I really don't understand why cant people simply accept that games are now produced for wide masses and not for selected few (hardcore gamers).
Figurative sacred cows.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by Scot If a new MMO came out which had enough old school in its new school skin we would play regardless. Last MMO to do this was Lotro in my eyes, six years is a long wait.
Can you be more specific on why you think the above.
There is simply so little choice. Rather like when PS2 came out as a MMOFPS, there was not exactly a horde of cut throat competitors out there. Where as release another easymode tiny MMO this year and you will be adding it to the huge stable of easymode tiny MMO's out there. What if anything new would it have to offer?
Originally posted by Scot If a new MMO came out which had enough old school in its new school skin we would play regardless. Last MMO to do this was Lotro in my eyes, six years is a long wait.
Can you be more specific on why you think the above.
There is simply so little choice. Rather like when PS2 came out as a MMOFPS, there was not exactly a horde of cut throat competitors out there. Where as release another easymode tiny MMO this year and you will be adding it to the huge stable of easymode tiny MMO's out there. What if anything new would it have to offer?
new setttings? new combat mechanics? Example. There are a few Diablo clones like PoE, TL2 and Marvel Heroes, and all have something different to offer.
Originally posted by Scot If a new MMO came out which had enough old school in its new school skin we would play regardless. Last MMO to do this was Lotro in my eyes, six years is a long wait.
Can you be more specific on why you think the above.
There is simply so little choice. Rather like when PS2 came out as a MMOFPS, there was not exactly a horde of cut throat competitors out there. Where as release another easymode tiny MMO this year and you will be adding it to the huge stable of easymode tiny MMO's out there. What if anything new would it have to offer?
new setttings? new combat mechanics? Example. There are a few Diablo clones like PoE, TL2 and Marvel Heroes, and all have something different to offer.
We are talking MMO's here. You and your Diablo! And you questioned me when I said you want everything to be diablo like. We get it, you like Diablo.
Not sure Marvel Heroes can be called a MMO for that matter. But not following it that much to be sure. Even you like a few online games which I would call MMO's so lets stick to them when comparing MMO's.
Originally posted by Scot If a new MMO came out which had enough old school in its new school skin we would play regardless. Last MMO to do this was Lotro in my eyes, six years is a long wait.
Can you be more specific on why you think the above.
There is simply so little choice. Rather like when PS2 came out as a MMOFPS, there was not exactly a horde of cut throat competitors out there. Where as release another easymode tiny MMO this year and you will be adding it to the huge stable of easymode tiny MMO's out there. What if anything new would it have to offer?
new setttings? new combat mechanics? Example. There are a few Diablo clones like PoE, TL2 and Marvel Heroes, and all have something different to offer.
We are talking MMO's here. You and your Diablo! And you questioned me when I said you want everything to be diablo like. We get it, you like Diablo.
Not sure Marvel Heroes can be called a MMO for that matter. But not following it that much to be sure. Even you like a few online games which I would call MMO's so lets stick to them when comparing MMO's.
Ok Defiance is a MMOFPS but yes I agree we have so few of those it is breaking new ground.
TSW, very different setting and combat quite newish.
So only 2 in 12 months? I would add SWOTR actually but not GW2. So three. Three MMO's with something different in a year, its actually not been that bad a year, true.
Now lets go back to when Lotro started six years ago. In that space of time I would only add AoC as trying something different and maybe I am being nostalgic there. I would lump PS2 in with Defiance, I don't think every new MMOFPS gets its own spot.
So that's four in six years, does not look so good now does it? Others may have there own idea of ground breakers, would be interesting to see what they think.
Also my original point was more to say you will struggle bringing out a standard MMO as we simply have so many. Unless you can do the normal template really well like GW2, your success will be limited.
Ok Defiance is a MMOFPS but yes I agree we have so few of those it is breaking new ground.
TSW, very different setting and combat quite newish.
So only 2 in 12 months? I would add SWOTR actually but not GW2. So three. Three MMO's with something different in a year, its actually not been that bad a year, true.
Now lets go back to when Lotro started six years ago. In that space of time I would only add AoC as trying something different and maybe I am being nostalgic there. I would lump PS2 in with Defiance, I don't think every new MMOFPS gets its own spot.
So that's four in six years, does not look so good now does it? Others may have there own idea of ground breakers, would be interesting to see what they think.
Also my original point was more to say you will struggle bringing out a standard MMO as we simply have so many. Unless you can do the normal template really well like GW2, your success will be limited.
Add in LoL, WoT, D3 (i count it as new because of the build system), and other close-to but non-MMOs, and suddenly there are lots of new stuff to try out.
BTW, i would also add Marvel Heroes .. although the game is not very polished, it is new .. a hybrid ARPG/MMO with known marvel characters. There was no MMO close to it before.
Add in PS2 ... Add in Dust 514 and we have quite a lot in the last 2-3 years.
Sure the number may be lower if you go back in time more. But most of these games are recent .. so i can safely say devs are trying new stuff in the recent 1-2 year time frame and there are more to come.
Ok Defiance is a MMOFPS but yes I agree we have so few of those it is breaking new ground.
TSW, very different setting and combat quite newish.
So only 2 in 12 months? I would add SWOTR actually but not GW2. So three. Three MMO's with something different in a year, its actually not been that bad a year, true.
Now lets go back to when Lotro started six years ago. In that space of time I would only add AoC as trying something different and maybe I am being nostalgic there. I would lump PS2 in with Defiance, I don't think every new MMOFPS gets its own spot.
So that's four in six years, does not look so good now does it? Others may have there own idea of ground breakers, would be interesting to see what they think.
Also my original point was more to say you will struggle bringing out a standard MMO as we simply have so many. Unless you can do the normal template really well like GW2, your success will be limited.
Add in LoL, WoT, D3 (i count it as new because of the build system), and other close-to but non-MMOs, and suddenly there are lots of new stuff to try out.
BTW, i would also add Marvel Heroes .. although the game is not very polished, it is new .. a hybrid ARPG/MMO with known marvel characters. There was no MMO close to it before.
Add in PS2 ... Add in Dust 514 and we have quite a lot in the last 2-3 years.
Sure the number may be lower if you go back in time more. But most of these games are recent .. so i can safely say devs are trying new stuff in the recent 1-2 year time frame and there are more to come.
We have had a good year, but you are throwing in WoT and D3 (Diablo again) when I am talking about MMO's. Both good online games but not MMOs. What this points to is that developers are trying to make more innovative MMOs, but what you see in one year may be just a coincidence, only time will tell.
Ok Defiance is a MMOFPS but yes I agree we have so few of those it is breaking new ground.
TSW, very different setting and combat quite newish.
So only 2 in 12 months? I would add SWOTR actually but not GW2. So three. Three MMO's with something different in a year, its actually not been that bad a year, true.
Now lets go back to when Lotro started six years ago. In that space of time I would only add AoC as trying something different and maybe I am being nostalgic there. I would lump PS2 in with Defiance, I don't think every new MMOFPS gets its own spot.
So that's four in six years, does not look so good now does it? Others may have there own idea of ground breakers, would be interesting to see what they think.
Also my original point was more to say you will struggle bringing out a standard MMO as we simply have so many. Unless you can do the normal template really well like GW2, your success will be limited.
Add in LoL, WoT, D3 (i count it as new because of the build system), and other close-to but non-MMOs, and suddenly there are lots of new stuff to try out.
BTW, i would also add Marvel Heroes .. although the game is not very polished, it is new .. a hybrid ARPG/MMO with known marvel characters. There was no MMO close to it before.
Add in PS2 ... Add in Dust 514 and we have quite a lot in the last 2-3 years.
Sure the number may be lower if you go back in time more. But most of these games are recent .. so i can safely say devs are trying new stuff in the recent 1-2 year time frame and there are more to come.
We have had a good year, but you are throwing in WoT and D3 (Diablo again) when I am talking about MMO's. Both good online games but not MMOs. What this points to is that developers are trying to make more innovative MMOs, but what you see in one year may be just a coincidence, only time will tell.
WoT and D3 are close enough to me.
In fact, i expect the market to move away from pure MMO and have more online games with some MMO elements. The makers of WoT is now making two more games which i am following.
Sooner or later, there will be more debate about definitions of MMOs here, just because devs are innovating and there will be games that are close to MMOs but not MMOs strictly by someone's definition.
Personally i think it is a good thing. Devs are innovating if the definitions of these games are getting fuzzy.
Just like Borderland .. great game ... do you call it a FPS or a RPG?
Ok Defiance is a MMOFPS but yes I agree we have so few of those it is breaking new ground.
TSW, very different setting and combat quite newish.
So only 2 in 12 months? I would add SWOTR actually but not GW2. So three. Three MMO's with something different in a year, its actually not been that bad a year, true.
Now lets go back to when Lotro started six years ago. In that space of time I would only add AoC as trying something different and maybe I am being nostalgic there. I would lump PS2 in with Defiance, I don't think every new MMOFPS gets its own spot.
So that's four in six years, does not look so good now does it? Others may have there own idea of ground breakers, would be interesting to see what they think.
Also my original point was more to say you will struggle bringing out a standard MMO as we simply have so many. Unless you can do the normal template really well like GW2, your success will be limited.
Add in LoL, WoT, D3 (i count it as new because of the build system), and other close-to but non-MMOs, and suddenly there are lots of new stuff to try out.
BTW, i would also add Marvel Heroes .. although the game is not very polished, it is new .. a hybrid ARPG/MMO with known marvel characters. There was no MMO close to it before.
Add in PS2 ... Add in Dust 514 and we have quite a lot in the last 2-3 years.
Sure the number may be lower if you go back in time more. But most of these games are recent .. so i can safely say devs are trying new stuff in the recent 1-2 year time frame and there are more to come.
We have had a good year, but you are throwing in WoT and D3 (Diablo again) when I am talking about MMO's. Both good online games but not MMOs. What this points to is that developers are trying to make more innovative MMOs, but what you see in one year may be just a coincidence, only time will tell.
WoT and D3 are close enough to me.
In fact, i expect the market to move away from pure MMO and have more online games with some MMO elements. The makers of WoT is now making two more games which i am following.
Sooner or later, there will be more debate about definitions of MMOs here, just because devs are innovating and there will be games that are close to MMOs but not MMOs strictly by someone's definition.
Personally i think it is a good thing. Devs are innovating if the definitions of these games are getting fuzzy.
Just like Borderland .. great game ... do you call it a FPS or a RPG?
I'll agree that the market will probably go that way. Why change the definition of the term MMORPG? To me, diablo, poe, the new marvel game, all of those are action role playing games. It even lists poe as such on it's website. I have seen them called that since diablo 2. I love these games, there fun, and sometimes it can be a real headache to try to classify games under one specific category, but these seem easy to me. Like you always say, if they're fun, play them. I don't see how that translates to smashing them into a category where they don't fit. The genre has changed and still retained it's defining characteristics. EQ and other older games were much different from WOW and SWTOR and such, but those are all still MMORPGs. Wildstar, ESO, EQnext are MMORPGs coming out in the near future. poe, diablo, and marvel heroes are action role playing games. I've always heard them described as such, and they fit nicely into those different categories.
I'll agree that the market will probably go that way. Why change the definition of the term MMORPG? To me, diablo, poe, the new marvel game, all of those are action role playing games. It even lists poe as such on it's website. I have seen them called that since diablo 2. I love these games, there fun, and sometimes it can be a real headache to try to classify games under one specific category, but these seem easy to me. Like you always say, if they're fun, play them. I don't see how that translates to smashing them into a category where they don't fit. The genre has changed and still retained it's defining characteristics. EQ and other older games were much different from WOW and SWTOR and such, but those are all still MMORPGs. Wildstar, ESO, EQnext are MMORPGs coming out in the near future. poe, diablo, and marvel heroes are action role playing games. I've always heard them described as such, and they fit nicely into those different categories.
Oh .. i am not advocating about changing the definition of MMORPG. I am just saying i don't care about the definition, and i certainly do not only consider MMORPGs. Games like D3, WoT, Marvel heroes ... are close enough in play style to MMORPG for me that i don't really make a distinction when i choose what to play.
You can call them online ARPG.
The key is that devs are trying different things, providing us with new experiences. Whether these games should be classified as MMORPGs .. matter very little to me.
Ok Defiance is a MMOFPS but yes I agree we have so few of those it is breaking new ground.
TSW, very different setting and combat quite newish.
So only 2 in 12 months? I would add SWOTR actually but not GW2. So three. Three MMO's with something different in a year, its actually not been that bad a year, true.
Now lets go back to when Lotro started six years ago. In that space of time I would only add AoC as trying something different and maybe I am being nostalgic there. I would lump PS2 in with Defiance, I don't think every new MMOFPS gets its own spot.
So that's four in six years, does not look so good now does it? Others may have there own idea of ground breakers, would be interesting to see what they think.
Also my original point was more to say you will struggle bringing out a standard MMO as we simply have so many. Unless you can do the normal template really well like GW2, your success will be limited.
Add in LoL, WoT, D3 (i count it as new because of the build system), and other close-to but non-MMOs, and suddenly there are lots of new stuff to try out.
BTW, i would also add Marvel Heroes .. although the game is not very polished, it is new .. a hybrid ARPG/MMO with known marvel characters. There was no MMO close to it before.
Add in PS2 ... Add in Dust 514 and we have quite a lot in the last 2-3 years.
Sure the number may be lower if you go back in time more. But most of these games are recent .. so i can safely say devs are trying new stuff in the recent 1-2 year time frame and there are more to come.
We have had a good year, but you are throwing in WoT and D3 (Diablo again) when I am talking about MMO's. Both good online games but not MMOs. What this points to is that developers are trying to make more innovative MMOs, but what you see in one year may be just a coincidence, only time will tell.
WoT and D3 are close enough to me.
In fact, i expect the market to move away from pure MMO and have more online games with some MMO elements. The makers of WoT is now making two more games which i am following.
Sooner or later, there will be more debate about definitions of MMOs here, just because devs are innovating and there will be games that are close to MMOs but not MMOs strictly by someone's definition.
Personally i think it is a good thing. Devs are innovating if the definitions of these games are getting fuzzy.
Just like Borderland .. great game ... do you call it a FPS or a RPG?
We have discussed this before, nothing wrong with games taking ideas from each other, I just don't want to end up with one "best fit". Which is an attempt to get as many players in the game as possible. Old style MMO design still shows the new boys what can be done, but as I keep saying they have come with some great new ideas as well.
Borderland, not played it, but it has been on my list since it came out. From what friends say and what I have seen it pushes the envelope. I notice you did not say MMO, just FPS or RPG, that's looks about right. Friends do recommend it, so its one I need to try.
We have discussed this before, nothing wrong with games taking ideas from each other, I just don't want to end up with one "best fit". Which is an attempt to get as many players in the game as possible. Old style MMO design still shows the new boys what can be done, but as I keep saying they have come with some great new ideas as well.
Borderland, not played it, but it has been on my list since it came out. From what friends say and what I have seen it pushes the envelope. I notice you did not say MMO, just FPS or RPG, that's looks about right. Friends do recommend it, so its one I need to try.
I think my whole point is that there is no one "best fit". There are so many different types of games i was pointing out. Having said that, not all ideas are equal. Old style MMO designs are abandoned for a reason. I have no doubt some may try to revive it ... but it all boils down to supply & demand .. and see if the market will accept it.
Borderland (the first one) should be cheap now. It is basically a cross between Diablo type action RPG (with skill tree no less, and lots of loot) and FPS (so combat is FPS). It is very fun.
Comments
Figurative sacred cows.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
There is simply so little choice. Rather like when PS2 came out as a MMOFPS, there was not exactly a horde of cut throat competitors out there. Where as release another easymode tiny MMO this year and you will be adding it to the huge stable of easymode tiny MMO's out there. What if anything new would it have to offer?
new setttings? new combat mechanics? Example. There are a few Diablo clones like PoE, TL2 and Marvel Heroes, and all have something different to offer.
We are talking MMO's here. You and your Diablo! And you questioned me when I said you want everything to be diablo like. We get it, you like Diablo.
Not sure Marvel Heroes can be called a MMO for that matter. But not following it that much to be sure. Even you like a few online games which I would call MMO's so lets stick to them when comparing MMO's.
How about Defiance? tie-in to tv is new.
TSW? The setting is new.
Destiny? "shared world shooter"?
Lots of new stuff
"How about Defiance? tie-in to tv is new.
TSW? The setting is new.
Destiny? "shared world shooter"?
Lots of new stuff"
Ok Defiance is a MMOFPS but yes I agree we have so few of those it is breaking new ground.
TSW, very different setting and combat quite newish.
So only 2 in 12 months? I would add SWOTR actually but not GW2. So three. Three MMO's with something different in a year, its actually not been that bad a year, true.
Now lets go back to when Lotro started six years ago. In that space of time I would only add AoC as trying something different and maybe I am being nostalgic there. I would lump PS2 in with Defiance, I don't think every new MMOFPS gets its own spot.
So that's four in six years, does not look so good now does it? Others may have there own idea of ground breakers, would be interesting to see what they think.
Also my original point was more to say you will struggle bringing out a standard MMO as we simply have so many. Unless you can do the normal template really well like GW2, your success will be limited.
Add in LoL, WoT, D3 (i count it as new because of the build system), and other close-to but non-MMOs, and suddenly there are lots of new stuff to try out.
BTW, i would also add Marvel Heroes .. although the game is not very polished, it is new .. a hybrid ARPG/MMO with known marvel characters. There was no MMO close to it before.
Add in PS2 ... Add in Dust 514 and we have quite a lot in the last 2-3 years.
Sure the number may be lower if you go back in time more. But most of these games are recent .. so i can safely say devs are trying new stuff in the recent 1-2 year time frame and there are more to come.
We have had a good year, but you are throwing in WoT and D3 (Diablo again) when I am talking about MMO's. Both good online games but not MMOs. What this points to is that developers are trying to make more innovative MMOs, but what you see in one year may be just a coincidence, only time will tell.
WoT and D3 are close enough to me.
In fact, i expect the market to move away from pure MMO and have more online games with some MMO elements. The makers of WoT is now making two more games which i am following.
Sooner or later, there will be more debate about definitions of MMOs here, just because devs are innovating and there will be games that are close to MMOs but not MMOs strictly by someone's definition.
Personally i think it is a good thing. Devs are innovating if the definitions of these games are getting fuzzy.
Just like Borderland .. great game ... do you call it a FPS or a RPG?
I'll agree that the market will probably go that way. Why change the definition of the term MMORPG? To me, diablo, poe, the new marvel game, all of those are action role playing games. It even lists poe as such on it's website. I have seen them called that since diablo 2. I love these games, there fun, and sometimes it can be a real headache to try to classify games under one specific category, but these seem easy to me. Like you always say, if they're fun, play them. I don't see how that translates to smashing them into a category where they don't fit. The genre has changed and still retained it's defining characteristics. EQ and other older games were much different from WOW and SWTOR and such, but those are all still MMORPGs. Wildstar, ESO, EQnext are MMORPGs coming out in the near future. poe, diablo, and marvel heroes are action role playing games. I've always heard them described as such, and they fit nicely into those different categories.
Oh .. i am not advocating about changing the definition of MMORPG. I am just saying i don't care about the definition, and i certainly do not only consider MMORPGs. Games like D3, WoT, Marvel heroes ... are close enough in play style to MMORPG for me that i don't really make a distinction when i choose what to play.
You can call them online ARPG.
The key is that devs are trying different things, providing us with new experiences. Whether these games should be classified as MMORPGs .. matter very little to me.
We have discussed this before, nothing wrong with games taking ideas from each other, I just don't want to end up with one "best fit". Which is an attempt to get as many players in the game as possible. Old style MMO design still shows the new boys what can be done, but as I keep saying they have come with some great new ideas as well.
Borderland, not played it, but it has been on my list since it came out. From what friends say and what I have seen it pushes the envelope. I notice you did not say MMO, just FPS or RPG, that's looks about right. Friends do recommend it, so its one I need to try.
I think my whole point is that there is no one "best fit". There are so many different types of games i was pointing out. Having said that, not all ideas are equal. Old style MMO designs are abandoned for a reason. I have no doubt some may try to revive it ... but it all boils down to supply & demand .. and see if the market will accept it.
Borderland (the first one) should be cheap now. It is basically a cross between Diablo type action RPG (with skill tree no less, and lots of loot) and FPS (so combat is FPS). It is very fun.