Appeal To Everyone Possible?

learis1

Theres spectrums of users in mmos. Youve got super hardcore and very casual. Youve got heavy pvpers and only pve'ers. Youve got soloers and then heavy raiders/groupers. Youve got themepark and sandbox.

Is it possible to make a game that is so complete that it literally offers all of these ways to play and feel rewarded in each? I dont think they have to be mutually exclusive. Ex) you could have a themepark game that also allows you to explore, craft, and build without having to do any quests and offers alternative experience and level-ups for doing it that way.

My thought of the possibility for an "everything mmo" is yes, but at the cost of heavily dividing the user population into subgroups. But if theres a giant population then you wont feel barren at least within the group you fall into.

So ultimately I believe the next AAA mmo should attempt to achieve this goal to be succesful.

However theres one divide that I think is absolutely mutually exclusive. P2W vs non-P2W

Nebless

I'd say that Star Wars Galaxies pretty much fit your list.

DafAtRandom

learis1 said:

Theres spectrums of users in mmos. Youve got super hardcore and very casual. Youve got heavy pvpers and only pve'ers. Youve got soloers and then heavy raiders/groupers. Youve got themepark and sandbox.

Is it possible to make a game that is so complete that it literally offers all of these ways to play and feel rewarded in each? I dont think they have to be mutually exclusive. Ex) you could have a themepark game that also allows you to explore, craft, and build without having to do any quests and offers alternative experience and level-ups for doing it that way.

My thought of the possibility for an "everything mmo" is yes, but at the cost of heavily dividing the user population into subgroups. But if theres a giant population then you wont feel barren at least within the group you fall into.

So ultimately I believe the next AAA mmo should attempt to achieve this goal to be succesful.

However theres one divide that I think is absolutely mutually exclusive. P2W vs non-P2W

Typically, and it's true in most everything in life, things that attempt to be jack of all trades and cover everything end up being master of none and give an overall bland feeling.

I don't think it would be different in MMORPGs...as evidenced by years and years and years of games trying to balance PvE with PvP together without nerfing everything for one or the other...and that's just one aspect...

Vrika

You can make an MMO that appeals to everyone.

You'd just have to accept that it's a piece of crap compared to other games because you've given your devs that much harder tasks than the competitor's devs had.

cameltosis

Why do you want to make a new MMO?

That should be your first question. If you are interested in virtual worlds and virtual societies, then absolutely yes, build an MMO that is designed to appeal to a broad range of players.

The reason for doing so is that a diverse community is a strong community, so the more different types of players you have in your game, the better your community will be. A strong community also increases retention, so it's good for the business too. Additionally, a broad range of activities means that when you, the player, inevitably has a mood change, the game is still able to offer you content to suit your new mood.

However, as others have pointed out, designing and implementing that many different systems in the same game is really hard. Most game designers don't have the talent, which is why things like crafting or PvP often feel "tacked on". That said, I'm told by devs that designing and implementing systems is cheaper than designing content, so my guess is that such a broad game would need to be a sandbox rather than a themepark.

If you don't care about community, or virtual worlds, or the longevity of your game, then don't bother designing such a broad-ranging game, just stick to something niche and do that thing well. It's also important not to get hung up on trying to run a game forever. there's no need! If you are designing a niche game focused on a small market segment, then do it, do it well, and be prepared to shut down in 2-3 years. Then, make a sequel with improvements and repeat. Adopting such a strategy would be very beneficial imo, as it would allow faster iterations within that niche, helping the genre to progress quicker.

iixviiiix

Game isn't about the contents but the rewards. If you willing to give the reward that everyone want , then everyone in .

So a game appeal to everyone is possible if you give out right reward .

The problem is , what can you offer ?

Aeander

The answer is no. Because there are two diametrically opposed crowds. Pure PvE players who want exactly nothing to do with PvP, and sadist- I mean open world FFA PvPers who want PvE playing victims. 

The latter crowd doesn't actually want a target that fights back. They don't want competition. Arena PvP isn't enough for them. Faction battlegrounds aren't enough for them. They paradoxically want to fight people who want nothing to do with them, and thus have no reason to even touch a game where getting PK'ed is even possible. 

AlBQuirky

DMKano said:

Aeander said:

Pure PvE players who want exactly nothing to do with PvP, and sadist- I mean open world FFA PvPers who want PvE playing victims. 

You are mistaken - if the game is open world FFA ruleset- there are no PvE players, if there are - they chose the wrong game.

It's like entering a formula 1 race on foot and then complaining when you get run over - hello?

Pure PvE players need to stick to pure PvE games - simple, don't pick open world FFA PvP games and complain.

This would be as bad as a PvP player playing a PvE only game and complaining that they can't kill anyone

I agree, but isn't that agreeing with the point, not everyone likes that game with FFA rules (are those a contradictory words?).

On topic:
I don't see how. Heck, we can't even agree on what "massively" (or is it "massive"?) even means, let alone a rule set that appeals to us all. WoW came close, but there are many MMORPG gamers that never set foot in World of Warcraft. It didn't appeal to them.

I think this hope (one game to rule them all) is the bane of the genre right now. I'd much rather see many MMORPGs that focus on a few features and excel at them rather than a massive potpourri of everything and the kitchen sink which will please nobody.

dlld

I think MMO's that try to cater to all different groups by fragmenting them apart is at least one reason to what is slowly killing mmo's. Over the course of WoW they have increasingly fragmented players into tighter more specialized self contained game modes, while classic was much more simple. The difference between a 'hardcore' and casual wasn't very big.. they'd still do the same content because MC was relatively easy and accessible to almost everyone, nowadays less then a thousand guilds manage to kill the mythic end boss.

delete5230

Their was one,
It's called Vanilla World of Warcraft 2004 now Called Classic.  It's a GREAT idea to do it again but it would have to come from Blizzard.... Their the only ones that would afford such a venture and you all know this to be true !

Unfortunately it's under new management and they would never do such a thing, it would be "easy" and because of this will not have the subscribers the new management thinks they will have.   

Long story short.... No, never again. 

AAAMEOW

DMKano said:

Aeander said:

Pure PvE players who want exactly nothing to do with PvP, and sadist- I mean open world FFA PvPers who want PvE playing victims. 

You are mistaken - if the game is open world FFA ruleset- there are no PvE players, if there are - they chose the wrong game.

It's like entering a formula 1 race on foot and then complaining when you get run over - hello?

Pure PvE players need to stick to pure PvE games - simple, don't pick open world FFA PvP games and complain.

This would be as bad as a PvP player playing a PvE only game and complaining that they can't kill anyone

People who just want to pvp would just play fortnite or some other pure pvp games.

I think a good portion of players in FFA mmorpg are people who spend most if not almost all their time PvE.

Kyleran

AAAMEOW said:

DMKano said:

Aeander said:

Pure PvE players who want exactly nothing to do with PvP, and sadist- I mean open world FFA PvPers who want PvE playing victims. 

You are mistaken - if the game is open world FFA ruleset- there are no PvE players, if there are - they chose the wrong game.

It's like entering a formula 1 race on foot and then complaining when you get run over - hello?

Pure PvE players need to stick to pure PvE games - simple, don't pick open world FFA PvP games and complain.

This would be as bad as a PvP player playing a PvE only game and complaining that they can't kill anyone

People who just want to pvp would just play fortnite or some other pure pvp games.

I think a good portion of players in FFA mmorpg are people who spend most if not almost all their time PvE.

See EVE, where the greater portion of the player base reside in High Sec, generally the safest space where PVP is the most restricted.

Slapshot1188

The more you try to appeal to everyone, the less likely you are to succeed with anyone.

Scot

The problem was not that we had players who wanted different gameplay; people who play driving games don't want the same gameplay as people who play aircraft pilot games. But both could be called vehicle simulations.

That was the problem, after WoW developers decided to put all MMO gamers into one WoW shaped basket. There were variations but be you PVP or PvE be you grouper of solo, one size had to fit all. Which is one of the reasons why MMOs became a gaming home for no one, and a short stay gaming hotel for everyone.

That said a MMORPG sandwich consisting of a themepark wrapped in a sandbox, might be possible. But juggling the types of players would not be easy.

TEKK3N

DMKano said:

It is possible - but the end result is most likely shit.

This.
Plus, why would you do that?
For population sake?

If you have to isolate each group from each other ( I am thinking of PVE vs PVP), it would still split the population as if it was 2 separate games.

Ungood

learis1 said:

Theres spectrums of users in mmos. Youve got super hardcore and very casual. Youve got heavy pvpers and only pve'ers. Youve got soloers and then heavy raiders/groupers. Youve got themepark and sandbox.

Is it possible to make a game that is so complete that it literally offers all of these ways to play and feel rewarded in each? I dont think they have to be mutually exclusive. Ex) you could have a themepark game that also allows you to explore, craft, and build without having to do any quests and offers alternative experience and level-ups for doing it that way.

My thought of the possibility for an "everything mmo" is yes, but at the cost of heavily dividing the user population into subgroups. But if theres a giant population then you wont feel barren at least within the group you fall into.

So ultimately I believe the next AAA mmo should attempt to achieve this goal to be succesful.

However theres one divide that I think is absolutely mutually exclusive. P2W vs non-P2W

I think it's great that you think this could be done.

But I really think the future of MMO's is to focus on building a world for a single demographic of players, and just going all in for that group.

goboygo

You would be able to make every one of these groups happy in the same game if that was truly your goal, except one.  The hardcore PvPer.

kilun

It was done, SWG had it.  PVE players do there own thing and PVP was abundant in Cities and throughout.  

Why it didn't last?  WOW killed many of games because 100k subs wasn't enough for Smedley.

Theocritus

I didn't play SWG till very late in its life...The game was changed drastically from what I was told so I never saw what people are talking about here....Of all the games I played, I would say WoW came closest to what the OP was describing...why? It had many different types of servers and rulesets and a large enough playerbase to make them work. The only downfall was that WoW was too easy for most of us except for the top 1% of the game.

Slapshot1188

kilun said:

It was done, SWG had it.  PVE players do there own thing and PVP was abundant in Cities and throughout.  

Why it didn't last?  WOW killed many of games because 100k subs wasn't enough for Smedley.

I thought the PvP sucked in SWG.  Safe zones are fine IMHO but flags ruin the world.  

Kyleran

DMKano said:

Robokapp said:

DMKano said:

Aeander said:

Pure PvE players who want exactly nothing to do with PvP, and sadist- I mean open world FFA PvPers who want PvE playing victims. 

You are mistaken - if the game is open world FFA ruleset- there are no PvE players, if there are - they chose the wrong game.

It's like entering a formula 1 race on foot and then complaining when you get run over - hello?

Pure PvE players need to stick to pure PvE games - simple, don't pick open world FFA PvP games and complain.

This would be as bad as a PvP player playing a PvE only game and complaining that they can't kill anyone

i played EVE as a miner...because I liked mining in EVE. 

I bet you didnt call anyone a sadist if they killed you though. 



PvE players who understand the risks and are ok when attacked by PvP players - that's fine

I was a miner in EVE for a spell and while I never called someone who killed me a sadist, other words like mthrfkr, dckwd, and ubstrd definitely were said.

  

k61977

I would say no to this idea because this idea has been the major problem with just about every MMO that has came out in the last ten or so years.  They try to cater to everyone while just making a basic game because they can't concentrate on one aspect and get it right.  The problems start to come when you start messing with this mechanic to fix it in this playstyle but then it messes it up for this playstyle.  This happens all the time with trying to balance games between PVE an PVP.  They fix this mechanic for the PVP then the skill is useless in PVE so they tinker some more an the skill becomes useless to everyone.

There needs to be a clear vision when making a game, not the throw it at the wall an hope it sticks like we have today.  To many start out making a game then add this or that because they want to draw in more players which in the end is why we end up with a game that doesn't excel at anything.

Ungood

Kyleran said:

DMKano said:

Robokapp said:

DMKano said:

Aeander said:

Pure PvE players who want exactly nothing to do with PvP, and sadist- I mean open world FFA PvPers who want PvE playing victims. 

You are mistaken - if the game is open world FFA ruleset- there are no PvE players, if there are - they chose the wrong game.

It's like entering a formula 1 race on foot and then complaining when you get run over - hello?

Pure PvE players need to stick to pure PvE games - simple, don't pick open world FFA PvP games and complain.

This would be as bad as a PvP player playing a PvE only game and complaining that they can't kill anyone

i played EVE as a miner...because I liked mining in EVE. 

I bet you didnt call anyone a sadist if they killed you though. 



PvE players who understand the risks and are ok when attacked by PvP players - that's fine

I was a miner in EVE for a spell and while I never called someone who killed me a sadist, other words like mthrfkr, dckwd, and ubstrd definitely were said.

  

The thing that people miss, is that you were not talking about PvP players, people looking for a fight, but people looking for easy prey.

There is a huge difference between the people that would attack a miner and a guardian, and someone that just attacks the miner and runs like a candy ass little shit from the guardian. 

LackingMMO

You could make a game like that but like DM said, probably wouldn't be too good. Also you would have the success factor of it as well. You have groups of people on both sides pve and pvp who will not play games if one aspect is involved that they don't like.

learis1

It does seem as though making a game with everything would be too overwhelming a task to be done properly, even by skilled developers.

But here's the problem. MMO players are already a niche audience. Add onto that that there are many fragmented sub-audiences within the general MMO audience: pvp vs pve, sandbox vs themepark, sci-fi vs fantasy, solo-grinders vs groupers, etc. And generally these sub-audiences are at odds with each other wanting as little to do with the other as possible!

So basically your choice is either make an "everything mmo" to appeal to everyone and most likely do a crappy job at it, or make a quality niche mmo but still fail because your sub-audience is too small and not worth the investment and cost to maintain the mmo. And most likely you'd still do a crappy job because mmo's are the toughest most expensive games to make anyways.

MMO development is stuck between a rock and a hard place because of this I think

WarWitch

The problem is making classes different and balanced for every class. 

In the old days, the best games were not balanced and way more fun. 

They made rock paper scissors with like 5 classes where 2 u would most likely beat 2 who would most likely beat you and 1 dead even.


Do most MMO players really want a perfectly balanced game ??? I dont think so.
 If so why have different races and class options and builds and hero-champion point systems?


Most players in mmos in truth want to play a class that has some advantage to their play style and is the flavor of the month. Some Dev teams have caught onto this and keep changing things to keep the players changing meta builds to stay current because they use the cash shop to do it.