Transitioning? Absolutely. Dying? That would require more information. The ending of an industry, which is a more fitting term than genre for the sake of this conversation, implies that people are not buying the product. Is that true? I'm honestly asking. If that can be established then the argument is valid. If it can't, it isn't.
It's a better argument IMO to say it is changing to something else. The transition period is waiting for the next big thing that is actually different in order to pull the masses from the uncountable corners of this market that has grown so substantially lateral that there is not as much room for new titles of the same model.
The problem with the mmogenre is that every new mmorpg tries to copy world of warcrafts experence, which ends up making the game feel like you've played it before many times. I haven't seen many mmo's that try to do something diffrent. MMO's have honestly gone down the crapper since wow released, and my hatred for wow is not because wow itself is a bad game, but because of how it transformed the mmorpg genre into the cesspool of garbage it currently is. I don't see it changing till wow closes sadly.
I agree completely with everything you said including the reason why you hate WoW. I hate WoW for that reason too but I still think WoW is a good game.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Xodic said: Why are you insisting that a great game ages ago would be of bad quality today? With free to develop engines like Unreal Engine 4 and all the 3D assets you can shake a stick at, you eliminate the hundreds of thousands of hours spent on the Witcher 3 engine. You have it backwards, the era we're in right now closes the gap and offers tons of possibilities when it comes to independent development and fund raising.
This is the line of thinking of unsavvy folk and wannabe developers.
While middleware has it's purpose, it has got very steep limitations and disadvantages. Or do you think people at Red Project and countless of others that develop proprietary engines are that stupid?
Its actually alot cheaper to make a sandbox mmo than themeparks so I dont see how its going to cost alot of money for developers to change their style of making mmos. A smaller indie team has more chance of success of making a great game, not even looking for millions of players to play it, just a consistent couple hundred thousand players will be enough.
First part is just naive myth, the second part is outright ridiculous - "just couple hundred thousand players." EVE, likely the most successful indy MMO made to date needed YEARS to get that and even then they are at about like 300k players. No other indy MMO came even remotely close to those numbers.
What you are not understanding is why large budgets are so much needed - competing with inferior product isn't very prospective endeavor.
Its actually alot cheaper to make a sandbox mmo than themeparks so I dont see how its going to cost alot of money for developers to change their style of making mmos. A smaller indie team has more chance of success of making a great game, not even looking for millions of players to play it, just a consistent couple hundred thousand players will be enough.
First part is just naive myth..
Not at all. Relating to actual finished products, 'Sandbox' is generally a term used for a barebones game; a lot of cost is saved on event scripting, dialogue, voicing, general features, etc. Indie marketing teams usually throw around the term like it is a positive aspect, when in fact the design is often due to low budget constraints. Game features are often left out and the game suddenly 'gives the player a lot of freedom', etc. Most recent example...'No Mans Sky'. Touted as being 'sandbox' constantly, when in reality there isn't much to do. Sandbox =/ lack of polish.
Relating to the topic, *all* games are becoming more niche-focused. This includes MMO's. It is easier these days for competition to come out of nowhere. It is no longer a must to build an engine for scratch, and it is cheap as hell not to for a quality product. It is easier to raise money ($1mil+) in this industry than ever before, as long as you have a quality prototype. Gaming has more money in it than the cinema these days. MMO's aren't dead, but are now sharing the marketplace with other genre's that are doing well, such as MOBA's, card games, etc. Those games are highly specialized for their niche, and is something I think you'll see from more upcoming mmo's.
Its actually alot cheaper to make a sandbox mmo than themeparks so I dont see how its going to cost alot of money for developers to change their style of making mmos. A smaller indie team has more chance of success of making a great game, not even looking for millions of players to play it, just a consistent couple hundred thousand players will be enough.
First part is just naive myth, the second part is outright ridiculous - "just couple hundred thousand players." EVE, likely the most successful indy MMO made to date needed YEARS to get that and even then they are at about like 300k players. No other indy MMO came even remotely close to those numbers.
What you are not understanding is why large budgets are so much needed - competing with inferior product isn't very prospective endeavor.
so your a person who values numbers, numbers of players, numbers of money, numbers that don't even matter unless it really effects the game in a negative manner. You don't need WoW's numbers to be a really great game this is something that I won't ever understand unless your someone who follows others because others say that its a great game instead of putting your own opinion on it after playing a game. Unless I work for a company, I really don't care about numbers as much as other important factors.
If a game makes alot of money has alot of players ask me if I care if the quality is not there than its a flop to me, large budget games can be a flop to me.
Now that is what I find ridiculous.
The way you define success is not the way I define success. It seems to me your taking a "businessman" perspective. I want to see what makes the game "great", and don't even bother mentioning numbers because to me, population is irrelevant unless its obviously a factor for a negative effect on the game.
and to say inferior product is laughable. I mean I'm pretty sure several years ago in the beginnings of counter strike there wasn't many people playing that game as today. So your saying that product is inferior compared to CoD, right?
Post edited by ApexTKM on
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
First part is just naive myth, the second part is outright ridiculous - "just couple hundred thousand players." EVE, likely the most successful indy MMO made to date needed YEARS to get that and even then they are at about like 300k players. No other indy MMO came even remotely close to those numbers.
What you are not understanding is why large budgets are so much needed - competing with inferior product isn't very prospective endeavor.
so your a person who values numbers, numbers of players, numbers of money, numbers that don't even matter unless it really effects the game in a negative manner. You don't need WoW's numbers to be a really great game this is something that I won't ever understand unless your someone who follows others because others say that its a great game instead of putting your own opinion on it after playing a game. Unless I work for a company, I really don't care about numbers as much as other important factors.
But you have to care about the numbers to understand why certain things are the way they are.
As an example, if you are in a niche segment, you will not get an AAA quality product (those have to target the mass market to make back the immense costs. Budgets have gone up into the stratosphere). That is based on numbers, but the effect is still relevant to you. You may say "I don't care about numbers" but you will still feel their effect because you have nothing "good" (for you) to play. And if you don't care about the numbers and the actual reasons, you'll most likely draw the wrong conclusions (based on hunches and feelings and biases) and blame the wrong things for what is happening. (proof for this is in this thread, just read through some posts)
But you have to care about the numbers to understand why certain things are the way they are.
As an example, if you are in a niche segment, you will not get an AAA quality product (those have to target the mass market to make back the immense costs. Budgets have gone up into the stratosphere). That is based on numbers, but the effect is still relevant to you. You may say "I don't care about numbers" but you will still feel their effect because you have nothing "good" (for you) to play. And if you don't care about the numbers and the actual reasons, you'll most likely draw the wrong conclusions (based on hunches and feelings and biases) and blame the wrong things for what is happening. (proof for this is in this thread, just read through some posts)
I'm not a person who chases a game because it has the high pop if its not a good game to me. Of Course population will have an effect but if it isn't a major problem its really irrelevant. A ton of people play CoD, that doesn't mean I find it a great game overall.
Actual Reasons=other factors of the game besides the population
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
ApexTKM said: so your a person who values numbers, numbers of players, numbers of money, numbers that don't even matter unless it really effects the game in a negative manner. You don't need WoW's numbers to be a really great game this is something that I won't ever understand unless your someone who follows others because others say that its a great game instead of putting your own opinion on it after playing a game. Unless I work for a company, I really don't care about numbers as much as other important factors.
If a game makes alot of money has alot of players ask me if I care if the quality is not there than its a flop to me, large budget games can be a flop to me.
Now that is what I find ridiculous.
The way you define success is not the way I define success. It seems to me your taking a "businessman" perspective. I want to see what makes the game "great", and don't even bother mentioning numbers because to me, population is irrelevant unless its obviously a factor for a negative effect on the game.
and to say inferior product is laughable. I mean I'm pretty sure several years ago in the beginnings of counter strike there wasn't many people playing that game as today. So your saying that product is inferior compared to CoD, right?
You have all rights to think your "I don't care about numbers" stance or in fact think w/e you want but it would be foolish to pretend the numbers do not affect you or are even irrelevant.
Numbers do matter, your personal arbitrary qualifiers on the other hand...
Solving the problems of MMOs will not be fixed by merely removing cash shops. The microtransaction payment models are there for a reason - these games were failing as b2p and p2p games.
When people start making good mmorpgs again, they won't have to resort to cash shops to thrive.
the problem is why make a good MMORPG (since the RPG part is missing on a lot of games today), if the crappy one gives a better money return?
I'm not trying to say numbers are completely irrelevant, I probably should have worded it better and maybe I was just acting way too aggressive opposing your stance. They are relevant but I don't find it a huge factor to what makes a game great.
Psychologically some players are probably Businessmen themselves which is why I see some players emphasize numbers but I don't.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
sn0wblind00 said: Not at all. Relating to actual finished products, 'Sandbox' is generally a term used for a barebones game; a lot of cost is saved on event scripting, dialogue, voicing, general features, etc. Indie marketing teams usually throw around the term like it is a positive aspect, when in fact the design is often due to low budget constraints. Game features are often left out and the game suddenly 'gives the player a lot of freedom', etc. Most recent example...'No Mans Sky'. Touted as being 'sandbox' constantly, when in reality there isn't much to do. Sandbox =/ lack of polish.
Relating to the topic, *all* games are becoming more niche-focused. This includes MMO's. It is easier these days for competition to come out of nowhere. It is no longer a must to build an engine for scratch, and it is cheap as hell not to for a quality product. It is easier to raise money ($1mil+) in this industry than ever before, as long as you have a quality prototype. Gaming has more money in it than the cinema these days. MMO's aren't dead, but are now sharing the marketplace with other genre's that are doing well, such as MOBA's, card games, etc. Those games are highly specialized for their niche, and is something I think you'll see from more upcoming mmo's.
When you say "not at all", some reasoning for disagreement should follow... :-P
Sure, you can make a "cheap" sandbox game but same goes for themepark. In both cases tho, if you want successful product, it needs money and lots of them.
They are relevant but I don't find it a huge factor to what makes a game great.
And this is a part where you are wrong...you just either do not understand at all or severely underestimate the impact they have on gaming experience.
The only time the impact is huge is if its really evident that there arent many players playing the game like a couple hundred or thousand. Thats what I've been saying, unless it severly effects the game in a negative manner, it really does not matter. If the game is full of phasing and instances, I dont see a difference when theres millions of players playing the game.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
If the game is full of phasing and instances, I dont see a difference when theres millions of players playing the game.
..and like I pointed out, your personal arbitrary qualifiers are irrelevant.
People who dislike a game do not count, people who like the game do.
It is really simple. More people play the game means there is more people who think the game is great than some other game.
What I said there above I wasn't trying to criticize I am just literally saying, I don't see lots of people on my screen, I dont see a difference. The queues pop pretty often, I see a difference.
"your personal arbitrary qualifiers are irrelevant" is the same thing as saying your opinion doesn't matter. you can't sound any more foolish than that. Hypocritical person you are I'd say.
all the top mmos in my top 10 are games that I like including WoW. So I mean to say that people who play a game look at every aspect of the game of what it has to offer does not matter, thats laughable. Even if I didnt like WoW I apparently don't count lol. You just don't want to see the facts of the aspects of each game you don't want to see the truth.
Every constructive criticism and compliment counts in the genre. To say that they don't count is pure arrogance.
Post edited by ApexTKM on
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Theres no point in arguing with you since your basically saying, No criticisms matter, only the positives matter. People who dislike the game dislike a game for a reason but they at least offer some criticism that are important. You think without criticism the genre will make any progress. You can't be anymore foolish. Maybe you mean Pessimistic people's opinions don't matter? Either way I'm done arguing with you.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Theres no point in arguing with you since your basically saying, No criticisms matter, only the positives matter. People who dislike the game dislike a game for a reason but they at least offer some criticism that are important. You think without criticism the genre will make any progress. You can't be anymore foolish. Maybe you mean Pessimistic people's opinions don't matter? Either way I'm done arguing with you.
The feedback being positive or negative is not the main issue in my opinion. (you could argue negative feedback is actually the more useful feedback, because it helps to improve the product by pointing out flaws)
The actually important part is who the feedback is coming from and how objective it is.
If it is coming from someone outside the target audience, then yes, their opinion is most likely irrelevant, unless they are pointing out actually objective issues like bugs, playability issues, etc.
If it's just a rant about the game sucking from someone not in the target audience, it's irrelevant and useless. The game is simply not made for their taste and it's actually logical they won't like it. Them not liking it says absolutely nothing about the quality of the game's design. It's just designed for other people. They are essentially trying to twist a game that is aimed at a different segment into something that the game does not want to be and that is a pointless endevour and not useful feedback. Some games are just not made for you, suck it up and move along.
Now, if they would complain about about games that are actually targeting them, then their feedback would be much more valuable (even if it's based on subjective preferences) and actually say something about the games they are talking about being well designed or not.
Numbers are important but Gedemami is too focused on the WRONG numbers.
When you start a business the relevant numbers are "I need to generate enough profits to pay my own wages and cover expenses." If you do that your business is successful. The degree of success depending on by how much you exceed those bare minimum standards. You do not come into it saying "I need to beat Microsoft! Anything short of Microsoft level profits is FAILURE!"
Likewise when you come into the MMO industry your goals should be: 1. To keep your development team paid. 2. To cover expenses. 3. To produce a quality game people will enjoy. 4. To generate enough new content at a fast enough pace to keep users from getting bored and leaving.
To do that you don't have to measure yourself against WoW. WoW is a massive success for gamers who crave no challenge or thought beyond mindlessly running through rotations on their character the game built for them. They've succeeded radically at catering to the lowest common denominator of the gaming market.
EVE is a radical success as well though. It can afford to pay their devs, their expenses are covered, tens of thousands of people enjoy their product, and they are regularly releasing updates full of meaningful changes. They are even able to use excess profits to try new ventures like Dust-514/Project Legion and Valkyrie. Clearly they are well above and beyond the line of what considered a success.
As to sandboxes being cheaper to develop than theme parks. There are two kinds of people. People who agree with that, and people who are demonstrably and unquestionably wrong. Sandboxes absolutely do require less overhead to get off the ground because they are dependent upon user creativity and player interaction for content, where theme parks require a steady supply of scripted content. With a themepark you have to launch with massive amounts of scripted content and then release a ton more each year to keep people entertained. With a sandbox you simply provide people with the tools to entertain themselves.
That's why smaller sandbox titles like Wurm Online and Darkfall have had devoted followings for years and small themepark titles like Archlord and Archlord 2 were utter crap and had to shut down.
Its actually alot cheaper to make a sandbox mmo than themeparks so I dont see how its going to cost alot of money for developers to change their style of making mmos. A smaller indie team has more chance of success of making a great game, not even looking for millions of players to play it, just a consistent couple hundred thousand players will be enough. I think its sad that alot of devs spend loads of money to make a WoW clone only for it flop and people go back to WoW. Devs are afraid to take risks they just want to use a known formula that works. But to decline to spend less which is actually a less of a risk is like declining to spend 1 dollar a year on a lottery ticket.
But at the same time people need to stop being so pessimistic about the current generation of mmos and enjoy it for what it is. I'm playing WoW right now and its really fun for what it is. But I honestly feel bad for people who started with themeparks and never played any other type of mmo to know that alternatives exist.
You mentioned everyone has a high demand for high-quality graphics. While it is true there is a very large audience where graphics is the #1 thing they look for in a game, I am part of a niche crowd (there are plenty of others) where graphics is the last thing we look for in our priority list. I'm not playing a game to watch a movie, I'm playing a game to play the game. That is why I am still playing nes-ps1 games, because they work, have better system designs, have higher quality story and character background/buildups, and offer an overall better gameplay experience in general.
I am also part of that niche crowd but I only have that mindset with mmos, graphics can hinder a gameplay experience by not being able to handle massive crowds of people in different cities etc. While GW2 looked beautiful when I played it, its not exactly what I'm looking for and its the last thing I would look for.
lets not talk about cost for now...
what important is to create a rpg game, it can be single player, online server can be set up later
Personally, I have found the best mmorpg experiences I have had were ones that were open world community driven (lineage 2 and ragnarok online).
The worst mmorpg experiences I have had were ones where every single player is forced to play a linear style single player rpg as an mmorpg (FFIVX, BDO, TERA, WOW, ect...)
The best rpg experiences I have had were ones where you as the player were immersed in the story and other characters (and in my opinion an mmorpg would absolutely kill this experience).
have u play ragnarok online offline mode?
single player doesnt mean u have to do single player story driven quest. it can be sandbox as well.
the point is, online server can be set up, if we have the game. develop the game 1st, indie dev can use low cost to develop the world, character, gameplay
eye, it was quite boring with nobody around to talk to or level with.
skyrim done it..
mmo can be set up later when developer buy the server....
Whenever I feel like this, I play some singleplayer games. And when im done with that, I check older and new mmos. For now I will play legion, seems promosing, and waiting for Dark and Light, Revelation Online, Bless etc.
Till legion I will play Rise of the tomb raider, trine, never alone etc. And ofc feeding my newborn every 3 hours, and split my attention to my other son.
I use to be the same way as the OP. Couldn't play something that wasn't a mmorpg.
I think it dawned on me during a stretch of gaming FFXIV, ESO, GW2, Wildstar....I played them all for like a month, thought they were all fantastic. Bottom line its the same old shit ive been doing since anarchy online just in different capacities/looks/tweaks here and there to mechanics.
Nothing has changed with mmorpgs other than they got to the point where I just needed to show up and go through the motions and in a month id have it all. Nothing was a big deal to get, achieve, it was all rewarded for showing up. No mysteries, no mistakes, no using my brain to get an edge ect.
I feel this right now is the sunset of the mmorpgs. Sure there are some indy projects out there, weve been there and done that though, we all know how that works....even if we want to believe that this time it will be different...it wont. No big budget, high profile mmorpgs on the horizon, maybe a few in korea/china that might see the light of day over here 5 years after its launch.
I find the slow death of mmorpgs to be a relief as well. I play more varied games, and less in total these days. There isn't disappointment, no arguing over which mmorpgs is superior, the hate/trolling, the attempts to cause a game to downward spiral...all the BS attached to mmorpgs gaming is gone and I don't miss it.
Bottom line is mmorpgs never really evolved past the point of making it all easier for someone to play and achieve, sure some mini games got added, some mechanical fluff was added along the way.
These days id much rather have a single player mmorpg for $60, enjoy the solid story, not being one of 5000 people standing around being the chosen one ect. No false hopes, no requirement the game grows for 10 years straight or its a failure, give me 30-60hrs of gameplay and thank you for the good time for my $60 end of story.
If I do go back to mmorpgs, its going to be the one game ive avoided my entirety of my mmolife....wow...why? Its been one of the only games that continually developed itself, I have respect for blizzard with their other games, choosing to make them better rather than shutting down a flop they make it better. Its the deepest (I know) mmorpg out there that I haven't tried, that isn't borderline dead, in maintenance mode, or run by over seas developers concerned with their home market opinion and nothing more than raking in money over here. Its the last mmo ive played where it still feels like a mmorpgs...and all those years ive missed out on it, which in hindsight is a good thing now that the options to mmorpg are pretty much set and done with, very little new blood coming in, if any at all. Also it avoids all the pitfalls from the f2p movement that was sort of the catalyst for the death of mmorpgs.
Sorry about the long post no one will read. Part of me is very sad to see mmorpgs as all but dead save a few giants still clinging on. Part of me wishes and longs for those days 2001-2008 where I could get that first month of play in a new and hyped mmorpg....those were good times.
I guess a lot of us feel like op.... I still look at new games, read information.. Comment.... But honestly, i probably won't play anything until im too old to live... I've found some serious goals to live for, and overall, id rather just travel the world on bicycles then waste time in a virtual world..... But... Im still here.. I don't know why.... Something keeps me here... I guess, mmos were such a big part of my life growing up, it's not so easy to leave it behind, like, playing mmorpgs is something i am good at, in a way, it's something that defines me... I have a fantasy of playing a nice mmorpg an hour at some peaceful nights with my wife.. (girlfriend now) .... But for now, i rather work on my career , study, and walk this earth while im young.
Basically clicking away text windows ruins every MMO, try to have fun instead of rushing things. Without story and lore all there is left is a bunch of mechanics. Reply Add Multi-Quote
Comments
Transitioning? Absolutely. Dying? That would require more information. The ending of an industry, which is a more fitting term than genre for the sake of this conversation, implies that people are not buying the product. Is that true? I'm honestly asking. If that can be established then the argument is valid. If it can't, it isn't.
It's a better argument IMO to say it is changing to something else. The transition period is waiting for the next big thing that is actually different in order to pull the masses from the uncountable corners of this market that has grown so substantially lateral that there is not as much room for new titles of the same model.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
While middleware has it's purpose, it has got very steep limitations and disadvantages. Or do you think people at Red Project and countless of others that develop proprietary engines are that stupid?
What you are not understanding is why large budgets are so much needed - competing with inferior product isn't very prospective endeavor.
Relating to the topic, *all* games are becoming more niche-focused. This includes MMO's. It is easier these days for competition to come out of nowhere. It is no longer a must to build an engine for scratch, and it is cheap as hell not to for a quality product. It is easier to raise money ($1mil+) in this industry than ever before, as long as you have a quality prototype. Gaming has more money in it than the cinema these days. MMO's aren't dead, but are now sharing the marketplace with other genre's that are doing well, such as MOBA's, card games, etc. Those games are highly specialized for their niche, and is something I think you'll see from more upcoming mmo's.
If a game makes alot of money has alot of players ask me if I care if the quality is not there than its a flop to me, large budget games can be a flop to me.
Now that is what I find ridiculous.
The way you define success is not the way I define success. It seems to me your taking a "businessman" perspective. I want to see what makes the game "great", and don't even bother mentioning numbers because to me, population is irrelevant unless its obviously a factor for a negative effect on the game.
and to say inferior product is laughable. I mean I'm pretty sure several years ago in the beginnings of counter strike there wasn't many people playing that game as today. So your saying that product is inferior compared to CoD, right?
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
As an example, if you are in a niche segment, you will not get an AAA quality product (those have to target the mass market to make back the immense costs. Budgets have gone up into the stratosphere).
That is based on numbers, but the effect is still relevant to you.
You may say "I don't care about numbers" but you will still feel their effect because you have nothing "good" (for you) to play.
And if you don't care about the numbers and the actual reasons, you'll most likely draw the wrong conclusions (based on hunches and feelings and biases) and blame the wrong things for what is happening. (proof for this is in this thread, just read through some posts)
Actual Reasons=other factors of the game besides the population
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Numbers do matter, your personal arbitrary qualifiers on the other hand...
Psychologically some players are probably Businessmen themselves which is why I see some players emphasize numbers but I don't.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Sure, you can make a "cheap" sandbox game but same goes for themepark. In both cases tho, if you want successful product, it needs money and lots of them.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
People who dislike a game do not count, people who like the game do.
It is really simple. More people play the game means more people who think the game is better than some other game.
What I said there above I wasn't trying to criticize I am just literally saying, I don't see lots of people on my screen, I dont see a difference. The queues pop pretty often, I see a difference.
"your personal arbitrary qualifiers are irrelevant" is the same thing as saying your opinion doesn't matter. you can't sound any more foolish than that. Hypocritical person you are I'd say.
all the top mmos in my top 10 are games that I like including WoW. So I mean to say that people who play a game look at every aspect of the game of what it has to offer does not matter, thats laughable. Even if I didnt like WoW I apparently don't count lol. You just don't want to see the facts of the aspects of each game you don't want to see the truth.
Every constructive criticism and compliment counts in the genre. To say that they don't count is pure arrogance.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
"Opinions" are indeed irrelevant:
"I don't like x game because yxz!"
"Ok, thanks for letting us now!?"
Utterly moot statement with no content for discussion.
For the rest of your post, maybe you could re-read post you were replying to and try to give it some thought...
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
The actually important part is who the feedback is coming from and how objective it is.
If it is coming from someone outside the target audience, then yes, their opinion is most likely irrelevant, unless they are pointing out actually objective issues like bugs, playability issues, etc.
If it's just a rant about the game sucking from someone not in the target audience, it's irrelevant and useless.
The game is simply not made for their taste and it's actually logical they won't like it.
Them not liking it says absolutely nothing about the quality of the game's design. It's just designed for other people. They are essentially trying to twist a game that is aimed at a different segment into something that the game does not want to be and that is a pointless endevour and not useful feedback.
Some games are just not made for you, suck it up and move along.
Now, if they would complain about about games that are actually targeting them, then their feedback would be much more valuable (even if it's based on subjective preferences) and actually say something about the games they are talking about being well designed or not.
Numbers are important but Gedemami is too focused on the WRONG numbers.
When you start a business the relevant numbers are "I need to generate enough profits to pay my own wages and cover expenses." If you do that your business is successful. The degree of success depending on by how much you exceed those bare minimum standards. You do not come into it saying "I need to beat Microsoft! Anything short of Microsoft level profits is FAILURE!"
Likewise when you come into the MMO industry your goals should be:
1. To keep your development team paid.
2. To cover expenses.
3. To produce a quality game people will enjoy.
4. To generate enough new content at a fast enough pace to keep users from getting bored and leaving.
To do that you don't have to measure yourself against WoW. WoW is a massive success for gamers who crave no challenge or thought beyond mindlessly running through rotations on their character the game built for them. They've succeeded radically at catering to the lowest common denominator of the gaming market.
EVE is a radical success as well though. It can afford to pay their devs, their expenses are covered, tens of thousands of people enjoy their product, and they are regularly releasing updates full of meaningful changes. They are even able to use excess profits to try new ventures like Dust-514/Project Legion and Valkyrie. Clearly they are well above and beyond the line of what considered a success.
As to sandboxes being cheaper to develop than theme parks. There are two kinds of people. People who agree with that, and people who are demonstrably and unquestionably wrong. Sandboxes absolutely do require less overhead to get off the ground because they are dependent upon user creativity and player interaction for content, where theme parks require a steady supply of scripted content. With a themepark you have to launch with massive amounts of scripted content and then release a ton more each year to keep people entertained. With a sandbox you simply provide people with the tools to entertain themselves.
That's why smaller sandbox titles like Wurm Online and Darkfall have had devoted followings for years and small themepark titles like Archlord and Archlord 2 were utter crap and had to shut down.
mmo can be set up later when developer buy the server....
Till legion I will play Rise of the tomb raider, trine, never alone etc. And ofc feeding my newborn every 3 hours, and split my attention to my other son.
Me atm
I use to be the same way as the OP. Couldn't play something that wasn't a mmorpg.
I think it dawned on me during a stretch of gaming FFXIV, ESO, GW2, Wildstar....I played them all for like a month, thought they were all fantastic. Bottom line its the same old shit ive been doing since anarchy online just in different capacities/looks/tweaks here and there to mechanics.
Nothing has changed with mmorpgs other than they got to the point where I just needed to show up and go through the motions and in a month id have it all. Nothing was a big deal to get, achieve, it was all rewarded for showing up. No mysteries, no mistakes, no using my brain to get an edge ect.
I feel this right now is the sunset of the mmorpgs. Sure there are some indy projects out there, weve been there and done that though, we all know how that works....even if we want to believe that this time it will be different...it wont. No big budget, high profile mmorpgs on the horizon, maybe a few in korea/china that might see the light of day over here 5 years after its launch.
I find the slow death of mmorpgs to be a relief as well. I play more varied games, and less in total these days. There isn't disappointment, no arguing over which mmorpgs is superior, the hate/trolling, the attempts to cause a game to downward spiral...all the BS attached to mmorpgs gaming is gone and I don't miss it.
Bottom line is mmorpgs never really evolved past the point of making it all easier for someone to play and achieve, sure some mini games got added, some mechanical fluff was added along the way.
These days id much rather have a single player mmorpg for $60, enjoy the solid story, not being one of 5000 people standing around being the chosen one ect. No false hopes, no requirement the game grows for 10 years straight or its a failure, give me 30-60hrs of gameplay and thank you for the good time for my $60 end of story.
If I do go back to mmorpgs, its going to be the one game ive avoided my entirety of my mmolife....wow...why? Its been one of the only games that continually developed itself, I have respect for blizzard with their other games, choosing to make them better rather than shutting down a flop they make it better. Its the deepest (I know) mmorpg out there that I haven't tried, that isn't borderline dead, in maintenance mode, or run by over seas developers concerned with their home market opinion and nothing more than raking in money over here. Its the last mmo ive played where it still feels like a mmorpgs...and all those years ive missed out on it, which in hindsight is a good thing now that the options to mmorpg are pretty much set and done with, very little new blood coming in, if any at all. Also it avoids all the pitfalls from the f2p movement that was sort of the catalyst for the death of mmorpgs.
Sorry about the long post no one will read. Part of me is very sad to see mmorpgs as all but dead save a few giants still clinging on. Part of me wishes and longs for those days 2001-2008 where I could get that first month of play in a new and hyped mmorpg....those were good times.
Basically clicking away text windows ruins every MMO, try to have fun instead of rushing things. Without story and lore all there is left is a bunch of mechanics.
Reply
Add Multi-Quote