On to what Nari said. By his definition there is no such thing as an easymode MMO, because in any game you can pick how many mobs you attack. You are in a sense selecting a difficulty for yourself. But at best this argument can only cover one aspect of easymode, 'it is impossible to die'. I don't accept it anyway, players who use more mobs are experimenting with levelling efficiency strategies, not setting their own difficulty, in fact he virtually admitted that.
well .. if the fact that a game is defined as "easymode" when there is a way to play without dying .. then 99% of the games are easy mode.
And that include games that people can find a challenge. In fact, it is the same as saying D3 is "easymode" because you can just play MP0 softcore and ignore MP10 and hardcore mode.
So yeah .. in that case .. easymode games are great .. because they can be challenging.
Originally posted by Dren_Utogi wird how all of this talk is going on and yet Vanguard remains untried by so many....
Loktofiet's Thumb Up Smiley
This is something that really puzzles me. There are all sorts of games out there to fill most every style and preference, but people aren't playing them. I see people post how it missed its window of opportunity (I see that phrase used a lot around here and I find it irritating). The game is right there to play right now.I don't see a downward spiral at all. I think the OP is manipulating factoids and bits to support an agenda of invented crises. Revenue charts show that video gaming is increasing in revenue annually.No one plays a game forever. Games see a surge, decline as people move on, and then a plateau of core players. The message of "downward trend" in the OP isn't the same. There is no downward trend. Games aren't failures because they plateau. They're healthy when the revenue generation is self-supporting and profitable. There are a few that don't fare well and shutter, but those seem to be the exception and not the rule.There is this odd perception that we need to see an industry shaker annually. People wonder why there is a perception of downward spiral yet they look to jump on a new game every winter season.
Why does it boggle you? Vanguard may have 1-5 features players may be looking for, but is pretty narrow minded to think that it implements these features in a way these players may actually enjoy.If a player seeks Full Loot Open World PvP, is ANY/EVERY game with this feature what they want?I like deep crafting. ArcheAge and Darfall have this in place. Does that mean you think these 2 games meet my desires? Remember now, I dislike forced PvP with a passion.
I honestly don't remember writing that. Anyway, there are all sorts of games out there to fill most every style and preference, but people aren't playing them. If a person feels they have no options in a genre with several hundred active titles, then maybe that person is either looking in the wrong genre for what they want or being unrealistic in their demands.Your response is a perfect example. When presented with "There are all sorts of games out there to fill most every style and preference" your response is that I'm narrow-minded for feeling you should like Vanguard. Where did that come from? It doesn't seem you're even trying to help yourself at this point.
I use the BBML for post writing instead of the WYSIWYG. Smileys don't copy over, so in reality, you didn't actually "write" Loktofeit's thumbs up smiley, but used the smiley emote
The usual responses I see is "Game X has what you want." because it may have one, or some of features a player may be seeking. If it was that simple, I think those players would be playing those games. Usually, there is something, or a few things that do not sit right with that particular player, so they get berated for NOT playing the suggested game.
An example would be: "I want an MMO with great crafting." "A Tale In The Desert is the game for you." "But it doesn't have combat." "Then you aren't looking hard enough. Try Darkfall, then." "It has OWPvP." "GEEZ! Do you even want to play an MMO?" "Of course I do." "Well, you best make some compromises then, hadn't you!" (Never really said, but implied.)
If I wanted to play "just an MMO", there are hundreds out there, for sure. If I want to play an MMO that I enjoy, the pickings become much slimmer, faster.
Here is why I do not enjoy most modern MMOs: 1) Max level for me, a casual player, in a matter of weeks = no longevity. 2) No retention after hitting max level for me. (Not a PvPer or Raider.) 3) Too combat oriented. (Play ATITD) 4) No depth of character. Where did non-combat skill/abilities go? 5) Rarely any replayability. 6) F2P fights my alt-itis and hoarding tendencies, yet do not warrant paying.
I may be too picky, but if these factors help make a game un-fun, why should I play them? I don't look for entertainment that is not enjoyable.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
EVE has been growing constantly for 10 years now. It was started by a company of 20 guys. Now it's grown to a company of 600. Six Hundred. When games like Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, SWTOR etc have steadily declined, EVE has steadily grown instead.
Why the hell don't we see more developers trying what EVE has been doing? A new sandbox MMO (with better gameplay!) with almost entirely player driven content? Wouldn't that be a nice fresh addition to the genre? It's obviously a proven concept thanks to EVE yet almost no other big developer wants to go for it
Cause eve started on the cheap and was pretty crappy and limited. Back then with limited choices eve got the time to grow. If eve came out today like back then it would be on the trash heap.
I may be too picky, but if these factors help make a game un-fun, why should I play them? I don't look for entertainment that is not enjoyable.
That's a logical and reasonable response.
Damn you.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Recently all MMOs we have seen has started big and dropped big time a couple of months. Here are some examples including SWTOR and GW2. I will use Google but there are plenty of other sources:
So can we actually see an MMO that launches and grows? Or is that era over, in this over saturated market?
I dont know why you added FFXIV in there since its been growing and had a steady 1.5 million active subs. And they are adding more servers for the steam and PS4 release. My server is always packed.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky I may be too picky, but if these factors help make a game un-fun, why should I play them? I don't look for entertainment that is not enjoyable.
That's a logical and reasonable response. Damn you.
Have another drink? (I'll join you!)
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Dren_Utogi wird how all of this talk is going on and yet Vanguard remains untried by so many....
Loktofiet's Thumb Up Smiley
This is something that really puzzles me. There are all sorts of games out there to fill most every style and preference, but people aren't playing them. I see people post how it missed its window of opportunity (I see that phrase used a lot around here and I find it irritating). The game is right there to play right now.
I don't see a downward spiral at all. I think the OP is manipulating factoids and bits to support an agenda of invented crises. Revenue charts show that video gaming is increasing in revenue annually.
No one plays a game forever. Games see a surge, decline as people move on, and then a plateau of core players. The message of "downward trend" in the OP isn't the same. There is no downward trend. Games aren't failures because they plateau. They're healthy when the revenue generation is self-supporting and profitable. There are a few that don't fare well and shutter, but those seem to be the exception and not the rule.
There is this odd perception that we need to see an industry shaker annually. People wonder why there is a perception of downward spiral yet they look to jump on a new game every winter season.
Why does it boggle you? Vanguard may have 1-5 features players may be looking for, but is pretty narrow minded to think that it implements these features in a way these players may actually enjoy.
If a player seeks Full Loot Open World PvP, is ANY/EVERY game with this feature what they want?
I like deep crafting. ArcheAge and Darfall have this in place. Does that mean you think these 2 games meet my desires? Remember now, I dislike forced PvP with a passion.
I honestly don't remember writing that. Anyway, there are all sorts of games out there to fill most every style and preference, but people aren't playing them. If a person feels they have no options in a genre with several hundred active titles, then maybe that person is either looking in the wrong genre for what they want or being unrealistic in their demands.
Your response is a perfect example. When presented with "There are all sorts of games out there to fill most every style and preference" your response is that I'm narrow-minded for feeling you should like Vanguard. Where did that come from? It doesn't seem you're even trying to help yourself at this point.
I use the BBML for post writing instead of the WYSIWYG. Smileys don't copy over, so in reality, you didn't actually "write" Loktofeit's thumbs up smiley, but used the smiley emote
The usual responses I see is "Game X has what you want." because it may have one, or some of features a player may be seeking. If it was that simple, I think those players would be playing those games. Usually, there is something, or a few things that do not sit right with that particular player, so they get berated for NOT playing the suggested game.
An example would be: "I want an MMO with great crafting." "A Tale In The Desert is the game for you." "But it doesn't have combat." "Then you aren't looking hard enough. Try Darkfall, then." "It has OWPvP." "GEEZ! Do you even want to play an MMO?" "Of course I do." "Well, you best make some compromises then, hadn't you!" (Never really said, but implied.)
If I wanted to play "just an MMO", there are hundreds out there, for sure. If I want to play an MMO that I enjoy, the pickings become much slimmer, faster.
Here is why I do not enjoy most modern MMOs: 1) Max level for me, a casual player, in a matter of weeks = no longevity. 2) No retention after hitting max level for me. (Not a PvPer or Raider.) 3) Too combat oriented. (Play ATITD) 4) No depth of character. Where did non-combat skill/abilities go? 5) Rarely any replayability. 6) F2P fights my alt-itis and hoarding tendencies, yet do not warrant paying.
I may be too picky, but if these factors help make a game un-fun, why should I play them? I don't look for entertainment that is not enjoyable.
Sounds like you want FFXI. I do too, but unfortunately I wasn't as active in the MMO scene when it was good.
You get a very rare exception like GW2, but don't expect another one of those to come along that quickly.
GW2 fell just as hard if not harder than SWTOR, I don't see how that is an exception, it is exactly what I am talking about, it is the norm. SWTOR and GW2 is the embodiment of what I am talking about.
I always love when people pull numbers out of the blues just because they dislike a game. And in the next post:
Originally posted by SoMuchMass
The real situation is that it dropped just as badly as SWTOR and all the other MMOs. Pretty much every source we have on the subject states that. But that should be expected, and even though I am actually exicted for both ESO and WildStar they will also follow the same trend. The market needs a dramatic shift to see growth. As others have said, maybe its games like Destiny and Star Citizen, who knows.
You will notice that he doesn't link any reliable source. He just pretends "every source" (whatever that means) confirms his opinion, which he thinks is therefore fact, without providing any proof.
GW2 definitely hasn't grown to WoW size, and no game will ever do that again, but it definitely has a very healthy population as can be witnessed by anyone just logging into the game. Lion's Arch full of people, queues for WvW, patch areas crowded, GW2 is just fine, thank you very much.
This is very true GW2 has ofcourse dropped since launch but today it has a very steady base of players and even if it isn't 7 millions like wow it's probably very big. As he say you always gets in a que to WvW and the SPvP has hundreds of players constantly. Lions Arch you almost always get into an overflow if you logon during the hours most ppl play.
Due to the constant update of content I think that the ppl who enjoy this game will probably stay in this game for many more years, with breaks once in awhile ofcourse.
GW2 is doing great and I still meat new players all the time.
No theme-park game will be successful for a long time. Not Wildstar, not any of them. It's not what people want - they're bored of that shit. It's more single-player than MMO and that's why people stop playing, because they can "beat the game" in 2 months and leave.
I think growth will happen when the people who play an MMO have a reason to keep playing. 90% of the reason to keep playing an MMO for most people is the social dynamic. When the virtual content runs out, people will stay if they have the social game to latch on to. Can't tell you how many guilds run the same content over and over again just as an excuse to get together.
The social dynamic in these games can be solved quite easily by adding some things that are currently missing in all these theme park MMO's:
Specialization. Forcing players to work together in specialized roles in order to accomplish the biggest tasks. This will create a reputation system within the player-base. People like improving their reputation and playing politics.
Challenge. Challenging puzzles, quests and monsters that add risk to the game and thus make player interaction more important to everyday survival. People like making friends but need a reason to do so in a video game. Give them that reason.
Limited gear. Instead of 2 million pieces of gear that no one remembers, 2 thousand that everyone knows about and can recognize. Players will display their gear proudly and feel more accomplished when what they wear actually means something to other players who understand what they went through to get it.
Persistence. Create a seamless virtual world with no instancing. People don't want to be cut off from the world - what's the point? This isn't a single-player game. Everything should be persistent, otherwise it completely defeats the point of an online game.
Anti-Heroism. Allowing players to create their own story based on their history with the game and the community. Stop pretending that every player is "Heroic" at the start of every MMO, because they aren't. No one deserves to be "Heroic" just by playing your game or buying your cash shop shit - they need to earn it. That means stop with the crazy fucking shoulderpads. Stop with the crazy backstories where every single player is a God or fucking Price Charming come to save the world. If players want to become "important" inside the game, they should earn it the hard way. Invest time and effort and accomplish something inside the game.
Originally posted by Horusra Cause eve started on the cheap and was pretty crappy and limited. Back then with limited choices eve got the time to grow. If eve came out today like back then it would be on the trash heap.
That's my point. EVE went through all the hard times already and now it's a fully fleshed out super-deep MMO with proven success. Yet no developers want any part of its tried and true concepts
One one hand you have AAA games with massive add budgets and turning out bad games. While at the same time one of the main headliners for the Xbox reveal was Minecraft.
Indie games right now are soooo much better than AAA games it stunning and I think the AAA game companies are starting to pay attention.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
well .. if the fact that a game is defined as "easymode" when there is a way to play without dying .. then 99% of the games are easy mode.
And that include games that people can find a challenge. In fact, it is the same as saying D3 is "easymode" because you can just play MP0 softcore and ignore MP10 and hardcore mode.
So yeah .. in that case .. easymode games are great .. because they can be challenging.
The usual responses I see is "Game X has what you want." because it may have one, or some of features a player may be seeking. If it was that simple, I think those players would be playing those games. Usually, there is something, or a few things that do not sit right with that particular player, so they get berated for NOT playing the suggested game.
An example would be:
"I want an MMO with great crafting."
"A Tale In The Desert is the game for you."
"But it doesn't have combat."
"Then you aren't looking hard enough. Try Darkfall, then."
"It has OWPvP."
"GEEZ! Do you even want to play an MMO?"
"Of course I do."
"Well, you best make some compromises then, hadn't you!" (Never really said, but implied.)
If I wanted to play "just an MMO", there are hundreds out there, for sure. If I want to play an MMO that I enjoy, the pickings become much slimmer, faster.
Here is why I do not enjoy most modern MMOs:
1) Max level for me, a casual player, in a matter of weeks = no longevity.
2) No retention after hitting max level for me. (Not a PvPer or Raider.)
3) Too combat oriented. (Play ATITD)
4) No depth of character. Where did non-combat skill/abilities go?
5) Rarely any replayability.
6) F2P fights my alt-itis and hoarding tendencies, yet do not warrant paying.
I may be too picky, but if these factors help make a game un-fun, why should I play them? I don't look for entertainment that is not enjoyable.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
EVE has been growing constantly for 10 years now. It was started by a company of 20 guys. Now it's grown to a company of 600. Six Hundred. When games like Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, SWTOR etc have steadily declined, EVE has steadily grown instead.
Why the hell don't we see more developers trying what EVE has been doing? A new sandbox MMO (with better gameplay!) with almost entirely player driven content? Wouldn't that be a nice fresh addition to the genre? It's obviously a proven concept thanks to EVE yet almost no other big developer wants to go for it
That's a logical and reasonable response.
Damn you.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I dont know why you added FFXIV in there since its been growing and had a steady 1.5 million active subs. And they are adding more servers for the steam and PS4 release. My server is always packed.
(I'll join you!)
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Sounds like you want FFXI. I do too, but unfortunately I wasn't as active in the MMO scene when it was good.
This is very true GW2 has ofcourse dropped since launch but today it has a very steady base of players and even if it isn't 7 millions like wow it's probably very big. As he say you always gets in a que to WvW and the SPvP has hundreds of players constantly. Lions Arch you almost always get into an overflow if you logon during the hours most ppl play.
Due to the constant update of content I think that the ppl who enjoy this game will probably stay in this game for many more years, with breaks once in awhile ofcourse.
GW2 is doing great and I still meat new players all the time.
No theme-park game will be successful for a long time. Not Wildstar, not any of them. It's not what people want - they're bored of that shit. It's more single-player than MMO and that's why people stop playing, because they can "beat the game" in 2 months and leave.
I think growth will happen when the people who play an MMO have a reason to keep playing. 90% of the reason to keep playing an MMO for most people is the social dynamic. When the virtual content runs out, people will stay if they have the social game to latch on to. Can't tell you how many guilds run the same content over and over again just as an excuse to get together.
The social dynamic in these games can be solved quite easily by adding some things that are currently missing in all these theme park MMO's:
That's my point. EVE went through all the hard times already and now it's a fully fleshed out super-deep MMO with proven success. Yet no developers want any part of its tried and true concepts
Its actually a very interesting time in gaming.
One one hand you have AAA games with massive add budgets and turning out bad games. While at the same time one of the main headliners for the Xbox reveal was Minecraft.
Indie games right now are soooo much better than AAA games it stunning and I think the AAA game companies are starting to pay attention.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me