me.
I thought instant teleport is a no-no in an open world game. Don't the sandbox fans want to wait for a boat, and take 20 min to get anywhere?
Why are you such an Instance lover?
With open dungeons you just rock up and play, if there's others there you join them, if not you yo in solo. With outdoor pvp you just go and do it.
Need to queue. Less time wasted.
Because i need to travel to the dungeon and find a group?
Plus, i can queue up a dungeon and have a snack, or watch tv, or read a novel. I can't do that if i have to walk to a dungeon.
Now, if all dungeons have instance portal, and there is no wait for a group, and that there will be no one kill stealing us, i wouldn't mind an open dungeon. But that game does not exist, or does it?
To be accurate, i am not oppose to open dungeon. I am oppose to waiting, to having to yell in chat to get a group, and walk to the dungeon.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/02/01/ea-reveals-swtor-subscription-and-sales-numbers-beats-financial/
According to MMOData, it is also still above one million subscribers
http://mmodata.net/
They've easily made profit. Only, not as much as they hoped.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I think they have this strange idea that only if there is another world they can escape to, it would be great.
And most others like us are just looking for good entertainment.
Dungeon finders generally only find their way into certain types of MMORPGs. World of Warcraft released in 2004 and took out 95% of the motivation people had for grouping up and socializing. Most MMORPGs released since then have followed in their footsteps. For those MMOs, dungeon finders are absolutely essential in 2012. Without them, the average player isn't likely to so much as breathe on another player until he or she reaches the level cap.
I think a dungeon finder would be less appealing in a game like Guild Wars 2 simply because the game is designed around players working together outside in the wilds. If you introduce a dungeon finder into a game like that, you're going to kill the game's dynamic event system. I'd say that's a huge reason why Rift implemented instant adventure. They straddle the fence between WoW and GW2. They have a dungeon finder, and people sit in their faction hubs all day without closing any rifts. Instant adventure let people queue up for Rift raids like they queue for dungeons. Pretty smart move.
I can't talk for these other guys here (I didnt play EQ, UO etc.), but the reason why i don't like dungeon finders, is that it teleports you right into an instance, making the game a lobby game, and that destroys immersion. And when i play mmorpgs immersion is important to me. I enjoy lobby games (I have way too many hours in Dota 2 for example), but they are different games.
Yes an mmorpg should be like a secondary world, thats the reason they should be made in the first place. Call it whatever you want, but this is how a mmorpg should work IMO. Lobby games are a different genre. Too bad these two different genres keep on merging with every new mmorpg that launches. Not surprised tho with the success of games like LoL.
I still remember the first day WoW went live w/ LFG and everyone had their world turned upside down. It was addicting as hell... at first =/
meh... I'd be against it in games w/ open world pvp/siege-type objectives. Otherwise, why the hell would I want to walk all the way over there XD ...And no SoW buff either ;P
That is your issue. You have this strange idea that this label of games have to be different.
To me, games are just games. Some SP games have open world, and many MMOs have lobbies. So what if lobby games should be another genre. Just relabel all the MMOs that have lobbies.
They don't magically becomes better games with a re-labeling, nor they becomes worse games. They are the same. It is funny to see people choose their entertainment based on labels, rather than whether they like the product.
As i said i enjoy both real mmorpgs and lobby games.
I don't enjoy them because i call them seperate things tho, but because they offer different experiences. They fullfill different needs. I would like to enjoy those different experiences in the future aswell. I don't want mmorpgs to become lobby games, because there are other games that offer that fast in fast out experience already (and imo do it much better).
Except we don't have more variety. There's been less variety than ever in the last 8 years of the MMO genre. We had variety in 2002, we don't have variety now.
And a growing company with a strong core is much better as a business plan than one that just shits out a quick game and then implodes on itself.
Er, that's because no game has TRIED to. The closest anyone has come is Planetside 2 and GW2, both copied their RvR from DAoC, and both are doing better than most other games.
Games that have used EQ as a base? Implode almost right after launch, or are forced to use instances.
People are still delusional... if they were making a profit they wouldn't have fired so many devs.