Howdy, Stranger!

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

What are the main factors that cause disappointment with an MMO?

135

Comments

  • someforumguysomeforumguy Member RarePosts: 4,035
    There's nothing virtual world about it. 
    Virtual world has been tried in games like The Second Life, and that is not anywhere close to be as successful as combat centric games. Look at LoL .. it is nothing but jump in and combat.

    The only games that have some virtual world feel are the survival ones. Other than that, i think you probably won't see much of virtual world.

    In fact, if you look at combat centric games .. they are increasingly LESS virtual world (from EQ to WOW to focused convenient combat games like warframe or Marvel Heroes). 
    Why so black and white? A virtual world can also be combat centric. You can make up a setting that includes any feature from nowadays themepark MMO's and put them in a virtual world. A sandbox can have quests (no matter if you make your own or are handed one by talking to some npc) and can evolve around combat. Just in a virtual world, you expect non combat activities and roles too for it to be convincing. Still, the world can all be about some war between realms or planets or whatever.
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    One of the things I have noticed is that when you make everyone a winner, winning has no meaning.

    That basic concept is what I think causes such.

    There is an old software development concept that goes like this "You don't give your client what they want, you give them what they need". This is a key element of establishing proper requirements. The point is, most clients don't know exactly how to communicate properly what it is they need and some think they want something, but when they get it, they realize that wasn't it. This leads to a circular development cycle resulting in the disappointment of the client and the demoralization of the developer.

    People love the feeling of success. They love to win and all of the rewards that comes with such. Thing is, winning has no meaning if there is no challenging obstacle to succeed against. It is failure that makes winning worth it. This is what is lacking in MMOs and even games today. There is no "game" to the games, there is only entertainment, only the attempt to provide the reward without the effort. There are no obstacles, challenges, or consistency of failure which make the winning have meaning.

    It is a concept of reality. When we think back to the events in our lives, we don't think back on how wonderful it was to be handed that win without effort. We think back to the times where we conquered our fears, succeeded against difficult odds, and savored the finish after a long and difficult journey. That is... we don't find enjoyment in the win itself, but the winning "against" a challenge. This is what games today get wrong.

    Games today lack any sort of challenge. There is no "game over", no "try again", no "you lose", etc... There are no obstacles, no challenges, no victories. All that exists is showing up, standing in line and waiting for your reward to be handed out.

    If game developers are really interested in making games that people enjoy, then they need to stop worrying about appealing to every reflexive "want" and start looking at what these players are actually seeking, what they truly need. This means, you don't develop features that ruin game play. If there is no real loss, there is no real win and it isn't a game as much as it is mundane entertainment.

    People remember how rewarding the win is, but only if the loss was real, or the effort was serious. People don't look back to a game and say "Ah, I remember getting that gear item, it was a lot of fun... I went out, did a couple of easy 5 min dungeons and turned in my tokens to get that item, it was a really fun day", just like people don't reminisce about easy events that required no effort, or had any significance in completion. I mean, how many share the details of how they did a quick sweeping of their kitchen floor after dinner? This is the problem, adversity has been removed from games, all that is left is the win (the reward) and as I said, when everyone is a winner, then winning has no meaning.

    Put the "game" back into the entertainment. Don't be afraid to tell people "you lose", make them earn their moments of victory with effort  and reward them properly when they do. Make people wait, make them set goals, plan for success and strive for that win, to actually win and not simply be handed a participation trophy. Don't give people want they want, give them what they really need.


  • BellomoBellomo Member UncommonPosts: 178
    For me first impression is everything so it begins with graphics. If the graphics are not good I won't even try.
  • RPGenieRPGenie Member UncommonPosts: 33
    I guess to experience disappointment I will have to play it for a bit. What usually makes me stop playing a game that passed my initial requirements to play in the first place is either overly complicated in-game systems such as crafting, skills, etc. I don't like feeling overwhelmed and having to research extensively for hours before I can make a decision or figure out how to do something at all. Another thing is a game I think I could like only to find out it's open world pvp with no pve server. Games that have shops including items that make you more powerful or don't let you play as much as you want without spending far more than the cost of a monthly sub.

    image
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    Sinist said:
    One of the things I have noticed is that when you make everyone a winner, winning has no meaning.

    That basic concept is what I think causes such.

    There is an old software development concept that goes like this "You don't give your client what they want, you give them what they need". This is a key element of establishing proper requirements. The point is, most clients don't know exactly how to communicate properly what it is they need and some think they want something, but when they get it, they realize that wasn't it. This leads to a circular development cycle resulting in the disappointment of the client and the demoralization of the developer.

    People love the feeling of success. They love to win and all of the rewards that comes with such. Thing is, winning has no meaning if there is no challenging obstacle to succeed against. It is failure that makes winning worth it. This is what is lacking in MMOs and even games today. There is no "game" to the games, there is only entertainment, only the attempt to provide the reward without the effort. There are no obstacles, challenges, or consistency of failure which make the winning have meaning.

    It is a concept of reality. When we think back to the events in our lives, we don't think back on how wonderful it was to be handed that win without effort. We think back to the times where we conquered our fears, succeeded against difficult odds, and savored the finish after a long and difficult journey. That is... we don't find enjoyment in the win itself, but the winning "against" a challenge. This is what games today get wrong.

    Games today lack any sort of challenge. There is no "game over", no "try again", no "you lose", etc... There are no obstacles, no challenges, no victories. All that exists is showing up, standing in line and waiting for your reward to be handed out.

    If game developers are really interested in making games that people enjoy, then they need to stop worrying about appealing to every reflexive "want" and start looking at what these players are actually seeking, what they truly need. This means, you don't develop features that ruin game play. If there is no real loss, there is no real win and it isn't a game as much as it is mundane entertainment.

    People remember how rewarding the win is, but only if the loss was real, or the effort was serious. People don't look back to a game and say "Ah, I remember getting that gear item, it was a lot of fun... I went out, did a couple of easy 5 min dungeons and turned in my tokens to get that item, it was a really fun day", just like people don't reminisce about easy events that required no effort, or had any significance in completion. I mean, how many share the details of how they did a quick sweeping of their kitchen floor after dinner? This is the problem, adversity has been removed from games, all that is left is the win (the reward) and as I said, when everyone is a winner, then winning has no meaning.

    Put the "game" back into the entertainment. Don't be afraid to tell people "you lose", make them earn their moments of victory with effort  and reward them properly when they do. Make people wait, make them set goals, plan for success and strive for that win, to actually win and not simply be handed a participation trophy. Don't give people want they want, give them what they really need.



    I've been thinking the same thing myself. 

    What is a journey if you take certain negatives out of it that are part of a journey?

    I don't even understand how you can have fun without suffering a bit at times first. 

    I believe this is what turns me off when I jump into and MMO and why I don't play them anymore.  I start playing and there are extremely limited choices on where I can go and what I can do.  I am directed places and given the right equipment.  The choices I have to make for my class have little overall impact on how effective I am.  It's just another flavor of the same effectiveness.  Leveling up is fairly quick and easy.  I'm told exactly where to go and what to do when I get there.  The mobs are all balanced to be beaten easily.  Getting lost or killed is almost impossible.  There isn't much I would call a journey or adventure inside all of this.  It's just some mini games that revolve around specific segregated things like group, raid, solo, or PvP.

    I generally don't find it entertaining.  I usually play single player games as they at least have good cinematics and story.  It all just feels to artificial and not enough like a living and breathing world.  Even old games were better at accomplishing that feat.  Even the characters feel really generic.  The villains aren't bad enough.  The good guys have no flaws.  There isn't a random drunk sitting in the bar with something amusing to say.  I remember RPGs on Nintendo that delved into deeper subjects than most MMOs.  I think this is possible part of the masses effect again.  No one wants to offend anyone with potential sensitive topics or jokes.

  • BladestromBladestrom Member UncommonPosts: 5,001
    The problem is 2-fold, players with expectations that don't match the game spec, and developers who design to reward constantly and to aim for every demographic known to man.

    Theres great mmorpg out there that millions enjoy, so really the latter can be avoided sovit boils down to players making poor choices and blaming the world for these choices.

    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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Sinist said:

    Games today lack any sort of challenge. There is no "game over", no "try again", no "you lose", etc... There are no obstacles, no challenges, no victories. All that exists is showing up, standing in line and waiting for your reward to be handed out.



    uh? Isn't wiping a raid "you lose" and "try again"?

    Another example, most people fail high greater rifts in D3, and they try again and again. 

    Ditto for single player games where people "lose" and "try again" by reload. 

    And if you play any pvp game, by definition, half of the players "lose". So I don't know where this "no 'game over', no 'try again', no 'you lose'" is coming from. 
  • d_20d_20 Member RarePosts: 1,878
    edited October 2015


    I think the real disappointments are from games that you actually enjoy playing.

    I really agree with this. This describes the conflicted feelings I have about ESO. This game has been so much fun, but also extremely irritating. I love the combat. I really don't like some of the development decisions on the direction of this still-under-development game.

    Maybe if there was better communication from the devs and I could understand why some of the decisions are made, I would feel better about it.

    Maybe it's too ideal these days, but I would prefer playing a game made by developers who see their players as a community rather than a game made by a corporation that sees their players as consumers of content that they don't need to care about as long as they pay.


  • jc234jc234 Member UncommonPosts: 91
    Have a look at Sword Coast Legends and their dealings with the community. It was a total sham till the CEO and many devs took to the forums to personally answer and deal with the negativity that were building in excess. Needless to say, A LOT of people were pissed off, asked for refunds directly and never looked back. Though, the communication and transparency N-Space chose to have helped them steer clear of any future disappointment. 
  • SephirosoSephiroso Member RarePosts: 2,019
    Peoples own perceptions and expectations are two of the main causes for disappointment in MMOs. People let themselves get hyped to way to easily and way to high for a new game, and when its released, it could still be a decent game but because of their hype, it doesn't meet their overly high expectations so they feel horridly disappointed.

    As for their own perceptions. Look at LFG systems. People love to say LFG killed socializing in mmos but it didn't. Before LFG all you had was spamming in trade/general/shout. That's not socializing. But people ignore that because it doesn't fit in with their perception. They also ignore the fact that there's nothing stopping them from talking to the people that they were matched with via LFG system. They all just say "they're randoms, i'll never see them again so why talk to them" but they ignore the fact that if they did talk to them and could just as well find a good friend, then continue to group with them later.

    These are imo the two biggest reasons for disappointment, nothing to do with the devs of the game or anything. We are our own greatest enemy. It's an old saying because its true.

    image
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    Sinist said:

    Games today lack any sort of challenge. There is no "game over", no "try again", no "you lose", etc... There are no obstacles, no challenges, no victories. All that exists is showing up, standing in line and waiting for your reward to be handed out.



    uh? Isn't wiping a raid "you lose" and "try again"?

    Another example, most people fail high greater rifts in D3, and they try again and again. 

    Ditto for single player games where people "lose" and "try again" by reload. 

    And if you play any pvp game, by definition, half of the players "lose". So I don't know where this "no 'game over', no 'try again', no 'you lose'" is coming from. 

    I wasn't speaking literally, obviously people still fail, but it is nothing like games of old. In EQ, it took some bosses months before the top guild could down them. Even in early WoW it took a lot of effort and many guilds would spend many evenings failing week after week until they finally were able to get the event down and succeed.

    This was the same in group content as well. There were areas in dungeons of many of the older MMOs where people would make multiple attempts on mobs before they finally were able to defeat them. Even in WoW, Black rock depths turned many away who were unable to get deep in. Some couldn't even get past the first area.

    Games today don't challenge the players. We see games like Dark Souls touted as a game of skill and yet that sort of style of arcade play was the average difficulty of many action games of the 80's.

    Games have been made easier and easier in order to be more accessible to the masses. MMOs today are conquered in days, not the months they used to be. That is my point, games no longer challenge people, they merely provide entertainment to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
  • jc234jc234 Member UncommonPosts: 91
    I wouldn't give up hopes that quickly... Initiatives like Kickstarter or even just the idea of "indie" has given rise to a bunch of talented visionaries who are hellbent (I hope lol) on developing and publishing meta-breaking games. We just need these visionaries to be supported by the major companies that will have the man power and resources to lay the infrastructure out for these games. 
  • SephirosoSephiroso Member RarePosts: 2,019
    Sinist said:
    Sinist said:

    Games today lack any sort of challenge. There is no "game over", no "try again", no "you lose", etc... There are no obstacles, no challenges, no victories. All that exists is showing up, standing in line and waiting for your reward to be handed out.



    uh? Isn't wiping a raid "you lose" and "try again"?

    Another example, most people fail high greater rifts in D3, and they try again and again. 

    Ditto for single player games where people "lose" and "try again" by reload. 

    And if you play any pvp game, by definition, half of the players "lose". So I don't know where this "no 'game over', no 'try again', no 'you lose'" is coming from. 

    I wasn't speaking literally, obviously people still fail, but it is nothing like games of old. In EQ, it took some bosses months before the top guild could down them. Even in early WoW it took a lot of effort and many guilds would spend many evenings failing week after week until they finally were able to get the event down and succeed.

    This was the same in group content as well. There were areas in dungeons of many of the older MMOs where people would make multiple attempts on mobs before they finally were able to defeat them. Even in WoW, Black rock depths turned many away who were unable to get deep in. Some couldn't even get past the first area.

    Games today don't challenge the players. We see games like Dark Souls touted as a game of skill and yet that sort of style of arcade play was the average difficulty of many action games of the 80's.

    Games have been made easier and easier in order to be more accessible to the masses. MMOs today are conquered in days, not the months they used to be. That is my point, games no longer challenge people, they merely provide entertainment to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
    What you're speaking about had very little to do with actual difficulty or anything requiring skill and more to do with purposeful tuning to such a degree to extend the amount of time it took for players to get through content to give the devs time to create more content.

    It was a numbers game, not a difficulty game.

    image
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

  • orionblackorionblack Member UncommonPosts: 493
    One of the most important aspects to me is quite simply..the community.
    Bad community,no matter how good the game,equals for a bad time in game.  
    And people's attitude to be so unhelpful in starter areas really is usually the reason I do not continue with a game. Lack of willingness to help in the beginner areas usually indicates on how it will go in the later levels when you DO have to group up. Think about that next time someone asks for help. Oh and yes I do ask for help in newbie area,even though I probably don't need it,just to gauge reactions..so I imagine there are others do as well.
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    Sephiroso said:

    What you're speaking about had very little to do with actual difficulty or anything requiring skill and more to do with purposeful tuning to such a degree to extend the amount of time it took for players to get through content to give the devs time to create more content.

    It was a numbers game, not a difficulty game.

    I am not sure what you mean. That content took skill, it wasn't a matter of simply getting the gear and you won. Not to mention, some people could do content without having the fancy gear, it all came down to the players ability to work with others to achieve objectives. There were many times in EQ where my guild took down difficult bosses with fewer people, under geared and often without the ideal group makeups.

    There were many people that could not win against bosses, even with all the fancy gear. Don't confuse today's itemization scheme with the difficulty of encounters of old. Mainstream is where we started to see events be strictly gear checks, with the result of winning an encounter being entirely due to the gear used which allowed players of little skill to easily succeed.

    In EQ, the bosses weren't about gear exactly (it helped), they were about coordination and endurance. The fights were unforgiving and would not allow a single error or it meant a wipe. One heal chain mess up, one over agro, one mistake and you had to start all over.

    Even in early WoW, you couldn't "numbers game" the black rock depth. You had to learn how to handle the content in order to move on. If you didn't have proper CC, approached the event properly, handled the issues with certain mob abilities, you wiped and it had nothing to do with gear, it was all about skill of the player. The content was hard, required you apply certain solutions.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    Sinist said:
    Sephiroso said:

    What you're speaking about had very little to do with actual difficulty or anything requiring skill and more to do with purposeful tuning to such a degree to extend the amount of time it took for players to get through content to give the devs time to create more content.

    It was a numbers game, not a difficulty game.

    I am not sure what you mean. That content took skill, it wasn't a matter of simply getting the gear and you won. Not to mention, some people could do content without having the fancy gear, it all came down to the players ability to work with others to achieve objectives. There were many times in EQ where my guild took down difficult bosses with fewer people, under geared and often without the ideal group makeups.

    There were many people that could not win against bosses, even with all the fancy gear. Don't confuse today's itemization scheme with the difficulty of encounters of old. Mainstream is where we started to see events be strictly gear checks, with the result of winning an encounter being entirely due to the gear used which allowed players of little skill to easily succeed.

    In EQ, the bosses weren't about gear exactly (it helped), they were about coordination and endurance. The fights were unforgiving and would not allow a single error or it meant a wipe. One heal chain mess up, one over agro, one mistake and you had to start all over.

    Even in early WoW, you couldn't "numbers game" the black rock depth. You had to learn how to handle the content in order to move on. If you didn't have proper CC, approached the event properly, handled the issues with certain mob abilities, you wiped and it had nothing to do with gear, it was all about skill of the player. The content was hard, required you apply certain solutions.
    I agree for the most part.  Lets not forget that equipment in EQ had minimal effect on your character in Vanilla.  It had not stats and barely increased your damage.  Thats why melee classes always had a hard time winning any encounter.  There wasn't much skill in a solo encounter as a melee class.  Mostly it was just luck of the draw.  In a raid or group this was not the case though.  A melee class had to know various tactics beyond just spamming taunt.  There were often a lot of tricks to hold aggro.  Your group mates also had to restrain themselves so as not to pull aggro away from the tank.  It only took a few hits to a non tank to die.  Casters had a fair amount of strategy in solo content as they were more skill based and had much larger variety of spells available than what you would see in games today.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Sinist said:


    I wasn't speaking literally, obviously people still fail, but it is nothing like games of old. In EQ, it took some bosses months before the top guild could down them. Even in early WoW it took a lot of effort and many guilds would spend many evenings failing week after week until they finally were able to get the event down and succeed.


    and you think games .. entertainment .. should require customers to spend months on playing the same thing again and again before "beating the encounter"?

    That does not sound fun to me. Challenges are artificially created by devs for consumers' enjoyment. Take D3 as an example. Greater Rift 100 is more challenging than ALL EQ encounters, because it is plainly impossible. GR 70 ... less so and i think a few (less than like 10) reached it for each class on the solo ladder.

    There is nothing magical to make things difficult ... in fact, D3 has a sliding scale from very easy, to very hard (a few in the world can do it), to plainly impossible. Just having extremely difficult challenges does not add to the fun to 99.9999% of the players because they have no hope to reaching it anyway.

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited October 2015
    Flyte27 said:

    I agree for the most part.  Lets not forget that equipment in EQ had minimal effect on your character in Vanilla.  It had not stats and barely increased your damage.  Thats why melee classes always had a hard time winning any encounter.  There wasn't much skill in a solo encounter as a melee class.  Mostly it was just luck of the draw.  In a raid or group this was not the case though.  A melee class had to know various tactics beyond just spamming taunt.  There were often a lot of tricks to hold aggro.  Your group mates also had to restrain themselves so as not to pull aggro away from the tank.  It only took a few hits to a non tank to die.  Casters had a fair amount of strategy in solo content as they were more skill based and had much larger variety of spells available than what you would see in games today.
    I remember equipment having a solid noticeable effect (just not an overpowering effect), but it was contingent on many things because attributes and skill level were what truly capped ones ability. You could put Rubicite Breastplate on a level 1 and it would help quite a bit, but it wouldn't allow them to ignore things like you could in other games. That is, how much AC helped you really depended on your skill level in defense (which was capped by level) and how high your attributes were. It was a really great way to deal with too much overpowering in content, but still allowing top performance for a given character at that level. That is, you could "feel" the power when you got a powerful item, but it didn't trivialize content. In fact, even if you were very high level, you could get taken down by low levels if you were careless.

    Raids were very complex. Many people who didn't play EQ (or didn't get very far in it) only know the fights as a dull auto-attack fight, but they miss all the subtle elements of play. Tank and healing rotations became very complex. Pulling was extremely delicate in many situations (pulling King Tormax to the WL zone line solo, Using a chain technique to pull Dain Frostweaver to the zone line (he banished players to the pit every 45 seconds) while setting up a CoH chain to summon banished players back during the fight, using a complex tank chain lineup for the AoW, etc....)

    Aggro, that one was often the killer. I have seen almost an entire raid wipe instantly when someone over aggored and made the Avatar of War turn for a brief second (remember he was hasted, quad hit and riposted everything when enraged).

    You are right about the spells. There were a vast number of spells and this allowed all kinds of different approaches to fights. The more complex the game systems, the more emergent the game play.

    I think many people these days think "difficulty" = arcade action, that if the game isn't testing your reflexes, it isn't difficult. That though is completely untrue as you well know.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    Sinist said:


    I wasn't speaking literally, obviously people still fail, but it is nothing like games of old. In EQ, it took some bosses months before the top guild could down them. Even in early WoW it took a lot of effort and many guilds would spend many evenings failing week after week until they finally were able to get the event down and succeed.


    and you think games .. entertainment .. should require customers to spend months on playing the same thing again and again before "beating the encounter"?

    That does not sound fun to me. Challenges are artificially created by devs for consumers' enjoyment. Take D3 as an example. Greater Rift 100 is more challenging than ALL EQ encounters, because it is plainly impossible. GR 70 ... less so and i think a few (less than like 10) reached it for each class on the solo ladder.

    There is nothing magical to make things difficult ... in fact, D3 has a sliding scale from very easy, to very hard (a few in the world can do it), to plainly impossible. Just having extremely difficult challenges does not add to the fun to 99.9999% of the players because they have no hope to reaching it anyway.

    Good points, but is there anything about playing Diablo 3 that is entertaining?  To me EQ had a lot more going on.  Diablo 3 has a small world and the story isn't interesting (to me).  The adventures are fairly repetitive and don't have a large amount of variety in art work.  There are no cultures/factions in D3.  It is simple like playing a game of chess.  I guess that appeals to some people, but I find it very dull quickly.  It offers so little outside of grinding loot/paragon levels over and over again.  At least EQ had some fun stuff like being able to shrink and grow people, casting illusion spells to change your appearance and infiltrate opposing cultures cities, outside cities, trade in person areas, encountering others in general, etc.
  • R3d.GallowsR3d.Gallows Member UncommonPosts: 155
    Sinist said:


    I wasn't speaking literally, obviously people still fail, but it is nothing like games of old. In EQ, it took some bosses months before the top guild could down them. Even in early WoW it took a lot of effort and many guilds would spend many evenings failing week after week until they finally were able to get the event down and succeed.


    and you think games .. entertainment .. should require customers to spend months on playing the same thing again and again before "beating the encounter"?

    Dont mix games and entertainment. Sure, games should be entertaining but not all entertainment is a game. Games require challenges. MMO games require challenges that will keep people playing for months. You can make people grind and play the rng roulette until their eyes bleed or you can provide them with group challenges difficult and complex enough to take weeks to overcome (and sure, some grind's going to be there too). Me, I prefer the latter. 
  • JaedorJaedor Member UncommonPosts: 1,173

    To OP's original question:

    • Unrealistic expectations.
    • Social issues (my friend left the game, etc.)
    • A game feature is radically changed.
  • sanshi44sanshi44 Member UncommonPosts: 1,187
    PVE only (Unless the PvE is so challenging it takes skill to do it)
    Instances!!!! < My big one i hate so much.

    Give me an open, living breathing world or atleast the best you can.
  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 1,998
    Long to short , tank classes .
  • GreteldaGretelda Member UncommonPosts: 359
    my reasons for disappointment:

    1. Lack of constant updates.

    2. not being fresh, sticking to old tested methods with 0 risk.

    3. mindless forced grinds like dailies just to make sure you are encouraged to login everyday.

    4. dull combat. mostly i am fine as long as i can feel the impact of my attacks.

    my top MMOs: UO,DAOC,WoW,GW2

    most of my posts are just my opinions they are not facts,it is the same for you too.

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited October 2015
    Sinist said:


    I wasn't speaking literally, obviously people still fail, but it is nothing like games of old. In EQ, it took some bosses months before the top guild could down them. Even in early WoW it took a lot of effort and many guilds would spend many evenings failing week after week until they finally were able to get the event down and succeed.


    and you think games .. entertainment .. should require customers to spend months on playing the same thing again and again before "beating the encounter"?

    That does not sound fun to me. Challenges are artificially created by devs for consumers' enjoyment. Take D3 as an example. Greater Rift 100 is more challenging than ALL EQ encounters, because it is plainly impossible. GR 70 ... less so and i think a few (less than like 10) reached it for each class on the solo ladder.

    There is nothing magical to make things difficult ... in fact, D3 has a sliding scale from very easy, to very hard (a few in the world can do it), to plainly impossible. Just having extremely difficult challenges does not add to the fun to 99.9999% of the players because they have no hope to reaching it anyway.


    I can't stand the button smashing arcade hack and slash reflex play of D3. Heck, If I wanted that style of arcade play, I would go back and play Nintendo games. EQ is nothing like D3, it is a different style, a different game, and requires different play.

    Though to answer your question. Yes, I want it to take a long time for people to finally beat the content. I want EQ or something similar again. If I wanted easy wins and mind numbing play where everyone is a winner, I would play the MMOs today.


Sign In or Register to comment.