It was actually corporate greed that killed MMO's. The slow and steady regression into how to milk you for every penny you have and the discovery of how little of the game you're willing to pay top dollar for.
Which has now been replaced by 'saviors' doing the same thing.
I said it years ago when the first cash shop stff was getting sold that it would be the end of MMOs forever. Look like Nostradamus now. Because now EVERYTHING is free to play with a cash shop or buy to play with a cash shop. Or pay for early access, pay for alpha access, steadily churning towards buy stuff that doesnt exist and trust us to make the game.
So in something like 3 years we have gone from buying in game items, to buying beta access, then buying early access, then buying alpha access, then buying pre alpha access, to buying stuff that doesnt exist other than a jpeg. Not sure whee the next gen leads up. I guess giving money to a guy because he dreamt of something.
Tasks(Quests !) seem like they are in MMOs now because people can't figure out what to do without them.
It's pretty obvious why they're in RPGs: variety.
Without quests: do this 1 activity to advance.
With quests: do these 30+ different activities to advance.
What's the 1 activity of non-quest games? Killing mobs.
Killing mobs is common in quest-based games too, but even with that 1 activity they're dramatically more varied:
Instead of killing endlessly, you need to get, do, then turn-in the quest. So there's variety to what you're doing.
Instead of killing mostly the same mob, you're forced to kill specific mobs. This can either fall flat on its face (TOR and WAR's mobs involved almost no actual gameplay variety; the majority of enemies in those games played out exactly the same) or can be a HUGE source of variety (nearly all WOW's mobs use a distinct ability.)
Turns out players enjoy richly varied gameplay a lot more than they enjoy an endless repetitive grind. Who knew!
A few non-quest games reward more than just killing mobs, but even if they offered all 30+ of the activities that a quest-based game offered they'd still be less varied. Why? Because questing basically requires you to perform varied activities to advance the fastest, while in a non-quest game you're going to find whatever activity provides the highest XP/hour and only do that one activity because nothing forces you to switch activities (and in fact the travel time involved in switching activities would make that an inefficient choice.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So unless players take @Kyleran 's advice and support the new crop of indies (and I would add for longer than 3 months) I think it will send a pretty strong signal to the industry.
The signal is already pretty weak if MMOs have to resort to indie development.
If you want to look for strong signal, look at e-sports, MOBAs, CCGs, shooters.
Tasks(Quests !) seem like they are in MMOs now because people can't figure out what to do without them.
It's pretty obvious why they're in RPGs: variety.
Without quests: do this 1 activity to advance.
With quests: do these 30+ different activities to advance.
What's the 1 activity of non-quest games? Killing mobs.
Killing mobs is common in quest-based games too, but even with that 1 activity they're dramatically more varied:
Instead of killing endlessly, you need to get, do, then turn-in the quest. So there's variety to what you're doing.
Instead of killing mostly the same mob, you're forced to kill specific mobs. This can either fall flat on its face (TOR and WAR's mobs involved almost no actual gameplay variety; the majority of enemies in those games played out exactly the same) or can be a HUGE source of variety (nearly all WOW's mobs use a distinct ability.)
Turns out players enjoy richly varied gameplay a lot more than they enjoy an endless repetitive grind. Who knew!
A few non-quest games reward more than just killing mobs, but even if they offered all 30+ of the activities that a quest-based game offered they'd still be less varied. Why? Because questing basically requires you to perform varied activities to advance the fastest, while in a non-quest game you're going to find whatever activity provides the highest XP/hour and only do that one activity because nothing forces you to switch activities (and in fact the travel time involved in switching activities would make that an inefficient choice.)
I remember I believe it was TotalBiscuit saying in a video all quessts in MMO come down to 3 activities (kill,collect,deliver). You're kidding yourself there's much variety in these games. Just because an NPC is telling you to grind and rewarding you every so often doesn't make it any less grindy. What we need is a way for players to actually affect the world but the only game I know of to actually offer that is EVE Online.
Tasks(Quests !) seem like they are in MMOs now because people can't figure out what to do without them.
It's pretty obvious why they're in RPGs: variety.
Without quests: do this 1 activity to advance.
With quests: do these 30+ different activities to advance.
What's the 1 activity of non-quest games? Killing mobs.
Killing mobs is common in quest-based games too, but even with that 1 activity they're dramatically more varied:
Instead of killing endlessly, you need to get, do, then turn-in the quest. So there's variety to what you're doing.
Instead of killing mostly the same mob, you're forced to kill specific mobs. This can either fall flat on its face (TOR and WAR's mobs involved almost no actual gameplay variety; the majority of enemies in those games played out exactly the same) or can be a HUGE source of variety (nearly all WOW's mobs use a distinct ability.)
Turns out players enjoy richly varied gameplay a lot more than they enjoy an endless repetitive grind. Who knew!
A few non-quest games reward more than just killing mobs, but even if they offered all 30+ of the activities that a quest-based game offered they'd still be less varied. Why? Because questing basically requires you to perform varied activities to advance the fastest, while in a non-quest game you're going to find whatever activity provides the highest XP/hour and only do that one activity because nothing forces you to switch activities (and in fact the travel time involved in switching activities would make that an inefficient choice.)
I feel like I could sum up what quests are available fairly quickly and they are all setup in the same path that everyone single person follows.
In a game without quests I could run up and kill beetles and sell their legs to an alchemist. I could be a hunter and go kill some deer for their hides. I could be go and fish for a while and sell the fish to the fish vendor. I could go out and kill some orcs to defend the town and sell their belts to guards for reputation. I think there is a lot more possibilities when you don't have quests. All you require is a little imagination. It's more fun for me I believe than following a linear path setup for me. I'm guessing that is not the case for others as quests are very popular.
Tasks(Quests !) seem like they are in MMOs now because people can't figure out what to do without them.
It's pretty obvious why they're in RPGs: variety.
Without quests: do this 1 activity to advance.
With quests: do these 30+ different activities to advance.
What's the 1 activity of non-quest games? Killing mobs.
Killing mobs is common in quest-based games too, but even with that 1 activity they're dramatically more varied:
Instead of killing endlessly, you need to get, do, then turn-in the quest. So there's variety to what you're doing.
Instead of killing mostly the same mob, you're forced to kill specific mobs. This can either fall flat on its face (TOR and WAR's mobs involved almost no actual gameplay variety; the majority of enemies in those games played out exactly the same) or can be a HUGE source of variety (nearly all WOW's mobs use a distinct ability.)
Turns out players enjoy richly varied gameplay a lot more than they enjoy an endless repetitive grind. Who knew!
A few non-quest games reward more than just killing mobs, but even if they offered all 30+ of the activities that a quest-based game offered they'd still be less varied. Why? Because questing basically requires you to perform varied activities to advance the fastest, while in a non-quest game you're going to find whatever activity provides the highest XP/hour and only do that one activity because nothing forces you to switch activities (and in fact the travel time involved in switching activities would make that an inefficient choice.)
I remember I believe it was TotalBiscuit saying in a video all quessts in MMO come down to 3 activities (kill,collect,deliver). You're kidding yourself there's much variety in these games. Just because an NPC is telling you to grind and rewarding you every so often doesn't make it any less grindy. What we need is a way for players to actually affect the world but the only game I know of to actually offer that is EVE Online.
Ok, you claim 3. 1 vs 4 (3 +1) is more. Great variety? Hello no. This is part of why I say it is all grind (repetitive). You do a specific thing like killing mobs, at 3 you have entered repetitive. If THE FACT the repetition exists is YOUR REASON to avoid a video game, you might as well avoid video games.
Repetition = video games = is your life playing video games.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
So unless players take @Kyleran 's advice and support the new crop of indies (and I would add for longer than 3 months) I think it will send a pretty strong signal to the industry.
The signal is already pretty weak if MMOs have to resort to indie development.
If you want to look for strong signal, look at e-sports, MOBAs, CCGs, shooters.
As the genre started, so it has returned, for the better from my perspective.
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
They hate questing because it's not like quests are a staple of RPGs or anything. They despise raiding, gear progression, grinding and all things associated with theme parks. Oh and don't even think about making a "MMO" that you can't play solo from beginning to end, because that is just silly talk! In addition, It better also be polished, balanced, free to play with no bugs and constant content releases.
My point is I think the real problem is that a lot of people that play MMOs don't really like MMOs anymore or have never really liked them.
Quests are indeed a stable of RPGs, and are great. The problem is that what they call "quests" in MMORPGs are anything but. King Arthur searching for the holy grail was a quest. Frodo marching the One Ring to Mt. Doom was a quest. Having to pick up five items off the ground in <Insert MMORPG Here> is not a quest, it's a bloody chore. It's something you punish children with, not something you entertain people it.
I absolutely agree. I would rather them be couched as "jobs" or "tasks" where someone could be hired to do some such thing but if a game is going to have a quest then it should have some substance.
I have be saying that for a long time. Jobs, task, missions, adventures and more that are nothing like a quest. Quest should be important or large like the quest for the grail.
The word quest is way overloaded and I never liked that. I think
back to the early years of dnd where a Quest was a big deal and rare
even though there were constant adventures going on. We need to
approach this different labeling-wise. Call a job a job. We could have
other types like missions, tasks, and yes quests. Make quests
something arduous and a long journey involved with them for some major
event/issue. Jobs would be a major way for players to earn money from
say traditional quests like bring me 20 bear paws for X cash (going rate
depending on population). Missions have more of a military feeling to
them (go capture that flag... I mean keep). Tasks might be guild
related (harvest X number of trees and/or make us 20 high quality oak
planks). Have adventures instead of quests for normally non-task
non-job non-mission non-quest events.
Chores is a nice edition.
Life quests could be something to add. Something you get during character creation that gives the character a life time goal.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I agree that AAA MMOs are most likely a thing of the past because there is more money to be made in ARPGs and MOBAs with much less effort.
As far as indie/crowd funded MMOs go, I love the concept but hate the execution. For example, the current process for most indie/crowd funded MMOs is release an idea then ask people to pay you to turn that idea into something tangible with no hard timelines and very little insight past pay x dollars and you can have alpha access when we release alpha. Some of these games stay in alpha for years then end up releaseing in a mostly beta state. So the game I invested $300 for 4 years ago is now released as free to play in a quasi beta state. Because it's now free to play they need a cash shop or some sort of revenue generator because the game still needs to be finished, so on and so forth. The people that had nothing vested in it say, "I am not playing this game it isn't polished!!", only a few stay and you are mostly left with a game that you have been playing for years in a substandard state and a bunch of free to players that don't really care what happens to the game. This whole process needs to be revamped!
Also, lets not forget that a subscription should always be mandatory to keep the playing field level (i.e. no cash shop!), updates coming, new content releasing, etc. I think the $15 industry standard is a joke and way overpriced, how about something like $4.99 which is the price of a footlong at subway.
The real problem with MMO's is they have all been essentially the same game. They are all clones, same tab targeting carrot on a stick gameplay with very few exceptions.
I really don't see how someone can play a game like WOW, and then be excited to play a game like RIFT when they are the exact same game with a different map/art style.
WoW is proof that tab target still works, that raiding still works, and that dungeon running still works. The reason why people get excited is because its a new world to play in. Compared to Azeroth new game worlds are pretty bland/boring and thats why they return pretty fast. Kingdoms of Amalur mmo game world looked really well done and unfortunately that game will never see the light of day. If GW2 had the trinity and the classes didnt feel so meh? i would be playing that game still. Good game world.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
The real problem with MMO's is they have all been essentially the same game. They are all clones, same tab targeting carrot on a stick gameplay with very few exceptions.
I really don't see how someone can play a game like WOW, and then be excited to play a game like RIFT when they are the exact same game with a different map/art style.
WoW is proof that tab target still works, that raiding still works, and that dungeon running still works. The reason why people get excited is because its a new world to play in. Compared to Azeroth new game worlds are pretty bland/boring and thats why they return pretty fast. Kingdoms of Amalur mmo game world looked really well done and unfortunately that game will never see the light of day. If GW2 had the trinity and the classes didnt feel so meh? i would be playing that game still. Good game world.
how about his? people like raiding and dungeons, and go to another MMO for different raids and dungeons? And therefore MMO-hop for content locusting not because they want something 180 different but rather more of the same?
More of the same but with a different flavor i would say. Plenty of games have come out since Rift with better animations and different style of game play and they all went B2P/F2P within a year. It took Rift 2 YEARS before they made the switch. A big part of that was that was Raids and Dungeons. Rift was supposed to be F2P in 6 months and dead in a year. This "WoW Clone" still has 7 NA servers going 4 years later with a okish gameworld, weird animations, 6 boring races and 4 classes....so yea it still works but games need to be at least on par with WoW to see a good amount of success but they never are sadly.
Ok, you claim 3. 1 vs 4 (3 +1) is more. Great variety? Hello no. This is part of why I say it is all grind (repetitive). You do a specific thing like killing mobs, at 3 you have entered repetitive. If THE FACT the repetition exists is YOUR REASON to avoid a video game, you might as well avoid video games.
Repetition = video games = is your life playing video games.
I was not complaining about the repetitive aspect so much as the fact that the tasks you do from game to game in MMOs don't really change and more importantly nothing you do actually has any impact on the world around you. This is what makes it grindy to me. Just killing shit so you can get better stats to go any kill bigger shit to get better stats. I've found games like that fun in the past, still do to some extent I guess but I'm ready for something new.
iridescence said: I was not complaining about the repetitive aspect so much as the fact that the tasks you do from game to game in MMOs don't really change and more importantly nothing you do actually has any impact on the world around you.
Affecting the World is easy to accomplish with fifty players. Now try to do the same with fifty thousand, and listen to the howls.
Can you even provide non-instanced housing at that level of population? (Don't answer that too quickly, as many games have tried and failed to do exactly that.) Now try to balance your constructing and destructing motivated players without using too heavy a hand... Watch out for "emergent gameplay" (aka griefers)... Try to figure out ways to give latecomers (new players) any chance at all...
Affecting the World is far easier to say than it is to actually do.
The closest we typically see made reality is faction temporary territory control. Which is really not all that exciting, except to those eve geeks.
I didn't say it was easy, only that that is the direction I would like to see these games evolve in. Hopefully as computer power increases and AI and procedural generation improves.
I was not complaining about the repetitive aspect so much as the fact that the tasks you do from game to game in MMOs don't really change and more importantly nothing you do actually has any impact on the world around you. This is what makes it grindy to me. Just killing shit so you can get better stats to go any kill bigger shit to get better stats. I've found games like that fun in the past, still do to some extent I guess but I'm ready for something new.
then play puzzle games, adventure games, strategy games ....
mmorpgs are pretty much hack-n-slash progression games now.
I remember I believe it was TotalBiscuit saying in a video all quessts in MMO come down to 3 activities (kill,collect,deliver). You're kidding yourself there's much variety in these games. Just because an NPC is telling you to grind and rewarding you every so often doesn't make it any less grindy. What we need is a way for players to actually affect the world but the only game I know of to actually offer that is EVE Online.
If you intend to be willfully ignorant of the variety that exists in games, why would you stop there?
Why not sum up every activity in every game as "do this thing"? That way you can pretend to yourself there's no variety in any game ever.
Or how about instead of that obviously flawed way of looking at things, we admit that the nuanced details are what makes gameplay different and varied? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to admit that the gameplay varies noticeably in standard kill quests? That one has a spell, that one self-destructs for a lot of damage, and another runs away and calls for help. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to admit that gameplay varies significantly in rare kill quests? That one is an aerial bombing run, another gives you control of Arthas to raise legions of undead, and another gives you control of a giant doomwheel rolling through an army of gnomes.
If these distinct differences can't be considered variation, then your definition of variety is so strict that nothing counts.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I was not complaining about the repetitive aspect so much as the fact that the tasks you do from game to game in MMOs don't really change and more importantly nothing you do actually has any impact on the world around you. This is what makes it grindy to me. Just killing shit so you can get better stats to go any kill bigger shit to get better stats. I've found games like that fun in the past, still do to some extent I guess but I'm ready for something new.
then play puzzle games, adventure games, strategy games ....
mmorpgs are pretty much hack-n-slash progression games now.
Aren't you the one who's always saying that MMOs need to change and evolve? In this case I agree. Just because most games follow that formula now doesn't mean they always will or should. In 2004 they were very constrained by the technology they had but that is changing.
I remember I believe it was TotalBiscuit saying in a video all quessts in MMO come down to 3 activities (kill,collect,deliver). You're kidding yourself there's much variety in these games. Just because an NPC is telling you to grind and rewarding you every so often doesn't make it any less grindy. What we need is a way for players to actually affect the world but the only game I know of to actually offer that is EVE Online.
If you intend to be willfully ignorant of the variety that exists in games, why would you stop there?
Why not sum up every activity in every game as "do this thing"? That way you can pretend to yourself there's no variety in any game ever.
Or how about instead of that obviously flawed way of looking at things, we admit that the nuanced details are what makes gameplay different and varied? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to admit that the gameplay varies noticeably in standard kill quests? That one has a spell, that one self-destructs for a lot of damage, and another runs away and calls for help. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to admit that gameplay varies significantly in rare kill quests? That one is an aerial bombing run, another gives you control of Arthas to raise legions of undead, and another gives you control of a giant doomwheel rolling through an army of gnomes.
If these distinct differences can't be considered variation, then your definition of variety is so strict that nothing counts.
Games have done a good job of varying up kill quests to feel like something different. It's one thing Blizzard is really good at. But it is dressing up. At their core MMO questing still revolves around those 3 basic activities and that's why IMO so many people get bored after a few years of playing these games.
At their core MMO questing still revolves around those 3 basic activities and that's why IMO so many people get bored after a few years of playing these games.
Familiarity breeds contempt, again.
What's really baffling is that we'd ever expect anything else of a hobby where the goal is to devour countless hours.
Games have done a good job of varying up kill quests to feel like something different. It's one thing Blizzard is really good at. But it is dressing up. At their core MMO questing still revolves around those 3 basic activities and that's why IMO so many people get bored after a few years of playing these games.
What you're dismissing as "dressing" is, in fact, variety. If something is different, it's different.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
I said it years ago when the first cash shop stff was getting sold that it would be the end of MMOs forever. Look like Nostradamus now. Because now EVERYTHING is free to play with a cash shop or buy to play with a cash shop. Or pay for early access, pay for alpha access, steadily churning towards buy stuff that doesnt exist and trust us to make the game.
So in something like 3 years we have gone from buying in game items, to buying beta access, then buying early access, then buying alpha access, then buying pre alpha access, to buying stuff that doesnt exist other than a jpeg. Not sure whee the next gen leads up. I guess giving money to a guy because he dreamt of something.
- Without quests: do this 1 activity to advance.
- With quests: do these 30+ different activities to advance.
What's the 1 activity of non-quest games? Killing mobs.Killing mobs is common in quest-based games too, but even with that 1 activity they're dramatically more varied:
- Instead of killing endlessly, you need to get, do, then turn-in the quest. So there's variety to what you're doing.
- Instead of killing mostly the same mob, you're forced to kill specific mobs. This can either fall flat on its face (TOR and WAR's mobs involved almost no actual gameplay variety; the majority of enemies in those games played out exactly the same) or can be a HUGE source of variety (nearly all WOW's mobs use a distinct ability.)
Turns out players enjoy richly varied gameplay a lot more than they enjoy an endless repetitive grind. Who knew!A few non-quest games reward more than just killing mobs, but even if they offered all 30+ of the activities that a quest-based game offered they'd still be less varied. Why? Because questing basically requires you to perform varied activities to advance the fastest, while in a non-quest game you're going to find whatever activity provides the highest XP/hour and only do that one activity because nothing forces you to switch activities (and in fact the travel time involved in switching activities would make that an inefficient choice.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you want to look for strong signal, look at e-sports, MOBAs, CCGs, shooters.
In a game without quests I could run up and kill beetles and sell their legs to an alchemist. I could be a hunter and go kill some deer for their hides. I could be go and fish for a while and sell the fish to the fish vendor. I could go out and kill some orcs to defend the town and sell their belts to guards for reputation. I think there is a lot more possibilities when you don't have quests. All you require is a little imagination. It's more fun for me I believe than following a linear path setup for me. I'm guessing that is not the case for others as quests are very popular.
Ok, you claim 3. 1 vs 4 (3 +1) is more. Great variety? Hello no. This is part of why I say it is all grind (repetitive). You do a specific thing like killing mobs, at 3 you have entered repetitive. If THE FACT the repetition exists is YOUR REASON to avoid a video game, you might as well avoid video games.
Repetition = video games = is your life playing video games.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
"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
I have be saying that for a long time. Jobs, task, missions, adventures and more that are nothing like a quest. Quest should be important or large like the quest for the grail.
The word quest is way overloaded and I never liked that. I think back to the early years of dnd where a Quest was a big deal and rare even though there were constant adventures going on. We need to approach this different labeling-wise. Call a job a job. We could have other types like missions, tasks, and yes quests. Make quests something arduous and a long journey involved with them for some major event/issue. Jobs would be a major way for players to earn money from say traditional quests like bring me 20 bear paws for X cash (going rate depending on population). Missions have more of a military feeling to them (go capture that flag... I mean keep). Tasks might be guild related (harvest X number of trees and/or make us 20 high quality oak planks). Have adventures instead of quests for normally non-task non-job non-mission non-quest events.
Chores is a nice edition.
Life quests could be something to add. Something you get during character creation that gives the character a life time goal.Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I agree that AAA MMOs are most likely a thing of the past because there is more money to be made in ARPGs and MOBAs with much less effort.
As far as indie/crowd funded MMOs go, I love the concept but hate the execution. For example, the current process for most indie/crowd funded MMOs is release an idea then ask people to pay you to turn that idea into something tangible with no hard timelines and very little insight past pay x dollars and you can have alpha access when we release alpha. Some of these games stay in alpha for years then end up releaseing in a mostly beta state. So the game I invested $300 for 4 years ago is now released as free to play in a quasi beta state. Because it's now free to play they need a cash shop or some sort of revenue generator because the game still needs to be finished, so on and so forth. The people that had nothing vested in it say, "I am not playing this game it isn't polished!!", only a few stay and you are mostly left with a game that you have been playing for years in a substandard state and a bunch of free to players that don't really care what happens to the game. This whole process needs to be revamped!
Also, lets not forget that a subscription should always be mandatory to keep the playing field level (i.e. no cash shop!), updates coming, new content releasing, etc. I think the $15 industry standard is a joke and way overpriced, how about something like $4.99 which is the price of a footlong at subway.
WoW is proof that tab target still works, that raiding still works, and that dungeon running still works. The reason why people get excited is because its a new world to play in. Compared to Azeroth new game worlds are pretty bland/boring and thats why they return pretty fast. Kingdoms of Amalur mmo game world looked really well done and unfortunately that game will never see the light of day. If GW2 had the trinity and the classes didnt feel so meh? i would be playing that game still. Good game world.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
More of the same but with a different flavor i would say. Plenty of games have come out since Rift with better animations and different style of game play and they all went B2P/F2P within a year. It took Rift 2 YEARS before they made the switch. A big part of that was that was Raids and Dungeons. Rift was supposed to be F2P in 6 months and dead in a year. This "WoW Clone" still has 7 NA servers going 4 years later with a okish gameworld, weird animations, 6 boring races and 4 classes....so yea it still works but games need to be at least on par with WoW to see a good amount of success but they never are sadly.
Can you even provide non-instanced housing at that level of population? (Don't answer that too quickly, as many games have tried and failed to do exactly that.) Now try to balance your constructing and destructing motivated players without using too heavy a hand... Watch out for "emergent gameplay" (aka griefers)... Try to figure out ways to give latecomers (new players) any chance at all...
Affecting the World is far easier to say than it is to actually do.
The closest we typically see made reality is faction temporary territory control. Which is really not all that exciting, except to those eve geeks.
then play puzzle games, adventure games, strategy games ....
mmorpgs are pretty much hack-n-slash progression games now.
Why not sum up every activity in every game as "do this thing"? That way you can pretend to yourself there's no variety in any game ever.
Or how about instead of that obviously flawed way of looking at things, we admit that the nuanced details are what makes gameplay different and varied? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to admit that the gameplay varies noticeably in standard kill quests? That one has a spell, that one self-destructs for a lot of damage, and another runs away and calls for help. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to admit that gameplay varies significantly in rare kill quests? That one is an aerial bombing run, another gives you control of Arthas to raise legions of undead, and another gives you control of a giant doomwheel rolling through an army of gnomes.
If these distinct differences can't be considered variation, then your definition of variety is so strict that nothing counts.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"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
Games have done a good job of varying up kill quests to feel like something different. It's one thing Blizzard is really good at. But it is dressing up. At their core MMO questing still revolves around those 3 basic activities and that's why IMO so many people get bored after a few years of playing these games.
What's really baffling is that we'd ever expect anything else of a hobby where the goal is to devour countless hours.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver