mmo's are a dying breed. only a few select players truly want a challenge, most just want content to grind through and a carrot on a stick to lead them to the next carrot. This is why EQ wasn't that successful. At least not when comparing vs. WoW's subs. Games like Vanguard, while it had a poor release, is now perhaps the best mmo out and it hasnt had dev attention in well over a year. If all these people that troll on these forums were truly interested in a challenge, Vanguard would be rolling with subs. People just talk, people don't actually want a challenge, they just want to be better than the next guy, and the great thing about games like WoW and Rift, is that it is easy for most of the so called hardcore players to be better because there is a huge gap between those hardcore and the casual "i actually have a job" gamers.
Rift is an OK game, but really it is a shell of a game. It was made well, and supported well, but lets be honest, the devs are doing everything imaginable to make it easier and easier to gain subs from "that other game".
It is sad when a game that is made well, supported by its devs and released in a mostly bug free launch does so well even though it feels like it was designed for school children. I am not trying to bash but lets not kid ourselves..rift is not the game many of us are really looking for, and as soon as the next big thing comes out, Rift will be left in the dust. But yet a game like Vanguard fails, not because it isnt good now, but because it was crapped out like someone had iritable bowl syndrome at launch has so few players. Most of us have played wow, or rift, and yet after playing, some of us still want more, we search for that perfect mmo like a soul surfer searches for the perfect wave... yet even when a great game comes along, we dismiss it for one bad feature out of a hundred that we don't like. Why? MMO's are not built for each of us individually... there will never be 10 billion mmo's to choose from... it is not like going into a shoe store and finding the perfect fit, at least not for those of us to play these games and feel that they are inadequate.
Are they? Or is it that we are so bored with our lives that we try to mimic real life through our games, and we want as close to real life replica to replace that which we fail to achieve in the real world? Think about it, if half the so called hardcore gamers spent as much time focused on real life as they do in game, they would be millionaires, or at least very succussful.
The point is, at the end of the day, we want to live in a fake reality, a dream world that we invent, yet since we cant do this, we jump from one mmo to the next in hope that this is the world we want to live in, to take us away from what we are missing in our real lives. This is why you see so much hatred and game bashing, so many trolls with nothing else to do. This is why you find people playing mmo's on Friday and Saturday nites... because the alternative of going out with friends is just not quite as appealing as jumping into an alternate universe to be that which they cant be. We want to be the hero, to be famous, to be known, to be respected in the only avenue that we feel we can...
...anonymously, on the internet, where we try to make our dreams come true.
Comments
Ah, nevermind, I see that you edited those lines out.
had a few beers, said what i wanted, then after re-reading, decided to clean it up a bit, haha.
Agreed and signed. Vanguard's 2 faction server was in my opinion, the last of the "old school" mmorpgs that involved actual different factions. The game should be revitalized...
I agree with you in many ways. Gaming is a form of escapism, whether the game emulates the real world or not.
EQ was the closest thing to the original text-based MUDs and they were hard in comparison to commercial, graphical MMOs. However, EQ was actually very popular for its time. Sure, it never got the amount of subs WoW did, but EQ released in a very different time for the internet than WoW did.
There are a few games that really did craft a virtual world, but none of them has been as successful as WoW has been, or any of the other mainstream MMOs. Games like Ryzome, SWG, UO, EVE, AO, ATiTD, etc. None of these games did or do as well as games like Rift, WoW, and the like. The most popular for its time was UO.
And why are these games less appealing to most players? I didn't find any of them particularly challenging overall... VG is only slightly more complex than Rift in my view. Most of the challenge in VG seems to come from buginess.
For difficulty, I'd say the hardest PvE environment is in GW1 especially with the Master level quests and some of the missions that are just incredibly hard what with being limited to 8 skills at any time. I guess to have a challenge, a person could solo only elite mobs in WoW or something if they really wanted to, so in that sense you could make your own challenge. I sometimes do group quests on unoptimized characters in EQ2, and that can be quite challenging, especially since I don't have all master crafted stuff or master level spells. But in many ways, it's an off/on switch for difficulty, either you do something intended for solo play and have it easy or you do something hard and it's group-based. The most challenge I've had recently is doing large group content with only 2-3 people.
Last comment about hardcore gamers being able to succeed brilliantly in life if they spent the same amount of time in it than they did ingame, well not sure I agree with you there. It depends on the person's situation, where they live, etc. MMOs require very little money to be played in comparison to most things out there. If only there was equal opportunity for everyone in this world, I doubt that so many gamers would be trying to escape by playing online games...
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
First, MMOs are doing better than ever. Second, I love challenge like the next guy. For example, I play my offline games on the hard settings. MMORPGs rarely let you choose your difficulty level. Instancing lets you do this, hence DDO and GW1 have this option.
PvP, dungeons and events are the things where you may find challenge in a more traditional MMORPGs. Vanguard was not challenging. Like MurlockDance wrote, it is about the same as Rift. People still love challenge, but you have to give up the notion that only old-school MMORPGs had challenge.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Q, I have to take issue with your claim that the MMO market is doing great. No market today is really doing that great for the fact of Western sovereign and private debts being at an all time high (possibly historically highest, even). Now, taking that problem out of the picture, I'd say MMOs are still doing lackluster compared to their singleplayer counterparts since many of the singleplayer games have multiplayer functionality, which directly competes with MMOs. Until MMOs are designed both to capture reasonable level design and possibly better attempts at realism of interactions/environments (this isn't graphical, necessarily), then I think the reigning entertainment king is still the singleplayer game.
Many indie MMOs have fallen because they've tried to focus on realism and interaction with environment rather than what is important. A good game. Every good MMORPG has one inside.
There's nothing wrong with single-player games being more popular than MMOs. Adding realism and interaction to MMOs is not the silver bullet to make them more popular either. Realism doesn't even make a good game half the time!
Random quote: "According to an upcoming PricewaterhouseCoopers report, the videogame industry is expected to reach USD 68.3 billion in global sales by 2012 - a compound annual growth rate of 10.3 per cent."
If 10% growth is not "doing great" then I don't know what is. I'm sure MMO market is also growing.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
MMO's are only doing better (in your opinion) because they have been mainstreamed and becuase players are willing to shell out money for any garbage they feed them.
Instancing, to the scale a lot of MMO's use it now, KILLS the open world feel and any sense of real community and team play.
It may be garbage to you, but it seems you and your friends are in the minority.
The sub number says it all.
Can you see that it is not an issue or right or wrong, it is just market mechanism. When there is money there is supply, vice versa. Loaded criticism like that shows how uncivlised your comments are. Players are willing to shell out their money, based on their view of a game, which you see as garbage and they do not. Nothing wrong, if you care to express it carefully and fair to all parties. Trying to paint a bad picture for everyone else is not civil, in my books.
Oh please. You say that MMOs are doing worse but that is only your opinion. I atleast can point to a concrete measure of success: sales numbers. On top of that, I never liked the old-school MMORPGs. I'm quite happy how things are going.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
What are you talking about? Trying to make it out to be more than it is?
What was meant by it was...players complain about lack of content and ease of play constantly. Then they get it (because majority rules)...they shell out money for it based on advertising and promises made by the companies (because most jump right in with little proding)...and when it doesn't deliver, or is not exactly what they want, the complaining continues instead of just cancelling the sub and chalking it up as a lesson learned.
And no I didn't mean every player...but the majority are this way...and it is mainly the post- (That game) crowd. Companies throw every feature that is asked for by the larger sum of players, they make sure it's known they have...regardless of how well or badly they implemented it...because they know people will pay.
I am simply pointing out they seem to be doing better because there are several times more the amount of players playing since they started...due to mainstreaming.
And they are now more glorified single player console games than anything....that is why I personally feel they are doing worse as well. They are no longer open worlds to explore, meet people along the way and make friends to adventure with, long meaningful quests, etc, etc.
They lack of community (The backbone of an MMO,,,also IMO), over use of instancing (Kill open world feel and community), instant travel galore..or too much asking for flying mounts (Shrink world, kills exploration, and community (See a pattern here?), battlegrounds/stat boards (console featues or online FPS features), way too simple (Kills any sense of challenge, nor the need for others when you can solo most content/kills need for community (there it is again), This sudden rush for "end game" (Which is a term that shouldn't exist in MMO's) as if MMO's should be like console games and have a definitive ending or means of "beating" it.....
Could go on with why I feel personally they are worse...but why bother. We won't see eye to eye, and the loudest voices rule. So, I will personally sit and pray for one company to have the bean bags to make a true MMO again, and you can continue getting the stuff mentioned above (In nearly every MMO that hits the market) and selfishly flame people like me just wanting ONE MMO to bring back open world/meaningful questing/community features/etc, etc.
But alas...majority rules, and companies will go with where the possible BIG profit is instead of making something that can still make profit, just not WoW size profit, and simply make it because they have the passion and drive for what they do out of a love for games/gaming. Money is all that matters in today's world....no longer the passion to make a product most can truly be proud of.
P.S. Sales numbers may show a measure of success...but it just as easily shows that my comments are not far off the mark. Players had to shell out money for the sales numbers to be there....regardless of it is worth that money or not. But players will jump when a company says and jump for fancy marketing, etc.
You really believe the developers are so innocent? People will pay however bad it is implemented? I just notice AoC failed, War failed, FF14 failed.
In your earlier post you said "players are willing to shell out money for any garbage they feed them". Now you said they complain ... that does not sound like willing. Ok let that go. You said they left a game if they tried and find it to be bad. That seems to be a totally different discussion from your earlier insulting statement. Ok lets accept your liberal reinterpretation. Now what is wrong with that behaviour. We all do the same. We go visit a new restaurant try it out, and left if it does not meet our expectations.
Same for business, we shop for new supplies, new technology, new market. Sometimes we got it, sometimes we got burnt. For serious business, we put in more effort to screen and weed out the unlikely ones before we try. For cheap games, we just pick the one off the shelf as we feel like and give it a shot. No big deal, and most of the consumers hardly bother complain. The few drama queens on forum complain about everything because they want to, nothing to do with game.
Christ...soemone who enjoys forum PvP.
Look...it isn't like talking to someone in person here. You can't tell a person's demeanor nor meaning as easily here as you can in face to face conversation. My first post I expalined it as I would in face to face...habit. I forgot you have to write MUCH more than other's are usually willing to read before the torches come out in order to try and explain exactly what you mean. Usually see something they can attack and go with it first. Ok, whatever....
Sorry I didn't expalin it to satisfy you directly. Must of hit a nerve. Truth usually hurts those it pertains to. believe what you want...I am not wasting another post arguing my feelings so you can just knitpick what you can. I spoke my peace. Take it as you will.
And how many MMO's have you played? Because I have been playing since they started, and I can ssure you PLENTY of people complain...and STILL buy the games through deceptive marketing, and STILL pay and play them while STILL complaining and trying to get features changed. Have seen it in nearly every MMO to date myself. And no...not all developer's are inncoent (See Blizzard/SoE).
No problem, you said it is your style, be it so.
You said truth hits a nerve, as if you have a truth out there and I am trying to stop your "truth". I presume you are figuratively speaking as usual and not really having a "truth". Nor is there anything worth "discussing" because you only said you have a "truth".
You need to bring this personal? How many games I have played? Maybe I am so inferior as to be unable to reason with you. Plenty complained, you included I presume. Plenty more play and never talk about their game outside the guild forum. I know a lot of my guildmates as many live in the same town or state. One live exactly next door. One work in my own department together for years. We never talk outside our guildchats or guildweb. Our game ends when we log out.
No I do not like forum PvP. I am a new member here, and I am posting because of an accident which grounded me. I might not be here much longer, once I can start moving around.
I think you answered your own topic in the first paragraph.
When MMOs went from "Nerd Nightclubs" to "mainstream mass appeal gaming", they adapted to their new playerbase. Based on which games are popular, most love the new designs. MMO's aren't dying... they are changing or more realistically speaking, they have already changed.
If you are looking for challenge and depth of gameplay beyond normal, the only alternative now is smaller niche games and some of the old-timers that are still in operation.
True. And if someone would bring the old classics back but with updated graphics and a bit better UI's...I'd be all over it.
Sad to note, the new breed of niche games are full loot ffa pvp for the sake of looting and pvping. There is no "purpose", unlike DAoC or EvE.
The old timers are gone, not the ones I once called home. They were changed beyond recognition (DAoC, SWG) or they are ghost towns, or both.
The old games that stay the way they were, are the solo games. Cheap ones, free downloads. But that is another story.
The kinds of realism I'm talking about has little to do with what you may call realism. For me, having each part of a game make sense or even dovetail into another part is what I consider realism. For example, in an MMO that has tacked on crafting is not realistic, having crafting being the main means to gaining equipment is realistic. Having a magic system that doesn't integrate across all combat types is not realistic, having it interact with all combat types is realistic (think of imbuing attacks with elemental damage as an example of this). And so on.
It depends on your definition of good. I'll give you an idea of what good is: I like chocolate ice cream. Meaning, it's subjective.
So having tacked mechanics and unthoughful themeparks is a definition of good design? LOL WUT
Can you show any industry metric for MMOs anywhere?
Edit: Why does the forum software continue to consider every quote as part of a larger quote? It's RETARDED! /vent
As much as I loved EQ back then, it really was a game for elitists. The gap between the haves and the have not was very big. The endgame content was only accessible by a lesser percentage of the playerbase. Is that ok when everybody pays the same fees?
I love challenges in games, the fact you have to work for things and having a certain risk involved, I also see why it doesn't have appeal. The weekend warriors want to experience endgame content, they want to be able to set themselves realistic goals to complete without feeling left out of certain content, even though they pay the same price as everybody else.
In green.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It is funny you should say that since, to my knowledge, people use the word endgame only when talking about MMORPGs. The term pretty much exists because of MMOs. There wouldn't be endgame if the game just ended.
But as far as I'm concerned, MMORPGs end just like other games. "Endgame" is usually just the state where the game is at its best: best PvP, most challenging PvE, etc..
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Funny, because EQ probably has more expansions than all MMO's post-WoW put together, and "end game" was an after thought due to there being so much other stuff to do.
And as far as "end game" being the point MMO's are at their best is hogwash IMO. It's just players griefing low levels or engaging in zerg PvP warfare out of boredom...sitting in major cities spamming for groups for the mind numbing raiding required for the big shinies...which is pretty much all there is left to do in most MMO's at "end game".
And I never said it didn't originate with MMO's...however, what I AM saying is, although it originated here, it has no place in the genre. When I think of the term "end game"...emphasis on the word end.....I think of console games. Which is what most MMO's are becoming...sadly.
while i completely agree with your response, i have noticed more and more the subtle addition of attitude or flat out statement containing the meaning 'how do i beat this game' or 'i beat this game it sux, its great, etc.,'. so while endgame clearly originates from mmo's i do wonder if the meaning is changing over time.
the only thing i would take issue with is that endgame = *best* pvp, pve, etc. i would hate for that to be the case. imho, it seems the gameplay should be top notch from start to finish. what changes is the magnitude or style or strategies of the areas explored, the pve, and the pvp, etc., as you move towards the endgame.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
And MMO's now aren't for elitists? I see a ton of name calling and bragging about players accomplishments and gear in many of today's MMO's. It's nothing new.
No one is left out of content...it's available to everyone who pays, it's just up to the player how quick they want to reach it. It's just the player who puts in the effort, or has more time gets there faster is all....hence, costs them less money (Based ona monthly sub) to get there.
Most seem to want to race one another to the end....then complain there isn't enough content to keep them busy, or move on to another MMO to rinse and repeat.