Originally posted by funyahnsI also don't understand the point of being able to get 15 levels in a days. Why even bother spend time developing zones when someone is only going to play there for a day or two. Its a waste of funding.
If it takes me say 8 hours to clear let's say two zones full of quests, maybe get 10 levels, 5 per zone.
The average single player campaign in a $60 game right now is what, 20-30 hours?
So that's $3-2 per hour.
8 hours for 10 levels, let's say 60 levels is 48 hours to go 1-60, so for a $60 game that's $1.25 per hour.
Better value, and I know once I get to that max level there will be more content for me to consume, so it becomes an ever better value, even with a monthly subscription charge.
I was going to reply that the average length is about 8 hours, but there don't seem to be any statistics on the average length of single player games or single player campaigns. Apparently I made up 8 hours myself from something. The one key thing that keeps coming up though is that games are getting shorter.
In any event, comparing the amount of content in an MMORPG versus single player games tends to favor the MMORPG in terms of time spent playing.
True, but you also have to remember that they crank out games with 8-20 whatever hour campaigns in a year, like the CoD or now BF series, and it takes them 4-6 years to put out an MMO with all it's content.
I also don't understand the point of being able to get 15 levels in a days. Why even bother spend time developing zones when someone is only going to play there for a day or two. Its a waste of funding.
If it takes me say 8 hours to clear let's say two zones full of quests, maybe get 10 levels, 5 per zone.
The average single player campaign in a $60 game right now is what, 20-30 hours?
So that's $3-2 per hour.
8 hours for 10 levels, let's say 60 levels is 48 hours to go 1-60, so for a $60 game that's $1.25 per hour.
Better value, and I know once I get to that max level there will be more content for me to consume, so it becomes an ever better value, even with a monthly subscription charge.
I mean it is a waste of development time and money. It becomes more pronounced to later on in the game a lot of times. When people are hitting that dreaded End Game experience. Content has to be produced for it and in a lot of games it is left wanting. Course there was that one zone where I was levels 20-31 which I was only in for a couple days. Shame that content is not being used for other things
Now gamers become bored..the games are to easy, people want max level in 1 month. No item drop or xp drop on death. Plan out there toons 100% in advance.. And the game developers game it to them while shooting themself in the foot. Everyone wanted a slice of the WoW pie..
I completely agree with the OP, in particular with this sentence.
It's years that I am warning the devs that by giving it so easy to the players they are shooting themselves in the foot.
I am amazed that every time one of the MMOs fail hard its devs are up in arms wondering what they did wrong, when the answer is so obvious.
You allow the players to achieve everything in a month, then they will pay a sub for a month.............. that's a simple equation really.
Want people to subscribe for longer? Make everything harder to achieve................ simple.
Players like the challenge.............. that's why they play games.
Originally posted by Brueskie Instead we're regressing.
I don't think it's a regression at all, I think it's just preference for a different type of game play.
There is a guy in my office who is very much "a gamer". he loves games. And games of all types. He loves video games.
But he really doesn't like open world/immersive world, whatever you want to call it "world" games.
He likes "games".
Some want "worlds" or world simulators and some want "games".
My guess is that the early adopters were more interested in worlds because they probably weren't great "games". Then as they started being better games, more people started taking notice.
I hadn't really seen games that were worlds at the time. It was amazing. Hell, I was playing on a dial up modem it was so damn long ago.
But now a game being a world is not that exciting or unique- it's kind of expected.
So now I want the game to also be a good, fun game.
When I was a kid, RPG meant spending hours running in circles around some pixelated trees to get my screen to flash and enter another turn based battle to get another small chunk of XP.
Now, RPG to me means a sprawling, epic tale with incredible characters and graphics and cutscenes and responsive, exciting gameplay and deep, meaningful progression.
I also don't understand the point of being able to get 15 levels in a days. Why even bother spend time developing zones when someone is only going to play there for a day or two. Its a waste of funding.
If it takes me say 8 hours to clear let's say two zones full of quests, maybe get 10 levels, 5 per zone.
The average single player campaign in a $60 game right now is what, 20-30 hours?
So that's $3-2 per hour.
8 hours for 10 levels, let's say 60 levels is 48 hours to go 1-60, so for a $60 game that's $1.25 per hour.
Better value, and I know once I get to that max level there will be more content for me to consume, so it becomes an ever better value, even with a monthly subscription charge.
I mean it is a waste of development time and money. It becomes more pronounced to later on in the game a lot of times. When people are hitting that dreaded End Game experience. Content has to be produced for it and in a lot of games it is left wanting. Course there was that one zone where I was levels 20-31 which I was only in for a couple days. Shame that content is not being used for other things
Very true.
I'd love to see games without zones and without level restrictions where regions on a map have meaning and territories have purpose and you can choose to live your characters life fighting for the land you call home, and yet still have meaningful progression and power advancement.
OMG, Halo is like, the best MMORPG ever then right?
Reductio ad absurdum TYVM
Again people CAN be social on any game where there is a method of communicating with other players, including virtualy every MMO just as one CAN play baseball in an ice-hockey rink that does not mean that an ice-hockey rink is well designed to support playing baseball or that baseball players should be satisfied playing in one.
Your logic is absolutely flawed Spock. Why should anyone be satisfied with a product that is not well designed to support thier prefences?
Nothing at all wrong with being dissatisfied.
Something very wrong with telling other people they should be dissatisfied because they are enjoying it, they are doing it wrong, they are less "advanced," and devs need to cater to ME rather than to THEM.
Which is what most on this site do because they are not in the "in" crowd, apparently.
There are games being made for those dissatisfied, ya'll should talk about and hype those rather then dis on what other people enjoy.
Positivity will always > negativity.
Hell, ya'll just got a new one from your own personal Christ - Brad McQuaid in Pantheon- go support that!
I might if I thought McQuaid had nothing whatsoever to do with management of the project/company and was merely locked in a room and asked to come up with creative game design ideas. It takes people with management and financial skills to make projects like that work too. If they actualy ever end up releasing the game that thier bullet points describe, I might very well play it. As it is, I couldn't in good conscience reccomend to anyone to fund the Kickstarter.
I might if I thought McQuaid had nothing whatsoever to do with management of the project/company and was merely locked in a room and asked to come up with creative game design ideas. It takes people with management and financial skills to make projects like that work too. If they actualy ever end up releasing the game that thier bullet points describe, I might very well play it. As it is, I couldn't in good conscience reccomend to anyone to fund the Kickstarter.
Fair enough.
And I'm sorry, but I do find this also ironic and quite funny.
Ya'll want old school games made like they used to, but the very father's of these games and "nope, wrong management it won't work out."
LOL it's like seriously, do you have to assemble the EXACT right Olympic Gold team of old-school MMO devs?
Didn't they try that once already too and it's called Vanguard?
Shroud of the Avatar from Richard G?
It's like ya'll are getting exactly what you want, but still hating it.
What is funnier is it sounds like your comment is saying Pantheon needs different management, like a successful publisher, but aren't publishers the PRIME EVIL and Kickstarter is THE way for the "devs to make great games without publishers?"
Originally posted by Brueskie In the beginning, it appeared the developers' goal was to create immersive virtual worlds, and they by and large succeeded given the available technology. Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online—the early MMORPGs I played—all felt like virtual worlds which really sucked me in. After all, this was the time of movies like The Matrix,The 13th Floor, and Dark City; films where the virtual was indistinguishable from reality. I assumed development would continue in this direction with the goal of one day attaining complete immersion. Instead we're regressing.
We're not regressing, because that would mean we're going backwards. And if we were going backwards, it seems you would actually be pleased. You are asking for regression of the MMO industry. You want it to revert to what it used to be, not what it is or what it's turning into.
You forget, just because something is innovative or evolutionary, doesn't mean you will like it. I know both of those words are generally used with a positive connotation, but they're simply descriptors and can be either positive or negative depending on the changes being made.
You want game worlds that are indistinguishable from reality. I personally have a problem with that. Primarily being, because reality already exists. Why would I want a virtual version of it too?
As far as immersion goes, you may very still see the day that it comes to video games, however, what is immersive to you, is not necessarily immersive to someone else. I never want to have "hunger" in an MMO, I think it's a horrible concept and never enjoy it when it exists. But you might, you might find it immersive! And there's the problem you're going to run in to. Who's version of immersion are you going to get?
Originally posted by Brueskie Instead we're regressing.
I don't think it's a regression at all, I think it's just preference for a different type of game play.
There is a guy in my office who is very much "a gamer". he loves games. And games of all types. He loves video games.
But he really doesn't like open world/immersive world, whatever you want to call it "world" games.
He likes "games".
Some want "worlds" or world simulators and some want "games".
My guess is that the early adopters were more interested in worlds because they probably weren't great "games". Then as they started being better games, more people started taking notice.
I hadn't really seen games that were worlds at the time. It was amazing. Hell, I was playing on a dial up modem it was so damn long ago.
But now a game being a world is not that exciting or unique- it's kind of expected.
So now I want the game to also be a good, fun game.
When I was a kid, RPG meant spending hours running in circles around some pixelated trees to get my screen to flash and enter another turn based battle to get another small chunk of XP.
Now, RPG to me means a sprawling, epic tale with incredible characters and graphics and cutscenes and responsive, exciting gameplay and deep, meaningful progression.
I was thinking along the lines of everquest, shadowbane, lineage 2, UO, etc.
You basically had a game space where players figured out how to interact with the game world, what they wanted from the world,etc.
So, for example, in L2, you didn't log in, load up on quests and run through your paces to the glowy bits on the map until you hit level cap and then ran instances for better gear until the next update.
You would log in and think (what do I want to do today, what do I want to accomplish or "how should I spend my time".
You would then figure out "oh, I want to craft x" or "I want to make money, how can I do that" or "I'm at war and we need to track down Y" or "we need to start a war, time to have the guild take over a favorite leveling spot".
Raiding gave you the same gear as crafted and possible a special piece. And you constantly needed gear, and better gear, to live and thrive in this world".
And anything could happen. I might think I was leveling that evening but end up doing a class change raid only to run into an opposing clan and fight it out for the evening.
Or you would be running to a leveling spot, see someone in trouble with a red player or high levle mobs, help him and then join him in a leveling area only to be joined by others and then suddenly (hey people are going to (whatever the underwater dungone was can't remember) let's join them!"
It didn't seem so pre-ordained and you could just grab friends and go explore or find war tags or gather the clan for clan quests so you could level the clan.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar juggernaut, with MMOs leading the pack!
If they have become soooo horrible then the numbers would not be there.
I think it is people's nostalgia that causes them to think it was better back in the day. Yes, I will give it to you that there are some elements of MMOs of days past that should be brought back or enhanced for modern games, but for the most part I do not believe MMOs of today suck.
That said, I do believe this F2P mentality of trying to get the most out of a game for nothing while others pay your way has created an entitlement society in MMOs! There are so many "MMO Leeches" just sucking anything enjoyable out of MMO games! Games are created for the best way to become a "Cash Cow" instead of it being a well thought out game that draws you into the world. What I hate more than anything in MMOs is that shop window!!!!!
Sovrath- that freedom of "play" is still out there, just not so much in the MMO space anymore.
I think (and have always thought) that the real reason we haven't seen great PvE sandbox games is because devs have just flat out refused to separate PvP from PvE.
If separate, you can retain that freedom of play, the freedom of choice and going out to just "do" without real objective.
PvP can be the thing you seek out, you choose to do, but you also have to be able to choose "NOT PvP."
Even a game like GW2 which tried to give players the freedom of play was/is just far too structured with levels and zones and checklist after checklist of things to complete.
You need that freedom of just "drop into the world and make your fun, go explore and find fun things" is what UO really had.
At least post-Trammel split.
I still to this day contend that UO post-Trammel/Felucca split was the best MMORPG ever made.
They went and ruined it, of course, and would it be fun now? I don't know, not 2.5D hah.
But UO didn't have forced downtime and tedious travel and super harsh penalties for death, it didn't have forced grouping and it didn't have forced PvP after the split.
It also didn't really have much in the way of progression or character advancement.
But it did have the freedom of simply playing and enjoying I haven't seen in a MMO since.
Why even argue with people. To most gaming is considered a waste of time these days. Sometime to do as a side attraction. To many of us older players we invested a lot of time and it was almost like a job. We looked at it as a challenge to overcome. Even the older players are changing their tunes. Most gamers I know don't put nearly as much importance in it as they used to. It's just something to fit into a small time slot once in a while. I don't even know if I would spend hours on a game with lots of difficult puzzles and exploration. I would like too, but life has been made more complicated by technology and the internet. There are far more things that need to be done now than needed to be done in the past. Free time seemed to be abundant for a lot of people in the 90s. I still would like to play a more complex game again and yes I do feel old games were more complex. It wasn't just about showing patience (though that is something most people can't show these days).
You would log in and think (what do I want to do today, what do I want to accomplish or "how should I spend my time".
You would then figure out "oh, I want to craft x" or "I want to make money, how can I do that" or "I'm at war and we need to track down Y" or "we need to start a war, time to have the guild take over a favorite leveling spot".
So much this. I was really wondering what was missing and it's the choice. I even remember clearly logging on from day to day and thinking those exact things, "Do I want to do some crafting today?", "Shall I camp for X drop for my epic quest.", "Shall I hang out in the Commonlands and give people ports and buffs?", "Where shall I fight today? Lower Guk? Sebillis?".
That's what's missing from modern MMO's, that freedom to do what I want to do. Instead, now you log on and continue following the path of quests onwards toward the higher level areas, with little to no variation or ability to change what you're doing. Modern MMO's are just tedious.
EDIT: Adding on to that, this is exactly why I considered LOTRO to be one of the best MMO's since EverQuest. Sure, it had quest chains, but it also let me branch off to do other things. Go quest north, go quest south, go craft some stuff, go kill a ton of mobs for traits. There was choice, which is so often missing from MMO's now.
Now, RPG to me means a sprawling, epic tale with incredible characters and graphics and cutscenes and responsive, exciting gameplay and deep, meaningful progression.
That sounds awesome, because every MMO I've played has none of that. Exciting gameplay and deep, meaningful progression? I must be missing something.
Lets face it. old school games had bad graphics and the combat mechanics was not all that good, A single player game was much better in most areas, BUT...
They had one thing that set them apart from other games. They had the ability to let you (if you had the imagination) live and experience adventure in another world and most importantly you could share those adventures with other people.
Todays games are mostly linear, they have also turned into single player games. At the same time the combat mechanics are still as "bad" as they used to be, only slightly dressed up.
In other words they took away that one redeeming quality mmorpgs had but didn't improve the other aspects. Now we have bad single player games with co-op mode so why should one play that instead of a real single player game with good graphics and good mechanics?
The gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar juggernaut, with MMOs leading the pack!
If they have become soooo horrible then the numbers would not be there.
I think it is people's nostalgia that causes them to think it was better back in the day. Yes, I will give it to you that there are some elements of MMOs of days past that should be brought back or enhanced for modern games, but for the most part I do not believe MMOs of today suck.
That said, I do believe this F2P mentality of trying to get the most out of a game for nothing while others pay your way has created an entitlement society in MMOs! There are so many "MMO Leeches" just sucking anything enjoyable out of MMO games! Games are created for the best way to become a "Cash Cow" instead of it being a well thought out game that draws you into the world. What I hate more than anything in MMOs is that shop window!!!!!
Mostly this ^ and what Sovrath posted.
Much of the 'problem' of today's MMOs is a biproduct of the type of gamers we have become. And not so much a biproduct of 'bad developers'. WoW has shown people that gamers will buy very easily accessible, lightweight games that are more about being a game than being a virtual world. And that trend has only continued. Furthermore, this trend isn't just limited to MMOs, but is a fact of life Blizzard has capitalized on to become a successful company. As much as it sucks, people have proven (and continue to prove) that we will buy a crappy product, provided it is marketted well enough / has certain art styles attached. Some people might buy games with complex / challenging mechanics, but many more will write it off as 'tedious, boring, too difficult, etc.'
It is not the F2P market that has given birth to an entitled generation, but rather the other way around. F2P has thrived because of an entitled generation. Further backed up by a series of games built on half-realized promises or flat-out lies, which raised the question of 'what exactly are we paying a subscription for?'. Since, contrary to what many believe on these forums, a sub model has not proven to be a benchmark for quality games, but rather just another business model w/ an excuse.
I also agree, though, that older games tended to be much more focused on 'world building', but as a result were generally not as good of games. They were a lot of fun, but tended to have very simplistic / problematic gameplay elements that we have since glossed over due to nostalgia.
People (like you) thinking they know what's better or good for other people.
Me not joining a guild or not being forced to do group content (which I do every day in WoW and socialize btw) has...
going to do all caps for emphasis...
ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING OR EFFECT ON YOU OR OTHERS CHOOSING TO BE SOCIAL AND DO EVERYTHING IN A MMORPG AS A GROUP.
Sure, lots of the content may not be balanced for a group, it may be balanced for solo, but that is not a problem.
When all of the content was balanced for a group, ala EQ, the genre was tiny and niche.
UO was not really balanced for any group or non group, it was just a free for all. With the right setup and/or skillful play you could "solo" just about anything.
So is UO now not a real MMORPG? It also had fast travel! Lot's of it!
[mod edit]
I agree with mos of what you are saying...even as an old school player.
What I do not agree with however is that all content in EQ was group oriented. There was solo stuff, just not near as much as today. And really...you still were able to make some of that group oriented stuff soloable if you were good enough with your class, knew spawn timers, spawn aggro ranges, etc, etc. I soloed plenty of stuff I shouldn't of been able to on my Ranger and Beastlord. I also died many times doing the same...but I did accomplish it eventually....and it was a blast doing it.
Originally posted by Kyleran Originally posted by AlBQuirky I had to laugh. First, Spock has this very good post, to which I agree.Originally posted by BadSpock Wrong.Socialization is still the responsibility of YOU, the player, not the developer to force it on you.If you get bored not having friends/guildies, go make some!Doesn't matter what game, same is true for all MMOs and has been true and will always be true.When it comes to social/community, the power is yours (ours.)
Then the next one I read is from nariusseldon.
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Naw. The games weren't really harder, just more tedious and time consuming. There was nothing particular hard or challenging about old MMO's.
Yeh. EQ is a lot more repetitive and boring (to me) than any modern MMOs. I wouldn't go back to a game like EQ. Camping spawns is not challenging, and down-time is just plain silly. If i want to chat, i will go to a chat room, i don't play games to chat.
See the trouble here? Spock is right, though, it is not the games' job to MAKE you sociable. Really, how can they do that?
However, with millions of players just like nariusseldon, can anyone wonder exactly why the social aspect is nearly dead?
What can games do for this dilemma (if one actually thinks it IS a dilemma)?
You're pointing out two who don't recognize the problem, hence they won't agree there is any need for a solution.
Both are wrong for different reasons but there is no point in arguing anymore.
I know what the problem is actually.
People (like you) thinking they know what's better or good for other people.
Me not joining a guild or not being forced to do group content (which I do every day in WoW and socialize btw) has...
going to do all caps for emphasis...
ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING OR EFFECT ON YOU OR OTHERS CHOOSING TO BE SOCIAL AND DO EVERYTHING IN A MMORPG AS A GROUP.
Sure, lots of the content may not be balanced for a group, it may be balanced for solo, but that is not a problem.
When all of the content was balanced for a group, ala EQ, the genre was tiny and niche.
UO was not really balanced for any group or non group, it was just a free for all. With the right setup and/or skillful play you could "solo" just about anything.
So is UO now not a real MMORPG? It also had fast travel! Lot's of it!
[mod edit]
Still tilting at windmills I see, and ignoring the forest for the trees. So focused on the demon, forced grouping, you can't accept there are many mechanics to encourage socialization that have been stripped away to make these games into the social wastelands they've become.
See the thing is, in this situation I do know what is better for the game community overall, even at the expense of some players personal preference.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I had to laugh. First, Spock has this very good post, to which I agree.
Originally posted by BadSpock Wrong.
Socialization is still the responsibility of YOU, the player, not the developer to force it on you.
If you get bored not having friends/guildies, go make some!
Doesn't matter what game, same is true for all MMOs and has been true and will always be true.
When it comes to social/community, the power is yours (ours.)
Then the next one I read is from nariusseldon.
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Naw. The games weren't really harder, just more tedious and time consuming. There was nothing particular hard or challenging about old MMO's.
Yeh. EQ is a lot more repetitive and boring (to me) than any modern MMOs. I wouldn't go back to a game like EQ. Camping spawns is not challenging, and down-time is just plain silly. If i want to chat, i will go to a chat room, i don't play games to chat.
See the trouble here? Spock is right, though, it is not the games' job to MAKE you sociable. Really, how can they do that?
However, with millions of players just like nariusseldon, can anyone wonder exactly why the social aspect is nearly dead?
What can games do for this dilemma (if one actually thinks it IS a dilemma)?
You're pointing out two who don't recognize the problem, hence they won't agree there is any need for a solution.
Both are wrong for different reasons but there is no point in arguing anymore.
I know what the problem is actually.
People (like you) thinking they know what's better or good for other people.
Me not joining a guild or not being forced to do group content (which I do every day in WoW and socialize btw) has...
going to do all caps for emphasis...
ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING OR EFFECT ON YOU OR OTHERS CHOOSING TO BE SOCIAL AND DO EVERYTHING IN A MMORPG AS A GROUP.
Sure, lots of the content may not be balanced for a group, it may be balanced for solo, but that is not a problem.
When all of the content was balanced for a group, ala EQ, the genre was tiny and niche.
UO was not really balanced for any group or non group, it was just a free for all. With the right setup and/or skillful play you could "solo" just about anything.
So is UO now not a real MMORPG? It also had fast travel! Lot's of it!
[mod edit]
Still tilting at windmills I see, and ignoring the forest for the trees. So focused on the demon, forced grouping, you can't accept there are many mechanics to encourage socialization that have been stripped away to make these games into the social wastelands they've become.
See the thing is, in this situation I do know what is better for the game community overall, even at the expense of some players personal preference.
Social aspect of mmos is not dead. I can tell most people in this forum would love a 'modern" EQ - you know - better combat, better graphics, smarter NPCs mobs etc. I wouldn't mind that either - I loved EQ. But exaggeration isn't going to prove your point.
The MOST casual MMO in all of existence - GW2 has active busy guilds in it.. So no socialization and teamwork is not dead in MMOs.
Still tilting at windmills I see, and ignoring the forest for the trees. So focused on the demon, forced grouping, you can't accept there are many mechanics to encourage socialization that have been stripped away to make these games into the social wastelands they've become.
See the thing is, in this situation I do know what is better for the game community overall, even at the expense of some players personal preference.
If you think the community is less than what it was years ago, you are not trying hard enough. Are you even part of any gaming community? Do you log in daily to your IM service or TeamSpeak/Mumble and actually socialize? -I do. I have trouble finding time to play all these different games with all my friends.
"Social wastelands"!? I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe the problem is you and not the games.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
MMOS suck because the player base is a bunch of jaded ethnocentric know it alls who buy every single new processor and GPU that comes out to compensate for bad acne, obesity and lack of social skills. It makes the developers lazy and fearful of trying new things... or trying old proven things that work.
Or something like that.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I have been playing First person shooters and RTS games for well over 10 years now and new games in those genres don't automatically bore me just because they're same-y.
I have no problem identifying issues with a lot of the MMO's over the years. They have NOT been good games. They have been flawed and unfinished, most of the time. And most people do not want to play flawed and unfinished games
Most of the MMO's I've played over the last few years have been bad in most of these categories:
gameplay
story
immersion
animations
overall visuals
I can't think of a single MMO that nailed all these crucial elements. Either they nailed the gameplay and forgot everything else or they nailed the graphics but everything else in the game was a broken mess etc. MMO's have been a storm of crap and rushed game design in the last 10 years. The budgets keeps going up yet the games themselves never seem to improve much in quality!
All in all games today are a lot more refined and better thought out than anything that we played so I think it's really going to depend on the age of the person you ask.. something to keep in mind is that when people get older the amount of time they have to put into games goes down and down and down and the appeal of spending 4 hours a day becomes less and less
Comments
True, but you also have to remember that they crank out games with 8-20 whatever hour campaigns in a year, like the CoD or now BF series, and it takes them 4-6 years to put out an MMO with all it's content.
I mean it is a waste of development time and money. It becomes more pronounced to later on in the game a lot of times. When people are hitting that dreaded End Game experience. Content has to be produced for it and in a lot of games it is left wanting. Course there was that one zone where I was levels 20-31 which I was only in for a couple days. Shame that content is not being used for other things
I completely agree with the OP, in particular with this sentence.
It's years that I am warning the devs that by giving it so easy to the players they are shooting themselves in the foot.
I am amazed that every time one of the MMOs fail hard its devs are up in arms wondering what they did wrong, when the answer is so obvious.
You allow the players to achieve everything in a month, then they will pay a sub for a month.............. that's a simple equation really.
Want people to subscribe for longer? Make everything harder to achieve................ simple.
Players like the challenge.............. that's why they play games.
I hadn't really seen games that were worlds at the time. It was amazing. Hell, I was playing on a dial up modem it was so damn long ago.
But now a game being a world is not that exciting or unique- it's kind of expected.
So now I want the game to also be a good, fun game.
When I was a kid, RPG meant spending hours running in circles around some pixelated trees to get my screen to flash and enter another turn based battle to get another small chunk of XP.
Now, RPG to me means a sprawling, epic tale with incredible characters and graphics and cutscenes and responsive, exciting gameplay and deep, meaningful progression.
Very true.
I'd love to see games without zones and without level restrictions where regions on a map have meaning and territories have purpose and you can choose to live your characters life fighting for the land you call home, and yet still have meaningful progression and power advancement.
I might if I thought McQuaid had nothing whatsoever to do with management of the project/company and was merely locked in a room and asked to come up with creative game design ideas. It takes people with management and financial skills to make projects like that work too. If they actualy ever end up releasing the game that thier bullet points describe, I might very well play it. As it is, I couldn't in good conscience reccomend to anyone to fund the Kickstarter.
Fair enough.
And I'm sorry, but I do find this also ironic and quite funny.
Ya'll want old school games made like they used to, but the very father's of these games and "nope, wrong management it won't work out."
LOL it's like seriously, do you have to assemble the EXACT right Olympic Gold team of old-school MMO devs?
Didn't they try that once already too and it's called Vanguard?
Shroud of the Avatar from Richard G?
It's like ya'll are getting exactly what you want, but still hating it.
What is funnier is it sounds like your comment is saying Pantheon needs different management, like a successful publisher, but aren't publishers the PRIME EVIL and Kickstarter is THE way for the "devs to make great games without publishers?"
We're not regressing, because that would mean we're going backwards. And if we were going backwards, it seems you would actually be pleased. You are asking for regression of the MMO industry. You want it to revert to what it used to be, not what it is or what it's turning into.
You forget, just because something is innovative or evolutionary, doesn't mean you will like it. I know both of those words are generally used with a positive connotation, but they're simply descriptors and can be either positive or negative depending on the changes being made.
You want game worlds that are indistinguishable from reality. I personally have a problem with that. Primarily being, because reality already exists. Why would I want a virtual version of it too?
As far as immersion goes, you may very still see the day that it comes to video games, however, what is immersive to you, is not necessarily immersive to someone else. I never want to have "hunger" in an MMO, I think it's a horrible concept and never enjoy it when it exists. But you might, you might find it immersive! And there's the problem you're going to run in to. Who's version of immersion are you going to get?
I was thinking along the lines of everquest, shadowbane, lineage 2, UO, etc.
You basically had a game space where players figured out how to interact with the game world, what they wanted from the world,etc.
So, for example, in L2, you didn't log in, load up on quests and run through your paces to the glowy bits on the map until you hit level cap and then ran instances for better gear until the next update.
You would log in and think (what do I want to do today, what do I want to accomplish or "how should I spend my time".
You would then figure out "oh, I want to craft x" or "I want to make money, how can I do that" or "I'm at war and we need to track down Y" or "we need to start a war, time to have the guild take over a favorite leveling spot".
Raiding gave you the same gear as crafted and possible a special piece. And you constantly needed gear, and better gear, to live and thrive in this world".
And anything could happen. I might think I was leveling that evening but end up doing a class change raid only to run into an opposing clan and fight it out for the evening.
Or you would be running to a leveling spot, see someone in trouble with a red player or high levle mobs, help him and then join him in a leveling area only to be joined by others and then suddenly (hey people are going to (whatever the underwater dungone was can't remember) let's join them!"
It didn't seem so pre-ordained and you could just grab friends and go explore or find war tags or gather the clan for clan quests so you could level the clan.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
The gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar juggernaut, with MMOs leading the pack!
If they have become soooo horrible then the numbers would not be there.
I think it is people's nostalgia that causes them to think it was better back in the day. Yes, I will give it to you that there are some elements of MMOs of days past that should be brought back or enhanced for modern games, but for the most part I do not believe MMOs of today suck.
That said, I do believe this F2P mentality of trying to get the most out of a game for nothing while others pay your way has created an entitlement society in MMOs! There are so many "MMO Leeches" just sucking anything enjoyable out of MMO games! Games are created for the best way to become a "Cash Cow" instead of it being a well thought out game that draws you into the world. What I hate more than anything in MMOs is that shop window!!!!!
Sovrath- that freedom of "play" is still out there, just not so much in the MMO space anymore.
I think (and have always thought) that the real reason we haven't seen great PvE sandbox games is because devs have just flat out refused to separate PvP from PvE.
If separate, you can retain that freedom of play, the freedom of choice and going out to just "do" without real objective.
PvP can be the thing you seek out, you choose to do, but you also have to be able to choose "NOT PvP."
Even a game like GW2 which tried to give players the freedom of play was/is just far too structured with levels and zones and checklist after checklist of things to complete.
You need that freedom of just "drop into the world and make your fun, go explore and find fun things" is what UO really had.
At least post-Trammel split.
I still to this day contend that UO post-Trammel/Felucca split was the best MMORPG ever made.
They went and ruined it, of course, and would it be fun now? I don't know, not 2.5D hah.
But UO didn't have forced downtime and tedious travel and super harsh penalties for death, it didn't have forced grouping and it didn't have forced PvP after the split.
It also didn't really have much in the way of progression or character advancement.
But it did have the freedom of simply playing and enjoying I haven't seen in a MMO since.
So much this. I was really wondering what was missing and it's the choice. I even remember clearly logging on from day to day and thinking those exact things, "Do I want to do some crafting today?", "Shall I camp for X drop for my epic quest.", "Shall I hang out in the Commonlands and give people ports and buffs?", "Where shall I fight today? Lower Guk? Sebillis?".
That's what's missing from modern MMO's, that freedom to do what I want to do. Instead, now you log on and continue following the path of quests onwards toward the higher level areas, with little to no variation or ability to change what you're doing. Modern MMO's are just tedious.
EDIT: Adding on to that, this is exactly why I considered LOTRO to be one of the best MMO's since EverQuest. Sure, it had quest chains, but it also let me branch off to do other things. Go quest north, go quest south, go craft some stuff, go kill a ton of mobs for traits. There was choice, which is so often missing from MMO's now.
That sounds awesome, because every MMO I've played has none of that. Exciting gameplay and deep, meaningful progression? I must be missing something.
Lets face it. old school games had bad graphics and the combat mechanics was not all that good, A single player game was much better in most areas, BUT...
They had one thing that set them apart from other games. They had the ability to let you (if you had the imagination) live and experience adventure in another world and most importantly you could share those adventures with other people.
Todays games are mostly linear, they have also turned into single player games. At the same time the combat mechanics are still as "bad" as they used to be, only slightly dressed up.
In other words they took away that one redeeming quality mmorpgs had but didn't improve the other aspects. Now we have bad single player games with co-op mode so why should one play that instead of a real single player game with good graphics and good mechanics?
Great and accurate post from the OP
I play both old (EQ,UO) & new theme parks
And as of today, Old schools mmorpgs still Win.
****************************
Playing : Uncharted Waters Online
****************************
Mostly this ^ and what Sovrath posted.
Much of the 'problem' of today's MMOs is a biproduct of the type of gamers we have become. And not so much a biproduct of 'bad developers'. WoW has shown people that gamers will buy very easily accessible, lightweight games that are more about being a game than being a virtual world. And that trend has only continued. Furthermore, this trend isn't just limited to MMOs, but is a fact of life Blizzard has capitalized on to become a successful company. As much as it sucks, people have proven (and continue to prove) that we will buy a crappy product, provided it is marketted well enough / has certain art styles attached. Some people might buy games with complex / challenging mechanics, but many more will write it off as 'tedious, boring, too difficult, etc.'
It is not the F2P market that has given birth to an entitled generation, but rather the other way around. F2P has thrived because of an entitled generation. Further backed up by a series of games built on half-realized promises or flat-out lies, which raised the question of 'what exactly are we paying a subscription for?'. Since, contrary to what many believe on these forums, a sub model has not proven to be a benchmark for quality games, but rather just another business model w/ an excuse.
I also agree, though, that older games tended to be much more focused on 'world building', but as a result were generally not as good of games. They were a lot of fun, but tended to have very simplistic / problematic gameplay elements that we have since glossed over due to nostalgia.
People just need to accept that they are not necessarily in the target audience of the big AAA titles anymore. It's as simple as that.
Oldschool MMOs are a niche market now.
Niche games are on the rise though, there is still hope.
I agree with mos of what you are saying...even as an old school player.
What I do not agree with however is that all content in EQ was group oriented. There was solo stuff, just not near as much as today. And really...you still were able to make some of that group oriented stuff soloable if you were good enough with your class, knew spawn timers, spawn aggro ranges, etc, etc. I soloed plenty of stuff I shouldn't of been able to on my Ranger and Beastlord. I also died many times doing the same...but I did accomplish it eventually....and it was a blast doing it.
However, with millions of players just like nariusseldon, can anyone wonder exactly why the social aspect is nearly dead?
What can games do for this dilemma (if one actually thinks it IS a dilemma)?
You're pointing out two who don't recognize the problem, hence they won't agree there is any need for a solution.
Both are wrong for different reasons but there is no point in arguing anymore.
I know what the problem is actually.
People (like you) thinking they know what's better or good for other people.
Me not joining a guild or not being forced to do group content (which I do every day in WoW and socialize btw) has...
going to do all caps for emphasis...
ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING OR EFFECT ON YOU OR OTHERS CHOOSING TO BE SOCIAL AND DO EVERYTHING IN A MMORPG AS A GROUP.
Sure, lots of the content may not be balanced for a group, it may be balanced for solo, but that is not a problem.
When all of the content was balanced for a group, ala EQ, the genre was tiny and niche.
UO was not really balanced for any group or non group, it was just a free for all. With the right setup and/or skillful play you could "solo" just about anything.
So is UO now not a real MMORPG? It also had fast travel! Lot's of it!
[mod edit]
See the thing is, in this situation I do know what is better for the game community overall, even at the expense of some players personal preference.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Social aspect of mmos is not dead. I can tell most people in this forum would love a 'modern" EQ - you know - better combat, better graphics, smarter NPCs mobs etc. I wouldn't mind that either - I loved EQ. But exaggeration isn't going to prove your point.
The MOST casual MMO in all of existence - GW2 has active busy guilds in it.. So no socialization and teamwork is not dead in MMOs.
If you think the community is less than what it was years ago, you are not trying hard enough. Are you even part of any gaming community? Do you log in daily to your IM service or TeamSpeak/Mumble and actually socialize? -I do. I have trouble finding time to play all these different games with all my friends.
"Social wastelands"!? I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe the problem is you and not the games.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
MMOS suck because the player base is a bunch of jaded ethnocentric know it alls who buy every single new processor and GPU that comes out to compensate for bad acne, obesity and lack of social skills. It makes the developers lazy and fearful of trying new things... or trying old proven things that work.
Or something like that.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I have been playing First person shooters and RTS games for well over 10 years now and new games in those genres don't automatically bore me just because they're same-y.
I have no problem identifying issues with a lot of the MMO's over the years. They have NOT been good games. They have been flawed and unfinished, most of the time. And most people do not want to play flawed and unfinished games
Most of the MMO's I've played over the last few years have been bad in most of these categories:
gameplay
story
immersion
animations
overall visuals
I can't think of a single MMO that nailed all these crucial elements. Either they nailed the gameplay and forgot everything else or they nailed the graphics but everything else in the game was a broken mess etc. MMO's have been a storm of crap and rushed game design in the last 10 years. The budgets keeps going up yet the games themselves never seem to improve much in quality!
Main Game: Eldevin (Plat0nic)
2nd Game: Path of Exile (Platonic Hate)