A good way to evaluate new mmorpgs?

Pynda

I've been thinking about this idea for a few days now, and I do think I'm going to use it when deciding which mmorpgs I will play in the future. What do you think? Would it work for you too?

The Criteria: Take what appears to be the top game play feature in the new mmorpg you are considering playing, and then throw it out. The theory being that doing the same thing over and over again soon gets boring. Does what is left still appear to offer what might be a fun gaming experience for you?

Here's how I might rate a bad and a good prospect.

The Secret World - throw out combat

- I guess maybe a few of the investigation missions could be done without combat. But very little to no character advancement would be made. This is about all I could come up with for TSW.

Pre-NGE Star Wars Galaxies - throw out combat

- I could explore for and gather (dynamically changing) resources.
- I could craft and open my open shop for selling - armor, weapons, meds etc..
- I could found and build a city (become a politician).
- I could tame and sell animals.
- I could build and decorate my house.
- I could do many different types of non-combat missions (grantedly, mainly fedex)
- I could become a doctor and heal/buff other players.
- I could fish.
- I could be a musician or a dancer (okay, maybe not a dancer for me).
- I could be a transport pilot.
- I could become a bio or droid engineer and build robots/genetically modified animals.
- and a few more things I am probably forgetting. It's been about 7 years now.

BrokenSpoon

For me a decent way to evalute a to be released game is do a check on the developers & publishers and see their game history including the success of said game.

Once you have a graft on them and are happy that "BOB-Entertainment" History in MMO's will probably produce a decent game, you then follow the game development from (If lucky) Alpha, Closed Beta, Open Beta and then release.. You then can actually evaluate the game your interested in.. There is no other way... 

Ramanadjinn

that is a very fun idea.

i'll still try to evaluate games on their full compliment of features and how i think the system interactions will play out ..

but this is fun.

Gdemami

---

Originally posted by Pynda
I've been thinking about this idea for a few days now, and I do think I'm going to use it when deciding which mmorpgs I will play in the future. What do you think? Would it work for you too?
The Criteria: Take what appears to be the top game play feature in the new mmorpg you are considering playing, and then throw it out. The theory being that doing the same thing over and over again soon gets boring. Does what is left still appear to offer what might be a fun gaming experience for you?
Here's how I might rate a bad and a good prospect.
The Secret World - throw out combat- I guess maybe a few of the investigation missions could be done without combat. But very little to no character advancement would be made. This is about all I could come up with for TSW.
Pre-NGE Star Wars Galaxies - throw out combat
- I could explore for and gather (dynamically changing) resources.
- I could craft and open my open shop for selling - armor, weapons, meds etc..
- I could found and build a city (become a politician).
- I could tame and sell animals.
- I could build and decorate my house.
- I could do many different types of non-combat missions (grantedly, mainly fedex)
- I could become a doctor and heal/buff other players.
- I could fish.
- I could be a musician or a dancer (okay, maybe not a dancer for me).
- I could be a transport pilot.
- I could become a bio or droid engineer and build robots/genetically modified animals.
- and a few more things I am probably forgetting. It's been about 7 years now.

---

All you say is that new MMO you want to play is sandbox.

I see no point in your thread...

Caldrin

You cant really compare both of those games..

 

TSW is pure themepark combat mmorpg with not much else to do really but it was never suppsoe to be anything else. The one thing I can say about TSW is that its an awesoem fun game and thats what counts.

 

SWG of coruse was also amazing but for many other reasons

 

 

BeansnBread

I'm wondering if at some point you shouldn't consider the quality of each of those experiences instead of just recognizing that they exist. I look over that list for SWG and it looks nice at a first glance, but then I remember what doing those activities actually entailed. And I can say that I feel like 90% of those things were poorly implemented and, ultimately, boring. 

 

Sometimes it's not how many things are available, but the quality of the things that are available that matters.

Crazy_Stick

I wish you could rate MMORPGs like that OP, but the problem is your idea is rooted in an older model of game development that most current design teams seem to be trying to throw away along with the older MMO audience’s expectations for the genre. Look at the recent MMORPG releases. We read this complaint in every forum here on site - it’s a single player RPG played online with a co-op feature and no lasting activity to hook you into paying a long term sub.

 

When I asked about housing, fishing, music, and all the other possible virtual world activities that could be included in a game aside from combat I was informed by a pro developer that they were only good for jobless people with no life and flamed for bringing it up. Leave it at that, I am still angry, disillusioned, and a wee bit hurt in my innocence. It seems to be a more and more common view though, amongst designers. Look at the things Matt Firor for TESO claims...

 

Themepark designers seem to be focusing more on the action and grind it out means of play to appeal to a more casual audience that logs in for their loot n kill and then logs out. So we are left with so called MMORPGs that are little more than action games with bad combat, grindy levels, devalued crafting, PVE centric PVP activities, lame run the gauntlet boss instances, and a mediocre story that ends the game when finished. They keep a cash shop to initially allow you to make a pretty character and is later used for buy a PVE win activities to milk extra money from you.

 

If I were to speculate on why it’s because we have a highly competitive market where MMORPG players are expected to play a game a little while and then move on to the next big release on their calendar. That perhaps the old school MMORPG costs too much to maintain over time for the returns when compared to a single player game like Skyrm with 10 million sales. And maybe, the players interested in virtual world activities and the more die hard aspects of play like PVP are considered such a small niche of potential buyers now as to be “not worth catering to."  

 

But the fact remains can you hold the genre to outdated standards no one is trying to meet anymore when rating a game?

 

*Is depressed at what he wrote.*

nariusseldon

My criteria ....

1) If the combat mechanics is good ... i usually won't play a game with bad combat.

2) If there are enough depth in the combat system (i.e. skills, builds ...)

3) If the progression system is good

4) must-have features: AH, LFD/LFR .. easy grouping system, instanced missions

5) graphics, polish, and other stuff that a video game should be doing well.

Prenho

Originally posted by Crazy_Stick

I wish you could rate MMORPGs like that OP, but the problem is your idea is rooted in an older model of game development that most current design teams seem to be trying to throw away along with the older MMO audience’s expectations for the genre. Look at the recent MMORPG releases. We read this complaint in every forum here on site - it’s a single player RPG played online with a co-op feature and no lasting activity to hook you into paying a long term sub.

 

When I asked about housing, fishing, music, and all the other possible virtual world activities that could be included in a game aside from combat I was informed by a pro developer that they were only good for jobless people with no life and flamed for bringing it up. Leave it at that, I am still angry, disillusioned, and a wee bit hurt in my innocence. It seems to be a more and more common view though, amongst designers. Look at the things Matt Firor for TESO claims...

 

Themepark designers seem to be focusing more on the action and grind it out means of play to appeal to a more casual audience that logs in for their loot n kill and then logs out. So we are left with so called MMORPGs that are little more than action games with bad combat, grindy levels, devalued crafting, PVE centric PVP activities, lame run the gauntlet boss instances, and a mediocre story that ends the game when finished. They keep a cash shop to initially allow you to make a pretty character and is later used for buy a PVE win activities to milk extra money from you.

 

If I were to speculate on why it’s because we have a highly competitive market where MMORPG players are expected to play a game a little while and then move on to the next big release on their calendar. That perhaps the old school MMORPG costs too much to maintain over time for the returns when compared to a single player game like Skyrm with 10 million sales. And maybe, the players interested in virtual world activities and the more die hard aspects of play like PVP are considered such a small niche of potential buyers now as to be “not worth catering to."  

 

But the fact remains can you hold the genre to outdated standards no one is trying to meet anymore when rating a game?

 

*Is depressed at what he wrote.*

+1

 

A good single player JRPG > any fail themepark pve

CoD or Battlefield multiplayer > any themepark's meaningless pvp

 

Juts play a JRPG if you want pve and CoD multiplayer if you want pvp in arenas just for fun, and save the MMO market from single player games whose content is busted in one month, moving to the newest themepark next month.

bcbully

Best way imo, free trial.

 

for the record TSW devs say "There are several designs on the table." for player created content.

 

Larsa

---

Originally posted by Pynda

... throw out combat ...

---

 

My apologies for only quoting a very small part of your post - but I think it's the essence of what's wrong with the current titles from the big publishers: throw out combat and there's nothing left worth playing.

But then, plenty of people buy these games, looks to me like they appreciate the combat centric games.