That is the heart of this whole thread. Why are dungeons the way they are? Because more people prefer them the way they are, or more people prefer them to move away from what they were, even if they don't care for what they are. Why? It doesn't matter. It's just a preference. The "newer style" is the prefered style over the "older style". The market for the "older style" is smaller.
I understand what you're saying.. but... how many modern day players actually played in a game with open world progression dungeons like Upper Guk, or Sebilis? I know when I was in WoW, only 3 people in our guild of 20+ ever played MMO's before WoW.. which means they never played or experienced dungeons outside of Deadmines.. LOL..
Personally, I never understood why Blizzard didn't design ONE open world dungeons, even as an experiment with new players, just to see what they like or dislike.. The numbers are easy to see.. When the old generation used to be 500,000 strong (estimating) and WoW comes in with 5 million accounts in NA and Euro.. It doesn't take a genius to know that almost all of those new accounts are BRAND new to the genre..
I would be safe to bet, that most anti dungeon chatters, never played them, but only drank the kool aid and repeat "horror" stories of what others told them..
One of the things that people don't realize, if you don't have the time, then you don't have the time (as simplistic as it sounds), in which case the games that used to be perfect for you are no longer meant for you. If you've gotten a job, go to school, and just don't have much time, then be it.
Instead we have people that say, well I only have an hour, so the games should get dumbed down for me so that I can play for a short time and feel accomplished. Personally, I don't have the time to be in a hardcore raiding guild like I used to, so I don't play the games that require long periods of time. I have to play other games, and when I do have time, I may jump into something that requires more of my time.
I loved playing Everquest, I have many of my greatest memories there when it comes to gaming. Why? Well, the OP said, it was dangerous. Something else, the fact that everything is instanced, makes everything less exclusive. I remember in the early days way before hitting max level, I enjoyed logging into EQ where I was camped near the entrance of Karnor's Castle which really was not that huge of a dungeon but we farmed that place for weeks. Everyone always need something from there (Warlord, Captain, Scryer). Even with a higher level helping sometimes things would be difficult. You left the group and now it's time to run back to zone.... TRAIN TO ZONE!
I miss the huge dungeons, I never got to do much PnP but the feeling of the epic dungeons is a thing of the past it seems. I hope some of the newer games finally start to make things harder again. OP Great post!
Exactly dg.. I loved KC, and there were still parts of KC I never saw or explored, and it took me 3 tries to get my druid epic piece. I loved the danger and thrill of many zones.. I still remember the days I spent camping the Ancient Croc in Upper Guk.. I used to practice my fishing and swimming there between spawns And the first time going into Sol A to attempt to get my Foreman's Tunic was epic and nervous..
Your yourself are on the internet, talking about "older style" games. You are not sitting in your house, silent, disconnected from the internet, hiding your thoughts on "older style" games. Why do you assume that the rest of the people who share your point of view are behaving differently from you?
Because I'm a news fiend and a forum (or in the bad old days) an Usenet junkie. Before games I was into politics and social science debates.
Not everyone prefers talking about issues, let alone games. You couldn't get my sis to post on a game forum if a publisher paid her, yet she plays WoW more than I do.
That is the heart of this whole thread. Why are dungeons the way they are? Because more people prefer them the way they are, or more people prefer them to move away from what they were, even if they don't care for what they are. Why? It doesn't matter. It's just a preference. The "newer style" is the prefered style over the "older style". The market for the "older style" is smaller.
You are correct only, if you assume several things such as:
1. Party forming mechanisms are those of today's games.
2. The mechanisms of dungeon progression are those of today's games.
In other words, your statement makes me assume you haven't raided much lately (neither have I btw) and haven't seen the typical cries of too easy and nothing for serious pve-players etc etc. They are there and there is definitely a market. Many gamers are looking for difficulty and I believe that is the reason games like rust are working. At least for a time.
The same old excuse that there is no market for anything that worked and was good in the old games is itself getting really old. Niche this niche that. Nothing personal, but I'd kinda like to see something else. Unless there is solid data, these days I don't buy the statement, almost ever.
I understand what you're saying.. but... how many modern day players actually played in a game with open world progression dungeons like Upper Guk, or Sebilis? I know when I was in WoW, only 3 people in our guild of 20+ ever played MMO's before WoW.. which means they never played or experienced dungeons outside of Deadmines.. LOL..
That might have been true for your circle of friends in WoW but for me the experience was opposite. My WoW guild was started and populated by veterans of earlier games and we actually transitioned together through a number of the 2002-2004 MMORPGs until we settled in WoW. They generally saw Instanced dungeons as a positive improvement over camping dungeons in older games. So YMMV.
Edit: Also what are these games that have tried and failed? Seems pretty telling your bring up games 10-15 years old. One of which has actually lost subs the more casual it has gotten in WoW. Though its debatable if its just age.
Not games failing .. ideas.
Camping is gone. No it's not.. Camping lives in every game, in one form or another.. I used to camp in WoW, Rift and SWTOR all the time.. The biggest reason why people don't camp anymore isn't because of camping, it's because questing gives MORE exp and loot.. Remove ALL the rewards from doing quest and dailies and SEE how many people run around the map blindly.. Staring at a spellbook is gone. No debate there, that was an "IFFY" mechanic, similar to languages (which I liked, but it was done wrong) FFA pvp is gone. NO IT'S NOT.. go play on a PvP server in most games.. Newer games have LFD, smaller dungeons and other time-saving features. And many of use HATE instancing, because it's too similar to playing a linear single player theme park..
All these are pointing to what is popular.
Yep, some of it is popular (So is McDonalds) and sometimes there just isn't any alternatives.. And from where I sit and eat.. McDonald's isn't in my TOP 5 list of favorite fast food chains, but it's the biggest in the world.. Does that make me WRONG? hmmmm
Camping .... well at least it is optional now .. no one needs to camp if they don't want to .. and i don't see why anyone would .. but i guess it is your preference.
So what if you hate instances ... it is clearly liked by many. In fact, i prefer to play in instances so i don't have to deal with others.
Well .. you don't like it because of your preference. I would say the old traditional MMOs are like run-down mom-and-pop burger joints .. and newer instanced based ones are like popular steak house chains.
And there is no right or wrong . just preferences. If your preference is not being catered to .. well tough .. it is a free market. May be you should become a whale and spend more money.
The people who are interested in "older style" games are on the internet, and they are talking about it. With some effort, a marketing agency or a game publisher could find out how large that market is. If they did, they would find out two things. One, it's small. So small that it's currently almost invisible. Two, it's divided into even smaller markets based on the game styles. The "older style" games market cannot agree on what constitutes the proper "older style" game.
How do you know? Have you actually done this kind of research? If so I'm sure you won't mind sharing your data and methodology with the rest of us.:)
The people who are interested in "older style" games are on the internet, and they are talking about it. With some effort, a marketing agency or a game publisher could find out how large that market is. If they did, they would find out two things. One, it's small. So small that it's currently almost invisible. Two, it's divided into even smaller markets based on the game styles. The "older style" games market cannot agree on what constitutes the proper "older style" game.
How do you know? Have you actually done this kind of research? If so I'm sure you won't mind sharing your data and methodology with the rest of us.:)
He may not have definitive evidence of that the "older style" MMO is small, but on the other hand, there is no evidence that it is big. In fact, the progression of the market is indirect evidence that it is not big .. otherwise Blizz would be responding to that preference.
But the point is that the burden of proof is on those who claim that it is big. Why? If you want to convince any devs to put in serious money for dev, there need to be some solid information about the potential audience. Few is going to invest when all you have is "there is no evidence that it is small, or there is a chance that it is big".
The people who are interested in "older style" games are on the internet, and they are talking about it. With some effort, a marketing agency or a game publisher could find out how large that market is. If they did, they would find out two things. One, it's small. So small that it's currently almost invisible. Two, it's divided into even smaller markets based on the game styles. The "older style" games market cannot agree on what constitutes the proper "older style" game.
How do you know? Have you actually done this kind of research? If so I'm sure you won't mind sharing your data and methodology with the rest of us.:)
He may not have definitive evidence of that the "older style" MMO is small, but on the other hand, there is no evidence that it is big. In fact, the progression of the market is indirect evidence that it is not big .. otherwise Blizz would be responding to that preference.
But the point is that the burden of proof is on those who claim that it is big. Why? If you want to convince any devs to put in serious money for dev, there need to be some solid information about the potential audience. Few is going to invest when all you have is "there is no evidence that it is small, or there is a chance that it is big".
It's probably not big. However I'd point out that players do not know what they want. They have certain preferences - but they are imagined. They have things they THINK they want.
For example many player THOUGHT they wanted a game without a Holy Trinity. It turns out they want the trinity. Many players think they want Horizontal progression - they want vertical progression. Players think they want a lot of nice movies - they might prefer nicer less restrictive zones etc.
Market research is very limited. What made World of Warcraft so successful is that the developer had a vision of the game he wanted to play. There was no evidence of vast MMO crowd. Its just the developer though - hey if I made EQ less shitty and more fun I bet a lot of people would like it. And he was right..
WoW was a market MAKER. Did people cry out for a game where you shoot pigs with birds? I doubt that was trending on "twitter' before the game was designed.
You can't focus group your way to the perfect design - because players are not perfect designers. The problem with old school dungeons though - is that they were not actually very fun. I have played both and they were LESS fun then good instanced dungeons.
Your guiding concept of game design has to be to figure out what is fun for players - what experience gets them happy and then make sure you game has a lot of those experiences in it. This is a better approach then focus grouping your ideas about what is hot..
I understand what you're saying.. but... how many modern day players actually played in a game with open world progression dungeons like Upper Guk, or Sebilis? I know when I was in WoW, only 3 people in our guild of 20+ ever played MMO's before WoW.. which means they never played or experienced dungeons outside of Deadmines.. LOL..
That might have been true for your circle of friends in WoW but for me the experience was opposite. My WoW guild was started and populated by veterans of earlier games and we actually transitioned together through a number of the 2002-2004 MMORPGs until we settled in WoW. They generally saw Instanced dungeons as a positive improvement over camping dungeons in older games. So YMMV.
However, given the FACTthat maybe a few hundred thousand ever played the "older" games, and the modern generation has millions, the numbers support my assumption Right?
Edit: Also what are these games that have tried and failed? Seems pretty telling your bring up games 10-15 years old. One of which has actually lost subs the more casual it has gotten in WoW. Though its debatable if its just age.
Not games failing .. ideas.
Camping is gone. No it's not.. Camping lives in every game, in one form or another.. I used to camp in WoW, Rift and SWTOR all the time.. The biggest reason why people don't camp anymore isn't because of camping, it's because questing gives MORE exp and loot.. Remove ALL the rewards from doing quest and dailies and SEE how many people run around the map blindly.. Staring at a spellbook is gone. No debate there, that was an "IFFY" mechanic, similar to languages (which I liked, but it was done wrong) FFA pvp is gone. NO IT'S NOT.. go play on a PvP server in most games.. Newer games have LFD, smaller dungeons and other time-saving features. And many of use HATE instancing, because it's too similar to playing a linear single player theme park..
All these are pointing to what is popular.
Yep, some of it is popular (So is McDonalds) and sometimes there just isn't any alternatives.. And from where I sit and eat.. McDonald's isn't in my TOP 5 list of favorite fast food chains, but it's the biggest in the world.. Does that make me WRONG? hmmmm
Camping .... well at least it is optional now .. no one needs to camp if they don't want to .. and i don't see why anyone would .. but i guess it is your preference. Camping was optional in EQ too.. NO ONE FORCED you to camp, even if you were going after an epic piece, you still weren't forced to do it..
So what if you hate instances ... it is clearly liked by many. In fact, i prefer to play in instances so i don't have to deal with others. and why are you arguing against them? people like you demand that everyone has to be done your way and there is no compromise.. I like burgers, you like hot dogs.. so PUT both on the menu.. but your positions is NO to burgers and ONLY allow hot dogs.. Right?
Well .. you don't like it because of your preference. I would say the old traditional MMOs are like run-down mom-and-pop burger joints .. and newer instanced based ones are like popular steak house chains. and that is YOUR opinion.. I think your positions is more like fast food consumption chains, where I enjoy a lengthy sit down meal.. Remember you like everything FREE.. right?
And there is no right or wrong . just preferences. If your preference is not being catered to .. well tough .. it is a free market. May be you should become a whale and spend more money.
Same can be said about your position of FREE 2 Play games.. but yet you are on the forums ranting your position and preferences.. So only you are allow to voice a preference and others can not? I'm sure if every game in the market went subscription based you would go ballistic.. Double Standards?
BTW.. how do you explain companies across the world changing their business plans? OH from customers VOICING what they like and don't like.. Which is what I'm doing.. Have a great day!!
The people who are interested in "older style" games are on the internet, and they are talking about it. With some effort, a marketing agency or a game publisher could find out how large that market is. If they did, they would find out two things. One, it's small. So small that it's currently almost invisible. Two, it's divided into even smaller markets based on the game styles. The "older style" games market cannot agree on what constitutes the proper "older style" game.
How do you know? Have you actually done this kind of research? If so I'm sure you won't mind sharing your data and methodology with the rest of us.:)
Just look for WordPress, Blogger or Tumblr blogs associated with "Old School MMORPGs". Look for Twitter posts or Facebook groups. You can find these things for people who played old school Nintendo games (and still play them), or things like Fountain Pens. Not so much the old school MMORPGs. The number of people interested in those games is so small, the MMORPG.com forums are just about the only place they are discussed with any regularity. Even there, the discussion mostly happens in the General Forum. Look in the UO forum to see how long it's been since there was a new post there. EQ does a bit better, with posts today, though the other posts happened 9 days ago. There are 3,000 users logged into this site, and the games that are held up as the "Old School" examples get posts every 10 to 20 days.
Here's an experiment to try. Start a thread for an Old School game design. See how many posts the thread gets to before there's an argument about which game mechanics are necessary for an "Old School" game. See how long it takes before there's an argument about whether "Old School" means sandbox or not. When the dungeon discussion happens, as is happening right now, even people who are into "Old School" games will not be able to agree on whether or not the dungeons should be instanced or not. You will not find a concensus among 10 people on these forums, much less the thousands of people that would be needed for an MMORPG to stay afloat.
The idea that there is a single, large, untapped market for "Old School" internet based games where the people who make up that market are nearly silent on the internet is ridiculous. If there were a large number of people interested in old school MMORPGs, those people would be making some noise and leaving some sort of trail to follow. I mean really, what else are they going to do? It's not like they're going to go play UO or EQ. They're going to get on the internet and complain about the fact that there are no games that meet their needs, just like the small number of people on this website do. It's not happening. That developers or publishers would have to mount a major effort to even find these players is the indicator that the market is too small for them to bother with.
This is the reason that dungeons have become what they are. More people want the simpler setup and they agree with what that setup should be, or they at least don't care about the details. If a simpler dungeon ends up being a dud, it's easier to replace than the more complex dungeons. Fewer people want the more complex setup and the people who want the more complex setup can't agree on what the more complex setup should be and aren't as willing to go along with what gets built. If a more complex dungeon ends up being a dud, it is harder to replace because it was harder to create in the first place.
That's not to say elements of older style games won't show up. I think it is less likely than with other aspects of MMORPGs. Maybe they'll be non-linear or not on a script, but I do not think we'll see a return to dungeons that take more than a single game session to complete or fail. Those game sessions aren't going to be the four or more hour sessions either.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That is the heart of this whole thread. Why are dungeons the way they are? Because more people prefer them the way they are, or more people prefer them to move away from what they were, even if they don't care for what they are. Why? It doesn't matter. It's just a preference. The "newer style" is the prefered style over the "older style". The market for the "older style" is smaller.
You are correct only, if you assume several things such as:
1. Party forming mechanisms are those of today's games.
2. The mechanisms of dungeon progression are those of today's games.
In other words, your statement makes me assume you haven't raided much lately (neither have I btw) and haven't seen the typical cries of too easy and nothing for serious pve-players etc etc. They are there and there is definitely a market. Many gamers are looking for difficulty and I believe that is the reason games like rust are working. At least for a time.
The same old excuse that there is no market for anything that worked and was good in the old games is itself getting really old. Niche this niche that. Nothing personal, but I'd kinda like to see something else. Unless there is solid data, these days I don't buy the statement, almost ever.
I have actually spent a good bit of time raiding. I found the whole thing pretty boring, pretty quickly. Raiding in general that is. I found PvP to be much more interesting. One thing of note is that there have always been people who said raiding was too easy, from the time I started to years later when I last stepped out of a raid. That is not a recent thing.
But, to sum up what I'm saying. That developers or publishers would have to mount a major effort to find this large, silent group of players that would prefer older style games (or dungeons) is an indicator that the group is not as large as some people here seem to think. Those people who's hobby is a game based largely around social interaction are either a very small group, they are silent on the internet or they only do non-social things on the internet. What is the most likely option?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It's probably not big. However I'd point out that players do not know what they want. They have certain preferences - but they are imagined. They have things they THINK they want.
For example many player THOUGHT they wanted a game without a Holy Trinity. It turns out they want the trinity. Many players think they want Horizontal progression - they want vertical progression. Players think they want a lot of nice movies - they might prefer nicer less restrictive zones etc.
Market research is very limited. What made World of Warcraft so successful is that the developer had a vision of the game he wanted to play. There was no evidence of vast MMO crowd. Its just the developer though - hey if I made EQ less shitty and more fun I bet a lot of people would like it. And he was right..
WoW was a market MAKER. Did people cry out for a game where you shoot pigs with birds? I doubt that was trending on "twitter' before the game was designed.
You can't focus group your way to the perfect design - because players are not perfect designers. The problem with old school dungeons though - is that they were not actually very fun. I have played both and they were LESS fun then good instanced dungeons.
Your guiding concept of game design has to be to figure out what is fun for players - what experience gets them happy and then make sure you game has a lot of those experiences in it. This is a better approach then focus grouping your ideas about what is hot..
Still ... given warcraft name & blizz polish, and the relatively lower cost of WOW at the time, they were projecting to be profitable with even 500k players .. and they know there is a market for that by looking at EQ.
Again, not every investor need to or should invest in total unknown. In fact, most will demand some evidence of a market before putting in serious money. Can you blame them? Are you going to risk your house on totally unproven market?
And there is no right or wrong . just preferences. If your preference is not being catered to .. well tough .. it is a free market. May be you should become a whale and spend more money.
Same can be said about your position of FREE 2 Play games.. but yet you are on the forums ranting your position and preferences.. So only you are allow to voice a preference and others can not? I'm sure if every game in the market went subscription based you would go ballistic.. Double Standards?
So you agree there is no right or wrong, just preferences? I did not say you are not allowed to voice your preference, did i?
But it is fair to put in the context that it is your preference, and it does not apply to everyone, and that it may be in the minority. Do you dispute with any of this?
Actually if everyone game go sub .. i will simply do something else. There are plenty of other entertainment .. MMORPGs are not unique .. and they are not even that good. I did leave after fed up with EQ, and did not come back to MMORPGs for years. May be you should try that.
It's probably not big. However I'd point out that players do not know what they want. They have certain preferences - but they are imagined. They have things they THINK they want.
For example many player THOUGHT they wanted a game without a Holy Trinity. It turns out they want the trinity. Many players think they want Horizontal progression - they want vertical progression. Players think they want a lot of nice movies - they might prefer nicer less restrictive zones etc.
Market research is very limited. What made World of Warcraft so successful is that the developer had a vision of the game he wanted to play. There was no evidence of vast MMO crowd. Its just the developer though - hey if I made EQ less shitty and more fun I bet a lot of people would like it. And he was right..
WoW was a market MAKER. Did people cry out for a game where you shoot pigs with birds? I doubt that was trending on "twitter' before the game was designed.
You can't focus group your way to the perfect design - because players are not perfect designers. The problem with old school dungeons though - is that they were not actually very fun. I have played both and they were LESS fun then good instanced dungeons.
Your guiding concept of game design has to be to figure out what is fun for players - what experience gets them happy and then make sure you game has a lot of those experiences in it. This is a better approach then focus grouping your ideas about what is hot..
Still ... given warcraft name & blizz polish, and the relatively lower cost of WOW at the time, they were projecting to be profitable with even 500k players .. and they know there is a market for that by looking at EQ.
No doubt. My point is that you can't design your games simply by using a checkbox list of things people THINK that they like. Obviously if they don't like MMOs at all - you might not invest. But if say a developer wants to do something different - it could be worth a shot. In this case though - we happen to know those old style 'dungeons' weren't well liked or popular. They were simply an EQ timesink designed to slow down the players in the EQ themepark. It was all about exploiting the addiction.
Again, not every investor need to or should invest in total unknown. In fact, most will demand some evidence of a market before putting in serious money. Can you blame them? Are you going to risk your house on totally unproven market?
They shouldn't'. But by the same token we don't want our games designed via focus groups. It doesn't really matter that people don't THINK they will like X,Y,Z if they have really tried it out yet. OTOH it might be prudent to avoid known failed design choices - unless you think there is a large enough untapped niche audience that really really wants said feature.
For example not everyone wants a V8 sports car - but there are plenty of people that want it so much they will pay 50k. So its worth building. Some of the people here don't really want to play any MMO - they just like complaining about them - holding out for the mythical awesome sandbox game that has never existed.
They shouldn't'. But by the same token we don't want our games designed via focus groups. It doesn't really matter that people don't THINK they will like X,Y,Z if they have really tried it out yet. OTOH it might be prudent to avoid known failed design choices - unless you think there is a large enough untapped niche audience that really really wants said feature.
No one says you have to design by focus group ... but it is prudent not to use failed old ideas unless there is contradicting evidence that there is an untap market.
In fact, i doubt anyone can convince serious investment into already failed and tried ideas without some good evidence to back up the claim that there is an untapped market. Would *you* risks your mortgage on something like this? I wouldn't.
People who like specific games have user groups they join on the internet, and they talk about those games. You can gauge interest in particular games using Google as well.
No you can't. Because most just play the games, they don't bother signing up to donate blood to it.
It's like saying a game is popular or great by the forum traffic (or hype spam). -_-
You can. It's the only reason Twitter has any market value. It's one of the reasons Google is the dominant player in online advertising. It's not enough to have channels to advertise, they know who to advertise to, and what advertising will work. Why do you think Google+ even exists? It is to gather that information.
Your yourself are on the internet, talking about "older style" games. You are not sitting in your house, silent, disconnected from the internet, hiding your thoughts on "older style" games. Why do you assume that the rest of the people who share your point of view are behaving differently from you?
The people who are interested in "older style" games are on the internet, and they are talking about it. With some effort, a marketing agency or a game publisher could find out how large that market is. If they did, they would find out two things. One, it's small. So small that it's currently almost invisible. Two, it's divided into even smaller markets based on the game styles. The "older style" games market cannot agree on what constitutes the proper "older style" game.
That is the heart of this whole thread. Why are dungeons the way they are? Because more people prefer them the way they are, or more people prefer them to move away from what they were, even if they don't care for what they are. Why? It doesn't matter. It's just a preference. The "newer style" is the prefered style over the "older style". The market for the "older style" is smaller.
You don't really get the economics behind it. The other type of MMORPGs didn't become unviable they just weren't comparable. Thus the market tried to capture that vast lucrative audience. Not because they couldn't get people to play "old style games" but because it was peanuts compared to WoW.
The main economic difference with MMORPG's is that the technological skill and production cost barriers prevent smaller MMORPG's from making high quality sleeper hits. This makes it very hard to show other types of games can be viable to a new majority.
Even if I could show EQ/UO/AC/DAoC reboot could net 250-500k subs... it still peanuts to 12 million subscription potential a themepark quest hub has shown. Even if you could get a quarter of what WoW gets your 16x more than the average 250k MMORPG. That is why the market is the way it is. There is no other logical answer to how AAA developers only make one type of MMORPG for more than a decade. That also just happens to be the type of MMORPG that was nearly 25x bigger then the next closest one.
I would suggest that we dig a little deeper. I saw some posts in this thread claiming that people wanted easy and simple content. While World of Warcraft grew at its fastest pace during its most challenging and in depth content releases. While the speed of climb actually decreased at the end of Wrath and during Cata when it began to shrink. I think this point is detrimentally overlooked by developers consistently. Games used to be about overcoming challenges with your friends, not pushing buttons randomly to get shinies. (Like most App based "F2P" phone and tablet games.
People rise to a challenge historically. They need a challenge, and the lack of challenge is the #1 cause of failure for recent MMOs. Not voice-overs, not prettier graphics. Those aren't driving people away. Its a lack of challenging and engaging content. Gamers are maturing as an average population, so why aren't the complexities of games being released also becoming more sophisticated. I'm a 30 something gamer with a kid too. If a game is fun and challenging, I will find time to play it.
There are many challenging hobbies adults maintain despite long requirements of time: Golf etc.
Let's see someone make a game and make challenge the focus again.
golf takes a long time to play if you play the greens which is why you don't play it everyday. a quick 1hr on the driving range? that us doable. which is why more people are on the range and not the field. strangely familiar to this topic, no?
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Comments
I understand what you're saying.. but... how many modern day players actually played in a game with open world progression dungeons like Upper Guk, or Sebilis? I know when I was in WoW, only 3 people in our guild of 20+ ever played MMO's before WoW.. which means they never played or experienced dungeons outside of Deadmines.. LOL..
Personally, I never understood why Blizzard didn't design ONE open world dungeons, even as an experiment with new players, just to see what they like or dislike.. The numbers are easy to see.. When the old generation used to be 500,000 strong (estimating) and WoW comes in with 5 million accounts in NA and Euro.. It doesn't take a genius to know that almost all of those new accounts are BRAND new to the genre..
I would be safe to bet, that most anti dungeon chatters, never played them, but only drank the kool aid and repeat "horror" stories of what others told them..
I agree with the OP completely.
One of the things that people don't realize, if you don't have the time, then you don't have the time (as simplistic as it sounds), in which case the games that used to be perfect for you are no longer meant for you. If you've gotten a job, go to school, and just don't have much time, then be it.
Instead we have people that say, well I only have an hour, so the games should get dumbed down for me so that I can play for a short time and feel accomplished. Personally, I don't have the time to be in a hardcore raiding guild like I used to, so I don't play the games that require long periods of time. I have to play other games, and when I do have time, I may jump into something that requires more of my time.
I loved playing Everquest, I have many of my greatest memories there when it comes to gaming. Why? Well, the OP said, it was dangerous. Something else, the fact that everything is instanced, makes everything less exclusive. I remember in the early days way before hitting max level, I enjoyed logging into EQ where I was camped near the entrance of Karnor's Castle which really was not that huge of a dungeon but we farmed that place for weeks. Everyone always need something from there (Warlord, Captain, Scryer). Even with a higher level helping sometimes things would be difficult. You left the group and now it's time to run back to zone.... TRAIN TO ZONE!
I miss the huge dungeons, I never got to do much PnP but the feeling of the epic dungeons is a thing of the past it seems. I hope some of the newer games finally start to make things harder again. OP Great post!
Because I'm a news fiend and a forum (or in the bad old days) an Usenet junkie. Before games I was into politics and social science debates.
Not everyone prefers talking about issues, let alone games. You couldn't get my sis to post on a game forum if a publisher paid her, yet she plays WoW more than I do.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
You are correct only, if you assume several things such as:
1. Party forming mechanisms are those of today's games.
2. The mechanisms of dungeon progression are those of today's games.
In other words, your statement makes me assume you haven't raided much lately (neither have I btw) and haven't seen the typical cries of too easy and nothing for serious pve-players etc etc. They are there and there is definitely a market. Many gamers are looking for difficulty and I believe that is the reason games like rust are working. At least for a time.
The same old excuse that there is no market for anything that worked and was good in the old games is itself getting really old. Niche this niche that. Nothing personal, but I'd kinda like to see something else. Unless there is solid data, these days I don't buy the statement, almost ever.
Camping .... well at least it is optional now .. no one needs to camp if they don't want to .. and i don't see why anyone would .. but i guess it is your preference.
So what if you hate instances ... it is clearly liked by many. In fact, i prefer to play in instances so i don't have to deal with others.
Well .. you don't like it because of your preference. I would say the old traditional MMOs are like run-down mom-and-pop burger joints .. and newer instanced based ones are like popular steak house chains.
And there is no right or wrong . just preferences. If your preference is not being catered to .. well tough .. it is a free market. May be you should become a whale and spend more money.
How do you know? Have you actually done this kind of research? If so I'm sure you won't mind sharing your data and methodology with the rest of us.:)
He may not have definitive evidence of that the "older style" MMO is small, but on the other hand, there is no evidence that it is big. In fact, the progression of the market is indirect evidence that it is not big .. otherwise Blizz would be responding to that preference.
But the point is that the burden of proof is on those who claim that it is big. Why? If you want to convince any devs to put in serious money for dev, there need to be some solid information about the potential audience. Few is going to invest when all you have is "there is no evidence that it is small, or there is a chance that it is big".
It's probably not big. However I'd point out that players do not know what they want. They have certain preferences - but they are imagined. They have things they THINK they want.
For example many player THOUGHT they wanted a game without a Holy Trinity. It turns out they want the trinity. Many players think they want Horizontal progression - they want vertical progression. Players think they want a lot of nice movies - they might prefer nicer less restrictive zones etc.
Market research is very limited. What made World of Warcraft so successful is that the developer had a vision of the game he wanted to play. There was no evidence of vast MMO crowd. Its just the developer though - hey if I made EQ less shitty and more fun I bet a lot of people would like it. And he was right..
WoW was a market MAKER. Did people cry out for a game where you shoot pigs with birds? I doubt that was trending on "twitter' before the game was designed.
You can't focus group your way to the perfect design - because players are not perfect designers. The problem with old school dungeons though - is that they were not actually very fun. I have played both and they were LESS fun then good instanced dungeons.
Your guiding concept of game design has to be to figure out what is fun for players - what experience gets them happy and then make sure you game has a lot of those experiences in it. This is a better approach then focus grouping your ideas about what is hot..
However, given the FACTthat maybe a few hundred thousand ever played the "older" games, and the modern generation has millions, the numbers support my assumption
Right?
Same can be said about your position of FREE 2 Play games.. but yet you are on the forums ranting your position and preferences.. So only you are allow to voice a preference and others can not? I'm sure if every game in the market went subscription based you would go ballistic.. Double Standards?
BTW.. how do you explain companies across the world changing their business plans? OH from customers VOICING what they like and don't like.. Which is what I'm doing.. Have a great day!!
Just look for WordPress, Blogger or Tumblr blogs associated with "Old School MMORPGs". Look for Twitter posts or Facebook groups. You can find these things for people who played old school Nintendo games (and still play them), or things like Fountain Pens. Not so much the old school MMORPGs. The number of people interested in those games is so small, the MMORPG.com forums are just about the only place they are discussed with any regularity. Even there, the discussion mostly happens in the General Forum. Look in the UO forum to see how long it's been since there was a new post there. EQ does a bit better, with posts today, though the other posts happened 9 days ago. There are 3,000 users logged into this site, and the games that are held up as the "Old School" examples get posts every 10 to 20 days.
Here's an experiment to try. Start a thread for an Old School game design. See how many posts the thread gets to before there's an argument about which game mechanics are necessary for an "Old School" game. See how long it takes before there's an argument about whether "Old School" means sandbox or not. When the dungeon discussion happens, as is happening right now, even people who are into "Old School" games will not be able to agree on whether or not the dungeons should be instanced or not. You will not find a concensus among 10 people on these forums, much less the thousands of people that would be needed for an MMORPG to stay afloat.
The idea that there is a single, large, untapped market for "Old School" internet based games where the people who make up that market are nearly silent on the internet is ridiculous. If there were a large number of people interested in old school MMORPGs, those people would be making some noise and leaving some sort of trail to follow. I mean really, what else are they going to do? It's not like they're going to go play UO or EQ. They're going to get on the internet and complain about the fact that there are no games that meet their needs, just like the small number of people on this website do. It's not happening. That developers or publishers would have to mount a major effort to even find these players is the indicator that the market is too small for them to bother with.
This is the reason that dungeons have become what they are. More people want the simpler setup and they agree with what that setup should be, or they at least don't care about the details. If a simpler dungeon ends up being a dud, it's easier to replace than the more complex dungeons. Fewer people want the more complex setup and the people who want the more complex setup can't agree on what the more complex setup should be and aren't as willing to go along with what gets built. If a more complex dungeon ends up being a dud, it is harder to replace because it was harder to create in the first place.
That's not to say elements of older style games won't show up. I think it is less likely than with other aspects of MMORPGs. Maybe they'll be non-linear or not on a script, but I do not think we'll see a return to dungeons that take more than a single game session to complete or fail. Those game sessions aren't going to be the four or more hour sessions either.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I have actually spent a good bit of time raiding. I found the whole thing pretty boring, pretty quickly. Raiding in general that is. I found PvP to be much more interesting. One thing of note is that there have always been people who said raiding was too easy, from the time I started to years later when I last stepped out of a raid. That is not a recent thing.
But, to sum up what I'm saying. That developers or publishers would have to mount a major effort to find this large, silent group of players that would prefer older style games (or dungeons) is an indicator that the group is not as large as some people here seem to think. Those people who's hobby is a game based largely around social interaction are either a very small group, they are silent on the internet or they only do non-social things on the internet. What is the most likely option?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Still ... given warcraft name & blizz polish, and the relatively lower cost of WOW at the time, they were projecting to be profitable with even 500k players .. and they know there is a market for that by looking at EQ.
Again, not every investor need to or should invest in total unknown. In fact, most will demand some evidence of a market before putting in serious money. Can you blame them? Are you going to risk your house on totally unproven market?
So you agree there is no right or wrong, just preferences? I did not say you are not allowed to voice your preference, did i?
But it is fair to put in the context that it is your preference, and it does not apply to everyone, and that it may be in the minority. Do you dispute with any of this?
Actually if everyone game go sub .. i will simply do something else. There are plenty of other entertainment .. MMORPGs are not unique .. and they are not even that good. I did leave after fed up with EQ, and did not come back to MMORPGs for years. May be you should try that.
No doubt. My point is that you can't design your games simply by using a checkbox list of things people THINK that they like. Obviously if they don't like MMOs at all - you might not invest. But if say a developer wants to do something different - it could be worth a shot. In this case though - we happen to know those old style 'dungeons' weren't well liked or popular. They were simply an EQ timesink designed to slow down the players in the EQ themepark. It was all about exploiting the addiction.
They shouldn't'. But by the same token we don't want our games designed via focus groups. It doesn't really matter that people don't THINK they will like X,Y,Z if they have really tried it out yet. OTOH it might be prudent to avoid known failed design choices - unless you think there is a large enough untapped niche audience that really really wants said feature.
For example not everyone wants a V8 sports car - but there are plenty of people that want it so much they will pay 50k. So its worth building. Some of the people here don't really want to play any MMO - they just like complaining about them - holding out for the mythical awesome sandbox game that has never existed.
No one says you have to design by focus group ... but it is prudent not to use failed old ideas unless there is contradicting evidence that there is an untap market.
In fact, i doubt anyone can convince serious investment into already failed and tried ideas without some good evidence to back up the claim that there is an untapped market. Would *you* risks your mortgage on something like this? I wouldn't.
You don't really get the economics behind it. The other type of MMORPGs didn't become unviable they just weren't comparable. Thus the market tried to capture that vast lucrative audience. Not because they couldn't get people to play "old style games" but because it was peanuts compared to WoW.
The main economic difference with MMORPG's is that the technological skill and production cost barriers prevent smaller MMORPG's from making high quality sleeper hits. This makes it very hard to show other types of games can be viable to a new majority.
Even if I could show EQ/UO/AC/DAoC reboot could net 250-500k subs... it still peanuts to 12 million subscription potential a themepark quest hub has shown. Even if you could get a quarter of what WoW gets your 16x more than the average 250k MMORPG. That is why the market is the way it is. There is no other logical answer to how AAA developers only make one type of MMORPG for more than a decade. That also just happens to be the type of MMORPG that was nearly 25x bigger then the next closest one.
People overwhelmingly chose eq over you and left how for it. People overwhelmingly chose wow over wow and left eq for it.
People's nature hasn't really changed in a very longtime. Why do you think that people today would react differently than people yesterday?
I love the theme of this post.
I would suggest that we dig a little deeper. I saw some posts in this thread claiming that people wanted easy and simple content. While World of Warcraft grew at its fastest pace during its most challenging and in depth content releases. While the speed of climb actually decreased at the end of Wrath and during Cata when it began to shrink. I think this point is detrimentally overlooked by developers consistently. Games used to be about overcoming challenges with your friends, not pushing buttons randomly to get shinies. (Like most App based "F2P" phone and tablet games.
People rise to a challenge historically. They need a challenge, and the lack of challenge is the #1 cause of failure for recent MMOs. Not voice-overs, not prettier graphics. Those aren't driving people away. Its a lack of challenging and engaging content. Gamers are maturing as an average population, so why aren't the complexities of games being released also becoming more sophisticated. I'm a 30 something gamer with a kid too. If a game is fun and challenging, I will find time to play it.
There are many challenging hobbies adults maintain despite long requirements of time: Golf etc.
Let's see someone make a game and make challenge the focus again.
Give players MORE CHOICES, not fewer!
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
a quick 1hr on the driving range? that us doable. which is why more people are on the range and not the field. strangely familiar to this topic, no?
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.