People will play a game they feel is enjoyable regardless of a specific systems or systems.
The pitiful few mmos that have been successful and are able to grow even years after launch did so by NOT inserting systems of play into their game that were on a "must have" list. They added the ones they felt were fun, some of those systems may have been "industry standards", most were not.
Arguably the 2 most successful WoW/Eve went completely counter to the industry trends at the time of their creation. They designed systems THEY felt made good gameplay and did so with passion, not as a 9-5 filling task orders all day. Once they felt ready released, they didn't try to target all demographics in both cases neither was shy on saying what it WASN'T. Once in the hands of players they adjusted their products to fit the market that had now become theirs. They also usually avoided the trap of telling the core base what it should enjoy.
Game creation is ideally a creative process, not a paint by the numbers coloring book, counter to most executive producers desires. The more time personnel spend clicking checkboxes and filling work orders for systems they themselves could care less about, well... passion or lack thereof comes thru loud and clear to the end user. You treat it as an assembly line well yup of course it's going to look/feel like any other mass produced good.
This is the article by Brianna Royce of Massively.. Some of the comments there are as good as the article! (pictures removed)
Endgame is the worst thing that ever happened to MMOs. I tweeted this last year, and it won't stop rattling around in my head. Every time a developer dodges concerns and leaps to his version of the "elder game," every time a reader claims a reviewer who doesn't get to endgame is irrelevant, and every time someone justifies a weak game mechanic because it doesn't matter at max level anyway, it rattles around some more. Endgame is the worst thing that ever happened to MMOs. **snip***
The frustrating part of this article, is it focuses way too much on the developer.
'Endgame' is a concept ENTIRELY developed by US. The players. WE invented this. And yet we take no responsibility for it, and instead would rather blame developers for being forced to cater to it.
WE created the term endgame.
WE started the focus around it.
WE demand every game have it.
WE dismiss games that don't.
Developers have been trying for years to get this idea out of our heads. It hasn't worked. We have proven time, and time again, that if a MMO doesn't have some form of 'endgame' we either won't play it; Or we'll abandon it a month after launch. We have become so accustomed to skinner-box design, that we refuse to believe there is anything else. Developers are thus forced to build around that concept, regardless of the glaringly obvious flaws it has, because that is the only way they can make money. Because it's the only games we have shown we'll actually support.
There are less than a handful of examples that are exceptions to this. And you can't make longterm success off an outlier.
A lot of people (on these forums at least), like to point to the sandbox as the savior. Believe it or not, most developers have thought of this as well. The reason we don't have as many sandbox games is because of US. If devs believed they could make nearly as much money doing pure sandbox games, they'd be making them in a heartbeat. They might be harder to design in the short run, but they are much easier to maintain over time.
We created this problem. But that's not gunna stop us from blaming others.
Instead of wasting energy speaking of her problem with themepark endgame she could have spoken about games that actually try to come up with a different solution. There are a bunch of promising titles, everquest next, camelot unchained, black desert, sandparks like archeage, or the games that aren't fully MMO's like shroud of the avatar and star citizen.
Themeparks and endgame didn't ruin the genre, unless you are stupid enough to think that WoW ruined the genre.
There is actually a lot of evidence to support the idea that WoW ruined the genre.
Blizzard has developed a track record of piggy-backing off of other games' ideas. Simplifying them for the masses, and calling them their own.
What WoW did positively for the genre, was bring in millions of new players.
What WoW didn't do for the genre, is open these players up to different types of games. Instead most of these same players are just addicted to Blizzard. They don't give much of anything else a chance. This is why we've been playing mostly versions of WoW over the passed decade. Yes, some of it is devs trying to leech that success. But it's also reinforced by players demonstrating that this is what they want to play.
The genre was already starting to diversify at the time WoW was launched. After it's success, that diversity almost entirely vanished. We've been slowly getting it back each year.
This is the article by Brianna Royce of Massively.. Some of the comments there are as good as the article! (pictures removed)
Endgame is the worst thing that ever happened to MMOs. I tweeted this last year, and it won't stop rattling around in my head. Every time a developer dodges concerns and leaps to his version of the "elder game," every time a reader claims a reviewer who doesn't get to endgame is irrelevant, and every time someone justifies a weak game mechanic because it doesn't matter at max level anyway, it rattles around some more. Endgame is the worst thing that ever happened to MMOs. **snip***
The frustrating part of this article, is it focuses way too much on the developer.
'Endgame' is a concept ENTIRELY developed by US. The players. WE invented this. And yet we take no responsibility for it, and instead would rather blame developers for being forced to cater to it.
WE created the term endgame.
WE started the focus around it.
WE demand every game have it.
WE dismiss games that don't.
Developers have been trying for years to get this idea out of our heads. It hasn't worked. We have proven time, and time again, that if a MMO doesn't have some form of 'endgame' we either won't play it; Or we'll abandon it a month after launch. We have become so accustomed to skinner-box design, that we refuse to believe there is anything else. Developers are thus forced to build around that concept, regardless of the glaringly obvious flaws it has, because that is the only way they can make money. Because it's the only games we have shown we'll actually support.
There are less than a handful of examples that are exceptions to this. And you can't make longterm success off an outlier.
A lot of people (on these forums at least), like to point to the sandbox as the savior. Believe it or not, most developers have thought of this as well. The reason we don't have as many sandbox games is because of US. If devs believed they could make nearly as much money doing pure sandbox games, they'd be making them in a heartbeat. They might be harder to design in the short run, but they are much easier to maintain over time.
We created this problem. But that's not gunna stop us from blaming others.
Jokes aside, I agree with you. Never touched the so-called "endgame" and have conflicts with the "life starts at level cap" folks since years... and as much as I am convinced that the endgame is just worthless BS, there are a wast number of players loving it. (those are your "we")
I agree with your dev comment as well. Endgame is not spreading because the nasty, evil devs forcing it into every game... devs are just following the market. Endgame is here, because the majority of the playerbase wants it, sadly.
I still have some forum posts saved from AoC's Godslayer launch, it was almost surreal, folks welcomed the massive endgame grind, with comments like "now we have finally some clear goals to work for". You can't help those people...
And until they're the majority, you can't help the issue either. There will be more and more "jump to level-cap" options, shortened leveling routes, smaller, meaningless worlds, autopathing, etc. Anything to help them reaching their Preccious endgame they crave for, as soon as possible. A grim future indeed...
Endgame was a player creation, stolen by developers and gamified for the masses.
Much like anything, it used to be pretty sweet.
I remember EQ before there was endgame. The players that made it to max level would gang of on NPCs like the priest of discord outside of towns. They were supposed to be invincible. I still believe that part of what made MMOs great initially is that they weren't designed to do anything in particular. They just gave players a place to fool around in and they created their own fun from that. Usually what the players came up with was a lot more fun then any version the devs stole and developed. The main problem is like most things in life now everything is very locked down because of fear of what might happen. On the flip side I believe it's difficult to recreate the magic of those times because they were something new and the devs didn't know how to lock players down or if they even should. Everything seems to go this way sooner or later. Things always seem to go downhill when they achieve mass appeal.
End-game is a carry over from the single player market. Pretty much any story-driven game has a big bad in the end that needs to be taken down and the journey there is you (the player) gaining the skills needed to do so. This ofc is in turn a carry over from traditional western (can´t speak about other as i am not fully read up on that) story-telling of the "heroes journey" or coming of age journeys. It is simply how we are used to a story being told.
So to call it the worst thing is kind of stupid, had it not been there MMO´s had still been a fringe market along the lines of hard-core simulators. As people pointed out it was not until a game adopted this classic narrative and made it the core part of the game that the real "mass-appeal" kicked in.
End-game is not bad, it gives a very clear and focused "goal" to conquer and help the narrative by giving it a defined destination. Then ofc one can say that the narrative is bad (cue themepark vs sandbox horse flogging) but even "the SIMS" have a goal and a end-game, and it is not like game developers are not trying new stuff... Taking a day or two and browsing through the indie scene and you will see a mass of new ideas being tested and rejected. The big names in the industry are keeping a very close eye on this ready to pick up any new ideas worth their salt.
But end-game, the big bad, the journeys end... that will not change as it is the kind of storytelling that people recognize. Every now and then ofc there will be one or two outlier that cater to their niche, EvE being the poster child. But the genre is now so big that it will never go back to what it was at it´s roots.
Endgame was a player creation, stolen by developers and gamified for the masses.
Much like anything, it used to be pretty sweet.
I remember EQ before there was endgame. The players that made it to max level would gang of on NPCs like the priest of discord outside of towns. They were supposed to be invincible. I still believe that part of what made MMOs great initially is that they weren't designed to do anything in particular. They just gave players a place to fool around in and they created their own fun from that. Usually what the players came up with was a lot more fun then any version the devs stole and developed. The main problem is like most things in life now everything is very locked down because of fear of what might happen. On the flip side I believe it's difficult to recreate the magic of those times because they were something new and the devs didn't know how to lock players down or if they even should. Everything seems to go this way sooner or later. Things always seem to go downhill when they achieve mass appeal.
It's not difficult. It just requires an Unknown.
Players, even the so called elite, all create the path of least resistance instead of a challenge. 500 man guilds at launch? Really nubs?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
End-game is a carry over from the single player market. Pretty much any story-driven game has a big bad in the end that needs to be taken down and the journey there is you (the player) gaining the skills needed to do so. This ofc is in turn a carry over from traditional western (can´t speak about other as i am not fully read up on that) story-telling of the "heroes journey" or coming of age journeys. It is simply how we are used to a story being told.
So to call it the worst thing is kind of stupid, had it not been there MMO´s had still been a fringe market along the lines of hard-core simulators. As people pointed out it was not until a game adopted this classic narrative and made it the core part of the game that the real "mass-appeal" kicked in.
End-game is not bad, it gives a very clear and focused "goal" to conquer and help the narrative by giving it a defined destination. Then ofc one can say that the narrative is bad (cue themepark vs sandbox horse flogging) but even "the SIMS" have a goal and a end-game, and it is not like game developers are not trying new stuff... Taking a day or two and browsing through the indie scene and you will see a mass of new ideas being tested and rejected. The big names in the industry are keeping a very close eye on this ready to pick up any new ideas worth their salt.
But end-game, the big bad, the journeys end... that will not change as it is the kind of storytelling that people recognize. Every now and then ofc there will be one or two outlier that cater to their niche, EvE being the poster child. But the genre is now so big that it will never go back to what it was at it´s roots.
Last time I played WOW I couldn't get in a group because my storytelling score was too low. We know what the mass appeal is.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
This ofc is in turn a carry over from traditional western (can´t speak about other as i am not fully read up on that) story-telling of the "heroes journey" or coming of age journeys. It is simply how we are used to a story being told.
That's pretty much the core of all tales and myths both on east and west and south - at least according Campbell's theory.
The rest, I think you're mistaken with the endgame concept in mmo's. I agree with the journey's end, I personally playing that way exactly (after the game ends, it ends for me, and either it's time for a new one or an alt).
On the other hand, what we're talking about, the mmo endgame is what's beyond that end. By your concept it's after you beated the big baddie, won the princess, etc. And then the game says to you, now it's time for endgame, keep beating the very same baddie for 3 months, and then you earn the right to beat him on T2, and after another 3 months on T3 (still the very same baddie)
Totally pointless and a waste of time from the journey's perspective. And nope, it's not even a goal either, since all you get for your months of work is a tiny gear upgrade - which is pointless since you already finished the journey. A dumb treadmill for nothing, just for the sake of "that's the purpose of the game".
Originally posted by tawess End-game is a carry over from the single player market. Pretty much any story-driven game has a big bad in the end that needs to be taken down and the journey there is you (the player) gaining the skills needed to do so. This ofc is in turn a carry over from traditional western (can´t speak about other as i am not fully read up on that) story-telling of the "heroes journey" or coming of age journeys. It is simply how we are used to a story being told.So to call it the worst thing is kind of stupid, had it not been there MMO´s had still been a fringe market along the lines of hard-core simulators. As people pointed out it was not until a game adopted this classic narrative and made it the core part of the game that the real "mass-appeal" kicked in.End-game is not bad, it gives a very clear and focused "goal" to conquer and help the narrative by giving it a defined destination. Then ofc one can say that the narrative is bad (cue themepark vs sandbox horse flogging) but even "the SIMS" have a goal and a end-game, and it is not like game developers are not trying new stuff... Taking a day or two and browsing through the indie scene and you will see a mass of new ideas being tested and rejected. The big names in the industry are keeping a very close eye on this ready to pick up any new ideas worth their salt.But end-game, the big bad, the journeys end... that will not change as it is the kind of storytelling that people recognize. Every now and then ofc there will be one or two outlier that cater to their niche, EvE being the poster child. But the genre is now so big that it will never go back to what it was at it´s roots.
Last time I played WOW I couldn't get in a group because my storytelling score was too low. We know what the mass appeal is.
I agree, if you want me to keep playing, give me a story reason to play.
I didn't level to infinity in the final fantasy games because i wanted the next level of gear, I wanted to kill Kefta for slaughtering my family.
I didn't keep playing to keep repeating the same dungeon, over and over and over, i played cause i wanted to know what happened next. It's why I like where GW2 is going with their living story. every couple weeks its a new chapter. it's a eason for me to play more, even if al i'm doing is completing that chapter. I don't need to play for hundreds of hours when i'm getting no where. I'd rather play for 8 meaningful hours and gain progress.
End-game is a carry over from the single player market. Pretty much any story-driven game has a big bad in the end that needs to be taken down and the journey there is you (the player) gaining the skills needed to do so. This ofc is in turn a carry over from traditional western (can´t speak about other as i am not fully read up on that) story-telling of the "heroes journey" or coming of age journeys. It is simply how we are used to a story being told.
So to call it the worst thing is kind of stupid, had it not been there MMO´s had still been a fringe market along the lines of hard-core simulators. As people pointed out it was not until a game adopted this classic narrative and made it the core part of the game that the real "mass-appeal" kicked in.
End-game is not bad, it gives a very clear and focused "goal" to conquer and help the narrative by giving it a defined destination. Then ofc one can say that the narrative is bad (cue themepark vs sandbox horse flogging) but even "the SIMS" have a goal and a end-game, and it is not like game developers are not trying new stuff... Taking a day or two and browsing through the indie scene and you will see a mass of new ideas being tested and rejected. The big names in the industry are keeping a very close eye on this ready to pick up any new ideas worth their salt.
But end-game, the big bad, the journeys end... that will not change as it is the kind of storytelling that people recognize. Every now and then ofc there will be one or two outlier that cater to their niche, EvE being the poster child. But the genre is now so big that it will never go back to what it was at it´s roots.
Last time I played WOW I couldn't get in a group because my storytelling score was too low. We know what the mass appeal is.
This made no sense at all
The classic narrative, the kind of storytelling people recognize that allowed endgame to garner mass appeal makes no sense, but it sounds nice.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
End-game is a carry over from the single player market. Pretty much any story-driven game has a big bad in the end that needs to be taken down and the journey there is you (the player) gaining the skills needed to do so. This ofc is in turn a carry over from traditional western (can´t speak about other as i am not fully read up on that) story-telling of the "heroes journey" or coming of age journeys. It is simply how we are used to a story being told.
So to call it the worst thing is kind of stupid, had it not been there MMO´s had still been a fringe market along the lines of hard-core simulators. As people pointed out it was not until a game adopted this classic narrative and made it the core part of the game that the real "mass-appeal" kicked in.
End-game is not bad, it gives a very clear and focused "goal" to conquer and help the narrative by giving it a defined destination. Then ofc one can say that the narrative is bad (cue themepark vs sandbox horse flogging) but even "the SIMS" have a goal and a end-game, and it is not like game developers are not trying new stuff... Taking a day or two and browsing through the indie scene and you will see a mass of new ideas being tested and rejected. The big names in the industry are keeping a very close eye on this ready to pick up any new ideas worth their salt.
But end-game, the big bad, the journeys end... that will not change as it is the kind of storytelling that people recognize. Every now and then ofc there will be one or two outlier that cater to their niche, EvE being the poster child. But the genre is now so big that it will never go back to what it was at it´s roots.
Last time I played WOW I couldn't get in a group because my storytelling score was too low. We know what the mass appeal is.
This made no sense at all
The classic narrative, the kind of storytelling people recognize that allowed endgame to garner mass appeal makes no sense, but it sounds nice.
The "dungeon" is the problem. Most games involve a great deal of role playing, and adventuring before you reach the dungoen. The dungeon is solved and that's it. MMOs havn't figured out how to replicate that, and before they could figure it out, they realized that if they attracted other types of games they could make more money. Thus, there's little incentive to make innovative rpg elements in games.
Blizzard didn't make WoW from nothing. Its first incarnation, in WCIII, wasn't even anything like what WoW would turn into with the exception of quests. So maybe Blizzard doesn't deserve the blame here. They didn't hire people to force EQ players to come to WoW; those players did that on their own. They didn't force anyone to change what they were thinking, they provided an alternative that the market wanted and HOLY CHRIST did the market respond. A lot of it was probably good timing, sure. But nowhere near all of it.
So I guess that leaves a question to ponder: what kinds of things could POSSIBLY have made WoW, the ultimate 'carebear' game, so incredibly popular? I'm pretty sure the article mentions one thing thats been overlooked this entire thread, but there are other threads going about that topic right now. Hrm...what could cause a large exodus of players from 'old style' games, large enough to reshape the gaming landscape for nearly a decade. Can anyone think of anything that might have influenced so many people, so negatively, that it would crush the genre for an entire decade?
Endgame isn't the worst thing. The over-reliance on it isn't a -good- thing by any stretch, but its not the worst either. However, the time is slowly coming about where endgame won't be enough because players have simply become too good at it. There aren't enough mechanics to keep it challenging for the truly good players. And that's a place where even I'll agree sandbox elements are a very needed thing...provided a certain style of gaming isn't forcibly attached to it that has a reputation of crashing and burning the entire genre.
End-game is a carry over from the single player market. Pretty much any story-driven game has a big bad in the end that needs to be taken down and the journey there is you (the player) gaining the skills needed to do so. This ofc is in turn a carry over from traditional western (can´t speak about other as i am not fully read up on that) story-telling of the "heroes journey" or coming of age journeys. It is simply how we are used to a story being told.
So to call it the worst thing is kind of stupid, had it not been there MMO´s had still been a fringe market along the lines of hard-core simulators. As people pointed out it was not until a game adopted this classic narrative and made it the core part of the game that the real "mass-appeal" kicked in.
End-game is not bad, it gives a very clear and focused "goal" to conquer and help the narrative by giving it a defined destination. Then ofc one can say that the narrative is bad (cue themepark vs sandbox horse flogging) but even "the SIMS" have a goal and a end-game, and it is not like game developers are not trying new stuff... Taking a day or two and browsing through the indie scene and you will see a mass of new ideas being tested and rejected. The big names in the industry are keeping a very close eye on this ready to pick up any new ideas worth their salt.
But end-game, the big bad, the journeys end... that will not change as it is the kind of storytelling that people recognize. Every now and then ofc there will be one or two outlier that cater to their niche, EvE being the poster child. But the genre is now so big that it will never go back to what it was at it´s roots.
Last time I played WOW I couldn't get in a group because my storytelling score was too low. We know what the mass appeal is.
This made no sense at all
The classic narrative, the kind of storytelling people recognize that allowed endgame to garner mass appeal makes no sense, but it sounds nice.
The "dungeon" is the problem. Most games involve a great deal of role playing, and adventuring before you reach the dungoen. The dungeon is solved and that's it. MMOs havn't figured out how to replicate that, and before they could figure it out, they realized that if they attracted other types of games they could make more money. Thus, there's little incentive to make innovative rpg elements in games.
Most games don't have players doing something they wouldn't normally do. That requires massive rewards and incentives. They didn't start that way. Rewards are more valuable than people now, to some.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
One of the best posts i've ever seen on these forums. Fully agree.
This end game nonsense must stop and these games should be restored back to what they were meant to be - Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games. Terms like 'leveling', 'questing' and 'plowing through content' should become irrelevant once again. There are more than enough arcade games, leave MMORPGs alone.
Blizzard didn't make WoW from nothing. Its first incarnation, in WCIII, wasn't even anything like what WoW would turn into with the exception of quests. So maybe Blizzard doesn't deserve the blame here. They didn't hire people to force EQ players to come to WoW; those players did that on their own. They didn't force anyone to change what they were thinking, they provided an alternative that the market wanted and HOLY CHRIST did the market respond. A lot of it was probably good timing, sure. But nowhere near all of it.
So I guess that leaves a question to ponder: what kinds of things could POSSIBLY have made WoW, the ultimate 'carebear' game, so incredibly popular? I'm pretty sure the article mentions one thing thats been overlooked this entire thread, but there are other threads going about that topic right now. Hrm...what could cause a large exodus of players from 'old style' games, large enough to reshape the gaming landscape for nearly a decade. Can anyone think of anything that might have influenced so many people, so negatively, that it would crush the genre for an entire decade?
Endgame isn't the worst thing. The over-reliance on it isn't a -good- thing by any stretch, but its not the worst either. However, the time is slowly coming about where endgame won't be enough because players have simply become too good at it. There aren't enough mechanics to keep it challenging for the truly good players. And that's a place where even I'll agree sandbox elements are a very needed thing...provided a certain style of gaming isn't forcibly attached to it that has a reputation of crashing and burning the entire genre.
Marketing? Red sea..
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Blizzard didn't make WoW from nothing. Its first incarnation, in WCIII, wasn't even anything like what WoW would turn into with the exception of quests. So maybe Blizzard doesn't deserve the blame here. They didn't hire people to force EQ players to come to WoW; those players did that on their own. They didn't force anyone to change what they were thinking, they provided an alternative that the market wanted and HOLY CHRIST did the market respond. A lot of it was probably good timing, sure. But nowhere near all of it.
So I guess that leaves a question to ponder: what kinds of things could POSSIBLY have made WoW, the ultimate 'carebear' game, so incredibly popular? I'm pretty sure the article mentions one thing thats been overlooked this entire thread, but there are other threads going about that topic right now. Hrm...what could cause a large exodus of players from 'old style' games, large enough to reshape the gaming landscape for nearly a decade. Can anyone think of anything that might have influenced so many people, so negatively, that it would crush the genre for an entire decade?
Endgame isn't the worst thing. The over-reliance on it isn't a -good- thing by any stretch, but its not the worst either. However, the time is slowly coming about where endgame won't be enough because players have simply become too good at it. There aren't enough mechanics to keep it challenging for the truly good players. And that's a place where even I'll agree sandbox elements are a very needed thing...provided a certain style of gaming isn't forcibly attached to it that has a reputation of crashing and burning the entire genre.
Marketing? Red sea..
So Blizzard not only managed to steal all the competition by going after people who weren't involved with the competition (...really?), but they did it by using a marketing strategy that wasn't even named until the following year. Those guys are -good-! They managed to make a game using a non-existing market and fill it with people who hated the genre itself, and by doing so...made...all the people who hated them join them? Deep.
This is the article by Brianna Royce of Massively.. Some of the comments there are as good as the article! (pictures removed)
Endgame is the worst thing that ever happened to MMOs. I tweeted this last year, and it won't stop rattling around in my head. Every time a developer dodges concerns and leaps to his version of the "elder game," every time a reader claims a reviewer who doesn't get to endgame is irrelevant, and every time someone justifies a weak game mechanic because it doesn't matter at max level anyway, it rattles around some more. Endgame is the worst thing that ever happened to MMOs. **snip***
The frustrating part of this article, is it focuses way too much on the developer.
'Endgame' is a concept ENTIRELY developed by US. The players. WE invented this. And yet we take no responsibility for it, and instead would rather blame developers for being forced to cater to it.
WE created the term endgame.
WE started the focus around it.
WE demand every game have it.
WE dismiss games that don't.
Developers have been trying for years to get this idea out of our heads. It hasn't worked. We have proven time, and time again, that if a MMO doesn't have some form of 'endgame' we either won't play it; Or we'll abandon it a month after launch. We have become so accustomed to skinner-box design, that we refuse to believe there is anything else. Developers are thus forced to build around that concept, regardless of the glaringly obvious flaws it has, because that is the only way they can make money. Because it's the only games we have shown we'll actually support.
There are less than a handful of examples that are exceptions to this. And you can't make longterm success off an outlier.
A lot of people (on these forums at least), like to point to the sandbox as the savior. Believe it or not, most developers have thought of this as well. The reason we don't have as many sandbox games is because of US. If devs believed they could make nearly as much money doing pure sandbox games, they'd be making them in a heartbeat. They might be harder to design in the short run, but they are much easier to maintain over time.
We created this problem. But that's not gunna stop us from blaming others.
Well said.
For me to play an MMO it has to have end game.
AGAIN IT HAS TO HAVE END-GAME.
When i say this i mean i dont want to play through the quest get to 50-60 w/e with my thumb up my butt logging in to use the chat system to say hey to friends.
Instead of pointing out a flaw think of a new system, a new design.
There is always end game in an mmo so your friends have something to stick around for and achieve.
What would YOU do? Use chat box and grind lower mobs? Sell the money so you can say you have the most in the game?
When i say this i mean i dont want to play through the quest get to 50-60 w/e with my thumb up my butt logging in to use the chat system to say hey to friends.
Instead of pointing out a flaw think of a new system, a new design.
There is always end game in an mmo so your friends have something to stick around for and achieve.
What would YOU do? Use chat box and grind lower mobs? Sell the money so you can say you have the most in the game?
CMON GUYS ,Whats endgame mean to yall?
IMO end game content (raiding mainly) should be part of your gaming experience from the get go. End game seems to be a PvE problem as PvP is part of your journey in most MMO's.
Very rare you see a PvP player complain about end game. Balance is probably the thing they whine about most.
To prolong MY boredom I usually roll alts and try different class/skills. I need a really deep/robust class/skill system to prolong my "end game" experience.
I like playing with different build/ideas. Probably why I play Path of Exile a lot. I'm running through the same content, however the number of builds I can imagine up makes running the same content fresh.
Blizzard didn't make WoW from nothing. Its first incarnation, in WCIII, wasn't even anything like what WoW would turn into with the exception of quests. So maybe Blizzard doesn't deserve the blame here. They didn't hire people to force EQ players to come to WoW; those players did that on their own. They didn't force anyone to change what they were thinking, they provided an alternative that the market wanted and HOLY CHRIST did the market respond. A lot of it was probably good timing, sure. But nowhere near all of it.
So I guess that leaves a question to ponder: what kinds of things could POSSIBLY have made WoW, the ultimate 'carebear' game, so incredibly popular? I'm pretty sure the article mentions one thing thats been overlooked this entire thread, but there are other threads going about that topic right now. Hrm...what could cause a large exodus of players from 'old style' games, large enough to reshape the gaming landscape for nearly a decade. Can anyone think of anything that might have influenced so many people, so negatively, that it would crush the genre for an entire decade?
Endgame isn't the worst thing. The over-reliance on it isn't a -good- thing by any stretch, but its not the worst either. However, the time is slowly coming about where endgame won't be enough because players have simply become too good at it. There aren't enough mechanics to keep it challenging for the truly good players. And that's a place where even I'll agree sandbox elements are a very needed thing...provided a certain style of gaming isn't forcibly attached to it that has a reputation of crashing and burning the entire genre.
Marketing? Red sea..
So Blizzard not only managed to steal all the competition by going after people who weren't involved with the competition (...really?), but they did it by using a marketing strategy that wasn't even named until the following year. Those guys are -good-! They managed to make a game using a non-existing market and fill it with people who hated the genre itself, and by doing so...made...all the people who hated them join them? Deep.
I think you are misrepresenting people.
They didn't steal all the people from the competition. Diablo players were dreaming of a 3d multiplayer game and talking about it before EQ existed. Once UO and EQ came out we knew it would be a larger multiplayer game. EQ cashed in on diablo players. Blizzard took them back.
Then did the most amazing thing ever done by a developer of mmorpgs that hasn't been tried since...they didn't interfere. MMOrpg players are some cool dudes, just let em play.
Marketing...red sea
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Comments
My 2 bits
Endgame smendgame; Sandboc, smandbox, themepark, smemepark <---irrelevaent
People will play a game they feel is enjoyable regardless of a specific systems or systems.
The pitiful few mmos that have been successful and are able to grow even years after launch did so by NOT inserting systems of play into their game that were on a "must have" list. They added the ones they felt were fun, some of those systems may have been "industry standards", most were not.
Arguably the 2 most successful WoW/Eve went completely counter to the industry trends at the time of their creation. They designed systems THEY felt made good gameplay and did so with passion, not as a 9-5 filling task orders all day. Once they felt ready released, they didn't try to target all demographics in both cases neither was shy on saying what it WASN'T. Once in the hands of players they adjusted their products to fit the market that had now become theirs. They also usually avoided the trap of telling the core base what it should enjoy.
Game creation is ideally a creative process, not a paint by the numbers coloring book, counter to most executive producers desires. The more time personnel spend clicking checkboxes and filling work orders for systems they themselves could care less about, well... passion or lack thereof comes thru loud and clear to the end user. You treat it as an assembly line well yup of course it's going to look/feel like any other mass produced good.
The frustrating part of this article, is it focuses way too much on the developer.
'Endgame' is a concept ENTIRELY developed by US. The players. WE invented this. And yet we take no responsibility for it, and instead would rather blame developers for being forced to cater to it.
WE created the term endgame.
WE started the focus around it.
WE demand every game have it.
WE dismiss games that don't.
Developers have been trying for years to get this idea out of our heads. It hasn't worked. We have proven time, and time again, that if a MMO doesn't have some form of 'endgame' we either won't play it; Or we'll abandon it a month after launch. We have become so accustomed to skinner-box design, that we refuse to believe there is anything else. Developers are thus forced to build around that concept, regardless of the glaringly obvious flaws it has, because that is the only way they can make money. Because it's the only games we have shown we'll actually support.
There are less than a handful of examples that are exceptions to this. And you can't make longterm success off an outlier.
A lot of people (on these forums at least), like to point to the sandbox as the savior. Believe it or not, most developers have thought of this as well. The reason we don't have as many sandbox games is because of US. If devs believed they could make nearly as much money doing pure sandbox games, they'd be making them in a heartbeat. They might be harder to design in the short run, but they are much easier to maintain over time.
We created this problem. But that's not gunna stop us from blaming others.
There is actually a lot of evidence to support the idea that WoW ruined the genre.
Blizzard has developed a track record of piggy-backing off of other games' ideas. Simplifying them for the masses, and calling them their own.
What WoW did positively for the genre, was bring in millions of new players.
What WoW didn't do for the genre, is open these players up to different types of games. Instead most of these same players are just addicted to Blizzard. They don't give much of anything else a chance. This is why we've been playing mostly versions of WoW over the passed decade. Yes, some of it is devs trying to leech that success. But it's also reinforced by players demonstrating that this is what they want to play.
The genre was already starting to diversify at the time WoW was launched. After it's success, that diversity almost entirely vanished. We've been slowly getting it back each year.
Well said.
Not me
Jokes aside, I agree with you. Never touched the so-called "endgame" and have conflicts with the "life starts at level cap" folks since years... and as much as I am convinced that the endgame is just worthless BS, there are a wast number of players loving it. (those are your "we")
I agree with your dev comment as well. Endgame is not spreading because the nasty, evil devs forcing it into every game... devs are just following the market. Endgame is here, because the majority of the playerbase wants it, sadly.
I still have some forum posts saved from AoC's Godslayer launch, it was almost surreal, folks welcomed the massive endgame grind, with comments like "now we have finally some clear goals to work for". You can't help those people...
And until they're the majority, you can't help the issue either. There will be more and more "jump to level-cap" options, shortened leveling routes, smaller, meaningless worlds, autopathing, etc. Anything to help them reaching their Preccious endgame they crave for, as soon as possible. A grim future indeed...
Endgame was a player creation, stolen by developers and gamified for the masses.
Much like anything, it used to be pretty sweet.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I remember EQ before there was endgame. The players that made it to max level would gang of on NPCs like the priest of discord outside of towns. They were supposed to be invincible. I still believe that part of what made MMOs great initially is that they weren't designed to do anything in particular. They just gave players a place to fool around in and they created their own fun from that. Usually what the players came up with was a lot more fun then any version the devs stole and developed. The main problem is like most things in life now everything is very locked down because of fear of what might happen. On the flip side I believe it's difficult to recreate the magic of those times because they were something new and the devs didn't know how to lock players down or if they even should. Everything seems to go this way sooner or later. Things always seem to go downhill when they achieve mass appeal.
End-game is a carry over from the single player market. Pretty much any story-driven game has a big bad in the end that needs to be taken down and the journey there is you (the player) gaining the skills needed to do so. This ofc is in turn a carry over from traditional western (can´t speak about other as i am not fully read up on that) story-telling of the "heroes journey" or coming of age journeys. It is simply how we are used to a story being told.
So to call it the worst thing is kind of stupid, had it not been there MMO´s had still been a fringe market along the lines of hard-core simulators. As people pointed out it was not until a game adopted this classic narrative and made it the core part of the game that the real "mass-appeal" kicked in.
End-game is not bad, it gives a very clear and focused "goal" to conquer and help the narrative by giving it a defined destination. Then ofc one can say that the narrative is bad (cue themepark vs sandbox horse flogging) but even "the SIMS" have a goal and a end-game, and it is not like game developers are not trying new stuff... Taking a day or two and browsing through the indie scene and you will see a mass of new ideas being tested and rejected. The big names in the industry are keeping a very close eye on this ready to pick up any new ideas worth their salt.
But end-game, the big bad, the journeys end... that will not change as it is the kind of storytelling that people recognize. Every now and then ofc there will be one or two outlier that cater to their niche, EvE being the poster child. But the genre is now so big that it will never go back to what it was at it´s roots.
This have been a good conversation
It's not difficult. It just requires an Unknown.
Players, even the so called elite, all create the path of least resistance instead of a challenge. 500 man guilds at launch? Really nubs?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Last time I played WOW I couldn't get in a group because my storytelling score was too low. We know what the mass appeal is.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
That's pretty much the core of all tales and myths both on east and west and south - at least according Campbell's theory.
The rest, I think you're mistaken with the endgame concept in mmo's. I agree with the journey's end, I personally playing that way exactly (after the game ends, it ends for me, and either it's time for a new one or an alt).
On the other hand, what we're talking about, the mmo endgame is what's beyond that end. By your concept it's after you beated the big baddie, won the princess, etc. And then the game says to you, now it's time for endgame, keep beating the very same baddie for 3 months, and then you earn the right to beat him on T2, and after another 3 months on T3 (still the very same baddie)
Totally pointless and a waste of time from the journey's perspective. And nope, it's not even a goal either, since all you get for your months of work is a tiny gear upgrade - which is pointless since you already finished the journey. A dumb treadmill for nothing, just for the sake of "that's the purpose of the game".
Last time I played WOW I couldn't get in a group because my storytelling score was too low. We know what the mass appeal is.
This made no sense at allThis have been a good conversation
I agree, if you want me to keep playing, give me a story reason to play.
I didn't level to infinity in the final fantasy games because i wanted the next level of gear, I wanted to kill Kefta for slaughtering my family.
I didn't keep playing to keep repeating the same dungeon, over and over and over, i played cause i wanted to know what happened next. It's why I like where GW2 is going with their living story. every couple weeks its a new chapter. it's a eason for me to play more, even if al i'm doing is completing that chapter. I don't need to play for hundreds of hours when i'm getting no where. I'd rather play for 8 meaningful hours and gain progress.
The classic narrative, the kind of storytelling people recognize that allowed endgame to garner mass appeal makes no sense, but it sounds nice.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
The "dungeon" is the problem. Most games involve a great deal of role playing, and adventuring before you reach the dungoen. The dungeon is solved and that's it. MMOs havn't figured out how to replicate that, and before they could figure it out, they realized that if they attracted other types of games they could make more money. Thus, there's little incentive to make innovative rpg elements in games.
Blizzard didn't make WoW from nothing. Its first incarnation, in WCIII, wasn't even anything like what WoW would turn into with the exception of quests. So maybe Blizzard doesn't deserve the blame here. They didn't hire people to force EQ players to come to WoW; those players did that on their own. They didn't force anyone to change what they were thinking, they provided an alternative that the market wanted and HOLY CHRIST did the market respond. A lot of it was probably good timing, sure. But nowhere near all of it.
So I guess that leaves a question to ponder: what kinds of things could POSSIBLY have made WoW, the ultimate 'carebear' game, so incredibly popular? I'm pretty sure the article mentions one thing thats been overlooked this entire thread, but there are other threads going about that topic right now. Hrm...what could cause a large exodus of players from 'old style' games, large enough to reshape the gaming landscape for nearly a decade. Can anyone think of anything that might have influenced so many people, so negatively, that it would crush the genre for an entire decade?
Endgame isn't the worst thing. The over-reliance on it isn't a -good- thing by any stretch, but its not the worst either. However, the time is slowly coming about where endgame won't be enough because players have simply become too good at it. There aren't enough mechanics to keep it challenging for the truly good players. And that's a place where even I'll agree sandbox elements are a very needed thing...provided a certain style of gaming isn't forcibly attached to it that has a reputation of crashing and burning the entire genre.
Most games don't have players doing something they wouldn't normally do. That requires massive rewards and incentives. They didn't start that way. Rewards are more valuable than people now, to some.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
One of the best posts i've ever seen on these forums. Fully agree.
This end game nonsense must stop and these games should be restored back to what they were meant to be - Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games. Terms like 'leveling', 'questing' and 'plowing through content' should become irrelevant once again. There are more than enough arcade games, leave MMORPGs alone.
Marketing? Red sea..
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Casuals don't use forums.
Developers try to convert casuals to hardcore...
Raiding forces player to play as themselves instead of a role. Hardcore..
Blaming the innocent wont help.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
So Blizzard not only managed to steal all the competition by going after people who weren't involved with the competition (...really?), but they did it by using a marketing strategy that wasn't even named until the following year. Those guys are -good-! They managed to make a game using a non-existing market and fill it with people who hated the genre itself, and by doing so...made...all the people who hated them join them? Deep.
For me to play an MMO it has to have end game.
AGAIN IT HAS TO HAVE END-GAME.
When i say this i mean i dont want to play through the quest get to 50-60 w/e with my thumb up my butt logging in to use the chat system to say hey to friends.
Instead of pointing out a flaw think of a new system, a new design.
There is always end game in an mmo so your friends have something to stick around for and achieve.
What would YOU do? Use chat box and grind lower mobs? Sell the money so you can say you have the most in the game?
CMON GUYS ,Whats endgame mean to yall?
IMO end game content (raiding mainly) should be part of your gaming experience from the get go. End game seems to be a PvE problem as PvP is part of your journey in most MMO's.
Very rare you see a PvP player complain about end game. Balance is probably the thing they whine about most.
To prolong MY boredom I usually roll alts and try different class/skills. I need a really deep/robust class/skill system to prolong my "end game" experience.
I like playing with different build/ideas. Probably why I play Path of Exile a lot. I'm running through the same content, however the number of builds I can imagine up makes running the same content fresh.
I think you are misrepresenting people.
They didn't steal all the people from the competition. Diablo players were dreaming of a 3d multiplayer game and talking about it before EQ existed. Once UO and EQ came out we knew it would be a larger multiplayer game. EQ cashed in on diablo players. Blizzard took them back.
Then did the most amazing thing ever done by a developer of mmorpgs that hasn't been tried since...they didn't interfere. MMOrpg players are some cool dudes, just let em play.
Marketing...red sea
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"