It's true that labels are just for categorization...but you can only bend a label so far before it breaks.
If a game has a third person perspective...it cannot be a first person shooter.
Just like if a game does not have a persistent, shared world, it cannot be an MMORPG. The persistent, shared world is the defining aspect of an MMORPG. This is why Diablo 3 or Borderlands are not MMORPGs, even though they have a lot of things in common with MMORPGs.
So when you talk about making everything more instanced...you really ARE talking about taking the game away from the MMORPG genre. No persistent, shared world, no MMORPG.
Apparently site like this one, and others are including D3, LoL, Destiny ... in the list of MMOs. Heck .. even Marvel Heroes do not have a persistent world.
Now i am sure you will love to call them something else. Let me know when you find a new label that will stick with the industry .. i am no problem using another label, as long as it is convenient. After all, it is just semantics, and what is important to me is the actual specific game, not how it is labelled.
It's true that labels are just for categorization...but you can only bend a label so far before it breaks.
If a game has a third person perspective...it cannot be a first person shooter.
Just like if a game does not have a persistent, shared world, it cannot be an MMORPG. The persistent, shared world is the defining aspect of an MMORPG. This is why Diablo 3 or Borderlands are not MMORPGs, even though they have a lot of things in common with MMORPGs.
So when you talk about making everything more instanced...you really ARE talking about taking the game away from the MMORPG genre. No persistent, shared world, no MMORPG.
Apparently site like this one, and others are including D3, LoL, Destiny ... in the list of MMOs. Heck .. even Marvel Heroes do not have a persistent world.
Now i am sure you will love to call them something else. Let me know when you find a new label that will stick with the industry .. i am no problem using another label, as long as it is convenient. After all, it is just semantics, and what is important to me is the actual specific game, not how it is labelled.
So first...all words are essentially defined by people which makes their definition subject to change. But I think we should all agree that it's important that we try to keep constant definitions for words and terms...otherwise no one would ever understand what you are talking about.
Second, I don't think that "listed on this site" is a good criteria for if something is an MMORPG or not. Yes, the site is called mmorpg.com, but I'm pretty sure they just try to cater to what their audience likes. Even if it is not technically an MMORPG.
Third, here are some external sites that define an MMORPG as something having a persistent shared world:
Anyway, I can't stop you from calling whatever you want an MMORPG. But to me, and from the looks of it most of the world, an MMORPG is always going to mean having a persistent, shared world.
There is no contradiction. MMORPG is only a label by now, not really literally mean anything.
Plus, who says we should not have offline SP games. They are not mutually exclusive. You don't think i only play online SP games, do you?
We should have both ... offline and online solo experiences .. and we do.
Just because you can't identify the contradiction does not mean it's not there.
Just because it is your opinion that there is one does not mean that it is there.
A contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.
Single player massivley multiplayer...
It's not my opinion it's a basic understanding of logic. Now I will concede maybe I am being too literal and you could use the example of "alone in a crowd" or soloing in a massivly multiplayer game but you can not have a single player massivley multiplayer game. It's a contradiction. That's fact. How can you even argue it????
That is your problem ... labels are just for convenient categorization. I don't interpret them literally.
There is no contradiction if you view MMORPG merely as a category of games. Whether it uses the word "massive" is irrelevant because it is not literal.
It's true that labels are just for categorization...but you can only bend a label so far before it breaks.
If a game has a third person perspective...it cannot be a first person shooter.
Just like if a game does not have a persistent, shared world, it cannot be an MMORPG. The persistent, shared world is the defining aspect of an MMORPG. This is why Diablo 3 or Borderlands are not MMORPGs, even though they have a lot of things in common with MMORPGs.
So when you talk about making everything more instanced...you really ARE talking about taking the game away from the MMORPG genre. No persistent, shared world, no MMORPG.
I wonder what people would say if they changed the label for today's MMOs to MMOSPG (massively multiplayer single player games). I think most people would laugh at the contradiction, but I'd prefer that label. As it stands now most people don't seem to even want to admit old MMORPGs existed or that it is unique compared to what is offered today. It may just be a label, but to get a label something has to be unique in some way. That is something that MMOs today are not IMO.
Second, I don't think that "listed on this site" is a good criteria for if something is an MMORPG or not. Yes, the site is called mmorpg.com, but I'm pretty sure they just try to cater to what their audience likes. Even if it is not technically an MMORPG.
"technically" is much less of a driver than "convenience". Sure, you don't like it, and you can site definitions that other wrote to try to debunk it.
But the root of the matter is .... can you stop others from using the MMORPG label as they do now? Marvel Heroes has no persistent world, and yet it is classified as a MMORPG in reviews, industry reports and so on.
When you make everything change the use of the label, i will follow suit. Good luck!
I wonder what people would say if they changed the label for today's MMOs to MMOSPG (massively multiplayer single player games). I think most people would laugh at the contradiction, but I'd prefer that label. As it stands now most people don't seem to even want to admit old MMORPGs existed or that it is unique compared to what is offered today. It may just be a label, but to get a label something has to be unique in some way. That is something that MMOs today are not IMO.
What? Of ocurse old traditional MMORPGs exists, and they are different .... and i don't like them.
In terms of convenient labeling .. just call them "traditional MMORPGs" to separate them from the newer solo centric MMORPGs. Problem solved. Simple, clear use of labeling.
Originally posted by nariusseldon ]There is no contradiction. MMORPG is only a label by now, not really literally mean anything.
Here's a video game (or is THAT too much of a label for you?). Give "Charlie the Publisher" 60 monetary units and you can play it. You gonna buy it?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by nariusseldon ]There is no contradiction. MMORPG is only a label by now, not really literally mean anything.
Here's a video game (or is THAT too much of a label for you?). Give "Charlie the Publisher" 60 monetary units and you can play it. You gonna buy it?
is the game good and fun? I may if i like it enough.
You don't know, do you. Some labels may help shed some light, but you HATE labels. So, you have to decide on NO information.
Is it action combat? You don't know. Is it a puzzle game? You don't know. Is it an FPS? You don't know. Is it an MMO? You don't know. Is it a survival game? You don't know. Is it about ponies or Furries? You don't know.
"It is just entertainment."
My point is, in case you miss it, that labels have a function. Your constant refusal to acknowledge (or change them) them is asinine.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I guess one big help would be to actually charge everyone for playing them, just like single player games, which I think is the root to all your "MMOs need to be more like single player games" threads.
You don't want to pay for your entertainment. Most MMOs are F2P. Otherwise, you'd just play Single Player games and be happy instead of trying to change a whole genre into something it was never intended to be.
Intended to be? They didn't go mainstream until WoW loosened the commitment requirement from EQ. I played EQ for a number of yrs, and have fond memories of it, but no way in hell I ever want to play that type of game again. Twenty four hr camps may float some people's boat, but definitely not mine.
Instancing was the best thing ever to happen to MMORPGs IMO. Maybe not for those who PVP, but who cares, that isn't the majority playstyle. Instancing allowed those that enjoy PVE to avoid dealing with pinheads that are simply out to ruin other's fun. The trick is making sure not all content is instanced.
Some posters on this site are insistent that MMORPGs should be sandbox/PVP FFAs....no thanks. They claim that "they weren't supposed to be a certain way". Much the same as you are doing now. The funny thing is that EQ, along with Trammel, showed us how older players wanted the genre to be. PVE focused, with no forced PVP, and crafters taking a back seat to looted items. The new players brought in with WoW simply re-enforced it.
So if PVE folks are wanting story, I don't see where the sandboxers have a leg to stand on when they try to claim this genre shouldn't include such things. Their ideas were already shown as the far minority before MMOs hit the mainstream.
Originally posted by nariusseldon ]There is no contradiction. MMORPG is only a label by now, not really literally mean anything.
Here's a video game (or is THAT too much of a label for you?). Give "Charlie the Publisher" 60 monetary units and you can play it. You gonna buy it?
is the game good and fun? I may if i like it enough.
You don't know, do you. Some labels may help shed some light, but you HATE labels. So, you have to decide on NO information.
Is it action combat? You don't know. Is it a puzzle game? You don't know. Is it an FPS? You don't know. Is it an MMO? You don't know. Is it a survival game? You don't know. Is it about ponies or Furries? You don't know.
"It is just entertainment."
My point is, in case you miss it, that labels have a function. Your constant refusal to acknowledge (or change them) them is asinine.
That is silly. I don't need label to read about specific game. Name a game .. say D3
Is it actoin combat? yes .. .i know.
Is it a puzzle game? no .... i know.
Is it an FPS? no .. i know
... and so on and so forth ...
how? I read about the GAME, not its label. Oh, label has a function .. it is just a grouping of games .. like Marvel Heros is a MMORPG even though it has no persistent world. Now, who is refusing to change?
So if PVE folks are wanting story, I don't see where the sandboxers have a leg to stand on when they try to claim this genre shouldn't include such things. Their ideas were already shown as the far minority before MMOs hit the mainstream.
yeh ... and the funny thing is ... it is moot after all. They can scream as loud as they want .. but devs are listening to nothing but the market.
So if PVE folks are wanting story, I don't see where the sandboxers have a leg to stand on when they try to claim this genre shouldn't include such things. Their ideas were already shown as the far minority before MMOs hit the mainstream.
yeh ... and the funny thing is ... it is moot after all. They can scream as loud as they want .. but devs are listening to nothing but the market.
Actually no... devs are creating the market as proxies for investors that don't give a damn about what their customers want. They already know that they can make crap, and people will give them money for it because there's really nothing else out there. Over time you've all deluded yourselves into believing that said crap is actually gold.
yeh ... and the funny thing is ... it is moot after all. They can scream as loud as they want .. but devs are listening to nothing but the market.
Actually no... devs are creating the market as proxies for investors that don't give a damn about what their customers want. They already know that they can make crap, and people will give them money for it because there's really nothing else out there. Over time you've all deluded yourselves into believing that said crap is actually gold.
The business world seems to be somewhat in disagreement with your analysis. Supply and demand are generally accepted things.
Now, I totally agree you can make crap and try to sell it, and many have, no question.
But this is a multi billion $ market, and for such potentially lucrative markets one important thing seems to apply:
In the situation you describe, when the market is served only with crap products, someone smart would make a product that is NOT crap, and he would blow the crap producers and their crap products the hell out of the market with it and make several hundred truckloads of money in the process without even breaking a sweat.
So... assuming your theory is right... Why the heck doesn't anyone take the huge (even bigger than huge actually if what you say is true) opportunity to take over the entire market without any real competition and make very easy billions in the process?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Maybe what is going on is not as simple and devious as you imply and has to do with target audiences, market sizes, niche profitability, budget sizes, ROI and many other similar little tidbits your theory ignores?
Second, I don't think that "listed on this site" is a good criteria for if something is an MMORPG or not. Yes, the site is called mmorpg.com, but I'm pretty sure they just try to cater to what their audience likes. Even if it is not technically an MMORPG.
"technically" is much less of a driver than "convenience". Sure, you don't like it, and you can site definitions that other wrote to try to debunk it.
But the root of the matter is .... can you stop others from using the MMORPG label as they do now? Marvel Heroes has no persistent world, and yet it is classified as a MMORPG in reviews, industry reports and so on.
When you make everything change the use of the label, i will follow suit. Good luck!
Okay so imagine that somebody starts referring to cats as dogs. And they justify this by saying "hey, they're both pets right and it's just a label!"
So does this mean that we now all have to acknowledge that cats are really dogs just because some people decided to call them dogs? No...that's clearly stupid.
But that's EXACTLY what you are saying. You are saying that if at least ONE PERSON exists who doesn't think an MMORPG has a persistent shared world, then we all have to acknowledge that one person's definition.
Also...I don't really get why you care about this. Assuming that Marvel Heroes has no persistent world...not labeling it as an MMORPG would not make it cease to exist. Just because the games you like aren't called MMORPGs, does not mean they will not be made.
It IS just a label, it does not cause or negate the existence of game. It's there for classification only, and it should be used appropriately.
yeh ... and the funny thing is ... it is moot after all. They can scream as loud as they want .. but devs are listening to nothing but the market.
Actually no... devs are creating the market as proxies for investors that don't give a damn about what their customers want. They already know that they can make crap, and people will give them money for it because there's really nothing else out there. Over time you've all deluded yourselves into believing that said crap is actually gold.
The business world seems to be somewhat in disagreement with your analysis. Supply and demand are generally accepted things.
Now, I totally agree you can make crap and try to sell it, and many have, no question.
But this is a multi billion $ market, and for such potentially lucrative markets one important thing seems to apply:
In the situation you describe, when the market is served only with crap products, someone smart would make a product that is NOT crap, and he would blow the crap producers and their crap products the hell out of the market with it and make several hundred truckloads of money in the process without even breaking a sweat.
So... assuming your theory is right... Why the heck doesn't anyone take the huge (even bigger than huge actually if what you say is true) opportunity to take over the entire market without any real competition and make very easy billions in the process?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Maybe what is going on is not as simple and devious as you imply and has to do with target audiences, market sizes, niche profitability, budget sizes, ROI and many other similar little tidbits your theory ignores?
Just food for thought, no offense meant.
It is quite hard to sell stuff to people who don't like them nowadays because of the net.
When someone here says a dev is selling crap, it is more like that it means "devs are selling stuff this person does not like".
Personally i have never spent a dime on games in the last 10 years when getting game information has become a norm.
Okay so imagine that somebody starts referring to cats as dogs. And they justify this by saying "hey, they're both pets right and it's just a label!"
So does this mean that we now all have to acknowledge that cats are really dogs just because some people decided to call them dogs? No...that's clearly stupid.
If most people are doing it .... we will be calling cats dogs.
That is the point. It is about common usage. It seems that there is little value to distinguish between LoL and LoTR, and hence both are MMOs in many website & industry categorization.
OTOH, there seems to a larger value to distinguish between cats & dogs. May be people care more about pets than online video games.
But the bottomline is this ... you can argue until you face blue ... but i (and probably many others) will just follow common usage. Good luck in changing that. If you do, i have no problem using a new convenient label.
yeh ... and the funny thing is ... it is moot after all. They can scream as loud as they want .. but devs are listening to nothing but the market.
Actually no... devs are creating the market as proxies for investors that don't give a damn about what their customers want. They already know that they can make crap, and people will give them money for it because there's really nothing else out there. Over time you've all deluded yourselves into believing that said crap is actually gold.
The business world seems to be somewhat in disagreement with your analysis. Supply and demand are generally accepted things.
Now, I totally agree you can make crap and try to sell it, and many have, no question.
But this is a multi billion $ market, and for such potentially lucrative markets one important thing seems to apply:
In the situation you describe, when the market is served only with crap products, someone smart would make a product that is NOT crap, and he would blow the crap producers and their crap products the hell out of the market with it and make several hundred truckloads of money in the process without even breaking a sweat.
So... assuming your theory is right... Why the heck doesn't anyone take the huge (even bigger than huge actually if what you say is true) opportunity to take over the entire market without any real competition and make very easy billions in the process?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Maybe what is going on is not as simple and devious as you imply and has to do with target audiences, market sizes, niche profitability, budget sizes, ROI and many other similar little tidbits your theory ignores?
Just food for thought, no offense meant.
No offense taken
Still though, even in your analysis, what's not taken into thought is costs. That's why pretty much all mmo's are copy/paste with a new veneer glued on top. Different paths or ways of going about things to make them feel different, but the core and usually even the endgame is almost always the exact same. To come out and make something completely different would cost more to develop because you'd actually have to hire real game designers and developers again, license or custom build from the bottom up new engines and technologies, even spend money on real QA and testers that aren't using alphas and betas as early access only. It'd cost twice as much to market, because like it or not, we all hate and are resistant to change... especially after over 10 years of doing the same things so often that we don't even have to think to beat a game anymore. Lastly, it'd cost more to maintain, because to be different, they'd also have to keep producing new and innovative content, not just drop-in addons that only add another dungeon or two, new glittery weapons, and new FOTM class imbalances if pvp is an option.
So basically, for all that to happen, someone needs to know how to give their investors the finger and truly develop what they envision. Some indies are on the right path, but none are quite there yet.
In the situation you describe, when the market is served only with crap products, someone smart would make a product that is NOT crap, and he would blow the crap producers and their crap products the hell out of the market with it and make several hundred truckloads of money in the process without even breaking a sweat.
So... assuming your theory is right... Why the heck doesn't anyone take the huge (even bigger than huge actually if what you say is true) opportunity to take over the entire market without any real competition and make very easy billions in the process?
I think it's not a devious premeditated issue of people "making crap because people will buy crap". It's that they're going with what they know rather than taking risks and innovating. "Well we know WoW has a ton of subscribers" so if we copy it at least our game won't totally flop."
The alternative is to take risks and maybe develop the next big thing but also maybe totally bomb worse than a WoW clone would. Big money investors tend to hate that kind of risk even if the potential profit is much higher than playing it safe.
That's why I'm excited that some indie MMOs are actually being made. Those guys are going to take risks because they have little choice and hopefully the next great game idea will come out of it.
In the situation you describe, when the market is served only with crap products, someone smart would make a product that is NOT crap, and he would blow the crap producers and their crap products the hell out of the market with it and make several hundred truckloads of money in the process without even breaking a sweat.
So... assuming your theory is right... Why the heck doesn't anyone take the huge (even bigger than huge actually if what you say is true) opportunity to take over the entire market without any real competition and make very easy billions in the process?
I think it's not a devious premeditated issue of people "making crap because people will buy crap". It's that they're going with what they know rather than taking risks and innovating. "Well we know WoW has a ton of subscribers" so if we copy it at least our game won't totally flop."
The alternative is to take risks and maybe develop the next big thing but also maybe totally bomb worse than a WoW clone would. Big money investors tend to hate that kind of isk even if the potential profit is much higher than playing it safe.
That's why I'm excited that some indie MMOs are actually being made. Those guys are going to take risks because they have little choice and hopefully the next great game idea will come out of it.
Yep. Fully agree.
The big budget segment is kinda painted into a corner.
I am also a big fan of indies. That's where most of the innovative sparks will come from hopefully.
Still though, even in your analysis, what's not taken into thought is costs. That's why pretty much all mmo's are copy/paste with a new veneer glued on top. Different paths or ways of going about things to make them feel different, but the core and usually even the endgame is almost always the exact same. To come out and make something completely different would cost more to develop because you'd actually have to hire real game designers and developers again, license or custom build from the bottom up new engines and technologies, even spend money on real QA and testers that aren't using alphas and betas as early access only. It'd cost twice as much to market, because like it or not, we all hate and are resistant to change... especially after over 10 years of doing the same things so often that we don't even have to think to beat a game anymore. Lastly, it'd cost more to maintain, because to be different, they'd also have to keep producing new and innovative content, not just drop-in addons that only add another dungeon or two, new glittery weapons, and new FOTM class imbalances if pvp is an option.
So basically, for all that to happen, someone needs to know how to give their investors the finger and truly develop what they envision. Some indies are on the right path, but none are quite there yet.
Agreed, costs ofcourse play a big role. No question.
Marketing costs are indeed in crazy regions and make up a big chunk of the budgets.
Making focussed games that target specific niches and serve them well, generating buzz and "free marketing" could be one approach to lessen the pain.
The big budget segment is kinda painted into a corner.
I am also a big fan of indies. That's where most of the innovative sparks will come from hopefully.
I disagree that there is no new stuff in AAA segment.
LoL is a total new game type when it first started. So is WoT. Destiny is another good example. Huge budget, and a totally new way of doing online. Even D3 took risks in a new skill system (which i like, and some don't) and a RMAH (which failed and removed). That is risk taking, by definition.
Now it is not mutually exclusive that AAA and indies are taking risks. Indie obviously take more risks .. but at the same time, they have very small budgets (except Star Citizen), and i doubt many indie has enough resources to do a full online game, not to mention MMO.
The big budget segment is kinda painted into a corner.
I am also a big fan of indies. That's where most of the innovative sparks will come from hopefully.
I disagree that there is no new stuff in AAA segment.
LoL is a total new game type when it first started. So is WoT. Destiny is another good example. Huge budget, and a totally new way of doing online. Even D3 took risks in a new skill system (which i like, and some don't) and a RMAH (which failed and removed). That is risk taking, by definition.
Now it is not mutually exclusive that AAA and indies are taking risks. Indie obviously take more risks .. but at the same time, they have very small budgets (except Star Citizen), and i doubt many indie has enough resources to do a full online game, not to mention MMO.
Different AAA segment, but OK, let's switch. Your thread, your rules.
Originally posted by Flyte27 I'm sure it could be done eventually as technology improves, but what is the point? We already have single player games and co op games that do that job just fine. What made MMOs great was that they were unique. They didn't have quests. They were a world to live in. Whats the point in making them into something that already exists and does a great job?
The point for whom?
The point for the devs .. who knows .. but lots of them seem to want to make MMOs more SP game like ... and may be the point is to broaden their audience and make more money.
The point for me?
If there are more SP like MMOs, there are more games for me to choose from. It is always a good thing. I am not going to promise to play them .. but i won't ignore them and if they do a good job, give them a chance.
There is no reason to refuse good entertainment just because it is under a MMO label, is there?
There are a whole slew of SP games out there! WoW, FFXIV, D3, console games, and ect.
What about a game that has a little more humph to it?
Below is where we can disscuss and come up with new ideas for Sandparks!
The big budget segment is kinda painted into a corner.
I am also a big fan of indies. That's where most of the innovative sparks will come from hopefully.
I disagree that there is no new stuff in AAA segment.
LoL is a total new game type when it first started. So is WoT. Destiny is another good example. Huge budget, and a totally new way of doing online. Even D3 took risks in a new skill system (which i like, and some don't) and a RMAH (which failed and removed). That is risk taking, by definition.
Now it is not mutually exclusive that AAA and indies are taking risks. Indie obviously take more risks .. but at the same time, they have very small budgets (except Star Citizen), and i doubt many indie has enough resources to do a full online game, not to mention MMO.
Different AAA segment, but OK, let's switch. Your thread, your rules.
oh ... if you want to talk about the more traditional AAA MMO segment, we can do that too. It is a free for all fun discussion. I don't mind.
That segment, IMHO, is shrinking. Traditional type MMOs (and i am talking about the WoW kind, not the ancient UO/EQ stuff) has run its course. I am not seeing a lot more development and interests in the segment. Personally i am more excited for games like Destiny (unfortunately it is console only).
Comments
Apparently site like this one, and others are including D3, LoL, Destiny ... in the list of MMOs. Heck .. even Marvel Heroes do not have a persistent world.
Now i am sure you will love to call them something else. Let me know when you find a new label that will stick with the industry .. i am no problem using another label, as long as it is convenient. After all, it is just semantics, and what is important to me is the actual specific game, not how it is labelled.
So first...all words are essentially defined by people which makes their definition subject to change. But I think we should all agree that it's important that we try to keep constant definitions for words and terms...otherwise no one would ever understand what you are talking about.
Second, I don't think that "listed on this site" is a good criteria for if something is an MMORPG or not. Yes, the site is called mmorpg.com, but I'm pretty sure they just try to cater to what their audience likes. Even if it is not technically an MMORPG.
Third, here are some external sites that define an MMORPG as something having a persistent shared world:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/MMORPG.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/56863/mmorpg
I could find many more if you want.
Anyway, I can't stop you from calling whatever you want an MMORPG. But to me, and from the looks of it most of the world, an MMORPG is always going to mean having a persistent, shared world.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I wonder what people would say if they changed the label for today's MMOs to MMOSPG (massively multiplayer single player games). I think most people would laugh at the contradiction, but I'd prefer that label. As it stands now most people don't seem to even want to admit old MMORPGs existed or that it is unique compared to what is offered today. It may just be a label, but to get a label something has to be unique in some way. That is something that MMOs today are not IMO.
"technically" is much less of a driver than "convenience". Sure, you don't like it, and you can site definitions that other wrote to try to debunk it.
But the root of the matter is .... can you stop others from using the MMORPG label as they do now? Marvel Heroes has no persistent world, and yet it is classified as a MMORPG in reviews, industry reports and so on.
When you make everything change the use of the label, i will follow suit. Good luck!
What? Of ocurse old traditional MMORPGs exists, and they are different .... and i don't like them.
In terms of convenient labeling .. just call them "traditional MMORPGs" to separate them from the newer solo centric MMORPGs. Problem solved. Simple, clear use of labeling.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
is the game good and fun? I may if i like it enough.
Is it action combat? You don't know.
Is it a puzzle game? You don't know.
Is it an FPS? You don't know.
Is it an MMO? You don't know.
Is it a survival game? You don't know.
Is it about ponies or Furries? You don't know.
"It is just entertainment."
My point is, in case you miss it, that labels have a function. Your constant refusal to acknowledge (or change them) them is asinine.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Intended to be? They didn't go mainstream until WoW loosened the commitment requirement from EQ. I played EQ for a number of yrs, and have fond memories of it, but no way in hell I ever want to play that type of game again. Twenty four hr camps may float some people's boat, but definitely not mine.
Instancing was the best thing ever to happen to MMORPGs IMO. Maybe not for those who PVP, but who cares, that isn't the majority playstyle. Instancing allowed those that enjoy PVE to avoid dealing with pinheads that are simply out to ruin other's fun. The trick is making sure not all content is instanced.
Some posters on this site are insistent that MMORPGs should be sandbox/PVP FFAs....no thanks. They claim that "they weren't supposed to be a certain way". Much the same as you are doing now. The funny thing is that EQ, along with Trammel, showed us how older players wanted the genre to be. PVE focused, with no forced PVP, and crafters taking a back seat to looted items. The new players brought in with WoW simply re-enforced it.
So if PVE folks are wanting story, I don't see where the sandboxers have a leg to stand on when they try to claim this genre shouldn't include such things. Their ideas were already shown as the far minority before MMOs hit the mainstream.
That is silly. I don't need label to read about specific game. Name a game .. say D3
Is it actoin combat? yes .. .i know.
Is it a puzzle game? no .... i know.
Is it an FPS? no .. i know
... and so on and so forth ...
how? I read about the GAME, not its label. Oh, label has a function .. it is just a grouping of games .. like Marvel Heros is a MMORPG even though it has no persistent world. Now, who is refusing to change?
yeh ... and the funny thing is ... it is moot after all. They can scream as loud as they want .. but devs are listening to nothing but the market.
Actually no... devs are creating the market as proxies for investors that don't give a damn about what their customers want. They already know that they can make crap, and people will give them money for it because there's really nothing else out there. Over time you've all deluded yourselves into believing that said crap is actually gold.
The business world seems to be somewhat in disagreement with your analysis. Supply and demand are generally accepted things.
Now, I totally agree you can make crap and try to sell it, and many have, no question.
But this is a multi billion $ market, and for such potentially lucrative markets one important thing seems to apply:
In the situation you describe, when the market is served only with crap products, someone smart would make a product that is NOT crap, and he would blow the crap producers and their crap products the hell out of the market with it and make several hundred truckloads of money in the process without even breaking a sweat.
So... assuming your theory is right... Why the heck doesn't anyone take the huge (even bigger than huge actually if what you say is true) opportunity to take over the entire market without any real competition and make very easy billions in the process?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Maybe what is going on is not as simple and devious as you imply and has to do with target audiences, market sizes, niche profitability, budget sizes, ROI and many other similar little tidbits your theory ignores?
Just food for thought, no offense meant.
Okay so imagine that somebody starts referring to cats as dogs. And they justify this by saying "hey, they're both pets right and it's just a label!"
So does this mean that we now all have to acknowledge that cats are really dogs just because some people decided to call them dogs? No...that's clearly stupid.
But that's EXACTLY what you are saying. You are saying that if at least ONE PERSON exists who doesn't think an MMORPG has a persistent shared world, then we all have to acknowledge that one person's definition.
Also...I don't really get why you care about this. Assuming that Marvel Heroes has no persistent world...not labeling it as an MMORPG would not make it cease to exist. Just because the games you like aren't called MMORPGs, does not mean they will not be made.
It IS just a label, it does not cause or negate the existence of game. It's there for classification only, and it should be used appropriately.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
It is quite hard to sell stuff to people who don't like them nowadays because of the net.
When someone here says a dev is selling crap, it is more like that it means "devs are selling stuff this person does not like".
Personally i have never spent a dime on games in the last 10 years when getting game information has become a norm.
If most people are doing it .... we will be calling cats dogs.
That is the point. It is about common usage. It seems that there is little value to distinguish between LoL and LoTR, and hence both are MMOs in many website & industry categorization.
OTOH, there seems to a larger value to distinguish between cats & dogs. May be people care more about pets than online video games.
But the bottomline is this ... you can argue until you face blue ... but i (and probably many others) will just follow common usage. Good luck in changing that. If you do, i have no problem using a new convenient label.
No offense taken
Still though, even in your analysis, what's not taken into thought is costs. That's why pretty much all mmo's are copy/paste with a new veneer glued on top. Different paths or ways of going about things to make them feel different, but the core and usually even the endgame is almost always the exact same. To come out and make something completely different would cost more to develop because you'd actually have to hire real game designers and developers again, license or custom build from the bottom up new engines and technologies, even spend money on real QA and testers that aren't using alphas and betas as early access only. It'd cost twice as much to market, because like it or not, we all hate and are resistant to change... especially after over 10 years of doing the same things so often that we don't even have to think to beat a game anymore. Lastly, it'd cost more to maintain, because to be different, they'd also have to keep producing new and innovative content, not just drop-in addons that only add another dungeon or two, new glittery weapons, and new FOTM class imbalances if pvp is an option.
So basically, for all that to happen, someone needs to know how to give their investors the finger and truly develop what they envision. Some indies are on the right path, but none are quite there yet.
I think it's not a devious premeditated issue of people "making crap because people will buy crap". It's that they're going with what they know rather than taking risks and innovating. "Well we know WoW has a ton of subscribers" so if we copy it at least our game won't totally flop."
The alternative is to take risks and maybe develop the next big thing but also maybe totally bomb worse than a WoW clone would. Big money investors tend to hate that kind of risk even if the potential profit is much higher than playing it safe.
That's why I'm excited that some indie MMOs are actually being made. Those guys are going to take risks because they have little choice and hopefully the next great game idea will come out of it.
We are in total agreement on that part.
Yep. Fully agree.
The big budget segment is kinda painted into a corner.
I am also a big fan of indies. That's where most of the innovative sparks will come from hopefully.
Agreed, costs ofcourse play a big role. No question.
Marketing costs are indeed in crazy regions and make up a big chunk of the budgets.
Making focussed games that target specific niches and serve them well, generating buzz and "free marketing" could be one approach to lessen the pain.
I disagree that there is no new stuff in AAA segment.
LoL is a total new game type when it first started. So is WoT. Destiny is another good example. Huge budget, and a totally new way of doing online. Even D3 took risks in a new skill system (which i like, and some don't) and a RMAH (which failed and removed). That is risk taking, by definition.
Now it is not mutually exclusive that AAA and indies are taking risks. Indie obviously take more risks .. but at the same time, they have very small budgets (except Star Citizen), and i doubt many indie has enough resources to do a full online game, not to mention MMO.
Different AAA segment, but OK, let's switch. Your thread, your rules.
There are a whole slew of SP games out there! WoW, FFXIV, D3, console games, and ect.
What about a game that has a little more humph to it?
Below is where we can disscuss and come up with new ideas for Sandparks!
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5164689#5164689
oh ... if you want to talk about the more traditional AAA MMO segment, we can do that too. It is a free for all fun discussion. I don't mind.
That segment, IMHO, is shrinking. Traditional type MMOs (and i am talking about the WoW kind, not the ancient UO/EQ stuff) has run its course. I am not seeing a lot more development and interests in the segment. Personally i am more excited for games like Destiny (unfortunately it is console only).