Skillups by repetative use of a weapon is not an improvement. That is exactly what systems like experience points were created to avoid. There is nothing more grindy than just hitting something over and over to increase your skill with a sword. Levels exist to avoid this problem. Skill trees exist to avoid this problem. Basing your skill simply on how many times you have used something... it pushes the advantage completely towards players who sink in time. It is the exact opposite of "work smarter, not harder', which is the direction that MMOs are and should be going. We need smarter systems, not harder ones.
Important facts: 1. Free to Play games are poorly made. 2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals. 3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE. 4. Community is more important than you think.
I have to agree with this article....I play pwi...I've tried most of their games and they didn't keep up the the orig. Perfect world and forsaken world...is a joke if you ask me
Don't you think on some level though, class restrictions are in place to gently try and "force" at least a modicum of co-operative play and interaction with other players rather than allow a jack of all trades able to sit and do everything by themselves.
----- Pay-to-Win / F2P will be the death of real gaming, Boycott it !!
Its sad to see that after five and a half years, nothing has changed in the world of MMORPG's. a few games have come and gone, players rant and rave about wow killers, and wow clones. And no developer seems to want to break the mold and advance the genre. They still seem content to sit there in their shells and churn out the same style of game over and over. Sure there ahve been little tweaks here and there, but really has anything changed?
not really. actually, considering that 5.5 years in this market is like an age, the situation looks quite bleak.
but according to the article you don't have to invent too much
- char customization as in SWG, today maybe more like Eve
- crafting like swg classics
- housing like swg classics
- skill system like swg c or even more free
- combat like neocron, today let's say more like m&b for fantasy/medievalish games
he actually wants a more action-oriented combat system where char skill AND player skill counts. this is at least a technological challenge (maybe just a small one) since you need a good design and a low-latency-connection. and thus it creates a tendency to small instances for few players (to the level of common fps titles) and away from open world design (we saw that trend in the flawed siege warefare of AoC). but i am sure there is a design which can be action packed and realistic but doesn't require twitch skills in the <1second range
- and he wants a more dynamic quest system. that's actually the only innovation he demands. and it still is not seen up to today.
would that be a great game? to me that's probably a yes. to all of us? no. in the end it depends heavily on the mix.
to me most important is a fluent combat, i shy away from all new titles since i played AoC, because they all feel *yawn*, and the second thing is the *more dynamic * quest engine embedded in a dynamic world. i can live with class systems allthough i prefer profession- or skill-based systems. i can live with simple crafting allthough i prefer rich crafting. oh and i can barely live with item-centric games, allthough i really hate the gear-mania which came up since wow.
not really. actually, considering that 5.5 years in this market is like an age, the situation looks quite bleak.
but according to the article you don't have to invent too much
- char customization as in SWG, today maybe more like Eve
- crafting like swg classics
- housing like swg classics
- skill system like swg c or even more free
- combat like neocron, today let's say more like m&b for fantasy/medievalish games
he actually wants a more action-oriented combat system where char skill AND player skill counts. this is at least a technological challenge (maybe just a small one) since you need a good design and a low-latency-connection. and thus it creates a tendency to small instances for few players (to the level of common fps titles) and away from open world design (we saw that trend in the flawed siege warefare of AoC). but i am sure there is a design which can be action packed and realistic but doesn't require twitch skills in the <1second range
- and he wants a more dynamic quest system. that's actually the only innovation he demands. and it still is not seen up to today.
would that be a great game? to me that's probably a yes. to all of us? no. in the end it depends heavily on the mix.
to me most important is a fluent combat, i shy away from all new titles since i played AoC, because they all feel *yawn*, and the second thing is the *more dynamic * quest engine embedded in a dynamic world. i can live with class systems allthough i prefer profession- or skill-based systems. i can live with simple crafting allthough i prefer rich crafting. oh and i can barely live with item-centric games, allthough i really hate the gear-mania which came up since wow.
(sorry the second post, for some reason it broke up after the quote)
From the sounds of things, the MMORPGs everybody wants now fall under the Open-world/Sandbox category. Or, in other words, instead of more WoWs we want more UOs (Ultima Online). I agree, a new Ultima Online would be the most awesome thing to happen to the genre. Sadly, those aren't exactly the easiest MMORPGs to develop, most likely because the style hasn't been prodded enough to be determined successful for MMORPGs. Ironically, you may say games like UO helped make the MMORPG genre potentially successful using a P2P system (and soon I predict they will all be heading towards F2P), people looked towards the way Everquest did things because it was a competitor at the time, and it was percieved to be more addicting/fun/clingy than UO.
Ever since Everquest, the linear progression system used in many MMORPGs today, including WoW, has dominated because it was predictable. P2P subscription systems have determined that players who played over the course of months during their subscription would grant more profit and maintenence fees for workers, servers, and content for the developing company of an MMORPG. And adding to the potential cost to resources and time to develop an MMORPG (and it gets very, very expensive), most companies will want a guaranteed return on this investment and thus need to lower the unpredictability of the result. To do that, you develop a game that uses what people have grown accustomed to (why change what isn't broke?), design the progression in the game so that it takes a considerable amount of time to reach the end, but interesting enough to keep a player playing, and finally the hooks that can potentially keep most players around even after seeing the current "end game" content (usually PvP is effective for this). The Linear Progressive formula seen in Everquest, WoW, and dozens of other MMORPGs is considered the most viable, mainly because of WoW's big success.
Personally, I believe you can't actually dethrone the "king" by imitating him. If I were to design an MMORPG I would go in a different direction. My marketing goal is to pick up the players who fall through the cracks and can't get into games like WoW, as those players desire a different gaming experience. That population should be large enough to compensate for the expenses of the game development in the long run. However, things will get a lot cheaper once we can get some 3rd party MMORPG engines out there, as those will cut down the game development time by tons. Until then, it is still like joining the Yacth club and buying a boat all in one sitting.
The problem with a couple of these points are they require a lot of work for little payback.
Maybe some people spend an hour getting their char looking just right, but that's still just one hour out of the hundreds you'll play. Add to that that armor will change the look significantly, that one elf ear looks like another at a distance and that not everyone will spend an hour then it starts to not be worth it in terms time creating art assets, having highly customisable nose lengths etc.
Player housing is another time sink for devs. How often does the majority of players chill in their crib? Most worlds will be filled with housing anyway so why not just claim something there if this is for RP purposes. Housing should only be a feature if it is part of gameplay, e.g. AoC cities.
Cursor targetting in combat just doesn't work well enough unless the MMO is very FPS-like. Also witness the success of Planetside, Roma Victor & Earthrise to see what twitch MMOs can do. Maybe those games just suck anyway but I'd rather be pressing hotkeys with some reaction based skills, e.g. on Parry/Block/Evade skills.
Crafting I agree on. Very few games get this right.
Quests - a random generator will cause more boredom, not less. The WoW quest revamp has shown how quests can start to be fun again. That requires a hell of a lot of work by quest writers and scripters but that is the content that players consume. More meaningful quests that work towards the completion or destruction of some in game structure would be fun but need to be repeatable by the next player. The Public Quest system in WAR was a step in the right direction but did feel grindy and artificial with repetition.
Based on his preferences, I think the writer should play... Fallen Earth
Comments
Skillups by repetative use of a weapon is not an improvement. That is exactly what systems like experience points were created to avoid. There is nothing more grindy than just hitting something over and over to increase your skill with a sword. Levels exist to avoid this problem. Skill trees exist to avoid this problem. Basing your skill simply on how many times you have used something... it pushes the advantage completely towards players who sink in time. It is the exact opposite of "work smarter, not harder', which is the direction that MMOs are and should be going. We need smarter systems, not harder ones.
Important facts:
1. Free to Play games are poorly made.
2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals.
3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE.
4. Community is more important than you think.
I think someone needs to create the proper toolsets needed by visual people to create games affordably, then we'll see a real change.
Godspeed my fellow gamer
I have to agree with this article....I play pwi...I've tried most of their games and they didn't keep up the the orig. Perfect world and forsaken world...is a joke if you ask me
Don't you think on some level though, class restrictions are in place to gently try and "force" at least a modicum of co-operative play and interaction with other players rather than allow a jack of all trades able to sit and do everything by themselves.
-----
Pay-to-Win / F2P will be the death of real gaming, Boycott it !!
not really. actually, considering that 5.5 years in this market is like an age, the situation looks quite bleak.
but according to the article you don't have to invent too much
- char customization as in SWG, today maybe more like Eve
- crafting like swg classics
- housing like swg classics
- skill system like swg c or even more free
- combat like neocron, today let's say more like m&b for fantasy/medievalish games
he actually wants a more action-oriented combat system where char skill AND player skill counts. this is at least a technological challenge (maybe just a small one) since you need a good design and a low-latency-connection. and thus it creates a tendency to small instances for few players (to the level of common fps titles) and away from open world design (we saw that trend in the flawed siege warefare of AoC). but i am sure there is a design which can be action packed and realistic but doesn't require twitch skills in the <1second range
- and he wants a more dynamic quest system. that's actually the only innovation he demands. and it still is not seen up to today.
would that be a great game? to me that's probably a yes. to all of us? no. in the end it depends heavily on the mix.
to me most important is a fluent combat, i shy away from all new titles since i played AoC, because they all feel *yawn*, and the second thing is the *more dynamic * quest engine embedded in a dynamic world. i can live with class systems allthough i prefer profession- or skill-based systems. i can live with simple crafting allthough i prefer rich crafting. oh and i can barely live with item-centric games, allthough i really hate the gear-mania which came up since wow.
(sorry the second post, for some reason it broke up after the quote)
dammit the forum ate my wall of text :-(
edit: after 10 tries i could fix it, really sorry for multi-posts!!! :-/
From the sounds of things, the MMORPGs everybody wants now fall under the Open-world/Sandbox category. Or, in other words, instead of more WoWs we want more UOs (Ultima Online). I agree, a new Ultima Online would be the most awesome thing to happen to the genre. Sadly, those aren't exactly the easiest MMORPGs to develop, most likely because the style hasn't been prodded enough to be determined successful for MMORPGs. Ironically, you may say games like UO helped make the MMORPG genre potentially successful using a P2P system (and soon I predict they will all be heading towards F2P), people looked towards the way Everquest did things because it was a competitor at the time, and it was percieved to be more addicting/fun/clingy than UO.
Ever since Everquest, the linear progression system used in many MMORPGs today, including WoW, has dominated because it was predictable. P2P subscription systems have determined that players who played over the course of months during their subscription would grant more profit and maintenence fees for workers, servers, and content for the developing company of an MMORPG. And adding to the potential cost to resources and time to develop an MMORPG (and it gets very, very expensive), most companies will want a guaranteed return on this investment and thus need to lower the unpredictability of the result. To do that, you develop a game that uses what people have grown accustomed to (why change what isn't broke?), design the progression in the game so that it takes a considerable amount of time to reach the end, but interesting enough to keep a player playing, and finally the hooks that can potentially keep most players around even after seeing the current "end game" content (usually PvP is effective for this). The Linear Progressive formula seen in Everquest, WoW, and dozens of other MMORPGs is considered the most viable, mainly because of WoW's big success.
Personally, I believe you can't actually dethrone the "king" by imitating him. If I were to design an MMORPG I would go in a different direction. My marketing goal is to pick up the players who fall through the cracks and can't get into games like WoW, as those players desire a different gaming experience. That population should be large enough to compensate for the expenses of the game development in the long run. However, things will get a lot cheaper once we can get some 3rd party MMORPG engines out there, as those will cut down the game development time by tons. Until then, it is still like joining the Yacth club and buying a boat all in one sitting.
The problem with a couple of these points are they require a lot of work for little payback.
Maybe some people spend an hour getting their char looking just right, but that's still just one hour out of the hundreds you'll play. Add to that that armor will change the look significantly, that one elf ear looks like another at a distance and that not everyone will spend an hour then it starts to not be worth it in terms time creating art assets, having highly customisable nose lengths etc.
Player housing is another time sink for devs. How often does the majority of players chill in their crib? Most worlds will be filled with housing anyway so why not just claim something there if this is for RP purposes. Housing should only be a feature if it is part of gameplay, e.g. AoC cities.
Cursor targetting in combat just doesn't work well enough unless the MMO is very FPS-like. Also witness the success of Planetside, Roma Victor & Earthrise to see what twitch MMOs can do. Maybe those games just suck anyway but I'd rather be pressing hotkeys with some reaction based skills, e.g. on Parry/Block/Evade skills.
Crafting I agree on. Very few games get this right.
Quests - a random generator will cause more boredom, not less. The WoW quest revamp has shown how quests can start to be fun again. That requires a hell of a lot of work by quest writers and scripters but that is the content that players consume. More meaningful quests that work towards the completion or destruction of some in game structure would be fun but need to be repeatable by the next player. The Public Quest system in WAR was a step in the right direction but did feel grindy and artificial with repetition.
Based on his preferences, I think the writer should play... Fallen Earth