Maybe they suck for you. But not for me. It's a great time to play MMOs, so many different games available.
with most look the same, with the same unispiring mechs used in the last 50 MMO around, and not the ones who was good, the ones who force you to do things to string you along and spend more then normal on games
Didn't bother to read it. The only reason games apparently suck to you and everyone else (myself included) is because we've become disgruntled old farts. Young kids enjoy today's games, and when they get old they'll repeat the same disgruntled rose-colored glasses whining that you guys do.
Probably a waste of time to respond to this, but this is an over trivialization that doesn't examine any of the market's issues in proper context. I don't want the old games we used to have.
I agree, Even if kids like todays games, the mmorpg market is in a hole.
However in my opinion, I don't think they like todays mmorpgs. Their played because their FREE, their shallow games now.
How can anyone like a game thats 20 years old other than playing it for nostalgia ?
The gameplay my friend, we play them for the gameplay we enjoy when no similar, more modern alternative exists.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Just for the lols, an average AAA PS2 game was around 2-3 million total, an average AAA game nowadays is 75 million plus with games like GTAV and Destiny soaring past the 150 million mark, as do GoW and RDR2. Sales have only risen a factor five in comparison though over the years, the landscape has changed drastically.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Marketing costs are one big difference, by some accounts close to half more of the total cost in a AAA title can go towards it.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Just for the lols, an average AAA PS2 game was around 2-3 million total, an average AAA game nowadays is 75 million plus with games like GTAV and Destiny soaring past the 150 million mark, as do GoW and RDR2. Sales have only risen a factor five in comparison though over the years, the landscape has changed drastically.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I do wonder how much those rising costs have to do with the enormous support team you see in the credits of AAA games. From huge administrative teams that were not needed before in countries across the world to the huge pay-outs of the top executives, gaming is an industry that supports many more people who do not actually make the games. That's why indie has done so well.
I attribute part of the 'support team glut' is due to games being far more international than before. Coding for multinational markets is a big part of modern games. It goes far beyond simply plugging in a foreign phrase into Google Translate and hoping for the best.
Are you sure, some of the games I have played have very questionable English.
I never said they did it well.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Thank you OP, you have started a very interesting and enlightening conversation.
I want to drag it this way Do Early Access (EA) games provide us with a solution to the problem or just a different problem?
At the start of summer (I'm Australian) I stopped playing Darkfall New Dawn (a game where new things were being tried but the dev lost hope) and have since tried Fallout 76, Legends of Aria, Boundless, Atlas and The Talos Principle. Four of these are EA. Two were from companies that have had previous success.
I've since reverted back to some old favourites: Diablo 3, FF14 and Killing Floor 2.
Fallout 76 - you could argue they tried to innovate with a previously successful title and have (so far) failed. They have been slapped vigorously for trying something new because it wasn't perfect on Day 1. Its something I may go back to.
Legends of Aria - recreating the UO feels with a new UI but needs more work. Just didn't grab me as UO isn't enough these days.
Atlas - Do they try to innovate? Yes. Do they need to learn how to automate their regression testing - hell yeh.
Boundless - loved the portal model but lacks gameplay.
While I cry out for innovation, none of the things I've tried over summer have stuck.
Am I happy about an EA market that allows smaller companies to try out ideas before polishing them, yes. Have we seen an example of an EA company finally polishing a successful experiment - not that I'm aware of.
Will I keep throwing money to new EA projects hoping some experiment makes it - probably yes.
Do I subscribe to FF14 because it provides something different to the western model of exploiting greed and dopamine - this is what you have me considering, its culturally different but in many ways matches the WoW model.
Do I play D3 and KF2 purely for the dopamine hits after a day at work, hell yeh, but I at least am aware of it
All power to Early Access, in particular to those people who are genuinely trying to build an innovative new game. Of course there will be sharks that exploit it for short term gain also, but hopefully I avoid those.
Do I wish sites like this one would reward innovation over corporate profits? Of course.
Maybe they suck for you. But not for me. It's a great time to play MMOs, so many different games available.
with most look the same, with the same unispiring mechs used in the last 50 MMO around, and not the ones who was good, the ones who force you to do things to string you along and spend more then normal on games
If you think WoW is the same than GW2 and the same than ESO (for instance), you need to drop the bias pipe
Same? No. The interior has some differences but you can still trace the exterior going back 15 years.
Well, I can say that BDO and GW2, played vastly different from each other.
So.. to be honest.. outside the idea that it was a 3rd person MMO, there was nothing really that made me think BDO related to GW2, as far as direct playing and game mechanics.
But.. Jaded people gonna Jade.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
BFA has modern game design written all over it. I see so many WoW fans just struggling with what happened to their game, slinging blame at casuals, elitists, hardcore, developers, they are in complete denial that their game has been taken over by corporate overlords. I think OP you made this video because you yourself are also sad with the current state of WoW. I feel your pain man, there hasn't been a decent MMO with those old design concepts in a long time.
I hope Pantheon ends up being decent!
Yep, most the things we bitch about are merely symptomatic.
Totally agree. I came to similar conclusions on the state of the game industry myself. I'd love to have a chat about this to improve my pitch if you have the time.
Thank you OP, you have started a very interesting and enlightening conversation.
I want to drag it this way Do Early Access (EA) games provide us with a solution to the problem or just a different problem?
At the start of summer (I'm Australian) I stopped playing Darkfall New Dawn (a game where new things were being tried but the dev lost hope) and have since tried Fallout 76, Legends of Aria, Boundless, Atlas and The Talos Principle. Four of these are EA. Two were from companies that have had previous success.
I've since reverted back to some old favourites: Diablo 3, FF14 and Killing Floor 2.
Fallout 76 - you could argue they tried to innovate with a previously successful title and have (so far) failed. They have been slapped vigorously for trying something new because it wasn't perfect on Day 1. Its something I may go back to.
Legends of Aria - recreating the UO feels with a new UI but needs more work. Just didn't grab me as UO isn't enough these days.
Atlas - Do they try to innovate? Yes. Do they need to learn how to automate their regression testing - hell yeh.
Boundless - loved the portal model but lacks gameplay.
While I cry out for innovation, none of the things I've tried over summer have stuck.
Am I happy about an EA market that allows smaller companies to try out ideas before polishing them, yes. Have we seen an example of an EA company finally polishing a successful experiment - not that I'm aware of.
Will I keep throwing money to new EA projects hoping some experiment makes it - probably yes.
Do I subscribe to FF14 because it provides something different to the western model of exploiting greed and dopamine - this is what you have me considering, its culturally different but in many ways matches the WoW model.
Do I play D3 and KF2 purely for the dopamine hits after a day at work, hell yeh, but I at least am aware of it
All power to Early Access, in particular to those people who are genuinely trying to build an innovative new game. Of course there will be sharks that exploit it for short term gain also, but hopefully I avoid those.
Do I wish sites like this one would reward innovation over corporate profits? Of course.
Again, thanks for the insights!
I feel like EA has largely been a blight on the industry. A lot of the major companies have just used it as a means to start milking for unfinished products. To me it has also had a lot of ramifications on the testing process. We don't really see as much traditional alpha/internal testing processes, instead it has been shifted towards buy to test. And with experience in both different testing environments, I believe this has greatly reduced the quality levels of feedback.
I think Early Access itself wasn't a bad idea, but I feel like the well has been poisoned a bit by those that have abused it. I wouldn't really say Fallout 76 was an innovation, nor was it a case of people mad because it wasn't perfect on day 1. Everything I've read or seen about it, was Bethesda failing to deliver on base promises, as well as them trying to milk the shit out of their "users". But I will admit I haven't personally played it, or followed it in great detail.
Group finder absolutely destroyed all sense of community in games. I feel this is one of the biggest things to hurt MMO's. A game based upon a massive quantity of people playing together but they make it too easy to segregate one another and never speak?
Group finder absolutely destroyed all sense of community in games. I feel this is one of the biggest things to hurt MMO's. A game based upon a massive quantity of people playing together but they make it too easy to segregate one another and never speak?
I don’t think its the group finder, its interdependence. Crafting? Dropped gear is better. Item degradation so you need a smith or leatherworker to keep your gear in shape? Merchants to actually sell your wares? Maps made by cartographers? None of the above, the only reason you need another person in 99% of all MMORPGs is to fill your dungeon group. Which is about 5% of the content.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Group finder absolutely destroyed all sense of community in games. I feel this is one of the biggest things to hurt MMO's. A game based upon a massive quantity of people playing together but they make it too easy to segregate one another and never speak?
I think group finder that automatically ports you to dungeons from a city hub more specifically is the problem. But just being able to find and join groups itself isn't the issue imo.
I don’t think its the group finder, its interdependence. Crafting? Dropped gear is better. Item degradation so you need a smith or leatherworker to keep your gear in shape? Merchants to actually sell your wares? Maps made by cartographers? None of the above, the only reason you need another person in 99% of all MMORPGs is to fill your dungeon group. Which is about 5% of the content.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It's also that this minority % of the content is the most emphasized for a lot of MMO's.
Group finder absolutely destroyed all sense of community in games. I feel this is one of the biggest things to hurt MMO's. A game based upon a massive quantity of people playing together but they make it too easy to segregate one another and never speak?
I don’t think its the group finder, its interdependence. Crafting? Dropped gear is better. Item degradation so you need a smith or leatherworker to keep your gear in shape? Merchants to actually sell your wares? Maps made by cartographers? None of the above, the only reason you need another person in 99% of all MMORPGs is to fill your dungeon group. Which is about 5% of the content.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Gotta agree with you. It is a combination of them all.
No matter how many times I see it said, I just can't get behind the idea that modern gaming--AAA or otherwise--doesn't provide a good value. The average price of games and gaming hardware is nearly identical to what it was 30 years ago, and I can't even begin to guess the average amount of time played per game then (less) compared to now (more). Seriously, what other entertainment industry can say it hasn't pushed increased costs on the consumer in the last 3 decades?
The only real difference now is that we can't rent them and demos are no longer commonplace, although all major platforms refund you within a couple hours/weeks of purchase, so that's still not really a strike against the consumer.
For my mind, there has never been a better time to be a gamer. There are so many options that you can easily find whatever experience you're looking for, and with the amount of media coverage the industry gets, if you blindly buy a game and get burned, I can't help feeling that's on you. Not to mention the countless free-to-play games on every platform that you can sink dozens of hours into without ever spending a dime.
Taste is subjective...there will always be people who like one thing and not another, and other people who like the inverse. But I don't agree that value is the issue when it comes to games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Assassin's Creed, God of War, Civilization 6, or even Battle for Azeroth. At least not when compared to the value of gaming in the past. This is an industry that was built on forcing more and more quarters out of you, so I certainly don't see how now is any different.
Speaking on MMORPGs alone, the time spent in development has increased but to say that the cost of the games hasn't is ludicrous. 2 words, Cash shop. Another 2, founders pack. Admittedly, the founders pack isn't necessary at all since the bonuses they provide usually are minor and mainly let you get into the game faster, though that headstart can be huge depending on what type of game you're playing.(Like headstart on Archeage for instance).
The cash shop generally takes things out of the base game and forces you to buy them. They purposefully make the game worse and offer the solution to fix glaring issues by just paying them a little extra money. I'm talking about things like bag space, mmo's will purposefully bloat your inventory with a ton of stuff to make you annoyed at having to constantly sift through it all...or you can just drop some cash and make that worry go away.
Some other games make the base game's armor aesthetics absolutely hideous to make people buy the wizard robe and hat so they can put them on like they always wanted to.
While the base game price for mmo's have mostly stayed the same, there are a ridiculous amount of hidden fees in today's mmo's that did not used to be the case and the content of the mmo's suffer because of it which is why it is a huge issue.
Well, I can say that BDO and GW2, played vastly different from each other.
So.. to be honest.. outside the idea that it was a 3rd person MMO, there was nothing really that made me think BDO related to GW2, as far as direct playing and game mechanics.
But.. Jaded people gonna Jade.
It’s difficult to determine when similarities become genre-defining. For example, could you still have an RPG without stats or combat? All the games have classes or abilities. All of them have combat and advancement. The more popular modern ones have even more similarities: Same health and mana pools, same types of weapons and monsters, same kill things and loot to progress patterns. I assume both GW2 and BDO are just a different take on Dungeons and Dragons, for example.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Well, I can say that BDO and GW2, played vastly different from each other.
So.. to be honest.. outside the idea that it was a 3rd person MMO, there was nothing really that made me think BDO related to GW2, as far as direct playing and game mechanics.
But.. Jaded people gonna Jade.
It’s difficult to determine when similarities become genre-defining. For example, could you still have an RPG without stats or combat? All the games have classes or abilities. All of them have combat and advancement. The more popular modern ones have even more similarities: Same health and mana pools, same types of weapons and monsters, same kill things and loot to progress patterns. I assume both GW2 and BDO are just a different take on Dungeons and Dragons, for example.
Why stop there? Orcs and aliens are just reskins of the same general concept of an opponent. Laser bolts and arrows are just ranged weapons. Extra lives that you get from achieving a score are just a form of progression-based advancement, sort of like leveling up with EXP. And the difference between 2 players and 2 million players is quantitative, not qualitative. That's why Space Invaders and WoW are just different takes on the same idea.
Actually theres a substantial practical difference between sf and fantasy.
In sf its technology while in fantasy its magic. The advantage is
that for technology is hard to explain why not everybody can do
everything, while in fantasy its very easy to have very different kinds
of magic that come from different sources and work very differently.
For
example you could have clerics who do divine magic, druids who do
nature magic, wizards who do arcane magic, sorcerers who do draconic
magic, warlocks who do infernal magic, witches who do hex magic, and so
on and so forth.
Its really just limited by your imagination.
Your clerics for example could have a ton of subclasses depending upon deity and each deity can have a different way to organize their temple and can give tasks to their clerics and theres certainly different ideologies that define the behavior of the cleric.
While a warlock might have to make a contract with a demon or devil and could be limited this way, too.
Also fantasy can be anything and can include anything. You can include horror, in fact thats basically a default ingredient anyway. You can include steampunk. You can even include sf, if you want, too ! Though usually people rather go for steampunk instead, but the Wizardry line of games for example included sf instead of steampunk. Its a bit odd really but since sf can do more than Steampunk, it can be the better choice. In Wizardry it explained why wildly different types of races could exist on the same planet.
While sf ... basically stays sf.
Finally of course with magic, if you can think it its possible. With technology you have to keep up that its believable to be a technology.
As a result fantasy games tend to have more variance in gameplay than sf games. Which is why I prefer them over sf.
Comments
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I want to drag it this way
Do Early Access (EA) games provide us with a solution to the problem or just a different problem?
At the start of summer (I'm Australian) I stopped playing Darkfall New Dawn (a game where new things were being tried but the dev lost hope) and have since tried Fallout 76, Legends of Aria, Boundless, Atlas and The Talos Principle. Four of these are EA. Two were from companies that have had previous success.
I've since reverted back to some old favourites: Diablo 3, FF14 and Killing Floor 2.
Fallout 76 - you could argue they tried to innovate with a previously successful title and have (so far) failed. They have been slapped vigorously for trying something new because it wasn't perfect on Day 1. Its something I may go back to.
Legends of Aria - recreating the UO feels with a new UI but needs more work. Just didn't grab me as UO isn't enough these days.
Atlas - Do they try to innovate? Yes. Do they need to learn how to automate their regression testing - hell yeh.
Boundless - loved the portal model but lacks gameplay.
While I cry out for innovation, none of the things I've tried over summer have stuck.
Am I happy about an EA market that allows smaller companies to try out ideas before polishing them, yes. Have we seen an example of an EA company finally polishing a successful experiment - not that I'm aware of.
Will I keep throwing money to new EA projects hoping some experiment makes it - probably yes.
Do I subscribe to FF14 because it provides something different to the western model of exploiting greed and dopamine - this is what you have me considering, its culturally different but in many ways matches the WoW model.
Do I play D3 and KF2 purely for the dopamine hits after a day at work, hell yeh, but I at least am aware of it
All power to Early Access, in particular to those people who are genuinely trying to build an innovative new game. Of course there will be sharks that exploit it for short term gain also, but hopefully I avoid those.
Do I wish sites like this one would reward innovation over corporate profits? Of course.
Again, thanks for the insights!
So.. to be honest.. outside the idea that it was a 3rd person MMO, there was nothing really that made me think BDO related to GW2, as far as direct playing and game mechanics.
But.. Jaded people gonna Jade.
I think Early Access itself wasn't a bad idea, but I feel like the well has been poisoned a bit by those that have abused it. I wouldn't really say Fallout 76 was an innovation, nor was it a case of people mad because it wasn't perfect on day 1. Everything I've read or seen about it, was Bethesda failing to deliver on base promises, as well as them trying to milk the shit out of their "users". But I will admit I haven't personally played it, or followed it in great detail.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
It's also that this minority % of the content is the most emphasized for a lot of MMO's.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.