Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

What are the main factors that cause disappointment with an MMO?

124

Comments

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    edited October 2015
    I've rarely found myself disappointed with an MMORPG, or any game really. Most turn out to be what i expected. Maybe it's the simple fact that when I read about games, I compare what I'm reading to what I've experienced in the past. I also ignore marketing buzzwords like, best, biggest, bigger, dynamic, etc... as that's all they are...buzzwords.

    I also don't have a belief system that says a game should or should not have x,y or z...

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    There's nothing virtual world about it. 
    Virtual world has been tried in games like The Second Life, and that is not anywhere close to be as successful as combat centric games. Look at LoL .. it is nothing but jump in and combat.

    The only games that have some virtual world feel are the survival ones. Other than that, i think you probably won't see much of virtual world.

    In fact, if you look at combat centric games .. they are increasingly LESS virtual world (from EQ to WOW to focused convenient combat games like warframe or Marvel Heroes). 
    Why so black and white? A virtual world can also be combat centric. You can make up a setting that includes any feature from nowadays themepark MMO's and put them in a virtual world. A sandbox can have quests (no matter if you make your own or are handed one by talking to some npc) and can evolve around combat. Just in a virtual world, you expect non combat activities and roles too for it to be convincing. Still, the world can all be about some war between realms or planets or whatever.
    I didn't they are mutually exclusive. I was merely pointing out that the trend is LESS virtual world.

    I am calling into question of whether it is even desirable, not that it is not possible to make. There are few virtual world combat games .. like Planetside 2.

    But the trend is convenient, instanced based, focused games (with a few game modes). And that indicates that virtual worlds, at least in a MMO environment (which is different from single player virtual world games) is really getting LESS popular. 
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Flyte27 said:
    Sinist said:


    I am not sure what you mean. That content took skill, it wasn't a matter of simply getting the gear and you won. Not to mention, some people could do content without having the fancy gear, it all came down to the players ability to work with others to achieve objectives. There were many times in EQ where my guild took down difficult bosses with fewer people, under geared and often without the ideal group makeups.

    There were many people that could not win against bosses, even with all the fancy gear. Don't confuse today's itemization scheme with the difficulty of encounters of old. Mainstream is where we started to see events be strictly gear checks, with the result of winning an encounter being entirely due to the gear used which allowed players of little skill to easily succeed.

    In EQ, the bosses weren't about gear exactly (it helped), they were about coordination and endurance. The fights were unforgiving and would not allow a single error or it meant a wipe. One heal chain mess up, one over agro, one mistake and you had to start all over.

    Even in early WoW, you couldn't "numbers game" the black rock depth. You had to learn how to handle the content in order to move on. If you didn't have proper CC, approached the event properly, handled the issues with certain mob abilities, you wiped and it had nothing to do with gear, it was all about skill of the player. The content was hard, required you apply certain solutions.
    I agree for the most part.  Lets not forget that equipment in EQ had minimal effect on your character in Vanilla.  It had not stats and barely increased your damage.  Thats why melee classes always had a hard time winning any encounter.  There wasn't much skill in a solo encounter as a melee class.  Mostly it was just luck of the draw.  In a raid or group this was not the case though.  A melee class had to know various tactics beyond just spamming taunt.  There were often a lot of tricks to hold aggro.  Your group mates also had to restrain themselves so as not to pull aggro away from the tank.  It only took a few hits to a non tank to die.  Casters had a fair amount of strategy in solo content as they were more skill based and had much larger variety of spells available than what you would see in games today.
    The problem is it still all came down to a game of numbers, requiring gear or not doesn't really change that. I think that's what people are arguing when they say old games really didn't have difficulty, they had pre requisites to compete. Which most of those were based on time played, and/or level reached (you now have the proper CC ability to move forward, or you can now mitigate x amount of damage, etc...).

    EQ and games like it mostly focused on level based mechanics, meaning everything is tuned to a players level as well as skill loadout at that level. Having the right skill as well as level for the job is what is important. Or the right number of players of that level. This all comes down to knowledge of the game. The longer you play the better at it you get, because you know what's required to accomplish this or that.

    Games that rely on player skill are more about pattern memorization/mastery. They're about timing, twitch skill and ability to remember the pattern that boss just did, in order to avoid it on the next try.




    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    Distopia said:
    Flyte27 said:
    Sinist said:


    I am not sure what you mean. That content took skill, it wasn't a matter of simply getting the gear and you won. Not to mention, some people could do content without having the fancy gear, it all came down to the players ability to work with others to achieve objectives. There were many times in EQ where my guild took down difficult bosses with fewer people, under geared and often without the ideal group makeups.

    There were many people that could not win against bosses, even with all the fancy gear. Don't confuse today's itemization scheme with the difficulty of encounters of old. Mainstream is where we started to see events be strictly gear checks, with the result of winning an encounter being entirely due to the gear used which allowed players of little skill to easily succeed.

    In EQ, the bosses weren't about gear exactly (it helped), they were about coordination and endurance. The fights were unforgiving and would not allow a single error or it meant a wipe. One heal chain mess up, one over agro, one mistake and you had to start all over.

    Even in early WoW, you couldn't "numbers game" the black rock depth. You had to learn how to handle the content in order to move on. If you didn't have proper CC, approached the event properly, handled the issues with certain mob abilities, you wiped and it had nothing to do with gear, it was all about skill of the player. The content was hard, required you apply certain solutions.
    I agree for the most part.  Lets not forget that equipment in EQ had minimal effect on your character in Vanilla.  It had not stats and barely increased your damage.  Thats why melee classes always had a hard time winning any encounter.  There wasn't much skill in a solo encounter as a melee class.  Mostly it was just luck of the draw.  In a raid or group this was not the case though.  A melee class had to know various tactics beyond just spamming taunt.  There were often a lot of tricks to hold aggro.  Your group mates also had to restrain themselves so as not to pull aggro away from the tank.  It only took a few hits to a non tank to die.  Casters had a fair amount of strategy in solo content as they were more skill based and had much larger variety of spells available than what you would see in games today.
    The problem is it still all came down to a game of numbers, requiring gear or not doesn't really change that. I think that's what people are arguing when they say old games really didn't have difficulty, they had pre requisites to compete. Which most of those were based on time played, and/or level reached (you now have the proper CC ability to move forward, or you can now mitigate x amount of damage, etc...).

    EQ and games like it mostly focused on level based mechanics, meaning everything is tuned to a players level as well as skill loadout at that level. Having the right skill as well as level for the job is what is important. Or the right number of players of that level. This all comes down to knowledge of the game. The longer you play the better at it you get, because you know what's required to accomplish this or that.

    Games that rely on player skill are more about pattern memorization/mastery. They're about timing, twitch skill and ability to remember the pattern that boss just did, in order to avoid it on the next try.




    I have post in here that I went into a few ideas on why games were harder and it wasn't time consumption based or number based.  I was simple pointing out that not only was the game harder throughout in various ways, but it was also artificially harder (which is harder).  The mobs were more powerful and had a better chance to kill you.  That is not the only form of difficulty.  You also couldn't beat everything with just time.  I used to spend most of my day playing EQ when I was younger.  I was unable to complete most of the content even though I eventually hit max level after a very long period of time.  I tried dungeons and raiding in the game, but had little success other then camping certain dungeons that were way lower then my level.  Even then I sometimes still died in those lower level dungeons.  I hate to reiterate this again, but I jumped into WoW and was able to complete all the dungeons in Vanilla and the only raid available at the time (motlen core).  It wasn't easy, but it was a lot easier.
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    Distopia said:

    The problem is it still all came down to a game of numbers, requiring gear or not doesn't really change that. I think that's what people are arguing when they say old games really didn't have difficulty, they had pre requisites to compete. Which most of those were based on time played, and/or level reached (you now have the proper CC ability to move forward, or you can now mitigate x amount of damage, etc...).

    EQ and games like it mostly focused on level based mechanics, meaning everything is tuned to a players level as well as skill loadout at that level. Having the right skill as well as level for the job is what is important. Or the right number of players of that level. This all comes down to knowledge of the game. The longer you play the better at it you get, because you know what's required to accomplish this or that.

    Games that rely on player skill are more about pattern memorization/mastery. They're about timing, twitch skill and ability to remember the pattern that boss just did, in order to avoid it on the next try.

    That is not true though. That is not how EQ was. You could take two groups with the same gear, same levels, same spells, same AAs and they would not equally do content. Those things did not mean success, if they did, it wouldn't have taken guilds months to defeat the content. Heck, even early WoW was not like that. Skill mattered, how you approached the event, how your performed, etc...

    It was how you played your class, how you executed your spells, skills, etc... how you worked with the rest of the group and how much you understood about your class and those you played with. Heck, I sent many "twinked" players in EQ packing because they didn't know how to play their class.

    That said, that is part of the game with these. Games like EQ were designed after D&D style games and systems. The point of the game was the character development and how to apply that within the games systems to succeed in it.

    Player action games are only concerned with reflex and reaction time, pattern memorization, etc... That is fine, but it is a different type of game, requires a different set of skills. cRPG games have different set of strategy and focus, saying that difficulty is linked to physical reaction is to dismiss the challenge of mental games like chess. Physical skill is merely one type of game.



  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Sinist said:
    Distopia said:

    The problem is it still all came down to a game of numbers, requiring gear or not doesn't really change that. I think that's what people are arguing when they say old games really didn't have difficulty, they had pre requisites to compete. Which most of those were based on time played, and/or level reached (you now have the proper CC ability to move forward, or you can now mitigate x amount of damage, etc...).

    EQ and games like it mostly focused on level based mechanics, meaning everything is tuned to a players level as well as skill loadout at that level. Having the right skill as well as level for the job is what is important. Or the right number of players of that level. This all comes down to knowledge of the game. The longer you play the better at it you get, because you know what's required to accomplish this or that.

    Games that rely on player skill are more about pattern memorization/mastery. They're about timing, twitch skill and ability to remember the pattern that boss just did, in order to avoid it on the next try.

    That is not true though. That is not how EQ was. You could take two groups with the same gear, same levels, same spells, same AAs and they would not equally do content. Those things did not mean success, if they did, it wouldn't have taken guilds months to defeat the content. Heck, even early WoW was not like that. Skill mattered, how you approached the event, how your performed, etc...



    Well that still goes in stride with what I said, "This all comes down to knowledge of the game. The longer you play the better at it you get, because you know what's required to accomplish this or that "..That's the nature of numerical things. That's all it takes to be good at an MMORPG, knowledge.

    This isn't true for a twitch based game...where what people tend to refer to as player skill comes into play, you could know all it takes, yet still not defeat it because your hand eye coordination isn't up to par, or your reflexes are too slow. 

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • MoiraeMoirae Member RarePosts: 3,318
    My biggest problem is that they are offering less than the original MMO's back in the early 90's, but they do everything they can to get you to believe they are offering more. There are even complaints by devs that its becoming more difficult to impress with cool graphics while they neglect game play. Give me a single game with good housing that has come out in the last ten years. I bet you can't. Or good crafting. Or something to do OTHER than follow a theme park path to the end, then raid or pvp. 
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    Distopia said:
    Sinist said:
    Distopia said:

    The problem is it still all came down to a game of numbers, requiring gear or not doesn't really change that. I think that's what people are arguing when they say old games really didn't have difficulty, they had pre requisites to compete. Which most of those were based on time played, and/or level reached (you now have the proper CC ability to move forward, or you can now mitigate x amount of damage, etc...).

    EQ and games like it mostly focused on level based mechanics, meaning everything is tuned to a players level as well as skill loadout at that level. Having the right skill as well as level for the job is what is important. Or the right number of players of that level. This all comes down to knowledge of the game. The longer you play the better at it you get, because you know what's required to accomplish this or that.

    Games that rely on player skill are more about pattern memorization/mastery. They're about timing, twitch skill and ability to remember the pattern that boss just did, in order to avoid it on the next try.

    That is not true though. That is not how EQ was. You could take two groups with the same gear, same levels, same spells, same AAs and they would not equally do content. Those things did not mean success, if they did, it wouldn't have taken guilds months to defeat the content. Heck, even early WoW was not like that. Skill mattered, how you approached the event, how your performed, etc...



    Well that still goes in stride with what I said, "This all comes down to knowledge of the game. The longer you play the better at it you get, because you know what's required to accomplish this or that "..That's the nature of numerical things. That's all it takes to be good at an MMORPG, knowledge.

    This isn't true for a twitch based game...where what people tend to refer to as player skill comes into play, you could know all it takes, yet still not defeat it because your hand eye coordination isn't up to par, or your reflexes are too slow. 
    Just out of curiosity what MMOs actually require twitch skills?

    Behind the scenes all MMOs still use real time turn based combat and even old games like EQ required you to execute certain things both at specific times and in response to what spell the mob was casting or what it was doing.  The people that reacted intelligently the quickest were usually the most successful in game.  Often times things happened that you didn't expect like a respawn, someone pulling aggro, a train, or a wandering mob.

    None of this was real twitch based combat like an FPS, but it required quick thinking and action.
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited October 2015
    Distopia said:
    Sinist said:
    Distopia said:

    The problem is it still all came down to a game of numbers, requiring gear or not doesn't really change that. I think that's what people are arguing when they say old games really didn't have difficulty, they had pre requisites to compete. Which most of those were based on time played, and/or level reached (you now have the proper CC ability to move forward, or you can now mitigate x amount of damage, etc...).

    EQ and games like it mostly focused on level based mechanics, meaning everything is tuned to a players level as well as skill loadout at that level. Having the right skill as well as level for the job is what is important. Or the right number of players of that level. This all comes down to knowledge of the game. The longer you play the better at it you get, because you know what's required to accomplish this or that.

    Games that rely on player skill are more about pattern memorization/mastery. They're about timing, twitch skill and ability to remember the pattern that boss just did, in order to avoid it on the next try.

    That is not true though. That is not how EQ was. You could take two groups with the same gear, same levels, same spells, same AAs and they would not equally do content. Those things did not mean success, if they did, it wouldn't have taken guilds months to defeat the content. Heck, even early WoW was not like that. Skill mattered, how you approached the event, how your performed, etc...



    Well that still goes in stride with what I said, "This all comes down to knowledge of the game. The longer you play the better at it you get, because you know what's required to accomplish this or that "..That's the nature of numerical things. That's all it takes to be good at an MMORPG, knowledge.

    This isn't true for a twitch based game...where what people tend to refer to as player skill comes into play, you could know all it takes, yet still not defeat it because your hand eye coordination isn't up to par, or your reflexes are too slow. 
    Not really. In EQ for instance, there are many timing elements that require you to be exact when you do something. Also, knowing and doing are two different things. I can tell you all about a certain boss fight, the role of a tank, what skills they use, etc... and you will fail over and over until you learn proper timing and execution of your abilities. As a monk, I can explain to you how certain mob behavior works, how to split a given set of mobs and you will fail over and over until you get the habit of it. Some people never do.

    For instance, some people could never get tanking down, some could never time their heals correctly, some could never do proper splits, etc... Learning to play your class was more than than knowing, it was doing and some people just had trouble getting the hang of a given class.

    What MMOs have you played, because you don't sound like you have much experience with the older MMOs.
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited October 2015
    Flyte27 said:

    Just out of curiosity what MMOs actually require twitch skills?

    Behind the scenes all MMOs still use real time turn based combat and even old games like EQ required you to execute certain things both at specific times and in response to what spell the mob was casting or what it was doing.  The people that reacted intelligently the quickest were usually the most successful in game.  Often times things happened that you didn't expect like a respawn, someone pulling aggro, a train, or a wandering mob.

    None of this was real twitch based combat like an FPS, but it required quick thinking and action.

    Exactly. Knowledge was only part of the requirement, then you had to intelligently apply it at the correct time and without error all the while dealing with unknowns as you mentioned (spawns, pathers, spell resists and interruptions, etc...).

    I enjoy the occasional twitch game from time to time, but I played my share of arcade games in younger years, eventually just learning patterns to repeat gets a bit old and back then, you had to memorize the entire game to beat it as there were no saves. The twitch games of today are just prettier graphics, but still the same pattern regurgitation
  • nbtscannbtscan Member UncommonPosts: 862
    I think the #1 factor for people quitting is whether or not a game is fun.  Fun is a different thing for different people of course so it's a tough metric to gauge.  For me, the framework of the game has to be good.  I think whether or not you have a good core of friends to play with is important as well, otherwise you're just playing a single player game online.

    The battle system is probably another major factor.  Some people don't like slow GCD tab target, others don't like more active styles like TERA.

    For some, graphics is a big deal.  I played WoW and dealt with its graphical style because there were other things I liked about the game that made me overlook that.  I tried Wildstar which is very similar graphically but didn't like how the game played.  I doubt I could play a new MMORPG with a 10+ year old graphic system.  There would have to be some other things about it I found VERY appealing.
  • BurntCabbageBurntCabbage Member UncommonPosts: 482

    What are the main factors that cause disappointment with an MMO?

    easy mode and carebears..

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Flyte27 said:
    Distopia said:
    Sinist said:
    Distopia said:

    The problem is it still all came down to a game of numbers, requiring gear or not doesn't really change that. I think that's what people are arguing when they say old games really didn't have difficulty, they had pre requisites to compete. Which most of those were based on time played, and/or level reached (you now have the proper CC ability to move forward, or you can now mitigate x amount of damage, etc...).

    EQ and games like it mostly focused on level based mechanics, meaning everything is tuned to a players level as well as skill loadout at that level. Having the right skill as well as level for the job is what is important. Or the right number of players of that level. This all comes down to knowledge of the game. The longer you play the better at it you get, because you know what's required to accomplish this or that.

    Games that rely on player skill are more about pattern memorization/mastery. They're about timing, twitch skill and ability to remember the pattern that boss just did, in order to avoid it on the next try.

    That is not true though. That is not how EQ was. You could take two groups with the same gear, same levels, same spells, same AAs and they would not equally do content. Those things did not mean success, if they did, it wouldn't have taken guilds months to defeat the content. Heck, even early WoW was not like that. Skill mattered, how you approached the event, how your performed, etc...



    Well that still goes in stride with what I said, "This all comes down to knowledge of the game. The longer you play the better at it you get, because you know what's required to accomplish this or that "..That's the nature of numerical things. That's all it takes to be good at an MMORPG, knowledge.

    This isn't true for a twitch based game...where what people tend to refer to as player skill comes into play, you could know all it takes, yet still not defeat it because your hand eye coordination isn't up to par, or your reflexes are too slow. 
    Just out of curiosity what MMOs actually require twitch skills?

    Behind the scenes all MMOs still use real time turn based combat and even old games like EQ required you to execute certain things both at specific times and in response to what spell the mob was casting or what it was doing.  The people that reacted intelligently the quickest were usually the most successful in game.  Often times things happened that you didn't expect like a respawn, someone pulling aggro, a train, or a wandering mob.

    None of this was real twitch based combat like an FPS, but it required quick thinking and action.
    None really, as that wasn't the point I was making. It's a simple matter of mechanics, MMO's haven't been complex in this regard, meaning skill is of less pertinence to the equation. Until MMO mechanics evolve this will always be the case. Knowing when to use a skill, knowing where to stand, knowing when and what to cast, etc... are all relatively easy things to learn for one applying themselves to it.

    You guys keep going to the age old MMORPG fall back, "but in EQ"... Those that were good at EQ were good because they cared enough to be good (which basically means they read a a lot). Same for any MMO. It just had more numbers/variables that mattered in the grand scheme of things, compared to others in the genre. That's where it's difficulty lay, in learning those numbers/variables and what they represent. The same could be said for PRe-cu SWG, and it's a big reason it was changed. Getting good required "too much reading".

    To many people getting good at a game means you've mastered a set of hand skills, you have fast reflex, and you can think wisely when under pressure. The only aspect of MMO's that has ever required any of this is PVP really. Most other aspects have almost always been based on pure knowledge of the system. Even bosses... "he shoots the fire after he does "X"". It's just not the same thing, which means it's really not a bragging right as far as being a hardcore gamer goes.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    Distopia said:

    None really, as that wasn't the point I was making. It's a simple matter of mechanics, MMO's haven't been complex in this regard, meaning skill is of less pertinence to the equation. Until MMO mechanics evolve this will always be the case. Knowing when to use a skill, knowing where to stand, knowing when and what to cast, etc... are all relatively easy things to learn for one applying themselves to it.

    You guys keep going to the age old MMORPG fall back, "but in EQ"... Those that were good at EQ were good because they cared enough to be good (which basically means they read a a lot). Same for any MMO. It just had more numbers/variables that mattered in the grand scheme of things, compared to others in the genre. That's where it's difficulty lay, in learning those numbers/variables and what they represent. The same could be said for PRe-cu SWG, and it's a big reason it was changed. Getting good required "too much reading".

    To many people getting good at a game means you've mastered a set of hand skills, you have fast reflex, and you can think wisely when under pressure. The only aspect of MMO's that has ever required any of this is PVP really. Most other aspects have almost always been based on pure knowledge of the system. Even bosses... "he shoots the fire after he does "X"". It's just not the same thing, which means it's really not a bragging right as far as being a hardcore gamer goes.
    This is false though. You keep stating it over and over, but I know for a fact you are wrong. As I said, you can explain everything to someone, but it won't make them good at playing their class. I have seen this over and over in many of the MMOs I have played. Being knowledgeable about the game and being skilled in the execution of that knowledge are two different things.

    I have already discussed several scenarios in the older games where such execution skill was required and knowledge would make no difference.

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    edited October 2015
    nbtscan said:
    I think the #1 factor for people quitting is whether or not a game is fun.  Fun is a different thing for different people of course so it's a tough metric to gauge.  For me, the framework of the game has to be good.  I think whether or not you have a good core of friends to play with is important as well, otherwise you're just playing a single player game online.

    The battle system is probably another major factor.  Some people don't like slow GCD tab target, others don't like more active styles like TERA.

    For some, graphics is a big deal.  I played WoW and dealt with its graphical style because there were other things I liked about the game that made me overlook that.  I tried Wildstar which is very similar graphically but didn't like how the game played.  I doubt I could play a new MMORPG with a 10+ year old graphic system.  There would have to be some other things about it I found VERY appealing.
    Define fun or good, etc...

    No offense, but "fun" is a useless word as what is fun to you may not be fun to me. Any developer that goes on about "fun" is just selling a marketing gimmick. You can not design a game around "fun". You can however design a game around a very specific set of conditions and objectives for style of play and let people decide if that "style" of game is "fun" to them or not.

    Fun or good is a subjective meaningless word to anyone but themselves.
  • thunderclesthundercles Member UncommonPosts: 510
    hyperbole
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    hyperbole
      Failure to state.

    Who are you talking to? What is your specific point? Make your argument so it can be assessed.


  • d_20d_20 Member RarePosts: 1,878
    • Why we are the "spiritual successor to"...

    I'm getting sick of this cliche, too. As I remember, it started with "spiritual successor to UO," which never happened, and has spread to everything trying to sell off the goodwill and reputation of a past good game.


  • GrailerGrailer Member UncommonPosts: 893
    I need a game I can immerse myself into the character and become that character  and forget about who I really am.

    Having 3rd person ruins immersion because its like you are a god controlling some  character.
    Whereas 1st person you are the character .

    Global chat , instant immersion ruin.

    Artificial limits , i.e  I cant climb over a stone on the ground . Or I hit an invisible wall in the middle of the ocean or worse .. losing health because I went too deep ( Maybe run out of energy swimming and drown is better )

    .. Basically what I want Is an RPG game that is believable within the realms of the fantasy it depicts .

    I want Ultima Online + Everquest on steroids


  • FomaldehydeJimFomaldehydeJim Member UncommonPosts: 673
    Sinist said:
    hyperbole
      Failure to state.

    Who are you talking to? What is your specific point? Make your argument so it can be assessed.


    Hyperbole
  • DztBlkDztBlk Member UncommonPosts: 127
    Grailer said:
    I need a game I can immerse myself into the character and become that character  and forget about who I really am.

    Having 3rd person ruins immersion because its like you are a god controlling some  character.
    Whereas 1st person you are the character .

    Global chat , instant immersion ruin.

    Artificial limits , i.e  I cant climb over a stone on the ground . Or I hit an invisible wall in the middle of the ocean or worse .. losing health because I went too deep ( Maybe run out of energy swimming and drown is better )

    .. Basically what I want Is an RPG game that is believable within the realms of the fantasy it depicts .

    I want Ultima Online + Everquest on steroids


    Ugh, I so dislike 1st person.  Becoming that character not only involves putting together their powerset.  I create a look as well and part of the enjoyment of creating a look is to actually be able to see what you created.  Also, another plus is you can see what's coming up around you.
  • time007time007 Member UncommonPosts: 1,054
    no meaningful endgame world vs world reward system ala' Dark Age of Camelot Realm ranks

    IMPORTANT:  Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING.  Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally.  If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead.  I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING.  Thank you.
    image

  • jmcdermottukjmcdermottuk Member RarePosts: 1,567
    There's a few things that turn me off playing any MMO. Bad animations, toxic chat, lack of community, but probably the biggest is that lack of wow factor. You know, the little things in any game that actually make you stop and say "wow, that's cool".

    Problem is that it has to be something special to get that reaction and most MMO's now just feel like same old, same old, been there, done that. I think that sense of "seen this all before" is the most disappointing thing I can say about any game I play, regardless of genre. Especially if it's been done better, which in the case of MMO's seems to happen far too frequently.
  • jc234jc234 Member UncommonPosts: 91
     "wow, that's cool".

    Sorry not happening...







    World of Warcraft®

  • jmcdermottukjmcdermottuk Member RarePosts: 1,567
    jc234 said:
     "wow, that's cool".

    Sorry not happening...







    World of Warcraft®

      Oddly enough there were several "Wow" moments when I first started playing WoW. Vanilla was such a good game it almost makes me want to cry to see it now.
Sign In or Register to comment.