Well there you have it, so you are telling all of us that what we have now is the best we can expect. Until hardware improves enough to support the massive amount of programming it will take to change games from having dull and lifeless NPC's, to having them behave, at least with some semblance of rational thought.
I am not a programmer but that's kind of what I thought too.
As Kyleran said:
Pity
IT is not a question of hardware/software it is a question of completely opposing desired results
the exact same encounter a one demographic will want a certain result returned, while another will want something completely different. player characters do not come with handy little flags to tell the AI witch demographic they belong too.
as I stated earlier there are games that do exactly what you say you want but since every current developer is chasing the "all demographics" market the ai has to be toned down to match.
Yea yea I get that. But you are basically saying that things cannot change and therefore will not.
I have to disagree about the can not part.
Well everyone seems to think sandbox player driven content is the way to go but I feel that is also going to fail.
Time will tell.
they won't change as long as games try to fit everyone under the same tent. or have you been asleep over the last decade?
and I never once mentioned sandbox nor was I referring to it. that's just one demographic among many
Hmm a little testy aren't we?
Yes I have done a fair bit of sleeping over the last decade. Blah blah blah your statement is tired as well. Yea its all bout catering to everyone, that is the problem with everything. Sure. But what about solutions. You haven't offered anything in that respect.
I only mentioned Open world sandbox because that seems to be the other style of MMO that people feel will revive the genre.
But you seem to have your own agenda here whatever that is.
The solution? that's easy stop trying to cater to "everyone" and don't be afraid to be niche. If I had an "agenda" that would be it I guess. but you don't want to hear that you want to hear how everything can be crammed into one shiney product with perfectly polished feature sets from HCraider to smelltheflowerscasual; dynamic AI witch can determine one's play preference by some form of digital osmosis. The type of AI you professed to want exists in certain games. Others and I have mentioned them, you chose to disregard them
Investor's want returns... the bigger the better. Money, money, money. They don't give a shit about the games.
Forget about the big publisher's, they will never go niche. We will see how Star Citizen turns out, that is my hope. Not the game itself but the way it is financed.
Well there you have it, so you are telling all of us that what we have now is the best we can expect. Until hardware improves enough to support the massive amount of programming it will take to change games from having dull and lifeless NPC's, to having them behave, at least with some semblance of rational thought.
I am not a programmer but that's kind of what I thought too.
As Kyleran said:
Pity
IT is not a question of hardware/software it is a question of completely opposing desired results
the exact same encounter a one demographic will want a certain result returned, while another will want something completely different. player characters do not come with handy little flags to tell the AI witch demographic they belong too.
as I stated earlier there are games that do exactly what you say you want but since every current developer is chasing the "all demographics" market the ai has to be toned down to match.
Yea yea I get that. But you are basically saying that things cannot change and therefore will not.
I have to disagree about the can not part.
Well everyone seems to think sandbox player driven content is the way to go but I feel that is also going to fail.
Time will tell.
they won't change as long as games try to fit everyone under the same tent. or have you been asleep over the last decade?
and I never once mentioned sandbox nor was I referring to it. that's just one demographic among many
Hmm a little testy aren't we?
Yes I have done a fair bit of sleeping over the last decade. Blah blah blah your statement is tired as well. Yea its all bout catering to everyone, that is the problem with everything. Sure. But what about solutions. You haven't offered anything in that respect.
I only mentioned Open world sandbox because that seems to be the other style of MMO that people feel will revive the genre.
But you seem to have your own agenda here whatever that is.
The solution? that's easy stop trying to cater to "everyone" and don't be afraid to be niche. If I had an "agenda" that would be it I guess. but you don't want to hear that you want to hear how everything can be crammed into one shiney product with perfectly polished feature sets from HCraider to smelltheflowerscasual; dynamic AI witch can determine one's play preference by some form of digital osmosis. The type of AI you professed to want exists in certain games. Others and I have mentioned them, you chose to disregard them
Investor's want returns... the bigger the better. Money, money, money. They don't give a shit about the games.
Forget about the big publisher's, they will never go niche. We will see how Star Citizen turns out, that is my hope. Not the game itself but the way it is financed.
It's ironic, because if they took a second to understand the market and go niche...they'd make a lot more money.
One point that people don't seem to look at to intently is the change in society. No, no I'm not saying all the young whipper-snappers are going to hell for listening to rap music and smoking weed. I'm saying 15 years ago not everyone had a computer. Those that did had one because they really wanted one. Now every house hold has 3 or 4. You can carry your computer in your pocket now. You can watch 2 girls 1 cup on the ride to school... if you want... All (most) the games are ADHD because (most) everyone playing is ADHD. Work? You mean I have to earn something? Just give it to me.. that other game gave it to me... So Devs have become ADHD themselves and created small risk, small effort, big reward games. But those big rewards don't feel big, and everyone has one already sooo big whoop. I remember when it was a big deal to go on some quests, you felt lucky to have a good group that worked well together. You also felt real accomplishment in the end. It also may have taken all night for one quest.
You can't have it all. Real gaming experiences take real time. Real rewards take real effort -- or at least they should.
Interesting take on the current state of MMO gaming, for the millions of us now having invested years into the MMO genere of gaming.
That said, I have a couple of comments regarding the OPs article...
Longing for the Old Game we Left - This is a very familiar concept to me, and for many I'm sure. However, I think most people just don't long for a specific game, they long for a specific build of that game. In many cases, the reason people leave a game they have fond memories of is because the game changed significantly enough that it's no longer enjoyable, or resembles the game you originally formed fond feelings for.
So when I left Ultima Online, I left it because the constant need for publishers to update & "enhance" changed the experience in the game that greatly differed from when I had most fun playing it. So when I say I want another game like Ultima Online, I'm specifically talking about it in one of it's earlier states. No contradictions, and a lot less associated with rose colored glasses, there.
Unreasonable Expectations - Part of this problem comes from the "Big Tent" approach to MMO development, brought to you by Blizzard / WOW. Traditional MMOs served a smaller niche audience, that had a smaller set of common expectations & goals of what kind of experience they were looking for out of the game.
Blizzard was successful at "stream lining" the MMO experience, such that it is more palatable for the broader casual gaming audience, and most AAA class MMO releases since then have tried to go after the same lucrative playerbase demo.
The issue here is that publishers are dumping 10s - 100s of millions of dollars into these projects, making it financially impossible to appeal to a small audience. The game needs to do EVERYTHING for EVERYONE (or try) in order to appeal to the most people possible so that they can realize a profit & meet earnings expectations. Including this more diverse audience, who demand just about everything under the sun (see unreasonable expectations), sets up the publisher / developer for that old saying "When trying to appeal to all, you truely saftisfy no one"
Solutions
Many of the solutions proposed makes a lot of sense. I'd just add that publishers / developers can achieve much of those recommendations by focusing on smaller niche audiences.
This means reducing the features & complexity of the solution, which will mean lower costs associated with development & maintenance. Catering to a smaller audience also means you can focus on their specific needs, and give them more attention (which improves business / customer relations & helps customer retention)
In addition, putting more of the content creation in the hands of the players reduces the burdon & need to constantly develop & update. Reducing expansions will reduce the risk associated with introducing changes to the game that require significant revisions to balance mechanics & losing existing players for reasons stated above.
And on top of that, these cheaper endeavors require less financial risks if things don't work out....which is good for everyone.
Well there you have it, so you are telling all of us that what we have now is the best we can expect. Until hardware improves enough to support the massive amount of programming it will take to change games from having dull and lifeless NPC's, to having them behave, at least with some semblance of rational thought.
I am not a programmer but that's kind of what I thought too.
As Kyleran said:
Pity
IT is not a question of hardware/software it is a question of completely opposing desired results
the exact same encounter a one demographic will want a certain result returned, while another will want something completely different. player characters do not come with handy little flags to tell the AI witch demographic they belong too.
as I stated earlier there are games that do exactly what you say you want but since every current developer is chasing the "all demographics" market the ai has to be toned down to match.
Yea yea I get that. But you are basically saying that things cannot change and therefore will not.
I have to disagree about the can not part.
Well everyone seems to think sandbox player driven content is the way to go but I feel that is also going to fail.
Time will tell.
they won't change as long as games try to fit everyone under the same tent. or have you been asleep over the last decade?
and I never once mentioned sandbox nor was I referring to it. that's just one demographic among many
Hmm a little testy aren't we?
Yes I have done a fair bit of sleeping over the last decade. Blah blah blah your statement is tired as well. Yea its all bout catering to everyone, that is the problem with everything. Sure. But what about solutions. You haven't offered anything in that respect.
I only mentioned Open world sandbox because that seems to be the other style of MMO that people feel will revive the genre.
But you seem to have your own agenda here whatever that is.
The solution? that's easy stop trying to cater to "everyone" and don't be afraid to be niche. If I had an "agenda" that would be it I guess. but you don't want to hear that you want to hear how everything can be crammed into one shiney product with perfectly polished feature sets from HCraider to smelltheflowerscasual; dynamic AI witch can determine one's play preference by some form of digital osmosis. The type of AI you professed to want exists in certain games. Others and I have mentioned them, you chose to disregard them
Investor's want returns... the bigger the better. Money, money, money. They don't give a shit about the games.
Forget about the big publisher's, they will never go niche. We will see how Star Citizen turns out, that is my hope. Not the game itself but the way it is financed.
It's ironic, because if they took a second to understand the market and go niche...they'd make a lot more money.
I did not see this response chain before I commented......which seems in-line with my thoughts around the benefits of focusing on niche audiences.
I'd just reitterate that the other piece of the puzzle is to also reduce costs for the game. If you end up spending 10s of millions of dollars on an audience of 300k or so subs, then the game might fail due to financial reasons...no so much relating the quality of the game's experience itself.
There also seems to be a bit of back & forth around sandbox gaming. Focusing on smaller niche audiences can be beneficial for "themepark" type of experiences as well....but just be aware that the very nature of a developer driven & controled gaming experience will require additional costs for more frequent content updates / expansions.
Even still, I think these AAA publishers would have been luck delivering 3 different MMOs, for 3 different audiences, than trying to deliver one catch-all game. Yes, you'll have more over-head to develop & maintain 3 different solutions, but what cost savings with going with one game matter if you end up having to put the game on life support & eventually close the game after a few years of operation?
- make the games challenging again! Go back to EQ1 and Vanilla-Wow games asap! Big worlds with hard challenges! Right now the industrie just cater to the facebookgamer crowd, not the original mmo crowd.
Originally posted by Lonzo - make the games challenging again! Go back to EQ1 and Vanilla-Wow games asap! Big worlds with hard challenges! Right now the industrie just cater to the facebookgamer crowd, not the original mmo crowd.
Wait, did you just put WoW and EQ1 in the same category? Vanilla WoW was a vanilla cake walk.
Investor's want returns... the bigger the better. Money, money, money. They don't give a shit about the games.
Forget about the big publisher's, they will never go niche. We will see how Star Citizen turns out, that is my hope. Not the game itself but the way it is financed.
Tell me how that bigger better has been working out so far? Actually I don't think the sea change will be coming from within the mmo sphere big small or indie. My surmise is that it'll be SP games be design or by accident with the aid of the increasing footprint of social media and mods that start branching towards the untapped markets in the mmo sphere. Big devs/pubs are to blinded by "THE WAY" and small indies are too limited by cash flow. Successful SP's however have consistently proven the ability to identify, entice, and build systems around core complimentary play styles through discipline and having a plan.
Investor's want returns... the bigger the better. Money, money, money. They don't give a shit about the games.
Forget about the big publisher's, they will never go niche. We will see how Star Citizen turns out, that is my hope. Not the game itself but the way it is financed.
Tell me how that bigger better has been working out so far? Actually I don't think the sea change will be coming from within the mmo sphere big small or indie. My surmise is that it'll be SP games be design or by accident with the aid of the increasing footprint of social media and mods that start branching towards the untapped markets in the mmo sphere. Big devs/pubs are to blinded by "THE WAY" and small indies are too limited by cash flow. Successful SP's however have consistently proven the ability to identify, entice, and build systems around core complimentary play styles through discipline and having a plan.
As it pertains to the gaming Industry
If I want to make money I'll invest into something like GTA-VI or COD-XXVII
If I want to invest in rich, deep, and fulfilling game experience that strikes my fancy I'll slap a few bucks into something like Star Citizen or Camelot Unchained and hope for the best.
you died and lost xp, yes LOST xp, sure it was frustrating, and occasionally annoying when you were soooo close to levelling, but it meant death had meaning.
:challenge.
when ordinary quests needed at least one other person, working with you, I still talk to people I met 10 years ago in pug's today. I watch one of my friends (when I go visit) solo everything in a certain popular MMO, he doesn't need other people to play the game which makes the M's in MMO kind of pointless and redundant.
:choice.
It's all too linear, too scripted, too static, too pre-defined to fit the accountants view of xyz is successful only use that. There's no diversity, and little to no scope for individuality. Every player uses the same optimised perks, the same optimised skillsets, the same perfect optimised gear & equipment.
Actually I would say sites like this that overhype games play a big part in the problem.
Which is why I would recommend NOT getting your game out there until it is fairly well defined. Until it is mostly feature complete or at least the launch features have been firmed up and locked down and announced as such even if they haven't been fully implemented. You don't want people getting false hopes that you will be building in whatever feature they ask for, and also don't want people thinking you are taking the game in one direction and when you don't end up feeling like they were lied to.
Have a budget that is realistic and understand your market or niche. Be clear in your design, understand and clearly define what is important to the game and what kind of game you want to make. Don't oversell your game, be honest about the features, the direction, and the target market.
Actually I would say sites like this that overhype games play a big part in the problem.
Which is why I would recommend NOT getting your game out there until it is fairly well defined. Until it is mostly feature complete or at least the launch features have been firmed up and locked down and announced as such even if they haven't been fully implemented. You don't want people getting false hopes that you will be building in whatever feature they ask for, and also don't want people thinking you are taking the game in one direction and when you don't end up feeling like they were lied to.
Have a budget that is realistic and understand your market or niche. Be clear in your design, understand and clearly define what is important to the game and what kind of game you want to make. Don't oversell your game, be honest about the features, the direction, and the target market.
I actually love Tera.Love the combat system.Thing is,you hit lvl 60 and then you must grind dungeons for better gear.So far, there's no talk of new content past lvl 60. I was off the game for almost 3 months,came back 2 weeks ago,and saw there was a patch of all new gear to obtain.While I am not big on parties,I must join them to try for a certain drop.Mostly they are adding more cosmetics,and skins. I don't know what it is,but maybe I've outgrown games online.
I logged on tonite and was so bored I logged off.
I started out years ago playing maple story.Fond memories of the people I met and played with.To this day I still talk to a few of them. That game changed to questing for levels and that killed it for me.I liked the grinding. It was a HUGE social game while grinding while doing large events.All 3 aspects appealed to me. Since then,I haven't found a game like that anywhere.
Tonite,I went through the game list here for maybe the 10th time. I looked at a few games and just went Sigh....
Ideal game would be letting us build our house/apt,decorate it the way we want.Log in,leave our dwelling in our car,enter one of many doors that take you to an everchanging dungeon,quest... Allow us to bring back our loot,display it,wear it, sell it whatever,allow friends to come over and hang out, plan our pvp,let us choose from 3 different quests from npcs,etc....
What I'm completely sick of is the fantasy medievil,roman,ancient times in games.Why must it always be in the past? Chinese dynasty etc... You can still wield swords, magic,axes,what have you in a modern day setting.
Equally there is a tendency for every new MMO launched to be seen as better because it is new. Particularly when it comes to graphics. I think any discerning person can distinguish between reality and nostalgia. Simply saying that every time we think old MMOs were better in some way is down to nostalgia is blinkered thinking.
IMPOSSIBLE HOPES
A fair point, but if MMOs do not take on the best ideas of their genre how will they evolve for the better?
LACK OF ACCEPTANCE
We should always give credit where is due, but it is viewing the game as a whole that make us decided to be for or against it. I liked the combat in Terra for example, but the game was too "closed world" for me, so that made me decided against it.
THE CURE
I agree with the lsit of cures for our sick MMO paitents.
"If they're going to grow, it needs to embrace this simple fact and stop treating every game like some super-secret project that will wow us, without our input."
The input is the tricky part. Players often want things that destroy gamebalance or the economy of a game. But I do wish they would rely more on the fanbase online than focus groups.
"Let's try harder to make what we lovingly call "virtual worlds" actually feel like worlds."
I think most MMO developers gave up at even trying to do that years back. Tiny and with nothing outside of leveling seems to be the hallmark of most MMOs today.
Because they don't have cutting edge next gen graphics and mechanics with the ability to permanently alter the virtual world, with umpteen different but perfectly balanced classes and all sorts of races, with servers that have both pvp and pve options, and with housing and mega super humongous raid quests that take forever to complete starting at lvl 5.
The game must also enforce a rule that you have to socialize with every player that you come across, perhaps by forcing you to whisper and add everyone to your friends list so you can be mmo BFF's or you can't advance past your current level.
For me It is simple why MMo's Disappoint a lot of people including me.
They only make content for 1-3 weeks.
If I make it through most of the content in a week or 2 why should I continue to play or pay?
Older MMo's EQ, Early days of WoW, SWG, DAOC, and so on all had one thing in common. You needed months or more to get through the content and then there was end game too. That is not the case any more with these easy mode MMo's.
"and let them direct the herd cats that is us players."
bill, you so often have good things to say, but you really need an editor, or at least a proofreader.
my offer still stands
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
other than that i would add that you should address the locusts.
you cannot enjoy a virtual world if you're only object is to hit max level as quickly as possible. that's a gamer problem, not an industry problem.
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
other than that i would add that you should address the locusts.
you cannot enjoy a virtual world if you're only object is to hit max level as quickly as possible. that's a gamer problem, not an industry problem.
If there is nothing to do in your game but hit the leveling cap, thats a game problem, not an industry problem. You didn't see people leaving DAoC after they hit 50, did you?
Comments
Investor's want returns... the bigger the better. Money, money, money. They don't give a shit about the games.
Forget about the big publisher's, they will never go niche. We will see how Star Citizen turns out, that is my hope. Not the game itself but the way it is financed.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
It's ironic, because if they took a second to understand the market and go niche...they'd make a lot more money.
One point that people don't seem to look at to intently is the change in society. No, no I'm not saying all the young whipper-snappers are going to hell for listening to rap music and smoking weed. I'm saying 15 years ago not everyone had a computer. Those that did had one because they really wanted one. Now every house hold has 3 or 4. You can carry your computer in your pocket now. You can watch 2 girls 1 cup on the ride to school... if you want... All (most) the games are ADHD because (most) everyone playing is ADHD. Work? You mean I have to earn something? Just give it to me.. that other game gave it to me... So Devs have become ADHD themselves and created small risk, small effort, big reward games. But those big rewards don't feel big, and everyone has one already sooo big whoop. I remember when it was a big deal to go on some quests, you felt lucky to have a good group that worked well together. You also felt real accomplishment in the end. It also may have taken all night for one quest.
You can't have it all. Real gaming experiences take real time. Real rewards take real effort -- or at least they should.
There are no magic bullet points - no answer.
Interesting take on the current state of MMO gaming, for the millions of us now having invested years into the MMO genere of gaming.
That said, I have a couple of comments regarding the OPs article...
Longing for the Old Game we Left - This is a very familiar concept to me, and for many I'm sure. However, I think most people just don't long for a specific game, they long for a specific build of that game. In many cases, the reason people leave a game they have fond memories of is because the game changed significantly enough that it's no longer enjoyable, or resembles the game you originally formed fond feelings for.
So when I left Ultima Online, I left it because the constant need for publishers to update & "enhance" changed the experience in the game that greatly differed from when I had most fun playing it. So when I say I want another game like Ultima Online, I'm specifically talking about it in one of it's earlier states. No contradictions, and a lot less associated with rose colored glasses, there.
Unreasonable Expectations - Part of this problem comes from the "Big Tent" approach to MMO development, brought to you by Blizzard / WOW. Traditional MMOs served a smaller niche audience, that had a smaller set of common expectations & goals of what kind of experience they were looking for out of the game.
Blizzard was successful at "stream lining" the MMO experience, such that it is more palatable for the broader casual gaming audience, and most AAA class MMO releases since then have tried to go after the same lucrative playerbase demo.
The issue here is that publishers are dumping 10s - 100s of millions of dollars into these projects, making it financially impossible to appeal to a small audience. The game needs to do EVERYTHING for EVERYONE (or try) in order to appeal to the most people possible so that they can realize a profit & meet earnings expectations. Including this more diverse audience, who demand just about everything under the sun (see unreasonable expectations), sets up the publisher / developer for that old saying "When trying to appeal to all, you truely saftisfy no one"
Solutions
Many of the solutions proposed makes a lot of sense. I'd just add that publishers / developers can achieve much of those recommendations by focusing on smaller niche audiences.
This means reducing the features & complexity of the solution, which will mean lower costs associated with development & maintenance. Catering to a smaller audience also means you can focus on their specific needs, and give them more attention (which improves business / customer relations & helps customer retention)
In addition, putting more of the content creation in the hands of the players reduces the burdon & need to constantly develop & update. Reducing expansions will reduce the risk associated with introducing changes to the game that require significant revisions to balance mechanics & losing existing players for reasons stated above.
And on top of that, these cheaper endeavors require less financial risks if things don't work out....which is good for everyone.
Just my 2 pennies...
I did not see this response chain before I commented......which seems in-line with my thoughts around the benefits of focusing on niche audiences.
I'd just reitterate that the other piece of the puzzle is to also reduce costs for the game. If you end up spending 10s of millions of dollars on an audience of 300k or so subs, then the game might fail due to financial reasons...no so much relating the quality of the game's experience itself.
There also seems to be a bit of back & forth around sandbox gaming. Focusing on smaller niche audiences can be beneficial for "themepark" type of experiences as well....but just be aware that the very nature of a developer driven & controled gaming experience will require additional costs for more frequent content updates / expansions.
Even still, I think these AAA publishers would have been luck delivering 3 different MMOs, for 3 different audiences, than trying to deliver one catch-all game. Yes, you'll have more over-head to develop & maintain 3 different solutions, but what cost savings with going with one game matter if you end up having to put the game on life support & eventually close the game after a few years of operation?
How'd I get roped into this?
Wait, did you just put WoW and EQ1 in the same category? Vanilla WoW was a vanilla cake walk.
Tell me how that bigger better has been working out so far? Actually I don't think the sea change will be coming from within the mmo sphere big small or indie. My surmise is that it'll be SP games be design or by accident with the aid of the increasing footprint of social media and mods that start branching towards the untapped markets in the mmo sphere. Big devs/pubs are to blinded by "THE WAY" and small indies are too limited by cash flow. Successful SP's however have consistently proven the ability to identify, entice, and build systems around core complimentary play styles through discipline and having a plan.
As it pertains to the gaming Industry
If I want to make money I'll invest into something like GTA-VI or COD-XXVII
If I want to invest in rich, deep, and fulfilling game experience that strikes my fancy I'll slap a few bucks into something like Star Citizen or Camelot Unchained and hope for the best.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
what made good games good is really simple
the three c's of gaming enjoyment.
:consequences.
you died and lost xp, yes LOST xp, sure it was frustrating, and occasionally annoying when you were soooo close to levelling, but it meant death had meaning.
:challenge.
when ordinary quests needed at least one other person, working with you, I still talk to people I met 10 years ago in pug's today. I watch one of my friends (when I go visit) solo everything in a certain popular MMO, he doesn't need other people to play the game which makes the M's in MMO kind of pointless and redundant.
:choice.
It's all too linear, too scripted, too static, too pre-defined to fit the accountants view of xyz is successful only use that. There's no diversity, and little to no scope for individuality. Every player uses the same optimised perks, the same optimised skillsets, the same perfect optimised gear & equipment.
Actually I would say sites like this that overhype games play a big part in the problem.
Which is why I would recommend NOT getting your game out there until it is fairly well defined. Until it is mostly feature complete or at least the launch features have been firmed up and locked down and announced as such even if they haven't been fully implemented. You don't want people getting false hopes that you will be building in whatever feature they ask for, and also don't want people thinking you are taking the game in one direction and when you don't end up feeling like they were lied to.
Have a budget that is realistic and understand your market or niche. Be clear in your design, understand and clearly define what is important to the game and what kind of game you want to make. Don't oversell your game, be honest about the features, the direction, and the target market.
QFT
Now Playing: DARKFALL Unholy Wars "Return to Open World, Full Loot PvP, Conquest in a Sandbox MMO with player driven economy! Just like classic MMOs!"
I actually love Tera.Love the combat system.Thing is,you hit lvl 60 and then you must grind dungeons for better gear.So far, there's no talk of new content past lvl 60. I was off the game for almost 3 months,came back 2 weeks ago,and saw there was a patch of all new gear to obtain.While I am not big on parties,I must join them to try for a certain drop.Mostly they are adding more cosmetics,and skins. I don't know what it is,but maybe I've outgrown games online.
I logged on tonite and was so bored I logged off.
I started out years ago playing maple story.Fond memories of the people I met and played with.To this day I still talk to a few of them. That game changed to questing for levels and that killed it for me.I liked the grinding. It was a HUGE social game while grinding while doing large events.All 3 aspects appealed to me. Since then,I haven't found a game like that anywhere.
Tonite,I went through the game list here for maybe the 10th time. I looked at a few games and just went Sigh....
Nothing caught my interest at all.
Not even any worth paying a sub for.
Ideal game would be letting us build our house/apt,decorate it the way we want.Log in,leave our dwelling in our car,enter one of many doors that take you to an everchanging dungeon,quest... Allow us to bring back our loot,display it,wear it, sell it whatever,allow friends to come over and hang out, plan our pvp,let us choose from 3 different quests from npcs,etc....
What I'm completely sick of is the fantasy medievil,roman,ancient times in games.Why must it always be in the past? Chinese dynasty etc... You can still wield swords, magic,axes,what have you in a modern day setting.
THE LUST FOR WHAT ONCE WAS
Equally there is a tendency for every new MMO launched to be seen as better because it is new. Particularly when it comes to graphics. I think any discerning person can distinguish between reality and nostalgia. Simply saying that every time we think old MMOs were better in some way is down to nostalgia is blinkered thinking.
IMPOSSIBLE HOPES
A fair point, but if MMOs do not take on the best ideas of their genre how will they evolve for the better?
LACK OF ACCEPTANCE
We should always give credit where is due, but it is viewing the game as a whole that make us decided to be for or against it. I liked the combat in Terra for example, but the game was too "closed world" for me, so that made me decided against it.
THE CURE
I agree with the lsit of cures for our sick MMO paitents.
"If they're going to grow, it needs to embrace this simple fact and stop treating every game like some super-secret project that will wow us, without our input."
The input is the tricky part. Players often want things that destroy gamebalance or the economy of a game. But I do wish they would rely more on the fanbase online than focus groups.
"Let's try harder to make what we lovingly call "virtual worlds" actually feel like worlds."
I think most MMO developers gave up at even trying to do that years back. Tiny and with nothing outside of leveling seems to be the hallmark of most MMOs today.
Because they don't have cutting edge next gen graphics and mechanics with the ability to permanently alter the virtual world, with umpteen different but perfectly balanced classes and all sorts of races, with servers that have both pvp and pve options, and with housing and mega super humongous raid quests that take forever to complete starting at lvl 5.
The game must also enforce a rule that you have to socialize with every player that you come across, perhaps by forcing you to whisper and add everyone to your friends list so you can be mmo BFF's or you can't advance past your current level.
or it could be that several new games are just garbage
in fact, that's the main reason
For me It is simple why MMo's Disappoint a lot of people including me.
They only make content for 1-3 weeks.
If I make it through most of the content in a week or 2 why should I continue to play or pay?
Older MMo's EQ, Early days of WoW, SWG, DAOC, and so on all had one thing in common. You needed months or more to get through the content and then there was end game too. That is not the case any more with these easy mode MMo's.
"and let them direct the herd cats that is us players."
bill, you so often have good things to say, but you really need an editor, or at least a proofreader.
my offer still stands
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
other than that i would add that you should address the locusts.
you cannot enjoy a virtual world if you're only object is to hit max level as quickly as possible. that's a gamer problem, not an industry problem.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
If there is nothing to do in your game but hit the leveling cap, thats a game problem, not an industry problem. You didn't see people leaving DAoC after they hit 50, did you?
I think that falls under "Impossible Hopes".