I like endgame. Wish endgame would start once i log in.
The worst part FOR ME: Questing for leveling and FTP. Take those two out and i will jump back into MMOs
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Atm the only mmo I'm playing is PS2. There is no endgame at all, no "story" to burn trough, no effing "journey" thing. You go in, participate in a persistent virtual world, accomplish something or not and when you've had enough of the experience for that particular session, you log out.
That's the way it should be and that's the way it should have stayed from UO/EQ onwards. PS2 is not a true RPG mmo and there is not much to do except shoot other people, but it's got the basic, core appeal of the genre down pat. As I said, you go in, participate in a virtual world... The WoW levelling * + raiding/endgame thing is an anomaly in the natural evolution of the genre, a frankenstein graft of a single-player game structure on something which is intrinsically different. I simply can't stand today's mainstream mmorpgs which all follow that same old flawed formula and the big new ones such as ESO and wildstar hold exactly zero appeal to me. Most facebook games are truer mmos than the vast majority of so-called mmorpgs. Imo, the time is nigh to finally break out of the wow spell and get back on the right track.
and i would say 2. worst thing is capped group size - it killed any chance of diversity among classes
I agree with OP for the most part. WoW did add flex raids which lets you run with different raid sizes. The worst part about endgame is that its just the same damn thing over and over. Get the best gear, wait until the next patch, to get the new best gear.......There really has to be something better. It makes the progress seem completely worthless knowing eventually the gear you have will be obsolete. GW2 kinda tried to offset this by making all top level gear the same, just a different skin. We need something revolutionary that changes MMORPGs forever, but I dont see that happening anytime soon.
i would really like a game with either unlimited progression or at least with progression like in ac/ac2, where it takes really a LONG time
And it doesn't really matter because THE ENTIRE GAME is adventurous and fun.
edit:
I wanted to add that IMO the worst thing to happen to MMO's was the internet. Ironic as it may seem, it was the internet that brought about online maps and online guides telling players where to go, what do to, and how to get it done the fastest.BUTthese sites and posts are not what I'm actually talking about! It was because of these sites that developers thought, for some strange messed up, reason that they should add all these player created things into their games. Inevitably leading to the easy, hand holding games you see today.
Atm the only mmo I'm playing is PS2. There is no endgame at all, no "story" to burn trough, no effing "journey" thing. You go in, participate in a persistent virtual world, accomplish something or not and when you've had enough of the experience for that particular session, you log out.
That's the way it should be and that's the way it should have stayed from UO/EQ onwards. PS2 is not a true RPG mmo and there is not much to do except shoot other people, but it's got the basic, core appeal of the genre down pat. As I said, you go in, participate in a virtual world... The WoW levelling * + raiding/endgame thing is an anomaly in the natural evolution of the genre, a frankenstein graft of a single-player game structure on something which is intrinsically different. I simply can't stand today's mainstream mmorpgs which all follow that same old flawed formula and the big new ones such as ESO and wildstar hold exactly zero appeal to me. Most facebook games are truer mmos than the vast majority of so-called mmorpgs. Imo, the time is nigh to finally break out of the wow spell and get back on the right track.
well .. open world pvp works with a shooter. I would also argue that it matter very little whether PS2's battle is open to all, or say in a instance with a large number of players (say 200). After a certain number, you can't really tell anyway.
The point is that as you have pointed out .. pS2 is not a RPG, and open world pvp will get in the way of progression.
I like endgame. Wish endgame would start once i log in.
Yeah, I was also never a fan of "endure the bad stuff to get to the fun stuff". A game should be fun, period. From minute 1 onward.
I don't mind leveling at all though, IF it's fun and not totally detached from what I will be doing late game. It's all in the implementation.
It is a bad decision trying to appeal to everyone in one game or one server IMO. They should have different style MMOs for different people. Otherwise no one is really happy. People are just mediocre like the games IMO.
I like endgame. Wish endgame would start once i log in.
Yeah, I was also never a fan of "endure the bad stuff to get to the fun stuff". A game should be fun, period. From minute 1 onward.
I don't mind leveling at all though, IF it's fun and not totally detached from what I will be doing late game. It's all in the implementation.
It is a bad decision trying to appeal to everyone in one game or one server IMO. They should have different style MMOs for different people. Otherwise no one is really happy. People are just mediocre like the games IMO.
Agreed.
Sadly the "trying to appeal to everyone" symptome is a result of current budgets. You have to aim for everyone or you won't make back the immense costs.
Niche titles seem to be the future, I am with you on that. We will have to expect smaller budgets though. Then again, a more focussed game can get away with a smaller budget and still deliver quality content.
Atm the only mmo I'm playing is PS2. There is no endgame at all, no "story" to burn trough, no effing "journey" thing. You go in, participate in a persistent virtual world, accomplish something or not and when you've had enough of the experience for that particular session, you log out.
That's the way it should be and that's the way it should have stayed from UO/EQ onwards. PS2 is not a true RPG mmo and there is not much to do except shoot other people, but it's got the basic, core appeal of the genre down pat. As I said, you go in, participate in a virtual world... The WoW levelling * + raiding/endgame thing is an anomaly in the natural evolution of the genre, a frankenstein graft of a single-player game structure on something which is intrinsically different. I simply can't stand today's mainstream mmorpgs which all follow that same old flawed formula and the big new ones such as ESO and wildstar hold exactly zero appeal to me. Most facebook games are truer mmos than the vast majority of so-called mmorpgs. Imo, the time is nigh to finally break out of the wow spell and get back on the right track.
well .. open world pvp works with a shooter. I would also argue that it matter very little whether PS2's battle is open to all, or say in a instance with a large number of players (say 200). After a certain number, you can't really tell anyway.
The point is that as you have pointed out .. pS2 is not a RPG, and open world pvp will get in the way of progression.
But you don't have to have PvP in a sandbox game. You don't even need combat. That's just a tired old cliche that UO created and EVE online perpetuates. Look up Tale in the Desert for example... I've given PS2 as an example of the principle I feel natural for the MMO format - a consistent, persistent experience that is largely unchanged in its essence from the moment you first log in to when you uninstall the game. At the moment the only working examples I can give you are PvP games (and DoTA's ie) because not one large developer had a brainwave to think up something different... Why not a building/trading mmorpg with emergent npc opponents? Or one where players create rewarding challenges for each other?
There are so many unexplored possibilities in the mmo genre that we haven't explored or even imagined yet. We really need to move away from those hoary old cliches like "all themeparks need to be level-based" or "all sandboxes need to be ffa-pvp" or we'll never ever get anywhere.
The biggest problem with end game is that it starts at the end. Raids and large scale efforts should happen at ALL levels in an MMO.
The current themepark formula is:
1. SOLO to level cap using quest hubs or linear quest chains. This for the most part is single player experience.
2. At level cap the actual MMO starts where you have to interact with other players to get things done.
What I really want to see is more low level raids. Don't be afraid to put in a level 10 world boss that takes 50 players to defeat in your world. This is what makes MMOs fun. Rallying together with other people to defeat a common enemy is core reason for playing MMO in the first place. There should be lots of low level raids to do. They should give lots of EXP comparable to questing and plenty of loot. As soon as one raid boss dies it should respawn on another part of the map. Make people find it by exploring and then kill it again.
The thing that really ruined the genre is developers taking a single player game and then putting it online would justify charging $15/mo. This is the mentality that is failing.
If your game doesn't start until the end, why did you even bother designing everything else? The people who realize your early game is a weakly designed timesink will leave. The people who prefer that first third will be disappointed that the game at the end is not what you trained them to like and leave. People who like alts and midgaming will be annoyed that most of the 'coolest stuff' is too distant for them and leave. And worse? The rushers will see right through your "replayable content" and stil leave.
I seem to fall into the middle group there, learning to enjoy the game and then having it turn into something hugely different at top tier, so that the lessons I've learned and adaptations I've made become secondary or even irrelevant compared to those who have the right gear and have memorized each raid boss. It's as bad or worse than the whole PvP/PvE conflict, since it's the game itself that changes. I've played exactly one such MMO to the top, and am rapidly becoming turned off by the elitism which that encourages and the outright silliness of having to learn just the right safety dance to survive each raid.
But you don't have to have PvP in a sandbox game. You don't even need combat. That's just a tired old cliche that UO created and EVE online perpetuates. Look up Tale in the Desert for example... I've given PS2 as an example of the principle I feel natural for the MMO format - a consistent, persistent experience that is largely unchanged in its essence from the moment you first log in to when you uninstall the game. At the moment the only working examples I can give you are PvP games (and DoTA's ie) because not one large developer had a brainwave to think up something different... Why not a building/trading mmorpg with emergent npc opponents? Or one where players create rewarding challenges for each other?
There are so many unexplored possibilities in the mmo genre that we haven't explored or even imagined yet. We really need to move away from those hoary old cliches like "all themeparks need to be level-based" or "all sandboxes need to be ffa-pvp" or we'll never ever get anywhere.
While that is technically true, combat is the most popular form of gameplay. A large percentage of all games have it. It is obvious that violence sells. How many Tale in the Desert are there for every game that you can fight in?
Don't fix what is not broken. Improve combat (and i include stealth here) is good .... finding other possibilities? I will believe it when i see it. (For example, there are puzzle games i like too .. but i don't see a good reason why they need to be in a MMO)
Let's face it WoW end game works - it actually worked best in BC - and that's when it was the most hardcore. So if anything developers would be better served by modeling their end game of BC WoW. Oh wait there is new game called Wildstar which kinda does that. Who'd have thunk it.
None of the end game 'solutions' solve the end game problems. And that problem is what do you have players do who have finished the leveling PVE content? You need to SOLVE that question - before you just decide not to build an endgame.
Let's face it WoW end game works - it actually worked best in BC - and that's when it was the most hardcore. So if anything developers would be better served by modeling their end game of BC WoW. Oh wait there is new game called Wildstar which kinda does that. Who'd have thunk it.
None of the end game 'solutions' solve the end game problems. And that problem is what do you have players do who have finished the leveling PVE content? You need to SOLVE that question - before you just decide not to build an endgame.
Endgame was fine until it was gamified.
So was everything else.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I am sorry - you can't make an MMO without endgame. Put yourself in the designers shoes..
1) Option 1 - make leveling slow and hard - ensuring that people will quit your game and you will be unable to retain subscribers. Let's call this the Everquest model.
2) Option 2 - make most of your game easy - some of it harder - and some of it really hard and time gated. Call that stuff at the end 'endgame' Now everyone gets to play - some never make it past the easy part - but they don't quit out of frustration. Almost none make it past the hard and time gated part. Thus everyone wins.
I don't understand why people on this site think MMO developers are idiots. They are not. They have tried the no endgame bit. They have even tried option 3 - make it easy and simply not have an endgame (GW2) - that didn't work either.
You can't replace mechanics that serve a purpose unless you have an alternate mechanic that works just as well. Endgame keeps the addicts occupied. Its a very important mechanic if your business is about catering to addicts.
Ummm, yes you can. Or did you not read how it was done? Or do you think WoW invented the genre?
I am sorry - you can't make an MMO without endgame. Put yourself in the designers shoes..
1) Option 1 - make leveling slow and hard - ensuring that people will quit your game and you will be unable to retain subscribers. Let's call this the Everquest model.
2) Option 2 - make most of your game easy - some of it harder - and some of it really hard and time gated. Call that stuff at the end 'endgame' Now everyone gets to play - some never make it past the easy part - but they don't quit out of frustration. Almost none make it past the hard and time gated part. Thus everyone wins.
I don't understand why people on this site think MMO developers are idiots. They are not. They have tried the no endgame bit. They have even tried option 3 - make it easy and simply not have an endgame (GW2) - that didn't work either.
You can't replace mechanics that serve a purpose unless you have an alternate mechanic that works just as well. Endgame keeps the addicts occupied. Its a very important mechanic if your business is about catering to addicts.
Ummm, yes you can. Or did you not read how it was done? Or do you think WoW invented the genre?
WoW did not invented the genre, but it sure transform it as it is today.
There are no billions of mmo players, but a good number of millions and most of them have played WoW in the past 10 years. Even once, even in a non official server, even if they quited a long ago but most of them have played or continue to play WoW.
So yes, WoW is not the founder of the genre, but for sure is the one who must be blamed or appraised for what genre has ended to be like today.
Let's face it WoW end game works - it actually worked best in BC - and that's when it was the most hardcore. So if anything developers would be better served by modeling their end game of BC WoW. Oh wait there is new game called Wildstar which kinda does that. Who'd have thunk it.
None of the end game 'solutions' solve the end game problems. And that problem is what do you have players do who have finished the leveling PVE content? You need to SOLVE that question - before you just decide not to build an endgame.
Endgame was fine until it was gamified.
So was everything else.
I like the term gamified. I think of it as spreadsheet production where some project manager has excel open with x by y chart of things player must do at endgame (and other activities).
Endgame isn't the problem. Things like FPS players comng to mmorpgs then asking for FPS style games. Not just FPS but if FPS action is so great why come to mmorpgs rather than stay with FPS games.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
nah .. gamification is great. I want to play a good game, not live a second life in a virtual world. I already have a life.
I think the people who want to live a second life in a virtual world have problems that they are not dealing with and probably need a good psychologist.
everyone who agrees with this clearly doesnt care for group play. I have friends that have been playin MMOs for years and have never completed 5+man content in any game worth mentioning. But they still have a good time in-game. And as soon as a new xpan was released in the game they were playing they were the first on board to buy it and power through it.
they generally say the same thing about raiding; its worthless and they'd never do it. which is same reason why in a social event in game and in real life they are the ones getting left behind.
now im not saying that there's anything wrong with it. but dont blame you not having a better time on things you never do. because CLEARLY there are thousands more that will have a better time doing it.
and yes i agree with endgame because I dont want to stop playing an MMO! now if it were a single player console or pc rpg then id understand. but trust me ill never fork my hard earned cash over to an idea im not enjoying. If you feel like 100%'ing a game then go play the hundreds out there you can do it in. but please for the love of GOD dont whine about endgame when you are the furthest from even stepping foot in it.
End-game is a little hard to understand in anything concrete, other than it is what you do after you reach level cap. I've always felt that leveling and experiencing content was always the fun of these type of games, but once I go to level cap, now what? I played EQ when it came out, and incidentally never reached cap but had a blast playing. I wandered over to a fairly new game called Dark Age of Camelot and still play it to this day. End-game in DAOC is PVP mostly with PVE as a means to an end. There is raiding, but it's open non-linear, non-instanced, unlike most raiding today.
What I think most people today mean by end-game is mostly raiding. I've never been big on raiding. I played Rift since Beta, enjoyed a lot of the content in open world, dungeons, events. But I've never enjoyed raiding. I never enjoyed having to raid to get good gear. I understand the incentive to putting great gear rewards in the most challenging content, but then there are progressions and time sinks, faction, and everything in between. As a casual gamer who grew up with sandboxes and doing mostly PC-type games, I don't want to sit for hours playing linear content. The only MMO element in these raids is having multiple people around you, but these raids are console conventions, not MMO conventions. And it's all so mechanical and gear-driven. How many would actually want to play most of these raids if they weren't seeking better gear?
I think an open world with no instances is what makes MMOs great. If raids are what people like, take out the linear path and let them be open dungeons. Or, make instance dungeons designed to be fun, not for better gear. Make better gear available through crafting, quests and open world epic encounters. Raiding as it is now sucks the life out of MMOs, and I believe this focus on so-called "end-game" content is wrong. I understand that cross-platform is all the rage, but MMOs were originally designed with open world sandbox elements that made you feel like you were in a perpetual world. The goal shouldn't be to race through to level cap just to start raiding in instanced areas.
Comments
I like endgame. Wish endgame would start once i log in.
The worst part FOR ME: Questing for leveling and FTP. Take those two out and i will jump back into MMOs
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Atm the only mmo I'm playing is PS2. There is no endgame at all, no "story" to burn trough, no effing "journey" thing. You go in, participate in a persistent virtual world, accomplish something or not and when you've had enough of the experience for that particular session, you log out.
That's the way it should be and that's the way it should have stayed from UO/EQ onwards. PS2 is not a true RPG mmo and there is not much to do except shoot other people, but it's got the basic, core appeal of the genre down pat. As I said, you go in, participate in a virtual world... The WoW levelling * + raiding/endgame thing is an anomaly in the natural evolution of the genre, a frankenstein graft of a single-player game structure on something which is intrinsically different. I simply can't stand today's mainstream mmorpgs which all follow that same old flawed formula and the big new ones such as ESO and wildstar hold exactly zero appeal to me. Most facebook games are truer mmos than the vast majority of so-called mmorpgs. Imo, the time is nigh to finally break out of the wow spell and get back on the right track.
And it doesn't really matter because THE ENTIRE GAME is adventurous and fun.
edit:
I wanted to add that IMO the worst thing to happen to MMO's was the internet. Ironic as it may seem, it was the internet that brought about online maps and online guides telling players where to go, what do to, and how to get it done the fastest. BUT these sites and posts are not what I'm actually talking about! It was because of these sites that developers thought, for some strange messed up, reason that they should add all these player created things into their games. Inevitably leading to the easy, hand holding games you see today.
well .. open world pvp works with a shooter. I would also argue that it matter very little whether PS2's battle is open to all, or say in a instance with a large number of players (say 200). After a certain number, you can't really tell anyway.
The point is that as you have pointed out .. pS2 is not a RPG, and open world pvp will get in the way of progression.
Yeah, I was also never a fan of "endure the bad stuff to get to the fun stuff". A game should be fun, period. From minute 1 onward.
I don't mind leveling at all though, IF it's fun and not totally detached from what I will be doing late game. It's all in the implementation.
It is a bad decision trying to appeal to everyone in one game or one server IMO. They should have different style MMOs for different people. Otherwise no one is really happy. People are just mediocre like the games IMO.
Agreed.
Sadly the "trying to appeal to everyone" symptome is a result of current budgets. You have to aim for everyone or you won't make back the immense costs.
Niche titles seem to be the future, I am with you on that. We will have to expect smaller budgets though. Then again, a more focussed game can get away with a smaller budget and still deliver quality content.
But you don't have to have PvP in a sandbox game. You don't even need combat. That's just a tired old cliche that UO created and EVE online perpetuates. Look up Tale in the Desert for example... I've given PS2 as an example of the principle I feel natural for the MMO format - a consistent, persistent experience that is largely unchanged in its essence from the moment you first log in to when you uninstall the game. At the moment the only working examples I can give you are PvP games (and DoTA's ie) because not one large developer had a brainwave to think up something different... Why not a building/trading mmorpg with emergent npc opponents? Or one where players create rewarding challenges for each other?
There are so many unexplored possibilities in the mmo genre that we haven't explored or even imagined yet. We really need to move away from those hoary old cliches like "all themeparks need to be level-based" or "all sandboxes need to be ffa-pvp" or we'll never ever get anywhere.
The biggest problem with end game is that it starts at the end. Raids and large scale efforts should happen at ALL levels in an MMO.
The current themepark formula is:
1. SOLO to level cap using quest hubs or linear quest chains. This for the most part is single player experience.
2. At level cap the actual MMO starts where you have to interact with other players to get things done.
What I really want to see is more low level raids. Don't be afraid to put in a level 10 world boss that takes 50 players to defeat in your world. This is what makes MMOs fun. Rallying together with other people to defeat a common enemy is core reason for playing MMO in the first place. There should be lots of low level raids to do. They should give lots of EXP comparable to questing and plenty of loot. As soon as one raid boss dies it should respawn on another part of the map. Make people find it by exploring and then kill it again.
The thing that really ruined the genre is developers taking a single player game and then putting it online would justify charging $15/mo. This is the mentality that is failing.
I think you both missed the point. Get rid of "end game" and just have "fun game".
"end game" has given developers a reason to not give a shit about the rest of the game.
This is what really caught my eye:
If your game doesn't start until the end, why did you even bother designing everything else? The people who realize your early game is a weakly designed timesink will leave. The people who prefer that first third will be disappointed that the game at the end is not what you trained them to like and leave. People who like alts and midgaming will be annoyed that most of the 'coolest stuff' is too distant for them and leave. And worse? The rushers will see right through your "replayable content" and stil leave.
I seem to fall into the middle group there, learning to enjoy the game and then having it turn into something hugely different at top tier, so that the lessons I've learned and adaptations I've made become secondary or even irrelevant compared to those who have the right gear and have memorized each raid boss. It's as bad or worse than the whole PvP/PvE conflict, since it's the game itself that changes. I've played exactly one such MMO to the top, and am rapidly becoming turned off by the elitism which that encourages and the outright silliness of having to learn just the right safety dance to survive each raid.
While that is technically true, combat is the most popular form of gameplay. A large percentage of all games have it. It is obvious that violence sells. How many Tale in the Desert are there for every game that you can fight in?
Don't fix what is not broken. Improve combat (and i include stealth here) is good .... finding other possibilities? I will believe it when i see it. (For example, there are puzzle games i like too .. but i don't see a good reason why they need to be in a MMO)
lol, that's what I said.
This is where you correct me and I learn from my mistake...
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Let's face it WoW end game works - it actually worked best in BC - and that's when it was the most hardcore. So if anything developers would be better served by modeling their end game of BC WoW. Oh wait there is new game called Wildstar which kinda does that. Who'd have thunk it.
None of the end game 'solutions' solve the end game problems. And that problem is what do you have players do who have finished the leveling PVE content? You need to SOLVE that question - before you just decide not to build an endgame.
Endgame was fine until it was gamified.
So was everything else.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Ummm, yes you can. Or did you not read how it was done? Or do you think WoW invented the genre?
WoW did not invented the genre, but it sure transform it as it is today.
There are no billions of mmo players, but a good number of millions and most of them have played WoW in the past 10 years. Even once, even in a non official server, even if they quited a long ago but most of them have played or continue to play WoW.
So yes, WoW is not the founder of the genre, but for sure is the one who must be blamed or appraised for what genre has ended to be like today.
nah .. gamification is great. I want to play a good game, not live a second life in a virtual world. I already have a life.
I like the term gamified. I think of it as spreadsheet production where some project manager has excel open with x by y chart of things player must do at endgame (and other activities).
Endgame isn't the problem. Things like FPS players comng to mmorpgs then asking for FPS style games. Not just FPS but if FPS action is so great why come to mmorpgs rather than stay with FPS games.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Then you don't want an MMO. MMOs are about progression. If you want to play a PvP-fest, go play an FPS where progression doesn't matter.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I'm a casual player and I'm here using the forum. You're just wrong.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I think the people who want to live a second life in a virtual world have problems that they are not dealing with and probably need a good psychologist.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
everyone who agrees with this clearly doesnt care for group play. I have friends that have been playin MMOs for years and have never completed 5+man content in any game worth mentioning. But they still have a good time in-game. And as soon as a new xpan was released in the game they were playing they were the first on board to buy it and power through it.
they generally say the same thing about raiding; its worthless and they'd never do it. which is same reason why in a social event in game and in real life they are the ones getting left behind.
now im not saying that there's anything wrong with it. but dont blame you not having a better time on things you never do. because CLEARLY there are thousands more that will have a better time doing it.
and yes i agree with endgame because I dont want to stop playing an MMO! now if it were a single player console or pc rpg then id understand. but trust me ill never fork my hard earned cash over to an idea im not enjoying. If you feel like 100%'ing a game then go play the hundreds out there you can do it in. but please for the love of GOD dont whine about endgame when you are the furthest from even stepping foot in it.
Did you maybe quote the wrong post?
because...
Who said anything about a PvP-fest?
Who said anything against progression?
I don't even like FPS games. Who said anything about them?
Inquiring minds want to know.
End-game is a little hard to understand in anything concrete, other than it is what you do after you reach level cap. I've always felt that leveling and experiencing content was always the fun of these type of games, but once I go to level cap, now what? I played EQ when it came out, and incidentally never reached cap but had a blast playing. I wandered over to a fairly new game called Dark Age of Camelot and still play it to this day. End-game in DAOC is PVP mostly with PVE as a means to an end. There is raiding, but it's open non-linear, non-instanced, unlike most raiding today.
What I think most people today mean by end-game is mostly raiding. I've never been big on raiding. I played Rift since Beta, enjoyed a lot of the content in open world, dungeons, events. But I've never enjoyed raiding. I never enjoyed having to raid to get good gear. I understand the incentive to putting great gear rewards in the most challenging content, but then there are progressions and time sinks, faction, and everything in between. As a casual gamer who grew up with sandboxes and doing mostly PC-type games, I don't want to sit for hours playing linear content. The only MMO element in these raids is having multiple people around you, but these raids are console conventions, not MMO conventions. And it's all so mechanical and gear-driven. How many would actually want to play most of these raids if they weren't seeking better gear?
I think an open world with no instances is what makes MMOs great. If raids are what people like, take out the linear path and let them be open dungeons. Or, make instance dungeons designed to be fun, not for better gear. Make better gear available through crafting, quests and open world epic encounters. Raiding as it is now sucks the life out of MMOs, and I believe this focus on so-called "end-game" content is wrong. I understand that cross-platform is all the rage, but MMOs were originally designed with open world sandbox elements that made you feel like you were in a perpetual world. The goal shouldn't be to race through to level cap just to start raiding in instanced areas.