H0urg1ass said: Sure, but then you run into another problem as a developer and a publisher; paying players. If I'm a publisher, then the only thing that I really care about is how many dollars are rolling in.
Yeah, this is another problem with devs; only caring about the money.
Agreed.
I could be wrong, but I think there was a time, a long period of time, where people made something of quality both for the ability to sell it and as a point of pride in one's work. This includes games. Games used to be, how shall I say this without getting the "new isn't worse than old" crowd going crazy and ignoring existence, 'better put together'. Yes, things were made to be sold. Yes, things were better made. Yes, both can and did exist at the same time.
People used to make things better. Real materials, real consideration, real effort. Things are just, cheaper now, in quality and not so much in price. The price has stayed basically the same, in my opinion.
I think people made things better because they were trying to sell it, because they were spending a considerable portion of their time in their limited life working on it.
Now, and I could be wrong, it seems people are making things cheaper in quality and trying to get as many people to buy it as possible. Things used to sell themselves, somewhat, based solely off of quality and availability. Now, things are being pushed into our view and it is clear there is less effort, less consideration, less quality put into these products. Yet, they are still asking for the price of what used to be considerably better built.
You realize that is complexly inaccurate. For a long time the cost and time to make an item was similar for most items regardless of quality (realistically speaking).
With the advent of modern technology the cost and time has shifted disproportionately when making goods of higher quality and lower quality. That is to say there is a real economic value to making products of less quality because they are so much cheaper to make. This was not always the case.
Additionally, people make very few things now. Most things are made by machines. Pride in creation has very little to do with most goods because most physical things are made by machines.
Now if we are just talking about video games or more specifically MMOs, I don't think they have changed outside of market forces.
MMOs are different now, but it is not some quality pride issue that you speak of. It is solely based on the market; or peoples interpretation of the market. Not everyone will like where the trends go and some people will feel left out. I know I am not as happy with the games as I once was. I also understand that I have changed as a gamer and the genera has changed. The problem is we did not change in the same way.
That has nothing to do with pride and quality. It has to do with my singular desire and the greater market forces not being aligned.
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
MMOman101 said: MMOs are different now, but it is not some quality pride issue that you speak of. It is solely based on the market; or peoples interpretation of the market. Not everyone will like where the trends go and some people will feel left out. I know I am not as happy with the games as I once was. I also understand that I have changed as a gamer and the genera has changed. The problem is we did not change in the same way.
That has nothing to do with pride and quality. It has to do with my singular desire and the greater market forces not being aligned.
Yeah, the genre has changed for the worst while we've not really changed at all apart from wanting better graphics and better of the same stuff with the occasional new stuff but overall I think we just want a good game.
The people making the genre have no pride in their work therefore, the quality is poor. I think it does have to do with these 2 things.
The people making the genre have no pride in their work therefore, the quality is poor.
wow.
We will have to agree to disagree.
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
H0urg1ass said: Sure, but then you run into another problem as a developer and a publisher; paying players. If I'm a publisher, then the only thing that I really care about is how many dollars are rolling in.
Yeah, this is another problem with devs; only caring about the money.
Agreed.
I could be wrong, but I think there was a time, a long period of time, where people made something of quality both for the ability to sell it and as a point of pride in one's work. This includes games. Games used to be, how shall I say this without getting the "new isn't worse than old" crowd going crazy and ignoring existence, 'better put together'. Yes, things were made to be sold. Yes, things were better made. Yes, both can and did exist at the same time.
People used to make things better. Real materials, real consideration, real effort. Things are just, cheaper now, in quality and not so much in price. The price has stayed basically the same, in my opinion.
I think people made things better because they were trying to sell it, because they were spending a considerable portion of their time in their limited life working on it.
Now, and I could be wrong, it seems people are making things cheaper in quality and trying to get as many people to buy it as possible. Things used to sell themselves, somewhat, based solely off of quality and availability. Now, things are being pushed into our view and it is clear there is less effort, less consideration, less quality put into these products. Yet, they are still asking for the price of what used to be considerably better built.
You realize that is complexly inaccurate. For a long time the cost and time to make an item was similar for most items regardless of quality (realistically speaking).
With the advent of modern technology the cost and time has shifted disproportionately when making goods of higher quality and lower quality. That is to say there is a real economic value to making products of less quality because they are so much cheaper to make. This was not always the case.
Additionally, people make very few things now. Most things are made by machines. Pride in creation has very little to do with most goods because most physical things are made by machines.
Now if we are just talking about video games or more specifically MMOs, I don't think they have changed outside of market forces.
MMOs are different now, but it is not some quality pride issue that you speak of. It is solely based on the market; or peoples interpretation of the market. Not everyone will like where the trends go and some people will feel left out. I know I am not as happy with the games as I once was. I also understand that I have changed as a gamer and the genera has changed. The problem is we did not change in the same way.
That has nothing to do with pride and quality. It has to do with my singular desire and the greater market forces not being aligned.
I agree with the points you make about market changes and personal changes. I disagree with the quality aspect.
A pen from the dollar store writes, it writes fairly well. It is made cheaper, in cost and quality. The plastics used are more easily broken, the ink dries up faster before you use it due to more air leaks, the tips break more often due to cheaper metals. Yet this is being sold at the dollar store.
The difference is, a lot of products take this crafting approach, and are not sold at the dollar store. They are sold at Target. For $10, $20, $59.99 in a small green box with an X in the corner or a small blue box with a PS in the corner. They are sold online for digital download on Steam.
What once cost $2 to make and sold for $9.99, now costs $0.79 to make and sells for $19.99.
Granted, there have reported been games that cost 10s of millions to make, and they sell for $59.99 with in-game purchase options and DLC options with their own additional price. These games are also being sold to millions of players. Some of these games are even high quality, others not so much.
The difference is, if enough people do it or if it is mostly all that is available, you might buy it. Regardless of the quality/cost ratio. It is sometimes about how compelling the situation is, and sometimes about what is available on the market. Every now and then we the players get lucky, with a quality game available and everyone is playing it.
And to stay on topic with the post, creating realism, whether in consequences/options or in environmental realism, I say go for it or don't go for it. People will play it or they won't. Sometimes you will get fast nickels (quicker to accomplish tasks means shorter monthly subs from more people), sometimes you will get slow dimes (longer to accomplish tasks means longer monthly subs from less people). Every now and then you will get lucky and get fast nickels and slow dimes, and they will just keep coming (World of Warcraft).
Currently Playing:
Fallout 4 (Xbox One)
Puzzle Pirates (PC) Dreadtooth on Emerald Ocean
"Dying's the easy way out. You won't catch me dying. They'll have to kill me before I die!"
H0urg1ass said: Sure, but then you run into another problem as a developer and a publisher; paying players. If I'm a publisher, then the only thing that I really care about is how many dollars are rolling in.
Yeah, this is another problem with devs; only caring about the money.
Agreed.
I could be wrong, but I think there was a time, a long period of time, where people made something of quality both for the ability to sell it and as a point of pride in one's work. This includes games. Games used to be, how shall I say this without getting the "new isn't worse than old" crowd going crazy and ignoring existence, 'better put together'. Yes, things were made to be sold. Yes, things were better made. Yes, both can and did exist at the same time.
People used to make things better. Real materials, real consideration, real effort. Things are just, cheaper now, in quality and not so much in price. The price has stayed basically the same, in my opinion.
I think people made things better because they were trying to sell it, because they were spending a considerable portion of their time in their limited life working on it.
Now, and I could be wrong, it seems people are making things cheaper in quality and trying to get as many people to buy it as possible. Things used to sell themselves, somewhat, based solely off of quality and availability. Now, things are being pushed into our view and it is clear there is less effort, less consideration, less quality put into these products. Yet, they are still asking for the price of what used to be considerably better built.
You realize that is complexly inaccurate. For a long time the cost and time to make an item was similar for most items regardless of quality (realistically speaking).
With the advent of modern technology the cost and time has shifted disproportionately when making goods of higher quality and lower quality. That is to say there is a real economic value to making products of less quality because they are so much cheaper to make. This was not always the case.
Additionally, people make very few things now. Most things are made by machines. Pride in creation has very little to do with most goods because most physical things are made by machines.
Now if we are just talking about video games or more specifically MMOs, I don't think they have changed outside of market forces.
MMOs are different now, but it is not some quality pride issue that you speak of. It is solely based on the market; or peoples interpretation of the market. Not everyone will like where the trends go and some people will feel left out. I know I am not as happy with the games as I once was. I also understand that I have changed as a gamer and the genera has changed. The problem is we did not change in the same way.
That has nothing to do with pride and quality. It has to do with my singular desire and the greater market forces not being aligned.
I agree with the points you make about market changes and personal changes. I disagree with the quality aspect.
A pen from the dollar store writes, it writes fairly well. It is made cheaper, in cost and quality. The plastics used are more easily broken, the ink dries up faster before you use it due to more air leaks, the tips break more often due to cheaper metals. Yet this is being sold at the dollar store.
The difference is, a lot of products take this crafting approach, and are not sold at the dollar store. They are sold at Target. For $10, $20, $59.99 in a small green box with an X in the corner or a small blue box with a PS in the corner. They are sold online for digital download on Steam.
What once cost $2 to make and sold for $9.99, now costs $0.79 to make and sells for $19.99.
Granted, there have reported been games that cost 10s of millions to make, and they sell for $59.99 with in-game purchase options and DLC options with their own additional price. These games are also being sold to millions of players. Some of these games are even high quality, others not so much.
The difference is, if enough people do it or if it is mostly all that is available, you might buy it. Regardless of the quality/cost ratio. It is sometimes about how compelling the situation is, and sometimes about what is available on the market. Every now and then we the players get lucky, with a quality game available and everyone is playing it.
And to stay on topic with the post, creating realism, whether in consequences/options or in environmental realism, I say go for it or don't go for it. People will play it or they won't. Sometimes you will get fast nickels (quicker to accomplish tasks means shorter monthly subs from more people), sometimes you will get slow dimes (longer to accomplish tasks means longer monthly subs from less people). Every now and then you will get lucky and get fast nickels and slow dimes, and they will just keep coming (World of Warcraft).
You somehow missed the point. For a very long time there was no significantly cheaper way to make a (insert object here). Therefore, it made economic sense for the most part to make things of higher quality. These are objects though and not software. Now these objects can be made cheaper because of advances in technology.
This is why the analogy that you are pushing does not fit. Software is not a physical object and is made produced under a different set of conditions.
People have always made video games to make money (yes there are some exceptions). Moreover, they always will. They are better at maximizing profit now, day 1 DLC is a perfect example, but that is only barbecue the consumers allow it.
I will never purchase day 1 DLC. I don't buy games for about a year most times so I can get the deluxe edition with all of the DLC rolled in for less than the original price. It is my very small way of speaking with my wallet.
The simple truth is, money speaks louder than forums. If people want things to change they need to speak with their money.
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
H0urg1ass said: Sure, but then you run into another problem as a developer and a publisher; paying players. If I'm a publisher, then the only thing that I really care about is how many dollars are rolling in.
Yeah, this is another problem with devs; only caring about the money.
Agreed.
I could be wrong, but I think there was a time, a long period of time, where people made something of quality both for the ability to sell it and as a point of pride in one's work. This includes games. Games used to be, how shall I say this without getting the "new isn't worse than old" crowd going crazy and ignoring existence, 'better put together'. Yes, things were made to be sold. Yes, things were better made. Yes, both can and did exist at the same time.
People used to make things better. Real materials, real consideration, real effort. Things are just, cheaper now, in quality and not so much in price. The price has stayed basically the same, in my opinion.
I think people made things better because they were trying to sell it, because they were spending a considerable portion of their time in their limited life working on it.
Now, and I could be wrong, it seems people are making things cheaper in quality and trying to get as many people to buy it as possible. Things used to sell themselves, somewhat, based solely off of quality and availability. Now, things are being pushed into our view and it is clear there is less effort, less consideration, less quality put into these products. Yet, they are still asking for the price of what used to be considerably better built.
You realize that is complexly inaccurate. For a long time the cost and time to make an item was similar for most items regardless of quality (realistically speaking).
With the advent of modern technology the cost and time has shifted disproportionately when making goods of higher quality and lower quality. That is to say there is a real economic value to making products of less quality because they are so much cheaper to make. This was not always the case.
Additionally, people make very few things now. Most things are made by machines. Pride in creation has very little to do with most goods because most physical things are made by machines.
Now if we are just talking about video games or more specifically MMOs, I don't think they have changed outside of market forces.
MMOs are different now, but it is not some quality pride issue that you speak of. It is solely based on the market; or peoples interpretation of the market. Not everyone will like where the trends go and some people will feel left out. I know I am not as happy with the games as I once was. I also understand that I have changed as a gamer and the genera has changed. The problem is we did not change in the same way.
That has nothing to do with pride and quality. It has to do with my singular desire and the greater market forces not being aligned.
I agree with the points you make about market changes and personal changes. I disagree with the quality aspect.
A pen from the dollar store writes, it writes fairly well. It is made cheaper, in cost and quality. The plastics used are more easily broken, the ink dries up faster before you use it due to more air leaks, the tips break more often due to cheaper metals. Yet this is being sold at the dollar store.
The difference is, a lot of products take this crafting approach, and are not sold at the dollar store. They are sold at Target. For $10, $20, $59.99 in a small green box with an X in the corner or a small blue box with a PS in the corner. They are sold online for digital download on Steam.
What once cost $2 to make and sold for $9.99, now costs $0.79 to make and sells for $19.99.
Granted, there have reported been games that cost 10s of millions to make, and they sell for $59.99 with in-game purchase options and DLC options with their own additional price. These games are also being sold to millions of players. Some of these games are even high quality, others not so much.
The difference is, if enough people do it or if it is mostly all that is available, you might buy it. Regardless of the quality/cost ratio. It is sometimes about how compelling the situation is, and sometimes about what is available on the market. Every now and then we the players get lucky, with a quality game available and everyone is playing it.
And to stay on topic with the post, creating realism, whether in consequences/options or in environmental realism, I say go for it or don't go for it. People will play it or they won't. Sometimes you will get fast nickels (quicker to accomplish tasks means shorter monthly subs from more people), sometimes you will get slow dimes (longer to accomplish tasks means longer monthly subs from less people). Every now and then you will get lucky and get fast nickels and slow dimes, and they will just keep coming (World of Warcraft).
You somehow missed the point. For a very long time there was no significantly cheaper way to make a (insert object here). Therefore, it made economic sense for the most part to make things of higher quality. These are objects though and not software. Now these objects can be made cheaper because of advances in technology.
This is why the analogy that you are pushing does not fit. Software is not a physical object and is made produced under a different set of conditions.
People have always made video games to make money (yes there are some exceptions). Moreover, they always will. They are better at maximizing profit now, day 1 DLC is a perfect example, but that is only barbecue the consumers allow it.
I will never purchase day 1 DLC. I don't buy games for about a year most times so I can get the deluxe edition with all of the DLC rolled in for less than the original price. It is my very small way of speaking with my wallet.
The simple truth is, money speaks louder than forums. If people want things to change they need to speak with their money.
People have always dreamed of making a profit and being a rich, but there is a difference when some kids who grow up playing D&D take the concept and make a game they think is fun(and hope it does well) and a large corporation/industry simple making a game in a formulaic way for monetary profits alone. This is where people often find the soul is sucked out of modern games (even though the soul is intangible). It's something logical business people can't really get a grasp of since they are only taught about maximizing profits.
MMOman101 said: MMOs are different now, but it is not some quality pride issue that you speak of. It is solely based on the market; or peoples interpretation of the market. Not everyone will like where the trends go and some people will feel left out. I know I am not as happy with the games as I once was. I also understand that I have changed as a gamer and the genera has changed. The problem is we did not change in the same way.
That has nothing to do with pride and quality. It has to do with my singular desire and the greater market forces not being aligned.
Yeah, the genre has changed for the worst while we've not really changed at all apart from wanting better graphics and better of the same stuff with the occasional new stuff but overall I think we just want a good game.
The people making the genre have no pride in their work therefore, the quality is poor. I think it does have to do with these 2 things.
But that's just a matter of opinion. Most would argue that the genre has changed for the better. There are more people playing BDO today, just one single MMO, than there were people playing all of the MMO's that were on the market at the same time in 2003.
We have these big rose tinted lenses on when looking back at EQ, SWG and UO, but honestly, they were buggy piles of crap in retrospect.
Seriously, listen to yourself. Go watch some developer videos for Crowfall or Camelot Unchained. There's some extreme pride in their work. In fact, when it comes to the gaming industry as a whole, I would say that MMO developers have more pride and more craftsmanship than most other genres.
A new Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty can be shit out every year because it's just the last six games with a few reskins. But almost any MMORPG takes time, care, dedication and pride to put out.
Personally, I don't have these rose tinted lenses on. Sure, I loved my 2007-2008 era MMO's, but gaming in general has improved an enormous amount. Splinter Cell Blacklist is the best overall in the series. Witcher 3 blows Witcher 1-2 out of the water. Overwatch is one of the best games I've played in years.
I was looking at the BDO forums, and some people were complaining because the snowing they have added for the seasonal event is preventing them to do some drying (fish,etc.) more often than not.
Forum posters will bitch about absolutely anything. Some people will always find a negative in the best features even if they have to invent them.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
But that's just a matter of opinion. Most would argue that the genre has changed for the better. There are more people playing BDO today, just one single MMO, than there were people playing all of the MMO's that were on the market at the same time in 2003. ...
I don't think so, there were a lot of MMOs out then, EQ and SWG might be the largest with around half a mil players each but there were more other games then you think.
But point taken anyways.
As for if MMOs are best ever today, that is like saying that RocknRoll is better today then in the mid 50s, there is more money in it today but you can\t really compare them in quality.
MMOs were focused on a different group in the late 90s and early 00s then they are today. If you belong in the group the early games were focused on then they are best, if you belong in the later group then the new games are best because games made for your own playertype is always better for you then something generic or made for another playertype.
The thing that sucked in the early day and still sucks is that the game are targeted to a single type of audience, if you aren\t in it your choice of MMOs go down from 100 games to a couple of cheap crapgames. Blizzard actually made Wow for a different playertype then the rest and it became a success so every game since (with a few low budget exceptions) target the group Wow targeted instead.
One would think the are room for a few different kinds of MMOs for different players and not just the super casuals.
But that's just a matter of opinion. Most would argue that the genre has changed for the better. There are more people playing BDO today, just one single MMO, than there were people playing all of the MMO's that were on the market at the same time in 2003. ...
One would think the are room for a few different kinds of MMOs for different players and not just the super casuals.
Which is what I've been saying in every post in this thread, but everyone insists on arguing with me that all games need to cater to the hardcore realism crowd.
It simply isn't the case. There should be a few games for the hardcores, but the majority of MMORPG'ers, aren't interested in the kind of realism that keeps them from logging on and doing the tasks they want to do. Hence why people are on the BDO forums asking why the snow in game is keeping them from drying fish. It's not the preferred method of play.
My primary MMO is EVE Online, so no one could possibly argue that I'm against hardcore MMO's. I'm simply stating that the super casual is the mainstream gamer today. If you throw those people out, then you better be prepared to have a niche game.
H0urg1ass said: Seriously, listen to yourself. Go watch some developer videos for Crowfall or Camelot Unchained. There's some extreme pride in their work. In fact, when it comes to the gaming industry as a whole, I would say that MMO developers have more pride and more craftsmanship than most other genres.
Camelot Unchained is the only game I've ever seen devs taking pride in creating a game but I've only been playing MMOs since 2009. I can also see the pride shown from livestreams for Archeage.
Other than that, I've honestly lost sight of what anyone was arguing here.
I was looking at the BDO forums, and some people were complaining because the snowing they have added for the seasonal event is preventing them to do some drying (fish,etc.) more often than not.
(Please note that you can see the different weather systems on the map and can easily go somewhere outside of the snowing range...)
I personally love little things like that in my mmos, which there seems to be less and less of.. (probably because most people want to have what they want right when they want it..), but I was wondering what do most people around here think about game mechanics like that, where you can't do everything right when you want to, and where you have to either be patient or go out of your way to get something done?
ex.: Drying when it's not raining/snowing. Waiting for night time or day time to have access to some npcs, etc. ?
Also, do you have other examples of such things that you found pretty nice or pretty awful?
Personally, I like these features. Almost anything in the realm of what you described or asked for opinions of examples about.
But, that is my personal preference. Not everyone is created equal. Give someone a dollar, they'll say they wanted ten. Give someone ten, they'll say you should've taught them to earn it on their own. Some people can't be pleased.
People also have a choice to go do something else, in game and in real life. Preferably in real life. Whine and then leave and go do something else, please. We're all going to whine in our own way, but it is just annoying complaining if you don't leave and go somewhere else.
Currently Playing:
Fallout 4 (Xbox One)
Puzzle Pirates (PC) Dreadtooth on Emerald Ocean
"Dying's the easy way out. You won't catch me dying. They'll have to kill me before I die!"
MMOman101 said: MMOs are different now, but it is not some quality pride issue that you speak of. It is solely based on the market; or peoples interpretation of the market. Not everyone will like where the trends go and some people will feel left out. I know I am not as happy with the games as I once was. I also understand that I have changed as a gamer and the genera has changed. The problem is we did not change in the same way.
That has nothing to do with pride and quality. It has to do with my singular desire and the greater market forces not being aligned.
Yeah, the genre has changed for the worst while we've not really changed at all apart from wanting better graphics and better of the same stuff with the occasional new stuff but overall I think we just want a good game.
The people making the genre have no pride in their work therefore, the quality is poor. I think it does have to do with these 2 things.
But that's just a matter of opinion. Most would argue that the genre has changed for the better. There are more people playing BDO today, just one single MMO, than there were people playing all of the MMO's that were on the market at the same time in 2003.
We have these big rose tinted lenses on when looking back at EQ, SWG and UO, but honestly, they were buggy piles of crap in retrospect.
Seriously, listen to yourself. Go watch some developer videos for Crowfall or Camelot Unchained. There's some extreme pride in their work. In fact, when it comes to the gaming industry as a whole, I would say that MMO developers have more pride and more craftsmanship than most other genres.
A new Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty can be shit out every year because it's just the last six games with a few reskins. But almost any MMORPG takes time, care, dedication and pride to put out.
Personally, I don't have these rose tinted lenses on. Sure, I loved my 2007-2008 era MMO's, but gaming in general has improved an enormous amount. Splinter Cell Blacklist is the best overall in the series. Witcher 3 blows Witcher 1-2 out of the water. Overwatch is one of the best games I've played in years.
Yeah but "Most would argue that the genre has changed for the better" is no less just opinion.
Overwatch being good = Rose Colored Glasses?
Also, there are many more people playing games in general, so I don't think that really has much bearing on what is going on with MMOs other than to say that the available audience is wider.
To my mind MMORPG design has been retarded by the commercial success of a simplified game. If in 2003 you told me that future MMOs gave you less ability to interact with the world I would have thought you an alarmist.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
But that's just a matter of opinion. Most would argue that the genre has changed for the better. There are more people playing BDO today, just one single MMO, than there were people playing all of the MMO's that were on the market at the same time in 2003. ...
One would think the are room for a few different kinds of MMOs for different players and not just the super casuals.
Which is what I've been saying in every post in this thread, but everyone insists on arguing with me that all games need to cater to the hardcore realism crowd.
It simply isn't the case. There should be a few games for the hardcores, but the majority of MMORPG'ers, aren't interested in the kind of realism that keeps them from logging on and doing the tasks they want to do. Hence why people are on the BDO forums asking why the snow in game is keeping them from drying fish. It's not the preferred method of play.
My primary MMO is EVE Online, so no one could possibly argue that I'm against hardcore MMO's. I'm simply stating that the super casual is the mainstream gamer today. If you throw those people out, then you better be prepared to have a niche game.
I don't really think everyone is arguing that. I don't think many people are saying that at all. I think most of us would be happy if one game used realism as a guide without compromising every other design decision.
I was looking at the BDO forums, and some people were complaining because the snowing they have added for the seasonal event is preventing them to do some drying (fish,etc.) more often than not.
Forum posters will bitch about absolutely anything. Some people will always find a negative in the best features even if they have to invent them.
I am want to complain about your complaining about people complaining about absolutely anything! It is ruining my immersion!
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
They have insane amount of physical defence until you manage to knock them or hit them from behind. A shame it's the only mob I could find that you had to fight differently against it. Would have loved fighting monsters that only took damage certain ways (Say ghosts), or resistant to some type of attacks and weaker to other. Would be more realistic.
They have insane amount of physical defence until you manage to knock them or hit them from behind. A shame it's the only mob I could find that you had to fight differently against it. Would have loved fighting monsters that only took damage certain ways (Say ghosts), or resistant to some type of attacks and weaker to other. Would be more realistic.
Yeah or gear, spells and abilities for diffenent NPCs.
They have insane amount of physical defence until you manage to knock them or hit them from behind. A shame it's the only mob I could find that you had to fight differently against it. Would have loved fighting monsters that only took damage certain ways (Say ghosts), or resistant to some type of attacks and weaker to other. Would be more realistic.
MMORPG's used to be like that, back in the old days.
But players complained too much about the fact that they had to carry different gear and different weapons for different damage types and resists, so the complexity was stripped out.
But that's just a matter of opinion. Most would argue that the genre has changed for the better. There are more people playing BDO today, just one single MMO, than there were people playing all of the MMO's that were on the market at the same time in 2003. ...
One would think the are room for a few different kinds of MMOs for different players and not just the super casuals.
Which is what I've been saying in every post in this thread, but everyone insists on arguing with me that all games need to cater to the hardcore realism crowd.
It simply isn't the case. There should be a few games for the hardcores, but the majority of MMORPG'ers, aren't interested in the kind of realism that keeps them from logging on and doing the tasks they want to do. Hence why people are on the BDO forums asking why the snow in game is keeping them from drying fish. It's not the preferred method of play.
My primary MMO is EVE Online, so no one could possibly argue that I'm against hardcore MMO's. I'm simply stating that the super casual is the mainstream gamer today. If you throw those people out, then you better be prepared to have a niche game.
I don't really think everyone is arguing that. I don't think many people are saying that at all. I think most of us would be happy if one game used realism as a guide without compromising every other design decision.
Just one would be great.
I don't think anyone is reading my posts at all. I think people are just seeing me as somehow against realism and then ranting against me.
I've said since the first post in this thread that realism is a great idea, and that I'm all for a game that has it, and then I went on to say that BDO isn't that game. It wasn't planned in from the beginning, it has a large casual crowd that don't want it and trying to introduce it now is a mistake.
I'm completely fine with there being games that are ultra realistic, and then I went on to say that those people should be prepared for it to be a tiny niche title. It won't be mainstream, and hardcore games never were. People who point back at 2003 are remembering a time when the player base could have fit inside a mason jar. There's not some huge crowd out there clamoring for a more hardcore experience. It's just a few loud voices trying to convince the world that 12 million WoW subscribers aren't the mainstream which is just ludicrous.
They have insane amount of physical defence until you manage to knock them or hit them from behind. A shame it's the only mob I could find that you had to fight differently against it. Would have loved fighting monsters that only took damage certain ways (Say ghosts), or resistant to some type of attacks and weaker to other. Would be more realistic.
MMORPG's used to be like that, back in the old days.
But players complained too much about the fact that they had to carry different gear and different weapons for different damage types and resists, so the complexity was stripped out.
Well isn't it stupid to carry 5 different weapons and gear sets that you can insta change in the middle of battle, all to support a poorly implemented combat mechanic?
What good are damage immunities if everyone still carries around all the gear necessary to fight the encounter?
It's the same reason food, drink, and weight requirements were removed from EQ2 and many similar games, because players just found an easy workaround. It ended up adding no play value to the game.
The system would need to prevent players from carrying around all that gear. The monster becomes an obstacle and puzzle to solve. When the only way to solve the puzzle is combat, then the only option becomes carrying around a ton of different gear.
What players were really complaining about is a good idea that had a clunky crude tedious implementation that they had to jump through a bunch of boring hoops to work around.
I see it differently. Players didn't want to deal with "inconvenient realism". They didn't want to give up inventory space for different damage/resist items, because that reduces the loot they can carry, and THAT is totally unacceptable.
Farming efficiency suffers when you have to deal with things like opportunity cost. Nobody wants to remember all the different resists and vulnerabilities on different mobs and how to counter them... Streamline ! Simplify ! Speed it up !
They have insane amount of physical defence until you manage to knock them or hit them from behind. A shame it's the only mob I could find that you had to fight differently against it. Would have loved fighting monsters that only took damage certain ways (Say ghosts), or resistant to some type of attacks and weaker to other. Would be more realistic.
MMORPG's used to be like that, back in the old days.
But players complained too much about the fact that they had to carry different gear and different weapons for different damage types and resists, so the complexity was stripped out.
Well isn't it stupid to carry 5 different weapons and gear sets that you can insta change in the middle of battle, all to support a poorly implemented combat mechanic?
What good are damage immunities if everyone still carries around all the gear necessary to fight the encounter?
It's the same reason food, drink, and weight requirements were removed from EQ2 and many similar games, because players just found an easy workaround. It ended up adding no play value to the game.
The system would need to prevent players from carrying around all that gear. The monster becomes an obstacle and puzzle to solve. When the only way to solve the puzzle is combat, then the only option becomes carrying around a ton of different gear.
What players were really complaining about is a good idea that had a clunky crude tedious implementation that they had to jump through a bunch of boring hoops to work around.
There's room for improvement for sure.
Let's say, against monsters that don't have bodies like ghosts, physical damage does nothing. You have skills that do elemental damage and/or enchanting on your weapons to do elemental damage. I like the poison coating in wow for rogues and I'm surprised there's so few implementations of that kind of thing in most games.
I too, wouldn't want to carry multiple weapons for leveling sake, but wouldn't mind it in dungeons. Say piercing weapons deal more damage on x type than blunt or cut weapons.
I don't really think everyone is arguing that. I don't think many people are saying that at all. I think most of us would be happy if one game used realism as a guide without compromising every other design decision.
Just one would be great.
I don't think anyone is reading my posts at all. I think people are just seeing me as somehow against realism and then ranting against me.
I've said since the first post in this thread that realism is a great idea, and that I'm all for a game that has it, and then I went on to say that BDO isn't that game. It wasn't planned in from the beginning, it has a large casual crowd that don't want it and trying to introduce it now is a mistake.
I'm completely fine with there being games that are ultra realistic, and then I went on to say that those people should be prepared for it to be a tiny niche title. It won't be mainstream, and hardcore games never were. People who point back at 2003 are remembering a time when the player base could have fit inside a mason jar. There's not some huge crowd out there clamoring for a more hardcore experience. It's just a few loud voices trying to convince the world that 12 million WoW subscribers aren't the mainstream which is just ludicrous.
Whatever label people want to put on it - whether it be hardcore, oldschool, or games with more realism - of course they aren't mainstream. No one has made one since the current model became the rage.
However, people are going to be really surprised how many people there are that want to play a game like this, or who will enjoy such a game having never played one. Maybe not 12 million "surprised", but all the "mainstream" games combined barely can keep that number in 2016.
I hate realism as a design goal. I really don't get the appeal of that kind of game. But, there's room for variety in games, so if others like this sort of thing for some reason incomprehensible to me, then I'm glad if they have games (and books, and tv shows...) that they like.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Comments
With the advent of modern technology the cost and time has shifted disproportionately when making goods of higher quality and lower quality. That is to say there is a real economic value to making products of less quality because they are so much cheaper to make. This was not always the case.
Additionally, people make very few things now. Most things are made by machines. Pride in creation has very little to do with most goods because most physical things are made by machines.
Now if we are just talking about video games or more specifically MMOs, I don't think they have changed outside of market forces.
MMOs are different now, but it is not some quality pride issue that you speak of. It is solely based on the market; or peoples interpretation of the market. Not everyone will like where the trends go and some people will feel left out. I know I am not as happy with the games as I once was. I also understand that I have changed as a gamer and the genera has changed. The problem is we did not change in the same way.
That has nothing to do with pride and quality. It has to do with my singular desire and the greater market forces not being aligned.
--John Ruskin
The people making the genre have no pride in their work therefore, the quality is poor. I think it does have to do with these 2 things.
We will have to agree to disagree.
--John Ruskin
I agree with the points you make about market changes and personal changes. I disagree with the quality aspect.
A pen from the dollar store writes, it writes fairly well. It is made cheaper, in cost and quality. The plastics used are more easily broken, the ink dries up faster before you use it due to more air leaks, the tips break more often due to cheaper metals. Yet this is being sold at the dollar store.
The difference is, a lot of products take this crafting approach, and are not sold at the dollar store. They are sold at Target. For $10, $20, $59.99 in a small green box with an X in the corner or a small blue box with a PS in the corner. They are sold online for digital download on Steam.
What once cost $2 to make and sold for $9.99, now costs $0.79 to make and sells for $19.99.
Granted, there have reported been games that cost 10s of millions to make, and they sell for $59.99 with in-game purchase options and DLC options with their own additional price. These games are also being sold to millions of players. Some of these games are even high quality, others not so much.
The difference is, if enough people do it or if it is mostly all that is available, you might buy it. Regardless of the quality/cost ratio. It is sometimes about how compelling the situation is, and sometimes about what is available on the market. Every now and then we the players get lucky, with a quality game available and everyone is playing it.
And to stay on topic with the post, creating realism, whether in consequences/options or in environmental realism, I say go for it or don't go for it. People will play it or they won't. Sometimes you will get fast nickels (quicker to accomplish tasks means shorter monthly subs from more people), sometimes you will get slow dimes (longer to accomplish tasks means longer monthly subs from less people). Every now and then you will get lucky and get fast nickels and slow dimes, and they will just keep coming (World of Warcraft).
Currently Playing:
Fallout 4 (Xbox One)
Puzzle Pirates (PC)
Dreadtooth on Emerald Ocean
"Dying's the easy way out. You won't catch me dying. They'll have to kill me before I die!"
This is why the analogy that you are pushing does not fit. Software is not a physical object and is made produced under a different set of conditions.
People have always made video games to make money (yes there are some exceptions). Moreover, they always will. They are better at maximizing profit now, day 1 DLC is a perfect example, but that is only barbecue the consumers allow it.
I will never purchase day 1 DLC. I don't buy games for about a year most times so I can get the deluxe edition with all of the DLC rolled in for less than the original price. It is my very small way of speaking with my wallet.
The simple truth is, money speaks louder than forums. If people want things to change they need to speak with their money.
--John Ruskin
We have these big rose tinted lenses on when looking back at EQ, SWG and UO, but honestly, they were buggy piles of crap in retrospect.
Seriously, listen to yourself. Go watch some developer videos for Crowfall or Camelot Unchained. There's some extreme pride in their work. In fact, when it comes to the gaming industry as a whole, I would say that MMO developers have more pride and more craftsmanship than most other genres.
A new Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty can be shit out every year because it's just the last six games with a few reskins. But almost any MMORPG takes time, care, dedication and pride to put out.
Personally, I don't have these rose tinted lenses on. Sure, I loved my 2007-2008 era MMO's, but gaming in general has improved an enormous amount. Splinter Cell Blacklist is the best overall in the series. Witcher 3 blows Witcher 1-2 out of the water. Overwatch is one of the best games I've played in years.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
But point taken anyways.
As for if MMOs are best ever today, that is like saying that RocknRoll is better today then in the mid 50s, there is more money in it today but you can\t really compare them in quality.
MMOs were focused on a different group in the late 90s and early 00s then they are today. If you belong in the group the early games were focused on then they are best, if you belong in the later group then the new games are best because games made for your own playertype is always better for you then something generic or made for another playertype.
The thing that sucked in the early day and still sucks is that the game are targeted to a single type of audience, if you aren\t in it your choice of MMOs go down from 100 games to a couple of cheap crapgames. Blizzard actually made Wow for a different playertype then the rest and it became a success so every game since (with a few low budget exceptions) target the group Wow targeted instead.
One would think the are room for a few different kinds of MMOs for different players and not just the super casuals.
It simply isn't the case. There should be a few games for the hardcores, but the majority of MMORPG'ers, aren't interested in the kind of realism that keeps them from logging on and doing the tasks they want to do. Hence why people are on the BDO forums asking why the snow in game is keeping them from drying fish. It's not the preferred method of play.
My primary MMO is EVE Online, so no one could possibly argue that I'm against hardcore MMO's. I'm simply stating that the super casual is the mainstream gamer today. If you throw those people out, then you better be prepared to have a niche game.
Other than that, I've honestly lost sight of what anyone was arguing here.
Personally, I like these features. Almost anything in the realm of what you described or asked for opinions of examples about.
But, that is my personal preference. Not everyone is created equal. Give someone a dollar, they'll say they wanted ten. Give someone ten, they'll say you should've taught them to earn it on their own. Some people can't be pleased.
People also have a choice to go do something else, in game and in real life. Preferably in real life. Whine and then leave and go do something else, please. We're all going to whine in our own way, but it is just annoying complaining if you don't leave and go somewhere else.
Currently Playing:
Fallout 4 (Xbox One)
Puzzle Pirates (PC)
Dreadtooth on Emerald Ocean
"Dying's the easy way out. You won't catch me dying. They'll have to kill me before I die!"
Overwatch being good = Rose Colored Glasses?
Also, there are many more people playing games in general, so I don't think that really has much bearing on what is going on with MMOs other than to say that the available audience is wider.
To my mind MMORPG design has been retarded by the commercial success of a simplified game. If in 2003 you told me that future MMOs gave you less ability to interact with the world I would have thought you an alarmist.
Just one would be great.
I am want to complain about your complaining about people complaining about absolutely anything! It is ruining my immersion!
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
They have insane amount of physical defence until you manage to knock them or hit them from behind. A shame it's the only mob I could find that you had to fight differently against it. Would have loved fighting monsters that only took damage certain ways (Say ghosts), or resistant to some type of attacks and weaker to other. Would be more realistic.
But players complained too much about the fact that they had to carry different gear and different weapons for different damage types and resists, so the complexity was stripped out.
I've said since the first post in this thread that realism is a great idea, and that I'm all for a game that has it, and then I went on to say that BDO isn't that game. It wasn't planned in from the beginning, it has a large casual crowd that don't want it and trying to introduce it now is a mistake.
I'm completely fine with there being games that are ultra realistic, and then I went on to say that those people should be prepared for it to be a tiny niche title. It won't be mainstream, and hardcore games never were. People who point back at 2003 are remembering a time when the player base could have fit inside a mason jar. There's not some huge crowd out there clamoring for a more hardcore experience. It's just a few loud voices trying to convince the world that 12 million WoW subscribers aren't the mainstream which is just ludicrous.
Farming efficiency suffers when you have to deal with things like opportunity cost. Nobody wants to remember all the different resists and vulnerabilities on different mobs and how to counter them...
Streamline !
Simplify !
Speed it up !
Let's say, against monsters that don't have bodies like ghosts, physical damage does nothing. You have skills that do elemental damage and/or enchanting on your weapons to do elemental damage. I like the poison coating in wow for rogues and I'm surprised there's so few implementations of that kind of thing in most games.
I too, wouldn't want to carry multiple weapons for leveling sake, but wouldn't mind it in dungeons. Say piercing weapons deal more damage on x type than blunt or cut weapons.
Realism within the game lore or realism within the real realm, with people knowing they are playing a video game? The two are completely different.
What happens when you have a few moments and post without readng the body O.o. I love this type of realism in MMOs that follow the gameworld itself.
However, people are going to be really surprised how many people there are that want to play a game like this, or who will enjoy such a game having never played one. Maybe not 12 million "surprised", but all the "mainstream" games combined barely can keep that number in 2016.