It means that every themepark game since WoW has failed to keep anything but a minimal number of subscriptions or make the kind of money their investment demands, while WoW also is declining. It means that gamers in a large part are simply tired of doing the same thing with no change. It means it didn't last as a viable game play system.
Except correlation does not imply causation, and there's absolutely no evidence behind what you're stating. In fact, there are so many outside variables here any decent scientist would roll on the floor laughing at your "conclusions".
WoW is still alive. That should give you one clue. There's a very strong demand for such games if WoW is still pretty much alive, and, I assure you, there are tons of rabid players ready to sink their teeth into MoP. And why that is? Because WoW is a high quality, polished game in most aspects. And because there's nothing else to play.
Every themepark since WoW has been crap. Every themepark since WoW attempted to clone WoW. That is not going to work. Clones always lose to the original. This is what happened. All those people you say are tired of the gameplay are actually tired of clones and are stuck playing the original. But the fact that they're playing shows they're interested. But even they tire, which is why WoW is "declining".
Give people a well-made themepark that is not a WoW-clone driven by nothing but pure greed and it will succeed. GW2 will do fine. Even TSW may do fine if Funcom doesn't fuck it up somehow.
Yes, gamers are tired of the same thing with no change. They're tired of playing WoW & Clones because they played it for 8 years. That does NOT mean they're tired of themeparks, which is a subgenre of which we've barely scratched the surface, since most companies have been busy cloning WoW instead of making their own, standalone products.
In any given popular MMO, most of the endgame content is never experienced by most of the playerbase.
The reason I don't do raids is not because I don't get around to them, it's because they are a playstyle that doesn't interest me, no matter what the rewards offered.
I'm not unsympathetic to the "we aim to please the average player not the extremes", but I think that the relationship between players, their communities and their games is more complex than the number of quests completed.
I agree, the quest/dungeon/armor up design is flawed in that it is limiting. It requres the developer to constantly churn out new content or else everyone gets bored.
Creating better PVE systems would be the solution, to keep the players busy for long hours and days and weeks.
Why would you equate "long" to "good"?
So what if the player exhaust the content? Let the player leave a while then come back. There are plenty of games out there to play.
Oh, was I supposed to be imagining a PVE system meant for casual players, and/or players who jump from game to game?
But there lie the problem. MMO's don't "fail" but they do loose alot of players because the content runs out and people get bored.
No. People get bored far before they run out of content. See SW:TOR. I did not wait to get to 50 in that game, neither did most people. We saw the uninspired zones, the WoW interface, the WoW trees, the WoW trinity, the WoW instances and raids, the WoW combat, the WoW evreything, and ran away from the sinking ship.
IMHO, this happens because the pve is the main focus. Look at even GW2 and TSW. they have BG's and large scale pvp, which is great, but Anet and Funcom have to transfer resources to all the stories, quests, dungeons, etc that those game have, and it's alot.
You should check to see how many people played PvE in GW1, which was a highly PvP centric game. GW2 is now EXPANDING on their PvE. That should give you a clue.
By making traditional pve secondary to pvp and non combat activities, i believe that, not only can they can it faster, but it's not so "dev driven" has the first.
Is that why GW2 is marketing its PvE so heavily?
PVE isn't flawed in the sense it's bad, just that it can't provide the longevity that these other systems can. I think.
LOL
I think you just dislike PvE and are trying to transfer your dislike onto reality. Except it doesn't work.
The problem with traditional PvE play is the same as with French 19th century litterature. The authors got paid by the word leading to sometimes really long and rambling stuff.
MMO gameplay can easily as well focus too much on stealing your time and too little on being fun to play.
The gamedesigners needs to focus more on fun and worry less how long time the players will play, if it is fun enough people will play it for a long time anyways.
I think you just dislike PvE and are trying to transfer your dislike onto reality. Except it doesn't work.
? Da fuq ?
I love pve. Epic boss battles, awesome quest lines with great stories, i like alot. In fact, because they are dev created they can be the most epic moments in an mmo, in done right.
The problem is that creating pve content takes more time than pvp or side activities. If you actually read my OP, i never said i wanted pve mmos lik the ones of today to disappear. I'm just trying to say that it may not be the best route for devs to take.
More variety would be welcomed in this genre and i think this could be a good way for themeparks to go.
By traditional pve i'm refering to quests, dungeons, open world eventes like mob invasions, storylines, etc. The reason why i believe this design decision is flawed is because of how much time it takes to create it. We know devs can't make this type of content faster than what players can use it, and this creates the problem of people getting bored for not having anything to do besides wait for more. Unfortunatly, this can cause players to just leave for the next shinny new mmo with new content (not saying the games fail).
Now, i'm NOT saying every themepark should drop this formula, but i think there's 2 gameplay styles that, ironicaly, provide better longevity for these mmo's:
PVP- BG's, RVR, OWPVP, etc can take quite a long time to make has too, but not as much. The advantage they have is not only are the battles between players (no need for AI), but fighting against another humans grants a much greater sense of replayability, like almost all multyplayer games. So, basically, i'm saying make more BG's (about 8 or 10) and only 2 or maybe 3 dungeons, instead of the opposite.
Non combat content- I'm talking about stuff like players housing and decoration, making farms, mounts, pets, minigames, diplomacy, deep crafting, dancing, etc, etc. Many of these things are created by devs too, but unlike normal pve content, there is a certain amount of player driven actions.
Now, this doesn't mean that normal pve can't exist. In fact, most themepark have an overall arc story of the world that leads to the next patch or expansion. Having a final dungeon against the big bad is a must have of course. Also, granting progression to both playstyles, or mob grinding if one wants, is necessary.
Themeparks already have these gameplay options, but they always take a backseat to normal pve. Instead, make them the focus. i believe it would create a new type of themepark, attracting a different playerbase, and have better longevity.
EDIT: Just so nobody gets me wrong, when i say flawed, i'm refering to the longevity issue. I like pve, pvp, most things. The more variety, the better IMO. And yes, i know most players eem to prefer pve above everything else.
MMORPGs have been using PvE - successful, partially even exclusive - for over a decade.
So, why should it now suddenly be a "fail"?
If there is a "fail" it rests with the gamers as they - despite claiming otherwise - need to be hand-held thru the game.
I'll give you an example: My first MMORPG was DAoC 2001.
Yes, of course there were quests, even quest chains, but in general you could just as well make your way on your own in the PvE world, in your realm. This then became part of your history, your own personal story.
And you carried that same story, that same chance to add further to your "book" by going into the PvP side of DAoC. Which you didn't have to but obviously most people did ;-)
Yes, content was there, further content was added (on the PvE end) by the game designers but even if maybe you felt like in the region that you are currently in you have eaten up all provided "cookies", no problem, you just gathered a few people or maybe even took to the road alone and went monster hunting.
Why that should be so hard to do for today's gamers is beyond me...
Now, you mentioned that you think creating a new type of themepark MMO model (via focus on PvP and/or non-combat content) would attract a different playerbase and create better longevity.
Well, the first mistake you are making is tossing 2 completely separate aspects together: a carebear is more likely to "fall" for your non-combat content while a hardcore PvP will expect PvP to an extreme.
They don't mix. And if you try to keep them separate ala DAoC's realm vs battlefield, the PvPers will complain that this is not real openworld PvP.
So, you'd really have to choose one base or the other.
If you go non-combat content, there have been plenty of social games that follow that concept, first to come to mind is of course Second Life.
The task at hand is really to not let the game slip so far into the social-only corner that the adventure side of the game is lost.
Worse still is to find a "bait" that this mixed bag of gamers (classic MMOers, PvP lites, carebears, casual players) will feel the "need" for all these non-combat goodies, and with the latter definitely also the time.
If you were to go for pure or at least strong PvP, well, that crowd has been around for ages... and yes, they also expect new maps! Quickly!
Unless you are talking open-world PvP in which case you have the whole world at your fingertips... but sadly without too much drive: taking castle X over the bodies of 500 men sounds cool but means nothing if the enemy goy it back in 2 hrs...
There have been plenty of pure/open-world themepark-ish PvP games, check for yourself how few you can remember...
The problem with traditional PvE play is the same as with French 19th century litterature. The authors got paid by the word leading to sometimes really long and rambling stuff.
MMO gameplay can easily as well focus too much on stealing your time and too little on being fun to play.
The gamedesigners needs to focus more on fun and worry less how long time the players will play, if it is fun enough people will play it for a long time anyways.
Interesting point, and in some cases very, very accurate.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The problem with traditional PvE play is the same as with French 19th century litterature. The authors got paid by the word leading to sometimes really long and rambling stuff.
I used to have a theory that you could tell where a movie sequel was going to fall down by looking at the credits of the first movie. Whichever departments were largest were going to demand the most time and attention from mangers and producers, have the most voices chatting around business and thus, when the sequel came around, those departments would end up having too much influence over what got made.
The problem with traditional PvE play is the same as with French 19th century litterature. The authors got paid by the word leading to sometimes really long and rambling stuff.
MMO gameplay can easily as well focus too much on stealing your time and too little on being fun to play.
The gamedesigners needs to focus more on fun and worry less how long time the players will play, if it is fun enough people will play it for a long time anyways.
Exactly this. We should buy the content, not rent it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
By traditional pve i'm refering to quests, dungeons, open world eventes like mob invasions, storylines, etc. The reason why i believe this design decision is flawed is because of how much time it takes to create it. We know devs can't make this type of content faster than what players can use it, and this creates the problem of people getting bored for not having anything to do besides wait for more. Unfortunatly, this can cause players to just leave for the next shinny new mmo with new content (not saying the games fail).
Now, i'm NOT saying every themepark should drop this formula, but i think there's 2 gameplay styles that, ironicaly, provide better longevity for these mmo's:
PVP- BG's, RVR, OWPVP, etc can take quite a long time to make has too, but not as much. The advantage they have is not only are the battles between players (no need for AI), but fighting against another humans grants a much greater sense of replayability, like almost all multyplayer games. So, basically, i'm saying make more BG's (about 8 or 10) and only 2 or maybe 3 dungeons, instead of the opposite.
Non combat content- I'm talking about stuff like players housing and decoration, making farms, mounts, pets, minigames, diplomacy, deep crafting, dancing, etc, etc. Many of these things are created by devs too, but unlike normal pve content, there is a certain amount of player driven actions.
Now, this doesn't mean that normal pve can't exist. In fact, most themepark have an overall arc story of the world that leads to the next patch or expansion. Having a final dungeon against the big bad is a must have of course. Also, granting progression to both playstyles, or mob grinding if one wants, is necessary.
Themeparks already have these gameplay options, but they always take a backseat to normal pve. Instead, make them the focus. i believe it would create a new type of themepark, attracting a different playerbase, and have better longevity.
EDIT: Just so nobody gets me wrong, when i say flawed, i'm refering to the longevity issue. I like pve, pvp, most things. The more variety, the better IMO. And yes, i know most players eem to prefer pve above everything else.
MMORPGs have been using PvE - successful, partially even exclusive - for over a decade.
So, why should it now suddenly be a "fail"?
If there is a "fail" it rests with the gamers as they - despite claiming otherwise - need to be hand-held thru the game.
I'll give you an example: My first MMORPG was DAoC 2001.
Yes, of course there were quests, even quest chains, but in general you could just as well make your way on your own in the PvE world, in your realm. This then became part of your history, your own personal story.
And you carried that same story, that same chance to add further to your "book" by going into the PvP side of DAoC. Which you didn't have to but obviously most people did ;-)
Yes, content was there, further content was added (on the PvE end) by the game designers but even if maybe you felt like in the region that you are currently in you have eaten up all provided "cookies", no problem, you just gathered a few people or maybe even took to the road alone and went monster hunting.
Why that should be so hard to do for today's gamers is beyond me...
Now, you mentioned that you think creating a new type of themepark MMO model (via focus on PvP and/or non-combat content) would attract a different playerbase and create better longevity.
Well, the first mistake you are making is tossing 2 completely separate aspects together: a carebear is more likely to "fall" for your non-combat content while a hardcore PvP will expect PvP to an extreme.
They don't mix. And if you try to keep them separate ala DAoC's realm vs battlefield, the PvPers will complain that this is not real openworld PvP.
So, you'd really have to choose one base or the other.
If you go non-combat content, there have been plenty of social games that follow that concept, first to come to mind is of course Second Life.
The task at hand is really to not let the game slip so far into the social-only corner that the adventure side of the game is lost.
Worse still is to find a "bait" that this mixed bag of gamers (classic MMOers, PvP lites, carebears, casual players) will feel the "need" for all these non-combat goodies, and with the latter definitely also the time.
If you were to go for pure or at least strong PvP, well, that crowd has been around for ages... and yes, they also expect new maps! Quickly!
Unless you are talking open-world PvP in which case you have the whole world at your fingertips... but sadly without too much drive: taking castle X over the bodies of 500 men sounds cool but means nothing if the enemy goy it back in 2 hrs...
There have been plenty of pure/open-world themepark-ish PvP games, check for yourself how few you can remember...
Mordred, Andred. While not being overly populated they were one of the best PvP experiences I've had in any MMO, ever. (PvP was allowed everywhere but capitol cities, Clans vied for control of keeps instead of realms, pure awesomesauce)
It is possible to have your cake, and eat it too, at times
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
You are underestimating the number of PvE players I think. GW1 had a big PvP focus when they released and after 6 months Arenanet discovered that as much as 90% players didn't play PvP at all despite the introduction to PvP in the main campaign and heavy encouragement.
People love their PvE even when it doesn't last. Devs have done their homework - they have the right focus.
90 percent was a stretch.
Since those figures dont consider the player retention rate.
before HoM GW2 hype, GW1's pve was a ghost town. More people in the PvP hubs than the PvE hubs. Could be that they were in the instances instead, but I doubt that.
Anet released info about the HoM effect on GW2, and thats when I noticed a massive increase in population.
I use to play it before all this GW2 hype. and trust me,,, like the OP stated, the PvP was the main focus of its success. the PvE cant hold players interest by itself for the masses for long periods of time. Look at WoW CAT. fully PvE based, with gimmick PvP changed, and they even crapped on the mechanics of the PvP zone which made players leave.
They don't mix. And if you try to keep them separate ala DAoC's realm vs battlefield, the PvPers will complain that this is not real openworld PvP.
So, you'd really have to choose one base or the other.
Maybe not the best example, but EvE is FFA PvP and there are lots of people that are "hardcore carebear" and spend their entire time in EvE without ever shooting at another player...
If a player plays the game, they are going to eventually reach level cap and end game content. If they aren't doing so on a large scale, isn't there ba problem of another flavor here?
I reached the WoW cap in a month of rather concentrated play... (I was doing this on purpose)
This is on WoW that got nerfed to oblivion.
This is skipping whole zones because I leveled too fast.
This is skipping dialogues and not smelling the roses.
This is being trained by other places giivng me expl from various sources.
This is after I've already had plenty of experience playing the game and I knew how a lot of stuff worked.
If we take all that away and go back to how it was normally you could very comfortably level in WoW and not finish everything by the time the next expac comes out. WoW is a very, very, very big game, especially now. Yet, you can get to max level in a month. That's not because there's no content, but because they WANT you to skip all their content and go raid.
A large part of this is the game's sheer popularity. Even if—as I said earlier—a significant percentage of the player-hours are spent below the level cap, they cannot afford to distribute new content all the way across the whole progress spectrum. The content is tiered and gated; anything that they place beyond a certain gearscore requirement (or however you want to measure progress) won't be experienced by as many people.
BUT, the people towards the end of the curve are also the ones most likely to stay or quit based on whether they're being catered to. With this in mind, it would be suicide to create an expansion with lots of new content for low levels and low tiers. Even if that new content is available to a much larger audience, it would cause the maximum amount of upset.
So instead, as the years have gone by, they've had to actively try to concentrate the playerbase... almost like merging servers. They want people to be closer together in level/score/whatever so that they can produce mainly endgame content and have everyone benefit from it.
By traditional pve i'm refering to quests, dungeons, open world eventes like mob invasions, storylines, etc. The reason why i believe this design decision is flawed is because of how much time it takes to create it. We know devs can't make this type of content faster than what players can use it, and this creates the problem of people getting bored for not having anything to do besides wait for more. Unfortunatly, this can cause players to just leave for the next shinny new mmo with new content (not saying the games fail).
Now, i'm NOT saying every themepark should drop this formula, but i think there's 2 gameplay styles that, ironicaly, provide better longevity for these mmo's:
PVP- BG's, RVR, OWPVP, etc can take quite a long time to make has too, but not as much. The advantage they have is not only are the battles between players (no need for AI), but fighting against another humans grants a much greater sense of replayability, like almost all multyplayer games. So, basically, i'm saying make more BG's (about 8 or 10) and only 2 or maybe 3 dungeons, instead of the opposite.
Non combat content- I'm talking about stuff like players housing and decoration, making farms, mounts, pets, minigames, diplomacy, deep crafting, dancing, etc, etc. Many of these things are created by devs too, but unlike normal pve content, there is a certain amount of player driven actions.
Now, this doesn't mean that normal pve can't exist. In fact, most themepark have an overall arc story of the world that leads to the next patch or expansion. Having a final dungeon against the big bad is a must have of course. Also, granting progression to both playstyles, or mob grinding if one wants, is necessary.
Themeparks already have these gameplay options, but they always take a backseat to normal pve. Instead, make them the focus. i believe it would create a new type of themepark, attracting a different playerbase, and have better longevity.
EDIT: Just so nobody gets me wrong, when i say flawed, i'm refering to the longevity issue. I like pve, pvp, most things. The more variety, the better IMO. And yes, i know most players eem to prefer pve above everything else.
Why would it be any more flawed than any other form of RPG where a player eventually does everything there is to do and moves on ?
Pay $60 for the box, play for a year (at $15 per month), and then do something else while the devs produce more content. Someone else in the same cycle has just finished another game and comes into yours for a while.
I think that what many people are missing is that the days of players (as a whole) playing one MMO exclusively are over.
When all has been said and done, more will have been said than done.
Why would it be any more flawed than any other form of RPG where a player eventually does everything there is to do and moves on ?
With a single-player CRPG, they already got your money for the box and they aren't getting any more until they make a new game AND you're done with that one. When you're a subscription based service, you really rather not have people reach an end to your content. A part that they enjoy and continue playing over and over, sure. An actual end to content, no.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The best games I think are being generated right now are building not only synchronous play, where we go on a raid together, but also asynchronous play to where if you are a farmer, you can sell your fruit at your fruit stand and if I run a café, my chef can go buy his fruit from your fruit stand and your farm. So we can make the best of all worlds, I believe, by allowing players to play with not random people equally devoted to a certain game, but with the people who they go to dinner with who hang out all day together anyway, who may not have the same life schedule as each other. I don’t think I’m going to create a game that is lesser than Ultima Online or lesser than a solo player Ultima.
I think I’m going to reinvent roleplaying games again by respecting the “friends graph” and leveraging what we’ve already done and done so well with Ultima Online from a multiplayer standpoint, that we did so well with Ultima numeral versions from a storytelling standpoint, and now wrap it with both synchronous and asynchronous features that leverage the “friends graph” and social media to present a powerful new game.
What most people here fail to understand is that theres tons of those 'casual' gamers, which play facebook farm/cafe/town/you name it games, and take it quite seriously. Whats Garriott trying to do is to somehow mix all those games together, so instead of buying stuff from npc, you could get it from your happy-farmer friends shop, or if you need potions, you could find some player run alchemy shop. and stuff like that )
its interesting concept, even if its just gonna be a browser based game (if they ever make it at the first place) i believe it would make more people switch towards 'sandboxy' side of mmos.
Heck, every sandbox vs wowclone discussion ends up with 'but but people dont like sandboxes, people just want to fight stuffs', while in reality theres 100's of 'casual' games, with no fighting involved at all, each focusing on just one activity, and millions of people are playing those games. Im sure most of those people wouldnt mind being a part of something bigger and more interesting, even try some other in game activities, no? All that while still being able to run their cow farm, if thats what they want.
The best games I think are being generated right now are building not only synchronous play, where we go on a raid together, but also asynchronous play to where if you are a farmer, you can sell your fruit at your fruit stand and if I run a café, my chef can go buy his fruit from your fruit stand and your farm. So we can make the best of all worlds, I believe, by allowing players to play with not random people equally devoted to a certain game, but with the people who they go to dinner with who hang out all day together anyway, who may not have the same life schedule as each other. I don’t think I’m going to create a game that is lesser than Ultima Online or lesser than a solo player Ultima.
I think I’m going to reinvent roleplaying games again by respecting the “friends graph” and leveraging what we’ve already done and done so well with Ultima Online from a multiplayer standpoint, that we did so well with Ultima numeral versions from a storytelling standpoint, and now wrap it with both synchronous and asynchronous features that leverage the “friends graph” and social media to present a powerful new game.
What most people here fail to understand is that theres tons of those 'casual' gamers, which play facebook farm/cafe/town/you name it games, and take it quite seriously. Whats Garriott trying to do is to somehow mix all those games together, so instead of buying stuff from npc, you could get it from your happy-farmer friends shop, or if you need potions, you could find some player run alchemy shop. and stuff like that )
its interesting concept, even if its just gonna be a browser based game (if they ever make it at the first place) i believe it would make more people switch towards 'sandboxy' side of mmos.
Heck, every sandbox vs wowclone discussion ends up with 'but but people dont like sandboxes, people just want to fight stuffs', while in reality theres 100's of 'casual' games, with no fighting involved at all, each focusing on just one activity, and millions of people are playing those games. Im sure most of those people wouldnt mind being a part of something bigger and more interesting, even try some other in game activities, no? All that while still being able to run their cow farm, if thats what they want.
Exactly, because something "bigger and more interesting" gives each play style more meaning. Especially if there's a crossover in needs as well as advantage.
MMORPG have the formula. Just like with movies there are formula's that while bring in players at least short term. The formula came from WoW thus all the clones we see in one shape or another similar to WoW.
There have been two sandbox games that were AAA type games that were UO and SWG. Both games failed in ways.
See with UO the experience was susposed to be that we would live in a world that free and dynamic. Problem were the players and the lack of documentation on player behavior. Allowed to run free anom and without consequences people revert to their lowest point. The idea that was UO wasn't bad, just the planning and control was bad.
What happened next was EQ which was the Anti-UO in some ways. Not so much a theme park as the game was more trinity group mob grinding but player were stripped of game choices and the game was driven by levels and developer crafted content. The choices limited "griefers" and PK. But left players to be a vagabond in a world they couldn't interact with outside of kiling mobs and carefully controlled by level/zones where you could go.
EQ eventually lead to WoW. WoW refined the level treadmill with quest and less experience required. It had instances and story driven content. The interface and game play were made for casual players and had the right lore and company fanboism to lead to a huge success with subscribers in the millions vs. 100k or so being a success. WoW's success has lead to a niche market that cartered to and tried different styles of gameplay to a full blown assault of clones trying to replicate WoW's sucess in their own way.
This has lead to MMORPG stagnation because of quick cheap bucks made by WoW clones and enforced by the failure of usually underbugeted developers trying the 'niche" mmorpg genres. This trend will continue until it stops being profitable.
The flaw with the traditional theme park MMORPG is the lack of community and repetition gameplay. The problem is the casual nature of the game and lack of community building tools or reasons. Then not so much the games problem the formula has made the MMORPG market feel like all games are the same.
Not if you like playing inside of Skinner Boxes and pressing the same lever over and over again.
Otherwise, yes.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Comments
The problems I have with MMO PvE are:
1) Have to raid according to a schedule
2) Lockouts after you beat the content - designed to milk the content longer than it's worth
3) Not enough new content is released
WOW addressed some of this wtih pug raids and would be better served by scaling old raids as well.
Except correlation does not imply causation, and there's absolutely no evidence behind what you're stating. In fact, there are so many outside variables here any decent scientist would roll on the floor laughing at your "conclusions".
WoW is still alive. That should give you one clue. There's a very strong demand for such games if WoW is still pretty much alive, and, I assure you, there are tons of rabid players ready to sink their teeth into MoP. And why that is? Because WoW is a high quality, polished game in most aspects. And because there's nothing else to play.
Every themepark since WoW has been crap. Every themepark since WoW attempted to clone WoW. That is not going to work. Clones always lose to the original. This is what happened. All those people you say are tired of the gameplay are actually tired of clones and are stuck playing the original. But the fact that they're playing shows they're interested. But even they tire, which is why WoW is "declining".
Give people a well-made themepark that is not a WoW-clone driven by nothing but pure greed and it will succeed. GW2 will do fine. Even TSW may do fine if Funcom doesn't fuck it up somehow.
Yes, gamers are tired of the same thing with no change. They're tired of playing WoW & Clones because they played it for 8 years. That does NOT mean they're tired of themeparks, which is a subgenre of which we've barely scratched the surface, since most companies have been busy cloning WoW instead of making their own, standalone products.
The reason I don't do raids is not because I don't get around to them, it's because they are a playstyle that doesn't interest me, no matter what the rewards offered.
I'm not unsympathetic to the "we aim to please the average player not the extremes", but I think that the relationship between players, their communities and their games is more complex than the number of quests completed.
Oh, was I supposed to be imagining a PVE system meant for casual players, and/or players who jump from game to game?
Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent
The problem with traditional PvE play is the same as with French 19th century litterature. The authors got paid by the word leading to sometimes really long and rambling stuff.
MMO gameplay can easily as well focus too much on stealing your time and too little on being fun to play.
The gamedesigners needs to focus more on fun and worry less how long time the players will play, if it is fun enough people will play it for a long time anyways.
? Da fuq ?
I love pve. Epic boss battles, awesome quest lines with great stories, i like alot. In fact, because they are dev created they can be the most epic moments in an mmo, in done right.
The problem is that creating pve content takes more time than pvp or side activities. If you actually read my OP, i never said i wanted pve mmos lik the ones of today to disappear. I'm just trying to say that it may not be the best route for devs to take.
More variety would be welcomed in this genre and i think this could be a good way for themeparks to go.
MMORPGs have been using PvE - successful, partially even exclusive - for over a decade.
So, why should it now suddenly be a "fail"?
If there is a "fail" it rests with the gamers as they - despite claiming otherwise - need to be hand-held thru the game.
I'll give you an example: My first MMORPG was DAoC 2001.
Yes, of course there were quests, even quest chains, but in general you could just as well make your way on your own in the PvE world, in your realm. This then became part of your history, your own personal story.
And you carried that same story, that same chance to add further to your "book" by going into the PvP side of DAoC. Which you didn't have to but obviously most people did ;-)
Yes, content was there, further content was added (on the PvE end) by the game designers but even if maybe you felt like in the region that you are currently in you have eaten up all provided "cookies", no problem, you just gathered a few people or maybe even took to the road alone and went monster hunting.
Why that should be so hard to do for today's gamers is beyond me...
Now, you mentioned that you think creating a new type of themepark MMO model (via focus on PvP and/or non-combat content) would attract a different playerbase and create better longevity.
Well, the first mistake you are making is tossing 2 completely separate aspects together: a carebear is more likely to "fall" for your non-combat content while a hardcore PvP will expect PvP to an extreme.
They don't mix. And if you try to keep them separate ala DAoC's realm vs battlefield, the PvPers will complain that this is not real openworld PvP.
So, you'd really have to choose one base or the other.
If you go non-combat content, there have been plenty of social games that follow that concept, first to come to mind is of course Second Life.
The task at hand is really to not let the game slip so far into the social-only corner that the adventure side of the game is lost.
Worse still is to find a "bait" that this mixed bag of gamers (classic MMOers, PvP lites, carebears, casual players) will feel the "need" for all these non-combat goodies, and with the latter definitely also the time.
If you were to go for pure or at least strong PvP, well, that crowd has been around for ages... and yes, they also expect new maps! Quickly!
Unless you are talking open-world PvP in which case you have the whole world at your fingertips... but sadly without too much drive: taking castle X over the bodies of 500 men sounds cool but means nothing if the enemy goy it back in 2 hrs...
There have been plenty of pure/open-world themepark-ish PvP games, check for yourself how few you can remember...
Interesting point, and in some cases very, very accurate.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
if TP focus less on pve what will left? lol
if a TP implements the features u mentioned it will become a SB
WoW 4ys,EVE 4ys,EU 4ys
FH1942 best tanker for 4years
Playing WWII OL for some years untill now
many other for some months
I used to have a theory that you could tell where a movie sequel was going to fall down by looking at the credits of the first movie. Whichever departments were largest were going to demand the most time and attention from mangers and producers, have the most voices chatting around business and thus, when the sequel came around, those departments would end up having too much influence over what got made.
Exactly this. We should buy the content, not rent it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Mordred, Andred. While not being overly populated they were one of the best PvP experiences I've had in any MMO, ever. (PvP was allowed everywhere but capitol cities, Clans vied for control of keeps instead of realms, pure awesomesauce)
It is possible to have your cake, and eat it too, at times
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
-The MMO Forum Community
90 percent was a stretch.
Since those figures dont consider the player retention rate.
before HoM GW2 hype, GW1's pve was a ghost town. More people in the PvP hubs than the PvE hubs. Could be that they were in the instances instead, but I doubt that.
Anet released info about the HoM effect on GW2, and thats when I noticed a massive increase in population.
I use to play it before all this GW2 hype. and trust me,,, like the OP stated, the PvP was the main focus of its success. the PvE cant hold players interest by itself for the masses for long periods of time. Look at WoW CAT. fully PvE based, with gimmick PvP changed, and they even crapped on the mechanics of the PvP zone which made players leave.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
You think?
Are non-HD TVs flawed? Checkers used to be all the rage.
It's simple. What was fun 5 and 10 years ago, just doesn't hold attention like it used to.
Maybe not the best example, but EvE is FFA PvP and there are lots of people that are "hardcore carebear" and spend their entire time in EvE without ever shooting at another player...
A large part of this is the game's sheer popularity. Even if—as I said earlier—a significant percentage of the player-hours are spent below the level cap, they cannot afford to distribute new content all the way across the whole progress spectrum. The content is tiered and gated; anything that they place beyond a certain gearscore requirement (or however you want to measure progress) won't be experienced by as many people.
BUT, the people towards the end of the curve are also the ones most likely to stay or quit based on whether they're being catered to. With this in mind, it would be suicide to create an expansion with lots of new content for low levels and low tiers. Even if that new content is available to a much larger audience, it would cause the maximum amount of upset.
So instead, as the years have gone by, they've had to actively try to concentrate the playerbase... almost like merging servers. They want people to be closer together in level/score/whatever so that they can produce mainly endgame content and have everyone benefit from it.
Why would it be any more flawed than any other form of RPG where a player eventually does everything there is to do and moves on ?
Pay $60 for the box, play for a year (at $15 per month), and then do something else while the devs produce more content. Someone else in the same cycle has just finished another game and comes into yours for a while.
I think that what many people are missing is that the days of players (as a whole) playing one MMO exclusively are over.
When all has been said and done, more will have been said than done.
With a single-player CRPG, they already got your money for the box and they aren't getting any more until they make a new game AND you're done with that one. When you're a subscription based service, you really rather not have people reach an end to your content. A part that they enjoy and continue playing over and over, sure. An actual end to content, no.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
http://www.gatheryourparty.com/articles/2012/06/08/interview-richard-garriott/
The best games I think are being generated right now are building not only synchronous play, where we go on a raid together, but also asynchronous play to where if you are a farmer, you can sell your fruit at your fruit stand and if I run a café, my chef can go buy his fruit from your fruit stand and your farm. So we can make the best of all worlds, I believe, by allowing players to play with not random people equally devoted to a certain game, but with the people who they go to dinner with who hang out all day together anyway, who may not have the same life schedule as each other. I don’t think I’m going to create a game that is lesser than Ultima Online or lesser than a solo player Ultima.
I think I’m going to reinvent roleplaying games again by respecting the “friends graph” and leveraging what we’ve already done and done so well with Ultima Online from a multiplayer standpoint, that we did so well with Ultima numeral versions from a storytelling standpoint, and now wrap it with both synchronous and asynchronous features that leverage the “friends graph” and social media to present a powerful new game.
What most people here fail to understand is that theres tons of those 'casual' gamers, which play facebook farm/cafe/town/you name it games, and take it quite seriously. Whats Garriott trying to do is to somehow mix all those games together, so instead of buying stuff from npc, you could get it from your happy-farmer friends shop, or if you need potions, you could find some player run alchemy shop. and stuff like that
)
its interesting concept, even if its just gonna be a browser based game (if they ever make it at the first place) i believe it would make more people switch towards 'sandboxy' side of mmos.
Heck, every sandbox vs wowclone discussion ends up with 'but but people dont like sandboxes, people just want to fight stuffs', while in reality theres 100's of 'casual' games, with no fighting involved at all, each focusing on just one activity, and millions of people are playing those games. Im sure most of those people wouldnt mind being a part of something bigger and more interesting, even try some other in game activities, no? All that while still being able to run their cow farm, if thats what they want.
Exactly, because something "bigger and more interesting" gives each play style more meaning. Especially if there's a crossover in needs as well as advantage.
Once upon a time....
MMORPG have the formula. Just like with movies there are formula's that while bring in players at least short term. The formula came from WoW thus all the clones we see in one shape or another similar to WoW.
There have been two sandbox games that were AAA type games that were UO and SWG. Both games failed in ways.
See with UO the experience was susposed to be that we would live in a world that free and dynamic. Problem were the players and the lack of documentation on player behavior. Allowed to run free anom and without consequences people revert to their lowest point. The idea that was UO wasn't bad, just the planning and control was bad.
What happened next was EQ which was the Anti-UO in some ways. Not so much a theme park as the game was more trinity group mob grinding but player were stripped of game choices and the game was driven by levels and developer crafted content. The choices limited "griefers" and PK. But left players to be a vagabond in a world they couldn't interact with outside of kiling mobs and carefully controlled by level/zones where you could go.
EQ eventually lead to WoW. WoW refined the level treadmill with quest and less experience required. It had instances and story driven content. The interface and game play were made for casual players and had the right lore and company fanboism to lead to a huge success with subscribers in the millions vs. 100k or so being a success. WoW's success has lead to a niche market that cartered to and tried different styles of gameplay to a full blown assault of clones trying to replicate WoW's sucess in their own way.
This has lead to MMORPG stagnation because of quick cheap bucks made by WoW clones and enforced by the failure of usually underbugeted developers trying the 'niche" mmorpg genres. This trend will continue until it stops being profitable.
The flaw with the traditional theme park MMORPG is the lack of community and repetition gameplay. The problem is the casual nature of the game and lack of community building tools or reasons. Then not so much the games problem the formula has made the MMORPG market feel like all games are the same.
Not if you like playing inside of Skinner Boxes and pressing the same lever over and over again.
Otherwise, yes.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
....You do realise checkers has been around for almost a thousand years?
sooo yeah
/void stupid post above?
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
If I didn't like skinner boxes, I'd stop pressing the lever.