It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I've been playing MMOs for a good while, and I've noticed something in the MMOs I've played recently. When I first started playing MMOs, the features that drew me to them were not necessarily what I could do in the games, but more what the communities could do.
Games like EVE online always interested me because of the way the players shape the game, and not through the individual actions, but the way player corporations interact with each other. Also, when Horizons: Empire of Istaria first launched, it was a game that promised community led changes. They had huge events that required comminity participation, and even guild towns that had to purchase goods or hire community laborers to get jobs done.
Nowadays MMOs I've seen tend to focus on pleasing the individual. And pushing less and less community cooperation. This being evident in that accomplishing most goals in a given game can easily be accomplished by the individual. In fact, I see complaints when people have to obtain crafting materials from another profession in order to make things in their chosen profession. This boggles my mind, and makes me fear that most MMOs today exist as nothing but glorified chatrooms. Group cooperation has long been my favorite part of games. Using combinations of different powers to create different strategies to accomplishing goals was essential to what started the MMO gaming scene.
Is this somewhat of a culture shift? Or is this something that is just forgotten? Because to me, it seems that if these games were to implement systems that encourage community cooperation, the game and its community would improve. And btw, this has nothing to do with themepark vs sandbox, I'm pretty sure both have plenty of room to accomodate systems like this.
MMOs played: Horizons, Auto Assault, Ryzom, EVE, WAR, WoW, EQ2, LotRO, GW, DAoC, Aion, Requiem, Atlantica, DDO, Allods, Earth Eternal, Fallen Earth, Rift
Willing to try anything new
Comments
MMO development is no longer about creating virtual worlds, they have de-evolved into reward driven, multi-player arcade games (run around then kill the boss at the end).
sounds like you just described the continual eroding of western social structure manifesting itself in the aesthetic realm; like oil into the sea...
a sad day
it was the creation of virtual worlds that brought me into the genre in the first place ;(
R.I.P. 80s-90s golden age gaming
Most publishers are merely focused on the bottom line, in my opinion. There have been quite a few games that have showed great promise, but eventually the majority rules and the games are turned into exactly what the OP describes. I have faith that a new game will come out that focuses on community interaction in a way that nobody has thought of or expected, and will hopefully turn things around. I think you have to give players reason to care about one another and right now, that is rarely the case.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Keep an eye on Xsyon if your into building worlds
Its having a few issues now like most games do at launch but they are getting there for a small dev team.
The last two AAA MMOs that tried to make a virtual world failed. Vanguard because it was rushed out the door, and Middle Earth Online because Turbine saw the WoW model and decided to make the game a single player focused WoW clone during alpha testing and totally reshaped the game.
Darkfall created a virtual world and I love it, but expecting real MMOs from AAA companies died when WoW released. Yes devs have lost the bigger picture. When new games come out that are merely WoW clones become successful, while lacking 80% of the features of more "primitive" games before them... ugh, screw this genre. It's dead.
The way I see it the 'big picture' communities became too autocratic for many people's tastes.
The raiding communities in games like EQ or WoW became like small armies where the leaders expected obedience and comformity.
EVE has its own set of problems. When I first played my corporation tried to be 'big picture' but it turned out we had a thief and it sabotaged any big project that was not micormanaged. The competive nature of the game and the general lack of trust meant that corporations became all-or-nothing endevours. This is not helped by the fact that the 'big picture' in EVE tends to be so incredibly shallow.
The problem with way so many games aproach 'big picture' content is that it requires you to be either a leader or a serf. To the players who do not want to be either, the individualistic approach is the only sane one.
The bigger picture is that people are willing to pay money to be entertained, not have their avatar's progression gimped by not being in a group. That has nothing to do with virtual worlds or being a WoW clone. That's developers realizing they need to appeal to enough people to pay the millions of dollars it takes to get an mmorpg out the door. They've already seen the bigger picture. There are just some people who don't like the bigger picture.
If you want a sample of how grouping could work better, look at Rift. Being in a group doesn't gimp your characters progression at all. In fact, it seems much more like a bonus to be in a group. There is plenty of content for groups to participate in adhoc and scheduled. Putting groups of just about any size together is really easy, and being in a large group doesn't mean you can't finish your own quests. The only reason to not be in a group is personal preference. Grouping is a choice, not a requirement and it's not a detriment.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
virtual worlds is what brought me into the genre as well, it does seem like todays games are just large scale 1 player arcade games like another person said.
The desire for virtual worlds is still out there, but just not in the numbers that would make a developer/investor believe that there would be WOW levels of cash to be raked in from it. So I doubt we will be seeing a new renaissance of an Ultima Online style game any time soon. The industry, and a very large percentage of MMO players, are still too enamored with the model of guided linear progression that lead players through a set of pre-programmed Skinner-Box activites )with suitable sparkly rewards at the end to make people feel good about themselves for playing the part of the rat running through the maze to get the cheese at the end). It is the model that is making one company millions and millions of dollars per month (and why so many companies try to copy it), and until the unwashed masses rebel against that model, it is going to be here to stay for some time.
Indie devlopers can try to replicate that 'old school' gaming virtual world feel, but until they can offer up something that isn't PVP orientated (Trammel didn't pop out of thin air for no reason at all), they won't generate any sort of 'mainstream' interest from those PVE players looking for the virtual world experience without all the ganking.
For me the 'bigger picture' of mmo's beyond ip, genre or whatever was a game as a world simulator. So yes for me, clearly the bigger picture is not just out of focus but almost completely forgotten.
This is one thing that gives me hope. I too am playing Rift atm, and I'm starting to see some of the community elements working into the game structure. The way open grouping, and rifts are invasive to the play style of the solo quester or acheiver is healthy for the genre. Despite how bad some members of the community can sound on the forums, I've had experiences in game that seem to foster a friendlier and healthier playing environment.
But this is just the beginning it seems. There are plenty of other culprits to the degredation of MMO communities and group focussed gameplay as we've seen in the past number of years. But this game gives me hope. Not saying it's the cream of the crop, but it is a AAA title that follows the WoW formula that adds more social elements rather than continuing to strip away "convenience inhibitors".
My hope is that other games, especially WoW, try and tackle this invasive problem in the MMO world. Treating each player as a hero is an attitude that should be forgotten. It's time to treat each player as a part of a whole. A simple cog in the machine of progress. Their contribution incredibly meaningful, but not necessarily paramount.
MMOs played: Horizons, Auto Assault, Ryzom, EVE, WAR, WoW, EQ2, LotRO, GW, DAoC, Aion, Requiem, Atlantica, DDO, Allods, Earth Eternal, Fallen Earth, Rift
Willing to try anything new
I don't believe the model needs to be rebelled against. But I do think it needs to evolve. Story driven gameplay is still very important in video games, and I don't think it's something that should be left on the backburner. Honestly I think Lore and Story in these games are really what enables a game to thrive.
The problem is that most stories in these games are designed to be driven by the individual. You do a series of quests that tells a story, you continue the quest chain to see where the story goes. This is what we need to move away from. Instead evolving this process as a community driven story.
No more quest hubs, but a greater involvement of players in any given zone. shifting battlefronts, calls for reinforcements and triggered events. The static world that exists so players can move at their own pace is boring and repetetive. If quests were presented zone wide, and the entire zone was presented with simultaneous objectives, then the story should tell itelf.
For example, look at Rift's invasion system. The zonewide quests get the entire community involved in tackling objectives. And the community responds appropriately. People coordinate strategy in general chat. Break into specialized groups to accomplish the objectives to divide and conquer. Unfortunately, the current iteration of this system in rift is shallow. But expanding this concept to be a continual factor in gameplay, constantly offering a multitude of options for a player to get involved, is the future of MMOs.
I have my hopes and my doubts, but man if I were ever able to make my own game, I can garuntee a thrillride.
MMOs played: Horizons, Auto Assault, Ryzom, EVE, WAR, WoW, EQ2, LotRO, GW, DAoC, Aion, Requiem, Atlantica, DDO, Allods, Earth Eternal, Fallen Earth, Rift
Willing to try anything new
Um, that's exactly how grouping already worked in most old MMOs. Only problem with Rift's grouping is the moronic soft grouping and dungeon finder make it so people don't socialize or stay together after the temporary objective is reached.
And making WoW clones seems not to work for companies, so why not try to go back to the MMOs that were actually successful enough to define the genre?
This is what I have been wondering for a couple of years. If you make a WoW clone, you are going head to head against Blizzard, which means you HAVE to have better interface, graphics, accessability to draw in WoW's players. Why not come up with something different, and work around Blizzard. They don't even have to be all that innovative, just use what has come before, and basically update it, combine previous elements in different ways. I would also like to see devs (even the indies) stop looking at the subgenres as a black and white proposition. The genre needs sandboxes and themeparks, but it also needs games that combine those two concepts a little more creatively. Devs need to get away from easy-mode gameplay, but they need to do it better. Just extending the amount of exp required to get to the next level isn't enough, they have to make the fights more complex. If you are going to have exp based progression, set up the game so that players can enjoy the whole journey, not just the destination. Sure, there will always be power gamers that try to shoot to max level asap, but as long as the game offers an interesting journey, that's fine.
I always hear that we should "vote with our pocketbooks". What does that mean when there is only one type of game out there to vote for? "Back in the day", players could vote with their pocketbooks. You could look at sub numbers and tell how much of the market share was going to PvP (UO), PvE (EQ), or hybrid (DAoC). Now, the only real choice seems to be themepark. Don't take this to be a knock on Rift, please, since I have never played, I can't comment on it directly. If I had a rig that could run it, I'd be subbed to it to see for myself. From what I have heard, it sounds a bit like WoW, but with some interesting twists. I am hoping that games like Rift are proof that the genre is starting to evolve again, with devs actually trying new things and not just regurgitating WoW.
For now, my hopes are resting on CCP/WW being able to pull off WoD. I know its still a long ways off, but SWTOR or Xsyon may be able to tide me over til it gets released. I really don't think SWTOR will offer much new except for some meaningless (to me) bells and whistles, but that doesn't mean it won't be fun for a while.