You know like Star Wars Galaxies Pre CU where you'd have 10 min waits at Starports and 5 min waits at shuttleports.
If this is what we get with virtual worlds, i am glad that they are dead. I play games to have FUN, not to wait for shuttles. If I want to do that, i can go out to the closest bus stop.
Yes, there are old-school virtual world games still around.....you know WHY they're still around?? Nothing new in that vein has been made. Don't try to tell me that they "aren't popular" when every day we read post after post and thread after thread on tehse very forums asking for such games....couple with the fact that, as we've already established...older virtual world games still exist, and still have players.
I know you would really LOVE to think that your opinion that virtual worlds "aren't viable" actually is a fact...but it's not, I'm sorry. It is your opinion, nothing more.
I'm sorry, also that you don't care for immersion in your games...but the vast majority of gamers I think would disagree with you on that point. I draw this conclusion from...once again...threads on this site, and others....as well as the millions of people playing Zelda, Oblivion, Fallout 3, The Witcher, Bioware Games, as well as countless other RPGs. IN fact, Bioware is pretty much counting on you being wrong with their development of TOR.
Enjoy playing your mindless button-mashers on your Xbox.
Threads and posts from .. the same people. The vocal minority.
I don't think that it can be reasonably argued that virtual worlds are popular in comparison to structured games. One only has to look at the level of interest in titles such as AoC and WAR at launch and compare that to titles such as Darkfall and Mortal Online. Huge difference.
Still, I do think that you are right to say that virtual worlds can be viable .. the problem then becomes the developers (and the financiers behind them) who are unwilling to pour vast amounts of time and money into creating a product that has a chance of (at best) merely being viable. They're looking for hugely profitable, and that means aiming for the largest target audience.
Immersion is the most important quality that a game can have, but it's also a bit of an ethereal term; for some (yourself, seemingly) it refers to how believable a game setting is. For others (myself included) it's simply a measure of how fun the gameplay is, and how well a game can keep me playing and entertained. I can sit down with a Gameboy, turn on Tetris and suddenly find that 2 hours have passed. That's my definition of immersion.
Ive been reading similar threads all over the internet. There was never such a huge demand for a "virtual world" like these days.
We are witnessing a history backslash of our genre right now, cant you see it?
Believe me with todays mmo gamers and thats about 90% will not play a game where they have to fight over same bosses with others you will have wholeday long crying kids(adults even) and ask devs to protect them from stealing there boss lol.
Thats why almost all mmo's today have private instance, these days players dont have mentelity anymore to realy fight for something and afterwards saying ok nextime we win and go on, whole community have chance after WoW.
The reason for instancing is cost reduction. Do your homework.
To address your second point however...the "virtual world" games out there are OLD. They are not only out-dated, but many of them have been nerfed and dumbed down in order to try to draw a portion of the new-skool MMO generation....driving away most of their original players in the process (NGE anyone??).
And NO, Raw sub numbers are not "all that counts". Fantastic games have been made by companies who make games simply for the joy of the craft....or make the game that THEY themselves want to play. This was how we were graced with games such as Doom, Quake, Call Of Duty, Battlefield 1942, Ultima Online, Morrowind, and countless other classics that made millions....without selling out or aiming for the widest possible audience. If the game is GOOD, people will play it.
My apologies about the Xbox thing...when you mentioned that you played Halo, I just assumed....forgetting that there was a PC version of the game.
And as I said, if you post in a public forum, your posts are open for *ANYONE* to respond to, no matter who you quote. Don't like that? Send a private message. It's easy.
I agree with you, I even made the same observations in another post that these games are old, tired and empty or the developers freaked out and tried to compensate when their populations dropped like a rock because everyone went to other games. No subscribers means no impetus to keep up the game, release new expansions, provide good customer service, etc. It happens all the time and it kills games. I pointed out a similar thing when FailCom pulled all their best and brightest off of Anarchy Online to work on AoC. The only game they had that was making them any money went into the toilet as all the best people and servers were repurposed and when AoC sucked donkey balls, they were faced with two failing games. That's not at all surprising.
BTW: none of the games you listed were made by companies simply fro the joy of the craft. You're fooling yourself if you think that for a second. Every single one of them was made by programmers who wanted a paycheck. What you fail to recognize is that the majority of those games were pioneers in an untested field. Doom was the first breakout FPS. UO was the first breakout MMO. Where they succeeded was because nobody had ever really done it before. Where they failed was, again, because nobody had ever really done it before and the games that came after learned from the mistakes made by those pioneers. New games are superior because they had the old games to learn their lessons from.
What you fail to realize is that at the time of UO, they *WERE* aiming for the widest possible audience, that audience just had a much different makeup than the modern-day MMO marketplace. They aimed at the geek market who had lots of time on their hands because those were the people most likely to have fast enough computers and an Internet connection. That was their target audience. Today, that's not the case. Virtually everyone has fast computers and broadband access. Therefore, the aim of just about every game out there is the mainstream gamer, that's where the money is.
Believe me with todays mmo gamers and thats about 90% will not play a game where they have to fight over same bosses with others you will have wholeday long crying kids(adults even) and ask devs to protect them from stealing there boss lol.
Thats why almost all mmo's today have private instance, these days players dont have mentelity anymore to realy fight for something and afterwards saying ok nextime we win and go on, whole community have chance after WoW.
The reason for instancing is cost reduction. Do your homework.
The reason for instanced dungeons is BETTER GAMEPLAY!!! FACT! There is NOTHING in a an EQ or DAOC that comes close to what occurs in dungeons in WOW. If you haven't personally witnesses all of it. Go look at some videos. EQ and DAOC was all/mostly tank and spank. Not so in WOW. Instanced dungeons allow for much more varied, scripted and dynamic gameplay and bosses. You just can't do that in an open world dungeons where other player can just join in any time. The scrips would all fall apart. Thats why those old bosses were all tank and spank. Cost reduction has nothing to do with it. Its about creating a better dungeon experience, since I don't know whats all that immersive about an amazing dungeon packed with people camping spawns all day long and chatting. Shared dungeons like in WAR worked out well, but you need instancing. No one will go back to the old EQ/DAOC way of doing things. Its just not fun.
Instanced outdoor areas on the other hand is another story. Even with the best servers in the world, when enough players get in one spot the game is unplayable. You have to find ways to split them up and instancing is the only way, OR insane travel times to keep people separated as much as possible. I personally don't like the AOC, DDO, way of world structure. Too phoney. But certain types of dungeons need to be instanced in order to expand & advance gameplay. Other players kill stealing isn't dynamic. Its just annoying and pointless and NOT fun once you get over the initial cool factor of knowing you screwed up someone's day.
Isn't the "virtual world" largely in your head? It makes sense to me, since the actual graphics and such of games have improved alot. They should help you to create your own "virtual World" with your imagination, no?
Imagination is subjective. It means it is related to the subject, to the individual.
"Virtual World" is objective, the same for everyone.
Each and every players' imagination is bound by ONE OBJECTIVE SET OF design decisions and game mechanics. Thats why.
Oh, the lack of common sense here isn't on my part, most certainly. One only has to look at the latest themepark offerings to see that. Neither do I care to argue for arguement's sake or just to "be right". Having worked a few years in workforce management and having a wife who does forecasting amongst other things for a global consulting firm (and who is an MMO gamer) it's very easy to see that there is a market, a sizeable one at that, for virtual world/sandbox gamers. Enough so for at least one company to give it a good effort and reap the rewards, which would be no less than what themeparks (sans WoW or maybe LOTRO) are making.
There are just some of you who can't stand to see one of those games happen for whatever irrational reason and so argue, again, for argument's sake.
In other words, you're happy with your delusion, don't confuse you with the facts. Okay, sure, there are billions of players who want exactly what you claim they want. Let us all know when any AAA developer gives you the game you apparently so richly deserve.
Oh, the lack of common sense here isn't on my part, most certainly. One only has to look at the latest themepark offerings to see that. Neither do I care to argue for arguement's sake or just to "be right". Having worked a few years in workforce management and having a wife who does forecasting amongst other things for a global consulting firm (and who is an MMO gamer) it's very easy to see that there is a market, a sizeable one at that, for virtual world/sandbox gamers. Enough so for at least one company to give it a good effort and reap the rewards, which would be no less than what themeparks (sans WoW or maybe LOTRO) are making.
There are just some of you who can't stand to see one of those games happen for whatever irrational reason and so argue, again, for argument's sake.
In other words, you're happy with your delusion, don't confuse you with the facts. Okay, sure, there are billions of players who want exactly what you claim they want. Let us all know when any AAA developer gives you the game you apparently so richly deserve.
No, I just realized the futility of arguing with an arrogance such that it blinds with a magnificent light. Why the fact that there are enough players out there who want this type of experience hurts you so I'll never know. As far as facts go I've heard nothing from you but your opinion which is there are only a few thousand people that want this experience. I don't agree and that's that. No harm, no foul.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Believe me with todays mmo gamers and thats about 90% will not play a game where they have to fight over same bosses with others you will have wholeday long crying kids(adults even) and ask devs to protect them from stealing there boss lol.
Thats why almost all mmo's today have private instance, these days players dont have mentelity anymore to realy fight for something and afterwards saying ok nextime we win and go on, whole community have chance after WoW.
The reason for instancing is cost reduction. Do your homework.
The reason for instanced dungeons is BETTER GAMEPLAY!!! FACT! There is NOTHING in a an EQ or DAOC that comes close to what occurs in dungeons in WOW. If you haven't personally witnesses all of it. Go look at some videos. EQ and DAOC was all/mostly tank and spank. Not so in WOW. Instanced dungeons allow for much more varied, scripted and dynamic gameplay and bosses. You just can't do that in an open world dungeons where other player can just join in any time. The scrips would all fall apart. Thats why those old bosses were all tank and spank. Cost reduction has nothing to do with it. Its about creating a better dungeon experience, since I don't know whats all that immersive about an amazing dungeon packed with people camping spawns all day long and chatting. Shared dungeons like in WAR worked out well, but you need instancing. No one will go back to the old EQ/DAOC way of doing things. Its just not fun.
Instanced outdoor areas on the other hand is another story. Even with the best servers in the world, when enough players get in one spot the game is unplayable. You have to find ways to split them up and instancing is the only way, OR insane travel times to keep people separated as much as possible. I personally don't like the AOC, DDO, way of world structure. Too phoney. But certain types of dungeons need to be instanced in order to expand & advance gameplay. Other players kill stealing isn't dynamic. Its just annoying and pointless and NOT fun once you get over the initial cool factor of knowing you screwed up someone's day.
Your so called "better gameplay" is your subjective opinion regarding certain design decisions and game mechanics.
Subjective.
Nowadays, because of these so called "better gameplay" people have no freedom, only linearity.
Because these so called "better gameplay" games focus on combat. Everyone has to follow the developers scripted path.
"Everyone is a hero mechanics."
To me, "better gameplay" was when there was great rewards achievable only by a few. And why a few? Because only a few were skilled enough, only a few would spend the required time and effort, only a few were inteligent enough, only a few were organized enough. There was the time when players behind the characters mattered. Nowadays, they dont.
That was the "better gameplay". In fact, the "GOLDEN ERA OF THE GAMEPLAY" was when individual traits of players mattered. Nowadays, in games, every player is like a generic industrialized product, another prisoner wearing an orange suit, in shackles.
Nowadays, because of your "better gameplay" everyone is deemed equal, "fair and balanced", little or no effort, and when a certain effort is needed, its effort and rewards are limited by caps.
And no sir, that was just the excuse game companies used to introduce instancing and all its economic advantages while still benefitting from the marketing slogan of "MMORPG". They didnt changed it to please the players. And if you insist, search for the history of how Guild Wars came to be. "Free" at the cost of "Instancing". It has nothing to do with "Oh, it took me 3 days competing for a boss that rarely drops an item I need" People love this. Gaming psychology.
The bottom line is that games used to be focused on challening a person...
Now, they're based on entertaining a person. (yes I know entertainment is NES's middle name) But the bottom line is that with video games making such HUGE profits, of course they're going to try to appeal to a broader audience by making everything easier and more instant.
You prove there isn't. You can't, just as you say I can't (and yes, I don't have petitions so I can't, lol). That said, I'm not suggesting ALL developers make your type of game. I'm saying it would be nice to have al ittle more modern day made variety out there. If just ONE game was made and it flopped, then I'd have no issue saying to you and yours that you're right. I doubt I'd get the same response if one were made and it held 500,000 subscriptions, putting it ahead of most reported P2P games except LOTRO and WoW. And that sub total would make it just as profitable or moreso in certain situations.
Never understood why some folks have to have every single MMO that comes out made in their own preferred playstyle and jump at every chance to shout down people who express interest in wanting something different.
I don't have to, I'm not the one claiming that there are all these people. You are. Therefore the burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders. Certainly, if you can't back up your claims, there's no reason for developers to take you at all seriously.
Would it be nice to have more variety? Sure. But MMOs are a business, they exist to make money. Therefore in order to have the kind of variety you want to see, they have to know that there is a ready-made market for the game you're asking them to spend millions of dollars and years of their lives on. If you can't produce that, then why should they take you seriously?
Come on, a little common sense here would be nice.
Oh, the lack of common sense here isn't on my part, most certainly. One only has to look at the latest themepark offerings to see that. Neither do I care to argue for arguement's sake or just to "be right". Having worked a few years in workforce management and having a wife who does forecasting amongst other things for a global consulting firm (and who is an MMO gamer) it's very easy to see that there is a market, a sizeable one at that, for virtual world/sandbox gamers. Enough so for at least one company to give it a good effort and reap the rewards, which would be no less than what themeparks (sans WoW or maybe LOTRO) are making.
There are just some of you who can't stand to see one of those games happen for whatever irrational reason and so argue, again, for argument's sake.
Methinks you have that the other way around.
I see you....yes specifically you...and numerous others wailing all the time about "wah we want a sandbox". About how much lesser a person is(be it e-peen, mental capacity, or whatever whimsical muttering you come up with next).
I equate a lot of you to a nerd's nerd. The type we picked on back in school. Home playing DnD on weekends while the rest of us were out doing our thing. The 4 plus yrs of whining over SWG was the very epitome of just how twisted a few of ya are.
It is you, the sandbox lot, that are the problem around these brds. Always complaining that you arent the target demographic. Yet when they do make games that cater to your fancy, you dont back them(this is read Darkfall/Ryzom/etc).
It really is a shame we are forced to see thread after thread of the same BS around these parts. All due to people like you.
For the DnD bunch, virtual realities/second jobs may be the cats meow. For the rest of us though it is akin to cat pizz.
EQ was as much of a "sandbox" as any of these MMOs need to be. When you take it further, you venture into Koster territory. Where is he now by the way? Oh thats right, he tuck tail and ran from the MMO market.
You are the minority. Support games intended for you or dont. Whatever you do, it would be nice if we could quit hearing the complaints about folks not wanting to take a second job in a game.
Cause that isnt what I, and others like myself, equate to being fun.
As far as your contention about sandboxes doing on par with themeparks....wrong skippy. The best selling sandbox still hasnt topped the NA subs EQ1 had in its hey-day(450k like 5 yrs ago). That isnt even taking into account the numerous new additions to the genre. Sandbox is niche.
So keep up with your stereo-typical insults. That is about all you bitter folks have....cause you sure dont have AAA publishers breaking down the doors trying to cater to you folks.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
You prove there isn't. You can't, just as you say I can't (and yes, I don't have petitions so I can't, lol). That said, I'm not suggesting ALL developers make your type of game. I'm saying it would be nice to have al ittle more modern day made variety out there. If just ONE game was made and it flopped, then I'd have no issue saying to you and yours that you're right. I doubt I'd get the same response if one were made and it held 500,000 subscriptions, putting it ahead of most reported P2P games except LOTRO and WoW. And that sub total would make it just as profitable or moreso in certain situations.
Never understood why some folks have to have every single MMO that comes out made in their own preferred playstyle and jump at every chance to shout down people who express interest in wanting something different.
I don't have to, I'm not the one claiming that there are all these people. You are. Therefore the burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders. Certainly, if you can't back up your claims, there's no reason for developers to take you at all seriously.
Would it be nice to have more variety? Sure. But MMOs are a business, they exist to make money. Therefore in order to have the kind of variety you want to see, they have to know that there is a ready-made market for the game you're asking them to spend millions of dollars and years of their lives on. If you can't produce that, then why should they take you seriously?
Come on, a little common sense here would be nice.
Oh, the lack of common sense here isn't on my part, most certainly. One only has to look at the latest themepark offerings to see that. Neither do I care to argue for arguement's sake or just to "be right". Having worked a few years in workforce management and having a wife who does forecasting amongst other things for a global consulting firm (and who is an MMO gamer) it's very easy to see that there is a market, a sizeable one at that, for virtual world/sandbox gamers. Enough so for at least one company to give it a good effort and reap the rewards, which would be no less than what themeparks (sans WoW or maybe LOTRO) are making.
There are just some of you who can't stand to see one of those games happen for whatever irrational reason and so argue, again, for argument's sake.
Methinks you have that the other way around.
I see you....yes specifically you...and numerous others wailing all the time about "wah we want a sandbox". About how much lesser a person is(be it e-peen, mental capacity, or whatever whimsical muttering you come up with next).
I equate a lot of you to a nerd's nerd. The type we picked on back in school. Home playing DnD on weekends while the rest of us were out doing our thing. The 4 plus yrs of whining over SWG was the very epitome of just how twisted a few of ya are.
It is you, the sandbox lot, that are the problem around these brds. Always complaining that you arent the target demographic. Yet when they do make games that cater to your fancy, you dont back them(this is read Darkfall/Ryzom/etc).
It really is a shame we are forced to see thread after thread of the same BS around these parts. All due to people like you.
For the DnD bunch, virtual realities/second jobs may be the cats meow. For the rest of us though it is akin to cat pizz.
EQ was as much of a "sandbox" as any of these MMOs need to be. When you take it further, you venture into Koster territory. Where is he now by the way? Oh thats right, he tuck tail and ran from the MMO market.
You are the minority. Support games intended for you or dont. Whatever you do, it would be nice if we could quit hearing the complaints about folks not wanting to take a second job in a game.
Cause that isnt what I, and others like myself, equate to being fun.
As far as your contention about sandboxes doing on par with themeparks....wrong skippy. The best selling sandbox still hasnt topped the NA subs EQ1 had in its hey-day(450k like 5 yrs ago). That isnt even taking into account the numerous new additions to the genre. Sandbox is niche.
So keep up with your stereo-typical insults. That is about all you bitter folks have....cause you sure dont have AAA publishers breaking down the doors trying to cater to you folks.
Oddly, that's all I'm hearing from YOU.
I Agree with Kal.....it's amazing how much the thought of a different kind of game hurts you people...or scares you, maybe.
Maybe you're afraid that if a decent virtual world title was made, and was a hit, that you'd be looking at 5 years of clones....
...in other words, you're afraid the coin will flip.
Wouldn't that be such a shame?
In closing....because this really is just argument for argument's sake, as has been also stated here.....you people have a nice selection of instant gratification click-fests to play. GO play one, and let us have some games for us, eh??
I have to agree with those who've said that a perfect MMO will never exist, everyone is different. What the OP might not see as a true virtual world some of us are happy with.
People have to ultimately remember that a developer does not care about a singular person complaining about their games, they only care that they have a solid, stable player base who are willing to follow them constantly.
I do agree that many MMO's are becoming dumbed down, but hey that is the market they focus on the game being a re-occurring experience, their best marketing is to get the majority of players in through accessibility rather than challenge (I don't agree with it, but it's true).
Please check out my journalistic work here. Thanks
Think it would be best to extrapolate on that "huge difference" too to show that the AoC and WAR were made by AAA comapnies where Darkfall and Mortal are not. Huge difference in the amount of money thrown at those games based on developer type. The amount of money spent on a title does affect the interest in the title.
And again, as I've said above. if a AAA effort was poured into a virtual world title. granting it all the pomp and circumstance given to themeparks, well, I believe it would do no worse than an AoC or a WAR and would have a reasonable shot at mirroring the success of an LOTRO. We'll never know, though, until one is actually made. And as someone else pointed out we haven't had one since 2003...7 years ago. I'm sure the genre could handle just 1 virtual world in comparison to how many TP/"just a game" MMOs that have shipped in the last 7 years.
You're reinforcing my point here.
A truly great sandbox/virtual world (such as EVE) is only capable of garnering comparable subscription numbers to a mediocre themepark (such as AoC). Developers know this. Financial backers know this. While I don't defend the undercurrent of greed, it would be naive to deny its existence or its impact on future releases.
There's a tendancy amongst the sandbox crowd to selctively ignore that SWG was losing subs (by the thousand) BEFORE it was themeparkised. The Sandbox model was failing. Asking a AAA developer to toss tons of time and money at a historically unsuccessful model with the small hope of a moderate success?
I just don't see developers being willing to take that risk.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Think it would be best to extrapolate on that "huge difference" too to show that the AoC and WAR were made by AAA comapnies where Darkfall and Mortal are not. Huge difference in the amount of money thrown at those games based on developer type. The amount of money spent on a title does affect the interest in the title.
And again, as I've said above. if a AAA effort was poured into a virtual world title. granting it all the pomp and circumstance given to themeparks, well, I believe it would do no worse than an AoC or a WAR and would have a reasonable shot at mirroring the success of an LOTRO. We'll never know, though, until one is actually made. And as someone else pointed out we haven't had one since 2003...7 years ago. I'm sure the genre could handle just 1 virtual world in comparison to how many TP/"just a game" MMOs that have shipped in the last 7 years.
You're reinforcing my point here.
A truly great sandbox/virtual world (such as EVE) is only capable of garnering comparable subscription numbers to a mediocre themepark (such as AoC). Developers know this. Financial backers know this. While I don't defend the undercurrent of greed, it would be naive to deny its existence or its impact on future releases.
There's a tendancy amongst the sandbox crowd to selctively ignore that SWG was losing subs (by the thousand) BEFORE it was themeparkised. The Sandbox model was failing. Asking a AAA developer to toss tons of time and money at a historically unsuccessful model with the small hope of a moderate success?
I just don't see developers being willing to take that risk.
By that same line of thought, though, even the AAA themeparks that are being cranked out aren't measuring up. If we were to go with this line, only WoW and maybe LOTRO (last I heard around 750K, don't hold me to that number though) are the only ones that are. Yet that "type" of game is still being cranked out in monopoly fashion. Makes no sense to me. After this many games not meeting that standard of I were a financial backer I'd wonder a little about this method of making MMOs. Eve is good, sure, but it wasn't made by a AAA company (at the time) and it was made, what 6 or 7 years ago? Add to that it it doesn't give the player a humaoid avatar which turns off many folks regardless of themepark or sandbox preference.
There also, I believe, a tendency of anti-sandbox folks to exaggerate that number, which is a number they don't know exactly in the first. Sure, some dev comes out and throws out a number. Personally I don't believe the guy as SOE didn't give out server populations in the first place. Now, when an inquisitor-like spotlike is shining hot down on him he throws out a number to try to get the heat off him and make himself not look as bad? Yeah, not buying it myself.
It's also easy for the anti-sandbox crowd to leave out or dismiss completely the buggy state the game was in and the fact that the dev team spent more time trying to figure out how to change it into a themepark than trying to acutally iron out those bugs and build upon the established systems.
There are plenty of examples of modern day themepark failures. I'm sure defenders of this style would be quick to point out they are buggy and whatnot. Well, same goes for SWG. All things considered, I agree: making an MMO is a risk. The market, though isn't at such a state to where how MMOs are made must fall to a monopoly, a rigid homogeny.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
You prove there isn't. You can't, just as you say I can't (and yes, I don't have petitions so I can't, lol). That said, I'm not suggesting ALL developers make your type of game. I'm saying it would be nice to have al ittle more modern day made variety out there. If just ONE game was made and it flopped, then I'd have no issue saying to you and yours that you're right. I doubt I'd get the same response if one were made and it held 500,000 subscriptions, putting it ahead of most reported P2P games except LOTRO and WoW. And that sub total would make it just as profitable or moreso in certain situations.
Never understood why some folks have to have every single MMO that comes out made in their own preferred playstyle and jump at every chance to shout down people who express interest in wanting something different.
I don't have to, I'm not the one claiming that there are all these people. You are. Therefore the burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders. Certainly, if you can't back up your claims, there's no reason for developers to take you at all seriously.
Would it be nice to have more variety? Sure. But MMOs are a business, they exist to make money. Therefore in order to have the kind of variety you want to see, they have to know that there is a ready-made market for the game you're asking them to spend millions of dollars and years of their lives on. If you can't produce that, then why should they take you seriously?
Come on, a little common sense here would be nice.
Oh, the lack of common sense here isn't on my part, most certainly. One only has to look at the latest themepark offerings to see that. Neither do I care to argue for arguement's sake or just to "be right". Having worked a few years in workforce management and having a wife who does forecasting amongst other things for a global consulting firm (and who is an MMO gamer) it's very easy to see that there is a market, a sizeable one at that, for virtual world/sandbox gamers. Enough so for at least one company to give it a good effort and reap the rewards, which would be no less than what themeparks (sans WoW or maybe LOTRO) are making.
There are just some of you who can't stand to see one of those games happen for whatever irrational reason and so argue, again, for argument's sake.
Methinks you have that the other way around.
I see you....yes specifically you...and numerous others wailing all the time about "wah we want a sandbox". About how much lesser a person is(be it e-peen, mental capacity, or whatever whimsical muttering you come up with next).
I equate a lot of you to a nerd's nerd. The type we picked on back in school. Home playing DnD on weekends while the rest of us were out doing our thing. The 4 plus yrs of whining over SWG was the very epitome of just how twisted a few of ya are.
It is you, the sandbox lot, that are the problem around these brds. Always complaining that you arent the target demographic. Yet when they do make games that cater to your fancy, you dont back them(this is read Darkfall/Ryzom/etc).
It really is a shame we are forced to see thread after thread of the same BS around these parts. All due to people like you.
For the DnD bunch, virtual realities/second jobs may be the cats meow. For the rest of us though it is akin to cat pizz.
EQ was as much of a "sandbox" as any of these MMOs need to be. When you take it further, you venture into Koster territory. Where is he now by the way? Oh thats right, he tuck tail and ran from the MMO market.
You are the minority. Support games intended for you or dont. Whatever you do, it would be nice if we could quit hearing the complaints about folks not wanting to take a second job in a game.
Cause that isnt what I, and others like myself, equate to being fun.
As far as your contention about sandboxes doing on par with themeparks....wrong skippy. The best selling sandbox still hasnt topped the NA subs EQ1 had in its hey-day(450k like 5 yrs ago). That isnt even taking into account the numerous new additions to the genre. Sandbox is niche.
So keep up with your stereo-typical insults. That is about all you bitter folks have....cause you sure dont have AAA publishers breaking down the doors trying to cater to you folks.
You haven's seen me say anything to the point of how much lesser a person is on this forum. That is a flat out lie. Matter of fact making derogatory comments is more your avenue of approach, if memeory and a long, easy to access forum history serves me right.
Yep, played DnD in highschool, also lettered in baseball as well. Didn't get picked on in high school but hey, if you don't want to believe that, I'm not hard to find.
Speaking of Koster, that was one heck of a "I just peed my pants" rant you gave to him...or should I say at him. I'm really sure you got your poin...wait, of course there was no point. Heck, everyone needs a good cry I suppose. Lots of belly-aching. You have alot of pain inside, don't ya? Just tearing you up.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
By that same line of thought, though, even the AAA themeparks that are being cranked out aren't measuring up. If we were to go with this line, only WoW and maybe LOTRO (last I heard around 750K, don't hold me to that number though) are the only ones that are. Yet that "type" of game is still being cranked out in monopoly fashion. Makes no sense to me. After this many games not meeting that standard of I were a financial backer I'd wonder a little about this method of making MMOs. Eve is good, sure, but it wasn't made by a AAA company (at the time) and it was made, what 6 or 7 years ago? Add to that it it doesn't give the player a humaoid avatar which turns off many folks regardless of themepark or sandbox preference.
There also, I believe, a tendency of anti-sandbox folks to exaggerate that number, which is a number they don't know exactly in the first. Sure, some dev comes out and throws out a number. Personally I don't believe the guy as SOE didn't give out server populations in the first place. Now, when an inquisitor-like spotlike is shining hot down on him he throws out a number to try to get the heat off him and make himself not look as bad? Yeah, not buying it myself.
It's also easy for the anti-sandbox crowd to leave out or dismiss completely the buggy state the game was in and the fact that the dev team spent more time trying to figure out how to change it into a themepark than trying to acutally iron out those bugs and build upon the established systems.
There are plenty of examples of modern day themepark failures. I'm sure defenders of this style would be quick to point out they are buggy and whatnot. Well, same goes for SWG. All things considered, I agree: making an MMO is a risk. The market, though isn't at such a state to where how MMOs are made must fall to a monopoly, a rigid homogeny.
LOTRO's closer to 300k, I thought. Haven't seen sub numbers for a while. I believe Aion has a couple of million subs, mostly in Asia. It's probably 2nd in popularity after WoW now.
Most of the recent themepark games haven't failed in concept; they've failed in execution. AoC was a buggy mess with high system requirements and lacklustre gameplay at launch. Vanguard was the same. WAR's concept was hybridized RvR and PvE, similar to DAoC but neither aspects were executed well enough for the game to succeed.
Regarding SWG; Smedley's quote was:
"There's a reason that we did this. The story … is kind of getting lost here…the game was losing subscribers. We had to make this game more accessible to a wider audience or eventually we would not have a business"
Now, you can say that you don't believe the guy .. but in the absence of evidence to prove that his statement is incorect, he is the guy who is in the best position to be considered credible.
If not to the players, certainly to the developers/financiers.
And those are the people who have the control.
I played SWG for several years and I don't remember it as being particularly bug-infested. No more so than other games that did not fail. The game world was largely empty and lacking in direction, but isn't that what Sandbox worlds are all about?
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Eve online, Saga of Ryzom, Darkfall, Fallen Earth, Wurm, Ultima Online, AC1, Mortal Online, Earthrise, Cog, Mabinogi, runescape, Xsyon, DT, Istaria... and more
Think it would be best to extrapolate on that "huge difference" too to show that the AoC and WAR were made by AAA comapnies where Darkfall and Mortal are not. Huge difference in the amount of money thrown at those games based on developer type. The amount of money spent on a title does affect the interest in the title.
And again, as I've said above. if a AAA effort was poured into a virtual world title. granting it all the pomp and circumstance given to themeparks, well, I believe it would do no worse than an AoC or a WAR and would have a reasonable shot at mirroring the success of an LOTRO. We'll never know, though, until one is actually made. And as someone else pointed out we haven't had one since 2003...7 years ago. I'm sure the genre could handle just 1 virtual world in comparison to how many TP/"just a game" MMOs that have shipped in the last 7 years.
You're reinforcing my point here.
A truly great sandbox/virtual world (such as EVE) is only capable of garnering comparable subscription numbers to a mediocre themepark (such as AoC). Developers know this. Financial backers know this. While I don't defend the undercurrent of greed, it would be naive to deny its existence or its impact on future releases.
There's a tendancy amongst the sandbox crowd to selctively ignore that SWG was losing subs (by the thousand) BEFORE it was themeparkised. The Sandbox model was failing. Asking a AAA developer to toss tons of time and money at a historically unsuccessful model with the small hope of a moderate success?
I just don't see developers being willing to take that risk.
You don't get it.. Whether or not a game is successful or not is 80% based on adveritising/popularity, not game design. Look at fucking Runescape, it's a sand-box, has horrible graphics, is click to move, used to have looting PvP area, has grind instead of quests for xp, etc. yet it's one of the most successful MMOs with nearly 2mil paying subs(and then there's all the free players). Not because it's a great game, it's successful simply because everyone knows about it.
Look at today's music scene.. All the bad music is popular and on the radio, all the good music is underground.
You don't get it.. Whether or not a game is successful or not is 80% based on adveritising/popularity, not game design. Look at fucking Runescape, it's a sand-box, has horrible graphics, is click to move, used to have looting PvP area, has grind instead of quests for xp, etc. yet it's one of the most successful MMOs with nearly 2mil paying subs(and then there's all the free players). Not because it's a great game, it's successful simply because everyone knows about it.
A game is 100% successful based on popularity because popularity (within the target audience) is the measure of a games success. Advertisting only galvanises people to try a game out. It doesn't make people remain subscribed to a game.
Only consistent quality and value for money does that.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Look at today's music scene.. All the bad music is popular and on the radio, all the good music is underground.
I love the wild-eyed subjectivity of this statement, it reveals a lot about this kind of thinking. The reason music is on the radio is because it is popular and the reason it is popular is because MOST PEOPLE LIKE IT! Therefore, according to the majority of music listeners, that music is *GOOD*!
According to the majority, the music this poster likes is *BAD*!
What we see here is an example of why these kinds of arguments fail. The poster assumes that their minority position is superior, simply because they hold it and because their own position is so superior, everyone else ought to hold it too.
Comments
nariusseldon
You will never understand.
Ive been reading similar threads all over the internet. There was never such a huge demand for a "virtual world" like these days.
We are witnessing a history backslash of our genre right now, cant you see it?
The reason for instancing is cost reduction. Do your homework.
And as I said, if you post in a public forum, your posts are open for *ANYONE* to respond to, no matter who you quote. Don't like that? Send a private message. It's easy.
I agree with you, I even made the same observations in another post that these games are old, tired and empty or the developers freaked out and tried to compensate when their populations dropped like a rock because everyone went to other games. No subscribers means no impetus to keep up the game, release new expansions, provide good customer service, etc. It happens all the time and it kills games. I pointed out a similar thing when FailCom pulled all their best and brightest off of Anarchy Online to work on AoC. The only game they had that was making them any money went into the toilet as all the best people and servers were repurposed and when AoC sucked donkey balls, they were faced with two failing games. That's not at all surprising.
BTW: none of the games you listed were made by companies simply fro the joy of the craft. You're fooling yourself if you think that for a second. Every single one of them was made by programmers who wanted a paycheck. What you fail to recognize is that the majority of those games were pioneers in an untested field. Doom was the first breakout FPS. UO was the first breakout MMO. Where they succeeded was because nobody had ever really done it before. Where they failed was, again, because nobody had ever really done it before and the games that came after learned from the mistakes made by those pioneers. New games are superior because they had the old games to learn their lessons from.
What you fail to realize is that at the time of UO, they *WERE* aiming for the widest possible audience, that audience just had a much different makeup than the modern-day MMO marketplace. They aimed at the geek market who had lots of time on their hands because those were the people most likely to have fast enough computers and an Internet connection. That was their target audience. Today, that's not the case. Virtually everyone has fast computers and broadband access. Therefore, the aim of just about every game out there is the mainstream gamer, that's where the money is.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
The reason for instanced dungeons is BETTER GAMEPLAY!!! FACT! There is NOTHING in a an EQ or DAOC that comes close to what occurs in dungeons in WOW. If you haven't personally witnesses all of it. Go look at some videos. EQ and DAOC was all/mostly tank and spank. Not so in WOW. Instanced dungeons allow for much more varied, scripted and dynamic gameplay and bosses. You just can't do that in an open world dungeons where other player can just join in any time. The scrips would all fall apart. Thats why those old bosses were all tank and spank. Cost reduction has nothing to do with it. Its about creating a better dungeon experience, since I don't know whats all that immersive about an amazing dungeon packed with people camping spawns all day long and chatting. Shared dungeons like in WAR worked out well, but you need instancing. No one will go back to the old EQ/DAOC way of doing things. Its just not fun.
Instanced outdoor areas on the other hand is another story. Even with the best servers in the world, when enough players get in one spot the game is unplayable. You have to find ways to split them up and instancing is the only way, OR insane travel times to keep people separated as much as possible. I personally don't like the AOC, DDO, way of world structure. Too phoney. But certain types of dungeons need to be instanced in order to expand & advance gameplay. Other players kill stealing isn't dynamic. Its just annoying and pointless and NOT fun once you get over the initial cool factor of knowing you screwed up someone's day.
Imagination is subjective. It means it is related to the subject, to the individual.
"Virtual World" is objective, the same for everyone.
Each and every players' imagination is bound by ONE OBJECTIVE SET OF design decisions and game mechanics. Thats why.
In other words, you're happy with your delusion, don't confuse you with the facts. Okay, sure, there are billions of players who want exactly what you claim they want. Let us all know when any AAA developer gives you the game you apparently so richly deserve.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
No, I just realized the futility of arguing with an arrogance such that it blinds with a magnificent light. Why the fact that there are enough players out there who want this type of experience hurts you so I'll never know. As far as facts go I've heard nothing from you but your opinion which is there are only a few thousand people that want this experience. I don't agree and that's that. No harm, no foul.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Your so called "better gameplay" is your subjective opinion regarding certain design decisions and game mechanics.
Subjective.
Nowadays, because of these so called "better gameplay" people have no freedom, only linearity.
Because these so called "better gameplay" games focus on combat. Everyone has to follow the developers scripted path.
"Everyone is a hero mechanics."
To me, "better gameplay" was when there was great rewards achievable only by a few. And why a few? Because only a few were skilled enough, only a few would spend the required time and effort, only a few were inteligent enough, only a few were organized enough. There was the time when players behind the characters mattered. Nowadays, they dont.
That was the "better gameplay". In fact, the "GOLDEN ERA OF THE GAMEPLAY" was when individual traits of players mattered. Nowadays, in games, every player is like a generic industrialized product, another prisoner wearing an orange suit, in shackles.
Nowadays, because of your "better gameplay" everyone is deemed equal, "fair and balanced", little or no effort, and when a certain effort is needed, its effort and rewards are limited by caps.
And no sir, that was just the excuse game companies used to introduce instancing and all its economic advantages while still benefitting from the marketing slogan of "MMORPG". They didnt changed it to please the players. And if you insist, search for the history of how Guild Wars came to be. "Free" at the cost of "Instancing". It has nothing to do with "Oh, it took me 3 days competing for a boss that rarely drops an item I need" People love this. Gaming psychology.
The bottom line is that games used to be focused on challening a person...
Now, they're based on entertaining a person. (yes I know entertainment is NES's middle name) But the bottom line is that with video games making such HUGE profits, of course they're going to try to appeal to a broader audience by making everything easier and more instant.
Methinks you have that the other way around.
I see you....yes specifically you...and numerous others wailing all the time about "wah we want a sandbox". About how much lesser a person is(be it e-peen, mental capacity, or whatever whimsical muttering you come up with next).
I equate a lot of you to a nerd's nerd. The type we picked on back in school. Home playing DnD on weekends while the rest of us were out doing our thing. The 4 plus yrs of whining over SWG was the very epitome of just how twisted a few of ya are.
It is you, the sandbox lot, that are the problem around these brds. Always complaining that you arent the target demographic. Yet when they do make games that cater to your fancy, you dont back them(this is read Darkfall/Ryzom/etc).
It really is a shame we are forced to see thread after thread of the same BS around these parts. All due to people like you.
For the DnD bunch, virtual realities/second jobs may be the cats meow. For the rest of us though it is akin to cat pizz.
EQ was as much of a "sandbox" as any of these MMOs need to be. When you take it further, you venture into Koster territory. Where is he now by the way? Oh thats right, he tuck tail and ran from the MMO market.
You are the minority. Support games intended for you or dont. Whatever you do, it would be nice if we could quit hearing the complaints about folks not wanting to take a second job in a game.
Cause that isnt what I, and others like myself, equate to being fun.
As far as your contention about sandboxes doing on par with themeparks....wrong skippy. The best selling sandbox still hasnt topped the NA subs EQ1 had in its hey-day(450k like 5 yrs ago). That isnt even taking into account the numerous new additions to the genre. Sandbox is niche.
So keep up with your stereo-typical insults. That is about all you bitter folks have....cause you sure dont have AAA publishers breaking down the doors trying to cater to you folks.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Oddly, that's all I'm hearing from YOU.
I Agree with Kal.....it's amazing how much the thought of a different kind of game hurts you people...or scares you, maybe.
Maybe you're afraid that if a decent virtual world title was made, and was a hit, that you'd be looking at 5 years of clones....
...in other words, you're afraid the coin will flip.
Wouldn't that be such a shame?
In closing....because this really is just argument for argument's sake, as has been also stated here.....you people have a nice selection of instant gratification click-fests to play. GO play one, and let us have some games for us, eh??
I have to agree with those who've said that a perfect MMO will never exist, everyone is different. What the OP might not see as a true virtual world some of us are happy with.
People have to ultimately remember that a developer does not care about a singular person complaining about their games, they only care that they have a solid, stable player base who are willing to follow them constantly.
I do agree that many MMO's are becoming dumbed down, but hey that is the market they focus on the game being a re-occurring experience, their best marketing is to get the majority of players in through accessibility rather than challenge (I don't agree with it, but it's true).
Please check out my journalistic work here. Thanks
You're reinforcing my point here.
A truly great sandbox/virtual world (such as EVE) is only capable of garnering comparable subscription numbers to a mediocre themepark (such as AoC). Developers know this. Financial backers know this. While I don't defend the undercurrent of greed, it would be naive to deny its existence or its impact on future releases.
There's a tendancy amongst the sandbox crowd to selctively ignore that SWG was losing subs (by the thousand) BEFORE it was themeparkised. The Sandbox model was failing. Asking a AAA developer to toss tons of time and money at a historically unsuccessful model with the small hope of a moderate success?
I just don't see developers being willing to take that risk.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
No, I can't.
Anecdotal evidence is less convincing than cold, hard numbers.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
By that same line of thought, though, even the AAA themeparks that are being cranked out aren't measuring up. If we were to go with this line, only WoW and maybe LOTRO (last I heard around 750K, don't hold me to that number though) are the only ones that are. Yet that "type" of game is still being cranked out in monopoly fashion. Makes no sense to me. After this many games not meeting that standard of I were a financial backer I'd wonder a little about this method of making MMOs. Eve is good, sure, but it wasn't made by a AAA company (at the time) and it was made, what 6 or 7 years ago? Add to that it it doesn't give the player a humaoid avatar which turns off many folks regardless of themepark or sandbox preference.
There also, I believe, a tendency of anti-sandbox folks to exaggerate that number, which is a number they don't know exactly in the first. Sure, some dev comes out and throws out a number. Personally I don't believe the guy as SOE didn't give out server populations in the first place. Now, when an inquisitor-like spotlike is shining hot down on him he throws out a number to try to get the heat off him and make himself not look as bad? Yeah, not buying it myself.
It's also easy for the anti-sandbox crowd to leave out or dismiss completely the buggy state the game was in and the fact that the dev team spent more time trying to figure out how to change it into a themepark than trying to acutally iron out those bugs and build upon the established systems.
There are plenty of examples of modern day themepark failures. I'm sure defenders of this style would be quick to point out they are buggy and whatnot. Well, same goes for SWG. All things considered, I agree: making an MMO is a risk. The market, though isn't at such a state to where how MMOs are made must fall to a monopoly, a rigid homogeny.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
You haven's seen me say anything to the point of how much lesser a person is on this forum. That is a flat out lie. Matter of fact making derogatory comments is more your avenue of approach, if memeory and a long, easy to access forum history serves me right.
Yep, played DnD in highschool, also lettered in baseball as well. Didn't get picked on in high school but hey, if you don't want to believe that, I'm not hard to find.
Speaking of Koster, that was one heck of a "I just peed my pants" rant you gave to him...or should I say at him. I'm really sure you got your poin...wait, of course there was no point. Heck, everyone needs a good cry I suppose. Lots of belly-aching. You have alot of pain inside, don't ya? Just tearing you up.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
LOTRO's closer to 300k, I thought. Haven't seen sub numbers for a while. I believe Aion has a couple of million subs, mostly in Asia. It's probably 2nd in popularity after WoW now.
Most of the recent themepark games haven't failed in concept; they've failed in execution. AoC was a buggy mess with high system requirements and lacklustre gameplay at launch. Vanguard was the same. WAR's concept was hybridized RvR and PvE, similar to DAoC but neither aspects were executed well enough for the game to succeed.
Regarding SWG; Smedley's quote was:
"There's a reason that we did this. The story … is kind of getting lost here…the game was losing subscribers. We had to make this game more accessible to a wider audience or eventually we would not have a business"
Now, you can say that you don't believe the guy .. but in the absence of evidence to prove that his statement is incorect, he is the guy who is in the best position to be considered credible.
If not to the players, certainly to the developers/financiers.
And those are the people who have the control.
I played SWG for several years and I don't remember it as being particularly bug-infested. No more so than other games that did not fail. The game world was largely empty and lacking in direction, but isn't that what Sandbox worlds are all about?
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Eve online, Saga of Ryzom, Darkfall, Fallen Earth, Wurm, Ultima Online, AC1, Mortal Online, Earthrise, Cog, Mabinogi, runescape, Xsyon, DT, Istaria... and more
^^^ Virtual Worlds.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
You don't get it.. Whether or not a game is successful or not is 80% based on adveritising/popularity, not game design. Look at fucking Runescape, it's a sand-box, has horrible graphics, is click to move, used to have looting PvP area, has grind instead of quests for xp, etc. yet it's one of the most successful MMOs with nearly 2mil paying subs(and then there's all the free players). Not because it's a great game, it's successful simply because everyone knows about it.
Look at today's music scene.. All the bad music is popular and on the radio, all the good music is underground.
A game is 100% successful based on popularity because popularity (within the target audience) is the measure of a games success. Advertisting only galvanises people to try a game out. It doesn't make people remain subscribed to a game.
Only consistent quality and value for money does that.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
I love the wild-eyed subjectivity of this statement, it reveals a lot about this kind of thinking. The reason music is on the radio is because it is popular and the reason it is popular is because MOST PEOPLE LIKE IT! Therefore, according to the majority of music listeners, that music is *GOOD*!
According to the majority, the music this poster likes is *BAD*!
What we see here is an example of why these kinds of arguments fail. The poster assumes that their minority position is superior, simply because they hold it and because their own position is so superior, everyone else ought to hold it too.
Doesn't work that way in the real world.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Video games worlds arent and never were real to begin with, no matter how hard the virtual wind blows.
They've been dead since 2004.
The only games to try to make a virtual world since then is Vanguard (they made an AMAZING world) and Darkfall.
Hopefully we'll see more some day before the WoW/Farmvile/SWTOR mini game linear instanced trifecta kills the market completely.
WoW crushed SWG
SWG was losing 10,000 subs a month.
Where were these people going?
WoW.
Same for many other MMOs, but to a lesser extent.
If you loved SWG, I can see why you hate WoW.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren