MMOs consistently fail to deliver three things imo: Agency, Varied Gameplay choices, and Goals.
Agency is attacked when you do things like have a game with four classes that have three trees each, or reduce the character's ability to interact with the world to combat-only interaction. You cannot gain a sense of context for your time in game without allowing the character to have some distinction of being different to some degree within the gamespace. This can be the actual actions of the character, the build, the gear, the appearance, etc. The perception of identity is more valuable than actual uniqueness of identity, so it is an attainable goal, but one that developers don't try to achieve.
Gameplay choices are the things that appeal to the four player types and beyond. Having an accounting skill doesn't have to mean that everyone will use it, but the overall weight of the game will benefit from the added detail of an accounting skill that some person will find novel and use. Having purely social or economy oriented activities is also a good thing for MMOs because then you get a wider variety of activities for people to cycle through while still staying in the same game. Combat appeals mainly to killers and partially to achievers, but does little for the social or explorer.
Goals need to be myriad. The more goals of varied types and lengths the better. Goals are the main motivation for longevity in the game, and will trump even community for many players. A great way to make a two month-MMO is to give uninteresting goals that are simply grindy paths to a title or a suit of armor. The player realizes that there is nothing different about the character other than that a great amount of time has been thrown into a repetitive task for a minimal reinforcer. To combat this, the game essentially needs to have an many goal combinations with ultra short, short, medium, long, ultra long, and career lengths as possible.
Excellent point.
People talk about having worlds (instead of games), but that'll never happen if players can't act like they are in a world. It starts, as it always does, with the characters.
Today's characters are 'toons' which are basically stat proxies for pulling loot out of combat engines, nothing more and nothing less. If we want to know how the games got so dry and boring, it's because the character functionality is dry and boring.
It used to be that you could walk, text chat bubbles in a variety of modes (whisper, shout, emote, think), not just dancing, but have a multitude of dance styles, sit down on furniture, customize your avatar to an unprecedented degree, and go on activities that had nothing to do with combat (fishing). That is the functionality which doesn't seem like much on the surface, but really erodes the connection with the MMO over time.
And the proof is the notoriously high churn rates of today's MMOs. Quests get old. Combat systems get mastered. We can say that if all a game has is combat, churn is going to be high. But who can blame people for abandoning these MMOs in droves? If there is nothing your character can do besides fight and pull loot out of combat engines, there's nothing keeping the person there once the combat gets boring.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Give roleplay/social functionality to the avatars. Give players the opportunity to build spaces and items that other players can use. Doing these things doesn't interfere with combat centric, casual, or powerguild players at all. But failing to do these things just makes the MMOs just like every other one.
TL,DR: If combat is all the MMO has going for it, expect a lot of churn and a lackluster appreciation.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
people WHO THINK they SHOULD play mmos. because all the cool kids do so, ranting about how they don't like mmo.
it's simple kids. you don't like it? then ffs... DON'T DO IT!
prob solved, next topic?
I hate to agree with this post because it smacks of being glib and trite...but it does kind of sum things up--albeit hamhandedly.
An MMORPG is a genre...like FPS, pick-3 games, RTS, platformers, etc.
I think why MMORPG fans, like even myself, have become a bit disillusioned with the genre is that the magic of that first MMORPG is gone. And it's almost like a first love. Sure you may love many people in your lifetime, but nothing is quite as powerful or memorable as that awe-inspiring thunderstruck moment of when your heart stirred and your mind went dissolved for that first and seemingly truest first love.
What players want, is perhaps what is quite simply never attainable again.
In a sense, maybe this George Bernard Shaw quote kind of sums it up: "First love is only a little foolishness and a lot of curiosity."
Oh, I'm not sure if its unattainable.
back a few months ago, I made a list in the Roleplay section here about features we want in our games again. The most surprising thing is how many people were clamoring for features that have been taken out of the new games altogether. Things that used to be basic; things like chat bubbles, walking, sitting on furniture.
The presence of such mechanics does not seem to amount to much at first glance. But I believe such features can make the difference between a player leaving the game, and a player staying through the churn. They do, because they allow the players to create content when the content that is given to them has been overplayed.
Improvisational roleplay, murder mysteries, intrigue, narrative quests and a whole host of activities have come from such tools, entertaining players for hours, if not days, on the servers of various games in the history of this genre. But you can't have them if you don't have basic avatar functionality.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
back a few months ago, I made a list in the Roleplay section here about features we want in our games again. The most surprising thing is how many people were clamoring for features that have been taken out of the new games altogether. Things that used to be basic; things like chat bubbles, walking, sitting on furniture.
The presence of such mechanics does not seem to amount to much at first glance. But I believe such features can make the difference between a player leaving the game, and a player staying through the churn. They do, because they allow the players to create content when the content that is given to them has been overplayed.
Improvisational roleplay, murder mysteries, intrigue, narrative quests and a whole host of activities have come from such tools, entertaining players for hours, if not days, on the servers of various games in the history of this genre. But you can't have them if you don't have basic avatar functionality.
(MUDs--removing the avatar functionality actually expands the roleplaying potential, not vice-versa). That is, if you're part of the vanishingly small segment that values roleplay. And if you're missing improv and mysteries and performance events and weddings and...well, that sounds like you.
But it is interesting how many people pine for the roleplay that is missing (what little of it there was) from a graphical engine format. Which, as time went by, has only grown ever more restrictive.
I miss character customization, and the astonishingly small number of MMO titles that really went after it in a big way. Too expensive to do more with your art department that make a thousand slightly different sword models?
I don't miss any Emotes. They're only a pale shadow of the functionality that their Verb grandparents had, because of the avatars. Art department, model animations, here, throw away thousands of options and you can make do with a tiny handful.
let DEVELOPERS DEVELOP games. and let PLAYERS PLAY
There is a high level of wisdom in that, honestly. MMO fans, much like shooter fans, have become such rabid junkies that the only way developers can even hope to survive in that section of the industry is to continue doing what works. We the MMO fans, not the developers, have (and continue to) actively discouraged developer's artistic freedom. We refuse to believe the idea that not every single MMO needs to appeal to us, and we spew toxic nonsense about the ones that do not until the developer's change course, trash their vision of the game, and repurpose it to fit the rabid mob.
MMO's will make a comeback, but it will be some years from now when the MMORPG fanbase has all but died off. I think of it along the lines of the Space Sim, which is seeing an awesome revival with Elite Dangerous and hopefully Star Citizen (and hopefully whatever Dean Hall's new project is).
It is, sadly, probably time for the MMORPG fanbase to just play wait and see instead of howling from the roof-tops until devs make the game we want them to make, not the game they want to make.
Please visit my youtube channel for some H1Z1/DayZ casual roleplay videos!
Here is how mmorpg started. Once upon a time a generation in the united states was born sometime around 1985. They grew up playing the nintendo entertainment system or nes. They were christians as the us is mostly christian. If you weren't, then you are a minority in this country and are very weird. We saw paralells in the bible and the video games mario and zelda to current realities. We then grew older and went to school and had to read books. Some of us found thinge like narnia and lord of the rings though it was a fewer amount. Most of us had to wait for the movies. Both men authors who were friends were christians talking about christian things. We grew a little more and found out about internet, muds, rpgs like quest for glory, kings quest, space quest, and were playing those alongside our super smash brothers and goldeneye 007. We heard about the coming storm of multiplayer internet rpgs. Board games were something people already did.
Rpg were originally built cold. There was no multiplayer. Your friends had to watch, take turns, or play their own next to you. If you were a dungeons and draons nerd then you were probably living an unsheltered life, and were open to things christians would not allow and again, a minority. When internet gaming arrived with 56k internet it came with quake 2 in 1997, subspace/continuum, infantryzone, and a lot of others, including the everquests though there was no pvp unless you went to the internet muds.
Then came the epic mass storm that eventually enveloped the known modern world. Dark Age of Camelot got it started off with pvp in 2001, then 2004 world of warcraft made both pvp and pve its focus and mainstreamed everything in an attempt to do away with offensive material. So that the entire planet could feel safe playing a multiplayer rpg. This was a false climax however. You should be able to already tell that by removing offensive material such as the changing over from humans to animal races and things we no longer really are directly talking about our planet anymore. Not only this, but we are all still segregated into fragments called servers. Internet has not even quite become fastand stable enough to handle everybody in somehing like a real mmorpg that isn't watered down. In a non mainstream politically incorrect mmorpg there will be countless classes, like in dark age of camelot. Computers already have trouble on friday nights when players actually show up in masses in games like planetside 2.
The day is coming when this will be unleashed, no longer a tale but a reality as it is not just a myth but the truth. Everyone knows the law, the law is universal. And it wipes out nations that try to keep it from being fulfilled.
Here is how mmorpg started. Once upon a time a generation in the united states was born sometime around 1985. They grew up playing the nintendo entertainment system or nes. They were christians as the us is mostly christian. If you weren't, then you are a minority in this country and are very weird. We saw paralells in the bible and the video games mario and zelda to current realities. We then grew older and went to school and had to read books. Some of us found thinge like narnia and lord of the rings though it was a fewer amount. Most of us had to wait for the movies. Both men authors who were friends were christians talking about christian things. We grew a little more and found out about internet, muds, rpgs like quest for glory, kings quest, space quest, and were playing those alongside our super smash brothers and goldeneye 007. We heard about the coming storm of multiplayer internet rpgs. Board games were something people already did.
Rpg were originally built cold. There was no multiplayer. Your friends had to watch, take turns, or play their own next to you. If you were a dungeons and draons nerd then you were probably living an unsheltered life, and were open to things christians would not allow and again, a minority. When internet gaming arrived with 56k internet it came with quake 2 in 1997, subspace/continuum, infantryzone, and a lot of others, including the everquests though there was no pvp unless you went to the internet muds.
Then came the epic mass storm that eventually enveloped the known modern world. Dark Age of Camelot got it started off with pvp in 2001, then 2004 world of warcraft made both pvp and pve its focus and mainstreamed everything in an attempt to do away with offensive material. So that the entire planet could feel safe playing a multiplayer rpg. This was a false climax however. You should be able to already tell that by removing offensive material such as the changing over from humans to animal races and things we no longer really are directly talking about our planet anymore. Not only this, but we are all still segregated into fragments called servers. Internet has not even quite become fastand stable enough to handle everybody in somehing like a real mmorpg that isn't watered down. In a non mainstream politically incorrect mmorpg there will be countless classes, like in dark age of camelot. Computers already have trouble on friday nights when players actually show up in masses in games like planetside 2.
The day is coming when this will be unleashed, no longer a tale but a reality as it is not just a myth but the truth. Everyone knows the law, the law is universal. And it wipes out nations that try to keep it from being fulfilled.
It really started with pen and paper RPGs. Garriot and a few others took the media to computers so you can play alone whenever you need a hit, getting 6 or so people together for an entire evning always take some work and few adults can manage it more than once every week or so.
And Tolkien based his books on the pagan Norse religion, he was an expert both with that and norse languages so I wouldn't say it was very Christian influenced. Lewis on the other hand was indeed basing a lot of his stories on Christian mythology.
The first MMO like game was SSIs old "Neverwinter nights" (not confused with Biowares later named in it's honor). It added a multiplayer to SSIs D&D system we already seen in games like Pool of radiance & Death knoghts of Krynn. Today we would call it a turned based CORPG or something but it opened up for the genre together with the MUDs. And this was way prior to '97, heck, I played Meridian 59 in '96 and that was a regular MMO. M59 already had PvP.
And yeah, you can't have a million players on the same server, but the internet isn't the largest problem there. Your computer could never handle it and even if it could the game would just be too crowded with 5 players for each mob.
I am not really sure where you want to go with all this, it is far from certain that adding more and more players in the same area is a great idea, at least until you can have an AI actually create enough content to host millions of players. The only computer game ever made large enough is funny enough the single player game "Daggerfall" by Bethesda but it was very repetetive.
And with millions of players you loose a lot of the social advantages of servers, in the old MMOs you actually knew many people on your server and adventured together with them, without servers you miss the server community.
MMOs will change many ways in the future, once AIs can make content it will become far cheaper to make them and the game will be larger but they will also need to invent new mechanics, both to create a new experience and to deal with new technology like VR for instance.
no my logic is not backwards. you do what you like, you don't do what you don't like. did you ever call hasbro and told em their games suck and they should change em or you will not play em again?
that is what's happening atm.
let DEVELOPERS DEVELOP games. and let PLAYERS PLAY
Of course I've never called Hasbro, I walked away from their genre many years ago, so it doesn't matter. Which is what many people do today, walk away from the genre, because the industry is no longer making MMORPG's that they enjoy playing.
Meanwhile, we have this swell MMORPG forum to express our opinions on the state of the industry while we either play or watch from the sidelines.
BTW, other than for Tech Support, I've never called a MMORPG Dev and told them my thoughts on their games however some of the exit polls I filled out....well..whew, I'm sure they were quite clear why I was leaving.
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
Is there anything new on the Horizon thats comming out that may at least peak ones interests at all? Bored of the current games that are out, and the ones comming out all seem to have that been there played it done it before sort of thing so they are not even remotely interesting me at all.
Yawn. I want to kick ass of those posters like loke up there who put the curse on their forehead and purposely say half truths and purposely misunderstand christianity. But I know that his little reign and chaotic storm will be coming to an end. People can see just how many posts he has on here and how much time he wastes trying to control the mmorpg world. I have no fear of one so insignificant.
Timesinks are also stuff like daily quests, and God help us, garrisons. Whenever you repeat shorter content every day it is a timesink. So, no, I don't think Wow is better now.
And, no. AC and DaoC were made with peanut money compared to Wow. It (edit: meaning DaoC) cost $2.5M compared to Wows $60M and AC were at the time saying it was a "multimilion project" so while I don't have an actual number there it should be slightly higher than DaoC. Comparing them to WoWs team in art, programming or similar is rather unfair, it is like comparing a low budget Steam game with GTA V.
Giving the new players the most content will hook many players in but the problem is that they need to stay, if Wow would release in current shape today (with todays graphics) I doubt it would make a huge impact on the genre.
The average MMO player leaves after 6 weeks (yeah, that was a year ago so it might be even faster now), that used to be a few months 10 years ago. Players who leave within 10 levels don't leave due to lack of content, now they have plenty of content but still leave, they just think that the game don't work out for them. It doesn't work right now so logically is change needed. You are defending something that clearly doesn't work here. If you want those early dropouts to stay you need to do something different with the gameplay in itself (which isn't a bad idea).
The other large group however leaves after they have leveled up one or 2 characters because they find the endgame boring and those we can fix by having more of the content in the end.
I am not saying that new players shouldn't have quality content, the game needs to be fun from the moment you pick it up but having more starter zones than endgame content is contra productive in a game where they will leave the starter zones after 5 hours gameplay to never venture back. It is a huge waste of precious resources.
Er, but did you play Draenor? There were no dailies, and the game was worse off for it since the repeated activities you did for the garrison were far more repetitive than Pandaren's dailies where they rotated each day and there was a lot less repeat (and more importantly: there was a lot more gameplay variety.)
WOW releasing in its current shape today would do just fine. It's still at or near the top in terms of quest quality, combat quality, responsiveness/performance, dungeon/raid quality, and quality of life features. Those are the things players care about, and the main reasons WOW has been successful. In fact if WOW hadn't originally released and released today with it's current features and modern graphics, it would end up being incredibly successful (just as before) since the biggest problem with WOW currently is its age and familiarity (players have been there, done that, and that's the reason each successive WOW expansion will live a progressively shorter life.)
What's the source on your numbers? Basically 30% D2 retention is really pretty much expected, and this claim that the average player plays 6+ weeks in-game is not something I've seen anywhere.
To explain:
Retention in the industry is measured by days, and by the number of players who return to play on that day. Day 0 (D0) is the date of install. If half of players come back the next day (D1) that's 50% D1 retention. Then on the third day (D2) you might see 30% of players come back (which could be any mix of players who installed on the original day, including people who didn't play on D1.)
For a new WOW player it probably takes 2-3 days to reach level 10.
So when WOW posted 70% dropoff for level 10 players, it fit rather neatly into the expected 30% D2 retention that I've seen in many other games (both those I've worked on and those I've seen analytics for.)
Most players, if they haven't really studied the business side of games, assume retention is far higher than only 30% of players playing on the 3rd day. So that's why I'm rather suspicious of the 6+ weeks or "a few months" comments. Since by definition the median player in WOW's case wasn't even reaching level 10.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
back a few months ago, I made a list in the Roleplay section here about features we want in our games again. The most surprising thing is how many people were clamoring for features that have been taken out of the new games altogether. Things that used to be basic; things like chat bubbles, walking, sitting on furniture.
The presence of such mechanics does not seem to amount to much at first glance. But I believe such features can make the difference between a player leaving the game, and a player staying through the churn. They do, because they allow the players to create content when the content that is given to them has been overplayed.
Improvisational roleplay, murder mysteries, intrigue, narrative quests and a whole host of activities have come from such tools, entertaining players for hours, if not days, on the servers of various games in the history of this genre. But you can't have them if you don't have basic avatar functionality.
(MUDs--removing the avatar functionality actually expands the roleplaying potential, not vice-versa). That is, if you're part of the vanishingly small segment that values roleplay. And if you're missing improv and mysteries and performance events and weddings and...well, that sounds like you.
But it is interesting how many people pine for the roleplay that is missing (what little of it there was) from a graphical engine format. Which, as time went by, has only grown ever more restrictive.
I miss character customization, and the astonishingly small number of MMO titles that really went after it in a big way. Too expensive to do more with your art department that make a thousand slightly different sword models?
I don't miss any Emotes. They're only a pale shadow of the functionality that their Verb grandparents had, because of the avatars. Art department, model animations, here, throw away thousands of options and you can make do with a tiny handful.
I see a lot of combat-centered players tell roleplayers that this genre should not be designed for them, that they ought to roleplay on what amounts to a glorified IRC, and expect nobody to give them the most minimal of tools with which to use. I would counter by saying that, using the same exclusionary logic, that MMOs are not designed for combat junkies, since they are much too slow-paced, much less graphic intensive and cannot distill the combat down to an intuitive form...that they ought to seek their combat and progression on a FPS matchmaking game, and expect nobody to give them anything resembling a persistent world.
Nevertheless, there is something here, in this genre, that can't be duplicated in a FPS lobby game...and I would argue that the same is the case for roleplay...there's something here, in this genre, which can't be duplicated in a text-based MUD or MUSH.
I think that the ability to actually see a character act out in front of you on the screen, and live in an environment that has a sense of physicality to it (time and distance aren't just arbitrary concepts) helps the roleplay, and shouldn't be discounted. Furthermore, I cannot help but observe that whenever things like chat bubbles, emotes or building functions appear, all kinds of players use them, not just strict roleplayers. So why is it that we have such a vehement distain for things like sitting on furniture, or a walk toggle, or chat bubbles, when they hurt nobody and are used by so many?
This might happen because we have a tendency as MMOers to classify 'roleplay' in only the most extreme sense of perfect IC depiction, spending more time in text fighting and intrigue than actually going through the gear and level treadmill and PvP. And those folks, I agree, are a minority.
But there's a vast amount of people who, when the tools permit, engage in what we might call 'roleplay light' or dabblers. More often than not I found players dip into character once in awhile when there's something interesting that's going on in spatial (do we even have spatial anymore?), or who just want to build a fancy house or landmark in the sticks (can we even build houses anymore? Do we even have 'the sticks' anymore?) Or we might have someone who does nothing more than write an interesting bio (do we even have bios anymore?) None of these people were "roleplayers" in the extreme sense, but they made use of the tools roleplayers used, nevertheless.
Non-roleplayers use basic things like animations, chat bubbles, chat boxes, building tools and the like too. Furthermore, the addition of these tools doesn't break anyone's game; not the PvPers, not the PvErs, not the powergamers and not the casuals. Everybody can appreciate them, and they give people other things to do.
Furthermore, they enhance the platform--the core experience--that is available to everyone regardless of their PvP, PvE powergaming or casual status. They do not 'go bad' and they do not 'get consumed' in the same way a quest chain or raid is consumed. By creating these things, developers enhance the game as a whole, rather than just creating a quest chain that will just get consumed over a weekend.
And we need things that players can do in the games, now more than ever. Because people consume and master the combat way too quickly, and its way too expensive to keep on piling on new quest chain after new quest chain and make it interesting. Not even a juggernaut like Destiny can churn out more than one or two major combat content additions in a year.
EDIT TL/DR:
'Roleplay tools' hurt nobody, are useful to everybody, and help game longevity.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
The problem seems to be that there is a section of gamers that want a virtual WORLD when the vast majority of paying gamers want multiplayer games. What I get from this thread is that it's not about innovation or lack thereof. It's always about going *back* to the type of game you used to enjoy.
And for some posters, there is a long way down off that high horse. You know how inventions and innovations came about? The people with the ideas went out and did them. No one did anything with just complaints. If you aren't out there backing kickstarters, getting funds, or learning how to code, then the vague 'They should innovate...something!' is called being an armchair developer.
That's why I fell in love with a minecraft roleplaying server, because to me, here's what I experienced. A game in which was a true sandbox, amazing builds that immersed the players, certain custom plugins that allowed me to further immerse my self, a sense of progression with custom professions and combat skills plugins, and it was always different. Day to day it was different because there were no NPC's, there were other players, and a main story, and everyone had to work together against the antagonists or main story in order to progress.
It was more of an RPGMMO, more so an RPG than an MMO. It was a roleplaying game that was massivly multiplayer based, which was more up my ally than a character I can level to max level the repeat quests for materials and items for my end game build, then spend the rest of my days PvPing until I beat the game and there's no sense or progress.
That's why my attention was raised when I heard about Star Citizen. It's immersive, it's realistic, it's really good looking, it's lead by a great developer with enough money now to make it happen (though that game isn't coming out till late 2016 early 2017 ) and the new MMO that was recently released to mmorpg.com, http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/1308/Chronicles-of-Elyria.html because it's more "Immersive" than it is an "MMO". It's build around roleplaying, it's built around story, roles, destinies, realistic/mid fantasy elements, it's using Cryengine for graphics, the guy has been drafting ideas and game mechanics for the last 15 years, and right now I can't stop thinking about this game considering what it has to offer if it manages to GET-EVERYTHING-RIGHT!
I can't get into mmo's because of the same reason, they're the same thing over and over, I've gotten bored of the mmo platform of gaming genres, but what hasn't bored me to death yet are truly immersive titles, or games that do well and add great innovations to the genre. The only games I've been able to enjoy, are Dungeons & Dragons Online, Guild Wars 2, and the Elder Scroll Online.
WOW releasing in its current shape today would do just fine. It's still at or near the top in terms of quest quality, combat quality, responsiveness/performance, dungeon/raid quality, and quality of life features. Those are the things players care about, and the main reasons WOW has been successful. In fact if WOW hadn't originally released and released today with it's current features and modern graphics, it would end up being incredibly successful (just as before) since the biggest problem with WOW currently is its age and familiarity (players have been there, done that, and that's the reason each successive WOW expansion will live a progressively shorter life.)
I question this assumption rather directly, if we are to assume that Either there still was a WoW(by another name) in the past replacing it's release. Perhaps if the industry had never hit that specific milestone and instead we saw the launch now, but then it'd be absurd to assume they would make such a title with such a feature-set in a market that would otherwise be lacking any comparative development.
As for the retention commentary, that's one way and very subjective, as there is a lot of retention and churn data that gets calculated as a monthly rate rather than daily, especially depending on what the reports are compiled for.
Also that has little to do with the commentary Loke was making, as his commentary was that the turnover rate with each generation was getting shorter. That part of one's commentary that did apply would be the point on WoW's expansions having a progressively faster turnover due to the fact that it's an aging title (granted that doesn't say a whole lot for EverQuest's continued expansions). It doesn't address the notion of other subsequent titles experiencing this same contraction of turnover rate.
While he did comment on the players leaving before level 10, he also mentioned the turnover of players who play through the content.
Not wholly certain what his point was, just pointing out there seems to be missed information.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I see a lot of combat-centered players tell roleplayers that this genre should not be designed for them, that they ought to roleplay on what amounts to a glorified IRC, and expect nobody to give them the most minimal of tools with which to use. I would counter by saying that, using the same exclusionary logic, that MMOs are not designed for combat junkies, since they are much too slow-paced, much less graphic intensive and cannot distill the combat down to an intuitive form...that they ought to seek their combat and progression on a FPS matchmaking game, and expect nobody to give them anything resembling a persistent world.
Nevertheless, there is something here, in this genre, that can't be duplicated in a FPS lobby game...and I would argue that the same is the case for roleplay...there's something here, in this genre, which can't be duplicated in a text-based MUD or MUSH.
I think that the ability to actually see a character act out in front of you on the screen, and live in an environment that has a sense of physicality to it (time and distance aren't just arbitrary concepts) helps the roleplay, and shouldn't be discounted. Furthermore, I cannot help but observe that whenever things like chat bubbles, emotes or building functions appear, all kinds of players use them, not just strict roleplayers. So why is it that we have such a vehement distain for things like sitting on furniture, or a walk toggle, or chat bubbles, when they hurt nobody and are used by so many?
This might happen because we have a tendency as MMOers to classify 'roleplay' in only the most extreme sense of perfect IC depiction, spending more time in text fighting and intrigue than actually going through the gear and level treadmill and PvP. And those folks, I agree, are a minority.
But there's a vast amount of people who, when the tools permit, engage in what we might call 'roleplay light' or dabblers. More often than not I found players dip into character once in awhile when there's something interesting that's going on in spatial (do we even have spatial anymore?), or who just want to build a fancy house or landmark in the sticks (can we even build houses anymore? Do we even have 'the sticks' anymore?) Or we might have someone who does nothing more than write an interesting bio (do we even have bios anymore?) None of these people were "roleplayers" in the extreme sense, but they made use of the tools roleplayers used, nevertheless.
Non-roleplayers use basic things like animations, chat bubbles, chat boxes, building tools and the like too. Furthermore, the addition of these tools doesn't break anyone's game; not the PvPers, not the PvErs, not the powergamers and not the casuals. Everybody can appreciate them, and they give people other things to do.
Furthermore, they enhance the platform--the core experience--that is available to everyone regardless of their PvP, PvE powergaming or casual status. They do not 'go bad' and they do not 'get consumed' in the same way a quest chain or raid is consumed. By creating these things, developers enhance the game as a whole, rather than just creating a quest chain that will just get consumed over a weekend.
And we need things that players can do in the games, now more than ever. Because people consume and master the combat way too quickly, and its way too expensive to keep on piling on new quest chain after new quest chain and make it interesting. Not even a juggernaut like Destiny can churn out more than one or two major combat content additions in a year.
EDIT TL/DR:
'Roleplay tools' hurt nobody, are useful to everybody, and help game longevity.
"Combat-oriented players" conveniently ignores the fact that we're RPG players. Videogame RPGs have been designed this way for like 35 years now, and have never been a replacement for the tabletop RPG experience. But they have been combat-oriented throughout those 35 years (from Ultima to Wizardry to Baldur's Gate to Skyrim.)
Normally I tell RPers to RP. If you want it, do it. Nothing stops you. Most often it's an RPer arguing in favor of oldschool MMORPGs (which were empty, glorified chatrooms) while I argue in favor of a fully-realized RPG filled with content.
Slow pace has been a deliberate feature of videogame RPGs for 35 years (from Ulltima to Wizardry to...) The core RPG genre has always appealed to a broader, casual audience by deliberately not being twitch-intensive. So don't paint combat as too slow-paced for "combat-centric players", since it's exactly the same pace we've enjoyed for a very long time.
Implementing RP elements like emotes costs significant dev-hours, and won't always provide enough benefit to be worth it. Attracting and keeping the RPG crowd represents a huge potential revenue source. Attracting and keeping the RP crowd represents a much smaller niche group. So they don't "break" the game, but they passively water down the quality of the game's other features (100 dev-hours working on emotes is 100 fewer dev-hours spent improving combat quality, for example.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"Combat-oriented players" conveniently ignores the fact that we're RPG players. Videogame RPGs have been designed this way for like 35 years now, and have never been a replacement for the tabletop RPG experience. But they have been combat-oriented throughout those 35 years (from Ultima to Wizardry to Baldur's Gate to Skyrim.)
Normally I tell RPers to RP. If you want it, do it. Nothing stops you. Most often it's an RPer arguing in favor of oldschool MMORPGs (which were empty, glorified chatrooms) while I argue in favor of a fully-realized RPG filled with content.
Slow pace has been a deliberate feature of videogame RPGs for 35 years (from Ulltima to Wizardry to...) The core RPG genre has always appealed to a broader, casual audience by deliberately not being twitch-intensive. So don't paint combat as too slow-paced for "combat-centric players", since it's exactly the same pace we've enjoyed for a very long time.
Implementing RP elements like emotes costs significant dev-hours, and won't always provide enough benefit to be worth it. Attracting and keeping the RPG crowd represents a huge potential revenue source. Attracting and keeping the RP crowd represents a much smaller niche group. So they don't "break" the game, but they passively water down the quality of the game's other features (100 dev-hours working on emotes is 100 fewer dev-hours spent improving combat quality, for example.)
1. Even pen and paper RPGs are more and less combat focused. And just because most computer RPGs have had about the same level of combat focus doesn't mean it is the only or even the most fun way of doing things. I think certain MMOs should put more focus on combat and other should put less. With pen and paper games you have Call of Cthulhu (have some combat but it usually ends bad for you, it is about investigation and wits), and you have games at the other end like Phoenix command that have insanely complex combat rules. D&D might the the most popular (counting Pathfinder as D&D here also) but the variety is rather impressive. 2. Agreed. 3. Here I also think some vareity is good. And both Baldurs gate and Daggerfall are mid 90s game but they have a very different pace when you play them. 4. A few emotes do help and aren't that costly but it might be best to avoid putting too much work into it. AoC for example had some rather weird emotes that mainly were used to troll people you ganked in PvP and it honestly just felt like a waste of the developers time. It would be better to add a bit more varied numbers of clothes a player can wear instead if you want to make RPers happy, and other players enjoy stuff like that as well.
The market for (1) is probably bigger than (2) (and possibly a lot bigger) but I think the market for hybrids of 1&2 is smaller than the combined market of 1 and 2 separately.
The problem seems to be that there is a section of gamers that want a virtual WORLD when the vast majority of paying gamers want multiplayer games. What I get from this thread is that it's not about innovation or lack thereof. It's always about going *back* to the type of game you used to enjoy.
I've said the same thing a number of times.
I don't mind virtual worlds, it's just that some gamers want to fill these virtual worlds with forced tedious game mechanics. No fast travel being the main one that springs to mind.
These gaming worlds (new and old) just fall way short of being worlds. I wouldn't mind traveling a virtual world If i could feel the wind on my face, smell the fresh/rotten air.
I'm losing 3 senses instantly when I enter these worlds (touch, taste and smell).
The problem seems to be that there is a section of gamers that want a virtual WORLD when the vast majority of paying gamers want multiplayer games. What I get from this thread is that it's not about innovation or lack thereof. It's always about going *back* to the type of game you used to enjoy.
I've said the same thing a number of times.
I don't mind virtual worlds, it's just that some gamers want to fill these virtual worlds with forced tedious game mechanics. No fast travel being the main one that springs to mind.
These gaming worlds (new and old) just fall way short of being worlds. I wouldn't mind traveling a virtual world If i could feel the wind on my face, smell the fresh/rotten air.
I'm losing 3 senses instantly when I enter these worlds (touch, taste and smell).
Anyways: a more realistic virtual world is a good thing, but that doesn't mean it should have mechanics like EQ had.
I am kinda a bit mixed with fast travel myself, it is great for getting to cities and other important places but overusing it isn't good either. Players should walk in the gameworld instead of just logging on to the group finder and instantly jump to the next dungeon. It is just like other mechanics (cutscenes, phasing, instancing), you need to use it the right way or people will just stand along in one place waiting for the next random dungeon & group.
A virtual world in itself isn't enough to make a good game, but it certainly doesn't hurt if the game feels alive instead of feels like a Hollywood movie from the 50s.
The problem seems to be that there is a section of gamers that want a virtual WORLD when the vast majority of paying gamers want multiplayer games. What I get from this thread is that it's not about innovation or lack thereof. It's always about going *back* to the type of game you used to enjoy.
I don't mind virtual worlds, it's just that some gamers want to fill these virtual worlds with forced tedious game mechanics. No fast travel being the main one that springs to mind.
Just as a quick aside, its been discussed many times (and talked about by devs in the past) that the lack of forced downtime is what has contributed in a significant way to the breakdown of online communities.
If you remove things like fast travel, then the 5-10 minutes it takes you to get somewhere is 5-10 minutes spare to chat to other gamers. It's irritating in the short term, but helps build stronger communities long term. It's always a balance of course, if you have designed your game around bitesized playtime (15-45minutes) then any sort of downtime is counter-productive, but assuming the game you have designed is built for longer play sessions or built with the community in mind, then downtime is important.
As to forced tedious game mechanics, this will always be subjective and so best left to the devs to decide what they want for their vision of their game. Personally, I find most MMO questing to be a forced tedious game mechanic, but I suspect I'm in the minority. I'd rather explore and grind mobs all day long to level up instead of running back and forth completing generic, badly written quests. Again, I suspect I'm in the minority
Here is how mmorpg started. Once upon a time a generation in the united states was born sometime around 1985. They grew up playing the nintendo entertainment system or nes. They were christians as the us is mostly christian. If you weren't, then you are a minority in this country and are very weird. We saw paralells in the bible and the video games mario and zelda to current realities. We then grew older and went to school and had to read books. Some of us found thinge like narnia and lord of the rings though it was a fewer amount. Most of us had to wait for the movies. Both men authors who were friends were christians talking about christian things. We grew a little more and found out about internet, muds, rpgs like quest for glory, kings quest, space quest, and were playing those alongside our super smash brothers and goldeneye 007. We heard about the coming storm of multiplayer internet rpgs. Board games were something people already did.
Rpg were originally built cold. There was no multiplayer. Your friends had to watch, take turns, or play their own next to you. If you were a dungeons and draons nerd then you were probably living an unsheltered life, and were open to things christians would not allow and again, a minority. When internet gaming arrived with 56k internet it came with quake 2 in 1997, subspace/continuum, infantryzone, and a lot of others, including the everquests though there was no pvp unless you went to the internet muds.
Then came the epic mass storm that eventually enveloped the known modern world. Dark Age of Camelot got it started off with pvp in 2001, then 2004 world of warcraft made both pvp and pve its focus and mainstreamed everything in an attempt to do away with offensive material. So that the entire planet could feel safe playing a multiplayer rpg. This was a false climax however. You should be able to already tell that by removing offensive material such as the changing over from humans to animal races and things we no longer really are directly talking about our planet anymore. Not only this, but we are all still segregated into fragments called servers. Internet has not even quite become fastand stable enough to handle everybody in somehing like a real mmorpg that isn't watered down. In a non mainstream politically incorrect mmorpg there will be countless classes, like in dark age of camelot. Computers already have trouble on friday nights when players actually show up in masses in games like planetside 2.
The day is coming when this will be unleashed, no longer a tale but a reality as it is not just a myth but the truth. Everyone knows the law, the law is universal. And it wipes out nations that try to keep it from being fulfilled.
I really have to say... no it didn't. I'm sorry but it's a fact. RPG's have existed for centuries just not in this form. The modern RPG began in Gary Gygax and David Arneson created and released the pen and paper version of Dungeons and Dragons in 1974. There have been a whole slew of RPG's games on pen and paper since then. I've personally played many, including Vampire: The Masquerade, Gurps, and many others over the years. When online games became possible with the internet, it was only natural that games would be created where you could play online and with others not in your area the same as you could speak on forums.
As for the christian stuff... why even bring that up on a gaming site? It's quite honestly troll bait and has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.
As to the "about 1985" stuff, that's not true either. Most of those on here are actually Generation X, not Generation Y. I was born in 1976. I grew up playing Nintendo. I played the original Nintendo, and Nintendo 64. I have had several generations of XBox, and the XBox One is sitting across the room from me. We did have the Wii but we took it back to the store after both our wrists started hurting and we needed braces for a couple weeks. I did not have the SEGA, though I did play it at friends houses. I didn't know anyone that had a Playstation until I was in my mid teens, and at the time Nintendo was considered better even if that's changed since then.
Contrary to what seems to be the opinion of much of Generation Y, they were not the first generation to have access to the internet, computers, cell phones, and the like. People were playing MUD's starting in 1975. The first graphical MMO was released in 1986, called Air Warrior, which would mean that, if you were born in 1985, you were one year old and not playing anything yet. But other people were, of Generation X.
The first of what would be considered main stream MMO's were released in the 1990's such as Everquest (the original) and Ultima Online (there are also others). If you were born in 1985, then you likely didn't play any of those as they were quite expensive for the time and your parents probably said no to the monthly fees because you were still a child.
What this means is that Generation Y didn't experience the wonder of the first generations of MMO's nor the love developed for them. Which also means that you don't understand why it is that we love them so much and insist that your generation of MMO's are the real MMO's. The original Everquest was called "Evercrack" for a reason. And what was offered in the original EQ has been stripped down to the absolute basics now and we are told we should be happy. Why should we be happy with less? Devs are complaining that they can't impress with graphics anymore when it wasn't the graphics in EQ that impressed us, it was the game play.
Don't forget, you weren't the first ones here.
MMO's are the ONLY genre where we are given less, shown pretty graphics, and told we should be happy. All the other gaming genre's are innovating but this one. Instead, this one is dumbing it down, adding "pay per item" as a normal part of the game, and telling us to shut our mouths and be happy with it. In what industry has that ever been ok behavior?
The first snowflake are the "old school" ones. These guys will never be happy and talk about how they played EQ for a billion hours and no game today comes close to their experience ten years ago. And of course their experience is the only one that matters and anyone who disagrees wasn't around to experience how great things were playing on dial up. My take on these guys Is sometimes people just outgrow a hobby. If it's been 5,6 10 years and all you can do is QQ how games aren't fun anymore well it's probably time to go outside. .
The second snowflake is the new generation of give it to me now without any work. These guys are a drain on society and a drain on the mmorpgs. It's clear that they outnumber the first flakes as more and more games are catering I their give it to me now mentality.
These two groups that think they are such special snowflakes are the biggest issue with mmorpgs today. They litter every games forums, general chats and other sites like this.
Once again.... no one wants to go back to the "old school" MMO's... they want the current MMO's to do it BETTER THAN THE OLD SCHOOL MMO'S. The problem is that the current MMO's do it worse than the old school MMO's in all ways except graphics.
Stop constantly accusing us of this please. [mod edit]
The problem is very simple, most Mechanics of MMORPG, has been tried, and Players are too familiar with the way all MMO functions. But if any game challenges it, it fails because its no longer the same MMO they are used to, but it also fails if it doesn't challenge it. That is where the problem lies.
Most gamer wants something new, but they don't want it completely new, they want something familiar but also different, which in itself is a contradiction. Therefore it will never satisfy anyone.
What MMO creators should instead ask themselves is what is MMO to them as a developer, and if its about creating a new world, then it should be then about how to transport Gamers to their world and populate it. Instead of how to please this type of gamers and that type of gamers.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Comments
People talk about having worlds (instead of games), but that'll never happen if players can't act like they are in a world. It starts, as it always does, with the characters.
Today's characters are 'toons' which are basically stat proxies for pulling loot out of combat engines, nothing more and nothing less. If we want to know how the games got so dry and boring, it's because the character functionality is dry and boring.
It used to be that you could walk, text chat bubbles in a variety of modes (whisper, shout, emote, think), not just dancing, but have a multitude of dance styles, sit down on furniture, customize your avatar to an unprecedented degree, and go on activities that had nothing to do with combat (fishing). That is the functionality which doesn't seem like much on the surface, but really erodes the connection with the MMO over time.
And the proof is the notoriously high churn rates of today's MMOs. Quests get old. Combat systems get mastered. We can say that if all a game has is combat, churn is going to be high. But who can blame people for abandoning these MMOs in droves? If there is nothing your character can do besides fight and pull loot out of combat engines, there's nothing keeping the person there once the combat gets boring.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Give roleplay/social functionality to the avatars. Give players the opportunity to build spaces and items that other players can use. Doing these things doesn't interfere with combat centric, casual, or powerguild players at all. But failing to do these things just makes the MMOs just like every other one.
TL,DR: If combat is all the MMO has going for it, expect a lot of churn and a lackluster appreciation.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
back a few months ago, I made a list in the Roleplay section here about features we want in our games again. The most surprising thing is how many people were clamoring for features that have been taken out of the new games altogether. Things that used to be basic; things like chat bubbles, walking, sitting on furniture.
The presence of such mechanics does not seem to amount to much at first glance. But I believe such features can make the difference between a player leaving the game, and a player staying through the churn. They do, because they allow the players to create content when the content that is given to them has been overplayed.
Improvisational roleplay, murder mysteries, intrigue, narrative quests and a whole host of activities have come from such tools, entertaining players for hours, if not days, on the servers of various games in the history of this genre. But you can't have them if you don't have basic avatar functionality.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
But it is interesting how many people pine for the roleplay that is missing (what little of it there was) from a graphical engine format. Which, as time went by, has only grown ever more restrictive.
I miss character customization, and the astonishingly small number of MMO titles that really went after it in a big way. Too expensive to do more with your art department that make a thousand slightly different sword models?
I don't miss any Emotes. They're only a pale shadow of the functionality that their Verb grandparents had, because of the avatars. Art department, model animations, here, throw away thousands of options and you can make do with a tiny handful.
MMO's will make a comeback, but it will be some years from now when the MMORPG fanbase has all but died off. I think of it along the lines of the Space Sim, which is seeing an awesome revival with Elite Dangerous and hopefully Star Citizen (and hopefully whatever Dean Hall's new project is).
It is, sadly, probably time for the MMORPG fanbase to just play wait and see instead of howling from the roof-tops until devs make the game we want them to make, not the game they want to make.
Please visit my youtube channel for some H1Z1/DayZ casual roleplay videos!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrQoK5VZlwBBzpsksmXtjMQ
Rpg were originally built cold. There was no multiplayer. Your friends had to watch, take turns, or play their own next to you. If you were a dungeons and draons nerd then you were probably living an unsheltered life, and were open to things christians would not allow and again, a minority. When internet gaming arrived with 56k internet it came with quake 2 in 1997, subspace/continuum, infantryzone, and a lot of others, including the everquests though there was no pvp unless you went to the internet muds.
Then came the epic mass storm that eventually enveloped the known modern world. Dark Age of Camelot got it started off with pvp in 2001, then 2004 world of warcraft made both pvp and pve its focus and mainstreamed everything in an attempt to do away with offensive material. So that the entire planet could feel safe playing a multiplayer rpg. This was a false climax however. You should be able to already tell that by removing offensive material such as the changing over from humans to animal races and things we no longer really are directly talking about our planet anymore. Not only this, but we are all still segregated into fragments called servers. Internet has not even quite become fastand stable enough to handle everybody in somehing like a real mmorpg that isn't watered down. In a non mainstream politically incorrect mmorpg there will be countless classes, like in dark age of camelot. Computers already have trouble on friday nights when players actually show up in masses in games like planetside 2.
The day is coming when this will be unleashed, no longer a tale but a reality as it is not just a myth but the truth. Everyone knows the law, the law is universal. And it wipes out nations that try to keep it from being fulfilled.
And Tolkien based his books on the pagan Norse religion, he was an expert both with that and norse languages so I wouldn't say it was very Christian influenced. Lewis on the other hand was indeed basing a lot of his stories on Christian mythology.
The first MMO like game was SSIs old "Neverwinter nights" (not confused with Biowares later named in it's honor). It added a multiplayer to SSIs D&D system we already seen in games like Pool of radiance & Death knoghts of Krynn. Today we would call it a turned based CORPG or something but it opened up for the genre together with the MUDs. And this was way prior to '97, heck, I played Meridian 59 in '96 and that was a regular MMO. M59 already had PvP.
And yeah, you can't have a million players on the same server, but the internet isn't the largest problem there. Your computer could never handle it and even if it could the game would just be too crowded with 5 players for each mob.
I am not really sure where you want to go with all this, it is far from certain that adding more and more players in the same area is a great idea, at least until you can have an AI actually create enough content to host millions of players. The only computer game ever made large enough is funny enough the single player game "Daggerfall" by Bethesda but it was very repetetive.
And with millions of players you loose a lot of the social advantages of servers, in the old MMOs you actually knew many people on your server and adventured together with them, without servers you miss the server community.
MMOs will change many ways in the future, once AIs can make content it will become far cheaper to make them and the game will be larger but they will also need to invent new mechanics, both to create a new experience and to deal with new technology like VR for instance.
Meanwhile, we have this swell MMORPG forum to express our opinions on the state of the industry while we either play or watch from the sidelines.
BTW, other than for Tech Support, I've never called a MMORPG Dev and told them my thoughts on their games however some of the exit polls I filled out....well..whew, I'm sure they were quite clear why I was leaving.
"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
WOW releasing in its current shape today would do just fine. It's still at or near the top in terms of quest quality, combat quality, responsiveness/performance, dungeon/raid quality, and quality of life features. Those are the things players care about, and the main reasons WOW has been successful. In fact if WOW hadn't originally released and released today with it's current features and modern graphics, it would end up being incredibly successful (just as before) since the biggest problem with WOW currently is its age and familiarity (players have been there, done that, and that's the reason each successive WOW expansion will live a progressively shorter life.)
What's the source on your numbers? Basically 30% D2 retention is really pretty much expected, and this claim that the average player plays 6+ weeks in-game is not something I've seen anywhere.
To explain:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I see a lot of combat-centered players tell roleplayers that this genre should not be designed for them, that they ought to roleplay on what amounts to a glorified IRC, and expect nobody to give them the most minimal of tools with which to use. I would counter by saying that, using the same exclusionary logic, that MMOs are not designed for combat junkies, since they are much too slow-paced, much less graphic intensive and cannot distill the combat down to an intuitive form...that they ought to seek their combat and progression on a FPS matchmaking game, and expect nobody to give them anything resembling a persistent world.
Nevertheless, there is something here, in this genre, that can't be duplicated in a FPS lobby game...and I would argue that the same is the case for roleplay...there's something here, in this genre, which can't be duplicated in a text-based MUD or MUSH.
I think that the ability to actually see a character act out in front of you on the screen, and live in an environment that has a sense of physicality to it (time and distance aren't just arbitrary concepts) helps the roleplay, and shouldn't be discounted. Furthermore, I cannot help but observe that whenever things like chat bubbles, emotes or building functions appear, all kinds of players use them, not just strict roleplayers. So why is it that we have such a vehement distain for things like sitting on furniture, or a walk toggle, or chat bubbles, when they hurt nobody and are used by so many?
This might happen because we have a tendency as MMOers to classify 'roleplay' in only the most extreme sense of perfect IC depiction, spending more time in text fighting and intrigue than actually going through the gear and level treadmill and PvP. And those folks, I agree, are a minority.
But there's a vast amount of people who, when the tools permit, engage in what we might call 'roleplay light' or dabblers. More often than not I found players dip into character once in awhile when there's something interesting that's going on in spatial (do we even have spatial anymore?), or who just want to build a fancy house or landmark in the sticks (can we even build houses anymore? Do we even have 'the sticks' anymore?) Or we might have someone who does nothing more than write an interesting bio (do we even have bios anymore?) None of these people were "roleplayers" in the extreme sense, but they made use of the tools roleplayers used, nevertheless.
Non-roleplayers use basic things like animations, chat bubbles, chat boxes, building tools and the like too. Furthermore, the addition of these tools doesn't break anyone's game; not the PvPers, not the PvErs, not the powergamers and not the casuals. Everybody can appreciate them, and they give people other things to do.
Furthermore, they enhance the platform--the core experience--that is available to everyone regardless of their PvP, PvE powergaming or casual status. They do not 'go bad' and they do not 'get consumed' in the same way a quest chain or raid is consumed. By creating these things, developers enhance the game as a whole, rather than just creating a quest chain that will just get consumed over a weekend.
And we need things that players can do in the games, now more than ever. Because people consume and master the combat way too quickly, and its way too expensive to keep on piling on new quest chain after new quest chain and make it interesting. Not even a juggernaut like Destiny can churn out more than one or two major combat content additions in a year.
EDIT TL/DR:
'Roleplay tools' hurt nobody, are useful to everybody, and help game longevity.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
And for some posters, there is a long way down off that high horse. You know how inventions and innovations came about? The people with the ideas went out and did them. No one did anything with just complaints. If you aren't out there backing kickstarters, getting funds, or learning how to code, then the vague 'They should innovate...something!' is called being an armchair developer.
All talk, no substance.
It was more of an RPGMMO, more so an RPG than an MMO. It was a roleplaying game that was massivly multiplayer based, which was more up my ally than a character I can level to max level the repeat quests for materials and items for my end game build, then spend the rest of my days PvPing until I beat the game and there's no sense or progress.
That's why my attention was raised when I heard about Star Citizen. It's immersive, it's realistic, it's really good looking, it's lead by a great developer with enough money now to make it happen (though that game isn't coming out till late 2016 early 2017
I can't get into mmo's because of the same reason, they're the same thing over and over, I've gotten bored of the mmo platform of gaming genres, but what hasn't bored me to death yet are truly immersive titles, or games that do well and add great innovations to the genre. The only games I've been able to enjoy, are Dungeons & Dragons Online, Guild Wars 2, and the Elder Scroll Online.
As for the retention commentary, that's one way and very subjective, as there is a lot of retention and churn data that gets calculated as a monthly rate rather than daily, especially depending on what the reports are compiled for.
Also that has little to do with the commentary Loke was making, as his commentary was that the turnover rate with each generation was getting shorter. That part of one's commentary that did apply would be the point on WoW's expansions having a progressively faster turnover due to the fact that it's an aging title (granted that doesn't say a whole lot for EverQuest's continued expansions). It doesn't address the notion of other subsequent titles experiencing this same contraction of turnover rate.
While he did comment on the players leaving before level 10, he also mentioned the turnover of players who play through the content.
Not wholly certain what his point was, just pointing out there seems to be missed information.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
2. Agreed.
3. Here I also think some vareity is good. And both Baldurs gate and Daggerfall are mid 90s game but they have a very different pace when you play them.
4. A few emotes do help and aren't that costly but it might be best to avoid putting too much work into it. AoC for example had some rather weird emotes that mainly were used to troll people you ganked in PvP and it honestly just felt like a waste of the developers time. It would be better to add a bit more varied numbers of clothes a player can wear instead if you want to make RPers happy, and other players enjoy stuff like that as well.
or
2) RPGs with some fighting
The market for (1) is probably bigger than (2) (and possibly a lot bigger) but I think the market for hybrids of 1&2 is smaller than the combined market of 1 and 2 separately.
(imo)
I don't mind virtual worlds, it's just that some gamers want to fill these virtual worlds with forced tedious game mechanics. No fast travel being the main one that springs to mind.
These gaming worlds (new and old) just fall way short of being worlds. I wouldn't mind traveling a virtual world If i could feel the wind on my face, smell the fresh/rotten air.
I'm losing 3 senses instantly when I enter these worlds (touch, taste and smell).
Then again, I think the project failed to attract enough backers.
Anyways: a more realistic virtual world is a good thing, but that doesn't mean it should have mechanics like EQ had.
I am kinda a bit mixed with fast travel myself, it is great for getting to cities and other important places but overusing it isn't good either. Players should walk in the gameworld instead of just logging on to the group finder and instantly jump to the next dungeon. It is just like other mechanics (cutscenes, phasing, instancing), you need to use it the right way or people will just stand along in one place waiting for the next random dungeon & group.
A virtual world in itself isn't enough to make a good game, but it certainly doesn't hurt if the game feels alive instead of feels like a Hollywood movie from the 50s.
Just as a quick aside, its been discussed many times (and talked about by devs in the past) that the lack of forced downtime is what has contributed in a significant way to the breakdown of online communities.
If you remove things like fast travel, then the 5-10 minutes it takes you to get somewhere is 5-10 minutes spare to chat to other gamers. It's irritating in the short term, but helps build stronger communities long term. It's always a balance of course, if you have designed your game around bitesized playtime (15-45minutes) then any sort of downtime is counter-productive, but assuming the game you have designed is built for longer play sessions or built with the community in mind, then downtime is important.
As to forced tedious game mechanics, this will always be subjective and so best left to the devs to decide what they want for their vision of their game. Personally, I find most MMO questing to be a forced tedious game mechanic, but I suspect I'm in the minority. I'd rather explore and grind mobs all day long to level up instead of running back and forth completing generic, badly written quests. Again, I suspect I'm in the minority
As for the christian stuff... why even bring that up on a gaming site? It's quite honestly troll bait and has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.
As to the "about 1985" stuff, that's not true either. Most of those on here are actually Generation X, not Generation Y. I was born in 1976. I grew up playing Nintendo. I played the original Nintendo, and Nintendo 64. I have had several generations of XBox, and the XBox One is sitting across the room from me. We did have the Wii but we took it back to the store after both our wrists started hurting and we needed braces for a couple weeks. I did not have the SEGA, though I did play it at friends houses. I didn't know anyone that had a Playstation until I was in my mid teens, and at the time Nintendo was considered better even if that's changed since then.
Contrary to what seems to be the opinion of much of Generation Y, they were not the first generation to have access to the internet, computers, cell phones, and the like. People were playing MUD's starting in 1975. The first graphical MMO was released in 1986, called Air Warrior, which would mean that, if you were born in 1985, you were one year old and not playing anything yet. But other people were, of Generation X.
The first of what would be considered main stream MMO's were released in the 1990's such as Everquest (the original) and Ultima Online (there are also others). If you were born in 1985, then you likely didn't play any of those as they were quite expensive for the time and your parents probably said no to the monthly fees because you were still a child.
What this means is that Generation Y didn't experience the wonder of the first generations of MMO's nor the love developed for them. Which also means that you don't understand why it is that we love them so much and insist that your generation of MMO's are the real MMO's. The original Everquest was called "Evercrack" for a reason. And what was offered in the original EQ has been stripped down to the absolute basics now and we are told we should be happy. Why should we be happy with less? Devs are complaining that they can't impress with graphics anymore when it wasn't the graphics in EQ that impressed us, it was the game play.
Don't forget, you weren't the first ones here.
MMO's are the ONLY genre where we are given less, shown pretty graphics, and told we should be happy. All the other gaming genre's are innovating but this one. Instead, this one is dumbing it down, adding "pay per item" as a normal part of the game, and telling us to shut our mouths and be happy with it. In what industry has that ever been ok behavior?
The first snowflake are the "old school" ones. These guys will never be happy and talk about how they played EQ for a billion hours and no game today comes close to their experience ten years ago. And of course their experience is the only one that matters and anyone who disagrees wasn't around to experience how great things were playing on dial up. My take on these guys Is sometimes people just outgrow a hobby. If it's been 5,6 10 years and all you can do is QQ how games aren't fun anymore well it's probably time to go outside. .
The second snowflake is the new generation of give it to me now without any work. These guys are a drain on society and a drain on the mmorpgs. It's clear that they outnumber the first flakes as more and more games are catering I their give it to me now mentality.
These two groups that think they are such special snowflakes are the biggest issue with mmorpgs today. They litter every games forums, general chats and other sites like this.
Stop constantly accusing us of this please. [mod edit]
But if any game challenges it, it fails because its no longer the same MMO they are used to, but it also fails if it doesn't challenge it. That is where the problem lies.
Most gamer wants something new, but they don't want it completely new, they want something familiar but also different, which in itself is a contradiction. Therefore it will never satisfy anyone.
What MMO creators should instead ask themselves is what is MMO to them as a developer, and if its about creating a new world, then it should be then about how to transport Gamers to their world and populate it. Instead of how to please this type of gamers and that type of gamers.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.