Don't know what we want...

Storman1977

I find it truly amazing how many people on these boards complain about MMO's always being the same tired gameplay.  How they're all copying WoW.  How none of them are innovative.  And yet, when games do come along that have innovative features, those same players quickly dismiss the game into oblivion and being too small, or too niche, or too something or another. 

People make such a big deal about the action combat in Tera and GW2, but poohed all over DDO when it did action combat...six years ago.  It's the same with DDO when it came to people wanting to cross class their characters, no other game would let you, but DDO did.  Granted, Turbine was forced to release the game six months earlier than they were ready for by Atari, and has been paying for that ever since.

Dynamic events in GW2 seems to be the cats meow now.  But when Rift started doing them, they were a distraction from the main game.

People claim to want the freedom in game to create their own story and make a permanent impact on the world, yet scoff at games like Darkfall and Mortal Online for being griefers-paradise.  Even Galaxies, with all it's potential, was pretty much ignored.  Yeah, Sony seriously dropped the ball.  But, you the players, are the ones who gave them the feedback and complaints that lead to the CU and NGE.  When they gave you what you "wanted" you said it was horrible and walked away.

At the end of the day, I think you like the cookie cutter experience.  You want to sound all high and mighty, but you really just want new games with the same familiar controls, stories, gameplay as you've been playing since EQ.  As has been said by others, if you want something new to come along, quit making the "Same ole shit" the biggest games on the market...

Adalwulff

Some will say its the next generation of gamers, selfhish and impatient. I would agree, mostly.

Storman1977

Granted, the games I listed have their flaws, but so does every other game on the market.  DDO has pretty much survived this long on it's combat and multiclassing.  Darkfall and MO still have loyal followers.  Rift is getting a breath of fresh air right now.  Too many players say they want new features, but they want a perfect game for the new features to be in.  GW2 will have it's flaws and the cycle will start all over again.

The_Korrigan

Originally posted by Storman1977

People make such a big deal about the action combat in Tera and GW2, but poohed all over DDO when it did action combat...six years ago.  It's the same with DDO when it came to people wanting to cross class their characters, no other game would let you, but DDO did.  Granted, Turbine was forced to release the game six months earlier than they were ready for by Atari, and has been paying for that ever since.

Just to be clear - I've looked your post history first, so I know where you're coming from - I still decided to give you a chance though.

What people had against DDO what definitely not the combat. It's the fact that the whole game is not a MMORPG. DDO is closer to GW1, a cooperative online RPG. So comparing DDO to GW2 (or even Tera) is like comparing GW1 to GW2, or WoW to Quake 3 Arena, it's comparing apples to oranges... Two totally different designs.

Same for the rest of your post... if you have tried GW2, you certainly know that Rift's supposed "dynamic events" and GW2's "dynamic events" are two totally different things, even if their roots are similar... as I said in another thread, comparing them is like comparing a BWM and a Trabant pretending they are the same just because both have wheels and a motor.

GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Storman1977

I find it truly amazing how many people on these boards complain about MMO's always being the same tired gameplay.  How they're all copying WoW.  How none of them are innovative.  And yet, when games do come along that have innovative features, those same players quickly dismiss the game into oblivion and being too small, or too niche, or too something or another. 

People make such a big deal about the action combat in Tera and GW2, but poohed all over DDO when it did action combat...six years ago.  It's the same with DDO when it came to people wanting to cross class their characters, no other game would let you, but DDO did.  Granted, Turbine was forced to release the game six months earlier than they were ready for by Atari, and has been paying for that ever since.

Dynamic events in GW2 seems to be the cats meow now.  But when Rift started doing them, they were a distraction from the main game.

People claim to want the freedom in game to create their own story and make a permanent impact on the world, yet scoff at games like Darkfall and Mortal Online for being griefers-paradise.  Even Galaxies, with all it's potential, was pretty much ignored.  Yeah, Sony seriously dropped the ball.  But, you the players, are the ones who gave them the feedback and complaints that lead to the CU and NGE.  When they gave you what you "wanted" you said it was horrible and walked away.

At the end of the day, I think you like the cookie cutter experience.  You want to sound all high and mighty, but you really just want new games with the same familiar controls, stories, gameplay as you've been playing since EQ.  As has been said by others, if you want something new to come along, quit making the "Same ole shit" the biggest games on the market...

So....... it's not that people don't know what they want, it's that they aren't flocking to the games that you enjoy.

 

rounner

Are you sure its the same people? Rifts got a lot of praise when it was still beta and they were fresh. I still like rifts, just got bored of the game. DO and MO are griefers paradises, I don't think anyone would try and argue otherwise. They are good examples of games that could be one thing in theory but end up being different due to the realities of their design. I was playing DDO at release and remember thinking the combat was too fast paced, detracting from searching for traps and exploring. I dont remember complaints about targeting. I find Tera combat clunky but like the idea of aim and shoot, and no I dont think of myself as a circle straffing skater.

My point is I have complaints, but they differ from the ones you listed. I am sure if you asked any individual you would find differences with them too.

KenFisher

Some...

 

• want the game to be hard but they want to be able to master it (because they're smarter) and cruise through with moderate effort.
• want the game to provide ultimate freedom in terms of gameplay, but the freedom shouldn't allow others to ruin their in-game experience.
• want bleeding edge graphics with ultra high poly counts along with special effects, but they want the majority of development time to focus on gameplay because to them that's the most important aspect of a game.

 

That's sort of a tough order to fill.

Reehay

Originally posted by Storman1977

People make such a big deal about the action combat in Tera and GW2, but poohed all over DDO when it did action combat...six years ago.  It's the same with DDO when it came to people wanting to cross class their characters, no other game would let you, but DDO did.  Granted, Turbine was forced to release the game six months earlier than they were ready for by Atari, and has been paying for that ever since.

ya ummm. honestly i dont think you were around when DDO came out or atleast dont remember it clearly if you were. because as Korrigan pointed out, it was actually the combat in DDO that people raved about.  in fact i remember reading multiple posts stating that it was the only thing that kept them playing. what made DDO a complete "meh"  was its claustrophobic limitation as a CO-OP game. didnt deserve the capital M in MASSIVELY Multiplayer Online Game.

i remember game devs or a designer stating they chose the COOP style so it would preserve the small scale D&D campaign feeling you get from being at a table top with just a few friends.... well, taking that road sent them to MEHville

SEANMCAD

OP:

totally agree.

When playing a game like Xyson for example I tend to give the developer some slack. I know full well he doesnt have the resources that a huge game has and I dont expect the same both in a positive way and in a negitive way. Some gamers expect the small indies to have EVERYTHING they do like and expect from a large firm AND fix all the things they dont like from a large firm. They have to be realistic and somewhat supportive.

Kyleran

Originally posted by Storman1977

I find it truly amazing how many people on these boards complain about MMO's always being the same tired gameplay.  How they're all copying WoW.  How none of them are innovative.  And yet, when games do come along that have innovative features, those same players quickly dismiss the game into oblivion and being too small, or too niche, or too something or another. 

A couple of innovative features tacked on to 90% of what's been done before does not make for a new and innovative gaming experience.

People make such a big deal about the action combat in Tera and GW2, but poohed all over DDO when it did action combat...six years ago.  It's the same with DDO when it came to people wanting to cross class their characters, no other game would let you, but DDO did.  Granted, Turbine was forced to release the game six months earlier than they were ready for by Atari, and has been paying for that ever since.

I play TERA, and it's a standard theme park MMORPG except for the action combat.  But since I play MMO's mostly for combat, having a major innovation in this area (really makes playing a healer more challenging) is enough to keep me entertained for a few months, at least long enough to create a level 60 or two.

I thought DDO's combat was good, but stuck in the lobby based, CRPG as it was didn't work for me, I only play and enjoy MMORPG's, the more virtual world like the better.  And yes, releasing a title 6 months too early is pretty much the kiss of death on any title, see AOC, SWTOR, and a host of others for good examples.

Dynamic events in GW2 seems to be the cats meow now.  But when Rift started doing them, they were a distraction from the main game.

Well, because that's what they were, pointless distractions that really offered players crappy rewards and had no meaningful impact on the game world or even the player experience.  You could basicallly ignore them as pointless.

I can't speak to GW2, haven't played it yet, but from what I'm reading, the dynamic events are woven far more into the player experience, and more a core dynamic than a pointless add on.

People claim to want the freedom in game to create their own story and make a permanent impact on the world, yet scoff at games like Darkfall and Mortal Online for being griefers-paradise.  Even Galaxies, with all it's potential, was pretty much ignored.  Yeah, Sony seriously dropped the ball.  But, you the players, are the ones who gave them the feedback and complaints that lead to the CU and NGE.  When they gave you what you "wanted" you said it was horrible and walked away.

Seriously, you used Darkfall and MO as your examples, two very niche titles with FFA PVP and open world ganking ?  (and neither one of AAA quality?)  At least pick a game like EVE, and even then there's so many gameplay features/mechanics that make it appeal again to a very niche player base.    Galaxies was not ignored, was one of the most popular titles in its day and considering how many bugs/issues it had along with the huge gameplay nerfs its not surprising it crashed and burned.

At the end of the day, I think you like the cookie cutter experience.  You want to sound all high and mighty, but you really just want new games with the same familiar controls, stories, gameplay as you've been playing since EQ.  As has been said by others, if you want something new to come along, quit making the "Same ole shit" the biggest games on the market...

It's true, I play most major titles despite their flaws, mostly because I've learned to find the fun in each of them, even if it only lasts for a short while.

But that doesn't stop me from hoping for some real innovation in gaming, or heck, even a return to more traditional mechanics such as forced grouping/downtime etc that have been largely discarded in today's MMORPG titles.

No, I'm pretty clear on what I'd like to see in a new MMORPG title. (think DAOC 2, or EVE using humaniod avatars)  I'm just not sure there's enough folks like me to make creating a MMORPG a profitible enough venture.

The_Korrigan

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

OP:

totally agree.

When playing a game like Xyson for example I tend to give the developer some slack. I know full well he doesnt have the resources that a huge game has and I dont expect the same both in a positive way and in a negitive way. Some gamers expect the small indies to have EVERYTHING they do like and expect from a large firm AND fix all the things they dont like from a large firm. They have to be realistic and somewhat supportive.

I'm not the kind of person giving my money to the small baker who is doing crappy tasting bread just because he's smaller than the other baker who is doing delicious bread.

If anything, EvE is the shining example of how a smaller developer can do a quality game - being small is not a valid excuse for doing crap and being supported for it.

PS: I'm one of the persons who didn't "hack" but really bought Minecraft... among other indy games I wasted my money on ;-)

PS2: my main problem with many "indie" developers is that they are charging "mainstream" charges for "sub par" games.

Valkaern

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by Storman1977

People make such a big deal about the action combat in Tera and GW2, but poohed all over DDO when it did action combat...six years ago.  It's the same with DDO when it came to people wanting to cross class their characters, no other game would let you, but DDO did.  Granted, Turbine was forced to release the game six months earlier than they were ready for by Atari, and has been paying for that ever since.

Just to be clear - I've looked your post history first, so I know where you're coming from - I still decided to give you a chance though.

What people had against DDO what definitely not the combat. It's the fact that the whole game is not a MMORPG. DDO is closer to GW1, a cooperative online RPG. So comparing DDO to GW2 (or even Tera) is like comparing GW1 to GW2, or WoW to Quake 3 Arena, it's comparing apples to oranges... Two totally different designs.

Same for the rest of your post... if you have tried GW2, you certainly know that Rift's supposed "dynamic events" and GW2's "dynamic events" are two totally different things, even if their roots are similar... as I said in another thread, comparing them is like comparing a BWM and a Trabant pretending they are the same just because both have wheels and a motor.

Exactly, and I certainly don't remember people complaining about DDOs combat, that was one of it's strongest points. It was the clausterphobic closed in hub design that turned a lot of people off primarily from what I remember.  

Also, if you lump every opinion you come across here into one unified voice as you seem to do, of course you'll pick up on contradictions.

It's the very definition of fallacy to conclude that 'previous games had mechanics people clamour for, those games failed, therefor they failed because people don't want those systems.' It's absurd. There were clearly a number of other reasons that made those games undesirable or contributed to it's demise. If desired systems were included in a well made functional package, it could very likely be well received.

Many of us are waiting for and enjoying current evolutions of MMOs. I don't think you give GW2 enough credit personally, it feels drastically different to most of what I've played through in the years since my EQ, AC & DAoC prime. I've done almost nothing but complain about the direction of MMOs for the most part post DAoC - and finally 10+ years later I'm seeing an undeniable big change and absolutely enjoying it - finally. While TSW isn't as much of a deviation and not my cup of tea, it's clear they at least looked at approaching an MMO experience from a perspective other than what's detailed in the standard blueprint we've had post WoW. Games like Pathfinder & ArcheAge also look to offer a very nice change of pace to the same old same old.

'We' as in, the unified voice presented here may not know what it wants, but 'I' sure as hell do - and right now that's more GW2 and eventually Pathfinder & ArcheAge, and I certainly see some great deviations from long standing traditions that simply hadn't been questioned in awhile.

GrayGhost79

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

OP:

totally agree.

When playing a game like Xyson for example I tend to give the developer some slack. I know full well he doesnt have the resources that a huge game has and I dont expect the same both in a positive way and in a negitive way. Some gamers expect the small indies to have EVERYTHING they do like and expect from a large firm AND fix all the things they dont like from a large firm. They have to be realistic and somewhat supportive.

Nah, but we do expect an indie to charge indie prices. They were trying to sale Xyson for $40 + a $15 a month subscription fee. If Xyson had been treated like an indie game by the devs and such then many of us would have continued to cut it slack. But it came out trying to charge AAA prices so it lost the indie excuse.

 

That may have changed now but the damage was done long ago and most lost interest.

 

Look at Mortal Online. Same deal, the game wouldn't be so bad if they started off treating it like it was, an Indie game. But trying to charge people AAA prices for an indie game in the state it was in afforded it no slack.

 

When the developers treat a game link an indie game then so do we. When they charge AAA prices and deliver an indie quality game they get judged by AAA standards.

SEANMCAD

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

OP:

totally agree.

When playing a game like Xyson for example I tend to give the developer some slack. I know full well he doesnt have the resources that a huge game has and I dont expect the same both in a positive way and in a negitive way. Some gamers expect the small indies to have EVERYTHING they do like and expect from a large firm AND fix all the things they dont like from a large firm. They have to be realistic and somewhat supportive.

I'm not the kind of person giving my money to the small baker who is doing crappy tasting bread just because he's smaller than the other baker who is doing delicious bread.

If anything, EvE is the shining example of how a smaller developer can do a quality game - being small is not a valid excuse for doing crap and being supported for it.

PS: I'm one of the persons who didn't "hack" but really bought Minecraft... among other indy games I wasted my money on ;-)

I however am not that way.

The word 'slack' doesnt imply I am happy with an indie doing anything they want. But I will understand that if I am playing an indie game I might not get 'dev notification of the week' very often. Besides I would rather them spend that money focused on the game itself rather than customer support. I am sorry you are different in that respect and I dont agree with you at all.

Its the same reason why if I go into a privately owned stored I am willing to give up some aspects in favor of other aspects. I dont want them to be EXACTLY like starbucks but only better.

 

SEANMCAD

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

OP:

totally agree.

When playing a game like Xyson for example I tend to give the developer some slack. I know full well he doesnt have the resources that a huge game has and I dont expect the same both in a positive way and in a negitive way. Some gamers expect the small indies to have EVERYTHING they do like and expect from a large firm AND fix all the things they dont like from a large firm. They have to be realistic and somewhat supportive.

Nah, but we do expect an indie to charge indie prices. They were trying to sale Xyson for $40 + a $15 a month subscription fee. If Xyson had been treated like an indie game by the devs and such then many of us would have continued to cut it slack. But it came out trying to charge AAA prices so it lost the indie excuse.

 

That may have changed now but the damage was done long ago and most lost interest.

 

Look at Mortal Online. Same deal, the game wouldn't be so bad if they started off treating it like it was, an Indie game. But trying to charge people AAA prices for an indie game in the state it was in afforded it no slack.

 

When the developers treat a game link an indie game then so do we. When they charge AAA prices and deliver an indie quality game they get judged by AAA standards.

sorry not on board.

If you all want indie games to make an impact into the cookie cutter world of MMOs you have to be realistic about it. Many of you are not. You want a mom and pop store, with better customer service than Walmart and at prices that are the same, that is being delisional

The_Korrigan

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

OP:

totally agree.

When playing a game like Xyson for example I tend to give the developer some slack. I know full well he doesnt have the resources that a huge game has and I dont expect the same both in a positive way and in a negitive way. Some gamers expect the small indies to have EVERYTHING they do like and expect from a large firm AND fix all the things they dont like from a large firm. They have to be realistic and somewhat supportive.

I'm not the kind of person giving my money to the small baker who is doing crappy tasting bread just because he's smaller than the other baker who is doing delicious bread.

If anything, EvE is the shining example of how a smaller developer can do a quality game - being small is not a valid excuse for doing crap and being supported for it.

PS: I'm one of the persons who didn't "hack" but really bought Minecraft... among other indy games I wasted my money on ;-)

I however am not that way.

The word 'slack' doesnt imply I am happy with an indie doing anything they want. But I will understand that if I am playing an indie game I might not get 'dev notification of the week' very often. Besides I would rather them spend that money focused on the game itself rather than customer support. I am sorry you are different in that respect and I dont agree with you at all.

Its the same reason why if I go into a privately owned stored I am willing to give up some aspects in favor of other aspects. I dont want them to be EXACTLY like starbucks but only better.

The problem is, all those "indie" devs ask "mainstream" prices for their sub par games. If sub par games like Mortal Online or Darkfall ask the same monthly than quality games like UO or WoW, they can't be surprised when most people don't accept to pay that much for games which are at best "sub par", and at worse still in beta stage.

I also value smaller vendors in "real life" but only because they produce higher quality products than the mass vendors. I won't give a 50 bucks note to some guy just because he tries to sells me some crap.

vee41

What you need to realize is that games are more than featurelists. For example most of gw2s things have been done before but never presented in such highly enjoyable manner. GW2 simply executes its features which is why its pointless to condense games as lists of features as there is so much more to them.

SEANMCAD

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

OP:

totally agree.

When playing a game like Xyson for example I tend to give the developer some slack. I know full well he doesnt have the resources that a huge game has and I dont expect the same both in a positive way and in a negitive way. Some gamers expect the small indies to have EVERYTHING they do like and expect from a large firm AND fix all the things they dont like from a large firm. They have to be realistic and somewhat supportive.

I'm not the kind of person giving my money to the small baker who is doing crappy tasting bread just because he's smaller than the other baker who is doing delicious bread.

If anything, EvE is the shining example of how a smaller developer can do a quality game - being small is not a valid excuse for doing crap and being supported for it.

PS: I'm one of the persons who didn't "hack" but really bought Minecraft... among other indy games I wasted my money on ;-)

I however am not that way.

The word 'slack' doesnt imply I am happy with an indie doing anything they want. But I will understand that if I am playing an indie game I might not get 'dev notification of the week' very often. Besides I would rather them spend that money focused on the game itself rather than customer support. I am sorry you are different in that respect and I dont agree with you at all.

Its the same reason why if I go into a privately owned stored I am willing to give up some aspects in favor of other aspects. I dont want them to be EXACTLY like starbucks but only better.

The problem is, all those "indie" devs ask "mainstream" prices for their sub par games. If sub par games like Mortal Online or Darkfall ask the same monthly than quality games like UO or WoW, they can't be surprised when most people don't accept to pay that much for games which are at best "sub par", and at worse still in beta stage.

it might not seem fair but the fundemental unmoveable reality is that if you want the industry to change this is what you will have to do, peroid. Its purely the law of physics.

A company with a stafff of 3 will NEVER be able to provide the same quality of production as a developer with thousands at the same price AND make the game better than the large firm. Never in a million years, so as unfair as it seems it is the bottom line.

GrayGhost79

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

OP:

totally agree.

When playing a game like Xyson for example I tend to give the developer some slack. I know full well he doesnt have the resources that a huge game has and I dont expect the same both in a positive way and in a negitive way. Some gamers expect the small indies to have EVERYTHING they do like and expect from a large firm AND fix all the things they dont like from a large firm. They have to be realistic and somewhat supportive.

Nah, but we do expect an indie to charge indie prices. They were trying to sale Xyson for $40 + a $15 a month subscription fee. If Xyson had been treated like an indie game by the devs and such then many of us would have continued to cut it slack. But it came out trying to charge AAA prices so it lost the indie excuse.

 

That may have changed now but the damage was done long ago and most lost interest.

 

Look at Mortal Online. Same deal, the game wouldn't be so bad if they started off treating it like it was, an Indie game. But trying to charge people AAA prices for an indie game in the state it was in afforded it no slack.

 

When the developers treat a game link an indie game then so do we. When they charge AAA prices and deliver an indie quality game they get judged by AAA standards.

sorry not on board.

If you all want indie games to make an impact into the cookie cutter world of MMOs you have to be realistic about it. Many of you are not. You want a mom and pop store, with better customer service than Walmart and at prices that are the same, that is being delisional

On this we are going to disagree. You are going to be judged by the tier you put yourself in. If you are an indie and your game is suffering in polish/quality then it's suicide to put yourself in the AAA tier of pricing.

You can call this unrealistic, but the fact is that this is the reality.  Hence your complaint on the lack of leeway given to a game like Xyson. 

The_Korrigan

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

it might not seem fair but the fundemental unmoveable reality is that if you want the industry to change this is what you will have to do, peroid. Its purely the law of physics.

A company with a stafff of 3 will NEVER be able to provide the same quality of production as a developer with thousands at the same price AND make the game better than the large firm. Never in a million years, so as unfair as it seems it is the bottom line.

My take is the opposite. Your laws of physics mean nothing here.

A company with a staff of 3 CAN produce a quality game millions will want to play. See Minecraft, or Eve for examples of what an indie team can start.

But asking for the same price for a sub par, crappy niche product with poor bugged coding and poor design is arrogance which should NEVER be rewarded. Rewarding those is what is encouraging more companies to released crap games.

Don't you think that if games like MO or DFO where at (e.g.) €5 per month instead of costing as much as mainstream MMORPGs, more players would give them a try? $15 for such games is just -- too -- much. I'm sure many out there are willing to support indie development, but not at the same price than they would pay for top quality AAA games.

SEANMCAD

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by SEANMCAD
On this we are going to disagree. You are going to be judged by the tier you put yourself in. If you are an indie and your game is suffering in polish/quality then it's suicide to put yourself in the AAA tier of pricing.

You can call this unrealistic, but the fact is that this is the reality.  Hence your complaint on the lack of leeway given to a game like Xyson. 

here is the basic laws of physics.

if you are not willing to pay the same as AAA titles for an innovated indie game despite them not having polish then you will be left with AAA titles as they are not. PEROID, no matter how unfair you think it is that is the basic unmoveable fundemental reality of it and there is really zero way around it.

I cant make you play any specific game. If you are having fun with your AAA titles then fine good for you. I personally dont like the AAA title and actually have MORE fun with the indie games and that is also the bottom unmoveable line isnt?

 

There is a reason Walmart is cheaper and its not because they are clever.

so have fun with your AAA titles

 

SEANMCAD

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

it might not seem fair but the fundemental unmoveable reality is that if you want the industry to change this is what you will have to do, peroid. Its purely the law of physics.

A company with a stafff of 3 will NEVER be able to provide the same quality of production as a developer with thousands at the same price AND make the game better than the large firm. Never in a million years, so as unfair as it seems it is the bottom line.

My take is the opposite. Your laws of physics mean nothing here.

A company with a staff of 3 CAN produce a quality game millions will want to play. See Minecraft, or Eve for examples of what an indie team can start.

But asking for the same price for a sub par, crappy niche product with poor bugged coding and poor design is arrogance which should NEVER be rewarded. Rewarding those is what is encouraging more companies to released crap games.

Don't you think that if games like MO or DFO where at (e.g.) €5 per month instead of costing as much as mainstream MMORPGs, more players would give them a try? $15 for such games is just -- too -- much. I'm sure many out there are willing to support indie development, but not at the same price than they would pay for top quality AAA games.

ok ..

1. minecraft is crap, its graphics are set in 1980. Why arent they up todate?

2. Darkfall is actually a very good game and to be frank if I was still playing MMOs I would pay MORE than standard AAA price becuase to be completely frank its BETTER than AAA titles.

3. Xyson is a great idea and I support and am willing to overpay developers who are willing to push the limits.

 

have fun with EvE and minecraft

GrayGhost79

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by SEANMCAD
On this we are going to disagree. You are going to be judged by the tier you put yourself in. If you are an indie and your game is suffering in polish/quality then it's suicide to put yourself in the AAA tier of pricing.

You can call this unrealistic, but the fact is that this is the reality.  Hence your complaint on the lack of leeway given to a game like Xyson. 

here is the basic laws of physics.

if you are not willing to pay the same as AAA titles for an innovated indie game despite them not having polish then you will be left with AAA titles as they are not. PEROID, no matter how unfair you think it is that is the basic unmoveable fundemental reality of it and there is really zero way around it.

I cant make you play any specific game. If you are having fun with your AAA titles then fine good for you. I personally dont like the AAA title and actually have MORE fun with the indie games and that is also the bottom unmoveable line isnt?

 

so have fun with your AAA titles

 

Torchlight 2 = $20  (AAA 50-60)

Minecraft = $20 (AAA 50-60)

I've bought both. Indie developers that are realistic do well.

Indie developers that are not realistic do not.

This is how things are. It's not the community that needs to change, it's the indy developer that wants to charge AAA prices for products that simply lack in the AAA quality and polish.

 

Again, you don't have to agree man. I am simply explaining the reality to you.

Loke666

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

it might not seem fair but the fundemental unmoveable reality is that if you want the industry to change this is what you will have to do, peroid. Its purely the law of physics.

A company with a stafff of 3 will NEVER be able to provide the same quality of production as a developer with thousands at the same price AND make the game better than the large firm. Never in a million years, so as unfair as it seems it is the bottom line.

My take is the opposite. Your laws of physics mean nothing here.

A company with a staff of 3 CAN produce a quality game millions will want to play. See Minecraft, or Eve for examples of what an indie team can start.

But asking for the same price for a sub par, crappy niche product with poor bugged coding and poor design is arrogance which should NEVER be rewarded. Rewarding those is what is encouraging more companies to released crap games.

Don't you think that if games like MO or DFO where at (e.g.) €5 per month instead of costing as much as mainstream MMORPGs, more players would give them a try? $15 for such games is just -- too -- much. I'm sure many out there are willing to support indie development, but not at the same price than they would pay for top quality AAA games.

The first Guildwars campaign were more or less made by 3 guys as well and frankly had it more quality at launch than many AAA MMOs, small team and bad budget is not an excuse for releasing a bad product.

The real difference is that the successful games have good programers, you really only need a single good lead programmer to take a fun low budget game from a poor niche game into a popular game.

In cases like Mortal online the devs just tried to put in more than they could handle from launch. A really simple but working system is a lot better start than to release a buggy complex game that takes years to fix up. Slowly adding new features fix slowing fixing up broken features every day.

And if you want to get in some money during beta, don't releas the game in beta shape, but in adds or whatever to get in some money instead (but remove them once the game cost money). MMOs released way too early die faster than a red shirt.

SEANMCAD

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by SEANMCAD

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by SEANMCAD
On this we are going to disagree. You are going to be judged by the tier you put yourself in. If you are an indie and your game is suffering in polish/quality then it's suicide to put yourself in the AAA tier of pricing.

You can call this unrealistic, but the fact is that this is the reality.  Hence your complaint on the lack of leeway given to a game like Xyson. 

here is the basic laws of physics.

if you are not willing to pay the same as AAA titles for an innovated indie game despite them not having polish then you will be left with AAA titles as they are not. PEROID, no matter how unfair you think it is that is the basic unmoveable fundemental reality of it and there is really zero way around it.

I cant make you play any specific game. If you are having fun with your AAA titles then fine good for you. I personally dont like the AAA title and actually have MORE fun with the indie games and that is also the bottom unmoveable line isnt?

 

so have fun with your AAA titles

 

Torchlight 2 = $20  (AAA 50-60)

Minecraft = $20 (AAA 50-60)

I've bought both. Indie developers that are realistic do well.

Indie developers that are not realistic do not.

This is how things are. It's not the community that needs to change, it's the indy developer that wants to charge AAA prices for products that simply lack in the AAA quality and polish.

 

Again, you don't have to agree man. I am simply explaining the reality to you.

Oh wow! both of them?

so you have Minecraft which has graphics set in 1980 because they cant afford to have good graphics. A game that is marginally better than a free web based game and you are impressed that you are paying $20 instead of $40 like you would for a AAA title?

really?

You do know that your activism on saving $20 a month will make your gaming list pretty much Minecraft and Tourchlight and little much else...right?

 

 

SEANMCAD

Originally posted by Loke666

The first Guildwars campaign were more or less made by 3 guys as well and frankly had it more quality at launch than many AAA MMOs, small team and bad budget is not an excuse for releasing a bad product.

The real difference is that the successful games have good programers, you really only need a single good lead programmer to take a fun low budget game from a poor niche game into a popular game.

In cases like Mortal online the devs just tried to put in more than they could handle from launch. A really simple but working system is a lot better start than to release a buggy complex game that takes years to fix up. Slowly adding new features fix slowing fixing up broken features every day.

And if you want to get in some money during beta, don't releas the game in beta shape, but in adds or whatever to get in some money instead (but remove them once the game cost money). MMOs released way too early die faster than a red shirt.

Darkfall had a crap launch but to be frank for me its the best MMO out there. I dont see any AAA MMO that I would want to play instead of Darkfall.

Taking Xyson as an example the reality is this, one can play a game that has its features or one can not. NOT playing Xyson isnt going to magically create a game that has those features you are looking for.

If the game system is something that is attractive to me which is EXTREMELY rare in MMO world I am willing to be paitent. rather than NOT playing and playing something else I actually DONT like