Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
MMORPG video game sub-genre going one way, the other genres going another. Why?
Rockgod99
Member Posts: 4,640
This weekend i caught myself a bit of a cold. unable to gather the strength to sit up at my Pc I decided to stack some pillows and lay on the sofa with my trusty 360 controller.
Two days straight with hot soup, dayquil and my 360. I start asking myself. wtf is wrong with my favorite video game genre (MMO). look at all the single player games, they've all gone sandboxy, free roam and more complicated yet in the mmo genre we all seem to want linearity, simplistic easy to get into games.
I gotta ask why? Why havent our games gotten more complicated? why have mmos decided to scale back the options and depth? wth do GTA players have a more indepth enjoyable game than us mmorpg players?
Is it due to our genre starting off complex and deep? is that how it works? evolution is the oposite of how it all began?
Anyway im still kinda sick so im gonna head back to exploring Liberty city I just thought it was funny that these games are becoming more, more options, more freedom, more everythign while we get less.
Oh well... Let me know what you guys think.
Comments
I think it has to do with the market. Consoles games make up most of the gaming population therefore, they can afford to try and maker deeper games, etc. because their is a ton of competition and tons of revenue to be made.
PC games on the other hand, which is where current MMOs are being made first(even though the phase over to consoles is coming, slowly but surely), have a smaller market and are trying to make more games etc. to grab that same revenue.
That's how I see it anyway.
Well there is a bit of a trend in designs, but that happens with every entertainment industry. One comic book movie makes it and there are 50 others in the works before nightfall.
But the other simple and obvious answer is that there are more 'sandbox'-ish games, you're simply looking in the wrong places or looking at the wrong details. GTA IV, for instance, doesn't let you get an honest job at the Clukin' Bell. Sure you can shoot the people in front of it or buy a chicken sandwhich, but you can't start your own chain, build your own store, or take over the word with a force of Clunkin' Bell raiders (perish the image).
People of your ilk just tend to have blinders on. Whatever it is you're seeking, you've zero'd in on it with such precision it becomes easy to dismiss anything that isn't an exact match. It may not be as good, or even ideal, but it's hardly as hopeless as its made out to seem.
The morning sun has vanquished the horrible night.
Blinders? Take a look at the industry. Have you found a game as advanced as UO or Eve released in the last four to five years?
now look at single player games. remember Gta 1? have you played Gta 4? single player fans have embraced games with freedom and living breathing environments yet the mmo community calls anyone that likes or wants something like that "no lifers".
In video game sub-genres across the board every single one has given us more in the ways of gameplay & options. From fighting games to rpgs to action shooters to racing sims people want a ton of options, they flock to open ended gameplay yet here we all want hold me by the nuts gameplay and limited options?
Believe me I know there are a handful of games that still deliver the open-ended feel but that doesnt mean the genre isnt filled with hundreds of linear, shallow games.
So what's the deal? I'm sorry... when a single player gangster action game has more freedom and options than the biggest selling mmorpg of all time I have to ask myself why things are heading in the direction they are.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
This is interesting, maybe we wont get true evolution until mmorpgs are taken to consoles fully and given to the major portion of the gaming community.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
I dont think you can compare single palyer console games to multi-player computer games. Much easier for console designers to do what they want when they don't have but one player to worry about. I do think MMO's have gotten easier over time, but the MMO industry needs to make money and the majority of the paying customers are casual players.
As a casual gamer myself, I only have 5-8 hrs a week total to put into any games. Life just doesn't allow me more than that nor would I want to take away time from my family for it. The easier it is to get into a game and get going, the more likely it is I will play it. Doesn't mean I don't like games with a high learning curve (played Eve-Online from beta to 2008) I just dont have the time for it anymore.
I have a 9 year old who plays WoW and Wizard 101 and a 7 year old who plays Wizard 101. They dont like console games, but love MMO's. If those games weren't easy to get into, they wouldn't be playing them. Most MMO companies know what sell and will continue to cater to what does until something changes.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
I'm fully expecting that in a few years time I'll be switching on my Playstation 4 and logging into my favourite MMO. I'm just really hoping the damn thing has a keyboard and mouse.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
They've all gone sandboxy?
As far as I know there's still a huge amount of regular games out there and a lot of the hard-hitters are amongst these.
Sure there was a spike of sandboxes a while back, but most were crappy attempts to copy GTA.
Sandbox single player == sandbox mmo either; for one you can usually get right to the sandbox elements without having to put up with crappy gameplay and grinding in single players.
And there's no need for the makers to put in all sort of mechanics for players to distinguish themselves from others (which all too often seems to end up alienating part of the playerbase).
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
I agree with you Rockgod. I've noticed the same thing. I watched my house mate last night playing Just Cause 2 and I found myself saying "Its a shame mmos are nothing like this". It actually looked like fun to play. He had this big beautiful open world to explore. He was climbing buildings, sneaking through forests, hopping into vehicles and driving them around, crashing them into things and causing great big explosions, jumping out of helicopters and planes and falling to earth in a parachute, getting into running gun fights with bad guys etc etc.
In contrast what do we get as the standard in modern mmos? Static npcs and objects to click on, blocks of text to tell you a story because the gameplay itself cant manage it, blocks of text to tell you to go and click on an npc so it can give you a block of text to tell you to go and click on another npc so it can give you more blocks of text to tell you to go and click on 10 objects and then go back to the npc to read more blocks of text, static worlds that cant be influenced that are inhabited by players that ignore each other because they are too busy running between npcs to read the next piece of a story, simplistic gameplay in general that requires limited thinking and decision making etc.
Many people say they like having lots of stories to read in mmos. I like reading too.....which is why I read books. If I am playing a game though then I prefer to play a game, especially a multiplayer one with all those human beings to interact with. Why the hell do thousands of people want to log online and then watch other peoples avatars crowding motionless around an npc to read a story? How stupid is that?! Shouldnt these games be designed around the players making things happen by having to do things with each other and making decisions rather than just follow the paths laid out by the developers? I think mmo developers fall back on text files because its easier to put an online book with graphics on a server than an actual game.
So yeah single player games do indeed seem to offer more in the way of quality and varied gameplay with more options and decision-making scenarios while mmos are reduced to simplistic gameplay and lots of text files in an attempt to have more "content" as its easier to produce large amounts of crap.
Another interesting question is why this single player game developers don't extend them to mmo. The only example I see is Bioware extending kotor to SWTOR, which as a funny thing requires a huge budget. Can it be that the complexity of mmos imposed constrains to the development so it is harder if not impossible to get the same features as single player counter parts. Also, mmos openess for expansions and new content is critical, something that is not that important in single player games.
The other thing is that mmo playing is mutually exclusive, meaning that most mmo players play 1 game at most 2 at one time. This make more problematic the market, something that usually doesn't happen in single player games.
I can see your point a little, but not all console games are going this route. Just finished Final Fantasy 13 and it has gone the complete opposite direction. It has to be the easiest, dumbed down FF I have ever played. Is it beautiful? Yes indeed! Were are the towns? Were are the areas to explore? Real areas, not paths ya follow straight ahead. No hidden characters to add to your group. No shops even. Some games may be getting harder but some are going the "Make it easy for the masses" route, and judging by how many copies of FF13 sold I doubt it will ever go back. I have a feeling everyone will be making their new RPGs for the masses soon.
I don't know many singleplayer games with as much freedom as in most MMORPG's. Even a game like GTA is very limited in what you can do, GTA just happens to put the freedom where it is most easily noticed; kill others, steal vehicles, travel freely. Also the very realistic setting increases the feel of freedom. There's some other small features that make it feel more sandboxy, like playing in a casino, changing appearance, dating, ambulance/police/taxi missions etc... but they are just mini games within the game without much depth. I like GTA's, I played Vice City and San Andreas a lot, but I think the feeling of freedom is more of an illusion. The game would require more depth in order to be considered more sandboxy than most MMORPG's are. This is how I seen it anyway. I've understood Just Cause 2 is similar, so I include it in this. I also understood you were referring to, for example, these two games or something similar.
Waiting on Xsyon & betaing stuff
I agree with what you are getting at but I dont understand why you think that what draws people to single player games is the same thing that draws people to MMOs. Single player games are all about the gameplay because thats the games main appeal and draw, if the gameplay doesnt pull you in, then it falls flat...there is no community aspect about GTA and Just Cause outside of the forums.
The games are designed to be nothing but explosions and mayhem because thats the draw to it. MMOs are designed to be about lore, community and working together to do raids and large scale pvp ( just my opinion) which requires teamwork and cooperation, the games themselves are designed to have longevity and be added onto with expansions and updates. you cant get that in a single player game because its designed to be a 6-20 hour explosion fest (it doesnt even need to be believable or make sense) with enough story to get you from point A to point B.
HEAVEN OR HELL
Duel 1
Lets ROCK!
Simple.
In a world of your own, that revolves around you, where the consequences of your actions affect only you, you don't need rules. You will only do the things you choose to do, so it doesn't matter what you do.
It's a bit like a tribe of one - morality, structure, rules are superfluous because you can't affect anyone but yourself.
As soon as you add more people, the complexity of the situation scales exponentially.
In a world with others, people - in this case gamers - can do things that make life a misery for others. Now in real life, you can't walk away so you either: a) accept it b) flee/relocate c) attack the threat. Games however have an OFF button and in a game with no rules or structure, players will weight up two things:
Is the effort required to deal with/work around the negative behaviour of certain others worth investing, taking into account both the maximum amount of enjoyment this game may provide and that which alternative games may offer?
The answer will all too often be NO. Why spend ages mitigating a threat to your fun and enjoyment - which in itself may not be much fun to do - when you could simply go somewhere else to avoid that threat entirely?
When people bang on about this sand-box topic, I like to think of MMOs like nations:
WOW and games like it are your 1st world, civilized nations where you are well looked after and can engage in savagery (PvP) if you so choose but it's all controlled and moderated and has become more like a sport with no real winners/losers.
The true - i.e. lawless - sandbox games certain people dream on about are more like underdeveloped, 3rd world shitholes where it's every man for himself. Now who honestly, in the real world, wants to live there? No-one. Sure these places might have started out like liberal wet-dreams with people just happy to be alive and running around with flowers in their hair but when human nature really kicks in and selfishness and greed rear their result-of-evolution heads, it all goes to the dogs. Which is why people play sandbox crap for 5 minutes and unless they're some kind of virtual Mugabe with the power to pwn it outright, quickly go seek asylum in a structured game.
Aryas
Playing: Ableton Live 8
~ ragequitcancelsubdeletegamesmashcomputerkillself ~
The main reason why I dont play sandboxes nice post.
HEAVEN OR HELL
Duel 1
Lets ROCK!
GTA isn't a sandbox. Nor is Fable or Oblivion or Crackdown or prototype or any of these other free roaming game. They're basically choose your level games with fifteen minutes of walking / driving thrown in to pad out the game. Notice how in many of the games you only have two endings. Or better yet, notice that these games actually have endings! Real sandbox games don't have actual endings. The Sims, the X series, just about any shovelware Tycoon game..... Oh God... I think I just gave them and idea for yet another Tycoon game.... <horrified shudder>
Most of these "sandbox" games work exactly like MMORPGs. There are a bunch of NPCs scattered around the map and you have to find them and do their menial tasks. To make it even more MMO like, there are assorted baddies between where you are and what you have to do. Better yet, these mobs constantly respawn so you always have to fight through them to get to the next interesting scripted section. Kind of like running to an instance in your favorite MMORPG.
I know what you're going to say. You're going to say "well if people didn't want these kinds of games no one would make them." Uh, no. The game developers make these games because they want to advertise that there game takes X number of hours to complete so that you won't feel bad about dropping $60 on the game at launch day and you won't just go rent the game. They kind of have a point. I've played, and beaten, every single Halo game ever made and I've never owned a Halo game. Why? Because you can beat the single player parts of all the Halo games in 8 to 10 hours. It isn't worth $60, but it is worth a three day rental. See how that works?
Its not about just freeroam vs linear. single player games give many more options to the player, people seem to want more out of these games. Even in linear sp games they give you a ton of stuff to play with while your following a certain path.
It seems the mmo community wants this genre to resemble the single player Rpg genre of the 90's which were extremely limited (with a few exceptions) while todays sp games have been pushing the envelope more and more in the stuff players can do. from gameplay to options adn multiplayer modes.
Oh and the term sandbox when talking of single player games just means free roam. not what we have in the extremely small selection of mmorpgs (that the community generally ignores). I would go as far as say the free roam games like Oblivion and GTA offer much mroe than what a game like WoW or Lotro offer even if those are single player or co-rpg games.
Damn I recently finished ME2 and its ten times the game of any mmo on the market (with one exception) and thats as linear as you could get.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Guys this isnt a Single player game vs mmo genre thread.
Im speaking of the evolutions of video game genres and how other genres have evolved within thier own sub-genres, expanded and become feature rich experiences while mmorpgs in their genres have gone backwards, become limiting and taken features away.
Its not this feature vs this feature or if this game is that and this.
im speaking of the genres evolution and mmorpgs are the only ones that seem to be limiting themselves more and more and the players of the genre seem to want this.
Again this isnt a vs thread.
Do me a favor and pull up a feature list of GTA1 and GTA 4 and see the difference now pull up EQ or AC against Aion. Seems like the playerbase is wanting this de-evolution.
Thank you.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
the difference between console single player games and MMO PC games is the competition:
- In SPs you are competing against noone, its just you playing the game
- In MMOs you are competing against everyone, even when the feature you are playing its NOT based on competing, competition spawns naturally from it.
so god damned imbeciles can take it easy in their SP games. they might suck beyond words can express, yet they usually wont feel frustrated...
change difficulty setting, give it some more time, learn to play sligthly better, and there you go kid, you'll finish in 180 hours what a 10 year old with downs would have achieved in half the time in a greater difficulty level...but who cares? you did it
if MMOs were made following that pattern, that same brain dead morons would be permanently reminded that they are dumber than rocks, they suck, and they are pathetic, while people around them arent.
They would see others progressing at a much faster rate than them, effortlessly killing them then teabagging them.
they would cry in a corner, then cancel their subscription....say bye bye to their money...
Thats why you have handholding/linear MMO games, because people dont want to join virtual worlds where everybody can see how pitiful they are, they want easy-to-grasp games where everybody is capped at a level...that is, the same level one has to reach to be able to tie his own shoelaces.
You say that single player games are evolving and mmorpgs are not but rather degenerating and I just dont see that. you want us to go and pull up a feature list of GTA1 and GTA4 and see the differences because its all so self-evident, like if what you see as 'evolving' features is going to be the exact same as what I would consider "evolving" features. you say "seems like the playerbase is wanting this de-evolution" its not up to me, if the developers want to make a game the way they want to make it theres nothing I can do about it except not buy the game.
What you want and what you see is not what everybody else wants and what everyone else sees, its all your own interpretation. You say the games have become "feature rich" and mmorpgs have gone backwards I dont see it. They make games for us to play, you want to bring back what you consider "evolution" in "your genre" then go out and make your own damn game and stop blaming devs for not seeing the world the way you see it.
HEAVEN OR HELL
Duel 1
Lets ROCK!
Hmm. Interesting.
MMOs began as sandbox and evolved to be more themepark.
Single player games began as themepark and evolved to be more sandbox.
Perhaps both are approaching the same level of hybrid, but from opposite directions?
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Pretty much made my point for me right there, I stopped reading after this. It's obviously a loaded question from the start. Undoubtedly if I prompted you to define how 'advanced' a game is, you'd do so by using as many verbs as possible that apply specifically to UO and Eve and nothing else. That's what I mean by blinders. It's easy to throw out industry buzzwords like freedom or sandbox, but what you're looking for isn't really a game that has certain features but a game that's strictly a sequel to your favorite MMO. Hey, I think it's fine to aim for a goal that specific, but it doesn't mean it's correct to dismiss everything else outright.
My point? You could provide an example of what you felt was the most restrictive and limiting MMO ever made and I could probably find 10 reasons why it has more freedom than GTA. Probably not the type of freedom you want, but it'll be there nonetheless, making your initial observation more of a subjective interpretation than some grand industry trend.
Edit: oh yeah, and I should add that if I did the opposite, and named a single-player console title with virtually no sandbox play I would be shocked if you could find a game that even approached being an MMO with less freedom. One console action title doesn't make a trend.
The morning sun has vanquished the horrible night.
Oh, I hope so. I really, really hope so. Themepark/Sandbox Hybrids are the future!
You're entirely basing your self worth a video game. I can't think of anything dumber or more pathetic....
Well i wouldnt say self worth, just level of stupidity (which ive got to admit does make up at least a decent amount of someones worth to me). That said, you dont like him judging intelligence, or lack of it based on a video game, yet what would you have it based on? Some sort of tests? Tests revolving around things like problem solving, analytical skills, mathematics, ability to memorize patterns, etc? Sure sound slike a video game would be one of the best tests you could do.
People prove their stupidity, lack of any sort of common sense, and inability to follow very very very simple and direct instructions in games, especially MMOs an astounding number of times daily. Example: "Hey lets stand here hitting this tank (who is SUPPOSED to take the most hits) and ignore the dps classes picking us off, and the 5 healers keeping the tank alive.... ZOMG WTF WHY ARE WE LOSING YOU ALL SUCK!!!!"
A sandbox in non MMO terms and a sandbox in MMO terms are two completely different games. And I don't mean one is a MMO and the other isn't.
What is a sandbox single player game? usually they are story based games that allow the player to roam freely in a world, maybe they have side quests, maybe they do some other side activity like fish or have a house.
Sandbox in terms of MMO though is something else entirely. It isn't a story based game with free roaming with some side activities but rather a simulation of a world, economy, politics, environmnet all are supose to be entact and part of the simulation.
I can't really think of any single player games that have the breadth of mechanics that MMO sandboxes are supose to have. So they share the same name but I think are really tweo different types of games.
But as to way don't you see MMOs heading toward fabled sandbox territory. Because I think you have to master the basics before you move onto something else. MMOs have always lagged behind in terms of gameplay so I think it makes sense to focus on trying to make that more fun before you start adding in some sort of world simulation.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit