Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
People don't want to play MMORPG's.
Hyanmen
Member UncommonPosts: 5,357
That's right. Most people want to play Online RPG's.
Which is completely understandable- the major factor that differentiates MMORPG's from Online RPG's is the lack of convenience, sacrificed for social behavior.
Online RPG's are all about convenience- everything is close by, you teleport to instances with your group or alone, do your thing and come back. No waiting times, everything happens in the hubs and it's as convenient as an online game can possibly get.
MMO's these days try to be both online RPG's and MMORPG's, failing miserably most of the time. This leaves us with no real Online RPG's (glad to see PSO2 being released though) and no real MMORPG's (AAA titles, at least).
Done correctly, Online RPG's would be something the majority wants and expects from an MMORPG today. The gameplay can be better, more instant/immediate, and there are no inconveniences like excessive travel times and such. The developers don't have to bother with that sort of thing, or making servers that can deal with up to 600 players simultaneously at any time in a given area.
MMORPG's on the other hand, are not so much about gameplay as they are about socializing and being in the world. This is obviously not something for the majority, but there is a significant group out there that likes this sort of gaming.
So, instead of trying to make both online RPG and MMORPG at the same time, developers should focus on making the games one or the other. Most convenient or most social (without completely neglecting the opposite aspects, of course).
Right now we have people complaining that MMO X is not as convenient as it could be, how you can't repair armor at NPCs, buy everything from NPCs, can't get group within 2 minutes, need to wait for more than 5 minutes when doing anything, traveling everywhere and so on. These people want an online RPG experience, and they hinder the MMORPG genre significantly. No one is happy, because a pseudo-MMO just doesn't work.
That is all for today.
EDIT: And yes, for the people who want to go into semantics, this is my opinion and not a fact.
Comments
i agree with you my man. this generation of games is all about convenience.
similar to my Top 5 MMO Popular Harmful Updates - that's what people want, but unfortunately it ends up ruining the experience and the community in the long run.
In an MMORPG, those kind of updates are really silly. It's like trying to cater to people that should not be playing an MMORPG in the first place.
Do it all the way or don't do it at all. If you want to make your game as convenient as possible, don't make it an MMO.
So you've taken an official census? or just phoned all of the people in the world who play video games and asked them?
Oh no wait, are you going by your own personal impression garnered from reading forums such as (and possibly only) this one?
Unless it is one of the first two options you are full of hot air. You just wrote a whole thread stating nothing but your own personal opinion and labelled it as somehow repesenting the masses.
Nope.
I just love when people try to make definitive statements that turn out to be wrong. Computer Gamer Players want to play MMORPG's just for different reason. To say that "People dont want to play MMORPG''s" is an assumption based on little to no research. If your going to make a definitive post atleast look out side a website that should be titled VNBoards v2.0.
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
Oh boy, you might be right! Sue me?
I want to have a discussion, in which you can either participate in or stay away from.
Well you are doing a much better job proving me wrong there. All those charts and research studies you posted make my point absolutely moot, dang it.
I understand what you are doing here but like most generalizations into black and white hard definitions it doesn't really capture the true, perhaps more subtle, differences.
Without writing an essay (which your post probably deserves but I'm lazy today) I would simply say that in any game there are completely unnecessary timesinks that have nothing to do with socialization or stopping to smell the roses or even giving a sense of grandeur. There are games that provide the wide range of experiences and locales that lend themselves to socialization and games that hard code socialization into the game mechanics but some timesinks are simply timesinks.
Let's say you have the perfect MMORPG by your definition and for some reason it requires you to meticulously clean out your boots after walking for 30 seconds (sitting down and shaking out a pebble animation) while it doesn't require eating food or drinking, where the players never get ill or hypothermia, where a militia doesn't come running when you hassle the locals, or a million other little effects that don't make it into a game.
People simply realize that many timesinks are arbitrary when you consider the suspension of disbelief for so many other necessary parts of a story or adventure.
I don't care about this thread, it's just another player telling the world what games she wants them to make for her. I just like the part where you are telling them it's what we all want.
When it isn't. & The first line of your post made me lol.
And this is me participating, I'm telling you I don't agree with your assessment.
MMORPG mean Massively multiplayer online roleplaying game...
That differs from online roleplaying game how?
It is not what this is about, it is about trends in online gaming.
The current trends is about easy casual gaming. 10 years ago it was about hardcore gaming.
Trends change, things will get harder again, the worlds will get bigger (but traveling might stay simple or not).
Don't confuse this with the fact that most games have failed miserably the lest 5 years, that is more about them sucking. A really good game will sell no matter what and we all know that. Games that releases a year too early with sloppy coding wont sell well even if it is fun to play, like Vanguard.
Players might want a game to be in a specific way but they will still play a really fun game no matter how much it differs from their perfect game.
I can't find the article, but a couple years back someone wrote a great article on why the concept of a marriage between an MMO and an RPG was doomed to fail. The PC that I had that article saved to has long since been recycled. If anyone has a link to said article, a link would be greatly appreciated. I believe that article explains it best as to why people are at odds over the entire RPG thing in an MMO game.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
bwahah!
you're the one making the presentation. and you are telling us what we want apparently (we are most people I'd assume, or are we the few who don't fit in?).
All we have to say to disprove your claim is this:
"I disagree."
I mostly agree with this.
As the mmo demographic has aged and started familiies there is more appeal to the ORPG experience. 10 years ago I wanted the hardcore MMO experience, but today I prefer something more accessible.
The fact that each person has his/her needs change over the years correlates directly to the life cycle of online games. The same game that excited us 5 years ago, won't excite us in the same way anymore ... even though we may have a great fondness for the memories and experiences at that time. This results in a sort of unplanned obsolescence and/or natural selection of the mmo world.
The problem is that if you resign yourself to the idea that there should be 100 highly successful niche games then you'll end up with polarized, stagnating communities. The variety of the playerbase adds a lot to an online game. The only way to get that variety is to offer something for everyone.
The real challenge for future developers is to create worlds that allow a variety of people to interact, but on terms that seem reasonable to each party. I would suggest that such a thing can always be improved, but impossible to perfect ... just as in our own natural world.
The bottom line for me then is, developers should continue to produce both niche and comprehensive games and let players fall where they may.
Also, we should take gaming less seriously.
I would say that those timesinks don't exist for the sake of socialization, they exist to simply slow down the player's progress and give more lead to developers creating content. That is a big part of MMORPG's as a whole, and not so much Online RPG's.
People would like to play the game as long as possible, and some think that a successful MMORPG is one you will play for years to come. That's why there must be timesinks involved.
But that doesn't really go well with the concept of an Online RPG, which is again all about convenience. If there are no subscription fees, there is no reason to artificially lengthen the gameplay experience (too much) either. You could rather sell expansion packs to generate profit instead.
I'm fairly sure that would be great for a lot of people. If they don't care about being immersed in the world, socializing and making long-lasting friendships, why not be done with it sooner rather than later? Which would bring me to the point of "endgame is where the real game is", a common mindset these days.
Then why the unnecessary talk of the obvious? Yes, there are no facts, yes, it is my opinion, if you want to argue with me please do so. We all know the facts here, which is that we don't know any.
For disagreeing with me, you are not giving me a very convincing argument.
ORPG = Better, more immediate gameplay, less 'freedom' (hubs, instances), less socializing.
PSO, Monster Hunter, to name a few.
You can focus on the 'important factors' that people are looking for. Not the traveling, nor making huge areas just to give players a way to teleport anywhere a few months later, nor the excessive socializing.
MMORPG.com forums- a voice of the majority
Once majority of the 12 million players tell me they disagree, then yeah- my claim is disproved.
Before that happens, I'd rather discuss the topic at hand.
I disagree with a few of them.
IMO a Mmo that is a single small Zone with both PvP and PvE elements, wont do well compared to a world made up of many zones, and PvP and PvE elements all over the place.
Harsh DP has nothing to do with immersion nor should it be an excuse. Halo the FPS for example, has many different modes, yet it doesnt have to change the DP to make things harder does it? Iam tired of that excuse that HDP is needed.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
it has to do with the sense of risk (or lack thereof). a lack of sense of risk diminishes the sensations a gameplay experience offers ultimately affecting the immersion in a game.
Im not the one that has to back up any claim. your the one that made the claim "People dont want to play MMORPG's" so your the one that needs to provide the research data to back it up. Try this time to actually link the case studies that back this claim up too.
Edit: According to XFire.Com the game with the most logged time is a MMORPG and that is World of Warcraft with 7,679,304 minutes played(or 14.6 years which is longer than the game has actually been out)
7,679,304
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
If you have to be so anal about it, add an "in my opinion" at the end of the sentence. I thought it was obvious, shouldn't have expected so much from humanity.
Way to miss the point, though!
you are focusing on the olive, not the whole pizza.
its clear enough its hyanmen's personal thoughts - from the title to his elaborated text.
if the best you can do is ask for facts and data then perhaps you don't have arguments of your own?
I don't even want everyone to agree with me- what would be the point of this thread, then? On a discussion forum, nonetheless?
If I get conflicting arguments, I can widen my perspective about the subject. If there are things I haven't thought of, I can be wiser for the future.
Right now I am confident in what I'm saying, but that does not mean I'm right. I want to be right, so question me.
What?
Where is this in Halo? Please explain.....
And really why is HDP so important to you. Because Failure alone is the only DP I need. Because who wants to fail?
If something is truly hard, that people will sometimes fail. Has nothing to do with HDP.
besides HDP makes player not want to try new things.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
I guess your post works well if one considers that somehow massively multiplayer means you have to do everything the hard way which is why posts like this one bother me, it is in essense someone trying to put their own personal opinion as a factual definition of a term. While one can recall the glory days of old school mmo playing with stories about forty five minute boat rides and fifteen minute shuttle waits that doesn't define massive for me as it does for you necessarily well atleast no more so or less than WOW,LOTRO,AION and other games that may fit into your online roleplaying game category.
I noticed in a recent article a comment made by the writer comparing the LOTRO game world and he eluded to a point similar I think to your own, he implied the game world seemed smaller and less immersive because of systems like swift travel and teleporting through the map and home skill but does that really make the world smaller? While it may appear to do so we all know it doesn't, that would imply when we discovered supersonic speed the earth became smaller.
The strategies used to force the "massiveness" of the game world upon the player is what ultimately made sure and would continue to make sure mmorpg's stay a niche market and never reach the wow like numbers or see the sheer number of titles that come out, and while everyone isn't happy with every game judging by the short list of closures in comparison to releases they are all doing something right.
Far too often in my opinion posts assume the majority of negativity has something to do with a backlash against conventional design philosophies when it isn't the whole case.
Devs have other problems like it's difficult to get someone reasonable to continue to pay for something when you either are not yet delivering the goods or will take months to do so, games like AOC release with features advertised on the box missing and once you sub you find they may get those features in working order in another six months but that even is dependant on your continuing to sub because if too many people quit then the dreaded maintenance mode comes along and most things never change again. Could anyone here imagine signing up for dish network and them telling you that only half the channels are ready and may not be ready for six months, and that's only if you continue to sub.(Mortal,Fallen Earth,Darkfall).
MMORPG industry as far as stability goes is living in the dark ages and are lagging light years behind the offline pc and console industry as far as development standards go and that has little to do with actual or percieved world size. some may say well yes developing for a console is easier with the standardiized specs but pc offline and multiplayer games seem to have there act together too the only people who seem comfortable putting welfare products on the shelf are these mmo devs we are stuck with which is really no surprise to me that so many of them are in fact not successful non mmo producers.
This is why I look forward to seeing what a cmopany like Bioware can do with the mmo model and I sincerely hope that other big name reputable development houses follow suit because I just can't do business with companies that operate like the Funcoms and Cryptics of the world.
In conclusion I say what's in a name? As long as games that follow the mode of SWG,WOW,LOTRO,TOR etc. call themselves mmo's I'm comfortable with that and it's not just because I agree that they are I certainly understand why people would say STO is not an mmo but I don't make the industry rules and until the people who do specify they aren't one I'm riding with them on it.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
While I don't think DP has anything to do with the topic at hand...
It depends. If you are set back in your progress (like being thrown to the start of an instance), then that is plenty of DP already.
But with an irrelevant DP, in normal gameplay it does not really matter to me whether I die or not. There are no consequences. I don't think that should be right.
In an ORPG, DP comes from the fact that you are thrown to the beginning of instance and have to fight your way back. That's good enough.
In an MMORPG, aside from events majority of gameplay happens in an environment where I feel something a bit more harsh is necessary as a DP.