The developers and publishers do not know what is good for us either.....they keep forcing WoW clones down our throats.
Might as well be network television forcing us to watch their crap.
You don't have cable? Or a free will to turn off the tv?
I don't know about you ... but no one "forces" me to use any entertainment. If i use an entertainment product (whether it is tv, movies, or games, or novels), it is always fun to me.
The developers and publishers do not know what is good for us either.....they keep forcing WoW clones down our throats.
Might as well be network television forcing us to watch their crap.
You don't have cable? Or a free will to turn off the tv?
I don't know about you ... but no one "forces" me to use any entertainment. If i use an entertainment product (whether it is tv, movies, or games, or novels), it is always fun to me.
Except this weekend.... .cuz the Super Bowl is on.... and you're just watching so you don't get fined.
Originally posted by Ender4Themeparks are easier to make than sandboxes so you probably aren't going to get what you want just yet. The genre is moving in that direction and it is being aided by better procedural content and AI. We'll get there eventually.
It is not about "easier" to make. The tech to make virtual worlds go back to UO & EQ.
It is about customer preferences. The genre is moving in the direction of MOBAs, instanced games, and other single player/MMO hybrid.
There are certainly some tries in sandbox, but aside from EQN, there are few AAA tries, and i doubt that will start a new trend, and time will tell.
Yes it is very much easier to make a fully realized theme park because all you have to do is create the content. A true sandbox requires building systems that can change and react to the players. UO gets called a sandbox but it really wasn't much of one. Being able to build a house doesn't make a sandbox.
The concepts going into some of these new games are true sandbox concepts. Things like if you keep killing orcs in the forest the orcs move somewhere else. When the orcs leave maybe some wild bears move into the area because the orcs used to kill them for food. The world has just been changed in multiple ways by the players actions. I'm not talking a string of scripts like GW2 does or repeated Rifts. Those are trying to hide the theme park, not build the sandbox.
The PvE part of the world has really been done in true sandbox style in many games at all and the few it has been done in were pretty limited games.
Originally posted by Ender4Themeparks are easier to make than sandboxes so you probably aren't going to get what you want just yet. The genre is moving in that direction and it is being aided by better procedural content and AI. We'll get there eventually.
It is not about "easier" to make. The tech to make virtual worlds go back to UO & EQ.
It is about customer preferences. The genre is moving in the direction of MOBAs, instanced games, and other single player/MMO hybrid.
There are certainly some tries in sandbox, but aside from EQN, there are few AAA tries, and i doubt that will start a new trend, and time will tell.
Yes it is very much easier to make a fully realized theme park because all you have to do is create the content. A true sandbox requires building systems that can change and react to the players. UO gets called a sandbox but it really wasn't much of one. Being able to build a house doesn't make a sandbox.
The concepts going into some of these new games are true sandbox concepts. Things like if you keep killing orcs in the forest the orcs move somewhere else. When the orcs leave maybe some wild bears move into the area because the orcs used to kill them for food. The world has just been changed in multiple ways by the players actions. I'm not talking a string of scripts like GW2 does or repeated Rifts. Those are trying to hide the theme park, not build the sandbox.
The PvE part of the world has really been done in true sandbox style in many games at all and the few it has been done in were pretty limited games.
Easy/hard is not such a big issue. Designing and implementing the systems is just one puzzle piece of several, some of which are in favor of sandboxes.
So the measures we should apply are things like which game type is overall cheaper to make and maintain, which type can reach a bigger target audience, how long are the average respective lifeycles, how saturated are the respective markets, does one type tend to generate more buzz, etc.
You could even turn the "easy/hard" argument around and say making something "hard" that can't be easily copied and results in a standout product (USP) is a competitive advantage. Thus decent sandboxes being "hard" to make works in their favor.
Originally posted by Ender4Themeparks are easier to make than sandboxes so you probably aren't going to get what you want just yet. The genre is moving in that direction and it is being aided by better procedural content and AI. We'll get there eventually.
It is not about "easier" to make. The tech to make virtual worlds go back to UO & EQ.
It is about customer preferences. The genre is moving in the direction of MOBAs, instanced games, and other single player/MMO hybrid.
There are certainly some tries in sandbox, but aside from EQN, there are few AAA tries, and i doubt that will start a new trend, and time will tell.
Yes it is very much easier to make a fully realized theme park because all you have to do is create the content. A true sandbox requires building systems that can change and react to the players. UO gets called a sandbox but it really wasn't much of one. Being able to build a house doesn't make a sandbox.
The concepts going into some of these new games are true sandbox concepts. Things like if you keep killing orcs in the forest the orcs move somewhere else. When the orcs leave maybe some wild bears move into the area because the orcs used to kill them for food. The world has just been changed in multiple ways by the players actions. I'm not talking a string of scripts like GW2 does or repeated Rifts. Those are trying to hide the theme park, not build the sandbox.
The PvE part of the world has really been done in true sandbox style in many games at all and the few it has been done in were pretty limited games.
read carefully .. i said "it is not ABOUT "easier" to make. I did not say it is not easier. The reason of not putting in the extra effort is because the demand is not, or may not be there.
If you have to spend more money on a feature, you better be able to sell more (or sell at higher price) to justify the cost.
If you kill some orcs, you don't need a sandbox to have the other orcs moving somewhere else, just program a branching story tree and you get as good a result.
The world changes in single player games all the time, and it certainly can be done in instances and with phasing for MMOs. Why would devs spend much more money to achieve basically the same effect?
That would very much depend on what profit you are after. In Every market you get niche products and luxury products and standard coOkie cutter products that appeal to the masses. Just because you like mass produced does not mean you cannot like niche. And every product being designed to aim for the masses is pointless unimaginitive saturation
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by nariusseldon If you kill some orcs, you don't need a sandbox to have the other orcs moving somewhere else, just program a branching story tree and you get as good a result.The world changes in single player games all the time, and it certainly can be done in instances and with phasing for MMOs. Why would devs spend much more money to achieve basically the same effect?
Because it is a completely different effect. Log onto a current MMORPG and visit 5 different servers. Outside of player housing you are pretty much going to see 5 copies of the exact same world. The first person to make a true sandbox MMORPG is going to have 5 very different worlds which were shaped by the player base themselves. That is what I've always personally wanted. By harder I didn't mean just effort, I meant harder from a standpoint of technology required to pull it off. We haven't had the tech to really do this until recently.
It is why I personally am backing EQNext because they get where the genre has gone wrong. I realize they will probably fail at actually doing half of what they want, but at least it is pointing things in the right direction. Most of the new MMORPG coming out I already played with a different name, why would I play a flashier version of the same tired thing.
Most people "enjoy" crap games, because theres nothing better on the market. They dont know what they like, because devs keep feeding them with quest grinding solo games since ten years. They dont have their preferences, because they didnt try anything else.
I think I saw this post from the 'console war' thread; 'Why can't you just like PS4 / Xbox / PC / Genesis / SNES / Wii / Atari / Cup with strings?!'
Cool........zzax got my point.
People play what they are handed and THINK its the best way.
200 years ago horses were it. If you dident have one you were nothing. A little hint cars are better, they just dident know about them. If anything at least you stay warm in a car
Somehow we went back to horses because somehow they are more profitable for the horse sellers. We need someone to make a car.
You can make a lot of money with a western sandbox open world mmo built around a community.
IF that's your point, it's flawed. "Crap games" is what you may view them as, that does not mean that is what everyone views them as, some may find them quite good, and have a preference for them. This is the problem with this segment of forum posters who feel they can speak toward taste in a universal sense, you can't... Many of these same people might find your preferences to be "crap"... That's the way opinions and preferences work.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It is why I personally am backing EQNext because they get where the genre has gone wrong. I realize they will probably fail at actually doing half of what they want, but at least it is pointing things in the right direction. Most of the new MMORPG coming out I already played with a different name, why would I play a flashier version of the same tired thing.
Because flashier is fun for 15 minutes? Is there a reason why i should not get a fun 15 min?
It is why I personally am backing EQNext because they get where the genre has gone wrong. I realize they will probably fail at actually doing half of what they want, but at least it is pointing things in the right direction. Most of the new MMORPG coming out I already played with a different name, why would I play a flashier version of the same tired thing.
Because flashier is fun for 15 minutes? Is there a reason why i should not get a fun 15 min?
15 minutes is great if you're a wet behind the ears 17 year old; us vets typically require a little more "entertainment value" than that.
Different strokes for different folks, right.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Probably been said already but I'll say it again. Players know what they want but all players don't want the same thing. Even the same player likes to take a break from his favorite play style from time to time. As a young player I may want a certain type of game and as an older player my needs may change.
Players get a job, get married, have kids, lose their job, the economy goes up or down, all this can have an influence on what type of game a person wants or can afford to play.
That's why I think it's funny when I read a post that states, "That's what we as gamers want!" Interesting that a person would take it upon themselves to speak for every gamer on the planet.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Originally posted by Octagon7711 Probably been said already but I'll say it again. Players know what they want but all players don't want the same thing. Even the same player likes to take a break from his favorite play style from time to time. As a young player I may want a certain type of game and as an older player my needs may change.
This probably says it best. I want a game that isn't going to be popular. I want a world and not a game and most just want a quick game to blow some time on. I want to log in every night just to see how the server changed since the last time I logged on. Even if that means there are times where someone else dictates my play for the night or that I struggle to find something to do. I want really high peaks of enjoyment on the best of nights and I'll gladly pay with valleys on the nights where things go wrong.
Most players want to be able to jump into the game and instantly have fun every single time they log in even if it is a pretty shallow fun. I want a world, not a game. That isn't a popular opinion overall though. I would never make the game I want if I were someone involved in making MMORPG and wanted a steady paycheck.
People play what they are handed and THINK its the best way.
200 years ago horses were it. If you dident have one you were nothing. A little hint cars are better, they just dident know about them. If anything at least you stay warm in a car
Somehow we went back to horses because somehow they are more profitable for the horse sellers. We need someone to make a car.
You can make a lot of money with a western sandbox open world mmo built around a community.
So we have a poster who is comparing a horse to World of Warcraft and somehow believes that logic is enough to speak for other people's gaming purchases. Uhh....
If you really can't figure out why comparing a video game to a horse makes no sense, I don't think I'd let you near a computer.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
Development can and have made empty holes and called them sandbox. There needs to be tools and regulations to make content even for the most dedicated emergent player.
The biggest downfall to date is free for all or more accurate, forced for all. It sends the game down a time sink gauntlet that most have no desire to invest in. Even the venerated EVE has Concord and still suffers from lack of objective if you aren't holding Sov or grinding ISK.
Players do need direction in a game world but it is best offered in diverse mechanics, not monorail content.
Mmmmmmm, the sweet, sweet nectar of the "no F2P" post. It's quite the catch-22, you see, because people SAY they want pay-to-play games, but rarely do they stick around. So, while your assertion is generally true, I believe that there are many F2P players on this site. I would hazard to guess that each and every person on this site has played an F2P game. I'd also go as far as to say that a large majority have played, or are currently subscribing to a P2P game.
The catch-22 is that it's been made quite clear in recent years that P2P is not a viable, sustainable, business model for a AAA MMORPG and, on the other side, people won't pay a subscription for a game with 8-bit graphics. Quite literally, that's what I see killing the model.
I believe part of that is because the games are somewhat boring to play. I played ESO in beta and canceled my preorder because it was so boring to play. It was obvious the game was designed for the endgame RvR. The PvE was your typical quick questing from one point to the next. The variety in terms of group combat was simply having DPS of different flavors. The classes had nothing unique to them outside of DPS. It would be nice to have a game where you are like settlers in a new world. There are no quests. You just go out and find ways to survive and improve in said world. That might be by hunting for food, seeking adventure in dangerous dungeons to find hidden treasures, crafting weapons and armor, traversing the dangerous wilds protecting lost travelers, seeking out lost knowledge of a powerful magic spells that are scattered in dangerous lost places throughout the land, working as a mercenary, playing as a pickpocket, or any number of different things. I don't believe you need a sandbox to achieve this. You just need to get rid of the majority of quests. The quests should only be there for very important parts of your classes development process and they should be really hard to complete IMO. Any monster/animal/etc you come across should be difficult to kill. There should be variety of class abilities to make them unique outside of combat. This is just my opinion. In most MMOs now the only thing you can do is go out and run through a bunch of fairly easy quests from low level to max level or PvP. That just doesn't hold PvE players attention in terms of having a subscription fee and playing the game for a long time. The PvE is portion of the game is just to simple and repetitive.
I agree with you on ESO. I actually stuck it out longer than you. I subscribed for 4 or 5 months before I quit. Actually, I saw a lot of promise with ESO. There were many opportunities for progression. My main complaint is that it seemed stagnant after a while. I hate it when they put up these ridiculous XP grinds, you know, like repeating content?
As far as open world content. I think that it can be enjoyable, but whether or not someone would actually pay a subscription for it is another thing. Would you pay a subscription for Minecraft? I think that activities in an open world game can become just as tedious as a themepark, though. I don't know how many times I really want to go out and collect lumber, to be honest, or make a fire every day so my family doesn't die due to the cold overnight. Or wake up in the middle of the night to put more wood on the fire. Every day.
I think that one of the reasons that subscription models don't work now, as much as before, is that there are so many compelling single player games. I'm actually playing less WoW than usual, now, because I want to get through some of my console games from Christmas. Also, these games are becoming a bigger time commitment, so that's also cutting into my MMORPG time. This simply makes the value proposition of MMORPGs less and less, especially when you're paying a sub.
Good points. I also generally play single player games these days. It's not quite the same as being able to play in a world with other people, but it's still a lot of fun. I do see the current gen MMO mechanics in a lot of single player games though. Basically follow the exclamation point from one place to the next until the game is over. You do have some freedom to do side quests though.
You could argue that Ultima Online was like Minecraft, but more serious. It allowed you to do things like steal from other players in game, concentrate on crafting only, and generally do a lot of non combat oriented things. Minecraft seems to be more like playing with Lego's. You have a bunch of blocks and connect them together. I wouldn't pay a monthly sub for that, but I probably would for something like Ultima Online.
Yeah, Ultima was awesome! I think that there is actually a dark time coming for these types of "creative" games, though. I mean my sampling is limited, but I have 4 boys and despite each of them having their own computer, their own ipad, their own gaming console, I am still frequently told that they "have nothing to do". So it begs the question, is this "normal" these days? I mean they seem to have infinite possibilities at their finger tips, yet they have zero imagination. It's something I see with their friends as well, so it kinda makes me wonder, sometimes, if creative open world games are really something that will even "work". That being said, Minecraft is still a big draw in our house (and has been for years), although I never really "got it". So maybe I'm no better
I don't think it is uncommon but I don't think it should be normal. With all there is available for people these days I can't see how anyone can seriously not have something to do to avoid feeling bored. Children need to be taught to be self-starters and parent must encourage their children's curiosity and need to explore the world around them.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
People play what they are handed and THINK its the best way.
200 years ago horses were it. If you dident have one you were nothing. A little hint cars are better, they just dident know about them. If anything at least you stay warm in a car
Somehow we went back to horses because somehow they are more profitable for the horse sellers. We need someone to make a car.
You can make a lot of money with a western sandbox open world mmo built around a community.
So we have a poster who is comparing a horse to World of Warcraft and somehow believes that logic is enough to speak for other people's gaming purchases. Uhh....
If you really can't figure out why comparing a video game to a horse makes no sense, I don't think I'd let you near a computer.
Ok I'll break this down to simple.
a) A car is better than a horse ( unless you really like horses better )
b) Players as of the last several years only know what we had been given for mmos ( horses ).
c) They don't know they can have a better more fun mmo ( this is the car ).
d) But developers have been giving us horses only for so long people don't even know they can have a car anymore.
How can someone new to mmos even know the feeling of what we once had ?
They cant !!!
Several years ago they stop making mmo's for no reason....How did anyone have a choice ?
They don't !!!....it's been too long.
If someone new were to try a real mmo such as UO, EQ1 or EQ2, Vanguard, Vanilla WoW, Original LOTRO they really can't....there now broken down rusty cars. They had ban transformed into out dated graphics, crazy easy, With F2P cash grabs or disappeared completely, or never fixed, or with expansion's that don't even fit well.
HOW CAN A NEWER PLAYER BE ABLE TO COMPAIR ?.....All the cars are in the junk yard, and developers are pushing horses. Horses are all players know. They say what's a car ?
A very good MASSIVE MULTI player online would be a hit......I'm sure of this !......Archage is prof !.....Many desperately tried to make this mmo work, but everything about it was bad !!!!
Originally posted by Ender4Themeparks are easier to make than sandboxes so you probably aren't going to get what you want just yet. The genre is moving in that direction and it is being aided by better procedural content and AI. We'll get there eventually.
Themeparks are not easier to make. You need to pump millions of dollars for new content every few months (content that gets consumed in one week), else your customers will get bored and quit. It leads nowhere, its concept is flawed.
Sandbox, in other hand, is community driven, you deliver tools (the world + some systems) and it runs by itself - community is content here.
It is why I personally am backing EQNext because they get where the genre has gone wrong. I realize they will probably fail at actually doing half of what they want, but at least it is pointing things in the right direction. Most of the new MMORPG coming out I already played with a different name, why would I play a flashier version of the same tired thing.
Because flashier is fun for 15 minutes? Is there a reason why i should not get a fun 15 min?
15 minutes is great if you're a wet behind the ears 17 year old; us vets typically require a little more "entertainment value" than that.
Different strokes for different folks, right.
nah .. i am almost 50 .. and i don't have that much time for mere games. 15 min gaming is great. In fact, that is one of the reason I like D3. I can go in .. do just one greater rift, relaxed, and get back to work without wasting hours.
This probably says it best. I want a game that isn't going to be popular. I want a world and not a game and most just want a quick game to blow some time on. I want to log in every night just to see how the server changed since the last time I logged on. Even if that means there are times where someone else dictates my play for the night or that I struggle to find something to do. I want really high peaks of enjoyment on the best of nights and I'll gladly pay with valleys on the nights where things go wrong.
Most players want to be able to jump into the game and instantly have fun every single time they log in even if it is a pretty shallow fun. I want a world, not a game. That isn't a popular opinion overall though. I would never make the game I want if I were someone involved in making MMORPG and wanted a steady paycheck.
and i want a game, not a world. The real world is enough "world" for me.
Let's vote with our wallets and see what the market decides.
People play what they are handed and THINK its the best way.
200 years ago horses were it. If you dident have one you were nothing. A little hint cars are better, they just dident know about them. If anything at least you stay warm in a car
Somehow we went back to horses because somehow they are more profitable for the horse sellers. We need someone to make a car.
You can make a lot of money with a western sandbox open world mmo built around a community.
So we have a poster who is comparing a horse to World of Warcraft and somehow believes that logic is enough to speak for other people's gaming purchases. Uhh....
If you really can't figure out why comparing a video game to a horse makes no sense, I don't think I'd let you near a computer.
Ok I'll break this down to simple.
a) A car is better than a horse ( unless you really like horses better )
b) Players as of the last several years only know what we had been given for mmos ( horses ).
c) They don't know they can have a better more fun mmo ( this is the car ).
d) But developers have been giving us horses only for so long people don't even know they can have a car anymore.
How can someone new to mmos even know the feeling of what we once had ?
They cant !!!
Several years ago they stop making mmo's for no reason....How did anyone have a choice ?
They don't !!!....it's been too long.
If someone new were to try a real mmo such as UO, EQ1 or EQ2, Vanguard, Vanilla WoW, Original LOTRO they really can't....there now broken down rusty cars. They had ban transformed into out dated graphics, crazy easy, With F2P cash grabs or disappeared completely, or never fixed, or with expansion's that don't even fit well.
HOW CAN A NEWER PLAYER BE ABLE TO COMPAIR ?.....All the cars are in the junk yard, and developers are pushing horses. Horses are all players know. They say what's a car ?
A very good MASSIVE MULTI player online would be a hit......I'm sure of this !......Archage is prof !.....Many desperately tried to make this mmo work, but everything about it was bad !!!!
They cannot compare that's the problem. Others will start talking about rosy spectacles but I would suggest to them it is you who are seeing todays 'MMOs' through filtered light.
Old school MMOs had their issues, but if all you have played is the modern easymode solo-casino games that pass for a MMO these days you will think that's all MMOs have to offer.
I will suggest some other game titles to give younger posters an idea of what it was like:
Difficulty: Like 'Dark Souls' some of the time.
Community: Like 'Second Life' or whatever social media you use.
Crafting: A tough one. Think of the Minecraft community for an idea of how much more important crafting was.
Casino and P2W: Just think of any solo game that does not have either of those.
Roleplaying: Back then players would talk in character to a random player, now no one even says "grats".
Grouping: Think of the importance you have to your teammates and they have to you in say Battlefield.
We lost all this and what did we get in return? You can solo to top level, buy a new costume, drink xp potions, buy top level gear, paying to beat other players. And you can gamble online. Not exactly a fare trade was it?
People play what they are handed and THINK its the best way.
200 years ago horses were it. If you dident have one you were nothing. A little hint cars are better, they just dident know about them. If anything at least you stay warm in a car
Somehow we went back to horses because somehow they are more profitable for the horse sellers. We need someone to make a car.
You can make a lot of money with a western sandbox open world mmo built around a community.
So we have a poster who is comparing a horse to World of Warcraft and somehow believes that logic is enough to speak for other people's gaming purchases. Uhh....
If you really can't figure out why comparing a video game to a horse makes no sense, I don't think I'd let you near a computer.
Ok I'll break this down to simple.
a) A car is better than a horse ( unless you really like horses better )
b) Players as of the last several years only know what we had been given for mmos ( horses ).
c) They don't know they can have a better more fun mmo ( this is the car ).
d) But developers have been giving us horses only for so long people don't even know they can have a car anymore.
How can someone new to mmos even know the feeling of what we once had ?
They cant !!!
Several years ago they stop making mmo's for no reason....How did anyone have a choice ?
They don't !!!....it's been too long.
If someone new were to try a real mmo such as UO, EQ1 or EQ2, Vanguard, Vanilla WoW, Original LOTRO they really can't....there now broken down rusty cars. They had ban transformed into out dated graphics, crazy easy, With F2P cash grabs or disappeared completely, or never fixed, or with expansion's that don't even fit well.
HOW CAN A NEWER PLAYER BE ABLE TO COMPAIR ?.....All the cars are in the junk yard, and developers are pushing horses. Horses are all players know. They say what's a car ?
A very good MASSIVE MULTI player online would be a hit......I'm sure of this !......Archage is prof !.....Many desperately tried to make this mmo work, but everything about it was bad !!!!
They cannot compare that's the problem. Others will start talking about rosy spectacles but I would suggest to them it is you who are seeing todays 'MMOs' through filtered light.
Old school MMOs had their issues, but if all you have played is the modern easymode solo-casino games that pass for a MMO these days you will think that's all MMOs have to offer.
I will suggest some other game titles to give younger posters an idea of what it was like:
Difficulty: Like 'Dark Souls' some of the time.
Community: Like 'Second Life' or whatever social media you use.
Crafting: A tough one. Think of the Minecraft community for an idea of how much more important crafting was.
Casino and P2W: Just think of any solo game that does not have either of those.
Roleplaying: Back then players would talk in character to a random player, now no one even says "grats".
Grouping: Think of the importance you have to your teammates and they have to you in say Battlefield.
We lost all this and what did we get in return? You can solo to top level, buy a new costume, drink xp potions, buy top level gear, paying to beat other players. And you can gamble online. Not exactly a fare trade was it?
Might be a little exaggerated here, but the rest is pretty spot on. It's a different time, though. I'd be thoroughly surprised if the majority of the MMORPG community has ever played any sort of pen and paper RPG game, let alone role-playing in-game. My guess is that the people who actually care about these types of changes are typically those who have.
I'd love to be afraid to step outside the walls of the city from fear of dying. I'd love to have a solid community and group-heavy content, but I just don't think there are that many people still alive who actually want that any more.
People play what they are handed and THINK its the best way.
200 years ago horses were it. If you dident have one you were nothing. A little hint cars are better, they just dident know about them. If anything at least you stay warm in a car
Somehow we went back to horses because somehow they are more profitable for the horse sellers. We need someone to make a car.
You can make a lot of money with a western sandbox open world mmo built around a community.
So we have a poster who is comparing a horse to World of Warcraft and somehow believes that logic is enough to speak for other people's gaming purchases. Uhh....
If you really can't figure out why comparing a video game to a horse makes no sense, I don't think I'd let you near a computer.
Ok I'll break this down to simple.
a) A car is better than a horse ( unless you really like horses better )
b) Players as of the last several years only know what we had been given for mmos ( horses ).
c) They don't know they can have a better more fun mmo ( this is the car ).
d) But developers have been giving us horses only for so long people don't even know they can have a car anymore.
How can someone new to mmos even know the feeling of what we once had ?
They cant !!!
Several years ago they stop making mmo's for no reason....How did anyone have a choice ?
They don't !!!....it's been too long.
If someone new were to try a real mmo such as UO, EQ1 or EQ2, Vanguard, Vanilla WoW, Original LOTRO they really can't....there now broken down rusty cars. They had ban transformed into out dated graphics, crazy easy, With F2P cash grabs or disappeared completely, or never fixed, or with expansion's that don't even fit well.
HOW CAN A NEWER PLAYER BE ABLE TO COMPAIR ?.....All the cars are in the junk yard, and developers are pushing horses. Horses are all players know. They say what's a car ?
A very good MASSIVE MULTI player online would be a hit......I'm sure of this !......Archage is prof !.....Many desperately tried to make this mmo work, but everything about it was bad !!!!
They cannot compare that's the problem. Others will start talking about rosy spectacles but I would suggest to them it is you who are seeing todays 'MMOs' through filtered light.
Old school MMOs had their issues, but if all you have played is the modern easymode solo-casino games that pass for a MMO these days you will think that's all MMOs have to offer.
I will suggest some other game titles to give younger posters an idea of what it was like:
Difficulty: Like 'Dark Souls' some of the time.
Community: Like 'Second Life' or whatever social media you use.
Crafting: A tough one. Think of the Minecraft community for an idea of how much more important crafting was.
Casino and P2W: Just think of any solo game that does not have either of those.
Roleplaying: Back then players would talk in character to a random player, now no one even says "grats".
Grouping: Think of the importance you have to your teammates and they have to you in say Battlefield.
We lost all this and what did we get in return? You can solo to top level, buy a new costume, drink xp potions, buy top level gear, paying to beat other players. And you can gamble online. Not exactly a fare trade was it?
But I have tried the old MMOs and I didn't like them. Nothing to do with me not liking role playing because I have played PnP RPGs for years. And those sessions were highly social too. As a matter of fact, I regularly have at least 2 different VOIP programs running when I'm playing and monitoring 3 different channels of gaming friends/acquaintances. I regularly play competitive games which require a high level of team work.
Maybe old MMOs were just bad as games? And maybe there's a lot more appreciation for good games than for virtual make-believe? Todays MMORPGs are better as games and their success is measured in their popularity.
You are in no position to look down on anyone.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
They cannot compare that's the problem. Others will start talking about rosy spectacles but I would suggest to them it is you who are seeing todays 'MMOs' through filtered light.
Old school MMOs had their issues, but if all you have played is the modern easymode solo-casino games that pass for a MMO these days you will think that's all MMOs have to offer.
I will suggest some other game titles to give younger posters an idea of what it was like:
Difficulty: Like 'Dark Souls' some of the time.
Community: Like 'Second Life' or whatever social media you use.
Crafting: A tough one. Think of the Minecraft community for an idea of how much more important crafting was.
Casino and P2W: Just think of any solo game that does not have either of those.
Roleplaying: Back then players would talk in character to a random player, now no one even says "grats".
Grouping: Think of the importance you have to your teammates and they have to you in say Battlefield.
We lost all this and what did we get in return? You can solo to top level, buy a new costume, drink xp potions, buy top level gear, paying to beat other players. And you can gamble online. Not exactly a fare trade was it?
But I have tried the old MMOs and I didn't like them. Nothing to do with me not liking role playing because I have played PnP RPGs for years. And those sessions were highly social too. As a matter of fact, I regularly have at least 2 different VOIP programs running when I'm playing and monitoring 3 different channels of gaming friends/acquaintances. I regularly play competitive games which require a high level of team work.
Maybe old MMOs were just bad as games? And maybe there's a lot more appreciation for good games than for virtual make-believe? Todays MMORPGs are better as games and their success is measured in their popularity.
You are in no position to look down on anyone.
I missed out on UO ('97) and EQ ('99); I was girl/party crazy in the late '90s, so I had other things on my mind. I tried these games many many years after release and it was pretty clear they had been heavily changed to the point that they were different beasts altogether.
However, in case you were around for their heydays, with all due respect you would have been 10 years old in the case of of UO, and 12 years old for EQ. Do you honestly think you could have possibly gotten much out of those games at all?
In my case, I started out with MMOs with the launch of WOW. If I had been ten/twelve at the time my opinion of the game would have been completely useless and irrelevant. I can tell you some wicked tales of Street Fighter II in the arcades though.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by CecropiaOriginally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by Ender4 It is why I personally am backing EQNext because they get where the genre has gone wrong. I realize they will probably fail at actually doing half of what they want, but at least it is pointing things in the right direction. Most of the new MMORPG coming out I already played with a different name, why would I play a flashier version of the same tired thing.
Because flashier is fun for 15 minutes? Is there a reason why i should not get a fun 15 min?15 minutes is great if you're a wet behind the ears 17 year old; us vets typically require a little more "entertainment value" than that. Different strokes for different folks, right. nah .. i am almost 50 .. and i don't have that much time for mere games. 15 min gaming is great. In fact, that is one of the reason I like D3. I can go in .. do just one greater rift, relaxed, and get back to work without wasting hours.
I too enjoy the 15-30 minute gaming experience. It is why I play a lot of games like Rogue Legacy or Infested Planet. The problem for me personally is if that is how your MMORPG is run I'd rather just go play a different type of game. The entire point of the genre to me is to create a social construct and not just a game. It is moving D&D to a computer system, not moving Gauntlet to it. Both fun games when I was a kid but both serve a very different function to me.
Comments
You don't have cable? Or a free will to turn off the tv?
I don't know about you ... but no one "forces" me to use any entertainment. If i use an entertainment product (whether it is tv, movies, or games, or novels), it is always fun to me.
Except this weekend.... .cuz the Super Bowl is on.... and you're just watching so you don't get fined.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Yes it is very much easier to make a fully realized theme park because all you have to do is create the content. A true sandbox requires building systems that can change and react to the players. UO gets called a sandbox but it really wasn't much of one. Being able to build a house doesn't make a sandbox.
The concepts going into some of these new games are true sandbox concepts. Things like if you keep killing orcs in the forest the orcs move somewhere else. When the orcs leave maybe some wild bears move into the area because the orcs used to kill them for food. The world has just been changed in multiple ways by the players actions. I'm not talking a string of scripts like GW2 does or repeated Rifts. Those are trying to hide the theme park, not build the sandbox.
The PvE part of the world has really been done in true sandbox style in many games at all and the few it has been done in were pretty limited games.
Easy/hard is not such a big issue. Designing and implementing the systems is just one puzzle piece of several, some of which are in favor of sandboxes.
So the measures we should apply are things like which game type is overall cheaper to make and maintain, which type can reach a bigger target audience, how long are the average respective lifeycles, how saturated are the respective markets, does one type tend to generate more buzz, etc.
You could even turn the "easy/hard" argument around and say making something "hard" that can't be easily copied and results in a standout product (USP) is a competitive advantage. Thus decent sandboxes being "hard" to make works in their favor.
read carefully .. i said "it is not ABOUT "easier" to make. I did not say it is not easier. The reason of not putting in the extra effort is because the demand is not, or may not be there.
If you have to spend more money on a feature, you better be able to sell more (or sell at higher price) to justify the cost.
If you kill some orcs, you don't need a sandbox to have the other orcs moving somewhere else, just program a branching story tree and you get as good a result.
The world changes in single player games all the time, and it certainly can be done in instances and with phasing for MMOs. Why would devs spend much more money to achieve basically the same effect?
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Because it is a completely different effect. Log onto a current MMORPG and visit 5 different servers. Outside of player housing you are pretty much going to see 5 copies of the exact same world. The first person to make a true sandbox MMORPG is going to have 5 very different worlds which were shaped by the player base themselves. That is what I've always personally wanted. By harder I didn't mean just effort, I meant harder from a standpoint of technology required to pull it off. We haven't had the tech to really do this until recently.
It is why I personally am backing EQNext because they get where the genre has gone wrong. I realize they will probably fail at actually doing half of what they want, but at least it is pointing things in the right direction. Most of the new MMORPG coming out I already played with a different name, why would I play a flashier version of the same tired thing.
IF that's your point, it's flawed. "Crap games" is what you may view them as, that does not mean that is what everyone views them as, some may find them quite good, and have a preference for them. This is the problem with this segment of forum posters who feel they can speak toward taste in a universal sense, you can't... Many of these same people might find your preferences to be "crap"... That's the way opinions and preferences work.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Because flashier is fun for 15 minutes? Is there a reason why i should not get a fun 15 min?
15 minutes is great if you're a wet behind the ears 17 year old; us vets typically require a little more "entertainment value" than that.
Different strokes for different folks, right.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Probably been said already but I'll say it again. Players know what they want but all players don't want the same thing. Even the same player likes to take a break from his favorite play style from time to time. As a young player I may want a certain type of game and as an older player my needs may change.
Players get a job, get married, have kids, lose their job, the economy goes up or down, all this can have an influence on what type of game a person wants or can afford to play.
That's why I think it's funny when I read a post that states, "That's what we as gamers want!" Interesting that a person would take it upon themselves to speak for every gamer on the planet.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
This probably says it best. I want a game that isn't going to be popular. I want a world and not a game and most just want a quick game to blow some time on. I want to log in every night just to see how the server changed since the last time I logged on. Even if that means there are times where someone else dictates my play for the night or that I struggle to find something to do. I want really high peaks of enjoyment on the best of nights and I'll gladly pay with valleys on the nights where things go wrong.
Most players want to be able to jump into the game and instantly have fun every single time they log in even if it is a pretty shallow fun. I want a world, not a game. That isn't a popular opinion overall though. I would never make the game I want if I were someone involved in making MMORPG and wanted a steady paycheck.
So we have a poster who is comparing a horse to World of Warcraft and somehow believes that logic is enough to speak for other people's gaming purchases. Uhh....
If you really can't figure out why comparing a video game to a horse makes no sense, I don't think I'd let you near a computer.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
There is some truth to what you are saying, OP.
Development can and have made empty holes and called them sandbox. There needs to be tools and regulations to make content even for the most dedicated emergent player.
The biggest downfall to date is free for all or more accurate, forced for all. It sends the game down a time sink gauntlet that most have no desire to invest in. Even the venerated EVE has Concord and still suffers from lack of objective if you aren't holding Sov or grinding ISK.
Players do need direction in a game world but it is best offered in diverse mechanics, not monorail content.
I don't think it is uncommon but I don't think it should be normal. With all there is available for people these days I can't see how anyone can seriously not have something to do to avoid feeling bored. Children need to be taught to be self-starters and parent must encourage their children's curiosity and need to explore the world around them.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Ok I'll break this down to simple.
a) A car is better than a horse ( unless you really like horses better )
b) Players as of the last several years only know what we had been given for mmos ( horses ).
c) They don't know they can have a better more fun mmo ( this is the car ).
d) But developers have been giving us horses only for so long people don't even know they can have a car anymore.
How can someone new to mmos even know the feeling of what we once had ?
They cant !!!
Several years ago they stop making mmo's for no reason....How did anyone have a choice ?
They don't !!!....it's been too long.
If someone new were to try a real mmo such as UO, EQ1 or EQ2, Vanguard, Vanilla WoW, Original LOTRO they really can't....there now broken down rusty cars. They had ban transformed into out dated graphics, crazy easy, With F2P cash grabs or disappeared completely, or never fixed, or with expansion's that don't even fit well.
HOW CAN A NEWER PLAYER BE ABLE TO COMPAIR ?.....All the cars are in the junk yard, and developers are pushing horses. Horses are all players know. They say what's a car ?
A very good MASSIVE MULTI player online would be a hit......I'm sure of this !......Archage is prof !.....Many desperately tried to make this mmo work, but everything about it was bad !!!!
Themeparks are not easier to make. You need to pump millions of dollars for new content every few months (content that gets consumed in one week), else your customers will get bored and quit. It leads nowhere, its concept is flawed.
Sandbox, in other hand, is community driven, you deliver tools (the world + some systems) and it runs by itself - community is content here.
nah .. i am almost 50 .. and i don't have that much time for mere games. 15 min gaming is great. In fact, that is one of the reason I like D3. I can go in .. do just one greater rift, relaxed, and get back to work without wasting hours.
and i want a game, not a world. The real world is enough "world" for me.
Let's vote with our wallets and see what the market decides.
They cannot compare that's the problem. Others will start talking about rosy spectacles but I would suggest to them it is you who are seeing todays 'MMOs' through filtered light.
Old school MMOs had their issues, but if all you have played is the modern easymode solo-casino games that pass for a MMO these days you will think that's all MMOs have to offer.
I will suggest some other game titles to give younger posters an idea of what it was like:
Difficulty: Like 'Dark Souls' some of the time.
Community: Like 'Second Life' or whatever social media you use.
Crafting: A tough one. Think of the Minecraft community for an idea of how much more important crafting was.
Casino and P2W: Just think of any solo game that does not have either of those.
Roleplaying: Back then players would talk in character to a random player, now no one even says "grats".
Grouping: Think of the importance you have to your teammates and they have to you in say Battlefield.
We lost all this and what did we get in return? You can solo to top level, buy a new costume, drink xp potions, buy top level gear, paying to beat other players. And you can gamble online. Not exactly a fare trade was it?
Might be a little exaggerated here, but the rest is pretty spot on. It's a different time, though. I'd be thoroughly surprised if the majority of the MMORPG community has ever played any sort of pen and paper RPG game, let alone role-playing in-game. My guess is that the people who actually care about these types of changes are typically those who have.
I'd love to be afraid to step outside the walls of the city from fear of dying. I'd love to have a solid community and group-heavy content, but I just don't think there are that many people still alive who actually want that any more.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
But I have tried the old MMOs and I didn't like them. Nothing to do with me not liking role playing because I have played PnP RPGs for years. And those sessions were highly social too. As a matter of fact, I regularly have at least 2 different VOIP programs running when I'm playing and monitoring 3 different channels of gaming friends/acquaintances. I regularly play competitive games which require a high level of team work.
Maybe old MMOs were just bad as games? And maybe there's a lot more appreciation for good games than for virtual make-believe? Todays MMORPGs are better as games and their success is measured in their popularity.
You are in no position to look down on anyone.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I missed out on UO ('97) and EQ ('99); I was girl/party crazy in the late '90s, so I had other things on my mind. I tried these games many many years after release and it was pretty clear they had been heavily changed to the point that they were different beasts altogether.
However, in case you were around for their heydays, with all due respect you would have been 10 years old in the case of of UO, and 12 years old for EQ. Do you honestly think you could have possibly gotten much out of those games at all?
In my case, I started out with MMOs with the launch of WOW. If I had been ten/twelve at the time my opinion of the game would have been completely useless and irrelevant. I can tell you some wicked tales of Street Fighter II in the arcades though.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
15 minutes is great if you're a wet behind the ears 17 year old; us vets typically require a little more "entertainment value" than that. Different strokes for different folks, right.
nah .. i am almost 50 .. and i don't have that much time for mere games. 15 min gaming is great. In fact, that is one of the reason I like D3. I can go in .. do just one greater rift, relaxed, and get back to work without wasting hours.
I too enjoy the 15-30 minute gaming experience. It is why I play a lot of games like Rogue Legacy or Infested Planet. The problem for me personally is if that is how your MMORPG is run I'd rather just go play a different type of game. The entire point of the genre to me is to create a social construct and not just a game. It is moving D&D to a computer system, not moving Gauntlet to it. Both fun games when I was a kid but both serve a very different function to me.